News and Commentary for the Person that Questions the Media
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amendment I, The U.S. Bill of Rights--Constitutional Amendment ratified December 15, 1791
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5:9
August 22, 2006
Here is a copy of the United Nations Security Council resolution that defined the truce between Israel and Lebanon:
UN Lebanon resolution
The text of Resolution 1701, passed unanimously by the UN Security Council aimed
at ending the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425
(1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006), 1680 (2006) and 1697
(2006), as well as the statements of its president on the situation in Lebanon,
in particular the statements of 18 June, 2000, of 19 October, 2004, of 4 May
2005, of 23 January 2006 and of 30 July 2006;
Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in
Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which
has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive
damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally
displaced persons;
Emphasising the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasising
the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current
crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers;
Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts
aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in
Israel;
Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese prime minister and the commitment of the
government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its
territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no
weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other
than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN
force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope
of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate
withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest;
Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the
Shebaa farms area;
Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006
to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in south Lebanon as the
Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of
additional forces from Unifil as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese
armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the
Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its
duties;
Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a
long-term solution to the conflict;
Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international
peace and security;
1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the
immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by
Israel of all offensive military operations;
2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and
Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout
the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to
withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;
3. Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the government
of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of
resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant
provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that
there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no
authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;
4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;
5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant
resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political
independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as
contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March
1949;
6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its
financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through
facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of
the government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours, consistent with
paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the
future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;
7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken
contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term
solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage
for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons,
and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate
with the Security Council;
8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term
solution based on the following principles and elements:
Full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the
establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any
armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of
Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorised in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;
Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of
resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all
armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of
July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that
of the Lebanese state;
No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;
No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized
by its government;
Provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon
in Israel's possession;
9. Invites the secretary general to support efforts to secure as soon as
possible agreements in principle from the government of Lebanon and the
government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as
set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;
10. Requests the secretary general to develop, in liaison with relevant
international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the
relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680
(2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders
of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain,
including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security
Council those proposals within 30 days;
11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment,
mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength
of Unifil to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition
to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):
a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
b. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the
South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from
Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;
c. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the government of
Lebanon and the government of Israel;
d. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian
populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of
the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
f. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;
12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an
international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the
territory, authorizes Unifil to take all necessary action in areas of deployment
of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area
of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind, to resist
attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the
mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel,
facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of
movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without
prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect
civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
13. Requests the secretary general urgently to put in place measures to ensure
Unifil is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges
member states to consider making appropriate contributions to Unifil and to
respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its
strong appreciation to those who have contributed to Unifil in the past;
14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry
points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related
materiel and requests Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11 to assist the
government of Lebanon at its request;
15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to
prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag
vessels or aircraft;
a. the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related
materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and
equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned,
whether or not originating in their territories, and;
b. the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical
training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use
of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions
shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorised by
the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11;
16. Decides to extend the mandate of Unifil until 31 August 2007, and expresses
its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements to the
mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent
ceasefire and a long-term solution;
17. Requests the secretary general to report to the Council within one week on
the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;
18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just
and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions
including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22
October 1973;
19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
Editor Comments: It should be clear that
Israel is violating this agreement. At no time have the Lebanese defense forces
fired a single rocket into Israeli territory or engaged in a cross boarder
attack inside Israel since the peace agreement was implemented. Israel, on the
other hand, has been violating this agreement daily. The world must recognize
who the real aggressor is. It is Israel!
August 21, 2006
ISRAEL VIOLATES PEACE AGREEMENT!
Israel accused of truce violation
Lebanon threatens to stop deployment
By Christine Spolar
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published August 20, 2006
BEIRUT -- A fragile cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon wobbled Saturday after
the Lebanese government threatened to stop securing its border region in the
wake of an Israeli commando raid in the Bekaa Valley.
In another Israeli operation, soldiers in the West Bank arrested the deputy
prime minister in the Palestinian government at his home.
Lebanese officials called the commando raid outside the ancient city of Baalbek
a violation of the 6-day-old cease-fire with Israel and threatened to stop
deploying troops to the south.
Later in the day, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a statement that he
agreed with that assessment and was "deeply concerned." The statement said he
had spoken with both Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and his Israeli
counterpart, Ehud Olmert.
In Washington, the White House declined to criticize the raid.
Israeli officials described the nighttime operation, conducted early Saturday,
as an attempt to stanch arms smuggling to Hezbollah fighters.
If Lebanon decides to pull its troops, the decision could gut the cease-fire
agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which was crafted only last week. It would
essentially cede Lebanon's border integrity again to Hezbollah, the Shiite
Islamic group and party with wide support in the south.
Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr met with UN officials Saturday and said he
wanted more explanations or by early this week he "could be forced to recommend
to the Cabinet . . . the halt of the army deployment."
Murr said the raid could spark Hezbollah retaliation and, in turn, an Israeli
response that could lead to an attack on the Lebanese army. "We will not send
the army to be prey in an Israeli trap," he said.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev defended the raid,
which ended in a firefight with Hezbollah fighters as a response to Lebanon's
violating the cease-fire. The operation left one Israeli soldier dead and two
injured, the Israeli army said.
Details about the raid or its target remained sketchy Saturday night, but army
officials confirmed a bridge was destroyed in an air strike about 500 yards from
the area.
"The UN Security Council resolution on Lebanon is very explicit: It says that
Hezbollah cannot use the cease-fire to rearm, to receive more missiles and more
rockets from Syria and Iran. That was happening, and Israel acted to prevent
that from happening," Regev said.
"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the
resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms
embargo."
Separately, in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers burst into the home of the
Palestinian deputy prime minister before dawn and took him away for questioning,
The Associated Press reported.
Nasser Shaer is the highest-ranking Hamas official detained in a crackdown
against the militant group, which leads the Palestinian government. Palestinian
officials condemned the arrest of Shaer, a former university professor known as
a pragmatist.
Editor comments: Israel has proven again that it is a rogue nation that cannot be trusted to abide by any international agreement or peace treaty. This was the second time Israel attacked Lebanon in violation of treaty. This second attack was carried out in an area of Lebanon not even remotely controlled by the Hezbollah militia. The Lebanese regular government controls the boarder with Syria. Israel has no right to decide whether Lebanon is violating the peace treaty and attack without providing real evidence that the Lebanese government was in violation of the treaty. The Israelis have provided no such hard evidence to the United Nations.
Since the Israelis have clearly violated the terms of the United Nations peace treaty, I think it is time to for the United Nations Security council to act and punish Israel. I think a weapons embargo would be appropriate. Israel, after all, is behaving like a rogue nation without any respect for international law or the United Nations.
Israel's violation of cessation of hostilities endangers fragile calm – Annan
19 August 2006 – United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been
in touch with top Israeli and Lebanese officials today following an Israeli raid
in eastern Lebanon which he warned endangers the fragile calm that has generally
held in the region since Monday.
“The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side
of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution
1701,” a UN spokesman said in a statement. Adopted on 11 August, that text
mandated a halt to the fighting which took effect three days later.
There have also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft,
according to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which is helping to
support and coordinate the Israeli withdrawal.
Mr. Annan said violations of Security Council resolution 1701 such as the
Israeli raid today “endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much
negotiation and undermine the authority of the Government of Lebanon.”
He called on all parties “to respect strictly the arms embargo, exercise maximum
restraint, avoid provocative actions and display responsibility in implementing
resolution 1701.”
The Secretary-General has today spoken to the Prime Ministers of Israel and
Lebanon about this matter, according to the spokesman, who added that Mr. Annan
has further instructed that daily reports of compliance on the cessation of
hostilities by the parties should be provided to the Security Council.
Under resolution 1701, UNIFIL is to be given more robust rules of engagement and
expanded to include up to 15,000 peacekeepers to support the Lebanese armed
forces as they deploy across the south of the country at the same time as Israel
withdraws from the area.
August 19, 2006
Editor Commentary: I love the biased double standards of the United States of America foreign policy. It was ok to attack and force Iraq out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War with United Nations approval. It was ok for the United States and Britain to attack, invade and occupy Iraq even though Iraq did nothing to threaten anyone in the region. This attack came without United Nations approval. It is ok for Israel to occupy and annex the Syrian territory called the Golan Heights even though the United Nations had demanded that the territory be returned to Syria.
Further more, the United States government openly supplies Israel with lethal military aircraft and munitions that are regularly used to assassinate people living the Israeli occupied territories of Palestine. Many of the people killed in these extrajudicial murders are innocent people. Israel has also deliberately targeted and killed United Nations soldiers in Lebanon. They have used U.S. made special bunker busting bombs to attack civilian apartment buildings in Lebanon killing sleeping children inside.
Any essence of morality and justice in the U.S. foreign policy has been swept away by the current Government completely. It is ok for the United States military and Israeli military to commit war crimes and violations of the United Nations charter and Geneva Conventions.
It is all possible because the American people are brainwashed by the pro-government American news media and the American government representatives that are receiving pseudo legal political financial campaign contributions from American agents representing Israel.
The American government representatives never bother to ask their constituency whether they should vote to approve monetary and military support to Israel. They do not since they know the voters might object or question their motives. Especially since pro Israel voters are few in number in their districts. Instead they vote in favor of their monetary benefactors.
The United Nations is effectively paralyzed from taking any kind of action to stop clear violations of the charter by the veto power granted to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
What amazes me the most is the phony American news media reporting of foreign news. They have completely lost all touch with reality. Instead, they are nothing more than people reporting in a biased fashion the views and opinions of their employers. Not the real news. They have lost the right to report without being censored and edited. They behave like they are reporters for the American military newspaper Stars and Stripes.
Journalists that reported the reality of American conflict with Viet Nam, have disappeared. Even more outrageous, the media have even deliberately under reported or not reported at all the anti war demonstrations that went on recently in the United States and Europe. Pretending as if there is no opposition to American foreign policy.
I guess we all expected a higher standard from the media that simply does not have one anymore.
ISRAEL VIOLATES PEACE AGREEMENT!
Israeli aircraft attack eastern Lebanon
Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:33pm ET
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Israeli aircraft fired several rockets at a target in a
Hizbollah stronghold in eastern Lebanon early on Saturday morning, a Lebanese
security source said.
It was not immediately clear what the Israeli aircraft were firing at in the
village of Bodai.
It was the first Israeli aerial attack since a U.N. truce ended 34 days of
fighting between Israeli forces and Hizbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon.
At least 1,183 people in Lebanon and 157 Israelis were killed in the war that
erupted after Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on
July 12.
August 17, 2006
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH former U.S. President JIMMY CARTER
"The US and Israel Stand Alone"
Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed
to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East
and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people
can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles.
Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of
acting immorally?
Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and un
pressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations
including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.
SPIEGEL: For example?
Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of
preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our
own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to
war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is
the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been
a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are
compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic
justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly
and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit
the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working
families of America.
SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab
world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this
circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy
in the Middle East has been discredited?
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse
now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified
attack on Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?
Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their
massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is
holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza
take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an
attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's
justified, no.
SPIEGEL: Do you think the United States is still an important factor in securing
a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?
Carter: Yes, as a matter of fact as you know ever since Israel has been a nation
the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages
has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald
Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton. This administration has not
attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a
settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.
SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of
diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.
Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs
and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because
Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have
a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been
violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult
circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't
negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.
SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and
bombardment of Haifa.
Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in
the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite
reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both
sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do
the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern
border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There
have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians
in the past and that's something that can be done right now.
SPIEGEL: Should there be an international peacekeeping force along the
Lebanese-Israeli border?
Carter: Yes.
SPIEGEL: And can you imagine Germans soldiers taking part?
Carter: Yes, I can imagine Germans taking part.
SPIEGEL: ... even with their history?
Carter: Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think
most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be
ignored.
SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between
Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of
the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib
and torture in Guantanamo?
Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God,
and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the
particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God
anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those
who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is
the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents
sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a
fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who
disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of
implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just
refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is
also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things
that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can
make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu
Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was
made.
SPIEGEL: So how does this proximity to Christian fundamentalism manifest itself
politically?
Carter: Unfortunately, after Sept., there was an outburst in America of intense
suffering and patriotism, and the Bush administration was very shrewd and
effective in painting anyone who disagreed with the policies as unpatriotic or
even traitorous. For three years, I'd say, the major news media in our country
were complicit in this subservience to the Bush administration out of fear that
they would be accused of being disloyal. I think in the last six months or so
some of the media have now begun to be critical. But it's a long time coming.
SPIEGEL: Take your fellow Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. These days she is
demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But she, like
many others, allowed President Bush to invade Iraq under a false pretext.
Carter: That's correct.
SPIEGEL: Was the whole country in danger of losing its core values?
Carter: For a while, yes. As you possibly know, historically, our country has
had the capability of self-correcting our own mistakes. This applied to slavery
in 1865, it applied to legal racial segregation a hundred years later or so. It
applied to the Joe McCarthy era when anti-communism was in a fearsome phase in
the country like terrorism now. So we have an ability to correct ourselves and I
believe that nowadays there is a self-correction taking place. In my opinion the
election results in Connecticut (Eds: The primary loss of war supporter Senator
Joseph Lieberman) were an indication that Americans realized very clearly that
we made a mistake in going into Iraq and staying there too long.
SPIEGEL: Now even President Bush appears to have learned something from the
catastrophe in Iraq. During his second term he has taken a more multilateral
approach and has seemed to return to international cooperation.
Carter: I think the administration learned a lesson, but I don't see any
indication that the administration would ever admit that it did make a mistake
and needed to learn a lesson. I haven't seen much indication, by the way, of
your premise that this administration is now reconciling itself to other
countries. I think that at this moment the United States and Israel probably
stand more alone than our country has in generations.
SPIEGEL: You've written about your meeting with Fidel Castro. He appears
seriously ill now and Cuban exiles are partying already in the streets of Miami.
You are probably not in the mood to join them.
Carter: No, that's true. Just because someone is ill I don't think there should
be a celebration of potential death. And my own belief is that Fidel Castro will
recover. He is two years younger than I am, so he's not beyond hope.
SPIEGEL: You sought to normalize relations with Castro, but that never happened.
Has anything been achieved through Cuba's isolation?
Carter: In my opinion, the embargo strengthens Castro and perpetuates communism
in Cuba. A maximum degree of trade, tourism, commerce, visitation between our
country and Cuba would bring an earlier end to Castro's regime.
SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you
look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do
you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US
president?
Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I
think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree
with me. I can't say a majority because we have fragmented portions in our
country and divisions concerning gun control and the death penalty and abortion
and gay marriage.
SPIEGEL: As president, your performance was often criticized. But the work you
did after leaving office to promote human rights has been widely praised. Has
life been unfair to you?
Carter: I've been lucky in my life. Everything that I've done has brought great
pleasure and gratification to me and my wife. I had four years in the White
House -- it was not a failure. For someone to serve as president of the United
States you can't say it is a political failure. And we have had the best years
of our lives since we left the White House. We've had a very full life.
SPIEGEL: Do you feel you achieved even more out of office than you did as
president?
Carter: Well, I've used the prestige and influence of having been a president of
the United States as effectively as possible. And secondly, I've still been able
to carry out my commitments to peace and human rights and environmental quality
and freedom and democracy and so forth.
SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change?
Carter: As I've said before, there is a self-corrective aspect to our country.
And I think that the first step is going to be in the November election this
year. This year, the Democrats have good chance of capturing one of the houses
of Congress. I think the Senate is going to be a very close decision. My oldest
son is running for the US Senate in the state of Nevada. And if just he and a
few others can be successful then you have the US Senate in Democratic hands and
that will make a profound and immediate difference.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, thank you for the interview.
August 14, 2006
Editor Comments: The American news media is acting like the news media in the old Nazi Germany. Instead of reporting real news as it happens, they are only reporting stories that support the party line. This bias is obvious in their deliberate under reporting of anti war protests around the world and in United States. I hope the American people recognize their deception and bias and discontinue their subscriptions to their publications. The media bosses in America have become the supporters of racism. They support Israeli barbaric military aggression. This is no different than supporting German military aggression during World War II.
This editor believes that no man or woman is above another.
Until the racists bosses in the United States and Israel understand this, I doubt there will be any peace.
No matter what anyone tells you, Israel is a racist state. That is the truth period!
Racism as a state policy must end.
Thousands protest Lebanon war outside White House
Sat Aug 12, 8:37 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Thousands of people demonstrated outside the White House to
protest Israel's US-backed military operations in Lebanon and the Palestinian
territories.
The protests also spread to California, where several hundred demonstrators
denouncing Israel faced off against a similar number of people supporting the
Jewish state in the heart of San Francisco, according to local press reports.
But protests fell short of their thousands-strong prediction in Los Angeles,
where only 200 people took to the streets, according to the city's police.
The anger with a war that has claimed the lives of 1,130 people, including 1,000
civilians, according to an AFP count based on official sources, was focused most
directly on the White House.
President George W. Bush was on vacation at his Texas ranch, a month after the
Israeli offensive aimed against the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon.
"Israel out of Lebanon now!" chanted members of the crowd outside the White
House, some brandishing signs that read: "Occupation is a crime."
More than 30,000 people joined in the demonstration, according to the anti-war
group ANSWER, which organized the event along with the Muslim American Society
and the National Council of Arab Americans.
"Massacres and genocide against Palestinians must end today," said Esam Omeish,
president of the Muslim American Society, who was among the speakers.
"Allahu Akbar" (God is Great), the crowd shouted.
Omeish was loudly applauded when he gave "a message to George Bush": "stop
calling Islam 'Islamic fascism.'"
Among the protesters was Mehboob Husain, of India, his wife and two
American-born daughters, who came "to express solidarity for Palestinian and
Lebanese people."
Monica, a Polish woman in her twenties who would not give her last name, said
the war was "just ridiculous", with tears in her eyes.
"As an American citizen I'm angry at what my country is doing with my tax
money," said Hussein Ajrouch, a young American of Lebanese background.
A young man who gave his name only as Abdullah said he had travelled hundreds of
miles (kilometers) from Michigan with nine friends "to show our support to
Lebanon."
"I'm against murder in all forms," he said.
Jean and Mickael Martinez, a white-haired couple, said they had also protested
the war in Vietnam in the 1970s.
"We're mad at what our government is doing. We're protesting against what is
happening in our country, which has turned into an occupying and aggressor
nation," Mickael Martinez said.
In Los Angeles, the local coordinator of ANSWER blamed the United States for
sponsoring the Israeli invasion by providing it with financial and military
support.
"The US needs to stop spending billions of dollars arming Israel and start
spending it at home," Preston Woon of ANSWER in Los Angeles said.
The UN Mideast Ceasefire Resolution Paragraph-by-Paragraph
JURIST Guest Columnist Anthony D'Amato of Northwestern University
School of Law offers his analysis of UN Security Council Resolution 1701,
calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the Middle East conflict
involving Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon...
Hezbollah's surprising television announcement accepting the terms of the UN
Ceasefire Resolution means that the precise wording of the Resolution will be
under strict diplomatic scrutiny for weeks or months to come. The following is
my paragraph-by-paragraph commentary (in regular text) on the complete text (in
italics) of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006).
The Security Council,
PP1. Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular
resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) 1680
(2006) and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the
situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),
of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17) of 23
January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),
These previous resolutions are all superseded by the present resolution.
PP2. Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities
in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006,
which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides,
extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of
internally displaced persons,
Hezbollah's attack on 12 July 2006 was a border incident that under
international law does not amount to an armed attack against a nation. Violent
border incidents occur between India and Pakistan almost on a daily basis. If
either side regarded these as armed attacks, the two sides right now would be
engaged in total war, perhaps even using nuclear weapons. Constant border
incidents also occur between a number of nations in Africa. None of these are
regarded in international law as a casus belli. Israel's immediate and massive
retaliation, however, was arguably an act of aggression. Nevertheless, this
paragraph PP2 casts the blame on Hezbollah. Since it is not an operative
paragraph (OP), but merely a preparatory paragraph (PP), its inclusion was a
probably a sop to Israeli sensibilities.
ALSO ON JURIST
Topic: Middle East Conflict | Video: Middle East resolution vote [UN Security
Council]
PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time
emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the
current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli
soldiers,
This paragraph does not call for the immediate release of the abducted Israeli
soldiers. Its main purpose seems to be the decoupling of Israeli prisoners from
Lebanese prisoners, so that the final settlement does not appear to be a trade.
Israel has made it clear that a "trade" would be humiliating under the
circumstances.
PP4. Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the
efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained
in Israel,
For the same reason as above, this paragraph finishes the job of decoupling.
PP5. Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of
the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over
its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be
no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority
other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a
UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and
scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an
immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon,
This is now a sop to the sensibilities of the Lebanese government.
PP6. Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest,
The Security Council could have decreed that the withdrawal begin immediately.
However, to do so would have meant that the Security Council was acting within
its mandatory powers of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This paragraph PP6
indicates that the Council is acting under Chapter 6, which is limited to making
recommendations to the parties. As we shall see, this entire Resolution creates
profound ambiguities as to whether it is authorized by either Chapter 6 or
Chapter 7. Different paragraphs seem to shift from one to the other.
PP7. Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the
Chebaa farms area,
The Chebaa Farms is a small strip of territory on the border between Israel and
Lebanon. Israel has occupied it since defeating Syria in the 1967 war, but it
belongs either to Syria or to Lebanon. Under international law, territory can no
longer be obtained by military conquest, and hence it does not legally belong to
Israel. Heated diplomatic disputes between Lebanon and Israel in the past week
over this territory almost killed the UN draft resolution. The accommodation in
PP7 allows UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to determine the status of the Chebaa
Farms. This was not acceptable to Israel. In a side deal between the United
States and Israel, brokered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the United
States pledged to use its veto power in the Security Council to block any
decision by Annan to hand the territory directly over to Lebanon. This side deal
appears to have sandbagged the Lebanese government. Yet it does not contradict
the language of PP7 and therefore appears to be lawful. Perhaps Lebanon should
have had better lawyers representing it at the United Nations. Or maybe Lebanon
liked the rest of the Resolution so much as to induce it to let the Chebaa Farms
go for the time being.
PP8. Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August
2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as the
Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of
additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese
armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the
Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its
duties,
This language tilts the resolution toward Chapter 6 (recommendations). The
Security Council could have ordered Lebanon to deploy such an armed force if the
Council wished to invoke Chapter 7 (decisions). But inasmuch as the government
of Lebanon agreed in advance to deploy such an armed force, it was prudent here
for the Council to use the honey of Chapter 6 instead of the vinegar of Chapter
7.
PP9. Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a
long-term solution to the conflict,
This is probably meant for the average American high-school student who says,
"What's the United Nations and why should I care?"
PP10. Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to
international peace and security,
Suddenly, almost as an afterthought, come these remarkable words. Up to now it
has appeared that the Security Council was acting under the recommendatory
powers of Chapter 6. But PP10 directly invokes Chapter 7 by the use of the key
words "determine," "constitutes," "threat," and "international peace and
security," all found in Article 39 of the Charter. Why would Israel consent to
PP10 when all along it had been insisting on its right to accept or reject the
pending UN resolution? (Note that Israel could reject a "recommendation" under
Chapter 6, but would have no choice in the matter if the Security Council were
to act under Chapter 7). The reason is probably that Israel for the past month
has complained that the 2,000 UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon (United Nations
Interim Force In Lebanon) has from its inception in 1978 been nothing but a
see-no-evil vacation spot for lazy peacekeepers. Israel's insistence that a UN
force have full military powers to use force if necessary to back up UN
recommendations may have been interpreted as a concession on Israel's part that
the UN peacekeeping force can be nothing other than a UN Army with full
enforcement powers under Chapter 7.
OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the
immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by
Israel of all offensive military operations;
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah has called this provision unfair: it only
bars "offensive" military operations by Israel while prohibiting "all" Hezbollah
attacks. Yet this is what lawyers would call a distinction without a difference.
So long as Hezbollah ceases all attacks, Israel would not have any justification
for offensive or defensive operations.
OP2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon
and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together
throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment
begins, to withdraw all of its forces from Southern Lebanon in parallel;
Just as the ink was drying on the UN Resolution, Israel hurriedly moved 20,000
of its ground forces across the border into Lebanon. This action shocked many of
the members of the Security Council in New York. They should have seen it
coming. Israel's decision seems to have been triggered by the "in parallel"
language of OP2. With a total now of 30,000 soldiers in Lebanon, Israel is in a
position of withdrawing them one-for-one only with each replacement soldier from
the UN or from Lebanon. The UN peacekeeping force is capped at 15,000 (see
below, OP 11), and Lebanon has amassed 15,000 troops for deployment in its
southern area.
OP3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government
of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of
resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant
provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that
there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no
authority other than that of the government of Lebanon;
This is one of the many paragraphs of the Resolution that is premised upon the
assumption that the Lebanese government wants to disarm and render inoperative
the Hezbollah fighters. But what if the Lebanese government and Hezbollah in the
past few days have reached a secret accommodation between themselves so that
they are no longer in opposition to each other? Then many of the provisions of
this Resolution could fall apart. I will take up this possibility in greater
detail as we proceed through the operative paragraphs of this Resolution.
OP4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;
With Israel having so many boundary disputes, it comes as a relief to all sides
that at least the Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel is being made permanent.
OP5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous
relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political
independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as
contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March
1949;
This provision could backfire if Hezbollah becomes integrally associated with
the government of Lebanon. The parallel with Palestine is striking: Hamas became
the democratically elected government of the Palestinians to the utter dismay of
Israel. Now the four-week war between Lebanon and Israel has moved the majority
of the Lebanese public to support Hezbollah, as if there has been a virtual
election of Hezbollah to the government.
OP6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its
financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through
facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of
the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours, consistent with
paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the
future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;
A sound humanitarian provision to which no one could object.
OP7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is
taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a
long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe
passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced
persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to
cooperate with the Security Council;
This is more than precatory language. It enables the Security Council to enforce
its provisions under the Chapter 7 authorization of this Resolution that was
inserted above in PP 10.
OP8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a
long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:
full respect for the Blue Line by both parties,
security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the
establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any
armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of
Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area,
Whether or not it occurred to the Security Council, this provision could turn
into an economic bonanza for Lebanon in partial compensation for the suffering
and losses it has endured for the past four weeks. The area between the Blue
Line and the Litani river will be one of the most secure places in the Middle
East, with 30,000 soldiers guarding it. Moreover, the soldiers will bring
foreign money into the area to purchase food, supplies, clothing, recreational
gear, services, accommodations, bars, etc. Not only will displaced Lebanese
civilians return to the area, but Palestinian refugees might also emigrate there
to take up the many jobs that will be created.
full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of
resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all
armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of
July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that
of the Lebanese state,
It is clear that the authors of this provision intend the disarmament of all
members of Hezbollah. But this is where common sense must interrupt our formal
analysis of the Resolution and ask: what group in its right mind would consent
to a Resolution that calls for its disarmament to be likely followed by arrests
and prosecutions for war crimes? (See my JURIST editorial on war crimes.) The
only reasonably conceivable reason Hezbollah has agreed to this Resolution is
that it has been assured, by secret agreement with the government of Lebanon,
that its members will not be disarmed, arrested, or prosecuted. My best guess is
that the agreement calls for members of Hezbollah to be smoothly integrated into
the armed forces of the Lebanese government.
no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government,
No problem if Hezbollah becomes a governmental force instead of a foreign force.
no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized
by its government,
In my JURIST editorial last week, I focused upon the importation of rockets and
rocket launchers by Hezbollah as the most important issue that Israel faces in
this conflict. So long as Syria and Iran supply increasingly sophisticated
rockets to Hezbollah, Israel's security diminishes with each shipment. What
would be ideal, from Israel's point of view, is a blockade on all arms and
military equipment to Lebanon. But instead Israel has settled for a loophole:
there is no blockade to arms and military equipment if authorized by the
Lebanese government. In my view, this is the reason why Hezbollah has agreed to
the UN Resolution. Hezbollah must believe that it can look forward to importing
sophisticated armaments and rockets under the authority and permission of the
government of Lebanon. By the same token, the magnitude of this concession makes
it appear that Israel has thrown in the towel.
provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon
in Israel's possession;
OP9. Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure as soon as
possible agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the
Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as
set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;
OP10. Requests the Secretary General to develop, in liaison with relevant
international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the
relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680
(2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders
of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain,
including by dealing with the Chebaa farms area, and to present to the Security
Council those proposals within thirty days;
OP11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers,
equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the
force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force
shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426
(1978):
Is the UNIFIL force, which has been at 2,000 troops since 1978, a Chapter 6 or a
Chapter 7 force? It has certainly behaved as if it were an entirely defensive
Chapter 6 force. Yet Resolutions 425 and 426 (1978) contain language that fixes
UNIFIL within Chapter 7. It appears that Hezbollah, in accepting this
Resolution, has abandoned the area between the Blue Line and the Litani river.
This area was extremely important to Hezbollah because of its proximity to the
northern Israeli cities, making it possible for Hezbollah to use short-range
Katyusha rockets against Israel. But with Hezbollah's success in holding out
against Israel for four weeks, Hezbollah can now look forward to importing more
sophisticated and deadly rockets from Iran and Syria. The Katyusha rockets,
after all, are World War II models. The new ones can be fired from a much longer
range with greater accuracy and a greater payload, over the heads, so to speak,
of the peacekeepers in southern Lebanon.
a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
b. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the
South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from
Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;
c. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the Government of
Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
d. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian
populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of
the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
f. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14;
It is clear from all these provisions of OP 11 that something decisive must have
happened between Hezbollah and the government of Lebanon in the past few days. I
have no evidence of any such thing. But purely from inference, it seems to me
that the two have joined forces for the following reasons: (a) Israel's
ill-advised indiscriminate bombing campaign in Lebanon, reminiscent of Operation
Barbarossa in World War II which turned the citizens of Russia against the
German armies, has elevated Hezbollah to the heights of popularity among the
Lebanese people; (b) half of the Lebanese army is composed of Shiites, who are
of the same faith as Hezbollah; (c) many of the senior officers of the Lebanese
army are members of Hezbollah; (d) Hezbollah is already a minor party that is
officially part of the Lebanese government; (e) Hezbollah is already more
powerful than the Lebanese government and its army; (f) Hezbollah is increasing
its power due to training, funding, and arms shipments from Iran and Syria; (g)
one may reasonably assume that many Hezbollah fighters will now enlist in the
Lebanese army, thus averting "disarmament" while simply changing their uniforms.
OP12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy an
international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the
territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment
of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area
of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist
attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the
mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel,
facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of
movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, and, without
prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Lebanon, to protect
civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
The use of the term “authorizes” in OP 12 means that the Security Council is
acting here under its Chapter 7 powers. In other words, UNIFIL is a lot more
than a conventional peacekeeping force. It is an Army acting under the direct
authority of the Security Council.
OP13. Requests the Secretary General urgently to put in place measures to ensure
UNIFIL is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges
Member States to consider making appropriate contributions to UNIFIL and to
respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its
strong appreciation to those who have contributed to UNIFIL in the past;
The Chapter 7 mandate to the new UNIFIL has already made it so attractive that
OP 13 became unnecessary as soon as it was written. Nations are now vying to
send their own soldiers to UNIFIL. It was only a week ago that most nations
expressed their reluctance to send any of their ground troops into Lebanon.
OP14. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry
points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related
materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the
Government of Lebanon at its request;
The important thing here is what is not mentioned. UNIFIL is not authorized to
act outside its assigned territory. Thus, if UNIFIL wishes to add to the
blockade of weapon shipments into Lebanon originating in Syria or Iran, it must
receive authorization from the Lebanese government. This effectively means that
if the government wants to import such weapons, UNIFIL cannot interfere with it.
OP15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to
prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag
vessels or aircraft,
(a) the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and
related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military
vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the
aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and
(b) the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical
training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use
of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions
shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by
the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;
Notice the huge ambiguity between these paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a)
seems to require any country, such as Iran for example, to prevent its nationals
from sending missiles. for example, to Lebanon. Paragraph (b) allows Iran to
send technical trainers to Lebanon if the government of Lebanon authorizes it.
The ambiguity arises from the “except” clause in (b): does it apply just to the
technical trainers mentioned in (b), or does it also relate back to (a) and
allow missiles to be sent to Lebanon if authorized by the government of Lebanon?
Furthermore, on either interpretation, what happens if a state violates OP 15?
The Resolution does not contain any provision for enforcement of OP 15. Thus the
Security Council would have to enact a further Resolution to use force to impede
any state from sending missiles to Lebanon. But this further Resolution might be
vetoed by Russia or China, for example, who may not want to accept any
restrictions on their power to freely export goods or services. The reader may
ask how such basic ambiguities find their way into international resolutions and
treaties when the drafters are surely intelligent enough to spot them and to
clarify the language. The straightforward answer is that the drafters were
unable to agree on any plain language and so they intentionally adopted
ambiguous language in order to “give something” to both sides.
OP16. Decides to extend the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 August 2007, and
expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements
to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a
permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;
OP17. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on
the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;
OP18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just
and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions
including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22
October 1973;
OP19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
POSTSCRIPT. Hezbollah's rockets have been a wake-up call to Israel. Or, more
accurately, it is like a dream in which you dream you are waking up only to fall
into a deeper nightmare. The rockets will not uninvent themselves. The UN
Resolution is not going to keep them away. Israel's best defense, in my humble
opinion, is to return to strict adherence to international law, to move its Wall
from Palestinian property and either dismantle it or erect it on its own
property, and to cease and desist from land-grabbing. For what is vital to me, a
non-Jew, is Jewish morality, its teachings on justice, its immense contribution
to civilization, the music of Gershwin and Weill that daily runs through my
mind, and even its incomparable humor. These must survive. War is not the way.
Anthony D.Amato is Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University, where
he teaches international law and human rights
August 13, 2006
A Taste of What Is to
Come
by Charley Reese
The plot to blow up several American and British airplanes over the Atlantic is
merely a taste of things to come. Fortunately, this particular plot was foiled
by Scotland Yard and the British counterintelligence people. The death toll
might well have exceeded that of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The lesson to be learned is that terrorism is a tactic, and you can't wage war
against a tactic. Just because you block one punch doesn't mean that others
won't follow.
The root cause of terrorism is politics. People who feel offended, abused, or
injured by the policies of the major powers but have no armies with which to
defend themselves often resort to terror. It's the only weapon available to the
weak.
When you find yourself the target of terrorist tactics, you can't kill your way
out of it. That's because, if left unchanged, the same policies that produced
the terrorists will keep on producing them. As a matter of fact, the more
terrorists you kill, the more you create, especially in cultures where revenge
is an important ingredient.
What is needed is a reassessment of our foreign policy. For example, why are we
hated by so many Palestinians? The answer is easy: We have been grossly unfair
to them. Whatever the Israelis wished to do to them – kill them, destroy their
homes, uproot their orchards, confiscate their lands, subject them to all kinds
of humiliation – has been perfectly OK with the U.S. government. The last
American president who was unafraid of offending the Israelis was Dwight
Eisenhower. In 1956, he told them to get out of the Sinai or he would freeze all
of their assets. They got out of the Sinai.
Today, there is no avoiding stating the plain truth: We have a problem. The
government is totally paralyzed and is unwilling to issue even the mildest
rebuke to Israel, no matter how outrageous its behavior. Why? Because the Israel
lobby is so powerful, American politicians are afraid of it. I don't blame the
Israel lobby for the cowardice of American politicians. American supporters of
Israel have a right to lobby the government. But we don't elect politicians to
serve a foreign country. We elect them to serve the interests of the American
people. The politicians need to learn how to say "no" when our interests and
Israel's interests conflict.
For more information on the lobby, read They Dared to Speak Out, edited by
former Rep. Paul Findley, and The Passionate Attachment, by former diplomat
George Ball.
The American invasion of Iraq created more hatred of the United States. It's
hard to think of a more stupid decision. We removed a check against Iran and
completely destabilized Iraq, which is now in danger of breaking apart. That may
have been our secret intention, since a broken Iraq will be weak and easy to
dominate. The only trouble is, it is much more likely to be dominated by Iran
than by us. We are now being harshly criticized by the elected Iraqi officials
who owe their jobs to the 2,600 American dead.
We have stationed a large number of American military forces in the Persian
Gulf. This is resented by most of the people. It is also stupid. What do we
think? That some pirates will sail out of the Indian Ocean and steal all of the
oil? Whoever runs the governments in the area will gladly sell their oil to us
or anybody else.
The only way to win the war on terrorism is to revert to our republican roots
and give up imperialism. We're no good at imperialism anyway. Our foreign policy
should be just what George Washington said it should be – trade and commerce
with all, entangling alliances with nobody, and absolutely no interference in
the internal affairs of any other country.
That's not going to happen unless Americans clean house in Washington, and what
will happen if they don't clean house is that our children and grandchildren
will live under the threat of terrorism because of the stupidity, greed,
corruption, and cowardice of the American political establishment.
Editor comments: I think every free person should suspect and question every action and news release originating from a government source. Guess what? They are Human and capable of lying. Never assume that a government news source is telling the truth. In today's world, government officials only answer to their financial supporters. Not the voting and non voting people. The voter is simply an element given low priority.
The United States has become a country ruled and controlled by entities that get away with legal bribery of government officials.
Until the American people wake up and recognize that their government is controlled by entities that do not represent them, the darkness will prevail.
August 11, 2006
Editor Comments: Neocons? What are they? I have to laugh when I think about the answer. Anyone familiar with the Christian Bible knows that a person of Jewish ancestry named Jesus Christ launched a religious revolution 2000 years ago. He was executed by the Roman government that was occupying the land called Palestine. He was turned over the Romans by Jewish religious leaders that considered him a heretic.
The Roman government reluctantly carried out his execution.
This one peaceful divine man was the root of all Christianity. He gave mankind a new covenant with the creator. One of peace and brotherhood. Not war.
He was the source of an evolutionary upgrade of human thought. He was a man of peace that promoted brotherly love and forgiveness.
It is an unfortunate fact that the World today is governed by false Christians. These people pretend they follow the faith, yet engage in barbaric behavior.
They pretend that Christians should follow the teachings of the old Testament in the Bible.
Technically, that would make a Christian a follower of the old Jewish religion.
Real Christians only follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in the new testament.
The people called Neocons are not real Christians. No real Christian or follower of Jesus Christ would promote war. The Neocons are some kind of false prophets fooling the American people.
US neocons hoped
Israel would attack Syria
Israel considered expansion of conflict in Lebanon 'nuts.'
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The White House, and in particular White House advisors who belong to the
neoconservative movement, allegedly encouraged Israel to attack Syria as an
expansion of its action against Hizbullah, in Lebanon. The progressive opinion
and news site ConsortiumNews.com reported Monday that Israeli sources say
Israel's "leadership balked at the scheme."
One Israeli source said [US President George] Bush's interest in spreading the
war to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy
against Islamic militants.
After rebuffing Bush's suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government
settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at
rooting out Hizbullah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into
northern Israel.
In a July 30 story about Israel being prepared for a possible attack by Syria in
response to its attacks in Lebanon, The Jerusalem Post noted the White House
interest.
The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] was also concerned about a possible Syrian
attack in response to the ongoing IDF operations in Lebanon. It was also known
that Syria had increased its alert out of fear in Damascus that Israel might
attack.
Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications
from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.
In his blog for National Review, columnist Michael Ledeen wrote last month that
"we have to [go] after [Syrian President Bashir] Assad."
The hard work on the ground belongs to the Israelis, and you are right to say we
have done well to support them rhetorically. But we have to [go] after Assad,
and we have not done that. Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance; it may be
going on behind the scenes (not movie scenes, the real ones). I hope so. But I
don't see it. I don't see or hear our leaders condemning the Syrians and the
Iranians, aside from the original White House statement (in direct conflict with
the statement from the State Dept, let's not forget) holding Syria and Iran
responsible. Okay, so they're responsible. And then?
There has to be a "then." And it has to be aimed at the total destruction of
Hizbullah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus. Otherwise, it will all
rewind. There will be no semblance of a strong, free, and independent Lebanon,
and the next time around things will be much worse. You will see more and more
Iranian missiles, in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Israel. It's a war, not
a debate.
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, also believes the
US needs to go after Syria and Iran.
For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the
United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening
them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a
few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed
ourselves to be perceived as weak.
The right response is renewed strength – in supporting the governments of Iraq
and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria
and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian
aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?
Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will
negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later.
Yes, there would be repercussions – and they would be healthy ones, showing a
strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
But Alon Ben-Meir, professor of international relations at the Center for Global
Affairs at New York University, argues the opposite side, that now is the time
to engage, not attack Syria, and that the Bush administration "will forfeit
another historic opportunity to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict,
however remote that prospect may now seem."
The Syrian government knows only too well that the administration is fully
committed to a regime change in Damascus. From the Syrian perspective, this, in
itself, justifies any effort to thwart the American design. If the
administration wishes to see a real change in Syria's behavior, it must first
assure President Bashar al-Assad that the United States has no intention of
undermining his government. It is absurd to think that any government will
cooperate in its own downfall. That said, however justified American grievances
against Syria may be, Damascus can also compile a long list of its own
grievances. Neither side's complaints against the other can be adequately
addressed by public pronouncements or recriminations. Only a direct dialogue
provides the clarity to realistically assess each other's intentions.
In a recent piece entitled "Ending the neoconservative nightmare," Ha'aretz
columnist Daniel Levy writes that the neoconservative agenda for Israel has
actually hurt the country. Israel, he said, found "its diplomatic options
narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found
itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to
Hizbullah's advantage..." Mr. Levy wonders if, after the Israel-Hizbullah crisis
is over, Israelis will understand the "tectonic shift that has taken place in
US-Middle East policy?"
The key neocon protagonists, their think tanks and publications may be
unfamiliar to many Israelis, but they are redefining the region we live in. This
tight-knit group of "defense intellectuals" – centered around Bill Kristol,
Michael Ledeen, Elliott Abrams, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and others –
were considered somewhat off-beat until they teamed up with hawkish
well-connected Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Newt Gingrich,
and with the emerging powerhouse of the Christian right. Their agenda was an
aggressive unilateralist US global supremacy, a radical vision of transformative
regime-change democratization, with a fixation on the Middle East, an obsession
with Iraq and an affinity to "old Likud" politics in Israel. Their extended
moment in the sun arrived after 9/11.
Finding themselves somewhat bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, the
neoconservatives are reveling in the latest crisis, displaying their customary
hubris in re-seizing the initiative. The US press and blogosphere is awash with
neocon-inspired calls for indefinite shooting, no talking and extension of
hostilities to Syria and Iran, with Gingrich calling this a third world war to
"defend civilization."
Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction"
in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An
America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of
bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building
or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel. The
sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down
in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem.
Finally, Spencer Ackerman writes in The New Republic Online that a growing split
between traditional conservatives (champions of 'realistic' foreign policy) and
neoconservatives (champions of 'moralistic' foreign policy) will only become
more pronounced over the next few months, as traditional conservatives
increasingly rethink the Bush administration's actions in Iraq.
Conservative recriminations over Iraq are igniting all across Washington, with
opponents of the war loudly assaulting its leading champions (see Francis
Fukuyama v. Charles Krauthammer and George Will v. William Kristol.) But what
the Hulsman incident [the dismissal of senior foreign policy analyst, John
Hulsman, from the neoconservative bastion the Heritage Foundation last month]
reveals is that the war's supporters aren't about to passively absorb criticism
and issue public apologies. They are going to fight back against their critics –
and an ugly debate will become much uglier.
August 10, 2006
War criminals seeking to protect themselves:
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would
eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and
former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according
to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that
criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international
treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar
the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without
spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of
potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts
against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and
hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as "outrages
upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts --
such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's
underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of
torture.
"People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under
a microscope," said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of
unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said,
and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross,
the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official
confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department
last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their
objections would be heeded.
The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although
they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed
within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key
officials and will not change, two government sources said.
No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which
Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war,
who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post,
said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how
other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.
"This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be
perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' " the Geneva
Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief
of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others
said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in
general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for
violations of "Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions, which the United
States ratified in 1949.
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to
civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel.
Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which
enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which
is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal
punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for
civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and
bars "violence to life and person," including murder, mutilation, cruel
treatment and torture. It further prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity"
such as "humiliating and degrading treatment." And it prohibits sentencing or
execution by courts that fail to provide "all the judicial guarantees . . .
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service
personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush
administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva
Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S.
military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also
created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress,
which denied defendants many routine due process rights.
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the
administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and
that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to
pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of
those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of
intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute
human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious
crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less
serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as
constituting "outrages" -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as
"outrages" by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former
Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of
confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely
threatening prisoners with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" -- would not
be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
"It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3,"
said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author
of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The "entire family of
techniques" that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and
humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib
"is not addressed in any way, shape or form" in the new language authorizing
prosecutions, he said.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad
reach of the phrase "outrages upon personal dignity." He said that, "if left
undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for
those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack."
Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are
training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede
operations.
If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins
(R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a
July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary
Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was
concerned that "degrading" and "humiliating" are relative terms.
"I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or
may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion," England said. "And
since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly,
different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant" to define the meaning in
new legislation.
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who
have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said
that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the
Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can "elevate"
the War Crimes Act "from an aspiration to an instrument" by defining offenses
that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing "the ideals of the laws of war."
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the
White House counsel's office, said "it's not a question of being stingy but
coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand
constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions." Former
Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and
agents should "not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international
or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the
United States."
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was,
according to its written history, "left deliberately vague because efforts to
define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and
because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or
objects." Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of
Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with
broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including
"dereliction of duty," "maltreatment" and "conduct unbecoming an officer."
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to
2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is "don't
trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short,
clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more
complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions."
Editor Comments: Did you ever wonder why so many people in the Middle East hate and fight Americans? Those fellow human beings in the Middle East that hate Americans must hate Americans because the Middle Easterners are evil uncivilized and religiously savage peoples? When they attack Americans or so-called American allies, are they are attacking freedom as George Bush claims?
Did you imagine that maybe by attacking Americans it would advance their cause?
In a classic war, no side attacks the other side in an opening suicide attack against the enemies civilians. They attack a military target to cripple or weaken their opponent. Suicide attacks, if they occur, usually happen when one side is on the verge of losing the conflict or in a last act of revenge. A dead soldier is useless. Just as killing civilians is. Humans are more valuable alive then dead, unless you are trying to ethnically cleanse an area of a particular ethnic group to make room for another.
It should be obvious that the people that attacked America on September 11, 2001 were not trying to declare a new war against America. They were seeking revenge for something.
Why would some group want to exact revenge on America? America is a multi ethnic freedom loving country free of racism with a separation of Church and State with equal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
This might be true to a certain extent in America. It does not, however, regulate America's foreign policy. America's foreign policy has no Constitutional regulations that demand that the U.S. Government treat foreign nations like American citizens. The President has total control over the execution of foreign policy as long as the U.S. Government representatives give him the green light.
This lack of Constitutional control regulating American foreign policy had lead to abuse. Instead of following an agenda promoting real democracy, truth and justice, the American government simply follows an agenda that benefits high paying political action committees and big corporate interests.
On top of that, the U.S. Government lies to it's own people about it's foreign policy objectives. They pretend they are spreading and supporting democracy in the Middle East while supporting known dictatorships and racist ethnic cleansers like Israel and Turkey.
It has gotten way out of control now.
Is it any wonder that the victims of America's foreign policy might strike back in revenge?
My Fellow Targets
by Charley Reese
There are two proposals for a cease-fire in Lebanon. One is French and is backed
by the European Union and most of the Muslim world. The other is
Israeli-American and backed only by Israel and the United States.
There is one main difference. The French proposal is for an immediate cease-fire
followed by negotiations on the points in the American plan, including
deployment of an international force. The Israeli-American proposal is that
there shall be no cease-fire until all the other points – disarmament of
Hezbollah, return of Israeli prisoners, deployment of an international force –
are all done.
The kernel of the nut is this: Under the French proposal, the killing on both
sides stops while the politicians and diplomats wrangle. Under the
Israeli-American proposal, the killing goes on for weeks, if not months.
The difference is mighty important if you are one of those people destined to
die. According to the Lebanese government, 1,000 civilians have already been
killed, more than 3,000 wounded, and $2.5 billion worth of damage has been
inflicted on the Lebanese infrastructure. In Israel, about 27 civilians have
been killed, along with 30 or so Israeli soldiers. The imbalance is so lopsided,
one almost flinches at the use of the words "on both sides."
Nevertheless, every single life is precious – especially the lives of children,
and children are dying on both sides. I realize many Americans don't give a hoot
about the Middle East one way or the other. Some Americans have a blind devotion
to Israel. Well, I do not wish to argue with either. I want only to talk about
our selfish interests.
To the rest of the world, it is plain as a Cape buffalo at a bridge party that
the Bush administration has given the green light to Israel to make war on
Lebanon. It is plain that the only reason the United Nations has not passed a
cease-fire resolution is because the U.S. threatens to veto it. You should
remember, in this age of propaganda, that the definition of an "ineffective
U.N." is a U.N. that won't do what our government tells it to do.
Therefore, people in the Muslim street correctly hold us accountable for the
killing and destruction done by Israel. You can forget about any talk of
"winning hearts and minds." We've lost that already. You should realize, too,
what additional danger we are putting our own troops in by backing Israel's war
against Hezbollah. Many of those troops are trying to survive in a sea of Iraqi
Shi'ites.
That's point one. Point two is that the rationalization peddled by the Bush
administration for holding up a cease-fire is patently false. The Bush
administration claims it wants a permanent solution, meaning the disarmament of
Hezbollah and the stationing of an international force. What is permanent about
that? First, you can't disarm Hezbollah, or at least not keep its members
disarmed. Secondly, what international force, parked on foreign soil, is going
to be permanent? Thirdly, Bush is avoiding addressing the root cause of the
Middle East conflict.
That goes back to 1947, when the newly established state of Israel – established
on Palestinian land by the U.S. and Europe – forced out of their homes, farms
and businesses some 700,000 Palestinians. More were forced out in the 1967 war.
Israel today occupies Palestinian territory, Lebanese territory and Syrian
territory. Every war and conflict involving Israel since then has been over the
issue of Israeli occupation and the Israeli refusal to allow Palestinian
refugees to return or even to file claims for lost property. It's strange that
Jewish refugees from Europe in the 1930s and 1940s can file claims for lost
property, but Palestinian refugees cannot.
All Israel has to do to get peace treaties with every Arab country in the region
is to return to its 1967 borders, as a United Nations Security Council
resolution ordered it to do. I laugh out loud every time an Israeli or American
talks about enforcing U.N. Resolution 1559. No country on Earth has ignored more
U.N. resolutions than Israel, and no country in the world has vetoed more U.N.
resolutions to protect Israel than the United States.
Slavish devotion to Israel will make Americans the target of hatred and violence
for generations. So stay alert, my fellow targets.
August 8, 2006
Editor Note: An Israeli interpretation of current events:
I prefer to call the current conflict:
The war against U.S. sponsored racism and state sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. Israel is like the old Confederate States of America. Instead of trying to liberate the enslaved Arabs, the United States is supporting racism and state sponsored terrorism. The Israelis think they are above everyone else. As if they are a master race, like the one envisioned by Adolph Hitler.
Israel is losing World
War IIIBy Bradley Burston
There has never before been a war like this.
That is why we are losing it.
We don't know how to fight it. Not yet, at least.
From the start, the whole world has been watching this war, and for good reason:
This is the next great battle of World War III. And, as in Iraq, the war is not
going well for the West.
There are parallels to the last world war, of course, beyond the newspaper
cartoonists' and worldwide Israel-haters' first reflex of calling the Jews
Nazis.
There is the danger that we are seeing a tipping point, in Iraq as well as in
Lebanon, which will embolden radical Islam, and Iran in particular, to extend
the battlefield of jihad indefinitely.
At its outset, the Second World War went staggeringly well for the Axis. German
and Japanese tacticians were legions ahead of their Allied adversaries. Smarter,
more creative, more innovative, more motivated, much more deadly.
The blitzkrieg caught all of Europe unawares and, within weeks, reeling. Pearl
Harbor, the Twin Towers of its era, struck at an isolationist United States that
was profoundly unprepared for war.
Allied military defeats followed in series for years, until endurance, faith,
and appropriate fighting methods turned the tide.
Certainly there are those in Israel and the Jewish world who are perversely
pleased by the way things have gone wrong for us. There is the Told You So
brigade on the far right, which misses no chance to declare that withdrawal is
the cause of this war, and is a mortal error that must never be repeated, no
matter what, ever.
There is the supremely self-satisfied Not In My Name battalion on the far left,
which suggests in its knee-jerk protests and pride at being called traitors,
that Israel may have a right to defend itself, but should never really exercise
it.
Why are we losing? It is because, in our haste to confront Hezbollah before Iran
went nuclear, we went to war before we had the ways and means to win.
Give us the tools, the British said at the outset of WW II, and we'll finish the
job. We now know that we went to this war without the tools.
After years of Military Intelligence warnings of Hezbollah's missile arsenal and
vaguely comforting news items about the mystery-shrouded Nautilus Katyusha-killer,
we now know that we knew next to nothing.
We are losing it because our prime minister, defense minister, and army chief,
who are new at their jobs and have proven it at every opportunity, made
outlandish, grandiose, and boastful claims at the outset of the campaign,
speaking of disarming Hezbollah, creating a new order in Lebanon, creating a
reality in which the Lebanese people themselves would turn on the terrorists and
diminish their influence.
Even before we ran aground in the north, the words had a perversely familiar
ring. They are the sound track of debacle. They are as dated and as current as a
16 mm version of Apocalypse Now screened in IDF forts in Lebanon in the '80s.
We've gone after infrastructure, and in so doing, caused immeasurable suffering
to as many as a million Lebanese, a thousand of them dead, thousands of them
maimed, hundreds of thousands of them displaced.
And there are still those, and they are many, who argue for More of the Same.
Much more. For a start, "Erasing villages where Hezbollah operates."
But more of them same is likely to yield only more of the same failure.
With thousands of thousands of soldiers already in Lebanon, seven brigades and
counting, after 4,600 IAF bombing runs , 150 of them Sunday night alone, 80 to
90 percent of Hezbolah's 2,500 fighters are alive and shooting. They are still
capable of firing 200 rockets a day into Israel.
We are losing the war, in part, because our actions have only gained sympathy
for Hezbollah.
Polls are now showing that nearly 90 percent of Lebanese ? including many who
had serious doubts about Hezbollah in the past, now support the organization's
war with Israel.
The war has so elevated Hezbollah in the eyes of the world, that terrorism
authority Prof. Robert A. Pape, writing in The New York Times, could without
flinching compare the group to "the multidimensional American civil-rights
movement of the 1960s."
Oddly, one of the lessons of the war is that the government, fearing a backlash
over the deaths of soldiers, has directed an offensive which has relied on
remote control warfare, effectively causing the needless deaths of hundreds of
civilians in Lebanon, and, in the process, putting a million Israelis in range
of Katyushas and Fajrs.
It's true, this is World War III. And we are losing.
Cabinet minister Avi Dichter, head of the Shin Bet for much of the Intifada,
suggested Monday that the government is heading for a change in direction in
Lebanon, and not a moment too soon.
"Curtailing to the point of halting the rockets is the quintessential mission of
the IDF. The IDF will need to find the formula to carry out this mission,
whether from the air or by other means.
"The fact that this hasn't happened as yet, doesn't mean that this will not
happen."
We have to fight smarter. We have to use diplomacy with more skill. But we don't
have the option of rolling over and playing righteous. In a world war, you have
to choose a side.
Our job now is to survive.
If the Second World War taught the Jews anything, it is this: History is not,
fundamentally, written by its victors. History is written, and made, by its
survivors. Hezbollah knows this. All they have to do to declare victory, is to
survive.
The survival of the Jews is our victory as well. But we're going to have be a
whole lot smarter than we have been, to come out of this.
Editor Note: Check out the following link:
Galloway: 'The Violence Will Go On'
George Galloway has spoken out in support of Lebanon, saying he believes Hizbollah is justified in attacking Israel. The Respect MP also lambasted media coverage of the war and said the UN resolution means nothing.
Editor Note: Who is George Galloway?
George Galloway -
Biography & other Information
George Galloway MP - Parlimentary Representative for the constituency
of Bethnal Green & Bow for the Respect political party.
George Galloway is the Respect Member of Parliament for the London constituency
of Bethnal Green and Bow. He was first elected to Parliament for the City of
Glasgow in Scotland in 1987. He has been elected five times to the House of
Commons and is now one of the more senior members. For fourteen of the last
fifteen years he has been the elected Senior Vice Chairman of the Parliamentary
Labour Party's Foreign Affairs Committee.
August 7, 2006
5,000 rally in Tel
Aviv against Lebanon conflict
By Yuli Kromchenko and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and
Reuters
More than 5,000 people marched in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, to protest the
ongoing Israel Defense Forces operation in Lebanon. Demonstrators set off from
Dizengoff Street and marched along King George Street, which was closed to
traffic, calling for an end to the conflict and the withdrawal of Israeli troops
from Lebanon, and denouncing Defense Minister Amir Peretz.
Two people, including a minor, were arrested. The demonstration also saw a
confrontation with a several right-wing counter-protesters, who tore down some
of the placards used in the rally.
Thousands marched in London on Saturday to demand a halt to the Lebanon war on
Saturday as the British government tried to deflect criticism that it has failed
to call for an immediate cease-fire.
London:
Thousands march in anti-war protest
Thousands marched through London to demand a halt to the Lebanon war on Saturday
as the British government tried to deflect criticism that it has failed to call
for an immediate ceasefire.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has come under fire at home for following
US President George W. Bush's lead on the conflict between Israel and Lebanese
Hizbullah guerrillas and refusing to call for an immediate halt to hostilities.
Thousands of demonstrators marched through central London holding placards
reading "End Israeli crimes in Lebanon" and "Freedom for Palestine". Police said
around 15,000 people were marching but organizers put the number at more than
100,000.
Anti-war march fuels flames of protest
Ben Doherty
August 7, 2006
A PROTEST called to commemorate the 61st anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima
turned its attention to a more contemporary conflict, the war between Hezbollah
and Israel, on the streets of Melbourne yesterday.
In front of a crowd that grew to more than 2000 by the rally's end, a dozen
speakers condemned Israel's attacks on southern Lebanon.
Thousands in Montreal protest Lebanon war
Updated Sun. Aug. 6 2006 9:32 PM ET
CTV.ca News
Thousands of Montrealers hit the streets for the second protest against the war
in Lebanon in as many weeks.
Sunday's demonstration was peaceful as it navigated through city streets
creating a sea of red and white Lebanese flags after starting at a downtown
park. Police estimated the crowd at about 15,000.
Anti-War Protest in Toronto
Jul, 23 2006 - 8:50 AM
Thousands of protesters chanted outside the Israeli and U.S. consulates
Saturday, denouncing Israel and criticizing the federal government.
Some carried posters bearing images of Prime Minister Harper with the words War
Mongerer underneath.
They demanded Harper call for a ceasefire and speak out against Israel.
Similar peace rallies were held in cities across Canada and around the world.
South
Africans protest Israeli actions in Lebanon
Thousands of South Africans marched through the streets of Cape Town
to Parliament on Saturday to demand diplomatic and trade sanctions against
Israel.
The protest action in Cape Town, Pretoria and elsewhere, was to urge the South
African government to recall the South African ambassador from Tel Aviv and to
end all diplomatic relations with Israel.
South Africans also called for trade and other sanctions on Israel and to demand
that South Africans serving in the Israeli defense force be prosecuted.
The march, one of several organized around the country this week, was under the
auspices of a broad coalition of trade unions, religious bodies and civil
society.
Times
Sq. protest rips Israel on war
Several hundred activists spouting anti-Israeli slogans gathered in
Times Square yesterday to protest the escalating violence in the Middle East.
The peaceful rally was organized by the Troops Out Now Coalition and featured
speeches by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, several local radical
activists and a prerecorded message by Death Row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal,
convicted of killing a Philadelphia cop.
Editor Notes: Those were just a few of the
anti war protests around the world.
August 6, 2006
Israel's Marriage
ban
In approving an effective ban on marriages between Israelis and
Palestinians this week, Israel’s Supreme Court has shut tighter the gates of the
Jewish fortress the state of Israel is rapidly becoming. The judges’ decision,
in the words of the country’s normally restrained Haaretz daily, was “shameful”.
By a wafer-thin majority, the highest court in the land ruled that an amendment
passed in 2003 to the Nationality Law barring Palestinians from living with an
Israeli spouse inside Israel -- what in legal parlance is termed “family
unification” -- did not violate rights enshrined in the country’s Basic Laws.
And even if it did, the court added, the harm caused to the separated families
was outweighed by the benefits of improved “security”. Israel, concluded the
judges, was justified in closing the doors to residency for all Palestinians in
order to block the entry of those few who might use marriage as a way to launch
terror attacks.
Editor Note: I just found the following published on a private website:
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
What Is Zionism?
I was visiting my Mother the other day (she lives 10 miles away) and she had
just read some articles on my blog. She made some negative remarks about
"Zionists", at which point I informed her that she was a Zionist. She looked
horrified, which is the way any decent person should look when accused of such a
thing. I then patiently explained to her than anyone who supported a Jewish
state in Palestine was a Zionist.
She looked disappointed. On further questioning, it turned out that she pretty
much thought that the founding of Israel was a great big mistake and a crime -
like the founding of the USA via the conquest of the American Indians. However,
she said you can't undo history, and people have to try to make do with reality
as it is.
I then told her that her views were probably "non-Zionist" - that being someone
who disapproved of the Zionist project, but that that we should live with the
reality of it, as Israel is there, and it's not going away. My brother, on
questioning, also did not really know what Zionism is, and also qualified as a
non-Zionist who thought we needed to deal with reality as it exists, not as it
ought to be.
The views that they espouse - "That the creation of Israel was a mistake, but
they are there, not leaving, and we have to deal with that" - ought to
rationally be considered by progressives as neither Zionism nor anti-Zionism,
but non-Zionism.
In the course of my conversations with these two brilliant, high educated
immediate family members, I realized that even the best and the brightest in the
US did not really know what Zionism was. So, with that in mind, I felt it was
time for a post describing exactly what Zionism was, it's history and its
various forms. Obviously, this brief post will barely begin to nudge the edges
of this subject, but still it ought to serve as a nice primer.
Wha is Zionism anyway. I see Zionism every day on the net. In a nutshell, most
Zionists, but not all, argue that the formation of the state of Israel and the
settler-colonial project that created it were right, just and proper.
A principal Zionist argument is this:
1. Jewish land, not Arab land - All of Israel is Jewish land. The Arabs have no
right to any of this land.
Two main arguments are used to defend this view:
a. Historical - Jews had a continuing presence in the land for 3,000 years, so
therefore it is their land. The Arab presence is illegitimate. There were only a
few of them anyway, and they invaded Jewish land in 640 and have been occupying
Jewish land ever since. Arabs never controlled Palestine anyway, and all
Palestinians are Arab invading colonists who have no right to be there and need
to go back to Arabia where they came from. Jews were completely in their right
to reclaim their homeland after so many years in exile. This is one of the most
vicious and wicked Zionist arguments, and it is extremely popular amongst the
hardest of the hardline blood and soil organic nationalist types. One can argue
that this is the philosophy that it is at the core of the mindset leaders of the
Zionist movement from 1897 to the present. It is this argument, that, like most
primordialist ethnic nationalist projects that rose out of Central and Eastern
Europe in the 1800's, that is most similar to Nazism. On the other hand, all
modern ethnic nationalisms (in particular Arab nationalism, Indian Hindu
nationalism, Lebanese Phalangist nationalism and all of the ethnic nationalist
projects that swept Central and Eastern Europe in the 1920's and 1930's) came
from the same 19th Century core as Nazism, so it is somewhat unfair to single
out Zionism in that regard.
b. Religious - God gave the land to the Jews. It is Jewish land and will always
be so. God watches over the Jews and Israel and no one can mess with them.
Anyone who messes with the Jews or Israel gets punished by God. This is
obviously a favorite of conservative Zionists, though some secular liberal
Zionists use it too, usually cynically in an effort to get Gentile Christians to
go along with the project
c. Holocaust - Jews needed a safe haven in Israel due to the Holocaust and it
was ok to throw out the Arabs to get this haven. A favorite of liberal Zionists,
many of whom are ignorant of the specifics of the project. When questioned, many
of this type will insist that no Arabs were thrown out to make the Jewish state.
Apparently the land was just empty or something.
d. Freedom From Persecution - Related to the above. Jews have been persecuted
everywhere they have been, so it is reasonable for them to have their own state
where they can be safe. A favorite of more liberal Zionists. One of their
favorite lines is that Zionism is "affirmative action for Jews". Micheal Lerner
of Tikkun is fond of that phrase.
e. UN and League of Nations - These 2 organizations agreed to give away Arab
land to Jews for a homeland at different times. Therefore, Israel is legitimate.
Once again, a favorite of more liberal Zionists and folks who are fond of the UN
and international law.
f. Self-determination and National Liberation - All other ethnic groups have a
right to self-determination on the homeland and many have developed national
liberation movements to obtain their nation-state. Zionism is the Jewish
equivalent. This argument is a favorite of Zionist liberals and Leftists.
g. British Donation - Britain gave the land - British land - to the Jews.
Therefore, it is the Jews' land. This one is also a favorite of more liberal
Zionists, because it avoids the question of whether or not Israel is Jewish
land.
A number of the National-Religious types (see arguments A and B above - they are
typically combined into a highly toxic form called National-Religious Zionism)
claim that the land of Israel extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. It
encompasses most of Lebanon and Syria, all of Jordan, part of Iraq, all of the
Sinai, part of Arabia and all of Kuwait.
There are actually a fair number of Zionists who feel that all (or some) of this
should be re conquered.
When an aide to President Truman visited the Holy Land around 1947 to try to
understand the Zionist-Arab conflict, he said that all of the Jews he met there
held the Nile to Euphrates view. He also noted that they did not like to talk
about it too much, and they seemed to want to keep it a sort of secret, as if
they were afraid of the reaction of outsiders if they learned of the Zionist
plans.
Despite super-liar modern-day Crusader Daniel Pipes' articulate lie, The Nile to
Euphrates Calumny, Nile to Euphrates Zionists are not mythological, and I have
run across them fairly regularly on the Net, especially lately.
Does Mr. Pipes feel that I have hallucinated all of these Greater Israel types?
Were they all just Arab agents out to make the Zionists look bad? Inquiring
minds want to know. Mr. Pipes or his supporters are encouraged to email me here
to explain how it is that I keep running into these nonexistent phantasms.
A lesser view holds that "Eretz Israel" at least covers all of Green Line
Israel, all of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip. Some also
include the Sinai Peninsula (or at least a small part of it up to the Wadi Arish)
and southern Lebanon to the Litani River.
Editor Note continued: Rather than publish it all, I suggest you visit the web site:
Does Zionism =
Racism ?
Zionism is a racist ideology, like all nationalisms. The specific
racist characteristics are summarised here: labelling them racist should be
uncontroversial in itself. However Israel and its supporters are allergic for
the label, and that hinders rational assessment of nationalist ideology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationalism and racism
Nation states are components of a nationalist world order, and nationalism is
the ideology or movement that promotes that world order. The specific
characteristics of that world order are listed in the introduction to Nation
Planet. The present world order is composed of permanent states. With one
exception, the Vatican, they are formed by trans-generational communities -
nations. Together these states hold all inhabitable territory, as contiguous
national territories: a planet of nations. All nationalists hold certain core
beliefs about this world order, about the nation itself and about the nation
state. Some of these core beliefs are clearly racist. Others - such as the
belief that nation states should be transgenerational - are not racist in
themselves, but lead almost inevitably to racist policies by the states. All
modern nation states are founded on certain racist principles, which derive
directly from nationalist ideology. The multi-ethnic empires, the traditional
target of European nationalist resentment, did not always apply such principles.
The catechism of nationalism
The nations are collectively equivalent to humanity: they are its natural units.
Each person inherently belongs to a specific nation, and no-one can validly
claim not to belong to any nation.
Nations are sacred: they have a status which no other group or collectivity can
have. Nations deserve supreme respect, beyond that for other groups.
The nations have a monopoly of state formation. No entity which is not a nation
may acquire or hold territory, to form a state.
Nations have a great historical continuity and should be continued. National
cultures have intrinsic value, therefore nations must exist to produce and
preserve them.
Nations may not be abolished, singly or collectively. No process which
terminates the existence of any nation is legitimate. The world order of nation
states shall never be terminated. If a nation ceases to exist, by decline or
erosion, then its place in the world order shall be taken by a successor nation.
from: Nation Planet
All nation states are founded on the nationalist belief that each nation has a
specific claim to a specific territory. Nationalists can and do recognise other
nations claims to other territories, but almost all make an exclusive claim to
at least some territory. This claim is, by definition, an expression of group
superiority. The members of the nation, according the nationalist movement in
question, possess an inherently superior claim to the territory, purely by
membership of the group. They do not have to do anything for it. The claim
covers not only their claimed right to live there, but their claimed right to
exclude others.
There is one exception to this pattern: the diaspora nationalism of the Roma.
The Roma do not know exactly where their ancestral homeland is located.
Therefore, in sharp contrast to other nationalist movements, Roma nationalism
does not claim territory. And until they know where it is, Roma nationalists can
not attempt to expel the existing inhabitants of that territory.
All existing nation states do make a claim of superior right to national
territory. In all cases, this claim is made on behalf of a single ethnic group,
or a cluster of ethnic groups (titular nation plus national minorities). That
the groups are ethnic is the source of most of the racism in ideology and
policy. If states were exclusively founded on gender, their ideology might be
sexist, but not racist.
Conversely, all nation states claim that other groups do not possess that
specific right to the territory in question. Irish nationalists believe that the
'Irish people' have a superior right to the island of Ireland, and that the
Paraguayan people do not possess this right. They believe that individual
Irishmen and Irish women are the bearers of this collective right, and that
these individuals can not be denied the right to reside in Ireland. They they do
not believe this about randomly selected individual Paraguayans. Ireland has no
indigenous ethnic minorities so the definition of the nation is relatively
simple. However these beliefs can be held on behalf of more than one national
group, but never on behalf of all nations of the world - at least not in any
existing nation state. The formal expression of these underlying beliefs is the
citizenship and immigration policy of the nation states. Note that nothing stops
Irish and Paraguayan nationalists from respecting each others claims, especially
since they have no common disputed territory. However, that does not make their
claims any less racist.
It is often said, that the nation states have widely differing conceptions of
citizenship. In fact they all operate in conformity with these two principles of
superior claim, and legitimate exclusion. All existing nation states share two
other characteristics. No nation state has an absolute open-border policy
(totally free immigration), and all nation states allow the acquisition of
citizenship by descent.
These four characteristics allow Zionism to be considered racist - in the
company of other nationalisms, including the quasi-official ideologies of each
nation state.
The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior
quality to members of the national group. The denial of this claim to certain
other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to their members.
The lack of an open-door immigration policy means, that these claims are
translated into real exclusion. Finally, the acquisition of citizenship by
descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in the general sense, but
it is also closest to the biological ideologies first described by the term
'racism'.
French and German attitudes are said to represent the extremes of citizenship
policy, but in fact both states share a biological concept of citizenship. Both
illustrate this core policy, despite their differences in emphasis. Germany has
a generally restrictive immigration policy, which it relaxed in the 1960's and
1970's to allow labour migration for (West) German industry. The children of the
many Turkish immigrants grew up in Germany as foreign citizens, with a Turkish
passport and a German residence permit. Even the third generation, often born in
Germany of German-born parents, usually speaking only German, were still Turkish
citizens. If they committed a crime they were liable to be deported to Turkey,
even if they did not speak a word of Turkish and had never been there before.
Only in the last few years has naturalisation become almost automatic for the
third generation. In contrast, descendants of Germans who settled in eastern
Europe, sometimes two or three centuries ago, can arrive in Germany and claim
full citizenship. It is not necessary that their parents are German citizens,
and they are not required to speak a word of German. The German state will pay
for their full integration in German society, because they are considered part
of the German 'Volk'.
French policies are based on different assumptions, about the effectiveness of
French society in transferring its own core values. Living in France for a long
period, or growing up in France, is considered to effectively assimilate the
migrant or the child. (There is an underlying belief in the self-evident
superiority of French values). Naturalisation is therefore easier, and in
principle birth in France confers citizenship - but the parents must get there
first, for the child to be born there.
However in both cases a basic rule applies, which undermines the French
pretensions to have a 'non-racist' citizenship and nationality policy. The child
born of citizens is a citizen. All existing nation states apply this principle,
usually without regard to place of birth. The child born to a French-citizen
mother and a French-citizen father, in Zambia, is a French citizen. The child
born to a German-citizen mother and a German-citizen father, in Zambia, is a
German citizen. No special procedure is required of either the parents or the
baby, and no supplementary qualifications.
The child of Zambian parents, who have no German or French ancestors and no
connection with Germany or France, can make no claim on the citizenship of these
countries. Both doors are equally closed. That essential inequality is by
definition racist. As an adult, the Zambian child can later try to enter either
country, and acquire citizenship. That means going through a special procedure,
and meeting certain norms, for instance on educational level. Ultimately,
acquiring citizenship might be easier in France, but there is no guarantee there
either.
This is the reality of nation states: most people got their citizenship from
their parents, and they did nothing for it. They certainly did not have to cross
the Strait of Gibraltar in a small boat, and spend 10 years picking tomatoes or
cleaning toilets - which is what a Zambian might do to acquire legal residence
in an EU country. In other words the average citizen, certainly in the richer
countries, is complicit in a grand racist scheme. They benefit greatly from
their privilege at birth, while others lose horribly. That is presumably why
they don't like to talk about the issue, but in terms of human suffering this is
the worst aspect of the inherent racism of the nation states. If adults in a
western city were arrested, and condemned on the basis of their ethnicity to the
typical conditions of life in rural Africa, it would be considered a crime
against humanity.
Origins and definition of Zionism
The racist characteristics of nationalism can be found in the Zionist ideology
and in the State of Israel, a nation state. The word Zionism is used today for
the foundational ideology of the Israeli nation state - the claims by which it
justifies its existence. However Zionism as a nationalist movement is older than
that state: past and present Zionism do not always coincide.
Zionism is a diaspora nationalism of the Jewish people. In a diaspora
nationalism, most members of the national group are not resident on the claimed
national territory, and the nation state can only be achieved by 'return'
migration. Zionism is an unusual nationalism: it is largely the creation of a
single individual, Theodor Herzl. He was the first to make a public claim to a
Jewish State, and promoted that idea in Europe. His work reflected the general
climate of nationalist revival movements in eastern Europe at the time,
especially in the Austro-Hungarian empire. It was almost inevitable, that a
Jewish movement would identify Jews as 'a people' when all around them Germans,
Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and Hungarians were
doing the same. The other historically possible options - a purely religious
revival movement, and an emancipation movement - were side-tracked.
Zionism is also unusual because, in the early years, there was no clear idea of
the national homeland. There was a clear territorial concentration of Jews in
Europe, in what is now Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine and southern Russia.
However, except for local concentrations, they were in a minority even in this
territory. The idea of a Jewish nation state in eastern Europe was never
influential in Zionism. Some of the early plans for Jewish resettlement were not
even formally nationalist: they made no claim to a state. Resettlement in a
British colony, such as Uganda, was for a time the most serious option. The
negotiations came to nothing - but the idea influenced British policy, when
Palestine became a British mandate territory, after the First World War.
By the time of the Balfour Declaration, Zionism was a standard nationalist
movement. Zionists claimed to speak on behalf of a people, the Jewish people.
They claimed a nation state for that people in Palestine, on the grounds that it
was the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The 'Jewish people' for almost
all Zionists was (and is) an ethno-national group - and not a religious
community. A minority of religious Jews still opposes Zionism for religious
reasons.
Zionism in the State of Israel
When the State of Israel came into existence, it included a mainly Arab
minority, now about one million people. Historically Zionism has never
recognised any 'national minority' within the nation, the status of (for
instance) the Frisians within the modern Dutch nation. For Zionists, the Jewish
people is the Jewish nation: Zionism is a mono-ethnic nationalism comparable to
Irish nationalism. The present State of Israel generally has the constitutional
structure of a secular nation state. It has conceded citizenship to the 'Israeli
Arabs', although many will identify themselves as 'Palestinians'. However there
is no tradition in Zionism which sees this group ('Arabs' or 'Palestinians') as
a constituent minority of the Jewish people. Although many Zionists claimed the
territory where Yasir Arafat lived, no Zionist ever saw him as a Jew.
There is also no nationalist movement to establish a bi-national state on the
former mandate territory of Palestine. Zionism is not such a movement, and the
State of Israel does not claim to be a bi-national state. In this respect,
Zionism is comparable to Czech nationalism or Slovak nationalism - not to
Czechoslovak nationalism.. No Zionists call themselves Palestino-Jews or Judaeo-Palestinians.
The State is called Israel, not Filastino-Israel or Israelo-Filastina
Within this framework, which includes contradictory ideas about Israeli
citizenship, the four racist characteristics can be identified.
Firstly, the Zionist movement historically made a claim to territory on behalf
of 'the Jewish people', an exclusive geopolitical claim. It claimed that
individual Jews had a right to residence in that territory, which did not apply
to randomly selected non-Jews outside that territory. None of the early Zionists
advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the establishment of the
State of Israel in 1948 - but none of them believed that non-Jews had a right to
the Jewish homeland either. Zionists attribute a superior quality to Jews,
namely the exclusive right to the Jewish national territory. The State of
Israel, by definition, claims Israeli territory for Israeli's. It attributes a
superior quality to Israeli's, although paradoxically that includes the Arab
minority with Israeli citizenship. However, the State of Israel is not 'Israelist'
- in the sense of consistently presenting these claims for both its Jewish and
Arab citizens. In official pronouncements, such as its defensive speech to the
Durban anti-racism conference, Israel continues to claim state legitimacy as the
national homeland for the 'Jewish people'. It is therefore not correct to say,
that in Israel Jewish diaspora nationalism has been succeeded by Israeli
nationalism. The legitimising ideology of Israel is still largely Zionism, and
not 'Israelism'.
Secondly, Zionism attributes an inferior status to members of non-Jewish
ethno-national groups: that they lack the absolute right to residence in the
Jewish homeland, and to citizenship of a Jewish nation state. The State of
Israel confers no right of residence or citizenship on persons born outside
Israel, unless they have specific links to Israel, to the Jewish people, or to
Judaism. That excludes about 99% of the world population. The only exception to
the general pattern of nationalist exclusion is, that the State of Israel
extends citizenship to the historically resident Arab minority. However, some
groups in Israel dispute even their right to residence, and propose their
expulsion as part of a 'peace settlement' - together with the expulsion of
Palestinians from all or part of the occupied territories. According to a 2003
opinion poll in Israel (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies), 31% now support
the expulsion of the Arab minority, and 46% support clearance of the
territories.
The most obvious exclusion, which was not foreseen by the early Zionists, is the
status of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Theodor Herzl never
imagined that a Jewish state would be an occupying power, and therefore the de
facto government, for a large non-Jewish population. In addition, about three
million people belong to the clearly identifiable 'Palestinian-refugee'
minorities, in other Arab countries, although most were born in their present
country of residence. The State of Israel clearly attributes an inferior status
to this population: namely that they do not possess the right to Israeli
citizenship. This population is generally equivalent to the 'Palestinian people'
in the occupied territories, although it includes small non-Jewish, non-Arab
minorities. The members of this population, (primarily Palestinian), can not
vote, for instance, and if they did all vote in Israeli elections, it would mean
the end of the State of Israel. Again it is true that all nation states operate
this exclusion, and none of them extend citizenship to everyone, certainly not
to hostile populations. That does not make such policies any less racist, since
the exclusions are by definition on ethnic or national grounds.
That would not matter so much, if Israeli borders were open to all immigrants:
but they are not, and this is the third racist characteristic of Zionism. Israel
has one of the highest immigration rates in history, but immigration policy has
always been restrictive. Although Israel grants citizenship to the resident Arab
minority, it does not permit Arab immigration, even by former residents of its
territory. Only those who stayed in their villages in 1948 got Israeli
citizenship: those who crossed the front line to the Arab side can not get back
- not as a citizen, and probably not as a visitor. Other Arabs, who have no
connection with Palestine, can not simply migrate to Israel, nor can most of the
world's population. Israeli immigration is essentially for Jews only, and this
is the most obviously racist policy of present Zionism. In this case, the State
of Israel has a formal and explicit policy of Jewish immigration, which is
clearly Zionist. It is the logical consequence of the original Zionist demand
for a Jewish state formed by migration, meaning migration of Jews.
In one respect Israeli policy differs from most national immigration policies:
citizenship can be indirectly acquired on religious grounds. A person who
converts to Judaism can be a Jew in the sense of the Israeli Law of Return, if
the conversion is accepted as valid by religious authorities in Israel. The
convert can then go to Israel (entry can not be legally refused), and can claim
Israeli nationality and citizenship. Sometimes this is quoted by Israel's
supporters, to show Israel is not racist. In theory, all the inhabitants of the
Palestinian territories can sincerely convert to Judaism tomorrow, and on
acceptance of their conversion move to Israel. - where they will all presumably
live as good and prosperous Israeli citizens. In practice this is absurdly
unlikely. And the question is: why should they have to convert to Judaism, when
native-born atheist or Buddhist Israelis can still be part of the Jewish people?
This is the fourth racist characteristic, equally present in the state policies
of Israel and present Zionist belief. It was not very relevant for the early
Zionists, who were too far from a Jewish state to think about its future
citizenship policy. Nevertheless, it was predictable even at the time Herzl
wrote, on the basis of the general characteristics of European nation states
(and of the Austro-Hungarian empire where he lived). The child of an Israeli
citizen mother and and Israeli citizen father is an Israeli citizen. (I am not
sure if this applies to the children of Israeli Arabs, born in the occupied
territories). The child acquires this privilege without effort: no application
under the Law of Return, no conversion to Judaism, no other qualification for
citizenship. The child simply acquires the rights (and duties) of an Israeli
citizen through unconscious biological process. The child without this
biological advantage (birth, or parentage, or genetic material) does not
automatically acquire citizenship. Life in Israel is not always pleasant, and
many western Jews hesitate to emigrate there, but within the region an
Israeli-born child has the advantage. The child born to Israeli settlers in
central Hebron will statistically live longer, be better educated, and have a
higher standard of living, then the Palestinian child born in an adjoining
house. This advantage is part of the general advantage of being born in a rich
country, which about one-fifth of the world's population share.
In citizenship and immigration issues, biology determines fate. Not inevitably,
but because nation states are structured that way. There is no inherent moral
reason why states should limit immigration, or residence, or citizenship, simply
on grounds of birth. In fact, it is hard to think of any moral justification for
it. It is clearly racist in the general sense of the word, and its derivation
from the ideology of nationalism indicates the racist origins of that ideology.
The nationalism underlying the nation state Israel, which is accurately called
Zionism, is no different in this respect. Here too, Zionism is racist.
August 4, 2006
Is this the twilight zone or what?
Christian fundamentals:
Matthew 5-7 (King James
Version)
Matthew 5
1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his
disciples came unto him:
2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall
be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say
all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so
persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith
shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and
to be trodden under foot of men.
14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a
candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven.
20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the
kingdom of heaven.
21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and
whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be
in danger of hell fire.
23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy
brother hath ought against thee;
24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to
thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest
at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee
to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast
paid the uttermost farthing.
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit
adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath
committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it
is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell.
30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it
is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell.
31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a
writing of divorcement:
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's
throne:
35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the
city of the great King.
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair
white or black.
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than
these cometh of evil.
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have
thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not
thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate
thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh
his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the
publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even
the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 6
1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye
have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as
the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory
of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself
shall reward thee openly.
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love
to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they
may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy
door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in
secret shall reward thee openly.
7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think
that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have
need of, before ye ask him.
9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed
be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you:
15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive
your trespasses.
16Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for
they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say
unto you, They have their reward.
17But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret:
and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth
corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole
body shall be full of light.
23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If
therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve
God and mammon.
25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or
what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the
life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor
gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better
than they?
27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how
they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed
like one of these.
30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to
morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little
faith?
31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink?
or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father
knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these
things shall be added unto you.
34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought
for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye;
and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt
thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be
opened unto you:
8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him
that knocketh it shall be opened.
9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a
stone?
10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how
much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask
him?
12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even
so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way,
that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life,
and few there be that find it.
15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy
name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful
works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that
work iniquity.
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will
liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon
that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be
likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon
that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were
astonished at his doctrine:
29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.