History Lessons

The Conception of the Doctrine of War on Terror

link

Although the doctrine of War on Terror was announced by G.W. Bush following the events of 9/11, the real architect of that doctrine is Benjamin Netanyahu. While most people think that Netanyahu is an Israeli politician, he is also an author of a few books on terrorism and is the real father of the War on Terror doctrine. One of his early works on terrorism "International Terrorism: Challenge and Response" dates back to 1979. His major definitive work "Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism" was published in 1995. He has also been promoting his War on Terror doctrine in his speeches. One such speech was delivered at the Jewish Agency Assembly Plenary meetings held in Israel on 24th June 2001. The main points of that speech are:

1. The Palestinians are to blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and specifically Yasser Arafat.
2. It is legitimate for established states to engage in wars, because the societies are imperfect.
3. Palestinians are not waging a legitimate war (like established states using regular armies) and are terrorists.
4. The Palestinian terrorists deliberately attack civilians.
5. The Israelis are responding in self-defense.
6. When the Israelis respond, they respond against combatants.
7. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel.
8. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are using the illegitimate and criminal means of terrorism.
9. The Palestinian are wrong and the Israelis are right.
10. Terrorism invariably comes from terrorist regimes.
11. Terror is useful, only if the cost of waging terrorism, the cost of that regime is lower than the benefits of waging terrorism.
12. To stop terrorism, one must make the terrorist regime pay very very heavily.
13. The root core of the Middle East conflict is the existential opposition by a great many in the Arab world still, and certainly by the Palestinian leadership to Israel's very existence.
14. The first way of ensuring Israel's existence is that the Arabs simply understand that Israel is so powerful, so permanent, so unconquerable in every way that they will simply abandon by the force of the inertia of Israel's permanence all opposition to Israel.
15. The second way [of ensuring Israel's existence] is for the forces of democratization get to the Arab regimes.
16. Using propaganda techniques, like broadcasting American television serials (which Netanyahu sees as subversive material) will ultimately bring down regimes like the Ayatola regime and the Khoumeni regime in Iran.
17. In the 21st century, you cannot achieve a military victory unless you achieve a political victory to accompany it; and you cannot achieve a political victory unless you achieve a victory in public opinion; and you cannot achieve a victory in public opinion unless you persuade that public that your cause is just.
18. It doesn't make any difference if you are on the side of the angels or on the side of the devil. Anyone fighting in the international arena for public opinion must argue the justice of his cause. Hitler argued for the justice of his cause and Stalin argued for the justice of his cause. They all had propaganda machines. Whether you are right or you are wrong you must argue the justice of your cause.

Although this speech was delivered some two months before the events of 9/11, one can see in it all the main points advanced by G.W. Bush in his speeches on War on Terror, which followed the 9/11. But at the time of the delivery of the Netanyahu speech, the interest in the Netanyahu "War on Terror" doctrine was limited to a narrow circle of professional Greater Israel Zionists and Middle East experts. It was also obvious that the Netanyahu doctrine could not be implemented by Israel alone without involving into it the full military and financial might of the USA. At the time such involvement seemed an unlikely prospect which could only be achieved through some kind of miracle.

But this "miracle" did not take long to happen.{more at WTC Demolition}

George Bush Sr, JFK and the Men Who Stole America

Anyone lying about the JFK assassination is, as far as I am concerned, suspected of covering up the crimes of murder and high treason that were committed on November 22, 1963. Who lies about a crime but those who are guilty or profiting, in any way, from the cover up? Lying about and covering up a crime is probable cause to suspect the liar of having participated in whatever crime is lied about. Guilt is the most powerful motive to lie about a crime. Conversely, innocent people are powerfully motivated to tell and/or get at the truth.

Like 911, we were and remain targeted to receive a fusillade of lies, the purposes of which are to distract and confuse. Those guilty of the crime are always those who benefit from the lies. Similarly, those who lie about the crime are almost always guilty of it.

Nothing silences a potential witness more effectively than death. The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by known mobster Jack Ruby was entirely too timely, too convenient. It effectively shut Oswald up. Accused of murdering JFK, Oswald protested that he had been set up, that he had been 'a patsy'. Indeed, Oswald had to die. {more - Len Hart}

Halsell: What Christians don't know about Israel

by Grace Halsell 

pictured with Lyndon Johnson

-  If Americans Knew (originally written for Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May/June 1998)

American Jews sympathetic to Israel dominate key positions in all areas of our government where decisions are made regarding the Middle East. This being the case, is there any hope of ever changing U.S. policy? American Presidents as well as most members of Congress support Israel — and they know why. U.S. Jews sympathetic to Israel donate lavishly to their campaign coffers.

The answer to achieving an even-handed Middle East policy might lie elsewhere — among those who support Israel but don’t really know why. This group is the vast majority of Americans. They are well-meaning, fair-minded Christians who feel bonded to Israel — and Zionism — often from atavistic feelings, in some cases dating from childhood.

In the late 1970s, when I first went to Jerusalem, I was unaware that editors could and would classify “news” depending on who was doing what to whom. On my initial visit to Israel-Palestine, I had interviewed dozens of young Palestinian men. About one in four related stories of torture.

Speaking of these injustices, I invariably heard the same question, “How come I didn’t know this?” Or someone might ask, “But I haven’t read about that in my newspaper.” To these church audiences, I related my own learning experience, that of seeing hordes of U.S. correspondents covering a relatively tiny state. I pointed out that I had not seen so many reporters in world capitals such as Beijing, Moscow, London, Tokyo, Paris. Why, I asked, did a small state with a 1980 population of only four million warrant more reporters than China, with a billion people?

I also linked this query with my findings that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post — and most of our nation’s print media – are owned and/or controlled by Jews supportive of Israel. It was for this reason, I deduced, that they sent so many reporters to cover Israel — and to do so largely from the Israeli point of view.

Yet, increasingly, American Jews have fallen victim to Zionism, a nationalistic movement that passes for many as a religion. While the ethical instructions of all great religions — including the teachings of Moses, Muhammad and Christ — stress that all human beings are equal, militant Zionists take the position that the killing of a non-Jew does not count.
In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden.

The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does — even wanton murder — as orchestrated by God.
{more at Uprooted Palestinians}