Letters to the Editor, July 15, 2005

Israeli PACs requesting Washington for $2.2 Billion to Move Settlers--Radio News (90.3FM)

Dear Editor:

Israeli PACs requesting Washington for $2.2 Billion to Move Settlers--Radio News (90.3FM) 7/12/05 Dear Editor: Does it strike anyone as rather strange that a foreign country (Israel) has pro-Israeli PACs meeting, as we speak, with our own Representatives, Congress and the Senate in Washington to ask for $2.2 billion dollars?

Reason? To pay Israel to cover expenses of moving the Israeli settlers off land rightly belonging to Palestinians. Of course, that is a smart move; however, we would assume that this will include the $100,000 to $300,000 to provide each family a new home in new areas. Excuse me, isn't this Israel's problem? And aren't we sending Israel between $2 and $3 billion annually already?

Also, what about the new rulings on this Wall? It has been declared illegal by international groups all over the world, by the UN, and by countries, along with human rights groups. 55,000 Palestinians will no longer be able to enter Jerusalem. This will of course drain the Palestinian economy even more.

Mr. and Mrs. USA, this money is YOUR TAXES. We do work very hard in this country, and prices are going up speedily. It is getting more difficult to sustain mere living costs for most.

Look into the Congressional Quarterly and see who is begging our Congress to part with even more dollars strictly for Holocaust survivors, such as the Gold Train, for which Hungary, not the US, should be paying, and many other requests that will unfairly extract funds from the taxes/coffers of the United States.

Because these PACs (political action committees) are pressure groups, they will get these monies. Meanwhile cities and towns here are suffering because our government chooses (or is pressured) to furnish $$$ overseas before recognizing our dire needs. In our own area we see the results, with programs for needy people being withdrawn each year.

Further, our politicians will tell us that Israel is our "ally." No politician has explained this clearly up to the present. How is this foreign state our ally?

Clearly, the American people play second fiddle to the desires of Israel and its plundering of the Mideast. how much longer must we put up with our politicians' faithlessness to Americans' needs?

Decidedly, only our own pressure groups geared to our freedoms will prove worthwhile. If we do not now put up strong protestations, then our monies will continue to be indiscriminately paid out to others.

Sincerely, Paul & Carol Bradford

Does it strike anyone as rather strange that a foreign country (Israel) has pro-Israeli PACs meeting, as we speak, with our own Representatives, Congress and the Senate in Washington to ask for $2.2 billion dollars?

Mr. and Mrs. USA, this money is YOUR TAXES. We do work very hard in this country, and prices are going up speedily. It is getting more difficult to sustain mere living costs for most.

Further, our politicians will tell us that Israel is our "ally." No politician has explained this clearly up to the present. How is this foreign state our ally?

Clearly, the American people play second fiddle to the desires of Israel and its plundering of the Mideast. how much longer must we put up with our politicians' faithlessness to Americans' needs?

Sincerely,

Paul & Carol Bradford

The Common Bond Between Srebrenica and Qana Holocausts

Both Qana and Srebrenica genocides, were perpetrated inside UN declared Safe Zones. Israel carried out the Qana holocaust at South Lebanon, on April 18th , 1996.

The Bosnian Serb forces committed the Srebrenica massacre at East Bosnia, on July 9th, 1995. The Qana genocide had occurred almost, a year after the Srebrenica’ genocide. Both massacred were happened to be Muslims.

A decade, since the Srebrenica massacre, was perpetrated by Bosnian Serb forces. It’s quite odd that, European Union and the U.S.A. have taken 10 years to publicly, acknowledge their shameful failures in stopping the massacre. Roughly, 10 years since Qana over 100 innocent people were bombed by Israel.

Unlike the Srebrenica genocide, the E.U. and the U.S.A. had never shown remorse toward the Qana holocaust. On the contrary, the Israeli barbaric killing of the Qana people, was perceived as a self defense.

In both crimes, the U.N. claimed that, it was just unable to protect and prevent the holocausts against the people of Srebrenica and Qana, inside its declared Safe Zones.

Professor Ali Al-Hail

Furthering the dialogue toward world peace

Dear Editor,

This is a letter to Mike Whitney and Abid Ullah Jan.

To Mike Whitney I would like to address a specific point: Mr. Whitney criticizes Mr. Friedman (New York Times) for instructing Muslims (especially Palestinians) to police themselves to root out terrorism. But in light of the requirements of the Road Map and the potential that professional trained and hired opposition infiltrates the ranks of the Palestinians to undermine the peace process, Palestinians have no option but to separate themselves from people who undermine peaceful progress. Mr. Whitney, I hope you can read Abid Ullah Jan’s article—he makes many interesting connections.

There appear to be several interests converging to determine global policy today. One potential axis with a common agenda is the Zionist/transnational capitalist, whose shared interest would be securing Israel, installing Israel-friendly oil-dispensing puppet regimes in nations deemed to be a ‘threat’ to Israel, while simultaneously inflicting totalitarian terror at home in the U.S. and Britain. It’s commonly accepted in the international community that 911 was an inside job. There simply were already at that time enough security features in place to catch ‘lay terrorists’. The expertise of inner security workings to accomplish 911 is not possible without the help of insiders (CIA, FBI..). Once you acknowledge this as a possibility and/or fact, the continuing drive for more power for the FBI (Patriot Act), Homeland Security, and other U.S. and British agencies is all the more terrifying: the American and British politicians are digging their own graves. Much cheaper and more effective than for the U.S. to try to fortify every potential terrorist target, glean whether immigrants critical of American policy are in fact future terrorists—would be to recognize that it is precisely our own transnational imperialists and the foreign policy which alienates (and unites!) the rest of the world against the United States. 911 may have been targeted for the symbolic backlash against capitalist excess and unconditional support for Israel, and/or an effort to terrorize Americans into giving up their freedoms, but there is an international undercurrent of frustration with the American public that they can’t see beyond themselves or the political rhetoric fed to them to further their own demise. A Zionist/transnational capitalist alliance would be a primary beneficiary of such a scheme.

What are the American and British intelligence agencies to do? Probably a great majority of the associates within the political institutions and intelligence community are oblivious to the bigger picture objectives of their agencies and governments, and therefore are not consciously further endangering Americans and Britons. But for the percentage of rogue agents who are working for other governments and/or causes, they can further goals contrary to American and British interests not only personally, but indirectly through their peers. If politicians and agents naively swallow the official line that terrorists hate western values and way of life, without realizing legitimate grievances the world has against the U.S. and Britain, of course they’re going to be ineffective. They’re fighting the wrong fight.

What’s most unfortunate about this situation is that American and British ignorance of other global forces at work, puts America’s past greatness at risk and pushes many nations in the world toward China. The most basic need and right of many nations (North Korea, for example) to be assured of safety is completely reasonable and understandable. Naturally faced with a choice between disarm or we bomb you, North Korea will lean on China for help. China, wisely recognizes (and maybe somehow encourages?) the U.S.’s over-reach, and can capitalize on it. If the U.S. were willing to genuinely recognize the sovereignty of more countries, (read: sign a treaty of non-aggression), we wouldn’t see the surge of interest in nuclear programs popping up in the world. Many countries have a tendency to favor the U.S. over China, but that situation can be reversed very quickly if the U.S. is perceived as indiscriminately bombing and taking over whatever countries are in our “strategic interest” with complete disregard to the local people or the international community. Years before Iraq, part II, large numbers of people were involved in detailed planning to secure Iraq in a post-war nation-building effort which would have accelerated the rebuilding of infrastructure and establishing security for the Iraqi people. For whatever reason (probably in order to install a more obedient puppet regime), the elaborate plans to promptly rebuild Iraq were abandoned.

The double standard: do as we say, not as we do—with respect to nuclear stockpiles—as well as refusing to work constructively with nations such as North Korea sends a negative message to the world about the United States. And about those “strategic interests”.. it’s a pity that American “strategic interests” are a classified matter, because it would be interesting to scrutinize them to see if all are in fact strategic and of interest to United States’ security—unless what they mean to begin with is security of a few mammoth corporations. Securing oil for American industrial interests at the expense of our credibility and moral standing in the world may dramatically shift allies and neutral parties away from the U.S. and cost the safety of Americans for many generations. Makes you wonder if “strategic interests” is another way of describing the bottom line of firms such as Boeing.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Susanna Stratmann

Will oil always be fungible Mr. Martin?

"The global economy is in the midst of a sea change regarding resources and energy. The memory of high oil prices caused by the two oil shocks has faded. When oil prices hovered between $10 and $20 per barrel from the late 1980s to the 1990s, Japanese people seemed to cling to the belief that oil could be bought on the free market.

But since September 11, 2001, concerns about geopolitical risk resulting from political instability in the Middle East have mounted. With supply failing to meet China's and India's demands for energy, recent oil prices have been hovering at more than $60 per barrel.

Hatanaka Yoshiki, head of the Energy and Environment Program at the International Development Center of Japan, said China, the US and Europe acted with the understanding that petroleum was a strategic resource.

"Japan still strongly believes oil can be purchased with money. The government should realize the energy problem is a present, imminent danger. It should use all of its resources, including political power, diplomacy, defense and scientific technology to address it," he said.

It remains to be seen whether Japan can overcome an energy crisis that would affect the future of the country." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GG02Dh01.html

Events are moving fast Mr. Martin. The pasted on op-ed examines China's geopolitical quest for energy security provoked by American actions in Iraq:

"(T)he Bush administration's decision to wage the war in Iraq stands out as a crucial factor in explaining how Beijing came to scour the Earth for energy and why the effort is likely to remain central to Sino-US relations for some time, say the analysts.

``Iraq changed the government's thinking,'' said Pan Rui, an international relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai. ``The Middle East is China's largest source of oil. America is now pursuing a grand strategy, the pursuit of American hegemony in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is the number one oil producer, and Iraq is number two [in terms of reserves]. Now, the United States has direct influence in both countries.''

``Many people argue that oil interests are the driving force behind the Iraq war,'' said Beijing University security expert Zhu Feng. ``For China, it has been a reminder and a warning about how geopolitical changes can affect its own energy interests. So China has decided to focus much more intently to address its security.''

We are on a path to war Mr. Martin with corroded multilateral institutions and rule of law. There are only a limited number of ways to get off this path and they all include acknowledgement of criminality in Iraq, renunciation of the resource war path, and rebuilt institutions, rule of law and trust.

Bill Henderson, Canada