Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: April 2007

Roadblocks to Peace

The Three Nos of Jerusalem

By HENRY SIEGMAN

The Arab League meeting in Cairo yesterday was unprecedented in its overture to Israel, offering to meet Israeli representatives to clarify the peace initiative that the League re-endorsed at its meeting in Riyadh on March 28. The two events underscore the complete reversal of the paradigm that for so long has defined the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the effort by armies of several Arab countries to abort its birth, until well past the war of 1967 which left Israel in control of all of Palestine, Israel was seen by much of the world as both victim and peace- seeker. Arab countries were seen as warmongers and rejectionists. The paradigm was reinforced by the âoThree Nos of Khartoumâo when, in 1967, Arab countries pledged there would be no peace, no negotiations and no recog-nition of the Jewish state.

This image of the Arab worldâos total rejection of Israel persisted into the 1980s, even after it became clear that the prime minister, Golda Meir, had ignored peace initiatives by the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, for which Israel paid dearly in the October war of 1973. Nor did a change in Arab attitudes to the Jewish state implicit in the Saudi Fahd plan, adopted by the Arab League in 1981, prompt any rethinking of that image in Israel or in the west.

Since then âo” particularly in the aftermath of the Oslo accords in 1993 and the MENA Economic Summits hosted by various Arab countries âo” Arab rejection of Israelâos legitimacy has largely dissipated. Well before the Saudi initiative of 2002 senior Arab officials sought to persuade Yasser Arafat, former Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, to accept peace terms offered by Ehud Barak, Israelâos former prime minister, at Camp David in 2000.

Then came the Saudi initiative, in which the most conservative of Arab countries and the most conservative of Saudi princes, Crown Prince Abdullah, declared that Saudi Arabia would fully normalise its relations with Israel and welcome its embassy and flag in its capital as soon as Israel ended its conflict with the Palestinians, an offer endorsed by every Arab country.

The Israeli response to this tectonic change in Arab psychology and politics was worse than rejection: it was complete indifference, as if this 180-degree turnround in Arab thinking had no meaning for Israel and its future in the region.

Ehud Olmert, prime minister, and his government have reflexively rejected every Arab peace offer, whether from Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Arab League or Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. Ariel Sharonâos and Mr Olmertâos policies these past seven years have shaped a new paradigm in which Israel is the rejectionist party. The Three Nos of Khartoum have been replaced by the Three Nos of Jerusalem: no negotiations with Syria, no acceptance of the Arab initiative and, above all, no peace talks with the Palestinians.

Mr Olmert and his associates devote their diplomatic skills to finding ever more tortured pretexts for blocking every opportunity for peacemaking, while posturing as peace-lovers in search of âoreasonableâo Arabs who qualify as partners for peace. Their goal remains to prevent a peace process that would require them to halt Israelâos expansion of its settlements and its effort to cut off East Jerusalem from its Palestinian hinterland.

This deception worked well for a while and perhaps still convinces president George W. Bush and those he relies on to understand the Middle East âo” the folks who gave us the Iraq war âo” but has worn thin with much of the rest of the world, including many Americans. Several US columnists who bought into the old paradigm, or avoided the subject for fear of be-ing labelled anti-Israel, now reject it.

Israel has lost the high moral ground. It will not regain it until its citizens elect a government that understands that the price of peace âo” whose outline was agreed to by both sides in the Taba talks after the failed Camp David negotiations âo” is far less than the cost of its current rejectionism.

To be sure, the moral high ground does not necessarily provide security. But for a western country âo” located in the heart of the Arab and Islamic world âo” that has been the beneficiary of vastly disproportionate US and western support because it has been seen as a moral avatar, the loss of that high ground could not be more devastating to its long-term security.

Henry Siegman is director of the US/Middle East Project and research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Source: CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.com/siegman04262007.html

Turks wave a giant flags during a pro-democracy rally in Istanbul
©AFP – Hocine Zaourar

ISTANBUL (AFP) – More than one million people took part in a mass rally here Sunday in support of secularism and democracy amid a tense stand-off between the Islamist-rooted government and the army over presidential elections.

The crowd, carrying red-and-white Turkish flags and portraits of founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, filled Istanbul’s sprawling Caglayan square in a demonstration organized by some 600 non-governmental organizations.

“Turkey is secular and will remain secular,” “Neither Sharia, nor coup d’etat, democratic Turkey,” they chanted.

Police at the scene told AFP that the number of demonstrators was well over one million. Organizers said the rally drew people from all over Turkey and abroad.

The Istanbul demonstration followed a similar one in Ankara on April 14 that attracted up to 1.5 million people, according to some estimates.

Tensions rose after Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, a former Islamist from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), narrowly missed becoming the country’s next president in a first round of voting in parliament on Friday.

A young Turkish girl holds a portrait of the country’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
©AFP – Hocine Zaourar

The AKP dominates the 550-seat parliament, but does not have the required two-thirds majority to get Gul elected in the first two rounds of voting.

The opposition boycotted the vote because of Gul’s Islamist past and because they were not consulted on his candiacy for the non-partisan post.

The army, which has carried out three coups in the past, issued a statement saying it was determined to protect Turkey’s secular system and was ready to take action if the need arose, making it clear, according to many analysts, that Gul’s candidacy was not welcome.

The government responded by calling the army to order and Gul on Sunday ruled out withdrawing his presidential bid.

“It is out of the question for me to withdraw my candidacy in any way,” he told reporters in Ankara.

The prospect of Gul becoming head of state has alarmed secularists who fear the strict separation of state and religion will be eroded and Islam will creep into all fields of life if he is elected.

The main opposition Republican People’s Party has asked the Constitutional Court to cancel Friday’s presidential vote in parliament, arguing that the assembly did not have the necessary quorum to open the voting session.

Turks hold a pro-democracy rally in Istanbul
©AFP – Hocine Zaourar

If the court annuls the vote, general elections set for November 4 could be brought forward.

If does not, Gul could be elected president in a third round of voting on May 9, when an absolute majority of 276 votes would suffice, compared to the two-thirds majority of 367 required for the first two rounds.

“We all need to await the decision of the Constitutional Court,” Gul said. “The court will undoubtedly make the best evaluation and reach the right decision.”

Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan served in now-defunct Islamist parties before setting up the AKP in 2001.

They say they have disawoved their Islamist roots and are now committed to secular principles.

But secularists suspect the AKP of harbouring a secret Islamic agenda, citing its unsuccessful attempts to criminalise adultery, restrict alcohol sales and lift a ban on Islamic headscarves in government offices.

They fear the government will have a free hand to implement Islamist policies if the party controls the presidency.

Turks wave flags during a rally in Istanbul
©AFP – Hocine Zaourar

The Turkish press on Sunday was unanimous in calling on the government and the army to resolve their differences democratically and said early elections were the only way to prevent the country from plunging into chaos.

“Turkey either giving up on secularism or suspending democracy are two doomsday scenarios impossible to choose between,” the popular daily Vatan said.

The liberal daily Milliyet said the army’s warning had “cast a shadow on the credibility and respectability of civilian institutions.”

“The latest developments show that the current term of parliament has reached the end of its natural life. Elections should be held at once,” it added.

Source: Agence France-Presse (AFP)
http://www.afp.fr/english/news/stories/070429134050.kd2e8gv7.html

The Fear-Monger

Giuliani Plays the Islamic Terror Card

By FRANKLIN LAMB

Beirut.

Maybe Rudy Giuliani could be forgiven for trying out various stump speeches on his Republican audiences now that his campaign for President is up and running. But the message he is delivering as he tours New Hampshire needs to be rejected, indeed repudiated, because as Barak Obama noted Giuliani’s stump speech reached a new low in American political discourse. Reports just in from New Hampshire (4.24.07) suggest that Giuliani thinks the issue he has been pushing may be pure electoral gold: the fear which he believes American voters have of Islamic Terrorism.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, told his audience at the annual Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner in Manchester last night that America will be subject to a new 9/11 attack if the Democrats take over the White House. Rudy added that if a Republican is elected, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“They (Democrats) will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense rather than offense” he asserted with a straight face. Having got the attention of his audience with that raw meat, Rudy went to work carefully honing and testing his crisp new sure fire stump speech.

Giuliani attacked Arabs and Muslims in a manner that might even have given Alan Dershowitz pause. As we watch Rudy run, and if the Manchester speech is a harbinger, we will likely observe Giuliani exploit this tactic all the way to the Republican nomination, and if his advisors are correct, to the White House.

Nervous about losing Israel lobby cash, given his inclination to take the Bush administration assault on civil liberties even further than attorney generals Ashcroft and Gonzales have done, Giuliani is touring the Granite State vilifying Hezbollah, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and Islam itself.

Claiming that “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”, Rudy told his two audiences (the one in front of him, and much more importantly, the one at the AIPAC HQ in Washington, the latter supplying Rudy and virtually all the Presidential candidate with reams of position papers on Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, terrorism etc. and busy raising what they claim will be the most money every distributed in the history of the United States by the Israel lobby for a Presidential election) that,

“This war of terror ends when they stop coming here to kill us! Never, ever again (it would have appeared too obsequious even for Rudy if he used the Holocaust era phrase, Never Again!--hence the clever modification) will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it

“Giuliani said terrorists (read Arabs and Muslims generally) “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”


Friendly Campaign Volunteer fact check:

Well, does Rudy mean with the above statement that there are no hard feelings from the nearly 680,000 deaths the Bush administration has needlessly caused with its war in Iraq Afghanistan and supporting Israel’s fifth aggression against Lebanon? Does the candidate expect American voters not to be concerned about the projected two trillion dollars of US taxpayer money wasted? Money that every one of our 435 Congressional Districts needs for education, medical care, repairs to our deteriorating infrastructure and myriad other urgent needs.

The fact that the US has become a pariah nation, ridiculed across the world not just in the Middle East and never held is lower esteem in its entire history, has everything Rudy, not nothing, to do with Israel and Palestine, and the US funded occupation now entering its 40th year!

Rudy, they (read Muslims and Arabs. and the rest of the World) don’t hate us as you are telling the good voters of New Hampshire “for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the World”. Actually they don’t hate us at all. Americans, amazingly perhaps, given our governments record in this region, are still warmly received. Civility is general in Lebanon despite the fact that 83% of the weapons Israel used to turn much of this beautiful country into rubble are US supplied. Weapons that killed more than 1,300, of Lebanon’s citizens and injured more than 4,000, while littering the South with American cluster bombs, which continue to kill and maim. Americans living in the Middle East realize that the regions hospitality is a wonderful commentary on Arab and Islamic culture. Values shared by most Americans.


Delivering our values and freedoms

No Rudy, it is how we are delivering ‘our freedoms” to the Middle East that may be a problem. Our Mk-84 2,000-lb bombs, our F-16s’ and our facilitation of Israel’s 33-day carpet bombing of many of the 801 villages of South Lebanon this past summer. Rudy, it was the delivery of US supplied M-26 MLRS cluster bombs which Israel fired in volleys of 12, each one holding 644 M-77 high explosive bomblets for a total of 7,728 cluster bombs per volley, delivered to the people of Lebanon, up to 35 miles into Lebanon, in less than a minute after firing.

As Bush and Rice appeared to encourage the continuing destruction of Lebanon while claiming to seek a sustainable ceasefire, the delay allowed delivery of nearly 4.8 million cluster bombs to the people of Lebanon. Approximately 200,000 remain, hidden in brush and under debris to kill and maim for years to come. Rudy it’s the way we deliver and want “to share” our freedoms with the Middle East that sometimes is not understood or sufficiently appreciated.

Rudy, you failed to tell the good voters of New Hampshire, that the people of the Middle East in general respect American freedoms and the fundamental principles on which our country was founded. Many countries in the Middle East are achieving a number of them and they havea culture and values which we need to learn about and benefit from. It is the recent self-desecration of American ideals that is a serious problem, first and foremost, for American voters.

Seeking their votes Giuliani told his audience, “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” Addressing the ‘terrorists’ (read the Muslim/Arab world) directly, Giuliani added: “We are not giving that up, and you (read the Muslin/Arab world) are not going to take it from us!” The crowd reportedly thundered its approval.

Giuliani also charged that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals. “They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York's World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.” The crowd cheered wildly.

Giuliani was not about to reveal to his audience that none of these groups had anything to do with 9/11. Or that right after the attack one of the first to condemn it in very strong language was Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hasan Nassrallah, an adversary of Osama bin Laden who claims Shia Hezbollah are not even Muslims. Does Rudy know that the leadership of Hezbollah also strongly condemned the 1997 attack at the Temple of Hatshepsut at Luxor, Egypt which killed 58 civilians as “bloody and terrible, calling them crimes against Islam. Hezbollah also condemned the Cairo attacks on the Greek tourists, and the Algerian killing of 7 Trappist monks in Algeria by claimed Islamists

In a discussion with journalist David Ignatius in February 2006, Nassrallah categorically set his group apart from al-Qaeda and its action that he considers is fanning Sunni-Shiite tensions in Iraq and increasingly in Lebanon. “I believe the most dangerous thing we confront is the so-called Zarqawi phenomenon,” he said. “This is a creed of killing without any responsibility — to kill women, children, to attack mosques, churches, schools, restaurants.”

Does Rudy know that Shia Hezbollah is the enemy of Sunni al Qaeda.? Interestingly the antipathy is not based on religion, but rather on al Qaeda terrorism which Hezbollah rejects. The fact is that the Iraq war debacle has led to a “surge” (that Bush/ McCain word again!) of al Qaeda fighters here in Lebanon. They are threats to Hezbollah as well as to the American University of Beirut and the American Embassy. Al Qaeds’s numbers and influence are growing and, based on interviews by Americans with some al Qaeda leaders, they have major plans here. If al Qaeda to be contained it will likely be Hezbollah who does it. We Americans should engage with Hezbollah not defame it.

As a former prosecutor, where is Rudi’s evidence to support his New Hampshire campaign claim that “going back to the 90′s there were all those Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas”?

Can he name even one? If Rudy had to support that ridiculous assertion in his favorite NY Courtroom, he would likely be sanctioned by the Judge and chased out of court!

Rudy, if you actually misspoke about the ’90s’, rather than seeking to mislead your audience, and actually meant to say the 1980′s, maybe thinking of the April 17, 1983 bombing of the American embassy or the October 1984 bombing of the marine barracks show us the proof?

At the time of these events the PLO had left Beirut, Hamas would not exist for nearly a decade, and Hezbollah was a long way from being fully organized. Moreover, Hezbollah and has never been contradicted in its consistent denials of involvement. Again, where is the proof Rudy?
Was Rudy thinking about the kidnapping of US hostages? Hezbollah’s position on the Western hostages is unchanged; “We are neither directly nor indirectly responsible for the taking of the hostages’ Nassrallah as repeatedly stated.

Deputy Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem explained:

“Hezbollah did not take any decisions regarding this nor did it have any role with regard to the hostage issue. Now the fact that these groups who carried out these acts were part of the Islamic trend does not automatically mean that they are members of Hezbollah”

The namesake of the Lincoln Day dinner which Rudy addressed would be the first to counsel Rudy that we must put our own house in order. It’s not enough that Rudy often communicate to your audiences, “My Country Right or Wrong! Rather, it’s the full toast Stephen Decatur made here in the Middle East more than 200 years ago that Rudy would do well to recall: “My country right or wrong, when right, to be kept right, when wrong, to be put right.”

Let’s see if Rudy can rework his new stump speech and create something more in keeping with American values.

Franklin Lamb has been in Lebanon researching a book for the past nine months. Hezbollah: a brief Guide for Beginners in expected in early summer, 2007. He can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

Source: CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.com/lamb04262007.html

“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” –H. L. Mencken

Sources:
Another Day in the Empire
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=841
YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XvwkDXaCy4

A Neglected Report from Europol

The Islamic Threat to Europe: By the Numbers

By KRISTOFFER LARSSON

Some things interest the media, others don’t. Since the fall of the USSR, the United States has sought another menace to designate as the ultimate evil, a world threat the Americans desperately need to take on. The 9/11 attacks gave them that enemy. And when the White House speaks, the media listens obediently.

Over the last number of years the “Islamic threat” has become one of the favourite issues for media coverage. It’s all over the news–Muslims leaders pronouncing threats against the countries participating in occupying Muslim land.

While America is the Western country most succumbed to the fear of Islamism, things aren’t much better in Europe. Its media is highly Americanised and thus eager to reiterate U.S. governmental positions towards the non-Western world. Islamic terrorism is subsequently a theme close to the hearts of European journalists as well.

Following this, you might think the journalists would be beside themselves with joy when the European Police Office (Europol) releases its first report on terrorism in the EU. I can assure you they weren’t. In fact, to my best knowledge, not a single Swedish paper or news-channel has paid any attention to it whatsoever. I haven’t seen it receiving much attention in other EU countries either (kudos to the EUobserver for having the decency to report on it). The report is namely a grave disappointment for the anti-Islamic campaigners.

There were 498 incidents in eleven EU countries last year labelled as “terrorist attacks.” The Basque separatist group ETA did best (136 terrorist attacks) and was responsible for the only deadly attack, killing two in Madrid. The remaining 497 fortunately cost no human lives.

How about the Islamic terrorists then? Considering the perpetual warnings in our daily papers, the findings in the Europol report is, to say the least, surprising. The truth is that Islamists only carried out one out of the 498 terrorist attacks in the European Union in 2006. Don’t believe me? The entire report is available on Europol’s website. Had Islamic fundamentalists been behind a higher number of attacks-say 136-it would have been front page news at every big daily. One attack is simply too few–it won’t do if the image of an “Islamic threat” is to live on.

The Europol report devotes several pages to Islamist terrorism, despite the low number. Except for the one attack in Germany this group was responsible for (which, by the way, failed and resulted in no victims), also Denmark and the United Kingdom reported that Islamists plotted to carry out one attack in each country respectively (incidentally, all three countries are accessory to the illegal occupation of Iraq). However, since these plans in both cases were exposed before they were set to work, they were not included among the 498. Either way, even after taking these plots into account, the report proves the genuine magnitude of Islamic terrorism in Europe–it’s not exactly a huge threat.

If we look at the people arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences, the figures are rather disproportionate; about half of them arrested were Muslim. In plain English: Muslims are a group causing very little terrorism in Europe, while at the same time much more likely to be arrested on suspicion of it. The constant media coverage of Muslims being arrested creates the false image of a serious threat in order to benefit the imperialist world-view Washington wants us to adopt. Meanwhile the Americans and their accomplices are carrying out genocide in Iraq. Clearly, something needs to be done about the media.

Kristoffer Larsson lives in Sweden. He can be reached at: kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu

Source: CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.com/larsson04212007.html

For all his chauvinistic, misogynistic and racist drivel, old man Imus finally got the boot. I can’t say I feel particularly bad, considering his confederate-style punditry and his perpetuation of negative imagery of the non-white males our society, but I still think people are missing the point. Racism, bigotry and sexism are alive and well, and generally accepted in this great country—well it depends on who you’re talking about.

Unsurprisingly, one important question has not been asked since Imus’ downward spiral: what if those “nappy headed hos” were Arab or Muslim? Regrettably, we have a plethora of examples to point to post-911, but we don’t need to rehash all of it, one can just watch a nightly episode of Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly or CNN’s Glenn Beck. Yet, my bone to pick is not with the establishment neocons, Fox News, or Ms. Malnourished herself, Ann Coulter, but rather those “peaceful” and “all-accepting liberals” who complain so frequently about Imus and those like him.

To see how anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bigotry is accepted and applauded in America, one has to look no further than HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, hosted by “left-wing” comedian and political commentator Bill Maher. “Liberal” pundits like Maher pass off their anti-Arab/anti-Muslim rhetoric as an innocent invocation of Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations.” Yet, Maher’s vitriolic diatribes are no different than one saying, “black people are ruthless, welfare grubbing criminals.” Nonetheless, to a “liberal,” the previous comment is racist and wrong, because black people, unlike the days of slavery, are now “like us,” meaning white Anglo-American society, whereas Arabs and Muslims (as if they are a unitary, monolithic people), can still be labeled wholly as “backwards, ruthless, Jew-hating animals.”

In Maher’s program, he regularly brings on guests that espouse anti-Arab/anti-Muslim views, some of them being supposed “self-critical” Muslims. These guests, however, principally serve to support Maher’s own bias against Muslims and Arabs, bolstering his pro-Israel feelings. These guests include conservative Israeli politician, and former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Lebanese-born neocon and political hack Fouad Ajami, putative introspective Muslim moderate Irshad Manji, and former Muslim, now professed atheist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, among many others.

Showcasing the “tolerance of liberalism,” Maher brought on his claimed “hero,” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, to help him explain to HBO viewers just what was wrong with Islam. Like a fat kid in a candy store, Maher looked to Hirsi Ali on his panel this season and stated, “[I] s Islam a religion of peace? You are one of the brave people who say it’s not really a religion of peace.” More than happy to respond, Hirsi Ali proclaimed, “It’s not a religion of peace. Immediately after 9/11 they should have said, it’s not a religion of peace, we’re up against Islam.”

 

That’s right because Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians and the list of disgruntled students that have gunned down their schoolmates since Columbine speak for all people under the age of 25. What if Hirsi Ali said, “Immediately after the black thug robbed the liquor store, they should have said, black people are criminals, we’re up against black people.”?

 

After her enlightening comments, while she went on to trash Saudi Arabia for a moment, Hirsi Ali received a huge applause from the audience. Even Steven Weber, an actor who stars on TVs Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, had to jump in and beg the question of whether it was right to characterize a whole religion and the beliefs of 1.3 billion people this way. Apparently it is because Maher, educating the naive Weber (who was talking of moderate Islam), asserted that “no, [religions are] not all alike…no [Islam] was extremist to begin with. Mohammed was a warrior.” Maher’s lesson on the malady of Islam followed up on his earlier comments in which he said that the West is not only better, but “superior” to the rest of world. Huh, I wonder why they don’t like us.

Bias against Arabs and Islam—and bashing them as a monolithic entity—is accepted across the news media, whether it is in reporting or punditry. This makes it even more important, especially in this “gloves off” age of comedy, to make a clear distinction between comedy and news. It is equally, if not more important, to condemn bigotry that is masked as humor. We should make fun of ourselves, our ethnicities, religions, and races, but when it is done in a vindictive nature or when a seemingly comedic joke or informative political comment is enveloped with racist, sexist, or bigoted undertones, it should be rejected by all peoples. That is not the “thought police” taking over, it’s common sense.

 

Unfortunately, Don Imus was used by reactionaries across the board, both condemners and defenders, when people should have been talking about the issue of racism and sexism long before his comments. Tragically, a couple of days ago, 33 people, mostly kids, were massacred by a student at Virginia Tech. The Imus case, like its predecessor the Anna Nicole Smith drama, has run its course in the mainstream media. Sadly, racism and sexism now seem to be out of the minds of Americans until the next big gaffe. The only question left is how big of a gaffe is necessary for Americans to come to the defense of Arabs and Muslims?

 

© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com

 

 


Remi Kanazi is a Palestinian-American poet and writer based in New York City. He is the co-founder of www.PoeticInjustice.net and the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets for Palestine. He can be contacted at Remroum@gmail.com

 

Source: Axis of Logic
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_24375.shtml

Anti-recruitment groups are slamming a US Army deal to sponsor a computer war game channel, charging that real war is no game.

In June, the Army is set to sponsor a channel at the Global Gaming League website, a popular spot for Internet computer game lovers.

“It is part of this campaign for the last 20 years to invade youth culture with militarism,” Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities co-founder Rick Jahnkow told AFP.

“It affects the way young people think. It affects their world view. That is a very dangerous thing.”

A first-person shooter game based on the army training manual will be a centerpiece of the channel, which will feature other games in the same genre.

The “America’s Army” game was released about five years ago and ranks in the top 10 most popular computer games of its kind, according to McCann World Group vice president Anders Ekman, who is handling the project for the Army.

Play at the channel will be free, but agreeing to “additional contact from the Army” comes with signing up as a player.

The Army’s investment, estimated at two million dollars, is aimed at finding potential soldiers among gamers in the cherished recruiting age range of 17 to 24.

Oskar Castro of the “admittedly anti-war” American Friends Service Committee said it is wrong for military recruiters to use technology and pop culture to entice young people to enlist without showing them the ugly sides of service.

“If it is virtual reality, why don’t you see people screaming for their mother while they die?” asked Castro, who said he had played America’s Army.

“If you are going to show what war is like you should show what war is like. You don’t have ‘game over’ and start again. ‘Game over’ means you come home in a body bag and a casket.”

Castro recounted meeting young gamers inspired to be soldiers by their love of playing America’s Army.

“It was really bizarre to actually see that,” Castro said. “They had every plan to go into the military and they didn’t have a full vision of how the military works.”

Army recruiters resorting to online games is the newest development in a pattern that has “alarmed” Jahnkow since the United State eliminated the military draft near the close of the Vietnam War.

The military began using mass marketing and sophisticated sales techniques that not only win recruits but make US society more accepting to war as the way to deal with problems, according to Jahnkow.

“The emphasis went from asking people to join military as a patriotic gesture to more along the lines of the ways companies sell tooth paste,” Jahnkow said.

“Having the military making and marketing entertainment and computer products has never been their mission in our society.”

Recruitment ads that depict soldiers as valiant knights in shining armor and computer games in which battle is exhilarating glamorize militarism as opposed to democracy, Jahnkow said.

“Soldiering is being popularized when in fact we are supposed to be teaching people from an early age that civilian democratic rule is the ideal,” Jahnkow said.

“I can only imaging what James Madison and George Washington — all of the founding fathers — would have thought. They must be turning over in their graves right now.”

Jahnkow cited the war in Iraq as a “prime example” of the result of letting the military use games and advertising to sell soldiering to the public.

The US launched a war in Iraq even though there was no threat to the United States and no connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and Washington, Jahnkow said.

“You need to influence people from early childhood to have people grow up and support those kinds of war,” Jahnkow said. “It is really a question of militarism; not whether there is a military.”

Source: AFP via Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070421/tc_afp/usitinternetgame_070421160108

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.