ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n495

Internet Message Format | 2001-12-17 | 52KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #495
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Tuesday, December 18 2001    Volume 01 : Number 495




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:03:02 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: [indianpointsec] the news in England

>X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-4348796-50-1008250816-aslater=[e-mail]
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>X-Apparently-To: [e-mail]
>To: "*IPSEC" <[e-mail]>
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Importance: Normal
>From: "Mark Jacobs" <[e-mail]>
>Mailing-List: list [e-mail]; contact
[e-mail]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [e-mail]
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]>
>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:39:53 -0500
>Subject: [indianpointsec] the news in England
>Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
>X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: RJ Marx [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 10:37 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: [closeindianpoint] the news in England
>
>
>THURSDAY DECEMBER 13 2001
>
>
>
>Plug pulled on nuclear power
>
>
>
>BY TOM BALDWIN, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR
>
>
>
>MINISTERS are preparing to sound the death knell for Britain's nuclear
>power industry by ruling out any further tax breaks or subsidies for new
>reactors.
>The decision means that as the UK's 15 existing reactors reach the end
>of their lives over the next 20 years, replacement power stations will
>be effectively priced out of the market.
>The Government's review, being published within the next month, will
>instead propose targets under which by 2020 one fifth of UK electricity
>is generated from renewable sources such as wind power.
>The review will not ban nuclear power and does not rule out reactors
>being built if there was a threat to gas supplies from abroad or
>renewable energy technology failed.
>However, it will make it clear that nuclear power stations must pay
>their own way without government support. Private investors would have
>to meet the full cost of recycling and disposing of waste, as well as
>eventual decommissioning of any such plants.
>Leaks of the review, disclosed yesterday to The Times, estimate that
>under such market conditions by 2020 nuclear power will be up to three
>times more expensive than electricity generated from renewable sources
>or gas-fired stations.
>The review, conducted by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation
>Unit, is intended to set out the Government's energy strategy for the
>next generation.
>Although nuclear power does not cause pollution like gas or coal-fired
>electricity generation, the Government believes that the best way of
>combating global warming is to subsidise renewable energy supply. The
>review will also highlight public concern over radioactive waste, as
>well as the risk of accidents or terrorist attacks at nuclear plants.
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[e-mail]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>Unlimited PC-PC calling at Crystal Voice! - Only $1/Mo.
>Download your free 30 day trial. Click here.
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/Gb1xVB/GxbDAA/ySSFAA/_lOolB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[e-mail]
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:51:22 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: [MBMD-INESAP] U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty

>
> X-eGroups-Return:
>
sentto-3027572-45-1008265829-aslater=[e-mail]
> X-Sender: [e-mail]
> X-Apparently-To: [e-mail]
> X-Sender: [e-mail]@mail.wagingpeace.org
> To: [e-mail]
> From: Carah Lynn Ong
> X-Yahoo-Profile: delfin_carah
> Mailing-List: list [e-mail]; contact
> [e-mail]
> Delivered-To: mailing list [e-mail]
> List-Unsubscribe:
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:46:34 -0700
> Subject: [MBMD-INESAP] U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
> Thursday December 13 10:28 AM ET
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
>
> By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - In a historic break with Russia, President Bush served
> formal notice Thursday that the United States is withdrawing from the 1972
> Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a move effective in six months.
>
> ``I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to
develop
> ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile
> attacks,'' Bush said.
>
> ``Defending the American people is my highest priority as commander in chief
> and I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that
> prevents us from developing effective defenses,'' Bush said.
>
> Bush emerged from a meeting with his National Security Council to make the
> announcement in the Rose Garden, with Secretary of State Colin Powell,
> Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers
> and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice at his side.
>
> ``The Cold War is long gone,'' Bush said. ``Today we leave behind one of its
> last vestiges. But this is not a day for looking back. This is a day for
> looking forward with hope of greater prosperity and peace.
>
> ``We're moving to replace mutually assured destruction with mutual
> cooperation,'' Bush said.
>
> Bush said he and his top advisers, before making the decision public, had
> gone over the same issues he had discussed with the Russian president - ``my
> friend President Vladimir Putin,'' Bush called him - over several meetings
> this year.
>
> ``President Putin and I have also agreed that my decision to withdraw from
> the treaty will not in any way undermine our new relationship or Russian
> security,'' Bush said.
>
> The U.S. ambassador to Moscow delivered formal notice of Bush's decision to
> Russian officials at 4:30 a.m. EST, according to a senior administration
> official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
>
> The brief legal document invokes Article 15 of the 29-year-old treaty to
give
> Russia six months' notice of Bush's intentions. The official said Bush has,
> in effect, pulled out of the treaty with the notification, though the United
> States cannot conduct missile tests barred by the treaty for six months.
>
> At 9 a.m. EST, formal notice was given to Ukraine, Kazakstan and Belarus,
> former Soviet states that signed memoranda of understanding tying them to
the
> pact under the Clinton administration.
>
> Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov said the decision was regrettable
> because it undermined global strategic balances - but he was not concerned
> about Russia's security.
>
> ``Russia can be unconcerned with its defense systems,'' said Kasyanov, who
> was in Brazil for a two-day visit. ``Maybe other nations should be concerned
> if the United States chooses to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.''
>
> Bush, who campaigned last year on building the kind of missile defense
shield
> banned by the treaty, said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made his cause
more
> urgent.
>
> ``Today, the events of Sept. 11 made all too clear the greatest threats to
> both our countries come not from each other or other big powers in the world
> but from terrorist attacks who strike without warning or rogue states who
> seek weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said.
>
> The president emphasized his appreciation of Russia's help in the U.S.-led
> war on terrorism and he reiterated his pledge to reduce America's nuclear
> arsenal, a commitment Putin had sought and won when the two presidents met
> last month in Washington.
>
> Putin cautioned last winter that jettisoning the treaty could lead to the
> unraveling of three decades of arms control accords. China has warned a new
> arms race could ensue.
>
> But according to Bush administration officials, Putin assured Bush during
> their October talks in Washington and Crawford, Texas, that U.S.-Russian
> relations would not suffer even if Bush pulled out of the treaty.
>
> Bush tried to strike a deal with Putin that would allow the United States to
> move to a new phase of testing in the U.S. missile defense program. Putin
had
> sought authority to sign off on U.S. missile tests, but the request was
> rejected, administration officials said.
>
> The next scheduled step is the beginning of construction next spring of
silos
> and a testing command center near Fairbanks, Alaska.
>
> The Bush administration intends to cooperate with Russia at least to the
> extent of informing Moscow of steps being taken to advance the
missile-shield
> program.
>
> That's not likely to stop Russia from taking retaliatory steps. A senior
> Russian lawmaker predicted Russia will pull out of the Start I and Start II
> arms reduction treaties.
>
> ``We believe that offensive and defensive tools of nuclear deterrence
must be
> linked,'' said Dmitry Rogozin, chairman of the Duma's international affairs
> committee, according to Interfax news agency.
>
> Such a spiral of withdrawals would be dangerous - and predictable, said Sen.
> Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
>
> ``Unilateral withdrawal will likely lead to an action-reaction cycle in
> offensive and defensive technologies, including countermeasures,'' he said.
> ``That kind of arms race would not make us more secure.''
>
> Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
> Committee, also said quitting the treaty could lead to a new arms race.
>
> ``About eight months ago they were taking about weaponizing space,'' Biden
> said Wednesday. ``God help us when that moment comes.''
>
> Bush has condemned the treaty as an impediment to mounting a U.S. defense
> against missile attack now that the Cold War is over. Defense Secretary
> Donald H. Rumsfeld has been deferring tests that might violate the treaty.
>
> The treaty, negotiated during Cold War tensions between the United States
and
> the old Soviet Union, prohibits the development, testing and deployment of
> strategic missile defense systems and components that are based in the air,
> at sea or in space.
>
> It is based on the proposition that stripping a nuclear power of a tough
> missile defense would inhibit it from launching an attack because the
> retaliation would be deadly.
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=215839.1778785.3296727.1261774/D=egroupweb/S
> =1705083663:HM/A=868539/R=0/*http://zappos.zappos.com/bin/zapposset?ref=ya
> hoogroups2>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>






- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:18:20 -0500
From: David Culp <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Some good news on nuclear weapons

MINI-NUKES

The Bush administration may have decided not to pursue development of a new
nuclear weapon, or "mini-nuke".  This is good news.

Last year, Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) attempted to
include language in the annual defense authorization bill to develop a
"mini-nuke" that would be used against hardened or deeply buried targets.
The language was watered down by the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and later by the Democrats from the House Armed Services
Committee in the conference committee on the bill.  The main result of the
Warner-Allard provision was the requirement for a study by the Pentagon to
Congress on mini-nukes.

Also last year, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) included $15 million for
development of the new warhead in the Senate versions of the energy and
water appropriations bill.  House representatives to the conference
committee deleted the funds.

The study required by the Warner-Allard provision was delivered to the House
and Senate Armed Services Committee at the end of November in a classified
report done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  The study concludes that a new
nuclear warhead is not needed.

Recently a group of religious leaders met with Franklin Miller, who is in
charge of arms control policy for the National Security Council.  He stated
that there is "no military requirement" for a mini-nuke.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the
Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, and all the members of the
House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee deserve credit for
opposing this program.  The Bush administration should be commended for
making the right decision.

However, this issue may not be resolved.  There are reports that a
late-November draft of the Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review calls
for developing a "mini-nuke".  That report is being written by the staff of
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and may be delivered to Congress on
December 28.  There appears to be a sharp split within the Bush
administration, with the military not wanting to develop a new nuclear
warhead and the civilian political appointees pushing for such a warhead.


REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON NUCLEAR REDUCTIONS

Several years ago, Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) succeeded in adding a provision to
the statute books that bars the President from reducing the nuclear arsenal
below START I numbers.  After several years of effort, the restrictions
(known as the "Smith provision" or Section 1302) were repealed by the
House-Senate conference committee on the defense authorization bill.  That
bill is slated for final House approval today (Thursday, December 13) and in
the Senate today or tomorrow.

Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) was the champion in the House on this issue.  Senate
chairman Levin again provided the political heft to ensure its repeal.

Without repeal of the Smith provision, the nuclear weapons reductions
announced by President Bush at the recent Crawford summit could not gone
into effect.


DE-ALERTING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The conference committee on the defense authorization bill, S. 1438,
included a requirement that the Pentagon study "the possibility of
deactivating or dealerting nuclear warheads or delivery systems immediately,
or immediately after a decision to retire any specific warhead, class of
warheads, or delivery system."  The final study provision had been included
in the Senate version of the defense bill by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI).  Reps.
Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) were the strong House advocates
for the issue.


In short, some good news on nuclear weapons.


David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)
245 Second Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.  20002-5795
Tel: [phone], ext. 146
Toll free: [phone], ext. 146
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Web site: www.fcnl.org

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:53:53 +0000
From: Sally Light <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NDE's January presentations in Berkeley, California

NDE's January 2002 Line-Up of Exciting Speakers!

Friends,

Our "Monday Night Series" in Berkeley has three exceptional programs
planned:

Jan. 14 -  Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against
Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, will give a presentation on the latest

re: "Star Wars"/missile defense.  An internationally - acclaimed
speaker,
organizer and activist, Bruce is not to be missed.  His network is the
leading
grassroots group dealing with these issues.

Jan. 21 - Corbin Harney, Spiritual Leader of the Western Shoshone.  Love

by people around the world, Corbin Harney's profound message seems
to emanate from Mother Earth.

Jan. 28 - Bal Pinguet, American Friends Service Committee.  Bal was a
leading student organizer in the Philippines.  He was arrested, jailed
and
tortured there.  He now works at an international level with AFSC, and
is an outstanding speaker as well as peace activist-organizer.

These 3 events are likely to be crowded, but we have plenty of space
for all.

Location:  Nevada Desert Experience's Berkeley office located in the
Wesley Student Center, 2398 Bancroft Way (at Dana), directly across the
street from the UC campus.

Time:  6 - 9 pm.

Light refreshments will be provided.

All are welcome.  Donations not required but are appreciated.

For further information, please contact Nevada Desert Experience at
[phone].

In peace,

Sally Light
Executive Director
Nevada Desert Experience



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:52:14 -0800
From: Tim Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Stop The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Dear Abolition Caucus:

I am tired of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and believe that the
international community must force them to stop fighting!  I therefore
believe that an international peace enforcement force (armed with the
latest weapons, including the latest non-lethal weapons, and consisting
of U.S. and EU troops) should be sent in to quash terrorist groups, end
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stop expansion of
Israeli settlements, and start rebuilding in those areas.  To secure
Palestinian and Israeli cooperation, I propose the following:

I. An offer to Arafat to send in the troops as "reinforcements" to help
him shut
down the terrorist groups as he promised to do in today's speech, and
also end
Israel's occupation of Palestine (which should be a very powerful
incentive!) and
send in the Army Corp of Engineers to start the rebuilding process.
Also offer
massive economic aid to replace the Hamas controlled charities.

II. An offer to Israel to help end the Palestinian terrorist attacks,
and an
offer of increased aid, in return for Israel ending its attacks against
Palestinians, expansion of Israeli settlements, occupation of the
Palestinian
territories, and its economic blockade of the same.

III. If Arafat refuses, we cut off all aid to the Palestinian
territories and
send in the troops anyway to help Israel quash the terrorists.

IV. If Israel refuses, we cut off all aid to Israel and send in the
troops to
push the Israeli troops out of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

V. If both refuses, send in the troops to take over the West Bank and
Gaza strip
from both Israeli AND Palestinian forces, and quash all terrorist
activities by
both Palestinians and Israelis.

How would you end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:30:35 -0800
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) The Three Wise Women and What Love Means

Below is excerpted from Ann Landers' Column:

Do you know what would have happened if there had been Three Wise Women
instead of Three Wise Men?  They would have asked directions, arrived on
time, helped deliver the baby, cleaned the stable, made a casserole, brought
practical gifts, and there would be peace on earth.  -- Pat in Louisiana

(To that list I would add: "and everyone would still remember that this
December 25, 2001, is the recognized traditional 2000th birthday anniversary
of Jesus")--dcw

- -----------

WHAT DOES LOVE MEAN?


A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to
8-year-olds: What does love mean?"  The answers they got were broader and
deeper than anyone could have imagined.  See what you think:

When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn't bend over and paint her
toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even
when his hands got arthritis too. That's love." Rebecca - age 8

When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You know
that your name is safe in their mouth." Billy - age 4

Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and
they go out and smell each other." Karl - age 5

Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French
fries without making them give you any of theirs." Chrissy - age 6

Love is what makes you smile when you're tired." Terri - age 4

Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip
before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK." Danny - age 7

Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening
presents and listen," Bobby - age 5

If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend whom
you hate." Nikka - age 6

There are two kinds of love. Our love. God's love. But God makes both
kinds of them." Jenny - age 4

Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it
everyday."  Noelle - age 7

Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still
friends even after they know each other so well." Tommy - age 6

My mommy loves me more than anybody. You don't see anyone else kissing me
to sleep at night." Clare - Age 5

Love is when mommy gives daddy the best piece of chicken." Elaine - age 5

Love is when mommy sees daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is
handsomer than Robert Redford." Chris - age 8

Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all
day." Mary Ann - age 4

I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes
and has to go out and buy new ones." Lauren - age 4

I let my big sister pick on me because my Mom says she only picks on me
because she loves me. So I pick on my baby sister because I love her."
Bethany - age 4

When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars
come out of you." Karen - age 7

Love is when mommy sees daddy on the toilet and she doesn't think it's
gross." Mark - age 6

You really shouldn't say 'I love you' unless you mean it. But if you mean
it, you should say it a lot. People forget,"Jessica - age 8

- -----------


forwarded by

David Crockett Williams
Third Millennium Project
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/third-millennium-project




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:17:36 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) FW: OSLO: ISRAEL'S BANTUSTAN

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>



- -----Original Message-----
From: msanews eds [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:59 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: OSLO: ISRAEL'S BANTUSTAN


*****************************************************
                   MSANEWS
    Support MSANEWS, a project of learning
              and enlightenment
  "Truth today is estranged; and those who claim
  it are unknown." -- Al-Jahiz (776-868)

  "The Universe is undergoing a complete upheaval...
  Its nature is going to change so as to enable its
  creation anew." -- Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
*****************************************************

Source: Direct Submission
Email: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:59:23 -0600
Title: OSLO: ISRAEL'S BANTUSTAN

TEXT:

(excerpted from The Link, January/February 2002)

It was my great honor and pleasure to have served as the Legal
Adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace
Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, including and especially to
the Head of the Delegation, Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi. A man of
great courage, integrity, and principle. I would fight the
Devil himself for Dr. Abdul Shaffi. The following invited
reflections are to the best of my immediate recollection. The
viewpoints expressed here are solely my own.

Palestinian Good Faith

The Palestinian Delegation entered the Middle East Peace
negotiations in good faith in order to negotiate an Interim
Peace Agreement with Israel that would create a Palestinian
Interim Self-Government for a transitional five-year period.
Indeed, immediately after the ceremonial opening at Madrid on
30 October 1991, I was instructed to draft several Position
Papers on numerous issues that were expected to come up during
the first round of negotiations scheduled to begin a month
later in Washington, D.C. But when we got to our Headquarters
at the Grand Hotel in Washington, nothing happened. There were
no reasonable good-faith negotiations conducted by the Israeli
Team for dealing with the Palestinians at U.S. State
Department Headquarters, which was the venue for all Tracks of
the Middle East Peace negotiations.

Shamir's Stall-job

At that time the Israeli Government was headed by the Likud
Party under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. And later on Shamir
admitted that his so-called strategy at the peace negotiations
was to drag them out for the next decade. Having been
personally subjected to this process, I can assure you that
Prime Minister Shamir accomplished his objective for as long
as he was in power.

But what was most distressing of all was that the United
States State Department went along with Shamir's strategy of
stalling. It became quite obvious that the U.S. State
Department officials involved with the negotiations had no
intention whatsoever to pressure Israel to negotiate in good
faith. Indeed, it was usually the case that U.S. State
Department officials sided with the Israeli Delegation against
the Palestinian Delegation in support of Shamir's
stall-strategy. Furthermore, having done some work at the
request of the Syrian Delegation to the Middle East Peace
Negotiations (who were also headquartered in the Grand Hotel)
during the First Round in Washington, D.C., I can certify that
the above phenomena were also true for the Israeli-Syrian
Track.

Labor vs. Likud?

But Likhud lost the elections in June of 1992, and the Labor
Party came to power under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. One of
the first changes Rabin made with respect to the Middle East
peace negotiations was to fire the Israeli Syrian Team of
negotiators, and bring in new and dynamic leadership under
Professor Itimar Rabinowitz, generally considered to be
Israel's top expert on Syria. With the new Israeli Syrian Team
in place, substantial progress was made during the course of
the Israeli-Syrian Track to such an extent that if Labor had
won the next round of Israeli elections, it was clear there
would have been an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement along the
lines of the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty. This could still
happen now if Israel ever becomes willing to implement U.N.
Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which Israel is
obligated to do in any event.

By comparison, Prime Minister Rabin kept the Likud Team for
negotiating with the Palestinian Delegation. This was a most
inauspicious sign. Soon thereafter, in the late Summer of
1992, the Israeli Team tendered a proposal for an Interim
Peace Agreement that included a draft Palestinian interim
self-government to the Palestinian Delegation in Washington.

Israel's Bantustan Proposal

Because of its importance, Dr. Abdul Shaffi asked me to fly
out personally to Washington, D.C. in order to analyze this
proposal for the entire Palestinian Delegation in situ. One of
my

responsibilities had been to analyze all preceding peace
proposals put forward by Israel with respect to the
Palestinians going all the way back to the original Camp David
Accords, including the ensuing "Linowitz negotiations" that
took place thereafter under the Carter Administration. Upon my
arrival at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Pentagon City where the
Palestinian Delegation was then headquartered, I was ushered
into a suite where the Delegation Leaders had assembled, and
then instructed by one of its accredited negotiators: "Tell us
what is the closest historical analogue to what they are
offering us here!"

I then went back to my hotel room and spent an entire day
reading through and analyzing the Israeli proposal. When my
analysis was finished, I returned to the same suite and
reported to the Delegation: "A bantustan. They are offering
you a bantustan. As you know, the Israelis have very close
relations with the Afrikaner Apartheid Regime in South Africa.
It appears that they have studied the bantustan system quite
closely. And so it is a bantustan that they are offering you."

I then proceeded to go through the entire Israeli Proposal in
detail in order to substantiate my bantustan conclusion. I
also pointed out to the Palestinian Delegation that this
proposal basically carried out Prime Minister Menachim Begin's
disingenuous misinterpretation of the Camp David Accords --
which was rejected by U.S. President Jimmy Carter -- that all
they called for was autonomy for the Palestinian People and
not for the Palestinian Land as well. Even worse yet, Israel's
proposed Palestinian interim self-government would be legally
set up to function as the Civilian Arm of the Israeli military
occupation forces! Not surprisingly, after consultations among
themselves, and under the Chairmanship of Dr. Haidar Abdul
Shaffi, the Palestinian Delegation rejected Israel's bantustan
proposal.

The Palestinian Anti-Bantustan Proposal

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Abdul Shaffi personally requested that
I return to Washington, D.C. in order to consult with the
entire Palestinian Delegation for a second time on this
matter. I had a series of sequential meetings with the
different members of the Delegation in order to hear them out
and understand their basic concerns about negotiating an
Interim Peace Agreement with Israel. I was then ushered into
Dr. Abdul Shaffi's private suite. It was just the two of us
alone.

Dr. Abdul Shaffi then quite solemnly instructed me: "Professor
Boyle, we have decided to ask you to draft this Interim Peace
Agreement for us. Do whatever you want! But do not sell out
our right to our State!" The emphasis was that of Dr. Abdul
Shaffi.

I responded to him quite simply: "Do not worry, Dr. Abdul
Shaffi. As you know, I was the one who first called for the
creation of the Palestinian State back at United Nations
Headquarters in June of 1987, and then served as the Legal
Adviser to the P.L.O. on its creation. I will do nothing to
harm it!" I then went back to my hotel room in order to
research, conceptualize, and develop the Palestinian approach
to negotiating an Interim Peace Agreement with Israel that was
designed to get the Palestinians from where they were then,
eventually to a free, viable, democratic independent nation
state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip with their capital in
Jerusalem, and by the required intermediate means of
establishing a genuine Palestinian interim self-government,
which was not a bantustan.

I spent an entire day sketching out what I shall call here my
"anti-bantustan" proposal for the Palestinian Delegation to
consider. I then met again with Dr. Abdul Shaffi in order to
brief him on it. Then at the instructions of Dr. Abdul Shaffi,
the entire Palestinian Delegation assembled for me to brief
them on my anti-bantustan proposal.

During the course of this briefing, an extremely high-level
and powerful P.L.O. official began to yell at me at the top of
his lungs: "Professor Boyle, what good has the Fourth Geneva
Convention ever done for my People!" My reply to this
ignoramus was polite, curt, and blunt: "Without the Fourth
Geneva Convention the Israelis would have stolen all your Land
and expelled most of your People years ago." From my other
sources I already knew that the P.L.O. had been putting
enormous pressure upon Dr. Abdul Shaffi and the rest of the
Palestinian Delegation to accept Israel's bantustan proposal
right then and there in Washington, D.C. This Dr. Abdul Shaffi
adamantly refused to do!

I then left the room in order to confer once again with Dr.
Abdul Shaffi. Right before this meeting, I commented to a very
prominent and now powerful Palestinian Lawyer from Gaza, who
had heard my briefing: "My instructions from Dr. Abdul Shaffi
were to figure out how to square the circle. I believe I have
accomplished this objective." He replied laconically: "Yes,
you have."

I then went to meet once again with Dr. Abdul Shaffi. I
reported to him about the vociferous opposition to my
anti-bantustan proposal by this top P.L.O. official. After a
brief conversation about handling this dilemma, Dr. Abdul
Shaffi then instructed me to write up my anti-bantustan
proposal as a Memorandum for consideration and formal approval
by the Palestinian Delegation in Washington as well as by the
P.L.O. Leadership then headquartered in Tunis. Having rejected
the Israeli bantustan proposal, it was up to Dr. Abdul Shaffi
to come up with an anti-bantustan proposal not only for the
purpose of negotiating in good faith with the Israelis, but
also to convince the P.L.O. Leadership in Tunis that there did
indeed exist a viable interim peace agreement that would not
sell-out the right of the Palestinian People to an independent
nation state of their own, and also by the required
intermediate means of establishing a genuine Palestinian
interim self-government, which was not a bantustan. Dr. Abdul
Shaffi was now counting upon me to square this circle to the
satisfaction of the Political Leadership of the Palestinian
People then headquartered in Tunis.

At that precise moment in time, it felt as if the weight of
the entire world had just descended upon my shoulders. For the
next five weeks I once again bore responsibility for five
million Palestinians, their children, and their children's
children, as well as indirect responsibility for three million
Israelis, their children, and their children's children. My
Memorandum was entitled "The Interim Agreement and
International Law," and was completed on December 1, 1992.
Then I shipped it off by couriers to Dr. Abdul Shaffi and the
Palestinian Delegation in Washington, D.C., as well as to the
Political Leadership of the Palestinian People then
headquartered in Tunis and living elsewhere in their Diaspora.

With the permission of Dr. Abdul Shaffi, who expressly waived
attorney-client confidences on these matters, this Memorandum
has been published in Volume 22, Arab Studies Quarterly,
Number 3, pp. 1-45 (Summer 2000). The reader is free to decide
for himself or herself whether or not I successfully
discharged the weighty responsibilities given to me by Dr.
Abdul Shaffi and the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East
Peace Negotiations. In any event, my Memorandum was indeed
approved by both the Palestinian Delegation in Washington as
well as by the Political Leadership of the Palestinian People
then headquartered in Tunis. While going through this
Memorandum, the reader should also be aware of the fact that
the Israeli bantustan model I critiqued therein would later
become the Oslo Agreement of 13 September 1993--as I will
explain below.

In this regard, shortly after submitting my Memorandum to
Tunis, I received a fax from an extremely powerful and
prominent P.L.O. Lawyer living in the Palestinian Diaspora,
who personally thanked me for "showing the way forward to our
people." After what we had been through together in the past,
my friend's commendation meant a great deal to me. But five
years later he would quit his high-level positions in both the
P.L.O. and the Provisional Government of the State of
Palestine because of his disgust over the subsequent course of
the so-called Oslo Process.

Norway

While all this was going on, and unbeknownst to both Dr. Abdul
Shaffi and myself, the Israeli Government proceeded to open up
a secret channel of communications in Norway with P.L.O.
emissaries who reported personally and in private to President
Yasser Arafat. Eventually, during the course of these
Norwegian negotiations, the Israeli Team re-tendered their
original bantustan proposal that had already been rejected by
the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace
Negotiations in Washington, D.C. It was this original
bantustan proposal, which was then re-tendered in Norway, that
later became known as the so-called Oslo Agreement, and was
signed on the White House Lawn on September 13, 1993.

Dr. Abdul Shaffi and I knew full well that we were engaged in
a most desperate struggle against the Israelis -- working
hand-in-glove with the Americans -- in order to prevent the
Palestinian Political Leadership in Tunis from accepting
Israel's bantustan proposal. Of course we lost. In the Summer
of 1993, the wire services reported that a secret agreement
between Israel and P.L.O. emissaries had been reached in
Norway. Soon thereafter, Dr. Abdul Shaffi called me up from
Washington and asked if I could analyze this Norwegian
document for him immediately. I readily agreed. He later faxed
the Norwegian document into my office.

After a very detailed study of this Norwegian document, I
called him back with my report: "This is the exact same
document we have already rejected in Washington!" Dr. Abdul
Shaffi responded in his customarily low-key manner: "Yes, that
was my impression too."

At the end of a very lengthy, back-and-forth conversation, Dr.
Abdul Shaffi forcefully told me: "I will call Abu Ammar and
demand that he get a written opinion from you on this document
before he signs it! Can you give me that opinion right away?"
Once again, the emphases were that of Dr. Abdul Shaffi.

"Yes, of course, you can count on me!," I replied.

"I will call Abu Ammar immediately!," said a determined Dr.
Abdul Shaffi.

Abu Ammar is the nom-de-guerre of Yasser Arafat. He and Dr.
Abdul Shaffi go all the way back to the very founding of the
P.L.O. So that must have been one incredibly tumultuous
conversation.

But President Arafat had already made up his mind to sign the
Israeli bantustan proposal, now emanating from Norway instead
of Washington. There was nothing Dr. Abdul Shaffi could do to
change his mind or to stop him. It was for this reason that
Dr. Abdul Shaffi never attended the signing ceremony on the
White House Lawn on September 13, 1993. He knew Oslo was a
bantustan and wanted nothing at all to do with it.

As for me, on that day I had to be in the International Court
of Justice in The Hague in order to personally accept the
second World Court Order I would win for the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina against the rump Yugoslavia to cease
and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the
Bosnian People. So I had to watch the signing ceremony on
television that evening in my Amsterdam hotel room. "This will
never work," I sadly said to myself with a heavy heart, "but
perhaps President Arafat knows something that I do not."

Why Oslo?

Now you might ask yourself: Why would President Arafat accept
and sign an Israeli proposal that he knew would constitute a
bantustan for the Palestinian People? I really do not know the
answer to that question. President Arafat did not discuss this
matter with me. He did discuss this matter with Dr. Abdul
Shaffi. But I was not privy to that conversation, and I never
asked Dr. Abdul Shaffi about it.

In fairness to President Arafat, I believe he felt that he
must take what little was offered to the Palestinian People by
Israel and the United States, even if he knew it was nothing
more than a bantustan, and then prove the good faith of
himself and the Palestinian People to the satisfaction of both
Israel and the United States: That the Palestinians were
willing to live in peace and harmony with Israel and the
Israeli People throughout a trial test-period of five years,
and even under their bantustan model. But that at the end of
the five years, there would then be a legitimate, free,
viable, and independent Palestinian State on the West Bank and
Gaza Strip, with its capital in Jerusalem.

Also, in fairness to President Arafat, the Oslo Agreement made
it quite clear that all issues--including Jerusalem--would be
open for negotiations in the so-called final status
negotiations. And this despite the massive Israeli rhetoric
and propaganda that Jerusalem was "their," "eternal,"
"undivided" "capital." You do not expressly agree in writing
to negotiate over "your," "eternal," "undivided," "capital,"
if it is really yours!

Finally, in fairness to President Arafat, there was already on
the books a Resolution that had been adopted by the Palestine
National Council that authorized the P.L.O. to take control of
any portion of occupied Palestine that was offered to them by
Israel. This is precisely what President Arafat and the P.L.O.
then headquartered in Tunis proceeded to do. But note for the
record that the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East
Peace Negotiations -- all of whom lived in occupied Palestine,
not in Tunis -- had explicitly rejected this Israeli Bantustan
Proposal during the course of the formal negotiations in
Washington, D.C. For that very reason, in addition to Dr.
Abdul Shaffi, other Palestinian accredited negotiators also
refused to attend the signing ceremony on the White House Lawn
on 13 September 1993, including my friend who had personally
instructed me to analyze the Israeli bantustan proposal for
the Delegation. Just like Dr. Abdul Shaffi, they knew full
well that Oslo was a bantustan, and wanted nothing at all to
do with it.

Post-Oslo Agreements

President Arafat had assumed a modicum of good faith by Israel
and the United States. My 1 December 1992 Memorandum had not,
but rather to the contrary. Unfortunately, Israel and the
United States then proceeded to stall and delay the
implementation of Israel's bantustan model throughout the
entire course of the Oslo process, and indeed even after the
expiration of Oslo itself. All the time providing no realistic
hope or expectation that at the end of the road the
Palestinians would have a free, viable, and genuine
independent nation state of their own on the West Bank and
Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem.

Hence, I am not going to waste my time here analyzing the
numerous post-Oslo Agreements between Israel and the P.L.O.
that were "brokered" by the United States. For they all
constitute nothing more than implementation and refinements of
Israel's original bantustan proposal that the Palestinian
Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations had already
rejected in Washington, D.C. I am a Professor of International
Law, not of Bantustan Law. From the perspective of public
international law, however, numerous provisions of all these
agreements were void ab initio under articles 7, 8, and 47 of
the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, inter alia.

Camp David II

This then brings the story up to the Summer of 2000--the
so-called Camp David II negotiations. This proposed conclusion
to the final status negotiations was not the idea of the
Palestinian Political Leadership. Rather, these negotiations
were the "brainchild" of Israeli Prime Minister General Ehud
Barak with the full support of President Clinton. Of course
Bill Clinton had already been bought and paid for by the
Israel Lobby at the very start of his run for the U.S.
presidency.

In a curious twist of fate, Bill Clinton had spent a night at
the Grand Hotel in Washington, D.C. while the Palestinian
Delegation was in residence. Our personal paths would cross in
the lobby of the Grand Hotel as I went out for my usual early
morning walk before the negotiations began, while he assembled
there with his political handlers just prior to holding a
press conference as presidential candidate over at the State
Department later that morning. Knowing what Clinton et al.
were up to, I decided to walk by him in silence out into the
cold and refreshing morning air.

Almost nine years later at Camp David, President Clinton fully
intended to pressure President Arafat and the Political
Leadership of the Palestinian People into accepting the Oslo
bantustan arrangement permanently for the West Bank, Gaza
Strip, and Jerusalem as the final outcome of the so-called
final status negotiations--the "final solution" for the
Palestinian People. To his great and everlasting credit,
President Arafat refused to accept Oslo as a permanent
bantustan model for the Palestinian People and their Land. But
it was a near-death experience.

True to his pro-Israeli stance, President Clinton then
proceeded to publicly blame President Arafat and the Political
Leadership of the Palestinian People for their alleged
intransigence. Clinton also publicly threatened to illegally
move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
unless President Arafat succumbed to permanently accepting
Israel's original bantustan model going all the way back to
1992. This President Arafat still refused to do.

The Israeli Origins of the Al Aqsa Intifada

When it became crystal clear to the Israeli Government that
they could not impose Oslo's bantustan arrangement permanently
upon the Palestinian People by means of negotiations--and even
when conjoined with the customary bullying, threats,
harassment, intimidation and bribery by the U.S.
government--then General Barak and Likud Leader General Ariel
Sharon decided to revert to inflicting raw, naked, brutal,
military force upon the Palestinian People in order to get
their way. Hence the Israeli origins of what came to be known
as the Al Aqsa Intifada.

On 28 September 2000, General Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of
Beirut, the architect of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that
had exterminated about 20,000 Arabs, the man personally
responsible for the massacre of about 2,000 innocent
Palestinian and Lebanese civilians at the refugee camps in
Sabra and Shatilla, a man cashiered by his own government, on
that day appeared at Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem -- the third
holiest site in Islam, where there is the Al Aqsa Mosque on
the one hand, and the Dome of the Rock on the other, where
Mohammed (May Peace Be Upon Him!) had ascended into Heaven --
surrounded by about 1,000 armed Israeli forces with the full
approval of Prime Minister Barak. General Barak and General
Sharon knew exactly what they were doing! General Barak and
General Sharon knew exactly what the reaction of the
Palestinian People would be to Sharon's deliberate desecration
of, and provocation at, their holiest religious site. And if
there had been any lingering doubt about the matter, Israeli
armed forces returned the next day and shot dead several
unarmed Palestinians on Haram Al-Sharif, thus setting off what
has come to be known as the Al Aqsa Intifada -- the uprising
in support of the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)
[e-mail]



*****************************************************

         <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
         <>                                        <>
         <>  ... On that account: We ordained for  <>
         <>  the Children of Israel that if anyone <>
         <>  slew a person - unless it be for      <>
         <>  murder or for spreading mischief      <>
         <>  in the land - it would be as if       <>
         <>  he slew the whole people: and if      <>
         <>  any one saved a life, it would        <>
         <>  be as if he saved the life of         <>
         <>  the whole people.                     <>
         <>  Holy Qur'an, Surah al-Maidah 5:32.    <>
         <>  URL: http://quran.al-islam.com/       <>
         <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

*****************************************************

  "And the mind - may God preserve you - is more
  prone to deep sleep than the eye. Neediest of
  sharpening than a sword. Poorest to treatment.
  Fastest to change.  Its illness, the deadliest.
  Its doctors, the rarest.  And its cure, the
  hardest. Whoever got a hold of it, before the
  spread of the disease, found his sake. Whoever
  tried to wrestle it after the spread would not
  find his sake. The greatest purpose of knowledge
  is the abundance of inspiring thoughts. Then,
  the ways to go about one's needs are met."
    -- Al-Jahiz ("Puffy"), 9th Century Baghdad,
    Kitab at-Tarbi` wat-Tadweer ("Squaring
    the Circle"), p. 101, Edited by Prof. Charles
    Pellat, Institut Francais de Damas, 1955.

READ THE TEXT, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
DESERT, AT URL: http://msanews.mynet.net/books/ajaib/

*****************************************************



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #495
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.