Terrorism-Middle East

TERRORISM-MIDDLE EAST
To respond to these articles, please use the feedback form.

HOW TO SOLVE U.S. PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST	WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT INVADE IRAQ

AMERICA'S WAR ON TERRORISM	TERRORISM - WHAT AND WHY

SHOULD AMERICA USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ OR ISRAEL?	TERRORISM, LAW, AND RELIGION

AERIAL BOMBING OF IRAQ	CENTCOM 2000

HOW TO SOLVE U.S. PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Joseph E. Abodeely

(April 2006)

IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM

In order to solve problems of any kind, one must first identify them. I identify United States problems in the Middle East as: (1) the Israeli occupation of Palestine, (2) the American occupation of Iraq, (3) the American occupation of Afghanistan; and (4) the American hostility toward Iran. All four issues are interrelated, but each must be understood separately in order to solve each problem. The word "problem" is defined as " a question or situation that presents uncertainty, perplexity, or difficulty".

ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

THE CREATION OF "ISRAEL"

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. A cadre of four hundred professional soldiers commanded it; 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.

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. 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. 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. Police bullets killed Stern in 1942. A year later, another 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. 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 had 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 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.

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. 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. 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.

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 any 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.

(Note: the source of the aforementioned information is War In The Shadows, The Guerrilla In History, by Robert B. Asprey, p. 551, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1994).

EFFECTS OF ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

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 built 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:

The "Israeli military have continued to use excessive force in the form of live ammunition, rubber-coated metal bullets and tear gas against civilian demonstrators and bystanders…This disproportionate and unrestrained use of force has increased the Palestinian civilian death toll and injuries dramatically, reportedly killing some 400 Palestinians since 28 September 2000 and injuring as many as 14,000." (Emphasis added).

At paragraph 35, the report says:

"The Special Rapporteur remains convinced that the current conflict is rooted in accumulated grievances and resentment at the continuing violations of human rights and humanitarian norms under Israeli occupation…Indeed, the Special Rapporteur stresses, once again, that international law should be respected not only for obvious juridical and ethical reasons, but in the interest of the parties themselves. In fact, international law and, in particular, human rights and humanitarian norms form the indispensable foundation of any just and lasting solution." (Emphasis added). (UN Commission on Human Rights).

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 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.

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 gun-ships 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:

"Israel/Occupied Territories: Israeli Defense Force war crimes must be investigated.

Jerusalem—at the launch of a report into the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Jenin and Nablus in March and April 2002, Amnesty International said today that there is clear evidence that some of the acts committed by IDF during Operation Defensive Shield were war crimes…Shielded from scrutiny-IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus, documents serious human rights violations by Israeli forces—unlawful killings; torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; wanton destruction of hundreds of homes sometimes with the residents still inside; the blocking of ambulances and denial of humanitarian assistance; and the use of Palestinian civilians as ‘human shields’". (Emphasis added)…"Israel has the right to take measures to prevent unlawful violence, but in doing so they must not violate international law. In Jenin and Nablus, the IDF blocked access for days to ambulances, humanitarian aid and the outside world while the dead and wounded lay in streets or houses. In Jenin a whole residential quarter of the refugee camp was demolished leaving 4,000 people homeless."

Amnesty International further stated:

"There will be no peace or security in the region until human rights are respected. All attempts to end human rights violations and install a system of international protection in Israel and the Occupied Territories, in particular by introducing monitors with a clear human rights mandate, have been undermined by the refusal of the government of Israel. This refusal has been supported by the USA." (Amnesty International Press Release, 04/11/2002). (Emphasis added).

It is clear that the Zionist invasion, occupation, and genocide of the Palestinians has prompted the suicide bombers to resist their occupation as they have. The United Nations and the rest of the world have often condemned the actions of the Israelis against an occupied people, and the United States has turned a blind eye to the injustice. The American media despises a "suicide bomber" who kills innocent people on a bus or in a café, but an Israeli pilot who drops bombs on apartment complexes and kills innocent people is hailed as a hero. The Palestinian is a "terrorist" while the pilot is a defender of Israel. The only difference in either of the terrorist acts is technology.

AIPAC

For the past several decades, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and has jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?

The thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of another country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it.

Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organizes letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.

The Israeli lobby has used its power and resources to squelch debate and discussion on these issues. Perhaps its greatest weapon against anyone who criticizes its actions or its influence over US Middle East policy is the charge of anti-Semitism.

SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR ISRAEL

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two--well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidize its own defense industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and re supplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.

ISRAEL IS NOT A VITAL STRATEGIC ASSET

One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.

Backing Israel complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. Yet, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g., Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, and that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. But in fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbors want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.

A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

NO MORAL BASIS FOR GIVING ISRAEL SPECIAL PRIVILEGES

Israel’s backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. Viewed objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defense Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967-- all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbors and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel.

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.

A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The country’s creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians’ national ambitions.

Israel’s backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground, Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents. Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments – which is hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent, leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF . . . is turning into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister, declared that ‘neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’

The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn’t surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions.

IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND IRAN

IRAQ

It seems that every day we find some new revelation about how the US got involved in its occupation of Iraq, and the more we learn the more odious our actions appear. The initial lie to conduct a massive bombardment of populated areas of Iraqis who never harmed us was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. That lie was compounded with the "yellow cake" from Niger lie and the Downing Street memo which advocated that the US and Britain falsify intelligence info regarding WMDs and Iraq. President Bush and his staff even blew the cover of a CIA operative in retaliation to criticism of their ruse with intelligence information.

The lies were flagrant-- Saddam Hussein was tied to 911 and al Qaeda; the war would be quick and the Iraqis would greet the US forces with flowers and sweets; the torturing of "enemy combatants" in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib was not condoned at high levels politically and militarily; there would be a new democratic government in Iraq as soon as it could let the people vote; and the US invasion of Iraq was done for the reason of national security of the US and not Israel.

In reality, Iraq is a mess with no chance of success irrespective of how anyone measures it. Iraq has become a symbol for people to rally around to ward off invaders into their part of the world. It is as simple as that. The majority of the people the US forces are fighting in Iraq are Iraqis—the very people the US is supposed to be protecting. They want the US out of their country—NOW.

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan is another problem, which gets less attention in the media. One might recall that the stated US purpose for invading Afghanistan was in retaliation for the 911 attacks on the Twin Towers. We were going to show those people who attacked us that they could not get away with it. We were going after the "evil doers", and you were either with us or with the "terrorists". The only problem was that Saudi Arabians--not Afghanis--attacked the US. At least we could go after Osama bin Laden. But we took the vast majority of those resources to invade Iraq, and bin Laden is still free.

Is the US in Afghanistan to fight a war on terrorism, or for other less noble reasons? Two

of the geological basins in northern Afghanistan hold 18 times the oil and triple the natural gas resources previously thought. (Associated Press, March 14, 2006). Are our troops merely acting as security forces for oil interests? Things are not going as well for the US in Afghanistan as some would have the American public believe. Bin Laden is still at large; the current Afghan parliament includes warlords and drug lords; Amnesty International stated that in 2005 violence against women and girls in Afghanistan was pervasive; Human Rights Watch has accused US and coalition forces of using excessive force and arbitrary detention in Afghanistan; and since the US-led war began, Afghanistan has become increasingly dependent on opium poppies and heroin for its economic survival.

IRAN

Iran is widely seen as Israel’s most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence. Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’, and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’

The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran. On 6 May 2003, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East . . . But the next great battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May 2003.

The administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear program. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue its nuclear development. These threats are to keep Washington’s attention on the issue.

One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear; but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.

It is clear that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown; Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians; and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalized Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

CONSEQUENCES OF AIPAC’S INFLUENCE

The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathizers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

The Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

The Lobby has caused the United States to become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.

The Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts–or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites–violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.

Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities– including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords–that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalize a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more even-handed.

(Note: The source of the aforementioned information relating to AIPAC is Faculty Research Working Papers Series, THE ISRAELI LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, by John J Mearsheimer, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago and Stephan M. Walt, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University).

CONCLUSIONS

It is crystal clear that the Israeli Lobby and its influence on US policy in the Middle East is why the US has problems in the Middle East, and the Lobby has stifled free speech on the issues. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region without fear of reprisal—economic, political, physical, etc. Israel’s wellbeing is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for US one-sided support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well.

The US also needs to withdraw from Iraq immediately stating that it desires to let the Iraqi people handle their own affairs however they see fit. US presence only fosters more death and destruction in Iraq and helps to recruit "terrorists". The US can never "win" in Iraq because it does not have justice on its side, and the Iraqis do not want the US there.

US military resources could be diverted from Iraq to seek Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in Afghanistan if used properly. If the US is seeking to neutralize al Qaeda, then it should do so vigorously. But if Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, as many suspect, and if we do not desire to start a war with Pakistan—the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons—then the US should withdraw from Afghanistan. Let the warlords and drug lords have their country.

As for Iran, leave Iran alone. Iran is no threat to the US. Its population is young and likes the people of the United States. Once the US acts as a strong, honest broker with the Palestinians and the Israelis—treating each side fairly—the major US problems in the Middle East will go away. When there is justice, there will be peace.

The real challenge for the US is get some courage to stand up to the Israeli lobby, which has corrupted our political system and jeopardized our national security. It is essential that people speak out and emphasize political action on behalf of America’s national security. Write your Congressman, write the newspapers, talk about it on the radio talk shows, and if the talk show hosts don’t talk about the issues, you talk about it and tell the hosts they are not telling the truth. America’s national security and our freedoms are at stake.

Top of Page

America’s War On Terrorism

Is Hypocritical And Unjust

Joseph E. Abodeely

Attorney at Law

Colonel, USAR, Ret.

Introduction

When I was a combat infantry unit commander in the 1^st Air Cavalry Division during Tet 1968 in the former Republic of South Viet Nam, I fought conventional North Vietnamese Army (NVA) soldiers and guerrilla Viet Cong forces. Most of our engagements (combat) were during the day. At night, Viet Cong cadre would terrorize the basically agrarian Vietnamese population in the villages or towns, and through force, intimidation, torture, and executions, bent the will of the populace to do the terrorists’ bidding. The point is that terrorism is not a new tactic suddenly developed by fanatical Islamic groups to take over the United States of America.

In 1980, as a Major, Judge Advocate General’s Corp, Arizona Army National Guard officer attending the Legal Aspects of Terrorism Course at the JAG school in Charlottesville, Virginia, I learned more about terrorism—that it was not just a tactic of warfare, but that it was conducted to attain intellectual goals. I also learned that terrorists did not follow the Law of War which civilized nations were obligated to observe as a result of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

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.

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.

When President Bush says America is at war with "terror", he shows his ignorance of the real issues confronting America’s security. I know this statement will offend some political loyalists, but US security is at stake.

The pundits, the talk show hosts, the media anchors, the so-called "terrorism experts" who talk about the so-called "war on terror" or on "terrorism" without discussing the political, religious, or ideological goals or issues involved or who do not focus on the WHY OF TERRORISTS ACTS do not promote a greater understanding of how to combat terrorism. And to mention the "goals" of some of the parties to a conflict and not mention the "goals" of other key parties to the conflict is either ignorance or deceptiveness or both.

We must fight terrorism, especially if it is directed against innocent US citizens, but we must understand it to target or prevent it.

The Meaning Of September 11, 2001

What Happened?

Without going into minute detail about the attack in the Twin Towers of the World trade Center and on the Pentagon, it is fair to say it was a well devised attack by people who caused great damage and loss of lives of about 2800 Americans. The carnage and destruction was shocking, but the greater shock was that a group of people could do this to Americans in America.

When Did It Happen?

That’s the easiest question to answer. The actual attacks of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were on September 11, 2001, otherwise referred to as "nine-eleven".

Where Did It Happen?

Again, it’s relatively easy to figure that out. The actual attacks were at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but investigations have shown that preparations for the attacks may have occurred by the "attackers" taking flight lessons earlier on at different flight schools. They may have even had more formalized training in military, para-military, guerrilla, or terrorist tactics in other countries.

How Did It Happen?

Some men of Middle Eastern descent commandeered commercial aircraft and flew them into highly populated buildings. The planes were in essence aerial bombs that caused extensive loss of civilian lives at the World Trade Center, loss of military and civilian lives at the Pentagon, and extensive property damage at both locations. Its effect was surprising, stunning, shocking, and angering to the American public.

Who Was Responsible For The Attacks?

Some Saudi Arabian and Egyptian men were identified as the attackers. Al Qaeda, a group of fundamental Islamic Middle Eastern operatives, has been linked to the 9/11 attacks. But do we really know who was responsible for the attacks? We only know what the government and the media tell us, and both of those institutions have lost their credibility and have often been shown to be biased or inept.

The FBI and the CIA have been shown to be inept in doing their jobs. There are innuendos of cover-ups for Israeli "art students" who may have been spies, or for the FAA and the Air Force who should have detected and destroyed the deadly aircraft flying off course to their targets, or for the real cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers which were the first steel reinforced buildings ever to collapse due to fire.

Some even think that the Bush Administration knew the attacks were going to occur, but they wanted the catastrophe to occur so Bush could divert America’s attention from his poor domestic policies to a wartime footing, which would force the public to support him in time of "war". Some think that’s his "War on Iraq" strategy, also.

Others believe that Israeli Mossad agents infiltrated Al Qaeda cells and gave the order for the attacks because this would make it easier for Israel to persuade the US to attack Arabs or Muslims. Some believe that an Israeli controlled Congress, intimidated by a monstrous Israeli-Zionist-Jewish financial war chest for Israel supporters, steam- rolled President Bush and America into an aimless and protracted adventure into Afghanistan.

Perhaps the only people responsible for the 9/11 attacks are the perpetrators, themselves. And they are dead. Yet, the investigations go on to find out who knew so and so who may have heard such and such about so and so.

Individuals probably linked to Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden and some of his other associates probably planned for and organized the attacks and executed them. Others like some Al Qaeda and Taliband members may have morally supported the 9/11 attacks but have not actually had anything to do with them. This is what seems to have emerged from the muck of rumors, innuendos, media investigative reporting, Congressional hearings, and actual facts.

WHY DID IT HAPPEN?

This is the most difficult of all the questions to answer relating to the 9/11 attacks.

Again, there are several possible reasons for the attacks—some absurd, some plausible. President Bush opines that the "terrorists" simply hate us Americans and our opulent life style. That is absurd. People who live on the other side of the world are not going to come to America, blow themselves up, and kill nearly 3000 innocent people simply because we have a better life style.

Usama 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—the US occupation of Saudi Arabia with troops during the Gulf War, the unnecessary and prolonged suffering of the Iraqi people after the war due to US backed sanctions, and the illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel also strongly supported by the US.

Some think Israel had something to do with triggering the Al Qaeda cells to action on 9/11. The Mossad, Israel’s intelligence arm, is absolutely unscrupulous when acting in the interests of Israel. They have the capability to infiltrate terrorist groups; therefore, they can act as messengers conveying orders from superiors. Israel gained the most from the 9/11 attack because it took the world’s attention off the illegal expansion of the "settlements" by the Israelis on Palestinian land. It also took the world’s attention away from Ariel Sharon’s provocation of the Palestinians at Al Aqsa Mosque, which incited another intifada.

Most Americans have little or no sense of history other than what the news media told them last week, and the 9/11 attacks were a perfect diversion of attention from what was going on in the Middle East at the time. Let me be clear; I am not saying Israelis flew the planes, which did the damage on 9/11. I am saying that it is possible (and they have the motives) that Israeli agents had some part in triggering or allowing the attacks to occur.

It wouldn’t be the first time. Do you remember how the Israelis did not tell us, when they knew, that the US Marines barracks were going to be bombed in Lebanon? I do. Do you remember how the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty killing and wounding US sailors and later lied to cover it up? I do.

Do you remember how Israel has spied on the US over the years? I do. The Israelis have agents in this country who monitor some of our most sensitive phone conversations.

The terrorist attacks may have been for a combination of reasons, but I believe the real reason there were "terrorist" attacks against the US on 9/11 is because of the United States’ one-sided support of Israel’s occupation and blatant repression of the Palestinians. America’s one-side support of Israel, to include attacking Arab nations to defend Israel, have angered the 22-member Arab League who are irate over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks some commentators attempted to link US support to Israel as a key factor for the tragedy. The mainstream media covered it up as long as it could, but the escalation of violence in the Middle East put things in perspective, and the Israeli factor could no longer be kept secret. Israel has always been a problem for America in the Middle East for the Arab countries and now for us.

The Palestinians are living in occupied territories; they have little food or clothing; they have meager medical supplies; they can’t work, go to school, or travel freely; and international law says that an occupied people can fight for its freedom. They are the underdogs; the Israelis oppress them. But when they fight with what they have, they are called terrorists.

Israel on the other hand can and does use modern weapons (attack helicopters, jet fighters, and tanks), which kill innocent women and children to level homes and parts of towns, and they say they do this for their "security". They say they destroy Palestinian buildings and homes for their "security". The Israelis say they build "settlements" on confiscated Palestinian land for their "security". I don’t believe those claims, and the rest of the entire world does not believe the Israelis except for the US administration and Congress.

The Israelis are not called "terrorists", yet, they clearly are. In fact, Israel was founded by terrorism. Research the Haganah or the Irgun or the Stern Gang. These Zionist thugs killed innocent British and Arab men, women, and children as well as moderate Jews who did not go along with them.

WHAT HAPPENED TO AMERICA?

Anger and Lashing Out

After 9/11 Americans were shocked, stunned, and angry. The US wanted justice. The US decided to attack Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and to send troops to hunt for Usama Bin Laden and the Taliband who may have supported the Al Qaeda. The US was going to get the terrorists who did or supported 9/11. Remember the president saying, "You’re either with us or with the terrorists?" The ones who did 9/11 died in the crashes. If the Al Qaeda and the Taliband in Afghanistan along with Usama Bin Laden truly aided and abetted in the attacks, the US should bring them to justice in accordance with US and international law. My question is did they support the attacks morally or spiritually or intellectually or did they really aid and abet the crimes of 9/11? I don’t really know the answer to that question. That is a fair question since the US has held prisoners for trial without bond and free access to their attorneys and since the US has waged war elsewhere throughout the world supposedly in response to the 9/11 attacks.

Home-front Craziness

Meanwhile, on the home front, crazy things were happening to innocent Americans. People were held without bond, without charges being filed, or charged with minor visa violations, or denied the right to talk to an attorney. Secret wiretaps have been conducted without warrants or with permission from a secret court. The government secret court is authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to issue secret warrants for foreign intelligence purposes. The FISA court rendered a public opinion which noted that the FBI presented at least 75 false applications for warrants in the past. The US government prosecuted Arabs in America for testifying falsely about the status of their visas, but excused FBI agents who lied to the federal courts to get secret warrants against Americans.

The airports were turned into facilities one might find in a banana republic. Armed National Guardsmen were observing security screenings. . The maintenance and service people at the airlines needed to be checked adequately, and they were not. The public was scared and conned into giving up their rights for the illusion of safety and security.

Hundreds of Middle Eastern men were incarcerated by the US without bond or access to lawyers. The FBI questioned hundreds of Middle Easterners and intimidated them solely because of their ethnicity. Suspected "terrorists" (Arabs and Muslims) were not allowed to have private conversations with their attorneys while convicted murderers, robbers, or child molesters were still allowed the attorney-client privilege.

The government talked about military tribunals for US citizens or for trials of persons charged under US law while US courts were available to handle the cases. There was even talk about sending Arabs or Muslims suspected of terrorism to Israel to have them interrogated by means of torture, if necessary. The government talked about making informants out of postal workers and utilities’ employees to spy on the public—to be "tipsters".

Profiling of Arabs and Muslims

The word "terrorist" was made to be associated with Arabs or Muslims because most Americans were uniformed about the Middle East or Southwest Asia, and the attacks on 9/11 gave the unscrupulous the opportunity to promote an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim campaign. Ethnic profiling or religious profiling suddenly became acceptable in the interests of national security. A great many Americans do not know that all Arabs are not Muslim, and that all Muslims are not Arab. While the vast majority of the people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are Muslim, they are not Arab. Most Muslims are not in the Middle East; they are in Indonesia.

The point is that profiling is merely harassment and does not insure our national security. Remember that Padilla—the "dirty bomb" guy—was a Puerto Rican. Remember that Germany and France and Britain had Al Qaeda hiding in those countries. Should we profile people from those European countries? Should we attack them?

AMERICA IS ABOUT OUR RIGHTS

I have been practicing criminal law for over 30 years—half as a state level prosecutor—and the other half as a defense attorney practicing in city, state, federal and military courts. I have seen an ominous attitude emerge in this country—a mob-like attitude which wants to get the "bad guy" no matter what it takes, no matter what law enforcement methods are used, no matter if some innocent people are accidentally harmed. The so-called war on terror has some of that aura to it. After all, "You’re either with us or with the terrorists".

America means many things to different people. To me, America means a way of life with a lot of choice and freedom to get educated or not, get a job or not, be involved in free enterprise or not, learn a trade or not, to participate in the political process or not. I believe in the freedoms the creators of the Constitution for our government devised. I believe America is about our rights stated in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence.

I believe in freedom of religion as long as religion is not mandatory or becomes a state religion as in Saudi Arabia or Israel.

I believe in freedom of speech to air opposing views and spark debate. I believe in a free press not controlled by government or any other group.

I believe in the rights of association or assembly, and the right to tell the government we want it to do or not do something.

I believe in the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that the government should not violate our right to privacy and should conduct searches with the proper warrants properly reviewed by impartial judges.

I believe in the individual’s right not to have to incriminate himself.

I believe that a person should only be charged with a serious crime by an impartial grand jury or judge.

I believe that a person has a right to be tried by an impartial judge and jury of his peers, and that he has a right to be represented by counsel at trial and on appeal.

I believe that an accused has a right to fair bail and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

I believe that these rights extend to all US citizens and to those subject to US jurisdiction in this country. I do not believe 9/11 is an excuse to abandon the principles this country was founded on. We are becoming more and more a police state whose goal it is to control the populace under the guise of providing security, and I do not believe the tragedy of 9/11 justifies the President of the United States or his Attorney General to deny Americans and others the rights granted to them by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

CONCLUSION

We need to ask questions and not be stampeded into giving up our rights.

We must make our voices heard in all manners and methods possible or we will become slaves to an arrogant, elite few who somehow think they are the chosen ones to enslave us. Lean on the media, the talk shows, and the politicians to get them to do the right thing for a change. The terrorists took some innocent lives and destroyed property. Our government, on the other hand, took, and is taking, our sacred freedoms and rights that countless other lives were sacrificed for in order to preserve them.

Top of Page

SHOULD AMERICA USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ OR ISRAEL?

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 and Russia 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?

I believe that there may be a combination of reasons why Bush would attack Iraq, but the main reason is because Iraq is a threat to Israel.

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.

9/12/02
Top of page

WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT INVADE IRAQ

AMERICA’S WAR ON IRAQ

There may be many reasons why the United States feels the need to be at war with Iraq. The "party line" has been that Saddam Hussein is evil; he has weapons of mass destruction; he is a threat to the United States; he has violated UN resolutions; etc.

This writer believes 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).

The thinking from the pro-Israeli, neo-conservative policymakers has been that after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the United States would have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran, be in a better position to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and become less reliant on Saudi oil. (id.).

In a letter to George W. Bush released on the eve of his State of the Union Address, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), called for an increase in the defense budget by as much as $100 billion next year to deal with potential military problems around the world including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Central Asia as well as Korea, Iran, and China. The letter notes that removing Saddam Hussein is "…the first step in carrying out your (Bush’s) strategic vision for the Middle East…". (See "Pump Up the Pentagon, Hawks Tell Bush" by Jim Lobe, January 28, 2003, reprinted courtesy of the Project Against the Present Danger, www.presentdanger.org).

Some of these pro-Israeli neo-conservatives who support PNAC are Rupert Murdoch, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Robert Kagan, Peter Rodman, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Perle. PNAC is closely tied to the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) from which it rents office space. (id.).

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 cease-fire with Iran has allowed Iraq to resume its bid for leadership and influence within the Arab world. Iraq ended the war with one of the largest and best-equipped military forces in the world...

Even though it enjoys a significant post-war military advantage over Iran, Iraq continues to import arms. Of greater concern, however, is its domestic arms industry, the most advanced in the region.

Although generally mistrustful of the U.S., Iraq would welcome measured U.S. participation in its economic development. Currently, oil exports make it America’s second largest Middle Eastern trading partner. The U.S. should continue to develop its contacts with Iraq by building selectively on existing political and economical relationships..." (See Reprint of a Witness Statement Before the Senate Appropriations Committee by Gen. H. Norman Schwartzkopf, Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, on March 6, 1990, Air War College Associate Studies Vol., II, LSN 33, 1^st Ed., pp. 80-103).

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.

So why did the US have to go to war with Iraq? Was it really because Iraq invaded 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).

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.

After the set-up, the lies began.

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. They 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. The photos were never released, and Russian Satellite photos show 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.

As previously stated, 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. 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 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, Jewish influence, through AIPAC, pressured the "doves" in Congress to give Bush the authority to commit U.S. troops to combat in Iraq. (See "Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S Troops to Combat", Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991, pp. A14-A15).

The propaganda war commenced 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).

Another reason spouted off 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; however, 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 DIA found that both Iran and Iraq used gas against each other in the battle around Halabja.

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).

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. What were the overall effects of the U.S. air raids in the Persian Gulf War? Greenpeace, the environmental protection organization conducted interviews with international relief workers, reporters, U.S. officials, and news reports. Greenpeace’s report said that over 150,000 people died as a result of the war with Iraq and at least 5 million lost their homes or jobs. (See "Gulf War Resulted In 150,000 Deaths, Greenpeace Says", Arizona Republic, May 29, 1991, p. A10).

The majority of the bombing casualties were caused by "dumb" bombs and by the 12 million to 16 million bomblets released by an estimated 60,000 to 80,000 cluster bombs dropped by allied planes. (Ibid.).

As much as the U.S. media (which was fed its information by the military) portrayed the "smart bombs" striking targets, the truth is that the majority of the munitions hurled on Iraq and Kuwait were "dumb" bombs. Allied jets dropped 88,500 tons of