US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Rules Out Talks With Hamas

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has ruled out negotiations with the Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas unless it drops its extremist stance, saying her position is “absolute”.

“On Israel, you cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognises Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements. That is just for me an absolute,” Mrs Clinton told a Senate confirmation hearing.

“That is the United States government’s position. That is the president-elect’s position,” she said after a senator suggested it is “naive and illogical” to pursue diplomacy with governments opposed to Israel.

She echoed the stance of the outgoing administration of President George W. Bush which is supporting Egyptian efforts to mediate a ceasefire following an 18-day Israeli war to stop Hamas rocket attacks.

Palestinian medical sources said around 70 more people had been killed in the fighting, bringing the overall toll to around 975 Palestinians with a further 4400 wounded.

On the Israeli side, 10 soldiers and three civilians have been killed in combat or by rocket attacks since December 27 when the Jewish state began its deadliest ever offensive on Gaza, ruled by the Islamists of Hamas since the group won elections in mid-2007.

The Bush administration has opposed negotiations with what it calls a terrorist organisation.

Mr Obama has proposed reaching out to the leaders of anti-US countries like Iran, North Korea and Cuba, but analysts doubted he would engage with Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah, which the US denounces as terrorist groups.

During her confirmation hearing, Mrs Clinton said the new administration will try a “new approach” toward Iran by engaging it diplomatically.

Insight-info

The Closing of the American Border

American Border

American Border

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the government seemed to put forth a unified stance on the need to combat terror. But you say in your book that there was actually a fierce internal fight between two groups – you call them The Cops versus The Technocrats. Who are they?

Indeed, this fight began the very night of 9/11. Jim Ziglar, who was the head of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) at the time, was strongly opposed to what the Ashcroft Justice Department did after 9/11, which was to use immigration laws aggressively as a counter-terrorism tool, to hold people on immigration violations if they believed they had even the slightest connection to terrorism.

There was one faction that said, “Look, we need to use immigration law aggressively as our main tool in the war on terrorism.” Another group of people, most of them under Tom Ridge in the White House, and later the Department of Homeland Security, said, “Look, if we do that, all we’re going to succeed in doing is driving away people that we want and need to come to the United States. We need to be more targeted and intelligent about how we strengthen our border after 9/11.”

You quote George W. Bush saying to his customs chief, “You’ve got to secure our borders against a terror threat, but you have to do it without shutting down the U.S. economy.” How did the ones who were all for using immigration law win out?

The ones who wanted to strengthen border controls intelligently knew what they wanted to do, but it was a long process. You needed to develop new systems to identify more accurately who was coming into the United States and who you had reason to be concerned about.

The people in the Justice Department who wanted to use immigration law didn’t need to wait. Immigration law is an incredibly powerful tool for arresting and detaining any foreigner. One of the officials that I interviewed said, “Immigration law is like tax law – you’re guilty until proven innocent.”

Turning Away From American State Terrorism

Elections 2008

Elections 2008

The choice we face in November is very clear. It is a choice to continue to support the US terror war, or to turn away from this path of unlimited destruction. This lie-based war is all about terrorism –whether America actually fights terrorism or promotes its use. To
find the answer to this conundrum all we have to do is turn our gaze to Pakistan.

In Pakistan we find the complete history of the American “war on terrorism,” from its Cold War origins nearly thirty years ago to its present incarnation in the illegal American aggression in Pakistan’s Frontier region (FATA, Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and in American attempts to reignite the Cold War with Russia. The latest cross-border attack against Pakistan in South Waziristan, which involved American helicopters and ground troops, costing 15 villagers their lives, represents the first steps in American attempts to escalate its war into a reasonable facsimile of another world war.

Once again, America claims that its aggression against Pakistan is a legitimate act of self-defense against the “Pakistani Taliban” (TTP,Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan), who, it is claimed, are responsible for America’s faltering war effort in Afghanistan. Wednesday’s
aggression was another attempt to get TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud (branded “public enemy number one” by the US) or one of his top commanders. Mehsud is the key to understanding America’s true role in the terror war, that of state terrorism planner and facilitator, in order to later assume the role of defender against the terrorism it causes.

Baitullah Mehsud assumed control of the TTP from its founder, his infamous cousin Abdullah Mehsud. Abdullah was a prisoner at Guantanamo before being inexplicably released to return to Pakistan, where he founded the new Taliban splinter group. On his second day in S. Waziristan he instigated the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers
from the building of the Gomal Zam Dam, beginning the TTP fight against America’s adversaries in the region.

Setting the pattern for all future American terror attacks, the American media reported that America’s secret allies, the TTP, were “al Qaida linked.” Whenever and wherever the Western media uses the expression “al Qaida linked,” to describe terrorist attacks, they are referring to American terrorism. This is also painfully true about those sinister forces that killed 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001. American/”al Qaida” terrorism always targets civilians, even American civilians. Next to the US military, al
Qaida is the greatest killer of innocent Muslims in the world.

full article: www.insight-info.com

Wind of change blows over Lebanon

The following is the speech of the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, on the occasion of the 8th anniversary of the Resistance and Liberation Day, May 26, 2008, in southern Beirut, Lebanon.

hasan nasrallah may 2008

First of all, great greetings to every pure spirit of the resistance and homeland martyrs, especially to the leader of resistance martyrs Seyyed Abbas al-Mousawi, the sheikh of the resistance martyrs Raghib Hareb and our dear brother whom we miss today leader Al-Hajj Imad Moughniyah.

I would like to welcome you to the 8th anniversary of the Resistance and Liberation Day. Your presence here today justifies your reality and identity and testifies once again that you are the most honorable, precious and the purest of people.

As God Almighty has said in his Glorious Book:

In the name of Allah, the most Merciful and Gracious,
Pharaoh had tyrannized on Earth, divided people into groups. He oppressed one group on behalf of the others, slaughtering its children, and ravishing its women. Indeed, he was among those corruptors.

The Pharaohs of our time are the USA and its right hand, Israel. Allah has promised:

We want to bestow upon those who were oppressed on Earth and make them precedents and successors; and we will consolidate their position on Earth to show what Pharaoh, Haman, along with their soldiers have been worried from.

God Almighty speaks the truth!

Brothers and sisters, today marks the day of resistance and the liberation of our homeland and nation coincides with the anniversary of the calamity and the loss of Palestine as well as the establishment of the extorter’s existence.

It also coincides with the 30th anniversary of Israel’s 1978 occupation of southern Lebanon and the establishment of the occupied territory, which was later expanded. This coincidence must provoke us to think twice, evaluate the situation and draw lessons and conclusions that will benefit Lebanon as well as the Muslim and Arab worlds.

Although this occasion has its own intellect, emotion, literature, rights and ethics, today I will not confine myself to introductions, as there is much to talk about.

Starting from Lebanon and its resistance… the latter has demonstrated two strategies, one of liberation and driving away occupiers, and the other of defending the homeland and people against any attack, invasion or threat.

This is the stratagem and vision of resistance: liberation and defense. These are also the clear and joint messages of the resistance in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.

As a result of the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon and the occupation of a part of our land in 1978, the Security Council issued the Resolution 425. We submitted ourselves to the will of the international community and waited for its implementation. At the time, it was suggested that Lebanon was too weak to face Israel and it would therefore need a strategy of Arab unity.

The UNSC decision, however, was not implemented and an Arab strategy was never found. The international community and the Arab world took no action, and the will to confront was lost. It was at this time that the Imam and leader Seyyed Moussa al-Sadr proposed that the people of southern Lebanon put their trust in God Almighty and resist by any means possible.

What resulted from the false proposals of inaction? Israel weakened Lebanon and thought we were too weak to respond. This resulted in the great invasion of 1982 aiming to ultimately make Lebanon part of Israel.

As has been proven throughout history that a divided country can easily be conquered, such was the case of Lebanon at the time of the Israeli invasion in 1982 and so was the case of Palestine. The same applies to Iraq and shall apply to other countries as well. In the face of occupation, people are divided into various groups and categories:

Some remain neutral toward the occupation while some rule the country and have an extent of authority do not feel the impact of the occupation as the most important thing for them is to eat, drink and enjoy life. Another group are spies and mercenaries, cheap tools such as Antoine Lahid’s army who despite being Lebanese committed shameful acts. Another group consists of the internally defeated elite who cooperate with the occupiers for their own benefits and theoretically believe they can minimize national casualties.

Also, is a group that tacitly defies the occupation but is not willing to endure hardships and pay for freedom with their blood. Finally, there is the group that believes it has an ethical, national, religious and humanitarian responsibility to liberate their fatherland from occupation. They are ready to pay the price whatever it may be. This is the group of resistance. This is the group that takes the necessary action.

This division is not exclusive to Lebanon; it is a natural, historical and social trend stemming from the loss of national unity.

To those claiming that there is no national agreement regarding resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq I would say that there is also no national agreement on neutrality, treachery, cooperation or carelessness. Every group decides on its own. This is also true in Lebanon.

As always, I advise nations under occupation not to wait for a national or public agreement on resistance, but to pick up weapons and fight for the liberation of their land, nation and prisoners of war and regain their dignity and glory. This cannot be achieved other than by weapons, giving blood and making great sacrifices.

The resistance and the Lebanese people are intertwined with one another. Whether Muslim or not and regardless of sect and political parties, we have given countless martyrs. Self-reliance, jihad, various operations and our male and female youths have brought the resistance so far. Both the Arab and Muslim worlds were duty-bound to offer help. Many, however, have refrained to take action. It was Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran who actively supported us.

We first achieved victory from 1982 to 1985 and another historical victory was won on May 25, 2000: a magnificent victory for Lebanon, Arabs and the nation and an utter defeat for Israel that shattered its dream of expanding its territory from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Israel has been cut off from southern Lebanon and western Bikaa and the Zionists have suffered a shameful defeat without gains, guarantees or concessions. While the liberating strategy adopted by the resistance succeeded, the negotiation strategy beginning from Madrid was not even able to free an inch of our land.

The strategy of inaction has done nothing but strengthen our enemy and weaken our country. Subsequently, it was the librating strategy adopted by the resistance, which similarly brought success in 2000.

After the 1984 calamity, Palestinians hopelessly waited for Arab support and international intervention.

In Iraq, America has occupied the country under the banner of establishing a democracy. The truth is that the American occupation was aimed at monopolizing the country’s resources. Their true objectives becoming more clear every day. How? After the invasion, similar to other occupied nations I mentioned before, Iraqis were divided into two relatively large groups.

One seeks a political process and the other prefers resistance, specifically an armed one. Based on our religious, ideological, intellectual, political experience as well as reality, we the Hezbollah are zealous toward resistance. Those supporting the political process have wasted a great deal of time and are today faced with an extremely difficult test, which is to determine the stance they will take now that America is attempting to impose a security deal on Iraqis, the finalization of which only requires the signatures of the Iraqi government and parliament.

Complete speech: http://www.insight-info.com