By Paul Tate
"They are shooting at us ... they are terrorists - they dress like the local population."
The above quote is from an American Marine interviewed on CNN during the US assault on Fallujah. Obviously, before CNN set up the camera scene the Marine's superiors had drilled the script into him. In parrot fashion, the young Marine dutifully repeated the mantra.
Amazing isn't it? The "terrorists" described by the Marine actually dress like the local population - they speak with Iraqi accents - they are, in Fallujah at least, Sunni Muslims, so what exactly differentiates them from the local populace?
Ever since the disastrous attack on Iraq began, the US occupation authorities have been trying to convince the rest of the world that the insurgency taking place in the country is either the result of foreign terrorists or of die-hard Saddam supporters who just don''t know when the game is up.
Initially, Iran and Syria came under fire from the hawks in Washington for allowing and allegedly abetting terrorists to infiltrate Iraq. No evidence was produced. Indeed, not one single suicide bomber has been identified as a foreign terrorist, not a single Al Qaeda operative has been arrested in Iraq, and of the 8,500 "security detainees" arrested by the US, only two per cent are said to be from outside Iraq.
Then we began to hear tales of civil war, of a supposedly ancient Sunni-Shiites split which was only kept under control by Saddam''s brutal oppression.
Convenient as this theory may be, it bears no relationship to the historical record and ignores the fact that the real fault line in Iraq is located up north, among the Kurds and their previous Sunni masters. One wonders what the occupation authorities will say then. Perhaps "terrorist Kurdish elements" from Turkey, Syria or Iran will be blamed.
During the past few weeks, thousands of Shiite militiamen loyal to what the mass media describe as the "extremist" Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr have joined the battle. They have been described by the occupation authorities as a "small group of criminals and thugs". Now we are hearing tales of how Saddam loyalists and terrorists have infiltrated the Iraqi police force. During the past two weeks of spiralling violence, the Iraqi police force has seen a fifty per cent defection rate, with the occupation forces claiming that 40 per cent have simply "ran away" while ten per cent have actually joined the resistance forces.
All these lies are, of course, aimed at deflecting attention from a notion the US is unprepared to entertain. Maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis don't want the Americans to protect them. Maybe the Iraqis are not too keen on the US concept of sovereignty. For, surely, sovereignty and democracy do not entail being ruled by a group of people who were hand-picked by a foreign power and who lack legitimacy with the local populace.
The truth is that the Iraqi people want the Americans to leave their country. The Americans, on the other hand, are desperate to stay and in order to do so they need to allocate blame for the violence. Just because the people of Iraq were glad to be rid of Saddam doesn't mean that they want him replaced with Paul Bremer and Co. Judging by the events of the past week and the pictures broadcast on Al Jazeera (not the sanitised gloss of the Western news media), the occupation of Iraq is looking less like liberation and more like repression. Funny how quickly liberators can turn into oppressors.
After World War I, the British managed to keep the lid on Iraq for three years before an uprising occurred. The Americans have managed to provoke an uprising in just one year. But we must not mention the word "uprising".
This word is a taboo in the media for it means that what is now taking place in Iraq has the support of a significant percentage of the population. The simple truth is that the terrorists referred to by the Marine on CNN are, in fact, Iraqis
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Israel's failed iron wall strategy
By Paul Tate
YET AGAIN we hear an Israeli prime minister blaming Palestinian intransigence
and violence for the lack of progress in the peace process. Ariel Sharon has stated that he has no option but to press ahead with his disengagement plan "in light of the absence of a peace partner on the Palestinian side".
The notion that all Palestinians are fanatical suicide bombers hell-bent on destroying Israel and incapable of reasoned discussion is, of course, aimed at a US audience, in order to maintain support for Sharon''s aggressive policies. However, it bears no relationship to the historical record.
Throughout the history of the state of Israel, successive Israeli leaders have used this excuse as a means to deflect attention from their own policies and in order to uphold the strategy of the "iron wall" in their relations with the Arab world.
The architect of the iron wall school of thought was the founder of Revisionist Zionism, Ze''ev Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was the first Zionist leader to acknowledge that the Palestinians were a nation and that they could not be expected to renounce voluntarily their right to self-determination.
His solution was to erect an iron wall of Jewish military force. However, unlike his followers, Jabotinsky did not believe that the strategy of the iron wall was an end in itself, but rather as a means to break Arab resistance, with a view to a final settlement. Jabotinsky, unlike Sharon, believed that peace with the Arabs was desirable, possible and ultimately inevitable.
The iron wall theory, however, always carried within it an inherent danger. The danger was that successive Israeli leaders would adopt this theory and refuse to negotiate even when there was someone to talk to on the other side. Paradoxically, the politicians on the Israeli right, the heirs to Jabotinsky, including Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu and Sharon, adopted the iron wall theory not as a means to an end, but as a permanent way of life. These leaders, bolstered by US military largesse, have used the iron wall as a bulwark against change and as a means of keeping the
Palestinians in a permanent state of subservience to Israel. By adopting this approach, they have squandered numerous opportunities to reach a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
History teaches us that far from being intransigent enemies of peace, numerous Arab leaders over the years tried hard to come to a peaceful resolution with the Israeli state, despite domestic opposition and the significant risks involved. The Israeli excuse for political impasse and the claim that there is no one to talk to on the other side goes as far back as the creation of the state of Israel itself.
According to the Israeli version of events, following the 1948 war, Israel's leaders (like Sharon states today) were desperate to achieve peace, but there was simply no one to talk to on the other side. Revisionist Israeli historians, however, now believe that post-war Israel was far more intransigent than the Arab states. The question that has always plagued Israel''s leaders is not whether peace with the Arabs is possible, but at what price?
Israel''s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion refused numerous opportunities to reach a settlement with his regional neighbours. He, just like Sharon, understood that in order to arrive at formal peace agreements, Israel would have to yield territory and agree to the return of a substantial number of Palestinian refugees. He decided that the price was not worth it and that Israel''s position could only improve with time, therefore, all peace feelers were rejected. Ben-Gurion rejected King Farouk''s peace
initiative in 1948 and Husni Zaim''s offer in 1949. The Syrian leader Zaim was desperate for dialogue, but complained bitterly that there was no one to talk to on the other side. The Gaza raids of 1955 put an end to the secret negotiations between Israel and Egypt and were described by Jamal Abdul Nasser as an event which destroyed his faith in the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel. The method of ending negotiations through the use of military force is a proven Israeli strategy
and that is particularly relevant today with the Sharon government.
However, the iron wall policy also led to significant failures, the most pronounced being Israel''s failure to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.
Although Jabotinsky never meant for military power to be an end in itself, unfortunately his heirs, such as Sharon, do not share the same view. By calling off the planned summit between him and the Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, and by continually insisting that he is forced into unilateral action due to the absence of a partner for peace, Sharon is signalling his adherence to the iron wall theory which translates into a reliance on military strength and a reluctance to make territorial concessions for peace.
Therefore, history reveals that when Sharon talks about the impossibility of negotiating with the Palestinians, what he really means is a resumption of military aggressions and forced solutions.
YET AGAIN we hear an Israeli prime minister blaming Palestinian intransigence
and violence for the lack of progress in the peace process. Ariel Sharon has stated that he has no option but to press ahead with his disengagement plan "in light of the absence of a peace partner on the Palestinian side".
The notion that all Palestinians are fanatical suicide bombers hell-bent on destroying Israel and incapable of reasoned discussion is, of course, aimed at a US audience, in order to maintain support for Sharon''s aggressive policies. However, it bears no relationship to the historical record.
Throughout the history of the state of Israel, successive Israeli leaders have used this excuse as a means to deflect attention from their own policies and in order to uphold the strategy of the "iron wall" in their relations with the Arab world.
The architect of the iron wall school of thought was the founder of Revisionist Zionism, Ze''ev Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was the first Zionist leader to acknowledge that the Palestinians were a nation and that they could not be expected to renounce voluntarily their right to self-determination.
His solution was to erect an iron wall of Jewish military force. However, unlike his followers, Jabotinsky did not believe that the strategy of the iron wall was an end in itself, but rather as a means to break Arab resistance, with a view to a final settlement. Jabotinsky, unlike Sharon, believed that peace with the Arabs was desirable, possible and ultimately inevitable.
The iron wall theory, however, always carried within it an inherent danger. The danger was that successive Israeli leaders would adopt this theory and refuse to negotiate even when there was someone to talk to on the other side. Paradoxically, the politicians on the Israeli right, the heirs to Jabotinsky, including Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu and Sharon, adopted the iron wall theory not as a means to an end, but as a permanent way of life. These leaders, bolstered by US military largesse, have used the iron wall as a bulwark against change and as a means of keeping the
Palestinians in a permanent state of subservience to Israel. By adopting this approach, they have squandered numerous opportunities to reach a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
History teaches us that far from being intransigent enemies of peace, numerous Arab leaders over the years tried hard to come to a peaceful resolution with the Israeli state, despite domestic opposition and the significant risks involved. The Israeli excuse for political impasse and the claim that there is no one to talk to on the other side goes as far back as the creation of the state of Israel itself.
According to the Israeli version of events, following the 1948 war, Israel's leaders (like Sharon states today) were desperate to achieve peace, but there was simply no one to talk to on the other side. Revisionist Israeli historians, however, now believe that post-war Israel was far more intransigent than the Arab states. The question that has always plagued Israel''s leaders is not whether peace with the Arabs is possible, but at what price?
Israel''s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion refused numerous opportunities to reach a settlement with his regional neighbours. He, just like Sharon, understood that in order to arrive at formal peace agreements, Israel would have to yield territory and agree to the return of a substantial number of Palestinian refugees. He decided that the price was not worth it and that Israel''s position could only improve with time, therefore, all peace feelers were rejected. Ben-Gurion rejected King Farouk''s peace
initiative in 1948 and Husni Zaim''s offer in 1949. The Syrian leader Zaim was desperate for dialogue, but complained bitterly that there was no one to talk to on the other side. The Gaza raids of 1955 put an end to the secret negotiations between Israel and Egypt and were described by Jamal Abdul Nasser as an event which destroyed his faith in the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel. The method of ending negotiations through the use of military force is a proven Israeli strategy
and that is particularly relevant today with the Sharon government.
However, the iron wall policy also led to significant failures, the most pronounced being Israel''s failure to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.
Although Jabotinsky never meant for military power to be an end in itself, unfortunately his heirs, such as Sharon, do not share the same view. By calling off the planned summit between him and the Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, and by continually insisting that he is forced into unilateral action due to the absence of a partner for peace, Sharon is signalling his adherence to the iron wall theory which translates into a reliance on military strength and a reluctance to make territorial concessions for peace.
Therefore, history reveals that when Sharon talks about the impossibility of negotiating with the Palestinians, what he really means is a resumption of military aggressions and forced solutions.
Spain: A nation of appeasers?
By Paul Tate
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.By Paul Tate
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.By Paul Tate
THE EXTENT to the Bushites'' simplistic view of the world really knows no bounds. When Bush said, "if you are not with us then you are against us", effectively deeming everyone who does not agree with the neo-cons'' twisted view of the world as a potential terrorist, many people simply shrugged and thought "here we go again" (with the exception of UK Premier Tony Blair perhaps).
However, it has come as quite a shock to realise that Bush and his cronies in the right-wing media do actually see the world in these crude terms. Anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration is immediately subjected to a barrage of abuse and ridicule. Only two days after the Madrid bombings, the very same people who fiercely attacked some of the European reaction to Sept. 11 began a barrage of insults and abuse against the Spaniards, merely because they exercised their democratic right, kicked out the Aznar government and signalled their intent to pull Spanish troops
out of Iraq.
Since the terrible events in Spain, right-wing America has been quick to flood the media with cries of appeasement. The McArthyite lexicon has swung into action. "Neville Chamberlain, en Espanol" was the title of the editorial page of Wednesday''s "Wall Street Journal". David Brooks, The "New York Times" columnist, in his bi-weekly Tuesday column, asked: "What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Tony Blankley, editorial page editor for "The Washington Times" called the "policy of appeasement": "the Spanish disease". Not to be left out, David Frum, Bush''s former
speech writer, the man who enlightened the world with the term "axis of evil", saw fit to patronise the Spanish. Frum lamented the weakness of the Spaniards and characterised the election result as a sign of a people indulging in "false hopes and appeasement".
I guess what all this adds up to is that Spain has now lost its "new Europe" status and is now firmly back in "old Europe" with Germany and France. After all, the Bushite pundits really had it in for the French. The French were subjected to a barrage of abuse because they wouldn''t "sign up on the dotted line". A mass boycott was initiated by the right-wing media of French products. Legislation was proposed to keep French companies from getting contracts in Iraq. Fox news led the campaign to present French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein as "bosom buddies" (the fact that the footage was shot in the 70s was never mentioned). The point here
is that any government that seeks to democratically represent the will of its people is for the Bushites at best misguided, at worst in league with the enemy.
It seems slightly incongruous that the very same people who constantly remind us that their mission in Iraq is a purely selfless endeavour to bring democracy to the Arab world do not appear to be that keen on democracy in Europe. Democracy, it seems, is only valid when it is the "right kind of democracy". To suggest that by electing the Socialist Party the Spanish people somehow cast a vote for Al Qaeda is not only an insult to an entire nation it is also an attempt to undermine the democratic processes the Bushites claim to be so vigorously defending.
It should be clear: the Spaniards were never against fighting terrorism. They have lived for 34 years with the consequences of terrorism and one could hardly categorise them as appeasers of ETA. Millions of people took to the streets of Spain in the days following the attacks to show their support for combating terror and their revulsion to terrorism. What the Spaniards were against (a huge 90 per cent of them) was the war on Iraq. Once again, the American right is seeking to blur the distinction between
the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Regardless of the amount of times that CNN, ABC, Fox media and Co. spend in their attempt to convince us otherwise, there was no proven link prior to the "coalition" invasion between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein''s Iraq.
If Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, this will be as a direct consequence of the American presence and not in any way related to Saddam.
Far from being a nation of appeasers, the Spaniards have demonstrated their courage in the face of adversity. They have renewed their determination to combat terrorism and reminded the rest of the world that this struggle is separate from what is now taking place in Iraq. The new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero''s pledge to refocus the war against Al Qaeda can hardly be deemed a victory for Ben Laden. It is not weakness that they have demonstrated, but strength. The real weakness is to be found in the Republican right who, raised on John Wayne and the Alamo, continues
to see the world in terms of good and evil - black and white. Although this simplistic view of things may bring a certain amount of comfort to the believer, it certainly will not help solve the problem.
Iraq political fallout begins
By Paul Tate
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
By Paul Tate
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
By Paul Tate
FOR JOSE Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, the Madrid bombings represented a huge dilemma. In a crude electoral calculation, he preferred the attacks in Madrid to be part of the "old war" against ETA. What Aznar did not want on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq was for the Spanish people to think that their government''s support of "that unnecessary The political fallout has begunwar" had helped make them a target.
The Spanish prime minister has received his answer from the Spanish electorate. In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attacks on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by Al Qaeda. The political downfall of Aznar''s government appears to be a combination of two factors: first, protesters accused the government of seeking political capital by playing down the Islamist connection and attempting to put the blame on ETA and, second, they demanded explanations for why Aznar''s government led the country into the Iraq war against the will of some 90 per cent
of the Spanish population.
These two key elements, together with the high emotions felt by the Spanish people struggling to make sense of the devastating attacks, ensured a huge turnout at the poll, well above the turnout for the last election, in 2000. They also produced a dramatic reverse in the fortunes of the People''s Party which barely a week ago led in the opinion polls by three to five points.
Without doubt, the election of the new socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is the first serious political fall-out from the war on Iraq.
The "gang of three", who so steadfastly stood together that fateful day on an island in the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming world opposition, has suffered a crucial loss. The election of the socialist leader is without doubt a significant blow to the Bush-Blair alliance. On taking office, the new Spanish prime minister has immediately pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30, when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. If the new prime minister remains true to his pledge, this represents a huge blow to Washington''s
attempts to bring stability to Iraq.
The lesson will not be lost on Tony Blair. The British prime minister has lost his most reliable pro-Bush European ally. Now isolated in Europe but for the mercurial Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Blair must be contemplating the prospect that his absolute majority may, like Aznar''s, simply melt away. Therefore, the Spanish result will be analysed in Washington and London with far more attention than normal, in order to determine the political impact of the bombers, whoever they may be.
For the first time, terrorists have now proved conclusively that a single terrorist action can have a direct effect on the outcome of an election in a leading Western democracy. The timing of the bombs was both cold and calculated and demonstrates more than ever the significant challenges ahead.
The questions that arise from this latest terrorist atrocity and the implications on political processes in Western democracies are profound in the utmost.
Some of these questions include: What kind of signal have the Spanish people now sent to the perpetrators of this cruel and barbaric act? What are the consequences for leaders of modern Western democracies who ignore the will of the people in order to pursue geopolitical goals? Can democracies cope with a form of asymmetric warfare that has absolutely no regard for civilian life? Can Western democracies remain faithful to the principles of human rights and liberty in the face of such a threat?
These questions will no doubt keep policy makers occupied for years to come.
As for now, although Spain''s membership in the coalition which supported the invasion of Iraq may have been a factor in the Madrid bombing, that does in no way make Aznar, Bush or Blair responsible for this particular carnage. No cause, whether political or religious, can justify such a callous disregard for human life.
However, what is clear is that inevitably, all three leaders must answer to their citizens for the increased risk of terror. All three men were warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. They were repeatedly told about the absurdity of waging war on an abstract noun and the likely consequences
of waging war on an Arab country which had no proven relationship with Al Qaeda. Possibly now, when the political consequences of actions undertaken in defiance of domestic civil opposition have come home to roost, and with Bush and Blair more isolated than ever before, they may finally begin to take notice of their citizens.
The Madrid bombings prove yet again that you cannot defeat terrorism through brute force. Governments not only need to cooperate with each other, they also require the full participation and trust of their citizens if they are to prove effective in combating global terrorism. Let us hope that the election of Zapatero and the new Spanish-French-German alliance at the heart of Europe will bring some new initiative and wisdom to the struggle against terrorism.
The new prime minister has said that "wars such as those which have occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate". This is a good start.
Jordan River mayors commit to water cooperation
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — Jordanian and Israeli mayors came together earlier this week in an attempt to breath life back into the Jordan River tributaries and promote tourism and development in their respective communities.
In a ceremony by the ancient ruins of the Roman city of Pella near the banks of the River Jordan, the Jordanian mayor of the town, Maoun Alloneh, and his Israeli counterpart from Beit Shean, Jacky Levi, signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on shared water issues.
“The mayors at this historic ceremony committed to rehabilitate their streams and the River Jordan, understanding that the cultural landscape of the Jordan Valley is an untapped treasure that could attract tens of thousands of tourists,” said Munqeth Mehyar, Jordanian chairperson of Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), a cross-border NGO that organised the meeting.
Under the terms of the memorandum, a master plan will now be developed for side streams of the River Jordan’s Wadi Ziglab in Jordan and Harod Stream in Israel based on the tourism potential of this historic landscape.
The agreement forms part of the Good Water Neighbours (GWN) project, established by EcoPeace/FoEME in 2001 to raise awareness of the shared water problems of Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis.
The idea behind the project is based on identifying cross-border communities and utilising their mutual dependence on shared water resources as a basis for developing dialogue and cooperation on sustainable water management.
“We came to the conclusion that the best way to solve the problems of this area was to let communities deal with each other directly, while also involving key decision makers such as local municipal officials and mayors,” said Mehyar.
The river has suffered intense environmental degradation over the years as a result of shortsighted development plans, according to FoEME.
During the 1960s, around 1.3 billion cubic metres of water flowed every year from Lake Tiberias to the Dead Sea.
But dams, canals and pumping stations built by Israel, Jordan and Syria to divert water for crops and drinking have reduced the flow by more than 90 per cent to about 100 million cubic metres.
Years of conflict and mismanagement among the main users of the river have contributed to the crisis, according to environmentalists.
Although the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel called for the rehabilitation of the river, so far little progress has been achieved.
As a result, on both sides of the Jordan Valley, streams that once flowed through communities such as those around Pella and Beit Shean are now either dry or polluted.
“The environmental problems in the tributaries are really severe with no fresh water as a result of the construction of dams and raw sewage flowing directly into the river,” said Mehyar.
Israeli director of FoEME, Gidon Bromberg, said the organisation has been campaigning for over two years on the need to rehabilitate the Jordan River and the final push came from the communities themselves.
“The meeting is the product of community support and understanding by municipal leaders that their residents cannot wait for central government and an end of conflict in the region,” he added.
The GWN project is sponsored by the EU Partnership for Peace Programme, the UK government and Goldman Fund.
Friday-Saturday, November 24-25, 2006
AMMAN — Jordanian and Israeli mayors came together earlier this week in an attempt to breath life back into the Jordan River tributaries and promote tourism and development in their respective communities.
In a ceremony by the ancient ruins of the Roman city of Pella near the banks of the River Jordan, the Jordanian mayor of the town, Maoun Alloneh, and his Israeli counterpart from Beit Shean, Jacky Levi, signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on shared water issues.
“The mayors at this historic ceremony committed to rehabilitate their streams and the River Jordan, understanding that the cultural landscape of the Jordan Valley is an untapped treasure that could attract tens of thousands of tourists,” said Munqeth Mehyar, Jordanian chairperson of Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), a cross-border NGO that organised the meeting.
Under the terms of the memorandum, a master plan will now be developed for side streams of the River Jordan’s Wadi Ziglab in Jordan and Harod Stream in Israel based on the tourism potential of this historic landscape.
The agreement forms part of the Good Water Neighbours (GWN) project, established by EcoPeace/FoEME in 2001 to raise awareness of the shared water problems of Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis.
The idea behind the project is based on identifying cross-border communities and utilising their mutual dependence on shared water resources as a basis for developing dialogue and cooperation on sustainable water management.
“We came to the conclusion that the best way to solve the problems of this area was to let communities deal with each other directly, while also involving key decision makers such as local municipal officials and mayors,” said Mehyar.
The river has suffered intense environmental degradation over the years as a result of shortsighted development plans, according to FoEME.
During the 1960s, around 1.3 billion cubic metres of water flowed every year from Lake Tiberias to the Dead Sea.
But dams, canals and pumping stations built by Israel, Jordan and Syria to divert water for crops and drinking have reduced the flow by more than 90 per cent to about 100 million cubic metres.
Years of conflict and mismanagement among the main users of the river have contributed to the crisis, according to environmentalists.
Although the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel called for the rehabilitation of the river, so far little progress has been achieved.
As a result, on both sides of the Jordan Valley, streams that once flowed through communities such as those around Pella and Beit Shean are now either dry or polluted.
“The environmental problems in the tributaries are really severe with no fresh water as a result of the construction of dams and raw sewage flowing directly into the river,” said Mehyar.
Israeli director of FoEME, Gidon Bromberg, said the organisation has been campaigning for over two years on the need to rehabilitate the Jordan River and the final push came from the communities themselves.
“The meeting is the product of community support and understanding by municipal leaders that their residents cannot wait for central government and an end of conflict in the region,” he added.
The GWN project is sponsored by the EU Partnership for Peace Programme, the UK government and Goldman Fund.
Friday-Saturday, November 24-25, 2006
Man shoots ex-wife before turning gun on himself
By Hugh Naylor and Paul Tate
AMMAN – A 32-year-old man shot his ex-wife and her sister over a custody dispute concerning their son late Monday night before turning the gun on himself, a police official told The Jordan Times on Tuesday.
The man shot his former wife in her apartment in the Sports City area of the capital, said Police Spokesperson Major Bashir Daaja.
He added that the woman took a bullet in her left thigh, while her sister was hit in her chest and upper right arm.
Both are currently in a stable condition at the Specialist Hospital. The man, who apparently shot himself in the head, was said to be in critical condition.
The fight broke out over their 8-year-old son, according to Daja. He said the scuffle occurred because both parents were refusing to take custody of the child.
Neighbours, who requested anonymity, said the incident occurred in a furnished apartment rented by two Iraqi women in their early 30s.
A woman who lives in the adjacent apartment building said she had previously complained to authorities about “strange comings and goings in the early hours” of the morning from the apartment.
“The two women used to leave the flat at around midnight and come home around dawn,” one neighbour told The Jordan Times. “I think they work in one of the nightclubs.”
Another neighbour said she heard gunshots at around 9:00 pm followed by a woman screaming: “He shot her. He shot her.” The neighbour said she immediately telephoned the police who arrived at the scene within minutes, adding that an ambulance arrived ten minutes later.
Neighbours, who had begun to gather outside the apartment building, said they saw a man being carried out of the apartment and placed into the ambulance.
“The man was not moving. We thought he was dead but wondered why the officers had not covered his body,” a witness to the scene said.
A woman whose apartment overlooks the one where the incident occurred said she was returning to her flat when she saw police officers jumping out of their vehicle and running into the building.
“When we got upstairs we could see right into the flat. There was a man lying on the floor in a pool of blood with a wound to the side of his head,” she said.
“I was shocked and quickly took the children out of the room but they had already witnessed the scene.”
Hana Namroqa and Baha’ Abu Hasna contributed to this report
AMMAN – A 32-year-old man shot his ex-wife and her sister over a custody dispute concerning their son late Monday night before turning the gun on himself, a police official told The Jordan Times on Tuesday.
The man shot his former wife in her apartment in the Sports City area of the capital, said Police Spokesperson Major Bashir Daaja.
He added that the woman took a bullet in her left thigh, while her sister was hit in her chest and upper right arm.
Both are currently in a stable condition at the Specialist Hospital. The man, who apparently shot himself in the head, was said to be in critical condition.
The fight broke out over their 8-year-old son, according to Daja. He said the scuffle occurred because both parents were refusing to take custody of the child.
Neighbours, who requested anonymity, said the incident occurred in a furnished apartment rented by two Iraqi women in their early 30s.
A woman who lives in the adjacent apartment building said she had previously complained to authorities about “strange comings and goings in the early hours” of the morning from the apartment.
“The two women used to leave the flat at around midnight and come home around dawn,” one neighbour told The Jordan Times. “I think they work in one of the nightclubs.”
Another neighbour said she heard gunshots at around 9:00 pm followed by a woman screaming: “He shot her. He shot her.” The neighbour said she immediately telephoned the police who arrived at the scene within minutes, adding that an ambulance arrived ten minutes later.
Neighbours, who had begun to gather outside the apartment building, said they saw a man being carried out of the apartment and placed into the ambulance.
“The man was not moving. We thought he was dead but wondered why the officers had not covered his body,” a witness to the scene said.
A woman whose apartment overlooks the one where the incident occurred said she was returning to her flat when she saw police officers jumping out of their vehicle and running into the building.
“When we got upstairs we could see right into the flat. There was a man lying on the floor in a pool of blood with a wound to the side of his head,” she said.
“I was shocked and quickly took the children out of the room but they had already witnessed the scene.”
Hana Namroqa and Baha’ Abu Hasna contributed to this report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)