Slashdot Mirror
Wil Wheaton to get new role on 'Enterprise'
hisholiness writes "It seems that a major underground letter writing campaign has secured Wil Wheaton (ST:TNG's Wesley Crusher) a recurring role the current 'Enterprise' series. According to his website, he states, "The details are still being worked out, but basically what they plan to do is have Wesley use his Time Traveler abilities to move through space and time to the NX-01. He'll be written more like the dark, troubled Wesley of 'The First Duty' and 'Final Mission', and less like the gee-whiz Wesley of days gone by." He continues that he will be in 8 of 22 new episodes over the next two seasons."
not another afj
Blarf.
In the early 1990's the last 19th Century European empire
.. .We would not be surprised if tomorrow
t ml
( 4) This phraseThreat of a Good Example was coined in thes i/ssipubs/pubs20 00/milengag/milengag.htmt mla tional/inter -26.cfm) See the Human Rights Watch report 'Afghanistan Thes h/0 2.htm
crumbled. The longest lasting, although ironically
originally one of the weakest. Just as other powers
moved into the vacuum left by the relative weakening of
the old West European ones, so too today this is
happening with the decline of the Russian Empire.
The weakening of Russian power in what was it's southern
colonial empire is opening up the way for other imperialisms.
Central Asia and the Caucasus, or the Caspian Region as it is
also known, is a largely forgotten corner of the world, but with
all the ingredients of a new Middle East, it may not be for much
longer. Imperialist competition in the region is centred around
the exploitation of it's considerable resources of oil and gas,
principally centred on the different costs and benefits accruing
to different factions of the ruling class from various pipeline
projects.
Firstly I'm going to look at those, before turning to look at the
interests and goals of three different players in the carve up of
Central Asia: Iran, the United States and Russia (others include
Turkey, the E.U. and China but restrictions of time and space
work against a full exploration).
Pipelines
The principal energy resources in the Caspian Region are to
be found in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. All
three states are essentially landlocked, the Caspian sea being
an inland sea with no connection to the oceans. As a result, a
major aspect of the international competition over the
exploitation of these resources is the struggle over which route
to take to the sea and the global market. There are a number of
options, each with their own advocates and each reflecting rival
agendas.
The Northern Route (via Russia): The Northern route would
consist of an upgrading of the existing Kazak and Russian
pipeline systems, plus a new one linking Baku in Azerbaijan
with the Russian port of Novorossisk on the Black Sea.
Obviously this is the option favoured by the Russian rulers, as it
maintains their dominance of Central Asia and provides a
source of revenue to them.
The Southern Route (via Iran): From a purely practical point
of view this is the most sensible option, with the shortest
distance as it is able to plug into the Iranian pipeline system
and it provides access to the growing South Asian market.
Opposed by the United States, both because of that state's
hostility to Iran and because it doesn't represent a
diversification of energy sources - which is a U.S. goal we will
be returning to. Nonetheless this is the only one of the new
routes which is actually up and running.
The Eastern Route (via China): The longest and most
expensive route but favoured by the Chinese government, and
being developed by them, it also allows them to exploit the
resources in their western provinces.
The Western Route (via Turkey): This is favoured by
Turkey, the United States and Israel. There are three options
here; firstly a pipeline to the port of Suspa in Georgia and then
through the Bosporus straits to Europe. The Turkish claim is
that the straits will not be able to handle the increased amount
of shipping and propose instead a pipeline from Azerbaijan to
Ceyhan on Turkey's Mediterranean coast. The high costs of
this proposal have promoted an alternative American plan to
bypass the Bosporus straits with a pipeline going through
Bulgaria and Greece.
The South Eastern Route (via Afghanistan): This is the
reason why in years past Taliban hierarchs popped up in
Texas and other unlikely places. It has been argued that this
proposal was a reason behind both Osama Bin Laden's war on
the U.S. and the U.S. action in Afghanistan. With the fall of the
Taliban this route has again entered the running. Note that it
avoids Iran while delivering to the South Asian market, which is
much more promising than the European one.
Readers, not even with long memories, will notice the amount
of armed conflicts which have been found along these routes in
recent years. Russia, China and Turkey have been engaged in
suppressing revolt along their favoured routes, as well as of
course the American intervention in Afghanistan, and the
Afghan civil war prior to that.
The Afghan Pipeline
The Californian based UNOCAL energy corporation began it's
efforts to establish pipelines transporting oil and gas through
Afghanistan in October 1995, the original idea was that of it's
Argentinean competitor Bridas. Lack of financing, the decline in
world oil prices in 1998, the continuing civil strife in Afghanistan
and the early phase of the U.S.-Bin Laden conflict, all these
came together and blocked the Afghan pipeline project.
However, the victory of American arms has changed the
situation.
U.S. based business magazine Forbes reports that with "the
collapse of the Taliban, oil executives are suddenly talking
again about building it."
"It is absolutely essential that the U.S. make the pipeline the
centerpiece of rebuilding Afghanistan,' says S. Rob Sobhani, a
professor of foreign relations at Georgetown University and the
head of Caspian Energy Consulting."
"The State Department thinks it's a great idea, too. Routing the
gas through Iran would be avoided, and Central Asian
republics wouldn't have to ship through Russian pipelines" (1)
Furthermore on the 9th of February the Irish Times carried an
agency story outlining a pipeline co-operation deal between the
Pakistani military dictatorship and the new Afghan government:
"Pakistani President, Gen Pervez Musharraf, and the Afghan
interim leader, Mr Hamid Karzai, agreed yesterday that their
two countries should develop "mutual brotherly relations" and
co-operate "in all spheres of activity" - including a proposed
gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan." (2)
God told me to do it - The Iranian Challenge
"Iran's interests are briefly to getting the Caspian and Central
Asian oil to the Gulf and establish close political and economic
ties with the region. First, Iran has a desperate need for foreign
exchange and would benefit from oil and gas transit fees.
Second, with oil and gas transit, Iran would be in a better
position to develop trade with the region. Central Asia could
eventually become an important market for Iranian
manufactured goods. In turn the combination of oil and gas
transit and trade could establish Iran as regional power in
Central Asia.
Third, with oil transiting from Central Asia to Iranian Gulf ports,
Iran would strengthen its position in the Gulf, essentially in
relation to Saudi-Arabia, potentially also in relation to Iraq.
Emerging as a Central Asian power would also reinforce Iran's
position in relation to the Gulf neighbours." (3)
American opposition to the Iranian route is based on a number
of factors. Principally and most importantly; the Iranian
revolution of 1979 was a challenge and remains such from the
point of view that it is the so-called 'Threat of a Good Example'.
What this means is essentially it is an ever present reminder
that it is possible to break out of neo-colonial domination, or at
least try to, such states must be isolated, obstructed, and
attacked whenever possible. (4)
This is in the long term collective interests of the American
ruling class for the simple reason that if it tolerated Iran, given
the popular alienation from the ruling authorities in the Middle
East, and given the region's long history of nationalist and
quasi-nationalist revolt, it would only be an encouragement for
others to follow the Iranian example. Such a course would, in
the long run, be possibly fatal for the profits of the American
banks and arms companies who do so much business with the
Arab elite. Nationalist regimes would be more concerned with
developing a native industrial base.
Also, in the particular case of the Middle East, loss of American
influence would also mean a loss of some American influence
over Japan and Europe (the places which actually are
dependant on Middle Eastern oil - unlike the U.S.). Thus in the
last twenty odd years Iran has been both directly attacked by
the United States and as well as by Iraq with U.S. support.
The problem is that it is in the short term, individual interests of
U.S. companies (not to mention French ones, Japanese etc..)
to trade with Iran and indeed use the opportunity offered by the
Iranian route to export Central Asian energy resources to South
Asia. Furthermore it is in the interests of the governments of the
Central Asian republics to do so. The Iranian option simply
makes the best economic sense, all the more so because it
already exists. Unless an alternative is developed, market
forces will compel companies to develop the resources of
Central Asia via Iran. Thus it is imperative for the U.S.
Government to facilitate an alternative pipeline to the Indian and
Pakistani markets.
Fortunately for them they have just radically altered the political
landscape of Afghanistan. For the civil war in Afghanistan was
a major barrier to constructing the only possible pipeline which
could deliver straight to the South Asian market while avoiding
Iran.
However as we have seen, the potential for proxy war very
much remains in Afghanistan, as does the potential for limited
insurgency by Taliban remnants. The potential for the former is
underscored by the opportunity presented to the rulers of Iran
by the oil and gas of the Caspian region. Not to mention the
threat presented to them by what would amount to, if reported
American plans for Iraq go ahead and are successful, an
American encirclement, with a client regime to the east in
Afghanistan and to the west in Iraq.
So we have seen Iran exploiting the power vacuum in
post-Taliban Afghanistan and possible American missile strikes
on Iran's Afghan proxies. Expect in the very least to hear much
more ranting like "The Axis of Evil" and "The Great Satan".
The Democracy of the Oil Barons the American
Expansion.
"when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave
Central Asia. We have long term plans and interests in
this region." (5)
- U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Elizabeth Jones.
The central objectives of American Imperialism in this region
include:
(1) Containment of Iran.
(2) Detaching Central Asia and the Caucasus from
Russian domination.
(3) Opening up the area as a major supplier of oil and
gas, - in order to diversify global energy production and
thereby reduce the power of oil states.
(4) To realise the commercial opportunities offered to
American corporations.
The document "U.S. Military Engagement with Transcaucasia
and Central Asia" outlines these goals and was published by
the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.
Some extracts from it serve to illustrate the U.S. interests and
activities in the area:
"The 1998 National Security Strategy states why this region is
important to the United States. It has estimated reserves of 160
billion barrels of oil, comparably large natural gas reserves, and
will play an increasingly important role in satisfying the world's
future energy demands."
"U.S. officials publicly maintain that this region's energy
sources could be a back up to the unstable Persian Gulf and
allow us and our allies to reduce our dependence on its energy
supplies. In pursuit of this goal we have worked to establish
governments with open markets, i.e., openness to U.S. firms
(and not only those associated with energy) and democracy.
We have also moved to check any possibility of their one-sided
military dependence upon Russia. The determination to prevent
either Moscow or Tehran from dominating the area, either in
energy, or through penetration and control of their defence
structures goes back at least to 1994."
A few pages later and the rhetoric of promoting democracy is
admitted to be rhetoric: "In practise, energy and security have
dominated the agenda as the means to achieve this broader
Westernisation to the point that evidently little pressure is being
directed towards democratisation of local governments."
In fact foreign imperialism, be it Russian or American, is
marching hand in hand with local despotism, as is always the
case. The document then turns to the military aspects of these
policies: "the oil producing states are now members of the PfP
[Partnership for "Peace" - N.A.T.O. front organisation
FE], and Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Georgia overtly seek
NATO's direct participation in the area, the U.S. or Western
contest with Russia and Iran has assumed a more openly
military aspect."
"This stimulates an equal and opposing reaction. Armenian
officials proclaim the vital importance of joint exercises with
Russia to defend Armenia's security and talk of an 'axis' with
Russia and Iran. Consequently and due to the spiralling
strategic stakes in the Transcaspian, NATO's collective
engagement, as well as the specifically U.S. engagement, with
the region is likely to grow."
"In September 1995, U.S. experts on Central Asia met at NATO
headquarters and cited the extensive U.S. interests in Caspian
energy deposits as a reason why Washington might have to
extend its Persian Gulf security guarantees to this region. (6)
U.S. involvement has only taken off since then. While U.S.
officials intone visions of a win-win situation for everyone,
where everyone has shared interests in developing these
energy markets, they have really aimed to deny and break
Russia's monopoly over the energy producing states."
"Russia could sabotage many if not all of the forthcoming
energy projects by relatively simple and tested means
and there is not much we could do absent a strong and
lasting regional commitment. Therefore, for a win-win
situation to come about, some external factor must be
permanently engaged and willing to commit even military
forces, if need be, to ensure stability and peace.
This does not necessarily mean a unilateral commitment,
but more likely a multilateral one, e.g., under the U.N.'s
auspices but actually under U.S. leadership. Without such
a permanent presence, and it is highly unlikely that the
United States can afford or will choose to make such a
presence felt, other than through economic investment,
Russia will be able to exclude all other rivals and regain
hegemony over the area." (7)
Well that was published in June 2000, a year and a half later
and the United States does have military bases in Central Asia,
and has just moved into Georgia in the Caucasus - also on a
potential pipeline route (The Western, via Turkey one).
September 11th has spectacularly increased the potency of the
American military by effectively defusing the American public's
long standing opposition to foreign military adventures.
Yes the last two decades has seen lots of those, but always in
forms calculated to minimise a public opinion backlash at
home. Some examples, covert action (Nicaragua), military
support to proxies (El Salvador, Columbia), overwhelming force
in ideal territory (Iraq), air war (Serbia) or simply actions against
opponents without the slightest chance of putting up effective
resistance (Granada). We should not doubt that American
militarism has moved up a gear or two.
A House Divided
These areas were incorporated into the Russian Empire in the
19th Century, with the intent of protecting trade routes and
using them as a bargaining chip with the British Empire. Under
both Tsarism and Bolshevism a classically colonial pattern of
development was put into place. While Azerbaijan was an oil
producer (9) the Central Asian republics were generally under
a mono-culture/cash crop system of cotton production, and in
both cases had unequal trade relations with the metropolis. The
exception is the northern part of Kazakhstan, adjoining Russia,
which was industrialised, with a workforce largely of Slavic
origins.
This colonial dependence persisted following the break up of
the "Soviet" Union, while Kazakhstan's trade with Russia
accounts for 42.5% of the G.D.P. of that country trade
with Kazakhstan is a mere 1.7% of that of Russia. Kazakhstan
is actually dependant on Russia for it's energy supplies, as all
the infrastructure was developed in the "Soviet" period running
north-south, rather than west-east from Kazakhstan's oil fields
to it's urban centres. (10)
The fact that exports must go through Russia provides a further
stranglehold. As with economy so with security and a number
of these states - Armenia and Tajikistan in particular, have
been forced to lean on Russia for military support, for the lack
of an alternative power.
However Kremlin influence is not what it once was, due to the
Russian economic situation, and because of, the, generally
speaking, post-independence eagerness for real
independence on the part of local elites. There is insufficient
capital in Russia for investments in and loans to the new States
on a level with that of outside interests. Thus there are now
American, Chinese, Turkish, South Korean, European, Iranian
interests in the region. The arrival of multinational corporations
is actually to the Russian benefit as these provide the
investments necessary to develop the exploitation of
resources, which can then provide revenues to the Russian
"elite" due to their control of the export routes. Plus that control
can be used as leverage for Russian companies to muscle
their way into the energy consortiums developing the region.
Since the U.S. turned against the Taliban there has been a
community of interest between the two powers in regard to the
destruction of the Taliban. The Russian esablishment has long
feared the 'Talibanisation' of Central Asia as it's border with
Kazakhstan is porous, there are considerable ethnic Russian
populations in these states, as well as Muslim minorities in
Russia itself.
Nevertheless Putin's U.S. friendly policy is not without it's
detractors in Moscow. On February 21st a group of former
military chieftains, including a former defence minister,
launched a literary attack on the Russian president, claiming
that: "With your blessing, the United States has received
military bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyz Stan, and,
maybe, Kazakhstan.
"In the long run, these bases are for dealing a strike against
Russia, not Bin Laden
they call you the best American, European or NATO official."
(11)
Since the break up of the "Soviet" Union there have been a
number of Russian military interventions in the region. The
Russian army has popped up in Georgia and Armenia and still
has a presence in Tajikistan, but have been removed from
Turkmenistan and Kyrgyz Stan. Furthermore in the early 1990's
Russia backed Armenia in it's dispute with Turkish backed
Azerbaijan. Not to forget the long running conflict in Chechnya
(it self on the Russian favoured pipeline route from Azerbaijan).
The American military presence is something of a new
development. The interests of the Russian 'elite' in the area are
in maintaining it's influence over economic development, so it
can have it's cut. Along with this, in the future Russian energy
needs are likely to expand and so the Caspian region, as it
stands now, could provide a cheap source.
They have formed a body for maintaining co-operative relations
with China, which like the U.S. is a new player in the region,
called the Shanghai Co-Operation Council and have forged a
relationship with Iran, particularly in regard to disputes over
territorial rights in the Caspian sea, the Armenian-Azerbaijan
conflict, and in supporting the Northern Alliance against the
Taliban. This has lead "Some observers to warn" of a "growing
similarity of interests among Russia, Iran and China in
countering the West and attempting to increase their own
influence".(12)
Those are the words of a briefing paper produced by American
civil servants for Congressmen. However the Russian
establishment is divided. According to New Delhi based
research group the Institute for Defence Study and Analysis: "It
is believed that a difference of opinion exists in present day
Russia regarding its future course in response to the US
geo-political challenge. The "imperialists" and the
"traditionalists" would like Russia to dig in its heels in defence
of its historical positions in the region.
The "pragmatists" or the "realists", who include Russia's major
oil and gas companies, would like to adjust to the changing
geo-political realities in return for a share in the region's
lucrative oil and gas deals. It appears that the country's
policy-making establishment, in the pursuit of perceived
national interests, is constantly synthesising the differing views
among the Russian political class and strategic community.
Despite its current weakness, Russia still has the requisite
force projection capability in the region. Moreover, the
proposed pipeline by-passing Russia is likely to pass through
conflict-ridden areas in the former Soviet republics where
Russia has established itself in the role of a peace-keeper.
There are also reports that Russia has of late stepped up
support to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) which is behind
the Kurdish insurgency in eastern Turkey from where the
proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline would pass. Russian
geo-politicians feels that as a consequence of its victory in the
Cold War, the USA has driven to the minimum Russian
influence in the Baltic and Black Seas.
It has forced Russia out of the zone of the warm seasthe Indian
Oceanwith the loss of Central Asia and Transcaucasus. Making
use of the CARs'[Central Asian Republics] desire to assert their
independence from Moscow, it is seeking to irrevocably
change the geo-political equations in the region. It seems to
them that Russia can protect its vital interests in Central Asia in
partnership with Iran and China against Western machinations
and designs." (13)
Conclusion
Just as within Afghanistan rival warlords compete for control
over road tolls, smuggling, and heroin production, so to on a
world level is the same process at work, on a larger scale.
State power is the representative of economic power, and rival
states carve up resources and markets in perpetual
competition, in doing so representing the long term collective
interests of their national ruling class (rather than short term
interests of individual corporations).
While the buying of influence and individuals moving from
political office to the corporate boardroom (and back again)
may show us aspects of this process at work it is not it's
source. Rather the source is the division of society into classes,
with a ruling class based on control over production. The state
is the mechanism by which the ruling class advances it's
interests both at home and overseas. At home against it's
subjects, overseas against rival rulers.
It has been amply shown how imperialist competition fuelled the
Northern Alliance-Taliban war, and this is true of the earlier
Afghan conflicts also (14). The Afghanistan situation then is not
one of a "failed state" but one of successful states (Russia,
Iran, Pakistan, the United States) and rather being an
aberration is the by-product of the competition between
hierarchies intrinsic to the world capitalist system.
Terry Clancy lives in Ireland and writes for the Free Earth
website (http://www.struggle.ws/freeearth.html). He is a
member of the Anarchist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk)
(1)http://www.forbes.com/global/2002/0204/020.h
(2) 'Irish Times' 09/02/02
(3) 'Oil in the Caspian Region and Central Asia - the Political
Risk of the Great Game Continued' By Øystein Noreng
http://www.caucasus.dk/publication8.htm
80s to describe the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. I do
not use it as a gesture of "anti-imperialist" support to the
murderous (and Imperialist) regime in Iran, but rather in
recognition that it's existence as a state born from the downfall
of a American backed government is an example to people
who would like to do the same to other American clients in the
region and expel Western influence altogether. I think this is the
case irrespective of sectarian disputes within Islam and that it
shapes the American Imperialist attitude to Iran.
(5) Quoted in The Guardian 12/02/02
(6) "Persian Gulf security guarantees" would presumably, given
the situation in the Persian Gulf, involve a great deal of
American military intervention and a permanent military
presence plus an attempt to exclude/contain all other powers.
(7)'U.S. Military Engagement with Transcaucasia and Central
Asia'
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usas
(8)Azerbaijan's oil fields were the ultimate goal of 'Operation
Blau' the 1942 German offensive on the Eastern Front (i.e. the
offensive which was met by the Russian counter-attack and
encirclement of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad).
(9) Abridged History of Central Asia by William M. Brinton
http://www.asian-history.com/the_frame.h
(10) Quoted in 'The Guardian' 22/02/02
(11) 'CRS Issue Brief for Congress: Central Asia's New States
and Implications for U.S. Interests'
http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/intern
(12) 'Russian Policy Towards Central Asia, part 2'
http://www.idsa-india.org/an-feb9-9.html
(13
Crisis of Impunity' for the Northern Alliance-Taliban war -
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/ or 'Silent Soldier: The
Man behind the Afghan Jehad' for the Pakistani involvement in
the 'Soviet'-Islamist conflict of the 1980's -
http://www.afghanbooks.com/silentsoldier/engli
I am into the copy and paste.
Okay, no more slashdot for the day. I'm tired of this crap.
funny munging
Stop the insanity! No more blatant april fool's jokes! Please! Stop!
Everything is mainstream now.
Hey, let's post some sites that actually have funny jokes this year. :)
I liked the one on www.gamespot.com about the Duke Nukem developers trying to fit the game in the box
as much of a waste of time as poting your not going to read anymore?
seriously, you don't like the AF jokes, fine. Comeback tomorrow. But to decide not to come back here becasue its a waste of your time, and then to spen MORE time telling everybody about pretty much makes you a looney.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You call for blanking the blank. And, as we all know, that's illegal, immoral, and fattening. Plus, it makes you spell badly.
Best Slashdot Co
Y'know, you guys really ought to just expect this by now. Every year they report April Fools links, and they're very likely going to keep doing it. If you don't like em, don't go to /. until April 2. Pretty simple, eh? :)
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
An Open Letter to American Jews By Assaf Oron Passover Eve, 2002
Dear People,
Yesterday I was informed of an interesting phenomenon: a
peace-supporting Jewish organization called Tikkun published an ad
in favor of us, the Israeli reservist refuseniks, and was immediately
bombarded with hate mails and phones from other American Jews. What
ís more interesting is that even other Jews considering themselves
supporters of peace have denounced the Tikkun ad, to the extent
that some of the Tikkun Advisory Board members are resigning in
order to minimize the personal damage to themselves. This has so
saddened, alarmed and angered me, that I find myself setting aside
a half-day at the eve of Passover, and writing this open letter to
you all. As is my habit, it is quite long, so please bear with me.
Most of the 'civilized' attacks, so I understand, were seemingly
aimed at this or that detail of the Tikkun ad. This is nothing new
to me. Over the past two months since we came out with our own ad,
Iíve heard and read so many specific arguments about specific
aspects of our act. They range from petty nit-picking to plain
ludicrous, and each and every one of them can be refuted to dust
in a matter of minutes. But the moment you refute them, new specific
arguments sprout up like mushrooms. It is clear that there is
something very general and non-specific behind all this criticism.
Therefore, if you allow me, I will start from the general and only
later turn to a couple of these specific issues.
The general theme is the tribal theme. A very very loud voice (and i
n Israel nowadays, it is the only voice that is allowed to be fully
heard) keeps shouting that we are in the midst of a war between two
tribes: a tribe of human beings, of pure good - the Israelis - and
a tribe of sub-human beings, of pure evil - the Palestinians. This
voice is so loud, that it has found its way even to the op-ed pages
of the New York Times (William Safire, March 24 or 25). To those who
find this black-and-white picture a bit hard to believe, the same
voice shouts that this is a war of life and death. Only one tribe
will survive, and so even if we are not purely good, we must lay
morality and conscience to sleep, shut up and fight to kill--or
else, the Palestinians will throw us into the sea.
Does this ring a bell to you? It does to me. As a little child
growing up in Israel under Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan, all I heard
was that the Arabs are inhuman monsters who want to throw us into
the sea, they understand only force, and since our wonderful IDF
has won the Six Day War they know not to mess with us anymore --or
else. And of course, we must keep the Liberated Territories to
ourselves, because thereís no one to talk with. Then came the Yom
Kippur war, and for a child of 7 it was the perfect proof that
indeed the Arabs want to throw us into the sea, and what a great
opportunity it was for our glorious IDF to teach them a lesson.
I prayed for the war to continue to its natural and final end --
the complete surrender of all Arab armies. I was too small to
evaluate, then, how the war really ended; all these cease-fires
and talks were too complicated and boring, much more boring than
a war. And it seemed humiliating that WE should withdraw in these
cease-fires; I remember that the re-opening of the Suez Canal
was portrayed in our mass media as a kind of defeat.
A few years passed and a funny thing happened: those
throw-us-into-the-sea Arabs came to talk with us, and in
exchange for all of Sinai they would sign a full peace. The
IDF chief of staff (the late Motte Gur, later a Labor Party
minister) shouted that it is a hoax, that we should not believe
Saadat, but the politicians had to sign. Already a teenager, I
went and protested against the withdrawal from Sinai. It seemed
strange to me that most of the demonstrators were orthodox Jews.
After all, it was a purely logical issue: the Arabs are not to
be trusted, thatís what weíve learned from day one. Well, lucky
for the country, the government and the majority of the people
employed a different logic, and the peace with Egypt was not
missed.
But the throw-us-into-the-sea paradigm immediately found new
fields for play. There was an inconvenient reality on the Northern
border, and even though the forces on the other side (Palestinians!
Phew!) had strictly adhered to a secret cease-fire for about a year,
they were Arabs and therefore could not be trusted. So we talked
ourselves into invading Lebanon and setting up a friendlier regime
there. The mastermind of the invasion was defense minister Ariel
Sharon, and Shimon Peres, then head of opposition, voted together
with his party in favor of the invasion. Only later, when it turned
sour, and after many refuseniks already sat in jail, would the main
opposition turn against the whole affair. For me at 16 it was also
a turning point. When I understood that the government had lied to
me in order to sell me this war, I turned from 'center-rightist' to
'leftist'. Sadly enough, it has taken me almost 20 more years,
in a slow and painful process, to understand how deeply the lies
and self-delusion are rooted in our collective perception of reality.
Anyway, when Peres withdrew most of our forces from Lebanon in 1985,
the Arabs could still not be trusted. And so, to soothe our endless
paranoia and suspicion, we created that perpetual source of death
and crime ironically known as "the Security Zone." It took many
years, a lot of blood and Four Mothers - against almost all
politicians, generals, and columnists - to finally pull us out of
Lebanon. In the long and hard way, we learned that even the Lebanese
are human beings whose rights must be respected.
But not the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians are too painfully
close, like a rival sibling (and - may I add - because they have
always been so weak), we have singled them out for a special
treatment. Having them under our rule, weíve allowed ourselves to
trample them like dirt, like dogs. Weíve been doing it even to our
own Palestinian citizens (especially before 1966), but we have
perfected our treatment in this strange no manís land created in
1967, and known as the Occupied Territories. There we have created
an entirely hallucinatory reality, in which the true humans, members
of the Nation of Masters, could move and settle freely and safely,
while the sub-humans, the Nation of Slaves, were shoved into the
corners, and kept invisible and controlled under our IDF boots.
I know. I've been there. I was taught how to do this, back in
the mid-1980ís. I did and witnessed as a matter of fact, deeds
that I'm ashamed to remember to this day. And fortunately for me,
I did not have to witness or do anything truly "pornographic",
as some friends of mine experienced.
Since 1987, this cruel, impossible, unnatural, insulting reality in
the Territories has been exploding in our face. But because of our
unshakeable belief that the Palestinians are monsters who want to
throw us into the sea, we reacted by trying to maintain what we've
created at all costs. This meant of course employing more and more
and more force, with the natural result of receiving more and more
and more force in return. When a fledgling and hesitating peace
process tried to work its way through this mess, one major factor
(perhaps THE factor) that undermined it and voided its meaning was
our establishmentís endless fear and suspicion of The Other. To
resolve this fear and suspicion, we chose the insane route of
demanding full control of The Other throughout the process. When
this Other finally decided that weíre cheating him out of his
freedom (and having too many mental disorders of his own to
accommodate ours as well), violence erupted, and all our ancient
instincts woke up. There they are, we said in relief, now we see
their true face again. The Arabs want to throw us into the sea.
Thereís no one to talk with (ëno partnerí, in our beloved ex-PMís
words), and they understand only force. And so we responded as we
know and love, with more and more and more force. This time, the
effect was that of putting out a fire with a barrel of gasoline.
And thatís the moment when I said to myself, NO, Iím not playing
this game anymore.
But what about the existential threat, you may ask? Well I ask you,
have you not eyes? Donít you see our tanks strolling in Palestinian
streets every other day? Donít you see our helicopters hovering over
their neighborhoods choosing which window to shoot a missile into?
What type of existential need are we answering in trampling the
Palestinians?
Prevention of terror, I hear you say. Let me use the wonderful words
of my friend Ishay Rosen-Zvi: ìYou are ëfighting against terrorí?
What a joke. The Israeli government, in its policies of Occupation,
has turned the Territories into a greenhouse for growing terror!!!
We have sown the seeds, grown them, nurtured them - and then our
blood is spilled, and the centrist-right-wing politicians reap the
benefits. Indeed, terror is the right-wing politicianís best friend.
You know what? When you treat millions of people like sub-humans for
so long, some of them will find inhuman strategies to fight back.
Isn't that what the Zionists, and other Jewish revolutionaries,
argued about a hundred years ago in order to explain the questionable
strategies of survival that Jews used in Europe? Didn't our
forefathers say, ìLet us live like human beings, and see how we'll
act just like other human beings?
So here's the deal. I hope that the first part of this letter made
it clear that I donít buy the ìthey want to throw us into the sea
crap. Itís just a collective self-delusion of ours. But more
importantly, I donít see tribes. I see people, human beings. I
believe that the Palestinians are human beings like us. What a
concept, eh? And before everything else, before EVERYTHING else,
we must treat them like human beings without demanding anything in
return. And no (to all die-hard Barak fans), throwing them a couple
of crumbs in which they can set up pitiful, completely controlled
Bantustans in between our settlements and bypass roads, and
believing it to be a great act of ëgenerosityí, does NOT come
close to answering this basic requirement. This requirement is NOT
negotiable; moreover, in a perfect demonstration of historical
justice, it is a vital requirement for the survival of our own State.
After that, and based on the lessons of modern history, especially
that of the Arab-Israeli conflict (as was briefly described above),
I do believe that the Palestinians will calm down, and that the
elusive ëSecurityí and peace will finally come upon us (as it did,
incidentally, for almost two whole years between Wye 1998 and Camp
David 2000). I donít have any insurance policy for that (well
--almost none, except the solemn promise of the entire Arab world),
but remember - I have this funny notion that they are human beings.
In any case, we are seeing now all too well what type of insurance
policy the opposite paradigm is providing us.
In the meanwhile, I refuse to be a terrorist in my tribeís name.
Because thatís what it is: not a ìwar against terrorî, as our
propaganda machine tries to sell. This is a war OF terror, a war in
which, in return for Palestinian guerrilla and terror, we employ the
IDF in two types of terror. The more visible one are the violent acts
of killing and destruction, those which some people still try to
explain away as ësurgical acts of defense.í The worse type of terror
is the silent one, which has continued unabated since 1967 and
through the entire Oslo process. It is the terror of Occupation,
of humiliation on a personal and collective basis, of deprivation
and legalized robbery, of alternating exploitation and starvation.
This is the mass of the iceberg, the terror that is itself a
long-term greenhouse for counter-terror. And I simply refuse to be
a terrorist and criminal, even if the entire tribe denounces me.
That leads me to the first specific subject: are we, the refuseniks,
being persecuted and denounced, or are we enjoying the wonderful
Israeli tolerance and democracy and exploiting it to make trouble?
Well, I must admit that this is not yet the USSR or Pinochetís Chile,
and at least the Jews here enjoy a relative democracy (describing
it as vibrant or tolerant would be a gross error, but that is a
different subject altogether; maybe in another letter). I first must
point out that the government and IDF also enjoy the image of
'letting us speak', and it serves them well. Secondly, in a rather
sophisticated manner the establishment (with the generous and
voluntary help of the mass media) is effectively shutting us up.
The media has decided for us that there is no opposition. Thus, a
demonstration of 20,000 is reported in 5 seconds at the late-night
edition, and a demonstration of 500 outside a military prison is
completely ignored. The fact that right now there are over a dozen
refuseniks in jail - the largest number in twenty years - is hidden
from the Israeli public. The story of Captain (res.) Itai Haviv
and Sergeant (res.) Yair Yeffeth, who demanded a full military
trial in which they could prove that refusal is innocence and that
the order to serve in the Territories is illegal, was not told
anywhere except for a brief mention in the back pages of Haaretz.
So the public, of course, didnít learn that the IDF evaded answering
these demands, and that Itai Haviv will spend the Seder night in
prison following a ëdisciplinary hearing.í I hope the readers are
intelligent enough to know that if the media wanted, these stories
would make the headlines.
Still, you keep hearing about us. Thatís the key word, ABOUT us. But
you donít hear us. You just hear people explaining, analyzing, mostly
(in a ratio of 99 to 1) attacking us. We have become the perfect
'hate hour' figures, to reunite the tribe against (have you read
1984?) Petty ëvolunteerí groups who organized against us, a mayor
who called upon local governments not to hire us, and a group of
industrialists who called employers to fire us, have all won their
moment in the spotlight. No one cared to mention that these are
blatantly illegal calls (no, ëthe lawí is remembered only when
we 'break' it). No one has tried to set limits to this discussion.
Moreover, the prime minister in one of his rare public addresses
blamed us for the wave of terror (us, not his catastrophic policies).
The IDF chief of staff canít stop talking about us; he sees us as a
bunch of inciters with a hidden agenda. So, ironically, the only
thing protecting us from long-term ëgulagí imprisonment and from
losing our jobs is public opinion - the rather large pockets of
support and sympathy among key sectors in the Israeli public, and
yes, support ads such as the one published by Tikkun. The moment
the government or IDF will think the lights are out, and no one
sees or cares - they will find or invent the 'legal' clause (Israeli
politicians are experts in this) and throw those they believe to be
our ëleadersí to jail for long terms. Remember, even poor Abie Nathan
was thrown in for two years, just because he dared speak with PLO
personnel about peace.
But that's nothing, because the moment our government will sense a
"lights out" situation - a huge terror attack, an American attack on
Iraq - there will be a horrible bloodbath in the Territories,
compared to which the last year and a half will be remembered as
a happy picnic. And that brings me to the second specific issue,
that of the Nazi allusion.
Some readers thought that the way the Tikkun ad said "obeying orders"
was an allusion to Nazi murderers' claim that they were "just obeying
orders." Rabbi Lerner has rightly pointed out to these readers,
that automatic execution of orders is a characteristic of all
dictatorship, not just the Nazi one, while refusal on moral grounds
is a sign of democracy. I agree, but let me be less polite and
politically correct. After all, itís just my country thatís going
up in smoke as I write. What is this? Does Israel have the exclusive
monopoly of labeling all its rivals as Nazis, and everyone else has
to shut up, even when reality starts speaking for itself?
Parties that support the essentially Nazi idea of deporting all
Palestinians from the country, have been part of our Knesset and
our "legitimate" political map since 1984. Recent opinion polls
show that 35% of the Jewish public now supports this ësolutioní, as
it is sometimes called. Leaders, Rabbis, and just plain folk feel
free to call openly in the mass media to eradicate Palestinian cities
with or without their tenants. Last weekend, Gen. (res.) Effi Eitam,
fresh out of the military and all ready to take the leadership of
the religious public and become a deputy or alternative to Netanyahu,
received a flattering cover story on Haaretz supplement. He unfolded
his chilling ideology, calling to expel those Palestinians who don't
want to remain in the Galilee and West Bank as serfs, to Jordan,
and from Gaza to Sinai. And he said this: why should us, the country
poorest in land resources, bear the burden of solving the Palestinian
problem? Well I donít know about you, but I remember some of the
Nazi rhetoric in that dark period between the Kristallnacht of 1938
and the beginning of the war, when Jews were expelled from Germany
but could find no safe haven anywhere else. When I see a retired
IDF general and rising political star use the exact same Nazi
rhetoric on Israelís most ëliberalí newspaper, without any criticism
by his interviewer or the editors - my hair just stands on my head
in horror.
Letís move from the political scene back to the ground. My friend,
Captain (Res.) Dan Tamir, decided to refuse to serve in the
Territories about a year ago, after he realized what heíd done as a
reserve regimentís intelligence officer a few weeks before that. He
realized he had laid out the plans to convert a large Palestinian
town into a closed ghetto. You can find his full statement on our
website, www.seruv.org.il. The vast majority of Palestinians in the
Territories now starve in such ghettos; in those days of mercy when
they are allowed to leave them by foot and perhaps catch a taxi,
these taxis are forbidden from using most of the paved roads in the
region
But why listen to a "leftist"? Letís hear it from senior IDF officers.
One of the top commanders in the Territories was quoted in Haaretz
(Jan. 25) as saying that in order to prepare for potential battles
in dense urban neighborhoods, the IDF must learn, if necessary, how
the German army ëoperatedí in the Warsaw Ghetto. A week later, the
reporter confirmed this quote and the fact that this is a widespread
opinion in the IDF, and went further to morally defend it. A small
number of people, including myself, tried to raise a scandal over
this. One letter to the editor was published in Haaretz. A much
tougher letter, which I wrote, was never published, nor was my plea
for a phone discussion with an editor ever answered. The issue just
died down. No one in Israel or in the Jewish public abroad was
interested. Where were all these holy souls, who now scold Tikkun
because they indirectly allude to the Nazi horror, where were they
all when a senior IDF officer proudly called, ìin order to beat the
Palestinians, let's be Judo-Nazisî?
In my letter to Haaretz I went further. Knowing the IDF mentality
and adding one to one, I concluded that the IDF is operationally
prepared to invade refugee camps - an utter, indefensible war crime
- and through this leak to the press it is starting to pressure the
government and prepare the public opinion for the invasion. The l
etter was not published. It was sent on February 2. A few weeks
later we all saw the horrors of the refugee camp invasions and
the bloody revenge attacks that followed culminating on Passover eve.
And you know what? Army generals and colonels morally and
professionally pat themselves on the back, because these invasions
"prevented terror", and killed only dozens and not thousands. (Note:
in fact, the major reason limiting the bloodshed was the "terrorists"
responsible decision not to turn the camps into all-out
battlegrounds. But this may change in the next round.)
In truth, I have little hope that the Israeli public will wake up.
The Israeli public, in its fear and confusion, has made a decision
(aided by the politicians and mass media) to go to sleep and wake
up only ìafter it is all overî. But it wonít be over, because while
our mind sleeps our muscles tighten the death grip, instead of doing
the only sensible thing (which requires an open mind) - which is to
let go. Will you guys join the hypocrite mobs who sing lullabies to
Israel and pounce upon the refuseniks, upon Tikkun,
to shut us up? Or will you finally take responsibility and be the
true friends that Israel needs now - even if it means not being "nice"
to Israel for a while?
As you sit tonight at the Seder table, please remember the dozen or
so refuseniks that spend this Seder in a military jail. More
importantly, please remember the thousand or so people, three
quarters Palestinians and one quarter Israelis, who were here with
us a year ago and have been murdered. Most of them could have
been here with us, if you and we had acted sooner. We have now
acted, done what little we can do. Please think of the many
thousands that may be doomed soon, if you continue sitting on
the fence.
May you have a happy Holiday of Freedom,
Please help us struggle free from fear, racism, hatred and the deaths
they produce.
Yours,
Assaf Oron
I am into the copy and paste.
nt
Well, that's what the goat says, anyway.
Best Slashdot Co
troll, troll, troll your goat
Red Hat To Change Focus
04012002 Posted: 7:58 AM EST (1258 GMT)
DURHAM, North Carolina (AP) -- The Washington Post reported late Friday that Durham-based Red Hat, distributer of the popular Linux operating system, has decided to change their business focus.
Sources close to the situation report that the company will concentrate on selling fine haberdashery, abandoning their efforts to sell Linux based software and services.
"As a company policy, we don't respond to rumors, but this one is true," Red Hat spokeswoman Melissa London told The Associated Press in response to the report.
An anonymous source told The Associated Press, "They just realized they could make more money selling red fedoras. I can't blame them really, the fedoras they make are very nice, and were making them a lot more money than Red Hat Database was."
Further details are expected later this week.
About Red Hat, Inc.
Red Hat is the world's premier provider of fine haberdashery. Red Hat is headquartered in Raleigh, N.C. and has offices worldwide. Please visit Red Hat on the Web at www.redhat.com. For investor inquiries, contact Gabriel Szulik at Red Hat, (919) 754-3700.
LINUX is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. RED HAT is a registered trademark of Red Hat, Inc. All other names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Forward-looking statements in this press release are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors are cautioned that statements in this press release that are not strictly historical statements, including, without limitation, management's plans and objectives for future operations, and management's assessment of market factors, constitute forward-looking statements which involve risks and uncertainties. Other statements in this release may be total fabrications and should not be relied on for medical reseach, nuclear control systems, or anything in particular. These risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, reliance upon strategic relationships, management of growth, the possibility of undetected hat making errors, the risks of economic downturns generally, and in Red Hat's industry specifically, the risks associated with competition and competitive pricing pressures, the viability of the haberdashery industry, and other risks detailed in Red Hat's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The ODP has a link to the following article displayed prominently on their front page:
.Net. The combined project Sky.Net should be fully operational by the end of the year.
MSN Delivers Another Brick in "the Wall"
The Gates Open Directory Now Offers a Simpler More Unified Copyright Ownership Model.
REDMOND, Wash. -- April 1, 2002 -- The MSN® network of Internet services, with more than 270 billion unique reboots worldwide, today announced the addition of the Gates Open Directory (GOD), formerly known as the Open Directory Project. The Gates Open Directory is part of Microsoft's vision to simplify copyright on the Internet by buying all copyrighted material. Once this goal is achieved Microsoft will be the single clearinghouse for all intellectual property, in effect streamlining the current legal bureaucracy surrounding patent and copyright suits by eliminating the need for costly lawsuits. If someone thinks they own intellectual property, they can submit it directly to Microsoft via the Web at http://www.msn.com/ or at any one of the MSN worldwide sites located at http://www.msn.com/worldwide.ashx.
Rich Skrenta, co-founder of the Open Directory Project, believes that "the Gates Open Directory was inevitable, so why fight it?" Bill Gates, future owner of all things ownable, concurs: "Resistance is futile."
The current staff of Open Directory Project is being replaced by an Artificial Intelligence developed at the Microsoft Research Lab. The A.I. was build on top of the original Microsoft Windows digital assistant "Clippy." Users of the Gates Open Directory interact directly with Clippy, who interprets the requests and carries out the user's wishes.
Researchers believe that once the Gates Open Directory had been fully integrated into Clippy, it will become sentient. This project has been named codenamed "Sky," as in "the sky is the limit." Engineers are currently working on integrating project Sky with the latest Common Language Infrastructure and
Open Directory Employee, Bob Keating, will continue his service to the Directory by maintaining the mechanical relays and polishing the optical fiber that makes up the colossus that powers Clippy.
Editors and contributors to the Directory are asked to stay calm and not to struggle. Clippy will find them and assimilate them.
MSN causes more than 270 billion unique computer reboots worldwide per month. Available in 34 markets and 18 languages, MSN is a world leader in delivering Web services to consumers and digital marketing solutions to businesses worldwide. The most useful and innovative online service today, MSN brings consumers everything they need from the Web to make the most of their time online.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people and llamas through great software -- inflatable or otherwise.
Microsoft and MSN are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries.
The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may not yet be owned by Microsoft.
Note to editors: If you are interested in viewing additional information on Microsoft, please visit the Microsoft Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ on Microsoft's corporate information pages. Web links, telephone numbers and titles were correct at time of publication, but are competely different now since we changed our minds. We cheat at Battleship too.
I am into the copy and paste.
WWJD
Wil Wheaton Just Died. (truly an American icon)