An Intray
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Diplomatic divide: the diplomats are overwhelmingly right
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Diplomatic divide: "Leader | Wednesday April 28, 2004 | The Guardian
There are three big things to say about the robustly critical open letter to Tony Blair on Middle East policy from 52 former British diplomats published yesterday. The first is that its publication is a genuinely significant event. The word 'unprecedented' is overused ... Diplomats ... do not do open letters to prime ministers ...
... the diplomats are overwhelmingly right. The three large points that they make are, first, that the US government has unilaterally committed itself to a one-sided policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict; second, that the US is now paying the price for having no effective post-invasion plan for Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and, third, that Britain has not exerted its influence to redress these dangerous policies.
...
The breaking-point for the organisers of the letter appears to have been the joint press conference given by George Bush and Mr Blair in the White House Rose Garden on April 16. This was a genuinely shocking event. Mr Blair made no effort either implicitly or explicitly to distance Britain in any way from the president's unilateral endorsement of the Sharon withdrawal plan on April 14. Nor did he give any hint of having qualms, or even anything independent to say, about US tactics and priorities in the increasingly bloody battles in Iraq. On the contrary. Mr Blair appeared to give his backing to both strategies. It was a disastrously complacent performance and it is not surprising that it outraged the diplomats, as it also outraged so many others.
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Diplomatic divide: "Leader | Wednesday April 28, 2004 | The Guardian
There are three big things to say about the robustly critical open letter to Tony Blair on Middle East policy from 52 former British diplomats published yesterday. The first is that its publication is a genuinely significant event. The word 'unprecedented' is overused ... Diplomats ... do not do open letters to prime ministers ...
... the diplomats are overwhelmingly right. The three large points that they make are, first, that the US government has unilaterally committed itself to a one-sided policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict; second, that the US is now paying the price for having no effective post-invasion plan for Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and, third, that Britain has not exerted its influence to redress these dangerous policies.
...
The breaking-point for the organisers of the letter appears to have been the joint press conference given by George Bush and Mr Blair in the White House Rose Garden on April 16. This was a genuinely shocking event. Mr Blair made no effort either implicitly or explicitly to distance Britain in any way from the president's unilateral endorsement of the Sharon withdrawal plan on April 14. Nor did he give any hint of having qualms, or even anything independent to say, about US tactics and priorities in the increasingly bloody battles in Iraq. On the contrary. Mr Blair appeared to give his backing to both strategies. It was a disastrously complacent performance and it is not surprising that it outraged the diplomats, as it also outraged so many others.
Letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair: Ariel Sharon and President Bush.new policies.are one-sided and illegal: doomed to failur
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | A letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair: "Doomed to failure in the Middle East | Tuesday April 27, 2004 | The Guardian
Dear Prime Minister,
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. ....
The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "road map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. ... Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.
Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.
This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq. ...
...
The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. ...
...
... Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total 10-15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice," apparently referring only to those who have died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.
...
If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.
Yours faithfully,
Sir Graham Boyce (ambassador to Egypt 1999-2001); Sir Terence Clark (ambassador to Iraq 1985-89); Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Ivor Lucas (ambassador to Syria 1982-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold (Hooky) Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91), and 44 others
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | A letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair: "Doomed to failure in the Middle East | Tuesday April 27, 2004 | The Guardian
Dear Prime Minister,
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. ....
The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "road map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. ... Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.
Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.
This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq. ...
...
The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. ...
...
... Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total 10-15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice," apparently referring only to those who have died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.
...
If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.
Yours faithfully,
Sir Graham Boyce (ambassador to Egypt 1999-2001); Sir Terence Clark (ambassador to Iraq 1985-89); Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Ivor Lucas (ambassador to Syria 1982-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold (Hooky) Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91), and 44 others
How [does] the world manages the United States, the world's only superpower? Future British governments prejudiced against armed neo-con nonsense
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | While Europe is a eunuch, America is our only shield: "We can't walk away from Bush's follies without a credible military alternative | Max Hastings | Monday April 26, 2004 | The Guardian "
...
So much bad news turned up at Chequers over the weekend that the prime minister might be forgiven if he failed to spot the latest barrage of suicide bombings in Iraq. But Britain's 8,000 troops on the ground noticed, and are not happy. They are prisoners of an American command whose incompetence is manifest, whose soldiers are unsuited to their task, whose failures of policy have been laid bare.
Yet I suggested two years ago that it is wrong to perceive Iraq as the real focus of this crisis, even if it is the proximate cause. What we really need to debate is the issue of how the world manages the United States, the world's only superpower. The matter of Iraq will some day be resolved, however unsatisfactorily. It will fade from the headlines. But the matter of America will not go away. Somehow, the world, in general, and the British, in particular, have to consider anew our relationship with the power of the US, granted the less-than-godlike nature of most of the presidents elected to exercise it.
Jim Steinburg, former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, remarked to me a few months ago that for the cautious Clinton, policy-making was an intellectual game. "He'd try something, see how it played, push on if it seemed to work, pull back if it looked rough or the polls went wrong." The contrast with George Bush could not be more striking. He and his associates are driven by a set of primitive visceral convictions, from which they refuse to be budged by persuasion or evidence.
...
... I nursed a further delusion - that Britain might thus be able to exercise marginal influence on Washington's behaviour. We could press Bush to seek international legitimacy, to behave more even-handedly towards the Palestinians.
...
... There is no reason to suppose this president will behave any differently in a second term. Unlike Clinton, the cynic and adulterer, Bush is a true believer. We are learning the hard way that, in power, true believers can be far more frightening and dangerous than cynics.
...
Let us take it, however, that henceforward any sensible British government will be prejudiced against armed neo-con nonsense. Any tenant of Downing Street should be proofed against delusions about our ability to influence Washington. The Bush administration wears ear defenders when the British are in town
...
· Max Hastings is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the London Evening Standard
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | While Europe is a eunuch, America is our only shield: "We can't walk away from Bush's follies without a credible military alternative | Max Hastings | Monday April 26, 2004 | The Guardian "
...
So much bad news turned up at Chequers over the weekend that the prime minister might be forgiven if he failed to spot the latest barrage of suicide bombings in Iraq. But Britain's 8,000 troops on the ground noticed, and are not happy. They are prisoners of an American command whose incompetence is manifest, whose soldiers are unsuited to their task, whose failures of policy have been laid bare.
Yet I suggested two years ago that it is wrong to perceive Iraq as the real focus of this crisis, even if it is the proximate cause. What we really need to debate is the issue of how the world manages the United States, the world's only superpower. The matter of Iraq will some day be resolved, however unsatisfactorily. It will fade from the headlines. But the matter of America will not go away. Somehow, the world, in general, and the British, in particular, have to consider anew our relationship with the power of the US, granted the less-than-godlike nature of most of the presidents elected to exercise it.
Jim Steinburg, former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, remarked to me a few months ago that for the cautious Clinton, policy-making was an intellectual game. "He'd try something, see how it played, push on if it seemed to work, pull back if it looked rough or the polls went wrong." The contrast with George Bush could not be more striking. He and his associates are driven by a set of primitive visceral convictions, from which they refuse to be budged by persuasion or evidence.
...
... I nursed a further delusion - that Britain might thus be able to exercise marginal influence on Washington's behaviour. We could press Bush to seek international legitimacy, to behave more even-handedly towards the Palestinians.
...
... There is no reason to suppose this president will behave any differently in a second term. Unlike Clinton, the cynic and adulterer, Bush is a true believer. We are learning the hard way that, in power, true believers can be far more frightening and dangerous than cynics.
...
Let us take it, however, that henceforward any sensible British government will be prejudiced against armed neo-con nonsense. Any tenant of Downing Street should be proofed against delusions about our ability to influence Washington. The Bush administration wears ear defenders when the British are in town
...
· Max Hastings is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the London Evening Standard
Monday, April 26, 2004
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Geneva convention 'breached', agencies warn
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Geneva convention 'breached', agencies warn: "Tash Shifrin | Monday April 26, 2004
Aid agencies have warned that the Geneva convention is being breached in Falluja, Iraq, amid serious concern about the safety of civilians in the city where at least 600 people have been killed by coalition forces.
The Merlin statement warns: "We have reason to believe that the Geneva convention - which obliges the occupying power to restore and ensure public order, safety and basic service provision in the territory under its authority - is being breached."
The charity cites the high level of civilian casualties in Falluja, where at least 600 Iraqis have been reported dead, and the use of force, as examples of the breach. "International media and our own sources on the ground report untargeted fire resulting in civilian deaths in Falluja," Merlin says.
Other potential breaches of the Geneva convention includes reports of coalition forces preventing civilians seeking safety outside Falluja and a lack of life-saving services. Food, water and electricity are still unavailable in many parts of Falluja, the charity says.
Merlin is also extremely concerned by reports that the general hospital of Falluja is being used as a military base by coalition forces, and the level of delays to aid supplies containing food, water and medical equipment. "Humanitarian agencies trying to supply life-saving supplies such as food and medicine have been obstructed by coalition forces," the statement says.
...
Islamic Relief, another member of the Iraq Platform, has sent two convoys of humanitarian aid into Falluja, some of it supplied by other agencies that could not gain access to the besieged city. A spokesman confirmed that a third would be on the way in the next few days "if security allows it".
"We sent a convoy to Falluja but staff came under heavy bombing. Now a third or more of the people have fled to Baghdad. We are working with those people now because the situation is very tense. We are providing food and non-food items," the spokesman said. ...
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Geneva convention 'breached', agencies warn: "Tash Shifrin | Monday April 26, 2004
Aid agencies have warned that the Geneva convention is being breached in Falluja, Iraq, amid serious concern about the safety of civilians in the city where at least 600 people have been killed by coalition forces.
The Merlin statement warns: "We have reason to believe that the Geneva convention - which obliges the occupying power to restore and ensure public order, safety and basic service provision in the territory under its authority - is being breached."
The charity cites the high level of civilian casualties in Falluja, where at least 600 Iraqis have been reported dead, and the use of force, as examples of the breach. "International media and our own sources on the ground report untargeted fire resulting in civilian deaths in Falluja," Merlin says.
Other potential breaches of the Geneva convention includes reports of coalition forces preventing civilians seeking safety outside Falluja and a lack of life-saving services. Food, water and electricity are still unavailable in many parts of Falluja, the charity says.
Merlin is also extremely concerned by reports that the general hospital of Falluja is being used as a military base by coalition forces, and the level of delays to aid supplies containing food, water and medical equipment. "Humanitarian agencies trying to supply life-saving supplies such as food and medicine have been obstructed by coalition forces," the statement says.
...
Islamic Relief, another member of the Iraq Platform, has sent two convoys of humanitarian aid into Falluja, some of it supplied by other agencies that could not gain access to the besieged city. A spokesman confirmed that a third would be on the way in the next few days "if security allows it".
"We sent a convoy to Falluja but staff came under heavy bombing. Now a third or more of the people have fled to Baghdad. We are working with those people now because the situation is very tense. We are providing food and non-food items," the spokesman said. ...
Israel Protests 'the great poison' comments: Iraq was being made more difficult by Israeli policy toward the Palestinians: wrong, brutal, repressive
Excite News: "Israel Protests U.N. Envoy's Comment | Apr 26, 8:24 PM (ET) | By EDITH M. LEDERER
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Israel sent a formal letter of protest to the Secretary-General on Monday, condemning remarks made by the top U.N. envoy to Iraq calling Israel 'the great poison' in the Middle East.
...
The flap erupted last Wednesday when Brahimi, who is trying to help Iraqis agree on a transitional government to take power on June 30, gave an interview to France Inter radio criticizing Israel's repressive policy and U.S. support for it.
He said his effort to help establish an interim government in Iraq was being made more difficult by Israeli policy toward the Palestinians - and that an eventual solution in Iraq was linked to the wider problem of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
"There is no doubt that the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination, and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians as well as the perception of all of the population in the region, and beyond, of the injustice of this policy and the equally unjust support ... of the United States for this policy," he said.
...
Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, continued his criticism of Israel Friday in an ABC television interview, which was broadcast on Sunday, but made clearer that he was reflecting views in the Arab world.
"I think that there is unanimity in the Arab World, and indeed in much of the rest of the world, that the Israeli policy is wrong, that Israeli policy is brutal, repressive, and that they are not interested in peace no matter what you seem to believe in America," Brahimi said.
Excite News: "Israel Protests U.N. Envoy's Comment | Apr 26, 8:24 PM (ET) | By EDITH M. LEDERER
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Israel sent a formal letter of protest to the Secretary-General on Monday, condemning remarks made by the top U.N. envoy to Iraq calling Israel 'the great poison' in the Middle East.
...
The flap erupted last Wednesday when Brahimi, who is trying to help Iraqis agree on a transitional government to take power on June 30, gave an interview to France Inter radio criticizing Israel's repressive policy and U.S. support for it.
He said his effort to help establish an interim government in Iraq was being made more difficult by Israeli policy toward the Palestinians - and that an eventual solution in Iraq was linked to the wider problem of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
"There is no doubt that the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination, and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians as well as the perception of all of the population in the region, and beyond, of the injustice of this policy and the equally unjust support ... of the United States for this policy," he said.
...
Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, continued his criticism of Israel Friday in an ABC television interview, which was broadcast on Sunday, but made clearer that he was reflecting views in the Arab world.
"I think that there is unanimity in the Arab World, and indeed in much of the rest of the world, that the Israeli policy is wrong, that Israeli policy is brutal, repressive, and that they are not interested in peace no matter what you seem to believe in America," Brahimi said.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Why Did Bush Take My Job? by Chief Palestinian negotiator
Why Did Bush Take My Job? (washingtonpost.com): "By Saeb Erekat | Sunday, April 25, 2004; Page B07
JERUSALEM -- President Bush apparently has taken my job.
Until the Bush-Sharon press conference on April 14, I was the chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only internationally recognized entity that has a mandate to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel. But then Bush appeared on television, standing at the White House next to a beaming Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, and announced that he had accepted Israel's claim to illegally occupied Palestinian land. He further determined that Palestinian refugees would never be allowed to return to their homes in Israel and would instead have to be resettled in a Palestinian state, vast tracts of which he had just given away.
In so doing, Bush reneged on the 1991 U.S. Letter of Assurances provided to the Palestinians by his father's administration; the letter said that "no party should take unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues" and that "the United States has opposed and will continue to oppose settlement activity in the territories occupied in 1967." Bush, as the self-appointed Palestinian negotiator, finally exposed the "Middle East peace process" for the charade that it has become -- a mechanism by which Israel and the United States impose a solution on the Palestinians.
...
The positions taken by Bush are completely contrary to, and thus seriously undermine, the expressed objectives of American policy of democratic reform in the Middle East. Freedom? Of course -- unless you are a Palestinian, in which case your rights must be approved by Israel. The rule of law? Absolutely -- unless you are Israel, in which case you need not concern yourself with U.N. resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, international refugee law or human rights treaties.
Accountability? Without a doubt -- unless you are Ariel Sharon, in which case you may freely conduct assassinations, build walls and settlements, oppress an entire population and then be rewarded with unquestioning support.
...
Israel's non-negotiated disengagement from Gaza will cause many Palestinians to conclude that violence, and not negotiations, is the only option for securing their rights ...
My role as chief Palestinian negotiator may have been taken from me, but I retain my role as a Palestinian father. I am determined to teach my children that violence is not the answer. President Bush has not made my job any easier.
Why Did Bush Take My Job? (washingtonpost.com): "By Saeb Erekat | Sunday, April 25, 2004; Page B07
JERUSALEM -- President Bush apparently has taken my job.
Until the Bush-Sharon press conference on April 14, I was the chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only internationally recognized entity that has a mandate to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel. But then Bush appeared on television, standing at the White House next to a beaming Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, and announced that he had accepted Israel's claim to illegally occupied Palestinian land. He further determined that Palestinian refugees would never be allowed to return to their homes in Israel and would instead have to be resettled in a Palestinian state, vast tracts of which he had just given away.
In so doing, Bush reneged on the 1991 U.S. Letter of Assurances provided to the Palestinians by his father's administration; the letter said that "no party should take unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues" and that "the United States has opposed and will continue to oppose settlement activity in the territories occupied in 1967." Bush, as the self-appointed Palestinian negotiator, finally exposed the "Middle East peace process" for the charade that it has become -- a mechanism by which Israel and the United States impose a solution on the Palestinians.
...
The positions taken by Bush are completely contrary to, and thus seriously undermine, the expressed objectives of American policy of democratic reform in the Middle East. Freedom? Of course -- unless you are a Palestinian, in which case your rights must be approved by Israel. The rule of law? Absolutely -- unless you are Israel, in which case you need not concern yourself with U.N. resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, international refugee law or human rights treaties.
Accountability? Without a doubt -- unless you are Ariel Sharon, in which case you may freely conduct assassinations, build walls and settlements, oppress an entire population and then be rewarded with unquestioning support.
...
Israel's non-negotiated disengagement from Gaza will cause many Palestinians to conclude that violence, and not negotiations, is the only option for securing their rights ...
My role as chief Palestinian negotiator may have been taken from me, but I retain my role as a Palestinian father. I am determined to teach my children that violence is not the answer. President Bush has not made my job any easier.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
William Cook: George 1 to George 2: Do I sound angry, George? I am, I'm furious. ... so what got me steamed?
William Cook: George 1 to George 2: "April 21, 2004 | How Far the Apple Fell From the Tree | By WILLIAM A. COOK
Dear Son,
It's time we had a talk. ...
This letter follows two recent events that captured the headlines, your third (!) press conference in prime time in three years and your appearance with Ariel Sharon before the cameras handing him the knife he used to stab you in the back! Do I sound angry, George? I am, I'm furious. ...
...
So what got me steamed? Let me tell you. You were asked a question at the press conference, a typical question asked of any person applying for a management job, "Can you describe any mistakes you've made and what you'd do differently if you had the opportunity?" What did you do? You stammered and fuddled around as though you'd been asked to clear up Einstein's theory of relativity ...
...
What insanity made you capitulate to that ogre, Sharon? Every time he comes here you melt, and Christ, Son, you're bigger than he is, at least you're taller and in better shape. What's he do, write your letters for you? Look what you've done! (1) Before the Israelis have a chance to vote on the "internment" plan Sharon concocted for the Palestinians, you absconded with their right and made the decision for them. (2) You unilaterally decided that you'd discard international law by determining by yourself what national borders will comprise the state of Israel and the future state of Palestine without consultation with the UN or the parties involved. (3) You broke the only multi-national agreement left, the "Road Map" (having discarded all the cooperative agreements I pulled together) that included Russia and Europe, by letting Sharon yoke the West Bank settlements into the state of Israel contrary to Resolution 242 of the UNSC and the vote of the UNGA at the creation of the Israeli state. And, Son, you did this without consulting Sergei Lavrov or Javier Solana or Kofi Annan or probably, for God's sake, Colin Powell. Worse than that, you didn't even talk to anyone in Palestine! When did you become dictator of the world! Indeed, when did the "Road map" become "your vision"; did you forget that others contributed to its design? (4) You demand that the Palestinians stop terrorism but say nothing to Sharon about murdering Sheik Yassin or walling in the Palestinians, the two grossest terrorist acts yet perpetrated by Israel, both guaranteed to enrage the Arab world and ensure terrorist acts against America for decades to come. (5) Now that you are caught in the quicksand of Iraq, you should know that there is a difference between an indigenous population fighting for its country against an occupier and a terrorist who wants only to inflict harm against a perceived enemy for perceived indignities, and that realization should make you rethink your support of Sharon because he has turned the population attempting to throw off the occupying IDF into the same category as the terrorist thus justifying everything he does with your blessing. Wake up, George, you're being used! (6) You accept without question the right of a Jewish State to exist but will not accept an Islamic State in Iraq, a point not lost on the Arab world. (7) You state that negotiations between Israel and Palestine will happen in "accordance with Resolutions 242 and 338" but you have closed the door on that possibility by stating in the same paragraph that it is "unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949". George, only Sharon could have written that sentence. (8) You proclaim for all the world to hear that you are doing God's work. Where did you meet Him, George, at the ranch? Only a Texas mind could conjure up such a thought. You've got to get back to New England, Son, where we've put Puritanism behind us after the Salem witch trials in 1692. (9) Now, George, I'm going to close this list with just one more item (though I could, in fact, continue if my eggs were not getting cold), the one where you have determined that international law that governs right of return does not apply for the Palestinians. And you believe that you make it so by saying it! My God, George, where is your head? As your father, I've got to intervene.
...
I'm going to begin with Sharon; he is "ground zero," not New York's Trade Center and not even Iraq, although you've done mightily to make it so. If you'd spend some time reading, you'd understand that Osama, the people of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Asia, the EU countries, Canada, Australia, North Africa, Goddam it, George, everyone in the world, sees Sharon and his government to be the cause of terrorism. His incarceration of the indigenous population, his slaughter of 545 Palestinian children since he mocked the al-Aqsa Mosque in 2000 (and, George, 266 of these children had not reached their 14th birthday), ...
...
They tried to control me, Son, and I had to fight them off, especially Cheney and Rumsfeld. They wanted me to take out Saddam. But I was the only one who had real experience; they did what you did, they chickened out. This is what I told them: "Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs." Notice that word, Son, "human," that's one the Neo-Cons never use. ...
...
Now let's get to that dismissal of "Right of Return." Have you been so bamboozled by that Cabal that you think you can simply change international law by making a proclamation? The EU has already defied you!
...
The Palestinians were forced from their homes and villages in 1947 and '48; Benny Morris has confirmed that fact, George, and he's an Israeli Historian. They've been living in slums ever since, their homes and land taken from them, even bulldozed down for heaven's sake, whole villages disappeared ...
...
One final item, George, one that a father must raise and one that perhaps only I can raise: God has not given you a mission, Son; the only missions God has ever given to Urban II, Innocent III, Martin Luther, St Francis, Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, or any of the thousands of others who heard from Him were given to delusional men needing an excuse for warped behavior! God gave no command that you must bring His gift to all humankind.
...
This has been a long talk, Son, and while you may not be happy about it, I am. Age brings wisdom as it should bring respect. Consider what I've said. Don't get huffy the way you used to at Yale. You're no longer a cheerleader, Son, you're a head of state; ...
William Cook: George 1 to George 2: "April 21, 2004 | How Far the Apple Fell From the Tree | By WILLIAM A. COOK
Dear Son,
It's time we had a talk. ...
This letter follows two recent events that captured the headlines, your third (!) press conference in prime time in three years and your appearance with Ariel Sharon before the cameras handing him the knife he used to stab you in the back! Do I sound angry, George? I am, I'm furious. ...
...
So what got me steamed? Let me tell you. You were asked a question at the press conference, a typical question asked of any person applying for a management job, "Can you describe any mistakes you've made and what you'd do differently if you had the opportunity?" What did you do? You stammered and fuddled around as though you'd been asked to clear up Einstein's theory of relativity ...
...
What insanity made you capitulate to that ogre, Sharon? Every time he comes here you melt, and Christ, Son, you're bigger than he is, at least you're taller and in better shape. What's he do, write your letters for you? Look what you've done! (1) Before the Israelis have a chance to vote on the "internment" plan Sharon concocted for the Palestinians, you absconded with their right and made the decision for them. (2) You unilaterally decided that you'd discard international law by determining by yourself what national borders will comprise the state of Israel and the future state of Palestine without consultation with the UN or the parties involved. (3) You broke the only multi-national agreement left, the "Road Map" (having discarded all the cooperative agreements I pulled together) that included Russia and Europe, by letting Sharon yoke the West Bank settlements into the state of Israel contrary to Resolution 242 of the UNSC and the vote of the UNGA at the creation of the Israeli state. And, Son, you did this without consulting Sergei Lavrov or Javier Solana or Kofi Annan or probably, for God's sake, Colin Powell. Worse than that, you didn't even talk to anyone in Palestine! When did you become dictator of the world! Indeed, when did the "Road map" become "your vision"; did you forget that others contributed to its design? (4) You demand that the Palestinians stop terrorism but say nothing to Sharon about murdering Sheik Yassin or walling in the Palestinians, the two grossest terrorist acts yet perpetrated by Israel, both guaranteed to enrage the Arab world and ensure terrorist acts against America for decades to come. (5) Now that you are caught in the quicksand of Iraq, you should know that there is a difference between an indigenous population fighting for its country against an occupier and a terrorist who wants only to inflict harm against a perceived enemy for perceived indignities, and that realization should make you rethink your support of Sharon because he has turned the population attempting to throw off the occupying IDF into the same category as the terrorist thus justifying everything he does with your blessing. Wake up, George, you're being used! (6) You accept without question the right of a Jewish State to exist but will not accept an Islamic State in Iraq, a point not lost on the Arab world. (7) You state that negotiations between Israel and Palestine will happen in "accordance with Resolutions 242 and 338" but you have closed the door on that possibility by stating in the same paragraph that it is "unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949". George, only Sharon could have written that sentence. (8) You proclaim for all the world to hear that you are doing God's work. Where did you meet Him, George, at the ranch? Only a Texas mind could conjure up such a thought. You've got to get back to New England, Son, where we've put Puritanism behind us after the Salem witch trials in 1692. (9) Now, George, I'm going to close this list with just one more item (though I could, in fact, continue if my eggs were not getting cold), the one where you have determined that international law that governs right of return does not apply for the Palestinians. And you believe that you make it so by saying it! My God, George, where is your head? As your father, I've got to intervene.
...
I'm going to begin with Sharon; he is "ground zero," not New York's Trade Center and not even Iraq, although you've done mightily to make it so. If you'd spend some time reading, you'd understand that Osama, the people of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Asia, the EU countries, Canada, Australia, North Africa, Goddam it, George, everyone in the world, sees Sharon and his government to be the cause of terrorism. His incarceration of the indigenous population, his slaughter of 545 Palestinian children since he mocked the al-Aqsa Mosque in 2000 (and, George, 266 of these children had not reached their 14th birthday), ...
...
They tried to control me, Son, and I had to fight them off, especially Cheney and Rumsfeld. They wanted me to take out Saddam. But I was the only one who had real experience; they did what you did, they chickened out. This is what I told them: "Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs." Notice that word, Son, "human," that's one the Neo-Cons never use. ...
...
Now let's get to that dismissal of "Right of Return." Have you been so bamboozled by that Cabal that you think you can simply change international law by making a proclamation? The EU has already defied you!
...
The Palestinians were forced from their homes and villages in 1947 and '48; Benny Morris has confirmed that fact, George, and he's an Israeli Historian. They've been living in slums ever since, their homes and land taken from them, even bulldozed down for heaven's sake, whole villages disappeared ...
...
One final item, George, one that a father must raise and one that perhaps only I can raise: God has not given you a mission, Son; the only missions God has ever given to Urban II, Innocent III, Martin Luther, St Francis, Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, or any of the thousands of others who heard from Him were given to delusional men needing an excuse for warped behavior! God gave no command that you must bring His gift to all humankind.
...
This has been a long talk, Son, and while you may not be happy about it, I am. Age brings wisdom as it should bring respect. Consider what I've said. Don't get huffy the way you used to at Yale. You're no longer a cheerleader, Son, you're a head of state; ...
Paul de Rooij: Glossary of the Iraqi Occupation: Some "forbidden" propaganda topics
Paul de Rooij: Glossary of the Iraqi Occupation: "April 23, 2004 | Graveyard of Justifications | By PAUL de ROOIJ
...
Media Neglected topics: Explanation
Gulf War syndrome Recently it was found that some soldiers already have been afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome. This syndrome killed more soldiers after the 1991 war than during the hot war. Will this happen again?
Iraqi prisoners or "detainees" No lists are kept or made available to family members of prisoners -- they don't know if the person is a prisoner or has "disappeared". The same thing happened during Hussein's era. Source: May-Ying Welsh, FlashPoints.net, April 13, 2004.
Iraqi casualties This is certainly a revealing gem:
"As the casualties mount in the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, Qatar-based Al Jazeera has been one of the only news networks broadcasting from the inside, relaying images of destruction and civilian victims -- including women and children. But when CNN anchor Daryn Kagan interviewed the network's editor-in-chief, Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday -- a rare opportunity to get independent information about events in Fallujah -- she used the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian deaths were really 'the story' in Fallujah."
--FAIR, April 14, 2004.
Depleted Uranium -- affecting Iraqis. There has been some mention of DU effects on US soldiers, but no in-depth investigation of the effects on Iraqis.
Nature of diseases afflicting Iraqis Iraqi doctors are dealing with an epidemic of water borne diseases, and have trouble coping with this.
The school curriculum Old textbooks are out, or at least the photo of Hussein removed. Several odd groups are supplying books of unknown provenance or with a dubious message.
Temperature in summer Last year the summertime temperatures in Baghdad were censored in the US Free Press. Are temperatures in excess of 50C somehow provocative?
Torture Some Iraqis have been killed while in US custody, and their bodies showed signs of torture. So, has the US hired former regime torturers or are they employing their own?
Remuneration of soldiers and pensions Scant attention is given to the remuneration of soldiers and their spouses. Some of the spouses of the soldiers survive on food stamps! The pension or compensation paid to the survivors is pitiful.
Electricity or water supplies There are no statistics on the capacity availability of the electrical or water supply systems.
Oil production How many millions of barrels are being pumped, and what is happening to the proceeds? Who is auditing this?
Assassination of intellectuals There is a spate of assassinations or kidnappings of well-known intellectuals. The warnings/threats against such people appear in the US-funded newspaper. What is behind this?
Cost Last year estimates for the cost of the occupation ran at US$4bn/month. Given that there is active resistance, what is the cost now?
The Israelization of US military tactics Israelis boast that the US is applying its tactics in Iraq. Given that several of these practices amount to war crimes, then what are the implications for the US? Is the US implementing "targeted assassinations", torture, house demolitions? And why not employ the real thing -- getting Israelis to fight this war?
Increasing oil prices. While the war was also meant to safeguard oil reserves, why has the price of oil risen?
The mercenary industry Elite soldiers around the world are abandoning their units and joining the mercenary operators in Iraq. The British note that it costs US$3m to train one of its elite troops (SAS), and they are upset that they have been recruited by the merc-companies. On average, soldiers working as mercenaries earn more than 20X their standard army wages (tax free). So, are the national armies going to be replaced by the corporate mercenary armies?
Paul de Rooij: Glossary of the Iraqi Occupation: "April 23, 2004 | Graveyard of Justifications | By PAUL de ROOIJ
...
Media Neglected topics: Explanation
Gulf War syndrome Recently it was found that some soldiers already have been afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome. This syndrome killed more soldiers after the 1991 war than during the hot war. Will this happen again?
Iraqi prisoners or "detainees" No lists are kept or made available to family members of prisoners -- they don't know if the person is a prisoner or has "disappeared". The same thing happened during Hussein's era. Source: May-Ying Welsh, FlashPoints.net, April 13, 2004.
Iraqi casualties This is certainly a revealing gem:
"As the casualties mount in the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, Qatar-based Al Jazeera has been one of the only news networks broadcasting from the inside, relaying images of destruction and civilian victims -- including women and children. But when CNN anchor Daryn Kagan interviewed the network's editor-in-chief, Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday -- a rare opportunity to get independent information about events in Fallujah -- she used the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian deaths were really 'the story' in Fallujah."
--FAIR, April 14, 2004.
Depleted Uranium -- affecting Iraqis. There has been some mention of DU effects on US soldiers, but no in-depth investigation of the effects on Iraqis.
Nature of diseases afflicting Iraqis Iraqi doctors are dealing with an epidemic of water borne diseases, and have trouble coping with this.
The school curriculum Old textbooks are out, or at least the photo of Hussein removed. Several odd groups are supplying books of unknown provenance or with a dubious message.
Temperature in summer Last year the summertime temperatures in Baghdad were censored in the US Free Press. Are temperatures in excess of 50C somehow provocative?
Torture Some Iraqis have been killed while in US custody, and their bodies showed signs of torture. So, has the US hired former regime torturers or are they employing their own?
Remuneration of soldiers and pensions Scant attention is given to the remuneration of soldiers and their spouses. Some of the spouses of the soldiers survive on food stamps! The pension or compensation paid to the survivors is pitiful.
Electricity or water supplies There are no statistics on the capacity availability of the electrical or water supply systems.
Oil production How many millions of barrels are being pumped, and what is happening to the proceeds? Who is auditing this?
Assassination of intellectuals There is a spate of assassinations or kidnappings of well-known intellectuals. The warnings/threats against such people appear in the US-funded newspaper. What is behind this?
Cost Last year estimates for the cost of the occupation ran at US$4bn/month. Given that there is active resistance, what is the cost now?
The Israelization of US military tactics Israelis boast that the US is applying its tactics in Iraq. Given that several of these practices amount to war crimes, then what are the implications for the US? Is the US implementing "targeted assassinations", torture, house demolitions? And why not employ the real thing -- getting Israelis to fight this war?
Increasing oil prices. While the war was also meant to safeguard oil reserves, why has the price of oil risen?
The mercenary industry Elite soldiers around the world are abandoning their units and joining the mercenary operators in Iraq. The British note that it costs US$3m to train one of its elite troops (SAS), and they are upset that they have been recruited by the merc-companies. On average, soldiers working as mercenaries earn more than 20X their standard army wages (tax free). So, are the national armies going to be replaced by the corporate mercenary armies?
Glossary of the Iraqi Occupation: [Justifications and Doublespeak]
Paul de Rooij: Glossary of the Iraqi Occupation: "April 23, 2004 | Graveyard of Justifications | By PAUL de ROOIJ
...
Justification [and] What happened to [them]?
WMD Safely disposed of.
Terror Bogus from the beginning. If anything, US actions are causing terrorism.
Freedom "Two nights ago, this most dangerous man, George Bush, talked about 'freedom in Iraq'. Not 'democracy' in Iraq. No, 'democracy' was no longer mentioned. 'Democracy' was simply left out of the equation. Now it was just 'freedom' -- freedom from Saddam rather than freedom to have elections. And what is this 'freedom' supposed to involve? One group of American-appointed Iraqis will cede power to another group of American-appointed Iraqis. That will be the 'historic handover' of Iraqi 'sovereignty'. Yes, I can well see why George Bush wants to witness a 'handover' of sovereignty. 'Our boys' must be out of the firing line -- let the Iraqis be the sandbags."
--Robert Fisk, "By endorsing Ariel Sharon's plan George Bush has legitimised terrorism", The Independent, April 16, 2004.
Democracy See "freedom".
Stability US actions are provoking the opposite
Liberation Only liberating the oil production. The occupation clearly indicates that Iraqis will be under an American yoke for some time.
Support our troops We don't hear this one anymore. This was a pretext to get those opposed to the war to shut up during the war.
Religious tolerance "We are locked in an historic struggle in Iraq. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than the --power of America' that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance would be snuffed out."
--Tony Blair, The Observer, April 11, 2004.
This statement was uttered the same week the Americans sought to "kill or capture" the cleric M. Sadr.
The Iraqis wanted the Americans to intervene There are an increasing number of polls trying to prove that Iraqis were in favor of the war or are doing "better" now (even without electricity). The value of these polls is dubious, and even so, it is clear that Iraqis want the Americans to leave.
Oil Although this motivation reigns supreme, it is curious why the Free Press barely manages to question the Bush regime about this. And why would the US have to conquer Iraq to be able to buy oil?
Military bases and "power projection" There are seven military bases planned at present.
Supporting Israel Finally, Philip Zelikow, a Bush advisor, revealed that the US-Iraq war was launched to "protect Israel". The Free Press did not follow up on this, nor have questions arisen why Israelis aren't fighting this war. "Israel: America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East" is starting to ring rather hollow (especially at US$6bn+/year).
Corporate interests With few exceptions, the role of the large American corporations in promoting the war has not been investigated.
Paul de Rooij: Glossary of the Iraqi Occupation: "April 23, 2004 | Graveyard of Justifications | By PAUL de ROOIJ
...
Justification [and] What happened to [them]?
WMD Safely disposed of.
Terror Bogus from the beginning. If anything, US actions are causing terrorism.
Freedom "Two nights ago, this most dangerous man, George Bush, talked about 'freedom in Iraq'. Not 'democracy' in Iraq. No, 'democracy' was no longer mentioned. 'Democracy' was simply left out of the equation. Now it was just 'freedom' -- freedom from Saddam rather than freedom to have elections. And what is this 'freedom' supposed to involve? One group of American-appointed Iraqis will cede power to another group of American-appointed Iraqis. That will be the 'historic handover' of Iraqi 'sovereignty'. Yes, I can well see why George Bush wants to witness a 'handover' of sovereignty. 'Our boys' must be out of the firing line -- let the Iraqis be the sandbags."
--Robert Fisk, "By endorsing Ariel Sharon's plan George Bush has legitimised terrorism", The Independent, April 16, 2004.
Democracy See "freedom".
Stability US actions are provoking the opposite
Liberation Only liberating the oil production. The occupation clearly indicates that Iraqis will be under an American yoke for some time.
Support our troops We don't hear this one anymore. This was a pretext to get those opposed to the war to shut up during the war.
Religious tolerance "We are locked in an historic struggle in Iraq. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than the --power of America' that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance would be snuffed out."
--Tony Blair, The Observer, April 11, 2004.
This statement was uttered the same week the Americans sought to "kill or capture" the cleric M. Sadr.
The Iraqis wanted the Americans to intervene There are an increasing number of polls trying to prove that Iraqis were in favor of the war or are doing "better" now (even without electricity). The value of these polls is dubious, and even so, it is clear that Iraqis want the Americans to leave.
Oil Although this motivation reigns supreme, it is curious why the Free Press barely manages to question the Bush regime about this. And why would the US have to conquer Iraq to be able to buy oil?
Military bases and "power projection" There are seven military bases planned at present.
Supporting Israel Finally, Philip Zelikow, a Bush advisor, revealed that the US-Iraq war was launched to "protect Israel". The Free Press did not follow up on this, nor have questions arisen why Israelis aren't fighting this war. "Israel: America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East" is starting to ring rather hollow (especially at US$6bn+/year).
Corporate interests With few exceptions, the role of the large American corporations in promoting the war has not been investigated.
Bush repositions US and Middle East along Israeli lines
Whistling in the Dark: Israel, Palestine, and Bush - FCNL Issues: "4/23/2004 | Whistling in the Dark: Israel, Palestine, and Bush |
Col. Daniel Smith, USA, Ret.
President Bush (April 14, 2004): “I welcome the disengagement plan prepared by the Government of Israel, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank….The United States remains committed to the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security, and its implementation as described in the roadmap.”
With this April 14, 2004, statement, President Bush threw the full weight of the United States government against any impartial settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He also undercut the credibility of Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt’s President Mubarak–key allies and Israel’s neighbors–with their publics, and inflamed the “Islamic street.” Moreover, he has completely undermined what little hope there might have been that any of the 55 Islamic–and more importantly, any of the 22 Arab–countries would contribute troops to a post-June 30 international peacekeeping force for Iraq. (Pakistani and Malaysian officials earlier had hinted they might consider sending peacekeepers if the UN takes over from the U.S. at the end of June–assuming there is a peace to “keep.”)
In large part, the fact that the U.S. has so little willing support in the Islamic and Arab worlds may have tipped the balance against the Palestinians. ...
...
Washington’s position, enshrined in the U.S. “Roadmap to Middle East Peace” first announced on June 24, 2002, saved Ariel Sharon from the “threat of peace” as well as from the need to engage in any serious negotiations. It also allowed Israel to continue expanding existing settlements in those parts of the Occupied Territories that it intended to retain in spite of the roadmap’s call for a freeze on new settlements and in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions going back to 1967 (Resolution 242).
...
In his April 14 combined statement-press conference-letter exchange with Sharon, President Bush effectively intertwined U.S. policy toward Palestine with Israel’s stance:
-Israel will not have to withdraw all military installations or settlements from the West Bank, nor all military installations from Gaza. This concedes to Israel the right to retain as large a military presence and whatever civilian areas on the West Bank it wants, final status talks notwithstanding.
-The U.S. is steadfastly committed “to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.” In defiance of international efforts to control weapons of mass destruction, this statement is a thinly disguised approval of Israel’s nuclear and other special weapons programs. It also keeps open unfettered access to U.S. weaponry and subverts restraints on the misuse of U.S. weapons against civilian populations. No mention is made about a U.S. commitment to the security of Palestinian civilians from Israeli actions that violate international accords. (As an aside, to have truly militarily “defensible” borders, Israel would have to control the entire West Bank to the Jordan River, the Sinai peninsula to the Suez Canal, and the Golan Heights.)
-The U.S. “understands that after Israel withdraws…pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.” This allows Israel to control all ingress and egress to Palestinian areas, and, with a later, more specific reference, concedes Israel’s right to build its “security barrier” as it wishes and to maintain it throughout “final status” talks, as long Israel “takes into account…its impact on Palestinians.”
-An “agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refuges there, rather than in Israel.” This very strongly suggests the White House support for an independent Palestinian state is based less on principles of human rights and human dignity than on finding a rhetorical fig-leaf (a “home” for Palestinian refugees) that the White House hopes will divert increased anger within the refugee population–as well as criticism from other governments–at its capitulation to the Israeli position. Given the density of population in Gaza and the areas on the West Bank that Israel intends to retain, this position is impractical.
-Given “new realities on the ground...it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” This is a strange formulation, in that Resolution 242 (1967), normally the first UN resolution cited, as well as the roadmap, speaks of returning to the pre-1967 Israeli-Arab borders. This may well reflect a desire to remove any ambiguity about Israel’s conquests in the 1967 war when it seized control of Gaza, the West Bank, and particularly East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of their “state.”
Whistling in the Dark: Israel, Palestine, and Bush - FCNL Issues: "4/23/2004 | Whistling in the Dark: Israel, Palestine, and Bush |
Col. Daniel Smith, USA, Ret.
President Bush (April 14, 2004): “I welcome the disengagement plan prepared by the Government of Israel, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank….The United States remains committed to the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security, and its implementation as described in the roadmap.”
With this April 14, 2004, statement, President Bush threw the full weight of the United States government against any impartial settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He also undercut the credibility of Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt’s President Mubarak–key allies and Israel’s neighbors–with their publics, and inflamed the “Islamic street.” Moreover, he has completely undermined what little hope there might have been that any of the 55 Islamic–and more importantly, any of the 22 Arab–countries would contribute troops to a post-June 30 international peacekeeping force for Iraq. (Pakistani and Malaysian officials earlier had hinted they might consider sending peacekeepers if the UN takes over from the U.S. at the end of June–assuming there is a peace to “keep.”)
In large part, the fact that the U.S. has so little willing support in the Islamic and Arab worlds may have tipped the balance against the Palestinians. ...
...
Washington’s position, enshrined in the U.S. “Roadmap to Middle East Peace” first announced on June 24, 2002, saved Ariel Sharon from the “threat of peace” as well as from the need to engage in any serious negotiations. It also allowed Israel to continue expanding existing settlements in those parts of the Occupied Territories that it intended to retain in spite of the roadmap’s call for a freeze on new settlements and in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions going back to 1967 (Resolution 242).
...
In his April 14 combined statement-press conference-letter exchange with Sharon, President Bush effectively intertwined U.S. policy toward Palestine with Israel’s stance:
-Israel will not have to withdraw all military installations or settlements from the West Bank, nor all military installations from Gaza. This concedes to Israel the right to retain as large a military presence and whatever civilian areas on the West Bank it wants, final status talks notwithstanding.
-The U.S. is steadfastly committed “to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.” In defiance of international efforts to control weapons of mass destruction, this statement is a thinly disguised approval of Israel’s nuclear and other special weapons programs. It also keeps open unfettered access to U.S. weaponry and subverts restraints on the misuse of U.S. weapons against civilian populations. No mention is made about a U.S. commitment to the security of Palestinian civilians from Israeli actions that violate international accords. (As an aside, to have truly militarily “defensible” borders, Israel would have to control the entire West Bank to the Jordan River, the Sinai peninsula to the Suez Canal, and the Golan Heights.)
-The U.S. “understands that after Israel withdraws…pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.” This allows Israel to control all ingress and egress to Palestinian areas, and, with a later, more specific reference, concedes Israel’s right to build its “security barrier” as it wishes and to maintain it throughout “final status” talks, as long Israel “takes into account…its impact on Palestinians.”
-An “agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refuges there, rather than in Israel.” This very strongly suggests the White House support for an independent Palestinian state is based less on principles of human rights and human dignity than on finding a rhetorical fig-leaf (a “home” for Palestinian refugees) that the White House hopes will divert increased anger within the refugee population–as well as criticism from other governments–at its capitulation to the Israeli position. Given the density of population in Gaza and the areas on the West Bank that Israel intends to retain, this position is impractical.
-Given “new realities on the ground...it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” This is a strange formulation, in that Resolution 242 (1967), normally the first UN resolution cited, as well as the roadmap, speaks of returning to the pre-1967 Israeli-Arab borders. This may well reflect a desire to remove any ambiguity about Israel’s conquests in the 1967 war when it seized control of Gaza, the West Bank, and particularly East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of their “state.”
A Warning to Those Who Dare to Criticize Israel in the Land of Free Speech
Robert Fisk: A Warning to Those Who Dare Criticize Israel in the US: "April 24 / 25, 2004 | A Warning to Those Who Dare to Criticize Israel in the Land of Free Speech | Another Case Study: Mary Robinson | By ROBERT FISK
...
Behold Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, would-be graduation commencement speaker at Emory University in the United States. She has made a big mistake. She dared to criticise Israel. She suggested--horror of horrors--that "the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation". Now whoah there a moment, Mary! "Occupation"? Isn't that a little bit anti-Israeli?
Are you really suggesting that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel, its use of extrajudicial executions against Palestinian gunmen, the Israeli gunning down of schoolboy stone-throwers, the wholesale theft of Arab land to build homes for Jews, is in some way wrong?
...
... But then, what's the point when Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "anti-Semitism" as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel".
...
But no, you are "hurt". You are "dismayed". And you allow Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University to announce that he is "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak". I love the "due diligence" bit. But seriously, how can you allow this twisted version of your integrity to go unpunished?
Robert Fisk: A Warning to Those Who Dare Criticize Israel in the US: "April 24 / 25, 2004 | A Warning to Those Who Dare to Criticize Israel in the Land of Free Speech | Another Case Study: Mary Robinson | By ROBERT FISK
...
Behold Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, would-be graduation commencement speaker at Emory University in the United States. She has made a big mistake. She dared to criticise Israel. She suggested--horror of horrors--that "the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation". Now whoah there a moment, Mary! "Occupation"? Isn't that a little bit anti-Israeli?
Are you really suggesting that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel, its use of extrajudicial executions against Palestinian gunmen, the Israeli gunning down of schoolboy stone-throwers, the wholesale theft of Arab land to build homes for Jews, is in some way wrong?
...
... But then, what's the point when Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "anti-Semitism" as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel".
...
But no, you are "hurt". You are "dismayed". And you allow Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University to announce that he is "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak". I love the "due diligence" bit. But seriously, how can you allow this twisted version of your integrity to go unpunished?
In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Orwellian Olsens: "By MAUREEN DOWD | Published: April 25, 2004
WASHINGTON ... It's their reality. We just live and die in it.
In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.
....
In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.
In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.
...
In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.
...
In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.
...
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.
...
In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.
In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.
...
In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.
In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops. ...
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Orwellian Olsens: "By MAUREEN DOWD | Published: April 25, 2004
WASHINGTON ... It's their reality. We just live and die in it.
In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.
....
In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.
In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.
...
In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.
...
In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.
...
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.
...
In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.
In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.
...
In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.
In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops. ...
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US role in Middle East vilified at emergency meeting of Islamic countries
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US role in Middle East vilified at emergency meeting of Islamic countries: "John Aglionby, South-east Asia correspondent | Friday April 23, 2004 | The Guardian
...
The Organisation of Islamic Conferences also condemned Washington for supporting Israel's latest Palestinian initiative.
...
"Gone are the joy and jubilation of some Iraqis [at] the collapse of the regime of Saddam Hussein," he said. "What we see today is nothing less than the fierce resistance of people against what is increasingly seen as an occupation force."
Washington's relations with Islamic states, already upset by events in Iraq, have taken a turn for the worse since Mr Bush endorsed Ariel Sharon's proposal to withdraw Israeli forces and settlements from the Gaza Strip but intensify its occupation of the West Bank.
King Abdullah of Jordan has cancelled a visit to Washington, and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt said this week that Arabs held a "hatred never equalled" towards America.
A separate OIC statement on the Middle East said that its members "strongly reject the recent unilateral plan of withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, as it breaches the resolutions of international legitimacy [and] contradicts ... the foundations of the peace process".
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US role in Middle East vilified at emergency meeting of Islamic countries: "John Aglionby, South-east Asia correspondent | Friday April 23, 2004 | The Guardian
...
The Organisation of Islamic Conferences also condemned Washington for supporting Israel's latest Palestinian initiative.
...
"Gone are the joy and jubilation of some Iraqis [at] the collapse of the regime of Saddam Hussein," he said. "What we see today is nothing less than the fierce resistance of people against what is increasingly seen as an occupation force."
Washington's relations with Islamic states, already upset by events in Iraq, have taken a turn for the worse since Mr Bush endorsed Ariel Sharon's proposal to withdraw Israeli forces and settlements from the Gaza Strip but intensify its occupation of the West Bank.
King Abdullah of Jordan has cancelled a visit to Washington, and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt said this week that Arabs held a "hatred never equalled" towards America.
A separate OIC statement on the Middle East said that its members "strongly reject the recent unilateral plan of withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, as it breaches the resolutions of international legitimacy [and] contradicts ... the foundations of the peace process".
For God's sake: fundamentalists of the US threaten state of cultural regression
Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | For God's sake: "The strong influence of the Christian right on US policy will only increase if George Bush wins a second term, says Philip James | Friday April 23, 2004
Evangelical lobbyists used to talk about access to previous Republican administrations. Today, they can say with confidence: 'Who needs access when we are already on the inside?'
The influence of the Christian right on the Bush White House is self-evident. As well as George Bush, cabinet members Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft and Don Evans all consider themselves to be born again.
Bush's self-description as a compassionate conservative belies a much harsher reality. And as America's attention has been focused on historic events overseas, the ground at home has shifted just as dramatically.
The administration is acutely aware of the power of the Christian voting block in the US. Gallup surveys consistently count 46% of the population as being self-described born again Christians, the bulk of whom live in middle America.
It is a stunning statistic, and one that escapes the attention of the chattering classes who populate the much less devout coastal strips.
Many of these churchgoers voted for Bush in 2000, and Carl Rove is determined that all of them should do the same this year. The latest data should put a spring in his step - Bush's job approval among grassroots Christian social conservatives hovers between 92% and 96%.
...
He dispelled any doubts about the strength of his Christian faith during his last press conference on Iraq, when he made it clear that God was personally directing him to fundamentally reshape the Arab world.
As surely as fundamentalism has kept much of the Islamic world in a state of cultural regression, so the fundamentalists of the US threaten to do the same thing in the States.
Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | For God's sake: "The strong influence of the Christian right on US policy will only increase if George Bush wins a second term, says Philip James | Friday April 23, 2004
Evangelical lobbyists used to talk about access to previous Republican administrations. Today, they can say with confidence: 'Who needs access when we are already on the inside?'
The influence of the Christian right on the Bush White House is self-evident. As well as George Bush, cabinet members Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft and Don Evans all consider themselves to be born again.
Bush's self-description as a compassionate conservative belies a much harsher reality. And as America's attention has been focused on historic events overseas, the ground at home has shifted just as dramatically.
The administration is acutely aware of the power of the Christian voting block in the US. Gallup surveys consistently count 46% of the population as being self-described born again Christians, the bulk of whom live in middle America.
It is a stunning statistic, and one that escapes the attention of the chattering classes who populate the much less devout coastal strips.
Many of these churchgoers voted for Bush in 2000, and Carl Rove is determined that all of them should do the same this year. The latest data should put a spring in his step - Bush's job approval among grassroots Christian social conservatives hovers between 92% and 96%.
...
He dispelled any doubts about the strength of his Christian faith during his last press conference on Iraq, when he made it clear that God was personally directing him to fundamentally reshape the Arab world.
As surely as fundamentalism has kept much of the Islamic world in a state of cultural regression, so the fundamentalists of the US threaten to do the same thing in the States.
Friday, April 23, 2004
The West's Mideast Divide (washingtonpost.com)
The West's Mideast Divide (washingtonpost.com): "By Jim Hoagland | Thursday, April 22, 2004; Page A31
PARIS -- One small country's bid to join the prestigious club of 30 nations known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is generating political tensions within that normally placid, somewhat technocratic body. It should come as no great surprise that the small country is Israel.
Nor should it knock your socks off that Israel's only strong supporter for OECD membership is the United States, while the opposition comes from countries of the European Union. This split mirrors the ever-deepening gap within most international organizations over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
... The OECD is now one of a multitude of multilaterals exposed to collateral political damage from the Middle East.
Europeans and Americans choose different sides and try different approaches on Israel/Palestine. They try to influence two peoples who proudly proclaim and then prove themselves beyond influence in matters of patriotism and homicide. On the Middle East, Europeans and Americans are united only by the futility of either approach, be it branding Israel an outlaw (Europe's choice) or making Israel feel secure through preemptive concessions (Uncle Sugar in person).
Three days after George W. Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Washington last week and gave him the biggest political gift within the president's power to bestow, the Israelis killed one more Palestinian terrorist chieftain. The assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi was roundly denounced by European governments after they caught their collective breath from semi-roundly denouncing Bush's backing of Sharon's disengagement plan.
...
But totally unconditional was Bush's offering of official U.S. support for "the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." Behind that wording was a deep understanding by the Bush White House of the Israeli leader's preoccupation with "the Arab demographic bomb," a driving force behind Sharon's still evolving reappraisal of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.
Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the territories number nearly 5 million today and have birthrates of nearly 4 percent -- about double the rate of Israel's 5.2 million Jews. Sharon understands that annexing much of the West Bank and/or the Gaza Strip would condemn Jews to eventually becoming a minority in Israel. Better to withdraw (mostly) at some point.
...
Bush's explicit guarantee of U.S. support for Israel's survival as a Jewish state is intended as a powerful reassurance for Sharon's government. As its importance becomes clearer, Europeans are likely first to demand what Bush got for the Palestinians from this latest American "concession" and then provide their own condemnatory answer: Nothing.
...
Israelis have given up on the Europeans, who do not want to offer the prestige of OECD membership or anything else to Sharon's detested government. But that government can do no wrong in the eyes of Bush, who is now profoundly hated by the Palestinians. The world's most powerful alliance is stalemated, and the killing will go on
The West's Mideast Divide (washingtonpost.com): "By Jim Hoagland | Thursday, April 22, 2004; Page A31
PARIS -- One small country's bid to join the prestigious club of 30 nations known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is generating political tensions within that normally placid, somewhat technocratic body. It should come as no great surprise that the small country is Israel.
Nor should it knock your socks off that Israel's only strong supporter for OECD membership is the United States, while the opposition comes from countries of the European Union. This split mirrors the ever-deepening gap within most international organizations over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
... The OECD is now one of a multitude of multilaterals exposed to collateral political damage from the Middle East.
Europeans and Americans choose different sides and try different approaches on Israel/Palestine. They try to influence two peoples who proudly proclaim and then prove themselves beyond influence in matters of patriotism and homicide. On the Middle East, Europeans and Americans are united only by the futility of either approach, be it branding Israel an outlaw (Europe's choice) or making Israel feel secure through preemptive concessions (Uncle Sugar in person).
Three days after George W. Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Washington last week and gave him the biggest political gift within the president's power to bestow, the Israelis killed one more Palestinian terrorist chieftain. The assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi was roundly denounced by European governments after they caught their collective breath from semi-roundly denouncing Bush's backing of Sharon's disengagement plan.
...
But totally unconditional was Bush's offering of official U.S. support for "the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." Behind that wording was a deep understanding by the Bush White House of the Israeli leader's preoccupation with "the Arab demographic bomb," a driving force behind Sharon's still evolving reappraisal of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.
Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the territories number nearly 5 million today and have birthrates of nearly 4 percent -- about double the rate of Israel's 5.2 million Jews. Sharon understands that annexing much of the West Bank and/or the Gaza Strip would condemn Jews to eventually becoming a minority in Israel. Better to withdraw (mostly) at some point.
...
Bush's explicit guarantee of U.S. support for Israel's survival as a Jewish state is intended as a powerful reassurance for Sharon's government. As its importance becomes clearer, Europeans are likely first to demand what Bush got for the Palestinians from this latest American "concession" and then provide their own condemnatory answer: Nothing.
...
Israelis have given up on the Europeans, who do not want to offer the prestige of OECD membership or anything else to Sharon's detested government. But that government can do no wrong in the eyes of Bush, who is now profoundly hated by the Palestinians. The world's most powerful alliance is stalemated, and the killing will go on
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Excite News
Excite News: "Palestinian Teen Dies in Gaza Ritual
Email this Story
Apr 22, 3:26 PM (ET)
By IBRAHIM BARZAK
(AP) Ahmed Elmalfouh, left, the brother of Mohammed Elmalfouh cries outside the Kamal Edwan hospital ,...
Full Image
BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip (AP) - Mohammed Elmalfouh, 16, slipped out of the house Thursday morning, telling his mother he was off to see his math tutor. Instead, he joined dozens of teens throwing stones at Israeli tanks from close range. The 10th grader was killed by a large-caliber bullet in the upper back."
Excite News: "Palestinian Teen Dies in Gaza Ritual
Email this Story
Apr 22, 3:26 PM (ET)
By IBRAHIM BARZAK
(AP) Ahmed Elmalfouh, left, the brother of Mohammed Elmalfouh cries outside the Kamal Edwan hospital ,...
Full Image
BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip (AP) - Mohammed Elmalfouh, 16, slipped out of the house Thursday morning, telling his mother he was off to see his math tutor. Instead, he joined dozens of teens throwing stones at Israeli tanks from close range. The 10th grader was killed by a large-caliber bullet in the upper back."
Excite News
Excite News: "Palestinians Blame Plight on U.S., Israel
Email this Story
Apr 22, 5:25 PM (ET)
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
(AP) Palestinian refugee Fuad Mansi, 30, left, repairs a car glass at his shop at Wehdat Palestinian...
Full Image
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - Mohammed Domeh was relaxing on his living room sofa, watching the TV news when he heard the fateful words: President Bush was flatly ruling out the return of Palestinians such as himself to what is now Israel.
'When I heard what Bush had to say - and I am saying this as a Palestinian intellectual - I wished I could wear an explosive belt around my waist and blow myself up in front of Bush,' said Domeh, 44."
Excite News: "Palestinians Blame Plight on U.S., Israel
Email this Story
Apr 22, 5:25 PM (ET)
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
(AP) Palestinian refugee Fuad Mansi, 30, left, repairs a car glass at his shop at Wehdat Palestinian...
Full Image
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - Mohammed Domeh was relaxing on his living room sofa, watching the TV news when he heard the fateful words: President Bush was flatly ruling out the return of Palestinians such as himself to what is now Israel.
'When I heard what Bush had to say - and I am saying this as a Palestinian intellectual - I wished I could wear an explosive belt around my waist and blow myself up in front of Bush,' said Domeh, 44."
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Christian Zionists: Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power: "no moderate position worth taking" with Israel
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power: "US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy | George Monbiot | Tuesday April 20, 2004 | The Guardian
To understand what is happening in the Middle East, you must first understand what is happening in Texas. To understand what is happening there, you should read the resolutions passed at the state's Republican party conventions last month. Take a look, for example, at the decisions made in Harris County, which covers much of Houston.
...
In the United States, several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth.
...
We can laugh at these people, but we should not dismiss them. That their beliefs are bonkers does not mean they are marginal. American pollsters believe that 15-18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings. A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans. ....
...
And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Mr DeLay (who is also the co-author of the marvellously named DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, postponing campaign finance reforms) travelled to Israel last year to tell the Knesset that "there is no middle ground, no moderate position worth taking".
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power: "US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy | George Monbiot | Tuesday April 20, 2004 | The Guardian
To understand what is happening in the Middle East, you must first understand what is happening in Texas. To understand what is happening there, you should read the resolutions passed at the state's Republican party conventions last month. Take a look, for example, at the decisions made in Harris County, which covers much of Houston.
...
In the United States, several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth.
...
We can laugh at these people, but we should not dismiss them. That their beliefs are bonkers does not mean they are marginal. American pollsters believe that 15-18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings. A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans. ....
...
And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Mr DeLay (who is also the co-author of the marvellously named DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, postponing campaign finance reforms) travelled to Israel last year to tell the Knesset that "there is no middle ground, no moderate position worth taking".
Mounting anger and alienation in the Islamic world over U.S. policies in the Middle East
Excite - News: "Islamic Nations Open Meeting on Iraq, Israel | Apr 21, 10:37 pm ET | By Patrick Chalmers
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (Reuters) - Islamic nations, opening an emergency meeting on Thursday, will urge the U.N. to take a key role in Iraq after Washington transfers authority in June, as security in the Middle East takes a turn for the worse.
Foreign ministers and envoys from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) will also reject a U.S.-backed Israeli plan to withdraw from Palestinian territories, officials from host Malaysia said. The plan has outraged Muslims because it would leave some Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.
The meeting has been called amid mounting anger and alienation in the Islamic world over U.S. policies in the volatile Middle East, even among Washington's friends. Jordan's king abruptly postponed a visit to the White House this week and Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak said Arabs hold a "hatred never equalled" toward America.
The OIC meeting also comes as Washington prepares a resolution that would ask the U.N. Security Council to give its blessing to a new Iraqi interim government, a multinational force and a U.N. role in the country after the planned handover of power to an Iraqi authority.
...
"I think we would like to see that the (Israeli-Palestinian) roadmap, the peace process, can be reinitiated," Syed Hamid said. "Some people consider it as rhetorical, but we will be failing in our duty if we don't say anything. It's better to say something rather than be muted about what's happening."
Excite - News: "Islamic Nations Open Meeting on Iraq, Israel | Apr 21, 10:37 pm ET | By Patrick Chalmers
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (Reuters) - Islamic nations, opening an emergency meeting on Thursday, will urge the U.N. to take a key role in Iraq after Washington transfers authority in June, as security in the Middle East takes a turn for the worse.
Foreign ministers and envoys from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) will also reject a U.S.-backed Israeli plan to withdraw from Palestinian territories, officials from host Malaysia said. The plan has outraged Muslims because it would leave some Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.
The meeting has been called amid mounting anger and alienation in the Islamic world over U.S. policies in the volatile Middle East, even among Washington's friends. Jordan's king abruptly postponed a visit to the White House this week and Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak said Arabs hold a "hatred never equalled" toward America.
The OIC meeting also comes as Washington prepares a resolution that would ask the U.N. Security Council to give its blessing to a new Iraqi interim government, a multinational force and a U.N. role in the country after the planned handover of power to an Iraqi authority.
...
"I think we would like to see that the (Israeli-Palestinian) roadmap, the peace process, can be reinitiated," Syed Hamid said. "Some people consider it as rhetorical, but we will be failing in our duty if we don't say anything. It's better to say something rather than be muted about what's happening."
U.S. Goals for Middle East Falter: "our political capital has never been lower", "unprecedented hatred"
U.S. Goals for Middle East Falter (washingtonpost.com): "Peace Plan, Arab Reforms Prove Elusive | By Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler | Washington Post Staff Writers | Wednesday, April 21, 2004; Page A16
A year ago, the Bush administration had a grand strategy for the Middle East, betting real progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and removal of Iraq's Saddam Hussein would allow the United States to launch a bold initiative for democratic reform across the region.
Today, Washington faces growing Arab backlash for endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan for Gaza and the West Bank, symbolized by the abrupt cancellation by Jordan's King Abdullah of a meeting with President Bush today. The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is still searching for a formula to create a government to assume sovereignty on June 30, with other countries also reviewing their troop commitments. And prospects for the democracy initiative to get support from an Arab League summit are rapidly dimming, with fears that Arab resolutions may instead criticize Washington, U.S. officials say.
In all three areas, Washington is looking for direction, bailouts or leadership from others -- the United Nations, Iraqis, Israelis, Arabs and Europeans -- to generate movement that U.S. officials have been unable to achieve since the hopes were unleashed last spring.
"Our interests in the Middle East are more vital, more complex and larger than ever before, but our political capital has never been lower," said Walter Russell Mead, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow just back from the region.
Bitterness in the 22-nation Arab bloc has deepened particularly over the past month, Arab leaders warn, with Iraq deteriorating and Sharon's visit followed by Israel's "targeted killing" of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi.
"After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," said President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, a stalwart U.S. ally, in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde published yesterday. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region." ...
U.S. Goals for Middle East Falter (washingtonpost.com): "Peace Plan, Arab Reforms Prove Elusive | By Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler | Washington Post Staff Writers | Wednesday, April 21, 2004; Page A16
A year ago, the Bush administration had a grand strategy for the Middle East, betting real progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and removal of Iraq's Saddam Hussein would allow the United States to launch a bold initiative for democratic reform across the region.
Today, Washington faces growing Arab backlash for endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan for Gaza and the West Bank, symbolized by the abrupt cancellation by Jordan's King Abdullah of a meeting with President Bush today. The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is still searching for a formula to create a government to assume sovereignty on June 30, with other countries also reviewing their troop commitments. And prospects for the democracy initiative to get support from an Arab League summit are rapidly dimming, with fears that Arab resolutions may instead criticize Washington, U.S. officials say.
In all three areas, Washington is looking for direction, bailouts or leadership from others -- the United Nations, Iraqis, Israelis, Arabs and Europeans -- to generate movement that U.S. officials have been unable to achieve since the hopes were unleashed last spring.
"Our interests in the Middle East are more vital, more complex and larger than ever before, but our political capital has never been lower," said Walter Russell Mead, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow just back from the region.
Bitterness in the 22-nation Arab bloc has deepened particularly over the past month, Arab leaders warn, with Iraq deteriorating and Sharon's visit followed by Israel's "targeted killing" of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi.
"After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," said President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, a stalwart U.S. ally, in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde published yesterday. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region." ...
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: UN resolution: all speakers - other than the US - critical of Israel
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: "Ewen MacAskill in Jerusalem and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Wednesday April 21, 2004 | The Guardian
A growing rift between America and the Arab world was exposed yesterday when two Middle Eastern allies delivered damaging rebuffs to President George Bush's policies in the region.
King Abdullah of Jordan flew home from the US after abruptly cancelling a meeting planned for today with the president in Washington. The king's move came as the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, said there was more hatred of Americans in the Arab world today than ever before.
King Abdullah and Mr Mubarak are two of the most moderate leaders in the Middle East and the two normally closest to the US.
King Abdullah's cancellation was in retaliation for Mr Bush's support last week for a plan by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, in which he offered to pull out of Gaza in return for US recognition of illegal settlements on the West Bank and an end of the right of 3.6 million Palestinians to return to Israel.
Mr Mubarak cited as reasons for the increased hatred Israel and the US occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Le Monde published yesterday, he said : "After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred. What's more - they [Arabs] see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything".
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
...
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: "Ewen MacAskill in Jerusalem and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Wednesday April 21, 2004 | The Guardian
A growing rift between America and the Arab world was exposed yesterday when two Middle Eastern allies delivered damaging rebuffs to President George Bush's policies in the region.
King Abdullah of Jordan flew home from the US after abruptly cancelling a meeting planned for today with the president in Washington. The king's move came as the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, said there was more hatred of Americans in the Arab world today than ever before.
King Abdullah and Mr Mubarak are two of the most moderate leaders in the Middle East and the two normally closest to the US.
King Abdullah's cancellation was in retaliation for Mr Bush's support last week for a plan by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, in which he offered to pull out of Gaza in return for US recognition of illegal settlements on the West Bank and an end of the right of 3.6 million Palestinians to return to Israel.
Mr Mubarak cited as reasons for the increased hatred Israel and the US occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Le Monde published yesterday, he said : "After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred. What's more - they [Arabs] see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything".
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
...
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: UN resolution: all speakers - other than the US - critical of Israel
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: "Ewen MacAskill in Jerusalem and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Wednesday April 21, 2004 | The Guardian
A growing rift between America and the Arab world was exposed yesterday when two Middle Eastern allies delivered damaging rebuffs to President George Bush's policies in the region.
King Abdullah of Jordan flew home from the US after abruptly cancelling a meeting planned for today with the president in Washington. The king's move came as the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, said there was more hatred of Americans in the Arab world today than ever before.
King Abdullah and Mr Mubarak are two of the most moderate leaders in the Middle East and the two normally closest to the US.
King Abdullah's cancellation was in retaliation for Mr Bush's support last week for a plan by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, in which he offered to pull out of Gaza in return for US recognition of illegal settlements on the West Bank and an end of the right of 3.6 million Palestinians to return to Israel.
Mr Mubarak cited as reasons for the increased hatred Israel and the US occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Le Monde published yesterday, he said : "After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred. What's more - they [Arabs] see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything".
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
...
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: "Ewen MacAskill in Jerusalem and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Wednesday April 21, 2004 | The Guardian
A growing rift between America and the Arab world was exposed yesterday when two Middle Eastern allies delivered damaging rebuffs to President George Bush's policies in the region.
King Abdullah of Jordan flew home from the US after abruptly cancelling a meeting planned for today with the president in Washington. The king's move came as the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, said there was more hatred of Americans in the Arab world today than ever before.
King Abdullah and Mr Mubarak are two of the most moderate leaders in the Middle East and the two normally closest to the US.
King Abdullah's cancellation was in retaliation for Mr Bush's support last week for a plan by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, in which he offered to pull out of Gaza in return for US recognition of illegal settlements on the West Bank and an end of the right of 3.6 million Palestinians to return to Israel.
Mr Mubarak cited as reasons for the increased hatred Israel and the US occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Le Monde published yesterday, he said : "After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred. What's more - they [Arabs] see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything".
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
...
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: UN resolution: all speakers - other than the US - critical of Israel
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: "Ewen MacAskill in Jerusalem and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Wednesday April 21, 2004 | The Guardian
A growing rift between America and the Arab world was exposed yesterday when two Middle Eastern allies delivered damaging rebuffs to President George Bush's policies in the region.
King Abdullah of Jordan flew home from the US after abruptly cancelling a meeting planned for today with the president in Washington. The king's move came as the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, said there was more hatred of Americans in the Arab world today than ever before.
King Abdullah and Mr Mubarak are two of the most moderate leaders in the Middle East and the two normally closest to the US.
King Abdullah's cancellation was in retaliation for Mr Bush's support last week for a plan by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, in which he offered to pull out of Gaza in return for US recognition of illegal settlements on the West Bank and an end of the right of 3.6 million Palestinians to return to Israel.
Mr Mubarak cited as reasons for the increased hatred Israel and the US occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Le Monde published yesterday, he said : "After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred. What's more - they [Arabs] see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything".
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
...
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Arab ally snubs Bush amid 'unprecedented hatred' for US: "Ewen MacAskill in Jerusalem and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington | Wednesday April 21, 2004 | The Guardian
A growing rift between America and the Arab world was exposed yesterday when two Middle Eastern allies delivered damaging rebuffs to President George Bush's policies in the region.
King Abdullah of Jordan flew home from the US after abruptly cancelling a meeting planned for today with the president in Washington. The king's move came as the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, said there was more hatred of Americans in the Arab world today than ever before.
King Abdullah and Mr Mubarak are two of the most moderate leaders in the Middle East and the two normally closest to the US.
King Abdullah's cancellation was in retaliation for Mr Bush's support last week for a plan by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, in which he offered to pull out of Gaza in return for US recognition of illegal settlements on the West Bank and an end of the right of 3.6 million Palestinians to return to Israel.
Mr Mubarak cited as reasons for the increased hatred Israel and the US occupation of Iraq. In an interview with Le Monde published yesterday, he said : "After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred. What's more - they [Arabs] see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything".
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
...
The Arab League, which represents all Arab countries, welcomed the king's decision to cancel his meeting. Ali Muhsin Hamid, its London ambassador, said Mr Bush's statement had reduced US-Arab relations to a level comparable to 1967.
The countries are trying to get a resolution through the UN condemning the assassination of the Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantissi. About 40 countries have spoken in the debate so far, all of them - other than the US - critical of Israel.
Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever: People have a feeling of injustice: Sharon assassinates people who don't have the planes and helicopters
Excite - News: "Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever | Apr 20, 1:19 pm ET
PARIS (Reuters) - Arabs in the Middle East hate the United States more than ever following the invasion of Iraq and Israel's assassination of two Hamas leaders, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday.
Mubarak, who visited the United States last week, told French newspaper Le Monde that Washington's actions had caused despair, frustration and a sense of injustice in the Arab world.
'Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region,' he said in an interview given during a stay in France, where he met President Jacques Chirac Monday.
He blamed the hostility partly on U.S. support for Israel, which assassinated Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in a missile strike in the Gaza Strip Saturday weeks after killing his predecessor, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
'At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it,' Mubarak said."
"People have a feeling of injustice. What's more, they see (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon acting as he pleases, without the Americans saying anything. He assassinates people who don't have the planes and helicopters that he has."
Israel says such killings are self-defense. But Mubarak said the assassination of Rantissi could have "serious consequences" and that instability in Gaza and Iraq would not serve U.S. or Israeli interests.
"The despair and feeling of injustice are not going to be limited to our region alone. American and Israeli interests will not be safe, not only in our region but anywhere in the world," he said. ...
Excite - News: "Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever | Apr 20, 1:19 pm ET
PARIS (Reuters) - Arabs in the Middle East hate the United States more than ever following the invasion of Iraq and Israel's assassination of two Hamas leaders, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday.
Mubarak, who visited the United States last week, told French newspaper Le Monde that Washington's actions had caused despair, frustration and a sense of injustice in the Arab world.
'Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region,' he said in an interview given during a stay in France, where he met President Jacques Chirac Monday.
He blamed the hostility partly on U.S. support for Israel, which assassinated Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in a missile strike in the Gaza Strip Saturday weeks after killing his predecessor, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
'At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it,' Mubarak said."
"People have a feeling of injustice. What's more, they see (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon acting as he pleases, without the Americans saying anything. He assassinates people who don't have the planes and helicopters that he has."
Israel says such killings are self-defense. But Mubarak said the assassination of Rantissi could have "serious consequences" and that instability in Gaza and Iraq would not serve U.S. or Israeli interests.
"The despair and feeling of injustice are not going to be limited to our region alone. American and Israeli interests will not be safe, not only in our region but anywhere in the world," he said. ...
Monday, April 19, 2004
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
On the Iraq War, the Press Failed the Public: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune | by James Goldsborough
...
Having ignored the lessons of history, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the failure in Iraq.
But what of the press? Did newspapers ignore the lessons of history as well? As the public's watchdog, did we bark loud enough as Bush's plans took shape, or were we dozing?
...
Three press reports show we made poor use of it.
A year ago, as war was about to begin, Editor & Publisher, the professional weekly, did an analysis showing that among the top 50 daily newspapers, not one editorial page was "strongly anti-war." In other words, the nation's watchdogs failed to provide context or balance to the war-whooping taking place on talk radio and cable television.
This month, the Columbia Journalism Review provides an analysis of editorial pages on six of the most influential U.S. newspapers. It concludes that not one of them "held the Bush administration to an adequate standard of proof when it came to launching not just a war, but a pre-emptive war opposed by most of the world."
The six newspapers examined are: The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Though most of these dailies have historical memories stretching beyond the Vietnam War, not one of them suggested that, in Iraq, we risked walking into another quagmire.
The third press analysis deals with news stories, not editorials. The New York Review of Books, in three separate editions, published an exchange between press analyst Michael Massing and reporters and editors at The New York Times and Washington Post. This exchange involved Massing's charge that Post and Times reporters and editors were too complaisant toward the Bush administration, failing to research or question Bush allegations that proved to be false.
The thrust of these three critiques is that newspapers – small and large, news pages and editorial pages – helped create public support for a war fought on false pretenses. "All these papers are on notice," concluded defense and intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the Columbia Journalism Review. "They've seen what happened. They were hustled." ...
Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush
Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org | by John D. Goldhammer
And let us bathe our hands in . . . blood up to the elbows, and besmear our swords. Then we walk forth, even to the market place, And waving our red weapons o'er our heads, Let's all cry 'peace, freedom and liberty!' - Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
...
What will it mean to vote for George W. Bush for a second term? When I answer that question I realize that we face a presidential election that will be a profound referendum on the very nature of what it means to be an American, a referendum holding ominous portents for the future of the United States and for the world. A vote for the Bush cadre will leave those voters with bloodied hands, making them accomplices to each and every casualty of a foreign policy that has alienated us from our allies and inflamed our enemies, a foreign policy that also has ensnared us in an unnecessary war in Iraq.
Voting for Bush II will support and perpetuate what amounts to a full-blown, political cult -a fanatical political predator with fundamentalist religious fangs and moneyed, special interest claws. The religious right's cult mind set has corrupted our country's current leadership, which has, in turn, further deformed an already dysfunctional foreign policy into an empire-building rogue state.
With characteristic religious cult missionizing, Bush II and his inner group of fundamentalist crusaders, who have commandeered Republican minds, are intent upon "blessing" the Moslem world with "Almighty God's gift of freedom" while fundamentalist Islam is equally intent on "blessing" the West with Allah's Islamic theocracy. Two ideological cults at war with each other-two sides of the same coin: lethal groupthink-outmoded, medieval, brutal and dehumanizing cult behaviors that could easily drag the civilized world back into the dark ages.
...
Nearly all religious cults believe they are the "chosen" people, that they have a mission to save (convert) every non-believer. As George W. prepared for the presidential election in 1999, he assembled a group of pastors for a "laying on of hands" and told them that he was "called to a higher office." Bush II and many of his closest advisors have been infected with a viral strain of Evangelical Christianity that believes the United States is indeed "called" to save the world. This egomaniacal "messiah complex" permeates the political atmosphere of the Bush administration, the "Bush Doctrine," and our "National Security Strategy." It is the same group fanaticism that fueled the incomprehensible savagery of the European Christians' Crusades during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries.
A vote for George W. Bush is a handshake with an old devil-a "blood vote." It pulls the trigger for a continuation of the this U.S. president's religious imperialism and political hegemony. G. W. Bush made his agenda quite clear when he proclaimed that the United States is "called to bring God's gift of liberty to every human being in the world." - good news for Christians, bad news for any other beliefs.
Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org | by John D. Goldhammer
And let us bathe our hands in . . . blood up to the elbows, and besmear our swords. Then we walk forth, even to the market place, And waving our red weapons o'er our heads, Let's all cry 'peace, freedom and liberty!' - Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
...
What will it mean to vote for George W. Bush for a second term? When I answer that question I realize that we face a presidential election that will be a profound referendum on the very nature of what it means to be an American, a referendum holding ominous portents for the future of the United States and for the world. A vote for the Bush cadre will leave those voters with bloodied hands, making them accomplices to each and every casualty of a foreign policy that has alienated us from our allies and inflamed our enemies, a foreign policy that also has ensnared us in an unnecessary war in Iraq.
Voting for Bush II will support and perpetuate what amounts to a full-blown, political cult -a fanatical political predator with fundamentalist religious fangs and moneyed, special interest claws. The religious right's cult mind set has corrupted our country's current leadership, which has, in turn, further deformed an already dysfunctional foreign policy into an empire-building rogue state.
With characteristic religious cult missionizing, Bush II and his inner group of fundamentalist crusaders, who have commandeered Republican minds, are intent upon "blessing" the Moslem world with "Almighty God's gift of freedom" while fundamentalist Islam is equally intent on "blessing" the West with Allah's Islamic theocracy. Two ideological cults at war with each other-two sides of the same coin: lethal groupthink-outmoded, medieval, brutal and dehumanizing cult behaviors that could easily drag the civilized world back into the dark ages.
...
Nearly all religious cults believe they are the "chosen" people, that they have a mission to save (convert) every non-believer. As George W. prepared for the presidential election in 1999, he assembled a group of pastors for a "laying on of hands" and told them that he was "called to a higher office." Bush II and many of his closest advisors have been infected with a viral strain of Evangelical Christianity that believes the United States is indeed "called" to save the world. This egomaniacal "messiah complex" permeates the political atmosphere of the Bush administration, the "Bush Doctrine," and our "National Security Strategy." It is the same group fanaticism that fueled the incomprehensible savagery of the European Christians' Crusades during the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries.
A vote for George W. Bush is a handshake with an old devil-a "blood vote." It pulls the trigger for a continuation of the this U.S. president's religious imperialism and political hegemony. G. W. Bush made his agenda quite clear when he proclaimed that the United States is "called to bring God's gift of liberty to every human being in the world." - good news for Christians, bad news for any other beliefs.
Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse: credibility of U.S. force may be irreparably damaged
Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org | Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse | by Robert Freeman
...
Both Iraq and Vietnam were founded on lies. In Vietnam, the original lie was that an impoverished nation of pre-industrial age farmers posed a threat to the mightiest empire the world had ever known. The Gulf of Tonkin hoax was the manufactured excuse to jump in with all guns blazing. And the Pentagon Papers were the meticulous, irrefutable chronicle of the litany of all the rest of the lies.
With Iraq, we don’t need to wait for a Pentagon Papers to know the trigger or the extent of the lying. It is already notorious. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Connections to Al Qaeda. Complicity in 9/11. A “cakewalk”. Being welcomed as “liberators”. A “self-funding” war. “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction.” Reducing global terror. Mission Accomplished. The real question in Iraq is not whether the Bush administration has told any lies but rather, almost literally, whether it has told any meaningful truths.
Both wars quickly became guerilla wars. In Vietnam, the battlegrounds were jungles, rice patties, and small rural hamlets.
...
Both wars were against victim nations already deeply scarred by colonial domination. It is this legacy that poisons all U.S. sanctimony about installing “democracy” in Iraq. Vietnam was dominated for over a century by first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and eventually the Americans. But all the Vietnamese people ever wanted was to be free of such domination, to craft for themselves their own destiny, much as the American colonists had done in their revolutionary war.
Iraq, too, bears the scars of a long and repressive colonial legacy. It was created in the aftermath of World War I, literally carved out of the sand by the British for the sole purpose of controlling the world’s oil supply.
...
... Both wars were fought in the vanguard of grand U.S. strategy. In Vietnam, the strategy was “Containment,” George Kennan’s famous formula for stopping the Soviet Union from expanding its empire. Eisenhower’s overwrought and ultimately disproved version had dominoes falling from Laos and Cambodia, on to Thailand and Burma, all the way to India.
In Iraq, the grand strategy is global hegemony. It is the neo-conservatives’ vision of the once-in-a-millennium chance to dominate the world. With the Cold War ended and no plausible military challenger in sight, such a chance must not be let to pass, certainly not for want of sufficient “manhood”. Iraq is simply the first tactical step in this vision, the basis for controlling the world’s oil and, thereby, the US’s strategic competitors. This is the reason the Pentagon plans to leave 14 military bases in the country indefinitely—to project military power throughout the Persian Gulf, site of 55% of the world’s oil.
...
But as was the case with successive presidents in Vietnam, the necessity “to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat” now drives Bush policy more than anything else. And we should be clear: this goes far beyond the need to simply maintain appearances until November. If the U.S. is driven from Iraq, the credibility of U.S. force and the potency of U.S. power in the world will be irreparably damaged, far more than it was by the loss in Vietnam. This is why Iraq may actually become worse than Vietnam.
...
The damage to U.S. prestige in the world for its illegal invasion of Iraq is already done. The danger now is that in his desperation to “avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat,” the repudiation of his entire presidency, and a generation-long disdain for U.S. military power, Bush will resort to apocalyptic barbarism. This is exactly what Nixon did trying to salvage “peace with honor” in Vietnam. It is this temptation that only the American public can force Bush to resist.
Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse: "Monday, April 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org | Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse | by Robert Freeman
...
Both Iraq and Vietnam were founded on lies. In Vietnam, the original lie was that an impoverished nation of pre-industrial age farmers posed a threat to the mightiest empire the world had ever known. The Gulf of Tonkin hoax was the manufactured excuse to jump in with all guns blazing. And the Pentagon Papers were the meticulous, irrefutable chronicle of the litany of all the rest of the lies.
With Iraq, we don’t need to wait for a Pentagon Papers to know the trigger or the extent of the lying. It is already notorious. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Connections to Al Qaeda. Complicity in 9/11. A “cakewalk”. Being welcomed as “liberators”. A “self-funding” war. “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction.” Reducing global terror. Mission Accomplished. The real question in Iraq is not whether the Bush administration has told any lies but rather, almost literally, whether it has told any meaningful truths.
Both wars quickly became guerilla wars. In Vietnam, the battlegrounds were jungles, rice patties, and small rural hamlets.
...
Both wars were against victim nations already deeply scarred by colonial domination. It is this legacy that poisons all U.S. sanctimony about installing “democracy” in Iraq. Vietnam was dominated for over a century by first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and eventually the Americans. But all the Vietnamese people ever wanted was to be free of such domination, to craft for themselves their own destiny, much as the American colonists had done in their revolutionary war.
Iraq, too, bears the scars of a long and repressive colonial legacy. It was created in the aftermath of World War I, literally carved out of the sand by the British for the sole purpose of controlling the world’s oil supply.
...
... Both wars were fought in the vanguard of grand U.S. strategy. In Vietnam, the strategy was “Containment,” George Kennan’s famous formula for stopping the Soviet Union from expanding its empire. Eisenhower’s overwrought and ultimately disproved version had dominoes falling from Laos and Cambodia, on to Thailand and Burma, all the way to India.
In Iraq, the grand strategy is global hegemony. It is the neo-conservatives’ vision of the once-in-a-millennium chance to dominate the world. With the Cold War ended and no plausible military challenger in sight, such a chance must not be let to pass, certainly not for want of sufficient “manhood”. Iraq is simply the first tactical step in this vision, the basis for controlling the world’s oil and, thereby, the US’s strategic competitors. This is the reason the Pentagon plans to leave 14 military bases in the country indefinitely—to project military power throughout the Persian Gulf, site of 55% of the world’s oil.
...
But as was the case with successive presidents in Vietnam, the necessity “to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat” now drives Bush policy more than anything else. And we should be clear: this goes far beyond the need to simply maintain appearances until November. If the U.S. is driven from Iraq, the credibility of U.S. force and the potency of U.S. power in the world will be irreparably damaged, far more than it was by the loss in Vietnam. This is why Iraq may actually become worse than Vietnam.
...
The damage to U.S. prestige in the world for its illegal invasion of Iraq is already done. The danger now is that in his desperation to “avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat,” the repudiation of his entire presidency, and a generation-long disdain for U.S. military power, Bush will resort to apocalyptic barbarism. This is exactly what Nixon did trying to salvage “peace with honor” in Vietnam. It is this temptation that only the American public can force Bush to resist.
Bush cannot think of any mistakes: "liberators", limited troops, disbanding Sunni managers, fawlty intelligence, misled
TOMPAINE.com - Fatal Errors: "Fatal Errors
Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic senator from California.
Last night, President Bush was asked the question whether his administration has made any mistakes with regard to Iraq.
I believe several very serious mistakes were made:
-Believing that we would be greeted as liberators;
-Thinking that this could be done with a very limited number of troops;
-Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq’s water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country’s infrastructure, along with the Iraqi army and police force; and
-Failing to provide a follow-on force that could have secured the Iraqi infrastructure from looters and the take-down of virtually all the infrastructure of Iraq.
...
Additionally, the war was fought because the administration contended there was a grave, growing, and, yes, imminent threat that Iraq possessed and would use weapons of mass destruction, namely biological and chemical weapons.
For the past two and a half years, I have served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which provides oversight to the 15 intelligence departments of the United States government.
With respect to Iraq, the Intelligence Committee received a classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, (NIE) and an unclassified version was available to the public.
The key findings were very specific: Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons.
I joined 76 members of the Senate to vote to give the president authorization to use force in Iraq.
To date, no biological or chemical weapons have been found in Iraq, and there is no evidence of any ongoing nuclear program—despite inspection of literally thousands of high-priority spots by the military, by a special Iraqi survey group headed by Dr. David Kay, and now by a replacement group.
It seems clear now that 1) we have a flawed intelligence system and 2) we were misled by this administration.
I don’t believe that if the mission had been just regime change there would have been 77 votes in the Senate to authorize use of force. There certainly would not have been my vote, and there may not have been a majority.
Nonetheless, we are where we are. And I believe U.S. failure in Iraq would have profound implications. It would:
-Increase the likelihood of civil war, Sunni against Shi'ite against Kurd;
-Dash any possibility for the spread of democracy and human rights in the region; and
-Embolden Al Qaeda, possibly leading to further attacks against the United States and our allies.
The question now is whether the United States should turn over authority to an interim Iraqi regime on June 30; whether we have enough troops in the country to help guarantee that Iraq does not erupt into civil war; and whether we can convince the international community to help stabilize Iraq.
The problem is that there is no plan that I know of to turn it over to the government. To whom do you turn it over?
TOMPAINE.com - Fatal Errors: "Fatal Errors
Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic senator from California.
Last night, President Bush was asked the question whether his administration has made any mistakes with regard to Iraq.
I believe several very serious mistakes were made:
-Believing that we would be greeted as liberators;
-Thinking that this could be done with a very limited number of troops;
-Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq’s water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country’s infrastructure, along with the Iraqi army and police force; and
-Failing to provide a follow-on force that could have secured the Iraqi infrastructure from looters and the take-down of virtually all the infrastructure of Iraq.
...
Additionally, the war was fought because the administration contended there was a grave, growing, and, yes, imminent threat that Iraq possessed and would use weapons of mass destruction, namely biological and chemical weapons.
For the past two and a half years, I have served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which provides oversight to the 15 intelligence departments of the United States government.
With respect to Iraq, the Intelligence Committee received a classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, (NIE) and an unclassified version was available to the public.
The key findings were very specific: Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons.
I joined 76 members of the Senate to vote to give the president authorization to use force in Iraq.
To date, no biological or chemical weapons have been found in Iraq, and there is no evidence of any ongoing nuclear program—despite inspection of literally thousands of high-priority spots by the military, by a special Iraqi survey group headed by Dr. David Kay, and now by a replacement group.
It seems clear now that 1) we have a flawed intelligence system and 2) we were misled by this administration.
I don’t believe that if the mission had been just regime change there would have been 77 votes in the Senate to authorize use of force. There certainly would not have been my vote, and there may not have been a majority.
Nonetheless, we are where we are. And I believe U.S. failure in Iraq would have profound implications. It would:
-Increase the likelihood of civil war, Sunni against Shi'ite against Kurd;
-Dash any possibility for the spread of democracy and human rights in the region; and
-Embolden Al Qaeda, possibly leading to further attacks against the United States and our allies.
The question now is whether the United States should turn over authority to an interim Iraqi regime on June 30; whether we have enough troops in the country to help guarantee that Iraq does not erupt into civil war; and whether we can convince the international community to help stabilize Iraq.
The problem is that there is no plan that I know of to turn it over to the government. To whom do you turn it over?
Bush Legitimizes Terrorism: Does President George Bush actually work for al-Qa'ida? gives way to crazed world of Christian Zionism
Robert Fisk: Bush Legitimizes Terrorism: "April 16 / 18, 2004 | Sharon's 'Courageous' Plan | Bush Legitimizes Terrorism | By ROBERT FISK | The Independent
So President George Bush tears up the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and that's okay. Israeli settlements for Jews and Jews only on the West Bank. That's okay. Taking land from Palestinians who have owned that land for generations, that's okay. UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that land cannot be acquired by war. Forget it. That's okay.
Does President George Bush actually work for al-Qa'ida? What does this mean? That George Bush cares more about his re-election than he does about the Middle East? Or that George Bush is more frightened of the Israeli lobby than he is of his own electorate. Fear not, it is the latter.
His language, his narrative, his discourse on history, has been such a lie these past three weeks that I wonder why we bother to listen to his boring press conferences. Ariel Sharon, the perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1,700 Palestinian civilians dead) is a 'man of peace' - even though the official 1993 Israeli report on the massacre said he was 'personally responsible' for it. Now, Mr Bush is praising Mr Sharon's plan to steal yet more Palestinian land as a 'historic and courageous act'.
Heaven spare us all. Give up the puny illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and everything's okay: the theft of land by colonial settlers, the denial of any right of return to Israel by those Palestinians who lived there, that's okay. Mr Bush, who claimed he changed the Middle East by invading Iraq, says he is now changing the world by invading Iraq! Okay! Is there no one to cry "Stop! Enough!"?
...
What Bush has actually done is give way to the crazed world of Christian Zionism. The fundamentalist Christians who support Israel's theft of the West Bank on the grounds that the state of Israel must exist there according to God's law until the second coming, believe that Jesus will return to earth and the Israelis--for this is the Bush "Christian Sundie" belief--will then have to convert to Christianity or die in the battle of Amargeddon.
I kid thee not. This is the Christian fundamentalist belief, which even the Israeli embassy in Washington go along with--without comment, of course--in their weekly Christian Zionist prayer meetings. ...
Robert Fisk: Bush Legitimizes Terrorism: "April 16 / 18, 2004 | Sharon's 'Courageous' Plan | Bush Legitimizes Terrorism | By ROBERT FISK | The Independent
So President George Bush tears up the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and that's okay. Israeli settlements for Jews and Jews only on the West Bank. That's okay. Taking land from Palestinians who have owned that land for generations, that's okay. UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that land cannot be acquired by war. Forget it. That's okay.
Does President George Bush actually work for al-Qa'ida? What does this mean? That George Bush cares more about his re-election than he does about the Middle East? Or that George Bush is more frightened of the Israeli lobby than he is of his own electorate. Fear not, it is the latter.
His language, his narrative, his discourse on history, has been such a lie these past three weeks that I wonder why we bother to listen to his boring press conferences. Ariel Sharon, the perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1,700 Palestinian civilians dead) is a 'man of peace' - even though the official 1993 Israeli report on the massacre said he was 'personally responsible' for it. Now, Mr Bush is praising Mr Sharon's plan to steal yet more Palestinian land as a 'historic and courageous act'.
Heaven spare us all. Give up the puny illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and everything's okay: the theft of land by colonial settlers, the denial of any right of return to Israel by those Palestinians who lived there, that's okay. Mr Bush, who claimed he changed the Middle East by invading Iraq, says he is now changing the world by invading Iraq! Okay! Is there no one to cry "Stop! Enough!"?
...
What Bush has actually done is give way to the crazed world of Christian Zionism. The fundamentalist Christians who support Israel's theft of the West Bank on the grounds that the state of Israel must exist there according to God's law until the second coming, believe that Jesus will return to earth and the Israelis--for this is the Bush "Christian Sundie" belief--will then have to convert to Christianity or die in the battle of Amargeddon.
I kid thee not. This is the Christian fundamentalist belief, which even the Israeli embassy in Washington go along with--without comment, of course--in their weekly Christian Zionist prayer meetings. ...
Afghanistan's Descent: dramatic resurgence in the opium trade: army of 9,000 compared with 45,000 militia and war lords
Afghanistan's Descent (washingtonpost.com): "Monday, April 19, 2004; Page A18
THE FIGHTING in Iraq has kindled hopes of sharing the burden with allies, perhaps by involving NATO. Meanwhile Afghanistan, where NATO assumed peacekeeping responsibility last August, is not progressing well. NATO's European members have failed to contribute sufficient troops to extend the peacekeeping presence much outside the capital, and the resulting power vacuum has been filled by warlords. Last week the leading northern strongman, Gen. Abdurrashid Dostum forced the flight of a provincial governor and demanded that President Hamid Karzai fire two ministers; two weeks before that, fighting in the western city of Herat killed a cabinet minister. Most disturbing, the power vacuum has made possible a dramatic resurgence in the opium trade, which now accounts for around two-fifths of the country's economic output. Unless NATO's peacekeepers and the American military contingent grow more assertive, the drug monster will destroy all hope of stabilizing the country.
Nation-building is hard at the best of times. You have to build institutions and overcome habits of lawlessness, factionalism and corruption that are self-reinforcing. But building legitimate institutions becomes almost impossible if illegitimate ones are earning millions of dollars -- from drugs, as in Colombia, or from gems, as in Angola, Sierra Leone or Congo. In Afghanistan, a warlord with a militia of 1,000 can take over a slice of country and start growing and processing poppies. Pretty soon, that warlord can afford to hire another 1,000 followers. Meanwhile, the job of training Afghanistan's national army and police force is proceeding at a snail's pace. The army has around 9,000 troops, compared with an estimated 45,000 militia members in the country.
Afghanistan's Descent (washingtonpost.com): "Monday, April 19, 2004; Page A18
THE FIGHTING in Iraq has kindled hopes of sharing the burden with allies, perhaps by involving NATO. Meanwhile Afghanistan, where NATO assumed peacekeeping responsibility last August, is not progressing well. NATO's European members have failed to contribute sufficient troops to extend the peacekeeping presence much outside the capital, and the resulting power vacuum has been filled by warlords. Last week the leading northern strongman, Gen. Abdurrashid Dostum forced the flight of a provincial governor and demanded that President Hamid Karzai fire two ministers; two weeks before that, fighting in the western city of Herat killed a cabinet minister. Most disturbing, the power vacuum has made possible a dramatic resurgence in the opium trade, which now accounts for around two-fifths of the country's economic output. Unless NATO's peacekeepers and the American military contingent grow more assertive, the drug monster will destroy all hope of stabilizing the country.
Nation-building is hard at the best of times. You have to build institutions and overcome habits of lawlessness, factionalism and corruption that are self-reinforcing. But building legitimate institutions becomes almost impossible if illegitimate ones are earning millions of dollars -- from drugs, as in Colombia, or from gems, as in Angola, Sierra Leone or Congo. In Afghanistan, a warlord with a militia of 1,000 can take over a slice of country and start growing and processing poppies. Pretty soon, that warlord can afford to hire another 1,000 followers. Meanwhile, the job of training Afghanistan's national army and police force is proceeding at a snail's pace. The army has around 9,000 troops, compared with an estimated 45,000 militia members in the country.
Israel Planning Big Investment in Settlements on West Bank: "What is proposed is transforming the Gaza Strip into a big prison
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Israel Planning Big Investment in Settlements on West Bank: "Israel Planning Big Investment in Settlements on West Bank | By JAMES BENNET | Published: April 20, 2004
JERUSALEM, April 19 � Israel will invest tens of millions of dollars in West Bank settlements as it withdraws from the Gaza Strip, the Israeli finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said Monday.
Also on Monday, Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, accused Israel of trying to turn Gaza into a 'big prison,' while Mr. Sharon picked up another important right-wing endorsement of his plan to withdraw from Gaza without a peace agreement.
...
Mr. Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel could now "fortify our hold" on blocs of West Bank settlements. He told Israel radio on Monday that he would approve investment for settlements that would not be enclosed on Israel's side of the new barrier it is building against West Bank Palestinians.
"There, we are going to invest," he said. "I myself am going to approve hundreds of millions of shekels to invest in the settlements beyond the main fence."
In addition to giving Israel new assurances on territory, Mr. Bush also rejected any "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and their descendants.
...
"What is proposed is transforming the Gaza Strip into a big prison and maintaining Israel's control," Mr. Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian leadership said in a statement.
The statement called the proposed withdrawal "cosmetic and a delusion," saying "Sharon's plan prejudices all final status issues and contravenes international resolutions."
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Israel Planning Big Investment in Settlements on West Bank: "Israel Planning Big Investment in Settlements on West Bank | By JAMES BENNET | Published: April 20, 2004
JERUSALEM, April 19 � Israel will invest tens of millions of dollars in West Bank settlements as it withdraws from the Gaza Strip, the Israeli finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said Monday.
Also on Monday, Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, accused Israel of trying to turn Gaza into a 'big prison,' while Mr. Sharon picked up another important right-wing endorsement of his plan to withdraw from Gaza without a peace agreement.
...
Mr. Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel could now "fortify our hold" on blocs of West Bank settlements. He told Israel radio on Monday that he would approve investment for settlements that would not be enclosed on Israel's side of the new barrier it is building against West Bank Palestinians.
"There, we are going to invest," he said. "I myself am going to approve hundreds of millions of shekels to invest in the settlements beyond the main fence."
In addition to giving Israel new assurances on territory, Mr. Bush also rejected any "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and their descendants.
...
"What is proposed is transforming the Gaza Strip into a big prison and maintaining Israel's control," Mr. Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian leadership said in a statement.
The statement called the proposed withdrawal "cosmetic and a delusion," saying "Sharon's plan prejudices all final status issues and contravenes international resolutions."
Hamas Leader Seeks Arab-Muslim Pact Vs Israel-U.S.: urges leaders "to declare the death of the so-called peace process.", Bush "fired bullet at roadma
Excite - News: "Hamas Leader Seeks Arab-Muslim Pact Vs Israel-U.S. | Apr 19, 5:29 pm ET | By Inal Ersan
AL-YARMOUK CAMP, Syria (Reuters) - Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal on Monday called for an Arab and Muslim alliance to defeat the United States and Israel.
'Our battle is with two sides, one of them is the strongest power in the world, the United States, and the second is the strongest power in the region (Israel),' he told hundreds of people at the al-Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus.
'That is the caliber of the battle. We will not be victorious unless the other side of the battle is Arab and Muslim. All of the Arabs and Muslims,' he said at a memorial ceremony for Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, the group's Gaza leader assassinated by Israel on Saturday.
...
He urged the leaders of 22 Arab states and more than 30 non-Arab Muslim countries to "make an alliance, even a temporary one...to combine capabilities against the enemy."
"The problem is in us and not in the balance of power...if the (Islamic) nation would fight the same way (Palestinians and Iraqis) are fighting in Rafah, Jenin and Falluja then by God we will defeat both the United States and Israel," he said.
...
Meshaal told Reuters last Wednesday President Bush "fired a fatal bullet at the road map and at any other settlement plan" when he approved Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for unilateral moves.
While endorsing Sharon's unilateral Gaza pullout plan, Bush also offered backing for Israel to retain parts of the occupied West Bank and a negation of any right of return of Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 to their homes in what is now Israel.
Meshaal urged Arab leaders, who are expected to hold a summit meeting in Tunisia in May, "to declare the death of the so-called peace process." ...
Excite - News: "Hamas Leader Seeks Arab-Muslim Pact Vs Israel-U.S. | Apr 19, 5:29 pm ET | By Inal Ersan
AL-YARMOUK CAMP, Syria (Reuters) - Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal on Monday called for an Arab and Muslim alliance to defeat the United States and Israel.
'Our battle is with two sides, one of them is the strongest power in the world, the United States, and the second is the strongest power in the region (Israel),' he told hundreds of people at the al-Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus.
'That is the caliber of the battle. We will not be victorious unless the other side of the battle is Arab and Muslim. All of the Arabs and Muslims,' he said at a memorial ceremony for Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, the group's Gaza leader assassinated by Israel on Saturday.
...
He urged the leaders of 22 Arab states and more than 30 non-Arab Muslim countries to "make an alliance, even a temporary one...to combine capabilities against the enemy."
"The problem is in us and not in the balance of power...if the (Islamic) nation would fight the same way (Palestinians and Iraqis) are fighting in Rafah, Jenin and Falluja then by God we will defeat both the United States and Israel," he said.
...
Meshaal told Reuters last Wednesday President Bush "fired a fatal bullet at the road map and at any other settlement plan" when he approved Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for unilateral moves.
While endorsing Sharon's unilateral Gaza pullout plan, Bush also offered backing for Israel to retain parts of the occupied West Bank and a negation of any right of return of Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 to their homes in what is now Israel.
Meshaal urged Arab leaders, who are expected to hold a summit meeting in Tunisia in May, "to declare the death of the so-called peace process." ...
Jordan's Abdullah Postpones Bush Meeting: Last week Jordan criticized Washington for backing Israeli plans to keep parts of the occupied West Bank
Excite - News: "Jordan's Abdullah Postpones Bush Meeting | Apr 19, 7:42 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jordan's King Abdullah postponed a meeting with President Bush schedule for Wednesday, citing concerns about Washington's position on the Middle East peace process, officials said on Monday.
The move, announced by U.S. and Jordanian officials, comes less than one week after Bush outraged Palestinians by saying Israel could keep some of the Arab land it captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
...
Last week Jordan criticized Washington for backing Israeli plans to keep parts of the occupied West Bank before a final Arab-Israeli peace accord was reached by the parties to the conflict.
Bush, with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at his side, also dismissed the right of Palestinian refugees to return to what is now Israel.
...
Separately, the State Department said Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath postponed plans to meet Secretary of State Colin Powell this week. One U.S. official said this also appeared to be because of displeasure at last week's events.
Israel assassinated top Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in a missile strike on Saturday.
"We had heard before (the death of Rantissi) that the visit was unlikely to happen to give the Palestinians a chance to think about things and digest them further," said the U.S. official. "(I imagine) Rantissi didn't exactly help matters."
Jordan, which has hosted successive waves of Palestinian refugees since the creation of Israel in 1948, fears the rejection of the right of refugees to return will pave the way for their permanent integration in the kingdom. ...
Excite - News: "Jordan's Abdullah Postpones Bush Meeting | Apr 19, 7:42 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jordan's King Abdullah postponed a meeting with President Bush schedule for Wednesday, citing concerns about Washington's position on the Middle East peace process, officials said on Monday.
The move, announced by U.S. and Jordanian officials, comes less than one week after Bush outraged Palestinians by saying Israel could keep some of the Arab land it captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
...
Last week Jordan criticized Washington for backing Israeli plans to keep parts of the occupied West Bank before a final Arab-Israeli peace accord was reached by the parties to the conflict.
Bush, with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at his side, also dismissed the right of Palestinian refugees to return to what is now Israel.
...
Separately, the State Department said Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath postponed plans to meet Secretary of State Colin Powell this week. One U.S. official said this also appeared to be because of displeasure at last week's events.
Israel assassinated top Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in a missile strike on Saturday.
"We had heard before (the death of Rantissi) that the visit was unlikely to happen to give the Palestinians a chance to think about things and digest them further," said the U.S. official. "(I imagine) Rantissi didn't exactly help matters."
Jordan, which has hosted successive waves of Palestinian refugees since the creation of Israel in 1948, fears the rejection of the right of refugees to return will pave the way for their permanent integration in the kingdom. ...
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Arabs, Europeans Decry Rantisi Slaying:"unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive." " Bush and his administration were the No. 1 killer of Rantisi.
Excite News: "Arabs, Europeans Decry Rantisi Slaying | Apr 18, 3:55 PM (ET) | By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - As the funeral procession of assassinated Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi wound through Gaza Sunday, a cleric in Lebanon said Muslims should "take to the streets" to protest his death. They needed little urging.
Arabs burned Israeli and American flags and called for vengeance from refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon and on university campuses in Egypt and Kuwait.
Meanwhile, France, Greece, Iran, Japan and Turkey were among governments that condemned Israel's killing of Rantisi in a missile strike less than a month after a similar attack killed his predecessor, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Israel called Yassin and Rantisi terrorists dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state; Arabs on Sunday said Hamas fought for Palestinian rights.
China and Russia expressed concern Rantisi's death would escalate Mideast tension, as did Sweden's Prime Minister Goeran Persson.
"I can understand that Israel is criticizing Hamas and attacking Hamas, but we can never accept these executions. They are extrajudicial actions, illegal and disgusting," Persson said.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw condemned the killing as "unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive."
Though he did not refer directly to Rantisi, Pope John Paul II began his weekly address in the Vatican on Sunday by saying he was following "with great sadness the tragic news that arrives from the Holy Land .... May the bloodshed of brothers' blood cease!"
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, said Rantisi's death would only worsen the situation in the Palestinian territories. Even before the assassination, Malaysia had been preparing to host an urgent OIC meeting on Thursday to discuss the latest developments in the Middle East.
In Lebanon, Grand Ayatollah Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of Lebanon's 1.2 million Shiite Muslims, said, "Bush and his administration were the No. 1 killer of Rantisi. The second is Arab and Muslim silence, and the third (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon and his government, who got the green light during his latest visit to Washington."
...
Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, denied that Bush gave Sharon the go-ahead for the Rantisi killing during their White House meeting last week. She told ABC TV that Israel has the right to defend itself, but that it is "extremely important that Israel take into consideration the consequences of anything that it does."
Excite News: "Arabs, Europeans Decry Rantisi Slaying | Apr 18, 3:55 PM (ET) | By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - As the funeral procession of assassinated Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi wound through Gaza Sunday, a cleric in Lebanon said Muslims should "take to the streets" to protest his death. They needed little urging.
Arabs burned Israeli and American flags and called for vengeance from refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon and on university campuses in Egypt and Kuwait.
Meanwhile, France, Greece, Iran, Japan and Turkey were among governments that condemned Israel's killing of Rantisi in a missile strike less than a month after a similar attack killed his predecessor, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Israel called Yassin and Rantisi terrorists dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state; Arabs on Sunday said Hamas fought for Palestinian rights.
China and Russia expressed concern Rantisi's death would escalate Mideast tension, as did Sweden's Prime Minister Goeran Persson.
"I can understand that Israel is criticizing Hamas and attacking Hamas, but we can never accept these executions. They are extrajudicial actions, illegal and disgusting," Persson said.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw condemned the killing as "unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive."
Though he did not refer directly to Rantisi, Pope John Paul II began his weekly address in the Vatican on Sunday by saying he was following "with great sadness the tragic news that arrives from the Holy Land .... May the bloodshed of brothers' blood cease!"
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, said Rantisi's death would only worsen the situation in the Palestinian territories. Even before the assassination, Malaysia had been preparing to host an urgent OIC meeting on Thursday to discuss the latest developments in the Middle East.
In Lebanon, Grand Ayatollah Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of Lebanon's 1.2 million Shiite Muslims, said, "Bush and his administration were the No. 1 killer of Rantisi. The second is Arab and Muslim silence, and the third (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon and his government, who got the green light during his latest visit to Washington."
...
Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, denied that Bush gave Sharon the go-ahead for the Rantisi killing during their White House meeting last week. She told ABC TV that Israel has the right to defend itself, but that it is "extremely important that Israel take into consideration the consequences of anything that it does."
