|
July 10, 2002
Bernard Weiner
Hope and
Despair in
the Body Politic
Gary Leupp
European
Worries and
Bush's Terror War
July 9, 2002
St. Clair / Cockburn
The Atomic
Clock is Ticking:
All Roads Lead to Yucca Mtn.
Jack McCarthy
Florida:
a Terrorist Sanctuary for Bush's Bloody Pals?
Robert Fisk
How a Saudi
Billionaire
Does Beirut
Stanton and Madsen
God, Incorporated
Kurt Nimmo
IDF, Gangbanging
with Tanks
Bill Christison
Disastrous
Foreign Policies
of the US Part 3:
What Can We Do About It?
July 8, 2002
Rick Mercier
Yucca
Mountain Bound
Lev Grinberg
The
BUSHARON Global War
Tariq Ali
How Bush
Used 9/11 to Remap the World
Lori Allen
The Tugs
of War:
Palestinian Life Under Curfew
July 7, 2002
Alexander Cockburn
White
House Crooks
July 6, 2002
Gavin Keeney
Loose
Lips:
Liberty, Democracy & Bush
Michael Neumann
What's
So Bad About Israel?
Steve Baughman
Ashcroft's
Vendetta:
Lynching John Lindh
July 5, 2002
Ahmad Faruqui
Bush Freezes Peace Process
Todd May
Independence
and Terrorism
Rahul Mahajan
Why I
Won't Celebrate the Fourth of July This Year
July 4, 2002
S. Brian Willson
What
the Flag Means to Me
Philip Farruggio
Independence Day and
the Working Poor
Tom Gorman
The Uncommon
Pledge
of Allegiance
Chris Floyd
Jungle
Fever:
Bush's Bolivian Mercenaries
July 3, 2002
Francis Boyle
The Death
of the Oslo Accords
Mokhiber / Weissman
Cracking
Down on Corp. Crime
Robert Jensen
Lynne
Cheney's Primer
Behzad Yaghmaian
An Alternative
to the G-8s Africa Initiative
Toward a Global AIDS Fund and a Living Wage
John Borowski
Public
Schools Under Seige
Norman Madarasz
Brazil,
the Workers' Party and the Financial Times
July 2, 2002
Leah Wells
The Wedding
Was a Bomb
CounterPunch Wire
Trial of
the SOA 37
Edward Hammond
Bombing
the Mind:
The Pentagon's Drug Warfare
Sam Bahour
Ramallah
Occupied:
Uninvited Guests Become Neighbors
July 1, 2002
Norman Madarasz
Brazil's
Triumph
June 28/30, 2002
Kathleen Christison
The True Story of Resolution
242 or How the US Sold Out
the Palestinians
Cockburn / St. Clair
Death,
Juries and Scalia
Tarif Abboushi
Bush's
Double Standard
on Israel
N.D. Jayaprakash
Seething
with Rage:
The Palestinian Saga
Michael Yates
Taking
the Pledge:
Teachers and the Flag
Stephen Zunes
Bush's
Speech a Setback
for Peace
Walt Brasch
The Pledge
v. The Constitution
Cockburn / St. Clair
Strikers
as Terrorists?
Tom Ridge Calls Longshoremen
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
July
10, 2002
Bush's Middle East
Plan:
Ever-Changing,
Never-Changing
by Nassar Ibrahim and
Dr. Majed Nassar
Mr. Bush finally spoke. And the Palestinian people,
in spite of their experience with US foreign policy during the
past fifty years, listened carefully, hoping that they would
hear something new, something hopeful.
In their naïve optimism, they thought
that maybe the US administration had modified slightly its anti-Palestinian
policy. Or maybe, after all the visits and meetings and clarifications,
it had reconsidered its foreign policy and could offer something
balanced and morally just, on par with its acclaimed moral status
in the international arena.
During those brief ten minutes, however,
it became devastatingly clear that politics and policies are
not the result of diplomatic courtesies or charming rhetoric
exchanged politely around a negotiating table. Policies and politics
are founded on the protection of the interests of the powerful
(who will go to great lengths to maintain their power).
Mr. Bush and the US administration had
a unique opportunity to regain some of the respect and credibility
they had lost in front of the millions of people suffering from
the oppression and injustice that result from the double-standards
of US foreign policy. The simplistic "vision" for solving
the conflict that Mr. Bush delivered to the Palestinians exposed
not only the colonialist mentality on which US foreign policy
is based, but also a complete bias toward Israel.
His first premise is that Israelis, as
victims of terror, have the right to defend themselves. This
obviously translates into the belief that the Palestinian resistance
movement is a movement of terror and, as such, is the root of
the problem. No mention is made, of course, that Israel's illegal
occupation of Palestinian lands may be the root of the problem.
In self-defense, Israel apparently has the right to use any and
all tactics "necessary" to combat terrorism -- assassination,
brutal siege of captive civilian populations, arbitrary restriction
of movement, etc.
During the brief time it took Mr. Bush
to articulate his "vision," the occupation army had
assassinated six Palestinians from Gaza, among them three brothers.
And just after the speech, Israeli tanks invaded Hebron and killed
four more Palestinians. Israel presently occupies almost all
Palestinian cities and villages in the West Bank and is imposing
a 24-hour curfew on two million people.
Mr. Bush prides himself on his discovery
of the formula for peace in the Middle East: new Palestinian
leadership must be "found," so that a Palestinian state
can be born. Mr. Bush has conveniently decided that President
Arafat is the obstacle to peace. Not the Israeli occupation.
Not the illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Mr.
Bush apparently believes that the solution to the conflict will
come about in spite of the Israeli occupation and the continued
presence of the occupation army. And he is prepared to work together
with Israel to force the Palestinians to accept this solution.
Mr. Bush's "logic" is clear.
Israeli suffering must be stopped. The cause of this suffering,
namely the Palestinian resistance (terror) movement, must be
stopped. Since the Palestinian leadership (Palestinian Authority)
is unable to stop the resistance movement, it must be changed.
This change in leadership must be brought about through democratic
elections, provided that the newly-elected leadership has nothing
to do with the resistance movement against occupation. In order
to ensure an "appropriate" new leadership, the elections
must be held according to US and Israeli criteria while the occupation
continues.
In the meantime, various Palestinian
security services must be restructured. The focus of these services
would be to subdue the Palestinian people and their resistance
activities, as well as to guarantee the security of the Israeli
population.
What Israel was unable to achieve in
35 years of military occupation, with its superior army, secret
police, and methods of collective oppression, should now be achieved
through a new Palestinian Authority and its restructured security
services. Its success would probably be measured by the number
of Palestinians imprisoned or killed while resisting the Israeli
occupation. Years ago, many political activists feared that the
Oslo agreement, even if implemented properly, would produce a
small Vichy government. Now it seems that this Vichy government
is being established.
Mr. Bush did happen to mention the establishment
of a Palestinian State. But rather than being founded as a result
of the resistance movement, it should come to life through the
grace of the United States, and only after Mr. Bush decides that
he is content with the outcome of Palestinian elections and the
new (puppet) leadership. Is this the "democracy" touted
by Mr. Bush?
What if the Palestinians elect Mr. Arafat
again?
Mr. Bush has stipulated three tasks that
must be accomplished:
1. The annihilation of the Palestinian
national resistance movement, since it has been declared a terror
organization. This includes the suppression of all historical
Palestinian political parties that oppose US policies, as well
as the election of a new Palestinian leadership that can provide
security for Israel. 2. The restructuring of Palestinian security
services that would then be used to oppress the population (strikingly
similar to the situation in many other Arab regimes). 3. The
creation of an economic system modeled on the US vision, and
under full control of the IMF, the World Bank, and other similar
entities.
In order to ensure the success of this
process, the US must remain in control. This means that:
1. Any Palestinian state with potential
to be approved by Bush would be temporary. This allows the US
to easily withdraw its backing if the elected leaders do not
conform to US policies. 2. The entire election process would
be implemented while Palestinians remain under complete Israeli
occupation. (Perhaps this is what Mr. Bush means when he speaks
of free and democratic elections.) 3. The three-year designated
time frame for the process ensures that any outcome could be
sufficiently controlled.
Underlying everything, of course, is
the threat that if the Palestinian leadership refuses to play
by the rules, they will be kicked out of the game. (Slightly
reminiscent of Mr. Clinton's ultimatum to Mr. Arafat in January
2001: If you do not sign the agreement, Israel will wage war
against you with the support of the United States.)
All is clear so far.
But when Mr. Bush attempts to articulate
the final aim of his vision, we are met with an ambiguity that
seems to indicate his unwillingness to take a definitive stand.
What we are left with is: The negotiations between both parties
will determine the outcome.
How are we to interpret such an ambiguous
conclusion to an otherwise crystal clear plan of action?
Mr. Bush happened to mention that the
Israeli occupation that began in 1967 should end, according to
UN resolutions 242 and 338. He even stated that Israel must withdraw
to secure and recognized borders that will be determined through
negotiations by both parties. What he failed to mention, however,
was that within the context of a thirty-five year military occupation,
the phenomenon of suicide attacks began only recently. What does
this have to say about the "root of the problem?"
Mr. Bush knows that Israel is confiscating
more land and building more settlements. He sees the efforts
expended to continue the occupation. And yet, the paternalistic
language he uses when speaking to Israel can only be understood
as words of unconditional support and understanding -- the language
of an ally and an accomplice. Even the demand for Israel to comply
with and execute the US-patented Mitchell Plan is now connected
to Palestinian compliance with US conditions.
A couple of months ago, when asked about
the implementation of the Mitchell Plan and Israeli withdrawal,
Mr. Bush replied in no uncertain terms: Israel must withdraw
NOW.not tomorrow, not next week.but IMMEDIATELY. His "new
vision," however, has no apparent connection to previous
demands. Instead, without naming any time frame, he simply says
that Israeli forces need to withdraw fully to positions they
held prior to 28 September 2000.
More omissions: Mr. Bush made no mention
of Israel's plan to construct "walls of apartheid."
He obviously has no idea of the magnitude of suffering that will
be caused by these walls. He probably has not even realized that
these walls will be built on occupied territory, in clear violation
of all international conventions. Mr. Bush does not even acknowledge
the assassinations or the wanton destruction of Palestinian infrastructure
or the 24-hour curfews imposed on every Palestinian child, woman,
and man. All is justified, it seems, as Israel's right to "self-defense."
(And God forbid that one should call the Palestinians "victims"
of "terror!")
When Mr. Bush responded to the Arab initiative
presented during the Summit in Beirut, he called on all Arab
countries to normalize their relations with Israel even before
it withdrew from the territories. But he did not stop there.
Arab leaders, he said, should fight terrorism (as defined by
the US administration). To paraphrase Mr. Bush: "Those who
are not with us are against us. And those who are against us
have aligned themselves with the axis of evil and very soon will
experience the wrath of the United States." Instead of taking
advantage of the opportunity to challenge the United States,
the Arab leaders reverted to their former submissiveness and
more or less agreed to comply with US dictates.
As the world's guardian of moral norms,
Mr. Bush saw no need to address the European community or other
countries. He is apparently satisfied with Europe's role to pick
up the pieces left by the occupation and to pay the cost of whatever
is needed in the wake of the destruction wrought by occupation.
And so, Mr. Bush finally spoke. Unfortunately,
he got it all wrong.
1. The Palestinian cause and the Palestinian/Israeli
conflict are more complex than Mr. Bush's simplistic "vision"
can capture. Blind Palestinian compliance with US and Israeli
demands is not a solution. 2. The logic of power and the Israeli
military occupation have not been able to crush the Palestinian
resistance movement during the past 35 years. Palestinian culture
has become a culture of resistance due to the occupation. This
culture includes an awareness of injustice, an experience of
humiliation, a vision for a better future, and a firm determination
to gain freedom and independence. Unjust dictates and imposed
solutions will be totally rejected, especially if they do not
address issues of basic human rights. 3. The collective memory
of the world community is deeper and more complex than Mr. Bush
realizes. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
4. The simple fact remains: the Israeli occupation alone is the
root of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
If Mr. Bush truly understands the "deep
anger and despair of the Palestinian people," then he must
also understand that the occupation must end before anything
else can be achieved.
If Mr. Bush honestly believes that the
"interests of the Palestinian people are held hostage to
a comprehensive peace agreement that never seems to come, as
your lives get worse year by year," then he must understand
that the occupation must end before anything else can be achieved.
If Mr. Bush honestly believes that we
"deserve democracy and the rule of law.an open society and
a thriving economy," then he must understand that the occupation
must end before anything else can be achieved.
If Mr. Bush believes that we "deserve
a life of hope for our children," then he must understand
that the occupation must end before anything else can be achieved.
Only when the occupation is ended can
"libertyblossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza."
Only when the occupation is ended can liberty "inspire millions
of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty
and oppression, equally entitled to the benefits of democratic
government."
Either the occupation is ended once and
for all or the doors of history will remain open for the conflict
to continue, with or without the United States.
Nassar Ibrahim
works with the Alternative Information Center and Dr. Majed
Nassar is deputy director of Health Work Communities. They
may be reached at bsmc@p-ol.com.
Today's
Features
Bernard Weiner
Hope and
Despair in the Body Politic
Gary Leupp
Europeans
and Bush's Terror War
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|