In an editorial which appeared in the Palestinian weekly, Al-Manar, there is a letter addressed to President Bush, with the heading: He who is ruled by a murderer…cannot rule the world:
Which sensible president is capable of changing his objectives in accordance with the interests of others, and personal revenge?
The letter begins: First of all, we must admit that the key to peace and war is now in America’s hands. It continues by addressing itself directly to the person it calls “president of the country of the one-pole (as opposed to the two poles which existed during the Cold War period), Vice King of the World, who pulls the reins of governments from east to west, north to south.”
Further along in the editorial it becomes clear that the King of the World is Prime Minister Sharon.
The editorial continues as follows: “To President Bush, in himself small, but large in his duties. We can’t find you opposite us, what with your positions like quicksilver which slip through the fingers. You have no position on any subject, except if it is related to the real king of the world – Sharon.
“He who was unaware of this relationship was often shocked by your unclear position vis-a-vis the world. Your attitude can be understood only when we understand your relationship to Zionism, which is capturing Palestinian land, specifically, and the entire world, in general.
”We will limit ourselves to two problems which presently concern the entire world: Palestine and Iraq.
“The truth is clear and no sensible person can make a mistake about it: conquered land, and even your government’s decision, which represents the largest country in the world, cannot deny this fact. Palestine has a capital, and this capital is one of the holiest cities in the world for Muslims, as well as for Christians. However, the decision to transfer the
embassy of the largest country in the world from the settlement or city of Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has clear significance: Tel Aviv was not and will not be the capital of the conquering entity. The American decision constitutes also an instruction to the rest of the world to follow in its footsteps.
“The question now arises: what does the American people gain by distancing itself from all the peoples of the region, and placing the Zionist interest above all others, while ignoring what had transpired in the past, when peoples rose up against their rulers; and from the present – with the anger and the blaming for this shameful deterioration on the USA and Zionism; as well as the future – with the world dividing into two camps, the truth camp and the camp of lies, and not according to American division – those who support it and those who don’t (the terrorist camp).”
Further along, the author of the editorial asks, “What benefit does the American people derive from the fact that its money, its brains and mental acuity are being robbed by its government, and all these are being
sacrificed because of the government’s great love of the conquering entity”… and its readiness to be like a slave which carries the equipment of the king of the world (Sharon) and responds to his demands.
The author of the editorial claims that,”When Bush looks in the mirror, he sees the face of a bound slave, who doesn’t move even when the truth stares him in the face. Not only this, but he continues to build factories of destruction in his country, whose purpose is the killing of Palestinian infants and boys, the destruction of their houses and the uprooting of their trees…what advantage does the American people find in this madness?”
“What advantage does the American people derive from this insanity, rather than considering the possibility that the day will come and a new reality will appear, whereby relations will be established not between regimes but rather, between peoples. Will the American people be able to evade then, too, its responsibilities for its actions?”
The author of the editorial writes that the reasons for Bush’s fight against Iraq don’t require any special explanations. Among the reasons for the conflict are: 1) A strategy designed to exploit the region’s resources; 2) The same objectives as those of vintage colonialism, to which are now added the objectives of new colonialism; and 3) The personal hostility of
Bush Sr., which has passed on to Bush Jr.
The author asks, can a sensible American citizen imagine to himself that the president of the world’s most powerful nation will want to become involved in a bloody war, and all this so as to slake the thirst of one person, to wit, Bush Sr.? This resembles other historical events, among them Nero’s playing of his fiddle during Rome’s destruction, which he himself burned down.
The author of the editorial warns of things to come. According to him, evil will not continue to win out. Armies of invaders have passed through this region in the past, and left their mark, but none of them remained for any length of time. In the end, there remained in the area those with the right to it, who were not put off by siege and suffering and whose blood was soaked up by the land. This mixture of blood and land is what cemented the bricks of the mighty palace of freedom.
The blood of Palestinian and Iraqi children will not be shed in vain, and the souls of the shaheeds (martyrs) will not rest until their revenge is taken. The author raises a rhetorical question, “Can the president of the world’s most powerful country be sure that his strength will be preserved forever and that his king (Sharon) and his regime will remain in power? After all, the sea swallowed up Pharaoh at a time when he was most intransigent…and Sadat went to his grave at the peak of his power.”