The presidential election-does it matter whom...

[POA]

''The presidential election -- does it matter whom you vote for?''
Printed on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 @ 00:15:29 CDT ( )

By Raff Ellis
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) -- The Middle East is often called a tinderbox that could ignite WWIII. The region has attracted many empire builders over the years, especially during the 20th century. All of these conquerors were eventually forced to turn tail, leaving a mess for others to clean up or exploit, as the case may have been. The U.S. is the latest of that motley crew to try its hand at this misadventure and time will tell when it will be forced to leave.

It is no coincidence, therefore, that the most serious global, political and humanitarian issues of our time are enveloped by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This knotty problem is bound together by the threads of religion, ethnicity, history and politics. And, because of the oil reserves of neighboring states, and Israel's designs for hegemony over the region, the conflict is exacerbated in importance.

Given that this is such a serious issue, those among us who study the stance of the presidential candidates are especially attuned to their positions and pronouncements on the Middle East. I might add that only a relative few of the electorate actually care about this momentous issue. The average voter, like the casual bettor at a racetrack, relies on a tout sheet, usually in the form of TV news, newspaper headlines or pronouncements from the major parties to make his decision. It is so much easier than researching bloodlines and performance records and appeals to the American way of having everything, including information, analysis and recommendations, served up fast-food style. This allows data to be ordered, consumed, digested and discarded in the shortest amount of time. The alimentary canal of the voter's brain has shrunk to the length of a synaptic jump and that's the way he and the politicians like it.

Candidates for office, using advice from their high-priced marketing and strategic advisors, feed the electorate short, euphemistic sound bites tailored to their constituency's shortcomings. The voters will have no need to study because tout sheets will be provided and readily available. Many will simply vote the party line -- nothing to think about, you're either a Democrat or Republican and the party leaders know best. Others will vote against a personality whose human foibles they have been conditioned by the media not to like. Still others will vote on a single issue such as Israel, religious convictions, the environment, jobs or how they perceive the economy is doing, etc. Many, who are disgusted by the process and choices offered, will not vote at all. The politicians like this group best.

So, if indeed the Middle East is the defining issue of our times, voters can begin to narrow their choice between A and … well, A. Yes, sad to say, there is absolutely no difference between the two major candidates on this issue. In fact the contest has devolved into a race to see who can out-fawn the other for the Israeli lobby's approval. The competition has reached ridiculous proportions with an outright disregard for principles of law, justice and morality.

Take the case of the Israeli Jailing Wall, AKA the Apartheid Wall or the "security fence." Interesting, isn't it, that when the East Germans built the Berlin Wall a hue and cry was raised about the cruelty of penning in freedom loving Germans and separating them from their relatives and friends. The East Germans must be paranoid it was said. How is it then we justified the expenditure of $Billions to destroy a wall built by communists, while giving $Billions to Israel who is erecting a similar wall? A concrete barrier erected by communists that divided a civilian population in Europe was a provocation to war, but a similar barrier in the Middle East is a step toward peace. When the Israelis do it, in the process confiscating large parcels of Palestinian land without so much as a shekel of compensation, separating farmers from their crops, families from their relatives and villages from their water, that's not only OK, both parties heartily endorse it.

Senator John Kerry recently released the following statement regarding the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on Israel's "security fence": "I am deeply disappointed by the ICJ ruling related to Israel's security fence. Israel's fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an important tool in Israel's fight against terrorism. It is not a matter for the ICJ."

So, this is how it works: You invade another people's territory and suppress and oppress the population; set up check points to make travel a severe hardship; harass and intimidate those trying to move from one place to another; block ambulances from taking sick people to hospitals; blow up houses of "suspected militants"; assassinate the leadership of opposition groups; harass protesters and demonstrators -- firing on them, wounding and even killing some of them; label any resistance by the occupied people as terrorism; plant settlers on 40% of the confiscated land; pave roads on their property that may be used only by Israelis; arm and encourage these land-grabbers to shoot at the local population, murder them, steal their crops, burn their orchards and poison their wells. Now you need to build a wall that meanders through their territory that will further jail, subjugate, harass, impoverish and intimidate these people in order to prevent "terrorism." In reality, this is a continuation of the policy of making life so miserable that the people will be forced to leave or to commit desperate acts that you can then label terrorism.

We all know the Bush record for endorsing the Israeli land grab, land that was not his to give. We also know that Kerry, not to be left behind, endorsed Bush's endorsement. He also approved starting the unprovoked war with Iraq that was justified by a concerted manipulation and fabrication of already skewed "intelligence" reports, much of it coming from Israel's vaunted intelligence services. "I'll do a better job of reducing the threat to Israel and the rest of the world," Kerry has said. "President Kerry will be a loyal friend to Israel," Cameron Kerry, the senator's brother and advisor promised the Israelis on his recent visit (not to the West Bank, of course).

Kerry also repeats the Israeli line that there is no Palestinian partner with which to negotiate peace. This after Sharon has done his best to emasculate and destroy the Palestinian Authority while ostensibly seeking peace. I'd advise any presidential hopeful to read the Likud policy pronouncements, especially the one that states there will never be a Palestinian State.

Only in America will promising to continue sending large sums of our taxpayer's money to a foreign state ensure a candidate's election. So, whom do you choose, Bush or Kerry? Although I believe it is in the best interest of the country to see the present administration booted out before it can cause more harm, I couldn't in good conscience vote for John Kerry. I choose "None of the Above," because it just doesn't matter.

[Raff Ellis lives in the United States and is a retired former computer industry executive. His writing hobby is stimulated by his ceaseless amazement at the truth of two of his favorite quotations: Puck's observation, "What fools these mortals be"; and "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people," variously attributed to PT Barnum and H.L. Menken.]

Raff Ellis encourages your comments: [e-mail]

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

[karpomrx]

When JFK and Kruschiev met in Vienna, they came to an understanding.
East Germany was suffering a drain of skilled workers and educated technicians at such a rate that the infrastructure of The "Peoples Democracy" might fall into the chaos of a collapse.
The deal was made that the West would go through the motions of cursing the terrible travesty which was the Wall, all the while making no real efforts to" liberate" the East. In return , the soviets would quit major support for "wars of liberation" in the western hemisphere.
The result would be a sort of modern line of papal demarcation, which would result in a stability for the cold warriors in which they could more freely exploit the citizens of their respective zones.
The west's claims for liberation in eastern bloc countries had no credibility in any event , after the debacle in Hungary and many other actions against soviet control which had only recieved lip-service from the west.
The ghettoes that Israel is setting up don't even have the pretence of any purpose beyond genocide and more terror.