|
P
I C T U R E O F T H E D
A Y
The CIA sent a team
to Afghanistan days after 9/11 with orders to kill Osama
Bin Laden and bring back his head, a former agent has
revealed.
Gary Schroen flew out soon after the attacks on New York
and Washington, helping to set up the 2001 invasion, he
told US National Public Radio.
He recalled his orders from the CIA's counter-terrorism
chief.
"Capture Bin Laden, kill him and
bring his head back in a box on dry ice," he quoted
Cofer Black as saying.
As for other leaders of Bin Laden's al-Qaeda
network in Afghanistan, Mr Black reportedly said: "I
want their heads up on pikes."
Contacted by the radio network, Mr Black would not confirm
that these were his exact words but he did not dispute
Mr Schroen's account.
The agent told NPR he had been stunned that, for the
first time in 30 years of service, he had received orders
to kill targets rather then capture them.
But he says he replied: "Sir, those are the clearest
orders I have ever received.
"I can certainly make pikes out
in the field but I don't know what I'll do about dry ice
to bring the head back - but we'll manage something."
[...]
He says he is surprised that the CIA has still not managed
to track down Bin Laden after nearly four years. |
ISLAMABAD - Pakistani
security forces say they have arrested the senior al-Qaeda
militant suspected of planning two assassination attempts
against President Pervez Musharraf.
Abu Faraj Farj al-Libbi, a native of Libya, is said to
be third in the al-Qaeda hierarchy and a close associate
of leader Osama bin Laden.
He was thought to have taken over as the head of al-Qaeda
operations in Pakistan more than two years ago.
The arrest pleased the United States government, which
called it the most significant al-Qaeda capture in two
years. [...]
Musharraf has blamed al-Libbi for organizing two attempts
to kill him in December 2003. |
ARBIL, IRAQ - At least
50 people were killed Wednesday when an Iraqi suicide
bomber wearing concealed explosives set them off outside
a police recruitment centre, U.S. military officials said.
The attack in the Kurdish city of Arbil, about 350 kilometres
north of Baghdad, was Iraq's deadliest since the end of
February, when a car bomb killed 110 people at a medical
centre in Hillah.
The television network Al-Arabiya reported that the latest
attack killed 60 people and injured as many as 150 others.
Many of the victims were unemployed civilians applying
for police jobs at the centre, which also houses the local
office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party.
At least seven cars outside the building were destroyed
by the force of the blast. Neighbouring buildings were
also damaged.
The toll from insurgent violence in the past week, since
Iraq's new cabinet was approved, has now risen to more
than 200.
Some analysts say the absence of Sunni Muslims in the
cabinet has enraged the insurgents.
Iraq's democratically elected government was sworn in
on Tuesday, with seven key posts in the cabinet still
empty as talks with Sunni Iraqis continue.
The oil and defence portfolios still have no ministers.
|
While
the neoconservatives were the driving force behind the American
invasion of Iraq and the consequent efforts to bring about
regime change throughout the Middle East, the idea for such
a war did not originate with American neocon thinkers but
rather in Israel. An obvious linkage exists between
the war position of the neocons and what has long been a
strategy of the Israeli Right and, to a lesser extent, of
the Israeli mainstream.
The idea of a Middle East war had been bandied about
in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli
security. War would serve two purposes. It would enhance
Israel's external security by weakening and splintering
Israel's neighbors. Moreover, such a war and the consequent
weakening of Israel's external enemies could help resolve
the internal Palestinian demographic problem, since the
Palestinian resistance has derived material and moral
support from Israel's neighboring states.
A brief look at the history of the Zionist movement
and its goals will help to provide an understanding of
this issue. The Zionist goal of creating an exclusive
Jewish state in Palestine was complicated by the fundamental
problem that the country was already settled with a mostly
non-Jewish population. Despite public rhetoric to the
contrary, the idea of expelling the indigenous Palestinian
population (euphemistically referred to as a "transfer")
was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a
Jewish national state in Palestine. [...]
With the Likud assumption of power [in 1977], the most
far-reaching militant proposals entered mainstream Zionist
thinking, involving militant destabilization of Israel's
neighbors and Palestinian expulsion. An important article
in that genre was Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel
in the 1980s," which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's
periodical Kivunim (Directions) in February 1982.
Yinon had been attached to the Foreign Ministry, and his
article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the
Israeli military and intelligence establishment. According
to Peleg, "The Yinon article was an authentic mirror of
the thinking mode of the Israeli Right at the height of
Begin's rule; it reflected a sense of unlimited and unrestrained
power.... There can be no question
that the hard-core Neo-Revisionist camp as a whole subscribed,
at least until the Lebanese fiasco, to ideas similar to
those of Yinon." [11]
Yinon called for Israel to bring about the dissolution
of regional Arab states and their fragmentation into a
mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. He believed
that this would not be a difficult undertaking because
nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal
ethnic and religious divisions. In essence, the end result
would be a Middle East of powerless mini-states that could
in no way confront Israeli power.
Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon's model
for the entire Middle East. He wrote:
Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces
serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including
Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula and is already
following that track. The dissolution
of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously
unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target
on the Eastern front in the long
run, while the dissolution of the military power of those
states serves as the primary short term target. [12]
Note that Yinon sought the dissolution of countries
— Egypt and Saudi Arabia — that were allied to the United
States.
Yinon looked upon Iraq as a major target for dissolution,
and he believed that the ongoing Iran-Iraq war would promote
its breakup:
Iraq, rich in oil on
the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed
as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is
even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is
stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power
which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.
An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its
downfall at home even before it is able to organize a
struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab
confrontation will assist us in the short run and will
shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking
up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious
lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So,
three (or more) states will exist around the three major
cities: Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in
the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.
It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation
will deepen this polarization. [13]
Yinon's 1982 prediction
that war would bring about the religious/ethnic
fragmentation of Iraq fits nicely with what actually occurred
in the aftermath of the 2003 U.S. invasion. Certainly his
forecast was far closer to being accurate than the neocons'
rosy public prognostications, before the invasion, about
the easy engineering of Iraqi democracy. But from the Likudnik
perspective, the reality of a conquered
Iraq was much to be preferred to the neocon pipe dream.
It comes as no surprise, then, that Israel has developed
close ties with the Kurdish separatists. [14]
The goal of Israeli hegemony was inextricably tied to
the expulsion of the Palestinians. According to Yinon,
the policy of Israel must be "to bring about the dissolution
of Jordan; the termination of the problem of the [occupied]
territories densely populated with Arabs west of the [River]
Jordan; and emigration from the territories, and economic-demographic
freeze in them." He added, "We have to be active in order
to encourage this change speedily, in the nearest time."
Like many Israeli advocates of population transfer,
Yinon believed that "Israel has made a strategic mistake
in not taking measures [of mass expulsion] towards the
Arab population in the new territories during and shortly
after the [1967] war.... Such a line
would have saved us the bitter and dangerous conflict
ever since which we could have already then terminated
by giving Jordan to the Palestinians." [15]
In a foreword to his English translation of Yinon's
piece, Israel Shahak made an interesting comparison between
the neoconservative position and actual Likudnik goals:
"The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in
the U.S.A. is very prominent, especially in the author's
notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the
'defense of the West' from Soviet power, the real aim
of the author, and of the present
Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel
into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon
is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all
the rest." [16]
The Yinon article embodied the thinking of Likud strategists
of the early 1980s. As Noam Chomsky wrote in Fateful
Triangle: "much of what Yinon discusses is quite close
to mainstream thinking." Chomsky described the Israeli
incursion into Lebanon in 1982 as representing an attempt
to implement Yinon's geostrategy. "The 'new order' that
Israel is attempting to impose in Lebanon is based on
a conception not unlike what Yinon
expresses, and there is every reason to suppose that similar
ideas with regard to Syria may seem attractive to the
political leadership." [17]
To bolster his thesis regarding Likudnik war strategy,
Chomsky discussed an analytical article by Yoram Peri
— former advisor to Prime Minister
Rabin and European representative of the Labor Party,
and a specialist on civil-military relations in Israel
— that came out in the Labor party journal Davar in October
1982. [18]
Peri described a "true revolution" in "military-diplomatic
conception," which he dated to the coming to power of
the Likudniks. (Chomsky saw the shift as being more gradual
and "deeply rooted" in the Israeli elite.) Summarizing
Peri, Chomsky wrote:
The earlier conception [during the reign of
the leftwing Zionists] was based on the search for "coexistence"
and maintenance of the status quo. Israel aimed at a peaceful
settlement in which its position in the region would be
recognized and its security achieved. The new conception
is based on the goal of "hegemony," not "coexistence."
No longer a status quo power, having achieved military
dominance as the world's fourth most powerful military
force, and no longer believing in even the possibility
of peace or even its desirability except in terms of Israeli
hegemony, Israel is now committed to "destabilization"
of the region, including Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia,
and Jordan. In accordance with the new conception,
Israel should now use its military dominance to expand
its borders and "to create a new reality," a "new order,"
rather than seek recognition within the status quo. [19]
Destabilization of its surrounding enemies would seem
to be a perfectly rational strategy for Israel. Certainly,
all countries, if they had enemies, would prefer them
to be weak rather than strong. As Chomsky pointed out:
It is only natural to expect that Israel will
seek to destabilize the surrounding states, for essentially
the reasons that lead South Africa on a similar course
in its region. In fact, given continuing military tensions,
that might be seen virtually as a security imperative.
A plausible long-term goal might be what some have called
an "Ottomanization" of the region, that is, a return to
something like the system of the Ottoman empire,
with a powerful center (Turkey then, Israel with U.S.
backing now) and much of the region fragmented into ethnic-religious
communities, preferably mutually hostile. [20]
Peri, however, thought that this destabilization policy
would ultimately harm Israel because it would alienate
the United States, upon which Israel's security ultimately
depended. Chomsky summarized Peri's critical stance: "The
reason is that the U.S. is basically a status quo
power itself, opposed to destabilization of the sort to
which Israel is increasingly committed. The new strategic
conception is based on an illusion
of power, and may lead to a willingness, already apparent
in some of the rhetoric heard in Israel, to undertake
military adventures even without U.S. support." [21]
Israel embarked on just such
a unilateral adventure in its invasion of Lebanon
in 1982. And the disastrous result demonstrated the grave
limitations of a unilateral war-oriented strategy for
Israel. [...]
Peri had argued that if Israel went off on its own in
destabilizing the Middle East, the United States would
abandon Israel, to Israel's detriment. What was needed
for the destabilization plan to work was a transformation
of American Middle East policy. If the United States adopted
the same destabilization policy as Israel, then such a
policy could succeed. U.S. influence among its allies
and in the United Nations, where it held a veto, would
be enough to shelter Israel from the animosity of world
opinion, preventing it from ending up as a pariah state
such as the white-ruled Republic of South Africa. Better
yet, though perhaps unimagined in the 1980s, would be
to induce the United States to act in Israel's place to
destabilize the region.
Even if imagined, such a policy
revolution was certainly impossible in that
decade. However, through the long-term efforts of the
American neoconservatives, the transformation
actually occurred in the Bush II administration.
The neocon advocacy of dramatically altering the Middle
Eastern status quo stood in stark contrast to the
traditional American position of maintaining stability
in the area — though it did, of course, mesh perfectly
with Israel's long-established goal of destabilizing its
enemies.
As neocon Kenneth Adelman would put it during George
W. Bush's first term, "The starting point is that [neo]
conservatives now are for radical change, and the progressives
— the establishment foreign-policy makers — are for the
status quo." Adelman emphasized that "conservatives believe
that the status quo in the Middle
East is pretty bad, and the old conservative belief that
stability is good doesn't apply to the Middle East. The
status quo in the Middle East has been breeding terrorists."
[27]
But even many neocons did not directly move to the idea
that the United States would actually be the military
instigator of destabilization in the Middle East. After
the Bush I administration failed
to occupy Iraq and remove Saddam in the Gulf War of 1991,
as the neoconservatives would have liked, [28]
the neocons were thinking in terms of an Israeli military
venture, but one enjoying extensive American moral and
political support. A clear illustration of the neocon
view on this subject — and the intimate connection with
Israeli security — was a 1996 paper titled "A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," published by an
Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic
and Political Studies. Included in the study group that
produced it were men who would loom
large in the Bush II administration's war policy
in the Middle East — Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and
David Wurmser. Perle was listed as the head of the study
group. [29]
The "realm" that the study group sought to secure was
that of Israel. The purpose of the policy paper was to
provide a political blueprint for the incoming Israeli
Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo
peace process and reassert Israel's claim to the West
Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan whereby Israel would
"shape its strategic environment," beginning with the
removal of Saddam and the installation of a Hashemite
monarchy in Baghdad. By removing Saddam, the study held,
Israel would be in a better strategic position to get
at its more dangerous foes. In short, elimination of Saddam
was a first step toward reconfiguring the entire Middle
East for the benefit of Israel: "Israel can shape its
strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and
Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back
Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic
objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria's
regional ambitions." [30]
To prevent the debilitating American criticism of Israeli
policy that took place during Israel's invasion of Lebanon
in 1982, the "Clean Break" report advised Netanyahu to
present Israeli actions "in language familiar to the Americans
by tapping into themes of American administrations during
the cold war which apply well to Israel." For example,
the report stated that "Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his
desire to cooperate more closely with the United States
on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat
of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose
to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile
defense counter a tangible physical threat to
Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base
of support among many in the United States Congress who
may know little about Israel, but care very much about
missile defense." [31]
Israel could also gain American support, the report
maintained, by appealing to Western ideals. The Netanyahu
government should "promote Western values and traditions.
Such an approach ... will be well received in the United
States." The appeal to American values loomed large in
the report's reference to Lebanon: "An effective approach,
and one with which American can sympathize, would be if
Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern
borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the
principal agents of aggression in Lebanon." In short,
the report saw the use of moral values
in largely utilitarian terms. References to moral values
were for American consumption. This was a means to get
American support for a policy to advance Israeli national
interests. [32]
Intelligence writer James Bamford cut to the core of
the Israeli manipulations:
To gain the support of the American government
and public, a phony pretext would be used as the reason
for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle, and Wurmser was
for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes.
But this time, to counter potentially hostile reactions
from the American government and public, they suggested
using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of
the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting
infrastructure located there. They were subjects in
which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were
ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted
war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention
to its weapons of mass destruction program.
This claim would be that Israel's war was really all
about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills,
and WMD — nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
[33]
Still, in the "Clean Break," neocons were advising Israeli
military action. It should be emphasized that the same
people — Feith, Wurmser, Perle — who advised the Israeli
government on issues of national security would also advise
the George W. Bush administration to pursue virtually
the same policy regarding the Middle East, but employing
American armed forces. As political observer William James
Martin would astutely comment about "Clean
Break": "This document is remarkable for its very existence
because it constitutes a policy manifesto for the Israeli
government penned by members of the current U.S. government."
[34]
Martin went on to point out that the similarity between
that document's recommendation for Israel and the neocon-inspired
Bush administration policy, purportedly designed for the
benefit of American interests, was even more remarkable:
It is amazing how much of this program, though
written for the Israeli government of Netanyahu of 1996,
has already been implemented, not by the government of
Israel, but by the Bush administration. The overthrow
of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the two-year-old house arrest
of Arafat and the attempt to cultivate a new Palestinian
leadership, the complete rejection
by Sharon of the land for peace agreement on the Golan
Heights, with little U.S. demurral, and the bombing inside
of "Syria proper" with only the response from Bush, "Israel
has a right to defend itself." [35]
The dramatic similarities
between the "Clean Break" scenario and actual Bush II
administration Middle East policy are evident not only in
the results but also in the sequence of events. Notably,
the "Clean Break" report held that removing Saddam was the
key to weakening Israel's other enemies;
and after removing Saddam in 2003 the United States would
indeed quickly threaten Iran and Syria, and talk of restructuring
the entire Middle East. [36]
Evident, too, is a similarity between actual events and
the Yinon proposal of 1982, which also saw regime change
in Iraq as a fundamental move in destabilizing Israel's
enemies.
To reiterate the central point
of this essay: the vision of "regime change" in the Middle
East through external, militant action originated in Israel,
and its sole purpose was to advance the strategic interests
of Israel. It had nothing to do with bringing "democracy"
to Muslims. It had nothing to do with any terrorist threat
to the United States. Those latter arguments accreted
to the idea of regime change as the primary military actor
changed from Israel to the United States. But the Israeli
government would continue to be a fundamental supporter
of the regional military action, even as the ostensible
justifications for action changed. The Sharon government
advocated the American attacks on Iraq and has preached
the necessity of strikes on Iran.
It would appear that for Ariel Sharon
during the Bush II administration, the strategic
benefits that would accrue to Israel from such a militant
restructuring of the Middle East were the same as those
that Likudniks sought in the 1980s. But unlike Begin's
failed incursion into Lebanon in 1982, the Bush II
effort not only relied upon the much greater power of
the United States but also was wrapped in a cover of "democracy"
and American national interest, effectively masking the
true objective of Israeli hegemony. That
helps to explain the much greater success of this intervention,
which has come at no cost to Israel.
Instead, it has come at a cost to the United States.
The United States has tarnished its international reputation
through its militarily aggressive actions in contravention
of prevailing international norms. It has also had to
pay significant costs in blood and money: rather, the
American people have had to pay those costs. And the United
States has made itself, and the American people, a major
target of international terrorism. In short, the benefits
derived by the United States from its Middle East military
adventure are highly questionable; but that is easily
understood if one recognizes that the policy the Bush II
administration has pursued did not originate as one to
benefit the interests of the United States but rather
to benefit those of Israel, as those interests have been
perceived by the Israeli Right. |
Congressman John Conyers
(D-MI) is circulating a letter calling for a further inquiry
into a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY
has learned.
In a statement, Conyers says he is disappointed the mainstream
media has not touched the revelations.
"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United
States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway
bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British
newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times
reports that the British government and the United States
government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002,
before authorization was sought for such an attack in
Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications
for doing so."
"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered
document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair
chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for
"regime change" through the use of force in
Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such
an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair
also discussed the need for America to "create"
conditions to justify the war."
Conyers says he is seeking an inquiry.
"This should not be allowed to fall down the memory
hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson
trial and a runaway bride," he remarks. "To
prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following
letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign
on to it."
The letter follows.
###
May ___, 2005
The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United
States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday
London Times apparently confirming that the United States
and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq
in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and
before you even sought Congressional authority to engage
in military action. While various individuals have asserted
this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill,
former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke,
a former National Security Council official, they have
been previously dismissed by your Administration. However,
when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister
Blair's representative claimed the document contained
"nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate,
it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal
justifications for the war as well as the integrity
of your own Administration.
The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the
minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources
inside the British Government. Among other things, the
document revealed:
* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired
a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military
options, having already committed himself to supporting
President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.
* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged
that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam
was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability
was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."
* A separate secret briefing
for the meeting said that Britain and America had to
"create" conditions to justify a war.
* A British official "reported
on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable.
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy."
As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like
to know the following:
1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute
the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment
of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization
go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration
obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this
time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about
weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification
for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister
Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence
community and/or British officials to "fix"
the intelligence and facts around the policy as the
leaked document states?
We have of course known for some time that subsequent
to the invasion there have been a variety of varying
reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly
since the time it became evident that weapons of mass
destruction would not be found. This leaked document
- essentially acknowledged by the Blair government -
is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting
well before the invasion as well.
Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that
you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Congressman John Conyers
|
BEIJING, May 4 --A
leaked classified report shows the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff told congress that the US military may
not be able to win any new wars as quickly as planned.
A senior defence official says General Richard Myers,
has warned that the US military is in a period of increased
risk because conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are straining
manpower and resources.
Myers delivered the report to Congress on Monday and
predicts the risk will decrease in a year or two.
"The message that we are sending to Congress is
that the United States military can fulfill its task under
the National Security Strategy, National Defence Strategy,
National Military Strategy and we will be successful and
prevail in anything our nation asks us to do under those
strategies - that is the bottom line."
Myers also says the US military has
timelines in place for defeating its potential adversaries,
given there are enough soldiers, tanks, aircraft and warships
available to do the job.
He admits the timelines might have to
be extended.
About 138-thousand American troops are in Iraq, according
to US Central Command. Another 18-thousand are in Afghanistan. |
How far will U.S.
Army recruiters go to bring young men and women into their
ranks? An Arvada West High School senior recently decided
to find out. The following is CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger's
report..
ARVADA, Colo. (CBS4) -- Last month
the U.S. Army failed to meet its goal of 6,800 new troops.
Aware of this trend, David McSwane, a local high school
student, decided he wanted to find out to what extent
some recruiters would go to sign up soldiers who were
not up to grade.
McSwane, 17, is actually just the kind of teenager the
military would like. He's a high school journalist and
honor student at Arvada West High School. But McSwane
decided he wanted to see "how far the Army would
go during a war to get one more solider."
McSwane contacted his local army recruiting
office in Golden with a scenario he created. He told a
recruiter that he was a dropout and didn't have a high
school diploma.
"No problem," the recruiter
explained. He suggested that McSwane create a fake diploma
from a non-existent school.
McSwane recorded the recruiter saying
that on the phone.
"It can be like Faith Hill Baptist
School or something -- whatever you choose," the
recruiter said.
As instructed, McSwane went on the computer to a Web
site and for $200 arranged to have a phony diploma created
that certified him as a graduate of Faith Hill Baptist
High School, the very name the recruiter suggested. It
came complete with a fake grade transcript.
"What was your reaction to them encouraging you
to get a phony diploma?" CBS4's Rick Sallinger asked.
"I was shocked," McSwane said. "I'm sitting
there looking at a poster that says 'Integrity, Honor,
Respect' and he is telling me to lie."
McSwane also pretended he had a drug
problem when he spoke with the recruiter.
The Army does not accept enlistees with
drug problems.
"I have a problem with drugs,"
McSwane said, referring to the conversation he had with
the recruiter. "I can't kick the habit ... just marijuana."
"[The recruiter] said 'Not a problem,'
just take this detox ... he said he would pay half of
it ... told me where to go."
Drug testers CBS4 contacted insist it doesn't work, but
the recruiter claimed in another recorded phone conversation
that taking "detoxification capsules and liquid"
would help McSwane pass the required test.
"The two times I had the guys use
it, it has worked both times," the recruiter said
in the recorded conversation. "We didn't have to
worry about anything."
Then the original recruiter was transferred and another
recruiter, Sgt. Tim Pickel, picked up the ball.
A friend of McSwane shot videotape as Pickel drove McSwane
to a store where he purchased the so-called detox kit.
CBS4 then went to the Army recruiting office and confronted
Sgt. Pickel. CBS4 played him a conversation McSwane had
with Pickel on the phone. The transcript of that conversation
follows:
Pickel: When you said about the one problem
that you had, what does it consist of?
McSwane: "Marijuana."
Pickel: Oh, OK so nothing major?
McSwane: Yeah, he said he would take me down to get that
stuff, I mean I have no idea what it is, so you would
have to show me. Is that a problem?
Pickel: No, not at all.
Pickel quickly referred CBS4 to his superiors.
CBS4 then played the tapes and showed the video to Lt.
Col. Jeffrey Brodeur, who heads army recruiting for the
region.
"Let me sum up all of this with one word: unacceptable,
completely unacceptable," Brodeur said.
Hearing recruiters talking about phony diplomas and ways
to beat drug tests left Brodeur more than a little disturbed.
"Let me tell you something sir, I'm a soldier and
have been a soldier for 20 years," Brodeur said.
"This violates trust, it violates integrity, it violates
honor and it violates duty."
The army says it is conducting a full investigation.
Brodeur said there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters
if quotas are not met. They are, however, rewarded when
their goals are surpassed. |
WASHINGTON, May 3 (Xinhuanet)
-- US national security adviser Stephen Hadley appointed
William Luti on Tuesday as Special Assistant to the President
and senior director for Defense Policy and Strategy, the
White House said in a statement.
"Most recently, Dr. Luti served as the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Near Eastern and South Asian
Affairs. Prior to joining the Defense Department, Dr.
Luti served as a Special Advisor for National Security
Affairs to Vice President Dick Cheney," the statement
said.
Luti previously served for 26 years as a naval officer
"in a wide variety of operational and policy positions
including command of an aviation squadron, an amphibious
assault ship and an amphibious ready group," the
statement added. |
"Among Arabs,
you will not find the phenomenon so typical of Judeo-Christian
culture: doubts, a sense of guilt, the self-tormenting
approach, `Maybe we weren't entirely OK,' or `Maybe we
need to act or react differently.' These phenomena are
totally unknown in Arab-Islamic society, toward outsiders.
They have no doubts about their positions or the justice
of their side. They have no sense of guilt that they may
have erred. They have neither twinges of conscience nor
any regrets that they may have done wrong to anyone else
... The phenomenon of the murderers by suicide, sometimes
called suicide bombers, is an absolute indication. There
is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience
among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum,
of any social position." (Dr David Bukay, "The
First Cultural Flaw in Thinking: The Arab Personality,"
from Bukay's book "Arab-Islamic Political Culture:
A Key Source to Understanding Arab Politics and the Arab-Israeli
Conflict." ACPRPublishers, 2003.)
Dr. David Bukay is a person of some standing at the University
of Haifa. He teaches in the Department of Political Science
in the Social Sciences Faculty and is considered close
to the department head, Prof. Gabriel Ben Dor. My meeting
with Bukay was held in Prof. Ben Dor's office; Ben Dor
and Bukay share the same secretary.
According to the student evaluation sheets about him
and according to conversations with students, Dr. Bukay
is a popular lecturer. True, he often uses "sharp
and harsh" language, as one of the letters of support
for him note, but as many of his students point out, there
is a good atmosphere in the classroom and his students
view him as a knowledgeable teacher. The subject he teaches
- Middle Eastern affairs - interest them. He has also
written position papers on Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat
and Arab terrorism and publishes regularly in the right-wing
journal Nativ.
He has also published a book about Arab political culture
and is the editor of the English-language collection of
essays "Muhammad's Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide
to Radical Islam for Western Audiences" (Balfour
Books, 2004). "The American publisher is a religious
extremist and he came up with the title," Bukay explained
to the university disciplinary board that dealt with the
case.
Until last year there were no reports about untoward
comments by Dr. Bukay in his classes, not even on the
part of the many Arab students who attended them. It bears
recalling that the University of Haifa has the highest
percentage of Arab students in Israel, at least 20 percent.
"I do not recall a semester when I did not have an
Arab student," Bukay says, "and I heard only
praise and admiration from them." Until, that is,
the first semester of the present (2004-5) academic year
- when the attorney general ordered an investigation against
Bukay on suspicion of racist incitement.
There are two versions of what happened in the classroom,
and they are mutually contradictory and divided along
the lines of national origin: the version of two Arab
students and, pitted against it, the opposite version
propounded by the lecturer and the Jewish students. One
of the two Arab students in question is a woman who prefers
that her name not be used because she does not want to
affect her future at the university, especially now that
she has already testified before the university's disciplinary
board and before the rector.
The female student relates that she began to feel uncomfortable
from the very first classes. Bukay spoke about the Muslim's
ties to Jerusalem and explained that Jerusalem is not
even mentioned in the Koran. She was outraged. She was
certain that Jerusalem was cited in the holy book of Islam.
Bukay sent her to the Koran and told her, she says, you
will look, you will not find it and I will shame you in
class. She then heard him say that terrorism is a problem
of the Arab and that the prophet Mohammed was the first
terrorist.
At the end of the lesson, the student went to see Dr.
As'ad Ghanem, the head of the Government and Political
Theory unit of the Department of Political Science, and
complained about Bukay's offensive remarks. Dr. Ghanem
suggested that she write to the head of the department
and to the rector. She did not do this. "I wanted
to finish the course without any fuss," she told
the disciplinary board.
Then Fadi Abu Yunes got into the act. While the female
Arab student wishes to remain anonymous and in the shadows,
Abu Yunes loves the spotlight. Indeed, he actively seeks
it out. He is a political activist, a member of Hadash
(Democratic Front for Peace, an Arab-Jewish party) and
chairman of the National Union of Arab Students. Abu Yunes
joined Bukay's course late, in the fourth class. "I
didn't have money, so I registered late," he explains.
Bukay is convinced that Abu Yunes came to the course
with the deliberate intention of interfering and of vilifying
him. "He was sent and I know who sent him. He was
a provocateur," Bukay asserts, without elaborating.
Ohad Wohlbuter, a Jewish student who later wrote a letter
of support for Bukay, says he is certain that the Arab
student who was upset over the issue of whether Jerusalem
is mentioned in the Koran invited Abu Yones to the course.
She denies this. "I know Fadi, just as I know the
other Arab students in the department," she says.
"I did not tell him about what happened in class
and he didn't even know that I had gone to Dr. Ghanem
to complain." Abu Yunes also denies having known
the female student earlier.
From the moment Abu Yunes crossed the threshold of Dr.
Bukay's lecture hall, the atmosphere turned volatile.
He started to ask questions and make comments, shouting
out while Bukay was speaking, usually without asking permission.
Yelena Margovsky, a atudent in the course, says that Abu
Yunes interrupted Bukay incessantly.
"He was always coming and going, going and coming,
bringing books that had nothing to do with the subject.
I used to be a student at Tel Aviv University and I never
saw anything like that," says Shlomo Zuckerman, who
audited the course, told the disciplinary board. Yisrael
Diamant, who also audited the course, told the board,
"Fadi would get up and say to Bukay: I will ask what
I want and you are obliged to answer me. I have rights
and I am a citizen of this country like everyone else."
Abu Yunes does not deny this. He says only that there
was a reason for all the outbursts. Not one reason, but
many reasons. He relates that he quickly understood that
Bukay was making untoward remarks and so be began to write
then down and document them. In one case, Abu Yunes recalls,
Bukay said, "Terrorists should be shot in the head
in front of their families" as a deterrent and that
"a whole house should be demolished with the occupants
inside" in order to liquidate one wanted individual.
In another instance, Abu Yunes testified, Bukay explained
to the class that "Arabs are nothing but alcohol
and sex" and cited as an example his "good friend
from Yemen" whom he met in America.
A whole debate developed over the Nobel Prize, according
to Abu Yunes. Bukay, the student says, stated that "the
Arabs are stupid and have contributed nothing to humanity."
Yelena Margovsky mentioned the achievements of the Arabs
in the Middle Ages. To which Bukay retorted, "The
Arabs only preserved Greek culture, they did not develop
anything." As an example, he noted the fact that
only seven Arabs have won a Nobel Prize ("one of
them unjustly - Yasser Arafat"), whereas 170 Jews
were Nobel laureates. "Is it genetic?" one student
asked. "Apparently," Bukay replied, according
to Abu Yunes.
Bukay categorically denies the exchange of comments over
the genetic issue, branding it "a blood libel, fabricated
things which have no foundation." Nearly all the
students in the course, all of them Jewish, confirm Bukay's
account. No such remarks were made, they insist, and Bukay
did not say that "the Arabs are stupid." They
confirm that Bukay cited the very small number of Arab
Nobel laureates as proof of the Arabs' backwardness and
that he said that the Arabs in the Middle Ages mainly
preserved the achievements of the Greeks and the Romans
and hardly developed anything of their own, apart from
algebra.
"That reply was satisfactory to me," says Yelena
Margovsky, the student who cited the Arabs' accomplishments
in medieval times. She too did not hear Bukay call the
Arabs "stupid." "There was no such thing,"
she maintains. However, the female Arab student confirms
what Abu Yunes said and testified to that effect before
the rector and the disciplinary board.
Even if Bukay did not make these explicit remarks, it
is quite clear that his goal in the course was to persuade
the students that the Arab society is weak, undemocratic,
"anemic," in the term of Ohad Wohlbuter, a right-wing
student ("natural Likud," as he puts it), who
heads the supporters of Bukay in the course.
A corrupt and violent culture
"Both the Arabs, due to their tribal-clan structure,
and the Islamic religion, which holds that Allah is the
center of all and rejects human centrality, are characterized
by the rejection of the opinion of people as individuals.
Their views and concepts are not taken into account at
all, only the opinion of the generality ... This leads
to tribal-communal conceptual conformity and perpetuates
the pointlessness of the scientific study of polls and
surveys. Therefore, anthropologists state, when an Arab
or a Muslim opens his remarks with the expression wallahi,
he is apparently intending to lie." (Dr. David Bukay,
"Surveys in Arab-Islamic culture," distributed
in his University of Haifa course on "The inter-Arab
system and the Palestine issue")
As part of his efforts to prove his argument, did Bukay
cast aspersions of a racist character? It is difficult
to know for certain, but it is clear that what he said
was not easy for an Arab student to listen to. Margovsky,
who wrote an ardent letter against Abu Yunes and his "blood
libel," stated that she understood from Dr. Bukay
that "the Arabs are incapable of self-judgment, because
of their feeling of superiority."
The atmosphere was well summed up by Aiman Mansour, a
student who is doing a Ph.D. under the supervision of
Prof. Ben Dor and Dr. Bukay. "I have known Dr. David
Bukay for nearly five years," Mansour wrote to Ben
Dor after the affair exploded. "For me and for many
others he is not only a supervisor or lecturer, but a
person who devotes all his time to the students ... At
the personal level, Dr. Bukay constitutes a dominant factor
in shaping my personality. He is the only one who taught
me that I must recognize the fact that my culture, the
Arab culture, is corrupt, repressive, violent and anti-democratic."
"Now I understand where Bukay wants to take me as
well - to get me to admit that my culture is corrupt -
and why I was so opposed," Abu Yunes said after Mansour's
letter reached him from the prosecution on the disciplinary
board. Things then began to snowball in November, a month
after the start of the first semester. In the wake of
the female student, though without coordination between
them, Abu Yunes went to Dr. Ghanem to complain about Bukay's
remarks. The confrontations in class reached a peak in
December. Abu Yunes shouted "racist" at Bukay
several times. (According to one student, he also called
him a "Nazi," though Abu Yunes denies this and
Bukay himself did not hear it.) Bukay decided to expel
Abu Yunes from the course. "The students said he
was bothering them and that if I did not remove him they
would summon security guards," Bukay relates. He
also sent a letter of complaint to the dean of students,
describing the shouts of "racist" which had
been hurled at him and the repeated interruptions of the
classes. "Furthermore," Bukay added in the letter,
"he [Abu Yunes] stated more than once that I am actually
an Arab, and twice said mockingly in class, `Bu-ka-i.'
Commentary for those who do not understand the terminology:
the Mizrahi Jews [those of Middle Eastern descent] are
Arabs and should forge a coalition with the Arabs against
the Ashkenazi Jews who are responsible for Zionism."
When the discussion of Bukay's complaint was delayed,
the lecturer fired off another letter, this time to Ben
Dor, the department head. "If you try to buy quiet,"
Bukay wrote, "I am informing you that tomorrow everyone
will be under threat ... The alternatives are either appeasement
and buying quiet (do you remember Munich?), or a struggle
to uproot the phenomenon."
Abu Yunes, for his part, also sent a letter of complaint,
to the rector, in which he specified everything he says
he heard in the course. He sent a copy of the letter to
Nana, an Israeli Internet portal. Nana published the letter
under the headline, "Haifa U lecturer: Shoot the
Arabs in the head." Abu Yunes had quoted Bukay as
saying that "terrorists," not "Arabs,"
should be shot in the head, but the damage was already
done. The publication of the text by Nana, and afterward
by a local weekly, Kolbo, triggered a pitched battle.
Nearly all of Bukay's students signed a letter of support
for him, which denied everything Abu Yunes said. Some
of Bukay's former students also sent letters praising
him. The deputy attorney general, Shain Nitzan, instructed
the police to launch an investigation against Bukay on
suspicion of incitement to racism, in the wake of the
publication by Nana. The rector, Prof. Yossi Ben Artzi,
conducted an investigation of his own and concluded that
the remarks attributed to Bukay on the Internet and in
the media "were not made in the way they were quoted
and parts of sentences that were uttered in different
contexts were yoked together by manipulation."
It should be noted that Ben Artzi questioned Abu Yunes
only about the headline in Nana ("shoot the Arabs
in the head") and not about the other comments attributed
to Bukay. Ben Artzi stated that he would make it clear
to Bukay that "it is important to moderate statements
on sensitive topics and take into account that certain
things are liable to be taken out of their context."
However, he declined to tell Haaretz which things had
been "taken out of context." The police have
yet to open an investigation against Bukay, but the university's
disciplinary board is still discussing Bukay's complaint
against Abu Yunes.
Quarrelsome atmosphere
"The custom of hospitality, which is so famously
an Arab social phenomenon, can be seen in the context
of obtaining honor and externalizing it toward the environment;
while the dancing around the guest derives more from fear
that the latter might take up with the host's wife and
daughters." (Dr. David Bukay, "The First Cultural
Flaw in Thinking: The Arab Personality")
It was not easy to get an interview with Dr. Bukay. At
first he railed against the media that had "shed
his blood," generating threats against his life that
led him to check under his car every morning for fear
someone may have planted a bomb there. Then he provided
a list of books on which, he said, he based his articles
on "the Arab character." He then announced that
he would agree to be interviewed only if I promised not
to talk to Abu Yunes. "That would be like talking
both with the terrorist and with his victim," he
said, explaining the unusual request. "The imagined
equality is unacceptable to me." Finally he agreed,
after I undertook to read the books on his list.
I read them - not all of them, but I read. I especially
read the book that Bukay marked as "highly recommended,
all sections of the book." The work referred to is
"The Temperament and Character of the Arabs,"
the only book by Sania Hamady, published in 1960 (in English,
by Twayne Publishers). None of the experts on the Middle
East whom I asked have ever heard of her, and almost the
only mentions of her book (in Hebrew) on the Internet
are on sites of the Israeli right. The Hamady book is
peculiar, to put it mildly. Put less mildly, Hamady's
book is chockful of prejudices, devoid of any proof and
is on the brink of racism.
Bukay quotes selectively the literary sources cited by
Hamady on the frequency of the lie in the Arab society,
on the notion that the Arab society is a "society
of shame" in contrast to the Christian "guilt
society." (This contrast, according to Dr. Ron Kuzar,
from the Department of English Language and Literature
at the University of Haifa, was popular among conservative
circles after World War II, and today is common mainly
in racist circles). It is also clear to Hamady why the
Arabs have no sense of guilt. "The Muslims deny original
sin in any form," writes the Lebanese-born Hamady,
who is described in the book as "an adviser for social
development in the Protestant Service Bureau."In
short, the Muslims are simply not Christians.
The whole book is rife with bizarre statements without
any scholarly or other foundation. The Arabs are "arrogant,"
she writes at one point. Arabs speak loudly, as is evident
from the market. A quarrelsome atmosphere prevails in
the Arab home. In the introduction to the book, in which
Hamady states that she did not do any research but based
herself exclusively on "literary sources," she
herself warns that her generalizations about the Arabs
should be taken with a grain of salt. The Arabs, she writes
in the introduction, have a number of "universal"
traits which are shared by the entire human race. In other
words, surprising as it may be, we should remember that
Arabs, too, are human beings.
Sania Hamady, the anthropologist you so admire, writes
that Arabs are arrogant, talk loudly and that the atmosphere
in the Arab home is rife with quarrels. Don't you think
it is problematic to cite her as an authority?
Bukay: "Maybe what is problematic is your political
correctness."
Do Arabs talk in a loud voice?
"I don't know. Were you in that society, that you
can say whether it is true or not?"
I've been in Arab homes, and in some of them people spoke
in a loud voice and in others they didn't. That's all.
"You are getting into questions of values now. She
is a doctor of anthropology."
What academic validity does a statement like this have?
What do you think about these statements?
"I think she is an anthropologist and I think she
is a good anthropologist. I will explain why: because
your approach is exactly the Western one of the politically
correct, of the mirror image. Both are problematic concepts
from my point of view. We look at our mirror image, we
make value judgments according to our mirror image, and
political correctness, with all respect, is simply killing
us."
Reading this material, aren't you prompted to ask who
the prattler is who wrote it?
"I think that until you examine the issue, you don't
have any tools to work with."
Is it research to say that people talk in a loud voice?
"Then nothing is research. Sania Hamady's central
message is that of a shame society, honor-shame-revenge,
and that is the subject that [the late Prof. Yehoshafat]
Harkabi worked on so much."
Let us move to things you have written and to which you
referred a class with members of the defense establishment
as students (the article on "The First Cultural Flaw
in Thinking: The Arab Personality"). You write that
no Arab has guilt feelings, that it is impossible to rely
on surveys done by them because they live in a lying culture.
Aren't those generalizations?
"Look at the context. Do you want me to make a statement
and then say, no, in the Palestinian society it is different?
What happens is that we take our mirror image, our values,
and we, on that basis, judge the other society. But the
other society differs from ours. It is not better and
not worse, it is different."
But the negative implication is obvious: lying is not
good.
"When an Arab opens his remarks with the expression
wallahi, he is apparently - it is not a fixed thing -
intending to lie. Let us take Bernard Lewis. Take Harkabi."
They say what when an Arab says `wallahi' he intends
to lie?
"No, no. You have the right not to accept what I
say, that is exactly science, that is one of the approaches
in science. Sania Hamady, David Pryce-Jones and Raphael
Patai - look in the index under `lie' - go to Bernard
Lewis. Sania Hamady said so explicitly. Take two more
things. One, go to the practice of Jews from the [Middle]
Eastern communities. My parents came from Syria. Ask people
from these communities how many times they say that when
a person in that society says this [wallahi], he is lying.
Moreover, go to the interrogators in the defense establishment
and see how many times they say to the subject of the
interrogation: `What are you saying, why are you saying
these things?' The subject replies, `Wallahi, that is
what I am saying.' Now the interrogator asks, `What is
your name?' He replies, `My name is XYZ.' `Are you sure,
Aqid?' - the interrogators repeat the word in Arabic -
`Are you sure that is your name?' `Yes, that is my name,'
he replies. `Then why didn't you say `wallahi' this time?'
they ask.
"Obviously, this is a hard statement. But I say
to you again, both in the practice of the Arab states
and in the practice of the defense establishment, you
will find it very often, that term, because in practice
- apparently not always - the formulation is definitely
correct."
The example you used is from an interrogation by the
Shin Bet security service, which is not exactly a situation
in which a person customarily tells the whole truth.
"What do you want, for me to apologize because when
he [an Arab] is being questioned by the Shin Bet, he is
in this or that situation?"
You did not write that people do not tell the truth in
Shin Bet interrogations. You say Arabs or Muslims, in
general.
"Anthropologists say so. Sania Hamady."
Elsewhere you write that an important phenomenon that
typifies the Arab is a lack of basic trust, suspiciousness
and hostility toward the other, even if he is a member
of the same group. Isn't that a generalization?
"No, it is not a generalization. Ask any Arab, I
and my brother against my cousins, I and my cousins against
the neighbor, it is one of the characteristics."
An Arab has no doubts, he has no guilt feelings, he has
not an iota of conscience, there is no condemnation, no
contrition - nowhere, in no social class. Isn't that a
generalization?
"Yes, a generalization, but it is a quotation from
Yehoshafat Harkabi, from Raphael Patai. Both those researchers
address this question of the problem of the culture. It
is true that it could have been formulated in less general
terms, but fundamentally there is nothing [in such statements]
that does not represent reality."
There is no contrition in the Arab world.
"Not toward outsiders."
Researchers who read your articles said essentially that
it is not academe.
"Could be, and then all the researchers who have
written are not academe, either."
Don't you feel that it should be well-based?
"Everything is well-based. I am giving you researchers,
you don't want to follow it up. There is no such situation
that there is no argument in science. There is a different
opinion which you can accept or not, object to it more
or less, but that is exactly the essence of science."
In his book "The International Jew," Henry
Ford, the automotive industrialist, wrote, "The Jew
at trade is naturally quicker than most other men. It
is said that there are other races, which are as nimble
at a trade as is the Jew, but the Jew does not live much
among them." Is that science, too?
"I don't know. I'm not an expert on that subject,
so how would I know?
How do you relate to Ford's remark?
"It is totally irrelevant, it is not in my context,
I don't know where it was said and when it was said."
The important issue
"Above all, the most important continuum for understanding
the Arab personality is that between submission to and
fawning over those with perceived power, at one end, and
cruel, violent, anarchic, unrestrained wildness, at the
other." (Dr. David Bukay, "The First Cultural
Flaw in Thinking: The Arab Personality")
Something strange is happening at the University of Haifa.
On the one hand, the Anti-Defamation League is "very
disturbed" by Bukay's article because of its "destructive
prejudices" (see box) and the attorney general has
initiated an investigation against Bukay on suspicion
of racist incitement. On the other hand, the university
is conducting a disciplinary process against the student
who accused Bukay of racism. However, in this process
Bukay has gradually gone from accuser to accused.
The prosecutor Ayelet Tzur wanted to concentrate on just
one issue - whether Abu Yunes interrupted Bukay's classes.
It makes no difference whether Bukay made the remarks
or not, she argued repeatedly in the hearings, nor is
it important whether he wrote anything racist or not.
According to the prosecutor, the question is "whether
a student has the right to behave" as Abu Yunes behaved,
even if the lecturer made racist remarks (as Abu Yunes
maintains).
The defense counsel, attorney Yusef Jabarin, took exactly
the opposite line. It's true, his client admitted, he
called Bukay a "racist," but he did so because
he thinks he is a racist.
Jabarin tried to prove this by drawing on the letter
of the student who thanked Bukay for teaching him that
his Arab culture is corrupt and with the help of the page
Bukay distributed in class. "The level of generalization,
the sweeping formulation and the harshness of what Dr.
Bukay wrote leave no room for doubt that this is writing
of a racist character," Jabarin said.
The University of Haifa apparently realized that things
had gotten complicated. Senior officials say the university
administration wrestled with the problem of whether to
file a disciplinary suit against Abu Yunes (the university
constitution leaves it up to the administration whether
to accede to a lecturer's request to file suit against
a student). However, the rector was under enormous pressure
and the suit was filed. Oddly, the rector also issued
a statement "exonerating" Bukay after the disciplinary
process had already begun.
The university administration responded that "the
rector was not involved in the submission of the complaint,
which was of course submitted by Dr. Bukay himself. In
this case the rector did not know about the existence
of the complaint until it was reported to him by the prosecutor."
Moreover, the university administration is not interested
in the content of the articles written by Dr. Bukay in
Nativ because "we do not check or approve articles
by teachers at the university and the university is not
responsible for that." The university administration
was also asked about the material that Bukay distributed
in class to the students - specifically, "When an
Arab says wallahi he is intending to lie" - but opted
to ignore the question in its response.
Last week, more than a month after the police investigation
was announced, the university suddenly remembered the
matter and asked attorney Jabarin to defer the continuation
of the hearings until the police conclude their investigation,
which could take months. Jabarin refused: Either cancel
the suit or proceed with it until the conclusion, he wrote
the prosecutor.
The university decided to go ahead with the hearings,
but then a new snag arose. Two weeks ago on Wednesday,
the day before the hearing, the prosecutor announced that
Bukay had fallen ill and the whole matter would therefore
be postponed until July, when one of the judges returns
from his sabbatical.
On that same Wednesday I met with Bukay for two hours.
The next day - the day of the scheduled hearing - I spoke
with him by telephone. He neither looked nor sounded sick.
Did someone here say wallahi?
Jews need to know
Ken Jacobson, associate national director of the Anti-Defamation
League, was shocked after reading Dr. Bukay's article
on the "Arab personality."
"Such generalizations are very disturbing,"
he said in a call from his office in New York. "Dr.
Bukay's article falls into the trap of old and hurtful
stereotypes, which express prejudices that are liable
to be very destructive. Every generalization of this kind
contains a grain of truth, otherwise it would not sound
reasonable to listeners. It is clear that there are aspects
like this in the Arab society, but it also has a thousand
opposite aspects. Along with hostility one finds hospitality,
and alongside an absence of contrition, one can find thousands
who will ask for forgiveness. These are the worst stereotypes,
from which it is difficult to move on. We, the Jews, should
know better than anyone that we must not engage in utterances
of this kind."
Jacobson explains that the ADL does not have written
criteria enabling it to decide when a text is racist or
contains generalizations. "But we have been in the
business for so long that we know it when we see it."
Jacobson says that in the ADL's view it is wrong to hide
behind academic freedom: "Naturally we respect academic
freedom and understand that this is the only way academe
can operate, but we believe that university presidents
should condemn such things. It is not enough for a university
president to say that his institution practices academic
freedom. He must also say that such statements are obnoxious." |
A
group of some 60 Tel-Aviv university academics and left-wing
activists Wednesday morning held protest in front of the
Judea and Samaria College of Ariel in the West Bank against
a government decision to confer university status to the
college.
The protestors spoke to students, who expressed their
surprise with the demonstration saying they thought Ariel
was seen in the Israeli consensus as being part of Israel
in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians.
The Tel-Aviv University scholars spoke of the crisis
which the country's academia was going through, and of
the injustice in the decision to invest money in a new
university while existing ones are facing grave financial
difficulties and their budgets are being slashed down
by the government.
The left-wing protestors, members of
Courage to Refuse, who all refuse to serve in the Israel
Defense Forces for ideological reasons, spoke of the difficulty
in the creation of a university in Ariel on the political
level, arguing that the West Bank town is situated on
occupied land and surrounded by millions of Palestinians.
Among the protestors was also student union activist
Daniel Safron-Hon who was among the leaders of the last
student struggle against budget cuts.
On Monday the cabinet voted 13-7 to confer university
status on Judea and Samaria College in Ariel, less than
two weeks after a major British lecturers union sparked
wide controversy by declaring a boycott against Bar-Ilan
University for its links to the West Bank college.
The Council for Higher Education has also expressed its
displeasure with the government's decision, defining it
as "an unacceptable and flawed political intervention."
"The problem with the entire higher education system
is that research universities are falling apart,"
Haifa University President Aharon Ben Ze'ev said. "There
aren't enough funds nowadays, and with the founding of
two new universities [in Ariel as well as in the Galilee],
the blow could be fatal." |
Israel's foreign minister
has said a pullout from the Gaza Strip will be delayed
until 15 August and would take about six weeks, but a
senior Israeli official said no final decision had been
made.
Israeli leaders have been widely expected to agree to
the delay from 20 July to avoid a Jewish mourning period,
but no decision has been announced officially.
"We are very close to the implementation of the
disengagement plan," Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom
said in Nouakchott while on a visit to Mauritania.
"The implementation will start 15 August. It was
postponed by three weeks because of the Jewish holiday,"
he said on Tuesday.
But a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem said: "Israel
has spoken about an inclination to do that, but a final
decision has not been made yet."
Army officers have previously spoken of carrying out
the evacuation from all the Gaza settlements and four
of 120 in the West Bank over three to four weeks. |
Ariel Sharon travelled
to the United States as a hero of peace, as if he had
already evacuated Gaza and only the follow-up remained
to be worked out. What has completely disappeared from
the public agenda is what is happening, meanwhile, in
the West Bank. The media continue to deluge us daily with
disengagement storms, like the Nitzanim bubble. But
for now the disengagement exists only on paper. On the
ground, no settler has yet received compensation.
Even those who agreed to accept compensation are now waiting,
because if they have a chance to get Nitzanim settlement
on Gaza's beach — the pearl of Israeli real estate — why
hurry?
In the meantime, three and a half
months before the projected date of evacuation, it is
still not clear where the evacuees will be housed until
the discussions regarding their final relocation destination
are concluded. Contrary to the prevailing impression,
no infrastructure has been set up even for their temporary
dwellings.
On 8 April 2005, Ofer Petersburg reported in Yediot
Ahronot that "The Settlement Department of the Jewish
Agency, responsible for providing the 'caravillas' [the
caravans that were supposed to host the evacuated settlers
temporarily] has so far received no order from the government."
If Sharon intends to evacuate the
Gaza settlements, he is doing so with outrageous inefficiency.
He is far more efficient in the West Bank. There, plans
are carried out precisely as scheduled. Right from the
start, during the first agreements between Sharon and
Netanyahu one year ago about the disengagement plan, it
was agreed that the disengagement would not be put into
effect before the separation fence was completed on the
western side of the West Bank.[1]
Indeed, the construction of the wall is moving towards
completion. In July, which is the announced date for the
beginning of the Gaza evacuation, the wall surrounding
East Jerusalem and cutting it off from the West Bank,
will be in place. The Palestinians
who live there will be able to leave only with permits.
The centre of life in the West Bank will become an enclosed
prison. As well, the northern wall, which has already
imprisoned the residents of Tulkarem, Qalqilya and Mas'ha,
and which has robbed them of their land, continues to
advance southwards. Now the bulldozers are headed for
the land of Bil'in and Safa, bordering the settlements
of Modi'in Elit. The farmers who are losing their
land are trying to stand their ground, together with Israeli
opponents of the wall. But who will hear about their sufferings
and their struggle amidst the tumult over the disengagement?
The disengagement plan was born in February 2004, at the
height of a wave of international criticism over the wall
and on the eve of the opening of deliberations at the
International Court of Justice in The Hague. In the ruling
that was handed down in July, the Court determined that
the route of the wall was a blatant and serious violation
of international law. Moreover, the court indicated that
there was a danger of "a further change in the demographic
composition as a result of the departure of the Palestinian
population from certain areas" (at para 122). In other
words, the court warned of a process of transfer.
According to United Nations data,
237,000 Palestinians will be trapped between the wall
and the Green Line and 160,000 others will remain on the
Palestinian side, cut off from their land. The route that
was approved at the government's meeting in February 2005
reduces their number only slightly.[2]
What is to be expected for those
people, for the farmers who lose their land, for the imprisoned
who are cut off from their families and their livelihoods?
In the ghost towns of Tulkarem and Qalqilya and the villages
around Mas'ha, many have already left in order to seek
subsistence on the edges of towns in the centre of the
West Bank. How much longer will the others be able to
hold on under conditions of despair and atrophy, inside
villages which have become prisons?
"Transfer" is associated in the collective memory with
trucks arriving at night to take Palestinians across the
border, as occurred in some places in 1948. But behind
the smoke screen of disengagement, a process of slow and
hidden transfer is being carried out in the West Bank
today. It is not easy to judge which method of "transferring"
people from their land is more cruel. Nearly
400,000 people, about half the number of Palestinians
who were forced to leave their land in 1948, are now candidates
for "voluntary emigration" to refugee camps in the West
Bank. And all this is currently being passed over in silence
because maybe Sharon will disengage.
Prof.
Tanya Reinhart is a lecturer in linguistics, media
and cultural studies at the Tel Aviv University. She is
the author of several books, including Israel/Palestine:
How to End the War of 1948, from which this article
was excerpted from an updated chapter. This article first
appered in Yediot Aharonot on 13 April 2005 and was translated
from Hebrew by Mark Marshall.
Footnotes
1. For example, some reports from
April last year:
"The prime minister took a commitment
that the separation fence will be completed before evacuation
starts... Security echelons estimate that the fence can
be completed at the earliest towards the end of 2005.
In other words: it is possible that Israel will not be
able to complete the evacuation at the date that was promised
to the US" (Yosi Yehushua, Yediot Aharonot, 19
April 2004).
"Netanyahu announced that he intends
to support the disengagement after the three conditions
he posed were met ...[including] completion of the fence
before the evacuation" (Itamar Eichner and Nehama Duek,
Yediot Aharonot, 19 April 2004).
2. These figures are from the ICJ
advisory opinion of July 9. Similar figures were provided
in the Israeli media — for example, Meron Rappaport, Yediot
Aharonot, 23 May 2003; Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz,
16 February 2004. The new line of the barrier as approved
by the Israeli cabinet on 20 February 2005 reduces the
size of Palestinian land to be annexed by the barrier
by 2.5%, mainly in the Southern Hebron area, where work
is only starting (so the barrier route can still change
many times as the work progresses). There were smaller
adjustments in other areas, dictated by decisions of the
Israeli Supreme Court, which means that some of the encircled
villages should get some of their land back. But this
does not effect the total number of Palestinians encircled
by the wall. In Khirbet Jbara in the Tulkarm Governorate,
the cabinet approved moving a 6km section of the barrier
closer to the Green Line. As a result, the Palestinian
population in this area will no longer be located in a
completely closed area, but rather on the West Bank side
of the barrier. This will reduce the overall Palestinian
population completely isolated from the West Bank by about
340 persons, according to UN OCHA report of March 2005
on the preliminary analysis of the effects of the new
wall route approved in February 2005 (www.ochaopt.org). |
An
Israeli military court has sentenced an Israeli soldier
to four months of the military equivalent of unpaid community
service for killing a three-year-old Palestinian child
nearly two years ago.
The incident took place on 25 July 2003, at an Israeli
occupation army roadblock outside the northern West Bank
town of Jenin.
According to Israeli and Palestinian sources, a soldier
manning a military vehicle opened fire on an approaching
Palestinian car in which Mahmud Jaradat, 3, was riding
with his mother, grandmother and the driver.
Mahmud died instantly after he was hit by several bullets.
According to the indictment sheet, a
copy of which Aljazeera.net obtained, the soldier, who
was not identified, was charged with secondary charges,
including negligence, not paying sufficient attention
to the behaviour of soldiers under his command and inappropriate
use of arms.
Mitigating factors
The court reportedly cited several mitigating
circumstances in the case, including "the war with
the Palestinians", "Palestinian terror"
and "psychological pressure on the soldiers".
Two other soldiers stationed at the roadblock reportedly
received a rebuke for "negligence and inappropriate
behaviour".
The soldier who killed Mahmud will carry out "service
works" in military camps, such as cleaning, sanitary
work and kitchen work.
Israeli army spokesman Eitan Arusi said: "The IDF
(Israeli Defence Forces) looks into every incident where
innocent Palestinians are hurt by IDF troops."
Sentence
The Palestinian Authority condemned the Israeli military
court sentence as amounting to a "tacit licence to
kill Palestinian children".
"This sentence is a clear message
to Israeli soldiers that they may murder Palestinian children
and civilians with impunity," said Hana Isa, director-general
of the Palestinian Ministry of Justice.
He told Aljazeera.net that as many as a thousand Palestinian
children have been killed or grievously injured by occupation
soldiers since the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada,
or uprising, in September 2000.
"They (Israeli soldiers) knowingly and deliberately
murder our children, and when there is an outcry over
a specific crime, the soldiers involved are either rebuked
or given a few weeks' suspended sentence for negligence
or inappropriate use of firearms.
Isa said the PA was documenting Israeli crimes against
Palestinian civilians.
"When the time comes, we will present all these
files and documents to an international tribunal. The
blood of our kids will not go in vain."
Killing of girl
A few months ago, an Israeli military court exonerated
an Israeli soldier, dubbed Captain R, who last year killed
a 9-year-old Palestinian girl as she was on her way to
school in the southern Gaza town of Rafah.
After shooting the girl, the soldier returned to the
child's body, shooting her 20 more times.
The soldier was rebuked for "inappropriate use of
army-issued weapons" and returned to his army unit. |
FBI agents questioned former Mossad
senior official Uzi Arad, he said Monday, as part of
the ongoing investigation into whether classified US
material about Iran was improperly passed on to Israel.
Arad said that during a recent trip to the US he was
asked about his connections to Defense Department analyst
Larry Franklin, who is suspected of passing information
on Iran to AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization
in the United States.
The FBI "wanted to clear up a number of questions.
I was traveling through the US and I agreed to come
and talk to them," Arad told Israel TV.
Arad said the FBI questioned him because his name had
come up three times in connection with Franklin, who
works on issues involving Iran and the Middle East.
Both Israel and AIPAC have denied any wrongdoing, and
Franklin has not commented on the reports.
Arad said he asked the FBI agents whether charges would
be brought against Franklin and was told only that "he
has legal troubles." |
Tony Blair
has secretly decided that Britain will build a new generation
of nuclear deterrent to replace the ageing Trident submarine
fleet at a cost of more than £10bn - a
move certain to dismay thousands of Labour Party loyalists
in the approach to polling day.
The disclosure that the decision has already been taken
will expose Mr Blair - who has struggled throughout
the election campaign to fend off accusations that he
lied over the Iraq war - to fresh allegations of deception.
He said last week that the decision would be taken after
5 May.
But The Independent has learnt that he has already
decided to give the go ahead for a replacement for Trident
to stop Britain surrendering its status as a nuclear
power when the Trident fleet is decommissioned. The
choice over the type of nuclear missile system that
Britain will deploy is yet to be made. One Labour candidate
described the new deterrent as "Blair's weapons
of mass destruction".
The revelation comes as the United
Nations hosts a five-yearly review of the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, to which Britain is a signatory. The
five nuclear powers in the treaty promise to work towards
global nuclear disarmament. Mr
Blair will therefore face accusations of hypocrisy,
for pressing other states, such as Iran and North Korea,
to renounce their suspect nuclear weapons programmes
while planning a new British deterrent.
The Independent can also reveal that Britain is involved
in a plan to build a uranium enrichment facility in
the New Mexico desert, with British Nuclear Fuels involved
in a consortium to develop a $1.2bn (£630m) plant.
The UN's nuclear watchdog wants a five-year moratorium
on such facilities.
Critics argue that the twin
developments make it more difficult for Britain to take
a principled stance against states accused of building
nuclear weapons in breach of the treaty. Fuelling
those concerns, the White House said yesterday that
it believed North Korea had test-fired a short-range
missile into the Sea of Japan.
A senior defence source said: "The decision [to
replace Trident] has been taken in principle very recently.
US law does not allow the US to build bombs for us.
We have to build our own."
Although Trident is not due to be decommissioned until
2024, "there is a very long lead time," the
source said. "That is why the decision in principle
had to be taken now."
Aldermaston, Britain's nuclear bomb-making facility,
has been hiring physicists and mathematicians for the
past year to retain the capability to build a new nuclear
weapon when a new system is agreed. The source explained:
"If you looked at the scientific press over the
past year you would have seen an increase in advertisements
for everything. It's mostly physicists and mathematicians,
but it's a sign we are gearing up."
A small group of ministers including Geoff Hoon, the
Secretary of State for Defence, is understood to be
involved. Mr Hoon recently began studying papers on
the options for a replacement.
Defence experts said the replacement for Trident would
still be based on submarines, which are less vulnerable
to counter measures. New submarines could be built in
British yards, saving thousands of jobs. Britain could
buy the missiles "off the shelf" from the
US. The front-runner is a new generation of cruise missiles,
based on the RAF's air-launched weapon, Storm Shadow,
with its range increased. [...]
Clare Short, the former cabinet minister, said before
the general election campaign began that she was "astonished"
by the "quietness" of the party on the issue.
"This will wake up the party," she said.
"It's just a symbol saying
that Britain is in the big league, but if you need nuclear
weapons to be in the big league, it's no wonder India
and others want them. But when is Britain ever going
to use a nuclear weapon when the US isn't? I
would favour Britain becoming a leader in getting the
non-proliferation treaty updated and back on course
rather than going along with American breaches of it."
[...] |
KABUL - An ammunition dump in a
northern Afghan village exploded on Monday flattening
the neighborhood around it, killing 28 people and wounding
70, a government spokesman said.
The dump, which contained mortar bombs, artillery rounds
and other ordnance, belonged to a militia commander
called Jalal Bajgaye.
Interior Ministry spokesman Lutfullah Mashal said Bajgaye
was killed in the blast and there were fears that some
people might still be trapped under the rubble.
"The whole neighborhood around the ammunition
dump has been destroyed," Mashal said, adding that
children and women were among the casualties.
The cause of the blast in Pajga village in Baghlan
province, 120 km (80 miles) north of the capital, Kabul,
was being investigated, he said.
"Rescue workers are trying to find survivors feared
to have been trapped under the ruins," Mashal said.
Taliban insurgents, who confine most of their attacks
to the south and east of the country, have not been
known to operate in the area.
Afghanistan is awash with weapons and old stocks of
ammunition after decades of conflict.
The government launched a drive to disarm militias
and take away their heavy weapons and ammunition in
2003 but much ordnance remains uncollected.
Bajgaye had been demobilized under the drive but had
kept ammunition at his depot, Mashal said.
There have been several blasts at arms depots in recent
years but Monday's was the most deadly. |
History is tapping
us on the shoulder and pointing. The sixtieth anniversary
of the liberation of Auschwitz followed so closely by
the popification of an ex-member of the Hitler Youth combine
to force our attention back to the Nazi catastrophe. We
study World War II and the Holocaust and ask ourselves
“How could it happen? How could civilized people
let it come to this? How could they consent to let their
flag become the registered trademark for collective evil
and let their country walk into history with the blood
of millions on its conscience?” We shake our heads
and turn away from the questions because our historical
gaze is dazzled by the enormity of what happened in the
1940’s. “Never again!” we say with tears
in our eyes.
But if we truly want some calamity
to happen Never Again, we won’t just study that
calamity. We’ll study what went before. We’ll
study its precursors. What allowed, invited, or caused
it to happen? Who were catastrophe’s midwives? If
we learn to recognize them, there is hope that we can
turn them away when they again show up, smiley-faced,
at our door. Before World War II and the Holocaust,
there was Germany of the 1920’s and ‘30’s.
That’s where we need to focus our cross-generational
telescopes.
If we take a look at pre-WWII
Germany, we notice it has some things in common with the
United States now. Start with the concept of exceptionality.
Nazi ideology grew out of Germans’ belief that their
country was uniquely privileged because it was uniquely
valuable. This made them an exception to rules and norms.
The average “Proud to Be an American” bumper-sticker-buyer
believes the same thing. (I’m still waiting for
some churchgoing patriot to notice that being born American
is a gift of grace and to begin marketing “Humble
to be an American” decals.) A belief in your country’s
exceptionality takes you way out beyond the warm self-appreciation
of patriotism; in naming your heritage “exceptional,”
you cut your ties to the family of nations and set yourself
above the rules. Our belief in our own exceptionality
erodes the walls that hold back human greed, fear of otherness,
and violence. Exceptionality makes the unthinkable possible,
even reasonable.
Before the Nazi rise to power,
German society bloomed with cultural, artistic, and social
openness, as did the United States in the last third of
the twentieth century. The dominant culture enriched
itself by cross-pollinating with other groups. Creativity,
innovation, and freedom held sway in art, music, drama,
and dance. In lifestyle choices, openness and experimentation
were possible.
A part of this bubbling cultural
ferment was caused by physics. We think of physics
as an esoteric branch of science that is of interest only
to the The Few, The Proud, The Geeks whose quirky neuroanatomy
makes them able to emote in equations. But where physics
goes, culture follows. The big metaphors in all areas
are based on the physics of our time. And both Nazi Germany
and the American Whatever-the-Hell-You-Call-What-We-Are-Becoming
were preceded by advances in physics that announced reality
to be much different from what we’d always assumed
it to be. In the early part of the twentieth century,
Einstein’s and Heisenberg’s physics of relativity
and uncertainty—largely centered in German universities—proclaimed
that some of our most fundamental understandings about
the universe were Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. As quantum mechanics
and the new cosmology developed in the later part of the
twentieth century—largely centered in U.S. universities—their
outrageous paradoxical observations once again taught
the lesson that common sense isn’t always right.
Things aren’t always—or ever—the way
they seem.
In physics as in lifestyle and
the arts, Germany and the United States both saw a great
questioning of old values, limits, and presuppositions
of all kinds—followed by an iron backswing of the
pendulum rushing to shut down all the openness, answer
all the questions, replace uncertainty with certainty,
and relativism with absolutes. Does our anxiety
in the face of uncertainty and relativity drive us to
cook up fake certainties, like which language is better,
who is going to Hell, who must live, and who should die?
Did Germany, and will the United States, overcompensate
for being uncertain like Napoleon did for being short?
Another family resemblance between
Germany of the ‘20’s and ‘30’s
and the Righteous Right of today is the feeling that somebody
done us wrong. For Germany, the sense of being
aggrieved was related to the famously vindictive Treaty
of Versailles that settled the overt hostilities of World
War I but left Germans with smoldering bitterness against
what they saw as injustice and injury. The core resentment
that energizes the swing toward right-wing “Christian”
totalitarianism is the confusing, painful panic at seeing
The Way and The Truth become one of many ways and many
truths. As one pulpiteer expressed it, “having our
culture become a subculture” is felt as a wound,
an assault. On September 11th, the cultural assault on
our inner landscape then manifested as a physical attack
on our outer landscape, echoing the unsolved burning of
the Reichstag building in 1933. Then, as now, terrorism
coupled with an effective propaganda machine helped those
in power to bring the country together while separating
it from its civil rights. Once we feel ourselves to be
under attack, are there any limits to what we will permit
in the name of “self-defense?”
The backlash against openness
and uncertainty, together with perceived national victimization,
led Germany to begin to pick off voices of dissent in
its own house. Some of these were political. Some
were religious. German Christian churches were systematically
nazified. The governing boards of seminaries were taken
over seat by seat. Seminary faculties were pruned of opposition,
guaranteeing that the pulpits of Germany would spout preaching
that supported the Nazi agenda. The prophetic voice of
the church was silenced. The systematic right-wing takeover
of the Southern Baptist Convention, board by board, professor
by professor, pulpit by pulpit, is so eerily similar that
it could be an echo of the same shout.
And then there were the Jews.
For historical reasons, the Nazi party had, ready to hand,
a tiny subgroup of people that they could call “evil”
and have that name stick. Once the “evil”
was identified, people projected onto the Jews every disowned
trait they hated in themselves. Enormous energy was mobilized
to oppress, exile, and destroy the theoretically contagious
corruption of Jewishness. The righteousness of the cause
was “proved” by the visceral disgust the oppressors
felt towards the oppressed. Hatred kept the dominant group
bonded, energized, focused, and easy to manipulate. Today,
similar rhetoric is mobilizing hatred for another tiny
minority, homosexuals, who are similarly represented as
undermining the entire fabric of American life and values.
In the same way, appeals to disgust as a moral arbiter
“prove” the validity of the argument. Incidents
of violence against gays remind us of the spotty street
violence against Jews that came before the systematic,
state-sponsored violence of the Holocaust.
They say that those who fail to learn from history are
doomed to repeat trite sayings. But when history lands
a big one-two punch like “Happy Birthday, Auschwitz
Survivors, Now Guess Who’s Pope?” the teacher
gets our attention. And what we notice are a lot of parallels
between the Nazi rise to power 80 years ago and the “Christian”
right-wing rise to power today. Do we keep our wide-eyed
mystification—“How could they have done those
things?”—or do we do what Germans failed to
do, what we revile them for not doing: Do we recognize
the road we’re on, wrestle the steering wheel away
from the mad bus-driver, and stop the bus before we get
to the last stop, the town of Ultimate Consequences, Pop.
11 Million? |
NEW YORK -- Circulation fell 1.9
percent at major U.S. newspapers in the six-month period
ending in March, an industry group reported Monday,
marking one of the worst declines in recent years.
Newspaper circulation has been on a general decline
since 1984, and has suffered especially in the last
several years as other forms of media compete for the
attention of readers, including cable television and
the Internet.
The Newspaper Association of America, a Vienna, Va.-based
industry group, reported that average daily paid circulation
declined 1.9 percent in the most recent reporting period
for the 814 newspapers reporting comparable data to
the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
The Audit Bureau, a circulation reporting group based
in Schaumburg, Ill., was due to release its figures
of individual newspapers' results later Monday, but
had not done so by the time the NAA provided its own
analysis of the ABC data.
In addition to competition from other media, several
other factors have had a negative impact on newspaper
circulation, including the federal do-not-call regulation.
That rule, which fully went into effect early last year,
has hurt the ability of newspapers to sign up readers
through telemarketing. [...] |
CLOVIS, N.M. -- A 911 call about
a possible weapon at a middle school prompted police
to put armed officers on rooftops, close nearby streets
and lock down the school.
All over a giant burrito.
Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a
boy carrying something long and wrapped up into Marshall
Junior High School.
The drama ended two hours later when
the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito
filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapenos.
It was wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.
"I didn't know whether to laugh or cry,"
school Principal Diana Russell said.
Russell said the mystery was solved after she brought
everyone in the school together in the auditorium to
explain what was going on. Afterward, eighth-grader
Michael Morrissey approached her.
"He said, 'I think I'm the person they saw,"'
Russell said.
The burrito was part of Morrissey's
extra-credit assignment to create commercial advertising
for a product. "We had to make up a product and
it could have been anything. I made up a restaurant
that specialized in oddly large burritos," Morrissey
said.
After students heard the description of what police
were looking for, he and his friends began to make the
connection. He then took the burrito to the office.
"I have a new nickname now. It's Burrito Boy,"
Morrissey said. |
COLUMBUS, Ohio - The man behind
a string of Columbus-area highway shootings threw building
materials off overpasses and fired at moving cars because
he thought it would stop the humiliating voices in his
head, a psychiatrist testified Monday.
Dr. Mark Mills, a psychiatrist who specializes in legal
aspects of mental illness, is the main witness for the
insanity defense of Charles McCoy Jr., whose attorneys
concede he was behind 12 shootings that terrorized the
Columbus area for months in 2003 and 2004.
"It is my belief that at the time of these incidents
Mr. McCoy was insane," Mills said.
The defense says McCoy did not know the acts were wrong
because of untreated paranoid schizophrenia. He pleaded
innocent by reason of insanity to aggravated murder
and 23 other counts.
Knowing right from wrong was "close to being the
farthest thing from his mind," Mills said. McCoy's
only goal was to stop the voices, which did diminish
when he dropped a bag of concrete or fired shots, Mills
said.
McCoy, 29, told Mills that he was responsible for the
12 shootings he is charged in, as well as about 200
acts of vandalism involving shootings or dropping lumber
and bags of concrete mix off of overpasses.
But Mills said that because the disease has caused
severe impairment to McCoy's memory and logic that he
can't be sure whether McCoy is making up his recollections
of those acts.
McCoy could face the death penalty if convicted of
the most serious charge of aggravated murder in the
death of a 62-year-old woman who was the only person
struck in the shootings.
He would be sent to a mental hospital if jurors agree
that paranoid schizophrenia kept him from knowing right
from wrong. |
Using ocean data collected by diving
floats, U.S. climate scientists released a study Thursday
that they said provides the "smoking gun"
that ties manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global
warming.
The researchers, some of them working for NASA and
the Energy Department, went a step further, implicitly
criticizing President Bush for not taking stronger action
to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
gases.
They said the findings confirm that computer models
of climate change are on target and that global temperatures
will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if
greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.
If emissions instead continue
to grow, as expected, things could spin "out of
our control," especially as ocean levels
rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets,
the NASA-led scientists said. "The climate system
could reach a point where large sea level change is
practically impossible to avoid."
The study, published Thursday in the journal Science,
is the latest to report growing certainty about global
warming projections.
Floats and satellites used
More than 1,800 technology-packed floats, deployed
in oceans worldwide beginning in 2000, are regularly
diving as much as a mile undersea to take temperature
and other readings. Their precise measurements are supplemented
by better satellite gauging of ocean levels, which rise
both from meltwater and as the sea warms and expands.
Researchers led by NASA's James Hansen used the improved
data to calculate the oceans' heat content and the global
"energy imbalance." They
found that for every square meter of surface area, the
planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun's
energy than it is radiating back to space as heat -
a historically large imbalance. Such absorbed
energy will steadily warm the atmosphere. [...]
'Can no longer be genuine doubt'
Significantly, those emissions have increased at a
rate consistent with the detected energy imbalance,
the researchers said.
"There can no longer be genuine doubt that humanmade
gases are the dominant cause of observed warming,"
said Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies. "This energy imbalance is the 'smoking
gun' that we have been looking for." [...] |
PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY,
May 4 (Itar-Tass) - Shiveluch volcano on Russia’s
Kamchatka Peninsula produced on Wednesday several plumes
of ash, some reaching 4.5 kilometers above the sea level,
Kamchatka seismology sources told Itar-Tass.
Specialists have no data on seismic activity in the area
of the volcano. The seismological station Baidarnaya,
situated eight kilometers from the peak of Shiveluch,
was destroyed by mud and volcanic rock debris rushing
down its slopes on February 27-28, when the volcano became
active. It is impossible to restore the station for the
time being.
Scientists say the activity of Shiveluch on Wednesday
has posed no danger for the nearby settlements. Shiveluch
is one of the most active volcanoes on Kamchatka. It is
3,283 meters high. The latest eruption among those that
scientists classify as catastrophic was registered in
1964. |
Jakarta — A strong
undersea earthquake rocked parts of Indonesia's tsunami-ravaged
Aceh province Wednesday, prompting people to flee their
homes, but there were no reports of any giant waves, the
Indonesian Meteorology and Geophysics Agency said.
The magnitude-5.6 quake occurred at 12:58 p.m. and was
centred about 160 kilometres southwest of Meulaboh on
the island of Sumatra, an agency official said.
The quake occurred in the Indian Ocean about 34 kilometres
below the Earth's surface, said Yusuf, an agency official
who uses a single name.
Witnesses said the quake jolted the provincial capital
of Banda Aceh for about 30 seconds and residents briefly
fled into the streets. Witnesses and Yusuf said there
were no reports of damage or casualties and no signs the
quake spawned a tsunami. |
Astronomers have discovered
12 new moons orbiting Saturn, bringing its number of natural
satellites to 46.
The moons are small, irregular bodies - probably only
about 3-7km in size - that are far from Saturn and take
about two years to complete one orbit.
All but one circles Saturn in the opposite direction
to its larger moons - a characteristic of captured bodies.
Jupiter is the planet with the most moons, 63 at the
last count. Saturn now has 46. Uranus has 27 and Neptune
13.
The latest ones were found last year using the Subaru
telescope in Hawaii. Confirmation observations were made
last month using the Gemini North telescope also situated
in Hawaii.
Planetary puzzles
Dave Jewitt of the University of Hawaii, co-discoverer
of the objects, told the BBC News website that they were
found as part of a detailed survey of the outer planets
in order to better understand their origin.
The newly-found satellites were probably
formed in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter,
and scattered out of it by the tug of Jupiter's gravity.
"The key question is how they became
captured by Saturn. The current models devised to explain
how such bodies are captured are unable to explain why
they reach the orbits they do," said Dr Jewitt.
"The new discoveries should improve our knowledge
of satellite systems in general and should, eventually,
lead to an understanding of how such small, irregular
bodies are captured by the gravity of giant planets".
"Having more satellites to study will give us more
data to plug into our computer simulations that may tell
us what happened", he added.
Astronomers have found that all four giant planets -
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - possess about the
same number of small irregular satellites irrespective
of the mass of the planet, the orbit of the satellites,
or if they were captured or formed in orbit. This observation
remains unexplained. |
GENEVA, May 3 (AFP)
- Even the death of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Corsican who
rose from obscurity to become emperor of France, has been
the stuff of legend. But Swiss researchers are now debunking
the story of the French icon's poisoning.
At the end of his life Napoleon suffered from stomach
cancer. Those who argue that he was poisoned say before
his death he had an abnormal weight gain for someone with
cancer.
The Swiss study, however, compared nine paris of trousers
worn by Napoleon both before and after his exile on the
island of Saint Helena.
They concluded that the emperor lost more than 11 kilos
(24 pounds) during the last five months of his life.
When Napoleon died on May 5, 1821, he weighed 75.7 kilos
at a height of 1.67 meters (5 feet 5 inches). |
BEIJING - Meng Zhaoguo, a rural
worker from northeast China's Wuchang city, says he
was 29 years old when he broke his marital vows for
the first and only time -- with a female extraterrestrial
of unusually robust build.
"She was three meters (10 feet) tall and had six
fingers, but otherwise she looked completely like a
human," he says of his close encounter with an
alien species. "I told my wife all about it afterwards.
She wasn't too angry."
While few Chinese claim to have managed to get quite
as intimate with an extraterrestrial as Meng, a growing
number of people in the world's most populous nation
believe in unidentified flying objects, or UFOs.
Officially registered UFO associations in China have
about 50,000 members, but some estimate the actual number
of Chinese interested in the subject is probably in
the tens of millions.
Sun Shili is one of the most serious enthusiasts, and
he knows exactly where he will be the day the extraterrestrials
finally make contact with mankind. The 67-year-old retired
Beijing professor will be in the 21-member delegation
picked by international UFO associations to represent
Earth as the first negotiations get underway.
Once a Spanish translator for Mao Zedong during high-level
state visits, Sun says language will not be a problem.
"We expect to communicate using telepathy,"
he says.
In a country that has lost its spiritual bearings as
Marxism has given way to materialism, the idea of strange
worlds light years away offers a last great hope for
many.
Richard McNally, a Harvard psychologist, says he recognizes
the pattern from research into Westerners who claim
to have been abducted by aliens and who characterized
the experience as "spiritually deepening."
"Our abductees typically describe themselves as
'spiritual' individuals for whom organized religion
provides scant spiritual nourishment, and the Chinese
UFO spotters may very well be like our subjects,"
McNally says.
As Sun, the Spanish translator, sits one sunny spring
morning in the Chinese capital, he points at the streets
outside and explains how many of the people walking
by are probably extraterrestrials in human guise.
They are here to help mankind move human civilization
on little by little, he explains.
"It's estimated that 80 percent of new inventions
come to people in their dreams," says Sun. "Maybe
this is is how the extraterrestrials pass on their knowledge
to us."
Extraterrestrials are moving mankind on the path towards
perfection, but they can only do so in a very gradual
fashion, Sun says.
"They give us wisdom and skills that are just
a little bit more advanced than what we have at any
given moment," he says.
"If they gave us their full range of knowledge
all at once, we wouldn't be able to handle it."
As in most other areas of human endeavor, China is
also an emerging force to be reckoned with in UFO research.
In September, the International Chinese UFO Association
will hold an international meeting on UFO research in
the northern port city of Dalian.
"The fact that this meeting can be held shows
that China is gradually becoming a great power in UFO
research," says Zhang Jingping, a leading member
of the association.
A dedicated group of enthusiasts forming the core membership
of the Beijing UFO Research Association are on constant
alert, ready to move out and investigate observations
of mysterious phenomena in the night sky.
They take photos, record videos and interview witnesses,
all in the interest of addressing the issue from a scientific
point of view, according to Zhou Xiaoqiang, the chairman
of the association.
"The result is that 95 to 99 percent of the sightings
can be explained naturally, like airplanes or satellites,"
he says. "But a tiny minority may be real UFOs,
and we should take them seriously."
Zhou, a 57-year-old executive at a transportation company,
spends most of his waking hours studying UFOs, but he
remembers a time when it was not allowed.
After the Cultural Revolution broke out in 1966, his
fresh university degree earned him a one-way ticket
to the deep countryside, a victim of Mao's scheme to
instil proletarian values in the intellectuals.
The dreary life almost made him forget there might
be something beyond the narrow confines of the rural
community where he spent the next decade.
But then when the Cultural Revolution finally ended,
and China slowly emerged from decades of self-imposed
isolation, Zhou remembers watching Steven Spielberg's
film classic "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
It was a revelation. It was not just a new world that
opened up to him, but a whole new universe, where everything
seemed possible -- even extraterrestrials.
"Chinese people are interested in UFOs now because
their lives have improved," says Zhou.
"They no longer have to worry about getting enough
to eat, but can start caring about issues like this."
Huang Yanqiu, a 49-year-old farmer from Beigao village
in north China's Hebei province, recalls his one and
only encounter with extraterrestrials in 1977.
He woke up in the middle of the night and found himself
in front of two men who looked and spoke like ordinary
humans.
But they had special powers, taking him on a nightly
flight on their backs to all corners of China, from
Heilongjiang province in the north to Fujian province
in the southeast. Eventually, they carried him to Tiananmen
Square.
For a young man who had never been more than a few
kilometers (miles) away from home, but had a secret
wish to see the world, it was the experience of a lifetime.
"We couldn't go anywhere at the time. There were
no cars, just bicycles," he says. "Maybe it
was all just a dream." |
Readers
who wish to know more about who we are and what we do may visit
our portal site Quantum
Future
Remember,
we need your help to collect information on what is going on in
your part of the world!
We also need help to keep
the Signs of the Times online.
Send
your comments and article suggestions to us
Fair Use Policy Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.
|