I have known that Jose Maria Aznar is a Spanish right wing politician who represents everything that I hate and oppose. However, I moved from merely opposing him to despising him after he endorsed George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, and its so-called War on Terror. I admit that I was very pleased when Aznar was defeated by Rodriguez Zapatero in the general elections in 2004, and was also pleased when the latter won a second term four years later. Recall that the 2004 elections were held on March 11, and were preceded three days earlier by the train bombings in Madrid. At the time, Aznar insisted that it was the ETA separatist group behind the bombings, and continued to do so even after it was proven that the responsibility lies with Islamist fundamentalist terrorists. Even in a television interview in 2006, he said that he does not believe that the fundamentalists alone were behind the bombings. It is this obstinacy in the face of facts that is behind Aznar's defeat. More than 90 percent of the Spaniards were against the war on Iraq, and organized the largest demonstrations in the history of their country in protest against it. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister supported the war, and sent soldiers from Spain to die in distant lands. In contrast, Zapatero fought the elections on an anti-war agenda, and when he won in 2004, his first decision was to withdraw the Spanish forces from Iraq. In short, my opinion regarding Aznar is the same as Hugo Chavez's, who described him in a Latin American Summit to be ‘less human than snakes' and a fascist. Aznar, who is politically over and because of whom the Popular Party lost its popularity, also collapsed morally before the end of the decade. He recently founded the ‘Friends of Israel' group, and wrote a strange article entitled ‘If Israel goes down, we all go down”. But he invoked impossibility even before he started, first of all because Israel is not at risk of falling, and second of all because the fall of a fascistic state cannot influence the future of Western democracy. In the first paragraph, Aznar described the crime against the peace activists in international waters as an ‘incident', and that if we were in an ideal world, the Israeli soldiers would have been welcomed peacefully on board the ship (I swear this is what he said). He continues by saying that Israel was created by a UN decision, and hence, its legitimacy cannot be questioned. I want to tell him that Nazi Germany's legitimacy, too, could not be questioned until it invaded its neighbours. Aznar as a professional, or perverted, politician cannot be considered on the same moral level as that of the U.S Christian churches, Western universities and international peace groups that have raised questions regarding Israel's legitimacy, or the lack thereof, after the latter committed every possible crime against the Palestinians, the sole legitimate owners of the land. But it seems that Aznar has embraced extremist Zionism as a doctrine against those churches. Aznar concluded that “owing to its roots, history and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation”. I agree with half of his statement here. Indeed, Israel resembles the old colonial Western countries that invaded our countries. However, colonialism is over, even if it is still nested in Aznar's head, and no other example of the ugly old colonialism remains except the state of Israel. Aznar then continues by claiming that Israel is a democratic state. But this is wrong because its government wants Israel to be a Jewish state, which practically translates into racism against all other religious denominations and ethnicities. Moreover, questioning Israel's legitimacy, for the second time, was at the initiative of Christian churches. As for the Islamist extremists, we shun them as much as we shun Israel, and they would not have even existed were it not for the ongoing occupation, murder and destruction. It is Israel's actions that spawned them, and it is Israel that justifies their existence, and each suicide attack that Aznar refers to, is the responsibility of Israel alone. Israel is at the root of all terrorism, and the first side to practice terrorism in the Middle East. The Islamic resistance groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad were only created twenty years or more after the ongoing occupation. Aznar sees nothing when it comes to the crime of Israel's establishment on the lands of the Palestinians, and even the subsequent occupation, wars against the people of the country and its neighbours, the settlements, and the theft of the Jerusalemites' homes, but instead he says that “Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region...” To this I say that Europe would not have needed any defence were it not for the fact that Aznar and his ilk of opportunist politicians support a fascist state that murders women and Children, and then I would like to remind him that it was Christian Europe that murdered the Jews, not us. Yet, we have been paying the price for the European crime to this very day. Aznar then concludes by saying that faced with this ‘aggression' on Israel (the word Israel is synonymous with aggression, in fact) he founded the Friends of Israel group to defend the Jewish state, i.e. to defend the crime. The names of the group's members that he mentions are extremist opportunists like him, and alone justify the extremism on the other side which the majority of Arabs and Muslims reject. One last time, I put the Christian churches – and suffice myself with them – in one pan and Aznar and the scum of right-wing Zionists in the other pan of the scale, and then feel ashamed of even comparing the two pans. [email protected]
