Antony Loewenstein

This is what Iraq has become; a police state relying on taxi drivers:

Taxi drivers the world over are renowned as a bountiful source of gossip, sometimes dubious, sometimes not, gathered in large part via what they overhear from passengers. And in Baghdad, afflicted by a deadly insurgency and deep political instability, there is a special importance to some of the things that taxi drivers overhear.

Now, it appears, the country’s intelligence services have realised how much information can be gathered just by sitting in the driving seat of a cab – with the result, according to Baghdad’s cabbies, that undercover security agents have gone into the minicab trade and are stealing away all their customers

“There’s no doubt it’s the secret police,” said Amer al Husseini, a 29 year-old driver working in the Kadhimiyah neighbourhood. “All of a sudden you’ll see lots of new taxis in Kadhimiyah and none of us know any of the drivers. That’s how you can be sure it’s the security looking for information about some terrorist group.

“They go around, picking up passengers and trying to find out what’s going on. It’s might be good for the secret police but it’s bad for us real taxi drivers because they take all the business.”

Fantastic freelance Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf examines in Haaretz the rise in the concept of a one-state solution amongst the settler Right:

It’s still not a full-fledged political camp and there are still holes in the theory. But although its advocates do not seem to be working together, the plans they put forward are remarkably similar. They all reject totally the various ideas of ethnic separation and recognize that political rights accrue to the Palestinians. They talk about a process that will take between a decade and a generation to complete, at the end of which the Palestinians will enjoy full personal rights, but in a country whose symbols and spirit will remain Jewish. It is at this point that the one-state right wing diverges from the binational left. The right is not talking about a neutral “state of all its citizens” with no identity, nor about “Israstine” with a flag showing a crescent and a Shield of David. As envisaged by the right wing, one state still means a sovereign Jewish state, but in a more complex reality, and inspired by the vision of a democratic Jewish state without an occupation and without apartheid, without fences and separations. In such a state, Jews will be able to live in Hebron and pray at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and a Palestinian from Ramallah will be able to serve as an ambassador and live in Tel Aviv or simply enjoy ice cream on the city’s seashore.

“Expressing one’s anti-European sentiment can be a way of building up and displaying one’s American identity and patriotism,” said Patrick Chamorel in a European University Institute study published in Italy in 2004. “Anti-Europeanism has always been part of American exceptionalism, which defined itself in contrast to European history, politics, and society.”

The recent move in the French parliament to ban the public wearing of the burka was a major story that showed the growing intolerance of Western Europe towards Islam. It wasn’t really about women’s rights as much as subjecting Muslims to boundaries.

Furthermore, much of the American press while reporting the story couldn’t even bother to speak to Muslims themselves and gather their views on the subject.

A worrying story in the New York Times that indicates Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government is cracking down even harder on those not sharing his fundamentalist reading of Islam.

The paper regularly publishes propaganda against Tehran but this report correspondents with other stories in the blogosphere.

Depressingly predictable results from British Jews. Unimaginative, ignorant of history, sold lies by their leadership and unable to see that the two-state solution will never happen. And then what? Deafening silence:

The majority of British Jews favour a “two-state solution” to the situation in Israel, and more than half would support negotiations with Hamas, according to research published today.

The study carried out by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) found Jews in Britain strongly identify with and support Israel, with nine out of 10 having visited the country.

Nearly three quarters (72%) agreed Israel’s action in Gaza in 2008 and 2009 was “a legitimate act of self-defence”.

But more than three-quarters (77%) favour a “two-state solution”, which would see the creation of a Palestinian state, as the “only way” to make peace in the Middle East.

Just over half (52%) said they would support Israeli government negotiations with Hamas.

JPR’s executive director, Jonathan Boyd, said: “Fundamentally, we found that most Jews feel a strong sense of connection to Israel, and for many it forms an important, and even central, part of their Jewish identity.

“Jews in Britain are pro-Israel and pro-peace. Their hawkishness on some issues is typically motivated by a clear concern for Israel’s security, while their dovishness on others reflects a deep-set desire to see the country at peace, both with itself and with its neighbours.”

• Researchers spoke to more than 4,000 people earlier this year for the study, entitled Committed, concerned and conciliatory: The attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel.

Following recent revelations in the Guardian about British complicity in torture post 9/11 – here’s a comprehensive map of what happened to whom – this story is getting closer to the centre of power:

Tony Blair was aware of the ­existence of a secret interrogation policy which ­effectively led to British citizens, and others, being ­tortured during ­counter-terrorism investigations, the Guardian can reveal.

The policy, devised in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, offered ­guidance to MI5 and MI6 officers ­questioning detainees in Afghanistan who they knew were being mistreated by the US military.

British intelligence officers were given written instructions that they could not “be seen to condone” torture and that they must not “engage in any activity yourself that involves inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners”.

But they were also told they were not under any obligation to intervene to prevent detainees from being mistreated.

“Given that they are not within our ­custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this,” the policy said.

Remind me why the corporate media still treats Blair with such respect?

China, Israel and the Jews; a long, tortuous, sometimes mutually beneficial relationship. But if Israel expects to have found a newfound friend in a post-American world, think again:

It is hard to say just how much influence Israel has on China. Israel can’t expect the Chinese to come to its defense, diplomatically or otherwise. There’s even less guarantee that the transferred secrets of its arms industries won’t indirectly end up in Iran via China.

A welcome development to erase the stain of the ongoing “war on terror”. I look forward to hearing those in Australia who backed David Hicks’ incarceration and torture saying sorry for this terrible injustice:

David Hicks has enlisted legal experts in the hope of having his terrorism conviction quashed.

In the three years since his release from the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Hicks has moved from Adelaide to Sydney, found a job and married. However, those close to him say he will be free only when his conviction has been overturned.

That would also pave the way for him to bypass proceeds of crime legislation and tell his story. It is understood a book is already with publishers.

A co-director of the Sydney Centre for International Law, Associate Professor Ben Saul, said he was advising Mr Hicks and there would be an approach to the US President, Barack Obama, some time in the future.

“While I cannot speak for him personally, I think any reasonable person locked up in Guantanamo for six years and subjected to an unfair trial process and facing every likelihood of being convicted on a retrospective charge would have pleaded guilty to get out of there,” he said.

”His alleged conduct was not a crime under the law of armed conflict or under United States law at the time of its commission. You can’t easily make an argument that his plea was voluntary and not coerced – and that renders it unlawful under international law.”

Mr Hicks, 35, was arrested in Afghanistan by Northern Alliance forces in December 2001 after he trained in al-Qaeda-linked camps. Several months later he was transferred to Guantanamo, where he spent five years in isolated detention.

Under a pre-trial agreement in March 2007, he pleaded guilty to a single, newly created, charge of ”providing material support for terrorism”. That conviction paved the way for an emotional return to Australia, where he served a further seven months in Yatala prison in Adelaide before being released in December the same year.

Questions have long been raised about the conditions under which Mr Hicks signed the confession. Associate Professor Saul said Mr Hicks had been monitoring developments in the US since Mr Obama criticised the military commission system, calling it ”an enormous failure”.

“There’s ongoing litigation in the US so that will eventually provide a definitive legal answer about whether US courts see it as retrospective or not,” he said.

”That’s one avenue that David will wait to hear about. If all goes well, it gives him a pretty good argument to go to the US President and ask for a pardon, which would be a way of eliminating it from the record.”

Joshua Dratel, a New York lawyer who has represented accused terrorists in federal court and at Guantanamo Bay, said, ”The military commissions that existed when David pleaded guilty have been recognised as fatally flawed. Indeed, the US Congress and President have already reformed the commissions to address some of the fundamental deficiencies and the prior system is no longer operational or valid. As a result, David’s conviction, obtained under a system that has since been repudiated, should be considered null and void.”

George Williams, a public law expert at the University of NSW, said Mr Hicks might get his wish sooner rather than later.

”I think the most likely next big breakthrough will be that Hicks’s conviction will be found null and void, and ultimately overturned,” he said.

”I know that from the ongoing saga that has been the US military commissions it’s fair to say they [the charges] remain vulnerable. If a challenge succeeds, he would be an innocent man.”

Mr Williams added: ”You can imagine it would have a massive impact on public perception of his case but also on his life in the long term … and let’s face it, the process in which he did plead guilty has always been seen as legally fraught.”

In the US, the feeling is that Mr Hicks could be in for a long wait. A congressional source said there were many other issues relating to Guantanamo that have ”a much higher priority than … revisiting the Hicks case, which has been adjudicated and considered closed”.

Mr Hicks would not speak to The Sun-Herald, but a spokesman said: ”Although David continues to live with the residual effects of torture, he is pleased that legal experts have reconfirmed that the conviction is void. Having the truth of his situation come to light has been an important step in the healing process.”

Any company that dares work for a pro-Palestinian cause is being targeted by the Zionist lobby (nobody is safe):

A U.S. public relations firm said it will not renew its contract with a pro-Palestinian group that helped to organize the flotilla that aimed to breach Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The announcement from Fenton Communications, which specializes in PR for not-for-profit groups, followed The Israel Project’s distribution of a news release publicizing Fenton’s representation of Fakhoora on June 23.

The release noted Fakhoora’s role in helping to organize the flotilla of six aid ships. An Israeli raid on one of the ships on May 31 resulted in the deaths of nine passengers on board.

The release was issued to The Israel Project’s mailing list and Fenton clients.

“The purpose of a public relations firm is to help provide a good name to their clients, and only a PR firm with their own good name and reputation can succeed in business,”  said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder of The Israel Project.

Representatives from Fenton were unavailable for comment. The firm, well known in Democratic and liberal circles in the United States, has represented Jewish groups, including the American Jewish World Service, a relief group.

According to its website, Fakhoora is a campaign to help improve education for children in Gaza. The organization is supported by the second wife of the emir of Qatar, whose office paid Fenton to represent Fakhoora from March 1 to Aug. 31.

Fenton distributed materials on the Fakhoora’s website, such as a “flotilla action alert,” and helped spread the organization’s message through social networking sites such as Facebook. Fenton has offices in New York, Washington and San Francisco.

A secret war reported by virtually no media outlets. I wonder why that is:

In one of the least examined aspects of President Obama’s escalation of the Afghan war, armed private security contractors are being killed in action by the hundreds — at a rate more than four times that of U.S. troops, according to a previously unreported congressional study.

At the same time, the Obama administration has drastically increased the military’s reliance on private security contractors, the vast majority of whom are Afghans who are given the dangerous job of guarding aid and military convoys, the new Congressional Research Service study found.

In a 10-month period between June 2009 and April 2010, 260 private security contractors working for the Defense Department made the ultimate sacrifice, while over the same period, 324 U.S. troops were killed. In analyzing the numbers, the report found a private security contractor “working for DOD in Afghanistan is 4.5 times more likely to be killed than uniformed personnel.”

I’ve spent the last 24 hours traveling across the world (currently in Canada) and read this fascinating 17,000 word essay by Eric Alterman in The Nation. It discusses the importance of a progressive agenda, the difficulty of achieving this in the US with so many vested interests, the disappointment of Barack Obama, lobbying in the health and financial industries and the destructive nature of Fox News and corporate media.

It’s a call to arms, passionate, argumentative, intriguing, provocative and important.

Read it.