Posted August 12, 2002

Ceasefire

[Regarding Ran HaCohen's reply to Joe Schwartz's letter, posted August 7:]

I can understand your reluctance to respond specifically to the points and issues raised in my letter. However, regarding the reply you did make, I have a few comments.

First, it is interesting that you seem to use my letter as a priori evidence of a successful propaganda machine by Israel. You write as if Israel has a unified propaganda front through its diverse Israeli and international media and government officials, and you're not a member of it. Do you truly believe this is the case?

The fact that the arguments in my letter have been repeated numerous times by others does not make them true, of course. Yet, it should give one pause to consider responding effectively to them individually. This is especially true if they are presented in a considerate and thoughtful manner with a desire to know the truth.

Regarding your second point, I also feel compelled to comment. If you have primary or even secondary sources before July 23, 2002, that Hamas and its allies were seriously considering a unilateral ceasefire, I would love to see the evidence. I attempted a literature search for myself through the internet on the topic and came up with references to the Yedioth Acharonot article, dated July 24, which conveniently cannot be accessed.

Is the Internet also a part of the Israeli propaganda machine? Is the fact that a lack of international media (except your vague reference to Israeli press) took up the Palestinian terrorists' quest for a ceasefire before July 23 also part of the Israeli propaganda machine?

I did find an English article written well after July 23 published by Al-Ahram in Cairo.

"On 22 July -- hours before the attack on Gaza -- its spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, had said Hamas would stop killing Israeli civilians if (1) Israel were to withdraw from recently re-occupied Palestinian cities, (2) free recently detained Palestinian prisoners and (3) end the assassinations of its leaders."

"Others say there were divisions within Hamas over an 'unconditional' ceasefire: Shehada, for example, was opposed to the call. Yassin had been in favour. But whatever Hamas' ultimate response, the ceasefire is now buried in the rubble of Al-Darraj."

...

Please be sure to notice ... how there were three preconditions for any consideration of any ceasefire. And, there was no consideration for peace or a true "ceasefire": Soldiers and settlers were still considered appropriate and fair targets! Either way, Shehada was reported as being against any ceasefire. If the Israeli government wanted the terrorism to continue, they should know that you kill the peacemakers not the warmongers!

With that being said, these above reports of terrorists even considering any type of ceasefire are still after the fact. ...

~ Joe Schwartz

Ran HaCohen replies:

You may have heard of the Israeli Foreign Office, the PM Office and several other Israeli organs, assisted by paid-for PR agencies, whose official task is propaganda, or "Hasbara" (explaining) as we call it in Hebrew. They cooperate with the American pro-Israel lobby, the ADL and several other American-Jewish institutions; their budget is probably more than you and I will ever possess. So doubting the very existence of an Israeli propaganda machine is a bit hypocritical, especially since you so strongly believe in the existence of an oiled Palestinian one.

I consider you a victim of this propaganda machine, and I'll try to confront some of your more typical arguments in future columns.

A report on the intended cease-fire appeared on the Hebrew site YNET a day before the Israeli massacre. I am sorry that Yedioth Achronot is not on-line and not in English, but using materials inaccessible to American readers is an important part of my work for which I have no reason to apologise. There are people who prefer not to know, though, rather than trust reliable information from the scene of events.

New Categorizations

I would like to strongly second the views of MJ, California ("Seek Out Real Leftists", Backtalk 8/7/02). I am a regular reader of (and contributor to) your site who considers myself a longtime leftist. I find myself increasingly in the company of people who, while their formal political self-identification may be quite different from mine, share my horror and disgust at the way in which the basic human rights of people (both here and abroad) are being abused by the War Party. Leftists like me have no faith in the Democratic Party and also view the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) as brazenly opportunistic politicians, lacking any core beliefs other than their own advancement.

As MJ suggests, it may be time to revisit the old left-right, Democratic-Republican political divisions in favor of new categorizations which more accurately reflect the state of the political alliances that are forming. Thanks to sites like yours that are open to diverse views, I am hopeful that these alliances will grow.

~ MS, Ohio

Testimony

Good job by Justin Raimondo in highlighting the arrogant, listen-up-soldier-boy quote by Richard Perle. But all is not forgiven. I'd still like an acknowledgment that Raimondo overstepped in his undeserved (and, frankly, catty without being funny) remarks about Dr. Phebe Marr -- especially in view of her testimony yesterday [August 1], which was excellent. ...I should add that she and her husband have now moved to the Arab Middle East. As I said, her affection for the region is not merely academic.

In exchange, let me call your attention to another juicy quote from Wednesday's testimony by Dr. Anthony Cordesman: "Only fools would bet the lives of other men's sons and daughters on their own arrogance and calls this force a cakewalk or a speed bump or something that you can dismiss. I see every reason for the reservation of the American military and the Joint Chiefs and I think efforts to dismiss the military capabilities of Iraq are dangerous and irresponsible."

Any bets that Cordesman spoke with Perle in mind?

~ Drew Hamre, Golden Valley, Minnesota

Wall Street

The past two days have seen what appears to be a softening of the hardline rhetoric demanding a unilateral war with Iraq, and there seems to be some speculation as to the reason for this lessening of the drumbeating by the White House. Some say it is because the Administration is coming to the realization that this action is not supported by the world's political and religious communities, and even condemned by many, creating various almost insurmountable tactical and logistics problems. Add to that a great deal of question about the actual national and international legality of an attack upon a sovereign state which, in truth, has never done anything directly against America with the exception of firing back in self defense when fired upon. ...

So are these the reasons why the rhetoric has been toned down? Of course not! This Administration has made it very clear that world opinion has no part in any of its decisions. But something very telling did happen at the very beginning of the week just prior to this attitude adjustment by Washington. CNBC-TV, the financial news channel, did an informal television poll of its viewers, mostly members of America's financial community, on whether or not they wanted America to go to war with Iraq. A very simple question asked in very simple non-convoluted terms. To the best of my recollection, of the approximately 4100 viewers who logged on and voted in the poll that day, an overwhelming 62% were against any war with Iraq.

So Wall Street had spoken, and if anything will get the attention of our economic wheelers and dealers, that's what will do it every time! Perhaps we have all been looking in the wrong direction for assistance and leverage to prevent this warmongering from getting out of control. The real leverage is money. Now how do we cut off the funds which are necessary to make unnecessary wars?

~ CJW, Florida

Memorial Hall

More than several hundred thousands innocent people were killed in a moment by the atomic bombs produced in the US about half a century ago. Every summer reminds us of the fact. It's a terrible holocaust since human beings emerged on the Earth. There are few American people who visit ground-zero of the awful incident. I sincerely hope more and more American people visit the memorial hall where hundreds of thousands of souls of the victims are resting. There are many memorial stones donated by many countries but nothing from the US. It's the peace which gives us hope, I think. Do you?

~ TI, Japan

Ignorance

Ignorance is one of the principal causes of our problems today as a nation. A verse from the Old Testament quotes a prophet regarding the plight of ancient Israel, "My people are destroyed by their lack of knowledge." No truer words can be spoken today for the USA.

A prime example is the complete and utter ignorance of many Christians in their belief that curses will befall them if the USA doesn't unilaterally support madmen like Ariel Sharon. A strong case can be made that this is one of the reasons for our foreign policy towards Israel as pressure is applied to our leaders to support this country at all costs.

This is pure and unadulterated nonsense. While I respect their right to believe what they want to believe, ...[a]s a Christian, I am offended by the "intellectual dishonesty and laziness" that is permeating our faith in this modern age. While a case can be made to blame the clergy, a motivated and educated populace certainly will not follow these counterfeit Church leaders such as Falwell, Robertson, etc. We need to get busy and start reading and I don't mean mindless reading such as USA Today (better know to us as McPaper) or (Waste of) Time magazine. One of the things that impresses me about Antiwar.com is that it is willing to go the extra mile in search of the truth. We all need to be that way, Christian or not. It is a requirement for those of us who cherish and value our freedom.

~ Corkey C.

Radio

It is interesting to me, and I thought possibly would be interesting to your readers, how much my local (Northern California) radio talk stations have been transformed into propaganda machines for the upcoming Bush-Iraq War II. To a warmonger they all label themselves as "conservative," though I cannot understand how spending wildly on war, sacrificing thousands of lives, destroying millions of dollars in property, gutting every existing safeguard on personal liberty, and bypassing the Constitutional requirement of a formal declaration of war have anything to do with conserving anything, except arrogance. Some examples:

1. Lee Rodgers, of the KSFO morning program in San Francisco, cannot have the U.S. invade Iraq soon enough although you can bet he would not be willing to leave his safe haven in the studio to risk his life for his pet cause. On August 7 early in his show before his war drum-beating guests came on, he played a tape of the sound at the WTC buildings during the 9/11 attack, which of course included sirens, screaming, sounds of crashing debris etc., all with the obvious design to whip up audience fever. When the tape stopped, Mr. Rodgers offered his assessment: "You know, listening to that tape just makes me think we haven't killed nearly enough people yet."
2. Eric Hogue, of the KTKZ morning program in Sacramento, is another official voice of War on Iraq who has no qualms about sending thousands to their death in order to oust Saddam, although you can bet he will be in a very safe place away from the front lines. He didn't like the latest leak from the Pentagon about the big bad Saudis because it reduces focus upon invading Iraq. He does however enjoy hearing about all the different Iraq War scenarios as it "keeps Saddam guessing about where the attack will originate."
3. Hugh Hewitt, nationally syndicated Bush Cheerleader, on his August 7 show interviewed Glenn Reynolds of War Blogger fame who again touted the phantom meeting of Mohammed Atta and Saddam, and then called for a first strike against Iraq. He said, "There is a word for a country in our situation that does not respond: 'loser'." He then called upon Congress and the President to reinstitute the draft, although I'm sure he would be too indispensable to be called.

There appear to be no radio talk show hosts who are principled opponents of going to war in Iraq which makes your site all the more valuable in exposing the lies and lawless agenda of the Bush Administration and the War Party.

~ DW

Previous Backtalk