|
The Bush Junta's Class Act: Subservience to Zionist Diktat
By
Umberine
Syed
08/08/2001
Reports seem to indicate that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is openly divided over the issue of policy in the Middle East. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a television interview with Fox News on August 2nd, declared that there was "some justification" for Israel's planned assassinations of alleged Palestinian "terrorists".
Cheney said: "If you've got an organization that has plotted, or is plotting some kind of suicide bomber attack, for example, and they [the Israelis] have hard evidence of who it is, and where they're located, I think there's some justification in their trying to protect themselves by pre-empting."
Although the White House quickly denied any rift, it was said that Cheney's hardline comments put him in direct conflict with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who tries to appear as a persistent "critic" of Israeli actions. However, the public "rift" may be part of official tactics.
Interestingly, a day earlier, General Powell, who telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to criticize - or rather gently chide, for public consumption, of course - the helicopter attack that killed eight people when a Hamas office in the West Bank city of Nablus was bombed, went on CNN television to issue criticism, in Zionist terminology, describing the event. Powell stated, "This was a targeted killing of the kind that we have spoken out and condemned in the past."
The use of the term "targeted killing" or "policy of pinpoint prevention", and not "assassination" or "murder" is the one that Tel Aviv has assiduously cultivated, because serves to dehumanize the victim.
Powell, himself a master of doublespeak, whose "accurate" killers caused thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq under the guise of "collateral damage", knows that the Zionist murder campaign is, in fact, far from "targeted". In the first of such killings, two middle-aged Palestinian women were killed, and the "targeted" Nablus murders killed six others, including two children and two journalists, besides the alleged Hamas members.
Thus, Powell, while trying to appear the "softer" component of the Bush junta, is merely playing to the Zionist lobby and trying to cover up murder.
Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent of The Independent (August 4, 2001) revealed that in "a major surrender to Tel Aviv's diplomatic pressure, BBC officials in London have banned their staff in Britain and the Middle East from referring to Israel's policy of murdering its guerrilla opponents as 'assassination'." BBC reporters have been told that in future they are to use Tel Aviv's own euphemism for the murders, calling them "targeted killings".
According to Fisk, Tel Aviv diplomats have been lunching with BBC officials, and
BBC journalists have expressed their astonishment over the new orders. The Palestinian killing of Israelis, however, is regularly referred to as "murder" or "assassination".
Some quarters feel that Cheney's unguarded comments were a striking illustration of the foreign policy divisions within the Bush administration. According to some reports, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, considered among the more hawkish set of the administration, are often at odds with Powell during strategy meetings. Such reports help cast the impression that Powell is much more centrist, allowing him to tell other countries that what he is offering is far less sanguine than what the others in the administration would offer.
The reports say that Bush has tended to side with Cheney and Rumsfeld on Middle East issues, although on almost every other foreign policy issue, it appears that Powell holds sway.
And Powell was not a spur of the moment cabinet inductee. Instead, he has always been a Bush family favorite, both with George H. Bush, the elder, and his son, George W. - being the latter's choice throughout his candidacy, and a part of his inner circle. Similarly, other Bush appointees, such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, are also part of his close circle.
Bush's commitment to the Zionist entity is also not part of any "learning process", but has been clearly vetted by the Zionist lobby. In his run up to the candidacy, Bush visited Tel Aviv in 1998 to attend a string of meetings sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition. It was there that he committed that he would actually make a priority of rebuilding the U.S.'s "special relationship" with Tel Aviv by ending, what he called, "the practice of deliberately weakening the West's only democratic outpost in the Middle East."
The Independent, in an August 6, 2001 editorial entitled "Israel's policy of targeted assassination is both immoral and self-defeating," pointed out: "It [Tel Aviv's assassination campaign] is a morally defective policy, at best. If somebody has committed crimes, they should be brought before courts; murder is not the best way for a democratic government to conduct its business."
Cheney has indeed violated the spirit of the U.S. constitution by supporting the Zionist murder spree, because the U.S. does not allow executions without a fair trial within its own borders. And with his "justification" statements, Cheney has only helped to further exacerbate the already fragile humanitarian situation in Occupied Palestine.
Even if we leave morality to one side, however, the assassination policy is still senseless. Tel Aviv insists, "we have to defend ourselves" and claims that "no country finding itself in our situation would behave differently." However, do Zionist rulers really believe that killing what they call "radical" leaders is a way to neutralize resistance? Violence tends to be Hydra-like: cut off the heads of one leader, and he will only be replaced by two more. Deliberate killing redoubles popular anger, with predictable results: that anger inevitably explodes.
The hardline right-wing Bush junta is not expected to go any further beyond its "strong" deploring of the murders, and of course, one hawk or another will issue contradictory statements to shift the focus from the real tragedy. The Bush junta's father and son, extreme pro-Zionist policy is founded upon groundwork initiated by the elder Bush, with practically the same hawkish team currently working with the son.
The Iraq war reduced the Arab world to an occupied territory with U.S. military bases hugging most Arab capitals. In such a scenario, Tel Aviv is free to pursue its policy of escalating the situation to a level where the Palestinians are driven into a desperate situation, and it is this situation that the Tel Aviv-Washington-London axis wants to use to justify a full scale Iraq-level intensity war to end the Palestinian issue on their terms - a Holocaust to wipe off Palestinians from Occupied Palestine - and finally accomplish the task of a racially pure Zionist state.
And Muslim regimes, for their part, remain like scared mice, allowing Tel Aviv to direct the situation to its desire.
The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors.
|
