2. mars 2004

Norwegian newspaper: Kerry is an evil pro-Israeli American, too A significant majority of Norwegians consider President George Bush a dumb, dangerous war-monger, and eagerly hope for the non-Bush candidate, whoever it is, to win. Some Norwegians may live under the misconception that there are significant differences between the Democrats and Republican parties when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. John Kerry is now almost certain to win the nomination, and the largest Norwegian newspaper VG warns that Kerry is not that much better than Bush after all. Kerry panders to USA's Jews is, believe it or not, the headline. After summarising the state of the primaries, and explaining that Kerry is now the big, big favourite, under the headline "Pro-Israel" follows this discussion of the Middle East position of the candiate: Kerry wants to bring the USA back to the world community, and cooperate with the UN to a much larger extent than what the Bush administration has been doing, he has said repeatedly. Considering that Norway, along with almost all our closest allies, are militarily involved with the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is a rather strange claim that the US is currently outside the world community. Is the "world community" suddenly consisting of only France and Germany? Ironically, Norwegian media hardly report news and politics from either country compared to how closely it follows British and US politics and events. However, that is a side issue here. Read on: But in a meeting with Jewish organisations in New York Sunday, he showed another side of himself. Kerry made it clear he would continue the Bush-administration's policy of vetoing all Security Council resolutions that are considered one-sided against Israel, the New York Times writes. Kerry is showing "another side," obviously the so-called unilateral side, and it is vaguely implied in this article that he shows a sinister side of himself by supporting Israel. The journalist appears ignorant that this has been the consistent position of the US for decades, with Democratic and Republican administrations alike. Some decades ago, most of Europe, including Norway, were also pro-Israel. It gets worse: He also repeated what he has earlier said about the wall Israel is building between Israeli and Palestinian areas. - It is a fence, not a wall, Kerry said with a rhetoric that clearly supports Israel's right to build the controversial wall. The journalist, Christian F. Brændshøi, obviously considers the word "wall", which is technically false and misleading in the case of the security barrier, as the neutral term, while the word "fence" is pro-Israeli rhetoric. This is an obvious outcome of life inside the echo chamber where Scandinavian journalists live and work. The factually neutral term has become political "rhetoric," the Palestinians' politically loaded term has become the default term, obviously because the word "wall" inspires the desired associations with the Berlin wall. If the article has not already crossed the blurred and unclear line between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism, it does so in the final paragraph: On the meeting, where he was uninhibitedly flirting with the Jewish representatives, Kerry said that he will become the first president with a Jewish background. His brother have converted to Judaism, and his grandparents on his father's side were Jews that once converted to Catholicism. More discussion about anti-Israelism vs anti-semitism here, here and here. 11:39:20 PM    comment []  trackback []

Saudi gay wedding? Probably the least likely place anyone would dare to perform a gay wedding: in Medina in Saudi Arabia. Everyone involved like the idea of having their heads next to the wardrobe and denies vehemently. It is very tempting, but somewhat unfair, I guess, to make some note about Bush's anti-gay policies here. So I don't. 6:48:00 PM    comment []  trackback []

Massacre on Shiite holy day Iraq's shiite Muslims have been able to celebrate the holiest of their festivals, Ashura, for the first time this year, but the celebrations in Karbala and Baghdad were subject to well-coordinated terror attacks leaving around 140 dead and 400 injured. This makes for the worst single day in the whole war aftermath. Both the US forces and Shia leaders put the blame on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist widely believed to be a member of al-Qaeda. It certainly ties in with an alleged letter from al-Zarqawi intercepted some weeks ago, where he set forth the plan of triggering a civil war in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis. Ashura is a celebration, or mourning, of the murder of Imam Hussein in 680. Martyrdom is central to Shiite theology. No doubt the attackers hope that this will spark Shiite anger towards Sunnis generally, and towards the Amercians who failed to protect them. I hope and think that will fail. At the same time, similar attacks with guns and bombs were carried out in Quetta in Pakistan, killing at least 41 Shiites and wounding 160, strengthening the theory this was a coordinated attack by an international terror organisation that is anti-Shia. 6:32:59 PM    comment []  trackback []

The pain of no pain Perhaps the only thing worse than pain is being born without the ability to feel pain at all, like three-year old Gabby Gingras. Poor child. 2:44:38 PM    comment []  trackback []

Witness: US soldiers forced Aristide into exile French RTL has spoken to a man claiming to be Aristide's old caretaker, and who says the former Haitian president did not at all leave voluntarily: "The American army came to take him away at two in the morning," the man said. "The Americans forced him out with weapons. "It was American soldiers. They came with a helicopter and they took the security guards. "(Aristide) was not happy. He did not want to be taken away. He did not want to leave. He was not able to fight against the Americans." Hard to know if this is true, but it would be kinda cool if it was. Aristide now says he was forced out, but not outright kidnapped, by the Americans. Colin Powel insists the president left totally voluntarily. Aristids allies are whining about a coup d'etat. Obviously, it would be better for them if he died in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, along with many of his countrymen. Update: In this interview, Aristide makes an accusation of "coup d'etat" explicit, but his explanation is less than convincing: DOBBS: Mr. Aristide ... are you suggesting that you were then in point of fact taken by force by U.S. military? ARISTIDE: Of course, from Saturday -- from Saturday night, the 28th ... I was told that ... I better leave. And under a kind of diplomatic cover, they talked to me. And military talked to me. American agents talked to me. Haitian agents talked to me. And I finally realized it was true, we were going to have bloodshed. And when I asked how many people may get killed, and they said thousands may get killed. So using that kind of force to lead a coup d'etat, it was clear, as I said. This is a misuse of language designed to give cheap headlines to the anti-American press. If US agents told Aristide that thousands could get killed if it came to a military showdown, they were telling him a truth obvious to every observer. They were the messenger; they did not assert pressure but explained that this pressure was created by the hostile environment. Aristide could, the way he explains it, say no and refuse to leave. The accusation of "coup" against the Americans is nonsensical. 7:25:07 AM    comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland. Last update: 31.03.2004; 03:00:14.