| Author | Message | | Guest-c651 | |  | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:37 pm Post subject: New York Times Forum; Distrust of Feith and Perle |
| Subject: New York Times Forum; Distrust of Feith and Perle
lfeiner1 - 06:39pm Feb 14, 2003 EST (# 16265 of 16343)
to Baikonur who says
(how can you say there) was an official plan to (transfer Palestinians), a plan approved by supposed zionist controllers of the government (you named them)--and in addition, that this plan was elicidated in a recent Time Magazine article
According to former CIA official Bill Christenson, when Douglas Feith and Richard Perle were advisors to Israeli PM Netanyahu they wrote up a plan for the US to invade Iraq and turn Iraq into a constitutional monarchy and Jordan into a Palestinian state. If you have any questions about this you can email Bill Christenson at christenson@counterpunch.org. Mr. Feith is on record has having stated that the Palestinians have no claims whatsover in "Judea and Samaria". Last Wednesday I called up the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke in charge of public affairs, in order to express my concerns about Feith and Perle and also to express my concerns about reports in the Israeli media about Sharon's plans to expel Palestinians during a US invasion of Iraq. The woman who answered the phone said that she knew Mr. Feith and that his position had moderated considerably since then, that people change, and that he "wasn't Richard Perle". She seemed to be unaware the the Palestinian relief agency, UNRWA, upon which 1/3 of the Palestinians in the territories depend on for subsistence was about to run out of funds in a month. She seemed to imply that the statement by Powell at Davos about a contiguous Palestinian state was the US position. She also said that Rumsfeld was keeping a very close eye on Sharon and the Palestinians vs a vs transfer. She also seemed taken aback when I told her that Victoria Clarke had repeated Netanyahu's statement that the 9/11 attack on the WTC was really a "blessing in disguise" because it woke Americans up to the threat of terrorism. Ms. Clarke made that statement at a town hall meeting called by Congressman Moran of Virginia last Monday. It was on CSPAN. The woman I spoke to at the DOD Office of Public Affairs said the remark was disturbing and that she would look into it.
lfeiner1 - 06:57pm Feb 14, 2003 EST (# 16270 of 16343)
It seems also that I am not alone in my distrust of Mr. Feith and others in this administration in regards to Iraq. According to Albert Hunt in yesterday's Wall Street Journal
If it had been a prize fight the Senate Foreign relations committee hearing would have been a TKO. Two of the Bush administration's national security heavyweights - Marc Grossman and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy - testified on plans for a post-Saddam Iraq. On the nature, scope, cost and duration they spent the entire morning on the ropes offering few specifics. The inescapable conclusion: The US has prepared brilliantly for the military operation and is frightfully ill-prepared for the difficult aftermath.(*) .Anthony Zinni (an outside expert) former commander in chief of the US central command.lamented the lack of a post-Saddam 'counterpart' in the military planning; he was dismissive of the high-level groups assembled at the Pentagon three weeks ago to consider the next state: 'That doesn't do it for me'.Sen Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam combat veteran angrily spoke of the dangers of a largely ad hoc policy once war starts and American forces are in harm's way: 'If you're having a problem now,' he lectured (Feith and Grossman) 'what the hell do you think you're going to do when you get in there?' Few accept Mr. Grossman's estimate that the American rebuilding effort in Iraq would last two years. A 10 year plan would be 'more realistic' suggested Zinni
lfeiner1 - 07:03pm Feb 14, 2003 EST (# 16271 of 16343)
Nor am I alone in my distrust of Richard Perle
(The Defense Policy Board) is chaired by Richard Perle - a Pentagon official whose hard-lined views won him the title "Prince of Darkness" - the board gives its 31 unpaid members, something every Washington player wants; unrivaled access without accountability. Perle uses his post as a springboard to for his unilateralist, attack-Iraq views to try to whip the Bush administration into action. But despite its name, the board does not make policy. As the Saudi episode shows, it can do something far scarier: give a false impression of it. In effect, the board has becomes Perle' podium. It rarely achieved any notice before he assumed the chairmanship last year, but now his position there lends weight to his public pronouncements. New York Times 8/21/2
* Which of course would lead to instabiity and opportunities for transfer.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Views are those of the owners. Views may not be construed as reflective of the Palestine Right to Return Coalition.
If you're Jewish please support the Jewish statement supporting Palestinian refugee rights especially the Right to Return. For details go to www.TheStruggle.org | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:14 pm Post subject: John Pilger: Urgency of Saving Lives |
| It is not possible to overstate the significance and urgency of the march and demonstration against an unprovoked British and American attack on Iraq, a nation with whom we have no quarrel and who offer us no threat. : John Pilger :14 Feb 2003
The urgency is the saving of lives. First, let us stop calling it a "war". The last time "war" was used in the Gulf was in 1991 when the truth was buried with more than 200,000 people. Attacking a 70-mile line of trenches, three American brigades, operating at night, used 60-ton armoured earthmovers to bury alive teenage Iraqi conscripts, including the wounded and those surrendering and retreating. Survivors were slaughtered from the air. The helicopter gunship pilots called it a "turkey shoot".
Of the 148 Americans who died, a quarter of them were killed by Americans. Most of the British were killed by Americans. This was known as "friendly fire". The civilians who were killed, whose deaths were never recorded by the American military because it was "not policy", were "collateral damage".
Today, after 13 years of an economic blockade that has been compared with a medieval siege, Iraq is defenceless, no matter the discovery of an odd missile that can reach barely 90 miles. Its ragtag army is woefully under-equipped and awaiting its fate, along with a civilian population of whom 42 per cent are children. They are stricken. Even the export of British manufactured vaccines meant to protect Iraqi infants from diphtheria and yellow fever has been restricted. The vaccines, say the Blair government, are "capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".
This is the nation upon which the Bush gang says it will rain down 800 missiles within the space of two days. "Shock and awe" the Pentagon calls its "strategy". Meanwhile the weapons inspectors and their morose Swedish leader go about their treasure hunt and a cartoon show is hosted in the UN by General Colin Powell (who rose to the top by covering up the notorious My Lai massacre in Vietnam).
It is all a charade. The Americans want Iraq because they want to control and reorder the Middle East. Their once-favourite dictator, Saddam Hussein, made the mistake of misreading the signals from Washington in 1990 and invading another favourite American oil tyranny, Kuwait. So belatedly, Saddam must be replaced, preferably by another Saddam, though more reliable and less uppity. There is no issue of "weapons of mass destruction". That is a distraction for us and the media.
The wider significance of the promised attack is the rapacious nature of the American state. As Tony Blair has confirmed, North Korea is likely to be "next". I think he is wrong and that Iran will be next. That is what the Israeli regime wants and Israel's wishes are as important to influential members of the Bush gang as oil. Thereafter, there is China. Says Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Institute in Washington: "What radical US nationalists have in mind is either to 'contain' China by overwhelming military force or to destroy the Chinese Communist state."
ONE of the Bush gang's planners, Richard Perle, has said: "If we let our vision of the world go forth and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
September 11 2001 was their big opportunity. On September 12 Donald Rumsfeld wanted to use the Twin Towers tragedy as an excuse to attack Iraq, which was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell argued that "public opinion has to be prepared". Afghanistan was the easier option and they were planning to attack it anyway.
The subsequent American endeavour to encircle al-Qaeda in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan was a fiasco and more than 20,000 people, estimates Jonathan Steele in the Guardian, paid the price of that country's "liberation".
Since September 11 America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has repudiated the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, with the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary" - incredibly Geoffrey Hoon, on Blair's behalf, has said exactly the same.
Assassination is now legal. Virtually before our eyes, prisoners have been tortured to the point of suicide in an American concentration camp in Cuba. Under Donald Rumsfeld a secret group with the Orwellian name of the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group has the job of provoking terrorist attacks, which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States. You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that the enemy to all our security is not a regional tyrant - there are plenty of those, many created by America and Britain.
And what of Blair? Do he and his craven Ministers understand any of this? It is difficult to know. Such is Blair's evangelical obsession with Iraq, and perhaps his desperation in the face of overwhelming public opposition, that he is prepared to mislead and deceive not only the public but the armed forces he has sent to pursue his and the mad Perle's "vision".
Does anyone believe the Prime Minister any more? During his interview last Thursday with the BBC's Jeremy Paxman, Blair lied once again that UN weapons inspectors were "thrown out" of Iraq by the regime in 1998. He knows the truth: that they were withdrawn when it was discovered the CIA had planted spies among them in order to gather intelligence for the subsequent Anglo-American bombing of Iraq in December 1998.
I MEAN," said Blair last week, "(the threat of Iraq's undiscovered weapons of mass destruction) is what our intelligence services are telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply making the whole thing up ..."
Making it up, indeed. On February 7 Downing Street had to apologise when it was revealed that its latest dossier seeking to justify war - "Iraq: its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation" - was lifted word for word, including the grammatical and spelling mistakes, from an article written by an American student 10 years ago. As David Edwards of Media Lens has pointed out, "the only changes involved the doctoring of passages to make the report more ominous: a claim that Iraq was 'aiding opposition groups' was changed to a claim that Iraq was 'supporting terrorist organisations'." Like Bush, Blair lies that "we do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq". An investigation by America's National Security Council, which advises Bush, "found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. On February 5 a Ministry of Defence document, leaked to the BBC, revealed that British intelligence had told Blair there was "no current link" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Blair has even denied seeing this crucial report.
As a Christian, Blair says be is helping to build a "secure and hopeful world for all our children".
The Labour MP Llew Smith recently asked the Education Secretary to explain "how we can find billions of pounds to increase our defence budget and go to war with Iraq but cannot find the money to scrap tuition fees?"
There was no intelligible reply.
LAST November a report by the School of Public Policy, University of College London, disclosed that "53 per cent of children in inner London are living in income poverty". Yet Chancellor Gordon Brown puts aside "at least a billion pounds" as "a war chest" with which to attack not poverty but an impoverished people half a world away.
A peaceful solution in the Middle East is only possible when the threat of an attack is lifted and a total ban on so-called weapons of mass destruction and arms sales is imposed throughout the region, on Israel as well as Iraq. The economic blockade on the people of Iraq should end immediately and justice for the Palestinians become a priority.
The power of public opinion, both moral and political power, is far greater than many people realise. That's why Blair fears it and why, through the inept Tessa Jowell, he tried to ban tomorrow's demonstration. He fears it because if the voice of the people threatens the house of cards he has built on his obsession with Iraq and America, it may well threaten his political life and make mockery of the Anglo-American "coalition" and deny the Bush gang its fig leaf.
Should that happen, American public opinion, now stirring heroically after the most sustained brainwashing campaign for half a century, may even stop the Bush gang in its tracks. As of yesterday 42 American cities had passed resolutions condemning an attack.
Is all that a cause for optimism? Yes it is. Look at how this week's French and German "rebellion" almost seemed to change everything; and remember that those governments are speaking out only because of overwhelming pressure from their people.
Now that has to happen in Britain. Tomorrow | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:43 pm Post subject: Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the |
| Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
15 February 2003
In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked down to, of being bombarded with Second World War jingoism and scare stories and false information and student essays dressed up as "intelligence". We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and Jack Straw and the likes of George Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle East to their advantage.
No wonder, then, that Hans Blix's blunt refutation of America's "intelligence" at the UN yesterday warmed so many hearts. Suddenly, the Hans Blixes of this world could show up the Americans for the untrustworthy "allies" they have become.
The British don't like Hussein any more than they liked Nasser. But millions of Britons remember, as Blair does not, the Second World War; they are not conned by childish parables of Hitler, Churchill, Chamberlain and appeasement. They do not like being lectured and whined at by men whose experience of war is Hollywood and television.
Still less do they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies, is now sending America's poor to destroy a Muslim nation that has nothing at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11 September. Jack Straw, the public school Trot-turned-warrior, ignores all this, with Blair. He brays at us about the dangers of nuclear weapons that Iraq does not have, of the torture and aggression of a dictatorship that America and Britain sustained when Saddam was "one of ours". But he and Blair cannot discuss the dark political agenda behind George Bush's government, nor the "sinister men" (the words of a very senior UN official) around the President.
Those who oppose war are not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they've biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis included – though we play down the RAF's use of gas on Kurdish rebels in the 1930s. But when the British are asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror stories, Britons – and many Americans – are a lot braver than Blair and Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All Seasons, tales to frighten children.
Perhaps Henry VIII's exasperation in that play better expresses the British view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British, like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to this obscene war may make them feel more, not less, European.
Palestine has much to do with it. Brits have no love for Arabs but they smell injustice fast enough and are outraged at the colonial war being used to crush the Palestinians by a nation that is now in effect running US policy in the Middle East. We are told that our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a burning, fearsome wound to which Bush devoted just 18 words in his meretricious State of the Union speech – but even Blair can't get away with that one; hence his "conference" for Palestinian reform at which the Palestinians had to take part via video-link because Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, refused to let them travel to London.
So much for Blair's influence over Washington – the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, "regretted" that he couldn't persuade Sharon to change his mind. But at least one has to acknowledge that Sharon – war criminal though he may be for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres – treated Blair with the contempt he deserves. Nor can the Americans hide the link between Iraq and Israel and Palestine. In his devious address to the UN Security Council last week, Powell linked the three when he complained that Hamas, whose suicide bombings so cruelly afflict Israelis, keeps an office in Baghdad.
Just as he told us about the mysterious al-Qa'ida men who support violence in Chechnya and in the "Pankisi gorge". This was America's way of giving Vladimir Putin a free hand again in his campaign of rape and murder against the Chechens, just as Bush's odd remark to the UN General Assembly last 12 September about the need to protect Iraq's Turkomans only becomes clear when one realises that Turkomans make up two thirds of the population of Kirkuk, one of Iraq's largest oil fields.
The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected – if he was elected – US President. And they weren't doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons. A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by – yes, Richard Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.
Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us – a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices – Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organisations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations' objections to the war might – yet again – be ascribed to "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent." This nonsense, it must be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.
The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lies behind Rumsfeld's snotty remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose this war are the "new" Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the "old" America; not the "new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt. Rumsfeld and Bush symbolise the old America that killed its native Indians and embarked on imperial adventures. It is "old" America we are being asked to fight for – linked to a new form of colonialism – an America that first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same to Nato. This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it may well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.
In these last days of peace the British should not be tripped by the oh-so-sought-after second UN resolution. UN permission for America's war will not make the war legitimate; it merely proves that the Council can be controlled with bribes, threats or abstentions. It was the Soviet Union's abstention, after all, which allowed America to fight the savage Korean war under the UN flag. And we should not doubt that – after a quick US military conquest of Iraq and providing 'they" die more than we die – there will be plenty of anti-war protesters who will claim they were pro-war all along. The first pictures of "liberated" Baghdad will show Iraqi children making victory signs to American tank crews. But the real cruelty and cynicism of this conflict will become evident as soon as the "war" ends, when our colonial occupation of a Muslim nation for the US and Israel begins.
There lies the rub. Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace". But Sharon fears he may yet face trial over Sabra and Chatila, which is why Israel has just withdrawn its ambassador to Belgium. I'd like to see Saddam in the same court. And Rifaat Assad for his 1982 massacre in the Syrian city of Hama. And all the torturers of Israel and the Arab dictatorships.
Israeli and US ambitions in the region are now entwined, almost synonymous. This war is about oil and regional control. It is being cheer-led by a draft-dodger who is treacherously telling us that this is part of an eternal war against "terror". And the British and most Europeans don't believe him. It's not that Britons wouldn't fight for America. They just don't want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the Prime Minister, they don't want to fight for Blair either.
15 February 2003 23:08 | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:42 am Post subject: JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda... |
| JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in Israel Today:
HISTORY MADE AS MORE THAN A MILLION MARCH FOR PEACE:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12646938&method=full&siteid=50143
Kurdish Leaders Enraged by 'Undemocratic' American Plan to Occupy Iraq:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
The JINSA Zionist extremist cabal (of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton) has hijacked the Bush regime and is pushing US to its coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for greater Israel and oil (Robert Fisk of the London Independent mentions in the following article that Dick Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put the other JINSA Zionist extremists into power in the current Bush regime):
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Included below is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article from "The Nation" magazine which Mr. Fisk mentions in his article referenced above:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]
This Zionist extremist agenda of JINSA (which is pushing for the US to attack Iraq and then Iran, Syria and North Korea) is confirmed by what JINSAN John Bolton mentioned in Israel today (according to what is mentioned in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper article which can be accessed via the following URL):
We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war - John Bolton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists at Pentagon to Control Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/04/radical-jinsa-zionists-at-pentagon-to-control-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists (in Bush Regime) Pushing US to War for Israel and Oil:
Recent polling is showing that 59 percent of the US public would like the UN weapons inspectors to continue with their work in Iraq (instead of having the US launch an invasion of Iraq for greater Israel and oil), and 2/3 of the US public are against the coming invasion of Iraq (if it is to occur without UN approval). I have the Constitutional right as an American patriot to expose Israel firsters (in the US government) who are associated with the JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist cabal of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Dick Cheney (who was on the board of directors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put fellow JINSA Zionist extremists Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle into power in the current Bush regime as conveyed by Robert Fisk in his London Independent newspaper articles which are referenced below).
This JINSA cabal (which has basically hijacked the current Bush regime) is pushing US to initiate a war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) which has the potential to inflame the Middle East (as well as increase the risk of US experiencing further tragic terrorism). The Israel firster perspective may suit Likudite cronies in Israel (like General Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu as so eloquently conveyed by Mr. Fisk in his most recent article for the London Independent which is referenced first below), but it is not in the best interest of America:
Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
Cabinet Rallies to Blair as War Revolt Looms:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=379088
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
JINSA Zionist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Washington's Zionist Chicken Hawks to Reshape Mid East for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php
JINSA Zionist Extremist Richard Perle Does Not Speak for the Majority of Americans:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/05/every-patriotic-american-needs-to-access-this.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Israeli sources say war imminent; Iran and Syria next:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/15/israeli-sources-say-war-imminent-iran-and-syria-next.php
The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php
TOO MANY SMOKING GUNS TO IGNORE: ISRAEL, US JEWS, IRAQ:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php
UN REMARKS by Foreign Affairs Ministers of Syria and France (especially comments by Syria about US/UN double standard in not enforcing paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Israeli weapons of mass destruction as well):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/14/un-remarks-by-foreign-affairs-ministers-of-syria-and-france.php
Iraqi Ambassador: UN/US Double Standard with Israeli Nuclear Weapons:
The UN (US) double standard for Israel with paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Iraq (which calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned below by the Iraqi UN Ambassador) is completely unjust (especially when it comes to Israeli weapons of mass destruction):
Iraq Turns Spotlight on Israel at U.N. Arms Body:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/iraq-turns-spotlight-on-israel-at-u-n-arms-body.php
The Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
We'll give UN inspectors more time, says Blair:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=378501
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
The following also appeared in the Daily Mirror in the UK:
HYSTERICAL? WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN
WHEN the Daily Mirror launched its campaign against the war on Iraq we were dismissed as lefty peaceniks, just opposing military action for the sake of it.
As the campaign continued the abuse intensified - we were accused of being 'hysterical, of "cynically chasing new readers, of over-reacting".
The crescendo of negativity reached a nadir with our BLOOD ON HIS HANDS front page, powerfully illustrating John Pilger's ferocious attack on Tony Blair for the impending slaughter of Iraqi civilians.
This was crass, offensive and way too personal, our critics said. Yet it was the exact same phrase Mr Blair used to denigrate the 1.5 million people who protested in London on Saturday.
What is now absolutely clear is that the Daily Mirror is right about this war. And Tony Blair is wrong. The Prime Minister is not a stupid man so he must realise in his astute head that he is beaten logically, politically and democratically.
The only support he has in this country is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet - take a bow, John Prescott - the Tory leadership and newspapers owned by George W Bush admirers living in America.
Those one and a half million people who marched on Saturday are not the only ones who feel war would be wrong, needless and a total disaster. Each of them represents many more.
It was the biggest demonstration this country has ever seen. It rivalled the magnificent anti-Vietnam marches in the United States in the 70s.
In the past, protesters have been sneered at as long-haired hippies. That couldn't be said about Saturday's demonstrators. Young and old, working, middle, and upper class... Countless thousands of ordinary people united on one fundamental principle - war against Iraq at this time is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is because Mr Blair knows he has lost the argument that he is lashing out. He claims to have scaled the moral high ground and accuses those who oppose his views of being as guilty as Saddam of murdering his victims.
Had the Prime Minister talked to the demonstrators, he would have found hardly any who supported the Iraqi tyrant - and the Mirror has no time for those who do.
Being against Saddam - or any other terrible regime - is a moral position to take. Sending in bombers to obliterate them, wiping out thousands of innocents in the process, is not part of most people's definition of morality.
If this sounds like hysteria, the Daily Mirror doesn't mind. If it takes obsessional, hysterical, head-banging to get over the message that this war must not happen, so be it. The option - though you wouldn't know this to listen to Mr Blair - is not between waging war and being obliterated by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. There is a real, workable alternative - to control him through tough use of UN weapons inspectors. Which is the alternative backed by most countries and the vast majority of people in Britain.
Having lost the argument, it is Tony Blair who is plunging down the road of hysteria. Playing the morality card is not just offensive and ridiculous, but dangerous.
Where would it end? Having taken out Saddam, where would the US-British axis turn to next? Which other objectionable, tyrannical regimes would become targets for our bombs and invasion forces?
Will they be sent in to remove Zimbabwe's President Mugabe for driving his people into starvation? How about the terrible anti-human-rights record of the Chinese government - would we take on their immense population? Or what about the attitude of the Saudis to women and human rights? Or Israel's defiance of UN resolutions? It all smacks of one rule for Iraq and another for everyone else.
We should be told if we have just heard the Blair Doctrine - coming second-hand from the dangerous men who run today's White House - which will become our foreign and military policy at the start of the 21st century.
The world has one omnipotent power, whose military spending outstrips every other nation put together. That country, unlike those in Europe, has hardly suffered from attack. Yet this White House wants to bombard Iraq and then who-knows-where next. And it wishes to take the United Kingdom along on its coat-tails, a conspirator to mass slaughter.
If we are talking morality, perhaps Tony Blair could explain the morality in rigging reports of "evidence" to justify military invasion? Both America and the British government have done that in the past few days. Or maybe the Prime Minister could debate morality with some of the fundamentalists who threaten this country because they believe we live an immoral lifestyle.
Morality is the last refuge of a discredited politician. The final desperate hiding place of those who have lost the argument but refuse to accept defeat.
Tony Blair should ask himself if he is Prime Minister of a nation so steeped in immorality that one and a half million of its people will march to support their views.
Or whether the people of this country are desperately worried at the prospect of being dragged into a divisive, dangerous and murderous war.
There will not be blood on the hands of those who seek peace with strength. And we don't want there to be on Tony Blair's, either.
The Mirror will go on shouting that loudly, clearly, and if necessarily hysterically, until Mr Blair listens. | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:51 am Post subject: What Does the Bush Imperial Maffia Really Want? |
| What Does the Bush Imperial Maffia Really Want?
by William Blum
Which is the more remarkable -- that the United States can openly
announce to the world its determination to invade a sovereign nation and
overthrow its government in the absence of any attack or threat of attack
from the intended target? Or that for an entire year the world has been
striving to figure out what the superpower's real intentions are?
There are of course those who accept at face value Washington's stated
motivations of "liberating" the people of Iraq from a dictatorship and
bestowing upon them a full measure of democracy, freedom and other eternal
joys fit for American schoolbooks. In light of a century of
well-documented US foreign policy which reveals a virtually complete absence
of such motivations, along with repeated opposite consequences, we can
dispense with this attempt by Washington to win hearts and mindless.
Presented here are some reflections about several of the causes that make
the hearts of the imperial mafia beat faster in regard to Iraq, which may be
helpful in arguing the anti-war point of view:
Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and
communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a
command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of
the Middle East.
Idealism: remaking the world in what the true believers see as America's
image, with free enterprise and Judeo-Christianity as core elements; here is
Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise
Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just
let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we
don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this
thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do
very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Oil: the sine qua non of Middle East policy, yesterday, today and
tomorrow; to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and
Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its
independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the
dollar with the Euro as its official currency; oil-dependent Europe may think
twice next time about being so uppity.
Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and
institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march
into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely
by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the
international financial extortionists.
Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military
manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their
generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further
warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons.
Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters
of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who,
along with the rest of the powerful Israeli lobby, have advocated smashing
Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military
buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel could use
the opportunity to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question
-- transferring them to Jordan, (liberated) Iraq, and anywhere else that
expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. Iraq's abundant water
could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel.
Written by William Blum, author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower" -- www.killinghope.org
The JINSA Zionist extremist cabal (of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton) has hijacked the Bush regime and is pushing US to its coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for greater Israel and oil (Robert Fisk of the London Independent mentions in the following article that Dick Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put the other JINSA Zionist extremists into power in the current Bush regime):
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Included below is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article from "The Nation" magazine which Mr. Fisk mentions in his article referenced above:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]
This Zionist extremist agenda of JINSA (which is pushing for the US to attack Iraq and then Iran, Syria and North Korea) is confirmed by what JINSAN John Bolton mentioned in Israel today (according to what is mentioned in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper article which can be accessed via the following URL):
JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in Israel Today:
We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war - John Bolton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists at Pentagon to Control Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/04/radical-jinsa-zionists-at-pentagon-to-control-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists (in Bush Regime) Pushing US to War for Israel and Oil:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Recent polling is showing that 59 percent of the US public would like the UN weapons inspectors to continue with their work in Iraq (instead of having the US launch an invasion of Iraq for greater Israel and oil), and 2/3 of the US public are against the coming invasion of Iraq (if it is to occur without UN approval). I have the Constitutional right as an American patriot to expose Israel firsters (in the US government) who are associated with the JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist cabal of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Dick Cheney (who was on the board of directors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put fellow JINSA Zionist extremists Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle into power in the current Bush regime as conveyed by Robert Fisk in his London Independent newspaper articles which are referenced below).
This JINSA cabal (which has basically hijacked the current Bush regime) is pushing US to initiate a war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) which has the potential to inflame the Middle East (as well as increase the risk of US experiencing further tragic terrorism). The Israel firster perspective may suit Likudite cronies in Israel (like General Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu as so eloquently conveyed by Mr. Fisk in his most recent article for the London Independent which is referenced first below), but it is not in the best interest of America:
Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
Cabinet Rallies to Blair as War Revolt Looms:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=379088
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
JINSA Zionist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Washington's Zionist Chicken Hawks to Reshape Mid East for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php
JINSA Zionist Extremist Richard Perle Does Not Speak for the Majority of Americans:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/05/every-patriotic-american-needs-to-access-this.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Israeli sources say war imminent; Iran and Syria next:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/15/israeli-sources-say-war-imminent-iran-and-syria-next.php
The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php
TOO MANY SMOKING GUNS TO IGNORE: ISRAEL, US JEWS, IRAQ:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php
UN REMARKS by Foreign Affairs Ministers of Syria and France (especially comments by Syria about US/UN double standard in not enforcing paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Israeli weapons of mass destruction as well):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/14/un-remarks-by-foreign-affairs-ministers-of-syria-and-france.php
Iraqi Ambassador: UN/US Double Standard with Israeli Nuclear Weapons:
The UN (US) double standard for Israel with paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Iraq (which calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned below by the Iraqi UN Ambassador) is completely unjust (especially when it comes to Israeli weapons of mass destruction):
Iraq Turns Spotlight on Israel at U.N. Arms Body:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/iraq-turns-spotlight-on-israel-at-u-n-arms-body.php
The Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
We'll give UN inspectors more time, says Blair:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=378501
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
HISTORY MADE AS MORE THAN A MILLION MARCH FOR PEACE:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12646938&method=full&siteid=50143
Kurdish Leaders Enraged by 'Undemocratic' American Plan to Occupy Iraq:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
The following also appeared in the Daily Mirror in the UK:
HYSTERICAL? WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN
WHEN the Daily Mirror launched its campaign against the war on Iraq we were dismissed as lefty peaceniks, just opposing military action for the sake of it.
As the campaign continued the abuse intensified - we were accused of being 'hysterical, of "cynically chasing new readers, of over-reacting".
The crescendo of negativity reached a nadir with our BLOOD ON HIS HANDS front page, powerfully illustrating John Pilger's ferocious attack on Tony Blair for the impending slaughter of Iraqi civilians.
This was crass, offensive and way too personal, our critics said. Yet it was the exact same phrase Mr Blair used to denigrate the 1.5 million people who protested in London on Saturday.
What is now absolutely clear is that the Daily Mirror is right about this war. And Tony Blair is wrong. The Prime Minister is not a stupid man so he must realise in his astute head that he is beaten logically, politically and democratically.
The only support he has in this country is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet - take a bow, John Prescott - the Tory leadership and newspapers owned by George W Bush admirers living in America.
Those one and a half million people who marched on Saturday are not the only ones who feel war would be wrong, needless and a total disaster. Each of them represents many more.
It was the biggest demonstration this country has ever seen. It rivalled the magnificent anti-Vietnam marches in the United States in the 70s.
In the past, protesters have been sneered at as long-haired hippies. That couldn't be said about Saturday's demonstrators. Young and old, working, middle, and upper class... Countless thousands of ordinary people united on one fundamental principle - war against Iraq at this time is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is because Mr Blair knows he has lost the argument that he is lashing out. He claims to have scaled the moral high ground and accuses those who oppose his views of being as guilty as Saddam of murdering his victims.
Had the Prime Minister talked to the demonstrators, he would have found hardly any who supported the Iraqi tyrant - and the Mirror has no time for those who do.
Being against Saddam - or any other terrible regime - is a moral position to take. Sending in bombers to obliterate them, wiping out thousands of innocents in the process, is not part of most people's definition of morality.
If this sounds like hysteria, the Daily Mirror doesn't mind. If it takes obsessional, hysterical, head-banging to get over the message that this war must not happen, so be it. The option - though you wouldn't know this to listen to Mr Blair - is not between waging war and being obliterated by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. There is a real, workable alternative - to control him through tough use of UN weapons inspectors. Which is the alternative backed by most countries and the vast majority of people in Britain.
Having lost the argument, it is Tony Blair who is plunging down the road of hysteria. Playing the morality card is not just offensive and ridiculous, but dangerous.
Where would it end? Having taken out Saddam, where would the US-British axis turn to next? Which other objectionable, tyrannical regimes would become targets for our bombs and invasion forces?
Will they be sent in to remove Zimbabwe's President Mugabe for driving his people into starvation? How about the terrible anti-human-rights record of the Chinese government - would we take on their immense population? Or what about the attitude of the Saudis to women and human rights? Or Israel's defiance of UN resolutions? It all smacks of one rule for Iraq and another for everyone else.
We should be told if we have just heard the Blair Doctrine - coming second-hand from the dangerous men who run today's White House - which will become our foreign and military policy at the start of the 21st century.
The world has one omnipotent power, whose military spending outstrips every other nation put together. That country, unlike those in Europe, has hardly suffered from attack. Yet this White House wants to bombard Iraq and then who-knows-where next. And it wishes to take the United Kingdom along on its coat-tails, a conspirator to mass slaughter.
If we are talking morality, perhaps Tony Blair could explain the morality in rigging reports of "evidence" to justify military invasion? Both America and the British government have done that in the past few days. Or maybe the Prime Minister could debate morality with some of the fundamentalists who threaten this country because they believe we live an immoral lifestyle.
Morality is the last refuge of a discredited politician. The final desperate hiding place of those who have lost the argument but refuse to accept defeat.
Tony Blair should ask himself if he is Prime Minister of a nation so steeped in immorality that one and a half million of its people will march to support their views.
Or whether the people of this country are desperately worried at the prospect of being dragged into a divisive, dangerous and murderous war.
There will not be blood on the hands of those who seek peace with strength. And we don't want there to be on Tony Blair's, either.
The Mirror will go on shouting that loudly, clearly, and if necessarily hysterically, until Mr Blair listens. | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:10 pm Post subject: JINSA Neoconservatives PUSHING US to War |
| -------------------------------------------------
*** Iraq Action Coalition Discussion Forum ***
http://iraqaction.org/discussion.html
------------------------------------
*To Post a message, send it to: iac-discussion@eGroups.com
*To Subscribe, send a blank message to: iac-discussion-subscribe@eGroups.com
*To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: iac-discussion-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
* To see the List Guidelines, go to: http://iraqaction.org/discussion.html
*Any questions, contact the List Moderator at rmasri@leb.net
-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Made in Israel: Endnotes
From: Lou Morgan
2. AMIRIYA SHELTER
From: carst@gis.net
3. FW: (en) Rome: Over 2 million say no to war
From: eandubh
4. Made in Israel: Part 1
From: Lou Morgan
5. Colorado Springs Demonstrators gassed
From: Ibrahim Ebeid
6. Made in Israel: Part 2
From: Lou Morgan
7. FW: Feb. 15 2003 Antiwar Demonstrations
From: eandubh
8. Many Moderate Churches Take Up Anti-War Cause
From: Ibrahim Ebeid
9. Made in Israel: Part 3
From: Lou Morgan
10. What Yesterday's Protests Mean...
From: SIUHIN@aol.com
11. [P] Gulf War Vets - Gulf War Illnesses
From: Ben Friedman
12. [P] Facing the Unthinkable - Bush's Big Lie
From: Ben Friedman
13. [P] Israel and Iraq
From: Ben Friedman
14. FEBRUARY 15 TH RALLY; ALBANY NEW YORK, INDY MEDIA REPORT
From: "Maureen Aumand"
15. Fwd: The World Rises Up Against War
From: truth for reconciliation
16. World to Bush: We Don’t Want Your War
From: windsong@worldmostwanted.com
17. Re: FEBRUARY 15 TH RALLY; ALBANY NEW YORK, INDY MEDIA REPORT
From: stopUSwarsdotorg
18. anti-war shirts and things
From: stopUSwarsdotorg
19. Fwd: 100,000 in Dublin!
From: Let's Make Change
20. Fwd: Thirteen French Heavyweights Weigh In On the War
From: truth for reconciliation
21. Fwd: Intel sources claim Iraq no big threat--no link to al Quaeda
From: truth for reconciliation
22. Fwd: Kunicinich To Launch Presidential Run Next Week
From: truth for reconciliation
23. Fwd: [World_Revolution_] MASSIVE DEMO IN LONDON
From: kamini kumar
24. FW: LaTimes - Bush's paper-thin evidence to justify a war has fallen apart
From: eandubh
25. IAC list and site?
From: eandubh
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:38:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Lou Morgan
Subject: Made in Israel: Endnotes
Endnotes
1 Paul W. Schroeder, 'Iraq: The Case Against
Preemptive,' The American Conservative, October, 21,
2002, http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html That a
powerful nation has been directed by a weaker state
has been observed in the past. The great revisionist
diplomatic historian Charles C. Tansill maintained
that: 'The main objective of American foreign policy
since 1900 has been the preservation of the British
Empire.' Back Door to War , (Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1952), p. 3.
Britain was able to achieve its goal by media
propaganda and sympathizers in high places in the
United States. See: Nicholas John Cull, Selling War:
The British Propaganda Campaign Against American
'Neutrality' in World War II (Oxford University Press,
1995) and Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception:
British Covert Operations in the United States,
1939-44 (Washington: Brassey's, 1998).
2 Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the
State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p.
231; On the connection between Jews, Zionism, and
Neoconservativism, see: Paul Gottfried, The
Conservative Movement (New York: Twayne Publishers,
1993); J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the
Jewish Establishment (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison
Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1996), pp. 159-162;
Peter Steinfels, The Neoconservatives : The Men Who
Are Changing America's Politics (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1979); Gary Dorrien, The Neoconservative
Mind: Politics, Culture, and the War of Ideology
(Philadelphia: Temple University, 1993); James
Neuchterlein, ' This Time: Neoconservatism Redux,'
First Things, 66 (October 1996), pp. 7-8,
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9610/opinion/neuchterlein.html
.
3 Joshua Micah Marshall, 'Bomb Sadddam? : How the
obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central
goal of U.S. foreign policy,' Washington Monthly,
June 2002,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.marshall.html
; Kathleen and Bill Christison, 'A Rose By Another
Other Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties,'
CounterPunch, December 13, 2002,
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html .
See also Christopher Matthews, 'The road to
Baghdad,' San Francisco Chronicle, March 24, 2002,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/24/IN164155.DTL
; Justin Raimondo, 'Our Hijacked Foreign Policy:
Neoconservatives take Washington - Baghdad is next,'
March 25, 2002,
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032502.html; Holger
Jensen, 'Pre-Emption, Disarmament Or Regime Change?
Part III,' October 7, 2002,
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jensen1b.html ; Scott
McConnell, 'The Struggle Over War Aims: Bush Versus
the Neo-Cons,' September 25, 2002,
http://www.antiwar.com/mcconnell/mc092501.html ; Jim
Lobe, ' Neoconservatives Consolidate Control over U.S.
Mideast Policy,' Foreign Policy in Focus, December 6,
2002,
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2002/0212abrams.html
It should be added that, as will become obvious,
much of the material in this essay derives from
authors who express the belief that neoconservatives
are a leading force for war with Iraq.
4 Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs
Under the British Mandate (New York: Metropolitan
Books, 2000), pp.404-5; For a history of the Zionist
ideas on expulsion, see: Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the
Palestinians: The Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionist
Political Thought, 1882-1948 (Washington: Institute
of Palestine Studies, 1992).
5Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, 'Image and Reality of
the Israel-Palestine Conflict,' Introduction to German
edition (10 July 2002),
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id127.htm
6 Finkelstein, 'Image and Reality.'
7 Ralph Schoenman, The Hidden History of Zionism,
Chapter 12,
'Strategy for Conquest,' 1988,
http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english/zionism/ch12.htm
8 Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel's Fateful Hour (New
York: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 57-58.
9 Stephen R. Shalom, 'The United States and the
Iran-Iraq War,'
www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html ;
Jeremy Scahill, 'The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet,'
Common Dreams, August 2, 2002,
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm ;
Robert Windrem, 'Rumsfeld key player in Iraq policy
shift,' MSNBC, August 18, 2002,
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm ;
Chris Bury, 'The U.S.-Iraq relationship was not always
about confrontation ,' September 18, 2002,
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html
; Michael Dobbs, 'U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup,'
Washington Post, December 30, 2002, p. A-1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html
10 Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and
the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1993), p. 208.
11 Christopher Layne, 'Why the Gulf War was Not in
the National Interest,' The Atlantic, July 1991,
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/91jul/layne.htm
12 Arnold Beichman, 'How the divide over Iraq
strategies began,' Washington Times, November 27,
2002,
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/beichman.htm
13 Warren Strobel, 'Bush won't back loan to Jewish
state,' Washington Times, March 18, 1992, p. A-7;
Michael Hedge, 'Israeli lobby president resigns over
promises,' Washington Times, November 4, 1992, p. A-3;
'Loan Guarantees for Israel,' Washington Times,
September 11, 1992, p. F-2; Frank Gaffney, Jr.,
'Neocon job that begs for answers,' October 13, 1992,
p. F-1; Andrew Borowiec, 'Group counters Bush on
Israel,' Washington Times, February 27, 1992, p. A-1;
Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the
State, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993),
pp. 218-23.
An interesting side note. J. J. Goldberg in Jewish
Power observes (p. 234) that 'In 1991, at the height
of the Bush administration's confrontation with
Israel, no fewer than seven of the nineteen assistant
secretaries in the State Department were Jews.'
14 The neonconservative takeover of the mainstream
conservative intellectual movement is presented by
Paul Gottfried, The Conservative Movement.
15 Brian Whitaker, 'US thinktanks give lessons in
foreign policy,' The Guardian, August 19, 2002,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html
16 Jason Vest, 'The Men From JINSA and CSP,' The
Nation, September 2, 2002,
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 The Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies' 'Study Group on a New Israeli
Strategy Toward 2000,' 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm,'
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
20 'Open Letter to the President,' February 19,
1998, .
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm
; Frank Gaffney, 'End Saddam's Reign of Terror:
Better late than never,' National Review Online,
February 21, 2002,
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/gaffney022101.shtml
21 Rumsfeld has a long record of being a close
supporter of Israel. For example, Rumsfeld has spoken
at 'Solidarity with Israel' dinners hosted by the
'International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.'
Michael Gillespie, 'Bill Moyers, modernity, Islam,'
Middle East Times,
http://www.metimes.com/2K2/issue2002-30/opin/bill_moyers.htm
22 'Open Letter to the President,' February 19,
1998,
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm
; Frank Gaffney, 'End Saddam's Reign of Terror:
Better late than never,' 'National Review Online,'
February 21, 2002,
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/gaffney022101.shtml
23 Seymour Hersh, 'The Iraq Hawks,' New Yorker,
December 20, 2001,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/1220hawks.htm
24 PNAC describes itself as follows: 'Established in
the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American
Century is a non-profit, educational organization
whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship
Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's
chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary
Schmitt.'
http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm
25 Neil Mackay, 'Bush planned Iraq 'regime change'
before becoming President,' Scottish Sunday Herald,
September 15, 2002,
http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735
26 Ian Urbina, 'Rogues' Gallery, Who Advises Bush
and Gore on the Middle East?,' Middle East Report 216,
Fall 2000,
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer216/216_urbina.html
27 Glenn Kessler and Peter Slevin, 'Cheney Is
Fulcrum of Foreign Policy: In Interagency Fights, His
Views Often Prevail,' Washington Post, October 13,
2002, A-1.
28 Marshall, 'Bomb Saddam?'
29 Eric Boehlert, 'The Armchair General,' Salon,
September 5, 2002,
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/ ;
Sidney Blumenthal would write that Perle 'had done
more to shape the administration's nuclear arms policy
than perhaps any individual except Reagan himself.'
'Richard Perle, Disarmed but Undeterred,' Washington
Post, November 23, 1987, p. B-1.
30 Holger Jensen, 'Pre-Emption, Disarmament Or
Regime Change? Part III,' October 7, 2002,
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jensen1b.html ; Vest,
'The men from JINSA and CSP;' Seymour M. Hersh,
'Kissinger and Nixon in the White House,' The Atlantic
Monthly, 24:5 (May, 1982),
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82may/hershwh2.htm
31 Eric Boehlert, 'The Armchair General,' Salon,
September 5, 2002,
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/
32 Ronald Bleier, 'Sharon Routs Bush: Palestinians
now vulnerable to expulsion,' August 2001,
http://desip.igc.org/SharonRoutsBush.html ; Bleier,
'The Next Expulsion of the Palestinians,' January
2001, http://desip.igc.org/TheNextExpulsion.html
33 Tikva Honig-Parnass, 'Israel's Recent Conviction:
Apartheid In Palestine Can Only be Preserved Through
Force,' September 2001, Between the Lines,
http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2001/sep/Tikva_Honig-Parnass.htm
34 Bleier, 'Sharon Gears Up for Expulsion,' January
2002, http://desip.igc.org/SharonRoutsBush.html
35 Tikvah Honig-Parnass, 'Louder Voices of War:
Manufacturing Consent at its Peak,' Between the Lines,
1:8 (July 2001) quoted in Ronald Bleier, 'Sharon
Routs Bush: Palestinians now vulnerable to expulsion,'
August 2001, http://desip.igc.org/SharonRoutsBush.html
36 Jane's Foreign Report (July 12, 2001) quoted in
Finkelstein, Image; Israelis Generals' Plan to 'Smash'
Palestinians, July 12, 2002, Mid-East Realities,
http://www.middleeast.org/premium/read.cgi?category=Magazine&standalone=&num=278&month=7&year=2001&function=text
; Tanya Reinhart, 'The Second Half of 1948,' Mid-East
Realities, June 20, 2001,
http://www.middleeast.org/premium/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=251&month=6&year=2001&function=text
37 Bleier, 'Sharon Routes Bush.'
38 James Bennet, 'Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That
Draws 2 Nations Closer,' New York Times, September 12,
2001, p. A22,
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/international/12ISRA.html
;
'Horrific tragedy, the media, Palestinian reaction,'
Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre,
http://www.jmcc.org/new/01/Sep/us.htm
39 William Safire, 'The Ultimate Enemy,' New York
Times, September 24, 2001,
http://www.embargos.de/irak/post1109/english/ultimate_enemy_nyt.htm
40DoD News Briefing - Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz,
September 13, 2001,
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09132001_t0913dsd.html
41 William Kristol & others, 'Toward a Comprehensive
Strategy:A letter to the president,' September 20,
2001,
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document092101b.shtml
; 'Project for the New American Century,'
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm .
42 Robert Kagan and William Kristol, 'The Gathering
Storm,' The Weekly Standard, 7:7 (October 29, 2001),
http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/384thhhq.asp
43 Eliot A. Cohen, 'World War IV,' The Wall Street
Journal, November 20, 2001,
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001493
44 Paleoconservatives are the conservative opponents
of the neoconservatives. In regard to foreign policy
matters, they tend to support non-interventionism.
Paleoconservatives are much less powerful than the
neoconservatives. Almost all 'think tanks' referred to
as ' or 'right-wing' by the media are dominated by
the neoconservatives.
45 Scott McConnell, 'The Struggle Over War Aims:
Bush Versus the Neo-Cons,' September 25, 2002,
http://www.antiwar.com/mcconnell/mc092501.html
46 Ibid.
47 Georgie Anne Geyer, 'Pro-Israeli, Anti-Arab
Campaigns Could Isolate America,' October 25, 2001,
http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/index.cfm?uc_full_date=20011025&uc_comic=gg&uc_daction=X
48 Norman Podhoretz, 'In Praise of the Bush
Doctrine,' Commentary (September 2002),
http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20020904a.html
49 Bob Woodward, Bush at War (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 2002), p. 49.
50 Woodward, p. 83.
51 Woodward, p. 84.
52 Patrick E. Tyler and Elaine Sciolino, 'Bush's
Advisers Split on Scope Of Retaliation,' New York
Times, September 20, 2002,
http://www.stanford.edu/class/intnlrel193/readings/week4/split.html
; Julian Borger, 'Washington's hawk trains sights on
Iraq,' October 15, 2001,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,558276,00.html
53 Glenn Kessler, 'U.S. Decision on Iraq Has
Puzzling Past,' Washington Post, January 12, 2002, p.
A-1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43909-2003Jan11.html
54 'Bush Promises Military All It Needs to Win Long
Battle Ahead, President addressed the troops at Fort
Campbell, KY,' November 21,2002, US Department of
State,
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01112113.htm
55 'Bush Meets with Aid Workers Rescued from
Afghanistan,' November 26, 2002,
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01112607.htm
56 'President Delivers State of the Union Address,'
January 29, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
57 Matthew Engel, 'Proud wife turns 'axis of evil'
speech into a resignation letter,' The Guardian,
February 27, 2002,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,658724,00.html
58 Woodward, p. 330.
59 Glenn Kessler, 'U.S. Decision on Iraq Has
Puzzling Past,' Washington Post, January 12, 2002, p.
A-20,
60 Justin Raimondo, 'War Party Stalled,' November
20, 2002, http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112002.html
61 Robert Fisk, 'George Bush Crosses Rubicon - But
What Lies Beyond?,' The Independent, November 9, 2002,
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1109-03.htm
62 Thomas F. Ricks, 'Some Top Military Brass Favor
Status Quo in Iraq,' Washington Post, July 28, 2002,
p. A-1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10749-2002Jul27?.html
63 Richard Norton-Taylor, 'British military chiefs
uneasy about attack plans,' The Age, July 31, 2002,
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/30/1027926884871.html
64 Justin Raimondo, 'Attack of the Chicken-Hawks,'
August 2, 2002,
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j080202.html ; Doug
Thompson, 'Suddenly, the hawks are doves and the
doves are hawks,' Capitol Hill Blue,
http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_165.shtml
65 Julian Borger, 'Pentagon build-up reaches
unstoppable momentum,' The Guardian, December 31,
2002,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866919,00.html
66 Thomas E. Ricks, ' Briefing Depicted Saudis as
Enemies,' Washington Post, August 6, 2002, p. A-1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47913-2002Aug5?language=printer
;
Jack Shafer, 'The PowerPoint That Rocked the
Pentagon:The LaRouchie defector who's advising the
defense establishment on Saudi Arabia,' Slate, August
7, 2002, http://slate.msn.com//?id=2069119
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69Simon Henderson, 'The Coming Saudi Showdown,' The
Weekly Standard, July 15, 2002,
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/henderson/henderson071502.htm
; Victor Davis Hanson, 'Our Enemies, the Saudis,'
Commentary, July/August 2002; See also: Simon
Henderson, 'The Saudi Way,' Wall Street Journal,
August 12, 2002,
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002116
and Claudia Rosett, 'Free Arabia,' Wall Street
Journal, August 14, 2002,
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002126
70 Ronald Radosh, 'State Department Outrage: The
Firing of Stephen Schwartz,' Front Page Magazine, July
2, 2002,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1610;
Stephen Schwartz, 'Defeating Wahabbism,' Front Page
Magazine, October 25, 2002,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4178
; Stephen Schwartz, Two Faces of Islam: The House of
Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror (New York: Doubleday &
Co., 2002).
Among the favorable views of Schwartz: William
Kristol writes that 'No one has done more to expose
the radical, Saudi-Wahhabi face of Islam than Stephen
Schwartz.' And maverick pro-war leftist Christopher
Hichens chimes in that 'Stephen Schwartz's work is
exemplary in illuminating intra-Muslim distinctions,
both historic and theological; distinctions which are
of the first importance for the rest of the world to
understand. He is a most articulate enemy of
Islamofascism.'
http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/display.pperl?isbn=0385506929
It should be noted that Schwartz presents most of
Islam as peaceful, with only the Wahhabi variety being
dangerous. While this argument could be used to
remove some Islamic countries (such as Iraq and Iran)
from the enemies list, it does not seem to have that
effect.
71 Ricks, 'Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies.'
72 Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, 'The Saudi Money
Trail,' Newsweek, December 2, 2002,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/839269.asp?0cv=KB10 ; Calvin
Woodward, 'Saudi princess's largess may extend to
terrorists,' The Associated Press, The News Tribune
(Tacoma, Wash.), November 25, 2002,
http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/2218751p-2286814c.html
;
73 Norman Podhoretz, 'How to Win World War IV,'
Commentary, February 2002,
http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2002-February/018053.html
74 Podhoretz, 'In Praise of the Bush Doctrine.'
75 Jacob A. Mundy, 'Palestine: 'Transfer' or
Apartheid,' Eat The State, 7:6 (November 20, 2002),
http://eatthestate.org/07-06/PalestineTransferApartheid.htm
76 'Many Israelis content to see Palestinians go,'
in Chicago Sun-Times (14 March 2002) (Jaffee poll).
Ari Shavit, 'Waiting for the sign,' in Haaretz (22
March 2002). Tom Segev, 'A black flag hangs over the
idea of transfer,' in Haaretz (5 April 2002) quoted in
Finkelstein, Image and Reality.
77 Martin van Creveld, 'Warning: Sharon's plan is to
drive Palestinians across the Jordan,' Daily
Telegraph, April 28, 2002,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/28/wpal28.xml
;
http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/5.3_sharons_plan.html.
78 'Urgent Plea To Prevent Massive War Crimes Comes
From Israeli Academics,' September 22, 2002, Mid-East
Realities,
http://www.middleeast.org/premium/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=752&month=9&year=2002&function=text
79 Ibid.
80 Aluf Benn, 'PM rejects Jordan's request to rule
out 'transfer' in Iraq war,' Ha'aretz, November 29,
2002,
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=235416&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
81 See Stephen J. Sniegoski, 'September 11 and the
Origins of the 'War on Terrorism': A Revisionist
Account,' Current Concerns, No. 2, 2002,
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20020214.php
82 Eric Margolis, 'Details of U.S. victory are a
little premature,' Toronto Sun, December 22, 2002,
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_dec22.html
83 For a review of Roosevelt's efforts to get the
United States into the war, see Stephen J. Sniegoski,
'The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism,' The
Occidental Quarterly, 1:2 ( Winter 2001),
http://www.charlesmartelsociety.org/toq/vol1no2/ss-pearlharbor.html
84 Undersecretary of Commerce, Grant Aldonas, told a
business forum that a war in Iraq 'would open up this
spigot on Iraqi oil, which certainly would have a
profound effect in terms of the performance of the
world economy for those countries that are
manufacturers and oil consumers.' Michael Moran and
Alex Johnson, 'Oil after Saddam: All bets are in,'
MSNBC News, November 7, 2002,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/823985.asp?0sl=-10#BODY
85 Anthony Sampson, 'Oilmen don't want another
Suez,' Guardian Unlimited, December 22, 2002,.
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,864336,00.html
Anthony Sampson is the author of The Seven Sisters,
New York: Bantam Books, 1976, which is about about
oil companies and the Middle East. See also:
Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway write: 'Officials of
several major firms said they were taking care to
avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington
over how to proceed on Iraq. 'There's no real upside
for American oil companies to take a very aggressive
stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in
the future,' said James Lucier, an oil analyst with
Prudential Securities.' 'In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil
Is Key Issue,' Washington Post, September 15, 20002,
p. A-1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14¬Found=true
;
For MSNBC, John W. Schoen writes: 'So far, U.S. oil
companies have been mum on the subject of the
potential spoils of war.' 'Iraqi oil, American
bonanza?,' November 11, 2002,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp?0bl=-0 .
86 Daniel Yergin, 'A Crude View of the Crisis in
Iraq,' Washington Post, December 8, 2002, Page B-1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21166-2002Dec6.html
87 William D. Nordhaus, 'Iraq: The Economic
Consequences of War,' New York Review of Books,
December 5, 2002,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15850 ; See also a
more extensive piece by Nordhaus, 'The Economic
Consequences of a War with Iraq,' October 29, 2002,
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/iraq.pdf ; George
L. Perry, 'The War on Terrorism, the World Oil Market
and the U.S. Economy,' Analysis Paper #7, America's
Response to Terrorism
Revised November 28, 2001,
http://www.brookingsinstitution.org/dybdocroot/views/papers/perry/20011024.htm
88 Robert J. Samuelson, 'The Economic Impact of
War,' Newsweek, December 2, 2002,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/839098.asp
89 Quoted by Jay Bookman, 'The president's real goal
in Iraq,' The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September
29, 2002,
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
.
90 Akiva Eldar, 'They're jumping in head first,'
Ha'aretz, September 30, 2002,
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=214159
For a summary of some of the non-democratic
solutions (including the installation of Jordanian
Prince Hassan as king of Iraq) the U.S. government is
contemplating for post-war Iraq, see: Conn Hallinan,
'Favored Post-Saddam Leaders Belie Bush's Democracy
Rhetoric,' Foreign Policy in Focus, November 26,
2002,
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2002/0211invasion.html
; Brian Whitaker, 'Jordan prince touted to succeed
Saddam,' The Guardian, July 19, 2002,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4464346,00.html
;
91 Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq
Strategy,'
Todd S. Purdum and Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times,
August 16, 2002,
http://www.rider.edu/users/phanc/courses/350-web/mideast/iraq/topGOPbreakwGWBreiraq.htm
Zbigniew Brzezinski, 'If We Must Fight ... ,'
Washington Post, August 18, 2002; Page B07
http://www.rider.edu/users/phanc/courses/350-web/mideast/iraq/brzezinski.htm
92 Mark Danner, 'The Struggles of Democracy and
Empire,' New York Times, October 10, 2002,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/politics/1010empire.htm
93 Christopher Layne and Benjamin Schwarz, ' Making
the World Safer for Business Instability and
aggression are regarded as a threat to the global
stability upon which U.S. markets depend,' Los Angeles
Times, April 2, 1999,
http://www.diaspora-net.org/food4thought/layneschwarz.htm
94 Stratfor, 'U.S. Could Become Mired in Iraq
Occupation,' December 30, 2002,
http://world-analysis.1accesshost.com/stratfor2.html
95 Christopher Layne, 'The Power Paradox: History
teaches that holding a monopoly on might - as the
United States now does - is likely to provoke a
backlash,' Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2002,
http://students.uwsp.edu/jwhit216/News%20Articles/LA%20Times%20Op-Ed_10-06-02_PowerParadox.htm
96 Owen Harries, 'The Anglosphere Illusion,'
National Interest, 63 (Spring 2001).
97 Rowan Scarborough, 'U.S. ability to fight two
wars doubted,' Washington Times, December 25, 2002,
A-1, A-9,
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021225-16818336.htm
98Robert Smith Thompson, A Time for War: Franklin D.
Roosevelt and the Path to Pearl Harbor (New York:
Prentice Hall Press, 1991), p. 379; Bruce M. Russet,
No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the
United States Entry into World War II (New York:
Harper Torchbooks, 1972), pp. 53-54.
99 Joseph Sobran, 'The Jewish Establishment, '
Sobran's, September, 1995, p. 4; Similarly, Philip
Weiss, in an article in the New York Observer, points
out : 'You don't see The Times pussyfooting when it
comes to the anti-Castro lobby or the National Rifle
Association, two other powerful special-interest
groups. When they muscle the system, we read faintly
sinister accounts of the Arlington, Va., headquarters
for the gun lobby and the bland, alien Wayne LaPierre,
or hysterical interviews with nutso Castro-haters on
Eighth Street in Miami.' However, 'One of the
difficulties about discussing this question [Jewish
influence] is that the mainstream media refuse to
address it directly; it's considered too sensitive.'
'Holy or Unholy, Jews and Right in an Alliance,' New
York Observer, September 19, 2002,
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6336 .
For the power of American Jewish groups in silencing
criticism of Israel, see: Alexander Cochburn, 'Israel
and 'Anti-Semitism,''' Counterpunch, May 16, 2002,
www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0516.html .
100 Robert Fisk, 'The Coming Firestorm,' May 27,
2002, http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0527.html .
© 2001-2003. All rights reserved.
Current Concerns
P.O. box 223
CH-8044 Zurich
+41-1-350 65 50
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:05:59 -0500
From: carst@gis.net
Subject: AMIRIYA SHELTER
AMIRIYA SHELTER, USA's MOST SAVAGE CRIME IN THE 20th CENTURY
www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/ereport19.htm
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:13:21 -0800
From: eandubh
Subject: FW: (en) Rome: Over 2 million say no to war
From: nestor mcnab
Reply-To: a-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:35:44 +0100 (CET)
To: a-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subject: (en) Rome: Over 2 million say no to war
________________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
http://www.ainfos.ca/
http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
________________________________________________
Rome, Italy. After the cold, wind and rain of the previous week,
the skies were blue and the sun warm for what promised to be a
massive refusal by the people of war and the italian
government's toadying to the US. And our hopes were not
unfounded.
As usual, estimates of the number of participants varied widely,
from the laughable 650,000 put forward by the police, to a
somewhat overenthusiatic 3 million plus, but the most likely
figure was somewhere in the region of 2 to 2.5 million. What
matters most though is that the entire city of Rome was taken
over and brought to a halt by the people for the day.
The march was due to begin at 2pm, but the sheer volume of
participants was so great that the first sectors had to set off
at about 9.30am, and groups of demonstrators were still leaving
from the starting point at 4pm!
Following a call by a promoting group which included the
anarchist federations, a distinct block was formed on a platform
of total opposition to all wars and all racism and characterized
by anti-capitalism, anti-authoritarianism and anti-militarism.
This sector, led by the anarchist federations, numbered around
2000, possibly more, with around 200 anarchists and plenty of
red'n'black flags in evidence. Members of the Federation of
Anarchist Communists distributed copies of the international
declaration "Libertarians against all wars" [*] which was very
well received.
At one point, the anti-authoritarian sector deviated from the
main march and arrived at its separate destination with everyone
content for what was in effect a successful, visible
demonstration of self-managed, anti-capitalist forces.
nmcn
Note:
see
http://alternativelibertaire.org/index.php?dir=international&page=wir80.html
*******
********
****** The A-Infos News Service ******
News about and of interest to anarchists
******
COMMANDS: lists@ainfos.ca
REPLIES: a-infos-d@ainfos.ca
HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org
-To receive a-infos in one language only mail lists@ainfos.ca the message:
unsubscribe a-infos
subscribe a-infos-X
where X = en, ca, de, fr, etc. (i.e. the language code)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:28:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Lou Morgan
Subject: Made in Israel: Part 1
War on Iraq - Conceived In Israel
Stephen J. Sniegoski (*) USA
Current Concerns
P.O. box 223
CH-8044 Zurich
+41-1-350 65 50
In a lengthy article in The American Conservative
criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S.
attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul
W. Schroeder only noted in passing 'what is possibly
the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
policy - security for Israel.
' If Israel's security were the real American motive
for war, Schroeder went on: 'It would represent
something to my knowledge unique in history. It is
common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy,
getting smaller powers to fight for their interests.
This would be the first instance I know where a great
power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as
the proxy of a small client state.'1
Is there any evidence that Israel and its supporters
have managed to get the U.S. to fight for its
interests?
The 9/11 attack used
In coming up with the real motives for the projected
war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How
did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war
on Iraq, for which there is no real evidence that it
was involved in the 9/11 terrorism?
It can be observed that from the time of the 9/11
attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not
exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist
persuasion, tried to make use of the 9/11 attack to
achieve a broad war against Islamic terrorism, which
coincided with the enemies of Israel.
The neoconservatives and Israel
Although the term neoconservative is in common
usage, a brief description of the group might be
helpful. Many of the first generation
neoconservatives were originally liberal Democrats, or
even socialists and Marxists, often Trotskyites. They
drifted to the right in the 1960s and 1970s as the
Democratic Party moved to the anti-war McGovernite
left. And concern for Israel loomed large in their
change.
As political scientist, Benjamin Ginsberg puts it:
'One major factor that drew them inexorably to the
right was their attachment to Israel and their
growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic
party that was becoming increasingly opposed to
American military preparedness and increasingly
enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian
rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-line
anti-communism, commitment to American military
strength, and willingness to intervene politically and
militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote
democratic values (and American interests), neocons
found a political movement that would guarantee
Israel's security.'2
War against Iraq at Israel's behest?
Neoconservatives had for some time prior to
September 11, 2001 publicly advocated an American war
on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities essentially provided the
pretext for carrying out such an activity. The idea
that neoconservatives are the motivating force behind
the United States movement for war has been broached
by a number of commentators. For instance, Joshua
Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington
Monthly entitled: 'Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of
a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S.
foreign policy.' And Kathleen and Bill Christison
wrote in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch: 'The
suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at
Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers
whose main motivation is trying to create a secure
environment for Israel, is strong.
Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli
commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a
Ha'aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow
strategists 'are walking a fine line between their
loyalty to American governments and Israeli
interests.'
The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten
subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United
States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli
Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon
has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring
the Middle East and that 'the winds blowing now in
Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no
proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him . But
the style is the same.' 3
In the following essay an effort has been made to
flesh out this thesis and to show the linkage between
the war position of the neoconservatives and what has
been long-time strategy of the Israeli right, if not
of the Israeli mainstream itself. Essentially, the
idea of a Middle East war had been bandied about in
Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli
security, which revolves around an ultimate solution
to the Palestinian problem.
Deportation of Palestinians: 'What is inconceivable
in normal times is possible in revolutionary times'
To understand why Israeli leaders would want a
Middle East war, it is first necessary to take a brief
look at the history of Zionist movement and its
goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the
idea of expelling the indigenous Palestinian
population was an integral part of the Zionist effort
to found a Jewish national state in Palestine.
'The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist
movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in
Theodore Herzl historian Tom Segev observes. 'In
practice, the Zionistists began executing a
mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the
land and evacuating the Arab tenants ...
''Disappearing'' the Arabs lay at the heart of the
Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of
its existence ... With few exceptions, none of the
Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer
- or its morality.'
However, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
proclaim their mass expulsion intent because 'this
would cause the Zionists to lose the world's
sympathy.'4
The key issue was to find an opportune time to
initiate the mass expulsion process that would not
incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s,
Ben-Gurion would write: 'What is inconceivable in
normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and
if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is
possible in such great hours is not carried out - a
whole world is lost 5
The 'revolutionary times' would come with the first
Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists were able
to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of
the indigenous population), and thus achieve an
overwhelmingly Jewish state, though the area did not
include the entirety of Palestine, or the 'Land of
Israel', which Zionist leaders thought necessary for
a viable state.
The opportunity to grab additional land took place as
a result of the 1967 war; however, the occupation of
the additional territory brought the problem of a
large Palestinian population. World opinion was now
totally opposed to forced population transfers,
equating such an activity with the unspeakable horror
of Nazism. The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention,
ratified in 1949, had 'unequivocally prohibited
deportation' of civilians under occupation.6 Since
the 1967 war, the major issue in Israeli politics has
been what to do with that territory and its
Palestinian population.
It was during the 1980s, with the coming to power of
the rightwing Likud government, that the idea of
expulsion publicly resurfaced. And this time it was
directly tied to a larger war, with destabilization of
the Middle East seen as a precondition for Palestinian
expulsion. Such a proposal, including Palestinian
population removal, was outlined in an article by Oded
Yinon, entitled 'A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,'
which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's
periodical Kivunim in February 1982.
Oded Yinon, had been attached to the Foreign Ministry
and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level
thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence
establishment. The article called for Israel to bring
about the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab
states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings. Thinking
along these lines, Ariel Sharon stated on March 24,
1988 that if the Palestinian uprising continued,
Israel would have to make war on its Arab neighbors.
The war, he stated, would provide 'the circumstances'
for the removal of the entire Palestinian population
from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside
Israel proper.7
Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi
critiqued the war/expulsion scenario - 'Israeli
intentions to impose a Pax Israelica on the Middle
East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat them
harshly' - in his very significant work, Israel's
Fateful Hour, published in 1988.
Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi believed
that Israel did not have the power to achieve this
goal, given the strength of the Arab states, the
large Palestinian population involved, and the
vehement opposition of world opinion. Harkabi hoped
that 'the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new
order in the weakest Arab state - Lebanon - will
disabuse people of similar ambitions in other
territories.'8 Left unconsidered by Harkabi was the
possibility that the United States would act as
Israel's proxy to achieve this goal.
Securing oil supply
In the 1970s and 1980s, the US Middle Eastern
policy, although sympathetic to Israel, was not
identical to that of Israel. The fundamental goal of
United States policy was to promote stable governments
in the Middle East that would allow the oil to flow to
the Western industrial nations
To allow the oil flow, it was not necessary for these
governments to befriend Israel - in fact they could
openly oppose the Jewish state. The United States
worked for peace between Israel and the Arab states
but a peace that would accommodate the demands of the
Arab nations - most crucially involving the
Palestinians.
US support for the Iraq in its war against Iran
In its policy of ensuring the security of Middle
East oil supplies, the U.S. by the mid-1980s was
heavily supporting Iraq in its war against Iran,
although for awhile the United States also had
provided some aid to Iran (the Iran-Contra scandal).
Ironically, Donald Rumsfeld served as the U.S. envoy
who paved the way for the restoration of relations
with Iraq in 1983, which had been severed in 1967. The
U.S. along with other western nations looked upon
Iraq as a bulwark against the radical Islamism of the
Ayatollah's Iran, which threatened western oil
interests.
U.S. support for Iraq included intelligence
information, military equipment, and agricultural
credits. And the U.S. deployed the largest naval
force since the Vietnam War in the Gulf, ostensibly
for the purpose of protecting oil tankers, but which
engaged in serious attacks on Iran's navy.
It should be added that it was during this period of
U.S. support that Iraq used poisonous gas against the
Iranians and the Kurds, which the U.S. government and
its media supporters now describe as so horrendous. In
fact, United States intelligence information
facilitated the Iraqi use of poison gas against the
Iranians.
In addition, the United States eased up on its own
technology export restrictions to Iraq, which allowed
the Iraqis to import supercomputers, machine tools,
poisonous chemicals, and even strains of anthrax and
bubonic plague. In short, the United States helped arm
Iraq with the very horrific weaponry that
administration officials are now trumpeting as
justification for Saddam's forcible removal from
power.9
When the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988, the United
States continued its support for Iraq, showering it
with military hardware, advanced technology, and
agricultural credits. The United States apparently
looked to Saddam to maintain stability in the Gulf.
With Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990,
American policy would swiftly change. And
neoconservatives were hawkish in generating support
for a U.S. war against Iraq.
The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf,
headed by Richard Perle, was set up to promote the
war.10 And neoconservative war hawks such as Frank
Gaffney, Jr., Richard Perle, A. M. Rosenthal, William
Safire, and The Wall Street Journal held that
America's war objective should not simply be driving
Iraq out of Iran but also destroying Iraq's military
potential, especially its capacity to develop nuclear
weapons.
The Bush administration embraced this position.11 More
than this, the neoconservatives hoped that the war
would lead to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the
American occupation of Iraq. However, despite the
urging of then Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and
Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to adopt a
military plan to invade Iraq, this was never done
because of the opposition from General Colin Powell,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General
Norman Schwarzkopf, the field commander.12
Moreover, the U.S. had a UN mandate to liberate
Kuwait, not to remove Saddam. To attempt the latter
would have caused the warring coalition to fall
apart. America's coalition partners in the region,
especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia, feared that the
elimination of Saddam's government would cause Iraq to
fragment into warring ethnic and religious groups.
This could have involved a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq
that would have spread to Turkey's own restive Kurdish
population and the Iraq Shi'ites falling under the
influence of Iran that would have increased the
threat of Islamic radicalism in the region.
Not only did the Bush administration dash
neoconservative hopes by leaving Saddam in place, but
its proposed 'New World Order,' as implemented by
Secretary of State James Baker, conflicted with
neoconservative/Israeli goals, being oriented toward
placating the Arab coalition that supported the war.
This entailed an effort to curb Israeli control of its
occupied territories. The Bush administration
demanded that Israel halt constructing new settlements
in the occupied territories as a condition to receive
$10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for the
resettlement of hundreds of thousands of immigrants
from the former Soviet Union. Although Bush would cave
in to American pro-Zionist pressure just prior to the
November 1992 election, his resistance disaffected
many neoconservatives, causing some such as William
Safire to back Bill Clinton in the election of 1992.13
During the Clinton administration neoconservatives
promoted their views from a strong interlocking
network of think tanks - such as the American
Enterpise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research
Institute (Memri), Hudson Institute, Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, the Middle East
Forum, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA), Center for Security Policy (CSP) - which have
had great influence in the media and staff Republican
administrations.
Some of these organizations were originally set up by
mainline conservatives and taken over by
neoconservatives;14 others were established by
neoconservatives, with some of them having a direct
Israeli connection.
For example, Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli
military intelligence was a co-founder of the Middle
East Media Research Institute (Memri). And these
various organizations have been closely connected. For
example, the other co-founder of Memri, Meyrav
Wurmser, was a member of the Hudson Institute, while
her husband, David Wurmser, headed the Middle East
studies department of AEI. Richard Perle was both a
'resident fellow' at the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) and a trustee of the Hudson Institute.15
The power of influential individuals
A recent article by Jason Vest in the The Nation
discusses the immense power of individuals from two
major neoconservative research organizations, the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), in the
current Bush Administration. Vest details the close
links between these organizations, right-wing
politicians, arms merchants, military men, Jewish
multi-millionaires/billionaires, and Republican
administrations.16
Regarding JINSA, Vest writes:
'Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that
the United States might not be able to provide Israel
with adequate military supplies in the event of
another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five
years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to
a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable
array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until
the beginning of the current Bush Administration,
JINSA's board of advisers included such heavy hitters
as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the
third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon.
Both Perle and former Director of Central
Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices
in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as
are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick,
Eugene Rostow and [Michael] Ledeen - Oliver North's
Iran/ contra liaison with the Israelis.'17
Vest notes that 'dozens' of JINSA and CPSU 'members
have ascended to powerful government posts, where
their advocacy in support of the same agenda
continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts
from which they came. Industrious and persistent,
they've managed to weave a number of issues - support
for national missile defense, opposition to arms
control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons
systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism
in general - into a hard line, with support for the
Israeli right at its core.'
And Vest continues: 'On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard
line more evident than in its relentless campaign for
war - not just with Iraq, but 'total war,' as Michael
Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in
Washington, put it last year. For this crew, 'regime
change' by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an
urgent imperative.'18
Support for the Israeli Right
Let's recapitulate Vest's major points. The
JINSA/CSP network has 'support for the Israeli right
at its core.' In line with the views of the Israeli
right, it has advocated a Middle Eastern war to
eliminate the enemies of Israel. And members of the
JINSA/CSP network have gained influential foreign
policy positions in Republican administrations, most
especially in the current administration of George W.
Bush.
A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking
on war on Iraq was a 1996 paper developed Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and others
published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for
Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, entitled 'A
clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm.'
It was intended as a political blueprint for the
incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
The paper stated that Netanyahu should 'make a clean
break' with the Oslo peace process and reassert
Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It
presented a plan by which Israel would 'shape its
strategic environment', beginning with the removal of
Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite
monarchy in Baghdad, which would serve as a first step
towards eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of
Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.19
It is to be noted that these Americans - Perle, Feith,
and Wurmser - were advising a foreign government and
that they currently are connected to the George W.
Bush administration: Perle is head of the Defense
Policy Board; Feith is Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Policy; and Wurmser is special assistant to State
Department chief arms control negotiator John Bolton.
And it is noteworthy that while in 1996 Israel was to
'shape its strategic environment' by removing its
enemies, the same individuals are now proposing that
the United States shape the Middle East environment by
removing Israel's enemies. It would seem that the
United States is to serve as Israel's proxy to advance
Israeli interests.
War on Iraq demanded already in 1998
On February 19, 1998, the neoconservative Committee
for Peace and Security in the Gulf in an 'Open Letter
to the President,' proposed 'a comprehensive
political and military strategy for bringing down
Saddam and his regime.' The letter continued: 'It will
not be easy - and the course of action we favor is
not without its problems and perils. But we believe
the vital national interests of our country require
the United States to [adopt such a strategy].'
Among the letter's signers were the following current
Bush Administration officials: Elliott Abrams
(National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State
Department), John Bolton (State Department), Doug
Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy
Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman
(Defense Department), Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of
Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David
Wurmser (State Department), Dov Zakheim (Defense
Department), and Richard Perle (Defense Policy
Board).20
Note that Rumsfeld was part of the neoconservative
network and already demanding war with Iraq.21
Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist
and neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan,
William Kristol, Frank Gaffney (Director, Center for
Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American
Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (Editor-in-Chief,
The New Republic), Leon Wieseltier, (The New
Republic), former congressman Stephen Solarz.22
President Clinton would only go so far as to support
the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated ninety-seven
million dollars for training and military equipment
for the Iraqi opposition.23
In September 2000, the neo-conservative think-tank
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)24 issued a
report, 'Rebuilding America's defenses: Strategy,
Forces and Resources for a New Century,' which
envisioned an expanded global posture for the United
States. In regard to the Middle East, the report
called for an increased American military presence in
the Gulf, whether Saddam was in power or not,
maintaining that: 'The United States has for decades
sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional
security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq
provides the immediate justification, the need for a
substantial American force presence in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
Hussein.'25
The project's participants included individuals who
would play leading roles in the Bush administration:
Dick Cheney (vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld
(Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy
Secretary of Defense), and Lewis Libby (Vice
President Cheney's chief of staff). Weekly Standard
editor William Kristol was also a co-author.
The strategists Wolfowitz and Perle
In order to directly influence White House policy,
Wolfowitz and Perle managed to obtain leading roles in
Bush foreign policy/national security advisory team
for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet specialist
Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as 'the
Vulcans.' Having no direct experience and little
knowledge of foreign policy, as illustrated by his
gaffes - confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring
to Greeks as 'Grecians' and failing a pop quiz on the
names of four foreign leaders - George W. Bush would
have to rely heavily on his advisers. 'His foreign
policy team,' neoconservative Robert Kagan observed,
'will be critically important to determining what his
policies are.' And as columnist Robert Novak noted:
'Since Rice lacks a clear track record on Middle East
matters, Wolfowitz and Perle will probably weigh in
most on Middle East policy.'26
In short, Wolfowitz and Perle would provide the
know-nothing Bush with a foreign policy for the
Middle East. And certainly such right-wing Zionist
views would be reinforced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and
the multitude of other neoconservatives who would
inundate his administration.
Upon taking office, neoconservatives would fill the
key positions in the administration involving defense
and foreign policy. On Donald Rumsfeld's staff are
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Under
Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith. On Cheney's staff,
the principal neoconservatives include Lewis
'Scooter' Libby, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah. And it
should be added that Cheney, with his long-time
neoconservative connections and views has played a
significant role in shaping administration foreign
policy.27
Richard Perle is often described as the most
influential foreign-policy neoconservative, their
eminence grise.28 During the 1970s, Perle gained
notice as a top aide to Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson
(Democrat, Washingon), who was one of the Senate's
most anti-Communist and pro-Israeli members. During
the 1980s, Perle served as deputy secretary of defense
under Reagan, where his hardline anti-Soviet
positions, especially his opposition to any form of
arms control, earned him the moniker 'Prince of
Darkness' from his enemies. His friends, however,
considered him, as one put it, 'one of the most
wonderful people in Washington.' That Perle is known
as a man of great intellect, a gracious and generous
host, a witty companion, and a loyal ally helps to
explain his prestige in neoconservative circles.29
Perle is not only an exponent of pro-Zionist views,
but has had close connections with Israel, being a
personal friend of Ariel Sharon's, a board member of
the Jerusalem Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli
weapon manufacturer Soltam. According to author
Seymour M. Hersh, while Perle was a congressional aide
for Jackson, FBI wiretaps had picked up Perle
providing classified information from the National
Security Council to the Israeli embassy.30
Although not technically part of the Bush
administration, Perle holds the unpaid chairmanship of
the Defense Policy Board. In this position, Perle has
access to classified documents and close contacts with
the administration leadership. As an article in Salon
puts it: 'Formerly an obscure civilian board designed
to provide the secretary of defense with non-binding
advice on a whole range of military issues, the
Defense Policy Board, now stacked with unabashed Iraq
hawks, has become a quasi-lobbying organization whose
primary objective appears to be waging war with
Iraq.'31
Sharon's policy of mass expulsion of Palestinians
As the Bush administration came into office in
January 2001, press reports in Israel quoted
government officials and politicians speaking openly
of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. The new Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (elected to office in
February 2001), noted for his ruthlessness, had said
in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian
state where Palestinians removed from Israeli
territory would be relocated.32
There was increased public concern about demographic
changes that threatened the Jewish nature of the
Israeli state. Haifa University professor Arnon Sofer
released the study, 'Demography of Eretz Israel,'
which predicted that by 2020 non-Jews would be a
majority of 58 percent in Israel and the occupied
territories.33 Moreover, it was recognized that the
overall increase in population was going beyond that
which the land, with its limited supply of water, can
maintain.34
It appeared to some that Sharon intended to achieve
expulsion through militant means. As one left-wing
analyst put it at the time: 'One big war with
transfer at its end - this is the plan of the hawks
who indeed almost reached the moment of its
implementation.'35
In summer 2001, the authoritative Jane's Information
Group reported that Israel had completed planning for
a massive and bloody invasion of the Occupied
Territories, involving 'air strikes by F-15 and F-16
fighter bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment, and
then an attack by a combined force of 30,000 men ...
tank brigades and infantry.' It would seem that such
bold strikes signified far more than simply removing
Arafat and the PLO leadership.
But the U.S. vetoed the plan and Europe made equally
plain its opposition to Sharon's plans.36 As one
close observer of the Israeli-Palestinian scene
presciently noted in August 2001, 'it is only in the
current political climate that such expulsion plans
cannot be put into operation. As hot as the political
climate is at the moment, clearly the time is not yet
ripe for drastic action. However, if the temperature
were raised even higher, actions inconceivable at
present might be possible.'37 Once again,
'revolutionary times' were necessary for Israel to
achieve its policy goals. And then came the September
11 attacks.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:45:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Ibrahim Ebeid
Subject: Colorado Springs Demonstrators gassed
Colorado Springs Demonstrators gassed
In Colorado Springs,Colorado, the police fired tear gas at a crowd near Palmer Park. An unknown number of people were arrested or taken to the hospital. A police spokesman said the crowd had ignored orders to disperse.
http://www.moharer.jeeran.com/
http://come.to/Al-Moharer
http://al-moharer.freeservers.com/
http://clix.to/Moharer
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/tonga/1105/
http://almoharer.cjb.net
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:31:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Lou Morgan
Subject: Made in Israel: Part 2
September 11: 'revolutionary times'
The September 11 atrocities provided the
'revolutionary times,' in which Israel could undertake
radical measures unacceptable during normal
conditions. When asked what the attack would do for
U.S.-Israeli relations, former prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu responded: 'It's very good.' Then he edited
himself: 'Well, not very good, but it will generate
immediate sympathy.'
Netanyahu correctly predicted that the attack would
'strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because
we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the
United States has now experienced a massive
hemorrhaging of terror.' Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
placed Israel in the same position as the United
States, referring to the attack as an assault on 'our
common values' and declaring, 'I believe together we
can defeat these forces of evil.'38
In the eyes o | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:25 pm Post subject: Made in Israel: Part 2 |
| Made in Israel: Part 2
September 11: 'revolutionary times'
The September 11 atrocities provided the
'revolutionary times,' in which Israel could undertake
radical measures unacceptable during normal
conditions. When asked what the attack would do for
U.S.-Israeli relations, former prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu responded: 'It's very good.' Then he edited
himself: 'Well, not very good, but it will generate
immediate sympathy.'
Netanyahu correctly predicted that the attack would
'strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because
we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the
United States has now experienced a massive
hemorrhaging of terror.' Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
placed Israel in the same position as the United
States, referring to the attack as an assault on 'our
common values' and declaring, 'I believe together we
can defeat these forces of evil.'38
In the eyes of Israeli's leaders, the September 11
attack had joined the United States and Israeli
together against a common enemy. And that enemy was
not in far off Afghanistan, but was geographically
close to Israel. Israel's traditional enemies would
now become America's as well. And Israel would have a
better chance of dealing with the Palestinians under
the cover of a 'war on terrorism.'
Immediately after the 911 attacks, the
neoconservatives began to publicly push for a wider
war on terrorism that would immediately deal with
Israel's enemies. For example, columnist William
Safire held that the real terrorists that America
should focus on were not groups of religious
fanatics, 'But Iraqi scientists today working
feverishly in hidden biological laboratories and
underground nuclear facilities [who] would, if
undisturbed, enable the hate-driven, power-crazed
Saddam to kill millions. That capability would
transform him from a boxed-in bully into a rampant
world power.'39
Within the administration, Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz clearly implied a broader war
against existing governments when he said: 'I think
one has to say it's not just simply a matter of
capturing people and holding them accountable, but
removing the sanctuaries, removing the support
systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And
that's why it has to be a broad and sustained
campaign. It's not going to stop if a few criminals
are taken care of.'40
New formula: war on terrorism
On September 20, 2001, neoconservatives of the
Project for the New American Century sent a letter to
President Bush endorsing the war on terrorism and
stressing that the removal of Saddam Hussein was an
essential part of that war. They maintained that
'even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the
attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of
terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined
effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute
an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on
international terrorism.'
Furthermore, the letter opined that if Syria and Iran
failed to stop all support for Hezbollah, the United
States should 'consider appropriate measures against
these known sponsors of terrorism.' Among the
letter's signatories were such neoconservative
luminaries as William Kristol, Midge Decter, Eliot
Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Robert Kagan,
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, Richard
Perle, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen J.
Solarz, and Leon Wieseltier.41
Afghanistan just the opening battle
In the October 29 issue of The Weekly Standard,
Robert Kagan and William Kristol predicted a wider
Middle Eastern war. 'When all is said and done, the
conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on
terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World
War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory.
But compared with what looms over the horizon - a
wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the
Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the
United States - Afghanistan will prove but an opening
battle. ... But this war will not end in Afghanistan.
It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries
in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well
require the use of American military power in
multiple places simultaneously. It is going to
resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has
hoped to avoid.'42 It would seem that Kagan and
Kristol look forward to this gigantic conflagration.
In a November 20, 2002 article in The Wall Street
Journal, Eliot A. Cohen would dub the conflict 'World
War IV,' a term picked up by other neoconservatives.
Cohen proclaimed that 'The enemy in this war is not
''terrorism'' ... but militant Islam. ... Afghanistan
constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the
battles there just one ' Cohen not only called for a
United States attack on Iraq but also for the
elimination of the Islamic regime in Iran, which
'would be no less important a victory in this war
than the annihilation of bin Laden.'43
War propaganda of Neoconservative
Critics of a wider war in the Middle East were quick
to notice the neoconservative war propaganda effort.
In analyzing the situation in September,
paleoconservative44 Scott McConnell would write: 'For
the neoconservatives, however, bin Laden is but a
sideshow . ... They hope to use September 11 as
pretext for opening a wider war in the Middle East.
Their prime, but not only, target is Saddam Hussein's
Iraq, even if Iraq has nothing to do with the World
Trade Center assault.'45
However, McConnell mistakenly considered the neocon
position to be a minority one within the Bush
administration, as he wrote: 'The neo-con wish list
is a recipe for igniting a huge conflagration between
the United States and countries throughout the Arab
world, with consequences no one could reasonably
pretend to calculate. Support for such a war - which
could turn quite easily into a global war - is a
minority position within the Bush administration
(assistant secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz is its
main advocate) and the country. But it presently
dominates the main organs of conservative journalistic
opinion, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, the
Weekly Standard, and the Washington Times, as well as
Marty Peretz's neoliberal New Republic. In a volatile
situation, such organs of opinion could matter.'46
Expressing a similar view, veteran columnist Georgie
Anne Geyer observed: 'The ''Get Iraq'' campaign ...
started within days of the September bombings . ...
It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli
hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and adviser Richard Perle,
but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some
journalists and congressmen.
Soon it became clear that many, although not all,
were in the group that is commonly called in
diplomatic and political circles the
''Israeli-firsters,'' meaning that they would always
put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it,
above anything else.' Within the Bush administration,
Geyer believed that this line of thinking was 'being
contained by cool heads in the administration, but
that could change at any time.'47
Neoconservatives have presented the September 11
atrocities as a lightning bolt to make President Bush
aware of his destiny to destroy the evil of world
terrorism. In the religious (ironically Christian)
terminology of Norman Podhoretz, 'a transformed - or,
more precisely, a transfigured - George W.Bush
appeared before us. In an earlier article in these
pages, I suggested, perhaps presumptuously, that out
of the blackness of smoke and fiery death let loose
by September 11, a kind of revelation, blazing with a
very different fire of its own, lit up the recesses
of Bush's mind and heart and soul. Which is to say
that, having previously been unsure as to why he
should have been chosen to become President of the
United States, George W.Bush now knew that the God to
whom, as a born-again Christian, he had earlier
committed himself had put him in the Oval Office for a
purpose. He had put him there to lead a war against
the evil of terrorism.'48
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was
internal debate within the administration regarding
the scope of the 'war on terrorism.' According to Bob
Woodward's Bush at War, as early as the day after the
attacks, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld 'raised the
question of attacking Iraq. Why shouldn't we go
against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? he asked.
Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he
raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz was
committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal
target of the first round in the war on terrorism.'49
Woodward continued that 'the terrorist attacks of
September 11 gave the U.S. a new window to go after
Hussein.' On September 15, Wolfowitz put forth
military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq
rather than Afghanistan.
Wolfowitz expressed the view that 'attacking
Afghanistan would be uncertain.' He voiced the fear
that American troops would be 'bogged down in mountain
fighting. ... In contrast, Iraq, was a brittle,
oppressive regime that might break easily. It was
doable.'50
However, the neoconservatives were not able to
achieve their goal of a wider war at the outset, in
part due to the opposition of Secretary of State
Powell, who held that the war should focus on the
actual perpetrators of September 11. (It might be
added that this was how most Americans actually
viewed the war.)
Perhaps Powell's most telling argument was his
allegation that an American attack on Iraq would lack
international support. He claimed that if the United
States were victorious in Afghanistan, it would
enhance its ability to deal militarily with Iraq at a
later time, 'if we can prove that Iraq had a role' in
September 11.51
Powell diverged from the neoconservative hawks in
his emphasis on the need for international support, as
opposed to American unilateralism, but an even
greater difference was his contention that the 'war on
terror' had to be directly linked to the perpetrators
of September 11 - Osama bin Laden's network. Powell
publicly repudiated Wolfowitz's call for 'ending
states' with the response that 'We're after ending
terrorism. And if there are states and regimes,
nations, that support terrorism, we hope to persuade
them that it is in their interest to stop doing that.
But I think ''ending terrorism'' is where I would
leave it and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself.'52
'Top secret': war against Iraq already planned on 17
September 2001
Very significantly, however, while the 'war on
terrorism' would not begin with an attack on Iraq,
military plans were being made for just such an
endeavor. A 'top secret' document outlining the war
plan for Afghanistan, which President Bush signed on
September 17, 2001, included, as a minor point,
instructions to the Pentagon to also start making
plans for an attack on Iraq.53
Bush's public pronouncements would show a rapid
evolution in the direction of expanding the war to
Iraq. On November 21, 2001, in a speech at Fort
Campbell, Kentucky, Bush proclaimed that 'Afghanistan
is just the beginning of the war against terror. There
are other terrorists who threaten America and our
friends, and there are other nations willing to
sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until
all these threats are defeated. Across the world, and
across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and
we will win.'54
On November 26, in response to a question as to
whether Iraq was a terrorist nation that he had in
mind, the President responded: 'Well, my message is,
is that if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist.
If you feed a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you
develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to
terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable.' Note
that Bush included possession of weapons of mass
destruction as an indicator of 'terrorism.' And none
of this terrorist activity necessarily related to the
September 11 attacks.55
The 'axis of evil' - an invention by David Frum,
Bush's speechwriter
The transformation to the wider war was complete
with Bush's January 29, 2002 State of the Union
speech, in which the 'war on terrorism' was
officially decoupled from the specific events of 9/11.
Bush did not even mention bin Laden or al Qaeda. The
danger now was said to come primarily from three
countries - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - which he
dubbed 'an axis of evil,' who allegedly threatened the
world with their weapons of mass destruction.
According to Bush, 'States like these, and their
terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming
to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons
of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and
growing danger. They could provide these arms to
terrorists, giving them the means to match their
hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to
blackmail the United States. In any of these cases,
the price of indifference would be catastrophic.'56
The phrase 'axis of evil' was coined by Bush's
neoconservative speechwriter, David Frum.57
By April 2002, President Bush was publicly declaring
that American policy was 'regime change' in Iraq. And
in June, he stated that the United States would
launch preemptive strikes on those countries that
threatened the United States.58 According to what
passes as the conventional wisdom, Iraq now posed
such a threat. Moreover, by the spring of 2002, Army
General Tommy R. Franks, commander of U. S. Central
Command, began giving Bush private briefings every
three or four weeks on the war planning for Iraq.59
Neoconservatives both within and outside of the
administration sought a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq
that would not be encumbered by the conflicting goals
of any coalition partners. This was countered by the
efforts of Secretary of State Powell to persuade
President Bush that United Nation's sanction would be
necessary to justify a United States attack, which the
President ultimately found persuasive. While this
slowed the rush to war, it represented a move by
Powell away from his original position that war on
Iraq should only be made if it were proven to have
been involved in the September 11 terrorism.
UN resolution 1441
The UN Security Council decided that UN inspectors,
with sweeping inspection powers, would determine
whether Iraq was violating its pledge to destroy all
of its weapons of mass destruction. UN Security
Council Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002 places the
burden of proof on Iraq to show that it no longer
possesses weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1441
states that any false statements or omissions in the
Iraqi weapons declaration would constitute a further
material breach by Iraq of its obligations. This could
set in motion discussions by the Security Council on
considering the use of military force against Iraq.
While some have claimed that this might mean that war
would be put off,60 it allows the United States to use
the new UN resolution as a legal justification for
war. In fact, the United States could choose to
enforce the resolution through war without additional
UN authorization. As reporter Robert Fisk writes: 'The
United Nations can debate any Iraqi non-compliance
with weapons inspectors, but the United States will
decide whether Iraq has breached UN resolutions. In
other words, America can declare war without UN
permission.'61
Top military figures hesitant - neoconservatives
command
Neoconservatives have not only determined the
foreign policy for the attack on Iraq but have played
a role in the military strategy as well. Top military
figures, including members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, initially expressed opposition to the whole
idea of war against Iraq.62
Richard Perle and other neoconservatives have for some
time held that toppling Saddam would require little
military effort or risk. They pushed for a war
strategy dubbed 'inside-out' that would involve
attacking Baghdad and a couple of other key cities
with a very small number of airborne troops, with
some estimates ranging as low as five thousand.
Achieving these goals, according to the plan's
supporters, would cause Saddam's regime to collapse.
American military leaders adamantly opposed this
approach as too risky, offering in its stead a plan
to use a much larger number of troops - around 250,000
- that would attack Iraq in a more conventional manner
from its neighboring countries (ࠬa the Gulf War).
Perle and the neoconservatives feared that no
neighboring country would provide these bases so that
this approach would likely mean that no war would be
initiated or that during the lengthy time needed to
assemble this large force, war opposition would reach
a point as to make war politically impossible.
Perle angrily responded to the military's demure by
saying that the decision to attack Iraq was 'a
political judgment that these guys aren't competent to
make'.63 Cheney and Rumsfeld went even farther
referring to the generals as 'cowards' for being
insufficiently gung-ho regarding an Iraq invasion.64
Now one might be tempted to attribute the rejection
of the military's caution to insane hubris on the part
of Perle and the neoconservative crowd - how could
those amateurs deign to know more about military
strategy than professional military men? But Richard
Perle may be many things but stupid is not one of
these. Perle undoubtedly has thought through the
implications of his plan. And it is apparent that the
'inside-out' option would be a win-win proposition
from Perle's perspective.
Let's assume that it works - that a few American
troops can capture some strategic areas and the Iraqi
army quickly folds. Then Perle and the
neoconservatives appear as military geniuses who
would have free reign to prepare a series of
additional low-cost wars in the Middle East.
But, on the other hand, let's assume that the
invasion is a complete fiasco. The American troops are
defeated in the cities. Many are captured and paraded
around for all the world to see via television. Saddam
makes bombastic speeches about defeating the American
aggressor. All the Arab and Islamic world celebrates
the American defeat. American flags are burned in
massive anti-American celebrations throughout the
Middle East. And all of this is viewed by Americans on
their television screens. America is totally
humiliated. It looks like a paper tiger. What would
be the American reaction?
It would be like Pearl Harbor in engendering hatred of
the enemy in the hearts of average Americans. The
public would demand that American honor and prestige
be avenged. They would accept the idea fed to them by
the neoconservative propagandists that the war was one
between America and Islam. Total war would be
unleashed, which would involve heavy bombing of
cities. And the air attacks could easily move from
Iraq to the other neighboring Islamic states.
A war of conquest and extermination would be the
neoconservatives fondest dream since it would serve to
destroy all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East.
(It now appears, however, that the Pentagon has
augmented the magnitude of the Iraq strike force so as
to reduce the risk of the aforementioned scenario.)65
Expansion of the war planned
There are many indications that the war will not be
limited to Iraq alone. On July 10, 2002, Laurent
Murawiec, at Perle's behest, briefed the Defense
Policy Board about Saudi Arabia, whose friendly
relationship with the United States has been the
lynchpin of American security strategy in the Middle
East for over 50 years. Murawiec described the
kingdom as the principal supporter of anti-American
terrorism - 'the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the
most dangerous opponent.' It was necessary for the
U.S. to regard Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United
States. Murawiec said that the United States should
demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist
Islamic outlets around the world, prohibit all
anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli propaganda in the country,
and 'prosecute or isolate those involved in the
terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence
services.'
If the Saudi's refused to comply with the ultimatum,
Murawiec held that the United States should invade
and occupy the country, including the holy sites of
Mecca and Medina, seize its oil fields, and
confiscate its financial assets.66
Murawiec concluded the briefing with the astounding
summary of what he called a 'Grand Strategy for the
Middle East:' 'Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi
Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize.' In
short, the goal of the war on the Iraq was the
destruction of the United States' closest allies. It
would be hard to envision a policy better designed to
inflame the entire Middle East against the United
States. But that is exactly the result sought by
neoconservatives.67
Predictably, the day after the briefing, the Bush
Administration disavowed Murawiec's scenario as
having nothing to do with actual American foreign
policy and pronounced Saudi Arabia as a loyal ally.68
It should be added, however, that nothing was done by
the Administration to remove or even discipline Perle
for holding a discussion of a plan for attacking a
close ally - and individuals have frequently been
removed from Administrations for much smaller faux
pas. Certainly the Bush administration's inaction
failed to assure the Saudis that Murawiec's war plan
was beyond the realm of possibility.
It should be added that Murawiec's anti-Saudi
scenario was in line with what had been coming out in
the neoconservative press. The July 15, 2002 issue of
The Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol,
featured an article entitled 'The Coming Saudi
Showdown,' by Simon Henderson of the neoconservative
Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The
July/August issue of Commentary, published by the
American Jewish Committee, contained an article
titled, 'Our Enemies, the Saudis.'69
The leading neoconservative expert on Saudi Arabia is
Stephen Schwartz, author of numerous articles and a
recent book, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of
Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror, in which he posits a
Saudi/Wahhabism conspiracy to take over all of Islam
and spread terror throughout the entire world. As a
result of his anti-Saudi comments, Schwartz was
dismissed from his short-lived post as an editorial
writer with the Voice of America at the beginning of
July 2002, thus becoming a martyr in neoconservative
circles.70
And as Thomas F. Ricks pointed out in his article in
the Washington Post, the anti-Saudi bellicosity
expressed by Murawiec 'represents a point of view
that has growing currency within the Bush
administration - especially on the staff of Vice
President Cheney and in the Pentagon's civilian
leadership - and among neoconservative writers and
thinkers closely allied with administration
policymakers.'71
By November 2002, the anti-Saudi theme had reached
the mainstream - with an article in Newsweek,
alleging financial support for the 9/11 terrorists
coming from the Saudi royal family, and commentary on
the subject by such leading figures in the Senate as
Joseph Lieberman (D.-Conn.) , John McCain (R.-Ariz.),
Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Richard Shelby
(R-Ala.). 72
A war against all of Islam?
Bush administration policy has gone a long way but
has still not completely reached what
neoconservatives seek: a war of the U.S. versus all of
Islam. According to Norman Podhoretz, doyen of the
neoconservatives: 'Militant Islam today represents a
revival of the expansionism by the sword' of Islam's
early years.73 To survive resurgent Islam, in
Podhoretz's view, the United States could not simply
be on the defensive but would have to stamp out
militant Islam at its very source in the Middle East.
'The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and
replaced are not confined to the three singled-out
members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, this axis
should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well
as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family
and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian
Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his
henchmen.' Then, the U.S. would remake the entire
region, which would entail forcibly re-educating the
people to fall in line with the thinking of America's
leaders.
Podhoretz acknowledges that the people of the Middle
East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick
anti-American, anti-Israeli, leaders and policies. But
he proclaims that 'there is a policy that can head it
off' provided 'that we then have the stomach to
impose a new political culture on the defeated
parties. This is what we did directly and
unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning
World War II.'74
Forcible expulsion of the Palestinians necessitates
war
Now let's return once more to the expulsion of the
Palestinians, which as has been pointed out, is
inextricably intertwined with a Middle Eastern war -
or in Ben-Gurion's phrase, 'revolutionary times.'
As the post-September 11 'war on terror' has heated
up, the talk of forcibly 'transferring' the
Palestinians has once again moved to the center of
Israeli politics. According to Illan Pappe, a Jewish
Israeli revisionist historian, 'You can see this new
assertion talked about in Israel: the discourse of
transfer and expulsion which had been employed by the
extreme Right, is now the bon ton of the center.'75
Even the dean of Israel's revisionist historians,
Benny Morris, explicitly endorsed the expulsion of
the Palestinians in the event of war. 'This land is so
small,' Morris exclaimed, 'that there isn't room for
two peoples. In fifty or a hundred years, there will
only be one state between the sea and the Jordan. That
state must be Israel.'
According to a recent poll conducted by Israel's
Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, nearly one-half
of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza
Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion
of Israeli Arabs (three-fifths support 'encouraging'
Israeli Arabs to leave).76
In April 2002, leading Israeli military historian
Martin van Creveld held that a United States attack on
Iraq would provide the cover for Prime Minister
Sharon to forcibly remove the Palestinians from the
West Bank. In Creveld's view, 'The expulsion of the
Palestinians would require only a few brigades,' who
would rely on 'heavy artillery.'
Creveld continued: 'Israeli military experts estimate
that such a war could be over in just eight days. If
the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the
Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do
intervene, the result will be the same, with the main
Arab armies destroyed. ... Israel would stand
triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and
1973.'77
Although Creveld did not express any opposition to
this impending expulsion, in September 2002, a group
of Israeli academics did issue a declaration of
opposition to such a development, stating that 'We are
deeply worried by indications that the 'fog of war'
could be exploited by the Israeli government to
commit further crimes against the Palestinian people,
up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing.'78
The declaration continued: 'The Israeli ruling
coalition includes parties that promote 'transfer' of
the Palestinian population as a solution to what they
call 'the demographic problem'.
Politicians are regularly quoted in the media as
suggesting forcible expulsion, most recently MKs
Michael Kleiner and Benny Elon, as reported on Yediot
Ahronot website on September 19, 2002. In a recent
interview in Ha'aretz,
Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon described the
Palestinians as a 'cancerous manifestation' and
equated the military actions in the Occupied
Territories with 'chemotherapy', suggesting that more
radical 'treatment' may be necessary.
Prime Minister Sharon has backed this 'assessment of
reality'. Escalating racist demagoguery concerning the
Palestinian citizens of Israel may indicate the scope
of the crimes that are possibly being contemplated.'
79
In the fall of 2002, the Jordanian government,
fearing that Israel might push the Palestinian
population into Jordan during the anicipated United
States attack on Iraq, asked for public assurances
from the Israeli government that such a move would not
be made. The Sharon government, however, has refused
to publicly renounce an expulsion policy.80
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:32:15 -0800
From: eandubh
Subject: FW: Feb. 15 2003 Antiwar Demonstrations
(www.Antiwar.com is interested in knowing of any demonstrations not
mentioned in the article below - you can go to Antiwar's site and report
them there.)
February 2003
Antiwar Demonstrations
Millions across the planet are marching against war on Iraq today here are
the estimates and final numbers in cities and countries around the world.
Please send us any additions you see we don't have in article form and
preferably after the march so we have final numbers!
PS: Quite a few of these are in Spanish, Portuguese, or other languages, at
least so the numbers are documented. Please send English versions if they
are found!
AMERICA
Arizona: 2500 in Phoenix
California: 30,000-100,000 in Hollywood (Los Angeles), 5000 in San Diego,
5000 in Santa Cruz, 5000 in San Jose
Colorado: 3000 reported in Colorado Springs
Florida: 500 in Miami, 200 in Broward, 25 in Weeki Watchee, "Several
Hundred" in Orlando
Hawaii: 500 March to Pearl Harbor
Kansas: 100 in Wichita
Louisiana: 20 in Shreveport
Maine: 1000 in Portland
Michigan: 2000 in Detroit, 1500 in Lansing
Minnesota: 7500 in Minneapolis
Missouri: 160 in Jefferson City
New Mexico: 4500 in Santa Fe
North Carolina: 7000 in Raleigh
Ohio: 500 in Akron
Oregon: 1100 in Salem
Pennsylvania: 10,000 in Philadelphia
Tennessee: 500 in Knoxville, 500 in Nashville
Texas: 10,000 in Austin: 3000 in Houston: 300 in Corpus Christi, 3500 in
Dallas (registration only) (another Dallas report)
Virginia: 400 in Blacksburg, 100 in Roanoke
Washington State : 60,000-75,000 in Seattle: 150-200 in Bremerton
Wisconsin: 700-3000 in Milwaukee
ARGENTINA
50,000 in Buenos Aires
AUSTRALIA
250,000 in Sydney, 100,000-200,000 in Melbourne, 15,800 in Canberra, 2500 in
Bellingen, 20,000 in Newcastle, 100,000 in Adelaide, 30,000 in Perth,
5000-20,000 in Hobart, 100,000 in Brisbane, 2000 in Darwin
5000-7000 in Lismore, 3000 in Byron Bay
AUSTRIA
15,000-30,000 in Vienna
BAHRAIN
Dozens Outside UN House
BANGLADESH
2000 in Dhaka
BELGIUM
30,000 in Brussels
BRAZIL
10,000-20,000 in S㯠Paolo
BULGARIA
1200 in Sofia
CANADA
150,000 in Montreal, 30,000 in Vancouver, 3000 in Quebec City, 12000 in
Edmonton, 2000 in Ottawa, 1500 in Halifax, 5000 in Calgary, 80,000 in
Toronto
DENMARK
20,000 reported in Copenhagen
FINLAND
15,000 in Helsinki
FRANCE
400,000 in Paris, 10,000 reported in Lyon, 10,000 reported in Marseille,
15,000 reported in Montpellier, 5000 reported in Nimes, 6000 reported in
Perpignan, 10,000 reported in Toulouse
GERMANY
500,000 in Berlin, 10,000 in Cologne
GREECE
50,000 in Athens (Violence attrributed to splinter group)
HOLLAND
70,000 in Amsterdam
HUNGARY
20,000 in Budapest
ICELAND
4000 reported in Reykjavik, 500 reported in Akureyri
IRELAND
100,000 in Dublin
ISRAEL
2000 in Tel Aviv
ITALY
1 Million in Rome unofficial: 2 million reported in Rome
JAPAN
6000 in Tokyo, 1000 in Osaka
JORDAN
"Thousands" in Amman
KASHMIR
100 in Srinagar
MACEDONIA
400 in Skopje
MALAYSIA
2000 in Kuala Lumpur, 500 in Penang
MEXICO
13,500 in Mexico City
NEW ZEALAND
8000-10,000 in Auckland, 6000 in Wellington
NORWAY
60,000 in Oslo (100,000 for all of Norway)
POLAND
2500 in Warsaw
PORTUGAL
80,000 in Lisbon, 10,000 in Porto
SERBIA
200 in Belgrade
SINGAPORE
6 in Law-and-Order Singapore All Arrested
SOUTH AFRICA
"Several Thousand" in Cape Town, 3000 in Johannesburg, 5000 in Durban
SPAIN
Two Million Across Spain (English), 800,000 in Madrid (Spanish), 1.3 Million
in Barcelona (Spanish), 60,000 reported in Sevilla
SWEDEN
35,000 in Stockholm, 25,000 in Gothenberg, 3000 in Malmo
SWITZERLAND
40,000 in Bern
SYRIA
200,000 in Damascus
TAIWAN
500 in Taipei
THAILAND
10,000 in Pattani Province, 3000 in Bangkok
TUNISIA
3000 in Sfax
UK
2 Million in London, "Tens of Thousands" in Belfast, 30,000 reported in
Glasgow
UKRAINE
3000 reported in Kiev
URUGUAY
50,000 in Montevideo
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:45:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Ibrahim Ebeid
Subject: Many Moderate Churches Take Up Anti-War Cause
Published on Sunday, February 16, 2003 by the Chicago Tribune Many Moderate Churches Take Up Anti-War Cause
Ministers identify perils in conflict
by Dahleen Glanton and V. Dion Haynes
Borrowing a theme from the old black spiritual, "Ain't Gonna Study War No More," Rev. Cecil Murray stood in the pulpit at First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles and warned the 17,000-member congregation recently of the evils of going to war against Iraq.
Using his platform to protest war was an unusual move for Murray, pastor of one of the nation's largest black churches. But he and many other ministers who oppose going to war with Iraq think that America is experiencing difficult times that call for extraordinary action.
"We are the seeds of conscience," Murray said in an interview. "The church must be prophetic or it will be pathetic. There is a movement, we are taking a stand, and I think it will grow as we get closer to possible confrontation."
Across the country, religious leaders from many prominent denominations are using their pulpits to spread a message to millions of churchgoers that the war President Bush is threatening is not only unwarranted but is a violation of God's law. The reaction in other churches, synagogues, mosques and houses of worship has been diverse.
In the past, many Catholic, Episcopalian and United Methodist leaders have been less vocal in espousing their views before a war begins. This time, they have taken a commanding lead, stepping to the forefront in a unified effort to bring attention to what they say are religious perils of conflict with a Muslim nation.
In recent months, churches have organized petition drives and ministers have voiced anti-war sentiment in televised sermons and taken out newspaper ads. They have also used Bible classes to explain the church's position on Bush's push for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
In January, the National Council of Churches, along with a coalition of anti-war civic and religious groups, began running a television ad with Bishop Melvin Talbert, the United Methodists' top ecumenical official, aimed at raising the profile of its anti-war movement.
No longer silent
"The middle church is becoming as active as the religious right has been for the last 15 to 20 years," said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the Washington-based church council.
"We have had a huge change in strategy. Until now, the middle and left had not used computers, there were no full-page ads or phone campaigns against policy. But everybody knows that to break through the maze of modern media, sermons have to be preached in new ways," he added.
The council, consisting of 36 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican denominations, was denied a meeting with Bush, said Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania. But delegations have met with church leaders in France and with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. A meeting is scheduled next month with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"It took organized religion 10 years to oppose the Vietnam War. During that time, people were thought to be un-American if they stood up against the war," Edgar said. "Now it is considered very American for the church to stand up. The idea of a pre-emptive strike that does not have broad multi-national support seems strange to many religious leaders."
Top-ranking officials in several denominations have issued written directives laying out their stance on the war and urging churches to get involved.
For the most part, religious leaders said, only a few churches are pacifist. Most Protestant and Roman Catholic churches base their position on a just war theory, in which there must be an external act by a belligerent nation and the effect of civilian casualties must be considered. While that was present 12 years ago, when Iraq had occupied Kuwait, it is not present today, the leaders said.
"People have been quick to point out the injustice of going to war at this time," said Rev. Michael Baxter, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame who recently spent three weeks in Iraq, where he said there are almost a million Christians. "If there is any aggression this time, many people feel it is on the part of America."
Issue creates a rift
On the other side of the issue is the Southern Baptist Convention, which has urged its 16 million members of the generally conservative fundamentalist group to write letters supporting Bush's policy.
In some cases, the strong anti-war sentiment has created sharp divisions in the church, between those who support the war and those who do not. And the pastors are being caught in the middle.
"I have people who support the president's initiative and would be willing for us to go to war today. And on the opposite side, there are people who are very much committed to doing whatever we can to prevent war from happening," said Rev. Michael Vandiver, pastor of Central United Methodist Church in Spartanburg, S.C. "It is a very meaningful time for the congregation, and most of them are willing to exchange dialogue without getting angry."
In the Jewish community, though concerned for the loss of Iraqi lives, some rabbis preach that this war would be justified.
"Judaism does not have a presumption of pacifism. It recognizes that there are wars that are obligatory, that must be fought, and clearly the Bible understands that human beings have the capacity to fight against evil," said Michael Siegel, senior rabbi at Anshe Emet Synagogue in Chicago.
In general, he said, the congregation has been supportive, though some members have either disagreed or expressed displeasure with that stance.
"Some of the most vociferous voices have come form people who have seen war firsthand and have spoken very passionately against the war in Iraq," the rabbi said. "Their feeling is that we need to exhaust every possibility to avoid a war, and certainly Jewish law begins with diplomacy in order to find peace. They question whether we have done that."
Ghazi Khankan, director of interfaith and communication at the Islamic Center of Long Island, N.Y., said the mosque has tried to keep the spiritual and political activities separate. But the possible war is always on people's mind.
"People are apprehensive," Khankan said. "They are worried about friends and family in the Middle East.
He also said there is concern "that a war might add fuel to the anti-Muslim bias that is found in some quarters
http://www.moharer.jeeran.com/
http://come.to/Al-Moharer
http://al-moharer.freeservers.com/
http://clix.to/Moharer
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/tonga/1105/
http://almoharer.cjb.net
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:34:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Lou Morgan
Subject: Made in Israel: Part 3
Is war the chance to annex oil regions?
As is now clearly apparent, the 'war on terrorism'
was never intended to be a war to apprehend and punish
the perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities.
September 11 simply provided a pretext for government
leaders to implement long-term policy plans. As has
been pointed out elsewhere, including in my own
writing, oil interests and American imperialists
looked upon the war as a way to incorporate oil rich
Central Asia within the American imperial orbit.81
While this has been achieved, the American-sponsored
government of Hamid Karzai is in a perilous
situation. Karzai's power seems to be limited to
Kabul, where he must be protected by American
bodyguards. The rest of Afghanistan is being battled
over by various war lords and even the resurgent
Taliban.82 Instead of putting forth the effort to
help consolidate its position in Central Asia, the
United States focus has shifted to gaining control of
the Middle East.
It now appears that the primary policymakers in the
Bush administration have been the Likudnik
neoconservatives all along. Control of Central Asia
is secondary to control of the Middle East. In fact,
for the leading neoconservatives, the war on
Afghanistan may simply have been a necessary move to
reach their ultimate and crucial goal, which was U.S.
control of the Middle East in the interests of Israel.
This is quite analogous to what revisionist
historians have presented as Franklin D. Roosevelt's
'back door to war' approach to World War II.
Roosevelt sought war with Japan in order to be able to
fight Germany, and he provoked Japan into attacking
U.S. colonial possessions in the Far East. Once the
United States got into war through the back door,
Roosevelt focused the American military effort on
Germany.83
But what about the American desire for controlling
Iraqi oil? Iraq possesses the world's second largest
proven oil reserves, next to Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, many experts believe that Iraq possesses
vast undiscovered oil reserves, making it the near
equal of Saudi Arabia.
Most war critics allege that what motivates the United
States war policy is the desire of American oil
companies to gain control of Iraqi oil. And it has
also been argued, largely by proponents of the war,
that once in control of Iraqi oil, the United States
could inundate the world with cheap oil, thus
boosting the American and world economies out of
recession.84
Although these arguments have a prima facie
plausibility, the oil motive for war has a couple of
serious flaws. First, there do not seem to be
significant oil industry representatives or big
economic moguls clamoring for war. According to oil
analyst Anthony Sampson, 'oil companies have had
little influence on U.S. policy-making. Most big
American companies, including oil companies, do not
see a war as good for business, as falling share
prices indicate.' 85 Moreover, it is not apparent that
war would be good for the oil industry or the world
economy. Why would oil interest want to take the risk
of war that could entail a regional conflagration
threatening their existing investments in the Gulf?
And although Iraq does have significant oil reserves,
there is no reason to believe that these would have an
immediate impact on the oil market.
Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research
Associates, points out that 'in terms of production
capacity, Iraq represents just 3 percent of the
world's total. Its oil exports are on the same level
as Nigeria's. Even if Iraq doubled its capacity, that
could take more than a decade. In the meantime,
growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to
perhaps 5 percent, significant but still in the
second tier of oil nations.'86
And a war poses a great risk to the oil industry in
the entire Gulf region. As William D. Nordhaus,
Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale and a member
of the President Jimmy Carter's Council of Economic
Advisers, writes: 'War in the Persian Gulf might
produce a major upheaval in petroleum markets, either
because of physical damage or because political
events lead oil producers to restrict production after
the war.' 'A particularly worrisome outcome would be
a wholesale destruction of oil facilities in Iraq, and
possibly in Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In the
first Persian Gulf War, Iraq destroyed much of
Kuwait's oil wells and other petroleum infrastructure
as it withdrew. The sabotage shut down Kuwaiti oil
production for close to a year, and prewar levels of
oil production were not reached until 1993 - nearly
two years after the end of the war in February 1991.'
'Unless the Iraqi leadership is caught completely
off-guard in a new war, Iraq's forces would probably
be able to destroy Iraq's oil production facilities.
The strategic rationale for such destruction is
unclear in peacetime, but such an act of
self-immolation cannot be ruled out in wartime.
Contamination of oil facilities in the Gulf region by
biological or chemical means would pose even greater
threats to oil markets.' 87
Nordhaus' forecasts may be excessively bleak.
However, the fact remains that experts cannot simply
gauge what will happen. War poses tremendous risk. In
his evaluation of the possible economic impact of a
war on Iraq, economic analyst Robert J. Samuelson
concludes: 'If it's peace and prosperity, then war
makes no sense. But if fighting now prevents a
costlier war later, it makes much sense.'88
None of this to deny that certain oil companies
might benefit from a Middle East war, just as some
businesses profit from any war. Particular oil
companies certainly could stand to benefit from the
American control of Iraq, since under a post-war
United States-sponsored Iraqi government, American
companies could be expected to be favored and gain the
most lucrative oil deals. However, that particular
oil companies could derive some benefits does not
undercut the overall argument that war is a great risk
for the American oil industry and the American
economy as a whole,
New American colonialism
An American imperialist strategic motive might be
more plausible than the economic interests of the oil
industry and the economy in general. In short,
instead of the current informal influence over the oil
producing areas of the Middle East, the United States
would be moving onto direct control, either with a
puppet government in Iraq providing enough leverage
for the United States to dictate to the rest of the
Middle East, or actual direct American control of
other parts of the Middle East as well as Iraq.
Such a situation would presumably provide greater
security for the oil flow than exists under the
current situation, where the client states have some
autonomy and face the possibility of being overthrown
by anti-American forces.
Neoconservative Robert Kagan maintains, 'When we have
economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in
our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will
be no disruption in oil supplies.'89
Neoconservatives often try to gloss over this
projected American colonialism by claiming that the
United States would be simply spreading democracy.
They imply that 'democratic' Middle East governments
would support American policies, including support of
Israel and an oil policy oriented toward the welfare
of the United States. However, given popular
anti-Zionist and anti-American opinion in the region,
it seems very unlikely that governments representative
of the popular will would ever pursue such policies.
Only a non-representative dictatorship could be
pro-American and pro-Israeli.
Pro-Zionist U.S. Congessman Tom Lantos put it
candidly in calming the worries of an Israeli member
of the Knesset: 'You won't have any problem with
Saddam. We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And
in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator,
who will be good for us and for you.'90
Control of the Middle East oil supply would
certainly augment United States dominance of the
world. However, it should be noted that American
imperialists not in any way linked to the Likudnik
position on Israel - such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and
Brent Scowcroft - are cool to such a Middle East
war.91 If such a war policy would be an obvious boon
to American imperialism, why isn't it avidly sought
by leading American imperialists?
It is apparent that direct colonial control of a
country's internal affairs would be a significant
break with American policy of the past half century.
America might have client states and an informal
empire, but the direct imperialism entailed by an
occupation of the Middle East would be, as Mark Danner
put it in an article in the New York Times, 'wholly
foreign to the modesty of containment, the ideology of
a status-quo power that lay at the heart of American
strategy for half a century.'92
Moreover, a fundamental concern of American global
policy has been the maintenance of peace and
stability in the world. The United States preaches
probity and restraint to other countries regarding the
use of force. Hence, for the United States to launch a
pre-emptive strike on a country would undoubtedly
weaken its ability to restrain other countries, who
would also see a need to preemptively strike at their
foes. In short, the launching of preemptive war would
act to destabilize the very world order that the
United States allegedly seeks to preserve in its 'war
on terrorism.' In fact, world stability is often seen
as central to the global economic interdependence that
is the key to American prosperity.93
Hegemony - a danger for the US
Since America already exercises considerable power
in the oil producing Persian Gulf region through its
client states - Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates -
it would be difficult to understand why American
imperialists would make a radical change from their
status quo policy.
Would the benefits to be gained from direct control of
the region outweigh the risks involved? War could
unleash virulent anti-American forces that could
destabilize America's Middle East client states and
cause terrorist attacks on the American homeland.
Moreover, American military occupation of Iraq, not to
mention other Middle Eastern countries, would place a
heavy burden on the United States government and
people.94
Would such a burden be acceptable to the American
people? Would they support the brutal policies that
would be needed to suppress any opposition? Certainly,
the French people would not support the colonial
empire in Algeria. And even in the totalitarian
Soviet Union, popular opinion forced the abandonment
of its imperialistic venture in Afghanistan, which
contributed to the break-up of the entire Soviet
empire.
In short, the move from indirect to direct control of
the Middle East would seem to be a grave risk for
those individuals simply concerned about enhancing
American imperial power, in that it could undermine
America's entire imperial project.
Not only would American direct control of the Middle
East be burdensome to the American people, but it
would undoubtedly engender a backlash from other
countries of the world. This would seem almost a law
of international relations - the balance of power
politics that goes back to at least the time of the
Peloponnesian War.
As Christopher Layne points out: 'The historical
record shows that in the real world, hegemony never
has been a winning grand strategy. The reason is
simple: The primary aim of states in international
politics is to survive and maintain their sovereignty.
And when one state becomes too powerful - becomes a
hegemon - the imbalance of power in its favor is a
menace to the security of all other states. So
throughout modern international political history,
the rise of a would-be hegemon always has triggered
the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other
states.'95
The British Empire, which might seem an exception
from this rule of the inevitable failure of hegemons,
achieved its success because of its caution. Owen
Harries, editor of the National Interest, has pointed
out that England's imperial successes stemmed from
its rather cautious approach.. 'England,' observed
Harries in the Spring 2001 National Interest, 'was
the only hegemon that did not attract a hostile
coalition against itself. It avoided that fate by
showing great restraint, prudence and discrimination
in the use of its power in the main political arena by
generally standing aloof and restricting itself to
the role of balancer of last resort.
In doing so it was heeding the warning given it by
Edmund Burke, just as its era of supremacy was
beginning: 'I dread our own power and our own
ambition. I dread being too much dreaded.' Notes
Harries, 'I believe the United States is now in dire
need of such a warning.'96
Obviously, the American take-over of the major oil
producing area of the world would be anything but a
cautious move. It would characterize a classic
example of what historian Paul Kennedy refers to as
'imperial over-stretch.' Tied down in the Middle
East, the United States would find it more difficult
to counter threats to its power in the rest of the
world. Even now there is the question as to whether
the United States military has the capability to fight
two wars, a problem that has now come to the fore
with the bellicosity of North Korea.97
In essence, it does not seem apparent that
intelligent American imperialists concerned solely
about the power status of the United States, which
holds preeminence in the world right now, would want
to take the risk of a Middle East war and occupation.
The previous information would lead to the
conclusion that not only are the neoconservatives
obviously in the forefront of the pro-war bandwagon,
but that pro-Israeli Likudnik motives would seem to
be the most logical, probably the only logical,
reason for a war.
As this essay has noted, Likudniks have always sought
to deal in a radical fashion with the Palestinian
problem in the occupied - - a problem that has gotten
worse, from their standpoint, as a result of
demographics. A United States war in the Middle East
at the present time provides the window of opportunity
to permanently solve this problem and augment
Israel's dominance in the region.
The existing perilous situation, as Likud thinkers see
it, would justify the taking of substantial risks.
And a look at history shows that countries whose
leaders believed they were faced with grave problems
pursued risky policies, such as Japan did in 1941.98
In contrast, no such dire threats face the United
States. American imperialists should be relatively
satisfied with the status quo and averse to taking
any risks that might jeopardize it.
Summary
Finally, let me briefly summarize what I have
written. The deductions drawn in this essay would seem
quite obvious but are rarely broached in public
because the issue of Jewish power is a taboo. As the
intrepid Joseph Sobran has put it: 'It's permissible
to discuss the power of every other group, from the
Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much
greater power of the Jewish establishment is
off-limits.'99
So in a check for 'hate' or 'anti-Semitism,' let's
recapitulate the major points made in this essay.
First, the initiation of a Middle East war to solve
Israeli security problems has been a long-standing
idea among Israeli rightist Likudniks.
Next, Likudnik-oriented neoconservatives have argued
for American involvement in such a war prior to the
September 11, 2001 atrocities. After September 11,
neoconservatives have taken the lead in advocating
such a war, and they hold influential positions in the
Bush administration regarding foreign policy and
national security affairs.
If Israel and Jews were not involved, there would be
nothing extraordinary about this thesis. In the
history of foreign policy, it has frequently been
maintained that various leading figures were motivated
by ties to business, ideology, or support for a
foreign country. In his 'Farewell Address,' George
Washington expressed the view that the greatest danger
to American foreign relations would be the
'passionate attachment' of influential Americans to a
foreign country, who would orient United States
foreign policy for the benefit of that foreign
country to the detriment of the United States.
It is such a situation that currently exists. And we
can only look with trepidation to the near future
when, in the ominous words of British journalist
Robert Fisk, 'There is a firestorm coming.'100
Stephen Sniegoski received a Ph.D. in United States
History from the University of Maryland. He publishes
articles dealing with history, foreign policy and
education.
See also 'September 11 and the Origins of the ''War
on Terrorism'': A Revisionist Account' in Current
Concerns, No. 2, May 2002.
A slightly different version of this article is
online at the Website for The Last Ditch at
www.thornwalker.com/ditch
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:05:23 EST
From: SIUHIN@aol.com
Subject: What Yesterday's Protests Mean...
What Yesterday's Protests Mean...
From: david koff
Saturday, February 15, 2003
Today, the day after Valentines Day, the world witnessed an unprecedented and
truly massive outpouring of love in cities all over the world. I speak, of
course, about the peace demonstrations that took place globally.
It was Ive now read in various sources the single largest day of protest in
world history. How many people does it take to set a record like that?
Estimates are that between 8 to 11.5 million people took to the streets in
peace to demonstrate against the United States going to war against Iraq.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030215/1/37sm9.html
http://www.antiwar.com/feb03demos.html
This fact is staggering to me. And I have to be honest: I feel incredibly
lucky and inspired to be alive at a time when something of this magnitude
occurs. Say what you want about negative press, horrific news coverage and an
administration hell-bent on going to war at any cost: what we all saw today
was an unprecedented message from the people of the world who came out to
march for peace.
And it made world headlines.
Our sheer numbers are now changing the debate. We have assumed our rightful
position as citizens who demand that our leaders lead with morality,
equanimity and peace. Make no mistake about it: we are changing the world
right now by embracing peace and we will continue to shape future political
debate by continuing to embrace peace.
Remember, if you oppose going to war, you are not alone. In fact, youve got
literally MILLIONS who agree with you, so dont stop preaching peace in your
daily conversations with friends, family, co-workers and strangers. Keep the
discussions open, keep your heart open and keep open the possibility for a
peaceful resolution to this conflict.
The worst thing that can happen, literally, is for you to lose hope.
What follows is a city-by-city list of all the peace demonstrations that I
could find listed on the Internet. I did this myself by referencing a bunch
of different websites that may be found at the end of this letter. When
possible, Ive tried to reference each number of demonstrators by its
appropriate news source.
One important note: while the police are notorious for minimizing the figures
for those attending a demonstration, protest organizers are just as gifted in
inflating those figures. The numbers Ive listed are, I think, a happy medium.
The countries are listed in alphabetical order.
My love,
David
Los Angeles
AMERICA
Washington, D.C.: 50,000 (BBC)
Raleigh, NC: 7,000 (news-observer.com)
Austin, TX: 10,000 (austin360.com)
Houston: 3,000 (chron.com)
Santa Fe, NM: 4,500 (www.currentargus.com)
Santa Cruz, CA: 5,000 (indymedia)
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: 500
(the.honoluluadvertiser.com)
Los Angeles, CA: 30,000 (Reuters)
Seattle, WA: 20,000 (seattlepi.com)
Detroit, MI: 2,000 (freep.com)
San Diego, CA: 5,000 (signonsandiego.com)
Minneapolis, MN: 7,500 (star tribune)
Lansing, MI: 1,500 (lsj.com)
Colorado Springs, CO: 3,300 (KVOR Radio)
New York, NY: 350,000 (NY Times, CNN)
Philadelphia, PA: 10,000 (NBC 10 News)
Little Rock, AK: 500 (IndyMedia, CNN)
Portland, ME: 1,400 (IndyMedia)
Chicago: 3,000 (IndyMedia)
Davenport, Iowa: 100 (CNN)
ARGENTINA
Buenos Aires: 50,000 (www.lanacion.com.ar)
AUSTRALIA
Sydney: 250,000 (smh.com.au, yahoo news)
Bellingen: 2,500 (Indymedia)
Canberra: 16,000 (Reuters)
Adelade: 100,000 (abc.net.au) biggest in citys history
Hobart: 10,000 (ABC)
Lismore: 5,000 (Indymedia)
Melbourne: 50,000 (smh.com.au) biggest since Vietnam War
Newcastle: 18,000 (indymedia)
Perth: 10,000 (ABC)
Warrnambool: 200 (Fairfax)
Byron Bay: 3,000 (indymedia)
AUSTRIA
Vienna: 15,000 (AP)
BANGLADESH
Dhaka: 2,000 (AP)
BELGIUM
Brussels: 50,000 (AP)
BRAZIL
Sao Paolo: 15,000 (noticias.bol.com)
BULGARIA
Sofia: 1,200 (www.novinite.com)
CANADA
Montreal: 100,000
Vancouver: 20,000
Quebec City: 3,000
Edmonton: 2,000
Halifax: 500
Calgary: 5000
Toronto: 25,000
Ottawa: 2,000
(All figures provided by www.canoe.ca)
CZECH REPUBLIC
Prague: 500 (AP)
DENMARK
Copenhagen: 25,000 (AP)
EGYPT
Cairo: 2,000 (Palestine Chronicle)
ENGLAND
London: 1,000,000 (CNN, NY Times) largest in British
history!!
FINLAND
Helsinki: 15,000
FRANCE
Paris: 400,000 (AP)
Toulouse: 10,000
Whole country: 300,000 (CNN)
GERMANY
Berlin: 500,000 (Miami herald) largest since fall of
Berlin Wall
Cologne: 10,000 (abcnews.go.com)
GREECE
Cyprus: 500
Athens: 50,000 (Reuters)
HOLLAND
Amsterdam: 70,000 (www.ad.nl)
HUNGARY
Budapest: 20,000 (es.news.yahoo.com)
ICELAND
Reykavik: 1,000 (yahoo news)
INDIA
Kashmir: hundreds
INDONESIA
Jakarta: 100,000
IRELAND
Dublin: 100,000 (www.online.ie ) - largest in countrys
history
Belfast: tens of thousands
ISRAEL
Tel-Aviv: 2,000 Jews & Palestinians (HaAretz)
ITALY
Rome: | | | | Guest-cdbc | | | | YEEPIE | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:52 pm Post subject: Blaming Victim Israel For ARAB crimes |
| When Arabists so do it with that obsession, they shoot themselves in the foot.
"jinsa","ninja","kinja", Start THINKING For God's sake!
US are a free thinking people, free of Arab OIL Muslim MAFIA called the"un".[/B]
Did Sadistic Saddam attack Arab Kuwait?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Did Sadistic Saddam BUTCHER/GASSED IT'S OWN PEOPLE?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Do ArabMuslim Militant Hamas/IslamicJihad/Arafat TARGET BABIES, (not targeting terrorists) Yes or no?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Did Arab Islamists attack French subways?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Do ArabMuslim Militant Alqaeda & others have a WAR with the FREE WORLD, Yes or no?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Did Arab Muslims BUTCHER Jews long before 1948, such as the Hebron Mssacre in 1929 & other.
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Are Philippinos= "israelis'' that Muslim DECAPITATES Militants Tourists in their South?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Are Sudanese slaves by Arab Muslims being maimed & tortured?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
Are Mauritanian slaves by Arab Muslims being maimed & tortured?
Oh yes, it's "jinsa'' "ninja",''minja". or IT'S ARAB MUSLIM RACISM + JIHAD???
LOL. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
