Interesting, Kurt. One possible wrinkle in the fabric is that Iranians mostly practice the minority Shiite Muslim sect. They're not happy with the Taliban because they're extremist Sunni Muslims. That may make Iranians more receptive to the idea of condemning the terrorist attacks.


It's also possible that they're simply fed up with fundamentalist Muslim governance altogether.

On 2001-10-19 12:01, Brian Rush wrote:
Interesting, Kurt. One possible wrinkle in the fabric is that Iranians mostly practice the minority Shiite Muslim sect. They're not happy with the Taliban because they're extremist Sunni Muslims. That may make Iranians more receptive to the idea of condemning the terrorist attacks.


It's also possible that they're simply fed up with fundamentalist Muslim governance altogether.

Yes, I find that Iran makes for an interesting spectacle in this tragic play. Iran actually became the first fundamentalist Muslim state at a time when there was not a great deal of interest in the Islamic world. Now that radical Islam is gaining strength in the Arab world, Iran is out of step once again.

The Iranian religious government, who hold the real power in Iran, are sympathetic to the idea of fundamentalist Islamic regimes, but have found that fundamentalist Sunnis hate the Shiites as much as other minorities. They would not mind seeing the Taleban toppled, but do not want to see large numbers of Muslim casualties. They hate the United States, and they hate the Taleban. They are trying to walk a tightrope between hope and fear.

The younger generation of Iranians have been demonstrating against terrorism and in favour of the United States. As such, if and when the West decides to take action against the Iranian government for their sponsorship of terrorism, they must find a way to do it without alienating the younger generations, who now make up a majority of Iranians. The younger generations of Iranians are favourably disposed towards the West, and most towards the United States in particular. We must find ways to forge links with these future leaders of an important Muslim country.

If you are interested in reading an article on Iran, please see:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/eu/m...176060,00.html

On 2001-10-19 12:01, Brian Rush wrote:
Interesting, Kurt. One possible wrinkle in the fabric is that Iranians mostly practice the minority Shiite Muslim sect. They're not happy with the Taliban because they're extremist Sunni Muslims. That may make Iranians more receptive to the idea of condemning the terrorist attacks.


It's also possible that they're simply fed up with fundamentalist Muslim governance altogether.

The Iranians being Shiite Muslims are targets of the Taliban and Bin Laden's dogma and there is a change going on in Iran. The country is liberalising and secularism is on the rise.

Since Iran is currently in an early unravelling, this is the start of their culture wars secularism versus fundamentalism, rather like the culture wars that had been going on in North America in the last unravelling (1982-2001).

The events that have happened in Iran over the last 20 years are finally making sense saeculum wise; the revolution was an awakening event. The youth were aiming to overthrow the Shah and establish a more democratic government, however they agreed on little else, some were Fundamentalists, some were secularists. That gave rise to the Islamic Republic we see today, the Islamists when they came to power had to crush a lot of opposition, this is a sign that not all the people were happy with the Islamists taking power in Iran.

Iran like nearly all the Middle East is going through it's own version of the Enlightenment right now, it wont be for at least 30-40 years until the final shape of the Middle East will be known. Hopefully the Middle East will become secular democratic states like Turkey is now, we have the chance to establish a democratic government in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq, the west can show to the Middle East we are begin people and not just cruel imperialists.

On a good note;
There were rallies in support of the USA in the war against terrorism in Teheran! :grin:

In these dark uncertain times we can only hope for happy days to come again.

Here is a catchful tune from when FDR came to Power in 1932, his slogan for the New Deal was 'happy days are here again'.

Happy days are here again, When skies are grey, When skies are grey, Happy days are here again!

Tristan,

I really can't agree that Iran is in an Unravelling. Such a Saeculum would make the Ayatollah Khomeini (1900-89) either a Hero or a Nomad, a role that the radical Imam of Qum seems ill-suited for.

Here's a quick analysis of Iranian history. A Crisis is, by definition, "a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one." The last turn of the century was, for Iran, a time of secular upheaval, when the dying Mozaffar Al-Din Shah was forced to grant Persia its first constitution, in 1906. The next year, his son, Mohammad Ali Shah, tried to abolish the constitution, but was deposed, and the constitution remained. This certainly seems to be part of a possible Crisis.

The next potential candidate for a Crisis might fall between 1921 and 1925, when Reza Khan (1877-1944) overthrew the Kajar Dynasty, and created his own, Pahlevi dynasty. I am less inclined to think of this as a Crisis event, however, because it was not a complete change of the civic order, merely a replacement of the ruling family.

During World War II, when large portions of the world were experiencing a first class secular upheaval, Iran experienced a quiet era. The British and Russians intervened to replace Reza Shah Pahlevi with his son, Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi (1919-80), but this was certainly less of an upheaval than the installation of the Pahlevi dynasty.

The 1950s witnessed a rise in nationalism, with Muhammad Mussadegh (1880-1967) leading the nationalist factions. This era, though one of mass movements, did not witness any civic upheaval, with the nationalisation of the oil industry being the only substantive change.

From there, the situation, as seen by the Shah, went downhill. A new leader rose against him, Ayatollah Khomeini (1900-89). Khomeini was surrounded by a group of other teachers from Qum, and was fanatically followed by his students. The situation turned a corner in 1963, when paratroopers attacked Fayziya Madrasa in Qum, apparently hoping to capture or kill Khomeini, and climaxed in 1979 with the overthrow of the shah and the confrontation with the United States. The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-89 was fought with great ?lan, with self-sacrifice being expected and furnished.

In approximately 1985, the situation began to change. After a string of stunning victories over Iraq, the nation began to lose interest in the war. As the revolutionary zeal ebbed away from the soldiers, military setbacks followed. In 1989, the nation abandoned the war with a sense of deep exhaustion. In the following years, the now firmly entrenched radical mullahs squelched any expression of disunity. In an unprecedented step, mullahs who disagreed with the new civic order were removed, jailed, and even executed. During the 1997 Tehran Spring, the moderate reformist Sayed Mohammad Khatami (b.1943) was elected President. The hard-line establishment has since repeatedly cracked down on dissent, closing reformist newspapers, and murdering independent-minded journalists, politicians and religious leaders.

Therefore, we see two great changes in the secular order: the 1906 Constitutional Revolution, and the 1979 ending of the rule of shahs. I would therefore suggest the following saeculum: 18??-1908 -- Crisis; 1908-c.1923 -- High; c.1923-c.1943 -- Awakening?; c.1943-1963 -- Unravelling; 1963-c.1985 -- Crisis; c.1985-Present - High.

This saeculum would make Reza Khan and Muhammad Mussadegh Heroes, Ayatollah Khomeini an Artist or (more likely) an early Prophet, Muhammad Reza Shah a Prophet or Nomad, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and Ayatollah Khamenei Nomads, and Sayed Mohammad Khatami an early Hero.

Kurt '63

In doing a little research on Afghanistan over the weekend, I was surprised to learn that the vast majority of the population is more closely related to the Persians of Iran than to the Arabs. Their major language is, like Persian, an Indo-European daughter language.

It also seems that Afghanis despise Arabs as much as Iranians do. (When I was in college, we had a lot of Iranian students and they made it very clear that to call them Arabs was a mortal insult.) The Taliban and Al Qaeda are viewed as Arab outsiders, if not invaders. I was quite interested to see Afghanis chanting, "Death to Pakistan! Death to Arabs! Death to Usama bin Laden!"

Tristan, I know you like to cling to the idea that Iran is in an Unraveling, but there's just no way. They are very near or at the turning point from a High to an Awakening. I think that goes much farther in explaining their relatively calm reaction to the war than their being in a 3T would.

On an anecdotal note, we have a local restaurant owner who is Pakistani. He says that it's absolutely essential that the US and the coalition step in and do something about Afghanistan, and Pakistan as well. He also says that the town where his relatives live is overrun with Afghani refugees and that there is water rationing as a consequence of that. They tell him that gas prices are up around $10 a gallon from their normal $2-3. Food, however, is not a problem at all. They say they are literally buried in food supplied by the US. He also stated that all the radicals' claims that they are faithful Muslims can't be true, since true Muslims are very careful about not putting harmful substances into their bodies, and 80% of these people are on opium.

I just took the SelectSmart quiz and this is where I came in.

# 1 Israeli leftist / peace-oriented
# 2 Palestinian moderate / peace-oriented
# 3 Average Israeli
# 4 International mediator
# 5 Average Palestinian
# 6 Israeli far right-wing
# 7 Palestinian suicide bomber
# 8 Israel Fanatic Settler
# 9 Palestinian Intifada supporter

Despite my more peaceful leanings, my pragmatic side voted NO on the last question: Do you believe there is hope for a lasting peace in the Middle East? I once believed it was possible, but now the only way I think it will ever be solved is by the extermination of one side or the other...unfortunately.

My results:

Your Results Page:
# 1 Average Israeli
# 2 International mediator
# 3 Israeli leftist / peace-oriented
# 4 Palestinian moderate / peace-oriented
# 5 Israeli far right-wing
# 6 Israel Fanatic Settler
# 7 Average Palestinian
# 8 Palestinian Intifada supporter
# 9 Palestinian suicide bomber

The other day an article in the Sunday Seattle Times compared terrorists to the Barbary pirates, who operated out of North Africa. According to the article, beginning in 1785 the new U.S.A. battled them over a 30 year period. A navy was built to fight them. An army of Arab insurgents was assembled to attack the pasha of Tripoli-after an American agent tried to rally support by denouncing despots who defiled the Koran. There was fear of infiltration on the home front. All this after the infant U.S. Gov't paid a fortune in tribute (blackmail $)-comparable to petro dollars?

I will not waste the space by posting it, but the following link takes you to a story about young people in Iran. The centrepiece of the story is a rock and roll concert in Tehran. Reading it, I couldn?t help thinking about America in the 1950s and Elvis.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/01/world/world9.html

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001...ictment_1.html

An article about one of the first indictments in the hijack case. The indictee is only 21 years old and was indicted for lying about his affiliations with two of the hijackers.
Given that the hijackers were in their late 20's and early 30's, this is surprising. Could this be a sign of Millenial inductees into Bin Laden's camp?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ile/index.html
Osama seems like a real Boomer warrior and, like W, seems to have the desire to continue what his GI father started (both sons of privelage and power). Notwithstanding the terror bit, he might even be a Muslim version of John Brown (in thier eyes). Ruthless, yes, but there is a method to the madness. The Muslim world, even the moderate version, wants liberation from Western imperialism and Israel. The argument of the moderates with the "fundamentalists" like Bin Laden is not aims but means. Notice that the moderates say "Yes, but look at what you do in Palestine and Iraq". As the remaining Silent Arab leaders (Mubrarak, Fahd,Arafat etc.) die off, there'll be less of this "kiss the ass of America" and more "will the real Muslim leader please stand up." Bin Laden may not be Gray Champion material but the posters of him in Saladin-type positions suggest a yearning for one.

Six terrorists using forged Israeli passports have entered the US.
http://216.26.163.62/2001/me_terrorism_11_02.html

Check this out. It says what a Muslim sheik really thinks in Israel.
http://www.worthynews.com/news-featu...tatements.html

The Question of Israel and Palestine

By Tristan Jones

We live in a era where conquest of land is outmoded, The invasion and occupation of Palestine (I can't call it by anyother name) by the Israeli's is at root of this conflict and the Palestinians are fighting back of what they see as invaders who can blame them if we were in their shoes. The Palestinians in general (judging from public opinion amongst their population) do not accept the existence of Israel because they are seen rightfully as invaders. The conquest of Palestine by the Jews is the last great conquest of one people's land by another, this thing has happened throughout world history and the 20th century saw the completion of the Turkish conquest of Anatolia from the Greeks and Armenians (with the killing or expulsion of the last Greeks and Armenians) amongst other things.

The question is now for the international community is to back the invaders (ie support Israel and allow it to complete the conquest by chasing the Arabs out of Palestine and Israel) or supports the Palestinians in their goal of destroying the state of Israel. This is a very tough choice, I am afraid comprise of any sort seems out of the question right now.


PS Odd thing about some of my analysis's, is they use quite a bit of human psychology, my stepmother suggested to me a few years back, and I should do psychology in University, also she went on I would make a good psychologist. I decided to chose as one of my preferences for University a Arts degree which offers a Psychology major. I profess I never had a like for psychology or psychologists in general, I have been treated my too many of them over the years.

Tristan, my viewpoint is that since Israel already has nuclear weapons, let's give the Palenstinians nuclear weapons, and then pull our troops out of Israel. :wink:

Jay N. I tend to agree with your post of Osama as a Prophet.

I fear this article talks about a future Hero generation waiting for their call to arms.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/20/world/world4.html

I hate to think of any child growing up in that environment.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tess on 2002-02-19 17:47 ]</font>

Here is an article from the New Republic Magazine about why they think a war between Israel and Syria could happen in the near future.


GALILEE DISPATCH
Good Fences
by Yossi Klein Halevi

Post date 02.14.02 | Issue date 02.25.02



The bearded Hezbollah man, arms folded and half-smiling, stood alone at
the border fence on his daily vigil, just across from the Israeli army outpost
called Tziporen. Beside him was a large metal sign imprinted with
photographs of dead Israeli and South Lebanese Army soldiers--including a
severed head--and the taunt in Hebrew, "SHARON, DON'T FORGET YOUR SOLDIERS ARE
STILL IN LEBANON," a reference to three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in the fall of
2000, whom the army believes didn't survive.

I moved toward the fence to get a closer view but was stopped by an Israeli
officer. "They're trying to provoke us all the time," he said. "Our policy is to
avoid any contact with them."

That's why here at Tziporen, in the hills above the border town of Kiryat
Shemona, the army has removed soldiers from the fence and confined them
to a concrete fortress that resembles an aboveground bunker. Israel has
taken a similar approach all along the 60-mile northern border, where the
army has responded to Hezbollah provocations by contracting into bases
and fortified outposts, trying to avoid a second front in the North as it deals
with Palestinian violence. At the Fatma Gate, not far from Tziporen, the
routine stoning of soldiers by Lebanese "tourists" brought to the border by
Hezbollah stopped abruptly several months ago after the army replaced its
troops with electronic monitors. And when Hezbollah men began appearing
at the security fence of Kibbutz Misgav Am, the army asked the United
Nations, which is based on the opposite hill, to intervene, and Hezbollah
retreated.

Yet Israel's efforts to avoid confrontation with Hezbollah are becoming
increasingly difficult. The Christian Science Monitor reported last week on
"indication[s] ... that Hizbullah is preparing for war." Hundreds of fighters,
the paper reported, are "marshaled along the border with Israel. A massive
arsenal, including rockets and missiles, has been stashed away in the border
district." In addition, in recent weeks, Hezbollah has fired a half-dozen times
at Israeli planes, including one civilian aircraft near the border. The
fundamentalist group claims the planes violated Lebanese airspace. Israel,
though, insists that's not true, and shrapnel from anti-aircraft fire has fallen
over three northern Israeli towns; so far no one has been hurt.



he incidents have scarcely been noticed by an Israeli public riveted to
more immediate threats, like the Palestinian rocket attack into southern
Israel this week. By contrast, the Galilee would seem to be the most
peaceful region in Israel: White almond blossoms fill the rocky hills, snow
covers Mount Hermon, and the roads are empty of the security roadblocks
that segment the center of the country. But, however horrifying,
Palestinian-Israeli violence is unlikely to escalate into regional conflict, simply
because no Arab country has ever gone to war for the Palestinians and,
even now, the Arab world offers them little more than lip service. On the
northern border, though, an escalating confrontation with Hezbollah would
almost certainly expand to include its Syrian protector and possibly its
Iranian arms supplier as well.

Israel will respond to a Hezbollah attack that kills Israeli civilians even more
severely than to Palestinian terrorist attacks. After all, Hezbollah, unlike the
Palestinians, would be shooting over an internationally recognized border;
and, with Hezbollah, there is a sovereign address--Syria--to hold
responsible. Warns a high-level Israeli military source: "The next war, if it
happens, will only happen from here."

Ironically, it was Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon nearly two years ago that
may have created the conditions for the next regional war. Intended to
extricate the country from a no-win conflict, the withdrawal actually
convinced much of the Arab world that terror attacks can defeat Israel.
Many Israelis believe that the current intifada was inspired by Hezbollah's
success; indeed, in the months before the intifada began in September 2000,
Palestinian activists intensively debated whether the "Hezbollah option"
should be applied to the territories. And the intifada, in turn, has become the
pretext for Hezbollah's continued role as a "resistance" movement. Its
website, for example, has replaced the Lebanese flag with a Palestinian
one--a sign, says one military expert, that the organization has redefined
itself from a protector of Lebanese rights to the vanguard of the war for
Palestine.

Hezbollah's ability to inflict damage on Israel far exceeds its numeric
strength, estimated at 800 fighters and perhaps several thousand reservists.
According to Israeli reports, Hezbollah has deployed some 10,000 Iranian
short- and long-range missiles along the border, which is marked only by a
fence. The withdrawal of Israeli troops from the security zone, and
Hezbollah's redeployment along the border, means that those missiles are
now able to hit as far away as Haifa--placing most of the Galilee within
Hezbollah's range.



o far Hezbollah has kept away from Israel's red line: civilian casualties.
Instead, the group has concentrated its fire on Israeli military
installations in the contested northern border area the Israelis call Mount
Dov--and the Lebanese and Syrians call Shebaa Farms--at a safe remove
from population centers. According to the unwritten rules of the conflict,
attacks on Israeli soldiers evoke less severe retaliation than attacks on
civilians. After two Israeli soldiers were killed, and another two wounded, at
Mount Dov last year, the Israeli air force destroyed two Syrian radar
installations. Because civilians were not involved, both sides endured the
mutual attacks without escalation. But the latest attacks on aircraft--which
Israel claims took place in airspace above population centers--may signal a
new Hezbollah willingness to risk accidental civilian casualties. Indeed,
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah publicly reveled in
the proximity of Israeli civilians to the shooting. "The booms are heard by the
... chosen people, the Jews who were brought from all over the world to the
northern settlements," he recently told a group of Hezbollah-affiliated
students.

That recklessness is precisely what worries the Israeli military. "What would
have happened if a civilian had been killed from falling shrapnel in Kiryat
Shemona?" demands the military source. "A small mistake is enough to start
a snowball. If a civilian is killed, it doesn't mean we're going to war. But
there will be a strong response. And then if Katyushas fall here, I don't want
to think of what may happen next."

While Israeli security experts assume that Iran wants to escalate the border
conflict, Syria, they say, is more ambivalent. "Syria doesn't want war," says
Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University's Moshe Dayan Center for Middle
Eastern and African Studies. "But it does want Hezbollah to continue a
certain level of attack" to induce an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan
Heights. "I see preparation for an explosion, but also great caution."

Still, he adds, the situation increasingly resembles the atmosphere before the
1967 Six Day War, when Fatah was attacking Israel from Syrian territory.
Indeed, it was the threat of Israeli retaliation against Syria that led Egypt's
Gamal Abdel Nasser to send troops into the Sinai demilitarized zone and
block Israeli shipping in the Straits of Tiran, provoking Israel's strike against
Egypt. "Then, too, no one wanted war," says Zisser. "But there was a feeling
in the Arab world, as there is now, that Israel could be defeated by guerrilla
war. When you play with fire, it's enough for someone to make a mistake.
And then we have a problem."

Nowhere is a "mistake" more likely than at Rajar, an Alawite village on the
northern border, just below Mount Dov. After the Israeli withdrawal in May
2000, the United Nations determined that the border runs through Rajar,
and so half the village is now technically in Lebanon, the other half in Israel.
No fence separates the two entities; many residents continue to work in
Israel. At the entrance to the village--where an arch welcomes visitors in
Arabic and in Hebrew--members of an elite Israeli anti-guerrilla unit check
every car that enters and leaves. "Hezbollah visits us regularly," says a
soldier who introduces himself by his army nickname, Yo-Yo. "Sometimes
we wave at each other; sometimes we curse each other. Mostly it's routine.
Boring, even. Until your outpost gets hit by a missile."

YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI is a contributing editor at TNR.

Behind the convoluted news coverage about the Middle East and this process or peace process the simple truth is that the Arab nations do not want peace. I would like to note some interesting points. I'm sure Tristan Jones would back me up on this.
The "Blame Israel First" crowd is always quick to paint Israeli responses against
military targets as being even worse than Palestinian or Hizbollah attacks against civilian targets. Without reciting a long list of recent examples, it is sufficient to say that with the exception of American news media most Western media paint a biased picture against Israel.

This is an article from Haaretz, a liberal Israeli newspaper, about a recent visit by Bashar el-Assad, president of Syria, to Italy.
Assad is there to see the Pope.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages...ubContrassId=0

Assad claims that his regime is an example of moderation and that he, too, wants to fight terrorism. In the Italian press his regime has even been hailed as a brilliant example of "moderation".

I never knew that kidnapping three Israeli soldiers and shelling border towns in Israel from Lebanon is by Syrian-sponsored Hizbollah is moderation but I'm glad that the Italians' media (or is it mafia?) have enlightened me about this.

What is quite interesting is that younger Bashar, just like his late father Hafez, is a great enemy of Israel. In spite of "moderate" rhetoric he has made no visible moves towards deescalation of hostility much less real peace.

The younger Assad was born in the middle 1960's. He is an Arab Xer. He is also one of the first Xers to become a leader on the world stage and in the Arab world. In the Arab world it appears that late 3rd turning (which they might still be in) leadership passing over from the GI's and Silent and bypassing the Boomers towards the Xers. As we know, Xers installed in leadership during a late Third Turning and early Fourth Turning signal that the regime will most likely be autocratic and reactionary, not stable and moderate. In Iraq, either Qusay or Odai Hussien, both Arab 13ers, are in line to succeed Saddam. This is not a good sign.
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/BC30Ag01.html

In Morocco and Jordan Arab monarchs friendly to the US are already in control and both are 13ers. This may be a good sign here.
At any rate, the connection between Italy and Syria are interesting for this reason: Italy was headed by a member of the Lost generation (Mussolini) who was a fascist and at the time hailed as a moderate alternative to both democracy and Communism. He later on turned out to be the junior partner of Hitler. Something similar exists in Syria. It's my belief that the Mussolini of this Crisis is already in power and it is Assad. What is also interesting is how Assad, like Mussolini then, is being hailed as a force of moderation and strategic stability in his part of the world when the facts such as his support for Hezbollah demonstrate the opposite.

This is instructive for readers of TFT who might be looking to see where this cycle's demagogues will originate. IMHO, Bush is fully justified about what he is trying to do in Iraq. I was previously opposed to another war with Iraq but as I put the pieces together in my own mind I become more alarmed. In Iraq support for terrorism, stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, and designs on regional neighbors are rampant. Throw in certain 13er succesors to Saddam who, in spite of media denials, is extremely ill with cancer and the building of a nuclear weapon and it does not take a genius to see why a war with Iraq is needed now to forestall an even greater catastrophe down the road. The fact is that while MAD doctrines worked during the Cold War because GIs and Silent were in power on both the Communist and democratic sides and neither wanted all out war, the same cannot be said for Boomers and 13ers. This is especially true of 13er leaders in the Islamic world.
Iran is more complex because it is presently controlled by leadership that is Silent and split between relative moderates and radicals. Khatami (born 1943,making him a probable Silent by Iranian standards) clearly wants to lead Iran to a more moderate posture in the world, even with the recent Bush comments about his country. I do not believe he wants war with the West. The same cannot be said of the Ayatollahs such as Khameini who thrive politically on conflict. There is hope, though. More than half the population of Iran is under the age of twenty and young people have been growing more and more disaffected with the government there in contast to the rest of the Muslim world youth who are moving towards radicalism. To paraphrase the old saying goes, it is with the youths that the future lies and so the future shall go.

Muslim leader is charged over 'kill the Jews' speech
By Terri Judd
21 February 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...p?story=134551

'Al-Qa'ida' attempt to poison Rome's water supply foiled
By Paul Peachey
21 February 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=134607

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=274207


If Bush is having 'visions', America must need Arab support for another war
By Robert Fisk Middle East Correspondent
14 March 2002
Middle East crisis

UN security council supports state of Palestine for first time

US call for Palestinian state at UN applauded

Photographer killed in hail of Israeli tank fire

Sharon rounds on Defence Minister for army 'restraint'

Attack on Iraq would backfire, says Mowlam

US issues visas to dead pilots of hijacked jets

Mo Mowlam: Some lessons for the Middle East from the Ulster peace process

Mark Steel: Don't ask for the evidence, just nuke Baghdad

Leading article: At last, the Security Council equates Palestine and Israel
It is the "vision" thing again. When President George Bush wanted Arab support for the US bombing of Afghanistan in September, he suddenly announced he had a "vision" of a Palestinian state. Then it disappeared off his radar screen.

Yet now it's back in a watered-down, US-framed UN resolution that affirms "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side..." Could it be that Mr Bush has another war in mind for the region, that perhaps Vice-President Dick Cheney, now touring the Arab world and Israel, wants Arab support for an attack on Iraq?

UN resolutions don't disappear as fast as presidential "visions" and the world now has the idea ? and it's only an idea ? embedded in a serious UN document. Indeed, it's probably the first time the UN has had a "vision" about anything. But it fails to address the far more important point of UN Security Council resolution 242 of 1967, upon which the Oslo agreement was supposed to have been founded. It calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories it occupied in the Six Day War. Yesterday's UN resolution makes no reference to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (nor to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights) and thus presents the world with an image, or "vision", of two sides fighting on level ground.

When it "demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction...", it is unclear whether the Security Council believes Israel is occupying Palestinian land or whether it thinks that the Palestinian Authority is occupying Israel. Which is why the original Syrian draft resolution, which specifically talked about Israel as the "occupying power", was withdrawn ? along with its call to Israel to respect the Geneva Conventions protecting civilians under occupation. Syria abstained from the vote. Israel's UN ambassador called the latest resolution "balanced".

The only verbal connection between the new resolution and the all-important 35-year-old 242, which specifically refers to occupation, is the vaguely worded call for the states to live "within secure and recognised borders". No mention of Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land, no mention of east Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, or a right of return for any refugees. Like the Oslo agreement, this latest resolution leaves these critical issues out of the "vision", as presumably something to be resolved later.

It was left to the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to express his revulsion at the current level of violence, to refer specifically to Israel's "illegal occupation" and to "morally repugnant" Palestinian suicide bombings. This is better than nothing but Mr Annan's words are not written into any resolution. The Security Council, now that the US has weakened its new resolution, makes no moral judgements at all, even though the illegality of Israel's occupation partly hinges on the Council's own 242 resolution calling upon Israel to withdraw.

As always, the Arabs ? anxious not to alienate the Americans ? had to clap their hands at the "vision" bit, as if it contained the seeds of Palestinian sovereignty. Yasser Abed Rabbo, the so-called Palestinian Information Minister, said it represented a "defeat" for the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon ? which is nonsense because the US would not have proposed the text unless it met with Israel's approval ? and called for "direct international intervention to implement this resolution through ending the Israeli occupation and evacuating all the Israeli settlements" from Palestinian land. But there's nothing about international intervention in the UN text, nor about settlements.

All in all, then, a pretty vision, to run alongside Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's own watered-down version of resolution 242. Let's see how much it helps Mr Cheney as he seeks approval for yet another Middle East war

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/0...ews.45317.html

This article is about thousands of young demonstrators in Jordan and Egypt chanting shouts of "Saddam, bomb Tel Aviv" and "Dear Osama, bomb Tel Aviv too". They not only burned Israeli flags. They burned American as well as Israeli flags and pledged to boycott American and Israeli products.
These are not Nazis. They're just misunderstood people. And thank your failed, watered downed, liberal media for not reporting this to you. I just did.

They're definitely heading towards 4th Turning if they aren't there already. They just need a spark like our spark was 911. maybe it'll be the US bombing of Iraq. It really won't matter. They'll get you and me. And remember. They're just misunderstood.

On 2002-03-17 12:32, JayN wrote:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/0...ews.45317.html

This article is about thousands of young demonstrators in Jordan and Egypt chanting shouts of "Saddam, bomb Tel Aviv" and "Dear Osama, bomb Tel Aviv too". They not only burned Israeli flags. They burned American as well as Israeli flags and pledged to boycott American and Israeli products.
These are not Nazis. They're just misunderstood people. And thank your failed, watered downed, liberal media for not reporting this to you. I just did.

The 'Arab street' is bloodthirsty again.

Maybe we should really bomb Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT INTELLIGENCE BRIEF
Saudi princes funding
al-Qaida escape?
U.S. intelligence says millions paid for retreat from Afghanistan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 20, 2002
5:00 p.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily brings readers exclusive, up-to-the-minute global intelligence news and analysis from Geostrategy-Direct, a new online newsletter edited by veteran journalist Robert Morton and featuring the "Backgrounder" column compiled by Bill Gertz. Geostrategy-Direct is a subscription-based service produced by the publishers of WorldTribune.com, a free news service frequently linked by the editors of WorldNetDaily.

? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite initial steps in response to U.S. requests, Saudi Arabia continues to tolerate the transfer of finances to al-Qaida insurgents.

U.S. intelligence sources said Saudi princes are believed to be funding the flight of al-Qaida agents from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf and Middle East. They said the princes have paid millions of dollars for the escape of hundreds of al-Qaida and Taliban members from Afghanistan through Iran and to the Persian Gulf.

Many of those who fled Afghanistan, the sources said, are Saudis or those who had been sponsored by the House of Saud.

The al-Qaida agents, the sources said, have resettled in such countries as Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Others have moved to Lebanon and Syria.

"The Saudis have acted when we have pointed to specific information on a specific group," an intelligence source said. "Otherwise, the money flow to al-Qaida continues from members of the royal family."

The sources said Vice President Dick Cheney discussed the issue of Saudi financing to Islamic insurgency groups during his visit to Riyadh over the weekend. Cheney met in Riyadh with Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz.

The United States has maintained a dialogue with Saudi security chiefs regarding the flow of money to Saudi charities alleged to have supported Islamic insurgents. On March 19, U.S. ambassador to Riyadh, Robert Jordan, met Saudi intelligence chief Prince Nawaf Bin Abdul Aziz. The official Saudi Press Agency said the two men discussed bilateral relations as well as developments in the region.

"Saudi officials have at minimum a clear pattern of looking the other way when funds are known to support extremist purposes," Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former law enforcement official, said in a report. "Saudis are now encouraged to donate funds in fulfillment of their zakat obligations only through established groups operating under the direct patronage of a member of the royal family. However, as the recent case in Bosnia attests, many of these groups are themselves suspected of financing terrorism."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said the United States and Saudi Arabia have cooperated to block the assets of the Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina branches of a Saudi-based charitable foundation. The Al Haramain Islamic Foundation was said to have diverted funds to al-Qaida and satellite organizations, such as the Egyptian Gamiat Islamiya.

Al Haramain is said to spend $30 million a year and maintains 50 offices around the world.

U.S. officials said the blocking of assets to Al Haramain was the first joint venture by Riyadh and Washington as part of the U.S.-led war against terrorism. The officials said the Bush administration spent months urging the kingdom to take action against charities determined to have funded al-Qaida.

"This joint designation marks a new level of coordination in the international cooperation that has characterized the fight against international terrorism to date," O'Neill said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi

What I think:
Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv when the Boomers take control there from the Silent. THey will lead Muslim 13ers adn Millenials of all pursuasions in a jihad against the United States and Israel. Logical result of colonial policies that date from after the last 4th Turning. The Palestine element is waking up to its national rights and will accept nothing less than full Palestine sovereignty. The workers of Palestine struggling against the outpost of Zionist colonialism is just like the Jews struggling in the Warsaw Ghetto against the Germans. Though they die butthier revolutionary spirit lives on.

Sincrely,
Sbarro