LONDON: Britain announced Tuesday it was kicking out an Israeli diplomat over the use of fake British passports in the killing of a Hamas chief in Dubai, in a sharp escalation of tension triggered by the murder.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband said there were “compelling reasons” suggesting that Israel was to blame for the forgeries used by team which killed Mahmud al-Mabhuh in January.

“I've asked that a member of the embassy of Israel be withdrawn from the UK as a result of this affair and this is taking place,” he told lawmakers in a statement.

“There are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports”, which were forged after being taken temporarily from uninvolved Britons as they passed through border points.

The announcement came after Israel's ambassador to London, Ron Prosor, went for talks at the Foreign Office on Monday.

Prosor was briefed on the results of an investigation into the passport cloning which Prime Minister Gordon Brown had ordered in February and was led by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Miliband last month urged Israel to give its “full cooperation” to an international probe into the use of fake passports by the killers of Mahmud al-Mabhuh, a founder of Hamas' armed wing, on January 20.

The Jewish state has said there is no proof of widespread allegations that its spy agency, Mossad, was behind the murder, and media reports suggest Britain will not contest this.

Britain had previously called in the Israeli ambassador to discuss the issue after Dubai police in February released photos and names of European passport holders alleged to have been members of the hit squad.

They say the suspects used the identities of 12 people from Britain, as well as people from Ireland, France, Australia and Germany.

International police agency Interpol has issued arrest notices for 27 suspects wanted by Dubai in connection with the killing.

The British announcement came as a French prosecutor announced an investigation after four fake French passports were used by suspects involved in the killing.

French authorities opened a preliminary investigation on March 12 to look into allegations of falsifiying and making use of fake documents, the Paris prosecutor said.

Relations between Britain and Israel were strained before the Hamas killing passport row, notably after a London court issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni.

Livni reportedly cancelled a trip to Britain in December for fear of being arrested under the warrant, issued over her role in Israel's 22-day war against the Hamas-rule Gaza Strip launched at the end of 2008.

The affair acutely embarrassed the British government and Brown pledged to change the law that allows judges to consider a case for an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes suspects brought by any individual.

The deterioration of diplomatic relations between Britain and Israel comes as historically strong US-Israeli ties are under strain over Tel Aviv's plans to build new settlements.

Israel's announcement on March 9 of 1,600 new homes in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of a future state, triggered a rare condemnation from the United States.

Britain has condemned the Israeli settlement plan, although there is no suggestion that this is related to the current diplomatic spat LINK

ISLAMABAD: Law Minister Babar Awan said on Wednesday that the draft of the 18th amendment bill had been prepared and President Asif Ali Zardari will address a joint session of parliament when the constitutional package is tabled.

The federal minister said that talks of deadlock in the constitutional committee are baseless and the bill, which has been agreed upon by all political parties, would be tabled before the parliament during the current month.

He said that the amendment in the constitution would be made on the basis of two third majority.

The Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms, which had finalised a draft of the 18th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2010 is reported to have suggested some 100 amendments to over 70 articles of the Constitution LNK.

WASHINGTON: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday the United States had started a “new day” with Pakistan in hearing its concerns, but some of Islamabad's requests were set for a cool reception.

Clinton opened a first-of-a-kind “strategic dialogue” with Pakistan, hoping to show the country's widely anti-American public that the United States wants a relationship that goes beyond short-term battles against militants.

In an early-morning ceremony timed for broadcast in Pakistan, Clinton said she wanted to speak directly to its people, acknowledging that the two nations “have had our misunderstandings and disagreements in the past.”

”There are sure to be more disagreements in the future, as there are between any friends or, frankly, any family members,” she said.

“But this is a new day. For the past year, the Obama administration has shown in our words and deeds a different approach and attitude toward Pakistan.”

”The dialogue we seek is not only with the government of Pakistan, but you the people of Pakistan,” she said, vowing that both she and President Barack Obama had a “personal commitment” to building ties with Islamabad.

Pointing to Pakistan's growing action against extremism, Clinton pledged full support, saying “Its struggles are our struggles.”

The US Congress last year approved a giant five-year, 7.5 billion-dollar aid package for Pakistan, hoping to chip away support for extremism by building schools, infrastructure and democratic institutions.

But in a nod to the continued powerful role of Pakistan's military, the United States invited General Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief, to take part in the dialogue, along with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Qureshi expressed gratitude for US assistance and pledged that Pakistan would keep up the fight against extremism. But he made clear that Pakistan wanted benefits in return.

Qureshi said that Pakistan was seeking “non-discriminatory” access to energy resources as well as a “constructive” role by the United States on its dispute with India over Kashmir.

“Pakistan is committed to doing its part to facilitate the world community's effort for peace and stability in Afghanistan,” Qureshi said.

“We hope the world community will be equally responsive to our legitimate concerns and help advance common interests,” he said.

Pakistan has said it wants a civilian nuclear deal with the United States similar to a landmark agreement reached by India in 2008. US officials have publicly sidestepped the issue.

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, said only that “we're ready to listen to anything.” Asked by Pakistan's private news TV if nuclear cooperation could assuage the country's chronic energy shortages, Clinton said there were “more immediate steps that can be taken” including upgrading power plants.

Pakistan is also seeking greater cooperation on water and education and wants unmanned attack drones. The United States has so far only given Pakistan surveillance drones.

The United States has launched more than 90 drone strikes in Pakistan since August 2008, killing more than 830 people, according to local sources.LINK

ISLAMABAD: National hockey team captain Zeeshan Ashraf has offered to retire from international hockey following Pakistans poor performance in the World Cup.

“I am ready to quit and accept responsibility for the team’s dismal show in the World Cup,” Zeeshan was quoted by Indian daily The Hindu.

The 12-team event saw four-time World Cup champions Pakistan finishing last in their pool with just one win in the group stage. They now face the ignominy of playing the 11th-12th position playoff against Canada.“I am ready to retire but it is the Pakistan Hockey Federation which will decide my future,” said the seasoned defender.

Pakistans hockey chiefs will meet in Lahore soon after the World Cup to take a decision on the future of the under-performing senior playersLINK.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, the once renowned Colonel Imam made some very insightful remarks and dire predictions. For those unfamiliar with the name, Colonel Imam was an ISI operative who played a prominent role in recruiting and training resistance fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. His list of students includes prominent ‘mujahideen’ commanders such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Ahmed Shah Masood. The Colonel worked closely with the Americans and Saudis to train, arm, and support the mujahideen throughout the Soviet occupation and beyond.

Following the emergence of the Taliban, he provided crucial tactical advice and training to this new and potent force, helping them sweep across the rugged country in a series of decisive battles. By his own admission, Colonel Imam was very close to Mullah Omar and spent a considerable amount of time with the Afghan Taliban leader following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

All told, the Colonel spent over two decades straddling the dangerous Pak-Afghan border and was deeply ingrained in the tumultuous affairs of Afghanistan and the border areas. He is undoubtedly an expert on the region and some would argue that his insight is invaluable. His views on the current state of affairs in the region are also certainly worth considering.

Colonel Imam’s last visit to Afghanistan ended right before the US invasion and his final advice to Mullah Omar was to engage the invading forces in a prolonged struggle using guerrilla tactics, instead of taking them head on. So far, it seems that the Taliban leader heeded his advice. From the initial US-led invasion to the recent operations in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban seem to have avoided direct large-scale confrontations with coalition forces. And for the most part, they have vacated their strongholds such as Marjah ahead of major operations.

The Taliban have focused on utilising guerrilla tactics such as ambushing convoys, attacking isolated outposts, and deploying IEDs to target western forces. Of course, they have also relied heavily on other tactics such as suicide bombings. Some would argue that the methods used by the Taliban reflect their weakness, since they have been unable to hold any territory against US-led attacks. On the flip side, and according to the view espoused by Colonel Imam, it can be argued that the Taliban have consciously chosen to operate in this manner. Realising that they cannot match western forces in terms of firepower and technology, the insurgents have decided to employ a strategy similar to the one used by mujahideen commanders against the Soviets: bleed the enemy to death with small cuts instead of a single decisive blow.

Consider this. Every time the Taliban successfully attack ISAF forces, they cause damage worth thousands if not millions of dollars, depending on the kind of equipment they destroy and the number of casualties they inflict. In the process, they lose a handful of men (that are easily replaced by a seemingly endless flow of recruits), some assault rifles, and perhaps a few hundred rounds of ammunition.

Similarly, with every successful suicide attack, they cause immense damage in terms of life and property and put a serious dent in the coalition forces’ morale — all this, at the expense of a brainwashed youth and a few kilograms of explosive material.

According to Colonel Imam, the recent arrests of senior Taliban commanders will not weaken the insurgency. He claims that the Afghan Taliban have evolved into a decentralised force, with field commanders leading self-sufficient units that operate independently. He predicts that President Obama’s troop surge will end in failure, since the increased number of American soldiers will only serve to provide the militants with bigger and more diverse targets, such as supply convoys, planes, and vehicles. Furthermore, he also believes that efforts to fracture the Taliban movement by weaning commanders away with bribes will not succeed, since committed militant commanders will not trade their loyalty for cash.

In an interview with the New York Times, Colonel Imam was full of praise for Mullah Omar and the Taliban movement. He described them as a force that brought stability to the war-torn country and all but ended the drug trade. He denied providing support to the insurgents, as some observers have suggested, but stressed the need to negotiate with the Taliban leadership, a view he has reiterated in a number of interviews over the past few years.

It is interesting to note that time and again the Colonel has insisted that Mullah Omar is a reasonable man who would be willing to negotiate and compromise with the Americans, given the right terms and conditions. In an interview with McClatchy in January, he even hinted at the possibility of acting as a liaison between the Americans and the Afghan Taliban leadership. Given his history of close links with both sides, it is entirely conceivable that Colonel Imam might play an important role in any future or ongoing talks with the Afghan insurgents. Of course, any such role would require the approval and active support of the ISI.

With rumours of secret negotiations and potential deals doing the rounds in the international media circuit, some reports already suggest that the US is actively seeking a compromise with the Afghan Taliban. Speculations of Saudi involvement in this process have also been made and it will be interesting to see if anything concrete develops over the next few months, and if so, how Pakistan and the Colonel would fit into the equation.

On his part, Colonel Imam makes no effort to conceal his ideological support for the Afghan Taliban. This support can possibly account for his particular views and predictions. That being said, his in-depth knowledge of the region and vast experience with key players involved in the conflict cannot be overlooked. If his predictions prove to be accurate, the implications for the region will be crucial. In the end, only time will tell if the enigmatic Colonel Imam is an ideologue dwelling in the past (as suggested by his detractors) or a grounded pragmatist with profound foresight.LINK

The Senate passed its healthcare bill in the early morning hours of Christmas Eve. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to make major compromises to secure the votes of fence-sitters like senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. Reid sacrificed the public option to keep Lieberman on board and tightened the bill's abortion restrictions to placate Nelson.
Share this article


RELATED
ALSO BY
The Breakdown: How Would Healthcare Reform Affect the Economy? U.S. ECONOMY
CHRISTOPHER HAYES: How will healthcare reform affect the economy? This week on The Breakdown, Christopher Hayes talks to Ezra Klein to correct the misperceptions.
Don't Blame Bunning SENATE
ROBERT SCHEER: How convenient that seemingly everyone in the liberal blogosphere, and even at many points to the right, got to use Senator Jim Bunning as a scapegoat.
The World According to Stupak HEALTH CARE POLICY
JESSICA ARONS: By Representative Bart Stupak's logic, the government is "subsidizing abortion" by building roads, developing medicine and providing childcare.
» More
Next, representatives from the House and the Senate will merge their respective bills in a conference committee, creating a single piece of legislation that both houses will vote on. If the conference report passes both houses, it will proceed to the president's desk to be signed into law. Conference will start after the winter recess. The whole process could be complete by late January.
Despite the Senate compromises, there's still plenty for progressives to like in the new bill. Kevin Drum lists some of the bill's positive attributes in Mother Jones:
Insurers have to take all comers: They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
Community rating: Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.
Individual mandate, which would require everyone to have health insurance. (Remember how we all argued that this was a progressive feature back when John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were championing it during the primaries?) On the progressive upside, a mandate would bring down costs and share risk more equitably. However, progressives realize that without a public option, it means forcing people to buy the insurance companies' crappy product.
A significant expansion of Medicaid.
Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10 percent of income.
Limits on ER charges to low-income, uninsured emergency patients.
Caps on out-of-pocket expenses
A broad range of cost-containment measures
A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.
The House version of the healthcare bill has a public option. In theory, the public option could be added back in in conference, but even the most optimistic progressives have given up hope on that score. If the public option rose from the ashes, Lieberman could filibuster the conference report, and no one doubts he'd do it. So no matter how tough and savvy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, she won't have much leverage in conference. One way or another, Pelosi can probably pass just about anything that comes out of conference. Reid still has the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head.
That doesn't mean that everything is set in stone, though. J. Lester Feder of The Nation discusses what's left to be worked out in conference. Feder says the big three areas up for discussion are affordability, enforceability and financing. Compared to the House bill, Senate version offers larger insurance subsidies, but also weaker protections against high out-of-pocket costs.
Age bands are another key affordability issue: the House bill allows insurers to charge seniors twice as much for coverage, the Senate up to three times as much. The House bill calls for a national insurance exchange to drive down costs, as opposed to the Senate bill which would create state level exchanges. The smaller the exchange, the less power it has to drive down costs, which means that progressives (and hopefully fiscal conservatives) are lobbying hard for a national exchange.
As for enforceability, Feder urges progressives to watch out for a seemingly minor provision in the Senate bill that effectively guts the ban on gouging those with pre-existing conditions. Unlike the House, the Senate voted to allow insurers to offer "discounts" to customers for "wellness" That might mean that people with conditions from pregnancy to HIV could end up paying more for coverage than their healthier counterparts.
Financing is sure to be a bitterly contested issue in conference. The House wants to pay for reform by taxing the wealthy. The Senate wants to tax so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. Currently, those who receive insurance through their employer don't have to pay taxes on the value of the coverage, as they would if they got an equal amount of money in cash. The Senate bill would tax the value of insurance coverage over a certain threshold.
The problem is that, despite the luxurious-sounding nickname, a lot of so-called Cadillac plans are pretty ordinary insurance policies held by middle-class people. For example, many union workers accepted better health benefits instead of wage increases because they seemed advantageous tax-wise. At Working In These Times, Art Levine reports on labor's attempts to eliminate the insurance tax.
Mark Schmitt of the American Prospect concludes that the bill could be improved slightly in conference by adding the House's employer mandate or improving the financing, "but everything will have to be cleared with the 59th and 60th most liberal senators." His Prospect colleague Paul Waldman is more optimistic about the prospects for improving the bill in conference. Abortion access and the public option are set in stone, but the conference committee still has power to shape the proposed expansion of Medicaid (the House is more generous than the Senate), the timeline for implementation (sooner is better for progressives), coverage for immigrants and other hot-button issues.
I predict that abolishing the filibuster will be the big progressive cause for 2010. Obama's liberal base has seen so many of its fondest hopes dashed by a Senate where sixty votes is the new fifty. If the Democrats are going to keep the "kill the bill" crowd in the fold, they'll have to channel that rage and frustration in a constructive direction. Senator Tom Harkin is proposing a symbolic bill to end the filibuster. It won't pass, of course: if Reid can't defeat one filibuster without gutting healthcare reform, there's no way he can pass a bill to abolish filibusters for good. It would get filibustered! That said, Harkin's bill is an important symbolic gesture and an opportunity to galvanize support for structural Senate reformLINK

The decision of embattled New York Governor David Paterson to quit his bid for a full term is exceptionally good news for Democrats--not just in New York but nationally.
Rocked by scandals, including the recent revelation that he had personally meddled in a domestic violence dispute involving a top aide, the governor decided to drop his 2010 bid--although, according in the he will not resign the governorship.
"I am being realistic about politics," Paterson explained. "Today I am announcing that I am ending my campaign for governor of the state of New York."
This is a personal tragedy for Paterson, who has struggled personally and politically since assuming the governorship of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was forced to resign after getting wrapped up in a prostitution scandal.
It is, as well, a tragedy for the Paterson family, which had been at the forefront of New York Democratic politics since the current governor's father, Basil, was one of the first African-Americans to earn a top spot on a statewide ticket in the country. (Basil Paterson was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 1970 and served as New York Secretary of State. He remains an epic, and active, figure in New York labor, civil rights and political circles.)
Just about everyone in New York Democratic politics would have liked to see Basil Paterson's son make a success of the state's top job. But his tenure has been plagued by budget crises, political stumbles and personal conflicts. And his decision to seek a full term unsettled Democrats who may have liked the governor personally but did not like his prospects politically.
Thus, for New York Democrats--who faced the prospect of a bruising primary fight between Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, which might in turn have weakened the eventual Democratic nominee in what is shaping up as a tough year for Democrats in every state--Paterson's exit is anything but a tragedy.
Cuomo, the son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, is well positioned to make the gubernatorial run, with good prospects of winning the primary and general election.
That's important for Democrats in New York because, though New York is a blue state, it has a history of electing Republicans to the governorship--especially in years when national trends favor the GOP. Having a strong candidate at the top of the ticket should benefit Democratic prospects in the race to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's old U.S. Senate seat (where appointed incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand could face tough primary and general election challenges) and a number of marginal House seats where recently-elected Democrats will struggle this year to retain formerly Republican seats.
Perhaps, most importantly, a strong showing for New York Democrats in 2010 will put them in a good position when it comes time to redrawing congressional districts in a state where redistricting has historically provoked bitter partisan wrangling.
The 2010 gubernatorial races--as well as state legislative contests--will define the direction of redistricting nationally. And the drawing of district lines remains the most definitional force in our politics, even more meaningful than money or the personal appeal of particular candidates.
In the absence of the sort of redistricting reform that would foster honest competition -- as opposed to the current system that allows politicians to use the map-drawing process to reduce and even eliminate competition in some states -- it matters who controls the statehouse when fresh census figures arrive. And it matters particularly in New York state, where Democrats have in recent years claimed a half dozen suburban and upstate seats that used to be considered reliably Republican. Many of those districts remain highly competitive and the redistricting process could well determine whether they tip to one party or the other.
With national Democrats worrying more and more about not just the 2010 election cycle but the redistricting fights of 2011 in key states such as New York, Paterson's exit will inspire some sadness for an overwhelmed man and his family. But there will, as well, be a great sigh of relief at the news that their prospects for retaining the upper hand in New York politics have just improved--dramatically.LINK

In a few weeks the Split This Rock Poetry Festival will be held in Washington, DC. This event will bring together poets and writers committed to activism and social change.
The directors, Sarah Browning and Melissa Tuckey, consider their event a public opportunity to hear poetry of provocation and witness. The first Split This Rock Poetry Festival was held in 2008. I was a participant, along with poets like Martín Espada and Naomi Shihab Nye. I consider us to be believers in the expression of speaking truth to power. On the last day of the festival a number of writers walked down to the White House to protest the war in Iraq. I'm certain that poets visiting Washington in March will have something to say about the foreign policy of the Obama administration and the war in Afghanistan. Our poems--and yes, our chants--always seem to be on call. Once again, our New Year's resolutions contained prayers for peace. The year 2010 represents not just the start of a new year but also the beginning of a new decade. Might it be a prelude to the "terrible teens" of this century? If so, what might poets and writers be doing? What do the times demand?
I think our first challenge is "language work." How has language distracted us from defining ourselves as well as our work? Words enter our vocabulary often acting like predators. They circle what we do with the capability of creating havoc. How often have I sat in meetings listening to someone use the word "transparency"? I've become suspicious of this term; as someone reminded me, transparency might be the beginning of totalitarianism. Words are luggage for our politics, and those of us who are writers have a special responsibility to prevent the erosion of their value and meaning. I want to compose poems with words that can wear pants and shirts without creasesLINK.

Most environmentalists agree that government, with its power to regulate, is critical in finding and enforcing solutions to global warming. But consumers represent 70 percent of US economic activity--indeed, the average American's carbon footprint is twenty metric tons, five times the global average. Individuals can be a powerful engine for change by demanding green products and reducing consumption of fossil fuels. This can make you healthier and save you money too, says Mindy Pennybacker, editor of GreenerPenny.com and author of Do One Green Thing: Saving the Earth Through Simple, Everyday Choices, to be published in March. Here are some of her recommendations for small steps that make a big difference.
1 Use less paper, and replace paper towels and napkins with reusable cloths. Buy recycled products containing at least 30 percent postconsumer waste and bearing the Forest Stewardship Council logo, which means they come from well-managed forests (fscus.org/paper).
 2 Buy shade-grown, fairly traded coffee and chocolate. According to the Rainforest Alliance (rainforest-alliance.org), tropical deforestation accounts for about 20 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, more than all vehicles combined. Consumer demand for products grown under the rainforest canopy provides economic incentive to preserve these habitats for migratory birds. Look for products certified by the Rainforest Alliance or labeled "bird friendly" by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center
3 Lower your household thermostat below 70 degrees in winter and raise it above 72 in summer. Heating represents about 41 percent of the energy bill in the average home; lowering your hot-water temperature from the standard 140 degrees to 120 will save 200 pounds of carbon a year, according to the Environmental Defense Fund. For more information, see the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (aceee.org).
 4 Replace light bulbs and appliances with Energy Star-approved models. Lighting takes up 15 percent of a home's energy use, and regular incandescent bulbs waste 90 percent of the energy they consume as heat. If you replace five incandescent bulbs with five compact fluorescent or light efficient diode Energy Star bulbs, you'll save at least $60 a year, the EPA estimates. If every US household did so, it would save the equivalent of the output of twenty-one power plants and keep smog, particulates and carbon out of the atmosphere.
 5 Plug electronics into power strips and switch them off when not in use. Televisions, DVD players, game consoles, computers and cellphone chargers quietly suck electricity out of sockets even when they are turned off. Breaking the connection can save the average household $100 on its electricity bill and reduce carbon output.
 6 Eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and less meat--livestock production is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Choose certified organic and/or locally produced foods (localharvest.org) to preserve your regional economy and reduce the burning of fossil fuels.
 7 Rid your home and garden of synthetic pesticides--nervous-system toxins that have been linked to lower birth weights and developmental problems. Call 1-800-CLEANUP to find out how to safely dispose of these poisons. For DIY nontoxic pest control, see birc.org and watoxics.org.
 8 Water-efficient fixtures like faucet aerators, shower heads and low-flow toilets can save households thousands of gallons a year, the EPA says (epa.gov/watersense).
 9 Cut back on plastics. They clutter the environment, and they're made from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource. Many also contain toxic bisphenol-a (BPA) and phthalates, which can migrate into food, water and baby formula. Keep vinyl, which has been linked to reproductive and developmental problems as well as cancer, out of your household. For more information, go to greenerpenny.com.
10 Drive less, and drive sensibly. We can't all afford a hybrid car, but many other cars get nearly as good mileage. Save on fuel and greenhouse gas emissions by following the speed limit and keeping your engine tuned and tires properly inflated.
LINK