Tuesday, April 29, 2014

FinkelsteinNorman. Haaretz (HaaRetz) Daily Newspaper. 24 May 2008.

Israel denies entry to high-profile critic Norman Finkelstein
U.S. academic has met with Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon; accused of links to 'hostile elements.'
By Yossi Melman and Haaretz Correspondent

The Shin Bet security service detained and deported an American Jewish professor who is a prominent critic of the Israeli occupation when he landed at Ben-Gurion International Airport on Friday.
Professor Norman Finkelstein was interrogated for several hours and held in an airport cell before being put on a plane back to Amsterdam, his point of departure. Finkelstein said he was told he could not return to Israel for 10 years.
The Shin Bet said Finkelstein "is not permitted to enter Israel because of suspicions involving hostile elements in Lebanon," and because he "did not give a full accounting to interrogators with regard to these suspicions."
However, in e-mail and phone interviews with Haaretz after leaving Israel for Amsterdam, Finkelstein said, "I did my best to provide absolutely candid and comprehensive answers to all the questions put to me. I am confident that I have nothing to hide. Apart from my political views, and the supporting scholarship, there isn't much more to say for myself: alas, no suicide missions or secret rendezvous with terrorist organizations. I've always supported a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. I'm not an enemy of Israel."
Finkelstein visited Lebanon a few months ago and met with Hezbollah operatives there, and subsequently published articles.
Finkelstein, 55, has accused Israel of exploiting the Holocaust for political ends. He recently left DePaul University following pressure by Jewish organizations and individuals, including Professor Alan Dershowitz.
He also said in the interview that he was "en route to Palestine to see one of my oldest and dearest friends, Musa Abu-Hashhash."
Finkelstein said he was asked whether he had met with Al Qaida operatives, whether he had been sent to Israel by Hezbollah and how he intended to finance his stay in Israel.
"I was kept in a holding cell at the airport for approximately 24 hours. It wasn't a Belgian bed-and-breakfast, but it wasn't Auschwitz either. I had several unpleasant moments with the guards at the airport and in the holding cell, but since martyrdom is not my cup of tea, I'll spare you the details," Finkelstein said.
He said he eventually used a cellphone belonging to another detainee and called another friend he was scheduled to see in Israel, the journalist Allan Nairn, who called attorney Michael Sfard. Sfard met with Finkelstein and told him he could appeal the ban; however, Finkelstein said he has been to Israel at least 15 times and declined to appeal.
Sfard on Saturday said banning Finkelstein from entering the country "recalls the behavior of the Soviet bloc countries."


  OnKateWelch. I don't understand these messages which are filled with hostility disguised. Probably she and her equally stupid cronies "get a big kick out of it." It would be refreshing if she says what she wants staightforwardly, what a fucking twat. I wouldn't be surprised if she is too cowardic to face the possibility that her entire life and career is devoted to something meaningless, which I had the horror of facing in the past. She probably doesn't realise that the election ofArnoldSchwarzenegger, whom she seems to worship blindly (you can call it heroworship if you like), is one of the signs of the decay ofUSPolitics. Some dumb actor inHollywood, LosAngeles, who became a Governor for reasons which I will never be able to understand, whose only concern is to serve the businessclass. The daughter of an insignificant engineer atNASA and the defenfesystem, whose only Education was theHollywoodfilms of the1980s and videogames.
  She might never realise that the search for Justice and truth is never over for humanity, and think that this world has "reached equilibrium," like so many people before her. And she will never relent her position in the little world of hers, covered with the illusions.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Image. Lefthand alleged ofLeahShapiro.

Paroles. Sans toi. MichelLegrand. 1962.

Toutes portes ouvertes
En plein courant d'air
Je suis une maison vide
Sans toi, sans toi

Comme une île déserte
Que recouvre la mer
Mes vagues se dévident
Sans toi, sans toi

Belle en pure perte
Nue au coeur de l'hiver
Je suis un corps avide
Sans toi, sans toi

Rongée par le cafard
Morte au cercueil de verre
Je me couvre de rides
Sans toi, sans toi

Et si tu viens trop tard
On m'aura mise en terre
Seule, laide et livide
Sans toi, sans toi
Sans toi

US, Japan to Push Ahead on Trade Talks. WSJ. 24 Apr 2014.

  Mitsuru Obe – The U.S. and Japan failed to reach a trade agreement before the summit meeting on Thursday between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, but the two sides will push forward with efforts to resolve the main points of contention.
  Obama and Abe have instructed their chief trade negotiators—U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Economy Minister Akira Amari—to bridge the gap on a bilateral trade agreement seen as crucial to the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade initiative, Mr. Abe said in a news conference after their meeting.
  The U.S. and Japan had hoped to demonstrate the strength of their alliance with an announcement of a landmark trade agreement during Mr. Obama’s visit to Tokyo. But after months of talks, including intensive negotiations over the past several weeks, significant differences remain on key issues, particularly U.S. access to Japanese agricultural markets.
  Japan wants to protect its own products, including rice and beef, while the U.S. is demanding full market access. Meanwhile, the U.S. is apparently seeking more time to cut tariffs on Japanese vehicles.
  Interest groups in both countries have voiced concern about TPP. In the U.S., the auto industry argues that Japan has the most closed market among developed nations, while the U.S. farm lobby has pressured the Obama administration to maintain a tough negotiating stance on Japan’s markets for agricultural goods.
  Mr. Abe’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, long-reliant on rural votes, has framed the issue of protecting farm products and food production as one of national security.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Chomsky. Transcript. DistortedMorality. 06 Feb 2002. Harvard. JFK School of Government.

Thanks. I just got back fromBrasil where they don't have any firecodes and if you think this is uncomfortable you should see a meeting there, people packed so tight that there was a good question whether the oxygenlevel would suffice. Fortunately, there wasn't a fire or it would have been a huge catastrophe. Well, the title, you noticed, had a questionmark after it and the reason for the questionmark is that whatever has been happening for the past several months and is going on now, and however you evaluate it, like it, hate it, or whatever, it's prettyclear that it cannot be a war on terror. In fact, that's close to a logical necessity, at least if we accept certain prettyelementary assumptions and principles, so let me try to make those clear at the outset. Thefirstprincipleguideline, if you like, is that we ought to, I will try and I think that we should, [“]bend over backwards[“] to give the benefit of the doubt to theUnitedStatesGovernment whenever it's possible. So, that if there is any dispute about how to interpret something, we will assume they're right. Thesecondguideline is that we should take ratherseriously, veryseriously the pronouncements of leadership especially when they are made with great sincerity and emotion. So, for example, when George[Walker]Bush[Jr.] tells us that he is themostdevoted christian since theApostles. Sound of laughter. We should believe him, take him at his word, and we should thereforeconclude that he certainly has memorised, over and over again, in hisBiblereadingclasses and in church, the famous definition of hypocrite that's given in theGospels. Sound of laughter. Namely the hypocrite is the person who applies to others standards that he refuses to apply to himself. So if you are not a hypocrite, you assume that, if something is right for us, then it's right for them, and if it is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when we do it. That is reallyelementary and I assume that thePresident would agree and all of his admirers as well. So those are the principles that I would like to start with. Well, a side comment. Unless we can rise to that minimal level ofMoralintegrity, we should at least stop talking about things likeHumanRights, RightAndWrong, and GoodAndEvil, and all such high afflatus things, because all our talk should be dismissed, in fact, dismissed with complete repugnance, unless we can at least rise to that minimal level. I think that's obvious, and I hope there would be agreement on that, too. Well, with that much in place, just that much for background, let me formulate a thesis. The thesis is that we are all total hypocrites on any issue relating toTerrorism. Now, let me clarify the notion We. By We, I mean people like us, People who have enough high degree of privilege, of training, resources, accesstoinformation, for whom it is prettyeasy to find out the truth about things if we want to. If we decide that that is our vocation, and in the case in question, you don't really have to digverydeep, it's all right on the surface. So when I say We, I mean that category. And I definitely mean to include myself in we because I have never proposed that our leaders be subjected to the kinds of punishment that I have recommended for enemies. So that’s hypocrisy. If there are people who escape it, I really don't know them and have not come across them. It's a verypowerful culture. It's hard to escape its grasp. So that's thesisnumberone, we are all total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, on the matter ofTerrorism. Thesecondthesis is stronger, namely, that thefirstthesis is so obvious that it takes real effort to miss it. In fact, I should go home right now because it is obvious. Nevertheless, let me continue and say why I think both theses are correct. Well, to begin with, what is Terrorism? Got to say something about that. That is supposed to be a really tough question. Academicseminars and graduatePhiloprograms and so on, a veryvexing and complex question. However, in accordance with the guidelines that I mentioned, I think there is a simple answer, namely, we just take theofficialUSdefinition ofTerrorism. Since we are accepting the pronouncements of our leaders literally, let's take their definition. In fact, that’s what I have always done. I have been writing aboutTerrorism for thelasttwentyyears or so, just accepting the official definition. So, for example, a simple and important case is in theUSArmymanual in1984 which definesTerrorism as “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature.” Well, that seems simple, appropriate. A particularly good choice because of the timing: 1984. 1984, you will recall, was the time that theReaganadministration was waging a war againstTerrorism. Particularly what they called Statesupported internationalTerrorism a "plague spread by depraved opponents of civilisation itself" in a "return toBarbarism in the modern age", I'm quotingGeorgeShultz who was the administrationmoderate. The other guideline is that we will keep to the moderates, not the extremists. So that's 1984, Reagan had come into office a couple of years earlier. His administration had immediatelydeclared that the war againstTerrorism would be the focus ofUSForeignPolicy and they identified tworegions as the source of this plague by depraved opponents of civilisation itself, centralAmerica and theMiddleEast. And there was quite wide agreement on that and so, in1985, for example, everyyear theAssociatedPress has a poll of editors on themostimportant story of the year, and in1985, the winner was MiddleEastTerrorism. So they agree. Right towards the end of that year, 1985, ShimonPeres, Israel'sPrimeMinister, came toWashington and Reagan and Peres denounced the evil scourge ofTerrorism, referring to theMiddleEast. Scholarship and experts also agree. There is a huge literature for the last twentyyears onTerrorism, particularly Statesupported internationalTerrorism. We don't have time review it, but a good illustration, which I will keep to, is the december2001issue of the journal CurrentHistory, a good and serious journal. Its article calledAmericaAtWar includes leading historians, specialists and experts onTerrorism and they identify the1980s as the era of Statesponsored terror, agreeing with theReaganadministration. I agree with that, too. I think it was the era of Statesponsored internationalTerrorism. One leading author, MarthaCrenshaw, says that in that era theUnitedStates adopted a proactive stance to deter the plague. Mostly, it's about theMiddleEast but centralAmerica is occasionallymentioned. For example, one or two authors or coauthors from theBrookingsInstitution described theUSContraWar againstNicaragua as a model for how to fight a war againstTerrorism. They say that that was a model forUSsupport for theNorthernAlliance in the current phase of the war againstTerrorism. The seeds of contemporaryTerrorism however are muchdeeper, though. The major historian in the group points out, DavidRapoport, the leading academic specialist onTerrorism, editor of theJournalOfTerrorism and so on, he points out that it goes back to the origins of modernTerrorism, likeOsamaBinLaden. It goes back to theearly1960s and I am quoting him now, when "Vietcongterror against the americanGoliath kindled the hopes that the western heartland was vulnerable." I won't comment on that but, I’d like you, just as an exercise, you might try to find a historical analogue to that statement somewhere. I'll just leave it at that. Without commenting, if you check through the scholarly literature, you'll find thesamestory all the time, virtually no exceptions. The world agreed with theReaganites, too. In1985, right after Reagan and Peres had denounced the evil scourge ofTerrorism, theGeneralAssembly passed a resolution condemningTerrorism, and in1987, it passed a muchstronger resolution and a muchmoreexplicit one denouncingTerrorism in all its forms and calling on allStates to do everything they can to fight against the plague and everything you like. It's true that that wasn't unanimous. There was oneabstention, namely Honduras, and twovotes against, theusualtwo. They gave their reasons for voting against the majorUNResolution on internationalTerrorism, namely, both States, theUnitedStates and Israel, pointed to thesameparagraph as the reason for their negativevote. It was a paragraph that said that “Nothing in the present resolution could in anyway prejudice the right to selfdetermination, freedom and independence, as derived from theUnitedNationsCharter, of people forciblyderived of that right, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation, or could deprive them of the right to obtain support for others in these ends in accord with the charter with theUnitedNations.” That was the offending paragraph, and it is easy to understand why it raised a serious problem for theUnitedStates and Israel. TheAfricanNationalCongress was identifiedofficially as a terrorist organisation in theUnitedStates, and southAfrica was officially an ally. But the phrase "struggle against colonial and racist regimes" plainly referred to the struggle of theANC against the apartheid regime, so that's unacceptable. The phrase "foreign occupation," everyone understood, referred to the israeli occupation of theWestBank and Gaza, then in its twentiethyear, extremely-harsh and -brutal from the beginning and continuing only because of decisive US military, economic and diplomatic support that runs up to the present, so obviously that was unacceptable. So therefore it was 153to2 with oneabstention. So it wasn't totallyunanimous. It wasn't reported, and it has disappeared fromHistory. You can check to find out. Incidentally, that's standard practice. When the master says something’s wrong, it's downthememoryhole, doesn't get reported, and it's forgotten. But it's there, if you want to look, you can discover it, I'll give you the sources if you like. Well, Reagan at that time, let's recall, he and Peres were talking about the evil scourge ofTerrorism in theMiddleEast. GeorgeShultz didn't entirely agree. He thought that what he called themostalarming manifestation of StatesponsoredTerrorism was frighteningly close to home. Namely, it was a "cancer [] in our land mass," a cancer right nearby that was threatening to conquer the hemisphere with a "revolution without borders", a rather interesting propagandafabrication, revealed to be a fraud instantly, but alwaysusedrepeatedly afterwards, even by thesamejournals that explained why it was a total fabrication. It was just too useful to abandon. And this is also interesting, if you think about it, the fabrication had a certain element of truth in it, an important element of truth. We can come back to that if you like. Anyhow, this cancer in our land mass was threatening to conquer everything, openly followingHitler'sMeinKampf, and we plainly had to do something about that. There is a serious day in theUnitedStates calledLawDay, elsewhere in the world it is called MayDay, mayfirst, a day for the support of the struggles of the american workers for an-eighthourday, but in theUnitedStates, it's a jingoistholiday calledLawDay. OnLawDay1985, PresidentReagan declared a national emergency because theGovernment ofNicaragua constitutes "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and ForeignPolicy of theUnitedStates" That was renewedannually. GeorgeSchultz informedCongress that we must cut the nicaraguan cancer out and not by gentle means, things are tooserious for that. And so, to quoteSchultz. Recall, the administration moderate, the "good cop", to quoteSchultz, he said, "Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table." He condemned those who advocate "utopian legalistic means like outside mediation, theUnitedNations, theWorldCourt, while ignoring the powerelement of the equation." I'll avoid quoting [“]hard liners[“]. At that time, theUnitedStates was exercising the "powerelement of the equation" with mercenaryforces based inHonduras attackingNicaragua. They were under the supervision ofJohnNegroponte who was just appointed to run the diplomatic side of the diplomatic component of the current war on terror as theUNambassador. The military component of the current war on terror is DonaldRumsfeld who at that time was RonaldReagan's special envoy to theMiddleEast, the other place where the plague was raging through1985. In fact, theUnitedStates at that time was also blocking "utopian, legalistic means" that were being pursued by theWorldCourt, the latinamerican countries and others, and it continued to block those means right until the end until the final victory of its terrorist wars throughout centralAmerica. Well, how was the war against StatesponsoredTerrorism waged in those tworegions by the people who in fact are leading the new phase? So prettyclose historical continuity, not just those two, of course. Well, just to illustrate, let's pick the peak year, theworstyear, 1985 in theMiddleEast, topstory of the year. So who wins the prize for the worst acts ofTerrorism in theMiddleEast in1985? Well, I know of threecandidates, maybe you can suggest a different one. Onecandidate is a carbombing inBeirut in1985, The car was placed outside a mosque. The bomb was timed to go off when people were leaving to make sure it killed themaximumnumber of people. It killed, according to theWashingtonPost, eightypersons. It wounded over twohundredsandfifty, mostly women and girls leaving the mosque. There was a huge explosion so it blew up the whole street, killing babies in beds, and so on and so forth. The bomb was aimed at a muslim sheik who escaped. It was set off by theCIA in collaboration with british intelligence and saudi intelligence and specificallyauthorised byWilliamCasey, according toBobWoodward's-History ofCasey and -theCIA. So that is a clearcut example of internationalTerrorism. Veryunambiguous and I think it is one of the candidates for the prize for the peak year of1985. Another candidate surely would be the socalled-IronFistOperations that ShimonPeres'sGovernment was carrying out in occupied southernLebanon in march of1985. This is in southernLebanon, which was under military occupation in violation of theSecurityCouncil order to leave, but withUSauthorisation, so it’s irrelevant. TheIronFistOperations were targeting what the high command called terrorist villagers in southernLebanon. It included many massacres and atrocities and kidnapping of people for interrogation and taking them toIsrael and so on. It reached new depths of calculated brutality and arbitrary murder, according to a western diplomat familiar with the region, who was observing. There was no pretense of selfdefense, rather it was openly undertaken for political ends. It was conceded, it wasn't even argued. So that's a clear case of internationalTerrorism although here we might say that it is aggression. I'll call it just internationalTerrorism in line with the principle that we [“]bend over backwards[“] to give theUnitedStates the benefit of the doubt. Of course, this is a USoperation. Israel does it because they are given arms, aid and diplomatic support by theUnitedStates. So we will decide to call this just internationalTerrorism, not the muchmoreserious warcrime of aggression. The same, incidentally, was true of the muchworse operations of1982 when Israel invadedLebanon and killed maybe twentythousand or so persons, again with crucial US military, economic and diplomatic support. TheUS had to veto a couple of SecurityCouncilResolutions to keep the slaughter going, provide the arms, and so on, for it. So it's a USIsraeliInvasion, if we are honest. The goal of the invasion, I’ll just quoteNewYorkTimes on that. The goal of the invasion was “to install a friendly regime inLebanon and oust thePLO, which would help persuade the palestinians to accept israeli rule in theWestBank and Gaza.” That's actuallyaccurate and I have to compliment theNewYorkTimes in saying that on january24th. As far as I know, this is thefirsttime in mainstreamUSliterature that anyone has dared to say what was absolutely commonknowledge inIsrael and in the dissident literature twentyyearsago. I was writing this in1983 just using israeli sources, but it couldn't penetrateUScommentary. You might check and see. As far as I know, this was thefirstbreakthrough. I’m not sure the reporter understood what he was saying. Sound of laughter. But anyway he did say that. JamesBennet, january24th, prize forJamesBennet for telling the truth after twentyyears. And it's true and, of course, it's a textbookillustration of internationalTerrorism. This time, we have to [“]bend over backwards[“] prettyfar to call it internationalTerrorism, because it is hard to say why this isn't overt aggression, the kind of action for which US- and israeli-leaders should be subjected toNurembergTrials, real serious warcrimes. But again, let's keep to the guidelines and let's say it's only internationalTerrorism. Well, that's thesecondexample, theIronFistOperations. Third, the only other example from1985 that I know of took place twodays beforeShimonPeres arrived inWashington to joinReagan in denouncing the evil scourge ofTerrorism. Shortlybefore that, Peres sent the israeliAirForce to bombTunis killing seventyfivecivilians, torn to shreds with smart bombs. It was all ratheraccurately and graphicallydepicted by highlyrespected israeli reporter in the[?], hebrew press inIsrael and corroborated by other sources. TheUnitedStates cooperated with that by withdrawing theSixthFleet so that they did not have to inform their ally, Tunisia, that the bombers were on their way, presumably getting refueled on the way. So that's thethirdcandidate. I don't know of any other candidates that even come close to being candidates. Incidentally, GeorgeSchultz, the moderate, immediately after the bombing, he telephoned the israeliForeignMinister to say that theUnitedStates had considerable sympathy for this operation but he backed away from opensupport for massive internationalTerrorism or maybe aggression when theSecurityCouncil unanimouslycondemned the attack as an attack of armed aggression. TheUnitedStates again abstaining against that. So those are the threecasees, top threecases that win the prise for1985, to my knowledge, and again I'll assume that these are just internationalTerrorism, so we are not calling forNurembergTrials. Just moreinternationalTerrorism by depraved opponents of civilisation itself and examples which are prettyhard to miss, remember, because these [are] the peak stories of the year for internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast. There are three perfect examples. In fact, the only three major examples that I know of. However, they aren't candidates. In fact, they are not even in the running. They are not competitive. The examples that are in the running are, for example, cited in theCurrentHistoryissue, to which I referred, which does discuss1985 and gives twoexamples of the evil scourge ofTerrorism, namely the hijacking ofTWA847, killing one american Navydiver and the hijacking of theAchilleLauro, killing, which led to the killing ofLeonKlinghoffer, a crippled american, both surely terrorist atrocities. Those are the twoexamples that are in the running, that are memorable, that count for internationalTerrorism. Well, the hijackers for theTWAplane claim, correctly in fact, that Israel was regularlyhijacking ships in the international waters in transit betweenLebanonAndCyprus, killing people, kidnapping others, taking them toIsrael, either for interrogation or simply as hostages, keeping them in jail for years. In fact, some people are still in jail without charges for many years, that’s all correct, but that doesn't justify the hijacking on the assumption, which I accept at least, that violence is notlegitimate in retaliation against evenworse atrocities or as preemption against future atrocities. Violence is not legitimate in such cases so we can dismiss those claims though they are in fact correct. Incidentally, theUS-Israeli hijackings, and remember, if Israel does it, we are doing it, those hijackings are also out of the historical records. Occasionally, you find a reference to them in the bottom of a column on something or other, but they are not part of theHistory ofTerrorism. The hijackers of theAchilleLauro claimed that this was retaliation for the bombing ofTunis a couple of days earlier. Well, we dismiss that with contempt on thesameprinciple, namely, violence is notjustified in retaliation or preemption. Assuming that we can rise to the level of minimalMorallevel that I mentioned earlier, if we are not confirmed hypocrites in other words, then some consequences follow about other acts of retaliation and preemption, but that's tooobvious to talk about so I will just leave it for you to think about. Well, that's 1985, the peak year of internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast. As a researchproject, you might see if I have left out anything that is a competitor for the prize that I am notaware of. None are mentioned in the literature onTerrorism. Well, notice that. As I said at the beginning, you don't really have to work veryhard to see these things. You have to work veryhard not to see them. It takes a reallygoodEducation to miss this. Think about it and see. 1985 was, of course, not the first or the last act of internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast. There are many others. Some are quite important. For example, in1975, Israel, meaning israeli pilots with-USplanes and -USsupport, in december1975, they bombed a village inLebanon killing over fiftypersons. No pretext was offered, but everybody knew what the reason was. At that time, theUNSecurityCouncil was meeting to consider a resolution which was supported by the entire world with marginal exceptions, only one crucial exception, theUnitedStates, which vetoed the resolution, calling for a diplomatic settlement of theIsraelPalestineconflict, incorporatingUN242 and all of its wording of the main resolution, security and territorial integrity and all those nice things on the internationallyrecognised border. The offending part of this one was that it also referred to palestinian national rights and that's notacceptable to theUnitedStates. It rejected them then, and it rejects them now, contrary to a lot of nonsense that you read. TheUS vetoed the resolution. That terminated. I mean, it continued year after year and is still going on now, of efforts of diplomatic settlement, which theUS has unilaterallyblocked. Israel does not have a veto at theSecurityCouncil, so they reacted to the debate by bombingLebanon and killing fiftypersons without a pretext. That's not in the annals of internationalTerrorism either. There are manymorerecent cases, including the twoinvasions of-YitzhakRabin and -ShimonPeres in-1993 and -1996 [which] US supported them inLebanon. TheUS supported both of them, lots of deaths, hundreds of thousands of people driven out and so on. Clinton had to back off his support for the1996invasion after theQanaMassacre, over onehundredpersons in aUNrefugeecamp. At that point he said, Can't handle this any more, you better leave. There was no pretext of selfdefense in this case. This is just outright internationalTerrorism or maybe aggression. And it continues. So let's go up to the current intifada, which broke out on september30th of year2000. In the first couple of days, there was no fire from palestinians, some stonethrowing, but Israel was in fact usingUSattackhelicopters to attack civilian complexes, apartmentcomplexes, and so on, killing and wounding dozens of people in the first few days. TheClintonadministration responded to this by, I'll borrow ourPresident'sphrase, by "enhancing terror." RecallPresidentBush[Jr.] condemned the palestinians for "enhancing terror" lastmonth, so I'll use his phrase in line with the guidelines. TheClintonadministration committed itself to enhancing terror on october3rd by making a deal for thebiggestshipment in a decade of attack, military helicopters toIsrael along with spare parts for theApacheattackhelicopters that were sent a couple of weeks earlier. That's enhancing terror. In the days rightafter, these helicopters were being used to murder and wound civilians, attacking apartmentcomplexes and so on. The press cooperated by refusing to report this. Note: not (Failing to report it), Refusing to report it. It was specificallybrought to the attention of editors, and they simplymade it clear that they were not going to report it. There is no question about the facts, incidentally, but to this day it has not been reported, except in the margins. That policy continues. Skip to december2001, lastmonth, twomonthsago. George[Walker]Bush[Jr.] was condemning the palestinians for enhancing terror and he contributed in the conventional ways to enhancing terror, in crucial ways, in fact. On december15th, theUNSecurityCouncil debated a european initiated resolution, calling on both sides to reduce violence and calling for the introduction of international monitors to assist in monitoring a reduction of violence. That's a veryimportant step. That was vetoed by theUnitedStates who wanted to ehance violence evidently. It's hard to think of any other interpretation for this. The press didn't have to bother giving an interpretation. The press didn't have to bother giving an interpretation, because it was barelyreported. Then it went to theGeneralAssembly where it wasn't reported at all and there was an overwhelming vote supporting thesameresolution. This time, theUnitedStates and Israel were notentirelyisolated in opposition as severalPacificIslands joined in, Nauru and one or two others. So therefore, not the usual splendid isolation. I don't recall that that was reported. About a week before, tendaysbefore that, there was another major contribution to enhancing terror. TheFourthGenevaConventions, according to the entire world literally, outside ofIsrael, applied to theOccupiedTerritories. TheUnitedStates refuses, it doesn't vote against this when it comes up in theUnitedNations, it abstains. I presume the reason is theUnitedStates doesn't want to take such an open blatant stand in violation of fundamental principles ofInternationalLaw, particularlyunder the circumstances under which they were enacted. If you recall, theGenevaConventions were established right after theSecondWorldWar in order to criminalise the acts of theNazis, so saying they don't apply is a prettystrong statement. However, outside of theUnitedStates and Israel, the whole world agrees. TheInternationalRedCross, which is the agency responsible for applying and interpreting them, agrees. In fact, as far as I am aware, there is no further question about this. Switzerland, which is the responsibleState, called a meeting of theHighContractingParties for theGenevaConventions, that is, those like theUnitedStates that are legallyobligated by treaty to enforce them, a high solemn commitment, called a meeting on december5th inGeneva and the meeting took place and passed a strong resolution saying, determining that theGenevaConventions do apply to the occupied territories which makes illegal just about everything that theUnitedStates and Israel do there. They went through the list, settlements, displacements and everything that goes on. TheUnitedStates boycotted the session. They got another country to boycott them, Australia. According to the australian press, under heavyUSpressure, Australia joined in boycotting them. If theUS boycotts it, it's like a negativevote at theSecurityCouncil or theGeneralAssembly. It doesn't get reported and it's out ofHistory. But that's another important step to enhancing terror. All this took place, incidentally, in the midst of a twentyonedaytruce, a onesided truce. The palestinians weren't carrying out any acts, but a couple of dozen palestinians were killed, including a dozen children. That was right in the middle of these efforts to enhance terror [that] took place. Maybe that's an unfair interpretation and there is some other motive that I'm not thinking of, but that's what they look like to me. You can think about that. In any event, internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast certainlycontinues and has a longHistory and if you look over the record, of course, it is mixed and complicated, but I think you will find that the balance is prettymuch along the lines that I described, in fact, the balance reflects the means of violence available, as it usually does. If you look around at terror, in fact, that's why, in the whole range of terror, Stateterror is far worse than individual terror for the obvious reason. States have means of violence that individuals don't have, or groups. And that's what you find if you look, I think, overwhelmingly. It is commonlysaid that Terrorism is a weapon of the weak. That's completelyfalse, at least if you accept the officialUSdefinition of terror. If you do that, then terror is overwhelmingly the weapon of the strong, like most other weapons. Well, that's History, but all of this stuff is out ofHistory. History is what is created by welleducated intellectuals and it doesn't have to have any resemblance to that thing calledHistory by naive people and if you check this, I think you will find that’s true. Well, that's theMiddleEast. Let's turn to centralAmerica, the other main focus of the plague by depraved opponents of civilisation itself. Here, I will be brief because the core parts are uncontroversial, at least, uncontroversial among people who have minimal regard for InternationalLaw and international institutions and so on. Actually, the size of that category is veryeasilyestimated, namely, ask yourself how often what I'm going to say has appeared in the discussions about the evil plague ofTerrorism in the past five months. Huge flood, but how much has been devoted to some uncontroversial cases, again, uncontroversial if you think theWorldCourt and SecurityCouncil and InternationalLaw have some significance. Well, in1986, theInternationalCourtOfJustice condemned theUnitedStates for internationalTerrorism, "unlawful use of force" in its war againstNicaragua. Again I am going to keep to the guidelines, [“]bend over backwards[“], and allow this to be interpreted just as internationalTerrorism, not the warcrime of aggression. So we will call it internationalTerrorism. The court ordered theUnitedStates to terminate the crimes and to pay substantial reparations, millions of dollars. Congress reacted by instantlyescalating the war by new funding to escalate the war. Nicaragua took the matter to theSecurityCouncil, which debated a resolution calling on allStates to observeInternationalLaw, mentioning no one, but everyone knew who was meant. TheUS vetoed it. Nicaragua then went to theGeneralAssembly which passed similar resolutions in successive years. TheUnitedStates and Israel opposed and in one year they got elSalvador [to join them]. All of this is out ofHistory. It has to be. It is just inconsistent with their preferred image of whatHistory is supposed to be and, as I say, you can check how much these uncontroversial cases have been referred to recently. And remember who were the individuals responsible: people likeNegroponte, proconsul ofHonduras, Rumsfeld, special envoy to theMiddleEast, and so on, plenty of continuity. TheUS reacted, as I said, by escalating the war, and for the first time, giving official orders to its mercenaryforces to attack what are called "soft targets." That's what theSouthernCommand called them, "soft targets," meaning undefended civilian targets like agricultural cooperatives and so on. That was known and it was discussed in theUnitedStates. It was considered legitimate by the left, so MichaelKinsley who represents the left in the mainstream debate, in an interesting article, he was then editor of theNewRepublic, in which he said that, We shouldn't be tooquick to condemnStateDepartmentauthorisation for attacks on undefended civilian targets, because we have to apply pragmatic criteria. We have to carry out costbenefitanalysis, and see whether, as he put it, the amount of blood poured in is compensated by a good outcome, namely Democracy. What we will determine to be Democracy and what that means you can see by looking at theStates nextdoor like elSalvador and Guatemala which were okayDemocracies. And if it passes our test, then it’s okay. So, in other words, internationalTerrorism is fine, assuming it meets pragmatic criteria, now across the spectrum, left or right among We, that is, educated and privileged intellectuals, not the population, of course. InNicaragua, the population had anArmy to defend it, it was bad enough, tens of thousands of people killed, the country practicallydevastated, may neverrecover, but it had anArmy to defend it. In elSalvador and Guatemala, that wasn't true, theArmy was theStateterrorists. TheUS-supportedState terrorists, they were theArmy. There was no one to defend the population and, in fact, the atrocities were far worse. Also, they are not aState, so they could not go to theWorldCourt or theSecurityCouncil to follow legal means, of course, without any effect, because "we," people like us, have determined that the world is going to be ruled by force, not byLaw. And since we have the power, as long as we determine that, aState that tries to follow legitimate means of responding to internationalTerrorism doesn't having anything to do. But that's our choice, nobody else's choice. You can't blame anyone else on that. There was, however, popular resistance, not eliteresistance, but popular resistance to the atrocities there so that theUS had to resort to an international terrorist network, an extraordinary international terrorist network. Remember, theUS is a powerfulState, it's not like Libya. If Libya wants to carry out terrorist acts, they hireCarlosTheJackal or something. TheUnitedStates hires terroristStates, we're big guys. So the terrorist network consisted of Taiwan, Britain, Israel, Argentina, at least, as long as it was under the rule of the neoNazigenerals, when they, where they were unfortunatelyremoved, they fell out of the system, saudiarabian funding, quite a substantial international terrorist network, never been anything like it. In contemporary terms, we might call it an Axis of Evil, I suppose. Sound of laughter. The outcome, again keeping to the guidelines, We believe our leaders, was hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered and millions of orphans and refugees, every conceivable atrocity, the region devastated. The single uncontroversial case, Nicaragua, which was the least of them, that alone far surpasses the crimes of septembereleven[2001], and the others suffered far worse. Again we are [“]bending over backwards[“] and giving theUS the benefit of the doubt so we are only calling it internationalTerrorism organised by depraved opponents of civilisation itself. Well, that's the second major area, centralAmerica. All of this, however, is off the record, too. TheCurrentHistoryjournal, and it's typical in this respect, nothing that I just referred to is mentioned nor is it in the whole scholarly literature, in fact, except way out at the margins. You can check and see it just doesn't count. The[19]80s are described as the era of Statesponsored internationalTerrorism, but they are not referring to any of these things. TheUS was trying to prevent Statesponsored internationalTerrorism by taking proactive means like themostmassive international terrorist network that's ever been known. That's verytypical of the scholarly literature, Journalism and, again, you can do a check. There has barely been a word about any of this as the second phase of the war onTerrorism has been redeclared, once again, with pretty much the same people and everyreason to expect some more outcomes. Well, let’s continue. From all of this an obvious conclusion follows, There is an operational definition ofTerrorism, the one that is actually used, it means terror that they carry out against us, that's Terrorism, and nothing else passes through the filter. As far as I know, that's a historical universal, I can't find an exception to that. You might try. For example, the japanese in-China and -Manchuria were defending the population against chinese terrorists and going to create an earthly paradise for them if they could control the terrorists. TheNazis in occupiedEurope were defending the legitimateGovernments likeVichy and the population from the terrorist partisans who were supported from abroad, as indeed they were. They were run from-London and -Poland and -France, and so on. I said I can’t find an exception, you might try. Also, as far as I am aware, this is virtuallyuniversal among intellectuals, educated folks like us. Apart from statistical error, this is the line that they take. Now, it doesn't look that way inHistory, but you have to remember who writesHistory. That ought to leave you with a little bit of skepticism. If you look at actualHistory, not the one that's written, I think you will find that this is the case and I could even maybe suggest it as a researchtopic to some enterprising graduatestudent who aspires to a career as a taxidriver. Sound of laughter. Just to continue to the present, let's just take the last couple of months. September11th was a perfectly clear example of internationalTerrorism, no controversy about that, so we don't have to waste time on it. What about the reaction? Well, it turns out the reaction is also an uncontroversial case of internationalTerrorism. Again, let's keep to the guidelines, we'll just listen to what our leaders say. So, on october11th, PresidentBush[Jr.] announced to the afghan people that we will keep bombing you until you hand over people who[m] we suspect of terrorist acts, although we refuse to provide any evidence and we refuse to enter into any negotiations for extradition and transfer, a clear case of internationalTerrorism. On october28th, the british counterpart, AdmiralSirMichaelBoyce, who is the chief of the british defensestaff, took it a step further. Remember, getting rid of theTalibanregime was not a waraim, that was an afterthought. Threeweeksafter the bombing began, that was added, presumably so that intellectuals would have something to feel good about or something, I don't know. Anyway, threeweeks after the bombing, that was added as a new waraim and AdmiralBoyce announced to the afghan people accordingly, I think this was thefirstmention of this waraim, that we will continue bombing you until you change your leadership. First, that was all veryprominent, pageone of theNewYorkTimes in both cases. Two, both cases are textbookillustrations of internationalTerrorism, if not aggression, but we are still [“]bending over backwards[“], and it's all off the record by usual convention. We're doing it, so it doesn't count. It's only when they carry out what we officiallydefine as Terrorism that it counts. Well, it's easy to go on, but let me just return to the weak thesis, There can't be a war againstTerrorism at least as Terrorism is defined in officialUSdocuments, it's a logical impossibility. This is a small sample of illustrations, you can go on easily, but it's enough to show that that can't be true. Well, that's the weak thesis. What about the strong thesis, that it is all so entirelyobvious that it would be embarrassing to talk about it, because it's all right on the surface, nothing hidden about any of this? Everything that I mention is perfectlywellknown, you don't have to penetrate anything to discover it. No obscure sources, nothing, just the obvious evidence. And you can easilyadd to it, there's a ton of literature about it for the lasttwentyyears, but that literature also can't be discussed because it comes out with the wrong conclusion. So it's treated thesameway Terrorism is in our intellectual culture. Again, choice, not a necessity. So we end up with a kind of dilemma. If we are not honest, forget it. If we are honest, there's a dilemma. Onepossibility is just to acknowledge that we are total hypocrites, and then to at least have the decency to stop talking aboutHumanRights, RightAndWrong and GoodAndEvil, and so on, and say, We are hypocrites, and we have force, and we are going to run the world by force, period. Let's forget about everything else. The other option is harder to pursue, but it's imperative unless we would like to contribute to still worse disasters that are likely to lie ahead.