VENEZUELA NEWS BULLETIN

University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz J. T. Lee writes: For the first time in my life, I heard about the existence of the Liberator Simon Bolivar, in 1961, in Cape Town, while we were founding and extending the first modern guerrilla movement across Southern Africa. At first it was called the "Yu Chi Chan Club" (YCCC) and later it became the "National Liberation Front of Southern Africa" (NLFSA).

The very original name indicated that we were studying yu chi chan (guerrilla warfare), not only of Mao ze-Dong, Clausewitz, but also of Che Guevara.

To introduce me into the clandestine movement, that had the historic objective of toppling fascism, racism and Apartheid in Southern Africa by all means necessary, I was asked by my comrades to give a lecture on the French Revolution. At the age of 23, having been born and bred in a fascist police state that learned all its terrorism from Nazi Germany, and which was essentially anti-communist, I knew absolutely nothing about Marxism, colonialism and independence wars in Latin America.

However, of great political interest to me, was that I became acquainted with Francisco de Miranda, Simon Bolivar, Jose Marti, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Little did I know that 45 years later, I would find myself in the epicenter of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.

What immediately fascinated me about Simon Bolivar, whose works at least were not officially forbidden to read and study in Apartheid South Africa? In any case, till today, very few people speak Spanish in Southern Africa.

What really touched me was Bolivar's constant, consequent revolutionary spirit that swore across the ages never to come to rest until America would be free. Also, it fascinated me to see how precisely he had identified the historic "root of all evil", the "plague" of North America subjugating the conquered peoples.

At first my knowledge of the Bolivarian Revolution within the context of the French, Industrial and American Revolutions was still superficial, however, after having studied history, dialectics, class struggles and Marxism across the next decades, I realized that great gods, great ideas, great men and great races do not necessarily make "history."

At the same time, it became obvious that dictators like Hitler, Bush and Pinochet express the capitalist interests of global imperialism and corporatism, and that they would sacrifice humanity in their megalomaniac ruling class greed and egoism.

Hence, in the Third Millennium, from Revolutionary Africa, Happy Birthday, Simon Bolivar!

We are living at a most dangerous time, where the North American "plague" has in mind to extinguish the very human species with all the stockpiled mortal weapons of mass destruction, It is using its Zionist paw, its Apartheid pawn, Israel, to terrorize its own domestic Jewish and Arab peoples, and externally, to annihilate the whole Arab world, in the name of "the right of self-defense" (Bush). In reality it concerns theft of oil resources.

Jesus Christ and Simon Bolivar taught us the revolutionary essence of real, true, earthly liberation, how to get rid of plagues like the USA and Israel: I did not come to this world to bring peace! I am bringing the sword of Bolivar. Also, I am bringing fire from Chavez' Russian rifles, how I wish that it is already sparking off the North American prairie.

As birthday message across a religious America, across a corporate globe in agony, the emancipatory essence of liberation, of Simon Bolivar's heritage, of Bolivarian revolutionaries, against corruption is simply:

No vine a este mundo a traer la paz, sino la espada de Simón Bolívar

Por: Franz J.T. Lee
Aporrea.Org
Fecha de publicación: 25/07/06

La primera vez en mi vida que escuché acerca de la existencia del Libertador Simón Bolívar fue en 1961, en Ciudad del Cabo, mientras fundábamos y extendíamos el primer movimiento moderno de guerrillas por África del Sur. Primero fue llamado el "Club de Yu Chi Chan" (CYCC) y luego se convirtió en el "Frente de Liberación Nacional de África del Sur" (FLNAS).

El muy original nombre indicaba que estábamos estudiando la yu chi chan (guerra de guerrillas), no sólo de Mao ze-Dong, Clausewitz, sino también la del Ché Guevara.

Para introducirme en el movimiento clandestino que tenía el objetivo histórico de tumbar al fascismo, el racismo y el Apartheid en África del Sur por todos los medios que fueran necesarios, mis camaradas me solicitaron que diera una charla sobre la Revolución Francesa. A la edad de 23 años, habiendo nacido y siendo criado en un estado policial fascista que aprendió todo su terrorismo de la Alemania Nazi, y que era esencialmente anti-comunista, no sabía absolutamente nada de marxismo, el colonialismo y las guerras de independencia en América Latina.

* Si lo recuerdo bien, debo haber dado la peor charla que uno pueda imaginar.

Sin embargo, fue de gran interés político para mí ponerme al tanto de Francisco de Miranda, Simón Bolívar, José Martí, Fidel Castro y el Ché Guevara. Poco sabía que, 45 años más tarde, me hallaría en el epicentro de la Revolución Bolivariana de Venezuela.

Lo que me atrajo inmediatamente de Simón Bolívar fue que al menos no estaba prohibido oficialmente leer y estudiar sus obras en la Sudáfrica del Apartheid. En cualquier caso, hasta el día de hoy, muy poca gente habla español en África del Sur.

Lo que realmente me emocionó fue el espíritu revolucionario constante, consecuente de Bolívar, que juró por los siglos de los siglos no descansar nunca hasta que América estuviera libre. Asimismo, me atrajo ver con qué precisión identificó la histórica "raíz de todos los males", la "plaga" norteamericana subyugando a los pueblos conquistados.

En las primeras de cambio mi conocimiento de la Revolución Bolivariana dentro del contexto de la Revolución Francesa, Industrial y Norteamericana todavía era superficial, sin embargo, luego de haber estudiado historia, la dialéctica, las luchas de clases y el marxismo a lo largo de las próximas décadas me dí cuenta que los grandes dioses, las grandes ideas, los grandes hombres y las grandes razas no necesariamente hacen la "historia".

* Sin embargo, me dí cuenta que libertadores como Patrice Lumumba, Walter Rodney, Fidel Castro, Malcolm X o Hugo Chávez Frías sin duda expresan en el microcosmos las aspiraciones más profundas de sus pueblos oprimidos en su camino hacia la emancipación humana total.

Al mismo tiempo, se hizo obvio que dictadores como Hitler, Bush y Pinochet expresan los intereses capitalistas del imperialismo y el corporativismo globales, y que ellos sacrificarían a la humanidad en nombre de su avaricia y egoísmo megalomaníaco de clase dominante.

Por lo tanto, como cada año, el 24 de julio de 2006, en el Tercer Milenio, ¡desde la África Revolucionaria le deseamos un feliz cumpleaños a Simón Bolívar! ¡La lutta continua!

Vivimos en la más peligrosa de las épocas, en donde la "plaga" norteamericana tiene en mente extinguir a la mismísima especie humana con todas las mortales armas de destrucción masiva que tiene almacenadas. Está utilizando a su peón sionista, su peón del Apartheid, Israel, para aterrorizar a sus propios judíos domésticos y a los pueblos árabes, y externamente para aniquilar a todo el mundo árabe, en nombre del "derecho a la autodefensa" (Bush). En realidad esto tiene que ver con el robo de los recursos petroleros.

Muy pocos líderes mundiales, entre ellos Fidel y Chávez, han protestado oficialmente contra el actual holocausto israelí de miles de hombres, mujeres y niños inocentes, arrasando al Líbano hasta la última piedra, y que desde ya está dirigido hacia la destrucción violenta de Siria e Irán.

Esto fue lo que Bush quiso decir con una cuestión "de semanas, no de meses".

Jesucristo y Simón Bolívar nos enseñaron la esencia revolucionaria de la verdadera, real y terrenal liberación, cómo deshacernos de plagas como los EUA e Israel: No he venido a este mundo a traer la paz, sino la espada de Bolívar. Asimismo, les estoy trayendo el fuego de los rifles rusos de Chávez, cómo deseo que ya esté echando chispas
sobre la pradera norteamericana.

Como eterno y diario mensaje de cumpleaños a lo largo de una Norteamérica religiosa, a lo largo de un globo corporativo en agonía, la esencia emancipatoria de liberación heredada por Simón Bolívar de revolucionarios bolivarianos contra la corrupción es simple:

"¡Conoced la verdad, y la verdad os hará libres!".

Precisamente la Verdad es el Talón de Aquiles de los Estados Unidos de América y de su leal lacayo fascista en el Medio Oriente, el Estado de Israel.

http://www.aporrea.org/ideologia/a23843.html

ORIGINAL EN INGLÉS: Franz J. T. Lee, "From Revolutionary Africa, Happy Birthday, Simon Bolivar!"
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=64126
admin@franzlee.org

Nazismo israelí holocausto árabe

Por: Edwin Martinez Espinoza*
Fecha de publicación: 25/07/06

Lenin dijo que el imperialismo era “la fase superior del capitalismo” y ahora cobra vigencia comparar al imperialismo y al sionismo con el nazismo hitleriano.

La crisis cíclica del capitalismo históricamente lleva a los dueños del poder económico a provocar guerras que les permita “abrir mercados” para la sobreproducción que ahoga su modus vivendi. La crisis contemporánea del imperio lleva un plomo en el ala por su incapacidad de satisfacer sus propios requerimientos energéticos y de materia prima, sumando a esto el cambio en el fondo y forma del pensar y hacer de pueblos y gobiernos en otrora subordinados al interés de la mano invisible del mercado.

En el caso particular que nos ocupa es oportuno señalar que, el pueblo judío ha tenido la oportunidad histórica de reivindicarse ante el Dios que profesan adorar. Es el mismo Dios que, según el antiguo testamento creo el cielo y la tierra en siete días, hizo al hombre y la mujer a su imagen y semejanza y por un pecado fueron desterrados del Edén para luego darles varias oportunidades a sus descendientes de formar un reino bajo la dirección teocratica. Ante la sistemática conducta desaforada sufrieron invasiones, destierro y esclavitud de otros imperios emergentes como el babilonio, egipcio y romano.

En esta condición inhumana les fue inculcada la esperanza sobre la llegada del Mesías para su liberación y esta era la única alternativa de un pueblo que pronto la interpreto de dos maneras. Unos creían en la liberación espiritual y otros soñaban con la liberación del imperio.

En medio de esta contradicción ideológica fue condenado Cristo. Según relata el nuevo testamento.

Luego de la trágica muerte de Cristo comenzó la persecución de sus seguidores y una serie de calamidades que termino llevándolos por el camino de la diáspora, la esclavitud y el destierro.

En estas condiciones les toco sufrir el desprecio de la santa iglesia católica y los gobiernos europeos que encontraron en Adolfo Hitler su máximo exponente con el holocausto judío.

Pero el holocausto dejo evidente la existencia de dos clases de judíos; una clase selecta dueña de poder económico y político que lógicamente tuvo sus privilegios mientras que al otro grupo, representado por los pobres, eran tratados con el mas profundo desprecio en los campos de concentración que a su vez eran vigilados y administrados por una clase intermedia de judíos.

La tragedia vivida por la mayoría del pueblo judío en la Alemania nazi fue y es un delito de lesa humanidad y espiritualidad que aun, con la caída del imperio alemán y la muerte de los nazis todavía deben.

Esto parecen olvidarlo los autores intelectuales y materiales del sionismo, pero antes de hablar del sionismo quiero aclarar conceptos en lo relacionado con el sionismo y el semita, ya que oponerse al primero es causal para que uno sea condenado por oponerse a lo segundo.

El sionismo es una doctrina fundamentalista basada en la creencia de los libros del antiguo testamento que, les atribuye la condición especial de ser hijos de Dios, quien según relatos de las antiguas escrituras les prometió la tierra ubicada en las inmediaciones del monte de Sion, de donde deriva el nombre de sionista, pero estas ideas fundamentalistas están mezcladas de racismo ya que sus ideólogos y operadores se autodefinen como seres superiores y por tanto todas sus acciones están orientadas en la creación de un estado israelí sin árabes.

El semita en particular, se refiere a los descendientes de SEM hijo de Noe, es decir los israelitas primitivos, génesis genealógica d los israelitas o semitas. Como vemos, hay una profunda diferencia entre ambos conceptos y su expresión material.

El sionista es parte de la elite gobernante que profesa lo anteriormente expuesto y el semita es todo del pueblo judío sin discriminación de casta o condición social.

Tratar este es tan profundo que por razones obvias me permito mencionar del conjunto de ironías las siguientes: mientras los judíos se fueron por el mundo y se mezclaron con otros pueblos, los palestinos se quedaron y echaron raíces históricas, sociales y culturales en una tierra que, le fue entregada a los judíos en 1948 por injerencia de los gobiernos cómplices del holocausto judío. Estos países cómplices del holocausto judío “utilizan” al régimen sionista como lo hicieron con los talibanes y su máximo líder Osama Bin Ladeen para provocar la inestabilidad en el medio oriente y facilitar el control de las fuentes energéticas del territorio árabe.

La historia reciente nos muestra que la ultima intervención directa del imperio y sus aliados en Afganistán e Irak y los planes contra Irán y Corea del norte les ha salido caro desde el punto de vista político, económico y militar porque no habían considerado un fenómeno llamado resistencia, calificada por el gran palangre del planeta como terroristas.

Ante el charco de mierda y sangre, los dueños de las corporaciones petroleras (auténticos jefes del imperio). Decidieron extender el teatro de operaciones militares tanto en América del sur como en el medio oriente y, en este caso el gobierno israelí asumiendo el rol de procónsul del imperio norteamericano recibe luz verde para atacar Palestina, el Líbano y Siria. Con la finalidad de provocar un conflicto de tal magnitud que justifique la intervención del imperio para llevar la paz que consiste en el exterminio del pueblo árabe para asegurarse el control del oro negro.

Esta ofensiva del régimen sionista les esta revirtiendo el plan, ya que tampoco habían considerado el fenómeno llamado resistencia y esta es tan pujante que ya no ataca a la población civil y le esta haciendo frente al ejercito sionista.

Esto los ha obligado a profundizar el holocausto árabe, que tímidamente venían aplicando al pueblo palestino y lógica es la condena del vaticano, los gobiernos de Venezuela, Brasil y España que suman ahora el pronunciamiento de MERCOSUR, Cuba y el efecto domino en el resto del planeta.

Esta situación es una nueva papa caliente para el gobierno norteamericano y sus lacayos, porque puede ser el ingrediente aplicado en sobredosis para el armegedon (la tercerea guerra mundial) en las narices de los cabrones del consejo de seguridad de las naciones unidas que mas temprano que tarde será refundado.

Esta humilde opinión no pretende ser la verdad, es mi verdad y cada uno de nosotros tiene la suya.

Hoy, como trato de hacer de vez en cuando, le prepare un picadillo llanero a mis hijos para el almuerzo y tenia tanto dolor en mi alma que luego de escuchar el programa de la Lic. Elena Salcedo por radio nacional de Venezuela, donde estuvieron como invitados el profesor Wladimir Acosta y unos señores que intentaron de manera frustrada justificar la ocupación israelí en Palestina y el Líbano que, me fui por los caminos de mis neuronas hacia el pasado y muy rápido volví al presente, contrastando lo que le esta ocurriendo a niños, mujeres y ancianos que están muriendo como pudiera ocurrirnos a cualquiera de nosotros. Recordé la mirada perdida de los árabes que viven en mi ciudad, que aunque poco o nada dicen del tema, llevan el dolor tan profundo que no hay palabras para expresar y me arreche, me indigne y hasta me sentí impotente por no poder hacer algo por salvaguardar la vida de niños que pueden ser míos. Unas lágrimas y unos latidos agitados de mi corazón le hablaron a Dios, al mió, al tuyo a cualquiera que sea capaz de borrar del mapa el sionismo y todas sus expresiones porque son la fase superior del nazismo.

Amen…

*Miembro de la brigada antiimperialista

Alfredo Maneiro

E-mail: edwinmart@cantv.net
http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/a23841.html

China estudiará concienzudamente propuesta global EEUU-Rusia contra terrorismo nuclear

[As everyone looks for a clear understanding of what is really transpiring in the Middle East, FTW’s Carolyn Baker brings us a review of the critical facts and the best analysis surrounding this frightening situation. One of the most interesting developments just breaking is that Iran is encouraging all Arab countries to cut oil pipelines to Israel. That may be the most potent, and volatile, weapon of all.

The San Francisco Chronicle has just reported that this strike on Lebanon was planned for many years. They state:

But FTW’s Military Affairs Editor, Stan Goff, had this to say in response to the Chronicle’s reporting:

© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site without express written permission. Contact admin@copvcia.com. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only.

Glen Beck in Interview with Robert Baer, former CIA agent and Middle East Specialist,
CNN Headline News, July 21, 2006

July 24th 2006, 11:50 [PST] - On July 12 two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by the Lebanese Hezbollah organization, resulting in swift, armed retaliation by Israel. At the outset of the conflict, Israel was attempting to back Hezbollah in Lebanon away from the southern border in order to create a buffer zone to shield Israel from Hezbollah rockets. Over the course of the past two weeks, however, we have seen not an Israel “defending itself” as it vociferously maintains, but an Israel on the offensive. Whereas Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel were highly strategic, inflicting very few casualties, Israel has reacted much less strategically inflicting a much higher number of casualties.

Syrian political analyst, Sami Moubyaed, writes1 that Israel may be attempting to repeat its 1982 triumph of driving Yasser Arafat out of Lebanon with its military might, but it may not be able to accomplish this feat with Hezbollah. Essentially, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, may have cornered themselves into positions which would make an exit extremely problematic. Were either to surrender now without having made significant gains for Lebanese and Israeli public opinion, both could be committing political suicide.

Olmert entered the war promising his country that he would liberate the kidnapped soldiers and destroy Hezbollah, but instead, he has failed to accomplish either objective even as Hezbollah’s attacks have embarrassed the Israeli government. As for Nasrallah who entered the conflict promising the release of Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails and the liberation of the Israeli-occupied Sheba Farms, neither objective has been accomplished. What has been achieved is the destruction of Lebanon.

British Guardian reporter, Timothy Garton Ash, refers to the emerging geopolitical scenario as “multi-polar disorder” as opposed to the uni-polar condition of American supremacy2. The development of technologies with potentially violent methods of delivery mean that small states or organizations can challenge political giants and seduce them into asymmetric warfare which FTW military affairs editor, Stan Goff, defines as, “the use of unconventional tactics to counter the overwhelming conventional military superiority of an adversary.”3

Michael Clarke of the Times Online, asks why Israel has been sucked into this asymmetric war. “One reason” says Clarke, “is that Israeli military and intelligence services have been achieving real successes targeting Hamas terrorist leaders in Gaza and the West Bank. Dramatic increases in Israeli intelligence have allowed their security forces to target individuals much more precisely, to penetrate terror networks and intercept a number of plots.”4 Feeling confident that they were succeeding against Hamas, Israel has taken the fight directly to them. However, since not much has been achieved in almost two weeks of fighting, the Israeli government is left reaching for higher political ground in the court of world opinion. According to Ash, this is exactly what asymmetric warfare ultimately means--that the most powerful military in the history of the world can lose a war, not on the battlefield of bombs and bullets, but on the battlefield of world opinion. Clearly, this is the state of affairs in the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and it appears that Israel is going to be as vulnerable to asymmetric warfare as the United States has been.

Haaretz News reported on Sunday, July 23, that Hamas leadership in Gaza is ready to halt rocket fire as part of a cease-fire deal that could end Israeli action in the Gaza Strip. The plan, initiated by Egypt, would include freeing kidnapped solider Gilad Shalit, a joint cease-fire, and the sessation of Israeli assassinations in the Gaza Strip. A later release
of Palestinian prisoners would also be part of the deal. Hamas political leaders in Syria may or may not agree to such a deal, and although most Palestinian factions have agreed to the Egyptian proposal, they argue that Israel will not be ready for a cease-fire as long as Shalit is held captive.5
Another issue virtually unmentioned by mainstream media is the water crisis occurring in the Middle East and affecting all players in the region. Over the past 70 years, the world’s population has tripled while water demand has increased six-fold. On the West Bank, Israelis control the water supply from the Jordan River which has left Palestinians with just enough water for basic survival. Murhaf Jouejati, a scholar-in-residence at the Middle East Institute in Washington, agrees that the allocation of water in Israel leaves the Palestinians in a very desperate situation. But he says the water issue is a symptom of the region's broader political problems. All attempts to solve the water crisis in the Middle East look like they would fail in the absence of an agreement on the larger political conflict. So if we are going to solve the water issue between Arabs and Israelis, it is not going to be through low level or low political programs. It is going to be through the resolution of the larger political conflict.5
At this point, we do not yet know exactly how the two 800-pound gorillas, oil and the dollar, play into the current scenario. We do know that Syria, accused by the United States as supporting terrorism, plans to end its currency peg to the dollar by December of this year. This in addition to Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Sweden, and Finland who have all indicated their plans to diversify their reserves away from the dollar.6

A number of mysterious questions continue to nag: How did the rockets launched against Israel by Hezbollah, allegedly made in China and sent from Iran, arrive in Lebanon when the only way they could logistically be transported would be through Syria or through Turkey where pro-U.S. and anti-Iranian Kurds would be encountered? What is the role of oil in the present equation? What do Condoleeza Rice’s cryptic references to “a new Middle East” mean? To what extent is Iran behind Hezbollah’s assaults and if so, is it raising the stakes by giving the message: Go after Hezbollah, and we’ll shut down the oil?

The head of Iranian armed forces, Maj.-Gen. Hasan Firuzabadi called on Arab states to cut oil supplies to Israel in response to its military offensive against Lebanon according to the Iranian news agency ISNA reports.7

According to Michael Clarke, “There is growing evidence that Iran encouraged Hezbollah to attack now so as to widen the diplomatic struggle over its nuclear ambitions. A Shi’ite front against Israel and its western friends would put extra cards into Iran’s diplomatic hand.”

Moubayed summarizes that destroying Hezbollah by war is very difficult, yet destroying Israel is impossible for Hezbollah who will get the upper hand only if Iran enters the battle, but Iran has said that it will only be dragged into war if Israel attacks Syria. He anticipates that the United States will continue to support the war of attrition until casualties and human disaster ruin thousands of lives, morale, and finances. The U.S. will then push Hezbollah back into the Lebanese heartland and lobby for U.N. peacekeeping troops on the Lebanese-Israeli border. Were that to occur, Hezbollah would have no base from which to launch a war on Israel, and it would have no choice but to transform into a 100% political party in the Lebanese system. If Moubayed’s analysis is correct, this could be the last military battle for Hezbollah. However, if events do not unfold as he forecasts, then Israel will be forced to contend with asymmetric warfare, which as the United States has learned since its occupation of Iraq, is profoundly draining of resources and lives.

Regardless of how the situation plays out, all nations understand that Israel is a client state of the United States and that the empire is being backed into a corner. It is likewise understood that Hezbollah is an Iranian client organization and that it has provoked the current situation, but ultimate endgame remains unclear.

In the above interview, Glen Beck asked Robert Baer which countries are our allies, which are part of the axis (of evil), and which are “spineless.” While I have many reservations about quoting Baer, the infamous CIA agent on whose novel the disastrous movie, “Syriana” was based, in this case, his assessment is borne out by merely witnessing current world events. The essence of Baer’s appraisal was that geopolitically, the U.S. functions essentially alone—its uni-polar “moment” in history subsiding as wars of attrition devour the beast and its appendages.

U.S. urges Pakistan to not expand nukes

By PAUL GARWOOD, Associated Press Writer

Mon. Jul 24, 4:20 PM ET

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The Bush administration urged Pakistan not to expand its nuclear weapons program Monday after a U.S. think tank said Islamabad was building a reactor that could generate plutonium for up to 50 atomic bombs a year.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Foreign Ministry did not deny the report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, which said Pakistan was expanding its atomic arms capabilities.

"We have been aware of these plans and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes, such as weapons development," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

He noted that Pakistan has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said Monday it opposes a regional nuclear arms race.

Asked if Washington had sought Pakistani assurances that it wouldn't use the new reactor to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, Snow said, "Not that I'm aware of."

The institute report said satellite photos of Pakistan's Khushab atomic site, about 105 miles southwest of the capital, Islamabad, showed what appeared to be construction of a reactor capable of producing enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.

The move could signal an acceleration of regional nuclear proliferation and the new reactor could be finished within a few years, the report said.

"South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at a minimum vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material," said the report, which was first described by The Washington Post.

It concluded that the expansion plans would represent a 20-fold increase of Pakistan's existing capabilities.

Tasnim Aslam, spokeswoman for Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, did not directly answer questions on the report.

"This ought to be no revelation to anyone because Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state." Aslam said. "I have no specific comments on Pakistan's facilities."

Aslam said Pakistan was not the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into South Asia. Pakistan conducted its only nuclear tests in May 1998 after Indian nuclear tests earlier that month. India detonated its first nuclear explosion in 1974.

"We were not the first to test nuclear weapons in this region and that remains our position," Aslam said during a news conference. "We do not want an arms race in this region."

Nuclear-armed neighbors Pakistan and India came close to open conflict in 2002 after terrorists attacked India's parliament. New Delhi accused Islamabad-backed militants of carrying out the attack, but Pakistan denied the claims. Both countries have since embarked on a stop-start peace process.

In February 2004, Abdul Qadeer Khan, considered to be the father of Pakistan's atomic program, confessed to giving nuclear technology to
Iran,
North Korea and Libya.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has pardoned Khan.

A pending nuclear cooperation agreement between the Bush administration and India would give New Delhi access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology in exchange for agreeing to more stringent safeguards over its civilian nuclear reactors.

Pakistan has criticized the deal, which Congress must still approve, as one-sided, and demanded similar access to American atomic technology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_nuclear_7

When God Goes to War
Religions Usually Espouse Peace and Goodwill, So Why Have they Sparked So Many Conflicts?

We can be certain of one thing in 2004. Unless there is some unimaginable breakthrough, we will see more religiously inspired terrorism. It often seems that we might be better off without religion. A cursory consideration of the crusades and persecutions of Christian history shows that religious violence is not confined to the Islamic world. If the different faiths really are committed to peace and goodwill, why do they inspire such hatred, and why are their scriptures so aggressive?

Religion is the creation of human beings, who are biologically programmed for aggression. We dream of peace but slaughter our own kind, and from the very start our faith systems have reflected this tragic dualism. In the earliest religions, most gods were militant, including Yahweh, worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Humans were able to enjoy security only by fighting other groups, so they assumed there was also perpetual warfare in the divine world, in which the gods opposed the forces of disorder.

The world religions that developed during the first millennium BCE rejected this bellicose theology and preached empathy, compassion, even non-violence. But they all emerged in societies devastated by war, and this pervasive aggression seeped into their new scriptures. Judaism, for example, was born out of the wrenching experience of political annihilation, deportation and exile - a trauma that left its mark on the Hebrew Bible.

Some of the biblical writers responded to the violence in kind. Their God commands Moses and Joshua to massacre all the native inhabitants of the Promised Land. But others spoke of reconciliation and of respect for the stranger. They reminded the people of Israel that God was not reflexively on their side, and their own unjust and irresponsible behavior had contributed to the disaster.

Jesus told his followers to love their enemies, but the New Testament was also affected by the turbulence of Palestine during the first century: the resentment of Roman occupation and escalating tension between Jews and Christians. Later, the emperor Domitian's persecution inspired the vengeful fantasies of the Book of Revelation.

The Koran also reflects the brutal tribal warfare that afflicted Arabia during the early 7th century. For five years, the Muslims were threatened with extermination and had to fight for their lives. The Koran tells Muslims how they should behave on the battlefield, but these militant passages always end with exhortations to reconciliation. Eventually, Muhammad brought peace to the peninsula by adopting an audacious policy of non-violence.

The scriptures all bear scars of their violent begetting, so it is easy for extremists to find texts that seem to give a seal of divine approval to hatred. War affects all aspects of human behavior, so when conflict becomes chronic, it should be no surprise that religion is also infected. This is certainly what happened at the time of the Crusades.

In a similar way, the Christian right today has absorbed the endemic violence in American society: they oppose reform of the gun laws, for example, and support the death penalty. They never quote the Sermon on the Mount but base their xenophobic and aggressive theology on Revelation. Osama bin Laden is as just as selective in his use of scripture. Most of the Muslim extremism that troubles us today is the product of societies that have suffered prolonged, hopeless conflict: the Middle East, Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir.

Religion, like any human activity, can be abused. You can have bad religion, as you can have bad cooking, bad art and bad sex. From the very beginning, religion got sucked into conflicts that were originally secular. In the past, however, prophets and sages recalled their co-religionists to the prime duty of compassion.

Today, we need religious people to be proactive in reforming their own traditions away from extremism. It is not enough simply to condemn other people's violence. We need bishops, rabbis and imams to search for the seeds of aggression in their own scriptures, admit that their own faith has a history of hatred, and revise bigoted, self-serving textbooks. We should also question the efficacy of the current war against religious terror. By increasing violence in troubled regions, we contribute to the conditions that have always mobilized the faithful in their pernicious holy wars.

The Israelis are conducting not only a shooting war but also a propaganda war: if there is a way to "spin" the deaths of Lebanese civilians, the smashing of the infrastructure, and even the bombing of an anti-Hezbollah Christian-owned television station, then surely Israel's skillful propagandists – here and in Israel proper – are bound to find it. The idea is to shape the narrative of the conflict so that Israel is portrayed as a reluctant warrior.

In America, this is easy: the "mainstream" media, always attentive to the powerful Israel lobby, refrains from showing pictures that might upset the carefully nurtured image of the Jewish state as a heroic David up against an Arab-Muslim giant. Whenever there is an "expert" to be consulted, half the time it's an Israeli, or someone from Israel's amen corner, who explains to the TV audience that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization along the lines of al-Qaeda – without mentioning that this is no guerrilla group, but a highly organized political party, which, as President Lahoud of Lebanon reminded us the other day, is "part of the government of Lebanon." The other day on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, I had to laugh when Joe Scarborough announced the guests on an upcoming segment about the Lebanon crisis: Bibi Netanyahu, Mort Zuckerman, and Pat Buchanan.

If anyone else but Buchanan had been involved it would have been the onscreen equivalent of a mugging, but Pat acquitted himself quite well. The point, however, is that there is no question of "balance" when it comes to media portrayals of the July war, or of any topics having to do with Israel. It's all pro-Israel, all the time, and it is nothing short of miraculous that a trenchant critic like Buchanan is allowed to give his opinion at all.

The U.S. government, therefore, has a lot of leeway when it comes to its relationship with Israel. It can get away with pursuing Israel's interests, to the detriment of our own, simply on account of the blindness of most people to the nature of the "special relationship" – and its geopolitical and financial repercussions. Very few know, for example, that Israel gets over $3 billion a year from the U.S. in "foreign aid," and that we subsidize the Israeli military budget to the tune of some 20 percent. Any news that puts Israel in a bad light is downplayed, or else completely ignored. For example, the shocking charges against two lobbyists for Israel, AIPAC honcho Steve Rosen and the group's Iran analyst, Keith Weissman – spying for Israel – should have generated front-page headlines; instead, the case has puttered along pretty much beneath the media radar.

In Europe, it is quite different: the pictures of the slaughter are getting through via the mass media, and people are less naïve about the true nature of the Israeli state. Even the British government broke with the Yanks on this one, as Foreign Office official Kim Howells looked askance at the rape of Lebanon:

"The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people: these have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation…. I very much hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon."

The sheer brazenness of this operation, and the American complicity, is shocking – and here I thought nothing could shock me anymore. After all, Israel has invaded a sovereign nation, attacked communities that are hostile to Hezbollah (such as the Christian Maronites), bombed Lebanese army barracks, and tried to shut down the Lebanese media – all of which are roughly comparable to, say, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Not that any of this is surprising, coming from the Israelis – but the Americans have not caviled in the slightest. If anything, George W. Bush is more pro-Israel than many Israelis, and his support for the invasion has been unequivocal, even enthusiastic.

This enthusiasm is partly explained by the president's fulsome support for the Jewish state: no American administration has been quite as pro-Israel as this one. Yet one could imagine that, behind the scenes, there would be tensions between the U.S. and Israel, at least over the timetable of the Lebanese incursion. The longer Israel stays in and keeps up the merciless bombardment, the more pressure Washington faces from its Arab allies in the region, who fear their populations' outrage at the continuing carnage. U.S. support for the invasion is also having repercussions in Iraq, where the ruling Shi'ite coalition is not exactly friendly to Tel Aviv, Shi'ite radicals are up in arms, and the speaker of the Parliament is now calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The U.S. is provoking all sorts of negative reactions to its endorsement of Israeli brutality, and so why, one has to ask, are they doing it?

Every occupant of the White House who approaches the end of his second term has similar concerns, naturally enough: they all want to ensure that they not go down in the history books as a failure. But this president, who has had to endure a merciless mocking from the chattering classes over his relative lack of sophistication and general state of unpreparedness for the role of chief executive, has a lot more invested in this than most. He has prided himself on not taking the easy road, swimming against the tide in the hope that history will prove him right – and now, as the end of his reign approaches, he must take history by the throat or else forever lose the opportunity.

The Israeli invasion is one such opportunity. What was surprising about the American response to Tel Aviv's untrammeled aggression was not that they wholeheartedly endorsed it, but how quickly and pointedly they used the occasion to turn up the heat on Damascus and score points against Tehran. Can they really be thinking about taking on Syria and Iran – even as the Iraqi "model" explodes in a maelstrom of sectarian strife?

George W. Bush bears all the ominous hallmarks of a True Believer. Here is a president who, in his last inaugural address, proclaimed "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Grandiosity doesn't even begin to describe the presidential mindset – it is more like megalomania – and the abundant danger of such ambition on the part of such a man is all too apparent.

"By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress."

The neocons thrilled to those words as the president uttered them in his second inaugural address, but lately, it seemed, the fire had gone out of George. Before the Israelis unleashed their fury on the hapless civilians of Beirut, the War Party, you'll remember, was in full retreat. Chastened by the failure of the Iraqi misadventure, beleaguered by legal and political problems on the home front – a few indictments, the growing unpopularity of the war – and weakened by defections from their own ranks, the neoconservatives were on the run. In the administration, they were getting out of government – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith – and in the public square they were keeping a low profile.

Not anymore. A week or so before the invasion, Richard Perle attacked Condi Rice in the Washington Post, signaling neocon disaffection with an administration that seemed to have fallen prey to a paralyzing realism. Iran was being allowed to get away with thumbing its nose at U.S. demands that the mullahs dismantle their nascent nuclear industry. The regime-change campaign aimed at Syria seemed to have fizzled out. In short: the Revolution had been betrayed.

The Israelis changed all that when they started bombing Beirut. The regime-changers once again had their agenda front and center, and the prospect of a conflict with Syria and/or Iran gained instant momentum.

The Revolution, once badly stalled, is revving up its motors, and the War Party is back in its full fighting stance. What is appalling and frightening is that the Democrats are in many cases worse than the Republicans on the Lebanon invasion question: this means there will be no brake on the administration in taking this road to further "regime change" in the Middle East.

Iran is their ultimate goal, but the road to Tehran runs through Damascus, and the preparations for the Syrian campaign have been extensive and very well thought out. They succeeded in pinning the blame for the assassination of Rafik Hariri on the Syrians, even though the evidence seems to contradict this conclusion. The U.S.-Israeli campaign to get the Syrian army kicked out of Lebanon achieved its goal just over a year before the Israelis marched in. This could be serendipity, but here's another "coincidence" – a week or so before the invasion, the Lebanese announced they had busted a cell of Israeli agents who had been carrying out assassinations in the country. One wonders what a full investigation of their activities would have revealed – if the war hadn't delayed or obscured it. After all, someone killed Hariri…

The Israelis, in any case, are now destroying Hariri's legacy – the Beirut he rebuilt after the ravages of the last Israeli assault – and they won't stop until their masters in Washington start to get antsy. And maybe not even then. In the case of the "special relationship" between Washington and Tel Aviv, it is hard to tell, very often, who is the master and who is the slave. As Professor Paul W. Schroeder put it in The American Conservative, the Iraq war represented "something unique in history":

"It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."

Israel is doing its own fighting – for once – but don't worry, relief is on the way. The American secretary of state has a plan for a "robust" international force that will take on the job of cleaning out Hezbollah and administering the occupation of a "buffer zone" within Lebanon. We are assured there will be no Americans in this force, but that seems highly improbable. If ever such a force comes into existence and is sent to police the mean streets of south Lebanon, then you can bet your bottom dollar the Yanks are coming, too.

In the meantime, it will take months to organize an international "peacekeeping" mission: this will give the Israelis plenty of time to continue their terror campaign, and perhaps come right to the gates of Beirut. The drama has yet to play itself out, but whatever the outcome, we can be sure that the script was written well in advance.

Latest