|
|||||||||
Posted August 7, 2002
Swiss Occupation
"How many years of a military occupation will it take before Iraq is transformed into a Jeffersonian republic?" (Justin Raimondo – August 2)
And who's going to occupy the US and turn it back into one? The Swiss?
Jeffersons
I appreciated a very large portion of Justin's "Attack of the Chicken Hawks," but I did see one possible misreading of the present Middle East and historical analysis....
In the Middle East the first rule of freedom is not necessarily a bill of rights, but firstly escape from foreign domination and colonial rule. ... It does not matter how good our government is or how advanced our democratic institutions are, what matters is that we are a distant nation trying to impose our will on the Middle East. In that sense, the Middle East has a lot of Patrick Henrys willing to die before selling out to the foreigners. They have Thomas Jeffersons, ready to declare their independence. We are the British, we are the distant parliament wanting to rule their lands, exploit their local wealth (oil) and remove their local charters and place them under governments selected by our government. We haughtily declare that Yasser Arafat must be replaced, we determine that Saddam Hussein must be replaced, we determine that Iran needs more reform and seek to support those we want in power. ... Who is fighting today's stamp act, tea tax, or government without representation? It is not Washington, rather it is those Washington wishes to control. We are a major obstacle for any Middle Eastern people seeking freedom and liberty, that is becoming more and more universally understood in the Middle East. It means that given the choice Middle Eastern people will align themselves with their dictators rather than the invading Americans. Many Russians would have loved to be rid of Stalin, but Hitler's armies drove the staunchest anti-Communist Russians into Stalin's embrace. Our invasion into Iraq will do the same for Saddam. Let's not waste any precious blood on such a stupid and pointless venture.
Seek Out Real Leftists
As an avid fan of Antiwar.com and a Backtalk respondent (perhaps the first to coin the term "chicken hawk") I respectfully take great exception to T.S.'s letter of 8/3 stating that "Leftists will stab you in the back."
Don't believe what you see on TV. Go seek out some real leftists -- not some of the posers who you may have met at cocktail parties, or talking heads on CNN -- and find out what they think. You'll find people who think Lieberman and Daschle are absolutely as odious as, say, Jerry Falwell and Trent Lott. And you'll find a lot of principled citizens who feel utterly betrayed by the Clinton administration -- for many of the same reasons you might feel betrayed.
In fact, I feel that the alliance between the hard left and the hard right is founded on some pretty strong bedrock. Bottom line: The "hard" left strongly opposes big government and foreign interventionism. Since these are probably the biggest issues facing our country today, I would suggest that's there more uniting us than separating us. We don't have to forge some kind of alliance. The alliance is already there, and it has been for quite some time -- however, the people running this country are trying desperately to make sure that no one sees it. Thanks to websites like this one, they will never succeed.
Oh, sure, make no mistake about it: On abortion, on immigration, and particularly on the environment? Yeah, the left and the right have some very serious disagreements. And on those issues and a few other important ones, there will be no "backstabbing" because you guys know exactly where we stand already. And you know that we'll give you one hell of a fight!
But a fair one, where both sides debate and compromise -- and believe it or not, that may turn out to be easier than it has been for at least 50 years. Because somehow, incredibly, the hard left and the hard right have become the conscience of America. We have a tremendous responsibility. Let's stop squabbling, and focus on the most important issues so we can get this country back on track. Once we've shared that victory, it's going to be a lot easier to tackle the problems where we have real and fundamental disagreements.
Useless Missile Strike
I would like to bring to your attention for linking, comment, or reflection a front page article that appeared in today's Wall Street Journal (8/2), "Inside al-Qaeda's Afghan Turmoil," by reporters Alan Cullison and Andrew Higgin. What is noteworthy about the article is that it challenges the notion, common in US government rhetoric and media coverage since the 9/11 attacks, that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are interchangeable movements which were destined to become allies of one another against the US. Cullison and Higgin note the significant cultural (Afghan vs. Arab), religious (traditionalist vs. fundamentalist), and political (prevailing in a civil war vs. waging a global jihad) differences between the two movements. They also note the Taliban leadership, at least prior to the US missile strikes on Afghanistan, was very distrustful, if not hostile, to bin Laden and al-Qaeda. In fact, Cullison and Higgin report the startling revelation that a deal was in the works in June 1998 to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia to stand trial for treason. Furthermore, as Cullison and Higgin portray it, it seems the US had a real opportunity in the summer of 1998 to close down al-Qaeda's Afghanistan operations all together had it been more farsighted and skillful in its diplomacy with the Taliban. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration opted in August of 1998 for a useless missile strike on Afghanistan which merely drove the Taliban into the arms of al-Qaeda and enhanced the image of al-Qaeda worldwide as the group that stood up to the world's mightiest superpower and survived.
Big Eye
We are pleased to have chosen Antiwar.com as BigEye's Site of the Week. I hope that this helps you continue with your excellent work.
~ Stewart Ogilby, Webmaster: The Big Eye
Daily Reading Material
The article, "Israel's War For Terrorism" [by Ran HaCohen] is phenomenal! Keep up the good work! If we could make this part of the daily reading material in every American home, there would be loud and raucous cries and demands from the American public like we've never heard before ordering our government (with its ill-gotten president who is committing war crimes around the world against our wishes) to cease and desist its warmongering, genocidal, fascistic antics! More power to ya!
Propaganda Machine
[Regarding Ran HaCohen's column, "Israel's War for Terrorism":]
...Your initial question is whether Sharon is unable or unwilling to stop the terrorism against Israel. The answer is quite obvious, unless one is a conspiracy theorist. However, I think we both know that the answer is that Sharon is unable to stop the terrorism. I think we both know that terror attacks are infinitely easier to perform than other crimes, such as robbing a bank or committing mail fraud.
This is especially true in a relatively open and free democratic society like Israel. Terrorism can never be defeated completely (militarily and/or diplomatically) until all of the terrorists give-up, are caught or killed. Terrorism can only be lessened. All one can do is attempt to limit the damage.
Capitulation to terrorism and terrorists only breeds more of the same. For example, if kidnapping actually worked to bring about political change, terrorists would continue perpetrating it indefinitely. This is why in hostage situations we don't negotiate with terrorists. It is quite obvious.
However,
you seem to truly believe that responding militarily to terrorism benefits
Israel's politicians and their colonial and hegemonic goals since it potentially
breeds more terror attacks and thus more Israeli responses.
Fortunately, the returning of the Sinai and the Security-Zone in Lebanon
for attempts at peace provides ample evidence against your claim.
I find it fascinating that you see the Palestinian terror attacks as a natural production of a people who have no other choice. On the other hand, you see Israel's military response to protect its citizens as a calculated attempt to perpetuate the violence. Is this true in reality? Is it a coincidence that it is the Palestinian terror attacks that occur in Israel every single time peace negotiators come in from the United States? Why is the timing so perfect unless perhaps the terrorists are ones who refuse to make peace with Israel?
Your argument fails on many levels. They are based on the benefits Israeli politicians gain from the terrorism. However, this same argument has filtered throughout the Muslim and Arab communities who say that it was Israel's Mossad who brought down New York's Twin Towers since Israel had the most to gain by dropping the buildings.
These arguments only seem rational on the surface. Scratch away at them a little and they become wild conspiracy theories proposed by those with very specific political agendas.
You ask, "What is Israel's interest in terrorism." Also, what is Israel's interest in Sept 11th, 2001, or the Holocaust? If Israel gained anything from these events then they must be guilty or at least complicit with them, right?
According to your essay, there are three categories of people in Israel.
- The politicians who perpetuate the conflict to maintain their leadership positions and their true political and colonial desires.
- The few elite Israelis, like you, who claim to know the "truth" and can read between the lines.
- The vast majority of the population and even the media who are blinded to the truth and fooled by the politicians.
As an aside, as I was reading your essay, I knew I had seen these categories before but it was in a totally different context. Previously, Evangelicals attempting to convert Jews to Christianity have used it.
- The Rabbis and Priests who know the truth is really in Christianity, but refuse to convert or reveal it to the masses.
- The few elite Jews who see the "truth" and convert to Christianity.
- The majority who are blinded, ignorant and led down the wrong path by the false prophets and leaders.
If only the blind would see the light!
This analogy also explains the ire and animosity in those who are so offended by you. As you mention in earlier essays, you bring out so much raw emotion. If your surname was Smith or Abdul, I don't believe you would elicit the same response. As a member of category two, you are seen as a traitor by those in categories one and three who believe that they too know the truth or at least know what the truth is not....
Can Sharon stop Terrorism completely? No, he can't. But then again, no Israeli can unless they are willing to sacrifice Israel.
Are Sharon and his government supporting the terrorists and purposefully egging them on so that they will be "forced" to murder more Israeli civilians and thereby allow the Israeli army to kill more Palestinians just for the sake of Sharon's colonial and political aspirations? No, of course they are not.
If this were really true, it appears odd that as of July 17, the Intifada II scoreboard revels about 550 Israelis and 1500 Palestinians killed (and some of these Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians or even in mundane car accidents). Did you ever wonder why if Israel has one of the most powerful armies on Earth they couldn't kill more Palestinians if that was their true goal?
Did you wonder why Israel had official and unofficial regrets and apologies rather than mass celebrations after the Gaza attack killings? What happened after the Hebrew University bombing?
Despite what wild theories we could come up with why terrorism continues, the truth remains that the terrorism continues because the terrorist network has no intention of making peace with Israel. It is all on their web sites! All of Israel is occupied territory according to them.
This belief is taught in their schools, mosques and media, and thus at least 69% of Palestinians under Arafat support Suicide bombing operations against Israel. (Source: Palestinian Opinion Pulse Poll by the Palestinian Media and Communication Center)
Alternatively, at least 73% of Israelis are in favor of a free Palestinian state alongside Israel if the terror is stopped. (Source: Yedioth Aharonoth National Opinion Poll).
The Palestinian propaganda machine runs at full speed ahead....
In the end, your theories are faulty because of your faulty premise, "Palestinians intended to stop terrorism, Israel dropped a bomb." Nothing supports this theory except Palestinian propaganda with post hoc reporting....
Lastly, I would love to hear your solution to the conflict, and your response if you're wrong and your solution does not end the terrorism or the Palestinian suffering under despotic totalitarian rule. I would love to hear how you see an ideal middle east, i.e., two states, one big Islamic state, will Jews be allowed to live in Palestine etc. etc.
Ran HaCohen replies:
I don’t know about the Palestinian propaganda machine, but here is an evidence that the Israeli one “runs at full speed ahead”: I have heard all but one of Mr. Schwartz’s arguments numerous times before. Since they are so persistent, I’ll deal with them in one of my next columns.
As for the original argument that my claim (“Palestinians intended to stop terrorism, Israel dropped a bomb”) is supported “by nothing except Palestinian propaganda with post hoc reporting”: the argument itself is propaganda with post hoc reporting. Palestinian intentions to declare a unilateral cease-fire were extensively reported in the Israeli press prior to the Israeli massacre in Gaza.