Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

25 January 1991. Thought for the Week: "A normal Israel propagating Israeli nationalism on behalf of the people living within its borders could gain coexistence with a Palestinian state and all other Arab nations in the exact same manner in which Arabs and Jews lived together side by side for centuries before the advent of Zionism. But an abnormal Israel propagating worldwide Jewish nationalism means only perpetual warfare. More than physical boundaries, the limitless nationality base of the present Israeli state obstructs all hope of a peaceful tomorrow and underlies much of Arab fear."
Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, distinguished American Jewish expert on the Middle East, in The Zionist Connection.

ZIONISTS HAVE THE WAR THEY WANTED

by Eric D. Butler
Clausewitz, the German military philosopher, described military war as "the pursuit of policy by other means". If policy objectives are not obtained as a result of military conflict, then that conflict has been a disaster. President George Bush has insisted that his use of massive military force against Saddam Hussein is to create a "just peace". But as Dr. Alfred Lilienthal and other authorities on the Middle East have persistently stressed, unless the continued Israeli occupation of Arab territory and the oppression of the Palestinian people are ended, there can be no peace of any kind in the Middle East.
Unless the problem of Zionist Israel is honestly faced, it is certain that the military defeat of Saddam Hussein is going to result in a deepening of the Middle East crisis, to the detriment of the West's best long-term interests.

At the risk of being linked with sections of the radical Left, idealistic but unrealistic pacifists, the traditional anti-American lobby, few of whom have any understanding of the deeper issues involved in what is now unfolding with growing rapidity, it is necessary at this critical time to stress that President George Bush and his advisers have demonstrated that they are on the side of Zionist imperialism. That imperialism is a major feature of the drive to create a New World Order.

In his first major address during the crisis that started with the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait, President Bush stressed that he was striving to help create a New World Order. As stressed by a number of experts on Middle East Affairs, the Bush administration's approach to the Kuwaiti affair reveals, at best, an appalling ignorance of Arab history and culture.
At worst, there is convincing evidence that Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, was "set up" to create a situation which could then be exploited to declare a war which had long been urged by Zionist spokesmen, prominent among these being Dr. Henry Kissinger, who originally claimed that Saddam Hussein had plans for attacking Saudi Arabia after Kuwait.
No evidence has ever been produced to support this piece of Zionist propaganda.

So far from there being any truth in an allegation used to help justify American troops being based in Saudi Arabia, Pierre Salinger, former press secretary to Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, claims that only American intervention prevented an all Arab solution to the Kuwaiti affair being reached, with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia telling Yasser Arafat to inform Saddam Hussein that he could keep the frontier oilfields, a major cause of long dispute, and the two islands of Wrabah and Bubyan if he would withdraw from Kuwait.

Commentators who should know better have attempted to compare Saddam Hussein with Hitler and to advance the false analogy that because it was the alleged appeasement of Hitler which led to World War II, Saddam Hussein must be crushed militarily now in order to avert a wider conflict later.

Comparing Saddam Hussein with Hitler merely demonstrated a frightening ignorance of the Arab mind, and the volatile nature of the Arab world. Saddam Hussein is typical of the type of brutal, ruthless leaders thrown up in the post Second World War years, with the Soviet playing a major role in radicalising an Arab world in which a deep hatred of the West developed primarily because of the establishment and expansion of Zionist Israel. Fear and hatred of Zionist Israel is a major factor uniting a Moslem world with its own deep internal cleavages.

President Bush misled the world when he claimed that he had done everything possible to avoid the present conflict. His first major mistake was to believe that an Arab leader like Saddam Hussein would be moved by a threat, which left no room for any type of negotiation. Saddam Hussein is typical of his kind, as is Assad of Syria, and Nasser before him. He knows that for a number of reasons, the Arab world has craved for some type of a strong leader who can correct what they see as a long series of injustices at the hands of an alien Western imperialism.
While Saddam Hussein certainly did not move into Kuwait primarily on behalf of the Palestinians, when he found himself trapped, he soon moved to play the Palestinian card, informing President Bush that he would have retreated from Kuwait if the Israelis promised to at long last obey United Nations resolutions and withdraw from occupied Arab territory.

If George Bush genuinely sought peace, he should immediately have taken up the issue. But reacting to Zionist pressure, President Bush refused to do so. He or his advisers realised that if Saddam Hussein could have withdrawn from Kuwait with a victory on the Palestinian issue, he would have increased his standing right throughout the Arab world.

Clearly it has been decided that Saddam Hussein was seen as the one emerging military force, which could prove a balance to the Zionist threat. Reflecting the philosophy of the one way street, Zionist leader Mark Leibler has claimed in a comment on the Iraqi attack on Israel, that this development has demonstrated that the Israelis were justified in their bomb attack on Iraq in 1981, destroying the Iraqi's nuclear reactor. According to the Zionists, Israel is quite justified in developing nuclear weapons, ignoring non-proliferation agreements, but Arab states should be prevented from doing so, even if this necessitates bombing them.

Zionist philosophy justifies the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, with extensive bombing of Beirut, Tyre and Sidon, and the total destruction of small towns, villages and Palestinian refugee camps. Forty thousand Palestinians and Lebanese were killed or wounded, with over 600,000 left homeless. U.N. resolutions were contemptuously ignored. Is it any wonder that Palestinians are cheering as they learn that Iraqi bombs are dropping on Israel? And President Bush has the audacity to say that he is "outraged" that a cornered Iraq attacks a nation pledged to destroy Saddam Hussein.

Allowing for the usual propaganda associated with war, there appears to be little reason to doubt that America and its allies, using the most sophisticated military technology, have struck massive and most damaging blows against Iraq. Iraqi counter claims of damage inflicted on the U.S.A. and its allies are obviously manifestations of an attempt to bolster Iraqi morale and to influence Arab opinion.

But as Saddam Hussein's Australian representative frankly conceded before leaving to return home, he expected Iraq to be defeated militarily because of the enormous military forces arraigned against it. Which raises the question of why did Saddam Hussein refuse to retreat from Kuwait when threatened with such awesome military power?
The very raising of this question highlights the failure of the Western mind to understand the mind of an Arab leader like Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein clearly believes that his future, either as the type of Arab leader the Arab world will follow after the war, or as an Arab martyr if he is killed, is best assured by fighting even with all the odds against him. He knew that to surrender to the unconditional demands of President George Bush would have meant political destruction. Thus his serenity.
U.N. Secretary General de Cuellar said, "I saw a man who was serene. He was polite, considerate articulate. He asked for nothing. He was a charmer."

After an enormous and costly military campaign, it is almost certain that Iraq will be defeated. But George Bush's "just peace" has already been lost. Seen in retrospect, the American adventure into the Middle East will be seen as another major defeat for Western and Christian civilisation.


BRIEF COMMENTS

Both the Soviet Union and Communist China are members of the U.N. Security Council, which authorised President Bush to use force against Iraq in the Middle East. At the same time Soviet leader Gorbachev, with the aid of the Red Army and the K.G.B., has used tanks against the Lithuanians and threatens all other nationalities striving to free themselves from Soviet domination, while the Chinese Marxists are intensifying their persecution of dissidents and attempting to influence the internal affairs of Hong Kong. There is no suggestion of President Bush attempting to promote U.N. sanctions against the Soviet Union or Communist China.

The new breed of professional politicians has never had it so good even under depression conditions. Former Victorian Premier John Cain, who presided over Victoria's financial and other disasters, who enjoys such benefits as a chauffeur driven car, will be entitled to a superannuation payout of $800,000. He will also shortly receive a salary increase of $3,500 a year. Victorian Treasurer Tom Roper is off overseas to discuss the State's finances with European bankers and business groups. This will cost an estimated $50,000. But Mr. Roper is taking along his girl friend, which will cost the Victorian taxpayers another $10,000. Girl friend Anita Schulz has been a Liberal Party supporter. This relationship appears to further demonstrate that there are no real differences between the political parties.

QUESTION OF PALESTINE CENTRAL TO PEACE
from The Age (Melbourne), January 19

"While the war rhetoric rages, little consideration has been given to two vital questions: future outlook for a post war Arab world, and the future implications for U.N. diplomacy. "Instability in the Arab region is endemic. While the Palestinian question and other vital Middle East issues remain unsolved, Saddam and others of his like will continue to tweak the raw nerves of Arab/ Israeli sensibilities in an attempt to entrench themselves in positions of power. "Any participation by Israel in armed conflict will most certainly satisfy perceptions of U.S./Israeli aggression towards an embattled and united Arab world. Given this scenario, not even a decisive allied victory would result in a less irascible Arab region. "If U.N. initiatives do not proceed, the future for diplomatic solutions to prospective world conflicts appears dim. Those who believe that a diplomatic solution smacks of appeasement place a higher priority on pride than peace. Negotiation does not equal peace at any price and critics must be reminded that the price of moral victory appears to be war. If we wish to accept this type of precedent then we will undermine original principles and purpose on the U.N. itself, to preserve peace, not to facilitate war. "Our leaders must tackle the Palestinian question. If Saddam had not had this issue to shroud his original intentions in the Gulf, U.S. resolve to end this conflict may not have foundered in a sea of obstinacy. Though for many the Palestinian question may seem a red herring, it is one that must be dealt with so some foundation for future Middle-East peace can be laid." (Deborah Henry, North Fitzroy)
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159