Democracy requires more than free speech, don't you think, Arthur? Agreed, the Grinberg piece was a good provocative challenge. I'll check on him via Google, as you suggest.
Cheers, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV/World War III > > > A search on Google on Lev Grinberg shows the really open nature of Israeli > society. Free speech is apparently held as a strong value. Democracy in > action. > > arthur cordell > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV/World War III > > > http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0207busharon.html > > The BUSHARON Global War > > By Lev Grinberg July 8, 2002 > (Dr. Lev Grinberg is a political analyst and a > senior lecturer at Ben-Gurion University, Israel.) > > President George Bush's June 24th speech outlining U.S. policy > toward Israel and Palestine intensified the plight of the peace > supporters in Israel, and in the entire Middle East. Since 1977, > residents had been accustomed to American presidents playing the > role of "fair mediators"--pressuring Israel to restrain violence > and to negotiate with its neighbors. Jimmy Carter mediated between > Begin and Sadat; Ronald Reagan brought Israel and the PLO to a > first cease-fire pact in 1981, and stopped Sharon before occupying > Beirut in 1982. George Bush Senior coerced Shamir into the Madrid > Peace Conference after the Gulf War, and Bill Clinton was best man > to Rabin and Arafat. Then, and all of a sudden, comes a president > who not only doesn't mediate but also unilaterally supports > Sharon. This is not only confusing to the Israeli "peace camp," > but places the Palestinian leadership in an awkward position, not > to mention the rest of the Arab states. In March the Arab League > accepted a brave peace plan, initiated by Saudi Arabia, and > President Bush dismissed it out of hand. > > George Bush did not present a peace plan, but instead, in the > subtext, we can understand who his allies are in his war plans. > During the past half a year Bush stands at Sharon's side and spurs > him onwards on his aggressive policies. The obvious question is: > Why did Bush quit playing the "fair mediator" between Israel and > its neighbors? The explanation I suggest here is very simple: Bush > is planning to launch an attack on Iraq, and in recent months he > has come to the conclusion that, for the purpose of this war > Sharon is a more reliable and worthwhile ally than the moderate > Arab states. Bush doesn't care too much about peace between Israel > and Palestine, nor is he all that bothered by the millions of > Palestinians living under curfew in intolerable and inhuman > conditions, and neither is he really concerned about the Israeli > casualties caused by the despaired suicide bombers. "Let them > bleed" was the Bush administration's motto early on in its reign, > until it became politically incorrect on 9/11. And yet, as long as > the Bush administration continues in its plans to attack Iraq, we, > Palestinians and Israelis, will continue to bleed. > > What makes so clear that Bush is mainly concerned with his war > plans? It is a matter of timing. In his speech Bush suggests the > establishment of a Palestinian state within three years, focusing > in the meantime on replacing Arafat and installing a new, > democratic, uncorrupted, transparent, and efficient Palestinian > administration during the coming year and a half. This means the > Palestinian state will be established only AFTER the war against > Iraq, if at all. Bush wants a strong and deterring Israel during > the attack on Iraq, first of all because Saddam Hussein might bomb > Tel-Aviv, as he did in 1991, and then Sharon will surely join the > war. Second, because "America's enemies" throughout the Arab world > might awaken during such a war. Israel's job would then be to > deter, and eventually fight, Washington's enemies within its "area > of influence:" the Occupied Territories, Lebanon, Syria, and > Jordan. > > How did this full understanding between Bush and Sharon > crystallize? It has developed smoothly since 9/11. Immediately > after the attack on the Twin Towers Sharon tried to get on the > "War-On-Terrorism" bandwagon, declaring that "Arafat is our Bin > Laden." This position was firmly rejected by the U.S. > administration, mainly because they were planning an attack on > Afghanistan, and did not want to endanger the expected cooperation > with the pro-American Arab states. However, during the war in > Afghanistan, the Bush administration was disappointed with the > positions of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. After the end of the war and > the demolition of the Taliban's regime, Sharon was invited to > Washington "to coordinate the next moves in the war against > terror"--this time against Iraq. In his meeting with President > Bush on December 3rd Sharon received a "green light" to attack > Arafat. On December 4th, Arafat's helicopters were bombed, and he > was placed on a "city arrest" in Ramallah for five months. Even > when Arafat declared a cease-fire on December 16th, the U.S. > ignored it, and when Israel breached the cease-fire by > assassinating Raad Carmi on January 14th (to avoid the upcoming > political negotiations), Bush continued to support Sharon. Since > December 3rd the President of the U.S. has defined Israel's > actions against the Palestinians as "self defense," while Arafat > is always found guilty. Sharon has systematically undermined > Arafat's authority in the eyes of the Palestinians, disbanded the > forces that were loyal to his command, destroyed their > infrastructure, and even sabotaged the Palestinian Authority's > computers. When the UN Security Council decided to send an inquiry > committee to investigate war crimes committed in Jenin in April > 2002, the U.S. administration collaborated with the Israeli > government in preventing the committee's entry into Israel. In the > present conditions, under military occupation and without > international protection, it is hard to imagine how the > Palestinians can establish democratic and efficient institutions. > > The Bush administration adopted and augmented Sharon's big lie > that Arafat is the problem (not the 35-year Israeli occupation), > and that a Palestinian State would be established later on (when, > where, and how remain constantly deferred questions). Bush decided > to back Sharon's strategy due to his own political interests. His > political axiom is that the U.S. must attack Iraq, and the > question was whether he wanted a weakened Sharon in confrontation > with the U.S., or a strong Sharon on U.S.'s side. Bush's speech > indicated that the administration has decided in favor of full > coordination with Sharon. Bush has understood that a thorough > solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires two > elements: time and confrontation with the Israeli government. > Since Bush is neither willing to postpone the offensive on Iraq > for three years, nor is he interested in confronting Israel before > the war, Sharon has become an ally. Sharon knows that "all is > open" in war. He is deeply satisfied with Bush's "Middle East > Plan" that practically means a global war managed by the BUSHARON > team, in which Bush will play the role of the global sheriff, > imposing a new order in the Islamic States. Sharon has been > nominated as the "regional sheriff," and he will be allowed to > impose a new order in his "area of influence." > > Indeed, it is hard to believe that these are the plans of the > leader of the globe, but Bush's behavior doesn't leave too much > room for doubts. He is leading--with Sharon--to a global war that, > according to our experience with Sharon in Israel, is expected to > be disastrous. We also know that in times of war the civil > society, democracy, and freedom of opinion are marginalized, so it > is about time to start criticizing the expected war, before it > starts. Neglecting harsh realities has never been helpful. > > > ===================================================================== > > > "suitable" to this: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/thewrap/ > Thursday July 25, 2002 > > WAS GAZA CITY BOMBING AN ACT OF SABOTAGE? > > Ariel Sharon said yesterday that he would not have authorised > Sheikh Salah Shehada's assassination in Gaza City had he known > that 14 other people would die in the bombing raid. "What happened > is really regrettable," the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon > Peres, told the BBC yesterday. "It wasn't done intentionally." > > The Guardian disagrees. "Credible" sources suggest that Hamas was > on the verge of making a "landmark statement ending the suicide > bombings" in return for Israeli withdrawal and an end to > assassinations. "Deliberate sabotage of the peace process may soon > be added to the Sharon charge sheet," the paper says. >
