Lee Bollinger- who is this attack dog for Bush?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came and went from New York City with his message for a just Peace in the Middle East, and the US media went into a hysteria. Lead attack dog for going to war against Iran was Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, who invited Ahmadinejad into his den so that he could barrage him with a Right Wing temper tantrum for the US corporate press to disseminate.

Why would such a nice ‘liberal’ do this work for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? After all, isn’t Lee Bollinger a free speech champion as he is most often portrayed in the US press?

Well it turns out that this description of him doled out time and time again by our bullshit press is just a bunch of crap. Bollinger has no liberal credentials other than being a lawyer. He took a case or two that dealt with some ‘free speech’ questions but that hardly makes this guy Mr. Free Speech at all. It seems that he never exercises ‘free speech’ except to encourage invasions and bombardments of countries like Iran?

Try to find anything critical of Bush and his regime made by Bollinger over the last 7 years on the last 7 years via a search on the Internet? Good luck…. Here is what you will find though. You will find that Mr Liberal is actually a corporate hack on the board of the establishment Right Wing Washington Post along with Warren Buffett and Melinda Gates, amongst other corporate criminals now parked there. The Post is not liberal at all, so why can’t the press correctly identify Bollinger as being a Right Wing hack rather than calling him a champion of free speech? In fact, Lee Bollinger is your garden variety Zionist inside the US Establishment.

The President of Iran surely knew who he was dealing with when he decided to accept the speaking engagement at Columbia University. Despite the stupidity and disingenuousness of his remarks about gays in Iran, it was he who came off as advocating peace though. Something that neither Bush nor Bollinger do.

The US has to mislabel and hide who and what Lee Bollinger really is from the public and even then his belligerence was so open and obnoxious that he actually hurt the US government case that going to the war with Iran would be solely defensive in nature. It most certainly would not be, and Zionist Lee Bollinger personalized this aggressive desire and tendency toward committing mass murder by a government (the US) much more than Ahmadinejad.

Our country’s ‘leaders’ over and over are demonstrating themselves to be a bunch of power hungry, violent and even genocidal group of thugs. Lee Bollinger is case in point. He was pushing for the US to start a war with Iran but we should resist the call. And if Bollinger wants to champion ‘free speech’ then he should take his carnival to the Occupied Territories and champion tearing down The Wall. Israel would take his ‘free speech’ and shove it back down his throat for sure.

Media Hysteria pushes for US military attack on Iranian people

One of Iran’s government leaders visits New York City to attend a United Nations function and the US media uses this as an excuse to rabidly push for a US war against that country.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s right to free speech was so threatening to Bush and Cheney that they had to deny him a visit to the site of the ruins of 9/11 to place a wreath in remembrance of those that died there. Why?

The truth is, the US government feared what he had to say, so they censured him by denying him access to the World Trade Center site. It was a simple as that. He did speak at Columbia University though, and The New York Times printed some of that transcript

What is noticeable about the media reporting is how all the hysteria comes from the US Right Wing, the US government, and their corporate media lackeys. Ahmadinejad toned down and resisted from what would have been correct in labeling the US government as the main source of world terrorism. After all, this is the country that through the last decades has been responsible for killing millions of Iranians and Iraqis through its promotion of war in the Middle East.

That is not even to mention the deaths from US government terrorism that have wracked Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Occupied Territories controlled by US backed Israel. Instead, Ahmadinejad spoke out for Peace, something that the US corporate media has a real problem doing.

The US media in contrast, has tried to churn up a surge to more war. We, The American People, have to learn how to read between the lines of our corporate media sources and resist their propaganda and its call for yet more bloodshed.

Enough is enough. We should understand by now that demonization of the leader of another country is usually the prelude to attacking it.

Hateful Hamas and Friendless Fatah

FatahHamas and Fatah. Do you know which is which? I try to keep abreast of the people’s struggle, so I find it strange and disappointing that in the news I so often cannot differentiate the two. I blame a slanderous media intent on confusing us about which are the Honest representatives of Palestine, and which are the Fake.

Fatah stands for Palestinian National Liberation Movement in Arabic backward, and they came First. Though they emerged from Yasser Arafat’s PLO, they settled into the bureaucracy of the Palestinian Authority, Israel’s Kapos in the occupied territories. Fatah now enforce Western Foreign interests in the Middle East and as concerns representing the oppressed Palestinians, Fatah have become Frauds.

That’s how in a landslide election last year, Hamas came to take the reins, and why Israel which holds the purse strings, refuses to give Hamas its due tax revenues.

Hamas, or Islamic Resistance Movement, may sound like Hotheads to you, but who are we to say what will work best for the Palestinians? Their land has been stateless for going on sixty years, they remain in permanent dislocation, made worse forty years ago under direct Israeli occupation. But I oversimplify. Israelis seem satisfied to create a Palestinian Diaspora same as was done to the Israelites in 500 BC, or let the non-Jews die in refugee camps in the meantime, but for Hamas.

Still uncertain? Watch how the corporate media covers Palestine. If there’s something Favorable to say, it’s about Fatah. If it’s Horrible, it’s about Hamas. Perhaps my continued disorientation grows from the optimism that one day the media will show some respect and Hope for the Palestinian people.

Hamas are considered terrorists, and like the IRA and Sinn Fein, they lead Palestine’s fight for independence from colonial empire. Those who do not want to condone armed struggle should ponder Occupied France under the Nazis, a cakewalk compared to Gaza. With whom would Gandhi or Mandela have sided, the Resistance or Vichy?

Israel obstinate

PLOMore nations gave formal recognition to the PLO, a terrorist group, than to Israel. Thus more people thought the Palestinian Liberation Organization had a “right to exist” than did Israel, a chunk of Arab land appropriated to make a Jewish State. To date Israel has rejected 70 UN resolutions against its actions. I think it bears repeating them, lest typifying Israel’s behavior as illegal, be dismissed as a rant.

# 1. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947): the 1947 Partition plan of Palestine and the creation of Israel.
# 2. General Assembly Resolution 194 (1947): Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
# 3. Resolution 106 (1955): condemns Israel for Gaza raid.
# 4. Resolution 111 (1956): condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.
# 5. Resolution 127 (1958): recommends Israel suspend its no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem.
# 6. Resolution 162 (1961): urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.
# 7. Resolution 171 (1962): determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.
# 8. Resolution 228 (1966): censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.
# 9. Resolution 237 (1967): urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
# 10. Resolution 242 (1967): Israel’s occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
# 11. Resolution 248 (1968): condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
# 12. Resolution 250 (1968): calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
# 13. Resolution 251 (1968): deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.
# 14. Resolution 252 (1968): declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.
# 15. Resolution 256 (1968): condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.
# 16. Resolution 259 (1968): deplores Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
# 17. Resolution 262 (1968): condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.
# 18. Resolution 265 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.
# 19. Resolution 267 (1969): censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.
# 20. Resolution 270 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.
# 21. Resolution 271 (1969): condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
# 22. Resolution 279 (1970): demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
# 23. Resolution 280 (1970): condemns Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon.
# 24. Resolution 285 (1970): demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
# 25. Resolution 298 (1971): deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem.
# 26. Resolution 313 (1972): demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
# 27. Resolution 316 (1972): condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
# 28. Resolution 317 (1972): deplores Israel’s refusal to release.
# 29. Resolution 332 (1973): condemns Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon.
# 30. Resolution 337 (1973): condemns Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty.
# 31. Resolution 347 (1974): condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
# 32. General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974): affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine to self-determination without external interference and to national independence and sovereignty.
# 33. Resolution 425 (1978): calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
# 34. Resolution 427 (1978): calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# 35. Resolution 444 (1979): deplores Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.
# 36. Resolution 446 (1979): determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 37. Resolution 450 (1979): calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
# 38. Resolution 452 (1979): calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
# 39. Resolution 465 (1980): deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.
# 40. Resolution 467 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon.
# 41. Resolution 468 (1980): calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.
# 42. Resolution 469 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians.
# 43. Resolution 471 (1980): expresses deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 44. Resolution 476 (1980): reiterates that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are null and void.
# 45. Resolution 478 (1980): censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
# 46. Resolution 484 (1980): declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.
# 47. Resolution 487 (1981): strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility.
# 48. Resolution 497 (1981): decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
# 49. Resolution 498 (1981): calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
# 50. Resolution 501 (1982): calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
# 51. Resolution 509 (1982): demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.
# 52. Resolution 515 (1982): demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.
# 53. Resolution 517 (1982): censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
# 54. Resolution 518 (1982): demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
# 55. Resolution 520 (1982): condemns Israel’s attack into West Beirut.
# 56. Resolution 573 (1985): condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
# 57. Resolution 587 (1986): takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.
# 58. Resolution 592 (1986): strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
# 59. Resolution 605 (1987): strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# 60. Resolution 607 (1988): calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# 61. Resolution 608 (1988): deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
# 62. Resolution 636 (1989): deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# 63. Resolution 641 (1989): deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# 64. Resolution 672 (1990): condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# 65. Resolution 673 (1990): deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
# 66. Resolution 681 (1990): deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
# 67. Resolution 694 (1991): deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# 68. Resolution 726 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
# 69. Resolution 799 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
# 70. Resolution 1397 (2002): affirms a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders.
# 71. General Assembly Resolution ES-10/15 (2004): declares the wall built inside the occupied territories as contrary to international law and asks Israel to demolish it.

Keith Ellison, DP Muslim Congressman for Zionism

Keith Ellison, newly elected Congressman from Minnesota and the first Muslim ever elected to House or Senate, at first seems to be the ideal liberal politician to support.

On abortion rights, social security, reform of the medical system, immigration, support for public education, and even calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he seems to be quite supportive of a progressive agenda. Plus, it is impressive that liberal Jewish groups were there backing him, a Muslim candidate for Congress. All seems to look quite good.

Unfortunately, the devil can sometimes be found in the details. At his ‘On the ISSUES’ page, intermeshed in with all the nice liberal rhetoric one finds out that Ellison is ‘a strong supporter of law enforcement’, and for reinstatement of Clinton’s COPS program. In other words, he is for maintaining a police state environment, where police and prisons are grossly and constantly overfunded. He actually seems to hint that Bush and the Republicans are underfunding policing, whereas he would change that! His concern is the ‘middle class’ and not the working poor that have to live in so many inner cities where police rampage throughout their communities like an occupation army.

And look in at his ‘Israel and the Middle East’ page. This is truly telling for we see not a word about Abu Ghraib, US support for ‘renditions’ and torture, condemnation of the US/ Israeli invasion of Lebanon, etc. Instead, we learn from this Muslim for Zionism, that supposedly Iran is a nuclear terror threat, that the Palestinian Authority has not dismantled a terrorist superstructure in the Occupied Territories, that Hamas supposedly represents the greatest obstacle to peace, etc. In short, we see the full agenda of Zionism represented as progressive agenda, by a Muslim! Israel comes in for ZERO condemnation!

I would say, the Keith Ellison is about as representative of the majority of the American Muslim community, as Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are of the Black community in our country. Not very. In short, the American media are guilty of a big con, as they spread news of Ellison’s victory at the polls as being a historic victory for the Muslim community. It is not. Electing a Zionist Muslim into office is about par for what liberal Democratic electoral politics brings, but that is nothing really to boast of.

How sad to see all the liberal community behind such a man, whose web page clearly paints Iran as being a nuclear danger to Western Civilization, and not Israel. Is this not liberalism backhandedly pushing another Bush Administration assault on yet another country? It is reminiscent of when liberals rallied around Clinton’s illegal war on Yugoslavia. That’s right, it is illegal in international law to invade and bomb another country, yet liberal Democrats supported that. And liberal Democrat, the Zionist Muslim Ellison, seem to be very eager to push the buttons to get a new conflict goin with Iran and its multiple supporters in the ME. Straight zio-con agenda.

Who is the big supporter of Keith Ellison that he list on his website? He lists him as this… ‘Vice President Walter Mondale’! (And I mistakenly thought it was Dick Cheney that held that post! Stupid me.) Lest we forget, Walter Mondale WAS VP under Jimmy the peanut farmer Carter, and WAS a longtime supporter of the Vietnam War with his cohort, Hubert Humphrey. He only seemed mildly to turn against the war then, when it was Richard Nixon that came to head up the presidency and US government’s efforts to terrorize SE Asia. In other words, Keith Ellison’s big behind the scenes supporter, is the grand guru of the constantly pro-war Northern liberal wing of the Democratic Party, Mondale. Mondale, Zionist backer all the way.

With Keith Ellison, we see what a ‘good Muslim’ is like, to the constantly pro war, pro imperialist US ruling class. Keith Ellison, not so liberal after all. Another carnivore hiding in a sheep’s wool that the Establishment would like to pull over our eyes.

US sinking into Somalia once again?

Incredible as it may seem, the US appears to be moving back into destabilizing the Horn of Africa once again. It’s like there are not enough problems in the Congo, Sudan/ Chad, Rwanda/ Burundi regions of conflict already for Bush, so the US must provoke reopening conflict in the Horn of Africa/ Somalia zone, too! See AFP article- Eritrea accuses US of masking invasion of Somalia with peacekeeping plan

The last 2 US administrations have absolutely destroyed the credibility of the UN as being a body that functions independently of the Pentagon. Most of the world does not see either NATO or the ‘UN peacekeepers’ as anything other than pure extensions of US militarism, and for good reason, too. UN cooperation with the US bombing and dismemberment of Yugosalvia, UN cooperation in the US destruction of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, UN cooperation in accepting Israeli Apartheid and its terrorism of the Occupied Territories as norm, UN carrying out the continuation of the US invasion of Haiti, and UN acceptance and complicity of the US-Israeli destruction of Lebanon all have led to nobody still believing that this is a neutral world association anymore. Not that it ever seemed to be that so much, to the majority of the world outside Europe and the Anglophile countries.

It’s time to dump the UN and reestablish a new world body of nations totally outside the control of the US government. The current United Nations is a totally spent organization politically. Not even moving its adminstrative offices out of New York City could ever reestablish any of its credibility at this point. A better name for the UN in its current state would be the United Imperialist Nations (UIN). Except that even the word ‘united’ no longer can be considered to apply, as the imperialist countries continue to develop fissures in the post WW2 alliance amongst themselves.

As to the US via the UN in Somalia? What a disaster this appears to be in the making.

August 2006 Sountrack MSM unoriginal score

Israel bombs Lebanese power plant, unleashes oil spill over the coasts of Lebanon and Syria, an environmental disaster greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

What does our media report? John Mark Karr, John Mark Karr.

The last couple hours before it must adhere to the cease fire, Israel pulls back its troops and litters southern Lebanon with thousands of anti-personnel cluster bombs.

John Mark Karr, John Mark Karr.

Israel shifts its military energies to increase raids and assassinations in the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

John Mark Karr, John Mark Karr.

In violation of the cease fire, Israel conduct raids against the Hizb’Allah who are trying to help Lebanese recovery.

John Mark Karr, John Mark Karr.

The US Iraq death toll climbs faster, for civilians and American soldiers.

John Mark Karr, John Mark Karr. John Mark Karr, John Mark Karr.

Middle East sibling rivalry no holds barred

OverkillCan I explain the current cataclysm in Lebanon? The media doesn’t want to do it. Unfortunately for them, it’s becoming a simpler story at each denouement.

Here’s an interesting overview: Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land. And here’s a chronology of the recent escalation.

Here goes: Both Hamas and Hizb’Allah are always negotiating secret prisoner exchanges with Israel. Israel holds thousands of prisoners of both Hamas and Hizb’Allah. On June 25, Hamas captured an Israeli soldier which it hoped to use in an exchange. Similarly, Hizb’Allah captured two Israeli soldiers in Lebanon.

In Palestine, instead of negotiating with Hamas, Israel decided to escalate its attacks on the Occupied Territories. Israel had already been refusing to recognize Hamas as Palestine’s ruling party, it had been withholding all Palestinian Authority funding, and it was bombing the suspected houses and cars of the democratically-elected Hamas leaders. In its escalation, Israel bombed Palestine’s only power plant and sent tanks into the Gaza Strip to force an immediate release of their “kidnapped” soldier.

Out of solidarity for the defenseless population of Palestine, the military branch of the Hizb’Allah hiding in Syria decided to launch indiscriminate rocket attacks upon Israel, across the Israeli border from southern Lebanon. When Israel sent troops to Lebanon to attack those sites, Hizb’Allah captured two Israeli soldiers. With the precedent set: a-kidnapped-soldier- justifies-massive-air-strikes and M0Fo Bolton in the U.N. to stifle international pressure, Israel now had an identical pretext for attacking Lebanon.

So, Israel is clearing the population out of southern Lebanon, just as it has been displacing the original occupants of Palestine. The world wants an immediate cease-fire, but the US won’t let the U.N. take action. The US says it doesn’t want to interrupt because Israel isn’t finished. Finished what? Retaliating or house-cleaning?

Secretary of State Rice calls Israel’s bombardments “birth pangs” of the new Middle East, as if Israel’s actions have been part of the U.S. remake for the region all along. A recently interviewed Israeli soldier, asked what he thought his unit was doing in Lebanon, smiled and said “purification I guess.”

This is like a household where one of the children, already in the headlock of a stronger sibling, is acting up. Under the pretext of disciplinary action, the bullying sibling decides to convert its headlock into a strangulation, simultaneously pushing that child right out of its room, in fact clear out of the house. The mother decries the disproportionate severity of the reaction, but the father, an abusive lout in his own right, refuses to intervene, and instead sides with the offspring so much his likeness.

Israel ends cease-fire in Occupied Territories

US mainstream media reports that Hamas has decided to end its cease-fire on account of a recent Israeli gun-boat attack upon Palestinian beach-goers. This follows a day after a top Palestinian government official was assassinated by an Israeli air strike.
 
Who might it be said was breaking the cease-fire?

What authoritarian rule looks like

Several recent events have lead me to some dots that need connecting. The dots may seem wildly disparate: the kidnapping of peace workers in Iraq and Palestine, the recent NYT revelations of counter-protest tactics employed be the NYPD, and a French film about heavy-handed manipulation of political prisoners.

Part One: Les Yeux des Oiseaux
I saw a movie two decades ago called EYES OF THE BIRDS. It depicted a prison in Uruguay for enemies of the state. They were making preparations for an inspection by the Red Cross. The story told of repercussions suffered by the political prisoners as a result of the long anticipated visit.

A couple of recent news items made me recall the film. In an early scene the prison warden ordered one of his men to do something irrational. Without provocation the warden ordered a guard to begin shooting at the prisoners who were assembled in the yard. At the same time, the warden filmed how the prisoners reacted.

That night the prison staff studied the footage to determine who among the political prisoners were the troublemakers. They weren’t looking at who was the more provoked, who was the quickest to run for cover, or even who was the most defiant. They weren’t looking for the strongmen or cellblock Kapos, they were looking for the leaders. They noted who shielded the others with their own bodies, who shepherded fellow prisoners to cover, and who sought to defuse the chaos by urging everyone to remain calm.

Those persons were then sequestered from the rest of the population, kept from contact with the Red Cross inspectors, and promptly dispatched with bags over their heads and buried. The film was fictional, but based on many corroborated accounts from Uruguay’s long years of repressive rule and disparados.

Part Two: NYC undercover cops
A recent New York Times article describes how NYPD officers infiltrated a number of peaceful street protests to incite the crowds to react. Tactics like this are nothing new for union-busters. The Pinkerton Security Agency for example got its start by hiring thugs to disrupt early efforts to organize strikes.

But do we expect such behavior from our men in blue? They’ve sworn to protect and serve us “with honor!” It used to be against the law for law enforcement to infiltrate political organizations.

Here’s what the NYPD was doing. Perhaps so as not to risk charges of false arrest, the police would plant, not drugs, but arrestees! The police would confront a crowd of protesters and arrest their own undercover officers. Immediately one of the arrestees would reveal himself as being under cover. This would divert suspicion from the ones still playing the victims and serve to incite the crowd to anger. They were angry for having been infiltrated, and then for seeing several among them arrested without apparent provocation.

With the crowd sufficiently distracted from its non-violent mantras, uniformed officers could move in from the sidelines and make their selective arrests.

Three fake protestorsFrom video taken by an IndyMedia reporter.
Number 36 cried out
“I’m under cover.”
The two behind him
pretended to be arrested,
only to be spotted later
at another protest site.
Real arrests followed.

Does this authoritarian maneuver resemble the M. O. used in Uruguay? To work, the perpetrators count on two things. First, that the heat of the moment will wrong-foot even the most defensive strategist. The tactic is after all nothing new.

That the targets feel the heat counts on a second, very cynical, assumption: that peace activists, like political dissidents, like freedom fighters, have a not easily repressed sense of humanity. They’ll betray their own goodness sooner than bear witness to injustice.

Probably you can see where I’m going with this.

Part Three: CPT Peace activists in the Middle East
When we hold vigils for the Christian Peacemaker Team members still held hostage in Iraq, we wonder how can those nasty insurgents threaten the lives of people who are so plainly on the side of the Iraqi people? It does seem particularly godless of those rebels doesn’t it? And absurd. I offer four thoughts.

A. Peace workers held in high regard
A friend of mine went to Iraq before the first Gulf War as a human shield to try to prevent the U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq. He wore a t-shirt which proclaimed his purpose there.

He told me that after a while, his journalist friends were begging to buy his t-shirt from him. So revered were the peace activists, they could walk into the worst areas in the middle of the night, and fear nothing. The few reporters and photographers who remained in Baghdad were so jealous of the access the peace workers had to ordinary Iraqis as a result of the deference shown to them.

B. Iraqi treatment of captured U. S. soldiers
Without exception, American soldiers captured by Iraqi forces have been returned to us safe and sound, neither hooded, tormented, tortured, nor humiliated. The extent of the “interrogation” of the captured supply line crew was to ask them to put truth to a lie: “had they been greeted with flowers and candy?”

Americans captured by IraqisFootage banned in the US: Iraqis ask them “were you greeted with flowers and candy?”

Not far from there, Iraqi doctors were already trying to return the captured Jessica Lynch to the American lines, but American soldiers kept shooting at their ambulance, forcing them to turn back. (Later American doctors would accuse the dumb-founded Iraqis of having raped Jessica’s limp body. In fact Lynch had earlier been forceably sodomized by a fellow U.S. soldier.)

Indeed Iraqis have shown a greater sense of compassion and humanity than our feeble representatives have ever shown them. From cluster bombs to DU to acceptable collateral damage to Free-Fire Zones to Kill Boxes to indiscriminate savagery to dehumanizing protocol. Americans have proven to be as barbaric as the Iraqis are cultured and forgiving.

What about the suicide bombers and the beheadings? The Iraqis are a divided people, and they have been driven to desperation. Execution by beheading, so horrifying to us, is more commonplace in their traditions. And then again, all may not be what it appears…

C. The mysterious beheading of Nick Berg
Nick Berg was a young do-gooder who traveled to Iraq on his own dime to try to take part in the reconstruction. He supported the war apparently, but it would be hard to paint him as an opportunist or profiteer. Nick Berg went to Iraq without a contract, nor much prospect for getting one. He went there to help.

The last people to see Nick Berg alive were CIA, a fact they denied at first. Nick was being detained by the U.S. military before his disappearance into the hands of his executioners. Though he was horribly decapitated on a video distributed all over the world, no reporter is quite ready to say who did it. Behind Nick Berg in the video, the figures under the robes did not look quite right.

The U.S. military immediately said the voice on the tape was that of AL-ZARQAWI. Robert Fisk, one of the most respected and senior reporters of Middle East affairs is not prepared to say that he even believes there exists such a person as Al-Zarqawi.

The timing of Nick Berg’s beheading was also very strange. World outrage was at an all time high from the photos just out of Abu Ghraib prison. Nick Berg’s gristly death seemed to provide a counterpoint to Lindy England’s sorry pose.

If I were suggesting that U. S. Forces were behind the Nick Berg execution, the case has been made by many already, I would be going off track. It certainly reflected poorly on the insurgents. But making the other side look bad is no clever trick. We trained Central Americans to do it all the time. Take off your uniform, dress up like rebels, and make it look like they massacred the village and not you.

When the Iraqi police in Basra apprehended two British black-ops this summer and then refused to release to them to British custody, the British forces immediately organized a prison break by driving a tank into the police station. They rescued the captured brits before they would be made to explain why they were dressed up like insurgents and what they were planning to do with a carload of live Improvised Explosive Devices!

It is suggested that those who killed Nick Berg took Abu Ghraib off the front page. I would suggest that the abduction of westerners serves a motive more closely related to the Uruguayan – NYPD gambit.

Why aren’t these hostages taken from the ranks of American soldiers? Some of the hostages have been contractors, and I’m sure many of their abductors have been criminals. Large ransoms are being paid for these hostages, it stands to reason that organized crime wants a piece of it. And whether these abductions are sanctioned or renegade, they achieve the same result, for whomever.

For the most part, the highest visibility hostages have always been people sympathetic to the cause of righteousness. It makes the insurgent/resistance fighters look bad, but more importantly I bet it makes them feel bad. Whichever it is, the Iraqi people probably scramble as desperately as we do to save the lives of the hostages.

D. British aid workers kidnapped in Gaza
Peace workers go to Palestine for one purpose, to save Palestinian lives. Palestinians are being shot left and right by Israeli soldiers, it is only when they are accompanied by western volunteers that the Israelis are deterred from shooting them and that Palestinians have a chance of being permitted through checkpoints so that they can reach medical care, or so that their children can reach school unmolested.

Activists Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall died putting themselves between Palestinian civilians and Israeli rifles. Activists brave tough Israeli travel restrictions to get into the occupied territories so that they can try to save innocent lives.

Certainly only the most heartless of Palestinians could be threatening the lives of these altruist activists. Maybe the Israeli military is counting on the fact that most Palestinians will not be heartless enough to sit idly by.

If there are Palestinians who believe the kidnap scenario, perhaps they are trying to contact resistance members whom they believe might have some influence. Perhaps resistance members themselves are hurriedly trying to ferret out possible miscreants in their ranks.

Regardless of who is in possession of the captives, the Israeli military is no doubt studying everyone’s movements very carefully. Normally a resistance network has to communicate between cells very sparingly. But with the clock ticking, with international pressure, and the life of a selfless non-combatant at stake, resistance fighters might eshew the risks of disclosing their activities in their effort to facilitate the search for an unjustly jeopardized fellow human being.

What does Palestine have to do with Iraq?
More on that another time. It is fashionable to argue that the liberation of Iraq was less about democracy and more about oil. What are you now paying for gas? This war is even less about oil than it is about global dominance. In the Middle East our colonial presence is called Zionism.

Could the Americans be orchestrating the kidnapping of sympathetic westerners in an Uruguayan style provocation of the Iraqi resistance? Have our other military actions been any less dastardly?

Let’s pause for a moment of silence for the hostages. May both sides unite to save the lives of the captive Christian Peacemaker Team, and of Kate Burton and her parents in Palestine. And please Lord, may too many Iraqis not jeopardize their own lives trying to help save a handful of ours.