Uri Avneri's remarks on the war against Iraq

[Lueko.Willms@xxxxxxxxxxx (Lueko Willms)]

   Some selections and the links to the full texts: 

   From the first artikel, "Bitter Rice", dated 22.03.2003: 

---- quote --------------
    * Beware of the Shiites. The troubles of the occupation will
start after the fighting is over. Here is a personal story and its
lessons:

On the fourth day of the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon, I crossed
the border at a lonely spot near Metulla and looked for the front,
which had already reached the outskirts of Sidon. I was driving my
private car, accompanied by a woman photographer. We passed a dozen
Shiite villages and were received everywhere with great joy. We
extracted ourselves only with difficulty from hundreds of villagers,
each one insisting that we have coffee at their home. On the previous
days, they had showered the soldiers with rice.

A few months later I joined an army convoy going in the opposite
direction, from Sidon to Metulla. The soldiers were now wearing
bulletproof vests and helmets, many were on the verge of panic.

What had happened? The Shiites had received the Israeli soldiers as
liberators. When they realized that they had come to stay as
occupiers, they started to kill them.

When the Israeli troops entered Lebanon the Shiites were a
down-trodden, powerless community, held in contempt by all the
others. After a year of fighting the occupiers, they became a
political and military power. The Shiite Hizbullah is the only
military force in the Arab world that has beaten the mighty Israeli
army.

Sharon is the real father of the Shiite force in Lebanon. Bush may
well become the father of Shiite power in Iraq. The Shiites, 60% of
the Iraqi population, have until now been down-trodden and powerless.
When they realize that the Americans intend to stay, they will start
a deadly guerilla campaign. Bush does not intend to leave Iraq, as
Sharon did not intend to leave Lebanon.

Then what? America will claim that Iran, the Shiite neighbor, is
behind the Shiite guerillas. In Iran there is a lot of oil. That's
the next target.

------------- unquote --------
  full:  http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article237.html


   From the second article, "Where did they go wrong?", dated
25.3.2003:

---- quote -----------------
 # The "Israeli Syndrome". 
 One may call this the "Israeli Syndrome": the abysmal contempt for
the Arabs, the belief that they cannot fight. This has caused the
failures of the Israeli army in the Yom Kippur and Lebanon wars and
in the two intifadas. Every time the Arabs fight valiantly and
sacrifice their lives, it causes painful surprise. (An Israeli joke:
"You really can't rely on the Arabs. They are not surrendering.")

------------- unquote --------
full: http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article238.html


   From the third article, "The Devil's Dictionary", dated 29.3.2003:


---- quote -----------------
 # The Coalition. 
 No name could be more appropriate to the cooperation between the
United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq.

In "The Devils Dictionary" of the American humorist Ambrose Bierce,
published some 100 years ago, "coalition" is defined as (I quote from
memory) the cooperation between two thieves who have their hands so
deep in each others pockets that they cannot rob a third person
separately.

------------- unquote --------
full: http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article239.html


   From the fourth article, "A Crooked Mirror", dated 2.4.2003: 

---- quote -----------------

 # Presstitution. In the Middle Ages, armies were accompanied by
large numbers of prostitutes. In the Iraq war, the American and
British armies are accompanied by large numbers of journalists.

I coined the Hebrew equivalent of "presstitution" when I was the
editor of an Israeli newsmagazine, to denote the journalists who turn
the media into whores. Physicians are bound by the Hippocratic oath
to save life as far as possible. Journalists are bound by
professional honor to tell the truth, as they see it.

Never before have so many journalists betrayed their duty as in this
war. Their original sin was their agreement to be "embedded" in army
units. This American term sounds like being put to bed, and that is
what it amounts to in practice.

A journalist who lies down in the bed of an army unit becomes a
voluntary slave. He is attached to the commander's staff, led to the
places the commander is interested in, sees what the commander wants
him or her to see, is turned away from the places the commanders does
not want him to see, hears what the army wants him to hear and does
not hear what the army does not want him to hear. He is worse than an
official army spokesman, because he pretends to be an independent
reporter.

The problem is not that he only sees a small piece of the grand
mosaic of the war, but that he transmits a mendacious view of that
piece.

In the Falklands and the first Gulf wars, journalists were simply not
allowed to reach the campaign area. It seems that a bright fellow at
the Pentagon had an idea: "Why keep them out? Let's allow them in,
they'll be told what to write and broadcast and eat out of our hands
like puppies."

------------- unquote --------
full: http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article240.html

Have fun, 



Lüko Willms 
Frankfurt/Main 
/ Lueko.Willms@xxxxxxxxxxx