|
Jan , 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info |
||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
|
-
Are
you a 'friend of freedom?' By
Linda Heard Online Journal, 1/23/03
-
January 23, 2003—That's it folks! The leader of the free world has spoken. "The friends of freedom will disarm Saddam Hussein." Where do I sign up to be a friend of freedom you might ask? Sounds good to me. The American president [sic] went on to say: "This kind, generous and compassionate nation will lead the world to peace." Wow! We'd all like to support such a nation, wouldn't we? Who in their right mind wouldn't want to become a 'friend of freedom' helping out a kind and compassionate nation? Mr. George W. Bush sounds as though he has noble aspirations. If you really want to be a friend of freedom, the first thing you should do is find a role model. Now let's see . . . Eureka! The perfect friend of freedom is surely Britain's Tony Blair. Like the American leader, Blair also wants to "liberate the Iraqi people." These two friends of freedom are all set to do that by invading their country with up to 250,000 troops, state-of-the-art weapons, including microwave technology, and if the stubborn Iraqis don't shower them with chemicals instead of flowers and candy, then they wouldn't rule nuking them out of existence. Still want to be a friend of freedom? Our friendly duo, when they are not bribing, bamboozling and bearing down on UN member states, are busy supporting Iraqi dissident groups to help them oust the Iraqi leader and would not be averse to seeing Saddam Hussein end up with a well placed bullet in the back, as the spokesperson of the Chief Friend of Freedom, Ari Fleischer, once implied. "Live Free or Die" was obviously the motto of another one of freedom's buddies, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who, when asked whether the deaths of so many Iraqi children due to sanctions were worth the benefits, had no hesitation in saying that they were. After all, those kiddies had died for freedom didn't they? Many Americans know what it is like being a friend of freedom. Defending freedom against those nasty Commies caused the war in Vietnam, which still weighs heavy on the psyche of the more sensitive. They still remember the draft dodgers who fled to Holland and Scandinavia where they lived on the generosity of sympathisers, smoked dope and grew their hair long. They still recall how the Vietnam vets were spat on when returned home hoping for glory, and the image of the incinerated child still burns on their national conscience. Although on a much smaller scale, war with Iraq could evolve into a Vietnam replay. If the Bush/Blair combo get their way we could suffer from collective guilt for decades to come in the way that a section of the US are suffering today. Germany, too, still retains its Holocaust scars as we can see from its stringent laws concerning anti-Semitism and racism, as well as its reluctance to join in a conflict with Iraq. It is clear that the Bush administration plan to attack Iraq was in the pipeline long before Bush junior came to office. George H. W. Bush was accused of not finishing the job in 1991 and was the victim of an alleged assassination attempt, thought to have been the work of Saddam Hussein. Add to the pot the Bush family interests in both the oil and the weapons industries, along with America's geopolitical ambitions and you could find a combined raison d'etre for war. We should also take into account the right-wing southern Baptist, Christian-Zionist beliefs of many of the upper echelons of the US administration. People who believe in the Second Coming, which will only come to pass post-Armageddon, are Bush's main political support base. We still haven't found out where Bush stands on this issue. We probably never will as he has ensured that his presidential records and tapes will be sealed for a very long time to come. Another event which must take place before Jesus, as Christians believe, will return to earth is the rebuilding of the Jewish temple adjacent to where the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock stands today. Israel today enjoys enormous financial and moral support from Evangelical Christians without stopping to consider that according to Biblical prophecy, two-thirds of all Jews will be wiped out, with the other one-third having to convert to Christianity. It should be said that most followers of Christ around the world abhor this proposed conflict, including Pope John Paul II and almost every Anglican bishop. They know that when Jesus said: "Suffer the little children to come unto me for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven," he did not mean sending them there prematurely in wooden boxes. Whichever way one looks at it an invasion of Iraq would be self-serving and immoral. Already more than 500,000 Iraqi children are said to have died due to US-UK-led crippling sanctions, Iraq's water supplies have been tainted with raw sewage, and babies are still being born with deformities due to the use of depleted uranium by allied forces during the Gulf War. An entire generation in Iraq has lost its chances for education and while Iraq was once a bastion of culture and modernity in the Middle East, it is now little more than a wasteland on every level. Iraq was wrong to invade Kuwait in 1990 (some say that the US gave Hussein the green light to do so) but it has paid a heavy price for its wrongdoing. Since, Iraq has been trying to rejoin the world community, get the sanctions lifted and it has been asking for a process of forgiveness and reconciliation as was seen at the Arab League meeting held in Beirut early last year. Recently, Hussein has returned museum artifacts stolen from Kuwait in 1991 as well as important files taken out of ministry buildings. Iraq has not threatened the US in any way for the past 12 years and does not possess missiles with sufficient range to hit New York or Washington or even London. Its Scuds can reach Tel Aviv as we saw during the Gulf War and fears are that this time they could be loaded with chemical or biological weapons. The Bush administration is, of course, fully aware of this but has still seized every opportunity since September 11, 2001, to impress upon the American people and the world that Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to them. First, it began to fudge the still elusive Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein and wasted no time trying to pin the anthrax attacks on Iraq. Later, the creative minds in the US security agencies came up with the accusation that Mohamed Atta, one of the 19 hijackers, met with an Iraq secret service agent in Prague (this later turned out to be false). When a well-known Palestinian militant was killed in Baghdad, the Americans said that Iraq was harbouring foreign terrorist groups. Sadly few Americans can see that their government is trying, and often succeeding with the assistance of its compliant media, to pull the wool over their eyes. This propaganda has succeeded so well that today some 46 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the atrocities committed by al Queda terrorists on that fateful September day. If many Americans are hopelessly misinformed, the British, while less gullible than the Americans, and also far less gung ho, are apathetic. Most have little interest in wars fought at the other side of the world and would prefer to watch Eastenders than the news. They appear to know all about Brittany Spears, as well as Posh Spice and her footballer husband and little about their own politicians—even less about foreign policy. It's a sad state of affairs. Real friends of freedom, staring in the face a war, which could kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and may have devastating repercussions for our planet, should make their voices heard. Murdering innocents with J-dams and Daisy Cutters may be offering them a kind of freedom but I doubt that it is one that those people want. Time is now of the essence. We haven't got time to listen to the stomach-turning propaganda emanating from the White House and Number 10. We should all take a leaf out of the books of French President Jacques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder, the German chancellor. We must say a unanimous "no," "non," "nein," "yok"' in as many languages of the world as possible. We are being duped with flowery expressions, obfuscations and untruths. Friends of true freedom must open their eyes, see the truth and refuse to allow this dirty war to take place. Linda Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at freenewsreport@yahoo.com.
-
-
I'm not sure exactly why it is, but nothing I have
read recently about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians touched me
quite so deeply as the destruction of about 60 shops in the village of
Nazlat Isa. The shootings of civilians, the bulldozing of homes, the
reports of torture, the scores of morally-filthy assassinations, the
improper arrests -- the whole vast, organized mechanism of apartheid
cruelty is stomach-turning, but the deliberate bulldozing of a thriving
little street of shops just seems uncivilized and bleak beyond measure.
Shop owners in the little village were driven out by Israeli soldiers
with gas grenades, and their stores and possessions were smashed by
bulldozers. Israel's excuse for this atrocious behavior is that the shop
owners had not obtained the necessary building permits from Israeli
authorities.
It is well known that the Israeli authorities make it difficult for
Palestinians to obtain permission to undertake the most basic projects.
Requests to make changes or improvements in sewers or streets or
buildings remain unanswered for years.
It all resembles what Soviet citizens used to experience when trying to
get licenses or permissions from apparatchiks. The effort, often ending
in failure, could consume a good fraction of one's lifetime. It proved a
remarkably effective way to destroy human initiative, to say nothing of
the human spirit.
There is an important difference in the two situations, though. The
problem in the Soviet Union resulted from the sheer size and complexity
of its bureaucracy plus the inability and unwillingness of anyone at
almost any level to take responsibility for making a decision.
The problem in the West Bank reflects something more deliberate and
ugly. It is Israel's refusal to treat Palestinians as equal human
beings. Their needs count for little or nothing. What in many places is
a normal, everyday activity, the issuing of building permits, becomes in
the Israeli-occupied West Bank a quiet mechanism for denying people
livelihoods, dignity, and even health. It is slow motion ethnic
cleansing carried out through bureaucracy.
Polls show an increasing number of Israelis supporting
"removal," Israel's terrible euphemism for ethnic cleansing by
bayonet rather than bureaucracy. This growing support undoubtedly
reflects the degrading influence on human values of Sharon, Netanyahu,
and Bush.
But as I've asked before, where do more than three million people go?
What poor, crowded, and troubled country of the Middle East could take
them? The answer is obvious to all but the ideologically blind and
morally obtuse -- no one in the Middle East can take them.
America's my-protégé-right-or-wrong support for Israel's excesses is
what has made the existing situation possible. If America is not willing
to see a proper Palestinian state established (and that does not mean a
walled-in Bantustan), and it is not willing to insist that Israel absorb
Palestinians as citizens, then it has a moral obligation to do something
else.
America could grant all Palestinians the right of residence in the
United States. This would go some way to redressing the balance of many
tens of billions of dollars spent subsidizing Israel. The United States
has granted this right before, in the case of Cuba, and it did so for
decades. Any Cuban was entitled to an automatic visa, but this policy
reflected America's bitter, self-righteous hatred of Mr. Castro rather
than any sense of obligation about justice or compassion. It would be
remarkable were the United States to make such an offer where it does
indeed have a great moral obligation, so I won't hold my breath.
John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org
-
Civilian victims of US aerial bombing in Afghanistan
By Stig Froberg
1/28/03
-
Dear Sir,
Equally well known fact is, that US has to import 70% of its oil from
outside
-
Israel’s designs in Africa
aim to encircle Egypt Arab News, 1/28/03
-
Last week we spoke of Israel’s machinations in Africa. These aimed to threaten Egypt from the south. Africa was not, however, willing to be used — not least because of the help Egypt had given during its own struggle to achieve independence. Egypt’s support to Africa greatly hindered Israel’s plan to threaten Egypt, either in the Great Lakes region or in Ethiopia where the Nile’s tributaries originate. Israel has worked to foster conflict between the African countries and Egypt and also between them and Arab countries. Israel took an important role in aiding the separatist southern Sudanese revolutionaries and led the American administration into viewing Sudan a terrorist country. Following America’s invasion of Afghanistan as part of the war on terrorism and Washington’s announcement that Iraq was up next, Israel rushed to interfere in one way or another, especially when Washington had failed to gather an international alliance to strike Iraq. In July 2002, a CIA delegation visited a number of French- speaking Central African countries where a number of ideas and projects were proposed with the aim of helping the countries. Then the countries were invited to participate in a war against Iraq — after assuring the political leadership of Washington’s determination to strike Iraq in any case. African participation would of course be rewarded for assisting Washington. The reality is that though America seeks directly to involve African forces in the third Gulf War, it is assuredly Israel who is the brains behind this plan. Further by its presence in those countries, it was able to pressure the political leadership to accept the scenario. Israel reverted to this suggestion after the America’s failure to create an international alliance; the problem was further complicated when Arab countries refused to participate with land forces. It is clear that Israel’s aims are in two areas: first in destroying any semblance of African-Arab closeness and in destroying Arab-African relations. Both would harm Egypt both strategically and economically and would close the economically important African market to Egypt. This would be in addition to tightening its hold on the area around the source of Nile and thus threatening Egypt’s water resources which could lead in the future to military confrontations with unforeseen results. The second aim is the sole enjoyment of Africa’s natural wealth and markets, together with the United States. The danger now lies in the three military cooperation agreements, signed with unprecedented speed between two countries not linked by any relationship, diplomatic or otherwise. These agreements give legal justification for receiving African military forces that would undertake a ground invasion on behalf of the Americans whose army fears a direct ground battle and always seeks someone else to do its dirty work — just as the British did in World War II when they put in the forefront of battle forces from Commonwealth countries while their own forces remained in the rear. The scenario that Israel concocted was aimed at serving the needs of the United States, as well as for its own personal gain. It did not, however, stop there; instead, it has persisted in its attempts to encircle Egypt by interfering in the internal affairs of Sudan — all of this is predicated on the idea that Egypt and its people are Israel’s principal enemy.
-
Blix report
There were three possible verdicts on Iraq that UN chief arms inspector Hans Blix and IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei could have presented to the Security Council yesterday: that Iraq is innocent of the change of developing arms of mass destruction; that investigations are not yet complete and, please, can they have some more time; or that it is guilty. As expected, they have chosen the middle route, but doing so in a way that leaves Iraq firmly in the dock. Their reports were about as damning as they could be without actually finding Iraq guilty. Although it has cooperated “rather well” in the process of investigations in allowing access to sites, it had not complied in the substance of investigations — such as by preventing aerial surveillance and through instances of harassment. The claim earlier in the day by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri that Iraq had cooperated fully with the inspectors is patently untrue. More seriously, the question marks raised by Hans Blix over the truth of the documentation provided by the Iraqis — such as some 6,500 chemical weapons not being accounted for, that much more biological anthrax material may have been produced than revealed or the deployment of illegal missiles — could be used by the US to claim that Iraq is in material breach of UN Resolution 1411. But such breaches are more against the spirit of the resolution than the letter of it. They are not a reason to go to war at this point. Moreover, from what Blix disclosed, it seems that his inspectors are more than capable of forcing Iraq to toe the line when it proves less than fully cooperative. Agreement has been reached on helicopter flights and there was more than a suggestion that the refusal of some Iraqi scientists to be interviewed in private will soon be resolved. Clearly, there is a lot more work to do to either confirm Iraq’s guilt or innocence. The inspectors do not have enough information to come down one way or the other. The US and the UK now say that they have definitive proof of Iraq’s guilt, but they have said that before and it turned out not to be evidence at all. Maybe they have it now, but it is bizarre that they should not have shared that it with Blix and El Baradei. They have to either put up or shut up. The inspectors should be given all the time they want, even if it is a question of years — which, as El Baradei pointed out, was the case when South Africa decided to disarm — and it gave the IAEA its full cooperation. Inspection is the only peaceful route to force Iraq to disarm. But will they be given the time? Weeks perhaps, if only because President Bush’s key ally, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, facing increasing opposition at home to war, seems to favor the idea. In any event, the US has not yet finished it military preparations. But not months — and from what Blix and El Baradei had to report, months are what are needed. Even a couple of months is of no use whatsoever. There is no way that the inspectors come to any different conclusion in such a short time. From what Blix had to say, it is clear the
inspectors are being tough with the Iraqis. They are forcing Saddam
Hussein’s regime into disarmament. And as El Baradei said, inspections
are themselves a deterrence to Iraq resuming nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons programs. That surely is the objective of this process,
not death and destruction across the length and breadth of Iraq.
-
Inconclusive Israeli elections Hassan Barari Jordan Times, 1/28/03
-
THE MUDDLED, discredited Israeli Labour Party has deprived the discontented Israeli voters of a plausible and viable alternative to the Likud, and has not capitalised on the failures of the Sharon-led government in the political, security and economic spheres. Therefore, barring any electoral bombshell, Likud will emerge as the largest party represented in the Knesset, with a clear right block triumph in today's general election, with Sharon set to continue his tenure as prime minister of Israel. In the face of what appears to be a landslide right-wing victory for Likud, Sharon's ability to build a stable coalition is not a foregone conclusion. Interestingly, once the outcome of the election has been determined, a more complex game comes into play: the politics of coalition. Theoretically, Sharon will have the prospect of moulding a working coalition the way he has intended. Sharon will have three options: a secular coalition, a narrow right-wing government, and a National Unity Government (NUG). Sharon is not free in his choices and indeed is constrained by many considerations, so he may be forced to adopt a government of national unity or a secular coalition if he hopes to remain unseated for the duration of his four-year term. The first alternative is the secular coalition, in which Likud, Labour and Shinui (the anti-clerical party) sit in one government exclusive of all religious parties. Shinui's leaders have made it clear that under no circumstances would their party be part of a government in the company of the orthodox Shas party. Tommy Lapid, the chairman of Shinui, has been energetically lobbying for a secular coalition, to no avail. His argument that the religious sector is relying on the public purse to maintain their livelihood is also shared by Likud. A multitude of religious Israelis receive state funds to continue studying in religious schools, while simultaneously being offered exemption from mandatory army service. Nonetheless, it is not enough to entice Likud to break with their long-standing political allies for a broader based coalition in Israel. Sharon and other Likudniks cannot afford to alienate their natural allies from the right wing. Therefore, if Shinui is adamant on not joining a government with Shas, Sharon will not hesitate to reject their offer. The second scenario is a narrow right-wing government, along with religious and extreme right-wing parties. While this seems to be an easy coalition for Sharon to construct, he will only choose this option as a last resort. In such a coalition, Likud will be subject to financial blackmail from Shas and extreme pressure from Liberman's National Union party to take a much more hawkish stand vis-ý-vis the Palestinians and, subsequently, the peace process. Sharon, in this case, will not be able to manoeuvre within the international pressure to resume the peace negotiations and adopt the plan of the quartet. His political survival will be placed in the hands of Liberman, thus jeopardising the special relations with the Bush administration. Sharon will find himself in a head-on collision course with the American administration as soon as they finish with Iraq and begin cajoling Sharon into diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinians. Simultaneously, the Intifada may prove to be so resilient that even more draconian policies won't help ameliorate the Israelis' perception of insecurity. For Sharon, the time for bluffing will be over as he will not make the grade and the public will turn its back on him in the quest of an alternative. Aware of the above-mentioned concerns, Sharon will give precedence to a government of national unity with Labour. Evidently, Sharon has learned two things from his infamous, reckless enterprise in Lebanon. First, some sort of national consensus (in this case national unity) is a must for him to survive politically. Second, there should be firm coordination with the United States in order to counterbalance potential international pressure on the Israeli government. Sharon, thanks to the terrible events of Sept. 11, is now on good terms with President George Bush; he only needs the home front to be united behind his leadership. This can only be realised if Labour agrees to sit in a Sharon-led government. Notwithstanding Sharon's enthusiasm for a national unity government, his talk about painful concessions and his attempt to appear as having a peace plan, his success all depends on how Labour is going to act in response. So far, the official stand of Labour is that a NUG will not help the country to go through their current hardships and that Sharon will not budge in favour of any peaceful efforts. They correctly argue that the NUG brought nothing but failure and, therefore, they are unwilling to go back to it with Sharon at its helm. However, Labour's expected humiliating defeat will present Amram Mitzna with a cutting-edge dilemma. Currently, 65 per cent of the public is in favour of such a government, as well as 14 out of the first 20 in Labour's list who are for such a government. Additionally, Mitzna is likely to loose his grip over a party that is in a pathetic situation politically. However, if Mitzna succeeds in digging his heels on this issue, Labour will arguably be better off in the long run, since a narrow government is inherently unstable and might fall apart within a year. Labour should indeed rebuild the party and provide a genuine opposition to provide the public with a viable and credible alternative in a future election. It is my contention that a right-wing government is in the best interest of the peace-process and as well that Likud's expected victory will not prove to be that decisive. Many people have already started talking about another election within a year or so. In an opinion poll conducted by the Israeli daily Yediot Ahranot last Friday, a majority believes that early election is an inevitable conclusion and that this will come within the space of one or two years. As a consequence, despite what appears to be the right wing's moment of triumph, the balance between Likud and Labour is more likely to swing back-and-forth once in a while than to be determined decisively one way or the other. In a nutshell, Labour could — providing that its leaders maintain an adamant position against joining forces with Likud and present a credible opposition to the bankrupted Likud's lack of policies — turn the table on the right wing soon.
Following the Israeli Army’s bloody
pre-election attack on the Gaza Strip, Arab governments come in for
fierce criticism for having seemingly abandoned the Palestinians to their
fate.
-
British
press myopic on asylum issues
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |