Attempts at reform which have come in from the outside world and been imposed from the West over the past 200 years have remained as state and government projects, due to the unwillingness of the powerful elite to engage in democratic processes, which is, in turn, why these attempts at reform are not usually internalized by society as a whole. Those who set out with the goal of changing this situation first need to think carefully before taking steps. Unfortunately, what happens in Turkey is that we first take steps forward, and then start thinking. This could be seen as a bit of an Ottoman tradition, actually.

Of course, in making reforms, we will reap benefits from the West. But we also need to make some semantic interventions into our conceptual framework. The key concepts arising from Western or other cultural wealth of experiences naturally include world views, philosophies and background plans which are directly related to other nations' institutions and political structures. If we simply import these concepts without altering them, they cannot help us; these are concepts which need to be arranged according to our own physical, social and historical development. After all, the Quran itself changed some of the meanings in the language of the society to which it came. While Arabic words maintained the same form, their meaning underwent deep-rooted changes. Likewise, the philosopher Farabi borrowed some basic concepts from Greek metaphysics and philosophy, altering them, and even re-defining some entirely. Had Muslim scholars not done this, Greek philosophy would have remained an archaic resource, and would have been useless in the creation of modern knowledge.

It was in the 19th century that this opportunity presented itself to us. But the figures of the Tanzimat, the Meşrutiyet and the Republic eras of Turkey all formed their relations with the West on a symbolic level, not thinking to form relations on a conceptual level. It was Sultan Mahmut II who first formed these incorrect relations: borrowing jazz music, offering alcoholic drinks at official meetings, changing outfits, replacing the sarık with the fez, then later the fez with the hat, banning the headscarf, intervening in the wearing of beards by men, and so on. These were all models accepted in the 20th century which derived from Mahmut II.

I talked a bit above about the relations between the Abbasis and Greek philosophy, and how it was not on the level of “awe and symbols,” but rather on a smart and conceptual level. This was true also for their relations with Indian, Babylonian, Iranian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures. Note that Muslims did not translate Greek literature, mythology, tragedies and poetry into Arabic. They translated instead the philosophy and knowledge. Their goal in doing this was to benefit from the wealth of experience and knowledge of other cultures and civilizations, and to use their own religion and abilities to engage in their own semantic changes to all this. Looked at from this perspective, the modernization of Ottoman-Turk was unsuccessful; it cannot be an example to the Islamic world. What we need to take instead as an example is the above-mentioned Abbasi model.

We could use these Abbasi methods today to help us in finding solutions and providing new frameworks through which to interpret and understand our problems with democracy, civil society, and so on. Of course, this does not mean we will simply affect whichever changes grab us at the moment with these concepts. But at the same time, we ought not to simply import concepts from the West as they are, and should instead alter and shape them according to our own culture, history and society. When we grapple with the process of societal change, and deal with it according to this sort of framework, then we can use our own inner dynamics to change.

Todays Zaman (via TimeTurk)

source: http://en.timeturk.com/ali-bulac-what-we-get-from-the-west,-and-how-to-use-it–894-yazisi.html

In Response to Jeff Gates' At What Cost the Israel Lobby?
Jeff Gates at www.criminalstate.com, on the issue of Israeli Nuclear weapons, after exploring JFK's (perceived) role, observes of the immediate pertinent question at hand:

'Special Standard for a Special Friend Due to its “special relationship” with the U.S., Tel Aviv remains a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. … What about Israel? What has their lobby been doing? … At what point will Americans say: Enough!' — Jeff Gates, At What Cost the Israel Lobby? October 12, 2009

This response to Mr. Gates' outstanding article contrarily examines two of its key highlights: 1) Israel's Nuclear Weapons program; and 2) Israel Lobby.

Israel's Nuclear Weapons Program
My view on the Israeli Nuclear Weapons program has always been principally based on Theodor Herzl's view of the Jewish mission in Palestine, that: 

We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism, as he endeavored to justify Der Judenstaat to imperial powers du jour, predicting: 

The antisemites WILL BECOME our most loyal friends, the antisemites nations will become our allies.

Every generation of Zionist statesmen and stateswomen since then, has emphasized that indispensable role of Zionistan as a frontier outpost of the West:

There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, they are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.

That was Moshe Katsav, Israel's President, in June 2001. And this is George W. Bush, as the erstwhile President of the United States, while representing the sole-superpower at Israel's 60th B-day bash in May 2008: 

Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed. We built strong democracies to protect the freedoms given to us by an Almighty God. ( Celebrating Israel's 60th Birthday in the 60th year of the Nakba by Bible Burning in Zionistan ).

That century year old linkage of shared ethos and sharing of same principles manifests itself in the Israeli-American relationship. It is a lot more than AIPAC and JINSA. It has to do with who the oligarchs are, and what might be their overarching agenda with respect to the Zion that will light up all the world.

The visible politicians running governments are merely the 'errand boys' who implement only their great benefactors' agendas. While Theodor Herzl and the World Zionist Federation are credited with founding Israel, the fact that it was done with Rothschild money is rarely if ever mentioned. Even by the antagonists of Israel! Notice that the Balfour Declaration was issued to Lord (Lionel) Rothschild. Why to him? The world's financial powers control both nations, as well as those of the European continent.

So, fast forwarding past the palpably obvious Israel Lobby factor, to being that 'Ubermensch' vanguard of culture against barbarianism, the farthest outpost of Western culture and civilization, Zionistan is an integral part of the world superpower equation that is being ridden hard by its ideological-financial oligarchs. In both, its la mission civilisatrice agenda, as well as a proxy henchman on the Grand Chessboard when public opinion won't allow the greatest democracy on earth to play havoc with others itself (in idyllic times now past of course).

This is what I wrote in Chapter 2  of Prisoners of the Cave in 2003, and I remain un-persuaded, still, that this is an inaccurate perception of the reality of hegemony:

Excerpt:

While the number of ~200 is often quoted, even today, it is an old number. The current actual size of Israel's nuclear arsenal is likely to be in the thousands, comprising an assorted cocktail of Armageddon inflicting gifts of the Jews to modern civilization.

How Israel got its nuclear weapons is an interesting tale, not to be rehearsed here. As a key ally of America through the Cold War, it is very likely that some of Israel's warheads remained aimed at the Soviet Union, as much as Israel's own enemies in the region. The Soviets were likely made aware of this because that is why they could never belligerently threaten Israel on the side of their own Arab client-states during the 1973 Arab Israeli war and essentially stayed out of it, while America openly supported Israel. And that is also what likely emboldened Israel to preemptively take out the Iraqi Nuclear reactor nearing completion in 1981 that was being built with Russian assistance, with no retaliation from the Soviets. And this was going on even as Iraq was being supplied with conventional weapons of mass destruction by America and the West and goaded on to fight Iran's Islamic revolution to neutralize it - using the Iraqis as the front foot soldiers to take the brunt of the casualties, with a nuclear armed Israel as the backup armor. I am quite certain that had Iran's counter offensive prevailed over Iraq and taken over Baghdad, that Israel would have struck with a preemptive Nuclear strike on Iran - as the immediate interests of America and Israel merged on the borders of Iran (apart from the continued out flow of oil). Thus nuclear arming of Israel was a necessity for America seen in this light - as almost an extension of America in the Middle East. An idea that JINSA has diligently pursued, to build up Israel's defenses to have it prevail over all its neighbors by wielding its nuclear club.

End Excerpt

While it is stated by many, including Mr. Jeff Gates, that JFK was against nuclear arming Israel, his notorious letter to David Ben Gurion notwithstanding, it isn't entirely clear to me. JFK was just as beholden to Jewish money to get him elected ab initio, as every US president of recent memory. The 1951 picture below from Jeff's article, of a young JFK congressman in the home of the butcher of Palestine, David Ben Gurion, just three years into the founding of Israel on Palestinian blood and soil, screams louder than any words ever can. It appears kosher to fraternize with blood-drenched victorious founders of a nation, so long as they have kill[ed] in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

Yes, in this age and time, a country still remains oppressed by another, worse still, they are both African countries. Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (the people are known as Saharawi) is a former colony of the Spanish protectorate which is rich in mineral resources like phosphate mineral rock, it also has some of the best fishing grounds in the world, and its off-shore oil resources are currently being explored.

When Spain pulled out of the colony in 1975, it didn’t finish the decolonisation process and Morocco as its neighbour quickly invaded and took over. Mauritania also seized part of the land but soon returned it to the Saharawi and made peace with the Polisario Front, the political movement that continued to fight against Morocco.

Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin aptly describes the situation and dire circumstances under which the Saharawi live. Water poisoning, torture, forced disappearances and other inhumane situations are some of the conditions under which the Saharawi live.

The book relays the experience of the author, Ike Abonyi who visited the country; Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. In his foreword, he laments that the story of the country as being an emotional one which has since been ignored by the rest of the world.
The book is divided into three parts with an easy to read and understandable style.  Its full title is apt; Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin; An African Journalist’s Diary On Western Sahara.

The foreword was written by Prof. Nuhu Yaqub, the immediate past Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja who described it as a timely addition to literature on Africa’s decolonization process. Yaqub also agrees that many Africans even enlightened ones are ignorant of a country called Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, not to mention its struggle for independence from Morocco.

His foreword decries the hypocrisy of some of the Western countries who claim to uphold human rights; (France, Germany and Spain) for turning a blind eye to Morocco’s flagrant abuse of human rights. He adds that it is Nigeria’s duty to the African continent to assist Western Sahara secure its independence.

The first part of the book collates the history of Western Sahara, its history with Spain, Spain’s pullout, and Morocco/Mauritania invasion of the country. It also explains how Mauritania returned the land it had seized while Morocco stubbornly held on to its seized part.

Abonyi and other analysts blame Spain for not finishing the decolonisation process i.e., handing over to the Polisario Front, a political group which had been formed in 1973 to fight Spanish colonial rule.

Despite the 1975 ruling of the International Court of Justice that Western Sahara was a country on its own at the time of its colonisation by Spain, its sovereignty still belonged to its people, while Morocco refused to leave the occupied land and the war with the Polisario Front continued. In 1992, the United Nations brokered a cease-fire and passed referendum on self-determination of the Saharawi people but Morocco refused to allow it.

Over 150,000 Saharawi are internally displaced refugees living on a daily ration provided by the United Nations Food Programme while many are hounded into detention without trials or forced into exile.

In the second part, Abonyi narrates his personal experience on the trip to the country; how as a presidential guest, his bed was a six-inch mattress usually used in boarding schools in Nigeria. According to him, the camp has enjoyed some peace in the last 17 years, but most young Saharawi are disillusioned especially since Morocco simply exploits the resources of the country for itself alone, while ignoring the needs of the Saharawi.

The narration by Abonyi would elicit sympathy from every reader; he narrates how young Saharawi have lost their limbs, and in some cases their lives, with explosion of the mines, which Morocco has placed at the 2500km long wall erected on occupied Western Sahara.

He also narrates gory details of about 140 inmates of the Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Mines and War located at the headquarters of administrative headquarters of the Saharawi camp.

The third part of Africa’s Last Colony is a collection of interviews with some dignitaries of Saharawi Government. In the interview, President Mohammed Abdulaziz praised Nigeria’s attitude towards other African nations, and its leadership role in the African continent. Other dignitaries who spoke to Abonyi include Mohamed Salem, the Commander of the Saharawi Military School, and Mohammed Yeslem Beisat, who is the Minister of African Affairs.

The author raises some very important questions; why did Spain not complete the decolonisation process by handing over to the Polisario Front? Why is the commonness of religion, language and geography not helping solve the problem between the two nations? Who manufactures and provides the weapons being used by the Moroccans to unleash terror on the Saharawi?  Which other countries are benefitting from Morocco’s exploitation of the Saharawi? What is the role of France, as the former colonial master of Morocco, in the whole situation?

Some other questions begging for answers are; why is the rest of the Arab world adopting an indifferent approach to the oppression of their ‘brothers’? How much pressure are the African Union and other regional organisations applying to Morocco especially as Western Sahara is also being recognised as a sovereign state.

Africa’s Last Colony brings to fore a true but pitiable situation that, while other people have moved on to battling internal problems such as ethnicity, nepotism and so on, an African nation is being deprived of self-rule by another African nation. The gruesomeness of the situation is that soldiers readily torture and kill, without a war situation in Saharawi, regardless of age or gender.

http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/arts/2009/oct/27/arts-27-10-2009-002.html

In an unusual decision, the Norwegian Nobel Committee put an end to seven months of searching among the 205 nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize and conferred it upon Barack Obama.  The Norwegian committee's decision provoked very mixed international reactions: ranging from stupefaction to huge laughter.  The statement by the organization's president, Thorbjorn Jagland got straight to the point: "It's important for the Committee to recognize those people who are struggling and idealistic, but we cannot do that every year.  We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik.  It is always a mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world."  The problem with Obama is that his idealism remains at the level of rhetoric, while in the world of realpolitik, his initiatives could not be more antagonistic to the search for peace in this world.

Perhaps the common denominator in the special night prayers at West Bank mosques during Ramadan is a plea for Palestinian unity and an end to internal divisions that constitute a national crisis. It appears that the Palestinians must remain patient for some time longer before present factional fractures become a thing of the past. They are constantly told that every new proposal to reconcile Fatah and Hamas is the "last chance", to the extent that the phrase has become meaningless. When the said proposals fail, it is but a manifestation of how deep the fissures are that run between the two sides.

By all appearances, the fate of the plan presented recently by Cairo to end this standoff — which Egyptian officials hastily described as the "last chance" — will be similar to its predecessors. The document, of which Al-Ahram Weekly has received a copy, deals with two topics. First, it contains all the points of agreement reached by Fatah and Hamas in previous talks. Second, it proposes reconciliatory formulas to resolve issues of outstanding contention between the two sides. These include creating a factional committee to include all the factions, and that would be responsible for the administration of the Gaza Strip until elections are held. It also contains suggestions about the conditions in which elections should be held, security issues, political detainees, establishing a reconciliation committee, and where the factions stand on all matters.

Regarding the disparity between the movements' positions on the political agenda of the proposed national unity government, Cairo recommends the creation of a joint committee bringing together representatives from all the Palestinian factions in Gaza to implement the agreement. This committee will play the role of a governing body, and will be responsible for improving the political environment ahead of elections for the presidency, legislature and Palestinian National Council (PNC). It would also oversee the implementation of inter-Palestinian reconciliation, reconstruction in the Gaza Strip, and end bickering by the two factions regarding elections.

The Egyptians want to see agreement on presidential, legislative and PNC elections in the first half of 2010, and that all parties commit to it. Also, that the elections for the PNC should be based on representation both inside and outside Palestine. Meanwhile, legislative elections should be based on a mixed electoral system, where 75 per cent of members are elected on lists, and 25 per cent according to districts, with a two per cent margin as the requirement for victory. Cairo's ideas also include dividing the West Bank and Gaza Strip into 16 electoral districts where elections are overseen by Arab and international monitors.

As for the wrangle over the security format in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Egypt is suggesting that President Mahmoud Abbas issue a decree creating a Supreme Security Committee comprised of professional security officers by agreement. It would carry out its duties under Egyptian and Arab supervision and follow up on the implementation of what is agreed in Cairo. At the same time, Palestinian security forces would be re-established with the help of Egypt and Arab countries.

In what appears to be an accommodation to Hamas's demands, the restructuring of the security apparatus would include both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The plan recommends some 3,000 members of the police, national security and civil defence forces in the Gaza Strip as soon as an agreement is signed. This number will gradually increase according to an agreed mechanism until legislative elections are held. All materials required for these forces will be provided by Egypt and other Arab countries.

The proposal further suggests that the security apparatus will be categorised as national security forces, internal security forces, as well as intelligence forces. Accordingly, any existing or future forces would be integrated into one of the three categories.

A proposed national reconciliation committee would be responsible for drafting a "Charter of Honour" that would prohibit a return to armed infighting. The committee would also decide on the mechanism and means of applying what is agreed upon. On the very sensitive issue of political detainees, the Egyptian scheme proposes that both Fatah and Hamas put together lists of detainees based on the most recent figures. After verification, copies of the lists would be submitted to Egypt and a human rights group, chosen by agreement, by a set date. Each side would in principle release all prisoners before the implementation of the reconciliation agreement.

In response to Fatah's request, the plan states that after the detainees are released each side would present Egypt with a list of detainees who will not be set free and the reason for this decision. These reports would also be submitted to the leaderships of Fatah and Hamas. After the reconciliation agreement is signed, efforts would continue, with the participation of Egypt, to reach a final settlement on the issue of detainees.

While Palestinian factions welcomed the Egypt proposal in general, they voiced cautioned objections. At first, Fatah disagreed with the omission of 25 January 2010 as the date for presidential and legislative elections. Later, however, it recanted and agreed to hold elections in the first six months of next year. Fatah also remains critical of the creation of a committee to administer the Gaza Strip, because this would legitimise the Hamas government. Fatah also opposes suggestions pertaining to security, because that too would give credibility to the security apparatus created by Hamas after it took control of the Gaza Strip.

On the other side, Hamas refuses to postpone the issue of political detainees held in Palestinian Authority prisons until an agreement is signed, because it believes the issue is a top priority. The movement also rejects the idea of a committee charged with implementing the reconciliation agreement, but is willing to hear more details about the nature of the committee, how it will be formed, and its framework.

As for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), it asserts that the proposal to hold elections according to a mixed electoral system contradicts an agreement reached in Cairo in March 2009. The group also warns against dealing with the proposed factional committee to administer the Gaza Strip, because it would institutionalise divisions. It is also critical of the proposed security forces in the Strip. Meanwhile, the Islamic Jihad movement asserted that some ideas in the Egyptian proposal leave the door open for both sides to find loopholes and continue bickering.

Palestinian writer Talal Okal believes the most recent ideas from Cairo are similar to previous suggestions, all ignoring to reconcile the political differences between Fatah and Hamas. "The initiative is void of any thoughts on the core political differences that exist," Okal argued. Hamas, Okal continued, will only accept a political agenda based on "respecting" agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). Fatah rejects this in favour of a clause stipulating "commitment" to these agreements.

Ignoring this crucial issue of contention, asserts Okal, is a major oversight in the Egyptian proposal. "For a long time now, we have not heard about discussions on this issue," he said. "It is not possible to reunite the Palestinians without reaching a common political vision, especially in light of serious US and international efforts to revive the settlement process." Okal is sceptical that the international community seeks to reconcile deeply divided Palestinians, because division leave the Palestinians more vulnerable to pressure and compromise.

"Division will benefit the US because it would make it easy for Washington to propose ideas that benefit Israel." In a pessimistic tone, Okal noted that in order to implement the Egyptian framework other agreements would need to be struck, along with specific mechanisms for implementation. "Otherwise, the Egyptian proposal only constitutes an attempt at saving face, or a warning to the parties that Israel might pre- empt with an act of aggression that would dash any hope of dialogue," opined Okal.

While everyone ignores the Israeli position and its influence on the fate of Palestinian reconciliation, Israel's vice premier and minister of regional cooperation, Silvan Shalom, told Israeli Radio Sunday that the Israeli government believes that achieving Palestinian national unity "is proof that [Abbas] has abandoned reaching a settlement". Shalom added: "restoring national unity will give credibility to Hamas's role as an influential political player. And if so, it would not be possible to reach a political settlement that guarantees Israel's interests."

In sum, all signs indicate that occasional mediation efforts and proposals will not succeed in ending severe internal Palestinian fractures, not only because of the gravity of differences between Fatah and Hamas, but more importantly because of outside meddling.

Source: Al Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/965/re1.htm

Paul J. Balles views a major public relations manual for Israel lobbyists. Written by Dr Frank Luntz, a US Republican political consultant and pollster, on behalf of The Israel Project, a US media advocacy group, it teaches pro-Israel propagandists how to hoodwink people about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how to silence critics and how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

More than 50 years ago, Vance Packard shook the commercial world with the publication of his book The Hidden Persuaders. It was, as the book jacket claims, “A revealing, often shocking explanation of new techniques of research and methods of persuasion.”

Packard revealed, “If people couldn’t discriminate reasonably, marketers reasoned, they should be assisted in discriminating unreasonably, in some easy, warm, emotional way.”

Much merchandizing success, according to Packard, “…hinged, to a large extent, upon successfully manipulating or coping with our guilt feelings, fears, anxieties, hostilities, loneliness feelings, inner tensions”.

Packard raised serious questions of morality related to the “people-manipulating activities of persuaders … and their ability to contact millions of us simultaneously”, giving them “the power to do good or evil on a scale never before possible in a very short time”.

Among the most evil of the hidden persuaders are the political propagandists. Their “evil” stems from the fact that they have a political agenda, which discriminates unreasonably and is designed to manipulate emotions.

The manipulative approach to politics is, of course, not a discovery of the 1950s, or even the 20th century. Napoleon Bonaparte set up a press bureau that he called his Bureau of Public Opinion. Its function was “to manufacture political trends to order”.

Just as Napoleon Bonaparte believed that “public opinion is a mysterious and invisible power, to which everything must yield”, Niccolò Machiavelli, Italian author of The Prince, described the arts with which a ruling prince can maintain control of his realm.

In a document published by The Israel Project entitled “The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary”, Dr Frank Luntz unmasks a modern-day propaganda campaign that would have made Napoleon and Machiavelli proud. He writes:

There is NEVER, EVER, any justification for the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children. NEVER. The primary Palestinian public relations goal is to demonstrate that the so-called “hopelessness of the oppressed Palestinians” is what causes them to go out and kill children. This must be challenged immediately, aggressively, and directly.

The emotional appeal to saving children works, but the appeal is based on two lies:

(1) that Palestinians generally (not only suicide bomber extremists) are the ones who kill children, while Israelis (not individual extremists, but Israel’s armed forces) never slaughter Palestinian children.

(2) The second falsehood is that the Palestinians have a public relations goal that must be challenged when, in fact, the Palestinians have proven to be hopeless and goalless when it comes to public relations. Unlike Frank Luntz, the Palestinians have no effective PR voices. They can’t even get their ambassador in the UK to speak out to the British public about Israel’s lies and propaganda.

Next, Luntz attempts to sound reasonable by speaking of acceptable disagreements about economics or politics against fundamental principles of civilized people. The evil allusion here is that the Palestinians are the uncivilized people who target Israeli children.

“We may disagree about politics and we may disagree about economics. But there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death,” writes Luntz.

The entire passage, again appealing unreasonably to emotions, makes the pretence that Israel did not target innocent women and children for death with their murderous indiscriminate bombing and missile attacks on Gaza against a huge civilian population of women and children.

However, distorted propaganda about children isn’t enough for Luntz. This is but one part of a page out of 114 pages devoted to this manual for distribution to thousands of propagandists for Israel.

Advancing only as far as page nine, the guided Israel promoters will find “Words that work” (sections that are actually throughout the book). Here’s what Luntz has to say about Gaza:

Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process.

How generous he makes the Israelis appear, when in fact the removal of Jewish settlers from Gaza had nothing to do with giving peace a chance. As the Israeli Yossi Alpher points out, removal of the settlers gave a demographic advantage to Israel. He says, “no longer are Jewish and Arab populations mixed there in a manner that points to a single binational state as the solution”.

In other words, Ariel Sharon could close the borders, imprison Gazans, hoping they will simply be forced to leave by starvation, murder fishermen and initiate military operations whenever they’re not involved in attacking Lebanon to the north, to slaughter more Hamas women and children.

Then Luntz adds more “Words that work” for the indoctrination of his readers – Israeli propagandists:

Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders.

As mentioned earlier, withdrawal from Gaza had nothing to do with an “overture for peace”. The rocket attacks have been a response to being locked into an open-air prison; and they’re aimed at land stolen by Israel. The “drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis” are figments of Luntz’s imagination.

The “free from terrorism and live with defensible borders” line is the overworked motto that twists the truth in the continuing belief that if repeated often enough it will be believed.

No matter how often the propagandists repeat this mantra, the truth is that a few resistance fighters from Hamas have lobbed ineffective rockets against a well-supplied army of Israel’s state terrorists; and the borders they want to defend are on land stolen from the Palestinians.

One might wish that the training in how to spread Israeli propaganda would stop there. If the Palestinians were up to the task, they might counter the lies with what they know of the history and suffering of Palestinians under occupation. Unfortunately, those with the linguistic ability to cope with the Israeli propaganda machine worry about endangering themselves and their families by speaking the truth.

Those who can only speak Arabic fluently are often busy fighting tribal wars within (Gazans vs. the Palestinian Authority), and they can’t compete with Israel’s skilled English speakers or against the organized promotional efforts Israel makes with Americans and Europeans.

Making the task of exposing the lies and deceit exceptionally difficult, Luntz’s propaganda tract, which unravels advice about the “how-to” of Israeli propaganda for 114 pages, seems Herculean to say the least.

Luntz offers advice about things like “Americans want a team to cheer for. Let the public know GOOD things about Israel.” He follows that with “Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism.”

He tells his readers to make salient comparisons between Israel and America: “The language of Israel is the language of America: ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ’security’, and ‘peace’”.

Even while Israel is throwing Arabs out of their homes in East Jerusalem to make room for Jews, Luntz repeats the boast about how “Israel, America’s ally, is a democracy in the Middle East”. If he reported the truth about the so-called democracy in Israel, he would reveal how it’s really a bigoted apartheid state.

The book is full of charts showing just how effective Israel’s propaganda campaign has been. Not only do Americans believe that Israel is America’s closest ally in the Middle East, but that they both share the same values.

Another chart shows that 58 per cent of Americans believe that the US should support Israel, while only 9 per cent believe that they should support Palestinians. Even when coaching others in how to propagandize, Luntz couldn’t resist the revealing boast about how effective their PR work has been.

The entire screed utilizes all the tricks available to a clever wordsmith: how to use rhetorical questions to silence others, how to pretend that you’re sympathetic with the people but not their evil leaders, how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

All of that came from the first of 18 chapters. Several other chapters, especially on “words that work”, talk about settlements, Israel’s so-called right to self-defence, Hamas, and tackling a nuclear Iran will be taken up in coming exposures.

PLUS, AFTER THIS ARTICLE, "TALKING POINTS ON THE NOW HISTORICAL CAMP LE JEUNE SPEECH" DON'T MISS IT!!!

WRITTEN BY John Walsh
At Obama’s Summer Place with Cindy: “Leadership” of Peace Movement, MIA

I spent but a short time with Cindy Sheehan as she carried her antiwar protest from an earlier time at Crawford, TX, to Martha’s Vineyard, vacation spot for Obama and many other Democrat Party elite. As Cindy remarked, the real story was not that she was protesting Obama’s wars but that the "leadership" of the peace movement did not support her protest. When the target was Bush in Crawford, she was all the rage with antiwar celebrities, but not so now that the target is Barack Obama. While there is considerable enthusiasm for her anti-Obama protest on the part of the rank and file in the anti-war movement, a refusal of its "leaders" to notify their members far and wide, high and low, crippled the action.

As a result of this betrayal, the numbers at Martha’s Vineyard were not large. But Cindy and her fellow anti-warriors were undeterred. While I was there, she mounted a spirited march down the road to Obama’s place, no more than a quarter mile away from where she stayed. The purpose was to present the President with a poster of Cindy bearing a signed plea to end the wars. The considerable armed force at the gate and the Secret Service officers would not even bring out the lowliest of staffers to receive the poster. Clearly the message from Obama was "Get lost, Cindy." And we were quickly told to move a considerable distance down the road. At least in Crawford it had been possible to demonstrate at the checkpoint to the site – not so at Obama’s place. Thus, did Obama greet a mother whose son was lost in the wars, which he continues and enlarges by the day.

The site chosen by Obama for his vacation appeared restful, even idyllic, that afternoon though the house itself was a considerable distance away from the road, hidden from view. But the image of the "antiwar" candidate lounging comfortably by the ocean, his family nearby, while ordering the deaths, by drones and assorted other killing instruments, of people half a world away, complete innocents, unknown to this man or his advisers, was disturbing indeed. What sort of man could do this? Does Obama bring his much ballyhooed "coolness" down a degree or two for cold blooded murder? Are these wars a matter of conscience or patriotism for Obama? If that were so, does one suppose in a future imperial war that Obama will urge his daughters to volunteer to die in some Muslim land any more than did Bush offer his daughters? Is there no shame to this poltician, Obama, who rose to high office on the yearning of so many for peace? How long will we allow the soothing words of this latter day Elmer Gantry to cover up his deeds?

Despite the silence of the antiwar misleaders, news of Cindy Sheehan’s presence did make the rounds of Cape Cod and the Islands. And who knows but that it might have gone further. Was Obama going to be caught unprepared? A cynic or a realist, or merely someone familiar with the Obama PR machine, might be pardoned for thinking that a plan was in place — and executed in the form of an anti-Cindy mom. And so it came to pass that, while there was no time for Cindy, the Obamas did make it a point to pay a highly publicized visit to another mom, Lisa X, who had lost her son in Obama’s AfPak war. This young man Obama had happened to encounter earlier this year at Camp Lejeune. The Cape Cod Times reported the meeting thus:

So, yesterday afternoon, the family drove from Yarmouthport to Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod. They waited about two hours at the base. … The Obamas entered. …. President Obama called them all by their first names, Lisa said. "It was like seeing a friend you hadn’t seen in a couple months," Lisa said of the nearly 10-minute meeting.

President Obama offered his condolences. "He told us whatever decisions he makes, he has Nick (and others serving) in mind," Lisa said. Earlier this year, Nicholas X met President Obama and shook his hand. The president gave a speech at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Shortly after, Nicholas decided he wanted to be part of the new offensive in Afghanistan, his father told the Times in July.

Lisa said her son called her right after the meeting. "He shook his (President Obama’s) hand and called me moments later and said, 'Mom, the President was amazing, his hand was the softest thing I’ve ever touched, like a baby’s bottom,’" Lisa recalled.

She made sure to tell President Obama that yesterday, drawing a laugh from him. Lisa X said her family is "still pretty numb and raw" over losing Nicholas. But she thought of his likely reaction to the family meeting the Obamas. "He is probably laughing hysterically … and proud."

Such an account should break your heart and stir your anger at this hypocritical politician. The more so if, as one might suspect, this encounter made cynical use of this grieving woman’s trust. That soft hand of Obama’s is soaked in considerable blood now, some of it Nicholas X’s, no less than the rough hands of Bush and Cheney. Obama’s message is clear. Sacrifice your child and endure without complaint the "numb and raw" emotions that come of your grief. And then Barack Obama will glad hand you for "nearly ten minutes" and get some good press — after you cool your heels for two hours awaiting the cool, great man. But protest the senseless death of your son, and you get the bum’s rush at Obama’s gate. Thus, does the erstwhile "antiwar candidate" (How silly that phrase sounds now!) treat Cindy Sheehan whose like he once called on to join him in making peace. And the "leaders" of the antiwar movement are nowhere to be seen or heard.

John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.comhttp://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=m57655&hd=&size=1&l=e

Link: dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/barack-obama-to-cindy-sheehan-get-lost/

Thoughts on Obama's Speech at Camp Lejeune, NC

Submitted by Dianne on February 28, 2009 – 7:43pm.

Here are a few "talking points" for activists in response to Barack Obama's speech last week [NYTimes link to transcription] which laid out his strategy for the "War on Terror."

1. In President Obama's Feb. 27 speech at Camp Lejeune, SC he spoke directly to soldiers about how they endured "tour after tour of duty," fighting "against tyranny and disorder." Nowhere in the speech is no mention of President Bush's justification for the drive to war–that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction." Of course we all know now that reason was concocted in order to sell the war! President Obama, who spoke out against the war when he was a state senator in Illinois, knows that too. Yet he goes on to say that the troops can begin to leave because the situation has improved: "the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007" has been "dealt a serious blow." But neither sectarian killing nor Al Queda existed in pre-U.S. invasion Iraq. They were the consequence of a U.S. occupation.

2. Later in the speech Obama, still addressing the troops, stated "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government-and you got the job done." This total justification for being cop of the world despite having not having even the fig leaf of any legal authority to take on that role is disturbing.

3. President Obama plans to remove U.S. combat troops within 19 months, leaving something on the order of 30,000-50,000 troops. He did not even mention that there are another 150,000 U.S. "contractors" who have been responsible for killing and torturing Iraqi civilians. The continuing presence of U.S. troops and hired guns will only fuel violence within Iraq and prevent the Iraqi people from rebuilding their country. U.S. troops and all "contractors" should withdraw on an expedited schedule in order to remove the #1 cause of the violence, the presence of an occupying force.

4. President Obama presented the U.S. occupation as a benign force that must stay in order to stabilize Iraq. What are the reasons for the instability? Obama lists these as displacement and poverty, government inability to deliver basic services and that some of its neighbors are working to undermine it. The picture that is painted is disingenuous. The primary reason for the instability is the U.S. invasion and destruction of the infrastructure, and tolerating looting following the invasion. (As then U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked about the looting, "Stuff happens.) Instead of taking responsibility for what another administration did-or repudiating what was done–Obama paints a picture of a country that is poor. In fact, even following the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, when there was a 10-year blockade imposed by both U.S. and European governments through the United Nations, the country's infrastructure was more functional than today, six years after Washington launched its illegal attack.

5. President Obama states that "America has a strategic interest-and a moral responsibility–to act. However he never states what that strategic interest, presumably it is to "help" the Iraqi people. However people all over the world–and even a great many Americans–realize that Washington desires to control the Middle East's oil and oil routes. That's why U.S. foreign policy supports the repressive and fundamentalist Saudi Arabian regime, that's why Bush really went into Iraq, that's why Washington is frightened at the rise of Iran's power in the region. (Many Americans might feel that since Washington caused such destruction, we have an obligation to stay and fix it as if we were the elephants that entered into the china shop. We certainly have a moral responsibility, but that doesn't mean training the army and police. Rather it means providing the reparations money necessary to resettle the displaced and rebuild what has been destroyed.)

6. President Obama has promised to expand the health care services for wounded soldiers. This is important, particularly because he acknowledges "the signature wounds of this war: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury…." But there is nothing in the speech to acknowledge that war trains soldiers to be violent. Many, when they return home, are unable to adjust, causing tremendous damage to themselves, their families and the entire society.

7. In fact, one of the saddest parts of Obama's speech is the section that states he is increasing the military. We cannot afford the tremendous economic and emotional burden of the military machine we currently have. If there is to be a serious attempt to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to expand job and educational opportunities, we need to cut the military budget, not expand it!

8. The Feb. 26th speech is a cover up. It covers up the real history of U.S. invasion and occupation, it covers up the main source of violence in Iraq, it pretends that the deaths of U.S. soldiers there was in the cause of freedom and friendship with the Iraqi people, it denies Washington's intentions.

9. Further the speech promises a comprehensive U.S. approach to the region and offers three elements: refocusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, developing a strategy to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world. Notice that there is no mention of Palestinians anywhere in the speech.

a. Given the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan (followed by at least 13,000 more) and the continued use of drones to bomb suspected al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, the first of the three elements seems to be more of the same process of invasion, occupation and destabilization that will bring more violence to those countries.
b. When the shah ruled Iran, the country received the latest U.S. military technology and was encouraged to develop nuclear weapons. But that was when Iran was safely within Washington's sphere of interest. Ironically, Washington's overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iran's fiercest enemy, along with the UN overthrow of the Taliban, (another thorn in their side), has increased Iran's power in the region. Given Iran's strength, a direct U.S. attack could have serious consequences as even President Bush understood when he nixed Israel's plans against Iran. Both in the case of Iran and Syria it is in Washington's interest to work out some diplomatic accommodation; here is where U.S. interests and those of Israel may divide.
c. Other administrations have aimed at an Israeli/Palestinian agreement and have been unable to do so. While the outline of such an agreement is easy enough to s–: Israel would pull back to the pre-1967 lines, refugees displaced since in 1948 would have the right of return (land or compensation), and there would be a recognition of Israel and Palestine as states–but it's clear that Israel prefers to maintain the fiction that there is no negotiating partner.

10. The problem with the February 27th speech is that it appears Obama is taking responsibility for continuing the U.S. policies he has inherited.That means it is incumbent on all elements in the antiwar and social justice movements to oppose this prettification of war, occupation, torture and destruction and demand that the wars be ended and the troops brought home.
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2080

http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/gaza-operation-cast-Lead-statistical-analysis%20.pdf

Al-Haq is an independent Palestinian non-governmental human rights organisation based in Ramallah, West Bank. Established in 1979 to protect and promote human rights and the rule of law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), the organisation has special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

Al-Haq documents violations of the individual and collective rights of Palestinians in the OPT, irrespective of the identity of the perpetrator, and seeks to end such breaches by way of advocacy before national and international mechanisms and by holding the violators accountable. The organisation conducts research; prepares reports, studies and interventions on breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law in the OPT; and undertakes advocacy before local, regional and international bodies. Al-Haq also cooperates with Palestinian civil society organisations and governmental institutions in order to ensure that international human rights standards are reflected in Palestinian law and policies. The organisation has a specialised international law library for the use of its staff and the local community.

(Introduction to the PDF)

On the morning of 27 December 2008, the Israeli occupying forces launched ‘Operation Cast Lead,’ a wide-ranging military offensive against the Gaza Strip. 80 warplanes carried out a devastating surprise airstrike campaign whose scale and intensity signalled Israel’s intention to inflict widespread destruction throughout the Gaza Strip.

After 22 days of unrelenting aerial attacks coupled with an intensive ground invasion that began on 3 January 2009, the death toll exceeded 1,400 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians including women and children. Over 5,000 more were wounded. Excessive civilian casualties were compounded by the unprecedented destruction of civilian infrastructure across the Gaza Strip including hospitals, schools, mosques, civilian homes, police stations and United Nations compounds.

During the offensive, Al-Haq’s fieldworkers, as well as those of its partner organisation, the Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights, collected information and evidence relating to the ongoing attack throughout the Gaza Strip. Owing to the sheer volume of incidents that occurred over the 22-day assault, Al-Haq, supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, recruited six additional temporary fieldworkers to assist its two permanent field workers in Gaza, who are supported by Diakonia. During the assault and in the months following it, the field workers set about comprehensively documenting the destruction wrought during the offensive. 30,000 copies of questionnaires were prepared in order to collect data on the damage inflicted during the attack, and the fieldworkers went from site to site meticulously documenting the details of each incident. Sworn affidavits were taken from witnesses and victims, as well as supportive visual evidence in the form of photographs and videos.

Medical reports were obtained from hospitals where relevant. Details were verified and cross-checked, and all the information was entered into a single database kept jointly with Al-Mezan.

This report presents a selection of the data collected, with tables illustrating the extent of the killing and the destruction perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces during the offensive.

(Conclusion of the PDF)

On the basis of the data presented in this report, an analysis of the choice of targeted areas, methods of attack and the number of civilians killed and injured clearly indicates a reckless disregard for civilian life synonymous with intent. Further, it is clear that 'Operation Cast Lead' was not just an assault against the Palestinian population, but also against the Gaza Strip’s infrastructure and the livelihoods of its people, with factories, farms and other economic resources systematically targeted. Prima facie evidence exists of the commission of war crimes amounting to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, most notably wilful killing of civilians, including women and children; extensive destruction of property, both residential and commercial, public and private; and wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body or health. This is in addition to the fact that the resort to the use of force by Israel was unlawful in the first place.

The denial of access to foreign journalists during the siege and Israel’s refusal to cooperate with various international investigation mechanisms that have been established are testament to a desire to suppress the truth and full information regarding the scale of the destruction wrought by this unprecedented attack. The figures contained in this report are intended to contribute to a growing database of documentary evidence on 'Operation Cast Lead'.

More than six months after the end of operation, the Gaza Strip remains under siege. The continued border closures by Israel and the prevention of crucial supplies from entering Gaza, ensure that the humanitarian situation remains dire.

SEE ALSO: http://www.alhaq.org/index.php

http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/widespread-attacks-on-gaza-leave-at-least-227-dead-hundreds-seriously-injured/

Let’s start with the PFLP opinion about the Obama administration and the new Israeli government. Do you think that the new US administration will bring any change to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

We do not think individuals can do a lot for the policy of a country. I believe that Obama will not bring any substantial change, at least with regard to the American foreign policy. We are talking about institutional policies, not those of individuals. Of course, each President, each party has a different approach on how to implement foreign policy, and there will be no crazy policies anymore like Bush did, but Obama cannot change the system, and the contradictions are within the system itself: the capitalist economic system, the imperialist view that led to the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Toward the Middle East and especially the Palestinian cause, they are still talking about the “peace process,” that does not mean anything for us, it is not a real peace process. And I think the priority for the US now will be the financial crisis and the economic problems inside the capitalistic system itself. Therefore, we are not optimistic, Obama will not alter the system and consequently for the Palestinians, the situation will not change a lot.

What about the Israeli government? It seems they will not even be engaged to the two-state solution…

The Israeli government!? The elections show the Israeli government is going more and more to the far right-wing. The new thing is that Lieberman succeeded to gain more consensus and a seat in the government as Foreign Minister. He himself clearly represents, now at official level, the racism, the ethnic cleansing policies of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians. They are increasing the number of settlements, the house demolitions in Jerusalem; so, talk or not to talk with them? I belong to a party that has been saying from the beginning that this peace process will not lead to any peace or justice for the Palestinians. We have been asking to stop any kind of negotiation with the Israeli governments, especially with this one. We do not believe in a peace process based on personal individual talks, without really implementing the international resolutions related to the Palestinian cause and recognizing the fundamental rights of the Palestinians. I am not just talking about the right to create a fully independent Palestinian State, but also the right to self-determination and the right of return for the Palestinian refugees. There is no need to discuss or compromise on such fundamental inalienable rights; they should be just implemented through an international conference according to the international law and the relevant UN Resolutions.

Cairo talks: do you think any kind of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah will be realistic?

I am pessimistic about the possibility of a reunification. I do not think there are real talks between the two parties on national reunification, but individual talks. Each party will use its power to create mechanisms to gain more power and rule the area it already controls. We think there should be an overall discussion without any external preconditions and interferences on how should be formed the new government. As Palestinian political parties, we share the situation of being under occupation: for that we should respect each other and use only democratic instruments to solve out problems, instead of controlling things through the use of force. We need to hold elections, change the electoral law in order to give all the political parties the opportunity to participate. We should stop this terrible mechanism where Hamas-Fatah feud, also thanks to external interferences, controls everything.

An increasing number of critics and dissidents of the PA leadership is becoming a target for the PA's security apparatus in the West Bank. Do you think the PA are becoming increasingly authoritarian and the security forces militarized? What about the coordination between them and the Israelis?

This aspect is part of the Road Map agreement. We totally refuse the coordination between the Palestinian security forces and the Israelis and we think it should be immediately stopped. Any security forces should help the Palestinians in their struggle and implement their citizens’ rights, instead of collaborate with the occupier. This is one of the issues now on the table of the dialogue. We are against any kind of security forces related to political parties, as it is now in the West Bank and Gaza. I am really concerned about the violation of the human rights of the Palestinians: both in West Bank and Gaza there are political prisoners, assassinations, closure of institutions of the rival party. In Gaza Hamas does not allow Fatah to hold normal political activities, and vice versa in the Fatah-controlled West Bank. The first victims of these policies are the human rights of the Palestinians themselves.

The Palestinian Authority still believes that the peace negotiations are the best way to achieve peace and justice for the Palestinians. Do you think the PNA represents the interest of the Palestinians people?

I am member of a party that has opposed the so-called peace process from the beginning. We do not agree on the track of individual and continuous negotiations and we call on the PA to end this policy that leads nowhere. We see that Israel uses the peace negotiations as a tool and a cover for their actions on the ground, their constant aggression and attacks against Palestinians and their land.

Is there the need for another form of representation for the Palestinians? Is not even the PLO behind the times?

We do not need to create another institution. We see the PLO as a political representation of the Palestinians both inside and outside Palestine and a symbol of their struggle. PNA does not represent all the Palestinians, the majority of whom are the refugees outside, it should just be an institution to help the Palestinians surviving under occupation. So, we need a political representation: I think we should save the PLO by reforming it. First of all a political review is needed: we have to learn the lesson from the past and stop the political approach of the futile peace negotiations and agreements. Second, there should be a democratic reform inside the PLO itself. Elections for a Palestinian Nation Conference should be held in order to give all the Palestinian people the opportunity to be adequately represented. From this election a Central Committee and an Executive Committee will be created.
You see, another aspect of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah is the issue of representation: Fatah does not want Hamas to enter the PLO in order to maintain the hegemony over it. On the contrary, Hamas wants to have an alternative form of representation because they won the elections. We see that PLO is the home of all the Palestinians and an instrument for their representation in the struggle for the self determination.

Let’s turn the discussion on the Palestinian Left. Can a divided Left represent a realistic third way between Hamas and Fatah?

The criticism on the fragmentation of the leftist parties is right, that is a great weakness. We think the Left should be unified. I am not talking about a new party or an immediate unification, but a coalition of all the leftist and progressive groups, grassroots organizations and individuals around a minimum political platform. This could be the first step toward a process that might lead towards a unified Left. Otherwise this situation in which Hamas and Fatah control everything will guide us for a long time. Only if the Palestinian democratic and leftist parties, along with individuals, unify in one coalition, the Left can represent a third way. We are working hard on that. In some student councils they have already held election together; the leftist women movements are discussing a paper to form a coalition…

Which are the concrete obstacles against the unification of the Left?

The main obstacles are political. For examples we have different views on the peace process: some parties agree with the Oslo agreements, the Road Map, etc. Others not. However, as I said before, this should not prevent us from agreeing on a minimum political agenda.

It seems to me that the leftist groups in general, and the PFLP, are facing a crisis of consensus in the Palestinian society: Why? Where has the Left gone? What are you doing to be more present and visible in Palestinian civil society (NGOs, grassroots organizations, popular movements)?

This is the challenge: no leftist political party can do a lot by itself. Now the leftists are facing a difficult situation: we have no power, no money, no international support. Even in the Arab world, the Islamic groups are now getting the lion′s share. We are facing internal problems, like the economic one. We are poor parties, and if you want to raise social programs, you need money to do it. How can we compete against Hamas that has a lot of infrastructure and funds? People do not want just talks, but actions on a social level. We also need to rely on voluntarism. Here comes the question: how to encourage voluntarism when you have to face so many geographical obstacles? At the international level, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we lost support, coverage, and any kind of protection. We feel vulnerable: if you say you are a member of the PFLP, you end up in prison the same day. But your criticism is right; we should review our policy, come back in the grassroots movements, be more present…

…like in the nonviolent popular resistance against the Wall…

We already share the activities in Bil’in, Ni’lin, al-Ma’sara, we are in these popular committees.

Have you got relations with the Israeli and international anti-occupation movement?

We think that our national struggle needs the active support of the international solidarity movement. With regard to the Israeli movements, we ask them for the full recognition of the Palestinian rights…

Do not you think the time has come for the PFLP to put more efforts on the grassroots and popular struggle, and attach less importance on the military confrontation?

PFLP believes in all kinds of resistance, and of course the main resistance is the popular one (the boycott of goods, the cultural and academic boycott, the peaceful demonstrations against Wall and the settlements). No party is supporting only the military resistance. The armed struggle can be shared just by individuals, and it changes according to the situation, but the popular struggle is the great part and can be joined by a lot of people. I do not criticize in principle the armed resistance, because we are not facing a nice occupation at all, this is a military one. I agree we should increase our popular resistance against Wall, the settlements, etc. There is a linkage between the two kinds of resistance.

Maybe it is not the right time for a third Intifada, also seeing that the reaction in the West Bank during the Israeli attack on Gaza was not so strong as one could have expected…

The reaction was not strong because of the role played by the Palestinian security forces and because, and this is the main reason, we are divided at the national level. Listen, an Intifada needs leaders, but we do not have leaders. And it needs us to be united, but there is no unity at all. I think the moment for a third Intifada will come, the people will not wait for the situation to worsen forever, but now the priority is to be united as Palestinians.

The PFLP is a secular and Marxist party, but you have political positions much closer to a religious party like Hamas than to other secular parties. How do you explain that contradiction?

I do not think politically we are so close to Hamas. For example, we criticize its political approach and its belief on a long-term ceasefire as a way to put an end to the occupation. There are similarities, of course: we are both against the Oslo agreements, the Road Map, the trap of the peace negotiations. And like other revolutionary movements, for instances in Latin America, there can be in certain historical moments some kinds of relations between Marxism and religion. We should define the stage in which we find ourselves, in order to set priorities: as Palestinians, we are facing a national and democratic struggle. You should look at the political agenda related to the occupation: now our national united struggle must be the priority, other times the social and democratic issues will be at the top of the political agenda. First of all, I think we should work to create a united national front among all the parties to immediately end the occupation.

Enrico Bartolomei, for the Alternative Information Center

source: http://letteredallapalestina.myblog.it/

PM Netanyahu addresses National Defense College graduates

The Israeli Prime Minister’s speech, disseminated by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (what I like to call the Science Fiction Department of the Globe for their interpretation of reality) is another exercise in using rhetoric to pre-emptively set the scenario for the next battle against the impending global resistance to Israel. I will go through the speech (left in Brilliant Israeli Blue on White) with some of my comments. Mary Rizzo

Last week, I met students of the National Defense College in my office in Tel Aviv and we had a fascinating discussion, during which I came to regard these students – I came to regard you – as sharp-witted, as having a large amount of experience in your respective fields, with a proven track-record of contributing to the State of Israel. I was impressed by your skill, your aspiration to excellence, but mostly, I was impressed by your dedication, from your deep commitment to Israel's security, to the future of the State of Israel.

That is nice that he offers his compliments. It’s a military school in a militarised State and these people have to go above and beyond (or is that below and beyond) in commitment to the maintenance of the military status of “excellence”. It is not surprising that these students already have a “large amount of experience” since this means being involved in armed conflict against an “enemy”. But let’s think for a moment. Palestinians are not yet a state, the Palestinians are people and thus, this enemy that has been battled for real are an occupied people. A State that occupies is responsible for the well-being of the occupied people, and are not “allowed” to wage war upon them. This is why Netanyhu is impressed with the dedication, because commitment to Israel means disregard for international law.

While we are standing in this wonderful place, we can extend our view, both in time and in space.

And I though the City Hall of Rome had the best view from the window. But at least we are seeing that he recognises the “space travel” that his science fiction writers probably have cut their teeth and old habits die hard.

I believe in Israel's security and its future and in our ability to base our existence here in peaceful relations.

It is interesting that he states that they actually have to base their existence on the intentions of someone else. This is actually a good thing.

If one were standing here in the middle of the nineteenth century, one would not be raising such issues, because one would not believe that there would be anything here. There were thirty, or at most, forty thousand Jews in the entire Land of Israel.  No one would have dared to believe that what has happened here could actually happen here.

Now, this is interesting! “one would not believe that there would be anything here” and he goes on to mention the absence of a Jewish majority… the indigenous population that was living there was “nothing”, they did not exist, or soon, they would be made to be that way. It is an interesting thing to actually hear being said when it is clearly evident that such a concept of “manifest destiny” is about as racist as anything that could be uttered.

A hundred years later, the number of Jews grew to six hundred thousand, and today we are close to six million. For the first time since the period of the Second Temple, the majority of Jews will live in their homeland.

Actually, the majority of the world’s Jews live in the USA, which is the homeland to those born there, but the country of arrival for the others, precisely like “Israel” to the Jews. Yes, Jews have always lived in Palestine. Denying it would be denying history. But after the “period of the Second Temple”, mass migration was the leitmotif of a great deal of the world’s population, not only for Jews, which began settling in Europe for the most part, and that “settlement” became the national homeland, with the linguistic and cultural attachments. To state that the homeland is in some historical and far away place is similar to the totalitarian thoughts of a return to the past Golden Age that were popular throughout history, from Ghengis Khan to Hitler. That some still believe this fairy tale says a lot about how little history and culture are comprehended. 

These things required vision, daring and great faith, and also our ability to concentrate our capabilities in the economy, in education, in culture, in science, in technology, in agriculture, and above all in security, in security and in faith. I have great faith that we will be able to surmount these hardships, and establish a future of peace between us and our neighbors. But any such faith, like Zionism itself, requires correct detection of the problem and quick provision of the right solution.

That Zionism was only one of the several items for “resolving” what had been defined as “the Jewish problem” in the West and not the only possible vision of Jewish people to live in the world with others, is something that Netanyahu misses, but this of course, is established in the fabric of anyone who has “made it” in Israeli society. It seems that the acceptance of this paradigm as the progressive solution to the Jewish problem (which even those who promoted it as a self-driven ideology were aware that without the support of those outside of the Jewish community or social system, it would never become reality. It had to be enticing for them.. it had to solve the Jewish problem for Europe and the USA).

We can see the problems from here. Climb one of the towers, look east, and you will see the Dead Sea, and the Jordan mountains. If you choose a higher tower and look west, you will see the Mediterranean Sea. At its maximum breadth, the Land of Israel is very small, and if we make peace agreements, the borders will be moved. Therefore, our first problem that makes it difficult with regard to our national security is that we have a very small country.

Now, as we know, Israelis have always expressed in their military plans that what had to be done was to “take the heights”. Every hill, every mountain, yes, every “tower” had to be taken. Beautiful panoramas are popular since the days of Moses, but Moses was able to stop himself before conquest. It is not a size problem (and I know that sounds funny) but it’s what is done with what one’s got. And this has always been the Israeli problem of compensation for lacking the proper dimensions. Thus the need to put on a uniform, to become a warrior in order to make up for not measuring up. To take a land and be able to “control it visually” has also been a modern-day Israeli obsession. This is why from high-tech monitoring systems to “spyware”, Israel uses the Caesar-inspired philosophy, without really knowing how to do it properly: Veni, Vidi, Vici… I came, I saw, I conquered. Israel came, yes, that it indeed has done, it saw, and from standing on towers to developing indestructible “spy-balls” to throw into enemy territory, it still hasn’t figured out how to conquer and win. Why is it that it can’t win? Because it has adopted the Caesarean motto only superficially. It won’t admit that conquest is war. Israel has always worked hard at giving it a different name, and here is where Netanayhu utters the magic words… It’s about SECURITY. Caesar never worried about that matter, he was able to admit what he was, but that was 2000 years ago. Systems of justice were only available for the conqueror, not the victim of the conquest. To attack and call yourself a Defence Force is something only Israel can get away with. Again, something to do with compensation for their small size.

This in itself does not mean that there are security problems – Monaco has no security problems. Neither does Luxembourg have any security problems. Both these countries are smaller than we are.

And neither of them drove the natives out or killed them!

But when you combine the smallness and the country's dimension and look at some of our neighbors, their activities and their stated intentions – this combination of such minute dimensions and neighbors, some of whom negate the State of Israel's existence and use all means in order to abrogate our existence – this creates problems of national security which don't exist in any other country or for any other people.

This obviously, is very entertaining to read. That it is always “someone else’s fault”. What they say, what they “intend”. Actually, no one DOES negate that Israel exists. Everyone knows it does. They negate an ideology of Israel to exist AS A JEWISH STATE, which is indeed a different concept. A lot like Israel negating that Palestinians come from all over the land that currently is occupied by Israel. Reality is one thing, what someone says and thinks is something else. What someone does is a third thing from that. However, Netanyahu does ignore many national struggles around the globe. There are MANY people, from Africa to South and North America to Asia and Oceania who are claiming their national rights and identity and are being denied this by those who have conquered them. It is a result of a millennium of colonial conquest.

In order to provide a response to this issue, given our attempts to achieve peace with the Palestinians, we need to respond to two problems: on the one hand, the problem of the denial of our right to exist, and on the other hand, the problem of security which stems from Israel's geographic dimensions.

Indeed, the Palestinians have the same identical problems: they are denied the right to exist and they are denied security. Add something else to it, they are denied geographical identity. Most of the world is willing and able to recognise it. The Zionists know they drove the Palestinians out of what today is Israel… why is it that Netanyahu insists on such a lie when the truth is no longer hidden?

The way of dealing with the denial of the State of Israel's existence is the recognition of the State of Israel's right to exist.

As I said before, all recognise Israel exists, making that into a “right” is a political problem that means recognition of the history of Israel. Yes, why not confront that in an international court once and for all and then it can be decided. I am sure most Palestinians are able to face the past. I am sure countries with vast refugee populations are able to present their testimony. Why not go on with it and push for obtaining recognition rather than demanding it. If you have nothing to be worried about, you should actually offer to go on the witness stand and present your case.

This is the first foundation. This is a demand which we state in the clearest, most direct manner to our neighbors.

Ah, ok… it’s a demand. Sorry… a demand is a demand!

This is not in order to receive their approval, which we do not need. We need this in order for the Palestinians to internalize this right.

Well, if you are demanding, you will never obtain. If you are willing to stand behind your State’s history proudly, do not be afraid and perhaps you might obtain something. Internalising someone else’s demands never worked. Even slaves revolt sooner or later.

If we are asked, which we are, to recognize the Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people – and we are willing to do so – it is only natural that we ask our Palestinian neighbors to recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This is not only natural – it is necessary, just and logical, and it is the first foundation of peace.

This is why when Israel asks for peace, it is always a way of screwing anyone else! It only means conquest, but without real vision, just looking out at the panorama from a watchtower.

Two additional foundations the second and the third are derived from the foundation or principle of recognition:

The second foundation is that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of the State of Israel.

Never heard of the concept, “You break it, you buy it?” If he has now admitted there were refugees (one is a refugee from their land or country… this in itself accuses Israel of creating a refugee problem, and by international law, they alone are responsible for its resolution).

It is not possible to maintain this small state as a state with a clear Jewish majority if the State of Israel is flooded with refugees and their descendents. This is also unjust.

No comment will ever be sufficient here! Israel talks about what is unjust for refugees…

This is unjust because the Arab attack upon the State of Israel's existence in 1948 created two refugee problems. The first one is the Palestinian refugees which the entire world knows about.

The entire world only knows a fraction of what there is to know. The refugee population has grown, it has not reduced. Therefore, it is something that needs to be resolved and not by pushing it to someone else who is not obligated or able to resolve it.

The second refugee problem is of the Jewish refugees who were forced to leave the Arab countries. But no one recognizes this problem because Israel with its limited resources, with a sliver of land, without oil resources, resolved this problem, whereas the first problem continues to exist to this day.

Therefore, in terms of justice, logic or ability – it is not possible to expect that the refugee problem will be resolved within the State of Israel. It needs to be resolved – the Palestinians refugees have suffered greatly, but the solution to this problem will be found outside the borders of the State of Israel.

Repeating that it is a problem, that there is a solution … but it’s not up to Israel to resolve is where the core of the problem sits. This is why Israel will never be able to demand and obtain recognition. I would even propose a solution, if I were so audacious. I would say, “Palestinians, demand, as Netanyahu does, that your number one problem be settled the way he claims his must be settled. Exchange recognition of Israel’s right to exist as long as he recognises Palestinian refugees right to return as any refugee around the world is guaranteed that right. A right for a right.”  Oh… that has already been done? Well then we are back to hearing what the playground bully has to say:

The third foundation to reaching an end to the conflict – is the end of the conflict. When we sign a peace agreement with the Palestinians, which I believe will happen – we want it to be a final agreement – an end to the conflict, an end to the conflict's claims. We are not expecting a situation whereby a Palestinian state established within the borders of the State of Israel will continue to demand the entry of refugees, or that there will be national claims towards the territory and population within the borders of the State of Israel. An end to the conflict means an end to claims.

This is where things have been for over 61 years. Israel has stolen things and land, and now wants it ratified so that the wheels of justice can stop turning. They won’t. He’s not Julius Caesar, he’s a small, small politician in an invented country that has size-obsessions.

I have highlighted three foundations in my speech: recognition of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, resolving the refugee problem outside our borders, and an end to the conflict. These are all connected to the question of recognition of the State of Israel. We raise these matters in an explicit and clear manner with the aim of reaching an agreement. These are the fundamental and necessary conditions, not for starting negotiations – we are not attaching any conditions to opening negotiations, but these are fundamental conditions for the successful completion of a real peace agreement.

Isn’t that what you’ve got the PA and the Quartet for? Not for starting negotiations, but to find the loopholes to make your imperialist dream reality. You call it peace, Caesar knew it was conquest.

The next two foundations are connected to security. Even if the first three foundations are implemented, and I believe that they will be achieved, it will still take an entire generation of Palestinians to internalize recognition and the permanent legitimacy of the State of Israel.

Nothing is permanent, much less legitimacy. Times and morals change. Ethics remain. This is why today’s winners are tomorrows losers. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but actually, the world’s greatest empire is now just another big city with the world’s greatest view outside its Town Hall.

For the foreseeable future, we need to ensure that peace will be maintained. In order to maintain peace, the first foundation is security, and the first foundation of security in the case of the arrangement proposed here is demilitarization. None of us want a repeat of what happened in Gaza, or in South Lebanon. We want to ensure that any territory which we vacate within the framework of an arrangement will not be seized by terrorists or by Iran's representatives. This is the fourth foundation.

Of course, Israel will REMAIN militarised! They did not manage (but they did a LOT of damage) to wipe South Lebanon or Gaza off the map, nor to change the resistance of its people, or even to fully occupy it the way they need to, although they control the territory, or have others control it for them. They fail to see that if they wish to be the only armed State in the region, this will never be allowed to happen, and it may happen in ways that really DO threaten the security of Israel.

This is not a theoretical discussion for us. We know exactly what happened in the north, and what happened in the south. Heaven forbid that this should happen in the center of the country, on the mountains and the hills that overlook the majority of the State of Israel's population, on the strategic installations on which you depend and which are vital for our protection – this would undermine our security and naturally also invalidate the peace.

Heaven forbid that others treat Israel as Israel treats others! There are PEOPLE there! Not “nothing”.

Therefore, our demand for effective demilitarization is a fundamental demand for establishing a real and stable peace with the Palestinians. I use the term effective demilitarization because we desire practical and effective arrangements. We all have experience with ineffective demilitarization. Effective demilitarization means that there will not be a foreign army west of the Jordan. A police force, a counter-terrorism mechanism by all means, but there is no reason for such a force to have tanks, artillery or other types of weapons.  The second thing is that we will have control of our airspace. This is vital for ensuring our security.

Bibi, this is what the PA and the International Community is there to do for you! It’s all about making you safe in your militarised zone. They are going to go along with you as long as they are able. The rest of the world is watching and will take note of it. Why should ANYONE fear that Israel might wage a war? It is just science fiction!

The third component is to prevent rockets, missiles and other types of weapons from being brought into this territory. The Palestinians' self-determination does not require that there be, in any shape or form, Kassams or rockets which can be launched on Tel Aviv, on the coastal plain, cities or on other areas of the State of Israel.

The fifth and final of the foundations for peace is international recognition of the very demilitarization arrangements which we have talked about. I wish to clarify that we are not talking about American or NATO soldiers defending us and doing the defense work of the State of Israel. We have never requested this, nor are we requesting it now.

You don’t have to ask for what you already get. You have the USA and NATO money and “umbrellas”, you use your own forces for the personnel. No problem understanding the arrangement. You have the men and women in all the powerful positions in various governments and media. We are sure you never ask for what you already have.

We are talking about an international guarantee, headed by the United States, for the demilitarization arrangements that we will establish. We wish them to make it clear that these arrangements will be completely legitimate, and that there will also be total legitimacy for any action deemed necessary to preserve them. The purpose of this guarantee is that it adds a layer of deterrence against the intentions of those who may, in the future, wish to invalidate, or violate the demilitarization arrangements.

Does a “no first strike” clause come with that? It would be interesting if you offer such a thing. The violation of such would make you lose any “legitimacy” you manage to establish.

Recognition of the State of Israel, resolving the refugee problem outside Israel, an end to the claims as part of the end to the conflict, effective demilitarization and international recognition of the demilitarization arrangements – these are the five foundations which are essential for peace, and also have widespread consensus among the Israeli public. This is also the shared base of the unity government which the Minister of Defense, the other factions and I established.

As long as we unite behind these conditions, the chance of implementing them increases, because the international community respects a clear, solid, logical and just stance, which they also represent.

I think that there is an additional foundation which can assist us in reaching peace arrangements and in keeping them.

I have just come from a tour of the Allenby Bridge. A directive has been given to extend the terminal's operating hours at the bridge, for both goods and pedestrians. This is part of the policy which we are carrying out in order to make the lives of the Palestinians easier where possible, in fact to improve the flow of the Palestinian economy.

Always for their own good, isn’t it? There is surely a “catch”.

The Minister of Defense has removed a significant number of road blocks, and we are working together in the government in order to remove obstacles for economic projects which could advance the Palestinian economy. We are doing this because we are convinced that economic progress and development will help achieve both diplomatic and political peace.

You want to control them more, this is clear. If you really want them to progress and develop, let them do it for themselves and with the other Arab States. They are your most important customer, so making sure you don’t kill the client is also good managerial practice.

We are convinced of this because there is a struggle here, as in other parts of the world, with dark, radical forces, where the last thing that they want is progress.

Oy oy oy. Shall we drag the Darth Vadar costumes out of storage?

I say that our real test, here, with the Palestinian Authority, is whether they can move closer in Dubai's direction, or whether they will retreat in Gaza's direction.

Interesting question. Where will the PA go? I think that you should reflect long and hard on that. Anything can indeed happen these days.

I am not saying that it will be like Dubai here tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow, but they are growing as a result of the things that they have done and that we are doing. The Palestinian economy here in Judea and Samaria is currently growing at a rate of more than 7%, and it can grow even higher. I want you to imagine what will happen when the skylines of Ramallah, Jenin and Hebron start to be filled with skyscrapers, when malls, cinemas and restaurants are opened, and when the Palestinian youth know that they have a future.

Oh my Lord. They have their beautiful land and Netanyahu is imagining shopping malls! (His speech writers not only dabble in Sci-Fi, but they come from the advertising world too. Today Israel, Tomorrow, Emporio Armani).

I am not ruling out the need for diplomatic agreements; on the contrary, I claim that economic peace will assist diplomatic peace. In the struggle between darkness and terror and progress and prosperity, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the world's Muslim population will choose progress and prosperity.

Uh, yes, human beings usually choose to abandon darkness and terror. When someone imposes it on them, they are forced to fight back, but they do very well against Israel’s terror and the imposed curfews, blackouts and shortages. I would say that they are millions of years ahead of Israel in terms of progress on this front. Israelis cannot handle to be without their air-conditioning and well-stocked shops.

We saw this a month ago in Teheran, we saw this six months ago in Hebron, Jenin and Ramallah during Operation Cast Lead, and I tell you that we will see it in Gaza tomorrow.

Yes, as soon as you lift the medieval siege, they will for sure be able to live like normal humans again rather than terrorised and deprived of their most basic needs. Why wait for tomorrow. Do it now.

The very fact that the Hamas regime, an offshoot of the Iranian tyranny, is forcing women to wear veils – I can tell you – is not winning it favor among the Palestinians in Gaza, and if they had the power to overthrow this regime, they would do it – and it will be in their power. This is why advancing economic peace and development is integral for helping to promote peace.

Why not ask your Orthodox Rabbis to tell their women they need not cover their hair, (the wig business will suffer, but at least you will have the goal you desire which is to see women’s flowing locks, which seems to be more important to you than patients getting their dialysis).

Eventually radical Islam will be defeated by the global information revolution, by the freedom of ideas which are breaking out, through technology and through ideas of freedom. This won't happen immediately, but it will happen, and it will happen here as well.

Why not do this talk to Dena out in the UK, who, living according to radical Judaism has sued her entire building because they can’t live in a building where lights are turned on automatically by sensors which the other residents installed. Technology can be a two-edged sword, Bibi, but start with your own Orthodox population if high tech 24/7 is something you really believe in.

The only thing that can postpone and disrupt the rate of the extinguishing of radical Islam is the possibility that it will be armed with a nuclear weapon.

How many nuclear weapons has Israel got? I just love that you never state this clearly, but it’s the world’s worst-kept secret!

Today, this is so dangerous that I would go so far as to say that understanding of this danger is permeating governments, leaders, public opinion shapers, and even armies. If there is one mission that we are partner to, it is to ensure that the forces of moderation, of progress, prosperity and peace will win this struggle.

Then get out of the way! You know nothing of moderation, progress, prosperity and ZERO about peace.

I now turn to the representatives of several countries who are here with us. We all have the same mission, we are all on the same mission – to make sure that the forces of dark radicalism, of medievalism are held back.

The force is with you. We are now entering the twilight zone, and all the other sci-fi slogans for the past century should come to mind.

I am certain of our ability to achieve this goal, and I want to thank the National Defense College alumni for all that they have done to ensure security, prosperity and peace for the State of Israel, and for what they have yet to do.

On the summit of Mount Scopus, we will guarantee peace for Jerusalem and for the State of Israel.

Thank you all.

Empires crumble. Oops, here’s my metro stop, “Colloseo”. Yes, the Coliseum used to be the biggest amphitheatre of the Roman Empire. Yes, where lions ate unarmed Christians and Gladiators fought one another while the ignorant population looked on and was entertained. But now, it’s just another tourist attraction in a city. Good thing Caesar never lived to see it. Your day will come too. Mount Scopus will be another lovely place in the middle of the Arab Nation, located in the State of Palestine.

The first change you can already see if you scroll down to the lower portion of the centre column. It is a new feature section called Arabian Coffee House. It will collect articles that deal with issues that may not be strictly political, but social, ethical, cultural, about Arab Identity and the role that Arabs play in the scenarios of the Middle East but not only. It will be especially attentive to what is happening in the media and in inter-Arab groups that affect the lives of Arabs particularly living in the West. As usual, courteous but passionate discussion is encouraged and the topics to be addressed will run the gamut. The core writers of this section are women, but it is not limited to them, but its flavour is already intended that of frank discussion between people who share their thoughts in a coffeehouse, where the conversation is lively, free and strong. It is especially focused on women, but not exclusively because it was designed with several of our women friends in mind who are outspoken yet warm to friends and respectful to strangers, full of integrity, passion and wit, radical (in their own words, and knowing them, it's true!) and committed to speaking their minds on many issues. Their posts fit into any and all areas of this site, but creating a new feature space to highlight these voices has been in the plans for a long time, and in this moment of housekeeping, we are delighted to make the thought become reality.

We are accepting, (as always) submissions to this section as well as to the others.

Another upcoming change is the addition of a feature section in the centre column called Website of the Week. We will take you to a different site each week. As many know, PTT is affiliated with quite a few sites although we have yet to set up links (this is the difficulty of limited time to dedicate, but this hole will get filled in too) our contributors on the whole are also affiliated with sites. The visits to the site will entail a brief description and whenever possible, a short interview with the editor. I am currently compiling a brief interview to send out to some favourite sites, and when these filter back, week after week, we will take our readers to the places we love and admire. At this time, I ask as well for webmasters, bloggers or editors who might like to be featured at some time, to send your contact info to the contact address so that we can look through the site if we aren't already familiar with it. Sometimes there are hidden gems that we don't know about or follow due to time restrictions. Readers are also requested to leave in the comment section their suggestions for sites and to even write their own site reviews. If we have a collection of reviews, we can put them up together with the Website of the Week post, which will point other readers to the direction of the more interesting aspects of the site, tell us about its history or any particular details that they find important, and will make the site even more useful and entertaining, time of course permitting, as these innovations will require more work.

There will be other changes on their way after the summer, (which will be slower than usual, but still active) including questionnaires and polls, more interviews, and a contest. We will also ask our readers to help us create a list of what kinds of strategies should be implemented for Palestinians to throw off the occupation, what the basic issues are that can be worked upon together and what suggestions we all can make to creating an alternative to what is happening now. The editors intend upon encouraging co-creation and community of those who frequent the site, and the creation of a sort of Statement of Intent, Manifesto, List of Demands, Wish List, Statement of Priorities, etc., that reflects the ideas of those who support the cause could also be used as a base for outside activities.

Change is never easy, at times it's a bit painful, it takes work and effort, but with your help, those dedicated to PTT can make the changes smoothly and improve the site all the time. A heartfelt thanks to supportive readers and friends who make the work pleasure, and to unsupportive readers and friends, thanks for making the pleasure work.

En segundo lugar, Ahmadinejad quiere contraatacar a Estados Unidos en su propio hemisferio y, tal vez, desestabilizar a los gobiernos amigos de Estados Unidos a fin de negociar, con Washington, desde una posición de mayor fortaleza.

En tercer lugar, la popularidad en su propio país de Ahmadinejad está cayendo y quiere mostrar a su pueblo que, en el exterior, es recibido como un héroe.”
 
The only perceptible alteration of the text is Karmon’s exclusion of the sentence: “Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran seems to be saying: ‘You got into my neighborhood; now I'm getting into yours.’” The exclusion prevents readers from wrongly assuming that the practice of neighborhood penetration was not invented by the Islamic Republic.
 
Karmon proceeds to explore indicators of penetration such as that Farsi is now being taught at Venezuelan universities while a number of Iranian engineers have learned basic Spanish. The late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci had also expressed dismay at curricular evolution, and at the fact that people named Mustafa or Muhammed were permitted to study chemistry and biology at US universities despite the threat of biochemical war. Fallaci’s proposed blueprint for counteracting the Islamic penetration of Europe was meanwhile to explode mosques on Italian territory; as for destruction wrought by less frequent Latin American visitors than Ahmadinejad, the White House archives provide a transcript of George Bush’s speech at a Miami celebration of Cuban independence day in 2002, the introduction to which was as follows:
 
“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Sientese. Voy a hablar en Espanol hoy — (applause) — pero no. No. (Laughter.) No quiero destruir un idioma que bonita, y por eso voy a hablar en Ingles. [I don’t want to destroy a beautiful language so I’m going to speak in English.] (Laughter.)
 
Bush would prove the following year that his concern for the preservation of Iraq was inferior to his concern for the preservation of the Spanish language, which was nonetheless called into question later in his speech when he translated “the entire world” as “the todos.” He did, however, accurately translate his secretary of state as “señorita Arroz”; the concern of White House transcribers for the English language was in the meantime evident via Bush’s transcribed proclamation that “I can’t — listen, every time I see and here Gloria Estefan sing, it makes my heart feel better.”
 
Further curious linguistic arrangements occurred during Bush’s glorification of Emilio, a Cuban-American college student who assisted mentally challenged Cuban-American children in addition to cleaning parks:
 
“The reason I bring up Emilio is I say oftentimes to Americans who want to — how best they can participate in our country, how best to fight evil is to do some good; is to love a neighbor like you’d like to be loved yourself. If you’re interested, if you’re interested in helping define our nation to the world, and if you’re interested in resisting evil, do some good. And that’s what Emilio does.”
 
Ely Karmon continues to manage the fight against evil in other arenas, contributing evidence of the Iranian origins of the attack on the AMIA and of Iranian-Venezuelan collaboration in the production of tractors. He at times speaks about Néstor Kirchner as though he is the current president of Argentina, with confusion possibly stemming from the fact that Karmon’s notes are from the Oppenheimer column of 2007 and that Cristina Fernández presumably collaborates with her husband.
 
As for confusion surrounding the AMIA bombing, one example is that only one out of 200 witnesses to the attack saw a white Renault van, the purchase of which Argentine intelligence attempted to pin on an Iranian cultural attaché who had then supposedly allowed it to be filled with explosives. The predilection for white vans in US efforts to isolate undesirable regimes had also been observed in the UN investigation of the Hariri assassination, which involved a white Mitsubishi van and a primary witness who was a convicted criminal.
 
Oppenheimer informs us that “the growing presence of obscure Iranian ‘diplomatic personnel’ in Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries in the region raises questions over whether Iranian agents will soon start slipping into other countries to support terrorist or totalitarian groups.” Karmon updates the threat of slippage with the information that Evo Morales has ceased requiring visas from Iranian travelers to Bolivia and that a US intelligence official has revealed in the Los Angeles Times that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have decided to capture Jews in South America and smuggle them to Lebanon. Capture is supposedly being facilitated by Venezuelan airport workers who provide information on Jewish travelers; the ease of intercontinental slippage is confirmed by the LA Times article, which reminds us that there are weekly IranAir flights from Tehran to Caracas.
 
After dabbling in plagiarism of the LA Times, Karmon rambles on through the possibility that Hassan Nasrallah might decide, based on “la inmunidad práctica del pasado,” that Latin American terrain might be used to exact revenge for the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh. Karmon fails to address other past instances of practical immunity such as the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, and adds to the credibility of Hezbollah’s designs by referencing recently thwarted vengeful attempts in Azerbaijan and “un país europeo no identificado.”
 
Karmon reviews the dangers posed by the “exportación de la enseñanza ideológica chiita radical y religiosa” and its potential influence on the social structure of Latin America, which will certainly be more difficult to maintain when the barrios of Caracas convert to Shiism. The article concludes with the question of what will happen if Iran, at the request of Chávez, decides to deploy long-range missiles in Venezuela; no mention is made of what sort of range Israeli weapons have.
 
Ely Karmon’s article in Veintitrés Internacional complies with AMIA’s stipulation that the fifteenth anniversary of the bombing be commemorated with minimal physical congregation of prospective swine flu transmitters. We are left to wonder why Karmon does not take it upon himself to extend his campaign against Iran to discredit the president of Honduras, as well, by exposing flight options from Tegucigalpa to Tehran via London—which are of course only feasible when the Honduran airport is open.

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE 24

New York, 16 June 2009

Mr Chairman,

Western Sahara remains under the illegal occupation of Morocco. The efforts employed so far by the United Nations with a view to finalising the decolonisation of the Territory have not been successful due to Morocco’s current rejection of the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination and independence.

I

In 1990, when Morocco accepted the Settlement Plan approved by the Security Council, it had committed itself to cooperate with the United Nations with a view to holding a self-determination referendum that would allow the Sahrawi people to choose between independence and integration into the occupying power. That task was entrusted to MINURSO that was deployed in the Territory on 6 September 1991 following the coming into effect of the ceasefire agreed by the two parties.

Such acceptance on the part of Morocco gave rise to real hopes for a fair and lasting solution to the conflict, mainly after the withdrawal of Mauritania from the conflict by virtue of the Mauritanian-Sahrawi peace agreement of 1979. Morocco confirmed this acceptance in 1997 to the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, James Baker, when the two parties signed the Houston agreements that were also approved by the Security Council. 

Nevertheless, when everything was in place for an effective implementation of these agreements, Morocco reneged on its commitment. This breach was formulated in a letter addressed to the Secretary-General in April 2004, in which Morocco made it clear that it did not accept any solution that would include the option of independence of the Territory.

It has ever since been trying to impose on the intentional community, through influential friends inside the Security Council, the so-called proposal of autonomy whose starting point consists in considering, in advance, that Western Sahara is an integral part of the Moroccan territory. The Security Council is aware that it is dealing with a decolonisation issue on the agenda of the General Assembly, which cannot be resolved outside or against the doctrine established by the United Nations. This doctrine stipulates that the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination and independence is, and should always be, the essential parameter for the solution of the conflict.

It was evident that, with Morocco’s breach of its commitment, the absence or the prolonged obstruction of a peaceful process of solution would imply serious risks for the maintenance of the ceasefire.

In June 2007, the Security Council requested us, the two parties, to begin direct negotiations, without preconditions with a view to achieving that solution in the framework of that essential parameter. The negotiations began in Manhasset in June of the same year, and the fourth round took place in April 2008. It is already known, Mr. Chairman, that there was no progress at all. The reasons for that lie in the fact that Morocco came with a precondition that was simply unacceptable. In reality, it did not want to negotiate but rather to impose its so-called proposal of autonomy as the only possible solution, presenting it on a “take it or leave it” basis. It was unwilling to discuss the proposal presented by the Sahrawi side, of which the Council had taken note. In our proposal, we say that the Sahrawi people should have the chance to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination by means of a referendum that includes all the options recognised by the United Nations in the context of General Assembly resolutions 1514 and 1541. This means that the referendum should necessarily include the option of independence. This option is not only something that cannot be renounced, but is also an option that Morocco had already accepted when it signed the Settlement Plan and the Houston Agreements. In our proposal, we also said that, in case the Sahrawi people would choose the option of independence in that referendum, the Frente POLISARIO would be willing to look to the future and to offer Morocco the chance to negotiate the bases for a strategic relationship in economic, security, commercial and social domains, among others.

Morocco’s rejection of this vision, which is based not only on the criteria established by the abovementioned resolutions of the United Nations but also on logic and common sense, is what caused the lack of progress in the negotiations.

The Secretary-General appointed a new Personal Envoy, Ambassador Christopher Ross, in August 2008. Mr. Ross did not officially assume his functions until January 2009 due to Morocco’s initial rejection.

In February this year, Mr. Ross made a first tour in the region of which he gave an account in the report submitted by the Secretary-General to the Security Council in April 2009. The mandate of the new Personal Envoy was to try to reactivate the negotiations that began in Manhasset, and he proposed, as a preliminary step, informal meetings between the two parties. We expressed our support for the Personal Envoy, but we do not know why those meetings have not yet taken place.

II

Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, the situation on the ground does not inspire optimism. Morocco maintains occupation forces comprising an estimated 150 thousand soldiers. The Territory is divided in two parts by a shameful wall protected by those forces and 5 million antipersonnel landmines. As an occupying power, Morocco intensifies, on a daily basis, its exploitation and commercialisation of the natural resources of the Territory, especially phosphates and fishing, offering them to the highest bidder, whilst trying to implicate foreign companies in onshore and offshore oil prospecting in our country.

This activity is carried out in flagrant contravention of international legality applicable to a territory pending decolonisation. The Special Committee has a great deal to say about this activity. The graveness of this breach is more than evident when taking into account that, according to what was confirmed by the legal opinion of the then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel, Dr. Hans Corell, on 29 January 2002, the United Nations does not consider Morocco as a sovereign or administering power of the Territory. We are before an illegal exploitation that is carried out by what General Assembly resolution 34/37 qualified as an “occupying” country. 

The situation does not inspire optimism either if we analyse the situation of human rights in the areas occupied by Morocco. As has been confirmed by the reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human rights in October 2007 and Human Rights Watch in December 2008 and the report of the ad hoc delegation of the European parliament in February 2009, Morocco violates human rights in Western Sahara. All these reports, made by different and unrelated bodies, concur in their assessment by considering that the violation of human rights by Morocco stems from the fact that the right to self-determination has not been respected. Furthermore, they agree on the need for the United Nations, through MINURSO, to play the traditional role played by all other UN missions in relation to monitoring and protection of human rights as long as the conflict has not been resolved in a just and lasting manner. The UN Secretary-General, in all his reports submitted to the Security Council since October 2006, expressed his concern about the situation of human rights in the Territory.

Both in 2008 and 2009, several delegations from non-permanent members of the Security Council tried to include, in the Security Council resolution, an extension of the mandate of MINURSO so as to incorporate the issue of human rights. Morocco, with the support of France, did not allow this noble attempt to go beyond a mere mention of the “human dimension” of the conflict, a fact that unfortunately can only lead to consolidating the perception that there is a double standard policy, which does not serve the credibility of the Council.

III

Mr. Chairman,

More than four decades have already passed since the adoption by the General Assembly of  resolution 1514 (XV) in December 1960 whereby the United Nations assumed the noble responsibility for ensuring that all peoples and countries under colonial occupation could exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. The fact that the decolonisation of Western Sahara remains on the agenda of this Committee makes it a living symbol of the failure by the United Nations to fulfil fully and effectively that collective responsibility.

The Sahrawi people were colonised by Spain from 1884 to 1976. Spain, which had considered the Territory as a “Spanish province”, accepted, by the end of the 60s, the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination and independence. As I had already stated during the sessions of the seminar held in Saint Kits and Nevis in last May, since 1969 Morocco had recognised repeatedly, explicitly and solemnly, before this Committee and before the General Assembly the right of the Sahrawi people to full independence.

The work carried out by the Committee in this regard, which was crowned by the report of its visiting mission dispatched to the Sahrawi Territory in May 1975, the multiple resolutions of the General Assembly on Western Sahara as well as the verdict of the Court of The Hague of October 1975, which rejected conclusively the validity of Morocco’s territorial claims on our country, all constituted a solid legal and political corpus that should have safeguarded the decolonisation process, and should have brought it to its natural conclusion by the peaceful accession of our country to its full independence.

Members of the Special Committee would recall what happened afterwards. Spain, the administering power, abdicated its obligations assumed before the United Nations by calling on Morocco and Mauritania to invade, occupy and partition our country. This act was carried out in Madrid agreements of November 1975. This way, our people were forced to continue their legitimate struggle for national independence against colonisers this time coming from within Africa. The European colonialism had retired, but it had been replaced by African colonialisms. There are no precedents in the annals of decolonisation of this terrible tragedy for Africa. However, several African leaders had warned against this threat to the security and independence of the continent. Hence, the importance that was accorded, at the beginning, to the intangibility of the borders inherited from colonialism in the constitutive Charter of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The Court of The Hague concluded, as I have said earlier, that before the Spanish colonisation there was never any tie of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and its new colonisers. This verdict and the inclusion of the principle of intangibility of borders into the Charter of the OAU, made that the Mauritanian-Moroccan attempt to annex our country was seen as an act with very serious consequences for Africa.

It was the President of Mozambique, Samora Machel, who said that “colonialism does not have any specific colour”. Already in 1960, against the backdrop of the territorial claims made by Morocco on Mauritania, President Senghor of Senegal said, in a proper way, that some African nations had acquired the illness of the European coloniser. More recently, President Mbeki of South Africa said that it was a shame for Africa that the Sahrawi people had not even been able to enjoy their right to independence.  

IV

Mr. Chairman,

Perhaps one could say that all this is known, and that it may be advisable not to highlight it in order to keep the consciences dormant. That is to say, to accept, as a last resort, the notion that the right to self-determination of peoples in the framework of decolonisation shakes the consciences of some people who end up saying privately and sometimes publically, after perhaps signing or securing a contract here and there with Morocco, that that fundamental right, which made possible the current configuration of the world, should give way in the case of Western Sahara to the “politically correct” notion proposed by Morocco, i.e., pure annexation of our country, disguised in a proposal of autonomy.

The Sahrawi people, armed with the firm conviction in the legitimacy of their right to freedom and independence and in the pre-eminence of the principles and values of the UN Charter over the siren songs of a cynical and dangerous notion of political realism, will never give up the full realisation of that right. We are also convinced that the immense majority of the UN members share this judgement and the vision that, in a case of decolonisation as clear as this one, there should be no exception to the general rule that was established by resolution 1514, which gave birth to this Committee.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that the Sahrawi people will continue suffering, and will continue seeing their development and progress being mortgaged by an anachronistic, unjust and unjustified occupation. It is our suffering, but it is also your failure as United Nations.

In our modest opinion, this Committee can and should reactivate its commitment to the decolonisation of the last African colony on its agenda. The Committee was historically very courageous in the face of the persistence of the Spanish colonisation of Western Sahara. You should not give up this courage because the decolonisation of Western Sahara has not yet been concluded. Spain left, but Morocco came in its stead. The UN considers Morocco neither a sovereign power nor an administering power, but this country considers itself capable of interfering, conditioning and even changing the principled positions and the minimum rules of procedure of this Committee, as it happened, Mr. Chairman, in the recent seminar. The Sahrawi people have not yet exercised their right to self-determination. Hence, the responsibility of the Committee is still as full as our trust in it and in the international community.

Thank you very much indeed! 

Netanyahu’s speech [of 14 June 2009] was perceived in Israel and the world as a reply to Obama’s speech in Cairo, and as such it has provoked a great deal of interest. 

The content of the speech itself was fairly typical of those given by previous prime ministers, its primary purpose being to explain to the world, Israelis included, that it is impossible to put an end to the occupation and settlement.  The reason for this is not "God forbid!" that Israel wants to continue the occupation and settlement.  The reason is that the perfidious Palestinians make it impossible for Israel to do so. At Camp David almost ten years ago, Ehud Barak announced that he wanted to return nearly everything to the Palestinians but was stymied by the fact that he had no partner. True, he added, we too have some conditions for achieving peace and ending the occupation, but our demands are only for the annexation of a minimum of Palestinian lands needed to preserve our "security."

Netanyahu's speech, which he himself characterized as “courageous and honest,” did indeed offer the Palestinians a Palestinian state. True, he added, it has to be demilitarized - even though its neighbour is armed to the teeth, the Palestiniaans must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Jerusalem must remain “undivided,” and there will be no talking with Hamas - even though Hamas was elected democratically. Netanyahu did not mention the 1967 borders, or the right of return, or the peace proposal of the Arab League. The word “occupation” did not cross his lips: he spoke only of the “presence” of our forces. 

Netanyahu rejected Obama’s public appeal to freeze construction in the settlements since “we have to continue to provide for the normal needs of the settlements.” 

There is no reason at all to discuss this proposal, which is lacking not only seriousness but certainly in even a modicum of “courage and honesty.” The Arab and Palestinian responses, emphatically rejected Netanyahu's “generous offer” – and were immediately characterized by Israeli spokesmen as refusing to talk about peace. 

A little less expected were the responses of some people in the Israeli peace camp who saw in the speech a window, even if only a small one, to a better future. 

But much more important was the response of the main addressee of Netanyahu’s speech: President Barack Obama. True, he did not bother to listen to the speech, preferring to play golf instead. But his first response, at least according to media reports, was that Netanyahu’s speech was “a step in the right direction.” 

Obama has been described by both the Israeli and Palestinian media as taking a tough line with Netanyahu.  After all, wasn't it Obama who himself said "that he would pursue peace aggressively?" And an Israeli commentator wrote that Netanyahu in his speech “had to loosen the American noose.” [Yossi Verter, Haaretz, 15 June 2009, “Netanyahu speech solely for Obama’s ears” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093049.html ] 

Perhaps we might ask if, in fact, Netanyahu’s speech created a sharp conflict between Israel and the United States.  According to Palestinian leader Saeb Erakat, the speech “was a slap in the face to Obama" although his initial reaction didn't seem to presage any conflict. But that raises several questions, such as: do Netanyahu and his entourage know something about Israel’s relationship with the United States that is concealed from the public?

Perhaps America's constant emphasis on the fact that the U.S.-Israel relationship is “unshakable” and the United States will “ensure Israel’s security” has greater importance than we have imagined?  Could it be that we have misinterpreted Obama’s Cairo speech, as a result of which the left has unjustified illusions and the extreme right exaggerated fears? 

Was the purpose of the speech to appease those whom the Americans refer to as “the moderate Arab states,” and to provide them with ammunition against extremist Arabs through the use of strong language towards Israel?  Perhaps the objective of the speech was not, after all, to bring peace closer and to end the occupation. 

Take, for example, Obama's forceful statement that "it is time for these settlements to stop.”  That sentence was universally understood as a reversal of U/S. policy towards Israel. But a second and more focussed look raises the question of why Obama chose to say that the settlements should “stop” and not that they should “be dismantled” or “removed.” This appears to be somewhat less than a demand that the occupation itself come to an end.  It could be read instead as a kind of tacit acceptance of the occupation on condition that the settlements be limited in their growth, an implied recognition of the so-called “settlement blocs” slated for annexation in every Israeli “peace plan.” As we learn from Washington, even Netanyahu’s emphatic rejection of the demand to stop the settlements is already under “discussion.”

In fact there is more than a little hypocrisy and pretence in the emphatic demand that Israel stop the settlements. One gets the impression from Obama’s speech that Israel alone is responsible for the establishment of settlements.  But is it conceivable that the president of the United States does not know full well that no Israeli government could have erected even one settlement without the agreement of the United States, either explicit or implied. 

If Obama had meant to be straightforward on the subject, he would have said: “We will immediately cease our support for the building of the settlements. We, who permitted that construction, in partnership with the Israelis, have violated international law by doing so. We, who have evaded all discussion of the matter, provided cover for Israel by vetoing any condemnation of its acts at the United Nations Security Council.” 

Had Obama expressed himself like that, he would have been seen to be putting his cards on the table. But he chose, instead, to strike the pose of a prophet, preaching righteousness.  He did this in other parts of his speech as well, in which American political motivations were well concealed.

Thus, for example, he said that the United States would not impose peace on the two sides, but that they themselves had to do that. Obama surely knows that Israel’s policy, which Netanyahu emphasized very clearly in his speech, is insistence on “direct negotiations” with the Palestinians.  In this way Israel can continue to subjugate the Palestinians forever? 

In this context it is also important to take note that at no point in his speech did Obama propose a plan for peace or for ending the occupation. He did not mention the 1967 borders, the refugee problem, Jerusalem as the capital of the two peoples, or Palestinian unity. As a result he has made it easier for Netanyahu to deal with those issues as he wants. 

Particularly appalling was the section in which Obama talked about the violence that the Palestinians (the Palestinians, mind you, not the Israelis!) must stop. And this was only a few months after Operation "Cast Lead" in Gaza, which took place after his election to the presidency, and about which he maintained a stony silence. 

In a more general framework, it is somewhat strange when talking about violence to hear this admonition coming from a man who presides over the world’s largest military force, a force with 700 military bases spread all over the world.  Obama has already increased the American military budget, postponed the withdrawal from Iraq and escalated involvement in Afghanistan.  And one is not even talking about the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq which daily adds to the tally of the dead and wounded (estimated to range from half a million to a million and a half). Apparently Obama sees only the mote in the Palestinians' eye. 

Obama’s speech reflects the weakening of America's position in the world, especially among the Arab and Muslim states. Gone are the days when gunships were dispatched to deal with outbursts of resistance to America. Even extensive invasions like those of Iraq and Afghanistan have become harder to execute. It has also become harder to undertake covert actions like the political assassinations and internal coups that were implemented against Allende in Chile, Castro in Cuba and Mossadegh in Iran. 

The weakening of the United States is a result both of the loosening of its grip on the world economy and on the change in power relations in the world such as the strengthening of China and new assertiveness of Russia. The Muslim nationalist movement must be counted among the factors that are weakening American hegemony. The Arab and Muslim nationalist movements are among the biggest enemies of American imperial hegemony. Even though those movements were weakened to a great extent when they went from being secular-nationalist to being religious-nationalist, they continue to be a large, hostile force against the United States.

The United States is not afraid of the Iranian nuclear bomb.  It is afraid, rather, of Iran’s influence over the various anti-American nationalist movements. Obama knows that the so-called moderate Arab governments do not enjoy the support of their peoples, and that they are vulnerable to that influence.

The experts in the White House understand that they must distance themselves from the Bush legacy.  They understand that it is necessary to change - if not the policies then at least the style. They understand that it is necessary to implement certain changes, even at the expense of Israel. Obama is prepared to make certain cosmetic changes. But he would not dream of fundamentally changing the “unshakeable” relationship. In my estimation, the most that he will do is dismantle some settlement outposts and stop the spread of the settlements to some extent. Packaged in his admirable rhetoric, this bone will be thrown to the “moderate” Arab states.  It will relieve the pressure that the Arab nationalist movements are applying on them.

Obama may be compared to Churchill, who declared that he did not rise to power in order to liquidate the British Empire. Obama has no intention of liquidating the American empire.  He intends to conserve it. As such, he remains at the forefront of American imperialism.

The two speeches, Obama’s and Netanyahu’s, were a show of “as if.”  They both know who really decides. Obama could have dispensed with the speech and just announced to the Israeli government that if Israel does not withdraw from all the territories he would take certain measures. But Obama does not intend to do that, because Israel plays an important role in the U.S.A.’s strategy for the Middle East. The margin for bargaining between the two is very small. So far it looks as if Netanyahu - perhaps even more than his adversaries - is well aware of its dimensions.  

And to those among us who pinned their hopes for peace on Obama and the United States I say with sorrow: the United States is not the solution: it is the problem.

Just over a week ago, I visited Israel and Palestine. I was a part of a delegation of authors consisting of representatives from different continents. We were supposed to participate in a Palestinian literary conference. The inauguration was supposed to take place at the Palestinian National Theatre in Jerusalem. Just as we had gathered, heavily armed Israeli military and police officers arrived and said that they were going to stop us. Asked why, the answer read:

“You’re a security risk.”

Of course, it’s sheer nonsense to claim that we constituted a security threat to Israel at that moment. But at the same time they were right. We do constitute a threat when we come to Israel and say what we think of the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian population. It’s not more odd than when I, and thousands of others, once constituted a threat to the apartheid system in South Africa. Words are dangerous!

This is also what I said when the organizers had succeeded in relocating the whole inauguration at the French Culture Centre, which had agreed to house us:

“What we are now experiencing is that the despicable apartheid system, which once treated Africans and coloured people as second class citizens in their own land, is repeating itself. However, we shan’t forget that this apartheid system no longer exists. It was overthrown by human force to the dust heap of history, in the early 1990s. There is a straight line between Soweto, Sharpeville and what recently happened in Gaza.”

During the three days that followed, we visited Hebron, Bethlehem, Jenin and Ramallah. One day, we walked through the mountains with Palestinian author Raja Shehadeh, who showed us how Israeli settlements are spreading out, confiscating Palestinian land, destroying roads, building new ones for settlers only. Harassment presented itself immediately at the checkpoints. Needless to say, my wife Eva and I had a much easier time getting through. But people in the delegation, who held Syrian passports or were of Palestinian origin, were more vulnerable. Take your bag out of the bus, put it back in again, take it out again…

But there are degrees, also in hell. Hebron was worst. In the middle of a town of 40,000 Palestinians live 400 Jewish settlers who have confiscated a part of downtown Hebron. They are brutal. They don’t hesitate to attack their Palestinian neighbours at any time. Why not pee on their heads from highly-located windows? We saw a documentation that, among other things, showed settler women and their children kicking and hitting Palestinian women – without the military intervening. This is why there are people in Hebron who, in the name of solidarity, volunteer to walk Palestinian children to and home from school. These 400 settlers are protected 24-7 by 1,500 Israeli soldiers. Each and every settler is constantly guarded by 4-5 people. On top of that, the settlers are allowed to carry weapons. When we visited one of the worst crossings in Hebron, there was an extremely aggressive settler who filmed us. If he saw any sign of something Palestinian – a bracelet, a pin – he ran off to report to the soldiers.

Of course, nothing of what we experienced could ever be compared to the Palestinians’ situation. We met them in taxicabs and in the street, at evening-readings, at universities and theatres. We were able to listen to what they’re being subjected to.

Is it strange that some of them, when they see no other way out of it, decide, in desperation, to become suicide-bombers? Hardly. Strange, perhaps, is that more of them do not opt for it.

The wall that is now dividing the country will prevent future attacks, on short-term. But the wall is all too clearly an indication of the desperation of the Israeli military power. In the end, it will suffer the same fate as the wall that divided Berlin.

What I witnessed during this trip was all too clear: in its current shape, the State of Israel has no future. Moreover, those who champion a two-state solution are wrong.

In 1948, the year of my birth, the State of Israel proclaimed its independence on occupied land. There are no good reasons at all for saying that this was a legitimate move under international law. Israel simply occupied Palestinian land. And its land holdings are constantly growing – through the war, in 1967, and today through the constantly growing settlements. Every now and then, some settlement is dismantled for appearance’s sake. But soon enough another one pops up somewhere else. A two-state solution doesn’t mean that the historical occupation comes to an end.

Israel will end up the same way as apartheid South Africa. The only question is if the Israelis can be made to listen to reason and to voluntarily agree to the dismantlement of the apartheid state, or if it needs to come about by coercion.

Nor can anyone tell when it will happen. The final rebellion will, of course, be initiated from inside. But sudden political changes in Syria or Egypt will be contributory.

As important, certainly, is that the USA soon won’t afford to pay for this gruesome military power, which denies stone-throwing kids a normal life in freedom.

When these changes are a fact, it is up to the individual Israeli whether he or she is prepared to relinquish his/hers privileges, in order to live in a Palestinian state. I didn’t encounter any anti-Semitism during the trip, only a completely normal hatred of the occupiers. It’s vital to keep the two apart.

We had intended to end the last night the same way we had started in Jerusalem. However, the theatre had been closed down by the military again. It had to happen elsewhere.

The State of Israel has only defeat to await, like all occupying powers.

The Israelis crush life. But they crush no dreams. The fall of this hideous apartheid system is the only conceivable, because it’s a necessity.

The question, then, is not if but when it happens, and, accordingly, in what way.

TRANSLATED BY KRISTOFFER LARSSON, member of www.tlaxcala.es
http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=7943&lg=en

Aftonbladet June 2, 2009 

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5283239.ab

First, it was a brazenly direct affront to President Obama who thought rather naively that nice words about peace would make the Israeli leadership change its fascistic mindset and reconsider it colonialist approach toward the Palestinian people.

Just last week, Obama reasserted America’s commitment to the safety and security of Israel as if the Zionist entity, which possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads, was facing any real threats from its neighbors.

However, in light of Netanyahu’s speech last night, it is amply clear that American support of Israel serves only to embolden the apartheid’s state and make it adopt even more extremist postures toward the Palestinian issue.

President Obama must really deeply ponder this specific point and reconsider America’s entire policy toward Israel.

Second, the hateful tirade was a slap in the face for the so-called “moderate” Arab regimes, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who have degraded themselves and their people for the purpose of encouraging and endearing Israel to come to terms with minimal Palestinian rights.

For example, some of the Arab regimes have been playing an active role in starving and tormenting the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip in the hope of obtaining a certificate of good conduct from the Zionist leadership.

Now, these tyrants should have the courage and dignity to reconsider their erstwhile disgraceful discourse toward Israel by realizing that no matter how much Arabs and Muslims seek to appease and accommodate Israel’s racist whims, the Zionist entity will remain faithful to its diabolical principles of domination and colonialism.

Nonetheless, it is obvious that the biggest slap in the face went to the American-backed Palestinian regime in Ramallah, especially PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his de facto prime minister Salam Fayyadh, the reputed darling of the former Bush administration.

We all know too well how this collaborationist regime did everything in its power to demonstrate its total subservience to Israel, the Nazi-like occupier of our homeland.

The Ramallah Judenrat has been persecuting the Palestinian people  to please Israel. It has rounded up thousands of Palestinian Islamic activists to demonstrate its “commitment” to the security understandings forged with the Israeli army. And more recently, it mercilessly and callously murdered resistance fighters in the northern West Bank, a feat that drew a lot of praise from the very people who had murdered Abu Jihad, Ahmed Yasin and may well have poisoned Yasser Arafat.

In fact, what Netanyahu was telling these petty collaborators last night is that no matter how much they cheapen themselves before Israel, even by killing their own people to safeguard the security of Israeli settlements, they will continue to be treated with the utter contempt they deserve.

Undoubtedly, Netanyahu’s speech amounted to a complete negation of all the “understandings and agreements” reached since the conclusion of the infamous Oslo Accords more than 16 years ago.

Netanyahu did say that he would be willing to accept a castrated Palestinian state somewhere in “the Land of Israel”. However, he insisted that such an entity would have to be tightly controlled by Israel and bereft of any semblance of sovereignty or dignity.

Indeed, the state the Nazi-minded Zionist leader has in mind has conspicuous  Kafkaesque characteristics since its airspace, territorial water, borders, border crossings, water resources and foreign relations will be  controlled by the Ubermenschen, the “chosen people,” the “master race.”

Interestingly, the Israeli premier repeatedly demanded that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a state of the Jewish people.

Well, for those who don’t understand Zionist phraseology, it is important to clarify that terms such as “Jewish state” or “state of the Jewish people” are actually euphemistic expressions connoting the half-revealed but well-known Israeli intentions to deport the 1.5 million strong Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in the Zionist state.

Hence, Netanyahu and his cohorts are effectively demanding that the Palestinian people and their leadership solemnly acknowledge that Israel will have the right to ethnically cleanse its Palestinian citizens at a time of its choosing…. because Israel is “the state of the Jewish people” and anyone wishing  to be treated as an equal citizen, he or she would have to be a Jew or convert to Judaism.

Moreover, the arrogant Zionist premier reiterated his extremist views on al-Quds al Sharif, vowing that the holy city of Jerusalem will remain Israel’s undivided capital. He also vowed to keep up settlement expansion in the West Bank, irrespective of the wishes of the Obama administration.

A pathological liar and notorious prevaricator,  Netanyahu said the conceivable Palestinian entity would have to be totally demilitarized in order to rule out the emergence of a Hamas regime.

He utterly ignored the fact that his own government comprises Nazi-like parties, some of which even don’t recognize the very humanity of non-Jews.

Hence, one is really prompted to ask Netanyahu and those who are still beguiled by his mendacious rhetoric how he would explain to the world that Jews in Israel have the right to elect manifestly Nazi-minded parties such as ha’Bayt ha’Yahudi and ha’Ichud ha’Leumi while the Palestinians are barred from electing a party like Hamas, which really looks like a band of boy scouts when compared to the virulently racist Jewish groups such Chabad and the Kookites whose rabbis are still arguing why the Almighty created non-Jews with two legs, not four, as He did other animals.

Undoubtedly, Netanyahu’s speech caricatured a thoroughly arrogant and megalomaniac leader, not unlike Adolf Hitler, a Fuehrer who thinks non-Jews living the “Land of Israel” are children of a lesser God, or wretched  Untermenschen, who should serve as “wood hewers” and “water carriers” for the Jewish master race. And if they refuse servitude and enslavement, they would have to be banished into the Arabian desert or simply slaughtered en masse following the Biblical style.

Now the ball is squarely in the court of the  White House.  Either Obama proves that he is the man of his word, by  acting immediately to restrain this Nazi-like monster that is evidently hell-bent on savaging 5 million Palestinians who are demanding emancipation from decades of Zionist-Jewish cruelty.

Should Obama prove unable or unwilling to act on his proclamations which he made in Cairo last week, Arabs and Muslims as well as all other peace-loving people around the world would have to draw the right conclusion and come to terms with the ugly reality in this part of the world, namely that Israel is a malignant  Nazi-like entity that is hell-bent on spreading wars and chaos in the Middle East and beyond.

Eventually, the immense turbulence and violence resulting from the Zionist menace would sooner or later get the U.S. bogged down in bloodier wars in many parts of the Muslim world, wars that would further destroy the American economy and cause untold thousands of America’s finest sons and daughters to lose their lives for Israel’s sake.

Needless to say, the calumnies and canards concocted by Bush against the world's 1.5 billion Muslims; using the term "Islamofascists" and claiming that Muslims "hate our freedoms" effectively put the United States and Islam on a virtual collision course.

Eventually, this sullen hostility to Islam and Muslims found expression in the genocidal wars of aggression the United States and its allies waged against Muslims, resulting in the invasion, occupation, and the destruction of two sovereign Muslim states.

Hence, it is laudable to see the Obama Administration making a real effort to mend relations with Muslims, and trying to refurbish America's tarnished image throughout the Muslim world.

Nonetheless, Muslims, especially Arabs and Palestinians, should not be carried away by the false euphoria accompanying the speech although arguably balanced — by the American standard — and ostensibly friendly it may be.

Rhetoric Cloaked in the Same Policy

If we put symbolism and matters of style apart, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that Obama did not really come up with any real  surprises in terms of actual policies, especially with regard to the Palestinian issue; the main and enduring point of contention between the United States and the Muslim world.

His assertion of the two-state solution is hardly a surprise. George Bush had spoken ad nauseam of his vision of seeing a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace.

Bill Clinton had done the same thing while allowing Israel to keep up building Jewish-only colonies on Palestinian stolen lands.

In his remarks about the Palestinian issue, Obama actually left many questions unanswered as to the nature of the Palestinian state for which he has declared his support and backing.

For example, will the creation of that contemplated state involve full and total Israeli evacuation from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem?

And what would be the fate of the huge Jewish colonies in and around Al-Quds, such as Pisgat Zeev, French Hell, Har Homa, and Maali Adomim — to mention just a few colonies?  Would these colonies be dismantled or annexed to Israel?

Indeed, even Israel itself does not really object to the creation of a Palestinian state as long as the Zionist regime has the final say in determining all the characteristics of such a state.

Next week, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu will deliver a speech in which he is expected to declare his "acceptance" of the two-state solution.

However, Netanyahu is likely to insist that Israel must be in control of that state's "borders", border-crossings, air space, territorial water, underground water, telecommunications channels, and international relations.

Netanyahu will also insist that the prospective state would have to be totally demilitarized and deprived of any right to make treaties with foreign states.

In other words, Netanyahu will propose a state with a form and a name, but without any substance. In fact, it would be an insult to language to call such a deformed brat a state.

More to the point, Netanyahu is likely to invoke the mantra of "two states for two peoples".

It suggests that the Zionist state would have the right — at a certain point in the future — to expel its 1.6 million strong Palestinian citizens to the future Palestinian entity on the ground that Israel is an exclusively Jewish state where only Jews could enjoy equal rights as citizens.

Ignoring International Law

Interestingly, Obama made no mention whatsoever of the rule of international law and its relevance to the Palestinian plight.

This fact alone generates a lot of suspicions and misgivings about the credibility of the president's commitment to pursuing a just and durable resolution of the conflict in Palestine.

According to international law, every centimeter of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem is an occupied territory.

This principle was reasserted in 2004 by the International Court of Justice in the Hague in its famous ruling on the Apartheid Wall which Israel erected in the West Bank, as well as by numerous UN resolutions.

Moreover, Obama spoke laconically of Jerusalem becoming a home for the three monotheistic religions. However, he did not say if he was alluding to East Jerusalem or West Jerusalem or both.

If indeed he meant East Jerusalem, then this would be utterly unacceptable to the Palestinian people and their Arab and Muslim brethren all over the world, because Al-Quds Al-Sharif is an occupied territory.

In fact, even the United States itself does not recognize the Israeli annexation of Al-Quds, and has repeatedly refused to transfer its embassy to the Holy City due to its status.

Besides, what about West Jerusalem? Does not Obama realize that Palestinian refugees own more than 90 percent of land in West Jerusalem? 

So, one is prompted to ask if Mr. Obama believes that a theft becomes legal and lawful after the passage of 60 years?

Moreover, does Obama really think it is fair to allow Jews to possess property and real estate in East Jerusalem while Palestinians are denied the same right to reclaim their own property, including homes and lands in such West Jerusalem neighborhoods as Al-Malha, Ein Karem, Lifta, Dir Yasin, Beit Mahsir, Deir Aban, and the like?

One of the subjects conspicuously absent from Obama's Cairo speech was the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees who were brutally uprooted from their ancestral homeland when Israel was created in Palestine in 1948.

Needless to say, the right of return is the soul and heart of the Palestinian issue, and without addressing it justly and sincerely, no possible peace deal can last long and withstand the tests of time.

Condoning Israeli Atrocities

This is why Obama's failure to even mention this fundamental element of the Israeli-Palestinian strife does not augur well for the future and for peace.

Furthermore, Obama called on the Palestinians to abandon violence, saying that "resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." Well, should not Mr. Obama have also called on Israel to abandon violence against the Palestinians?

Does not he realize that Palestinian "violence" is in the final analysis a mere "effect" or inevitable reaction to an overwhelming "cause" which is the enduring Israeli occupation?

After all, the occupation itself is the ultimate form of violence and oppression since it deprives its victims of their human rights, freedoms, and dignity. Indeed, the occupation is an act of usurpation.

So, I would most candidly want to ask Mr. Obama the following question: Does or does not the usurped victim have the right, even the duty, to resist her/his attacker?

Finally, in his speech, Obama spoke elaborately of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Europeans.

Well, as human beings and as Muslims, we do sympathize with Jewish and non-Jewish suffering.

However, showing sympathy and understanding is one thing, but being demanded that we pay the price for this undeniably legitimate suffering is quite another.

It is unfair, unjust, and immoral to demand that the longest-suffering people in modern history, the Palestinians, who have inhabited and toiled the land of Palestine since time immemorial, to be coerced to pay the price for the Nazi atrocities of European Jewry seven decades ago. 

Khalid Amayreh is a journalist living in Palestine. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983. Since the 1990s, Mr. Amayreh has been working and writing for several news outlets among which is Aljazeera.net, Al-Ahram Weekly, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), and Middle East International. He can be reached through politics.indepth@iolteam.com.

 http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1243825274221&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout