Myers2

----- Original Message -----

From: "Peter Myers" myers@cyberone.com.au

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:17 AM

Subject: Prince Charles: “American MidEast policy is mad”

(1) "early gods of Sumer were REAL and physical beings. humanoid"

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:42:44 +1100 From: "TS, or TESLA"
<tesla@triode.net.au>

The Sun God myth again!

BUT

Long before Egypt was,

The truth is that the winged disk in Sumer was the symbol of the "home
planet" NIBIRU.

The early gods of Sumer were REAL and physical beings. humanoid...

The Sumer records, now deciphered and in the British Museum depict the
story of the gods of NIBIRU, Anu, Alalu the kings and their offspring,
Enlil, Enki, etc...

Another symbol was the Ankh of Egypt, a cross with a ring or circle at
the top... This symbol represented the "Planet of the Crossing" meaning
the close approach of Nibiru and its crossing of the path of theearth
once every 1800 years... The orbit of Nibiru is 30 degrees to the
ecliptic, elongated ellipse, and takes 3600 years for a full orbit.We
now know the times of its close approach.

Its two moons have done damage to our solar system inthe past. The
asteroid belt bears testimony to this and the ancients called the planet
that once orbitedthere: "TIAMAT"

References

ANCIENT AND NEAR EASTERN TEXTS By Dr Pritchard Princeton Universary
Press

The Twelfth Planet Zecheria Sitchin

NASA is looking for Planet X today...Two probes have been sent out at 90
degrees to triangulate the incoming.

regards

Tony

Peter Myers replies:

Michael Hudson wrote to me saying that he had met Sitchin at his
(Sitchin's) office in New York, and that Sitchin had told him he was a
Mossad agent.

I spotted Sitchin's agenda: he weaves Abraham & other Biblical figures
into his stories as central figures, so capture the New Age readership
for Israel.

If humanoids in UFOs created the wonders of Sumeria and Egypt, why did
they stop at mudbrick and stone? Why didn't they introduce all sorts of
modern materials?

And what of Inca stonework, an intact tradition until the Spaniards
destroyed it only 500 years ago. Do you say that humanoids did that?

(2) Animal Homosexuality & Human Nature

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:52:43 -0500 (EST) From: FISTWALLOP@webtv.net
(S.U.N.)

Peter Myers asked his the following question about the Green Party:
"Does not their endorsement of Gay Marriage show that, while they exalt
Nature, they disparage the idea of Human Nature?"

N0-one will ever (EVER!) be well-informed enough to engage in
well-reasoned discussions about what is and is not "Human Nature", until
achieving a reading of the following book:

<> Title. ~ "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural
Diversity".

<> Author. ~ Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.

<> Number Of Pages. ~ 751. [Yes, that's seven-hundred and fifty-one].

<> Publisher. ~ St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999; ISBN# 0-312-19239-8.

<> Reviews. ~ (1.) "A scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing
refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in
nature ....Bagemihl does realize that some among us will never be
convinced that homosexuality occurs freely and frequently in nature. But
his meticulously gathered, cogently delivered evidence will quash ANY
arguments to the contrary." -Kirkus Reviews.

(2.) "For anyone who has
ever doubted the naturalness of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered
behaviors, this remarkable book ...will surely lay those doubts to rest.
[Bagemihl's] massive evidence of the wondrous complexity of sexuality in
the natural world ...will inform, entertain, and persuade
....'Biological Exuberance' is a revolutionary work." -Lillian Faderman.

<> Author's Credentials, And Text Content. ~ Bagemihl obtained his
Bachelor's Degree in Biogeography at the University of Wisconsin
(Milwaukee); and his Doctorate from the University of British Columbia
(at which he also served on the faculty). Generally speaking, the text
and illustrations are arranged in the format of a naturalist
encyclopedia (a format akin to the well-known style of encyclopedic
animal-studies texts published by various educational organizations such
as the Audubon Society). Thusly arranged, the normal homosexual
behaviors within the populations of literally hundreds of species is
systematically, soberly, and scientifically detailed (including the
precise techniques of their same-sex copulations and courtings).

<> My Comments. ~ This book will BLOW YOUR MIND, like no other book in
your entire lifetime ever has, or ever will!!!!!

In the realm of explorations into suppressed knowledge, this book
emanates a peerless radiance, enthroned in a class all by itself!!

It is definitely a MAJOR champion in the arena of history's boldest
disclosures about US: THE HUMAN BEINGS; and about the "mysteries" which
our species is most afraid of approaching with COMPLETE honesty!!!!!

This book's disclosures do, in fact, present to us the most significant
truth of all time, regarding the socio-psychological and bio-sexual
realities, insecurities, fears, and mistaken/ignorant interpretations
lurking behind the heterosexual prejudices prevalent in the Homo sapiens
community; i.e., lurking behind the irrational, supremacist phenomenon
which we now call "homophobia".

Anybody who thinks that the virtue of exalting Nature is synonymous with
considering homosexuality as NOT being a naturally-occurring aspect of
Human Nature (and is synonymous with considering homosexuality as NOT
being a naturally-occurring aspect of Animal Nature), is simply,
absolutely, conclusively, verifiably and certifiably wrong!

Human Nature DOES include, and has ALWAYS included, the manifestation,
in a portion of the population, of the NATURALLY-OCCURRING sexual
behavior known as homosexuality. That behavior has been FALSELY judged
to be (and FALSELY defined as) "perverse", "deranged", and "immoral", by
the majority, simply because the majority does not indulge in that
behavior itself, and simply because the majority does not KNOW or
UNDERSTAND the fact that homosexual behavior IS AN ENTIRELY NATURAL
MANIFESTATION of the NORMAL diversity of the Natural World!!

Subjective, reactionary, emotional judgements passed by arrogantly
ignorant male and female members of the human mob DO NOT, CANNOT, and
WILL NOT EVER constitute the biological realities of the tens of
thousands of species of creatures living on the planet earth!!

The forces of all the subjective reactionary judgements made by all the
majorities which have existed throughout all of human history CANNOT
overturn or nullify the objective scientific absolutes which are
displayed and documented within the 751 pages of Mr. Bagemihl's
astounding labor of pure and fearless scholarship:

"Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality And Natural Diversity."

Read it, and be enlightened thereby ...if you DARE to ever be TRULY,
intelligently, maturely, responsibly, and HONESTLY informed enough to
engage in well-reasoned discussions about what is and is not Human
Nature.

Wisdom starts with the willingness to learn that which disrupts one's
uninformed prejudice. Blind ignorance is the nourishment of fools and
arrogant mobs.

Staurus Unumus Nuserpentus

fistwallop@webtv.net (S.U.N.)

Reply (Peter M):

I once had a "female" goat which displayed "intersex tendencies. And I
have seen young male goats (bucks or wethers, I can't remember which )
trying to mount each other.

But Marriage is a different matter. Even societies which practised
homosexuality, such as the Ancient Greeks and Romans, distinguished this
from Marriage.

Alexander the invader, and some of the Roman Caesars, had homosexual
partnerships, but never instituted this as Marriage.

Marriage, as the union of the male and female principles for creating
and nurturing the next generation, has never been between persons of the
same sex - until the Gay lobby recently made this demand.

Look through the Anthropological literature and find otherwise. Look up
your favoured author, and send what he says about that - with references
and page numbers.

To prove your point, you need to show that the "Gay couple" had a sexual
relationship, as well as being seen as Married to each other.

A case of "honorary" spouse - sharing the breadwinning & care of
children - which does not involve a sexual relationship, does not count.
I have seen this between two women in one African tribe, but there was
no suggestion that it involved a lesbian relationship.

Sex and Marriage are not the same. People have been having premarital
and extramarital relationships ever since, but societies distinguish
that from Marriage.

Aboriginal tribes in Australia, for example, regarded Marriage as
lifelong - there was no divorce. They could and did have sex outside the
marriage - some cases being licit and some illicit - but there was no
question that merely having sex with someone, no matter how
long-lasting, constituted Marriage.

Some societies allow polyandry; many allow polygyny; but they all have
some rules about marriage. All, that is, until their customs were
destroyed by invaders and missionaries.

Today, the missionaries in the West are not Christian as much as Marxist
(the Feminist & Gay movements).

Only our generation, through the Marxist influence, is trying to break
down this distinction. It began in the USSR, in the Lenin/Trotsky
period. Stalin re-instituted Marriage:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/sex-soviet.html

(3) The Xi'an incident: No love affair By Katsuo Hiizumi

Asia Times Online

November 21, 2003

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EK21Dh02.html

"It was scripted as a gesture of love; it ended up generating a lot of
hate," is how Asahi Shimbun writers Kazuto Tsukamato and Kentaro
Kurihara characterized the incident. They reported that on October 29,
three Japanese students and a Japanese teacher at Xi'an's Northwest
University performed a "bawdy skit" at the university's cultural
festival.

The incident and its aftermath were significant in a number of ways.
Through it we have once again been reminded that - large-scale Japanese
investment in China and fast-growing economic relations notwithstanding
- even small incidents can quickly fan the flames of Chinese antipathy
(hatred?) toward Japan that still burn more than half a century after
World War II. But perhaps even more important, the matter has given us
insight into modern Chinese governance and its attitude toward protest
as the precursor to democracy.

"Most of the other performances, such as traditional dances, were of a
serious nature," wrote the Asahi Shimbun journalists of the Xi'an
incident. "For their skit, however, the four [Japanese] wore red bras
over their T-shirts and paper cups in the front of their trousers,
apparently to suggest male genitals. The phrase 'What are you looking
at?' was written on their hats. Some of the four apparently removed
cut-up pieces of paper from their bras and tossed them into the crowd.
At the end of the skit, the three students reportedly intended to turn
their backs to the audience to show they had written the words 'Japan'
and 'China' as well as [a] 'heart sign' implying 'love' [on signs on
their backs]. By expressing the phrase 'Japan loves China' or 'China
loves Japan', the four apparently wanted to promote friendly relations
between the two countries."

Alas, the Chinese audience and newspapers saw it differently. The skit
caused an immediate uproar and was halted in the middle of the
performance by a Chinese teacher. According to Chinese press reports,
the "Japan" sign was worn by the person with the fake penis, the "China"
sign by the person with the red bra - and that, of course (if true),
makes it a somewhat different story.

"Japan loves [or whatever?] Chinese whores," became the message. Recall
that not very long ago, a group of about 280 Japanese businessmen on a
company trip to Zhuhai (in southern China near Hong Kong) reportedly
engaged in a sex orgy with about 500 (!) Chinese prostitutes in a resort
hotel - to the outrage of all of China and unprintable venom in Chinese
Internet chat rooms. To say the very least, the Xi'an skit displayed
some very bad timing.

The October 29 (a Wednesday) incident touched off violent protests over
the "deep insult to China" that continued through the following weekend.
Protesters also called for the boycott of Japanese products. Several
Japanese restaurants were besieged. A Japanese man and woman suffered
slight injuries in skirmishes prompted by throngs of protesters at a
dormitory for foreign students. Police transferred all students in the
dormitory to local hotels for their safety.

Since then, Northwest University authorities have expelled the three
Japanese students and dismissed the Japanese teacher and they have
returned home after writing a letter of apology. The protests have
ceased rather than spreading to the rest of the country as had been
feared.

Arguably, had a Xi'an-type skit been put on at any Japanese university,
its lewd nature would not have caused offense - though I'm not so sure
exactly how Japanese students would have reacted to a skit like that put
on by Chinese students and with reversed signs and symbols. In any case,
China is not Japan and at least the Japanese teacher should have known
better.

But there is also another angle to the story. The anti-Japanese protests
after the Zhuhai and Xi'an incidents remind me of similar protests in
Thailand in the early 1970s. When then Japanese prime minister Kakuei
Tanaka visited Bangkok in January 1974, he could not even leave his
hotel because of the huge number of students protesting Japan's
increasing domination of the Thai economy, shouting "Boycott Japanese
products" and "We don't need Japanese in Thailand." But these
nationalist students were the same students who were fighting military
dictatorship and demanding democratic freedoms. Nationalist
anti-Japanese protests were the spark; but by the end of the 1970s
democracy had won.

Northwest University in Xi'an is not Peking University. But it is one of
the most prestigious universities in western China. I do not know if its
students are critical of the present government. But elite students in
China to one degree or another usually are and want to see more rapid
progress toward democracy. The fact that large-scale anti-Japanese
nationalist demonstrations could quickly turn into pro-democracy
demonstrations is not lost on the Beijing government. It is therefore
not surprising that Xi'an authorities, after letting the students blow
off some steam, quickly moved to contain the local demonstrations to
forestall larger nationwide protests. Patriotism, no matter how sparked,
has a tendency to lead to reflection on social and political basics and
- historically - that's not necessarily to the advantage of a nation's
rulers.

As for the Japanese students and teacher who caused the Xi'an uproar, I
can only pity them. They studied, taught and lived in China. How could
they have been so insensitive to their fellow students' and teachers'
beliefs and feelings? Probably by keeping their distance and mostly
talking to each other or themselves. Any way I look at it, as a teacher
of Chinese history at a Japanese university, I find the whole affair
more than a little unsettling.

Katsuo Hiizumi teaches modern East Asian history with special reference
to China and overseas Chinese at Aichi Prefectural University, Nagoya.
From 1983-85 and from 1988-92, he served in Bangkok as a special
assistant to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His publications
include Kakyo Konekushon (The Overseas Chinese Connection), Kyogeki to
Chugokujin (Peking Opera and Chinese), and The Past and Present of
Chinese Economic Area.

(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)

(4) [shamireaders] The Marxists and the Lobby, by Israel Shamir

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:23:53 +0200 From: "Israel Shamir"
<shamir@home.se>

The Marxists and the Lobby

By Israel Shamir

When an author and an editor of a left-wing magazine repeats
word-perfect the last speech of Ashcroft at ADL New York, it can't but
cause some eyebrow twitching. That is the case with recent condemnation
of 'antisemitism' by Nat Weinstein[1]
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/sum_03/sum_03_08.html on pages of The
Socialist Viewpoint, a high-quality magazine consistently supporting
democracy in Palestine and end to the Jewish apartheid state.

What is worse, Weinstein's style and rhetoric are those of Ashcroft and
of Abe Foxman, as well. Weinstein writes: "Buchanan's insinuations of a
Jewish conspiracy in the service of Israel echo a similar claim that lay
at the heart of Adolph Hitler's brand of fascism." However, an open
Jewish 'conspiracy' of supporting Israel is a hard fact, and it is
expressed by almost every Jewish newspaper by slogan 'Jews stand
steadfast behind Israel' . This slogan is not an empty word: recent
survey shows 86% of the US Jews support Israel. In a recent discussion
on the Web, Jeff Blankfort, a consistent antizionist, made a sober
conclusion: "the distinction that we are always careful to make between
being Jewish and being Zionist is essentially deceptive and that while
all Jews are not Zionists, the organized Jewish communities throughout
the world, despite whatever differences they may have, are totally
behind the Zionist project. To pretend that these organizations do not
speak for the overall Jewish community, one, that without any doubt,
supports Israel as a Jewish state, is illusory."

Weinstein creates 'guilt by association' as he calls explicit words of
Buchanan 'insinuations echoing Adolf Hitler'. However, 'guilt by
association ' is a double-edged weapon, as he himself echoes Abe Foxman,
Ashcroft and Bush. That is why let us deal with the question properly

Weinstein writes: "claim that the "Jewish Lobby"-a small group of
pro-Zionist Jews-could dictate foreign or domestic policy to the
hard-nosed, quintessentially-pragmatic American capitalist class, is
absurd. In fact, those that make such a charge are either simple-minded
fools or unmitigated anti-Semitic scoundrels."

It is an arrogant statement, for this opinion is universally shared by
billions of people outside of the US, and by many Americans as well,
with one correction: the Jewish Lobby is not a 'small group of
pro-Zionist Jews' but an extremely powerful group of billionaires, media
lords, and their supporters in the left and the right, from the New York
Times to the Nation, from Wolfowitz of Pentagon to Rabbi Lerner of
Tikkun. (This subject is covered in Fiesta of St Fermin, by Israel
Shamir). 'Hard-nosed American capitalists' are indeed
"quintessentially-pragmatic", and they understand what is good for them
personally. That is why even the dedicated antisemite Henry Ford
preferred to scrap his book when he had met with the irresistible force
of Jewish boycott. That is why the American parliamentarians are united
in their support of Israel, as it was recently confirmed by the Senate
vote 89 to 4 against Syria. The Iraqi war was a disaster from the point
of view of American capitalism: as it was predicted, it brought them no
oil, no weaponry orders, no new friends; but the capitalists are not
idealists Weinstein presupposes: they know that their stand against
Israel would ruin them personally, and they disregard 'the general
interest of capitalist class'.

Indeed, Buchanan and La Rouche (censured by Weinstein) represent the
true interests of the American capitalists (or 'the middle class' in
usual terms) when they fight the Jewish Lobby. They aren't natural
allies for the Left, but not less unlikely than Foxman and Ashcroft.
Weinstein tries to adhere the label of racist, Nazi and fascist to La
Rouche; but the label does not stick. Instead of expressing his
approval, Weinstein is visibly upset that La Rouche is not a racist:
"Rather than demonizing African Americans, La Rouche lays claim to the
heritage of Martin Luther King and . established a relationship with the
Black nationalist Nation of Islam."

Weinstein is hard to please: La Rouche 'uses anti-capitalist and
anti-imperialist' slogans, so he's got to be a fascist (!). La Rouche
'does not attack Jews, communists and striking workers', so he is a
crypto-fascist. La Rouche 'learned from Trotsky', so he is a perverted
fascist.

It reminded me a short piece by Hanoch Levine, our best playwright:

"The Military Governor's Standing Orders for soldiers in Occupied
territories:
A nervous pedestrian is a suspected Arab terrorist.
A calm pedestrian is a suspected cold-blooded Arab terrorist.
A looking upwards pedestrian is a suspected religious Arab terrorist.
A looking downwards pedestrian is a suspected shy Arab terrorist.
A pedestrian whose eyes are shut is a suspected sleeping Arab terrorist.

A stay-at-home person is a suspected sick Arab terrorist.
The above-mentioned suspects should be arrested, and after a warning
shot, taken to the morgue"

Indeed, Weinstein does not produce a single proof of La Rouche's
'fascism', or his similarity to Hitler and Mussolini. His true objection
to La Rouche and Buchanan is based on one thing, namely on their
anti-Jewish rhetoric. He comes clear in following lines:

'The fascists will say that it was the Jews who were the masterminds
behind American imperialism's 55-year-long role of creating, financing
and arming the Zionist state of Israel. That's why those who profess
opposition to Zionism are either foolish or anti-Semitic when they
charge the so-called "Jewish lobby" with dictating American foreign
policy.'

But we, the friends of Palestine, Jeff Blankfort, Michael Neumann, Elias
Davidsson, Stan Heller, Norm Finkelstein, David Hirst, Mazin Qumsiyeh
and many, many others (surely not racist antisemites) are not more
foolish than Weinstein. We are just honest folk and we say what we think
is true. For us, it is more important to stop today the Israeli-American
aggression in the Middle East than to worry for 'the Jews' and their
position tomorrow, for truth and sincerity is the best defence against
forthcoming 'fascists'.

2

Indeed, should the Marxists, including The Socialist Viewpoint, support
and protect 'the Jews' from the left? The Marxist view of the Jews was
formed by Karl Marx, Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky and Abram Leon. It is
founded on rejection of the concept of 'the Jewish nation'. Lenin
said[2]: 'this Zionist idea is absolutely false and essentially
reactionary'. He quoted approvingly: "The modern Jew is a product of the
unnatural selection to which his forebears were subjected for nearly
eighteen centuries." Abram Leon completed this view with his vision of
'people-class'. For him, the Jews were the original capitalists of
pre-capitalist society; people who preferred to fulfil antisocial
function of money-lenders and tax-collectors. Naturally, such a
'people-class' does not deserve our support.

But even if Weinstein considers 'the Jews' being a separate nation, it
is still no reason to protect them. Lenin called for 'revolutionary war
against contra-revolutionary nations'[3], and wrote in 1919: "If we
fight [the US President] Wilson, and Wilson turns a small nation into
his tool, we should explicitly fight this tool"[4]. Equally, Leon
Trotsky denied any connection to the Jews and rejected appeals of the
Jews.

Marxists are against RACIST antisemitism, but thankfully this plague is
eradicated. Racist antisemitism should not be confused - not only with
anti-Zionism, as Weinstein correctly notes, but with non-racist
rejection of 'the Jews' elsewhere, as well. The Jewish Question of Marx
and of Leon provides an example of such non-racist rejection.

Every Marxist knows of Marx's negative view of the Jews. 'Their God is
money ', he wrote. Naturally, he was not a racist and believed that a
person of Jewish origin (like he was) can break with the Jews. Usually
such a break was formalised by baptism; Spinoza's break was formalised
by nidui, the curse of the Jews, after the philosopher rejected Jewish
world-view.

Would Weinstein defend Jews against Marx and Spinoza? But anti-Jewish
idiom of Buchanan and La Rouche is equally non-racist. Both have
numerous persons of Jewish origin on their staff and among their
friends. But these people (like Trotsky, Marx or Spinoza) do not belong
to Jewry. Moreover, they speak up against 'the Jews', thus encouraging
other people of Jewish origin to break with this remnant of medieval
past.

In similar way, Prince of Orleans took a name of Phillip Egalite and
rejected his ties with aristocracy. If Weinstein thinks that Foxman,
Friedman and Sulzberger made an anti-Jewish approach popular in the US,
he should call upon the American Marxists to embrace these policies and
lead them in ideological non-racist direction. For otherwise his
attempts to protect them will backfire. The Americans will say that Jews
from Foxman to Weinstein speak in one voice and then, the dangerous
racist antisemitism can come back - on the ruins of the Marxist Left.

Moreover, Weinstein's fight against antisemitism objectively works
against the declared goals of the Left. The US Jews made their covenant
with the American ruling class. They are an integral part of the
American elite, the Brahmins to the WASP Kshatriya warrior caste. The
Left, and in particular the Marxist Left, strives to overthrow the
ruling classes and create the society of equality. There is no way to
achieve it without a concerted anti-Jewish effort. If the Brahmins will
be separated from the Kshatriya, Jews from the WASPs, the dawn of
equality will draw closer. 'Sow discord among your enemies', - this is
the first rule in the Chinese manual, The Art of War. Instead of
proclaiming unity of the Jews with the rest of the ruling classes, the
Left should promote strife among them. The sad developments in
Palestine, the quagmire of the Iraqi War provide an opportunity for the
Left. From this point of view, Lyndon La Rouche the Democrat and
Buchanan the Republican should be supported in their fight against the
Jewish Lobby. ----

[1] July/August 2003 . Vol 3, No. 7 . Zionism, Anti-Semitism and Fascism
By Nat Weinstein
[2] in his polemics with the Bund
[3] Collapse of the II International (1915)
[4] Speech at 8th congress of the Russian Communist Party.

(5) Bush Cabalist admits Iraq invasion was illegal

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:09:06 EST From: Ichee@aol.com

Bush Cabalist admits Iraq invasion was illegal

Thos. Freedman of the NY Times says that 25 people in Washington were
responsible for the aggression against Iraq. This is the oligarchy (a
partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William
Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), that advises the oilmen
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell)./www.ichee.org 20N03

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

War critics astonished as US hawk

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington

Thursday November 20, 2003

The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment
yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded
that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with
the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an
audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the
way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal
either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq -
also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of
self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises
the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law
... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this
would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical
mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam
Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of
Contemporary Arts at the Old Vic theatre in London, had argued loudly
for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf
war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda
Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which
launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's
only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications
for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also
participated in Tuesday night's event. Certainly the British government,
he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act,
or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view
between the British government and some senior voices in American public
life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that
international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without
the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House.
Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN
charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence,
including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in
March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force"
to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification,
arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US
and its allies were under imminent threat. Coalition officials countered
that the security council had already approved the use of force in
resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if
Iraq failed to give a complete accounting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued
that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war,
which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael
Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war,
arguing that it was illegal. "And, interestingly, I suspect a majority
of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly
to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said
that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence
policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory
board.

A Pentagon spokesman pointed out yesterday that Mr Perle was not on the
defence department staff, but was a member of an unpaid advisory board.

Mr Perle refused to elaborate on his remarks.

(6) Article from Sunday Herald - 5 Israelis seen filming

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:13:31 GMT From: Roland Schenk
<roland.schenk@pop.net>

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin
Towers on September 11, 2001 ... (2 November 2003)

http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

(7) Prince Charles: "American policy on the Middle East is complete
madness"

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:47:42 -0800 From: "Paulene Robinson"
<StellaNoctem@sbcglobal.net>

Why FO advised Charles to steer clear of America

Prince's pro-Arab views would cause upset, diplomats feared

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor

Wednesday November 19, 2003 The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1088165,00.html

Prince Charles, who welcomed George Bush to Britain last night, has not
been to the US for the last six years on the advice of the Foreign
Office, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.

It emerged last night that the Prince of Wales has strong
pro-Palestinian views and is privately critical of US policy in the
Middle East conflict.

British diplomats, acting in conjunction with Downing Street, fear that
Prince Charles's views might have created embarrassment on a visit to
Washington.

The source, who is familiar with the discussions over possible visits by
the Prince of Wales to the US, said: "It [concern over Charles
travelling to the US] revolves around the perception that the Prince of
Wales is fairly Arabist. He has, in American terms and international
terms, fairly dodgy views on Israel.

"He thinks American policy on the Middle East is complete madness and he
used to express that quite loudly to a lot of people, including
ministers and various ambassadors."

The source added: "The system basically thinks that he is unsound on
America and he has not really wanted to go anyway. He doesn't much like
American culture."

Clarence House confirmed yesterday that the prince had made four trips
to the US between 1993 and 1997 but none since. The Palestinian issue
has become especially sensitive since September 2000 when the latest
intifada began.

The Foreign Office advises on any formal trips Prince Charles makes
abroad.

A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace said that the Queen and Prince
Philip had made many visits to the US during her reign, and that royals
such as the Duke of York were regular visitors across the Atlantic.

A press spokeswoman at Clarence House said all official visits abroad by
Prince Charles were after advice from the Foreign Office and decisions
"would have been made for reasons that were pertinent at the time".

Prince Charles visited Washington in 1993 and Los Angeles the following
year, for two or three days. In 1996, he visited the North Carolina
architecture summer school and had an engagement in Rhode Island on
behalf of the Marie Rose Trust. His last trip was to New York the
following year, according to Clarence House. All these trips were
relatively trivial, the last only for a day, and involved fund-raising.

The source said part of the reason Prince Charles was reluctant to visit
the US was because Princess Diana had been so popular there. But his
pro-Palestinian sympathies are the predominant reason.

The prince's advisers favoured him going to the US. But there was strong
resistance from senior diplomats in London, at the embassy in Washington
and at the New York consulate.

Among the diplomats said to have opposed a trip were Sir John Kerr, then
permanent under-secretary - the most senior diplomat - in the Foreign
Office, now retired, and his colleague, Peter Westmacott. The then
foreign secretary, Robin Cook, was said to have had discussions with
Prince Charles about the Middle East.

The prince's views would have clashed with both presidents during this
period. President Bill Clinton, who was in power between 1992 and 2000,
maintained the US's strong support for Israel. Mr Bush, though the first
US president to support in public the creation of a Palestinian state,
has never invited the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to the White
House or shown much sympathy for the Palestinians.

A British diplomat in a position to know said he had heard rumours of
Prince Charles's pro-Palestinian leanings but nothing official.

Prince Charles's role last night was to welcome the Bushes. The first
full day of Mr Bush's three-day trip, during which he will stay at
Buckingham Palace, will include a state banquet at the palace in the
evening.

(8) Divide Among Jews Leads to Silence on Iraq War

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:03:49 +1000 From: "makichris"
<chrispaul@netpci.com>

Divide Among Jews Leads to Silence on Iraq War

http://middleeastinfo.org/article2224.html

"Nobody says that because Colin Powell is black and Condoleezza Rice is
black that this is an effort of the black community to stimulate the war."

March 15, 2003

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (New York Times)

Jewish organizations that have never been hesitant to issue resolutions
on American foreign policy, especially toward the Middle East, have
remained silent on going to war against Iraq.

Jewish leaders say that while they are supportive of President Bush
because he has been a reliable ally of the Israeli government, they have
become increasingly fearful of a backlash if the war goes badly.

But the other, more fundamental, reason for their reticence is that
their own members have for months been unable to agree on whether a war
with Iraq is a good idea.

The question of where American Jews stand on the war gained urgency this
week after Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, was
condemned by members of both parties for saying that influential Jews
were driving the United States toward war and was forced to apologize.

While Jewish leaders acknowledge that some Jewish policy makers helped
devise the president's strategy on Iraq, and some Jewish lobbyists have
backed it, there is strong evidence that American Jews are as divided as
the rest of the nation.

"The only consensus we could come to was that there is no consensus,"
said Hannah Rosenthal, executive director of the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs, describing a gathering two weeks ago in Baltimore of 700
Jewish leaders active with her group, which includes Jews from all four
branches - Reconstructionist; Reform; Conservative; and Orthodox.

"The general sense," said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, "is of profound ambivalence. There is no
wild enthusiasm for military action in the Jewish community, and
certainly not in my movement."

At a meeting this week of the union's executive board - which represents
synagogues in the Reform movement, American Judaism's largest - members
decided not even to attempt to take a position on the war because it was
unlikely they could reach agreement in a day, Rabbi Yoffie said.

Several polls have found that Jews are less likely than the public at
large to support military action against Iraq. An aggregate of surveys
conducted by the Pew Research Center from August 2002 to February 2003
found 52 percent of Jews in favor of military action, 32 percent opposed
and 16 percent uncertain; among all Americans, the polling found 62
percent in favor, 28 percent opposed and 10 percent uncertain.

Jewish leaders said in nearly two dozen interviews this week that they
found themselves in a bind. They regard Saddam Hussein as an imminent
danger and would love to see him removed. Rabbi David Ellenson,
president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, a Reform
university, said, "American Jews recognize the danger that terrorism
poses worldwide, and I expect that American Jews are more familiar than
other Americans with the very sorry record that Saddam Hussein has on
human rights issues, because we just pay more attention to the Middle
East."

But some Jews are increasingly concerned about the lack of widespread
international support for a pre-emptive strike, and skeptical that the
United States can create a stable post-war government in Iraq.

Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, the academic and spiritual center of Conservative Judaism, said
at a lecture this week, "We live in a world gone mad, a world in which a
paper tiger has become America's mortal enemy, a world in which America
is about to enter a war in which America stands alone."

Rabbi Schorsch said in an interview that he believed that North Korea
was a greater threat than Iraq, that Al Qaeda's fortunes would not fall
with Iraq's, and that the United States had "gravely weakened the
institutions of internationalism so painstakingly erected after the
Second World War."

Most Christian denominations have taken a stand against going to war.
But while individual Jews have been prominent in antiwar events and
proclamations, Jewish groups have said little that is either explicitly
opposed to, or in favor of, a war.

Jewish doves say the fact that Jewish groups have not come out against
the war is evidence of the genuine hawkishness among Jews. But Jewish
hawks say essentially the opposite: that the resounding silence is
testimony to how many doves there are among Jews.

Jewish leaders say that while they meet from time to time with officials
in the White House and the State Department on Middle East matters, the
administration has never told them to tone down or pump up their public
statements on the war.

About 20 Jewish leaders met yesterday with Condoleezza Rice, the
national security adviser, to discuss Mr. Bush's brief speech in the
Rose Garden in which he declared that the "road map" to Middle East
peace would get under way soon, once the Palestinians inaugurated a new
prime minister who could be a counterweight to Yasir Arafat.

"They don't tell us to be in the forefront; they don't tell us not to be
in the forefront," said Steve Rosen, director of foreign policy issues
for the American Israel Political Action Committee.

Jewish leaders said that in the past week they had found themselves
uncomfortably in the spotlight on the Iraq issue. Last week, a notion
voiced often in European and Arab countries became the talk of
mainstream American media: that Mr. Bush is being prodded to war by a
clique of Jews in the foreign policy establishment.

The idea gained currency when reports surfaced that Mr. Moran, the
Virginia congressman, told a local antiwar forum several weeks ago that
"if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this
war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." Mr. Moran added that, "The
leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could
change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

Jewish leaders responded with outrage. Mr. Moran later apologized, and
yesterday he stepped down as one of 24 regional whips in the House. But
the dustup unleashed a broad discussion of the role of Jews in American
foreign policy, the motives of the president and whether raising such
questions is anti-Semitic.

David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee,
called comments like Mr. Moran's "classic anti-Semitic syndrome, and we
don't use the term `anti-Semitism' lightly." Mr. Harris said that Mr.
Moran's comments started with "a grain of truth" - that a number of Jews
working in the administration's foreign policy team have long advanced
the strategy of a pre-emptive war against Mr. Hussein.

The conspiracy thinking, he said, is that those Jewish policy makers
have disproportionate power, are more loyal to Israel than the United
States, and are manipulating a gullible government.

"If the war doesn't go well," Mr. Harris said, "there will be those who
will try to peddle the timeworn theory that we have to look for a
scapegoat, and Jews have provided a scapegoat for bigots for centuries."

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of
Major American Jewish Organizations, said, "Nobody says that because
Colin Powell is black and Condoleezza Rice is black that this is an
effort of the black community to stimulate the war."

--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers ph +61 2 62475187
to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line