|
|||||||||
Posted May 27, 2003
Regarding "The Apartheid Wall" by Ran HaCohen:
I fear that Mr HaCohen is, in many ways naive. It is unfortunate that he has failed to read the published documents of the Palestinian Authority: the Constitution and Charter. Article 25 of the published Constitution states:
"Palestinian citizenship issecure (sic) and permanent for any Arab who lived in Palestine before May 1948. It is transmitted from father to child. It endures and is not canceled by the passage of time. The law shall determine the ways of gaining and losing it and the rights and duties of multinational citizens."
The Charter, an earlier document, clarifies this in Articles 5 and 6:
Article 5: The Palestinians are the Arab citizens who were living permanently in Palestine until 1947, whether they were expelled or remained there. Whoever is born to a Palestinian father after that date, within Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.
Article 6: Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians. (For the Zionist invasion is considered to have begun in 1917.)
What are the implications of these statements? Not only Jews, but Asians, Causatians [sic], Iranians, and Africans who may have been living in Palestine before May 1948 are not considered citizens. What is more absurd is the following situation. A Jew living in Damascus (Palestine was part of the Syria at that time) moved to Jerusalem in early 1918. Not only was he moving from one part of the Ottoman Empire to another, but was moving from part of the province to another. In 1946 an Arab made the same move, but this time it was from one country to another. Yet, according to the above documents, only the Arab would be considered a Palestinian.
Simply stated this is racism and Apartheid. Mr HaCohen, because of his ignorance, does not realize that the very people he supports would exclude him from citizenship in a Palestinian State that uses race as a way to define citizenship.
Ran HaCohen replies:
It's fairly touching to see that while 3.5 million Arab Palestinians are exposed to daily dispossession, oppression and violation of every human right for 36 years, some people are much more worried about the fate of "Asians, Causations [sic, I assume you mean Caucasians -RH], Iranians, and Africans who may have been living in Palestine before May 1948" in a Palestinian State that has not yet been established. Priorities sometimes say quite a lot about those who hold them.
Since Tel-Aviv, where I live, is not to be part of the Palestinian State, I have no no claim to a Palestinian citizenship, thank you. I can only join your hope that a Palestinian State, if and when established, will not discriminate anybody based of race or religion. Meanwhile, it would be nice if you protested such actual discrimination, like the one practiced by Israel.
I have read your letters with great interest and thank you for the work you have done. I am an Irish man and it has always appeared to me that the occupation in Palestine and the British presence in Ireland are in some ways similar yet very different.
One of the greatest problems faced in this conflict is as you correctly point out the picture painted in the media, where every Palestinian is a terrorist and every Israeli is a victim. That was the line I was fed for years until the purchase of a book on the subject some years ago. There and here there is a hatred and fear on both sides that runs deeper than the conflict, and with each year of fighting that hatred and fear grow and the seeds are set in the younger generation so it will last forever. The only answer if there is an answer is that someone backs down. That was possible here but in Israel one side has nothing left to give and the other has too much to lose. I have little faith in the the latest peace plan, in my cynical world any peace plan for the area which is backed by the is in the interests of the Israeli government and them alone. My question to you sir is, can you see a peaceful settlement of the conflict and if so what would be the ten main points of your plan for the area?
Ran HaCohen replies:
Thank you very much for this message. I believe a major difference between the Irish and the Israeli case is the proportions. The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank is less than 10% of its Palestinian population, and they all moved there in the last 35 years; in Gaza, the number is much smaller. So instead of a ten point plan (too many plans around anyway), let us start by removing those settlements – all illegal under international law – or even just one settlement for a start, and then see where we're going.
Regarding "Mini-Nukes – The Next Step of Neocon Foreign Policy" by Mike Ewens:
R. A. Niero: I don't agree with where you stand on the US's confiction [?] with Iraq. I believe that the US was right in going to war with Saddam because if we didn't disarm him and his military, they would have the power to destroy us all.
Mike Ewens: A month after the war has ended, it appears that all of this talk of WMD and imminent threats was hogwash, just as many of us expected. "Disarm his military" you say? That same military that was unable to fly one plane against our troops and kill perhaps one of our tanks. If you consider that a threat, than you better not ever find yourself in the inner city.
RAN: So, what would you rather [have]? Peace or life?
ME: First, this is a false dicotomy. But I will still try to address it. I believe that peace and life must coexist. You seem to assume that war and life is the best situation for humanity...not a world I would like to live in. Finally, we are not pacifists. If someone decides to steal my things or hit my mother, I will do my best to make them feel my wrath (which isn't much). Those who deserve to be punished should be punished. Saddam, although a dictator, was never shown to be a threat to America or direct American interests, thus we had no right invading Iraq and killing innocents.
I agree. This policy of making the world safe for the empire is going to start another arms race. If China, and Russia, etc., don't get the message it would be a miracle. It seems that the neo-cons are carrying on some sort of pseudo-religious campaign of self-righteousness against the world. Where will it end? As a conservative, I am appalled at the "conservatives" who are propagandizing for this open-ended program of expansion with excuses for all seasons. I thought conservatives were against double-speak.
The Enemy Within
Just a quick note of encouragement and thanks. I read your site often in a desperate search for news – now that I have sickened on the fodder force-fed by CNN and the like. From this side of the planet, American power-structures look threatening and dysfunctional indeed. As author Arundathi Roy said recently in her speech in New York: millions around the world are depending on truth-seeking Americans to fight the enemy within. We are watching you. Feel proud of yourselves for your unstinting search for the facts. Every small, individual action counts.
~ Margot, Johannesburg, South Africa
Regarding "Joystick Mayhem" by Matthew Barganier:
Great read – not only can we not let the military eat cold dinners but it is also essential that the "decent" Bush supporting patriotic American must be able to eat his/her dinner in peace. So unsettling for the digestion to see too many photographs of blown up/starving women and children, of people generally in distress and the destruction of hospitals and other essential life giving services – and all in the name of liberation!
Would be great if for just one or two hours America and Americans, also Blairs Britain and the rest of the free world who were so keen to take this war trip to Iraq could experience just for that short period what it has been like/continues to be like for the Iraqiis and for the country that in years to come will be remembered as Iraq. Perhaps if just some of the pain, outrage and destruction could be felt/experienced we might hear less war rhetoric from our sofa based war heroes of course also neither would we risk being ill when the great man struts his victory parade! You have to hand it to Bush – not only does he talk a great fight, but his tailor also makes him look as if he could fight a good fight!
Fucking brilliant – haven’t stopped giggling – this article should be published as the lead editorial in every newspaper across the USA – not that anyone would remotely comprehend what Barganier is banging on about – same thing happened to poor old Jonathan Swift, parliament did debate his ‘Modest Proposal’ – but SERIOUSLY – satire sometimes has the potentially odd characteristic of being adopted by its target! And there’s me thinking ‘irony’ had been omitted from Chambers! The boys at Homeland Security will be wanting to recruit Barganier as a consultant next.
Regarding Justin Raimondo's reply to Lily's letter posted May 18:
I think I love my country, but fear my government. That said, I wonder if I still don’t fall under Justin’s definition of being Anti-American for having a cynical sense of justice.
Nobody likes a bully (except, perhaps, for those that benefit from his actions) and most impartial observers would admit that America is a bully. This is not to say that those observers dislike what America could be (or was intended to be) or Americans in general. I would offer that people who may dislike America, casually referred to as Anti-Americans, really dislike whatever power determines the bullying actions of America.
I have always cheered for the underdog whether at the Olympics or in a fight on the playground. I can’t help but feel some odd sense of satisfaction when the bully is slighted by another, regardless of the intentions of the slight (I don’t much care for the UN or its intentions). For example, I agree that the sanctions against Iraq were wrong for a number of reasons. But now that America owns that country and wishes to remove the sanctions, I am oddly satisfied that the UN blocks the move. America wants to lift the sanctions to help rebuild the country, but we’ve been told that the sanctions only block materials that could be used for WMD. In order to remove those sanctions, Iraq must be recognized as not possessing any WMD and America doesn’t want to admit that. I don’t want to see people further hurt by those sanctions, but I find poetic justice that America might, just might, be held responsible for its actions. Does this make me ‘Anti-American’?
For things to get better, they need to be told. For things to be told, they need to be noticed by the media. For things to get noticed, they need to get worse. I’m not satisfied with things being the same as they’ve always been.
Regarding Seany B.'s letter posted May 18:
Looks like the Aceh thing is now up and running.
You asked me why Ambrosi is lying. The thing is I don't think he's lying. He's a grunt and was probably doing his bit, and that's that. As to why he was led to believe that he was targeting Americans, well it all becomes speculation.
The thing about Bali is that the majority population is Hindu. And curiously enough, Megawati has strong ties with the region. She's not a Hindu herself, and the target only has value as a tourist destination, so the real question is why did this happen?
Shortly after it happened I asked myself this question. Mainly who benefits from this. The only group I could come up with was the TNI. As I mentioned in my last email, the military have had their power dramaticly curtailed by the current government. There have been many efforts to bring the chain of command back under the civilian governments control, and several top level military commanders have understandably balked at this.
Since the bombing this has no longer been an issue. As to how much power the military has been given, well it was shown when the UN indicted the then top General Wiranto for his part in the East Timor "Scorched Earth" policy. Indonesia pretty much told them to bugger off.
My point, I suppose, is that all of this focusing on the guys that carried out this horrible act completely moves away from the people who are probably directly to blame for this incident. Yes, the people who actually did it are a major problem because they have proven that there are people who are willing to do this sort of thing, regardless of who gives the orders. But there is always a bigger picture that people need to be made aware of, even if it's only speculation.
The people who order these sort of things remove themselves from direct blame. They're good at it. They've been trained by the best.
Regarding "The Truth Will Emerge" by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D – WV):
Like many Americans I never thought a president would go to war without a good reason. Now I wonder.
Things must be pretty bad when a US senator speaks out in this fashion. It hard to know what is the truth but this senior senator should be better informed then most. If he is so worried then it is past time for some new leadership.
It bothers me that America is no longer trusted abroad. The people of the world seem to view us in fear. I wish I knew what is really happening. The news seems like it is set up to entertain. Where are we heading as a nation? What will happen to the average American as treasure is wasted on adventures? It hard for me, an average person, to contemplate. We live in very stressful times.
Thank God for Senator Byrd – one honest man in that bipartisan collection of pimps, thieves, sycophants and sociopaths known as the United States Senate.
I write as a 75-year-old former career marine officer, a disabled veteran from combat wounds in Korea, a Ph.D. former history professor, a veteran of 4 years in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, most of that time attached to the US Embassy in Bangkok as a counterinsurgency specialist, a former senior estimates officer of the CIA in the early 1980s, and since 1984 a critic of US covert intelligence activities world wide. From 1986 to 1994 I edited and published the journal of intelligence analysis, UNCLASSIFIED. Currently, I am on the steering committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) composed of retired and former CIA, FBI, military, State Department, and other old national security types who are appalled by current policies. I fully support Senator Byrd and think I have the qualifications to do so knowledgeably.
I believe the good senator is wrong . The truth will not emerge. There will be some "crisis" and a state of emergency will declared. Many enemy combatants will be, not jailed, but gulaged! This will all be done in the cause of preserving freedom. President Bush will be hailed as the "Savior" of America.
So people will say the above statement is that of a conspiracy nut. I hope their right .
Sen. Byrd's eloquent arguments cannot be refuted, so they are largely ignored. They are ignored most shamefully by his colleagues in the US Congress, who have, as the gentleman from West Virginia said, ceded (though not for the first time) the power and responsibility of Congress to decide and declare whether, when and with whom the United States is at war.
When I mentioned Sen. Byrd recently to a neocon, "rah, rah" Republican friend of mine, he replied reflexively that Sen. Byrd is "a crackpot." We need more such "crackpots" in both houses of the US Congress.
Keep up the good work, Antiwar.com!
I have a lot of respect and admiration for your true patriotism. It is very clear to me that your concerns about, where the United State is going, are not partisan politics, instead they arise from your deep appreciation of what the founding fathers of this nation had intended in the constitution and how it is being derailed from its path.
As true as your assertion seems to be of the tactics this administration used to wage war against Iraq, people seems to have already forgotten, or at least Mr. Rumsfeld believes so. Why else would he be using the same tactics namely linking Al-Qaida and existence of WMD in Iran as a pretext to stir more animosity toward Iranian government? Middle Easterners are not suspicious about US policy in the Middle East. Suspicion means doubt, Middle Easterners have no doubt that US is not there to liberate Iraq, but exactly the opposite. You are absolutely right “Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it.”
~ Ali Zartosht, Orange County, California
Regarding "Libertarianism in the Age of Empire" by Justin Raimondo:
You clearly know nothing about the history of the American Trotskyist movement, Trotsky’s political theories, or specifically Trotsky’s position on Stalin’s non-aggression pact with Hitler. The latter was, in fact, the precipitating event that led Trotsky to conclude that the Third International had been transformed into a counterrevolutionary, anti-socialist organization and was beyond reform. It is more slanderous than inaccurate to claim Trotsky called the conquest of Poland by Hitler (with Stalin’s tacit approval) “progressive”.
In the bizarre political landscape imagined by you libertarians, all things non-libertarian (fascism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, imperialism) somehow merge into a single entity. But to claim that Perle, Wolfowitz and Kristol are Trotskyists descendants of Trotskyism because Burnham and Shachtman were once briefly Trotskyists is absurd. These two broke clearly with Trotsky and evolved into political animals of the right, each in their own unique way. Contemporary socialist decedents of Trotsky are well-versed in the struggles against the right-wing anti-Trotskyist renegades of the '30s and '40s. That they carried their political enthusiasm and energy into the service of imperialism and contributed to the modern “neocon” movement (as you call it) is undeniable.
But these are your political cousins, not ours. Notwithstanding your “antiwar” positions, your libertarianism has far more in common with the National Review and State Department crowd than you would care to admit. It’s all about capitalism, baby.
Regarding "Liberation? Not Yet" by Mike Ewens:
Just
read your article and all I can say is STAY STRONG BROTHER MIKE!
Person by person, the wall of willingly ignorant Americans who support this war is being chipped away by events and by the hypocrisy of the Bush government. As long as young people like you are willing to keep reporting the facts, our democracy will continue to limp along. Never doubt that God will bless you and your efforts.
Regarding "War and Empire" by Chris Hedges:
I believe that the fact that Mr Hedges had to deliver his speech in the face of a hostile College audience helps prove that what he is saying will almost certainly come to pass.
Do intelligent people in the USA not understand that you can't win a war against terror with violence and that every new show of American muscle flexing merely drives more young men and women on "the other side" into the control of the extremists.
I wish I could send a copy of this to all my neighbors, those riding around in their Chevy Suburbans with flag decals. They know little about the world but yet are so comfortable in their ignorance. Most folks who have traveled and make an effort to educate themselves about the issues support Mr. Hedges point of view. Our democracy is history. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country but Americans are in a dense media generated fog and too brain dead to sense the danger.
Regarding "Outing the Neocons" by Justin Raimondo:
From the ratification of the U.S. Constitution until now, the American governmental form has run in 72 year cycles. We are now ending the third cycle. Each cycle denotes a change in our nation's governmental form. From 1789 to 1861, we were a constitutional confederation. We then became a federal republic until the advent of FDR. At that point we converted to a social democracy. The usual succession from social democracy is into national socialism. While the next society will include elements of fascist economic organization, our democratic and capitalist institutions indicate imperial corporatism might be a better term to describe our next societal form.
Each cycle is represented by one dominant political party and a process of waning influence of the majority party from dominance to disempowerment. This process can be described by four consecutive 18 year segments within each cycle. These segments are Catalyst, Hegemony, Consolidation, and Manipulation.
First Cycle:
Constitutional Confederation (Jefferson)
Catalyst Hegemony Consolidation Manipulation
1789 – 1807 1807 – 1825 1825 – 1843 1843 – 1861
Second Cycle:
Federal Republic (Lincoln)
Catalyst Hegemony Consolidation Manipulation
1861 – 1879 1879 – 1897 1897 – 1915 1915 – 1933
Third Cycle:
Social Democracy (F. Roosevelt)
Catalyst Hegemony Consolidation Manipulation
1933 – 1951 1951 – 1969 1969 – 1987 1987 -(2005)
Generally, definition of each category includes:
CATALYST: Early in a new cycle, the electorate confirms a dominant coalition. A strong advocate for the new majority (Jefferson, Lincoln, F. Roosevelt) advances the cycle’s dominant philosophy. He leaves his successors with a unified front which carries them to victory in most elections for generations. Constitutional amendment and sweeping federal laws are frequent in this period (e.g. the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments, repeal of Prohibition, the New Deal).
HEGEMONY: The strong advocate leaves in the Catalyst stage or early in the Hegemony stage. Usually, the opposition has earned disfavor through discredited policies (the Federalist opposition to democracy, the Democrat revolt against the Union, the Republican Depression policies). “Middle of the road” voters give benefit of the doubt to the new ruling coalition as more trustworthy and capable. An important constituent of the Catalyst or Hegemony phase is the “second voice” (Madison, Grant, and Truman), who picks up the standard and rules as the heir of the Majority Catalyst legacy.
CONSOLIDATION: This stage is distinguished from the preceding by growing instability in the ruling and opposition coalitions. As in the Hegemony stage, the ruling coalition governs with approval of the people. However,the opposition wins when the established administration appears too complacent, too dogmatic, or too corrupt (W. Harrison in 1840, Wilson in 1912, Nixon in 1972), but these elections are generally delivered as “straighten up” lessons to the continuing ruling coalition which usually returns to power in the next election. Offensive, land grabbing, adventuristic wars (Mexico, Spain, World War One, Vietnam) are common during these periods as the weakening majority tries to inspire the nation with jingoism. The opposition uses Consolidation periods to internally renegotiate basic premises and philosophy, buttress its base, distance itself from discredited policies, and attempt to “wedge” diffuse blocs from the majority. Eventually, the contradictions of maintaining an entrenched status quo and the inevitable occasional policy disaster lead to the final stage. A radical realignment in both parties has always occurred in this period (Jackson, T. Roosevelt, McGovern in the Majority, W. Harrison, Bryan, and Reagan in Opposition).
MANIPULATION: By this time, two generations have passed from the cycle’s origin. The ruling establishment is seen as more elite than competent. However, those in power have had decades to rewrite rules regarding elections, funding, civil service, and campaigning. Also, the opposition has possibly made alliances with unpopular political factions to build its coalition. Thus, the dominant group can maintain its diminishing hold over key government functions while its majority progressively fragments. The lack, or unpopularity, of direction from the government can enhance restrictive social reform movements which decry the moral vacuum at the center. The Abolition, Prohibition, and Pro-life forces all gained prominence in Manipulation periods. There can be a “false rebirth” as the fragmenting majority temporarily revitalizes itself around a consensus leader (Pierce, Coolidge, Clinton). However, the fact that those in control are wedded to the structure of a stagnating social philosophy makes them unlikely to adapt (and more likely to receive blame) when the conditions of society coalesce into a new Catalyst stage. Pre-Catalyst events can be expected two to four years before the Catalyst reorganization (the Constitutional Convention, Bleeding Kansas and John Brown’s raid, the Crash and the Smoot-Hawley Act), which makes realignment unavoidable.
A general disillusionment with the ending sociopolitical cycle preludes each Catalyst revival. Currently, Rooseveltian central control democracy has run its course. The major premises of the early socialist planners such as John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Woodrow Wilson, and, essentially, Karl Marx have been refuted. Consolidation of enterprise was supposed to end duplication of effort and wasted production. Scientific planning was supposed to anticipate the market better than individual entrepreneurs. Regulation of the money supply was to ameliorate the economic boom-bust cycle.
All of these assumptions have been proven faulty. Like the rationales for slavery and secession in the 1850s and the unfettered stock transactions and protectionism of the 1920s, Keynesian monetary policies and social engineering are now rejected by hard experience and popular opinion.
Of course, this does not mean the mythology of the next social contract will have a sounder basis. The primary pre-Catalyst events of the recent past, 9-11, the Afghani and Iraqi wars, and the long bear market following corporate corruption scandals, point to the arrangement which will support the Republican cycle of 2005 to 2077. The freak election of 2000 got the cycle off to an early start. Predictably, we should be in a disastrous single term Gore presidency, resembling the situations of the pre-Constitutional Congress and the Buchanan and Hoover administrations. The expansionist Bush foreign policies combined with widespread acceptance of restrictive social policies draw a road map for the new groupthink of the 21st century.
In the next society, John Dewey's prediction that we will be judged by the associations we keep will be fulfilled. However, the associations will no longer be race or ethnicity based. The struggle will be between consolidated power blocs vying on an international level. Indeed, formal boundaries will continue to lose meaning as means of travel become easier (at least for those with corporate/official sponsorship) and electronic means of bypassing borders become prevalent. The Patriot Act is the model for additional legislation which will define the new predominant function of the federal government: security. That will replace the previous cycle's preoccupation with equality as the continuing theme. In 1933, equality replaced unity as the national theme, just as unity replaced individualism in 1861.
In America, the emerging plunge toward productivity and security will define the political scene. Wide discretion will be given to those proposing plans of corporate growth while a suspicion of those not overtly joining in praise of national values will color the new cultural mainstream. These suspicions will not rest on ethnic grounds. Rather, acceptance of the American system of procedure and order, profession of a belief in the underlying fairness of our culture, will determine the basis of legitimacy in the national debate.
In foreign entanglements, these trends will reveal themselves in an emphasis on trade, production, and democracy. The prevalent theory will state that wealthier nations are more likely to avoid risk to their national treasure, and therefore will avoid military escapades and disruption of trade. America will push dissolution of trade barriers at the same time we advance plans to curb non-institutional dissent and violence. This will not only result in continuing military pursuit of irregular warriors (terrorists), but will also coalesce into an escalating official intolerance of ordinary crime.
What we can expect from 2005 to 2023 is America maintaining preeminence among a growing group of paranational constituencies. The European Union will continue to mature, as will the Republic of China. African and Asian quasi-confederations will develop. Other such multi national bodies will develop along the lines of the WTO and NATO. The UN will continue in a diminished role. America can be expected to form continuing formal alliances with Canada and nations to the south. By the end of the Catalyst period, there should be six to eight major players among the governmental groups. The major issue of concern between these groupings will be economic growth.
Security will be provided by America or by agreements within the various blocs.
Internally, America will maintain a low tax, pro-corporate, law and order regime. Social engineering will develop more often through state initiative and federal tax breaks rather than through redistributionist schemes. Internal security will demand a lessening of individual civil and privacy rights, but economic rights will be enhanced.
Between 2023 and 2041, the Republican Party will enjoy its greatest influence since the Gilded Age. Some sort of new consensus will be found on social issues such as abortion, gun rights, drugs, campaign rules, etc. which will be embraced by an overwhelming majority. This consensus, by and large, will resemble moderate Republican positions. Business regulations will be reduced, except where national security is an issue.
Much attention will be paid to felicitous opportunities for small and new growth enterprises. Welfare rolls and government dependents will diminish.
From 2041 to 2059, international turmoil will again gain prominence. Corporate internationalists will develop a dogma of rights which will alienate the grassroots of other cultures. Super-national watchdog alliances will clash with neo-terrorists and rogue confederacies. A new patriotic vigor will lead to American military exercises against new Axes. The dominant American and European powers will again break with the Asian and African blocs, leading to a new dialectic of international control. Internally, the American government will overreach. New social issues (cloning?, euthanasia?, new forms of marriage? self medication?) will emerge. Corporate abuses and frauds will lead to a new reregulation movement.
The second half of the 21st century will see the unraveling of the dominant Republican coalition and the rise of either the Democrats or another new major party built on the ashes of the Democrats. Probably the new thesis will be based on redistributionist doctrine and civil and privacy rights. There will probably be great dissatisfaction with the host of foreign entanglements America will maintain and the costs of a dispersed military. Likely the new demographic will be greatly influenced by the absorption of the present new Americans. Having a grandmother who was a Cambodian will be as common then as having an Italian grandmother is now. Old racial politics will emerge again, and a new cycle will start from the sociological struggle.
After reading several articles of how neoconservatives are trying to hide from the fact of their existence, I propose that you come out with a neocon deck of playing cards. It would be really funny to mock them as war criminals at large by making a deck of playing cards similar to the deck they made for the Iraqis. I would be the first in line to purchase a pack. This idea is free from me to you.
~ Ken Smith