Visse medier tror nå at Bush "endelig har forstått" hvem Sharon er. Det
er feil. Som sagt av Georg Johannesen: "alle forsto Hitler straks". Alle
"forstår" selvsagt Sharons sosialdarwinisme og gammeltestamentelige
lebenraumpolitikk. At det skyldes at Israel styres av folk som på
tragisk vis har lært leksa av Hitler og Vestens forræderi mot dem Hitler
utryddet ligger det langt tyngre med. Det trengs dog også minimalt med
tankevirksomhet for å "forstå" at Bush og Sharon er to alen ut av samme
stykke, rett og slett fordi "den israelske staten" er en amerikansk
avlegger og begge nesten totalt domineres av samme gammeltestamentelige
ideologi om å være "guds utvalgte folk", selvom Israel er (var) en
anelse mindre totalitært enn USA. Israel er en mindre enhet, og den
lange europeisk-jødiske tradisjonen er intellektuell og mer liberal,
mens den nå herskende og altdominerende av de amerikanske tradisjonene
er sekterisk bondsk-religiøs, avkultivert, primitiv/rasistisk - store
deler av USA er grunnlagt på minst ett folkemord, det på de
nordamerikanske indianerne - og antiintellektuell. USAs dominerende
vesen er kapteinen på hvalfangerskipet i "Moby Dick" eller som sett av
Francis Ford Coppola, Kurz fra Conrads "Mørkets Hjerte": den hvite,
idealistiske, rikdomsbesatte utplyndrer av jorda, som har nådd en ny
foreløpig kulminasjon med Bush II - som Robert Kennedy (sønnen av ham
som ble myrdet fordi han protesterte mot Vietnamkrigen) har
karakterisert riktig ved å si: "han behandler kloden som et firma under
likvidasjon". Enda mer presist kunne man tilføye: som en selskapstømmer
ville gjort. Jvf. Enron, Argentina og Bushs rolle heri. En slik mann og
hans overklassesleng har mindre sjans for å skape fred enn Kong Midas
hadde for å få noe å drikke.
Dette er sålenge USA er så altdominerende overlegent som nå, viktigere
enn at USAs globale herskerklasse selvsagt har interesser som de
betrakter som viktigere enn delstaten Israels. Derfor blir denne
analysen feil:
"Why Bush is championing Sharon and punishing Arafat
Before US Vice-President Dick Cheney embarked on his Middle East tour in
March, Washington unofficially proposed two political trade-offs to the
Arab states: 1. The removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in
exchange for dumping Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 2. The Arab
states officially renouncing claims to the 1948 territories of historic
Palestine in exchange for the recovery of the lands occupied by Israel
in 1967. (...)
1. So long as the Arab states do not give the green light for, and
cooperate fully in, the removal of Saddam, they have to put up with
Sharon. 2. So long as they have not relinquished all claims to the 1948
territories, they will have to share the 1967 territories with Sharon.
Ibrahim Hamidi is a Damascus-based journalist specialized in Syrian
current affairs. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star"
Denne gamle hestehandelsimperialismen er nok fantasi og/eller
desinformasjon for å lure med seg de arabiske herskerne. Hamidi overser
det postmoderne aspektet: den ny totalitarismen. USAs ledelse mener
neppe de reelt trenger den slags utspill, den som stormer mot
verdensromimperiet med gud på sin side anser seg å ha mer enn
manipulasjons- og maktmidler nok til å oppnå full lydighet mot hva han
vil uten reelle innrømmelser som dette.
De rabiate og primitivt religiøse arabiske strømningene med bin Laden
osv. har begrepet langt mindre av USAs vesen, det ser det bare som "den
store satan" osv., de har bare oppfattet at USA er "vantro" og nå er dem
fientlig stemt (de reflekterer ikke over hvorfor USA før støttet dem) og
reagerer så desperat på det, uten dermed å oppnå annet enn å spille i
hendene på Bush og hans regime, levere dem akkurat det de trenger
allermest - et påskudd for å iverksette den globale overvåkingsstaten
som kjerna i en ny imperialisme.
Her kommer så med Blair i spissen den gamle og mer voksne engelske
imperialismen på banen og prøver å få orden sitt uvørne og dumme avkom
USA:
"Robert Cooper, a senior Foreign Office diplomat attached to Downing
Street and Blair’s key foreign policy adviser, has just issued a
pamphlet titled “Reordering the World,” featuring a foreword by the
prime minister. Claiming that it was the task of liberal democracies (of
which one assumes Britain still is) to “bring order” to the rest of the
world, he calls for “a new kind of imperialism” to enable Britain to
intervene abroad, naturally all under the cover of “combating global
terror threats.” In fact, writes Cooper, “the need for colonialization
is as great as it ever was in the 19th century.” (Her nærmer vi oss
sakens kjerne, min anm. KJ.)
Cooper argues that active intervention is sometimes necessary, even if
Western countries may break the rules. “Among ourselves, we operate on
the basis of laws … but when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of
states outside the post-modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to
rougher methods of an earlier era force, pre-emptive attack,
deception.” To make sure he is perfectly understood, Cooper adds that
“when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the
jungle.” So much for British diplomacy.
One wonders why Blair’s government, before offering its PR services to
Israel, does not first think of improving its own image in the world,
not to mention within its own ruling party. Labor MPs were said to be
absolutely furious about Cooper’s influence on Blair, and about his
pamphlet. “The Tsarina of Russia was better advised by Rasputin than the
prime minister is by this maniac,” said Tam Dalyell, one of the leading
Labor backbenchers opposing a war on Iraq."
(Daily star, se nedenfor her).
Alt i alt: en "munter" sistuasjon.
Karsten Johansen
www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/04_02_02_c.htm
‘Rule Britannia’ raises its head again as Blair aide calls for ‘new
imperialism’
As in the rest of the world, much of Britain’s focus on the Middle East
last week was on the Arab League summit in Beirut, and on the Cabinet’s
support for the adoption of Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace initiative by
the Arab states. For a brief moment, it seemed that Britain was indeed
encouraging diplomacy, especially when Foreign Minister Jack Straw
joined other world personalities in urging Israel to remove impediments
to Yasser Arafat’s attendance. “It is in no one’s interest, least of all
Israel’s, that President Arafat be prevented from attending the summit,”
he said. “Israel’s refusal will damage achieving the outcome we want.” A
few days later, Britain welcomed the peace initiative endorsed by the
Arab summit, and a spokesman for the Foreign Office urged “Israel to
respond positively to the assurances the Arab states have offered on its
future security.”
But Israel still wasn’t listening, and the Foreign Office had to issue a
third statement on the Middle East conflict in a week, demanding that
Israel withdraw its troops from Ramallah, in accordance with United
Nations Security Council demands. Or at least that’s the message,
according to a spokesperson, that Jack Straw wished be relayed to Ariel
Sharon through his ambassador to Israel. The latter had himself just
caused some commotion, considering his government’s alleged impartial
position. Britain’s ambassador to Israel, Sherard Cowper-Coles (who a
few months ago compared dealing with Arafat to “wrestling with jelly”)
has offered his advice to the Israeli military establishment on how to
improve its image abroad. Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, the British
envoy said: “I wish I could do more to help Israel’s public relations
effort,” especially after explaining that it had become harder to make
Israel’s case to Britain since “chattering classes” had turned against
it. It is not clear whether he meant the media, but the latter certainly
did not take this well.
Adding to this diplomatic faux pas, the British government continued to
explain to the world why different countries had different rights:
Apparently, some are still more equal than others. Under Blair’s
leadership, the whole government seems not only to be leaning further
and further to the right, but also to be taking this great British
democracy back to the good old days of imperialism and colonialism.
Robert Cooper, a senior Foreign Office diplomat attached to Downing
Street and Blair’s key foreign policy adviser, has just issued a
pamphlet titled “Reordering the World,” featuring a foreword by the
prime minister. Claiming that it was the task of liberal democracies (of
which one assumes Britain still is) to “bring order” to the rest of the
world, he calls for “a new kind of imperialism” to enable Britain to
intervene abroad, naturally all under the cover of “combating global
terror threats.” In fact, writes Cooper, “the need for colonialization
is as great as it ever was in the 19th century.”
Cooper argues that active intervention is sometimes necessary, even if
Western countries may break the rules. “Among ourselves, we operate on
the basis of laws … but when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of
states outside the post-modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to
rougher methods of an earlier era force, pre-emptive attack,
deception.” To make sure he is perfectly understood, Cooper adds that
“when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the
jungle.” So much for British diplomacy. One wonders why Blair’s
government, before offering its PR services to Israel, does not first
think of improving its own image in the world, not to mention within its
own ruling party. Labor MPs were said to be absolutely furious about
Cooper’s influence on Blair, and about his pamphlet. “The Tsarina of
Russia was better advised by Rasputin than the prime minister is by this
maniac,” said Tam Dalyell, one of the leading Labor backbenchers
opposing a war on Iraq.
It appears that Blair will go to any length to find some justification
for the war on Iraq, or even for other wars of which we are still not
aware. The Cooper pamphlet comes in the midst of obstinate opposition
within Britain to armed intervention in Iraq (nearly 140 MPs have now
signed the Commons Motion against it), and after the nuclear option was
proposed last week by Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon. But Hoon had more to
say this week, going a step further in provoking anger within party
ranks when he said that Britain could join a strike on Iraq without
prior approval from the UN. Hoon said on ITV that “as far as I
understand the position, legally we would be perfectly entitled to use
force as we have done in the past, without the support of a United
Nations Security Council resolution.” He also took this opportunity to
repeat that Britain would use “appropriate, proportionate responses”
(including nuclear weapons) against the Iraqi regime.
After a crescendo of war rhetoric from multiple government sources,
however, Blair has suddenly begun to show some signs of abating on the
issue, but only because it seems it would do him more harm than good at
this point. For the first time, all the opponents to his Iraq plans (his
own MPs, the British public, the European Union) have made him blink.
Blair seems to have realized that no matter what his official position
has been, there actually is no evidence to support a military attack on
Iraq. In what the media termed a “U-turn” in Blair’s persistent rallying
for a strike on Iraq, a six-page document prepared by Cabinet
intelligence officers was withdrawn by Downing Street shortly before its
planned release last week, precisely because it failed to show that
Saddam Hussein was a threat, or that he has any links to Al-Qaeda (two
of America’s “reasons” for attacking Iraq).
Although this has certainly caused Blair some embarrassment, it will
still not stop him from discussing the Iraq issue (and naturally the
explosive situation in the Occupied Territories) with President Bush
next week in Texas in what some papers have already called “the war
council.” In view of the official mourning period this week in Britain
due to the passing away of the Queen Mother, Blair had to obtain special
permission from Buckingham Palace (apparently given reluctantly) to go
ahead with his summit, which was deemed too important to be cancelled.
The Arab-Israeli conflict has imposed itself on the Bush-Blair agenda,
and recent events may perhaps persuade Blair to present Bush with a less
belligerent alternative to waging outright war on one Arab country as
another’s president and citizens are under siege from Israel. If he has
been listening at all in the past few weeks, Blair must surely know that
many in his party, his government, his country and his continent are
completely opposed to war, as they are opposed to his mimicking the
American president. But it will be easy to forget this pressure when he
consults with his only true ally, on his own turf, away from
anti-imperialist factions.
Rime Allaf is The Daily Star’s London correspondent
______________________________________________________________________________
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