Demonstration against the withdrawal of Gaza

Since the 90’s and the collapse of the USSR, the US tactic on Russia is aimed at preventing it from becoming an «empire» again, to take up Zbigniew Brzezinski’s expression. In order to do that, Washington supported, and still supports, the accession of the former members of the communist block to NATO and European Union. That strategy currently covers the former Soviet republics, such as Ukraine or Georgia.
Belarus is an exception in that panorama since it has thus far resisted the destabilizing attempts and due to its clear will to get even closer to Russia. The president of Belarus Alexander Lukachenko stated during the presentation of credentials by the new Russian Ambassador to Minsk, that he hoped that the Russian Ambassador would be the last one to hold that office since reunification is taking place. In the website Strana.ru, the famous political scientist from Belarus Alexander Feduta did not share such optimism and indicated that there was a number of problems that prevented Belarus from joining Russia. In his opinion, the economy of Belarus is highly centralized if compared to that of its great neighbor. On the other hand, Lukachenko’s preference for power prevents him from making the necessary decisions for unification, if he feels that they affect him. The political scientist is also reserved when it comes to a possible unification for the year 2008, predicted by Pavel Borodin, the Secretary of State of Russia-Belarus Union.
The Russian «containment» does not depend only on Europe. That strategy is also applied in the Caucasus, where the former Soviet republics are suffering the «colored revolutions» and the Russians are facing the war in Chechnya. This conflict is seen in the West as a war of independence, while for the Russians it is a foreign maneuver of destabilization. Such is the point of view stated, also in Strana.ru, by Ilya Chabalkin, the spokesman of the Command of Russian Forces in the Northern Caucasus and General of FSB. Chabalkin accused Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom of financing and assisting the foreign mercenaries who fight the Russian forces. Based on the case of a British journalist who died in Chechnya and whose body has not been claimed, it is stated that the MI-6 is present in the region.

The British media did not echo those serious accusations, especially at times when it focuses on the campaign for the legislative elections on May 5.
The British left-wing daily, Guardian, continued its attacks against Tony Blair giving the word to his adversaries on the issue of the war of Iraq. George Galloway, head of the Respect Coalition, indicated that it was impossible to forgive Blair’s responsibility in the massacre. He called therefore the voters to prevent the next war, in which the British might be involved if George W. Bush’s allies are re-elected. Galloway feels that, even in case of a victory by the Labor Party, Blair would lose the post to Gordon Brown. The British Prime Minister defends himself in The Independent. He ascertained that the war against Iraq is justified because it made it possible for the overthrow of a tyrant. However, knowing perfectly well that he would not convince the voters on this issue, quickly used another argument: if he was not re-elected, the Conservative Party would take power and not only would it have acted like him as to Iraq, as recognized by his leader Michael Howard, but also it would have implemented an economic policy that causes fear in the electorate. That is why, the New Labor should be considered a minor ill. «Help, the right-wing is coming back!», that is his justification.
The French daily Libération, for its part, published a text by Salman Rushdie before the publication of the Labor Party’s program in The Telegraph. Rushdie indicated that the war on Iraq is a serious thing, but it will not dissuade him from voting for the Labor Party. In his opinion, the truth is that the Prime Minister triggered a massacre - he should not have followed George W. Bush-, but he did it in good faith and should not be condemned for that. He stated, however, that if the Labor Party maintains its project to condemn denominational hatred is because it yielded to the Islamic and then it will not have his vote. The Labor Part included that project again in its program, which has enabled the New Labor to obtain the support of the Great Britain Muslim Council despite the war against Iraq. Before achieving that goal, the surveys showed that the Labor Party was about to lose half of the votes from the Muslims, who would have voted then for the Democratic-Liberal Party.

Very far from that debate, in which the supporters of the British Prime Minister are easing the situation in Iraq, the Archbishop of Basora, Gabriel Kassab, stated in an interview to the Austrian daily Die Presse that the war has not brought any improvement for the Iraqis. Although the UN embargo has been lifted, the population has not seen any change in everyday life, apart from the increase of uncertainty.

Another ally of George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon, is also facing political difficulties in his country. However, it is not the left-wing people who are threatening this time the Israeli Prime Minister, but his extreme right-wing people. In fact, for certain extremists among extremists, the withdrawal plan of Gaza is an abomination because, even though it serves the Zionist interests, since it unilaterally organizes a change of territories for Israel to be safer, implies the abandonment of the conquered territories.
Daniel Mandel, from Middle East Forum, published in the Boston Globe a text in which the influence of his teacher Daniel Pipes is shown, including the style and structure. He stated that the withdrawal of Gaza would be a tacit support to the «terrorists» and urged the Bush administration to stop it. Natan Sharansky, Minister of the Diaspora and Jerusalem, close to the Bush administration, presented his resignation letter to the Israeli Prime Minister, and refused to accept the plan. The Jerusalem Post published his resignation letter. Loyal to the «democratic» rhetoric of which lessons were given to the Bush administration, he felt that the Palestinian authority should have been democratized before Israel withdrew from any territory and asserted that he could not continue approving the action from the government.
In the pages of the Daily Star, the British-Arab analyst Khalid Hroub denounced the hypocrisy of democratization rhetoric. There is no democratization. The Arabic countries approach Israel to gain Washington’s sympathy against the will of their own people. The United States favors the elections, but only accepts those which end up with the victory of its favorite candidates; proclaims that it champions freedom of press while it censured Al Jazeera when its reports did not favor US interests. The democratization is nothing but a farce and will not get credibility until Washington stops supporting the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, since the occupation is a true representation of disregard to people’s will. In the same daily, the former US Undersecretary of Defense Edward S. Walker, totally refutes those arguments: the United States does the right thing; its policy is altruist, but the Arabs fail to understand it because they are trapped in paranoid stereotypes. It would be convenient then to offer a more favorable image of the United States by promoting exchanges between the American and Arab elite and opinion leaders. In fact, there has to be more investment on the training of the Arab Atlantic elites of tomorrow.