FSN-202 Beta SP; FSN-203 Beta SP
BUSH - ALLAWI
BUSH 41-IRAQ INVASION
Return ticket: [issue of February 19, 2023]
France 24
Various Subjects
Vintage footage- F.D.R. (Roosevelt) makes speech on national security and Pearl Harbor- FDR appeals to the public to collect spare rubber for help in the war, Eisenhower makes speech on national security and the Cold War and atomic weapons, JFK (Kennedy) makes speech on Cuba, Fidel, and threats to national security, Reagan makes speech on national security and Russia, Nixon makes speech on the invasion of Cambodia during Vietnam/ News Footage- George Bush Sr. speaks about "the protection of American life", and on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Clinton on North Korea nukes
Interview with Khalil Shikaki pt 2
Interview with Khalil Shikaki, political science professor, expert In Palestinian opinions. Re: Events around the Oslo Agreement, Infatada and suicide bombs., INTERVIEWER:,You talked, basically, about support for violence, but is there a distinction? I know that sometimes cease fires make these distinctions between violence, and directly against civilians, ____ and soldiers (Inaudible). ,00:01:44>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,The Palestinian public has always distinguished between violence in their soldiers, versus violence against civilians inside Israel. In general, the surveys indicate that the Palestinians do not distinguish between settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israeli soldiers. ,For most Palestinians there are no, sort of civilian settlers, as such. For most Palestinians, what they see of settlers is armed settlers who shoot at Palestinians, or take away their land, or prevent them from harvesting their land, or particularly during the, for example, the olive trees harvest this year. And therefore, the distinction between settlers and soldiers, in fact, does not exist. Support for violence, and soldiers and settlers, reached almost 90%. It is the support for civilians, attack from civilians inside Israel, that has been the one that's seeing some shifts. There, as I said, support for attacks on settlers - it is the support for violence against Israeli civilians inside Israel, that has seen the change in the way the public perceives them. ,Today, only 50%, or slightly over 50% of the public supports violence against settlers - against civilians inside Israel. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] Today, a little over 50% of the Palestinian public supports violence against Israeli civilians inside Israel. Compare this to the level of support for attacks or violence against soldiers and settlers, you can see, certainly, a great deal of difference with 90% supporting attacks on soldiers and settlers, versus 50 - a little bit over 50% supporting attacks on the civilians inside Israel. But, when you compare this to where we were, say in 1995, 96, you can clearly see that support for violence against Israelis did not exceed 20%. And that is to say, the level of support for violence is pretty much sensitive to Palestinian perception of the role of negotiations, of the changes on the ground with regard to the future of the peace process, the ability of the Palestinians to begin to see the end of occupation, and to begin to see the development of their own state. , INTERVIEWER:,(Inaudible) ,00:04:51>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,There is no doubt that the majority of the Palestinians believe that the ultimate solution to their conflict in Israel, is a two-state solution. You will not find many Palestinians, today, who believe that Israel can be defeated, or who believe that the solution is to throw the Israelis out into the sea. A very small minority of the Palestinians would believe, in that three quarters of the Palestinians strongly support reconciliation between the people of Israel and the Palestinian people, within the context of a two-state solution. What the majority of the Palestinians, that is the three-quarters I'm talking about, is telling us, is that what they want is independence within their own state, a state that will live in peace with Israel as a neighbor. This, I believe, is the most - single most important development to come out from the peace process. This is the reflection of the success - the initial success of the peace process in transforming the psychological environment of the Palestinians. To come around, accept existence of the State of Israel, to accept reconciliation within the context of a two-state solution. , INTERVIEWER:,Why do you think, knowing the climate of the grassroots as you do, why do you think that Camp David, 2000, why did it fail so bad? ,00:06:21>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,I personally do not believe that Camp David has failed. I believe that Camp David has been the single, most successful, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations we have ever had. It was a lot more successful than Oslo in its ability to deal with the hard and most difficult issues dividing Palestinian and Israelis. It failed to reach closure. But the level of progress, that was made at Camp David, within three weeks, or less than three weeks, with tremendous success in discussing idea - in discussing issues and putting on the table solutions that were unthinkable, before going to Camp David. For many reasons, many had to do with the agenda of both Clinton and Barak, who were for Clinton to end his administration, and for Barak, the loss of the majority in the Israeli Knesset. ,There was a desire to portray Camp David as a failure, from the Palestinian side, to accept a most generous offer made by the Israelis. But the reality is the Palestinians never rejected an offer that was made by the Israelis. Ideas were put at the table. Some were acceptable, some were not acceptable. The Palestinian willingness to engage in the discussion that involved compromise, who, I believe - who are sincere - the Palestinian public was not exposed to this dimension of Camp David; the give and take that took place at Camp David. The breaking of the taboos of Camp David, with regard to many of the issues that were discussed. The Palestinian public was not aware of the extent to which there was progress in addressing many of the difficult issues. It wasn't because the Palestinians didn't want to expose all of these achievements, but it was more the desire, or the hidden desire of all three actors for their own different reasons; to perhaps not dwell too much on this, and to focus instead on the failure part of it. I believe that, because of that success, the ability of the two sides to make even more progress at Taba negotiations, a few months later, was possible. And I believe that it could have been pretty much a done deal, had the parties had a much longer period to negotiate. In other words, I believe Camp David ushered in a process of negotiations. ,The mistake that is made by the Clinton Administration, and the Barak administration, I believe, was to view it as a one shot deal; make it or - you know, either for the Palestinians to take it or reject it. And when they framed it this way, I believe it was very difficult for the Palestinians to accept it. The Palestinians wanted the progress at Camp David to be recorded, to be seen as elements for further negotiations. And I believe had the parties, which is I believe the most natural way to do negotiations. You do not go to the table and say, if we do not succeed in half an hour we failed. The parties went to Camp David with the desire to reach an agreement. They made a lot of progress, but they failed to reach closure. This, I believe, would have been a much better way to view Camp David. Had that been the case, had the Israelis and the Palestinians been told that this was indeed what would - what had happened at Camp David, I believe this would have had a completely different impact on the Israeli and the Palestinian public. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , INTERVIEWER:,If that's the case then why did the Intifada break out? ,00:10:46>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,Well, the Intifada broke out because the Palestinian public believed that Camp David was a failure. That when you put the leaders of the superpower with the two parties, and they fail to reach an agreement, and everybody says they failed, that this means negotiations have failed, and the Palestinians would have either to accept, to be put in the corner, and to live under occupation for an indefinite period of time, or that the Palestinians would have to look for something else - other means to end occupation. ,Here, we begin to see the Palestinians seeing the example of what happened in South Lebanon, when the Israeli Army pulled out of Lebanon, under the pressure of violence. The Palestinians, who supported negotiations, wholeheartedly, up until that point, saw the failure of Camp David as an indication that they need to change tactic. It was not, I believe, a fundamental reassessment of their position, visa vie Israel, but rather a rethinking of the role of violence versus negotiations. Violence, at this point, became more attractive to Palestinians. , INTERVIEWER:,What aspect of the current movement (Inaudible) - what aspect that we see in the ____ movement, is most at odds, do you think with the real feelings of the Palestinian people, as you know them? What policy or positions taken publicly by the _____ Brigade, or the (Inaudible) movements, the movement today of the Palestinians that is most misrepresented? ,00:12:40>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,There is no doubt that the Palestinian public is divided, almost right in the middle, with regard to suicide attacks. So this is the most controversial issue in Palestinian politics and society, today. The continuation of suicide attacks is a matter for a great deal of public debate. And there is a desire on the part of the majority of the Palestinians, to give negotiations a chance, within a context, in which Israel would - Israel, too, would come along and accept a mutual cessation of violence. I believe continuation of suicide attacks, or any type of violence, by Al-Aksa Brigades, or any other organizations, Islamists or otherwise, would indeed be rejected by the majority of the Palestinian public. ,Today, this is not the case. Today, most Palestinians do not believe that Israel is willing to accept a mutual cessation of violence. Therefore, the only remaining issue, in terms of, in terms of the debate within the Palestinian society, is simply whether suicide attacks are appropriate as means of fighting occupation or not. Here we see clearly, that the Palestinian public is divided on the issue. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , INTERVIEWER:,If there's an invasion of Iraq, of the Iraq war, how will that change the landscape? ,00:14:44>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,In the case of an invasion, of war in Iraq, I believe that the Palestinian public will become a lot more radicalized than it is now. I believe that the war in Iraq could also have a radicalizing impact on the Israeli leaders. The Israeli leaders view the war on Iraq as a vindication, as a continuation on the war on terror, and as a support for their own policies. I believe they would become a lot more hardlined. They would be less willing, then, to support a process that could lead to genuine and viable Palestinian statehood. ,So, a war on Iraq, I believe could have a negative impact on both sides, radicalizing the already right-wing governments in Israel. And, at the same time, radicalizing the Palestinian public, who are seeing the level of death and destruction in Iraq, and seeing how this might radicalize the rest of the Arab world. I believe, therefore, that in terms of the future of the peace process, a war in Iraq is certainly a Lose-Lose situation. , INTERVIEWER:,Finally, your own personal experience, you have exposed the leadership of the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat, as well as the opposition to the light of critical scrutiny. How has - what kind of experience has that been, what kind of friction has that caused? ,00:16:20>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,It's very difficult for both The Palestinian National Movement and Mr. Arafat, to accept criticism, as it is very difficult for Hamas and other groups to be told that their popularity is not as high as they think. That the support for their violence is not as high as they think. It's - during the past two years I've discovered that data and analysis that I have provided have been used selectively. Sometimes by Mr. Arafat, sometimes by the Islamists, to further their own interests. They have been critical of the work I have done, when I criticize them or painted them in a negative way. And when it did the opposite, they were very quick to support it, and to quote it. ,In general, however, I would say that my work has never come under a direct assault by anybody. Nobody has threatened my life, as a result of the work that I have done. I have been threatened by [SIC] other ways, but not directly a threat to my life. , INTERVIEWER:,So it's been easy, it's not been easy? ,00:17:43>>>, KHALIL SHIKAKI:,It hasn't been easy. It certainly has not been easy. But I would say that it has been a challenge, to be able to stand up to a lot of pressure, from both those in opposition to Mr. Arafat, and from Mr. Arafat, himself. But it has been tolerable. I have been able to continue to do my work during the past ten years, despite the criticism, despite the threats, and despite the pressure. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:18:37>>>,One of the reasons for the eruption of the second Intifada, has been the criticism, by the Palestinian public, of the Palestinian Authority itself. The failure of the Palestinian Authority to deliver good governments. The majority of the Palestinians do not appreciate the kind of political system that the Palestinian Authority has created. And the positive rating of the Palestinian democracy, today, does not exceed 20%. More than 85% of the Palestinian public believes there is corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The public, therefore, fully supports the cause for reform that has come out from within the Palestinian society, from the legislative council, from within Fatah council, and other institutions, Palestinian institutions. More than 90% of the Palestinians support this reform measures. ,Based on the surveys, we see that the public supports five different types of reform: leadership reform, we see a majority, more than 70% supporting the appointment or election of a Prime Minister, constitutional reform, where the majority of the Palestinians fully support the independence of the judiciary, the independence and effectiveness of the legislature, institutional reform, strengthening the role of the judiciary, reform of the security services. Most Palestinians fully support elections and holding the elections as soon as possible. All these reform issues are on the mind of - on the minds of the Palestinians. We have seen, after the April reoccupation of the Palestinian cities, a tremendous rise in the level of support for this kind of reform that we haven't seen before. Up until that point, more Palestinians organized their hierarchy, or priorities, in such a way that ending occupation was priority number one. After last April, 2002, the majority of the Palestinians began to reach the conclusion that reforming the Palestinian Authority, is an essential component of ending occupation. That a reformed authority is a more capable one of ending occupation. The Palestinians began to see the deficiencies, the clear deficiencies, [[CLEARS THROAT] - ,The Palestinians began to see the deficiencies within the Palestinian Authority; the weak institutions that immediately collapsed under the pressure of the reoccupation, the security services that vanished within twenty-four hours after the reoccupation. All of this created a momentum, in terms of support, for reform. However, when the Bush Administration came in, came into the picture, framing the demand for reform, in terms of the regime change, this, I believe had the exact contradictory. In fact, on the demand for reform, with more Palestinians beginning to fear that the demand for regime change is not a demand for reform, that this had more to do with the desire to force the Palestinians to accept a deal that Israel would be willing to accept, but that the majority of the Palestinians would reject. Regime change, and the call for regime change, I believe, had a very negative impact on the process - on the genuine process of reform among Palestinians. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,END OF INTERVIEW
us_az_jeb_bush
Jeb Bush says he would not have ordered an invasion of Iraq. The former Fla. governor ended several days of confusion about his foreign policy while campaigning in Arizona Thursday. (May 14)
President Bush at Camp LeJeune
At Camp LeJeune, President George W. Bush addresses a crowd of Marines and their families and makes reference to the current war in Iraq. PLEASE NOTE News anchor and reporter image and audio, along with any commercial production excerpts, are for reference purposes only and are not clearable and cannot be used within your project.
IRAQ INVASION OF KUWAIT / THE GULF
IRAQI TV SPOKESMAN SAYING PRESIDENT BUSH IS A LIAR
CLEAN : SHORT PROFILE: George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States
A short profile of George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States (2001-2009), who led the country during the September 11, 2001 attacks and launched the "war on terror," including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (Footage by AFPTV via Getty Images)
President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder meeting at Mainz Electoral Palace
MLS US President George W. Bush and Germany Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder taking their seats for a conference at the Electoral Palace in Mainz, Germany. At the conference they discussed Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran
Interview with Dr. Bernard Lewis pt 1
INTERVIEWER: May I have your full name and the spelling? DR. LEWIS: Bernard Lewis. B-e-r-n-a-r-d. INTERVIEWER: What title do you like to be referred as? 00:01:28>>> DR. LEWIS: I'm not interested in titles. If you want my formal description, I am Professor Emeritus of Near East Studies, at Princeton University. INTERVIEWER: How do you want to be characterized? DR. LEWIS: Actually, the way they put it is, Professor of Near East Studies Emeritus. So bear in mind that I'm a historian, which means that I deal with the past. And I am a retired historian, which means that even my past is passe, so don't ask me to predict the future. INTERVIEWER: What would you say is the number one myth or misconception that westerners have? 00:02:30>>> DR. LEWIS: That's a good question. There are so many, not as many as they have about us. That's even worse, but that's not your question. I would say, the number one myth is the same on both sides, and that is, we all tend to judge others by our selves. We're sure their motivations are the same as ours would be. Their responses are the same as ours would be. And that's a big mistake on both sides. INTERVIEWER: Can you give an especially flagrant example of that? DR. LEWIS: Yes, a flagrant example, or a misconception, I should say, is the one which is - which arises between democratic societies and non-democratic societies. They have great difficulty in understanding each other, people who live in a democracy with free press and freedom of expression simply cannot understand the realities of life in a society where the media are owned or controlled by authority, and where the free expression of opinion can be extremely dangerous. And it's the same the other way around. People who live in a dictatorship, including the dictator himself, often go badly wrong in judging a free society. Hitler, for example did that in 1939, when he totally misunderstood - misread what was happening in the west. He was half right, half wrong. He was right about France, he was wrong about England. INTERVIEWER: How does this impact upon the prominent in Israel, seem to have? The Israel regime? How does the government you just mentioned, to recap, how does that impact upon (Inaudible) on the central issue? 00:04:21>>> DR. LEWIS: Israel is, what you might call, a licensed grievance. And in this society it is very important that people should have a way of venting their spleen, expressing their grievances. Obviously it would be very dangerous if they started complaining about their own governments. They may do so in strict privacy, and under the seal of secrecy, but they cannot do so openly. They have a whole series of grievances, most of them, not all of them, legitimate grievances against their own governments. But these, of course, cannot be really expressed. And it is therefore useful to be able to deflect them elsewhere. 00:05:03>>> And, the Israel question has become the favorite licensed grievance. It's very suitable for a number of reasons. One of them is that Israel is an open society. So it is possible to come and go freely, to report freely, which is not possible in many other areas where the Israeli world comes into conflict with its neighbors. And the other reason is that Israel happens to be predominantly inhabited by Jews. And (Inaudible) Jews are Jews. And anything in which Jews are involved will arouse some feelings, either for or against, sometimes the one, sometimes the other, sometimes both at the same time. And that, again, gets a special interest and, shall we say, flavor, in making this issue the licensed grievance. By this I didn't mean to say the ___ aren't important and the big issues aren't real. But it is certainly not the major issue. INTERVIEWER: What would you say was the major issue motivating the September 11th issue? 00:06:15>>> DR. LEWIS: Well if you look at Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of war on the United States, which was published in February 1998, he gives three reasons. The first, of which, the one he gave the greatest emphasis, is the American presence in Saudi Arabia. The second one is the attack on Iraq from Saudi Arabia. And the third one, comparatively minor place, is the Palestinian question in which he speaks dismissively, and what he calls in Arabic, the ____, the sort of mini state or petty state of the Jews. And one can understand his order of priorities, remember, for Muslims the Holy Land is Arabia. That is where the prophet was born and lived and died, and revealed the Koran, and set up the first Islamic State and community. So for Muslims, the presence of non Muslim troops, on the sacred soil of the Holy Land, is an appalling desecration. And this is not the first time. Take, for example, the period of The Crusades. 00:07:26>>> When the Crusaders arrived in the Middle East and captured Jerusalem and set up their states in the Levant. Nobody gave a damn. And the extraordinary thing was the lack of reaction in the Muslim world at the time. The Muslims, in Jerusalem, sent agonized appeals for help to Damascus, and Baghdad, and Cairo. Nobody took the slightest notice. And, on the contrary, Crusaders set up their principalities. And these were able to fit very quickly into the game of politics, of alliances and counter-alliances, with Crusader states and Muslim states, so to speak, on both sides. When the counter Crusades really began, was when a Crusader chieftain started raiding Arabia, when he sent raiding parties to raid pilgrim caravans, and sent ships into the Red Sea to raid the ports. That was what really aroused Muslim anger, and that's what caused Saladin to start the great counter Crusade, which eventually led to dragging Crusaders out. INTERVIEWER: (Inaudible) 00:08:34>>> DR. LEWIS: He had an understanding, I wouldn't call it an alliance. But he certainly had an understanding with the Latin King of Jerusalem; a number of arrangements between the two of them, both ways. And this attack, (Inaudible), was in violation of the agreement between Saladin and the King of Jerusalem. Yes, that is correct. And that illustrates the importance - now, during the Great Age of British Imperial Expansion, in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the British Empire nibbled at the edges of Arabia. But they were wise enough not to land and establish forces on sacred soil. They were in Aden and had arrangements of various kinds with the gulf principalities. But they were wise enough not to land forces on Arabian soil. That was the principal cause of Osama Bin Laden's anger. And this appears very clearly in his own statements at the time. 00:09:39>>> The second one, was Iraq, and that again is understandable. Iraq is not a Holy Land in any sense. But Iraq was the seat of the Abasid, the greatest and most glorious period of Islamic history - the center of Islamic, and therefore in a sense, of world civilization, the heart of for half a millennium. Attacking Iraq was bad enough, but doing so from Arabia made it worse. And the Palestine issue comes in third place, in a rather perfunctory way. Later he realized there was something to be gained from changing the order, and he did so. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER: You mentioned the Crusaders, and the Crusader invasions, are there any ways you can talk about the way the Crusader theme echoes either by direct reference ___, today's feelings in the Muslim world and the Arabian world? 00:10:47>>> DR. LEWIS: Yeah, the interesting thing about the Crusader theme is that it is a comparatively modern development in the Islamic world. At the time of The Crusades, they were hardly noticed. And Muslim historiography is extraordinarily rich and extraordinarily detailed. They chronicled in meticulous detail, even minor skirmishes. They report the arrival of the Crusaders. They report every battle which occurred. But without noticing that there was such a thing as a Crusade going on. It's curious, for example, that the words Crusade and Crusader do not occur in the Arabic historiography of that period. They simply refer to them as the Franks, meaning these barbarians from Europe, or as the Christians, or most commonly, simply, as the Unbelievers. And they report the various battles and then the various political deals and so on, as, shall we say, a normal part of the historical process. 00:11:46>>> The discovery of the Crusades comes in the 19th Century, when they started translating European historical literature to Arabic, and realized the importance of this in a European perspective. And then, of course, making the necessary adjustments, adopted it in their own historical perspective. Nowadays it's become very important indeed. I think one needs to explain it as - INTERVIEWER: Let's take it from the top. 00:12:17>>> DR. LEWIS: One needs to explain this as part of a larger conflict. And there is a lot of talk, nowadays, about the clash of civilizations. I think that it's worth redefining this term for this purpose. There are many civilizations in History. But there are only two which come into this kind of clash. Most of the civilizations, India, China, the ancient civilizations of the Middle East, are regional or local, with one area, one or two ethnic groups. There are only two civilizations which claim a universal, global missions, these are Christianity and Islam. What they have in common is the belief, on both sides, that they - or should I say we - whichever one it is - we are the fortunate possessors of God's final message to humanity, which it is our duty to share with the rest of the world and not keep selfishly for ourselves. 00:13:23>>> So, you have two religions, with this sense of universal mission - theologically related, historically consecutive, geographically adjoining, and obviously a clash between them is inevitable. But the clash arises, not from their differences, but from their resemblances. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem, will certainly have visited the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock is, in itself, an interesting statement. It is on the site of the temple, the ancient Jewish Temple. It's near to, and in the style of such early Christian monuments as The Ascension and The Holy Sepulcher. And if you look at the inscription inside, of which there are a number, I studied - I taught Middle Eastern Studies at a time when it was not yet considered an offense to learn Arabic, and it has become so since, as you know. And if you read the inscriptions, you will find statements like this: He is God, one, he has no peer, he has no companion, he does not beget, he is not begotten. These are clearly polemical statements against certain basic Christian doctrines. And you'll find the same text inscribed on the gold coins which were struck by the Caliphate at the time, the Caliph built that monument. And this is clearly a challenge. What he is saying, in effect, is a saying to the Christian world and to the Christian emperor, Constantinople, Your time has passed, your revelation is superseded, we have God's final word- we have God's final word, move over it's our turn, we take over. And that was the beginning of a long series of wars between Christendom and Islam. First, between the Caliph states and Byzantium. Then, between the Ottomans and - well the Ottomans came later - Then the Crusaders and the counter-Crusades, and so on, until modern times. And Osama Bin Laden, from his writings, is clearly (or shall I say was, I don't know), a very historical minded person. With frequent references and allusions to past history. And it is quite clear that this is the framework in which he sees it. He will refer rapidly, rapid, incomplete, passing, allusions, to events of the 7th Century, 11th Century and so on. In the sure knowledge that his target audience will pick up and understand these allusions. INTERVIEWER: The United States is neither, a Christian - especially a Christian Empire, nor is it the only country to assert itself from the outside. Yet, isn't there something about The United States, particularly, as ____, and invading into the terrain of Arabia - wasn't it something specifically about the identity and shape of the United States? 00:16:47>>> DR. LEWIS: It is the fact that the United States [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] The role of America is due not so much to anything that America does in this or that particular context, but to the fact that America is now the unchallenged, unchallengeable leader of what we like to call the free world, what some people call the West, and what, in a Muslim perspective, will be seen as the world of the unbelievers, or more specifically, the world of the Christians. And the hostility, the warfare, were directed against the Christians by Constantine. Constantinople, against the Holy Emperor in Vienna, against the British and French Empires, all of which have passed. Now the United States is seen as the latest in the series of Infidel supreme rulers, delaying, obstructing the inevitable advance of Islam. INTERVIEWER: Nevertheless, the September 11th attacks while (Inaudible) didn't seem (Inaudible) weren't designed to strike American military, although there was an attack on the Pentagon, but it seemed particularly focused on killing the most amount of civilians in America (Inaudible). Can it be purely ___ simply by the strategic (Inaudible)? 00:18:15>>> DR. LEWIS: One has to see this in the context of their assessments of the United States. And we are quite well informed about this. And -what happened in the last ten, twelve, fifteen years, the major change in the world was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, we like to persuade ourselves that this was our achievement. This is indignantly denied by the Osama Bin Laden's and their like. And one cannot deny that there is some plausibility in what they say. The defeat of the Soviet Union was their achievement, not ours; in the mountains of Afghanistan, they fought, resisted, defeated and ejected the Soviets, leading to the collapse of The Soviet Union. 00:19:06>>> Now, for the last two hundred years or so, Muslim governments and others have been aware of their weakness, compared with the west, and they usually try to survive by playing the western powers off against one another. Now, for the first time, there was anyone - one - in the last stage of this pattern of rivalry, it was The United States against The Soviet Union. Of the two remaining super powers, one was now eliminated, only one remained. So this is a clear restatement of the global situation. 00:19:40>>> Now, if they felt they had succeeded in winning a victory against the larger, stronger, more determined, more ruthless, more dangerous of the two, and the dealing with the United States would be comparatively easy. And one finds this said - stated again and again, in interviews and others, the general line is, The Americans have gone soft. They are pampered, they can't take it. Hit them and they will run. And the saying, litany, is repeated again and again, by Osama Bin Laden and others; Vietnam, the marines in Beirut, Somalia, and a whole series of incidents during recent years which brought, in effect, no response. So they decided that they were dealing with a demoralized, degenerate - a demoralized and degenerate society which would collapse if attacked in this way. INTERVIEWER: If I was going to capture the last thing you said, so it is basically a perception of America - Bin Laden's perception of America, if you could sum it up. DR. LEWIS: As a corrupt, degenerate - they see America as a corrupt, degenerate society, rotten from within, soft, pampered, incapable of serious trouble. You see what happened in Afghanistan obviously gave them - pause for thought. But the debate that's been going on, since then, may confirm them in their earlier perception. INTERVIEWER: You've written, (Inaudible), that they were wrong about that they - hopefully, you (Inaudible) they were wrong about their perception of The United States. And that Bush's counteraction may have proven them wrong. DR. LEWIS: Mm-hm. INTERVIEWER: You expect this, in hindsight. 00:21:34>>> DR. LEWIS: Yes, what happened in Afghanistan, certainly came as a shock. They expected more of the same. In other words, fierce words, maybe one or two missiles to remote, and uninhabited places. But no more than that. They thought they would continue until the final overthrow of the great Satan. What happened in Afghanistan, certainly came as a shock. And brought some reassessment of realities. But I have the feeling that something that has happened, since then, in The United States, is totally beyond their comprehension. And that is the open debate of a free society. We see the open debate of a free society. They see hesitation, division, weakness, fear. What I am afraid of is that they will act on those mistaken assumptions. INTERVIEWER: Do you see any parallel between that assessment of the American society, and the assessment of some extreme Islamists here, about Israeli society? 00:22:33>>> DR. LEWIS: Well yesterday, much so - you find the same points being made against Israel. Some even say, explicitly, the Israeli's like their American patrons, I've seen that, have become soft and pampered, hit them and they'll run. I have seen it in print and I've heard it in many conversations. That was strengthened, in their opinion, confirmed, by the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Now, I think it was right for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. I think they should have withdrawn a long time ago. In 82', they went in to do something, they did it. Having done it, there was no reason to stay on. But they did. But the manner of the withdrawal, that confirmed all of these assessments. I mean, a hasty, undignified departure; abandoning equipment, and abandoning friends, does not - does not project an image of strength and determination. INTERVIEWER: You mentioned a lot of political, historical, psychological, collective psychological ___, what about the content of certain religious (Inaudible)? Do you think that is actually derivable, or even distortable from subversion of Islamic groups? 00:23:55>>> DR. LEWIS: Well, it's very difficult to generalize about Islam. When you talk about Islam, remember we use the word Islam in two senses; we use it as the equivalent of Christianity, that's to say a religion in the strict sense, a system of belief and worship. We also use it as the equivalent of Christendom. Which means a whole civilization under the aegis of that religion. ,Now, Hitler and the Nazis are not part of Christianity, but they did arise within Christendom. They are part of the history of Christendom. And if you want to try and understand the Nazi phenomenon, you have to look at it in its historical context. Now, unfortunately, as I say, we use the same word Islam, in these two different senses. I would say that Bin Laden is on another movement of the same kind. Not part of true Islam, central Islam, mainstream Islam, or whatever you choose to call it. But this certainly arises within the context of Islamic history and culture. And this is due, in particular, to the unfortunate combination of three different things. One of them is Wajabi [PH] doctrine. Wajabism is a very peculiar, I won't say sect, that's really a Christian term that doesn't apply. Let's say a school of thought, within Islam, which arose in Desert Arabia - in the northeast of Arabia - in the 18th Century. And until the mid 20th Century, remained, basically, a local phenomenon. Wajabi doctrine is very extreme, very radical, very violent, and totally intolerant. Not only intolerant of non-Muslims, but intolerant of any version of Islam, other than their own. 00:25:46>>> The second factor is the rise of the house of Saud. The Saudi house ___, where there were tribal sheiks in ___. They adopted a Wajabi doctrine. And they tried, on several occasions, to spread elsewhere in Arabia. And in the mid 20's, of the 20th Century, they were finally successful. They succeeded in overthrowing the Kingdom of the Hijas which is where Mecca and Medina, the holy cities of Islam, are situated. They drove out previous orders. They took over Mecca and Medina, and they incorporated these Holy Cities. This gave them - in their kingdom - they incorporated these holy cities in their kingdom - this gave them enormous influence of prestige in the Islamic world. The Saudi ruler was now, to use their phrase, the custodian of the holy places. Enormous prestige deriving from that, had gained him control of the pilgrimage. Which, every year brings hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims, from all over the Moslem world. That's two. 00:27:00>>> Now, the third thing that happened is the discovery of oil, which suddenly gave them wealth beyond their dreams of avarice. So, you have this combination of the Saudi monarchy, Wajabi doctrines, and oil money enabling them to spread that peculiar brand of Islam all over the Islamic world. And - let me try to explain it by an imaginary parallel. Imagine that the Ku Klux Klan obtains control of The State of Texas. Has total control of its oil wells, and its oil revenues. And they then use this money to establish a well endowed network of schools and colleges, all over Christendom, peddling their peculiar brand of Christianity. That is not nearly as bad as the reality of what happened, because most Christian countries have reasonably good school systems. Many Moslem countries don't. And the Wajabi, sponsored and financed, schools are the only ones that are available for young Muslims with no money. So they are having an enormous impact. They're also having it in the former Soviet territories; the Republics, which are a majority - a Muslim majority populations, where there was previously no religious education, and where the Wajabi's, amply financed, are now providing it. It's happening also among the Muslim communities, in non-Muslim countries - in Europe and America, where, for obvious reasons, the government does not interfere in religious education of minority communities. So they are free to do it any way that they like. ,It's interesting, for example, but so far twelve Turks have been arrested as members of Al Qaeda. All twelve of them were born and brought up, and educated, in Germany. Not one of them in Turkey. Because religious education, Muslim religious education in Turkey, is conducted under supervision. Muslim religious education in Germany is totally unsupervised, as it is in the United States and elsewhere. So that people who have a very natural desire to provide their children with some knowledge, and their inherited culture and tradition, want to send their children to evening classes, or weekend classes, or holiday camps, or whatever. These are now almost entirely controlled by Wajabi's. And they-they spread this very strange version of Islam. 00:29:42>>> If it hadn't been for the combination of Saudi power and oil money, Wajabism would have remained a lunatic fringe in a marginal country. It is this unholy combination, which has made it a world force which we have to confront. INTERVIEWER: You mentioned the world forces, this world force as opposed to ___. Do you have anything specific to say about Judaism or Jews? DR. LEWIS: Oh yes. I mean from the Muslim point of view, and this is not just Wajabi. From the Muslim point of view Judaism and Christianity are not false religions, like Buddhism, say, or Confucianism. They are superseded religions. From the Muslim perception, there was, shall we say, a series of revelations. The Jews have theirs, the Christians came later with theirs, but both the Jews and the Christians falsify their religions; they proved unworthy custodians of the revelations that had been given to them. That's why a new one was needed. So, when Islam came, Judaism and Christianity were superseded, replaced by the latest version of God's revelation. And Muslim law lays down, quite explicitly, that Jews and Christians must be tolerated. They must be allowed to practice their religions, within certain limits, and subject to certain conditions. But not in the Holy Land of Arabia. There, non-Muslims are not permitted to set foot. INTERVIEWER: This is a different narrative from the standard that we hear about, the grievances of the Muslim Arab world, in particular. (Inaudible) in flux of foreigners, Jews, came in the 1930's, and 40's, ___ populated Arab (Inaudible). Is replacing its population and become a world power in its midst, (Inaudible). 00:31:44>>> DR. LEWIS: I didn't mean to suggest that the grievances about Palestine are imaginary. There are genuine grievances arising from a genuine problem. But it is only one of a series of such grievances. If you look around all the edges of the Muslim world, where Muslims and non Muslims meet; in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Chechnya in Kashmir, in ___, in Mindanao, and so on, and so on, you have these conflicts between Muslims and non Muslims, of which the Palestine conflict is one. In some respects, worse than others, in some respects not as bad as others. But certainly the most publicized, for the reasons I mentioned before, you're dealing with a - it has special publicity for one reason, because Israel is an open society, where one can talk, and broadcast, and print, and come, and go freely. Which is hardly the case in these other places that I mentioned. And second, because Jews are involved. And that's always a good point of publicity. INTERVIEWER: What about the third real grievance about this notion that Jews can't displace (Inaudible)? That Jews are the latest version of colonialism (Inaudible)? 00:33:07>>> DR. LEWIS: Yes, there are some who put it that way, and there are different ways of interpreting these matters. As regards the specific point of displacement, and -the-events of 1948 have to be seen, I think, in its terrible context. And, yes, according to UN statistics, about three quarters of a million Arabs fled or were driven from Palestine in the course of the hostilities. If I may remind you of the circumstances. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to establish two states; a Jewish State and an Arab State, in the former British mandated territory in Palestine, with an international enclave in Jerusalem. 00:34:23>>> The General Assembly passed this resolution, but as has often been the way of the United Nations, it made no arrangements whatever for its enforcement, or even an application. The Arab League did make arrangements for its prevention. They declared, right away, that they would not recognize it, and sent their armies to invade Palestine and prevent the application of the resolution. They were half successful, half unsuccessful. They failed to prevent the establishment of Israel. They were able to prevent the establishment of the Palestinian state, which was also part of the resolution. And the territories which were not part occupied or administered to Israel, at that time, they were occupied and administered by neighboring Arab States - that's to say, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. INTERVIEWER: Can you repeat the last sentence? (Inaudible). DR. LEWIS: Yes. INTERVIEWER: The territories were not occupied. DR. LEWIS: Yeah, the parts of Palestine which were not included in Israel, that weren't held by Israel at the time of the cease fire, were occupied by the neighboring Arab states. That's to say, Syria in the north, Jordan in the east, and Egypt in the south. The Jordanians and next to those territories, made them part of Jordan, and conferred citizenship on the inhabitants. The other two did not. They regarded them as occupied territories, and did not give citizenship. The reasons why Arabs left, like the reasons why so many Jews left Arab countries at the time, have been much argued about, and like so many other cases during and immediately after wars, there's a mixture of different reasons. Some were certainly driven out, many more fled in the normal disorder of a conflict situation. 00:35:56>>> It's interesting, I think, to compare the partition of Palestine in 1948, with the partition of India in 1947 in the previous year, a similar operation in another British dependency, again arising from the establishment of a new state. Much greater numbers were involved in the partition of India. Where the numbers who fled or were driven - Muslims fleeing from India to Pakistan, Hindus fleeing or driven from Pakistan to India, there it was not hundreds or thousands, but millions that were involved. And the interesting difference is that they were all resettled within a comparatively short time. Whereas the Palestine refugees were preserved in camps, from then till now. The major difference, I think, was that the United Nations was not involved in the partition of India. And there was, therefore, no apparatus for conserving this problem. INTERVIEWER: Back to the American story END OF TAPE
CONTEMPORARY STOCK FOOTAGE
NEWSFEED: 10/1-2/2005, CRIME SCENE IN TRAILER PARK, BOMBING IN BALI, GOOD WILDFIRE REACHING HOUSES, HISTORICAL, REPLICA GALLEON ;VT MCLAUGHLIN KILLED IN IRAQ stills, military funeral. CA THURMAN FIRE Air to Air helicopter drops water on small wildfire ;GA HOME INVASION yellow tape, coroners with body on gurney, crime scene in trailer park ;EL SALVADOR LANDSLIDE rescue workers crossing mud. NY CHILDRENS SERVICES t/h ;BALI BLAST mostly NX bombing aftermath. IRAQ US IMAGE Karen Hughes as ambassador ;LA FIRES Aerial wildfire near house on hill, dropping water, people watching fire in neighborhood, giving pizza to firefighter ;NX hazy wildfire, loose horses, shower of sparks. FL FUNERAL FOR OFFICER police pallbearers, gun salute, dove release ;WI PONY EXPRESS RETIREE middle-aged postal worker sorting mail, delivering mail from horse-drawn coach on last day ;DC AIRBORNE BACTERIA Dusk men toss football in park, DX 'Mobile Health Screening' van, woman jogging, frisbee ;OK UNIVERSITY BOMBING NX police dog, fire engine. BALI EXPLOSION tourists being evacuated, street scenes; Police investigate bomb site beach front restaurant. TAIWAN TYPHOON stormy coast, storm damage ;NO TITLE B/W Ghandi. BUSH ATTENDS RED MASS Bush leaving church with bishop, does he go anywhere without Condoleeza? ;CHINA TIGHTROPE over zoo animal pens, leopard, tiger, spectators, tightrope walker puts on blindfold, crosses backwards ;LONDON BOMBINGS surveillance still of suspect. POPE BENEDICT XVI saying mass, papal ring, bishops in white ;IRAQ INSURGENTS KILLED smoke rising, helicopter, scraps on roadside ;10/3/1981 IRISH PRISON STRIKE END Dusk prison, DX vigil, funeral, NX people flinging molotov cocktails ;10/3/1990 GERMANY REUNIFY German flag, parliament, protest, people throwing stuff at riot police, masked men shout ;10/3/1995 OJ SIMPSON ACQUITTED Simpson hearing verdict. KATRINA FRENCH QUARTER CHURCH SERVICE Int Catholic mass ;SWEDISH REPLICA 18TH CENTURY SHIP restaurant within, galleon at dock, leaving dock, amid flotilla ;IRAQ ROCKET ATTACKS Iraqi soldiers, crater, drone plane on ground, masked militants video ;BOMB SCENE motorcade, security, press conf, wreaths, bomb site in Bali. MEXICO HURRICANE OTIS cars on flooded streets ;Tow-truck rights jeep missing a wheel, lines in airport ;CA BODY PARTS IN A BAG 'We ran over it once, and then we reversed and we kind of hit it again.' ;
Draft Resolution on Iraq
In New York City, the Security Council meets at the UN to review U.S.-backed draft resolution to invade Iraq, followed by a speech by President Bush. PLEASE NOTE News anchor and reporter image and audio, along with any commercial production excerpts, are for reference purposes only and are not clearable and cannot be used within your project.
GS-5 DAT
TODAY IN HISTORY - JANUARY (AUDIO ONLY)
INVASION OF IRAQ
REPRESENTATIVE LEE HAMILTON D-IDAHO REACTION TO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH'S SPEECH ON THE SITUATION IN IRAQ MILITARY TROOP FORCE MOVEMENTS INTERVIEW DONE IN THE HOUSE GALLERY
24h Pujadas: [program of May 19, 2022]
LCI
President and First Lady Bush and Chancellor and First Lady Schroeder
EXT DAY WS of First Ladies Laura Bush and Doris Schroeder walking to meet President George W Bush and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. They stand together outside the Electoral Palace in Mainz, Germany.
War in Iraq (George Bush) - 7
Visiting with troops in Florida, president Bush says "This war is far from over. As they approach Baghdad, our fighting units are facing the most desperate elements of a doomed regime." PLEASE NOTE News anchor and reporter image and audio, along with any commercial production excerpts, are for reference purposes only and are not clearable and cannot be used within your project.
INVASION OF IRAQ
CONCLUDING COVERAGE OF REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-ILL) CONDUCTING A PRESS CONFERENCE FROM THE HOUSE PRESS GALLERY ABOUT PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH'S REACTION TO THE IRAQI INVASION OF KUWAIT. 00:43:46 FTG OF HYDE DISCUSSING US MILITARY STRATEGIES IN THE PERSIAN GULF. CI: PERSONALITIES: BUSH, GEORGE (ABOUT). PERSONALITIES: HYDE, HENRY.
FSN-280 Beta SP
BUSH, OLMERT, BLAIR
[Short set: OFF - BUSH "IRAQ" INSTEAD OF "UKRAINE"]
A2 / France 2
CLARKE/HIS INVASION
CONTEMPORARY STOCK FOOTAGE
NEWSFEED: 7/25-27/2006, MISSILE STRIKE IN PALESTINE, BIRD FLU VICTIM & VACCINE, AUTOMOBILE AUCTION, YATES TRIAL, POLICE IMPERSONATORS ;NO TITLE Andrea Yates trial scenes, standing for verdict ;MIDDLE EAST BOLTON ATTACKED speaking. GERALD FORD FILE George W.Bush holding Gerald Ford's hand ;MIDDLE EAST TYRE AIR STRIKES dark smoke rising, people search thru rubble, paramedics carry stretcher into bldg ;BIG MONEY CARS ON DISPLAY people looking at fancy cars. POWER CRISES QUEENS RESIDENT ;BIRD FLU THAI BOY DIES heavily covered medicos examining boy, man fumigating open pit, people in haz-mats drop sacks in pit ;BIRD FLU GLAXO HFN1 VACCINE bottles of vaccine, readying hypodermic needle, giving woman a shot, making vaccine ;HIGHWAY SHOOTING IN SUSPECT escorted by police. IRAQ SENATORS REACT IRAQ ;ISRAEL SENATORS REACT HEZBOLLAH. ANDREA YATES VERDICT trial scenes ;VA PONY SWIM spectators stand on misty green shore, wild ponies crossing channel ;BUSH LUNCH WITH TROOPS Bush arriving at some military base, shaking hands in cafeteria, whatta guy ;MI MEGA MARKDOWN ON MEGA HOUSE Int upscale house, mansion 'a home like this takes a special buyer'...special = rich ; MIDDLE EAST WOUNDED FROM TYRE STRIKE male nurse carrying child to x-ray table, wounded standing in dark corridor of hospital ;PAUL MCCARTNEY'S 1ST GUITAR 'Tabernacle', man holding guitar, reporters taking pictures ;7/27/1996 OLYMPIC BOMBING shock waves interrupt interview, NX paramedics among wounded, ambulance speeding away; 7/27/1953 KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE B/W. WWE WRESTLER VAN DAM either he has a 3-D bumper sticker or there's a bug in the corner ;ANDREA YATES TX MENTAL HEALTH ASSOC. FL LOBSTER MINI-SEASON MISHAPS boating accident aftermath ;Man pauses from yanking the tails off of live lobsters in order to tell us the thrilling details ;RUSTY YATES REACTS TO VERDICT. FL HOME INVASION bold burglars tie up woman (pretending to be police on a raid) ;NX 'For Rent' sign on fence, police chatting. BUSH WALSH CHILD PROTECTION ACT he signs it, (applause, applause), speech ;MS CHILD SHOT SUSPECT HEARING trial scenes, man in shackles escorted to van. TOUR DE FRANCE LANDIS WITHDRAWAL ;