Well, I’m kidding, Madison wasn’t really considering asking for a National Guard presence at the city council meeting which will decide the fate of the Rafah Sister City proposal. And it has decided not to deploy the police, even though the emotion will be “intense,” the debate “vicious.” The Israel/Palestine issue is so “contentious,” so “divisive” that the “deep wounds could take a long time to heal.” “‘Very little of any good can come of this,'” says mayor Dave Cieslewicz. (Sparks fly over idea of sister city)
As the vote looms, Madison Capital Times editor Dave Zweifel informs us that “Bush’s Iraq invasion hurt war on terror.”
He cites a Mother Jones cover story by Peter Bergen. “A former FBI counterterrorism official, Harry ‘Skip’ Brandon, told Bergen that the Iraq war has served as ‘a real rallying point, not only for the region, but also in Asia. We’ve seen very solid examples of them using the war for recruiting,’ Brandon commented. . . ‘The Iraq war is a public relations bonanza for al-Qaida.'”
Bergen is the author of “Holy War, Inc.,” which came out shortly after 9/11. “This is the only book you need to read about Osama bin Laden, at least for now,” concludes its Washington Post reviewer. “‘What [bin Laden] condemns the United States for is simple: Its policies in the Middle East,’ Bergen insists. ‘These are . . . the continued U.S. military presence in Arabia; U.S. support for Israel; its continued bombing of Iraq; and its support for regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia . . .”
Whereas US support for Israel is second on Bergen’s list, it tops CIA analyst Anonymous’ more recent one: “It’s not hatred of us as a society, it’s hatred of our policies,” Mike insisted. He gave pride of place to the neuralgic issue of Israel. With candor not often heard on American television, he emphasized “It’s very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel,” adding that bin Laden’s “genius” is his ability to exploit those U.S. policies most offensive to Muslims—“Our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian peninsula, in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims.”
Capital Times associate editor John Nichols found Tony Blair’s speech to Congress “nauseating.” Particularly “stomach-churning” was the spectacle of “America’s elected representatives applauding the lies they wanted to hear.” While this assessment resonated with the antiwar movement, it wasn’t totally true. At one point, Blair aspired to wax ‘plain’:
“There is one cause terrorism rides upon, a cause they have no belief in but can manipulate. I want to be very plain: This terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine.
“Here it is that the poison is incubated. . .
“And why has a resolution of Palestine such a powerful appeal across the world? Because it embodies an even-handed approach to justice. . .”
As Congress is notorius for taking a one-sided approach to the conflict, Blair in effect told it it offends the world’s sense of justice and serves as an impediment to defeating terrorism.
Many people in liberal Madison are horrified by the prospect of an unending “war against terror” that renders the world less safe and Americans less rich and free. Yet still, as Madison/Rafah shows, “the fateful triangle”–the US, Israel and the Palestinians–can’t be discussed because it’s deemed too “divisive.”