The news item read “4:16 pm, American Ambassador Michele Sison (sp) departed Lebanon for her country.”  Ten minutes later the item disappeared and, as it turned out, the ten minutes was  exactly how long it took for the US Embassy security and press office to inform Beirut media outlets that “the American Ambassador's movements are to be reported at least one hour after they occur ,not one minute.” 

The hasty departure of Ambassador Michele Sisson, according to the US Foreign Relations Committee office, may have been because the Obama administration is preparing for a ‘deep review’ of its 9 months' effort in Lebanon and the region, debriefing key officials arriving from the area to participate. 

Ambassador Sisson will likely give the White House an earful, including a report of what the Embassy Press Office referred to as the spectacle this week of former US friends and assets in the March 14 majority coalition warmly and very publicly embracing at various events marking the end of the 5 month effort to create a government here of those “Iranian surrogates” in Hezbollah.  The Ambassador may also report to the White House that Hezbollah in now the most popular and  respected political party in Lebanon and the main pillar of the new government and that it is about to launch its social welfare initiatives in Parliament. 

The White House appears to know that Hezbollah is here to stay and if a plebiscite was held, polls show that  the Lebanese public would agree that now more than ever the growing National Lebanese Resistance led by Hezbollah is needed as a deterrent to Israeli aggression, given the  recent discovery of a vast Israeli spy network, daily violations of Lebanese sovereignty, as well as the serial threats from all manner of Israeli officials, extremist rabbis, settlers and their supporters in the US Congress who appear to be encouraging Israel to launch its 7^th War against Lebanon. 

The Bush and Obama administrations' former ally, and new Prime Minister Saad Hariri is apparently also pulling back a bit from Washington and seems to be going out of his way this week in stressing this, telling a group of students at Beirut Arab University that “Lebanon will no longer be the playground for regional Conflicts and that there must be no more international heavy handedness from outside powers”.  Some of the students thought he was alluding to the United States. 

At a Hamra Internet Café a chic and sassy Saudi student majoring in business explained, as she examined several rings on her fingers: “Your government has already served Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and soon Palestine and Egypt to Iran on a mezza platter.  Soon, maybe my country! Is your government stupid or just what is the problem?” 

A coup de grace of sorts has been  administered to the Lebanese branch of  the “New Middle East ” project  by former US ‘partner’ Walid Jumblatt  when after telling a visiting American delegation that “the neocons are still in charge in Washington” he announced that Syria, his former sworn enemy, does indeed have legitimate geopolitical interests in Lebanon and that he for one was ready to acknowledge and even support them.   Even Saudia Arabia seems willing to defer to Syria as the Wahabist Kingdom calculates how best to revive Arab nationalism as a bulwark against its nemesis, Shia Iran.  In the background the influence of Egypt, under its long time President Hosni Mubarak, diminishes.   All these fast moving maneuvers and events leave Washington with only Samir Geagea and few others to do its bidding. 

The White House is no doubt already aware that the past three years of US-Israeli projects are in tatters as that Lebanon may indeed have joined the regional era of Resistance.

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassim, who will play a key role in enacting social programs in Parliament that Hezbollah is committed to has made clear as he stated yesterday, that  “It’s time to get to work.”

Hezbollah has yielded to some of its political opponents some of its expected Cabinet seats, out of a bloated number of 30 as part of the 15 (March 14 ‘Majority’) 10 (Hezbollah led opposition) and 5 (appointed by President Michel Suleiman) formula.  The reason is to get off to a good start in the newly formed government. 

One Hezbollah official noted in a recent conversation about the makeup of the new government which is one the White House does not favor but can do little about just now:

“Tayyeb! (OK!), this is our (Hezbollah’s) opportunity to show our countrymen and others who we are and what we can do for our country.  I will admit that our Zionist enemies had been somewhat successful in creating a false image of us.  We will now work with all parties and try to implement our legislative program.  You will see us compromise and try to convince all factions to work with us to improve Lebanon.  We do this not for Iran or Syria but because we are Lebanese.  Watch us, criticize us, and condemn us if we fail.  Let’s see what we can achieve with all the political factions. Long after Hezbollah helps return our Palestinian guests to their rightful homes we will be trying to improve our country as part of our government.” 

American policy towards Lebanon is in some ways back to square one.  There are a number of things that the Obama Administration can do to begin to rebuild Lebanese confidence in the Obama administration's good intensions. 

At a recent meeting in West Beirut, a group of students, young and old, gathered at a seminar to discuss the image of America in the Levant.  A US Embassy representative was invited but bowed out at the last minute and advised the group to ‘send us an email and we will look it over.”   So far there has been no reply from the Embassy but below are some of the suggestions from Lebanese University students to the White House, State Department and US Congress, updated on 11/12/09.  

1.     Immediately issue a Press Release explaining whether the rumors are true that President Obama gave Israeli PM Netanyahu a ‘green light’for its threatened 7^th War against Lebanon.  AIPAC has been telling some Congressional Hill staffers that the reports of a  ‘cold meeting’ between the two leaders  last weekend was  "for public consumption’ but that in fact the meeting went swimmingly for Israel and Netanyahu came away with a caution but approval for its plans to ‘finish business’ in Lebanon which the Israeli leader claimed will benefit both countries. 

2.   Support the current General Assembly Draft Resolution sponsored by China and Sudan and expected to garner close to 168 votes and pass, that requires full and fair compensation from Israel to be paid to Lebanon for the July 13 and July 15, 2006 bombings of the Jiyyeh Oil Storage tanks south of Beirut that heavily polluted 150 km of Lebanon’s shoreline.  According to Greenpeace the effects of the release of the 15,000 gallons of heavy oil can take decades to recovery and the final clean up costs may exceed one billion dollars. 

3.     Give Israel not more than 30 days to withdraw from Sheba Farms and ‘Ghajar village as required by UN Security Council Resolutions 1701 and 425, the latter unanimously passed in the Security Council in 1978, demanded complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and has still not been fully complied with and has been gathering dust for 31 years. 

4. Adequately fund and provide equipment for the cleanup of South Lebanon and the removal of American cluster bombs and land mines.  After three years of effort, 7.9 million square meters remain unclear and with winter approaching again the bomblets become more difficult to find as casualties continue to climb from the current number of 263.  On November 4, 2999 the US did pledge additional funds to the Lebanese Army as part of its “anti-terrorism” program but much more need to be done.  

5. End the political favoritism in US AID projects to Lebanon and other US foreign projects here and make American foreign aid grants on the basis of need and effectiveness in helping Lebanon as a whole rather than according to party affiliation, sect, religion or neighborhood. 

6.     End the bashing of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran by the flow of US officials who float into Lebanon with various  hreats or to announce for the umpteenth time that the US ‘respects the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of Lebanon”, while blatantly interfering in Lebanon’s integral affairs.  This charade has become the butt of Lebanese stand up comedians and undermines US efforts to be taken seriously. 

7.   The US should join the growing "Dialogue paradigm” in the region and work to erase the huge contradictions between American government “sweet songs” as in June 2009 by President Obama in Cairo, and their deeds.  Talk with those most needed for making peace in the region including Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.  Trying to destroy or punish them by unconvincing slurs makes the US appear rather silly.

8.  Clarify for the Lebanese public any US plans for another airbase and who would have access to it. 

9.  End the evident US efforts at igniting Sunni-Shia clashes not just in Lebanon but in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Yemen. 

Hopefully Ambassador Sisson, whose representative missed the meeting at the American University of Beirut, will pass along some of these Lebanese proposals to the President. 

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com

As it happened, Obama cancelled his scheduled contribution to the proceedings in order to address the memorial service for the 13 who were killed in the shooting on the U.S. Army base at Fort Hood in Texas. (At the risk of giving offense where none is intended, I have to say that I think the conference agenda could easily have been re-arranged to provide the President with an alternative podium slot if he had wanted it. He did, in fact, put in an appearance at a reception for Jewish leaders attending the conference, but he didn’t talk about foreign policy. Instead he delivered a 20-minute homily on Jewish values of charity and the importance of health care reform). 

Obama’s place as the main speaker was taken by his chief of staff (and Zionism’s number one minder in the White House) Rahm Emanuel. Reviewing his address to conference as a whole, I saw no reason to disagree with what Paul Craig Roberts wrote. Emanuel “surrendered for his boss”. 

It would seem that a very similar thought was in the mind of Uriel Heilman who wrote an analysis piece for the JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency). Under the headline Obama shifts to Israel’s corner, but tries not to show it, Heilman noted that “when the chief of staff took to the podium… he sounded almost exactly like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a day earlier”. 

It’s true that Emanuel did say that “Israel must halt settlement construction on the West Bank” (not the occupied West Bank, just the West Bank); but in the context of his whole speech, that was mere lip-service to a presidential call that had been rejected by Netanyahu and served only to confirm that it’s Zionism’s stooges in Congress who call the policy shots on Israel/Palestine, not the White House. 

According to Emanuel, Israel seeks a lasting peace. The truth telling of that day was left to French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. He said, in Paris, “Israel’s desire for peace seems to have completely vanished.” (That, of course, is not completely true. Israel does want peace, but not on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept). 

Emanuel went on: “Make no mistake, the path toward peace is not one that Israel should be asked to walk alone” (my emphasis added). That, it seemed to me, was the chief of staff’s coded way of saying, “The Arabs are to blame for the fact the President’s efforts to kick-start a peace process are going nowhere”.

At the time of writing there are signs that the growing despair of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians will trigger a third intifada at a not too distant point in a foreseeable future. 

In terms of realpolitik, there’s a case or saying that could be a good thing to the extent that Israel’s brutal suppression of it would probably inspire more global sympathy and support for the Palestinian claim for an acceptable amount of justice. But there’s a much stronger case for saying that it could be catastrophic for the Palestinians. A third intifada could give Zionism’s in-Israel mad men the pretext they will one day invent if they are not presented with it on a plate to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. 

The price of President Obama’s refusal to tell truth to Jewish power might well be blood and destruction on a scale not yet seen in Israel/Palestine and far beyond.  

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.

He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

See also:

President Obama's opportunity to speak truth to power: Part 1 »

Open Letter to President Obama: Change the Rules of the Game

An Appeal to the American People

Zionism's Jewish Enemy

When the first Arab Human Development Report (AHDR) was published in 2002, a star glistened in a vast, gloomy sky. The fact that a UN-sponsored report, authored by independent Arab scholars would receive so much attention in Arab media, was in itself a promising start. The fact that such terminology as human security, personal security, economic security, etc – as highlighted in the report – would even compete with the largely ceremonial news bulletins’ headlines in many Arab countries was in itself an achievement. But then, the star quickly faded, the terms became clichés, and the report, published seven times since then, became a haunting reminder of how bad things really are in the Arab World. 

Those who wish to discredit Arab countries, individually or as a collective, now find in these reports plenty of reasons to fuel their constant diatribes; those who genuinely care and wish for things to improve are either silent or muted. 

The last report, sponsored, like the rest, by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) was published in July 2009. It was the grimmest. Its statistics are intriguing, although depressing. 2.9 million square kilometers of land in the Arab World are threatened by desertification. Natural resources are depleting at an alarming level. Birth rates are the highest in the world. Unemployment is skyrocketing. 50 million new jobs must be created by 2020. Arab oil-based economies leave some Arab countries entirely vulnerable to market price fluctuations or the depletion of oil altogether. While many economies, especially in Asia are shifting or have already achieved great strides into becoming knowledge-based economies, Arab economies are still hostage to the same cycle of oil and cheap labor. In fact, 70 percent of the Arab region’s total exports, according to the report, is oil. 

The problem is not just economic, or environmental, it’s societal as well. Inequality is entrenched in many Arab societies. Women’s rights are not the only individual rights violated. Men’s right are violated too, that is if they are not members of the dominant group, which are either divided by blind political allegiance, tribal or sectarian membership, or economic leverage.   

Admittedly, Arab societies are, of course, not the only societies that suffer from these ills, but sadly, the problems of Arab countries are most convoluted, accentuated by the fact that there is little action to rectify the problem, neither at individual country’s level or using joint platforms, for instance, the Arab League. Why didn’t the Arab League hold an emergency summit following the release of the first or even the last AHDR report? One would think that problems of such magnitude, ones that affect the lives of 330 million people, are pressing enough for such gatherings. 

Arab media has been highlighting the issue and the shortcomings, some media outlets more than others. But the discussion is largely political, at times a mere attempt at discrediting this government or that leader, and are still conducted in general terms. The latest report for example was supplemented by opinion polls conducted in four Arab countries – Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco and occupied Palestine. One need not emphasize the different human development challenges in these countries, situated in diverse geopolitical settings. One cannot possibly devise the same solution to a country occupied by a foreign army, to an independent country with untold oil wealth, to a third with immense human potential but dire poverty.  

Generalized problems can only obtain generalized, thus superficial solutions. Therefore, it has been summarily decided that the problem lies in lack of education, not the inequitable and unrepresentative political systems. Education became the buzz word, as if education is a detached value; therefore, education cities are erected in Arab countries that can easily afford importing the best teachers and curricula money can buy. More, research institutions are also making appearances in various Arab capitals. Those existing in rich Arab countries are operated largely by foreigners, whose sense of priority lies, naturally, elsewhere. One fails to grasp the wisdom. 

But of course, education is a mindset, a culture even. What is the point of pursuing a PhD in a society where nepotism determines who does what? It’s most rational, from a self-seeker’s point of view, to spend time knowing and passing one’s business cards to the ‘right people’ than spending years of one’s life pursuing a university degree. 

UNDP had recently launched “The Arab Knowledge Report 2009”, jointly with the United Arab Emirates-based Mohammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum Foundation. Another depressing read, nonetheless. Governments were criticized for paying lip service to ‘reform’, yet “widening the gap between word and deed.” It concluded that Arab countries are far from being knowledge based societies. Numbers and more numbers told the story: Finland spends $1000 per person on scientific research, while less than $10 are spent annually in the Arab world. More, the number of published books averages one for every 491 British citizens, while in the Arab world it’s one for every 19,150. But that should not be much of a surprise considering that one-third of older Arab citizens are illiterate, two-thirds of whom are women. Meanwhile, more than seven million children, who should be in school, are not. Illiteracy stands at 30 percent in the Arab world. 

Dr. Ghassan Khateeb, of Birzeit University in the occupied West Bank believes that there “is a direct relation between the lack of investment and the problematic situation we find ourselves in relation to knowledge.” “This is all related to politics; the lack of democracy and the lack of knowledge enforce each other,” he was quoted as saying. 

Paul Salem, writing in the British Guardian, while recognizing the failure of Arab governments, found that others are also, if not equally, responsible. “The cost of a single month of Western military spending in Iraq or Afghanistan would be enough to triple total aid for education in the Middle East. The cost of two cruise missiles would build a school, the cost of a Eurofighter a small university.” 

Alas, some Arab governments, spend twice, if not three times more on their military budget than invest in education. And keeping in mind that nearly one out of every five Arab citizens lives below the poverty threshold of two-dollars a day, the tragedy is suddenly augmented. 

Arab governments must rethink and reconsider their current priorities and course of action. They must think and act individually, but collectively as well, before the crisis turns into a catastrophe, as will surely be the case if nothing is done. 

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London), now available for pre-orders on Amazon.com.

Cartoon Khalil Bendib

A nuclear armed Iran? No.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that some in Iran's current leadership do want their country to possess nuclear weapons and that they do succeed in developing them. What then?

Is it conceivable that Iran would launch a first strike on Israel?

The answer has to be no. Absolutely not! An Iranian first strike would bring retaliation that would not end until Iran had been annihilated, wiped from the face of the earth. One needs only a sound mind to understand that no Iranian leadership will ever be stupid enough to provoke such an outcome.

Why then are Israel's military and political hawks (and their neo-con associates in America) so determined, apparently, to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons? Is it because they are deluded, perhaps to the point of clinical madness? No. The real problem for Israel's leaders is that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb or two or several would greatly restrict their freedom to impose Zionism's will on the region by brute force of all kinds.

In passing it's worth noting the latest comments of Mohammed El Baradie, the outgoing chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In an interview with the Austrian Die Presse published on 18 October, he said, "The threat of Iran's nuclear program is exaggerated." He added: "Bombing Iran is not the solution. An Israeli attack would turn the entire region into a fireball." (It might also bring about, I add, the complete collapse of the global economy).

Yehoshafat Harkabi

There are none. And that's not simply because the Zionist state is the military superpower of the region. There is not now, and there never has been, an Arab military threat to Israel's existence. As I document in detail in Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the Arab regimes never had any intention of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine. And when Eygpt was taken out of the military equation – a process started by Henry Kissinger and completed by President Carter – the Arabs could not fight even if they wanted to.

So what is it, really, that most endangers Israel's future?

The answer was put into words by Yehoshafat Harkabi, the longest serving Israeli Director of Military Intelligence. In his seminal book, Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1986, he wrote about the "pressing need for (Israeli) self-criticism". He went on (my emphasis added):

"Certainly Israel is not guilty of everything that has gone wrong in the occupied lands. But self-criticism is imperative in order to counter-balance the tendencies to self-righteousness and self-pity that stem from basic Jewish attitudes, from the historical experience of persecution, and from the ethos fostered by Menachem Begin. No factor endangers Israel's future more than self-righteousness, which blinds us to reality, prevents a complex understanding of the situation, and legitimizes extreme behavior."

If Harkabi was alive today, I imagine the self-righteousness on display in Israel's rubbishing and rejection of the Goldstone Report with its accusation of Israeli (and Hamas) war crimes would make him vomit.

Does anybody know of a cure for self-righteousness?

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

There is always something compelling about a "David and Goliath" confrontation. Most of us prefer winners to losers, and almost everyone feels a thrill when the underdog takes a stand and prevails.

This is the surprising situation now unfolding in the rising drama of the Goldstone Report on Gaza. Goliath — in this instance, Israel plus the US in its usual role of Bibi Netanyahu's "Uncle Tom" — assumed that broad threats and a predictable US veto on the UN Security Council would kill that report. And last week, that seemed likely to happen.

But David — in the form of Turkey's forthright Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan — isn't buying that at all. His courageous stance has a good chance of not only bringing the Goldstone Report dramatically into view so publicly that even the Jewish-dominated US mainstream media cannot ignore it, but also opening the political sewer that is Israel's oppression of the Palestinians for all the world — especially the American public — to see.

Genesis in Gaza

The genesis of this, of course, was Israel's brutal assault on Gaza in the weeks before Obama assumed office, and its subsequent condemnation not by the UN Security Council (its American puppet-patron prevented that), but in a report prepared by a UN Human Rights Council commission headed by a respected Jewish jurist from South Africa, Richard Goldstone.

Yet even before that report appeared, Erdogan had already clashed with Israel over its assault on Gaza, walking out from a debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres in January 2009. He has continued his criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza and against Palestinians since that time, excluding Israel from participating in a recent NATO exercise, and this week continuing his condemnation of Israel for using incendiaries against civilians and harming children during the Gaza onslaught.

Turkey's position is potentially critical here. As a long-standing member of NATO and a secular Moslem country having formal diplomatic relations with Israel, it cannot easily be dismissed by its critics as an anti-Semitic rogue. Erdogan's position on this issue is popular at home, and evidentally supported by the Turkish military. He also makes no bones about calling Israeli and US actions what they are, something so much of the world — and especially most Arab countries, whose leaders ought in their own self-interest to know better — take great pains to ignore, or even to facilitate.

On to the United Nations

It now appears that the Goldstone Report will be formally debated by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). This is certainly where the US prefers the matter to end, if it has to go anywhere within the UN, asserting that the report is "deeply flawed" because in practice it fails to totally exonerate Israel (it must be SO hard for US Ambassador Rice to look in the mirror without becoming ill after parroting such remarks, but perhaps she is used to it by now….). And that may happen.

But it need not do so. At this point, people in three critical UN positions all want the Gaza report (and implicitly, the Israeli-Palestinian Question) to be debated now. They are the Secretary-General of the UN, the President of the UN General Assembly, and the President of the UN Security Council. This is an unusual combination, and one not likely to reappear anytime soon, which makes the speedy execution of the report's recommendations all the more important.

Moreover, the flip-flop of the Palestinian Authority on this issue, first asking for the report to be deferred and then reversing itself in the face of mounting criticism from Palestinians and others, may work for the better. The uproar created a degree of general public awareness of the whole controversy, and brought many Palestinians from both Hamas and Fatah together more than I have seen in years.

Looking Beyond the US Veto

Like most bullies who suddenly see justice approaching, Israel's government alternates among bluster, truculence and threats, still expecting good old Uncle Sam — doting, very strong, and not very bright at all — to intercede at the first and last moments alike. And you can be sure that AIPAC and company will be doing their utmost to make that happen.

So the rest of the world should appreciate two facts. One is that the Israeli threat to forgo peace talks with the Palestinians is both irrelevant and worthless. It is irrelevant because the hapless Palestinian Authority with which Israel might be talking does not represent or speak for the large majority of the Palestinian people. It is worthless because peace to Israel means submission to its will: Israel will return no territories, evacuate no settlements, allow no Palestinian refugees to return, and negotiate nothing except the incidental details of its dominance.

The other is that there is no inherent reason for the Goldstone Report to die in the Human Rights Council, or even in the Security Council. Erdogan has indicated a willingness for Turkey, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month, to bring it before that body regardless of what transpires in the HRC. That would move it a step further, where after presumably acrimonious discussion, it would be vetoed by the US, perhaps with Britain and/or France joining it.

At that point, the President of the Security Council, in concert with the President of the General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General, should be encouraged to make every effort in their own spheres of responsibility to bring the debate before the General Assembly under the provisions of UNGA 377A (the "Uniting for Peace Resolution").
An artifact of the Cold War designed to circumvent Soviet vetoes, it is little known now but absolutely applicable to the smoldering situation in the Middle East. Its great virtues are that it gives the General Assembly the enforcement powers normally within the purview of the Security Council, and vetoes do not apply.

This is a unique opportunity. Anticipate it. Prepare for it. Make the most of it. Win.

*Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net

Best estimates point to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon in what is now a vast nuclear arsenal estimated at 200-400 warheads. Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was anything but friendly. The words he chose were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge gives a jury on criminal culpability. In that brusque letter, the U.S. commander-in-chief insisted that this purported ally prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the Zionist enclave was not developing nuclear weapons.

One day after that June 15^th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. As his resignation was announced before the letter could be physically delivered, Jewish authors routinely claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion. Nonsense. That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies—and about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications.

Deprived of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, Kennedy was denied a national security victory that may well have spared the world a problem he foresaw almost a half-century ago. In retrospect, that Israeli conduct raises topical questions about the ability of the U.S.—or any nation—to hold Zionist extremists accountable.

The Khazars vs. the Kennedys

During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, a predecessor to the state of Israel. As a recipient of U.S. taxpayer funds, the Jewish Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy joined Fulbright in that quest. That effort was thwarted by the Israel lobby and then by the death of President Kennedy. Thereafter, concerns about the impact of Zionist influence on U.S. policy making continued to grow. By 1973, Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” In 1974, he lost his Senate seat. [See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.”]

Fast-forward to today and imagine the Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that Kennedy posed to Tel Aviv’s arsenal was eliminated five months after Ben-Gurion’s strategically well-timed resignation. When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as his successor, LBJ quickly increased the arms budget for Israel. Imagine today’s Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it is: a foreign agent. 

Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach replaced RFK as Attorney General. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC now oversees a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operatives commonly known as “the Israel lobby.”

The Kennedy/Fulbright risk to Zionist influence reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war that was vastly expanded under the leadership of the Texan who replaced his brother as president. Another Kennedy presidency posed for Tel Aviv a two-fold threat.

First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy revived the possibility that he would pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Second, with Fulbright still wielding influence on U.S. foreign policy, a Kennedy administration revived concerns about restrictions on the Israel lobby.

When this charismatic contender surged in the political polls, that threat was eliminated June 5, 1968 at a campaign event in Los Angeles. His death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War. The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel.

With that murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, Nixon readily agreed to endorse an “ambiguous” status for Israel’s nuclear arsenal, akin to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

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. Its Dimona facility has never been subjected to the inspections it now seeks for Iran. But for photographs taken inside the Dimona facility in 1986 by nuclear technician Mordecai Vanunu, that “ambiguity” might well remain intact.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly certified that Iran is not enriching uranium beyond the 3.5% required for nuclear energy. Tehran has agreed to send its uranium abroad for the further enrichment required for medicine (19.5%), a level still well below the 90% required for nuclear weapons.

In mid-September, the U.S. intelligence agencies reported to the White House that their assessment since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 remains unchanged. They still do not believe that Iran has resumed nuclear weapons development work.

What about Israel? What has their lobby been doing? Answer: lobbying. As during the Kennedy era, Tel Aviv remains focused on a single goal: ensuring that its ally and patron continues a six-decade policy ensuring that Israel is not held accountable—for anything.

At what cost has the U.S. acted as if the Israel lobby is not a foreign agent? The strategic issue faced by Fulbright and the Kennedys remains unresolved: how best can the U.S. eliminate Israeli influence as a threat to national security? Since that fateful letter of June 1963, what has been the cost of this lobby to U.S. interests? What costs have been imposed on others by this special relationship? At what point will Americans say: Enough!

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com

World events have taken an interesting turn recently, with the Goldstone report, which wreaked havoc in the beginning of the week being nearly completely overshadowed by Iran’s revelation of another nuclear facility, according to diplomats in Vienna on September 25.

The Iran nuclear threat – although theater is a more suitable term – was highlighted repeatedly, first by US President Barack Obama during a UN speech on September 23, then again by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the next day. The latter came armed with maps and relentlessly provoked Holocaust memories, following the ever so predictable, albeit insensitive and deceptive pattern. 

This charade was meant to distract from the nearly 600 page UN report, prepared by South Africa judge Richard Goldstone and others, dedicated mostly to Israeli war crimes in Gaza. 

Confirming that Israel wantonly used weapons, including illegal weapons, against a defenseless civilian population in Gaza and going so far to say that Israel did not only commit war crimes, but indeed may have also committed crimes against humanity, the findings of the report were all set by the wayside. The report was utterly rebuked by Netanyahu and his ilk, arrogantly disregarded and shelved. 

Concurrently, Israel’s official statement regarding the IAEA’s pressure on Israel to sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that Israel “deplored” such a notion. The Israeli conceit may be redundant, but is as ever infuriating.  

Many of Israel’s devoted supporters accused the Goldstone mission of fabricating conclusions before the investigations even came to a close. 

And so yet again, Israel unhesitatingly established that they it’s above the law, promptly and successfully turning the world’s attention to the greater menace: Iran. 

It seems that President Obama is also learning some painful lessons regarding the balance of power between the US and Israel, going into negotiations in Washington this past week – along with Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas – with a strong stance for the complete freeze of all settlement activity, and ending with clear and potent calls for the Palestinians to continue down the road of diplomacy inspite of Israel’s refusal to consider the option of adhering to international law. In the words of Israeli writer, Uri Avnery, “No point denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten.” 

Learning from past history, one can hardly be optimistic to expect a US victory in the second round, or anytime soon for that matter. 

And thereafter, the Israeli cue was emulated, and Obama followed it to the letter. Israel’s recent use of illegal weapons on civilians, its arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons and its refusal to consider disarmament paled in comparison to the potential threat that could arise should Iran seek a nuclear weapon some time in the future. 

Obama’s words to Ahmedinejad and the people of Iran at the UN were decisive: “They are going to have to make a choice: Are they willing to go down the path to greater prosperity and security for Iran, giving up the acquisition of nuclear weapons … or will they continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation.” 

This is sure to ignite a war of words, to the pleasure of Netanyahu and his extremist government. 

But the outcome of this duel will certainly exceed the realm of words. 

It seems that Obama’s rebuke and Netanyahu’s declarations could actually lead to the detriment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and indeed to us all, by encouraging nations who until this point do not possess nuclear weapons to expedite the creation of their own arsenal. After all, what we have learned from this episode is that nations who do not yet possess weapons of mass destruction had better get on the band-wagon and make some, for it seems that without them, they are nothing more than sitting ducks. 

How ironic it is, and what a sweet-talker Netanyahu is, to successfully divert the worlds eye, ears and conscience away from what he has indeed done, to the dangerous notion of what another man with up until this point can only be branded for fiery speeches, could do some time in the future. 

As for Ahmedinejad’s crusade for Iran, it could be very possible that in the end, the ones who will pay for his bold declarations will be as usual, the Palestinians, who after the scourge of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead nearly one year ago, still await the bare necessities to rebuild, still thirst for clean water and basic sustenance. Netanyahu has been tireless at drawing parallels between Iran and Gaza, presenting them both to the world as dire threats to the existence of the Jewish State. When addressing the UN in New York on September 24, he branded Iran once again, exhorting that. “The struggle against Iran pits civilization against barbarism. This Iranian regime is fueled by extreme fundamentalism. What starts as attacks on Jews always ends up engulfing others. This regime embodies the extremes of Islamic fundamentalism.” 

Interesting words from a man whose former administration and current administration could very well face the International Criminal Court for the endorsing the carrying out of crimes against humanity. 

Such utterances make one wonder, just who in the world are we to trust, and who in the world are we to fear? 

For the time being however, one can only hope that the international community reject all attempts to be blinded by Netanyahu’s fear mongering, and insist on a stern and decisive investigation into the alleged war crimes in Gaza, as presented in the Goldstone report so that the real culprits, not the imagined ones in Tehran, pay for their heinous crimes against the defenseless people of the Strip. 

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London), now available for pre-orders on Amazon.com.

But what does Holocaust denial really mean?  Begin with the word Holocaust.  The Holocaust[2] (spelled with a capital H) refers to the killing of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II.  It is supposed to be the German's "Final Solution" to the Jewish problem.  Much of the systematic extermination was to have taken place in concentration camps by shooting, gassing, and burning alive innocent Jewish victims of the Third Reich. 

People like Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, and Bishop Williamson who do not believe this account and who dare to say so in public are reviled as bigots, anti-Semites, racists, and worse.  Their alternate historical scenarios are not termed simply revisionist, but are demeaned as Holocaust denial.  Rudolf and Zundel were shipped to Germany where they were tried, convicted, and sentenced to three and five years, respectively. 

Politicians deride Holocaust revisionist papers and conferences as "beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptable behavior."[3]  Non-Zionist Jews who participate in such revisionism, like Rabbi Dovid Weiss of the Neturei Karta, are denounced as "self-haters" and are shunned and spat upon.  Even Professor Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were both Holocaust survivors and who wrote the book, The Holocaust Industry, has been branded a Holocaust denier.

But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm?  For most Holocaust revisionists or deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 

1.  Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.

2.  There were no homicidal gas chambers used by the Third Reich.   

3.  There were fewer than 6 million Jews killed of the 55 million who died in WWII. 

Are these revisionist contentions so odious as to cause those who believe them to be reviled, beaten, and imprisoned?  More importantly, is it possible that revisionist contentions are true, or even partially true, and that they are despised because they contradict the story of the Holocaust, a story which has been elevated to the level of a religion in hundreds of films, memorials, museums, and docu-dramas?

Is it sacrilegious to ask, "If Hitler was intent on extermination, how did Elie Wiesel, his father, and two of his sisters survive the worst period of incarceration at Auschwitz?"  Wiesel claims that people were thrown alive into burning pits, yet even the Israeli-trained guides at Auschwitz refute this claim.

Is it really "beyond international discourse" to question the efficacy and the forensic evidence of homicidal gas chambers?  If other myths, like making soap from human fat, have been dismissed as Allied war propaganda, why is it "unacceptable behavior" to ask if the gas chamber at Dachau was not reconstructed by the Americans because no other homicidal gas chamber could be found and used as evidence at the Nuremburg trials?  

For more than fifty years Jewish scholars have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to document each Jewish victim of the Nazi Holocaust.  The Nazis were German, obsessed with paperwork and recordkeeping.  Yet only 3 million names have been collected and many of them died of natural causes.  So why is it heresy to doubt that fewer than 6 million Jews were murdered in the Second World War? 

"Holocaust Denial" might be no more eccentric or no more criminal than claiming the earth is flat, except that the Holocaust itself has been used as the sword and shield in the quest to build a Jewish state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, where even today over half the population is not Jewish.  

The Holocaust narrative allows Yad Vashem, the finest Holocaust museum in the world, to repeat the mantra of "Never Forget" while it sits on Arab lands stolen from Ein Karem and overlooking the unmarked graves of Palestinians massacred by Jewish terrorists at Deir Yassin.  It allows Elie Wiesel to boast of having worked for these same terrorists (as a journalist, not a fighter) while refusing to acknowledge, let alone apologize for, the war crimes his employer committed.  It makes Jews the ultimate victim no matter how they dispossess or dehumanize or ethnically cleanse indigenous Palestinian people. 

The Holocaust narrative eliminates any comparison of Ketziot or Gaza to the concentration camps they indeed are.  It memorializes the resistance of Jews in the ghettos of Europe while steadfastly denying any comparison with the resistance of Palestinians in Hebron and throughout the West Bank.  It allows claims that this year’s Hanukah Massacre in Gaza, with a kill ratio of 100 to one, was a “proportionate response” to Palestinian resistance to unending occupation. 

The Holocaust is used to silence critics of Israel in what the Jewish scholar, Marc Ellis, has called the ecumenical deal:  you Christians look the other way while we bludgeon the Palestinians and build our Jewish state and we won't remind you that Hitler was a good Catholic, a confirmed “soldier of Christ,” long before he was a bad Nazi. 

The Holocaust narrative of systematic, industrialized extermination was an important neo-conservative tool to drive the United States into Iraq.  The same neo-con ideologues, like Norman Podoretz, routinely compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler and Nazism with Islamofascism with the intent of driving us into Iran.  The title of the Israeli conference at Yad Vashem made this crystal clear:  "Holocaust Denial:  Paving the Way to Genocide." 

"Remember the Holocaust" will be the battle cry of the next great clash of good (Judeo/Christian values) and evil (radical Islamic aggression) and those who question it must be demonized if not burned at the stake.  

Daniel McGowan

Professor Emeritus

Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Geneva, NY  14456

September 24, 2009 

Because of admonishment by the administration, it is hereby stated that the above remarks are solely those of the author.  Hobart and William Smith Colleges neither condone nor condemn these opinions.  Furthermore, the author has been instructed to use his personal email address of mcgowandaniel@yahoo.com and not his college email at mcgowan@hws.edu for those wishing to contact him with comments or criticisms.

[2] Holocaust. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Holocaust (accessed: February 09, 2007).

[3] http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=268474  (accessed: February 09, 2007)

Editor's note: This article is meant to contribute to the discussion of the question that opens cyclically every time Ahmadinejad makes a speech (that people run out of the room before it begins, but are able to respond afterward that it was "Holocaust Denial"). Regarding point 1 in the list, the utilisation of the ante-litteram term "ethnic cleansing" opens more questions than it resolves, as the term has been defined thus: 

"Despite its recurrence, ethnic cleansing nonetheless defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these."

Bearing in mind that genocide is included in this definition, it cannot be excluded that the "Final Solution" did not include extermination. That it was unsuccessful in what it set out to do is evident, and even in history, a trial of intention is impossible without "documentation" to substantiate it.

Garment Factory In Jordan. Photo: Yahya Qawasmi, Al Tajamouat Industrial City

As mentioned here, the US Department of Labor released their long-awaited report (PDF) on goods produced by "Child Labor" and "Forced Labor".

The list is a huge boon for consumers who want to choose slave-free products. At least one can decisively take action to prevent slavery in the production of consumer goods by holding companies and countries accountable for the slavery they use in making the goods we buy.

On the other hand, I was surprised to see Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon among the list of countries who use Child Labor and Forced Labor in making some goods that we buy.

The list of good per country is as follows:

Egypt: Cotton and Stones (limestone) — both Child Labor
Jordan: Garments — Forced Labor
Lebanon: Tobacco — Child Labor

Under international labor standards, Child Labor and Forced Labor are defined as:

"Child Labor" under international standards means all work performed by a person below the age of 15. It also includes all work performed by a person below the age of 18 in the following practices:

1. all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale or trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom, or forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
2. the use, procuring, or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic purposes;
3. the use, procuring, or offering of a child for illicit activities in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs; and
4. work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety, or morals of children.
The work referred to in subparagraph (4) is determined by the laws, regulations, or competent authority of the country involved.

"Forced Labor" under international standards means all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily, and includes indentured labor. "Forced Labor" includes work provided or obtained by force, fraud, or coercion, including:

1. by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against any person;
2. by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
3. by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

This even made me more worried. I can understand the "Child Labor" in some areas due to extreme poverty, although this can't serve as an excuse for child labor, but "Forced Labor" and having that in JORDAN, it sounds like a stereotypical Hollywood movie about Arabs.

While I tend to doubt most (if not all) reports by official US agencies because of their hidden agendas, which are usually written carefully to meet certain objectives, which at the very least can be described as "blackmailing" governments and countries, however, I also believe that "there is no smoke without fire".

Now some facts. Garment factories in Jordan are many and well known to have a good number of laborers working in them. Most products and goods are made for export to the US and European markets. However, what most non-Jordanians don't know is that this industry has grown rapidly after the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel. I don't know the exact number of these factories around Jordan, but I know for sure that Israeli businessmen own and run most of them. The reason why Israelis opened these factories in Jordan is the "Cheap Labor", which any businessman will be hunting for around the world. But to turn this "cheap labor" to "forced labor" is a dangerous factor if it is true.

Now this sounds conflicting. Is it the Israeli-owned garment factories in Jordan which flagged Jordan to be listed in this report, or the few other Jordanian-owned factories, or both? And if it is the Israeli factories, should we believe that the report is so unbiased to list Jordan while they know that the factories are run with Israeli money? Or is it a typographical mistake by the agent who wrote the report and missed this part intentionally or due to ignorance? I personally tend to believe the last one.

In Jordan, we got used to accepting the term "Cheap Labor", but to turn that to something worse than slavery and making it "Forced Labor"? This is the last thing one can imagine to hear. But look for the cause…

I hope I'm wrong, but I also hope this opens door for investigations to get to the bottom of it and I'm sure Jordan will not accept to be included in this shameful list due to a crime done on its soil by inhuman businessmen such as the Israeli Zionist Jews. I know this will not be easy, but I'm also sure Jordan and Jordanians will not accept that their people (and other nationalities) work in such conditions, which is worse than slavery.

Interested investigators can start with the list of references at the end of the report (page 118-119) which can be downloaded from here (PDF).

Since Tony Blair was appointed as the international community’s Middle East envoy, he’s done nothing solid about Israel’s breaching of Palestinians’ human rights, all he has been doing is WARNING. I remember he used to be able to do more than that, he was even credited with having started a war on his own, and if he so desires, can mobilize a government to do what he wants should he make up his mind.

Since his appointment the economy of the West Bank has been sinking deeper in total paralysis, and worsening by the unfair arrogant Israeli policies. We thought of his last post as a chance for him to do some good, maybe he would be forgiven for his sins against the so many victims of his policies at home and abroad. But it seems that after all the shouting he has done at the Parliament to send the young kids to fight away from home a war that has nothing to do with their future, he has lost his voice. All he has done since then is just… gently… “warn”.

The last of his warnings is “Israel hobbling West Bank’s economy”. His warning is about Israel’s blocking the Wataniya Mobile project. Wataniya is a Qatari based mobile phone service company, which was supposed to have been working in the West Bank since 2007. But as usual Israel is delaying the launch.

Wataniya Mobile is the second largest private investment in West Bank history, amounting to $700m. But Israel is still continuing to refuse to release adequate frequencies and is threatening to close down its operation next month, seeking the return from the Palestinian Authority of a $140m licensing fee. Israel is charging the Palestinians for investing in their own home country. It seems that occupying their land is not enough.

All Mr Blair has been able to do is call the Israelis to release the frequencies and WARN that such delay might jeopardize the Palestinian economy further, but guess what? His friends put him on hold.

Instead of employing Mr Blair to do the difficult task of WARNING, (we could have done that on our own), Palestinians became an authority in the field of WARNING, and they do it for free. They have been WARNING for over 60 years, and they do not mind extending their services for a further period, they even might adopt other tactics of WARNING since Mr Blair’s tactics proved sterile. The quartet could have distributed WARNING whistles for Palestinians instead of employing Blair, or they could have just adopted Lionel Richie’s song “Hello…is it me you’re looking for?” as a national anthem since no one hears their voice unless someone paid by the EU WARNS on their behalf.

For 61 years not one Western politician has been able to regain any of the Palestinian rights stolen by Israel. But still Western governments invent posh titles for wealthy politicians from their own countries, and pay them astronomical figures to WARN the rest of the word about Israel’s hooliganism. Whoever wanted to get rid of Mr Blair for his bad performance at work should not have exiled him to Palestine, They could have paid him a good redundancy money and requested of him to stay home as an act of mercy towards the Palestinian people. They should not rob the international community further by appointing someone to do the WARNING. The Palestinians have been WARNING for a long time free of charge, they never even requested an annual leave, their voices are still strong, and can do it perfectly well without draining the EU pockets – the question is: would any one hear their WAR-nings?

When I was a high school student in Ramallah, one of the better known "people-to-people" initiatives, Seeds of Peace, often visited my school, asking students to join their program. Almost every year, they would send a few of my classmates to a summer camp in the US with a similar group of Israeli students. According to the Seeds of Peace website, at the camp they are taught "to develop empathy, respect, and confidence as well as leadership, communication and negotiation skills — all critical components that will facilitate peaceful coexistence for the next generation." They paint quite a rosy picture, and most people in college are very surprised to hear that I think such activities are misguided at best, and immoral, at worst. Why on earth would I be against "coexistence," they invariably ask?

During the last few years, there have been growing calls to bring to an end Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people through an international movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). One of the commonly-held objections to the boycott is that it is counter-productive, and that "dialogue" and "fostering coexistence" is much more constructive than boycotts.

With the beginning of the Oslo accords in 1993, there has been an entire industry that works toward bringing Israelis and Palestinians together in these "dialogue" groups. The stated purpose of such groups is the creating of understanding between "both sides of the conflict," in order to "build bridges" and "overcome barriers." However, the assumption that such activities will help facilitate peace is not only incorrect, but is actually morally lacking.

The presumption that dialogue is needed in order to achieve peace completely ignores the historical context of the situation in Palestine. It assumes that both sides have committed, more or less, an equal amount of atrocities against one another, and are equally culpable for the wrongs that have been done. It is assumed that not one side is either completely right or completely wrong, but that both sides have legitimate claims that should be addressed, and certain blind spots that must be overcome. Therefore, both sides must listen to the "other" point of view, in order to foster understanding and communication, which would presumably lead to "coexistence" or "reconciliation."

Such an approach is deemed "balanced" or "moderate," as if that is a good thing. However, the reality on the ground is vastly different than the "moderate" view of this so-called "conflict." Even the word "conflict" is misleading, because it implies a dispute between two symmetric parties. The reality is not so; it is not a case of simple misunderstanding or mutual hatred which stands in the way of peace. The context of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that of colonialism, apartheid and racism, a situation in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, a colonizer and a colonized.

In cases of colonialism and apartheid, history shows that colonial regimes do not relinquish power without popular struggle and resistance, or direct international pressure. It is a particularly naive view to assume that persuasion and "talking" will convince an oppressive system to give up its power.

The apartheid regime in South Africa, for instance, was ended after years of struggle with the vital aid of an international campaign of sanctions, divestments and boycotts. If one had suggested to the oppressed South Africans living in bantustans to try and understand the other point of view (i.e. the point of view of South African white supremacists), people would have laughed at such a ridiculous notion. Similarly, during the Indian struggle for emancipation from British colonial rule, Mahatma Gandhi would not have been venerated as a fighter for justice had he renounced satyagraha — "holding firmly to the truth," his term for his nonviolent resistance movement — and instead advocated for dialogue with the occupying British colonialists in order to understand their side of the story.

Now, it is true that some white South Africans stood in solidarity with the oppressed black South Africans, and participated in the struggle against apartheid. And there were, to be sure, some British dissenters to their government's colonial policies. But those supporters explicitly stood alongside the oppressed with the clear objective of ending oppression, of fighting the injustices perpetrated by their governments and representatives. Any joint gathering of both parties, therefore, can only be morally sound when the citizens of the oppressive state stand in solidarity with the members of the oppressed group, not under the banner of "dialogue" for the purpose of "understanding the other side of the story." Dialogue is only acceptable when done for the purpose of further understanding the plight of the oppressed, not under the framework of having "both sides heard."

It has been argued, however, by the Palestinian proponents of these dialogue groups, that such activities may be used as a tool — not to promote so-called "understanding," — but to actually win over Israelis to the Palestinian struggle for justice, by persuading them or "having them recognize our humanity."

However, this assumption is also naive. Unfortunately, most Israelis have fallen victim to the propaganda that the Zionist establishment and its many outlets feed them from a young age. Moreover, it will require a huge, concerted effort to counter this propaganda through persuasion. For example, most Israelis will not be convinced that their government has reached a level of criminality that warrants a call for boycott. Even if they are logically convinced of the brutalities of Israeli oppression, it will most likely not be enough to rouse them into any form of action against it. This has been proven to be true time and again, evident in the abject failure of such dialogue groups to form any comprehensive anti-occupation movement ever since their inception with the Oslo process. In reality, nothing short of sustained pressure — not persuasion — will make Israelis realize that Palestinian rights have to be rectified. That is the logic of the BDS movement, which is entirely opposed to the false logic of dialogue.

Based on an unpublished 2002 report by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last October that "between 1993 and 2000 [alone], Western governments and foundations spent between $20 million and $25 million on the dialogue groups." A subsequent wide-scale survey of Palestinians who participated in the dialogue groups revealed that this great expenditure failed to produce "a single peace activist on either side." This affirms the belief among Palestinians that the entire enterprise is a waste of time and money.

The survey also revealed that the Palestinian participants were not fully representative of their society. Many participants tended to be "children or friends of high-ranking Palestinian officials or economic elites. Only seven percent of participants were refugee camp residents, even though they make up 16 percent of the Palestinian population." The survey also found that 91 percent of Palestinian participants no longer maintained ties with Israelis they met. In addition, 93 percent were not approached with follow-up camp activity, and only five percent agreed the whole ordeal helped "promote peace culture and dialogue between participants."

Despite the resounding failure of these dialogue projects, money continues to be invested in them. As Omar Barghouti, one of the founding members of the BDS movement in Palestine, explained in The Electronic Intifada, "there have been so many attempts at dialogue since 1993 … it became an industry — we call it the peace industry."

This may be partly attributed to two factors. The dominant factor is the useful role such projects play in public relations. For example, the Seeds of Peace website boosts its legitimacy by featuring an impressive array of endorsements by popular politicians and authorities, such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Shimon Peres, George Bush, Colin Powell and Tony Blair, amongst others. The second factor is the need of certain Israeli "leftists" and "liberals" to feel as if they are doing something admirable to "question themselves," while in reality they take no substantive stand against the crimes that their government commits in their name. The politicians and Western governments continue to fund such projects, thereby bolstering their images as supporters of "coexistence," and the "liberal" Israeli participants can exonerate themselves of any guilt by participating in the noble act of "fostering peace." A symbiotic relationship, of sorts.
SOURCE: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10722.shtml

The lack of results from such initiatives is not surprising, as the stated objectives of dialogue and "coexistence" groups do not include convincing Israelis to help Palestinians gain the respect of their inalienable rights. The minimum requirement of recognizing Israel's inherently oppressive nature is absent in these dialogue groups. Rather, these organizations operate under the dubious assumption that the "conflict" is very complex and multifaceted, where there are "two sides to every story," and each narrative has certain valid claims as well as biases.

As the authoritative call by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel makes plain, any joint Palestinian-Israeli activities — whether they be film screenings or summer camps — can only be acceptable when their stated objective is to end, protest, and/or raise awareness of the oppression of the Palestinians.

Any Israeli seeking to interact with Palestinians, with the clear objective of solidarity and helping them to end oppression, will be welcomed with open arms. Caution must be raised, however, when invitations are made to participate in a dialogue between "both sides" of the so-called "conflict." Any call for a "balanced" discourse on this issue — where the motto "there are two sides to every story" is revered almost religiously — is intellectually and morally dishonest, and ignores the fact that, when it comes to cases of colonialism, apartheid, and oppression, there is no such thing as "balance." The oppressor society, by and large, will not give up its privileges without pressure. This is why the BDS campaign is such an important instrument of change.

Faris Giacaman is a Palestinian student from the West Bank, attending his second year of college in the United States.

Source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10722.shtml

Iranian experts believe that the development of political reform and the emerging wave of social awareness which is encompassing the different classes and layers of Iranian society is not a direct result of efforts made by the politicians but a spontaneous consequence of Iranian people's exposure to the political transformations on the international level, their expansion of contacts with the outside world and the impacts being generated by the youths and universities.

"During the tenure of former President Khatami, some felL into the false believe that the social developments and the students' demand for political reforms are provoked and enticed by the reformist newspapers and thus, a multilateral raid on the independent newspapers and journalists was launched," says Nasrin Pourhamrang, Iranian journalist and a lecturer of sociology at the Scientific and Applicative University of Rasht, "however the recent election which transpired to be most vibrant and dynamic election in the contemporary history of Iran was a witness to the prominent presence of reformist media, and only two or three reformist newspapers have been available to the people."

"This shows that reformism is the result of growing awareness among the educated, middle urban class of the Iranian society which is calling for the rationalization of laws, transformations of authorities' stance and betterment of social circumstances. Reform in Iran is not the consequence of Mr. Khatami's government or the recent presidential election," she added.

"The reformists have proven that they will run away when are given the chance to fight for the people and against the looters of our nation." Dr. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, a US-based Iranian environmentalist and political activist was quoted in Middle East Online saying, "The striking bus drivers of 2005, the striking oil workers of 1978, have far more legitimacy to feed and educate the nation, to speak for the nation's true needs, than any reformist character which was approved for running for political office by an unelected council of tyrants."

"To save ourselves from the US and Israeli wars and embargoes, we need the strength of a home-grown democratic state in Iran. We need a state that fears, respects, and answers to the millions of Iranians who refuse to be robbed again," added Savabieasfahani.

However and despite the fact that the road to social reforms in Iran will be obstructed by various barriers and impediments in the future, people should not give up monitoring their politicians and leaders justly and cautiously.

"I wish all people, and not only Iranians, would feel entitled to make demands for their own lives and their own future," Mary Rizzo, an Italian journalist and editor at the Tlaxcala Network for Linguistic Diversity said in an article published in Middle East Online, "I have no recipe to give, only that people should always monitor those who govern them, being able to stand in support when necessary, and also able to confront their leaders when there are issues that do not bring anything to the people."

"I have great faith in the Iranian people to pursue what is in their own best interests, and I only hope that their demands are not manipulated by others," added Rizzo. "National interests should always be inspired by what suits the people and what can render their lives better as individuals and as a society. The two need not be in contrast."

However, a certain amount of apprehension regarding the spontaneity of Iran's reform movement and protecting it's originality from the foreign intervention can be pinpointed as a common concern in the statements and remarks of experts quoted by Middle East Online.

Jeremy R. Hammond, American journalist and the chief editor of Foreign Policy Journal believes that the Iranian nation is the only eligible, competent and relevant entity who should decide for its destiny in the long-run: "I think it's up to the Iranian people to decide how they should pursue their collective goals, but they can't wait for their leaders to offer up change. Change comes through massive political pressure from the bottom up."

Hammond is also concerned about the fate of Iran's political progression in the face of US hindrances and interferences: "The US simply cannot allow Iran to be independent and operate outside of the Western power structure. Countries are supposed to take their marching orders from Washington. Iran is defying Washington, and therefore must be demonized."

Kourosh Ziabari a freelance journalist and reporter in Iran, works regularly with Tlaxcala and Foreign Policy Journal.

source: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=33421

Accusations of conspiracy to murder continue to reverberate across the Palestinian arena, threatening to break the Fatah movement in two, writes Khaled Amayreh in the West Bank

Farouk Kaddumi's recent bombshell accusations that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and his aide, former Gaza strongman Mohamed Dahlan, had connived with Israel to murder late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat continue to reverberate throughout the Palestinian arena.
The allegations made by the second highest-ranking leader of the Fatah organisation during an impromptu press conference in Amman last week, have overshadowed the Hamas-Fatah rift and even the standoff over Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank. The increasingly ugly showdown between Fatah's two divergent camps is already polarising the group at all levels, including the grassroots level, with activists pointing fingers of accusation at either Kaddumi or Abbas.

Last week, the PA government decided to close down the West Bank offices of Al-Jazeera TV after the Qatari-based satellite channel carried live Kaddumi's press conference from Amman. The Western-backed Ramallah-based government accused Al-Jazeera of "broadcasting false news, bias, incitement and fostering division and disunity in the Palestinian arena". The decision drew mostly negative reactions from several quarters, especially Palestinian civil society and the journalistic community, prompting Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to rescind the decision a few days later.

Clearly disquieted by the accusations, Palestinian leader Abbas lashed out at Kaddumi, accusing him of spreading cheap lies in order to abort the convening of Fatah's long overdue Sixth Conference, slated to take place in Bethlehem in the first week of August. Similarly, Abbas allies have been attacking and fulminating against Kaddumi, calling him names such as "senile", "liar", and "saboteur". The West Bank Fatah leadership has asked the movement's Central Council to discuss Kaddumi's "canards" and "eject him from our ranks".

Unfazed by the sabre rattling from Ramallah, Kaddumi reasserted the "veracity and authenticity" of the minutes of the March 2004 meeting in West Jerusalem during which the alleged plot to poison Arafat was discussed. Kaddumi has also reportedly hinted that he possesses further incriminating evidence against Abbas and Dahlan that further corroborates and consolidates his earlier charges. The secretary-general of Fatah also challenged Abbas and his allies to prove their loyalty to the group.

"You don't own Fatah, you have hijacked Fatah for the purpose of amassing wealth and stealing money. You have swerved off the true path of Fatah, the path of resistance and liberation, and chosen to be a pawn in the hands of our enemies," Kaddumi said.

As the two contentious camps within Fatah continue to trade recriminations, former political advisor to Arafat Bassam Abu Sharif reasserted charges he made shortly after Arafat's death in November 2004. Abu Sharif claimed that Arafat was killed as a result of a chemical substance provided by Israeli intelligence.

Abu Sharif argued that Israeli soldiers manning a roadblock outside Ramallah stopped the Palestinian ambulance that had regularly brought food and medicine to the besieged Palestinian leader. "When the soldiers were searching the ambulance, while its Palestinian staff was kept away, they substituted a medicine which Arafat had been taking with an identical substitute containing a chemical poison. This is how Arafat got sick and eventually succumbed to his illness."

Hamas's politburo chief Khaled Meshaal almost died in Amman in 1997 when Mossad agents disguised as Canadian tourists smacked a chemical substance into his ear. The two agents were captured and then-King Hussein of Jordan threatened to sever ties with Israel, forcing the Israeli government, headed at the time by Binyamin Netanyahu, to provide the antidote that saved Meshaal's life.

On Arafat, while Abu Sharif's hypothesis is mostly speculative in nature and may prove impossible to verify, the fact that the life of the leader of the Palestinian people is entrusted to Israeli soldiers manning roadblocks and checkpoints speaks volumes about the nature of the PA and its near total subservience to Israel.

Meanwhile, Arafat's widow, Suha, has been quoted as saying that "Israel was the only suspect in the death of my husband." Suha cleared Abbas and Dahlan of any wrongdoing, saying that they were Arafat's comrades. Most observers in occupied Palestine find it hard to rely on Suha's remarks, on the grounds that she often appeared detached from political realities in Palestine, living a lavish lifestyle in Paris while her husband was languishing under Israeli siege in Ramallah.

This is not to say that Kaddumi's accusations ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. But there is little doubt that the Kaddumi bombshell will cast a dark shadow on deliberations at Fatah's Sixth Congress when — and if — convened. It is expected that Abbas will try to take advantage of the charged atmosphere and the fact that anti-Abbas delegates are largely based outside occupied Palestine or in the Gaza Strip and are unlikely to attend the conference in Bethlehem.

However, a conference at which Abbas and his allies enjoy absolute hegemony will only deepen and widen the existing chasm between various camps within Fatah. More to the point, Kaddumi might resort to holding a rival Fatah conference of his own, possibly in Damascus or Beirut. If this were to happen, Fatah would disintegrate into two camps, one based abroad and enjoying "revolutionary legitimacy" and backed by Syria and Iran, and probably Qatar, and the other coalesced into the PA and enjoying "international legitimacy" and backed by the US, EU and the so-called moderate Arab regimes.

Finally, the success of the Bethlehem conference will also depend to a large extent on the cooperation of the Hamas movement. Hamas, which has so far opted to remain outside the Kaddumi-Abbas confrontation, has hinted that it may not allow Fatah delegates from the Gaza Strip to leave for the West Bank if PA security agencies continue to round up and persecute Hamas leaders and activists and if hundreds of Hamas detainees are not released. Since the PA is unlikely to release these detainees, mainly because there is a strong lobby within Fatah against rapprochement with Hamas, it is probable that very few Fatah delegates from Gaza, if any, will make it to the West Bank

The "Israeli factor" is also relevant. Israel has an established policy of barring Gaza residents from entering the West Bank as a matter of principle. Undoubtedly this, too, will be an important factor militating for or against the convening of the conference, as well as its success.

Source: Al Ahram

Cementing the rift via dialogue

As is well known, Fatah leaders in the West Bank have been highly inimical towards Dahlan and placed responsibility on him for the Gaza Strip falling into the hands of Hamas. For over a year they barred him from travelling in the West Bank and meeting with Fatah activists there. As such, many observers hold that Dahlan's growing role in the media campaign against Hamas — with the blessing of the Fatah leadership in the West Bank — is a sign that Fatah does not ultimately intend to create the conditions necessary for the national dialogue's success.

In light of this, it's no surprise that representatives of all Palestinian factions stress that the Egyptian delegation has failed to bring the two sides' points of views closer to one another, despite the shuttle runs that it has made between Ramallah and Damascus. Al-Ahram Weekly has learnt that the Egyptian delegation has asked for another meeting between Hamas and Fatah in Cairo next Saturday to discuss closing the file on political detentions and make available the list of detainees that the two sides refuse to release, as well as their reasons for doing so. An informed Palestinian source says that Fatah has refused to commit to ending political detentions. Hamas has demanded that it stop the torture and humiliation of detainees, the imprisonment of women and university professors, the seizure of private funds, and the closure of charitable organisations.

The same source says that the Egyptians have pressured the Ramallah Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah to release political detainees and to create an atmosphere that enables reconciliation prior to 25 July, which is the date of the next- scheduled dialogue session. The reason is that the Egyptians have come to realise that the major obstacle threatening an agreement is the issue of political detainees.

This source also says that during the Ramallah meetings the Egyptians proposed three alternative formulations for resolving the points of difference between the two sides, especially those related to the joint committee responsible for overseeing Gaza's reconstruction and preparing for elections. Leaders of Palestinian factions in Damascus previously rejected the Egyptian formulations.

Yet while the representatives of Fatah and Hamas agree on the failure of the Egyptian delegation's mission, they differ over the reasons for this failure. Head of the Fatah bloc in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), Azzam Al-Ahmed, says that the main points of dispute that arose while the Egyptian security delegation was in Ramallah are related to the reconciliation committee that was agreed to be formed during the fifth dialogue round in Cairo. Fatah insists that President Mahmoud Abbas be the authority for this committee, and Hamas objects. Al-Ahmed says that Hamas is striving to cement the rift by insisting that a separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip remain in place, but that Fatah cannot accept the existence of two entities answering to two separate governments. He adds that the two sides have failed until now to reach an agreement on the election system, for Fatah still insists that 75 per cent of PLC representatives be elected via the proportional system and 25 per cent through the district system, while Hamas insists that 60 per cent be elected through the proportional system and 40 per cent through the district system.

Al-Ahmed says the two sides have also failed to agree on the issue of the joint security force intended to be stationed in the Gaza Strip until national elections. Hamas insists that the joint force be stationed at the border crossings, while Fatah holds that they should be granted full security powers in Gaza. According to the Gaza crossings agreement signed in 2005, border crossings cannot be reopened except in the presence of Mahmoud Abbas's special guards.

All notwithstanding, leading Hamas figure Ayman Taha says that the Egyptians failed in their mission because they failed to convince Abbas and the Fatah leadership to end political arrests. Taha has doubts over the possibility of holding a dialogue session between Fatah and Hamas in Cairo on 25 July, as was agreed upon in the last session, as long as an agreement isn't reached on putting an end to the issue of political arrests. He adds that Fatah aims to postpone progress on points of dispute between the dialogue's parties until 25 January, when PLC elections are scheduled.

"In Fatah they believe that not reaching an agreement that puts an end to the domestic rift will sustain the siege placed on the Gaza Strip and in turn strengthen Fatah's chances of winning, while decrease Hamas's chances," Taha says. "The Fatah leadership assumes that holding elections under the siege and the deteriorating economic conditions will decrease the chances of Hamas gaining strong results in the elections." Taha also says that Hamas firmly rejects holding legislative elections if conditions don't allow for them, and that Hamas simply can't agree to the holding of elections while security agencies are continuing to oppress Hamas activists in the West Bank.

Islamic Jihad spokesperson Dawoud Shihab stresses that the political detentions carried out by the security forces of the Salam Fayyad government in the West Bank have been coordinated with Israel, and that they bear absolutely no relation whatsoever to the Palestinian domestic rift. In a statement to the Weekly, Shihab said that the detainees are severely tortured and that some have spent over a year in prison. He believes that political detention is the primary obstacle preventing an agreement that would end the domestic rift. Shihab accuses the Fayyad government's security agencies of waging a "mad war" against resistance forces in the West Bank that aims to uproot the resistance.

Political analyst Talal Okal warns that the dialogue has become a tool for cementing the rift, and that many regional and international parties want a settlement to be reached between Fatah and Hamas so as to create the conditions necessary for launching a US-sponsored negotiations process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

"The efforts currently being expended are aimed at convincing Hamas to join the political process in one form or another, even at the expense of catering to its conditions for dealing with the Palestinian situation. This would include lightening up on international stipulations that it recognise Israel and abandon what is called 'violence', and only hold to the stipulation that it commit to prior agreements," he says. "Even in America they realise that Hamas is needed in Palestinian preparations for the serious political negotiations that the Obama administration is aiming for, so that the negotiation process does not come across strong and obstructive Palestinian opposition.

Okal expects that the US will pressure for the siege to be lifted and will respond to Hamas's demands so that the movement will remain silent during negotiations with Israel. "This means that the rift will persist for a long time," he says. Whether the particulars of Okal's vision are accurate or not, his conclusion that the dialogue has become a tool for cementing the rift certainly seems correct.

source: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/956/eg3.htm

Does the idea of “Lebanon first” mean distancing from Arabism? Isn’t it for up leveling sovereignty and independence? Is it innocent from the accusation of seclusion? Isn’t it distancing itself from the Arab neighborhood to concentrate on internal matters as per the demands of the “international will” … Or it is a precious opportunity to give up and adopting the policy of incompetence, make of Lebanon an island crossing burning regional borders, residing in the quite homeland of moderation and  quiets ubordination? Here is a trial for a reply.

No Lebanon without Arabism, and we are apt to say no Arabism without Lebanon, As we see and observe some Arab regimes are giving up open Arabism, civilized striving against all forms of imperialism and Zionism and their projects, and we see that they are exploiting Arabism to cover up their submissive policies. Lebanon that is inveterate in its Arabism and ever and eternally holds fast to it, it is his destiny to carry it on his shoulders (and today he could be alone) The Palestinian cause is the Arab’s first cause throughout long decades in confrontation with a racist expansionist entity. His nature requires that Arabism is the protector of his structure, interests, people’s unity and stability is to remain its twin stuck with Arabism to preserve his immutable patriotic aims in independence. Sovereignty and stability. Today the motto of “Lebanon First” is being raised, which and adopted by the largest parliamentary coalition. This is a new/old motto. “Israel” was the first to invent it and designate it by announcing “Jericho First” then “Gaza First” then “Jordan First” and now Egypt is practicing it even though d1idn’t officially adopt it, but it failed totally as it aims at toppling the basic legal and lawful Palestinian Arab people’s demands and abort them. Here in Lebanon “The Lebanese Front” and “Al-Kataeb Party” were the first to work hard to reach this motto, and under its informatory media today political forces gather up, which sounds as if saying that the adventurous projects in Lebanon throughout three generations lead by ‘Al-Kataeb” under the leadership starting with Bashir Al-Jemayel down to the new fascist, Sami Al-Jemayel, as all those who are now trying to polish their images and present themselves as heroes for the return to the old adventures, were right as all the country’s tragedies resulted from the adoption of a part of the Lebanese the requirements of Arabism and its commitments. It is important to point out that those who were in the front lines of defending Arabism and its causes, are now desperate in their self-criticism for their stances in its defense. Practically the “Lebanon First” coalition does not emerge now after quarter of a century with its ideas and mentality from the “Kataeb” ideology.

The “Lebanon First” idea doesn’t mean in depth distancing from Arabism and its just causes in spite what the two “Samirs”, Samir Jaajaa and Samir Al-Jisr, as being is not the case. And it is not as those who launched it as being a transmission of the Lebanese state’s and Lebanese’s concerns towards internal matters, as everything of any internal interest is in contact with Arabism and its causes. “Lebanon First” actually moves Lebanon from its wide open Arab horizons to draw it back to a position of seclusion and isolation, and ally it with those adopting narrow back allies politics, also to the high waves of religious sectarianism and its quarrels. With such a trend of action Lebanon contradicts its deep rooted Arab nature and belonging. This motto is what relieves Lebanon’s Zionist enemy, as simply the existence of the racist expansionist Zionist entity on his border is an existential threat to Lebanon and its political and economical interests; so how could a politician distance himself from feeling this threat and be always on the alert to confront it with a course working at the end of the day to adopt another position in the Arab Zionist confrontation. It is a course meaning siding with American/Zionist projects to liquidate the central Arab cause, Palestine, is working hard for creating forces that supports it, and to act with the logic of the victor and preponderant that imposes his conditions, (for example the visits of four U.S. high ranking delegates within six months or little bit more, and to make of terrorism as equivalent to resistance, and to continue on betting on changing the Lebanese army ideology (An ideology of resistance to the Zionist entity) and request it to remain neutralism in the regional conflict that is the highest stance that the official Lebanese policy could take. This too would prepare the needed ground work for returning Lebanese policy required for crossing out the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to their land and homes, either by settling them where they are or by  expulsion. And if there is a unanimous objection for the idea of settling that the Lebanese constitution states on confronting opposing it; so adhering with the “Arab moderation”, which is willing to follow fast into the path of surrender and negotiations (even the Arab initiative), and cross out the Right of Return shall make the idea of settling and expulsion and idea that is possible to negotiate even an idea that is not rejected, an idea that requires Lebanon to be without cover or protection, when facing the outer world and thus be subjugated to its imposed projects on the Arab nation to insure the security and interests of the Zionist entity.

On the other hand the economical course for “Lebanon First” is its established foundation, especially privatization, which became a major title for this trend of thought titles, which is emerged in a sea of pressures and impositions to fulfill the conditions of international economic and financial establishments (The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank and Paris 1 & 2 as privatization was a condition for the program and still it is an international title adopted in previous stages and by many countries). While matters have changed especially after the breakout of the international economical crisis and destruction of the savage capitalism tiles changed and its uselessness was exposed in saving the national economy. But in spite of that some in Lebanon still work to impose these projects in order to control and blunder the country’s wealth in addition to open the gates wide for foreign establishments and companies to liquidate the public sector. Privatization includes “Social Security”, Electricity, cellular telephone companies and other basic public utilities, and of course their damaging effects reflect on the Lebanese political, economical and social conditions of the country. As these conditions found those who fight to support and impose them, they found who would feel their dangers on the Lebanese political and economical life and strongly reject them. Those who adopt it try to perform plastic surgery to beautify them and try to convince people of their advantages, while actually they are destroying the public sector, which is the permanent and most important foundation for a strong and just state that the Lebanese look for.

The Arab nationalist and patriotic forces are requested today to expose the political background for “Lebanon First” adventure, which contradicts Lebanon’s Arab nature and leads to his destruction and destabilization, which is in contradiction to the just aims of the Lebanese. They are requested to explain to the Lebanese that there is no conflict between Arabism and Lebanon as an entity, and are also requested to adopt a program based on two golden basis: Arabism is above all and replacing the old economical course with a new economy.

As US combat troops redeployed to the outskirts of Iraqi cities on June 30, well-staged celebrations commenced. The pro-US Iraqi government declared “independence day” as police vehicles roamed the streets of war-weary Iraq in an unpersuasive show of national rejoicing. US mainstream media joined the chorus, as if commemorating the end of an era.

Meanwhile, top US administration and army officials cautioned Iraqis of their own recklessness. “Biden Warns Iraq About Reverting to Sectarian Violence,” read a New York Times headline. “What will it take to make a good exit from Iraq?” inquired a Kansas City Star analysis. But missing from news headlines and commentary was any indication of direct US responsibility for the genocide that has befallen Iraq.

How can one claim that US ambitions in Iraq have altered if the ongoing legacy in Iraq is being perceived as a strategic mistake, rather than a moral one?

One thing remains the same, for sure: and that is the arrogance that has long permeated US relations with Iraq. “The president and I appreciate that Iraq has traveled a great distance over the past year, but there is a hard road ahead if Iraq is going to find lasting peace and stability,” said Vice President Biden during a visit to Baghdad on July 3rd. Biden’s remarks were saturated with the same hubris that defined the former administration’s attitude towards Iraq for years: ‘we did our share, that of liberating you, and now its your turn to take charge of your own security’, type of rhetoric. “It’s not over yet,” Biden said. Ironically, he is right, since that could only mean the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the end of foreign meddling in the country’s affairs, and the removal of corrupt politicians that have destroyed the country’s national identity in favor of sectarian camps endlessly fighting for dominance and privilege. Indeed, it’s anything but over.

It’s true that the majority of Americans now accept the once rebuked claim that the Iraq war was predicated on a lie, and readily blame former President Bush for drawing the country into a costly war in Iraq that should have never happened. President Obama’s arrival has seemingly ushered in a new discourse of honesty and national introspection.

Although one wants to believe that the new administration is sincere in seeking an exit strategy from Iraq, one is hardly sure that the US is ready to divorce itself from the war scarred country. There is little reason, aside from tactical redeployment, that should compel antiwar sentiments to weaken, or self-respecting commentators to halt their questioning of US intentions.

The terms “exit” and “exit strategy” are now dominating media discourse regarding Iraq. Some attribute this new language to the new administration. The odd fact is that the recent US army redeployment is not the brainchild of the Obama administration, but a provision of a November 2008 agreement signed between the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki and the Bush administration. Talk of exiting Iraq indeed preceded the entrance of Obama. The new US administration simply honored previous commitments. As per official statements, following the June 30 redeployment, the US is expected to reduce its forces by 50,000 troops by August 2010, and then many of those remaining by the end of 2011.

So, 2012 will witness a fully independent Iraq, right? Wrong. “Many studying Iraq believe the US will end up negotiating with Baghdad to establish a couple of permanent military bases,” writes Matt Schofield. “Those could be essential to leaving behind a stable government, a military loyal to the nation and capable of defending it, and a country that has the backing of the people.” Those who wish to decipher such deceptive language should comprehend the permanent US military presence as permanent occupation. Indeed, the US doesn’t have to be present on every Iraqi street corner to officially occupy the country. The sectarian Iraqi army and police – US armed and trained – should be enough to carry out US wishes in Iraq (under the guise of fighting terrorists), while the US will “stand ready, if asked and if helpful, to help in that process,” as explained by Biden.

Iraq headlines will eventually fade away, making space for the new escalation in Afghanistan, also in the name of fighting terror, bringing democracy and all the rest. The faces of the victims will be hidden so as not to harm our sensibilities, and causality figures will be manipulated, contested and at times blamed on the coward terrorists who hide among civilians. In other words, the US will take the spirit of its Iraq war to Afghanistan, remain in Iraq – as inconspicuous as possible – so as to hold onto its strategic military achievement, and, if necessary, blame both nations for their growing misfortunes.   

However, before we take our eyes off Iraq, Americans must remember their own culpabilities in what transpired there. Antiwar activists and people of conscience must not forget that 130,000 US soldiers remain in the country; that the US has complete control over Iraqi airspace and territorial water; that there is not yet a reason to celebrate and move on. Even if one is trusting enough to believe the administration and army’s own account of its future in Iraq, one should recall comments made by Admiral Mike Mullen last February: “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a ‘residual force’ of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down terrorist cells and guard American institutions.”

One may be truly eager to see a sovereign, democratic and stable Iraq, but such hopes must not occur at the expense of truth and common sense.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London)

Iran and the West: Hardened fronts the not unexpected result of the western “stunt”

WRITTEN BY NOTSILVIA NIGHT
A hardening of the fronts between Iran and the West, and between westernized liberals and Islamic conservatives inside Iran, is the not unexpected result of last weeks post-election confrontations. Western support and the extremely violent behavior of some armed post-election demonstrators have probably had a damaging effect on the efforts of Iranian women-rights- and other reform-movements. Their efforts might have been discredited so much, that a backslide of Iran into earlier hard-line positions in the matters of women´s rights might occur. Hopefully it won´t.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic regime that since day one of its life had dedicated itself to confront colonialism and Zionism, and expelled the Zionist diplomatic mission to the Shah’s imperial court and handed its premises to the Palestinian Arab people, an act that international Zionism had never forgotten. The New republic replaced an autocratic imperial regime, which cooperated with the American intelligence organization, CIA, to overthrow the first democratically elected government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mosadiq and reinstalled the Shah on his imperial peacock’s thrown. As well known the Shah allied himself with international colonialism and Zionism, Zionism the long arm of colonialism in the Arab homeland and its neighborhood, and declared enmity to any power that steps in to support Arab resistance and struggle for its independence a liberation.                     

The Arab proverb says: “If my libeling came from the blemished it’s a testimony that I am complete”. This exactly applies to one of the leading Zionist terrorists who was one of the founders of the Zionist entity and still continues with his endless mission of plundering, terrorizing, destructing, threatening its neighborhood with woe and grief and whatever, he is none other than the president of the Zionist entity, Shimon Peres, who said while addressing the Jewish Agency (with wishful thinking), “It is difficult to say who shall disappear first in Iran, uranium or the miserable regime, and we are hopeful that it will be the regime”, Peres who is considered to be the father of the “Israeli” atomic bomb arsenal of 200 to 400 A bombs that are used to threaten anybody who would “threaten the security” of the rogue state of “Israel” continued to say, “Fighting the leaders of the Iranian regime is more urgent than fighting its
bombs (atomic)”. Peres attacked the Supreme leader of the Islamic Republic by saying, “how dare he claims that we asked the Iranian people to go out to the street and threaten their lives”.  Surely the old fox who keeps repeating the above quotes live, Ali Khamenei as us all are well aware that Peres and his Zionist gang are (The Zionist Entity) are all the time after United States administrations to grant them the green light to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations, which Iran keeps confirming that they are meant for civil purposes and not for military use, and if the U.S. is not willing to join the Zionist entity in its proposed attack on Iran is to be given the green light to do the job by itself, and possibly utilizing only mini A bombs, we assume that the hesitation of the American administration is due of its fear that its strategic Zionist ally could be wiped out by an Iranian retaliation.

Another member of the Zionist clique, minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Yaalon, repeated Peres’ wishful thinking saying: “Iran’s wave of protestations shall lead to a revolution under the presidential nominee former prime minister for ten years, Mir Hussein Mousavi, against the Islamic regime.  Mousavi and his wife brought new winds that are represented by openness, so I shall repeat that there will be a revolution in Iran.” Yaalon added: “In spite of this it shall not change anything regarding the nuclear matter, but what happened is encouraging for the west, which is related to a wide look towards what is happening in the region represented by the confrontation between ‘Jihadism’ and the west”. Which we are sure means resistance against the Zionist project in Palestine and its neighborhood that Iran supports and arms, so it is the prime enemy of colonialism in  its deferent forms that Zionism is today’s most outstanding example.

On the other hand the Zionist Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, with his wishful thinking too, mixes between the Iranian People and the long ago deposed Shah by the same people, he told the German paper, Bildt: “There is no conflict between ‘Israel’ and the Iranian people that would have changed its government had it been free in its election.  Good relations between Iran and ‘Israel’ is possible if a new leadership takes hold of the government”. Netanyahu is trying to remind us of the “peaceful relations”, which were prevailing between ‘Israel’ and the Shah’s regime in the old days, and added: “I believe that the mask had fallen from over the face of the regime in Iran, and what we see there is a great thirst for freedom among a part of the population”. Do we have to remind Netanyahu of then unending struggle of the indigenous population of the land that Zionism invaded and occupied and trying to fully replace them in it, why should he care for a people that he and his gang are threatening to bomb, and not for the great thirst for freedom among a part (all the Palestinian) of the population.

Here too we have former Zionist minister of war, Shoal Mofaz, who is of Iranian descent and well known for practicing repression, targeted assassinations, organizing land theft in addition to all sorts of assaults against the indigenous Arab people of Palestine, Mofaz told Chanel 2 of the “Israeli” TV: “There is no dispute regarding Iran’s ability to cross the technological line, it progresses daily on development of atomic energy, Iran is a great rocket power, and if it is able to own the atomic it shall form a great existential threat for ‘Israel’,” so it is natural for him to claim that.“The Iranian people is connected with the west, and aims at becoming like other peoples away from repression’s authority, and fear that controls its fate.” Which is what his victims had been fighting for since decades, for the Zionist entity, as Mofaz said, Iran is an existential threat and for putting it at hold from threatening its Arab neighborhood. 

The Zionist entity’s attack on Iran, though claiming that is forwarded against the ruling Iranian regime and no the Iranian people. The Zionist entity is simply the spearhead of western colonialism, which is still dreaming to retain its influence and control of the “third world” politically, militarily and economically, but matters are slipping out of its control starting with the twentieth century successful independence movement, and what happened in China twenty years ago namely the failed ‘Tiananmen’ square, revolution. Which though was a call for democracy and free speech, but with western interference it was meant to be a “right that was meant to be wrong”.

On the subject Arab writer, Dr. Fayez Abu Chamailah, wrote in his article entitled Iran shall go out stronger. “Twenty years ago foreign powers conspired against China, their aim was to prevent the Chinese people from reaching a position that they are in today. Incitement took place when journalist, workers and students started gathering in ‘Tiananmen’ square demanding democracy and right of expression, and succeeded with American and western support in starring millions of hungry Chinese, in the midst of a big roar in the western media for freedom of expression, and spreading the teachings of democracy, but China that is dreaming of a better future, knew the goal behind these gatherings in ‘Tiananmen’ square, and dealt with the agitators who are stirred by foreign powers in how to protect China’s interests, and succeeded in overcoming the difficult internal test, and escaped from the conspiracy, to become twenty years later the feared international economical power.” And, as well known the United States is calling on China to become its lifeguard to pull it out of its financial and economical crisis.

Fehmy Huwaidy, an outstanding Egyptian Arab political, writer wrote describing the Iranian elections in his article, ‘Iran if it becomes moderate’, “I am not comparing elections in Iran, for example, with in England, but in comparison to elections in all the Arab homeland, true it is incomplete in  its first episode, as the Council of the Protection of the Constitution gives itself the right to accept certain nominees and refuses others, but during its following episodes Iranian presidential elections are always marked with seriousness and relative fairness, candidates competed with outstanding  severity, and the authority always took an impartial position in relation to all of them. The Chinese official Television broadcasted documentaries showing the life story of each of them, it also broadcasted the debates that took place between them live, and thus the Iranian people were put in the picture in a balanced manner about each of them before the elections.”

As a progressive Arab I am not supposed to theoretically ally myself with a theological regime, but from the point of view of our interest as Arabs fighting colonialism and Zionism, and as the present Iranian regime is among the very few forces that support our cause especially the Palestinian cause, and its Arab resistance organizations, we owe the Iranian regime gratitude, and we are ready to defend it against its foreign and certain internal critics and enemies. Noting that not all of them are classified under the same category. Not all of them are seculars in contrast to the theological regime, and many of them held very high posts under it and for long years. we don’t claim that they are all in the service of or ally themselves with Colonialism and Zionism, though some so-called nationalists criticize Mahmoud Ahmadi Najad for being too lenient with Arabs, and in particular Sheikh Mahdi Kharoubi criticized Najad in one of their political debates for being the first Iranian president to visit the United Arab Emirates, which we suppose is due to the conflict regarding the three Arab Gulf occupied islands.

Also Fehmy Huwaidy added: “Among the very moderate there are some who go further in their extremism(!!!) by considering that there are no advanced or developed and nationalist states with a promising future in the region except Iran and Israel, thus it is very important to tighten relations between them so as to become a locomotive that pulls the region from its backwardness, and there is  more than one researcher  in Iranian strategic matters who expressed this idea in papers that were discussed in strategic circles.” This is a very dangerous trend of thought to follow by some Iranian so-called intellectuals. Such so-called intellectuals should be categorized among colonialists who are still dreaming of an imperialist Iran, and cannot realize that Zionism has no permanent friends. Though the Zionist entity would never have seen light had it not been for British’ great help, Zionist leaders committed terrorism against British forces occupying Palestine and preparing Zionist colonialists to be ready to uproot the indigenous Arab population. A more recent example is Zionist spying against all present and former administrations starting with the White House itself.

Engineer Mir Hussein Mousavi in a lecture he delivered in one of Tehran Universities raised the motto of “Iran first”, while other reformists criticized Najad’s government for the help it extends to Hezbollah’s resistance in Lebanon and Hamas movement in Palestine, as considering it as a waste of Iranian people’s money, as well as other signs meaning disconnecting Iran from resistance and the Palestinian cause, and support the settlement of the Palestinian question, their excuse is simple and could be marketed easily, namely Iran is not an Arab country, and thus should not overbid its Arab neighbors and be more Arab than Arabs!!!

Such trend of thought and action is enough for the west that is known for its unlimited support to the Zionist entity to express its joy and high appreciation of the reformist movement to destabilize Iran and its regime, which has nothing to do with the standard slogans of democracy, freedom of expression and free elections. We don’t have to return to old history and remind the west about the above mentioned example of free election that brought Prime Minister Muhammad Mosadiq to rule and the fall America’s puppet Shah Muhammad Reza Bahlavi, we just return to the very recent history, namely the free and democratic Palestinian election conducted about three years ago, which brought Hamas to power, but instead of being hailed and complemented, Gaza was put under severe siege by the Zionist entity and its western and some so-called Arab moderate regimes that are repeating the same attack on Iran. 

To close we quote our friend Raja Chmayel’s the following piece of sarcasm, that fits our article: 

1979 the US Embassy in Tehran was visited and now someone wants a re-match …. The War on Iran has started Regardless who has won those elections, the man who wanted to wipe off Israel from the Map , is going to be punished.The Regime that helped Hamas and Hezbollah will be punished………… The culture that calls USA and UK as being the devil and puts questions marks on the Holocaust will be punished……… They shall gather, all the bad-looser-of-the elections all the chic-high-society all the dissidents for whatever cause all the modernists and pseudo-liberals all the jet-set of Tehran all the Parrots and the Monkeys imitating the West everyone who does not like theocracy all the supporters of westernisation all the Nike and Gucci fashion-fans of Tehran Promise them Heaven on Earth, and 25 Starbucks within the first year and 145 Mac. Donald's as well…. And start a fancy-uprising from within thereafter the son of Shah shall return to his throne and Oprah Winfrey shall direct the new Iran TV stations owned by Fox and Judd Bush..     It is called The Western Democracy

]]> http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/26/the-iranian-crisis-from-the-point-of-view-of-a-progressive-arab/feed/ 1 http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/26/layla-anwar-a-thousand-nedas/ http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/26/layla-anwar-a-thousand-nedas/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:13:46 +0000 Guest Post http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/26/layla-anwar-a-thousand-nedas/ Neda Agha Soltani is the name of the young woman assassinated with a bullet in her heart by the Iranian government Basij Militias. No family funeral was allowed for Neda.

Her family and fiancé were interviewed and the video of her ruthless murder has not ceased circulating across the globe…

All the media outlets have been talking about Neda. That is fine with me. But how come no media outlet has spoken of the thousands of Nedas in Iraq that have been brutally murdered by the Iraqi Shiite Militias trained, armed and funded by Iran?

Hundreds of Iraqi women have suffered a worst fate than that of Neda, and only in total 3 articles and a couple of videos were circulated in their names. Not even.

Why?

Are we the black sheep of the international community? Or maybe we are just the children of Hagar, who Sarah, Abraham's first wife, banished away from the tribe…and Hagar was left wandering in a merciless desert for Water…searching for anything to quench her thirst…

Excuse me, but why is Neda more important?

Is it because Iraq is a "fait accompli", a done deal that no one cares to talk about anymore?

Not so. Not in my book. Never in my book.

The charade in Iran will calm down. Musavi has retreated. The protesters will eventually shut up. And everything will return to normal. Everything will return to the status quo.

Why is that? Because America has every interest to keep the status quo intact in Iran despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

How come? Because as I previously mentioned in one my latest posts, Obama has been having direct talks with Khameini – the "supreme guide".

Why is that so? Because Iran is still needed in Iraq and sorely needed in Afghanistan.

What is it needed for?

In Iraq: to finish off any form of resistance to the occupation as it has done in the past, to ensure the continuity of the American occupation, to root out "saddamists", to keep the lid on its militias until further notice, to activate them when needed, to ensure that the puppet government tows the American line and delivers the oil deals, to keep supporting the Kurds in their separatist/secessionist ambitions, to ensure that the partition plan will keep unfolding despite and in spite of the official claims to the contrary…

And lately, Iran has been calling Great Britain "the Great Satan" — no longer America. All analysis confirm that Obama's criticisms of the Iranian clamp down is mitigated, weighed with caution…and with " balance"

Great Britain will play for a while the role of that "Great Satan", and while all eyes are turned to Iran, the real stuff will be happening in Iraq…

What real stuff?

More ethnic/sectarian cleansing. The grounds are being prepared by the so called "Al-Qaeda" which has been allegedly targeting Shiites strongholds . Every other day, a few dozen die in some blast and in "predominantly Shiite" areas…

Everyone knows in Baghdad, forget the Green Zone – am talking of the Red Zone here, and everyone knows in the Red Zone, that Iran and America are behind Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And some would even say, it is Iran funding Al-Qaeda elements in Iraq. A permanent state of insecurity/instability. The carrot and the stick for the Americans – forcing them to reckon with Iran's actual sphere of influence and maneuvering in Iraq.

But Iran hardly needs to do that. The above is just a constant reminder…

- Maliki himself is one and has 60 Iranian advisers in his cabinet.

- The ministry of Interior is run by Iranians and sectarian Shiites Iraqis whose main loyalties lie with Qum.

- The Ministries of Health and Education are run by pro Iranians.

- The Ministry of Finance is run by an Iranian – Solagh Jabr. He is the ex minister of Interior and he kept his men in place there. The ministry of Interior is STILL a torture dungeon in its basements.

- The Ministry of oil is run by an Iranian – Al-Sharistani.

- Each province has an Iranian consular section.

- Iranians have bought for a nominal fee, over 75% of all properties in the South, in particular in Nejaf, Kerbala and Basra.

- There are over 30,000 Iranians who visit Iraq daily for "religious rites" and "business."

- There are million of dollars invested in bilateral "construction" and trade agreements between the Iraqi puppet government and Iran.

- The militias that are the armed wing of the official parties like Dawa, Sadr and his Jaysh Al-Mahdi, SCII, Chalabi's men, Maghawer or Interior Ministry militias, are all trained, funded, and armed by Iran.

- The Iranian backed militias did the dirty work for the Americans and the Zionists by ethnically cleansing large parts of Iraq and by torturing Arab Sunnis whom the previous Bush administration called " the Sunni Terror Triangle", segregating neighborhoods and exiling thousands across the Iraqi borders.

- It is the Iranian backed Shiite militias who liquidated hundreds of Palestinians and drove them out of Iraq…

- Hundreds of cases of tortured prisoners, attest that their torturers were Iranians. And I cannot give names here.

- "High Net Worth" Iraqis prisoners in Iraqi prisons are interrogated and supervised by Iranians.

- Iranians have murdered Iraqi academics, scientists, doctors, and ex-army officers…

- Iranian prisons are full of Iraqis who have been sent there by the puppet government for interrogation and torture.

- Every other day in the Iraqi news, you hear of special Iranian forces caught with tons of ammunition engaging in "subversive" activities – their way of putting pressure on the puppet government to make sure that it does not deviate from the agreed upon line…

And I have so many more examples…

Hell, the writing was on the wall, when the Iranian Ambassador and the Shiite death squads, militias and parties were present at the lynching of President Saddam Hussein. What more fucking proof do you need?

And you think America will forsake all of that great Iranian collaboration, for an Iranian Neda? You must be joking.

The Iranians did for the Americans in Iraq, what the Americans could not do for themselves.

And the Iranians are needed to help the Americans in finishing off the Afghan Resistance, just as the Iranians helped them the first time round when the U.S invaded and occupied Afghanistan. And the Iranians are needed in Pakistan in the "war against terror". Exactly like it has helped the Americans in eliminating the Iraqi resistance either directly or through its proxies i.e its Shiite militias.

So what Neda are you talking about?

The whole of Iraq has become a Neda with a bullet in her heart.

Painting: Iraqi artist, Dawood Salman. VIA URUKNET – http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m55460&hd=&size=1&l=e