http://www.killinghope.org/
The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
July 22, 2006
by William Blum
The End Is Near, but first, this commercial.
There are times when I think that this tired old world has gone on a few
years too long. What's happening in the Middle East is so depressing.
Most discussions of the eternal Israel-Palestine conflict are variations
on the child's eternal defense for misbehavior -- "He started it!"
Within a few minutes of discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of
the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical
times. I don't wish to get entangled in who started the current mess. I
would like instead to first express what I see as two essential
underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next:
1) Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't been so for decades,
if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements by
Arab leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with its
neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful
manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a
viable two-state solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a
state based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel,
and the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people's
minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification for
its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and
conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it's
the gorilla which has to make concessions in order for the two sides to
progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way
of concession? Israel would reply to that question: "No violent attacks
of any kind." But that would still leave the status quo ante bellum -- a
life of unmitigated misery for the Palestinian people forced upon them
by Israel. Peace without justice.
Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of one of
their soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two soldiers
being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too seriously when
Israel is holding literally thousands of captured Palestinians, many for
years, typically without any due process, many tortured; as well as
holding a number of prominent Hezbollah members. A few years ago, if not
still now, Israel wrote numbers on some of the Palestinian prisoners'
arms and foreheads, using blue markers, a practice that is of course
reminiscent of the Nazis' treatment of Jews in World War II. [1]
Israel's real aim, and that of Washington, is the overthrow of the
Hamas government in Palestine, the government that came to power in
January through a clearly democratic process, the democracy that the
Western "democracies" never tire of celebrating, except when the result
doesn't please them. Is there a stronger word than "hypocrisy"? There is
now "no Hamas government," declared a senior US official a week ago,
"eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail
[kidnapped by Israel], another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30
percent is doing very little."[2] To make the government-disappearance
act even more Orwellian, we have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
speaking in late June about Iraq: "This is the only legitimately elected
government in the Middle East with a possible exception of Lebanon."[3]
What's next, gathering in front of the Big Telescreeen for the Two
Minutes Hate?
In addition to doing away with the Hamas government, the current
military blitzkrieg by Israel, with full US support, may well be
designed to create "incidents" to justify attacks on Iran and Syria, the
next steps of Washington's work in process, a controlling stranglehold
on the Middle East and its oil.
It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the
Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the outside
world ... and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at
night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. "I want nobody to
sleep at night in Gaza," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert[4];
words suitable for Israel's tombstone.
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.[5]
And if the war on terror isn't enough to put Israel on the side of
the angels, John Hagee has argued that "the United States must join
Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's
plan for both Israel and the West". He speaks of "a biblically
prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the
Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."[6]
The beatification of Israel approaches being a movement. Here is
David Horowitz, the eminent semi-hysterical ex-Marxist: "Israel is part
of a global war, the war of radical Islam against civilization. Right
now Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world by
taking on the terrorists. It is not only for Israel's sake that we must
get the facts out -- it is for ourselves, America, for every free
country in the world, and for civilization itself."[7]
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."[8]
Israel has created its worst enemies -- they helped create Hamas as
a counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon
created Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to keep
the process going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been almost
continually occupied in fighting wars and taking other people's lands.
Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?
But while you and I get depressed by the horror and suffering, the
neo-conservatives revel in it. They devour the flesh and drink the blood
of the people of Afghanistan, of Iraq, of Palestine, of Lebanon, yet
remain ravenous, and now call for Iran and Syria to be placed upon the
feasting table. More than one of them has used the expression oderint
dum metuant, a favorite phrase of Roman emperor Caligula, also used by
Cicero -- "let them hate so long as they fear". Here is William Kristol,
editor of the bible of neo-cons, "Weekly Standard", on Fox News Sunday,
July 16:
"Look, our coddling of Iran ... over the last six to nine months
has emboldened them. I mean, is Iran behaving like a timid regime that's
very worried about the U.S.? Or is Iran behaving recklessly and in a
foolhardy way? ... Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the
Middle East, in a sense. Iran, Syria, sponsors of terror; Hezbollah and
Hamas. ... This is an opportunity to begin to reverse the unfortunate
direction of the last six to nine months and get the terrorists and the
jihadists back on the defensive."
Host Juan Williams replied: "Well, it just seems to me that you
want ... you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You
wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into
the Middle East ... you're saying, why doesn't the United States take
this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has
been [tried], we don't talk to anybody. We don't talk to Hamas. We don't
talk to Hezbollah. We're not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten
us, Bill?"
Kristol, looking somewhat taken aback, simply threw up his hands.
The Fox News audience does (very) occasionally get a hint of
another way of looking at the world.
Iraq will follow Bush the rest of his life
Here comes now our Glorious Leader, speaking last week at a news
conference at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, referring to Russian
president Vladimir Putin. "I talked about my desire to promote
institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a
free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our
country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."[9]
It's so very rare that Georgie W. makes one of his
less-than-brilliant statements and has the nonsense immediately pointed
out to him to his face -- "Putin, in a barbed reply, said: 'We certainly
would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq,
I will tell you quite honestly.' Bush's face reddened as he tried to
laugh off the remark. 'Just wait'," he said.[10]
It's too bad that Putin didn't also point out that religion was a
lot more free under Saddam Hussein than under the American occupation.
Amongst many charming recent incidents, in May the coach of the national
tennis team and two of his players were shot dead in Baghdad by men who
reportedly were religious extremists angry that the coach and his
players were wearing shorts.[11]
As to a "free press", dare I mention Iraqi newspapers closed down
by the American occupation, reporters shot by American troops, and phony
stories planted in the Iraqi press by Pentagon employees?
The preceding is in the same vein as last month's edition of this
report in which I listed the many ways in which the people of Iraq have
a much worse life now than they did under Saddam Hussein. I concluded
with recounting the discussions I've had with Americans who, in the face
of this, say to me: "Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam
Hussein is out of power?"
Now we have a British poll that reports that "More than two thirds
who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power
seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said
President George W. Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover
for the pursuit of American self-interests." The American embassy in
London was quick to reply. Said a spokesperson: "We question the
judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with
Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well
beyond Iraq's borders."[12]
They simply can't stop lying, can they? There was no evidence at
all that Saddam was threatening any people outside of Iraq, whatever
that's supposed to mean. It may mean arms sales. Following the Gulf War,
the US sold around $100 billion of military hardware to Iraq's
"threatened" neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, and Turkey.
As to the world being a better or worse place ... only Iraq itself
was and is the issue here, not the world; although if the world is a
better place, why am I depressed?
The peculiar idea of tying people's health to private corporate profits
Steven Pearlstein is a financial writer with the Washington Post, with
whom I've exchanged several emails in recent years. He does not ignore
or gloss over the serious defects of the American economic system, but
nonetheless remains a true believer in the market economy. In a recent
review of a book by journalist Maggie Mahar, "Money-Driven Medicine",
Pearlstein writes that the author tries to explain "why health care
costs so much in the United States, with such poor results." She has
focused on the right issues, he says, "the misguided financial
incentives at every level, the unnecessary care that is not only
wasteful but harmful, the bloated administrative costs." However, "in
making the case that the health-care system suffers from too much
free-market competition and too little cooperation, Mahar means to drum
up support for a publicly funded national system. But in the end, she
mostly makes a convincing case that no health-care system will work
unless we figure out what really works and is cost effective and then
get doctors, hospitals and patients to embrace it."[13]
"Unless we figure out what really works and is cost effective" ...
hmmm ... like there haven't been repeated studies showing that national
health plans in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere cover
virtually everyone and every ailment and cost society and individuals
much less than in the United States. Isn't that "working"? I spent five
years in the UK with my wife and small child and all three of us can
swear by the National Health Service; at those times when neither my
wife nor I was employed we didn't have to pay anything into the system;
doctors even made house calls; and this was under Margaret Thatcher, who
was doing her best to cripple the system, a goal she and her fellow
Tories, later joined by "New Labour", have continued to pursue.
And then there's Cuba -- poor, little, third-world Cuba. Countless
non-rich ill Americans would think they were in heaven to have the Cuban
health system reproduced here, with higher salaries for doctors et al.,
which we could easily afford.
It should be noted that an extensive review of previous studies
recently concluded that the care provided at for-profit nursing homes
and hospitals, on average, is inferior to that at nonprofits. The
analysis indicates that a facility's ownership status makes a difference
in cost, quality, and accessibility of care.[14]
Sale! Western Civilization! New, Improved! $99.99, marked down from
$129.99. Sale!
There's currently a call in the United States to get rid of the one-cent
coin because it costs 1.2 cents to make the coin and put it into
circulation and because many people find the coins a nuisance. I have
another reason to get rid of the coin -- hopefully, doing so would put
an end to the ridiculous and ubiquitous practice of pricing almost
everything at amounts like $9.99, $99.99, or $999.99. Or $3.29 or
$17.98. What is the reason for this tedious and insulting absurdity? It
began as, and continues to be, a con game -- trying to induce the
purchaser to think that he's getting some kind of bargain price: Less
than $10! Less than $100! In my local thrift shop, catering almost
exclusively to poor blacks and Hispanics, virtually all prices end in
.97 or .98 or .99. Every once in a while, when the nonsense has piled up
to my nose level, I ask a shop manager or corporate representative why
they use such a pricing system. They scarcely have any idea what I'm
talking about. Sometimes in a shop when I'm discussing with a clerk the
various price options of something I'm thinking of buying, and I say,
"Okay, let's see, this model is $60 and ..." S/he'll interrupt me with:
"No, it's $59.99."
Is this any way for people to relate to each other? Comes the
revolution, and we write a new constitution, Paragraph 99 will ban this
practice.
You can't make this stuff up
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France, 1844-1924
On April 14 a federal appeals court ruled that the Los Angeles
Police Department cannot arrest people for sitting, lying or sleeping on
public sidewalks on Skid Row, saying such enforcement amounts to cruel
and unusual punishment because there are not enough shelter beds for the
city's huge homeless population. Judge Pamela A. Rymer issued a strong
dissent against the majority opinion. The Los Angeles code "does not
punish people simply because they are homeless," wrote Rymer. "It
targets conduct -- sitting, lying or sleeping on city sidewalks -- that
can be committed by those with homes as well as those without."[15]
NOTES
[1] Washington Post, March 13, 2002, p.1
[2] Washington Post, July 16, 2006. p.15
[3] Washington Post, July 3, 2006, p.19
[4] Associated Press, July 3, 2006
[5] Washington Post, July 20, 2006, p.B3
[6] Sarah Posner, The American Prospect, June 2006
[7] FrontPageMag.com, Horowitz's site
[8] Amnesty International news release, 26 June 1998, AI INDEX: MDE 15/54/98
[9] Associated Press, July 15, 2006
[10] Ibid.
[11] The Independent (London), May 27, 2006, p.32
[12] Daily Telegraph (London), July 3, 2006, p.1
[13] Washington Post, July 9, 2006, p.F3
[14] Washington Post, June 21, 2006, p.9
[15] Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2006
William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
<www.killinghope.org >
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.
To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and
city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in
case I'll be speaking in your area.
Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.
Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission.
I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
