July 24, 2006
"One day while I was in a bunker in Vietnam, a sniper round went over my head. The person who fired that weapon was not a terrorist, a rebel, an extremist, or a so-called insurgent. The Vietnamese individual who tried to kill me was a citizen of Vietnam, who did not want me in his country. This truth escapes millions." - Mike Hastie, U.S. Army Medic - Vietnam 1970-71 - December 13, 2004 According to the latest Harris Poll published on July 21 "Despite being widely reported in the media [sic!] that the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly; more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005."
I wonder if Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies can explain this, since she wrote me this past April: "Since you're monitoring the U.S. press and anti-war movement so closely i assume you are familiar with the rising polls of anti-war sentiment and the near 2/3 of americans who say bring the troops home -- our challenge is how to empower that sentiment into political action at a moment when the supposed opposition party is frightened and supine [sic!], rendering congress largely unwilling to challenge the white house."
I almost felt sorry for the "frightened and supine" Democratic Party. Almost.
The Institute for Policy Studies’ website reads that Phyllis Bennis works "closely with the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition". Was she consulted when "the largest antiwar coalition in the United States" sent a letter to "Dear Ambassador Bolton"?
The American anti-war movement’s elites reached a new low with an article by Stephen Zunes, who serves as Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus, a "think tank without walls" as its website reads. Foreign Policy in Focus is a joint project of International Relations Center and Institute for Policy Studies.
Professor Zunes writes:
"The seizure of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militiamen, apparently taken in retaliation against Israeli attacks against civilian targets in the Gaza Strip, was clearly wrong." Rewriting history is so common nowadays that the new revisionists don’t even try to explain their words anymore: "clearly wrong"? What does it mean? There are reports stating "According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border". But journalists, writers, commentators and the anti-war movement’s elites simply repeat Israeli propaganda "Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory" .
Why? Where is that sane scepticism, the most important friend we all should have in these dark times?
Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus continues: "Israel would have a right to engage in a targeted paramilitary action to free the hostages and, if necessary, kill their captors. However, large-scale attacks against civilian targets unrelated to the kidnapping is an act of collective punishment, a clear violation of international law." This is a very important word: "kidnapping". Behind this word there is the real religion of the West: HYPOCRISY, a goddess that must be worshipped unconditionally. The punishment for those who refuse is the exclusion from any political discourse, civil death.
Zunes seems not to get his own words:Israel holds thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners seized within the territory of those nations by Israeli forces. Most of these Arab prisoners have not engaged in terrorism [sic!] and many are non-combatants. How is Israel's seizure and detention of these people different from Hezbollah's seizure and detention of the two Israeli soldiers? Does Israel's refusal to release its hostages give Lebanon or Palestine, if they were capable of it, the right to engage in a massive bombardment of civilian targets in Israel? Exactly. So what’s the reason for the use of the word "kidnapping"?
Writing on the same subject, a few days ago historian Willian Blum wrote:
As for the two Israeli soldiers captured and held in Lebanon for prisoner exchange, we must keep a little history in mind. In the late 1990s, before Israel was evicted from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, it was a common practice for Israel to abduct entirely innocent Lebanese. As a 1998 Amnesty International paper declared: "By Israel's own admission, Lebanese detainees are being held as 'bargaining chips'; they are not detained for their own actions but in exchange for Israeli soldiers missing in action or killed in Lebanon. Most have now spent 10 years in secret and isolated detention." Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus writes on July 23, 2006 "Close to 200 Lebanese civilians have died in these attacks so far, as well as over a dozen foreigners, including a Canadian family on vacation." On July 19 the partial count was: 265 civilians. How many civilians "have died" in the heavy bombing of Beirut and the rest of Lebanon of these past three days?
But behind the numbers, the choice of words is important. While the "Lebanese civilians have died in these attacks" the "Israeli civilian had been killed by Hezbollah" as Zunes writes in the same article.
Zunes does writes "both Republicans and Democrats recognize that while arming those who kill innocent Israeli civilians is wrong, they support arming those who kill innocent Lebanese civilians. This is racism, pure and simple". Yes, it is.
But who’s the aggressor and who’s resisting the aggression? This is the REAL QUESTION that the elites in the "anti-war movement" and the "left" in the West are so shamefully avoiding or worse. Zunes’ grand finale: "Israel's current offensive will only strengthen Hezbollah's appeal and undermine Lebanon's pro-Western government. This is not about Israel's legitimate right to self-defense. As with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, it will create far more terrorists than it destroys." Once again, we got into mythology territory. The TERRORISM FAIRY TALES.
American dissident William Blum recently wrote:
These crimes against humanity -- and I haven't mentioned the terrible special weapons reportedly used by Israel -- are what the people of Palestine get for voting for the wrong party. It is ironic, given the Israeli attacks against civilians in both Gaza and Lebanon, that Hamas and Hezbollah are routinely dismissed in the West as terrorist organizations. The generally accepted definition of terrorism, used by the FBI and the United Nations amongst others, is: The use of violence against a civilian population in order to intimidate or coerce a government in furtherance of a political objective. Since 9-11 it has been a calculated US-Israeli tactic to label the fight against Israel's foes as an integral part of the war on terror. On July 19, a rally was held in Washington, featuring the governor of Maryland, several members of Israeli-occupied Congress, the Israeli ambassador, and evangelical leading-light John Hagee. The Washington Post reported that "Speaker after prominent speaker characteriz[ed] current Israeli fighting as a small branch of the larger U.S.-led global war against Islamic terrorism" and "Israel's attacks against the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah were blows against those who have killed civilians from Bali to Bombay to Moscow." Said the Israeli ambassador: "This is not just about [Israel]. It's about where our world is going to be and the fate and security of our world. Israel is on the forefront. We will amputate these little arms of Iran," referring to Hezbollah. Most of the analyses coming from the elites of the Western anti-war movement and the so-called "left" don’t go behind the Sunday’s sermon I used to listen as a child. But my priest was an old sweet man who didn’t like to mix religion with politics.
Just a few days ago the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said "In particular, the Holy See deplores right now the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and assures its closeness to these people who already have suffered so much to defend their independence (…) The right of defence on the part of a state does not exempt it from its responsibility to respect international law, particularly regarding the safeguarding of civilian populations". Is it too much asking the elites in the Western anti-war movement and the so-called "left" to be at least as "radical" as the Pope?
|
