Jordan's housing sector to join in Gaza reconstruction

A Jordanian delegation of housing contractors and investors will depart for Gaza to see what they can do for Gaza's reconstruction following Israel's massive offensive against the enclave, local daily The Jordan Times reported on Friday.

President of Jordan Construction Contractors Association Dirar Sarayreh was quoted as saying that the visit seeks to assess the scale of destruction caused by the Israeli aggression on Gaza and determine how to help rebuild what the Israelis have destroyed.

"We do not have any clear or ready plans yet. We rely on the assessment following the visit," Sarayreh said.

Meanwhile, the Society of Investors in the Housing Sector has established a fund to participate in reconstruction efforts during the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

"In addition to financial aid, we will contribute construction machinery and materials as well as expertise and engineers," said Zuhair Omari, president of the society.

He added that a housing company has offered to build an orphanage for children who lost their parents during the war, which killed at least 1,400, injured some 5,500 and destroyed around 4,000 houses.

Israel's three-week offensive against Gaza has caused huge damage to the infrastructure and facilities in the enclave.

Obama spy choice sees opportunity on Iran, Muslims

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. intelligence agencies should seek ways to work with Muslim leaders and countries such as Iran on issues of mutual interest, President Barack Obama's choice for spy chief said on Thursday.

Retired Adm. Dennis Blair also urged a break with Bush administration policies on treatment of terrorism suspects in a Senate confirmation hearing on his nomination as director of national intelligence.

"Identifying opportunities as well as threats is an extremely important balance for intelligence agencies to strike," Blair told the Senate Intelligence committee.

"While the United States must hunt down those terrorists who are seeking to do us harm, the intelligence community also needs to support policymakers who are looking for opportunities to engage and work with influential Muslim leaders who believe (in) and are working for a progressive and peaceful future for their religion and their countries," Blair said.

On Iran, Blair said, "While policymakers need to understand anti-American leaders, policies and actions in Iran, the intelligence community can also help policymakers identify and understand other leaders and political forces, so that it is possible to work toward a future in both our interests."

Former President George W. Bush's Republican administration had sought to isolate Iran over its nuclear programs and suspected support for terrorism, but had some limited contacts.

Bush also drew enmity from many Muslims over the war in Iraq, U.S. abuses of terrorism suspects and a perceived bias toward Israel.

Obama, a Democrat, has said the United States should talk to Iran, and he pledged to improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world in his inauguration speech on Tuesday.

West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, the Senate committee's former chairman, said, "We have an opportunity to make a very sharp turn toward new intelligence policies."

REPUBLICAN CONCERNS

Blair is expected to easily be confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but some Republicans expressed strong concerns about Obama's plans to close the Guantanamo prison for terrorism suspects and to ban the CIA's use of harsh questioning techniques.

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said the closing means "mean nasty killers" would be brought to the United States and some could be freed on legal technicalities.

Blair said the administration was studying ways to handle prisoners who can neither be released or returned to their home countries or a third country, but he said closing Guantanamo was essential to restoring a tarnished U.S. image.

Any new policy must be "true to our ideals and to our safety," he said, but added, "I'd be kidding if I told you there was a magic solution."

He supported Obama's ban on harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA, which critics have denounced as torture. "Torture is not moral, legal, or effective," he said.

Addressing issues that have drawn criticism of his nomination, Blair acknowledged that he had erred in serving on the boards of defense contractors when he headed a nonprofit group that advised the Pentagon on weapons issues.

A Pentagon Inspector General found that the service had been a conflict of interest but did not influence his work.

Blair also denied accusations from human rights groups that when he was U.S. military commander for the Pacific, he gave tacit support to the Indonesian military at a time the United States was trying to prevent abuses in East Timor.

"There was no wink wink, nod nods from me ... I carried out government policy," Blair said.

Israeli PM warns Gaza still volatile

JERUSALEM, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday he welcomed the Gaza cease-fire but the future "in a severely uncertain region" was hard to predict.

He said Southern Israel must be kept free of the threat of rocket attacks and he hopes the quiet times will continue but warned that the situation with Hamas was still volatile, the Jerusalem Post reported.

"In this confrontation, at the end of the day," the prime minister said, "we all lose."

Aide: Kirsten Gillibrand picked as next NY senator

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer

ALBANY, N.Y. – Democratic congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is the New York governor's pick to fill Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's vacate Senate seat.

An aide to the governor tells The Associated Press that the 42-year-old Gillibrand will be named by Gov. David Paterson on Friday. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made.

Gillibrand (JIL'-uh-brand) was a dark horse, lacking the name recognition of Caroline Kennedy, who withdrew her candidacy, or even the seniority of other New York representatives vying for the job.

But she is a proven vote-getter in her sprawling eastern New York district. She picked off an entrenched Republican incumbent in 2006 and cruised to re-election last year.

White House 'can't imagine' returning Uighurs to China

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama's administration said Thursday it could not imagine returning Muslim Uighurs held in Guantanamo Bay to China and said no inmate would be sent to a nation where they may face persecution.

"I cannot imagine that we would support transferring the Uighurs back to China," said a senior administration official on condition of anonymity.

"We are not going to transfer detainees to countries that will mistreat them," the official said, hours after Obama signed an executive order requiring the closure of the "war on terror" camp within one year.

A group of 17 Uighurs has been held in limbo at Guantanamo -- despite being cleared for release by the US government -- because officials cannot find a country willing to take them.

The men cannot be returned to China because of fears they would be tortured there as political dissidents.

Earlier Beijing had called for the return of the 17 prisoners that it said were part of a terror group seeking an independent homeland in the northwestern province of Xinjiang.

"These people are members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) terrorist organization on a sanctioned list of the UN Security Council," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters in Beijing.

"They should be handed over to China, which will handle the case by law."

The 17 men have been held at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay for more than six years without charge.

Exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer, 61, said she was "very happy to hear that the White House will not send the Guantanamo Uighurs to China and that the United States' policy on the Guantanamo Uighurs has not changed.

"I express the hope that the White House will further urge China to improve the human rights situation that exists in East Turkestan, where Uighurs suffer under an extremely oppressive regime," she added, appealing for those at Guantanamo to be allowed into the United States.

The Uighurs were living in a self-contained camp in Afghanistan when the US-led coalition bombing campaign began in October 2001. They fled to the mountains, but were turned over to Pakistani authorities, who then handed them over to the United States.

On October 7, US federal judge Ricardo Urbina ordered that they should be freed in the Washington area where Uighur families are willing to take them in.

But the previous administration of former president George W. Bush contested the decision, arguing it would set a bad precedent for others who are held in Guantanamo and pose a security risk. And the original ruling was frozen.

Only Albania has so far agreed to take any Uighur detainees, welcoming a group of five in 2006.

Obama breaks from Bush and orders Gitmo to close

By TOM RAUM and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Breaking forcefully with Bush anti-terror policies, President Barack Obama ordered major changes Thursday that he said would halt the torture of suspects, close down the Guantanamo detention center, ban secret CIA prisons overseas and fight terrorism "in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

"We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms," Obama declared, turning U.S. policy abruptly on just his second full day in office. He also put a fresh emphasis on diplomacy, naming veteran troubleshooters for Middle East hotspots.

The policies and practices that Obama said he was reversing have been widely reviled overseas, by U.S. allies as well as in less-friendly Arab countries. President George W. Bush said the policies were necessary to protect the nation after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks — though he, too, had said he wanted Guantanamo closed at some point.

"A new era of American leadership is at hand," Obama said.

Executive orders signed by the new president would order the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, shut within a year, require the closure of any remaining secret CIA "black site" prisons abroad and bar CIA interrogators of detainees from using harsh techniques already banned for military questioners.

That includes physical abuse such as waterboarding, a technique that creates the sensation of drowning and has been termed torture by critics at home and abroad.

For the signing ceremony, Obama was flanked in the Oval Office by retired senior U.S. military leaders who had pressed for the changes.

Underscoring the new administration's point, the admirals and generals said in a statement: "President Obama's actions today will restore the moral authority and strengthen the national security of the United States."

Not everyone felt that way.

Criticism surfaced immediately from Republicans and others who said Obama's policy changes would jeopardize U.S. ability to get intelligence about terrorist plans or to prevent attacks.

House Minority Leader John Boehner was among a group of GOP lawmakers who quickly introduced legislation seeking to bar federal courts from ordering Guantanamo detainees to be released into the United States.

Boehner, R-Ohio, said it "would be irresponsible to close this terrorist detainee facility" before answering such important questions as where the detainees would be sent.

Obama said he was certain that the nation's security is strengthened — not weakened — when the U.S. adheres to "core standards of conduct."

"We think that it is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world," he said.

"We don't torture," Obama said, but Bush had said the same. The question has always been defining the word.

Later in the day, Obama visited the State Department to welcome newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, emphasizing the importance his administration intends to give diplomacy in his foreign policy. He told Foreign Service officers and other department employees they "are going to be critical to our success."

The president and Clinton jointly announced the appointment of former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who helped broker peace in Northern Ireland, as special envoy to the Middle East. Former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who helped write the peace deal that ended Bosnia's 1992-95 war, was named special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But for all the talk of a new era, it remained unclear how much of a shift Obama plans for the Middle East.

Though he named high-profile envoys to regions where critics say American attention lagged under Bush, the Mideast policy Obama outlined was no different.

He said he would aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians while also defending Israel's "right to defend itself." He called on Israel and Hamas to take steps to ensure the cease-fire that is in place in Gaza will endure. And he called on Arab states to show more support for the beleaguered Palestinian government of President Mahmoud Abbas.

On the surface, those views mirror the Bush administration's.

As for the treatment of terror suspects, Obama's policy overhaul was an implicit though not directly stated criticism of what he, other Democrats, nations around the globe and human rights groups have called Bush's overreach in the battle against terrorism.

In his presidential campaign, Obama had pledged to close Guantanamo, where many suspects have been detained for years without trial or charge.

Bush, too, had said he wanted to shut down Guantanamo. It never happened on his watch, amid the questions that must be answered to do so: Can other countries be persuaded to take some of the 245 men still be held there? Under what authority should remaining detainees be prosecuted? And, most difficult, what happens to the handful of detainees who are considered both too dangerous to be released to other nations and for whom evidence is deemed either too tainted or insufficient for a trial?

Obama has to answer those same questions.

As to that tough, third category of detainees, a senior administration official said "everything's on the table" as a possibility, including the use of military tribunals that were much criticized by Obama. The official would brief reporters only on condition of anonymity, contending that was necessary in order to speak candidly about details.

The administration already has suspended trials for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo for 120 days pending a review of the military tribunals.

A task force must report in 30 days on where the Guantanamo detainees should go, as well as a destination for future terror suspects.

The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. criticized Obama's action.

"The detention facility is a valuable tool in the fight against terrorism because it provides useful intelligence information and it keeps our enemies off the battlefield," said Glen Gardner.

Said Obama's GOP rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain: "Numerous difficult issues remain."

Recent polls show the nation essentially split on the topic. An Associated Press-GfK poll last week found about half wanted the prison shut on a priority basis, and 42 percent did not.

On interrogations, another review panel will have 180 days to study whether interrogation techniques allowed under the U.S. Army Field Manual would be acceptably effective in extracting lifesaving intelligence from hardened terrorists.

But the order opens the door to divergences from the Army manual, as it allows the panel to recommend "additional or different guidance" for use by intelligence agencies. That would not, however, allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be reintroduced, the official said.

Obama left room for the practice of "extraordinary renditions" of detainees to other nations to continue, though the White House said none would be sent to countries where they might be tortured.

The executive orders also throw out every opinion or memo that the Bush administration used to justify its interrogation programs. And the Obama administration said all terrorism suspects will be covered by standards set by the Geneva Conventions, something the Bush administration opposed.

Obama also ordered the Justice Department to review the case of Qatar native Ali al-Marri, who is the only enemy combatant currently being held in the U.S.

Another War, Another Defeat

The Gaza offensive has succeeded in punishing the Palestinians but not in making Israel more secure.

By John J. Mearsheimer

Israelis and their American supporters claim that Israel learned its lessons well from the disastrous 2006 Lebanon war and has devised a winning strategy for the present war against Hamas. Of course, when a ceasefire comes, Israel will declare victory. Don’t believe it. Israel has foolishly started another war it cannot win.

The campaign in Gaza is said to have two objectives: 1) to put an end to the rockets and mortars that Palestinians have been firing into southern Israel since it withdrew from Gaza in August 2005; 2) to restore Israel’s deterrent, which was said to be diminished by the Lebanon fiasco, by Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, and by its inability to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

But these are not the real goals of Operation Cast Lead. The actual purpose is connected to Israel’s long-term vision of how it intends to live with millions of Palestinians in its midst. It is part of a broader strategic goal: the creation of a “Greater Israel.” Specifically, Israel’s leaders remain determined to control all of what used to be known as Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians would have limited autonomy in a handful of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves, one of which is Gaza. Israel would control the borders around them, movement between them, the air above and the water below them.

The key to achieving this is to inflict massive pain on the Palestinians so that they come to accept the fact that they are a defeated people and that Israel will be largely responsible for controlling their future. This strategy, which was first articulated by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in the 1920s and has heavily influenced Israeli policy since 1948, is commonly referred to as the “Iron Wall.”

What has been happening in Gaza is fully consistent with this strategy.

Let’s begin with Israel’s decision to withdraw from Gaza in 2005. The conventional wisdom is that Israel was serious about making peace with the Palestinians and that its leaders hoped the exit from Gaza would be a major step toward creating a viable Palestinian state. According to the New York Times’ Thomas L. Friedman, Israel was giving the Palestinians an opportunity to “build a decent mini-state there—a Dubai on the Mediterranean,” and if they did so, it would “fundamentally reshape the Israeli debate about whether the Palestinians can be handed most of the West Bank.”

This is pure fiction. Even before Hamas came to power, the Israelis intended to create an open-air prison for the Palestinians in Gaza and inflict great pain on them until they complied with Israel’s wishes. Dov Weisglass, Ariel Sharon’s closest adviser at the time, candidly stated that the disengagement from Gaza was aimed at halting the peace process, not encouraging it. He described the disengagement as “formaldehyde that’s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” Moreover, he emphasized that the withdrawal “places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure. It forces them into a corner where they hate to be.”

Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who also advised Sharon, elaborated on what that pressure would look like. “When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”

In January 2006, five months after the Israelis pulled their settlers out of Gaza, Hamas won a decisive victory over Fatah in the Palestinian legislative elections. This meant trouble for Israel’s strategy because Hamas was democratically elected, well organized, not corrupt like Fatah, and unwilling to accept Israel’s existence. Israel responded by ratcheting up economic pressure on the Palestinians, but it did not work. In fact, the situation took another turn for the worse in March 2007, when Fatah and Hamas came together to form a national unity government. Hamas’s stature and political power were growing, and Israel’s divide-and-conquer strategy was unraveling.

To make matters worse, the national unity government began pushing for a long-term ceasefire. The Palestinians would end all missile attacks on Israel if the Israelis would stop arresting and assassinating Palestinians and end their economic stranglehold, opening the border crossings into Gaza.

Israel rejected that offer and with American backing set out to foment a civil war between Fatah and Hamas that would wreck the national unity government and put Fatah in charge. The plan backfired when Hamas drove Fatah out of Gaza, leaving Hamas in charge there and the more pliant Fatah in control of the West Bank. Israel then tightened the screws on the blockade around Gaza, causing even greater hardship and suffering among the Palestinians living there.

Hamas responded by continuing to fire rockets and mortars into Israel, while emphasizing that they still sought a long-term ceasefire, perhaps lasting ten years or more. This was not a noble gesture on Hamas’s part: they sought a ceasefire because the balance of power heavily favored Israel. The Israelis had no interest in a ceasefire and merely intensified the economic pressure on Gaza. But in the late spring of 2008, pressure from Israelis living under the rocket attacks led the government to agree to a six-month ceasefire starting on June 19. That agreement, which formally ended on Dec. 19, immediately preceded the present war, which began on Dec. 27.

The official Israeli position blames Hamas for undermining the ceasefire. This view is widely accepted in the United States, but it is not true. Israeli leaders disliked the ceasefire from the start, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the IDF to begin preparing for the present war while the ceasefire was being negotiated in June 2008. Furthermore, Dan Gillerman, Israel’s former ambassador to the UN, reports that Jerusalem began to prepare the propaganda campaign to sell the present war months before the conflict began. For its part, Hamas drastically reduced the number of missile attacks during the first five months of the ceasefire. A total of two rockets were fired into Israel during September and October, none by Hamas.

How did Israel behave during this same period? It continued arresting and assassinating Palestinians on the West Bank, and it continued the deadly blockade that was slowly strangling Gaza. Then on Nov. 4, as Americans voted for a new president, Israel attacked a tunnel inside Gaza and killed six Palestinians. It was the first major violation of the ceasefire, and the Palestinians—who had been “careful to maintain the ceasefire,” according to Israel’s Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center—responded by resuming rocket attacks. The calm that had prevailed since June vanished as Israel ratcheted up the blockade and its attacks into Gaza and the Palestinians hurled more rockets at Israel. It is worth noting that not a single Israeli was killed by Palestinian missiles between Nov. 4 and the launching of the war on Dec. 27.

As the violence increased, Hamas made clear that it had no interest in extending the ceasefire beyond Dec. 19, which is hardly surprising, since it had not worked as intended. In mid-December, however, Hamas informed Israel that it was still willing to negotiate a long-term ceasefire if it included an end to the arrests and assassinations as well as the lifting of the blockade. But the Israelis, having used the ceasefire to prepare for war against Hamas, rejected this overture. The bombing of Gaza commenced eight days after the failed ceasefire formally ended.

If Israel wanted to stop missile attacks from Gaza, it could have done so by arranging a long-term ceasefire with Hamas. And if Israel were genuinely interested in creating a viable Palestinian state, it could have worked with the national unity government to implement a meaningful ceasefire and change Hamas’s thinking about a two-state solution. But Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel.

This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israel’s conduct of the Gaza War. Israel and its supporters claim that the IDF is going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, in some cases taking risks that put Israeli soldiers in jeopardy. Hardly. One reason to doubt these claims is that Israel refuses to allow reporters into the war zone: it does not want the world to see what its soldiers and bombs are doing inside Gaza. At the same time, Israel has launched a massive propaganda campaign to put a positive spin on the horror stories that do emerge.

The best evidence, however, that Israel is deliberately seeking to punish the broader population in Gaza is the death and destruction the IDF has wrought on that small piece of real estate. Israel has killed over 1,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 4,000. Over half of the casualties are civilians, and many are children. The IDF’s opening salvo on Dec. 27 took place as children were leaving school, and one of its primary targets that day was a large group of graduating police cadets, who hardly qualified as terrorists. In what Ehud Barak called “an all-out war against Hamas,” Israel has targeted a university, schools, mosques, homes, apartment buildings, government offices, and even ambulances. A senior Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, explained the logic behind Israel’s expansive target set: “There are many aspects of Hamas, and we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel.” In other words, everyone is a terrorist and everything is a legitimate target.

Israelis tend to be blunt, and they occasionally say what they are really doing. After the IDF killed 40 Palestinian civilians in a UN school on Jan. 6, Ha’aretz reported that “senior officers admit that the IDF has been using enormous firepower.” One officer explained, “For us, being cautious means being aggressive. From the minute we entered, we’ve acted like we’re at war. That creates enormous damage on the ground … I just hope those who have fled the area of Gaza City in which we are operating will describe the shock.”

One might accept that Israel is waging “a cruel, all-out war against 1.5 million Palestinian civilians,” as Ha’aretz put it in an editorial, but argue that it will eventually achieve its war aims and the rest of the world will quickly forget the horrors inflicted on the people of Gaza.

This is wishful thinking. For starters, Israel is unlikely to stop the rocket fire for any appreciable period of time unless it agrees to open Gaza’s borders and stop arresting and killing Palestinians. Israelis talk about cutting off the supply of rockets and mortars into Gaza, but weapons will continue to come in via secret tunnels and ships that sneak through Israel’s naval blockade. It will also be impossible to police all of the goods sent into Gaza through legitimate channels.

Israel could try to conquer all of Gaza and lock the place down. That would probably stop the rocket attacks if Israel deployed a large enough force. But then the IDF would be bogged down in a costly occupation against a deeply hostile population. They would eventually have to leave, and the rocket fire would resume. And if Israel fails to stop the rocket fire and keep it stopped, as seems likely, its deterrent will be diminished, not strengthened.

More importantly, there is little reason to think that the Israelis can beat Hamas into submission and get the Palestinians to live quietly in a handful of Bantustans inside Greater Israel. Israel has been humiliating, torturing, and killing Palestinians in the Occupied Territories since 1967 and has not come close to cowing them. Indeed, Hamas’s reaction to Israel’s brutality seems to lend credence to Nietzsche’s remark that what does not kill you makes you stronger.

But even if the unexpected happens and the Palestinians cave, Israel would still lose because it will become an apartheid state. As Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently said, Israel will “face a South African-style struggle” if the Palestinians do not get a viable state of their own. “As soon as that happens,” he argued, “the state of Israel is finished.” Yet Olmert has done nothing to stop settlement expansion and create a viable Palestinian state, relying instead on the Iron Wall strategy to deal with the Palestinians.

There is also little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. The destruction is just too obvious to miss, and too many people—especially in the Arab and Islamic world—care about the Palestinians’ fate. Moreover, discourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims. What is happening in Gaza will accelerate that changing picture of the conflict and long be seen as a dark stain on Israel’s reputation.

The bottom line is that no matter what happens on the battlefield, Israel cannot win its war in Gaza. In fact, it is pursuing a strategy—with lots of help from its so-called friends in the Diaspora—that is placing its long-term future at risk.