A
study course in guesswork
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz, April 24, 2003
It's time for universities to establish faculties for the study of Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon in which scholars will examine the guessing of his intentions. This
would give an academic seal to the main activity of politicians, diplomats and
reporters since the man was first elected. Sharon's latest holiday interviews,
in which he spoke about renewing negotiations with the Palestinians, and went
so far as to mention the possibility of the future dismantling of settlements,
provided a lot of work to the commentators. Once again, the Sharon riddle was
woken. What does he really want? Where is he going? The curiosity was piqued further
by the end of the war in Iraq, the power struggle in the Palestinian leadership,
and the expectations of American intervention here to put things in order. "Sharonologists"
can be divided into four schools. There are those, like Shimon Peres, Amnon Mitzna
and their pals who long for government, who believe "he wants to, but can't" reach
an agreement with the Palestinians. Some, particularly on the left, where they
are hoping for American pressure, think he "can, but doesn't want to." Then there
are those, in Europe and the Arab world, who say "he doesn't want to and can't."
And finally, there are those, like Sharon himself, who say he "wants to and can"
- which is exactly what the right fears. Political declarations tend, for the
most part, to say something about the short memory of those who hear them.
Abu
against Abu
By Uri Avnery, Media Monitors Network, April 24, 2003
The clash between Abu-1 and Abu-2 – Abu-Amar v. Abu-Mazen – is not
a personal matter, as it is presented by journalists in Israel and all over the
world. Of course, the egos of the two personalities do play a role, as in all
political fights. But the controversy itself goes much deeper. It reflects the
unique situation of the Palestinian people. An upper-class Palestinian defined
it this week on Israeli television as "the move from the culture of revolution
to the culture of a state." Meaning: the Palestinian war of liberation has come
to an end, and now the time has come to put the affairs of state in order. Therefore,
Yasser Arafat (Abu-Amar), who represents the first, must go and Mahmud Abbas (Abu-Mazen),
who represents the second, must take over. No description could be further from
reality. The Palestinian war of liberation is now at its height. Perhaps it has
never been at a more critical stage. The Palestinians are faced with existential
threats: ethnic cleansing (called in Israel "transfer") or imprisonment in powerless,
Bantustan-style enclaves. How has this illusion - that the national struggle is
over and that the time has come to turn to administrative matters - arisen? The
situation of the Palestinian people is indeed unique. As far as I am aware, it
has no parallel in history. Following the Oslo agreements, a kind of Palestinian
mini-state came into being, consisting of several small enclaves on the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip. These enclaves have to be administered. But the national Palestinian
aim – a viable, independent state in all the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including
East Jerusalem – is far from being attained. In order to achieve it, an
arduous national struggle lies ahead. Thus, two different – and contradictory
– structures exist side by side: a national liberation movement requiring
strong and authoritative leadership, and a mini-state that needs a regular, democratic
and transparent administration.
Do
You Regret Being American?
By Annie C. Higgins, Dissident Voice, April 24, 2003
“Do you regret being American?” I was asked. I cannot remember who
asked me, or even if it was in Palestine or here in Egypt. It could have been
anyone, anywhere, anytime. There has been a continuing stream of reasons for regret,
from my country’s support of assassination in Palestine to – come
to think of it, my country’s support of assassination in Iraq, and these
are just the obvious ones. But my country doesn’t really support such evil
deeds. My constitution, my neighborly culture, my conviction in the rightness
of freedom of speech – these things define my country. These are not pushing
invasion and occupation of another nation. Those making the decisions and taking
the actions that shame us all are not of the American people, nor for us. A local
commentator feels that a coup has changed the American government, although it
has not been publicly announced or acknowledged. He does not specify whether this
has taken place in the White House or the Pentagon. What this alleged American
government, which is the military, is doing to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is
no different than what they are doing to themselves, padding their ears so they
do not hear, blindfolding their eyes so they do not see, tying their own arms
so they cannot feel, and binding their legs so they cannot take steps toward any
kind of progress. Americans may not have seen the images of the Guantanamo prisoners
lately but the rest of the world has. Spanish television showed them on the heels
of a clip where the Bush administration complains of violations of the Geneva
Convention in al-Jazeera’s broadcasts of pictures. “Do
you regret being American?” Bush is appointing a Minister of
Information in Iraq from among the seemingly omniscient JINSA group [Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs] who thinks they are remote-controlling the world.
One more little surprise from Iraq that the coup-makers haven’t taken into
consideration is that Iraqis are sophisticated at sorting through the news that
is handed out to them. They don’t automatically accept what the little screen
tells them. They have developed a healthy habit of questioning authority and media
pronouncements. They are also aware of America’s legal violations.
“Do you regret being American?”
Why
the Mullahs Love a Revolution
By Dilip Hiro, New York Times, April 23, 2003
LONDON — The Bush team's vision for a postwar Iraq was founded on the dreams
of exiles and defectors, who promised that Iraqis would shower American troops
with flowers. Now, with the crowds shouting, "No to America; no to Saddam," and
most Iraqis already referring to the American "occupation," the Bush administration
seems puzzled. The truth is that the exiles had been in the West so long that
they knew little of the reality inside Iraq; the defectors, in search of a haven
from the cruel regime, told the eager Americans anything they wanted to hear.
Now that these illusions have been shattered, American policy makers might do
better to consider the history of the region. In particular, the dogged nationalism
of the Iraqis that forced imperial Britain's departure in 1932; and, more recently,
the events in 1979 after the downfall of the secular regime of the shah of Iran.
A big argument among American officials had been over the future of the secular
Baath Party, with the pragmatists advocating a mere "head transplant" of the top
leadership while keeping the body intact, and the ideologues proposing outright
destruction. Events, however, ignored the debate in Washington, and the Baath
disappeared altogether. So too have the military and most of the police. This
vacuum is reminiscent of what happened in Iran in February 1979. The 440,000-strong
military of the pro-American shah disintegrated quickly, as did the police force
and the Savak, the notorious secret police. Into that vacuum stepped the Islamic
Revolutionary Komitehs, run by Shiite clerics operating from the local mosques.
The Komitehs took over not only law enforcement but also such essential chores
as distributing heating oil to households in wintry Tehran. Many groups took part
in toppling the shah; but it was the nationwide religious network and the unified
actions of the mullahs that enabled them to to become his successor.
George,
we have been more than patient
By Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, April 22, 2003
George, we have been more than patient. Let us know what we can expect from you
before we waste our efforts. The roadmap will be a lost cause when you find out
that in order to establish two states side by side one really needs to see some
action on the ground. In fact, chances of this outcome diminishes every single
day. The more homes Israel destroys, the more fences and walls it builds, the
more settlers occupy the land and the more anger is created, the less chances
for success. Consider this: to overcome apartheid we need regime change. George,
I know that you're in touch with Ariel on a daily basis. You've listened carefully
when he spoke about the semantics of colonialism. You talked about a "pre-emptive
strike", as he did when asked about Israel's motives to occupy the West Bank and
Gaza Strip. As your administration did when it invaded Iraq, Israel claimed that
it invaded the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a "defensive" measure. We all know
that the people in place in your administration, your father's friends, were planning
for this war as soon as the Supreme Court decided to stop the recount of votes
in Florida on December 9, 2000. Israel began planning the invasion of the Sinai,
the West Bank and Gaza Strip as soon as they had been forced to withdraw from
the Sinai in 1956. As Israel, you also understood the need for a sophisticated
propaganda campaign to convince Western public opinion that your offensive was
an act of self-defense. Israel's propaganda campaign was two-pronged: that the
Arabs attacked Israel and that Israel was in danger of annihilation. In your case,
Saddam Hussein defied Security Council resolutions and you only needed yet to
proof the presence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq in order
to make the world believe that the United States was in danger of annihilation.
You and your friends in Israel did not bother providing the evidence before you
started war.
Media
Nix - From Blix to Kucinich to Dixie Chicks
By Norman Solomon, Media Monitors Network, April 24, 2003
Hans Blix, Dennis Kucinich and the Dixie Chicks are in very different lines of
work -- but they're in the same line of fire from big media for the sin of strongly
challenging the president's war agenda. Let's start with Blix, who can get respectful
coverage in American media -- unless he's criticizing the U.S. government. Belatedly,
in mid-April, he went public with accusations that the Bush administration faked
evidence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And Blix declared that the United
Nations -- not the U.S. government -- should deploy arms inspectors in Iraq now.
But presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer retorted: "I think it's unfortunate if
Hans Blix would in any way criticize the United States at this juncture." The
White House message was clear -- and it reached the media echo chamber. So, on
the April 22 edition of CNN's "Moneyline" program, host Lou Dobbs (with an American
flag pin in his lapel) summed up a news report this way: "Blix appearing for all
the world to look like a petulant U.N. bureaucrat about a month to go before his
retirement." Mainstream U.S. reporters rarely apply an adjective like "petulant"
to petulant administration officials like, say, Ari Fleischer. But then again,
Fleischer doesn't challenge U.S. foreign policy.
Media
Democratization
By Edward S. Herman, Dissident Voice, April 24, 2003
The Tradeoff Between Military and Civilian Outlays Is Undiscussible In This Corporate
Pseudo-Democracy: We Need To Make Bolder Moves Toward Media Democratization --
President George Bush has asked congress for $63 billion to fund the invasion,
pacification, and occupation of Iraq, and there will almost surely be supplementary
monies needed later. Meanwhile, the states in this country, suffering from falling
revenues and rising demands in a recessionary economy, face an estimated $70 billion
deficit and they, along with thousands of municipalities, are scrambling to slash
back outlays for education, health care, housing and public services across the
board. (With few exceptions, states by law cannot run deficits but must balance
their budgets each year.) While Bush is asking for the $63 billion for military
spending his January budget proposal did nothing to alleviate the domestic fiscal
crisis, and he has proposed nothing since January to help state and local governments
cope. In order to get congressional and public approval of his military plans
and priorities, Bush also spent several millions of dollars of taxpayers’
money propagandizing for the planned attack on Iraq, and with arguments that none
of the world outside the United States swallows. His argument that Saddam Hussein
and his weapons of mass destruction posed a credible threat to U.S. national security
is one that any moderately intelligent and informed high school freshman could
refute; and Bush’s claim that he and his administration were devoted to
liberating Iraqis from tyranny--increasingly stressed as the missing weapons of
mass destruction failed to show themselves to the invasion forces--reeks of cynicism
and hypocrisy, given the long U.S. support of Saddam Hussein as well as tyrants
in his neighborhood and across the globe. But although the Bush arguments have
been puerile and eminently challengeable, and the internal crisis of the states
and civil society needs are severe, with damage already being felt and likely
to hurt millions more U.S. citizens in the future, the mainstream media of the
United States and the national legislatures have not only not challenged the Bush
priorities, they have not even discussed them or allowed them to be discussed.
The media have cooperated with the Bush cabal in SELLING the Bush military adventurism
and its lies, and the Democrats have joined the mob or lapsed into silence. You
might think that somebody with communication system outreach or political power
would ask about the tradeoffs being imposed by Bush—about whether it is
the best use of $100-200 billion of taxpayers money and resources to displace
a regional dictator, formerly a valued ally of the Republican Party leadership,
or whether it might not be better to use those resources to serve the domestic
citizenry and protect them from increasingly severe public service cutbacks. Honest
polls have for many years shown that, except in times of war or aggressive war
propaganda, the U.S. public wants less "defense" expenditures and more for education
and other public services (e.g., Steven Kull, Americans on Defense Spending, A
Study of Public Attitudes [January 19, 1996].).
