The Crusader vs. The Caliphate…Bush Doctrine: Destroy the Heretics of Islam

THE GREEN CURTAIN
From the Pillars of Hercules in the Atlantic to the Indonesia Archipelago in the Pacific, a vile and putrid Green Curtain threatens its descent to enshroud and enslave a vast swath of earth’s inhabitants. An Islamic Empire, the resurrection of the Moslem Caliphate, envelopes “with greater economic and military and political power . . . able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction . . . destroy Israel . . . intimidate Europe . . . assault the American people . . . and blackmail our government into isolation.” (Remarks by President Bush before the National Endowment for Democracy on the War on Terror, October, 2005).
“We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity . . . We will not tire, or rest . . . we will see freedom’s victory . . . we must stop them . . . we will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory . . . there is no peace without victory . . . we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory!
“The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia . . . they are fanatical and extreme . . . utterly committed . . . As Zarqawi has vowed, ‘We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life’ . . . we must stop them before their crimes can multiply!” (Excerpts from Bush’s speech.)
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html)
THE WAR AGAINST HUMANITY
The battle lines are clearly drawn; the identity of the implacable foe utterly delineated; the sinister intentions and methodologies of this cowardly lot have been, by our President, exposed before the whole world for what they really are: THE HERETICS OF ISLAM!
Furthermore, “these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions (as quoted by Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda’s leader): ‘(We) dedicate our resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of (our) lands . . . The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries (viz. Western Civilization vs. Islamic Civilization) . . . It’s either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation!” (OBL).
The President likened “Radical Islam’s . . . war against humanity” (i.e., the “civilized world”) to the struggle against fanatical despots like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot—branding them all as “EVIL MEN, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience.”
Theirs is a “murderous ideology . . . the great challenge of our new century!” They are the killers of “Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Margaret Hassan and of Theo Van Gogh.” They justify their random killings “ . . . because I believe you are an infidel.”
They hide behind the “veneer of religious rhetoric . . . (they wish to) rule the soul itself . . . While promising a future of justice and holiness.” Indeed, the President’s religious definitions/expressions swirl throughout his entire speech: “The excuses for violence (range from) the Israeli presence on the West Bank . . . the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia . . . the defeat of the Taliban . . . or the CRUSADES of a thousand years ago.”
COMMUNISM’S IDEOLOGY WAS DEFEATED—SO WILL THEIRS—WITH AN “IRON FIST”
President Bush asserts that we have been at war for the past quarter of a century against this ubiquitous foe. He likens the present struggle against “Islamo-fascism, Islamic radicalism, militant Jihadism” to the “ideology of communism . . . gulags . . . the Cultural Revolution . . . and the killing fields.” The victory the West won against the by-gone “totalitarian aims” of communism, will repeat its triumph over “the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle.”
Not only do those who aspire to the resuscitation of the Caliphate wish to expunge the West’s influences from the “broader Middle East,” they, according to Bush, “regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity.” Iraq has become—for better or worse—the “central front” in America’s War on Terror. If the “militants” persist in Iraq, they will “rally the Muslim masses . . . overthrow all moderate governments in the region . . . and establish a radical Islamic empire” (i.e., the Caliphate).
But, again, as the communists suffered defeat, even so, they who claim that Americans are “the most cowardly of God’s creatures” (i.e., Mr. Zarqawi) shall likewise “condemn themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse . . . because free peoples will own the future.” No, the US will not leave a “vacuum” in Iraq for their dastardly aims to multiply . . . they will be crushed by Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, OPERATION IRON FURY, OPERATION IRON FIST . . . ad nausea, ad infinitum.
OPERATION IRON FIST IS BIGGER THAN IRAQ
Alas! The US military has no end in announcing yet another operation to smash the burgeoning insurgency now, according to CNN (October 15, 2005 flush with some 200,000 militants . . . wherein some 10,000 have been slain,30,000 imprisoned and some 300 to 400 infractions occur each week! Iron-Bullet, Fist, Force, Fury, Grip, Hammer, Justice, Promise, Resolve, Saber . . . and the list continues to grow! (List of Military Operations and Non-Military Operations) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_missions,_operations,_and_projects#Second_Invasion_of_Iraq)
In addition to this “must win” aforementioned iron resolve—a sort of “Triumph of the Will”-style determination—epitomized by President Bush himself, those “helpers and enablers” of the would-be Caliphate, SYRIA and IRAN, shall NOT go unpunished . . .
“ . . . authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting American and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, on the Jews . . . we’re determined (against Syrian and Iran) to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes . . . STATE-SPONSORS like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they DESERVE NO PATIENCE FROM THE VICTIMS OF TERROR. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, BECAUSE THEY’RE EQUALLY AS GUILTY OF MURDER (Applause from audience). Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization . . . and the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.”
Be it abundantly clear to the entire world: SYRIA and IRAN, the enemies of civilization, shall be “held to account” . . . they are the “enemies of civilization . . . “THEY’RE EQUALLY GUILTY OF MURDER!”
Not only is Bush determined to extinguish the spiritual aspirations of Caliphate from the OBL’s of the world, and not only will he prohibit their acquisitions of any state, but he most certainly will in accordance with his military plan and “offensive operations . . . clear out enemy forces” from those states which “collaborate with terrorists!”
Listen—first SYRIA is mentioned, then IRAN . . . is that coincidental? I think not—for it is in that precise order that “freedom” and “democracy” shall extend her grip on the region!
The “enemy” shall be denied “control of any nation!” For this very reason was the Taliban ousted from Afghanistan; and, it is for this very reason why the US co-labors with Musharraf “to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan.”
To achieve all the above stated goals, the noble extensions of DEMOCRACY and HOPE shall be spread across the broader Middle East.
DENYING JIHADISTS RECRUITS THROUGH DEMOCRACY
Yes, we shall “deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East . . . there’s no alternative . . . OUR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE OF THAT REGION ARE LINKED . . . America is making this stand!”
Indeed, as Condi Rice clearly enunciated American foreign policy in February of 2005 at the American University in Cairo:
“For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither.
“Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people” (American University Cairo, Feb. 9, 2005).
No longer will Middle East despots receive a polite nod from their Western patrons; instead, they shall be vanquished from their dictatorial ways, from their absolutist and tribal monarchies—once and for all!
Yes, a “different course” – altogether different! What you are witnessing here is an all out diplomatic-military effort to radically alter the course of Middle Eastern history/culture through the aggressive propagation of “democracy”—for “Wars are not won without sacrifice — and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.”
This war, the enemies of civilization, shall be “held to account” . . . they are the “enemies of civilization . . . “THEY’RE EQUALLY GUILTY OF MURDER!”
Not only is Bush determined to extinguish the spiritual aspirations of Caliphate from the OBL’s of the world, and not only will he prohibit their acquisitions of any state, but he most certainly will in accordance with his military plan and “offensive operations . . . clear out enemy forces” from those states which “collaborate with terrorists!”
Listen—first SYRIA is mentioned, then IRAN . . . is that coincidental? I think not—for it is in that precise order that “freedom” and “democracy” shall extend her grip on the region!
The “enemy” shall be denied “control of any nation!” For this very reason was the Taliban ousted from Afghanistan; and, it is for this very reason why the US co-labors with Musharraf “to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan.”
To achieve all the above stated goals, the noble extensions of DEMOCRACY and HOPE shall be spread across the broader Middle East.
DENYING JIHADISTS RECRUITS THROUGH DEMOCRACY
Yes, we shall “deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East . . . there’s no alternative . . . OUR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE OF THAT REGION ARE LINKED . . . America is making this stand!”
Indeed, as Condi Rice clearly enunciated American foreign policy in February of 2005 at the American University in Cairo:
“For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither.
“Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people” (American University Cairo, Feb. 9, 2005).
No longer will Middle East despots receive a polite nod from their Western patrons; instead, they shall be vanquished from their dictatorial ways, from their absolutist and tribal monarchies—once and for all!
Yes, a “different course” – altogether different! What you are witnessing here is an all out diplomatic-military effort to radically alter the course of Middle Eastern history/culture through the aggressive propagation of “democracy”—for “Wars are not won without sacrifice — and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.”
This war, according to Bush, is fought on two levels, two primary fronts: The terrestrial (earthly/military) and the psychological (ideological battle for the minds and hearts of the people). Notwithstanding the overt attempt to persuade the world that such be the case, there is another—though it be deeply embedded within the rhetoric of his doctrine discharged before the National Endowment for Democracy: The CELESTIAL!
THE SPIRITUAL CONFRONTATION OF THE AGES
“Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very serious(ly)—and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.” There is, most definitely, religious symbolism and tone throughout the President’s impassioned pleas for “freedom and democracy.” To conclude otherwise misses the entire significance of the speech—its raison d’?tre. To bestir, persuade, and enflame the conscience to sacrifice in defeating this global contagion—he must couch the parameters of the conflict in terms of spirituality! For . . .
“These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus . . . Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism . . . ‘Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person’ (Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran).”
Here is one who decisively marshals the resistance of his implacable foe at the very root of their strength: The Spirit! It is mandatory that he split Islam—acclaim the foundations of Mohammed are predicated upon PEACE!
Naturally, and historically, the foundations of Islam, and the emergence of the Caliphate wrought the separation of the Sunni and the Shiite sects of Islam:
“The rulership of Islam; caliph, the spiritual head and temporal ruler of the Islamic state. In principle, Islam is theocratic: when Muhammad the Prophet died, a caliph [Arab.,=successor] was chosen to rule in his place. The caliph had temporal and spiritual authority but was not permitted prophetic power; this was reserved for Muhammad. The caliph could not, therefore, exercise authority in matters of religious doctrine. The first caliph was Abu Bakr . He was succeeded by Umar , Uthman , and Ali . Sunni Muslims recognize these first four, or Rashidun (the rightly guided caliphs. Shiites , however, recognize Ali as the first caliph. After Ali”s death, Muawiya became caliph and founded the Umayyad dynasty (661-750 chiefly by force of arms. Its capital was Damascus. In 750 the Abbasid family, descended from the Prophet”s uncle, led a coalition that defeated (749-50) the Umayyad family.” (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/caliphat.asp).
But, one thing is altogether certain—Islam’s religious tolerance, though incessantly touted as widespread and obvious—was and is hardly the case! All the rhetoric to the contrary, Islam’s toleration of Christian, Jew, Hindu, or of Buddhism/Confucius, is NOT borne out in the record. That is precisely why Bush’s appeal to “religious freedom” (and he knows exactly how this “sounds” in the West—secular and/or religious) does NOT play out in Islam:
“We”re standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes,=successor] was chosen to rule in his place. The caliph had temporal and spiritual authority but was not permitted prophetic power; this was reserved for Muhammad. The caliph could not, therefore, exercise authority in matters of religious doctrine. The first caliph was Abu Bakr . He was succeeded by Umar , Uthman , and Ali . Sunni Muslims recognize these first four, or Rashidun (the rightly guided caliphs. Shiites , however, recognize Ali as the first caliph. After Ali”s death, Muawiya became caliph and founded the Umayyad dynasty (661-750 chiefly by force of arms. Its capital was Damascus. In 750 the Abbasid family, descended from the Prophet”s uncle, led a coalition that defeated (749-50) the Umayyad family.” (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/caliphat.asp).
But, one thing is altogether certain—Islam’s religious tolerance, though incessantly touted as widespread and obvious—was and is hardly the case! All the rhetoric to the contrary, Islam’s toleration of Christian, Jew, Hindu, or of Buddhism/Confucius, is NOT borne out in the record. That is precisely why Bush’s appeal to “religious freedom” (and he knows exactly how this “sounds” in the West—secular and/or religious) does NOT play out in Islam:
“We”re standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We”re making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)
Does he know what he is saying? He most assuredly does! Imagine the sound of “religious freedom” and “equal rights for women” in the ear of Islam? Is he aware how this reverberates within the hearts and souls of all who aspire for the Caliphate? He certainly does.
Does such rhetoric enflame the masses of those who oppose his policies in the Middle East—though they are altruistic and even noble in their essence? Could he have left this out of his speech without compromising his persuasions for “democracy and freedom” for all Islamic peoples—especially in the Middle East? Perhaps? But I doubt—besides, he MUST galvanize the West’s opposition to the tyrannical evil who opposes them—and there is no greater appeal (certainly not the ideology of democracy) that will heighten the confrontation against another “evil empire” than the call to RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
The very first phrase and article of our beloved Constitution enshrines it: FREEDOM OF RELIGION! Barbara Walters interview with Saudi’s King Abdullah skirted the issue of religious freedom—lest the “progressive king” (keeper of the shrines of Islam) should be unfavorably embarrassed!
Indeed ABC headlines the article regarding the civil rights of Saudi’s women, but tip-toes around the more inflammatory issue of religious freedom; instead, we read this artful insinuation into the text of the story:
“In the two months since becoming Saudi Arabia”s new monarch, King Abdullah has continued to walk a diplomatic tightrope, assuring the West – particularly the United States – of his country”s commitment to reform and assuring domestic religious leaders of his commitment to Islamic law and tradition.” (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/International/story?id=1207382&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)
King Abdullah knows full well that it is mandatory to placate “domestic religious leaders of his commitment to Islamic law and tradition!” And, what might that “Islamic law and tradition” dictate:
“Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice.” (Note: This little “tidbit” of information is propagated by the US State Department:
(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm)
Can the Saudis have it both ways—be an alleged ally of the US in the War on Terror (as President Bush claims they are) while prohibiting “freedom of religion?” “We”re encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people.” In that very paragraph of his speech Bush touts the concept of religious freedom!
SOCIALISM & ISLAM HAVE A COMMON FOE
The world—that is, the Western World—reeled under the religious and social reverberations of the Reformation in the 1400-1500s. Few realize the profound socio-political upheavals wrought by the first manifestations wrought by religious freedom as a result of the breakup of Catholicism’s monopoly. One forgets the brutal suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt. Thomas Munzer, who experimented with a “new spiritual kingdom,” was perhaps the first in the relatively modern era to embrace communist theory and practice!
“He denounced established governments, and advocated common ownership of the means of life. After a tour in south Germany be returned to Mulhausen, overthrew the governing body of the city, and established a communistic theocracy. The Peasants’ War had already broken out in various parts of Germany; and as the peasantry around Mulhausen was imbued with Munzer’s teaching, he collected a large body of men to plunder the surrounding country. He established his camp at Frankenhausen; but on the 15th of May 1525 the peasants were dispersed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse, who captured Munzer and executed him on the 27th at Mulhausen.”
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MU/MUNZER_THOMAS.htm
From here the West waited until the French Revolution to experiment with capitalism’s alleged opposite (now taking root in America)—and a “Tale of Two Cities” could not have been told so well! Socialism’s rebirth caved to dictatorship (Napoleon) and to ultimate monarchy again.
Never totally lost in the consciousness of thinkers—communism lurched forward and Marxist Socialism/Communism became the dominant Socialist philosophy (overcoming all Christian attempts at the same—Joshua Muravchick’s article: Socialism vs. Religion, details the struggle and the final victory over theism— http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17291/article_detail.asp).
Finally, Socialism’s paradox (National Socialism and Communist Socialism) culminated in World War II and the Cold War. Finally, the “Evil Empire” imploded. Thus, with the violent conclusion of National Socialism, and the ignoble demise of Communist-Stalinism, as well as the birth of Chinese Neo-Communism (Party-Controlled Capitalism the world appeared restful. Alas! One last bastion of true socialism persists (aside from North Korea/Cuba): The oligarchs of the Middle East!
“Baath(ist) Socialism in Iraq, Syria, and Libya incorporate a toxic amalgam of Islam and Socialism similar to the German Nazi combination of new age neo-paganism and socialism. Islamic nations have no defined concept of separation of powers, an independent judiciary, private property, free enterprise, free speech or free press.
”Non-Islamic minorities, called ‘Dhimmis,’ are allowed to live at the whim of the state as long as they submit to second-class status and pay a yearly extortion. This way they are allowed, in most cases, to live yet another year without converting to Islam. Islamic defenders refer to this system as an example of Islamic tolerance.”
(Free Republic– http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/565936/posts)
It is no small secret that Baathist Socialism and the Left, in general, share a common consternation towards the American New World Order System—a system wherein the rich get richer and the poor, poorer—where the “disparity of wealth” continues unabated; NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THE RHETORIC TO THE CONTRARY!
In his classic text, “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” David Horowitz provides a damning critique of America’s Left—extrapolating their connivance with radical Islam and likening it to the Hitler-Stalin Pact of the 20th Century. In other words: They will stop at no lengths to attack Babylon the Great!
I have meandered all over the socio-political map—without going into elaborate detail/references—highlighting the American Left (world Left) and Islam (seemingly poles apart who have purposefully and/or unwittingly ascribed to the old Arab dictum: The enemy of my enemy is my friend!
What Horowitz fails to calculate is the simple fact America’s Left is not monolithic, nor is its Right (though I’m sure he gives mental ascent to this troubling thought). However, both Left and Right in Americana are loathe to outrage over the wishy-washy center—a center whose pompous protestations are adjudged by both as unworthy in galvanizing any base.
THIS CRUSADE…THIS WAR ON TERRORISM
I have presented before you a decisively religious understanding on the part of our President in his efforts to “stay the course” and rally American public opinion to his cause. Without projecting the tone and substance of this debate within the nomenclature of evangelical rhetoric—let alone ideological terminology—the American public will NOT persist in the efforts of the one who (along with America’s representatives) first announced immediately after 9/11:
“They have attacked America because we are freedom”s home and defender; this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while, but we will rid the world of the evil-doers.” – President George W. Bush (September 16, 2001)
“We are coming after you. God may have mercy on you, but we won”t,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
“Bomb the hell out of them. If there”s collateral damage, so be it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable,” Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).
“Deputy Secretary of Defense (Now President of the World Bank) Paul Wolfowitz says that we are going to ‘end states’ that sponsor terrorism, and our entire government puts the world on notice that everyone must ‘choose sides,’ that we no longer differentiate between terrorists and the countries they may live in, and that they are either ‘with us or against us’” (Ramzi Kysia, The Last Crusade—
http://www.bodydharma.org/choices/violence/kysia.html).
Furthermore, the relentless barrage launched by the Bush Administration in the globalization of the War on Terror is laced throughout with the hyperbole of religious expression—no wonder Rayan El-Amine posits what lies within most Moslem minds (notwithstanding the “Moslem Silent Majority” of moderates):
“The green menace has replaced the red menace, and the ‘evil empire’ of the cold war has become the less eloquent, but just as deadly, “evil doers” of the Arab and Muslim world . . . The backward and seemingly static image of the Arab that Oliphant (i.e., Pat Oliphant Hollywood and the Bush administration have projected comes from classic colonial notions of Western superiority. The rhetoric by George Bush and Condoleezza Rice about bringing freedom and democracy to the Arab world is no different from the British and French in the 19th century talking about civilizing India and Africa. Neo-conservatives and right wing think tanks see the Arab world as a colonial project in which Arabs need to be subdued and civilized. Edward Said, in his definitive work of how the West sees the East, Orientalism, explains how the same system of analysis justifies control and superiority today.”
(Muslim Wake Up http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2005/05/the_making_of_t.php)
IMMOVABLE OBJECT MEETS IRRESISTABLE FORCE
When I first heard the remark about an “immovable object meets an irresistible force” it was presented in the context that if there were a God, could He make an object so large that He could not move it? And, ipso facto, if He could make such an object, then He wouldn’t be God!
This convoluted reasoning is, nonetheless, politically valid in the context of the socio-religio imbroglio of the War on Terror. What comfort does the world embrace to know that “most insurgencies last a minimum of nine years?” (In a March, 2005 press conference, General George Casey, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, pointedly noted that insurgencies typically last nine years—The New Republic–
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050531&s=ackerman060305) . . . this flap of the chops was once vigorously subdued by the Administration; now, however, it’s a reasonable statement as the war drags on and on!
“YOUR COVENANT WITH DEATH AND YOUR AGREEMENT WITH HELL” (Isaiah 28:18)
Meanwhile, in their article, A New Vision for a New World, Roger Morris and Steve Schmidt in Counter Punch, among other items, present a rather innocuous, yet potent prophetic prospect—and, since Morris served on the National Security Council Staff under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, since Morris served on the National Security Council Staff under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, his “foreign policy” initiatives should not be taken lightly . . . first, he is NOT touting the President’s National Endowment for Democracy pronouncements . . . no, he is allegedly proposing a comprehensive resolution to the current administration’s foreign and domestic crisis from a decidedly “left-leaning” (to say the least) perspective:
“The war on Iraq is a strategic disaster. Unilateral invasion and a bloody, profiteering, open-ended occupation have torn our alliances, cost unparalleled international hostility and distrust, heightened a still-misread, thus still-undeterred threat of terrorist vengeance, further swollen a malignant budget deficit, strained US ground forces as never before, and altogether drained and diverted the nation amid a host of other grave problems. Added to America”s unremitting complicity with Arab dictatorships and with an Israeli regime gone from self-defense to colonization, subjugation and Berlin-wall apartheid vis-?-vis the Palestinians, the debacle in Iraq compounds an escalating crisis. The contrast between our declared anti-colonial, democratic ideals and our conquest of Iraq is seen as flaunted hypocrisy in our centuries-old image of standing for freedom and the downtrodden. We risk an epochal change in the cultural belief systems of hundreds of millions, an alienation from and hatred of America for generations to come with incalculable consequences.”
But then this curious possibility stands out in glaring distinction amid their imperatives, though clothed in the language of political balance:
“To Israel – we would pledge, by treaty and a joint resolution of Congress, that any invasion of its pre-1967 territory would be equivalent to an attack on the US, obliging our full defense. We would urge other powers to join that guarantee. With or without others, however, America”s commitment to a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace would be unequivocal. If Israel failed to withdraw forces and provide for colonists to return, it would be the US position that dispossession of the Palestinians is a multiple threat to the peace, our principled support since 1947 does not extend to a geo-political mutual suicide pact, and in refusing to act responsibly, Israel will be sanctioned like any other international obstructer.”
(October 11, 2005– http://www.counterpunch.com/morris10112005.html)
The reasoned remarks that guarantee Israel’s security in light of their compliance, cooperation, and sacrifices for peace and coexistence with a sovereign Palestinian State, though proposed by the Left, would be strongly supported by the Religious Right in America, let alone the Republicans! The April 19, 2005 JERUSALEM RESOLUTION reads as follows:
Jerusalem Resolution (Introduced in Senate)
Providing for the recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel before the United States recognizes a Palestinian state, and for other purposes.
SJ 14 IS 109th CONGRESS 1st Session
Among the resolution’s numerous affirmations, these “biblical” confirmations are most notable:
(1) Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years.
(2) Jerusalem has never been the capital for any other state other than for the Jewish people.
(3) Jerusalem is central to Judaism and is cited in the Tanach, the Hebrew Bible, 766 times.
(4) Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the Koran.
To what am I alluding? The political “climate” on both sides of the aisle has reached “prophetic convergence” – the USA is set to enter into a binding accord to underwrite the peace with Israel, unequivocally, unprecedented, an