Tim Tyler, prisoner of the drug war: "In 1992, my brother, my best friend, Tim, was sentenced to 2 life sentences without parole, under federal law for selling LSD. He is nonviolent (doesn't even eat meat), didn't have or use weapons, and was just a 'Deadhead' following the Grateful Dead shows. He has been in jail since he was 23."

"He had a public pretender, and they told him if he plead guilty, he would get maybe 20 years, so he plead guilty and they gave him double life, no parole. They "enhanced" his sentence using his priors in which adjudications were withheld. They were supposed to tell him that it was a minimum mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole before he plead guilty, but they did not."

Tim Tyler, prisoner of the drug war: "In 1992, my brother, my best friend, Tim, was sentenced to 2 life sentences without parole, under federal law for selling LSD. He is nonviolent (doesn't even eat meat), didn't have or use weapons, and was just a 'Deadhead' following the Grateful Dead shows. He has been in jail since he was 23."

"He had a public pretender, and they told him if he plead guilty, he would get maybe 20 years, so he plead guilty and they gave him double life, no parole. They "enhanced" his sentence using his priors in which adjudications were withheld. They were supposed to tell him that it was a minimum mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole before he plead guilty, but they did not."

The US Gulag Prison System - the shame of the nation and crime against humanity : SF Indymedia: "Today the US shamelessly has more people behind bars than any other nation including China with over 4 times our population.... Arnold J. Toynbee ... said: "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests.""

The US Gulag Prison System - the shame of the nation and crime against humanity : SF Indymedia: "Today the US shamelessly has more people behind bars than any other nation including China with over 4 times our population.... Arnold J. Toynbee ... said: "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests.""

WaPo Chat With Chomsky: "Lancaster, U.K: What do you feel are the limits to 'free speech' given the arguments recently over racial hatred and religious intolerance?

Noam Chomsky: My feeling is that the Supreme Court reached a reasonable standard of protection of speech in the 1960s, a standard higher than any other country in the world, to my knowledge. In brief, speech should be protected up to participation in imminent criminal action. So if you and I go into a store to rob it, and I say 'shoot,' that's not protected. Like all judicial decisions and legislation, this leaves plenty of gray areas, including many of great significance that are rarely discussed: advocacy of imminent war crimes, such as aggression, for example. I think we would all agree that such speech should be protected, despite the often horrific consequences, but it's worth noting that that stretches the doctrine to its limits.

Wellfleet, Mass.: Mr. Chomsky:

Many fear the country is moving towards a "police state" where the Executive acts according to its desires, without constraint. What possibilities do you see, if any, for the trend towards consolidation of power in the Executive to be thwarted?

Noam Chomsky: The concerns are justified. Thus in this morning's press it was reported that after signing the new version of the Patriot Act with grandiose flourishes, President Bush quietly issued a "signing statement" that exempted him from its requirement to notify Congress of FBI actions that go beyond court authorizaton. That is yet another brazen affirmation of executive power. There are many others. There is little doubt that this administration is at an extreme in seeking to establish a powerful state executive, free from interference by Congress or public awareness of its actions. The justification is the "war on terror," but that can hardly be taken seriously. Terror is doubtless a very serious threat, but it is all to easy to demonstrate that it does not rank high in administration priorities.

Though the concerns are valid, we should not exaggerate. The public is not likely to give up the achievements of centuries of struggle easily."

WaPo Chat With Chomsky: "Lancaster, U.K: What do you feel are the limits to 'free speech' given the arguments recently over racial hatred and religious intolerance?

Noam Chomsky: My feeling is that the Supreme Court reached a reasonable standard of protection of speech in the 1960s, a standard higher than any other country in the world, to my knowledge. In brief, speech should be protected up to participation in imminent criminal action. So if you and I go into a store to rob it, and I say 'shoot,' that's not protected. Like all judicial decisions and legislation, this leaves plenty of gray areas, including many of great significance that are rarely discussed: advocacy of imminent war crimes, such as aggression, for example. I think we would all agree that such speech should be protected, despite the often horrific consequences, but it's worth noting that that stretches the doctrine to its limits.

Wellfleet, Mass.: Mr. Chomsky:

Many fear the country is moving towards a "police state" where the Executive acts according to its desires, without constraint. What possibilities do you see, if any, for the trend towards consolidation of power in the Executive to be thwarted?

Noam Chomsky: The concerns are justified. Thus in this morning's press it was reported that after signing the new version of the Patriot Act with grandiose flourishes, President Bush quietly issued a "signing statement" that exempted him from its requirement to notify Congress of FBI actions that go beyond court authorizaton. That is yet another brazen affirmation of executive power. There are many others. There is little doubt that this administration is at an extreme in seeking to establish a powerful state executive, free from interference by Congress or public awareness of its actions. The justification is the "war on terror," but that can hardly be taken seriously. Terror is doubtless a very serious threat, but it is all to easy to demonstrate that it does not rank high in administration priorities.

Though the concerns are valid, we should not exaggerate. The public is not likely to give up the achievements of centuries of struggle easily."

Apache's Greg Stein says commercial software's days are numbered: "'As the [open-source] stack grows and grows and takes over more areas, there's less money available in packaged products,' Stein said. 'All of your software [will be] free. It means that over time, you aren't going to be paying for software anymore' but will instead pay for assistance with it. The shift could take an estimated five to 10 years, he said. 'The notion of [a] packaged product is really going to kind of go away,' Stein said."

Given that the cost of OpenOffice is zero, one would think that it's default installation everywhere was a no-brainer. If there are some things it cant do, that would be a case for the purchase of a limited number of specialist proprietary applications.

Apache's Greg Stein says commercial software's days are numbered: "'As the [open-source] stack grows and grows and takes over more areas, there's less money available in packaged products,' Stein said. 'All of your software [will be] free. It means that over time, you aren't going to be paying for software anymore' but will instead pay for assistance with it. The shift could take an estimated five to 10 years, he said. 'The notion of [a] packaged product is really going to kind of go away,' Stein said."

Given that the cost of OpenOffice is zero, one would think that it's default installation everywhere was a no-brainer. If there are some things it cant do, that would be a case for the purchase of a limited number of specialist proprietary applications.

US finally swinging back to support Sunni domination in Iraq?: "Sunni Arab leaders Adnan Dulaimi and Salih Mutlak have begun speaking of a convergence of interests between them and the United States. Al-Hayat say its sources tell it that the US now feels that aligning with the Sunni Arabs against the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance is a way of offsetting Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs. "

"Like many Iraqi and Arab observers, Muqtada was shocked when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the US military would not intervene in an Iraqi civil war, leaving that to Iraqi forces.

"' "May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere." '"

A cynic would point out that Saddam is still alive and could be pulled out of prison and installed as 'President of Iraq.'

US finally swinging back to support Sunni domination in Iraq?: "Sunni Arab leaders Adnan Dulaimi and Salih Mutlak have begun speaking of a convergence of interests between them and the United States. Al-Hayat say its sources tell it that the US now feels that aligning with the Sunni Arabs against the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance is a way of offsetting Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs. "

"Like many Iraqi and Arab observers, Muqtada was shocked when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the US military would not intervene in an Iraqi civil war, leaving that to Iraqi forces.

"' "May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere." '"

A cynic would point out that Saddam is still alive and could be pulled out of prison and installed as 'President of Iraq.'

The strange state of American politics: "What more can one say about a political party whose politicians want to censure a President in their own party for his role in a sex scandal, while fearfully refusing to censure a President in the other party for breaking the law -- repeatedly, deliberately and proudly -- while spying on American citizens?"

The strange state of American politics: "What more can one say about a political party whose politicians want to censure a President in their own party for his role in a sex scandal, while fearfully refusing to censure a President in the other party for breaking the law -- repeatedly, deliberately and proudly -- while spying on American citizens?"

The Campaign to Pacify Sunni Iraq: Michael Schwarz summarises the state of the guerilla war.

The Campaign to Pacify Sunni Iraq: Michael Schwarz summarises the state of the guerilla war.

Cockburn: Did Milosevic or His Accusers "Cheat Justice"? The Show Trial That Went Wrong

Cockburn: Did Milosevic or His Accusers "Cheat Justice"? The Show Trial That Went Wrong

Hawks Prevail In Preventing U.S. Troop Withdrawal: "We may never know who blew up the shrine and, with it, the prospects for troop withdrawals. It is assumed that the villains were either deranged Sunnis acting on their own, or al-Zarqawi cadres intent on civil war.

"There is another perspective for close observers of dirty wars, the possibility that the bombing was planned and handled by elements of Western counter-terrorism forces. Similar tactics were employed by British agents during the long conflict in Northern Ireland, and heavily-armed British commandos disguised as Arabs were captured in Basra just last year. One of the oldest imperial strategems is to divide and conquer, incite sectarian divisions, and justify military occupation to keep the natives from killing each other. This is precisely the justification for continued war that is heard from those who have admitted the original invasion was a “mistake.”"

Ever since the invasion of 2003 Iraq has been plagued by a devastating series of car and truck bombs, in a country which had not had a single car bombing in its history. Who on earth has been doing this and who is the beneficiary?

Hawks Prevail In Preventing U.S. Troop Withdrawal: "We may never know who blew up the shrine and, with it, the prospects for troop withdrawals. It is assumed that the villains were either deranged Sunnis acting on their own, or al-Zarqawi cadres intent on civil war.

"There is another perspective for close observers of dirty wars, the possibility that the bombing was planned and handled by elements of Western counter-terrorism forces. Similar tactics were employed by British agents during the long conflict in Northern Ireland, and heavily-armed British commandos disguised as Arabs were captured in Basra just last year. One of the oldest imperial strategems is to divide and conquer, incite sectarian divisions, and justify military occupation to keep the natives from killing each other. This is precisely the justification for continued war that is heard from those who have admitted the original invasion was a “mistake.”"

Ever since the invasion of 2003 Iraq has been plagued by a devastating series of car and truck bombs, in a country which had not had a single car bombing in its history. Who on earth has been doing this and who is the beneficiary?

Nuclear Power is Dead: "Last year's energy bill provided some pretty eye-popping incentives designed to make nuclear energy competitive including 80 percent loan guarantees, $2 billion of public insurance against legal or regulatory delays, an additional 1.8 cent/kWh in operating subsidies, payment for late acceptance for hazardous waste, capping liability for mishaps, free offsite security and another $1.3 billion tax break for decommissioning funds. Under that bill all risk is absorbed by tax payers and the promoters don’t even have to invest very much of their own money. With all this going for nuclear power plants, you would think that nuclear energy would be a market winner."

That would be the 'level playing field' 'free market' 'competitive system.' Without corporate welfare, nuclear power cannot survive. Its promoters are corporate tools. In one of the links to this article, it is shown that windpower is cheaper than gas-fuelled power.

Nuclear Power is Dead: "Last year's energy bill provided some pretty eye-popping incentives designed to make nuclear energy competitive including 80 percent loan guarantees, $2 billion of public insurance against legal or regulatory delays, an additional 1.8 cent/kWh in operating subsidies, payment for late acceptance for hazardous waste, capping liability for mishaps, free offsite security and another $1.3 billion tax break for decommissioning funds. Under that bill all risk is absorbed by tax payers and the promoters don’t even have to invest very much of their own money. With all this going for nuclear power plants, you would think that nuclear energy would be a market winner."

That would be the 'level playing field' 'free market' 'competitive system.' Without corporate welfare, nuclear power cannot survive. Its promoters are corporate tools. In one of the links to this article, it is shown that windpower is cheaper than gas-fuelled power.

Bush Nukes Legal and Ethical Constraints: "Eye-Ran. That's what the Americans call Iran — pronounced Ee-Ra'an. This is a minor matter, compared to how the U.S. is bullying Iran over its nuclear program, even while rewarding India for committing worse transgressions of international nuclear rules.

"All nation-states operate in their own interests, of course. But American disregard for the law, and the moral and political inconsistency of its foreign policy, has hit a new low under George W. Bush."

Bush Nukes Legal and Ethical Constraints: "Eye-Ran. That's what the Americans call Iran — pronounced Ee-Ra'an. This is a minor matter, compared to how the U.S. is bullying Iran over its nuclear program, even while rewarding India for committing worse transgressions of international nuclear rules.

"All nation-states operate in their own interests, of course. But American disregard for the law, and the moral and political inconsistency of its foreign policy, has hit a new low under George W. Bush."

The U.S. Role in Iraq’s Sectarian Violence: Stephen Zunes shows how the US first tried to install leaders in Iraq and then in response to massive demonstrations were forced to hold elections which were dominated by Shiites. Also how the dismissal of the Baath party and Iraq Army left a vacuum leading to the rise of sectarianism and the dissolution of Iraq.

The U.S. Role in Iraq’s Sectarian Violence: Stephen Zunes shows how the US first tried to install leaders in Iraq and then in response to massive demonstrations were forced to hold elections which were dominated by Shiites. Also how the dismissal of the Baath party and Iraq Army left a vacuum leading to the rise of sectarianism and the dissolution of Iraq.

Former Iranian president attacks Ahmadinejad over Holocaust -- Middle East Times: "'We should speak out if even a single Jew is killed. Don't forget that one of the crimes of Hitler, Nazism and German national socialism was the massacre of innocent people, among them many Jews,' the cleric said in comments carried in the Iranian press on Wednesday.

"The Holocaust, he asserted, should be recognized 'even if this historical reality has been misused and there is enormous pressure on the Palestinian people'. Ahmadinejad has caused international outrage by insisting that the Holocaust - the killing of an estimated 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II in death camps and elsewhere - was a myth used to justify the creation of Israel. He has also said that the Jewish state 'must be wiped off the map' or moved as far away as Alaska - comments that have provoked anger in the West and even condemnation from the UN Security Council.

"Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric has also served to increase tensions over Iran's atomic energy drive, seen in the West as a mask for weapons development. Khatami served as Iran's president from 1997 to 2005, and attempted to open up Iran to the West and initiate a 'dialogue among civilizations' - in stark contrast to the ultraconservative agenda of Ahmadinejad.

"The mild-mannered former president, who has shied away from the political limelight since leaving office, also asserted Muslims were not out to persecute Jews. 'The persecution of Jews, just like Nazism, is a Western phenomenon. In the east, we have always lived side by side with them. And we follow a religion that states that the death of an innocent person is the death of all of humanity,' Khatami said. He also argued that it was of little importance 'whether the number killed [during the Holocaust] was high or not' - but at the same time went on to accuse Israel's leaders as being 'victims of fascism and practicing fascist policies today'.

"Ahmadinejad also came under attack from the prominent and centrist Shargh newspaper, which complained that 'the Holocaust has, as wished for by the president, become a topic of our foreign policy'. 'The Jewish question was never a problem for Iran or Islam, and is a Christian-European problem,' the paper argued. 'Don't we have enough with the nuclear question, human rights, free elections and political in-fighting, so do we need to add another problem to that?' it said, saying that Iran would be better off 'thinking of the creation of a Palestinian state rather than the destruction of Israel'."

Former Iranian president attacks Ahmadinejad over Holocaust -- Middle East Times: "'We should speak out if even a single Jew is killed. Don't forget that one of the crimes of Hitler, Nazism and German national socialism was the massacre of innocent people, among them many Jews,' the cleric said in comments carried in the Iranian press on Wednesday.

"The Holocaust, he asserted, should be recognized 'even if this historical reality has been misused and there is enormous pressure on the Palestinian people'. Ahmadinejad has caused international outrage by insisting that the Holocaust - the killing of an estimated 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II in death camps and elsewhere - was a myth used to justify the creation of Israel. He has also said that the Jewish state 'must be wiped off the map' or moved as far away as Alaska - comments that have provoked anger in the West and even condemnation from the UN Security Council.

"Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric has also served to increase tensions over Iran's atomic energy drive, seen in the West as a mask for weapons development. Khatami served as Iran's president from 1997 to 2005, and attempted to open up Iran to the West and initiate a 'dialogue among civilizations' - in stark contrast to the ultraconservative agenda of Ahmadinejad.

"The mild-mannered former president, who has shied away from the political limelight since leaving office, also asserted Muslims were not out to persecute Jews. 'The persecution of Jews, just like Nazism, is a Western phenomenon. In the east, we have always lived side by side with them. And we follow a religion that states that the death of an innocent person is the death of all of humanity,' Khatami said. He also argued that it was of little importance 'whether the number killed [during the Holocaust] was high or not' - but at the same time went on to accuse Israel's leaders as being 'victims of fascism and practicing fascist policies today'.

"Ahmadinejad also came under attack from the prominent and centrist Shargh newspaper, which complained that 'the Holocaust has, as wished for by the president, become a topic of our foreign policy'. 'The Jewish question was never a problem for Iran or Islam, and is a Christian-European problem,' the paper argued. 'Don't we have enough with the nuclear question, human rights, free elections and political in-fighting, so do we need to add another problem to that?' it said, saying that Iran would be better off 'thinking of the creation of a Palestinian state rather than the destruction of Israel'."

Opposition to Iraq War Reaches 55% in Australia

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Iraq?

Support: 38%

Oppose: 55%

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan?

Support: 45%

Oppose: 48%

Support for this stupid war has always been hard to drum up, all the more remarkable, therefore, that both major parties do support it.

Opposition to Iraq War Reaches 55% in Australia

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Iraq?

Support: 38%

Oppose: 55%

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan?

Support: 45%

Oppose: 48%

Support for this stupid war has always been hard to drum up, all the more remarkable, therefore, that both major parties do support it.

Ubuntu - Killer App for Linux It was Unix and then became GNU - for Gnu's not Unix. Ok try again. Then we had Linux - unknown pronunciation, misleading egotism, clueless philosophy but very cute penguin.

Ubuntu is 'humanity to others' or 'I am what I am because of who we all are'. It puts the focus back on the principles of freedom and free software, sidestepping that tedious 'open source' corporate sales pitch.

Free download or free CDs - posted free to your door. It 'just works' out of the box. Even the linmodem works, with a little help from the folks at linmodems.org .

Ubuntu - killer marketing and killer app.

Ubuntu - Killer App for Linux It was Unix and then became GNU - for Gnu's not Unix. Ok try again. Then we had Linux - unknown pronunciation, misleading egotism, clueless philosophy but very cute penguin.

Ubuntu is 'humanity to others' or 'I am what I am because of who we all are'. It puts the focus back on the principles of freedom and free software, sidestepping that tedious 'open source' corporate sales pitch.

Free download or free CDs - posted free to your door. It 'just works' out of the box. Even the linmodem works, with a little help from the folks at linmodems.org .

Ubuntu - killer marketing and killer app.

John Zogby: On a New Poll Of U.S. Soldiers During Their Service in Iraq: "85% [of US troops in Iraq] said the U.S. mission is 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks,' while 77% said they believe the main or a major reason for the war was 'to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.'"

Cannon fodder - the poor deluded fools. They have been lied to and they do not realise, even today. Saddam had no part in 9/11; there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

There was appparently no question on whether the US invaded Iraq for reasons of oil or hegemony.

However, it is interesting to note that "72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year ... 29% thought the U.S. should pull its troops immediately."

John Zogby: On a New Poll Of U.S. Soldiers During Their Service in Iraq: "85% [of US troops in Iraq] said the U.S. mission is 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks,' while 77% said they believe the main or a major reason for the war was 'to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.'"

Cannon fodder - the poor deluded fools. They have been lied to and they do not realise, even today. Saddam had no part in 9/11; there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

There was appparently no question on whether the US invaded Iraq for reasons of oil or hegemony.

However, it is interesting to note that "72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year ... 29% thought the U.S. should pull its troops immediately."

Peter Singer: Against Holocaust denial, use arguments not laws: "The timing of Austria's conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the Holocaust could not have been worse. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people during protests in Arab and Muslim countries against the Danish cartoons ridiculing the prophet Muhammad, the Irving verdict made a mockery of the claim that in democratic countries freedom of expression is a basic right.

"We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures, but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed."

"Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to - or can reasonably be foreseen to - lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with maintaining freedom to express any views at all. Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: "We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.""

Peter Singer: Against Holocaust denial, use arguments not laws: "The timing of Austria's conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the Holocaust could not have been worse. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people during protests in Arab and Muslim countries against the Danish cartoons ridiculing the prophet Muhammad, the Irving verdict made a mockery of the claim that in democratic countries freedom of expression is a basic right.

"We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures, but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed."

"Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to - or can reasonably be foreseen to - lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with maintaining freedom to express any views at all. Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: "We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.""

Norman Finkelstein & Shlomo Ben-Ami: Complete Transcript Finkelstein, of course, is very good, but its a pleasant surprise to see how good Former Israeli Foreign Minister Ben-Ami is, especially after having had to put up with the programmed disinformation and propaganda of Ehud Barak. Finkelstein pays Ben-Ami a nice compliment when he says "if representatives of the Palestinians were to sit down with Shlomo Ben-Ami in a room, weren't subjected to the sorts of political pressures that Dr. Ben-Ami describes from Israel, I think a reasonable settlement could be reached."

The two have some different and intriguing interpretations of the tragic failure of the Camp David/Taba negotiations.

FINKELSTEIN: The Israelis chose Arafat [as negotiating partner after the Iraq war], not only because Arafat himself was desperate [to return to Palestine and resume control]. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation. And then, finally, the day of reckoning came with the Camp David talks. It turned out Arafat was not willing to make those concessions to deny Palestinians what their rights were under international law, and I think that's where the impasse occurred at Camp David and at Taba.

And the standard interpretation, which comes — which is — you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat's unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.

BEN-AMI: What Dr. Finkelstein said here about international law, I want to make it clear, it is important, it is vital for a civilized community of nations to have an axis of principles based on international law, around which to run the affairs of our chaotic world. It is very important. It is vital, etc. But at the same time, when you go into political issues, and you need to settle differences, historical differences, differences that have to do with political rights, security concerns, historical memories, etc., it is almost impossible to do things on the basis of international law, but rather, on something that is as close as possible to the requirements of international law. The very fact that, as Dr. Finkelstein rightly says, the Palestinians were ready to make this or that concession is the reflection of them understanding that there is no viability, there is no possibility really to reach an agreement that says let us apply automatically and rigidly the requirements of international law.

The thing is that we need to understand that with all — frankly, with all due respect for the requirements of international law, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, a peace process is a political enterprise. And there are things that governments can do and things that they cannot do, because if you do things that leave you without political support, then you can do nothing. You can write poetry, not make peace. And we have been writing poetry ever since, because we are not in office. We have been advancing all kind of peace dreams. It is only when you are in office and you have a political support that you can move ahead. This is the only way that peace is done. We have done our very best. We went to the outer limits of our capacity for compromise without disintegrating entirely our home front, and this is an exercise that Sharon decided not to make, precisely because he learned from our experience. He said, "Listen, we are not going to do that. I am going to be unilateral. I don't believe in negotiations." It's very bad, but this is the lesson that he learned from the sad experience of the collapse of the peace process in the last year of Clinton's presidency.

The problem is Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too. Even a corrupt leader like Arafat could not accept Israeli grasping and arrogance on this scale, and Israel could not see the lost opportunity, that 'in justice lies the truest and highest expediency.' The talks were doomed to fail.

Norman Finkelstein & Shlomo Ben-Ami: Complete Transcript Finkelstein, of course, is very good, but its a pleasant surprise to see how good Former Israeli Foreign Minister Ben-Ami is, especially after having had to put up with the programmed disinformation and propaganda of Ehud Barak. Finkelstein pays Ben-Ami a nice compliment when he says "if representatives of the Palestinians were to sit down with Shlomo Ben-Ami in a room, weren't subjected to the sorts of political pressures that Dr. Ben-Ami describes from Israel, I think a reasonable settlement could be reached."

The two have some different and intriguing interpretations of the tragic failure of the Camp David/Taba negotiations.

FINKELSTEIN: The Israelis chose Arafat [as negotiating partner after the Iraq war], not only because Arafat himself was desperate [to return to Palestine and resume control]. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation. And then, finally, the day of reckoning came with the Camp David talks. It turned out Arafat was not willing to make those concessions to deny Palestinians what their rights were under international law, and I think that's where the impasse occurred at Camp David and at Taba.

And the standard interpretation, which comes — which is — you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat's unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.

BEN-AMI: What Dr. Finkelstein said here about international law, I want to make it clear, it is important, it is vital for a civilized community of nations to have an axis of principles based on international law, around which to run the affairs of our chaotic world. It is very important. It is vital, etc. But at the same time, when you go into political issues, and you need to settle differences, historical differences, differences that have to do with political rights, security concerns, historical memories, etc., it is almost impossible to do things on the basis of international law, but rather, on something that is as close as possible to the requirements of international law. The very fact that, as Dr. Finkelstein rightly says, the Palestinians were ready to make this or that concession is the reflection of them understanding that there is no viability, there is no possibility really to reach an agreement that says let us apply automatically and rigidly the requirements of international law.

The thing is that we need to understand that with all — frankly, with all due respect for the requirements of international law, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, a peace process is a political enterprise. And there are things that governments can do and things that they cannot do, because if you do things that leave you without political support, then you can do nothing. You can write poetry, not make peace. And we have been writing poetry ever since, because we are not in office. We have been advancing all kind of peace dreams. It is only when you are in office and you have a political support that you can move ahead. This is the only way that peace is done. We have done our very best. We went to the outer limits of our capacity for compromise without disintegrating entirely our home front, and this is an exercise that Sharon decided not to make, precisely because he learned from our experience. He said, "Listen, we are not going to do that. I am going to be unilateral. I don't believe in negotiations." It's very bad, but this is the lesson that he learned from the sad experience of the collapse of the peace process in the last year of Clinton's presidency.

The problem is Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too. Even a corrupt leader like Arafat could not accept Israeli grasping and arrogance on this scale, and Israel could not see the lost opportunity, that 'in justice lies the truest and highest expediency.' The talks were doomed to fail.

Hamas signals (again) that it will accept a two-state solution: "Palestinian prime minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said in an interview yesterday ... that Hamas did not harbour animosity towards Jews and did not wish to throw them into the sea.

"'If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages,' he said, beginning with a long-term truce. He declined, however, to commit himself when asked if Hamas would recognise Israel's right to exist, a commitment implying permanent peace rather than a period of truce followed by war.

"'The answer,' he said, 'is to let Israel say it will recognise a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release prisoners and recognise the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. 'Hamas will have a position if that occurs.'"

"Israel views the demand that millions of Palestinian refugees return to Israel as a non-starter, since it would mean the demographic demise of the Jewish state."

Zionist Israel is a racist state (like White Australia or Apartheid Africa) where 'Arabs' are considered inferior and totally unacceptable as citizens.
Beginning in 1948 and continuing, millions of Palestinians have been made into refugees in order that the Zionist state might colonise the land. Since the fall of the Soviet Union one million Russian Jews have migrated to Israel, but as Chomksy has previously remarked, Israel would resort to nuclear weapons rather than allow Arabs to return.

As a practical matter therefore the return of millions of Palestinians to Israel is not possible in terms of a political settlement. Some other solution would need to be found, eg monetary compensation or resettlement somewhere else. This would be the subject of current negotiations except that Israel has now and has never had any intention of a 'two-state' solution. Although the realities on the ground had forced even Sharon to abandon Gaza and heavily populated parts of the West Bank, Israel has every intention of colonising and annexing as much land as possible.

UPDATE: Full interview with Haniyeh here.

Hamas signals (again) that it will accept a two-state solution: "Palestinian prime minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said in an interview yesterday ... that Hamas did not harbour animosity towards Jews and did not wish to throw them into the sea.

"'If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages,' he said, beginning with a long-term truce. He declined, however, to commit himself when asked if Hamas would recognise Israel's right to exist, a commitment implying permanent peace rather than a period of truce followed by war.

"'The answer,' he said, 'is to let Israel say it will recognise a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release prisoners and recognise the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. 'Hamas will have a position if that occurs.'"

"Israel views the demand that millions of Palestinian refugees return to Israel as a non-starter, since it would mean the demographic demise of the Jewish state."

Zionist Israel is a racist state (like White Australia or Apartheid Africa) where 'Arabs' are considered inferior and totally unacceptable as citizens.
Beginning in 1948 and continuing, millions of Palestinians have been made into refugees in order that the Zionist state might colonise the land. Since the fall of the Soviet Union one million Russian Jews have migrated to Israel, but as Chomksy has previously remarked, Israel would resort to nuclear weapons rather than allow Arabs to return.

As a practical matter therefore the return of millions of Palestinians to Israel is not possible in terms of a political settlement. Some other solution would need to be found, eg monetary compensation or resettlement somewhere else. This would be the subject of current negotiations except that Israel has now and has never had any intention of a 'two-state' solution. Although the realities on the ground had forced even Sharon to abandon Gaza and heavily populated parts of the West Bank, Israel has every intention of colonising and annexing as much land as possible.

UPDATE: Full interview with Haniyeh here.

Excellent interview re Bin Laden strategy

Excellent interview re Bin Laden strategy