Bush just doesn't get it
By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian 2003-07-31
The US president has allowed himself to be comprehensively bamboozled by Ariel Sharon, says Simon Tisdall. Peace is as far away as ever -- Not a little hope attached to this week's talks in Washington between the US president, George Bush, and the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon. Violence between Israelis and Palestinians has fallen sharply in recent weeks. Both sides have spoken in positive terms about the prospect of peace; both have made gestures, albeit mostly verbal, towards attaining that goal. Not a little fear attended the talks, too. The fear, for Israelis and Palestinians but also for the many others who yearn for a just end to this interminable conflict, is that without urgent, substantive steps forward - along the lines laid out by the international "road map" - a golden opportunity may be lost. Mr Bush put a characteristically optimistic spin on his discussions with Mr Sharon and, last week, with the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas. "I think we're making pretty good progress in a short period of time," he said. He might think that is the case. He might wish it to be so. But there are three basic grounds for challenging Mr Bush's rosy judgment. The first cause for concern arises from the sight of Mr Sharon, standing alongside the US leader, reiterating in uncompromising terms his preconditions for negotiations on the fundamental issues that separate the two peoples. If anything, Mr Sharon hardened his position. He made no mention, as he has in the past, of Israel's acceptance of a future Palestinian state; he made no reference, as before, to the unsustainability of the occupation of Palestinian land; and perhaps most ominously of all, he omitted all direct reference to the "road map".

Up Against the Wall
Editorial, Arab News 2003-07-31
During his visit to the White House, Ariel Sharon justified Israel’s construction of the 375-mile so-called “security fence” on the grounds that “Good fences make good neighbors.” This was a line used by one of America’s greatest poets, Robert Frost, in a poem called “The Wall.” If Sharon, however, actually knew the poem, he did not bother to quote the first line which is, “Something there is which doesn’t like a wall.” The massive “security fence” which the Israelis are slicing through Palestinian farms and villages is an obscenity which no reasonable person could like. It seeks to set in stone and concrete the separation of Israelis from Palestinians. Once in place, it could easily herald the expulsion of Israeli Arabs from Israel itself and the establishment of a new system of apartheid funded in large measure by the US taxpayer.The Bush White House had better really mean it when it demands that Israel stop building this wicked barrier. We have to hope that it is not yet another case of the Americans protesting loudly while privately letting the Israelis know that they can press on with their oppressive policies without fear of genuine challenge. Israel is already going through an elaborate charade over the dismantling of illegal settlements. It allows one or two high-profile actions against Zionist settlers — which often amount to no more than an unmanned derelict caravan and a chemical lavatory — to fill the world’s television screens, but is less keen to show other settlements. Yet each of these “dismantled settlements” counts in the statistics that the Sharon government is using to prove that it is really acting against Zionist seizure of Palestinian lands.

Bush Blesses Sharon's Wall
By Abdulwahab Badrakhan, Al-Hayat 2003-07-31
The White House spokesman was forced to announce that President George Bush "did not change" his position from Israel's "Berlin Wall." Of course he did not change his position, because he always supported it, as long as the war criminal Ariel Sharon tells him that the wall was built for security reasons - that is to combat terror. As soon as Bush hears the expression "terror," he reacts automatically - as in the Pavlov experiment - and he becomes blind, and only sees what is being presented to him as terror.Bush didn't change his position either on the issue of the Palestinian prisoners-hostages. He supports their continued detention, and consequently supports the blackmail that Sharon and Mofaz are practicing in return for Palestinian concessions. Still, Bush has not changed his mind regarding the creation of a Palestinian state; he supports it provided "terror is ended." Here is the president of the sole superpower in the world, who has hundreds of experts explaining to him the reasons for international conflicts and has responsibilities toward peoples and governments, and yet, he views the Palestinian people's aspirations as a security game, which the Israelis have created and succeeded in implanting in his head.This only highlights the legendary weakness of Arab diplomacy. What we are witnessing for the thousandth time is the scenario of Israel's lies and deceptiveness laid out to an American president who is fully prepared to believe everything, because all he thinks about is the Jewish money and votes he will need in his forthcoming elections campaign. And for that great goal, vital to the world and humanity, it makes no difference whether the gang of Sharon releases the hostages or keeps them, nor does it make any difference if the new "Berlin Wall" takes up further Palestinian land or if it destroys the trust between Israelis and Palestinians. There is even no need to cause a crisis with Sharon because of the settlements, and consequently, there is no need for any change in the traditional U.S. policy just to implement the Roadmap. In the end, that map was created to silence the Palestinians.

When will Israel become a homeland?
By Meron Benvenisti, Ha'aretz 2003-07-31
The glorious saga of the operations to rescue the surviving remnants of the Jewish people had to end in a ridiculous farce; that's what happens when an establishment that has become outdated insists on using its final ounce of strength to squeeze outthe last drops of the old myth, in order to justify the continuation of its bureaucratic existence. Once again the immortal words echo from the mouth of a courageous emissary: "I am a Jew. I have come to take you to Israel," and in a "secret and dangerous" operation they arrive in the homeland, via a circuitous route, six elderly Jews from the sad Iraqi Diaspora, in what clearly looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel of the ingathering of exiles.  For two weeks the emissaries from Israel begged the Jews of Baghdad, a community of 34 souls, to immigrate to Israel, but they had little success, even there, in a place where according to the emissary, "I have never seen people in such a condition." The farce was lost in the waves of excitement that overtook the Israeli immigrant community, on the eve of Shabbat. Many re-experienced, via the six elderly people of Baghdad, their first contact with their new home, an experience that creates solidarity among the generations of immigrants and shapes their collective identity. Only hardhearted "Canaanites" and traitorous post-Zionists will dare to deny the validity of the Zionist revolution that is still alive and well, thanks to the existence of the "national institutions" that risk their lives to bring to the homeland immigrants from the CIS, most of whom are not Jewish, the Falashmura from Ethiopia, and the "lost tribes" from the slopes of the Himalayas and the lower Andes. All means are justified to fight the "demographic danger" that threatens to turn the Jewish people into a minority in its homeland, and the need to absorb the new immigrants requires us to continue the classical Zionist deed - the Judaisation of barren expanses of the country, the building of communities and of Nahal outposts in the heart of a "hostile Arab population" in the Iron Valley - and of course, in parts of the Land of Israel on the other side of the Green Line.

Pollard recruiter resurfaces in U.S.
By Richard Sale, Washington Times 2003-07-11
Eitan has been seen and photographed in the company of "known dealers who belong to a ring dealing in the drug ecstasy," one federal law enforcement official said. -- The Israeli recruiter of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard has reemerged on American soil and is being scrutinized by the FBI, according to well-placed intelligence and law enforcement sources.According to former senior Pentagon officials, Pollard was recruited in the fall of 1981 by Rafael "Rafi" Eitan, also known as "Rafi the stinker."Eitan, a long-time clandestine operator who participated in Israel's kidnapping in Argentina of former Nazi official Adolf Eichmann and other highly sensitive operations, was then a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, these sources said.Eitan was also director of the Office of Special Tasks, called LAKEM, a group in the Israeli Defense Ministry that had (and still has) a special mandate to penetrate classified U.S. defense programs and obtain top-secret technologies. It is especially interested in data relating to Tel Aviv's nuclear programs.In 1981, the group consisted of scientific attaches or officials who reported directly to the Israeli Defense Ministry, the sources said. Sharon was Israeli defense minister at the time.The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also said that Pollard, who began to work for the U.S. Navy in 1979, had first offered to spy for Israel in 1980, but that no action was taken by Israel until the fall of 1981.At that time, the United States and Israel had a program of naval exchange visits to update each other on intelligence matters. In Israel, the program involved inviting an American official to an Israeli official's home for dinner. To everyone's astonishment, Eitan put in an appearance at Pollard's dinner, and the recruitment was accomplished that night, former senior Pentagon and U.S. intelligence officials said.The recruitment occurred just a month after Sharon had had a run-in with the White House. According to former participants who attended the meeting, in Sept. 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Sharon came to Washington to present a far-reaching and extensive U.S.-Israeli plan for strategic cooperation. Begin turned the proceeding over to Sharon who went on to outline a set-up that involved joint use of air and naval bases, the positioning of U.S. military equipment, and joint military planning for contingencies in the region.

How Ashcroft Coerces Guilty Pleas
By Elaine Cassel, CounterPunch 2003-07-30
The Washington Post reported on the tragedy and travesty of the convictions of six men in Lackawanna, New York, the so-called "Lackawanna Six." John Ashcroft's prosecutors charged the men with conspiring to attend an al-Qaeda terrorist camp. Does that sound a little far-fetched to you? Like two lovers conspiring to have an illicit affair that is never consummated? Or two stock brokers talking about how they might pull off some scam?The men were never charged with any act of terrorism. They were nailed for briefly attending a training camp for jihadists in Afghanistan. They didn't stay long, and only one of the had any evidence that suggested he might engage in terrorism. Five of the six were born in Lackawanna, and all had gone to school there and continued to live there as adults.The Justice Department publicly condemned the men as operating a terrorist cell in Lackawanna, a charge that did not stick. Indeed, the conspiracy charge itself was so weak that as I followed the case, I was hoping for a win to put Ashcroft in his place.But that did not happen. All six pled guilty and will serve an average of nine years in prison. Their lawyers are sick about it, the men and their families resigned to their fates. Why did they plead?Simply, because they knew that if they did not plead guilty, and if the government's case ran into trouble (as it seemed it would), the prosecutors would do as the prosecutors in the Zacarias Moussaoui case may do; ask President Bush to declare the men enemy combatants, and remand them to a military jail somewhere where they can, under current court decisions, stay for the rest of their lives--without being charged or tried. Or they could be charged, tried, and perhaps executed by a military tribunal, as the Pentagon is preparing to do with enemy combatants seized from overseas and detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Fęting Ariel Sharon: India’s Unabashed Gesture
By N.D. Jayaprakash, Dissident Voice 2003-07-31
It is absolutely shocking to note that the Government of India has extended an invitation to Mr. Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, to pay an official visit to India. This fact was first revealed by Mr. Brajesh Mishra, India’s ‘National Security Advisor’, on 8 May 2003 in New York, while addressing the gathering at the Annual Dinner held by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), a rabid Zionist organization [1]. Promoting better relations with the people of Israel is one thing but trying to white-wash the heinous crimes of Ariel Sharon, and those of the fascist Likud Party he represents, is quite another. By extending an invitation to Ariel Sharon to visit India, the Indian Government has committed the cardinal sin of bestowing honour on a war-criminal, who is deeply detested by the vast majority of the global community because of his unsavoury reputation. In fact Sharon cannot travel to most countries even in Europe because of the extreme passions such a visit would arouse. It cannot be that the Government of India is unaware of the criminal record of Ariel Sharon or of the notorious Likud Party he has been leading. Therefore, the motives for inviting Ariel Sharon to India are highly suspicious. During his speech at the said Annual Dinner of the AJC, Mr. Brajesh Mishra had rightly claimed that India “is one of very few countries in the world with no history of anti-Semitism.” However, Mr. Mishra very conveniently forgot to add that India was one country that had been consistently anti-Zionist since the early days of its national movement under Mahatma Gandhi. It is primarily after the right-wing BJP [Bharathiya Janata Party]-led alliance assumed office that the Indian Government has started taking an increasingly pro-Zionist stance.Mr. Mishra had also gone on to add that: “India, the United States and Israel have some fundamental similarities. We are all democracies, sharing a common vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity.” Since when has Israeli Government started promoting “a... vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity”?

Checkpoints: Suffocating Palestinian Society
Editorial, Miftah 2003-07-31
The Occupied Territories is a small place. It does not take long to get from city to city. The trip from Jerusalem to Ramallah takes just 20 minutes by car. That is, it used to. Today, some 300 Israeli military checkpoints chop up the roads between Palestinian cities, and it no longer takes 20 minutes to get from Jerusalem to Ramallah: Now it is an hour trip, or sometimes two or three. To get from Hebron to Ramallah – normally a less than two hour drive – takes a Palestinian six to ten hours. Stopping at checkpoints has become a part of the daily routine for Palestinians going to work, visiting family, and even running errands or seeing a doctor. It has become commonplace, but it is not normal. Restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement violate a basic human right, and moreover they contravene the rules governing collective punishment, namely, as stated in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, that "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed" and that "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." The first checkpoint sprung up in the West Bank after the beginning of the first Intifada. Before that time, there were no restrictions on movement within the Occupied Territories or between them and Israel. By summer 2002, 120 checkpoints divided up the West Bank into 300 separate areas and the Gaza Strip into 3 areas, and today there are more than twice as many. In addition, mobile checkpoints often sprout up unannounced, imposing extra delays on Palestinian travelers. ....In addition, Israeli military checkpoints are notorious for being the site of severe harassment, threats, and violence. Inhumane treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints begins with the herding of large amounts of people into tiny spaces, where they must wait, at times, for hours on end before passage, if they are lucky.

Hope Out of Quagmire: New Peace Movement Opportunities
By Paul Rogat Loeb, Dissident Voice 2003-07-31
In the glow of the Iraq war's initial military success, most American peace activists felt profoundly demoralized. Between the war's portrayal as a glamorous spectacle and Bush's seemingly overwhelming support, many who'd recently marched by the millions felt isolated, defensive, and powerless, fearing their voices no longer mattered.Now, as Bush's occupation faces a deepening quagmire, shifting public sentiment opens up major new opportunities for activism. Just two months ago, the national mood felt so resistant that it was hard to raise the most cautious dissenting questions. But polls now suggest the beginning of a very different national mood, where large numbers of Americans are having significant doubts. This gives us a chance to challenge the core fallacies of Bush's foreign policy, revitalize peace movement activism, and perhaps change our national direction. We can do this by launching a grassroots campaign to replace the US control over Iraq with an international transitional authority under United Nations command--an authority that would control not only military operations, but also Iraq's political and economic affairs, including its oil-fields. We can work to transform a beachhead for American empire into an interim government that would actually have a shot at bringing democracy.The shifts in the polls are staggering, even if most peace activists haven't yet noticed them. Driven by the steady US casualties in Iraq and continuing chaos, a July Gallup poll found 43 per cent of Americans believing things are going badly in Iraq, up from just 13 per cent in early May. In a mid-July Washington Post-ABC News poll, six in ten of those surveyed said the war damaged the image of the United States abroad, half said the conflict permanently damaged U.S. relations with key allies, and 52 percent considered the level of US casualties "unacceptable." A Zogby poll around the same time found a one percent majority actually saying it was time for someone new in the White House. These shifts all emerged before Congress's recent questioning of the occupation's political, economic and human costs.

W. Shows his Affection
Editorial, Miftah 2003-07-31
Merely a few days ago President Bush had harshly criticized Israel’s plans to build a “security” fence, more aptly referred to by Palestinians as an apartheid wall, saying, "I think the wall is a problem ... It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israelis ... with a wall snaking through the West Bank." Sharon was not going to stand for such outright US defiance of Israeli policies. With his delegation in hand, Mr. Sharon marched to the White House, his eighth visit mind you, to silence any opposition towards his policies. Sharon stated on Tuesday that Israel would continue constructing the “security” fence across the West Bank in spite of US concerns that the project could damage peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Fearing he had upset his friend too much with the remarks he had made earlier, Bush decided to temper his words and commented merely that "the fence is a sensitive issue." Moreover, Sharon cemented his demand that Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad must be dismantled if the peace talks are to move forward by gaining Bush’s absolute agreement. According to Mr. Bush, the Palestinian Authority "must undertake sustained, targeted and effective operations to confront those engaged in terror and to dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure." This effectively calls on Palestinians to engage in internal violence and to potentially unleash a civil war if they want peace and US support. Apparently, the fact that a Hudna, which was achieved through peaceful dialogue and has held steady for the past month, reducing violence by 99%, has barely registered with the US administration.