Dette er ikke den siste kolonikrigen. Slike
forutsatte en viss fornuft og ble styrt av folk som
var de rene naive barn sammenlignet med vår tids
galninger i sine teknisk perfekte førerbunkere.
Palestina er ikke en israelsk koloni og Israel er
ikke en amerikansk. Dette er noe langt mer
vidtrekkende, farlig og fundamentalt. Dette er den
langsomme tredje verdenskrigen - de rikes krig for å
utradere de fattige - som begynner. Dette er
gjenopptakelsen av hitlerismens sosialdarwinisme i en
modernisert form, teknisk perfeksjonert og
propagandistisk innpakket som "kamp for demokrati",
mens det i virkeligheten går ut på å utradere fra
jordas overflate alt som man med Bush IIs ord
oppfatter som "evil", man tror rett og slett man kan
fjerne "det onde", mens det man i virkeligheten
prøver er å slå ihjel pr. stedfortreder er skyggen av
sin egen dårlige samvittighet og ringvirkningene av
sin egen onde dumskap. Dette er galskap: Bush II og
Sharon er i samme situasjon som mannen som møter sin
dobbeltgjenger hos Dostojevskij. Dette er i en verden
hvor New Zealand i fullt alvor utnevner en minister
for "Ringenes herre". Det neste blir kanskje en norsk
minister for "Big Brother"? Alt dette er ikke
politikk, men en mangel på politikk fra perverterte
rikinger som for lengst befinner seg hinsides enhver
kritikks og fornufts rekkevidde, akkurat som sine
like religiøst og sanseløst fanatiske
terrorist"motstandere": dette er krig mellom de gale,
begynnelsen til et internt oppgjør mellom barbarer
verre enn noe jorda hittil har sett.
Karsten Johansen
-----Message d'origine-----
De: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@idi.ntnu.no>
A: <klassekampen-forum@aksess.no>
Date: 04/12/01
Objet: Robert Fisk: This terrible conflict is
the last colonial war
Robert Fisk: This terrible conflict is the last
colonial war
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.
jsp?dir=140&story=10816
1&host=6&printable=1
'Arafat used to make the same expressions of grief
when his gunmen murdered
innocent Lebanese'
04 December 2001
Can Ariel Sharon control his own people? Can he
control his army? Can he
stop them from killing children, leaving booby traps
in orchards or firing
tank shells into refugee camps? Can Sharon stop his
rabble of an army from
destroying hundreds of Palestinian refugee homes in
Gaza? Can Sharon "crack
down" on Jewish settlers and prevent them from
stealing more land from
Palestinians? Can he stop his secret-service killers
from murdering their
Palestinian enemies – or carrying out " targeted
killings", as the BBC was
still gutlessly calling these executions yesterday in
its effort to avoid
Israeli criticism.
It is, of course, forbidden to ask these questions.
So let's "legalise"
them. The Palestinian suicide bombings in Jerusalem
and Haifa are
disgusting, evil, revolting, unforgivable. I saw the
immediate aftermath of
the Pizzeria suicide bombing in Jerusalem last
August: Israeli women and
children, ripped apart by explosives that had nails
packed around them –
designed to ensure that those who survived were
scarred for life.
I remember Yasser Arafat's grovelling message of
condolence, and I thought
to myself – like any Israeli, I guess – that I didn't
believe a word of it.
In fact, I don't believe a word of it. Arafat used to
make the same eloquent
expressions of grief when his gunmen murdered
innocent Lebanese during that
country's civil war. Bullshit, I used to think. And I
still do.
But there was a clue to the real problem only hours
after the latest
bloodbath in Israel. Colin Powell, the US Secretary
of State, was being
questioned with characteristic obsequiousness on CNN
about his reaction to
the slaughter. Nothing, he said, could justify such
"terrorism", and he went
on to refer to the plight of the Palestinians, who
suffer "50 per cent
unemployment". I sat up at that point. Unemployment?
Is that what Mr Powell
thought this was about.
And my mind went back to his speech at Louisberg
University on 20 November
when he launched – or so we were supposed to believe
– his Middle-East
initiative. "Palestinians must..." was the theme:
Palestinians must "end the
violence"; Palestinians must "arrest, prosecute and
punish the perpetrators
of terrorist acts"; Palestinians "need to understand
that, however
legitimate their claims" – note the word "however" –
"they cannot be...
addressed by violence"; Palestinians "must realise
that violence has had a
terrible impact on Israel". Only when General Powell
told his audience that
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza must
end, did it become clear
that Israel was occupying Palestine rather than the
other way round.
The reality is that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict
is the last colonial
war. The French thought that they were fighting the
last battle of this
kind. They had long ago conquered Algeria. They set
up their farms and
settlements in the most beautiful land in North
Africa. And when the
Algerians demanded independence, they called them
"terrorists" and they shot
down their demonstrators and they tortured their
guerrilla enemies and they
murdered – in "targeted killings" – their
antagonists.
In just the same way, we are responding to the latest
massacre in Israel
according to the rules of the State Department, CNN,
the BBC and Downing
Street. Arafat has got to come alive, to get real, to
perform his duty as
the West's policeman in the Middle East. President
Mubarak does it in Egypt;
King Abdullah does it in Jordan; King Fahd does it in
Saudi Arabia. They
control their people for us. It is their duty. They
must fulfil their moral
obligations, without any reference to history or to
the pain and the
suffering of their people.
So let me tell a little story. A few hours before I
wrote this article –
exactly four hours after the last suicide bomber had
destroyed himself and
his innocent victims in Haifa – I visited a grotty,
fly-blown hospital in
Quetta, the Pakistani border city where Afghan
victims of American bombing
raids are brought for treatment. Surrounded by an
army of flies in bed No
12, Mahmat – most Afghans have no family names – told
me his story. There
were no CNN cameras, no BBC reporters in this
hospital to film the patient.
Nor will there be. Mahmat had been asleep in his home
in the village of
Kazikarez six days ago when an bomb from an American
B-52 fell on his
village. He was asleep in one room, his wife with the
children. His son
Nourali died, as did Jaber – aged 10 – Janaan, eight,
Salamo, six, Twayir,
four, and Palwasha – the only girl – two.
"The plane flies so high that we cannot hear them and
the mud roof fell on
them," Mahmat said. His wife Rukia – whom he
permitted me to see – lay in
the next room (bed No 13). She did not know that her
children were dead. She
was 25 and looked 45. A cloth dignified her forehead.
Her children – like so
many Afghan innocents in this frightful War for
civilisation – were victims
whom Mr Bush and Mr Blair will never acknowledge. And
watching Mahmat plead
for money – the American bomb had blasted away his
clothes and he was naked
beneath the hospital blanket – I could see something
terrible: he and the
angry cousin beside him and the uncle and the wife's
brother in the hospital
attacking America for the murders that they had
inflicted on their family...
One day, I suspect, Mahmat's relatives may be angry
enough to take their
revenge on the United States, in which case they will
be terrorists, men of
violence. We may even ask if their leaders could
control them. They are not
bin Ladens, Mahmat's family said that – "We are
neither Taliban nor Arab" –
but, frankly, could we blame them if they decided to
strike at the United
States for the bloody and terrible crime done to
their family. Can the
United States stop bombing villages? Can Washington
persuade its special
forces to protect prisoners? Can the Americans
control their own people?
______________________________________________________________________________
ifrance.com, l'email gratuit le plus complet de l'Internet !
vos emails depuis un navigateur, en POP3, sur Minitel, sur le WAP...
http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/email.emailif
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST