ON BOGUS PETITIONS AGAINST THE
WAR ON IRAQ: THE PRO-"ANTI-WAR"
PETITION

A petition, ostensibly against the
proposed US war against Iraq, has been
written and circulated by a bunch of
liberal American Jews (plus Edward Said).
Apparently, well-meaning people bit into
the bait and began circulating this
petition.

In the following text, FAV's Muhammad Abu
Nasr examines this petition incisively to
demonstrate how and where it ends up
SUPPORTING the aggression on Iraq. The
point is not to tear apart this petition
in particular, but to critique the liberal
line on "opposing" the war on Iraq, which
ends up justifying that war. The petition
in question, though, is appended at
the end of this text.

The Free Arab Voice

Liberal Tunes:

SUPPORTING IMPERIALIST
AGGRESSION IN THE GUISE OF
OPPOSING IT

by Muhammad Abu Nasr

There are several very major points, as well as lots of minor ones, in the petition on the website of Z-Magazine (below) that are extremely harmful and cannot be accepted by anyone seriously opposed to the war on Iraq.

First. The main thrust of the petition is revealed in its title: "we oppose Saddam Hussein and the US war on Iraq and call for a democratic US foreign policy".

Let us look at this proposition. This is a petition signed mainly by Americans announcing their opposition to the Iraqi government, giving that issue EQUAL WEIGHT with their opposition to the US war.

Later on, the document specifies that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown. Yes, it says that the Iraqi people are the ones who must do that, but why are these Americans signing this document so eager to tell the Iraqi people to change their government? This is clearly NOT leaving the political fate of Iraq up to the Iraqis; it is PRESCRIBING what regime Iraq should have.

Particularly now, when the US has set its goal as changing the regime in Iraq and claims to want a "democratic" order there, this petition is IN EFFECT BACKING the US effort to subvert the Iraqi state, since it specifically calls for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In fact, Bush himself is in agreement with this petition for he TOO said just recently that he would prefer to secure "democracy" in Iraq without war.

Are the authors of this petition advocating "regime change" in Iraq as a PRECONDITION for their opposition to war? If they are not, then there is no need for them to bring up the issue of "regime change" at all. Why do they do it? Because they are insisting on their "right" to prescribe some new regime for Iraq, and are trying to smuggle this call in UNDER THE COVER OF AN ANTI-WAR PETITION.

If they are simply opposed to war against Iraq, they can write and we will sign a petition against war. Period. There is no reason for it to prescribe what sort of government Iraq or other Arab states should have. That is irrelevant. It has been injected here -- indeed as half of the basic call of the petition -- because the authors of the petition presume a colonialist right to prescribe regimes for other peoples.

Second. This petition STRAYS way off the presumed main purpose of opposing war on Iraq in other ways too.

In addition to its insistence on regime change in Iraq (echoing the US Administration) it says that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the "security of his neighbors".

Do the authors of this petition feel concern on behalf of Turkey? Iran? -- that would be irrational.

Do they fear for Kuwait? Here we run into the issue of the larger concern of Arab unity, which is an Arab issue in which they are in fact meddling, at a juncture when Saudi-Iraqi relationships, and to a lesser Extent, Kuwaiti-Iraqi relationships, seem to be improving.

Or are they concerned for the welfare of the Zionist entity? In fact, when the US government says that Saddam Hussein is a "threat to the security of his neighbors" that statement is understood to imply a threat to the Zionist entity. But I will applaud, not condemn, a regime that is a threat to that racist, colonial settler regime. Arab self-determination demands such resistance.

Third. In line with this solicitousness for the Zionist state, the petition specifically labels "Palestinian suicide bombers" as "terrorists", lumping them together with al-Qa`idah as a terrorist threat to the United States that needs to be fought. This is totally unacceptable to anyone who supports self-determination of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian resistance struggle is legitimate regardless of choice of targets or tactics which must be determined ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERESTS OF THAT STRUGGLE BY THE PALESTINIANS THEMSELVES

But rather than legitimize the Palestinians' liberation struggle, this petition justifies the basic conception of US "war on terror" by branding the Palestinian struggle as "terrorist".

Along these lines the petition actually also justifies a crackdown within the US on supporters of the Palestinian struggle on the grounds that that struggle is to be regarded as "terrorism" and a "threat" to the US. The consequences are obvious for Arab and Muslim residents in America.

Fourth. The petition proclaims a right of "self-determination" for "Israeli Jews". This is absolutely unacceptable.

Jews, as is known, are a religious group, not a nationality and therefore have no "right to self-determination", anymore than Mormons, Zoroastrians, or Hare Krishnas have any such right.

If the Jews in occupied Palestine (here designated as "Israel") claim that they have come to form a nationality in the last half century, then all colonies foisted on any people anywhere have the "right of self-determination" simply by virtue of forcibly settling themselves on someone else's land!

The White colonists in South Africa, for example, could have said that they constitute a "White nation" that had a right to self determination as a "white country" in Africa.

The French in Algeria could have claimed the right to "self-determine" in the northern coastal areas of that Arab country.

The Nazis in World War II could have proclaimed their "right" of "self-determination" in the lands they subjugated and occupied, instead of calling them "Lebensraum".

IF A COLONY CAN CLAIM TO CONSTITUTE ITSELF A "NATION" AND THEN SAY THAT IT DESERVES THE RIGHT TO "SELF-DETERMINATION" ON THE LAND THAT IT HAS OCCUPIED, THEN THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION ITSELF HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A MEANINGLESS MOCKERY THAT DEVOLVES UPON WHOEVER IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO SEIZE CONTROL OF THE LAND, PUSH OUT THE NATIVE INHABITANTS, AND RAISE THEIR FLAG.

This, furthermore, contradicts the authors' proclaimed interest in the democratization of states in the region. The petition specifies various Arab states, Iran, and Turkey as in need of democratization, but says nothing about the racist exclusivist group that has seized control of Palestine and proclaimed there a "Jewish state". Surely that must be the foremost affront to democracy, a glaring case of colonial rule. The silence of the petition on this reality is deafening.

While calling for no war on Iraq, the petition drags in a host of side issues that are highly harmful to the interests of the Arab people. It echoes the US Administration's calls for regime change in Iraq. It accepts and legitimizes the Zionist state, insisting that colonialist "Israeli Jews" have a right to self-determination, thereby undermining the concept of self-determination altogether. At the same time it denounces Palestinian human bombs as "terrorists" and categorizes the Palestinian resistance struggle as a "terrorist threat" that needs to be fought.

If the authors of this petition were genuinely interested in opposing war, they could simply have written a petition against US aggression, insisting correctly that such a war would cause massive loss of life, now and into the future.

Why did they have to drag in unrelated issues like the demand for regime change in several Arab states, or the supposed "legitimacy" of the Jewish colony known as "Israel"?

Clearly they are trying to pass off what amounts to A LIBERAL IMPERIALIST AGENDA as some sort of "anti-war" petition.

There is no reason why we should endorse in any way the new American Sykes-Picot, i.e., a new division of Arab states -- whether it is imposed by force or smuggled in by liberal trickery.

The Pro-"anti-war" Petition:
>From http://www.zmag.org/antiwarsigners.htm

We oppose the impending U.S.-led war on Iraq, which threatens to inflict vast suffering and destruction, while exacerbating rather than resolving threats to regional and global peace. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who should be removed from power, both for the good of the Iraqi people and for the security of neighboring countries. However, it is up to the Iraqi people themselves to oust Saddam Hussein, dismantle his police state regime, and democratize their country. People in the United States can be of immense help in this effortnot by supporting military intervention, but by building a strong peace movement and working to ensure that our government pursues a consistently democratic and just foreign policy.

We do not believe that the goal of the approaching war against Iraq is to bring democracy to the Iraqis, nor that it will produce this result. Instead, the Bush Administration's aim is to expand and solidify U.S. predominance in the Middle East, at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian lives if necessary. This war is about U.S. political, military and economic power, about seizing control of oilfields and about strengthening the United States as the enforcer of an inhumane global status quo. That is why we are opposed to war against Iraq, whether waged unilaterally by Washington or by the UN Security Council, unaccountable to the UN General Assembly and bullied and bribed into endorsing the war.

The U.S. military may have the ability to destroy Saddam Hussein, but the United States cannot promote democracy in the Muslim world and peace in the Middle East, nor can it deal with the threat posed to all of us by terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda, and by weapons of mass destruction, by pursuing its current policies. Indeed, the U.S. could address these problems only by doing the opposite of what it is doing today that is, by:

           ·    Renouncing the use of military intervention to extend and 
                consolidate U.S. imperial power, and withdrawing U.S. 
                troops from the Middle East. 
           ·	Ending its support for corrupt and authoritarian regimes,
                e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Egypt. 
           ·	Opposing, and ending U.S. complicity in, all forms of 
                terrorism worldwide  not just by Al Qaeda, Palestinian 
                suicide bombers and Chechen hostage takers, but also by 
                Colombian paramilitaries, the Israeli military in the Occupied 
                Territories and Russian counterinsurgency forces in
                Chechnya. 
           ·	Ending the cruel sanctions on Iraq, which inflict massive
                harm on the civilian population. 
           ·	Supporting the right of national self-determination for all 
                peoples in the Middle East, including the Kurds, Palestinians 
                and Israeli Jews. Ending one-sided support for Israel in the 
                Palestinian-Israeli conflict. 
           ·	Taking unilateral steps toward renouncing weapons of mass 
                destruction, including nuclear weapons, and vigorously 
                promoting international disarmament treaties.
           ·	Abandoning IMF/World Bank economic policies that bring
                mass misery to people in large parts of the world. Initiating 
                a major foreign aid program directed at popular rather than 
                corporate needs.

A U.S. government that carried out these policies would be in a position to honestly and consistently foster democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It could encourage democratic forces (not unrepresentative cliques, but genuinely popular parties and movements) in Iraq, Iran and Syria, as well as Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey. Some of these forces exist today, others have yet to arise, but all would flower if nurtured by a new U.S. foreign policy.

These initiatives, taken together, would constitute a truly democratic foreign policy. Only such a policy could begin to reverse the mistrust and outright hatred felt by so much of the world's population toward the U.S. At the same time, it would weaken the power of dictatorships and the appeal of terrorism and reactionary religious fundamentalism. Though nothing the United States can do would decisively undermine these elements right away, over time a new U.S. foreign policy would drastically undercut their power and influence.

The Administration's frantic and flagrantly dishonest efforts to portray Saddam Hussein as an imminent military threat to people in this country and to the inhabitants of other Middle Eastern countries lack credibility. Saddam Hussein is a killer and serial aggressor who would doubtless like nothing better than to wreak vengeance on the U.S. and to dominate the Gulf Region. But there is no reason to believe he is suicidal or insane. Considerable evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein is much weaker militarily than he was before the Gulf War and that he is still some distance from being able to manufacture nuclear weapons. But most important, unlike Al Qaeda, he has a state and a position of power to protect; he knows that any Iraqi act of aggression now against the U.S. or his neighbors would bring about his total destruction. As even CIA Director George Tenet has pointed out, it is precisely the certainty of a war to the finish against his regime that would provide Saddam Hussein with the incentive he now lacks to use whatever weapons he has against the U.S. and its allies.

Weapons of mass destruction endanger us all and must be eliminated. But a war against Iraq is not the answer. War threatens massive harm to Iraqi civilians, will add to the ranks of terrorists throughout the Muslim world, and will encourage international bullies to pursue further acts of aggression. Everyone is legitimately concerned about terrorism; however, the path to genuine security involves promoting democracy, social justice and respect for the right of self-determination, along with disarmament, weapons-free-zones, and inspections. Of all the countries in the world, the United States possesses by far the most powerful arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. If the U.S. were to initiate a democratic foreign policy and take serious steps toward disarmament, it would be able to encourage global disarmament as well as regional demilitarization in the Middle East.

The Bush Administration has used the alleged Iraqi military danger to justify an alarming new doctrine of preemptive war. In the National Security Strategy, publicly released on September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration asserted that the U.S. has the right to attack any country that might be a potential threat, not merely in response to an act of military aggression. Much of the world sees this doctrine for what it is: the proclamation of an undisguised U.S. global imperium.

Ordinary Iraqis, and people everywhere, need to know that there is another America, made up of those who both recognize the urgent need for democratic change in the Middle East and reject our government's militaristic and imperial foreign policy. By signing this statement we declare our intention to work for a new democratic U.S. foreign policy. That means helping to rein in the war-makers and building the most powerful antiwar movement possible, and at the same time forging links of solidarity and concrete support for democratic forces in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

We refuse to accept the inevitability of war on Iraq despite the enormous military juggernaut that has been put in place, and we declare our commitment to work with others in this country and abroad to avert it. And if war should start, we will do all in our power to end it immediately.