Whoops, correction: my brother is an Australian, not in Israel. ----- Original Message ----- From: Beth Fleischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:14 pm Subject: Article on Arguments against the war
> I was wondering what my international relations expert brother's > opinion on the war in Iraq was. HE is the editro for the journal > for one of the big jewish organizations in israel. The following > surprised me, because my brother is a pacifist. I have no idea > how much he had to write and how much is his true feelings, but I > still thought it was interesting, and I know he wouldn't print > anything he thought was a lie. The Australian Parliment members > he quotes echo some of the anti-war sentiment I have seen voiced > elsewhere. I particularly felt enlightened by reading the part > about oil - he is right - if we wanted iraq's oil we could just > lift sanction.s > > http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/283/parl-iraq-283.html > > Cheap shots > Muddled facts in the parliamentary debate on Iraq > > By Tzvi Fleischer > > In the early days of February, the Federal Parliament of Australia > saw several days of intense debate about potential Australian > involvement in a war in Iraq, and in that context, the role of the > United Nations, Australia’s relationship with the US, and the > nature of Australia’s national interest. Most of the debate was > serious, reasoned and intelligent, if heated and vociferous, as is > understandable given the important issues of war and peace at > stake. But as in our last report on this subject in October, some > of our political leaders made statements which were factually > incorrect or betrayed basic misunderstandings of international > law, were irresponsible or seemed to display an inability to make > basic moral distinctions. And one or two made claims that were > just plain bizarre. > > Here’s our run-down of a few of the claims being made: > > Myth: Lots of state besides Iraq are violating UN Security Council > resolutions, especially Israel > > Arch Bevis (ALP): "However, if failure to comply with UN > resolutions is the test for war, there are a few other candidates… > Israel is in defiance of a 1967 resolution, resolution 242, which > required the withdrawal of its armed forces from the territories > it occupied following the 1967 war." > > Sid Sidebottom (ALP): "Why should the UN’s credibility be > determined solely by Iraq’s failure to comply with Security > Council resolutions when many countries, including Greece, Cyprus, > Indonesia and in particular Israel, have ignored Security Council > resolutions for years." > > Sen. Meg Lees (Ind.): "As far as Israel is concerned, it also has > a long list of UN resolutions that it has not abided by. In fact, > I think it takes the prize as the country which has ignored the > most UN resolutions–there have been some 32." > > Anthony Albanese (ALP), Joel Fitzgibbon (ALP), Anna Burke (ALP) > Frank Mossfield (ALP) also made or implied similar points. > > We dealt with this in detail last October. It is simply a matter > of law that the resolutions on Iraq are different because they are > taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, concerning "Threats to > the Peace". Such resolutions are binding and enforceable by > sanctions or force, and require unilateral compliance. Almost all > the other resolutions usually cited, including those on Israel, > are under Chapter VI, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", which are > advisory, cannot legally be forcibly enforced under the Charter, > and virtually always recommend reciprocal action by both sides of > the conflict. Moreover, it simply is not true that Israel is > violating UN Security Council resolutions, especially the most oft- > cited, 242, because these resolutions do not mean what they are > often claimed to mean. There is no resolution requiring Israel to > unilaterally pull its forces back to the 1967 borders or "end the > occupation of Palestinian land." I could go on, but let me instead > cite one of t > he best and most thoughtful parliamentary debaters, a former Labor > leader: > > Kim Beazley: an informed contribution > Kim Beazley (ALP): "If the United Nations announces under chapter > 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not > done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; > that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions > under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here > every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter > 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 > carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up > resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states > matters of principle that are important for the world to take into > consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw > from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel > should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the > one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it > is not a chapter 7 resolution." > > Myth: The US is really motivated by a desire to steal Iraq’s oil > > Sen. Bob Brown (Greens): "This is an oil war. This is the United > States recognising that as the economic empire of the age it needs > oil to maintain its pre-eminence… This is a war deliberated upon > by the oil barons in the United States, who largely financed the > Bush campaign, who have enormous connections and inter office > placements with the White House staff and who are aware that a key > to the future prosperity of the economy of the United States–five > per cent of the world’s people–depends on who controls that 65 per > cent of the world’s oil resource." > > Senator Kate Lundy (ALP): "This war is about oil and domination > more than disarmament. There is no humanitarian motivation in > military intervention into Iraq, only a concern for the bank > balances of the West." > > John Murphy (ALP): "Like many of my constituents I called upon > America to tell the truth to the world, that the attack we were > being called upon to participate in was really about the need for > America to more reliably control oil." > > Others making or implying support for this claim include Jill Hall > (ALP), Frank Mossfield (ALP), Sharon Grierson (ALP) Peter Andren > (Ind.), Sen. Lynn Allison (Dem.), Sen. George Campbell (ALP), Sen. > Kerry Nettle (Greens). > > Sorry, but as several of the debaters, including Prime Minister > Howard, Teresa Gambaro, Kelvin Thompson, and Steven Ciobo pointed > out, this conspiracy theory makes no sense. The main evidence > given for this theory seems to consist of the facts that US > President Bush has connections with oil men, and Iraq has oil. But > the US does not actually need Iraqi oil, could buy all the Iraqi > oil it wants simply by agreeing to lift sanctions, or could have > seized Middle East oil fields, if that is what it wanted to do, in > 1991. Also, the US oil industry is mostly sceptical and cautious > about a war in Iraq because it might effect supply, and anyway > does not want massive new supplies which would lower prices. And > let’s not forget that slogans about "war for oil" were also flung > about by the anti-war fringe even with respect to Bosnia and > Afghanistan, which have no oil. There may be many good reasons to > oppose war in Iraq, but if your reason is that there’s really a > secret US plan to grab > Iraqi oil, you simply are out of touch with reality, and should > not be surprised if people treat you as such. > > Myth: War will lead to the death of 100,000s of Iraqi civilians > and the US will carpet bomb Iraqi cities, killing mostly children > > Carmen Lawrence (ALP): "Every time a bomb hits, on average we can > expect half of the victims to be children." > > Tania Plibersek (ALP): "Who can tell why – oil, ego, stupidity, > electoral advantage? I cannot get past the point that 250,000 > civilian lives may be lost in this conflict." > > Sen. Andrew Bartlett (Dem.): "President Bush said, ‘We are here to > liberate you from the dictator Hussein.’ But every reported action > likely in terms of the military action that would occur would > involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians." > > While a concern for the potential deaths among Iraqis, especially > civilians, is a highly appropriate part of this debate, claims > about 100,000s of civilians deaths are simply scaremongering and > cannot be sustained by any realistic scenario of war. The US did > not carpet bomb Iraqi cities in 1991, it did not carpet bomb > cities in Bosnia or Afghanistan. There no reason to think it will > do so in a new Iraq war. The best estimates are that between 1000 > and 5000 Iraqi civilians died from military action in the 1991 > Gulf War — this number may be somewhat higher or lower this time > around, but in fact, the Iraqi military is weaker and the bombs > likely to be used are more accurate, so lower would be a better > bet than higher. The fact that anti-war advocacy groups and aid > groups trying to get as much humanitarian aid available as > possible have put out fanciful worst case scenarios does not > excuse treating these unsustainable claims as gospel. > > Just Wrong or Plain Bizarre > > Sen. Lynn Allison (Dem): "Yesterday, the Prime Minister was > defensive about Israel, talking about the courageous efforts of > Ehud Barak, whose generous offer to give the Palestinians the > ‘bulk of their demands’ was ‘repudiated’ by Yasser Arafat. Like so > much of what the Prime Minister is saying, this is untrue. Barak > offered to negotiate only a small percentage of the Palestinian > territory that Israel occupies, in spite of United Nations > resolutions." > Even Palestinian participants at Camp David agree that Barak > offered more than 90% of the West Bank and Gaza at Camp David and > even more later, but criticise that as inadequate for a variety of > reasons. Sen. Allison is just wrong, unless she is counting all of > Israel as "Palestinian territory that Israel occupies", as some > extremists do. > > Julia Irwin (ALP): "When an El Al cargo plane crashed in the > Netherlands during a flight from New York to Israel, its cargo > included four principal agents used in the manufacture of VX nerve > gas." > Actually, it wasn’t "four principal agents" of the superdeadly VX, > it was DPPT, a key ingredient of much less—sophisticated Sarin, > but a chemical also with a number of other uses. And Israel > explained that the chemical was part of its defensive chemical > weapons research, intended to test the effectiveness of gas masks > and other filters in case of chemical attack. This is completely > legal under the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which Israel is a > signatory. > Peter Andren (Ind.): "Australians want to know whether regime > change in Iraq is simply about putting in place another regime > sympathetic to American, British and other interests in the Middle > East – that means oil interests and pro-Israeli interests." > > Pro-Israeli interests? What Israel would most like is an Iraq > which ceases to pay Palestinian suicide bombers, and export other > terrorists, and also ceases to target Israel and other neighbours > with weapons of mass destruction. But then, so would almost all > the other governments in the Middle East. Why would this be a bad > thing, and why is it only about Israel? > > Jill Hall (ALP): "Any student of history knows that there is never > a winner in war. Wars are usually fought to promote the agenda of > a powerful and aggressive nation. We had World War II. Everyone > knows what Hitler’s agenda was, what the devastation was and what > the result of that was. It can be argued that same war is still > being continued in the Middle East, in Israel and Palestine. We > had the Korean War and the US intervention in that country. We > heard President Bush’s recent comments about the ‘axis of evil’. > Korea is still in there, so there is another issue that still has > not been resolved." > > Is Ms. Hall seriously suggesting it was wrong to fight Hitler > during World War II? And I don’t know what point she is trying to > make about Israel and Palestine. And would it really have been > better to have allowed North Korea to overrun the South, given > what we know about that regime today? > > > Senator George Campbell: illogical theories > Sen. George Campbell (ALP): "There is the suspicion that > unilateral US military action against Iraq would be motivated by > the desire to control Iraq’s vast oil resources. This suspicion is > reinforced by the extraordinarily close links between oil > companies and the Bush administration. I do not know if everyone > in this chamber saw the 60 Minutes report a couple of months > before Christmas, in which it was clearly demonstrated that there > were convoys of oil trucks 100 miles long heading out of the north > of Iraq through Kurdistan, which was charging them a toll fee to > pass through the country, into Turkey and out into the Western > world. No-one can tell me the US administration was not aware of > that occurring. But what were they doing? They had a couple of > ships stationed at the other end of Iraq to prevent the oil coming > out by sea into the Persian Gulf. What a joke! They did not take > action to enforce the sanctions. They knew the oil was coming out, > but that was more important > than the issue of preventing the loss of lives and preventing > further destruction of people within that country." > > Let me get this straight. Senator Campbell’s theory is that the US > is deliberately allowing Saddam to illegally export oil in > defiance of the sanctions so they can get their hands on that oil? > Don’t you think if they really wanted the oil that badly they > would just lift the sanctions? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
