American “justice”: US Supreme Court says Ashcroft can’t be sued over post-9/11 detention

By Robert Barnes

Former attorney general John D. Ashcroft cannot be sued personally for allegedly misusing his power to detain an American Muslim in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, crackdown on suspected terrorists, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday.

But the decision exposed sharp differences among the justices about whether the government went too far when it used a statute meant to ensure that witnesses show up for trial. Civil libertarians alleged that the government used the statute to imprison those whom it suspected, but could not prove, had committed a crime.

The court has long protected government officials from personal liability for their official actions unless it can be shown that they have violated a person's constitutional rights and that the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct.

Justice Antonin Scalia said that was not the case when Ashcroft and the Justice Department used the federal "material witness" statute to detain Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen, in a terrorism investigation. Kidd neither testified in a trial nor was charged with a crime, but he was treated as a criminal suspect during his more than two weeks of detention.

"Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions," Scalia wrote. "When properly applied it protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

"Ashcroft deserves neither label."

All eight justices hearing the case agreed that Kidd's suit against Ashcroft could not go forward; it was the second time in recent years that the court has shielded Ashcroft from lawsuits arising from his role in the fight against terrorism as attorney general from 2001 to 2005. (Justice Elena Kagan sat out the case because she had worked on Ashcroft's behalf as President Obama's solicitor general.)

But four of the eight raised questions about the government's use of the material-witness statute and complained about the treatment of Kidd, who was, in the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "kept in high-security cells lit 24 hours a day, strip-searched and subjected to body-cavity inspections on more than one occasion, and handcuffed and shackled about his wrists, legs and waist."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who joined Scalia's opinion in full, nonetheless wrote separately to say that the decision "leaves unresolved whether the government's use of the Material Witness Statute in this case was lawful."

Kidd, a onetime University of Idaho football star, was born Lavoni T. Kidd. He converted to Islam in college. He was arrested at Dulles International Airport in 2003 as he was boarding a plane for Saudi Arabia, where he planned to study and where he currently teaches.

The government persuaded a federal judge to issue a warrant for Kidd's arrest by saying he was necessary to the investigation of Sami Omar al-Hussayen, who was eventually indicted on charges of supporting terrorism. Kidd was never called to testify against Hussayen, who was acquitted of the most serious charges.

Kidd contends that his detention was part of a plan approved by Ashcroft to sweep up Muslim men whom the government suspected, but could not prove, had ties to terrorism.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said Kidd's lawsuit against Ashcroft could proceed. It said the material-witness statute could not be used as a "pretext" for detaining someone suspected of wrongdoing but whom the government was not willing to charge.

But Scalia, writing for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the appeals court ruling had no grounding in precedent.

He noted that a neutral federal magistrate had authorized detaining Kidd and that courts need not ascertain the motives behind a "validly obtained warrant."

At the time of the arrest, Scalia said, "not a single judicial opinion had held that pretext could render an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a material-witness warrant unconstitutional."

That settled the matter as far as whether Ashcroft could be held personally liable, the rest of the court agreed.

But Kidd's attorney, Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, was encouraged by the additional comments of Kennedy, Ginsburg and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Ginsburg questioned whether the warrant for Kidd had been validly obtained. She said the information federal agents provided to the magistrate did not point out that Kidd had been cooperating with the government, or that he was less of a flight risk because his parents, wife and children were all U.S. citizens and residents.

Agents said Kidd had booked a $5,000 one-way first-class ticket to Saudi Arabia. Actually, he had bought a round-trip coach-class ticket for $1,700.

Gelernt said the concurring opinions "sent a clear signal" to lower courts to be more demanding when the government seeks to detain someone as a flight risk.

Kidd has reached a settlement with the government for his treatment in detention. Ginsburg noted that the use of falsehoods and misrepresentations could negate any claim of immunity on the part of the federal agents, whom Kidd has sued in a separate case that is pending in Idaho.

Friendship between Pakistan and Afghanistan are the way forward for regional stability and Peace

PILDAT

Kabul, May 30; Friendship and Deep Relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan are the way forward for regional stability and Peace, said Mr. Hamid Karzai while what he termed as 'very warm welcome' to Pakistani Parliamentarians who called on him today upon the conclusion of the 5th round of Pak-Afghan Parliamentarians Dialogue in Kabul, facilitated by PILDAT. Please take a message of deepest love from Afghanistan to Pakistan, said Mr. Karzai.




Parliamentarians of Pakistan joined their Afghan counterparts in Kabul for a two-day dialogue, May 29-30, 2011, that focussed on counter-terrorism strategies for the two countries.




Pakistani MPs, who appreciated the welcome and hospitality of President Karzai, said that the Parliament of Pakistan, reflecting all political shades in Pakistan, stands firmly behind strengthening of ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They said that only through people-to-people dialogue can the two countries move forward on removing mistrust and cultivate and enhance the deepest ties between the two countries.




Pakistani delegation included Honourable Senator Mir Jan Muhammad Jamali, Deputy Chairman Senate of Pakistan and Honourable Mr. Faisal Karim Kundi, Deputy Speaker National Assembly of Pakistan; Honourable Senator Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi, PML; Honourable Senator Fauzia Fakhar-uz-Zaman, PML; Honourable Senator Najma Hameed, PML-N; Honourable Senator Mrs. Saeeda Iqbal, PPPP; Honourable Senator Afrasiab Khattak, ANP, Honourable Senator Dr. Abdul Malik, Honourable Malik Amad Khan, PPPP; Honourable Dr. Muhammad Ayub Shaikh, MQM, Honourable Mr. Nadeem Afzal Gondal, PPPP; Honourable Mr. Pervaiz Khan, Advocate, ANP; Honourable Sardar Mehtab Ahmed Khan Abbasi, PML-N; Honourable Mr. Humayon Saifullah Khan, PML; Honourable Sardar Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari, PML, Mr. Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, Executive Director PILDAT, Ms. Aasiya Riaz, Joint Director PILDAT, Mr. Hmmal Dostain and Mr. Mamoon Bilal, Project Managers of PILDAT.




Pakistani MPs shared with President Karzai details of the comprehensive round of dialogue and candid interaction that took place in two days. President Karzai was also presented with a copy of the Joint Resolution agreed to by the Parliamentarians of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the text of which is given below:




"The Pakistan-Afghanistan Parliamentarians' Dialogue 5th round took place in Kabul, Afghanistan on May 29-30, 2011 on the overarching theme of terrorism. The Parliamentarians of the two countries held a candid dialogue while recognizing that both Pakistan and Afghanistan are victims of terrorism and joint efforts are needed to address this scourge.

Both sides agreed that while blame game is counter-productive and not a solution to this affliction, it is Parliamentary dialogue and Parliamentary support and oversight over executive in both countries for mutual cooperation on areas such as intelligence sharing, improved coordination on Counter-Terrorism Operations, install effective control on growth and supply of drugs fuelling terrorist-financing and terrorism in the region, and enhancing border security management that will help the two countries and the region rid itself of terrorism. They also believed that central banks of both Pakistan and Afghanistan should follow recommendations of Basel Committee III on supervision of Banks especially on Money Laundering and Terrorist financing.

Parliamentarians of the two countries agreed that the representative institutions of two countries should adopt a people-oriented approach to resolving bilateral issues and exercise greater control and oversight on key national policies including that of internal and external security and pursue independent national foreign policies that do not work at cross-purposes of each other. Parliamentarians believed that while remaining part of tripartite cooperation in the area of security, Pakistan and Afghanistan should also develop bilateral cooperation between the Armed Forces and Security Agencies of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Parliamentarians agreed that the two countries should institute, and effectively exercise, mechanisms to carry out due diligence of NGO funding in both countries and stress on international donors to help the two countries build indigenous and sustainable capabilities and facilities.

The Parliamentarians also agreed that visa free regime between Parliamentarians of two countries should be implemented immediately. Greater cooperation is needed in both countries, through support from each Parliament, on overseeing liberal visa policies, facilitating and enhancing communication networks including roads, rail and air travel, telephony and trade. Parliamentarians from two neighbouring countries also decided to support greater media interaction and exchange, both print and electronic, between the two countries by urging and facilitating both governments and independent media networks to operate in each other's country. They also urged that Pakistani and Afghan investors and business persons should get reciprocal incentives in each country to strengthen business and trade.

The two sides also agreed that greater facilitation, support and opportunities need to be provided to Afghan students to study in Pakistan through scholarships, skill-enhancement and capacity-building programmes. Youth and Cultural Exchanges should be facilitated between the two countries and cricket should be promoted as a way of enhancing better people to people contact.

Parliamentarians believe that early return of Afghan refugees in Pakistan to Afghanistan with dignity and honour should be facilitated by both countries, and assisted by the United Nations. Moreover the two countries should sign a treaty of extradition of criminals on both sides, as well as set-up a Commission on Prisoners that could facilitate exchange of those prisoners who have not committed heinous crimes.

Parliamentarians also stressed that Parliaments of the two countries should work to remove trust deficit in the areas that strain the relationship between two brotherly countries. They agreed that the Parliaments of two countries should nudge and support their respective executive branches to enter into negotiations and in the future draft treaties on upcoming issues of interest to both countries that, once put in place, should be ratified by the two Parliaments.

The two sides agreed on the need for a follow up mechanism, appreciating the role of PILDAT that serves as a focal point and continues to provide support and assistance to the dialogue process. Dialogue is important for the two countries to achieve their potential and it was decided that institutionalisation and continuation of the dialogue will be facilitated which will periodically provide a forum to representatives of the two countries to take stock of their resolutions and decisions agreed to and recorded through joint declarations and dialogue proceedings.

Parliamentarians of Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed, upon conclusion of the dialogue, to move content of the joint declaration in the form of resolutions in respective Parliaments for adoption and follow up with the respective Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan."




The delegation also called on Honourable Mr. Burhanuddin Rabbani, Chairman High Peace Council and interacted in detail on areas where the two countries can cooperate in bringing regional peace.




The dialogue is a continuation of PILDAT's commitment to strengthening Parliamentary ties and relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Earlier, four joint workshops of Pakistani and Afghani Parliamentarians have been facilitated by PILDAT since 2008. The broad objective behind the initiative has been to facilitate Parliaments of the two countries to develop a relationship based on greater interaction and dialogue with each other on bilateral and regional relations and issues of mutual interest.

Mullah Baradar, not Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, made OBL hit possible?

Taliban leader Mullah Baradar is believed to have informed US whereabouts of Al-Qaeda Chief Osama Bin Laden, a UK paper claimed.

According to the report, in return the US promised to pullout troops from Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan once Osama had been killed or captured.

Until now it has been believed that Osama Bin Laden was caught when the US intercepted a phone call made by his courier Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. But new reports suggest it was actually Baradar who told the US where he was hiding.

Baradar was arrested in a joint Pak-US operation last year in Karachi and was interrogated in prison before being released last October.

ISAF apologises for Afghan civilian deaths

Foreign forces in Afghanistan apologised Monday for the deaths of nine Afghan civilians after President Hamid Karzai criticised an air strike which he and officials said killed 14, including children.

The statement said that the strike in the southern province of Helmand was carried out Saturday after insurgents who had earlier killed a patrolling marine hid in a compound and carried on firing.

The compound hit by the air strike was home to civilians. Local officials said that five girls, seven boys and two women were among those killed by international forces.

"I want to offer my sincere apologies for the nine civilians who were killed during the incident in Now Zad District, Helmand province, that occurred on 28 May," said a statement from Major General John Toolan, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander for the southwest region of Afghanistan.

He stressed it was the coalition's "top priority" to avoid civilian casualties, adding that a full investigation was under way.

"While I know there is no price on human life, we will ensure that we make amends with the families in accordance with Afghan culture," Toolan added.

The apology came after Karzai's office issued what it said was a "last warning" to US and Nato-led troops over civilian casualties following Saturday's incident, which it described as a "great mistake." In response, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that "we share and take very seriously" Karzai's concerns.

Civilian deaths in international military operations are a highly sensitive topic in Afghanistan, frequently sparking angry public demonstrations and vocal condemnations from Karzai.

Footage and pictures from Helmand showed turbaned men carrying the bodies of children in the aftermath of Saturday's incident.

Aslam, a local elder of Nawzad district, told AFP he "lost 12 relatives while 10 others including children were injured" in the air strike.

He said some shots were fired at ISAF helicopters which flew into the area, adding that the choppers returned after 10 to 20 minutes and fired rockets, killing the "innocent civilians".

Separately, the governor of Nuristan on Sunday told AFP that 18 civilians and 20 police had been killed by "friendly fire" during US-led air strikes against insurgents in his troubled northeastern province.

Nuristan was the scene of heavy battles last week between the Taliban and Afghan security forces. The police and civilians were targeted Wednesday after they were mistaken for militants, Jamaluddin Badr said.

ISAF has said it is sending a fact-finding team to the region but that initial reporting shows no sign of civilian casualties there.

The United Nations says Afghan civilian deaths in the war increased 15 per cent to a record high of 2,777 last year. More than three-quarters of the dead were killed in violence blamed on insurgents.

Indian-Sponsored Midnight Coup Planned By Former King of Nepal Averted

ZoneAsia-Pk

A great political turmoil, as the luck would have it, got averted.

The now sidelined king, Gyanendra Shah, was all set to stage a grand come back had the parties failed to extend the Constituent Assembly tenure.

Though the CA tenure has been extended through foul means yet the extension has averted the political disaster which was about to grip the country for some time to come.

High placed sources claim that the former king had already drafted a message to be addressed to the nation wherein he was supposed to have announced his taking over the charge of the nation once again.

Clearly, the message former King had drafted was all the handiwork of the visiting RAW officials, Alok Joshi.

Joshi, according to the high placed sources, had mainly come to Nepal with a single objective: To install the sidelined King in Nepali throne if the parties failed in extending the CA tenure.

Joshi stayed in Kathmandu for over a week.

A tentative message which was to be broadcast on May 28 late evening read like this: "We had abandoned the throne hoping that the political parties will act as per the aspirations of the people but we are pained to record that the political parties failed in their mission......"

This statement was about to be sent to various media houses late evening May 28, 2011. The message further stated that the sidelined King was hurt with the increasing confusion in the nation due to the failure in drafting the constitution and carrying the peace process to its logical end.

But the message could not materialise as the parties, which more or less smelt the dark chamber game, hastily arrived at a consensus and extended the CA tenure.

Must have been a great set back.

The Naya Patrika daily reports, 30 May, 2011, that even Dr. Karan Singh, the International Advisor of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was specially sent to Kathmandu to extend his party's unconditional support to the sidelined King.

The China factor

Telegraph Nepal had already reported that the former King threw a lavish dinner in the honour of the visiting RAW top officials from India at his personal residence, Nirmal Niwas, May 27, 2011.

Those who enjoyed the Royal dinner were, AB Mathur, Alok Joshi, H. Khare, K. V. Rajan and possibly Dr. Karan Singh-the special emissary of Congress-I President, Sonia Gandhi.

Unsubstantiated reports have it that Gyanendra Shah had a secret meet with RAW second man-Alok Joshi for over one hour.

Mr. Joshi was some time back the RAW station chief in Kathmandu.

Those who met with the visiting Indian deities were, S. B. Thapa, Pasupati Rana and Kamal Thapa.

No wonder Mr. Rana has changed his political overtones and has begun pouncing upon the present day Nepali leaders whom he sees now as a bunch of power lust people.

The RAW activities in Nepal had begun, May 22, 2011.

Should this then mean that the Indian regime and the Indian intelligence agencies were in a mood to apologise for all what they did with Nepal King in the recent years?

Wisdom appears to have finally prevailed.

The OBL episode: An open letter to Jon Stewart

ZoneAsia-Pk

Dear Jon Stewart,

I used to think of you as one of the good guys. It always seemed that you were a one-man rallying cry for peace and understanding in the US media. You had taken it upon yourself to stand up to the right-wing bigots in your midst when it came to the New York Islamic Cultural Centre, Guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq and countless other instances where US citizens and Governments have acted in a reckless and arrogant manner.

As a Pakistani progressive, I find it increasingly more difficult to rally against the right-wing bigots that are increasingly taking over the agenda in my country. I would say to them that as a practicing Muslim I have more in common with someone like Jon Stewart, an American Jew who believes in equality, tolerance and understanding between different faiths then a jihadi who wants to kill people simply because they disagree with them.

I still believe that despite the uncontrolled, misinformed lazy rant against Pakistan that you spewed out on the Daily Show on May 3, and May 19, 2011. Your performance was deeply disappointing, because it shows that there was, if I may be so bold, no difference between you and those pig-ignorant morons on Fox.

Don't get me wrong. Osamagate is shockingly embarrassing for our criminally inept Government and the military/intelligence agencies that we spend so much money on at the expense of providing health and education to our people. Nobody is ruling out complicity at some level - but it is not at all proven by your childish and boorish analysis on the show.

This so called analysis consisted of manipulating "facts" and half-truths to come up with a nonsensical and manifestly untrue narrative that the Pakistani Government and military was hiding Osama to milk the American taxpayer and that Pakistan, its government, military and by implication its people want nothing more than the destruction of the USA and your way of life. Let's make one thing clear regarding this 20 billion dollars the US taxpayers have "gifted us". Maybe a bit of fact-checking on the part of your 200 writers wouldn't be a bad idea. America has given Pakistan a total of US$4.8 billion in economic assistance since 9/11.

Of the total US$20 billion dollars, 8.9 billion was in the form of reimbursements. I am sure you know what reimbursement means, Jon, i.e. we buy stuff for you (i.e. fuel, food, transportation costs, military gear, water, troop housing and other expenses/procurements), which you go on and use, in this case in the war in Afghanistan. The thing with reimbursement Jon is that you have to pay us back - and if you do pay us back, this doesn't mean you have gifted us the money, it just means we are square - capiche?

In fact you owe us US$3.2 billion as of now which may be reduced further as you "vet" the invoices. Let's not get into "accounting irregularities" - just remember Paul Bremner, the Chief Administrator of the Iraqi Coalition Authority, and the missing 15 billion dollars - have you found that yet? In fact out of the US$20 billion that has been paid, 14 billion is related to the war on terror (including the US$8.9 billion mentioned above).

So to say that the US taxpayer has given us 20 billion dollars is a lie. I fully expect you to point this out next time, one of your so-called analysts, senators or congressperson trots out this rubbish on your show. That's not to say that we have a right to any US aid. Of course we don't, any more than the US feels it is entitled to bully a country of 180 million to do its bidding.

Don't get me wrong; I believe in the war on terror. I believe that it is my war, Pakistan's war. Why - because every place and memory that is so dear to me, has in some way or another been attacked, violated or tarnished by Terrorists. Let me explain. These bastards bombed a market across the street from my house in Islamabad killing 25 people. People's limbs landed in my neighbour's garden. These terrorist mother-*****s bombed the Marriot hotel in Islamabad where I and all my siblings got married, killing 65 people. The faces of the valets and security guards who were killed still haunt me as I drive past the hotel. They bombed my cousin's university cafeteria - fortunately she left 20 minutes earlier, but 10 other girls were not so lucky. This scum set off 2 suicide bombs to try and assassinate Benazir Bhutto, a few miles away from where I was born in Karachi. Benazir survived (at that time) but 145 other people didn't. My son was born on the day that Benazir was eventually killed - consequently the memory of that day will always be tarnished. I could go on and on.

I along with millions of Pakistanis believe that this is my war, that we have to take action against the terrorists that have destroyed our country. But what I cannot in any way in all consciousness agree with is that it is the job of my country, my military and my people to sacrifice ourselves to protect you - the US. That is not my fucking job - would you sacrifice US troops to protect Pakistanis - no fucking way.


Your rant on Thursday really demonstrated to me what you think, and in that there is really no difference between you, Fox and all the rent a quote analysts that spring up on American TV with only a passing knowledge of the facts.

I hope I am wrong Jon, but you came across as everything that you believe you stand against. You came across as an arrogant, imperialist, misinformed bigot. What pisses me off most is the sense of entitlement that you seem to feel. That only you have suffered in this war. Here is a familiar quote, which pretty much sums up what I feel as a Pakistani regarding our role in protecting the World.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

9/11 was a terrible event, but as you have acknowledged many times in your show it does not entitle America to infinite good will and carte blanche to kill thousands of people on the pretext of its own security. You cashed that cheque when you invaded Iraq.

Unfortunately most Pakistanis are in a state of denial. They do not believe that we need to take these bastards out. Instead they believe in appeasement, that these scumbags can be managed and they will disappear as soon as America leaves Afghanistan. They are not willing to bite the bullet, because they have been shot at so many times that they cannot bear the thought of all out war - even though all out war is already upon us. It is a fatal - but understandable assumption. Now I know most American and Western analysts' eyes glaze over when we talk about how Pakistan has suffered but I hope it has resonance with the American people, whose media have clearly shortchanged them when it comes to accurate information about Pakistan.

30,000 Pakistani civilians have died since September 11th. Hundreds of thousands have been wounded. 5,000 soldiers have been killed fighting the terrorists. The first suicide bombing in Pakistan occurred in 2002. Since then there have been thousands of suicide bomb attacks. We have lost, although estimates vary, anything between 50-80 billion US dollars as a result of loss of investment and reduction in economic activity caused by the horrendous security situation brought about by the war on terror. Over a 140,000 soldiers have been based in Waziristan and FATA.

Now I know some of this is self-inflicted. We have for too long as a country relied on pursuing our objectives through proxy wars - in that we have not been alone - our neighbors' and the worlds superpowers have also fully partaken in these tactics. We share in the credit and the responsibility for removing the Russians as well as assisting in the establishment of the Taliban with the US and Saudi Arabia.

At some stage we had to account for our mistakes, but we do not deserve the hell that has enveloped us following September 11th. We have failed to not only kill the terrorists but also the warped, prehistoric and nonsensical vision that they represent. The US has also failed miserably in Afghanistan - and we are suffering because of it.

What exactly have you achieved in Afghanistan? You have installed a puppet government, the election of whose leader was condemned by the United Nations as undemocratic and rigged. Where are all the roads, schools and hospitals you said you would build? No-where. Instead you have bombed the civilian population to a pulp and disenfranchised the majority POPULATION of Afghanistan - the Pakhtuns. Corruption up. Opium at record levels. Drug dealers and warlords still ruling over the country.

This is not what you said would happen when the Taliban was overthrown. It's always easy to pin the blame on us by helping the Taliban. It remains to be seen how much and by whom - but it is very convenient to excuse all the US/NATO's failing on Pakistan. You dropped the ball on Afghanistan 8 years ago. What did you think Afghanis and Pakhtuns would do; just accept this perpetual state of occupation.

America has failed to engage with the Afghani people - only the puppets and druglords that make up the Afghani Government. That is the real reason that you have failed in Afghanistan - not infiltration from Pakistan. We didn't let Osama and Al Zawhiri get away from Tora Bora in 2001 - you did by subcontracting his capture to your Afghani friends- these guys let Osama flee into Pakistan - not the other way around.


Instead you have hung around in Afghanistan for 10 years when you should have been out in 3 max. In short - it's the occupation stupid. Until the Afghani people are given the freedoms that you so talked up in Egypt and Tunisia, i.e. real democracy, real freedom, accountability and justice; there will always be insurgents who in their minds will be fighting for the removal of an undemocratic government and the end of perpetual foreign occupation which has yielded nothing but war and more humiliation. An Afghani Spring if you will.

And by the way infiltration is a 2-way street. The Afghanistan authorities have given sanctuary to Baloch terrorist groups and even Fazlullah - the barbaric mullah that ruled over and terrorized Swat with his sadistic vision of Shariah justice. You see we can point fingers too but this ultimately serves no purpose.

All we ever hear about are US interests. When these interests converge with Pakistan - like they do with removing the culture of extremism, the idea of global jihad and destroying domestic terrorism- then we must continue to work together.

Let's by all means find Al Zawihiri - just like we did when we found Abu Zubeida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Al Yousuf and over 500 others. But it seems our interests are not important to you - our lives, our sacrifices are unimportant. We have lost 10 times as many civilians as the US did on September 11, more soldiers than all the allies put together. Yet if we are led to believe the US narrative - we need to do more, we need to sacrifice more of our people to protect you. To hell with the Pakistanis, 20 billion dollars should cover it. Is this what you believe in Jon, that all that we are to you is cannon-fodder, a buffer between you and the crazies?

It pains me to say the Pakistani military has deeply disappointed me. Pakistanis have held the military in the highest regard. Yet finally the penny has dropped - they were just incompetent! We are sick of them being a law unto themselves and how they feel they know best. That they need to be reigned in- for sure. That those who have their own agenda need to be eliminated- hell yes. Lets also accept that while some of them may be out of control, and of the same ideological bent as the terrorists, the vast overwhelming majority have fought albeit unsuccessfully on the right side of the war on terror.

Let's respect their sacrifices. Especially the young jawans cut down in their prime. But should the entire blame for an unknown, unaccountable and yes small number of rogue elements that have conspired to kill their own people and possibly others abroad - be put on 180 million people.

You tell me.

Should the entire population of the United States be systematically vilified and punished for the actions of those CIA and intell officials that said Iraq has WMDs.

Should 30,000 Americans die because American drones have killed 957 civilians in Pakistan alone during 1 year.

Should 7,000 US soldiers be brutally slaughtered because a Pakistani ISI agent decides he has the authority to kill 2 Americans who he thinks are about to mug him.

Should American churches be bombed because the US started proxy wars in Central America, South East Asia and pretty much the whole world.

What about torture, Abu Gharaib, redaction, Guantanamo - should American citizens pay for these "mistakes" with their lives.


Of course they shouldn't.

Yet for some reason you believe that the same standard doesn't apply to us. Maybe the Pakistani people aren't the only ones who need to hold their military intelligence accountable. Unfortunately the "mistakes that you have made - have been responsible for a lot more death and destruction then us not finding Osama Bin Laden.


And while we are at it:


Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawhiri, Mohammed Atta, the 18 other hijackers, Abu Musa Al Zarqiwi, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Al Yousuf, Abou Zubeida, the Madrid Bombers, the Bali Bombers and the London bombers. What is the connection?

None of the above are fucking Pakistanis - so why do you want to blow us back to the Stone Age. The architects of 9/11 and the money that is feeding the insurgency in Pakistan and training the next generation of jihadis is coming from your other allies in the Gulf - not us. These people are funding the madrassas and terrorism that has crippled Pakistan. Why can't your CIA put an end to that? Why can't they stop the flow of money? Why can't they destroy the opium fields that are funding the insurgency in Afghanistan and also Pakistan? What about the Fazlullahs, and Balochi terrorists that have taken refuge in Pakistan. Why can't your CIA find them? Not so easy finding Osama Bin Laden now is it??


I hope I have conveyed how we feel when we hear the same tiring hackneyed narrative coming from the US media. I do not want my country to be taken over by fundos hell bent on establishing a theocratic state whose aim is to export terror throughout the world.


The vast majority of Pakistanis want to be engaged with the world, not vilified by it. Unfortunately the only time Pakistan is mentioned on the media is in relation to it being the centre of global terrorism. It's always the crazies, nut-jobs and our corrupt politicians who make it onto US TV screens. Our views are never heard.

Believe it or not Jon, you have a strong fan following in Pakistan; our dream US President would be - Jon Stewart! If you really want to do something that changes the level of political discourse not just in America, but in the Islamic World, you need to engage with us - tape a show in Pakistan or give us real Pakistanis the opportunity to tell the American people that we are not out to get them. At the same time maybe you can convince some of our crazies that here is an American, a Jew who doesn't seem to want to get his hands on our nuclear weapons. Unfortunately our media is full of right-wing conspiracist nut-jobs (sound familiar) and rarely does the alternative narrative get played out.


Perversely however even our media is a sucker for anything American and a Daily Show featuring like-minded people from my country would be a small step in the right direction - to convince you and for you to convince us that the American people and the Pakistani people have more in common with each other than the terrorists who want to kill both of us. Think about it.

Finally, you may have read that 80 of our nation's finest - 16-18 year old army cadets who were going home for 10 days leave following months of training were savagely slaughtered by 2 suicide bombers in Charsadda, North West Pakistan. Not surprisingly, there was no mention of this incident on your show (or the attack on our naval Base in Karachi last night). These boys were training to join the Frontier Corps to act as a bulwark against the terrorists. I would like you and all your journalist, analyst, ex-US military/intelligence and all other rent-a-quote experts that have questioned and even worse made fun of Pakistan's commitment in the war on terror to visit the mothers and fathers of these boys and tell them that they need to do more in the war on terror, that they need to sacrifice more - they will tell you we have nothing left to sacrifice.

China Tops India as Most Likely to Grow

China ranks first among 22 emerging Asian economies as the country most likely to maintain steady and rapid growth over the next five years, according to the Bloomberg Economic Momentum Index for Developing Asia.

China scored 76.2 percent in a ranking of 16 areas including economic competition, education level, urban migration, high-technology exports and inflation that measure a country's ability to continue delivering high growth. India was second with a score of 64.1 percent followed by Vietnam at 61.9 percent. Timor-Leste was last at 25.3 percent.

The index suggests China and India's economic surge is durable and will likely continue to drive global growth as the U.S., Europe and Japan lag behind. China eclipsed Japan last year as the world's second-largest economy.

"I am not surprised that China comes out on top on this metric, and China probably should be placed on top among emerging Asian economies," said Victor Shih, a professor who studies China's financial system at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

In the past 30 years, China's economy has expanded on average by 10 percent a year as it overhauled state-owned companies and allowed more foreign investment. Among economies with annual gross domestic product above $1 trillion, India posted the second-highest growth rate after China last year, expanding by 8.2 percent in the last quarter of 2010.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development forecasts U.S. economic growth of 2.6 percent this year, 2 percent for the eurozone and a 0.9 percent contraction for Japan.

China Shocks

Shih said the measure may overstate China's rank relative to India's and other countries, in part because Chinese official figures understate debt levels.

China could face economic and political shocks that would impact on its growth. Fitch Ratings said in March that China faced a 60 percent chance of a banking crisis by mid-2013 in the aftermath of record lending and surging property prices. Strikes, riots and protests are also on the rise, doubling in five years to 180,000 incidents last year, according to Sun Liping, a sociology professor at Beijing's Tsinghua University.

The index put some countries with among the world's highest growth rates in the past several decades, including Malaysia and Thailand, behind such countries as Vietnam, which ranked third, and Bangladesh, which ranked fifth.

Equity Markets

The index gives weightings of 10 percent each to four categories: the competitiveness of market structure, which rewards countries for having fewer big companies that dominate equity markets; the quality of the labor force, including education levels, the age of the work force, and the growth rate of scientific journal publications; gross national savings as a percentage of GDP; and the growth of high-technology exports.

A further 12 areas have 5 percent weightings, including growth in GDP per capita adjusted for the cost of living, growth in world share of GDP, stability of inflation rates, diversity of top trading partners, external and public debt burdens, lending costs, net foreign direct investment and deforestation. Four "cohesiveness factors" include ethnic and religious homogeneity, income equality, rates of urbanization and poverty reduction, and variation in the jobless rate.

India’s use of media censorship as tool to control mainstream media

India's critics have long accused the world's largest democracy, in size, of practicing intolerance under a carefully cultivated liberal image. Troubling incidents of censorship and undemocratic practices, such as rapes and murders of Christian nuns and 21st century's first incident of ethnic cleansing in 2002, against more than 2,000 Indian Muslims, were often ignored by the American and British mainstream media, which preferred to give India a pass largely because the country was seen as an Am-Brit bulwark against China, Pakistan and Russia.

But this month it seems India's political and military establishments have picked up a wrong fight: censoring the prestigious Economist magazine because of a piece that sought to discuss border disputes between Pakistan, India and China.

Both Pakistan and China allowed the said edition of the magazine to sell in their markets. But not India. The Indian government was not happy at an Economist map showing existing de facto borders in Kashmir, where a Pakistan-backed autonomous Azad Kashmir government controls one-third of the disputed territory and Indian military the remaining two-thirds.

While the article was balanced, Indian officials said it failed to show the entire state of disputed Kashmir as Indian territory. The magazine editors said they only showed the reality on the ground, where India controls less than two-thirds of the region. They said Pakistan too claims the entire region but it didn't stop the magazine's distribution in the Pakistani market.

The Indian government forced Economist to place a white sticker on the map to hide it. The Indian government is sensitive about Kashmir because its first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru pledged at the United Nations to allow Kashmiris to choose their future in an UN-administered plebiscite. India reneged later on its pledge citing complex legal reasons and unilaterally annexed the territory.

The Economist editors conceded that India is less tolerant about Kashmir than Pakistan or China, the other two parties to the dispute.

Other western news outlets seized the opportunity to highlight India's censorship practices that belie its declared democratic credentials.

The BBC, for example, announced that "The authorities in India routinely target the international media, including the BBC, on the issue of Kashmir's borders if the media do not reflect India's claims."

Kashmiris say India is so intolerant of open media that it has banned foreign news channels in Kashmir which is occupied by nearly 700,000 Indian military, police and paramilitary personnel.

Pakistanis too have their own experiences with Indian censorship. While Pakistani newspapers and TV allow Indian writers and commentators to criticize Pakistan and contradict Pakistani position on Kashmir, Indian newspapers and TV channels don't give Pakistani commentators a similar access. Indian news websites routinely ban registered Pakistani comment makers. During the people-to-people exchange of delegations between 2004 and 2006 Composite Dialogue, Pakistanis complained that Indian delegations refused to deviate from official Indian government positions. In contrast, members of Pakistani delegations visiting India freely interacted with the Indian media and often criticized some Pakistani policies. And in at least one occasion, Indian interior minister made an inappropriate remark when a Pakistani newspaper leaked the story of the induction of a battalion of entertainment girls as part of Indian military presence in Kashmir.

India continues to enjoy the backing of the governments of the United States and Britain for strategic reasons, but independent-minded journalists in those countries are slowly opening up to the contradictions in India. For example, in 2010, for the first time mainstream US media covered the massive Kashmiri uprising against Indian occupation after ignoring the conflict for a long time.

Foreign lenders unlikely to provide deficit financing

The government will be able to finance only 5% of its budget deficit with foreign loans, throwing the rest of the fiscal burden on domestic sources of financing, increasing the likelihood of continued high inflation, high interest rates and low economic growth during fiscal year 2012.

As a result of the suspension of the $11.3 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout programme, which caused other international lenders to suspend their financing as well, the government will be left with less than $526 million (Rs46 billion) in net external financing during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012.

This amount is just 5.3% of the budget deficit, projected at Rs856 billion - or 4% of the total size of the economy - during the next fiscal year. Many analysts have deemed the target optimistic at best.

The rest of the Rs810 billion will have to be raised for the domestic market, for which the government is likely to turn to two sources, neither of which is palatable from the economic perspective. The first is borrowing from commercial banks, which squeezes out lending towards the private sector and reduces economic growth. The second option is to force the central bank to simply print money, which is the single biggest cause of inflation in the country.

"The government will be seen as a desperate borrower and the commercial banks will exploit the situation to their benefit, forcing the State Bank of Pakistan to increase interest rates to attract the banks to lend it money," said Dr Ashfaque Hasan Khan, a former finance ministry official.

He said the government will also print more money. "All this will impede new investment, growth and push more people into the chronic poverty," he added.

During last revision of monetary policy earlier this month, the central bank kept the discount rate - a rate at which it lends to commercial banks and the benchmark interest rate in the economy - unchanged at 14%.

According to sources familiar with the matter, barring a resumption of the IMF programme, Pakistan is expected to receive a gross $4.5 billion during the upcoming fiscal year while it will have to pay back a little under $4 billion in principal and interest on foreign loans. Part of the repayments due in 2012 include the suspended IMF programme repayments, expected to come out of the central bank's reserves.

Pakistan's ability to find external financing for its loans has been diminishing over the last three years. In fiscal year 2010, external financing of the budget deficit was over 20% while the ratio of foreign financing of the deficit has dropped to around 10.6% for the first nine months of fiscal year 2011.

A finance ministry official said that the availability of foreign funds might improve during the course of the year, provided Pakistan delivers on the targets recently agreed in Dubai with the IMF, which will help restore the suspended bailout programme. So far the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are releasing project loans, but restraining themselves from budget financing.

For the next financial year, the government is forecasting 13% inflation and 4.2% economic growth. The ability to achieve those targets will largely depend upon the government's ability to ensure financial discipline. For the last consecutive three years the government has failed miserably in remaining within the budget deficit target and missed it by wide margins.

Any slippage in budget deficit target in next financial year will further fuel inflation and hamper the economic growth, said a senior government functionary.

Post-Bin Laden: US, UK shore up support for Pakistan

Amidst growing militant violence and international scepticism about Pakistan's commitment in the war against violent extremism following the death of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden on its soil, Islamabad on Wednesday found some support from the two main global political players: the United Kingdom and the United States.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the West should redouble its efforts to work with Pakistan as the country seeks to stamp out terrorism. US President Barack Obama said, "Al Qaeda is as much Pakistan's enemy as it is ours."

"People are asking questions about our relationship, so we need to be clear: Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world. Their enemy is our enemy," Cameron said at a joint news conference with Obama.

"Far from walking away we've got to work even more closely with them," he added.

Speaking under the open skies at the Lancaster House, Cameron, along with Obama, termed Pakistan crucial for peace in Afghanistan.

With reference to the war against terrorism, Cameron said, "We can defeat al Qaeda. The events of recent months give us opportunity to turn the tide against their terror, once and for all. We must continue to destroy their network."

Cameron also said that Britain and the US agreed on the need to give top priority in the coming months to efforts to engage the Taliban in a peace process in Afghanistan. "Now is the moment to step up our efforts to reach a political settlement," he said.

"The Taliban must make a decisive split from al Qaeda, give up violence, and join a political process that will bring lasting peace to that country. We are agreed to give this the highest priority in the months ahead."

On his part, President Obama said there was need of close collaboration between governments in Islamabad and Kabul.

He said the Taliban were never well-wishers of Pakistan and Afghanistan and they must respect constitution of Afghanistan by dropping their weapons and breaking their connection with al Qaeda. "We would not allow terrorists to make safe havens in Afghanistan," he added.

Official sources have said that the US has already begun talks with representatives of the Taliban, although these have so far been described as preliminary rather than substantive.

Some officials have also said that Bin Laden's death could make it easier for the Taliban to break with al Qaeda.

However, they caution against expecting any early breakthrough in complex efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan after decades of war.

Obama, on a two-day state visit to Britain, moves to France on Thursday for a G8 summit in Deauville.

After Motorway Accident, Injured Veena Returns!

Area 14/8

Veena Malik, whose car was hit by a speeding vehicle en route from Islamabad to Lahore on May 16, has recovered from her injuries and is set to make an appearance on television in the next couple of days.

Malik, who has been discharged from the hospital and is living in her Lahore residence these days, told The Express Tribune: "I have a slight pain in my arm, but I have recovered now although doctors have advised rest. I will make my appearance through television in the next few days".

"I had some sessions with a psychiatrist, as I had some fear in my mind regarding driving again. I was driving myself when the vehicle hit my car, so I consulted a psychiatrist to avoid any problems when I drive again. Now I am fine, and won't have any problem when I drive again," Veena Malik said.

When asked about her upcoming projects, she replied: "I am going to focus more on my projects in Pakistan now. Yes, there are offers from Bollywood and I will do work there, but I will also be working here in Pakistan. Talks are underway, and before June 15 I will finalise agreements to host a program for a Pakistani TV channel. I will record a few episodes for my show before I leave for India."

Speaking about the format of her upcoming talk show for a Pakistani TV channel she said: "This will be an entertainment show and I will be inviting Bollywood celebrities to my show and chit-chat with them. Bollywood celebrities who are much talked about in Pakistan will appear on my show and talk about different things."

A source told The Express Tribune that Veena Malik, who is scheduled to leave for India after June 15 for two months, has also signed an Indian film which will feature Ajey Devgan in a lead role opposite her. The actor, when asked, neither denied nor confirmed this. She said: "Yes I have signed a film in India and will start shooting for it when I go there after June 15. The film is a romantic one, and I am working opposite one of the leading Bollywood heroes. I cannot reveal the name for now, and will announce it afterwards. However, the hero of my film is not Ashmit Patel."

When asked whether she plans to work for the Pakistani television industry, which is doing pretty well these days, Malik said: "I have an offer to play a lead role in a drama serial by PTV. I am seriously considering it and might work for it after coming back from India."

Malik, who couldn't travel to participate in The Oslo Freedom Forum, a unique global affairs conference that take place in Norway every year, said she would be at the gathering next year. Previously, Mukhtaran Mai from Pakistan has been invited to the event.

"I am thankful to all my fans and supporters who prayed for me when I was injured. It is because of their prayers that I have recovered so soon. I thank all of them," she said.

India bans The Economist for showing J&K disputed territory

Kashmir Media Service

The distribution of the latest edition of The Economist magazine was banned in India for showing Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory.

The map is used as an illustration for the front-page story of the latest edition of the magazine on "The world's most dangerous border" between India and Pakistan.

The customs officers ordered that 28,000 copies of the influential news weekly should have stickers manually placed over a diagram showing the Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory.

John Micklethwait, editor in chief of the magazine, while talking to newsmen, termed the India's action as an attempt of censorship over media and said that through such tactics the facts could not be hidden. He said that the map published in the magazine was impartial and accurate.

Europe under ashes... Again!

ZoneAsia-Pk

The volcanic ash cloud that grounded hundreds of European flights forced cancellations across northern Germany and parts of Scandinavia on Wednesday after clearing the U.K., which bore the brunt of earlier disruption.

German aviation regulators said unsafe ash levels required the closure of some airspace and Hamburg and Bremen airports, and warned disruption could spread in the morning to Hannover and Berlin, with some smaller cities also affected.

A plane flew past the smoke plume from the eruption of the Grimsvotn volcano, under the Vatnajokull glacier in southeast Iceland on Sunday.

Transatlantic services remained largely untroubled as the cloud moved east following last weekend's eruption of Grimsvotn, Iceland's largest volcano.

Some flights were being rerouted, and Continental Airlines canceled its overnight flight from Newark to Hamburg.

Ryanair Holdings PLC, Europe's largest carrier of airline passengers, said it had canceled flights in northern Germany until 2:00 p.m. local time on Wednesday. Deutsche Lufthansa AG also warned of disruptions it said may extend to Scandinavian flights.

Ireland-based Ryanair continued to question the imposition of a no-fly zone by Irish and U.K. regulators, though it didn't raise similar concerns with the closure of parts of German airspace.

U.K. authorities said ash was seen clearing its airspace by 1:00 a.m local time. Glasgow airport said it expected services to resume Wednesday. Edinburgh airport also saw all flights canceled Tuesday and disruption spread as far as Newcastle in northern England.

Most transatlantic services looked set to remain unaffected as high-altitude ash concentrations remained north of the main routes between Europe and North America, though a second band extending across Russia forced some planes to be rerouted, according to Eurocontrol, which coordinates air-traffic control in Europe.

A spokeswoman for Eurocontrol said 500 scheduled flights were expected to be canceled Tuesday for safety reasons. Typically, there are 29,000 flights daily in Europe, she added.

Ryanair said it canceled dozens of services from Scotland and northern England on Tuesday at the behest of Irish regulators and maintained that two test flights revealed "no safety threat" from ash, a finding the airline said was supported by the aircraft and engine manufacturers.

British Airways, EasyJet and KLM were among those who also canceled services to Scottish airports on Tuesday.

Continental, a unit of United Continental Holdings Inc., resumed flights from Newark to Scotland after canceling services late Monday. Its overnight flights to Oslo and Copenhagen both departed Newark late Tuesday.

Pak Naval Base Attack: USA Stands with Pakistan

ZoneAsia-Pk

The United States on Monday condemned a deadly attack on a naval base in Karachi, saying it showed the need for Pak-US cooperation despite differences between both sides.

"We strongly condemn this terrorist attack and we're committed to working with Pakistan... in a joint effort to combat this kind of violent extremism," State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters. He said no Americans personnel were killed or injured in the attack.

Pakistan regained control of the naval base, 17 hours after heavily armed Taliban gunmen attacked, destroying two US-made surveillance planes and killing 10 personnel.

It was the worst assault on a military base since the army headquarters was besieged in October 2009.

Toner said the attack underscored the need for counterterrorism cooperation between Washington and Islamabad. "It just illustrates that Pakistan is under enormous pressure and threat from these kinds of groups. And they suffer... considerably from this kind of violent extremism," Toner said.

"So it just, frankly, speaks to the ongoing need for close counterterrorism cooperation, even or in spite of some of the questions raised by the bin Laden raid," he added.

The Profound Hypocrisy of President Obama's Speech on the Middle East

ZoneAsia_Pk

President Obama took to the airwaves today to discuss the revolts and conflicts spreading throughout the Middle East. The U.S. dominance over this strategic and oil-rich region has been the pivot of U.S. foreign policy for decades. Utilizing a system of proxy and client regimes, in addition to its own vast military forces in the region, the United States has supported a network of brutal dictatorships and the Israeli regime for decades.

Now that system of imperial control has been shaken by the popular risings that started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt and elsewhere, the Obama administration spoke today at the U.S. State Department as part of an effort to reassert U.S. leadership over the swiftly changing region.

Using the rhetoric of democracy and freedom to mask the responsibility of U.S. imperialism in the enduring oppression and suffering of the peoples of the Middle East, President Obama's speech was a demonstration of profound hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy: President Obama said that the "greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people."

Reality: The U.S. strategy is based on control of the Middle East's most coveted resource: two-thirds of the world's known oil supply. The U.S. government has given billions of dollars and armed the most brutal dictatorships in the Middle East for decades, a practice fully continued by the Obama administration. The U.S. government never cut funds to the Mubarak dictatorship even while the regime murdered more than 850 peaceful protestors. More than 5,000 civilians in Egypt have been convicted and jailed since Jan. 25 following trials conducted by the Egyptian military. The United States continues to provide massive funding to Egypt's military in spite of the ongoing repression against the people.

Hypocrisy: President Obama stated, "it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy."

Reality: The only governments in the Middle East that have been targeted for invasion, economic sanctions and overthrow by the U.S. government are those that pursue policies that are independent of U.S. economic, political and military control. The U.S. never imposed economic sanctions on the Mubarak dictatorship and only came out publicly against Mubarak when the tide of revolution had become irresistible. Likewise, the U.S. supports the brutal Saudi monarchy.

Hypocrisy: President Obama championed for the people of the Middle East the "basic rights to speak your mind and access information," stating, "the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens."

Reality: The Obama administration has gone out of its way to punish those who would inform the public by shedding light on the activities of the U.S. government. Bradley Manning remains jailed with the threat of life in prison, having been held in brutal conditions that caused the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture to seek an investigation. The Justice Department is working at full speed to find a way to prosecute Julian Assange of Wikileaks for disclosing government documents to the public, many of which expose the U.S. role in the Middle East. The Obama administration has undertaken a major campaign more aggressive than any prior administration to criminally prosecute whistleblowers who expose the truth of illegal government actions.

Hypocrisy: President Obama stated: "The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region."

Reality: The United States under Obama is involved in the invasion, occupation, and bombings of four predominantly Muslim countries simultaneously: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan. Moreover, the head of state who has been the single biggest violator of the basic human rights of Arab people and the perpetuator of violence in the region is George W. Bush, whose illegal invasion of Iraq cost the lives of more than one million people. The March 19, 2003, invasion was a war of aggression against a country that did not pose any threat to the United States or the people of the United States. The invasion and occupation of Iraq led to the deaths of more Arab people than have been killed by all the dictatorships in the region combined. President Obama today called Osama Bin Laden a mass murderer. September 11, 2001, was indeed a great crime that took the lives of thousands of innocent working people, but measured in order of the magnitude of victims killed, Bush's crime of mass murder in Iraq is unmatched. George W. Bush has not been arrested for the mass killings of Iraqi people but is treated honorifically by the Obama administration.

Hypocrisy: In an effort to appease Arab public opinion, President Obama's speech made it appear as if the United States was insisting that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Obama stated, "precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace."

Reality: Israel's war against the Palestinian people would be impossible without U.S. support, which continues unabated. The single biggest recipient of U.S. foreign aid is the state of Israel, which uses the $3 billion it receives annually to lay siege to the people of Gaza, continue the illegal occupation of the West Bank and prevent the return of the families of the 750,000 Palestinians who were evicted from their homes and villages in historic Palestine in 1948. The United Nations in various resolutions has condemned the 1967 Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria's Golan Heights. Far from imposing economic sanctions, President Obama has promised Israel a minimum of $30 billion in military aid over the next 10 years, thus functioning as a partner in the occupation. Obama's speech also made it clear that the United States would support Israel retaining vast swaths of the West Bank. This is what he meant by referring to "land swaps." In the coming days, Obama will have private meetings with Benjamin Netanyahu and will be a featured speaker at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. He will undoubtedly reinforce the strong U.S.-Israeli military ties and U.S. financial support.

Hypocrisy: President Obama stated: "We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders - whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran…. [W]e will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men."

Reality: While the U.S. government - along with Britain and France (the former colonizers of the Middle East and Africa) - are bombing Libya with the latest high-tech bombs and missiles in the name of "protecting civilians" and "promoting democracy," the Obama administration offered the most tepid pro-forma criticism of the Bahrain monarchy as it and the Saudi monarchy kill and imprison peaceful protestors in Bahrain. No sanctions have even been hinted at for Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. The Saudi monarchy is the ultimate negation of democracy, depriving women of all rights, depriving workers of the right to form unions and depriving all sectors of the population of any right to free speech, assembly or press. There has never been an election in Saudi Arabia. But the Saudi monarchy functions as a client of the U.S. government and, as such, is not targeted for economic sanctions or "regime change" as are the governments of Syria and Libya. The Bahrain monarchy likewise functions as a U.S. client and allows the U.S. Fifth Fleet to use Bahrain as its home port, which is why he referred to the monarchy as "a long-standing partner."

Hypocrisy: President Obama denounced the Iranian government, stating that "we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights," and condemned what he called Iran's "illicit nuclear program."

Reality: He failed to mention that it was the CIA along with its British counterpart that staged the overthrow of Iran's democratic government in 1953 and reinstated the Shah's monarchy. They overthrew Iran's democracy when Iran nationalized its own oil from AIOC/British Petroleum. The U.S. only broke relations with the Iranian government when the Shah's dictatorship was overthrown by a populist national revolution. Regarding nuclear weapons, the Israeli government has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has accumulated 200 "illicit" nuclear weapons. Of course, the United States has thousands of nuclear weapons and remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons, destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Hypocrisy: President Obama told the world that the United States shares the goals of the Arab revolution, that "repression will fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights."

Reality: The U.S. government, whether it is led by Democrats or Republicans, views the oil-rich Middle East through the lens of empire. Operating through a network of proxy regimes including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt, the Shah of Iran until his overthrow in 1979, and other regimes in the region - and supplemented by tens of thousands of U.S. troops positioned in U.S. bases throughout the region and on aircraft carriers - the United States aims to dominate and control a region that possesses two-thirds of the world's known oil supply. It has and continues to finance a network of brutal client dictatorships, and it has funded the Israeli war machine and staged repeated invasions, bombing campaigns, and occupations against the people of the region.

Obama, Jews and Mideast Process

Area 14/8

The last time President Obama spoke to the annual conference of the nation's foremost pro-Israel lobby, he was the presumed Democratic presidential nominee heading into a campaign against Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Back then - June 2008 - he did what most presidential candidates do - he insisted that Jerusalem remain undivided and the capital of the Jewish nation.

It is unclear what Mr. Obama will say Sunday morning when he returns to speak to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, just three days after his landmark speech in which he angered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel by calling for a Palestinian state along Israel's pre-1967 borders, adjusted to account for some Israeli settlement blocks through land swaps. In the three days since that speech, relations between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu - never warm to begin with - have grown more frigid.

Mr. Netanyahu's furious reaction to what many administration officials viewed as a modest compromise from the more dramatic all-encompassing American peace plan that some of Mr. Obama's advisers had been advocating, infuriated the White House. In particular, administration officials were angry by Mr. Netanyahu's lecturing tone during statements the two leaders gave on Friday. American officials were also irritated by Mr. Netanyahu statement directly after Mr. Obama's speech that used the phrase "expects to hear" in saying that Mr. Netanyahu expected to hear certain assurances from Mr. Obama during their meeting.

"That was Bibi over the top," an administration official said Saturday, referring to Mr. Netanyahu. "That's not how you address the president of the United States."

Stand up to the monolith of corporate news - support real independent journalism by donating to Truthout here.


Even many in the American Jewish community were angry. Jeffrey Goldberg, an influential columnist with The Atlantic Monthly, wrote: "So Netanyahu 'expects' to hear this from the president of the United States? And if President Obama doesn't walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many international forums that treat Israel as a pariah? I don't like this word, 'expect.' "


Still, the Aipac conference is what one of Mr. Obama's Middle East advisers described as a "meat-eating" crowd, and some of the president's proponents worried that Sunday's address might be something of a buzz-saw for the president. On Saturday, pro-Israel lobbyists were suggesting that Mr. Obama modify Thursday's speech when he talked to Aipac on Sunday.

Josh Block, a former Aipac spokesman, e-mailed suggestions to reporters for language he thought Mr. Obama should use to clarify his position on the 1967 lines. The language that Mr. Block suggested would have Mr. Obama saying that "everyone understands the lines as they were in 1949/1967 are not defensible, and no one can expect Israel to accept them as final borders, but they can form the basis for negotiation as they have in the past. As I have said, changes must be mutually agreed, and swaps should compensate for territory exchanged."

While Mr. Obama did not use that language during his speech on Thursday, that is what he said when he suggested a Palestinian state along 1967 lines with land swaps. Mr. Netanyahu, in his statement after Mr. Obama's speech and in his remarks on Friday, ignored the land swaps part of Mr. Obama's speech and limited his remarks to all the reasons why he believed that Israel could not return to the 1967 lines.

Republican presidential hopefuls were quick to criticize Mr. Obama's speech. Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota who is expected to announce his candidacy on Monday, called the proposal a "disaster waiting to happen," and said that "at this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem."

Mr. Obama won the Jewish vote in 2008, but in the swing state of Florida, political analysts say that he must move carefully if he is to keep his support among American Jews who support Mr. Netanyahu.

Alarm bells ringing in security establishment

ZoneAsia-Pk

Alarm bells have started ringing in Pakistan's security establishment with the latest terrorist attack at the PNS Mehran in Karachi, with many fearing that as part of any so-called "Great game", a sponsored "terrorist attack" could be launched on any of the country's nuclear sites to pave the way for a UN (read US) takeover of our nuke sites.

Sources in the military establishment are confident that the command and control system of Pakistani nukes is one of the best and is beyond not only the reach of terrorists but also capable of countering any foreign strike. However, there are serious apprehensions that a conspiracy for a sponsored attack could not be ruled out to create serious doubts about this capability solely for the purpose of paving the way through worldwide media propaganda to denuclearise Pakistan.

Despite John Kerry's recent statement that he was ready to write with his blood that Washington was not after Pakistan's nuclear programme, the United States is still seen as an "unreliable" friend, which can stab Pakistan in the back anytime.

No less than the Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, while handing over a 14-page document to President Obama during his last year's visit to the US, had conveyed that there was a growing apprehension in Pakistan that Washington was destabilising Pakistan to denuclearise it.

Because of the nature of the PNS Mehran attack and the very targeting of the all important P-3C Orion aircraft is believed to have a possible international connection to demoralise the Pakistan Navy after the Pakistan Air Force, Pakistan Army and the ISI have recently been under stern public scrutiny for their failures with regard to May 2 debacle.

After the May 2 US Navy SEALS strike in Abbottabad, both the Pakistan military's top brass and the defence committee of the cabinet had discussed the security measures of the Pakistan's nuclear sites amidst fears that the US is capable of doing any adventure against Pakistan nuclear assets, which have always been a target of Americans.

It is said that a case against Pakistan is cunningly being prepared by the US at the international level with the connivance of the international media. While Kerry was trying to win the trust of Pakistan that Pak-nukes are not US' target, the Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was later quoted to have said in a statement issued in Brussels that it is the collective responsibility of the international community to secure the nuclear assets of Pakistan.

Additionally, the US and western media have also been talking of the Washington's contingency plan that includes the setting up of a highly trained special forces group to "get secured" the Pakistan's nuclear programme in case of any terrorist attack.

Though the US administration and the American and western media have been publicly casting doubts about the possibility of Pak-nukes getting into the hands of terrorists, officially Washington knows and acknowledges that Pakistan has evolved a well-structured system of security for its nukes.

This fact was even acknowledged by recent disclosures of WikiLeaks that said that there were 120,000-130,000 people directly involved in Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes, working in these facilities and protecting them.

It also acknowledged that Pakistan has evolved a well-structured system of security for its nuclear programme but the doubts about the nuclear programme of the only Muslim nuclear state are not dying out. Despite this excellent system of security protecting the nukes of the sole Muslim nuclear state, a State Department cable shows that Russians, like the Americans, Europeans, Indians and Israelis, raise their concern that these nukes might go into the hands of what they call Islamic extremists.

Is this what really happened?

By: Raqib Shah

We need to look at the facts, use common sense and everything becomes crystal clear. For example, to prove that Osama bin Laden was killed at the compound in Abbottabad,the easiest way is to take the DNA test of the blood on the floor of the compound. What we all know.

August 2010: Pakistan shares with US some details about the compound in Abbottabad.US gathers intelligence that the compound is occupied by Osama's children.

Jan 27: Raymond Davis, the CIA Station Chief in Pakistan gets an audio file and some pictures of Pak military installations at Tarbela from an informer in Lahore. On the wayback he is pursued by two ISI contractors. He realizes that he is being followed and shotsboth followers in the back. He is arrested by Pakistani police.

March 16: Raymond Davis is released and he shares the information he had gathered with the CIA.

March 17: General Kayani starts criticizing drone attacks in public statements

First Week of April: News started circling that General Petraeus is being transferred toCIA.

April 5: Obama Administration submits a report to the Congress that Pakistan government has no clear strategy to triumph over militants. This is followed by a concerted international media campaign which puts enormous pressure on Pakistani Military and ISI.

April 7: Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and White House advisor writes a report arguing that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not only a deterrent to India but also to USA.

April 8: General Kayani meets with Centcom Chief Gen James Mattis.

April 18: On Pakistan's Geo TV, Adm. Michael Mullen said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence "has a longstanding relationship with the Haqqani Network. That doesn't mean everybody in the ISI, but it's there."

April 20: Adm. Mike Mullen meets with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shameem Wynne and General Kayani.

April 22: News appears that Pakistan has taken back Shamsi Airbase back from CIA, US forces.

April 26: Washington critically attacks Pakistan Army's counter-terrorism efforts.April 26: General Petraeus met with General Kayani.

April 26: Meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) is held at Rawalpindi,one week ahead of schedule at the Joint Staff Headquarters

April 27: Wall Street Journal reports that Pakistan is trying to wean Afghanistan away from the United States and draw it into China's orbit.

April 28: Obama signs General Petraeus' transfer to CIA.

April 29: Obama signs the orders to attack the Abbottabad compounds.

April 30: General Kayani gave a veiled threat in his Youm-e-Shuhada address:"Pakistan is a peace-loving country and wants friendly relations with other countries and our every step should move towards prosperity of the people. But we will notcompromise our dignity and honour for it".

May 1: Four US choppers flew from Afghanistan. Reaching Abbottabad they attacked a secure compound which housed some important Al Qaeda members. A gun battle soon ensued. Within minutes a Pakistani military helicopters flew from Tarbela, reaching the compound in Abbottabad few minutes later. In the meanwhile US forces had torched one of their own choppers. The four choppers (three US and one Pak) took off from the compound and flew to Afghanistan. Incidentally, this time none of them followed a low altitude flight. They were quite visible on Pakistani radars.

What we all should know

In August 2010 after Pakistani authorities shared intelligence with US about the compound in Abbottabad. US after its own intelligence gathering ascertains that the compound is occupied by Osama's children. Compound surveillance continues through the next year in anticipation of capturing Osama bin Laden. In January 2011 the young CIA contractor who is give the charge of Pakistan Station Chief works "extra hard" to gather clandestine information related to ISI and Al Qaeda relationship.

The contractor,now infamous as Raymond Davis the "American Rambo" receives a call from one of his assets, early morning on January 27 about a high value target. But the asset refuses to lay out details on phone or to leave the Lahore city, where he had gone underground.Raymond Davis hires a rent a car and drives to Lahore, while his security detail followshim in a bullet proof Land Cruiser.

Raymond Davis is able to loose his Islamabad's ISI"detail" by leaving in unmarked rent a car. The ISI agents falling for his trap follow the embassy's Land Cruiser. Raymond Davis arrives at Lahore one hour earlier than his detail and meets with the asset. The asset gives him some pictures of an intelligence building at Tarbela and recording of a phone call. Listening the phone call Raymond Davis realizes the gold mine he had struck and immediately calls his security detail which had also reached Lahore, knowing if ISI reaches him first, he would not leave Lahore alive.

Next hour when the security car catches up with Raymond Davis, the ISI bosses realizes that Raymond Davis had give them a slip earlier in the morning and in the couple of hours he had in Lahore, he might have got some important information. Resultantly,they put two contractors on his tail. Raymond Davis seeing a tail fears the worse and shoots them both in the back, at a traffic stop, without logically realizing that there was no way ISI could have know what he was holding.

His security detail which was close behind rushed to his "rescue" however, by the police had chased and arrested him, while the security Land Cruiser running over pedestrians escapes towards US embassy compound in Islamabad. ISI officers quickly reach the scene and confiscating the memory sticks realize Raymond Davis has unearthed a deep secret which even their immediate bosses didn't know about.

The sensitivity of information rattles the entire echelons of the ISI and even its own officers are sent under house arrest while the relevant cell steps forward. At that time even some of the top intelligence officers of the secretive ISI outside the relevant cell did not know that Osama bin Laden had died and his body was kept frozen at Tarbela. Young Raymond Davis had unearthed the biggest secret of the century, somehow. But now the Pandora's Box had been opened. Pak top brass knew it had only a few days or weeks at best to capitalize Raymond Davis' arrest before US get the intel.

In the next six weeks Pakistan plugs all leaks related to Osama's death and makes sure that maximum gains are made for Raymond's release. However,when Raymond Davis is released on March 16, his debriefing results in a tsunami of US policy, personal agendas and fueling of political rivalries. Everyone in the US chain of command now wanted to use the information to further personal goals from General

Petreaus to President Obama. On March 17, knowing that Pakistan had lost its trump card General Pervaiz Kayani releases a press statement in which he critically criticize drone attacks, first from him. From then on Pak Military raised its stance against drone attacks, fearing that US now might target its nuclear assets. While in USA politics was at its full swing. General Petreaus wanted to get the buckle for Osama bin Laden's death on his belt for his future political ambitions, while President Obama wanted the credit to help is sliding popularity. While the tussle continued, the other issue still pending was how to confirm Osama's death.

In the next one month, nearly every week a top US official visited Pakistan, everyone meeting with General Kayani trying to convince him to hand over Osama's body. While the stance from Pakistan remained, "Osama, Who?" It was a first in the history that so many US top officials had visited and met with a military chief of a foreign country in such a short time. Seeing nothing getting through the top military brass of Pakistan, US started a political and media campaign on the sides to put extra pressure on Pak Military.

Politics within Obama Administration was also at its full swing. Petraeus was pulling all the strings to take the credit, while trying to lay out a plan to get Osama bin Laden's body out of Pakistan. President Obama on the other hand in one smooth move decided to "promote" Petraeus to the head of the CIA. The news got out in the first week of April that Petraeus was being transferred to the CIA. While at the main front, Obama continued to pressurize General Kayani and General Pasha and one April 5, Obama Administration submitted a report to the Congress that Pakistan government had no clear strategy to triumph over militants. Alongside the report the media campaign against Pak Military and the ISI continued.

The second week of April began with a bang for top Pak Military brass. On April 7, Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and White House advisor wrote a report arguing that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not only a deterrent to India but also to USA. The obvious had now become clear that Obama Administration has indirectly sent a clear threat to Pakistan's nuclear assets. The timing of the report was perfect with Centcom Chief Gen James Mattis meeting with General Kayani next day. In the meeting General Mattis asked about Pakistan's cooperation in capturing Osama bin Laden.

This was ironically one of typical Hollywood thriller scene. Pakistan knew that US knew that Pakistan knows that US knows that Osama is dead. But Pakistan continued the naive game of "Osama Who?" while US continued to play the game that "Osama must be captured". General Mattis leaves with veiled threats and stresses that Pakistan must do more to against the Al Qaeda and Taliban, or indirectly saying that Osama bin Laden must be handed over.

For the ten days US waits and sees how Pakistan responds to the threats, but Pakistan acts by burying its head in the sand - see no evil, hear no evil. Obama Administration ups the ante and on April 18 on Pakistan's Geo TV, Adm. Michael Mullen said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence "has a longstanding relationship with the Haqqani Network.That doesn't mean everybody in the ISI, but it's there." Again, international media had its field day against Pakistan's ISI and its links with Taliban and the ISI.

After putting pressure on General Kayani, Adm. Mike Mullen meets with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shameem Wynne and General Kayani on April 20.Admiral Mullen again demands indirectly that Pakistan needs to help USA in locating Osama bin Laden. Pakistan's response was again, "Osama, Who?" Admiral Mullen however, left with another threat that if they came to know about Osama bin Laden's location they would go ahead and take unilateral action. This is the same message which President Obama repeated in his announcement of Osama bin Laden's death, when he said, "We will take actions in Pakistan, if we knew where he was."

In response to continued threats from USA Pakistan starts taking back its air bases from US in an attempt to avoid launching of any operation from its own soil. As a result on April 22 the news appears that Pakistan had taken back Shamsi Airbase back from CIA,US forces. While Obama Administration was piling pressure on Pakistan, General Petraeus visited Pakistan on April 26 and met with General Kayani openly asking him to hand over Osama bin Laden, otherwise get ready to face the consequences. Same day Washington also critically attacked Pakistan Army's counter-terrorism efforts. General Petraeus left with a clear message that unless Pakistan hands over Osama, US forces would be forces to take action over Pakistani soil. Pakistani Military knowing that US knew that Osama bin Laden was dead couldn't understand Obama Administration's continued stance on capturing Osama bin Laden. General Petraeus left with the ultimatum that either Pakistan handed over Osama or US would get him.

Same day meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) is held at Rawalpindi,one week ahead of schedule at the Joint Staff Headquarters. The top brass discusses the Osama issue and decision is reached to work out the Obama's strategy leading to continuous threats for capturing Osama bin Laden alive, even after knowing that he was dead. While in Pakistan intelligence community starts using all of its sources to reach to the bottom of US' demand of capturing Osama bin Laden. On April 28 President Obama signs General Petraeus' transfer to CIA and next day signs the orders to attack the Abbottabad compounds. Thus Osama bin Laden's credit is assured to President Obama.

On 29 April after President Obama signed the orders to "bring back" Osama bin Laden,Pakistani security agencies get a report that another order had been signed which had authorized US forces to neutralize Pakistan's nuclear assets, if needed. The report was nothing short of seeing a death angel for the top Pak Military brass.

Seeing the imminent threat, General Kayani tried his last shot when on 30 April 2011 he clearly stated in his Youm-e-Shuhada address: "Pakistan is a peace-loving country and wants friendly relations with other countries and our every step should move towards prosperity of the people. But we will not compromise our dignity and honour for it".However, it didn't stop what was about to come 24 hours later.

As night fell on Sunday, 1 May four choppers from a US Afghan base at a low altitude towards its destination in Abbottabad, to the same compound where Osama's children were in the hiding. Without any detection courtesy of their latest stealth technology and Pakistan's outdated technology the choppers continued over the Pakistani territory.Ironically, ten years ago a Pak Air force air commodore had raised concern about the outdated radar technology citing that US or worse India could fly helicopters into the country and take out nuclear installations and in reply he was shown the boot while no upgrades to the systems were made.

Anyway, the four choppers made it to the compound in Abbottabad. It is then that PakArmy was notified that they have a choice. Either face an entire barrage of US choppers attacking Pak nuclear assets or hand over Osama's body. In the meanwhile the small

gun battle at the Abbottabad compound continued and to give the drama some authenticity the US forces torched one of their own choppers. Pressed for time a Pakistani helicopter flew from Tarbela carrying dead body of Osama bin Laden which was stored in a cold storage there. While at Abbottabad Pak Army soldiers encircle the entire area around the compound within five minutes of the start of fire fight. The firefight continued for 35 more minutes, waiting for the Pakistani helicopter. Once the Pakistani helicopter reached the compound the three US choppers and the Pakistani helicopter flew towards the Afghan border, this time without the need to fly below the radar detection altitude.

Next day, the world woke up to the news that Osama bin Laden was dead and President Obama had delivered wheat President Bush and Dick Cheney couldn't. But the Pak Military brass did not wake up, because they never slept the night before. Last night they had woken to the realization that US could fly under the radar and take out Pakistan's nuclear assets. The problem here is that US has the complete inventory of Pakistan's nuclear assets along with exact locations. It would be a matter of minutes in a country wide operation to dismantle Pakistan's nuclear assets.

Israel in a Strategic Dead End

By: Jonathan Cook

They are extraordinary scenes. Film shot on mobile phones captured the moment on Sunday when at least 1,000 Palestinian refugees marched across no-man's land to one of the most heavily protected borders in the world, the one separating Syria from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Waving Palestinian flags, the marchers braved a minefield, then tore down a series of fences, allowing more than 100 to run into Israeli-controlled territory. As they embraced Druze villagers on the other side, voices could be heard saying: "This is what liberation looks like."

Unlike previous years, this Nakba Day was not simply a commemoration of the catastrophe that befell the Palestinians in 1948, when their homeland was forcibly reinvented as the Jewish state. It briefly reminded Palestinians that, despite their long-enforced dispersion, they still have the potential to forge a common struggle against Israel.

As Israel violently cracked down on last Sunday's protests on many fronts -- in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the borders with Syria and Lebanon -- it looked less like a military superpower and more like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dam.

The Palestinian "Arab Spring" is arriving and Israel has no diplomatic or political strategy to deal with it. Instead on Sunday, Israel used the only weapon in its current arsenal -- brute force -- against unarmed demonstrators.

Along the northern borders, at least 14 protesters were killed and dozens wounded, both at Majdal Shams in the Golan and near Maroun al-Ras in Lebanon.

In Gaza, a teenager was shot dead and more than 100 other demonstrators wounded as they massed at crossing points. At Qalandiya, the main checkpoint Israel created to bar West Bank Palestinians from reaching Jerusalem, at least 40 protesters were badly injured. There were clashes in major West Bank towns too.

And inside Israel, the country's Palestinian minority took their own Nakba march for the first time into the heart of Israel, waving Palestinian flags in Jaffa, the once-famous Palestinian city that has been transformed since 1948 into a minor suburb of Tel Aviv.

With characteristic obtuseness, Israel's leaders identified Iranian "fingerprints" on the day's events -- as though Palestinians lacked enough grievances of their own to initiate protests.

But, in truth, Israeli intelligence has warned for months that mass demonstrations of this kind were inevitable, stoked by the intransigence of Israel's right-wing government in the face of both Washington's renewed interest in creating a Palestinian state and of the Arab Spring's mood of "change is possible".

Following in the footsteps of Egyptian and Tunisian demonstrators, ordinary Palestinians used the new social media to organise and coordinate their defiance - in their case challenging the walls, fences and checkpoints Israel has erected everywhere to separate them. Twitter, not Tehran, was the guiding hand behind these demonstrations.

Although the protests are not yet a third intifada, they hint at what may be coming. Or, as one senior Israeli commander warned, they looked ominously like a "warm-up" for September, when the newly unified Palestinian leadership is threatening to defy Israel and the United States and seek recognition at the United Nations of Palestinian statehood inside the 1967 borders.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, alluded to similar concerns when he cautioned: "We are just at the start of this matter and it could be that we'll face far more complex challenges."

There are several lessons, none of them comfortable, for Israel to draw from the weekend's clashes.

The first is that the Arab Spring cannot be dealt with simply by battening down the hatches. The upheavals facing Israel's Arab neighbours mean these regimes no longer have the legitimacy to decide their own Palestinian populations' fates according to narrow self-interest.

Just as the post-Mubarak government in Egypt is now easing rather than enforcing the blockade on Gaza, the Syrian regime's precarious position makes it far less able or willing to restrain, let alone shoot at, Palestinian demonstrators massing on Israel's borders.

The second is that Palestinians have absorbed the meaning of the recent reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. In establishing a unity government, the two rival factions have belatedly realised that they cannot make headway against Israel as long as they are politically and geographically divided.

Ordinary Palestinians are drawing the same conclusion: in the face of tanks and fighter jets, Palestinian strength lies in a unified national liberation movement that refuses to be defined by Israel's policies of fragmentation.

The third lesson is that Israel has relied on relative quiet on its borders to enforce the occupations of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza. The peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, in particular, have allowed the Israeli army to divert its energies into controlling the Palestinians under its rule.

But the question is whether Israel has the manpower to deal with coordinated and sustained Palestinian revolts on multiple fronts. Can it withstand such pressure without the resort to mass slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters?

The fourth is that the Palestinian refugees are not likely to remain quiet if their interests are sidelined by Israel or by a Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations in September that fails to address their concerns.

The protesters in Syria and Lebanon showed that they will not be pushed to the margins of the Palestinian Arab Spring. That message will not be lost on either Hamas or Fatah as they begin negotiations to develop a shared strategy over the next few months.

And the fifth lesson is that the scenes of Palestinian defiance on Israel's borders will fuel the imaginations of Palestinians everywhere to start thinking the impossible - just as the Tahrir Square protests galvanised Egyptians into believing they could remove their dictator.

Israel is in a diplomatic and strategic dead-end. Last weekend it may have got its first taste of the likely future.