Sorry for the lack of posts again. I've been busy looking for a new host and making some changes to the site when I move to a new location. I have finally found a new free host with no ads and I should be making the big move soon. I will keep the archives here on Brinkster for as long as they will allow and will also leave a change of address notice on the front page. I'll post the new address as soon as the new site is up and running. Check back for updates over the next couple of weeks.
November 5, 2003
As you have no doubt noticed, Brinkster has decided that the users of their free service have had too much of a good thing for too long and have started adding ads to our sites. I don't like it, but I can't really say anything as I'm not paying them any money. I've sent a letter to Brinkster support asking them to place the ad on the right side of my page instead of the left. This will make things a little better for a while, but is not a good long-term solution. I will either have to upgrade to a paid account or find another free service without ads. I've been very happy with Brinkster and I don't really want the hassle of moving my site to a new location, so I will probably go with the upgrade in a few months. Please bear with me for a while.
In the meantime, I would like to share this short essay I stumbled across, called "Freedom is a Two-Edged Sword". The essay is by Jack Parsons, rocket-scientist and occultist. Jack was part of Aleister Crowley's O.T.O. and had close ties with Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology) for a number of years. However, the ideas expressed in this essay are much more in line with the writings of Wilhelm Reich than the writings of Crowley or Hubbard.
As I write, allegedly liberal groups are agitating for the denial of public forums to those they call fascist. Americanism societies are striving for the suppression of communist or "red" literature and speech. Religious groups, backed by a publicity conscious press, are constantly campaigning for the prohibition of art and literature which, as if by divine prerogative, they term "indecent", immoral or dangerous.
It would seem that all these organizations are devoted to one common purpose, the suppression of freedom. Their sincerity is no excuse. History is a bloody testament that sincerity can achieve atrocities which cynicism could hardly conceive of. Each of these groups is engaged in a frantic struggle to sell out, betray or destroy the freedom which was their birthright and which alone assured their present existence.
Freedom is a two-edged sword. He who believes that the absolute rightness of his belief is an authority to suppress the rights and opinions of his fellows cannot be a liberal. Liberalism cannot exist where it violates its own principles. It cannot exist where the emergency monger or the utopia salesman can obtain a suspension of rights, whether temporary or permanent. Liberty cannot be suppressed in order to defend liberalism.
If we are to achieve a democracy, the rights of individuals and the responsibilities of states must be openly defined and ardently defended. It is inconceivable that men who fought and died in a war against totalitarianism did not know what they fought for. It seems a fantastic joke that the institutions they believed in and defended have turned, like a nightmare, into home-grown tyrannies. A generation went down in blood and agony to make the world "safe" but the evil that makes the world "unsafe" still goes undefeated, plotting new sacrifices of misery and blood. The guilt lies not entirely with the warmongers, plutocrats and demagogues. If a people permit exploitation and regimentation in any name, they deserve their slavery. A tyrant does not make his tyranny. It is made possible by his people and not otherwise.
Much of our modern thought is characterized by pretenses and evasions, by appeals to ultimate authorities which are non- liberal, superstitious and reactionary. Often we are not aware of these thought processes. We accept ideas, authorities, catch- phrases and conditions without troubling to think or investigate and yet these things may conceal terrible traps. We accept them as right because they have a surface-level agreement with the things in which we believe. We welcome the man who is for liberalism, against communism, without troubling to inquire what else he is for or against. In our blindness we leave ourselves open to exploitation, regimentation and war.
Tumultuous developments in science and society demand a new clarity of thought, a reexamination and a restatement of principles. It is not sufficient that a principle is sacred because it is time-worn. It must be examined, tried and tested in the crucible of our present needs.
In our law, in our social and international relations, we are guilty of a myriad of barbarisms and superstitions. These injustices continue and proliferate because we have become used to them. We have lost our freedom through tolerance and inertia.
The principle we have developed herein is simple: the liberty of the individual is the foundation of civilization. No true civilization is possible without this liberty and no state, national or international, is stable in its absence. The proper relation between individual liberty on the one hand and social responsibility on the other is the balance which will assure a stable society. The only other road to social equilibrium demands the total annihilation of individuality. There is not further evasion of nature's immemorial ultimatum: change or perish but the choice of change is ours.
ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
I was lucky enough to see Koyaanisqatsi recently with the Philip Glass Orchestra performing the film score live. Fantastic. He's not playing in many cities, but if you have the opportunity, I recommend you take it.
Of course, political parties have never been comfortable with movement politicians, and the Boy Mayor of Cleveland is no exception. But these, of course, are no ordinary times, and along the political spectrum, from Chomsky to, say, Chenoweth, people would be hard pressed to say the old rules will work this time around. Along with positive notes from Chomsky, Studs Terkel, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's, Lynn Woolsey of the Progressive Caucus, and left/liberal websites like Democrats.com and Citizens for Legitimate Government, the Kucinich campaign crossed a new threshold when he took second place in the Moveon.org online primary, itself a fascinating exercise in online democracy.
It was a remarkable surge in just a few days, and his grassroots organization now spans all 50 states. While the polls don't reflect it -- as they didn't for Clinton or Carter at this point in '92 and '76, respectively -- it is only a matter of time before people start voting how they really want to (the buzz is that Dennis is people's "I would, but..." candidate). And all the notables who take note of Kucinich, even some who overtly or implicitly endorse him, "concede" that he doesn't have a chance.
I think they may be selling their man short. My answer to those who say we can only win by playing the same game is that -- what seems completely logical to me -- it's the only way we can lose. The money and the media will always favor the right. Unless we can learn to run an insurgent, Kucinich-type candidate and campaign and win successfully, we are screwed.
Dennis the Menace A Grist interview with Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich
Grist: It sounds like you are referring to a broad, far-reaching notion of sustainability -- not just in terms of the environment, but in terms of econ--
Kucinich: Everything. In terms of everything. You know, monopolies are not sustainable economically. A full-employment economy is sustainable. Health care for all -- that's sustainable. Taking the profit out of health care creates sustainable health systems. Preventive health care, complementary and alternative medicines [are part of] a sustainable approach to health care. And universal education from pre-k[indergarten] all the way through college is a sustainable approach toward education. A qualitative approach to education is sustainable, as opposed to quantitative, which is based on test-taking.
Grist: So you want to apply the principles of sustainability we associate with environmentalism to an all-encompassing political model?
Kucinich: Yes. Sustainability is a principle that must infuse our whole approach to life. And the environmental movement is the path toward that. It's the key to understanding that the Earth and the air and the water provide the precondition for life. Life cannot exist without that. So we need to organize our structures of governance in a way that helps support basic principles for the furtherance of life on this planet. And when there is a collision between those values that support life and economic practices, the economic practices must always yield to protect the environment.
If some wishful Americans are still hoping President Bush will acknowledge that his imperial foreign policy has stumbled in Iraq and needs fixing or reining in, they should put aside those reveries. He's going all the way—and taking us with him.
The Israeli bombing raid on Syria October 5 was an expansion of the Bush policy, carried out by the Sharon government but with the implicit approval of Washington. The government in Iran, said to be seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, reportedly expects to be the next target.
No one who believes in democracy need feel any empathy toward the governments of Syria and Iran, for they assist the terrorist movement, yet if the Bush White House is going to use its preeminent military force to subdue and neutralize all "evildoers" and adversaries everywhere in the world, the American public should be told now. Such an undertaking would be virtually endless and would require the sacrifice of enormous blood and treasure.
With no guarantee of success. And no precedent in history for such a crusade having lasting effect.
Israel has accused Syria of allowing Palestinian militant groups to train and operate from its territory. The Israeli air strike was the first attack on Syrian soil in three decades.
Perle said he hoped the air strike reflected a new Israeli policy similar to the Bush doctrine.
"We have problems with the Syrians who continue to support terrorism. We have to find a way to get them to stop," Perle later told The Associated Press.
Asked whether this would include possible U.S. military action against Syria, he said: "Everything's possible."
Perle said it would not be difficult to commit forces to Syria despite heavy U.S. troop commitments to Iraq and the Korean peninsula, along with a continued presence in areas such as the Balkans and Liberia.
The question is not whether bombing Syria was justified but whether it will make Israel and the world safer. All of Sharon's life he has reached for a military solution to Israel's problems: deadly cross-border commando raids in his youth, his disastrous war in Lebanon 20 years ago, his attempts to crush Palestinian national aspirations. To give Sharon his due, he is also trying to protect his nation, but he sees force and repression as his only weapons.
. . . .
A majority of Israelis and Palestinians would still be in favor of territorial compromise, but the uncompromising on both sides think they can get their way by force. The Islamists will not destroy Israel, and Israel will not bring peace by force or by striking out against its neighbors.
The French tried military solutions to maintain their colony in Algeria, and they won the Battle of Algiers. But their troubles did not end until their settlers were gone and their occupation ended.
October 14, 2003 marks the fifty year anniversary of a virtually forgotten massacre. In the Jordanian village of Qibya, a total of 69 civilians were murdered in a six hour killing spree, which almost totally destroyed the town. The attackers blew up about forty houses, a school, water pumping station, police station and telephone office (1) and they sustained no casualties, as Qibya was virtually undefended.
Of the first 42 bodies recovered after the attack, 38 were women and children.(2) One man lost all 11 members of his family. Describing the scene, a UN observer stated that 'Bullet-riddled bodies near the doorways and multiple bullet hits on the doors of the demolished houses indicated that the inhabitants had been forced to remain inside until their homes were blown up over them.'(1)
Condemnation was swift. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 101, specifically condemning the attack on Qibya. On Oct 16th, the US State Department issued a statement expressing sympathy for the victims and urging that the persons responsible 'should be brought to account.' The National Jewish Post, in an October 30th editorial wrote that 'Qibya was in effect another Lidice and no United States person who was living at the time of this detestable Nazi wiping out of an entire village will forget the world's horror at that act.'(3)
The world has known for decades who was responsible for the killing in Qibya, yet not only has no legal action been taken against him for this, but he is rarely even criticized for it. The person I'm referring to is the current Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon.
While the Democratic presidential contenders squabble among themselves over an exit strategy from Iraq, most of them agree that Israel had the right to attack Syria last week. That gives Bush a political green light to have at Syria, if not with American troops then at least through Israel.
And thanks to Tom DeLay, invigorated by his recent trip to the region, Congress is near ready to pass legislation giving the president authority to impose sanctions on Syria. The House plans to act this week and the Senate later in the month. Syrians laugh off sanctions on the grounds that they trade with Europe, not the U.S., but Syria is heavily dependent on Iraqi oil, and the U.S. has shut off the pipeline.
Taking out Syria is the next step in the neocon wet dream for remaking the Muslim world. Iran, Saudi Arabia, maybe Jordan, and Libya are the other targets.
Things are not looking up. I am saved from complete despair by the increasing number of concerned people around the world who are becoming aware of the pressing social, environmental, and human rights issues facing the world today, but I am not optimistic about the state of the world in the next few years.
My most immediate cause for concern is the Middle East. Recent actions by the United States and Israel suggest to me that we are headed towards more war in the region. American and Israeli hawks have been pushing for regime change throughout the Middle East for more than a decade and it would seem that now is the time for action. When are they going to have a better opportunity? The hawks are in control in both countries and Bush and Sharon both need something major to happen if they are going to rally enough people behind them to win the next elections.
If the hawks get their way, and they will unless a mass movement of people stops them, the entire Middle East will be deeply, bitterly embroiled in bloody conflict for a long time to come. Even if America and Israel, with a few willing or coerced allies, manage to win the major battles as easily as in Iraq, they will have to use tried and tested Israeli methods of suppression in order to maintain control. The U.S. has already begun using collective punishment in Iraq as a means of control.
As for the terrorists/resistance fighters, they will welcome these aggressive actions. U.S. and Israeli aggression always serves to fan the flames of hatred and increase the number of people who are willing to die to fight their hated enemies. Whether they yearn for freedom, power or martyrdom, they have chosen the violent path and they will not be persuaded to turn off this path by more violence and suppression.
The only real hope for peace in the region lies with those brave groups on both sides who desire to work non-violently through open dialogue and diplomacy. Groups like Uri Avnery's Gush Shalom and the Joint Israeli-Palestinian Action Group for Peace remain the best hope for positive change, but it is hard to see how they will succeed while people like Bush and Sharon remain in power and terrorist/armed resistance groups continue to attract followers.
Ulitmately, however, it is the attitudes of the the people which have to change. As long as the mass of people in the west and east allow themselves to be lead by people who believe in violent resistance or reaction, we will never see the kind of change we all long for in the region or the world.
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, has linked several states - including Syria - with the charter members of the axis of evil. In remarks last week at the American Embassy in London, Mr. Bolton said, "We're now turning our attention to Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cuba."
Israel has modified American-supplied cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads on three of its submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to launch atomic weapons from land, air and beneath the sea, according to senior Bush administration and Israeli officials.
The previously undisclosed capability of the submarines bolsters Israel's deterrence in the event that Iran - an avowed enemy - develops nuclear weapons in the coming years. At the same time, it complicates efforts by the United States and the United Nations to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.
Israel is prepared to launch an attack on Iran's
nuclear sites in order to prevent them from being
operational, the German weekly magazine Der
Spiegel reported Saturday.
. . . .
The Der Spiegel report said that Israel is
prepared to launch an attack in Iran against
facilities used in that country's nuclear
weapons development program. According to this
report, Israeli officials fear Iran's nuclear
program has reached an advanced stage, and a
special Mossad unit has been ordered to
formulate an attack plan against the nuclear
weapons program sites in Iran.
Syria has the right to defend itself "in all available ways" if Israel attacks it again, a Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Saturday, adding that relations with the United States are at their lowest point in years.
The Foreign Ministry comment came at the first news conference by a senior Syrian official since Israeli warplanes bombed a camp outside Damascus nearly a week ago. Israel says it was a training camp for the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad, which had claimed responsibility for a suicide attack in Israel the day before that killed 20 Israelis.
"We hope that the Israelis will not repeat their aggression. In case of repetition, Syria has the right to exercise its right of self-defense in all available ways," Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani told reporters in Damascus.
Kanafani reiterated Syria's official position that the camp was abandoned by Palestinian militants years ago.
"I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national-security official and a key strategist among the ascendant flock of neoconservative hawks, many of whom have taken up perches inside the U.S. government. Asserting that the war against Iraq can't be contained, Ledeen says that the very logic of the global war on terrorism will drive the United States to confront an expanding network of enemies in the region. "As soon as we land in Iraq, we're going to face the whole terrorist network," he says, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a collection of militant splinter groups backed by nations -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia -- that he calls "the terror masters."
"It may turn out to be a war to remake the world," says Ledeen.
In the Middle East, impending "regime change" in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives -- who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a "cabal." Like dominoes, the regimes in the region -- first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- are slated to capitulate, collapse or face U.S. military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory committee, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" In the aftermath, several of those states, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, may end up as dismantled, unstable shards in the form of mini-states that resemble Yugoslavia's piecemeal wreckage. And despite the Wilsonian rhetoric from the president and his advisers about bringing democracy to the Middle East, at bottom it's clear that their version of democracy might have to be imposed by force of arms.
I made it to the film festival in Pusan this past weekend, but I didn't get to see most of the films I had hoped to see. I managed to get in only three films, but they were all excellent. Barbarian Invasions, by Denys Arcand, focuses on the lives of the characters he created in his classic film, Decline of the American Empire. I have a few complaints about the film, including some disturbing rascist undertones, but overall I highly recommend the film. American Splendour was a great surprise find. I new nothing about the film and went to see it only because it was one of the few movies I could get tickets for. If you liked Crumb or Ghost World, you'll love American Splendour. The real treat at the festival, though, was finally getting to see The Fast Runner. I was hooked for 3 hours -- even without English sub-titles.
An Israeli Air Force pilot on Wednesday retracted
his refusal to take part in operations in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.
In a letter sent to Air Force
Chief Major General Dan Halutz,
reserve pilot Major Gideon Dror
wrote that he decided to
retract his signature from the
refusal letter.
Two of the original 27
signatories have thus far
retracted their signatures:
Dror and reserve Colonel Ran.
Halutz on Wednesday visited a number of Air
Force bases, speaking with air crews about the
letter and the public storm it created.
Two non-active pilots on Tuesday added their
names to the refusal letter. Major Eshel
Hafetz, a former combat and transport pilot and
today captain for a civilian airline, and Major
Yiftah Astrick, a non-active reservist
helicopter pilot, made clear that they are
adding their names "both despite and because of
the nature of denunciations received by the
pilots who signed the petition."
Major Haggai Tamir, a former combat pilot who
signed the letter, said Monday that he "is
certain that the public is able to digest the
conflict that we have drawn out in a more
mature manner than similar conflicts in the
past."
The Bush administration today cut over $89 million in military aid to 32 friendly countries because they refused to exempt U.S. citizens and soldiers from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court (ICC)--the world's first permanent tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Among the countries whose aid was cut were a number of new democracies in Central and East Europe--some of which have contributed troops to bolster the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq--as well as Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, South Africa, and several other Latin American and African countries.
"This is the first sanction in U.S. diplomatic history targeted exclusively at democracies," said Heather Hamilton of the World Federalist Association (WFA), one of hundreds of non-governmental groups around the world that have joined in a global coalition in support of the ICC.
While the cuts were relatively small this year, they would come to just under $90 million in fiscal year 2004, which begins today, October 1.
The cuts were mandated by the 2002 American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), the purpose of which is to ensure that the ICC, which began operating at The Hague in the Netherlands last spring, can never gain jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.
Among other provisions, the ASPA gives the president authorization to use all necessary means, including force, to free U.S. servicemembers held by the ICC.
TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today.
John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.
His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a real and present danger" to Britain.
Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary, when it first discussed military action against Iraq.
The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against the war", according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be successful, writes the former cabinet minister.
Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to vote for war on a "false prospectus".
Jamal Dirawi jolted awake to the thunder of fists pounding his front door. 1 a.m. He shared a tired glance with his wife and got dressed. This had happened before. In the weeks to come, it would happen again.
That July night, Israeli border police arrested Mr. Dirawi and 15 others in his village for entering Israel illegally. Dirawi was born here, just south of East Jerusalem. He was living here in 1967 when Israel declared the area part of greater Jerusalem. The villagers weren't told until 1992. When they applied for proper identification as Jerusalem residents, they were denied, making them illegally present on land they had never left. Now they are trapped.
Dirawi and his neighbors don't have the ID to enter Jerusalem, to the north. An Israeli settlement hems them in on the west. To the south and east, Israel's new security barrier cuts them off from Bethlehem, their urban hub, and the West Bank beyond. And as bulldozers blazed the barrier's path, the border police raids began.
A new study based on a series of seven nationwide polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war with Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions."
Israel received the Green Light. It came from what is called the Syria Accountability Act, moving through the United States Congress with the help of Israel's supporters, that will impose sanctions on Damascus for its supposed enthusiasm for "terrorism" and occupation of Lebanon.
Speaker after speaker in the past week has been warning that Syria is the new - or old, or non-existent - threat previously represented by Iraq: that it has weapons of mass destruction, that it has biological warheads, that it received Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction just before we began our illegal invasion of Iraq in March.
The Israeli lie about "thousands" of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has been uncloaked yet again. In reality, there hasn't been an Iranian militant in Lebanon for 20 years. But who cares? The dictatorial Syrian regime - and dictatorial it most decidedly is - has to be struck after a Jenin woman lawyer, who has probably never visited Damascus in her life, blows herself and 19 innocent Israelis up in Haifa.
And why not? If America can strike Afghanistan for the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and if America can invade Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with 11 September, why shouldn't Israel strike Syria?
Anne Cassidy's Grade 5-6 class has just started a unit on urban studies. But none of them knows it.
Last week, they were camping at a wilderness park in Ontario for three days, lugging their water from a pump and cooking in the great outdoors. Now that they're back, they are brainstorming about what makes a city: What would it take to build one in the place where they camped?
The classroom is alive with voices. One boy is sitting up on the table, the better to make his points to the person who is writing down ideas on a poster-sized sheet of paper. Another is drawing out his ideas, because that's the way he explains best.
They'll have to have food in their city, one of the groups remarks. And clothing to buy. But where will that come from? Who will make it and how will they be paid? What forms of energy will they need? How will they get them? What about government? Who gets to make decisions, and how are they chosen?
There is no script here at the Institute of Child Study's laboratory school on Walmer Road in downtown Toronto. No government-mandated questions on a set topic, as has been the trend in education nearly everywhere in the past decade. The children are constructing their own curriculum, being guided by their teacher but not being spoon-fed.
This is the hidden curriculum, the one no government can engineer, about spontaneity, discovery, intellectual agility, problem solving, creative thought. As for the official curriculum, Ms. Cassidy confides later that the children are actually digging into units on government, energy, community and current affairs. For the creative-writing unit, she says, she might ask them to write a story based in a water-treatment plant like the one they'll see in a later field trip.
The joke around here is that the children are having so much fun, they don't realize they're learning.
As the coronation of Paul Martin approaches, a political quiz going the rounds poses the question: is Paul Martin actually to the right of Brian Mulroney? There is some pretty compelling evidence suggesting the answer is yes, something that Paul Martin is not eager to acknowledge.
His speech to the Montreal Board of Trade last week on a new economic strategy for Canada seemed designed to be as ideologically neutral as possible. Prosperity, said Martin, will come from "transformative technologies which are going to be the real economic engines of years to come."
As an important pronouncement of a new prime minister who says he wants ". . . to lead a new government with a renewed sense of purpose, a sharper focus and a clearer plan, a government unafraid to change and eager to turn the page and look to the future," ( I'm not making this up) it's difficult to see how this knowledge-industry stuff qualifies.
Martin sang this same tune for the last half of his mandate as finance minister. It didn't help. The 1990s was the worst decade of the century (except for the 1930s) in terms of growth, productivity, productive investment, unemployment and standard of living. And it's not looking much better today.
In Israeli mythology, combat pilots are the elite of the elite. Many of them are Kibbutz-boys, who were once considered the aristocracy of Israel. Ezer Weitzman, a former Air Force commander, once coined the phrase "The Best Boys for Flying" (and immediately added, in the typical macho style of the Force, "and the Best Girls for the Flyers".)
The pilots are bought up from an early age to believe that we are always right, and that our opponents are vile murderers. That the army commanders never make a mistake. That an order is an order, and theirs is not to reason why. That professionalism is the highest virtue. That problems have to be solved inside the Force. That one does not question the authority of the political leadership. There exists a whole mythology about the part played by the Force in the Israeli victories in all our wars: from the tiny Piper planes in 1948, the destruction of the Egyptian Air Force in the Yom Kippur war of 1973, and so forth.
The Air Force does not, of course, take in non-conformists. Candidates for flight training are scrutinized carefully. The force chooses solid, disciplined youngsters who can be relied on, both as to their character and their views, Zionists and the sons of Zionists.
Moreover, the Air Force is a clan, a sect whose members are ferociously loyal to the Force and to each other, There have never been public quarrels or signs of mutiny in the Air Force.
All this explains why the pilots struggled with themselves for so long, before they found in themselves the inner strength required for such an extraordinary, morally courageous act as publishing this appeal.
The 27 Air Force pilots informed their commander that from now on they would refuse to fulfil "immoral and illegal orders" that would cause the death of civilians. At the end of their statement, they criticized the occupation that is corrupting Israel and undermining its security.
The most senior officer among the signatories is Major General Yiftah Spector, who is also a living legend. He is the son of one of the "23 men in the boat", a group that was sent in World War II to demolish oil installations in Lebanon (at the time under Nazi-puppet Vichy French control) and never heard of again. Yiftah Spector was the instructor of many of the present commanders of the Air Force. Altogether, the statement was signed by one general, 2 colonels, 9 lieutenant colonels, 8 majors and 7 captains.
Such a thing is unprecedented in Israel. Because of the special standing of the Air Force, the refusal evoked a much louder echo than the refusal movement of the ground troops that seems to have leveled out, for the moment, at about 500 refuseniks.
The army establishment, the real government of Israel, sensed the danger and reacted as it had never reacted before. It started a wild campaign of defamation, incitement and character assassination. The heroes of yesterday were turned overnight into enemies of the people. All parts of the government ?from ex-president Ezer Weitzman to the Attorney General (who already has his eye on a seat in the Supreme Court), from the Foreign Office to the politicians of the Labor and Meretz parties ?were mobilized in order to crush the mutiny of the pilots.
The counter-attack was headed by the media. Never before did they expose their real face as on this occasion. All TV channels, all radio networks and all newspaper ?without exception! - revealed themselves as servants and mouthpieces of the army command. The liberal Haaretz, too, devoted its front page to a ferocious attack on the pilots, without giving space to the other point of view.
It was impossible to switch on a TV set without encountering the Air Force commander, and after him a long line of establishment figures who, one after another, condemned the pilots. Army camps were opened to the cameras, loyal officers damned their comrades as "traitors" who had "stuck a knife in our backs". Except for one single interview on Channel 2, the "refusers" were not given any opportunity at all to explain their point of view or answer their detractors.
No doubt: the establishment is worried. Perhaps it may succeed in containing the protest this time and deterring other potential mutineers by spreading defamation, fear and punishment. But the message of the 27 has been written and nothing can change that.
