An Intray
Friday, October 31, 2003
Analysts Made Accurate Iraq Pre-War Estimates
Excite News: "Analysts Made Accurate Iraq War Estimates | Oct 31, 4:44 PM (ET) | By MATT KELLEY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Months before the U.S.-led war in Iraq, independent and congressional analysts made remarkably accurate predictions of the costs of a post-war occupation, even as the Pentagon refused to do so, or gave very low estimates." ... Bush administration officials repeatedly insisted before the war that they could not estimate how much the war or the postwar occupation might cost.
...
But the Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimated in September 2002 that occupying Iraq would cost between $1 billion and $4 billion a month. ... The current figure? About $4 billion a month.
...
Former White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey also came under fire last year when he estimated a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then Bush's budget chief, discounted the estimate as "very, very high," and the issue was cited as one of the reasons why Lindsey resigned in December. ... Lindsey's estimate has proven to be on the mark, with the two funding bills, mostly for Iraq, that Bush proposed this year totaling more than $160 billion.
...
Wolfowitz told a House panel in March that Iraqi oil revenues could be between $50 billion and $100 billion in the next two years.
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," Wolfowitz said in testimony March 27, a little more than a week after the war started. Current Pentagon estimates say that Iraq's oil revenue will be about $12 billion to $15 billion next year and around $19 billion in 2005 - a fraction of Wolfowitz' pre-war boast. The Congressional Budget Office projections, released about six months before Wolfowitz' statement, said Iraq could produce enough oil to generate about $3 billion a year for reconstruction. Using current oil prices ... Iraq would have about $3.9 billion extra for reconstruction - in line with the Pentagon's current estimates.
Democrats have assailed Wolfowitz for his prewar comment. "Talk about a rosy scenario,"
Excite News: "Analysts Made Accurate Iraq War Estimates | Oct 31, 4:44 PM (ET) | By MATT KELLEY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Months before the U.S.-led war in Iraq, independent and congressional analysts made remarkably accurate predictions of the costs of a post-war occupation, even as the Pentagon refused to do so, or gave very low estimates." ... Bush administration officials repeatedly insisted before the war that they could not estimate how much the war or the postwar occupation might cost.
...
But the Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimated in September 2002 that occupying Iraq would cost between $1 billion and $4 billion a month. ... The current figure? About $4 billion a month.
...
Former White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey also came under fire last year when he estimated a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then Bush's budget chief, discounted the estimate as "very, very high," and the issue was cited as one of the reasons why Lindsey resigned in December. ... Lindsey's estimate has proven to be on the mark, with the two funding bills, mostly for Iraq, that Bush proposed this year totaling more than $160 billion.
...
Wolfowitz told a House panel in March that Iraqi oil revenues could be between $50 billion and $100 billion in the next two years.
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," Wolfowitz said in testimony March 27, a little more than a week after the war started. Current Pentagon estimates say that Iraq's oil revenue will be about $12 billion to $15 billion next year and around $19 billion in 2005 - a fraction of Wolfowitz' pre-war boast. The Congressional Budget Office projections, released about six months before Wolfowitz' statement, said Iraq could produce enough oil to generate about $3 billion a year for reconstruction. Using current oil prices ... Iraq would have about $3.9 billion extra for reconstruction - in line with the Pentagon's current estimates.
Democrats have assailed Wolfowitz for his prewar comment. "Talk about a rosy scenario,"
Annan Backs Nascent Mideast Peace Plan [... similar to the 'Geneva Accords'? ed.]
Yahoo! News - Annan Backs Nascent Mideast Peace Plan: "Wed Oct 29,10:02 AM ET | By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - A prominent Palestinian moderate and the popular former head of Israel's security service won support from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) for their grass-roots campaign to get Palestinians and Israelis to sign a petition calling for a peace settlement based on two states.
Annan applauded the "courage" of Israeli Adm. Ami Ayalon and Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh who launched their petition drive three months ago and said they have collected 160,000 signatures — 100,000 Israelis and 60,000 Palestinians.
Yahoo! News - Annan Backs Nascent Mideast Peace Plan: "Wed Oct 29,10:02 AM ET | By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - A prominent Palestinian moderate and the popular former head of Israel's security service won support from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) for their grass-roots campaign to get Palestinians and Israelis to sign a petition calling for a peace settlement based on two states.
Annan applauded the "courage" of Israeli Adm. Ami Ayalon and Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh who launched their petition drive three months ago and said they have collected 160,000 signatures — 100,000 Israelis and 60,000 Palestinians.
When Killing Is Easy: IDF Silences foreign witnesses in Rafah
News: "Silenced witnesses | John Sweeney investigates | 30 October 2003
In a seven-week period this spring, two overseas observers were killed by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip, and a third left brain dead. But has the truth yet been told?
... This spring, in less than seven weeks, and within a radius of less than three miles, the American human-shield activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer; the British photographer and peace activist Tom Hurndall was shot in the head and rendered brain-dead; and James Miller was shot dead.
...
[1] Rachael Corrie. The human shields had been successful in getting in the way. Tom Dale and Alice Coy, fellow ISM activists, watched a bulldozer rumble straight towards Rachel. She stood her ground. The bulldozer didn't stop. Dale, an Oxford undergraduate, had a clear view of the incident. "He [the driver] knew absolutely she was there. The bulldozer waited for a few seconds over her body and it then reversed, leaving its scoop down so that if she had been under the bulldozer, it would have crushed her a second time. Only later when it was much more clear of her body did it raise its scoop."
Rachel was able to tell Coy: "My back is broken." She died soon afterwards. A still photograph of the scene clearly shows the ISM activists gathered around the mortally wounded Rachel. In the background is the bulldozer. Connecting the two are straight bulldozer tracks.
...
The IDF report goes on to assert that Rachel "was struck by dirt and a slab of concrete, resulting in her death".
...
[2] Tom Hurndall was shot in the head on 11 April. The IDF has admitted shooting Tom, but they imply that they had good reason to do so; he was wearing camouflage fatigues and firing a gun at an IDF outpost. The IDF's field report even provides two diagrams showing the location of the gunman firing at them. ... Thirteen eyewitnesses and two chains of photographs locate Tom in a different place, about 100 metres further away from the death strip. The eyewitnesses say that Tom was not firing a gun at the Israelis, but helping a Palestinian toddler who had frozen under Israeli fire. ... Two photographers took a series of stills showing Tom being picked up ... nailing the site of Tom's shooting to the location identified by the eyewitnesses. ... The second set of stills and an amateur video recording prove the jacket to be, not camouflage fatigues, but orange.
[3] James Miller was shot on 2 May. ... They had walked about 20 metres from the veranda when the first shot rang out. The team froze. For 13 seconds, there is silence broken only by Saira's cry: "We are British journalists." Then comes the second shot, which killed James. He was shot in the front of his neck. The bullet was Israeli issue, fired, according to a forensic expert, from less than 200 metres away.
Immediately after the shooting, the IDF said that James had been shot in the back during crossfire. It later retracted the assertion about where in his body he was shot, but until today it has maintained that he was shot during crossfire. There was no crossfire on the APTN tape.
...
Since the start of the second intifada, 2,200 Palestinians have been killed. Nine Israeli soldiers have been indicted for various offences, but none has been convicted of unlawful killing. But this, from the killing fields of the Occupied Territories, is something new: the killing and maiming of Western journalists and peace activists.
News: "Silenced witnesses | John Sweeney investigates | 30 October 2003
In a seven-week period this spring, two overseas observers were killed by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip, and a third left brain dead. But has the truth yet been told?
... This spring, in less than seven weeks, and within a radius of less than three miles, the American human-shield activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer; the British photographer and peace activist Tom Hurndall was shot in the head and rendered brain-dead; and James Miller was shot dead.
...
[1] Rachael Corrie. The human shields had been successful in getting in the way. Tom Dale and Alice Coy, fellow ISM activists, watched a bulldozer rumble straight towards Rachel. She stood her ground. The bulldozer didn't stop. Dale, an Oxford undergraduate, had a clear view of the incident. "He [the driver] knew absolutely she was there. The bulldozer waited for a few seconds over her body and it then reversed, leaving its scoop down so that if she had been under the bulldozer, it would have crushed her a second time. Only later when it was much more clear of her body did it raise its scoop."
Rachel was able to tell Coy: "My back is broken." She died soon afterwards. A still photograph of the scene clearly shows the ISM activists gathered around the mortally wounded Rachel. In the background is the bulldozer. Connecting the two are straight bulldozer tracks.
...
The IDF report goes on to assert that Rachel "was struck by dirt and a slab of concrete, resulting in her death".
...
[2] Tom Hurndall was shot in the head on 11 April. The IDF has admitted shooting Tom, but they imply that they had good reason to do so; he was wearing camouflage fatigues and firing a gun at an IDF outpost. The IDF's field report even provides two diagrams showing the location of the gunman firing at them. ... Thirteen eyewitnesses and two chains of photographs locate Tom in a different place, about 100 metres further away from the death strip. The eyewitnesses say that Tom was not firing a gun at the Israelis, but helping a Palestinian toddler who had frozen under Israeli fire. ... Two photographers took a series of stills showing Tom being picked up ... nailing the site of Tom's shooting to the location identified by the eyewitnesses. ... The second set of stills and an amateur video recording prove the jacket to be, not camouflage fatigues, but orange.
[3] James Miller was shot on 2 May. ... They had walked about 20 metres from the veranda when the first shot rang out. The team froze. For 13 seconds, there is silence broken only by Saira's cry: "We are British journalists." Then comes the second shot, which killed James. He was shot in the front of his neck. The bullet was Israeli issue, fired, according to a forensic expert, from less than 200 metres away.
Immediately after the shooting, the IDF said that James had been shot in the back during crossfire. It later retracted the assertion about where in his body he was shot, but until today it has maintained that he was shot during crossfire. There was no crossfire on the APTN tape.
...
Since the start of the second intifada, 2,200 Palestinians have been killed. Nine Israeli soldiers have been indicted for various offences, but none has been convicted of unlawful killing. But this, from the killing fields of the Occupied Territories, is something new: the killing and maiming of Western journalists and peace activists.
Top Israeli Officer Says Tactics Are Backfiring (washingtonpost.com)
Top Israeli Officer Says Tactics Are Backfiring (washingtonpost.com): "By Molly Moore | Washington Post Foreign Service | Friday, October 31, 2003; Page A01
JERUSALEM, Oct. 30 -- Israel's senior military commander told columnists for three leading newspapers this week that Israel's military tactics against the Palestinian population were too repressive and were fomenting explosive levels of 'hatred and terrorism' that might become impossible to control.
In remarks that suggest a dramatic split with the approach of the current government, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, said that crackdowns, curfews and roadblocks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were crippling the lives of innocent Palestinians and that the military's tactics were now threatening Israel's own interests.
The military chief directed most of his complaints at restrictions imposed on the West Bank four weeks ago, after a suicide bomber from the West Bank city of Jenin killed 21 people in a restaurant in the Israeli port of Haifa. Yaalon said the current curfews and travel restrictions, some of the tightest since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, were preventing Palestinians from carrying out critical olive and other agricultural harvests, hampering thousands of children from attending school, increasing hatred for Israel and strengthening terrorist organizations.
Top Israeli Officer Says Tactics Are Backfiring (washingtonpost.com): "By Molly Moore | Washington Post Foreign Service | Friday, October 31, 2003; Page A01
JERUSALEM, Oct. 30 -- Israel's senior military commander told columnists for three leading newspapers this week that Israel's military tactics against the Palestinian population were too repressive and were fomenting explosive levels of 'hatred and terrorism' that might become impossible to control.
In remarks that suggest a dramatic split with the approach of the current government, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, said that crackdowns, curfews and roadblocks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were crippling the lives of innocent Palestinians and that the military's tactics were now threatening Israel's own interests.
The military chief directed most of his complaints at restrictions imposed on the West Bank four weeks ago, after a suicide bomber from the West Bank city of Jenin killed 21 people in a restaurant in the Israeli port of Haifa. Yaalon said the current curfews and travel restrictions, some of the tightest since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, were preventing Palestinians from carrying out critical olive and other agricultural harvests, hampering thousands of children from attending school, increasing hatred for Israel and strengthening terrorist organizations.
Apartheid Israel: What Many Americans Don't Realize : sf-imc
Apartheid Israel: What Many Americans Don't Realize : sf-imc: "by Wendy W. Campbell Thursday October 30, 2003 at 11:15 PM
Americans are routinely inundated with myths about Israel. Is it any wonder many of them are confused?
A fact about Israel that is commonly hushed up in American media and by American politicians is that Israel is an ethno-religious state, with segregation being a core value. Americans are routinely inundated with myths about Israel.
-- Israel is a democracy for Jews and Jews only
-- no one may seek public office in Israel if they plan to challenge that country's unique [Jewish democracy] promulgating universal ethnic equality is against the law.
-- 92% of the land in Israel is reserved for the exclusive use of Jews
-- "Israeli settlements" in the Occupied Territories are reserved for Jewish Israelis only.
-- The roads servicing these settlements are also reserved only for Jew
-- Israeli Arabs to have license plates denoting their 'non-Jewish' status. [sounds lile the Nazi markings on Jews in the 1930's]
Apartheid Israel: What Many Americans Don't Realize : sf-imc: "by Wendy W. Campbell Thursday October 30, 2003 at 11:15 PM
Americans are routinely inundated with myths about Israel. Is it any wonder many of them are confused?
A fact about Israel that is commonly hushed up in American media and by American politicians is that Israel is an ethno-religious state, with segregation being a core value. Americans are routinely inundated with myths about Israel.
-- Israel is a democracy for Jews and Jews only
-- no one may seek public office in Israel if they plan to challenge that country's unique [Jewish democracy] promulgating universal ethnic equality is against the law.
-- 92% of the land in Israel is reserved for the exclusive use of Jews
-- "Israeli settlements" in the Occupied Territories are reserved for Jewish Israelis only.
-- The roads servicing these settlements are also reserved only for Jew
-- Israeli Arabs to have license plates denoting their 'non-Jewish' status. [sounds lile the Nazi markings on Jews in the 1930's]
Israel destroys shipment of vitamins for disabled Palestinian children
Israel destroys shipment of vitamins for disabled Palestinian children: "By Oct 30, 2003, 16:18
Occupied Jerusalem - The Zionist authorities have destroyed a shipment of medicine, vitamins and other food supplements to disabled Palestinian children in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, some of whom suffer from down syndrome and malnutrition.
According to officials of al-Awda hospital in Gaza, the shipment is worth tens of thousands of dollar.
“The shipment was held at the airport in Tel Aviv and we were told that certain documents were needed. However when the documents were provided and every time we submitted a document, another was demanded,” said Dr. M. al Farra of the Awda hospital.
“Eventually, the Israeli government destroyed the shipment of the vitamins without any explanation.”
The shipment in question was donated by the US-based Holy Land Trust, a Christian charity.
A UN report last month accused the Israeli regime of preventing food and water from hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Palestinian sources said Israeli port authorities were holding up hundreds of tons of food materials donated to the Palestinians without any explanation.
A spokesman for a Hebron-based charity accused the Israeli government of seeking “to starve Palestinian children.”
“I think they are waging a war of starvation against us. It is a kind of holocaust,” said the official who asked for anonymity. "
Israel destroys shipment of vitamins for disabled Palestinian children: "By Oct 30, 2003, 16:18
Occupied Jerusalem - The Zionist authorities have destroyed a shipment of medicine, vitamins and other food supplements to disabled Palestinian children in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, some of whom suffer from down syndrome and malnutrition.
According to officials of al-Awda hospital in Gaza, the shipment is worth tens of thousands of dollar.
“The shipment was held at the airport in Tel Aviv and we were told that certain documents were needed. However when the documents were provided and every time we submitted a document, another was demanded,” said Dr. M. al Farra of the Awda hospital.
“Eventually, the Israeli government destroyed the shipment of the vitamins without any explanation.”
The shipment in question was donated by the US-based Holy Land Trust, a Christian charity.
A UN report last month accused the Israeli regime of preventing food and water from hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Palestinian sources said Israeli port authorities were holding up hundreds of tons of food materials donated to the Palestinians without any explanation.
A spokesman for a Hebron-based charity accused the Israeli government of seeking “to starve Palestinian children.”
“I think they are waging a war of starvation against us. It is a kind of holocaust,” said the official who asked for anonymity. "
To Cease Discriminatory Policy of Allocating Subsidized Land to ex-soldiers
Association for Civil-Rights in Israel: "To Cease Discriminatory Policy of Allocating Subsidized Land
In an urgent letter to the Prime Minister: ACRI called for the immediate cessation of the discriminatory policy of allocating subsidized land to discharged soldiers in residential communities in the Galilee and the Negev.
In a letter sent to the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and minister Ehud Olmert, (current chairman of the Israel Lands Administration (ILA)), ACRI called for the immediate cancellation of the 90% subsidy granted to discharged soldiers to lease land in the Galilee and the Negev.
...
Attorney Banna claims that the decision discriminates on the basis of national origin, and is tainted with unreasonable and questionable considerations that represent a serious breach of the principles of equal land distribution, and represents in real terms the severe discrimination of the Arab sector that does not serve in the army or the national service program. Attorney Banna further writes that because of the extreme and unprecedented nature of the discount, it is clear that the main purpose of the decision is the preferential allocation of valuable state assets to the Jewish sector.
[This policy looks like a deliberate attempt to change the ethnic mix in both areas which are dominantly Arab. ed]
Association for Civil-Rights in Israel: "To Cease Discriminatory Policy of Allocating Subsidized Land
In an urgent letter to the Prime Minister: ACRI called for the immediate cessation of the discriminatory policy of allocating subsidized land to discharged soldiers in residential communities in the Galilee and the Negev.
In a letter sent to the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and minister Ehud Olmert, (current chairman of the Israel Lands Administration (ILA)), ACRI called for the immediate cancellation of the 90% subsidy granted to discharged soldiers to lease land in the Galilee and the Negev.
...
Attorney Banna claims that the decision discriminates on the basis of national origin, and is tainted with unreasonable and questionable considerations that represent a serious breach of the principles of equal land distribution, and represents in real terms the severe discrimination of the Arab sector that does not serve in the army or the national service program. Attorney Banna further writes that because of the extreme and unprecedented nature of the discount, it is clear that the main purpose of the decision is the preferential allocation of valuable state assets to the Jewish sector.
[This policy looks like a deliberate attempt to change the ethnic mix in both areas which are dominantly Arab. ed]
ACRI successfully petitioned for the cancellation of the discriminatory law calling for the linkage of military service to child welfare stipends
Association for Civil-Rights in Israel: "Child Welfare Stipends Will Be Allocated Equally to All Families | 10/08/03
ACRI, Bizchut and The National Council for Children�s Rights successfully petitioned for the cancellation of the discriminatory law calling for the linkage of military service to child welfare stipends.
On the 2nd of June the Attorney General�s office informed the Supreme Court that as a result of the petition filed by the Association for Civil Rights, Bizchut, The Association for the struggle of the Disabled, and The National Council for Children�s Rights, that the state cancelled its original intention to link parents military service to child welfare allocation, a law that had been slated to be part of the economic austerity plan passed by the Knesset last week, and that henceforth the allocation of child welfare will be on an equal basis to all families, and be in no way dependent on the history of the parents, sisters, or brothers military service.
The petition submitted by ACRI Attorney Sharon Abraham-Weiss, and Attorney, Tali Gal from The National Council for Children�s Rights, asked the court to cancel the clause in the emergency economic austerity plan as it clearly discriminated against children whose parents had not served in the The Israel Defense Forces, the border patrol, the police, or the Defense Ministry.
The petition was presented on behalf of the children of four families whose parents did not serve in the security services as a result of specific disabilities, new resident status, or the fact that as Arabs they were not obliged to serve. ...
Association for Civil-Rights in Israel: "Child Welfare Stipends Will Be Allocated Equally to All Families | 10/08/03
ACRI, Bizchut and The National Council for Children�s Rights successfully petitioned for the cancellation of the discriminatory law calling for the linkage of military service to child welfare stipends.
On the 2nd of June the Attorney General�s office informed the Supreme Court that as a result of the petition filed by the Association for Civil Rights, Bizchut, The Association for the struggle of the Disabled, and The National Council for Children�s Rights, that the state cancelled its original intention to link parents military service to child welfare allocation, a law that had been slated to be part of the economic austerity plan passed by the Knesset last week, and that henceforth the allocation of child welfare will be on an equal basis to all families, and be in no way dependent on the history of the parents, sisters, or brothers military service.
The petition submitted by ACRI Attorney Sharon Abraham-Weiss, and Attorney, Tali Gal from The National Council for Children�s Rights, asked the court to cancel the clause in the emergency economic austerity plan as it clearly discriminated against children whose parents had not served in the The Israel Defense Forces, the border patrol, the police, or the Defense Ministry.
The petition was presented on behalf of the children of four families whose parents did not serve in the security services as a result of specific disabilities, new resident status, or the fact that as Arabs they were not obliged to serve. ...
Palestinian surveys
The Peoples' Voice: "SURVEYS AND DATA
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics published the following employment data for the second quarter of 2003: 42.5% employed in the West Bank, up from 39.7% in the first quarter. 37.3% employed in Gaza, negligible change from first quarter. 22.4% jobless in the West Bank, down from 31.3% in first quarter. 28.4% in Gaza, unchanged from first quarter. Unemployment among those with tertiary education: 18.4%. Average daily wage in Gaza: 51.7 shekels, down by 2 shekels. Average daily wage in the West Bank: 121 shekels, down 1.2 shekels. 59.9 percent of wage-earners do not make enough to stay above the poverty line, compared to 43.5% in the first quarter.
Panorama, the Palestinian center for disseminating democracy and cultivating society, conducted a poll among 400 Palestinians aged 18-30 from Gaza and Ramallah to the impact of the intifada on Palestinian youth. 18.3% of respondents had been injured during the intifada. 42.7% define themselves and pessimistic, and 24.8% optimistic. 60.4% said Israeli military invasions made them feel a desire to go out and confront troops. 56.8% said events made them want to take revenge directly. 20.2% said they feel helpless in the face of Israeli actions. 16.1% said events made them aspire toward peace. 52.7% reported a drop in income. 28.8% loss of a job or a main income. 51% said they regularly took part in the intifada. 31.7% do not participate. 15.8% are serious activists. 71.5% noted an increased desire to take part in politics. 27% felt no different and 8% said their interest had dropped. Around 25% of respondents said the intifada had changed their political views in general. 52.3% said it had bolstered their existing views and 21.8% said they felt no different. 46.7% believe the Palestinian leadership has failed. 22.8% believe it has been successful. 27% did not express a view.
(Al-Quds, Al-Ayyam, September 17)
FROM A POLL BY THE CENTER FOR SURVEYS AND FIELD RESEARCH AT A-NAJAH UNIVERSITY OF 1382 RESPONDENTS (871 in the West Bank and 501 in Gaza) The Hudna (militant truce)
61.9% support the declaration of a truce on condition Israel honors it as well. 50.1% believe the truce has to be under international supervision. 78% believe Israel is responsible for the truce's collapse. 64% are opposed to any actions by the Palestinian Authority to prevent attacks in Israel following the truce's collapse. Arafat's expulsion 50.5% believe expelling Arafat would bring about a new intifada and regional flare-up. 38% believe the PA would collapse and the Israeli occupation be reestablished. 32.6% believe Israel will expel Arafat, but 63.4% believe it will not.
Abu Mazen walkout 60.8% support the resignation of the Abu Mazen government. 28.2% are opposed.
The road map 74% believe the United States is insincere in all matters regarding the road map. 41% believes the United States is placing conditions only on the Palestinians.
The Palestinian street 28% support Fatah. 26% support Hamas. 4% support Islamic Jihad. 4% support the nationalist fronts. 20% express no support for any faction. (Al-Hayyat al-Jedida, Al-Ayyam, September 18)
The Palestinian National Information Center published data on the casualties in the first 35 months of the intifada: 2700 dead including 490 children and 180 women, 37,000 wounded. Some 7,400 Palestinians have been detained. (Al-Hayyat al-Jedida, September 19)
According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, in the first half of 2003 there were more than 3.6 million Palestinians living in the territories (1.3 million in Gaza and 2.3 million in the West Bank), 50.6% of them men. 610 communities are scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza (54 cities, 29 refugee camps, the remainder villages). 205 communities (204 in the West Bank and one in Gaza, some 34% of the total) are not linked to water networks. 79 communities (some 13%) are not linked to electricity networks. 193 communities (some 32%) have no mechanism for garbage disposal in place.
The Peoples' Voice: "SURVEYS AND DATA
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics published the following employment data for the second quarter of 2003: 42.5% employed in the West Bank, up from 39.7% in the first quarter. 37.3% employed in Gaza, negligible change from first quarter. 22.4% jobless in the West Bank, down from 31.3% in first quarter. 28.4% in Gaza, unchanged from first quarter. Unemployment among those with tertiary education: 18.4%. Average daily wage in Gaza: 51.7 shekels, down by 2 shekels. Average daily wage in the West Bank: 121 shekels, down 1.2 shekels. 59.9 percent of wage-earners do not make enough to stay above the poverty line, compared to 43.5% in the first quarter.
Panorama, the Palestinian center for disseminating democracy and cultivating society, conducted a poll among 400 Palestinians aged 18-30 from Gaza and Ramallah to the impact of the intifada on Palestinian youth. 18.3% of respondents had been injured during the intifada. 42.7% define themselves and pessimistic, and 24.8% optimistic. 60.4% said Israeli military invasions made them feel a desire to go out and confront troops. 56.8% said events made them want to take revenge directly. 20.2% said they feel helpless in the face of Israeli actions. 16.1% said events made them aspire toward peace. 52.7% reported a drop in income. 28.8% loss of a job or a main income. 51% said they regularly took part in the intifada. 31.7% do not participate. 15.8% are serious activists. 71.5% noted an increased desire to take part in politics. 27% felt no different and 8% said their interest had dropped. Around 25% of respondents said the intifada had changed their political views in general. 52.3% said it had bolstered their existing views and 21.8% said they felt no different. 46.7% believe the Palestinian leadership has failed. 22.8% believe it has been successful. 27% did not express a view.
(Al-Quds, Al-Ayyam, September 17)
FROM A POLL BY THE CENTER FOR SURVEYS AND FIELD RESEARCH AT A-NAJAH UNIVERSITY OF 1382 RESPONDENTS (871 in the West Bank and 501 in Gaza) The Hudna (militant truce)
61.9% support the declaration of a truce on condition Israel honors it as well. 50.1% believe the truce has to be under international supervision. 78% believe Israel is responsible for the truce's collapse. 64% are opposed to any actions by the Palestinian Authority to prevent attacks in Israel following the truce's collapse. Arafat's expulsion 50.5% believe expelling Arafat would bring about a new intifada and regional flare-up. 38% believe the PA would collapse and the Israeli occupation be reestablished. 32.6% believe Israel will expel Arafat, but 63.4% believe it will not.
Abu Mazen walkout 60.8% support the resignation of the Abu Mazen government. 28.2% are opposed.
The road map 74% believe the United States is insincere in all matters regarding the road map. 41% believes the United States is placing conditions only on the Palestinians.
The Palestinian street 28% support Fatah. 26% support Hamas. 4% support Islamic Jihad. 4% support the nationalist fronts. 20% express no support for any faction. (Al-Hayyat al-Jedida, Al-Ayyam, September 18)
The Palestinian National Information Center published data on the casualties in the first 35 months of the intifada: 2700 dead including 490 children and 180 women, 37,000 wounded. Some 7,400 Palestinians have been detained. (Al-Hayyat al-Jedida, September 19)
According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, in the first half of 2003 there were more than 3.6 million Palestinians living in the territories (1.3 million in Gaza and 2.3 million in the West Bank), 50.6% of them men. 610 communities are scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza (54 cities, 29 refugee camps, the remainder villages). 205 communities (204 in the West Bank and one in Gaza, some 34% of the total) are not linked to water networks. 79 communities (some 13%) are not linked to electricity networks. 193 communities (some 32%) have no mechanism for garbage disposal in place.
Wolfowitz - praises The NUSSEIBEH-AYALON peace plan despite serious Palestinian opposition
Excite News: "Sharon: Israel Set for Palestinian Talks | Oct 30, 10:07 PM (ET) | By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
...
Reflecting Washington's frustration, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - the Pentagon's No. 2 official - praised an alternative peace plan drawn up by a prominent Palestinian moderate and the former head of Israel's secret service.
Israeli Adm. Ami Ayalon and Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh claim to have collected 100,000 Israeli and 60,000 Palestinian signatures in three months.
Their petition calls for Israel to withdraw to the borders it had before the 1967 war, when it captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The document calls for a demilitarized Palestinian state in those territories.
In a lecture at Georgetown University, Wolfowitz said the petition's principles "look very much like" the Bush administration's "road map" to a peaceful, two-state solution.
---
TOTALLY REJCTED BY THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE | BADIL Resource Center | 05 June 2003
We therefore condemn efforts by Sari Nusseibeh, […] to cede the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes of origin. We also condemn his latest public statement, prepared in concert with Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Israeli intelligence service, which unequivocally calls upon Palestinian refugees to waive their right to return to their homes, while recognizing the historical right of the ‘Jewish people’ in Palestine. […]
The Nusseibeh-Ayalon position is dangerous because it grants Israel impunity for war crimes, including mass expulsion and population transfer, as set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention, and violates basic principles set forth in international law, UN resolutions and decisions adopted by the Palestinian National Council.
We reaffirm our right of return. Those who call upon us to cede our basic rights do not express the legitimate national interests of the Palestinian people; moreover, we do not consider them as belonging to the Palestinian people.”
Excite News: "Sharon: Israel Set for Palestinian Talks | Oct 30, 10:07 PM (ET) | By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
...
Reflecting Washington's frustration, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - the Pentagon's No. 2 official - praised an alternative peace plan drawn up by a prominent Palestinian moderate and the former head of Israel's secret service.
Israeli Adm. Ami Ayalon and Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh claim to have collected 100,000 Israeli and 60,000 Palestinian signatures in three months.
Their petition calls for Israel to withdraw to the borders it had before the 1967 war, when it captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The document calls for a demilitarized Palestinian state in those territories.
In a lecture at Georgetown University, Wolfowitz said the petition's principles "look very much like" the Bush administration's "road map" to a peaceful, two-state solution.
---
TOTALLY REJCTED BY THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE | BADIL Resource Center | 05 June 2003
We therefore condemn efforts by Sari Nusseibeh, […] to cede the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes of origin. We also condemn his latest public statement, prepared in concert with Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Israeli intelligence service, which unequivocally calls upon Palestinian refugees to waive their right to return to their homes, while recognizing the historical right of the ‘Jewish people’ in Palestine. […]
The Nusseibeh-Ayalon position is dangerous because it grants Israel impunity for war crimes, including mass expulsion and population transfer, as set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention, and violates basic principles set forth in international law, UN resolutions and decisions adopted by the Palestinian National Council.
We reaffirm our right of return. Those who call upon us to cede our basic rights do not express the legitimate national interests of the Palestinian people; moreover, we do not consider them as belonging to the Palestinian people.”
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Boykin's Comments Stir Up Terror War's Religious Overtones
Boykin's Comments Stir Up Terror War's Religious Overtones (washingtonpost.com): "By Jefferson Morley | washingtonpost.com Staff Writer | Thursday, October 23, 2003; 12:06 PM
On news sites around the world, Islamic pundits are denouncing anti-Muslim remarks made by Army Lt. Gen. William G. 'Jerry' Boykin, recently nominated to be deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, just as swiftly as Westerners denounced anti-Semitic remarks made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
...
Like the editors of The Washington Post, many foreign commentators linked the two men as symptoms of a drift toward war between Islam and the West. But while Mahathir has many defenders who say his anti-Semitic rhetoric should not obscure his candid criticisms of the Islamic countries, Boykin seems to have no defenders.
Boykin confirms a popular image of America as a deeply religious society.
"The U.S. has more than its fair share of religious nuts," sighed Gwynne Dyer in the New Zealand Herald, "and quite a few of them have ended up in the present administration."
...
As the Boykin story spread over the weekend, President Bush was traveling in heavily Islamic southeast Asia. While National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice distanced the administration from his remarks, the president had no comment. The Arab media started talking up his silence.
On Sunday, Aljazeera.net, the Web site of the Arab cable channel, proclaimed: "Bush refuses to condemn anti-Muslim comments."
...
"So is the Bush government now converting the whole terrorist issue or the anti-Saddam campaign into a Christian Crusade?" asked columnist Shareen Mazari in a column published in the news portal, Hi Pakistan.
Hashim Syed Mohammad Bin Qasim, a Saudi-based columnist for the Paktribune , based in Islamabad, said "The White House and Pentagon have in effect endorsed [Boykin's] thoughts by refusing to criticize him and discipline him."
The editors of the Daily Times, a news site based in Lahore, declared that Boykin's appointment shows that "the dark reality of American administration's evangelical agenda occasionally cuts through the public relations gloss. "
Boykin, they said, "is placed very high in the Pentagon hierarchy and is brimming with anger and religious zeal. By all accounts he is a loose cannon. He has now been compelled to render a feeble apology for his wayward remarks after some commentators have unearthed his background."
The Daily Times demanded more.
"If the administration's war is really not against Islam, Boykin should be asked to pack his bags. Mr Bush cannot afford to have people like him playing the final battle between the forces of 'good and evil'. Isn't that Bin Laden's job?" the Daily Times editors asked.
Boykin's Comments Stir Up Terror War's Religious Overtones (washingtonpost.com): "By Jefferson Morley | washingtonpost.com Staff Writer | Thursday, October 23, 2003; 12:06 PM
On news sites around the world, Islamic pundits are denouncing anti-Muslim remarks made by Army Lt. Gen. William G. 'Jerry' Boykin, recently nominated to be deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, just as swiftly as Westerners denounced anti-Semitic remarks made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
...
Like the editors of The Washington Post, many foreign commentators linked the two men as symptoms of a drift toward war between Islam and the West. But while Mahathir has many defenders who say his anti-Semitic rhetoric should not obscure his candid criticisms of the Islamic countries, Boykin seems to have no defenders.
Boykin confirms a popular image of America as a deeply religious society.
"The U.S. has more than its fair share of religious nuts," sighed Gwynne Dyer in the New Zealand Herald, "and quite a few of them have ended up in the present administration."
...
As the Boykin story spread over the weekend, President Bush was traveling in heavily Islamic southeast Asia. While National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice distanced the administration from his remarks, the president had no comment. The Arab media started talking up his silence.
On Sunday, Aljazeera.net, the Web site of the Arab cable channel, proclaimed: "Bush refuses to condemn anti-Muslim comments."
...
"So is the Bush government now converting the whole terrorist issue or the anti-Saddam campaign into a Christian Crusade?" asked columnist Shareen Mazari in a column published in the news portal, Hi Pakistan.
Hashim Syed Mohammad Bin Qasim, a Saudi-based columnist for the Paktribune , based in Islamabad, said "The White House and Pentagon have in effect endorsed [Boykin's] thoughts by refusing to criticize him and discipline him."
The editors of the Daily Times, a news site based in Lahore, declared that Boykin's appointment shows that "the dark reality of American administration's evangelical agenda occasionally cuts through the public relations gloss. "
Boykin, they said, "is placed very high in the Pentagon hierarchy and is brimming with anger and religious zeal. By all accounts he is a loose cannon. He has now been compelled to render a feeble apology for his wayward remarks after some commentators have unearthed his background."
The Daily Times demanded more.
"If the administration's war is really not against Islam, Boykin should be asked to pack his bags. Mr Bush cannot afford to have people like him playing the final battle between the forces of 'good and evil'. Isn't that Bin Laden's job?" the Daily Times editors asked.
Israeli Police Question Prime Minister in Corruption Inquiry
Israeli Police Question Prime Minister in Corruption Inquiry: "By GREG MYRE | Published: October 30, 2003
JERUSALEM, Oct. 30 � The Israeli police questioned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for seven hours today as part of their investigations into possible cases of political corruption.
...
The Israeli news media have reported that Mr. Appel is said to have paid Gilad Sharon hundreds of thousands of dollars to work as a consultant in developing a tourism project in the Greek Islands in the late 1990's.
The police are trying to determine whether Mr. Appel's real aim was to gain influence with Mr. Sharon, who was foreign minister at the time, and have him lobby the Greek government to approve the tourism project, the news reports have said.
Gilad Sharon has refused to hand over documents in the so-called Greek island affair, citing his right to remain silent. A court ruled last month that he was not required to give the documents to the police.
...
The prime minister and his sons are also the subjects of a campaign financing investigation.
In that case, Mr. Sharon was ordered to reimburse campaign contributions of nearly $1 million that were improperly raised from overseas donors in 1999, when he became leader of the Likud Party.
Mr. Sharon and his sons, Gilad and Omri, tried to pay back the money with a loan, using Mr. Sharon's leased ranch in the southern Negev Desert as collateral. But when the loan was turned down, a South African businessman, Cyril Kern, transferred $1.5 million to Mr. Sharon's sons. Mr. Kern has described the money as a personal gift, and not a political donation.
Israeli Police Question Prime Minister in Corruption Inquiry: "By GREG MYRE | Published: October 30, 2003
JERUSALEM, Oct. 30 � The Israeli police questioned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for seven hours today as part of their investigations into possible cases of political corruption.
...
The Israeli news media have reported that Mr. Appel is said to have paid Gilad Sharon hundreds of thousands of dollars to work as a consultant in developing a tourism project in the Greek Islands in the late 1990's.
The police are trying to determine whether Mr. Appel's real aim was to gain influence with Mr. Sharon, who was foreign minister at the time, and have him lobby the Greek government to approve the tourism project, the news reports have said.
Gilad Sharon has refused to hand over documents in the so-called Greek island affair, citing his right to remain silent. A court ruled last month that he was not required to give the documents to the police.
...
The prime minister and his sons are also the subjects of a campaign financing investigation.
In that case, Mr. Sharon was ordered to reimburse campaign contributions of nearly $1 million that were improperly raised from overseas donors in 1999, when he became leader of the Likud Party.
Mr. Sharon and his sons, Gilad and Omri, tried to pay back the money with a loan, using Mr. Sharon's leased ranch in the southern Negev Desert as collateral. But when the loan was turned down, a South African businessman, Cyril Kern, transferred $1.5 million to Mr. Sharon's sons. Mr. Kern has described the money as a personal gift, and not a political donation.
Jewish people's past sufferings are no excuse
Haaretz Article: "Last Update: 30/10/2003 18:36 | Malaysian PM: Jewish people's past sufferings are no excuse | By Reuters
KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, speaking on the eve of his retirement, said Thursday that the Jewish people's past sufferings in Europe were no excuse for taking Arab land and persecuting Muslims.
The 78-year-old Muslim leader, who steps down Friday after 22 years in power, provoked international cries of protest two weeks ago by saying that the Jews had emerged from the Holocaust to "rule this world by proxy."
A staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, Mahathir said the Jews were now guilty of persecuting Muslims in the same way that Europeans had persecuted Jews down the ages.
"They must never think they are the chosen people who cannot be criticized at all," Mahathir said Thursday when asked if he had one last message for the world's Jews.
...
But Mahathir said the past suffering of Jews was a source of sadness for Muslims.
"They suffered a great deal in the past. They were killed, they were massacred," he said.
"We sympathize with them. We were very sad to see how the Jews were so ill-treated by the
Europeans."
Mahathir denies being anti-Semitic and says he has Jewish friends, but in his controversial speech he failed to draw any distinction between Jews, Israelis and Zionists.
He reiterated Thursday that the root problem between Jews and Muslims was the occupation of Arab land to form the state of Israel.
"It is not religion at all. It is territorial," he said. "You take somebody's land and they will fight for it."
Haaretz Article: "Last Update: 30/10/2003 18:36 | Malaysian PM: Jewish people's past sufferings are no excuse | By Reuters
KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, speaking on the eve of his retirement, said Thursday that the Jewish people's past sufferings in Europe were no excuse for taking Arab land and persecuting Muslims.
The 78-year-old Muslim leader, who steps down Friday after 22 years in power, provoked international cries of protest two weeks ago by saying that the Jews had emerged from the Holocaust to "rule this world by proxy."
A staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, Mahathir said the Jews were now guilty of persecuting Muslims in the same way that Europeans had persecuted Jews down the ages.
"They must never think they are the chosen people who cannot be criticized at all," Mahathir said Thursday when asked if he had one last message for the world's Jews.
...
But Mahathir said the past suffering of Jews was a source of sadness for Muslims.
"They suffered a great deal in the past. They were killed, they were massacred," he said.
"We sympathize with them. We were very sad to see how the Jews were so ill-treated by the
Europeans."
Mahathir denies being anti-Semitic and says he has Jewish friends, but in his controversial speech he failed to draw any distinction between Jews, Israelis and Zionists.
He reiterated Thursday that the root problem between Jews and Muslims was the occupation of Arab land to form the state of Israel.
"It is not religion at all. It is territorial," he said. "You take somebody's land and they will fight for it."
The neo-cons are are danger to the world - but does anyone care?
DC Indymedia: newswire/83973: "The neo-cons are are danger to the world - but does anyone care? Current rating: 0 | by William Hardiker | Modified: 30 Oct 2003
The agenda of the Bush administration/Neo-Con foreign affairs policy ,and the potencial for global disaster
The "Neo-Conservative's" are a threat to world peace - but does anyone care?
In a speech to Congress on July 11 2003, Republican Representative Ron Paul asked the house these rhetorical questions. 'How did we get here?' 'Does anyone care?' Being so long avoided and overdue they doubtless caused much unease, much averting of eyes, and scrutiny of fingernails. At the conclusion of his speech, with sighs of relief, it was apparent all would soon be promptly forgotten."
...
In perhaps the first fully fledged outburst of high level government dissent against the Neo-Conservative’s radical and dangerous agenda, Mr. Paul stated that which has been a long time coming; two years to be precise. The time it has taken for many Americans to recover from the psychological damage inflicted by the September 11 attacks which transformed the collective American psyche from one of national invincibility, to one of national vulnerability. “Ideas” exclaimed Senator Paul, “have consequences”, and “bad ideas, have bad consequences”. Let us hope that Mr.Wolfowitz and his cronies were taking notes.
There is cause for optimism in what appears to be a slow dawn of awakening within the United States as to who has been 'pulling the strings' within George Bush’s administration, and a beginning of questions being raised in relation to the response to the events of September 11, 2001. ... As the wounds heal we can but hope that perhaps there will be a re-emergence of common sense.
...
Between the attacks themselves and Senator Paul’s questions to Congress, not all were stricken senseless by what might be coined “national post traumatic shock syndrome”. Work towards implementing long defined policy by PNAC members and Neo-Conservatives, led by Wolfowitz and Chenney outlining a doctrine entitled "strategies for a new American century”. was being prepared for presentation to the Bush administration. Senator Paul was perhaps amongst the first “outsiders” to regain the full use of all his faculties, but the real ‘wake up’ call had more to do with philosophical concerns and how they have driven policy over the past two years.
...
Amongst these all-powerful organizations are the pro-Israeli lobbyists, (the powerful American Zionist organizations who seek a greater Israel whilst murdering, destroying, subjugating and denying the culture of a people with no regard for humanitarian issues or respect for human dignity whilst they invade and occupy Palestinian territory backed by American state of the art military hardware.
DC Indymedia: newswire/83973: "The neo-cons are are danger to the world - but does anyone care? Current rating: 0 | by William Hardiker | Modified: 30 Oct 2003
The agenda of the Bush administration/Neo-Con foreign affairs policy ,and the potencial for global disaster
The "Neo-Conservative's" are a threat to world peace - but does anyone care?
In a speech to Congress on July 11 2003, Republican Representative Ron Paul asked the house these rhetorical questions. 'How did we get here?' 'Does anyone care?' Being so long avoided and overdue they doubtless caused much unease, much averting of eyes, and scrutiny of fingernails. At the conclusion of his speech, with sighs of relief, it was apparent all would soon be promptly forgotten."
...
In perhaps the first fully fledged outburst of high level government dissent against the Neo-Conservative’s radical and dangerous agenda, Mr. Paul stated that which has been a long time coming; two years to be precise. The time it has taken for many Americans to recover from the psychological damage inflicted by the September 11 attacks which transformed the collective American psyche from one of national invincibility, to one of national vulnerability. “Ideas” exclaimed Senator Paul, “have consequences”, and “bad ideas, have bad consequences”. Let us hope that Mr.Wolfowitz and his cronies were taking notes.
There is cause for optimism in what appears to be a slow dawn of awakening within the United States as to who has been 'pulling the strings' within George Bush’s administration, and a beginning of questions being raised in relation to the response to the events of September 11, 2001. ... As the wounds heal we can but hope that perhaps there will be a re-emergence of common sense.
...
Between the attacks themselves and Senator Paul’s questions to Congress, not all were stricken senseless by what might be coined “national post traumatic shock syndrome”. Work towards implementing long defined policy by PNAC members and Neo-Conservatives, led by Wolfowitz and Chenney outlining a doctrine entitled "strategies for a new American century”. was being prepared for presentation to the Bush administration. Senator Paul was perhaps amongst the first “outsiders” to regain the full use of all his faculties, but the real ‘wake up’ call had more to do with philosophical concerns and how they have driven policy over the past two years.
...
Amongst these all-powerful organizations are the pro-Israeli lobbyists, (the powerful American Zionist organizations who seek a greater Israel whilst murdering, destroying, subjugating and denying the culture of a people with no regard for humanitarian issues or respect for human dignity whilst they invade and occupy Palestinian territory backed by American state of the art military hardware.
'Muslims are filled with feelings of impotence and frustration' ... occupations, snctinos, threatened, accused of terrorism
DAWN - Features; 30 October, 2003: "Need for looking inward | By Dr Iffat Idris
'Muslims are filled with feelings of impotence and frustration as some of their countries are occupied, others are under sanctions, a third group threatened and a fourth group accused of sponsoring terrorism.... Muslims abroad are considered with suspicion, besieged, deprived of their rights.'
Listen to the words of Abdelouahed Belkeziz, secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) at its 10th summit in Putrajaya, Malaysia, and you would think all the problems of the Muslim world stem from outside. His sentiments were echoed by many others at the triennial Muslim heads of state and government gathering. American policy under George W. Bush and post-9/11 was particularly singled out for criticism.
Looking at the Muslim world after 9/11, it is indeed impossible to avoid the conclusion that it has been badly affected by Republican unilateralism. First Afghanistan, and then Iraq were directly hit by the American military machine. Rhetoric coming out of Washington suggests that Iran or Syria could be next.
Only marginally less direct has been Israel's assault on the Arabs in its vicinity: greatly intensified occupation of Palestinian territories, blatant disregard for human rights, dismissal of the peace process, and - the latest move - military attacks on Syria. Other governments facing Muslim opposition (notably Russia and India) have also jumped on the 'war on terror' bandwagon, and used it to denigrate and crush their foes.
...
Muslims today are facing a huge threat from the outside world. But in the rush to lodge their multiple grievances against America and the West, many lose sight of the woes that are self-inflicted. For the painful truth is that a good proportion of the blame for the current dire situation of the Ummah rests on Muslim shoulders.
DAWN - Features; 30 October, 2003: "Need for looking inward | By Dr Iffat Idris
'Muslims are filled with feelings of impotence and frustration as some of their countries are occupied, others are under sanctions, a third group threatened and a fourth group accused of sponsoring terrorism.... Muslims abroad are considered with suspicion, besieged, deprived of their rights.'
Listen to the words of Abdelouahed Belkeziz, secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) at its 10th summit in Putrajaya, Malaysia, and you would think all the problems of the Muslim world stem from outside. His sentiments were echoed by many others at the triennial Muslim heads of state and government gathering. American policy under George W. Bush and post-9/11 was particularly singled out for criticism.
Looking at the Muslim world after 9/11, it is indeed impossible to avoid the conclusion that it has been badly affected by Republican unilateralism. First Afghanistan, and then Iraq were directly hit by the American military machine. Rhetoric coming out of Washington suggests that Iran or Syria could be next.
Only marginally less direct has been Israel's assault on the Arabs in its vicinity: greatly intensified occupation of Palestinian territories, blatant disregard for human rights, dismissal of the peace process, and - the latest move - military attacks on Syria. Other governments facing Muslim opposition (notably Russia and India) have also jumped on the 'war on terror' bandwagon, and used it to denigrate and crush their foes.
...
Muslims today are facing a huge threat from the outside world. But in the rush to lodge their multiple grievances against America and the West, many lose sight of the woes that are self-inflicted. For the painful truth is that a good proportion of the blame for the current dire situation of the Ummah rests on Muslim shoulders.
U.S. Slowly Scaling Back Role in Israel: "it's bad for American interests in the Arab world and Iraq"
Excite News: "U.S. Slowly Scaling Back Role in Israel | Oct 30, 8:08 AM (ET) | By KARIN LAUB
JERUSALEM (AP) - Call us when you're serious about disarming militants - that's the message Palestinians are getting from U.S. mediators who have scaled back their presence in the region.
The apparent disengagement comes amid a deadlock in the U.S.-led "road map" peace plan, Washington's growing troubles in Iraq, and the distractions of the U.S. presidential election campaign.
Israeli and Palestinian critics warn that reduced U.S. involvement will likely lead to more bloodshed, further harm America's image in the Arab world, and in the end bring on another round of U.S. mediation.
...
Israeli analyst Joseph Alpher warned that by staying on the sidelines, the United States risks harming its own long-term goals, particularly the vision of a two-state solution to the Mideast conflict.
Partition of the land will become increasingly difficult, as settlements expand and populations become more entangled - a momentum that is impossible to stop without intense intervention, he said.
With Israelis and Palestinians left to their own devices, the conflict is bound to get worse. "If it's worse, it's bad for American interests in the Arab world and Iraq," Alpher said.
"The United States will get blamed."
Excite News: "U.S. Slowly Scaling Back Role in Israel | Oct 30, 8:08 AM (ET) | By KARIN LAUB
JERUSALEM (AP) - Call us when you're serious about disarming militants - that's the message Palestinians are getting from U.S. mediators who have scaled back their presence in the region.
The apparent disengagement comes amid a deadlock in the U.S.-led "road map" peace plan, Washington's growing troubles in Iraq, and the distractions of the U.S. presidential election campaign.
Israeli and Palestinian critics warn that reduced U.S. involvement will likely lead to more bloodshed, further harm America's image in the Arab world, and in the end bring on another round of U.S. mediation.
...
Israeli analyst Joseph Alpher warned that by staying on the sidelines, the United States risks harming its own long-term goals, particularly the vision of a two-state solution to the Mideast conflict.
Partition of the land will become increasingly difficult, as settlements expand and populations become more entangled - a momentum that is impossible to stop without intense intervention, he said.
With Israelis and Palestinians left to their own devices, the conflict is bound to get worse. "If it's worse, it's bad for American interests in the Arab world and Iraq," Alpher said.
"The United States will get blamed."
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Senseless in Gaza: Settlements and the Road Map
Economist.com | Israel and the Palestinians: "Senseless in Gaza | Oct 28th 2003
Israel pays a heavy price for maintaining its small but heavily fortified settlements in Gaza and is busy expanding its settlements in the West Bank. Without a big policy change the peace process has little hope of succeeding
NOTHING divides Israeli opinion like the enormous military, financial and human cost of defending the 7,000 settlers implanted amid 1.3m Palestinians in the Gaza strip—one of the territories Israel seized in a 1967 war with its Arab neighbours. And nothing unites Palestinian opinion like a successful attack on one of the 18 Jewish settlements, whose expansion has divided Gaza into four territorial enclaves and expropriated around a quarter of the strip’s land area.
...
The Islamic militants announced their plan for co-ordinated reprisals after Israeli incursions left more than 2,000 Palestinians homeless in Gaza’s Rafah refugee camp earlier this month, followed by the deaths of 14 in Israeli rocket attacks on Gaza city and the Nuseirat refugee camp on October 21st.
...
Palestinians are keen on such a negotiated truce: a recent poll showed 85% favoured a mutual cessation of hostilities. However, in its absence, 75% support suicide attacks inside Israel and even more back guerrilla attacks on Jewish settlements, like the one on Netzarim. Though Mr Qurei has always condemned the former he has, sniffing the popular breeze, refrained from criticising the latter.
On the Israeli side, Mr Sharon has so far rejected any suggestion of resuming ceasefire talks, arguing that the militants had used the previous, brief truce to rearm themselves. And far from contemplating dismantling some Jewish settlements, his government is busy expanding some of those on the West Bank. ...
...
But Mr Sharon seems confident there is no risk of a serious fall-out with Washington. He reckons that if he keeps mouthing his ostensible acceptance of the road map, he can continue in practice to ignore it—which is what the Palestinian leadership is doing too.
Indeed, fidelity to the road map is cited by Israeli spokesmen as reason to decry the “Geneva Accord”, an unofficial, alternative peace agreement concluded recently by a group of Israeli opposition figures and prominent Palestinian politicians. ...
Economist.com | Israel and the Palestinians: "Senseless in Gaza | Oct 28th 2003
Israel pays a heavy price for maintaining its small but heavily fortified settlements in Gaza and is busy expanding its settlements in the West Bank. Without a big policy change the peace process has little hope of succeeding
NOTHING divides Israeli opinion like the enormous military, financial and human cost of defending the 7,000 settlers implanted amid 1.3m Palestinians in the Gaza strip—one of the territories Israel seized in a 1967 war with its Arab neighbours. And nothing unites Palestinian opinion like a successful attack on one of the 18 Jewish settlements, whose expansion has divided Gaza into four territorial enclaves and expropriated around a quarter of the strip’s land area.
...
The Islamic militants announced their plan for co-ordinated reprisals after Israeli incursions left more than 2,000 Palestinians homeless in Gaza’s Rafah refugee camp earlier this month, followed by the deaths of 14 in Israeli rocket attacks on Gaza city and the Nuseirat refugee camp on October 21st.
...
Palestinians are keen on such a negotiated truce: a recent poll showed 85% favoured a mutual cessation of hostilities. However, in its absence, 75% support suicide attacks inside Israel and even more back guerrilla attacks on Jewish settlements, like the one on Netzarim. Though Mr Qurei has always condemned the former he has, sniffing the popular breeze, refrained from criticising the latter.
On the Israeli side, Mr Sharon has so far rejected any suggestion of resuming ceasefire talks, arguing that the militants had used the previous, brief truce to rearm themselves. And far from contemplating dismantling some Jewish settlements, his government is busy expanding some of those on the West Bank. ...
...
But Mr Sharon seems confident there is no risk of a serious fall-out with Washington. He reckons that if he keeps mouthing his ostensible acceptance of the road map, he can continue in practice to ignore it—which is what the Palestinian leadership is doing too.
Indeed, fidelity to the road map is cited by Israeli spokesmen as reason to decry the “Geneva Accord”, an unofficial, alternative peace agreement concluded recently by a group of Israeli opposition figures and prominent Palestinian politicians. ...
Druze Chief Rues Rockets Missed Wolfowitz in Iraq
Yahoo! News - Druze Chief Rues Rockets Missed Wolfowitz in Iraq: "Mon Oct 27, 4:33 PM ET
BEIRUT (Reuters) - A top Lebanese politician enraged the American embassy in Beirut Monday by saying he hoped the next attack on the number two in the Defense Department would prove fatal.
Druze leader Walid Jumblatt described Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as a 'virus' who needed to be destroyed, a day after the American emerged unscathed from a guerrilla rocket attack on the fortified Baghdad hotel where he was staying.
...
"We hope that next time the rockets will be more accurate and effective in getting rid of this virus, and his like, who wreak corruption in the Arab land of Iraq and in Palestine," Jumblatt said.
Yahoo! News - Druze Chief Rues Rockets Missed Wolfowitz in Iraq: "Mon Oct 27, 4:33 PM ET
BEIRUT (Reuters) - A top Lebanese politician enraged the American embassy in Beirut Monday by saying he hoped the next attack on the number two in the Defense Department would prove fatal.
Druze leader Walid Jumblatt described Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as a 'virus' who needed to be destroyed, a day after the American emerged unscathed from a guerrilla rocket attack on the fortified Baghdad hotel where he was staying.
...
"We hope that next time the rockets will be more accurate and effective in getting rid of this virus, and his like, who wreak corruption in the Arab land of Iraq and in Palestine," Jumblatt said.
Fences And Fairness (washingtonpost.com)
Fences And Fairness (washingtonpost.com): "Fences And Fairness | By Jim Hoagland | Sunday, October 26, 2003; Page B07
Enough.
That is the word that President Bush should say with force and conviction to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Otherwise Sharon is likely to charge ahead and turn security measures conceived to protect Israelis into instruments of brutalization of Palestinians and expropriation of their property.
Saying "enough" has nothing to do with diplomatic devices such as the "road map" and everything to do with human decency and dignity. The Palestinians are largely responsible for the current impasse in the road map process and for the horrible mess in which they find themselves. This does not mean that Sharon and other Israeli hawks can simply grind the Palestinians to dust with Bush's silent acquiescence.
The price of staying silent will be measured not only in human costs paid by the Palestinians. It will gravely complicate U.S. efforts to pacify Iraq, contain Iran, encourage democracy in the Arab world and reestablish unchallenged leadership in transatlantic relations. Even during a presidential election campaign, that cost is too high.
Bush must establish a new sense of balance in U.S. relations with Israel. Fairness and practicality, as well as Israel's ability to go to Congress and over the head of any president, require Bush not to pretend he can force Sharon to act against Israel's perceived security needs. But Bush should be able to right a tilt gone too far.
...
That negative U.S. vote now obligates the Bush White House to make sure that the security system [the wall] is just that and nothing more. So does America's moral compass. ... The security zone's course is a statement that Sharon is building a wall to foreclose a meaningful territorial compromise, not to facilitate that compromise. ... The administration has voiced discomfort with the fence. But Sharon has easily deflected such limited reaction with skillful delaying tactics. ...
...
The same is true of the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations of Palestinian terrorist leaders or operatives. Sharon promised Bush that a "ticking bomb" test would be applied to all preemptive killings. But that standard is being progressively diluted as the attacks expand and Israel's intent of eliminating the leadership of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and other terrorist groups, whenever the opportunity arises, becomes clearer. ... But even Israelis traumatized by the wave of terror unleashed against them three years ago are growing concerned over the collateral damage and civilian casualties incurred in recent Israeli operations.
...
... But such approaches will be stillborn if the United States remains a silent partner in efforts by Sharon to dispossess and break the Palestinians as a people.
Security demands neither land grabs nor a foe's total humiliation and destruction.
Fences And Fairness (washingtonpost.com): "Fences And Fairness | By Jim Hoagland | Sunday, October 26, 2003; Page B07
Enough.
That is the word that President Bush should say with force and conviction to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Otherwise Sharon is likely to charge ahead and turn security measures conceived to protect Israelis into instruments of brutalization of Palestinians and expropriation of their property.
Saying "enough" has nothing to do with diplomatic devices such as the "road map" and everything to do with human decency and dignity. The Palestinians are largely responsible for the current impasse in the road map process and for the horrible mess in which they find themselves. This does not mean that Sharon and other Israeli hawks can simply grind the Palestinians to dust with Bush's silent acquiescence.
The price of staying silent will be measured not only in human costs paid by the Palestinians. It will gravely complicate U.S. efforts to pacify Iraq, contain Iran, encourage democracy in the Arab world and reestablish unchallenged leadership in transatlantic relations. Even during a presidential election campaign, that cost is too high.
Bush must establish a new sense of balance in U.S. relations with Israel. Fairness and practicality, as well as Israel's ability to go to Congress and over the head of any president, require Bush not to pretend he can force Sharon to act against Israel's perceived security needs. But Bush should be able to right a tilt gone too far.
...
That negative U.S. vote now obligates the Bush White House to make sure that the security system [the wall] is just that and nothing more. So does America's moral compass. ... The security zone's course is a statement that Sharon is building a wall to foreclose a meaningful territorial compromise, not to facilitate that compromise. ... The administration has voiced discomfort with the fence. But Sharon has easily deflected such limited reaction with skillful delaying tactics. ...
...
The same is true of the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations of Palestinian terrorist leaders or operatives. Sharon promised Bush that a "ticking bomb" test would be applied to all preemptive killings. But that standard is being progressively diluted as the attacks expand and Israel's intent of eliminating the leadership of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and other terrorist groups, whenever the opportunity arises, becomes clearer. ... But even Israelis traumatized by the wave of terror unleashed against them three years ago are growing concerned over the collateral damage and civilian casualties incurred in recent Israeli operations.
...
... But such approaches will be stillborn if the United States remains a silent partner in efforts by Sharon to dispossess and break the Palestinians as a people.
Security demands neither land grabs nor a foe's total humiliation and destruction.
Bush retreats from Mideast peace efforts
Yahoo! News - Bush retreats from Mideast peace efforts: "Tue Oct 28, 8:52 AM ET | By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
When Israel announced last week that it would permit construction of hundreds of Jewish apartments in the West Bank, the State Department acknowledged that the action directly violated commitments Israel made in June to quit building settlements in Palestinian territory, a crucial part of the U.S.-backed "road map" for peace.
But instead of a harsh rebuke, the State Department's reaction was low-key
The mild response was characteristic of a Bush administration that seems to have given up trying to broker an Arab-Israeli peace in the face of repeated violations of the process by both sides. ...
Since Abbas' resignation, U.S. actions and statements have suggested that the administration has judged the road map a failure. Instead, the administration appears to have moved back toward unabashed support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s tough policies:
Elliott Abrams, the top Middle East official on the White House's National Security Council, told a group of Mideast experts last month that the administration never expected Israel to stop assassinations of Palestinian militants, even after Palestinian factions agreed to a cease-fire June 29. The administration view is that the cease-fire was negotiated among Palestinian factions and put no constraints on Israeli actions. ...
...
Questioned on Oct. 14 about Israeli demolition of more than 200 homes in the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "We understand Israel's need to defend itself. ... But the road map calls on Israel to refrain from the "confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property."
...
The next day, Palestinians detonated a bomb that killed three American security guards traveling in a U.S. convoy in Gaza. Samuel Lewis, U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1977 to 1985, said that the attack was an ominous sign Americans are now fair game and that it reflected Palestinian anger at "the whole pro-Israeli tenor of the (Bush) administration."
"The United States has always been identified in Arab eyes as being on the Israeli side," said Martin Indyk, U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration. What has changed, Indyk said, is that Arabs no longer perceive the United States as being "committed to trying to find a solution" to the dispute.
Ahmed Ghneim, a member of a Palestinian delegation that visited Washington last week to urge the Bush administration to help broker a real cease-fire, told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: "There is no signal that we have partners for this proposal ... not in the U.S. and not in Israel."
...
U.S. officials blame Palestinians for the impasse. But presidential politics may also be a factor. On the eve of an election year, Bush's staunch support of Sharon is a plus with key supporters.
"Pro-Israel Christians and Jews are much more comfortable with the administration's new emphasis," said Gary Bauer (news - web sites), a former Republican presidential candidate who heads American Values, a conservative group.
Yahoo! News - Bush retreats from Mideast peace efforts: "Tue Oct 28, 8:52 AM ET | By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
When Israel announced last week that it would permit construction of hundreds of Jewish apartments in the West Bank, the State Department acknowledged that the action directly violated commitments Israel made in June to quit building settlements in Palestinian territory, a crucial part of the U.S.-backed "road map" for peace.
But instead of a harsh rebuke, the State Department's reaction was low-key
The mild response was characteristic of a Bush administration that seems to have given up trying to broker an Arab-Israeli peace in the face of repeated violations of the process by both sides. ...
Since Abbas' resignation, U.S. actions and statements have suggested that the administration has judged the road map a failure. Instead, the administration appears to have moved back toward unabashed support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s tough policies:
Elliott Abrams, the top Middle East official on the White House's National Security Council, told a group of Mideast experts last month that the administration never expected Israel to stop assassinations of Palestinian militants, even after Palestinian factions agreed to a cease-fire June 29. The administration view is that the cease-fire was negotiated among Palestinian factions and put no constraints on Israeli actions. ...
...
Questioned on Oct. 14 about Israeli demolition of more than 200 homes in the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "We understand Israel's need to defend itself. ... But the road map calls on Israel to refrain from the "confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property."
...
The next day, Palestinians detonated a bomb that killed three American security guards traveling in a U.S. convoy in Gaza. Samuel Lewis, U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1977 to 1985, said that the attack was an ominous sign Americans are now fair game and that it reflected Palestinian anger at "the whole pro-Israeli tenor of the (Bush) administration."
"The United States has always been identified in Arab eyes as being on the Israeli side," said Martin Indyk, U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration. What has changed, Indyk said, is that Arabs no longer perceive the United States as being "committed to trying to find a solution" to the dispute.
Ahmed Ghneim, a member of a Palestinian delegation that visited Washington last week to urge the Bush administration to help broker a real cease-fire, told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: "There is no signal that we have partners for this proposal ... not in the U.S. and not in Israel."
...
U.S. officials blame Palestinians for the impasse. But presidential politics may also be a factor. On the eve of an election year, Bush's staunch support of Sharon is a plus with key supporters.
"Pro-Israel Christians and Jews are much more comfortable with the administration's new emphasis," said Gary Bauer (news - web sites), a former Republican presidential candidate who heads American Values, a conservative group.
IDF worried widespread pressure on Palestinians will lead to a humanitarian crisis and hatred
Ha'aretz - Article: "Background / IDF warns against repeating Abbas mistakes | By Uzi Benziman, Haaretz Correspondent
The high command of the Israel Defense Forces believes that Israel contributed to the collapse of former Palestinian premier Mahmoud Abbas' government by making only stingy demonstrations of support, and is warning Israel not to repeat the mistake with Palestinian premier Ahmed Qureia, who is now trying to form a permanent cabinet.
...
In order to prevent a similar debacle this time around, the IDF is advising the government to remove the military blockades from West Bank cities such as Bethlehem and Jericho, to differentiate between terror-free and terror-filled areas, and to allow free travel for Palestinian vehicles in the West Bank.
The army is disappointed that the government has for the most part ignored its recommendations, preferring instead the advice of the Shin Bet security service.
The senior military officers are worried by the possibility that maintaining widespread pressure on the Palestinian population will lead to a humanitarian crisis and increase Palestinian hatred of Israel. The IDF General Staff describes the ongoing pressure as "sacrificing the strategic interest for the sake of tactical considerations."
Ha'aretz - Article: "Background / IDF warns against repeating Abbas mistakes | By Uzi Benziman, Haaretz Correspondent
The high command of the Israel Defense Forces believes that Israel contributed to the collapse of former Palestinian premier Mahmoud Abbas' government by making only stingy demonstrations of support, and is warning Israel not to repeat the mistake with Palestinian premier Ahmed Qureia, who is now trying to form a permanent cabinet.
...
In order to prevent a similar debacle this time around, the IDF is advising the government to remove the military blockades from West Bank cities such as Bethlehem and Jericho, to differentiate between terror-free and terror-filled areas, and to allow free travel for Palestinian vehicles in the West Bank.
The army is disappointed that the government has for the most part ignored its recommendations, preferring instead the advice of the Shin Bet security service.
The senior military officers are worried by the possibility that maintaining widespread pressure on the Palestinian population will lead to a humanitarian crisis and increase Palestinian hatred of Israel. The IDF General Staff describes the ongoing pressure as "sacrificing the strategic interest for the sake of tactical considerations."
Settlements and American funding: a history of deceipt, double standards and turning a blind eye
Lies and waste: "Lies and waste | Wednesday, October 29, 2003
The U.S. administration has expressed sharply worded reservations about an Israeli government plan to build 152 housing units in the settlement of Karnei Shomron.
...
According to another report, Washington is now demanding "urgent" clarifications from Israel about a Defense
Ministry decision, made public this week, to grant semi-official status to a long list of illegal outposts established in the West Bank and Gaza. As a result of that decision, those outposts will enjoy not only security arrangements provided by the army, but also a cornucopia of civil services provided by various state agencies to residents of legal settlements: education, electricity, transportation, communications, and other services. [Aren't these the very services that Bedouin Israeli Arabs are deprived of in their "unrecognized" villages inside Israel. ed.]
...
In the Israeli-American dialogue, once again the possibility has been raised that the U.S. will deduct from the loan guarantees it granted Israel the sum being spent on the fence and on settlements. But it seems that isn't enough to deter the prime minister and a majority of his ministers
...
But in practical terms, Sharon displays only profound contempt for the road map, for the chance to ever reach a compromise agreement with the Palestinians, and for the values of integrity and credibility that should guide any statement made by the prime minister of Israel. The first stage of the road map required Israel to totally freeze construction in the territories and to dismantle the illegal outposts.
The government seemed to have accepted those two demands. It even staged a few removals of outposts. But it was all pretense. In effect, construction has proceeded apace, and for every outpost seemingly removed, two have been established in its place.
True, the Palestinian side has also rudely violated its commitments in the road map. But that cannot justify the fraud perpetrated by the government. The history of the settlements is rife with the language of deceit.
Lies and waste: "Lies and waste | Wednesday, October 29, 2003
The U.S. administration has expressed sharply worded reservations about an Israeli government plan to build 152 housing units in the settlement of Karnei Shomron.
...
According to another report, Washington is now demanding "urgent" clarifications from Israel about a Defense
Ministry decision, made public this week, to grant semi-official status to a long list of illegal outposts established in the West Bank and Gaza. As a result of that decision, those outposts will enjoy not only security arrangements provided by the army, but also a cornucopia of civil services provided by various state agencies to residents of legal settlements: education, electricity, transportation, communications, and other services. [Aren't these the very services that Bedouin Israeli Arabs are deprived of in their "unrecognized" villages inside Israel. ed.]
...
In the Israeli-American dialogue, once again the possibility has been raised that the U.S. will deduct from the loan guarantees it granted Israel the sum being spent on the fence and on settlements. But it seems that isn't enough to deter the prime minister and a majority of his ministers
...
But in practical terms, Sharon displays only profound contempt for the road map, for the chance to ever reach a compromise agreement with the Palestinians, and for the values of integrity and credibility that should guide any statement made by the prime minister of Israel. The first stage of the road map required Israel to totally freeze construction in the territories and to dismantle the illegal outposts.
The government seemed to have accepted those two demands. It even staged a few removals of outposts. But it was all pretense. In effect, construction has proceeded apace, and for every outpost seemingly removed, two have been established in its place.
True, the Palestinian side has also rudely violated its commitments in the road map. But that cannot justify the fraud perpetrated by the government. The history of the settlements is rife with the language of deceit.
The State of Israel and the Psychology of Jewish Identity
The State of Israel and the Psychology of Jewish Identity : sf-imc: "The State of Israel and the Psychology of Jewish Identity
by Richard Morrissey Tuesday October 28, 2003 at 07:26 PM
...
... There is now almost universal acceptance of the "truth" that belief in Zionism is synonymous with being Jewish and that opposition to the Zionist project is typically anti-Semitic.
This identification between Judaism and the State is a recent phenomenon, at least when looked at within the context of Jewish history and exile (Galut). Until the end of WWII the majority of Orthodox Jews were opposed to the Gentile nationalism of Zionism, which was, and still is, a secular European political philosophy, rather than a creed based upon the Torah (Divine Law).
The cornerstone of Zionism is the notion that the Jews should be "a nation among nations" with the Torah as their religion, but on a voluntary basis. ...
In marked contrast to this nationalist view of Judaism, the original character and identity of the Jewish People (Klal Yisroel) is one that does not mirror modern views on what constitute nations or people. According to traditional Jewish belief, the Jewish People are a people apart, the result of a separate act of Creation by God. It was only when God gave them His Torah that the Children of Israel came into being. The Jews existed as a people before they had a land of their own and they continued to exist in exile because their nature as a people was based exclusively on the Torah. Without the Torah, the Jewish People cease to exist.
What is clear is that the original Torah view of Israel and Judaism is diametrically opposed to Zionism, and the myths created by the champions of the State of Israel. They are completely different worldviews. For the traditional Torah Jew, and for most Orthodox Jews prior to WWII, the Jews were exiled by God from the Holy Land after they had sinned, and they were consequently forbidden to act against this Divine decree of exile. Although Jews could live in the Holy Land and in other parts of the world, they had to reside as peaceful citizens of non-Jewish states while they awaited the spiritual messianic redemption promised by the Creator. This redemption is not one that could come by the hands of man, but is God given. Consequently, to assume that the current Israeli State is part of, or a precursor to, this redemption, is in effect usurping God's position and authority and replacing it with the authority of politicians and soldiers.
Most Jews, religious or otherwise, have very little knowledge of the issues surrounding the existence of Israel and the promise of redemption. Indeed, most of them would probably be shocked to read the views of the Neturi Karta or of the hundreds of Orthodox Rabbis who vehemently opposed Zionism during the last century. So, as the years go by the anti-Zionist teachings from the likes of Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, Reb Yehoishea Dzikover and many others will remain untaught by Zionist educators and ultimately forgotten by "mainstream" Orthodox and secular Jews.
Zionists wanted to change the nature of Judaism from a ghettoised and persecuted minority with a strong religious identity based on the Torah to a proud and "normal" nation-State that could compete on equal footing with other world powers
...
The battle in Palestine today is not about terrorism or protecting Jews. It is rather the story of a loss of faith and the psychological need of many Jews to replace their failed allegiance to the Divine with something else: a new golden calf called the State of Israel.
The State of Israel and the Psychology of Jewish Identity : sf-imc: "The State of Israel and the Psychology of Jewish Identity
by Richard Morrissey Tuesday October 28, 2003 at 07:26 PM
...
... There is now almost universal acceptance of the "truth" that belief in Zionism is synonymous with being Jewish and that opposition to the Zionist project is typically anti-Semitic.
This identification between Judaism and the State is a recent phenomenon, at least when looked at within the context of Jewish history and exile (Galut). Until the end of WWII the majority of Orthodox Jews were opposed to the Gentile nationalism of Zionism, which was, and still is, a secular European political philosophy, rather than a creed based upon the Torah (Divine Law).
The cornerstone of Zionism is the notion that the Jews should be "a nation among nations" with the Torah as their religion, but on a voluntary basis. ...
In marked contrast to this nationalist view of Judaism, the original character and identity of the Jewish People (Klal Yisroel) is one that does not mirror modern views on what constitute nations or people. According to traditional Jewish belief, the Jewish People are a people apart, the result of a separate act of Creation by God. It was only when God gave them His Torah that the Children of Israel came into being. The Jews existed as a people before they had a land of their own and they continued to exist in exile because their nature as a people was based exclusively on the Torah. Without the Torah, the Jewish People cease to exist.
What is clear is that the original Torah view of Israel and Judaism is diametrically opposed to Zionism, and the myths created by the champions of the State of Israel. They are completely different worldviews. For the traditional Torah Jew, and for most Orthodox Jews prior to WWII, the Jews were exiled by God from the Holy Land after they had sinned, and they were consequently forbidden to act against this Divine decree of exile. Although Jews could live in the Holy Land and in other parts of the world, they had to reside as peaceful citizens of non-Jewish states while they awaited the spiritual messianic redemption promised by the Creator. This redemption is not one that could come by the hands of man, but is God given. Consequently, to assume that the current Israeli State is part of, or a precursor to, this redemption, is in effect usurping God's position and authority and replacing it with the authority of politicians and soldiers.
Most Jews, religious or otherwise, have very little knowledge of the issues surrounding the existence of Israel and the promise of redemption. Indeed, most of them would probably be shocked to read the views of the Neturi Karta or of the hundreds of Orthodox Rabbis who vehemently opposed Zionism during the last century. So, as the years go by the anti-Zionist teachings from the likes of Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, Reb Yehoishea Dzikover and many others will remain untaught by Zionist educators and ultimately forgotten by "mainstream" Orthodox and secular Jews.
Zionists wanted to change the nature of Judaism from a ghettoised and persecuted minority with a strong religious identity based on the Torah to a proud and "normal" nation-State that could compete on equal footing with other world powers
...
The battle in Palestine today is not about terrorism or protecting Jews. It is rather the story of a loss of faith and the psychological need of many Jews to replace their failed allegiance to the Divine with something else: a new golden calf called the State of Israel.
US Senator Robert Byrd: this war was based on falsehoods
Leon Wofsy's Op-Ed: After November 21, 2002: "The Emperor Has No Clothes | Senate Floor Remarks by US Senator Robert Byrd, October 17, 2003
'In 1837, Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a wonderful fairy tale which he titled The Emperor's New Clothes. It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. ...
...
"Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the Administration's policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room — that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods - have had our patriotism questioned. Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice. We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.
...
"Taking the nation to war based on misleading rhetoric and hyped intelligence is a travesty and a tragedy. It is the most cynical of all cynical acts. It is dangerous to manipulate the truth.
...
"I cannot support the politics of zeal and "might makes right" that created the new American arrogance and unilateralism which passes for foreign policy in this Administration.
"I cannot support this foolish manifestation of the dangerous and destabilizing doctrine of preemption that changes the image of America into that of a reckless bully."
Leon Wofsy's Op-Ed: After November 21, 2002: "The Emperor Has No Clothes | Senate Floor Remarks by US Senator Robert Byrd, October 17, 2003
'In 1837, Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a wonderful fairy tale which he titled The Emperor's New Clothes. It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. ...
...
"Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the Administration's policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room — that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods - have had our patriotism questioned. Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice. We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.
...
"Taking the nation to war based on misleading rhetoric and hyped intelligence is a travesty and a tragedy. It is the most cynical of all cynical acts. It is dangerous to manipulate the truth.
...
"I cannot support the politics of zeal and "might makes right" that created the new American arrogance and unilateralism which passes for foreign policy in this Administration.
"I cannot support this foolish manifestation of the dangerous and destabilizing doctrine of preemption that changes the image of America into that of a reckless bully."
Opinion » Israel should be held responsible for actions
GazetteNET.com | Opinion » Israel should be held responsible for actions: "Tuesday, October 28, 2003 -- To the editor:
Daily news of the escalating violence between Israel and Palestinians makes me angrier and angrier. My parents lived and were married in Israel in the early 1950s and more than 100 members of my family _aunts, uncles, and cousins, live there today. It matters to me how this conflict works out. And it appalls me that all these years later, the Israeli army is still bulldozing Palestinian homes and then has the audacity to claim moral superiority over suicide bombers.
I recently heard Arafat and Sharon described as ''Sharafat,'' both of them equally attached to perpetuating the conflict and unable to resolve it sensibly. Meanwhile, the citizens of both countries suffer and die, but mostly the Palestinians. Yes, I said both countries, because ultimately, I think there will need to be two countries. It seems like the whole world can see this except for ''Sharafat.''
American politicians attempt to curry favor with Jewish voters by supporting Israel and turning a blind eye to the atrocities the Israeli government perpetrates against Palestinian families with bulldozers, fences, bullets, missiles, tanks, and economic sanctions. The three Americans who died in Gaza last week were not the first Americans to die in Palestine. But they got better press than the young American woman who died, just months ago, under an Israeli bulldozer while trying to prevent a Palestinian home from being destroyed.
This is one American Jewish voter who is looking for a candidate brave enough to say out loud that Israel is wrong and must stop destroying homes and lives in Palestine. That ''Sharafat'' must be replaced by leaders who will work honestly to end the conflict and develop a process of reconciliation. Somebody, please, have the chutzpah to earn my vote.
Dina Stander | Shutesbury
GazetteNET.com | Opinion » Israel should be held responsible for actions: "Tuesday, October 28, 2003 -- To the editor:
Daily news of the escalating violence between Israel and Palestinians makes me angrier and angrier. My parents lived and were married in Israel in the early 1950s and more than 100 members of my family _aunts, uncles, and cousins, live there today. It matters to me how this conflict works out. And it appalls me that all these years later, the Israeli army is still bulldozing Palestinian homes and then has the audacity to claim moral superiority over suicide bombers.
I recently heard Arafat and Sharon described as ''Sharafat,'' both of them equally attached to perpetuating the conflict and unable to resolve it sensibly. Meanwhile, the citizens of both countries suffer and die, but mostly the Palestinians. Yes, I said both countries, because ultimately, I think there will need to be two countries. It seems like the whole world can see this except for ''Sharafat.''
American politicians attempt to curry favor with Jewish voters by supporting Israel and turning a blind eye to the atrocities the Israeli government perpetrates against Palestinian families with bulldozers, fences, bullets, missiles, tanks, and economic sanctions. The three Americans who died in Gaza last week were not the first Americans to die in Palestine. But they got better press than the young American woman who died, just months ago, under an Israeli bulldozer while trying to prevent a Palestinian home from being destroyed.
This is one American Jewish voter who is looking for a candidate brave enough to say out loud that Israel is wrong and must stop destroying homes and lives in Palestine. That ''Sharafat'' must be replaced by leaders who will work honestly to end the conflict and develop a process of reconciliation. Somebody, please, have the chutzpah to earn my vote.
Dina Stander | Shutesbury
Israeli Minister: "It's very clear that any pressure on the Palestinian population is going to in the end create new terror"
Excite News: "Israelis Kill Palestinian Near Gaza Fence | Oct 29, 8:13 AM (ET) | By RAVI NESSMAN
...
Army officials have expressed concern that continuing restrictions on Palestinians are fostering hatred of Israel, strengthening militant groups and creating the kind of atmosphere that leads to more attacks, according to media reports.
Army officials were trying to persuade the government to lift the closures placed on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before the Jewish New Year holiday last month because of increased concerns about attacks. The closure, which had been extended through a series of Jewish holidays over the past month, prevented nearly 3 million Palestinians from traveling to Israel and leaving their communities.
The restrictions have also kept many Palestinian farmers from their fields, badly damaging the annual olive harvest.
Officials were considering letting 3,000 West Bank merchants enter Israel and allowing 1,500 Palestinians to enter the Israeli-controlled Atarot industrial park in the West Bank, but cities would remain surrounded, according to Army radio.
Israeli has repeatedly clamped tight closures around Palestinian communities over the past three years of violence when the threat of militant attacks is high. Some in the government have been reluctant to relax the current restrictions for fear of more attacks.
"It's very clear that any pressure on the Palestinian population is going to in the end create new terror. It's not a simple dilemma, how we should deal with this," Deputy Defense Minister Zeev Boim told Army radio.
Excite News: "Israelis Kill Palestinian Near Gaza Fence | Oct 29, 8:13 AM (ET) | By RAVI NESSMAN
...
Army officials have expressed concern that continuing restrictions on Palestinians are fostering hatred of Israel, strengthening militant groups and creating the kind of atmosphere that leads to more attacks, according to media reports.
Army officials were trying to persuade the government to lift the closures placed on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before the Jewish New Year holiday last month because of increased concerns about attacks. The closure, which had been extended through a series of Jewish holidays over the past month, prevented nearly 3 million Palestinians from traveling to Israel and leaving their communities.
The restrictions have also kept many Palestinian farmers from their fields, badly damaging the annual olive harvest.
Officials were considering letting 3,000 West Bank merchants enter Israel and allowing 1,500 Palestinians to enter the Israeli-controlled Atarot industrial park in the West Bank, but cities would remain surrounded, according to Army radio.
Israeli has repeatedly clamped tight closures around Palestinian communities over the past three years of violence when the threat of militant attacks is high. Some in the government have been reluctant to relax the current restrictions for fear of more attacks.
"It's very clear that any pressure on the Palestinian population is going to in the end create new terror. It's not a simple dilemma, how we should deal with this," Deputy Defense Minister Zeev Boim told Army radio.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
t r u t h o u t - Classified State Department Report: Bush’s Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'
t r u t h o u t - Classified State Department Report: Bush’s Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible': "Classified State Department Report: Bush’s Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'
By Greg Miller
LA Times
Friday 14 March 2003
A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say.
WASHINGTON -- A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.
The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.
The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.
Even if some version of democracy took root — an event the report casts as unlikely — anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States."
t r u t h o u t - Classified State Department Report: Bush’s Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible': "Classified State Department Report: Bush’s Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'
By Greg Miller
LA Times
Friday 14 March 2003
A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say.
WASHINGTON -- A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.
The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.
The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.
Even if some version of democracy took root — an event the report casts as unlikely — anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States."
Survey shows Fox led in misleading public about Iraq
Veterans for Common Sense - News Article: "FOX News Misled Public About Iraq War | Kay McFadden | The Seattle Times | Posted 10/6/2003 5:12:00 PM
Veterans for Common Sense - News Article: "FOX News Misled Public About Iraq War | Kay McFadden | The Seattle Times | Posted 10/6/2003 5:12:00 PM
| October 6, 2003, Summary: Question of the day -- Will FOX News run a
news story documenting how FOX News broadcasts the most biased, incomplete, and inaccurate news? Thank you Seattle Times for having the courage to report the facts ... Survey shows Fox led in misleading public A just-released report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) finds a majority of respondents have misperceptions about the war.* The results show 48 percent incorrectly believed that evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iraq has been found; 22 percent that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and 25 percent that world opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq. A walloping 60 percent overall held one or more of these misperceptions. How did we get to be such dopes? PIPA quizzed respondents on their main sources of news information. Their findings are at right. ... As you'll note, Fox's audience scored lowest. That's fodder for arguing the only place its "fair and balanced" motto really belongs is on the cover of a satirical best seller. |
 |
Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq
Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq -- Danny Postel - openDemocracy: "16 - 10 - 2003
Are the ideas of the conservative political philosopher Leo Strauss a shaping influence on the Bush administration’s world outlook? Danny Postel interviews Shadia Drury – a leading scholarly critic of Strauss – and asks her about the connection between Plato’s dialogues, secrets and lies, and the United States-led war in Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)
...
Danny Postel: You’ve argued that there is an important connection between the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Bush administration’s selling of the Iraq war. What is that connection?
Shadia Drury: Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States – the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
So what were the real reasons? Reorganising the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of Israel? Expanding American hegemony in the Arab world? Possibly. But these reasons would not have been sufficient in themselves to mobilise American support for the war. And the Straussian cabal in the administration realised that.
Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.”
Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.
How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. ...
Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq -- Danny Postel - openDemocracy: "16 - 10 - 2003
Are the ideas of the conservative political philosopher Leo Strauss a shaping influence on the Bush administration’s world outlook? Danny Postel interviews Shadia Drury – a leading scholarly critic of Strauss – and asks her about the connection between Plato’s dialogues, secrets and lies, and the United States-led war in Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)
...
Danny Postel: You’ve argued that there is an important connection between the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Bush administration’s selling of the Iraq war. What is that connection?
Shadia Drury: Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States – the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
So what were the real reasons? Reorganising the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of Israel? Expanding American hegemony in the Arab world? Possibly. But these reasons would not have been sufficient in themselves to mobilise American support for the war. And the Straussian cabal in the administration realised that.
Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.”
Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.
How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. ...
Is "Neocon" becoming an anti-Semitic term?
: "Ron Smith's 'Something to Say' Commentary
Weekdays at 6:50AM | rsmith@wbal.com | Ron Smith Show Page | Leo-Cons | Friday, October 24, 2003
Have you noticed that one is not supposed to say "neocon" any more? It's suddenly a dirty word because to use it as identification for a particular school of political thought is said to be "anti-Semitic," apparently because so many prominent new conservatives are Jewish.
They're proud of that privately, but since the Iraq adventure has not gone as smoothly as they told us it would, they'd rather not accept public responsibility for ginning up support for the invasion and occupation.
Besides, as followers of political philosopher Leo Strauss, many neocon intellectuals believe ordinary folks shouldn't be told the truth about matters of importance such as the reasons for expending American blood and treasure on the Iraq War.
Irving Kristol (Bill's Pappy), sometimes called the Godfather of neo-conservatism, once wrote:
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
Understanding what Strauss taught his students is key to understanding how "the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flows directly from the doctrines [of Strauss]. His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.”
If you are at all interested in learning more about Strauss and his profound influence on the events of this time, read this interview with a Strauss scholar who has been denounced for shedding light on the late teacher’s cultists.
: "Ron Smith's 'Something to Say' Commentary
Weekdays at 6:50AM | rsmith@wbal.com | Ron Smith Show Page | Leo-Cons | Friday, October 24, 2003
Have you noticed that one is not supposed to say "neocon" any more? It's suddenly a dirty word because to use it as identification for a particular school of political thought is said to be "anti-Semitic," apparently because so many prominent new conservatives are Jewish.
They're proud of that privately, but since the Iraq adventure has not gone as smoothly as they told us it would, they'd rather not accept public responsibility for ginning up support for the invasion and occupation.
Besides, as followers of political philosopher Leo Strauss, many neocon intellectuals believe ordinary folks shouldn't be told the truth about matters of importance such as the reasons for expending American blood and treasure on the Iraq War.
Irving Kristol (Bill's Pappy), sometimes called the Godfather of neo-conservatism, once wrote:
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
Understanding what Strauss taught his students is key to understanding how "the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flows directly from the doctrines [of Strauss]. His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.”
If you are at all interested in learning more about Strauss and his profound influence on the events of this time, read this interview with a Strauss scholar who has been denounced for shedding light on the late teacher’s cultists.
Australian intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie testifies on "fairy tales" and "weak and skewed views" from US agencies
Veterans for Common Sense - News Article: "One Person Can Make a Difference | Ray McGovern | Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Posted 10/13/2003 9:32:00 PM
...
Our most recent open appeal to you, “Now It’s Your Turn,” was made on August 22, 2003. On that same day, it turns out, former Australian intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie testified before a parliamentary committee examining the justification given by Prime Minister John Howard for Australia’s decision to join the war in Iraq. Wilkie had been a senior analyst in Australia’s premier intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments. Of all the Australian, British, and American intelligence analysts with direct knowledge of how intelligence was abused in the run-up to the war—Wilkie was the only one to resign in protest and speak truth to power.
...
... on October 7 the Australian Senate, in a rare move, censured [Prime Minister] Howard for misleading the public in justifying sending Australian troops off to war ...
...
Wilkie, in testimony to an Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee, August 22, 2003, said ...
A problem for Australian agencies was their reliance on Allies. We had virtually no influence on foreign intelligence collection planning, and the raw intelligence seldom arrived with adequate notes on sources or reliability. More problematic was the way in which Australia’s tiny agencies needed to rely on the sometimes weak and skewed views contained in the assessments prepared in Washington.
A few problems were inevitable. For instance, intelligence gaps were sometimes back-filled with the disinformation. Worst-case sometimes took primacy over most-likely. The threat was sometimes overestimated as a result of the fairy tales coming out of the US. And sometimes Government pressure, as well as politically correct intelligence officers themselves, resulted in its own bias.
...
The Government also chose to use the truth selectively. For instance, much was said about the risk of WMD terrorism. But what was not made clear was that the risk of WMD terrorism is low, that leakage of weapons from a state arsenal is unlikely, and that the weapon most likely to be used will be crude. That is, the chemical, biological or radiological device most likely to be used will not be a WMD.
The [Australian] Government even went so far as to fabricate the truth. The claims about Iraq cooperating actively with al Qaida were obviously nonsense. As was the Government’s reference to Iraq seeking uranium in Africa, despite the fact that ONA, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, all knew the Niger story was fraudulent.
Veterans for Common Sense - News Article: "One Person Can Make a Difference | Ray McGovern | Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Posted 10/13/2003 9:32:00 PM
...
Our most recent open appeal to you, “Now It’s Your Turn,” was made on August 22, 2003. On that same day, it turns out, former Australian intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie testified before a parliamentary committee examining the justification given by Prime Minister John Howard for Australia’s decision to join the war in Iraq. Wilkie had been a senior analyst in Australia’s premier intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments. Of all the Australian, British, and American intelligence analysts with direct knowledge of how intelligence was abused in the run-up to the war—Wilkie was the only one to resign in protest and speak truth to power.
...
... on October 7 the Australian Senate, in a rare move, censured [Prime Minister] Howard for misleading the public in justifying sending Australian troops off to war ...
...
Wilkie, in testimony to an Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee, August 22, 2003, said ...
A problem for Australian agencies was their reliance on Allies. We had virtually no influence on foreign intelligence collection planning, and the raw intelligence seldom arrived with adequate notes on sources or reliability. More problematic was the way in which Australia’s tiny agencies needed to rely on the sometimes weak and skewed views contained in the assessments prepared in Washington.
A few problems were inevitable. For instance, intelligence gaps were sometimes back-filled with the disinformation. Worst-case sometimes took primacy over most-likely. The threat was sometimes overestimated as a result of the fairy tales coming out of the US. And sometimes Government pressure, as well as politically correct intelligence officers themselves, resulted in its own bias.
...
The Government also chose to use the truth selectively. For instance, much was said about the risk of WMD terrorism. But what was not made clear was that the risk of WMD terrorism is low, that leakage of weapons from a state arsenal is unlikely, and that the weapon most likely to be used will be crude. That is, the chemical, biological or radiological device most likely to be used will not be a WMD.
The [Australian] Government even went so far as to fabricate the truth. The claims about Iraq cooperating actively with al Qaida were obviously nonsense. As was the Government’s reference to Iraq seeking uranium in Africa, despite the fact that ONA, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, all knew the Niger story was fraudulent.
Building the case for war: Neocons bypass vetting to select worst-case, unvalidated intelligence
The New Yorker: Fact: "THE STOVEPIPE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH | How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons. | Issue of 2003-10-27 | Posted 2003-10-20
[October 20, 2003, Summary: Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh reveals how President George Bush manipulated intelligence and misled the US public to start the US - Iraq War. In addition to Hersh's excellent article, the New Yorker magazine has published an interview with Hersh about his investigation into the "group think" going on now at the White House and Defense Department ... ]
Since midsummer, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been attempting to solve the biggest mystery of the Iraq war: the disparity between the Bush Administration’s prewar assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and what has actually been discovered.
...
... One finding, the official went on, was that the intelligence reports about Iraq provided by the United Nations inspection teams and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq’s nuclear-weapons programs, were far more accurate than the C.I.A. estimates. “Some of the old-timers in the community are appalled by how bad the analysis was,” the official said. “If you look at them side by side, C.I.A. versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board.”
...
... In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.
...
The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.
“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”
...
But, Thielmann told me, “Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear.” Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton’s early-morning staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Under-Secretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’” When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, “The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.”
...
“He [Bolton] surrounded himself with a hand-chosen group of loyalists, and found a way to get C.I.A. information directly,” Thielmann said.
In a subsequent interview, Bolton acknowledged that he had changed the procedures for handling intelligence, in an effort to extend the scope of the classified materials available to his office. ...
...
There was also a change in procedure at the Pentagon under Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary ....What if it turns out that Ahmad Chalabi is not so popular? ... The people in the policy offices didn’t seem to care. When the official asked about the analysis, he was told by a colleague that the new Pentagon leadership wanted to focus not on what could go wrong but on what would go right. He was told that the study’s exploration of options amounted to planning for failure. “Their methodology was analogous to tossing a coin five times and assuming that it would always come up heads,” the official told me. “You need to think about what would happen if it comes up tails.”
...
Greg Thielmann, after being turned away from Bolton’s office, worked with the INR staff on a major review of Iraq’s progress in developing W.M.D.s. The review, presented to Secretary of State Powell in December, 2001, echoed the earlier I.A.E.A. findings. According to Thielmann, “It basically said that there is no persuasive evidence that the Iraqi nuclear program is being reconstituted.”
...
As the campaign [to build a case] against Iraq intensified, a former aide to Cheney told me, the Vice-President’s office, run by his chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, became increasingly secretive when it came to intelligence about Iraq’s W.M.D.s. As with Wolfowitz and Bolton, there was a reluctance to let the military and civilian analysts on the staff vet intelligence.
“It was an unbelievably closed and small group,” the former aide told me. Intelligence procedures were far more open during the Clinton Administration, he said, and professional staff members had been far more involved in assessing and evaluating the most sensitive data. “There’s so much intelligence out there that it’s easy to pick and choose your case,” the former aide told me. “It opens things up to cherry-picking.”
...
... Senior C.I.A. analysts dealing with Iraq were constantly being urged by the Vice-President’s office to provide worst-case assessments on Iraqi weapons issues. “They got pounded on, day after day,” one senior Bush Administration official told me, and received no consistent backup from Tenet and his senior staff. “Pretty soon you say ‘Fuck it.’” And they began to provide the intelligence that was wanted.
...
By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. ...
...
At that moment, in early October, 2002, a set of documents suddenly appeared that promised to provide solid evidence that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear program. The first notice of the documents’ existence came when Elisabetta Burba, a reporter for Panorama... He told her that he had information connecting Saddam Hussein to the purchase of uranium in Africa. ...
...
... A week later, Burba travelled to Niger. She visited mines and the ports that any exports would pass through, spoke to European businessmen and officials informed about Niger’s uranium industry, and found no trace of a sale. ... The Panorama story was dead, and Burba and her editors said that no money was paid. The documents, however, were now in American hands.
Once the documents were in Washington, they were forwarded by the C.I.A. to the Pentagon, he said. “Everybody knew at every step of the way that they were false—until they got to the Pentagon, where they were believed.”
The documents were just what Administration hawks had been waiting for. ...
...
Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He ... “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.
“The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’”
---
The State of the Union speech was confounding to many members of the intelligence community, who could not understand how such intelligence could have got to the President without vetting. The former intelligence official who gave me the account of the forging of the documents told me that his colleagues were also startled by the speech. “They said, ‘Holy shit, all of a sudden the President is talking about it in the State of the Union address!’ They began to panic. Who the hell was going to expose it? They had to build a backfire. The solution was to leak the documents to the I.A.E.A.”
...
After Niger was specified in the State Department’s fact sheet of December 19, 2002, the I.A.E.A. became more insistent. “I started to harass the United States,” recalled Jacques Baute, a Frenchman who, as director of the I.A.E.A.’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office, often harassed Washington. Mark Gwozdecky, the I.A.E.A.’s spokesman, added, “We were asking for actionable evidence, and Jacques was getting almost nothing. ”
...
Nothing was forthcoming, and so the I.A.E.A.’s director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, publicly described the fraud at his next scheduled briefing to the U.N. Security Council, in New York on March 7th. The story slowly began to unravel.
Vice-President Cheney responded to ElBaradei’s report mainly by attacking the messenger. On March 16th, Cheney, appearing on “Meet the Press,” stated emphatically that the United States had reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear-weapons program. He went on, “I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency on this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing.
...
... A few months later, on July 6th, Wilson wrote about the trip himself on the Times Op-Ed page. “I gave them months to correct the record,” he told me, speaking of the White House, “but they kept on lying.” ...
...
But Wilson’s account of his trip forced a rattled White House to acknowledge, for the first time, that “this information should not have risen to the level of a Presidential speech.” It also triggered retaliatory leaks to the press by White House officials that exposed Wilson’s wife as a C.I.A. operative—and led to an F.B.I. investigation.
---
... Iraqi weapons industry and for the National Monitoring Directorate, the agency set up by Saddam to work with the United Nations and I.A.E.A. inspectors. Many of the most senior weapons-industry officials, even those who voluntarily surrendered to U.S. forces, are being held in captivity at the Baghdad airport and other places, away from reporters. ...
...
... Jafar Dhia Jafar, a British-educated physicist who coördinated Iraq’s efforts to make the bomb in the nineteen-eighties, and who had direct access to Saddam Hussein, fled Iraq in early April, before Baghdad fell, ... There were some twenty meetings, involving as many as fifteen American and British experts. The first meeting, on April 11th, began with an urgent question from a C.I.A. officer:
“Does Iraq have a nuclear device? The military really want to know. They are extremely worried.” Jafar’s response, according to the notes of an eyewitness, was to laugh. ... Jafar insisted that there was not only no bomb, but no W.M.D., period. ... The notes said that Jafar was then asked, “But this doesn’t mean all W.M.D.? How can you be certain?” His answer was clear: “I know all the scientists involved, and they chat. There is no W.M.D.” ... a strong endorsement of Jafar’s integrity came from an unusual source—Jacques Baute, of the I.A.E.A., who spent much of the past decade locked in a struggle with Jafar and the other W.M.D. scientists and technicians of Iraq. “I don’t believe anybody,” Baute told me, “but, by and large, what he told us after 1995 was pretty accurate.”
The New Yorker: Fact: "THE STOVEPIPE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH | How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons. | Issue of 2003-10-27 | Posted 2003-10-20
[October 20, 2003, Summary: Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh reveals how President George Bush manipulated intelligence and misled the US public to start the US - Iraq War. In addition to Hersh's excellent article, the New Yorker magazine has published an interview with Hersh about his investigation into the "group think" going on now at the White House and Defense Department ... ]
Since midsummer, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been attempting to solve the biggest mystery of the Iraq war: the disparity between the Bush Administration’s prewar assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and what has actually been discovered.
...
... One finding, the official went on, was that the intelligence reports about Iraq provided by the United Nations inspection teams and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq’s nuclear-weapons programs, were far more accurate than the C.I.A. estimates. “Some of the old-timers in the community are appalled by how bad the analysis was,” the official said. “If you look at them side by side, C.I.A. versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board.”
...
... In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.
...
The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.
“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”
...
But, Thielmann told me, “Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear.” Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton’s early-morning staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Under-Secretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’” When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, “The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.”
...
“He [Bolton] surrounded himself with a hand-chosen group of loyalists, and found a way to get C.I.A. information directly,” Thielmann said.
In a subsequent interview, Bolton acknowledged that he had changed the procedures for handling intelligence, in an effort to extend the scope of the classified materials available to his office. ...
...
There was also a change in procedure at the Pentagon under Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary ....What if it turns out that Ahmad Chalabi is not so popular? ... The people in the policy offices didn’t seem to care. When the official asked about the analysis, he was told by a colleague that the new Pentagon leadership wanted to focus not on what could go wrong but on what would go right. He was told that the study’s exploration of options amounted to planning for failure. “Their methodology was analogous to tossing a coin five times and assuming that it would always come up heads,” the official told me. “You need to think about what would happen if it comes up tails.”
...
Greg Thielmann, after being turned away from Bolton’s office, worked with the INR staff on a major review of Iraq’s progress in developing W.M.D.s. The review, presented to Secretary of State Powell in December, 2001, echoed the earlier I.A.E.A. findings. According to Thielmann, “It basically said that there is no persuasive evidence that the Iraqi nuclear program is being reconstituted.”
...
As the campaign [to build a case] against Iraq intensified, a former aide to Cheney told me, the Vice-President’s office, run by his chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, became increasingly secretive when it came to intelligence about Iraq’s W.M.D.s. As with Wolfowitz and Bolton, there was a reluctance to let the military and civilian analysts on the staff vet intelligence.
“It was an unbelievably closed and small group,” the former aide told me. Intelligence procedures were far more open during the Clinton Administration, he said, and professional staff members had been far more involved in assessing and evaluating the most sensitive data. “There’s so much intelligence out there that it’s easy to pick and choose your case,” the former aide told me. “It opens things up to cherry-picking.”
...
... Senior C.I.A. analysts dealing with Iraq were constantly being urged by the Vice-President’s office to provide worst-case assessments on Iraqi weapons issues. “They got pounded on, day after day,” one senior Bush Administration official told me, and received no consistent backup from Tenet and his senior staff. “Pretty soon you say ‘Fuck it.’” And they began to provide the intelligence that was wanted.
...
By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. ...
...
At that moment, in early October, 2002, a set of documents suddenly appeared that promised to provide solid evidence that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear program. The first notice of the documents’ existence came when Elisabetta Burba, a reporter for Panorama... He told her that he had information connecting Saddam Hussein to the purchase of uranium in Africa. ...
...
... A week later, Burba travelled to Niger. She visited mines and the ports that any exports would pass through, spoke to European businessmen and officials informed about Niger’s uranium industry, and found no trace of a sale. ... The Panorama story was dead, and Burba and her editors said that no money was paid. The documents, however, were now in American hands.
Once the documents were in Washington, they were forwarded by the C.I.A. to the Pentagon, he said. “Everybody knew at every step of the way that they were false—until they got to the Pentagon, where they were believed.”
The documents were just what Administration hawks had been waiting for. ...
...
Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He ... “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.
“The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’”
---
The State of the Union speech was confounding to many members of the intelligence community, who could not understand how such intelligence could have got to the President without vetting. The former intelligence official who gave me the account of the forging of the documents told me that his colleagues were also startled by the speech. “They said, ‘Holy shit, all of a sudden the President is talking about it in the State of the Union address!’ They began to panic. Who the hell was going to expose it? They had to build a backfire. The solution was to leak the documents to the I.A.E.A.”
...
After Niger was specified in the State Department’s fact sheet of December 19, 2002, the I.A.E.A. became more insistent. “I started to harass the United States,” recalled Jacques Baute, a Frenchman who, as director of the I.A.E.A.’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office, often harassed Washington. Mark Gwozdecky, the I.A.E.A.’s spokesman, added, “We were asking for actionable evidence, and Jacques was getting almost nothing. ”
...
Nothing was forthcoming, and so the I.A.E.A.’s director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, publicly described the fraud at his next scheduled briefing to the U.N. Security Council, in New York on March 7th. The story slowly began to unravel.
Vice-President Cheney responded to ElBaradei’s report mainly by attacking the messenger. On March 16th, Cheney, appearing on “Meet the Press,” stated emphatically that the United States had reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear-weapons program. He went on, “I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency on this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing.
...
... A few months later, on July 6th, Wilson wrote about the trip himself on the Times Op-Ed page. “I gave them months to correct the record,” he told me, speaking of the White House, “but they kept on lying.” ...
...
But Wilson’s account of his trip forced a rattled White House to acknowledge, for the first time, that “this information should not have risen to the level of a Presidential speech.” It also triggered retaliatory leaks to the press by White House officials that exposed Wilson’s wife as a C.I.A. operative—and led to an F.B.I. investigation.
---
... Iraqi weapons industry and for the National Monitoring Directorate, the agency set up by Saddam to work with the United Nations and I.A.E.A. inspectors. Many of the most senior weapons-industry officials, even those who voluntarily surrendered to U.S. forces, are being held in captivity at the Baghdad airport and other places, away from reporters. ...
...
... Jafar Dhia Jafar, a British-educated physicist who coördinated Iraq’s efforts to make the bomb in the nineteen-eighties, and who had direct access to Saddam Hussein, fled Iraq in early April, before Baghdad fell, ... There were some twenty meetings, involving as many as fifteen American and British experts. The first meeting, on April 11th, began with an urgent question from a C.I.A. officer:
“Does Iraq have a nuclear device? The military really want to know. They are extremely worried.” Jafar’s response, according to the notes of an eyewitness, was to laugh. ... Jafar insisted that there was not only no bomb, but no W.M.D., period. ... The notes said that Jafar was then asked, “But this doesn’t mean all W.M.D.? How can you be certain?” His answer was clear: “I know all the scientists involved, and they chat. There is no W.M.D.” ... a strong endorsement of Jafar’s integrity came from an unusual source—Jacques Baute, of the I.A.E.A., who spent much of the past decade locked in a struggle with Jafar and the other W.M.D. scientists and technicians of Iraq. “I don’t believe anybody,” Baute told me, “but, by and large, what he told us after 1995 was pretty accurate.”
Monday, October 27, 2003
Media balance: "tit for tat" and other metaphors
Palestine Chronicle: "A Balancing Act - Sabawi
'It took me a while but I finally figured out why the cartoon upset me. It wasn�t because it reinforced the stereotype that Palestinians are angry suicide bombers ..' "
...
As Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in a slow, terrifying and effective manner, I am finding it harder to accept these attempts by the media to appear balanced and to be politically correct by assigning the responsibility of violent aggression equally on the Palestinians and the Israelis....
...
Now, let’s take a look at the “tit for tat violence” we’ve heard so much about. Israeli gunfire has killed more than twice as many Palestinian civilians as the number of Israelis killed by the random acts of the few desperate suicide bombers. The number of Palestinians injured is more than four times the number of Israelis. The number of Palestinian homes demolished by the Israelis since 1967 has exceeded 9,000 according to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, leaving 50,000 Palestinians homeless and without shelter, while the number of Israeli homes demolished by the Palestinian is Zero! Israel is responsible for creating millions of Palestinian refugees – in fact, the world’s largest refugee population, while the number of Israeli refugees caused by Palestinian aggression again is Zero! Palestinians endure Curfews, Israelis don’t. Palestinians endure roadblocks, Israelis don’t. Palestinians lose their lands and their homes to Israeli settlements; there are no Palestinians settlements, and no campaign by the Palestinians to ethnically cleanse Israeli lands. The “Tit” appears to be much larger than the “Tat”, this is not a cycle of violence, but the will of the powerful to dispossess and to steal from the powerless. There is no balance to be found here.
Palestine Chronicle: "A Balancing Act - Sabawi
'It took me a while but I finally figured out why the cartoon upset me. It wasn�t because it reinforced the stereotype that Palestinians are angry suicide bombers ..' "
...
As Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in a slow, terrifying and effective manner, I am finding it harder to accept these attempts by the media to appear balanced and to be politically correct by assigning the responsibility of violent aggression equally on the Palestinians and the Israelis....
...
Now, let’s take a look at the “tit for tat violence” we’ve heard so much about. Israeli gunfire has killed more than twice as many Palestinian civilians as the number of Israelis killed by the random acts of the few desperate suicide bombers. The number of Palestinians injured is more than four times the number of Israelis. The number of Palestinian homes demolished by the Israelis since 1967 has exceeded 9,000 according to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, leaving 50,000 Palestinians homeless and without shelter, while the number of Israeli homes demolished by the Palestinian is Zero! Israel is responsible for creating millions of Palestinian refugees – in fact, the world’s largest refugee population, while the number of Israeli refugees caused by Palestinian aggression again is Zero! Palestinians endure Curfews, Israelis don’t. Palestinians endure roadblocks, Israelis don’t. Palestinians lose their lands and their homes to Israeli settlements; there are no Palestinians settlements, and no campaign by the Palestinians to ethnically cleanse Israeli lands. The “Tit” appears to be much larger than the “Tat”, this is not a cycle of violence, but the will of the powerful to dispossess and to steal from the powerless. There is no balance to be found here.
Squeezing Palestinians off the land: Israeli Barrier Turns Harvest Into Ordeal
Excite News: "Israeli Barrier Turns Harvest Into Ordeal | Oct 27, 2:50 AM (ET) | By LARA SUKHTIAN
JAYOUS, West Bank (AP) - When the gate finally opened and the Israeli soldiers let eight farmers through to their fields, plaintive cries went up from the dozens left behind: 'Please water my tomatoes.''Please please pick up some of my olive sacks.'
The barrier that Israel is building in defiance of international protest is meant to keep suicide bombers at bay. But it's also cutting off thousands of Palestinians from their land and disrupting the West Bank's ancient farming rhythms, especially these days as the olive harvest, normally a joyous occasion, turns into a nightmare.
Farmer Adilah Mousa, a haggard-looking woman in her 60s from the northern West Bank village of Jayous, says she has spent 10 days waiting to cross the barrier to her olive grove.
The Israeli military says farmers can get permits if they apply several hours in advance and pose no security risk. Military officials declined comment on complaints by Jayous farmers who said they were more often kept off their land than allowed to pass - particularly during heightened travel bans that coincided with the start of the olive harvest in October.
...
Last week, the U. N. General Assembly demanded by a vote of 144-4 that Israel remove the barrier.
...
The barrier has cut off three-fourths of the 3,000 acres farmed by Jayous, a hilltop village in the northern West Bank. The village has 120 greenhouses, 15,000 olive trees and 50,000 citrus trees on the other side of the fence, said Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization who monitors the barrier's effects on the lives of Palestinians.
"This is my land," said Mousa, pointing to her 300 olive trees on the other side as she rested on a rock. "This is outrageous."
The Palestinians are in a no-win situation, said Tarazi. "If they don't get permits, then they will be subject to Israel's punishment," he said. "If they do get permits, then they are recognizing Israel's authority over their land."
Excite News: "Israeli Barrier Turns Harvest Into Ordeal | Oct 27, 2:50 AM (ET) | By LARA SUKHTIAN
JAYOUS, West Bank (AP) - When the gate finally opened and the Israeli soldiers let eight farmers through to their fields, plaintive cries went up from the dozens left behind: 'Please water my tomatoes.''Please please pick up some of my olive sacks.'
The barrier that Israel is building in defiance of international protest is meant to keep suicide bombers at bay. But it's also cutting off thousands of Palestinians from their land and disrupting the West Bank's ancient farming rhythms, especially these days as the olive harvest, normally a joyous occasion, turns into a nightmare.
Farmer Adilah Mousa, a haggard-looking woman in her 60s from the northern West Bank village of Jayous, says she has spent 10 days waiting to cross the barrier to her olive grove.
The Israeli military says farmers can get permits if they apply several hours in advance and pose no security risk. Military officials declined comment on complaints by Jayous farmers who said they were more often kept off their land than allowed to pass - particularly during heightened travel bans that coincided with the start of the olive harvest in October.
...
Last week, the U. N. General Assembly demanded by a vote of 144-4 that Israel remove the barrier.
...
The barrier has cut off three-fourths of the 3,000 acres farmed by Jayous, a hilltop village in the northern West Bank. The village has 120 greenhouses, 15,000 olive trees and 50,000 citrus trees on the other side of the fence, said Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization who monitors the barrier's effects on the lives of Palestinians.
"This is my land," said Mousa, pointing to her 300 olive trees on the other side as she rested on a rock. "This is outrageous."
The Palestinians are in a no-win situation, said Tarazi. "If they don't get permits, then they will be subject to Israel's punishment," he said. "If they do get permits, then they are recognizing Israel's authority over their land."
US is in danger of promoting policies that "could be confused with those of another nation."
War of words in Washington | by John Leonard | 02 March 2003 01:46 UTC:
"The February 21 article, 'A Road Map for Israeli-Palestinian Amity,' is remarkable. Scowcroft and Brzezinski do not offer an open or outspoken critique of American policy, but their viewpoint is a stark departure from those held by Wolfowitz - and from his aid, Douglas Feith - who remain Israel's staunchest allies inside the administration. While endorsing Bush's vision for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, Scowcroft and Brzezinski make it clear that they believe his call for new Palestinian leadership is counterproductive. A resumption of the peace process, they say, should not be 'conditioned' on "the replacement of a particular individual." To do so, they add, invites "resistance" to US goals "in the Palestinian population." Scowcroft and Brzezinski go on to endorse a settlement based on "boundaries approximating the pre-June 1967 borders," arrangements for Jerusalem that "accommodate two separate sovereignties," a resolution of the refugee problem that provides for "relief and justice" for them but without upsetting the demographic balance in Israel, and a "protection regime" for the holy places. Privately, the two are more outspoken: Scowcroft has told associates that Bush's call for the replacement of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was "stupid," while Brzezinski has appeared on television programs promoting the view that the US is in danger of promoting policies that "could be confused with those of another nation."
The Scowcroft-Brzezinski vision is breathtaking. It not only marks a complete break with the Bush administration's pro-Israel policies (and confirms their view that Bush's call for a replacement of Arafat is counterproductive), it marks a shift away from the Wolfowitz-Feith worldview. It is, in fact, a denunciation of Wolfowitz's (and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld’s) view that Israel, like the United States, has the right to intervene to protect its security because (following US doctrine) the Palestinians support terrorism and, therefore, have ceded some of their sovereign rights.
There is only one problem with the Scowcroft-Brzezinski article. It never appeared. While Scowcroft and Brzezinski were told by Wall Street Journal editors that the op-ed would run on Friday (a fact confirmed by the appearance of the article on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations - where it still appears under the head “Wall Street Journal op-ed”) the article did not appear in any of the newspaper’s editions. Editors of the Journal, it is rumored, told Scowcroft directly that they thought the article was too controversial. The decision left both men sputtering in anger, but confirmed to them what the rest of us have known for some time - that there is an unofficial news blackout on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the media, to the point where those advocates of even the most moderate two-state resolution of the conflict are considered “supporters of terrorism.”
In spite of this distinct chill, however, Scowcroft and Brzezinski have been circulating their paper much as Wolfowitz first circulated his “5/21 Brief” - from hand-to-hand among good friends who agree with their position. So it is that Washington’s fax machines have been busily reproducing the Scowcroft-Brzezinski conclusion: that finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines of the Saudi proposal endorsing United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 would do far more to “facilitate international cooperation with the US in its war on terrorism” than an attack on Iraq.
War of words in Washington | by John Leonard | 02 March 2003 01:46 UTC:
"The February 21 article, 'A Road Map for Israeli-Palestinian Amity,' is remarkable. Scowcroft and Brzezinski do not offer an open or outspoken critique of American policy, but their viewpoint is a stark departure from those held by Wolfowitz - and from his aid, Douglas Feith - who remain Israel's staunchest allies inside the administration. While endorsing Bush's vision for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, Scowcroft and Brzezinski make it clear that they believe his call for new Palestinian leadership is counterproductive. A resumption of the peace process, they say, should not be 'conditioned' on "the replacement of a particular individual." To do so, they add, invites "resistance" to US goals "in the Palestinian population." Scowcroft and Brzezinski go on to endorse a settlement based on "boundaries approximating the pre-June 1967 borders," arrangements for Jerusalem that "accommodate two separate sovereignties," a resolution of the refugee problem that provides for "relief and justice" for them but without upsetting the demographic balance in Israel, and a "protection regime" for the holy places. Privately, the two are more outspoken: Scowcroft has told associates that Bush's call for the replacement of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was "stupid," while Brzezinski has appeared on television programs promoting the view that the US is in danger of promoting policies that "could be confused with those of another nation."
The Scowcroft-Brzezinski vision is breathtaking. It not only marks a complete break with the Bush administration's pro-Israel policies (and confirms their view that Bush's call for a replacement of Arafat is counterproductive), it marks a shift away from the Wolfowitz-Feith worldview. It is, in fact, a denunciation of Wolfowitz's (and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld’s) view that Israel, like the United States, has the right to intervene to protect its security because (following US doctrine) the Palestinians support terrorism and, therefore, have ceded some of their sovereign rights.
There is only one problem with the Scowcroft-Brzezinski article. It never appeared. While Scowcroft and Brzezinski were told by Wall Street Journal editors that the op-ed would run on Friday (a fact confirmed by the appearance of the article on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations - where it still appears under the head “Wall Street Journal op-ed”) the article did not appear in any of the newspaper’s editions. Editors of the Journal, it is rumored, told Scowcroft directly that they thought the article was too controversial. The decision left both men sputtering in anger, but confirmed to them what the rest of us have known for some time - that there is an unofficial news blackout on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the media, to the point where those advocates of even the most moderate two-state resolution of the conflict are considered “supporters of terrorism.”
In spite of this distinct chill, however, Scowcroft and Brzezinski have been circulating their paper much as Wolfowitz first circulated his “5/21 Brief” - from hand-to-hand among good friends who agree with their position. So it is that Washington’s fax machines have been busily reproducing the Scowcroft-Brzezinski conclusion: that finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines of the Saudi proposal endorsing United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 would do far more to “facilitate international cooperation with the US in its war on terrorism” than an attack on Iraq.
A 'Road Map' for Israeli-Palestinian Amity'
"'A 'Road Map' for Israeli-Palestinian Amity': | The Wall Street Journal | February 13, 2003 | By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI and BRENT SCOWCROFT
WASHINGTON -- In a speech last June, President Bush put forward for the first time an American commitment to the emergence of a 'viable, credible, Palestinian state.' A quartet, comprised of the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia, is now working on a road map to implement the president's vision. Key to its success are those measures that will not only assure Israel's security but also define the kind of state Palestinians can look toward.
...
As the president declared, the Palestinian people deserve leadership and institutions not tainted by terrorism and corruption. It is a goal the U.S. should continue to encourage vigorously, yet without conditioning a resumption of the peace process on the replacement of a particular individual. To do so is to invite resistance from those in the Palestinian population who desire change in their leadership and accountable governance, but do not wish to be seen as doing a foreign country's bidding. It is also unnecessary: If reforms bring about political changes, specific outcomes (i.e., the leadership produced by the reformed system) will be of decidedly lesser importance.
...
Specifically, we urge the administration to spell out that the agreement envisioned by the U.S. should result in:
• Two independent states with boundaries approximating the pre-June 1967 borders ... In effect, the Palestinian "right of return" to Israel would be exchanged for Israel's relinquishing of the settlements ...
• Arrangements for Jerusalem that accommodate two separate sovereignties while -- insofar as possible -- keeping the city physically undivided.
• Relief and justice for Palestinian refugees in ways that do not threaten Israel's demographic balance ... generous international funding for repatriation, resettlement and compensation.
• A protection regime for sites deemed holy by Jews, Christians and Moslems.
• Agreement on arrangements for internal and external security.
All previous efforts to end the violence and turn to a political process have failed because each side has maintained that the first step must be taken by the other. If the road map is not to encounter the same fate, the U.S. and its partners must insist on a 100% Palestinian Authority effort to end violence that is unconditional and independent of actions demanded of Israel. They must similarly insist on an unconditional cessation of Israeli settlement expansion (including so-called natural growth) that is independent of actions required of Palestinians.
...
Mr. Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Scowcroft was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush Sr.
"'A 'Road Map' for Israeli-Palestinian Amity': | The Wall Street Journal | February 13, 2003 | By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI and BRENT SCOWCROFT
WASHINGTON -- In a speech last June, President Bush put forward for the first time an American commitment to the emergence of a 'viable, credible, Palestinian state.' A quartet, comprised of the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia, is now working on a road map to implement the president's vision. Key to its success are those measures that will not only assure Israel's security but also define the kind of state Palestinians can look toward.
...
As the president declared, the Palestinian people deserve leadership and institutions not tainted by terrorism and corruption. It is a goal the U.S. should continue to encourage vigorously, yet without conditioning a resumption of the peace process on the replacement of a particular individual. To do so is to invite resistance from those in the Palestinian population who desire change in their leadership and accountable governance, but do not wish to be seen as doing a foreign country's bidding. It is also unnecessary: If reforms bring about political changes, specific outcomes (i.e., the leadership produced by the reformed system) will be of decidedly lesser importance.
...
Specifically, we urge the administration to spell out that the agreement envisioned by the U.S. should result in:
• Two independent states with boundaries approximating the pre-June 1967 borders ... In effect, the Palestinian "right of return" to Israel would be exchanged for Israel's relinquishing of the settlements ...
• Arrangements for Jerusalem that accommodate two separate sovereignties while -- insofar as possible -- keeping the city physically undivided.
• Relief and justice for Palestinian refugees in ways that do not threaten Israel's demographic balance ... generous international funding for repatriation, resettlement and compensation.
• A protection regime for sites deemed holy by Jews, Christians and Moslems.
• Agreement on arrangements for internal and external security.
All previous efforts to end the violence and turn to a political process have failed because each side has maintained that the first step must be taken by the other. If the road map is not to encounter the same fate, the U.S. and its partners must insist on a 100% Palestinian Authority effort to end violence that is unconditional and independent of actions demanded of Israel. They must similarly insist on an unconditional cessation of Israeli settlement expansion (including so-called natural growth) that is independent of actions required of Palestinians.
...
Mr. Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Scowcroft was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush Sr.
US ... is knowingly supporting a government that is leading the Zionist idea down the wrong path
With friends like these: "With friends like these | By Akiva Eldar | Monday, October 27, 2003
Until not so long ago, it would have been possible to excuse Mahathir Mohamad's outrageous declaration as 'constructive anti-Semitism.' The Arab belief that the Jews rule the world has become one of Israel's most important deterrent factors, no less so than its military strength.
...
On the contrary, the United States, by both commission and omission, is knowingly supporting a government that is leading the Zionist idea down the wrong path. After all, President George Bush's vision declares that two states living side by side in peace is both an Israeli and a Palestinian interest. And he himself claims that the new settlement outposts, the expansion of existing settlements and the intrusive fence undermine the chances of establishing a Palestinian state. Thus, according to Bush, his blind support for the rightist government's actions undercuts Israel's interest in reaching an agreement with its neighbors and maintaining its Jewish and democratic character.
...
... But the closer the presidential election of November 2004 comes, the more domestic politics push foreign policy aside. Election season is also the peak period for lobbies, interest groups and business magnates. It is the favorite season of the Jewish organizations that act on behalf of the government of Israel.
The enormous power of pro-Israel lobbies such as AIPAC is what outraged Mahathir. Instead of internalizing the fact that interest groups are an inseparable part of the democratic game, Muslim leaders invent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Israel and American Jews. ...
...
The Israeli "peace camp" has also demonstrated weakness in the face of "Jewish power." In its arrogant attitude toward everything that smacks of the Diaspora, the left has conceded one of the strongest pressure groups in the world - and now it complains that the right controls the arena. Instead of cultivating a moderate Jewish leadership, the left stood by and watched as Jewish organizations in Washington and New York turned into branches of the Likud and representatives of the settlers in recent
years. Support for a government that is leading the Jewish state to destruction, in the security, demographic, economic and social realms, is not proof that Jews control the world. Such a claim is proof that anti-Semitism causes people to lose their minds.
With friends like these: "With friends like these | By Akiva Eldar | Monday, October 27, 2003
Until not so long ago, it would have been possible to excuse Mahathir Mohamad's outrageous declaration as 'constructive anti-Semitism.' The Arab belief that the Jews rule the world has become one of Israel's most important deterrent factors, no less so than its military strength.
...
On the contrary, the United States, by both commission and omission, is knowingly supporting a government that is leading the Zionist idea down the wrong path. After all, President George Bush's vision declares that two states living side by side in peace is both an Israeli and a Palestinian interest. And he himself claims that the new settlement outposts, the expansion of existing settlements and the intrusive fence undermine the chances of establishing a Palestinian state. Thus, according to Bush, his blind support for the rightist government's actions undercuts Israel's interest in reaching an agreement with its neighbors and maintaining its Jewish and democratic character.
...
... But the closer the presidential election of November 2004 comes, the more domestic politics push foreign policy aside. Election season is also the peak period for lobbies, interest groups and business magnates. It is the favorite season of the Jewish organizations that act on behalf of the government of Israel.
The enormous power of pro-Israel lobbies such as AIPAC is what outraged Mahathir. Instead of internalizing the fact that interest groups are an inseparable part of the democratic game, Muslim leaders invent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Israel and American Jews. ...
...
The Israeli "peace camp" has also demonstrated weakness in the face of "Jewish power." In its arrogant attitude toward everything that smacks of the Diaspora, the left has conceded one of the strongest pressure groups in the world - and now it complains that the right controls the arena. Instead of cultivating a moderate Jewish leadership, the left stood by and watched as Jewish organizations in Washington and New York turned into branches of the Likud and representatives of the settlers in recent
years. Support for a government that is leading the Jewish state to destruction, in the security, demographic, economic and social realms, is not proof that Jews control the world. Such a claim is proof that anti-Semitism causes people to lose their minds.
Get out of Gaza
Get out of Gaza: "Get out of Gaza | Editorial | Monday, October 27, 2003
... This is a national failure and all Israeli governments since 1967 are party to it, as is the society of this country, which gave them backing.
...
The basic facts have indeed led to an unfortunate result: 1.3 million Palestinians who mostly live in extremely deprived
conditions scuffle with 7,000 Israelis who generally live in spacious settlements, over the control of an area of 340 square kilometers, amid constant mutual bloodshed. The IDF invests enormous resources and deploys huge forces to protect the Israelis in the Gaza Strip but nevertheless the settlers there and the soldiers keeping guard over them are
subject to uninterrupted attacks and assaults. ...
Get out of Gaza: "Get out of Gaza | Editorial | Monday, October 27, 2003
... This is a national failure and all Israeli governments since 1967 are party to it, as is the society of this country, which gave them backing.
...
The basic facts have indeed led to an unfortunate result: 1.3 million Palestinians who mostly live in extremely deprived
conditions scuffle with 7,000 Israelis who generally live in spacious settlements, over the control of an area of 340 square kilometers, amid constant mutual bloodshed. The IDF invests enormous resources and deploys huge forces to protect the Israelis in the Gaza Strip but nevertheless the settlers there and the soldiers keeping guard over them are
subject to uninterrupted attacks and assaults. ...
Annan: Israeli destruction of Gaza towers violates international law
Haaretz Article: "Annan: Israeli destruction of Gaza towers illegal | By Reuters | Monday, October 27, 2003
UNITED NATIONS � United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan accused Israel on Monday of violating international law in destroying three Gaza apartment towers and urged it to end actions making a Middle East peace deal harder to reach.
'The secretary-general reminds the Israeli authorities that house demolitions amount to collective punishment, which is a clear violation of international humanitarian law,' a UN spokesman said.
'During the past month, some 200 buildings in the Gaza Strip were destroyed, rendering more than 2,000 people homeless. In this connection, he deplores the destruction by the Israeli military of three 13-story buildings in the Gaza Strip on Saturday night,' the spokesman said.
The Israeli army said it blew up the buildings in retaliation for Friday's deadly attack on the nearby settlement of Netzarim in which three soldiers were killed, two of them women. "
Haaretz Article: "Annan: Israeli destruction of Gaza towers illegal | By Reuters | Monday, October 27, 2003
UNITED NATIONS � United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan accused Israel on Monday of violating international law in destroying three Gaza apartment towers and urged it to end actions making a Middle East peace deal harder to reach.
'The secretary-general reminds the Israeli authorities that house demolitions amount to collective punishment, which is a clear violation of international humanitarian law,' a UN spokesman said.
'During the past month, some 200 buildings in the Gaza Strip were destroyed, rendering more than 2,000 people homeless. In this connection, he deplores the destruction by the Israeli military of three 13-story buildings in the Gaza Strip on Saturday night,' the spokesman said.
The Israeli army said it blew up the buildings in retaliation for Friday's deadly attack on the nearby settlement of Netzarim in which three soldiers were killed, two of them women. "
Jewish Writers Claim Zionists drove USA into Mid-East war
Untitled Document: "JEWISH WRITERS CLAIM POWERFUL ZIONISTS DROVE USA INTO MID-EAST WAR FOR SAKE OF ISRAEL
Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Time.com, February 5, 2003
- "A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.
Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, October 24, 2002
- "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel."
Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003 Haaretz News Service (Israel)
- "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish
Thomas Friedman, April 4 2003 New York Times Columnist
- "I could give you the names of 25 people ... who, if you had exiled them ... the Iraq war would not have happened.
Dr. Henry Makow Phd., February 10, 2003? Writer, Inventor of Board game "Scruples"
- If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides, Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess.
Israel Shamir, Israeli Author
- "The powerful pro-Israel lobby ... pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests.
Jack Bernstein, Author, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Israel (following prediction was made in 1984!)
- "The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel.
Untitled Document: "JEWISH WRITERS CLAIM POWERFUL ZIONISTS DROVE USA INTO MID-EAST WAR FOR SAKE OF ISRAEL
Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Time.com, February 5, 2003
- "A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.
Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, October 24, 2002
- "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel."
Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003 Haaretz News Service (Israel)
- "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish
Thomas Friedman, April 4 2003 New York Times Columnist
- "I could give you the names of 25 people ... who, if you had exiled them ... the Iraq war would not have happened.
Dr. Henry Makow Phd., February 10, 2003? Writer, Inventor of Board game "Scruples"
- If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides, Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess.
Israel Shamir, Israeli Author
- "The powerful pro-Israel lobby ... pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests.
Jack Bernstein, Author, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Israel (following prediction was made in 1984!)
- "The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel.
Arms dealer in talks with US officials about Iran - smh.com.au
Arms dealer in talks with US officials about Iran - smh.com.au: "By Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps in Washington | August 9, 2003
Pentagon hard-liners pressing for change of government in Iran have held secret, unauthorised meetings in Paris with an arms dealer who was a main figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Administration officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, Douglas Feith, have held 'several' meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in United States arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s.
The officials who disclosed the secret meetings said the talks with Mr Ghorbanifar were not authorised by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting sensitive negotiations with Iran's Government.
A senior Administration official said the US Government had learned about the unauthorised talks by accident.
The senior official and another Administration source said the ultimate objective of Mr Feith and a group of neo-conservative civilians inside the Pentagon is change of government in Iran.
The immediate objective appeared to be to 'antagonise Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden US policy against them'.
The official confirmed that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, complained directly to the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, several days ago about Mr Feith conducting missions that went against US policy. "
Arms dealer in talks with US officials about Iran - smh.com.au: "By Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps in Washington | August 9, 2003
Pentagon hard-liners pressing for change of government in Iran have held secret, unauthorised meetings in Paris with an arms dealer who was a main figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Administration officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, Douglas Feith, have held 'several' meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in United States arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s.
The officials who disclosed the secret meetings said the talks with Mr Ghorbanifar were not authorised by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting sensitive negotiations with Iran's Government.
A senior Administration official said the US Government had learned about the unauthorised talks by accident.
The senior official and another Administration source said the ultimate objective of Mr Feith and a group of neo-conservative civilians inside the Pentagon is change of government in Iran.
The immediate objective appeared to be to 'antagonise Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden US policy against them'.
The official confirmed that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, complained directly to the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, several days ago about Mr Feith conducting missions that went against US policy. "
Palestinians need permits to live in their own homes: Israelis and Jews could enter the designated areas without a pass
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Permits ordered for Palestinians: "Permits ordered for Palestinians | Chris McGreal in Jerusalem | Monday October 27, 2003 | The Guardian
The Israeli military has ordered thousands of Palestinians living near the steel and concrete 'security fence' through the West Bank to obtain special permits to live in their own homes.
Palestinian officials said the order breached a pledge by Israel to the UN security council a fortnight ago that the barrier would not change the legal status of those who live near it, and was another step towards the annexation of tens of thousands of hectares of Palestinian land.
The order, signed by the Israeli army's commander in the West Bank, Major General Moshe Kaplinski, said Palestinian land between the fence and the 1967 border, known as the green line, was to be a 'closed military zone'.
Any Palestinian who lived in the area would be defined by a new category of "long-term resident" and everyone over the age of 12 would be required to obtain a permit to live in their own homes and travel beyond their villages.
The order said that only Israelis and Jews could enter the designated areas without a pass.
Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the Palestinian leadership, said: "It is just the latest step in Zionism's long-standing strategy of taking Palestinian land while ridding that land of the Palestinian population."
The order would immediately affect about 12,000 Palestinians in 15 villages squeezed between the barrier and the green line. Another 40,000 or more would be in a similar position within months once construction of the fence was completed around the north of Jerusalem.
...
European diplomatic sources said the military order was so clearly a breach of Mr Gillerman's undertaking that several countries, including Germany, voted against Israel in a subsequent debate on the barrier at the UN general assembly.
An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, Jonathan Peled, said the order was temporary and not a change in legal status. "What Gillerman promised the security council stands. Legally speaking there is no change in status because it is a temporary decree," he said. [...unbelievable double speak. ed.]
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Permits ordered for Palestinians: "Permits ordered for Palestinians | Chris McGreal in Jerusalem | Monday October 27, 2003 | The Guardian
The Israeli military has ordered thousands of Palestinians living near the steel and concrete 'security fence' through the West Bank to obtain special permits to live in their own homes.
Palestinian officials said the order breached a pledge by Israel to the UN security council a fortnight ago that the barrier would not change the legal status of those who live near it, and was another step towards the annexation of tens of thousands of hectares of Palestinian land.
The order, signed by the Israeli army's commander in the West Bank, Major General Moshe Kaplinski, said Palestinian land between the fence and the 1967 border, known as the green line, was to be a 'closed military zone'.
Any Palestinian who lived in the area would be defined by a new category of "long-term resident" and everyone over the age of 12 would be required to obtain a permit to live in their own homes and travel beyond their villages.
The order said that only Israelis and Jews could enter the designated areas without a pass.
Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the Palestinian leadership, said: "It is just the latest step in Zionism's long-standing strategy of taking Palestinian land while ridding that land of the Palestinian population."
The order would immediately affect about 12,000 Palestinians in 15 villages squeezed between the barrier and the green line. Another 40,000 or more would be in a similar position within months once construction of the fence was completed around the north of Jerusalem.
...
European diplomatic sources said the military order was so clearly a breach of Mr Gillerman's undertaking that several countries, including Germany, voted against Israel in a subsequent debate on the barrier at the UN general assembly.
An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, Jonathan Peled, said the order was temporary and not a change in legal status. "What Gillerman promised the security council stands. Legally speaking there is no change in status because it is a temporary decree," he said. [...unbelievable double speak. ed.]
