The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
July
22, 2006 by William Blum
The
End Is Near, but first, this commercial.
There are times when I think that
this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What's happening in the
Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the eternal Israel-Palestine
conflict are variations on the child's eternal defense for misbehavior --
"He started it!" Within a few minutes of discussing/arguing the
latest manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then
1948, then biblical times. I don't wish to get entangled in who started the
current mess. I would like instead to first express what I see as two essential
underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next:
1) Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't
been so for decades, if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant
statements by Arab leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with
its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful
manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable
two-state solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on
a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its
right to exist would scarcely arise in people's minds. But as it is, Israel
still uses the issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the
world use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla
and a mouse, it's the gorilla which has to make concessions in order for the
two sides to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the
way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: "No violent
attacks of any kind." But that would still leave the status quo ante
bellum -- a life of unmitigated misery for the Palestinian people forced
upon them by Israel. Peace without justice.
Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of
one of their soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two soldiers
being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too seriously when Israel
is holding literally thousands of captured Palestinians, many for years,
typically without any due process, many tortured; as well as holding a number
of prominent Hezbollah members. A few years ago, if not still now, Israel wrote
numbers on some of the Palestinian prisoners' arms and foreheads, using blue
markers, a practice that is of course reminiscent of the Nazis' treatment of
Jews in World War II. [1]
Israel's real aim, and that of Washington,
is the overthrow of the Hamas government in Palestine, the government that came
to power in January through a clearly democratic process, the democracy that
the Western "democracies" never tire of celebrating, except when the
result doesn't please them. Is there a stronger word than
"hypocrisy"? There is now "no Hamas government," declared a
senior US official a week ago, "eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of
the government is in jail [kidnapped by Israel], another 30 percent is in
hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little."[2] To make
the government-disappearance act even more Orwellian, we have Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in late June about Iraq: "This is the
only legitimately elected government in the Middle East with a possible
exception of Lebanon."[3] What's next, gathering in front of the Big
Telescreeen for the Two Minutes Hate?
In addition to doing away with the Hamas
government, the current military blitzkrieg by Israel, with full US support,
may well be designed to create "incidents" to justify attacks on Iran
and Syria, the next steps of Washington's work in process, a controlling
stranglehold on the Middle East and its oil.
It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is
depriving the Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the
outside world ... and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at
night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. "I want nobody to
sleep at night in Gaza," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert[4];
words suitable for Israel's tombstone.
These crimes against humanity -- and I
haven't mentioned the terrible special weapons reportedly used by Israel -- are
what the people of Palestine get for voting for the wrong party. It is ironic,
given the Israeli attacks against civilians in both Gaza and Lebanon, that
Hamas and Hezbollah are routinely dismissed in the West as terrorist
organizations. The generally accepted definition of terrorism, used by the FBI
and the United Nations amongst others, is: The use of violence against a
civilian population in order to intimidate or coerce a government in
furtherance of a political objective.
Since 9-11 it has been a calculated US-Israeli tactic to
label the fight against Israel's foes as an integral part of the war on terror.
On July 19, a rally was held in Washington, featuring the governor of Maryland,
several members of Israeli-occupied Congress, the Israeli ambassador, and
evangelical leading-light John Hagee. The Washington Post reported that
"Speaker after prominent speaker characteriz[ed] current Israeli fighting
as a small branch of the larger U.S.-led global war against Islamic
terrorism" and "Israel's attacks against the Shiite Muslim group
Hezbollah were blows against those who have killed civilians from Bali to
Bombay to Moscow." Said the Israeli ambassador: "This is not just
about [Israel]. It's about where our world is going to be and the fate and security
of our world. Israel is on the forefront. We will amputate these little arms of
Iran," referring to Hezbollah.[5]
And if the war on terror isn't enough to
put Israel on the side of the angels, John Hagee has argued that "the
United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to
fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West". He speaks of "a
biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the
Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."[6]
The beatification of Israel approaches being a movement.
Here is David Horowitz, the eminent semi-hysterical ex-Marxist: "Israel is
part of a global war, the war of radical Islam against civilization. Right now
Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world by taking on the
terrorists. It is not only for Israel's sake that we must get the facts out --
it is for ourselves, America, for every free country in the world, and for
civilization itself."[7]
As for the two Israeli soldiers captured
and held in Lebanon for prisoner exchange, we must keep a little history in
mind. In the late 1990s, before Israel was evicted from southern Lebanon by
Hezbollah, it was a common practice for Israel to abduct entirely innocent
Lebanese. As a 1998 Amnesty International paper declared: "By Israel's own
admission, Lebanese detainees are being held as 'bargaining chips'; they are
not detained for their own actions but in exchange for Israeli soldiers missing
in action or killed in Lebanon. Most have now spent 10 years in secret and
isolated detention."[8]
Israel has created its worst enemies -- they helped create
Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon
created Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to keep the
process going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been almost continually
occupied in fighting wars and taking other people's lands. Did not any better
way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?
But while you and I get depressed by the horror
and suffering, the neo-conservatives revel in it. They devour the flesh and
drink the blood of the people of Afghanistan, of Iraq, of Palestine, of
Lebanon, yet remain ravenous, and now call for Iran and Syria to be placed upon
the feasting table. More than one of them has used the expression oderint
dum metuant, a favorite phrase of Roman emperor Caligula, also used by
Cicero -- "let them hate so long as they fear". Here is William
Kristol, editor of the bible of neo-cons, "Weekly Standard", on Fox
News Sunday, July 16:
"Look, our coddling of Iran ... over the last six to
nine months has emboldened them. I mean, is Iran behaving like a timid regime
that's very worried about the U.S.? Or is Iran behaving recklessly and in a
foolhardy way? ... Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the Middle
East, in a sense. Iran, Syria, sponsors of terror; Hezbollah and Hamas. ...
This is an opportunity to begin to reverse the unfortunate direction of the
last six to nine months and get the terrorists and the jihadists back on the
defensive."
Host Juan Williams replied: "Well, it
just seems to me that you want ... you just want war, war, war, and you want us
in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to
get into the Middle East ... you're saying, why doesn't the United States take
this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been
[tried], we don't talk to anybody. We don't talk to Hamas. We don't talk to
Hezbollah. We're not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill?"
Kristol, looking somewhat taken aback, simply threw up his hands.
The Fox News audience does (very) occasionally get a hint of another way of
looking at the world.
Iraq will follow Bush the rest of his life
Here comes now our Glorious Leader, speaking last week at a news conference at
the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin.
"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the
world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him
that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same
thing."[9]
It's so very rare that Georgie W. makes one of his
less-than-brilliant statements and has the nonsense immediately pointed out to
him to his face -- "Putin, in a barbed reply, said: 'We certainly would
not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell
you quite honestly.' Bush's face reddened as he tried to laugh off the remark.
'Just wait'," he said.[10]
It's too bad that Putin didn't also point out that religion was a
lot more free under Saddam Hussein than under the American occupation. Amongst
many charming recent incidents, in May the coach of the national tennis team
and two of his players were shot dead in Baghdad by men who reportedly were
religious extremists angry that the coach and his players were wearing
shorts.[11]
As to a "free press", dare I mention Iraqi
newspapers closed down by the American occupation, reporters shot by American
troops, and phony stories planted in the Iraqi press by Pentagon employees?
The preceding is in the same vein as last month's edition
of this report in which I listed the many ways in which the people of Iraq have
a much worse life now than they did under Saddam Hussein. I concluded with
recounting the discussions I've had with Americans who, in the face of this,
say to me: "Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein is
out of power?"
Now we have a British poll that reports that "More than two
thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power
seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said
President George W. Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the
pursuit of American self-interests." The American embassy in London was
quick to reply. Said a spokesperson: "We question the judgment of anyone
who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his
own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders."[12]
They simply can't stop lying, can they? There was no
evidence at all that Saddam was threatening any people outside of Iraq,
whatever that's supposed to mean. It may mean arms sales. Following the Gulf
War, the US sold around $100 billion of military hardware to Iraq's
"threatened" neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, and
Turkey.
As to the world being a better or worse place ... only Iraq
itself was and is the issue here, not the world; although if the world is a
better place, why am I depressed?
The peculiar idea of tying people's health to private
corporate profits
Steven Pearlstein is a financial writer with the Washington Post, with whom
I've exchanged several emails in recent years. He does not ignore or gloss over
the serious defects of the American economic system, but nonetheless remains a
true believer in the market economy. In a recent review of a book by journalist
Maggie Mahar, "Money-Driven Medicine", Pearlstein writes that the
author tries to explain "why health care costs so much in the United
States, with such poor results." She has focused on the right issues, he
says, "the misguided financial incentives at every level, the unnecessary
care that is not only wasteful but harmful, the bloated administrative
costs." However, "in making the case that the health-care system
suffers from too much free-market competition and too little cooperation, Mahar
means to drum up support for a publicly funded national system. But in the end,
she mostly makes a convincing case that no health-care system will work unless
we figure out what really works and is cost effective and then get doctors,
hospitals and patients to embrace it."[13]
"Unless
we figure out what really works and is cost effective" ... hmmm ... like
there haven't been repeated studies showing that national health plans in
Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere cover virtually everyone and
every ailment and cost society and individuals much less than in the United
States. Isn't that "working"? I spent five years in the UK with my
wife and small child and all three of us can swear by the National Health
Service; at those times when neither my wife nor I was employed we didn't have
to pay anything into the system; doctors even made house calls; and this was
under Margaret Thatcher, who was doing her best to cripple the system, a goal
she and her fellow Tories, later joined by "New Labour", have
continued to pursue.
And then there's Cuba -- poor, little, third-world Cuba.
Countless non-rich ill Americans would think they were in heaven to have the
Cuban health system reproduced here, with higher salaries for doctors et al.,
which we could easily afford.
It should be noted that an extensive review of previous
studies recently concluded that the care provided at for-profit nursing homes
and hospitals, on average, is inferior to that at nonprofits. The analysis
indicates that a facility's ownership status makes a difference in cost,
quality, and accessibility of care.[14]
Sale! Western Civilization! New, Improved! $99.99,
marked down from $129.99. Sale!
There's currently a call in the United States to get rid of the one-cent coin
because it costs 1.2 cents to make the coin and put it into circulation and
because many people find the coins a nuisance. I have another reason to get rid
of the coin -- hopefully, doing so would put an end to the ridiculous and
ubiquitous practice of pricing almost everything at amounts like $9.99, $99.99,
or $999.99. Or $3.29 or $17.98. What is the reason for this tedious and
insulting absurdity? It began as, and continues to be, a con game -- trying to
induce the purchaser to think that he's getting some kind of bargain price:
Less than $10! Less than $100! In my local thrift shop, catering almost
exclusively to poor blacks and Hispanics, virtually all prices end in .97 or
.98 or .99. Every once in a while, when the nonsense has piled up to my nose
level, I ask a shop manager or corporate representative why they use such a pricing
system. They scarcely have any idea what I'm talking about. Sometimes in a shop
when I'm discussing with a clerk the various price options of something I'm
thinking of buying, and I say, "Okay, let's see, this model is $60 and
..." S/he'll interrupt me with: "No, it's $59.99."
Is this any way for people to relate to each other? Comes
the revolution, and we write a new constitution, Paragraph 99 will ban this
practice.
You can't make this stuff up
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France, 1844-1924
On April 14 a federal appeals court ruled that the Los
Angeles Police Department cannot arrest people for sitting, lying or sleeping
on public sidewalks on Skid Row, saying such enforcement amounts to cruel and
unusual punishment because there are not enough shelter beds for the city's
huge homeless population. Judge Pamela A. Rymer issued a strong dissent against
the majority opinion. The Los Angeles code "does not punish people simply
because they are homeless," wrote Rymer. "It targets conduct --
sitting, lying or sleeping on city sidewalks -- that can be committed by those
with homes as well as those without."[15]
NOTES
[1] Washington Post, March 13, 2002, p.1
[2]
Washington Post, July 16, 2006. p.15
[3]
Washington Post, July 3, 2006, p.19
[4]
Associated Press, July 3, 2006
[5]
Washington Post, July 20, 2006, p.B3
[6]
Sarah Posner, The American Prospect, June 2006
[7]
FrontPageMag.com, Horowitz's site
[8]
Amnesty International news release, 26 June 1998, AI INDEX: MDE 15/54/98
[9]
Associated Press, July 15, 2006
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
The Independent (London), May 27, 2006, p.32
[12]
Daily Telegraph (London), July 3, 2006, p.1
[13]
Washington Post, July 9, 2006, p.F3
[14]
Washington Post, June 21, 2006, p.9
[15]
Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2006
William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since
World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
http://www.killinghope.org/
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.
To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email
to <bblum6@aol.com> with "add" in the subject line. I'd like
your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city
only in case I'll be speaking in your area.
Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the
opposite.
Any part of this report may be disseminated without
permission.
I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned.
