Iraq, Israel, and an Irate Mother

"If the US would get out of Iraq and Israel would get out of Palestine, you wouldn't have this terrorism."
Mrs. Cindy Sheehan, August 2005

Mrs. Sheehan has been demanding a meeting with President Bush to ask him why her son Casey was killed in Iraq. She has publicly speculated that "neocons" in the Administration planned the US invasion of Iraq to help Israel. Her remarks have been quoted by Al Jazeera and white supremacist websites, such as that of ex-Klan leader David Duke.

It is not enough to condemn these comments as anti-Semitic; we should deal seriously with her claims. What is the truth about American involvement with Iraq? Do we face Arab terrorism because of US friendship for Israel?

Q. Why have Arab terrorists attacked the United States?
A fatwa (religious edict) issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996 condemned the "Zionist-Crusader" alliance for "spilling the blood of Muslims in Palestine and Iraq" as well as about ten other places. The stationing of American forces in Saudi Arabia is also condemned. The claim that terrorists " hate our freedom " is not supported by the fatwa. (1)

Q. Did Saddam Hussein support Arab terrorism?
At least one of the hijackers of the Achille Lauro cruise-ship was using an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Saddam rewarded the families of suicide bombers in Israel with $25,000 each.
Although Saddam's regime was clearly aligned with Arab terrorists, there is no evidence that he backed attacks on the United States, including those on September 11, 2001. Since Al Qaida did not need Saddam's help, there is no reason they would have told Saddam or anyone else about them in advance.

Q. Did Saddam try to produce nuclear weapons?
In addition to developing poison gases, Iraq under Saddam Hussein embarked on a nuclear development program in the 1970's, but Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981. Iraq apparently tried to obtain uranium and other nuclear technology after that, but there is no evidence that the reactor was ever rebuilt. After the 1991 Gulf War, international sanctions were effective in preventing a resumption of the nuclear program. Despite over two years of searching, no nuclear equipment has been found in Iraq.

Q. If Saddam did not have an atomic weapons program, why did he expel UN inspectors ?
Saddam Hussein apparently relished the role of defying the US and the UN, and giving the impression that Iraq was more powerful than it really was.

Q. When and why did President Bush decide to invade Iraq?
According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein from the time he became President. This claim is supported by the British "10 Downing Street Memo." Bush believed that Iraq was secretly acquiring and making Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), including atomic weapons, and undermining US efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. However, until the September 11 attacks, the American people would not have supported military action against Saddam. Once the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was deposed, plans to invade Iraq were given top priority.
After it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq, the rationale for the war shifted to establishing democracy there. Now that elections have been held and a new constitiution has been drafted, Bush maintains that US forces must "stay the course in Iraq" until the insurgency has been beaten and a democratic government is secure. That could be a really long time.

Q. Would Congress have authorized the war if the original purpose had been to convert Iraq into an Arab democracy?
Probably not. Most Americans would prefer that democracy prevail in other countries, but are not willing to risk the lives of American soldiers to achieve that goal. We were told that deposing Saddam was necessary to defend America, that the Iraqi people would welcome our forces, and that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war. Although some Iraqis have welcomed the coalition forces, none of these claims were entirely true.

Q. Who has gained the most and who has suffered the most from our invasion of Iraq?
Israel gained the most, as a bitter and powerful enemy was deposed without any effort or sacrifice by Israelis. Moreover, Syria is now surrounded by countries allied with the United States or occupied by US armed forces.
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran also do not have to worry about Iraq any time soon.
The Shiites of Iraq gained their religious freedom and the Kurds gained a measure of ethnic independence, and together they rule Iraq.
Many Iraqis suffered the effects of the war, especially from bombs dropped or detonated by coalition forces and insurgents. Their suffering has been offset somewhat by the liberation of their country from the Baath dictatorship.
Americans like Casey Sheehan, who lost their lives, limbs, and health for a cause in which they never had a real stake, have suffered the most. They joined the US Army or National Guard to defend their country, not to fight for the interests of the Israelis, Kuwaitis, Kurds, or other Iraqis.
At the time the invasion was planned, it appeared that Iraq would develop nuclear weapons, but now we know that this conclusion was based upon the most drastic interpretation of fragmentary and vague information.
President Bush cannot convince the families of some killed soldiers that their sacrifice has been worthwhile, so he is not willing to try.

Q. If "Israel gets out of Palestine" as Mrs. Sheehan suggests, will that end Arab terrorism?
A leader of Hamas said, after the evacuation of Gaza, that his group would continue their battle (terrorism) until "every inch of Palestine is liberated." This means not only the end of the State of Israel, but the removal (or murder) of every Jew between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. I am not saying that this is what Mrs. Sheehan meant by Israel getting out of Palestine, but this is what Arab terrorists mean by that phrase.
People who send bombers into buses and nightclubs are not prone to compromise or negotations over borders. They want nothing short of total victory. Those who believe that reliquishing the West Bank (as well as Gaza) will end the terror do not understand the attitudes of the terrrorists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) In an address to Congress after September 11, President Bush speculated that this was a major reason for the attacks, instead of quoting from Bin Laden's fatwa, which had been available in English for about five years at that time.
He did not want to tell the American people that the exercise of American power (both military and economic) in the Middle East effectively combats the efforts of the Islamic extremists, and that is the real reason they want to attack us.

After the Deluge

"On the hills will stand waters.....He waters the hills from his heights, from the fruit of Your works the earth is satisfied."
Psalm 104, verses 5 (part) and 10

Jews around the world recite this Psalm every Rosh Chodesh; these words had a special poignancy this past Sunday and Monday (Rosh Chodesh Elul) in light of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, especially in New Orleans. As relief and recovery efforts continue, those of us far from the scene of the tragedy can begin to ponder the lessons taught us by this event.

Why do devastating events like hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and earthquakes occur? Are they divine punishments for the immorality of mankind? (1)
Catastrophic events occur because the earth is a dyanmic system; the earth's crust and atmosphere are constantly in motion. As far as we know, our planet is the only one in the whole universe to have ever supported life, and its dynamic nature may have been (and may still be) essential to life in ways we do not (yet) understand.
I do not believe that people who happen to live in paths of natural disasters are any more deserving of divine wrath than those living elsewhere. We should, however, consider known environmental risks in choosing where to live.

Why was New Orleans particularly vulnerable to flooding?
Most of New Orleans lies below sea level, and is surrounded by Lake Pontchartrain and a bend in the Mississippi River. Canals link the Lake and the River. Huge levees and canal floodwalls have protected the city from floods until the canal-floodwalls were broken by Katrina. The floodwaters cannot subside naturally because the levees hold them in and surrounding water surfaces are higher, rather than lower than the grade-level of the city.

In the wake of the Hurricane, many residents of New Orleans looted stores and shot at people, including rescue and repair workers. Why?
Many people have an evil nature, and the collapse of law-enforcement removed the thin veneer of civilization that had previously restrained them. ( The same thing happened in Baghdad after the collapse of the Baath regime. American authorities were caught by surprise both times.) The violence kept many other people from bringing assistance to victims of the disaster, and thus increased the human suffering.

Why did it take so long for the National Guard to arrive in New Orleans?
The disaster quickly overwhelmed local and state authorities. President Bush gave initial responsibility for dealing with the crisis to Michael Brown, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Brown, a political appointee, had no emergency management experience before joining FEMA in 2001.
Although the National Guard is usually employed to deal with natural disasters, in this particular case the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard would have been better equipped to operate in the waters that covered most of New Orleans. The Coast Guard is now rescuing survivors, but should have been deployed much earlier. The Marines, trained in amphibious operations, could have re-established order in flooded areas much faster than the National Guard. While the US military is trained and prepared to respond at once to a crisis anywhere in the world, it took about three days for the National Guard to arrive in New Orleans.

Some black politicians claim that federal help was so slow because most residents of New Orleans are black. Could this be true?
No, it is a blatant lie. First, there is no evidence that President Bush was aware of the racial make-up of New Orleans until after the disaster. Had the same thing happened in an all-white city, the same mediocre bureaucrats would have been in charge, and rescue efforts would have taken just as long .
However, the violence that impeded and delayed help probably would not have occurred in a white city, and that difference could have saved many lives. (2)

Can New Orleans ever be rebuilt as it was?
The floodwaters are already receding, and the technology to pump out the water is available. However, it would be foolhardy to rebuild the residential areas that were flooded. It would be wiser to build new housing on land above sea-level outside the city, and connect the newly-constructed communities with the port and business district with a modern transit system, possibly including both rail and boats. This would require rezoning of agricultural land for residential (including mult-family) use, probably by state law.
Yes, New Orleans will be rebuilt, but it will never be as it was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) For example, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of Israel's Shas Party speculated that Katrina might have been G-d's retribution for President Bush's support of the disengagement from Gaza.(ADL Bulletin, 9/9/05) The trouble is that the people in New Orleans who suffered the most probably didn't even vote for Bush, who did not suffer at all. I am sure that divine retribution can be better targeted than that.

(2) Although whites were responsible for many riots in America before 1965, all the major instances of urban violence since that year (Los Angeles 1965 and 1992, Crown Heights (NY), Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Washington, and Miami) were the work of black mobs. Milwaukee also had a minor black riot in July, 1967.