The Spirit of the Internet Weekly

Click here for opinions from prior weeks.

[Note: The following news and opinions primarily came from email sent by our friends. Thank you Sirius and all the others who have forwarded these messages to us. Due to the large volume of email we are receiving, we can only post a sampling here, but we thank everyone for sending stories like this. We read them all and post what we can as time permits.]

The War on Terror's Newest Target: America's Kids (Arianna Huffington, AriannaOnline.com, February 7, 2002)
“Did you know you are harboring terrorists in your furnished basement? To the terrible trio of Iran, Iraq and North Korea, we've now got to add millions of American kids. At least that's the cock and bull story the commander in chief is peddling with a slick new $10 million ad campaign that is one of the most offensive displays of drug war propaganda ever. . . . Apparently, in The World According to George W. Bush and his drug czar, John Walters, the kid smoking a joint at a party is the moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Atta. . . . $3.5 million spent not on treatment but on demonizing America's young people. Our tax dollars at work. . . . These ads make it seem like the next logical step in the war on terrorism is dropping Daisy Cutters on America's high schools and shipping teen-age drug users off to Guantanamo Bay. With 54 percent of high school seniors admitting they've used illicit drugs, it's going to get awfully crowded down in Cuba. . . . We know, for instance, that bin Laden and al-Qaida used tens of millions of dollars in profits from the diamond industry to fund their operations. So how come we didn't see a commercial with a woman, say, a senator's wife, fingering the diamonds on her sparkling tennis bracelet and admitting: ‘I helped kids learn how to kill?’ And, given the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijackers, and most of the detainees in Cuba, came from Saudi Arabia -- where the ruling family, glutted with oil profits, has coddled extremists for decades -- why no taxpayer-funded ad showing a soccer mom filling up her SUV and saying: ‘I helped blow up buildings?’ . . . At the end of the movie ‘Traffic,’ Michael Douglas' dispirited drug czar crystallizes the madness of the drug war: ‘If there is a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don't know how you wage war on your own family.’ Clearly the Bush administration has no such misgivings.”

Israelis Contemplate the Unthinkable—Moving Out, Escaping the Hell of the Holy Land (Sylvana Foa, The Villiage Voice, February 13, 2002)
“Increasingly anxious about their children's security, tired of paying exorbitant taxes to support what they consider ‘religious parasites,’ and pessimistic about the future, a growing number of young Israeli professionals are looking at the possibility of leaving the country. For good. . . . More surprising, the survey found that 12 percent of Israeli parents would like their children to grow up outside Israel. . . . Those are startling statistics in a country where the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once described emigrants as the ‘lowliest of parasites.’ . . . The stigma attached to those who leave Israel is encoded in the language. Those who immigrate to Israel perform aliya or ‘going up.’ Those who leave commit yerida or ‘going down.’ . . . the numbers include many sabras, who were born in Israel, who served in the army, and who love the country. . . . ‘The main reason we are thinking about going is that we have no hope for the future for the kids,’ she said. ‘We work very hard and pay so much income tax. The government's priorities are not my priorities. They give my money to religious families with 10 kids. And we don't see things getting better. . . . ‘Twenty years ago it was taboo, shameful, for Israelis to leave the country,’ Tali said. ‘Today we hear that there are 300,000 Israelis just in New York City. No one is ashamed anymore. Even the older generation is not ashamed to tell their kids to go and to urge them not to come back.’ . . . ‘Once there was a sense of Zionism here. My grandparents came because this was the place Jews should be,’ Tali said. ‘Now the mentality has changed, people have changed. Everyone is in it for himself. People have become very aggressive. This is no longer a nice place to live; there is no quality of life.”

More Jews Saying ‘NO’ to the Occupation (Michael Lerner, Tikkun Magazine, February 12, 2002)
“In the past ten days hundreds of military officers in the Israeli Army Reserve said ‘No’ to Ariel Sharon. They announced that they had wintessed (and in some cases been forced to participate in) human rights violations in the Occupied Territory and as a result decided that they would refuse to serve. . . . The horrendous and disgusting acts of terror against Israeli civilians made it hard for peace-oriented liberals to gain an audience, and the constant refrain by Jewish establishment leaders that Palestinians would settle for nothing less than the full destruction of the State of Israel tended to silence many who had previously supported the struggle for peace. Shimon Peres added to the confusion by bringing the Labor Party into Sharon’s government and providing him with a figleaf of legitimacy for policies or repression that no previous Labor government would have supported. . . . But 9/11 has produced a deeper wisdom in some: a recognition that there can be no security through military might and repression of civil liberties—because as long as people are suffering and in pain in one part of the world their pain is likely to boil over and can explode in our face in other parts of the world. In short, real security depends on economic and social justice, mutual cooperation, and a new recognition of the Unity of All Being and our fundamental planetary interdependence. On the global level this has led to intensified demands for economic redistribution and ecological sanity. As applied to Israel, this means recognizing that Israel will never be safe in a world that perceives it as an unjust occupier falsely claiming to be a democracy while denying democratic rights to two million Palestinians. . . . In the U.S., the TIKKUN Community has launched a campaign for a nationwide Day of Fasting March 27th in solidarity with the Israeli Reserve Officers—and has urged Jews to turn every Passover Seder (starting that night of March 27th) into a discussion of whether Israel is turning into Pharoah by enforcing the Occupation. It is calling upon non-Jews to reject the attempts by the Jewish world to intimidate them into silence by implying that even legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is nothing more than ‘anti-Semitism’ when it comes from non-jews and self-hating behavior when it comes from Jews. . . . Ariel Sharon may be given a momentary boost by his support from George Bush, but the real story will be told by the support developing for those Israeli reservists, both in Israel and among many Jews who find in that ‘refusal to serve’ an unjust cause something in Israel about which they can be truly proud.”

No Peace among the Nations without Peace and Dialogue among the Religions (Mohamed Khodr, Media Monitors Network, February 12, 2002)
“Because of my pride, patriotism, and respect for our Constitution I, Sir, am taking this opportunity to write you [George W. Bush] of my deep concern and disappointment in comments attributed to the Attorney General Mr. John Aschroft regarding Islam as well as my perception that our ‘war on terrorism’ is being stretched beyond logic and credibility. . . . Mr. Ashcroft is quoted as saying; ‘Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends His son to die for you.’ . . . Mr. President, as an American Muslim I am deeply offended and angered that the top law enforcement officer in the land should hold such views that not only offend 1.2 Billion Muslims in 56 nations worldwide but also the millions of American Muslims whom he swore to protect and uphold their freedoms, rights, and dignity as American citizens. From his very nomination there were major concerns about Mr. Aschroft's views and religious beliefs and how they impact our nation. . . . I am also disturbed by Vice President's alleged remarks of informing Israel's Defense Minister that he had no problem with Israel ‘hanging’ Arafat and Dr. Rice's comments that dealing with Arafat was a ‘waste of time.’ I wish both were with me in Beirut during the summer of 1982 when I was removing cluster bomb fragments and rocket shrapnels from the bodies of Lebanese and Palestinian mothers and children courtesy of Sharon's army and American weapons. It seems our government has learned the lesson of your father when he withheld the $10 Billion from Israel and angered the Jewish bloc and lost the election as related in the first chapter of J. J. Goldberg's book ‘Jewish Power.’ . . . In closing, Sir, may I remind you that 75% of American Muslims voted for you for we indeed believed that you had the character and strength to stand up for truth and justice here and abroad. Now we see that most of the world opposes our foreign policy yet we seem to think we don't need anyone but our ‘smart bombs’. I beg to differ, Sir. We need more of ‘smart policies’ and much less smart bombs. . . . I love this country for giving me the opportunities I would never have in the Muslim world, most importantly the opportunity to write my President expressing my constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. I honor our nation for that right. . . . Please let Mr. Ashcroft know that I have been visited by the FBI wanting information on me and on my fellow Muslims in my community. Perhaps Mr. Ashcroft should know that I risked my life several times to save the lives of our diplomats and marines overseas.”

Have the Yanks Gone Mad? (Scott McConnell, AntiWar.com, February 12, 2002)
“Today's unilateralists are a different breed. Educated at top Ivy League schools, they write speeches for the President, or have secured millions from media moguls to publish magazines read by key Congressional staffers. None of them, of course, went anywhere near Vietnam themselves, unless it was years after the fact, to write a book about how noble a cause it was. . . . Last week the Financial Times, a middle of the road, establishment oriented, pro-business paper, takes a moment to editorialize about the new circumstance. On the eve of Ariel Sharon's visit the White House (the fourth meeting between Bush and Sharon, as European papers seldom fail to point out high in their stories) the FT ran a column discussing the ‘unease’ springing up between Europe and the United States. Germany has led the protests, Brian Groom notes, but the discomfort is more widespread. . . . The author concludes that Blair should acknowledge he has no real influence on Bush. After the State of the Union address, British officials ‘are playing down what the country can achieve as a transatlantic bridge.’ . . . Nor does Germany have any influence. Nor France, where prime minister Jospin recently went public over what the French view as dangerously simplistic policies. Nor any country in Europe. . . . To whom does Bush listen? Apparently Ariel Sharon has his ear. . . . Future generations may read of how the unilateralist's largest target, Iran, was in the midst of an fascinating political battle between fundamentalist clerics (on the retreat) and democratizing forces (making astonishing progress). But the war threats would bring the democratization process to a screeching halt. In a war waged without allies and with little sympathy around the world, the United States will lack the intelligence and police cooperation essential to a campaign against terrorism. . . . Because in any war, the United States will kill far more of ‘the enemy’ than it absorbs casualties itself, it will leave in its wake thousands of fatherless children and younger siblings, some of whom will naturally dream of vengeance. Bush's war policy promises to turn much of the Muslim world into defeated and occupied territory, our very own Gaza Strip writ large, seething with resentment and aching to even the score. . . . Can anyone doubt why the Europeans see this course as a more than a little bit mad, and are now talking to America in the cautious and soothing tones one uses in the presence of deranged man carrying a loaded weapon?”

Storm over Afghan civilian victims, botched raids on anti-Taliban forces (Ian Traynor and Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 12, 2002)
“On at least two occasions in the past month, the Guardian has also established, the US raids were botched and anti-Taliban forces were targeted as a result of bungled intelligence. According to western officials in Kabul, village women were tied up by the Americans and hair samples taken for DNA analysis to try to establish links with Osama bin Laden. . . . In village raids last month south of Kabul, the homes of mistaken Taliban suspects were torched, the officials said. . . . The revelations add to the pressure on the Pentagon resulting from the mounting toll of civilian or innocent dead in Afghanistan from the US campaign in the air and on the ground. A Guardian investigation into the level of civilian casualties has found that thousands of civilians have died since the US launched its bombardment on October 7. . . . US military officials, who had routinely rejected earlier accounts of civilian casualties as enemy propaganda, were forced back on the defensive at a Pentagon press conference yesterday at which every question focused on targeting errors and the treatment of captives. The press grilling came on a day of potentially embarrassing revelations that cast doubt on the accuracy of intelligence used to trigger US attacks and the reliability of the Pentagon press machine. . . . The Pentagon first described it as a successful strike on an al-Qaida compound, then suggested the targets were Taliban fighters before being forced to release them last week when it emerged they were locals who had fought alongside US forces against the Taliban. . . . the CIA is reported to have begun distributing compensation of about $1,000 (£700) to the bereaved relatives, in what appeared to be the clearest admission so far that something had gone badly wrong.”

America still killing innocents (Ian Traynor, The Guardian, February 12, 2002)
“The roof collapsed on the first floor where Fardin was asleep. He was left speechless by the trauma and so paralysed by fear that he has not walked since. . . . . On the same autumn day that the Americans killed nine Afghan civilians here, nine children perished to the south when the tractor and trailer in which they were travelling was bombed in Uruzgan province. And to the west in Herat dozens of civilians died when a 1,000lb cluster pod spilt its 202 yellow pea bomblets across a mosque and hospital complex. . . . . They were all innocent victims of Washington's war on terror, part of the steadily mounting toll of civilian casualties still being inflicted on Afghanistan despite the collapse of the Taliban and the dispersal of Osama bin Laden's Islamist international. They are what have become known as ‘collateral damage’, like ‘ethnic cleansing’ a chilling and cliched euphemism of the past 10 years. . . . . Despite the manipulation of casualty figures for propaganda purposes by both pro-war apologists and anti-war activists, it is already clear that the number of civilian dead from the bombing vastly exceeds the estimated 500 killed by US air strikes during the 78-day Kosovo war, and may also be higher than the 3,200 Iraqi civilians believed killed during the Gulf war. . . . . Some analysts say more than 60 Afghan civilians are being killed daily on average since the bombing began on October 7. A European demining expert in Kabul who works closely with the Pentagon reckons that up to 8,000 civilians have been killed. . . . . But in the past few weeks, there has been increasing evidence of how the Americans are also being drawn in on the ground, committing errors after being lured into local feuds. . . . There is little doubt the war in Afghanistan has been a triumph of American might. But out of sight and out of mind, day after day, in dribs and drabs, a lot of ordinary people are dying in a war that sees the most advanced fighting machine ever assembled doing its killing in one of the most backward societies on earth. . . . The results: just two Americans killed by hostile fire to set against thousands of dead Afghan non-combatants. Is this civilian death toll warranted?”

Chariots of ire: is US jingoism tarnishing the Olympic ideal? (Duncan Mackay, The Guardian, February 15, 2002)
“Nationalism has always been a part of the Olympics but IOC officials here feel the event is being used simply as propaganda for the US war effort. . . . ‘This is a show designed to send a message to Osama bin Laden,’ said one IOC member. ‘President Bush is saying: 'Look at us: you bombed us but you can't stop us going about our normal lives.' But that is not what the Olympic Games are supposed to be about.’ . . . The heavy-handed security operation could have serious repercussions for a proposed bid from New York for the 2012 Summer Olympics. IOC officials have been speculating openly that if it requires this much effort to protect an isolated area in the midwest, then how many troops would be needed to secure the world's most famous city. . . . Matters took an even more bizarre turn yesterday when nine musicians from a California band had their bus stopped and searched 60 miles south of Salt Lake City . . . .’It was a surprise and it was funny,’ said a band member. ‘What wasn't so funny was that they asked us what ethnic groups were on the bus.’ ”

Something is Moving (Uri Avnery, Media Monitors Network, February 14, 2002)
“The revolt of the soldiers who refuse to serve in the occupied Palestinian territories is an important symptom, one of many. . . . We have seen in the past several such public upheavals, that start with opaque noises and grow quickly into a public uproar. Such a wave rose during the Lavon affair in the 50s and led to the dismissal of Ben-Gurion. Such a wave carried Moshe Dayan into the Defense Ministry on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War (led by the women nicknamed ‘the Merry Women of Windsor’), and the next one, which swept him and Golda Meir away after the Yom Kippur war. Such a wave got the IDF out of Beirut, and later out of South Lebanon (led by the ‘Four Mothers’ movement.) . . . It always starts with a small group of committed people. They raise their feeble voice. The media ignore them, the politicians laugh at them (‘a tiny, marginal and vociferous group’), the respectable parties and the established old organizations crinkle their noses and distance themselves from their ‘radical slogans’. . . . But slowly they start to have an impact. . . . The famous anthropologist Margaret Mead said about this: ‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.’ And the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, said: ‘All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.’ . . . This is the beginning of a process. Nobody can know yet how powerful it will become and how far it will go. But one thing is certain: something is happening.”

I watched a soldier shoot at children (Lucy Winkett, The Guardian, February 14, 2002)
“To my English eyes, the very sight of soldiers with machine guns on either side of us was unnerving; then we spotted five boys, probably about 13 years old, throwing occasional stones at the Israeli soldiers ahead of us. We stood and watched from our position in the crowd, secretly admiring their nerve if not their accuracy. One of the soldiers had clearly had enough and aimed his gun at them. He can't shoot, we thought; they're unarmed and they're only boys. . . . But he did. He took aim and fired directly at them. . . . We took pictures, surreptitiously and with real trepidation before getting into our taxis and inching our way through the crowded checkpoint and then the streets of Ramallah. . . . British headlines are full of suicide bombs, raids on Jewish settlements, inter-Palestinian violence. My experience of the past few weeks, which has included listening to Israeli F16 bombers flying low over Gaza City for two consecutive nights, is that the real drama is being played out in the grim day to day existence of Palestinians who can't travel, whose children wet the bed at night as soon as they hear the planes. . . . One Palestinian social worker told us how children were asked at a school in Bethlehem to draw pictures of the olive harvest. The pictures came back of olive trees all right and even of people picking olives, but above their heads flew a helicopter gunship, or by their side lay the dead body of a relative. Red blood contrasted with the black and green of the olives in the distressed minds of children.”

Can the US be defeated? (Seumas Milne, The Guardian, February 14, 2002)
“It has become ever clearer that the US is not now primarily engaged in a war against terrorism at all. . . . this is a war against regimes the US dislikes: a war for heightened US global hegemony and the ‘full spectrum dominance’ the Pentagon has been working to entrench since the end of the cold war. While US forces have apparently still failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, there is barely even a pretence that any of these three states was in some way connected with the attacks on the World Trade Centre. What they do have in common, of course, is that they have all long opposed American power in their regions . . . Allied governments who question US policy towards Iraq, Israel or national missile defence are increasingly treated as the ‘vassal states’ the French president Jacques Chirac has said they risk becoming. Now Colin Powell, regarded as the last voice of reason in the White House, has warned Europeans to respect the ‘principled leadership’ of the US even if they disagree with it. . . . The extent of America's power is unprecedented in human history. The latest increases will take its military spending to 40% of the worldwide total, larger than the arms budgets of the next 19 states put together. . . . The issue is not one of ‘anti-Americanism’ or wounded national pride (curiously, those politicians around the world who prattle most about patriotism are also usually the most slavish towards US power), but of democracy. . . . America's greatest defeat was, it should not beforgotten, inflicted by a peasant army in Vietnam. US room for manoeuvre may well prove more limited than might appear.”

US targets Saddam (Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, February 14, 2002)
“The Pentagon and the CIA have begun preparations for an assault on Iraq involving up to 200,000 US troops that is likely to be launched later this year with the aim of removing Saddam Hussein from power, US and diplomatic sources told the Guardian yesterday. . . . President George Bush's war cabinet, known as the ‘principals committee’, agreed at a pivotal meeting in late January that the policy of containment has failed and that active steps should be taken to topple the Iraqi leader. . . . The Pentagon's military planners are reported to have agonised over the Iraq plan because of the significant risk that Saddam - aware that unlike during the Gulf war his own life is at stake this time - would use chemical and biological weapons against US troop concentrations and Israel. The danger would be minimised by intensive bombing of missile launchers, but the generals reportedly remain extremely concerned that the risks cannot be eliminated entirely. . . . The trigger could be the expected row over weapons inspections in three months' time. . . . As the American intelligence source put it, the White House ‘will not take yes for an answer’, suggesting that Washington would provoke a crisis. He added that he expected the war to begin soon after the May ultimatum. . . . US allies in the Middle East have been informed that a decision to attack Iraq has already been taken, and diplomats from the region said yesterday they were resigned to the inevitability of a war that may threaten the stability of a string of Arab regimes. . . . France, Germany and others in the European Union have been queuing up to make clear to Mr Bush that they will not support him in military action against Iraq.”

Return to Opinions

[Home] [World Events] [Take Charge] [Links] [Hagerty Home Page] [About Us] [Store] [Search] [Site Map]
[What's New]