* Yasser Arafat sends Saddam Hussein holiday greetings
1. "American and European 'peace' activists have found those atrocities and wars quite boring"
2. "In the Talmud and Midrash as well as in the Torah, Jews are ordered to occupy Iraq..."
3. "Holiday greetings from Yasser Arafat to Saddam Hussein"
4. "The future is Muslim, European or American: The world's future is being decided at this time" (By Dennis Prager, World Net Daily, Feb. 25, 2003)
5. "You can't 'contain' Saddam: Cold War doctrine doesn't apply in the age of terror" (By John Howard, Wall St. Journal, Feb. 26, 2003)
6. "Howard could end up in [war crimes] court for backing U.S.-led war on Iraq, say Australian barristers [and university law professors]" (Islam Online.net & News Agencies, Feb. 26, 2003)
7. "Rocket that could strike at the heart of Israel" (London Times, Feb. 26, 2003)
“AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN ‘PEACE’ ACTIVISTS HAVE FOUND THOSE ATROCITIES AND WARS QUITE BORING”
[Note by Tom Gross]
I attach 6 articles connected to Iraq:
1. This morning's edition of the Egyptian-government controlled daily "Al Akhbar" (Cairo, February 26, 2003) reports that "Scholars tell us that the military build-up against Iraq is in fact the working of international Zionism. In the Talmud and Midrash as well as in the Torah, Jews are ordered to occupy Iraq and not to leave it until it is completely destroyed and burned."
2. "Holiday greetings from Yasser Arafat to Saddam Hussein." The Iraqi newspaper Al-Jumhuriya reported on February 22, 2003 that Yasser Arafat had sent Saddam Hussein a telegram beginning "Your Excellency, Brother-President Saddam Hussein, greetings and the blessings of Allah to you." He continues "together, hand in hand [we will march] to Al-Quds Al-Sharif [Jerusalem] with the help of Allah." The full text of the telegram is below. (Translation courtesy of Memri).
3. "The future is Muslim, European or American: The world's future is being decided at this time" (By Dennis Prager, World Net Daily, February 25, 2003). I find this an interesting article, even if one doesn't agree with it, and worth reading in full for those of you who usually only read my summaries. In brief, Prager says: "There are now three ideologies competing to shape the future of mankind. They are militant Islam, Western European secularism and socialism, and American Judeo-Christianity and capitalism. The first is being spread both peacefully and violently, the second is being spread peacefully, and the third is not being spread... The second ideology seeking to dominate the world is secularism and socialism as practiced in Western Europe and supported by educated elites around the world. This is a primary reason for the anti-American demonstrations in Western Europe and in the United States. They were far more against America than they were against war. Most of these people could not care less about the wars of the world. They have been silent throughout the mass murder of Sudan's blacks [black Africans killed by Arab-backed Moslems], during the genocide in Rwanda, during China's crushing of Tibet, and during Saddam's wars against Iran, Kuwait and Iraq's own Kurds. American and European 'peace' activists have found those atrocities and wars quite boring."
4. "You can't 'contain' Saddam: Cold War doctrine doesn't apply in the age of terror" (By John Howard, Wall St. Journal, February 26, 2003). The BBC and other media regularly give the impression that only the governments of Britain and Spain back the U.S. policy on Iraq. In fact many countries do. This op-ed, from today's Wall Street Journal, is by the prime minister of Australia.
5. And then to show opposition to Howard from within Australia, I attach "Howard could end up in [war crimes] court for backing U.S.-led war on Iraq, say Australian barristers [and university law professors]" (Islam Online.net & News Agencies, February 26).
6. "Rocket that could strike at the heart of Israel," (London Times, February 26, 2003). "The missile at the center of the looming showdown between Iraq and the United Nations may be part of an ambitious secret project to develop a much longer-range missile that could hit Tehran or Tel Aviv, UN and independent missile experts believe. The specifications of the al-Samoud 2 missile appear to have been designed so that it could be fitted with a second engine, making it a much more potent threat than previously realized, the experts have told The London Times."
-- Tom Gross
EGYPTIAN PAPER: LETS BLAME THE JEWS (AS USUAL)
Al Akhbar (Cairo)
February 26, 2003
Scholars tell us that the military build-up against Iraq is in fact the working of international Zionism. In the Talmud and Midrash as well as in the Torah, Jews are ordered to occupy Iraq and not to leave it until it is completely destroyed and burned. Politicians and economists give us another opinion. It is absolutely against America's interests that Iraq becomes a waste land, the country possessing the world's second largest oil reserve; a reserve which America's industry is thirsty for? Still, a questions hovers over our heads: why all this universal might now being mobilised? Is it to strike against an impoverished country rendered most feeble by diseases and famine?
HOLIDAY GREETINGS FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO SADDAM HUSSEIN
Holiday greetings from Yasser Arafat to Saddam Hussein
Special Dispatch - Palestinian Authority/Iraq
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
February 26, 2003
On February 5th, 2003, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat sent a telegram to Saddam Hussein in honor of the 'Id. The following is the text of the telegram as reported by the Iraqi newspaper Al-Jumhuriya(1):
"President Saddam Hussein, may Allah protect him, received a congratulatory telegram for 'Id Al-Adha [The Feast of the Sacrifice] from Mr. Yasser Arafat, President of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO.":
"Your Excellency, Brother-President Saddam Hussein, greetings and the blessings of Allah to you."
"As our glorious nation celebrates 'Id Al-Adha, the holiday of sacrifice and redemption, it is our pleasure to send to you, and through you to your revered government and your people – our brethren – in the name of the Palestinian people and leadership, and from me personally, our warmest regards, our heartfelt and sincere congratulations, and our deepest prayers to Allah the Glorious, may He lead our steps onto the road of virtue, success, and progress to our peoples, and strengthen our brotherly ties, cooperation and solidarity in a way that will serve our interests, our rights, our nations, and the future of our generations and repel all dangers that loom presently over us in our region."
"On this blessed occasion, which we are celebrating with our Palestinian people in the holy land of Palestine, the first of the two Qibla [the direction to which Muslims turn in prayer], the land of Al-Israa wa Al-Mi'raj [Prophet Muhammad's night ascent to heaven from Jerusalem, and his return to earth], I wish, with all confidence and hope, that all our brethren in our great nation [will strengthen] their stand beside us, [and] increase their support to us in this difficult and dangerous phase we are going through, with all its old wounds and hurt. To reduce the suffering of our patient and enduring people, to support our ongoing steadfast resistance in confronting the Israeli war-machine, aggression, murders, and destruction."
"To undermine the attempts and plans by which the Israeli government – the occupying power – is trying to blow up the peace process and the foundations and institutions of our national Palestinian authority, and even to forcefully change its elected leadership and to impose on us an Israeli solution that serves Israel's interests and covetous greed in our holy land, and in our resources [in order] to enhance the vile settlement and occupation of our land."
"Any kind of support and assistance from you in these difficult times will enable us to continue our persistence and resistance until we put an end to the occupation, in all its manifestations, of our holy Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and the Islamic and Christian holy shrines, and exercise our legal and lasting rights, based on international legal resolutions, and most importantly our rights for self determination, for repatriation, and for establishing our independent state with its capital Al-Quds Al-Sharif [Jerusalem]."
"Once again we send you our heartiest brotherly wishes, and to your Excellency we wish the best of health and happiness, and may Allah the Powerful protect Iraq from the great dangers and evils that loom over it ... and together, hand in hand [we will march] to Al-Quds Al-Sharif with the help of Allah."
"[Signed] Yasser Arafat, President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the PLO, Ramallah. February 5, 2003."
(1) Al-Jumhuriya (Iraq), February 22, 2003.
THE FUTURE IS MUSLIM, EUROPEAN OR AMERICAN
The future is Muslim, European or American
The world's future is being decided at this time.
By Dennis Prager
World Net Daily,
February 25, 2003
Such moments are extremely rare in history. And when they have occurred, they have between two, not three, competing ideologies.
But there are now three ideologies competing to shape the future of mankind. They are militant Islam, Western European secularism and socialism, and American Judeo-Christianity and capitalism. The first is being spread both peacefully and violently, the second is being spread peacefully, and the third is not being spread.
Though most people ignore the fact, almost all of the world's believing Muslims believe that all of mankind should be Muslim. This, in and of itself, is not troubling – after all, most Christians would like the whole world to be Christian, and most Westerners would like the whole world to democratic. What is troubling is that if only 10 percent of these Muslims are prepared to use violence to impose their religion on others, we are talking about 100 million people.
This is the reason about 1 million non-Muslim Sudanese have been killed in the last 15 years – because they are resisting the violent imposition of Islam by the Islamic government in Khartoum. This is the reason for the Muslim-Christian violence in Nigeria – Christians there, too, are resisting the violent imposition of Islam. And this is the reason for Islamic terror – to weaken those countries, particularly the United States and Israel, that stand in the way of an Islamic takeover.
The second ideology seeking to dominate the world is secularism and socialism as practiced in Western Europe and supported by educated elites around the world. This is a primary reason for the anti-American demonstrations in Western Europe and in the United States. They were far more against America (especially the America of George W. Bush) than they were against war. Most of these people could not care less about the wars of the world. They have been silent throughout the mass murder of Sudan's blacks, during the genocide in Rwanda, during China's crushing of Tibet, and during Saddam's wars against Iran, Kuwait and Iraq's own Kurds. American and European "peace" activists have found those atrocities and wars quite boring.
Western European socialists and their American (and Canadian, and Latin American) supporters are as passionate about secularism and socialism as believing Muslims are about Islam. And they want to dominate the world as much as militant Muslims want Islam to. Their vehicles are the United Nations, the European Union, international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols, and international institutions such as the International Court.
Regarding the American way, there are serious impediments to its success.
First, while the first two ideologies – Islam and socialism/secularism – dominate many countries, the third ideology only dominates one – America. There is no other country that claims to be Judeo-Christian and no other that has such strong support for capitalism and small government (the opposite of socialism). Therefore, while both the militant Muslims and the socialists/secularists have supporters around the world, American values have few. That is why America goes it alone – with the partial exceptions of Israel and Britain, no other society has the same values as we do.
Second, neither Judeo-Christian nor capitalist values are secure in America. Many Americans, including almost its entire intellectual class, are as hostile to Judeo-Christian and non-socialist values as the militant Muslims and European socialists are.
Third, almost no one is teaching the next generation of Americans (as almost no one taught the present adult generation) what is unique, let alone superior, about American values. Our children are overwhelmingly educated by people who believe in Europe's values, not in ours.
As neither China nor the rest of Asia, nor Africa, nor Latin America are offering an ideology that can dominate the world, either Europe's, or the militant Muslims', or America's way of life will prevail.
But the American way can only prevail if Americans believe in it. That is why, as important as the military and ideological battles against militant Islam are, the most important battle is the ideological one within America. But with America's universities, unions, professional associations, mainstream news media, and one of its two major parties ideologically aligned with Europe, and with big businesses constantly undermining Judeo-Christian values, the battle within America itself for America's unique values is far from won. And given that only America offers a viable alternative to both militant Islam and secularism-socialism, if we lose the battle here, humanity has a very dark future.
YOU CAN’T “CONTAIN” SADDAM
You can't 'contain' Saddam
Cold War doctrine doesn't apply in the age of terror
By John Howard
The Wall St. Journal
February 26, 2003
Critics of U.S. policy on Iraq have lately begun to employ the term "containment" to describe an alternative approach. That alternative essentially is to muddle along with endless further U.N. resolutions, which Iraq either ignores or partially obeys under intense pressure, with inspectors given "more time" to disarm Iraq.
It's not surprising that containment has been invoked. It's had a good diplomatic history – quite illustrious really. It described the West's successful response to the Soviet Union's expansionism after World War II and stretching into the 1950s. We all know that in the end the Soviet Union imploded. The liberal democratic values of the West won the ideological contest, and the U.S. has emerged as the one superpower. With a track record like that, why wouldn't America's opponents over Iraq want to annex "containment" to their cause?
It is, however, a false historical comparison. Worse, it completely misstates the character of the threat which the world now faces.
Moscow was "contained" because of the possession of atomic/nuclear weapons by both the West and the Soviets. The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction guaranteed the maintenance of the status quo delivered by containment, until the internal implosion of the old Soviet empire. The view, validly held, was that because both sides had weapons of mass destruction, the potential human cost of military action by the West and the Soviet Union at the time of Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968, would have been infinitely greater than the human cost (bad though it was) in leaving dictatorial Soviet-backed regimes in power there. Then, the potential cost of doing something was greater than the cost of doing nothing. Now, in the case of Iraq, the potential cost of doing nothing is clearly much greater than the cost of doing something.
If Iraq isn't effectively disarmed, not only could she use her chemical and biological weapons against her own people again and also other countries, but other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can join the weapons of mass destruction league. Proliferation of chemical, biological and, indeed, nuclear weapons will multiply the likelihood of terrorist groups laying hands on such arms. The consequences for mankind would be horrific.
In other words doing nothing about Iraq, potentially, is much more costly than using force, if necessary, to ensure the disarmament of Iraq.
Incidentally, in the very short term, the failure of the U.N. to deal effectively with Iraq will have consequences for the world's dealings with North Korea. Can it seriously be suggested that the Security Council can discipline North Korea if it fails to discipline Iraq?
Not one person wants war. We all abhor it. Those who marched a week ago in the cities of the world do not have a mortgage on detestation of military conflict or of human suffering. They do not exclusively occupy the moral high ground. Have they seriously addressed the human suffering that could flow from the world's failure to deal once and for all with Iraq's 12-year-long defiance of the community of nations? Are they morally comfortable with the suffering Saddam Hussein continues to inflict on Iraqi children through his corruption of the U.N.'s "oil for food" program? What do they say of the torture and arbitrary executions that are a part of everyday life in Iraq?
Military action against Iraq will involve casualties. But a powerful case can be made that the potential casualties will be much greater if the world does not act effectively and now.
A peaceful outcome in the short term, which does not imperil our longer-term security and safety, appears remote at present. It could be made less remote if the world acted with greater unity. Iraq does respond to pressure. The inspectors are in Baghdad because of the American military buildup. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan have both said that. America's critics know it, too, but won't admit it. Rather, their illogical starting point is the presence in Iraq of weapons inspectors, only there because of U.S. pressure – the very pressure they have attacked!
Given past Iraqi behavior, there is a faint hope that a united expression of view from the Security Council, combined with pressure from neighboring Arab states (which carry a special responsibility), might just induce a decisive change of heart somewhere in Baghdad. But true containment of Iraq can be achieved only if the world recognizes that the challenges of today are so different from those of 50 years ago.
The nuclear balance, which through the Cold War alternately traumatized and reassured the world, has been replaced by the constant specter of weapons of mass destruction in the hands not only of more states but also terrorists operating without constraint in a borderless world. That is what is at stake in containing Iraq. The cost of doing nothing is infinitely greater than the cost of acting.
(Mr. Howard is the prime minister of Australia.)
HOWARD COULD END UP IN COURT
Iraq justified in launching pre-emptive strikes: Experts
Howard could end up in court for backing U.S.-led war on Iraq, say Australian barristers
IslamOnline.net & News Agencies
February 26, 2003
A U.S.-led military aggression on Iraq would be a violation of international law that could end in the world court, 43 Australian legal experts warned Wednesday, February 26.
In an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald, the group of leading barristers and academic lawyers stressed the so-called "coalition of the willing" talked about by U.S. President George Bush, including Australia, had not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq could be justified by international law.
Iraq would now be justified in launching a pre-emptive attack against the United States and its coalition partners because it is Iraq that is now facing a direct threat, according to the experts.
The group, which includes a former High Court judge, senior counsel and international law professors from Australia's top universities says international law recognizes two bases for the use of force.
The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defense only if the attack was actual or imminent.
"The second basis is when the U.N. Security Council authorizes the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force."
But the group says the Security Council is bound by the terms of the U.N. Charter and can authorize the use of force under charter seven only if there is evidence of an actual threat which could not be averted by other means such as negotiation and further weapons inspection.
"Ironically, the same principle would justify Iraq now launching pre-emptive attacks on members of the coalition because it could validly argue that it feared attack," said the experts.
The group said even if the use of force against Iraq could be justified, the Geneva Convention significantly limits the means and method.
These include prohibitions on targeting civilian populations or civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives.
Intentionally launching an attack knowing it would cause "incidental" civilian casualties and which would be clearly excessive in relation to the expected military outcome "constitutes a war crime."
"The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15," stressed the legal experts.
They said the creation of the International Criminal Court last year had provided a stronger system of scrutiny and adjudication of violations of humanitarian law.
The court now has jurisdiction over war crimes and attributes criminal responsibility to individuals responsible for planning military action that violates international humanitarian law and those who carry it out.
"It specifically extends criminal law to heads of state, leaders of government, parliamentarians, government officials and military personnel," the group said.
"Respect for international law must be the first concern of the Australian government if it seeks to punish the Iraqi government for not respecting international law."
Publication of the article follows Australian Prime Minister John Howard's strong support Tuesday, February 25, for the U.S.-British draft resolution that could provide a trigger for war on Iraq within two weeks.
Australia and Britain are the only two countries to have committed forces to a possible war against Iraq, although Howard maintains no decision has yet been made to commit Australian troops to fighting.
On Wednesday, February 5, Howard suffered a historic defeat in an unprecedented no-confidence vote by Australia's Senate over his handling of the Iraq crisis.
The Labor opposition, left wing Greens, Democrats and Independent senators used their upper house majority to pass the motion by 34 votes to 31, following an emotional, 11-hour debate over the looming war.
It was the first time in the 102 year history of the Australian parliament that the upper house has censured a serving prime minister with a vote of no confidence.
Howard's conservative Liberal-National government was also censured in the motion, which condemned its decision to deploy troops to the Gulf without reference to parliament and contrary to public opinion.
Sydney and other major Australian towns were theatre for biggest anti-war protests ever seen in Australia.
Up to a quarter of a million demonstrators jammed the center of Sydney Sunday, February 16, in the biggest of a series of nationwide rallies to coincide with a coordinated weekend of global protest.
The rally, organized by a coalition of left-wing activists, trade unions, church groups and pacifists, filled a city park and stretched for two kilometers (a mile and a half) around, making crowd estimates difficult.
ROCKET THAT COULD STRIKE AT THE HEART OF ISRAEL
Rocket that could strike at the heart of Israel
By James Bone
The Times of London
January 26, 2003
The missile at the centre of the looming showdown between Iraq and the United Nations may be part of an ambitious secret project to develop a much longer-range missile that could hit Tehran or Tel Aviv, UN and independent missile experts believe. The specifications of the al-Samoud 2 missile appear to have been designed so that it could be fitted with a second engine, making it a much more potent threat than previously realised, the experts have told The Times.
Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, has demanded that Iraq should begin destroying the missiles by Saturday, and UN sources say he is ready to call an emergency meeting of the Security Council this weekend if it fails to do so. If Dr Blix reported a violation to the Security Council it would be tantamount to finding Iraq in "further material breach" of UN demands and would transform the diplomatic landscape at a stroke. Even France, the leading opponent of a war, has insisted that Iraq follow Dr Blix's order to destroy the missiles.
The UN inspectorate has dispatched Demetri Perricos, its chief of operations, from New York to Baghdad to oversee arrangements for dismantling the missiles. He is due to arrive in Iraq on Thursday.
Tony Blair predicted yesterday that Iraq would destroy the missiles at the last minute. "Of course Saddam will offer concessions," he told MPs. "This is a game with which he is immensely familiar. As the threat level rises so the concessions are eked out." But Saddam Hussein indicated in an interview with CBS television on Monday that Iraq would resist. "Iraq is allowed to prepare proper missiles and we are committed to that," the Iraqi President said. "We do not have missiles that go beyond the permitted range." Until now the missiles appeared a poor casus belli because the threat they posed seemed limited.
Dr Blix's inspectors have said that the al-Samoud 2 flew over the maximum permitted range of 150km in only 13 of 40 test flights, reaching a maximum distance of 183km.
But experts say that the specifications of the al-Samoud 2 and its use of a Russian-designed Volga SA2 engine suggest that Iraq might be trying to develop a missile with a much longer range that could threaten the entire region.
In building the new missile, Iraq ignored a 1994 UN letter restricting the missile's diameter to less than 600mm. The UN issued the order with the express intent of preventing Iraq equipping the missile with two engines. Baghdad also violated a 1997 UN letter prohibiting the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles, such as the Volga SA2, in surface-to-surface missiles.
UN inspectors in Iraq have determined that the al-Samoud 2 has a diameter of 760mm, which would make it possible to equip it with two Volga engines instead of one. Moreover, the diameter of the "fat Samoud" – as inspectors call it – was mysteriously increased from its original 750mm design in 1994, possibly better to accommodate two engines.
"You can put two engines in there," said Tim McCarthy, a former UN missile inspector now with the Monterey Institute of International Studies, which has studied the al-Samoud 2. "You indeed can carry a larger payload or go a longer range ... There is no question it can go proscribed ranges. It would increase by a factor of two or three the range of this thing."
One source close to Dr Blix said the inspectors suspect that Iraq is copying India's Prithvi single-stage missile. The Prithvi, which is a metre in diameter, can carry a 1,000kg payload, sufficient to transport a nuclear device and has a similar twin-engined design based on SA2 technology. Adding to suspicions is the fact that a new missile test stand at al-Rafah is capable of testing rocket engines above the permissible thrust. Iraq has said that it built a bigger stand after the site was bombed so that it could test two rocket engines side by side. Dr Blix has ordered that the test stand be placed under UN supervision.
Other independent experts say that the al-Samoud 2 may be intended as a two-stage missile like Iraq's previous al-Tammuz project. The al-Tammuz used a Scud as the first stage and a Volga engine as the second stage to reach a range of up to 2,000km.
Iraq first admitted making a "paper study" of the al-Tammuz, but later conceded that it had actually constructed mock-ups of the missile.
Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, told the Security Council this month that Iraq "has programmes that are intended to produce ballistic missiles that fly over 1,000km". One liquid fuel system was intended to reach 1,200km, he said.
"Saddam Hussein's intentions have never changed," General Powell said. "He is not developing the missiles for self-defence. These are missiles to project power -chemical, biological, and, if we let him, nuclear weapons."
The UN's 150km limit was imposed on Iraq's missiles as a condition of the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War to make it hard to reach Kuwait City, which lies about 100km from the Iraqi border. Israel is about 300km away and Tehran just over 500km away.