Banner Advertise

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Re: [chottala.com] Kill the white Elephants at our High Commission Offices in the World

Dear members,
 
 
Indeed, we need to drive our embassies more like the corporate culture where are engaged in while not overlooking the public cause.
 
1. I believe the idea of taking servants from Bangladesh should be dropped immediately. Perhaps a small pool of embassy staff may be assigned additional benefits to do some leg work for the senior officials of the embassy.
 
2. I believe embassies should really stop having the military attaches (may be one or two at the most important countries may be kept for ceremonial purpose). Let us start saving money and allocate these funds for child nutrition, matenity support, children's education and children's and elderly citizen's health care.
 
3. Let us bring out in the open what is allocated to each embassy and what is their performance at each level. We need transparency at all the ministries, including the foreign ministry. I do not want our ambassadors to live a life that is much removed from the people. If I were the foreign minister that would have been an essential personal manifesto to build upon as a component of our country first strategy.
 
I have had my share of pain overseas while in college and I want the lives of our citizens to improve and there is no better time than now to take positive strides.
 
 
Take care.

 
On 1/25/09, NailaChowdhury <NailaChowdhury> wrote:

Dear Mr.Shamim,
While reading your GOOD ideas about cost reduction wings in various Bangladesh Missions overseas don't you think that the dumb idea of a defense attache in all the foreign missions are not required.(I salute your service to our country )but do not think that Bangladesh needs a branch called Army,because whom these guys are going to fight with? India?The Army is in Bangladesh as a major source of employment for some young people who once every few year kicks out the corrupt but democratically elected governament and grabs the power to build their future.While the previous group is enjoying their loots and the future group is in their planing state.It also spoils the purpose of grooming a smart(education related) student who joins the army visioning the super chair in the future instead joining other fields as a career where they realy have to work hard.


Mchowdhury.

--- On Fri, 1/23/09, sheikh hasnain <majshamim2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: sheikh hasnain <majshamim2004@yahoo.com>
Subject: [chottala.com] Kill the white Elephants at our High Commission Offices in the World
To: chottala@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 23, 2009, 1:44 PM

Dear All
            From my practical experiences be informed that, at present the number of the employees in the the various Bangladesh embassies in the world is beyond any count. PM has taken a small number of  cabinet members in her team.Definitely, it is a very encouraging step for the country. Other  sectors should learn from her " expenditure- reduction" strategy. If I show  a high commission office without naming, it has total 50+ staff in a developed country, where price of everything  is 100 times  higher  than that of Bangladesh. Bangladesh govt pays their monthly salaries, house rents, telephone bills (including house one), car, fuel, 2/3 times travel expenses in a year to come to Bangladesh with family ( all expenses at the rate of the country where the embassy is operating). It is also astonishing to note that,many of  them are also allowed to bring a servant and driver with them. The govt also pays their drivers and servants' monthly salaries as well. It is more surprising that all employees enjoy two benefits, their normal salaries in Bangladesh also go to their accounts in Bangladesh. All poor people's money. I feel beneath dignity to remind you all about  the level of  exploitation of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A cost-benefit analysis will make the thing more clear. How much business or mutual diplomatic relationship they are maintaining! Billion of dollars are  going out of our country to only maintain the embassy offices in foreign countries.  I tell you a little care on this point, shall help to construct Padma Bridge very quickly.My suggestion is, pl keep only 2 staff (including defense personnel)in any  embassy office till Padma Bridge is constructed. Yes, our foreign ministry shall try to justify their position, how two persons can do the big  jobs? Those who are capable to maintain  an office with two persons, they should be posted.It may include any ministry/services.
Think and suggest AL govt. I strongly believe they shall do good as they have wholehearted
dedication for the country.
Cheers 
Maj Shamim (Retd)
UK





--
Ziaur Rahman
CEO
International Institute of Technology & Management
www.linkedin.com/in/ziaur
perceptions-ideas.blogspot.com
bdconnect.ning.com


56/2 Lake Circus, West Panthopoth
Dhaka 1205
Tel: 06662605681, 01726153318, 01711-543431
www.iitmbd.org

&

Chief Executive Officer
IITM Software
www.iitmsoftware.com
info@iitmsoftware.com __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] If hasina really want to Punish ,is not it Moeen and other?

 
 
 Our changed(?)  but yet vindictive prime minister hasina  is punishing some opportunists( stupid people call them reformists) , in a nutsell, the RATS for taking stand against her in the last two years by not making them minister and giving seat in the middle , not in the front in the parliament.
 
 But question is , are they real culprit?  or were they prompted by the Generals?
 
 Should not the generals be pubished if Hasna realy want to punish fro opportunism and  minus two formula.
 Should n't Moinul  be captured for killing labours during breaking  of rangs bhaban by giving its' breaking contract to  ship breakers?

অতীতে বাংলাদেশের স্বার্থ বিসর্জন দিয়ে হলেও আলীগ ভারতের সাথে যেসব চুক্তি করেছে তার কোনটাই দাদারা বাস্তবায়ন করেনি । ভারতের সাথে আলীগের চুক্তি মানেই বাংলাদেশের স্বার্থ বিসর্জন নয় কি ?সর্বশক্তি দিয়ে প্রতিরোধ করা কি নাগরিক দায়িত্ব নয় ?

__._,_.___

[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Nearly 3,000 U.S. troops destined for Iraq deploy to Afghanistan

NATO: 3,000 US troops deploy near Afghan capital

US Marines ready to deploy up to 20,000 troops to Afghanistan AFP/File – A US Marine soldier sits alert in a tank before going to combat at camp Dwyer in Afghanistan in May 2008. …

KABUL, Afghanistan – Thousands of U.S. troops originally destined for Iraq have deployed south of Afghanistan's capital in the first illustration of a new military focus on the increasingly difficult fight in the South Asian nation, NATO said Tuesday.

Nearly 3,000 American soldiers with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, New York, moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak to the south of Kabul, the military alliance said. They will serve as part of the 55,000-strong NATO force in the country.

The latest deployment indicates the shifting focus in military operations from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the U.S. and its allies are trying to turn the tide of Taliban gains and prop up the government of embattled President Hamid Karzai.

President Barack Obama is expected to double the size of American troops in Afghanistan this year, as the country becomes one of his foreign policy priorities.

There are some 70,000 foreign soldiers, including 33,000 U.S. troops, in Afghanistan, the highest number since the Taliban were ousted from power in the 2001 U.S. invasion. The majority of the American troops, including the new brigade, fight under NATO command, which is headed by a U.S. four star general. The rest are part of 13,000-strong U.S. coalition.

Last year was the deadliest for foreign troops since the invasion, with 286 killed, up from 222 the previous year. NATO said two of its troops were killed Tuesday in the south.

The new brigade was originally slated to deploy to Iraq but was officially rerouted to Afghanistan in September, NATO said in a statement. It is not included in Obama's plan to send up to 30,000 more troops to the country.

Both provinces where the troops are deploying have become areas of near-daily insurgent activity and little government presence beyond provincial capitals and main roads, creating a sense of encirclement around the capital.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari said Tuesday security in Afghanistan is deteriorating with insurgents now controlling nearly three-quarters of the country's territory.

"It's getting worse and worse ... With the presence of the foreigners, you see the situation is getting more complicated," Safari said in Athens, while speaking at a political research institute.

The focus of the brigade for the next year will be to help improve security in Wardak and Logar and help bring stronger government and better infrastructure to the local population, NATO said.

"Our first steps are to get forces out into these more populated areas and begin to interact with the people," Col. David B. Haight, the unit commander, said in the statement.

"Knowing the human terrain is as important as knowing the mountainous terrain surrounding our forward operating bases." Haight said.

Underscoring daily violence that afflicts the country, NATO said two of its troops were killed in southern Afghanistan, which is the center of the Taliban-led insurgency.

The military alliance did not provide the troops' nationalities or any other details on the circumstances surrounding their deaths.

In the same region, five Taliban fighters were killed in an overnight gunbattle with Afghan and international forces, said provincial police chief Assadullah Sherzad. There were no casualties among Afghan and foreign troops.

Southern Afghanistan is the center of the Taliban-led insurgency, which has spread over the last three years in many areas of the country. As part of their resurgence, militants have increasingly relied on roadside bombs in their campaign against Afghan and foreign forces.

A roadside bomb struck a police patrol and wounded two officers on Tuesday in southern Kandahar province. The bomb went off in the center of Kandahar city, the provincial capital, said provincial Police Chief Matiullah Khan Qateh.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan's Interior Ministry said three civilians were killed late Monday in eastern Nangarhar province when their minivan was hit by a remote-controlled bomb blast.

___

Associated Press writer Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report from Kandahar, Afghanistan.

NATO: 3000 US troops deploy near Afghan capital
The Associated Press - 12 hours ago
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Thousands of US troops originally destined for Iraq have deployed south of Afghanistan's capital in the first illustration of a ...
AP Top News at 11:35 am EST
TMCnet - 8 hours ago
NATO: 3000 US troops deploy near Afghan capitalKABUL, Afghanistan (AP) _ Thousands of US troops originally destined for Iraq have deployed south of ...

__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] FW: [reform-bd] India - a new East India Company??

Dear All,

Our situation with India is somewhat like Mexico and Canada to USA, with a striking difference that USA is continuously helping by all means to uplift the situations of the neighbors such that someday USA can enjoy a status of good neighborhood as well as can save time and efforts diverting from them on the own business. Aiming at these goals, USA crafted NAFTA and similar other treaties with the neighbors. Providing huge number of employments for the citizens of those countries. A lot of US citizens are not happy about it because the resources are being drained to the neighbors as opposed to be wholly on them. But US goal is great clean and long term. Mr. Enyetullah is extremely disheartened and displeased and I see the real reasons why he is so. I have quite sympathy for him. He has also become quite alarming, indicating that Bangladesh always works for India and someday India will swallow Bangladesh like octopus. By my opinion, Mr. Enayetullah is quite wrong in saying that Bangladesh always works for India. In the past, Bangladesh has denied a number of attempts of India. Please see about Mexico and Canada, what they do. Compared to them, Bangladesh did not do any bits for India, regardless of what party ruled Bangladesh.

Big fishes always try to eat the small fishes provided the small fishes are considered as the diets of the big fishes. Not all big fishes are very kind enough to spare the small fishes, and not have theior diets. However, there are kind big fishes too like USA to the neighbors but certainly not India to her neighbors. It completely depends on the character of the big fish, and also the advantages and disadvantages from both sides.

India is the nearest neighbor of Bangladesh, covered on three sides. Enemosity with India is not at all worth it. Also, we can not take the country elsewhere to get rid of the grabbing scope of India. So, how can we protect our country? United we stay, divided we fall. Courtesy costs nothing but buys everything. Look before you leap. Get other stronger friends behind you. Remain democratic. Increase mutual trade and commerce as maximum as possible. Stop strifing and incursions. Build maximum friendship but not at the cost of self, society or country. Give them the posture that we are friends not foe. Participate in mutual exchanges. However, do not allow transit type of endavors. These are few things we can do.

Most of all we have to become stronger, resourceful, and determined. When India will see a neighbor like this, she will think twice to deal with us the way she does with Bhutan or Sikim.

So, let's try to build us leaving behind just criticisms and apathy.

Thanks,
KR


To: khabor@yahoogroups.com; alochona@yahoogroups.com; bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; amra-bangladesi@yahoogroups.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; dhakamails@yahoogroups.com; notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; reform-bd@yahoogroups.com; ShoCheTon@yahoogroups.com; sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com; WideMinds@yahoogroups.com; 4_emancipation@yahoogroups.com
From: enayet_2000@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:05:32 -0800
Subject: [reform-bd] India - a new East India Company??

Well, History will repeat itself!
 
1601, Remember East Inida Compnay  and that sly, low Lord Clive? Mr Clive first visited India as a part of East India Company to start trade with wealth-rich India, most demandingly for cotton. Before defeating Nawab Sirajouddola, shrewed CLive traded with India for a while, until the opportunity came to colonize India for 200 years.
 
India, a large neighbor has the similar aspiration, it may not show the true color today, but, like sly Clive, it will show its color when needed. Those who think India helped us secure independance during liberation, and its time to pay debt like all BAKSAL lovers, they are fool!.
 
Surely, India helped to separate eastwhile two Pakistans to benefit its own agenda. A weaker Pakistan and Bangladesh is always work for India's advantage. Even for Sri Lanka, India actively helping LTTE for last 20 years, sympathasizing with Tamils, most causing pain & weakening its neighbor and destroying Sri Lanka's economy.
 
India has a global aspiration to be a super power, probbaly within next 20 years. Bangladesh, a small neighbor, will be just  a pawn. I guess we don't have much choice!
 
Maybe, in future, like octopus, India will swallow all its little little friends. It would not be so bad, afterall, we are all same people, aren't we?
 
Good luck Madam Seikh Hasina, this is your chance to finish the rest of your dream! We have been dreaming for last 37 years, whay wait?
 

--- On Tue, 1/27/09, Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com, "alochona" <alochona@yahoogroups.com>, "bangla-vision" <bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com>, "Amra Bangladesi" <amra-bangladesi@yahoogroups.com>, "chottala" <chottala@yahoogroups.com>, "dhakamails" <dhakamails@yahoogroups.com>, "notun_bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com>, reform-bd@yahoogroups.com, "ShoCheTon" <ShoCheTon@yahoogroups.com>, "sonarbangladesh" <sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com>, "wideminds" <WideMinds@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 12:18 AM

something must be wrong with those, who considers allowing "corridor" to india is the best choice for bangladesh to develop.
 
below message says, "TRANSIT will create huge jobs and healthy infrastucture, includes building of Deep Sea port which is much reqd for BD to combat against JANGIBAD(Presumably part of Digital Bangladesh campaign) and apparently looks like many unemployment young lads having trends towards Terrorism work"
--------"corridor" and "deep sea port" can fight terrorism? "what an idea sir ji" .
--------terrorists are being produced in bangladesh? sounds like "voice of india".
--------an unemployed person receives salary by turning into a terrorist? if i am not wrong, some indian policemen were involved in malegaon and other attacks, thus one interpretation can be, in india people are employed to become terrorist.
 
it also says, "Muslim dominated countries do have very less study-based think tanks and few which remains are being cornered"
--------QUIZ: which group this writer belongs to?
option A. very less study-based think tank
option B. few which remains are being cornered

--- On Mon, 1/26/09, Chowdhury Ranjan <captchowdhury@ yahoo.ca> wrote:
From: Chowdhury Ranjan <captchowdhury@ yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 8:42 AM

TRANSIT will create huge jobs and healthy infrastucture, includes building of Deep Sea port which is much reqd for BD to combat against JANGIBAD(Presumably part of Digital Bangladesh campaign) and apparently looks like many unemployment young lads having trends towards Terrorism work (Ex Embassador Mr Walliur Rahman is going to publish a sensitive document within June'09 as quoted).
Pakistan is an unique example...Threat to sovereignty is EYEWASH and ANTI INDIAN PROPAGANDA...we are simply fool..No resource with Huge Population in a country where we need to improve our economy..Transit and geographically well located sea port are the key indication of development of country which we are lagged behind for 35 yrs.(Worth to quote here Muslim dominated countries do have very less study-based think tanks and few which remains are being cornered )Antwerp(Belgium) , Rotterdam(Holland) , Singapore are the example where they have shown remarkable growth on their economy thru Sea/Land based transit  
 
Marine Consultant


--- On Sun, 1/25/09, Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo. com> wrote:
From: Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups. com, "bangla-vision" <bangla-vision@ yahoogroups. com>, "Amra Bangladesi" <amra-bangladesi@ yahoogroups. com>, "chottala" <chottala@yahoogroup s.com>, "dhakamails" <dhakamails@yahoogro ups.com>, "notun_bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@ yahoogroups. com>, reform-bd@yahoogrou ps.com, "ShoCheTon" <ShoCheTon@yahoogrou ps.com>, "sonarbangladesh" <sonarbangladesh@ yahoogroups. com>, "vinnomot" <vinnomot@yahoogroup s.com>
Received: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 4:23 AM

are we missing something? india is asking for a "transit" which is a "corridor" actually. "transit" is mentioned to deceive the people of bangladesh. one day india may agree to allow bangladesh "transit" to nepal and/or bhutan in exchange of "corridor" to north east indian states. this imbalance exchange will not benefit bangladesh as much as it will benefit india. eventually, INDIA WILL HAVE ITS GATES ON BOTH SIDES OF BANGLADESH, this is an extreme threat to bangladesh's sovereignty. i would like to know if there is any such "corridor" allowed to any country.

--- On Sun, 1/25/09, M.B.I. Munshi <MBIMunshi@gmail. com> wrote:
From: M.B.I. Munshi <MBIMunshi@gmail. com>
Subject: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 8:47 AM

The Bangladesh Today - 25th January 2009

Every government of Bangladesh - elected or not - feels its incumbent
upon itself to bring up the issue of transit to India but in the end
nothing really gets done except talks which inflame the passions of
the people of this country, moving them to resist any moves by any
government to offer infrastructural facilities to India such as
transit and the use of ports. This has been going on for the last 2
decades but in the last couple of years it has assumed urgent
proportions for India because of their need to get to their states
bordering Bangladesh to the north and east, it being much more time
consuming and costly to travel all the way round than through
Bangladesh. Consider, for example, the fact that right after the
Emergency was declared on 11 January 2007, the Indian Government
invited the Chief of Army Staff to India and gave him a "royal
treatment" in order to elicit some form of commitment regarding the
transit issue - it is of note that the Indians did not invite the
President or the Chief Advisor but the man holding the gun and the
power who got all the attention. Similarly, even before the 29
December election, the Indian Ambassador in Bangladesh was busy
shuttling between the BNP and AL, hedging his bets. When the AL won
the election, the Ambassador came on strongly setting up a visit by
the Indian Foreign Minister whose main agenda undoubtedly would be the
transit, the port and the off-shore exploration of gas in the Bay of
Bengal.

Much has been talked about the issue of transit and there is nothing
new to add as far as the perceptions and view points of the people of
Bangladesh are concerned. On 14 July 2008, The Bangladesh Today
carried a commentary on the issue; it would be worthwhile to reproduce
the major aspects of it here.

The Indian High Commissioner in Bangladesh, HE Pinak Ranjan
Chakravarty, spoke to the press on 10 July 2008, after his meeting
with our Foreign Advisor. Mr. Chakravarty had this to say: "We are
raising the issue at every forum but it is yet to come into effect.
Bangladesh considers the issue as political but it is not that; we
don't see it as political. Both the countries should consider the
issue of transit facility for the development of the overall economy
and trade". Well, from this statement its pretty clear what India
wants and why but perhaps India and its High Commissioner (HC) are yet
to understand what Bangladesh wants and why. So let's get down to the
crux of the business.

Starting with the economic aspects on which the Indian HC seems to be
so insistent, we would like to mention that both Bangladesh and India
have access to each other through various land, river and sea routes
and therefore trade and commerce between the two countries can go on
and increase to any extent that the two countries want. As a matter of
fact India has a huge trade surplus over Bangladesh, which means that
India is exporting far more than importing from Bangladesh. Therefore
it is difficult to see how a "transit" through Bangladesh is going to
further improve the economic aspects, when trade is already heavily
weighted in favor of India.

India has to bear tremendous costs to get to its south-eastern states
all the way round; a transit through Bangladesh would make that access
easier both economically as also militarily because these
south-eastern states are all plagued by insurgencies of one type or
another. No, Mr. Chakravarty it is not Bangladesh which is going to
benefit from the transit - except for the paltry sums to be realized
for the passage through - it is India which is going to benefit,
leaving Bangladesh with a permanent security hazard much like the 25
years Indo-Bangla treaty signed just after the independence of Bangladesh.

While we are on economic issues, what about equitable distribution of
river waters which India is denying us, turning huge tracts of our
agricultural lands into deserts during the dry seasons; what about
damming of rivers upstream and releasing those waters during monsoons
turning the whole of Bangladesh into an ocean; what about trying to
grab some of our Exclusive Economic Zones in the Bay of Bengal; what
about denying our people access to many of our "enclaves" in India and
finally what about flooding our Country with Indian phensidyl, drugs
and intoxicants of all sorts.

Coming to the far more important political and security aspects which
the Indian HC is so keen to downplay, we would like to mention that a
"treaty of transit" is certainly going to include clauses for
guaranteed continued access to the transit routes by India. Should
those guarantees fail at anytime, India would not hesitate to march in
with its military forces to ensure that transit, citing reasons of
"national interest" much like they did in Sikkim, Maldives and Sri
Lanka. So, Mr. Chakravarty, every Bangladesh Government understands
these things and that's why India never got the transit and it never will.

If India wants transit through Bangladesh, we want transit through
India to Nepal and China - this makes more economic sense to us. So by
all means let's have transits, both through Bangladesh and India with
equal guarantees and conditions of access through these routes. Better
still, let's have the historical "Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Assam" in
one powerful Nation-State of Bangladesh so that India doesn't have to
bother about transit to those areas.











check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox. More than messages __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] India - a new East India Company??

Well, History will repeat itself!
 
1601, Remember East Inida Compnay  and that sly, low Lord Clive? Mr Clive first visited India as a part of East India Company to start trade with wealth-rich India, most demandingly for cotton. Before defeating Nawab Sirajouddola, shrewed CLive traded with India for a while, until the opportunity came to colonize India for 200 years.
 
India, a large neighbor has the similar aspiration, it may not show the true color today, but, like sly Clive, it will show its color when needed. Those who think India helped us secure independance during liberation, and its time to pay debt like all BAKSAL lovers, they are fool!.
 
Surely, India helped to separate eastwhile two Pakistans to benefit its own agenda. A weaker Pakistan and Bangladesh is always work for India's advantage. Even for Sri Lanka, India actively helping LTTE for last 20 years, sympathasizing with Tamils, most causing pain & weakening its neighbor and destroying Sri Lanka's economy.
 
India has a global aspiration to be a super power, probbaly within next 20 years. Bangladesh, a small neighbor, will be just  a pawn. I guess we don't have much choice!
 
Maybe, in future, like octopus, India will swallow all its little little friends. It would not be so bad, afterall, we are all same people, aren't we?
 
Good luck Madam Seikh Hasina, this is your chance to finish the rest of your dream! We have been dreaming for last 37 years, whay wait?
 

--- On Tue, 1/27/09, Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com, "alochona" <alochona@yahoogroups.com>, "bangla-vision" <bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com>, "Amra Bangladesi" <amra-bangladesi@yahoogroups.com>, "chottala" <chottala@yahoogroups.com>, "dhakamails" <dhakamails@yahoogroups.com>, "notun_bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com>, reform-bd@yahoogroups.com, "ShoCheTon" <ShoCheTon@yahoogroups.com>, "sonarbangladesh" <sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com>, "wideminds" <WideMinds@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 12:18 AM

something must be wrong with those, who considers allowing "corridor" to india is the best choice for bangladesh to develop.
 
below message says, "TRANSIT will create huge jobs and healthy infrastucture, includes building of Deep Sea port which is much reqd for BD to combat against JANGIBAD(Presumably part of Digital Bangladesh campaign) and apparently looks like many unemployment young lads having trends towards Terrorism work"
--------"corridor" and "deep sea port" can fight terrorism? "what an idea sir ji" .
--------terrorists are being produced in bangladesh? sounds like "voice of india".
--------an unemployed person receives salary by turning into a terrorist? if i am not wrong, some indian policemen were involved in malegaon and other attacks, thus one interpretation can be, in india people are employed to become terrorist.
 
it also says, "Muslim dominated countries do have very less study-based think tanks and few which remains are being cornered"
--------QUIZ: which group this writer belongs to?
option A. very less study-based think tank
option B. few which remains are being cornered

--- On Mon, 1/26/09, Chowdhury Ranjan <captchowdhury@ yahoo.ca> wrote:
From: Chowdhury Ranjan <captchowdhury@ yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 8:42 AM

TRANSIT will create huge jobs and healthy infrastucture, includes building of Deep Sea port which is much reqd for BD to combat against JANGIBAD(Presumably part of Digital Bangladesh campaign) and apparently looks like many unemployment young lads having trends towards Terrorism work (Ex Embassador Mr Walliur Rahman is going to publish a sensitive document within June'09 as quoted).
Pakistan is an unique example...Threat to sovereignty is EYEWASH and ANTI INDIAN PROPAGANDA...we are simply fool..No resource with Huge Population in a country where we need to improve our economy..Transit and geographically well located sea port are the key indication of development of country which we are lagged behind for 35 yrs.(Worth to quote here Muslim dominated countries do have very less study-based think tanks and few which remains are being cornered )Antwerp(Belgium) , Rotterdam(Holland) , Singapore are the example where they have shown remarkable growth on their economy thru Sea/Land based transit  
 
Marine Consultant


--- On Sun, 1/25/09, Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo. com> wrote:
From: Md. Shamim Iqbal <shmm777@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups. com, "bangla-vision" <bangla-vision@ yahoogroups. com>, "Amra Bangladesi" <amra-bangladesi@ yahoogroups. com>, "chottala" <chottala@yahoogroup s.com>, "dhakamails" <dhakamails@yahoogro ups.com>, "notun_bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@ yahoogroups. com>, reform-bd@yahoogrou ps.com, "ShoCheTon" <ShoCheTon@yahoogrou ps.com>, "sonarbangladesh" <sonarbangladesh@ yahoogroups. com>, "vinnomot" <vinnomot@yahoogroup s.com>
Received: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 4:23 AM

are we missing something? india is asking for a "transit" which is a "corridor" actually. "transit" is mentioned to deceive the people of bangladesh. one day india may agree to allow bangladesh "transit" to nepal and/or bhutan in exchange of "corridor" to north east indian states. this imbalance exchange will not benefit bangladesh as much as it will benefit india. eventually, INDIA WILL HAVE ITS GATES ON BOTH SIDES OF BANGLADESH, this is an extreme threat to bangladesh's sovereignty. i would like to know if there is any such "corridor" allowed to any country.

--- On Sun, 1/25/09, M.B.I. Munshi <MBIMunshi@gmail. com> wrote:
From: M.B.I. Munshi <MBIMunshi@gmail. com>
Subject: [khabor.com] Transit issue revisited
To: khabor@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 8:47 AM

The Bangladesh Today - 25th January 2009

Every government of Bangladesh - elected or not - feels its incumbent
upon itself to bring up the issue of transit to India but in the end
nothing really gets done except talks which inflame the passions of
the people of this country, moving them to resist any moves by any
government to offer infrastructural facilities to India such as
transit and the use of ports. This has been going on for the last 2
decades but in the last couple of years it has assumed urgent
proportions for India because of their need to get to their states
bordering Bangladesh to the north and east, it being much more time
consuming and costly to travel all the way round than through
Bangladesh. Consider, for example, the fact that right after the
Emergency was declared on 11 January 2007, the Indian Government
invited the Chief of Army Staff to India and gave him a "royal
treatment" in order to elicit some form of commitment regarding the
transit issue - it is of note that the Indians did not invite the
President or the Chief Advisor but the man holding the gun and the
power who got all the attention. Similarly, even before the 29
December election, the Indian Ambassador in Bangladesh was busy
shuttling between the BNP and AL, hedging his bets. When the AL won
the election, the Ambassador came on strongly setting up a visit by
the Indian Foreign Minister whose main agenda undoubtedly would be the
transit, the port and the off-shore exploration of gas in the Bay of
Bengal.

Much has been talked about the issue of transit and there is nothing
new to add as far as the perceptions and view points of the people of
Bangladesh are concerned. On 14 July 2008, The Bangladesh Today
carried a commentary on the issue; it would be worthwhile to reproduce
the major aspects of it here.

The Indian High Commissioner in Bangladesh, HE Pinak Ranjan
Chakravarty, spoke to the press on 10 July 2008, after his meeting
with our Foreign Advisor. Mr. Chakravarty had this to say: "We are
raising the issue at every forum but it is yet to come into effect.
Bangladesh considers the issue as political but it is not that; we
don't see it as political. Both the countries should consider the
issue of transit facility for the development of the overall economy
and trade". Well, from this statement its pretty clear what India
wants and why but perhaps India and its High Commissioner (HC) are yet
to understand what Bangladesh wants and why. So let's get down to the
crux of the business.

Starting with the economic aspects on which the Indian HC seems to be
so insistent, we would like to mention that both Bangladesh and India
have access to each other through various land, river and sea routes
and therefore trade and commerce between the two countries can go on
and increase to any extent that the two countries want. As a matter of
fact India has a huge trade surplus over Bangladesh, which means that
India is exporting far more than importing from Bangladesh. Therefore
it is difficult to see how a "transit" through Bangladesh is going to
further improve the economic aspects, when trade is already heavily
weighted in favor of India.

India has to bear tremendous costs to get to its south-eastern states
all the way round; a transit through Bangladesh would make that access
easier both economically as also militarily because these
south-eastern states are all plagued by insurgencies of one type or
another. No, Mr. Chakravarty it is not Bangladesh which is going to
benefit from the transit - except for the paltry sums to be realized
for the passage through - it is India which is going to benefit,
leaving Bangladesh with a permanent security hazard much like the 25
years Indo-Bangla treaty signed just after the independence of Bangladesh.

While we are on economic issues, what about equitable distribution of
river waters which India is denying us, turning huge tracts of our
agricultural lands into deserts during the dry seasons; what about
damming of rivers upstream and releasing those waters during monsoons
turning the whole of Bangladesh into an ocean; what about trying to
grab some of our Exclusive Economic Zones in the Bay of Bengal; what
about denying our people access to many of our "enclaves" in India and
finally what about flooding our Country with Indian phensidyl, drugs
and intoxicants of all sorts.

Coming to the far more important political and security aspects which
the Indian HC is so keen to downplay, we would like to mention that a
"treaty of transit" is certainly going to include clauses for
guaranteed continued access to the transit routes by India. Should
those guarantees fail at anytime, India would not hesitate to march in
with its military forces to ensure that transit, citing reasons of
"national interest" much like they did in Sikkim, Maldives and Sri
Lanka. So, Mr. Chakravarty, every Bangladesh Government understands
these things and that's why India never got the transit and it never will.

If India wants transit through Bangladesh, we want transit through
India to Nepal and China - this makes more economic sense to us. So by
all means let's have transits, both through Bangladesh and India with
equal guarantees and conditions of access through these routes. Better
still, let's have the historical "Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Assam" in
one powerful Nation-State of Bangladesh so that India doesn't have to
bother about transit to those areas.




Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail


__._,_.___

[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Obama on Israel-Palestine By Noam Chomsky

 
Obama on Israel-Palestine
 
 
 
[Please read the abridged Bangla Translation of this article in Prothom Alo
]

 

Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously - both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.
 
Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president - a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.
 
On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters - avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.
 
Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts.  Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."
 
Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.
 
The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel - in the context - repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.
 
The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called "Bantustans" for Palestinians - an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).
 
Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement.   His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."
 
Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers.
 
Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed - a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: "as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else's border - Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as `fictional'." Egypt's objections were ignored.
 
Returning to Obama's reference to the "constructive" Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas's term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha'aretz describes Fayyad as "a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West.  However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank." The report also notes Fayyad's "close relationship with the Israeli establishment," notably his friendship with Sharon's extremist adviser Dov Weiglass.  Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.
 
Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.
 
Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements." Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet's central proposal, the "road map." Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time - and in the mainstream, the only time.
 
It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a "genuine party to peace." But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.
 
It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.
 
Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.
 
 Obama began his remarks by saying: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."
 
There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.
 
Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.
 
The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.
 
A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out "the wrong way." There are many other highly relevant cases.
 
The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world - including the Arab states and Hamas - in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.
 
In short, Obama's forceful reiteration of Israel's right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit - though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.
 
The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell's primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell's mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.
 
Obama also praised Jordan for its "constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel" - which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment's scrutiny.   It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants "were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally," according to the Jerusalem Post.  Our kind of democracy.
 
Obama made one further substantive comment: "As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime..." He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.
 
Also missing is any reaction to Israel's announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be "lasting" are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, "Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn't let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit" (AP, Jan 22); 'Israel to keep Gaza crossings closed...An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006 (Financial Times, Jan. 23); "Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit's release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23); "an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit" (FT, Jan. 23); among many others.
 
Shalit's capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas's criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel's prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel's regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.
 
Obama's State Department talk about the Middle East continued with "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan... the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. "Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council" (LA Times, Jan. 24).
 
Afghan president Karzai's first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai's call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their "responsibilities." Among them, the New York Times reported, is to "provide security" in southern Afghanistan, where "the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining." All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.

Comments

Re: Re: Cut off the money
By Wazani, Aladin

The damage the Bush/Cheney neo-conservative war mongering American administration inflicted onto the cause of liberals in the third world cannot be overstated. Here comes Obama and deflates the Obama mania in the Middle East and Muslim world as well as, I would argue, many in the liberal western quarters in his first speech on the Middle East. That will surely be a reality check to the Palestinians. United States is a country of institutions that is biased to the core when it comes to the Palestinian question. Over 1300 Palestinian dead, hundreds of whom are children, thousands injured, lives chattered... are not worth even a fictitious empathy by the first African American president. Obama words and action so far seem to condone the Israeli massacres and support their approach of subjugating the Palestinians in Gaza. A first class lesson in democracy to the Middle East from the United States of America...

Reply to this Comment


Re: Cut off the money
By Shapiro, Tali

Hey Carl,
I agree with what you say, but I think you're missing the point. Israel isn't (and has never been) an entity on its own. As you say, it's financially supported by the US. As such, it is morally supported by the US. I'm an Israeli citizen- I hear the talk in the street. When Israelis (government and citizens) talk about the UN or international law, they do it with arrogance- they learned from the best. In regards to the US, the question on on every ignorant reporter's mind is "will they side with us, this time?". The answer is of course "Yes they will, they always do". Even when international relation blunders occur, such as PM Olmert braggin' to the boys about him being THE reason why "Condolisa" voted the way she did in the UN.

Chomsky said it, and I believe it to be true, the only way a boycott on American funds to Israel will happen, is if there is pressure from the people. So I support you, in your call to cut off the money- let's hope you manage to somehow drown out the barrage of dribble from Fox news and other networks. Good luck.
 

 

Reply to this Comment


Cut off the money - Agreed
By couzin, nimbus

Reply to this Comment


Re: Cut off the money
By Abram, Ido

Reply to this Comment


Cut off the money
By Davidson, Carl

Like all US presidents, Obama now has the blood of innocents on his hands. We know what needs to be done about Iraq and Afghanistan--'Out Now!--and we need to continue insisting on it, not only because it is just, but because doing anything else will end up destroying anything positive he wants to do.

But I admit to the sin of despair on the Middle East. I'm not nearly as certain as Noam Chomsky about the prospects for a two-state solution or Ali's one-state solution either. I can't see a positive role for Mitchell or anyone from the outside in the face of Israeli arrogance. Sane voices in their press are a small minority. I think the most positive thing the US can do it cut off the subsidy to Israel, starting with the military support. That's not likely at the moment, but all that's left for us here at this point is to build the support among organized voters to cut off the money. It's a long, tough road, but the Israelis don't really give a damn about anything else we might do or say, and without some organized clout on this topic, neither does Congress or the White House. They're marching to their own drummers on the road to perdition.

Reply to this Comment


Recent Chomsky ZNet Articles __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___