| |
Poll
issues
Editorial, Arab News, January 6, 2003
Up until recently, the Israeli general election campaign was dominated
by one theme — security. But there are now several issues
on the agenda, and while they serve to spice up the campaign, none
have managed to derail Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from his march
toward a second term in office. Until last month, Sharon’s
Likud Party, the front-runner in the polls, had been sailing smoothly
until allegations of corruption surfaced. The affair has included
accusations that some Likud leaders accepted money and favors in
exchange for votes in the party’s primary election. No one
has been charged but opinion polls showed that public support for
Likud was beginning to falter. Two polls showed Sharon and Likud
would have captured only 31 seats in the Knesset if the election
had been held last week. Likud leaders said last month they expected
to win 41 seats when Israelis go to the polls Jan. 28. Sharon needs
to put together a coalition government with at least 61 seats in
the 120-member Knesset to have a majority. Likud is still expected
to emerge from the elections with the largest share of seats, but
its lead is shrinking.
If
only he would listen, this could be Blair's finest hour
By Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, January 6, 2003
Britain's envoys want the PM to stall Bush's plans for war -- "It
is hard to find anyone in Whitehall who supports a war against Iraq
and who is not deeply concerned about the influence of the hawks
around Bush. They cannot say so in public, of course." -- Telegrams
from British embassies and missions around the world are urging
Tony Blair to step up pressure on President Bush to pull back from
a war against Iraq. In what amounts to a collective cri de coeur,
our envoys - congregating in Whitehall today for an unprecedented
Foreign Office brainstorming session - are warning of the potentially
devastating consequences of such an adventure, including its impact
on a greater threat than Saddam Hussein: al-Qaida-inspired terrorism.
The warnings are not just coming from our envoys and defence attaches
in Arab capitals. They are also, I am told, coming from Washington.
This, our diplomats suggest, could be one of Blair's - and Britain's
- finest hours, a unique opportunity to make a constructive contribution
to world affairs. They also know, not least from American opinion
polls, that the Bush administration needs Britain onside. Our contribution
would be a token one in military terms, but significant politically.
That gives Britain leverage.
A
Decision That Hurts Israeli Democracy
By David Newman, New York Times, January 6, 2003
BEERSHEBA, Israel - Even amid conflict, Israelis have always applauded
themselves for allowing anyone to run for office — including
those who reject the very raison d'κtre of a Jewish state. Only
rarely has a political party been banned from the elections, the
most notable being Kach, the extreme rightist anti-Arab party founded
by Meir Kahane. But now, with a round of Knesset elections three
weeks away, Israel has much less reason for pride. While Mr. Kahane's
successor, Baruch Marzel, was allowed to run for office as the No.
2 candidate for another extreme rightist party, the two most prominent
Arab legislators in the outgoing Knesset, Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara,
were barred by the Central Election Committee last week. The committee,
composed of representatives of the parties that have Knesset seats
and two neutral members (both of whom opposed the decision), described
Mr. Tibi and Mr. Bishara as consistently expressing opposition to
the existence of a Jewish state (as contrasted with a state of "all
its citizens" in which everyone is equal, Jew or Arab). Under Israeli
law, such opposition bars a person's candidacy. Mr. Bishara was
also accused of supporting armed resistance in the occupied territories,
an accusation he denied.
Contaminated
goods
By Osama El-Baz, Al-Ahram Weekly On-Line, 2 - 8 January 2003
Arab and Islamic proponents of anti-Semitism should remember that
they are purveying shoddy goods of purely Western make -- 'The Arab
cause is just and there is no excuse for borrowing from a legacy
inconsistent with the tenets of our beliefs and the realities of
our history, no excuse for not presenting our cause in its proper
logical and moral framework.' -- Over the last three centuries European
society has given rise to an idiosyncratic series of events and
ideas that are absolutely specific, both geographically and historically.
The peoples of the Middle East, like other non-Europeans, remained
remote from these developments, not only in terms of physical distance
but also in terms of their outlook on human nature and their own
social and psychological circumstances. They have found -- and continue
to find -- it difficult to comprehend the nature of such developments,
to understand the ethos and spirit that gave rise to an important
body of humanitarian thought. Europe witnessed several revolutions
and widespread social upheaval while simultaneously experiencing
rapid and intensive scientific and technological progress. It also
witnessed many manifestations of a blend of blind prejudice and
a sense of inherent superiority over other "uncivilised" and "backward"
peoples producing, among other things, an imperialist colonial movement,
which proceeded in tandem with a vaunted spirit of enlightenment
and the prodigious philosophical, intellectual and practical accomplishments
that benefited all mankind.
Invitation
to President Bush: Start with the Basics
By Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle, January 5, 2003
If you provide an invalid premise in any argument, not matter how
rational the argument sounds, you are doomed to receive an invalid
conclusion. It’s simple logic, and a concept that I learned
here in the United States during my first year in college, years
ago, with an enthusiastic teacher named Marsha. But today’s
reality seems much more irrational than philosophy 101. It was in
early 1999 when I met Dr. Mohamed Al-Douri, Iraq’s representative
to the United Nations. The ambassador had only been in his post
for a few months. Just as I turned my tape recorder on and readied
myself for the interview assignment, he uttered with conviction,
“the US is desperate to find an excuse to unleash a war on
Iraq.” It is not only Al-Douri, but millions throughout
the world who are sensing that the prospects for a US war on the
sanctions-hit Arab country is much more than your average war pretext,
“restoring democracy and upholding freedom”. True, now
you have “saving the Iraqi people,” another fabulous
pretext to be added to the tons of lame justifications, “Iraq
is a threat to its neighbors”, “Saddam Hussein is a
danger to humanity”, etc. Now, lets go back to our philosophy
lesson. Need I even suggest that saving a nation can hardly actualize
by starving its children? Need I reiterate that blocking medical
supplies, which results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands will
not free the Iraqis? Must I remind Mr. Bush that no provision within
the basic principals of democracy dictates that overthrowing a government
and imposing another through a lethal war, involving random air
bombardment, ceaseless ground shelling and troop redeployment is
in fact democratic?
When
a Disabled Child’s Only Crime is Being Palestinian
By Sheri Muzher, Palestine Chronicle, January 6, 2003
"I won’t be getting Ramzi’s letters anymore. I always
knew his teacher was writing them on his behalf since he couldn’t
write, or even sit up .." -- (PalestineChronicle.com) - “We’ve
held on to the money from the last quarter until the children of
Al Ihsan are re-located to another school. We just don’t know
when that is going to happen or if we will be able to,” the
woman told me after explaining that the Israelis may have shut down
another school. “That’s fine, but . . .could you remove
my name from the sponsorship list?” I asked, thinking out
loud. With all of the curfews, and closures by Israeli soldiers,
sponsoring a disabled Palestinian child through their special schools
no longer seemed feasible. “I am so sorry” I said as
my words broke up. “I understand,” the woman responded
softly. We hung up, and all I could feel was this unbearable amount
of pain for abandoning a child whose only crime was to be Palestinian.
What was the point of shutting down Ramzi’s school for the
developmentally and physically disabled? Did the Israelis cite security
here as they do with everything else? Ramzi is a young boy I sponsored
for two years. He is physically and mentally disabled. His mother
is physically disabled and his father has difficulty holding down
jobs due to mental illness. Ramzi, his parents, and three siblings
live in one room, which is connected to his grandfather’s
house. Of course, violent conflicts, such as in the MidEast affect
children in the most profound ways: both Palestinian and Israeli.
The psychological trauma is one that scars children forever. But
I don’t think that the Israeli government understands that
the weekly murders of Palestinian children; the hindering of their
education; demolishing their homes; or interfering in the livelihoods
of their fathers is destroying a generation and shaping generations
to come.
Bio-Warfare
and Terrorism
By Francis Boyle, Dissident Voice, January 5, 2002
During the Fall of 2001, we witnessed anthrax attacks on the United
States government that were obviously designed to shut down the
government at a very critical time immediately after September 11.
It was during this time that Congress should have been in session,
making decisions regarding oversight of the Executive Branch of
government. This note will discuss some historical background for
the law, policy and science of biological weapons here in the United
States. Early US Bio-War Program: The US has had, at least going
back to World War II, an extremely aggressive offensive biological
warfare program. In 1969, President Richard Nixon decided to discontinue
this program (at least with regard to biological “agents,”
which are used as weapons, as opposed to “toxins,” which
were theoretically for researching methods of immunization and therapy).
There were two reasons for discontinuing the weapons program: (1)
it was counter-productive militarily, as biological weapons were
very difficult to control, and (2) the US already had massive superiority
in nuclear weapons. Biological weapons were seen as the “poor
man’s atom bomb” and Nixon wanted to get rid of them
to prevent Third World nations from acquiring relatively inexpensive
weapons of mass destruction. In accordance with President Nixon’s
order, the total destruction of antipersonnel biological agents
and munitions was completed by May of 1972. [1] It is believed,
however, that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) continued to
research biological weapons in spite of the President’s order.
Articles
Archives
|
|
