|
November 26, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info |
||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
|
US-Saudi relations: Clear
malice The allegations surrounding Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi
ambassador to Washington, that money given by her for charity ended up
possibly being used by terrorists involved in Sept. 11 are shocking —
not in themselves but in the way they have been scooped up, twisted,
sensationalized and wholly misrepresented by certain American congressmen
intent on using them to embarrass the US government and gain glory for
themselves and by editors desperate for a story, no matter how untrue. The innuendo that there might have been a money-laundering system is
too fantastical, too absurd, to even consider. It is patently illogical
for any Saudi official or member of the royal family to support an
organization that targets the royal family itself: Al-Qaeda is an enemy to
the House of Saud first and foremost, an enemy to the US second. Moreover,
it was a punishable crime for Saudis to give donations to Osama Bin Laden
and his organization long before Sept. 11. As for allegations in the US
media about buying off extremists like him, there is no history and no
evidence of Saudis or Saudi Arabia ever doing so. It is ludicrous to suggest that Princess Haifa could be aware of what
happened several moves down the line to her donation. People around the
world give money to charity, sometimes to find out later that it has ended
up in the wrong pockets. That does not make them guilty. The
ambassador’s wife had no way of knowing that money she gave in good
faith would ever end up linked to terrorists — any more than US
officials who gave those same terrorists their visas or the flying school
teachers who taught them to fly knew what they were eventually to do. What Americans fail to realize is that for Saudis, as Muslims,
charitable giving is a way of life and that for more prominent and wealthy
Saudis it is almost expected of them — a Saudi equivalent of noblesse
oblige. Americans — perhaps not much given to handing out cash for
charity without questions first — may find that difficult to believe;
but believe it they should. But this is not just a case of cultural misunderstanding. There is
clear malice in the way the story has been built up and presented in
certain sections of the US media. They are out to stir things up. Take the
Washington Times for example. It refers to reports that Princess Haifa
“had sent money indirectly to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers”. The
story is slanted, the coverage loaded. The deliberate implication is that
the princess knew where the money was going. It is a deliberate slander. The fight against terrorism is not going to be won by malice, hysteria
or sensationalism. It needs clear minds, established facts and honest
reporting. Innuendo will only poison the atmosphere and weaken resolve.
Unfortunately, as was seen in the aftermath of Sept. 11 when one long-dead
Saudi was named among the hijackers and others turned out to be alive and
well, there are those in the US media and positions of power who would
refuse to recognize a fact if it hit them in the face. This sorry episode
where conclusions have been jumped at, where “insinuendo” — that
repulsive cross between innuendo and insinuation — falls from the lips
of politicians who should know better, where irresponsible editors stoop
as low as they can to rummage in malevolent and invented fantasy does
nothing for US-Saudi relations. It does nothing for American media
credibility. It is a shameful, repulsive farce.
A US-Canadian crisis over a word By John Chuckman YellowTimes.org
Françoise Ducros, director of communications for Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien, said in a private conversation that Mr. Bush was a moron for the way he pushed his obsession over Iraq at a NATO meeting in Prague that had other, important issues to treat. Most informed people on the planet would classify her observation in about the same category as "sugary cereal makes a terrible breakfast," but it is so rare to hear even the slightest truth expressed regarding America's chief executive that a bit of a flap has arisen. This happened only because her private remark was reported by a newspaper founded by Canadian press baron, Conrad Black, a man who gave up his citizenship in order to accept membership in Britain's House of Lords, something which enables him to pontificate in neo-gothic halls while costumed in a sweeping scarlet robe topped with puffs of white fluff. But his good works in Canada continue behind him, and the absurdly-biased paper he founded, The National Post, goes right on doing its duty - in this case, the reporting of an unmistakably-private remark just to embarrass Canada's Liberal Prime Minister. I don't know what it is about the "neocon" crowd, perhaps it is their affinity with the flaky religious right, perhaps it is stunted emotional development, but they have this urge to crawl about sniffing into the private affairs of others. They sniff around bathroom stalls, under beds, or into the soiled contents of laundry hampers on their quest for suitable political material - the absurd impeachment of President Clinton being the century's greatest product of their strange urge. A stain on a dress, a few weasel-words by a President, naturally enough, anxious to avoid embarrassment, and voila, you spend a hundred million dollars, tie up an entire nation for months, and publish as official government documents, available for any young child to read, words and descriptions best suited to the fiction genre known as bodice-rippers. One of Canada's feeble, American-neocon wannabes, summoning every ounce of authority his pinkish, plump, baby face is capable of displaying (ever notice how many of these people resemble plump babies? Gingrich, Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh, etc. Likely there's a solid clue here to some unknown syndrome or genetic abnormality.) demanded an apology and the dismissal of Ms. Ducros. But Prime Minister Chretien is made of sterner stuff. He was photographed in Parliament with his hand covering a yawn. To my mind these events add considerable force to arguments for women's greater involvement in politics. Women have demonstrated a superior ability to recognize the embarrassing nakedness of a very eccentric emperor. Japanese Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka, daughter of a former prime minister, last year made the private observation at a dinner in America that Bush "is totally an asshole." This, again publicized by "neocons," of course, involved precisely the word Bush himself had used himself during his election campaign to describe, not a politician who threatened the world's peace, but a newspaper reporter whose honesty he resented. Bush refused to apologize for what was a private remark made before a live microphone. Tanaka's remark, too, was private, but she was soon forced out of the Japanese government. German Justice Minister, Herta Däubler-Gmelin, another tough, astute woman, made the observation recently that Bush's approach to avoiding domestic difficulties through war had previously been tried by Hitler. Students of history will know that her statement was no more than dry fact, but to this day Washington's Baby-Face-in-Chief refuses even to meet with the German Chancellor, a pathetic display for a man holding such power. Any politician with some effective intelligence would allow the matter to pass, calling upon a quality variously called grace or largesse or class, but don't waste your time looking for that quality in America's "neocon" crowd. Bush's petulance over an inconsequential remark highlights why we now are made to orbit dangerously around Iraq, a fairly inconsequential country, already beaten-down by war and embargo. Saddam embarrassed Dad, and that's reason enough to endanger, quite literally, the future of world peace. We are to have Clinton's impeachment re-staged on an epic scale and set to Wagnerian music drenched with blood and mysticism. The obsession is particularly distressing acted out against a background of revelations that North Korea, a bizarre regime if ever there was one, likely has a couple of atomic bombs and certainly has a very active program for manufacturing fissile material. North Korea also has missiles that can reach several major population centers in Asia. The obsession is acted out, too, against a background of explosive instability in the Middle East. Mr. Bush simply ignores America's immense obligations there. He refuses to see that his Teutonic-knights war on terror, viewed by many as hopelessly infected with anti-Muslim prejudice, only makes a deadly situation more deadly. Meanwhile, America busies herself deploying immense resources to swat a fly. John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org
Claims on Iraq’s nuclear
capability ‘ridiculous’ As the war storm against Iraq swirls and gathers momentum, seeded by
the efforts of the American and British governments, serious doubts arise
as to the credibility of their intelligence sources, particularly the
issue of Iraq’s nuclear capability. It has been often noted that
reliable intelligence on this matter is not immediately forthcoming.
Moreover, such intelligence as has been presented is spurious and often
contradictory. Perhaps it is not too late to rectify this misinformation
campaign. I worked with the Iraqi nuclear program from 1968 until my departure
from Iraq in late 1998. Having been closely involved in most of the major
nuclear activities of that program, from the Russian research reactor in
the late sixties, to the French research reactors in the late seventies,
the Russian nuclear power program in the early eighties, the nuclear
weapons program during the eighties and finally the confrontations with UN
inspection teams in the nineties, it behooves me to admit that I find
present allegations about Iraq’s nuclear capability, as continuously
advanced by the Americans and the British, to be ridiculous. Let us go back to 1991. A week before the cessation of a two-month
saturation of bombings on the target-rich Iraq, the Americans realized
that a certain complex of buildings in Tarmiah, that had just been carpet
bombed for lack of any other remaining prominent targets, exhibited
unusual swarming activity by rescuers the next morning. When they compared
the photographs of that complex with other standing structures in Iraq,
they were surprised to find an exact replica of that complex in the north
of Iraq, near Sharqat, which was nearing completion. They directed their
bombers to demolish the northern complex a few days before the end of
hostilities. My family, along with the families of most prominent Iraqi
nuclear scientists and the top management of the northern complex, were
residing in the housing complex. The Tarmiah and Sharqat complexes were
designed for housing the Calutron separators, similar to those used by the
American Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bombs that were
dropped by the Americans on Japan. At the end of 1991, after that infamous UN inspector, David Kay, got
hold of many of the nuclear weapons program’s reports (reports whose
maintenance and security I had been in charge of), the Americans realized
that their saturated bombing had missed a most important complex of
buildings: that complex at Al-Atheer, which was the center for the design
and assembly of the nuclear bomb. A lone, single bomb, thermally guided,
had hit the electric substation outside the perimeter of the complex,
causing little damage. The glaring and revealing detail about these two events is the utter
lack of any intelligence about these building complexes — information
that should have caused the repository of American and British
intelligence to overflow. That is to say, American and British
intelligence had no idea of the programs that those buildings harbored —
programs that had been ongoing at full steam for the previous ten years! What really happened to Iraq’s nuclear weapon program after the 1991
war? Immediately after the cessation of hostilities, the entire organization
that was responsible for the nuclear weapons project turned its attention
to the reconstruction of the heavily damaged oil refineries, electric
power stations, and telephone exchange buildings. The combined expertise
of the several thousand scientific, engineering, and technical cadres
manifested itself in the restoration of the oil, electric and
communication infrastructure in a matter of months — an impressive
accomplishment, by any measure. Then the UN inspectors were ushered in. The senior scientists and
engineers among the nuclear cadre were instructed many times on how to
cooperate with the inspectors. We were also asked to hand in to our own
officials any reports or incriminating evidence, with heavy penalties (up
to the death penalty, in some cases) for failing to do so. In the first
few months, the “clean sheets” were hung up for all to see. As the
scientific questioning mounted, our scientists began to redirect the
questioners to the actual technical documents themselves that had been
amassed during the ten years of activity. These documents had been
traveling up and down and throughout Iraq in a welded train car. Then the
order was issued to return the project’s documents to their original
location. At that point, David Kay pounced on them in the early morning
hours of September 1991. Among the documents were those of Al-Atheer and
the bomb specifics. In the following few years, the nuclear weapons project organization
was slowly disbanded. By 1994, its various departments were either
elevated to independent civilian industrial enterprises, or absorbed
within the Military Industrial Authority under Hussain Kamil, who later
escaped to Jordan in 1996 and then returned to Baghdad where he was
murdered. Meanwhile, the brinkmanship with the UN inspectors continued. At one
heated encounter, an American inspector remarked that the nuclear
scientists and engineers were still around, and hinted accusingly that
those scientists and engineers may be readily used for a rejuvenated
nuclear program. The retort was, “What do you want us to do to satisfy
you? Ask them to commit suicide?” In 1994, a report surfaced claiming that Iraq was still manufacturing a
nuclear bomb and had been working on it since 1991. The International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors brought the report to Baghdad,
demanding a full explanation. The inspectors requested my opinion on the
authenticity of the report, inasmuch as I was the responsible agent for
the proper issuance and archiving of all scientific and engineering
documents for the nuclear weapons project during the eighties. It was my
opinion that the report was well done, and most probably had been written
by someone who had detailed knowledge of the established documentation
procedures. However, as we pointed out to the IAEA inspectors, certain
words used in the report would not normally be used by us, but, rather by
Iranians, and we supplied an Arabic-Iranian dictionary to verify our
findings. The IAEA inspectors never referred back to that report. During these years, crushing economic inflation was growing. It would
spell the end for most of the Iraqi nuclear scientists’ and engineers’
careers in the following years. In 1996, Hussain Kamil, who was in charge of the entire range of
chemical, biological and nuclear programs, announced from his self-imposed
exile in Amman that there were hidden caches of important documentation on
his farm in Iraq. (Apparently, he had had his security entourage
stealthily salvage what they thought were the most important pieces of
information and documentation in these programs.) The UN inspectors
pounced on this, and a renewed string of confrontations occurred, until
the inspectors were asked to leave Iraq in 1998. In the last few years of the nineties, we did our utmost to produce a
satisfying report to the IAEA inspectors concerning the entire gamut of
Iraq’s nuclear activities. The IAEA finally issued its report in October
1997, mapping these activities in great detail. The inspectors raised
vague, “politically correct” queries which seemed obligatory in their
intent. In the meantime, and this is the gist of my discourse, the economic
standing of the Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers (along with the
rest of the civil servants and the professional middle class) has been
pathetically reduced to poverty level. Even with occasional salary
inducements and some insubstantial benefits, many of those highly educated
persons have been forced to sell their possessions just to keep their
families alive. Needless to say, their spirits are very low and their
cynicism is high. Relatively few have managed to leave Iraq. The majority
are too gripped by poverty, family needs, and fear of the brutal
retaliation of the security apparatus to even consider a plan of escape.
Their former determination and drive, profoundly evident in the eighties,
has been crushed by harsh economic realities; their knowledge and
experience grow rusty with the passage of time; their skills atrophy from
lack of activity in their fields. Since my departure from Iraq in late 1998, one cannot help but notice
the mien of those former nuclear scientists and engineers as being but a
wispy phantom of a once elite cadre representing the zenith of scientific
and technical thought in Iraq. Pathetic shadows of their former selves,
the overwhelming fear that haunts them is the fear of retirement, with a
whopping pension that equates to about $2 a month. Yet, the American and British intelligence community, obviously
influenced by the war agenda, vainly attempts to continue to provide
disinformation. For example, a consignment of aluminum pipes (the
intelligence experts opine) might conceivably be used in the construction
of highly advanced, “kilometers long” centrifugal spinners. The
consideration that there are no remaining Iraqi personnel qualified to
implement and maintain these supposed spinners seems to have eluded the
intelligence agencies’ reports. Last month, a group of journalists was taken on a guided tour of a
“possible” uranium extraction plant in Akashat in western Iraq. The
Iraqi guide pointed to the obviously demolished buildings and asked
tongue-in-cheek, “Who would make any use of these ruins? Maybe your
experts would tell us how.” It is true that the Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers did not
commit suicide. But for all the remaining capability they possess to
rebuild a nuclear weapons program, they may as well have. Bush and Blair are leading their public by the nose, attempting to
cloak shoddy and erroneous intelligence data with hollow patriotic urgings
and cajolery. But the two parading emperors have no clothes. (YellowTimes.org) Imad Khadduri has a MSc in physics from the University of Michigan, US,
and a PhD in nuclear reactor technology from the University of Birmingham,
UK. Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 till
1998. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto,
Canada. Comments: imad.khadduri@rogers.com Jordan Times, 11/26/02 Washington has been arguing over the past few weeks that Baghdad's
denial of possessing any weapons of mass destruction constitutes a first
material breach. The second breach would be, according to Washington, Iraq's attempts to
shoot down US and British military aircraft patrolling the self-proclaimed
no-fly zones north and south of Baghdad. In regard to the first US accusation, it must be pointed out that UN
SCR 1441 stipulates that Baghdad render a full account of its conventional
and unconventional armament programme by Dec. 8. Before this crucial date, Washington can roar as much as it wants but,
from the standpoint of international legitimacy, its various accusations
cannot change things on the ground. Much more important will instead be what happens on Dec. 8 and in the
days following. If Iraq denies the existence of any programme for the development of
weapons of mass destruction, that would immediately trigger a Security
Council meeting in which any permanent member will have the right to stand
up and produce evidence to the contrary. It is likely that an argument would then ensue within the council on
what can be considered “evidence” or “material breach” of UN
resolutions. It is also likely that, should the argument drag on without
an agreement between the five permanent members in sight, Washington might
feel authorised — legal considerations aside — to take whatever action
it deems appropriate. As for the rationale behind the second US claim — that the Iraqi
regime is already in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 because
it tries to shoot down US and British aircraft in the no-fly zones — it
has already been disputed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The fly-zones have never been sanctioned by the UN, they have been
unilaterally imposed by Washington and London, and therefore Baghdad's
countermeasures cannot constitute material breach of UN SCR 1441. US President George W. Bush has made the universally applauded decision
to turn to the UN, rather than dealing with the Iraqi issue unilaterally.
Now, he must stick to that decision. True, that decision does not rule out a military solution. But Iraq has
indicated that it will fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and
fully comply with UN SCR 1441. These are very encouraging signs —
positive signals to which the region's hopes are clinging. By Rosemary Hollis Jordan Times, 11/26/02 Since Sept. 11, the notion that Israel is in the same trench as the
United States in the war on terrorism has gained ground. No sooner had the
horrible spectacle of the two hijacked airliners flying into the twin
towers of the World Trade Centre been broadcast around the world than
Israelis began to claim that at last their Western allies would understand
their predicament at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers. Initially Washington downplayed the comparison, possibly for fear of
feeding speculation that the US war on terrorism was actually a war on
Islam. However, once the campaign to topple the Taleban in Afghanistan and
put Osama Ben Laden on the run began to deliver, Washington became less
nervous about drawing parallels between its own and Israel's predicament.
The suicide attacks in Israel at the beginning of last December prompted a
wave of public sympathy for Israel in the United States. This development,
coupled with the crisis in Kashmir that captured the world's media
attention in the closing weeks of 2001, detracted from the last half-way
effective ceasefire instituted by Yasser Arafat. In any case, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stuck to his call for
a complete cessation of Palestinian violence before he would contemplate
any reciprocal gestures on his side and Arafat's last chance to show he
still commanded some authority foundered. Since then, the Israeli
government has kept to its line that the Palestinian president bears
principal responsibility for enabling the continuation of suicide
bombings, even after it had reoccupied Palestinian population centres in
the West Bank and had Arafat surrounded and besieged in the remnants of
his headquarters in Ramallah. As Shimon Peres wrote in the International Herald Tribune last week,
Israel's strategy of humiliating Arafat served to enhance rather than
diminish his standing in the Palestinian community. The Israeli government
was exuberant when US President George Bush made his June speech calling
for a change in the Palestinian leadership, taking this as vindication for
its claim that Arafat and the corruption in the Palestinian National
Authority, over which he presided, represent the principal obstacle to
peace. Mitzna's call for the immediate resumption of negotiations with the
Palestinian leadership as is, rather than as Israel and the United States
would prefer it to be, has delivered a blow to this argument. Even so, the
view prevails in Israel and the United States that Arafat is an unsuitable
partner for peace. If the tactic of calling on Palestinians to choose
someone else in his stead has backfired, the prospects of Palestinian
elections are in any case on hold, while the occupation continues and
Israelis busy themselves with their own electoral preparations. Meanwhile,
the crisis of confrontation with Iraq has taken centre stage. The thinking in the US administration is that not only is Iraq too big
an issue to allow for other Middle East initiatives to be pursued
simultaneously, but also that regime change in Baghdad is the key to
unlocking the impasse on the Israeli-Palestinian front. The theory is that
in the wake of such a change, delivered by a display of US military might,
Washington will be able to turn to Tehran and Damascus and require them to
cease all material and moral support for Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic
Jihad, or face US retribution. Anticipating that Iran and Syria will get
the message, Washington would then turn to Israel and claim that the
situation is sufficiently secure for the resumption of peace negotiations
leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state. At this point, the Americans must either be expecting Palestinian
resistance to cease or else they are prepared to negotiate anyway, which
would seem to give the lie to their position today. Exactly how the United
States proposes to overcome Israeli opposition to Palestinian statehood
per se, as championed by Benjamin Netanyahu, is also unclear. Splits of
opinion in Israel on this count will be mirrored in the American Jewish
community. Meanwhile, the Christian right in America, itself an important
Bush constituency, can be expected to weigh in against the goal of
Palestinian statehood for its own reasons, presenting the US president
with a dilemma on the home front as well as in the Middle East. By calling for renewed negotiations even in the face of Palestinian
attacks, and continuing to use military means to combat terrorism
irrespective of progress in the talks, Mitzna has called into question the
logic underlying US thinking. His message has import beyond the
Israeli-Palestinian front, because it challenges the idea that the pursuit
of peace in the face of terrorism constitutes appeasement. That idea,
espoused by hawks in Israel and the United States alike, calls for the
defeat of terrorist forces before contemplating peace. In the process, the
hawks make no distinction between would-be peace makers and the proponents
of violence, thereby holding the former hostage to the latter and driving
moderates into the arms of extremists. Bush's rhetoric is redolent with this kind of counterproductive
dualism. As of Sept. 11, Bush declared “you are either with us or with
the terrorists”, ruling out any middle ground or grey areas. In calling
for Palestinian democracy, Bush took away freedom of choice by decreeing
the only acceptable outcome. His administration has also jeopardised the
cause of reformers in Iran by publicly endorsing their quest, not
realising, apparently, that democracy at US behest is not the same as
genuine self-determination. Bush says the United States is on a war footing, which he expects to
endure indefinitely, in the name of defending freedom. The ends may be
laudable, but the preferred means betray an inordinate faith in the
capacity of force to deliver peace and democracy. The deployment of US
military might is credited with forcing Iraq to comply with UN
resolutions. If the Iraqi regime is toppled, it will be by force of arms.
Similarly, if the Palestinians get a state, according to Washington logic,
it will also be thanks to the exertion of US military pressure in the
region and the removal of the government in Baghdad. This will not,
however, be forthcoming if the Palestinians themselves continue to use
force, no doubt inclusive of the abhorrent suicide attacks, or so the
prevailing leadership in Israel will maintain. In other words, regime change in Baghdad is not going to be the panacea
for peace in the region. According to the latest warnings from Osama Ben
Laden, indeed, it will only trigger more violence. The way out is for all
parties to recognise the limits of force. Some Palestinians at least have
come out publicly against the suicide bombings. Mitzna and his supporters
see that continued or intensified repression is no solution. His call for
an end to the occupation, by negotiation if possible, but unilaterally if
not, could serve to return the focus to the core issue in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is nonetheless to be expected that his detractors will fight hard to
keep the focus on Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus, and the use of terror
tactics by the opponents of Israel and America wherever they may be.
Mitzna, therefore, deserves all the help he can get from everyone who
concurs that there needs to be a strategy for rewarding those who want
peace at the same time as confronting those who do not.
It seems that a new wind is blowing in Israel. This week I flew to Europe. On the way to the airport, the taxi driver told me: That’s it, there is no hope left. We shall never have peace with the Palestinians. There is no one to talk with. No compromise is possible. The war will go on and on. Therefore he will vote for Sharon. I remarked that if this is so, his grandchildren would certainly leave the country. “What grandchildren,” he replied with sorrow, mingled with pride, “My son is an architect in Los Angeles!” I returned after five days. The taxi driver who took me home from the airport surprised me. “All my life I have voted Likud,” he said, “but the Likud has failed. There is no difference between Sharon and Netanyahu. They have not brought security but look how the economy has gone to pieces. This time I shall vote for Mitzna.” What has happened during these five days? One thing: Amram Mitzna has won the primary election in the Labor Party. This, by itself, is a stunning feat in every respect. An introvert “Yekke” (as German Jews are condescendingly called) without charisma has defeated an “authentic”, back-slapping Iraqi. A dove has beaten a hawk. A political newcomer, who has announced that he is ready to talk with Arafat, has routed the defense minister, who has tried to destroy the Palestinian Authority. That is a shining victory of Mitzna’s. But it is much more. It is a symptom of mysterious happenings in the depths of the national consciousness. During the last two years, while the cycle of atrocities got wider and wider, I was often asked how I managed to remain optimistic, while everybody around lost all hope. I answered that one day, in a week or in five years, the public will wake up in the morning and exclaim: “Enough! This can’t go on! A solution must be found!” “What good will that do?” the doom-sayers would say, “There is no politician around who could lead the country toward peace.” “The demand will create the offer,” I answered, “When there is a demand for such a leader, he will appear from somewhere.” I think that this forecast is beginning to be realized. The currents beneath the surface of public consciousness are changing. The IDF conquers, occupies, kills, “destroys the terror infrastructure”, and the Palestinian attacks do not stop for a moment. The regular declarations of Sharon and Mofaz start to sound like self-parody. For the first time, “simple” people realize that there is a close relationship between the intifada, the economic crisis and the social emergency. That does not cause the public to love the Palestinians or to get enamored with peace. Not at all. But it causes it to look for a leader with vision, who will try sincerely to break out of the bloody cycle and find a solution. The settlers are “out”, compromise is “in”. Amram Mitzna has appeared at the right place, at the right time, with the right message. Now the slogan must be: Full Steam Ahead! Some cautious peace activists say that we should not ask for too much. One has to look at the public opinion polls. Mitzna cannot beat Sharon. But he can overhaul the Labor Party in opposition, and that is also important. This is a mistake. The polls photograph the situation on the ground. They do not see what’s happening underneath. There, new currents are flowing. Therefore, the aim must be: victory. True, a victory of Mitzna over the Sharonyahu looks like a miracle. But that’s how a victory of Mitzna over Ben-Eliezer looked a month ago. It will be difficult, very difficult. But it is possible. All efforts must be made to achieve it. According to all the polls, the gap between the two big blocs, the right and the left, is quite small even now, before the public has grasped the full impact of what happened in the Labor Party. Something like 65 against 55. Which means that it is enough to capture five-six seats in the Knesset in order to achieve an enormous change. There is no alternative to victory. For the future of Israel, the saving of human lives and the reconstruction of the state, the difference between Mitzna and Sharon is colossal. If the hour has not yet struck, and the Likud wins after all, the struggle must not be stopped for a moment. If Sharon or Netanyahu win, they will head a narrow, divided and fragile coalition, unable to solve any problems. It will be torn between the need to please Bush and the need to appease the extreme right wing of Lieberman-Eytam. Since things under their leadership will go on deteriorating, it can be brought down within a year and then the big reversal must be effected. Therefore, any thought about an effort to set up a “national unity” government after the election is dangerous. No doubt Sharon will offer Labor seductive terms for joining. In the language of the Mafia: “An offer they can’t refuse.” But Sharon is Sharon and will never change. In order to remain true to himself, Mitzna will have to refuse. Even if his job-hungry and unprincipled colleagues urge him to accept. The aim must be: a total reversal, all along the front and in every area. Nothing less will suffice. True, Amram Mitzna may disappoint us. Let’s not forget the enthusiasm with which we welcomed Ehud Barak, who led to disaster. He may break on the way. That can also happen, and we must be ready for it. But it is reasonable to expect the opposite. A person can grow in the job and fulfill the mission history has placed on him. At this moment, ecce homo. Uri Avnery, award-winning Israeli journalist and writer, three-time member of the Knesset and a columnist for the Ma’ariv daily, is a founding member of the Gush Shalom peace movement.
New dispensation in Srinagar
The Politics of Fear in America By Francis Feeley 11/26/02 The Politics of Fear in America, as suggested by film-maker Michael Moore >and others, is necessarily taking an ahistorical approach to mobilizing >populations in the industrialized nations, so that they will continue to >finance the expanding police-military industries, which remain among the >most profitable investments today. It is an historical fact that terrorism >has always been with us. This fact is being systematically ignored, since >President Bush has declared "war on terrorism." To give just a few examples, on August 24, 1572, the Catholic Queen mother >of France, Catherine de Medici authorized the St. Bartholonew's Day >Massacre, and thousands of French Protestants were murdered in the streets >of Paris and elsewhere; or on May 26, 1637, to take another example, >Puritans in Massachusetts Colony massacred Pequot Indians, burning alive, >according Puritan records, "between 400 and 700 men, women, and children"; >or on April 19, 1775, American minutemen began sniping at British troops, >killing dozens during their retreat back to Boston from Concord, where >they had been sent to disarm American farmers; or on July 22, 1946, when >Zionist terrorists led by Gideon Paglin, killed more than 90 people by >bombing the south-west wing of the King David Hotel, in Jerusalem, where >the offices of the British Mandate Administration of Palestine were >located, etc., etc. . . . These are only a few randomly selected episodes in the grisly history of >terrorism, and the specificity of their histories can only be understood >in terms of cause and effect, not withstanding the generous doses of >religious and/or political rhetoric, serving as the necessary lubricant to >grease the wheels of the murderous machines which might otherwise come to >a halt. > >Eventually, when the killings subside and reason returns, the recurring >question is: "Was it worth it?" Over time, the answer to this question >tends to change. Whether the murderous justification is religious >hegemony, markets, or national borders, the list of long-term "winners" >and "losers" is sometimes surprising.... It was the wise and heroic actions of the citizen-king Henri IV in 1598 >that ended the religious wars in France by issuing the "Edict of Nantes". >On the other hand, the legacy of Puritan destruction of indigenous peoples >in North America ran much longer, and cost many more lives. The Reverend >Thomas Hooker had admonished his congregation in the spring of 1637 to >attack the Pequot village and, "not to do this work of the Lord's revenge >slackly." The Puritan notion that Evil is absolute and resides in the >Other, and that the crusade to eliminate Evil must not be distracted by >such questions as cause and effect nor by ethical considerations can be >seen in the political rhetoric of contemporary American leaders, for whom >the ends always justify the means. (In this light, Michael Moore might be >seen as a 21st-century Erasmus of Rotterdam, a humanist struggling against >both political corruption and those Reformists who seek to >institutionalize Good and Evil.) The questions that never seem to be asked, or at least that remain >inappropriate in polite society are: "Who is going to pay for this war (of >indefinite duration) on terrorism?", "Who is going to make a lot of money >from it?", and the more fundamental question, "What are the causes of >these terrorist activities, in the first place?" Such questions must not >gain popular attention, if the emotions of the moment are to prevail, as >most American leaders wish. > >The minutemen were mobilized to ambush British soldiers while they >retreated back to Boston in the spring of 1775, and is the world a better >place? According to Rabbi Yaacov Perin, in 1994, "One million Arabs are not worth >a Jewish fingernail" and is Israel a happier place to live? There are many >mixed marriages in the Middle East; what does this rhetoric mean, except >to serve as a lubricant, enabling the death machine to continue running >its destructive course, and for what purpose? On November 10, 1975, the >United Nations General Assembly had voted by 72 against 35 (with 32 >abstentions) to condemn Zionism as "a form of racism and racial >domination," but what precautions have been taken to dissolve this >pathetic racist dogma? > >There are no small number of Hebrews who agree with this UN resolution, >but no strategy is in sight to dismantle the Israeli killing machine and >the Zionist indoctrinations that oil it. It is safe to say, that for some people who are watching the >self-destruction of the Semitic peoples in the Middle East (the Jews vs. >the Arabs) it no more than an amusing distraction, another spectator >sport, complete with score cards. > >Courageous people who wish to stop the killing in the name of humanity are >increasingly under attack. As we have seen recently, analytical thinking >on the subject of terrorism is practically taboo in the United States >government. The Grenoble Center for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and >Social Movements received two messages last week concerning mobilizations >against the war in the Middle East: one was about the defense of Professor >Mona Baker in the United Kingdom; the other from Southern California. > >Professor Ed Herman, our research associate in Pennsylvania, sent us a >message describing the Academic Freedom struggle now underway at the >University of Manchester, where Professor Baker has undertaken to >participate in an academic boycott of Israel. After removing the names of >two Israeli colleagues from the editorial board of the scientific journal >that she directs, she has come under increasing attack with charges of >anti-Semitism. Manchester was the adopted home of Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, who >migrated from Pinsk, Poland to the United Kingdom in 1906, where he taught >biochemistry at Manchester University. He was naturalized a British >citizen in 1910 and became a leader of the Zionist movement in England. >During the First World War, he served as Director of the Admiralty >Laboratories, at which time he met with British Foreign Secretary Arthur >James Balfour and convinced him of the necessity for a Jewish state in >Palestine. The "Balfour Declaration," issued on November 2, 1917, promised >British support for the establishment of a Jewish state, provided that >safeguards could be reached for "the rights of non-Jewish communities in >Palestine." Weizmann later served as President of the "World Zionist Organization" and >the "Jewish Agency in Palestine" between 1921-31, and again in 1935-46. >During the Second World War he returned to Great Britain and served as >scientific adviser to the Ministry of Supply. This Manchester University >science professor became the first President of Israel in 1948 until his >death in 1952. > >Today, for her participation in efforts to force the Israeli government to >reconsider its suicidal policy of escalating violence in the Middle East, >Ms. Baker is being investigated by an academic committee at her University >for misconduct. While several colleagues associated with the Grenoble Center have argued >that an academic boycott against Israel is ill-conceived, and that >isolating Israeli intellectuals is counter-productive because any changes >in Israeli policy will necessarily come from the intelligencia within that >country and their contact and solidarity with the outside world is >necessary to affect positive change at home, there exists a consensus >concerning the need to protect academic freedom. Personally, I have a >certain sympathy with this position, just as I have no reason to believe >that an international boycott of American intellectuals would weaken the >Bush administration's resolve to increase military and police spending >over the next many years. Nevertheless, Zionist attacks on Professor Baker (with the familiar cliché >that any critique of Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism) and the >punitive academic investigation of her professional conduct by the >University of Manchester has become a separate issue, which is now being >addressed by the Council for Academic Freedom and Standards. > >A similar threat to academic freedom was successfully challenged at >Harvard University where the administration, under the presidency of >Laurence Summers, decided this past week to "disinvite" an Irish poet, >after it was discovered that he had made strong negative statements about >Israel last April. The decision was criticized by three Harvard Law School >professors and it was later rescinded. The poet Tom Paulin has been re-invited to speak at Harvard. Academic Freedom, then, is the issue of Professor Ed Herman's message to >our research center last week. [Please see Item A, below.] The second message that we received was from Professor Fred Lonidier. It >is a brief announcement of anti-war activities on the San Diego campus of >the University of California. Living in the center of the >military-industrial complex, students and faculty at UC-San Diego are >protesting the "blood for oil" policy of the Bush administration against >Iraq. Related issues such as tax increases, unemployment, freedom of >speech, of press, and evidently freedom of movement in America will be >some of the concerns around which one might expect social movements to >grow over the next many months. [Please see Item B, below.] Francis Feeley is Professor of American Studies, Director of Research
A. forwarded by Professor Ed Herman (Pennsylvania) From: Mona Baker <mona.baker@umist.ac.uk Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:43 AM Subject: [Academics for Justice] Academic Freedom in Britain Petition I've just been asked to circulate information on a new petition launched >this afternoon by the Council for Academic Freedom and Standards, in view >of the escalating pressure on UMIST and our universities in general to >deligitimize the boycott against Israel (see The Sunday Telegraph article >refered to in the body of the petition). > > >Mona Original Message----- > From: Cohen M.D. [mailto:m.d.cohen@Swansea.ac.uk] > Sent: 21 November 2002 14:25 > To: 'mona.baker@umist.ac.uk' >Subject: Academic Freedom in Britain Petition > >http://www.PetitionOnline.com/umist02/petition.html > > > > Please pass this on... Academic Freedom in Britain To: Professor John Garside, Vice-Chancellor, University of Manchester >Institute of Science & Technology (UK) We the undersigned members of the international academic community call >upon the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology to >abandon its inquiry into Professor Mona Baker's decision to sever links >between her journals and Israeli universities. > >Mona Baker's decision was taken in pursuance of an academic boycott of >Israel. The claim that this infringed the academic freedom of the two >Israeli academics she removed from the boards of her journals is entirely >spurious: they remain as free as ever to say what they wish, and are, >unlike Mona Baker, in no danger of dismissal. The claim that her decision >was racially motivated is also entirely spurious and unwarranted: it >depends on dishonestly equating criticism of the Israeli government with >anti-Semitism. The 'inquiry' UMIST is conducting is a disciplinary procedure in all but >name, except that Professor Baker has none of the protections of a >defendant, such as the right to examine witnesses against her, to see >their evidence, or even to know their identity. The Sunday Telegraph (UK) >of November 17 quotes a UMIST official as saying that it will be decided >by Christmas whether she will be dismissed, and UMIST's website carries an >official statement condemning her in advance. > >We regard this inquiry as a grave assault on academic freedom and the >right to legitimate political activity and call upon UMIST to abandon it >before the reputation of the university is further damaged. Sincerely, The Undersigned > >Join Us! Al-Awda National Right To Return Rally, 29 September 2002 >http://chicago.al-awda.info/ Contact your representatives and elected officials: use >http://congress.cfl-online.org/ For other ways to help, see http://BoycottIsraeliGoods.org > >Views are those of their owners and not reflective of the group or any >organization unless indicated otherwise. No racism, intolerance, or bigotry >is allowed. Posting is limited to no more than three messages per week from >human rights advocates. All messages are moderated. To unsubscribe from >this group, send an email to: >AcademicsforJustice-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > B. >forwarded by Professor Fred Lonidier (California) : > >U.S. OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! an anti-war teach-in at UCSD Thursday, >November 21st @ 7pm 105 Center Hall at UCSD The relentless drive for war >in Iraq has exposed the real intentions of Bush Administration to the >world: Blood for Oil. The Bush Doctrine, the unilateral right of the US >Government to attack other countries and determine their leaders, >threatens to engulf the whole Middle East (and beyond) in what Bush >himself refers to as a "War without End". The winners of this policy are >few: oil corporations, defense companies and international financiers. The >losers are many: the Iraqi people and others in the line of fire, US >troops, and the rest of us who could use money for better social programs >and wages rather than war. Join us for an anti-war teach-in and discussion >and find out why the best path to peace is the US Out of the Middle East! Speakers will include representatives of the Students For Justice, the >UCSD Peace Coalition, and the International Socialist Organization. >International Socialist Organization Publishers of Socialist Worker >Newspaper Read SW online at: www.socialistworker.org Visit us on the web >at: www.internationalsocialist.org > > >"No Fly" List Online Complaint Form > >Have you been barred from flying because of your political views? The ACLU >wants to hear from you.Federal Officials have given airlines a blacklist >of people to prevent from flying because they are deemed suspicious. Sure, >terrorists shouldn't fly, but government has to be accountable for the >fairness of the list. Already there are reports of people being stopped at >airports because of their lawful political activity. The ACLU wants to >hear from anyone who has been barred from flying because of their >political views. > >Fill in the following form [click on the link below] and it will be >automatically submitted to the ACLU of Washington. ><http://www.aclu-wa.org/take_action/NoFlyList.html> >
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent http://www.aljazeerah.info |