You don't miss much, so you get a free pass on that one Carter is obviously a little out of touch with reality. His comments seem almost quaint. His statements about the Palestinian situation are certainly more than a little unrealistic. It is as if he is still stuck in the past. He doesn't seem to get how bad things have become there recently. He overlooks what has happened. He overlooks the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to seize the opportunity to have a country and a peace. I guess it is hard for a guy like Carter to accept the fact that there can only be peace if peace is the goal. I think he is a very moral and idealistic guy, but not a realist. If the Palestinians (and the Arab nations that support them) were to lay down there arms, there would be no more war there. If the Israelis would lay down their arms, there would be no more Israel there. If there were a single democracy in the Arab-Islamic world to lead the way, the rest would follow. Probably rather quickly. An independent and free Palestine is probably the best hope of this. Certainly the royal families, and the dictatorships are not going to surrender their power to democracy. But a new country with a new constitution could be a seed of democracy in this region. Palestine would fit the bill nicely. So getting a progressive thinker in, and Arafat out, would seem like a more realistic, less bloody and simpler solution than trying to fight with Iraq. Get a foothold of democracy in, and the rest will follow. The "domino theory" -- revised after 55 years (or so). It is very obvious that Arafat wants no peace. Not unless he can have the whole pie. And that will never happen. Just my opinion. Peace, Rs7
Guardian Saturday April 6, 2002 Despite widespread international condemnation for its policy of violent repression against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, the Israeli government appears impervious to moral appeals from world leaders (Fear of wider conflict as army pushes on, April 5). The major potential source of effective criticism, the US, seems reluctant to act. However, there are ways of exerting pressure from within Europe. Odd though it may appear, many national and European cultural and research institutions, including especially those funded from the EU and the European Science Foundation, regard Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts. Would it not therefore be timely if at both national and European level a moratorium was called upon any further such support unless and until Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians along the lines proposed in many peace plans, including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab League. Prof Patrick Bateson Provost, Kings College, Cambridge Prof Richard Dawkins Oxford University Prof Colin Blakemore Oxford University Prof Steven Rose Open University Dr Marina Lynch Trinity College, Dublin Prof Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond Nice University Prof Juliette Frey Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg Prof Nora Frontali ISS, Rome Prof Eva Jablonka Tel-Aviv University Prof Per Andersen Oslo University and 115 other academics · "They would love to see me dead," says the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish in one of his poems. We writers and artists believe in his right and the right of the Palestinian people to live free of the nightmare that is now unfolding at their doorstep - the nightmare of living under curfew and siege, without electricity, telephones, or the needs of daily life, cut off from the rest of the country and the world; of having their homes broken into, their sons rounded up, tagged, and hauled away; of summary executions whose purpose seems to be to incite further violence; of fear of adding yet more names to the list of the disabled and dead. We call on all people of good conscience to protest against the onslaught on the Palestinian people, their institutions, and the fabric of their society, and to demand the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli army so that the peace process may resume. We call on the US to adopt an evenhanded approach to justice and not to blame the victim for the crimes of the oppressor. It seems the policy of the government of Israel is to eradicate the very idea of Palestine. What they have succeeded in doing instead, is creating the grounds for vendettas for generations to come. Harold Pinter Benjamin Zephaniah Ahdaf Soueif Andy De La Tour Susan Wooldridge and 18 other writers and artists Artists for Palestine · Yasser Arafat's cry for intervention isn't a plea for peace. It's a plea to help save his terrorist infrastructure from destruction - a cry President Bush must ignore (Enough is enough, April 5). The surge of criticism of the president's supposed inaction began with Mr Arafat and our usual critics - Belgium, the EU, "moderate" Arabs etc. It was less than two years ago that President Clinton brought Arafat and Ehud Barak to Camp David. Since then, September 11 has come and most people now clearly understand that Israel is fighting the same fight as the US - we are defending ourselves against terror. Arafat continued with his double talk - saying one thing to the world in English and exactly the opposite to his peo ple in Arabic. He has chosen the path of terror and until this is brought to an end, there can be no more talk. It appears that Bush now believes only he can produce the peace we so desperately desire. My concern is that he will interrupt our efforts to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. It should be pointed out that Israel's efforts have been done with a minimum of loss of life for the Palestinians, while this effort has exposed our own soldiers. Since Israel began its offensive against terror there has not been a single suicide bombing. Israel doesn't want or need help at this point. We certainly don't want outside troops here. We can defend ourselves. Once the terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed, I believe that negotiations with US assistance might be in order. President Bush and Secretary Powell should keep away at this delicate stage in our effort to bring the terror to an end. Jack de Lowe Raanana, Israel · "Engagement at last"; "Bush has finally grasped that Sharon is the problem" (Leaders, April 5)? How naive can you get? Bush got a real shock when the Arab world united against him in opposing military action against Iraq. What better way to cause some division among the ranks than being seen to call Israel to order - secure in the knowledge that Sharon will not take a bit of notice? Walter Cairns Manchester · If Bush takes America's vast power and concomitant responsibilities seriously, why doesn't he send soldiers in to separate the combatants? Ian Gowans Tervuren, Belgium
perhaps when Bush is wondering who is on the terrorists sides and who should bomb he should remember... most of the 911 hijackers were Saudis - supposedly our best Arab friends.. a Florida flight school trained the hijackers.... the CIA made and trained Osama Bin Laden... al-queda is most likely in pakistan..... the us and other western countries provided iraq with the technology to build the chemical weapon plants and missile and nuclear technology in the 80s..... maybe bush should work out how to get out of afghanisthan first .... so far hes done no better than the Russians who took Kabul and the whole country in just a few weeks...but never won
The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region Mo Mowlam Thursday September 5, 2002 The Guardian I keep listening to the words coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and I become increasingly alarmed. There seems to be such confusion, but through it all a grim determination that they are, at some point, going to launch a military attack. The response of the British government seems equally confused, but I just hope that the determination to ultimately attack Iraq does not form the bedrock of their policy. It is hard now to see how George Bush can withdraw his bellicose words and also save face, but I hope that that is possible. Otherwise I fear greatly for the Middle East, but also for the rest of the world. What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem. The many words that are uttered about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, which are never substantiated with any hard evidence, seem to mean very little. Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oilfields in neighbouring countries the full might of the western world will be ranged against him. He knows that if he attacks Israel the same fate awaits him. Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam knows he cannot. Even if he has nuclear weapons he cannot win a war against America. The United States can easily contain him. They do not need to try and force him to irrationality. But that is what Bush seems to want to do. Why is he so determined to take the risk? The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing more when prices are too high and less when there is a glut. The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of oil to the west at reasonably stable prices. Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example. The love affair with America is ending. Reports of the removal of billions of dollars of Saudi investment from the United States may be difficult to quantify, but they are true. The possibility of the world's largest oil reserves falling into the hands of an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely - and this is unacceptable. The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged. This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn't one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west's supply of oil. And where does this leave the British government? Are they in on the plan or just part of the smokescreen? The government speaks of morality and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but can they really believe it? · Mo Mowlam was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet from 1997-2001 e is a very good article written by Mo
I'm not a formally trained expert on the middle east but, here is how i see it........ Characteristics of Islamic countries: 1. Not democratic, have never been democratic, and there are no signs that the people even want democracy or understand what it is. 2. The Ruling elites are totally corrupt, completely above the laws of their own countries, and coordinate with religious leaders to control the masses. 3. Have no respect or tolerance for other types of religion or civilization, and in fact believe that they are superior and destined to rule the world.
An Apology from an Arab: By Ali Salem, a playwright and author living in Cairo. (excerpts from an essay in Time Magazine 9/11/02 issue) A long time before NYC's twin towers were destroyed, many towers in my country were brought down by this brand of perpetrators. They killed Anwar Sadat, who initiated peace with Israel and liberalism in Egypt; they killed the Egyptian writer Faraq Fouda, a defender of freedom and secularism; they stabbed our Novel laureate, Naguib Mahfouz, when he was 82 years old, after discovering that 30 years earlier he had written a novel they considered he work of an infidel. They said they had not read the novel. Who told them it was sacrilegious? Someone living in a cave in Afghanistan, or sitting in a London cafe, or a mosque in New Jersey told them so. In Egypt alone, these fundamentalists have killed more than 1,000 policemen and ordinary citizens, Christian and Muslim alike. In one of the most beautiful places on earth, the temple of Queen Hatshepsut in Luxor, they slaughtered nearly 60 tourist in 1997. In Algeria their sickles endlessly harvest the souls of the poor and helpless. The have commited these crimes with the purpose of establishing the kingdom of God on earth and have succeeded only in turning our lives into hell. In my country, art, education and the economy have all been leveled to ground zero. I am convinced that the problem we face is not religious but political. If you hold a meeting of Muslim sheiks, Christian pastors and Jewish rabbis, they will come out with blissful smiles and report that they have found their values to be mostly identical, and they are right. Our governments assume that people need to understand Islam in its purest form to stay religiously moderate. The result is the mass production of true believers, not good citizens. They eventually realize it does not equip them to meet the challenges of getting through life, and life becomes an unbearable burden. To shake off this burden, some of them, usually young men, can't wait for natural death and decide instead to take a shortcut to heaven. Before ascending, they must have a cause that's canonized by their community- the greatest cause on earth, capable of justifying their sacrifice in the eyes of their kin. It's not enough to die fighting for their country; they must be fighting for God. They go looking for a nationalistic cause: like Bin Laden did when he claimed the Palestinian cause as justification for 9/11. But beneath their claims is a sadder truth; these extremists are pathologically jealous. They feel like dwarfs, which is why they search for towers and all those who tower mightily. We must admit we failed to teach these people that life is worth living. We in the Arab world love freedom and want the chance at a decent life. We are not different from you. We may be just temporarily backward. Working together, our governments must decide how, with what culture and and by what actions, they will combat the influence of those who hate life.