There are times
when I think that this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What's
happening in the Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the eternal
Israel-Palestine conflict are variations on the child's eternal defense for
misbehavior -- "He started it!" Within a few minutes of
discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of the conflict the participants
are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical times. I don't wish to get entangled
in who started the current mess. I would like instead to first express what I
see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to
the next:
1. Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't been so for decades, if
it ever was. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a
non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage in full
prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable two-state solution, even
those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on a particular religion
could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would
scarcely arise in people's minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as
a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust
and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
2. In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it's the
gorilla which has to make concessions in order for the two sides to progress to
the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way of concession?
Israel would reply to that question: "No violent attacks of any
kind." But that would still leave the status quo ante bellum -- a
life of unmitigated misery for the Palestinian people forced upon them by
Israel. Peace without justice.
Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of one of their
soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two soldiers being held by
Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too seriously when Israel is holding
literally thousands of captured Palestinians, many for years, typically without
any due process, many tortured; as well as holding a number of prominent
Hezbollah members. A few years ago, if not still now, Israel wrote numbers on
some of the Palestinian prisoners' arms and foreheads, using blue markers, a
practice that is of course reminiscent of the Nazis' treatment of Jews in World
War II.
Israel's real aim, and that of Washington, is the overthrow of the Hamas
government in Palestine, the government that came to power in January through a
clearly democratic process, the democracy that the Western
"democracies" never tire of celebrating, except when the result
doesn't please them. Is there a stronger word than "hypocrisy"? There
is now "no Hamas government," declared a senior US official a week
ago, "eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail
[kidnapped by Israel], another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30
percent is doing very little.� To make the government-disappearance act
even more Orwellian, we have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in
late June about Iraq: "This is the only legitimately elected government in
the Middle East with a possible exception of Lebanon.� What's next, gathering
in front of the Big Telescreeen for the Two Minutes Hate?
In addition to doing away with the Hamas government, the current
military blitzkrieg by Israel, with full US support, may well be designed to
create "incidents" to justify attacks on Iran and Syria, the next
steps of Washington's work in process, a controlling stranglehold on the Middle
East and its oil.
It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the
Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the outside world . .
. and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at night triggering
sonic booms, traumatizing children. "I want nobody to sleep at night in
Gaza," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; words suitable for
Israel's tombstone.
These crimes against humanity -- and I haven't mentioned the terrible
special weapons reportedly used by Israel -- are what the people of Palestine
get for voting for the �wrong� party. It is ironic, given the Israeli attacks
against civilians in both Gaza and Lebanon, that Hamas and Hezbollah are
routinely dismissed in the West as terrorist organizations. The generally
accepted definition of terrorism, used by the FBI and the United Nations
amongst others, is: The use of violence against a civilian population in order
to intimidate or coerce a government in furtherance of a political objective.
Since 9/11 it has been a calculated US-Israeli tactic to label the fight
against Israel's foes as an integral part of the war on terror. On July 19, a
rally was held in Washington, featuring the governor of Maryland, several
members of Israeli-occupied Congress, the Israeli ambassador, and evangelical
leading light John Hagee. The Washington Post reported that "Speaker after
prominent speaker characteriz[ed] current Israeli fighting as a small branch of
the larger U.S.-led global war against Islamic terrorism" and
"Israel's attacks against the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah were blows
against those who have killed civilians from Bali to Bombay to Moscow."
Said the Israeli ambassador: "This is not just about [Israel]. It's about
where our world is going to be and the fate and security of our world. Israel
is on the forefront. We will amputate these little arms of Iran,"
referring to Hezbollah.
And if the war on terror isn't enough to put Israel on the side of the
angels, John Hagee has argued that "the United States must join Israel in
a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West". He speaks of "a biblically prophesied end-time
confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and
Second Coming of Christ."
The beatification of Israel approaches being a movement. Here is David
Horowitz, the eminent semi-hysterical ex-Marxist: "Israel is part of a
global war, the war of radical Islam against civilization. Right now Israel is
doing the work of the rest of the civilized world by taking on the terrorists.
It is not only for Israel's sake that we must get the facts out -- it is for
ourselves, America, for every free country in the world, and for civilization
itself."
As for the two Israeli soldiers captured and held in Lebanon for
prisoner exchange, we must keep a little history in mind. In the late 1990s,
before Israel was evicted from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, it was a common
practice for Israel to abduct entirely innocent Lebanese. As a 1998 Amnesty
International paper declared: "By Israel's own admission, Lebanese
detainees are being held as 'bargaining chips'; they are not detained for their
own actions but in exchange for Israeli soldiers missing in action or killed in
Lebanon. Most have now spent 10 years in secret and isolated detention."
Israel has created its worst enemies -- they helped create Hamas as a
counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon created
Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to keep the process
going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been almost continually occupied in
fighting wars and taking other people's lands. Did not any better way ever
occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?
But while you and I get depressed by the horror and suffering, the
neoconservatives revel in it. They devour the flesh and drink the blood of the
people of Afghanistan, of Iraq, of Palestine, of Lebanon, yet remain ravenous,
and now call for Iran and Syria to be placed upon the feasting table. More than
one of them has used the expression oderint dum metuant, a favorite
phrase of Roman emperor Caligula, also used by Cicero -- "let them hate so
long as they fear." Here is William Kristol, editor of the bible of
neocons, "Weekly Standard", on Fox News Sunday, July 16:
"Look, our coddling of Iran . . . over the last six to nine months
has emboldened them. I mean, is Iran behaving like a timid regime that's very
worried about the U.S.? Or is Iran behaving recklessly and in a foolhardy way?
. . . Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the Middle East, in a
sense. Iran, Syria, sponsors of terror; Hezbollah and Hamas. . . . This is an
opportunity to begin to reverse the unfortunate direction of the last six to
nine months and get the terrorists and the jihadists back on the
defensive."
Host Juan Williams replied: "Well, it just seems to me that you
want . . . you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted
us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into the Middle
East . . . you're saying, why doesn't the United States take this hard,
unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been [tried], we
don't talk to anybody. We don't talk to Hamas. We don't talk to Hezbollah.
We're not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill?"
Kristol, looking somewhat taken aback, simply threw up his hands.
The Fox News audience does (very) occasionally get a hint of another way
of looking at the world.
Iraq will follow Bush the rest of his life
Here comes now our Glorious Leader, speaking at a news conference at the
recent G8 summit in St. Petersburg, referring to Russian president Vladimir
Putin. "I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts
of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told
him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the
same thing."
It's so very rare that Georgie W. makes one of his less-than-brilliant
statements and has the nonsense immediately pointed out to him to his face --
"Putin, in a barbed reply, said: 'We certainly would not want to have the
same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly.'
Bush's face reddened as he tried to laugh off the remark. 'Just wait'," he
said.
It's too bad that Putin didn't also point out that religion was a lot
more free under Saddam Hussein than under the American occupation. Amongst many
charming recent incidents, in May the coach of the national tennis team and two
of his players were shot dead in Baghdad by men who reportedly were religious
extremists angry that the coach and his players were wearing shorts.
As to a "free press", dare I mention Iraqi newspapers closed
down by the American occupation, reporters shot by American troops, and phony
stories planted in the Iraqi press by Pentagon employees?
The preceding is in the same vein as last month's edition of my report
in which I listed the many ways in which the people of Iraq have a much worse
life now than they did under Saddam Hussein. I concluded with recounting the
discussions I've had with Americans who, in the face of this, say to me:
"Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein is out of
power?"
Now we have a British poll that reports that "More than two thirds
who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking
world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President
George W. Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit
of American self-interests." The American embassy in London was quick to
reply. Said a spokesperson: "We question the judgment of anyone who
asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own
nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders.�
They simply can't stop lying, can they? There was no evidence at all
that Saddam was threatening any people outside of Iraq, whatever that's
supposed to mean. It may mean arms sales. Following the Gulf War, the US sold
around $100 billion of military hardware to Iraq's "threatened"
neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, and Turkey.
As to the world being a better or worse place . . . only Iraq itself was
and is the issue here, not the world; although if the world is a better place,
why am I depressed?
The peculiar idea of tying people's health to
private corporate profits
Steven Pearlstein is a financial writer with the Washington Post, with
whom I've exchanged several emails in recent years. He does not ignore or gloss
over the serious defects of the American economic system, but nonetheless
remains a true believer in the market economy. In a recent review of a book by
journalist Maggie Mahar, "Money-Driven Medicine", Pearlstein writes
that the author tries to explain "why health care costs so much in the
United States, with such poor results." She has focused on the right
issues, he says, "the misguided financial incentives at every level, the
unnecessary care that is not only wasteful but harmful, the bloated
administrative costs." However, "in making the case that the
health-care system suffers from too much free-market competition and too little
cooperation, Mahar means to drum up support for a publicly funded national
system. But in the end, she mostly makes a convincing case that no health-care
system will work unless we figure out what really works and is cost effective
and then get doctors, hospitals and patients to embrace it.�
"Unless we figure out what really works and is cost effective"
. . . hmmm . . . like there haven't been repeated studies showing that national
health plans in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere cover
virtually everyone and every ailment and cost society and individuals much less
than in the United States. Isn't that "working"? I spent five years
in the UK with my wife and small child and all three of us can swear by the
National Health Service; at those times when neither my wife nor I was employed
we didn't have to pay anything into the system; doctors even made house calls;
and this was under Margaret Thatcher, who was doing her best to cripple the
system, a goal she and her fellow Tories, later joined by "New
Labor", have continued to pursue.
And then there's Cuba -- poor, little, third-world Cuba. Countless
non-rich ill Americans would think they were in heaven to have the Cuban health
system reproduced here, with higher salaries for doctors et al., which we could
easily afford.
It should be noted that an extensive review of previous studies recently
concluded that the care provided at for-profit nursing homes and hospitals, on
average, is inferior to that at nonprofits. The analysis indicates that a
facility's ownership status makes a difference in cost, quality, and
accessibility of care.
Sale! Western Civilization! New, Improved!
$99.99, marked down from $129.99. Sale!
There's currently a call in the United States to get rid of the one-cent
coin because it costs 1.2 cents to make the coin and put it into circulation
and because many people find the coins a nuisance. I have another reason to get
rid of the coin -- hopefully, doing so would put an end to the ridiculous and
ubiquitous practice of pricing almost everything at amounts like $9.99, $99.99,
or $999.99. Or $3.29 or $17.98. What is the reason for this tedious and
insulting absurdity? It began as, and continues to be, a con game -- trying to
induce the purchaser to think that he's getting some kind of bargain price:
Less than $10! Less than $100! In my local thrift shop, catering almost
exclusively to poor blacks and Hispanics, virtually all prices end in .97 or
.98 or .99. Every once in a while, when the nonsense has piled up to my nose
level, I ask a shop manager or corporate representative why they use such a
pricing system. They scarcely have any idea what I'm talking about. Sometimes
in a shop when I'm discussing with a clerk the various price options of
something I'm thinking of buying, and I say, "Okay, let's see, this model
is $60 and . . ." S/he'll interrupt me with: "No, it's $59.99."
And let's not forget gasoline. Priced at $2.60.9 per gallon. Or $3.24.9
per gallon. That's 9/10. It's been suggested that it was the oil companies that
began this whole silliness.
Is this any way for people to relate to each other? Comes the
revolution, and we write a new constitution, Paragraph 99 will ban this
practice.
You can't make this stuff up
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France, 1844-1924
On April 14 a federal appeals court ruled that the Los Angeles Police
Department cannot arrest people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public
sidewalks on Skid Row, saying such enforcement amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment because there are not enough shelter beds for the city's huge
homeless population. Judge Pamela A. Rymer issued a strong dissent against the
majority opinion. The Los Angeles code "does not punish people simply
because they are homeless," wrote Rymer. "It targets conduct --
sitting, lying or sleeping on city sidewalks -- that can be committed by those
with homes as well as those without."
NOTES
[1] Washington Post, March 13, 2002, p.1
[2] Washington Post, July 16, 2006. p.15
[3] Washington Post, July 3, 2006, p.19
[4] Associated Press, July 3, 2006
[5] Washington Post, July 20, 2006, p.B3
[6] Sarah Posner, The American Prospect, June 2006
[7] FrontPageMag.com, Horowitz's site
[8] Amnesty International news release, 26 June 1998, AI
INDEX: MDE 15/54/98
[9] Associated Press, July 15, 2006
[10] Ibid.
[11] The Independent (London), May 27, 2006, p.32
[12] Daily Telegraph (London), July 3, 2006, p.1
[13] Washington Post, July 9, 2006, p.F3
[14] Washington Post, June 21, 2006, p.9
[15] Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2006
William Blum is
the author of Killing
Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II,
Rogue
State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and West-Bloc
Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.
He can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com.