| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:12 pm Post subject: Even Israelis Know that the Iraq War was for Israel |
| Check out the following article as even Israelis like Uri Avnery know that the war in Iraq was for Israel (via the Zionist - Israel first- JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neoconservative traitors to America):
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html
April 10, 2003
The Night After
The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace
By URI AVNERY
It is now fashionable to talk about "the day after". Let's talk about the night after.
After the end of hostilities in Iraq, the world will be faced with two decisive facts:
First, the immense superiority of American arms can beat any people in the world, valiant as it may be.
Second, the small group that initiated this war--an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and Jewish neo-conservatives--has won big, and from now on it will control Washington almost without limits.
The combination of these two facts constitutes a danger to the world, and especially to the Middle East, the Arab peoples and the future of Israel. Because this alliance is the enemy of peaceful solutions, the enemy of the Arab governments, the enemy of the Palestinian people and especially the enemy of the Israeli peace camp.
It does not dream only about an American empire, in the style of the Roman one, but also of an Israeli mini-empire, under the control of the extreme right and the settlers. It wants to change the regimes in all Arab countries. It will cause permanent chaos in the region, the consequences of which it is impossible to foresee.
Its mental world consists of a mixture of ideological fervor and crass material interests, an exaggerated American patriotism and right-wing Zionism.
That is a dangerous mixture. There is in it something of the spirit of Ariel Sharon, a man who has always had grandiose plans for changing the region, consisting of a mixture of creative imagination, unbridled chauvinism and a primitive faith in brute force.
Who are the winners?
They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers.
For many years, this was a marginal group that fostered a right-wing agenda in all fields. They fought against abortion, homosexuality, pornography and drugs. When Binyamin Netanyahu assumed power in Israel, they offered him advise on how to fight the Arabs.
Their big moment arrived with the collapse of the Twin Towers. The American public and politicians were in a state of shock, completely disoriented, unable to understand a world that had changed overnight. The neo-cons were the only group with a ready explanation and a solution. Only nine days after the outrage, William Kristol (the son of the group's founder, Irving Kristol) published an Open Letter to President Bush, asserting that it was not enough to annihilate the network of Osama bin Laden, but that it was also imperative to "remove Saddam Hussein from power" and to "retaliate" against Syria and Iran for supporting Hizbullah.
Following is a short list of the main characters. (If it bores you, skip to the next section).
The Open Letter was published in the Weekly Standard, founded by Kristol with the money of ultra-right press mogul Rupert Murdoch, who donated $ 10 million to the cause. It was signed by 41 leading neo-cons, including Norman Podhoretz, a Jewish former leftist who has become an extreme right-wing icon, editor of the prestigious Encounter magazine, and his wife, Midge Decter, also a writer, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Studies, Robert Kagan, also of the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, and, of course, Richard Perle.
Perle is a central character in this play. Until recently he was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the Defense Department, which also includes Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross. Perle is a director of the Jerusalem Post, now owned by extreme right-wing Zionists. In the past he was an aide to Senator Henry Jackson, who led the fight against the Soviet Union on behalf of the Jews who wanted to leave. He is a leading member of the influential right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Lately he was obliged to resign from his Defense Department position, when it became known that a private corporation had promised to pay him almost a million dollars for he benefit of his influence in the administration.
That Open Letter was, in effect, the beginning of the Iraq war. It was eagerly received by the Bush administration, with members of the group already firmly established in some of its leading positions. Paul Wolfowitz, the father of the war, is No. 2 in the Defense Department, where another friend of Perle's, Douglas Feith, heads the Pentagon Planning Board. John Bolton is State Department Undersecretary. Eliot Abrams, responsible for the Middle East in the National Security Council, was connected with the Iran-Contra-Israel scandal. The main hero of the scandal, Oliver North, sits in the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, together with Michael Ledeen, another hero of the scandal. Headvocates total war not only against Iraq, but also against Israel's other enemies, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
Most of these people , together with Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, are associated with the "Project for the New American Century", which published a White Paper in 2002, with the aim 'to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'"--meaning American control of the world.
Meyrav Wurmser (Meyrav is a chic new Israeli first name) is Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. She also writes for the Jerusalem Post and is co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute that is, according to the London Guardian, connected with Israeli Army Intelligence. MEMRI feeds the media and politicians with highly selective quotations from extreme Arab publications. Meyrav's husband, Davis Wurmser, is at Perle's American Enterprise Institute, heading Middle East Studies. Mention should also be made of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy of our old acquaintance, Dennis Ross, who for years was in charge of the "peace process" in the Middle East.
In all the important papers there are people close to the group, such as William Safire, a man hypnotized by Sharon, in the New York Times and Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. Another Perle friend, Robert Bartley, is the editor of the Wall Street Journal.
If the speeches of Bush and Cheney often sound as if they came from the lips of Sharon, one of the reasons may be that their speechwriters, Joseph Shattan, Mathew Scully and John McConnell, are neo-cons, as is Cheneys Chief-of-Staff, Lewis Libby.
The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. The founding fathers were Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, who once got a jet plane as a present from Menachem Begin, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network, which help to finance the Christian Embassy in Jerusalem of J.W. van der Hoeven, an outfit that supports the settlers and their right-wing allies.
Common to both groups is their adherence to the fanatical ideology of the extreme right in Israel. They see the Iraq war as a struggle between the Children of Light (America and Israel) and the Children of Darkness (the Arabs and Muslims).
By the way, none of these facts are secret. They have been published lately in dozens of articles, both in American and world media. The members of the group are proud of them.
The Zionist general.
The man who symbolizes this victory is General Jay Garner, who has just been appointed chief of the civilian administration in Iraq.
He is no anonymous general who has been picked accidentally. Garner is the ideological partner of Paul Wolfowitz and the neo-cons.
Two years ago he signed, together with 26 other officers, a petition organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, lauding the Israeli Army for "remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority," which is certainly news to the Israeli peace forces. He also stated that "a strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on."
In the first Gulf War he praised the performance of the Patriot missiles, which had failed miserably. After leaving the army in 1997, he became, not surprisingly, a defense contractor specializing in missiles. It was alleged that he landed non-competitive Pentagon contracts. This year he obtained a defense contract for $ 1.5 billion, as well as a contract for building Patriot systems in Israel.
Therefore, there can be no better candidate for the job of chief of the civilian administration in Iraq, especially at a time when contracts for billions of dollars for reconstruction have to be handed out, to be paid for by Iraqi oil.
A new Balfour declaration.
The ideology of this group, that calls for an American world-empire as well as for a Greater Israel, reminds one of bygone days.
The Balfour declaration of 1917, that promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine, had two parents. The mother was Christian Zionism (among whose adherents were illustrious statesmen like Lord Palmerston and Lord Shaftesbury, long before the foundation of the Zionist movement), the father was British imperialism. The Zionist idea allowed the British to crowd out their French competitors and take possession of Palestine, which was needed to safeguard the Suez Canal and the shorter sea route to India.
Now the same thing is happening again. Last year Richard Perle organized a briefing in which a speaker proposed war not only on Iraq, but on Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well, in order to secure the world's oil heartland. Iraq, he asserted, was only the pivot. One of the justifications for this design is the need to defend Israel.
To bet on our life?
Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.
But this tendency troubles me. We are like a gambler, who bets all his money and his future on one horse. A good horse, a horse with no current competitor, but still one horse.
The neo-cons will cause a long period of chaos in the Arab and Muslim world. The Iraqi war has already shown that their understanding of Arab realities is shaky. Their political assumptions did not stand the test, only brute force saved their undertaking.
Some day the Americans will go home, but we shall remain here. We have to live with the Arab peoples. Chaos in the Arab world endangers our future.
Wolfowitz and Co. may dream about a democratic, liberal, Zionist and America-loving Middle East, but the result of their adventures may well turn out to be a fanatical and fundamentalist region that will threaten our very existence.
The partnership of the neo-cons and the Christian fundamentalists may engender counter-forces in Washington. And if Bush is defeated in the next election, like his father after his victory in the first Gulf War, this whole gang will be thrown out.
The Bible tells us about the kings of Judea, who relied on the then world power, Egypt. They did not appreciate the rise of forces in the east, Assyria and Babylon. An Assyrian general told the king of Judea: "Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it." (II kings 18, 21).
Bush and his gang of neo-cons is not a bruised reed. Far from it, he is now a very strong reed. But should we bet our whole future on this?
Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist. His essays are included in The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent.
Today's Features | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:57 am Post subject: Lebanon's Hariri Killed To Make a 'Clean Break' |
| Lebanon's Hariri Killed To Make a 'Clean Break'
This article appears in the February 25, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Lebanon's Hariri Killed To Make a 'Clean Break'
by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach
The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, in Beirut on Feb. 14, was a carefully planned and executed act, geared to trigger a chain reaction of events in the region, that would conform with the long-standing policy of the neo-conservative junta running Washington.
To understand the why of the assassination—although the material perpetrator, the who, remains unclear—one must look back at the 1996 policy paper prepared under the supervision of now-Vice President Dick Cheney, and his neo-con task force of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, et al. Entitled "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," this paper outlined a scenario whereby the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be torn to shreds, and, first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran, would be targetted for military assault and political destabilization.
The document flatly stated that Israel should engage "Hisbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Furthermore, it said, Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." The paper also called for focussing on "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...."
The outcome of the regional convulsions provoked by the "Clean Break" doctrine, was to be a new Middle East, with Israel hegemonic in the region, presiding over a series of newly balkanized states, run by puppet regimes. The Bush Administration has recently restated its intention to pick off these governments, dubbed "outposts of tyranny," one by one. The order in which they were to be hit was assumed to start with Iran. Instead, Syria was moved into first place.
The reason for this, one regional expert told EIR, is that if Iran were attacked militarily by the United States or Israel, the Islamic Republic would respond asymmetrically, unleashing allied and sympathetic Shi'ite forces in the Persian Gulf and in Lebanon: Hezbollah's capabilities to target Israel could be effectively deployed. Thus, the source said, the need to eliminate the Lebanese-based Shi'ite Hezbollah as a factor, and at the same time neutralize Syria, before moving against Tehran.
The stage for the immediate destabilization was set diplomatically by UN Resolution 1559, presented by the U.S. and France together, and at the forefront of recent discussions between Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and French President Jacques Chirac. UN Resolution 1559, adopted last September, demands the termination of the Syrian presence in Lebanon (estimated to be 15,000 troops) and the disarming of the Hezbollah. Instead of mounting an Israeli assault directly on Syria—which would have provoked an international outcry—a flanking operation was launched, with a terrorist act that would trigger mass forces on the ground to move against the Syrian presence.
Thus, the assassination of Hariri.
Hariri: 'Mr. Lebanon'
Rafiq Hariri, a building magnate, was Lebanese Prime Minister from 1992-1998 and again from 2000-2004, when he resigned, in protest over the re-election of President Lahoud, who was backed by Syria. He was known for his key international connections, both with the Saudi Royal family (he became their personal contractor after building a palace for a member of the Saudi Royal Family in Taef, Saudi Arabia in 1977), and with French President Jacques Chirac. Hariri invested massively in rebuilding Beirut after the civil war, and made an estimated $3.8 billion. Thus he was considered "Mr. Lebanon," and enjoyed broad popular support. After he resigned in protest against Syria, he became a symbol for the opposition. Any harm done to Hariri would automatically unleash factional strife and anti-Syria protests.
As soon as the news of the brutal car bomb explosion broke, crowds of Lebanese opposition forces, who saw Hariri as one of their own, took to the streets. At his funeral on Feb. 16, hundreds of thousands demonstrated, demanding the expulsion of the Syrians. At the same time, before any investigation had yielded any leads, a well-rehearsed chorus pinned the blame on Syria. Exiled Lebanese political figure Michel Aoun, for example, stated categorically from Paris: "They [the Syrians] are responsible. It's they who control the security and intelligence services" in Beirut. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, now with the opposition, echoed Aoun's words, as did Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom.
After lodging an official diplomatic note of protest with the Syrian government, U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice ordered the withdrawal of U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey from Damascus. "The proximate cause was Lebanon," Rice told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "but unfortunately we have an increasing list of problems with Syria." U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, who attended the funeral, said that Hariri's death "should give renewed impetus to achieving a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon. What that means is the complete and immediate withdrawal by Syria."
In a press conference on Feb. 17, President Bush went further, saying "... [W]e've talked clearly to Syria about ... making sure that their territory is not used by former Iraqi Baathists to spread havoc and kill innocent lives. We expect them [Syria] to find and turn over former regime—Saddam regime supporters, send them back to Iraq...."
But why would Syria, already politically targetted, kill Hariri, when it would obviously be the first place at which accusing fingers would be pointed? "What exactly would the Syrians gain from this?" asked Rime Allaf, Middle East analyst at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London. "It doesn't make any sense. The first people who will be hurt by this is Syria. Given the chaos in Lebanon and the rising anger between the factions, analytically Syria loses a lot by this," Allaf told Aljazeera.net.
A Syrian analyst at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told Aljazeera, "The Syrians are not crazy and they are not going to be assassinating Lebanese officials." He pointed to the fact that the Syrians had been engaging in dialogue with the opposition. Others noted that Hezbollah, another prime suspect, had been lying low in the recent period, on the recommendation of Syria and Iran, both eager to avoid confrontation.
Chaos and Civil War
The easiest way for the "Clean Break" scenario to be implemented now, would be through a new civil war in Lebanon, which would lead to the balkanization of the country into ethnic/religious/sectarian entities. Tensions among factions in the country had been heating up prior to the Hariri assassination. Walid Jumblatt, for example, speaking to Christian Maronites at St. Joseph University, accused "elements" of the Syrian Baath Party of killing his father in 1975. The Baath party then demanded that Jumblatt be prosecuted in Lebanon for slander.
Meanwhile, members of the Lebanese government accused opposition figures of being tools of the United States and Israel. The Mufti of Lebanon, Mohammad Khabani, added fuel to the fire, when he stated that the Sunnis in Lebanon believed that they were being targetted through the murder of Hariri, who was a Sunni. As journalist Robert Fisk, who was on site when the bombing occurred, stressed in the British paper the Independent: "Anyone setting out to murder Hariri would know how this could reopen all the fissures of the civil war from 1975 to 1990."
Iran and Syria Close Ranks
In response to the propaganda barrage aimed against Syria, the government strengthened its strategic alliance with Iran, another neo-con target. Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Otari visited Tehran, and after talks with Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref, stated: "This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front." The two discussed increasing cooperation in transportation, oil, irrigation, energy, and trade, as part of their "common front," and Aref pledged Iran's support.
More significant, strategically, is the support which Moscow has lent to both Syria and Iran. Flying in the face of Israeli and U.S. protests, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, one day after Hariri's assassination, saying that Russia would fulfill its pledge to sell Syria vehicle-mounted anti-aircraft missiles. The next day, Feb. 16, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, former senior member of the Russian Defense Ministry, and currently president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, warned: "Should an aggression be launched against Iran, the war will come to Russian borders." Hassan Rowhani, head of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council (and a negotiator on nuclear issues), visited Moscow for talks with Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. And on Feb. 26, the head of the Russian Federation Atomic Energy Agency, Alexander Rumyantsev, is expected in Iran, to sign the final agreements on the Bushehr nuclear reactor. According to regional sources, Russia has de facto established guarantees for Iran's security, and is beefing up its southern border, from the Black Sea into Central Asia, a signal that Moscow is taking the threats against Iran and Syria very seriously.
One Iranian official summed up his view of the situation by saying, "The Third World War has already begun." Unless the political opposition inside the U.S. takes over policy-making soon, that indeed is the danger.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3208hariri_killed.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:40 pm Post subject: The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (and War) |
| The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (and War)
Bob Feldman, The Electronic Intifada, 1 March 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most U.S. anti-war activists opposed the Bush Administration's 2003 military invasion and occupation of Iraq because it was an immoral violation of the Nuremberg Accords and international law.
Justifications from the pro-war side emphasised the supposed threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In an interview with Paula Kaufman that appeared on Insight magazine's website on May 13, 2002, former CIA Director James Woolsey, a member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs Board of Advisors, said the following:
"I would hope that by this autumn we would have rid the region of Saddam...So sometime in early fall would be reasonable. First, we need to build our stockpile of smart weapons and prepare logistically to put 100,000 to 200,000 troops on the ground...
"Saddam's top nuclear scientist, Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza, who in 1994 defected to the U.S., has claimed that nuclear weapons equipment and facilities exist all over Iraq, many buried under schools, mosques and the like...
"...Saddam may have obtained radioactive materials such as cesium and strontium...
"...I am inclined to believe defectors' claims that Saddam's biological weapons laboratories are mobile and carried on trucks and, hence, difficult to detect...
"...The CIA has a close relationship with Israeli intelligence dating back to the inception of the state of Israel...
"...The U.S. must rid the Mideast of its tyrants..."
Coincidentally, in January 2004, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs Board of Advisors Member Woolsey's wife, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) Trustee Suzanne Woolsey, became a director of Fluor Corporation, which has $1.6 billion in Iraq-related reconstruction contracts.
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board member Woolsey, himself, is also a vice-president of the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting company which was given a $75 million sub-contract for a telecommunication reconstruction project in Iraq, according to an August 15, 2004 Los Angeles Times article. (The same article also noted that the U.S. universities-linked Institute for Defense Analyses weapons research think-tank, on whose board Woolsey's wife sits, "provided senior Pentagon officials with assessments of the operation" during "the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.")
Most people in the U.S. now realize that Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board member Woolsey's pre-war talk about the Iraqi government's alleged hidden "nuclear weapons equipment" and "biological weapons laboratories" was inaccurate. Yet the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs role as a pro-war pressure group with an annual budget of $2.5 million, is rarely mentioned by the U.S. media.
According to the 1984 book The Armageddon Network by Michale Saba, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs became fully operational in December 1979 when former U.S. Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense Stephen Bryen was named as its first executive director. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs' founders included pro-war U.S. political operatives like Max Kampelman and pro-Israeli government lobbyists like Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC.
According to its website at www.jinsa.org, the mission of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is to address "the security requirements of both the United States and the State of Israel" and strengthen "the strategic cooperation relationship between" the U.S. government and the Israeli government. Its annual program includes "a study program in Israel for cadets and midshipmen from the Naval Academy, the Military Academy at West Point, and the Air Force Academy" and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs also "arranges interchanges between Pentagon officials and Jewish community leadership."
Since 1982, at least twelve trips to Israel have been sponsored by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs for retired Pentagon admirals and generals who are connected to the American security establishment. More than 135 retired Pentagon admirals and generals have gone on these trips to Israel to meet with the Israeli MInister of Defense, the Israeli Chief of Staff and Israeli weapons manufacturers. And, according to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs website, "upon their return" from their Israeli Ministry of Defense-hosted trips to Israel/Palestine, the retired U.S. military "officers take a number of active steps to translate their newfound understanding into concrete cooperation and assistance" to the Israeli war machine.
The pro-war Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs pressure group has 17,000 members nationwide and is "governed by a board of directors comprised of key figures in the national security community and leadership throughout the country," according to its website. In addition to being a member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board and a vice-president of Booz-Allen Hamilton, for instance, former CIA Director Woolsey is also a former board member of British Aerospace and Martin Marietta, chairman of the board of Freedom House, a Center for Strategic & International Studies trustee and a principal in the Paladin Capital Group's Homeland Security Fund. The Paladin Capital Group's Homeland Security Fund is a $235 million fund which profits from its investments in the U.S. "homeland security" growth industry.
The chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs Board of Advisors, American Securities, LP Managing Director David Steinmann, is also a member of the American-Israel Friendship League board of directors, the Center for Jewish Studies at Queens College Advisory Board, the Golan Fund board, the Center for Security Policy board and the Executive Board of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), the pro-Israel pressure group which works to increase censorship of pro-Palestinian perspectives in U.S. mainstream media reporting about the Middle East.
With assets of $2,769,154 and annual revenues of $2,072,620 in 2002, the Zionist movement's CAMERA "media watchdog" group apparently has more funds at its disposal than most U.S. anti-war movement media activist groups. According to its website at www.camera.org, CAMERA will be holding a conference with the Jewish Community Relations Council of Southern New Jersey in Cherry Hill, NJ on March 20, 2005, entitled "Israel and the Media: A Global Challenge," at which members of the media such as Fox News Consultant Claudia Rossett will speak.
Other members of the Jewish Institute for National Security Board of Advisors include the following pro-war figures:
1. Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell who, according to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs website, "serves as Ohio's chief elections officer." Coincidentally, some U.S. anti-war activists have claimed in recent months that the official presidential election results in Ohio in 2004 which insured Bush's re-election were obtained by violating the democratic rights of anti-Bush voters in Ohio.
2. Former Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs Executive Director and former U.S. Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense Stephen Bryen, who presently is the President of Finmeccanica Inc., a global aerospace and defense company based in Italy.
3. Lt. General Anthony Bushick USAF (retired)
4. Republican Congressional Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia. In recent years Rep. Cantor has been a member of the House International Relations Committee, a chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and a Chief Deputy Majority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives.
5. Lt. General Paul Cerjan (retired), a former president of the National Defense University.
6. Admiral Carlisle Trost (retired).
7. General Louis Wagner (retired).
8. Former World Zionist Organization Executive Member Jacques Torczyner.
9. Democratic Congressional Representative from New York Steve Israel. Rep. Israel is the only New York Democratic who sits on the House Armed Services Committee.
10. The Deputy Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Michael Berkow.
11. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick; and
12. Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board member Perle "came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company," according to the book They Dare To Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby by Paul Findley. In 1996, Perle also co-authored a paper for Israel's Likud government leaders, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which apparently encouraged it to disregard the Oslo agreement of the early 1990s.
The Washington, D.C. office of the pro-war Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs pro-Israel pressure group is located in Suite 515 at 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, according to its website.
Bob Feldman is an anti-war Movement writer and activist who contributed "Inspecting Nuclear Israel" to Counterpunch magazine and is an occasional contributor to EI.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/printer3645.shtml | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:23 am Post subject: U.S. Embrace Can Be Fatal to Arabs |
| http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-shatz28mar28,1,5121345.story
COMMENTARY
U.S. Embrace Can Be Fatal to Arabs
The opposition in Lebanon owes no thanks to Washington.
By Adam Shatz
Adam Shatz is literary editor of the Nation.
March 28, 2005
Only a year ago, American supporters of the Iraq war were in despair. The spread of the Iraqi insurgency — and of anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim world — had undercut the claim of Paul Wolfowitz and others that Saddam Hussein's downfall would spark a wave of democratization in the region. If democracy meant burning cities, suicide attacks, life-threatening checkpoints and Abu Ghraib-style torture, Arabs and Muslims wanted nothing of it, something deeply reassuring to their autocratic rulers.
Today, the mood of the pro-war camp has changed to euphoria. The Iraqi and Palestinian elections, the mass demonstrations by Lebanese seeking an end to the Syrian presence, signs of a thaw in Hosni Mubarak's Egypt — all these developments have breathed new life into the Wolfowitz Doctrine. The Iraqis may not have thrown rice and flowers our way, but, so the story goes, their liberation has prompted Arabs to challenge their own regimes, and the United States stands poised to reap the benefits of "democratization." (Even sensible observers like historian David Fromkin have likened the changes to the fall of the Berlin Wall, although the only thing resembling that wall in the region is the "separation barrier" Israel has built on Palestinian land.)
It's an appealing story but, unfortunately, it isn't true. If anything, the war was a gift to the jihadists. And to the extent that the Middle East has moved toward democracy, it's as much in spite of American pressure as because of it.
The current neoconservative object of desire is Lebanon, and it's a good case study of what's really happening in the region. When the anti-Syrian opposition gathered in Beirut's Martyrs Square to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops, everyone from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times to Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute was quick to credit the Bush administration for inspiring the Lebanese. Never mind that the mobilization of Lebanon's opposition to Syrian rule was detonated by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, not the Iraqi elections; that the cry was for independence, not democracy; and that Shiites, who at 40% of the population make up the country's largest religious group, were conspicuously absent from the demonstrations. Never mind that Lebanon already has elections (although they are held, as in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, under the watchful eye of an occupying power).
For President Bush, the "Cedar Revolution" marked the beginning of an Arab spring. But in reality, despite their genuine yearnings for independence, the Martyrs Square demonstrators represented only a portion of the country's fractured polity — the more educated, secular members of the Christian, Druze and Sunni elites — which is why unsympathetic observers preferred the term "BMW Revolution." And its leaders, notably Walid Jumblatt, a Druze chieftain, and the exiled Maronite Christian leader Michel Aoun, who in 1990 staged a failed coup backed by Hussein, are not exactly liberal democrats.
Not for the first time, the romantic port city of Beirut had seduced Western intellectuals who saw in it only what they wanted to see: an educated middle class, a large Christian population and the stirrings of a pro-Western, pro-democracy movement.
Then came the enormous, largely Shiite pro-Syria rally organized by Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. It was the equivalent of a bucket of ice water poured over the cedar revolutionaries.
These demonstrators, who also raised the Lebanese flag, came to the protests not out of love for Syria but out of suspicion of the motives of the opposition and of the White House, which had given the Cedar Revolution not only its blessing but its very name. Having suffered under the domination of the Christian minority before the civil war, many Lebanese Shiites feared the anti-Syrian opposition was a proxy of American, Israeli and Christian interests seeking to humiliate Lebanon's neighbor, to dismantle Hezbollah (which is widely admired for ending the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon) and to force Lebanon to sign a separate peace with Israel, on terms favorable to Israel.
Among Shiites who lived through Israel's 22-year occupation in the south, it did not go unnoticed that the U.S. was demanding a full and immediate Syrian withdrawal before Lebanon's next elections, even as it hailed the elections in occupied Palestine and Iraq as models of Middle Eastern democracy.
Washington's praise for "democracy," in other words, had precious little credibility with a huge portion of Lebanon's citizens. It didn't have to be this way. If the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq, endorsed Israeli land grabs in the West Bank and threatened both Iran and Syria, Lebanese Shiites might have trusted our word and even joined the Martyrs Square protests in greater numbers. Instead, they lined up behind Hezbollah, which depends on Syrian support to continue the fight with Israel on Lebanon's southern border.
That outpouring of support has left Jumblatt and other opposition leaders scrambling to woo Hezbollah — something that hardly pleases the American government, which views the guerrilla movement and political party as a terrorist organization. The counterdemonstration also backed the Americans into a corner and led the Bush administration recently to signal that it would not oppose Hezbollah's continued participation in Lebanese parliamentary politics, even as it unconvincingly insisted that its position hadn't changed. As with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq, the American government was forced to soften its opposition to Islamist participation — to bend to Arab reality.
In the days after the Hezbollah demonstration, yet another rally was held — a counter-counterdemonstration of sorts, organized by the opposition — in which the Lebanese people bravely restated their desire for full sovereignty. It drew even more people than the Hezbollah rally had, and even some Shiites participated.
But what the Lebanese example reveals is not, as Wolfowitz would have you think, the influence of American hard power, but rather its destructive effect on American soft power. It was Rafik Hariri's assassination, not the Iraq war, that gave the Lebanese the courage to say "enough is enough" to the Syrians. The excessive use of American military force has not only eroded our tarnished reputation in the Arab and Muslim world, it has made our support even more of a liability for groups like the Lebanese opposition seeking an end to Syrian domination.
As a result, the groups most likely to benefit from democratization, especially if it is pursued precipitously, are those that are the best organized and with the strongest claims to "authenticity." In a world where the only relatively free spaces have been mosques, these will invariably be the Islamist groups like Hezbollah and the Shiite bloc in postwar Iraq.
It's not that we shouldn't encourage democracy in the Arab world. Of course we should. But if we continue to be seen as dishonest brokers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and as occupiers of countries that have not made war on us, Washington's embrace is likely to be a fatal one for Arab and Muslim democrats. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:00 am Post subject: AJC Mideast Briefing: the Crawford Summit and More |
| Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:31 -0700
From: "Jeff Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: AJC Mideast Briefing: the Crawford Summit and More
This briefing from Israel by the American Jewish Committee's Eran Lerman, formerly a member of Israeli intelligence is well worth reading, particularly the analysis he offers at the end of the article. And, of course, there is the question of Iran.
Jeff
The Crawford Summit and
The Question of Construction in the E-1 Zone:
A New Round in the Battle of Jerusalem?
A Weekly Briefing on Israeli and Middle Eastern Affairs
April 11, 2005
Dr. Eran Lerman
Director Israel/Middle East Office
There was a dramatic tone to some of the media reports this week, on the eve of the "Crawford Summit," about the question of settlement expansion; a conflict was brewing, it was argued, over the Bush administration's displeasure with Israeli plans to build 3,500 housing units in an area known as E-1. This would constitute an extension westward of the town of Ma'aleh Adumim and would create an urban link to Jerusalem. The differences over this plan are real enough (and long-standing), but it is not at all certain that they merit the attention given at this time. At least some of attention may have been generated by those who are eager—for various reasons—to see a rift emerge between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush. (For certain elements of the Israeli right wing, it has become almost essential to prove that Sharon is not telling the truth, and the U.S. is not "really" committed to support the Israeli position on the future of the settlement blocs.) The real agenda of this crucial meeting at the president's ranch concerned, above all, the urgent need for action on the Iranian nuclear effort, which is fast approaching the point of no return; as well as other aspects of the broader regional agenda, launched by the administration, and the profound ways in which they have transformed Israel's strategic environment; and the more immediate questions related to the implementation within the next three months of the Disengagement Plan. But all these items seemed to be overshadowed by the "E-1 question," and by the forceful Palestinian complaint that this project, if carried out, would slice the West Bank into two and would render it impossible to create a contiguous Palestinian state. However, a closer look at the map, and at the timetables, would indicate that what is at stake is not the possibility of implementing Stage II of the Road Map, but rather the decisive, though not necessarily immediate, battle for the future of Jerusalem, which is perhaps the most delicate and explosive of all Stage III (permanent status) issues. Ma'aleh Adumim, whether linked to Jerusalem by a narrow road or by a broad built-up zone, does not cut in half the West Bank; it is quite conceivable to construct a good road that will carry people and goods from Ramallah to Bethlehem—either under Ma'aleh Adumim or aroumd it to the east—so that the Palestinians do not have to go through Israeli checkpoints. On the other hand, the construction at E-1 would indeed tighten Israeli control over the eastern approaches of Jerusalem, thus making it more difficult to redivide the city (which is, indeed, Sharon's intent; he begins every meeting with foreign dignitaries with a reference to the unity of Israel's capital, and claims, with some reason, to be upholding Yitzhak Rabin's own legacy on this question). The battle for Jerusalem, which has always been at the core of the conflict, is thus reemerging, well in advance of the actual resumption of negotiations. Sunday's clashes with far-right Jewish elements who wanted (but failed) to use the Temple Mount to trigger a crisis that would derail the disengagement; the equally ugly responses by some Muslims, who do not want the feet of Jews to "defile" the Haram al-Sharif; the E-1 controversy; and the attempt by the PA leadership to move directly to Permanent Status negotiations, including Jerusalem—all are opening shots in this new round of political warfare (which, for now at least, have not been translated into actual fighting, beyond the unrelated deterioration in Gaza). The tensions over the city will not go away, even if the deft handling by the police prevented a conflagration on the first day of Nisan 5765 (April 10), the occasion chosen by the radicals to attempt their provocative ascent. Was it wise, however, for the Israeli government to add fuel to the crisis by reviving the debate over the E-1 plans? After all, the construction itself will not start for some years, and the present timing, apparently harmful to Mahmoud Abbas in his internal struggle with Hamas, could not have been worse. Explanations based on sheer folly or inattention to detail are indeed, very often, the most plausible. Yet there is another way of looking at this "crisis," which may have been somewhat more orchestrated than meets the eye. If timing is at the root of the trouble here, timing—i.e., an agreement to delay—could easily be part of the solution. Meanwhile, the overt pressure on Israel could be used by the U.S. to show Abbas that there is some degree of even-handedness at work; and thus it would make it easier for Bush to require him:
To help coordinate disengagement plans with Israel, particularly on the security framework;
To break the present mold of inaction and take effective measures against the terrorists (who are even now raining mortar shells on Gush Katif);
To abandon the unworkable push for "Stage III Now!" and prepare the ground for an acceptable interim agreement, once the preconditions (an end to terror) are met.
This is reminiscent, one might say, of the Jewish folktale about a poor man who comes to his rabbi to cry over the incredible crush he and his large family are enduring in a small one-room hovel; the rabbi's advice, much to the man's surprise, is to add a goat to the household! Two weeks later, when told they may now send the goat out, the family suddenly feels so much better, breathing fresh air in their very tiny but comfortable home. The E-1 plan, in other words, may not mean much on the ground for years to come—but it has proven a useful device in demonstrating to the Palestinians, and their leaders, that Israel is ready to struggle for Jerusalem, while, at the same time, showing that the U.S. is not automatically allied with Israel on all issues. If taken off the agenda (for the time being) under U.S. pressure, E-1 could become the Palestinians' "rabbi's goat"—i.e., the extra element whose removal makes it easier to adjust to other demands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to israelad_h as: jblankfort@earthlink.net.
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to leave-israelad_h-10675649L@warp.sparklist.com | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
