A Family of Nations
World War II ended in 1945. In the same year, the governments of the world met to create a Charter for the United Nations. The "purposes and principles" as stated in the Charter were:
To maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to promote cooperation among nations for the purpose of solving economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to serve as a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these common ends.
The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Security Council, alone, has the power to back up its declarations with actions to ensure compliance with them. Five of the Council’s members are designated permanent members—the US, Russia, Britain, France, and China. The other ten members are elected by the General Assembly for two- year terms. For a resolution to pass, it must receive nine "yes" votes with five of them being unanimous votes from the five permanent members. That is why, over the years, the US was able to defeat so many UN resolutions condemning Israel’s actions, particularly against the Palestinians.
The UN’s goals were idealistic, but the world had just ended an international conflict against some rogue nations who aggressively waged war against others who had not attacked the invaders. The world governments at the time, including the United States, wanted a mechanism in place to prevent self-anointed demagogues from invading other nations. The UN Charter did recognize the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurred against any member of the United Nations. In other words, if a UN member were attacked or invaded by another nation, the attacked nation could defend itself.
Article 51, UN Charter says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of The United Nations, until The Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to The Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of The Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
According to Article 51, the United Nations encourages self-defense by its members against an armed attack. I believe that if the US attacks and invades Iraq with ground forces simply because Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons, the US would be violating the UN Charter; and Iraq would be justified in defending itself. Arguably, according to the UN Charter, to which the United States was a signatory, the other nations could vote to take unified military action in support of Iraq against the United States for its armed attack against Iraq.
IS IRAQ A THREAT JUSTIFYING INVASION?
Military planning requires that we analyze the "threat" and the consequences of our actions in dealing with the "threat". Not long before Operation Desert Storm (the Gulf War), Iraq was an ally, and the US strongly supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran. The US gave Iraq war material, and the US was well aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein (Iraq) used mustard gas against the Iranians.
The often referred to pictures of the Kurds killed by gas at Halabja, a Kurdish town inside Iraq near the border with Iran, do not prove or even show that the Kurds were killed by mustard gas. In fact, the US Army War College, in cooperation with the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined that the dead were not killed by Iraqi mustard gas. A cyanide-based gas killed the Kurds. The Israelis were supplying Iran with weapons at the time. Perhaps, someone should ask our good friends, the Israelis, if they supplied the cyanide-based gas to the Iranians to gas the Kurds and then jumped on the band-wagon calling Saddam a murderer who gasses his own people.
Has Iraq ever been a threat to the US? One year before the Gulf War, General Schwartzkopf testified before the Senate as to why we needed to keep a good working relationship with our number two trading partner in the Middle East, Iraq. Not long after, Saddam let April Glasspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq, know that he had a conflict with Kuwait who had done slant oil drilling under the Iraqi border and who also did not pay its fair share for Iraq’s costs for the war with Iran. Saddam Hussein was given tacit approval to deal with Kuwait as he saw fit.
Then, that pillar of honesty and integrity, then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, ran over to the oil businessman’s good friends, the Saudis, and told them that Saddam Hussein was going to invade Saudi Arabia as he had invaded Kuwait. Cheney needed to build a coalition for the US before it invaded Iraq. Bush, the elder, was able to get a Congressional resolution with the help of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to support the invasion of Iraq. The US floundered around for a while as to the justification to attack a nation who did not attack the US. First, the US was going to protect Saudi Arabia, then it was going to protect the oil for the US, then it was going to protect the oil for our European allies, and finally the noblest cause for the US invasion of another country who did not attack the United States was to liberate our very dear friends, the Kuwaties from the Iraqies. Even the Arab countries knew it was wrong for Saddam to attack Kuwait, so they participated as part of the coalition.
There was Desert Shield and there was Desert Storm and the rest is history. America mercilessly bombed the Iraqies, tested its night-vision equipment and its high-tech super-duper weapons and probably violated international law in numerous instances. But who cared since the US "persuaded" a "coalition" to go along with the US action?
The UN imposed sanctions on Iraq were onerous and devastating to the Iraqi people. One of the sanctions required Iraq to allow UN inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological, or nuclear. Scott Ritter, one of the UN weapons inspectors from the US, has recently stated that Iraq has no viable nuclear weapons program. They have no nukes. They can’t deliver a warhead to the US if they had one. But the Iraqi Scud missiles can hit Israel.
THE CASE AGAINST IRAQ
As of this writing, the US has not attacked Iraq, but President Bush is using all the power of his office to get support for his obsession to attack Saddam Hussein. He has Vice President Dick Cheney giving speeches as to why the US should attack Iraq. Cheney says that Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction. Saddam won’t allow inspections of his locations to see if any wrongdoing is going on. It’s kind of like Cheney not allowing inspections of his corporate records to see if there is any wrongdoing going on. Remember, Cheney was a honcho in Halliburton, one of the oil companies involved in the proposed oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.
Bush says Iraq almost has a nuclear weapon. Scott Ritter, one of the former UN inspectors, says Saddam’s nuclear program is defunct. At least, it’s not a viable program.
Iran and North Korea are further along in their nuclear programs, and Bush doesn’t talk about bombing them. Pakistan and India andRussia and China and, oh, yes, Israel, have nuclear weapons and, more importantly, means to deliver them; and we don’t talk about bombing them.
Bush says that Saddam may give a nuclear device to a terrorist or use it on Israel. Other countries could give nuclear material to make a bomb or an actual bomb to a terrorist, so why are we singling out Iraq? The truth is that Iraq poses no real threat to the US, even if it had "the bomb"—at least no more of a threat than do other countries, but Iraq poses a great threat to Israel.
So there we are. Iraq is not really a "threat" to us—the US—but it is a threat to Israel. Does President Bush want to attack and invade Iraq with ground forces and assassinate a foreign head of state because:
President Bush made a plea before the General Assembly of the United Nations and harped on how Iraq (Saddam Hussein) failed to comply with some United Nations’ Resolutions over the last ten years, but he failed to comment on Israel’s failure to comply with sixty-nine UN Resolutions since 1955. Between 1972 and 1991, the United States vetoed twenty-nine separate cases critical of Israel. Except for the US veto, these resolutions against Israel would have passed, and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal ninety-five (95) instead of sixty-six (66).
WHY DOES AMERICA DO ISRAEL’S BIDDING?
Zionists, those who wanted a separate Jewish state, urged, bribed, and cajoled both England and America to support the creation of Israel. When President Truman recognized the establishment of Israel, he pulled no punches and clearly stated that he had more of a Jewish constituency than an Arab constituency. That was in the late 1940s.
After the Israelis massacred our sailors on the USS Liberty, President Johnson covered it up so as not to offend Israel. Awards and decorations were given to the captain and crew privately so as not to offend Israel. There was no public ceremony even though the captain was awarded the Medal of Honor. That was in the late 1960s.
Even today, as Israel engages in actions that the Arab countries condemn, that the European countries condemn, that Russia condemns, that China condemns,that the United Nations condemn, the United States is the only country that supports Israel. Why?
There are many wealthy Zionist/Jewish operatives here in America. They finance politicians who support Israel no matter what, and they use money as a weapon against those politicians who dare to speak against Israel. AIPAC—American Israel Public Affairs Committee—has numerous political action committees to support pro-Israel candidates. The American political system is co-opted and unduly influenced by this process. Thus, the US foreign policy in the Middle East is not driven by what is best for the United States, but it is driven by what is best for Israel.
The media is strongly pro-Israel. Just watch television or listen to talk radio. Newscasters and talk show hosts never take an anti-Israel approach. Is that because Israel is always right or is it for some other reason?
There are many pro-Israel, pro-Zionist people at the highest levels of our government. They are in the administration, the State Department, and the Defense Department. They have infiltrated into powerful and influential positions with their pro-Israel, anti-Arab attitudes. They have made Israel’s goals America’s goals.
Some Zionists have even infiltrated Christianity. Cyrus I. Schofield and the Oxford University Press were involved in the re-writing of the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. Schofield died in 1921, but the Oxford University Press has continued to make the Bible, which almost deifies the state of Israel. In 1967, there were numerous pro-Zionist notes added to the so-called Schofield Reference Bible long after his death. Some of Schofield’s most significant notes from the original editions were removed in the 1967 edition. The 1967 edition was prepared at the time of the Six-Day War when Israel seized and occupied Palestine. The newly inserted footnotes presumptuously granted the right to the Palestinian’s land to Israel. They make "anti-Semitism" a "sin" subject to "inevitable judgment". The only problem with this concocted passage is that there is no word for "anti-Semitism" in the New Testament or in the Ten Commandments. There was no sin of anti-Semitism in the Bible until 1967.
In the 1967 edition, there is a reference that the people who persecute the Jews shall have "ill" visit them. But none of these notes appeared in the original Schofield Reference Bible or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel did not exist until 1948. Prior to that time, the word "Israel" in the dictionary referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe.
There are numerous references in the revised Schofield Reference Bible, which are pro-Israel although Jesus originally accused the Pharisees of being descendants of the Devil, the murderer, the liar. Yet, the anti-Jewish passages are softened. Schofield had written in one of his notes, " I know that ye are of Abraham’s seed. If ye were of Abraham’s children is that between the natural and the spiritual posterity of Abraham? The Israelitish people and the Ishmaelitish people are the former…." But here is what the 1967 pro-Zionist version says: "All Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity". What happened to the "Ishmaelitish people"? They don’t count anymore, it seems.
This so-called Schofield Reference Bible is used by Christian churches and Bible Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries, evangelical fundamentalist churches, Catholic and mainline Protestant churches all over the world. The Southern Baptist Convention of America even recommends this Bible.
Jews, who used to be despised throughout the world for centuries, have found a home with the Christian Right in America. That is why we now have the terms—"dispensationalism", "Judeo-Christianity", and "Christian-Zionism". I am not saying that Jews should be despised. I am saying that neither Zionism nor Judaism should be allowed to corrupt our cherished secular or religious institutions.
Neither Zionism nor Judaism should be allowed to influence US foreign policy in the Middle East such that the US ignores Israel’s injustice to the Palestinians, or Israel causes the US to become despised by the rest of the world, or Israel pushes the US into attacking Iraq in violation of the principles of the other civilized nations of the world. And nobody has the courage to say so out of fear of social, economic, or actual physical reprisal. Or out of concern for being called anti-Semitic.
THE CASE AGAINST ISRAEL
Supporters of Israel claim that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. If that were true, so what? The other Middle East countries, which deal with the US, obviously are useful to the US or the US would not deal with them. The US over the years has had good relations with non-democratic countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. Furthermore, the truth is that Israel is not a true democracy—it is a theocracy deriving its laws from the Talmud.
Other supporters of Israel claim that Israel is our number one ally in the Middle East. Let’s see how good an "ally" Israel has been.
Israel has blown up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt.
Israel has attacked a US ship in international waters, killing thirty-three and wounding one hundred seventy-seven American sailors. The Israelis deliberately attacked and killed US military personnel, and President Johnson covered it up.
Israel employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the US’s then enemy, the Soviet Union. Israel, our "ally", at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him an Israeli citizen, and has continuously demanded that the American President grant Pollard a full pardon.
Israel has detained and tortured American citizens of Palestinian descent.
Israel knew before- hand that the terrorists would drive the truck-bomb to the US Marines barracks in Lebanon, and the Israelis did not warn the US. Two hundred fifty US Marines were killed.
Israel still spies on the US, and as recently as 9/11/01 to about ninety days thereafter, federal officials had arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to an "organized intelligence-gathering operation." The Bush administration deported most of those arrested after 9/11, although some were held under the anti-terrorism law. Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private elecommunications company, handles most directory assistance calls, and virtually all call records and billing in the US. The FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs, and in 1999 a US national security agency warned that records of calls in the US were in foreign hands—Israel. The records contained data about who is calling whom and when. So much for our good "ally"—Israel, spying on us.
In my opinion, the worst thing Israel has done to harm the US is to taint our image of fair play and justice, to embarrass us with insolence from Ariel Sharon, and to cause us to become despised by most of the rest of the world for our condoning the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis. The Palestinians are an occupied people. The Israelis have killed or wounded thousands of Palestinians, denied them food, medical supplies, travel, work, sanitation, electricity, and dignity. And the rest of the world knows it. As a result, I shall speak the unspeakable.
I believe America should use its military might against Israel to bring peace to the Middle East, to do justice, and to enhance our image throughout the rest of the world. The US does not have to conduct air strikes on Israel causing genocide as was done in Iraq and is proposed again in Iraq. Instead, the US should remove the settlements from the Palestinian land as was resolved should be done by United Nations Resolution. If the Israelis don’t comply, then the US should use all force necessary to remove the "settlements" immediately.
After all, the US proposes to bomb Iraq because Saddam Hussein has allegedly failed to comply with UN Resolutions. I believe removal of the settlements would go a long way toward relieving hostilities from the Palestinians. US forces could serve as a buffer and, hopefully, as an "honest broker" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If the US forces dealt fairly with both sides, neither side could accuse the US of favoritism as is happening now because the US excuses Israeli transgressions. The US forces would have to be strong and impartial and police the Israelis and the Palestinians equally. The idea of using US forces to police the Israelis (and protect them at the same time) would do a lot more to enhance peace and stability in the Middle East than would attacking or actually invading Iraq or other Arab countries.
MIDDLE EAST GROUP DYNAMICS
Some people think that once the US invades Iraq and is successful—whatever that means—that other nations will support the US efforts. Assuming the US bombs Iraq, compels Iraqi defenses into main populated areas, invades Iraq with ground forces, seizes and controls the Iraqi infrastructure (military, government, media, populace, etc,), kills, captures or exiles Saddam Hussein, then what? Does America occupy Iraq, and if so, for how long? Does America put in its own puppet regime as it did in Afghanistan and let it fend for itself? What about Russia’s forty billion dollar economic agreement with Iraq? Iran is next door to Iraq and has been its enemy, but the Iranians have not liked the US either. There are strained relations between Syria and the US. Will the US attack Syria or Saudi Arabia next or do those countries think that the US will? Hezbollah militants are in southern Lebanon. Should the US attack Lebanon because there may be a "threat" in that country?
Other non-Arab countries have terrorists in them. Does the US have the legal or moral right to invade sovereign states because there are perceived, real or not, threats there? The United Nations has traditionally said "no". I am concerned that President Bush is arm-twisting other countries to support his and Israel’s agenda, which is contrary to traditional US values. I am also concerned that President Bush is riding high on this anti-Arab, anti-Muslim feeling in America. I am also concerned that Israel is probably providing most of the intelligence to justify any and allegedly bad things the Arabs are doing to justify bombing and invading these countries. Bush feels strong because America is strong, but if he misuses that military might, the rest of the world could gang up on us politically, economically, and legally (international criminal court, possible military action to enforce a UN resolution). Some of us Americans talk about how we don’t want any other countries interfering with our sovereignty. Similarly, other countries don’t want us interfering with their sovereignty especially by bombing or invading them.
CONCLUSION
The United Nations set rules to avoid war and control aggressors. America is trying to bend the rules in light of 9/11/01. The US claims Iraq is a threat, but the evidence is that it is less a threat to US security than are many other nations. Iraq is a threat to Israel, and Israel would very much like the US to dispatch Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Americans for a variety of reasons are predisposed to cater to Israel’s wishes/demands. These wishes/demands are often not in the United States’ best interests but are in Israel’s best interests. One such wish/demand is for the US to attack/invade Iraq. It appears that President Bush is trying to provoke a confrontation with Iraq. The American people should not support an attack on Iraq.
If military force is to be used in the region, it should be to curb the violence in Palestine. The US military should broker the peace there in an even-handed manner.The settlements must be removed immediately in accordance with UN Resolution, and Palestine should get its statehood and begin developing a democracy.
As far as the so-called "war on terrorism" goes, find, fix, and destroy the terrorists; but the United States should not provoke unnecessary wars, death, and destruction on entire nations and innocent civilian populations unless it is subjected to "an armed attack". Article 51, United Nations Charter. The eyes of the world are on Bush and the United States, and even if Bush succeeds in temporarily getting other nation’s support to invade Iraq, I predict that his twisting the immorality of an unjust war will eventually backfire on the United States. America is great because America is good. When American ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
World War II ended in 1945. In the same year, the governments of the world met to create a Charter for the United Nations. The "purposes and principles" as stated in the Charter were:
To maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to promote cooperation among nations for the purpose of solving economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to serve as a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these common ends.
The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Security Council, alone, has the power to back up its declarations with actions to ensure compliance with them. Five of the Council’s members are designated permanent members—the US, Russia, Britain, France, and China. The other ten members are elected by the General Assembly for two- year terms. For a resolution to pass, it must receive nine "yes" votes with five of them being unanimous votes from the five permanent members. That is why, over the years, the US was able to defeat so many UN resolutions condemning Israel’s actions, particularly against the Palestinians.
The UN’s goals were idealistic, but the world had just ended an international conflict against some rogue nations who aggressively waged war against others who had not attacked the invaders. The world governments at the time, including the United States, wanted a mechanism in place to prevent self-anointed demagogues from invading other nations. The UN Charter did recognize the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurred against any member of the United Nations. In other words, if a UN member were attacked or invaded by another nation, the attacked nation could defend itself.
Article 51, UN Charter says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of The United Nations, until The Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to The Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of The Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
According to Article 51, the United Nations encourages self-defense by its members against an armed attack. I believe that if the US attacks and invades Iraq with ground forces simply because Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons, the US would be violating the UN Charter; and Iraq would be justified in defending itself. Arguably, according to the UN Charter, to which the United States was a signatory, the other nations could vote to take unified military action in support of Iraq against the United States for its armed attack against Iraq.
IS IRAQ A THREAT JUSTIFYING INVASION?
Military planning requires that we analyze the "threat" and the consequences of our actions in dealing with the "threat". Not long before Operation Desert Storm (the Gulf War), Iraq was an ally, and the US strongly supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran. The US gave Iraq war material, and the US was well aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein (Iraq) used mustard gas against the Iranians.
The often referred to pictures of the Kurds killed by gas at Halabja, a Kurdish town inside Iraq near the border with Iran, do not prove or even show that the Kurds were killed by mustard gas. In fact, the US Army War College, in cooperation with the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined that the dead were not killed by Iraqi mustard gas. A cyanide-based gas killed the Kurds. The Israelis were supplying Iran with weapons at the time. Perhaps, someone should ask our good friends, the Israelis, if they supplied the cyanide-based gas to the Iranians to gas the Kurds and then jumped on the band-wagon calling Saddam a murderer who gasses his own people.
Has Iraq ever been a threat to the US? One year before the Gulf War, General Schwartzkopf testified before the Senate as to why we needed to keep a good working relationship with our number two trading partner in the Middle East, Iraq. Not long after, Saddam let April Glasspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq, know that he had a conflict with Kuwait who had done slant oil drilling under the Iraqi border and who also did not pay its fair share for Iraq’s costs for the war with Iran. Saddam Hussein was given tacit approval to deal with Kuwait as he saw fit.
Then, that pillar of honesty and integrity, then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, ran over to the oil businessman’s good friends, the Saudis, and told them that Saddam Hussein was going to invade Saudi Arabia as he had invaded Kuwait. Cheney needed to build a coalition for the US before it invaded Iraq. Bush, the elder, was able to get a Congressional resolution with the help of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to support the invasion of Iraq. The US floundered around for a while as to the justification to attack a nation who did not attack the US. First, the US was going to protect Saudi Arabia, then it was going to protect the oil for the US, then it was going to protect the oil for our European allies, and finally the noblest cause for the US invasion of another country who did not attack the United States was to liberate our very dear friends, the Kuwaties from the Iraqies. Even the Arab countries knew it was wrong for Saddam to attack Kuwait, so they participated as part of the coalition.
There was Desert Shield and there was Desert Storm and the rest is history. America mercilessly bombed the Iraqies, tested its night-vision equipment and its high-tech super-duper weapons and probably violated international law in numerous instances. But who cared since the US "persuaded" a "coalition" to go along with the US action?
The UN imposed sanctions on Iraq were onerous and devastating to the Iraqi people. One of the sanctions required Iraq to allow UN inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological, or nuclear. Scott Ritter, one of the UN weapons inspectors from the US, has recently stated that Iraq has no viable nuclear weapons program. They have no nukes. They can’t deliver a warhead to the US if they had one. But the Iraqi Scud missiles can hit Israel.
THE CASE AGAINST IRAQ
As of this writing, the US has not attacked Iraq, but President Bush is using all the power of his office to get support for his obsession to attack Saddam Hussein. He has Vice President Dick Cheney giving speeches as to why the US should attack Iraq. Cheney says that Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction. Saddam won’t allow inspections of his locations to see if any wrongdoing is going on. It’s kind of like Cheney not allowing inspections of his corporate records to see if there is any wrongdoing going on. Remember, Cheney was a honcho in Halliburton, one of the oil companies involved in the proposed oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.
Bush says Iraq almost has a nuclear weapon. Scott Ritter, one of the former UN inspectors, says Saddam’s nuclear program is defunct. At least, it’s not a viable program.
Iran and North Korea are further along in their nuclear programs, and Bush doesn’t talk about bombing them. Pakistan and India andRussia and China and, oh, yes, Israel, have nuclear weapons and, more importantly, means to deliver them; and we don’t talk about bombing them.
Bush says that Saddam may give a nuclear device to a terrorist or use it on Israel. Other countries could give nuclear material to make a bomb or an actual bomb to a terrorist, so why are we singling out Iraq? The truth is that Iraq poses no real threat to the US, even if it had "the bomb"—at least no more of a threat than do other countries, but Iraq poses a great threat to Israel.
So there we are. Iraq is not really a "threat" to us—the US—but it is a threat to Israel. Does President Bush want to attack and invade Iraq with ground forces and assassinate a foreign head of state because:
- Iraq is a threat to the United States,
- Saddam Hussein had put out a "hit" on George Bush, the elder,
- Iraq is a threat to the Middle East,
- It’s election time, and killing Arabs or Muslims is popular,
- Bush wants to test a war in Iraq before going after Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and other Arabic countries of interest,
- Bush wants to prove that he is not a wimp, and since he has the most powerful military force in the world, he wants to show the rest of the entire world that he can do whatever he wants to whomever whenever, or
- Iraq is a threat to Israel who has exerted influence and pressure on the US to attack Iraq?
President Bush made a plea before the General Assembly of the United Nations and harped on how Iraq (Saddam Hussein) failed to comply with some United Nations’ Resolutions over the last ten years, but he failed to comment on Israel’s failure to comply with sixty-nine UN Resolutions since 1955. Between 1972 and 1991, the United States vetoed twenty-nine separate cases critical of Israel. Except for the US veto, these resolutions against Israel would have passed, and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal ninety-five (95) instead of sixty-six (66).
WHY DOES AMERICA DO ISRAEL’S BIDDING?
Zionists, those who wanted a separate Jewish state, urged, bribed, and cajoled both England and America to support the creation of Israel. When President Truman recognized the establishment of Israel, he pulled no punches and clearly stated that he had more of a Jewish constituency than an Arab constituency. That was in the late 1940s.
After the Israelis massacred our sailors on the USS Liberty, President Johnson covered it up so as not to offend Israel. Awards and decorations were given to the captain and crew privately so as not to offend Israel. There was no public ceremony even though the captain was awarded the Medal of Honor. That was in the late 1960s.
Even today, as Israel engages in actions that the Arab countries condemn, that the European countries condemn, that Russia condemns, that China condemns,that the United Nations condemn, the United States is the only country that supports Israel. Why?
There are many wealthy Zionist/Jewish operatives here in America. They finance politicians who support Israel no matter what, and they use money as a weapon against those politicians who dare to speak against Israel. AIPAC—American Israel Public Affairs Committee—has numerous political action committees to support pro-Israel candidates. The American political system is co-opted and unduly influenced by this process. Thus, the US foreign policy in the Middle East is not driven by what is best for the United States, but it is driven by what is best for Israel.
The media is strongly pro-Israel. Just watch television or listen to talk radio. Newscasters and talk show hosts never take an anti-Israel approach. Is that because Israel is always right or is it for some other reason?
There are many pro-Israel, pro-Zionist people at the highest levels of our government. They are in the administration, the State Department, and the Defense Department. They have infiltrated into powerful and influential positions with their pro-Israel, anti-Arab attitudes. They have made Israel’s goals America’s goals.
Some Zionists have even infiltrated Christianity. Cyrus I. Schofield and the Oxford University Press were involved in the re-writing of the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. Schofield died in 1921, but the Oxford University Press has continued to make the Bible, which almost deifies the state of Israel. In 1967, there were numerous pro-Zionist notes added to the so-called Schofield Reference Bible long after his death. Some of Schofield’s most significant notes from the original editions were removed in the 1967 edition. The 1967 edition was prepared at the time of the Six-Day War when Israel seized and occupied Palestine. The newly inserted footnotes presumptuously granted the right to the Palestinian’s land to Israel. They make "anti-Semitism" a "sin" subject to "inevitable judgment". The only problem with this concocted passage is that there is no word for "anti-Semitism" in the New Testament or in the Ten Commandments. There was no sin of anti-Semitism in the Bible until 1967.
In the 1967 edition, there is a reference that the people who persecute the Jews shall have "ill" visit them. But none of these notes appeared in the original Schofield Reference Bible or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel did not exist until 1948. Prior to that time, the word "Israel" in the dictionary referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe.
There are numerous references in the revised Schofield Reference Bible, which are pro-Israel although Jesus originally accused the Pharisees of being descendants of the Devil, the murderer, the liar. Yet, the anti-Jewish passages are softened. Schofield had written in one of his notes, " I know that ye are of Abraham’s seed. If ye were of Abraham’s children is that between the natural and the spiritual posterity of Abraham? The Israelitish people and the Ishmaelitish people are the former…." But here is what the 1967 pro-Zionist version says: "All Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity". What happened to the "Ishmaelitish people"? They don’t count anymore, it seems.
This so-called Schofield Reference Bible is used by Christian churches and Bible Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries, evangelical fundamentalist churches, Catholic and mainline Protestant churches all over the world. The Southern Baptist Convention of America even recommends this Bible.
Jews, who used to be despised throughout the world for centuries, have found a home with the Christian Right in America. That is why we now have the terms—"dispensationalism", "Judeo-Christianity", and "Christian-Zionism". I am not saying that Jews should be despised. I am saying that neither Zionism nor Judaism should be allowed to corrupt our cherished secular or religious institutions.
Neither Zionism nor Judaism should be allowed to influence US foreign policy in the Middle East such that the US ignores Israel’s injustice to the Palestinians, or Israel causes the US to become despised by the rest of the world, or Israel pushes the US into attacking Iraq in violation of the principles of the other civilized nations of the world. And nobody has the courage to say so out of fear of social, economic, or actual physical reprisal. Or out of concern for being called anti-Semitic.
THE CASE AGAINST ISRAEL
Supporters of Israel claim that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. If that were true, so what? The other Middle East countries, which deal with the US, obviously are useful to the US or the US would not deal with them. The US over the years has had good relations with non-democratic countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. Furthermore, the truth is that Israel is not a true democracy—it is a theocracy deriving its laws from the Talmud.
Other supporters of Israel claim that Israel is our number one ally in the Middle East. Let’s see how good an "ally" Israel has been.
Israel has blown up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt.
Israel has attacked a US ship in international waters, killing thirty-three and wounding one hundred seventy-seven American sailors. The Israelis deliberately attacked and killed US military personnel, and President Johnson covered it up.
Israel employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the US’s then enemy, the Soviet Union. Israel, our "ally", at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him an Israeli citizen, and has continuously demanded that the American President grant Pollard a full pardon.
Israel has detained and tortured American citizens of Palestinian descent.
Israel knew before- hand that the terrorists would drive the truck-bomb to the US Marines barracks in Lebanon, and the Israelis did not warn the US. Two hundred fifty US Marines were killed.
Israel still spies on the US, and as recently as 9/11/01 to about ninety days thereafter, federal officials had arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to an "organized intelligence-gathering operation." The Bush administration deported most of those arrested after 9/11, although some were held under the anti-terrorism law. Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private elecommunications company, handles most directory assistance calls, and virtually all call records and billing in the US. The FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs, and in 1999 a US national security agency warned that records of calls in the US were in foreign hands—Israel. The records contained data about who is calling whom and when. So much for our good "ally"—Israel, spying on us.
In my opinion, the worst thing Israel has done to harm the US is to taint our image of fair play and justice, to embarrass us with insolence from Ariel Sharon, and to cause us to become despised by most of the rest of the world for our condoning the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis. The Palestinians are an occupied people. The Israelis have killed or wounded thousands of Palestinians, denied them food, medical supplies, travel, work, sanitation, electricity, and dignity. And the rest of the world knows it. As a result, I shall speak the unspeakable.
I believe America should use its military might against Israel to bring peace to the Middle East, to do justice, and to enhance our image throughout the rest of the world. The US does not have to conduct air strikes on Israel causing genocide as was done in Iraq and is proposed again in Iraq. Instead, the US should remove the settlements from the Palestinian land as was resolved should be done by United Nations Resolution. If the Israelis don’t comply, then the US should use all force necessary to remove the "settlements" immediately.
After all, the US proposes to bomb Iraq because Saddam Hussein has allegedly failed to comply with UN Resolutions. I believe removal of the settlements would go a long way toward relieving hostilities from the Palestinians. US forces could serve as a buffer and, hopefully, as an "honest broker" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If the US forces dealt fairly with both sides, neither side could accuse the US of favoritism as is happening now because the US excuses Israeli transgressions. The US forces would have to be strong and impartial and police the Israelis and the Palestinians equally. The idea of using US forces to police the Israelis (and protect them at the same time) would do a lot more to enhance peace and stability in the Middle East than would attacking or actually invading Iraq or other Arab countries.
MIDDLE EAST GROUP DYNAMICS
Some people think that once the US invades Iraq and is successful—whatever that means—that other nations will support the US efforts. Assuming the US bombs Iraq, compels Iraqi defenses into main populated areas, invades Iraq with ground forces, seizes and controls the Iraqi infrastructure (military, government, media, populace, etc,), kills, captures or exiles Saddam Hussein, then what? Does America occupy Iraq, and if so, for how long? Does America put in its own puppet regime as it did in Afghanistan and let it fend for itself? What about Russia’s forty billion dollar economic agreement with Iraq? Iran is next door to Iraq and has been its enemy, but the Iranians have not liked the US either. There are strained relations between Syria and the US. Will the US attack Syria or Saudi Arabia next or do those countries think that the US will? Hezbollah militants are in southern Lebanon. Should the US attack Lebanon because there may be a "threat" in that country?
Other non-Arab countries have terrorists in them. Does the US have the legal or moral right to invade sovereign states because there are perceived, real or not, threats there? The United Nations has traditionally said "no". I am concerned that President Bush is arm-twisting other countries to support his and Israel’s agenda, which is contrary to traditional US values. I am also concerned that President Bush is riding high on this anti-Arab, anti-Muslim feeling in America. I am also concerned that Israel is probably providing most of the intelligence to justify any and allegedly bad things the Arabs are doing to justify bombing and invading these countries. Bush feels strong because America is strong, but if he misuses that military might, the rest of the world could gang up on us politically, economically, and legally (international criminal court, possible military action to enforce a UN resolution). Some of us Americans talk about how we don’t want any other countries interfering with our sovereignty. Similarly, other countries don’t want us interfering with their sovereignty especially by bombing or invading them.
CONCLUSION
The United Nations set rules to avoid war and control aggressors. America is trying to bend the rules in light of 9/11/01. The US claims Iraq is a threat, but the evidence is that it is less a threat to US security than are many other nations. Iraq is a threat to Israel, and Israel would very much like the US to dispatch Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Americans for a variety of reasons are predisposed to cater to Israel’s wishes/demands. These wishes/demands are often not in the United States’ best interests but are in Israel’s best interests. One such wish/demand is for the US to attack/invade Iraq. It appears that President Bush is trying to provoke a confrontation with Iraq. The American people should not support an attack on Iraq.
If military force is to be used in the region, it should be to curb the violence in Palestine. The US military should broker the peace there in an even-handed manner.The settlements must be removed immediately in accordance with UN Resolution, and Palestine should get its statehood and begin developing a democracy.
As far as the so-called "war on terrorism" goes, find, fix, and destroy the terrorists; but the United States should not provoke unnecessary wars, death, and destruction on entire nations and innocent civilian populations unless it is subjected to "an armed attack". Article 51, United Nations Charter. The eyes of the world are on Bush and the United States, and even if Bush succeeds in temporarily getting other nation’s support to invade Iraq, I predict that his twisting the immorality of an unjust war will eventually backfire on the United States. America is great because America is good. When American ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
RSS Feed