Does America Want Peace in Afghanistan?

Rabi ul Sani 13, 1431 A.H, Tuesday March 30, 2010

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

This is a main question every one asks. Does America want peace in Afghanistan? However, the following data can help us reach a rationale conclusion: At the beginning of 2009, American had 30,000 troops in Afghanistan which they increased to 68,000 soldiers until the end of the year. This shows 110 percent boost of military man power. In December 2009, US president Obama announced 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan, showing further 30% increase.

In January this year in London Conference on Afghanistan, US supported Hamid Karzai program of reintegration and reconciliation with Taliban i.e. the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Two weeks later, on 13 February, Pentagon launched a massive military operations against Marjah township in Nad Ali district, Helmand province, violating their own commitment to work for peace in the country. Now they are talking of taking the offensive to Kandahar.

So far, America has built 700 bases in the country, the major of them being in Kandahar and Bagram. They allocate hundreds of millions of dollars each year for construction of more bases in Afghanistan. In view of these facts, no one can say America wants peace in Afghanistan. They have hidden and long-term colonialist objectives, not only in Afghanistan but in the whole region.

By using Afghanistan as outpost, Washington wants to follows its policy of expansionism, regime change and disintegration in the neighboring countries. No doubt, America has been flaring up racial discord and religious differences among the people in Afghanistan and the neighboring countries. CIA agents and black water operatives have been given task to destabilize the region as per the long-term American strategy. Those who express common cause with America, should know that Washington would never become their strategic friend. Rather it is a tactical ally which wants to use them against their own people for its colonialist objectives and then discard them as it has done this in the past.

In Afghanistan, the White House rulers and the Pentagon generals do not want peace but only want to weaken the momentum of the war. They never intend to end the war. That is why on the one hand, Robert Gates, says Taliban leadership is irreconcilable or now it is not the right time to talk with Taliban but on the other hand, they offer cash, jobs and retirement bonuses for Taliban's ranks and files. The reason is that Pentagon is not interested in ending the war but they only want to reduce the scope of attacks on their soldiers.

The Afghan Mujahideen are aware of this war stratagem of the enemy. They have shown that Americans can't deceive them by phony overtures of peace. If America really wants peace in Afghanistan, they should draw up a national strategy of reconciliation; stop blind bombardment and night raids; release innocent prisoners and remove the blacks list, send black water and CIA agents back home from Afghanistan and close down all secret prisons in American military bases in Afghanistan which are run by intelligence teams of the Special Force.

There, innocent prisoners are tortured, killed by the Special Force and drowned in Helmand River and other rivers in Afghanistan during the night, with their hands being tied up, without any legal verdict of court. The Americans are committing gross violation of human rights in Afghanistan. However, no one, including the human rights advocacy entities all over the world, raise their fingers because all these are done under the name of promoting democracy and fighting terrorism. The world still has to know that the war started under the name of terrorism is, in fact, an illegitimate war of neo-colonialism, being waged for subjugation of the Afghans and all free people.

We call on all those with wake and free conscience to raise their voice against the American brutalities and violation of humane values in Afghanistan. All should know that Americans kill children, women and old men with impunity and cross all limits in their brutalities.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan


Theunjustmedia.com

Turkey says Israel threatening global peace

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:05:11 GMT

urkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has lashed out at Israel over the violation of Lebanese airspace through which it threatens peace in the region.

Speaking at a joint press conference with his Lebanese counterpart Saad Hariri, Erdogan said Israel has to stop violating Lebanon's airspace and its territorial waters, the Associated Press reported on Monday.

"We can never remain silent in the face of Israel's attitude. ... It has disproportionate power and it is using that at will while refusing to abide by UN resolutions. We can never accept this picture,” Erdogan said.

“These steps threaten global peace," he warned.

Hariri also described Israel as an enemy that threatens his country's security through "its violation of our airspace and waters.”

Lebanese army said earlier in the day that its anti-aircraft artillery fired at Israeli fighter jets flying over the country's southern airspace.

The Lebanese army reports almost every day violations of its airspace by Israeli warplanes.

SB/HGH/MMN
Related Stories:

* Lebanon fires at Israeli jets violating its airspace
* Lebanese PM heading to Turkey
* UNIFIL soldier killed in car crash in Lebanon
* Israel luring teenage students to join army

'Israel won't yield to U.S. demands, won't halt settlement construction'

By Haaertz Service

Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon spoke to Channel 2 on Saturday about the meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, held earlier this week, saying that Israel's government will not allow the U.S. to dictate its policy, and that "settlement construction will not be halted."

"Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage," Ya'alon told Channel 2 News. "Even when Israel pulled out of [Palestinian] territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted [Jewish] communities, we got 'Hamastan.' That is why I propose that we think about it - not in slogans and not with decrees."

According to Ayalon, "we will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required ? it wasn't housing that has prevented peace."
Advertisement
In reference to the illegal West Bank outposts, which Israel has vowed to evacuate and has begun to do so, Ya'alon stressed that "the government will not permit illegal settlement, as we've proven with our actions this week."

Some believe that the evacuation of the outpost of Maoz Esther on Thursday morning, which came a day after Defense Ministry sources told Haaretz that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had agreed on a plan to evacuate illegal outposts in the West Bank, was carried out in accordance with U.S. pressure. However, Barak denied any correlation between the Netanyahu-Obama meeting on Monday, and the evacuation.

Ya'alon also addressed reports that the U.S. had upped its demands and was trying to dictate Israel's next moves in the negotiations with the Palestinians. "What the U.S. is asking is not a demand, we'll see whether their declaration become actual demands," he said.

"[U.S. envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell will come, and we'll talk to him. I suggest that Israel and the U.S. don't set a timetable. We won't let them threaten us," Ya'alon added.

"From the banks of the Potomac in Washington it is not always clear what the real situation here is," Ya'alon concluded. "This is where Israel must step in and help her ally understand the situation."

Ya'alon also criticized Israel, saying that "the Israeli discourse paints us as hostile, the problem is within us."

Jordan’s King Tells Repubblica He’s Pessimistic on Middle East

By Flavia Krause-Jackson

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Jordan’s King Abdullah Bin Hussein II told Italian daily la Repubblica in an interview he’s pessimistic about the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

“If by 2010 Israel doesn’t believe in two states, the possibility of a Palestinian state will vanish,” Abdullah said on the eve of a visit to Italy. “The most often-repeated question in the Arab world today is, does Israel really want peace?”

Asked about efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama to carve out an agreement in the region, Abdullah said, “I will be honest, I was expecting more, and in less time.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson in Rome at fjackson@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 19, 2009 01:42 EDT

Jordanian frustration with U.S., Israel mounting

Thursday, October 15,2009 00:14
Foreign Policy

While I was in Jordan, King Abdullah gave a lengthy interview to Haaretz about the Israeli-Palestinian situation in which he warned that "We’re sliding back into the darkness." My conversations with more than two dozen Jordanian officials, political activists, journalists and analysts suggest that on this, at least, the King reflects a widespread Jordanian consensus. Jordanians are growing increasingly frustrated with the Obama team's approach, alarmed at Netanyahu's unpunished intransigence, and downright frantic about the trend in Jerusalem. If we don't start seeing progress soon, with stronger American leadership, then the "tinderbox" could explode.

It wasn't always like this. When I was last in Jordan about six months ago, I found a great deal of optimism over the appointment of George Mitchell and the high profile Obama gave to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. But now those hopes seem to have largely evaporated. The launch of Israeli-Palestinian talks which they had expected by June continue to drift in limbo, while Obama's failure to deliver on the settlement freeze has -- just as so many predicted -- eroded his credibility. How could the Americans have allowed Netanyahu to not only defy U.S. demands on settlements but to not even pay any significant price? Again and again, from all sectors of Jordanian political society, I heard the same refrain: Obama's heart is in the right place and we want him to succeed, but he's just not getting it done.

Jerusalem weighed particularly heavily in the Jordanian consciousness. I heard all kinds of dire warnings about how Israeli provocations there could suddenly spark an uncontrollable escalation back into Intifada. As the King put it, "we are seeing problems in Jerusalem that will directly destabilise not only the relationship with Jordan...but will also create a tinderbox that will have a major flashpoint throughout the Islamic world." Most Jordanians I talked to agreed.

While I was there I attended a demonstration focused on Jerusalem after Friday prayers at the Salah al-Din mosque close by the Prime Minister's office. It was quite small, to be honest (even keeping in mind that it was cross-scheduled with the parade celebrating Amman's 100th anniversary). But the large scale deployment of security forces across the street suggests that the regime was taking no chances. (Muslim Brotherhood leaders told me that they had led a much larger rally of their own out in Zarqa at the same time; I wasn't there, so can't say how that one went.)

There was also little optimism about a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation (and this was before the public exchange between Abbas and Meshaal which Daniel Levy wrote about for me this morning). Nobody thought that the profound gap in interests between the two parties could be bridged, particularly after the devastating impact of the PA's deferral of the Goldstone report on Abbas's popularity. Beyond that, with no meaningful peace talks in sight there was little reason for either side to make the painful concessions necessary -- whether on elections, on security sector reform, or on the existential issues of identity and commitment to negotiations.

Indeed, what I heard from a number of the more hawkish Muslim Brotherhood leaders suggests that at least some in Hamas see a greater interest in staying out. They generally admitted that Hamas faced tough conditions, with the blockade of Gaza and the escalating PA repression of its cadres in the West Bank. But that was secondary. The PA, by their argument, is in a death spiral. Talks with Netanyahu will inevitably fail, at which point Abu Mazen and the PA will no longer be able to keep up pretences. Signing on to such a PA would only compromise their own legitimacy and viability, alienating the vast mainstream of the Palestinian people without any commensurate benefits. Rather than be associated with the impending failure, they suggested, better to stay outside and wait for the fruits of that failure to fall into their lap.

So what should be done? The Jordanians who supported the peace process strongly urged Obama to quickly lay down an American plan, a comprehensive framework for negotiations with specific recommendations on the most sensitive and controversial points. The framework should build on previous agreements, not go back to the starting point and re-open previously agreed points. Given the severe weakness of the Palestinian negotiators, it would take American initiative to make sure that the talks started on acceptable grounds. And they didn't think it was a good idea for the US to wait for the "right time" to present such a plan, because at this point the right time might never come.

"Borders first", the idea du jour, would be a disaster. No Palestinian or Arab, I was told, could accept anything which deferred the refugee issue (presumably in perpetuity). Jordan in particular, of course, is deeply invested in some resolution of the refugee issue. While Jordanian officials seem satisfied with the assurances they've received from the United States that they rejected the perpetual Israeli "Jordan is Palestine" notion, at the popular level the fears that Israel will impose the final settlement of Palestinians in Jordan resonate deeply and permeate almost every aspect of Jordanian public discourse. And for the same reason, don't expect to see Jordanian troops playing a role in the West Bank.

I could go on, but this probably is enough to paint the picture. Jordanian officials and the public alike are deeply, profoundly worried about the course of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Worried whispering about (or eager anticipation of) the outbreak of a new Intifada was everywhere. Confidence in Obama's ability to deliver, especially with regard to Israel, has collapsed. But most still hope that it's not too late for Obama to reverse course. His words at the UN General Assembly rallied their spirits briefly. But it won't last absent clear progress towards resuming the talks based on a clear, mutually acceptable framework for negotiations. If that doesn't happen by the end of the year, then we could be staring at the abyss.