MIDDLE EAST

There are misconceptions of what constitutes the "Middle East" and who is a "Middle Easterner", Arab, Muslim, or Semite. Traditionally, historians, political scientists, and others have defined world regions in terms of race and ethnicity, culture, language and linguistics, religion, historical unity, climatic similarity, and/or geographic compactness. The Middle East, the Mideast, the Near East, and even the Near and Middle East cannot be defined in these terms.

The Middle East is not the land of the Arabs since millions of Turkic, Indo-European, and Negroid peoples live in the region. Many, incorrectly, suppose that the Middle East is the land of Islam. Although many Muslims live in what we call the Middle East, in terms of population and territorial size, the largest Islamic countries are not in the Middle East but are in Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

The Middle East includes Bahrain, its periphery: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia; Egypt; Iran; its periphery: Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kuwait; Cyprus; Lebanon; its periphery: The Horn of Africa—Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania); Oman; Palestine; its periphery: Algeria, Libya, Morocco and the Sahara, Tunisia; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Sudan; its periphery: Chad; Mali; Mauritania, Niger; Syria; Turkey; United Arab Emirates (a federation of seven sheikdoms: Ajman, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Qawain), and the periphery: Afghanistan and Pakistan; and Yemen. (See attachment 1, Map of Middle East). P. 58.

All Arabs are not Muslim; many are Christian. Most Muslims live in Indonesia. Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghanis may be Muslims, but they are not Arabs. Semites are people of Caucasian stock comprising chiefly of Arabs and Jews but in ancient times also included Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and others of the eastern Mediterranean area. /1

CONFLICTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The longest and most notorious conflict in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although Israel has had disputes with its other Arab neighbors—Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq—and still has some ongoing issues, this presentation will focus on the Palestinian issue.

Another conflict in the Middle East exists between the United States and Iraq. Operation Desert Storm ended over a decade ago. President George W. Bush’s administration has recently invaded Iraq—Operation Iraqi Freedom. International public opinion as expressed through the United Nations opposed a US invasion of Iraq. The UN wanted inspectors to continue their work in Iraq prior to authorizing an invasion. Now, the consequences of this war are uncertain and may cause new conflicts in the Middle East.

The third conflict directly related to the Middle East, but occurring on a continuing basis all over the world, is the so-called "war on terrorism". The emergence of Al Qaeda is probably the greatest threat facing the United States today; and the threat, in my view, is not adequately understood nor is it intelligently and effectively being addressed.

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

DEFINITIONS

Terrorism has been defined as the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political, religious, or ideological goals by instilling fear or using intimidation or coercion. TC 19-16, Countering Terrorism On US Army Installations (April 1993). AR 190-52.

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate US federal or state law if they would have been committed in the US and appear to be intended to coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the US or transcend the US boundaries by the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. 18 USC § 2331 (1)(A)(B)(C).

Domestic terrorism involves acts dangerous to human life that violate US federal or state law and appear to be intended to coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 18 USC § 2331 (5)(a)(b)(c).

Violence for violence’s sake, violence for revenge, or violence simply in the course of criminal acts (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc.) is not "terrorism" unless its use is intended to attain political, religious, or ideological goals. This point is crucial in understanding terrorism because unless one understands terrorism one cannot fight it effectively. "Terror" is great fright or great fear—terrorism is something different.

Nine-eleven--the attack of the twin towers at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon-- shocked America into a rudimentary understanding of "terrorism". The media reported who, what, how, where, but nobody addressed the "why". The first response was revenge, but against whom and why? It certainly was not to get the people who actually committed the acts causing death and destruction; they were dead. The US bombed Afghanistan and sent in troops and established a "puppet regime" headed by a former oil (UNICAL) consultant—and there is still terrorism all over the world.

AL QAEDA

Al Qaeda is the first multinational terrorist group of the twenty-first century. Having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and driven by Islamic zeal, most Arab and Asian mujahidin (warriors of God) who returned home from the internationally supported jijad (holy war) wanted to cause radical social and political change. They joined opposition political parties, religious bodies and groups in their own countries, campaigning against dictatorial Muslim rulers and their corrupt regimes. Al Qaeda was originally MAK—Maktab al Khidmat lil Mujahidin al-Arab—or Afghan Service Bureau. MAK was founded by Abdullah Azzam in 1984 in Peshawar, Pakistan; and he and his protégée, Osamma bin Laden, ran it for several years disseminating propaganda, raising funds, and recruiting new members throughout a network of offices (including thirty in US cities) in thirty-five countries.

Even before the departure of Soviet troops in 1989, MAK’s socio-enomic, political, and military infrastructure had steadfastly evolved into Al Qaeda. The resources at MAK’s disposal were diverted by Al Qaeda away from Afghanistan into regional conflicts where Islamist guerrillas were involved, principally in Kashmir and Chechnya, but also in Mindanao, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan, Yemen, Algeria, and Egypt. In most of these countries, the governing regimes were openly hostile to Islamist movements, often repressing them ferociously.

Using the humanitarian cover of MAK and some Islamic charities, Al Qaeda infiltrated many of these conflicts, sending cadres to train further recruits and to take part in actual fighting. Although Afghanistan was Al Qaeda’s principal military training base, it also trained recruits in Sudan, Yemen, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and the Philippines. Al Qaeda and its supporters in 60 countries range from small cells to allied terrorist groups to guerrilla gangs, and they pose a formidable foe to the US. (See "Terror’s New Wave", Time, p.28, October 28, 2002).

As progress in these domestic campaigns—from Saudi Arabia to Egypt and Algeria—was slow, a second front was initiated by Al Qaeda to target the United States and it’s allies. Without directly challenging Western military power, economic strength, and cultural influence, the Islamists perceive that they cannot bring about change in their home countries because a group of Western countries, led by the USA, steadfastly supports Israel and unrepresentative Arab regimes of the Middle East. (See, generally, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror by Rohan Gunaratna, Columbia University Press, 2002).

CAUSES OF TERRORISM

Osamma Bin Laden, himself, in an interview with Peter Arnett, indicated three reasons why his Al Qaeda may have had a motive to attack the US—(1) the US occupation of Saudi Arabia with troops during the Gulf War, (2) the unnecessary and prolonged suffering of the Iraqi people after the war due to US backed sanctions, and (3) the illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel also strongly supported by the US.

Can the United States realistically hope to find and destroy these "terrorists" who would harm us?

Rohan Gunaratna, author of several books on armed conflict, previously the principal investigator of the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch, and consultant to several governments and corporations believes that good intelligence will destroy the terrorist organization:

HISTORY OF ISRAEL

In order to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one must understand how Israel came to be. I am referring to modern day Israel—not an "Israel" of Biblical times. Some people might say that the Muslims have been fighting with the Jews for 2000 years, but Islam and Muslims did not exist 2000 years ago; and, in fact, Muslims and Jews have lived peaceably together in Palestine for centuries. The real problem began when the European Jews invaded Palestine and terrorized moderate Jews, the British, and the Palestinians at the end of World War II. Modern day Israel was created by "terrorism", and terrorism is still inflicted on the Palestinians, today.

The creation of "Israel" caused the "Palestine problem". Ever since the Romans destroyed the Judean state centuries ago, Orthodox Jews continued to hold spiritual claims to the Holy Land. Over the centuries a desire for a Jewish homeland grew, and Jews migrated to Palestine. In the 1870s, a wave of anti-Semitism spurred a new migration from central Europe, and in 1898, Theodore Hertzl organized a Zionist international movement to establish in Palestine a home for the Jewish People secured by public law. /2 The only problem with Hertzl’s plan was that thousands of Palestinians were already living in Palestine and their descendants had done so for centuries.

In about 1900 there were about 40,000 Jews in Palestine. In a 1922 census there were about 591,000 Muslims, 73,000 Christians, 9500 "others", and 84,000 Jews populating Palestine. /3 The Balfour Declaration pledged England’s support of Zionist goals in order to win support of international, especially American, Jews to the Allies during World War I. In 1916, one year prior to the Balfour Declaration, a secret agreement was made between the British War Cabinet and Zionist leaders promising the latter a "national home" in Palestine in consideration of their efforts to bring the United States into World War I on the side of Great Britain. /4

The Paris Peace Conference and subsequent conferences made Palestine become a British mandate. The League of Nations approved, and more Jews entered Palestine. Palestine Arabs resented this "invasion" or "immigration" (however one looks at it) into their homeland. In 1920 Arabs and Jews fought over land disputes. In 1929, an anti-Jewish nationalist, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, incited attacks against Jews.

The British tried to maintain a precarious peace, but Hitler’s anti-Semitic policy increased the influx of Jews into Palestine and caused further Arab resentment. The Jewish population continued to rise to nearly half a million in 1935. The Arab rebellion started in 1936 and continued to expand until a major British Military effort suppressed it two years later. /5

Various commissions studied the problem and usually recommended partition—the creation of a small, separate Jewish state. Arab countries objected; and because of their perceived importance to the forthcoming world war, Britain supported them. When war broke out, the international Zionist organization and its executive, the Jewish Agency, supported Britain. So did the Jews in Palestine.

During the Arab rebellion in 1936-39 the Jews had a voluntary militia organized in local units primarily for local defense—the Haganah. In 1941 the British allowed the Haganah to organize full-time guerrilla shock units for the fighting in Syria; but the British policy discouraged a separate Jewish military force. /6.

In 1942, Zionist leaders met in New York’s Biltmore Hotel to devise the Biltmore Program, which called for unlimited immigration of Jews to Palestine, which, after the war, would become a Jewish commonwealth state. The war strengthened the Haganah’s military arm. Thirty-two thousand Palestine Jews served in British forces, and in 1944 the British authorized a separate Jewish Brigade Group. The Group dissolved at the end of the war, but an underground Haganah army continued to exist. It was commanded by a cadre of four hundred professional soldiers; it had Palmach guerrilla units of about twenty-one hundred men and women, backed by a ready reserve; and it had widespread territorial militia of about thirty thousand with many thousands of covert supporters. /7 Militarily trained and experienced and motivated Jews were ready, willing, and able to take the Arabs’ land from them. And they did over time; and they still are via their Jewish "settlements".

In 1935, militant Zionists, who had formed the Revisionist Party in 1925, splintered from the World Zionist Organization. Two years later, younger Revisionists formed a militant force, the Irgun. The Irgun concentrated first on smuggling illegal refugees into Palestine. Arab attacks on Jews in 1939 caused the Irgun to open a terrorist campaign against the general Arab population. /8 The Chamberlain White Paper of 1939, which greatly restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, prompted the Irgun to target the British for murder. David Raziel and Abraham Stern, Irgun members, were arrested by the British and later released although they were terrorists.

Stern disagreed with Raziel’s wartime policy of truce with the British, so in 1940 he split from the Irgun and formed the Lokhammei Kherut Israel (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), or FFI—also known as the Stern Gang. /9 The Stern Gang, who were clearly "terrorists", by anyone’s definition, fought the British by eliminating some Jewish moderates and gentiles; and anyone who opposed creation of a Jewish state became fair game. This was really organized terrorism long before the Arabs ever bombed a bus or hijacked an airliner.

The terrorist, Stern, was killed by police bullets in 1942. A year later, another criminal and fanatic believer in a Jewish state, Menachem Begin, took command of the Irgun. From 1939 to 1943 the Stern Gang continued a policy of indiscriminate terror.

In 1944, the continued British refusal to accept the Biltmore Program caused the Irgun to renounce its truce with the British and to form a loose, sometimes uneasy, alliance with the Stern Gang in a new "war" for the Jewish state. By early autumn, the Stern Gang had murdered fifteen men, mostly moderate Jews, and destroyed several important government installations, including four police stations. /10 That was "terrorism". A great many Jews, in and out of Palestine, disagreed with the terrorism of the Irgun and Stern Gang on humanitarian grounds and out of concern for reprisals. The Jewish Agency’s security forces had to even wage war against the Irgun.

In May 1945, after the German surrender, the Jewish Agency wrote Prime Minister Churchill demanding the full and immediate implementation of the Biltmore resolution, the cancellation of the White Paper, the establishment of Palestine as a Jewish state, Jewish immigration to be an Agency responsibility, and reparation to be made by Germany in kind beginning with all German property in Palestine. The Palestinians seemed to have no say in any of this.

The British stalled, and the Haganah engaged in extensive smuggling. In October 1945, Haganah’s clandestine radio station, Kol Israel, declared the beginning of "The Jewish Resistance Movement". On October 31, 1945 the Jews in Palestine attacked three small naval craft, wrecked railway lines, attacked a railway station and an oil refinery. In June 1946, Jewish terrorists committed more sabotage in Palestine. They destroyed twenty-two RAF planes at one airfield. The Haganah agreed to an Irgun attack on British headquarters in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The bombings killed ninety-one British, Arab, and Jewish people and wounded forty-five. The British retaliated by raiding the Irgun headquarters in Tel Aviv. By the end of 1946 the Irgun-Sternist groups had killed 373 persons. The Haganah had supposedly disassociated itself from the terrorists, but the terrorists continued to operate with at least tacit support of a large part of the citizenry. /11

The British still continued efforts toward a political compromise. The UN appointed a special committee, UNSCOP, to investigate the situation and recommend a solution. Meanwhile a reign of terror and counter-terror dominated Palestine. The British execution of Dov Gruner, a popular young terrorist who murdered a policeman, caused widespread Irgun reprisals. The Jewish terrorists attacked British installations and in one day killed eighty British soldiers. The British replied by declaring martial law, which infuriated the civilian population but did not halt Irgun operations. /12 In July 1947, the refugee ship Exodus 1947 arrived with forty-five hundred Jews aboard, only to be sent back to Europe. This event gave militant Jews an enormous propaganda victory further exploited by Leon Uris’ best-selling novel Exodus.

The terrorism and counter-terrorism continued, and the UN committee worked throughout the summer and autumn and ultimately recommended an end to the British mandate in favor of another partition plan. The Jewish Agency reluctantly adopted the plan when the British made it clear that they intended to yield the mandate and withdraw troops in the near future. In late November 1947, the UN accepted the plan. The Arab League responded by ordering attacks against Jewish settlements in Palestine and throughout the Middle East. In December 1947, Great Britain announced that it would terminate its mandate on May 15, 1948. The Arab-Israeli war had begun. /13 The Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the Arab world were not happy with the theft of Palestine by the (Zionists) Jews with the complicity of Great Britain and the United States. /14

Even as the United Nations recognized Israel as a nation-state, there was conflict between the indigenous Palestinians and Israel. Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes, lands, other property; and many were forced to flee to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere. The repatriation (right of return) of thousands of Palestinians to the land of their fathers and their fathers’ fathers going back centuries is still one of the difficult issues to resolve in the peace process. In the war of 1967, Israel acquired land other than what the original mandate had given it, and Israel still occupies these territories. (See attachment 2, Map of Israel and occupied territories). P. 59.

Eventually, Zionism and fundamentalist Christianity would align to form a coalition against the Muslim world. The irony of this coalition between the Zionists and the Christian Right is that Zionism was founded by Marxists (Communists) who created the movement for political and economical motives—not a religious motive. Remember the Marxist saying: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

EFFECTS OF ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

Rather than simply engage in rhetoric about whom is killing whom and how, several documents are provided as attachments so the reader can personally review the evidence and draw his or her own conclusion. The vast majority of the following information has not been reported to the American public.

UN RESOLUTION 242

Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 expressed its desire that Israel

"…withdraw armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

To date, Israel has not withdrawn from the occupied territories as the UN Security Council decreed. Instead, Israel has continued to build settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law and UN resolutions.

The United Nations has been considering Israel’s transgressions for decades, but the United States has constantly protected Israel, and as a result the US has incurred the criticism and ire of much of the world community.

Over the years the UN has dealt with issues about Israel relating to torture, aggression in Lebanon and Tunisia, nuclear armament, and racism, but the most apparent and continuous wrongs that Israel commits relate to the Palestinians. The rest of the whole world knows about Israel’s crimes against humanity, but the United States condones Israel’s crimes and thereby loses its credibility with the international community.

UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

In a UN Commission on Human Rights report dated 21 March 2001, paragraph 8 states:

At paragraph 35, the report says:

REPORT ON ISRAELI PRACTICES AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS-2001

In a UN General Assembly Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, dated 26 October 2001, articles and reports received during the period from May to August 2001 were considered. Thus, the reported incidents occurred shortly before September 11, 2001—"9-11".

The report discussed the aggression of the IDF, how the IDF destroyed houses and property, how work permits were issued to Palestinians age 35 or older and who were not related to any of the victims of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, how the IDF barred any Palestinians from the West Bank or the Gaza Strip from entering Israel, how medical staff living in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority were prevented from going to work at hospitals in East Jerusalem, placed restrictions such as curfews on the Palestinians so they could not get food, milk, or other humanitarian supplies, how the IDF set up checkpoints restricting movement including ambulances with sick and injured or others who needed vital medical attention, how construction continued in the settlements which are prohibited by international law, and numerous illegal acts committed by the occupying Israeli Defense Force. (See attachment 4, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories). P. 72.

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often submit written statements to the UN. The Secretary-General received a statement dated 15 January 2002 from the Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights. The statement said, inter alia,:

"Since its creation, the State of Israel:

Has mass destruction and nuclear weapons, refusing to sign the No Proliferation Treaty.

Has used weapons forbidden by the international community against the Palestinian civil population under Israeli military occupation.

Has attacked sovereign Mediterranean states such as Lebanon and Tunisia.

Has systematically violated the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civil population under military occupation.

It has destroyed towns and villages and expelled civilians from the occupied territories, turning them into refugees with no right of return.

It has raided Palestinian populations and plundered their natural resources.

It has imposed collective punishments against the civil population such as massive house demolitions and destruction of farmland."

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

A Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights dated 6 March 2002 describes the Israeli Defense Forces’ violations of the Palestinians’ human rights by the disproportionate use of force.

In paragraph 16 he (the Special Rapporteur) reports that since the start of the second intifada, in September 2000, nearly 1000 Palestinians have been killed and about 17,300 injured. More than 260 Israelis have been killed and about 2,400 injured. Most of the killed and injured have been civilians; many of them were children.

In paragraph 17 he notes that the first few months of the second intifada had violent clashes between Palestinian protesters, whose weapons were stones and Molotov cocktails, and the IDF.

Most deaths were caused by gunfire from the IDF. The report further noted that the report of the Human Rights Inquiry Commission found that the Israeli Defense Forces had responded in a disproportionate manner to protesters and were guilty of excessive use of force. The situation changed when the Palestinians moved from protest to armed force, and the Israelis have responded by using heavier weaponry. As of March 2002, the date of the Special Rapporteur’s report "…most Palestinians’ deaths have resulted from missile attacks directed at selected individuals suspected of terrorism (but which, inevitably, have also killed innocent by standers), shelling and shootings carried out by soldiers and settlers, often after an exchange of gunfire. Israeli deaths have largely been caused by terrorist bombs in Israel, itself, and by gunfire directed at settlers on bypass roads or in the proximity of settlements".

At paragraph 18, the report states that it is difficult to categorize the present conflict. At times it appears to be a law enforcement action by the IDF. At other times "it probably qualifies as an armed conflict as a result of the protracted armed violence between the IDF and the Palestinian militia".

The Fourth Geneva Convention requires the parties to:

In paragraph 23, the report points out that the international community is united in its categorization of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as violations of international law. The report further discusses the settlements, buffer zones, destruction of houses and property, restrictions on freedom of movement, economic distress, refugees, and the suffering of the children.

The Rapporteur concludes that the parties to the conflict are, themselves, either incapable or unwilling to bring the violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel to an end. He recommends the "need for international presence, either in the form of monitors or peacekeepers…" to reduce violence, restore respect for human rights, and create conditions in which negotiations can be resumed. (See attachment 6, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights). P. 119.

My view is that the Palestinians are less like a "militia" and are more like prisoners in concentration camps with their oppressors greatly out-gunning them. There is no parity in weapons and militarism between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If this were a traditional "armed conflict", the parties would be required to respect the rules of international humanitarian law as stated in the Geneva Conventions, and avoid targeting civilians and civilian objects.

REPORT ON ISRAELI PRACTICES AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS-2002

In a Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories dated 16 September 2002 prepared for the United Nations General Assembly, the Special Committee considered numerous issues affecting the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Occupied Territories.

At paragraph 30, the report notes that since 29 March 2002, IDF has reoccupied the town of Ramallah and other cities, including Qalqila, Tulkarem, Bethlehem, Jenin and Nablus. Tanks and snipers have been used in clashes between IDF and Palestinian armed groups. Palestinian civilians have been unlawfully killed and there have been reports of extra judicial executions. Reports indicate that Israeli forces have used overwhelming and indiscriminate military force against Palestinian communities, such as intense bombardment as well as mass demolition of houses, most notably Nablus and the Jenin refugee camp.

The Special Committee noted how human rights and international law were violated and how the IDF prevented full access to investigate. In determining human rights standards and obligations, the Special Committee relied principally on the following body of international law:

The Charter of the United Nations;

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of 10 December 1948;

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of 16 December 1966;

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of 16 December 1966;

The (Fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

The Geneva Conventions relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949;

The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 1 May 1954;

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land; and

The Special Committee also relied on those resolutions relevant to the situation of civilians in the occupied territories adopted by United Nations organs—the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights. (See generally, attachment 7, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories). P. 139.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT

The Amnesty International Report 2002, which covered the period January to December 2001 stated that more than 460 Palestinians were killed during 2001 by Israeli security forces; most were unlawfully killed. Among the victims were 79 children and 32 individuals targeted for assassination. More than 2,000 Palestinians were arrested for security reasons. There were widespread reports of police brutality. Palestinian detainees frequently reported that they were tortured or ill treated during interrogation. At the end of the year at least 40 people were under administrative detention. At least 33 conscientious objectors were imprisoned during 2001.

Hundreds of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories were tried before military courts in trials whose procedures fell short of international standards. Collective punishments against Palestinians included closures of towns and villages, demolition of more than 350 Palestinian homes and prolonged curfews. Palestinian armed groups killed 187 Israelis, including 154 civilians.

The Report further stated that Palestinian houses, especially those close to borders or settlements, were frequently destroyed without warning, and orchards and agricultural or industrial installations were destroyed. Most of the towns and villages in the Occupied Territories were closed by physical barriers or by army checkpoints during 2001. The IDF used heavy weaponry, including tanks, F16 fighter aircraft and naval gunships to shell, randomly, Palestinian areas from where Palestinians had opened fire. Palestinians were killed unlawfully by Israeli security forces. Israeli security forces killed some Palestinians during gun battles. Palestinian armed groups killed Israeli security force personnel and deliberately targeted Israeli civilians.

In a press release, Amnesty International said:

The Press Release further said:

Amnesty International further stated:

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REPORT

Human Rights Watch put out a report called Israel, The Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, And The Palestinian Authority Territories, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, dated May 2002, which documents the blatant violation of human rights of the Palestinians by the Israelis. (See attachment 8). P. 161.

Daily, the Palestinian people live under the brutal occupation of the Israeli Defense Force and the "settlers" who are often American Jews who were given land in illegal settlements and weapons to subjugate the Palestinians; and America has looked the other way. The IDF bulldoze Palestinian homes with impunity under the ruse of ferreting out "militant" sanctuaries. They often kill innocent people.

On March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, 23, a college student from Olympia, Washington, was in Gaza City as a protester to the demolition of buildings in the Rafah refugee camp. As she tried to stop a bulldozer from tearing down a building, she was shouting, "stop", and waving her hands when she fell. She was wearing a brightly colored jacket, but the bulldozer ran over her; reversed; and ran over her again. The Israeli military and the US State Department had no immediate comment. (See "American Protester Killed by Israeli Bulldozer in Gaza" by Ibrahim Barzak, New York Times, March 16, 2003 www.nytimes.com). One would think this would be of grave concern to the US government, but apparently not. An American who is killed protesting for the Palestinians is obviously merely "collateral damage".

ISRAEL CONTINUES TO SEIZE AND OCCUPY PALESTINIAN LAND

Israel has had devastating effects on Palestine, and the aforementioned documents are only a small sample of what the international community knows to be the brutal, illegal, and unjust treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis.

On March 7, 2003, Israeli forces seized a band of territory in the northern Gaza Strip, effectively setting up a security zone in what the IDF called an open-ended campaign to thwart Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. This came right after a raid on a Gaza refugee camp on Thursday, March 6, in which 11 Palestinians were killed-- bloodshed that followed a suicide bombing that killed 15 people in Israel. (See "Israeli Forces Establish Gaza ‘Security Zone’" by Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters, Friday, March 7, 2003). While the world’s focus is on the US invasion of Iraq, Israel has continuously taken more and more Palestinian land under the pretext of "security". The ethnic cleansing continues.

Negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis have not brought peace. Accounts about the July 2000 Camp David summit with Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat, and Bill Clinton have erroneously claimed that Barak gave Arafat a generous offer which was refused. There never was a written offer—merely oral proposals. Barak was guided by antipathy toward the concept of gradual steps that formed the basis of the 1983 Oslo agreement. He discarded a number of interim steps, even those to which Israel was formally committed—a third partial redeployment of troops from the West Bank, the transfer to Palestinian control of three villages, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

Arafat’s perspective was that Israel had not even complied with the Oslo requirements. The Camp David proposals were not adequate for Arafat. They did not deal with the issue of refugees; the land exchange was unbalanced; and much of Arab East Jerusalem was to remain under Israeli sovereignty. (See "Camp David: A Tragedy of Errors" by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, The Guardian, Friday, July 20, 2001). (For further discussion of Barak’s "offer" and other issues including water and agricultural land, see "Misrepresentation of Barak’s Offer At Camp David As ‘Generous’ and ‘Unprecedented’" by Nigel Perry, The Electronic Intifada, 20 March 2002 <electronicintifada.net >).

While America’ attention was diverted on the Iraq war, buried on the last page of the "A" section of a newspaper under the columns called "Briefs" was this "brief":

Israel does not seem to want peace because it would interfere with its land grabbing.

HOW ISRAEL AND ZIONISM HAS DAMAGED THE UNITED STATES

INCREASED TERRORIST ACTIVITY

Israel’s actions (especially under the Likud administration of Ariel Sharon) against the Palestinians has created a plausible cause for the Muslim extremists who see Israel’s violence, supported by the United States, as a new "crusade" against the Islamic world. They see themselves in a jihad (holy war) against the new "crusaders". America’s recent invasion of Iraq gives even more credence to the belief of a US and Zionist crusade against Muslims and Arabs.

Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to rise against America:

In a commentary from an Al Qaeda recruitment video seized by police in London in the aftermath of 9/11, the following was said:

Thus, one can readily see the effect of America’s complicity with Israel on part of the Muslim world. When President Bush and other wise pundits in the American media opined that 9/11 occurred because "the Muslims just don’t like us because of our life style" or " the Muslims don’t like us because they are jealous of us"—that was disingenuous.

LOSS OF U.S. CREDIBILITY

Although the US has often protected Israel, the United Nations has condemned Israel’s actions numerous times. Israel has violated numerous UN resolutions, and the United States has condoned Israel’s conduct. This has created resentment against the US by other nations because the US reason to invade Iraq for violating United Nations resolutions lacks credibility when compared to Israeli violations of scores of UN resolutions.

In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, it was reported a decade ago:

The article further noted something very important:

MEDIA DECEPTION

We all have seen the pictures of the Israeli men, women and children who have been killed or seriously injured by a bomber’s blast, but seldom do we see or hear about the details of the social and economic impact, the atrocities, the violations of international law, the genocide of Palestinian people by the Israelis. A suicide bomber may kill some Israelis on a bus or in a market or at a wedding or at one of the "settlements" (which violate United Nations’ resolutions), and the networks and talk shows "hype" the incidents emphasizing how "evil" the Palestinians are and how they are not suicide bombers but rather they are "homicide" bombers. The media misleads the public by not showing the brutality of the occupation of Palestine by the Israelis, and the media has dehumanized the Palestinians as a people.

The Israeli occupation of the Palestinians is brutal, but the American media plays the ping-pong game of reporting a suicide attack and then it reports the disproportionate Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attack as a necessity for "security", thereby deceiving the public into believing that the conflict is a simple tit for tat cycle of violence with the players being in equal positions. The "suicide bombers" are portrayed, as inhuman terrorists while the Israelis are "victims". The American people are not informed that the Palestinian people are under brutal occupation by Israel, which uses tanks, Apache helicopters, F-16 jet fighter aircraft, and other modern weapons to suppress and eradicate the Palestinians. The media deceives by omission.

The media does not show how the Israeli government and its Zionist supporters in this country manipulate American foreign policy in the Middle East. People, well placed in our government and media, have embarked on a campaign to promote the use of America’s military might to invade numerous foreign countries throughout the world that are either Muslim or Arab. (See reference to the Project for the New American Century, infra.).

I believe that the American media is pro-Zionist as shown by very little, if any, media criticism of Israel; but the media in the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere paints an unsanatized view of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians. The various reports to the United Nations inform the entire world about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and other transgressions while the American people have been kept in the dark about the truth of what is happening in Palestine. (Note that much of the attribution in this paper is not from the mainstream media).

The media has been as deceptive in its reporting of the events leading up to the present Iraq war as it was during Desert Storm. Before the Soviet Union broke up, some Russian writers touring the US noted that the newspapers and television opinions on the vital issues were almost all the same. They commented that in their country, the threat of torture or imprisonment under a dictatorship got the same result. They asked, "What’s the secret?"

That message of over a decade ago is just as applicable, if not more so, today.

The Palestinians are "non-American human beings" who are "generally ignored".

Operation Iraqi Freedom has also involved a great deal of media deception. The media and the Bush administration have told the American public that the US must attack, effect a regime change, and occupy Iraq because Iraq violated UN Resolution 1441; Saddam Hussein is a bad person; the Iraqi people must be liberated; the US must bring democracy to the Middle East; that Saddam is a threat to the world; and an invasion of Iraq will help in the "war on terrorism". The media also told us that the war would be over quickly, and the Iraqi people would welcome the US forces as liberators.

It is interesting to note that the US attempts to bribe and coerce UN Security Council members to circumvent the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other principles of international law and vote to attack Iraq were fruitless. It was not only France (as the media would have the public believe), but also Germany, Russia, China, and the majority of the Security Council who did not consider Saddam to be the threat to the world as George W. did. Now, according to the UN Charter, the other nations could vote to take unified military action in support of Iraq against the United States for its armed attack against Iraq.

The media does not harp, everyday, as it does about Iraq, about how Israel has violated scores of UN resolutions, often with US blessing or assistance; that there are other UN resolutions requiring inspections and quarterly reports until the Security Council says otherwise; that Ariel Sharon is considered to be a war criminal; that the US invasion of Iraq violates international law; that there is no international authority for one country to impose any form of government upon another country by force of arms; that most of the rest of the world does not see Saddam as a threat, and the invasion of Iraq will support the "terrorists" claims that the US and Israel are on a crusade against the Arab and Muslim states. The media does not question nor even discuss the legal propriety of George W. using the American armed forces to try to assassinate a foreign head of state simply because he thinks Saddam is a threat.

While the media has focused on the action in Operation Iraqi Freedom with the "imbedded" journalists traveling along with the troops, it has told us very little, if anything, of the death and destruction of the Iraqi people. This war has also provided an excellent diversion from the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians so that the American public can forget Israeli transgressions there. The media has portrayed Operation Iraqi Freedom as a special event similar to the Super Bowl. Americans love action especially when it’s "live" on television. Seeing the action as it happens—the burning and bombing of Baghdad—is entertaining. Americans love to be entertained. The tanks rolling into Baghdad remind one of the tanks rolling into the Sudetenland. "Shock and Awe" remind one of "Blitzkrieg".

It is difficult to understand that Operation Iraqi Freedom is to free the Iraqi people when the US military action causes such death and destruction to the Iraqi people. And we were told that this invasion, this destruction, this carnage, was because we were trying to free the Iraqi people. Apparently, the Bush administration miscalculated the Iraqi soldiers’ desire to protect their homeland, their wives and children, their mothers and fathers, their brothers and sisters. It is also difficult to believe that the oil in Iraq has nothing to do with this war or that when America is done invading Iraq and killing its people, America will take over Iraq to help the people. While it is true that it is shocking and despicable that some Iraqis killed American POWs clearly in violation of the Law of War, and the media reminds us of this fact, there is no more discussion by the media of the illegality of the US invasion of Iraq in the first place.

The media has deceived the public into thinking that this war is relatively bloodless unless some Americans or Brits are killed or injured. Are any Iraqis being killed or injured? Of course there are, but the media is not reporting the Iraqi casualties. They simply parrot the party line about the accuracy of the bombs and Tomahawk Cruise missiles and how they are only killing or destroying "command and control centers". Those scenes of Baghdad burning indicate fire and destruction on more than command and control centers. The American public has been sufficiently brainwashed by the media not to deduce that if some of these Cruise missiles have mistakenly missed the entire country of Iraq and landed in Iran and Turkey that perhaps they could inadvertently land on innocent Iraqi civilians and other prohibited targets.

MYTHS ABOUT ISRAEL

I believe that there are several reasons why the United States seems to almost irrationally support Israel.

There are many myths about Israel, which deceive the American people. For example—"Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East". Not true. Israel is a theocracy, is run like a military-police state, and practices apartheid against the Palestinians. Israel does not even have a constitution. As a result of the policies and actions of Israel and the United States, Arab regimes are repressive so that they can control the increasing Islamic extremism rapidly growing

Another myth, which is simply a lie, is: "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 (USS Liberty) 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 had a truck-bomb and would probably drive it into the US Marines barracks in Lebanon, and the Israelis did not adequately warn the US. Two hundred fifty US Marines were killed. (See "Allies Don’t Let Our Soldiers Die: Did Israel Deliberately Allow 241 American Marines to Die?" by Joseph Sobran www.sobran.com.).

· 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. (See "Investigation Into the Israeli Infiltration of the US Government", Four Part Report, Fox News USA, Published December 12, 13, 13, and 17. 2001). So much for our good "ally"—Israel, spying on us.

· Israel has given China "Harpy" drone weapons, which have been deployed opposite Taiwan. The Harpy is an unmanned drone equipped with anti-radar sensors and a bomb. The weapon flies near a target radar for up to two hours and once illuminated by electronic waves is guided to the target and explodes. (See "China Deploys Drones from Israel" by Bill Gertz, Washington Times, July 2, 2002).

· Israel plans to sell AWACS aircraft to China. This would allow the Chinese to conduct long-range surveillance and coordinate forces during any conflict situations, possibly against Taiwan. (See "Israel to Supply Chinese with AWACS", Journal of Aerospace and Defense Industry News, p. 44, November 12, 1999).

· Israel designed the Lavi fighter-bomber largely with United States’ funds, but it sold China the plans for the Lavi along with the associated secret US technology. China has built its own version of this new generation aircraft which was modeled upon the F-16 Fighting Falcon multi-role aircraft. (See "Special Report: US Military Technology Sold By Israel To China Upsets Asian Power Balance" by Tim Kennedy, January 1996. pp. 12, 96 www.vtweb.com/report/back/1996/01/9601012.html).

CORRUPTION OF U.S. POLITICS

Early on, Israel started to corrupt American and British politics. As Israel was emerging as a state, members of Congress and Jewish organizations pressed President Truman to support immigration of Jews to Palestine. He pressured the British to permit immediate entry of an additional 100,000 Jews from Europe into Palestine.

Some private Jewish Americans and Jewish members of Congress also warned the British that they might not get American financial aid to rebuild their country after the war if they did not allow the immigration. Some of Truman’s advisors warned him not to create animosity between the United States and the Arab states and the Muslims inhabiting a strategic arc stretching from Morocco on the Atlantic Ocean across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southern Asia as far as the present states of Malaysia and Indonesia on the Pacific rim.

Truman told them, "I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." /15 Truman recognized the new Jewish state only eleven minutes after the British mandate ended and the existence of Israel was proclaimed. He set the standard for Congressmen and Presidents to come.

Today, Israel and its supporters influence American politics through its powerful political lobby—AIPAC. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) gives political guidance and provides more than eighty pro-Israel PACs set up by Jewish organizations or community groups to raise and funnel campaign funds to friendly candidates. /16 AIPAC puts the fear of God, or in this case, the fear of Israel, into candidates running for the U.S. Congress. /17

Here is how AIPAC operates: At AIPAC conventions, members are encouraged to provide early money to anointed candidates—those who support Israel. Friendly candidates in trouble are targeted to insure they understand who is contributing and why. Many individual Jewish donors make their donation to the candidate’s campaign, but mail the check to a pro-Israel organization. There, it is "bundled" with checks from like-minded donors and delivered to the candidate by an officer of the organization so that the candidate understands where his money came from and how he is to vote regarding issues relating to Israel. /18

The obvious result is that Congressmen assume that individual Jewish donors will be informed in advance as to exactly where each local and national candidate stands on Israel, and on election day Jewish voters will be willing to cast their votes on that issue alone. Many members of Congress still seem out of touch with the changing opinions on the Middle East among their own non-Jewish constituents, most of which are not one-issue voters on Middle East policy. Few members are able to ignore the demanding lobbyists of AIPAC, or to request answers about violations of U.S. laws both by the lobby and by its intransigent Israeli client. /19

In fact, if a congressman dares to even criticize Israeli lobby or Jewish supporters, he is castigated unmercifully and publicly humiliated. For example, Representative James Moran, Jr., Democrat, Virginia, addressed an anti-war forum in Reston, Virginia on March 3, 2003; and he said:

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."

He further said that Jewish leaders "are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should." (See "Lawmaker Criticized for Words" by Eric M Weiss and Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, as printed in the Arizona Republic, March 12, 2003, p. A 16).

As a result of these comments, which could have been made about Roman Catholics or the Christian Right or the neoconservatives, he was asked to resign by some Jewish leaders; and they refused to accept his apologies. I personally believe he was right, but congressmen who dare to criticize Israel or Jews who support legitimately debatable issues are rebuked.

I believe that this is the area where campaign finance reform is definitely needed, but not one of our illustrious Congressmen dares to deal with it. Instead Congress aids and abets in the corruption of our political process and our foreign policy, especially as they relate to the Middle East. Any religious group (especially with a loyalty to a foreign state) which can intimidate US Congressmen such that none dare criticize the policies or misdeeds of any other particular foreign country, does not serve the best interests of the United States.

Prior to Operation Desert Storm, Iraq, formerly an ally of the U.S., attacked Kuwait after supposedly receiving a tacit or ambiguous expression of indifference to its proposed action from Ambassador April Glaspie (to be discussed later). President George Bush (the elder) wrestled with the idea of invading Iraq for a lot of disingenuous reasons (in my view) until he decided it was to rescue Kuwait, but he laid the groundwork first. He got U.N. resolutions approving military action; he built a coalition of countries to support his actions; he used economic sanctions; and he sought support from Congress to use American military forces in Iraq. The vote in Congress was going to be close.

Saddam Hussein proposed withdrawing from Kuwait if the United States would consider the Palestinian problem, which related to the allegations that Israel was occupying territory in Palestine in violation of United Nations’ resolutions, but American Jews did not want "linkage" of the two issues. (See "Why ‘Linkage’ Doesn’t Connect" by Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, p. 24, January 21, 1991). Ultimately, the Jewish influence in Congress, through AIPAC, pressured Congress to give Bush the authority to commit U.S. troops to combat in Iraq. /20

This same Zionist influence, today, drives Congress to do anything, which supports Israel by the giving of billions of US taxpayers’ dollars to Israel and supporting Israel’s violations of international law.

Israel is embarking on a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International. (See "Israel to Kill in US; Allied Nations" by Richard Sale, United Press International, Published 1/15/2003). This is just another example of how Israel and its supporters have become so arrogant and diabolical about their ability to manipulate American values and policy. It will be interesting to see if Congress will allow summary executions of "suspected terrorists" on US soil by foreign agents (Israelis) when American law enforcement officers cannot do so against suspected or even known murderers.

ZIONISM AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

Zionists have not only influenced American politics, but they have negatively influenced Christianity by duping the Christian Right into believing that the present state of Israel is related to Biblical Prophecy. This alliance between Zionists and the Christian Right has influenced US foreign policy in the Middle East. Some of the extremist religious-right organizations such as the Christian Coalition seem to want war against the Arab world.

"It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now," said televangelist Jerry Fallwell on 60 Minutes in October 2002. He further said, "There are 70 million of us…there’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public on this country down on the government like abandoning or opposing Israel…".

In April 2002, when President George Bush called upon Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns, Fallwell protested. Fallwell’s fundamentalist Christian followers flooded the White House with 100,000 emails. Bush obeyed and the tanks stayed put, and Fallwell said, "…I really believe when the chips are down, Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time." According to 60 Minutes reporter, Bob Simon, the far right Christian groups claim "they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby." (Emphasis added). (See Report from the President of CNI, Council for the National Interest by Eugene H. Bird, January 20, 2003).

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 Schofield’s 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 are omitted.

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 and Zionists have found a home with the Christian Right in America. That is why we now have the terms—"dispensationalism", "Judeo-Christianity", and "Christian-Zionism". (See "The Pharisees Lay Siege On American Christianity" by Charles E. Carlson, Right to the Point, The Journal of "We Hold These Truths", Vol. V, Issue II, pp. 7-11, Fall 2002).

I believe that Jews and Christians and Muslims should pray together, work together, live together in peace; but the political aims of the Zionists, and those who support them, do not appear to be peaceful, based on the evidence. I am saying that Christian fundamentalism, Zionism, and Judaism should not be allowed to corrupt our cherished secular or religious institutions to eradicate the Palestinians or other Arabs or Muslims in the Middle East or elsewhere or to steal property, whether land, oil, or water, in order to acquire that which is "from the Nile to the Euphrates". They also should not 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.

AMERICA’S WAR ON IRAQ

AMERICA SUPPORTED IRAQ

When Iraq had been at war with Iran, the United States supported Saddam Hussein’s war machine with arms, money, technology, and weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. In a witness statement before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 6, 1990, a person very knowledgeable of matters relating to the Middle East spoke about what he thought the United States should do regarding Iraq. To put the statement in context, one must remember that Iraq and Iran had been at war for several years. (See "U.S. Policy in the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti Reflagging" by Michael H. Armacost, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Reagan Administration, reprint of a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 16 June 1987, Air War College Associate Studies Vol. II, LSN 33, 1^st Ed., pp. 115-118).

The senate witness said:

The significance of this testimony is: (1) that it considered Iraq as a "partner" and not a "threat" to the United States; (2) that a year later the United States was at war with Iraq; and (3) that the testimony was given by General H. Norman Schwartzkopf, the field commander of the forces to defeat Iraq. Saddam Hussein was America’s friend and ally one year before Desert Storm, and the US had armed him.

So why did the US have to go to war with Iraq in 1990? Was it really because Iraq invaded Kuwait?

U.S. SET UP IRAQ WAR WITH KUWAIT

Eight days before his August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America’s ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war. She told Saddam that the United States would like him to settle his dispute with Kuwait (Kuwait had been slant oil drilling under Iraq) peacefully, but she added , "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." (See "Henry Hyde Has the Right Answer—Do We need a War with Iraq?" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Human Events On Line, The Week of October 29, 2001). Glaspie deceived Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was stunned by the vehement response from the West to his occupation of Kuwait based on what Glaspie told him a little over a week earlier. Angry journalists confronted Glaspie, clutching copies of the transcript of her session with Saddam, accusing her of giving carte blanche to take over Kuwait. At one of these sessions a rattled Glaspie replied, "I didn’t think…the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait." (Emphasis added). (See "Bombs Over Baghdad: 10 years after Desert Storm" by Martin O’Malley & Owen Wood, CBS News On Line, January 2001). Glaspie was removed from her post.

The Bush (the elder) administration demonized Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and this was intended to give the American public "reasons" to go to war against Iraq.

U.S. CLAIM THAT IRAQ THREATENED SAUDI ARABIA WAS A LIE

One of the main reasons for America going to war against Iraq in 1990 was because the White House declared there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia. The reports fueled the war hysteria and frightened the Saudis, who then agreed to full cooperation with US military forces. These "satellite photos" were a major reason used to convince the American people of the justification of the war to protect and defend the oil supplies so vital to the West; however, the photos were never released, and Russian Satellite photos showed there was no such large scale massing of troops as the US claimed. (See "Unanswered Questions About the Supposed Iraqi Threat to Saudi Arabia in 1990" FROM PRESS REPORTS in 1990 by the Editor, Jon Basil Utley, Christian Science Monitor). Thus, the Bush (the elder) administration lied when it stated on August 8, 1990, that the purpose of the US troop deployment to Saudi Arabia was "strictly defensive" and necessary to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion.

IRAQI TROOPS DID NOT RIP RESPIRATORS FROM KUWATI BABIES

The propaganda war continued when a teenaged Kuwaiti woman known only as "Nayirah" told a US Congressional committee that she watched Iraqi troops rip respirators from premature babies in a Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the infants to die. President George Bush (the elder) often spoke of the villainy, taking of "babies from the incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor". But this was all a lie. No respirators were ripped from any babies in any incubators. It was a fabrication to create loathing against Iraq. Little "Nayirah" turned out to be Nayriah Sabah, the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the US. Her visit to the congressional committee had been arranged by the US advertising agency, Hill & Knowlton. (See "Bombs Over Baghdad: 10 years after Desert Storm" by Martin O’Malley & Owen Wood, CBS News On Line, January 2001).

SADDAM HUSSEIN PROBABLY DID NOT GAS THE KURDS AT HALABJA

Another reason stated by Bush (the elder) and George W. for toppling the "evil" Saddam Hussein is because he allegedly "gassed his own people". The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar chant by the warmongers. The hard evidence most often cited concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

Stephen C. Pelletiere, the former Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and former professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. He also headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States. The classified version of the report went into much detail about the Halabja affair. The gassing at Halabja occurred during the course of a battle between the Iraqis and the Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill the Iranians who seized their town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange, but they were not Iraq’s main target.

After the battle, the Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which asserted that Iranian gas killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The DIA found that both Iran and Iraq used gas against each other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the Kurd’s bodies indicated they were killed with a blood agent—a cyanide-based gas—which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis probably had mustard gas in the battle and were not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. (See "A Crime or an Act of War" by Stephen C. Pelletiere, New York Times, Opinion, Friday, 31 January 2003). Did Saddam really gas the Kurds?

Bush (junior) and his administration often chant the slogan, "Saddam gassed (used chemical weapons on) his own people". Assuming he did, which the DIA said he didn’t, what does one consider the use of Agent Orange in Viet Nam, which caused cancer for thousands of our soldiers, myself included? Also, there is some evidence and concern that a preservative, thimerisol, used in multiple vaccines given to Gulf War veterans may be responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. Thimerisol is an ethylmercury-based compound that was used in childhood vaccines until 1999 until vaccine-makers, under pressure from Congress, removed it from children’s vaccines because of its potential risk as a neurotoxin. (See "Gulf War Vets Walking Wounded" by Kerry Fehr-Snyder, The Arizona Republic, March 10, 2003, p.A1). If Saddam Hussein used chemical agents on his people, so have we; and we gave him his chemical weapons.

CONGRESSIONAL VOTE TO SUPPORT THE WAR WAS CLOSE

I believe that Bush (the elder) wrestled with the idea of invading Iraq for a lot of disingenuous reasons until he decided it was to rescue Kuwait. He sought support from Congress to use American military forces in Iraq, and many members of Congress were not enthusiastic about giving the President a resolution supporting military action--they wanted to give the sanctions more time. The vote in Congress was going to be close. (See "Bracing for War" by Tom Morganthau, et al., Newsweek, January 21, 1991, pp. 16-19).

Saddam Hussein proposed withdrawing from Kuwait if the United States would consider the Palestinian problem, which related to the allegations that Israel was occupying territory in Palestine in violation of United Nations’ resolutions, but (as stated previously) American Jews did not want "linkage" of the two issues.

Operation Desert Storm commenced, and the war was short-lived. The allied coalition forces heavily bombarded Iraq with "smart bombs", "dumb bombs", cruise missiles, and everything in

between. Iraq was driven out of Kuwait in accordance with the UN objective, and Iraq was subjected to some UN mandates per Security Council Resolutions.

UN RESOLUTION 687 IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON IRAQ

The UN imposed sanctions on Iraq, after Desert Storm, through UN resolutions. Resolution 687 (November 29, 1990) established cease-fire terms and set up the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) to disarm Iraq, and it listed specific conditions for lifting sanctions.

Under paragraph 8, Iraq was to destroy, remove, or render harmless, under international supervision, all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities. Iraq was to get rid of its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers.

Under paragraph 11, Iraq was "invited" to reaffirm its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968.

Under paragraph 12, Iraq was to unconditionally agree not to develop nuclear weapons or components or subsystems or to do nuclear research, and, apparently, UNSCOM has not provided the "international supervision" as envisioned under paragraph 8 until recently.

Under paragraph 22, if Iraq complied with the provisions of the resolution, then the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto would no longer have force or effect. In other words, if Iraq wanted to do commerce again with the rest of the world, it had to comply with the disarmament provisions. If it did not comply, the trade embargos would remain in effect, financial transactions would remain barred, and government assets would remain frozen. There was no provision in the resolution which authorized the invasion of Iraq if it did not comply. Iraq has never attacked the US, and the UN has allowed the status quo for over a decade.

UN RESOLUTION 1284 REQUIRES QUARTERLY REPORTS TO SECURITY COUNCIL

UN Resolution 1284 (1999) established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace the special commission established pursuant to resolution 687. As Hans Blix stated in his report to the Security Council on March 7, 2003, UNMOVIC is working under resolution 1441 (2002) and several other UN resolutions. He was required to submit a quarterly report under resolution 1284 to the Security Council on "unresolved disarmament issues" and to identify "key remaining disarmament tasks" and the latter were to be submitted for approval by the Security Council in the context of a work program. (See Hans Blix’s Report, March 7, 2003). The Security Council determines the progress of the disarmament, not the United States. When the US invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, it violated UN resolution 1284, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions.

NO-FLY ZONES OVER IRAQ NOT SANCTIONED BY UNITED NATIONS

Some may say that the shooting at US pilots who fly over the "UN no-fly zones" by the Iraqis constitutes "attacks" on the US, but US and British warplanes have bombed more that 80 targets in Iraq’s southern "no-fly" zone over the past five months, conducting an escalating air war even as UN weapons inspections proceeded and diplomats looked for ways to avoid war. The interesting point is that the United Nations does not recognize the no-fly zones or the US assertion that it is enforcing UN resolutions. Last fall, Russia’s foreign ministry said escalating attacks by US and British warplanes against Iraqi air defenses have made it more difficult for UN efforts to resume weapons inspections in Iraq. Iraq says it fires at the aircraft because they are violating Iraqi airspace. (See "Airstrikes in Southern Iraq ‘No-Fly’ Zones Mount" by Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, January 15, 2003).

NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

George W. Bush has done everything in his power to justify another US invasion of Iraq in 2003. He said he wanted to attack Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction, but he lacked significant, credible evidence to support his claim. Hans Blix, chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, disputed allegations by the Bush administration about the Iraqis hiding illicit materials or hiding scientists or penetrating the UN inspection agency. (See "Chief Weapons Inspector Disputes Bush Spin On Iraq Report", Arizona Republic, p. A22, January 31, 2003).

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said, that in his view, Iraq was not yet in material breach of a UN resolution on disarmament contrary to what Britain and the United States have stated. (See "Iraq Not In Breach of UN Arms Resolution", Reuters, January 30, 2003).

On February 5, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Counsel that Saddam Hussein violated UN resolutions, was a threat because he still had weapons of mass destruction, was assisting terrorists, and reliable "sources" proved his case. Although his presentation was glib, it lacked substance and was clearly insufficient to justify raining hundreds of Tomahawk Cruise missiles (2000 pound flying, guided bombs) on Iraqi mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, doctors, lawyers, taxi drivers, merchants, etc.

If Colin Powell were cross-examined on the identities, trustworthiness, or motives of his "sources", or on why he used drawings rather than satellite photos, or how he knew what was in trucks or buildings, or how Saddam is responsible for alleged poison camps supposedly run by terrorists in Kurdish areas outside of Saddam’s control, or why the US didn’t turn over its evidence to the inspectors as required by UN resolution 1441, he would probably look quite foolish. (See "Cross-Examining Colin" by William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Perspective, Thursday, 06 February 2003).

It has now been disclosed that a British intelligence dossier used by Colin Powell in his presentation has been discredited by several academics who say they recognized most of the dossier as lifted, verbatim, from articles published in the U.S. journal, The Middle East Review of International Affairs, and in Jane’s Intelligence Review. (See "Britain Stands By Iraq Report", Reuters, February 7, 2003).

On Saturday, February 8, 2003, guerrillas draped in grenades and Kalashnikovs allowed journalists to inspect a compound in northern Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell identified in a satellite photograph before the UN Security Council as a terrorist haven for making chemical agents. The guerrillas disputed Powell’s charges that they are linked to Al Qaeda and masterminding a poison factory and training camp to attack Western targets. The fighters claimed to be against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which governs the eastern portion of northern Iraq, for control of about a dozen villages. (See "Guerrillas Open Iraq Camp to Journalists" by Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times, as reprinted in The Arizona Republic, p. A8, February 8, 2003). One wonders how Powell might explain this matter.

On February 11, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the Middle East news network, Al Jazeera, had a tape of Osama bin Laden clearly establishing a connection between Osama and Saddam, beyond all question. He said, "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored." The actual tape, played live and translated, was different from Powell’s version. Osama bin Laden swore vengeance against America if Iraq was attacked, and he demanded that the Muslim world stand in solidarity with the Muslim people of Iraq. He clearly told the Iraqi people to rise up against both American aggression and against "socialist" Saddam Hussein. (See "Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein" by William Rivers Pitt, Truthout|Perspective, Wednesday, 12 February 2003). This effort to further demonize Saddam Hussein still did not persuade the UN to support George W. Bush in his goal to invade Iraq.

To further demonstrate how far the George W. Bush administration was willing to go to demonize Saddam Hussein, it used forged documents which indicated that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, the West African nation that is the third-largest producer of mined uranium, Niger’s largest export. In December 2002, the State Department used the information to support its case that Iraq was lying about its weapons programs. But on March 7, 2003, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries. ElBaradei also said his inspectors have found no evidence that Saddam has revived Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FBI on March 14 to investigate the forged documents the Bush

administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein and his military ambitions in Iraq. (See "Senator Wants Fake Iraq Documents Probed" by Ken Guggenheim, Associate Press Writer, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Saturday, March 15, 2003).

U.S. CLAIM OF IRAQI VIOLATION OF U.N. RESOLUTION WAS A PRETEXT FOR WAR

Bush said Iraq has violated UN resolutions, but the UN and Bush knew that Israel had violated, and is still violating, several times more resolutions than Iraq has. Iraq has violated 17 UN resolutions; Israel has violated nearly 70 UN resolutions. North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan—all have nuclear weapons and have not agreed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Bush ignores this while Israel commits genocide in Palestine, which he also ignores. The US claim that we had to invade Iraq for violating UN resolutions was a pretext for war.

Al Qaeda is a major threat, and the unjustified invasion against Iraq will inflame the Islamic extremists and add to their numbers and incite their wrath, which Bush ignores. The commander of US forces in Afghanistan said a war in Iraq could provoke attacks on Americans and coalition forces and against the US backed Afghan government. The war is not over in Afghanistan, and the warlords are not happy with the central government. (See "Iraq War May Stir Afghans", "Arizona Republic", p. A23, February 2, 2003).

ISRAEL’S AGENTS WANTED U.S. TO INVADE IRAQ AND OTHER ARAB STATES

What is the real reason the US wanted to invade Iraq? In case one doubts that George W. might be invading Iraq for his good friend whom he calls "a man of peace", Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon wanted Bush to attack other Arab countries, too:

"American action is of vital importance" to whom—the US or Israel? Or have they become one and the same? Bush and Sharon are close, but Ariel Sharon is an accused "war criminal" for his genocide of innocent civilians in Lebanon, yet, the US supports Israel unconditionally. Sharon has violated U.N. resolutions, and he has weapons of mass destruction, but if one criticizes Sharon, the critic is labeled anti-Semitic.

Although George W. Bush calls Ariel Sharon a "man of peace", the evidence shows otherwise. When Shimon Peres was chastising Sharon about his actions, Sharon bragged: "I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it". (Emphasis added). (As reported on Kol Yisrael radio, October 3, 2001). Jews strongly influence U.S. Middle East policy.

Zionists or Israeli agents have influential positions in the Defense Department, and they want the US to attack Iraq and other Arab countries. Richard N. Perle is the chairman of the Defense Policy Board and is a leading advocate for war on Iraq. The Defense Policy Board is a Defense Department advisory group composed primarily of highly respected former government officials, retired military officers, academics, former national-security advisers, Secretaries of Defense, and heads of the C.I.A. Perle, the chairman, is also a managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P. whose main business is to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense. Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi-born businessman who brokered billions of dollars in arms and aircraft sales for the Saudi royal family, arranged a lunch meeting in France with himself, Perle, and Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East. One of the purposes of the meeting was to pave the way for Zuhair to put together a group of ten Saudi businessmen who would invest ten million dollars each in Trireme, Perle’s company. (See "Lunch With The Chairman" by Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, Issue of 3-17-2003 Posted 3-10-2003 www.newyorker.com).

As chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Perle is a special government employee, is subject to the federal Code of Conduct, and is not supposed to take advantage of his federal position to help himself financially in any way. In 1983, Perle was the subject of a New York Times investigation into an allegation that he recommended that the Army buy weapons from an Israeli company from whose owners he had, two years earlier, accepted a fifty-thousand-dollar fee. Perle admitted he accepted the fee but denied any wrongdoing. (Ibid.).

As chairman, Perle has become increasingly influential, and has advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the use of preemptive military action to combat terrorism. He also has been an out-spoken critic of Saudi Arabia. Perle’s allies are Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under–Secretary of Defense for Policy, who is the Pentagon’s third-ranking civilian official. (Ibid.). Perle and Feith have been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein long before September 11, 2001. They also worked together, in 1996, to prepare a list of policy initiatives for Benjamin Netanyahu shortly after his election as the Israeli Prime Minister. The suggestions included working toward regime change in Iraq. Feith and Perle were energetic supporters of Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial leader of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress, and have struggled with officials at the State Department and the C.I.A. about the future of Iraq. (Ibid.). Perle and his gang could not be better agents of the Israeli Likud’s agenda than if they were on the payroll of the Mossad.

To further understand who guides George W. Bush’s foreign policy, one must know about the Project for the New American Century. PNAC is a front group for the coalition of neoconservatives, hard-right Republicans, and Christian Right dating back to the 1970s when they fought the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party and then combined with key Republicans like Donald Rumsfeld to oppose détente with Moscow. Other key associates with PNAC are Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, William Krystol. Robert Kagan, Eliot Cohen and Gary Bauer, to name a few.

PNAC’s past letters to George W. Bush, particularly the recommendations on the anti-terrorist campaign and the policy in the Middle East, have anticipated the administration’s policy evolution. Just nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, for example, PNAC issued an open letter that called on Bush to take his anti-terror war beyond Afghanistan by ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq, severing ties with the Palestinian Authority, and preparing for action against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. (See "Pump Up the Pentagon, Hawks Tell Bush" by Jim Lobe, Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center, reprinted courtesy of the Project Against the Present Danger, January 28, 2003 < www.presentdanger.org>).

PNAC wants George W. to take on the Arab world, and the world does not like it. That is why we need the United Nations to keep rogue nations in line, even if that rogue nation is the United States.

Patrick J. Buchanan really helps one understand the effect of the neo-conservatives and Zionists on US foreign policy in the Middle East. (See "Whose War?" by Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, March 24, 2003). Our Middle East policy is driven by the Wolfowitz Doctrine:

The Wolfowitz Memo was denounced and dismissed in 1992, but it became American policy in the 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by President Bush on September 21, 2002. Washington Post reporter, Tom Reich, described it as a "watershed in U.S. foreign policy" that "reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence." (Emphasis added). (Ibid.).

Buchanan wrote that in confronting America’s adversaries, the Wolfowitz Memo declared:

The Wolfowitz Memo further warned that any nation that sought to rival the United States in power would be courting war with the United States:

Patrick J. Buchanan identified the players in this "attack Iraq" drama:

Buchanan further wrote:

Buchanan pulled no punches and made his charges:

Buchanan noted the counter-charge:

I agree with Buchanan. His excellent article discussed how these agents of Israel (my term), PNAC and others, along with media support, have directed US foreign policy under George W. Bush in the Middle East to commence attacks against Iraq and other Arab countries and Iran. (See attachment 9, "Whose War" by Patrick J. Buchanan, Ibid.). P. 243.

On March 17, 2003, George W. Bush gave his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave his own country, Iraq. Bush has said that Saddam was a threat to the world, but the institution created to represent the nations of the world, the United Nations, did not think so. France, and other nations, wanted to give the inspectors more time to disarm Saddam; and there was progress, according to the inspectors. Knowing that they could not get even a majority vote in the Security Council, much less defeat the French and Russian vetoes, the US and Britain forced the issue and invaded Iraq. The "coalition of the willing" became the "coalition of the killing".

A true patriotic American does not want to see members of the US armed forces fighting wars as lackeys for another country—including Israel. I believe that the real reason for warring with Iraq stems from the US desire to control vast deposits of oil in Iraq; to control an abundant supply of water (which Israel desperately needs); to protect Israel; and to accomplish the first step of a strategic vision of the Middle East to create a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor. (See "Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq" by Bill and Kathleen Christison, former CIA analysts, CounterPunch, <www.counterpunch.org>, January 25, 2003).

RELEVANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

BASIC U.N. PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

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:

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. No one nation can tell the Security Council what to do, including the United States. That is why Operation Iraqi Freedom is illegal.

Chapter VII, Article 39 provides:

The fact that George W. Bush and his administration thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat to whomever does not necessarily mean that the UN Security Council had to agree. Only the Security Council could determine "any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression" and then make appropriate recommendations. (Ibid.).

The US attack on Iraq was an act of aggression under the UN Charter; and the Security Council could take action against the United States under Articles 41 and 42. The means of attack via the "shock and awe" aerial bombardment on innocent civilians and other non-military targets was a violation of the Geneva conventions. In light of that consideration, it seems ludicrous for the US to complain about the Iraqis showing video-taping of POWs or defending their homeland with whatever weapons (including chemical) they may have. The US disregard of UN procedures and the US invasion of a sovereign country in violation of international law arguably changed the rules of warfare in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Article