August 2, 2001
Media Compilation # 16: Following the Nablus bombing Gush Shalom calls for international intervention + Open letter to Israel + Presidential IQ's + Anti-Bush links + U.S. 'Go-It-Alone' Decisions + Special report: George Bush's America
Dear media person
Once again the Middle East is on the brink of a wider war and once again voices are raised to prevent this from happening. You will find some of them below as well as other articles that may be of interest to you.
Best regards
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
P.S. I recommend you give a look at the archives located at the URL above for more information that may be of interested to you.
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: LESLEY WHITING <lesleywhiting@yahoo.com>
Subject: Call for International Intervention Now!
Dear Jean, I'm sending this in the hope that you will include it in your next bulletin. Thanks for keeping us well informed!
Blessings,
Lesley
---
A couple of weeks ago the news was leaked that Sharon was apparently planning a military invasion of the West Bank. He cited the next suicide bomb attack on Israel as the justification for such a scenario.
The events of the last couple of days, particularly the planting of the Jewish cornerstone on a Muslim Holy site, the storming of the mosque by the Israeli forces and the deadly helicopter attack on Nablus that killed 8 Palestinians, appear to be calculated provocation to inflame sentiments and provoke reprisals which would provide Sharon with the excuse to carry out the planned attack.
The need for International intervention is critical. Here is a call for action that others may like to follow, to raise the global voice of concern about events which could quickly spiral out of control with disastrous consequences for Palestinians, Israelis and probably many other countries who would inevitably be involved. Certain sources indicate that voices at a higher level than Sharon have decided that a religious war in the Middle East would serve their interests in maintaining the current balance of power and economic control. We need to send a powerful message to those who cold-bloodedly calculate the rise and demise of peoples, nations and civilisations, to serve their own political and economic interests. Their days are numbered, tomorrow belongs to the awakening planetary consciousness of the indivisible oneness of humanity.
Please send a short statement (summarised from the one below if you wish) to the embassies of UN Security council members in your country, deploring the attacks and demanding international intervention.
Wholeheartedly
Lesley
---
From: "Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)” <info@gush-shalom.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
Subject: Gush Shalom calls for International Intervention Now!
GUSH SHALOM - pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 - http://www.gush-shalom.org/
Press Release 31/7/2001
Following the Nablus bombing Gush Shalom calls for international intervention
Today's bombing in Nablus in which eight Palestinians were killed, two of them children, is the latest and the worst in a whole series of recent provocations by the war-minded government which holds power in our country. In the sending of attack helicopters to bomb a seven-storey building in the heart of a major Palestinian city, the killing of innocent civilians could not have come as a surprise; the civil and military leadership which knowingly ordered the attack has committed an act of state terrorism, an act of terrorism distinguished from other kinds of terrorism only by the enormous firepower at the disposal of the Israeli Air Force.
The government of Israel claims that the bombing in Nablus has prevented or deterred terrorist attacks against Israelis. In fact, the very opposite is true. The Nablus bombing already aroused furious reactions and calls for revenge on the Palestinian side, greatly increasing the danger of suicide attacks in the Israeli population centers. Those who ordered today's provocation must have known that this would be the result; this, indeed, may well have been the intention - to provoke a reaction that would drown in blood all efforts to implement the Mitchell Commission's report and revive the peace negotiations.
This afternoon Gush Shalom, the Israeli Peace Bloc, sent messages to the Tel- Aviv embassies of the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, and the European Union Delegation to Israel, calling upon them to immediately initiate the sending of an international force to the Occupied Territories. "An intensive intervention by the International Community is the only way to stop the dangerous escalation which threatens to set the whole region on fire and severely affect other parts of the world as well. We are citizens of the state of Israel, a state which prides itself of having a democratic regime - yet we are sorry to note that over the past year, the democratic processes in Israel are all but paralyzed where the cardinal issues of peace and war, life and death are concerned. The political system and mass media of Israel, which should have provided a break, are instead carried along by the demagoguery of the warmongers. We have no doubt that eventually the Israeli public will wake up from its stupor - but before that, we may witness terrible bloodshed and irreversible damage to both peoples. We find ourselves obliged to call upon the international community to intervene, before it is too late."
See also from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/international/02MIDE.html
Israel Defends Missile Attack That Killed 8
Israel firmly defended the killings of eight Palestinians and said it would carry out more such assaults if it felt that Israeli lives were at risk.
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001
From: LESLEY WHITING <lesleywhiting@yahoo.com>
Subject: Open letter to Israel
Dear Jean,
I'm forwarding this for possible inclusion in Earth Network news or whatever action you think suitable. While it appears to be a letter from concerned Jews to Israeli leaders and public about Israel, the message is a positive one of justice, compassion and co-existence and I feel it deserves all the support it can get.
Wholeheartedly
Lesley
From: "Gila Svirsky" <gsvirsky@netvision.net.il>
Subject: open letter to Israel
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001
The letter below, written and circulated by individuals, not organizations, will appear in Ha'aretz and be sent to Israeli Knesset members and others. If you want to add your signature, write to Al Sion at fasion281@home.com by Friday morning (Pacific Coast time). If there are co-signers from outside the Americas, the title will be changed. Please don't hit "reply". Write directly to Al Sion at fasion281@home.com
-------
LETTER FROM NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICANS TO ISRAEL
We are writing this letter out of deep concern for the future of Israel. Many of us have lived in Israel, some for many years. We are unalterably committed to Israel and fervently feel that Israel must remain strong and secure. Within this context, we want to share with you our serious concerns about some of Israel's policies and actions, and our feelings that the present situation in Israel is intolerable and must not continue. Much of the information that has led to these concerns has come from friends and family in Israel.
Here are some of our major concerns:
- Human rights abuses We strongly believe that Arab terrorist attacks are unconscionable, as is anti-Jewish hatred and incitement of any form. But, this does not justify Israel's human rights abuses, which have been widely documented. From the time of the Prophets on, there has been a well-established Jewish tradition that Israel is to be a light unto the nations in its pursuit of social justice. Our beloved sage, Hillel, taught us that the essence of the Torah is to love your neighbor as yourself. This is the true and only path to peace - abuse of human rights is not.
Obviously the present situation creates tremendous anxiety among Israelis, who want to protect themselves, and we well understand this. It is important, nevertheless, to mend relations with the Palestinians if we want to live as neighbors with them, as we ultimately have to, rather than demean them by taking away their dignity, their livelihood, and their means of existence.
The road to a peaceful existence for both Jews and Arabs must be based on learning to live together on the basis of mutual respect and tolerance. By destroying the Palestinians' dignity, self-respect, livelihood and homes, we blockade the path to peace, and this is clearly against Israel's best interests. History has taught us that we cannot force the Palestinians into peace by beating them militarily. Such actions only foment cycles of retaliations and counter-retaliations. Is this the life we, within and outside Israel, want for our children and grandchildren?
- Occupation Is it in Israel's best national interest to be the conqueror and occupier of the West Bank and Gaza?
We're horrified by Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks, but what else might we expect from people who are being occupied and oppressed? Didn't some of our people also resort to desperate actions when they were suffering under the British Mandate because they considered such actions necessary to rid ourselves of the oppressor? For the sake of Israel's future, it must now rid itself of the role of occupier and get out of the West Bank and Gaza.
- Settlements Can Israel continue to be held hostage against its own best interests by the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza? It is well known that the settlements in effect "cantonize" the West Bank and Gaza, inhibiting the normal life of the Palestinians. Is the future of Israel's children to be sacrificed for a settlements policy which does not even have the support of a majority of Israelis? Can we afford to continue on a road that will lead to inevitable economic disaster?
Is it the best use of Israel's resources to attempt to defend the settlements through overwhelming military means when the result is increasing violence from both the settlers and the Palestinians? We know that violence only begets more violence. Where will such policies lead us?
- Political isolation Because of its actions towards the Palestinians, and the nonviable plans (due primarily to the settlements) it has been offering the Palestinians in the "peace" negotiations, Israel is becoming increasingly isolated politically and losing international support. It also risks losing the support of many Jews around the world. Is this in Israel's best interests and is this what Israel really wants?
We are expressing these concerns now because we must never forget the terrible history of how our Jewish People suffered from cruel oppressors. We must always remember how it feels to suffer from injustice, human abuse and destruction. And we must always remember what happened when people knew about the evils being committed and yet remained silent. Should we then remain silent now? And if we do, should we not also be judged guilty?
These are our deeply felt concerns. Are these not your concerns also?"
Signed:
Alvin M.Sion, Ph.D. Frieda Sion: 11820 Stendall Pl. N., Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 362-6272: Email: fasion281@home.com
Jacob Naor, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, IDF veteran: 1948 and 1967 Wars Ellen Naor: 3403-NE 80th St., Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 523-9846 enaor@msn.com
Co-signers: From U.S.A. and BRAZIL:
CLIP - a long list of co-signers followed
From: EdElkin@aol.com
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
Subject: Presidential IQ's
Presidential IQ's
In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published it's research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.
According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155.
President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.
Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the
English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.
The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.
"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.
This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001 and released on July 9, 2001 to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community.
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001
From: CyberBrook <brook@california.com>
Subject: Anti-Bush links
Here's an impressive and comprehensive web page of over 500 (!) links and web rings opposing and/or lampooning our illegitimate Idiot in Chief...some serious, some funny...some reasoned, some vitriolic. Go forth:
http://www.pieman.org/anti-bushlinks.html
From: JGG786@aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
Subject: U.S. 'Go-It-Alone' Decisions"
My Friends,
Susan Curry is a dynamic and very bright woman working on an event in Philadelphia in September to promote the Earth Charter. Please see http://www.earthchartersummits.org for information about the Summit's initiative and http://www.earthcharter.org to review the Earth Charter.
I am sending this email to bring her work to your attention and to request that you look at the web site of the Charter. If you feel as I do that it is a valuable contribution and you would like to help, please contact Susan at suscurry@erols.com
The times are changing too quickly for the sober. Those who care must find more effective ways of working together. The AP article below expresses my deep concerns. How can we possibly expect to create a global regime to protect the environmental commons, promote basic human rights and gender equity, decrease reliance on violence while shredding the web of security related treaties upon which our planetary civilization must rely? Yes, Robin Williams would certainly make these questions easier to digest, but the reality remains the same. And, we must respond.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Granoff Pres. Global Security Institute VP Lawyers Alliance for World Security
U.S. 'Go-It-Alone' Decisions," AP Online, July 25, 2001
The United States' decision to stay out of the proposed enforcement agreement to stop germ warfare is the latest in a string of go-it-alone stances by Washington.
July 25, 2001: The United States rejects nearly seven years of negotiations on enforcement measures for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. U.S. chief negotiator Donald A. Mahley says the agreement ''would put national security and confidential business information at risk'' without preventing germ warfare.
July 21, 2001: U.S. threats to walk out result in nations giving in to Washington's demands to water down an agreement on curbing illegal trafficking in small arms. In accordance with U.S. wishes, calls to limit weapon sales and restrict civilian gun ownership are removed.
June 1, 2001: Geneva meeting to draw up an agenda for next month's racism conference in Durban, South Africa ends in deadlock over whether nations that benefited from slavery should formally apologize and pay compensation proposals the United States opposes.
May 1, 2001 President Bush announces he wants to go ''beyond the constraints'' of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty so Washington can develop a defense system against a limited missile attack by ''rogue'' states.
March 28, 2001 Bush announces the United States is abandoning the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aims to cut emissions of so-called greenhouse gases, blamed for warming Earth's atmosphere. The climate-change protocol was adopted in July without the United States.
Jan. 2, 2001 President-elect Bush's spokesman says the new administration will demand changes to the treaty creating the International Criminal Court before sending it to the U.S. Senate for ratification. The accord to create the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal is ''flawed,'' says Ari Fleischer. President Clinton signed the accord two days earlier, but recommended that Bush clear up U.S. misgivings before seeking ratification.
Oct. 13, 1999 The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate rejects the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that aims to stop all nuclear testing, even though the Clinton administration had negotiated and signed the treaty.
December 1997 The United States refuses to sign the Ottawa Treaty that aims to rid the world of anti-personnel land mines. It demands an exception to allow it to use land mines to protect its troops in South Korea. Washington still refuses to go along with the accord.
The gift of time is not eternal. This is a serious alarm to which we must soberly respond. Please do not sit back and allow childish posturing to lead us down a path of irreversible destruction and suffering. We still have the gift of time and speech. Please use these treasures well. Jonathan Granoff
Bush has been ditching treaties since he came to power. He must be stopped before it's too late
Special report: George Bush's America
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/
Rebecca Johnson Tuesday
July 17, 2001
They pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, and I did not speak out, because I thought global warming wouldn't affect me personally. Then they trashed the anti-ballistic-missile treaty, but I did not speak out, because it was an old, bilateral agreement from 30 years ago.
Then they put private, commercial interests above implementing and verifying the treaties banning chemical, biological and toxin weapons, but I did not speak out because such weapons are too complicated for media coverage. Then they threatened the nuclear test ban treaty, and I did not speak out, because the United States is a major ally that I did not want to offend. Then the international arms control and non-proliferation regimes collapsed. Americans weren't bothered at first, for hadn't the government promised a super-sophisticated force field round the whole nation that no terrorist or missile would ever penetrate? So nuclear testing resumed in Nevada for new warheads to improve the kill prospects of missile interceptors and to penetrate deep into enemies' bunkers.
India had been waiting for just such a go-ahead, and Pakistan soon followed; both raced to test warheads to fit on to missiles, upping the tension in Kashmir and along the borders with China. Free now to resume its own testing, China boosted its programme to modernise and increase the size of its small nuclear arsenal. Somewhat reluctantly, Russia followed. Moscow suspended all further reductions and cooperative security and safety programmes for its still-large nuclear arsenal and facilities.
Within a few short years, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was just another discarded agreement. Many governments with nuclear power programmes developed nuclear weapons as well, while others fitted anthrax or sarin on to weapons, just in case. Most hadn't wanted to, but fearful that their neighbours would, all felt compelled.
Regional rivalries grew quickly into major international problems. Alliances collapsed amid suspicion and recriminations. The burgeoning arms races even spread into outer space, threatening military surveillance, as well as public communication, entertainment and navigation. No one knew who had what.
Deterrence was empty, as defence analysts calculated the advantages of the pre-emptive strike. In that terrified atmosphere of insecurity and mistrust, someone launched first. And then it was too late to speak out. The Republicans hadn't yet managed to get missile defence to work. Such a doomsday scenario is not so fanciful. On July 7, the New York Times announced that President Bush wants to ditch the comprehensive test ban treaty. A week before, the administration asked nuclear laboratories to work out how quickly the US could resume testing after its nine-year moratorium. If Bush were to back out of the test ban treaty or break the moratorium on nuclear testing - undertaken with China, Russia, Britain and France - he would also explicitly breach agreements made last May, when 187 countries negotiated measures to strengthen and implement the non- proliferation treaty.
The test ban is no outdated cold war instrument, but a fundamental tool to prevent new, destabilising developments in nuclear weapons. Over several decades, from the Arctic to the Pacific, from the capitals of Europe to the deserts of Nevada, people have marched, petitioned, demonstrated and even sailed or hiked into test sites. Many have been imprisoned, and some even lost their lives trying to stop the nuclear weapons governments from polluting our oceans and earth with radioactivity from nuclear explosions, conducted for one purpose only - to make "better" nuclear bombs. It took three arduous years to complete negotiations on the comprehensive test ban treaty. It isn't perfect. No product of compromise ever is. The verification system is very thorough, but it also had to be affordable, financially and politically.
The treaty stopped short of closing and dismantling the known test sites or banning laboratory testing, which the weapon states said they needed to assure the safety and reliability of weapons in the stockpiles (pending achievement of their other treaty obligations to eliminate the nuclear arsenals com pletely). But it does ban all nuclear test explosions in all environments.
India panicked, because the treaty would close off its nuclear options. It refused to sign, and then let off a string of nuclear explosions in May 1998. Pakistan followed, to prove it could. Even so, the treaty held. Neither government has felt able to keep testing, which means their options for further developments were curbed.
Bush has embarked on a very slippery slope that could potentially put at risk the future of the citizens of even the most advanced military nation. Mumbling and grumbling won't keep us safe. It is time to speak out.
Rebecca Johnson is executive director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
