Pakistan News Home ->
10 September, 2007
Former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, who at landed at
Islamabad airport on Monday after a seven-year exile,
was deported to Jeddah after a brief stay of five
hours despite a Supreme Court judgment declaring that
the former premier could not be barred from returning
to Pakistan and take part in politics.
The government did not show its cards till the last
moment and gave an impression to media that Mr. Sharif
would be arrested on his return in order to avoid any
pre-emptive order by the country’s active judiciary.The government staged a drama by showing Nawaz Sharif
that he is being arrested. A government official
showed arrest warrants to Mr. Sharif in a money
laundering case, and asked him to move a helicopter so
that he could be shifted to the jail.
Nawaz had no idea till the last minute that he was
being deported. He was shifted to a PIA aircraft,
which flew to Jeddah. Where he will spend three more
Pakistani analysts and legal experts question the role
of Saudi Arabia vis-à-vis deportation of former Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif dubbing it as interference in
the country’s internal affairs and an anti-democracy
On the other hand, Begum Kulsoom Nawaz, wife of Mr
Sharif has announced that she will come to Pakistan
within next few days.
“ I am planning to come to Pakistan Inshaullah within
next four-five days. And I will see who stops me from
returning to my country”, an emotional Kulsoom told a
local TV channel from London.
Here are some questions
1)Is this violation of Supreme Court’s judgment?
2) If yes, what do you foresee? Do you see army and judiciary at logger heads in near future?
3)What encouraged government for contempt of court?
4)Analysts believe that the deportation of Mr Sharif will further boost his political image in the country.
What do you think?
An Opening Shot for War on Iran?
Israel's air strike on northern Syria earlier this month should be understood in the context of events unfolding since its assault last summer on neighboring Lebanon.
From the leaks so far, it seems that more than half a dozen Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace to drop munitions on a site close to the border with Turkey. We also know from the US media that the raid occurred in close coordination with the White House. But what was the purpose and significance of the attack?It is worth recalling that, in the wake of Israel's month-long war against Lebanon a year ago, a prominent American neoconservative, Meyrav Wurmser, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney's recently departed Middle East adviser, explained that the war had dragged on because the White House delayed in imposing a ceasefire. The neocons, she said, wanted to give Israel the time and space to expand the attack to Damascus.
The reasoning was simple: before an attack on Iran could be countenanced, Hizbullah in Lebanon had to be destroyed and Syria at the very least cowed. The plan was to isolate Tehran on these two other hostile fronts before going in for the kill.But faced with constant rocket fire from Hizbullah last summer, Israel's public and military nerves frayed at the first hurdle. Instead Israel and the US were forced to settle for a Security Council resolution rather than a decisive military victory.
The immediate fallout of the failed attack was an apparent waning of neocon influence. The group's program of "creative destruction" in the Middle East -- the encouragement of regional civil war and the partition of large states that threaten Israel -- was at risk of being shunted aside.Instead the "pragmatists" in the Bush Administration, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanded a change of tack. The standoff reached a head in late 2006 when oilman James Baker and his Iraq Study Group began lobbying for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq -- presumably only after a dictator, this one more reliable, had again been installed in Baghdad. It looked as if the neocons' day in the sun had finally passed..Israel's leadership understood the gravity of the moment. In January 2007 the Herzliya conference, an annual festival of strategy-making, invited no less than 40 Washington opinion-formers to join the usual throng of Israeli politicians, generals, journalists and academics. For a week the Israeli and American delegates spoke as one: Iran and its presumed proxy, Hizbullah, were bent on the genocidal destruction of Israel. Tehran's development of a nuclear program -- whether for civilian use, as Iran argues, or for military use, as the US and Israel claim -- had to be stopped at all costs..While the White House turned uncharacteristically quiet all spring and summer about what it planned to do next, rumors that Israel was pondering a go-it-alone strike against Iran grew noisier by the day. Ex-Mossad officers warned of an inevitable third world war, Israeli military intelligence advised that Iran was only months away from the point of no return on developing a nuclear warhead, prominent leaks in sympathetic media revealed bombing runs to Gibraltar, and Israel started upping the pressure on several tens of thousands of Jews in Tehran to flee their homes and come to Israel.
One point that none of the pundits and analysts have noted was that, in attacking Syria, Israel committed a blatant act of aggression against its northern neighbor of the kind denounced as the "supreme international crime" by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.Also, no one pointed out the obvious double standard applied to Israel's attack on Syria compared to the far less significant violation of Israeli sovereignty by Hizbullah a year earlier, when the Shia militia captured two Israel soldiers at a border post and killed three more. Hizbullah's act was widely accepted as justification for the bombardment and destruction of much of Lebanon, even if a few sensitive souls agonized over whether Israel's response was "disproportionate". Would these commentators now approve of similar retaliation by Syria?.Contrary to the impression being created in the West, genocidal hatred of Israel and Jews, however often Ahmadinejad's speeches are mistranslated, is not the engine of these countries' alliance.
Bush's "war on terror" was originally justified with the convenient and manufactured links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as, of course, those WMDs that, it later turned out, had been destroyed years earlier. But ever since Tehran has invariably been the ultimate target of these improbable confections.
There were the forged documents proving both that Iraq had imported enriched uranium from Niger to manufacture nuclear warheads and that it was sharing its nuclear know-how with Iran. And as Iraq fell apart, neocon operatives like Michael Ledeen could still be accounted for:
salahudeen rumi, Pakistan - 27 September, 2007