Posted September 21, 2002

The Case Against Occupation

I found this site through the Independent web page and found that it answered a lot of my questions; however, there are a few things that I need you to help me with because in my many arguments over the occupation I always get: "If the Arabs hadn't invaded in '48 and '67 then there wouldn't be an occupation," or "If there weren't any suicide bombs then there wouldn't be any reason for the occupation," 0r "God promised the entire land to the Jews so therefor there is no occupation because it is the promised land."

As much as I love and support Israel I just can't argue the case against occupation when I get hit with those arguments. I mean, it is the promised land and when Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence, the Arab states invaded -- isn't that so? As for the suicide bombings, they are criminal and immoral but if my land had been occupied for the last 35 years and was living in hopelessness, anger and suffering I think I would probably become a suicide bomber too. You probably get lots of emails every day so you probably haven't much time to answer this but if you can answer this I would be most grateful.

~ Charles W.

Ran HaCohen replies:

You seem to be on the right path.

• As for "promised land": few of us have direct communication to the Almighty, so it's dangerous to base our politics on Him. His promise of the land in the Bible was accompanied by threats to send the Jews to exile for their sins. God never mentioned when this punishment was over.
• Going back to 1948 and 1967 is too much for this reaction, but see my "Ideology of Occupation" (9/4/01), section 1.
• The occupation preceded suicide bombers by more than two decades, so Israel had enough time to end the occupation before. Instead, it entrenched ever more in the occupied territories.
• Your conclusion about terrorism reminds me of Ehud Barak's statement, that if he had been a Palestinian, he would have become a terrorist. However my opinion is that neither Barak's state terrorism (as Israel's Chief-of-Staff and Prime Minister) nor the Palestinian terrorism have ever solved any problem, but only made things worse.
  

An Enemy of the State

I would like to buy and read Raimondo's An Enemy of the State, but cannot find it. Do you all have it for sale? Or, tell me where to look!

~ Mark S.

Managing editor Eric Garris replies:

The best price is through Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573928097/antiwarbookstore

The Constitution is Unfit to Exist

In ... ["Back Door to War"], Justin Raimondo sets great store by the Constitution's power to restrain presidents from waging war at will. If it is true what he says of Truman's action in Korea, that it was a watershed moment in the upending of the Constitution by presidents, what of this Constitutional power in which he put so much stock?

In point of fact, presidents have been carrying on in the manner of Truman since the U.S. regime's inception. The Constitution, upon ratification, established a single governmental office with full presidential powers, after all. And what has been wrought as consequence? A long history in the exercise of presidential power in the form of war-making. If there was a singular watershed moment in this context it would have to have been the War of Northern Aggression Against the Southern States. Waging war on one's own people is as about as far as one could probably go as president. To be sure, Wilson's backdoor to world war opened vast new possibilities for projecting presidential power abroad while strengthening the garrison state at home. Succeeding presidents have certainly explored these possibilities, much to the detriment of their citizenry. But Lincoln alone takes the cake. Sic semper tyrannus.

If the Constitution cannot be credited for these "achievements," then what of it? According to Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist and contemporary of Lincoln's, "...this much is certain -- either it has authorized such a government as we have had or is powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

~ Alan Koontz

Remembrance

Thanks to Justin Raimondo for his thoughtful and needed prose on the aftermath of 9-11-01 in his Sept. 11 column.

I too, wondered whether it was right for wall-to-wall remembrance of this horrible event, especially as someone who had a brother working and living in Manhattan a few miles from ground zero. But your column pointed out that if we remember this day as day when the consequences of decisions made in our name by our government, with little discussion or debate, come to bare, then we will know its true significance.

For this was the day the price of empire finally came home. The innocent victims of our lust for imperial power and big government must be remembered and there must be vow from all of us true patriots to do our best to move America away from empire so that such tragedies never happen again.

Unfortunately for now, there may be more days like this to come.

~ Sean Scallon, East Ellsworth, Wisconsin

Political Resources

Thanks for the email alert. You are providing an heroic, invaluable service to this country and its growing list of victims. Our impending war is not just with Saddam Hussein, but with any maverick in the Arab world. Unremitting cruelty towards Iraq is a warning to others. Antiwar.com is a web site I rely on every day to maintain my sense of moral sanity. ...

I just made the two phone calls you suggested (Hyde and Lantos). Why not continually list all California senators, representatives, etc. with their phone numbers, email address, etc. so we can register our protest at any time and often? Create a "political resources" section.

~ Mark G., California

Rabble-Rouser

...Justin Raimondo ... spends two-thirds of his column warding off personal attacks and the other third badmouthing everyone else in the world (about 99% of humanity) who doesn't agree with his latest tirade. Justin the libertarian? I don't think so. What does Justin stand for and who does he like? Nothing and no one. As for his enemies, here's a brief list: Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, moderates, capitalists, etc. The whole world is wrong and Justin is right according to Justin. ...

Folks, Justin Raimondo is what most people on the planet would call a malcontented rabble-rousing anarchist. ... The guy's a total embarrassment to the antiwar movement and to anyone associated with any form of opposition to Bush's administration. Simply put, when someone reads Raimondo, he or she is a shoo-in to vote for Bush in the next election. ...

~ Charles Reilly

Hurray for Nightline

Did anyone watch Nightline (ABC) last night, Sept. 17? I was utterly shocked. Why? Well, I and others have been bashing the US media for some time, but last night I saw recognition of the past! Here on this program was an admission that we supported Saddam while he gassed Kurds and Iranian nationals (would you believe they also showed Rumsfield visiting Saddam after one of these attacks?). It described our support of Saddam, via satellite intelligence and naval vessels in the Gulf, and it acknowledged our (US) awareness of Saddam's WMD. It even showed Reagan condemning Israel for bombing the Iraqi nuclear reactor....

I'm not sure what to make of this. In light of recent events am I suppose to call the FBI, the CIA, or Homeland Security? Is Ted's admission of the past sedition? ...

Anyway, let's give the US media credit for this one! Hurray! Now if our media describes how aiding Iraq in waging aggressive war against Iran is a war crime, a crime we hung several German nationals for during the '40s, I hereby promise to eat my own body weight in bird seed during the following year!

~ Jim Vinsel

Editor's note:

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz is profiled in the Real World section of October's Smart Money magazine (print version only, not available online).