Oct 26, 2002 op eds

October 23, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

By Hanan Ashrawi

Jordan Times, 10/26/02

IT IS no coincidence that the most vociferous voice advocating a military attack on Iraq is that of the Israeli Likud-led government and its spin machine.

In fact, if Ariel Sharon had his druthers, the US would oblige by conducting Israel's proxy war against a long list of targets, including Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and even Saudi Arabia (or at least a convenient fragmentation and “regime change” there).

Warmongering had become such a favourite pastime of the Israeli establishment that Sharon found himself uncharacteristically asking his cohorts to tone down the rhetoric and curb their gleeful drum beating.

In addition to Iraq being viewed as a “strategic threat” to Israel, the motives are diverse. They include the weakening of the Arab world, maintaining Israel's “strategic superiority” in the region, imposing a solution more favourable to Israel on a “defeated” Arab nation, plus the further debilitation of the captive Palestinians and their leadership.

The flip side of the coin is the current Israeli preoccupation with the question of “will he-won't he” (i.e., Saddam Hussein) strike at Israel in the course of the war, particularly if he concludes that “all is lost” and he has “nothing more to lose”.

The “will we-won't we” (respond) argument seems to be rhetorical, at best. Actually, the nature of the debate seems to be more in line with “when” and “how” rather than “whether or not”.

While those who are openly in favour of a preemptive strike are in the minority (particularly given the gigantic monkey wrench that this would throw into the American machinery), there are still those who would seek to join a war in progress.

To do so, they need a visible excuse such as another feeble missile strike against Israel to justify its involvement under the pretext that Israel has the right to “self defence” and that sitting idle by would be construed as weakness and hence would weaken Israel's deterrent ability in the eyes of the Arab world.

In fact, such a strike would play straight into the hands of this government that had already threatened the use of nuclear weapons in such an instance to the extent that Iraq would cease to exist as a state.

Furthermore, a major cause for concern among American warmongers has become how to keep Israel out of the war and to keep it straining at the leash rather than stampeding into the battlefield and fulfilling doomsday projections of Armageddon.

To the Palestinians, however, the most prevalent doomsday scenario is in Israel's exploitation of the world's preoccupation with war to carry out its own endgame in Palestine.

Anti-war Israeli, international and Palestinian voices have repeatedly cautioned against the “final solution” of “transfer”, or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians through forced expulsions.

Given the nature of the discourse in Israel and the “legitimisation” of racism and extreme measures advocated by military sources, pseudo-respectable partners in the government, and thinly-disguised “think tanks”, such a course of action may not be as unthinkable as it seems.

Neighbouring Arab countries have taken this threat with sufficient seriousness as to close down their borders with Israel/Palestine, particularly Jordan and Egypt who had signed peace agreements with Israel and who would view such expulsions as a declaration of war.

Israel, however, might be contemplating a variety of additional options to complete is destruction of Palestinian reality. These would include a further tightening of the already devastating siege by imposing long-term, unrelieved curfews that would further exacerbate the economic, educational, health and personal suffering of the Palestinians. Expulsion might take on a more restricted and selective form by targeting “undesirable” leadership figures and/or specified populations along the lines of the “security fence”.

Further violent measures might include massive “military operations” in refugee camps, urban centres and more isolated rural areas including vulnerable villages. A wholesale military assault on Gaza (as opposed to the daily attacks or incursion by instalments) has been on the drawing board for some time and is still being viewed as an option awaiting the opportune moment of implementation.

The pretext for such drastic “operations” does not have to be more than one incident of violence by a Palestinian individual or group, or (as some Israeli spokespersons are hoping for) a misguided show of support for Saddam by any Palestinian individual or group. In all cases, the Palestinian people under occupation feel targeted and vulnerable should the projected war against Iraq materialise.

The collective mood however is one of staying put — digging in of heals and resisting any attempt at expulsion. Hence, one can discern the resurgence of the spirit of “steadfastness”, or sumoud, that had characterised the earlier Intifada. Along with the conscious rejection of any panic or fear response, the Palestinians are engaged in a reevaluation of the most effective and acceptable forms of resistance, thereby generating greater support for peaceful, popular resistance and civil disobedience.

The return of a direct Israeli military occupation has also given rise to the more constructive forms of resistance, including the establishment of popular/support committees and other forms of community empowerment. These certainly would be essential in any war scenario and regardless of the course(s) of action adopted by the Israeli military forces and armed settlers.

With all that in mind, however, the most effective means of protection and of preventing Israel from resorting to any drastic measures and forms of insanity remains in the hands of the international community. It has become imperative that European and American decision makers finally reach the inevitable conclusion that a policy of more positive and engaged intervention is required. Rather than piecemeal handling or selective crisis management and partial damage control, the time has come to fully engage in a comprehensive programme of on-the-ground control. “Control” is translated as forces or troops along with an army of civilian experts and professionals to carry out the dual task of peace making/keeping and nation building.

Sharon, last week on yet another visit to the US to enhance his most frequent White House visitor status, should have been given by the American president a timely and unequivocal message: UN resolutions are adopted to be implemented; violence against civilians will not be tolerated; the last remaining military occupation cannot be allowed to last forever; there are no unilateral or military solutions to the conflict; the US “vision” of a two-state solution and the end of the June 5, 1967, occupation will be decisively carried out; Israeli military measures (including the reoccupation, incursions, assassinations, mass detentions, siege, daily killings and all other human and economic violations) must cease; a global rule of law means full Israeli compliance.

Both Bush and Sharon must be called upon to understand that the question is not a temporary and artificial calm before the new storm in the Gulf, but a comprehensive and just resolution of the underlying causes of conflict and instability that should have been addressed yesterday but definitely must be addressed today if a disastrous breakdown is to be averted.

Contrary to the scare tactics of the ideological right, the apocalypse is neither an option nor an inevitability now.

Media Monitors Network

Libya’s decision, Arab News
26 October 2002

Libya’s reported decision to quit the Arab League is not new. Ever since the 1990s, when Libyan Leader Muammar Qaddafi bitterly attacked it because it would not break UN sanctions imposed on his country following the Lockerbie bombing, there has been a stream of anti-Arab rhetoric flowing from Tripoli. The Arab world has been accused of not supporting the Palestinians, of not standing up to the Israelis and the Americans. Last March, Qaddafi threatened to quit because the Saudi Mideast peace initiative was not to his liking, even though it had the backing of everyone else; only the last-minute intervention of the League’s Secretary-General Amr Moussa, who flew to Tripoli to reason with the Libyan leader, averted the walkout. The Libyans said they would put the matter on hold. But it has not been on hold very long: just six weeks ago, Qaddafi was again musing aloud about leaving, this time accusing the League of "cowardice" in confronting Israel and the United States. Now he accuses it of inefficiency in dealing with the crises over Iraq and the Palestinians.

There is no denying that divisions have done great damage the Arab cause and to the Palestinians in particular, and that unity of purpose is a prerequisite if the Arab voice is to be effective. But Libya has itself contributed in no small way to those divisions. Nonetheless, if Qaddafi has a point about Arab weaknesses, he takes it to extremes. His present position is that Libya must turn its back on the Arab world and develop its Africa side.

Libya pulling out of the Arab League is not going to make it more, or less, effective in dealing with political issues. In any event, the League is about much more than the Palestinians or politics; it is about a pan-Arab vision. It is as much social, economic and cultural as it is political. It is all very fine for Libya to look at its African links, but it cannot be at the expense of its Arabness. Libya is an Arab country. That is its culture, its identity, its past, present and future.

Conversely, what are the grounds for embracing Africa and demanding a single Africa state? What is Africa’s culture? Is it Swahili or Amharic or Hausa or Zulu? Arabs may be divided politically but they know they are united as a nation. Africa is not a nation, it is a continent — a richly diverse continent, but simply being part of the same megalandmass is no automatic basis for political fusion. In any event, the new African Union, like the old OAU, has already proved itself just as incapable of resolving political crises as the Arab League: the latest conflict, in Ivory Coast, is testimony to that; it is not the AU that prevents it spreading, it is French troops.

On occasions, every Arab government has been exasperated with the others in the League, but it has never been a reason to walk out. The Europeans squabble incessantly about almost everything; the EU itself failed lamentably to act on Bosnia and Kosovo until propelled by the US. But none of them thinks of upping and leaving. Quitting the League will not diminish it or the Arab world; it is Libya that will be diminished — and it is a move that will not be popular with the Libyan people. Hopefully Amr Moussa, who is much respected in Tripoli, will persuade Qaddafi to reconsider.

What Nation Is Dictating Policy to the US?

BY Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

SyriaTimes, 24-10-2002

Since our childhood we have heard about the US as the land were people of all races, colors, and religions do live in harmony and co-existence. Many nations worldwide have been inspired by the US model and calls for demcracy, freedom and human rights. This bright image was however marred by what we hear and suffer from the US excessive love for Israel. Actually, the US pertains its right to tailor its foreign policy in accordance with its interests; accordingly its strategic partnership with Israel is a matter of its own. What makes the reality painful is, however, the US utter bias towards Israel at the expense of others in this region. Such a bias crossed evry red line causing a severe headache for millions of the people in this region not to mention the destructive power of the US Apache, Warplanes, bombs and the like. Such a partnership might have been very crucial at times of wars and conflicts, as many in the other side would say; it has by now ,following Arabs' unanimous vote for peace option in Beirut, to be capitalized on for an even handed active role in bringing just and comprehensive peace to the poverty stricken majority of people.

Among the US voices of reason, who blasted the Israeli hegemony and lobby in the US, I would like to cite a recent statement by Lyndon LaRouche's campaign committee for the Democratic Presidential nomination for the next US Presidential elections in 2004.Lyndon LaRouche reports that there is now firm evidence that the ongoing drive to induce President George W. Bush to launch a war against Iraq is a 1996 Israeli government policy that is being foisted on the President by a nest of (pro-Israel senior officials) inside the U.S. government.

This pro-Israeli network inside the United States was unable achieve their objective until President Bush was entrapped by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and the falsified accounts of those events provided by this foreign intelligence apparatus, and lured over to their policies. Lyndon LaRouche demands to know: Is this not the motive that explains the who and why of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001?

LaRouche demands an immediate Congressional investigation to help purge the U.S. government of this foreign intelligence apparatus, which attempted, with the 9/11 events, to seize control over U.S. foreign policy. The network of Pollard, the Israeli spy in US jails, "stay-behinds" inside the Bush Administration is engaged in a witting hoax to induce the President and the U.S. Congress to go to war.The statement said that On July 8, 1996, Richard Perle, now the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory group that reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, presented a written document to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spelling out a new Israeli foreign policy, calling for a repudiation of the Oslo Accords and the underlying concept of "land for peace"; for the permanent annexation of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip; and for the elimination of the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad, as a first step towards overthrowing or destabilizing the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The document was prepared for the Jerusalem and Washington, DC-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a think tank financed by Richard Mellon-Scaife. The report, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," was co-authored by Perle; Douglas Feith, currently the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy; David Wurmser, currently special assistant to State Department chief arms control negotiator John Bolton; and Meyrav Wurmser, now Director of Mideast Policy at the Hudson Institute.

Beginning in February 1998, the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a concerted effort, in league with the Netanyahu government in Israel, and the Perle Israeli agent-of-influence networks inside the United States, to induce President William Clinton to launch a war against Iraq, under precisely the terms

spelled out for Netanyahu in the "Clean Break" paper. The war was to be launched, ostensibly, over Iraq's possession of "weapons of mass destruction." United Nations weapons inspectors were, at this time, still on the ground inside Iraq.

To buttress the war drive, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook issued an official lying "white paper" on the Iraqi drive to obtain WMD. On Feb. 19, 1998, Richard Perle and former Congressman Stephen Solarz released an "Open Letter to the President," demanding a full-scale U.S.-led drive for "regime change" in Baghdad. The dangerously incompetent military scheme for the overthrow of Saddam that was published in the Open Letter has been recently revived by the Perle-led network of "chickenhawks" in the office of Secretary of Defense--but has been summarily rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the signators on the original Perle-Solarz letter were the following current Bush Administration officials: Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State Department), John Bolton (State Department), Doug Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David Wurmser (State Department) and Dov Zakheim (Defense Department).

On Aug. 6, 1998, Angelo Codevilla, the Washington, DC co-director of IASPS (along with David Wurmser), penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, demanding the freeing of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. Codevilla argued that Pollard had been right to pass U.S. classified material to Israel, because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Days later, two members of the Netanyahu cabinet contacted Vice President Al Gore, demanding Pollard's release. After again rejecting the Netanyahu and Blair demands for war on Iraq in November 1998, President Clinton--under the impeachment onslaught, led by the Mellon-Scaife-funded apparatus--finally caved in and authorized Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, as he was returning on Air Force One from a visit to Israel. But the 70 days of

bombardment did not eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime, and the issue remained dormant for the next three years ... until Sept. 11, 2001.

On Sept. 22, 2001, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made a feverish pitch for war on Iraq at a Camp David meeting with President Bush and most of the Cabinet. Wolfowitz had been brought into the inner circle of George W. Bush a year before the 2000 Presidential elections, at the initiative of former Secretary of State George Shultz. By 1999, Wolfowitz and Condi Rice had become co-responsible for pulling together the Bush campaign foreign policy and national security team, which Ms. Rice dubbed "The Vulcans." Wolfowitz immediately brought "X Committee" Israeli agent-of-influence Richard Perle into the inner sanctum, from where he has been peddling the Netanyahu-Israeli foreign policy agenda from day one. Perle most recently staged the July 10, 2002 Defense Policy Board session, which demanded the purging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of all opponents of the Iraq war, and called for a U.S. military occupation and takeover of the Saudi oil fields and a total break with the House of Saud-- just as his July 1996 IASPS "Clean Break" study had proposed.

What nation is dictating policy to the United States? From the point that Perle, Feith, the Wurmsers, et al. first delivered the "Clean Break" policy to Netanyahu, this crowd has been obsessed with inducing the United States government to adopt and implement it. All prior efforts failed, until Sept. 11, 2001 created a new context for reviving and pushing it--under the guise of the "war on terrorism." Does this raise questions about the true, mysterious authors of the 9/11 attack? What are the links between the events of Sept. 11 and the subsequent unabated drive for war against Iraq? Isn't it time that these co-conspirators joined Jonathan Pollard behind bars? Isn't it time for President Bush to give these clowns a "September Surprise"? a US Presidential elections candidate raised questions to be only answered in a debate hosted by the oppressed, by the US President himself, if possible!

Abdo88@ureach.com

A new Middle East, or a global disaster
|By Jim Hoagland, Gulf News 26-10-2002

The Pentagon is now within eight weeks of being ready to launch a sustained military campaign to overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein and destroy his weapons of horror. The time has arrived for President Bush and his aides to cast in iron the war aims that will guide and justify this campaign and to state them clearly to the nation and the world.

The tip-off that the Defence Department is moving into its final phase of planning and preparation comes from a decision to begin military training of Iraqi exile forces and dissidents who can be spirited out of Iraq. The limited training will take six to eight weeks to complete, military planners say.

The initial effort to prepare 3,000 to 5,000 Iraqi troops to help keep order once their country is liberated and to train other Iraqis was one of the last items on the administration's checklist of preparatory steps. Another was funding an intelligence collection programme run by the opposition.

U.S. military commanders have been understandably cautious about turning over weapons, training and spying support to foreigners they ultimately do not control. They postponed action as long as they could.

These tactical military steps occur as diplomatic negotiations on a new Security Council resolution to govern arms inspections conclude at the United Nations. There, too, the deck is being cleared to permit action by January.

The UN bargaining in New York has actually been a disguised offer by the United States to allow France and Russia to share in shaping the war aims of the campaign to come. The bold, elegantly coercive U.S. approach has provoked agonizing and ambivalence in Paris and Moscow about signing on or being left out.

The bargaining over a UN mandate illustrates a crucial difference between tactics and strategy that has been muddied in the U.S. domestic debate. The big powers argue over how to get to a destination (that's tactics) as a way of deciding what the final destination will be (that's strategy).

France and Russia fight for rules that they claim would reduce Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities to manageable proportions by putting those programmes back under international supervision – while leaving in place in Baghdad an authoritarian regime dominated by the country's military.

It is claimed that this arrangement would best hold Iraq together. It would upset neither the region's (presumed) balances of power nor its commercial patterns, which were established between the Western powers and Moscow on the one hand and the merchant classes of the Middle East on the other.

Bush has used political shorthand to outline a very different set of desirable consequences – "regime change," democracy in the Middle East, etc.

The conclusion of the UN debate will permit Bush to refine and recast those ideas as realistic, sustainable war aims in Iraq. He must identify them for the American public as the only acceptable outcomes.

U.S. military action cannot guarantee that democracy will take root in Iraq, much less the Arab world. It does have a reasonable prospect of dramatically improving the lives of the Iraqi people by giving them a chance to live without a deeply rooted daily fear of losing life, health, family or freedom on the whim of proud murderers – the ubiquitous dread that Washingtonians barely tasted over the past three weeks as they were hunted by a sniper.

The removal of the Baathist regime should therefore be an act of humanitarian intervention, similar to military actions in Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor and to some extent Afghanistan a year ago. Freeing a nation of hostages is a realistic war aim. Achieving nirvana in Baghdad is not.

Administration postwar planning has begun to focus on promoting a federal system to give Iraq's Shiite Arab majority and Sunni Kurdish minority a stake in a new democratic system. A political outcome that reassures Turkey that there will be no independent Kurdistan is an important U.S. goal.

So is the removal of the infrastructure of weapons of mass destruction. This can be accomplished only with a fully cooperative Baghdad government that is willing to reach peaceful accommodations with Iran and its other neighbours.

A countdown to the dawning of a new political order in the greater Middle East – or of unimaginable global disaster if U.S. war aims are not properly framed and then achieved – has begun. It is measured not in months or years but in fast-onrushing weeks.

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent http://www.aljazeerah.info

Between Armageddon and peace — Iraq and the Israeli occupation