Dr. Mark A. Foster's Editorials at SocioSphere

Well, in King George's speech this evening, he proclaimed the U.S. as the defender of civilization? Civilization? Civilization? What civilization? The imposition of an American vision of freedom on the rest of the world? As Ambassador Richard Butler said, that is, some might argue, hardly freedom.

From the Memri.org email list:

Special Alert - Jihad and Terrorism Studies

February 26, 2003

No. 7

To view this Special Alert in HTML format, please visit:

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SA703

Islamist Website: An Imminent Terrorist Attack (Possibly by Al-Qa'ida) Within "About Ten Days" (Apparently in the U.S.)

On February 24th, an Islamist website, www.alfjr.com(1) - published a religious exhortation containing text announcing an imminent terror attack, apparently to take place in the U.S. The author signed the announcement by the moniker "The Prince of Philosophy." The message also appeared on the Islamist website www.arabforum.net (as copied from alfjr.com). On several occasions in the exhortation, the author claims that the attack is imminent ("the train of death is on its way... nothing will stop its riders") and that only an order from their commander is needed before the attack is carried out. Two pictures of bin Laden were added to the exhortation, one with an image of the World Trade Center in flames, hinting, possibly, to an Al-Qa'ida connection. The following is the main part of the exhortation:

'Here is Victory Appearing on the Horizon... Here is the Dawn of Islam'

"Allah Akbar [Allah is the greatest], Allah Akbar. Here is victory appearing in the horizon."

"Allah Akbar, here is the dawn of Islam that has arrived to bring an end to the night of unbelief, collaboration [with foreign powers], and hypocrisy."

"Allah Akbar, die with your anger, oh herds of error. Allah Akbar, die with your wrath, oh gangs of [unjust Muslim] rulers. Allah Akbar, oh slaves: all of you are big slaves and small slaves, you and your masters."

"Your shrouds are woven with gun powder and smoke, and your coffins are shells of fire and spearheads."

"There is no rescue, nor escaping the earth, with all of its width and length [it] belongs to our Lord, the skies and their horizons belong to our Lord. You have nothing, oh slaves of the cross and slaves of the Dirham and Dinnar [currency used in the Arab world]."

'Our Dead Go to Paradise and Yours Go to Hell... Rejoice, Oh Lovers of the Hur [i.e. the Black-Eyed Virgins of Paradise] and the Gardens [of Paradise]'

"Allah is our ally and you have no ally. Our dead go to Paradise and yours go to Hell, and how bad is their fate."

"Allah Akbar. It is Paradise, a paradise as wide as the whole skies and earth. Rejoice, oh lovers of the Hur [i.e., the black-eyed virgins of Paradise] and the gardens [of Paradise]"

"Allah Akbar, it is the clear victory and the great triumph [promised by Allah]. By Allah, if you knew what I know, you would laugh much and you would go to your trenches crying with extreme joy, while you carry your arms."

"Allah Akbar, here are the heroic soldiers of the Truth. They have taken their positions and raised their swords and they shielded themselves with the protection and support of Allah."

"Here Are the Lions Ready to Set Out, Waiting to Hear the [Battle Cry] 'Allah Akbar' Coming from their Commander"

"Allah Akbar. Here are the lions ready to set out, waiting to hear the [battle cry] 'Allah Akbar' coming from their commander, to assault with speed, with the heat of a volcano, and the bombardment of thunders."

"Allah Akbar, how long was the dark night, its darkness will no longer besiege us."

"Oh the raiders for Allah, hurry on your way to crush this unbelief, oh the raiders for Allah."

'The People of Islamic Lands... Have Left to Encounter the Enemy'

"Allah Akbar, oh the people of Islamic lands, your brethren have left to encounter the enemy with firm resolve and conviction of victory, Allah willing."

"You should offer supplications. Continue with [supplications] and do not stop. Do not stop asking Allah's forgiveness and recite His name, so that victory should come from Him,"

"Oh lions of Islam, may our appointed time be tonight and every night in the prayer niches of the Exalted One so that we align our feet before Allah, He who has all power, kingship, and greatness."

'The Coming Blows... Meet the Enemy Inside His Own Home [Country]'

"We beseech Him and humble ourselves before Him and implore Him to direct the coming blows [right to the targets] and to protect our brethren who went out to meet the enemy inside his own home [country]."

'It is Only a Matter of a Few Days, a Little More'

"You, our brethren, be firm and keep the path and hide in waiting and prostration [as in prayer] for it is only a matter of a few days, a little more than ten or less until we hear the cry announcing to us the good tidings of Allah's victory [coming] by the hands of our brethren, the Jihad fighters. This is a serious matter and not a joke."

'The Operations Have Already Been Set and the Lions Have Taken their Positions'

"The operations have already been set and the lions have taken their positions and everything is complete. They are only waiting for permission from the heroic commander."

"Whatever the enemy may do, he will never be able, Allah willing, to thwart anything. The brigades for the main missions are ready. They are supported by their brethren, members of the supporting brigades and the reserve brigades. The alternative plans are ready."

"Hence, whatever the enemy of Allah may do, he shall not be able to harm us, Allah willing."

'The Train of Death is on its Way'

"The train of death is on its way. Its riders are steadfast. Nothing will stop them or turn them back, Allah willing, from the goal: neither the bushes of the enemy nor his weeds, neither his reptiles [nor] his lizards will stop its progress."

"There is no force or advancement, except from Allah, the All-Powerful..."

"It is only a matter of a few days so be patient. We will come out and announce to you the news of the great victory."

"And so I repeat: supplications, supplications, supplications, supplications to Allah..."

"We implore Allah, to protect them [the Jihad fighters]... and to take away from them [the enemies'] hearing and sight."

'Oh Allah, This is America... Destroy it and Shake it and All who Walk in its Line'

"Oh Allah, this is America... destroy it and shake it and all who walk in its line and entrenches with it... There is no god but you, the exalted..."

Endnote:

(1)http://www.alfjr.com/showthread.php?s=53b79d480414980d0db52c9247aadcd8&threadid=135372, February 24, 2003. According to Networksolutions, www.alfjr.com is registered to AlFajr, located in Paris, France. DomainValet Support Department, located in Bellevue, Washington, is listed as the website's technical contact.

Full Transcript of Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcript: Saddam Hussein Interview

February 26, 2003

This interview was taped on February 24, 2003, by Iraqi TV crews, as is standard practice for Hussein, and the Iraqis delivered a tape that combined all three cameras into one composite feed. However, as far as we can determine, the content of the interview is intact. There are places in the tape where two people are talking at once and there are repetitions. This is a transcript of that composite tape and we apologize if it is confusing in places.

Note: in almost every case, the translator is translating what Saddam Hussein has just said in Arabic. In a few minor cases, the translator is speaking for himself to Dan Rather.

Rather: I want to ask questions in two categories, please. Category one would be those questions that I think many, if not most, of Americans would like to have answered about the news of right now. And in category two, more philosophical questions.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The news are with you. News are almost (UNINTEL) (Editor�s Note: �UNINTEL� refers to a sound or word that the transcriber finds unintelligible.) different way. But the facts news are there, with you.

Rather: Mr. President, do you intend to destroy the Al-Samoud missiles that the United Nations prohibits? Will you destroy those missiles?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: We have committed ourselves to Resolution. We're implementing that resolution in accordance with what the United Nations wants us to do. It is on this basis that we have conducted ourselves, and it is on this basis that we will continue to behave. As you know, it a-- is allowed to produce - r- r- land-land rockets, with a range of up to 150 kilometers. And we are committed to that.

Rather: I want to make sure that I understand, Mr. President. So, you do not intend to destroy these missiles?

(SKIP IN TAPE)

Rather: Mr. President, I do appreciate your agreeing to spend an hour, because I want to ask questions in two categories, please.

Rather: So, you do not intend to destroy these missiles?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Which is that? Which missiles are you talking about? We do not have missiles that go beyond the prescribed ranges, by the�U.N. The inspection teams have been here. They have inspected every place. And if there is a question to that effect, I think the question should be addressed to them.

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I think the United States and the world also knows that there is - I think the U.S. and the world know that Iraq is - no longer has the (UNINTEL)-- weapons. And--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: You have started your questions with the sort of (UNINTEL) and (UNINTEL), but not with the - However, you're free to (UNINTEL) whichever way you'd like.

Rather: B--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: May I translate?

Rather: Yes, please.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Thank you. The President says, the United States - the world - knows that there is nothing in Iraq of� whatever the noise has been made about. And I believe that that noise and the fleets that have been brought around and the mobilization that's been done were, in fact, done partly to cover the huge lie that was being waged against Iraq about chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

And it was on that basis that Iraq actually accepted Resolution - accepted it, even though Iraq was absolutely certain that what it had said, what the Iraqi officials�had kept saying, that� Iraq was empty, was void of any such weapons, was the case. But Iraq accepted that resolution� in order not to allow any misinterpretation of its position.

And, indeed, in order to make the case absolutely clear that Iraq was no longer in possession of any such�weapons. Iraq accepted to agree to deal with that resolution. That is why, when you talk about such missiles, these missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations in Iraq.

These missiles were des - missiles that were proscribed - have been destroyed and are no longer there.

Rather: What do you consider to be the core issues? You said that I had started - and indeed, I started with the news of the day. But what do you consider to be the core issue, the basic issue?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: In all divine religions, god, the Almighty, has reiterated to man in all his Holy Books and to humanity, in general, that there are two basic, most important things in life, that is, after the issue of the creation and of the issue of faith.

These two important things are food and peace. This is in Islam, this is also in Christianity and in all the other religions. So, the most important thing for man in his life and the preservation of his life and preservation of the lives of others is to establish peace and security for himself and, through that, his right to life.

Not only to obtain food, but also to obtain - to insure peace, and so that man can exercise his right in life and exercise his role towards others in the same way as he would like others to exercise their roles.

Rather: Mr. President, do you expect to be attacked by an American-led invasion?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: We hope that the attack will not take place. But we are bracing ourselves to meet such an attack, to face it. I'm sure you've observed the general life in Iraq. You've been here for a few days now. We hope that such a possibility doesn't take place, but you've been here. You've been here for a few days, and you've seen how the people live. They live normally. They get married. They establish relationships. They visit each other. They visit their neighbors.

They travel around Iraq. They are enjoying life in the manner that life is provided. But at the same time, they also hear the news�because the officials in the United States keep talking about attacking Iraq, about the possibility of attacking Iraq, which is why the people are in Iraq, which is only natural - that they get prepared for such a possibility.

Even though, God Almighty invites us�and we hope that -- we pray to him that -- the Americans will refrain from such an eventuality -- to avoid both the Americans -- to spare the Americans from committing such a mistake -- and also to spare Iraq and the Iraqi people from being involved in such an experience. And those who would like to ride the bandwagon of evil, it's up to them.

Rather: Are you afraid of being killed or captured?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Whatever Allah decides. We are believers. We believe in what he decides. There is no value for any life without imam, without faith. The believers, while taking caution and care and trying to veer out and avoid any dangers and any traps that may be prepared by his enemies, in order not to fall on them, the believer still believes that what God decides is acceptable.

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: When we were--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Bear with me. I - my - my answers are (UNINTEL) long.

Rather: Mr. President, I have all night. (LAUGHTER)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: When we were young, ordinary people in� Iraq, before, the Iraqi people had suffered a lot of deprivation and backwardness. People did not even find - many people did not even find.

Male Voice: Are you satisfied with translation?

Rather: Yes, no, the translation is excellent. It's superb.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Did you - people - generally did not even find - shoes to wear, in those days. And - people in the countryside were deprived of most essential things in life. And people even in the city were deprived of the most basic - requirements for a decent life. For a simple life.

We, those days, decided to place ourselves to the service of our people, and I'm not going to indulge in a story about what we did for our people and the sacrifices that we made and the dangers that we went through in order to insure for our people the dignity that our people deserve, because this is a story well known, and I am not going to indulge into that.

But in those days, we did not ask the question whether we were going to live or die, but we simply relied on Allah and we moved ahead. We relied on God because we decided that what Allah brought will be acceptable.

The important thing, the basic thing, is that whatever Allah accepts will be in the service of the people and now, after having achieved all this march, having reached what we have reached, now we've become leaders of the country. Some of my comrades are ministers and vice presidents and the rest. We're not going to ask ourselves now whether we should change our course or whether we should ask about life and death.

MALE VOICE: It's morally unacceptable to ask such a question.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: How could we ask such a question when we, basically, as freedom fighters, did not ask it at the beginning? The people accepted us and accepted the fact of our revolution and the principles of our revolution, and they have committed themselves to them. And I do not believe that any officials in this place now should ask a question whether he's going to live or die.

The question should be how deeply in strength he remains to his commitment to the people, to the basic principles from which we proceeded. And whatever the will of God is, then the will of God will be there. Nothing is going to change the will of God.

Male Voice: (UNINTEL) to- to the - Iraqi people, and humanity in general, also.

Rather: I understand. Mr. President, Americans are very much concerned about anyone's connections to Osama bin Laden. Do you have, have you had, any connections to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Is this the basis of the anxiety in the minds of U.S. officials? Or is it the basis of anxiety in the minds of the people of the United States?

Rather: Mr. President, I believe I can report accurately that it's a major concern in the minds of the people in the United States.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: This issue, this topic did not appear�amongst the concerns of U.S. officials until - that is, about any relationship between Iraq and Osama bin Laden -- until recently. That is when they realized that what they had been saying about Iraq -- that Iraq was probably in possession of proscribed weapons of mass destruction -- or that Iraq might have manufactured some of those weapons after �.If that was the case, then that would be an embarrassment to the United Nations.

Then they began talking about the possibility of Iraq having relations with Osama bin Laden. Mr. Tony B- (GLITCH) actually asked me the same question, when I (UNINTEL). And I answered him, and I will answer you now very clearly. We have never had any relationship with Mr. Osama bin Laden, and Iraq has never had any relationship with Al Qaeda. And I think that Mr. Bin Laden himself has recently, in one of his speeches, given such an answer -- that we have no relation with him.

Rather: Do you or do you not agree, in principle, with the attack of 9/11?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Let me tell you absolutely clearly: Our principles are not just national or pan-Arab, but they are humane principles. We believe in humanity. We believe that the world must seek to find opportunities for peace, not opportunities for war or opportunities for fighting or opportunities for venting or harming others. These are principles in which we believed before we came to power. And we started living on those principles and the message and with our people when came to power. But we believe, in accordance with what Allah has -- the Almighty, God Almighty -- has taught us, in the same way that God has taught humanity as a whole -- and whatever religion they may believe in -- that there must be a law governing humanity and governing relations in humanity, that there should not be an aggressor while others are silent about the aggression. There should not be a killer while those who watch and applaud the killing. There should not be an occupier of the land belonging to others while there are those who keep quiet and never move to remove the occupation.

In brief, to sum up: We believe in the charter of the United States (Editor�s note: although the transcription says �United States,� the context suggests that Saddam, or the translator, may have meant to say �United Nations�.) and that gives us the right to say that when we are aggressed. When we are aggressed against, it is our right to face up to the aggression, to confront the aggression. And the charter of the United Nations was not actually drafted by Muslims or the Muslim nation. It was drafted by Christian nations, even though we believe in it and we accept it and we go by its articles.

Rather: Mr. President, have you been offered asylum anywhere? And would you, under any circumstances, consider going into exile to save your people death and destruction?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I can understand the motive behind your question, which is excitement. This is a very American style, and� it may not be liked by some, but I can understand. However, I will answer your question. Thank you. I was born here in Iraq. And I was born as a genuine (UNINTEL) believer.

I am proud to have been born fearing God, and I have taught my children the value of history and the value of human stands - the stands that are taken on the basis of imam, taken by men, taken by everyone. The whole community, men and women.

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: His Excellency also said that I have been teaching my children the importance of -- he's proud to have been born here and he taught his children the importance of -- extreme importance of -- imam and that the part of our - her - imam heritage: That we must maintain the honor of nationalism and pan-Arabism. The importance of that is essential to the nation and to the Arab nation.

And now, I am also teaching this to my grandchildren�.I have always talked to the Iraqi people in this sense, since the days of our underground freedom fighting. I believe that any official who talks to his people and to others -- indeed, to humanity, in general, about principles and being honest and genuine in what he says about -- will not be -- will be very strange for him, once he's become in power, to change his stand.

And then we can talk about how to protect himself. We do not change our position. Our position is basic. We have been born in Iraq. This is part of a glorious nation, a great Arab nation, and we have lived here. God has blessed us with -- through the Iraqi people - with a task and the responsibility that has brought us to this position and that we will not change. As for those who talk about asylum--

Male Voice: This is why we will also die in Iraq. Or, within the--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That is why, talking about asylum, we will -- whoever decides to forsake his nation from whoever requests is not true to the principles. We will die here. We will die in this country, and we will maintain our honor, the honor that is required of -- in front of our people.

You may have asked questions that maybe attribute to some excitement to the press. But, let me ask you another exciting question. Let me say something also exciting. I believe that whoever asks Saddam to - or offers Saddam asylum in his own country - is, in fact, a person without morals, because he will be directing an insult to the Iraqi people, the Iraqi people who have chosen Saddam Hussein, unanimously, to continue to lead the people of Iraq, and because he will be saying to the people of Iraq, 'Let Saddam leave and leave you without leadership.' Whoever offers such asylum.

And, after all, you talk and I understand, as a journalist, this may be important for television. You talk, you ask such a question and, of course, naturally, you seek an answer. But whoever believes in faith, and faith that should not be manufactured by a foreign country�

Translator For Saddam Hussein: (??)�It's mistaken. Fate is not made by a foreign country. We believe in Allah, and Allah alone decides what fate is going to be. However strong a country may be, however powerful, they cannot change the will of other people. They cannot destroy or direct the will of other people. I live here and we will continue to defend our freedom. We live here in freedom, and our people will continue to defend their freedom, their sanctity, their honor and their country.

Rather: Again, I have plenty of time, Mr. President.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: You remember that in , when Mr. Tariq Aziz, as Foreign Minister, had a meeting with Secretary James Baker -- that was in January in Geneva. Baker threatened Tariq Aziz with something that he hoped that Tariq Aziz would bring back to�the government of Iraq.

And the fact that was the United States was going to push Iraq back into the pre-industrial age. And you remember that, I'm sure. The American onslaught on Iraq continued for more than a month and a half, using , warplanes with, of course, the Tomahawks hitting Iraq from everywhere including the Naval, you know, naval ships and naval pieces.

And they used more than , helicopters, even though they did not destroy Iraq. They did not push Iraq, as they have threatened, to the pre-industrial age.

They destroyed bridges, they destroyed churches, mosques, colleges, buildings, plants. They destroyed places, houses, palaces. They killed people, and elderly, but they did not push Iraq back into the pre-industrial age.

The Iraqis have subsequently reconstructed everything in determination and having relied on Allah, the Almighty. And then they began, after that, talking about Iraq having -- that is, after UNSCOM had been withdrawn from Iraq on instruction from the U.S. government, they began talking about Iraq�

Rather: (UNINTEL)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: They began talking about Iraq possibly having produced WMD, weapons of mass destruction, after and that they have information or data to that effect. We have said that Iraq has not produced any such weapons. What does that mean? It means that what they had threatened with -- pushing Iraq back into the pre-industrial age - had not actually taken place, that they could not do that to Iraq, what they had threatened Iraq with in - through Baker in - had not taken place. So nobody can metamorphosis. Nobody can sort of take Iraq apart. That is not fair to the will of Allah, and it's not fair to the people of Iraq who are facing the difficulties in resolve and through serious work and through creativity.

We hope that war will not take place, but if war is forced upon us, then Iraq will continue to be here, will continue to be there. This country, with a history of over , years, this country, the cradle of the first civilizations for humanity, will not finish just like that, even though a huge power may want it to be like that.

Nobody should accept that Iraq will finish in such a way despite the will of the (UNINTEL).

Rather: Mr. President, you're being very patient with your time, and I want you to know I consider this a solemn moment in history, and, if I may, take time to have you speak to the American people about questions that I know are on their minds. I just want you to know that I appreciate your patience here.

Question: You mentioned, and 'and the Gulf War.� You fought the father, George Bush the first. He and the forces he led prevailed on the battlefield. Now you face the son who has an even greater, even more modern, even more lethal military force aimed directly at your (UNINTEL). Why would you think that you could prevail this time on the battlefield? Or do you?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: You know that in both situations, then and now, we have not crossed our borders and gone across the Atlantic to commit aggression against the United States, neither by air or by land or by sea. We are (UNINTEL) people and officials in Iraq -

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The officials of the United States have themselves spoken about their intentions to commit aggression against Iraq. Isn't it part of our responsibility and our actions and our morality and, in fact, the basic meanings of faith that we should say to the aggressor that once you commit aggression against us, we are not going to succumb. And if we were to reverse the question and ask any American, any American citizens, any good, honest American citizen in his own country, including Mr. Rather himself, and we say to him, in any subsequent period or state, if another power, another force were to come across the Atlantic to commit a great aggression against the United States, will you do nothing?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Let me answer.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I say to the honest Americans that if such a thing happens, do not capitulate, do not give in. You have to defend your country, defend your family and your honor. Do not commit aggression against us. And, as you know, we have not committed any aggression against the United States. The United States intelligence (UNINITEL) against our country, our people, our children.

I am speaking now with you, and maybe airplanes, warplanes, American warplanes, are flying over Iraqi air space, over south or north, and dropping ammunition, weapons that�are destroying property, property belonging to our citizens, our population -- either private property or public property, because public property also belongs to the people. This is happening daily.

So when such a law is wished to prevail in the world, to govern the world, whether it's in possession of huge powers and has the right to destroy others or to control others and then you have to accept their control or their domination, such a law does not possess the basics, the most basic elements or ingredients of morality and the most basic ingredients of faith, whichever this power might be. Regardless of this power, this state of affairs will be the law of the jungle, and we are people who believe in our destiny and we will not accept any law of the jungle. It is our duty, it is our responsibility to defend our country, to defend our children, to defend our people, and we are not going to succumb, neither to the United States nor to any other power.

Even if such a power, however strong as you describe it, even if this power is multiplied by whatever amount or size more than it is now, then we will continue to defend ourselves, to fight such a power if they attack because defeat comes only from God Almighty.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: With one exception. Might be important to you and the American people. In 1991 Iraq was not defeated. In fact, our Army withdrew from Kuwait according to a decision taken by us. Yes, it withdrew and -But when we were back within our boundaries, the boundaries of Iraq, the Iraqi Army was not defeated. Nor was the people of Iraq.

Iraq was not defeated in 1991. And you will remember that the (UNINTEL) were published, talking about the battles, especially the tank battles that took place in the south, near Basra., and how Bush, the father, came out on a - Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I actually want to take time to explain to you that we're always gentle, we refer to people as gentle.

Rather: I understand when he calls him Mr. Bush.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Yes.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: When Khomeini died, bless his soul, and when I heard about his death, the Minister of Information at the time, do not gloat over the death of Khomeini. It is the law of God. That is the law of Allah. Let me tell you, in jest, I didn't used to say Mr. Bush when I addressed him when he was in power. But when -- as soon as he left power � I -- whenever I have referred to him, I refer to him as Mr. Bush. And in any case - And in any case, the law of faith says even your enemy, you have to respect his humanity. For that reason that I refer to Mr. Bush.

Rather: I understand now.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: So when Mr. Bush came out--

Rather: Senior?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The father came out in his dawn speech, or his speech at dawn, declaring cease fire without preconditions - except for the pre-conditions that if their forces are attacked, they will respond in kind -- he-- it was his decision to � to -

Rather: Cease fire.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: To stop the fighting. And, consequently, Iraq was not defeated. Therefore, Iraq was not defeated.

Rather: Mr. President, respectfully, a lot of Americans are going to hear that and say, what is this man talking about, as all of those Iraqi tanks coming out of Kuwait with the turrets knocked out indicated a beaten army on the battlefield. There's no joy in my saying that. But the point is I'm asking you to explain what you mean that you were not defeated in the - war, because I can report to you with accuracy that, overwhelmingly, the American people believe that that was a resounding defeat for you and for Iraq.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Let me answer this. You know the (UNINTEL) of Mr. Bush's father, senior. You also know why he repeated his attacks later on against us. I'll be happy to hear the President's view as to why that was true. Why did Mr. Bush, the father, when he was President of the United States - Why did he repeat his attacks on us if we had been defeated? Totally defeated? When there is a military conflict, there is forward and backward. You push forward--

When there is military conflict, you push forward and you retreat and then we saw that when Bush the father and President (BREAK IN TAPE) against us during (BREAKS IN TAPE) Once we saw that whole front against us�(BREAKS IN TAPE) - a military operation against us on the ground against our country, against our people, against our army, we realized that we must take action to--

(BREAK IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Twenty-eight armies against us. Losing the confusion of (BREAK IN TAPE) When there is military conflict, you push forward and you can retreat. And when we saw that Bush the father, the President, had mobilized armies against us, using the confusion of countries and that onslaught against us, once we saw that whole front against us-

The whole, the whole world, in fact, collaborating in a military operation against us on the ground, against our country, against our people, against our army, we realized that we must take action to - Until we took the decision to (UNINTEL) forces, and throughout a whole month and a half of fierce fighting, we had not lost more than percent -- that is the highest percentage of loss in any (UNINTEL) battlefield concerning our units involved in this war�. So we withdrew our forces inside Iraq in order that we may be able to continue fighting inside our country.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And we continued to fight.

(BREAK IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And the tanks that fought us around Basra, near Basra were defeated. And this is confirmed in writing that have been published by military people.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And then we had - Then we had the statement made by Mr. Bush, the statement about which he didn't consult -- he hadn't consulted any of his allies, the coalition involved in the fighting -- that the fighting, that the war had achieved it's objective and that he was now stopping it.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Without pre-conditions. Without pre-conditions. So we have not lost the war. And we were not defeated. You know that the fighting that went on continued -- between us and Iran -- continued for eight years. Iran lost battles to us and we lost battles to them. But how do you calculate things? You measure things by the final results.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: If I may continue.

Rather: Please.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The United States can destroy - but the question is, why should America destroy? And why should America generate hostility - the hostility of the world -- towards the United States?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Did the Americans obtain the weapons in order to control and dominate the world? Or did those (UNINTEL) and the taxpayers (UNINTEL). Did they do that in order to control the world?� (UNINTEL) the USA. I believe that the scientists of the United States and the people of the United States and the taxpayers of the United States, when they paid that, when they supported that, that was for the basic defense of the United States. Is it right? Is it right? Is it acceptable that anybody, any official, anyone in power, once he is in possession of a weapon, then he should go and take that weapon to destroy other people?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: (UNINTEL) because those who are being destroyed are saying that God is our-- Allah is our God, and that we believe in that. And that we must defend ourselves, and defend our right to dignity, and to live in peace and to live in dignity and freedom. What did Iraq threaten the United States with? Iraq has not committed any aggressive against the United States. Nor, nobody in Iraq. Neither an official nor anybody in Iraq says that the United States is our enemy. Or that-- we-- we-- we must fight the United States.

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Or the American people are our enemy. Is it acceptable, that anybody--

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Is it acceptable that anybody with power should go and destroy others? Or anybody who is being pushed or urged by big companies or multinational companies, should go to dominate others and destroy them? Mr. Rather, you are a man of (UNINTEL).

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: You know that battle is not over until-- and only when the guns are stopped - When the national will of the people completely succumbs to all that the aggressor wants to see done. Air supremacy and missile supremacy is not enough. But in the final analy-- analysis, the guns will continue to tell the tale of a courageous people, defending with its own fighters, its own (UNINTEL).

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And in fact, a tale about the--

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The � the - not because the people of Iraq want to - fight the - the United States. But this is a decision made by the people-- of Iraq. That they will maintain their role as people who believe in their role. And they will commit themselves, continue committing themselves to this role, and-- the role that makes them respect themselves as much as they respect others, and respect the world.

So, let us try. For all the people. And pray to Allah, to give people the faith. That will spare them committing harm against others. That will spare them--

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - to be practiced against them.

Rather: Mr. President, Vice President Cheney, Vice President Richard Cheney of the United States says that if and when an American-led Army comes into Iraq, it will be greeted with music. It will be treated as a Army of liberation. If Americans are not to believe that, why should they not believe that?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: If the Iraqi Army were to go to cross the Atlantic, and (UNINTEL) the United States-- would (UNINTEL) receive them -

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: There and any other (UNINTEL).

(SKIP IN TAPE)

Rather: Vice President Richard Cheney of the United States says that if and when an American-led army comes into Iraq, it will be greeted with music. It will be treated as a Army of liberation. If Americans are not to believe that, why should they not believe that?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: If the Iraqi Army were to go to cross the Atlantic and occupy the United States-- would (UNINTEL) receive--

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: There, and any other (UNINTEL).

(GLITCHES, SKIPS IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The Iraqi Army were to go to cross the Atlantic, and occupy the United States, would (UNINTEL) receive them - there, and any other (UNINTEL).

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I - I believe it is not - acceptable, from any official, or-- politician, to say such a thing. Because when he says it, morally speaking, he is in fact, (GLITCH).

(GLITCHES, SKIPS IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I - I believe it is not-- acceptable for any official or-- politician, to say such a thing. Because when he says it, morally speaking, he is in fact telling his own people that they should be prepared one-- when it comes. To greet-- occupying armies with music. If it so happens, (UNINTEL).

(GLITCHES, SKIPS IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I - I believe it is not - acceptable, from any official or - politician, to say such a thing. Because when he says it, morally speaking, he is in fact telling his own people that they should be prepared one-- when it comes, to greet-- occupying armies with music. If it so happens.

(GLITCHES, SKIPS IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - his own people that they should be prepared, one-- when it comes, to greet-- occupying armies with music, if it so happens (UNINTEL). That's why I believe a-- absolutely, that there's no-- Iraqi whatsoever, who will-- welcome any American, if that American individual is here in the-- in this capacity, as an occupation force. Or as an occupier.

But all Iraqis will, as they do, welcome all Americans. That is why now you are here, you see that you're being welcomed. Even though you come from a company that is threatening to attack Iraq. Haven't you seen the welcome, the kind of welcome with which you've b-- you've been received? Even though people know that you are--

Male Voice: By officials and (UNINTEL).

Translator For Saddam Hussein: By officials and the ordinary citizens. You can roam about in the town. But if an American soldier is here, trying to roam around and-- walk about as an occupier, he will not be-- he will not be received in-- in this way. He will not be able to do that, in fact.

So, as long as you're not a soldier, an occupying force, you are a guest. And a guest is always treated with the respect and (UNINTEL).

(SKIP IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Long answer, (UNINTEL). But-- and-- (OVERTALK) Any American, or the-- any other person-- any other. If they want to know the real position of the Iraqi people, the reality about the Iraqi position, they must ask themselves these questions. In --

Male Voice: Five questions.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: In , the Iraqi people elected Saddam Hussein for the position of President of Iraq. And in -- and-- , they re-elected him to the same position. And the percentage of the voting in both elections were respectively, -point--

Male Voice: Six.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - something.

Male Voice: Six.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Point-six percent. And percent, in both-- in those two elections.

Rather: percent?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: percent. Now, this percentage, I know, may sound very strange to you. May sound strange to you, because you're not used to that. And I can understand that you may find that percentage-- strange.

But even if you take out whatever portion you want to take out of that, then the ratio would remain a high percentage in favor of electing-- re-electing-- President Saddam Hussein to (UNINTEL).

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Of course, in the West, observers will--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: No - no suspicion. No suspect comment w-- was made about the validity of the voting. And - Because journalists were invited from all over the world, to go around the polling stations. They actually stood near the polling boxes, and they looked at the papers. They saw people actually doing it, and saying "Yes," and not saying any other thing.

(OVERTALK)

Male Voice: That was - was (UNINTEL) the last-- elections. (UNINTEL)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And of course-- that-- those elections were done, in the Gulf War, and the embargo. And the - the blockade. Now, what does that mean? It means that the Iraqis have decided to take a-- a national, a patriotic stand. Under the circumstance of war, and circumstance of the blockade. In order to say to the foreign powers that are threatening Iraq, "It is we, the people of Iraq, who decide our way, and who decide our faith and our will, not you, telling us what to do."

But � and - let me say that if this election was taken place not under the circumstances or condition of war, or-- the blockade, or the-- the embargo, maybe the percentage will not be the same. But this tells you something about the behavior of the Iraqi people. So, if you want to know how the Iraqi people will behave, or usually behave, you need to look at the elections, and how they behaved during those elections, and how they decided something.

Male Voice: When - when they are attacked by a foreigner, who wants to deprive them of their honor, sovereignty, and (UNINTEL).

Rather: I understand. Mr. President, if it's necessary for you to forgive me, I hope that you'll forgive me. But I have a couple of - sort of clean-up questions that I'm not clear about. Number one. Will the new proposed United Nations resolution, the one that's just out this week - will this make any difference at all in your position?

The basic-- the basic position, there is no change. We - will continue committing ourselves to the resolutions of the Secur-- And the inspectors came, and they have seen for ourselves that what we have said before has - That they have-- that what we've said is true. We have not pr-- pursued any weapons of mass destruction.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And have come.. So, what do they want to issue new resolutions about now?

Rather: So basically, no change in your position.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: We've (UNINTEL) in our position as yet. We do not compromise our independence. Or our dignity and our freedom. And at the same time, we will continue to commit ourselves to what has been decided by the Security Council. If new resolutions that are adopted by the Security Council which may infringe upon our dignity, our freedom - Then the position towards such a resolution will be the same, in-- in line with our previous positions.

Rather: And-- and I wanted to ask again, so I'm perfectly clear-- you do not intend to destroy your Al Samoud missiles. The missiles--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Al Samoud.

Rather: Yeah. Al Samoud missiles. You do not intend to destroy those.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The-- the missiles you mean, which are within the range of the UN--

(SKIP IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - 50 kilometers. You mean, those missiles?

Rather: I mean, the missiles that Hans Blix says that he wants a commitment from you that they will be destroyed.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: No violation has been made by Iraq to anything decided by the United Nations. If - what is meant here is to review or, the resolutions of the Security Council, the resolutions that stipulate that Iraq is allowed to produce missiles with a range of kilometers-- if the intention is to rewrite those resolutions, then we will be entering a new framework. A framework in which the United States will be made to forsake its own position.

(OVERTALK)

And (UNINTEL) its own resolutions, and take a new road towards harming Iraq. And-- for-- intending to violate the-- (UNINTEL) position, violate the sovereignty of Iraq.

Male Voice: And (UNINTEL)-- and violating the-- the very-- same resolutions of-- adopted by the Security Council.

(OVERTALK)

Rather: Mr. President, I know you've been very patient with your time. Let me go through a short list of additional things. If-- if there is an invasion, will you set fire to the oil fields? Will you blow the damns? Or your reservoirs of water, to resist the invasion?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: We have answered - We have answered the hypotheses. I've answered the hypothesis. But to indulge in the details-- Iraq does not burn its wealth. Its (UNINTEL).

(OVERTALK)

And-- it does not destroy its-- dams. We hope that, however, that this question is not meant-- as an insinuation, so that the Iraqi dams and the Iraqi oil wells will be destroyed by those who will invade Iraq, in their possible invasion of the country.

Iraq does not destroy its dams or its oil. Iraq protects, defends, maintains those resources, in order to improve life. And in order to (UNINTEL).

And during the war with Iran - Iran used water to fight us. And did not destroy - the dams. We used water, and we didn't - did not destroy the dams.

Rather: Mr. President, I hope you will take this question in the spirit in which it's asked. First of all, I regret that I do not speak Arabic. Do you speak any-- any English at all?

(OVERTALK)

Rather: That's (UNINTEL) This American Life story.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I am sorry, because I� Yes. But, I do not speak English - fluently. But I can understand, to-- by a certain degree. The English when spoken.

Rather: Well, would you speak some English for me? Anything you choose?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: My language is Arabic.

Rather: I understand. Mr. President, again, you've been patient with your time. What is the most important thing you want the p - American people to understand? What's the most important thing you want the American people to understand, at this important juncture of history?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: First� Convey to them that the people of Iraq is not an enemy of the American people. It is only-- people of Iraq are only opposed to the policy of the United States government, administration, against the people of the world, including the people of Iraq. Iraq hopes and looks forward to living in peace, and in fact, hopes and prays for all others, all peoples of the world, including people of the United States, to live in peace and to live in respect. And-- respect amongst all people.

(OVERTALK)

Male Voice: (UNINTEL) respect the will of others.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: If-- the American people-- would like to know the facts for what they are, or as they are, through a direct dialogue, then I am ready to conduct a direct dialogue with the President of the United States, President Bush, on television. I will say whatever I have to say-- about American policy. He will have-- the opportunity to say whatever he has to say about policy of Iraq. And this will be in front of all people, and-- on television, in a direct�uncensored � hon - honest manner. In front of, as I said, everyone.

And then they will see what the facts are, and where falsehoods are. And I would not object to see this dialogue conducted on-- by-- by Mr. (UNINTEL).

Rather: Are you speaking about a debate?

Rather: This - this is new. You-- you are suggesting, you are saying, that you are willing, you are suggesting, you're urging a debate with President Bush? On television?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Yes. That's my proposal.

Rather: Well, that's an interesting (UNINTEL).

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The American people, as we see on films - are great. On films, we see that the Americans, when they are challenged for a duel, they will not-- decline the - the offer. As the Arabs would - would (UNINTEL). We are not asking for a duel. But� We are proposing that we should (UNINTEL) support the Americans, and - We are asking for a � a � a - an opportunity to be seen by the Americans, the Iraqis, and all of the people in the world in a debate that is shown on television, between myself and Mr. Bush, directly, to be watched by�

Translator For Saddam Hussein: This will be - This will be an opportunity for him, if he is committed to-- to war, and if he has decided to-- commit to wage war, this will be an opportunity for him, if he's convinced-- to-- to convince the world. If he's convinced in his own position, this will be an opportunity for him to convince the world that he is right in taking such a dec-- (GLITCH). It could also be an opportunity for us - To - tell the world our own side of the story. And why we want to live in peace, and in security.

I believe that it is the right of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the world, of honor. Which makes it incumbent-- incumbent upon us to say what we have (UNINTEL), so that-- they-- they will be clear about-- our position.

Don't you call for the truth to be released in the United States? This is how we hear. This is� And what we read, from-This is what we read and hear about the American philosophers, and (UNINTEL)--

(OVERTALK)

In their books, and even in their movies�. So, why should we hide from the people? So, why should we discredit ourselves? Why should not we-- why shouldn't we disclose ourselves to the people? We as President - President of the United States, and President of Iraq, in front of our people.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: (UNINTEL) invite� Then we will either go (UNINTEL) to peace, to choose the path of peace, which is what we look for, and hope-- Then we will spare both our people the harm and the loss. Or otherwise, the-- whoever wants to decide anything other than peace, then he will have to convince his own people, with whatever-- avenues--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: This is the-- the gist of my proposal, my idea.

Rather: This is not a joke.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: No, this is something proposed in earnest. This is proposed out of my respect for the public opinion of the United States. And it is out of my respect to the people of the United States. And to the people of Iraq. And in-- out of my respect to mankind in general. Humanity at large. I call for this, because war itself is not a joke. Whoever chooses war as the first choice in his life, then he is not a normal person. I think the - the debates would be an opportunity for us to insure peace and safety. Then, why don't we--

(OVERTALK)

Why don't we - Why don't we choose to talk, in which we will be respecting our people, as two-- as the two highest authorities in our countries. The two needed to take the decisions, on the basis of their own-- you know, decision-making apparatus.

Here in Iraq, we have our own apparatus, for reaching those decisions. And we know that in the United States, you have your own system. But we, as the leaders of the two countries, why don't we use this opportunity in a debate, so that-- we can show our respect to both our peoples, and to humanity. And then each of us can take the decision that h-- h-- he or - decides to take, according to what goes on.

Rather: Mr. President, where would this debate take place, that you imagine-- what would be the venue?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: It will be in a place, as President of the United States, and Saddam Hussein will be in a place as President of Iraq. And then the debate can be conducted through satellite.

Rather: Oh. So, a satellite television debate. Live.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: And if Mr. Bush has another proposal, a counterproposal with the same basic idea then we're prepared to listen to such a proposal.

Rather: Would you be prepared to come to the United Nations for this debate?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: The basic thing is that as far as debate to be heard in the natural, normal-- in a (UNINTEL) accurate manner. In the United Nations, voices are not heard. Not always. And I do not mean that I go and I make a speech at the United Nations and then that Bush will make his speech at the United Nations. That is not what I mean. What I mean is that we sit-- as we are sitting, you and I, now as-- Here is-- I will address questions to him and he will address questions to me. The position of Iraq and he will - the position of the United States.

He will explain why � �I will (UNINTEL) go to war.� I will explain why we are insistent on peace and we want to maintain peace. And we maintain our (UNINTEL).

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Those people in the United States also - and other people will (UNINTEL).

Without make-up. Without - Without editing. Without � Without - Without prepared speeches which-- which (UNINTEL) do not listen to. The people like listening to live debates. Live debates between--

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I believe people listen to psychological (UNINTEL) about people in the United States (UNINTEL). That they like to see live debate amongst people with - proof and counterproof.

Rather: Well, this surprises me. I want to make sure I understand.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That this debate should be-- shown--

Rather: A live international debate via satellite--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That's it. A live, direct debate through satellite.

Rather: How did this-- who-- who would moderate this debate?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Any (UNINTEL) that you can moderate.

Rather: With respect, Mr. President, I have (UNINTEL) other problems. I've got enough problems already. But I--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: That's another (UNINTEL PHRASE)�. But--

(OVERTALK)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - the responsibility of - The responsibility of displaying the truth as-- as an outstanding man of the media-- to carry out this responsibility is something that is on-- of course you will do that while maintain - when you can play the truth he'll be sparing people many-- a lot of harm.

Rather: Well-- first of all, I want to be serious that I-- I appreciate-- your confidence - Mr. President. I'm pausing because I'm tempted to ask a favor of the president. (Editor's note: Rather is referring to Saddam Hussein) He has surprised me. I wonder for my good health if he could denounce me? (LAUGHTER)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Denounce you?

Rather: Yes.

(OFF-MIKE CONVERSATION)

Rather: (LAUGHTER) Well, I - I think this is -

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I met you in 1990. And I'm meeting you now. We have not met-- We are not partners in any enterprise or any - not competing with any people for any other - So this is the basics of--

Rather: I understand. (UNINTEL) I appreciate your remembering that we met in 1990. And I interviewed you in this great building. Given the sober moment and the danger at hand, what are the chances this is the last time you and I will see each other?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: You want me to say what I truly believe as it is?

Rather: Yes.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Basics-- basis is that (UNINTEL PHRASE) decides the destiny of man. But�and - God almighty says also that it is incumbent upon man to do what should be done on the ground. Then it is there that I can see-- it is now that I can see that (UNINTEL) we have other meetings. No matter what happens. And I hope that Iraq and the United States, the people of Iraq and the United States will live in security and in peace. And in mutual interests, national interests without harm caused by any side to (UNINTEL).

Rather: Mr. President, you say that knowing that (UNINTEL) on your brother is a tremendous armada ready to deliver destruction and awe.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Yes, I understand and I hear and I see. (UNINTEL) find out will be decided - God almighty--Through the Iraqi people here in Iraq and in Baghdad. I do not-- I'm not (UNINTEL) to the destiny of the Americans - in the United States. I'm just talking about the destiny of the Iraqi - And the fate of any aggression committed against the Iraqis while they are in their country.

Rather: I have one last question, Mr. President. Not so long ago, you were clearly hailed by Arabs from Palestinians to Jordanians throughout the Arab world as the great Arab Avenger. Are you still relevant on the Arab street? Or has Osama bin Laden made you what other Arabs irrelevant? If you can understand the question. Thank you.

Translator For Saddam Hussein: This is not our objective. This is not what we seek. It's-- the question is not a personal-- question. What we seek is the gratification of Allah, God almighty. And the satisfaction within our conscience and also the satisfaction of our people and of our-- of our nation. When we-- present ourselves as-- to our people, we seek the satisfaction of humanity at large also.

And - and we hope that humanity will understand our principles as they are. But-- and not as they are falsified or misrepresented by others. This is the basis of-- (BREAK IN SOUND) And we hope that humanity will understand our principles as they are. But-- and not as they are falsified or misrepresented by others. This is the basis of our endeavor. We seek the satisfaction of our people, people of our nation--

(BREAK IN SOUND) This is not our objective. This is not what we seek. It's-- the question is not a personal-- question. What we seek is the gratification of Allah, God almighty. And the satisfaction within our conscience and also the satisfaction of our people and of our-- of our nation. When we-- present ourselves to our people, we seek the satisfaction of humanity at large also.

And-- and we hope that humanity will understand our principles as they are. But - and not as they are falsified or misrepresented by others. This is the basis of our endeavor. We seek the satisfaction of our people, people of our nation and - (BREAK IN SOUND) And not as they are falsified or misrepresented by others. This is the basis of our endeavor. We seek the satisfaction of our people. People of our nation-- (BREAK IN SOUND) Or speak of heroes here and there. The basic thing (UNINTEL) is for something to be said that�(BREAK IN SOUND) person has been - honest and true to his nation. And that is a (UNINTEL) forever. (BREAK IN SOUND) heroes or speak of heroes here and there. The basic thing, maybe, is for something - (BREAK IN SOUND) nation. And that is a right for every citizen in any nation. To seek to be described as a true citizen of the nation.

Rather: (UNINTEL PHRASE) not agree that Osama bin Laden is now-- (BREAK IN SOUND)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: to seek to be described as a true citizen of the nation.

Rather: He does or does not agree that Osama bin Laden is now - the champion of the Arab streets?

(BREAK IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: --or speak of heroes here or there. The basic thing, maybe, is for-- something to be said that this person-- (BREAK IN SOUND) honest and true-- (BREAK IN SOUND) and that is a right for every citizen in any nation. To seek--

(BREAK IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: --as a true citizen of the nation.

Rather: So he does or does not agree that - (BREAK IN SOUND) is now--

(BREAK IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - as a true citizen of the nation.

Rather: So he does or does not agree that Osama bin Laden is now-- the champion of the Arab streets?

(BREAK IN TAPE)

Translator For Saddam Hussein: - humanity will understand our principles as they are. But-- and not as they are falsified or misrepresented by others. This is the basis of our endeavor. We seek the satisfaction of our people, people of our nation. And we do not talk-- we-- we seek-- we do not seek personal satisfaction that we are heroes or speak of heroes here and there.

The basic thing, maybe, is for - something to be said that this person has been honest and true to his nation. And that is a right for every citizen in any nation. To seek to be described as a true citizen of the nation.

Rather: So he does or does not agree that Osama bin Laden is now-- the champion of the Arab streets?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: How do you see yourself? I am pleased when I see that according to the principles in which we believe that-- in the sense that one is true--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I believe - I believe you are teaching (UNINTEL) truth and not trying to - indulge any sensation� detract someone as-- detract the speaker from-- into saying that he doesn't want to say. I do not believe that this is what you see.

Rather: This is not true?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: Yes.

Rather: Is-- did the answer finish?

Translator For Saddam Hussein: No, it's not. (OFF-MIKE CONVERSATION) So � the - we are - pleased to see people true to these principles of - of the nation. In the same way as you would be happy to see people true to your principles emerging in the United States. As the heroes, the champions of peace - there and they become more and the champions of freedom are there and become more. And the champions of production and improvement and (UNINTEL) become more.

We're all pleased for it. And the basic objective is to remove injustice from-- imposed on our nation. See how the Palestinians are being treated. See how they're being killed. See how their houses are destroyed. See how their property is being destroyed without anybody trying to do anything to redress justice and to-- to save them from what they're-- suffering. If you, in the United States, see Osama bin Laden as a champion then we are not jealous of him. If our nation sees him as a champion, we are not jealous of him.

As you proposed in your question maybe. Jealousy is not a trait of man. Jealousy is a trait maybe of women but that is another - in that - in that very special-- trait. It's a very special trait. Men do not have jealousy especially if this competition is competition there in the interests of the nation and the-- and (UNINTEL PHRASE).

Rather: Mr. President, you've been so patient with your time. I appreciate you (UNINTEL). And I'm gonna--

Translator For Saddam Hussein: I'm happy. And I hope to see you in the future. I hope--

Rather: I would like very much to see you in the future, Mr. President.

Interesting:

Retired General Criticizes Bush

KATU 2 News - Portland, Oregon -- www.katu.com

Retired general: Bush should restart negotiations with Iraq February

24, 2003

LAKE OSWEGO - Tony McPeak, a four-star general who headed the U.S.

Air Force during Desert Storm, believes that President Bush should

publicly admit personal failure and restart diplomatic negotiations

for a possible war against Iraq.

McPeak, who retired to Oregon in 1995, says Bush has botched the

crucial process of building a coalition, of enlisting the United

Nations and of rebuilding Afghanistan as a model of reconstruction.

"The world would breathe a sigh of relief, and we'd go back and do it

right" if Bush admitted failure, says the 67-year-old McPeak. "I

mean, the world would fall in love with this guy. It's not that hard

to fix."

McPeak served four years on the Joint Chiefs of Staff advising Bush's

father and then President Clinton after flying 269 Vietnam combat

missions and participating in the Thunderbirds, the elite aerobatic

team.

Despite his military career, McPeak questions Bush's priorities as

the president confronts terrorism, North Korea and Saddam Hussein. It

makes him worry about a return to federal budget deficits and about

declining goodwill toward the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

"I pray that America will last another thousand years, and during all

of that time we're a pre-eminent power," says McPeak. "To do that,

you have to understand the world in a more sophisticated way. You

make your friends many and your enemies few."

As chief of staff from 1990 to 1994, McPeak accomplished the biggest

reorganization of the Air Force in its history. He believes Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be dramatically transforming the

military to confront the new terrorist threat, slashing redundancy

and cutting heavy Army divisions in favor of agile special forces.

Guarding the Washington Monument with Stinger missiles, McPeak says,

is "amateur hour."

McPeak thinks U.S. forces may well encounter biological weapons in

Iraq but not chemical munitions, which are difficult to deploy.

"I regard the nuclear threat as zero," he says. "I regard the

connection between Saddam and al-Qaida as less than zero."

Airstrikes would wipe out Baghdad's communications system again,

McPeak says.

"If we go in there and occupy the place for 50 years, which is my

prediction, we'll have to rebuild it."

Close combat in Baghdad would be stupid, he says, despite what Army

generals may advocate.

"We've already radicalized 99 percent of the Arabs in the world," he

said. "We'll get the holdouts if we start doing hand-to-hand combat

in Baghdad."

[posted to the net by:

Sonia Jaffe Robbins

Adjunct Professor Of Journalism, New York University

sjr5@nyu.edu

Interesting watching Geraldo Rivera on Fascist Fox. He sure knows who signs his paycheck. Rivera isn't a neoconservative ---- but he plays on on TV.

posted at 07:31:50 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Good discussion of why al-Qa'�da attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, not the Statue of Liberty:

The Largest Single Day of Protest in World History

http://www.voice4change.org/stories/showstory.asp?file=030220~ccs.asp

Wednesday February 19th, 2003

By Tom Lash

This past weekend an estimated 11 million people took to the streets in over 600 cities around the globe. This was the largest single day of protest in world history. Give yourself a hand. We are making history. We are winning. Bush is on the defensive and has actually said he wants Peace. We can thank Bush for one thing. He has united the world against the American military machine. The people are speaking with one voice. They have a single message. No more war. Do not start the killing again. Give Peace a Chance. The world is saying no to America's endless war against terrorism. The world recognizes this American made enemy as illegitimate. Terrorism as an American enemy is illegitimate because as Dr. Martin Luther King said, "The greatest purveyor of violence on earth today is my own government." Before we can address the terrorism committed by others, we must first address the state sanctioned terrorism we support with our tax dollars. It is this terror that our government inflicts with its military, with the WTO, NAFTA, World Bank and other corporate institutions and policies that fuel the anti-American terrorists. We must look in our own hearts before we look outside ourselves for the terrorists. A quick history review of the past year or so will help us focus our energies.

A quick review of the current Bush administration:

From his first day in office George Bush shows the world he has one agenda: a new world order brought into existence by the military/corporate takeover of the earths resources. This is not a secret agenda. You can see how the world is divided up into American military commands on the Department of Defenses website. Here are just a few of the examples of what Bush and his fascist administration have done in just two years of power.

* He Fails to support the Kyoto accords on global warming, snubbing his nose at thousands of hours of work done by over 170 countries.

* He fails to support the Biological Weapons Convention.

* He fails to sign on to and support the Landmine Convention.

* He breaks the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by increasing funding for a space based nuclear laser program to dominate and control the heavens.

* He turns his back on the International Criminal Court

* Lastly Bush has totally abandoned the Middle East Peace process begun by President Clinton. Instead the United States increases unilateral military aid to Israel while that government continues to occupy Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank against numerous United Nations Resolutions calling for the removal of her troops and illegal settlements since 1967. The Palestinians continue to live in apartheid like existence in third world conditions helplessly watching as their homes are bulldozed and their families killed and terrorized on a daily basis. We support this with our tax dollars.

So when people ask why did 911 happen all we have to do is look at this administrations history of contempt for world opinion? The world hates this administration, NOT the American people. The world trade towers and the pentagon were attacked NOT the statue of liberty. The world wants the American military machine to go back home.

If we want Peace in Iraq and the Middle East we must first remove our troops from Saudi Arabia the home of Islam's most holy sites. That is why Saudi dissidents flew planes into the trade towers not because they hate all Americans.

We will never have Peace without Justice. We cannot have peace while we continue to prepare for war. There is another world possible. We are on the frontlines of this battle. We are the true patriots. We are the true spirit of America. We are the ones that are speaking out for LIFE LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL people. The only way for evil to flourish is for Good people to do nothing.

Our task is to get the word of Peace out. 911 was a tragedy felt around the world. Let us not let them use our grief over 911 to attack an innocent country that had nothing to do with that 911, bin Laden or al-Quida. Bombing and killing innocent Iraqis is not going to liberate them. They will not support those that have murdered their families and friends. Since the Treaty of Wesfalia in the 1600s, it has been illegal to attack another nation. It is the basis of international law that defines the good guy as the one that does not strike first...that does not shoot first. The good guys do not invade another nation...especially one as weakened as Iraq. We have not been attacked by Iraq. We have not been threatened by Iraq. We need to remove our troops from the Middle East and bring them home. That is how you support our troops. That is how you support the Iraqi people. That is how you support the people of Israel and Palestine. That is how we will bring Peace to the world. Another world is on the way. We are winning. Thanks to George Bush the world is united. We speak with one voice. No More War...Not In Our Name. Peace Be With You.

The only pressure that will convince Israel to leave its settlements is the complete elimination of all forms of U.S. economic aid to Israel. Currently, Israel receives more money from the U.S. than any other country. Egypt is second.

Failing that, military force could always be an option. Israel is in violation of more United Nations declarations than Iraq.

Will either of the above ever take place? Not as long as Zionists and Christian Zionists continue to hold Washington hostage.

A nice prayer:

THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE

BAH�'� WORLD CENTRE

Department of the Secretariat

12 August 1996

Mr.___________

Dear Bah�'� Friend,

Dr. Peter Khan referred to the Universal House of Justice your letter of 5 June 1996 requesting a translation and background information for a specific prayer in Arabic, a copy of which you enclosed, and we have been asked to respond.

The Research Department at the Bah�'� World Centre has informed us that this prayer is published in a well-known compilation of the works of Bah�'u'll�h entitled Majm�' iy-i-Alv�h-Mub�rakiy-i-hazrat-i-Bah�'u'll�h (Cairo, 1920), page 275, and is also published in the prayer-book Ad' iyiy-i-Mahb�b, page 206. To date, the name of the recipient of the prayer or the date of its revelation has not been established.

An authorized English translation of this prayer is enclosed.

With loving Bah�'� greetings,

For Department of the Secretariat

.....

Enclosure

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following prayer of protection for the bearer has recently (July/August 1996) been translated into English from Arabic at the Bah�'� World Centre.

"In His Name, the Exalted, the All-Highest, the Most Sublime!

Glorified art Thou, O Lord my God! O Thou Who art my God, and my Master, and my Lord, and my Support, and my Hope, and my Refuge, and my Light. I ask of Thee, by Thine Hidden and Treasured Name, that none knoweth save Thine own Self, to protect the bearer of this Tablet from every calamity and pestilence, and from every wicked man and woman; from the evil of the evil-doers, and from the scheming of the unbelievers. Preserve him, moreover, O my God, from every pain and vexation, O Thou Who holdest in Thy hand the empire of all things. Thou, truly, art powerful over all things. Thou doest as Thou willest, and ordainest as Thou pleasest.

O Thou King of Kings! O Thou kind Lord! O Thou Source of ancient bounty, of grace, of generosity and bestowal! O Thou Healer of sicknesses! O Thou Sufficer of needs! O Thou Light of Light! O Thou Light above all Lights! O Thou Revealer of every Manifestation! O Thou the Compassionate! O Thou the Merciful! Do Thou have mercy upon the bearer of this Tablet, through Thy most great mercy and Thine abundant grace, O Thou the Gracious, Thou the Bounteous. Guard him, moreover, through Thy protection, from whatsoever his heart and mind may find repugnant. Of those endued with power, Thou, verily, art the most powerful. The Glory of God rest upon thee, O thou rising sun! Do thou testify unto that which God hath testified of His own Self, that there is none other God besides Him, the Almighty, the Best-Beloved."

Bah�'u'll�h

Anyone who has ever questioned the ultimate neoconservative empire-building agenda of the Bush administration should read the following:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should

be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are

irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction,

and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to

achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with

Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon

said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and

stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American

attention was focused on Iraq.

Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America

would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with

threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security,

is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction.

Bolton said Syria would get a chance to prove it was behaving in a way

worthy of the international community and that dealing with North Korea had

not been pushed aside, but postponed.

Bolton said the United States was striving to get a new UN Security Council

resolution regarding Iraq and that the result of the vote would affect the

U.S.'s relations with Western Europe and Russia, after the war in Iraq.

Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and

Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

Sharansky warned Bolton that the Quartet's (U.S., UN, European Union and

Russia) plan for the Israelis and Palestinians deviated from President

Bush's vision.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941

Really good article attacking the notion of a liberal media:

What Liberal Media?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15187

By Eric Alterman, The Nation

February 14, 2003

Editor's Note: This article was adapted from Eric Alterman's newly released book, What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (Basic), published in February.

Social scientists talk about "useful myths," stories we all know aren't necessarily true, but that we choose to believe anyway because they seem to offer confirmation of what we already know (which raises the question, If we already know it, why the story?). Think of the wholly fictitious but illustrative story about little George Washington and his inability to lie about that cherry tree. For conservatives, and even many journalists, the "liberal media" is just that � a myth, to be sure, but a useful one.

Republicans of all stripes have done quite well for themselves during the past five decades fulminating about the liberal cabal/progressive thought police who spin, supplant and sometimes suppress the news we all consume. (Indeed, it's not only conservatives who find this whipping boy to be an irresistible target. In late 1993 Bill Clinton whined to Rolling Stone that he did not get "one damn bit of credit from the knee-jerk liberal press.") But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't. They know mau-mauing the other side is just a good way to get their own ideas across � or perhaps prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs. On occasion, honest conservatives admit this. Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election, "I think we know who the media want to win this election � and I don't think it's George Bush." The very same Rich Bond, however, also noted during the very same election, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

Bond is hardly alone. That the media were biased against the Reagan Administration is an article of faith among Republicans. Yet James Baker, perhaps the most media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly misplaced. "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer. Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage � all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," the aspiring American ayatollah cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign. And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Nevertheless, Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing the ignorant prejudices of his own constituency. In a 2001 pitch to conservative potential subscribers to his Rupert Murdoch-funded magazine, Kristol complained, "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias.... There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." (It's a wonder he left out "Too much hypocrisy.")

In recent times, the right has ginned up its "liberal media" propaganda machine. Books by both Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg have topped the bestseller lists, stringing together a series of charges so extreme that, well, it's amazing neither one thought to accuse "liberals" of using the blood of conservatives' children for extra flavor in their soy-milk decaf lattes.

Given the success of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc., no sensible person can dispute the existence of a "conservative media." The reader might be surprised to learn that neither do I quarrel with the notion of a "liberal media." It is tiny and profoundly underfunded compared with its conservative counterpart, but it does exist. As a columnist for The Nation and an independent weblogger for MSNBC.com, I work in the middle of it, and so do many of my friends. And guess what? It's filled with right-wingers.

Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor. Take a tour from a native: New York magazine, in the heart of liberal country, chose as its sole national correspondent the right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson. During the 1990s, The New Yorker � the bible of sophisticated urban liberalism � chose as its Washington correspondents the belligerent right-winger Michael Kelly and the soft, DLC neoconservative Joe Klein. At least half of the "liberal New Republic" is actually a rabidly neoconservative magazine and has been edited in recent years by the very same Michael Kelly, as well as by the conservative liberal-hater Andrew Sullivan. The Nation has often opened its pages to liberal-haters, even among its columnists. The Atlantic Monthly � a mainstay of Boston liberalism � even chose the apoplectic Kelly as its editor, who then proceeded to add a bunch of Weekly Standard writers to its antiliberal stable. What is "liberal" Vanity Fair doing publishing a special hagiographic Annie Leibovitz portfolio of Bush Administration officials that appears, at first glance, to be designed (with the help of a Republican political consultant) to invoke notions of Greek and Roman gods? Why does the liberal New York Observer alternate National Review's Richard Brookhiser with the Joe McCarthy-admiring columnist Nicholas von Hoffman � both of whom appear alongside editorials that occasionally mimic the same positions taken downtown by the editors of the Wall Street Journal? On the web, the tabloid-style liberal website Salon gives free rein to the McCarthyite impulses of both Sullivan and David Horowitz. The neoliberal Slate also regularly publishes both Sullivan and Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard, and has even opened its "pages" to such conservative evildoers as Charles Murray and Elliott Abrams.

Move over to the mainstream publications and broadcasts often labeled "liberal," and you see how ridiculous the notion of liberal dominance becomes. The liberal New York Times Op-Ed page features the work of the unreconstructed Nixonite William Safire, and for years accompanied him with the firebreathing-if-difficult-to-understand neocon A.M. Rosenthal. Current denizen Bill Keller also writes regularly from a DLC neocon perspective. The Washington Post is just swarming with conservatives, from Michael Kelly to George Will to Robert Novak to Charles Krauthammer. If you wish to include CNN on your list of liberal media � I don't, but many conservatives do � then you had better find a way to explain the near-ubiquitous presence of the attack dog Robert Novak, along with that of neocon virtuecrat William Bennett, National Review's Kate O'Beirne, National Review's Jonah Goldberg, The Weekly Standard's David Brooks and Tucker Carlson. This is to say nothing of the fact that among its most frequent guests are Coulter and the anti-American telepreacher Pat Robertson. Care to include ABC News? Again, I don't, but if you wish, how to deal with the fact that the only ideological commentator on its Sunday show is the hard-line conservative George Will? Or how about the fact that its only explicitly ideological reporter is the journalistically challenged conservative crusader John Stossel? How to explain the entire career there and on NPR of Cokie Roberts, who never met a liberal to whom she could not condescend? What about Time and Newsweek? In the former, we have Krauthammer holding forth, and in the latter, Will.

I could go on, but the point is clear: Conservatives are extremely well represented in every facet of the media. The correlative point is that even the genuine liberal media are not so liberal. And they are no match � either in size, ferocity or commitment � for the massive conservative media structure that, more than ever, determines the shape and scope of our political agenda.

In a careful 1999 study published in the academic journal Communications Research, four scholars examined the use of the "liberal media" argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view. The obvious conclusion: News consumers were responding to "increasing news coverage of liberal bias media claims, which have been increasingly emanating from Republican Party candidates and officials."

The right is working the refs. And it's working. Much of the public believes a useful but unsupportable myth about the so-called liberal media, and the media themselves have been cowed by conservatives into repeating their nonsensical nostrums virtually nonstop. As the economist/pundit Paul Krugman observes of Republican efforts to bully the media into accepting the party's Orwellian arguments about Social Security privatization: "The next time the administration insists that chocolate is vanilla, much of the media � fearing accusations of liberal bias, trying to create the appearance of 'balance' � won't report that the stuff is actually brown; at best they'll report that some Democrats claim that it's brown."

In the real world of the right-wing media, the pundits are the conservatives' shock troops. Even the ones who constantly complain about alleged liberal control of the media cannot ignore the vast advantage their side enjoys when it comes to airing their views on television, in the opinion pages, on the radio and the Internet.

Take a look at the Sunday talk shows, the cable chat fests, the op-ed pages and opinion magazines, and the radio talk shows. It can be painful, I know, but try it. Across virtually the entire television punditocracy, unabashed conservatives dominate, leaving lone liberals to be beaten up by gangs of marauding right-wingers, most of whom voice views much further toward their end of the spectrum than any regularly televised liberals do toward the left. Grover Norquist, the right's brilliant political organizer, explains his team's advantage by virtue of the mindset of modern conservatism. "The conservative press is self-consciously conservative and self-consciously part of the team," he notes. "The liberal press is much larger, but at the same time it sees itself as the establishment press. So it's conflicted. Sometimes it thinks it needs to be critical of both sides." Think about it. Who among the liberals can be counted upon to be as ideological, as relentless and as nakedly partisan as George Will, Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Bay Buchanan, William Bennett, William Kristol, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Gigot, Oliver North, Kate O'Beirne, Tony Blankley, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, Laura Ingraham, Jonah Goldberg, William F. Buckley Jr., Bill O'Reilly, Alan Keyes, Tucker Carlson, Brit Hume, the self-described "wild men" of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, etc., etc.? In fact, it's hard to come up with a single journalist/pundit appearing on television who is even remotely as far to the left of the mainstream spectrum as most of these conservatives are to the right.

Liberals are not as rare in the print punditocracy as in television, but their modest numbers nevertheless give the lie to any accusations of liberal domination. Of the most prominent liberals writing in the nation's newspapers and opinion magazines � Garry Wills, E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen, Robert Kuttner, Robert Scheer, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Mary McGrory, Hendrik Hertzberg, Nicholas Kristof, Molly Ivins � not one enjoys or has ever enjoyed a prominent perch on television. Michael Kinsley did for a while, but only as the liberal half of Crossfire's tag team, and Kinsley, by his own admission, is not all that liberal. The Weekly Standard and National Review editors enjoy myriad regular television gigs of their own, and are particularly popular as guests on the allegedly liberal CNN. Columnists Mark Shields and Al Hunt also play liberals on television, but always in opposition to conservatives and almost always on the other team's ideological field, given the conservatives' ability to dominate television's "he said, she said" style of argument virtually across the board.

As a result of their domination of the terms of political discourse, conservative assumptions have come to rule the roost of insider debate. And they do so not only because of conservative domination of the punditocracy but also because of conservative colonization of the so-called center � where all action in American politics is deemed to take place.

Consider the case of Howard Kurtz. By virtue of his responsibilities at CNN as host of Reliable Sources and at the Washington Post as its media reporter and columnist, Kurtz is widely recognized as the most influential media reporter in America, akin to the top cop on the beat. There is no question that Kurtz is a terrifically energetic reporter. But all media writers, including myself, walk a difficult line with regard to conflicts of interest. As a reporter and a wide-ranging talk-show host, Kurtz, unlike a columnist, cannot choose simply to ignore news. What's more, the newspaper for which he writes cannot help but cover CNN, the network on which he appears, and vice versa, as they both constitute 800-pound gorillas in the media jungle. Post executive editor Len Downie Jr. says he thinks "the problem is endemic to all media reporters. Everyone in the media universe is a competitor of the Washington Post, and so it's impossible to avoid conflicts of interest. Either we tell him the only people he can cover is The Nation or we set up this unique rule for him that he has to identify his relationship with whomever he writes about." Downie may be right. But the system didn't work perfectly when Kurtz covered Walter Isaacson's resignation from CNN recently. He wrote a tougher piece on Isaacson than most, which is fine, and noted that he worked for CNN at the end, but did not note that the network brass � meaning, presumably, Isaacson � had just cut his airtime in half. (Kurtz later explained this in an online chat.)

Regarding the political coloration of his work, it is no secret to anyone in the industry that CNN has sought to ingratiate itself with conservatives in recent years as it has lost viewers to Fox. Shortly after taking the reins, in the summer of 2001, Isaacson initiated a number of moves designed to enhance the station's appeal to conservatives, including a high-profile meeting with the Congressional Republican leadership to listen to their concerns. The bias reflected in Kurtz's work at the Post and CNN would be consistent with that of a media critic who had read the proverbial writing on the wall.

Whatever his personal ideology may be, it is hard to avoid the conclusion, based on an examination of his work, that Kurtz loves conservatives but has little time for liberals. His overt sympathy for conservatives and their critique of the media is, given the power and influence of his position, not unlike having the police chief in the hands of a single faction of the mob. To take just one tiny example of many in my book What Liberal Media?, Kurtz seemed to be working as a summer replacement for Ari Fleischer when Bush's Harken oil shenanigans briefly captured the imagination of the Washington press corps, owing to the perception of a nationwide corporate meltdown during the summer of 2002. Over and over Kurtz demanded of his guests:

"Why is the press resurrecting, like that 7-million-year-old human skull, this thirteen-year-old incident, in which Bush sold some stock in his company Harken Energy?"

"Laura Ingraham, is this the liberal press, in your view, trying to prove that Bush is soft on corporate crime because he once cut corners himself?"

"Regulators concluded he did nothing improper. Now, there may be some new details, granted, but this is � is this important enough to suggest, imply or otherwise infer, as the press might be doing, Molly Ivins, that this is somehow in a league with Tyco or WorldCom or Enron?"

"Is there a media stereotype Bush and Cheney, ex-oilmen, ex-CEOs in bed with big business that they can't shake?"

"Are the media unfairly blaming President Bush for sinking stock prices? Are journalists obsessed with Bush and Cheney's business dealings in the oil industry, and is the press turning CEOs into black-hatted villains?"

"If you look at all the negative media coverage, Rich Lowry, you'd think that Bush's stock has crashed along with the market. Is he hurting, or is this some kind of nefarious media creation?"

"And why is that the President's fault? Is it his job to keep stock prices up?"

Kurtz even went so far as to give credence to the ludicrous, Limbaugh-like insistence that somehow Bill Clinton caused the corporate meltdown of the summer of 2002. Kurtz quoted these arguments, noting, "They say, well, he set a bad example for the country. He showed he could lie and get away with it, so is that a reverse kind of 'Let's drag in the political figure we don't like and pin the tail on him?'" It was, as his guest Martha Brant had to inform him, "a ridiculous argument," surprising Kurtz, who asked again, "You're saying there's no parallel?" Recall that this is the premier program of media criticism hosted by the most influential media reporter in America. It did not occur to Kurtz to note, for instance, as Peter Beinart did, that Clinton vetoed the 1995 bill that shielded corporate executives from shareholder lawsuits (when every single Republican voted to override him), or that Clinton's Securities and Exchange Commission chief wanted to ban accounting firms from having consulting contracts with the firms they were also auditing. Thirty-three of thirty-seven members of Congress who signed their names to protests against the Clinton SEC were also Republican. The man who led the effort was then-lobbyist Harvey Pitt, whom George W. Bush chose to head the SEC and who was later forced to resign. But to Kurtz it is somehow a legitimate, intelligent question whether Clinton's lying about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office was somehow responsible for the multibillion-dollar corporate accounting scandal his Administration sought to prevent.

The current historical moment in journalism is hardly a happy one. Journalists trying to do honest work find themselves under siege from several sides simultaneously. Corporate conglomerates increasingly view journalism as "software," valuable only insofar as it contributes to the bottom line. In the mad pursuit for audience and advertisers, the quality of the news itself becomes degraded, leading journalists to alternating fits of self-loathing and self-pity. Meanwhile, they face an Administration with a commitment to secrecy unmatched in modern US history. And to top it all off, conservative organizations and media outlets lie in wait, eager to pounce on any journalist who tries to give voice to almost any uncomfortable truth about influential American institutions � in other words, to behave as an honest reporter � throwing up the discredited but nevertheless effective accusation of "liberal bias" in order to protect the powerful from scrutiny.

If September 11 taught the nation anything at all, it should have taught us to value the work that honest journalists do for the sake of a better-informed society. But for all the alleged public-spiritedness evoked by September 11, the mass public proved no more interested in serious news � much less international news � on Sept. 10, 2002, than it had been a year earlier. This came as a grievous shock and disappointment to many journalists, who interpreted the events of September 11 as an endorsement of the importance of their work to their compatriots. And indeed, from September 11 through October, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 78 percent of Americans followed news of the attacks closely. But according to a wide-ranging study by Peyton Craighill and Michael Dimock, interest in terrorism and fear of future terrorist attacks have "not necessarily translated into broader public interest in news about local, national, or international events.... Reported levels of reading, watching and listening to the news are not markedly different than in the spring of 2000," the report found. "At best, a slightly larger percentage of the public is expressing general interest in international and national news, but there is no evidence its appetite for international news extends much beyond terrorism and the Middle East." In fact, 61 percent of Americans admitted to tuning out foreign news unless a "major development" occurs.

The most basic problem faced by American journalists, both in war and peace, is that much of our society remains ignorant, and therefore unappreciative of the value of the profession's contribution to the quality and practice of our democracy. Powerful people and institutions have strong, self-interested reasons to resist the media's inspection and the public accountability it can inspire. The net effect of their efforts to deflect scrutiny is to weaken the democratic bond between the powerful and the powerless that can, alone, prevent the emergence of unchecked corruption. The phony "liberal media" accusation is just one of many tools in the conservative and corporate arsenal to reorder American society and the US economy to their liking. But as they've proven over and over, "working the refs" works. It results in a cowed media willing to give right-wing partisans a pass on many of their most egregious actions and ideologically inspired assertions. As such it needs to be resisted by liberals and centrists every bit as much as Bush's latest tax cut for the wealthy or his efforts to despoil the environment on behalf of the oil and gas industries.

The decades-long conservative ideological offensive constitutes a significant threat to journalism's ability to help us protect our families and insure our freedoms. Tough-minded reporting, as the legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee explains, "is not for everybody." It is not "for those who feel that all's right with the world, not for those whose cows are sacred, and surely not for those who fear the violent contradictions of our time." But it is surely necessary for those of us who wish to answer to the historically honorable title of "democrat," "republican" or even that wonderfully old-fashioned title, "citizen."

Eric Alterman is a columnist at the Nation.

Excellent Discussion of the Relationship Between Bush and Dispensationalism!

When U.S. Foreign Policy Meets Biblical Prophecy

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15221

By Paul S. Boyer, AlterNet

February 20, 2003

Does the Bible foretell regime change in Iraq? Did God establish Israel's boundaries millennia ago? Is the United Nations a forerunner of a satanic world order?

For millions of Americans, the answer to all those questions is a resounding yes. For many believers in biblical prophecy, the Bush administration's go-it-alone foreign policy, hands-off attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and proposed war on Iraq are not simply actions in the national self-interest or an extension of the war on terrorism, but part of an unfolding divine plan.

Evangelical Christians have long complained that "people of faith" do not get sufficient respect, and that religious belief is trivialized in our public discourse. So argues Stephen L. Carter, a Yale University law professor and an evangelical Christian, in his 1993 "The Culture of Disbelief." Carter has a point, at least with reference to my own field of American history. With notable exceptions, cultural historians have long underplayed the importance of religion in the United States, particularly in the modern era. Church historians have produced good work, but somewhat in isolation, cut off from the larger currents of cultural and intellectual history. That is changing, as evidenced by Mark A. Noll's magisterial "America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln" (2002). But, over all, the critics are on target.

However, I would vigorously challenge Carter's related complaint that religious belief plays little role in shaping public policy. In fact, religion has always had an enormous, if indirect and underrecognized, role in policy formation.

And that is especially true today, as is illustrated by the shadowy but vital way that belief in biblical prophecy is helping mold grassroots attitudes toward current U.S. foreign policy. As the nation debates a march toward war in the Middle East, all of us would do well to pay attention to the beliefs of the vast company of Americans who read the headlines and watch the news through a filter of prophetic belief.

Abundant evidence makes clear that millions of Americans upwards of 40 percent, according to some widely publicized national polls do, indeed, believe that Bible prophecies detail a specific sequence of end-times events. According to the most popular prophetic system, premillennial dispensationalism, formulated by the 19th-century British churchman John Darby, a series of last-day signs will signal the approaching end. Those will include wars, natural disasters, rampant immorality, the rise of a world political and economic order, and the return of the Jews to the land promised by God to Abraham.

In Darby's system, the present "dispensation" will end with the Rapture, when all true believers will join Christ in the air. Next comes the Tribulation, when a charismatic but satanic figure, the Antichrist, will arise in Europe, seize world power, and impose his universal tyranny under the dread sign "666," mentioned in Revelation. After seven years, Christ and the saints will return to vanquish the Antichrist and his armies at Har-Megiddo (the biblical Armageddon), an ancient battle site near Haifa. From a restored Temple in Jerusalem, Christ will then inaugurate a thousand-year reign of peace and justice the Millennium.

That scenario, which Darby ingeniously cobbled together from apocalyptic passages throughout the Bible, was popularized in America by expositors like Cyrus Scofield, whose 1909 "Scofield Reference Bible" became a best seller. More recently, dispensationalism has been promulgated by radio evangelists; paperback popularizers; fundamentalist and Pentecostal pastors; and TV luminaries like Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe, and John Hagee.

Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970), a slangy update of Darby's teachings, became the nonfiction best seller in the 1970s. Today's Left Behind series, a multivolume fictional treatment of dispensationalism by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, has sold 50 million copies since the first volume appeared, in 1995. Volume 10, The Remnant, topped the The New York Times's bestseller list for several weeks last summer.

During the cold war, Lindsey and other prophecy gurus focused on the Soviet Union, citing a passage in Ezekiel foretelling the destruction of a northern kingdom, Gog, which they interpreted as Russia. Today's popularizers, however, spotlight the Middle East and the rise of a New World Order led by their own "axis of evil": the United Nations and other international bodies; global media conglomerates; and multinational corporations, trading alliances, and financial institutions. This interlocking system, they preach, is laying the groundwork for the Antichrist's prophesied dictatorship.

As for the Middle East, the popularizers view Israel's founding in 1948, and its recapture of Jerusalem's Old City in 1967, as key end-times signs. They also see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and a future rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple on a site sacred to Muslims, as steps in God's unfolding plan. The most hard-line and expansionist groups in Israel today, including Likud Party leaders, have gratefully welcomed this unwavering support. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United States in 1998, he called first on Falwell, and only then met with President Clinton. (Dispensationalist dogma also foretells the mass slaughter of Jews by the Antichrist and the conversion of the surviving remnant to Christianity, but those themes are played down by most current popularizers.)

On the basis of such beliefs, dispensationalists denounce any proposals for shared governance of Jerusalem. As Hagee writes in "Final Dawn Over Jerusalem" (Thomas Nelson, 1998): "Christians and Jews, let us stand united and indivisible on this issue: There can be no compromise regarding the city of Jerusalem, not now, not ever. We are racing toward the end of time, and Israel lies in the eye of the storm. ... Israel is the only nation created by a sovereign act of God, and He has sworn by His holiness to defend Jerusalem, His Holy City. If God created and defends Israel, those nations that fight against it fight against God." Dispensationalists also oppose any scaling back of Jewish settlements in the West Bank or Gaza, since those areas lie well within God's grant to Abraham, recorded in Genesis 15:18, of all of the land from "the river of Egypt" to the Euphrates.

In this scenario, the Islamic world is allied against God and faces annihilation in the last days. That view is actually a very ancient one in Christian eschatology. Medieval prophecy expounders saw Islam as the demonic force whose doom is foretold in Scripture. As Richard the Lionhearted prepared for the Third Crusade in 1190, the famed prophecy interpreter Joachim of Fiore assured him that the Islamic ruler Saladin, who held Jerusalem, was the Antichrist, and that Richard would defeat him and recapture the Holy City. (Joachim's prophecy failed: Richard returned to Europe in 1192 with Saladin still in power.) Later interpreters cast the Ottoman Empire in the Antichrist role.

That theme faded after 1920, with the Ottoman collapse and the rise of the Soviet Union, but it surged back in the later 20th century, as prophecy popularizers began not only to support the most hard-line groups in Israel, but also to demonize Islam as irredeemably evil and destined for destruction. "The Arab world is an Antichrist-world," wrote Guy Dury in "Escape From the Coming Tribulation" (1975). "God says he will lay the land of the Arabs waste and it will be desolate," Arthur Bloomfield wrote in "Before the Last Battle Armageddon," published in 1971 and reprinted in 1999. "This may seem like a severe punishment, but ... the terms of the covenant must be carried out to the letter."

The anti-Islamic rhetoric is at fever pitch today. Last June, the prophecy magazine Midnight Call warmly endorsed a fierce attack on Islam by Franklin Graham (son of Billy) and summed up Graham's case in stark terms: "Islam is an evil religion." In Lindsey's 1996 prophecy novel, "Blood Moon," Israel, in retaliation for a planned nuclear attack by an Arab extremist, launches a massive thermonuclear assault on the entire Arab world. Genocide, in short, becomes the ultimate means of prophetic fulfillment.

Anticipating George W. Bush, prophecy writers in the late 20th century also quickly zeroed in on Saddam Hussein. If not the Antichrist himself, they suggested, Saddam could well be a forerunner of the Evil One. In full-page newspaper advertisements during the Persian Gulf war of 1991, the organization Jews for Jesus declared that Saddam "represents the spirit of Antichrist about which the Bible warns us."

Prophecy believers found particular significance in Saddam's grandiose plan, launched in the 1970s, to rebuild Babylon on its ancient ruins. The fabled city on the Euphrates, south of Baghdad, which included one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, owed its splendor to King Nebuchadnezzar, the same wicked ruler who warred against Israel and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C., for which impiety, according to the Book of Daniel, he went mad and ended his days eating grass in the fields.

In Revelation, Babylon embodies all that is corrupt, "a great whore ... with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication." It stands as the antithesis of Jerusalem, the city of righteousness, and Revelation prophesies its annihilation by fire. Since Babylon cannot be destroyed unless it exists, Saddam's ambitious public-works project is seen as an essential step toward prophetic fulfillment.

Charles Dyer's "The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times" (1991) elaborates the theme. Along with the emergence of modern Israel and the European Union (forerunner of the Antichrist's world system), writes Dyer, Saddam's restoration of Babylon signals the approaching end and offers "thrilling proof that Bible prophecies are infallible." "When Babylon is ultimately destroyed," he continues, "Israel will finally be at peace and will dwell in safety."

That theme resonates powerfully with today's calls for Saddam's overthrow. Indeed, the cover illustration of Dyer's book juxtaposes Saddam and Nebuchadnezzar. Hal Lindsey's Web site recently featured a cartoon of a military aircraft emblazoned with a U.S. flag and a Star of David and carrying a missile with a label targeting "Saddam." The caption quoted the prophet Zechariah: "It shall be that day I will seek to destroy all nations that come against Israel."

All of these themes converge in the Left Behind novels. As the plot unfolds, the Antichrist, Nicolae Carpathia, becomes secretary general of the United Nations. ("I've opposed the United Nations for 50 years," boasts one of the authors, Tim LaHaye, a veteran activist on the religious right.) Carpathia moves the U.N. from New York to a rebuilt Babylon, laying the groundwork for the simultaneous destruction of both the city that in the grammar of dispensationalism represents absolute evil and defiance of God's prophetic plan, and the organization that more than any other prefigures the Antichrist's satanic world order.

To be sure, some current Bush-administration policies trouble prophecy believers. For example, the expansion of Washington's surveillance powers after 9/11 (led, ironically, by Attorney General John Ashcroft, darling of the religious right) strikes some as another step toward the Antichrist's global dictatorship. Counterbalancing that, however, other key administration positions its hostility to multinational cooperation and international agreements, its downgrading of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its muted response to growing Jewish settlement in Palestinian territory, and its unrelenting focus on Saddam Hussein strike prophecy believers as perfectly in harmony with God's prophetic plan: a plan that will bring human history to its apocalyptic denouement and usher in the longed-for epoch of righteousness, justice, and peace.

Academics do need to pay more attention to the role of religious belief in American public life, not only in the past, but also today. Without close attention to the prophetic scenario embraced by millions of American citizens, the current political climate in the United States cannot be fully understood.

Leaders have always invoked God's blessing on their wars, and, in this respect, the Bush administration is simply carrying on a familiar tradition. But when our born-again president describes the nation's foreign-policy objective in theological terms as a global struggle against "evildoers," and when, in his recent State of the Union address, he casts Saddam Hussein as a demonic, quasi-supernatural figure who could unleash "a day of horror like none we have ever known," he is not only playing upon our still-raw memories of 9/11. He is also invoking a powerful and ancient apocalyptic vocabulary that for millions of prophecy believers conveys a specific and thrilling message of an approaching end not just of Saddam, but of human history as we know it.

Paul S. Boyer, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and currently a visiting professor of history at the College of William and Mary, is the author of "When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture" (Harvard University Press, 1992).

posted at 01:59:51 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

A good essay on neoconservatism:

ISRAEL�S AMEN CORNER

by Justin Raimondo Tuesday February 04, 2003 at 01:37 PM

ISRAEL�S AMEN CORNER

Who, what, and why

[Justin Raimondo is on the road. What follows is the text of a speech he delivered on Thursday to the Palestine Center conference, at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C.]

How is it that U.S. policy in the Middle East has essentially nothing to do with vital American interests? How is it that, in the midst of a war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, the United States is about to launch a war on the entire Arab-Muslim world, pursuing a policy that pleases the Evil Imam to no end? What is behind the relentless drive to war with Iraq � a country that has never attacked us, and represents no military threat to U.S. territory or forces?

Foreign policy is supposed to be about an abstract concept that goes under the rubric of "the national interest." But since I am a libertarian � that is, someone who believes in the primacy of the individual � this kind of rhetoric doesn�t impress me. Since only individuals can have interests and the means to pursue them, such a concept as the "national interest" is highly suspicious, to say the least. So the question, when it comes to foreign affairs, is really whose interests are being served by a given policy. The idea that some noble, disinterested goal is being achieved, like the growth of "democracy" or the protection of the legitimate rights of our allies, is an illusion perpetrated by the beneficiaries of those policies.

Likewise, the conceptual theory of foreign policy, that traces the origin of a given government�s actions in the international arena to abstract ideas and official ideologies, is utter nonsense. This confuses the rationalization with the motivation. Ideals, noble and ignoble, are the masks behind which governments conceal their real goals, which can be boiled down to a single purpose: the maintenance and expansion of the ruling elite�s power on the home front.

This dynamic is built in to the nature of all governments everywhere, no matter what form they take. A fascist dictator, a democratically-elected President or Prime Minister, the hereditary tribal chief � all must constantly reinforce their own legitimacy in the eyes of the public, or at least some significant portion of it, in order to retain their positions. The dictator of a one-party state cannot base his rule solely on keeping the population terrorized: he must devote an awful lot of resources to propaganda directed at his own subjects. He isn�t all-powerful, not really, and he knows it. If, one day, the majority (or even a significant minority) of his subjects decide to withhold their sanction from the system, and simply cease cooperating, the dictator�s goose is cooked. The Soviets, to their great chagrin, learned this lesson too late.

In a democracy, the process of obtaining popular consent for government action involves elections, in some form, but in all other respects is essentially similar, albeit vastly more complicated. Foreign policy gets made like every other policy: as part of the horse-trading and mutual back-scratching that characterizes the political process.

Having said this, we can now at least begin to imagine the answer to our initial question, and yet it still seems quite mysterious that our policy is not only morally misguided but also so directly opposed to our own interests, objectively understood. Why are we alienating the entire Middle East at such a crucial conjuncture? As Professor Paul W. Schroeder of the University of Illinois pointed out in regard to the upcoming invasion of Iraq:

"It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."

That "small client state" is, of course, Israel, a nation that makes up for its smallness in a geographic sense for the large-scale heft and reach of its American lobby. And, in the age of "democratic" imperialism, it helps a great deal to have an American lobby.

The old-line Zionist organizations in America are one component of Israel�s amen corner in the U.S., naturally enough, but these are probably by far the least influential and are certainly not a decisive factor. Traditionally liberal, Democratic, and pro-secular, these groups have very little influence in the Republican party. However, the two other principal tendencies that make up the pro-Israel lobby, the neoconservatives and the Christian conservatives, are both deeply ensconced in the GOP. Acting in tandem, and playing complementary roles, they have co-opted American foreign policy and made it the instrument of Israel�s right-wing Likud party.

Of these two groups, the neoconservatives are dominant, not numerically � there are only a few dozen of them, after all � but ideologically. Half of them are newspaper columnists, and the other half are influential writers and academics, who shuttle between jobs in government and cushy niches at influential Washington thinktanks. The neocons are the generals and the Christian conservatives of Jerry Falwell�s ilk are the spear-carriers�and naturally it is the former who are far more interesting, so we�ll start with them.

Neoconservatism is a political tendency that grew out of the American left: its initial cadres came out of the Communist movement and especially the Trotskyist tradition. These were high-powered Marxist intellectuals who lost their faith in socialism, hated the Kremlin, and down through the years retained little of their original ideology except a monomaniacal hatred of Stalin and his heirs, and an overriding belligerence. Whatever stand they took on domestic issues shifted with the political winds, but the neocons were consistent about one thing: the need for an aggressive foreign policy. Back when they were Trotskyists, they insisted on the necessity of "permanent revolution" and attacked the Stalinists for not doing enough to export the Revolution abroad. Now that they are conservatives, of a sort, they insist that we must export "democracy" abroad, and criticize the White House whenever it fails to display the proper crusading spirit. The career of Christopher Hitchens demonstrates this syndrome in its purest form.

When the cold war ended, the great enemy the neocons had railed against for half a century was suddenly gone � along with the rationale for a foreign policy of global interventionism. The energizing factor that had fueled American interventionism since the end of World War II, an implacable enemy, disappeared overnight � and did not reappear until 9/11/01. From the fall of the Berlin wall until the fall of the twin towers we had a blessed interregnum of quasi-peace, and the possibility that American conservatives would return to the problem of how to shrink the size and power of Big Government here at home.

But it was not to be.

For that whole decade, the neoconservatives had pined away for lack of an enemy, and had fought off the natural inclination of their fellow conservatives to concern themselves with domestic issues. But when the twin towers fell, the neoconservative movement was energized as never before. With its number one platform plank a policy of global empire-building, the movement was in a perfect position within the Republican party to finally implement its idea of exercising what Bill Kristol calls "benevolent global hegemony." We must become global hegemons for our own protection, they aver, starting with the Middle East.

Much has been said and written about the neoconservative attachment to Israel, but it is a mistake to attribute this fealty entirely or even primarily to ethnic and religious allegiances. It is true that many neoconservatives are of the Jewish faith, but neoconservatism is a set of ideas, not an ethnic but an ideological construction, which explains why there is such a creature as a non Jewish neocon: Bill Bennett and Michael Novak come immediately to mind. To say nothing of Michael Barone. The idea that neocon is a synonym for something else is a vicious canard meant to deflect criticism.

The special place that Israel enjoys in the heart of every neoconservative is due to its nature as a self-created entity: that is, one that reflects their concept of America itself as a country founded on an abstract idea rather than an allegiance to a certain place with a definite history. Israel, also, was America�s staunchest ally during the cold war, and represents all the values that stand in such stark contrast to its neighbors: modernity, democracy, Western culture, all the things that neocons fervently believe must be spread over the entire earth, by force if need be.

So how does this tie in to the "born again" Christians, who make up such an integral part of the Republican party machinery? The interface of these two disparate groups, with their wildly different histories, is the contemporary conservative movement, where support for Israel is unconditional. The neocons insinuated themselves into the traditional institutions of that movement over the years � the thinktanks, the magazines, the grassroots organizations � and slowly co-opted the leadership from the more traditional right-wing types. The Christian conservatives, however, came from another place altogether, since their interest in Israel is entirely theological.

In the first chapter of The Acts of the Apostles, the disciples ask the ascending Jesus, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom to Israel?" This quote from the New Testament encapsulates the fascination with Israel and its key role in the "end times" that characterizes the Protestant tendency known as "dispensationalism," which came to such prominence in the late nineteenth century and is now enjoying a revival.

The idea that Jesus will return, one day, and establish an eternal Kingdom on earth is a central tenet of Christianity. The millennial spirit is endemic to Christian doctrine. But the dispensationalists deviate from the traditional Christian idea that the Kingdom of God will be established after Christ�s return. Indeed, they reverse it: according to them, the actions of human beings, and not God, are enough to bring the Kingdom into being, and, what�s more, can provide the catalyst for the Second Coming.

Reading the Bible literally, and seeing in it all sorts of predictions, the dispensationalists see evidence that the "end times" are upon us based on their interpretation of certain key passages in the Bible. As the dispensationalists see it, the future will be a time of turmoil, but true Bible-believing Christians will be "raptured" away (literally, carried up into heaven) before it begins. This is known as the period of tribulation, which will culminate in a valley northwest of Jerusalem known as Armageddon. When the Christians are "raptured" away, then Israel will take the place of the Church on earth, and, according to the dispensationalists, this will mark the beginning of another theological period or "dispensation" supposedly foreseen in the Bible.

This variant of Protestant fundamentalist doctrine is the root of what is known as "Christian Zionism," a movement that preceded the formal establishment of the Jewish variety by some years. As related by Professor Donald Wagner in article in The Christian Century, "Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance":

"When Israel captured Jerusalem in the 1967 war; dispensationalists were certain that the end was near. L. Nelson Bell, Billy Graham�s father-in-law and editor of Christianity Today, wrote in July 1967: �That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives the student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible.�"

The political alliance of Zionism and dispensationalist Christianity set down roots early in the century, here and in Britain, and these have grown stronger over the years, finally culminating in an effective, well-funded political machine that forms the base of the present-day Republican party. With neoconservative theoreticians at the head of the column, and a "born again" army of spear carriers standing behind them, the Neocon-"born again" alliance, working in tandem with mainstream Zionist organizations, has become a pervasive force in American politics. Having won the White House, and established a veritable stranglehold on Congress, Israel�s amen corner in the U.S. has infiltrated the national security and diplomatic apparatus via the GOP and effectively controls U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Why is the United States embarked on a war that cannot possibly benefit us? Don�t let them tell you it�s all about oil. The price of oil will go down once Saddam�s supply is unleashed on the open market. If oil is a factor, it is a minor one: it is Israel, not oil, that energizes the drive to war. And we are not just talking about war with Iraq, but a regional war, one in which Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will all be counted as our enemies. What the neocons � and the dispensationalists � want (each for their own reasons) is what Norman Podhoretz, a leading neocon, calls "World War IV." World War III, you understand, was the cold war. The fourth world war will be, as Poddy puts it, George W. Bush�s "war against militant Islam."

The war against Iraq will be the first shot of that war.

Here, in the scenario of World War IV and the subsequent conquest of the Middle East by American armies, the ideas that motivate the neocons and the dispensationalists come together. For the neocons, this implements and validates both their desire to protect and expand the Israeli state and their theories of American hegemonism; for the dispensationalists, it fulfills their prophecies of the "end times" and gives existential reality to the idea of Armageddon as an actual battle. These are the two pillars that hold up our irrational and dangerous policy in the Middle East, and we cannot even think of changing that policy until their foundations are weakened, and, after the exertion of Samson-like efforts on our part, they come tumbling down.

� Justin Raimondo

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1570004.php

Interesting article:

Kurdish leaders enraged by 'undemocratic' American plan to occupy Iraq

By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, northern Iraq

17 February 2003

The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers.

It undercuts the argument by George Bush and Tony Blair that war is justified by the evil nature of the regime in Baghdad.

"Conquerors always call themselves liberators," said Sami Abdul-Rahman, deputy prime minister of the Kurdish administration, in a reference to Mr Bush's speech last week in which he said US troops were going to liberate Iraq.

Mr Abdul-Rahman said the US had reneged on earlier promises to promote democratic change in Iraq. "It is very disappointing," he said. "In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and replace them with American military officers."

Kurdish officials strongly believe the new US policy is the result of pressure from regional powers, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The US appears to be quietly abandoning earlier declarations that it would make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East. In Iraq, free elections would lead to revolutionary change because although the Shia Muslims and Kurds constitute three-quarters of the population, they are excluded from power in Baghdad by the Sunni Muslim establishment.

Kurdish leaders are deeply alarmed by US intentions, which only became clear at a meeting in Ankara earlier in the month and from recent public declarations by US officials. Hoshyar Zebari, a veteran Kurdish leader, said: "If the US wants to impose its own government, regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of Iraq, there is going to be a backlash."

Mr Abdul-Rahman accuses the US of planning cosmetic changes in Iraq. "This is to give the government on a platter to the second line of Ba'athists [the ruling party]," he said.

The US appears to be returning to the policy it pursued at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. It did seek to get rid of President Saddambut wanted to avoid a radical change in Iraq. The US did not support the uprisings of Shia Muslims and Kurdsbecause it feared a transformation in Iraqi politics that might have destabilised its allies in the Middle East or benefited Iran.

The two Kurdish parties � the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which rules western Kurdistan, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan � are at the heart of the Iraqi opposition. Together they rule four million people in an area the size of Switzerland that has been outside President Saddam's control since 1991.

The change in American policy means marginalising the Iraqi opposition which has been seeking to unite. In response to the US decision, the Kurds and their allies have accelerated moves to hold a conference of opposition parties in Salahudin, the headquarters of the KDP, now scheduled for tomorrow. "We want to know if we are partners in regime change or not," Mr Zebari said.

He spoke scathingly of any attempt by America "to bring in an Iraqi from the United States who has not seen his country for years and impose him by armed force".

The destabilising impact of the impending war is already being felt in the mountains of northern Iraq. Turkey has demanded that its troops be allowed to take over a swath of territory along the border inside Iraq. The ostensible reason is to prevent a flood of Kurdish refugees trying to flee into Turkey, but the Kurdish parties say they are quite capable of doing this themselves. They say the Turkish demand, to which they suspect the US has agreed in return for the use of Turkish military facilities, is the first step in a Turkish plan to advance into Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Kurds fear that a US-led war against President Saddam might be the occasion for a Turkish effort to end the de facto independence enjoyed by Iraqi Kurds for more than a decade. One Kurdish leader said: "Turkey has made up its mind that it will intervene in northern Iraq in order to destroy us.

� Peace activists who want to be "human shields" arrived in Baghdad yesterday. The activists, who had 18 Britons among them, left London on 25 January in three double decker buses. They will deploy at likely bombing targets.

Patrick Cockburn is a visiting fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and the co-author of 'Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession'.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060

posted at 09:54:31 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Here is an English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's February (2003) 16-minute audio tape:

Exposing the New Crusader War - Usama Bin Laden -

February 2003

Praise be to Allah, then again Praise be to Him, who

revealed the Verse of the Sword to His servant and His

Messenger (SAWS) in order to establish the Truth and to

eradicate Falsehood. So Praise be to Allah who says:

"Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the

polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and

besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.

But if they repent and perform Salah and give Zakah, then

leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most

Merciful." (Quran 9:5)

And Praise be to Allah who says:

"Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands and

disgrace them and give you Victory over them and heal the

hearts of a believing people." (Quran 9:14)

And peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad (SAWS)

who said, "I was sent with the Sword in the waning of the

Hour until Allah Alone is worshipped without any partners,

and He placed my sustenance beneath the shadow of my spear

and He placed disgrace and belittlement on he who opposes my

orders and he who imitates a people, then he is one of

them." (Ahmad, Sahih) And he (SAWS) also said: "Expel the

polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula." (Muslim)

As to what follows:

This is a time when the blood of the Muslims continues to

flow in Palestine and Chechnya, in the Philippines, Kashmir

and Sudan and when our children are dying because of the

American sanctions on Iraq. At a time when our wounds have

not yet healed following the Crusader Wars on the Islamic

World in the last century, and because of the result of the

Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 between France and Britain,

which led to the division of the Islamic World into bits and

pieces - with the agents of the Crusaders continuing to rule

under this agreement to this very day - we are again

witnessing another Sykes-Picot Agreement, but this time one

which is between Bush and Blair, but of the same nature and

for the same purpose: to destruction and eradication of the

Ummah (nation) of our Beloved Prophet (SAWS).

Indeed the Bush-Blair Agreement proclaims to eradicate

terrorism, but it is now clear to everyone that the real

purpose of this Agreement is to try and finish Islam and

destroy it.

With that, the rulers of the region are assuring the public

in their speeches and statements, of their support to Bush

in his War on Terror, which is in fact a War on Islam and

the Muslims, in an act of clear betrayal and treachery

against the Muslim Ummah, reinforced by the government

scholars and corrupt ministers. It is no secret that the

recent deployment of forces for an attack on Iraq is only a

link in the chain of continuing attacks on the countries of

this region including Egypt, Syria, Iran and Sudan. However,

their real intention is to conquer and divide the Land of

the Two Holy Sanctuaries as they have

long realized the strategic value of this target ever since

this objective was passed on from Britain to the United

States 60 years ago. Moreover, America actually tried 30

years ago to fulfill this objective during the War of the

10th of Ramadan when their President at the time, Nixon,

threatened to invade the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries,

but he was unable to do so. Since the beginning of the

Second Gulf War, America has established her principal and

powerful military bases in the Land of the Two Holy

Sanctuaries, especially close to its capital (Riyadh). The

only thing that was remaining for them to do was to divide

the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries and it now appears that

this time has arrived. In conclusion, the main American plan

and target in this region with this current build-up is not

a moving summer cloud that will bring peace to the World,

but rather a strategic target of immense significance that

will never be neglected by the cunning and dirty American

policy at any cost. Allah is Sufficient for us and what an

Excellent Guardian is He!

So what have the governments in the region prepared in order

to counter this strategic enemy objective? The answer is

that they have prepared nothing except for an increase in

support to the Crusaders and the unification of the Arab

Interior Ministers to fight against the Mujahideen and make

life difficult for the righteous scholars and propagators

who are striving hard to warn the Muslim Nation to take

necessary measures to protect itself. One of the most

important objectives of this latest Crusade is to establish

a huge Jewish superstate (Greater Israel) that will include

the whole of Palestine, parts of Iraq, Egypt, Syria,

Lebanon, Jordan, and a huge area from the Land of the Two

Holy Sanctuaries. And what do you know about Greater Israel

and the harm and suffering that it will bring to this

region? What is happening in Palestine is a small sample of

what will take place in the region: the killing of men,

women and children; imprisonment, terrorism and the

destruction of houses; the pillaging of the land and razing

of factories; and putting the people into a perpetual state

of fear where they can expect death at any time due to a

rocket or shell destroying their houses and killing their

womenfolk. So what are we going to answer to our Lord

tomorrow? As for what is happening in Palestine, even a

strong man finds it difficult to handle, so what about the

oppressed mothers who watch their children die between their

very hands? To Allah we belong and to Him we must return!

Allah is Sufficient for us and what an excellent Guardian is

He! 0 Allah I distance myself before You from what these

Jews, Christians, treacherous rulers and whoever supports

them in their ruling, are doing! I apologize to You from

these sitters who are not supporting and working for the

victory of the Religion.

Therefore, the creation of Greater Israel will mean the

total domination of Jews on these lands, and what do you

know about the Jews? The same Jews, who lied and tried to

trick the Creator, so what about their dealings with the

creation? They killed the Prophets and broke their promises,

as Allah said:

"Is it not (the case) that every time they make a covenant,

some party among them throw it aside? Nay! the truth is most

of them believe not." (Quran 2:100) These are the Jews, the

lords of usury and leaders of treachery. They will not leave

anything for you, neither religion nor worldly affairs.

Allah said about them:

"Or have they a share in the Dominion? Then in that case

they would not give mankind even a naqira (speck on the back

of a date-stone)." (Quran 4:53)

These are the Jews who consider it part of their religion

that Mankind are slaves to them, and whoever refuses to

serve them deserves to be killed. Allah said about them:

"That is because they say: 'There is no blame on us to

betray and take the properties of the illiterates (Arabs).'

But they tell a lie against Allah while they know it.'(Quran

3:75)

These arc some of the characteristics of the Jews, so be

aware of them and these are some of the intentions behind

the Crusader plan so understand them well. So what is the

solution to protect ourselves from their evil of the

disbelievers and to save our lands? To answer this, I say

with ability from Allah, what the righteous servant, Prophet

Shuaib (SAWS) said:

"I only desire reform so far as I am able, to the best of my

power. And my guidance cannot come except from Allah, in Him

I trust and unto Him I repent." (Quran 11:88)

Therefore, the way to protect ourselves from the evil of the

disbelievers is Jihad in the Path of Allah, as Allah said,

"Then fight (0 Muhammad SAW) in the Cause of Allah, you are

not held responsible except for yourself, and incite the

believers (to fight along with you), it may be that Allah

will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah

is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing." (Quran

4:84)

Firstly, let me inform you of the good news, with Allah's

Bounty, that the Muslim Ummah today possesses huge

capabilities and powers to rescue Palestine and the other

lands of the Muslims, but they have been restricted. Thus,

we must work hard in order to release these capabilities.

In the same way, I inform you of the good news that our

Ummah has been promised victory by Allah, but if this

victory has become delayed, then it is due to our sins and

our sitting back from helping the Religion of Allah (SWT) as

Allah (SWT) said: "If you help (in the cause of) Allah, He

will help you, and make your foothold firm." (Quran 47:7)

Furthermore, our Ummah has also been promised victory over

the Jews as the Prophet (SAWS) informed us:

"The Day of Judgment mil not come until the Muslims fight

against the Jews and the Muslims will kill them until the

Jews will hide behind trees and rocks, and the trees and

rocks will speak, saying, '0 Muslim! 0 servant of Allah!

There is a Jew behind me so

come and kill him, except for the Gharqad (Boxthom) Tree,

for it is the tree of the Jews." (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

Thus, this hadith indicates to us that the confrontation

will be with face-to-face battle, not by disabling the

resources of the Ummah for decades, using other methods like

the deception of Democracy and other similar tricks. With

this good news, let me inform you of some matters that will

assist us with our Jihad in the Path of Allah, by relating

to you some stories and accounts in which the Muslims were

victorious during the past two decades, which will, if Allah

wills, serve to raise the morale and trust of the sons of

this Ummah on themselves. And it is very important to

provide our Ummah with the inspiration that it requires in

order to protect itself in this latest Crusade.

The truth is that the Muslim Ummah is the greatest human

power on the face of the Earth only if it establishes Islam

properly, and then it will be able to face those so-called

Superpower nations. Before that, let me tell you about an

incident that took place in a confrontation of the Muslims

against a Superpower. The scholars of history said that Al-

Muthannah Ash-Shaibani (RA) came to Madinah to seek help in

fighting the Persians.

Therefore, the Caliph Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA) announced a

call to mobilization of the Muslims for three days, but not

a single person volunteered. Therefore, Umar realized the

extent of the fear in the Muslims and their magnification of

the power of the Persians and so he asked Al-Muthannah to

narrate to them about his victories against the Persians so

that this fear would be removed. So Al-Muthanna began to

inform the people of his victories against the Persians,

saying,

"0 people, let not this force frighten you as we have

humiliated the Persians and defeated them. We have been

cleverer than them, we have shown more courage than them, we

have strangled them and we have the upper hand over them and

to whoever comes after them insha-Allah. "

Thus, the people became excited and Abu Ubaidah Ath-Thaqafi

stood up and Umar (RA) gave him the banner of the Muslims,

and he marched to battle, with the people following him, may

Allah be pleased with them.

And I say imitating these great, noble people: "0 people,

let not this force frighten you. Let not the power of

America and its army frighten you, for by Allah we have

struck them multiple times and routed them again and again.

They are most cowardly of people when the armies meet."

It has been made clear during our defending and fighting

against the American enemy that this enemy's combat strategy

is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war due

to its large and efficient media apparatus and of course its

indiscriminate aerial bombing which hides the cowardice and

lack of fighting spirit of the American soldier. Due to a

limit of time, I cannot relate to you some unbelievable

incidents that happened in our encounters with them in Tora

Bora and Shahi-Kot.

Anyway, I start by reminding you of the defeat of the

Worlds' largest Superpower at the hands of the Mujahideen:

the Soviet Union, which took place after ten years of fierce

fighting carried out by the sons of the Afghans and whoever

helped them from the sons of the Muslims, with Allah's

Grace. Likewise, the defeat of the Russians in Chechnya when

the Chechen Mujahideen accompanied by their Arab and Foreign

brothers displayed examples of sacrifice and self-redemption

and smashed the arrogance of the Russians, inflicting upon

them defeat upon defeat. Thus, the Russians withdrew from

Chechnya after the First War, only to return a second time

with American backup and support, but yet they continue to

suffer heavy defeats at the hands of a small believing

group, and we ask Allah to make them firm and give victory

to them.

Likewise, let me remind you of the defeat of the American

forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after the Israeli invasion of

Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance was personified by the

truck laden with explosives that struck the main military

base of the US Marines in Beirut, killing 242 soldiers -

towards Hell was their destination and what an evil

destination that is.

Then after the Second Gulf War, America deployed her forces

to Somalia and killed over thirteen thousand sons of the

Muslims therein, before the lions of Islam from amongst the

'Arab Afghans' and their brothers from that region pounced

upon her and rubbed her arrogance into the dust, killing

scores of them, destroying their tanks and downing their

aircraft.

Thus, America and her allies fled in the darkness of the

night without disturbing the attention of anyone so Praise

and Glory be to Allah for this. During that same period, the

young Mujahideen prepared for them explosives in Aden and

after their detonation, the cowardly Americans ran away and

fled the country in less than 24 hours.

Then in 1995, the explosion in Riyadh took place, killing

four Americans, in a clear message from the people of that

region displaying their rejection and opposition to the

American policy of bankrolling the Jews and occupying the

Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. The following year,

another explosion in Al-Khobar killed 19 Americans and

wounded more than 400 of them, prompting them to move their

bases from the cities to the desert.

Then in 1998, the Mujahideen warned America to cease their

support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy

Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so

the Mujahideen, with the ability from Allah, smashed them

with two mighty smashes in East Africa. Then again America

was warned, but she refused to pay attention to the

warnings, so the Mujahideen destroyed the American

Destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation,

striking a solid blow to the face of the American military

and at the same time, exposing the Yemeni Government as

American agents, similar to all the countries in the region.

Following that, the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs

in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and

foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people,

denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen)

were striking them because we were jealous of them (the

Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them

because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the

Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their

occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. Upon

seeing this, the Mujahideen decided teach them a lesson and

to take the war to their heartland.

On the blessed Tuesday 11 September 2001, while the Zionist-

American Alliance was targeting our children and our people

in the blessed land of Al-Aqsa, with American tanks and

planes in the hands of the Jews, and our people in Iraq were

suffering from the America's sanctions upon them, and the

Islamic world was very far away from establishing Islam

properly. While all of this was taking place and the Muslims

were in a very miserable and disheartened state - except

those upon whom Allah had Mercy - and from the injustice,

darkness and aggression being carried out by the Zionist-

American Alliance. While the nation of Uncle Sam was

carrying out all this without any care or consideration,

then came the youths with disheveled hair and dusty feet,

those who were wanted and pursued all over the World. These

youth who believed in their Lord so Allah provided them with

Guidance and put constancy in their tongues and Iman in

their hearts so they stopped fearing for the Sake of Allah,

the blame of any blamer. These youths, who were seeking what

was with Allah, denying themselves of sleep, who poured out

the water of life but did not pour out the water of dignity.

So they launched their attacks with their planes in an

unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor, unmatched by any

in humankind before them.

They destroyed the idols of America, they struck at the very

heart of the Department of Defense and they hit the black

heart of the US Economy, rubbing America's nose into the

dust and rolling her arrogance and pride into mud. Yet with

the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, there

occurred an even bigger destruction: that of the great

American Dream and legend of Democracy. It has now been made

clear to all that American dignity and values are at the

lowest level they have ever reached. The legend of being the

land of freedom, the legend of being the safest and most

secure place on Earth, and the legend of the CIA, all these

have been destroyed with the Help of Allah, so to Allah be

Praise and Glory.

One of the many positive results from the retaliatory

attacks on New York and Washington is that it has exposed

the true characteristics of the Crusaders and revealed the

extent of their hate towards the Muslims. These attacks took

off the skin of the American wolf and they have been left

standing in their filthy, naked reality. Thus the whole

World awoke from its sleep and the Muslims realized the

importance of the belief of loving and hating for the sake

of Allah; the ties of brotherhood between the Muslims have

become stronger, which is a very good sign and a great step

towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous

Islamic Khilafah insha-Allah. It has become clear to the

American public that America, this great and oppressive

power, can also be struck and disgraced. The American public

is also now aware of what is happening in Palestine and that

what happened to them in Manhattan was because of the

policies of the leaders that they elected.

In conclusion, America is definitely a great power, with an

unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but

all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow

foundation. Therefore, it is very easy to target that flimsy

base and concentrate on their weak points and even if we are

able to target one tenth of these weak points, we will be

able crush and destroy them and remove them from ruling and

conquering the World.

Thus, this small group of Muslims, by facing up to and

standing in front of the international coalition against

them and Islam, proved that it is possible to militarily

fight against this Superpower and that they were able to

protect their Religion and benefit the causes of their Ummah

much more than what the governments and people of these

fifty odd Islamic countries have done, because this small

group chose the Path of Jihad as the way for the victory of

the Religion, as Abu Hilalah said:

There are reasons for victory and for defeat as well, And

every method that generates eternity is successful.

The ways towards dignity are many but the shortest one is

the one, That puts forward one's blood around its difficult

path.

By the Grace of Allah, there are many examples of these

champions in the Muslim Ummah, but most of them have been

restrained, so we have to cooperate together to release

these difficulties and restrictions so that they march

towards Jihad in the Path of Allah because Jihad is the way

to honor this Ummah and provide it security.

As for the restrictions and obstacles preventing the youths

of our Nation from marching to Jihad, then they are many in

number so we will only discuss the important ones. I begin

with mentioning to you an authentic hadith, whoever takes

guidance from it benefits and whoever deviates from it is

destroyed. The Prophet (SAWS) said: "Nations before you were

destroyed because when a noble person amongst them stole,

they would leave him alone, and when a poor, weak person

amongst them stole, they would establish the penal

punishment against him.� (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

So learn from this 0 you people of insight, and let me tell

you about the story of the Islam of Khalid bin Al-Waleed

(RA), a story that released the blindness of the minds. It

was said to Khalid after he accepted Islam quite later on:

"Where was your mind 0 Khalid, in that you did not see the

light of Prophethood in front of your very eyes, for 20

years?�

Khalid replied, "We had in front of us men, whose

aspirations and dreams we would consider as great as

mountains.�

Imam Ahmad (RA) said: "From the lack a/understanding of a

man is that he blindly follows his religion from other men.�

So the first of these restrictions and obstacles in our

present time is the rulers and the witnesses of futility

from amongst the evil government scholars, corrupt

ministers, salaried writers and those similar to them. As

for the leaders, the people already know about their

weaknesses and their treachery. But as for those who press

the people to pledge their hands into the hands of these

leaders despite all of this, then we just want to ask them,

"When did the masses actually pledge their allegiance to

these leaders in the first place such that they are now

being advised to renew their loyalty to them?" The truth is

they never even pledged allegiance to them in the first

place and the result, as you can see, is the oppression of

the disbelievers upon us. It has been said:

Those who betray in their affairs when the situation is

difficult, Then they will never be able to rectify their

affairs when the situation is easy.

So our difference with the leaders is not a minor

disagreement that can be easily resolved; rather we are

talking about the root of Islam which is La ilaha illallah

(There is no god but Allah) and the difference actually lies

there. These leaders destroyed this statement and ignored it

by allying themselves with the disbelievers, ruling by their

own man-made laws and supporting and agreeing with the

Atheist United Nations. Therefore, it is prohibited by

Shariah to pledge allegiance to them and to follow them, but

we will not delve into this subject further here as we have

already reminded the people of knowledge about this in the

17th Declaration of the Advice and Reformation Committee.

After all this, we ask that is it possible for a Muslim to

say to the Muslims to pledge their hands into the hands of

Hamid Karzai and cooperate with him to establish Islam, lift

oppression and cease the plans of America in their tracks?!!

This is impossible because Karzai is an American agent and

supporting him against the Muslims takes a person outside

the fold of Islam. Here we have to ask ourselves: what is

the difference between Karzai the non-Arab and Karzai the

Arab? Who are the ones who implanted and established the

rulers of the Arabian Gulf? They are none other than the

Crusaders, who appointed the Karzai of Kabul, established

the Karzai of Pakistan, implanted the Karzai of Kuwait and

the Karzai of Bahrain and the Karzai of Qatar and others.

And who are the ones who appointed the Karzai of Riyadh and

brought him after he used to be a bandit in Kuwait a long

time ago in order to fight with them against the Ottoman

Empire and its leader, Ibn Rasheed? They were none other

than the Crusaders and they are continuing to enslave us up

this very day!!

Allah said: "Are your disbelievers (0 Quraish!) better than

these (previous nations who were destroyed)? Or have you an

immunity (against Our Torment) in the Divine Scriptures?"

(Quran 54:43)

These traitors who want to solve our Islamic causes,

including one of the most important causes of Palestine,

under the rules and regulations of the United Nations or the

orders of America, similar to the initiative launched by

Crown Prince Abdullah in Beirut, in which he sold the blood

of our martyrs and the Palestinian cause in order to satisfy

the and assist the Jews and Americans against the Muslims.

These leaders have betrayed Allah and His Messenger (SAWS),

left the fold of Islam and betrayed the Muslim Nation.

So as for those who want to solve these cases by these

incapable traitors, then they are only tricking themselves

and moreover they are fooling their Ummah. They are the ones

who incline towards the oppressors and have gone astray a

clear deviation. At the very best, those Muslims who raise

such slogans are weak evil-doers so it is incumbent upon the

Muslims to advise them, and if they do not accept the

advice, then to warn and be warned against them.

Likewise, it is necessary upon the Muslims to declare

themselves free from these tyrannical leaders and it is not

a secret that distancing oneself from a tyrant is not just

an optional action, but rather it is one of the two pillars

of Tawheed, and Iman cannot be established in the absence of

either of them. Allah (SWT) said:

"Whoever disbelieves in false deities and believes in Allah,

then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will

never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, AUKnower." (Quran

2:256)

Regarding the evil government scholars, corrupt ministers,

salaried writers and the likes, as it has been said that in

every era there will be states with followers, so all these,

they are from the followers of the state, who distort the

Truth and testify to evil even inside the Sacred House and

in the Sacred Months. They implore the people that the

treacherous rulers are our righteous guardians and that it

is necessary to support them in order to keep our nation

intact and firm. These people have deviated from the Path so

it is obligatory to shun them and warn against them.

Furthermore, the state emphasizes and displays these

scholars on religious television programs where they give

fatawa in support of the system and try to show that the

system is according to the rulings of Islam, just like the

day when the King of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries

allowed the Americans to enter this land. He ordered the

scholars to give their fatawa, against the Religion, and

these scholars played with the minds of the public, and

because of the actions of this King, the traitor, the Ummah

today is suffering from the problems and the fear as a

result of when he opened the Land of the Two Holy

Sanctuaries to the disbelieving forces.

Whoever studies the biographies of the true and righteous

scholars during difficult times in the past, such as the

life of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (RA), will find vast

differences between the scholars who act and the scholars

who compromise; such as the stories that we can find in

Siyar A'laam An-Nubalaa' by Imam Adh-Dhahabi.

We raise our worldly life by tearing and ripping our

religion,

Eventually neither our religion will remain nor what we were

raising.

As for the second obstacle, then it is those scholars and

propagators who love the Truth and hate Falsehood, but they

sit back from Jihad. These scholars saw Falsehood spreading

and increasing so they attempted to revive the Truth by

enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. As a result,

Allah guided multitudes of people on their hands and they

have done well, as naturally Falsehood will always feel

discomfort in the presence of Truth and its people.

Therefore, the oppressors restrained and frightened these

scholars and propagators; banned them from delivering

sermons and lectures; sacked them from their jobs and then

imprisoned some of them if they continued to enjoin the good

and forbid evil.

Therefore, all of these measures forced them to deviate

except whom Allah had Mercy on. Naturally, this is human

nature as a person cannot make the correct decisions under

extreme pressure, especially when his security is

threatened, just like the Prophet (SAWS) said: "A judge

cannot pass judgment between two people when he is angry."

This refers to when he is angry, so what about when he is

frightened? Thus, this state policy of fear and repression

on the people has destroyed every aspect of life, including

religion. The religion is sincere advice but there is no

advice without security.

This fear has divided the people into various groups and we

will discuss some of them.

One group took the side of the leaders and gave their

loyalty to the state. Another group thought that they would

not be able to continue with their propagation and teaching,

and that the future of their learning institutions and

organizations, their own selves, homes and families was at

stake; if they did not praise the tyrants, so they made an

evil and false choice to compromise with the leaders, thus

going astray and leading many others astray.

As for me third group, Allah protected them from the threats

of the treacherous leaders and compromising with them, so

they remained steadfast under the banner of enjoining the

good and forbidding the evil and they have carried out very

thankful efforts in calling to Allah.

However, due to the extreme measures mentioned earlier for

which they had not prepared themselves, especially the pains

of Hijrah (migration) and Jihad, they suffered.

Moreover, there was an excellent opportunity for these

twenty years ago but they failed to benefit from it and so

it resulted in their lack of ability to make the correct

decision under these difficult situations. That is why we

are still witnessing some of them, until now, holding back

from Jihad and resistance to the enemy. The victory of this

religion and its establishment requires many difficulties to

be overcome and these characteristics are clear in the Book

of Allah and in the Life of His Messenger (SAWS) and his

Noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Whoever

fails to follow in these footsteps of theirs will not be

able to establish the real victory of Islam as this path

demands the biting of swords and the carrying of heads in

the hands in the Path of Allah. These are the descriptions

mentioned by Allah in the Quran:

"0 you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from

his religion, Allah will bring a people whom He will love

and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern

towards the disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allah, and

never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace

of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is

All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower." (Quran

5:54)

And in the incident that took place when the Prophet (SAWS)

met Waraqah bin Nawfal, who said to him: "Woe be to me,

would that I be alive when the times comes when your people

will turn against and expel you!" So the Prophet (SAWS)

replied to him, "Will they really turn against and expel

me?� Waraqah replied, "Yes, as there has never before come a

man with the likes of what you have brought, except that he

faced hostility. If I live to witness that day, then I will

surely stand by you and support you."

Therefore, the state of the one who wants to carry the

religion with its right, is enmity from the people of

Falsehood; and the state of the one who desires to establish

the religion is exerting himself to the utmost with his own

life and the lives of others, as Waraqah said: "If I live to

witness that day. then I will surely stand by you and

support you."

Such was the state of the believers on the Day of the

historic Pledge of Aqabah:

Thus, the victory of the religion cannot occur merely by the

giving of lectures without sacrificing our time and our

wealth as the commodity of Allah (Paradise) is expensive.

When Jihad becomes compulsory, there is a massive difference

between sitting and giving lectures, and sacrificing lives

and heads for the victory of the religion. That is why Al-

Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib, despite being on the religion of

his forefathers, wanted to satisfy himself of the security

of his nephew, the Prophet (SAWS) before he migrated to

Madinah. He addressed the Ansar saying,

"I/you realty are a people of strength, power and knowledge

of war, you will realize the hostility of the Arabs and that

they will shoot at you from a single bow (unite to fight

you) if you accept this man into your fold.�

So I say that these characteristics were necessary for the

people of Iman to possess in order to protect the Messenger

of Allah (SAWS) and they are necessary today to protect the

religion of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS).

Anyway, when Al-Abbas finished his address, Al-Baraa bin

Maroor said: "We have understood your words and if there was

any doubt in our hearts, by Allah we would have said it, but

we have chosen to be loyal and true and to protect the

Messenger (SAWS) despite the consequences."

So I say that this is the true religion, which can only be

established by loyalty and truth despite any consequences

that may come from adopting this way. And then when the

people of Madinah stood up to pledge their allegiance, As'ad

bin Zararah said:

"Wait, 0 people of Madinah! Before we pledge to him (SAWS)

our livers of obedience, we should now that he is the

Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and taking him into our fold today

will mean incurring on us the enmity of all of the Arabs,

the killing of the best of your men and your biting the

swords. Therefore, if you are prepared to bear this then

take him and your reward will be with Allah, and if you are

afraid of not being able to

bear this responsibility, then say so and leave him now and

that will be more excusable for you before Allah!"

Then they all replied in one voice: "0 As'ad, lower your

hand from us for by Allah we will never break this pledge

and nor will we forsake it!"

This is exactly what the Mujahideen are saying to the

scholars and the propagators who love the Truth and do not

compromise with Falsehood: You have raised the banner of the

religion of Islam and you know that the religion of the

Messenger of Allah (SAWS) is true, so your carrying of the

religion with its rights means opposition to the governments

of the Arabs and the non-Arabs in the entire World; the

killing of the best of you and that you will bite the

swords. So if you are able to bear that patiently, then

protect this banner and your reward will be with Allah. And

if you fear even an iota of weakness in yourselves, then

leave the banner of defending and fighting and do not come

in the way of the youths of the Ummah and Jihad in the Path

of Allah, as that will be more excusable for you before

Allah.

So what is obligatory upon the Muslims in the face of this

new Zionist-Crusader war against the Ummah of Islam?

Allah said: "Then fight (0 Muhammad SAWS) in the Cause of

Allah, you are not held responsible except for yourself, and

incite the believers (to fight along with you), it may be

that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers.

And Allah is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing."

(Quran 4:84)

The first compulsory obligation after Iman today is

defending and fighting against the enemy aggressor. Sheikh-

ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) said: "As for defending against

the enemy aggressor who spoils the religion and the worldly

affairs, then there is nothing more obligatory after Iman

then repelling him and there are no conditions for this

ruling."

So Jihad today is compulsory on the entire Ummah and she

will remain in sin until she produces her sons, her wealth

and her power to the extent of being able to wage Jihad and

defend against the evil of the disbelievers upon all the

Muslims in Palestine and elsewhere. It is obligatory upon

the believers to wage Jihad in order to establish the Truth

and eradicate Falsehood, to the utmost of their abilities.

The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said in Sahih Muslim: "So,

whoever strives against them with his hand is a believer,

and whoever strives against them by his heart is a believer,

and whoever strives against them by his tongue is a

believer, and beyond that there is not a mustard-seed's

amount of faith.�(Muslim)

This great hadith categorizes all of the believers and since

we are believers, we are Mujahideen in the Way of Allah for

the victory of this religion. So as for the believer who

stays back from Jihad with his hand and his tongue, then it

is obligatory upon him to make Jihad with his heart and this

entails hating the enemies of Allah and supplicating against

them; supporting the believers and the Mujahideen,

supplicating for them and

letting them feel the brotherhood of Iman that connects us

Muslims from the East to the West; and wishing sincerely in

his heart to wage Jihad in the Path of Allah by his hand and

his tongue, but this is the weakest of Iman. It is also

necessary for him to boycott the products of America and her

allies and he must especially be cautious from assisting

Falsehood in any way as supporting the disbelievers against

the Muslims, even with a single word, is clear kufr

(disbelief) as the scholars have mentioned. He or she must

also be careful not to be amongst those about whom Allah

said:

"Those who are miserly and enjoin miserliness on other

men..." (Quran 4:37) or from amongst those about whom Allah

said:

"Allah already knows those among you who keep back (men)

from fighting in Allah's Cause, and those who say to their

brethren 'Come here towards us,' while they (themselves)

come not to the battle except a little." (Quran 33:18)

Therefore, he must not combine the major sin of sitting back

from Jihad, with the major sin of betrayal. Although Jihad

in person is obligatory upon the entire Ummah, then it is

even more obligatory upon the youths in the prime of their

lives than upon the old. Likewise, Jihad with wealth is more

obligatory today upon the wealthy Muslims than on those who

are not as wealthy as them.

Part of Allah's Grace upon the Ummah today is that he has

opened many breasts others to Jihad in His Way and the

protection of His Religion and His servants, so it is

obligatory upon the Ummah to assist them, encourage them and

facilitate their affairs to that they can repel from the

Ummah any oppression, betrayal or sin. Likewise, it is

obligatory upon the Ummah to protect the Jihad that exists

today and lend support to it with every means of power that

it possesses, as this Jihad is a very valuable asset to us,

as is the case in Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir,

Indonesia, the Philippines and other Muslim lands. Despite

the vicious attacks of the enemies, the banner of Jihad in

these lands is not continuing to remain aloft except by the

Grace of Allah, and the extreme efforts and sacrifices of

the Mujahideen with their blood and skulls, we ask Allah to

accept them amongst the martyrs.

Furthermore, I convey to you glad tidings that the Jihad in

Afghanistan is currently in a very good position and the

conditions there are very favorable for the Mujahideen, with

the Grace of Allah. We are now in the second year of our

fighting against the Americans and until now, America has

not been able to fulfill her war objectives. On the

contrary, she is now trapped inside the Afghan swamp. As for

the victories that America experienced in the first few

months of the war, after they captured the cities following

the Mujahideen withdrawal from them, then it is no secret to

general military experts and those specializing in

Afghanistan in particular, that this was a tactical

withdrawal in line with the nature of the Taliban

Administration and the nature of the Afghans in their long

history of guerrilla warfare.

At that times, there was no organized army of the Taliban

that could have defended the cities, but now, with Allah's

Grace, the Afghans have re-organized themselves to the

utmost of their ability and they have dug themselves in for

a long guerrilla war from the deep, rugged and harsh

mountains of Afghanistan, using similar tactics that they

employed against the Soviet Union, with Allah's Grace. They

are using those same tactics against the Americans and with

the rate of operations having reached two every day, the

Americans are in real problems now. They are not able to

protect their forces and nor are they able to bring

stability to the country, let alone protecting the leader

and protecting the public. By Allah's Grace, during this

last year, all of the Mujahideen have united their forces

and all are extremely enthusiastic for Jihad, realizing that

Jihad against the Americans is obligatory upon them. If it

was not for a lack of resources, then they would have

increased their rate of operations to ten every day, just

like in the previous Jihad against the Russians, and the

Americans would never be able to bear this, but presently it

is not possible. Therefore, it is a compulsive obligation

upon the Ummah today to lend assistance to the Jihad in

Afghanistan because it is one of the most important arenas

of Jihad. Furthermore, we must concentrate on removing the

Americans from Afghanistan, for defeating them in

Afghanistan will be the beginning of the end of America

insha-Allah. With the Permission of Allah, you will not be

attacked from our direction and the direction of our

brothers from the Afghan Mujahideen, so we hope that we are

not attacked from your direction.

The Ummah today is in an era from amongst the eras of Allah,

in which it must not weaken nor tire nor transgress. Rather,

it must unite the ranks of the Muslims against the ranks of

the disbelievers and it must seek repentance from its minor

and major sins, just as important it is for the Ummah in

this difficult time, which is no small matter, to shun a

life of play, amusement, extravagance and fun, and prepare

itself for the real life of killing, fighting, striking and

damaging.

Think about what Sheikfa-ul-Islam (RA) said in a similar

type of situation to which we are in now:

"Know, may Allah reform you, that it has been confirmed from

many sources that the Prophet (SAWS) said: "There will never

seize to exist a group from my Ummah, fighting for the

decree of Allah over-powering their enemy, they will not be

harmed by those who oppose them, until the hour approaches

them and they are upon it (i.e. fighting for the truth).'

(Muslim) So this difficult situation divides the people into

three types. The first type is the Victorious Party and they

are the Mujahideen against the evil people. The second type

is the Opposing Party, who make clear their opposition to

Islam. The third type is the Treacherous Party, and they are

the ones who sit back from Jihad, even if their Islam is

correct. So let every man chose whether he will be with the

Victorious Party or the Opposing Party or the Treacherous

Party, and there is no fourth type." He continued, saying:

"By Allah, even if the Foremost Vanguard of the Muslims from

amongst the Emigrants and the Helpers, like Abu Bakr, Umar,

Uthman, Ali and others, were present with us in this time,

the best of their actions would be to wage Jihad against

this nation of criminals and no-one misses an opportunity

like this except that his trade

incurs losses, his self is humiliated and he deprives

himself of a good portion of both his worldly life and his

Hereafter."

Therefore, I advise the youths to exercise their minds in

the Jihad as they are the first ones upon whom Jihad is

obligatory, just like Ash-Shatibi (RA) pointed out. So know

that targeting the Americans and the Jews by killing them in

any comer of the Earth, is the greatest of obligations and

the most excellent of ways to gain nearness to Allah.

Furthermore, I advise the youths to use their intelligence

in killing them secretly. I also congratulate you all, and

our brothers in Palestine in particular, that your

Mujahideen brothers are continuing firm upon the path of

Jihad in targeting the Jews and the Americans and that we

will never abandon or forsake you, so continue with the

blessings of Allah for we are with you. Before I end, I

incite myself and my believing brothers to Jihad by the

words:

And most surely this year will I lead my steed and hurl It

and my soul, at one of the targets.

So 0 my Lord if my demise has come, then let it not be Upon

a bier draped with green mantles.

But let my grave be an eagle's belly, its resting place In

the sky's atmosphere amongst perched eagles.

And I become a martyr, dwelling amongst a band, Attacked in

a level mountain pass of the Earth.

Knights of Qahtaan; devoutness to Allah Has joined them

together, they descend when the armies meet.

When they depart from their Worldly life, they depart from

the harm

And reach the appointment found in the scriptures.

Finally, I advise myself and my Muslim brothers with the

fear of Allah in secret and in open, to increase in

supplications and humble themselves before Allah. Perhaps

Allah may accept our repentance, relieve our calamity and

release our imprisoned brothers from the hands of the

Americans and their agents, especially the two Sheikhs, Umar

Abdur-Rahman and Saeed bin Zuair, and our brothers in

Guantanamo Bay. May Allah make firm the Mujahideen in

Palestine and in all the other Muslim lands. May He help us

against our enemy. I also advise myself and you with

increasing in Allah's remembrance and reciting the Quran

with pondering and reflection, for in it is a reminder,

cure, guidance and mercy. Allah says:

"0 mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your

Lord (the Quran) and a healing for that (disease of

ignorance etc.) in your breasts, - a guidance and a mercy

for the believers." (Quran 10:57)

Our Lord, give us the good in this life, the good in the

Hereafter, and save us from the Fire of Hell.

"And Allah will overcome with all His Affairs, but most of

men know not." (Quran 12:21)

And the last of our prayers are Praise be to Allah, Lord of

the Worlds.

Right now, Gregg Jarrett (a recent MSNBC transplant to Fox News Channel) is berating, not interviewing with hard questions, an American Marine of Pakistani descent who has refused, as a matter of Islamic religious conscience, to go to the Persian Gulf. Another example of how Fox has "fair and balanced" news coverage. Obviously, Fox's claim that, while many of its commentators might be conservative, its newscasters are fair and balanced, is as worthless and empty as its neoconservative ideology.

Today, February 15, is the continuation of the global revolution against the axis of evil (the U.S., Britain, and Israel). Peace protests, parades, rallies, and demonstrations, on a truly spectacular scale, are taking place worldwide. Many of the leaders are women, not willing to see their children die in the Persian Gulf at the altar of American imperialism.

Here we are, more than a decade after the fall of one of the two global superpowers. How long will it be until the other one follows in course?

"We're on the hunt," said the American redneck king recently, while squinting his eyes, obviously endearing himself to the rest of the world. ;-)

Cowboy George, from his position as head of the most corrupt country on the planet, continues in his empire-building efforts to dictate global policy. He said, in effect, "If the UN doesn't do what I want, they become irrelevant." Didn't he and Butcher Sharon say something similar about Arafat?

Bush's bullying, driven by the arrogant false god of militant nationalism, thoroughly out of step with the spirit of the age, aims to destroy the most important international institution of the modern world. His malicious activities will, I predict, bring him down in short order. Sadly, though, this rich white trash of the White House will probably take the whole country with him.

Undoubtedly, King George is the worst, most dangerous president in U.S. history. My guess is that he will be the last Amurikan (or American, for that matter) president of the current world order.

posted at 03:10:28 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (9/29/02):

The president's real goal in Iraq

By JAY BOOKMAN

Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

Transcript of Oct. 7 chat

Donald Kagan: Comparing America to ancient empires is 'ludicrous'

Download "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report

Read President Bush's National Security Strategy

CONTRIBUTORS TO 2000 REPORT

"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

Paul Wolfowitz

Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.

John Bolton

Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.

Eliot Cohen

Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.

I. Lewis Libby

Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.

Dov Zakheim

Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.

Stephen Cambone

Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

A big, imperialist kiss from one point in the axis of evil to another: Happy Valentine's Day! lol.

posted at 07:02:00 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

If the Amuricun idea of international leadership is a dictatorship, in which the U.S. gets to tell other countries what to do and then gets angry when they don't "fall in line" (like France and Germany on the Iraqi war issue), by what right does the Amuricun administration have to complain about another dictator, Saddam Hussein?

From Tikkun Magazine. Darn! Someone stole my idea. ;-)

A Bimonthly Jewish Critique of Politics, Culture & Society July/Aug

2002 || http://www.tikkun.org

A Glimmer of Hope A State of All Its Citizens

article/020711f.html>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yakov M. Rabkin

When the Sharon government refused to receive a UN panel to

investigate the violence in Jenin last May, Foreign Minister Peres

termed the very intention to start such an inquiry "a blood libel

against the Jewish people." This statement was made against the

background of mounting anti-Jewish incidents around the world, all of

them immediate fallout of the violence in Israel/Palestine. Peres'

not-so-innocent goal was to emphasize the common fate shared by Israel

and the Diaspora in order to suggest that diaspora Jews who disagreed

with Israeli policy were being traitors to their people. Yet this

connection between the Diaspora and Israel also reflects the obvious,

but rarely acknowledged, fact that Israel itself has become the main

danger to the welfare of the Jewish people.

As early as 1948, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt warned:

"Even if the Jews were to win the war � the 'victorious Jews' would

live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded

inside ever threatened borders, absorbed by physical self-defense �

And all this would be the fate of a nation that�no matter how many

immigrants it could still absorb and how it extended its

boundaries�would still remain a very small people greatly outnumbered

by hostile neighbors."

Her prophecy has sadly come true. The State of Israel has faced

incessant violence since its proclamation. Demographically, Israel's

Jewish population is and will remain a tiny minority facing the

rapidly growing Arab masses, 40 percent of whom are today below the

age of fifteen. An island of wealth facing an ocean of poverty, Israel

is condemned to live by the sword if the Zionist structure remains

intact. To survive even in the short term, Israel will continue to

need significant population inflows from abroad. But even if all the

Jews of the world were to move to Israel, this would only delay the

showdown with its more numerous and mostly hostile neighbors.

We must admit that structurally, i.e. independently of the impact of

particular policies, the interests of Israel and of the Diaspora are

at loggerheads. Israel was created inter alia, to offer the Jews

physical safety. Today the State of Israel adversely affects the

physical safety of the Jews, both within its borders and elsewhere. In

spite of the might of Israel's armed forces, Israel is the only place

in the world where a Jew can be killed just for being a Jew. Today the

life of a Jew is in greater danger in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv than in

Paris or Berlin or even in Damascus or Tehran.

Moreover, the chronic conflict engendered by the establishment of the

State of Israel has spread waves of Jew-hatred to most Muslim and Arab

nations. The current intifada ignited sparks of anti-Semitism in many

parts of the world, including Western Europe, which had been free of

anti-Semitism for several decades. Indeed, the chronic character of

the Israel/Palestine conflict was an important, albeit not the only,

cause of September 11. This observation does not apportion blame or

justify terrorism; it simply states an obvious, albeit little

articulated, connection between the creation and perpetuation of

Israel as a Jewish nation-state and the unprecedented spread of

regional violence to the rest of the world. Rwandans, Bosnians, or

black South Africans did not spread violence to other parts of the

world. Palestinians, frustrated by their fight against Israel, did.

It is not only our physical safety, but also our moral sensitivity,

that has been adversely affected by the creation of Israel against the

will of the ambient population. The never-ending bloody violence has

numbed our sense of compassion, one of the three defining qualities

that the Talmud attributes to the Jew�alongside timidity and

propensity to do good (BT Yevamot, 79a). It was painful to hear Paul

Wolfowitz, one of the most pro-Israel members of the American

administration, booed by thousands of Jews assembled in Washington

last April when he dared mention "innocent victims among the

Palestinians."

It would be a folly to mortgage the future of world Jewry on the

fragile State of Israel. A possible violent demise of this valiant

remnant of European nationalism in the Middle East could spell a

disaster for Judaism and the Jews. Diaspora Jewry must acknowledge

that it finds Israel's militancy, callousness, and chutzpah repugnant,

a far cry from the values of Judaism. Instead of blindly supporting

the Zionist ideal of a nation-state for Jews, we should reconsider the

best course for preserving and strengthening Jewish life in both the

Land of Israel and the Diaspora. It is too early to define the place

reserved for the State of Israel and for Zionism in history. While for

many Jews the desirability of the State of Israel constitutes an

article of faith, this new faith in an ethnic state is not unshakable.

It is hard to justify the State of Israel as a tool to enhance the

spiritual and material welfare of the Jews and, particularly, to offer

them a sense of physical safety. As violence continues, we should find

the courage to ask: Was the idea of a Jewish state a viable one? Is it

not the very nature of the State of Israel as a state for the Jews

that fuels and perpetuates the conflict?

Opposition to Zionism The most principled criticism of the Zionist

idea has come not so much from Arab writers as from Jewish scholars

who have opposed the idea of a Jewish state for over a century. The

Zionists viewed the Jews as a nation in the modern European sense of

the word. In reaction to nineteenth-century theories of race (theories

which ultimately led to Nazism), Zionism based its definition of the

Jew on biological provenance, and sought to become what one European

rabbi called "a purely nationalist-racist movement without the least

commonality with religion." Most rabbinical authorities reacted to the

emergence of Zionism in the late nineteenth century with undisguised

hostility. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish State, rabbis and

scholars routinely objected to the political appropriation by the

Zionists of spiritual concepts such as "Jerusalem," "Zion," or "Land

of Israel."

Zionism postulates that Jewish history is essentially a sequence of

expulsions, massacres, and forced conversions. According to this view,

the Shoah is the ultimate proof of the untenability of Jewish

diasporas, rather than a unique tragedy interrupting the progression

towards a more tolerant and pluralistic society. Most Zionists see no

intrinsic value in maintaining Jewish continuity beyond the borders of

Israel. For them, the traditional model of autonomous diasporas

possessing a common spiritual focus has largely given way to a center-

periphery model with the State of Israel assuming political,

administrative, and representative functions of a center with respect

to diaspora Jews.

Consequently, Israeli policies often convey the impression that Israel

represents Jews from other countries. Political use by Israeli leaders

of the Judaic term "the People of Israel" (Am Yisrael) tends to blur

distinctions between Israeli and diaspora Jews, presenting the latter

as "temporarily away from the country." Israel has domesticated

diaspora leaders to the extent that they now act as lobbyists for

Israel rather than as representatives of Jews. For many of these

leaders, Zionism has replaced Judaism as a religion.

The characterization of the Jewish people in terms of ethnicity and,

particularly, the attempt to cast Israel as a secular European nation-

state designated as the home for that ethnic group, mark a major

departure from Jewish tradition. Since the Diaspora began twenty-five

centuries ago, the Jewish tradition has defined Jews as a nation only

in the sense�and to the extent�that Jews remain loyal to Torah.

According to the tradition (solidly based on scriptural evidence),

there is little meaning to a Jewish nation without Judaism. Just as

the Muslim concept of umma is based on the loyalty to the Koran and

transcends boundaries of nation-states, the Jewish concepts of umma,

Am Yisrael, or Kelal Yisrael refer to communities that have the Torah

as their common denominator; they are not confined to any particular

territory, let alone to a nation-state.

As for the Land of Israel, the Torah posits that the land is entrusted

to the Children of Israel only if the Jewish people live up to the

standards enunciated in the Torah: to practice morality, to pursue

justice, and to obey certain agricultural rules. The nature of our

relationship to the Land of Israel is therefore different from that of

other nations to their respective motherlands. Unlike the images

common in other cultures, Israel is not a mother who would welcome her

son whatever his misdeeds. Rather, Israel is portrayed as a bride who

can reject her partner (or even, in Leviticus 18:28, a land that can

"vomit its inhabitants") if she disapproves of his behavior. The best

known part of the Jewish prayer book is, perhaps, Shema Israel. This

is what we read when we recite it three times a day: "Beware! Lest you

let your heart be seduced, go astray, and worship alien deities and

bow down to them. Then, the Divine anger will be awakened, and he will

block the sky and there will be no more rain. The Land will not yield

harvest, and you will disappear from the good land that G-d gives

you." The link that the Jews have with the Land of Israel is therefore

contractual rather than organic. It is contingent on their loyalty to

the Torah, and this can be seen in many synagogues on the day of

Shavuot (Pentecost), when a special marriage contract drawn between

the Jews and the Torah is read for all to hear.

In line with this idea of contract, the Jewish tradition attributes

the exile of the Jews from the Land to their abandoning Torah

commandments. The tradition does not view Jews as hapless victims, but

rather as makers of their own fate. Maimonides and other classical

sources indicate that the way back to the Land of Israel is Teshuvah,

i.e. repentance and return to the commandments. Since the reason for

exile is not attributed to the superior strength of the Roman legions,

the redress for exile is not and should not be sought in developing a

mightier army. In fact, the Talmud (BT Ketubot, 111a) refers to oaths

that the Jews were to swear prior to their second exile, in which they

are enjoined not to rebel against the nations and to re-occupy the

Land of Israel by force. Given this tradition, some Judaic scholars

see Israel's military exploits not as a sign of impending messianic

redemption but rather as a blasphemous act of rebellion.

Opposition to Zionism has not disappeared since the time when Zionism

was a minority movement shunned by most Jews. Most principled

opposition continues to come from certain Hasidic groups, centered in

Jerusalem and New York. They believe that the Zionist state, born in

sin for which it has never repented, has no legitimacy in terms of

Jewish history. They believe that Jews had lived in the Land of Israel

before the state, and they will remain there after it comes to an end.

According to them, the State of Israel is an impediment to the

messianic redemption. While most Mitnaggedim (non-Hasidic Jews) take a

less militant position, they also reject the legitimacy of the State

of Israel. According to the editor of the newspaper Yated Hane'eman:

"Our participation in the state and its institutions is performed due

to the pressures of the time and the force of circumstance, similar to

our behavior under foreign regimes outside of the land. It may be

defined as stealing into the enemy camp." It is no wonder that the

late Rabbi Eliezer Schach reportedly prayed daily that the State of

Israel should disappear without harm befalling a single Jew. It is

quite significant that the main street of Bnei Brak, the citadel of

traditional Judaism in Israel, was recently renamed from Herzl Street

to Rabbi Schach Street.

Uses of Violence "In the long run," wrote Arendt when the idea of a

Jewish state became dominant in Zionist circles in the mid 1940s,

"there is hardly any course imaginable that would be more dangerous,

more in the style of an adventure� It will not be easy either to save

the Jews or to save Palestine in the twentieth century: that it can be

done with categories and methods of the nineteenth century seems at

the very most highly improbable." Indeed, Israel's attempts to

suppress Palestinian resistance, which provoke worldwide protests

today, would have been perfectly acceptable to European nations of the

nineteenth century. The Zionists' refusal to heed the prognosis about

the durability of Arab resistance to the Jewish state may be seen as

"a triumph of the will" or, conversely, as a major failure. Jews used

to believe in the power of their ideas, unsupported by material power.

It appears that nowadays Israeli leaders cling to material power for

want of ideas.

It is often said that Herzl's vision of a state for the Jews came to

life in spite of an inhospitable terrain and the implacable hostility

of the local inhabitants. However, it may well be that it is precisely

this implacable hostility that forged the new Hebrew nation in

Palestine. Since the Zionists discarded the Jewish religion as a

common denominator of the ingathering exiles, a shared "fear of the

Arabs" became the ultimate factor of national unity. Resorting to

education as the primary tool of forging "the new man," Zionists made

consistent ideological use of the military conflict, a natural

consequence of their self-serving vision of Palestine as "a land

without a people for a people without a land."

When Jewish babies are killed in the West Bank or Gaza, most Israelis

are outraged. However, more than a few also wonder what kind of

parents would endanger their children by keeping them in Hebron or

Netsarim. This sacrificial rite is beginning to awaken doubts as to

the very nature of the State of Israel, which had caused hundreds of

human sacrifices from Jews and their neighbors well before it was

established, and tens of thousands since. Was it wise to establish it?

Is it worth defending with heavy sacrifices? These questions, quite

unimaginable in other countries, are hardly rhetorical in Israel. But

it is a fact that the majority of the Jews, on whose behalf the State

of Israel was ostensibly established, enjoy more tranquil lives

elsewhere and are reluctant to join their brethren in Israel, and not

only because of fear of wars. Zionist discourse has convinced many

diaspora Jews that it is Israel that ensures their safety and welfare

from far afield. This is an erroneous and dangerous belief. Erroneous

because it ignores the structural conflict of interests between Israel

and the Diaspora, and belittles the progress of human rights that

makes Jews equal and active citizens of their countries. Dangerous

because it lures diaspora Jewry into a mental and a physical trap.

Residual nostalgia for Zionist exploits largely explains many

Israelis' reluctant approval of the settlers, whom they tend to admire

from afar. The settlers are indeed "the last Zionists," whose

messianic fervor is genuine and impressive. They are "the tail that

wags the dog," that makes the retention of the territories the main

preoccupation of successive Israeli governments. The settlement

momentum is intrinsically expansive, since it relies on religious

determinism that deifies the State and sanctifies the Occupation. The

settlers accuse those who argue that the conflict can be solved by

evacuation of the West Bank and Gaza of hypocrisy. They claim that

there is no moral difference between Jewish settlement in Hebron and

in Tel Aviv. And it appears that this view is gaining ground. Why

should one rid Hebron of Jews but leave them in Jerusalem's

neighborhoods of Katamon or Baka, which used to be no less Arab prior

to 1948? Why should one oppose Israeli occupation of Hebron and

condone the destruction of an Arab village, replaced by the University

of Tel Aviv�nowadays, ironically, the citadel of liberalism and

pacifism? If Jewish settlement is illegitimate in Gaza why is it

legitimate in Jaffa or Haifa? Such questions convey a powerful

message: We are all in the same boat. They argue that the legitimacy

of the entire Jewish presence in the Land of Israel is in jeopardy

once you start to examine its recent record carefully. This polemic

strategy, aided by the sense of physical insecurity, keeps large

segments of the Israeli population hostage to fear. Yet it also

contains a certain truth.

Embarrassment and Double Standards Israel's military operations,

particularly against civilians, have embarrassed Jews both in Israel

and in the Diaspora for many decades. Since Israel promotes itself as

the representative of the Jews, and most diaspora Jewish leaders

enthusiastically support this claim, the State of Israel is often

associated with Jews everywhere. Jews outside of Israel are thus put

in a difficult situation of defending the morally indefensible, of

bending their ethical standards in order to justify Israel's actions

in Bethlehem, Jenin, or Beirut. Indeed, Israel routinely, and perhaps

inevitably for any state, acts against the morality embodied in

Judaism. At the same time, since there is nothing but Judaism that

distinguishes diaspora Jews from their fellow citizens in different

countries, this blanket defense of Israel seriously discredits

Judaism.

Conceptual disparities between Israel and the Jewish diasporas become

more pronounced since the countries with sizable Jewish communities

have all adopted a liberal system of social and political values. It

is quite common in Israel to talk in anti-liberal, anti-democratic

terms; for example, there are public discussions about building Jewish

neighborhoods or settling Jews in the Galilee so that Arab citizens do

not outnumber their Jewish compatriots in the region. Israeli official

documents routinely identify the bearer as a Jew or a non-Jew.

Structural segregation of Jews from non-Jews is common in Israel. So

is occupational discrimination, all of which is justified by the

Herzlian denomination of Israel as a state for the Jews.

However, in the context of Western societies, it would be

inconceivable to practice ethnic or religious discrimination in such a

manner. One could imagine an international outcry if the Front

National mayor of a French town were to promote a public housing

development designated solely for Catholics. One of Israel's dailies

wryly observed that Le Pen would be considered a bleeding-heart

centrist in the Israeli political spectrum. Israel's discriminatory

practices, while often opposed by the country's Supreme Court,

conflict with the liberal values that underpin the stability and

welfare of Jewish diasporas around the world. It is only a matter of

time before diaspora leaders, at least those who overtly identify with

the State of Israel, will face the challenge of explaining their

obvious double standard.

The primacy of the State is a dangerous belief to hold. A few decades

after the Shoah, Jews remember what happens when the raison d'�tat

becomes a transcendental principle that supersedes individual

morality. It may be illusory and even dangerous to confuse the profane

centrality of Israel with the sacred centrality of the land; in order

to affirm the first aspect one has to reject or distort the second

one, and vice versa.

A garrison state inhabited by a desperate population and armed with

nuclear weapons faces the danger of a regional, perhaps a world war.

Zionism has brought about an unending confrontation with Palestinian

Arabs. This cycle of violence has become a serious threat: it may

spell the violent demise of the State of Israel and, more importantly,

a spiritual and psychological crisis for Judaism. As some foresaw over

fifty years ago, it appears increasingly unrealistic to preserve "the

state for the Jews," an adventurous idea to begin with, against the

violent opposition of the Palestinians, whose nationalist

dispossession by the Zionists remains at the root of the conflict. Of

course, Israel's army is capable of defeating the Palestinians, but

such a "victory" would not bring peace any closer. Many Israeli

generals have learned this the hard way, and, once in retirement,

openly decry the use of force in settling the Israel/Palestine

conflict.

Out of the Impasse The military gains of the last fifty years seem to

evaporate as the situation on the ground between the Jordan and the

Mediterranean reverts to 1948, when an ethnic conflict for the control

of the land intensified between Jews and Arabs. In 2002, just as in

1948, there is no clear concept of national borders, and it is ethnic

rather than political factors that play most potently in the entire

area. A growing number of Israel's Arab citizens identify with their

Palestinian brethren while the State of Israel often treats Arab

Israelis as if they were enemy aliens. The euphoria that followed

victory in the Six-Day War, and which seemed to vindicate the

Zionists' vision and practice, has vanished altogether.

After decades of conflicting nationalist efforts from both sides, it

is the entire area from the Jordan to the sea, not just the West Bank

and Gaza, that requires a solution. New Jerusalem suburbs of Gilo or

East Talpiot, Jewish cities of Ariel or Emanuel built on the lands

conquered in 1967, are hardly different from cities in Israel proper.

Their evacuation in an eventual territorial settlement would be a

human drama of major proportions. "Transferring" Arab population into

Jordan and Egypt, an option accepted by about one-half of Israelis,

would be equally cruel, senseless, and probably impossible. The

partition or separation that some Israeli policy-makers, including

former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, continue to support is no longer

feasible since Jews and Arabs are too interspersed across the entire

disputed territory.

The frustration of the Palestinian Arabs, who are deprived of most

avenues of political expression, has naturally developed into a

fixation on national independence � l'isra�lienne. Yet another nation-

state�a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza�may only cause

more pain and rancor. Dismantlement of settlements, forced transfers

of population and other usual appurtenances of establishing nation-

states in ethnically heterogeneous areas would likely ensue. Rather

than a new nation-state, a liberal political structure based on

citizens' equal rights and, consequently, their self-interest, may

have more chances to succeed.

Israelis of very different political views, such as the nationalist

Moshe Arens, a former defense minister, and the more conciliatory

Meron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, agree that

separation of the Jews from the Palestinians is just a myth that

regularly comes to the surface after major acts of terror. In the same

sense, surveys show that Israelis and Palestinians expect to maintain

strong economic ties. Moreover, conflicts are easier to settle between

neighbors than between nations.

Abrahamia: An Alternative to Ethnic Nationalism One promising

arrangement could be a confederation of independently governed areas

or cantons, to be established in the territory between the Jordan and

the Mediterranean. Abrahamia (or Ibrahimia) may be a good name for the

new confederate state since it would recall an important common

ancestor recognized by Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Such a state

could be modeled after Canada or Switzerland. Good use could be made

of elements of the Ottoman rule, which had managed diversity and

preserved peace in the region far better than most of its successor

states (be it Serbia, Turkey, Israel, or Lebanon). Democratic

confederate structures tend to moderate ethnic or national tensions.

Abrahamia could consist of cantons sovereign in matters of culture,

education, worship, internal security, and local law. Such a structure

would also enable Orthodox Jews and secular Hebrews, whose

relationship is also profoundly acrimonious, to live their lives

according to their customs and beliefs, without the irritating

interventions of the state.

Foreign affairs, defense, monetary matters, and communication would be

entrusted to a confederate government elected by all citizens. The

sensitive issue of defense could be resolved by stages. During the

first years the armed forces should remain mostly under the control of

the Jewish cantons since Jews, not Arabs, have been threatened with

the prospect of being "thrown into the sea" by neighboring countries.

But the army, a bulwark against foreign aggression, should be

prohibited from being used as a police force within the confederation.

Cantonal police units and a nominal confederate police, initially

aided by an international contingent, should maintain public order and

ensure peaceful relations between diverse cantons. As memories of the

bitter past recede into history�and this may take less time than many

imagine�the defense forces should fully incorporate all citizens.

The Law of Return, which now allows any Jew in the world to become a

citizen of Israel upon arrival (and sometimes even before), should be

broadened to include Palestinian Arabs who would be entitled to

reclaim their homes or obtain compensation for lost property. To do

so, the lands held by the Jewish National Fund, over 90 percent of the

total territory, should be sold without discrimination to Jews and

Arabs. Compensation for lost property would constitute a major source

of funds to help Arabs buy real estate and reduce the existing

development gap between the two groups. Economic disparities fuel

violence no less than nationalist passions, but when the economic

divide coincides with the ethnic one, violence is simply unavoidable.

Income gaps must be bridged for such a confederation to take root.

Just as a German may now freely buy a property in Alsace after

thousands died in wars disputing that territory, a Palestinian Arab

should acquire equal rights and obligations, and be free to settle

wherever he can rent or legally acquire property. This will give him,

currently the most disenfranchised, a real stake in the success of the

confederation.

Similarly, those Jews who consider it a religious commandment to

populate the entire Land of Israel should be free to settle anywhere

between the Jordan and the sea, by legal means of course and without

any special privileges. For this to happen, individual safety and

individual rights of citizens should become the main priority of the

new federation.

The majority of secular Israelis who simply want "to be a free people

in our land" (as Israel's anthem now puts it) can continue to live

"Israeli style" in their cantons. Confederate authorities should do

nothing to ensure their Jewishness, since matters of worship and

education will be exclusive privileges of the constituent cantons.

Such an arrangement will not only alleviate the conflict between Jews

and Arabs, it will also eliminate the tension that the State of Israel

has fomented trying to subject its Jewish citizens to the strictures

of religious law.

Details of such a confederation may take a while to work out, and even

longer to implement. At this point it is a suggestion, an outline of

an idea that breaks the cycle of ethnic exclusivity and ends the

bloody zero-sum game. It is important to move Israeli and Palestinian

political thinking away from the notion of nation-state towards the

concept of confederation, an idea that was quite popular in both camps

prior to 1948, and, according to recent surveys, is still popular

among many Palestinians.

A Role for World Jewry After five decades of exasperating conflict in

the Middle East, world Jewry can play a major role in transforming the

current situation along the proposed lines. Many Western Jews have

been active for years in diverse rapprochement activities that bring

Arabs and Hebrews, Muslims, Christians, and Jews together. They run

joint prayer sessions and interconfessional discussions, even a joint

Jewish-Muslim program to teach tolerance on the basis of respective

religious texts. European and American Jews have brought expertise,

commitment, and even-handedness to a number of non-governmental

projects that foster understanding and respect of difference. Most of

these joint activities have survived the current upsurge of violence,

which in itself is a sign of their success. Jewish academics,

businesspeople, psychologists, rabbis, and social workers from various

countries have helped the cause of tolerance in Israel for years, and

their role, as well as that of members of the Palestinian diasporas,

can only gain in importance in the new confederation.

Diaspora Jews should help transform the structurally fragile State of

Israel into a more stable and viable political configuration. They

should make their real voices heard in the European Union, Russia, and

the United States. The vast majority of Jews are citizens of these

political entities, which gives their governments more than a geo-

strategic interest in settling the Arab-Israeli dispute. These

governments, particularly when encouraged by their respective Jewish

communities, could try to convince the Israeli public to transform the

nation-state and the territories it occupies into a confederation that

would ensure the safety of all its inhabitants. They can also make it

clear to the Palestinians that such a confederation, rather than a

quilt-like nation-state criss-crossed by Israeli highways, is in their

best long-term interest. The challenge of making this conceptual shift

is substantial. But it must be met in order to free our thinking of

the murderous nationalist stranglehold.

At the same time, measures shall be devised to offer Israeli Jews a

refuge in various diasporas. The feeling that they have nowhere to go,

that Israel is the last frontier, that only Israel can offer Jews

physical safety, has fuelled despair not only among Israeli Jews but

also among many Jews who choose to remain in the Diaspora. These are

vestiges of Zionist myths that have to be reassessed in pragmatic,

rather than ideological, terms. The possibility of a major military

flare-up, perhaps including weapons of mass destruction, together with

the current terrorist violence may push many Israeli Jews to look for

refuge elsewhere. It would be tragically irresponsible of Jewish

communities to insist that Israelis should fight to the bitter end.

Those governments that are most likely to offer refuge to Israeli Jews

must understand that, by offering a choice to Israel's Jews to rebuild

their lives in their countries, they reduce the degree of despair and

weaken the incentives for violence in the region.

A two-pronged approach, on the one hand encouraging the transformation

of the nation-state of Israel into an Abrahamia based on equality of

opportunity and, on the other hand, offering Israel's Jews an option

of settling in other industrial countries, is likely to reduce

violence and to encourage stability. It will weaken one of the most

enduring conflicts of our age and will help restore Judaism as the

focus of Jewish existence. Interminable (and sterile) discussions of

the latest political and military moves in Israel dominate the daily

experience of most Jews. This should cease, leaving Jews the peace of

mind to face important issues of Judaism that have been eclipsed by

news bulletins from the Middle East. The Jewish return to history on-

board a tank has only endangered Jews, in body and in spirit. Shedding

nationalist illusions of power should enable Jews to focus on another

kind of return to history: a return to the Torah with its manifold

interpretations and hope for all humanity. If we believe the Jewish

tradition, this will also be the best way to ensure Jewish presence in

the Land of Israel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Yakov M. Rabkin is a Professor of History at the University

of Montreal. His publications include two books: Science between the

Superpowers and Interaction between Scientific and Jewish Cultures.

yakov.rabkin@Umontreal.CA

- - - - - � 2002-2003 Tikkun Magazine. This article may be found on

the web at:

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0207/a

rticle/020711f.html This article may be reproduced for purposes of

personal scholarship only. For other uses, please contact Tikkun at:

2107 Van Ness Ave., Suite 302, San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: (415)

575-1200 | Fax: (415) 575-1434 | Email: magazine@tikkun.org

posted at 06:41:04 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster