The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (27 January)

Earlier Updates: The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (26 January)
Latest Post: Obama’s First “Reach-Out” to the Muslim World - The Interview with Al-Arabiya
Latest Post: Transcript of Obama Interview with Al-Arabiya
Latest Post: The Linking of Clenched Fists - Israel, Gaza, and Iran

11:50 p.m. When Hamas Isn't Extreme Enough....Make of this what you will. The Israeli Defense Forces say today's bombing that killed an Israeli soldier was carried out by "an extremist pro-Iranian group, which espouses a militant ideology that surpasses even Hamas' positions in its opposition to Israel. The group receives direct support from Tehran, but is connected in various ways to Hamas as well."

The same article states that a group called the "Jihad and Tawhid Brigades" --- "an Islamist group affiliated by Al Qa'eda" --- called Ramattan TV to claim responsibility for the attack.

So we have an attack supposedly carried out on Israel by "extreme Islamsts"-Al Qa'eda-Hamas-Tehran. The perfect terrorist storm or the perfect information campaign?

A quick search turns up reports that "Jiwad and Tawhid Brigades" were formerly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of the Iraq insurgency who was killed by US forces in June 2006.

11:40 p.m. Turkey continues to manoeuvre for a Middle Eastern re-alignment in which Hamas is a recognised political party. Foreign Minister Ali Babacan urged the Gazan leadership through Turkish newspapers, ""Hamas should make a decision. Do they want to be an armed organisation or a political movement?" At the same time, Babacan pointed noted Hamas' support, "The party supported by Hamas got 44 per cent of the votes in the last elections. It is impossible to ignore this base."

11:35 p.m. Alive in Gaza has the latest audio interview with photojournalist Sameh Habeeb, discussing the latest situation, humanitarian relief, and Hamas' alleged control of funds.

11:20 p.m. US envoy George Mitchell, who is in Cairo for the first leg of his Middle East tour, may want to turn around and go home. Really.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thumbed her nose at Hamas and, indeed, verged on green-lighting another Israeli attack on Gaza. In her first news conference as Secretary, Clinton said:

We support Israel's right to self-defense. The (Palestinian) rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas (in Israel) cannot go unanswered....It is regrettable that the Hamas leadership apparently believes that it is in their interest to provoke the right of self-defense instead of building a better future for the people of Gaza.

I cannot find an explanation for this that fits any sensible strategy of diplomacy, apart from the possibility that Clinton is clinging to the idea of working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, isolating and undermining Hamas. If that is the case, it's a strategy whose time passed three weeks ago amidst the dead in Gaza.

11 p.m. In his first news conference since the Israel attack on Gaza on 27 December, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has pledged to tell US envoy George Mitchell:

Israel does not want peace, otherwise it would not have done this. We need to understand this and tell it to those coming from Europe and America. Israel wants to waste time to strengthen facts on the ground with settlements and the wall.

Abbas set out "red line" demands that would have to be met in any talks, ""We want a state in the 1967 borders, a fair solution to the refugee issue, removal of settlements. There will be no going beyond these points or bargaining." And, for good measure, he tried to put Israel on the moral defensive: "We will do all we can to prove Israel committed crimes that would make your skin crawl. We want the world to give us justice for once."

No doubt Abbas, who is in a good deal of political trouble even amongst his West Bank base, is playing to the Palestinian galleries. To what extent, however, is he serious about taking this position into talks with Mitchell? The answer to that will reveal if Israel's operations in Gaza have effectively ruled out any meaningful negotiations, at least in the near-future.

6 p.m. Gazan photojournalist Sameh Habeeb, speaking to Alive in Gaza, reports "limited [Israeli] ground troop presence" moving into Gaza.

4:15 p.m. Hamas claims two people have been wounded by an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza. Reports indicate all border crossings have been closed following the killing of an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian farmer this morning.

3 p.m. It appears the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority has tried to get political breathing space by delaying Presidential elections until 2010. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas had said that elections would take place in April, but that intention has been undermined by the effect of the Gaza conflict on Fatah's support.

Hamas claims that Abbas' term of office ended on 9 January but Abbas maintains that it runs until the expiry of the Parliamentary term next year.

1:55 p.m. Aid workers are protesting Israel's continued restrictions on their access to Gaza. Charles Clayton, chair of the Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA), which represents 75 agencies, says, "It is unacceptable that staff of international aid agencies with expertise in emergency response are still not given full access into Gaza, and that the crossings are not fully operational for humanitarian and commercial goods."

According to CARE, 89 percent of Gazans have not received humanitarian assistance since the first Israeli attacks on 27 December. About 120 trucks of aid are entering Gaza daily but this is far below the level of 600-800 trucks during last year's cease-fire period.

1:45 p.m. Egypt has proposed 22 February for the start of a dialogue between Palestinian groups, according to several of the factions. Hamas is more cautious, saying "This is among the ideas under discussions and to which we will give some responses in due course."

12:50 p.m. Sporting Reference of the Day. At the press conference announcing envoy George Mitchell's departure for the Middle East, President Obama gave this optimistic assessment, "Compared to steroids, this is going to be a breeze."

Explanation? In 2006 and 2007, Mitchell investigated drug-taking scandals in US professional baseball in 2006/7.

11:35 a.m. The Independent of London reports that the appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee for aid to Gaza, which the BBC refused to air but which was screened by Britain's ITV and Channel 4 last night, raised £600,000 even before the first broadcasts.

11:30 a.m. An Israeli soldier has been killed on the Gaza border by a bomb near the Kissifum crossing. Local medics say a Palestinian farmer was later shot dead by Israeli forces.

Overnight developments (8:30 a.m. Israel/Gaza time): The major symbolic development is President Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya, his first with any television channel, covering the Middle East and Iran. We've posted the transcript and an analysis. On Israel-Palestine, it offers little of substance, but it's a great statement in tone --- "what I told [envoy George Mitchell] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating".

Meanwhile, Israel's own diplomatic move has been to block a French effort to lift the diplomatic and economic blockade of Hamas and Gaza. At the meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, France had sought a closing statement that "the European Union would be prepared to hold talks with a future Palestinian unity government that agreed to honor the principles of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process".  Paris also wanted to open up a broad approach to the issue of Israel-Gaza crossings, striking the reference "in accordance with the 2005 agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority".

According to Ha'aretz, " Israeli officials conducted a frenetic diplomatic battle to torpedo the unwanted changes" over two days, persuading the Czech Republic (which currently holds the EU Presidency), the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy to sideline the French initiative.

A Middle East Economic Fact for Your Kind Consideration

According to India’s Strategic Foresight Group, the conflict between Israel and Arab countries, the Persian Gulf Wars of 1991 and from 2003, tensions between Iran and Israel, activities of al-Qaeda, and fights between Hamas and Fatah since 1991 have cost countries in the region $12 trillion.

According to the report, if peace opportunies had not been missed in 1991, individuals of the region would be 50% wealthier. Gross Domestic Product per capita in Israel would be $44,241 instead of $23,304, and it would be $2,427 instead of $1,220 in Gaza and the West Bank.

Video and Transcript of Barack Obama's Interview with Al-Arabiya Television

Analysis: Obama's First "Reach-Out" to the Muslim World

This is the best-quality video of the interview available, although it is only a portion of the discussion. Part 1 and Part 2 of the full interview, albeit in lower quality and with an annoying advertisement at the start, are available on YouTube.

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yKETOw2_jMY[/youtube]



Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.



And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.

And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q: You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --

Q: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --

Q: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q: I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me – one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because – mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories.

Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.

Q: Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter) If you have anything further, that would be great. How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q: It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: It's only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --

Q: I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q: The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.

Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.

Q: Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now.

We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Q: Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter)

Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q: Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q: Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (25 January)

Later Updates: Obama on Top of the World (26 January)
Earlier Updates: Obama on Top of the World (24 January)
Latest Post: Obama Keeps (Illegal?) Surveillance Powers
Latest Post: Post-Inauguration 2009: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

2:55 p.m. Get Ready for a Bumpy Ride. Vice President Joe Biden is preparing the US public not only for a surge in US troop levels in Afghanistan but a rise in dead and wounded. Asked this morning on Face the Nation if he thought there would be an increase in casualties, he replied, "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."

11 a.m. An inadvertent revelation in attempted boosterism by The Sunday Telegraph of London today. The article headlines that 300 British bomb disposal technicians and intelligence staff are going to southern Afghanistan to combat the Taliban's use of improvised explosive devices. The reports adds that this will raise British troop levels to 8600 but it then undermines all the good work: "The size of the force is likely to increase to around 10,000 in the autumn or early next year with the deployment of an additional 1,000 strong battle group into Helmand."



So the total British boost to complement the expected US surge will be 1300 troops, no more. That's out of the more than 4000 UK forces being withdrawn from Iraq by July.

No wonder there's been sniping in the US press about the lack of British commitment to the Afghan effort. And no wonder that "General David Petraeus, the commander of the US's Central Command, is due to visit the UK in the next few weeks", trying to armtwist Prime Minister Gordon Brown into a further British escalation.

10 a.m. Propaganda of the Day. Uzi Mahnaimi, who writes from Tel Aviv for the Sunday Times, trumpets, "An American naval taskforce in the Gulf of Aden has been ordered to hunt for suspicious Iranian arms ships heading for the Red Sea as Tehran seeks to re-equip Hamas."

That's not news --- we posted this days ago --- but then Mahnaimi is not a reporter in any meaningful sense of the day. Instead, he's a channel for Tel Aviv's "information" line, which in this case is ramping up the campaign against Iran.

Thus Mahnaimi states that a US ship intercepted a "former Russian vessel" and held it for two days --- again, not news, as we noted the incident when it occurred earlier this week --- and adds, "According to unconfirmed reports, weapons were found." Very unconfirmed: the former Russian vessel had artillery, which Hamas does not use, and no further arms were found when it was searched in report.

Of course, this doesn't stop Mahnaimi, who tosses in the Israeli suspicion that two Iranian destroyers, sent to help fight piracy off the Somalian coast, are part of a scheme to run weapons to Gaza. And he has more:

Iran plans to ship Fajr rockets with a 50-mile range to Gaza. This would bring Tel Aviv, its international airport and the Dimona nuclear reactor within reach for the first time.

Of course, Iran may be supplying weapons to Hamas but this story is Israeli-inspired misinformation, of value to Tel Aviv's political schemes but worthless for any analysis of the aftermath of the Gaza conflict. (cross-posted from The Latest From Israel-Palestine-Gaza thread)

4:20 a.m. Thousands have marched in Afghanistan on Sunday to protest US airstrikes and civilian deaths.

3:40 a.m. Here's another reason not to close Guantanamo Bay: Bad Paperwork. Since the Bush Administration never had plans for a legal process for the detainees, there was no reason to keep organised files. The Washington Post reports:

President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

3:15 a.m. It may be the weekend, but the campaign to limit and possibly undermine the Obama plan to close Guantanamo continues. We noted on Friday and on Saturday that some in the US military and intelligence communities are feeding "exclusives" to The New York Times about ex-detainees who are rejoining Al Qa'eda.

Today Times reporter Robert Worth, who might as well collect his paycheck from the Pentagon, writes a follow-up: "Two former Guantánamo Bay detainees now appear to have joined Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, which released a video on Friday showing them both and identifying them by their names and Guantánamo detainee numbers." One of the detainees is Said Ali al-Shihri, the featured bad guy in Worth's Friday article.

2:55 a.m. The Daily Telegraph of London has a good article looking at the US detention facility at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan. The prison currently holds 600 detainees, more than twice as many as Guantanamo, and...

Not only are there no plans to close it, but it is in the process of being expanded to hold 1,100 illegal enemy combatants; prisoners who cannot see lawyers, have no trials and never see any evidence there may be against them.

2:50 a.m. We've posted a separate entry on a little-noticed development, in a court case in San Francisco, which indicates the Obama Administration will maintain the Bush executive orders sanctioning wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping at home as well as abroad.



Overnight update (2 a.m. Washington time): Friday's US missile strikes in Pakistan, which killed 22 people, may escalate into a political test for both the Obama Administration and Pakistan Government of Asif Zardari. In comments and a wordy statement, Zardari and the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said --- at least publicly --- Back Off:

With the advent of the new US administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism. We maintain that these strikes are counterproductive and should be discontinued.

Obama has not commented on the strikes, but US officials have been spinning the line that the attacks show his commitment to former President Bush's policy of unilateral American military action in northwest Pakistan.

Elsewhere, some news outlets are paying attention to yesterday's suicide bombing in Somalia, which killed 15 people and illustrated the growing turmoil in the country.

Obama, the Pentagon, and the "Willy-Nilly" Battle Over Guantanamo Bay

Morning update (2:55 a.m. Washington time): Yesterday we spent some time on the dramatic New York Times story on the "emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee [Said Ali al-Shihri] as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch", noting that it appeared to be part of an effort by some military and Pentagon officials to undermine President Obama's plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Today CNN has returned to an earlier Pentagon report that "18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks". Peter Bergen, who has written extensively on Al Qa'eda, takes on the report:

1. "Of the 18 people the Pentagon says are confirmed to have engaged in terrorism, only a handful of names have been released."



2. Even if all 18 "confirmed" returned to association with illegal organisations, that is a recidivism rate of 4 percent, comparred with 65 percent for offenders released from US prisons.

3. Some Guantanamo detainees were not terrorists or involved with the Taliban but "were singled out by vengeful villagers who told U.S. authorities they were al Qaeda".

The Pentagon's response to a request for details that would verify their report? The classic intelligence response that "we could tell you but then we would have to shoot you". A spokesman snapped, ""We don't make these figures up -- they're not done willy-nilly."