"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."

- Ariel Sharon, as Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

By now it should be clear to all Middle East analysts that the main impediment to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Ariel Sharon and the right-wing extremists in his Likud party. Time and again the Palestinians have expressed their sincere desire to end the inhuman conditions under which they are forced to live by the occupying IDF forces, yet every time that a peaceful settlement seems to be within their grasp, Hamas will bizarrely decide to fire a few usually harmless, Qasam rockets at an illegal Israeli settlement, or unknown "Palestinian gunmen" will murder an Israeli settler.

How can we explain such apparently repeated self-defeating acts by the alleged representatives of the beleaguered Palestinian people? It has been obvious for several years now that the Palestinians cannot win an armed conflict with Israel and any further attacks against Israeli forces, population or interests simply provides Sharon with the justification to increase Israeli control and oppression in the occupied territories. It is equally obvious that the international community has all but washed its hands of the conflict and is resigned to allowing it to play out to its final tragic denouement.

In yesterday's "summit" between Sharon and PA authority Chairman Abbas, Abbas told the Israelis that he wanted "freedom of movement in and out of Gaza, air and sea ports re-opened, key Palestinian towns handed back to their control and the release of Palestinian prisoners." Such demands are the precursor to the formation of a Palestinian state, an eventuality that Sharon has built his political career on ensuring never occurs.

Israel agreed to Abbas' demands on the proviso that all Palestinian attacks against Israel must first stop. Sharon willingly accepted these demands because he is confident that he can ensure that the Palestinian authority never meets the condition of a cessation of all "terrorist" attacks.

It is clear that Israeli government oppression of Palestinians has little to do with "security concerns" and everything to do with harassing and often murdering Palestinian civilians and leaders in order to prevent them from establishing themselves as a independent people with a sovereign voice on the world stage.

Central to this goal is the continued portrayal of any Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation as "terrorism" when, in reality, resistance (including armed) to an occupying power is a fundamental right laid down in the article four of the third Geneva Convention.

However, according to humanitarian law, in order to lawfully use force in a conflict you must first be designated a lawful 'combatant'. To be a 'combatant', you have to belong to an 'armed resistance group' and that group must belong to a 'party' to the conflict. It is in this fact that we find one of the chief reasons why Israel will NEVER willingly allow the creation of a Palestinian state.

As long as Palestine does not have official state status, any Palestinian resistance group cannot claim to be a party in the conflict and must remain a simple independent resistance group, or a "terrorist" group in modern parlance.

Not only did the developed world oversee the theft of Palestinian land in order to create the state of Israel in 1948, but in continuing to refuse to lobby for an independent Palestinian state, they ensure that any Palestinian resistance to Israeli aggression is delegitimised in advance.

So how can Sharon be so confident that the Palestinian dream of state of their own will remain just that - a dream?

Israel controls all entrances and exits to and from the Gaza strip and the West Bank, it is Israel therefore - or more accurately the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus - that decides who and what gets in and out of the occupied Palestinian territories. Without doubt the Israeli army could, with relative ease, accomplish the goal of a cessation of all "terrorist" attacks that Sharon demands of Abbas, yet the hard, cold fact of the matter is that Israel's present position as the dominant force in the Middle East is DEPENDENT on the continued existence of a terrorist threat. This point was made clear by Israeli commentator, Yoram Bar Porath, in the Israeli News outlet, Yediot Aahronot of 14 July 1972:

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."

In attempting to ensure that the "terrorism" so necessary to the state of Israel is never vanquished, Sharon and his predecessors have gone to great lengths to infiltrate and co-opt various Palestinian resistance organizations. Indeed, there is much evidence to support the thesis that, far from being the victim of terrorism, Israel is in fact one of the prime instigators of terrorist attacks in the Palestinian territories, attacks that are conveniently set up to look like the work of Palestinians. For example, consider the following excerpt from a UPI article from June 2002:

Hamas history tied to Israel

By Richard Sale
UPI Terrorism Correspondent
Published 6/18/2002

In the wake of a suicide bomb attack Tuesday on a crowded Jerusalem city bus that killed 19 people and wounded at least 70 more, the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, took credit for the blast.

Israeli officials called it the deadliest attack in Jerusalem in six years.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately vowed to fight "Palestinian terror" and summoned his cabinet to decide on a military response to the organization that Sharon had once described as "the deadliest terrorist group that we have ever had to face."

Active in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas wants to liberate all of Palestine and establish a radical Islamic state in place of Israel. It is has gained notoriety with its assassinations, car bombs and other acts of terrorism.

But Sharon left something out.

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official. [...]

Of course, here, we are deep into conspiracy theory territory, yet, when several current and former U.S. intelligence officials openly state that Hamas is basically a tool of Israeli intelligence, are we talking about a conspiracy theory, or simply the much-ignored SOP (standard operating procedure) of most of the world's spy agencies? Readers should also take note of the fact that, over the past few years, it has been Hamas that has repeatedly scuppered Palestinian aspirations for statehood by launching attacks on Israeli targets at the most inopportune moments and thereby giving Sharon the justification to renege on his promises.

Of course, Israel has a willing partner in its phony terror-crime in the American government. Vast sums ($billions) in donations are funneled every year from the pockets of US taxpayers into the coffers of the Israeli treasury for the purpose of "fighting terrorism". Israel, with the implicit support of the US, has been allowed to contravene or ignore dozens of UN resolutions, the Geneva conventions and Humanitarian and International law because it claims it is "fighting terrorism". Indeed, the role of the current US government in facilitating the continued persecution of the Palestinian people can be clearly seen in its promotion of the phony "war on terror" that has greatly benefited Sharon and the equally phony 9/11 attacks that precipitated it.

Israel then, in its present configuration, is an illegal state founded on the unlawful theft of Palestinian land and the blood of the thousands of innocent Palestinian people that refused, and continue to refuse, to bow down to the murderous racism of their Israeli taskmasters. Sharon knows this. He also knows that the day that he allows Palestine to be officially recognised as an independent state, is the day that Israel will no longer have the right to bulldoze Palestinian homes or arbitrarily execute Palestinian school children and claim that they are "fighting terrorism". On that day, Palestinian resistance to a brutal occupying power will be legitimised and the actions of Sharon and the IDF recognised for the war crimes that they are.

For this very reason, all "peace summits" between Sharon and Abbas are nothing more than a sop to the spineless international political community and a publicity stunt to give the appearance that Sharon is genuinely interested in peace. He, like his predecessors have but one plan in mind and it is best summed up by the words of current Chief Advisor to Sharon, Rafi Eitan as quoted by Gad Becker of the Yediot Ahronot and which appeared in the 14 April 1983 edition of the New York Times:

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz (Greater) Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours."

The first talks between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in over four months were high on security. [...]

The Palestinians told the Israelis that they want freedom of movement in and out of Gaza. They want air and sea ports re-opened.

They also want Israel to release their prisoners.

And they want key Palestinian towns handed back to their control.

'Unrealistic conditions'

Israel said that was fine, but first all Palestinian attacks against Israel must stop.

And the devil is in that little word "all".

Many analysts will tell you that Israel is placing unrealistic conditions on the Palestinian leadership.

While Israel's prime minister insists the problem starts and ends with Palestinian terrorism, the Palestinians see it differently.

They say the attacks against Israel are a result of almost 40 years of occupation of Palestinian lands. So "all" may be a pretty tall order.

After the meeting, Israel put a positive spin on the day. The Palestinians were clearly desperately upset.

Israel had again set the conditions for any movement on some crucial issues.

We expected to hear from the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. But he didn't appear at a planned press conference.

Instead the prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, turned up, looking drained, and disappointed.

"None of the issues improved or progressed up to what we had expected," he said.

"Overall what was presented to us was not convincing or satisfying at all."

In contrast, Israel's prime minister - tonight guest of honour at a dinner in Jerusalem - was in a better mood.

"We will co-ordinate our withdrawal from Gaza," Ariel Sharon said. "It's better for both sides. But we won't allow withdrawal under fire. We will not stop the pullout. We will stop the terror."

Progress towards wider peace talks "will not be possible until there is a complete end to terrorist attacks," he added. [...]

Ariel Sharon - who politically is vulnerable - desperately needs to get people back on side.

So he is speaking the language he knows will win him support.

"No" to the Palestinians, unless they stop the attacks. And if the Palestinians don't, Israel will.

Whatever the pressure from his key ally - the US - to work with the Palestinians, Ariel Sharon possibly felt it was better this day to play to his domestic audience.

And the result seems to have been little progress from an important meeting.

Palestinian gunmen challenged the authority of their own leaders in a West Bank refugee camp yesterday, firing weapons and setting off a bomb as Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia delivered an emotional lecture on the need to end internal violence.

“This country needs order, needs quiet,” Qureia shouted, repeating a theme he has been pressing for weeks. But as he spoke yesterday in the Balata camp next to the city of Nablus, gunfire rang out, startling the prime minister and putting his bodyguards on high alert.

After Qureia’s speech, gunmen opened fire again and set off an explosive about 300 yards from his convoy. No one was injured and Qureia was whisked away.

Internal violence is becoming as important an issue for Palestinians as their conflict with Israel, and controlling it is a key political test for Abbas, Qureia and their government – with armed gangs ruling streets and officials becoming targets.

After his violent reception yesterday, Qureia emerged from a cabinet meeting in Nablus and promised again to take action, but he did not spell out plans.

“There are a lot of problems in Nablus, including unemployment,” Qureia said. “We do not want to give anyone excuses. The security of the citizen and the nation is more important than anything else.”

Last week the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights released a report listing violent incidents in Palestinian areas from June 9 to June 14 that killed seven people and injured at least 20 others.

After more than four years of Palestinian-Israeli violence and an ailing economy, Palestinians are growing tired of gun-toting thugs wreaking havoc in their neighbourhoods, and complain the Palestinian Authority is doing little to restore order.

Palestinian officials have said efforts to restore order have been complicated by a security service devastated during the fighting with Israel, when many officers crossed over to the militant groups after Israel targeted police headquarters.

Tuesday marked yet another assassination of a Lebanese politician by a remote-control bomb planted underneath his car seat. A search for this story on Google News gives a total of 634 stories, most of which carried headlines that dealt with the story in a straightforward manner. There were several however, that chose to focus on comments made by Condoleezza Rice that indirectly implicated Syria in the bombing.

We present the following stories as an example of how some western mainstream news outlets, by choosing certain words for their headlines, can taint or bias a story before the reader has a chance to discern for themselves what really happened.

Judging by the means, motive and timing of this latest assassination, the second to last story in the series hits very close to home.

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice linked the assassination Tuesday of an anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon with the continued activities of longtime overlord Syria, but said she cannot be certain who is behind the killing.

"I do not know who was responsible for this and I don't want to say that I know who was responsible, because I don't,'' Rice said. "But there is a context and an atmosphere of instability. Syria's activities are a part of that context and that atmosphere and they need to knock it off.''

Former Lebanese Communist Party leader George Hawi was killed instantly when his car blew up in Beirut. It was the second killing of an anti-Syrian figure this month, and closely followed elections won by an anti-Syrian slate.

Rice said there is "uncertainty about Syrian activities in Lebanon,'' despite Syrian claims that it pulled the last of its troops and intelligence forces out of the country in April.

The Bush administration has cast public doubt on the Syrian claims, but Rice made the allegation specific. "Their visible forces are gone but they clearly are still acting ... in Lebanon,'' she said.

Syria held political and military sway in tiny neighboring Lebanon for some three decades. In addition to the armed troops on Beirut streets, Syrian intelligence forces were often a shadowy but pervasive force in Lebanese daily life.

Rice answered a question about the killing by alluding to claims from U.S. officials this month that Syria may be running down a hit list of opposition figures.

"You know that we have been concerned about the potential for further assassinations of political figures in Lebanon - anti-Syrian political figures,'' Rice told reporters after completing a four-day diplomatic tour of the Middle East. [...]

BRUSSELS -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Syria of contributing to the "atmosphere" that led to the assassination of an anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon yesterday, telling Damascus to "knock it off."

Although she said she did not know who killed George Hawi, a former leader of the Lebanese Communist Party whose car was ripped by a bomb in Beirut, Miss Rice had no qualms about pointing the finger at Damascus. [...]

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, blamed Syria yesterday for contributing to an "atmosphere" of instability in Lebanon following the assassination of another anti-Syrian Lebanese figure - the second this month.

"I do not know who was responsible for this," she said of the murder yesterday of George Hawi, the former head of the Lebanese Communist party. "But there is a context and an atmosphere of instability, Syria's activities are a part of that context and that atmosphere and they need to knock it off."

Mr Hawi was killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The assassination came two days after the end of Lebanon's month-long general elections, during which the anti-Syrian coalition won a majority of parliamentary seats.

The killing of Mr Hawi appeared to confirm fears raised recently by Washington and Lebanese anti-Syrian figures of the existence of a hit-list of politicians and journalists, probably targeted because of their anti-Syrian stance. "Those who killed him are the same as those who killed Rafiq Hariri and Samir Kassir. It's the security regime that is in power," said Rafi Madoyan, Mr Hawi's stepson, referring to Lebanon's former prime minister, assassinated in February, and the anti-Syrian columnist, killed on June 2.

Comment: Although it appears that Mr. Hawi's stepson is alluding to Syrian intelligence forces, if he replaced the words "Israeli Mossad" for "security regime", he would be right on target.

Mr Madoyan's comments were echoed by many in the opposition who blamed Syria and its allies in Lebanon for the violence. Damascus has denied involvement.

"This terrorist crime aims to disrupt the success achieved in holding parliamentary elections and is a futile attempt to create division among the Lebanese and prevent the restoration of the country's well-being," said Lebanon's minister of interior, Hassan al Sabeh, Lebanon's minister of interior, who has been in his post since April and is close to the opposition. [...]

Another ring of assassinations by an "unknown perpetrator" has been added to the chain of those that began with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafuq Hariri on February 14.

Following the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon in April, the "Damascus opponents" lost yet another support immediately following last week's general elections in the country. Former Communist Party leader George Hawi was the latest victim of an assassination plot that took place on Tuesday in the capital Beirut. Reportedly, the attack was plotted using a remote control bomb placed under the passenger seat of his car, in the attack Hawi's driver was seriously injured. A 68 year old Christian, Hawi busied the agenda with his anti-Syrian remarks.

The Damascus administration harshly condemned the attack, describing Hawi as a "respected pro-dialogue statesman". Syria announced, Syria is deeply saddened by the attacks that Lebanese politicians are subjected to and that security in neighboring Lebanon is under threat. Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Miqati expressed they were appalled by the attack and acknowledged that whenever a step forward is taken in the country, attempts for instability are undertaken. Tuesday's assassination became the second just three weeks later after another anti-Syrian supporter, journalist Semir Kesir was killed in another bomb attack. In February, Hariri was assassinated and Western countries in particular the US, turned their eyes towards Syria as the perpetrator. In the aftermath of Hariri's assassination, protests brought the end of the 29 year of Syrian military presence in Lebanon also as a result of increasing international pressure. Attention has also been drawn to the fact that the continuation of these sorts of attacks brings increasing animosity towards Damascus to the fore.

Syrian opponents in Lebanon hold the Damascus administration responsible for yesterday's assassination. The reports spreading around suggest that those listed as enemies of Syria are preparing themselves. The US administration had previously warned Damascus regarding the black list. Hawi's stepson, politician Rafi Madoian also pointed at the pro-Syrian security services as the perpetrators. "There are others in the hit list," said his stepson. Lebanese opposition leader Walid Jumblatt implied pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and security services are the parties responsible for the assassinations.

Syria has strongly deplored the assassination of the former secretary general of the Lebanese communist party George Hawi by bowing up of his car in Beirut on Tuesday, considering that "this falls in the course of repeated damages behind which the enemies of Lebanon stand."

The Syrian minister of information Mahdi Dakhlallah expressed his regret over the assassinations of Lebanese figures, acts which undermine Lebanon's stability and security, he said.

The Syrian minister also commended Hawi's resistance of the Israeli aggression and his struggle for the sake of Lebanon's unity and "its national reconciliation and the fraternal and historical relations linking it to Syria."

He also stressed Syria's continued care to maintain social peace and security in Lebanon and organizing the Lebanese internal affairs without foreign intervention.

The Lebanese President Emil Lahoud questioned the objective of dispatching bloody messages, just few hours on the end if the Lebanese elections which "brought back confidence to Lebanon and its people."

In the first reactions to the assassination of the former secretary general of the Lebanese communist party, George Hawi, the party's secretary general Khalil Hadadeh who arrived at the site of the explosion accused "intelligence instruments and Israel of such a series of aggressions."

However, Elias Atallah, an opposition politician held elements supporting Syria the responsibility of the incident, noting that Hawi was opposing the Syrian presence in Lebanon and the return back of its intelligence to the area.

The Lebanese prime minister Najib Miqati said that the assassination is aimed at the security of the Lebanese state and "we see one who wants to undermine our security and sends message of such kind (assassination). But I am sure that all Lebanese are attached to their unity and homeland. On this ground I made certain contacts with the security departments to carry out the investigations and I am all hope this will lead to ensure security to the citizens."

BEIRUT, - The killing of George Hawi, a former secretary-general of the Communist Party who started anti-Israeli operations in the 1980s and who then became an opponent of Syria, heightened opposition fears of an organized assassination plot against Lebanese politicians.

Hawi's killing came as the U.N. investigation committee conducted its first interrogation of a Lebanese security official in connection with the Feb. 14 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

It also provoked accusations from the Lebanese opposition about remnants of pro-Syrian Lebanese intelligence services and more calls for the resignation of President Emile Lahoud, whom it accuses of protecting those services.

Hawi, a 67-year-old Christian, was killed Tuesday when a bomb planted in his car detonated shortly after he boarded it near his house in Wata al-Musaitbeh neighborhood in Beirut. His driver suffered minor injuries.

This was the second such assassination this month.

Samir Kassir, a columnist for An Nahar newspaper known for his harsh criticism of Lebanese security services and Syria's military presence in Lebanon, was killed in a similar blast June 2.

Both men were killed the same way: a bomb planted in their cars and detonated by remote control.

"It is the same style and who carried (the assassinations) is one," said Rafi Madayan, Hawi's daughter-in-law. "The one who killed George Hawi and Samir Kassir is the one who killed Rafik Hariri and tried to kill (former minister) Marwan Hamade (last October). He is also the one who killed (Druze leader) Kamal Jumblat (in 1978.)"

Since Hariri's killing, opposition figures have blamed the assassinations on Lebanese and Syrian intelligence services, which were active when Syria was in control of Lebanon. Syrian troops and intelligence services completed their withdrawal from Lebanon April 26 in line with U.N. resolutions. [...]

ISRAEL has resumed an assassination policy against Islamic Jihad militants, a sign of how far a truce with the Palestinians has deteriorated.

An Israeli aircraft fired missiles at four Islamic Jihad men in the Gaza village of Beit Lahiya today as they launched rockets into Israel.

No one was hurt. The army said the strike targeted the launchers, not people.

A government official had earlier said Israel could stage air strikes in Gaza, even at the risk of Palestinian civilian casualties, to ensure its Gaza pullout did not come under fire.

Israel shelved "targeted killings" of militants in February as part of a new truce deal.

But resurgent violence has raised the spectre of disruption to Israel's planned August withdrawal from Gaza and dimmed hopes for "road map" peace talks afterwards.

Word that the assassination policy had been dusted off came with Israeli confirmation of a failed missile strike yesterday.

"An opportunity presented itself. Any means to neutralise the organisation are relevant and possible," Public Security Minister Gideon Ezra said.

Islamic Jihad has resumed mortar bomb and rocket salvoes against Jewish settlements in Gaza in what it calls retaliation for continued Israeli raids to capture wanted militants.

"The attempt yesterday to kill an Islamic Jihad leader in Gaza signalled the resumption of the targeted killing policy," an Israeli security source said.

Khaled al-Batsh, a senior Islamic Jihad leader, warned of "terrible consequences" if Israel carried out assassinations.

"The calm would thereby end. We will not be dictated to by Israel," he said.

Later, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel could stage air strikes in Gaza if militants tried to attack departing settlers to try to show they were chasing them out of occupied territory.

Withdrawing from Gaza under fire would be political poison for Sharon, strengthening rightist foes who have said the pullout would be perceived by the Palestinians and Arab world as a sign of weakness after four years of bloodshed.

"Israel will act in a very resolute manner to prevent terror attacks ... while the disengagement is being implemented," said Eival Giladi, head of the government team coordinating the plan.

"If pinpoint response proves insufficient, we may have to use weaponry that causes major collateral damage."

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Israel could respond to any Palestinian attacks from Gaza even after the pullout.

"If needed, Israel will return to Gaza after the disengagement for a few days in order to stop the terrorism," the Haaretz newspaper quoted Mr Shalom as telling foreign diplomats.

HAMZA HENDAWIBAGHDAD (AP) - Four car bombs exploded at dusk Wednesday, killing at least 23 people, including sidewalk diners and passengers at a bus station. The co-ordinated attacks served as a chilling reminder of how potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock American and Iraqi troop patrols.

In all, at least 32 people were killed across Iraq, including a prominent Sunni law professor assassinated by gunmen. Jassim al-Issawi was a former judge who put his name forward at one point to join the committee drafting Iraq's constitution. The assassination appeared aimed at intimidating Sunni Arabs willing to join Iraq's efforts to create a stable political system.

The U.S. military said three U.S. soldiers were killed a day earlier during combat operations west of Baghdad near the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi.

The first three car bombs - clearly co-ordinated - went off almost simultaneously only blocks apart in the predominantly Shiite neighbourhood of Shula where al-Issawi was killed only hours earlier.

Two bombs exploded in front of a pair of restaurants, killing at least 11 and wounding 28. "The body parts of the dead were scattered everywhere, along with fragments of broken glass from nearby shops and the meat from the meals," said police Maj. Musa Abdul Karim, who was at the scene. "Blood was everywhere."

The third car bomb exploded when a suicide bomber rammed a nearby bus station, killing at least eight and wounding 20, police said.

About 15 minutes later, a suicide car bomber struck an Iraqi army patrol in a nearby suburb, killing at least four bystanders, police said. The dead included a woman and a child. No Iraqi soldiers were among the wounded.

A fifth car bomb targeting a U.S. military convoy missed, killing instead three Iraqis and wounded seven in the northern city of Mosul, officials said.

Four Iraqis also were killed in two roadside bombs and a group of children drove their bicycles over a bomb planted beneath the ground in Baqouba, northeast of the capital. A nine-year-old boy was killed and two others, ages 6 and 7, were wounded.

Al-Issawi's killing, potentially the most politically significant act of violence since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari came to office nearly two months ago, marked the first direct attempt to scare moderates away from political participation.

It sent a powerful message to the Sunni Arab community to either boycott involvement in the fledgling government or risk death. [...]

GENEVA - U.N. human rights investigators on Thursday accused the United States of stalling on their request to visit foreign terror suspects at U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay.

They said they had had no reply to their year-old request to probe "serious allegations of torture," arbitrary detention and violations of the right to health and due process at Guantanamo.

"We deeply regret that the government of the United States has still not invited us to visit those persons arrested, detained or tried on grounds of alleged terrorism or other violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Guantanamo Bay naval base," the four rights investigators said in a statement.

"The lack of a definitive answer despite repeated requests suggests that the United States is not willing to cooperate with the United Nations human rights machinery on this issue," they added.

Their request to visit followed the scandal sparked by photographs taken in the U.S.-run prison of Abu Ghraib in Iraq, showing inmates, some in hoods, being sexually humiliated by soldiers and intimidated with dogs.

The investigators have global U.N. mandates to probe allegations of torture and arbitrary detention as well as ensuring that rights to health and judicial independence are upheld.

Activists have expressed alarm that many people arrested since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the United States have been held for more than three years without charges being laid, often incommunicado, in a legal blackhole facilitating mistreatment.

The Pentagon says it is holding 520 men in Guantanamo, mainly detained in Afghanistan. Only four have been charged.

Someone is lying. You decide who.

Option A: Military officials who are on the ground in Iraq.
From Wednesday's NY Times:

American casualties from bomb attacks in Iraq have reached new heights in the last two months as insurgents have begun to deploy devices that leave armored vehicles increasingly vulnerable, according to military records.

Last month there were about 700 attacks against American forces using so-called improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the American military command in Iraq and a senior Pentagon military official. Attacks on Iraqis also reached unprecedented levels, Lt. Gen. John Vines, a senior American ground commander in Iraq, told reporters on Tuesday.

Option B: Scott McClellan, Bush and Cheney.
From today's White House briefing thanks to E&P:

Q Scott, can we get a clear "yes" or "no" answer on whether the President agrees on the Vice President's assessment that the insurgency is in "its last throes?" Is it a "yes" or "no"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I already answered this question the last couple of days.

Q Is it "yes" or is it "no"?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I've talked about it the last couple of days. If you look -- if you look at the terrorists and the regime elements that are seeking to derail the transition to democracy, they are in a desperate mode, and here's why. Let me walk you through this.

First of all, I think, to begin with, you ought to go back and look back at the full context of the Vice President's remarks, where he talked about the progress we're making to go after and capture al Qaeda elements that are inside Iraq -- like Zarqawi lieutenants. Just last week, we captured one of his top lieutenants, a very dangerous man who is responsible for the killing of a lot of innocent civilians inside Iraq....

So I think you have to look at the facts on the ground. And the facts on the ground show that the Iraqi people are making important progress on the political front to build a free and democratic future. The vision of the terrorists is one of chaos and destruction. They really have no vision. Their only alternative is chaos and destruction and the killing of innocent civilians.

And that's what I talked about yesterday. They, every step of the way, have not been able to stop the progress that the Iraqi people are making on the political front. And they are being defeated and they will be defeated.

Q So that's a "yes"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I said that. I said that the other day.

Fascism is not a four-letter word, but it might as well be. As defined in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, fascism is totalitarianism marked by forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry and commerce, and bellicose nationalism. The means of production might be privately owned, but are in effect controlled by government edict.

Fascism reflects the constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs and other paraphernalia, and flags are seen everywhere including flag symbols on clothing. Fascism uses fear and the need for security as its motivating force to persuade individuals that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." Fascism rallies individuals into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived threat whether it is racial, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, conservatives, liberals, communists, socialists or any other group.

Fascism controls the privately-owned media through government regulation. Fascism uses the most common religion in a nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to a fascist government's policies and/or actions. Fascism does not tolerate different points of view and therefore it is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested and free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

It is likely the Patriot Act will be renewed this year.

It allows the government to monitor religious and political institutions - even without suspecting criminal activity - to assist in terror investigations.

It allows prosecution of librarians or other keepers of records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information in a terrorism investigation.

It allows monitoring of federal prison conversations between attorneys and clients and denies attorneys to individuals accused of crimes.

It allows search and seizure of an individual's papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigations.

And it allows individuals to be jailed indefinitely without a trial and without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

It behooves all individuals to know and understand what fascism is and to be able to recognize it when it raises its ugly head or it begins to be raised.

Government officials always state that their actions are in the best interest of the individual. However, it was government officials who stated that the Social Security number would never be used for identification. Today, no one can accomplish much without using that number.

Government officials also told individuals in 1913 that the income tax would only affect the wealthy. Today, the income tax impacts all income levels.

Fascism must be recognized for what it is - government control of all human activity - and it must be recognized when it begins to exist or else the light of individual liberty could be snuffed out.

Members of the House debated – as they have six times before – whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution’s free-speech protections.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Centre,” said Representative Randy Cunningham, a California Republican.

But Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said: “If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms the flag represents.” [...]

"When I use a word, "Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

~ Lewis Carroll
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Democratic Senator Richard Durbin committed one of the cardinal sins of modern political discourse: he used the Hitler metaphor beyond the boundaries licensed by the gatekeepers of "politically correct" rhetoric. Referring to an e-mail from an FBI agent describing his visit to the Guantanamo Bay prison, Durbin declared that had he not identified what Americans had been doing to prisoners, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or . . . Pol Pot or others."

To politicians accustomed to playing bipartisan pat-a-cake games with their "esteemed gentlemen" colleagues, or media voices who regard the results of an opinion poll as a meaningful debate, Durbin's remarks were shocking. Newt Gingrich – who established his credentials as an abuser of metaphors when he spoke of coercively imposed GOP policies as a "contract with America" – called upon the Senate to censure Durbin for his remarks, which he said demeaned the "dignity" and "honor" of America. Mr. Gingrich apparently does not regard the lies, deceit, and forgeries that have thus far produced the deaths of over 100,000 persons in Iraq, as a stain upon American "dignity" and "honor."

Gingrich's reaction – typical of many defenders of the political order – reflects the Shakespearian sentiment that "the lady doth protest too much." It's not that this crowd resents those who take liberties with the Hitler analogy: you will recall that George Bush I compared Saddam Hussein to der Führer as a justification for his Gulf War. I suspect that members of the establishment get angry over such comparisons not because they are wrong, but because they know they are too close to the truth. The ominous parallels between current political thinking and many of Hitler's policies were developed in an earlier article of mine.

While it is quite easy for critics to overuse comparisons to Hitler, one must understand how and why this occurs. Following World War II, Nazi Germany and Hitler became the standard by which "tyranny" was to be defined. Other regimes were just as vicious and murderous as Hitler's (e.g., Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot), but their wrongs received little attention from the establishment mind-setters. If you doubt this, go to any library or bookstore and count the number of books written about (a) the Nazi Holocaust, and (b) Stalinist despotism. How many movies have been made about the evils perpetrated by Hitler, and how many about Stalin? So continuous has been the effort to single out Nazism that television's The History Channel is often referred to as The Hitler Channel, for its frequent showing of films and programs concerning this period.

My point is not to minimize the heinous nature of the Nazi regime. Quite the contrary! Hitler was a butcherous tyrant whose "jack-booted Gestapo" agents, concentration camps, "storm-troopers," and "SS" functionaries, help to define what we think of as a police-state. But Hitler was not the inventor of vicious, totalitarian rule, nor did he monopolize such practices during his lifetime. If the numbers of victims impress you, Stalin was a far deadlier thug.

But Adolf Hitler and Nazism were concepts to be segregated within the human consciousness; quarantined behind locked doors of the mind as a sui generis aberration fostered by peculiar circumstances. In an age in which the powerfully ambitious pursued their own brands of political hegemony, Nazism was not to be thought of as a symptom of a disease intrinsic to all species of statism. Hitler and his movement were to be wrapped in a cocoon – or, a more apt metaphor, buried in concrete as was done with vampire-like monsters in horror films – to keep them from ever again threatening the common folk. Holocaust museums were constructed, helping to reinforce the idea that Nazism was a brutal relic of the past, from which modern humanity learned a lesson that will never be repeated.

Whatever may have been the motivations of those who helped to create Hitler as an historic singularity, they have unwittingly marginalized the human costs of tyrannical systems. We are asked to condemn – as we should – the concentration camp deaths of millions of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals; but only scant reference is ever made of the millions of Ukrainians intentionally starved to death by Stalin. Hitler's wrong was that he systematically murdered people, not just Jewish people! Would his crimes have been more acceptable had he slaughtered without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference? Are we so detached from the suffering generated by political systems that we insist upon such distinctions?

Such "politically correct" definitions of wrongs to other people have been responsible for the creation of that legalistic monstrosity: the "hate crime." We are now expected to more strongly condemn violence against members of certain selected groups than others, provided one was motivated to inflict such injury. It is but another manifestation of the Orwellian proposition that while all persons are equal, some are more equal than others. This kind of twisted thinking also helps to sanitize war: as long as you don't "hate" the people you are slaughtering, their deaths can be dismissed as "collateral damage," with no moral repercussions!

Having enshrined Hitler as the epitome of modern tyranny, should we be surprised to find polemic speech employing such a standard? Would one reasonably expect a critic of George W. Bush to condemn his policies as "akin to Charles de Gaulle"? While, as I stated earlier, I find some very disturbing comparisons between the mindset of people in 1930s Germany and modern America, I do not find the comparison of George Bush to Hitler all that convincing. I find Bush's counterpart more in Benito Mussolini: the strutting mountebank, hands on hips, with the sneering smile that accompanies the arrogance of power. Bush is too transparent, more like Charlie Chaplin's co