In this issue:

War or Peace? LaRouche Movement Mobilization Crucial to Stopping Iraq War

White House Wants 'Gulf War Resolution' Passed Before Congressional Recess

Powell: 'Regime Change' Is Just One Option in Iraq

Rumsfeld's Article on Preemptive War Doctrine Scrapped by the White House

Arab States Resolve To Oppose U.S. Attack on Iraq

Sharon Blocking Arafat Visit to United Nations

Sharon War Crimes Continue

Barghouti Show Trial Begins in Israeli Court

Iran's Khatami Seeks Broader Powers

Israeli Reserve Soldiers Petition High Court Against Occupation

From the Vol.1,No.27 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly
Mideast News Digest

War or Peace? LaRouche Movement Mobilization Crucial to Stopping Iraq War

A half-million copies of a leaflet called "The Pollard Affair Never Ended!" are being distributed in an emergency mobilization prior to Sept. 11, by LaRouche in 2004, the campaign organization of Democratic Party 2004 Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche. The mobilization is the latest escalation in activities by the LaRouche movement internationally against the Iraq war.

As members of the U.S. House and Senate returned to Washington this week for the final pre-election weeks of this Congressional session, these elected officials made it abundantly clear, in media comments, and in sessions that have taken place with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, CIA Director Tenet, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, that their constituents are not in favor of the war against Iraq. Yet, the drive for war is being intensified by "chickenhawks" of the Richard Perle-Paul Wolfowitz cabal inside the U.S., while saner forces in the U.S., led by LaRouche, oppose them.

See this week's INDEPTH, and the EIW Editorial "The Pollard Affair Never Ended," for the story behind the story of the policy battle in the United States.

White House Wants 'Gulf War Resolution' Passed Before Congressional Recess

When President George W. Bush met with Congressional leaders about the Iraq crisis on Wednesday, Sept. 4, he said that he would seek Congressional approval for military action against Iraq in the form of a resolution. But not only was Bush reportedly demanding that the Congress pass the resolution before their recess, which could be as soon as Sept. 30 (though more likely in the first week of October,) but Bush also wanted the approval before he made the decision that such military action is necessary— in effect a "blank check." As of Sept. 6, Congressional leaders said that this timetable is not likely. Even staunch neo-conservative supporter Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the Speaker of the House, said he thinks it not likely that this could be done. The issue is not technical, however, but a political one, in which opposition inside the United States is becoming a worry to elected officials.

Powell: 'Regime Change' Is Just One Option in Iraq

An interview by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the prestigious French daily Le Monde on Sept. 7, says that "regime change" in Iraq is not the "goal" of the United States' Iraq policy— "disarmament" of Iraq is the goal, and that could be achieved with UN weapons inspections.

The Powell interview is contrary to what many pundits, especially the pro-war press in the U.S. and London, have said, and what even senior Bush Administration officials like Vice President Dick Cheney have implied: that the Iraq war is "not a matter of 'if' but 'when.' "

Le Monde's interview with Powell came on the same day that the White House refused to give permission for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to publish a 2,300-word article, reported the Washington Post, an article that reportedly wildly called for "preemptive strikes" against a half-dozen countries, mostly in the Middle East, including Iraq and Syria. The differences between Powell and the "chickenhawks" has become legend in Washington journalism, and over the last week, the war party faction allied with Israeli fascists Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu and centered in the Paul Wolfowitz-Richard Perle "cabal," have called for Powell to be fired because of "insubordination" to the Commander-in-Chief.

The statements by Powell as published in Le Monde are reportedly sending the war party "up a wall."

Speaking on the Iraq crisis, Powell said, "The President called earlier for a return of the inspectors. But inspectors are not the objective. The objective is disarmament. Inspectors are one way to accomplish it. Regime change is another. It is perhaps possible to combine several means in order to reach the objective."

This comes as senior Administration officials told the press that on Sept. 12, Bush will call on the UN to achieve disarmament in Iraq. Although retaining the option of U.S. unilateral action if the UN fails, the implication is that regime change is no longer an essential demand.

Powell also told Le Monde: "Accusations of unilateralism, or 'non-multilateralism,' are clichés, which do not reflect the nature of our relationship. That we disagree is not a disaster. The Europeans should not wonder whether the coalition is breaking up. The coalition is solid."

Rumsfeld's Article on Preemptive War Doctrine Scrapped by the White House

According to Washington Post reporters Karen DeYoung and Mike Allen on Sept. 7, a 2,300-word article written by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the Sunday edition of the Post on the need for preemptive war on Iraq was scrapped by the White House.

This story on the Rumsfeld treatise was leaked by the Post itself in the context of reporting on the Bush decision to go to the UN about Iraq. Bush is reported to be planning to tell the UN on Sept. 12 that they must act to disarm Iraq quickly, or the U.S. will act on its own. The Post calls this a "step back from months of escalating Bush Administration threats of unilateral military action and insistence that only the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein can ensure safety from the weapons of mass destruction he is believed to have or is trying to develop."

The Post then drops the bomb that Rumsfeld had submitted an article for the Outlook Section of the Sunday Post, "making the case for preemptive military action to head off potential threats from weapons of mass destruction ... that deterrence, sanctions and diplomacy might be inadequate against threats from Iraq and other countries," naming Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Syria. The Post writes: "Defense officials had said the article would need to be cleared by the White House. The article was delivered Tuesday. Rumsfeld approved a final version shortly before leaving for Camp David at 4:30 p.m. yesterday. Around 6:00 p.m., a Defense official said the White House decided the article could not run." The Defense Department claimed Rumsfeld himself made the decision because the timing "was not right."

The Post otherwise reports that "senior officials" in the Administration said that the UN is expected to extend an endorsement of U.S. military operations in the case that the UN-administered options fail, and that "the UN, not the U.S., credibility is at stake."

Arab States Resolve To Oppose U.S. Attack on Iraq

On Sept. 5, during a meeting of the Arab League in Cairo, Egypt, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said that a strike against Iraq would "open the gates of hell." Resolutions passed by the Foreign Ministers at the meeting of the League called for a "complete rejection of threats of aggression against some Arab countries, in particular Iraq." But, the meeting also called for a return to Iraq of UN weapons inspectors.

"We continue to work to avoid a military confrontation or a military action, because we believe that it will open the gates of hell in the Middle East," said Moussa, adding "We again reiterate the importance of full implementation of [UN] Security Council resolutions. We are for the return of the inspectors within an agreement, an understanding, between the government of Iraq and the Secretary General of the United Nations."

But, "When it comes to implementation of Security Council resolutions, we wonder why should we insist only on Iraq to implement Security Council resolutions. Although this is correct ... what about Israel?"

On the same day, Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail, attending the Arab League meeting, said that delegates had almost finished drawing up a resolution to conclude their two-day discussions. "Unanimously, the resolution is saying that all Arab states are against any attack— whether against Iraq or any Arab state."

Ismail, emerging from a closed meeting, was asked about the prospects for Arab allies of the U.S. giving logistical support to an attack on Iraq. "Since there is a consensus to reject an attack, that means implicitly that no Arab country will cooperate in the execution of this strike," Ismail said.

Sharon Blocking Arafat Visit to United Nations

Ra'anan Gissin, spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said that if Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat leaves the West Bank, he will not be allowed to return.

"He's free to leave, but he's not free to come back." Gissen said that this is what Sharon told his Cabinet. Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat said that Sharon's stand was "despicable" and accused him of sabotaging peace efforts.

The Sharon government fears that international support would greet Arafat at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York this week.

Sharon War Crimes Continue

According to reports in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the Israeli military killed 49 Palestinians in the month of August; 30 of these were unarmed bystanders and included women and children. The body count included seven children under the age of 15, including two girls under 10 and two women from the Gaza Strip, one aged 50 and the other 86. Ten were so-called "wanted" men, two of whom Palestinian sources say were killed after their capture. Most were killed in their homes or working in their fields. It should be noted that these people were killed after the infamous massacre of 17 people in the bombing of an apartment house in Gaza with a one-ton bomb on July 23.

Indeed, international observers have noted that the U.S. fixation on preparing for a war with Iraq on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, is affording the fascist circles of Sharon and his generals the opportunity to carry out even greater atrocities against Palestinians.

Statements from United Nations officials point to a humanitarian and military disaster that violates sections of the international law embodied in the Geneva Accords.

Ha'aretz reported on Sept. 6 that the UN Secretary General's personal humanitarian envoy for the Middle East, Catherine Bertini, reported that the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories will "spiral out of control" because of the Israeli policy.

"The closures and curfews have inhibited the movement of people, goods, and services within the West Bank and Gaza, and between the West Bank and Gaza and Israel, Egypt, and Jordan," she said. "As a result, the Palestinian economy has by and large collapsed."

On Sept. 3, the UN News Service reported that, in response to the recent days' military attacks on cilivians by the Israeli Army, Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN's Special Envoy for the Middle East Peace Process, issued a statement saying he is "deeply disturbed" by these assaults. He condemned Israel's "prolific use" of tank and helicopter munitions in areas heavily populated by civilians. Similarly, he objected to the Israel Defense Force's use of "flechette" ammunition, which had been used in the Gaza, a weapon characterized as "thousands of small darts designed to maximize injury and death." Military action which fails to take "reasonable measures to minimize civilian casualties is a violation of international law," he said.

Barghouti Show Trial Begins in Israeli Court

The show trial of Palestinian parliamentarian Marwan Barghouti began on Sept. 5; Barghouti refused to recognize the authority of the court and refused to be represented by an attorney.

In a previous court appearance, on Aug. 14, he had issued a passionate and eloquent appeal for peace, speaking in Arabic, Hebrew, and English, before being muzzled by the Israel court (see EIW #24, Aug. 19).

On Sept. 5, Barghouti said, "I don't recognize this court. This is a court of the occupation. I am a Palestinian parliamentarian. I was elected by the Palestinian people. I am a political figure." He said the proceedings violated international law since he is a member of the Palestinian Parliament. "There's a mistake here. The one who should be sitting here (as defendant) is the government of Israel. You have no right to try me," he told the judges in fluent Hebrew.

The indictment and proceeding are a show trial by the Sharon government to "prove" that the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist entity run by the arch-terrorist, Yasser Arafat. The Israeli Foreign Ministry claims it wants to use the trial to show the world its position. The indictment charges that Barghouti is a terrorist because he is the head of specific Palestinian organizations.

Nonetheless, the reality, according to Israeli sources, is that Barghouti is seen as the real successor to Arafat, to whom he is loyal. He is seen as such not only by the majority of Palestinians, but internationally as well, including by Egypt and the Europeans. Despite the charges against him, it is well known that he was an early supporter of the Oslo agreements. Sharon would like to murder him, because he is a moderate. It is only because of international pressure that Barghouti has not been assassinated while in Israeli custody.

Iran's Khatami Seeks Broader Powers

Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, in a press conference Aug. 28, announced his intention to submit a bill to the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) to give him more power to implement his reform policy, overriding the objections from the conservative clergy who dominate the country. This comes in the context of significant international diplomatic initiatives with Gulf State neighbors, and the historic rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

However, among the U.S.-based "chickenhawks" and neo-conservatives, universal fascist Michael Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Institute, is taking the point against Iran, and wrote a commentary in the National Review deriding the move as a farce, since, in his view, those who hold power— the clergy— will not be forced by laws to give it up. The New York Times carried an editorial, "Reviving Reform in Iran," which ostensibly supported the move, saying Khatami had finally "issued a bold challenge" to the conservatives. At the same time, the paper predicted that Khatami's bid to introduce new laws would fail, despite his overwhelming popular and parliamentary support, because of the conservatives' right to veto legislation. The Times asserted that Khatami's diplomatic efforts with Arabs and Europeans have failed to break Iran out of "international isolation." This is a patent lie, considering the rapprochement of Iran with Saudi Arabia and Iraq; Iran's extensive economic, military, and energy cooperation with Russia, and recent moves by the European Union to draft a broad cooperation treaty with Tehran.

The situation inside Iran is indeed tense, and anything could happen, particularly in the context of the U.S. preparations for war against neighboring Iraq, and Israeli threats to strike at Iran. Ledeen and the Times appear to hope that Khatami will not succeed.

Israeli Reserve Soldiers Petition High Court Against Occupation

Eight Israeli reserve combat officers and soldiers filed a petition before Israel's high court, demanding it rule that serving in the occupied territories is illegal. These are soldiers from the group Courage to Refuse, who have signed a letter declaring their refusal to serve in the territories.

One of the petitioners, David Zonsheine, a lieutenant in the paratroopers, said, "The duties imposed on the IDF soldiers in the occupied territories are immoral and illegal. Moreover, they do not serve the security interests of my country. As a Jew, an Israeli, and an IDF soldier, I refuse to take part in these activities."

Michael Sfarad, the attorney of the petitioners, said the petition argues that ever since Israel began systematically violating the human rights of the Palestinians in the territories and shaking off its responsibility, according to Israeli and international law, to take care of them, its presence in the territories has become illegal. Some 26 reports from 14 organizations that reviewed the implications of the occupation were added to the petition, as well as personal testimonies from more than 20 officers and soldiers, outlining the systematic infringements of human rights.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS