Who's Running the 'Peace Marches'?

[abu afak]

'MAINSTREAM' USEFUL IDIOTS

By BYRON YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


February 23, 2003 -- THE antiwar group Not In Our Name has attracted a lot of attention in recent months by publishing a "statement of conscience" in newspapers across the country. The organization purchased two full pages in the Jan. 27 New York Times to run the statement, which assails the Bush administration for "unleash[ing] a spirit of revenge" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and embarking on a course of "war abroad and repression at home."
The letter was signed by hundreds of celebrity endorsers, including the actors Ed Asner, Martin Sheen and Marisa Tomei; writers Kurt Vonnegut, Alice Walker and Barbara Kingsolver; musicians Graham Nash, Pete Seeger and Mos Def; and politicians Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The combination of well-known names and high-profile ad placement has made Not In Our Name a leading player in the antiwar movement.

Yet, relatively little attention has been paid to Not In Our Name's financial support network. A look at that network shows that the group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past have been - and today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical causes, including the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, support for Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba and involvement with figures linked to Middle Eastern terrorism.

AT a Not In Our Name demonstration held on Jan. 27 outside the United Nations, one speaker declared that opposition to a war in Iraq, as exemplified by the rally, "is becoming a broad-based movement." A look behind the scenes, however, suggests that the organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one of a small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from the antiwar effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began as one.

The organization was created in March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing activists that included representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild, among others. The organizers intended for Not In Our Name to stage protests across the country and also draft, according to the group's organizing document, a "Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience to be issued by well-known artists, intellectuals, activists and people in public life, lending their moral authority and their unified voice to the resistance movement."

AT least in the latter goal, Not In Our Name has been extraordinarily effective. But it had to split in two to succeed. There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be inclined to sign the statement might not want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the group created two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name Statement (which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity signatures) and the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which handles street demonstrations and other protests).

"For the statement to succeed, we thought it should be separate from any form of political actions," says Clark Kissinger, a member of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party who has played a major role in organizing Not In Our Name. "We wanted people to be able to sign the statement without having their names used to endorse other actions."

Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently. Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with so-called "fiscal sponsors" - that is, already established foundations that could use their tax-exempt status for fundraising.

THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a small box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of Rights Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In Our Name Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal Revenue Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing at all to do with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar raised by the group for several years went to the legal defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer whose case has become a cause célèbre among some on the Left.

In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which $95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in 1999, the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to Abu-Jamal's lawyers.

At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team, leaving the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002, it hooked up with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president Judith Levin sees the Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war as closely linked. "They're related as a matter of principle," she explains. "The connection is the violation of civil rights of people in this country."

FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to "advance the struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination," IFCO was originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a variety of activist organizations that lacked the resources to raise money for themselves.

In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization called the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their partnership ended when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt foundation). Founded in 1997 as a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, the coalition says its function is to oppose the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions.

Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for alleged ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's board.) According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is accused of having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by another charity he runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also reported that FBI investigators "suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a fund-raising front' for the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from the late 1980s to 1995." Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan Abdullah Shallah to the University of South Florida to raise money for one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job Shallah held until he later became the head of Islamic Jihad.

TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to the Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy to supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite of IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a "solidarity conference" in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, "Long live the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example of the Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for the poor of the world by Fidel Castro!" Both IFCO and the Bill of Rights Foundation are tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that all contributions made to them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban solidarity rallies, or the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully tax-deductible.

The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records available for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took in $1,119,564 in contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not In Our Name Statement report that they have taken in more than $400,000 in recent months for the purpose of publishing their statement. It is not possible to say who is giving the money, or whether it comes from many people or just a few; federal laws do not require tax-exempt foundations to reveal their donors - or even whether donations are received from inside or outside the United States.

'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together," says the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak, one might think that is actually happening, that there really is a "broad-based movement" represented by these activists. But a look at the people and organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests otherwise - no matter how many celebrity signatures they might collect.

Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the Feb. 24 issue.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/55045.htm

[Communication]

Who's running it? Apparently not Iraqi-Americans who at times applauded Wolfowitz on a recent visit to Dearborn, Michigan.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=584&e=3&cid=584&u=/nm/20030224/pl_nm/iraq_usa_wolfowitz_dc


What's also interesting is the notable silence from the Arab world. The problem is that nobody trusts US intentions. People in the ME want Hussein gone, they just don't want the US to stay longer than they need to, but long enough to make sure things are stabalized. They are also very concerned with civilian casualties.

The anti-war camp, on the other hand, seems to have a range of objectives, some are mentioned in your article, some are anti-American or anti-globalization conspiracy theorists, and others seem to be just plain isolationists.

[andak01]

My wife had the opportunity to meet an Iraqi women, a former professor. She said that the woman characterized Saddam as the devil incarnate, but still didn't support the war, because she felt that it would only end in a bunch of Iraqi deaths and still a possibility of Saddam in power. I don't know about the last part, but even the biggest hawks are agreed that there will be many Iraqi casualties.

[Communication]

Ok, maybe you're right. Two big concerns for me are civilian casualties and having the US remain in Iraq for the forseeable future. We still have troops in Japan and S. Korea. But then how many Iraqi casualties have been committed by Saddam Hussein himself? Thousands, hundreds of thousands? Everyone points to how he gassed the Kurds, but what about the murder of shiite Clerics and thousands of other leaders and just about any other person who voiced dissent in Iraq since 1979. The guy reminds me of Stalin.

[andak01]

My concern, in addition to the lives lost is the propaganda bonanza this is going to afford the Islamists. When they are screaming from the pulpits that there is a war against Islam, what better proof than photos of American bombs raining down and burnt bodies of innocent people on the ground.

They wouldn't have the same case if they were quietly being hauled off for due process.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Communication
Everyone points to how he gassed the Kurds, but what about the murder of shiite Clerics and thousands of other leaders and just about any other person who voiced dissent in Iraq since 1979. The guy reminds me of Stalin.

He reminds himself of Stalin too. Stalin, I understand is his hero. Sometimes even a Joker can hold up a house of cards. I have little doubt that this is going to precipitate a number of other wars, some coming from directions we haven't anticipated.

[Mediocrates]

Last Friday's WSJ had a detailed piece about the problems occuring in the French developed Iraqi and Iranian oil deposits. The fundamental problems are two fold.

One - their own war destroyed much of their resource development infrastructure and even in Iran, over a decade since the fighting stopped, the infrastructure isn't really functioning and may take another decade to get up to speed. Iraq's case is much worse through a combination of sanctions and flat out neglect - it's basically rusting away. And for those of you who don't know this, most oil deposits have to be continually worked else they become too expensive to restart. Even today the quality of Iraqi crude is slipping.

Two - most of the known sources are in fact noticeably depleting. The Iraqi fields have been in production since 1938 and the simple fact is that many of them are running out. The Iraqis will have to develop new resources. Now understand that this takes tens of billions of dollars and probably 20 years to bring online. Even today their next door neighbors in Iran have started a crash program to develop gas instead of oil in lieu of withering known oil deposits.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Communication
Who's running it? Apparently not Iraqi-Americans who at times applauded Wolfowitz on a recent visit to Dearborn, Michigan.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=584&e=3&cid=584&u=/nm/20030224/pl_nm/iraq_usa_wolfowitz_dc


What's also interesting is the notable silence from the Arab world. The problem is that nobody trusts US intentions. People in the ME want Hussein gone, they just don't want the US to stay longer than they need to, but long enough to make sure things are stabalized. They are also very concerned with civilian casualties.

The anti-war camp, on the other hand, seems to have a range of objectives, some are mentioned in your article, some are anti-American or anti-globalization conspiracy theorists, and others seem to be just plain isolationists.



The Antiwar Movement in My ’Hood
Ruminations on war & peace.

By Mark Goldblatt
2/24/03 NRO

The antiwar movement was in my neighborhood earlier this month. So I decided to talk to them; I dusted off my mini-cassette recorder and did a dozen or so protester-in-the-street interviews to get a sense of who goes to these things, and why they do. Here are a few observations:

1) Activists are not deep thinkers. They speak in handy slogans and reason by way of the nearest platitude. (This is perhaps true by definition, no less on the right than on the left; if you can trace the logic on both sides of a divisive issue, you usually can't get worked up enough to take to the streets.) Every single protester I talked to was certain that President Bush's stated cause for going to war — denying Saddam weapons of mass destruction — is merely a ruse; Bush's real objective is to control Iraq's oil. The protesters presuppose, in effect, their own psychic capacities to discern Bush's true intentions while denying Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al., even the possibility of making educated guesses about Saddam's.

2) Most of the protesters believe, in a more general sense, that the United States conducts its foreign policy in a way that deliberately persecutes "people of color." We side with the Israelis against the Arabs, several of them mentioned, because Jews are white. None could quite account for our siding with Bosnians Muslims against Christian Serbs — though one protester mentioned, when I pointed this out, that that was Bill Clinton's doing, not Bush's.

3) On a related issue, every single protester I spoke with concurred that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and, especially, John Ashcroft are irredeemably evil ...."""


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-goldblatt022403.asp

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by abu afak
The Antiwar Movement in My ’Hood
Ruminations on war & peace.
By Mark Goldblatt
2/24/03 NRO
...
2) Most of the protesters believe, in a more general sense, that the United States conducts its foreign policy in a way that deliberately persecutes "people of color." We side with the Israelis against the Arabs, several of them mentioned, because Jews are white. None could quite account for our siding with Bosnians Muslims against Christian Serbs — though one protester mentioned, when I pointed this out, that that was Bill Clinton's doing, not Bush's.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-goldblatt022403.asp

Offtopic. Isn't it amazing? We are suddenly white. How curiously convenient!

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Offtopic. Isn't it amazing? We are suddenly white. How curiously convenient!

I guess these peaceniks are too stupid to do the research and look up Sephardic. I bet they couldn't tell an Arab from a Sephardic Jew on any day of the week.

Secondly, it goes to show the hypocrasy. First they say that anti-semitism is BS because Arabs are also semitic, and now they're dark and Jews are white? what?

[Am Yisrael]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
I guess these peaceniks are too stupid to do the research and look up Sephardic. I bet they couldn't tell an Arab from a Sephardic Jew on any day of the week.

Secondly, it goes to show the hypocrasy. First they say that anti-semitism is BS because Arabs are also semitic, and now they're dark and Jews are white? what?

Hmm. My father is Iraqi Jew. He looks like a typical arab (external features). My grandmother always used to say that the way Iraqi Jews could distinguish each other from the native Iraqi Arabs in Iraq by their eyes (and language dialect). She said that Jews had the eyes of being persecuted and hard worked.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
Hmm. My father is Iraqi Jew. He looks like a typical arab (external features). My grandmother always used to say that the way Iraqi Jews could distinguish each other from the native Iraqi Arabs in Iraq by their eyes (and language dialect). She said that Jews had the eyes of being persecuted and hard worked.

No offense to anyone out there, but I think Jews possess a Jew Radar, kind of similar to Gaydar or even the scent that similar canines put out in order to recognize each other.

Usually I can tell someone is a Jew just by a fifth sense of sorts. Its kind of uncanny. Maybe it has to do with my father pointing members of the tribe out whereever we were and then again, some people just fit the stereotypes as well, but I think there is a deeper bond, maybe even (an agnostic talking here) a spiritual bond.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
Hmm. My father is Iraqi Jew. He looks like a typical arab (external features). My grandmother always used to say that the way Iraqi Jews could distinguish each other from the native Iraqi Arabs in Iraq by their eyes (and language dialect). She said that Jews had the eyes of being persecuted and hard worked.

That's funny, although sad. People always ask me if one of my Palestinian friends and I are brother and sister so we have gotten to the point of responding "Yes."

That aside, and in response to andak's concerns regarding whether an invasion would create a propaganda opportunity for Muslim radicals, I think that it is bound to happen at this point one way or another. When Israel left Lebanon, it was viewed as a military victory against the Zionist army. The spin on 9-11 was the ability to confront the great and powerful United States on their own land. If we invade, there will be propagnada, if we don't, there will still be propaganda. Since it's bound to happen one way or another, I'm more concerned with the loss of Iraqi civilian lives and the lives of our soldiers. While I don't want to go looking for trouble, there's no sense in allowing oneself to be fearful of the consequences of terrorism if you believe that you are doing the right thing. There are many ways that a human being can die. What is "doing the right thing" in this situation- I wish I could be sure. Like all things involving the ME, the problem is incredibly complicated and it makes no sense to reduce it down to clever little slogans, which I think you and I agree on. Right now, I'm more concerned about N Korea than Iraq to be honest.

[Mediocrates]

I think people are being incredibly blockheaded about this whole thing. There is one order for radical muslims (or pick whatever nomme de guerre you wish).

ESCALATE.

Always escalate. EVERYTHING and ANYTHING will be seen or spun as a great victory and clear instructions to take the battle to the infidel.

Invade and it's retaliation. Don't invade and it's clear proof Allah is on their side and the jihad is just.

There is no cease fire that is going to be called. Don't you people understand that?

You cannot bargain with mad dog. You kill it. Kill it with a shovel if you have to but you kill it and you make damn sure that bitch is dead.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I think people are being incredibly blockheaded about this whole thing. There is one order for radical muslims (or pick whatever nomme de guerre you wish).

ESCALATE.

Always escalate. EVERYTHING and ANYTHING will be seen or spun as a great victory and clear instructions to take the battle to the infidel.

Invade and it's retaliation. Don't invade and it's clear proof Allah is on their side and the jihad is just.

There is no cease fire that is going to be called. Don't you people understand that?

You cannot bargain with mad dog. You kill it. Kill it with a shovel if you have to but you kill it and you make damn sure that bitch is dead.

Well there you have it, folks. Hit the bitch with a shovel! Enough said.

[Mediocrates]

Anybody who entertains the hope that terrorists can be placated or that they will see our surrender or inaction as some kind of final victory for them is so seriously deluded it's laughable. Who were we bombing all through 2000-2001 through Sept 10th? Who was the USS Cole shooting at, who was threatened by the American embassy in Tanzania?

You don't bargain with these people. Our inconclusive end in 1991 is what lead us to this point now with Iraq.

[Communication]

So be it. But may I then suggest the following:

Step 1: send a message from Bush to Hussein stating that "if Hussein declares [war on the West*] we will melt his face with plutonium." We can arrange for an old Japanese man to deliver the message.

Step 2: kidnap hundreds of Iraqi children and force them to learn passages from the New Testement. Release them on to the streets of Bagdad quoting Revelations.

_________

And if you really want to drive those Muslim bastards crazy:

Step 3: Have Powell open his next U.N. speech by blowing the shofar.

Step 4: For "security" reasons, have Bush change the location for delivering his next State of the Union Address to the pulpit of a Souther Methodist Church.


*It is advisable that you change "the West" to "Epharim" in the event of a natural disaster in the region.

[richcrassus]

IS Paul wolfowitz the US govt guy jewish?

[Communication]

Originally posted by richcrassus
IS Paul wolfowitz the US govt guy jewish?

I dunno. Do you think Powell is really black?

[richcrassus]

Umm, is that a trick question?
Cant u just answer my ridiculously easy question?

[Mediocrates]

Yes he is.


It's interesting really to google his name in double quotes space jewish.

I got 550 hits about 80% of which are some of the darkest antisemitic paranoid screwhead trash you'll find. Everything from Matt Welch to Justin Raimondo

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by richcrassus
Umm, is that a trick question?
Cant u just answer my ridiculously easy question?

Yes, he is obviously of Jewish ancestry, judging by his name and his face. Is he pro- or anti-Israel is totally different question. Ditto for Ari Fleisher.

Remember, this Administration (widely considered to be pro-Israel) is the first in the US history to declare "a vision" of a Pal state on a disputed war-won territories (there's never been a Pal state there) and ran the resolution through the UN SC to make it a reality.

[Communication]

Two Midrashim:

The first story-

This is about Job, who was in Egypt at the same time as Moses. What's more, he held the important position of adviser in the Pharoh's court, with the same rank as Jethro and Bileam. When the Pharoh asked how he might resolve the Jewish question, Jethro spoke in favor of Moses' request- to let his people go. Bileam, on the other hand took the opposite stand. When Job was consulted, he refused to take sides; he wished to remain neutral, so he kept silent, neither for nor against. This neutrality, the Midrash says, earned him his future sufferings. At critical times, at moments of peril, no one has the right to abstain, to be prudent. When the life or death- or simply the well-being- of a community is at stake, neutrality is criminal, for it aids and abets the oppressor and not the victim.

The Second Story-

This one is no less provocative. It is found in a passge about the Red Sea. The expected victims are saved at the eleventh hour, while their oppressors drown before their eyes. It is a moment of grace so extraordinary that the angels themselves begin to sing, but God interupts them with the most humane, the most generous, the most sympathetic reminder. What has come over you? My creatures are perishing beneath the waves of the sea and you are singing?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Communication
Step 2: kidnap hundreds of Iraqi children and force them to learn passages from the New Testement. Release them on to the streets of Bagdad quoting Revelations.


Many Muslims can already quote the New Testament better than their Christian counterparts. The practice they recieve in memorizing the Qur'an allows them to memorize other things as well. The New Testament is by no means forbidden reading to Muslims, although reading the Qur'an is forbidden to some Christian sects.

[Communication]

Originally posted by andak01
Many Muslims can already quote the New Testament better than their Christian counterparts. The practice they recieve in memorizing the Qur'an allows them to memorize other things as well. The New Testament is by no means forbidden reading to Muslims, although reading the Qur'an is forbidden to some Christian sects.

haha! You're the only one who responded to my sarcastic post. I'm actually having a friendly debate with a Christian right now on some passages in Luke. Do you know off hand where there is evidence in scripture of the trinity concept in Catholicism?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Communication
haha! You're the only one who responded to my sarcastic post. I'm actually having a friendly debate with a Christian right now on some passages in Luke. Do you know off hand where there is evidence in scripture of the trinity concept in Catholicism? Are you looking for Scriptural basis or just doctrinal statements?

[Communication]

Originally posted by JustPat
Are you looking for Scriptural basis or just doctrinal statements?

Either. I am familiar with the concept of the logos, but I am particularly interested in scriptual basis. Another question, how do Christians view the words in the NT? Are they considered the writings of the apostles or are they viewed as the words of God acting through men? I guess what I'm really asking is, does every word have divine significance?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Communication
Either. I am familiar with the concept of the logos, but I am particularly interested in scriptual basis. Another question, how do Christians view the words in the NT? Are they considered the writings of the apostles or are they viewed as the words of God acting through men? I guess what I'm really asking is, does every word have divine significance?
Actually, your second question determines the answer to your first. In some circles the Bible is viewed as the inspired word of G_d, literally seen as G_d-breathed. This is not the position of all who call themselves Christian. Some hold the Bible to be no more that moral stories. For those who hold the Scriptures to be "inspired," myself included, they become their docrinal statement.

The most commonly held "proof" of the trinity cited is found in the account of the baptism of Jesus where G_d speaks from on high, Jesus is being baptised, and the Holy Spirit is descending in the form of a dove. (Matthew 3:16-17). Jesus himself is recorded as referring to the trinity in his teaching. (John 15:26-27) It is under the authority of this triune leadership that the Church is to operate. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Old Testament support of the trinity is al little more complicated. Here it is believed that the various references to "elohim." Being a plural form it is then cited as the OT confirmation of the NT revelation.

[Communication]

Thanks Just Pat!

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing...

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Communication


Now back to our regularly scheduled programing...

No. 1 Thursday, February 13, 2003 David Horowitz

The “Anti-War” Movement Is A Bigger Problem Than You Think

For over a year our country has been at war with a terrorist foe that can infiltrate our borders with weapons of mass destruction. We are divided in our homeland on two fronts. Reasonable people may disagree over tactics and priorities in fighting this war -- for example over which hostile agency or state to take on, and at which point in time. There have been critics of the Administration’s war policy from both the Democrat and Republican side of the aisle. But these critics share a common concern for the defense of this country, and in the end they support our government and our nation against its foes.

Not so the other opposition to the war, which is a radical movement with Marxist roots, whose origins go back to the Vietnam War and whose political base is American universities. This opposition to the war on terror manifested itself within weeks of 9/11 with aim of opposing an American military response to the al-Qaeda attacks. Its agendas are not “pacifist” and are not inspired by dissatisfaction with any particular American war or policy, but with the American system itself. It is a movement which cannot be appeased and which is willing to collaborate with America’s enemies.

Every major “anti-war” demonstration to date, including the demonstrations on the Capitol Mall in October and January has been organized and controlled by a self-styled Communist group called the Workers World Party, and its front “International A.N.S.W.E.R.” The figurehead of this organization is former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and its organizer is Brian Becker, a member of the secretariat of the Workers World Party. The WWP is aligned with the North Korean Communist regime and along with its figurehead has supported the North Vietnamese torturers of American POWS, the Ayatollah Khomeni regime in Iran, Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.

At the Mall, the speakers – all selected by the Workers World Party – denounced America as an imperialist aggressor and “the axis of evil,” and called for “regime change” and “revolution” in the United States. An imam from a Washington DC mosque led the crowd in chants of “Allahu Akbar,” which is the cry of the suicide bombers as they blow up innocent civilian targets. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 suicide bombers, gave these instructions to his team: “When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee was a featured speaker at the Workers World Party “peace” rally, as was former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Representative Charles Rangel, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee sent a letter of support. In a sister demonstration in San Francisco, also organized by the Workers World Party, California State Senator, Democrat John Burton, told the protesters that the President of the United States was “full of s___” and was “f---ing America.”

So appalling were these demonstrations that older members of the left disassociated themselves from this movement in articles that appeared in leftwing magazines like Salon.com and the L.A. Weekly (the latter article was written by David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation).

On February 15, an anti-war protest will be held in New York City, organized by a new group called “United for Peace and Justice.” This group is headed by Leslie Cagan, a Sixties Marxist with a long history of supporting Communist causes. She was a member of the Venceremos Brigades organized by Cuban Intelligence. She was a member of the Committees for Correspondence, a faction of the Communist Party USA, and she is co-chair of the National Network on Cuba an organization whose purpose is propaganda and political support for the Castro dictatorship. Cagan has warned that, “If marches do not work, we will escalate. We will have to do things to disrupt the normal flow of life in this country.”(NYTimes, 2/04/03) This threat of sabotage should not be taken lightly given the history of more than 1,000 domestic bombings during the Vietnam War.

The agendas of the so-called “peace movement” are pro-Communist and anti-American. Its organizers have worked with America’s enemies in the past and are continuing to do so in the midst of this war. This is the very definition of a political “fifth column.” Honest dissenters and Americans concerned about the future of their country should take a hard look at these protests and those who support them.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=31

[Mediocrates]

http://www.spiked-online.com/printable/00000006DC93.htm

The problem with the peace movement
by Jennie Bristow

'Scratch the average pacifist and you find a jingo', observed George Orwell over half a century ago. What, I wonder, would he make of the apparent national self-loathing that characterises the British anti-war movement today? Surely there is nothing remotely jingoistic in that inchoate sentiment, 'Not in my name'?

Surely not. What there is, however, is a passive acceptance of the UK's role as an imperialist power, of the West's ability to determine the affairs of the rest of the world, mixed up with an aversion to the nasty consequences of doing it. It is this combination of emotional revulsion and political acquiescence that makes today's peace movement such a disturbing phenomenon.

In the conflicts of the past 50 years, you didn't have to scratch the British pacifist very hard to find the jingo within. The peace movement - typified by that bastion of liberal-left, middle-class respectability, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) - aimed its fire not at the reasons for war, but at the methods of war; not at warfare itself, but at the kind of weapons employed.

So 12 years ago, during the first Gulf War, it was CND that campaigned for sanctions and diplomacy instead of bombs. Its alternative to Operation Desert Storm was another kind of warfare - a programme of crippling sanctions that, since 1991, has arguably resulted in more deaths than the military campaign itself, and has kept Iraq firmly in the stranglehold of the West.

CND's mission was never to criticise the legitimacy of the British state's international adventures. Indeed, the campaign supported Britain's calls to arms - with the proviso that it wanted to use different arms (such as slow starvation, and above all no nukes).

Moreover, it helped to legitimise such foreign adventures, by presenting an apparently anti-war alternative based on the same interventionist principle. When even the anti-war lobby agreed that Saddam Hussein was a menace to the world and should be dealt with by the West, at considerable cost to Iraqi civilians, what opposition did the British government actually face in its decision to push the button?

CND's narrow focus on nuclear weapons allowed for new instruments designed to keep the West in a position of authority over the rest - such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a ratification of the principle that only the powerful countries should be able to posses nuclear weapons, and that countries like North Korea deserve to be pushed around for daring to do the same thing. And the peace movement's arguments for 'alternative defence' effectively called for the use of the kind of non-nuclear weapons that, in the hands of the West, have wreaked devastation in recent wars.

The British peace movement's alternative to war has historically been a patriotic endorsement of Western intervention - with consequences that are no less dire for those on the receiving end. From the Falklands to the Gulf to the self-styled humanitarian interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, CND and its allies in parliament, the media and the church have always accepted the principle of Western intervention abroad, quibbling only over the methods that this intervention should take. Those countries at whom the intervention was aimed invariably found themselves broken up, brutalised and beaten - only sometimes, it happened more diplomatically than others.

What conclusion can we draw from this? Perhaps that the peace movement's concern was never with the fate of the people upon whom war was being declared, so much as with its own view of the British state. The jingo inside the pacifist accepts that Western domination of, and intervention into, parts of the rest of the world is a moral good and a political necessity. He simply feels that Britain should be able to achieve its objectives by rising above the grubby stuff of direct warfare and killing.

It is the pacifist's confidence in, and allegiance to, Britain that informs his view of how overseas conflicts should be dealt with - not a sober concern with the fate of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the Bosnian Muslims, or anybody else.

When you scratch the surface of today's anti-war movement, this fundamental issue has not changed. Whatever concerns are voiced about the plight of Iraqi babies, those protesting in Hyde Park on 15 February 2003 were driven by their own views of the British state, and the role they thought it should play in the world abroad. The difference with conflicts of the past lies, not at the level of the rights and wrongs of this impending Gulf War relative to the past, but at the change in British views of their own political establishment.

Viewing that historic march and the discussion around it, you could be forgiven for wondering whether it was a protest against war, or against Blair, or simply against the current state of life in general. Those aspects of the protest that have been lauded as something new and great - the absence of leadership, the lack of slogans, the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs, the substitution of a mass of individuals for a collective movement - all of this indicated the end of old ideas, passions and principles. United against the war but for nothing in particular, there was certainly a lot that was different to the peace movement of old.

But it is not that today's peace protests represent the start of some new political movement. Rather, it is the product of the depoliticisation of recent times. It is characterised by a growing distaste for the politics, culture and institutions of modern British life, yet without any sense of an alternative. And it projects these broad sentiments on to the issue of the war.

As Mick Hume has argued on spiked, the major factors motivating the recent anti-war march in London were the growing atmosphere of mistrust towards government institutions, and the dominant culture of fear (See A march based on mistrust and fear). The size of the march, and the sentiments it espoused - Blair's not listening, 'Not in my name' - spoke volumes about the isolation of the political class, and its lack of legitimacy among the electorate. This message came through loud and clear - what those on the march were rather quieter about is what they thought could be done instead of war.

At least the calls for sanctions during the first Gulf War represented a different, if no more humane, method of coercion. Yet this time around, the sanctions and their consequences already exist. Among those who believe that the West should disarm Saddam, the only call is for more time for diplomacy before a war, or for a 'peaceful invasion' of Iraq by UN forces, or for a war to be conducted under the auspices of the UN.

Among those who believe that nothing should be done about Saddam, the motivation is fear and cynicism, not an objection based on political principle. The argument that doing something can only increase the risk apparently posed by Iraq to world peace is tantamount to an objection that war won't work, and that this is the problem with it. None of this challenges the domination of the world by Western powers - it reinforces the idea that this is a fact of life, and quibbles about the practicality of the USA behaving like a superpower, and the UK following behind.

As in the past, the reaction of today's UK peace movement to the impending war on Iraq is formed by its views of the British state. But while the old peace movement carried a torch for Britain, today's protesters are defined by their lack of faith in Britain's political leaders and institutions. From the hard left to the traditional right, the Hyde Park protest has been hailed as an expression of thoroughgoing cynicism with British political life - and as a description, that is right. But without any political alternative on offer, where does any of this lead?

If today's peace movement is notable for its lack of an expressed alternative to war, even more noteworthy is the lack of a broader alternative to the politics of the Third Way. The mainstream parties have been conspicuously unable to make political capital out of the protests - the Tories caught up in their own undignified collapse, and the Lib Dems opportunistically attempting to ride the anti-war wave, but coming out indistinguishable from the French and German governments. The lack of any broader contest is what marks out today's peace movement from the anti-militarist protests of the past, and casts serious doubts on where this movement can lead.

[Mediocrates]

When it came to anti-war protests in the past, CND and its allies on the respectable liberal-left were never key to building the movement. The powerful strand of anti-war movements came from the political left - whose motivations, too, were formed by their views of the British state, but from a positive perspective of social change. Today, when there is no left-wing struggle, we see the spectacle of what remains of the hard left desperately trying to hang on to the coat-tails of the marching however-many-millions, in the hope that this wave of disgruntlement can be harnessed and transformed into something new.

This not only smacks of the self-delusion that has always characterised the British left - it shows how low the left's expectations have become. Look, for example, at Socialist Worker's proposals for the 'Next step' following the peace demo - including 'We have days to galvanise the anti-war mood and organise it', and 'If up to two million people can march in London, then thousands can harry every government minister wherever they go' (1). Despite the hype about how the demo 'showed what can be achieved when we come together', this seems like an attempt to make rather little out of not very much.

In the absence of this broader ideological conflict, the anti-war movement finds itself rootless. In the absence of even more mundane alternatives - to war, to New Labour, to Blair - the movement is actually corrosive. It unites people around the fears and frustrations about modern life, without offering anything by way of resolution. And by branding itself a new political movement, it dignifies powerlessness by presenting it as protest.

The much-vaunted revolt by Labour MPs in the Parliamentary debate on 26 February indicates the extent of this alienation, and how corrosive it is. The sizable vote for the 'not yet' amendment, by many of those who previously have not indicated much of an interest in Iraq one way or another, did not represent opposition to the war - claiming only that the case for war is 'as yet unproven'. What it did represent was that even those within Blair's party welcome an opportunity to express their own disaffection, to proclaim that 'he's not listening to us' - regardless of what consequences this might have for the war, for the government, or for their own party.

Of course, there is every reason to oppose this war. Even the Western powers appear uncertain about whether it is a good idea. But while, in this climate, analysis, questioning and the search for ideas can achieve a great deal, attempting to forge a movement out of apolitical frustration is counterproductive to the spirit of political change. The slogan 'Not in my name' sums it up, by actively calling for passive disengagement.

Scratch the average pacifist today, and you probably won't find a jingo. But nor will you find a militant anti-jingo, fighting to make the world a better place. And for those of us who want to go beyond the cynicism epitomised by today's peace movement, challenging the myth that a million - give or take a few - Hyde Park marchers united in passivity represents a positive force for change is probably quite a good place to start.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Communication
Two Midrashim:

The first story-

This is about Job, who was in Egypt at the same time as Moses. What's more, he held the important position of adviser in the Pharoh's court, with the same rank as Jethro and Bileam. When the Pharoh asked how he might resolve the Jewish question, Jethro spoke in favor of Moses' request- to let his people go. Bileam, on the other hand took the opposite stand. When Job was consulted, he refused to take sides; he wished to remain neutral, so he kept silent, neither for nor against. This neutrality, the Midrash says, earned him his future sufferings. At critical times, at moments of peril, no one has the right to abstain, to be prudent. When the life or death- or simply the well-being- of a community is at stake, neutrality is criminal, for it aids and abets the oppressor and not the victim.

The Second Story-

This one is no less provocative. It is found in a passge about the Red Sea. The expected victims are saved at the eleventh hour, while their oppressors drown before their eyes. It is a moment of grace so extraordinary that the angels themselves begin to sing, but God interupts them with the most humane, the most generous, the most sympathetic reminder. What has come over you? My creatures are perishing beneath the waves of the sea and you are singing? Sorry to let these stories go by for so long without mentioning to you how much they underline every consideration that OUGHT to be running though everyone's mind.

We cannot be neutral.....but, we must never take joy in the death of the enemy.

[abu afak]

ANTI-WAR OR ANTI-U.S.?

By AMIR TAHERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


March 5, 2003 -- 'THE rebirth of the peace movement." This is how sections of the Western media describe the marches that attracted 30 million people in some 600 cities, in 25 countries, across the globe in recent weeks.
Last week, a group of "peaceniks" gathered in London to discuss ways of nursing the "reborn" child into adulthood. By coincidence, today marks the 50th anniversary of Josef Stalin's death.

The Soviet dictator was the father of the first "peace movement," which for years served as an instrument of the Kremlin's global policy.

Stalin's "peace movement" was launched in 1946 at a time when he had not yet developed a nuclear arsenal and was thus vulnerable to a U.S. nuclear attack. Stalin also needed time to consolidate his hold on his newly conquered empire in eastern and central Europe while snatching chunks of territory in Iran.

Pablo Picasso, a "fellow traveler" with the French Communist Party, designed the famous dove of peace as the emblem of the movement. French poet Paul Eluard, another fellow traveler, composed an ode inspired by Stalin. The "peaceniks" were told to wear white shirts, release white doves during their demonstrations and shake their clenched fists against "imperialists and revanchistes."

Soon it became clear that the "peace movement" was not opposed to all wars, but only to those that threatened the U.S.S.R., its allies and its satellites.

For example, the peaceniks did not object to Stalin's decision to keep the entire Chechen nation in exile in Siberia. The peaceniks did not march to ask Stalin to withdraw his forces from Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. When Stalin annexed 15 percent of Finland's territory, none of the peaceniks protested.

Neither did they march when the Soviets annexed the Baltic states. Nor did they grumble when Soviet tanks rolled into Warsaw and Budapest, and a decade later also in Prague. But when America led a coalition under a U.N. mandate to prevent North Korean Communists from conquering the south, peaceniks were on the march everywhere.

The movement targeted Western democracies and sought to weaken their resolve against the Soviet threat.

Over the years nobody marched against any of the client regimes of the Soviet Union that engaged in numerous wars, including against their own people.

The wars that China's Communist regime waged against the peoples of Manchuria, Tibet, East Turkestan and Inner Mongolia, lands that were eventually annexed and subjected to "ethnic cleansing," provoked no protest marches. Even when China attacked India and grabbed Indian territories the size of England, the peace movement did not budge.

In the 1960s the movement transformed itself into the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Here, unilateral meant that only the Western powers had to give up their arsenal, thus giving the Soviets a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

The peaceniks spent much of the '60s opposing U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

The 1980s gave them a new lease on life, as they focused on opposing American Pershing missiles in Western Europe.

The Pershings represented a response to Soviet SS-20 missiles that had already been stationed in central Europe and aimed at Western European capitals. But the peaceniks never asked for both the Pershings and the SS-20s to be withdrawn, only the American missiles.

President Ronald Reagan's proposal that both the SS-20s and the Pershings be withdrawn was attacked and ridiculed by the peaceniks as "an American Imperialist trick." Francois Mitterrand, then France's Socialist president, put it this way: "The missiles are in the East but the peaceniks are in the West!"

No peacenik, not even Joschka Fischer, now Germany's foreign minister, marched in support of tearing down the Berlin Wall and allowing the German nation to regain its unity.

All that is now history. The "evil empire" of communism has gone for good, but the deep anti-West sentiments that it promoted over the decades remains.

It is this anti-West, more specifically anti-American, sentiment that provides the glue of the new peace movement.

Last month, the British daily The Guardian asked a number of peaceniks to explain why they opposed the use of force to liberate Iraq?

The main reason they felt they had to support Saddam Hussein was that he was disliked by the United States.


When the Tanzanian army invaded Uganda and removed Idi Amin from power, no one marched because the United States was not involved.

When the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia and changed the Khmer Rouge regime there, no one marched. Again, the United States was not involved.

When French troops invaded the Central African Republic and changed its regime, again no one marched.

The reason? You guessed it: America was not involved.

And what about a march in support of the Chechens? Oh, no, that won't do: The United States is not involved.

The peace movement would merit the label only if it opposed all wars, including those waged by tyrants against their own people, not just those in which America is involved.

Did it march when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran? Not at all.

Did it march when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Again: nix!

(Later, they marched, with the slogan "No Blood for Oil," when the U.S.-led coalition came to liberate Kuwait.)

Did it march when Saddam was gassing the Kurds to death? Oh, no.

Stalin died 50 years ago to the day.

But if he were around today he would have a chuckle: His peace movement remains as alive in the Western democracies as it was half a century ago.

Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe...""

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69969.htm