> The Writing On The Wall Series #17: Ominous Warning of Impending Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine - and More!


March 13, 2003

The Writing On The Wall Series #17: Ominous Warning of Impending Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine - and More!

Hello everyone

So much to read and care for and act upon! But so little time to do it all!

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

This compilation is archived at http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/Archives2003/WritingWall17.htm">

SYMBOLIC ACTION TO TAKE: Visit http://www.globalvigil.org and plan a candlelight vigil for peace in your area on Sunday, March 16 at 7 pm. This initiative is widely supported!


1. WE The Israelis Must Stop Sharon
3. Linksletter #3

See also:

West's failure to donate humanitarian aid threatens catastrophe for millions (March 10)
UN given only quarter of requested funds as plans fall behind.

(...) In the end we are going to be talking in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars. If we are lucky, it might peak out at a half trillion.

Another U.S. Diplomat Quits Over Iraq Policy (March 11) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8089-2003Mar10?language=printer
A U.S. diplomat resigned yesterday in protest against President Bush's preparations to attack Iraq, the second to do so in less than a month.(...) "I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq. Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century."

Resignation of an Australian Government intelligence analyst (March 12)
(...) Andrew Wilkie quit his job yesterday, saying the Federal Government's policy on Iraq is wrong. Mr Wilkie thinks Iraq's military is weak, it does not pose a serious threat to Australia, and a war with Iraq could result in a humanitarian disaster.

Industrial-scale mortuaries being sought for mass terror fatalities
Ministers are secretly scouring the country for mortuaries to take thousands of civilian bodies from a terrorist attack after war breaks out with Iraq.

Iraq Will Not Use Foreigners as Human Shield


30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.
List of Resolutions Vetoed by the USA by years

Full Metal Bonnet (March 4)
While Pentagon war planners may be gunning for an attack on Iraq by mid March, heavily armed soldiers have already quietly seized a strategic position: your Easter basket. National retailers like Kmart and Walgreens have stocked their shelves with baskets in which the traditional chocolate rabbit centerpiece has been displaced by plastic military action figures and their make-believe lethal paraphernalia. Tri-state Rite Aid, Genovese, and Wal-Mart stores promise their martial Easter baskets will arrive soon. At the Astor Place Kmart, the encampment is on display just inside
the main entrance. A camouflaged sandy-haired soldier with an American-flag arm patch stands alert in a teal, pink, and yellow basket beneath a pretty green-and-purple bow. Within a doll-arm's
reach are a machine gun, rifle, hand grenade, large knife, pistol, and round of ammunition. In the next basket a buzz-cut blond with a snazzy dress uniform hawks over homeland security, an American eagle shield on his arm, and a machine gun, pistol, Bowie knife, two grenades, truncheon, and handcuffs at the ready.

Bill Moyers Talks with Chris Hedges (Must Read!) http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript_hedges_print.html

Military Seeks Exemptions on Harming Environment (THIS MUST NOT COME TO PASS!) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/politics/06ENVI.html
The proposed legislation, introduced today by the White House, would give the military more discretion in activities that affect marine mammals and endangered species. In particular, the military is asking for exemptions from sections from the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which officials said would give needed flexibility to sonar and underwater bombing exercises.


The Global Index
Mapping the issues on the Internet -- bridging the information divide. SUBSCRIBE to FREE Global NetNews at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/globalnetnews-summary OR send blank email to globalnetnews-summary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - It's a daily wrapup of thumbnail intros to articles with links to sources where you may read entire articles. - Global NetNews selects from a wide range of underreported news, analysis, and opinion from many sources on the worldwide Internet.

PAINFUL QUESTIONS, An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (154 page book)
Strongly recommended by "Frederick M. Fox" <telarion@earthlink.net> who wrote: "What is presented in this compilation will no doubt change your minds as to what actually happened on 9/11. The pictures and drawings bespeak many truths not presented to the public. For all those who really wish to know the truth, this book is a must."



From: "Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)" <info@gush-shalom.org>
Date: 8 Mar 2003
Subject: WE The Israelis Must Stop Sharon - Avnery on Emergency Situation

Uri Avnery


Black Flags

When I visited Ramallah last, it wore a shining white frock. Even after days of sunshine, many areas where still covered with snow that hid the ravages of the occupation, destruction and neglect.

I was driving slowly and enjoying the landscape, when I tensed instinctively. Through the corner of my eye I saw a group of children. Something was hurled forcefully against my windshield and landed with a bang. In the split of a second I relaxed: it wasn't a rock but a snowball. I waved and they waved cheerfully back, in spite of my yellow Israeli license plates.

But that was the only light moment during this visit. I had come to ask Palestinian civic leaders about the dangers threatening the Palestinian population in case of an American attack on Iraq.

They had no illusions. The present Israeli political-military leadership includes groups that have been planning for a long time to exploit a war situation in order to do things which cannot be done in ordinary times. The moral brakes that still exist in parts of the Israeli public, as well as the expected international reaction, prevent the implementation of these plans for the time being.

All this can change in a war situation. The attention of the world will be riveted to the battle in Iraq. In the Arab countries, chaos may prevail, diverting attention from the Palestinian territories. The Israeli public, fearful of Saddam's capabilities, will be (even) less sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians.

What can happen?

The list is long, and every item is worse than the preceding one.

The first - and almost certain - act will be a prolonged closure and curfew in all the occupied territories. The Palestinians have a long and painful experience with these. It means that for days and weeks on end it will be impossible to get food and medicines into towns and villages, especially to remote and isolated ones. This time, electricity may be completely cut off, cutting all connections with the outside world. Patients will not reach hospitals for ordinary treatment (dialysis and chemotherapy, for example) or emergency procedures (wounds, operations, births etc.). In many cases, this can literally be a matter of life and death.

Only some of these eventualities can be forestalled. For example, Villages can be helped to stock essential supplies in advance.

It is clear to the Palestinians that the war will give the occupation forces the opportunity to intensify even more the things which happen now every day: the execution of militants and others, wholesale demolition of homes, uprooting of plantations. It is difficult to know what new dimensions these can attain.

But there is one word that hovers over all the discussions: "transfer".

In simple terms, "transfer" means the mass expulsion of the Palestinian people from Palestine, as happened in 1948 and 1967. In the situation of 2003, that will be difficult. The question will be: where to? Jordan will close its border and the mass expulsion of Palestinians there would constitute an act of war against the Hashemite kingdom. It is hard to imagine the Americans allowing Sharon to do this while Jordan is serving as one of their bases in the war against neighboring Iraq. Expulsion to Lebanon is almost impossible without creating a war-like situation on the northern border.

But there is another form of transfer: deportation from one part of the occupied territories to another. For example: deportation of the population from towns and villages adjacent to the planned "separation wall" (Kalkilya, Tulkarm) to the central areas (Nablus).

That has already happened before. During the June 1967 war, Moshe Dayan emptied whole neighborhoods of Kalkilya and drove their inhabitants on foot to Nablus. The demolition of the neighborhoods had already begun, when we succeeded in stopping it. (I exploited the fact that I was a member of the Knesset at the time and alerted several senior personalities.) The refugees were allowed back and the neighborhoods rebuilt. (At the same time, many inhabitants of Tulkarm were put on buses and brought to the Jordan bridges.)

Another example: many settlements on the West Bank are planning to grab adjacent areas. If the armed settlers' militias will terrorize near-by villages under the cover of the closure, they may cause a Deir Yassin-style mass flight.

It is common knowledge that many people in the military leadership are waiting impatiently for the opportunity to remove Yasser Arafar. Removing means killing, as nobody believes that Arafat will surrender without resistance. If the Americans want "regime change" in Iraq and are not hiding their intention of killing Saddam, why should Sharon be prevented from doing the same?

The question is: will the Americans allow Sharon and his accomplices to do all this, or part of it?

There can be no clear answer to that. Logic says no. The Americans will not want Israel to disturb their war. Even after the war, Washington will not want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to flare up. The American military occupation of Iraq might last for many years, and any inflammation of the Arab world will be detrimental.

But America and logic are two different things. The group that is now in control in Washington - a mixed bag of Evangelical fundamentalists and Jews connected with the extreme right in Israel - has a logic of its own. They may direct and even push Sharon to extremes.

It is, of course, clear that all the acts mentioned constitute war crimes under the Geneva Convention and other international laws. Some of them are crimes under Israeli law, too, being "manifestly illegal orders, over which a black flag is waving", to quote an Israeli legal precedent. Participants in such actions may find themselves, some day in the future, before an international or national court. There is no statute of limitations.

But that is not the only reason for sounding a warning. Every one of these actions will be a disaster for Israel. If one believes that the long-term security and well-being of Israel depend on Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation between the two peoples of this country, one has to do everything to prevent acts that will deepen the abyss of hatred between us. Things may happen that will destroy for generations any possibility of building a bridge over the abyss, and turn the whole Arab and Muslim worlds against us forever.

Therefore, we should not rely on the Americans to stop Sharon. We, the Israelis, must do everything - but everything! - to prevent such acts from taking place. I believe that this is a patriotic duty of the highest order.

Sign the biggest petition against Iraq War at http://www.moveon.org/emergency/

...as to make it big enough


Our site:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html (English)

NOTE FROM JEAN: Please see also:

Annan deeply deplores 'disproportionate and excessive' Israeli force in Gaza (March 7)
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday deeply deplored the use of "disproportionate and excessive force" by the Israeli military in a Gaza refugee camp, which reportedly led to the killing of 11 Palestinians and the injuring of more than 140. "Such military actions in densely populated areas, as well as the demolition of Palestinian homes, cannot be accepted as a legitimate means of self-defence and violate international humanitarian law," spokesman Fred Eckhard said in a statement on Israel's military action in the Jabalya refugee camp earlier today.

Mother of 10 children killed by Israel; 14 Palestinian dead (March 7)
Some 11 Palestinians were killed and other 140 wounded including 40 in critical conditions, including 25 children and 4 journalists working for Reuters. Those Palestinians were victims of a new Israeli attack committed by the Israeli forces which broke yesterday, using 20 tanks and 4 bulldozers, escorted by military helicopters into Jabalia camp in Gaza and fired its shells and missiles randomly, leaving behind this large number of victims. These Israeli forces also totally demolished four Palestinian homes and damaged more than an additional 20 homes and destroyed electricity towers, telephone line, water networks and drainage systems.


From: http://www.stratiawire.com/article.asp?id=970

March 7, 2003


Here is the interview that never happened. These are NOT the questions Dan Rather wanted to ask but didn't. These are the questions he would NEVER ask Saddam, unless he wanted CBS to erase the tape, unless he wanted his plane back to the US to crash in the ocean. Actually, Dan would never imagine asking questions like this, regardless of the consequences. That's what makes him such a great newsman.

But would the American people---to say nothing of the world---want to hear the following interview? I believe so. I believe it would function like a massive shot of adrenaline.

Q: Mr. President, do you think the US and England are dissatisfied with the results of the weapons inspections because they know you have other weapons, the ones they supplied you with?

A: I'm glad you brought that up, Dan. Are you perhaps referring to the chlorine plant we bought from England, which could be used to make mustard gas?

Q: Yes. That and other WMDs. All those biological agents America supplied, from the American Type Culture Collection.

A: I think they sold us about 800 biowar agents. By the way, does that company still exist?

Q: Yes it does.

A: Of course, the US Department of Commerce okayed that sale.

Q: And this was because we were on your side when you fought against Iran.

A: Correct, but when you stop and think about it, why did you sell us NBCs?

Q: NBCs?

A: I'm not talking about your rival network, Dan. This stands for nuclear, biological, and chemical technology. From the US, France, England, and Germany, we came into possession of technology which you call WMD. I mean, why didn't you just sell us conventional bombs and planes and tanks?

Q: I hadn't considered that question.

A: But you should. I mean, we both know that I'm a brutal person. The record is pretty clear on that. I've always wondered why you sold us such devastating weapons. It's curious.

Q: What are you getting at?

A: I'm sure you'll think this is delusional, but for the moment let's assume that on some drawing board way back in the 1980s, there was a plan---say, at the Pentagon---to attack Iraq. I don't believe that's too far-fetched. And every war needs a reason that plays well with the people, your people. Would it be sufficient for your president to say, „Saddam has tanks and guns and conventional bombs.‰ I don't think so. I think you needed a better reason than that. You needed to point to something much more sinister---the NBC technology. And of course, where did we get that?

Q: Are you saying that these Western nations---

A: First and foremost the US---

Q: Supplied you with NBC tech so that later on, much later, they could convince everyone that you were not only brutal but truly dangerous?

A: Bingo, Dan.

Q: Let me make a note of that.

A: Please do.

Q: Let's go back to the first Gulf War. Just before you invaded Kuwait, you had a meeting with April Glaspie, who represented the US State Department.

A: That's right.

Q: What exactly did she tell you?

A: That the US government would not be concerned if we went into Kuwait. That this was our business.

Q: Of course, things didn't turn out that way once you went into Kuwait.

A: No. You see, this is what I mean by finding a reason to go to war against us. Once we invaded Kuwait, President Bush suddenly appeared shocked. The whole mood changed.

Q: But didn't you think that April Glaspie was setting you up?

A: It had crossed my mind.

Q: Come on, Saddam.

A: You have to understand that I had a very good relationship with the US government. And the CIA. In a sense, I was a surrogate drafted to destroy Iran, which was your number one enemy at the time. So I really didn't believe that Ms. Glaspie was being less than honest. We had just sacrificed many lives to defeat Iran. By the way, it took me awhile to figure out why the US got rid of the Shah in Iran.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Well, he was your man there.

Q: He was a brutal dictator.

A: (laughs) Please.

Q: The US got rid of the Shah?

A: Yes, and brought in the Ayatollah. You see, the Ayatollah had his own connections to the CIA while he was in exile. In Paris, I believe. Well, it was obvious to everyone that the Shah, with his secret police and his army, could never have been overthrown by a bunch of rag-tag students---unless his army got an order to stand down. And that order came from the US.

Q: Why in the world---

A: Because the US wanted the Shah to go. Because he was becoming a threat.

Q: In what sense?

A: Didn't you know? He was about to build the biggest plastics factory in the world. He had the oil, which was the basic component. The Shah wanted to turn Iran into a fully industrialized nation. He wanted to become a major trading partner with Europe. And that plastics factory was a major step in the right direction.

Q: I did hear something about that.

A: Well, think about it. There were very powerful interests who didn't want such industrialization to happen. Iran had been designated as an oil colony, a supplier of fuel and nothing else.

Q: So, in a sense, the Shah had overstepped his mandate.

A: Correct. His ambition brought him down.

Q: But those interests you speak of, who didn't want Iran to become fully industrialized---they wouldn't have just been the US.

A: Those interests are international in scope.

Q: Which would mean---

A: These nations we are speaking of, ALL of them--are pieces on the chessboard. Of course, they pursue their own self-interest, but in a larger sense they function as part of a bigger plan.

Q: And the Ayatollah?

A: He was charged with the mission of taking Iran back to the Stone Age. He did his job well. He made sure that the industrialization was derailed. That was his job. He did it under the cover of radical Islam.

Q: And how would you know such things?

A: My own country, under my guidance, has had a similar objective. Modernization. Of course, I kill my opponents eagerly. I'm not a nice man. But I have felt the pressure of many bombs to keep that modernization from happening--because Iraq, also, has been charged with a role. To provide oil while remaining an essentially backward country. A colony.

Q: Iran seems to be on the road, once again, toward modernization.

A: I think it would be wise to anticipate another strike launched against it.

Q: By that logic, terrorism could be seen as a tool to bring blame and war and fire down on the heads of these nations that are attempting to exceed their mandate, as you call it. A credible REASON to destroy their infrastructure.

A: The map must not be disturbed.

Q: What map?

A: Why, the map of nations. It spells out what functions each country will play in the globalization of the 21st century.

Q: I think we're about out of time.

A: (laughs) No, you will get on a plane and fly home. I'M out of time. Although if I were you, I'd make sure your plane is equipped with cruise missiles and a very good gunner.

Q: What will you do now, Mr. President?

A: Not much, it seems. Not much.



From: "Wade Frazier" <res0y6cg@verizon.net>
Subject: Linksletter #3
Date: 10 Mar 2003

These Linksletters are being archived at Suzanne Taylor' site:


Is there an 11th hour deal in the works to avoid war?


Even Bush the First is warning his son over "going it alone" regarding Iraq:


In 1996, George Bush the First said that invading Iraq would turn the Arab world against the U.S., and Rumsfeld said that invading Iraq and fighting in Baghdad would create hundreds of thousands of casualties.


The New York Times weighs in against invading Iraq. This is extraordinary for the NYT, showing how out-of-control the establishment thinks Bush and friends are:

?ex=1048189356&ei=1&en= 3141f0126c57bf94">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09SUN1.html">?ex=1048189356&ei=1&en= 3141f0126c57bf94


This is the more typical stance of the major media, with war cheerleading by the Washington Post:


The media is again dodging the latest embarrassing revelation of the U.S.' dirty methods:


Jimmy Carter is against invading Iraq:


Even if the U.S. invades Iraq by itself, there are still remedies that can be pursued to stop it:


Here is an excellent refutation of the many myths being promoted about Iraq and why the U.S. needs to invade it.


A Robert Fisk masterfully demonstrates, the West has been "liberating" the Middle East for a very long time:


Here is a good Mother Jones article about the importance of Middle East for the American Empire. What we see playing out with Bush's charades is a strategy that Henry Kissinger proposed back in 1975.


On the evolution of today's U.S. stance on foreign policy and global hegemony. It is no conspiracy theory:


ABC News on the coalition of the bribed. It is good to see the mainstream begin admitting it:


Here is an open letter by some heavy hitting leftists to the media, regarding Iraq coverage:


Here is an example of the "principled" negotiations taking place at the U.N. regarding Iraq:


More of Tony Blair's fake evidence against Iraq:



Why does anybody believe anything Blair says anymore?

Blair's moral case for war on Iraq looks a little strange when compared to his earlier stance (or lack of stance) on the issue:


Blair has serious political problems to deal with because of his Iraq crusade:


Britain's leading lawyers do not support a war against Iraq. A pre-emptive invasion of Iraq violate all precedents in international law, and was what Hitler's boys were specifically prosecuted for at Nuremberg:


The issue of forged evidence should not be swept under the carpet, as the establishment will undoubtedly try to do, as usual:


The forged evidence issue leads to the suspicion that if the U.S. invades Iraq, evidence of WMD will quickly be produced:


There is ample precedent for the U.S. retroactively fabricating evidence it needs to vilify its victims. When the U.S. overthrew the Chilean and Panama governments, the "desk" of the deposed head of state was quickly presented, which had drugs, Hitlerian texts and other paraphernalia that suggested the former head of state's depravity. One man I saw interviewed witnessed both desks, which were produced nearly a generation apart, and the desks were nearly identical, which strongly suggests that both were CIA fabrications, which the CIA is well known to do. Ralph McGehee


never once saw the CIA tell the truth to Congress.

Earlier revelations of the lack of Iraqi WMD are also being swept under the carpet:


Bush's lies are also wearing very thin these days..

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14586&CFID=5579111&CFTOKE N=88791974

At the very least, Bush's White House press conference last week was scripted:




and Bush may be more of a ventriloquist's dummy than the most cynical of us realize:


On Bush being warned to back off forcing another Iraq resolution through the U.N., but he appears to be holding the course.


The U.S. and Britain are preparing their final ultimatum to Iraq:


The invasion of Iraq may not go as smoothly as advertised:


As Bush heroically leads the world into war, here are some timely revelations about his military record. They do not call them chickenhawks for nothing:


It is the hawks who may derail Bush's war plans, not the doves:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14588&CFID=5579111&CFTOKE N=88791974+

America politicians and others are making some headway in trying to block Bush's war plans in court:


The American government openly admits that invading Iraq will greatly increase terrorist incidents against Americans.


Britain is preparing for massive "terrorist" retaliation for invading Iraq:


The state of "democracy" in Australia regarding the Iraq invasion:


Uncle Noam on upcoming events in Iraq and elsewhere:


Historian John Dower on comparing the American occupation of Japan after World War II to an American occupation of Iraq after invading it.:


On firebombing Tokyo:


On the hatred of Hussein in Iraq, and the powder keg that is there:


Here is an Iraq quiz:


The U.S. is already at shooting war with Iraq, and escalating it:


A good article on the disaster that awaits Iraqi children - again - if the U.S. invades.


The U.S. war plans for Iraq are grim:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030305/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us _iraq_military

And the aftermath will probably not be much better:


William Blum on the American Empire.


His work was important in mine:


Although several years old, this is a good overview of how today's international order has developed, and the global "Dark Ages" that we may be on the brink of:


A sophisticated and sober look at the larger framework of the impending invasion of Iraq and the world order:


And a spirited response to it:


Broad overviews of the current situation are subject to many vagaries, the bias of the writer being critical, but I will say that Linda Heard's broad analysis is probably close to the truth of the situation:


The U.S. war planners are trying to come up with a catchy name for the Iraq invasion:

http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=A17AD514- 9E62-432F-92B2-08B559DF28FB

About 300,000 demonstrate for peace in Indonesia:


Fidel Castro weighs in. If only George Bush could speak so intelligently:


The American police state is fast becoming reality...


Big brother is here:


On the very suspicious breakthrough on the "War on Terror."


How Europeans view the U.S. these days:


The Islamic people are divided:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030305/wl_nm/iraq_muslim _summit_dc

These are days of rich irony. In New York, wearing a peace slogan by John Lennon, where he was killed and where the "War on Terror" began, becomes a crime. Orwell could not have written the script any better. Maybe that is what it takes to get people waking up. Fortunately, the public outcry was enough to have the charges dismissed against the T-shirt wearer.

ttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=8&u=/ap/2003 0305/ap_on_re_us/mall_activists_5

The results of the U.S. "liberating" Afghanistan:


The U.S. keeps killing women and children in Afghanistan, as it has destroyed the region even more:


The U.S. treatment of the Afghanistan POWs is leading to suicide attempts.


Those POWs were arguably the lucky ones...


And some are being beaten to death:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030306/ts_nm/afghan_usa_ investigation_dc_1

Remember come election time that Hillary Clinton fully supports Bush's Iraq policy:


Bush's war policy is collapsing:


How this North Korea situation developed:


Is China involved with the nuclear saber rattling with North Korea?


Even with all the saber rattling over North Korea, the U.S. is still giving it nuclear information

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/066/nation/US_lets_N_Korea_get_nuclear_dat a+.shtml

Avery sobering assessment of Israel's potential role in the Iraq invasion: