One-Finger Salute

2003-09-07T14:47:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about "terrorism"

The United States Department of State defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant... targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". What is it called when "premeditated, politically motivated violence" is perpetrated against noncombatant targets by national groups - like one of the world's most powerful armies?

AP photo

"Holding his daughter Allah, Palestinian resident Mohammed Abdullah weeps as he looks at the debris of the apartment building he lived in, after it was destroyed by the Israeli army in the West Bank city of Nablus".

Noticeably lacking in the State Department's definition of "terrorism" - besides the idea that it can be committed by states - is the concept that "terrorism" causes terror or fear among civilians. But how do ordinary people watching their lives' work being blown up feel, if not terrified and fearful? What other words describe the feelings of a child who has been thrown out of her house by soldiers and then made homeless? How else, other than "terrorist", does one describe a state that can casually commit such a crime against innocent people - collective punishment justified solely by the fact that they are members of one ethnic group and not another? Former Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu defines "terrorism" as "the deliberate and systematic assault on civilians to inspire fear for political ends." No one - certainly not Netanyahu - can deny that the Israeli army and its commanders are deliberate and systematic in their assault on the Palestinian population.

Reuters photo

"A Palestinian man weeps while entering a hospital with a wounded baby, after an Israeli missile hit a Palestinian house in a densely populated area of Gaza City".

The child above was wounded in an attack that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - one of the world's leading terrorist commanders - authorized in order to kill Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin - another terrorist commander. But Sharon could not be bothered to personally supervise this murder. Instead, he "kept in touch by phone... reportedly busy at the time with preparations for the birthday party of his grandson Rotem". Assassination has become so commonplace that it can be mixed with a celebration of life, with no need to reconcile any moral contradictions or conflicts. Indeed, there are none. It is sometimes "regrettable", but always necessary, that Palestinian children must pay the price with their lives, their minds, and their personalities so that Rotem and other Israeli children are able to have parties, celebrate and live normal lives. Whether or not the child pictured above lived or died was of no concern to the criminals who authorized this attack in Gaza City. The very fact that he exists is of no consequence to the Israeli government - that is, until the day he may take a gun in his hands or strap on a belt of explosives. But until that day - a day on which, according to the official American and Israeli explanations, all human reason takes leave and an inexplicable hatred fills this void - his experiences under military occupation and an incredibly brutal apartheid system aimed at dispossession, imprisonment and punishment mean nothing. Disregard for human life joins with the already despicable idea of the acceptability of collective punishment.

Six hours after a gunbattle between Israeli soldiers and one Palestinian militant at this apartment building, Israeli soldiers returned, forcibly removed its inhabitants, and then dynamited the structure. According to AP, the destruction of this building left over 100 people homeless. Clearly, a good deal of "premeditation" was involved in this act of psychological "violence", which was aimed at "influencing an audience" - the entire civilian Palestinian population of Nablus. But would the noble Secretary of State Colin Powell, a man who cannot shut up about Palestinian terrorism, ever scrape up the moral courage to say that this destruction fits his own department's definition of terrorism? As for the rest of us, perhaps lacking a definition of "terrorism" so clearly formulated that only Palestinians and other Arabs seem capable of committing it, is it permissible to think of the psychological damage a crime like this inflicts upon the people subject to it? To wonder about the mentality of the people - only following orders - who calmly trampled over the lives of innocent human beings? To ask whether they too are terrorists? Or is one allowed only to praise the morality of these soldiers and remark approvingly of the fact that they did not kill their victims?

AFP photo

It is clear that organizations like the State Department and people like Netanyahu will not or cannot face up to the hypocrisy they peddle with their one-sided definitions of terrorism. Under no circumstances will the people pictured above and those whose homes were demolished ever be considered victims of terrorism. But until ordinary people begin speaking up in defense of all victims of terrorism and against self-serving standards, people like Netanyahu and Powell will continue perpetuating the very thing they supposedly are seeking to end.

2003-09-01T15:44:00.000-07:00

Return

Ok... I am resurrecting this blog, one might say, although it never technically "died". A more stable living situation has enabled me to return to writing more. You will find lengthier, more "intellectual" analyses here, while shorter, less intellectual and more vitriolic commentary on news will be found at the "other blog".

The few people who have ever been here will notice that the name has changed. This is the blog formerly known as "A Castoff Cigarette Butt", a name borrowed from a chapter heading in Zamyatin's classic novel We. Why the name change? Let's just say that you might be shocked by what kinds of searches some people are performing on the internet. Most people entering the word "butt" into Google are not interested in far-left political analysis. This new arrangement is mutually beneficial both for me and my unwitting, pornography-seeking audience. And why "One-Finger Salute"? It reflects, among other things, my utopian vision of the United States in the future: millions of Americans, marching out of step and saluting the president, their local religious leaders, media experts and other such pricks in the fashion they most richly deserve.

So, to new readers, I say welcome. To the 1 or 2 readers who kept checking in while I was away, I say thank you. And to both, I salute you.

2003-06-15T05:29:00.000-07:00

Bush, American Democracy, and the Class War

Recently Michael Kinsley wrote a column in Slate about Bush's newest offensive against everyone who is not in the upper classes in America. Kinsley's premise is that there are two distinct systems operating in parallel in American society - democracy in the political or civic "sphere" and capitalism in the economic "sphere". He reviews some recent Bush administration actions concerning taxes and benefits that work to the detriment of the unfortunate unwashed masses and concludes that the Bush administration is breaking down the "border" separating the two "spheres" to the detriment of democracy.

Kinsley says a few things that need to be said, frequently and loudly. Bush and his gang of merry men and women are out to screw over America's poor. They are doing this by means of tax cuts that hypocritically target low-earners in favor of high-earners (the word "earners" in the latter phrase being used in a very loose sense). Congress, supposedly there to represent and work for the interests of ordinary Americans, is happily assisting the Bush regime - which comprises people connected with the oil industry and other large corporations - in this project. The net result of the Bush administration's domestic policies will be an America where large corporations and the wealthiest individuals control an increasingly inordinate amount of political power.

However, Kinsley's underlying premise - that there is, or was, some kind of policed "border" between American capitalism and American democracy - is false. It's poppycock. There has never been any kind of "border" between the functioning of the economy and politics in the United States. The whole idea of separate "spheres" (which, incidentally, Kinsley borrows from Michael Walzer - so one might already suspect that it's probably a bad idea) can stand neither historical nor theoretical scrutiny. Yet this idea is particularly widespread in the contemporary US, as Kinsley points out. The fact that many people believe that a social system can enshrine inequality at the level of distribution of wealth and still yield overall democratic policies is a major problem, and one that stands in the way of genuinely democratic reforms. This matter should be tackled seriously and frequently. Below, I look at the historical side of the issue before moving on to some proposals, including a real "campaign finance reform" plan, that will clearly show why there is not a barrier between capitalism and democracy in the US, and why there won't be as long as capitalism (or at least the multi-national, corporate/industrial variety) is able to operate unchecked.

Historically, it is easy to demonstrate that economic interests (i.e., those of capitalists) have always driven American public policy. The US was founded by white landowning males, and these are the types who ran the place, largely for the benefit of themselves, for nearly 100 years before anyone not matching this description was voted into national office. Even then, Congress really only took the still-preliminary steps towards integration in the 1960s. The most "democratic" ideas, reforms, and changes to the political structure - the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, state-sponsored health care, the eight-hour workday, the 40-hour work week, consumer protections, civil rights - were all either made possible or almost entirely brought about by widespread, grassroots level agitation, and usually led, at least initially, by fringe "lunatics", not by "democratically" minded legislators. That is, the majority of the politically most progressive innovations in American society were made possible by people working long enough and hard enough outside of the system supposedly representing them until the people inside the system (i.e., the public's "representatives") were forced to legalize popular demands, to the detriment of their capitalist patrons. The "representatives" were reacting instead of working for the true interests of their constituents. On the other hand, "representatives" have never had to "react" when it comes to developing legislation which furthers commerce - at most, a few discussions and, in difficult cases, a few dollars smoothes things over.

Even the few "top-down" efforts at political and social liberalization (e.g., Johnson's Great Society and the New Deal) were necessitated by economic and social (and therefore political) crises in America. It is these protective laws - the results of previous popular agitation - that are now being rolled back and demolished. This is why it is not possible to say something like Bush is "bringing back the class war", for the simple fact that it never "went away". Winning certain, albeit important, reforms did not signal the end of the class war, because if it had, there would be no attempts at present to dismantle socially and politically progressive legislation. Therefore, it is only possible (but entirely correct) to say that his administration is working to intensify the class war, to strengthen and expand the grip of the wealthy on the American political machinery. It is a quantitative, not qualitative, difference.

Theoretically, the idea that there are distinct "capitalist" and "democratic" spheres is easy to dismiss as well. The few traditional Marxists still around, for example, are probably still having a good laugh (assuming they laugh, that is) at Kinsley's suggestion, since it almost completely severs the superstructure ("democracy") from the base ("capitalism"), leaving the two floating in a completely hazy manner [NOTE: small editing here]. However, as I am not a "traditional Marxist", I'll point out some other problems that people holding less marginal views can agree with. Wealth can be defined as control over goods and services. The more wealth, the more control over more goods and services. In a society based on the rule of the law, the flow and exchange of wealth will be regulated largely through legal channels. Since groups or individuals with more wealth control more goods and more services than those with lesser wealth, they can direct more resources towards influencing legal policies than their poorer competitors, leaving the latter (in every known human society so far, the decided majority) at a distinct disadvantage.

Many of the preferred policies of the wealthy will be concerned with creating favorable economic legislation that enables them to maintain and increase their wealth. Since it is more "economical" to exploit humans and in effect treat them as simply another good to employed in wealth generating schemes, rather than treat them as humans, it follows that most of these policies will not be in the interests of the majority of humans who do not control appreciable amounts of wealth - the same majority who, under every mainstream definition of "democracy", should be the ones devising legislation that furthers their interests. In other words, control over finite resources and services cannot fail to influence decisions on how those resources are distributed. When a minority of people and groups control those resources, decisions on how to distribute them will be inordinately influenced by that minority - a situation which is antithetical to "democracy".

If it is accepted that there is no real "border" between democracy and capitalism and that the latter will always influence the former to the detriment of the majority of people, where does that leave us in 21st century America? Even if Kinsley's underlying premise is false and should be exposed as such, his conclusion can be modified to describe accurately what is now going on in Bush's America: the administration is not "breaking down" barriers between the two "spheres", it is erecting barriers that will make democratic control over, or even modest checks on, the corporations controlling the economy impossible. It is an integrated attack designed to weaken "democracy" on all fronts. Benefits to the lower classes are being slashed. Under new legislation, poorer students will be less likely to go to college, leaving higher education - traditionally the best route for social mobility - for wealthier young adults who already have a stake in the system and therefore will be less likely to entertain radical or even reformist changes to it. Erosion of civil liberties is already well under way via the "PATRIOT" Act and its successor. The Bush administration is attempting to stack the federal courts with deeply anti-democratic judges, a situation which is already found in the Supreme Court.

Particularly important in this campaign is control over education/information/propaganda outlets. The increasing consolidation over the mass media is the most visible of the Bush administration's efforts on this front. Further corporate control over the mass media will lead to increasing conflicts of interest between profit and factual information and will further diminish what variety of opinion one currently finds there. To refer to Marxist terminology again, what the Bush administration is doing is taking control of the "commanding heights" of information production and distribution, or consolidating the grip of large corporations over the "means of production" of social consensus (and a quick note to Democrats: one could see a similar, albeit less in-your-face, process during the Clinton years, e.g., with the Time-Warner-AOL merger). While people like well-known liberal leader Atrios will be "free" to reach their 20,000 people per day on the internet (itself mainly accessible to wealthier individuals), the mass media will be able to spew their messages into up to 45% of American households (a potential audience of 100 million or more). Who will have a greater potential for persuasive arguments and propaganda? What we face, then, is the problem of a greatly intensified class war against the lower and lower-middle middle classes. If the Bush regime is able to carry out its aims, even to a modest extent, it will take decades of struggle to undo them that will essentially reenact earlier struggles but from a much more difficult position.

What can be done, besides bending over and acknowledging the rule of our wealthier, fresher-smelling, natural betters? First of all, there needs to be a frank admission that there is a class war. Democratic "liberals" and progressives, and especially leftists, need to stop turning tail and running when they hear Republicans utter the words "class war". They need to accept the challenge and demonstrate that the Republicans, representing the interests of multi-national corporate capitalists, are the ones pressing home the class war and not vice versa. The class war has been going on for at least the last 11,000 years, since the beginning of regular agriculture first necessitated decisions on the redistribution of durable goods. It hasn't stopped, it hasn't taken a break or gone on vacation, it's not over. Pretending like it has is being in denial of a problem, which will be insoluble unless it is admitted. I am reminded of Zizka's suggestion that what is needed is someone from "Middle America" who hates the Republicans to speak to Middle America and tell them that Bush, despite his charming goofiness, despite his "aww-shucks" manners, and despite his low intellect, is out to fuck them over good. He doesn't wear that omnipresent shit-eating grin for nothing.

Second, we need to take a good look at the current "representative democracy" that is in place here in the US. The last time I checked, 40% of Americans were not millionaires - but this is the percentage of Senators who are. In addition, the size of Congress seriously impairs its ability to represent all of America. Both houses of Congress have a total of 535 members. That means 1 representative for every 544,381 citizens (working from the population of 291,244,004 given at the US Census Popclock site). Looking just at the House of "Representatives", there are 435 members, which translates to 1 Representative for every 669,526 citizens. This is not "representational" politics - how could it possibly be? This is exceedingly clear when we compare the US's version of "representational democracy" to the versions found in the liberal democracies of Europe, where there is actual oppositional politics. In Germany (total population approximately 82,400,000), there are 603 members of the Bundestag, a ratio of 1 representative to every 136,650 German residents. In France (population 59,329,691), there are 577 members of the National Assembly, which means 1 representative for every 102,824 French citizens. In Britain (population 58,789,194), there are 659 members of the House of Commons of Parliament, translating to 1 MP for every 89,209 British citizens. And so forth. There needs to be a relatively large expansion of both houses of Congress to increase its "representativeness". This would be one early stage towards a more democratic America.

Third, there needs to be a serious campaign financing reform proposal. The operative word here is "serious". Specifically, we need to make Kinsley's "separate spheres" concept a reality. Although Kinsley notes correctly that campaign contributions are simply the crudest means by which corporations control politicians, it is the best and most logical place to start on the project to democratize America.

Under this plan, no contributions to finance politicians' campaigns would be allowed allowed. This includes personal wealth. People involved with the "capitalism" sphere can make all of the money they can, put as much in the bank or give as much to charity, buy as many widgets as they want - but they can't use a cent of it to fund political campaigns. Politicians' campaigns would be financed by a special "democracy fund" from the federal government, which would in turn subsidize state and local elections (it would cost something, but hey, no one, except the Angelic Upstarts, ever said liberty should be free). This fund would be split evenly among the candidates, who would be able to use their monies on their campaign as they see fit.

Some might say that such legislation was "undemocratic", because capitalists would be not be able to use their wealth in defense of their "free speech" or whatever. This is nonsense. Such legislation would not impact their political rights - the freedom they enjoy in the "democracy" sphere - one bit. They would still have the same exact political rights as, for example, a bicycle messenger or a burger flipper at a fast-food restaurant. For example, they would be able to vote, argue endlessly with relatives, friends, and neighbors about the relative merits of candidates, write letters to the editor, run a blog, and donate their own time and effort to campaigns - putting up posters and signs on suburban lawns, organizing political rallies, and stuffing and licking envelopes. They just wouldn't be able to spend their money licking the ass of the candidate of their choice.

More modest, "reasonable", campaign finance reform proposals are simply aimed at perpetuating a rotten situation. It takes only one person or a small group of people at a large commercial firm - a CEO or a board of directors - to make a decision to give a few thousand dollars to a candidate to get him or her to make decisions that negatively impact millions of people. That's just in the US. Usually, these little decisions affect the lives of billions of people globally (which is why people such as the Conservative-Female-Commentator-Who-Cannot-Be-Named so vehemently oppose extending the franchise any further). Meanwhile, people without access to loads of cash must spend thousands of hours of their time, use what little money they have (nearly always a much greater percentage of their disposable wealth than with the upper classes), and agitate long enough to bring millions of people on board at the grassroots level to enact the smallest change in public policy. When the policy issue at stake is enormous, often there are human lives added to these other costs. This might be considered "democratic", but only in the original, classical Athenian sense, in which 25% or less of the population enjoyed full civic and voting rights, while 75% were stuck with whatever was decided for them.

Think this proposal sounds "unreasonable" or "impossible"? Of course it is. It would greatly reduce the primary benefit of wealth, which is not widget- or trinket-purchasing power but rather the power to influence or force other people who lack wealth to behave in a desired manner. People acquire wealth not as an end unto itself, but rather to be able to influence the behavior of others, to be shielded from such influence, or both. Removing the ability to use wealth to influence others would remove much of the incentive of acquiring it in the first place. Wealth beyond what an individual judges to be necessary for his or her own comfort of living would increasingly provide less in return for the effort expended in acquiring it. Such an idea would spell the end of large scale corporate capitalism, which is predicated on continuous expansion of markets and increasing profitability.

In conclusion, the next time anyone tries to tell you that American democracy is shielded, even to a very modest degree, from the effects of capitalism, you can feel free to laugh in their face. What the Bush administration is trying to do in America is serious and needs to be fought against by everyone interested in democracy and/or having a say in how their life is run by whatever means are at their disposal. But it's nothing new. It's still the class war in action, and even if Bush's plans are turned back this time, there will still be similar people in the future ready to enact similar programs as long as wealth is permitted to provide a competitive advantage in setting public policy.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I will go and drink some inexpensive but nevertheless superior beer whose production was subsidized by the federal government of the state in which I am currently resident. It's one of the smaller benefits of living in a social democratic welfare state that hasn't been completely infected yet by American capitalism.

2003-06-13T05:12:00.000-07:00

Now they're lying about lying

The Bush administration is getting in way over its head with the whole lying about Iraqi WMD bit. Now they've begun lying about their earlier lies.

Unidentified Bush regime officials recently made the preposterously ludicrous claim that the CIA never passed along doubts it had about the veracity of British "intelligence" that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The CIA not expressing concern over such an important matter to such a micro-managing, ball-busting administration as the Bush administration? Such an idea should strain the credulity of even the most sycophantic Bush supporter.

In fact, the CIA did pass along doubts regarding the purported Iraq-Niger transaction - in March 2002. There's more:

Senior intelligence officials said the CIA on several occasions after March 2002 told administration policymakers about its doubts about claims Iraq was seeking uranium. When the State Department on Dec. 19, 2002, posted a reference to Iraq not supplying details on its uranium purchases, the CIA raised an objection, "but it came too late" to prevent its publication, the senior intelligence official said.

But these warnings certainly would have come in time to prevent this garbage from being included in Bush's state of the union address. Except, now, there are apparently a multiplicity of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium all over Africa:

The official added that in his speech the president talked about purchases from Africa and did not specifically mention Niger, adding that Bush's comments were "based on a multiple of other sources."

Which are? What are the details on these? And whay have they been withheld until now?

Not only that: the Independent reports that the CIA warned the British government in early 2002 that the Iraq-Niger reports were not reliable:

The CIA warned Britain that claims Iraq had tried to get uranium from Niger were false, months before the Government published the allegation in an intelligence dossier justifying military action against on Iraq.

Should we believe that the CIA would warn the British government about this - but not the White House?

What the hell is going on here? Why do administration officials continue to construct one lie after another on the issue? What are they hiding? The fact that so much doubt about this claim - which certainly made its way to the White House - did not deter administration officials from presenting it as gospel fact is beyond troubling. It is outright deceit. Either they knew it was not true when they included it in all of their pronouncements, or they did not care whether it was true or not. Either way, it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration has nothing but contempt for the intellect of American citizens and their right to transparent and accountable government.

2003-06-12T08:06:00.000-07:00

Museum looting: what actually happened?

David Aaronovitch on the Baghdad museum looting:

This indictment of world journalism has caused some surprise to those who listened to George and others speak at the British Museum meeting. One art historian, Dr Tom Flynn, now speaks of his "great bewilderment". "Donny George [head of the Iraqi antiquities department] himself had ample opportunity to clarify to the best of [his] knowledge the extent of the looting and the likely number of missing objects," says Flynn. "Is it not a little strange that quite so many journalists went away with the wrong impression, while Mr George made little or not attempt to clarify the context of the figure of 170,000 which he repeated with such regularity and gusto before, during, and after that meeting." To Flynn it is also odd that George didn't seem to know that pieces had been taken into hiding or evacuated. "There is a queasy subtext here if you bother to seek it out," he suggests.

As is becoming clearer as the situation develops, the looting of the Iraqi National Museum is not nearly as bad as originally reported. That is a very good thing, for Iraqis and everyone else. Commentators, including myself, who gave credence to the original reports were wrong. It should be admitted. This is one instance, though, where I am happy to say that I was wrong.

However, Aaronovitch's conclusions do not necessarily follow:

Furious, I conclude two things from all this. The first is the credulousness of many western academics and others who cannot conceive that a plausible and intelligent fellow-professional might have been an apparatchiks [sic] of a fascist regime and a propagandist for his own past. The second is that - these days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed.

As noted above, I admit that I was wrong on this account. I do not try to minimize or dismiss that. But it is preposterous to condemn Western academia on this one. They were simply working with the information that was provided to them by the media. At that point, there was no reason to doubt the reporting of numerous journalists working for various organizations with different publishing philosophies. It is entirely understandable that academics who work with materials from ancient Iraq would be angry over credible reports of widespread looting - "universally reported", to use Aaronovitch's words. Why should academics have had some special knowledge of the situation, the reporting on the situation or George's behavior (whatever it was - there are still unanswered questions on this account) in this instance?

But the media do not deserve excessively harsh treatment, either. Some people, such as InstaPuny, are treating this as some kind of media "hoax", whose sole purpose has been to make Bush and all of America look bad. Here's a note to the crusaders damning the media for erroneously reporting the looting: the media fuck up all the time. Journalists, editors, publishers, they all make mistakes. The fact that a media outlet publishes material that turns out to be false is regrettable, but it happens frequently enough. Demanding 100% accuracy all the time is ludicrous.

What matters, in terms of credibility, is whether or not a media outlet will a) note frankly that it made a mistake, and b) whether it will follow the story to its proper, truthful conclusion in a timely manner. In the case of the museum looting, the media are meeting both of these conditions. The more important media sources (e.g., the NY Times, Guardian, BBC, etc.) are covering the recovery of artifacts previously thought to have been stolen in a prominent manner. Clearly, they are staying with the story and investigating what actually went on.

The fact that the media are doing a reasonable journalistic job with the museum looting story is clear when we compare it to the way that they handled the Bush regime's claims on Iraqi WMD and the necessity of war prior to the conflict. In that instance, there was widespread failure across the mainstream American media to examine the issue critically, even though there were a number of claims that should have raised red flags and set off alarm bells in editorial offices from New York to the smallest backwater hick town in the US. Scott Ritter's statements, the plagiarized British dossier, the fradulent claim that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger - all of these should have prompted immediate investigations by the big media in the US (as they did in Britain and the rest of Europe). Yet, in the US, only marginal far left publications (e.g., The Nation, Counterpunch) bothered to really do this. The mainstream media failed to take the issue seriously in a timely manner, preferring to be cheerleaders for the Bush administration. Real coverage in that case might have affected the course of events.

In other words, bad initial reporting on the looting was a mistake, but it is being corrected and, importantly, it did not contribute to "policy" decisions that are going to affect the entire Middle East, and the world, for the next half century. It didn't change anything. On the other hand, poor and inexcusable reporting on the US's claims regarding Iraqi WMD probably played a major role in making the war possible.

It should be added that there are still many unanswered questions about the whole museum looting episode. First, some important pieces do seem to still be missing. Second, there needs to be a more in-depth look at exactly why US forces did not secure the museum sooner and instead were ordered to do things like staging fake rallies and guarding the oil ministry. This needs to be sorted out. Did US field commanders know ahead of time the artifacts would be hidden? If so, how? If this is not the case, then this negligence should not be simply dismissed. Finally, the responsibility for this matter needs to be assigned properly - not in a knee-jerk manner that absurdly implicates people who had nothing to do with it. Continued media attention wil help ensure that this happens.

Furious, I conclude two things from all of this. One is that some commentators will always seek to shift the blame away from people to whom it should be assigned. A target sitting unawares is always easier to hit than one that is moving (usually away from the scene of the crime). The second is that the media will always be condemned for screwing up on matters which, while certainly important, do not change the course of events or seriously impact public opinion, while real failures are either ignored or applauded.

NOTE: Originally published on 11 June 2003; new date the result of a technical screw-up.

2003-06-08T20:29:00.000-07:00

The Middle East "Road Map" and Palestinian Refugees

Following the mutual back-slapping at the recent Israeli-Palestinian-US summit at Aqaba, many observers are cautiously optimistic about a renewal of the "peace process". Despite the numerous difficult problems that must be solved (including water rights, the status of Jerusalem, and borders), and despite the failure of previous similar efforts (the Wye River Memorandum, the Tenet agreement), the general feeling and hope is that the "road map" will lead to a permanent peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The one issue that will make or break the "road map" - and any plan that envisages a "two-state solution" - is that of the Palestinian refugees. Israelis and Palestinians, and observers who are familiar with the contemporary history in the Middle East, know this. Ariel Sharon certainly knows this - which is why he demanded several times before the summit that the Palestinians throw away their right of return as a precondition for any talks. The Palestinians also know this, which is probably why they've never pressed to have the issue addressed at the outset of any negotiations they've undertaken with Israel. But if we assume that two states will be set up side by side in Mandate Palestine, what will happen to the 3-4 million stateless Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt?

This is by far the most important and difficult issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But the US's "road map", like the previous plans, places it as the last of all the outstanding problems to be resolved. This is ass-backwards logic - leaving the central matter, the actual root of the entire problem - to be settled last. The refugees are not peripheral; their fate (and since they have very little control over what happens to them, it is an appropriate choice of words) will to a large extent determine what happens in the Middle East for the forseeable future. Treating the refugees as if they are simply a small detail to be rectified has been one major reasons why all the previous peace efforts failed. The "road map", by not addressing the situation of the refugees, is itself on a course to reach the same dead end that its predecessors did.

For there to be real peace in the Middle East, the refugees must be given a real say in their future when it comes time for any "final settlement". This entails that they be given a real choice, not one offered over the barrel of a gun. Despite decades of the most racist propaganda, it is clear that they are legitimate refugees - even the Israeli government itself has no problem using the term. They should not have their future determined by Israeli government fiat. In my opinion, they have the right to choose whether to return to their lands and/or properties inside the state of Israel or accept compensation and resettlement in a third country. I do not think that this is likely to happen. But officials, commentators, "experts", and others who are not prepared to offer them this basic choice should be honest with themselves and admit two things (assuming that they identify with these principles in the first place): they do not believe in democratic principles and they reject the idea of human rights.

The question of democracy: It is often said that Arafat and his regime are "corrupt" and "undemocratic". The question then is why should the "undemocratic" Arafat (or his hand-picked and unelected successor Abu Mazen) be allowed to sign away the rights of 3-4 million people? The idea that the US, which is now trumpeting "democracy" in the Middle East, or Israel, which claims to be the "only democracy" in the Middle East, could insist that an unelected leader make such a crucial decision for people he does not represent is preposterous. If the US actually wants to be bring democracy to the region, it should begin by bringing the refugees, who have no political voice at all for the last 55 years, into the picture. It is difficult to imagine something more undemocratic than insisting that so many people cannot participate at all in determining their own future or that millions of people should be shoved off into a country they did not choose.

Those supporters of Israel who claim that the state will somehow become "less democratic" if the refugees go back home should explain why this oasis of democracy did everything it could to get so many Palestinians to leave in the first place. It does not befit a "democracy" to expel large numbers of people en masse based solely on ethnicity - but that is what happened in 1947-1948:

In "1948 and After" Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948". This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. "At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report's compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases... [ellipsis in original].

The issue of human rights: The idea that only certain people or groups of people should not be subject to acts such as murder, arbitrary dispossession, and ethnic cleansing is not new. This is an idea that was already known by the beginning of history and almost certainly goes back into the Neolithic (in the Near East, approximately 9000-4000 BCE), if not further. But this is not what human rights, in the commonly understood modern sense of the term, entails. The modern concept of human rights is universal. That is, they apply to all human beings, regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc. This includes the Palestinians. Ignoring or overlooking egregious human rights violations such as ethnic cleansing and massive arbitrary property confiscation renders the idea of a code of universal human rights worthless.

Some "doves" claim that Arabs and Jews cannot "share the land". Both Amos Oz and Avi Shlaim have made almost identical statements to this effect recently. Since these two writers both advocate a "two-state solution", it is clear that what they are referring to is the old "single, secular, democratic state" idea. Yet that has never been really tried. However, in the long run, it may be the only hope for real, lasting peace in the Middle East.

2003-06-06T13:48:00.000-07:00

Instapundit-bashing time: When is Iraq not Iraq? and other tales

Ever had to resort to picking up pennies from the sidewalk or under the couch to buy your next beer? Ever get distracted by all those shiny objects and kind of forget the point of what you were doing?

Instapundit gets stuck on a few shiny objects in the form of analyses and facts that have no bearing on his arguments - that is, when one can even be extracted from his smarmy, self-congratulatory posts:

IP approvingly posts parts of an "analysis" on why Iraqis shouldn't have a national democracy immediately:

It's right that Iraq should be run by its own people, but national politics is no place to start. It's easy to imagine an Iraq with three regional parliaments in Mosul, Baghdad and Basra, harder to foresee a single legislature filled by members of nationwide parties.

Yes...and what incentive would these "three regional parliaments" have to work with each other? If they each go their own way, why should they ever come back together to form a national "Iraqi" parliament? Isn't this another way of saying that Iraq should be broken up into three different states, based on ethnic and religious lines - an experiment that has worked wonders over in Palestine and the Indian subcontinent for the last 55 years? This scenario - which was explicitly rejected by both the US and the UK before the war - is a sure-fire recipe for instability and further conflict.
Next, InstaHistory cites this curious "historical" analogy:

Americans understand this: the original colonists learned self-government in their towns and their states and eventually applied it to an entire continent.

What the hell is he talking about? Surely Mark Steyn, the author of this piece, was referring to that blissful time when the American colonists were "learning" about democracy and "self-government" from their benevolent British imperial overlords - the same ones they fought a war against when they decided they had enough of such lessons. And perhaps my history teachers misled me, but as I recall, "colonists" lived in "colonies", not in "states". The "colonists" were no longer "colonists" by the time there were "states".
Finally, IP (if I may call him that) looks on as Steyn takes the obligatory swipe at the French:

By contrast, those European sophisticates [the French] sneering that Washington won't stay the course are often the same crowd who've found it easier to elevate the friendliest local strongman than create a durable constitutional culture.

Something that Washington has never done - certainly not in Chile, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, the Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, or anywhere else - like Iraq itself - for that matter.

But there's much more ahistorical and anti-historical material along these lines in this article - which apparently InstaPundit thinks is "real journalism", unlike the stuff put out by his favorite whipping boys, The Guardian or the NY Times:

Steyn ponders why Jordan's "electoral politics" is "stunted and deformed". He never gets to a real answer, besides stumbling around the issue of tribalism (which certainly has been a contributing factor). Here's a clue: it is a MONARCHY. Not one of these cute, "oh-look-the-queen-is-opening-parliament" types of monarchies you find in England or The Netherlands, but a real "what-the-king-says-goes" monarchy. The "more or less benign family" that rules Jordan banned all political parties from 1957 to 1989, while the last parliamentary elections prior to those in 1989 were held in 1967. Most of the instability surrounding these moves was directly related to the founding of Israel and the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians from their land and the 1967 war, which Israel started. In any event, the Hashemites have always been concerned solely with staying in power (with US and often Israeli help), and certainly not with political liberalization. Perhaps Steyn, as he continues thinking about Jordan and its political trajectory, will eventually turn what is clearly a formidable intellect to these factors.

The British know more than most about nation-building, both good and bad. In the Caribbean, they created functioning states. In Africa, they failed.

As mentioned above, Steyn makes no mention of the British "nation-building" experiments in the Indian subcontinent and Palestine. How many wars resulted from those projects? How many people are still refugees because of them? And exactly what mighty, successful Caribbean states are we talking about here? Barbados and St Lucia. Hahahahahahaha. Sheer absurdity. The British don't exactly stand head-and-shoulders above the French on this score, despite Steyn's scientific analysis to the contrary.

If Saddam's prison state were to wind up like its Hashemite neighbour, we'd all be very happy.

There are certainly many Jordanians who aren't very "happy" with the Hashemite family's rule. But the benevolent imperialist, on a delightful foray into the native wilderness, rarely takes the views of the locals into consideration when making statements like "we'd all be very happy if...". Such a call - for Iraq to become the next Jordan - was something that was easy to predict.

It has to build from scratch a legal system in a part of the world that doesn't really understand the concept of the impartial judge. (President Bush has announced that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be heading a forum on judicial reform in the Middle East.)

The very fact that Steyn can talk about "the concept of the impartial judge" in one sentence, and then bring up Sandra Day O'Connor - one of the Republican-appointed justices who voted along party lines to cut short the Florida recount in 2000 and thus put a Republican in the White House - in the next sentence should be enough to cause mass projectile puking across the internet. Surely, a law professor like InstaTwoFace should have found this statement amusing. Bog help the Iraqis if this is the kind of "impartial" justice they're going to get from the US. I can see the headline now: O'Connor-appointed Iraqi judge gives election to Chalabi.

The fact that InstaPundit can cite this garbage with a straight face shows clearly that "journalistic ethics" has not been a real motivating factor in his recent crusades against The Guardian and the NY Times. And, I would add, the fact that intellectuals and people in power have been taking this kind of opinion and analysis seriously is one reason why the world is fucked-up today.

Another "shiny object" post: The fact that an Iraqi national sent letters laced with toxic powders to various targets implicates the state of Iraq in "terrorist" activities...how? Christ. I hope IP's clients get better argumentation than this.

2003-05-28T21:00:00.000-07:00

California "anti-terrorist" center monitored anti-war activists

More on the equation of dissent with "terrorism" that I wrote about earlier this year. (The item below is a few days old, but I'm putting it up because it appeared in the local daily rag, the Oakland Tribune, so the chances that very many people saw it are miniscule.)

Information gathered in the wake of the brutal police suppression (scroll down a bit) of a peaceful protest in Oakland on 7 April 2003 has revealed that the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) has been collecting information on activists in the Bay Area. CATIC makes very little distinction between "criminal" activity and "terrorism". The targets of CATIC bulletins have included Critical Mass bicycle riders, protestors employing nonviolent direct action, and even longshoremen discussing labor issues.

...causing a traffic jam can be enough to trigger a CATIC analysis and bulletin. At the Port of Oakland, where trucks would be blocked from reaching shippers such as APL, a protest target, that logic might have been more compelling, [CATIC officials] Manavian and Van Winkle suggested.

"If we receive information that 10,000 folks are going to a street corner and going to block it, that's breaking a law," Manavian said. "That's the kind of information that we're going to relay."

Said Van Winkle: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."[emphases added]

Certainly not - why not just dispense altogether with the notion of "terrorism" causing terror, like the US State Department has done? Hell, why don't we just say that "terrorism" is the same as "vandalism" or "jaywalking" or preventing capitalists from "maximizing" their profits?

Speaking of definitions of "terrorism", how does CATIC determine what is "terrorist" and what isn't, leaving aside the "hurting-profits-is-terrorism" rule of thumb?

The center draws $6.7 million a year in state funds to prevent terrorism. Analysts must obey one federal rule to limit the intelligence they gather, analyze and disseminate: It must have a criminal predicate, a "reasonable suspicion" that criminal acts will be committed.
...

The state's anti-terror center also operates without a clear definition of terrorism. Asked for one, Van Winkle replied: "I'm not sure where to go with that. But as a state organization, we have this information and we're going to share it."
...

"You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest)," said Van Winkle, of the state Justice Department."You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act"[emphases added].

Inescapable logic - and from a state Justice Department official who doesn't even know what "terrorism" is. Guess he'll have to get his marching orders on who's a terrorist from Bush, Rumsfeld and the gang - people who, thanks to their happy and beneficial dealings with tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Islam Karimov and others, really know what terrorism is all about.

2003-05-11T16:04:00.000-07:00

Temporary Posting Break

As I am a graduate student and need to do some real work before the end of the semester, I will be taking a short break from posting on this site. As the rest of my teammates on this blog are absolute deadbeats, I would not expect, if I were you, to see any posts on this site for at least 2 weeks.

But for those readers who just can't get enough punishment, I will be posting short items on the "other blog", which I encourage you to visit:

Black Box Recorder

BOOKMARK IT! VISIT IT! LOVE IT! (Note: no affiliation with the band of the same name. I listen to real music - punk rock and roll and jazz.)

Now, I will go and begin my chores with a trip to the laundromat. But before I leave, let me get in one final parting shot at a group of people who really need to get their heads out of their asses:

Note to people concerned with "bias" and "media-watching".

For those wanna-be journalists out there, especially those posing as libertarians and leftists, and who are running these little "bias"- and "media"-watch websites and organizations, here's one piece of advice: ADMIT IT WHEN YOU FUCK UP AND WHEN YOU ARE WRONG.

It is absolutely preposterous to see websites and blogs devoted wholely to detecting "media bias", sometimes focusing on one single media outlet, and then not taking a good look at themselves, not exercising self-criticism, and not correcting their own bias and mistakes. This is what is known as hypocrisy.

Comrade hypocrites! You are not standing up for any principles, you are not upholding any higher ideals like truth, you are not contributing to an honest debate. Instead, you are adding to the intellectual and moral disaster that constitutes the contemporary American social landscape, you are lying, you are being self-serving pricks. At the very least, admit you that you are partisan and that you have an agenda - do not hide behind such ideals as "journalistic integrity", "truth", and "human rights" when peddling your point of view.

Confused? Not sure as to what I am talking about? Let me give you two examples:

CAMERA calls Shahak "one of the world's leading anti-Semites": CAMERA, the "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America", surely must have one of the most ironic names ever concocted, ranking right up there with the Israel "Defence" Force. CAMERA presents itself as an organization dedicated to monitoring the media to detect "bias" and ensure "balanced" coverage of Israel and the rest of the Middle East. In reality, though, they are fanatical partisans who trample upon the concept of "accuracy" on a regular basis.

Their modus operandi is clear from their treatment of Israel Shahak, a noted Israeli scholar and human rights activist who died in 2001. According to CAMERA, Shahak - an Israeli citizen, a veteran of Israel's war for independence, and a Holocaust survivor - was "one of the world's leading anti-Semites". It is incredible that any American group could describe someone with a history such as Shahak's as an "anti-Semite" - but the charge flows freely from these self-appointed guardians of "accuracy". Christ, they even cast doubt on the fact that he was a Holocaust survivor. In the middle of an article designed to highlight Edward Said's "deceptions", they have this to say:

Israel Shahak, introduced by Said as a veteran Israeli human rights campaigner and Holocaust survivor...

As far as I know, they've never even retracted their bullshit campaign in the late 1980s which alleged that the Palestinian refugees fled their homes due to the infamous "Arab broadcasts". This fairy-tale had been demolished as early as the 1960s - but they went ahead and built an entire advertising campaign around the "broadcasts" in arguing why innocent refugees should not be allowed to return home. They didn't even respond to Christopher Hitchens - Christopher Hitchens - when he wrote asking for even a single documented instance of an "Arab broadcast" (detailed in his article "Broadcasts", originally published in 1988). But hey, if someone can send me proof that CAMERA ever did retract this blatant lie, I'll admit I was wrong.

BBC "monitor" fails to correct baseless charge and demonstrates an inability to comprehend written English: Accusing the BBC of a deep "bias" against all things good in the world - i.e., the US, Israel, and the Tories - seems to be the trend these days. I would be the last to deny that the BBC does have its share of bias. For example, not allowing competent dissident voices to speak on important national matters is clearly bias.

But pretending like the BBC is some kind of "enemy number one" in this respect is ludicrous. How often do Chomsky or Said turn up on mainstream American television? And where was all the media attention when Scott Ritter was traveling around the world, declaring that Iraq had no appreciable stocks of WMDs or even WMD materials anymore? More importantly, and more to the point, if you are going to accuse an organization, including the BBC, of "bias" in a particular article - and especially if you have way too much time on your hands and you run a blog devoted entirely to accusing and condemning the fucking BBC - and then it turns out you are wrong, ADMIT IT AND PUBLISH A RETRACTION. This is especially important if you are also accusing them of having an irrational, anti-Semitic hatred of Israel.

So, Comrade Blyth of Biased BBC, the next time you publish crap like this, accusing the Palestinians of shooting a reporter (they didn't - it was the Israelis) and stating that the BBC called Miller's killing a war crime (they didn't - they were reporting on the International Federation of Journalists' call for deaths like Miller's to be treated as war crimes) and claiming that they were "bashing" Israel (for christ's sake, come up with another term!), consider whether a) you are actually comprehending what you read, b) whether there is any real proof for your allegations, or simply a statement from the Israeli army or the Conservative party, and c) whether you will make the effort to exercise a little intellectual and moral honesty if your "bias"-detection apparatus breaks down and you are wrong.

Have a nice day and see you in two weeks.

2003-05-07T13:20:00.000-07:00

Chalabi threatens to blackmail enemies

Perhaps there was a method to the madness of allowing reporters and others to wander around freely in Iraqi government buildings: Ahmad Chalabi claims to have tons of documents that contain information which could be damaging to certain parties.

Which parties?

In interviews with Abu Dhabi television and Newsweek magazine, Mr Chalabi has already threatened to use the papers to damage the Jordanian royal family... Mr Chalabi has repeatedly been accused of being a creature of the US government and was blamed for the collapse of the Petra bank, which he headed in Jordan in the 1980s. The Amman authorities convicted him of fraud and theft.

Well, there's certainly motivation there. I suppose it will make it easier for the Jordanian royal family and government to forget that unfortunate bank embezzlement episode and focus on the future.

Who else is implicated? Our old friend, Al Jazeera - an enemy that Chalabi and his American masters have in common. According to an INC spokesperson,

In the case of al-Jazeera, for example, it has been bombarding Arabs and Iraqis with false news for so long. Now we can put things right.

Chalabi himself had something to say:

Speaking on Abu Dhabi television, Mr Chalabi read from documents which he claimed showed a number of reporters for the Qatar-based al-Jazeera were working for Iraqi intelligence. "We will not allow this channel to continue its destructive work, which might lead to civil war in Iraq, through their lies and the spreading of rumours," Mr Chalabi said.

Sounds curiously similar to the Bush administration's line. Any guesses as to who this fountain of Iraqi intelligence documents will implicate next?

2003-05-05T12:23:00.000-07:00

Powell: Military action against Syria not on table...or maybe it is

Is Colin Powell feeling ok these days? He has said that military action against Syria is "not on the table":

"The President always has a full range of political, economic, diplomatic and military options to pursue foreign policy objectives," he said.

"But I am here to pursue diplomacy and mutual political efforts that both sides can be taken and so the issue of war hostilities is not on the table"(emphasis added).

But in another article, Powell is reported as informing us that military action is "on the table":

General Powell said that there were many ways to confront a country, including diplomatic, political, economic and military ones. "The President has all of his options on the table," he said.

Here's an interesting transcript of an interview Powell gave to Jim Lehrer on 17 April 03 which includes dodges on the issues of Syria, military action and tables, and Israel's WMDs.

UPDATE: Powell threatens "consequences" for Syria if it is not helpful enough to the US as it pursues its new policy in the Middle East.

2003-05-04T12:49:00.000-07:00

You can't spell PEACE IS PATRIOTIC without a RIOT.

Did you miss the Mayday street parties? Perhaps you overslept? Maybe you had to work? Or maybe you are an American (in other words, you can't find "Loyalty Day" on a calendar, or more likely, you think Mayday is a clothing store).

Well, fuck off, Amerikkkans. Theres always next year. Practice makes perfect.

2003-05-04T10:55:00.000-07:00

Damn Independent went to a pay-per-view model. It sucks, but then again, so does Britain.

2003-05-01T21:40:00.000-07:00

Unintentional Admission of the Day

Pay attention to the phrase to the right of "IRAQ".

2003-05-01T21:11:00.000-07:00

Happy May Day...er, "Loyalty Day"

As today is 1 May, I'd like to wish my dedicated readership a happy International Workers' Day. Long live the proletarian struggle, and smash those capitalist pigs while you're at it.

This greeting does not extend to any Americans who have chanced across this site. No, "comrades", instead I wish you a happy "Loyalty Day". Why not put up an extra-large picture of the president to show how loyal you are?

There's no mention of punishments for disloyal Americans, but it seems like this would be the perfect occasion to bring the "cat-o-nine-tails" back into use.

(A loyal American nod to Atrios.)

2003-05-01T19:04:00.000-07:00

Sharon's "Roadmap": Prevent Any Peace for 30 Years

Ha'aretz has published an analysis of why Israel's far-right leadership is happy with the new "road map" for peace between the Palestinians and Israel. The article includes (buried at the bottom) Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's solution for the conflict, which has nothing to do with any Palestinian "state" by 2005:

A senior security official recently told [Ha'aretz journalist Akiva] Eldar of a conversation with Sharon, in which the prime minister said Israel must stick to its guns for the next 30 years, at which time alternative technologies will reduce the need for oil, thus sapping Arab influence on Europe and the world.

Many in the Bush administration have a similar position, believing that if you have enough power and will, there is no need to concede.

In addition to being a devoted peacemaker, Sharon is also apparently a dedicated future technologist. But if this report is correct, his talents do not extend to demography - various studies indicate a major demographic "problem" for Israel (i.e., the indigenous Palestinians will once again be numerically superior in Mandate Palestine) in 30 years' time. What then?

The most likely possibility will be for Israel to employ the same tactic that served well during the Oslo years. This involves making demands of the Palestinians that cannot be met and appearing to have a "peace process" going on while it continues to expand its illegal colonies in the West Bank and Gaza:

...they [rightist opponents of a settlement with the Palestinians] know that Sharon has raised the required threshhold to so high a level that it is unrealistic to believe any Palestinian could reach it... For his part, Bush... can also discreetly bet on Abu Mazen to lose. If the scenario plays out as neocons hope, he can appear to have a peace process going, but will have no need to pressure Israel into concessions.

In 30 years, Israel may or may not have access to those futuristic energy sources, but Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza will be facing the same thing they face today and have been facing for the last 36 years: dispossession and apartheid - updated using that future technology that is so dear to Sharon's heart.

Some other items:

US Urges "Restraint" After Israeli Army Kills 13: Isn't it a little late for "restraint"? Shouldn't the US have urged Israel to exercise it before this new "overreaction"? The dead - accidentally killed, of course - included two children, aged 2 and 13.

Israel to Bar, Expel Pro-Palestinian Activists: Running them over with bulldozers didn't work. Shooting them in the face and in the back of the head didn't work. They still kept coming. Plus, it looks bad to the outside world. The new policy will probably be a success: Israel has over 55 years' experience in barring and expelling.

2003-04-30T04:07:00.000-07:00

US, Disregarding Official Policy, Strikes Deal with "Terror" Group

Still trying to wrap your head around how the United States can be "at war" with a tactic? How about when the US teams up with a group it says is employing the tactic with which it is "at war"?

Forcefully driving home the point that the "war on terror" is a complete sham, US forces in Iraq have signed a "cease-fire" with the Iraq-based Iranian guerilla group Mujahideen-i Khalq. The Mujahideen organization, which opposes the Iranian government, is on the State Department's list of "foreign terrorist organizations".

Isn't it a bit odd that the US is now going around making deals with groups it has designated as "terrorist" - a violation of the very first point of its "Counterterrorism Policy"? Doesn't this defeat the whole point of its "war"? Especially if it is a group that is both "terrorist" and worked hand-in-glove with the Saddam Hussein administration? American officials don't think so, according to the NY Times article:

A State Department official said tonight that the deal was not inconsistent with the broader effort against terrorism. The official said the agreement with the group, which operated with support and protection from Saddam Hussein's government, would help the United States learn more about Iraq's ties to terrorism and the nature of its former government.

"You can't get information out of a dead man," the official said. He said the decision to call a halt to American bombing and other attacks against the group did not reflect any change in its terrorist status. "It's a cease-fire," he said, "that's all it means."

You "can't get information out of a dead man"? Why did the US try to assassinate Saddam Hussein so often then? After all, who would have had more information on Iraq than Saddam? But perhaps that was the point - the US might not have liked it very much if Saddam were in the dock in The Hague or Brussels, telling the whole world about his deals with former American administrations and those chummy meetings with Rumsfeld back in the day, when torturing and gassing people wasn't such a big deal.

Anyway, why is the Mujahideen group (MEK) even on the list? According to the State Department, the MEK killed several US soldiers and civilians in Iran in the 1970s. They also supported the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. For good measure, and as a demonstration of their "ability to mount large-scale operations overseas", members of the group attacked 13 Iranian embassies in April 1992.

Hmm..."large-scale operations overseas"...sounds vaguely familiar...very similar to some important policy statement... now I remember. I know that I am being a bad American, unpatriotic - virtually a Frenchman, for Christ's sake - for not completely controlling my memory - but didn't the president once mention something about "terrorist groups" and "global reach"?

As President Bush said in an address to Congress on September 20, 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."

Every "terrorist group of global reach" which isn't helping the US at the moment, that is.

Just as a point of comparison: US military officials hailed the capture of Abu Abbas, leader of the group that hijacked a cruise ship in 1985 and killed an American passenger, as a notable victory in the "global war on terror" and a step towards dismantling the Iraq-supported "terror network". This despite the fact that Abu Abbas had renounced violence and was covered under an immunity clause which was part of the Oslo accords.

Deals with "terrorist" groups and that persistent inability to catch Osama bin Laden - the effectiveness of the "war on terror" speaks for itself.

2003-04-27T05:56:00.000-07:00

Why There Won't Be "Democracy" in Iraq

Many self-styled "liberals" supported the war in Iraq in the fervent hope that the US and Britain would bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Though the specific reasoning (if I may use this term to describe the mental activity of these people) varied, this support revolved around two major assumptions: first, that the US's public pronouncements to this effect were genuine, and second, that removal of a brutal dictatorship could only lead to "democracy". Unfortunately for these misguided idealists, the Iraqi people, and the rest of us, neither of these assumptions stands up to even the most cursory examination. History, political considerations, and recent events all indicate that however "free" the post-Saddam Iraq may be, it will not be "democratic".

It is necessary at the beginning to project what sort of policies a democratic Iraq would likely pursue in four major areas in order to show why the US will not tolerate such an eventuality:

Relations with Iran: Despite Saddam Hussein's closed-society policy, Iraq's relations with Iran were noticeably improving prior to the US-led war. A democratic Iraq, not just one led by a Shi‘a-majority government, would certainly speed up this rapprochement. Barring outrageous provocation, friendly relations between neighboring states are generally seen as desirable in and of themselves, if for nothing else than to promote stability. Ties between Iraq and Iran are not an exception to this rule. In addition, mutual regional interests would draw these two countries together. The two countries have abundant energy and other resources and perhaps the most highly educated populations in the Middle East. Working together, they could dominate the region and beyond (e.g., Afghanistan, some of the former Soviet republics);
Position on the Palestine/Israel Issue: Support for the Palestinians runs high among the populace of Iraq, as in every other Arab country. A freely elected government would almost certainly not make any moves towards establishing official ties with Israel. On the contrary, a free, democratic Iraq would be the best ally the Palestinians could hope to have among the Arab states in terms of diplomatic and moral support;
Petroleum: The Iraqi population is unlikely to support the privatization of the state oil industry, barring a "reeducation" campaign of the kind being urged by some conservative institutes. Nationalized resources in Iraq, which possesses the world's second largest proven reserves, would keep oil prices relatively high and help OPEC maintain a semblance of control over the market - something the US has been interested in breaking for decades;
Relations with Syria: A democratic and "de-Baathized" Iraq would be freed of one of the main causes of the long-standing Syria-Iraq rivalry, which was essentially the rivalry between the two wings of the Baath party over the idea of leadership of the Arab world. Relations between Iraq and Syria, neighbors, fellow Arab states, and natural trade partners, would then improve for reasons similar to those outlined for Iran above. Syria's opposition to Israel, the main cause of the US's problem with Syria, would not matter at all to Iraq (see above).

To sum up, a democratic Iraq would most likely pursue friendly relations with both Iran and Syria, regardless of those countries' internal political situations, maintain a nationalized oil industry, and continue supporting the Palestinians, and in a much more effective manner than under the Saddam Hussein administration. It should be noted that these are hardly radical projections; rather, they are widespread and popular Iraqi positions that one would expect, in anything approaching "democracy", to be expressed as official government policy. In addition, a democratic Iraq also would have the best potential among all the Arab states to be independent of the US's policy dictates; thus, it would be the natural leader of the Arab world.

The primary reason why the US will not allow anything like a democratic government to assume control in Iraq is because all of these positions run completely counter to US strategic interests in the Middle East. Below are the American positions (long-term American, not just of the current administration) on the same four issues discussed above for Iraq:

Iran: The US will continue to try to "contain" Iran and shun any moves towards rapprochement, several opportunities for which have come and gone over the last decade. Iran, one of the two remaining "axis of evil" countries, continues to present a problem for the US vision of the Middle East. Although issues such as Iran's WMD programs are what right-wing think-tanks and government members are focusing on to justify possible action in the future, there are actually two major factors that condition the US's stance towards Iran. First, its military and ideological support for the Lebanese Hizbollah, the only Arab fighting outfit which has ever effected a real strategic setback for Israeli plans. Although the Lebanese-Israeli border has been largely quiet since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 and although Hizbollah's military wing simply serves as a deterrent at this point against hostile Israeli actions in Lebanon, Israel and the US are seeking to punish Hizbollah to compensate for Israel's defeat in southern Lebanon. Iran's support for Hizbollah and the US's support for Israel mean that the US will not work towards improving ties with the "Islamic republic" under any circumstances. Second, the experience of the Islamic revolution and the storming of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979. The US still has not forgiven the Islamic republic for getting rid of the Shah, a stalwart ally in the region, and for the embassy episode, although by this point the latter is simply a small footnote in history. A democratic Iraq would undermine the US's "containment" policy and might even lend material and/or logistic support to Iran's Hizbollah operations;
Palestine/Israel: The history of unconditional, unflinching, and unthinking US support for Israel needs no comment here. Suffice it to say that according to US policy, Israel will remain the superpower in the region by any standard (economic, social, and especially military); it will also be the only country allowed to have WMDs. Consult any of the "Palestine/Israel Resources" links to the left to find out more;
Petroleum: Oil is the major underlying motive for all US policies in the Middle East. The United States seeks to assure access to energy sources as cheaply and efficiently as possible, regardless of local opinion on the matter (or other considerations such as the environment). As indicated above, a democratic Iraq would most likely retain ownership of its oil production industry and remain in OPEC. Thus, while there would be more potential supplies reaching the market, OPEC would be strengthened, giving the cartel greater control over prices. In addition, a nationalized petroleum industry is subject to domestic political considerations, which may impede access, and in any event is more expensive than privatized control and management. The US's energy interests do not include greater OPEC control over prices or the possibility once again of effective and coordinated political action by the organization (as in 1973). Continued state control of the petroleum industry in Iraq, supposedly to become the regional "model" country, would also run counter to the official American ideology of "free enterprise", opening markets, and privatization;
Syria: Syria, as the only major remaining "hard-line anti-Israel" Arab state, is another problem area for the US. Although Syria participated in the 1991 Gulf war as a US ally and although it has been cooperative in the "war on terror", Syria receives, at best, a cold reception from the US due to its support for Palestinian militant and "rejectionist" groups and refusal to make peace with Israel without getting all of its land in the Golan Heights back. There are some indications that Syria (or, less likely, Iran) will be the next US target in the region.

Comparing the policies of the US in the Middle East with those that a democratic Iraq would likely pursue, it is clear that there is a wide gulf between the two. The US would certainly appreciate it if the new, post-Saddam Iraq would adopt policies compatible with its own. In the four critical areas under discussion, this would mean forgoing any improvement in ties with Iran, establishing relations with Israel, or at least keeping any "support" for the Palestinians at the same bland and ineffectual level offered by Jordan and Egypt, the two Arab states with formal peace treaties with Israel, privatizing the oil industry, and dealing with Syria at arm's length, if at all. But Iraq, given a chance, not only would not support these US policies, but would actively undermine them. If the US actually intends to help Iraq become democratic, it would find itself in the situation of having undertaken a major war in defiance of UN and world opinion and invested billions of dollars - over $80 billion has been set aside to date - to enable a country to more effectively counter its policies and assist others in doing the same.

Anyone who believes that the US will act directly against the strategic interests it has pursued in the Middle East, under various administrations, for over 50 years should point out at least one instance where this has been the case. Examples of benevolent, disinterested, "coming-from-the-goodness-of-the-heart" US action are difficult to find anywhere in the world, much less in this important region. Bush and some commentators like to point out the American reconstruction efforts in Japan and Germany following WWII as examples of such benevolence. However, the role these two countries later played in serving as "buffers" against the Soviet Union is conveniently overlooked in many such "analyses", as is the fact that the US still maintains important military bases in both of those countries. US involvement in these two countries, perhaps the historical high-water mark of American foreign policy, was hardly motivated by purely humanitarian concerns.

There are two scenarios for Iraq: either the US lives up to its pronouncements regarding "liberation", "freedom", "democracy" and the like, in which case it will have to abandon its long-standing policies in the entire region, or the US will work to further its clear and historically well-defined interests, in which case there cannot be democracy in Iraq. Since it is not likely that the US will radically alter its basic approach to the Middle East, the latter scenario is the most likely course of events. It should be clear from these considerations alone that the Bush administration was not serious when it spoke of the "liberation" of the Iraqi people and certainly did not mean any of its pronouncements about "democracy".

But there is other evidence which points to the same conclusion. The effects of the US attack on Iraq have been and will continue to be felt well beyond the borders of that country. This is something that many "liberal-hawks", preferring to see Iraq as some kind of little bubble completely disconnected from the rest of the region and the world, did not factor into their support for the war. The single most important indicator that "democracy" was not at all an issue in American planning for Iraq was the absolute disregard for democracy in countries where it, supposedly, already exists. In the United States, the democratic process was suborned by means of falsified evidence, deliberate exaggeration and overstatement of the Iraqi "threat", suppression of dissent and information contradicting the official administration line, and outright lies. The elected governments of other "coalition" countries, such as Britain, Spain, and Italy, threw their lots in with the US in spite of overwhelming popular (i.e., democratic) opposition to the war. In Turkey, the Bush administration repeatedly attempted to convince the government to disregard a parliamentary veto on allowing the US to use Turkey as a base to attack Iraq from the north. Other countries supporting this "war of liberation" to bring democracy to Iraq are themselves not democratic and/or have serious problems with ensuring civil, political, and human rights (e.g., take a look at the Amnesty report for "coalition" member Uzbekistan). The preposterous situation in which the US tramples on democracy at home and in numerous countries in order to bring it to another state is simply ignored by these "liberals", who are seemingly oblivious to the slow erosion of liberties they take for granted and who yet somehow think that their governments will bring to Iraq what they are taking away in their countries.

If the US does not intend to allow genuine democracy in Iraq, the question arises as to what type of governing system will be installed in Iraq. Another dictatorship on the model of Saddam Hussein is unlikely - it would be too outrageous even for the deceitful and hypocritical Bush administration. Better models are located in Jordan and Egypt, two friendly, "pro-Western" authoritarian states. While neither country is run by a Saddam Hussein, neither is free either: press censorship, torture, and severe restrictions on political activity are daily facts of life. The idea is that Iraq, like these countries, will forever be a "developing democracy", eternally making progress towards a "free", "democratic" society but always with problems that just seem like they cannot be overcome. It won't be a democratic society - one of those minor imperfections in an imperfect world - but it will be enough to make the "liberal-hawks" sleep easy at night; that is, if they are not up sleeplessly wringing their hands in anguish over the next government-approved "human rights" crusade, struggling with themselves over whether to support the war or not, the lessons of Iraq added to all the other unlearned lessons of history.

In the meantime, if the US has its way, the Iraqi people will be subjected to unelected leaders who represent the American administration and its corporate sponsors more than they do their own populace. Again, whoever the US installs as "leader" will not be the next Saddam Hussein - at least not right away. But as the new government begins to implement its unpopular policies (possibly including a peace treaty with Israel and the privatization of the oil industry, the main beneficiary of which will be US oil companies), as real democratic reforms do not take place, and as US soldiers do not go away, the small-scale, Hashemite- or Mubarak-type repression could easily give way to something more ugly and familiar.

2003-04-23T01:22:00.000-07:00

Ironic Killing of the Day

The Independent reports that two members of the Iraqi National Congress, led by accused bank embezzler Ahmed Chalabi, and a third person involved with Chalabi's so-called "Free Iraqi Forces" militia, were shot dead by US soldiers last Friday (18 April 2003) in Baghdad.

The soldiers were reportedly protecting a bank.

2003-04-21T00:41:00.000-07:00

Iraq's Future? One Without a Past

Before the US war against Iraq began, President Bush delivered a speech to the ultra-right wing "think"-tank American Enterprise Institute (parts of which were later less-than-creatively recycled in a radio address to ordinary Americans). In this speech, Bush spoke of the need to protect Iraqis and their resources:

...We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people... The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.

If anyone needed any more confirmation that Bush and his henchmen were not motivated by any kind of noble humanitarian concerns and did not seriously mean any of the public pronouncements like the fluff piece above or the constant drivel about the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, one need only consider the devastation wrought upon Iraq's priceless antiquities following the capture of Baghdad.

Under the eyes of US soldiers, who apparently had their hands full pulling down statues of Saddam Hussein, staging photo-ops of happy Iraqis welcoming their liberators, and guarding oil wells and the Ministry of Oil, a large part of the heritage of Iraq, and all of humanity, was destroyed. Gangs of looters first targeted the Iraqi National Museum, smashing, destroying, and stealing the physical evidence of thousands of years of human activity, creativity, organization, and civilization. This was not a random "smash-and-grab" operation - while there were some ordinary looters, who focused on items like computers and furniture, the theft of the most important works appears to have been planned to order, almost certainly on the behalf of collectors in the US and Europe. The next day, the National Library was hit, with historical and archival materials from the classical Islamic through the early post-Ottoman periods either looted or put to the torch. Some of the most important historical and archaeological materials relating to mankind's development have either been destroyed or are on their way to private collections - either way, they will never be available for study again.

This absolute disaster did not "just happen". It was not an unforeseen "accident". Well before the US invasion, American war planners were urged to protect Iraq's antiquities, were warned that looting might happen, and were advised to take steps to prevent it. According to the Guardian article, the American government itself listed

…16 institutions that 'merit securing as soon as possible to prevent further damage, destruction and or pilferage of records and assets'. First was the national bank, next came the museum. The Oil Ministry, which has been carefully guarded, came sixteenth on a list of 16.

The memo said 'looters should be arrested/detained', yet US troops continued to pass by looters carting off their booty, and no tanks appeared in front of these buildings for days.

Even while this devastation of mankind's past was under way, the US could have prevented it. In his articles, cited above, Fisk relates that he reported these crimes directly to the American authorities, yet they made no effort to halt them.

The devastation and theft of Iraq's antiquities and history goes beyond criminal negligence. The stolen and destroyed materials were not simple goods like furniture, television sets, or hubcaps - they were irreplaceable documents of humanity's past. The scale of this crime demands that the US administration answer a number of important questions. Why did field commanders ignore recommendations made higher up in the chain of command? Who ordered (and there must have been a very clear order at some point) these lower-ranking officers to disregard advice on sites to be protected? Who, exactly, were the masterminds behind this act of pillage? How did the thieves acquire the keys to open the vaults housing the most important archaeological pieces? Is there, perhaps, any serious, high-level American "collecting" taking place beyond the rampant "souvenir-hunting" of US soldiers in Iraq?

Other Middle Eastern archaeologists, completely ignored when it came to preventing this catastrophe in the first place, are also demanding answers. To take just one example, Winifried Orthmann released a letter recently in which he stated

…it is not enough that we express our anger and our grief... through personal communications and postings to lists. This crime against humanity, which "just happened" because of the failure of the American troops and their commanders to take serious their obligation to protect the cultural property of the country they invaded after they successfully destroyed the former government should be denounced by the scientific community acting as a group… we should insist that the US governemnt [sic] sets up a commitee [sic] to investigate this matter and to name those people in the line of command who have been responsable [sic] and did not issue the orders which would have given protection to museums, libraries and other cultural institutions. If possible, they should be prosecuted through the proper law enforcement agencies.

But the odds of this happening are slim. Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent hypocritical bleating about "valuing" Iraq's archaeology and culture and "understanding" its history, there is little reason to expect that the American authorities will make any serious effort to track down the stolen antiquities or that anything will be recovered even if they do. According to McGuire Gibson, an American archaeologist, "maybe two" of the estimated 4,000 objects looted after the 1991 Gulf war have been recovered (i.e., a success rate of 0.0005%).

At best, the Bush administration displayed a complete disregard for Iraq's antiquities. More likely, though, its facilitation (whether "intentional" or not) of this destruction and pillage, its nonchalance at the vaporization of the past, and its laissez-faire attitude towards the whole matter, shown quite clearly in Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld's admonishment of the press for overemphasizing the "untidy" phase which followed the American entry into Baghdad, underscore its utter contempt for the whole concept of history. History did not matter when Bush and his cronies were preparing for war; it mattered less when they were lying to and deceiving the American and international publics on their underlying motivations; it mattered least of all when they stood aside and let the past be smashed to unintelligible bits or stolen for their colleagues-in-spirit, wealthy private collectors. It does not matter to them that the objects now gone were the documents of the development of the social system they themselves are running, that they were the record of how simpletons like Bush, hypocrites like Powell, and madmen drunk on power like Rumsfeld have been ruling humanity since before the beginning of written history.

What kind of future will the "liberated" Iraq have? According to the American vision, one "liberated" of the burden of its past. One cut off from the history that made it the center of human civilization for nearly 5,000 years. One, in the words of a colleague and friend, in which the " we can rebuild Iraq in our own image--with a populace that can't remember what was said from one day to the next."

2003-04-13T16:47:00.000-07:00

On a lighter note, please see this site: www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com.

2003-04-12T16:54:00.000-07:00

Saddam Mediated Meeting Between US Envoy, Arafat: Israeli MK

Here's another for the "US-Saddam: A Love-Hate Relationship" file: Israeli MK Azmi Bishara, speaking on the UC Berkeley campus on 10 April 2003, stated that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein mediated a meeting in 1984 between US envoy Richard Murphy and then-PLO chairman Yasser Arafat. Hussein, whom the historical experts at the Pentagon recently revealed as the worst ruler in history (beating out such lightweights as Hitler, Stalin, Mao - even Bill Clinton), brokered the meeting as part of US efforts, half-assed as usual, to reach a settlement between the Palestinians and Israel.

Saddam, remember, was generally regarded as the most "intransigent" anti-Israel Arab leader before his recent demise. But perhaps this effort at diplomacy was simply another in the long line of deceitful attempts to destroy Israel - like that Saudi initiative last year which offered a full pan-Arab peace in return for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (remember that?).

Ironic sidenote to Bishara's talk: among the first people to leave and the only members of the audience who did not join in the standing ovation for Bishara - a visiting Israeli lawmaker - were some fanatic pro-Israel students (including known plagiarist Robert Enayati). Oddly, these are the same students who love to use Bishara as the poster-boy for Israeli "democracy". Funny how that works.

2003-04-08T04:31:00.000-07:00

Bad Luck? Al Jazeera, Diplomats Bombed Again

You know, it reaches a point where even the most sober, rational person sees a few too many "funny" parallels and then reaches for the tin-foil hat.

Al Jazeera offices have been bombed for the third time during US-led military actions in a little over a year. The Arabic-language broadcaster's Baghdad offices were hit during a US airstrike on 8 April 2003, leaving an Al Jazeera cameraman dead and another employee missing. Less than a week earlier, their Basra offices, located in a hotel in which Al Jazeera crew were the only guests, were shelled during heavy artillery activity in the city. During the US attack against Afghanistan in 2001, Al Jazeera's Kabul offices were destroyed by an American missile, in an attack which some journalists thought might have been intentional.

After the Basra incident, Al Jazeera said it had provided the Pentagon with detailed information on the location of its other offices in Baghdad and Mosul. We'll see if Al Jazeera's "bad luck" continues in Mosul.

In another development, a convoy transporting the Russian ambassador to Iraq came under US attack on 6 April 2003 on its way to Syria. The accusations began flying immediately. The Russian government accused the US of deliberately targeting the convoy; the Americans, for their part, blamed the Iraqis for setting up the attack by instructing the drivers to go off the planned route.

The mystery analysts at iraqwar.ru have offered a different explanation. According to them, the Americans attacked the Russian convoy for very specific reasons:

...the embassy ceased its activities in many respects because of the danger of an air strike on the embassy. The American command was utterly irritated by the presence of the Russian embassy in Baghdad and believed that some technical intelligence equipment was deployed there that provided the Iraqis with information. Moreover, some officers in the coalition HQ in Qatar openly claimed that it was on the territory of the Russian embassy that the “jammers” hampering the high-precision weapons around Baghdad were operated.

Yesterday morning the Secretary of State Colin Powell demanded of immediate evacuation of the embassy from the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov. Yesterday evening the Russian minister informed the Americans that on the 6th of April the embassy column would be leaving Baghdad heading for the Syrian border. This gave rise to dissatisfaction among the State Department officials who suggested that the column should move to Jordan.

The coalition special operations HQ were sure that the embassy column would contain secret devices taken from military equipment captured by Iraqis. In this connection one cannot shut out the possibility of “revenge” from the coalition command.

Moreover, experts claim that the purpose of this armed assault could be to damage a few cars where the Russians would have to leave some of the salvage. This is also indicated by the fact that neither the ambassador himself nor journalists in the column were among the injured.

A curiously similar incident involving the US, missiles, and diplomats occured during the NATO assault against Yugoslavia in 1999. In this instance, NATO aircraft struck the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three and wounding 20. The US blamed faulty maps - four years out of date - for what it said was a tragic error. However, a number of reports later provided evidence that the attack was deliberate and had been authorized because the mission was passing along communications on behalf of the Yugoslav army. Why were the Chinese working with the Yugoslavs? The reports mentioned two possible reasons: the Chinese had made a deal for the Stealth bomber shot down early in the campaign and had been monitoring cruise missile strikes against Belgrade with an eye towards developing effective countermeasures against them.

It will be interesting to see how the competing claims over this newest attack against diplomats are resolved over the coming days. Better keep that tin-foil hat handy.

2003-04-06T17:55:00.000-07:00

Terrorists

Terrorists. Terrorists are everywhere. From the battlefields of Iraq, to the streets of the United States, to the pages of respected American publications. Terrorists, bent on terror, intent on terrorizing America. These terrorists do not play fair; they operate on a number of levels, betraying trust and using underhanded tactics. They know no boundaries and will stop at nothing to kill Americans or, at the very least, prevent them from shopping to their fullest potential.

This is the scenario being peddled to Americans by national and local governmental officials, the military, and the media. Since the start of the US invasion of Iraq, there has been a huge apparent increase in the amount of "terrorist" activity. But who exactly are these "terrorists"? What kinds of activities are they doing that might be characterized as "terrorism"? How can one single word be used accurately in so many different contexts?

The answer is that the definition of "terror" is undergoing further evolution. Traditionally, the US government and media has employed the term to describe politically motivated violence committed by "enemy" groups. Naturally, politically motivated violence perpetrated by favored groups or states - what the "good guys" do, in Bushian terminology - has never been referred to as "terrorism" but rather discussed in terms of "security", "freedom fighting", and the like. Writers such as Chomsky and Said have subjected this hypocritical usage of the term to detailed analysis.

The new definition of who qualifies as a "terrorist" does not depend on violence, as does the traditional one. Rather, the important distinguishing feature of the new "terrorists" is their political motivation. "Terrorists", in this new meaning of the word, are simply politically motivated opponents or dissidents of the political control of the United States and its allies; whether or not they use violence, much less whether or not they cause "terror", is strictly secondary.

A number of factors have enabled this important shift in meaning to happen, the most important of which include a long history of selective and/or arbitrary use of the term, the experience of September 11, and the political climate resulting from the so-called "war on terror". Yet it is important to recognize that if the meaning of terrorism has shifted to focus more on political opposition and dissidence, "terrorists", even of they do not employ violence, will still be subject to the traditional punishments: execution, imprisonment for long periods of time or, at the very least, lawsuits, harassment, and moral opprobrium. Thus, by making little or no distinction between, for example, non-violent anti-war protestors and people who crash airplanes into skyscrapers, it will be possible to silence dissidence in ways that would have been unacceptable to Americans previously.

This new definition of who qualifies as a "terrorist" is being employed at two different levels by two separate groups. The first, comprising American governmental officials and military personnel, is conscious of what they are doing when they misuse the term "terrorist" or its cognates. The second, consisting of parts of the media and the public, is less aware of the consequences of such disregard for language. Instead, this group takes its lead from the first. Its use of the word is simply applied, without comment and with the expectation that their audience will "get it", will automatically understand, and will conjure up images of faceless fanatics whose preferred modus operandi is extreme violence and who cannot be reasoned with or comprehended, regardless of the person in question. Its employment is uncritical; it is a convenient term whose usage needs no thought and in fact actually discourages it in favor simple emotional response.

Some recent uses of the word "terrorist" and its cognates by officials and the press:

Perle Compares Hersh to a Terrorist: During a talk show segment, CNN host Wolf Blitzer asked Richard Perle to respond to an article by New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh in which Hersh claimed that a company which Perle was associated with stood to make a considerable amount of money from a war against Iraq. Perle responded by stating that
Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.
The accusation surprised even Blitzer:
BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it's first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).
Blitzer let Perle off the hook without even getting any kind of real rebuttal to Hersh's charges, much less an explanation for calling Hersh, an award-winning investigative journalist, a "terrorist".
Oregon Lawmaker: Anti-war Demonstrators Are Terrorists: Oregon state lawmaker John Minnis proposed a bill that would require an automatic 25-to-life sentence for "terrorism" - a term so vaguely defined as to include non-violent protestors blocking streets. It is incredible that any elected American official would consider peaceful public assembly as legally and morally equivalent to the World Trade Center bombings, an act of terror that killed over 2,000 civilians.
Suicide Attacks against Soldiers as Terror: The SF Chronicle ran an article quoting an American general as saying that a suicide attack by an Iraqi soldier against American Marines - members of an invading army - "looks and feels like terrorism". The Chronicle was happy to parrot the military's line, running a banner front-page headline reading "War turns to terror".
A concerned citizen wrote to the Chronicle asking for an explanation of the rationale behind the use of the word "terror". In his letter, he noted that the attack
cannot be classified as an act of "terror" according to the United States' own definition of "terrorism". The State Department (URL: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2419.htm) defines "terrorism" as: "... premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

The term "noncombatant", marked with an asterisk, is qualified:

"For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty...We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere."
There was no reply to his letter and request for the Chronicle's definition of "terror". However, it should be noted that the newspaper, in an apparent mea culpa, devoted almost an entire recent letters section to readers who had also taken exception to the use of the term "terror" in such a self-serving and uncritical way. Public action of this kind is a necessary part of wider actions to prevent "terrorism" from becoming a synonym for dissent.

2003-04-05T15:00:00.000-08:00

What Next for the US in the Middle East?

The Bush administration recently sent a communique to the Israeli government regarding its war against Iraq and plans for the future. This transmission stated that

...the United States is operating with strong resolution to neutralize the Iraqi threat to Israel. After the war, the message continued, the United States will deal with other radical regimes in the region - not necessarily by military means - to moderate their activities and fight terrorism. These current and future U.S. operations will also serve Israel, the American administration says, but have caused tensions between the United States and the Arab world. Israel, the American message says, must play its part to help ease these tensions by taking action with regard to settlements in the territories.

This message raises several important points regarding the United States' policy in the Middle East. First, it should help put an end to the often ugly denials that Israel fit at all into the American decision to attack Iraq. Before the war began, Israel's leadership could hardly contain its eagerness to see the US invade and in fact publicly urged the Bush administration not to delay. There was a strong will in the administration to accommodate Israel on this matter. As is well known by now, several high-ranking administration officials authored a 1996 study, "A Clean Break", in which they clearly stated their desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein to help strengthen Israel's regional dominance. This message is official confirmation that commentators who connected Israel's strategic interests and the American administration's willingness to secure these interests were correct.

Second, it is another indication that the US attack on Iraq is only the beginning of a long-term hands-on project in the Middle East. The "radical regimes" in question are Iran and Syria, two countries that have been on Israel's hit list for a long time. Since it became clear last year that the US was serious about invading Iraq, Israel has stepped up its propaganda campaign against its enemies. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last year demanded that the "international community" (i.e., the US) take steps to deal with Iran immediately after finishing with Iraq. In February of this year, Sharon told visiting US congressional members that Iran, Syria, and Libya should be disarmed after Iraq.

Prior to this current war, the US began indicating that it would also target Iran and Syria at some point. Undersecretary John Bolton told the Israeli government in February that the US would turn its attention to Iran and Syria after Iraq. Now that the war is under way, these warnings are becoming more frequent and pointed. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld accused Syria of assisting Iraq by sending, of all things, night-vision goggles and stated that it would be held "accountable". Secretary of State Powell, in a speech to the America Israel Political Affairs Committee, warned both Syria and Iran against "interfering" with the US war against Iraq and demanded that they cease support for "terrorist" groups such as Hezbollah.

How does the US intend to "deal" with Syria and Iran? Powell has stated that the US does not plan to attack either country - oddly similar to what he said one year ago about Iraq. In any event, the military option does not appear to be immediate as long as the Iraqis continue fighting. What other avenues are open to the US? The most promising non-military course of action is economic pressure. But it seems unlikely at this point that the US would or could do anything through the UN, such as apply sanctions, although such a cynical and hypocritical move at the world body would not be out of line with standard US policy. It might, possibly in conjunction with other "coalition of the willing" members, attempt to institute some kind of embargo against the two countries. However, such a plan would likely find very little international support. Or, the US could be considering the military option, despite Powell's pronouncement, in which case it would proceed in the same manner it did against Iraq - making threats and demands, concocting doomsday scenarios, publicizing all kinds of real and imagined evils committed by the two countries, and using falsified and fradulent "evidence" to whip up public support for its project. It is unclear at this point what exactly the US will do; it is entirely conceivable that the Bush administration itself has no idea. But what seems certain is that the US will actively work to destabilize and pressure the current governments in Syria and Iran, using the newly pacified and subservient Iraq for its base of operations.

Third, the communique indicates that the US wants Israel to help it fix its dismal image in the Arab countries by easing up on the illegal settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories. But Israel is not likely to accommodate the US on this matter. The so-called "road map", which calls for a settlement freeze, has been the focus of much talk recently, especially by the eternally hopeful British PM Tony Blair, who has sunk a lot of political capital into seeing it put on the table. National Security Advisor Rice has stated that the "road map" is non-negotiable. But already, Israel's lobbyists have begun mobilizing members of Congress to sabotage the plan. In addition, the administration has said that it will not attempt to "impose" it on the Israelis - a decision which translates to a green light to Sharon to continue expanding the settlements and carrying out the slow-and-steady apartheid project against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

In conclusion, I will engage in some speculation. Based on the indications presented above of short-to-mid range US policy in the Middle East, the following projections may be offered, listed in order of decreasing likelihood. These possibilities, of course, assume a successful outcome to the current war (from the American administration's point of view) and a reasonable amount of time for some kind of transition to a quasi-civilian rule:

Israel, freed from even the remote pressure of Iraq, maintains the status quo in the occupied Palestinian territories. Occasional noises are made of the need to resume "peace" talks, while in the meantime the Israeli government continues construction on the "apartheid wall" and forcibly resettles Palestinians in several towns and cities on the West Bank;
Iraq becomes the third Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Small-scale urban guerilla activities against the occupying American forces begin taking place;
Syria and Iran enter into a mutual aid pact aimed at fending off a US attack against one or both of them;
The US continues its "war against terror" by attacking Syria and/or Iran;
The new Iraqi government privatizes its oil industry; Iraq withdraws from OPEC, dealing the organization a crippling blow.

What comes next is anyone's guess. The worst case scenario involves a US attack against either Syria or Iran. If one of these countries is attacked, the other will be compelled to help defend the other against the US. Israel would be unlikely to stand aside if the Americans are fighting both the Syrians and the Iranians; Turkey might become involved as well at some point. If Israel enters the conflict against Syria, it will be difficult for the pro-American Arab countries of Egypt and Jordan not to assist Syria. Then matters would be dangerous.

It would not take very much for the situation to reach this point.

2003-03-31T11:13:00.000-08:00

Democracy? Sorry, We Meant Capitalism

Less than 2 weeks into the United States' war against Iraq and with no clear end in sight, the Bush administration is already handing out fat contracts for the reconstruction of the country's cities, industrial installations, and other infrastructure now being blown to bits. Thanks to over a decade of American policy - the crippling sanctions and now this war - there will be quite a bit to rebuild.

It is odd that these contracts have been handed out even before the magnitude of the rebuilding project is clear. What's the rush? Tenders for large-scale construction projects usually take some time to prepare and normally require that bidding companies actually know the details of the work they are supposed to carry out. When and under what conditions were these tenders drawn up? And if the whole bidding process could be carried out so quickly, why not just have waited until the end of hostilities?

It is also odd that the Iraqi people, who are supposed to enjoy "democracy" after the fall of the dictator Saddam Hussein, will apparently have no say in who will be rebuilding their country or how it will be rebuilt. A funny introduction to a political system supposedly based on the rule of the people. I'm sure that all of these so-called liberals who are supporting this war for the "democratic" benefits it will bring the Iraqi people will be quite capable of filtering this bit of information out. But it's plausible to say that this is an early indication of the kind of "democracy" the the Iraqis can expect the US to bring them.

It is also odd that only American companies were invited to bid on these contracts. Aren't there some 40 countries in this "coalition of the willing"? The British are apparently furious they are being cut out, since their troops are also fighting and dying with the Americans. I'm sure that Nicaragua and Latvia, other stalwarts of this historic coalition, aren't too pleased, either.

But perhaps I am being too cynical - after all, Dick Cheney's company Halliburton is out of the running for the largest contract handed out so far, a $600 million project to build roads, hospitals, schools, and other such civilian infrastructure. Well, my prediction below was off the mark. But perhaps cynicism is called for after all - all of the corporations invited to bid enjoy close ties with the Bush regime and were major donors to his election campaign.

Cronyism? Corruption? Double-dealing? Lack of accountability and public input? Welcome to democracy, Iraq.

2003-03-29T23:02:00.000-08:00

SF Chronicle Punishes Anti-War Reporter

The San Francisco Chronicle, a part of the establishment that is supposed to help protect American free speech, has suspended one of its reporters for getting arrested in the big unauthorized anti-war actions on 20 March 2003. This is despite the fact that the journalist took a one-day sick leave to protest and attended in a private capacity, not as a representative of the newspaper.

This raises some important journalistic questions. Should journalists be required to be absolutely free of all political views? Or should they simply pretend that they are, thus misleading themselves and their readers? Why should this anti-war reporter be suspended, while the Chronicle's most notable resident idiot, Debra Saunders, is given column space each week to shamelessly plug partisan positions? What's the difference? Isn't this even worse in terms of "conflict of interest", since Saunders is clearly promoting her own political agenda as an official member of the press, in an "establishment" forum, while the suspended journalist simply acted as a concerned citizen?

2003-03-29T12:42:00.000-08:00

Baghdad: The Next Jenin, Stalingrad, Beirut, or Berlin?

Experts continue to discuss what will happen if and when US-British forces attempt to enter Baghdad. The general conclusion is that an ugly episode of urban warfare is in store. These experts and those who will be involved in the projected "Battle of Baghdad" have drawn "lessons" and/or inspiration from several notable cases of modern urban warfare: Jenin, Stalingrad, Beirut, and Berlin.

Jenin: Jenin is the most recent case on the list. In April 2002, Israeli soldiers stormed the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank, killing at least 52 Palestinians, half of them civilians, and demolishing an entire neighborhood during their 12-day rampage. Israel suffered 23 dead in the assault.
A recent report indicates that Israel has been training US soldiers in urban warfare, in particular using lessons taken from the battle of Jenin. As the article notes, this does not bode well for the residents of Baghdad. The Israeli army made indiscriminate use of bulldozers to demolish and damage homes so that its armor could fit through the narrow streets of the camp. Israeli soldiers targetted Palestinian civilians and used them as human shields. And again, about 50% of the people killed were unarmed and not fighting against the Israelis in any way.
Israel continually stated that it exercised "restraint" during its attack against Jenin (as if Palestinians should be grateful that Israel did not carpet bomb or bulldoze the entire area). Jenin is a small town-sized camp of a few thousand people. If we project the devastation resulting from such tactical "restraint" onto Baghdad, a city of over 5 million residents, we can expect tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and the end of urban Baghdad. Just more for Dick Cheney's company Halliburton to rebuild, I suppose. As an aside, it should be recalled that the Jenin assault came several months after an Israeli general urged the army to apply "lessons" from any source in fighting the Palestinians - even from the Nazi suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Should the US - whose supposed goal is the "liberation" of Iraqis - adopt tactics inspired by this kind of mindset?
One final note: there has already been a suicide attack against US soldiers in Iraq. Since the US is now apparently taking tips from the Israeli army, one has to wonder if the Anglo-American forces will send in bulldozers to demolish the houses of everyone even remotely connected to the suicide bomber, or whether cruise missiles and bombs will suffice.
Stalingrad: Former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin is said to be the hero of Saddam Hussein. Therefore, there is talk, amongst "experts" and the forces on both sides of this conflict, that Baghdad could become the next Stalingrad (if you read German, look at this article from the Financial Times Deutschland).
There are numerous major differences, of course. It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi forces will be able to break out of Baghdad and encircle the US-British forces, as the Soviets did against the Germans in early 1943 after withstanding a five-month siege. Other considerations include dissimilarities in terrain and urban morphology. But in terms of civilian deaths and large-scale urban destruction, there could be some terrible parallels. Over 40,000 civilians died in Stalingrad, and much of the city was completely destroyed. Again, it seems that the US would attempt to avoid tactics that would invite comparison with the German army, which was fighting before the era of the Geneva Conventions and which wasn't too troubled by civilian deaths in any event.
Beirut: The Lebanese capital was the scene of the heaviest fighting during the country's 1975-1990 civil war, a conflict that left over 100,000 dead. A large section of the city, along the "Green Line" dividing the Christian eastern and Muslim western sectors, was virtually uninhabitable for much of the war. Despite the presence of the Syrian army on the side of the Christian militias, no faction could gain a decisive advantage in the urban environment.
In 1982, the Israeli army laid siege to Beirut during its invasion of Lebanon. Around 10,000-15,000 people died in the first month of the invasion, many of them due to the indiscriminate Israeli bombardment of the capital. The Israelis also supported the Christian militias, but the Israeli army was forced to withdraw from the city after its henchmen massacred up to 2,000 refugees under its watch. Note to adherents of the "history repeats itself" theory: 241 US and 58 French soldiers, part of a multi-national peacekeeping force, died in simultaneous suicide bomb attacks against their barracks in Beirut in 1983. They also came to help "liberate" a people.
Berlin: Finally, we get to what may be the most appropriate parallel in some ways: Berlin in 1945. Berlin was the site of the last, futile stand of a dying regime. The German army was reduced to conscripting teenagers and senior citizens, while the Soviets approached with an overwhelming force.
Still, over 80,000 Soviet soldiers were killed in the nearly one-month assault on the city. Every building and every street was bitterly contested, not by elite German soldiers, who were all dead by this point, but largely by "conscripted" children (i.e., they were forced to fight), who had lived under the most brutal government in history (and let's cut the crap - Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, but he's not Hitler). There was no hope for the Germans, nowhere to run; perhaps this is why they fought so hard and inflicted such casualties on the Soviets.
Again, there are numerous important differences; I need not recount them here. Doubtless whatever happens in Baghdad will follow a course determined by the local situation, not historical precedents of urban warfare. But there are some similarities between Berlin 1945 and Baghdad 2003 that should be considered by those projecting a virtual Sunday afternoon stroll for American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

There is a famous picture from the battle for Berlin showing a Soviet soldier raising the red banner over the Reichstag. I have it on my wall, and I look at it frequently these days. This picture, along with the photograph of the raising of the American flag over Iwo Jima earlier in 1945, symbolizes what can only be called the (though I hate the term in general) "heroism" of the Allied forces in WWII. But I also think about what the Soviet presence in Germany and Eastern Europe meant during the half century following the victorious moment captured in that photograph. Though I have no doubts that the American flag will eventually fly over Baghdad and that the Saddam Hussein-led regime will be removed, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to use the word "heroic" to describe what the American and British governments have done and what they will force their soldiers to do in Iraq. And I think about what kind of new "Cold War" will result from this latest "war of liberation".

2003-03-27T21:08:00.000-08:00

America's Battle Against the Press: Lies, Censorship, and Bombs

It is clear to many observers that the United States' war against Iraq has contributed to an already miserable state of affairs concerning the press and the public. The Anglo-American military forces continue issuing entirely invented, completely bogus "information"; the American press continues to report this nonsense with a straight face; the American public, with the exception of dangerous "communists and anarchists", continues to swallow everything fed to it. There is no general outrage amongst Americans over the fact that they are being lied to and led around by the Bush administration with the help of the press. No media alarm bells are ringing despite the fact that the officials of Iraq, subject to a brutal dictatorship, have been providing more reliable and more detailed information than the the military spokespersons of the US, supposedly the freest country on earth. Coverage of the war has become a laughingstock in the rest the world. Yet the American press seems blissfully unaware as they operate under the Orwellian maxim of Ignorance is Strength.

I will not cover this issue in exhaustive detail here. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been keeping track of the most egregious falsehoods surrounding the war; The Black Commentator has a good roundup and analysis. Instead, I briefly examine three methods that the Anglo-American "coalition of the willing" is using to keep the press (and especially the Arab media), and by extension the public, to heel.

Lies

8,000-strong Iraqi army division surrenders

are fighting

maybe there isn't

It doesn't matter so much to American officials that these statements are eventually proven wrong. Once this propaganda enters the public record, it is very difficult to expunge. And with the press in the pockets of the parties issuing such garbage, there is no real scrutiny, criticism, or scepticism of these repeat offender liars. News items disproving earlier false "information" are simply allowed to slowly and quietly drift into Orwell's memory hole.

Censorship

In particular, the Arabic-language Al Jazeera has been targetted by American officials and, occasionally, military forces. Its troubles with the US began in 2001, shortly after the September 11 atrocities. US Secretary of State Colin Powell asked the government of Qatar to "use its influence" to restrain Al Jazeera because it was "inflaming" Arab opinion against the US (naturally, there was no discussion of what the US could do to "de-inflame" this opinion). In the current war, Al Jazeera has come under withering attack by both American and British officials for showing footage of captured and dead "coalition" soldiers, even though this does not appear to have violated the Geneva Convention, contrary to the assertion otherwise. Nevertheless, the arm-chair international legal experts at the NYSE and Nasdaq, following the lead of their masters, have banned Al Jazeera reporters from their premises. Finally, an unknown party, presumably comprising self-styled American "patriots", has targetted the broadcaster's Arabic and English websites, knocking them out of commission. Although the identity of this group is unknown, Al Jazeera itself is convinced that the Pentagon is responsible.

Bombs

in Kabul

de rigeur

an illegal attack

As the war goes on, expect to see more of the same. Or, to paraphrase Erich Fromm's "Afterword" to 1984, 1984 may not have arrived on time - but there's always 2003.

2003-03-27T04:41:00.000-08:00

Meanwhile, in Palestine…

According to President Bush, the Iraqi people have lived far too long under a “violent, criminal gang,” and are now daily “closer to freedom.” Unfortunately, he is making no such case for the Palestinians.

Nine Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank and Gaza in the days since war in Iraq started, including a 10-year-old girl in Bethlehem, and two boys in Jenin; one 12 and the other 15. Last Friday, in the village of Doha, near Bethlehem, Israeli forces destroyed the family home of Mohammad Dar-Yasin, who tried to carry out a suicide bombing in a nearby Jewish settlement in February last year but was shot and killed.

The Israeli government, meanwhile, is continuing its work on the fence designed to keep Palestinians from Israelis. Last Sunday, the Israeli defense ministry recommended altering the original plans and building the fence deeper in the West Bank. Israel began constructing the fence last year to run along the ‘Green Line,’ which demarcated the frontier before Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 war. Moving the fence would mean including about 40,000 more Jewish settlers and 3,000 more Palestinians on the western, “Israeli” side.

Despite all this, and before coming to the US for meetings with Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, staunch ally in the ‘coalition of the willing’, made hopeful noises to the British press about the so-called road map for Middle East peace (in this context, read Israeli-Palestinian peace – presumably, the road map for peace in Iraq leads straight to Baghdad). The road map has not yet been published, but according to most reports, it will call for the creation of a Palestinian state with temporary borders by the end of the year, and a final settlement by 2005.

For Blair, this is a much more important political objective than for Bush. Blair has put his credibility in Britain at stake with his position on the Iraq war, with many in his own party and in the country opposed. But with a credible and serious push for Palestinian-Israeli peace, Blair can tell his critics that he is, indeed, pursuing an even-handed approach in the Middle East, and, more subtly, say that this vindicates his support for the US on Iraq.

The problem is that any successful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not depend on Blair: it depends on the seriousness with which the US is prepared to pursue it. This, in turn, will depend on the seriousness with which the US is prepared to confront Israel. The signs are not good.

This past week, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice apparently promised Israeli Finance Minister Benyamin Netanyahu that the US will provide Israel with $10 billion in aid - $9 billion in loan guarantees, and $1 billion in military aid. This is an increase of $1billion over the usual amount. Israel already receives more US aid than any other country in the world.

With respect to the road map, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has already submitted some 100 proposed changes. According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Israel has some 20 “substantial” reservations, which it will insist on and sees as “cast in iron.” These include:

· A change of the Palestinian leadership - i.e. no Arafat.

· Rejection of the Saudi initiative, calling for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, as one of the cornerstones of the agreement – in other words, Israel is not prepared to end its occupation.

· Detailing security demands of the Palestinians, including arrest, interrogation and trial of terror suspects, and clarification that a Palestinian state can only be founded after the complete dismantling of ‘terrorist infrastructure’ (whatever that means). In other words, the role of any future Palestinian police force will first and foremost be to protect Jewish settlers and Israeli interests.

· Freedom of operation for the Israeli army against terrorism in Palestinian territory – in other words, the Palestinian state will have no sovereignty.

· Israel will agree to freeze settlement activity only after quiet has been achieved and will not agree to dismantle settlements during the interim period – plenty of time to create more facts on the ground.

· Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. In other words, there will be no chance for Palestinian refugees to reclaim their property inside Israel.

In effect, Israel wants a road map to preclude any serious negotiation for any serious settlement. Next Tuesday, some 3,000 Jewish-American activists are expected at Capitol Hill to lobby Congress to continue its support for Israel. Sharon has already boasted that Israel “owns Congress,” so chances are that they will be successful.

The truth is it doesn’t really matter if they are. Donald Rumsfeld has already characterized the occupied territories as the “so-called” occupied territories. It appears this administration, or at least very influential parts of it, shares Sharon’s version of a final deal, road map or no road map. What the ‘new’ Palestinian leadership will do is really a moot point. It has no choice. It will either be made irrelevant by its own people, if it chooses to accept the road map, or it will be made irrelevant by Israel, just as Arafat has been made, if it declines. For his part, Blair will be hung out to dry.

The Bush administration has stated its belief that the key to Middle East stability lies in the democratization of Arab countries, by hook or by crook. What it apparently fails to realize is that democratic Arab countries will be much less likely to accept peace with Israel on Israeli terms than current regimes so much more pliable to US whims. There is not a single Arab out there not aware of the fact that the US partly justified its war with Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein has ignored 17 UN resolutions, but that Israel has ignored 64 yet no action is taken. The ‘Arab street’ would not accept a Palestinian state on anything less than all the land Israel occupied after the 1967 war, and even then, Arabs would also insist on the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

The US appears to be the only country in the world that fails to realize the centrality of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for Middle East peace. It appears that the road map this administration is navigating by will take it to Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh before it realizes that all roads lead to Jerusalem. That’s a long route to take.

2003-03-26T23:48:00.000-08:00

Did anyone see the British airmarshall's briefing just now? I particularly loved his answer to the question, "how do you know that people are being forced into tanks to fight the British", which was, "I just know". Twat! Shame there was no follow-up to that. Amazing that that question came from a correspondent from the Army Times.

2003-03-26T16:53:00.000-08:00

Ok, ok. I'll blog here. Now, truly, nothing will stop the Infinity Group.

PS. My cats breath also smells like cat food, but I never feed it so I don't know why that is.

2003-03-25T12:03:00.000-08:00

Sign me up! Did I mention that my cat's breath smells like cat food? So I'm totally overqualified already!

2003-03-24T14:59:00.000-08:00

Call for New Members - The Ralph Wiggum International Brigade

Are you looking for some comrades with whom you can participate in the next round of civil disobedience against the Bush regime's war without end? Then look no further. Our infinity group, the Ralph Wiggum International Brigade, is searching for new members to join our dedicated hardcore of supramen and suprawomen.

Join now - we engage in the following civil disobedience tactics:

Breaking the government's "wookie";
Choo-choo-choosing "the train on the front";
Being "vikings" - especially when we sleep;
Using scissors that might be able to cut through hot butter.

Don't wonder what a "diorama" is any longer; let's "bee" comrades. Open to anyone; background in Marxist and/or anarchist thought and European football "firm" tactics (English or Dutch; German also acceptable) especially welcome.

Narcs (and we know who you are) need not apply.

2003-03-24T14:36:00.000-08:00

Scumbag of the Week

After careful deliberation, our blue-ribbon panel has awarded this week's Scumbag of the Week citation to...US President George W. Bush. What a shocking turn of events! Bush unseats Israeli Prime Minister and war criminal Ariel Sharon, who has won the award for a record 58 weeks in a row.

Bush edged out his closest competitor, Sharon, with a performance over the last several months, culminating with the new war against Iraq, that is unrivalled in world history. Our panel took the following outstanding achievements into consideration when selecting Bush for this prestigious award:

Starting a war with no justification whatsoever.
Committing naked aggression in pursuit of the above achievement.
Demolishing international legal frameworks and the legitimacy of the UN.
Delivering dozens of lies to the American and world publics.
Rendering meaningless the idea of human rights and democracy.
Making it impossible for US citizens to travel safely anywhere in the world.
Endangering citizens of other states in pursuit of wealth.

Congratulations, President Bush! Enjoy your award - you've earned it!

2003-03-23T20:59:00.000-08:00

Rachel Corrie's Murder and Hatred for the Victim

Many Americans were shocked and saddened by the brutal murder of Rachel Corrie last week. Corrie, an American peace activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was trying to prevent the illegal demolition of a doctor's house in a Gaza refugee camp when an Israeli army bulldozer deliberately ran her over. While such "accidents", as the Israeli army likes to term them, are very frequent in the occupied Palestinian territories (recent Palestinian deaths during house demolitions, prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, include an expectant mother and a partially deaf 65-year-old woman), the killing of a US citizen elicited much sympathy and genuine grief by many, regardless of their views on the Palestine-Israel issue.

Except, that is, for a remarkably large number of people who immediately began blaming the victim. Murder wasn't murder, in this case - Rachel Corrie, according to these hypocrites, got what she deserved for "getting in the way" of the Israeli army. Never mind that she was an unarmed civilian, clearly marked as such and, despite the outrageous lies immediately circulated by the Israeli army and foreign ministry, clearly visible to the bulldozer driver - she stood up for Palestinian rights, and that was enough to justify her murder.

The level of hatred these people have for Rachel Corrie is difficult to comprehend. It defies all normal, and most abnormal, ideas of decency, morality, and humanity. Instead of facing up to Corrie's death for what it was - blatant murder in pursuit of an illegal and immoral policy against civilians - this group of people filtered it through the spectrum of the "Israel is always right" philosophy. If Israel is doing something, anything, why then it must be the most moral thing ever carried out by human beings. Dead human beings, especially Palestinians or 23-year-old leftist women, even if they are fellow citizens, matter little in this scheme of things.

I will speak of my own experience with this blind hatred before reviewing some other examples in the press. I am a member of Students for Justice in Palestine at UC-Berkeley. We made a flyer announcing Corrie's death and a vigil to be held that night at the Israeli consulate in San Francisco. SJP members put this flyer up around campus at noon on Monday. Within two hours, at least half of them had been taken down. By the next day, virtually all had been removed. The few that remained had been wheatpasted up and couldn't be ripped down so easily. But even then, this hatred for Rachel Corrie was so deep that someone had put little stickers on the flyer with such sentiments as "Suicidal or just stupid?" and "Idiot terrorist sympathizer". Not even one single flyer, the "mass-media" venue of the weak and poor, could be left alone without being defaced. The idea that even a single flyer announcing her murder could be left up to inform the public was intolerable to these people.

Who could do something like this? What kind of mentality would make something like this possible? Israel's propagandists like to claim that textbooks "teach" Palestinian children to hate Israelis - what source could possibly have taught these UC Berkeley students such hatred, a hatred that required the total obliteration or at least distortion of the memory of a murdered human being?

Others went beyond simply tearing down the work of concerned activists and decided to to actively broadcast their hypocritical malice. The SF Chronicle ran series of letters justifying the murder. In one issue one letter writer stated that Corrie had to "pay a stiff price for her misguided sympathies" - a clear indication by this commentator that anyone who supports the Palestinians deserves to be killed; another accused her of "treason" - odd, since in most cases (i.e., those not involving Israel), the normal reaction would be that supporting a foreign government which killed a fellow citizen would actually be much closer to treason. In another issue, the Chronicle ran a letter from someone who justified the murder since Corrie has been photographed burning an American flag - apparently signalling that dissent should be punished by death. Elsewhere, a student newspaper at the University of Maryland, the Diamondback, ran a cartoon by one Daniel Friedman depicting a woman sitting in front of a bulldozer with the caption "Stupidity...sitting in front of a bulldozer to protect a gang of terrorists". Needless to say, it is unlikely that the Diamondback, or any newspaper, would publish a similar cartoon mocking Israeli settlers who were killed as a result of their racist and apartheid policies of land theft and dispossession of the Palestinians.

Naturally, these instances of blind hatred and justification of murder do not represent the full spectrum of feelings of Israel's supporters. No doubt, most of them were also shocked by Corrie's death. But I cannot recall ever seeing any instances of newspapers publishing so many items from contributors and readers suggesting that the victim "deserved it" - and certainly not in connection with attacks against Israeli soldiers and settlers on occupied Palestinian lands. What did Rachel Corrie do to cause these "supporters of Israel" to react in such a barbaric manner? She exposed Israeli state brutality and terrorism in a way that a thousand Palestinian deaths could never have done in the United States.

Postscriptum: US military officials have condemned the Iraqi government and Arabic-language satellite station Al Jazirah for breaching the Geneva Conventions by airing footage of several captured American soldiers in Iraq. This comes exactly one week after US citizen Rachel Corrie was murdered by a foreign government in the process of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. What has been the reaction of the US government to the latter breach of international law? Approximately $10 billion in military aid and loan guarantees to Israel.

2003-03-23T20:06:00.000-08:00

Is anyone besides me going to blog on this bloggerfucking blog?

2003-03-21T11:57:00.000-08:00

She Wants You, Plus 3 More Feet

* Gain Up To 3 Full Feet In Length
* Increase Your Little Man's Width (Girth) By 29%
* Get With Premature Ejaculation!
* Produce Stronger, Rock Hard Offspring
* 110% Safer To Take Anally, With Fewer Side Effects
* Faster Pussycat Ped-Ex Shipping WorldWide
* Doctors Approve Or Blow Me!
* No Pumping! No Surely! No Excitation!
* 110% Honey Ass Guarantee
* FREE Bottle Of Speed Worth Over $500
* FREE "Male Helplessness Tract" Worth Over $0.50

2003-03-20T15:44:00.000-08:00

sorry for that confusing initial post. i thought my entry would appear with my handle, "gogobeats", instead of my real name, "leg boy".

on another note, anybody else think that pants are overrated?

2003-03-20T11:18:00.000-08:00

hello i bring the beats, but why is my typing window so small? blogger html code no like Opera, or vice versa.

2003-03-16T21:05:00.000-08:00

Of Headlines and Whipping Boys: Some Recent SF Chronicle Explorations

The headline is probably the most important part of a newspaper article. Often, in fact, it is the only part of a news item that readers actually read. It would be reasonable to assume, therefore, that any major metropolitan newspaper would be able to publish headlines that accurately and impartially reflect the main point of an article or, at the very least, do not contradict the information contained in the accompanying text. Editors at the San Francisco Chronicle, however, have either had some trouble recently keeping this basic journalistic principle in mind or else they have decided to demonstrate that readers who assume too much will only make an ass, to paraphrase the old saying, of themselves.

The Chronicle has had some problems over the years with its coverage of the Middle East, most notably in the editorial department. History doesn't seem to matter to the editors. Thus, readers were constantly subjected to arguments built around "facts" with no basis in reality, such as "Arab aggression" as the cause of the 1967 war, a recurrent theme in both letters and opinion pieces. Although the Chronicle seems to have cut out some of the worst ahistorical submissions, they have taken up the slack elsewhere and begun publishing absolutely preposterous items on the future "Syrian" threat that look like they could have come straight from the Israeli government.

But some of the most spectacular recent failures have been connected with front-page Chronicle headlines. Specifically, these examples have involved treating the Palestinians as the whipping boys for the problems of the region, and even beyond when possible. In one case, Palestinian actions were grossly misrepresented; in another, Chronicle editors simply invented a Palestinian connection which did not even exist.

Case No. 1: On 15 November 2002, Palestinian guerillas attacked a group of Israeli soldiers and armed settlers in the occupied city of Hebron, killing 12 of them. How did the Chronicle decide to cover this? The following day's edition included a front-page, 40-point headline for this incident that read "Attack in Hebron traps worshipers". In reality, however, not a single "worshiper" was killed in the attack. Some settlers who had been praying before the attack at the nearby Cave of the Patriarchs were eating their dinner at the time.

Why did the Chronicle publish this clearly inaccurate headline? We obtained a letter that a concerned reader wrote to the newspaper on 17 November to seek an explanation for this travesty and ask for a correction. In the letter, he noted that according to the information in the article 1) hospital staff could not provide a breakdown of the victims, and 2) some Israeli army soldiers were known to have been killed. He further inquired as to the rationale for the use of the term "worshiper" in the headline, when it was clear at press time that not all the victims were "worshipers".

The Chronicle put its "Readers' Representative", a person going by the name Dick Rogers, in charge of responding. In a letter dated 19 November 2002, Rogers wrote:

"The paper said this in a Page 1 story on the following day: [Direct extended quote directly from article - "Israeli authorities initially had said... no worshipers were injured."]

Saturday's headline reflected, among other things, this paragraph from the first story: "The militant group Islamic Jihad reportedly claimed responsibility for the ambush, whose victims included settlers and the soldiers protecting them, army and media reports said. Hospital officials were unable to immediately provide a breakdown of the victims. There was no indication whether all the gunmen escaped."

What? Did Rogers think that the writer of the letter to editor needed to have everything said to him twice before he could understand it? What kind of response was this intended to be? Rogers did not even try to answer the questions the letter raised, in particular the use of the term "worshipers", which was clearly inaccurate based on information readily at hand when that headline was written. In fact, he hardly wrote anything at all in his response - his original writing totaled a mere two sentences, with the remainder taken up by long quotes.

The concerned reader tried again. In a letter dated 20 November 2002, he wrote:

Dear Mr. Rogers,

Thank you for responding to my letter concerning your coverage of the recent Hebron attack.

Your response, unfortunately, does not address a single issue I raised in my original correspondance. First, there is the issue of the veracity of the headline's claim. Even at your press time, it was clear that at least some soldiers had been killed in the attack, in addition to victims identified as "worshipers". As I pointed out in my original letter, there had been no positive identification of the deceased at that time. Let me quote your own article to this effect: "Hospital officials were unable to immediately provide a breakdown of the victims." It is obvious from these two considerations alone that your headline should not have made a factual claim as to the identity of the victims, since they were not known. Your headline, however, did make this claim. As it turned out, it was false, since not a single "worshiper" was killed.

Second, and more importantly, there is the issue of the headline's language, something which you did not address at all. Let me add a few points. Why, when there was not a "breakdown of the victims" available, did the editors choose to use the term "worshipers"? Why not, for instance, the term "settlers", which would still have been incorrect, but at least more neutral? Or better yet, why not "Israelis"? This term, based on information that was available at press time, was the only positive identification that could have been assigned to the victims as a group. Yet the headline writer chose the religiously loaded term "worshipers" instead. As I stated in my first letter, this implies that the victims were targeted solely or primarily due to their religious orientation. Since there are more issues involved in the Palestine-Israel conflict than religion, the inclusion of the term "worshiper" amounts to unfounded speculation as to the attackers' motives.

In fact, the term "worshipers" in the context of this attack makes no sense whatsoever. According to the article's lead, "Palestinian gunmen ambushed Jewish settlers walking from Sabbath prayers under army guard..." [emphasis added - Manumission]. It is clear that the settlers had already finished worshipping, based on the information readily available in the article. The only way the term "worshiper" could have been used accurately is if the gunmen had attacked the victims while they were in the act of worshipping, something which was known even at press time not to have been the case.

Your citation of subsequent articles that contained accurate information on the attack, comprising the bulk of your reponse, is irrelevant to the points my original letter raised. It is good that your newspaper published accurate articles; that is what newspapers, in my opinion, should do. These accurate articles, however, do not excuse the false and misleading headline on page 1 of the 16 November 2002 edition of the Chronicle, nor the lapses in editorial, journalistic, and logical judgement that produced it... But this also goes beyond a false and misleading headline. It also concerns the Chronicle's apparent willingness to accept and report the unverified statements of one party, in this case the Israeli foreign ministry, hardly an independent or impartial body to the conflict, as gospel truth. This is lazy, unprofessional journalism.

Your policy statement regarding corrections on page 2 states that the Chronicle "strives to cover the news accurately, fairly, and honestly". I have shown in this case that the Chronicle failed the first two of those standards. Unless a correction is forthcoming, the Chronicle will also fail the third.

Rogers never responded. Nor did the Chronicle ever issue a correction or clarification of this faulty headline. In the Chronicle's version of history, there will always be an incident in which some Palestinians "trapped" innocent, peace-loving "worshipers", although such a thing never happened.

One final point: the Chronicle used very similar language, including the term "worshiper", to describe the 1994 Hebron massacre carried out by American-Israeli settler fanatic Baruch Goldstein. In this case, the language was entirely appropriate: Goldstein entered a Hebron mosque and murdered 29 Muslims who were in the act of worshipping. Could it be that the Chronicle was equating an attack against soldiers of an occupying army with the cold-blooded murder of 29 worshipers?

Case No. 2: On 28 November 2002, unknown assailants bombed a Kenyan hotel, killing 15 people, including three suicide bombers. A nearly simultaneous missile attack almost brought down an Israeli-chartered airplane leaving Kenya. How did the Chronicle choose to cover this tragic incident? The newspaper's main, 45-point headline read "Terror in Kenya". There was a box, located inside the text of the main article on the front page, with a caption reading "Eyes on al Qaeda: The place, style and timing of the attacks call to mind the terror network, analysts say" leading readers to a second story. So far, so good. But there was a second headline, known as a "kicker" in the journalism business, underneath the main headline on the front page of the print edition. This headline stated "Palestinian group claims responsibility for 15 deaths" [emphases added - Manumission].

Let's review again what was on page 1 of this edition of the Chronicle. One the one hand, they had a second, "analysis" article quoting experts speculating that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks; on the other, they made a clear statement that a "Palestinian" group claimed credit for the attack. What was going on here? Did the headline writers for the main article bother to read this second item analyzing how the attack was carried out according to Al Qaeda's modus operandi?Was the Chronicle suggesting that Al Qaeda is a Palestinian group? Where did they even get the notion that "Palestinians" were involved?

A reader would have to go the 15th paragraph, past an account of an unrelated attack on Likud voters in northern Israel which was tucked into the article, to find any mention of anything related to "Palestinians". There, it is revealed that a "previously unknown" group calling itself, according to the article, "Government of Universal Palestine in Exile, The Army of Palestine", claimed the attack. In the very next paragraph, however, the writer notes that "[d]espite the claim of responsibility, suspicion fell on Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terror network". Taken together with an entire article fingering Al Qaeda, there should have been no reason at all for the Chronicle to attribute the attack to "Palestinians". Why did the Chronicle blame "Palestinians" in its front-page headline, when all the information printed in the same issue pointed to Al Qaeda?

The same letter writer wrote back to Dick Rogers asking for an explanation in a letter dated 1 December 2002:

Dear Mr. Rogers,

It is now clear why you never responded to my most recent letter dated 20 November 2002 concerning the Chronicle's refusal to issue a correction for a false and misleading headline ("Attack in Hebron traps worshipers", 16 November 2002). Rather than considering that type of headline as a mistake to be avoided, the Chronicle instead apparently viewed it as a model to emulated...

Mr. Rogers, what exactly made the group who carried out the attack "Palestinian"? There is nothing at all in the article that would justify this headline. Apparently, your headline writer seized upon the claim by an unknown group, the "Government of Universal Palestine in Exile, Army of Palestine". If this is the case, then a number of questions relating to the Chronicle's journalistic standards arise... Would the Chronicle consider an attack on its offices by a group of white, suburban youths calling itself the "Palestinian Republican Army-San Mateo Branch" an action by a "Palestinian" group?... Did it simply seem to your headline writer that this attack could be safely subsumed under the rubric of "Palestinian terrorism"? Or perhaps it was the assumption that if there was a terrorist act, then Palestinians must have been involved?

...Compare the headline's claim that the attack was carried out by "Palestinians" with the contents of the box inside the body of the article on page 1, "Eyes on al Qaeda: The place, style and timing of the attacks call to mind the terror network, analysts say". Is the Chronicle suggesting that Al Qaeda is a Palestinian group, despite the fact that its leader is a Saudi (i.e., not Palestinian) by birth and that not a single Palestinian is even known to be a member of this group?

Rogers, again, never responded. And again, the Chronicle refused to run a correction admitting that it had made a blunder. Perhaps it is worth noting that this second headline does not appear in the internet archive of the Chronicle. But, in a society where over 50 per cent of adults think that Saddam Hussein was behind the 11 September attacks, despite not a single scrap of supporting evidence, the damage has been done.

An open society depends upon the quantity and quality of information available. It is difficult to determine whether the Chronicle is deliberately publishing headlines it knows are faulty or whether they just don't care enough when an article involves Palestinians even in the most tangential fashion. Either way, their Pravda-style journalism does not advance the idea of the open society. This should be of concern to any concerned citizen, regardless of his or her views on the Israel-Palestine issue.

2003-03-13T18:49:00.000-08:00

Where is this "Palestine"?

US President GEORGE W. BUSH has publicly expressed support for an independent and, more interestingly, "viable and democratic" Palestine. He is thus the first president to do so. Yet at the same time, Bush has begun to shift American policy on the issue of illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza. In this new view, the settlements are no longer seen as an "obstacle" to peace. This is also a break with previous US policy and a direct contradiction to other parts of the speech in which he mentioned an independent Palestine.

What gives here? How do we reconcile these two apparently contradictory positions? On the one hand, Bush has seemingly committed US policy to the establishment of a Palestinian state. On the other hand, he has removed opposition to the unimpeded Israeli colonization of the very lands on which the Palestinians are supposed to build their state. Does Bush realize that expanding these colonies will further erode the already seriously compromised "viability" of a Palestinian state based in the West Bank and Gaza? Is the commander-in-chief simply floating propaganda about a Palestinian state for the ever-hopeful Arab states ahead of the upcoming invasion of Iraq? Or is Bush simply as dim-witted as many independent observers believe him to be?

It should be noted that in his speech, Bush never gets around to saying exactly where this "Palestine" should be located. Most people might assume, with good reason, that it would be located in the West Bank and Gaza. But others more familiar with contemporary Middle Eastern history and politics, when weighing these two new policies, will undoubtedly be reminded of a long-standing Israeli idea on Palestinians and states: the "Jordanian option".

Under this conception, Jordan is seen as "Palestine", due to the high percentage of the Jordanian population (figures range between 50% and 70%; getting accurate data from dictatorial regimes is notoriously difficult) that is of Palestinian descent. Thus, according to the idea's proponents, there is no need to establish "another" Palestinian state. Since one such state already exists, they argue, all Palestinians currently living in historic Palestine, which is actually Israel, should move to Jordan, which is actually Palestine.

Sound farfetched? It isn't. There are a number of currents in Israeli society pointing in this direction:

Current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has had long-standing dreams of completing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine begun in 1947-48. Sharon has argued that Israel should have deposed King Hussein during the 1970 "Black September" massacres (in which the monarch had between 5,000 and 10,000 Palestinians killed) and set up a Palestinian state at that time in Jordan.

Ethnic cleansing, a term that has itself been cleansed when applied to the Palestinians and assigned the traditional Zionist euphemism "transfer", is becoming more acceptable within Israeli political discourse. A poll carried out in March 2002 showed that 46% of Israelis favor expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank.

Numerous voices from diverese backgrounds within Israel have started seriously discussing the possibility of mass expulsion. These aren't fringe lunatics - they include one of Israel's most noted military historians, an award-winning journalist, and a former MK.

Of course, other scenarios not involving mass expulsion of Palestinians are possible when we consider Bush's "vision" of an independent Palestine, on the one hand, and his new level of support for the settlements, on the other. The most likely of these is the continued strengthening of the Israeli apartheid system, based closely on the former South African model, in the occupied territories. This course of action is certainly the easiest to pursue; Israel, in colonizing the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, has been following it since 1967. Under Sharon, however, the process is being greatly accelerated: more and more Palestinians will be concentrated in less and less space (essentially the larger towns on the West Bank - Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin), leaving the best land and water resources for full Israeli use and the Palestinians with nothing but miserable, disconnected Bantustans.

Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, Sharon and his government prefer to see as few Palestinians remaining in historic Palestine as possible. It is certain that he has not given up on the "Jordanian option" and that this little idea is still burning bright in his aged mind. Has Bush signed on? Let's just hope he's being dim-witted.

2003-03-11T01:24:00.000-08:00

Journalism, Berkeley Style

The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley's student press rag, continues to delay in responding to allegations that it is shielding a recent columnist, ROBERT ENAYATI (editor-in-chief of the even raggier Berkeley Jewish Journal) from being publicly exposed as a liar, plagiarist, and practitioner of Orwellian historiography. These charges and the Daily Cal's ongoing coverup of them were first made public by UC Berkeley's only blog that matters, the Progressive at Cal. Enayati had already revealed himself as a butcherer of the English language in the column that started it all, which he used to launch a laughable attack against Edward Said prior to his talk on the Berkeley campus on 19 Feb 03. Just one example of Enayati-speak: the phrase "inarguable incongruity" - what the hell does it mean? A search using Google could not find this phrase used in any of the 3,083,324,652 web pages it has catalogued.

Anyway, according to our sources, the "Daily Cal" has refused so far to publicly admit that it was party to the following journalistic failures in Enayati's column:

Lies:Eyanati claims to disprove Said's arguments in his "new work", The New Intifada - Resisting Israel's Apartheid. Here's the problem: it's not even Said's book. Instead, it is a collection of essays edited by someone else (Roane Carey of The Nation) entirely. Neither of Said's two essays attempt any kind of in-depth comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa. Since Enayati did not even know who edited the book, much less its contents, it is clear that he lied about this point in order to provide a fig leaf to his ad hominem against Said.
Plagiarism:Our wannabe editor rips off two paragraphs from a press release dated to August 1999 from the group CAMERA which, coincidentally, was also dedicated to attacking Said. CAMERA, by the way, is a rabid pro-Israel organization which conducts intimidation campaigns against journalists and others who do not toe their anti-historical line on Israel. Compare the following offerings from Enayati and CAMERA:
Coincidence?
Rewriting History:Enayati attributes a quote to Hizbollah's "head cleric" supposedly made in the presence of Israeli Arab MK Azmi Bishara. He doesn't say when this meeting took place, but it must have been during a memorial for former Syrian dictator Hafez Assad held in Syria in June 2001. Hizbollah chief Sheikh Nasrallah did make a statement similar to that Enayati attributes to him - but nearly one-and-a-half years later, in October 2002, and not in the presence of Bishara. Hey, what the hell? Who needs concepts like history and journalistic integrity, when we're propagandizing for the good cause?

Based on these egregious journalistic and, for anyone even remotely connected to the academic or intellectual worlds, ethical failures, it is clear that Enayati isn't qualified to edit a children's coloring book, much less a college journal devoted to Judaica. His failures, though, are his own. The real question is this: why is the Daily Cal covering for this incompetent and deceitful commentator? Does the Daily Cal care at all that it has been used as a platform for launching one-sided and error-filled propaganda? Do the Daily Cal staff have any pride in their work and in the journalistic ideals of fairness and balance, or are they content with being the yes-people for partisan causes? The question remains open.

2002-03-14T23:49:00.000-08:00

Genocide or ethnic cleansing: Whichever is more convenient

"This is our land. The solution is in the nation's ability not to leave even one of them [the Palestinians] here. Transfer or extermination, it's all the same to me. Anyone who wants to accept our rule and ownership, without civil rights and without ownership of land, can stay. Whoever doesn't will be eliminated. Even if we kill them all, the hostile population will give birth to new terrorists."

- Israeli settler, quoted in Haaretz (online English edition). "With a mighty hand," 15 March 2002.

Does Israel really want peace? If we can define "peace" as the absence of violent conflict, then the answer is yes. If, however, we define peace as to include justice and a realization of human rights, then the answer is a definite no.

While many Israeli apologists like to insist, ad nauseum, that Israel really would like to quit the occupation of Palestinian lands (but are thwarted endlessly in this noble endeavor by Palestinian "terrorists" and Arafat), the issue of settlements always seems to be side-stepped in their definition of what the occupation entails. The fact of the matter is that settlements are an integral part of Israel's foreign policy and they are not going to be abandoned any time soon. The comments of the settler above make this quite clear. All Israeli governments would rather, at best, quibble over how little land they can leave and still say the occupation has ended or, at worst, continue buying time while creating facts on the ground by expanding settlements.

Perhaps some people might claim that the settler above is part of only a tiny minority of Israeli citizens whose views do not represent the Israeli majority. This may be true. And yet, the settlements are there and growing after 35 years. What has Israeli "democracy", a system of government based on the rule of majority, been doing all this time? Why did the Israeli public elect Ariel Sharon, a man whose record includes numerous episodes of massive reprisals against civilian populations and whose own government found that he bore a measure of "personal responsibility" for the massacre of nearly 2,000 human beings? Did they think that a person with his past would be organizing trips to the petting zoo and handing out flowers and candy? Did they completely ignore his fanatical support of colonization and occupation throughout his entire career?

The reality is that the Israeli public knew exactly what they were getting with Sharon - a rejectionist of any kind of just political agreement who wasn't afraid of killing as many Palestinians as it took to bring about "security". And it knows exactly what it is getting with the settlements and settlers like the one quoted above. Every day the settlements remain on Palestinian land is another day that views like the ones above are endorsed and validated by the Israeli public.

2002-03-13T01:58:00.000-08:00

Welcome to "A Castoff Cigarette Butt". Thanks to the blunders of the computer age, any idiot can now broadcast his or her views to a potentially wide audience, thus joining the already large numbers of idiots posing as "journalists" in the print media. I am happy to report that, with the creation of this page, I now have experience being an idiot in both fields.

I don't know how or why you are here. But since you are, let me inform you as to what you can expect from this website. It might change your life.

Commentary on the Middle East.

Review of articles in selected American, British, and Israeli newspapers.

American Politics and..."Culture".

Who are Americans? Where do they come from? And what do they want?

Ever Get the Feeling You've Been Lied to Your Entire Life?

You're not alone. If you haven't gotten that feeling, then check back here more often.

Scumbag-of-the-Week Citation.

Can anyone unseat Ariel Sharon? Our blue-ribbon panel will let you know.

A special thanks to Evgeny Zamiatin for allowing us to use a chapter heading from his novel "WE" as the title of this page. Thank you, Comrade Zamiatin! We hope you're enjoying your time up in the "Popular Democracy" in the sky!