An Intray
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Palestinians OK Attending Geneva Accord Peace Ceremony: US discusses Israel's obligations to Roadmap
Excite News: "Palestinians OK Attending Peace Ceremony | Nov 30, 4:12 PM (ET) | By RAVI NESSMAN
JERUSALEM (AP) - Senior Palestinian officials agreed Sunday to attend a high-profile ceremony for a symbolic peace plan, just hours after they said they were withdrawing.
The officials said they changed their minds after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat backed their participation, overriding criticism from hard-liners within his Fatah party.
...
Meanwhile, U.S. Mideast envoy William Burns met with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and urged Israeli officials to dismantle unauthorized outposts in the West Bank. Burns also expressed concern over Israel's construction of a West Bank security barrier that dips deep into the territory in several areas, but stopped short of siding with Palestinian demands that the project be halted.
...
In Geneva, about 400 people carrying flowers held a string across Mont Blanc bridge, symbolically linking the two sides of Lake Geneva to demonstrate support for the unofficial plan. "Israel-Palestine: two states, one peace," said a banner held by the demonstrators.
The Geneva Accord has drawn praise from U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and strong support from both the Israeli and the Palestinian public. Its creators see it as a complement to the "road map," which does not spell out exact borders or deal with the other thorny issues that have derailed previous peace efforts.
...
On Sunday, two Palestinian Cabinet ministers and two influential legislators who helped negotiate the plan said they were withdrawing from the ceremony. They reversed the decision hours later, saying Arafat had given them his support.
"We said that we are not going without clear authorization," said Cabinet minister Qadoura Fares. "Now we have received a clear authorization from the head of the Palestinian Authority."
Excite News: "Palestinians OK Attending Peace Ceremony | Nov 30, 4:12 PM (ET) | By RAVI NESSMAN
JERUSALEM (AP) - Senior Palestinian officials agreed Sunday to attend a high-profile ceremony for a symbolic peace plan, just hours after they said they were withdrawing.
The officials said they changed their minds after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat backed their participation, overriding criticism from hard-liners within his Fatah party.
...
Meanwhile, U.S. Mideast envoy William Burns met with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and urged Israeli officials to dismantle unauthorized outposts in the West Bank. Burns also expressed concern over Israel's construction of a West Bank security barrier that dips deep into the territory in several areas, but stopped short of siding with Palestinian demands that the project be halted.
...
In Geneva, about 400 people carrying flowers held a string across Mont Blanc bridge, symbolically linking the two sides of Lake Geneva to demonstrate support for the unofficial plan. "Israel-Palestine: two states, one peace," said a banner held by the demonstrators.
The Geneva Accord has drawn praise from U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and strong support from both the Israeli and the Palestinian public. Its creators see it as a complement to the "road map," which does not spell out exact borders or deal with the other thorny issues that have derailed previous peace efforts.
...
On Sunday, two Palestinian Cabinet ministers and two influential legislators who helped negotiate the plan said they were withdrawing from the ceremony. They reversed the decision hours later, saying Arafat had given them his support.
"We said that we are not going without clear authorization," said Cabinet minister Qadoura Fares. "Now we have received a clear authorization from the head of the Palestinian Authority."
Saturday, November 29, 2003
Sharon Warns Palestinians: Make Peace or Risk Losing Land
Sharon Warns Palestinians: Make Peace or Risk Losing Land: "By JAMES BENNET | Published: November 28, 2003
JERUSALEM, Nov. 27 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel warned Palestinians on Thursday to become more conciliatory or risk losing permanently some of the land they want for a state.
As he has in the past, Mr. Sharon hinted at possible but unnamed territorial concessions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, saying, 'Obviously, ultimately we will not be in all the places that we are in today.'"
...
Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister, reacted angrily to Mr. Sharon's remarks, calling them "rude and arrogant."
"Sharon wants to declare an extreme position, and then to declare some measures that have no value that he will describe later as painful concessions," Mr. Shaath said. "But in fact they're painful concessions for us, not for him."
...
Mr. Sharon sounded a defiant note on Thursday on two points that have brought him criticism from the Bush administration. He said Israel was "accelerating" its construction of a barrier in the West Bank. The barrier, a combination of fencing, concrete, ditches and guardposts that is supposed to stretch some 360 miles, has consumed some stretches of West Bank land.
He also said Israel would retain some of the so-called settlement outposts, the rough clusters of trailers placed on isolated West Bank hilltops. Mr. Sharon said there were some outposts that were "of security importance of the first order."
Sharon Warns Palestinians: Make Peace or Risk Losing Land: "By JAMES BENNET | Published: November 28, 2003
JERUSALEM, Nov. 27 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel warned Palestinians on Thursday to become more conciliatory or risk losing permanently some of the land they want for a state.
As he has in the past, Mr. Sharon hinted at possible but unnamed territorial concessions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, saying, 'Obviously, ultimately we will not be in all the places that we are in today.'"
...
Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister, reacted angrily to Mr. Sharon's remarks, calling them "rude and arrogant."
"Sharon wants to declare an extreme position, and then to declare some measures that have no value that he will describe later as painful concessions," Mr. Shaath said. "But in fact they're painful concessions for us, not for him."
...
Mr. Sharon sounded a defiant note on Thursday on two points that have brought him criticism from the Bush administration. He said Israel was "accelerating" its construction of a barrier in the West Bank. The barrier, a combination of fencing, concrete, ditches and guardposts that is supposed to stretch some 360 miles, has consumed some stretches of West Bank land.
He also said Israel would retain some of the so-called settlement outposts, the rough clusters of trailers placed on isolated West Bank hilltops. Mr. Sharon said there were some outposts that were "of security importance of the first order."
Jimmy Carter: Camp David to the Geneva Accord
swissinfo: the Swiss news and information platform : Front Story Detail: "Jimmy Carter: Camp David to the Geneva Accord | swissinfo November 24, 2003 7:50 AM
The former American president, Jimmy Carter, has offered his backing to the Geneva Accord, an unofficial peace treaty for the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Carter told swissinfo that the accord could help boost the United States-backed road map, but added that the US must rein in its perceived pro-Israeli bias.
...
What the Geneva Accord does envisage is quite accurately compatible with the ultimate goal of the road map and the Oslo accords of 1993.
...
J.C.: We are very grateful to the Swiss. I note that Oslo was a major step towards peace, and that it was almost entirely done by the Norwegians without much support from the United States.
...
J.C.: Yes, I would like very much for them [Clinton, Bush] to attend. I am pleased that the Bush administration has not condemned the Geneva Accord. My guess is that there will be growing support for it, both in Israel and elsewhere.
...
J.C.: It’s a continuation of Camp David. Now, the proposals that were made at Camp David were unacceptable to the Palestinians.
Yasser Arafat could not have survived politically if he had accepted those proposals. They still maintained a wide array of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.
Also, there was no tangible solution to the Jerusalem and refugee issues. But it was a base, and the Geneva Accord is a culmination of all previous accords that have been passed.
...
It’s also a good step forward on the issue of settlements. For the first time, it is provided that settlers could stay in their homes on Palestinian land.
There’s also the removal of outlying Israeli settlements that are illegal in the first place.
...
J.C.: President Bush is the first American president, since the foundation of Israel, who has taken a position strongly biased to the Israeli side.
It has not been easy for his predecessors in the US who have been criticised every time they criticised the US policy in the Middle East or the Israeli government. What is needed is a set of balanced proposals.
Unfortunately, President Bush has almost invariably sided with Prime Minister Sharon, or when Sharon has refused to accept Washington’s proposals, Washington has, in effect, ignored what Israel did subsequently.
There have been a few weak statements from the Bush administration on settlements and the fence, but no real effort to do more.
swissinfo: the Swiss news and information platform : Front Story Detail: "Jimmy Carter: Camp David to the Geneva Accord | swissinfo November 24, 2003 7:50 AM
The former American president, Jimmy Carter, has offered his backing to the Geneva Accord, an unofficial peace treaty for the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Carter told swissinfo that the accord could help boost the United States-backed road map, but added that the US must rein in its perceived pro-Israeli bias.
...
What the Geneva Accord does envisage is quite accurately compatible with the ultimate goal of the road map and the Oslo accords of 1993.
...
J.C.: We are very grateful to the Swiss. I note that Oslo was a major step towards peace, and that it was almost entirely done by the Norwegians without much support from the United States.
...
J.C.: Yes, I would like very much for them [Clinton, Bush] to attend. I am pleased that the Bush administration has not condemned the Geneva Accord. My guess is that there will be growing support for it, both in Israel and elsewhere.
...
J.C.: It’s a continuation of Camp David. Now, the proposals that were made at Camp David were unacceptable to the Palestinians.
Yasser Arafat could not have survived politically if he had accepted those proposals. They still maintained a wide array of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.
Also, there was no tangible solution to the Jerusalem and refugee issues. But it was a base, and the Geneva Accord is a culmination of all previous accords that have been passed.
...
It’s also a good step forward on the issue of settlements. For the first time, it is provided that settlers could stay in their homes on Palestinian land.
There’s also the removal of outlying Israeli settlements that are illegal in the first place.
...
J.C.: President Bush is the first American president, since the foundation of Israel, who has taken a position strongly biased to the Israeli side.
It has not been easy for his predecessors in the US who have been criticised every time they criticised the US policy in the Middle East or the Israeli government. What is needed is a set of balanced proposals.
Unfortunately, President Bush has almost invariably sided with Prime Minister Sharon, or when Sharon has refused to accept Washington’s proposals, Washington has, in effect, ignored what Israel did subsequently.
There have been a few weak statements from the Bush administration on settlements and the fence, but no real effort to do more.
Charity faced US pressure on Gaza
SocietyGuardian.co.uk | Society | Charity faced US pressure on Gaza: "New Anglo-American row revealed at Save the Children | Kevin Maguire | Saturday November 29, 2003 | The Guardian
The US partner of the charity Save the Children UK objected to it issuing a statement demanding an immediate lifting of an Israeli blockade of Gaza, according to correspondence seen by the Guardian.
Save the Children US said it was "a mistake" for the international charity's British wing to publish a condemnation of the ban on access to the occupied Palestinian territory imposed in May, without first securing its partner's approval.
...
The statement was sent in advance by a London press officer to Connecticut, but Dianne Sherman [Save teh Children/US], Westport's associate vice-president for public affairs and communications, complained that she had not seen it.
"I was sick on Friday. You SHOULD NOT [her capitals] have sent this out. We DID not sign on to this. You should have contacted someone else in Save the Children/US. There are 2,600 other people here. This was a mistake," said Ms Sherman in an email.
...
The fresh evidence of pressure exerted on the British charity by its American partner - which is dependent on US government grants and contracts for 60% of its income - raises further questions about the relationship between the pair. The UK charity says it does not agree news releases with other members of the International Save the Children Alliance but, "wherever possible", shows them in advance to those working in the same area, making changes at its own discretion.
...
Alan Simpson, the Labour MP for Nottingham South who worked in the voluntary sector before entering parliament, expressed concern that the British charity was under so much pressure from its US partner. He criticised Save the Children US's closeness to the White House, and said: "This is a new American imperium - you not only invade countries but also charities."
SocietyGuardian.co.uk | Society | Charity faced US pressure on Gaza: "New Anglo-American row revealed at Save the Children | Kevin Maguire | Saturday November 29, 2003 | The Guardian
The US partner of the charity Save the Children UK objected to it issuing a statement demanding an immediate lifting of an Israeli blockade of Gaza, according to correspondence seen by the Guardian.
Save the Children US said it was "a mistake" for the international charity's British wing to publish a condemnation of the ban on access to the occupied Palestinian territory imposed in May, without first securing its partner's approval.
...
The statement was sent in advance by a London press officer to Connecticut, but Dianne Sherman [Save teh Children/US], Westport's associate vice-president for public affairs and communications, complained that she had not seen it.
"I was sick on Friday. You SHOULD NOT [her capitals] have sent this out. We DID not sign on to this. You should have contacted someone else in Save the Children/US. There are 2,600 other people here. This was a mistake," said Ms Sherman in an email.
...
The fresh evidence of pressure exerted on the British charity by its American partner - which is dependent on US government grants and contracts for 60% of its income - raises further questions about the relationship between the pair. The UK charity says it does not agree news releases with other members of the International Save the Children Alliance but, "wherever possible", shows them in advance to those working in the same area, making changes at its own discretion.
...
Alan Simpson, the Labour MP for Nottingham South who worked in the voluntary sector before entering parliament, expressed concern that the British charity was under so much pressure from its US partner. He criticised Save the Children US's closeness to the White House, and said: "This is a new American imperium - you not only invade countries but also charities."
How US hawks hijacked Mideast policy
Yahoo! Groups : Al-Awda-News Messages : Message 13211 of 13411: "How US hawks hijacked Mideast policy | By Mark Mazower | Financial Times | 4 November 2003 | http://news.ft.com/home/europe
Tony Blair's backing last year for George W. Bush over war with Iraq was based on an American commitment to the 'roadmap' for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In June, after victory in Iraq, the US president publicly identified himself with the schedule the roadmap laid out, and the next month Mr Blair himself, in his triumphant speech to the US Congress, reaffirmed the role of international diplomacy when he stated categorically that terrorism would not be defeated without peace between Israel and Palestine. Yet, within weeks of Mr Blair's visit to Washington, the roadmap had been killed off by a combination of Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli assassinations. This particular peace process is not likely to revive this side of the presidential elections - which is to say it will not re-emerge at all.
However, another kind of peace process is still very much alive. For the hawks around Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, regime change in Iraq is only the first step in the most radical reshaping of the Middle East since the first world war. Barely one week after September 11 2001, they not only urged the president to tackle Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein; they also recommended going after Hizbollah, Syria and Iran. Their assumption was clear: a threat to Israel is a threat to the US. Under the guise of the war on terror, their argument went, America should identify its interests with those of Israel - or, to be more precise, with the way the current leadership in Israel defines those interests
...
Ariel Sharon's government now follows with impunity policies once recommended by Richard Perle, a US hawk, to an earlier Likud government: disengagement from the internationally sponsored peace process, pressure on the US to withdraw funding from the Palestinian Authority and no trade of land for diplomatic concessions. Mr Sharon now mentions the roadmap only to squash even less palatable peace proposals such as the one under discussion in Geneva. ...
...
This is a far cry from the peace process Mr Blair believed he persuaded Mr Bush to sign up to. Will a future generation of historians be asking their students to explain how a small and un-elected group succeeded so comprehensively in changing the meanings of the US national interest, and of peace itself, while everyone else - from the CIA to Mr Blair and much of the world - looked on in disbelief?
Yahoo! Groups : Al-Awda-News Messages : Message 13211 of 13411: "How US hawks hijacked Mideast policy | By Mark Mazower | Financial Times | 4 November 2003 | http://news.ft.com/home/europe
Tony Blair's backing last year for George W. Bush over war with Iraq was based on an American commitment to the 'roadmap' for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In June, after victory in Iraq, the US president publicly identified himself with the schedule the roadmap laid out, and the next month Mr Blair himself, in his triumphant speech to the US Congress, reaffirmed the role of international diplomacy when he stated categorically that terrorism would not be defeated without peace between Israel and Palestine. Yet, within weeks of Mr Blair's visit to Washington, the roadmap had been killed off by a combination of Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli assassinations. This particular peace process is not likely to revive this side of the presidential elections - which is to say it will not re-emerge at all.
However, another kind of peace process is still very much alive. For the hawks around Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, regime change in Iraq is only the first step in the most radical reshaping of the Middle East since the first world war. Barely one week after September 11 2001, they not only urged the president to tackle Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein; they also recommended going after Hizbollah, Syria and Iran. Their assumption was clear: a threat to Israel is a threat to the US. Under the guise of the war on terror, their argument went, America should identify its interests with those of Israel - or, to be more precise, with the way the current leadership in Israel defines those interests
...
Ariel Sharon's government now follows with impunity policies once recommended by Richard Perle, a US hawk, to an earlier Likud government: disengagement from the internationally sponsored peace process, pressure on the US to withdraw funding from the Palestinian Authority and no trade of land for diplomatic concessions. Mr Sharon now mentions the roadmap only to squash even less palatable peace proposals such as the one under discussion in Geneva. ...
...
This is a far cry from the peace process Mr Blair believed he persuaded Mr Bush to sign up to. Will a future generation of historians be asking their students to explain how a small and un-elected group succeeded so comprehensively in changing the meanings of the US national interest, and of peace itself, while everyone else - from the CIA to Mr Blair and much of the world - looked on in disbelief?
Vice President Dick Cheney appears to be ratcheting up his commitment to the circle of neoconservative intellectuals who helped spearhead President Bu
FORWARD : News: "OCTOBER 31, 2003 | Cheney Taps Syria Hawk As Adviser On Mideast | By MARC PERELMAN
Despite mounting criticism of the administration's Iraq policy, Vice President Dick Cheney appears to be ratcheting up his commitment to the circle of neoconservative intellectuals who helped spearhead President Bush's war policy, adding one of its most controversial proponents to his national security staff in a little-noticed move last month.
David Wurmser, a neoconservative scholar known for his close ties to the Israeli right, was appointed in mid-September to join the team led by Cheney's national security adviser, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby. In recent years Wurmser, who boasts a complex network of relationships to a variety of pro-Likud think tanks and activist groups, has frequently written articles arguing for a joint American-Israeli effort to undermine the Syrian regime.
Wurmser's appointment sheds light on the prominent role played by Cheney and his national security staff in shaping foreign policy and coincides with the deterioration in the relations between Washington and Damascus. In recent months, Washington has accused Syria of sheltering Iraqi leaders, weapons and money and of allowing terrorists into Iraq. The administration backed Israel's recent bombing of a suspected terrorist training camp in Syria and dropped its objections to a congressional bill that grants the president the right to impose sanctions on Damascus.
'The vice president undoubtedly chooses staff whose views are compatible with the policies of the administration,' wrote Judith Kipper, a Middle East scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations" ...
...
Before his appointment, Wurmser had served as a senior adviser to John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and one of the sharpest critics of Syria within the administration. In speeches and testimonies over the past year, Bolton has sounded increasingly alarmist — far more so than the intelligence community — about Syria's weapons programs.
Wurmser's appointment was first reported by Inter-Press Service and elicited criticism from the Arab American Institute, an advocacy organization.
Wurmser is the main author of a 1996 policy paper drafted for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a task force composed of neo-conservative scholars. The white paper, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," advocated a remodeling of the Middle East that some critics see as a rough blueprint for the policy adopted by the Bush administration after the September 11 attacks. The paper advocated a strategy of preemptive action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, a "rollback" of Syria and the search for alternatives to Yasser Arafat.
"Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically," said the paper, which was commissioned by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working at the time.
FORWARD : News: "OCTOBER 31, 2003 | Cheney Taps Syria Hawk As Adviser On Mideast | By MARC PERELMAN
Despite mounting criticism of the administration's Iraq policy, Vice President Dick Cheney appears to be ratcheting up his commitment to the circle of neoconservative intellectuals who helped spearhead President Bush's war policy, adding one of its most controversial proponents to his national security staff in a little-noticed move last month.
David Wurmser, a neoconservative scholar known for his close ties to the Israeli right, was appointed in mid-September to join the team led by Cheney's national security adviser, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby. In recent years Wurmser, who boasts a complex network of relationships to a variety of pro-Likud think tanks and activist groups, has frequently written articles arguing for a joint American-Israeli effort to undermine the Syrian regime.
Wurmser's appointment sheds light on the prominent role played by Cheney and his national security staff in shaping foreign policy and coincides with the deterioration in the relations between Washington and Damascus. In recent months, Washington has accused Syria of sheltering Iraqi leaders, weapons and money and of allowing terrorists into Iraq. The administration backed Israel's recent bombing of a suspected terrorist training camp in Syria and dropped its objections to a congressional bill that grants the president the right to impose sanctions on Damascus.
'The vice president undoubtedly chooses staff whose views are compatible with the policies of the administration,' wrote Judith Kipper, a Middle East scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations" ...
...
Before his appointment, Wurmser had served as a senior adviser to John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and one of the sharpest critics of Syria within the administration. In speeches and testimonies over the past year, Bolton has sounded increasingly alarmist — far more so than the intelligence community — about Syria's weapons programs.
Wurmser's appointment was first reported by Inter-Press Service and elicited criticism from the Arab American Institute, an advocacy organization.
Wurmser is the main author of a 1996 policy paper drafted for then-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a task force composed of neo-conservative scholars. The white paper, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," advocated a remodeling of the Middle East that some critics see as a rough blueprint for the policy adopted by the Bush administration after the September 11 attacks. The paper advocated a strategy of preemptive action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, a "rollback" of Syria and the search for alternatives to Yasser Arafat.
"Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically," said the paper, which was commissioned by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working at the time.
Palestinians Angry With Sharon Ultimatum
Yahoo! News - Palestinians Angry With Sharon Ultimatum: "Fri Nov 28,11:24 AM ET | By DAN PERRY, Associated Press Writer
TEL AVIV, Israel - Palestinians reacted with anger at Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s warning that Israel might seize land if peace negotiations fail, though Sharon also said Israel must give up territory for peace.
...
The Palestinians, who claim all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites) for a state, responded to Sharon's warning of impatience and annexation with a sharp rebuke.
"This is an unprecedented, arrogant statement. It is rude and it lacks any vision," Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said. "He should declare that he is committed to the 'road map' and implement all the Israeli commitments that are in this map," referring to a U.S.-backed peace plan.
...
But Sharon made clear that he will not fully abide by a road map requirement that Israel dismantle the scores of West Bank settlement outposts, many of them no more than a few trailer homes, which were established in recent years. He said some outposts have "supreme security value" and that "what is necessary will remain" — a statement Palestinians called a blatant violation of the plan.
Sharon has also ignored the road map's call for a freeze on construction in the 150 veteran Jewish settlements where about 220,000 settlers live.
The Palestinians, for their part, have ignored the requirement that they dismantle the militant groups that have killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings and shootings in three years of violence.
Yahoo! News - Palestinians Angry With Sharon Ultimatum: "Fri Nov 28,11:24 AM ET | By DAN PERRY, Associated Press Writer
TEL AVIV, Israel - Palestinians reacted with anger at Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s warning that Israel might seize land if peace negotiations fail, though Sharon also said Israel must give up territory for peace.
...
The Palestinians, who claim all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites) for a state, responded to Sharon's warning of impatience and annexation with a sharp rebuke.
"This is an unprecedented, arrogant statement. It is rude and it lacks any vision," Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said. "He should declare that he is committed to the 'road map' and implement all the Israeli commitments that are in this map," referring to a U.S.-backed peace plan.
...
But Sharon made clear that he will not fully abide by a road map requirement that Israel dismantle the scores of West Bank settlement outposts, many of them no more than a few trailer homes, which were established in recent years. He said some outposts have "supreme security value" and that "what is necessary will remain" — a statement Palestinians called a blatant violation of the plan.
Sharon has also ignored the road map's call for a freeze on construction in the 150 veteran Jewish settlements where about 220,000 settlers live.
The Palestinians, for their part, have ignored the requirement that they dismantle the militant groups that have killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings and shootings in three years of violence.
UN Says Israel Fails to Meet Demand to Halt Wall
Yahoo! News - UN Says Israel Fails to Meet Demand to Halt Wall: "Fri Nov 28,12:02 PM ET | By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) reported on Friday that Israel has failed to comply with a General Assembly demand that it halt construction of a barrier cutting deep into Palestinian West Bank lands. "
The official finding lays the groundwork for the Palestinians to return to the 191-nation assembly to seek further action against Israel, probably next week.
...
But doing so by building what Israel calls a "security fence" that veers as much as 13 miles from its 1967 border with the West Bank would violate international law and increase Palestinian suffering, he said.
It also "could damage the longer-term prospects for peace by making the creation of an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state more difficult," his report concluded.
...
Palestinian U.N. envoy Nasser al-Kidwa vowed that if Israel failed to comply, he would ask the assembly to adopt a second resolution calling on the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on whether the barrier was illegal.
...
But Annan said building the wall at a time Israel and the Palestinians are being asked to follow the "road map" peace plan could be seen only as "a deeply counterproductive act."
...
Annan's report said the barrier would cut off 16.6 percent of West Bank land, home to 17,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and 220,000 in East Jerusalem. "If the full route is completed, another 160,000 Palestinians will live in enclaves, areas where the barrier almost completely encircles communities and tracts of land."
Under Israeli army orders, Palestinians living between the barrier and the 1967 border must obtain special permits to remain in their homes while Israeli residents can move freely in and out of those areas.
Yahoo! News - UN Says Israel Fails to Meet Demand to Halt Wall: "Fri Nov 28,12:02 PM ET | By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) reported on Friday that Israel has failed to comply with a General Assembly demand that it halt construction of a barrier cutting deep into Palestinian West Bank lands. "
The official finding lays the groundwork for the Palestinians to return to the 191-nation assembly to seek further action against Israel, probably next week.
...
But doing so by building what Israel calls a "security fence" that veers as much as 13 miles from its 1967 border with the West Bank would violate international law and increase Palestinian suffering, he said.
It also "could damage the longer-term prospects for peace by making the creation of an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state more difficult," his report concluded.
...
Palestinian U.N. envoy Nasser al-Kidwa vowed that if Israel failed to comply, he would ask the assembly to adopt a second resolution calling on the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on whether the barrier was illegal.
...
But Annan said building the wall at a time Israel and the Palestinians are being asked to follow the "road map" peace plan could be seen only as "a deeply counterproductive act."
...
Annan's report said the barrier would cut off 16.6 percent of West Bank land, home to 17,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and 220,000 in East Jerusalem. "If the full route is completed, another 160,000 Palestinians will live in enclaves, areas where the barrier almost completely encircles communities and tracts of land."
Under Israeli army orders, Palestinians living between the barrier and the 1967 border must obtain special permits to remain in their homes while Israeli residents can move freely in and out of those areas.
Friday, November 28, 2003
Sharon Plans Withdrawal from W.Bank Cities: May annex 60% of West Bank and impose "final solution"
Excite - News: "Report: Sharon Plans Withdrawal from W.Bank Cities | Nov 28, 4:35 pm ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans to withdraw Israeli troops from Palestinian cities in the West Bank and evacuate settlement outposts in the coming weeks, Israel's Channel 2 television said on Friday.
Sharon said on Thursday Israel would have to give up some occupied land for peace, but also raised the possibility he would take unspecified 'unilateral steps' should talks with the Palestinians on advancing a U.S.-backed peace plan fail.
Channel 2 said the first phase of Sharon's two-phase plan would involve trying to move forward on the peace 'road map' by evacuating settlement outposts, removing checkpoints and withdrawing from occupied West Bank cities.
It said that in the second phase -- planned if the road map failed to bring about peace -- Sharon would unilaterally determine a border, which would leave Palestinians with less than 40 percent of currently occupied territory, and complete an extension of a barrier around the eastern West Bank.
...
Israel committed to evacuating unauthorized settlements under the road map, but has done little to prevent settlers from establishing new outposts since the launch of the peace plan.
...
The United States said on Tuesday it was penalizing Israel for the barrier and settlement expansion by deducting nearly $290 million from a multi-billion-dollar package of loan guarantees.
Palestinians say the barrier, a line of concrete walls, electric fences and razor wire, is a bid to annex their land.
Excite - News: "Report: Sharon Plans Withdrawal from W.Bank Cities | Nov 28, 4:35 pm ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon plans to withdraw Israeli troops from Palestinian cities in the West Bank and evacuate settlement outposts in the coming weeks, Israel's Channel 2 television said on Friday.
Sharon said on Thursday Israel would have to give up some occupied land for peace, but also raised the possibility he would take unspecified 'unilateral steps' should talks with the Palestinians on advancing a U.S.-backed peace plan fail.
Channel 2 said the first phase of Sharon's two-phase plan would involve trying to move forward on the peace 'road map' by evacuating settlement outposts, removing checkpoints and withdrawing from occupied West Bank cities.
It said that in the second phase -- planned if the road map failed to bring about peace -- Sharon would unilaterally determine a border, which would leave Palestinians with less than 40 percent of currently occupied territory, and complete an extension of a barrier around the eastern West Bank.
...
Israel committed to evacuating unauthorized settlements under the road map, but has done little to prevent settlers from establishing new outposts since the launch of the peace plan.
...
The United States said on Tuesday it was penalizing Israel for the barrier and settlement expansion by deducting nearly $290 million from a multi-billion-dollar package of loan guarantees.
Palestinians say the barrier, a line of concrete walls, electric fences and razor wire, is a bid to annex their land.
British trade unionist, detained at checkpoint: `IDF treats people like dirt'
Haaretz - Article: "British trade unionist, detained at checkpoint: `IDF treats people like dirt' | By Charlotte Halle | November 28, 2003
Chairman of the British Trade Union Friends of Israel said this week he was 'shocked' by the conduct of IDF soldiers at internal checkpoints in the West Bank, where both he and general secretary of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions Shaher Sae'd were refused passage this week.
Roger Lyons, who is president of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and general secretary of the Amicas union in the UK, said his experience of being delayed at a checkpoint on Monday was "a reflection of how the IDF treats ordinary people - like dirt."
... Lyons, who condemned the network of checkpoints inside the West Bank as a "collective punishment, which has no positive impact on security," said that on Monday the six British delegates traveling in UN vehicles were initially refused passage at a checkpoint between Nablus and Ramallah, despite the journey having been reported to the Israeli government in advance by the Histadrut Labor Federation to avoid problems. "And this is what happens to visiting officials discussing peace and employment," he said pointedly, adding that after a series of mobile telephone calls the delegation was permitted to pass.
Haaretz - Article: "British trade unionist, detained at checkpoint: `IDF treats people like dirt' | By Charlotte Halle | November 28, 2003
Chairman of the British Trade Union Friends of Israel said this week he was 'shocked' by the conduct of IDF soldiers at internal checkpoints in the West Bank, where both he and general secretary of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions Shaher Sae'd were refused passage this week.
Roger Lyons, who is president of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and general secretary of the Amicas union in the UK, said his experience of being delayed at a checkpoint on Monday was "a reflection of how the IDF treats ordinary people - like dirt."
... Lyons, who condemned the network of checkpoints inside the West Bank as a "collective punishment, which has no positive impact on security," said that on Monday the six British delegates traveling in UN vehicles were initially refused passage at a checkpoint between Nablus and Ramallah, despite the journey having been reported to the Israeli government in advance by the Histadrut Labor Federation to avoid problems. "And this is what happens to visiting officials discussing peace and employment," he said pointedly, adding that after a series of mobile telephone calls the delegation was permitted to pass.
Thursday, November 27, 2003
The village of Azoon Atmeh and the "separation wall"
Dar Al Hayat: "The New Israeli Geography Erasing History Of Villages | Saeda Hamad | Al-Hayat | 2003/11/21
According to the new Israeli geography, the village of Azoon Atmeh in the district of Qalqilia is no longer part of the occupied Palestinian West Bank. The separation wall has 'moved' it westward, locking it between an iron gate and the fictional Green line. And yet, according to Israel's plan, the village itself and its 3,000 inhabitants will not be part of the state of Israel.
To enter the Palestinian village, one must come from within the Green line, where Palestinians who do not reside in the village are forbidden to cross the iron gate to the West Bank and enter it. The village inhabitants are allowed to cross the military gate toward neighboring villages, but only during the hours set by the soldiers. The scene is all the more surprising because Israelis describe the wall as a security wall, but in the village and around its houses, there are houses of the Jewish settlement of Shaar, which are only separated from the Palestinian houses by a fence. The village is just a few meters away from the village of Kfer Qasem, and there is no material separation between the village and the Green line after the military barrack was removed, leaving only an Israeli military patrol to control the passing cars.
On both sides of the military gate, dozens of students and teachers wait every morning to be allowed to cross the gate because one part of the common school for both villages is in Azoon Atmeh and the other in Beit Amin.
As for the teachers who have no identity cards showing they live in one of the villages, they should get special 'authorizations' from the military authorities. The matter is even more complicated, as one of the teachers complained that they had to wait until the soldier finished playing with the dog to begin the identity inspection.
Dar Al Hayat: "The New Israeli Geography Erasing History Of Villages | Saeda Hamad | Al-Hayat | 2003/11/21
According to the new Israeli geography, the village of Azoon Atmeh in the district of Qalqilia is no longer part of the occupied Palestinian West Bank. The separation wall has 'moved' it westward, locking it between an iron gate and the fictional Green line. And yet, according to Israel's plan, the village itself and its 3,000 inhabitants will not be part of the state of Israel.
To enter the Palestinian village, one must come from within the Green line, where Palestinians who do not reside in the village are forbidden to cross the iron gate to the West Bank and enter it. The village inhabitants are allowed to cross the military gate toward neighboring villages, but only during the hours set by the soldiers. The scene is all the more surprising because Israelis describe the wall as a security wall, but in the village and around its houses, there are houses of the Jewish settlement of Shaar, which are only separated from the Palestinian houses by a fence. The village is just a few meters away from the village of Kfer Qasem, and there is no material separation between the village and the Green line after the military barrack was removed, leaving only an Israeli military patrol to control the passing cars.
On both sides of the military gate, dozens of students and teachers wait every morning to be allowed to cross the gate because one part of the common school for both villages is in Azoon Atmeh and the other in Beit Amin.
As for the teachers who have no identity cards showing they live in one of the villages, they should get special 'authorizations' from the military authorities. The matter is even more complicated, as one of the teachers complained that they had to wait until the soldier finished playing with the dog to begin the identity inspection.
Some believe that democratic countries do not attack other countries: what do we call the American occupation of Iraq? Or Israeli policy in Palestine?
Dar Al Hayat: "Our Democracy And Not Bush's | Ali Mohsen Hamid Al-Hayat 2003/11/27
The American neo-conservatives and the Jewish lobby attributed the 9/11 attacks to the lack of democracy and freedom in the Arab and Islamic region, especially after the Americans started linking between these attacks and the oppression of the Palestinian people. In October 2001, Newsweek conducted an opinion poll showing that 58% of the surveyed people said Israel's policies and occupation are among the causes of 9/11 attacks. However, Israel's supporters hide behind the lack of democracy in the Arab states and targeted in their campaign Saudi Arabia and Egypt. ...
Before the war on Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared on 13/11/2003 his vision of the U.S. shifting the Arab states into democracy according to the 2002 Arab Human Development Report. He allocated 29 million dollars for this project in which he set the Arab women as the top priority as if changing the women's situation were the key to democracy. ...
Arab democrats find it difficult to believe the U.S. would help them now because it failed to do so in the past. It never invited some of them to discuss with them the democracy they are talking about. Americans were always convinced that the elections in the Arab world would lead but to the nationalists and Islamists holding the reins of power. This is why democrats, republicans and now the neo-conservatives tend to ignore democracy in the Arab world.
...
... So, nobody would criticize us if we are democratic and act like Sharon does. In addition, some people believe that democratic countries do not attack other countries. But what do we call the American occupation of Iraq? Or the Israeli policies in Palestine? The U.S. and Israel perpetrate crimes and never accept to be held responsible for them because they are above all laws. This is the democracy of power and not the values and principles. Just like it happened in Iraq, the U.S. is ready to repeat the experience against other countries if they do not suit the American interests. More dangerous is that President Bush really thinks God entitled him a sacred mission in the Arab region. ...
Dar Al Hayat: "Our Democracy And Not Bush's | Ali Mohsen Hamid Al-Hayat 2003/11/27
The American neo-conservatives and the Jewish lobby attributed the 9/11 attacks to the lack of democracy and freedom in the Arab and Islamic region, especially after the Americans started linking between these attacks and the oppression of the Palestinian people. In October 2001, Newsweek conducted an opinion poll showing that 58% of the surveyed people said Israel's policies and occupation are among the causes of 9/11 attacks. However, Israel's supporters hide behind the lack of democracy in the Arab states and targeted in their campaign Saudi Arabia and Egypt. ...
Before the war on Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared on 13/11/2003 his vision of the U.S. shifting the Arab states into democracy according to the 2002 Arab Human Development Report. He allocated 29 million dollars for this project in which he set the Arab women as the top priority as if changing the women's situation were the key to democracy. ...
Arab democrats find it difficult to believe the U.S. would help them now because it failed to do so in the past. It never invited some of them to discuss with them the democracy they are talking about. Americans were always convinced that the elections in the Arab world would lead but to the nationalists and Islamists holding the reins of power. This is why democrats, republicans and now the neo-conservatives tend to ignore democracy in the Arab world.
...
... So, nobody would criticize us if we are democratic and act like Sharon does. In addition, some people believe that democratic countries do not attack other countries. But what do we call the American occupation of Iraq? Or the Israeli policies in Palestine? The U.S. and Israel perpetrate crimes and never accept to be held responsible for them because they are above all laws. This is the democracy of power and not the values and principles. Just like it happened in Iraq, the U.S. is ready to repeat the experience against other countries if they do not suit the American interests. More dangerous is that President Bush really thinks God entitled him a sacred mission in the Arab region. ...
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Dyke accuses US media of 'banging drum on Iraq': 840 "experts", only 4 opposed the war
Telegraph | News | Dyke accuses US news of 'banging drum on Iraq': "By Tom Leonard, Media Editor | (Filed: 26/11/2003)
Greg Dyke, the BBC director general, attacked American reporting of the war in Iraq and derided news organisations that were prepared to 'bang the drum for one side or the other'.
...
"For any news organisation to act as a cheerleader for government is to undermine your credibility," he said.
"They should be balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other." He cited research showing that of 840 experts interviewed on US news outlets during the war only four opposed the conflict.
"If that were true in Britain, the BBC would have failed in its duty," he said.
"Telling people what they want to hear is not doing them any favours. It may not be comfortable to challenge governments or even popular opinion, but it is what we are here to do." Mr Dyke said there was an appetite for such news in America, judging by the growth in demand there for BBC news on the World Service, the internet and the television channel BBC World.
Telegraph | News | Dyke accuses US news of 'banging drum on Iraq': "By Tom Leonard, Media Editor | (Filed: 26/11/2003)
Greg Dyke, the BBC director general, attacked American reporting of the war in Iraq and derided news organisations that were prepared to 'bang the drum for one side or the other'.
...
"For any news organisation to act as a cheerleader for government is to undermine your credibility," he said.
"They should be balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other." He cited research showing that of 840 experts interviewed on US news outlets during the war only four opposed the conflict.
"If that were true in Britain, the BBC would have failed in its duty," he said.
"Telling people what they want to hear is not doing them any favours. It may not be comfortable to challenge governments or even popular opinion, but it is what we are here to do." Mr Dyke said there was an appetite for such news in America, judging by the growth in demand there for BBC news on the World Service, the internet and the television channel BBC World.
Which is the better analogy for our predicament in Iraq: Vietnam or Israel?
washingtonpost.com: When the Course Can't be Stayed: "When the Course Can't be Stayed | By William Raspberry | Monday, November 24, 2003; Page A21
It's hard to know which is the better analogy for our predicament in Iraq: Vietnam or Israel.
Vietnam is tempting, since it is what the word 'quagmire' brings to mind -- and Iraq increasingly is looking like 'a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position,' which is how my Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines quagmire.
What makes me think of Israel, though, is last week's American bombing raid near the central Iraq town of Tikrit -- an attempt to wipe out the anti-occupation guerrillas thought to be ensconced there. It sounds for all the world like the retaliatory raids that follow virtually every suicide bomb attack in Israel. And the logic by which the decision to strike at largely civilian targets is the same.
The individuals who carry out the deadly terrorist attacks are most often dead at their own hands, and therefore beyond retaliation. The only retaliatory response that makes sense is to hit those who sent them. And since these cowards hide among civilian populations, the painful reality is that doing what is necessary involves civilian casualties.
What happens, of course, is that every such retaliatory strike spawns more terrorists and vastly increases the number of civilians who, forced to choose between the home-grown terrorists and the alien retaliators, take the side of the terrorists.
...
The problem for the coalition is that the terrorists are not necessarily some ragtag band of malcontents that can be hunted down and taken out one by one. They may be more like a particularly aggressive virus that is spread by the very medicine prescribed to cure it.
And they may be more than that. One hears more and more some version of the theory I first heard from D.L. Cuddy, author of a book about Iraq called "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?" Cuddy's notion is that the guerrilla war we're now flailing against is precisely the war Saddam Hussein intended to fight all along. That, he argues, is why Hussein offered only token resistance, preferring to wait for the coalition to disperse into smaller patrols, vulnerable to hit-and-run assaults. Saddam, in this scenario, doesn't need victory; he only needs chaos, uncertainty, demoralization -- and the fervent wish by most Iraqis that the outsiders just go home.
washingtonpost.com: When the Course Can't be Stayed: "When the Course Can't be Stayed | By William Raspberry | Monday, November 24, 2003; Page A21
It's hard to know which is the better analogy for our predicament in Iraq: Vietnam or Israel.
Vietnam is tempting, since it is what the word 'quagmire' brings to mind -- and Iraq increasingly is looking like 'a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position,' which is how my Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines quagmire.
What makes me think of Israel, though, is last week's American bombing raid near the central Iraq town of Tikrit -- an attempt to wipe out the anti-occupation guerrillas thought to be ensconced there. It sounds for all the world like the retaliatory raids that follow virtually every suicide bomb attack in Israel. And the logic by which the decision to strike at largely civilian targets is the same.
The individuals who carry out the deadly terrorist attacks are most often dead at their own hands, and therefore beyond retaliation. The only retaliatory response that makes sense is to hit those who sent them. And since these cowards hide among civilian populations, the painful reality is that doing what is necessary involves civilian casualties.
What happens, of course, is that every such retaliatory strike spawns more terrorists and vastly increases the number of civilians who, forced to choose between the home-grown terrorists and the alien retaliators, take the side of the terrorists.
...
The problem for the coalition is that the terrorists are not necessarily some ragtag band of malcontents that can be hunted down and taken out one by one. They may be more like a particularly aggressive virus that is spread by the very medicine prescribed to cure it.
And they may be more than that. One hears more and more some version of the theory I first heard from D.L. Cuddy, author of a book about Iraq called "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?" Cuddy's notion is that the guerrilla war we're now flailing against is precisely the war Saddam Hussein intended to fight all along. That, he argues, is why Hussein offered only token resistance, preferring to wait for the coalition to disperse into smaller patrols, vulnerable to hit-and-run assaults. Saddam, in this scenario, doesn't need victory; he only needs chaos, uncertainty, demoralization -- and the fervent wish by most Iraqis that the outsiders just go home.
Twilight Zone / `I punched an Arab in the face': Israeli soldiers stories from checkpoints
Ha'aretz - Article: "Twilight Zone / `I punched an Arab in the face' | By Gideon Levy | November 26, 2003
Staff Sergeant (res.) Liran Ron Furer cannot just routinely get on with his life anymore. He is haunted by images from his three years of military service in Gaza and the thought that this could be a syndrome afflicting everyone who serves at checkpoints gives him no respite. On the verge of completing his studies in the design program at the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, he decided to drop everything and devote all his time to the book he wanted to write. The major publishers he brought it to declined to publish it. The publisher that finally accepted it (Gevanim) says that the Steimatzky bookstore chain refuses to distribute it. But Furer is determined to bring his book to the public's attention.
...
His book is not easy reading. Written in terse, fierce prose, in the blunt and coarse language of soldiers, he reconstructs scenes from the years in which he served in Gaza (1996-1999), years that, one must remember, were relatively quiet. ...
He described how they would order children to clean the checkpoint before inspection time; how a soldier named Shahar invented a game: "He checks someone's identity card, ... just tosses it in the air . He got a kick out of seeing the Arab have to get out of his car to pick up his identity card ... "They forced him to have his picture taken on the horse, hit him and degraded him for a good half hour and let him go only when cars arrived at the checkpoint. The poor guy, he really didn't deserve it"; how they had a souvenir picture taken with bloodied, bound Arabs whom they'd beaten up; how Shahar pissed on the head of an Arab because the man had the nerve to smile at a soldier; how Dado forced an Arab to stand on four legs and bark like a dog; and how they stole prayer beads and cigarettes - "Miro wanted them to give him their cigarettes, the Arabs didn't want to give so Miro broke someone's hand, and Boaz slashed their tires." ...
The most chilling of all the personal confessions: "I ran toward them and punched an Arab right in the face. ... He collapsed ... officers said that we had to search him for his papers ... bound them with plastic handcuffs ... blindfolded him ... Blood was trickling from his lip onto his chin ... led him up behind the Jeep and threw him in, his knees banged against the trunk ... stepping on the Arab ... Arab lay there pretty quietly, just crying softly to himself ... he was bleeding and making a kind of puddle of blood and saliva ... grabbed him by the hair ... we stepped harder and harder on his back ... We concluded that he was either retarded or crazy.
"The company commander informed us over the radio that we had to bring him to the base. `Good work, tigers,' he said, teasing us. ...
...
After the army, he traveled to India, like so many others. "Now I was free. The crazy energies of Goa and the chakras opened my mind ... You stuck me in this stinking Gaza and before that you brainwashed me with your rifles and your marches, you turned me into a dishrag that didn't think anymore," he wrote from Goa. But it was only afterward, when he was studying at Bezalel, that the experiences from his army service really began to affect him.
"I came to realize that there was an unchanging pattern here ... same in the first intifada ... and in the second intifada. It's become a permanent reality ... such a loaded subject was hardly mentioned at all in public. ...
...
"I was an average soldier," he says. "I was the joker of the group. Now I see that I was often the one to take the lead in violent situations. I often was the one who gave the slap. I'm the one who came up with all kinds of ideas like letting the air out of tires. It sounds twisted now, but we really admired anyone who could beat up some guy who supposedly had it coming. The officer we admired most was the officer who fired his weapon at every opportunity. Out of everyone I've spoken to, I've been left with the most guilt feelings ... A friend from the army read the book and said that I'm right, that we did bad things, but we were kids. And he said that it's a shame that I took it too hard."
Ha'aretz - Article: "Twilight Zone / `I punched an Arab in the face' | By Gideon Levy | November 26, 2003
Staff Sergeant (res.) Liran Ron Furer cannot just routinely get on with his life anymore. He is haunted by images from his three years of military service in Gaza and the thought that this could be a syndrome afflicting everyone who serves at checkpoints gives him no respite. On the verge of completing his studies in the design program at the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, he decided to drop everything and devote all his time to the book he wanted to write. The major publishers he brought it to declined to publish it. The publisher that finally accepted it (Gevanim) says that the Steimatzky bookstore chain refuses to distribute it. But Furer is determined to bring his book to the public's attention.
...
His book is not easy reading. Written in terse, fierce prose, in the blunt and coarse language of soldiers, he reconstructs scenes from the years in which he served in Gaza (1996-1999), years that, one must remember, were relatively quiet. ...
He described how they would order children to clean the checkpoint before inspection time; how a soldier named Shahar invented a game: "He checks someone's identity card, ... just tosses it in the air . He got a kick out of seeing the Arab have to get out of his car to pick up his identity card ... "They forced him to have his picture taken on the horse, hit him and degraded him for a good half hour and let him go only when cars arrived at the checkpoint. The poor guy, he really didn't deserve it"; how they had a souvenir picture taken with bloodied, bound Arabs whom they'd beaten up; how Shahar pissed on the head of an Arab because the man had the nerve to smile at a soldier; how Dado forced an Arab to stand on four legs and bark like a dog; and how they stole prayer beads and cigarettes - "Miro wanted them to give him their cigarettes, the Arabs didn't want to give so Miro broke someone's hand, and Boaz slashed their tires." ...
The most chilling of all the personal confessions: "I ran toward them and punched an Arab right in the face. ... He collapsed ... officers said that we had to search him for his papers ... bound them with plastic handcuffs ... blindfolded him ... Blood was trickling from his lip onto his chin ... led him up behind the Jeep and threw him in, his knees banged against the trunk ... stepping on the Arab ... Arab lay there pretty quietly, just crying softly to himself ... he was bleeding and making a kind of puddle of blood and saliva ... grabbed him by the hair ... we stepped harder and harder on his back ... We concluded that he was either retarded or crazy.
"The company commander informed us over the radio that we had to bring him to the base. `Good work, tigers,' he said, teasing us. ...
...
After the army, he traveled to India, like so many others. "Now I was free. The crazy energies of Goa and the chakras opened my mind ... You stuck me in this stinking Gaza and before that you brainwashed me with your rifles and your marches, you turned me into a dishrag that didn't think anymore," he wrote from Goa. But it was only afterward, when he was studying at Bezalel, that the experiences from his army service really began to affect him.
"I came to realize that there was an unchanging pattern here ... same in the first intifada ... and in the second intifada. It's become a permanent reality ... such a loaded subject was hardly mentioned at all in public. ...
...
"I was an average soldier," he says. "I was the joker of the group. Now I see that I was often the one to take the lead in violent situations. I often was the one who gave the slap. I'm the one who came up with all kinds of ideas like letting the air out of tires. It sounds twisted now, but we really admired anyone who could beat up some guy who supposedly had it coming. The officer we admired most was the officer who fired his weapon at every opportunity. Out of everyone I've spoken to, I've been left with the most guilt feelings ... A friend from the army read the book and said that I'm right, that we did bad things, but we were kids. And he said that it's a shame that I took it too hard."
Fewer than 10 percent of Iraqis believe that the U.S. invaded to help them, or to establish a democracy
Modbee.com | The Modesto Bee: "G. JEFFERSON PRICE III: A turning point in the Iraqi mess?
The Christian Science Monitor | Last Updated: November 20, 2003, 04:05:00 PM PST
...
Analysis of a Gallup Poll of Iraqis finds that fewer than 10 percent of them believe that the U.S. invaded to help Iraqis, and even fewer believe that the U.S. objective was to establish a true democracy in their land.
Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer got hold of a highly classified CIA report warning that an increasing number of Iraqis believe that the insurgents can defeat the American-led forces, and that the majority Shiite Muslim population might join the Sunnis to achieve that objective. This assessment reportedly was signed by the CIA station chief in Baghdad and Paul Bremer, leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
...
When George Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq with only Britain as a major ally, he went against the earlier best judgments of most people with any experience in the region, including that of his own father during his own time of war against Iraq.
The grand vision of a pacified, democratized Iraq, with vast oil reserves enabling it to pay its own way and shine the light for the rest of the region, must have seemed quickly achievable. Clearly, it did to Mr. Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz - the architects of this adventure.
Modbee.com | The Modesto Bee: "G. JEFFERSON PRICE III: A turning point in the Iraqi mess?
The Christian Science Monitor | Last Updated: November 20, 2003, 04:05:00 PM PST
...
Analysis of a Gallup Poll of Iraqis finds that fewer than 10 percent of them believe that the U.S. invaded to help Iraqis, and even fewer believe that the U.S. objective was to establish a true democracy in their land.
Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer got hold of a highly classified CIA report warning that an increasing number of Iraqis believe that the insurgents can defeat the American-led forces, and that the majority Shiite Muslim population might join the Sunnis to achieve that objective. This assessment reportedly was signed by the CIA station chief in Baghdad and Paul Bremer, leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
...
When George Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq with only Britain as a major ally, he went against the earlier best judgments of most people with any experience in the region, including that of his own father during his own time of war against Iraq.
The grand vision of a pacified, democratized Iraq, with vast oil reserves enabling it to pay its own way and shine the light for the rest of the region, must have seemed quickly achievable. Clearly, it did to Mr. Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz - the architects of this adventure.
U.S. Uses Loan to Punish Israel for West Bank Construction (washingtonpost.com)
U.S. Uses Loan to Punish Israel for West Bank Construction (washingtonpost.com): "By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer | Wednesday, November 26, 2003; Page A17
The Bush administration will deduct $289.5 million from loan guarantees to Israel to penalize it for building settlements in Palestinian territories and constructing a fence snaking through the West Bank, administration officials said yesterday.
The largely symbolic decision -- which was officially characterized as a voluntary reduction in a $1.4 billion loan Israel will float next week -- comes as the administration has also stepped up pressure on both Israeli and Palestinian officials to restart the stalled peace process. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has indicated some flexibility in the past week in dealing with Palestinian concerns, and U.S. officials increasingly believe Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is close to agreeing to implement six security steps sought by the administration.
The $289.5 million figure resulted from weeks of negotiations between national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Dov Weisglass, Sharon's chief of staff. Officials in the two governments disagreed yesterday over whether it included the cost for the fence separating Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, something the Bush administration fears could be used to establish the borders of a potential Palestinian state.
U.S. Uses Loan to Punish Israel for West Bank Construction (washingtonpost.com): "By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer | Wednesday, November 26, 2003; Page A17
The Bush administration will deduct $289.5 million from loan guarantees to Israel to penalize it for building settlements in Palestinian territories and constructing a fence snaking through the West Bank, administration officials said yesterday.
The largely symbolic decision -- which was officially characterized as a voluntary reduction in a $1.4 billion loan Israel will float next week -- comes as the administration has also stepped up pressure on both Israeli and Palestinian officials to restart the stalled peace process. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has indicated some flexibility in the past week in dealing with Palestinian concerns, and U.S. officials increasingly believe Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is close to agreeing to implement six security steps sought by the administration.
The $289.5 million figure resulted from weeks of negotiations between national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Dov Weisglass, Sharon's chief of staff. Officials in the two governments disagreed yesterday over whether it included the cost for the fence separating Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, something the Bush administration fears could be used to establish the borders of a potential Palestinian state.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Settler diplomatic plan offers Palestinians Israeli citizenship: single bi-national state with Palestinian cantons
Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition: "Nov. 25, 2003 | Settler diplomatic plan offers Palestinians Israeli citizenship | By MATTHEW GUTMAN
Right wing members of the Likud along with settlement leaders have secretly designed a broad diplomatic initiative that calls for a bi-national state and ultimately offering all willing Palestinians Israeli citizenship, settlement leaders said Tuesday.
The proposal, which would be introduced in phases, grants Israeli citizenship and equal rights to all Palestinians living in the West Bank Gaza who are interested in such a status quo. The crux of the initiative would provide for the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority and would proscribe the establishment of a Palestinian State.
To circumvent the drawbacks of a bi-national state – the rapid demographic growth of Palestinians (in 10 years more Palestinians will live west of the Jordan than Jews according to surveys) the West Bank and Gaza will be partitioned into cantons.
These cantons will receive parliamentary representation according to factors other than population, in the hopes of permanently assuring a Jewish majority in the land west of the Jordan River. The constitution would provide that the bi-national state will in perpetuity be led by a Jewish Prime Minister and that his deputy will be an Arab.
...
"To give the Palestinians the vote, is crazy, it is political suicide," said Rabbi Daniel Shiloh a leading member of the powerful Yesha Council of Rabbis. Eventually he reasoned, the Palestinian electorate will demand "one man one vote. And that will be the end of us. If this is the basis of the plan then we do not support it."
"Endowing Palestinians with civic rights is a must, but it is something that has been denied them. The reason for the checkpoints is not to humiliate them but to stop them from smuggling bombs," said Shiloh.
Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition: "Nov. 25, 2003 | Settler diplomatic plan offers Palestinians Israeli citizenship | By MATTHEW GUTMAN
Right wing members of the Likud along with settlement leaders have secretly designed a broad diplomatic initiative that calls for a bi-national state and ultimately offering all willing Palestinians Israeli citizenship, settlement leaders said Tuesday.
The proposal, which would be introduced in phases, grants Israeli citizenship and equal rights to all Palestinians living in the West Bank Gaza who are interested in such a status quo. The crux of the initiative would provide for the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority and would proscribe the establishment of a Palestinian State.
To circumvent the drawbacks of a bi-national state – the rapid demographic growth of Palestinians (in 10 years more Palestinians will live west of the Jordan than Jews according to surveys) the West Bank and Gaza will be partitioned into cantons.
These cantons will receive parliamentary representation according to factors other than population, in the hopes of permanently assuring a Jewish majority in the land west of the Jordan River. The constitution would provide that the bi-national state will in perpetuity be led by a Jewish Prime Minister and that his deputy will be an Arab.
...
"To give the Palestinians the vote, is crazy, it is political suicide," said Rabbi Daniel Shiloh a leading member of the powerful Yesha Council of Rabbis. Eventually he reasoned, the Palestinian electorate will demand "one man one vote. And that will be the end of us. If this is the basis of the plan then we do not support it."
"Endowing Palestinians with civic rights is a must, but it is something that has been denied them. The reason for the checkpoints is not to humiliate them but to stop them from smuggling bombs," said Shiloh.
Max Cleland: "I feel like I have been duped, I don't mind telling you,"
Salon.com News | "The president ought to be ashamed": Former Sen. Max Cleland blasts Bush's 'Nixonian' stonewalling of the 9/11 commission, his 'lies' about Iraq, and his flight-suit photo op on the USS Lincoln after 'hiding out' during Vietnam. | By Eric Boehlert | Nov. 21, 2003
...
During his six years as a United States senator from the conservative state of Georgia, Max Cleland was known as a moderate Democrat. He drew the wrath of liberals in 2001 when he broke ranks with Democrats and voted for President Bush's tax cuts, and last year he backed the resolution authorizing Bush to wage war with Iraq (though on that vote, at least, he was joined by some liberals).
Today, though, Cleland has emerged as one of the president's harshest critics, especially about the war he voted to authorize. Today, he says, it's a move he deeply regrets, scanning the headlines from Baghdad. "I feel like I have been duped, I don't mind telling you," ...
...
If you look at 9/11 separately you realize it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Except [vice president Dick] Cheney and [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz put a plan together in '92 to try to convince [president] Bush One to invade Iraq, but here's what Bush One said about it, in his book "A World Transformed," which I think is devastating:
"I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a secretly entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war."
Now, this administration bought the Cheney-Wolfowitz plan from '92 hook line and sinker. It was all about using 9/11 as an excuse to go into Baghdad, not as a reason.
...
... They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war. They pulled off their task force in Afghanistan, their Predator assets, and shifted them over to the war in Iraq. They took their eye off the 9/11 ball and transferred it to the Iraq ball. And that's a very strategic question that ultimately has got to be answered. I'm focused on 9/11 and the administration is not focused on it. They don't want to share information, and they didn't agree with the commission in the first place.
...
... Of course what I did not know was that the White House had the 1992 Cheney-Wolfowitz war plan on the front burner. I knew they wanted regime change. But I did not know that the Cheney-Wolfowitz war plan was what they were going to do with and that they hadn't figured out a plan B.
...
... The dream of Cheney and Wolfowitz was you create a base of operations in Iraq and then you attack Syria and Iran. I'm serious. You think this is nuts. It is nuts in the case of this particular cost of blood and treasure that the American people are finding out and they're going south on this big time.
Salon.com News | "The president ought to be ashamed": Former Sen. Max Cleland blasts Bush's 'Nixonian' stonewalling of the 9/11 commission, his 'lies' about Iraq, and his flight-suit photo op on the USS Lincoln after 'hiding out' during Vietnam. | By Eric Boehlert | Nov. 21, 2003
...
During his six years as a United States senator from the conservative state of Georgia, Max Cleland was known as a moderate Democrat. He drew the wrath of liberals in 2001 when he broke ranks with Democrats and voted for President Bush's tax cuts, and last year he backed the resolution authorizing Bush to wage war with Iraq (though on that vote, at least, he was joined by some liberals).
Today, though, Cleland has emerged as one of the president's harshest critics, especially about the war he voted to authorize. Today, he says, it's a move he deeply regrets, scanning the headlines from Baghdad. "I feel like I have been duped, I don't mind telling you," ...
...
If you look at 9/11 separately you realize it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Except [vice president Dick] Cheney and [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz put a plan together in '92 to try to convince [president] Bush One to invade Iraq, but here's what Bush One said about it, in his book "A World Transformed," which I think is devastating:
"I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a secretly entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war."
Now, this administration bought the Cheney-Wolfowitz plan from '92 hook line and sinker. It was all about using 9/11 as an excuse to go into Baghdad, not as a reason.
...
... They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war. They pulled off their task force in Afghanistan, their Predator assets, and shifted them over to the war in Iraq. They took their eye off the 9/11 ball and transferred it to the Iraq ball. And that's a very strategic question that ultimately has got to be answered. I'm focused on 9/11 and the administration is not focused on it. They don't want to share information, and they didn't agree with the commission in the first place.
...
... Of course what I did not know was that the White House had the 1992 Cheney-Wolfowitz war plan on the front burner. I knew they wanted regime change. But I did not know that the Cheney-Wolfowitz war plan was what they were going to do with and that they hadn't figured out a plan B.
...
... The dream of Cheney and Wolfowitz was you create a base of operations in Iraq and then you attack Syria and Iran. I'm serious. You think this is nuts. It is nuts in the case of this particular cost of blood and treasure that the American people are finding out and they're going south on this big time.
Qaeda Leader Says Strike Against US 'Closer' Than Ever
Why War? Qaeda Leader Says Strike Against US 'Closer' Than Ever
The Dubai office of the London-based magazine Al-Majallah has received an electronic message from a prominent al-Qa'ida leader in which he announced his organization's responsibility for the bombings that targeted two Synagogues in Istanbul early in the week, and also al-Qa'ida's responsibility for the explosion that hit the Italian forces' headquarters in al-Nasiriyah in southern Iraq.
In his electronic message Abu-Muhammad al-Ablaj threatened to carry out devastating strikes deep inside the Japanese capital Tokyo if the Japanese Government sends troops to Iraq.
Al-Ablaj said: "We have in the past threatened Israel and the United States, and our strikes on this or that target will be painful. An example of this is what we did to the Italians in Iraq, especially against their command in al-Nasiriyah in southern Iraq.
He added: "Turkey has received its share through our strike against the two synagogues of the brothers of the monkeys and pigs. We have dealt it a blow deep in its relations with Israel.
Al-Ablaj said: The Jews and the Americans will never feel safe as long as we are alive. He went on to say: "If they are not safe at their homes, how will they be safe elsewhere in the world. We will sever the arteries and jugular veins of the United States and the Jews whatever the price. He pointed out that the date of the strike against the United States is getting closer than ever before.
In his message Al-Ablaj threatened to carry out painful strikes against Japan if it sends military forces to Iraq. He said: "If they are seeking the elimination of their economic might, devastation, and destruction under the feet of the soldiers of God, let them come to Iraq, as our strikes will reach the center of Tokyo... if they are seeking that, let them try their luck with us.
Why War? Qaeda Leader Says Strike Against US 'Closer' Than Ever
The Dubai office of the London-based magazine Al-Majallah has received an electronic message from a prominent al-Qa'ida leader in which he announced his organization's responsibility for the bombings that targeted two Synagogues in Istanbul early in the week, and also al-Qa'ida's responsibility for the explosion that hit the Italian forces' headquarters in al-Nasiriyah in southern Iraq.
In his electronic message Abu-Muhammad al-Ablaj threatened to carry out devastating strikes deep inside the Japanese capital Tokyo if the Japanese Government sends troops to Iraq.
Al-Ablaj said: "We have in the past threatened Israel and the United States, and our strikes on this or that target will be painful. An example of this is what we did to the Italians in Iraq, especially against their command in al-Nasiriyah in southern Iraq.
He added: "Turkey has received its share through our strike against the two synagogues of the brothers of the monkeys and pigs. We have dealt it a blow deep in its relations with Israel.
Al-Ablaj said: The Jews and the Americans will never feel safe as long as we are alive. He went on to say: "If they are not safe at their homes, how will they be safe elsewhere in the world. We will sever the arteries and jugular veins of the United States and the Jews whatever the price. He pointed out that the date of the strike against the United States is getting closer than ever before.
In his message Al-Ablaj threatened to carry out painful strikes against Japan if it sends military forces to Iraq. He said: "If they are seeking the elimination of their economic might, devastation, and destruction under the feet of the soldiers of God, let them come to Iraq, as our strikes will reach the center of Tokyo... if they are seeking that, let them try their luck with us.
The Vanishing Case for War: none of those responsible--Bush, Cheney, Runsfeld, Wolfowitz--will be quick to admit they made a mistake
The New York Review of Books: The Vanishing Case for War: "December 4, 2003 | By Thomas Powers
1. The invasion and conquest of Iraq by the United States last spring was the result of what is probably the least ambiguous case of the misreading of secret intelligence information in American history.
To justify preemptive war on Iraq the administration made three interlocking claims—that Iraq was actively developing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear bombs; that it had a secret working relationship with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, which had been responsible for the attacks on September 11; and that the danger that Saddam Hussein would provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction was so grave that it amounted to an imminent threat.
...
The administration's justification for war was not merely flawed or imperfect—it was wrong in almost every detail, and completely wrong at the heart. There was no imminent danger—indeed there was no distant danger. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to give to al-Qaeda or anyone else. How is it possible then that the United States Congress allowed itself to be convinced to believe in this nonexistent danger, and to authorize in advance a war for which there was no justification?
...
The principal obstacle to answering this question lies in plain sight—the immense consequences of the mistake. President Bush and other high administration officials now routinely speak of the worldwide hunt for al-Qaeda and the fighting in Iraq interchangeably as "the war against terror," but the battle killing an American sol-dier every day or two has a simpler character—the United States is trying to secure its conquest of Iraq and Iraqis are resisting. Wars of occupation are ugly and hard to win but easy to drag out, and none of those responsible for getting the United States planted in Iraq—men like Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, who conceived the strategy; George Tenet and other high officials of the CIA, who chose and presented the evidence to justify war; or President Bush, who ordered it—will be quick to admit they made a mistake. ...
The New York Review of Books: The Vanishing Case for War: "December 4, 2003 | By Thomas Powers
1. The invasion and conquest of Iraq by the United States last spring was the result of what is probably the least ambiguous case of the misreading of secret intelligence information in American history.
To justify preemptive war on Iraq the administration made three interlocking claims—that Iraq was actively developing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear bombs; that it had a secret working relationship with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, which had been responsible for the attacks on September 11; and that the danger that Saddam Hussein would provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction was so grave that it amounted to an imminent threat.
...
The administration's justification for war was not merely flawed or imperfect—it was wrong in almost every detail, and completely wrong at the heart. There was no imminent danger—indeed there was no distant danger. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to give to al-Qaeda or anyone else. How is it possible then that the United States Congress allowed itself to be convinced to believe in this nonexistent danger, and to authorize in advance a war for which there was no justification?
...
The principal obstacle to answering this question lies in plain sight—the immense consequences of the mistake. President Bush and other high administration officials now routinely speak of the worldwide hunt for al-Qaeda and the fighting in Iraq interchangeably as "the war against terror," but the battle killing an American sol-dier every day or two has a simpler character—the United States is trying to secure its conquest of Iraq and Iraqis are resisting. Wars of occupation are ugly and hard to win but easy to drag out, and none of those responsible for getting the United States planted in Iraq—men like Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, who conceived the strategy; George Tenet and other high officials of the CIA, who chose and presented the evidence to justify war; or President Bush, who ordered it—will be quick to admit they made a mistake. ...
Reaping the whirlwind: meeting violence with an even greater violence: are their policies in the Middle East steadily making matters worse?
Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Reaping the whirlwind: "Leader | Friday November 21, 2003 | The Guardian
Another terrible terrorist atrocity, another steely vow to crush the terrorists. How long can this go on? George Bush and Tony Blair were united yesterday in their determination 'to defeat this evil'. ... The president claimed, again, that the struggle against al-Qaida and its allies is being won. But the evidence suggests otherwise.
...
... Yesterday's promises of unflinching retribution may be thought understandable. Yet it cannot merely come down to a matter of killing "them" before they kill "us". That is not a policy; that is capitulation to violence. Mr Bush and Mr Blair must consider some far deeper questions, beyond the primary issues of security. Who is this enemy that seems both invisible and ubiquitous? What causes this pitiless hatred? To say simply that they "hate freedom" is no explanation. Do Mr Bush and Mr Blair really believe this is a war that can definitively be won? And are their policies in the Middle East and beyond steadily making matters worse, not better?
...
Al-Qaida's stratagem is sustained, secondly, by one principal tool - horrific, random violence. Yet by meeting violence with an even greater violence of their own, the US and its allies have sometimes appeared to descend, in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, to that same brutish level. ... The use of force in Iraq, now enshrined as a governing principle by Mr Bush, invited a highly aggressive response. That response is in progress. The whirlwind is being reaped.
Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Reaping the whirlwind: "Leader | Friday November 21, 2003 | The Guardian
Another terrible terrorist atrocity, another steely vow to crush the terrorists. How long can this go on? George Bush and Tony Blair were united yesterday in their determination 'to defeat this evil'. ... The president claimed, again, that the struggle against al-Qaida and its allies is being won. But the evidence suggests otherwise.
...
... Yesterday's promises of unflinching retribution may be thought understandable. Yet it cannot merely come down to a matter of killing "them" before they kill "us". That is not a policy; that is capitulation to violence. Mr Bush and Mr Blair must consider some far deeper questions, beyond the primary issues of security. Who is this enemy that seems both invisible and ubiquitous? What causes this pitiless hatred? To say simply that they "hate freedom" is no explanation. Do Mr Bush and Mr Blair really believe this is a war that can definitively be won? And are their policies in the Middle East and beyond steadily making matters worse, not better?
...
Al-Qaida's stratagem is sustained, secondly, by one principal tool - horrific, random violence. Yet by meeting violence with an even greater violence of their own, the US and its allies have sometimes appeared to descend, in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, to that same brutish level. ... The use of force in Iraq, now enshrined as a governing principle by Mr Bush, invited a highly aggressive response. That response is in progress. The whirlwind is being reaped.
Soros: heedless assertion of American power in the world resembles a financial bubble-and the moment of truth may be here
The Atlantic | December 2003 | The Bubble of American Supremacy | Soros: "by George Soros
A prominent financier argues that the heedless assertion of American power in the world resembles a financial bubble-and the moment of truth may be here
It is generally agreed that September 11, 2001, changed the course of history. But we must ask ourselves why that should be so. How could a single event, even one involving 3,000 civilian casualties, have such a far-reaching effect? The answer lies not so much in the event itself as in the way the United States, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, responded to it.
...
This foreign policy is part of a comprehensive ideology customarily referred to as neoconservatism ... in international relations it is now leading to the pursuit of American supremacy.
Not all the members of the Bush Administration subscribe to this ideology, but neoconservatives form an influential group within it. They publicly called for the invasion of Iraq as early as 1998. Their ideas originated in the Cold War and were further elaborated in the post-Cold War era. Before September 11 the ideologues were hindered in implementing their strategy by two considerations: George W. Bush did not have a clear mandate (he became President by virtue of a single vote in the Supreme Court), and America did not have a clearly defined enemy that would have justified a dramatic increase in military spending.
September 11 removed both obstacles. President Bush declared war on terrorism, and the nation lined up behind its President. Then the Bush Administration proceeded to exploit the terrorist attack for its own purposes. It fostered the fear that has gripped the country in order to keep the nation united behind the President, and it used the war on terrorism to execute an agenda of American supremacy. That is how September 11 changed the course of history.
...
The Bush doctrine, first enunciated in a presidential speech at West Point in June of 2002, and incorporated into the National Security Strategy three months later, is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
...
... The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.
The size of the chasm is impressive. On September 12, 2001, a special meeting of the North Atlantic Council invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first time in the alliance's history, calling on all member states to treat the terrorist attack on the United States as an attack upon their own soil. The United Nations promptly endorsed punitive U.S. action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. A little more than a year later the United States could not secure a UN resolution to endorse the invasion of Iraq. Gerhard Schröder won re-election in Germany by refusing to cooperate with the United States. In South Korea an underdog candidate was elected to the presidency because he was considered the least friendly to the United States; many South Koreans regard the United States as a greater danger to their security than North Korea. A large majority throughout the world opposed the war on Iraq.
...
Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly, President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode roughshod over the opinions of our allies. The gap between the Administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. ...
The Atlantic | December 2003 | The Bubble of American Supremacy | Soros: "by George Soros
A prominent financier argues that the heedless assertion of American power in the world resembles a financial bubble-and the moment of truth may be here
It is generally agreed that September 11, 2001, changed the course of history. But we must ask ourselves why that should be so. How could a single event, even one involving 3,000 civilian casualties, have such a far-reaching effect? The answer lies not so much in the event itself as in the way the United States, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, responded to it.
...
This foreign policy is part of a comprehensive ideology customarily referred to as neoconservatism ... in international relations it is now leading to the pursuit of American supremacy.
Not all the members of the Bush Administration subscribe to this ideology, but neoconservatives form an influential group within it. They publicly called for the invasion of Iraq as early as 1998. Their ideas originated in the Cold War and were further elaborated in the post-Cold War era. Before September 11 the ideologues were hindered in implementing their strategy by two considerations: George W. Bush did not have a clear mandate (he became President by virtue of a single vote in the Supreme Court), and America did not have a clearly defined enemy that would have justified a dramatic increase in military spending.
September 11 removed both obstacles. President Bush declared war on terrorism, and the nation lined up behind its President. Then the Bush Administration proceeded to exploit the terrorist attack for its own purposes. It fostered the fear that has gripped the country in order to keep the nation united behind the President, and it used the war on terrorism to execute an agenda of American supremacy. That is how September 11 changed the course of history.
...
The Bush doctrine, first enunciated in a presidential speech at West Point in June of 2002, and incorporated into the National Security Strategy three months later, is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
...
... The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.
The size of the chasm is impressive. On September 12, 2001, a special meeting of the North Atlantic Council invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first time in the alliance's history, calling on all member states to treat the terrorist attack on the United States as an attack upon their own soil. The United Nations promptly endorsed punitive U.S. action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. A little more than a year later the United States could not secure a UN resolution to endorse the invasion of Iraq. Gerhard Schröder won re-election in Germany by refusing to cooperate with the United States. In South Korea an underdog candidate was elected to the presidency because he was considered the least friendly to the United States; many South Koreans regard the United States as a greater danger to their security than North Korea. A large majority throughout the world opposed the war on Iraq.
...
Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly, President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode roughshod over the opinions of our allies. The gap between the Administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. ...
Carter chides U.S. on rights: Guantanamo Bay and immigaration round-up is "a violation of the basic character of my country"
ajc.com | News | Carter chides U.S. on rights: "By MARK BIXLER | The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday civil liberties have eroded in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and that, in turn, has emboldened governments worldwide to abuse human rights under the guise of fighting terrorism.
The Bush administration set a bad precedent by indefinitely detaining 680 foreign nationals captured in Afghanistan at a U.S. naval base in Cuba, Carter said. The Supreme Court agreed this week to review the legality of the detentions.
Carter also said the United States sent a worrisome signal by rounding up hundreds of Arabs and Muslims in this country for breaking immigration law in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Many were held for months with no formal charges.
'This is a violation of the basic character of my country and it's very disturbing to me,' Carter said at an Atlanta conference of rights activists.
...
Carter's remarks came the same day that Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, said the United States made a "major error" by indefinitely detaining people in Cuba. She said a Spanish national is being held for suspected ties to al-Qaida and "this situation cannot continue."
Bush's staunchest international supporter, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, had also appealed to the president a few months ago on behalf of nine Britons held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He sought their return to stand trial in Britain or, barring that, a guarantee of a fair trial with no possible death sentence.
...
Karin Ryan, senior human rights adviser to the Carter Center, said tyrants also point to the detentions in Cuba to justify harsh measures.
"What dictators all over the world are saying is: 'The United States has no moral authority to criticize human rights violations when they have put in cages more than 600 people without any prospect of a fair trial,' " she said.
ajc.com | News | Carter chides U.S. on rights: "By MARK BIXLER | The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday civil liberties have eroded in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and that, in turn, has emboldened governments worldwide to abuse human rights under the guise of fighting terrorism.
The Bush administration set a bad precedent by indefinitely detaining 680 foreign nationals captured in Afghanistan at a U.S. naval base in Cuba, Carter said. The Supreme Court agreed this week to review the legality of the detentions.
Carter also said the United States sent a worrisome signal by rounding up hundreds of Arabs and Muslims in this country for breaking immigration law in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Many were held for months with no formal charges.
'This is a violation of the basic character of my country and it's very disturbing to me,' Carter said at an Atlanta conference of rights activists.
...
Carter's remarks came the same day that Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, said the United States made a "major error" by indefinitely detaining people in Cuba. She said a Spanish national is being held for suspected ties to al-Qaida and "this situation cannot continue."
Bush's staunchest international supporter, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, had also appealed to the president a few months ago on behalf of nine Britons held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He sought their return to stand trial in Britain or, barring that, a guarantee of a fair trial with no possible death sentence.
...
Karin Ryan, senior human rights adviser to the Carter Center, said tyrants also point to the detentions in Cuba to justify harsh measures.
"What dictators all over the world are saying is: 'The United States has no moral authority to criticize human rights violations when they have put in cages more than 600 people without any prospect of a fair trial,' " she said.
The president's real goal in Iraq [published 6 months BEFORE the war started]
The president's real goal in Iraq: "By JAY BOOKMAN | 29 September 2002. [Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
...
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
...
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report [2002 National Security Strategy] lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
...
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
...
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. [ ... repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty ... a commitment to a global missile defense system ... increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent ... development of small nuclear warheads, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator -- the Senate has so far balked.]
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.
Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department. [Perle is ex-chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board,
...
More specifically, they [PNAC] argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. [.. written by Wolfowitz and Cheney.ed ]
...
... Kagan [co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project], for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.
"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
...
"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," [Kagan] notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."
The president's real goal in Iraq: "By JAY BOOKMAN | 29 September 2002. [Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
...
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
...
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report [2002 National Security Strategy] lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
...
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
...
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. [ ... repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty ... a commitment to a global missile defense system ... increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent ... development of small nuclear warheads, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator -- the Senate has so far balked.]
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.
Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department. [Perle is ex-chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board,
...
More specifically, they [PNAC] argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. [.. written by Wolfowitz and Cheney.ed ]
...
... Kagan [co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project], for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.
"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
...
"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," [Kagan] notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."
The Project for the New American Century
The Project for the New American Century: "William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
... When the Towers [9-11 in New York] came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
...
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier ...
...
In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons ...
...
Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to.
The Project for the New American Century: "William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
... When the Towers [9-11 in New York] came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
...
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier ...
...
In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons ...
...
Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to.
The Price For An Infantile Attempt To Reshape The Middle East
We Are Paying The Price For An Infantile Attempt To Reshape The Middle East: "By Robert Fisk | November 21, 2003 | The Independent
It's the price of joining George Bush's 'war on terror'. They couldn't hit Britain while Bush was on his triumphalist state visit to London, so they went for the jugular in Turkey. The British consulate, the British-headquartered HSBC bank. London-abroad. And of course, no one -- least of all the Turks -- imagined they would strike twice in the same place. Turkey had already had its dose of attacks, hadn't it?
...
The Australians paid the price for John Howard's alliance with Bush in Bali. The Italians paid the price for Silvio Berlusconi's alliance with Bush in Nasiriyah. Now it is our turn. Al-Qa'ida was quite specific. The Saudis would pay. The Australians would pay. The Italians would pay. The British would pay. They have. Canada is still on the list. Until, I suppose, it is our turn again. Even in 1997, Osama bin Laden would repeat to me that Britain would only escape Islamic "anger" if it pulled out of the Gulf. Nor do these mass murders have just one purpose. Turkey is allied to Israel. Ariel Sharon has visited Ankara. Turkey is hated in Iraq and much of the Arab world, partly for its Ottoman antecedents.
...
But we go on misunderstanding. Take those tiresome speeches by Osama bin Laden. When his audio-tapes are aired, we journalists always take the same line. Is it really him? Is he alive? That becomes our only story. But the Arab response is quite different. They know it's him. And they listen to what he says. So should we. [Note: Palestine was the number one issue in Bin Laden's Letter to America several years ago. ed.]
...
But alas, we still pedal the old myths, as George Bush did in London on Wednesday. His speech contained the usual untruths. Note, for example, the list of attacks he gave us: "Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombasa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad and Istanbul". Najaf may well have nothing to do with al-Qa'ida but the suicide bombings in Jerusalem, vicious though they are, have absolutely nothing to do with our "war on terror". They are part of a brutal anti-colonial struggle between Palestinians and Israelis. Yet the inclusion of Jerusalem allows Ariel Sharon to join his war against the Palestinians to Bush's war against al-Qa'ida. This mendacity continued. Israel, said Bush, had to "freeze" settlements on Palestinian land -- not close them down -- and only dismantle what he artfully called "unauthorised outposts".
"Outposts" is Israel's word for the most recent land seizures in the West Bank ... [Is Bush trying to curry favor with the international Jewish community or just trying to further alienate the Arabs and Bin Laden? ed.]
...
Bush claimed yet again that we "tolerated" the dictatorships of the Middle East. Rubbish. We created them ...
...
Where, oh where are we going? How much longer must we suffer this false account of history? How much longer must we willfully misread what we are doing and what is being done to us?
We Are Paying The Price For An Infantile Attempt To Reshape The Middle East: "By Robert Fisk | November 21, 2003 | The Independent
It's the price of joining George Bush's 'war on terror'. They couldn't hit Britain while Bush was on his triumphalist state visit to London, so they went for the jugular in Turkey. The British consulate, the British-headquartered HSBC bank. London-abroad. And of course, no one -- least of all the Turks -- imagined they would strike twice in the same place. Turkey had already had its dose of attacks, hadn't it?
...
The Australians paid the price for John Howard's alliance with Bush in Bali. The Italians paid the price for Silvio Berlusconi's alliance with Bush in Nasiriyah. Now it is our turn. Al-Qa'ida was quite specific. The Saudis would pay. The Australians would pay. The Italians would pay. The British would pay. They have. Canada is still on the list. Until, I suppose, it is our turn again. Even in 1997, Osama bin Laden would repeat to me that Britain would only escape Islamic "anger" if it pulled out of the Gulf. Nor do these mass murders have just one purpose. Turkey is allied to Israel. Ariel Sharon has visited Ankara. Turkey is hated in Iraq and much of the Arab world, partly for its Ottoman antecedents.
...
But we go on misunderstanding. Take those tiresome speeches by Osama bin Laden. When his audio-tapes are aired, we journalists always take the same line. Is it really him? Is he alive? That becomes our only story. But the Arab response is quite different. They know it's him. And they listen to what he says. So should we. [Note: Palestine was the number one issue in Bin Laden's Letter to America several years ago. ed.]
...
But alas, we still pedal the old myths, as George Bush did in London on Wednesday. His speech contained the usual untruths. Note, for example, the list of attacks he gave us: "Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombasa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad and Istanbul". Najaf may well have nothing to do with al-Qa'ida but the suicide bombings in Jerusalem, vicious though they are, have absolutely nothing to do with our "war on terror". They are part of a brutal anti-colonial struggle between Palestinians and Israelis. Yet the inclusion of Jerusalem allows Ariel Sharon to join his war against the Palestinians to Bush's war against al-Qa'ida. This mendacity continued. Israel, said Bush, had to "freeze" settlements on Palestinian land -- not close them down -- and only dismantle what he artfully called "unauthorised outposts".
"Outposts" is Israel's word for the most recent land seizures in the West Bank ... [Is Bush trying to curry favor with the international Jewish community or just trying to further alienate the Arabs and Bin Laden? ed.]
...
Bush claimed yet again that we "tolerated" the dictatorships of the Middle East. Rubbish. We created them ...
...
Where, oh where are we going? How much longer must we suffer this false account of history? How much longer must we willfully misread what we are doing and what is being done to us?
Monday, November 24, 2003
U.S. must embrace Mideast to help it heal
ajc.com | Opinion | U.S. must embrace Mideast to help it heal: "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 11/20/03 ] AJC.COM SPECIAL | By AVRAHAM BURG
The bodies keep piling up in the Middle East. The cries of the victims, the keening of the mourners and the wail of the sirens have turned the Middle Eastern symphony into a terrible, hopeless saber dance. Once again despair has conquered hope. Once again the petty details have banished the great dream.
And there in the background, fading off into the horizon, is the president of the United States, carrying in his backpack the road map that was supposed to bring us out of our hell into the light of peace.
...
This is a war between two refugee nations that dreamed of a great land that each might have to itself, only to wake up and discover that somebody else was there, the dream was compromised and the day-to-day reality was turning into a nightmare.
Now, each of these nations has come to represent an entire civilization standing behind it. One half of the globe, the Arab-Muslim civilization, seems pitted against the other, Judeo-Christian, half. But that is not the way it looks from here.
From here, it looks like this: For years now, they have been killing us without pity, and we have been humiliating them without regard.
...
You must still the winds of bullying unilateralism that are blowing through the corridors of Washington, urging a bottom line without a process, "solutions" in simple primary colors that lack the nuance and subtlety of Middle Eastern complexity.
You must still the drums of a religious crusade. A war against terrorism, yes. A struggle for the ideal of democracy and the values of tolerance, certainly. But a religious war, a new crusade? No thanks, we have entirely too much God already in the Middle East.
When President Bush comes back, he must come alone, without the baggage of fundamentalist clerics and would-be world redeemers, Christian evangelists pushing the rest of us toward Armageddon. It wasn't for this that my people returned to the stage of history.
And you must take your own advice. For years you have been preaching to us. "Swallow your pride," you said, "and compromise with the Palestinians." And for years you have been pressuring the Palestinians to swallow their own pride and compromise with the Israelis. The time has come, United States, for you, too, to swallow your pride. Speak with Europe. Involve the main Arab states. Without a coordinated international diplomatic effort, peace hasn't got a chance.
...
And most important, don't run off to Texas the moment things get tough. ...
ajc.com | Opinion | U.S. must embrace Mideast to help it heal: "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 11/20/03 ] AJC.COM SPECIAL | By AVRAHAM BURG
The bodies keep piling up in the Middle East. The cries of the victims, the keening of the mourners and the wail of the sirens have turned the Middle Eastern symphony into a terrible, hopeless saber dance. Once again despair has conquered hope. Once again the petty details have banished the great dream.
And there in the background, fading off into the horizon, is the president of the United States, carrying in his backpack the road map that was supposed to bring us out of our hell into the light of peace.
...
This is a war between two refugee nations that dreamed of a great land that each might have to itself, only to wake up and discover that somebody else was there, the dream was compromised and the day-to-day reality was turning into a nightmare.
Now, each of these nations has come to represent an entire civilization standing behind it. One half of the globe, the Arab-Muslim civilization, seems pitted against the other, Judeo-Christian, half. But that is not the way it looks from here.
From here, it looks like this: For years now, they have been killing us without pity, and we have been humiliating them without regard.
...
You must still the winds of bullying unilateralism that are blowing through the corridors of Washington, urging a bottom line without a process, "solutions" in simple primary colors that lack the nuance and subtlety of Middle Eastern complexity.
You must still the drums of a religious crusade. A war against terrorism, yes. A struggle for the ideal of democracy and the values of tolerance, certainly. But a religious war, a new crusade? No thanks, we have entirely too much God already in the Middle East.
When President Bush comes back, he must come alone, without the baggage of fundamentalist clerics and would-be world redeemers, Christian evangelists pushing the rest of us toward Armageddon. It wasn't for this that my people returned to the stage of history.
And you must take your own advice. For years you have been preaching to us. "Swallow your pride," you said, "and compromise with the Palestinians." And for years you have been pressuring the Palestinians to swallow their own pride and compromise with the Israelis. The time has come, United States, for you, too, to swallow your pride. Speak with Europe. Involve the main Arab states. Without a coordinated international diplomatic effort, peace hasn't got a chance.
...
And most important, don't run off to Texas the moment things get tough. ...
War in Iraq is almost certainly diverting key resources and alienating key allies for the War on Terror against Al-Qaida
Moving Targets: "Terror wave: New bombings, and worries about a ‘spectacular.’ Al Qaeda is badly wounded, but far from defeated | By Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball | NEWSWEEK | Dec. 1 issue
...
Although the administration likes to say that the war in Iraq and the war on terror are inseparable, the former has almost certainly diverted resources from the latter. Arabic translators, always in short supply, are in demand to interrogate Iraqi prisoners and help American soldiers talk to the locals. Meanwhile, in Washington, transcripts of electronic intercepts of possible terrorist conversations pile up, unread and untranslated for weeks. Similarly, many Special Operations soldiers who had been chasing through the mountains of Afghanistan looking for bin Laden and his followers were shifted over to Iraq to spend months fruitlessly searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Administration officials insist that they have not been robbing Peter to pay Paul in the war on terror. Much of what the CIA knows about Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists comes from other intelligence services. The Egyptians or Jordanians are much more likely to get inside an Islamic terror network than the Americans. Countries that don’t always observe democratic niceties sometimes have more effective interrogation methods (the Egyptians have been known to closely question a suspect’s family members). The CIA has a pipeline, lubricated by large amounts of cash, to the secret police in various Middle Eastern countries.
Still, the war in Iraq has not helped foster these special relationships. The security services of Middle Eastern despots are not enthusiastic about promises of democratic change coming from Bush, who made clear in his speech last week in England that America would push even its allies to become more democratic. After 9/11, Syrian intelligence began working with the CIA against a common enemy, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which wanted to both overthrow the Assad regime and help Al Qaeda attack the United States. But, intelligence sources tell NEWSWEEK, the neocons in the Pentagon have been undermining that relationship by accusing (without much proof) the Syrians of encouraging jihadists to cross into Iraq and of hiding Saddam’s WMD inside Syria.
Moving Targets: "Terror wave: New bombings, and worries about a ‘spectacular.’ Al Qaeda is badly wounded, but far from defeated | By Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball | NEWSWEEK | Dec. 1 issue
...
Although the administration likes to say that the war in Iraq and the war on terror are inseparable, the former has almost certainly diverted resources from the latter. Arabic translators, always in short supply, are in demand to interrogate Iraqi prisoners and help American soldiers talk to the locals. Meanwhile, in Washington, transcripts of electronic intercepts of possible terrorist conversations pile up, unread and untranslated for weeks. Similarly, many Special Operations soldiers who had been chasing through the mountains of Afghanistan looking for bin Laden and his followers were shifted over to Iraq to spend months fruitlessly searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Administration officials insist that they have not been robbing Peter to pay Paul in the war on terror. Much of what the CIA knows about Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists comes from other intelligence services. The Egyptians or Jordanians are much more likely to get inside an Islamic terror network than the Americans. Countries that don’t always observe democratic niceties sometimes have more effective interrogation methods (the Egyptians have been known to closely question a suspect’s family members). The CIA has a pipeline, lubricated by large amounts of cash, to the secret police in various Middle Eastern countries.
Still, the war in Iraq has not helped foster these special relationships. The security services of Middle Eastern despots are not enthusiastic about promises of democratic change coming from Bush, who made clear in his speech last week in England that America would push even its allies to become more democratic. After 9/11, Syrian intelligence began working with the CIA against a common enemy, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which wanted to both overthrow the Assad regime and help Al Qaeda attack the United States. But, intelligence sources tell NEWSWEEK, the neocons in the Pentagon have been undermining that relationship by accusing (without much proof) the Syrians of encouraging jihadists to cross into Iraq and of hiding Saddam’s WMD inside Syria.
A wall of strangulation is being built in the West Bank and Jerusalem
A strangulation fence: "24.11.2003 0:01:00 Ha'aretz | By Danny Rubinstein
Despite all the criticism of the separation fence both in Israel and abroad, a majority of the Israeli public is still enthusiastic about it (83 percent support it, as opposed to 12 percent who are against it, according to the Peace Index of October, 2003, as published in Haaretz on November 4). This enthusiasm clearly has a security background, but also a political background. Everyone who wants to arrive at the solution of two states for two peoples supports separation between the two entities - and if separation, then why not a fence?
...
Among the Palestinian public, the picture is different. Their main sources of employment are in Israel, and they also want free access to the centers of commerce, medical services and recreational sites in Israel. But the official Palestinian position cannot be opposed in principle to the fence; they oppose only any deviation of the separation wall from the Green Line (the pre-June 1967 border). Palestinian spokespersons have frequently stated: Israel is entitled to build as many fences and walls as it wants - but only inside its own territories and not in the Palestinian territories.
...
The deviations of the fence from the old 1967 border into the territories are not a marginal issue in the affair. They are the main issue. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his government ministers, who support the fence, are exploiting the large public support that there is in Israel for ideas of separation in order to build fences and walls. However, more than these stand between Israelis and Palestinians - they are creating, in a large part of the West Bank, a reality of siege and distress in which the Palestinians cannot live. It sometimes seems that most of the Israeli public that so yearns for separation and security does not realize that in fact a wall of strangulation is being built in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
A strangulation fence: "24.11.2003 0:01:00 Ha'aretz | By Danny Rubinstein
Despite all the criticism of the separation fence both in Israel and abroad, a majority of the Israeli public is still enthusiastic about it (83 percent support it, as opposed to 12 percent who are against it, according to the Peace Index of October, 2003, as published in Haaretz on November 4). This enthusiasm clearly has a security background, but also a political background. Everyone who wants to arrive at the solution of two states for two peoples supports separation between the two entities - and if separation, then why not a fence?
...
Among the Palestinian public, the picture is different. Their main sources of employment are in Israel, and they also want free access to the centers of commerce, medical services and recreational sites in Israel. But the official Palestinian position cannot be opposed in principle to the fence; they oppose only any deviation of the separation wall from the Green Line (the pre-June 1967 border). Palestinian spokespersons have frequently stated: Israel is entitled to build as many fences and walls as it wants - but only inside its own territories and not in the Palestinian territories.
...
The deviations of the fence from the old 1967 border into the territories are not a marginal issue in the affair. They are the main issue. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his government ministers, who support the fence, are exploiting the large public support that there is in Israel for ideas of separation in order to build fences and walls. However, more than these stand between Israelis and Palestinians - they are creating, in a large part of the West Bank, a reality of siege and distress in which the Palestinians cannot live. It sometimes seems that most of the Israeli public that so yearns for separation and security does not realize that in fact a wall of strangulation is being built in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
America and the world: Can the United States ever work comfortably with the UN?
Economist.com | America and the world: "Binding the colossus | Nov 20th 2003 | NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition
Can the United States ever work comfortably with international institutions? First, we consider the United Nations; next, the International Criminal Court
Few, however, want to see a world in which the strongest decide when and against whom to use unilateral pre-emptive force—tempting others to follow suit. An agreed set of guidelines is evidently needed. And the difficulty is not only how to set clear rules, but how to bolster the legitimacy of the body that enforces them.
The United States has long been tempted to see itself as the enforcer of the rules. ...
...
They have also felt frustrated, most keenly in the case of Iraq, that the multi-voiced UN is so slow to move in the direction they desire. In his speech in London on November 19th, Mr Bush said both the credibility of the UN, and its relevance, depended on “a willingness to keep its word and to act when action is required.” Richard Perle, a leading neo-conservative and adviser to the Pentagon, has questioned whether a “coalition of liberal democracies” would not be better able to confer legitimacy on military action than the UN.
The principal object of everyone's criticism is the Security Council, the 15-member body responsible for taking the key decisions over war and peace. Composed of five powerful permanent members with veto rights—the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain—and ten elected rotating members without a veto, it is widely seen as anachronistic and woefully unrepresentative of today's geopolitical realities. Why, for example, should Russia, with a GDP smaller than the Netherlands', have a permanent seat, rather than Japan, the world's second-biggest economy? Why not give India a seat, or Brazil?
...
... Now, in Mr Annan's view, the need for reform is urgent. “Unless the Security Council regains the confidence of states and world public opinion,” he said in September, “individual states will increasingly resort exclusively to their own national perceptions of emerging threats and how best to deal with them.”
...
But an enlarged Security Council is likely to produce even greater discordance, not less. To make agreement easier, some have proposed abolishing the whole veto system. But without the veto, many of the big members—especially the United States—would be even more tempted to work outside the UN.
Economist.com | America and the world: "Binding the colossus | Nov 20th 2003 | NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition
Can the United States ever work comfortably with international institutions? First, we consider the United Nations; next, the International Criminal Court
Few, however, want to see a world in which the strongest decide when and against whom to use unilateral pre-emptive force—tempting others to follow suit. An agreed set of guidelines is evidently needed. And the difficulty is not only how to set clear rules, but how to bolster the legitimacy of the body that enforces them.
The United States has long been tempted to see itself as the enforcer of the rules. ...
...
They have also felt frustrated, most keenly in the case of Iraq, that the multi-voiced UN is so slow to move in the direction they desire. In his speech in London on November 19th, Mr Bush said both the credibility of the UN, and its relevance, depended on “a willingness to keep its word and to act when action is required.” Richard Perle, a leading neo-conservative and adviser to the Pentagon, has questioned whether a “coalition of liberal democracies” would not be better able to confer legitimacy on military action than the UN.
The principal object of everyone's criticism is the Security Council, the 15-member body responsible for taking the key decisions over war and peace. Composed of five powerful permanent members with veto rights—the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain—and ten elected rotating members without a veto, it is widely seen as anachronistic and woefully unrepresentative of today's geopolitical realities. Why, for example, should Russia, with a GDP smaller than the Netherlands', have a permanent seat, rather than Japan, the world's second-biggest economy? Why not give India a seat, or Brazil?
...
... Now, in Mr Annan's view, the need for reform is urgent. “Unless the Security Council regains the confidence of states and world public opinion,” he said in September, “individual states will increasingly resort exclusively to their own national perceptions of emerging threats and how best to deal with them.”
...
But an enlarged Security Council is likely to produce even greater discordance, not less. To make agreement easier, some have proposed abolishing the whole veto system. But without the veto, many of the big members—especially the United States—would be even more tempted to work outside the UN.
Hezbollah chief threatens to strike at heart of Israel [IF ISRAEL ATTACKS], blames US for terror
Yahoo! News - Hezbollah chief threatens to strike at heart of Israel, blames US for terror: "Fri Nov 21, 2:09 PM ET
BEIRUT (AFP) - The leader of the Lebanese-based Shiite fundamentalist movement Hezbollah threatened to strike at the heart of Israel if the Jewish state acted on threats to attack Lebanon or Syria.
Speaking to thousands of supporters in Beirut, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah also said the United States was the chief culprit behind attacks against Western interests across the Middle East.
...
Turning his attention to incessant violence in Iraq (news - web sites), and this month's bombings in Riyadh and Istanbul, Nasrallah said: "Hatred of the United States has not stopped growing."
"If you consider what happened in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and elsewhere, condemnation must be levelled primarily against the United States, even before knowing who is behind" these attacks, he told the crowd.
"The fact that the United States propagates democracy in the region, does nothing to diminish its responsibility for instability and death in the region," he added.
"The United States is a serious threat to the stability and security of the region," he said, likening the US-led occupation of Iraq with Israel's continued presence in the Palestinian territories, which would "lead to the destruction of the state of Israel," he said.
Yahoo! News - Hezbollah chief threatens to strike at heart of Israel, blames US for terror: "Fri Nov 21, 2:09 PM ET
BEIRUT (AFP) - The leader of the Lebanese-based Shiite fundamentalist movement Hezbollah threatened to strike at the heart of Israel if the Jewish state acted on threats to attack Lebanon or Syria.
Speaking to thousands of supporters in Beirut, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah also said the United States was the chief culprit behind attacks against Western interests across the Middle East.
...
Turning his attention to incessant violence in Iraq (news - web sites), and this month's bombings in Riyadh and Istanbul, Nasrallah said: "Hatred of the United States has not stopped growing."
"If you consider what happened in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and elsewhere, condemnation must be levelled primarily against the United States, even before knowing who is behind" these attacks, he told the crowd.
"The fact that the United States propagates democracy in the region, does nothing to diminish its responsibility for instability and death in the region," he added.
"The United States is a serious threat to the stability and security of the region," he said, likening the US-led occupation of Iraq with Israel's continued presence in the Palestinian territories, which would "lead to the destruction of the state of Israel," he said.
'Why is Israel the 'hope of the Jewish people': what Israel? what hope? which Jewish people?
When Jews wrestled with Zion: "by Bradford R. Pilcher | November 23, 2003 | The Jewsweek review.
...
What is it to be pro-Israel? What does it mean to say, "I support the Jewish state?" Most, particularly in the American Jewish community, have assumed to be pro-Israel was to be unified in support of Israeli policies. Internal dissent was allowable perhaps, but to criticize the Israeli government in public simply wasn't kosher. Even when the Israeli government was right wing, engaging in actions that made American Jews squirm, the rule has still held.
Wrestling With Zion, a new anthology of liberal Jewish American voices on the Arab-Israeli conflict, questions that uniformity of support and dearth of critical discourse. It disparages the Israeli government, questions the foundations of Zionism, and wonders in print whether the Jewish state can, or should, continue to exist. The range of voices is wide and diverse. Some oppose Zionism outright, while others take pains to frame their criticism as constructive internal dissent, the voices of Zionists struggling to correct whatever imbalances threaten the moral fiber of Israel.
More than a few contributors are Jewish in lineage only, barely connected to the traditions and religious outlook of the Jewish people. Others are deeply committed to the religious future of Judaism, even as they buck the ruling strictures of rabbinic writ. What all of them share is a "sense of urgency, refusing to ignore the catastrophic injustice that has been visited upon the Palestinian people."
That injustice is, of course, why this book exists. ...
...
... "Why is Israel the 'hope of the Jewish people'," they ask. "In what sense is 'hope' meant? In what sense 'the Jewish people'? If one doesn't feel hopeful, looking at Israel ... or if one feels more hopeful, even feels more hope for Jews ... in the American democratic project; if Israel is not one's 'hope,' is one therefore not a Jew?"
...
The introduction is focused, dressing down the Jewish community for refusing to recognize the Palestinian side of the conflict, a failing of our most fundamental memory that we were once oppressed, as well as failing to address the internal ramifications of Israel. "They fail to recognize even the existence of the Palestinian people," writes Kushner and Solomon, in reference to various proclamations of pro-Israel support. "Since almost all the signers are Jews who have lived privileged, if not downright blessed, existences in the United States ... a series of questions naturally come to mind."
...
... Seth Ackerman writes, much to the vexation of media watchdogs such as CAMERA or Honest Reporting, of the media bias in favor of Israel. Michael Massing explores how the Jewish leadership is more right wing than their community, turning AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations into mouthpieces for a minority within a minority.
...
... Arthur Miller who implores Israel to choose justice and inspires with the words, "Israel was far more than a political entity, let alone a geographic place." ...
When Jews wrestled with Zion: "by Bradford R. Pilcher | November 23, 2003 | The Jewsweek review.
...
What is it to be pro-Israel? What does it mean to say, "I support the Jewish state?" Most, particularly in the American Jewish community, have assumed to be pro-Israel was to be unified in support of Israeli policies. Internal dissent was allowable perhaps, but to criticize the Israeli government in public simply wasn't kosher. Even when the Israeli government was right wing, engaging in actions that made American Jews squirm, the rule has still held.
Wrestling With Zion, a new anthology of liberal Jewish American voices on the Arab-Israeli conflict, questions that uniformity of support and dearth of critical discourse. It disparages the Israeli government, questions the foundations of Zionism, and wonders in print whether the Jewish state can, or should, continue to exist. The range of voices is wide and diverse. Some oppose Zionism outright, while others take pains to frame their criticism as constructive internal dissent, the voices of Zionists struggling to correct whatever imbalances threaten the moral fiber of Israel.
More than a few contributors are Jewish in lineage only, barely connected to the traditions and religious outlook of the Jewish people. Others are deeply committed to the religious future of Judaism, even as they buck the ruling strictures of rabbinic writ. What all of them share is a "sense of urgency, refusing to ignore the catastrophic injustice that has been visited upon the Palestinian people."
That injustice is, of course, why this book exists. ...
...
... "Why is Israel the 'hope of the Jewish people'," they ask. "In what sense is 'hope' meant? In what sense 'the Jewish people'? If one doesn't feel hopeful, looking at Israel ... or if one feels more hopeful, even feels more hope for Jews ... in the American democratic project; if Israel is not one's 'hope,' is one therefore not a Jew?"
...
The introduction is focused, dressing down the Jewish community for refusing to recognize the Palestinian side of the conflict, a failing of our most fundamental memory that we were once oppressed, as well as failing to address the internal ramifications of Israel. "They fail to recognize even the existence of the Palestinian people," writes Kushner and Solomon, in reference to various proclamations of pro-Israel support. "Since almost all the signers are Jews who have lived privileged, if not downright blessed, existences in the United States ... a series of questions naturally come to mind."
...
... Seth Ackerman writes, much to the vexation of media watchdogs such as CAMERA or Honest Reporting, of the media bias in favor of Israel. Michael Massing explores how the Jewish leadership is more right wing than their community, turning AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations into mouthpieces for a minority within a minority.
...
... Arthur Miller who implores Israel to choose justice and inspires with the words, "Israel was far more than a political entity, let alone a geographic place." ...
Clergy Leadership Network: War and the threat of war-making as our nation's vocation is abhorrent, a prostitution of our nation's power
Clergy Leadership Network: "About the CLN
For the Clergy Leadership Network, religious faith provides the lens through which public life is viewed and consequently engaged. Faith will not allow us to be bystanders.
The American Presence in the World | back to top
We are appalled by the bullying uses of power being pursued by the current Administration! It runs counter to every religious tradition, especially the great monotheistic faiths, strong for being large enough to embrace the whole world. Religious communities have always transcended national boundaries and they maintain deep ties around the world. The vision of faith is of an inclusive human family, wherein each nation and community holds special gifts meant in their sharing to enrich life for all. Only policies that lead our country to play a cooperative and positive role in the community of nations will claim our support.
Peace for the world, rooted in justice for all, alone conveys the religious vision. Laboring aggressively for peace is our nation's calling. War and the threat of war-making as our nation's vocation is abhorrent, a prostitution of our nation's power.
We have opposed war and specifically the Iraq war increasingly seen as sold to our nation by deception and now caught in lingering occupation and an excessive burden of costs. We champion peace for the Middle East through active American participation and repudiate the buttressing of our policies with suspect biblical interpretations. Policies committed to peacemaking, including support for the international agencies that make for peace, fit best with our religious commitments.
-----
We see the international role of the United States being dramatically redefined as 'us against the world', accompanied by dangerously imperialistic overtones. No longer are our embassies beacons of security and hope but tentacles of domination, fortified against the very people with whom we are meant to engage. War and war making have been embraced and even celebrated as our nation's vocation, hypocritically justified as necessary for peace. The America embraced by the world on 9/11 has become today an America suspected, feared and even hated.
...
Responding to these urgent concerns over our present national direction, we are forming the national Clergy Leadership Network. We follow in the tradition of clergy actions that have preceded us, especially those potent public movements many of us can recall in our own lifetime: the work of G. Bromley Oxnam, Eugene Carson Blake and others who challenged McCarthyism and its hold of fear, the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the hundreds of clergy who joined him in pursuing racial justice -- legislatively assessed by then Senator Russell of Georgia: "The preachers beat us! - and the numerous groups of clergy gathered as Clergy and Laymen Concerned who stood strong against continuing the war in Vietnam.
We invite clergy from throughout the country to join us. We offer an avenue of action focused on the 2004 elections that can impact positively the direction of our nation and the leadership we choose. ...
Clergy Leadership Network: "About the CLN
For the Clergy Leadership Network, religious faith provides the lens through which public life is viewed and consequently engaged. Faith will not allow us to be bystanders.
The American Presence in the World | back to top
We are appalled by the bullying uses of power being pursued by the current Administration! It runs counter to every religious tradition, especially the great monotheistic faiths, strong for being large enough to embrace the whole world. Religious communities have always transcended national boundaries and they maintain deep ties around the world. The vision of faith is of an inclusive human family, wherein each nation and community holds special gifts meant in their sharing to enrich life for all. Only policies that lead our country to play a cooperative and positive role in the community of nations will claim our support.
Peace for the world, rooted in justice for all, alone conveys the religious vision. Laboring aggressively for peace is our nation's calling. War and the threat of war-making as our nation's vocation is abhorrent, a prostitution of our nation's power.
We have opposed war and specifically the Iraq war increasingly seen as sold to our nation by deception and now caught in lingering occupation and an excessive burden of costs. We champion peace for the Middle East through active American participation and repudiate the buttressing of our policies with suspect biblical interpretations. Policies committed to peacemaking, including support for the international agencies that make for peace, fit best with our religious commitments.
-----
We see the international role of the United States being dramatically redefined as 'us against the world', accompanied by dangerously imperialistic overtones. No longer are our embassies beacons of security and hope but tentacles of domination, fortified against the very people with whom we are meant to engage. War and war making have been embraced and even celebrated as our nation's vocation, hypocritically justified as necessary for peace. The America embraced by the world on 9/11 has become today an America suspected, feared and even hated.
...
Responding to these urgent concerns over our present national direction, we are forming the national Clergy Leadership Network. We follow in the tradition of clergy actions that have preceded us, especially those potent public movements many of us can recall in our own lifetime: the work of G. Bromley Oxnam, Eugene Carson Blake and others who challenged McCarthyism and its hold of fear, the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the hundreds of clergy who joined him in pursuing racial justice -- legislatively assessed by then Senator Russell of Georgia: "The preachers beat us! - and the numerous groups of clergy gathered as Clergy and Laymen Concerned who stood strong against continuing the war in Vietnam.
We invite clergy from throughout the country to join us. We offer an avenue of action focused on the 2004 elections that can impact positively the direction of our nation and the leadership we choose. ...
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Why not invade Israel?
The Spectator.co.uk: "Why not invade Israel? 22 November 2003
If rogue nations are to be brought into line by the US, shouldn't Israel be punished for ignoring UN resolutions? Gerald Kaufman is just asking... The unprecedented security measures for President Bush's visit to Britain this week prove that the war against terrorism, launched by the United States two years ago, has certainly not been won. If further proof were needed, the atrocious terrorist acts against two synagogues in Istanbul at the weekend provide blood-spattered confirmation.
...
South of Turkey, there is Israel. It is true that the United Nations Security Council resolutions of which Iraq was in violation for a dozen years were mandatory and carried penalties, while those criticising Israel were not. That does not excuse successive Israeli governments during the past 36 years for failing to conform to Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. They would have violated even more if the United States, otherwise so assiduous in stressing the importance of international order, had not vetoed them.
Since the present regime in Israel came to office, there has been unprecedented repression of the Palestinians who the Israelis govern. The world is rightly horrified at the cruel and bloody deaths of Israeli civilians, including babies and small children, inflicted by terrorist suicide bombers. Grievous though every one of these deaths most certainly is, it cannot be denied that during the three years of the Second Intifada the Israelis have killed three times as many Palestinians, some of them terrorists (in illegal targeted assassinations) but most of them innocent civilians, including babies and pregnant women.
Now the Israelis are building an illegal security wall, reaching far into Palestinian territory, which is equally illegally annexing that territory, separating farmers from their homes, students from universities, children from schools, and which will violate the sanctity of Bethlehem. Roads into villages are being bulldozed, and the trenches which render them impassable are being filled with sewage. Some Palestinians need written permission to live in their own homes. There are 482 Israeli military checkpoints dividing Palestinian land into 300 small clusters.
...
If the United States is keen to invade countries that disrupt international standards of order, should not Israel, for example, be considered as a candidate? But, quite apart from the hard fact that even the rich and powerful US does not possess enough dollars and manpower to invade and occupy the countries I have mentioned (plus other rogue states, too many to list), is the US suited to maintaining international law?
The Spectator.co.uk: "Why not invade Israel? 22 November 2003
If rogue nations are to be brought into line by the US, shouldn't Israel be punished for ignoring UN resolutions? Gerald Kaufman is just asking... The unprecedented security measures for President Bush's visit to Britain this week prove that the war against terrorism, launched by the United States two years ago, has certainly not been won. If further proof were needed, the atrocious terrorist acts against two synagogues in Istanbul at the weekend provide blood-spattered confirmation.
...
South of Turkey, there is Israel. It is true that the United Nations Security Council resolutions of which Iraq was in violation for a dozen years were mandatory and carried penalties, while those criticising Israel were not. That does not excuse successive Israeli governments during the past 36 years for failing to conform to Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. They would have violated even more if the United States, otherwise so assiduous in stressing the importance of international order, had not vetoed them.
Since the present regime in Israel came to office, there has been unprecedented repression of the Palestinians who the Israelis govern. The world is rightly horrified at the cruel and bloody deaths of Israeli civilians, including babies and small children, inflicted by terrorist suicide bombers. Grievous though every one of these deaths most certainly is, it cannot be denied that during the three years of the Second Intifada the Israelis have killed three times as many Palestinians, some of them terrorists (in illegal targeted assassinations) but most of them innocent civilians, including babies and pregnant women.
Now the Israelis are building an illegal security wall, reaching far into Palestinian territory, which is equally illegally annexing that territory, separating farmers from their homes, students from universities, children from schools, and which will violate the sanctity of Bethlehem. Roads into villages are being bulldozed, and the trenches which render them impassable are being filled with sewage. Some Palestinians need written permission to live in their own homes. There are 482 Israeli military checkpoints dividing Palestinian land into 300 small clusters.
...
If the United States is keen to invade countries that disrupt international standards of order, should not Israel, for example, be considered as a candidate? But, quite apart from the hard fact that even the rich and powerful US does not possess enough dollars and manpower to invade and occupy the countries I have mentioned (plus other rogue states, too many to list), is the US suited to maintaining international law?
The waiting game: Israeli soldiers and the barrier between them and the harvest that is their sustenance and income for the coming year
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | The waiting game: "Monday November 24, 2003 | The Guardian
Three years ago, the acclaimed Egyptian novelist Ahdaf Soueif travelled through the West Bank to write a special report for G2. This month, she returned for the first time
Sunday October 19, the West Bank
I thought it was bad three years ago. Now the landscape itself is changed. New settlements spring up everywhere; more than 60 since I was here last. You can watch their metamorphosis from a handful of caravans, to some Portakabins, then basic bungalows and, finally, the bristling, concrete hilltop fortress that is an Israeli settlement. Hardly a Palestinian village exists without an Israeli settlement lowering down on it from above. Everywhere there is construction going on - illegally: wide, Israeli-only highways to connect the settlements to each other, great mounds of rubble and yellow steel gates to block the old roads between Palestinian villages. And there are people waiting; waiting with bundles, with briefcases, with babies, at gates, at roadblocks, at checkpoints, waiting to perform the most ordinary tasks of their everyday lives.
...
This section of the barrier has been built right up close to the western side of the village of Jayyus. ... Alongside this barrier, at short intervals, red signs in Arabic, English and Hebrew proclaim: ANY PERSON WHO PASSES OR DAMAGES THE FENCE ENDANGERS HIS LIFE.
You cannot read the signs from here, but you can see them punctuating the acres that the mayor of this village has spent the past 40 years of his life cultivating. From his office window he can watch - on his land on the other side of the barrier - his olive trees waiting to be harvested, his guava trees dropping their ripe fruit on the ground. In each of his three greenhouses, 40,000 kilograms of cucumbers are hardening.
From this village of 3,000 souls, 2,300 acres have been confiscated for the barrier. And on the other side of the barrier another 2,150 acres, with six groundwater wells, are inaccessible, 12,000 olive trees stand unharvested, and the vegetables in 120 giant greenhouses are spoiling. Three thousand five hundred sheep have been driven off the land; actually, 3,498, because one man has lost two lambs. Three hundred families are totally dependent on their farms. Now their harvest is rotting before their eyes and they cannot get to it. They are feeding their flocks the husks from last year's planting.
There are yellow steel gates in the barbed wire but they are closed. Farmers are busy making phone calls, some are going to see the Israeli military to demand that the gates be opened. Eventually, soldiers arrive. Harvesting is a family affair so the soldiers face a crowd of men, women and children. What they do is this. First they collect all their identity papers. Then they call the people out one by one. Today they have decided that no male between the ages of 12 and 38 will be allowed on his land. Also, no woman will be allowed unless she is over 28 and married. So the majority of the farmers - men, women and teenagers - stand at the gate, the Israeli soldiers and the barrier between them and the harvest that is their sustenance and income for the coming year.
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | The waiting game: "Monday November 24, 2003 | The Guardian
Three years ago, the acclaimed Egyptian novelist Ahdaf Soueif travelled through the West Bank to write a special report for G2. This month, she returned for the first time
Sunday October 19, the West Bank
I thought it was bad three years ago. Now the landscape itself is changed. New settlements spring up everywhere; more than 60 since I was here last. You can watch their metamorphosis from a handful of caravans, to some Portakabins, then basic bungalows and, finally, the bristling, concrete hilltop fortress that is an Israeli settlement. Hardly a Palestinian village exists without an Israeli settlement lowering down on it from above. Everywhere there is construction going on - illegally: wide, Israeli-only highways to connect the settlements to each other, great mounds of rubble and yellow steel gates to block the old roads between Palestinian villages. And there are people waiting; waiting with bundles, with briefcases, with babies, at gates, at roadblocks, at checkpoints, waiting to perform the most ordinary tasks of their everyday lives.
...
This section of the barrier has been built right up close to the western side of the village of Jayyus. ... Alongside this barrier, at short intervals, red signs in Arabic, English and Hebrew proclaim: ANY PERSON WHO PASSES OR DAMAGES THE FENCE ENDANGERS HIS LIFE.
You cannot read the signs from here, but you can see them punctuating the acres that the mayor of this village has spent the past 40 years of his life cultivating. From his office window he can watch - on his land on the other side of the barrier - his olive trees waiting to be harvested, his guava trees dropping their ripe fruit on the ground. In each of his three greenhouses, 40,000 kilograms of cucumbers are hardening.
From this village of 3,000 souls, 2,300 acres have been confiscated for the barrier. And on the other side of the barrier another 2,150 acres, with six groundwater wells, are inaccessible, 12,000 olive trees stand unharvested, and the vegetables in 120 giant greenhouses are spoiling. Three thousand five hundred sheep have been driven off the land; actually, 3,498, because one man has lost two lambs. Three hundred families are totally dependent on their farms. Now their harvest is rotting before their eyes and they cannot get to it. They are feeding their flocks the husks from last year's planting.
There are yellow steel gates in the barbed wire but they are closed. Farmers are busy making phone calls, some are going to see the Israeli military to demand that the gates be opened. Eventually, soldiers arrive. Harvesting is a family affair so the soldiers face a crowd of men, women and children. What they do is this. First they collect all their identity papers. Then they call the people out one by one. Today they have decided that no male between the ages of 12 and 38 will be allowed on his land. Also, no woman will be allowed unless she is over 28 and married. So the majority of the farmers - men, women and teenagers - stand at the gate, the Israeli soldiers and the barrier between them and the harvest that is their sustenance and income for the coming year.
U.S. Seeks Advice From Israel on Iraq
U.S. Seeks Advice From Israel on Iraq: "As the occupation grows bloodier, officials draw on an ally's experience with insurgents. | By Esther Schrader and Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — Facing a bloody insurgency by guerrillas who label it an 'occupier,' the U.S. military has quietly turned to an ally experienced with occupation and uprisings: Israel.
...
In the last six months, U.S. Army commanders, Pentagon officials and military trainers have sought advice from Israeli intelligence and security officials on everything from how to set up roadblocks to the best way to bomb suspected guerrilla hide-outs in an urban area.
...
The contacts between the two governments on military tactics and strategies in Iraq are mostly classified, and officials are reluctant to give the impression that the U.S. is brainstorming with Israel on the best way to occupy Iraq. Cambone said there is no formal dialogue between the two allies on Iraq, but they are working together.
...
Indeed, the U.S. is loath to draw any comparison between what it says is its liberation of Iraq and what the international community has condemned as Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
...
The Israelis "certainly have a wealth of experience from a military standpoint in dealing with domestic terror, urban terror, military operations in urban terrain, and there is a great deal of intelligence and knowledge sharing going on right now, all of which makes sense," a senior U.S. Army official said on condition of anonymity. "We are certainly tapping into their knowledge base to find out what you do in these kinds of situations."
...
Some U.S. officials acknowledge that they blanch at the idea of the Pentagon adopting tactics from Israel, a nation regularly criticized for security tactics it employs to battle armed groups it has never managed to quell. And even Israeli officials acknowledge that they are somewhat reluctant to give advice.
...
In the last week, U.S. soldiers began leveling houses and buildings used by suspected guerrillas, a tactic long employed by the Israeli military in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where they use bulldozers to knock down the homes of militants or their families.
U.S. Seeks Advice From Israel on Iraq: "As the occupation grows bloodier, officials draw on an ally's experience with insurgents. | By Esther Schrader and Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — Facing a bloody insurgency by guerrillas who label it an 'occupier,' the U.S. military has quietly turned to an ally experienced with occupation and uprisings: Israel.
...
In the last six months, U.S. Army commanders, Pentagon officials and military trainers have sought advice from Israeli intelligence and security officials on everything from how to set up roadblocks to the best way to bomb suspected guerrilla hide-outs in an urban area.
...
The contacts between the two governments on military tactics and strategies in Iraq are mostly classified, and officials are reluctant to give the impression that the U.S. is brainstorming with Israel on the best way to occupy Iraq. Cambone said there is no formal dialogue between the two allies on Iraq, but they are working together.
...
Indeed, the U.S. is loath to draw any comparison between what it says is its liberation of Iraq and what the international community has condemned as Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
...
The Israelis "certainly have a wealth of experience from a military standpoint in dealing with domestic terror, urban terror, military operations in urban terrain, and there is a great deal of intelligence and knowledge sharing going on right now, all of which makes sense," a senior U.S. Army official said on condition of anonymity. "We are certainly tapping into their knowledge base to find out what you do in these kinds of situations."
...
Some U.S. officials acknowledge that they blanch at the idea of the Pentagon adopting tactics from Israel, a nation regularly criticized for security tactics it employs to battle armed groups it has never managed to quell. And even Israeli officials acknowledge that they are somewhat reluctant to give advice.
...
In the last week, U.S. soldiers began leveling houses and buildings used by suspected guerrillas, a tactic long employed by the Israeli military in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where they use bulldozers to knock down the homes of militants or their families.
Saturday, November 22, 2003
Bush's Remark About God Assailed
Bush's Remark About God Assailed (washingtonpost.com): "Bush's Remark About God Assailed | By Alan Cooperman | Saturday, November 22, 2003; Page A06
Evangelical Christian leaders expressed dismay yesterday over President Bush's statement that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, saying it had caused discomfort within his conservative religious base. But most predicted that the political impact would be short-lived.
At a news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair in England on Thursday, a reporter noted that Bush has often said that freedom is a gift from "the Almighty" but questioned whether Bush believes that "Muslims worship the same Almighty" that he does.
Bush's remarks sent immediate shock waves through Christian Web sites and radio broadcasts....
...
The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, also issued a statement contradicting Bush.
"The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations and dispositions of the peoples that serve them. Muhammad's central message was submission; Jesus' central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities," Haggard said.
But both Land and Haggard, who are frequent visitors to the White House, doubted that the remark would cost Bush votes in 2004.
...
Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America, responded to Bush's statement with a single word: Alhamdullah, Thanks be to God.
"We read again and again in the Koran that our god is the god of Abraham, the god of Noah, the god of Jesus," he said. "It would not come to the mind of a Muslim that there is a different god that Abraham or Jesus or Moses was praying to."
Bush's Remark About God Assailed (washingtonpost.com): "Bush's Remark About God Assailed | By Alan Cooperman | Saturday, November 22, 2003; Page A06
Evangelical Christian leaders expressed dismay yesterday over President Bush's statement that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, saying it had caused discomfort within his conservative religious base. But most predicted that the political impact would be short-lived.
At a news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair in England on Thursday, a reporter noted that Bush has often said that freedom is a gift from "the Almighty" but questioned whether Bush believes that "Muslims worship the same Almighty" that he does.
Bush's remarks sent immediate shock waves through Christian Web sites and radio broadcasts....
...
The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, also issued a statement contradicting Bush.
"The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations and dispositions of the peoples that serve them. Muhammad's central message was submission; Jesus' central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities," Haggard said.
But both Land and Haggard, who are frequent visitors to the White House, doubted that the remark would cost Bush votes in 2004.
...
Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America, responded to Bush's statement with a single word: Alhamdullah, Thanks be to God.
"We read again and again in the Koran that our god is the god of Abraham, the god of Noah, the god of Jesus," he said. "It would not come to the mind of a Muslim that there is a different god that Abraham or Jesus or Moses was praying to."
Religious right relishing Road Map's collapse
WorkingForChange-Religious right relishing Road Map's collapse: "Bill Berkowitz | 11.21.03 | Fundamentalist leaders want Bush to add Palestinians to list of targets for war against terrorism
'In the coming maelstrom that lies ahead, in the coming judgment that's going to burst in cyclonic fury over this world, and this planet, America's only hope -- listen to me, White House, listen to me, State Department, listen to me, Pentagon, listen to me, Mr. President -- America's only hope is not GNP, it's not scientific achievement, it's not an education at Harvard or Yale, but it's America holding on to that little, tiny state of Israel and saying, 'We will stand with you,' because God said, 'They that bless Israel I will bless, and they that curse Israel, I will curse.' -- Rev. Jimmy Lee Swaggart, March, 1985
Fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. are looking to last month's attack on a convoy of U.S. diplomatic and CIA vehicles in the Gaza Strip -- which killed several U.S. citizens -- as a watershed event that will hopefully force the Bush Administration to re-evaluate its involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Shortly after the October 15 attack the Jerusalem Prayer Team, a U.S.-based Christian fundamentalist organization, introduced an e-mail 'Action Alert' with the following: 'The Bush Doctrine is being challenged by Arafat's PLO terrorist organization. If the Bush Doctrine is defeated, then the war on terrorism is lost. If Israel loses her war on terrorism, America will lose her war on terrorism. The future of America hangs in the balance.'
...
Describing the recent visit to the United States of Binyamin Elon, Israel's Tourism minister and the head of Moledet, "one of the small right-wing parties that help keep Ariel Sharon in power," New York Magazine's Craig Horowitz writes: While the "alliance between the Evangelicals and the Jews is not new, it has suddenly taken on a sense of urgency and an intensity that haven't been seen before."
During his trip, Elon met with a number of fundamentalist Christian leaders including Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition, Mike Evans, founder of the Jerusalem Prayer Team and author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," "a book that depicts Islam as evil and finds biblical harbingers of the end of time in the current global crisis," former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, now head of American Values, and Ed McAteer, one of the founders of the Moral Majority.
...
... and Dr. Mike Evans, of the Jerusalem Prayer Team, at the Opry Land Hotel in Nashville, TN. to help him launch the Evangelical Israel Broadcasting Network (EIBN).
Armageddon on their minds
According to Dr. Evans, the mission of EIBN "is to guard, protect, and defend Eretz Yisrael and its people until the Messiah comes to Zion." The phrase "until the Messiah comes to Zion" is more than a little troubling, especially if you're a Jew. Many believe that Bishop Harris' vision and Dr. Evans' dedication to the cause is motivated by belief in the "end-times," which will take place in Israel only after the Jews have returned there. "The key episode in pre-millennial theology is an event called 'the rapture,'" writes author Fred Clarkson in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. "All the saved Christians, dead and alive, are brought up into the clouds with Jesus prior, during or after (depending of the school of theology) a period called 'the tribulation.'"
Craig Horowitz: "Though specifics are a little sketchy, there is a generally accepted version of events leading up to Judgment Day. First, and this is key, Jews will return to Israel. A wicked world leader -- the Antichrist -- will assume power by deceiving everyone into believing he will bring peace. Soon after, the final battle, the Apocalypse, Armageddon, will be fought.
"At its conclusion, Jesus will descend from Heaven. He will come down the Mount of Olives on the east side of Jerusalem, through the Golden Gate, and into the city. (Just in case, Muslims bricked over the Golden Gate when they controlled the Old City.) There will then be a thousand-year reign of peace on Earth."
...
Politically savvy Christian fundamentalist leaders are wise enough to either deny or to equivocate at the suggestion that their support for Israel -- or for the war in Iraq for that matter -- is rooted in Biblical or End Times theology. In 2002, however, Gary Bauer was a bit more forthright in a conversation with a Washington Post reporter, saying that conservative Christians believe that "America has an obligation to stand by Israel" based on "readings of the Scripture, where evangelicals believe God has promised that land to the Jewish people."
WorkingForChange-Religious right relishing Road Map's collapse: "Bill Berkowitz | 11.21.03 | Fundamentalist leaders want Bush to add Palestinians to list of targets for war against terrorism
'In the coming maelstrom that lies ahead, in the coming judgment that's going to burst in cyclonic fury over this world, and this planet, America's only hope -- listen to me, White House, listen to me, State Department, listen to me, Pentagon, listen to me, Mr. President -- America's only hope is not GNP, it's not scientific achievement, it's not an education at Harvard or Yale, but it's America holding on to that little, tiny state of Israel and saying, 'We will stand with you,' because God said, 'They that bless Israel I will bless, and they that curse Israel, I will curse.' -- Rev. Jimmy Lee Swaggart, March, 1985
Fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. are looking to last month's attack on a convoy of U.S. diplomatic and CIA vehicles in the Gaza Strip -- which killed several U.S. citizens -- as a watershed event that will hopefully force the Bush Administration to re-evaluate its involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Shortly after the October 15 attack the Jerusalem Prayer Team, a U.S.-based Christian fundamentalist organization, introduced an e-mail 'Action Alert' with the following: 'The Bush Doctrine is being challenged by Arafat's PLO terrorist organization. If the Bush Doctrine is defeated, then the war on terrorism is lost. If Israel loses her war on terrorism, America will lose her war on terrorism. The future of America hangs in the balance.'
...
Describing the recent visit to the United States of Binyamin Elon, Israel's Tourism minister and the head of Moledet, "one of the small right-wing parties that help keep Ariel Sharon in power," New York Magazine's Craig Horowitz writes: While the "alliance between the Evangelicals and the Jews is not new, it has suddenly taken on a sense of urgency and an intensity that haven't been seen before."
During his trip, Elon met with a number of fundamentalist Christian leaders including Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition, Mike Evans, founder of the Jerusalem Prayer Team and author of "Beyond Iraq: The Next Move," "a book that depicts Islam as evil and finds biblical harbingers of the end of time in the current global crisis," former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, now head of American Values, and Ed McAteer, one of the founders of the Moral Majority.
...
... and Dr. Mike Evans, of the Jerusalem Prayer Team, at the Opry Land Hotel in Nashville, TN. to help him launch the Evangelical Israel Broadcasting Network (EIBN).
Armageddon on their minds
According to Dr. Evans, the mission of EIBN "is to guard, protect, and defend Eretz Yisrael and its people until the Messiah comes to Zion." The phrase "until the Messiah comes to Zion" is more than a little troubling, especially if you're a Jew. Many believe that Bishop Harris' vision and Dr. Evans' dedication to the cause is motivated by belief in the "end-times," which will take place in Israel only after the Jews have returned there. "The key episode in pre-millennial theology is an event called 'the rapture,'" writes author Fred Clarkson in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. "All the saved Christians, dead and alive, are brought up into the clouds with Jesus prior, during or after (depending of the school of theology) a period called 'the tribulation.'"
Craig Horowitz: "Though specifics are a little sketchy, there is a generally accepted version of events leading up to Judgment Day. First, and this is key, Jews will return to Israel. A wicked world leader -- the Antichrist -- will assume power by deceiving everyone into believing he will bring peace. Soon after, the final battle, the Apocalypse, Armageddon, will be fought.
"At its conclusion, Jesus will descend from Heaven. He will come down the Mount of Olives on the east side of Jerusalem, through the Golden Gate, and into the city. (Just in case, Muslims bricked over the Golden Gate when they controlled the Old City.) There will then be a thousand-year reign of peace on Earth."
...
Politically savvy Christian fundamentalist leaders are wise enough to either deny or to equivocate at the suggestion that their support for Israel -- or for the war in Iraq for that matter -- is rooted in Biblical or End Times theology. In 2002, however, Gary Bauer was a bit more forthright in a conversation with a Washington Post reporter, saying that conservative Christians believe that "America has an obligation to stand by Israel" based on "readings of the Scripture, where evangelicals believe God has promised that land to the Jewish people."
