Jan 11, 2003             Opinion Editorials                   http://www.aljazeerah.info                                    

الجزيرة

News Archives 

Arab Cartoonists

Columnists

Documents

Editorials 

Opinion Editorials

letters to the editor

Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Islam

Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people 

Media Watch

Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah

News Photos

Poetry

Public Announcements 

   Public Activities 

Women in News

 

 

 

 

 

-

What shall be our legacy after Bush?
By Doreen Miller
Yellow Times.org, 1/11/03

-

 

It seems like only yesterday when the world was caught up in mass hysteria and dire predictions of doom and gloom about the impending Y2K crisis that would plunge the world into utter chaos and darkness. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when, at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2000, planes did not plunge from the skies, computer systems continued to function, and the lights remained on. In short, life went on as usual. Little did people realize, however, that the year 2000 was to herald in an unprecedented age of terror and darkness.

The road to hell began barely nine months into George Bush's presidency, when the American public suffered a major terrorist attack made possible allegedly by a simple failure of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to connect the dots. The dust had barely settled when select congressmen were graced with letters laced with weapon-grade anthrax whose origins mysteriously point to a U.S. source. Next, U.S. citizens had their Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights sharply curtailed by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Their right to privacy was even further eroded by the just recently passed Homeland Security Act which sets up a Total Information Awareness operation that would make George Orwell blush.

Color-coded warnings signifying levels of terrorist threat are announced in the media on a regular basis -- always jacked up a notch or two in time for the holidays to further intimidate an already fearful and paranoid public. The economy is being rocked by one corporate scandal after another; the numbers of those without jobs, health insurance or a place to call home continue to climb; and the few remaining safeguards protecting the environment are quickly being dismantled. Terrorism and other acts of violence are escalating around the globe. The world's most powerful leader, drunk with a belief in his own invincibility, belligerently threatens pre-emptive war and nuclear retaliation on any country suspected of trying to undermine U.S. interests and superiority. Indeed, the world has been plunged into an age of darkness far surpassing its worst Y2K nightmares.

Most Americans see themselves as innocent victims in a world gone mad and believe, quite naively, that their government holds the moral high ground in its efforts to establish a Pax Americana worldwide. The facts, however, reveal the United States to be not only a part of the cycle of violence, but the largest exporter of death and destruction this world has ever known.

Richard Grimmet of the Congressional Research Committee reported that in fiscal year 2001, of the $26.4 billion in registered sales of international military weapons, the United States exported $12.2 billion, or roughly 46 percent of the total. This represents 2.5 times more than the amount sold by the second (UK) and third (Russia) largest exporters, 9.7 times greater than the level exported by France, and 19 times more than that of China.

The Center for International Policy estimates that about 80 percent of U.S. arms exports go to non-democratic regimes notorious for gross human rights abuses against not only their own citizenry but people of other countries as well. In 1999, of the forty-two conflicts in the world, thirty-nine of them made use of U.S. military equipment or technology, a whopping 92 percent rate of indirect U.S. participation in, but direct support of, war and violence. The U.S. also trains foreign military in the art of murder and torture in more than 70 countries and has troops currently stationed in nearly three out of every four countries in the world.

Sadly, the lives of 3,000 civilians from the U.S. and many other countries were lost in the September 11 attack, but where is the American outrage at the millions of deaths that the U.S. has caused, directly or covertly, in the twentieth century alone? Over 3,000 innocent Afghanis were killed in blind retaliation for terrorist attacks with which these oppressed people had nothing to do. Add hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths of mostly elderly, infants and young children in Iraq due to over ten years of extreme economic sanctions, demanded by the U.S., that prevent Iraq from importing essential medicines and disinfecting agents because of their potential for dual usage. Don't forget the 500,000 deaths in wars supported by the U.S. in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, Panama, and other Latin American countries over the past half century, or the hundreds of thousands more in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

The United States is just as guilty as any other nation in targeting civilian population centers -- cities such as Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo were mercilessly firebombed during World War II; atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Recently in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan, the United States has resurrected and implemented a new kind of nuclear warfare through the use of weapons outfitted with a depleted uranium component. Upon impact, the uranium is released in micro-sized particles that travel great distances on the wind to contaminate air, food, soil, water; in short, anything it touches. Post Gulf War soil samples tested in Basrah register an 84 times greater than normal background radiation level from uranium elements, according to studies carried out by various international organizations.

This new American-made legacy will be remembered for its long-term, continuous assault on innocent people and their environment. Studies conducted by Johns Hopkins University reveal a sevenfold increase in cancer, leukemia and birth defects in Iraq since the Gulf War. Full-term babies there are born with grotesque malformations such as having no face, no eyes or nose, twisted, fused or missing limbs, huge heads with no brains, no digestive tract, heart defects, severe ulcerations of the skin, and other abnormalities.

All this is made possible by each and every American who chooses to remain silent in the face of U.S. military atrocities against humanity. The United States is squandering both its status of most powerful nation and its potential to do some lasting good by continuing to serve the gods of greed, fear, hatred, war and violence. America should be leading the world by practicing what it preaches to other nations. The truly powerful lead by example, not by intimidation and brute force.

Placing self-righteous justification and moral superiority aside, for all involved parties seem to claim them, we need to look at war for what it really is -- murder and maiming, pure and simple. Our unquestioned faith in the use of military threats, death and destruction to deter violence and settle disagreements is an inherently flawed philosophy that has brought the world to the brink of mutually assured destruction with the United States leading the way.

The late Philip Berrigan had it right when he spoke about "the universal American fantasy that 'national security' can depend on weapons of mass destruction." These weapons we insist on amassing are instead the very cause of our mortal danger. His final words resonate as a warning to us all, "nuclear weapons are the scourge of the earth; to mine for them, manufacture them, deploy them, use them, is a curse against God, the human family, and the Earth itself."

In this unparalleled period of danger and darkness brought about by the ignorance of mad men in their lust for power, it's time for people to awaken and do their part to transform this insane, money-making, war- mongering mentality. Imagine what a different world this could be if everyone took personal responsibility and vowed no longer to be a part of the ongoing cycle of government sponsored terrorism. Imagine if the people who build (in part or whole) bombs, guns, assault weapons and other weapons of mass destruction were suddenly to have an attack of conscience and leave their jobs, refusing to manufacture the evil that gets exported around the globe. Imagine how different the world could be if the $839 billion dollars spent yearly on military expenditures worldwide (Arias Foundation figures for FY 2001) were instead used for constructive purposes to alleviate hunger and provide decent housing, education, health care and meaningful employment for all.

I am convinced that reprioritizing the use of our vast resources from our current destructive bent towards constructive, life-affirming, humanitarian ends would be a much more successful deterrent to terrorism than our ineffective and inane faith in using "the violence to quell all violence." As the great Martin Luther King, Jr. believed, "An eye for an eye only ends up making us all blind."

Life is a series of making choices. We can choose to take the easy path by closing our eyes and remaining part of the evil of war and violence, whether it be through our line of employment that may directly or indirectly contribute to government sanctioned destruction and murder, or through the complicity of simply keeping silent in the face of inhumane policies carried out by our government. Else, we can choose the more difficult and courageous route of speaking out and working towards eliminating war and weapons of mass destruction all over the world, beginning in our own country. If we do not walk the talk of peace and disarmament, then we are, in fact, no better than the terrorists we are purporting to defeat.

The state and fate of our world and the legacy we leave for future generations all come down to the individual choices we make in our lives. As the adage from the Vietnam era significantly states, "Just imagine if they gave a war, and nobody came."

[Doreen Miller lived, studied, worked and traveled abroad for several years, and is currently a Senior Lecturer and educator of international students. She dedicates part of her time to serving the elderly and Alzheimer patients. Mother, musician and poet, she pursues an avid interest in Buddhist and Eastern philosophy. She advocates human rights, social justice, fair trade, and environmental protection. Doreen lives in the United States.]

Doreen Miller encourages your comments: dmiller@YellowTimes.org

 


 

-

 
By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org, 1/11/03

-

 

We've all likely seen or read about scientific studies of aggression and violence in that otherwise intelligent and loveable species, chimpanzees. Some even take these observations as a kind of biological justification of war. But intellects able to understand other species and responsible for the magnificent thing we call civilization surely give us the capacity to rise above the behavior of chimpanzees.
 
Advanced societies have begun to acknowledge the counterproductive nature of violence. Even in the United States, where lethal injection, guns in the street, and belly-over-the-belt attitudes still hold considerable pride of place, it is, for example, universally illegal for teachers to strike students. In some states, it is also illegal for parents to strike children. It is illegal for a husband to strike his mate, and in some jurisdictions, police officers called to a scene of domestic violence, routinely arrest a man who has committed an assault on his mate, an act that not many years ago was virtually ignored and treated as "a private family matter."
 
Even America's Catholics, inclined by the very nature of their faith to accept authority, have finally spoken up over the matter of child abuse by unsuitable priests, something that had gone on quietly and with few consequences for as long as anyone can remember.
 
So why is it that Americans believe that bombing and shooting and burning people in Iraq or Afghanistan can produce anything of value? You might think the ghostly screams of three million murder victims occasionally wafted in on Pacific breezes from Vietnam would serve as terrifying reminders of the futility of war.
 
Why are the civilized tools of patient diplomacy and international organizations held in contempt by many Americans?
 
Quite apart from all the weighty concerns of morality and human civilization, the truth is that war almost never solves anything.
 
I do not question self-defense, but most people can distinguish an act of genuine self-defense without hearing from official spokespersons and propagandists and advertising hucksters. I suspect that most of the world's people recognize that much of what the United States is doing today has little to do with self-defense. This instinctive judgment is reinforced by all the choking smog of explanations coming from Washington.
 
The First World War grew out of the inability of France and Britain to accept economic and political decline relative to a rising Germany. Also, contrary to unexamined slogans about peace through military preparedness, a direct cause of the First World War was precisely that all the powers of Europe were heavily armed, requiring just the smallest disturbance to tip them into destruction.
 
About twenty years later, the mass slaughter in the trenches and the treaty-makers' failure to establish institutions adequate to peace had set conditions for the Second World War, the most destructive event in human history -- the rise of Hitler being only possible from the ashes, ruin, and despair of the First World War.
 
As soon as the Second World War ended, the U.S. worked diligently to resurrect Germany, even sometimes using former Nazis in the effort. World War II had created conditions for the Cold War, that long, immensely costly, and largely pointless crusade against an economic system always destined to die of its own false premises.
 
Genuine, permanent peace in Europe has been achieved through the very diplomacy and international organizations so despised by many Americans -- that is, through fifty years of statesmanship in building the European Union. Major war in Europe today is inconceivable, and there is little doubt that the united super-state emerging will one day provide a needed counterbalance to the United States in world affairs.
 
History is littered with examples of the futility of war. Americans would have achieved independence without the Revolutionary War because every other part of the British Empire gradually and peacefully did so.
 
Contrary to popular belief, America's Civil War was not about slavery, although the measures necessary to protect and extend slavery had generated the tensions and hatreds behind the war. Had the South been permitted peacefully to secede, the institution of slavery would just as surely have come to an end, as it did throughout South America and the Caribbean.
 
The entire mystical legend of "the cause" of a glorious South fighting for freedom and gracious old ways would never have been born. Instead, there would be only the memory of a squalid, provincial slave state.
 
Likely, too, the non-industrial South would have returned, hat in hand, after some period to rejoin the Union. The terms of re-entry might well have spared us the century of human degradation that replaced slavery in a defeated South. We might also have been spared the political dominance of the South, a result of some of the more anti-democratic provisions of the American Constitution favoring small and rural places, and something that has given America many leaders and policies better consigned to the dustbin of history.
 
Under Mr. Bush, the terrible example of Israel has become something to imitate rather than condemn. Israel maintains a constant state of war against the people with whom it is destined to share its geography. Not a week passes that we do not read of Palestinians shot in the streets, houses bulldozed, suspects assassinated, and an entire people humiliated with the West Bank reduced to a prison. So simple an act as Mr. Arafat's attending a Christmas service is arrogantly forbidden.
 
And has a half century of savage policy produced anything positive? Of course not. It produces new generations of young people with minds tortured by hate, and it unavoidably deadens the very consciences and idealism of Israelis themselves. What a remarkable example Israel might have set had she instead invested an equivalent effort on assisting and educating the Palestinians, on generously forming bonds of friendship and peace.
 
Mr. Bush adopts this same attitude towards Iraq and many others who object to America's arrogant and often harsh policies. Somehow, they are all reduced to the poorly-defined status of terrorists, and they are all subject to military attack, assassination, embargo, and every kind of interference in their private affairs it is possible to conceive. It is impossible to see how the long-term results of such a policy can be anything but vicious, dangerous, and destabilizing.
 
War is a vestige of our common ancestry with the apes, one that we can deliberately shed as surely as that vestigial, unnecessary organ, the appendix. But we need to be seriously dedicated to the task, and we need to commit serious resources to it. For now, the reality is that the people who have great power only hypocritically talk of peace while spending $400 billion each year on ways to kill people.
 
John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org

 


 

-

ISRAEL: AMERICA'S SHAME AND HUMANITY'S STAIN

By Mohamed Khodr

Al-Jazeerah, 1/11/03

-

 

 

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews. [Former Secretary of State George] Marshall and [former Defense Secretary James] Forrestral learned that.... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country" -- Sec. of State John Foster Dulles in Feb. 1957 quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

"I've never seen a president --I don't care who he is-- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want....If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."----Admiral Thomas Moorer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (See Washington Report 12/1999, p.124 quoting from Andrew Hurley's book, "One Nation Under Israel")

 "We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." -        ----Woodrow Wilson [U.S. President during World War I]

PITY the wonderful, kind, generous, good hearted, peace loving American people as being the only people in the entire world totally unaware of how Israel, a nation whose founding and funding depends on the American taxpayer, so dominates, controls, intimidates, humiliates, and even bites and puts at risk the very lives and hands of the American taxpayer who feed it.    While the American people are fiercely proud, independent, and will not submit to any nation or any person who dares stomp on the world's sole superpower, they do submit willingly and unwillingly to the dictates of a foreign nation, Israel, whose economy and political support is the prime priority of Washington D.C., even at the expense of the needs and lives of the American people themselves.

Inquiring Minds Around the World Want to Know: 

Why are the American people so loved and respected around the world for so long (prior to Israel's founding in 1948) for their freedoms, educational and technological superiority, their friendliness, generosity, and respect for other people's beliefs and needs, are so naive to the destructive influence of Israel's "Jewish Power" upon their domestic and foreign policies?  Why are they so blind and uninformed despite having the world's largest and most advanced educational system, the world's largest media outlets, the ability to travel around the world freely, the world's largest interdependent economy that sells to every nation on earth, except to Israel where it loses on trade; a nation with more military bases around the world than any other, a nation of immigrants from around the world, a nation in possession of the wondrous law unavailable to most of the world--the "Freedom of Information Act"--whereby a citizen can seek governmental answers on policies, but doesn't when it comes to foreign policy?

WHY, WHY, WHY?  Why has the world been engulfed in wars and conflicts in the Middle East since Israel was founded in 1948 and not before?  Why did Islam suddenly become America's enemy immediately after the collapse of Communism in 1991?  Why 9/11?  Why is Bush so determined against ALL odds, evidence,  logic, and against the wishes of the entire world to annihilate Iraq, a nation his father already destroyed, a nation impoverished with sanctions, a nation that's been bombed continuously for 11 years?

There is a reason why our government and our media are not asking the most important question regarding 9/11, the question of WHY America and not any other nation.  There is a reason why President Bush has refused for a long time to appoint an Independent Commission to examine 9/11.  There is a reason why Congressional inquiry only focused on the failures of the FBI/CIA/NSC and not the WHY issue.  There is a reason why no media outlet is independently investigating this issue either.  There is a reason why our government quickly and quietly kicked out 120 Israeli "spies" out of the country soon after 9/11, some were caught on videotape filming the crash into the WTC towers and dancing on rooftops (see FOXNEWS report by Cameron for 3 nights, later deleted from the website).  Much more incriminating information on Israel's prior knowledge of the attack has been reported abroad but not here.  Why did Israel not inform the United States?  There is a reason that Bush appointed Henry Kissinger, a powerful Pro-Israeli Jew to head the Independent Commission but who later resigned than reveal his "conflict of interest" nations.  The reason is Israel and the answer as to WHY there is new found HATE between the U.S. and the Muslim world is:

Why do THEY hate U.S.?      ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL

Why do WE Hate Them?      ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL

Despite the fact that most Americans, including our Government understand this truth, America is too fearful to admit that Israel is the barrier between the West and Islam, between perpetual war and peace, and between the interests of the American people and the Pro-Israel politics of our Government too greedy for Jewish money and votes, and too cowardly to face the Pro-Israeli Media backlash should they ever so slightly oppose the "Israel First" policy.   The Political Unemployment line is filled with politicians who fought for America's cause and independence from Israel and who sought peace in the Holy Land.  Among them are former Senators William Fulbright, Charles Percy, Reps. Paul Findley and Cynthia McKinney.

The American Government, Media, Wall Street, Hollywood, and "experts" on television are ensuring through daily bombardment of intimidating sound bytes that the American TAXPAYER, who is the ultimate VICTIM in this charade of 55 years of Israel's existence, will never know the truth about Israel's grip on this nation or if he/she does, that they will never have the courage to ever speak out publicly. 

THE ANSWER MY FRIEND AS TO WHY MUSLIMS ARE DYING EVERYDAY AND WHY AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY ISRAEL (USS Liberty in 1967, Marines in Beirut) and will continue to die around the world especially in Israel's push for America to attack Iraq, and not North Korea, IS BLOWING IN THE WINDS OF "JEWISH POWER".(See the book: "Jewish Power" by the Jewish American journalist and Editor of the Jewish paper, "FORWARD")

The Zionist Jewish hold on the western world, especially America, stems from the following foundations:

1.  The HOLOCAUST: 

    The murder of millions of innocent Jews in Europe, not America, was among the many genocidal holocausts in history.  Jews were murdered, their properties confiscated, and were scapegoated for their faith and ethnicity.   Tragically and ironically, Jews in Israel are propagating the same crimes against innocent Palestinians while once again the world is SILENT, but this time America is providing the money, weapons, and protective Vetoes in the United Nation to directly support Israel's Jews in their "Palestinian Holocaust".

2.  The Intimidating Power of ANTI-SEMITISM: 

    Anyone who dares criticize Israel's policies or atrocities against innocent Palestinians or Muslims is publicly tarred and feathered by the Pro-Israel media, and branded for life with the new and improved Scarlet Letter "A" for Anti-Semitism;  a career ending silencing weapon that Presidents, Congressmen, Kings, Prime Ministers, Popes, world citizens, and most importantly American citizens fear most.  

    It's time to understand the real meaning of "SEMITE" and for world Jewry to get over their psychological and politically motivated paranoia that the entire world, especially the United Nations,  genetically and inherently HATES them because they are God's "Chosen People".   The very idea that God, the loving, merciful, omnipotent Creator of all the universe would have an "exclusive" love and relationship to a small group of people, especially people whose relationship with God is one of continuous rebellion, is beyond divine logic.   What does such logic leave for Christians who believe in God's only son as their personal Savior?  Today, the 13 million Jews around the world are the most prosperous and powerful ethnic group in the world.  The existence, the military power, wealth, and brutal behavior of Israel toward its neighbors despite world condemnation is a testament to that prosperity. 

    Definition of Semitic:  Semite derives from the name of Noah's son, Shem, the father of the Semitic speaking peoples.  Semitic refers to LANGUAGES, not a religion or ethnicity.  It refers to the Semitic languages of Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Assyrian, Babylonian, Ethiopian and others.  It has NOTHING to do with Jews or Judaism.  Given that the majority of Jews are neither related to the original Israelites nor speak Hebrew, most therefore are not Semites, while all Arabs are by definition Semites given their Arabic language.  SO let's stop this hypocritical manipulation of Anti-Semitism to silence criticism of Israel. 

3.   The American MEDIA and HOLLYWOOD:

    ALL of the Hollywood Studios were founded by European Jews while most of America's MEDIA Conglomerates are either owned, controlled, directed, or have a majority of Jewish editors, journalists, or columnists, compared to any other ethnic group.  There are Nine Major Media Conglomerates that control most of the world media and almost all are owned or run by Jews.  People seem to get a neurological seizure when such factual statements are made but that's the truth.  Even Michael Medved, the known Jewish American film critic asks the question, "So What if Hollywood is Run by Jews?", so why should anyone else recoil from such statements.   Ironically, the most courageous critics of Israel around the world are Jews, but these Jews are pariahs, called "Self Hating Jews" by other Jews, and are denied access to the American media.  Even more ironic is that Israeli Jews and the Israeli Media are the harshest critics of Israel and defenders of Palestinian human rights but no such brave Jew exists in America's media.  To Jewish Americans, Israel is their "Wailing Wall" where their money, votes, and protests serve to compensate them for their guilt of not immigrating to Israel and leaving their American wealth.  Most Jews around the world are non-religious, in fact almost all the Zionist Jews who founded Israel were non-religious, many were atheists, Buddhists, or Communists.   In fact the majority of the Russian Communists who established the Soviet Union were Jews. 

    NO American who wishes to speak against Israel is allowed to write in the OpEd pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or appear as a talking head on television.  If you pay close attention to the "experts" on Israel or Islam on Television you'll find that they're almost always Jews, Israeli's, or Pro-Israel Christian Zionists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Bill O'Reilly, Cal Thomas, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and so on.

4.  CONGRESS:

    Out of 100 Senators, 11 are Jewish (that's 11% despite Jews are only 1.7% of U.S. population).  NONE of the Senators are African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Muslim Americans.  Congress has been correctly called by Former Secretary of State James Baker as the "Little Knesset (Israel's Parliament)" and by Pat Buchanan as "Israeli Occupied Territory".  No American institution is a better pandering doormat to Israel's concerns and needs than Congress.  (see quotes on Israel's power on Congress by American statesmen in www.mideastfacts.com)

The ONLY American Group to have a SPECIAL LIAISON OFFICE in the White House are American Jews.  No other American ethnic, religious, civilian, or military group has such a privileged or special office with an Assistant to the President for Jewish Affairs in the White House, other than American Jews.  No group has immediate access to the President on such issues as foreign policy, budget matters, military issues, aid to Israel, or who Israel deems next to be America's next enemy or a candidate for the all important "Terrorism" list.  Saying NO TO ISRAEL automatically puts a person or nation on the "List
 
5.  RECYCLED JEWISH INFLUENCE:

    Influential Pro-Israel Jews are constantly in and out of the U.S. Government in jobs important to Israel such as in the National Security Council (During Clinton's term, 7 out of the 11 members of the NSC were Jews), the State Department, Pentagon, Ambassadorships and so on.  Such "expert" Jews flow with ease between important national security jobs in the Government and Jewish owned or Israeli funded Washington Think Tanks, such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy or other Conservative Think Tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Council of Foreign Relations and others.  "Expert" such as:   Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Steven Grossman, Eliot Abrams, Richard Hass, Paul Wolfowitz, Stuart Eizenstat and so on.  For decades American foreign policy positions dealing with the Middle East have always been given to Jewish Americans, such is the "honest broker" policy in the MidEast.  It seems there are no other Americans capable of filling such positions.  Currently the most powerful Zionists in the government are those who want Americans to die in Iraq for Israel's sake:   Eliot Abrams in charge of MidEast policy at the NSC; Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, and Richard Perle of the Pentagon Advisory Council.  Neither the President of the United States, nor his Cabinet, nor the United Nations, nor the European Union, nor Russia (the so called "Quartet" group for MidEast peace) have any influence in the Middle East not approved by Israel.

6.  JEWISH WEALTH:

    Roughly 60% of the donations to the Democratic National Committee is from Jewish donors.  America's corrupt campaign financing laws forces candidates to pander to Israel's supporters for money in exchange for all the billions, weapons, and vetoes at the U.N. Israel wants.   Now that Bush's warpath on Arabs and Muslims pleases Israel, Jewish Americans are supporting Republican candidates and dumping Democrats their historical allies.  To Israel and Jewish Americans there is only ONE LITMUS TEST for their Money, Votes, and favorable Media Coverage:  WHICH political party supports Israel the most and allows Israel a free hand to drench the soil of peace in the Holy Land with Arab Christian and Muslim blood.

Today it's President Bush and the Republican Congress.   Bush learned from his father's defeat after the Desert Storm four important lessons:   a.  Never Cross American Jews     b.  Never Cross the Religious Right     c.   Using the Military to Kill Foreigners, especially Muslims, is popular with the American people   d.  Give Tax Cuts to the Rich.
 
Hence Bush's Economic Plan Addresses these Priorities:
1.  Israel is to get $20 Billion in Free Aid this year to support it's Economic Recession, Pay for it's Military Occupation, and provide for Health Care, Housing, and Jobs for its Veterans-----of course while denying America's Veterans Health care benefits, housing, and job training. 
2.  Launch War on Islam to placate the Conservative Religious Right comprising of such Godly Men of Peace as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Jerry Vines, Benny Hinn, James Robison, John Hagee and the rest of the Christian "Tele--tubbie--Evangelists" whose aim is to kill Jews, Muslims, and anyone else to bring back the "Prince of Peace".   Thus their plan for salvation is paved with war, death, and blood. 
3.  Bush is cutting deeply into Domestic Programs such as aid for Heating Oil for the Poor, Education, Health Care, Social Security and Medicare, and aid to States, while providing large Tax Cuts for the Rich and for the unpatriotic Corporations leaving for overseas to avoid paying taxes and hiring American Union workers. 
4.  An Iraq War will provide billions in profits for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Oil Companies as well as the Military Industrial Complex where his father, family, and friend enjoy Board Directorship positions.  NO such aid came to the millions of Americans who lost everything as a result of lies, fraud, and bankruptcy of Bush supported Corporation such as Enron.

Well you don't believe me.  OKAY, YOU WANT PROOF OF MY STATEMENTS.  I would hope that the readers would have the courage and curiosity to search for such facts themselves.  One can start with these websites, some maintained by Jews:  www.cactus48.com (Jewish site on Origin of Israeli-Palestinian conflict; www.wrmea.com; www.mideastfacts.com (great comprehensive site on the MidEast); www.electronicintafada.com; www.palestinechronicle.com; www.mediamonitors.net; www.aljazeerah.info; http://www.palestine-un.org/; http://www.mecaforpeace.org/; http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm; http://www.peacenow.org.il/English.asphttp://www.freepalestinecampaign.org/ (great site of: Int'l Solidarity Movement); http://iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IT0301-1820 (a recent important article by an American General (Ret)

PROOF THAT IN AMERICA ZIONIST "JEWS" ARE MORE VALUED THAN OTHER AMERICANS.

1.  United States Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. 

(Established by the UNANIMOUS passage of Congressional legislation in October 1980 (Public Law 96-)388).

    Although American Jews were not victims of the Holocaust and it was American soldiers who liberated Jews from Concentration Camps, the U.S. Government in response to Jewish pressure, donated federal land (Illegally) and paid with U.S. Taxdollars (illegally) to construct a PRIVATE Holocaust museum on the venerable American National Mall in Washington D.C.  After paying for its construction, Congress annually appropriates the majority of the funds (tax money) for the Museum's maintenance.   In fact, President Bill Clinton on October 13, 2000 signed Legislation Granting this "PRIVATE" Museum "Permanent Federal Status" which permits Congress to fund the museum annually without any question or review. 

FROM THE U.S. HOLOCAUST MUSEUM PRESS RELEASE:  October 13, 2000

 

WASHINGTON, DC – President Bill Clinton yesterday signed legislation that establishes permanent status for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which was created to be the national living memorial to the Holocaust and its victims.

The Museum "serves as a constant and painful reminder that racism, anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred are ever-present dangers, and that indifference to hatred makes each of us complicit in some way," President Clinton said

The granting of permanent status is significant as an expression of the importance the U.S. government places on the Museum.   Permanent status permits Congress to provide funding without having to review the Federal role.

"The presence of permanent authorization for appropriations signifies that America’s national memorial to the victims of the Holocaust is now an integral part of our capital city. It represents our nation’s permanent commitment to never forget past failures of responsibility and to enlist conscience to uphold life and law permanently. Therefore, the memorial stands so appropriately among our greatest monuments to democracy," says the Chair of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, Rabbi Irving Greenberg.

"Permanent authorization enhances the Museum’s ability to function as one of OUR government’s most successful public-private partnerships," says the Museum’s Director Sara Bloomfield..... This momentous initiative is another reflection of the strong bipartisan support the Museum enjoys."

The Museum opened more than seven years ago on land provided by the Federal government, which also contributes towards basic operating costs......The current budget for the Museum is $55.4 million, with $34.4 million contributed by the federal government and $21.0 million from private contributions.

CONGRESS DEEMS IT UNWORTHY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC FUNDING TO HONOR AMERICA'S VETERANS IN WASHINGTON D.C.  FOR THE FOLLOWING WARS AND SACRIFICES:

1.  World War I Memorial    2.  World War II Memorial (privately funded)     3. A Korean War Memorial (privately funded)    4.  A Vietnam Memorial (privately funded)     4.  An African-American Slavery Museum     5.  A Native American Holocaust Museum    6.  A Revolutionary War Memorial      7.  A Civil War Memorial

8.  An American Women Armed Services Memorial    9.  A National Pearl Harbor Museum in

So Why a "Holocaust Museum" and not a publicly funded Memorial for American Veterans?

The answer from one of the most powerful Jewish Americans in Washington D.C., a man no one dares refuse his phone call, not meet with him immediately, or publish his letters or opinion pieces.

Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.)

On the Frontline, January 1994 p. 2 , gives the following answer to this question:

 

"The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God's chosen children and thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like it's direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation"

Why should the AMERICAN TAXPAYER fund a private Holocaust Museum while America's own Veterans, men and women who've honorably served this country from the Revolutionary War onward have NO publicly funded monument or museum in their honor?  This outrageous shame continues while Congressmen compete to provide more funds to Jewish American Museums around the country.   Adding insult to injury they shamefully DENY funding of Veterans issues such as health care, pensions, disabilities, burial rites, retirement compensations.  

AMERICA NEEDS ITS PROUD VETERANS ONCE AGAIN TO ANSWER THE CALL FOR ITS SECOND INDEPENDENCE.  This time an Independence from a small opportunistic foreign nation called Israel.  It's time our Veterans provide the political strength and leadership to reclaim our Government to serve the American people and their needs and not the needs of the 16th wealthiest nation on earth, Israel, simply because of a powerful small Jewish lobby.  Israel has received $1.7 Trillion from the American taxpayer since 1949 and continues to receive 40% of all of America's foreign aid while all of Africa and Latin America get pennies per person.  Americans are once again being taxed twice:  Once for America and Once for Israel, except with Israel this constitutes "Taxation Without Representation" in that Americans have no voice on how their money and weapons are used.   Muslim and Christian children are dying in Palestine with America's bullets, missiles, and tanks.  Is our America "the land of the brave, and home of the free" or is it Israel's America "the land of the silenced cowards, the land of Israel's hostages"

American Veterans have always been ready to defend our nation and Constitution.  However, once their job and sacrifice was completed our own Government disowned, ignored, neglected, and denied their just and fair compensation.  In fact, World War I Veterans had to resort to marching on Washington D.C. in  the "Bonus Army March" of 1932 to demand restitution of unpaid pensions.  The Government's caring response was to send in the military to evict them forcefully from the city.   Today, America's Veterans are seeking to recreate a second "Bonus March" on Washington of One Million Vets to once again protest our Government's shanty treatment of these courageous American heroes.    In a recent editorial (1/2/2003) titled "Ill-Treated Veterans", the Boston Globe excoriates President Bush and the country for breaking the promise to Veterans for a life time benefit of health care if they serve 20 years.  This is in spite of President Bush's statement to the American Legion during his 2000 campaign that ''we have a responsibility to fulfill the health care commitments made to those who wore the uniform.''   It is shocking that our brave men and women who've served this country honorably have to resort to a class action suit to reclaim their health benefits.  (See:  http://www.classact-lawsuit.com/response.html)

Veterans are often homeless, without jobs, training, health care, drug and alcohol addicted, suffer from chronic physical and mental health problems (Gulf War Syndrome, Agent Orange, Radiation Sickness), and have higher divorce rates.  According to a recent survey by Rescue Missions:  "One in three homeless men at Rescue Missions Are Veterans.  While more than 40 percent of Homeless Vets Served in Vietnam alone." 

An American Veteran wrote a letter to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson seeking relief and assistance for America's Veterans.  Here's part of Senator Simpson's response:

"You made a choice to make the military a career, and no agency can match the benefit level of the military pension.   All federal programs are, as they should, being subject to extra scrutiny as Congress looks to regain fiscal sanity in the government."   AUG. 29, 1996 

No American politician would DARE send such a letter to a Jewish American organization or to an Israeli official claiming fiscal responsibility and scrutiny as reasons to deny Israel the Billions it DEMANDS and ALWAYS GETS.   For 30 years, Congress was automatically doling out Billions to Israel despite a massive federal budget deficit, massive debt, and massive cuts in domestic programs.  Congress takes Israel's "grants" out first from the budget and then balances the budget on the backs of America's Seniors, Veterans, Minorities, Poor, and even America's schools and children.    In fact, on April 14, 1999, Senators l Moynihan (D-NY), Fitzgerald (R-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Spencer Abraham (R-MI) introduced legislation exempting all restitution payments to Holocaust victims and their heirs to be exempt from federal income tax.

American Veterans should be so lucky for willing to die for their country. 
 
 
"The moon gives you light,
And the bugles and the drums give you music,
And my heart, O my soldiers, my veterans,
My heart gives you love." 
    ---Walt Whitman (1819–1892), U.S. poet. Dirge for Two Veterans (l. 33–36

 


 

-

Facts about Israel and its relationship with America as a Pop Quiz

By James J. David *
1/11/03

-

 

"Q. Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because 'We control America?'.."

The original Middle East Pop Quiz was published by Charley Reese back on February 8, 1998. Since then, there have been many additions to the quiz which I have added. With many thanks to Charley Reese and hoping he makes a full recovery from his recent illness, I present the updated version.

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
Answer: Israel.

Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
Answer: Israel.

Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?
Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?
Answer: Israel.

Q: In what country in the MiddleEast was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
Answer: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East did theman who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors?
Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?
Answer: Israel.

Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?
Answer: Israel.

Q. What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody?
Answer: Israel

Q. What Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Mosque?
Answer: Israel

Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?
Answer: Israel.

Q. Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children?
Answer: Israel

Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?
Answer: Israel.

Q. Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-thind of all U.S. aid yet is the 16th richest country in the world?
Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S.?
Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely insults the American people by having its Prime Minister address the United States Congress and lecturing them like children on why they have no right to reduce foreign aid?
Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because " We control America?"
Answer: Israel

Q. What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children?
Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehichles, bulldozers, or tanks?
Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing?
Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children?
Answer: Israel

Q.. Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes?
Answer: Israel

Q: What country in the Middle East is the United States threatening to attack because of fear that it may be a threat to us and to our allies?
Answer: Iraq

* James J. David is a retired Brigadier General and a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington DC. He served as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969.)

 


 

-

Upping the stakes
Arab News, 10 January 2003
-

 


The White House ought to know it cannot treat North Korea with the same arrogance as Iraq. However President Bush’s unique brand of precision sledgehammer diplomacy has worsened already strained relations with North Korea. In blowing the whistle on Pyongyang’s continuing nuclear weapons program last year, Washington miscalculated and played into North Korean hands. By focusing on the country’s nuclear program, it allowed the North Korean government to ratchet up the stakes progressively, first by announcing it would resume the operation of nuclear reactors, (turned off after the 1994 Framework Agreement with the US, in return for aid), then by throwing out UN inspectors and now by repudiating its accession to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Bush wants to get on with humiliating Iraq and finishing his father’s Gulf War business. Now, however, the growing danger from North Korea is diverting White House and Pentagon attention to the Far East. This may well explain why all of a sudden, the urgency seems to have gone out of Washington’s demands that the UN weapons inspectors complete their search for Iraq weaponry.

The key to understanding the extraordinary North Korean regime, a repressive Communist dictatorship unsafely fossilized from change, is to realize that this is a country that considers itself under siege. Its people, who for 50 years were taught to revere the state’s founder, Kim Il-Sung, as the “Great Leader”, believe themselves surrounded by enemies eager to crush them. Only in Kim himself can they find protection. The dictator may have died in 1994 but he remains his country’s leader, officially branded “ President for Eternity”. Kim’s son and successor Kim Jong-il, defers continually and very publicly to his father’s guiding principles. Of course for the top leadership, who have the resources to understand the realities of the outside world, such shenanigans are bunk. For them the maintenance of North Korea’s paranoid and aggressive isolation is the only way to hang onto their own power and privileges.

Knowing that North Korea is on Washington’s hit list of countries that deemed to comprise an Axis of Evil, Kim has almost certainly calculated that were he to just sit back and let the Americans deal with Iraq as they see fit, North Korea’s turn would be next. A military attack against heavily armed North Korea may be unthinkable but it can be expected that Washington will seek to isolate the regime completely, hoping that by persuading China and Russia to cut off support, the country will simply collapse. Whether China could be persuaded to allow a united Korea on its doorstep with a continued US presence, as the White House wants, is another matter. The crucial section of the North Korean statement announcing its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty comes at the end where it sets out a need for dialogue. What Kim is trying to do is to lock the Americans and North Korea’s neighbors into a firm commitment, not only to leave his country alone, but also to resume the economic support that will permit his regime to survive. If Washington does not parley now, then North Korea will press ahead with its nuclear weapons program so raising the price that it hopes it will eventually be paid for compliance.Kim no doubt thinks his is a win-win position. He is betting that the Bush White House wants so badly to topple Saddam Hussain’s regime, that it will be prepared to pay a high price to bring North Korea back into line. On the face of it, he seems to be correct. Even if Washington would ever contemplate fighting to destroy North Korea, it could hardly do so at this moment. President Bush is therefore pretty well between a rock and a hard place. Maybe it would have been better last year to have ignored North Korea’s resumed nuclear program, in the same way that Washington has so long turned a blind eye to Israel’s equally illegal acquisition of nuclear weaponry.


 


 

-

2003: a momentous year for Turkey 

By Mohammad Noureddine

The Daily Star, 1/11/03

-

 

The year gone by was full of changes for Turkey, ensuring that the one ahead will be full of challenges ­ and testifying both to the country’s enduring dynamism and its many contradictions.
Turks will remember 2002 for a long time to come, just as they remember 1950 ­ when the Democratic Party swept to power, defeating Ataturk’s Republican People’s Party (CHP) ­ and the years which witnessed military coups, be they direct (in 1960, 1970 and 1981) or indirect (1997). The year 2002 will go down in history for the landslide won by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) at last November’s elections, which propelled the Islamists to power, giving them control of Parliament and enabling them to form a government on their own.
The triumph of the Islamists under Recep Tayyip Erdogan was also
a resounding vote of no confidence in an entire political class, spanning the political spectrum from left to right. Politicians who had shaped and dominated political life for the past 10, 20 or even 40 years suddenly found themselves excluded from it and denied parliamentary mandates: True Path Party (DYP) leader Tansu Ciller; Motherland Party (ANAP) leader Mesut Yilmaz; the ultra-nationalist chieftain of the Nationalist Action Party Devlet Bahceli; Saadet Party  head Recai Kutan; and former Foreign Minister Ismail Cem.
Most humiliating of all was the defeat suffered by elder statesman Bulent Ecevit, whose Democratic Left Party (DSP) obtained a paltry 1.2 percent of the vote after having come first in the 1999 elections with over 21.5 percent of the mandates.
Turkey needed the change. The preceding decade (1991-2002) had been one of unstable coalition governments, whose political infighting and machinations were accompanied by waste and corruption on a grand scale that cost the country an estimated $200 billion. Turkey’s debts multiplied, the value of its national currency plummeted and ordinary people found themselves hard-up overnight. By February 2001, Turkey was on the brink of bankruptcy.
Change was also needed to preserve social peace. A severe heightening of societal, civilian-military and secular-religious tensions marked the period since February 1997. An entire segment of civil society was turned into an outcast (in economic, educational and social terms) and made to pay heavily for its Islamist convictions. The recent assumption of power by the Islamists can play a vital role in easing the political and social strains that resulted and which persist.
Today’s Islamists differ from those of yesteryear. The Islam of the Erdoganists is extremely moderate and barely retains any Islamist features. The creed of Necmettin Erbakan, the historic leader of Turkish political Islam, was realistic and pragmatic too, but it adhered more to Islamist norms, in terms of both ideology and general practice.
The rise to power of the Islamists even provides the hard-line Kemalist establishment with a valuable opportunity: a chance to shed its intolerantly secularist and anti-Muslim image.
The new reality mandated by the people’s will has been accepted by “the powers that be.” But it has yet to turn its acceptance into conviction and cooperation, and build bridges to Erdogan (who has done his utmost to build bridges to “the powers that be”).
The results of the encounter between secularists and Islamists have not been very encouraging so far, but it still needs time to bear fruit. Diehard Kemalist leaders ­ including the state prosecutor, the head of the Higher Education Council, and even the army chief of staff ­ appear determined to yield nothing and brook no compromise over what they term “republican and secularist principles.” Their feeling that an era is fizzling out has driven them to wage their last stand before Turkey has to comply with the requirements of European reform.
Their battle is really against the “Copenhagen criteria.” The biggest challenge facing Erdogan is how to make this republican “old guard” comply with the conditions for membership in the European Union. The task is by no means easy. But it is supremely ironic that it should be an Islamist who is leading the fight for accession to the EU, against fierce resistance from a secularist elite that for 80 years justified its hold on power in terms of the need to Westernize Turkey and ascertain its European identity.
Turkey also faces the challenge of producing a new political class that is in tune with both the domestic changes and the new international order.
The new “leaders” who have emerged to date inspire little confidence. The DYP, for example, which had been led by Ciller and was founded by the venerable Suleyman Demirel, has ended up being headed by Mehmet Agar, a character who spent his career in various security and police jobs. The politicians vying for leadership of ANAP, the late Turgut Ozal’s creation, are markedly lacking in political vision or appeal. The DSP, for its part, snoozes on in the sickbed of Ecevit and his equally elderly wife Rahsan.
The only other party that obtained seats in Parliament, the CHP, differs little from the rest of the now-extinct political class. Its leader, Deniz Baykal, has no specific political program, and his partner Kemal Dervis ­ who was brought in during the spring of 2001 as the country’s “economic savior” ­ has lost credibility because of his opportunism and his zigzagging between one party and another before he opted to join Baykal.
It will take time for a new political class to emerge. Such developments do not happen overnight. But unless major surprises occur, or the AKP commits major blunders in office, Erdogan and his colleagues appear to be in a position to establish their dominance of political life for a long while to come.
On the external front, 2002 presented Turkey with the challenge of setting a date for the start of EU accession talks. The end of 2004 was chosen, with the onus on Turkey to complete the remaining legislative steps required by the Copenhagen criteria, and to comply with them in actual practice. That raises the greatest single challenge facing Erdogan: how to strip the army of its political role. This is set to be the “mother of all battles” as far as domestic reform is concerned. Erdogan will have to lead it in person after he assumes the premiership, as he is expected to do in the next couple of months.
Turkey will also need to take a grip on the Cyprus question before the end of February. Ankara has been presented with a bona fide opportunity to extricate itself from this quagmire and turn the issue to its advantage in its quest for EU membership. But here again, much depends on being able to sway the military establishment and its ally, Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash. Many complicated factors come into play in this 30-year-old problem.
Which leaves Iraq ­ Ankara’s long-standing obsession. The status quo there suits it, but Turkey is under relentless pressure from Washington to take part in any war that is launched. Prime Minister Abdullah Gul may have toured Arab capitals to discuss “preventing war,” but that does not negate the fact that the Islamists in Ankara have been doing their best to win Washington’s favor. Gul’s unwarranted New Year diatribe against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein may have been part of that effort.

Mohammad Noureddine is an analyst on Turkish affairs.

 

 


 

-

Arab Americans' struggle in the US
Gulf News, 11-01-2003
-

 


The combined lobby of the Zionists and right wing Christians, which has such influence in this Bush administration, needs to be resisted on many fronts, including both the international and national level within the US. Their influence is both dangerous for the Middle East and damaging to the United State's own declared values.

However, in the long term the development of Americans of Arab descent as a more coherent and organised group of voters is an important part of both creating general public awareness that Arab Americans are a normal part of American public life, as well as importing more balance to American policies on the Middle East. Increased participation in public life, even if initially unsuccessful in elections, will nonetheless help counteract the pernicious influence of the two lobbies that enjoy such huge influence at present. Arab Americans in running for public office are vital to this wider recognition, which is why candidates for any public office require any support they can get. Clearly, it will be much more powerful when more Arab Americans get into office.


 


 

-

No ‘smoking gun’ in Iraq doesn’t mean no war

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 1/11/03

-

 

The mixed verdict on Baghdad’s compliance with UN disarmament requirements delivered by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gets a mixed reception in the Arab press.
Some papers highlight his acknowledgement that his teams have found no evidence of any prohibited programs, thereby seemingly denying the US its pretext to go to war, at least for the time being. Others emphasize Blix’s charges against the Baghdad government ­ that its declaration about its arms programs left “many unanswered questions,” and that its cooperation hasn’t been “pro-active” enough ­ and suspect that the arms inspection process could yet trigger a confrontation.
The UAE daily Al-Khaleej comments that Blix could not have been expected to “offer a fully positive verdict on Iraq that would have helped ease the military, diplomatic, economic and propaganda pressure it is under.”
His charge that Baghdad’s 12,000-page arms declaration is deficient enables more pressure to be brought on Iraq, with the aim of embarrassing it and cornering it into making a “mistake,” which the warmongers in Washington desperately need in order to justify war, it says.
With US President George W. Bush apparently unprepared to entertain any alternative to war, “a mistake is needed. It might be found in the minds of the Iraqi scientists whose interrogation is being demanded. It might lie in some statement that offends Washington. It might stem from Blix’s insistence on creating pretexts even without evidence. And it might even take the form of some prohibited item being planted for the inspectors to say they found, or the staged downing of one of the warplanes that carry out raids almost daily, or some other known or unknown intelligence stunt of the kind the CIA is skilled at staging,” Al-Khaleej says in its lead editorial. “Hence the need for a policy of patience that avoids reacting to any provocation from Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Blix, the inspectors, or even from the hordes that Washington and are London are continuing to build up in the region, who are not coming as tourists.”
In the Lebanese daily As-Safir, editor Joseph Samaha writes that the United States now appears to be trying to play down the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issue as its main justification for war. Its new approach is to depict the purpose of military action as being something grander than disarmament: the “salvation” of the Iraqi and Arab people.
Hence the recent leaking of plans for how the Americans will supposedly govern post-Saddam Iraq ­ turning it into a free, peaceful, prosperous and secure federal democracy, rebuilt and modernized with generous and benign American aid and guidance, while the Iraqis are left to run their own affairs and retain control of their oil. A US delegation has been touring the region to publicize such a plan, drawn up in conjunction with a number of American think tanks, Samaha explains.
With such a rosy future being promised, the WMD issue becomes irrelevant, and indeed its importance becomes inverted, he remarks. “If these weapons exist, that is a divine blessing, for it would hasten the advent of that bright future. And if they don’t exist, that is a curse, because a disarmed Iraq is unsuitable as a launching pad for the planned wholesale transformation.”
The way the Americans are spinning it, Iraq should not be denied the wonderful prospects awaiting it merely because there is no evidence that it possesses WMD, Samaha quips. “Thus the real danger facing Iraq (and us) is the threat of peace, which would bring this edifice tumbling down.” The war camp in America wants to do the Arabs and Iraqis a favor, while the peace camp must be anti-Arab “because it insists on some trivial evidence before it allows us to be changed for the better.” And the biggest Arab-haters of all must be “those relatives of Sept. 11 victims who have gone to Baghdad to act as human shields in order to deter the ‘war of salvation’ their country has in store.”
The sight of Western peace campaigners in Baghdad prompts pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi publish/editor Abdelbari Atwan to remark that “foreign states and peoples are showing more concern to prevent a war on Iraq than the Arab states and peoples.”
Thus while volunteers from all over the world flock to Iraq to demonstrate their solidarity and opposition to war, Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul visits Arab capitals to rally efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully, and Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou prepares for a similar tour at the head of a European Union delegation, “Arab officials are laying bets with each other about when the blitz will begin,” he remarks.  “The vast majority, if not all, of the Arab governments support the American war and are impatient for it, for the simple reason that they are all complicit in it, each according to its role.”
Atwan says it was “harsh but true” to hear Gul snap ­ when questioned about US pressure on Turkey to join a war on Iraq ­ that his country “is not a banana republic or an Arab oil emirate.” The fact is that “all the Arab countries, and not just the Gulf emirates, have lost their sovereignty and initiative. They are far worse off than the banana republics, most of which got rid of their dictatorial military regimes and opened up to the world via elected democratic governments and free media.”
The Arab states’ efforts to “safeguard the Iraqi people from extermination” have been confined to “demanding, on behalf of Bush’s administration, that the Iraqi president step down,” Atwan says. The Saudis have been letting it be known that they secretly sent an envoy to Baghdad to try to persuade Saddam Hussein to go into exile so as avoid war, “as though he were the problem, and not the pending American aggression from thousands of kilometers away aimed at occupying the region.”
“The voluntary departure of the Iraqi president won’t resolve the chronic crisis of the Arab order, make the current Arab regimes more acceptable to the US, or block its plans for dismembering Iraq, Saudi Arabia and perhaps other countries in the region,” he writes.
Atwan expects the Bush administration to turn on the UN arms inspectors, following their declaration that they have found no evidence that Iraq has violated its international obligations by producing WMDs. The US president “is on the verge of a nervous breakdown” now that his claims about Iraq’s arms programs have been disproved, he says.
Raghida Dergham, New York bureau chief of the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, writes that Baghdad must do more than comply meticulously with the arms inspections ­ including the harsher demands that UNMOVIC is poised to make ­ if it is to stand any chance of averting war.
She notes that in his speech to the UN General Assembly last September, Bush spelled out a number of conditions that Iraq had to fulfill to avoid war, “and Saddam Hussein has been complying with some of them.” The arms inspectors have been readmitted and the Iraqi leadership has ordered complete cooperation with them. If it sustains that cooperation, provides more evidence that it has disarmed, and allows its scientists to be interrogated and the arms inspectors to be as intrusive as they want, it will have gone some way to meeting Bush’ first condition.
The second condition related to Kuwaiti persons and property missing since the 1991 Gulf War ­ and here again Baghdad has indeed reactivated the UN procedure for dealing with those issues.
Bush’s third condition concerned illicit Iraqi external trade outside the UN “oil-for-food” program, and Baghdad “has been forced to comply,” by the tightening of sanctions and the warnings issued to Iraq’s neighbors.
Dergham recalls that Bush’s fourth condition for sparing Iraq from war was deemed deliberately provocative at the time. He said if Baghdad took all the above steps, this might pave the way for the UN to help build a new government that represents all Iraqis and is elected under international supervision. The Bush administration assumed that it would be “impossible” for the Iraqi leadership to even consider such a step, “but what was indeed impossible last autumn is now a requisite and an opportunity,” she says.
The Iraqi leadership, which is doomed if war is launched, could conceivably save itself by taking “unprecedented measures” designed “to steer Iraq along a new course toward pluralism and democracy, and transform it into a civilian power with no match in the region, with its natural resources as its mainstay and normalization with its neighbors and the world as its policy.”
Dergham writes that for all the talk of war being “inevitable,” Bush himself has been reluctant to plunge into hostilities ­ resisting pressure from within his administration to “rush” into military conflict, and insisting on giving diplomacy, via the UN, a chance.
“The odd thing today is that George W. Bush could be Saddam Hussein’s lifeline if the Iraqi leader were to appreciate that he could save himself from being put on trial, held to account and destroyed by actively helping to change the regime in Iraq and embarking on astonishing initiatives,” Dergham remarks.
Iraq aside, another big story in the Arab press is the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the ban on the country’s two leading Palestinian politicians, Azmi Bishara and Ahmed Tibi, from contesting the Jan. 28 Knesset elections.
As-Safir portrays the reversal of the ban, which had been ordered by the rightist-dominated Central Election Committee, as an attempt by the Israeli authorities to pre-empt an angry backlash among “1948 Palestinians.” It also sees is as a blow to the Israeli intelligence services ­ which drew up the list of allegations on the strength of which the two Arab legislators were originally disqualified ­ and their attempt to meddle in the electoral process.
Hassan Madan, writing for Al-Khaleej, is heartened by the ruling, which he says highlights the increasingly important role being played by Palestinian leaders within the 1967 Green Line. He is particularly impressed by Bishara, describing him as part of the “new breed of nationalist leaders” who ­ along with their counterparts in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, such as Marwan Barghouti ­ combine practical experience of struggle with a spirit of resistance and defiance, a thoroughly modern and progressive outlook, and a high degree of integrity and political and intellectual sophistication.
These qualities have enabled Bishara to become a highly effective voice for the Palestinians worldwide, especially at the non-governmental level, while building bridges between the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs in other countries, Madan writes. That is precisely why he has been a constant target of Israeli intelligence, and of right-wing, chauvinistic and racist political forces in Israel, which have sought to bar him from politics and get him tried for treason.
Trying to disqualify Bishara and Tibi was an attempt to “deny the Palestinian Arab voice any platform from which to express the Palestinians’ suffering and aspirations,” says Madan, but the Palestinians have demonstrated once again that their will cannot be crushed.
In the Arab press within Israel proper, Zuhair Andraos of Nazareth-based Kul al-Arab takes a far more critical view of the two politicians and their respective supporters.
He writes that the Israeli ruling establishment’s attempt to disqualify Bishara and Tibi was a bid to “stifle the Arab national minority and exclude its representatives from the Knesset.” It was thus a racist move targeting every Palestinian Arab in Israel, and in response “it would have been natural for us to behave like a national minority, demonstrate our strength and unity to them, and speak out in one voice.”
But instead, Arab leaders “behaved irresponsibly” and showed disunity. Thus, Tibi’s supporters held a demonstration in Nazareth to protest the ban on him, while Bishara’s backers convened a separate rally in his defense. Likewise, the two groups held unconnected pickets outside the Supreme Court, instead of organizing a joint demonstration that would have sent out a far more powerful message.
“Why can’t we rise above our personal and ideological rivalries and prove to the world and to Israel’s rulers that we are united?” Andraos asks. “We say that we will never allow Israel to implement its divide-and-rule policy. But we don’t need Israel. We are capable of carrying out this despicable and loathsome policy ourselves, without the help and assistance of the state and its agencies.”

 


 

 

 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

-

 

-

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.