April 20 letters

Don't let these problems get you (and your site) down. There are plenty of bullies and idiots in the world but the sort of power they have is based on an illusion - their trick is to make you believe they have all the power and you have none...and if you had no power why would they be bothering to threaten you and trying to shut down your site? The only way you can beat them is by refusing to play their game. Do what you decide to do for your own reasons and don't let their stupidity and fear bring you down to their level.

The world's media is in an appalling state. I am learning Arabic (very very beginner) so that I can read some of the articles on Al-Jazeera because it seems that it is the most free news source there is. In the UK, where I live, the news we receive from the BBC and ITN is, in my opinion, both laughable and depressing at the same time. The coverage of the war in Iraq in particular was/is terrible, and I have stopped watching it because it makes me feel physically sick to think of all the non-thinking ignorant people who swallow the government propaganda and believe all they are told with little questioning.

In this climate, the continued existence of a site like Al-Jazeerah is extremely important. If the big news corporations wont publish anything controversial or seek the truth or present balanced ideas and views then this must be done by lots of small news publications. I agree with a lot of the opinions I see on Al-Jazeerah, but even if I didn't I would think it essential for these opinions to be seen and discussed.

I'm sorry I could only send you $10, but I'm not rich! You should have received the Paypal transfer on Thurs/Friday.

Note to the Editor - I am applying to start a politics masters degree in the UK and I hope to go on to do a Phd next year. My interests are: human rights, human nature, interventions and wars, media freedom and civil liberties. I wonder if you accept submissions or if you only commission articles? If you will look at submissions, pleae let me know the email address I sould send them to and which program and formatting you prefer.

Thanks - keep up the good work

Allie Schumi

post it on the March for Justice website which desperately needs words of support. They are being overwhelmed with hate mail because they are showing photos of the war. They are trying to shut down the March for Justice. Just a few words of support if you don't have the time to write more. Anything, please, to show that you disagree with these "ugly Americans" and Arab and Muslim haters. Give these hatemongers your version when they go to this site.

Below are three marvelous letters which our friends just sent, but they are not enough to counteract the many hate letters. Send your letter to info@marchforjustice.com: Please read these to get ideas for yourself or click on http://www.marchforjustice.com/id266.htm to read some of the many hate mail they have received. It does no good to write to one another, but not to write where your words and time will matter. Present the alternative view that is desperately needed.

Betty Molchany, J.D.

Front Royal, VA

Editor: It seems that there has been a parallel war launched against pro-peace media web sites in the US. It would be great if readers can identify the pro-peace websites which was targeted by threats and hate mail during the war, in addition to Aljazeerah.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~gulufuture/baghdad_jesus.htm

Sent by Andrew Triplett

Famous Quotations, sent by HRIP International:

1***

Are bombs the only way of setting fire to the spirit of a people? Is the human will as inert as the past two world-wide wars would indicate?

Gregory Clark

2***

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.

Albert Einstein

4***

You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time.

Albert Einstein

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and

social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a

poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Albert Einstein

6****

Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch

of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.

Albert Einstein

7***

Force always attracts men of low morality.

Albert Einstein

8***

Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.

Albert Einstein

Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity own to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of

the of the inquiring constructive mind.

Albert Einstein

10**

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

Albert Einstein

11****

If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

The United States strongly seeks a lasting agreement for the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. We believe that this would be an important step toward reduction of international tensions and would open the way to further agreement on substantial measures of disarmament.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Normandy Invasion was based on a deep-seated faith in the power of the air forces, in overwhelming numbers, to intervene in the land battle. Without that air force, without the aid of the enemy air force out of the sky, without its power to intervene in the land battle, that invasion would have been fantastic. Unless we had fait in the air power to intervene and make safe that landing, it would have been more than fantastic, it would have been criminal.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

The United States pledges its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma-to devote its entire heart and mind to finding the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death but consecrated to his life.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

16****

The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

17 ***

Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time. The demand for it by the hundreds of millions whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and their children will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that no man, no government anywhere, can withstand it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

18 ***

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Americans I Know
By Tariq A. Al-Maeena,

Throughout my life, I have been fortunate to live among several cultures. And I have lived among Americans. I have lived around them and away from them as well. And if some things have stood out among most of the Americans I have come across, it has been their honesty, their generosity, and their sense of justice. I realize that there have to be exceptions to this rule. But thankfully, very few of them have crossed my path. And today, good Americans are being put to the test.

The US government, in an era of militant foreign policy and an unending resolve to pursue these goals, has embarked on a misinformation campaign designed to manipulate its citizens into believing that its is a just cause, no matter where it materializes.

First came the craftily announced domestic threats by various organs of their government that created an air of unease among the people. Then came the threats of the weaponry of Armageddon.

WMDs were poised to strike the heartland of the nation. That was followed by evidence that lacked any credibility presented to the United Nations. And then came the strike against Iraq. And when it was all over, suddenly none of these threats that had been touted for so long to justify their incursion have materialized.

The Americans I know are not liars.

It was not a war or an act of heroism when a superpower like the United States — with a population of nearly 300 million — ganged up on a poor Third World country like Iraq with a population of 25 million.

Most Americans are not bullies either.

And after their entry, American forces allowed the continued looting in Basra, Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Shouldn’t the first priority for the invading forces have been the business of putting their stamp on law and order? Or was there no plan to forestall a tragedy of such a destructive magnitude?

And no sooner had the last wave of bombs fallen than the hawks in the administration began to talk of expanding this incursion into neighboring countries, again using vague references to WMDs.

The Americans I know would welcome Syria’s call to keep this whole region free of WMDs. And in their pursuit for justice, they would demand that this applies to all countries, including the only one definitely known to possess such weaponry, Israel.

Yes, Israel, the major warehouse for weapons of mass destruction in the region. Sadly, that call would be buried among many others attempting to promote peace in the region in recent years.

What happened to Crown Prince Abdullah’s proposal of de facto recognition for the state of Israel conditional on its adherence to UN Security Council resolutions was another example of how reason was muffled by the louder sounds of war.

Going back further, in a November 1947 article, entitled “As the Arabs See the Jews,” in The American Magazine, King Abdallah of Jordan said: “I believe that you Americans do not realize how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realize your responsibility, you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.”

In stating the problem, King Abdallah also stated the solution: “I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favors. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it.”

Meanwhile, a silent annexation and ethnic cleansing of a people continues. Where are the voices of truth and justice within this administration? The US media by and large is not interested in the pursuit of the truth. Israel is an entity that hardly ever comes under scrutiny. The fear of being accused of anti-Semitism has shut up a lot of people who dared to ask. And while bad guy Saddam was easy pickings, where were their journalistic ethics in the past decade, a decade that has seen hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children die because of US-led sanctions? Facts have been withheld for reasons of “national security” and journalists have been co-opted into the propaganda machine, their reporting confined to pre-established limits. The truth has been stolen from the American people. If they could be faulted in the past, it would have been on their political naivety in matters beyond their borders. But there are encouraging winds of change.

They are beginning to reach out for the truth within and outside their boundaries. They are slowly beginning to understand the long-term ramifications of the actions of their present and past administrations. And once they wisen up to them, then the good qualities that make them the Americans they are will make those very qualities prevail in their relations with others.

Long live the Americans I know.

Arab News Features 19 April 2003

NESTING HABITS OF WASHINGTON'S WAR BIRDS

The War Party has captured the heights of the Washington bureaucracy –

and now they're after the U.S. 'Institute of Peace'!

Justin Raimondo

April 16, 2003

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041603.html

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength – and Daniel

Pipes, the nation's leading Islamophobe and a stalwart of the War Party,

has been named to the Board of Directors of the United States Institute

of Peace (USIP). While the Institute – a U.S. government agency first

proposed in the 1970s by President Jimmy Carter – is dedicated to

"promoting the peaceful resolution of international conflict," Ha'aretz

aptly describes the Pipes credo as follows:

"He espouses a theory of conflict resolution that rests on the assumption

that peace usually is achieved only by one side defeating the other with

military force or other pressure, and only rarely through reconciliation

or negotiation."

The Pipes view that "Islamists" – i.e. American Muslims – all "have the

same ambition, which is what they call "the Islamization of America,"

hardly seems conducive to the USIP's "can't we all get along?" message.

This weird anomaly – can you believe a Jewish version of David Duke? –

avers that the goal of America's Muslims in their millions is "no less

than saving the U.S. through transforming it into a Muslim country." Oh

really? Does this mean that "Elimi-date" is going to go off the air? If

so, I wouldn't count on an Islamist cultural revolution happening any

time soon….

Listening to Pipes and reading his works one is reminded of nothing so

much as the anti-Semitic literature of the neo-Nazi movement, which

posits a devil theory similarly based on ethnicity and religion. In the

realm of foreign policy, his hateful views were vented in a call for the

razing of Palestinian villages – a logical extension of his declaration

that "the Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be."

The very idea of Pipes ensconced, in all his hatefulness, at the United

States Institute of Peace has got to be some kind of sick joke – the kind

of moral inversion that could only occur in Bizarro World, where up is

down and wrong is right. But the Coalition of the Crazed is on the march,

and the neoconservative nutballs who populate this administration at the

highest levels are on a roll since their great "victory" in Iraq. With

neocon ideologue Paul Wolfowitz at the helm of the "rebuilding" project,

and JINSA graduate Gen. Jay Garner faithfully implementing a strategy of

utilizing the country as a forward base for future wars – against Syria,

Iran, and beyond – the War Party isn't taking no for an answer. Before

they can take Damascus, Teheran, and Mecca itself, the neocons must first

take Washington: or, at this point, conduct mop-up operations, such as

the purge conducted by the newly-appointed Elliot Abrams over at the

National Security Council, where Abrams was put in charge of the

Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle trinity is

really feeling its oats: why, they even had the nerve to float James

"World War IV" Woolsey as propagandist-in-chief of the new Iraqi

occupation government.

The Pipes appointment would be funny, if one could overlook its macabre

implications. But it is precisely the sinister Orwellian aspect of all

this that underscores the real problem, which is not just Pipes but the

USIP. What in the name of everything that's holy is the U.S. government –

or any government – doing in the "peace" business? A typical mushy-headed

delusion based on liberal naivete about the nature of the State.

Governments are all about war – that is what they do. It may be a

defensive war against an invading enemy, or more often a war of

aggression against a hapless victim – but, in any case, war, as Randolph

Bourne put it, "is the health of the State," and ever will it be so. A

government-funded and sponsored "Institute of Peace" must, by its very

nature, turn into an instrument of war propaganda – no matter how good

and holy the intent of USIP's founders.

We need concerted action to flush Pipes and his hateful rhetoric down the

drain. But the antiwar movement also needs to challenge more than just

this single outrageous appointment. In the process of opposing Pipes, it

is imperative to call attention to the total absurdity of the USIP's

existence.

The Bushies came to Washington pledging to roll back Big Government, and,

like every ostensibly "conservative" administration before them, took

office armed with a long laundry list of government agencies that needed

to be abolished or radically decimated. These pledges, or intentions, are

hardly ever followed up, but surely thoughtful activists must wonder how

the USIP – formally created in 1984 – managed to survive the Reagan years

without becoming a sword in the hands of the War Party.

This oxymoronic government boondoggle is well on its way to becoming yet

another tax-subsidized nest for our war birds to roost in, along with

Richard Perle's Defense Policy Board and the National Endowment for

Democracy. Perle's disgraceful influence-peddling led to his stealth

resignation as chairman of the board, and a new interest in a formerly

obscure advisory body that apparently plays a key role in formulating

U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The USIP has so far escaped such critical scrutiny. Who, after all, can

come out against it without seeming to be against peace, per se? Perhaps

the takeover of this phony government-funded thinktank by the War Party

will clarify the matter in the minds of befuddled liberals and assorted

lefties, formerly fooled into believing in the inherent beneficence of

the State – provided the right people are in charge.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

Many thanks for the numerous messages of condolence on the death in my

family. My father lived to be 85 years old, and died just as this rotten

war ended, a period at the end of a sentence. Signaling, for me, the end

of innocence, the end of an era in which the concept of preemptive war

was something alien to the American mind, possibly a Japanese invention,

and there was another word for it: treachery.

My father fought in the war to avenge the treachery of Pearl Harbor –

although just what sort of treachery, and on whose part, is only now

coming to light – and at his funeral service the local Veterans of

Foreign Wars gave a solemn and sincere presentation, in which they

honored their fallen comrade and offered his memory to the ages. It was a

kind and moving gesture, one that I sincerely appreciate and publicly

thank them for.

Yet, for the sake of foreign wars, my father endured a year in a hospital

run by the Veterans Administration – a good one, by their standards –

during which time he developed gangrene in his foot. My ever-observent

sister was the first to notice it – not one of the nurses – and when she

did she went straight into the bathroom and vomited.

Now Medicaid wants some $15,000 out of his estate to pay for the costs of

this neglect. There just aren't enough trained medical personnel to watch

the tens of thousands of oldsters in VA hospitals. Which is not to fault

the kind and generally attentive staff at the VA hospital my father spent

over a year in. But when I hear that the invasion and subsequent

pacification of Iraq is going to cost in the hundreds of billions of tax

dollars, when I note that Israel is asking for yet another ten billion,

and think of what my father, a veteran, had to go through, I can only

ask: is there something wrong with this picture? Oh, and don't forget how

the government reneged on its promise to pay the lifetime medical costs

of World War II and Korean war vets who served for 20 years. That's real

class for you.

I want to draw the attention of my readers, again, to Matthew Barganier's

new column, "Collateral Damage." He knows how to write for the internet:

his wit is rapier-light, on occasion deadly, and chock full of links. Go

check him out if you haven't already – Matt is magnificent!

– Justin Raimondo

A salute to the soul of the Palestinian photographer, Nazih Darwazah, who was killed by Israeli occupation forces in Nablus, on April 19, 2003. By Emad Hajjaj.

General Musharraf is neither legal army chief nor president

19 April 2003: The political secretary to Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and member national assembly, Naheed Khan has said that the legal framework order is a conspiracy to hold the parliament hostage to a dictator.

In a statement Naheed Khan said that General Musharraf has not only usurped the basic rights of Pakistani people but also the status of army chief and the presidency. As an illegal president he has illegally extended his tenure as army chief thus making him totally illegitimate. LFO is a design to legitimize his illegal acts of the last three and a half years and to continue unlawful rule. The method of election of the president has been clearly given in the constitution and as long as that is not followed the legitimacy would continue to evade general Musharraf. The Pakistan Peoples Party with other democratic forces of the country is struggling for the supremacy of Constitution, rule of law, democratic norms and an egalitarian society and no dictator would be able to become a hurdle in its way for a long time, Naheed Khan said.

Forwarded by:

Azhar Iqbal Barhalvi
Chairman
P Y O - UK

http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=news;action=display;num=1050631363;start=0

Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops

What ‘Support Our Troops’ Really Means

By Amy Worthington

The Idaho Observer 4-16-3

Sent by Lauren Moret

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3006.htm

Israeli Commandoes In Iraq To Assassinate 500 Scientists

JERSUALEM, April 18 (IOl & News Agencies) - Some 150 Israeli commandoes are currently inside Iraq on a mission to assassinate 500 Iraqi scientists, a retired French general told the French TV Channel 5 on Friday, April 18.

He asserted that Israel was seeking to liquidate 500 Iraqi armament scientists who were involved in the country’s biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, reported the Israeli Maariv newspaper which carried the news.

The French general, who was not identified, said the scientists hunted by Israel are the same ones who were listed by U.N. weapons inspectors for interviews during their mandate in Iraq which was terminated two days before the unleashing of the U.S.-led war on March 20.

The Israeli commandoes might be operating within the ranks of the American Marines now occupying Iraq, said the French general, without elaborating on how they managed to sneak into the war-ravaged country.

Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, spokesman of the U.S. Central Command war headquarters in As-Sayliya, Qatar, had repeatedly said the U.S.-led war was seeking, beside toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, to eliminate the country’s capabilities in developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Appealing to the world community to protect them from the U.S. aimed at obliterating Iraq’s minds, a number of Iraqi scientists and university professors had sent an SOS e-mail complaining American occupation forces were threatening their lives.

In their e-mail, a copy of which was sent to IslamOnlin.net Friday, April 11, they asserted that occupation troops demanded them, particularly physicists, chemists and mathematicians, to hand over all documents and researches in their possession.

American forces had, in this respect, gate-crashed the house of Iraqi scientist Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, dubbed “Mrs Anthrax” by the Americans.

Mrs. Ammash's picture and name were listed by the U.S. Central Command as one of 55 “most-wanted” Iraqis.

OCCUPIED JERSUALEM, April 18 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Some 150 Israeli commandoes are currently inside Iraq on a mission to assassinate 500 Iraqi scientists, a retired French general told the French TV Channel 5 on Friday, April 18.

Appealing to the world community to protect them from the U.S. aggression aimed at obliterating Iraq’s minds, a number of Iraqi scientists and university professors had sent an SOS e-mail complaining American occupation forces were threatening their lives.

American forces had, in this respect, gate-crashed the house of Iraqi scientist Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, dubbed “Mrs Anthrax” by the Americans.

Mrs. Ammash's picture and name were listed by the U.S. Central Command as one of 55 “most-wanted” Iraqis

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/04/14/baghdaddeal/index.html

Baghdad did not fall -- it was handed over

The Arabic media is rife with speculation that the Saudi regime brokered a secret deal between the White House and Iraq's ruling party.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jalal Ghazi

April 14, 2003 -- Arabic media are speculating that a "safqua" -- Arabic for a secret deal -- was arranged between the United States and Iraq's Baath regime to hand over Baghdad. Although nobody can pinpoint the exact terms, there are three clear outcomes. First, the lives of many American and British forces as well as most senior Baath officials were spared. Second, Baghdad itself did not turn into the blood bath widely anticipated by military experts. Third, the war was shortened dramatically, saving the region -- especially Saudi Arabia -- from catastrophic consequences.

The following clues, gleaned from Arabic and U.S. media, suggest why the fall of Baghdad was premeditated.

1. None of the seven rescued POWs was hurt. On the contrary, all seven were found in good condition. All were found dressed in pajamas rather than the standard uniforms for prisoners of war, indicating that they were being treated as guests rather than as POWs. Usually, Arabs give pajamas to guests who sleep over in their houses. Arab reports point out that POW Jessica Lynch was similarly treated; she was kept in the cleanest room in an Iraqi hospital until she was rescued on April 2. In both cases, American forces were tipped off about the location of the POWs by unknown Iraqi citizens. Kuwaiti prisoners, by contrast, who were captured during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait more than 12 years ago, are only now being discovered.

To date, none of the seven war prisoners has spoken directly to American TV reporters, unlike U.S. soldiers injured in the fighting, who became instant media sources. We are told the seven POWs were taken to Kuwait for medical treatment and intelligence debriefing.

2. American tanks rolled into Baghdad with very little resistance while Basra, nowhere near as heavily fortified as Baghdad, sustained almost three weeks of fierce resistance. The fall of Baghdad was so sudden that it left many of the Arab and Muslim volunteers who went to Iraq to fight the coalition forces in total disarray. Initially given weapons and uniforms, thousands of these volunteers -- who came from Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere -- wound up having no one to tell them what to do. Al-Jazeera reports that some are now still fighting U.S. forces while others are actually attacking Iraqi civilians.

3. Baath forces refrained from destroying a single bridge in Baghdad, which could have blocked U.S. tanks access to the city, at least temporarily. Moreover, only a handful of Iraq's oil fields were set on fire, leaving the vast majority intact almost in accordance with Bush's demands.

4. None of the senior Baath officials has surrendered to date, with the exception of two high-level scientists. Instead, tens of thousands of Baath operatives managed to disappear without a sign of internal divisions. This strongly suggests that the departure of the Baath regime was ordered from the most senior levels and was highly organized. It also explains why most of the Iraqi forces, including the Republican Guards, were nowhere to be found when U.S. forces entered Baghdad.

5. Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations Mohammad Al-Douri, a high-level Baath functionary, was quoted in both American and Arabic media as saying, "The game is over," and that he had not been in contact with Saddam Husssein for weeks. When asked why he used the word "game," the ambassador replied, "The war is over." Meanwhile, al-Jazeera reported that Al-Douri has been allowed to travel to Syria and that he may be asked to represent the new Iraqi government at the United Nations.

While Arabs all over the Middle East now routinely talk of the deal that saved Baghdad, they also speculate that the same deal may have saved Saddam. Unlike the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, which preoccupied U.S. forces for months, the hunt for the dictator no longer appears to be the top priority for U.S. forces in the wake of Baghdad's fall.

Where could Saddam be if he is still alive? Some Arab media experts speculate he may have sought refuge in Mecca, the most sacred Islamic place in the world. No non-Muslims ever lived in and very few have even set foot in this holiest of Muslim cities.

If it turns out that Saddam is indeed in Mecca, it would be one further clue that the architect of the "safqua" or deal between the Baath and the United States was Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah -- a trusted intermediary of the Bush family and the only Arab leader invited to President Bush's Crawford ranch.

For the Saudis, as well as for many other Arab leaders, the deal offers the one hope of sparing the Middle East the consequences of a bloody and prolonged war of resistance in Iraq. For the Americans, the deal offers a chance of stabilizing postwar Iraq and its neighbors, leaving the door open for what Bush calls the road map to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Pacific News Service associate Jalal Ghazi monitors and translates Arab media for New California Media, a project of PNS and WorldLink TV.

=====

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0316/mondo1.php

Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway

Our Man in Baghdad
That's Saddam We're Talking About

April 15th, 2003 12:00 PM

It's unlikely we will ever know for sure what the U.S. government has been doing with Saddam Hussein over the past 40 or so years. According to documents unearthed from the Reagan era, we know that Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to egg on the dictator in his war with Iran. At the time, the U.S. provided Saddam with loans, military intelligence, and other assistance.

One story has it that Rumsfeld, then a drug company CEO, also was acting as a messenger boy for high officials in the Reagan administration who wanted to get rich building an oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan. Secretary of State George Schultz, a former top official of Bechtel, was chief among them. He supposedly hoped to cash in on the deal if Bechtel got to build the pipeline.

Now comes a UPI story, based on interviews with various British and U.S. intelligence sources, claiming that from Jack Kennedy in the early 1960s on up to the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, Saddam was in the hands of the CIA. In his early twenties, Saddam was recruited to kill Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim, UPI reports. He had given the U.S. a fright by backing out of the pro-West Baghdad Pact, which brought together Turkey, Britain, Iran, and Pakistan in a defensive alliance against the Soviets. Having ditched the pact, Qasim started buying Soviet arms and installing Communists in top positions, all of which led then CIA chief Allen Dulles to say Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."

According to the UPI report, Saddam led a farcical attempt to kill Qasim. Saddam and his six-man hit squad took up residence in a Baghdad apartment, but when the moment arrived, they got nervous and started shooting too soon, missing Qasim and ending up grazing Saddam. One of the hit men got a grenade stuck in the lining of his coat, and another put the wrong kind of bullets in his gun. Eventually Qasim was killed in a coup, rumored to have been encouraged by the CIA. Whether true or not, once the minister was killed, the CIA men gave the Baathist hierarchy lists of names of suspected Communists, whom they rounded up and murdered. A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them." Saddam became head of the Baathist intelligence apparatus.

Ever after, the CIA took care of Saddam, helping to spirit him out of Baghdad to Tikrit, and from there to Syria and Beirut, and on to Egypt. He seems never to have been popular among the spies because he was thuggish and too low-class.

During the 1980s the CIA drew close to Saddam's Baathist party, currently reviled as a bunch of vicious killer thugs, but then warmly regarded as our allies against the wacko ayatollahs in Iran. The CIA was providing Iraq with battlefield intelligence gained from a Saudi AWACS plane. It was during this period that Rumsfeld visited the dictator to see if there was anything the U.S. could do to help out.

The U.S. manipulations in the Middle East then became more and more confusing as the CIA provided intelligence reports to both Iraq and its Iranian enemy. One former official told UPI that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran "in an attempt to produce a military stalemate." On doing so, he said, "I thought I was losing my mind."

. . . . . . .

Additional reporting: Phoebe St John and Joanna Khenkine

Wayne State University's Student Council votes to divest from Israeli

Apartheid!!!!!!!!!

On april 17, the student council voted 9-7 to divest!!!!!!

http://smjwayne.org/frames/main.htm

Read the resolution:

http://smjwayne.org/documents/index/Divestment%20resolution.htm

"WHEREAS, the students of Wayne State University have grave misgivings

about financing violent ethnic cleansing, racially directed against

millions of occupied Palestinian civilians, who are both innocent and

helpless,

"WHEREAS, those millions of Palestinians suffer long-term

malnutrition, are surrounded by Israeli army bulldozers, tanks, soldiers,

and by jet bombers, all of which have killed thousands of occupied

Palestinians,

"WHEREAS, on Sunday, March 16, 2003, an American college student, Rachel

Corrie, was killed in plain sight, while dressed in bright orange, while

waving, and while shouting at an Israeli Army bulldozer through a

megaphone, by that same Israeli Army bulldozer, in the Occupied Gaza

Strip,

"WHEREAS, that Israeli Army bulldozer ran her over twice,

"WHEREAS, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has urged us all to

divest from Israel due to its violent and humiliating apartheid policies,

"WHEREAS, Israel was a long-time, close ally of White Apartheid South

Africa,

"WHEREAS, the Wayne State University Board of Governors ("the Board") has

knowledge of University investments, including what governments our

University is paying taxes to by means of investment, and has the

authority to seek such information from its fund managers,

"THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that we ask the Board to immediately divest

(dis-invest) our university from Israel,

"THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that we ask the Board for a report

this semester, on its progress in divesting the University from its

investments in Israel, including divestment from all companies doing

business in Israel, and divestment from all stocks and pension funds

which include those companies."

http://smjwayne.org/documents/index/Divestment%20resolution.htm

["With neocon ideologue Paul Wolfowitz at the helm of the "rebuilding"

project, and JINSA graduate Gen. Jay Garner faithfully implementing a

strategy of utilizing the country as a forward base for future wars

against Syria, Iran, and beyond the War Party isn't taking no for an

answer. Before they can take Damascus, Teheran, and Mecca itself, the

neocons must first take Washington: or, at this point, conduct mop-up

operations, such as the purge conducted by the newly-appointed Elliot

Abrams over at the National Security Council, where Abrams was put in

charge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle

trinity is really feeling its oats: why, they even had the nerve to float

James "World War IV" Woolsey as propagandist-in-chief of the new Iraqi

occupation government." - Antiwar.com]

Read below.

*********************************************************************

* In solidarity for justice, peace, freedom, truth, human and civil *

* rights, and protection of the environment. - Hilmi Salem, Ph.D. *

*********************************************************************

______________________________________________________________________

NESTING HABITS OF WASHINGTON'S WAR BIRDS

The War Party has captured the heights of the Washington bureaucracy and

now they're after the U.S. 'Institute of Peace'!

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041603.html

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and Daniel Pipes,

the nation's leading Islamophobe and a stalwart of the War Party, has been

named to the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace

(USIP). While the Institute a U.S. government agency first proposed in

the 1970s by President Jimmy Carter is dedicated to "promoting the

peaceful resolution of international conflict," Ha'aretz aptly describes

the Pipes credo as follows:

"He espouses a theory of conflict resolution that rests on the assumption

that peace usually is achieved only by one side defeating the other with

military force or other pressure, and only rarely through reconciliation

or negotiation."

The Pipes view that "Islamists" i.e. American Muslims all "have the same

ambition, which is what they call "the Islamization of America," hardly

seems conducive to the USIP's "can't we all get along?" message. This

weird anomaly can you believe a Jewish version of David Duke? avers that

the goal of America's Muslims in their millions is "no less than saving

the U.S. through transforming it into a Muslim country." Oh really? Does

this mean that "Elimi-date" is going to go off the air? If so, I wouldn't

count on an Islamist cultural revolution happening any time soon.

Listening to Pipes and reading his works one is reminded of nothing so

much as the anti-Semitic literature of the neo-Nazi movement, which posits

a devil theory similarly based on ethnicity and religion. In the realm of

foreign policy, his hateful views were vented in a call for the razing of

Palestinian villages a logical extension of his declaration that "the

Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be."

The very idea of Pipes ensconced, in all his hatefulness, at the United

States Institute of Peace has got to be some kind of sick joke the kind

of moral inversion that could only occur in Bizarro World, where up is

down and wrong is right. But the Coalition of the Crazed is on the march,

and the neoconservative nutballs who populate this administration at the

highest levels are on a roll since their great "victory" in Iraq. With

neocon ideologue Paul Wolfowitz at the helm of the "rebuilding" project,

and JINSA graduate Gen. Jay Garner faithfully implementing a strategy of

utilizing the country as a forward base for future wars against Syria,

Iran, and beyond the War Party isn't taking no for an answer. Before they

can take Damascus, Teheran, and Mecca itself, the neocons must first take

Washington: or, at this point, conduct mop-up operations, such as the

purge conducted by the newly-appointed Elliot Abrams over at the National

Security Council, where Abrams was put in charge of the

Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle trinity is

really feeling its oats: why, they even had the nerve to float James

"World War IV" Woolsey as propagandist-in-chief of the new Iraqi

occupation government.

The Pipes appointment would be funny, if one could overlook its macabre

implications. But it is precisely the sinister Orwellian aspect of all

this that underscores the real problem, which is not just Pipes but the

USIP. What in the name of everything that's holy is the U.S. government

or any government doing in the "peace" business? A typical mushy-headed

delusion based on liberal naivete about the nature of the State.

Governments are all about war that is what they do. It may be a defensive

war against an invading enemy, or more often a war of aggression against a

hapless victim but, in any case, war, as Randolph Bourne put it, "is the

health of the State," and ever will it be so. A government-funded and

sponsored "Institute of Peace" must, by its very nature, turn into an

instrument of war propaganda no matter how good and holy the intent of

USIP's founders.

We need concerted action to flush Pipes and his hateful rhetoric down the

drain. But the antiwar movement also needs to challenge more than just

this single outrageous appointment. In the process of opposing Pipes, it

is imperative to call attention to the total absurdity of the USIP's

existence.

The Bushies came to Washington pledging to roll back Big Government, and,

like every ostensibly "conservative" administration before them, took

office armed with a long laundry list of government agencies that needed

to be abolished or radically decimated. These pledges, or intentions, are

hardly ever followed up, but surely thoughtful activists must wonder how

the USIP formally created in 1984 managed to survive the Reagan years

without becoming a sword in the hands of the War Party.

This oxymoronic government boondoggle is well on its way to becoming yet

another tax-subsidized nest for our war birds to roost in, along with

Richard Perle's Defense Policy Board and the National Endowment for

Democracy. Perle's disgraceful influence-peddling led to his stealth

resignation as chairman of the board, and a new interest in a formerly

obscure advisory body that apparently plays a key role in formulating U.S.

policy in the Middle East.

The USIP has so far escaped such critical scrutiny. Who, after all, can

come out against it without seeming to be against peace, per se? Perhaps

the takeover of this phony government-funded thinktank by the War Party

will clarify the matter in the minds of befuddled liberals and assorted

lefties, formerly fooled into believing in the inherent beneficence of the

State provided the right people are in charge.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

Many thanks for the numerous messages of condolence on the death in my

family. My father lived to be 85 years old, and died just as this rotten

war ended, a period at the end of a sentence. Signaling, for me, the end

of innocence, the end of an era in which the concept of preemptive war was

something alien to the American mind, possibly a Japanese invention, and

there was another word for it: treachery.

My father fought in the war to avenge the treachery of Pearl Harbor

although just what sort of treachery, and on whose part, is only now

coming to light and at his funeral service the local Veterans of Foreign

Wars gave a solemn and sincere presentation, in which they honored their

fallen comrade and offered his memory to the ages. It was a kind and

moving gesture, one that I sincerely appreciate and publicly thank them

for.

Yet, for the sake of foreign wars, my father endured a year in a hospital

run by the Veterans Administration a good one, by their standards during

which time he developed gangrene in his foot. My ever-observent sister was

the first to notice it not one of the nurses and when she did she went

straight into the bathroom and vomited.

Now Medicaid wants some $15,000 out of his estate to pay for the costs of

this neglect. There just aren't enough trained medical personnel to watch

the tens of thousands of oldsters in VA hospitals. Which is not to fault

the kind and generally attentive staff at the VA hospital my father spent

over a year in. But when I hear that the invasion and subsequent

pacification of Iraq is going to cost in the hundreds of billions of tax

dollars, when I note that Israel is asking for yet another ten billion,

and think of what my father, a veteran, had to go through, I can only ask:

is there something wrong with this picture? Oh, and don't forget how the

government reneged on its promise to pay the lifetime medical costs of

World War II and Korean war vets who served for 20 years. That's real

class for you.

I want to draw the attention of my readers, again, to Matthew Barganier's

new column, "Collateral Damage." He knows how to write for the internet:

his wit is rapier-light, on occasion deadly, and chock full of links. Go

check him out if you haven't already Matt is magnificent!

Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens for Legitimate Government
April 19, 2003

-- BREAKING NEWS AND COMMENTARY--

Links to these and other stories are found on our website at:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Prove Iraqi guilt, MPs tell Blair --Poodle Tony Blair is facing the threat of a fresh rebellion from Labour backbenchers who are growing increasingly alarmed that the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will confirm that the war was illegal.

Iraq - Did Portugal have all the facts? --The Portugal News has received a full transcript of a report by a former CIA senior political analyst that states that Iran was responsible for the mass murder of 5,000 Kurds by chemicals at the Iraqi township of Halabja in 1988. The Halabja massacre was one of the pretexts put forward by the US Government for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Some political commentators are saying that if the report had been made public before the build up to the present conflict in Iraq, Portugal and Spain might well have had second thoughts about supporting the US and British invasion.

Iraqis Accuse US of Cultural 'Crime of the Century' --US troops committed the cultural "crime of the century" when they failed to protect priceless Iraqi artifacts from looters and likely trampled archaeological sites during the invasion, top antiquities officials here charged yesterday.

The looting of Baghdad’s museum and library --US government implicated in planned theft of Iraqi artistic treasures --As the full extent of the looting of Iraq’s National Museum in Baghdad emerges, it becomes clear that there was nothing accidental about it. Rather it was the result of a long planned project to plunder the artistic and historical treasures that are held in the museums of Iraq.

US culture advisers resign in protest over looting of Iraqi museums --Three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee have resigned in protest over US complicity in the looting of the Iraqi National Museum of Antiquities.

US firms hog Iraq rebuilding contracts --Controversy is growing over the US Government's apparent "closed shop" approach to the rebuilding of Iraq. Cynics may say it was inevitable, but all the lucrative contracts so far have been given to giant American multinationals with close connections to George W Bush's Republican Party. [Cynics?] *See Secret Bids Companies, Including Big GOP Donors, Invited to Vie for Iraq Contracts Weeks before the first bombs dropped in Iraq, the Bush regime began rebuilding plans. ABCNEWS has obtained a copy of a 99-page contract worth $600 million. Among the companies believed to be bidding are Bechtel, Fluor, Parsons, the Washington Group and Halliburton, Vice pResident Dick Cheney's old [and current] firm. *See Contracts to Rebuild Iraq Go to Chosen Few KBR, the company the U.S. government picked this week to put out oil-field fires in Iraq, has a long history of working for the military on big projects in foreign hot spots. The former Kellogg Brown & Root -- a subsidiary of Houston-based energy services firm Halliburton Co., which Vice pResident Cheney headed from 1995 until 2000 [and still receives money from] -- developed a contingency plan for extinguishing the fires as part of a 10-year Pentagon logistics contract it was awarded in 2001.

U.S. told to leave Iraq --Iraq's neighbours, led by Saudi Arabia, are telling the United States to get out of the country as soon as possible and keep its hands off Iraqi oil. [Well said! --Lori Price]

Iraq's Neighbors Call for U.S. Withdrawal --U.S. and British occupation forces should quickly leave Iraq and the United Nations should have a central role in the creation of a new Iraqi government, foreign ministers from the region said early Saturday.

Mosul Still Violent as Locals Reject US Rule --Deadly gunfire broke out in Mosul for a second day yesterday, and some of the wounded said they were shot by American troops deployed to restore order in Iraq’s third-largest city. "They are killing us and no one's talking about it," Zahra Yassin said at a city hospital with her wounded son. "We want Saddam back. At least there was security."

Sunnis and Shiites Unite to Protest U.S. and Hussein --The struggle for power in postwar Iraq came sharply into focus today as Shiite and Sunni Muslims united in a demonstration that railed against both the United States and Saddam Hussein, while an Iraqi exile backed by the Pentagon emerged from well-guarded seclusion in an exclusive club to stake a claim to a role in Iraq's future.

Iraqis Rally to Demand Swift U.S. Pullout --Less than 10 days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, thousands of Iraqis marched in downtown Baghdad on Friday to demand a rapid U.S. troop withdrawal and a prominent opposition leader said he expects Americans to relinquish most government functions within weeks.

Iraqis demand end to American occupation --Friday’s prayer sessions in Baghdad were followed by a mass demonstration of the Iraqi people’s hostility toward the US invasion.

Exiled Shiite Chief: Iraqis Should Rebel --Exiled Shiite Opposition Leader Calls on Iraqis to Oppose U.S.-Led Interim Regime --The exiled leader of the biggest Iraqi opposition group called Thursday on Iraqis to converge in the Shiite holy city of Karbala to oppose a U.S.-led interim regime and defend Iraq's independence.

Pilgrimage of Sorrow: Shiite Faithful Bury Dead --The U.S. military has said it has no plans to count the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the three-week war, and the final toll may never be determined. Many cemetery workers said they had no idea how many bodies have arrived. One said that over the past week, each of the six workers was washing 45 bodies a day. Others spoke of hundreds, even thousands being buried from dawn to dusk.

Pope Recalls War Victims on Good Friday --Iraqi families helped ailing Pope John Paul II carry the cross in the traditional procession on Good Friday as the pontiff asked God to bless "victims of hate, war and terrorism."

US marines hunt gazelles with rocks --US marines in Iraq are hunting gazelles with rocks and pistols - to avoid having to eat ready-made military rations.

Iraq War Quiz --by Stephen Shalom "How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops? a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years. b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel. c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans. d. All of the above."

Saddam and Bin Laden: Still Missing, to Bush Regime Chagrin --The Bush dictatorship may be wondering whether Saddam, like Osama bin Laden before him, may never really go away but will just keep popping up on tape.

Military drops project's funding after anti-war comments --The U.S. military's research agency cut off grant money for helping to develop a secure, free operating system after a top programmer made anti-war statements to a major newspaper.

Barred! US military bans peace team members from Palestine Hotel --Less than 24 hours after issuing a press release highlighting the failures of the U.S. military's attempts to oversee humanitarian intervention in Iraq, Voices in the Wilderness was banned from meeting with the U.S. Civil Military Operations Center, or with international journalists working out of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad.

TV's Military 'Embeds' --by Colman McCarthy "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been unhappy with the criticism of their war effort by former military men appearing on television. So am I, but for a different reason. The top people at the Pentagon are wondering why these ex-military talkers can't follow the company line on how well the war has been fought. I'm wondering why these spokesmen for militarism are on TV in the first place."

Israeli Soldier Kills Journalist in West Bank --An Israeli soldier shot and killed a cameraman with Associated Press Television News who was covering a skirmish between troops and rock-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank city of Nablus on Saturday, witnesses said.

Al-Jazeerah Editor Threatened --Media campaign against aljazeerah.us --by Al-Jazeerah Editor, Dr. Hassan A. El-Najjar "The Editor of Al-Jazeerah has received life threats through emails and on his answering machine at home... The Al-Jazeerah Editor reiterates that the goal of this website is promoting peace between the United States and the Arab and Muslim Worlds."

The editor of a Web site that included criticism of the U.S. war against Iraq said Thursday he has shut the site down after receiving threats against his life. "I want to tell the people of Dalton that I am a citizen of the United States, I love this country and that's why I'm here, and I expressed my right within the constitutional right of freedom of expression," Hassan A. El-Najjar, a sociology professor at Dalton State College, said.

New online harassment involves provocative messages sent under guise of activists --Arab-American activist Nawar Shora checked his e-mail one day and found scores of angry messages asking why he hated Americans and Jews. The messages were responding to e-mails marked as coming from him. Only one big problem: Shora never sent the hate mail.

Did CNN Turn Up The Boos During Michael Moore's Speech? --Michael Moore At The Oscars: ABC's Live Audio vs. CNN's Re-broadcast

Hall president apologizes for not calling actors before canceling 'Bull Durham' event --Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon got their apology from the baseball Hall of Fame president, sort of.

At Least 7 Iraqi Leaders Believed to Be in Syria --The United States believes that at least seven senior Iraqi officials are now in Syria, including a figure who is No. 8 on the American wanted list, defense officials said today.

U.S. concentrating forces near Syrian border --The United States has bolstered its military presence near the Iraqi- Syrian border. U.S. officials said Central Command has ordered a buildup of assets in western Iraq.

Threat to Syria Denounced --The foreign ministers of eight Arab and Islamic countries strongly rejected the US threat against Syria at a meeting here yesterday. They also urged the occupation forces to leave Iraq as soon as possible.

Goodbye, Coke. Hello, Mecca Cola --This Boycott of U.S. Products Could Really Do Some Damage --In the Arab world, and more seriously in the rich markets of Europe, American companies and their famous brands have been at the receiving end of a small but highly visible boycott movement.

US airline pilots trained to carry firearms --US airline pilots have started federal training to use arms and the first pilots will carry guns in their cockpit as early as today, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said yesterday.

Ashcroft Remarks 'Distress' Federal Judge --A federal judge said Friday he was "distressed" by Attorney General John Ashcroft's public praise of a key government witness at the trial of four men accused of acting as a "sleeper" terrorist cell.

Certain Words Can Trip Up AIDS Grants, Scientists Say --Scientists who study AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases say they have been warned by federal health officials that their research may come under unusual scrutiny by the Department of Health and Human Services or by members of Congress, because the topics are politically controversial.

Judges Question U.S. Move in Cheney Suit --Panel Criticizes Request for Intervention in Two Groups' Bid for Task Force Data --A government lawyer for Vice pResident Cheney received a scolding yesterday from a panel of federal appeals judges over the Bush dictatorship's use of an unusual legal maneuver to avoid disclosing information about Cheney's energy policy task force.

US: $58 Billion Budget Shortfall in March --The U.S. government posted a deficit in March of $58.71 billion, the Treasury Department said on Friday, bringing the year-to-date fiscal shortfall to more than a quarter of a trillion dollars.

Bush Aides Downplay Hope for Postwar Economic Surge [Duh!] Dictator Bush's advisers are playing down prospects for a postwar economic rebound, and some Republicans fear time is running out for a broad-based recovery ahead of his 2004 re-s-election bid.

White House Reshapes Environmental Policy --The Bush dictatorship is quietly reshaping environmental policy to expand logging and other development by settling a series of lawsuits, many of them filed by industry groups.

Texas Nuclear Reactor Is Leaking Water --A nuclear reactor in Texas is leaking cooling water from the bottom of its giant reactor vessel, a development that experts view with concern because they have never seen it before, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said today.

Pilot Whales Stranded in Florida Keys --At least 28 pilot whales stranded themselves Friday in shallow water off the Florida Keys and four have died, officials said.

Study Finds Asthma in 25% of Children in Central Harlem --A study has found that one of every four children in central Harlem has asthma, which is double the rate researchers expected to find and, experts say, is one of the highest rates ever documented for an American neighborhood.

Wider Fallout Seen From Race-Neutral Admissions Fewer Minority MDs, Lawyers May Be Result --If race-conscious admissions are eliminated at the nation's professional schools, the United States will likely witness a dramatic decline in the number of black and Hispanic doctors and lawyers, according to forecasts prepared by associations representing medical and law schools.

[April 18 lead stories:] Pyongyang must dismantle nuclear weapons: Bush --Dictator George Bush has instructed the team that will negotiate with North Korea that the United States will not settle for another freeze on the country's nuclear program.

U.S. official: N. Korea move 'insulting' --North Korea's announcement Friday that it has begun reprocessing spent fuel rods to make nuclear weapons has put talks scheduled among the U.S., North Korea and China next week in jeopardy, a senior Bush regime official tells CNN.

Dear Friends,

In my communication with Sal Monella and Stephen Rawls I address points some of you have also raised.

I always welcome your comments, criticism and thoughts.

Salam,

Khaled M. Batarfi

Dear Sal,

You assume a lot of things here. We don't blame the US for every ill fell upon us, only the ills that it is responsible for—blind support for Israeli (80 US vetoes in the Security Council) as well as other complaints such as supporting revolutions and dictators like Gaddafi, Nasser and Saddam, and extremist regimes, such as Taliban, to counter Soviet influence. If you have doubts about who supported Islamic extremism go back to the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and read what President Carter's National Security Advisor (forgot the name) in a recent book about the 5bn dollars the US allocated and the extra more it pressured rich Arab countries to provide to breed Islamists and Mujahadeens and fund the schools (madaress) that convinced them they are dying for Allah not for Uncle Sam. Those are the same schools that with American money/arms and CIA guidance eventually produced the Taliban and Al Qaeeda.

It wasn't only Arabs who were victims. Ask any South American and he will gladly tell you why 90% of South Americans thought the US more dangerous than Iraq, and Bush worse than Saddam. Ask any of the people who gave similar answers to the same questions in poll after poll conducted all over the world, including allied countries like Italy, Spain, Korea and Germany. It is not only the Arabs and Muslims who complain about America's recent foreign policies, the whole world is concerned, frustrated and angry.

At the same time, we have always appreciated and valued good American stands and deeds, such as saving Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait. No country is perfect and America has a better record than most countries. Among many positives, America has no colonial history; has stood for principles and saved the world in two great wars; contributed to world peace and prosperity with the establishment of United Nations, World Trade Organization, World Bank, the Geneva Conventions, and other global organizations and treaties. Besides, America contributed to world civilization more than any country in history--electricity, penicillin, computer and satellite technology are but some examples of these great contributions.

When we criticize certain policies it doesn't mean we criticize the whole country, people and history. It doesn't also mean we defend our own countries. We have as many faults, if not more. So, pointing out our faults, while helpful, does not explain America's.

As for your reading and understanding of our religion, country and history, I don't know where to begin. Since I don't think the hatred, insults and misinformation are yours, I must assume you received your info from bad sources. But I do blame you for assuming that Saudi-American relations are based on US handouts and pity. If you do believe that you extracted our oil, built our country and improved our material lives for nothing, I suggest you reclaim your tax money form your government. Typical of your information and logic the claim that we are astronomically rich, yet we live on US aid. I suggest we do another reading of Saudi-American relations based on realpolitik, business interests, and strategic alliances, rather than on naive and insulting (to both parties) statements.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, dear Sal. I hope I haven't offended your sensitivity with my frankness. Let's keep this line of communication on for better understanding of each other's perspectives.

Salam,

Khaled

-----Original Message-----
From: Sal Monella [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 4:43 PM
To: Khaled M. Batarfi
Subject: Cheney Yes - Ayatollahs NO

Cheney Yes - Ayatollahs NO

Your concerns about the "so called" American Imperialism is not only unfounded but a projection of your own Saudi desires to spread a virulent Wahhabi Islamic Imperialism in the form a worldwide Ummah in which unelected Islamic clerics dictate to Muslims and Non Muslims alike in a monolithic Islamic State under Sharia law.

The greatest danger for the United States and the West lies in the Israeli Palestinian War deflecting our attention from eliminating the Islamic Terrorist threat to our civilization. The Radical Islamic Movement has already infected most of the Arab and Muslim world with an irrational and bigoted hatred for the West.

As demonstrated in it's constant Anti American remarks, the Arab and Muslim world has become expertly adept at using American culture and American foreign policy as scapegoats for it's own shortcomings and failures.

The fact that there is not a single free and open democracy in the entire Arab world is surely not all due to America's foreign policy?

And is it America's fault, after 50 years of purchasing billions of barrels of oil and making trillions of dollars in payments to OPEC nations, representing one of the largest transfers of wealth in the history of nations, that the Arab world still contains poverty, ignorance and social inequities? I am constantly amazed at the Arab world's inability to see themselves and their history clearly, particularly when it comes to Israel and America.

The Arabs and Saudis exclaim with a touching incredulity that "American economic and military aid to Israel over the past 50 years is approaching $90 billion!" The implication of course is that Israel is only a major force in the Middle East because of American support. But compared to the trillions of American dollars paid to Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC nations in payment over the same 50 years for oil, the amounts given to Israel are a mere pittance.

The Petrodollars paid to Saudi Arabia and OPEC states represent the single largest transfer of wealth in the history of nations. Israel only wishes it was the beneficiary of a fraction of the largesse which

America has bestowed upon Saudi Arabia and OPEC.

One need only examine how the Arab countries squandered the trillions of petrodollars paid to them

by America, how they allowed religious extremists to corrupt their youth and how they permitted a 15^th century political patronage system to ensure the Arab world would fall hopelessly behind the West in virtually every human endeavor, to realize that the mere $90 billion given to Israel had virtually nothing to do with Israel becoming a dominant Economic and Democratic force in the Middle East. If becoming a dominant, vibrant, democratic and economic powerhouse was simply a matter of receiving money given by America, Saudi Arabia and the OPEC states should each be superpowers without rivals in history.

This is an unpleasant truth to face and no doubt the reason why every Arab seeks to place the blame on Israel and America rather than own up to the fact that the Arabs themselves have thrown away an opportunity of a lifetime. With the trillions of petrodollars paid by America the Arab nations could have built schools and universities, instead they built radical Islamic madrasas, they could have invested in diversified industries to provide employment, instead they chose to have oil and terrorism as their sole exports, they could have established democratic institutions with constitutional guarantees of individual freedoms, instead they chose to rely upon an anachronistic monarchy buttressed by a rigid and ignorant theocratic oligarchy.

And can it be that America has truly installed puppets in all Arab and Muslim nations for the sole purpose of oppressing the Arab and Muslim people? If so, then every American citizen and taxpayer should demand a new set of puppets for this set, whether it is President Mubarak of Egypt, the Saudi Royal family, Ghadaffi of Libya, the late Hussein of Iraq, Khatami of Iran or Assad of Syria, all exhibit a distinctly non- puppet like independence.

Surely, there is some accountability on the part of the Arabs and Muslims themselves for the social and political ills exhibited throughout the Arab and Muslim world? And here is a novel thought: perhaps it is even the Arabs and Muslims themselves who should be held accountable.

And while America's foreign policy may not at all times have been perfect, which Arab or Muslim nation can say that all of it's policies in dealing with other nations are perfect? Was Iraq's foreign policy perfect when it decided to launch an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait? Or was Saudi Arabia's foreign policy perfect when it recognized, funded and supported the brutally repressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan? Or was Pakistan's foreign policy perfect when it countenanced and actively supported the operation of thousands of radical Islamic madrasas teaching anti West and anti American propaganda? Or even more to the point, was Yasser Arafat's and the PLO's "foreign policy" decision perfect when they decided to reject the Camp David peace settlement in favor of the second intifada resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent Israelis and Palestinians, the ascendancy of Ariel Sharon and the ever increasing likelihood of World War III? In relative terms, compared to the foreign policy of these Arab and Muslim nations American foreign policy seems a model of beneficence and enlightenment.

The truth is America needs to examine it's foreign policy far less to determine why America is hated so much in the Arab and Muslim world, than the Arabs and Muslims themselves must examine first, why they have allowed religious extremists and a slavish devotion to authoritarian rule to prevent the establishment of democracy in the Mid east and second, why they have squandered the trillions of petrodollars on highways, palaces and weapons without building true schools (not madrasas), industries, and social services.

The sooner they ask the question, "What must we Muslims change in our societies to improve our lot in the world?", instead of asking "How can we blame America for our misfortunes?"; the sooner they will find the solution to their problems.

And until such changes are made in the Islamic societies, diplomatic, economic and cultural relationships, as well as immigration, between the United States and the countries that contain radical Islamic populations should be terminated. In particular, the relationship with Saudi Arabia should come to an end, not because the United States has supported Israel against Saudi objections, but because Saudi Arabia has lost sight of the fact that everything it currently has it owes to the United States. The United States, it's capital, people and technology, discovered and developed the Saudi Oil resources. The United States, it's economy, automotive industry and population provided a ready market for the sale of Saudi Oil. The United States, it's government, military and weapons protected Saudi Arabia against outside aggressors. Without the AM in ARAMCO the Saudis would still be nomads living in sand strewn tents, sipping tepid tea with no other means of transportation but the camel. No living Saudi, Royal or otherwise, has even the remotest right to presume to tell the United States what it must do to preserve the relationship with the Arab world. Every Saudi should ask not what the United States must do for them, but ask what they must do for the United States.

As a non Jew, non Muslim, non practicing Christian who considers himself to be a pragmatic secularist, I will agree that there is more the US can do to induce Israel to implement Peace steps, but when I observe the economies and societies that countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have built with billions of US Aid and compare them to that of Israel - I find it very difficult not to reach the conclusion that US Aid to Israel has been better spent and much more in US interests than the Aid given to the Muslim and Arab countries in the region.

The free people of the West can ill afford to ignore the threat to their freedoms and democracies which the Radical Islamic Movement in the Arab and Muslim countries represents. It is not the demagoguery disguised as religion, nor the blind hatred of Christians and Jews disguised as piety, nor even the fanatical suicide Jihadists masquerading as martyrs which represent a deadly threat to the free world.

The West, and anyone who cherishes free, open democracy, instead needs to fear mightily Islam's steadfast refusal to submit to or even acknowledge the concept of Constitutional Separation of Church and State. Wherever Islam has gained even a tenuous foothold, an Islamic separatist movement seeking to destroy the existing secular government has quickly followed. Today Russia, India, the Balkans, the Philippines, China, Africa and Southeast Asia are

faced with the same Islamic Imperialism which historically confronted Spain, Sicily, and Austria.

The Separation of Church and State is such a fundamental and essential tenet of Freedom and Democracy; and so antithetical and heretical to Islam that the chasm and enmity between the two belief systems dwarfs that which existed between Capitalism and Communism during the last century. Indeed, Saudi Wahhabi Islam is the Leninism of the the 21st century. Just as Soviet Communism sought to enslave the world during the last half of the 20th Century, so now the radical Islamic majority in the states of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt wish to export tyranny in the form of Fundamentalist Islam around the world.

Islamists have always refused to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and instead sought to replace Caesar with an absolutist theocratic oligarchy. Indeed the only good thing that can be said about the Islamists is that they are sincere in their beliefs and make no effort to hide their ultimate goals or the methods which they plan to use to achieve them. When an individual, or group publicly states that their purpose is to destroy you, to bring about your extinction, must you first allow them to strike out against you before you protect yourself? Is the United States government not permitted even justified in executing, based upon the stated goals and beliefs of the Islamists, a pre-emptive strike? Radical Islam's refusal to accept any constitutional separation of church and state poses a very real threat to the Western world and in particular this country.

It is so much easier to spend one's time condemning others than facing the unpleasant facts of one's own shortcomings. How many articles have you written for "Arab News" condemning the total Lack of Freedom of Religious Worship for non muslims in Saudi Arabia?

How many articles have you written for "Arab News" condemning the complete absense of Constitutional Separation of Church and State in Saudi Arabia? How many articles have you written for "Arab News" condemning the mutawwa'in for infringing upon personal freedoms in Saudi Arabia?" How many articles have you written in "Arab News" condemning Wahhabi treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? How many articles have you written in "Arab News" condemning the financing and supporting of brutal fundamentalist regimes by Saudi Arabia such as the Taliban in Afghanistan? How many articles have you written in "Arab News" condemning the capricious and arbitrary dictates of ignorant and unelected Islamic Clerics in Saudi Arabia? How many articles have you written in "Arab News" condemning the anachronistic and outdated monarchy in Saudi Arabia? Spend more time examining Saudi deficiencies and less time manufacturing fictitious American and Israeli plots to rule the world and perhaps someday you will begin to make some progess.

You may distribute this email to your mailing list or are you only interested in sharing comments from toadying sycophants in the Saudi tradition?

Dear Stephen,

The assumption here is that America has nothing to do with Israel's creation, and that the relations started AFTER the Arab world made alliance with the Soviet Union.

Fact is: America was the first country in the world to recognize Israel, minutes after its creation in 1948 with American help and support. Most of the Arab world at the time and for decades afterwards was colonized by US allies—Britain and France. Nasser himself, as well as Saddam and Gaddafi, was an American agent and the Egyptian revolution, as well as the Libyan and Iraqi, were US made. The Soviet Union only found a foot print in Egypt and Syria as a result of Arab anger towards American blind support for Israel, not the other way around. Most Arab and Muslim countries in the region, however, were in the Western camp. In fact, Saudi, the Gulf Emirates, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran were friends and allies with America and Britain long before Israel's existence.

Here is another assumption I wish to correct. No one asked the US to abandon Israel. In fact, as US presidents like Carter and Clinton, made it clear, it is in Israel best interest to live in peace with its neighbors. All we ask for is to implement over 70 UN resolutions Israel so far refused even to acknowledge. At least, let Israel implement the Security Council resolutions that the US signed. Is that too much to ask? The US went to war to implement UN resolutions in Iraq, why can't it pressure its ally and dependent Israel to implement hers.

Another assumption I would like to clarify is the link between 9/11 and the Palestinian case. This is another frustration we have with the US policies. What Iraq and Palestinians have to do with Osama bin Laden? Why everything no matter how irrelevant has to benefit Israel one way or another? Today it is Iraq, tomorrow it is Syria, after tomorrow Iran, then the rest of us. The whole region has to be weakened and controlled just so Israel can get away with what ever outrageous crimes, policies and ambitions it has. No wise, fair-minded American or Israeli should accept this. It is not fair, it is not right, and it doesn't serve America's or Israel's long term interests.

Salam,

Khaled

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Rawls [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:45 AM
To: Khaled M. Batarfi
Subject: RE: Our Mistakes, too

Khaled,

Thank you for sharing your next article with me. This is a very interesting article that you have written, and essentially a fair one. You raise a great many issues in this one article, one that would take us many emails to explore thoroughly. Rather than take too much of your time, may I ask you one hypothetical question?

In your article you argue that the Arab world is angry because of "Israel, Israel, Israel". And you argue (correctly) that the Arab world is concerned with history, far more than the USA (perhaps because America is such a relatively new country, we certainly don't give history enough thought).

Here is my question.

The USA did not create Israel. That would have been the United Nations. But during the Cold War while most Arab states aligned themselves with the Soviet Union, Israel aligned herself with the USA. For whatever reasons they have been a steadfast ally for almost fifty years.

Now, take the above paragraph and change the world "Israel" with the word "Egypt". Imagine a world where America was now being pressured to abandon Egypt as a friend. Suppose that we did so. Would not the Arab press be full of articles (perhaps even one by you) accusing America of abandoning her ally?

So how can we abandon Israel?

It seems to me that the Arab word is angry precisely because we are not doing what you accuse us of doing, which would be abandoning a friend when the going gets rough. As to why Israel is our friend and most of the Arab world is not? In the words of Hollywood, "You chose poorly". Certainly to forget that most Arab countries aligned themselves to one degree or another with the Soviet Union at a time that it was seeking to destroy us would be foolish.

Here please allow me one bit of necessary nastiness. Whatever rightful cause the Palestinians had, whatever sympathy their plight could engender in the heartland of America, evaporated with the Reuters images of celebrations in the streets on 9/11. And to add that 'suicide' attacks against civilians may have been the single most disastrous military strategy ever conceived.

So America cannot abandon Israel, not ever. And it is not because of some mythical 'zionist lobby'. To abandon a friend at a time of need would completely go against the very fabric of the American soul. And the actions by the Palestinians, over the past twenty four months especially, have only made that option more impossible.

Am I wrong? Am I too extreme with this comment? I don't think so. Here in the heartland of America, three years or so ago you could have gone to any dinner party and if the subject of Palestine came up, half of the guests would have spoken up for the rights of the Palestinian people. After 9/11, I have not heard a single soul take their side, even those who I know to have previously been passionate in their defense.

I unfortunately do not have an answer to this problem. But I am VERY sure that the answer cannot be for America to abandon Israel. Thus the solution must be for the Arab world to convince Israel that giving Palestine a country of their own cannot be tantamount to their own national suicide. And so far, the Arab world has not only failed to do so, with every 'suicide' attack against civilians anywhere in the world, that task becomes much harder.

Thank you Khaled for reading my comments.May your family and mine come to know a world not only of peace, but of dignity.

Stephen Rawls

Chicago, Illinois

-----Original Message-----
From: Khaled M. Batarfi [mailto:kbatarfi@al-madina.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:23 AM
To: steve@rawls.net
Subject: Our Mistakes, too

Dear Stephen,

Sure. But remember, I learn about America from American sources, like this one and others. Anyway, regarding our mistakes, here is my next article (to be published on Sunday) for your personal review only, so please don't pass. I wrote it in response to valid questions like the ones you raised. I am going on record agreeing with your criticism in both Arabic and English. It is true that we criticize America more than we do to our selves. Time for change.

Thanks for your comments always.

Salam,

Khaled

Our Mistakes, too!

These days, it seems the Arab world (except for Kuwait) has nothing but expressions of anger towards both America and Britain. My recent articles, as many noted, is a good example. I went from praising America and writing about my positive experience in the US during my graduate years, to bashing its foreign policy and focusing on its historical failings. My good American friends are confused. How could I be a good friend to them, have such a good impression about the American society, civil achievements, and education system, then turn around and write nothing but angry articles about America.

Those who read me during the last Gulf War are even more confused and frustrated. Why would I support that war but not this one? Isn't the enemy the same? Isn't USA on our side, this time as before? Why would I defend an evil regime? If it is the Iraqi people I am defending, why would I want them "un-liberated"?

Many friends and readers point to my own hypocrisy and ask: Why would I be so good and energetic at pointing fingers at American mistakes, failures and biases, then forget about ours? If I accuse America of applying "double standards" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, am I not doing the same when I record Fox News bias and forget about Al Jazeera, or when I talk about America's racial discrimination and religious extremism and not about ours, or when I tally American crimes, past and present, and not that committed by Arab and Muslims?

All the above are good questions and valid points. The Arab world does feel angry, sound angry, and look angry. The reason: We are angry! Why? The answer is to be found in history books as much as in Al Jazeera and Arabnews. Key wards in this long story are: Israel, Israel and Israel.

In short, we cannot trust the intentions of a country that sees us through the Israeli lenses, vetoed some 80 Security Council resolutions that would have given us back what Israel owes us, and attacks a sovereign nation to disarm it of "alleged" weapons of mass destruction, while helping its neighbor (Israel) to improve on many more of them. We cannot trust a president who claims to care about the Iraqi people but not the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds, the Chechens or the Kashmiri; and who enforces 17 UN resolutions on Iraq but ignores more than 70 on Israel; who calls Saddam a dictator and Sharon "Man of Peace"!

As for the first Gulf War, it was different, totally different. Iraq then was the invader and occupier—the buster of world law and order. When USSR invaded Afghanistan the world acted the same way. So, we are being consistent when we give USA the same treatment, this time. Add this to our "mistrust" of US intentions for the above reasons and you understand why the negative reaction. It doesn't help the optimists among us that the plan to invade Iraq and redraw the region's map is public record (please read the following script). Deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary Doug Feith Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and neo-conservative high priest and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle are not shy about the "why" and "how". After all, they had to sell this plan, submitted to and turned down by Israeli former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, to practical politicians, business and military hawks (and fanatic fundamentalists), not to Jeffersonian democrats, libertarians, and idealist intellectuals. Knowing these published intentions, we cannot, for self preservation, help being against such imperialist-fundamentalist scheme.

As for our faults, yes I agree. We should focus more on our failings, problems and mistakes. It is natural, but not wiser, for people under attack to play victim. And it is easier for a victim to cry foul and blame the world for everything including his own blunders. Wrong! We should, now more than ever, start working on the problems that brought us this low. If the Ba'ath regime was the product of its own soil, the choice of its own people, and the benefactor of its own country it wouldn't have been easily defeated. Most Arab regimes are likewise. I hope, but not very optimistic, that they learn their lesson. The guarantee of national sovereignty, solidity and solidarity is the same everywhere. Governments should be representative of their peoples. They should acknowledge, respect and work to protect their rights and achieve their aspirations. The Arab world is still after half a century of its independence a permanent member of the Third World club, and dependent on its former colonizers for all its needs from bread and cheese to computers and Mercedes. Most countries are in debt, many on aid, and few live in oil-for-cash luxury. Our education system is poor, investment and business environment overly protective and bureaucratic, governing and legislative system dictatorial and corrupt. Our media is bias, rhetoric stupid and our attitude towards the world and the other is in need of much maintenance. Most of us claim to be Muslims, but few are good ones. Too many of our intellectuals are either fanatically religious or radically liberal. The rest are caught in the cross fire.

For my fellow Arabs I say: What is done is done. America is "officially" here, and we are in for a long run. Whether we give it the benefit of the doubt or don't trust its intentions, whether it is going to be the feared Hell or the promised paradise, we have one, and only one course of action to take: Reforms. So, instead of crying for the spilt milk, let's take care of the milking cow.

For my American friends I say: Against all odds, I am willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt. But you must encourage your elected government to meet the world's best expectations and live up to its advertised goals. Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict must be a priority. Rebuilding an Iraqi model of freedom and prosperity is another. Doing so will restore the American image the world have always admired—that of civility, generosity and principled policies. To this day, to this kind of America I long and salute.

kbatarfi@al-madina.com

"The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political

Studies.

7-8-1996. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing

the Realm." July 8.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

A Clean Break:

A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for

Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group

on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main

substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a

discussion in which prominent opinion makers,

including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles

Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg,

David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The

report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for

Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of

follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for

70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has

generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to

salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include

pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and

pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan,

"New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the

nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and

the previous government’s "peace process." That peace

process obscured the evidence of eroding national

critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new

set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

*     Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain,

destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous

threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

*     Change the nature of its relations with the

Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot

pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas

and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip

on Palestinian society.

*     Forge a new basis for relations with the United

States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic

cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering

values inherent to the West. This can only be done if

Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which

prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible

speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break

which the new government has an opportunity to make.

The body of the report is the commentary explaining

the purpose and laying out the strategic context of

the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and

security is imperative for the new prime minister.

While the previous government, and many abroad, may

emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the

position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic,

and military retreat — the new government can promote

Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which

will be well received in the United States, includes

"peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self

reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be

introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New

Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad

in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the

character and behavior of our foes. We live in a

dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not

replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish

people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their

identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in

their own land — informs the concept of peace and

reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

*     striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting

infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on

Razi Qanan.

*     paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the

precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to

attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy

forces.

*     striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and

should that prove insufficient, striking at select

targets in Syria proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the

world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria

repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous

agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United

States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of

the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a

sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced

Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991,

that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has

begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of

Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own

citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in

1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for

which local Syrian military officers receive

protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime

supports the terrorist groups operationally and

financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s

require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume

the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for

Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its

own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors,

criminally involved with international drug

traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the

most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both

natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan

"comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria,

drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction

program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the

Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from

foe. We must make sure that our friends across the

Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in

cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening,

containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort

can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in

Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its

own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional

ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional

ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of

the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a

Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded

by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite

Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently

signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but

barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and

humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential

weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing

with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance

in the Middle East profoundly, it would be

understandable that Israel has an interest in

supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine

Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as

the first official state visit, even before a visit to

the United States, of the new Netanyahu government;

supporting King Hussein by providing him with some

tangible security measures to protect his regime

against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through

influence in the U.S. business community — investment

in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away

from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s

attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to

destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has

an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its

Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the

Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s

family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose

veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King

Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship

between itself and the Palestinians. First and

foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may

require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas,

a justifiable practice with which Americans can

sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements

already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to

insist on compliance, including closing Orient House

and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in

Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can

establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to

study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum

standards of compliance, authority and responsibility,

human rights, and judicial and fiduciary

accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held

to the same minimal standards of accountability as

other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace

cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime

that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations

to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill

its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if

the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO

cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it

can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper

interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel

may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of

power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions

of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people,

Israel might want to consider making a special effort

to reward friends and advance human rights among

Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel;

identifying and helping them are important. Israel may

also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan,

have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate.

Israel may also want to better integrate its own

Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S.

intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy

for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to

"land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could

not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money,

forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons —

to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling

American money to repressive and aggressive regimes,

was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the

U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles

is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and

establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli

partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and

mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial

disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared

philosophy of peace through strength — reflects

continuity with Western values by stressing that

Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in

any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan

Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such

self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of

action and remove a significant lever of pressure used

against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use

his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now

mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at

least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least,

which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is

separated for the moment until adequate arrangements

can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter

supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As

outlined in another Institute report, Israel can

become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather

than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting

taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and

selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which

will electrify and find support from a broad

bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional

leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt

Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate

with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region

and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight

his desire to cooperate more closely with the United

States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the

threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army

can pose to either state. Not only would such

cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible

physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would

broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the

United States Congress who may know little about

Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such

broad support could be helpful in the effort to move

the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage

and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister

Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes

he favors in language familiar to the Americans by

tapping into themes of American administrations during

the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel

wants to test certain propositions that require a

benign American reaction, then the best time to do so

is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will

transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on

their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of

national identity. This perception has invited attack,

blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered

hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous

strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East

toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda

can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which

assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most

needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can

only come through replacing Israel’s socialist

foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome

its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the

nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli

Strategy Toward 2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study

Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security

Affairs

Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS

Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates

Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced

Strategic and Political Studies

Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East

Policy

David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and

Political Studies

Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.