Articles

Observer: UK Continues Training Saudi, Bahraini Army
May 31, 2011
Bahrain
NOVANEWS British personnel regularly run courses for the Saudi Arabian national guard in "weapons, fieldcraft and general military skills training, ...Read more
Why June 5 Matters
May 31, 2011
Palestine Affairs
NOVANEWS   Joe Catron for the Alternative Information Center (AIC) June 5 will not determine the outcome of the Palestinian ...Read more
Bahrainis to stage fresh protests
May 31, 2011
Bahrain
NOVANEWS   Bahrain's anti-government demonstrators are set to begin a new wave of protests against the ruling regime of King ...Read more
Pakistan: Untold Stories
May 31, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
NOVANEWS By Engr. Mansoor A. Malik   The 1965 Indo-Pak War on the liberation of Kashmir had come to an ...Read more
Donor Bread (Money) and Congressional Circuses
May 31, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
By Prof Lawrence Davidson Part I – The Money   According to a 19 May report by theWall Street Journal, ...Read more
MYTH AND REALITY OF AMERICAN AID
May 31, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
NOVANEWS By Air Commodore ® Khalid Iqbal   Since 1950s, Pakistani governments, both military and civilian have been fatally addicted ...Read more
Pak-nukes: boon or bane?
May 31, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
NOVANEWS By S. M. Hali   The 13th anniversary of “Yaum-e-Takbir”, commemorating Pakistan’s crossing the nuclear threshold, passed uneventfully, apart ...Read more
US Security Hinged with Pakistan’s Security
May 31, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
NOVANEWS   By Sajjad Shaukat     Despite tough statements of the US high officials, showing a paradoxical approach of ...Read more
Mondoweiss Online Newsletter
May 31, 2011
Middle East
NOVANEWS   BDS flashmobs are largely led by women (who must contend with misogyny) David Cameron 2-step. Can Obama follow? ...Read more
Obama is the wrong target
May 31, 2011
USA
NOVANEWS     When I was reflecting on Netanyahu’s domination and control of the Congress of the United States of ...Read more
30 STANDING OVATIONS...AS JOPLIN DIGS ITSELF OUT OF THE RUBBLE
May 31, 2011
Campaigns
NOVANEWS Do members of the U.S. Congress know any shame? Is it possible for them to even feel such? On ...Read more
PARROTING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S LINE ON IRAN AND SYRIA—THE WASHINGTON POST IS AT IT AGAIN
May 31, 2011
USA
NOVANEWS     One of the great benefits of blogging is the opportunity to learn from those who comment on ...Read more

Observer: UK Continues Training Saudi, Bahraini Army

NOVANEWS

British personnel regularly run courses for the Saudi Arabian national guard in “weapons, fieldcraft and general military skills training, as well as incident handling, bomb disposal, search, public order and sniper training

Bahrain’s army officers have continued receiving training in the UK even months after the ruling regime began a brutal crackdown against peaceful anti-government protesters.

A Freedom of Information (FoI) request has led to the disclosure that the British military continued training five Bahraini officers at Sandhurst, the elite military academy in Surrey, as recently as last month, daily The Independent reported.

The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) has also been criticized for dispatching its army personnel to Saudi Arabia to train the Kingdom’s National Guard. The Saudi National Guard has been deployed in neighboring Bahrain to help crush the popular uprising in the tiny Persian Gulf island.

According to the Observer magazine, Separate FoI requests disclosed that up to 20 British teams are dispatched to Saudi Arabia each year to offer instruction in “weapons, field craft and general military skills training, as well as incident handling, bomb disposal, search, public order and sniper training”.

“Britain’s important role in training the Saudi Arabian National Guard in internal security over many years has enabled them to develop tactics to help suppress the popular uprising in Bahrain,” said Nicholas Gilby of the Campaign Against Arms Trade.

Moreover Nishma Doshi, the campaigner who submitted the FoI request said “It is astonishing we invade Libya claiming we’re defending protesters, while at the same time training the forces who are murdering protesters in Bahrain”.

Bahraini people staged a major uprising in February against the country’s royal family, which has been ruling the tiny Persian Gulf Island since it gained independence from Britain.

Why June 5 Matters

NOVANEWS

 

Joe Catron for the Alternative Information Center (AIC)
June 5 will not determine the outcome of the Palestinian movement for return, but will shape the next chapter in the Palestinian saga. Was May 15 a singular moment, or the harbinger of a sustained, consistent struggle to come, a Third Intifada simultaneously challenging Israel from within, on every border, and across the globe?

I gasped as the first bullet struck a young man standing a few paces ahead of me. Watching him crumple to the ground, I struggled for breath and fought my natural urge to run. “Allahu Akbar!”, the crowd roared around me. “Yalla, Shebab!” A half-dozen other men – none of whom could have been older than twenty, and most of whom looked much younger – rushed forward, retrieving their fallen compatriot and carrying him quickly to a waiting ambulance. A thin trail of blood marked their path, ending in a small, dark puddle where the first of the day’s many gunshot victims had fallen.
Thousands of refugees and other Palestinians had gathered at the Erez Crossing in the northern Gaza Strip. An imposing military structure of massive concrete barriers and machine gunners’ towers, the border wall separates Gaza Strip residents from the 78% of Palestine seized by the State of Israel in 1948. For the two-thirds of Gaza residents who are refugees, it also prevents their return to the homes from which they and their families were forcibly expelled that year. Palestinians throughout the world remember this Nakba, or catastrophe, every May 15 with gatherings, demonstrations, and resolutions to someday return.
But this year would be different. Inspired by the popular uprisings against dictatorships across the Arab region, Palestinians were resolved to commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the ethnic cleansing of 711,000 people from their country by making history, rather than remembering it.
On the morning of May 15, Nakba Day, tens of thousands of Palestinians gathered around the borders of Israel and its occupied territories, determined to march to the homes and homeland denied to them for generations. In Beit Hanoun, they walked from buses forced to stop kilometers from the crossing by the sheer numbers of the crowd. Many remained at checkpoints preceding the crossing. Others pressed forward, their eyes fixed on the distant gate.
The Israeli response came quickly. Bullet after bullet penetrated the crowd of unarmed demonstrators, each one finding its target. Artillery shells pounded the sandy dunes around us, and after several hours, tear gas canisters hissed through the air. Over a hundred people were hospitalized with serious injuries while elsewhere on the border, a 17-year old boy was killed by artillery fire. The rest of us escaped with tear gas inhalation, cuts from exploding concrete and shrapnel, and bloodstains from the limbs, torsos, and faces shattering around us.
Yet the demonstrators kept coming. After every retreat from gas, gunfire, or the thunderous boom of artillery, there was another surge. Only when the sheer brutality of the Israeli forces had sufficiently depleted the number of those capable of pressing forward did the strength of the crowd begin to wane.
And somehow, the overall mood remained one of measured, but tangible joy. The victory sign was everywhere, and smiles were common not only on the runners ferrying injured marchers to medical attention, but also on the young men and women they carried. Everyone seemed to intuitively sense that they were doing something historic, closing one chapter in the long, painful struggle for Palestinian freedom and opening another one that offered more hope for a happy ending.
 
Elsewhere, the state violence inflicted upon peaceful marchers was even worse. At the border between Syria and the occupied Golan Heights, Israeli gunfire killed four, while in Lebanon, ten suffered the same fate. Hundreds, if not thousands, were seriously injured.
But like the returnees in Beit Hanoun, those from Lebanon and Syria refused to be dissuaded by military repression. Dozens of the latter poured through Israeli barriers, spending hours in the welcoming villages of the occupied Golan Heights before leaving under the protection of their Syrian hosts. One, Hassan Hijazi, made it all the way to the Jaffa home from which his family was exiled in 1948. Before surrendering to Israeli police, the 28-year old told journalists, “I wasn’t afraid and I’m not afraid. On the bus to Jaffa, I sat next to Israeli soldiers. I realized that they were more afraid than I was.”
Hijazi’s seven million fellow Palestinian refugees aren’t afraid either. On Sunday, June 5, they will return to the borders created to exclude them, and perhaps beyond. Like the 63rd Nakba Day, this 44th anniversary of the Naksa, or setback – Israel’s 1967 occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and subsequent expulsion of 300,000 additional refugees – promises a commemoration like none before.
June 5 will not determine the outcome of the Palestinian movement for return. That outcome was already determined by the decades of grassroots organizing and popular struggle that culminated in the historic mobilization of May 15. Its finality can be glimpsed in grievances by Western media like Reuters that “[t]he Palestinians who forced their way across Israel’s border on Sunday turned back the clock on the Middle East conflict, putting centre stage the refugee question that many believed would be negotiated away,” and confirmed by the sweaty, stammered insistence of Zionists like Benjamin Netanyahu that “it’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen.”
Those suddenly forced to defend not only the brutal excesses of their system, but the very racism of ethnic cleansing, exclusion, and apartheid upon which its existence relies, find themselves in a situation both uncomfortable and unprecedented. They have no reason to expect it to become easier in the coming months, as further waves of returning refugees push their fight for justice closer to the center of world attention.
But June 5 will shape the outline of this next chapter in the Palestinian saga: its intensity, its length, and what follows it. Was May 15 a singular moment, or perhaps one suited for occasional repetition? Or was it the harbinger of a sustained, consistent struggle to come, a Third Intifada simultaneously challenging Israel from within, on every border, and across the globe?
Palestinians have amply demonstrated their ability to resist occupation over the long haul, while the global solidarity network supporting them has reacted capably to atrocities like the slaughters of 1,400 Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead and nine passengers on the first Freedom Flotilla. If these two movements can organize and mobilize as effectively now, seizing a unique opportunity to take the offensive and keep it, the Palestinian freedom struggle could prove a quicker and more decisive one than many of us had dared hope.
Joe Catron is a resident of Brooklyn, New York and a current member of the International Solidarity Movement – Gaza Strip. He writes in a personal capacity.

Bahrainis to stage fresh protests

NOVANEWS

 

Bahrain’s anti-government demonstrators are set to begin a new wave of protests against the ruling regime of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

Bahrain Center for Human Rights stated on Tuesday that anti-government protests will enter a new stage on June 1.

The rights center also said that King Hamad has announced June 1 as the day when the ‘state of national safety’ will be lifted.

On March 15, the Bahraini King declared a state of national safety to tighten security in the Middle Eastern country.

Since the beginning of anti-government protests across Bahrain in mid-February, regime forces, backed by Saudi army troops, have abducted many people, including opposition activists, journalists, teachers, students, doctors, and nurses, and have also destroyed dozens of mosques.

Scores of people have been killed and many more arrested in the Saudi-backed crackdown on peaceful protests in Bahrain.

Despite the brutal state violence against protesters, which has been widely verified and reported by international human rights organizations and media, the United States and its Western allies have kept silent on the major rights violations of Bahrain’s government.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized the Bahraini government for its brutal crackdown on civilians.

Pakistan: Untold Stories

NOVANEWS
By Engr. Mansoor A. Malik

 

The 1965 Indo-Pak War on the liberation of Kashmir had come to an end with a military and political stalemate. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) had out performed and out maneuvered the Indian Air Force (IAF), which was three times its size. PAF’s mainstay was an all American fleet consisting of B-57 Bombers, F-86 Sabres, F-104 Star fighters and C-130 Cargo aircraft. The American sanctions at the start of the war hit the operational readiness of PAF the hardest. On the third day of the war, there was no American cartridges left in the stocks to start the engines of B-57 Bombers but innovative and indigenous solutions were improvised by the PAF technicians and apprentice engineers to start them by high pressurized air. The large stocks of post world war two left over British bombs some of which were not qualified on the American aircraft as external carried stores were quickly loaded on locally designed bomb racks and fitted into the C-130 cargo compartment to convert it into B-130 Bombers. The B-130 (nick named for C-130) caused as big a havoc at that time with hundreds of such bombs being dropped on the enemy lines from the air as that of the B-52 Albatross Bombers of to-day.

Air Marshal Nur Khan, who was commanding the PAF in the 1965 War, realized the important role which the technical manpower of the PAF had played to keep the entire American fleet flying under the US sanctioned regime with local solutions and improvisations. He had made up his mind to start the institutionalization of the Self Reliance

Programme of the PAF by establishing the state-of-the-art College of Aeronautical Engineering (CAE) by the end of 1965, the only one of its kind in Asia at that time. Within ten years, the CAE graduates were heading the first Indigenous Missile Development Project in Pakistan, were defining the Air Defense Automation Architecture for the PAF and of course, were laying down the foundations of the Aircraft Manufacturing Factories at Kamra. Above all else, when Dr. A. Q. Khan was interviewing and selecting engineers for his Strategic Nuclear Project, some of the brightest CAE graduates were taken in right at the beginning and the rest is history.

Dr. A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb, was initially given the M.T. (Mechanical Transport) Yard of one of the PAF Bases in the mid-1970s’ where he set up his first Pilot Project for Technology Demonstration and Proving. Within five years after his first demonstration, he and his team had done the miracle to produce weapons grade material in a small developing country like Pakistan. Very soon the focus shifted towards the Delivery Mechanisms. An Inter-Services Missile Committee was constituted headed by a Vice-Admiral of the Pakistan Navy to start the process of Weapons Delivery Systems. All the members of this committee were convinced that India would go for their second string of Nuclear Detonations after a long gap of

 

more than ten years from their 1974

detonations and to pre-empt it, we have to develop a three-dimensional (Air, Land & Sea) Weapons Delivery Capability. The Air Launch Weapons System, being the most challenging, especially its integration on a bought out foreign aircraft platform, was given an early go-ahead for its operational readiness. To the credit and professional competence of CAE graduates, they achieved this task in the minimum possible time and gave our country the First Strike Capability.  To our surprise, India carried out their second string of nuclear detonations after almost twenty five years from their first ones. By that time we were more than ready to out maneuver and out wit them.

In this lull period, the PAF launched its multi-dimensional core-technologies development/improvement programmes to complement the Strategic Projects at the national level. Large scale Anechoic Chambers, Compact Ranges, Wind Tunnels Upgradation, Multi-dimensional Vibration Tables, Full-scale Environment Testing Facilities and a host of other supporting technologies to help in engineering test and evaluation (ETE) of strategic weapons qualification on an air launch platform were established by PAF engineers. The spin-offs from these in the 1990s’ were the design and development of the Air Launch Cruise Missiles (ALCMs), Un-manned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Stealth Capabilities, Avionics and Weapons Integration Capacities, Electronic Warfare & Telemetry Equipment and of course the development of a new multi-purpose Fighter Aircraft as a joint venture with our Chinese Friends. In all these projects, hundreds of CAE graduates passionately participated to give Pakistan an edge of at least ten years to our contemporaries in India.

The delay, though God gifted, was understandable as the ruling Indian National Congress Party, being a Liberal Socialist Progressive Party had given more attention to improve the lot of the poor and drown trodden Indian masses rather than getting into such shenanigans. Although for a while, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the 1980s’ had grandiose plans for India but he soon became a victim of a Tamil Tiger suicide bomber and did not get enough time to fulfill his dreams. The Indian Political environment in the 1990s’ went through a complete up-heavel and was being radicalized by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with the support of the Hindu Extremists (Hindutva). They had openly announced to go in for Nuclear Detonations in their election campaign to whip up the nationalist feelings under their able and respected leader, Mr. Vajpayee.

The BJP propaganda machine was put in full swing to belittle Pakistan’s Nuclear Programme and convinced some of its die-hard supporters at the global level to call for Pakistan’s bluff. The language used just before, during and after the 11/12 May , 1998 Nuclear Detonations by the Indian Leaders of that time against Pakistan and its capabilities would put any reasonable person to shame. The 1000 years venom against Muslim Rule in India came out in the open through street language used by the BJP leaders. Some of us could not believe our ears to what we were listening by matured and elderly Indian leaders, for in a South Asian context; elders have to maintain a certain level of dignity and forbearance for the younger ones to show respect.

It was thus left for Pakistan to call the Indian bluff by not only showing our Nuclear Detonation Capabilities which we amicably did on 28 May, 1998 but also demonstrate, a little later, our multi-dimensional Strategic Weapons Delivery Capacity. The Indians had un-necessarily, got the genie out of the bottle and achieved parity with the Pakistanis, one sixth their size, through this strategic blunder of theirs by under estimating Pakistan’s Nuclear Prowess. From now onwards, it would be deceit and deception from the Indians and its cronies to cut Pakistan to size and make it sub-servient to the machinations of Great Power Rivalry in our region. For countering such behind the back attacks, we need to mobilize our mass population who have sacrificed the most in supporting us to develop our Nuclear and Missile capability and in turn it is incumbent on us to use some of these technologies which we have painstakingly developed for Innovation and Economic Growth to create more jobs and spin-off commercially viable companies to compete at the global level. The Economic Century has now started and we need to grasp this opportunity in evolving technology based civil/commercial development in our country as Pakistan has long achieved a Technology Savvy status by being the seventh Nuclear & Missile Capable State.

Donor Bread (Money) and Congressional Circuses

Part I – The Money

 

According to a 19 May report by theWall Street Journal, the American Zionists are starting to turn the screws on President Obama and the Democratic Party. “Jewish donors and fund raisers are warning the Obama re-election campaign that the president is at risk of losing financial support because of concerns about his handling of Israel.” If you doubt that this tactic can work just watch the video of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress. Those 20 plus “sustained and standing ovations” did not come from mere true believers. They came from the throughly bought and bullied. The Zionists have a strikingly successful and very long standing vote buying operation and they are, of course, applying it to the president and his reelection campaign.

As a consequence, the Wall Street Journal tells us that Obama will “court Jewish donors at a June fund-raiser.” There is every indication that the Obama campaign plans to be “extremely proactive” in letting the “Jewish community” know that the president does not want to be “too critical of Israel.” All of this is very odd. In 2008 Obama took 77% of the Jewish vote. According to reliable pollsters there is no indication that it will be much different in 2012. Most Jewish voters don’t vote primarily on Israel or foreign policy issues. Like other Americans they vote on domestic, and particularly economic issues. According to pollster John Zogby, “the lines are drawn fairly well, and I think it is hard for it [the Jewish vote] to not be a 75 to 25 % split for Obama and the Democrats.” The 25% are the hard core Zionists and capitalists amongst us. Yet, considering that in 2008 Jews accountedfor about 2% of American voters, the Zionist capacity to trigger a panic attack among Democrat campaign staffs cannot, except in a few select neighborhoods, possibly be about votes. And indeed it is not.
It is about money. It is estimated by multiple mainstream sources that approximately 60% of Democratic campaign funds come from Jewish sources of all kinds. That is not just from Jewish Zionists, but also from ordinary unaffiliated Jews. (It is very important to keep in mind that the “Jewish community” is much more than just the Zionists.) Indeed, the hard core Zionists probably give more to Republicans and their handouts help account for about 20% of that party’s campaign funds.
It is hard to know what percentage of the 60% of Democratic campaign funds is given or withheld due to a politician’s stance on Israel. Let’s guess high and say that it is 40% of the 60%. That means about 24% of Jewish campaign funds are given on the basis of Israel. There are some very wealthy people who use Israel as a criterion for their contributions. One is Haim Saban, the self-made billionaire who helps fund the Brooking Institute. He is one of those who says his enthusiasm for the Democratic Party has waned due to Obama’s stand on Israel. Yet Saban also notes that “President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much [additional] money through the Internet….[That] he frankly doesn’t, I believe, need any of my donations….[However] will I donate if I am solicited? I will donate.” So it may well be that, at least when it comes to the Obama presidential campaign, the Democrats exaggerate the need to hold a pro-Israeli line in order to procure funds, even from Jews.
It is different at the level of Congress and the Senate. The Democratic Party is yet to organize itself to the point where each of its federal candidates can match the financial independence of the president’s reelection campaign. That makes candidates for these offices more dependent on lobby money. At this level 24% given on the basis of support for Israel is probably a crucial number and Zionists manipulate the money very well, shifting it around during both primary and regular election campaigns to those who swear allegiance (one has to literally sign a pledge). That is what makes the U.S. politicians dance to their tune. For the sake of that money they will greet the most outrageous nonsense with roaring acclaim. And last Tuesday (24 May 2011) the Israeli Prime Minister proved it to be so.
Part II – The Circus (or Dancing for Dollars)
Here is how one Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy of Haaretz, characterized Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, “It was an address…filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions. Only rarely is a foreign head of state invited to speak before Congress. It’s unlikely that any other has attempted to sell such a pile of propaganda and prevarication, such hypocrisy and sanctimony as Bejamin Netanyahu….” If you are going to do this sort of thing, transforming Congress into a circus, you really have to know your audience.
Here are some of Levy’s comments on the speech,
1. “How can the Israeli prime minister dare to say that his country ‘fully supports the desire of the Arab peoples in our region to live freely’ (as long as they aren’t Palestinians)?” When the Arab popular protests started “he was…warning of the dangers of an extremist Islamic regime and rushing to build a fence along our border with Egypt.”
2. “How could he rain praise on Israeli democracy when his government has done more than its predecessors to deal [a] mortal blow to that democracy, to pass completely anti-democratic laws?”
3. “How dare he speak about freedom of worship in Jerusalem at a time when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been denied that freedom for years?”
Levy observes that Netanyahu, is “the man who explicitly said he would do his level best to destroy the Oslo Accords.” And yet, “suddenly…he’s in favor of peace with the Palestinians.” That is indeed what Netanyahu asserted. The prime minister told Congress that, “I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace…” This brought the Congress to its feet for one of those “sustained ovations.” But then came the qualifiers, which no politician in the audience seemed to find unreasonable. Nonetheless, they demonstrate conclusively that the prime minister is unwilling to compromise on just about everything the Palestinians want and need.
a. No compromise on the Right of Return. “This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.”
b. No compromise on Jerusalem. “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.”
c. And here are a number of other non-negotiable demands: “a Palestinian state must be fully demilitarized….it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River….Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda [Hamas].”
While the Congress seemed not to notice that these qualifiers are fatal ones, another Israeli journalist did. Ben Caspit writing in Maariv, tells us that “Netanyahu knows very well that the conditions that he set [in his speech] for a peace process are complete non-starter[s]. There is no Palestinian in the world who will accept them, there is no Arab state in the world that will support them.”
Yet over twenty times our national leaders leapt to their feet and clapped their hearts out. How is one to explain this? Gideon Levy concludes that such behavior “says more about the ignorance of its [Congress’s] members than the quality of their guest’s speech.” Ignorance is certainly part of it. The bought and bullied are wilfully misinformed.
Part III – Money buys Reality
Most of Congress is ignorant about the real nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and about the real consequences of American foreign policy relative to it. That ignorance is sustained by the fact that the U.S. information environment relating to the conflict is still largely controlled by the Zionists. For instance, much of the briefing material on the issue going to Congressional members is produced by AIPAC and allied Zionist organizations, the State Department has been purged of anyone sympathetic to the Palestinians or the Arabs in general, the media remains almost uniformly biased in favor of Israel, and finally, for the politicians, ignorance is underwritten by that 24% of their campaign contributions. It also helps enormously that this ignorance is shared by the American public at large.
The result is almost post-modernist in nature. Right and wrong becomes relative. Reality is one way for the Israelis and their boosters in Congress and another way for the Palestinians and their supporters. The stronger party, figuring that the winners ultimately write the history books, are not really in a compromising mood. That is why Netanyahu’s version of compromise was such a farce. The Zionists figure that as long as they can militarily prevail, and continue to manipulate the U.S. version of reality, they will eventually be writing the definitive histories of this struggle. Essentially, ignorance makes all crimes invisible. Control of an information environment keeps them invisible.
Alas, in the long run this is really an impossible gambit. The required ignorance, though almost complete in the halls of Congress, is nowhere near so in the outside world. And so the truth must occasionally break through. It must do so even at an AIPAC staged speech by a duplicitous Israeli prime minister given within the inner sanctum of the U.S. government.
Early into Netanyahu’s speecha women rose up and shouted “stop the occupation.” It turns out that she is a Jewish Israeli peace activist and a member of the group Codepink. Her name is Rae Abileah. She was, of course, immediately attacked and silenced by the AIPAC supporters sitting near her. Netanyahu’s reaction was that of a consummate improvisation actor. He “seamlessly incorporated the moment into his overall narrative.” He told his audience, “I take it as a badge of honor that in our free societies you can have protests….This is real democracy.” As it turns out Ms Abileah was so injured by her attackers (none of whom have been charged with assault) that she ended up in the hospital where subsequently she was arrested for her protest. In Israel, not only would such a protest by someone in the galleries not be tolerated, but even Arab-Israeli members of the Knesset who protest Zionist policies are physically attacked as the address the chamber. That is the real meaning of Netanyahu’s “real democracy.”
Part IV – Conclusion
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. Congress’s accepted version of reality is maintained by Zionist misinformation fortified by donor dollars to the campaigns of both parties. Without the one-sided story line and its attendant financial pillars (and the stealthy way the money is handed out or withheld), the incentive to dance the dance and see the conflict through Zionist tinted glasses would be considerably less. Yet that is not the way our system works. Within the realm of American politics it is the money that conditions the mind to an uncritical acceptance of a perverted reality. That is what allowed for the circus spectacle in Congress on 24 May–where men and women in positions of power were induced to give multiple “sustained and standing ovations” for little more than “lies and illusions.”

Dear readers, if you feel satisfied with our work please donate so we improve upon it further. Your donations are worth a million.

MYTH AND REALITY OF AMERICAN AID

By Air Commodore ® Khalid Iqbal



 

Since 1950s, Pakistani governments, both military and civilian have been fatally addicted to US financial assistance. Pakistani rulers have always been ready to bend backwards to receive another dose of US aid. Hillary Clinton and Admiral Mullen were certainly not short of affirmatively nodding audience during their recent visit to Pakistan.

However, at a common man’s level, sponsorsof anti-Pakistan strictures on American aid like congress-men Glenn, Symington, Pressler, Brown, Kerry-Lugar etc are house-hold names in Pakistan, reminding the nation of chequered history of American sanctions and strings.

American perception has it that Pakistan is almost at the brink of bankruptcy and it is the US assistance that is providing the lifeline for sustenance. Direct and indirect beneficiaries of American aid in Pakistan faithfully work overtime to strengthen this feeling amongst the Pakistani public as well, however statistics speak otherwise. Ishrat Husain, a former governor of State Bank has recently opined that  US aid does not help the government’s precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only ‘12-15 per cent of the total amount is channelled for budgetary support…Assuming that whole $3 billion (per annum) in economic and military is disbursed fully, this accounts for less than seven per cent of the total foreign exchange earnings of the country…The increase in export revenues and remittances in the current year was almost twice that amount.’

It seems that every American Congressman and Think Tank has an opinion on what the US should do with its aid to Pakistan. There have been calls to freeze all assistance to Pakistan as well as calls to stay the course. Nearly three out of four Americans back cuts. Many of the loudest voices in Congress have been for attaching additional strings to the aid.

As regards significance of the aid, World Bank data shows that during the previous five years, net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all sources to Pakistan has averaged less than 1.5 per cent of its Gross National Income. Per capita aid from all sources in 2009 was US$14 only! These facts do not point towards any meltdown if the American aid is withheld.

Shahid Javed Burki, a former World Bank Vice President is of the view that ‘cutting of civilian aid would have only a 0.14 percent impact on Pakistan’s GDP growth’. “As long as the multilateral aid continues, it won’t impact Pakistan’s economy,” says Sartaj Aziz, a former finance minister. Out of $ 1.5 billion per annum authorisation by Kerry-Lugar-Burman Act, actual disbursements have been $275 million and $676 million during 2009 & 2010 respectively. This includes flood relief donation of $500 million.

Therefore, it would be naïve to presume that withholding of US assistance is so significant that it would result into strategic collapse. But the real concern for Pakistan’s solvency would be loss of support from international lenders like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF); both look towards the US before deciding. IMF may deny the bailout request until a last-minute nod by the White House.

On numerous occasions, American aid has been used as carrot and stick to entice Pakistan to do the American bidding. The carrot has been the promise of additional financial aid while the stick has been the threat of withholding of already sanctioned aid. Financial experts in Pakistan have pointed out that out of the lump sum assistance sanctioned by the US, only a fraction reaches the national exchequer; bulk is siphoned off as consultancy charges to the US appointed agents and overseers.

A candid estimate puts losses to Pakistan’s economy due to its participation in war on terror around US$ 70 billion. The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002, which makes about 0.1 percent of the American treasure spent on war on terror over the same period. A little more than two-third of $ 20.7 billion went to military use, the remainder to civilian. The biggest head, consuming $8.9 billion, is “Coalition Support Funds.” Washington sanctioned this amount for Pakistan’s military as compensation for services rendered on behalf of the US military. However, a sizeable portion of it remains un-remitted. The US is getting obnoxiously stingy on reimbursements of this fund, rejecting 44 percent claims in 2009, as compared to 1.6 percent in 2005.

The uncertain environment that arose as a sequel to ‘Operation Geronimo’ has compelled Pakistan to launch an aggressive outreach plan for mobilizing alternative contingency sources.

China and Russia are particularly alarmed by the renewed American unilateralism. Both are increasingly sympathetic towards Pakistan’s predicament and are deeply concerned about fresh US inclinations towards unilateralism. Russian and Chinese reactions to the Abbott Abad raid spared the Pakistani establishment from rampant criticism.

Pakistani President’s recent visit to Russia was interesting. Though the visit was already planned, the timing appeared promising for Pakistan. Russia has been increasingly uncomfortable with India’s rapprochement with the United States and realizes the potentially damaging implications of India’s diversification of foreign relations for Russo-Indian partnership. Pakistan has now taken centre stage in Russia’s efforts to play a more active role in Central and South Asia as Moscow braces for the drawdown of American led coalition forces in Afghanistan. Moscow now sees Islamabad as part of solution to region’s problems. Recent visit of Colonel General Alexander Postnikov, Russian Ground Forces Commander-in Chief, to Pakistan indicates that Pak-Russian relations are moving ahead on sound footing.

On the heels of Presidential visit to Russia, Pakistani Prime Minister visited China. Most glaring outcome of this visit was handing over of the management of Gwadar port to China. The Statesman, reported while quoting the Press Trust of India that the Chinese government has warned Washington “in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China,” and advised the US government “to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

Iran is ready to provide oil on deferred payments and electricity on competitive prices. We can always count on Saudi Arabia, UAE and other friendly countries for economic support.

Economic assistance from developed to developing countries always accompanies strings of various kinds. American aid to Pakistan is no exception; however it has become a highly touchy matter due to differing perceptions about its hidden agenda. Perpetual dependency has resulted in relegating Pakistan to a client state or a ‘rental commodity’. America has been able to accrue an unbalanced influence over Pakistan’s policy resulting into a subservient association.

Pakistan’s military leadership needs to re-evaluate the necessity of American military hardware viz. a. viz the incremental erosion of our national sovereignty.  Though American systems are far ahead in technological superiority, we need to look towards recent Indian decision of declining American offer of F-16 and F-18 aircraft and going for alternative sources of supply. If India can do without American hardware, we can also live without it.

Now, it is time for the Pakistani nation to carry out a reality check, take a fresh stock of the cost benefit asymmetry and make a distinction between reality and myth of American aid

Pak-nukes: boon or bane?

NOVANEWS
By S. M. Hali

 

The 13th anniversary of “Yaum-e-Takbir”, commemorating Pakistan’s crossing the nuclear threshold, passed uneventfully, apart from an attack in Bajaur Agency in which eight persons were killed and dozen other injured. Numerous national and international events have taken place since 1998 but the detractors of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons’ program have not forgiven Pakistan for committing the cardinal sin of going nuclear. As early as 1979, the United States cut off aid to Pakistan under section 669 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) on the plea that Pakistan had broken the taboo of going nuclear and had secretly begun construction of a uranium enrichment facility. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan changed the circumstances and aid to Pakistan was restored since the US needed Pakistan as an ally to contain and defeat the USSR in Afghanistan.

Throughout the eighties, there were various reports in the international media, blackballing Pakistan’s nuclear program. Israel, India and elements in the US joined forces to criticize and target Pakistan. During the same period, the book “Islamic Bomb” and a BBC documentary by the same title were released, citing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons endeavour.

The US government continued to turn a blind eye due to its strategic need of Pakistan. In 1985 the Pressler Amendment [section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act] was approved by US government, necessitating a total cut-off of U.S. aid to Islamabad unless the US president can certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear weapon, and that continued US aid will significantly decrease the probability of its developing one in the future. President Reagan and his successor, Bush (senior) continued providing the waiver, but the moment the USSR was routed from Afghanistan, the US government invoked the Pressler Amendment, imposing embargos on Pakistan.

More trouble and further sanctions were fated for Pakistan, when it indulged in Kargil adventurism. Pakistan became a pariah state, when the military removed the democratically elected Mian Nawaz Sharif from the seat of power and installed General Musharraf. Pakistan’s status changed overnight with 9/11 and General Musharraf’s complete submission to the US. From the “most sanctioned”, Pakistan became the “most allied” non-NATO ally and bent backwards to accommodate US demands of providing its bases for the US war on terror, housing US servicemen, CIA operatives and even committing Pakistan’s Armed Forces in the effort. When the going got tough in Afghanistan, pressure started mounting on Pakistan to “Do More”; one of the leverages being used was Pakistan’s nukes. First it was the disclosure of nuclear proliferation through “Khan Network”, followed by a media tirade on the security of Pakistan’s nukes and the threat they posed if they fell in the grasp of terrorists, followed by organized and well choreographed attacks on Pakistan’s defence installations like the GHQ, Naval War College, Air Force facilities and most recently, PNS Mehran.

There is a method in the madness because Pakistan has traversed this route earlier as mentioned above. The “Khan Network” was used as a millstone around Pakistan’s neck and pressure has been applied whenever the need arose to blackmail Pakistan into submission and action. It has become crystal clear through recent events that not only is Pakistan’s nuclear program used to pressurize Pakistan, but the very nukes are in danger of being confiscated through international and US legislation on the subject. According to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the five officially declared nuclear weapon states US, Russia, UK, France and China are signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Four more states, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, have developed nuclear weapons outside the treaty. Iran has a nuclear power program, which is alleged to hide a nuclear weapons program.

South Africa destroyed its nuclear weapons in 1991, while Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, inherited nukes from USSR but have now either destroyed or sent them back to Russia under US/UN pressure. To build a case against Pakistan, besides its military installations, an attack on a nuclear facility is imminent, so that it can be demonstrated that Pakistan is incapable of guarding its nukes. It is imperative for Pakistan to take steps to thwart and frustrate such a conspiracy. Some Pakistani pacifists believe Pakistan should hand over its nukes for international safekeeping, without realizing that if Pakistan had not possessed nukes, it would have been devoured by India and a number of other detractors, decades ago. Only the people of Pakistan can decide the future of the nukes, for which they have sacrificed and are ready to guard with their lives.

 

US Security Hinged with Pakistan’s Security

NOVANEWS
 
By Sajjad Shaukat
 

 

Despite tough statements of the US high officials, showing a paradoxical approach of Washington against Islamabad in connection with Osama Bin Laden who was killed in a US military raid at Abbottabad in Pakistan, America wants to continue its relationship with Pakistan which is a frontline state of war on terror.

On May 18, this year, some US Senators and law-makers urged the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates to review the security assistance of Pakistan, while some suggested cutting off the aid of the former, saying that some of its intelligence agencies were aware of the hideout of Bin Laden. But on May 19, Defence Secretary Gates and Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen stated that there was no evidence that leaders in Islamabad knew the whereabouts of the Al Qaeda chief before a US raid. They also advised against cutting off aid to Pakistan for its failure to go after terrorist leaders, while indicating that Washington had important interests at stake and that Islamabad had already been “humiliated” by the raid.

Meanwhile in wake of trust deficit and strained relations between Islamabad and Washington, the visit of the US Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry to Islamabad was of great significance. While showing previous contradictory approach of America towards Pakistan, on May I6, John Kerry pointed out that future relations of the United States with Islamabad would be determined by “its actions, not words,” emphasizing to ‘do more’ against the militants by ignoring the sacrifices of Pak Army and intelligence agencies—especially ISI regarding war against terrorism. However, having resolved some of the puzzles, lingering since Bin Laden’s death in Abbottabad, Pakistan and the US agreed to work together in any future actions against high-value targets in Pakistan.

Senator Kerry also remarked that the US respects Pakistan’s national interest and sovereignty. But his words coincided with the CIA-operated two drone attacks which killed more than ten people in Miranshah. At the same time, Pakistani ground troops opened fire on two NATOhelicopters that crossed into Pakistan’s airspace from Afghanistan and targeted a security check post of our country. Afterwards, attacks by the US predators continued intermittently, killing a number of innocent persons on Pakistan’s soil.

While on May 15, during his trip to Afghanistan, John Kerry had clearly revealed that the US will consider “all options” including high-value targets in Pakistan, if it has intelligence that the elusive Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is hiding in Pakistan. The statement of Kerry was verified by the US President Obama who made it clear in a BBC interview on May 22 that he would “approve a new incursion into Pakistan, if the United States found another leading militant there.”

Nevertheless, America’s such an ambivalent policy is not without some hidden agenda. In this context, under the pretext of high-value targets in Pakistan, cross-border-terrorism in relation to Afghanistan, blame game against Pakistan’s spy agency ISI and allegation about other Al Qaeda leaders’ presence in Pakistan—the US which is in collusion with India and Israel, wants to ‘denuclearize’ Pakistan as the latter is the only Islamic country, possessing nuclear weapons. In this regard, secret agencies such as American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad are collectively destabilizing Pakistan by supporting various subversive acts like bomb blasts, suicide attacks and targeted killings.

It is mentionable that on September 3, 2008, American Special Operations forces attacked a Pakistani village, Angoor Ada, conducting a ground raid on Pakistani soil, which killed more than 60 innocent people. Notably, since the announcement of the US new strategy to “include targeting Pakistan’s tribal areas” as disclosed by the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen on September 10, 2008, US drone strikes on Pakistan’s tribal areas have intensified, while May 2 raid at Abbottabad including American intentions to conduct more high-value targets in Pakistan are clear indications that the US wants to make Pakistan insecure.

In fact, due to its failed adventure in coping with the Afghan Taliban, America has already made itself insecure as ambush assaults and suicide attacks continue on the Afghans and coalition forces in Afghanistan. Now by ignoring the dangers of its new strategy to directly strike Pakistan’s tribal regions—violation of the sovereignty of an independent state, without caring for the reaction of the elected government as well as the people of the country, Washington is challenging the security of our country, thus making itself more insecure in turn.

This is of particular attention that renowned power-theorists, Morgenthau, Waltz and Kissinger see international relations as constituting a search for security in the world where there is no super agency to impose law, and where maximization of power is the only route to state security. This is because of this reason that America and its allies of war on terror want security only for themselves, and seek to guarantee it through lethal force. Intermittently, heavy aerial bombardment and ground shelling by their forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and inside Pakistani border, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians might be cited as an example. A similar pattern of state terrorism could be noted in case of Palestine, Kashmir, Somalia etc.

On the other side, Muslim militants, fighting against the imperialist powers through ambush rocket attacks and suicide bombers have broken the myth of old model of power-based security which only safeguards the interest of the US-led western countries at the cost of the small states. In this regard, particularly Pakistan has already been facing multifaceted crises owing to its support to Washington. In this respect, a perennial wave of suicide attacks in the country, targeting law-enforcement agencies coupled with a continuous battle with the militants in the Frontier Province could be noted as an instance. As violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty show that America does not care for any internal backlash in Pakistan, so it is determined to create insecurity in the country.

Nonetheless, US war-mongering hidden strategy against Pakistan will further expedite extremism among the young men, turning them into suicide bombers, radicalizing a vast region from Pakistan to Syria, ultimately making America insecure—besides endangering the world peace. In Pakistan, it will certainly result into more unity among the elected government, security forces, the general masses and even the Pakistani religious organisations, consequently massive hostility and resistance against Americans. In such a scenario, Islamabad could be compelled to stop NATO supply to Afghanistan as public in the country is already protesting against the NATO containers which pass through Pakistan.

In the present era of globalization, there is a direct relationship between internal and external security. If America intends to convert Pakistan into a “failed state” by causing instability, it is, in fact, creating external insecurity which is likely to further harm America’s larger geo-political and economic interests on regional and global level.

In the aftermath of 9/11, western thinktanks have recognized inter-relationship between economics, politics and terrorism. Now, they agree in light of the US failed strategy, prolonged war against terrorism and defeatism in Afghanistan that religious fanaticism and stiff resistance of the Islamic militants are linked to political and economic injustices. Taking cognizance of this fact, the US must abandon its revised military strategy which entails Pakistan as the former still depends upon old power factor which has already failed. Instead, America should increase its economic and security aid to Pakistan and must make practical efforts for the development of infrastructure in FATA. In this context, Washington should also favour peace deals with the militants not only in Pakistan but also in Afghanistan where more lawlessness is causing more terrorism.

As regards the question of Pak-US security, perhaps Washington has failed to recognize that security is a two-way traffic. If America needs security, Pakistan also wants the same. Security cannot be obtained by endangering the security of our country. In these, terms, Pakistan’s insecurity means US insecurity.

Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

 

BDS flashmobs are largely led by women (who must contend with misogyny)

May 30, 2011

Kiera Feldman

Editor’s note: Kiera Feldman has an important piece up at Alternet on the BDS movement, flashmobs, and the gender politics of the Palestinian solidarity movement. Excerpts:

The real genius of BDS is its big tent appeal: supporters might choose to stick to boycotts of consumer goods made in settlements (e.g. SodaStream); some might launch divestment campaigns aimed at companies involved in the Occupation; or others might support the “full call,” which asks artists and academics to boycott Israeli institutions (as opposed to individuals) that have not hopped on the BDS bandwagon. Notable full BDS supporters include Pink Floyd, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Naomi Klein, and Judith Butler. “If you only want to boycott an egg, we want you to boycott an egg,” Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, told the Nation, explaining BDS’ grabbag of tactics….

And what is more big tent than a goofy song and dance?

To be sure, it is just one of the tactics that might comprise a larger targeted campaign. CodePink’s Rae Abileah and Colleen Kelly, a Catholic Worker and member of St. Louis Justice in Palestine (of Motorola flash mob fame) are borderline flash mob evangelists, who praised the form’s ability to engage a diverse group of people and build community.

Both Abileah and Kelly grew up choreographing Spice Girls dances at slumber parties; in flash mobs, the teen girl consumer culture they were weaned on meets the “don’t buy that” movement of their adulthood. It is, by and large, a movement dominated by women. “I think that’s everywhere though,” not just BDS, Kelly said. “When women are leaders, men are not as present.”

Dalit Baum, a member of the established Israeli feminist organization Coalition of Women for Peace and the founder of whoprofits.org, agreed. “Women do most of the grassroots organizing,” she said. “Always.” What’s more, she added, they’re disproportionately queer.

But, of course, powerhouse women leading the charge—often with gutsy public actions–does not mean the end of the enduring tale of misogyny on the radical left, especially in the private sphere. “There is still sexism within our movements to combat too,” Abileah wrote in an email, stating the obvious, which can’t be said enough when advocating for the liberation of others. In a recent essay, Amirah Mizrahi, an activist with Jewish Voice for Peace, addressed the darker components of justice in Palestine work—that which is hard to reconcile with spectacles of joyful song and dance. “There is a problem with gender violence in this movement,” Mizrahi wrote. “If we cannot respect something so fundamental—the autonomy of another person over her own body—what are we fighting for?”

Counting myself among the BDS supporters, I too have swapped painful stories with female friends of sexism playing out in the most intimate ways, as if reenacting scenes from the early Women’s Movement days. I have been degraded exactly once in my life—by an Israeli BDS activist, a self-professed male feminist who talked of linked struggles, who knew better but did not act better. Knowledge, I learned in a lesson I will not soon forget or forgive, does not necessarily stop someone from violating women’s physical boundaries. It is a notch on a belt I wish no one owned.

Feldman’s postscript:

Thankfully, the movement is undergoing a serious reckoning on themes of sexism, sexual violence, and bad consent. I recently learned many women share similar stories about this very same Israeli BDS activist–and that a whole support community has formed to work toward systemic change and individual accountability. Feel free to email kiera dot feldman at gmail dot com to hear what’s in the pipes.

David Cameron 2-step. Can Obama follow?

May 30, 2011

Phil Weiss and Scott McConnell

1. Near the end of the conference of Prime Minister David Cameron and President Obama on May 25:

Mr. Cameron described Mr. Obama’s speech last week, in which he discussed the parameters for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as “bold and visionary, because I think it did an absolutely vital thing, which was to talk about ‘67 borders with land swaps.”

This is important. Not that it would resonate with the Republicans who are generally gaga over the Conservative Cameron. But it sets down a marker for the September battle to come.

2. The Guardian, today:

David Cameron has stepped down as a patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in a move pro-Palestinian campaigners claim is a result of pressure but which Downing Street insists is part of a general review of the prime minister’s charity connections.

Check out this Palestinian company’s documentary on the Gaza conflict, ‘A story of a war’
May 30, 2011 11:23 am | annie

I stumbled upon this stunning 48 minute documentary of the Gaza massacre today quite accidentally while poking around the web visiting one of my favorite Gazan bloggers. He featured another of Media Town’s videos. I was impressed with the quality so I looked up the film production company, Media Town PS, out of curiosity.

Media Town is the first Palestinian company specializing in producing documentary films. They posted this documentary on their You Tube page on May 18th. Amazingly it had only 557 views when I encountered it 2 hours ago. The cinematography, narrations and interviews are superb. This is a must see, it takes my breath away.

Includes narrations by Raji Sourani, Founder and director of Palestinian Centre For Human Rights, Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert and Amnesty International researcher Donatella Rovera, and weapons specialist Mark James, amongst others.

Israeli raid of cucumber fields in occupied West Bank another sign of water battle to come

May 30, 2011

Kate

and other news from Today in Palestine:

Gaza
Gaza border crossing will remain free of European observers, Hamas official says
dpa 29 May — Speaking to the group’s al-Aqsa Radio, senior official says Hamas, in control of the coastal enclave since 2007, has proved it can manage Gaza’s Rafah crossing … Ghazi Hamad said Palestinians saw no need for the immediate return of European observers to the disputed crossing as provided for under a 2005 deal with Israel … Israeli Home Front Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said Israel now held Egypt responsible for security at the border.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-border-crossing-will-remain-free-of-european-observers-hamas-official-says-1.364767
Gaza businessmen applaud Rafah opening
GAZA CITY (Ma‘an) 29 May — The federation of businessmen in Gaza applauded on Saturday Egypt’s decision to permanently open its Rafah border with the coastal enclave. Head of the federation’s board of directors Ali Al-Hayik told Ma‘an he telephoned Egypt’s ambassador to the Palestinian Authority Yasser Othman to thank him for pushing through the policy change, following years of restrictions.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391846
Israel slams Rafah reopening
JERUSALEM (AFP) 29 May — Israeli ministers on Sunday slammed Egypt’s decision to reopen its Rafah border crossing with Gaza, warning that terrorist groups would be able to move weapons and people freely through the crossing … Israel’s Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said Egypt’s decision to reopen the crossing over Israel’s objections showed that the Israel could not rely on other nations to protect its borders. The UN and other rights organizations have called the siege on Gaza illegal. “This is very strong proof of why it is so important for Israel to guard our borders by ourselves to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and weapons,” he said at the beginning of a weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. He said the border reopening was also proof that Israel needed to maintain control over the Jordan Valley under any peace agreement with the Palestinians, describing the 2005 border deal as “not worth the paper its written on,” although it did not cover the eastern border area where the Jordan Valley edges Jordan.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391900
Egypt opens the border with Gaza – in pictures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/28/egypt-gaza
In pictures: Egypt-Gaza border opens at Rafah
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13584339
Israel allows limited goods to enter Gaza
GAZA CITY (Ma‘an) 29 May — Israel will open the sole operating goods crossing into Gaza on Sunday, officials said.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391837
Gaza: Sheikh Yassin’s house declared heritage site
Ynet 29 May — Hamas to open home of spiritual leader killed in 2004 to visitors, turning location into historical landmark … Hamas made sure to preserve and display, for the first time ever, the wheelchair Yassin sat in when he was assassinated, as well as the blanket he covered himself with that day.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4075509,00.html
Hamas simulates raid on flotilla
[photos] Ynet 29 May —  The Hamas government and Gaza security forces held a maneuver in the Gaza port last Thursday in preparation for the arrival of the Turkish flotilla next month. Dozens of people took part in the drill, including divers and medical personnel who trained in a number of scenarios. The participants simulated an IDF takeover of one ship and several Hamas men played the role of Israel Navy commandos. In another scenario, the forces simulated a rescue operation involving a person thrown overboard.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4075106,00.html
Gaza committee says Ki-Moon responsible for danger ahead of flotilla
LONDON, (PIC) 29 May — The International Committee to Break the Gaza Siege has held UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon responsible for the danger ahead of Freedom Flotilla 2 set to deliver aid to Gaza in late June. Ki-moon recently called on states along the Mediterranean coast to help thwart the flotilla in order to avoid a conflict with Israel, which enforces a tight naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. The ICBGS said in a statement that followed on Saturday that the calls served as a “cover for Israeli piracy and encourages the attack of the flotilla.”
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bc
Land, property, resources theft & destruction / Ethnic cleansing / Settlers
Jerusalem
‘Unification of Jerusalem is a foundation of nation of Israel’
Haaretz 29 May — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells his cabinet that the government is obligated to build in Jerusalem, as it is ‘the heart of the nation.’
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/unification-of-jerusalem-is-a-foundation-of-nation-of-israel-1.364731
Israel to mark Jerusalem ‘reunification’ with cash
JERUSALEM (AFP) 29 May — Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday reaffirmed his intent to keep Jerusalem the country’s “undivided capital,” in a speech announcing a $100-million investment package for the occupied holy city … Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 Six Day War, later annexing it in a move not recognized by the international community. In the early years of the millennium, Israel built its separation wall around the city, dividing Palestinian communities on its outskirts from their neighbors. Israel marks the city’s “reunification” on Jerusalem Day, which this year falls on June 1.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391976
East Jerusalem: Israel detains an 8-year-old Palestinian / Joseph Dana
972mag 29 May — The Israeli is ramping up arrests and attacks against Palestinian children. The targeting of children is nothing new in West Bank villages like Nabi Saleh and Bil’in. This afternoon, Israeli police raided the house of 8-year-old Ali Siyam in the Occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. Police raided this house in order to arrest the children as part of a larger swap of alleged stone throwers in the area. In the process of taking the children, Israeli police officers assaulted Siyam’s aunt and uncle, the only adults present in the house. Siyam’s aunt was shot in the leg with a rubber coated steel bullet as she attempted to protect the child. His uncle was also beaten as police took the boy. Both were transferred to Hadassa Har Hatzofim hospital for treatment.
http://972mag.com/israel-ramping-up-arrests-of-palestinian-children/
Protest against new settlement meets with heavy repression, six arrested
Silwan, Jerusalem (SILWANIC) 29 May — Dozens of protesters gathered outside the new Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Zetim in Ras al-‘Amoud district yesterday, Friday 27 May, amidst heavy repression from state forces and settlers. One settler attempted to run over protesters as he drove out of the settlement, as Israeli troops looked on. Settlers then began throwing stones and dropping water on protesters, chanting racist slogans and declaring that “Arabs are terrorists” and “the Israeli left stands in the way of the Jewish dream.” [or nightmare, depending on one’s point of view]
http://silwanic.net/?p=17331
In photos: Friday demonstration in Silwan
Silwan, Jerusalem (SILWANIC) 29 May — The following are more photographs from the Friday 27 May demonstration in Silwan against Israeli settlements. Seven people were arrested, including both Palestinians and Israeli activists. Israeli forces, aided by armed settlers, applied violence against protesters including using tasers.
http://silwanic.net/?p=17292
FPJS condemns IOF assault on journalists in occupied Jerusalem
GAZA (PIC) 29 May — The Forum of Palestinian Journalists condemned the assault on Friday evening of a group of journalists by IOF soldiers while the journalists were covering the events at the Ras al-Amoud neighbourhood in occupied Jerusalem. The FPJS said in a statement on Saturday that IOF troops assaulted journalist Diala Jweihan, and photo-journalists Sulaiman Khader and Atta Oweisat while covering a Palestinian protest in the neighbourhood.
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bc
Factory owner’s detention extended, charged with stone-throwing
[photo] Silwan, Jerusalem (SILWANIC) 29 May — The detention of Bir Ayyub resident Mohammed Odeh was extended by the Israeli court today. Odeh, 34, was kidnapped from the factory he owns in Bir Ayyub yesterday afternoon by undercover Israeli forces. Odeh faces charges of throwing stones at Israeli troops. The arrest may be the first of many in a campaign of mass arrests to hit Silwan in coming days, say inside sources.
http://silwanic.net/?p=17338

Israeli forces attack youth, one arrested
[photos] Silwan, Jerusalem (SILWANIC) 29 May — Israeli forces attacked Palestinian youth near the northern entrance to Ras al-‘Amoud district, arrested a young boy. Witnesses state that Mohammed Sider, 19, was seized by Israeli forces from a local shop. The attack comes close on the heels of Israeli crackdown on peaceful demonstrations outside the new Israeli settlement opened in Ras al-Amoud.
http://silwanic.net/?p=17322
Israeli forces raid Information Center again, director Siyam summoned and detained
[photos] Silwan, Jerusalem (SILWANIC) 29 May — A large force of Israeli troops and secret police raided the Wadi Hilweh Information Center and adjoining Madaa Creative Center today. Officers were looking for Center director Jawad Siyam, who was not present, and instead issued his wife a summons for Siyam to the Jaffa Gate police station for investigation. A number of children were in the center during the raid, causing severe panic. Israeli forces subsequently raided Siyam’s family home, unsuccessfully. Siyam presented himself at the station later this evening and was detained for a period of time by police.
http://silwanic.net/?p=17320
Elsewhere

Settlers drown Palestinian land with wastewater in Bethlehem
BETHLEHEM (WAFA) 29 May — …Head of Nahhalin village’s council, Osama Shakarna, told WAFA that those in charge of the water purification stations in ‘Beitar Illit’ settlement, west of Bethlehem, pumped waste water to the almond and grapes lands, west of Nahhalin. Shakarna pointed out that such practices polluted the underground water and caused serious damage to the crops; Palestinians can’t enter their lands anymore due to the high levels of wastewater in it. He warned of the dangerous effects of such practices on Palestinians’ health, saying “Summer is knocking the doors, and there is a great fear of spreading diseases and mosquitoes.”
Moreover, Israeli authorities handed over a number of notices to Palestinians living in Ain Fares area, southwest of Nahhalin village, to seize their lands.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16268
2 injured by settler in car accident
BETHLEHEM (Ma‘an) 29 May — A father and son were moderately injured Sunday, medics said, after they were hit by an Israeli settler driving to a Jewish-only settlement in the southern West Bank. The father accused the settler of purposefully running him down just outside of Bethlehem. Medical sources in the Al-Yamama Hospital in Bethlehem identified the injured as Ahmad Mustafa Sbeih,48, and his son Nour Ad-Din who is eight years old.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=392059
Soldiers detain Palestinians, abduct international activist near Hebron
IMEMC 29 May — Israeli soldiers detained on Saturday evening several Palestinians, including women and children, and kidnapped an international peace activist near Safa village, north of the southern West Bank city of Hebron. The residents were working in their farmlands before extremist settlers of the Bait Ayin illegal settlement attacked them and uprooted olive trees and vineyard. Israeli soldiers arrived at the scene and, instead of removing the settlers, detained more than twenty Palestinians, including women and children, and an international activist, under the pretext that they entered a closed military zone. The claimed military zone is the agricultural lands owned by the residents.
http://www.imemc.org/article/61341
Hundreds attend Susiya Creative Learning Center celebration in South Hebron Hills
[photos] AIC 29 May — Over 500 Palestinians, Israelis and internationals celebrated the one year anniversary of the Susiya Creative Learning Center in the South Hebron Hills on Saturday, 28 May with a cultural tribute to the nonviolent resistance of the Palestinian people … The afternoon celebration included poetry, songs and clowns who danced dabka with the village youth between the tents of the small village of Susiya … 400 people are obliged to live in tents, subjected to constant attacks by settlers. Abdel told us: “They come with guns, stones and bars. In the past weeks, every Saturday, they bring their sheep, which pasture our land. The Israeli army doesn’t defend us.”  Settlers also attempted to spoil Saturday’s happy afternoon of celebration with the same cruel violence. Around 5 pm, some of them tried to reach the village, coming down from the nearby hill from the settlement of Susyia. This time, the settlers were stopped by the army.
http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/topics/hebron/3624-hundreds-attend-susiya-creative-learning-center-celebration-in-south-hebron-hills-
IOF places tight grip on village near Nablus
QALQILYA (PIC) 29 May — The Israeli occupation forces (IOF) have tightened procedures at the gates of the separation wall in the Azzun Atma village near Qalqilya, locals have reported. For the past week, the IOF has been curbing civilian movement there through provocative searches and inspections. Long lines of students, farmers, and laborers have mounted daily outside the gates as searches continue. Azzoun Atma is encircled by the Orinet, Shaarei Tikva, Elkana settlements, which are said to serve as a ‘death certificate’ to the farming village as they blockade it and take the majority of the land and restrict the possibility of its expansion. Walls have been erected on all four sides of the village for alleged security reasons. Khalid Raddad, a resident, points out that the planning situation has isolated Azzoum Atma from nearby villages Beit Amin and Sineria, which serve as natural extensions to it. The result is that families are separated from each other as well as farmers from their fields. 
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcO
Enrollment at Israeli university in West Bank expected to grow at fast pace
Haaretz 29 May — The Council for Higher Education has decided that the number of students funded by the state at the Ariel University Center of Samaria in the settlement of Ariel will be allowed to grow to a much greater extent than at many other colleges.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/enrollment-at-israeli-university-in-west-bank-expected-to-grow-at-fast-pace-1.364636
Winds of hope in the occupied Syrian Golan / Francesc Cabré Sánchez
AIC 29 May — Life has apparently returned to normal in Majdal Shams, the main town in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan. Shops are open, local farmers working their fields and in the centre of town there is nothing to indicate that four Palestinians were killed on the Nakba commemoration day (15 May) when they crossed the Syrian border to claim the right of return for refugees … Talking with the local population strengthens the sense that the killing will have long-term implications for Majdal Shams and the occupied Golan.  “Nothing will ever be the same. Palestinians showed us the way, because Israel is prepared to fight against violent uprisings, but does not know how to react or fight nonviolence,” says Fawzi Abu Jabal Hussein, a member of the local NGO Golan for Development .
http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/topics/news/3623-winds-of-hope-in-the-occupied-syrian-golan-
The ruined village Palestinians will never forget / Harriet Sherwood
Guardian 29 May — The ruins of Lifta are the final remains of the Palestinian hamlets that fringed Jerusalem until 1948. Now plans to bulldoze them are causing outrage — In the soft golden light of a late spring evening, as yellow flowers are beginning to bloom on giant cacti, Yacoub Odeh climbs up through knee-high grass to the ruin that was his childhood home. For a man in his eighth decade, he is surprisingly nimble as he navigates ancient stones that litter the ground. But behind his light step is the weight of painful memories of a lost youth and a fading history.”Here is my house,” he says, sitting on the remains of a stone wall in whose crevices wild flowers and saplings cling. “Now only the corners remain. Here is the taboun[outdoor oven] where my mother used to bake bread. The smell!”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/29/ruined-palestinian-village-lifta-development
All’s well that ends well? Targeting Palestinian water pirates
MediaLine —  KUFR DAN, West Bank 29 May — The Israelis arrived at about one in the afternoon — a phalanx of 30 soldiers, 10 jeeps and a tractor at this town west of Jenin. Palestinians rapidly appeared on the scene as well and soon the two sides were scuffling, with farmers shouting “Get these tractors away before something happens” and climbing aboard a tractor in an effort to stop it from working …The Israeli troops hadn’t come to arrest suspected terrorists or to put down a violent protest. They were in Kufr Dan, a local center for cucumber farms, to close what officials said were illegal water wells. In Kufr Dan, they used a tractor to rip out pipes reaching down into water sources or to push the pumps deep into ground. In others, they cut electricity lines to the pumps. “There is a Palestinian phrase that says ‘pressure begets explosion.’ This could be the reason for another intifada. Israel is ruining its security with its own hands. They talk about peace but there is no peace,” Qaher Abed, village council member and farmer, told The Media Line.
http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=32296
Army violence
Medics: Palestinian beaten by Israeli soldiers at checkpoint
HEBRON (Ma‘an) 29 May — Israeli soldiers brutally attacked a Palestinian man at an army checkpoint near Hebron on Saturday evening, medics said. Israeli soldiers stopped Mahmoud Al-Battat, 19, at around 7 p.m. at a checkpoint near Ad-Dhahiriya in the southern West Bank as he returned from work in Israel, medical officials told Ma‘an. Soldiers beat him until he fainted, director of operations at the Palestinian Red Crescent Nasser Al-Qabaja said. Al-Battat recovered consciousness at around 11 p.m. and phoned his family. After receiving the call, relatives said they searched for two hours before they found him, and took him to a medical center in Ad-Dhahiriya.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391883
Israeli forces shoot man near Gaza City, medics say
GAZA CITY (Ma‘an) 29 May — Israeli forces shot and injured a Palestinian man east of Gaza City early Sunday morning, medics said. Medical services spokesman Adham Abu Salmiya said the man was shot in his right leg in the Zaytoun neighborhood. He was taken to the Ash-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391833
Detention
Palestinian captive suffers loss of memory after 10 years in occupation jails
RAMALLAH (PIC) 29 May — Wadi‘ Tamman (30), a Palestinian captive from the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, who suffers from epilepsy has lost his memory completely and no longer knows those around him, according to a Palestinian human rights organisation.
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcO
Non-aligned states urge release of Palestinians
NUSA DUA, Indonesia (AFP) 27 May — The 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement on Friday demanded Israel release a “substantial number” of Palestinian political prisoners as a “positive step” toward peace. At the end of a ministerial meeting in Indonesia, the movement reiterated its support for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, a position it shares with the United States but which is rejected by Israel … They called on Israel to release Palestinian “political prisoners” including 300 under the age of 18 and 10 members of the Palestinian legislative council.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391493
Wife: Australian nabbed for Hamas ties ‘in revenge for Mabhouh’
(AFP) 29 May — Family of man detained in Israel calls charges of involvement with terror group ‘preposterous’, says Israel seeking revenge for expulsion of diplomat over forgery of Australian passports in Mabhouh assassination —  The Palestinian-born Eyad Abuarga, an information technology expert, was arrested in March as he tried to enter Israel through the Ben Gurion airport
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4075187,00.html
Political / Diplomatic / International news
New govt to be announced 6 June
GAZA CITY (Ma‘an) 29 May — The composition of the new Palestinian Authority’s technocrat government will be announced on 6 June by delegates from formerly rival parties Fatah and Hamas as a major step to the implementation of a unity agreement, an official said Sunday … Sha‘ath is in Gaza with several Fatah delegates to continue work on implementing the unity plan, as others remain in Cairo ironing out details of the new government. He said the names of the new government would be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council for approval. The body has essentially been defunct since 2007, when internal friction ended in a split between the leading Palestinian parties Fatah and Hamas.
The official also said he expected the issue of political arrests to be shortly concluded. Hamas regularly announces the detention of its members by Palestinian Authority forces operating in the West Bank, and says they are harassed for their political affiliation. “The number of prisoners has already been reduced to so few,” he said, that the underway process of setting up mechanisms for their release ahead of the unity government’s installation should be swift.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=392037
Peres to UN official: Israel supports creation of Palestinian state through negotiations
Haaretz 29 May — In meet with UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro, president said UN must not create false hope for Palestinians that a unilateral declaration will bring about establishment of a state.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/peres-to-un-official-israel-supports-creation-of-palestinian-state-through-negotiations-1.364755
Report: Abbas, Peres held secret talks
TEL AVIV, Israel (Ma‘an) — President Mahmoud Abbas held secret talks with his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres in April, Israeli media reported Friday. Abbas and Peres met in London to try and revive the stalled peace process, the Hebrew-language daily Ma’ariv reported. Since the meeting, the two have spoken on the telephone on secure lines, the report added.  Quoting a source close to the Israeli president, the newspaper said Peres was horrified that the talks had been exposed. “President Peres is the last Israeli who continues to enjoy a direct channel of dialogue with the Palestinians,” the source told Ma’ariv. “It is highly unfortunate that this channel will be sealed due to being made public.”
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=391852
Netanyahu asked Canada PM to thward G8 support for 1967 borders
Haaretz 29 May — At the request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper thwarted an announcement Friday by the G-8 countries that would have supported U.S. President Barack Obama’s statement that talks between the Palestinians and Israel should be based on the 1967 borders with exchanges of territory. According to a senior government official in Jerusalem, Israel was concerned over the implications of a specific mention of support for Obama’s call for negotiations based on the 1967 borders and exchanges of territory, so the prime minister’s bureau and the Foreign Ministry began working on the matter as early as the middle of last week.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asked-canada-pm-to-thwart-g8-support-for-1967-borders-1.364635
US Senate confirms ex-Obama aide Daniel Shapiro as new ambassador to Israel
Haaretz 29 May — Shapiro is currently director for the Middle East and North Africa of the National Security Council after acting as Obama’s adviser on the Middle East and Jewish community relations during Obama’s presidential campaign.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-senate-confirms-ex-obama-aide-daniel-shapiro-as-new-ambassador-to-israel-1.364642?localLinksEnabled=false
Other news
IDF source: Israel bracing for clashes along its borders ahead of planned protests
AP/Haaretz 29 May — The Israeli military is preparing for the possibility of violent protests along its borders in the coming days, aiming to avoid a repeat of deadly unrest that erupted earlier this month, a senior military official told The Associated Press on Sunday. Facebook-organized activists have called for demonstrations next weekend in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan to mark the anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War, in which Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip east Jerusalem and Golan Heights. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-source-israel-bracing-for-clashes-along-its-boarders-ahead-of-planned-protests-1.364820
Israeli culture minister storms out of film, calls it too pro-Palestinian
Haaretz 29 May — At festival near Sderot, Minister Limor Livnat claims Shlomi Elkabetz’s movie ‘Testimony’ is one-sided and ignores Israeli suffering; audience responds with boos … The film, which opened Sapir College’s Cinema South Film Festival, features monologues based on testimonies by Palestinians and Israel soldiers.
http://www.haaretz.com/culture/israeli-culture-minister-storms-out-of-film-calls-it-too-pro-palestinian-1.364812
Palestinians sue Israel for NIS 18m over daughter’s border crossing injury
Haaretz 29 May — Lawsuit comes after couple’s 4 year old daughter was seriously hurt as a result of being trapped in Allenby border crossing’s baggage claims carousel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/palestinians-sue-israel-for-nis-18m-over-daughter-s-border-crossing-injury-1.364799
Israel’s military releases Itamar probe findings
TEL AVIV (Ma‘an) 29 May — Israeli forces operating to protect the Itamar settlement in the northern West Bank failed to “fully implement the defensible means available,” despite assessments that “recognized the existing threats,” the results of an investigation showed.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=392027
IDF: Palestinian police intentionally targeted worshipers at Joseph’s Tomb
Haaretz 29 May — Palestinian forces intentionally opened fire at Israeli Jewish worshipers last month, an Israel Defense Forces report concluded on Sunday, countering initial Palestinian claims that the shooting, which resulted in the death of one Israeli, was a mistake.Last month, Palestinian security forces opened fire on three cars full of Israelis who entered the West Bank compound of Joseph’s Tomb without permission and then tried to break through a local checkpoint.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-palestinian-police-intentionally-target-worshipers-at-joseph-s-tomb-1.364784
Freedom Theatre without Juliano
AIC 29 May — … Almost two months have passed since the 4 April 2011 assassination of Juliano Mer-Khamis, director and a founder of the Freedom Theatre. Created in 2006 and located in the Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank, the theatre project will survive the death of Mer-Khamis and will follow the path he blazed. So says Eyad Hurani, a young man from Ramallah who for the past three years has lived in Jenin, studying theatre and sharing hours with Juliano.
http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/topics/news/3621-freedom-theatre-without-juliano-
New Palestinian stamp on international passports
RAMALLAH (WAFA) 28 May — Palestinian artist Khalid Jrar launched a new campaign in which he invented a new stamp for the new sovereign state of Palestine and stamped foreigners’ passports with it to spread it all over the world. He didn’t wait for the declaration of the Palestinian state next September, but started looking for foreigners at Qalandia’s checkpoint to Ramallah’s bus station to stamp their passports … Most of the foreigners he met showed acceptance of his idea and offered their passports to carry the new stamp while others refused because they feared that they will not be able to enter Palestine again.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16265
Bank of Israel governor sees growing support to replace IMF chief
Haaretz 29 May — Several of the world’s leading newspapers say they want to see Stanley Fischer as the next International Monetary Fund chief, and the Bank of Israel governor isn’t rejecting the option out of hand, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing an anonymous source.
http://english.themarker.com/bank-of-israel-governor-sees-growing-support-to-replace-imf-chief-1.364652
Analysis / Opinion
‘Land Swaps’: Is there enough land to swap? / Nathan Jeffay
Forward 25 May — Tel Aviv — It is the magic formula that could end the occupation while letting the majority of settlers stay put. But how would an Israeli-Palestinian land swap, the basis of President Obama’s Middle East vision, outlined on May 19, actually work? … Every Israeli leader insists on retaining the large settlement blocs — usually defined at a minimum as the Etzion Bloc, Modi’in Illit, Ma’ale Adumim, and Givat Ze’ev and its surroundings — and the national consensus in support of this position is strong. But in Israel, many experts say there simply isn’t enough free land under Israeli sovereignty to exchange for them. [Why does no one mention that to a farmer on his family land held for generations, one piece of land is NOT like another, at all?  Can’t imagine most Palestinians accepting such an exchange, even if it were possible. Various pieces of land may seem to be much the same to ‘rootless cosmopolitan’, types, and those advocating this ‘solution’ may well fall into this category.]
http://forward.com/articles/138129/
Parallel states: a new vision for peace / Mark LeVine and Mathias Mossberg
AJ 28 May — …The language of sharing rather than division has long been associated with a binational or even one-state solution that have both been dismissed because their implementation would effectively mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. But sovereignty and control can be shared while retaining a two-state structure that allows each side to secure and preserve its unique identity. Specifically, two states could be established in parallel over the same territory, both covering the whole area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Termed a “parallel states” solution, this concept has been developed over the last four years by a team of Israeli, Palestinian and international scholars, policymakers and even protagonists in the conflict. It is built upon a new understanding of sovereignty that breaks the previously exclusive link with territory, and reorients the basis of identity, citizenship and rights away from land and towards the relation between the state and the individual citizen. Citizenship would follow the citizen wherever she or he may live within the territory of Israel/Palestine, not the territory itself.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/2011528132114104574.html
Time to tear down fences / Rahela Mizrahi
EI 28 May — …Last week, images from Maroun al-Ras took me back to my youth, when after learning exactly what happened since 1948, my solidarity crossed all the way over to the ‘other’ side. Visiting my remaining family in the kibbutz, I am now met by electric fences, and the automatic gates no longer look natural. By committing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the kibbutz’s founders predestined their grandchildren to live behind fences forever. According to an Arabic proverb, a thief does not sleep at night, and will not allow anyone else to sleep …
Hassan Hijazi crossed the Syrian border to the heart of the Zionist project: the white city of Tel Aviv. For a day he wandered around his hometown, Jaffa, a few years before its expected complete Judaization … For now, Tel Aviv exists as a European colonial bubble protected by the human shield of Sderot, the violent settlers in the West Bank and Jewish-Arab Mizrahim pushed by white gentrification to settlements such as Maale Adumin and Pisgat Zeev. But that bubble, surrounded by fences and more fences, is soon to pop. Welcome home to Jaffa, Hassan Hijazi — the first returning refugee!
http://electronicintifada.net/content/time-tear-down-fences/10019
groups.yahoo.com/group/f_shadi (listserv)
www.theheadlines.org (archive)

Nakba Day at Erez Crossing — and Naksa Day is next Sunday

May 30, 2011

Joe Catron

nilsanderssonnilsandersson2Photos by Nils Andersson.

I gasped as the first bullet struck a young man standing a few paces ahead of me. Watching him crumple to the ground, I struggled for breath and fought my natural urge to run. “Allahu Akbar!”, the crowd roared around me. “Yalla, Shebab!” A half-dozen other men – none of whom could have been older than twenty, and most of whom looked much younger – rushed forward, retrieving their fallen compatriot and carrying him quickly to a waiting ambulance. A thin trail of blood marked their path, ending in a small, dark puddle where the first of the day’s many gunshot victims had fallen.

Thousands of refugees and other Palestinians had gathered at the Erez Crossing in the northern Gaza Strip. An imposing military structure of massive concrete barriers and machine gunners’ towers, the border wall separates Gaza Strip residents from the 78% of Palestine seized by the State of Israel in 1948. For the two-thirds of residents who are refugees, it also prevents their return to the homes from which they and their families were forcibly expelled that year. Palestinians throughout the world remember this Nakba, or catastrophe, every May 15 with gatherings, demonstrations, and resolutions to someday return.

But this year would be different. Inspired by the popular uprisings against dictatorships across the Arab region, Palestinians were resolved to commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the ethnic cleansing of 711,000 people from their country by making history, rather than remembering it.

On the morning of May 15, Nakba Day, tens of thousands of Palestinians gathered around the borders of Israel and its occupied territories, determined to march to the homes and homeland denied to them for generations. In Beit Hanoun in Gaza, they walked from buses forced to stop kilometers from the crossing by the sheer numbers of the crowd. Many remained at checkpoints preceding the crossing. Others pressed forward, their eyes fixed on the distant gate.

The Israeli response came quickly.

Bullet after bullet penetrated the crowd of unarmed demonstrators, each one finding its target. Artillery shells pounded the sandy dunes around us, and after several hours, tear gas canisters hissed through the air. Over a hundred people were hospitalized with serious injuries, while elsewhere on the border, a 17-year old boy was killed by artillery fire. The rest of us escaped with tear gas inhalation, cuts from exploding concrete and shrapnel, and bloodstains from the limbs, torsos, and faces shattering around us.

Yet the demonstrators kept coming. After every retreat from gas, gunfire, or the thunderous boom of artillery, there was another surge. Only when the sheer brutality of the Israeli forces had sufficiently depleted the number of those capable of pressing forward did the strength of the crowd begin to wane.

And somehow, the overall mood remained one of measured, but tangible joy. The victory sign was everywhere, and smiles were common not only on the runners ferrying injured marchers to medical attention, but also on the young men and women they carried. Everyone seemed to intuitively sense that they were doing something historic, closing one chapter in the long, painful struggle for Palestinian freedom and opening another one that offered more hope for a happy ending.

Elsewhere, the state violence inflicted upon peaceful marchers was even worse. At the border between Syria and the occupied Golan Heights, Israeli gunfire killed four of them, while in Lebanon, ten suffered the same fate. Hundreds, if not thousands, were seriously injured.

But like the returnees in Beit Hanoun, those from Lebanon and Syria refused to be dissuaded by military repression. Dozens of the latter poured through Israeli barriers, spending hours in the welcoming villages of the occupied Golan Heights before leaving under the protection of their Syrian hosts. One, Hassan Hijazi, made it all the way to the Jaffa home from which his family was exiled in 1948. Before surrendering to Israeli police, the 28-year old told journalists, “I wasn’t afraid and I’m not afraid. On the bus to Jaffa, I sat next to Israeli soldiers. I realized that they were more afraid than I was.”

Hijazi’s seven million fellow Palestinian refugees aren’t afraid either. On Sunday, June 5, they will return to the borders created to exclude them, and perhaps beyond. Like the 63rd Nakba Day, this 44th anniversary of the Naksa, or setback – Israel’s 1967 occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and subsequent expulsion of 300,000 additional refugees – promises a commemoration like none before it.

June 5 will not determine the outcome of the Palestinian movement for return. That outcome was already determined by the decades of grassroots organizing and popular struggle that culminated in the historic mobilization of May 15. Its finality can be glimpsed in grievances by Western media like Reuters that “[t]he Palestinians who forced their way across Israel’s border on Sunday turned back the clock on the Middle East conflict, putting centre stage the refugee question that many believed would be negotiated away,” and confirmed by the sweaty, stammered insistence of Zionists like Benjamin Netanyahu that “it’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen.”

Those suddenly forced to defend not only the brutal excesses of their system, but the very racism of ethnic cleansing, exclusion, and apartheid upon which its existence relies, find themselves in a situation both uncomfortable and unprecedented. They have no reason to expect it to become easier in the coming months, as further waves of returning refugees push their fight for justice closer to the center of the world’s attention.

But June 5 will shape the outline of this next chapter in the Palestinian saga: its intensity, its length, and what follows it. Was May 15 a singular moment, or perhaps one suited for occasional repetition? Or was it the harbinger of a sustained, consistent struggle to come, a Third Intifada simultaneously challenging Israel from within, on every border, and across the globe?

Palestinians have amply demonstrated their ability to resist occupation over the long haul, while the global solidarity network supporting them has reacted capably to atrocities like the slaughters of 1,400 Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead and nine passengers on the first Freedom Flotilla. If these two movements can organize and mobilize as effectively now, seizing a unique opportunity to take the offensive and keep it, the Palestinian freedom struggle could prove a quicker and more decisive one than many of us had dared to hope.

Joe Catron is a resident of Brooklyn, New York and a current member of the International Solidarity Movement – Gaza Strip. He writes in a personal capacity.

‘The Israel Lobby’ — the docudrama. Part 1, the Prophecy

May 30, 2011

Ben Fishbein

This screenplay is a work of fiction. Almost all details have been invented, although the historical backdrop is largely accurate. Some public figures’ real names have been used as talismans of the important political reality in which the story is based, but the details of their lives– imagined.

I. October 1973. A thin man of 65 is walking through Washington. His face is pale above a proper uniform, blazer and dark wool slacks. He recognizes a friend in an oldfashioned suit walking ahead of him and rushes up to tap him on the shoulder. The man turns around and glares at him from a rotting face. The nightmare sequence is repeated twice–dead faces in old suits.

Wilson wakes up from his dream. In the twinbed beside his, his wife wears a mask against the morning light.

II. Now it is daytime and Wilson is walking through downtown Washington, past Lafayette Park across from the White House. A big pro-Israel rally is taking place. Israel has been overrun at the start of the October war. A woman on a bullhorn shouts that the Jewish state that made the desert bloom and served the U.S. again and again is now on the verge of destruction and the American government doesn’t care. Wilson flinches as a demonstrator lunges past him on the sidewalk, then smiles frozenly when another hands him a flyer. It has an image of barbed wire crisscrossing a map of Israel under the words, Never again? Wilson slips it into a trash can.

He hangs his blazer in the hall closet. Home is a townhouse on a narrow street near Dupont Circle. There are a few artifacts from the East among the furnishings, a tapestry, a large Berber rug. His wife is on the couch doing a crossword. They enjoy a simple joyless dinner in the kitchen. Fish and broccoli. The television is on, a small black and white. Nixon announces that he is airlifting arms to Israel to save the Jewish state. Wilson’s wife glances at him but his face is impassive.

She: “Mrs. Elkind was at Betty’s garden club lunch.”

He: “Remind me.”

“Your son was dating her daughter. Till her mother objected.”

“I thought you objected.”

“Sometimes I can’t believe what passes for your memory.”

“Well I thought you did.”

“I didn’t say anything. She did. It was the one thing we could agree on. And today she said that you were an Arabist.”

“And what did you say?”

“Well I didn’t think so. You had ambassadorial grade when you retired and you worked with four presidents.”

Wilson has an ironical smile. “Arabist. It is a polite way of saying anti-semite.”

“Evan, please. I knew I shouldn’t have told you.”

“Next time you must agree with her, and ask her what is someone who tries to understand the Jewish condition in Europe or the Middle East, a Jewist?”

“I don’t know why I tell you these things.”

She watches All in the Family, and he goes back to a room that serves as sewing room and storage and study. Between oil paintings of the Wilson children there are framed 8-by-10 photographs of four presidents on the wall. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy. Wilson opens a rolltop desk and scrapes around the little drawers till he finds an old address book filled with penciled and ink-scratched names. He finds what he is looking for, Henderson, an entry with many scratched-out numbers. He picks up a dial phone. In Arkansas, a woman answers.

Wilson: “Hello. Is Loy there?”

“Who do I say is calling?”

“Wilson.”

After a long interval, a man’s voice comes on, deep with a slight southern accent, irritated. “Why you calling Evan?”

“You watch the news.”

“I told you not to call me.”

“Unless.”

“That’s right, unless life depends. Alright Evan.”

“Loy why do I remember the name Elkind?”

There is a grunt and pause. “Rabbi. ACJ.”

“They were on our side?”

“Yeah, but I hate to break it to you Evan, we failed.”

The line goes dead.

III. A week or so later. A classroom at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Tom Friedman doesn’t have his signature mustache yet, but he holds a telescoping steel pointer as he gives a lecture to his fellow students with a map of Israel and Palestine and the surrounding countries. He describes the miracle of the Six Day War, how the Israelis took out the Syrian air force on the ground. He is enthusiastic, makes a chalk outline of the Sinai and draws a giant blue arrow across it.

A tall blond teaching assistant watches from the front desk, clearly impressed but mildly skeptical. He has fencing gear at his side, he’s half a jock.

He asks, “There wasn’t a way to avert that war?”

Friedman stops, annoyed. “The Arabs wanted war, Steve. Nasser blockaded the straits of Tiran.” Again, the pointer. “It is one of Israel’s only vital ports.”

The teacher presses. “But wasn’t there an expansionist aim to the war? And is that why this one is happening now?”

Friedman is graveled for a moment, then holds the pointer up to Tel Aviv and then glides it over to Jenin in the West Bank. “I don’t think you appreciate the geography, Steve. This distance here is smaller than the distance from where we are standing to the Mississippi River in St. Paul. The Arabs live here in the Judean hills. They can rain down rockets on the largest city in Israel. They often have. What choice does that leave Israel?

“What would we do if St. Paul declared war on us and massed troops on the other side of the Mississippi.”

He turns to the classroom. “But I guess the rockets wouldn’t reach Steve in Minnetonka.” It’s a jab at the affluent suburb he believes Steve Walt lives in.

Walt grins uncomfortably and slouches back in his seat, defeated. Friedman returns to his excited chalktalk of the Sinai.

“Now here is the position of the Golani Brigade,” he says. “They are the elite. All Israelis have to serve in the armed forces, but the Golani is taken from the very, very–“

IV. A week or two have gone by. Wilson sits at the dining room table, ruminating. A newspaper is unread before him, alongside a crystal vase of cut flowers. The headlines are blaring. The Syrians have been routed. The Egyptians are trapped in the Mitla pass in Sinai. There is a photo of young Ariel Sharon. He has enveloped the Egyptians. There is a photograph of a charred tank with charred corpses in the desert.

Wilson is tormented. He goes upstairs then climbs a small wooden ladder into the attic and frees the cap on the roof to give himself some light. There are many boxes piled here and there from his diplomatic service. He moves boxes around till he finds 1947-50, marked Partition, Recognition. He drags the box out into the light and prises the top loose. A mouse flies out the back of the box and gives Wilson a start. A lot of the papers have been chewed up to make bedding for mice.

Wilson lifts out an intact folder. Inside is a copy of the letter from Secretary of State George Marshall to Harry Truman alerting him that the Zionists have announced the establishment of a Jewish state, on May 14, 1948. The typewritten words Jewish state have been crossed out with a pencil, and an aide has written “Israel” into the memorandum.

Wilson is frozen half in shadow and light. He flashes back 25 years.

He is youngish, in the ornate Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building. Secretary of State Marshall has just received the typed memo from an aide and pencils his initials on it grimly and hands it to Wilson to bring to the White House. Wilson has started down the checkerboard tiled hall when the phone rings and Marshall comes to the door and calls out to him. He motions for the letter and crosses the words “Jewish state” out with a pencil and writes in Israel. Wilson goes clattering down the wide marble stairwell of the OEOB.

V. Weeks have elapsed. A middle class neighborhood in Philadelphia. A few boys and girls are playing touch football in a worn-to-dirt back yard. Inside the house, Douglas Feith sits at the kitchen table, typing a letter to the New York Times. Douglas is 14, precocious, with shaggy hair and glasses. He stops at the word Sinai and tries several spellings, sounding the letters out in the air, before he grabs a nearby atlas. He reads aloud as he types.

“Israel cannot sacrifice the Sinai, it will have no security. The Bible mentions the Sinai many times when it speaks of the kingdom of David.…”

There are footsteps and young Douglas looks up. His father is home from work, standing in the kitchen door, wearing a white short-sleeved shirt. On the wall is a portrait of Theodore Herzl. The father leans over the boy’s shoulder and jabs the page, where his son has written Nasser.

“You’re spelling it wrong,” he says. “It’s M-o-m-s-e-r.”

The son looks up quizzically. “No I’m not. It’s N-a-s-s-e-r.”

“Nasser the Momser. That’s the only name for him.”

The son gets a flabbergasted look, momser is Yiddish for bastard. “I can’t write that in the New York Times.”

“They’re goyim, what do they know?”

The son turns his face determinedly to the typewriter and continues his work. As he types, the father drops an open letter in front of his son. It is from the Holocaust museum. They want to know if there are any photographs of Dalck Feith’s five brothers and sisters.

“We have pictures,” the son declares.

“They’re not getting them.”

“Dad come on.”

The father picks up the letter. “These are the same bastards who didn’t bomb the railroads when they could. And now they want pictures? Feh.”

He walks out of the room and the son peers back at his letter.

VI. Wilson moves purposely down the street in downtown Washington and pushes open the big coffered brass door of the National Archives. He submits a slip and the curators wheel out a cart with eight grey document boxes piled on it. He lifts them on to his desk and the curator hands him a rules sheet. He has to use a pencil, and put on white gloves when he is handling the photographs. The oil in your fingertips can ruin the emulsion on photographs. We see him turning slowly through the pages with a glazed expression on his face. We see his own name on documents. Secretary of the Anglo-American Inquiry Commission. 1947.

He opens a box of photographs and there is David Ben-Gurion. Wilson looks off in another brown study.

The scene changes to David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizman at a table in London. Fans are going. The windows are open.

“The Jewish connection to the land is unquestionable, it goes back 3000 years. There were Jews living in Jerusalem before Christians, before Muslims,” Ben Gurion is saying. ‘

Weizmann leads forward. He is older, balder, looks like Lenin with his little beard. “The Jews have brought incredible riches all over the land. The land is flourishing as never before because of scientific achievements.”

“I was asking about Jerusalem,” an Englishman with a plummy accent insists. “What are the Zionist plans for Jerusalem?”

Ben Gurion glances at Weizmann and Weizmann leans forward again. “We have no plans for Jerusalem. It would be an international city.”

Young Wilson sits watching, wearing a linen suit. Someone touches his shoulder. He goes to a back office and is on a telephone. He speaks Arabic with an American accent. It is a very tense call. It is back and forth for a minute or two, and an older commissioner in a dark suit stands there watching him. Wilson hangs up.

“They’re not coming.”

“They’re not. You mean the Egyptians?”

Wilson shakes his head. “The Egyptians. The Syrians too. The Saudis. They say they see what is unfolding. They don’t wish to be a party to it. They will be sending us a letter.”

The door opens and a lean darkhaired man in a suit comes in wearing a yarmulke.

“I’m looking for a Mr. Wilson.”

“Yes sir, that’s me.”

“Rabbi Elkind. ACJ. The American Council for Judaism.”

“Yes I got your telegram. You will testify?”

“Of course. This is very serious. The idea of a land without a people for a people without a land—Zangwill’s idea– well the land already has people and we are not a people, we are a world religion, and a civilization. The claim that we are a people is a nationalist conceit, born in the 19th century.”

Wilson sighs, defeated. He sees at once that the man is an intellectual not a streetfighter.

VII. Wilson’s living room. A day or two later. Wilson and his wife sit with the newspaper and the mail in mid-morning. It is obviously a ritual. There are cut flowers on the table and Mrs. Wilson moves efficiently through the letters, till she comes to what looks to be a large wedding invitation with formal calligraphy on it.

“Why Liddie Elkind is getting married after all!” his wife says.

“Not to Bobby.”

“No not to Bobby,” his wife says thinly.

“That was a narrow escape. Who is she marrying?” “Some graduate student from Minnesota.”

“Another Jew?”

“I don’t think so. The wedding is private with a judge. There is a party after.”

Wilson turns his head away and puts the paper down. He has his first feeling of resolution and determination since the beginning of the docudrama, and maybe for the last 30 years.

“I am going to write a book,” he says, thinking out loud.

“You. Write a book? You can barely write a shopping list. About what, Evan.”

He flushes and puts down the paper, already reconsidering. “The Easter bunny.”

“The Easter bunny?” He drops the paper and starts up the steps.

“The Easter Bunny and Liddy Elkind’s Jewish boyfriend, it will be a potboiler.”

“Don’t be silly with me Evan.”

“The Israel lobby,” he calls down absently.

“The Israel bunny?”

He is at the bottom of the attic steps, about to go up to his boxes, and calls down loudly, “The Israel lobby!!”

VIII. It’s that night. Another bad night for Wilson. He is tossing and turning and groaning. His wife gets out earplugs for herself but Wilson continues to writhe.

He is back in his nightmare of the streets. He goes up to old friends and when they turn their faces are rotted.

He wakes up and lies there. His eyes open and they are like the gates of hell, black and staring. He is sweating. He sits up at last on the bed and holds his knees. Brooks Brother boxer shorts with little hanging sheep on them. His chest heaves as if he has run a marathon.

He has had a kind of backward vision. As he collects his breath we see what he prompted his dream.

It is a meeting in the White House. Truman is there and Marshall and Acheson and Dulles. They call on young Wilson to read a statement. The paper trembles in his hand.

“Even the most cursory survey of Arab opinion suggests the grimmest prospects: that a Jewish state in Palestine can only be established by force, and it can only be preserved by force.”

He sits up on the bed sweating. Everything he said has come true. There was a war in ’48, a war in ’56, a war in ’67 and now this one in ’73. He thinks about Folke Bernadotte killed at a checkpoint in Jerusalem in ’48. He thinks of Bobby Kennedy killed in the Los Angeles hotel kitchen. He thinks of the charred bodies in the tanks of the Sinai. They are all fulfillment of the prophecy.

To be continued.

The radicalization of antiwar congressman Walter Jones, R-S.C.

May 30, 2011

Philip Weiss

Beautiful report by George C. Wilson at the Nation on South Carolina Congressman Walter Jones’s crusade to get American out of Afghanistan. Joined by antiwar Democrats, like Filner and Woolsey and Schakowsky (Oh Jan where are you on Israel!) and Kucinich, and Republican Ron Paul. The greatness of this piece is: We are all born into certain attitudes. I was born into them in the Jewish liberal East Coast. When we grow up we get to think for ourselves. Walter Jones is thinking for himself, about America’s crazy foreign policy. From Wilson’s piece:

Even though more retired military people live in Jones’s district than in most other districts in the country, he has discovered that many marines who served in Afghanistan agree with him that the United States is fighting a hopeless, never-ending war for a corrupt government. Jones, who gets down on his knees every night to pray for God’s guidance on the issues he will be voting on in the House of Representatives, is conscience-stricken about all the American lives being lost or ruined in Afghanistan and Iraq. His conscience, laminated to his guilt for voting to invade Iraq in 2002, has radicalized this conservative Republican from rural North Carolina into doing everything he can to get the roughly 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan the hell out of there.

Jones is seeking co-sponsors on a bill that would force President Obama to send a plan to Congress to pull all our troops out of Afghanistan. Jones is especially eager to win over Republicans to his side in hopes of compelling Boehner to become more flexible on the pullout. As of the May Congressional recess, Jones had forty-one co-sponsors signed up, including seven Republicans.

Jones has allied himself with liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich on many issues raised by the “war on terror” and Obama’s decision in late March to go to war against the Libyan government without bothering to get Congressional authorization. “We must not let any war continue absent legal authorization by Congress,” Kucinich said. He contends that Obama not only violated the War Powers Act of 1973 but also the Constitution, which empowers Congress, not the president, to declare war and provide for the common defense, in Arti-
cle 1, Section 8. Kucinich has vowed to force a vote in the House “to end US military operations in Libya.” Jones and Kucinich are discussing filing suit in federal court to force a judicial ruling on whether Obama overstepped his constitutional bounds regarding Libya.

Jones is also a point man in an effort in the House to grab back from the president the powers the founding fathers gave Congress to declare war and provide for the common defense…

Here is Jones’s brief for withdrawing from Afghanistan as early as December 31, drawn from our talks and his recent statements on the House floor and in news conferences:

§â€ˆ”Afghanistan will never be changed,” no matter how many troops we send there or how many billions we spend in the corruptly led country. “Great leaders and great nations have tried to change Afghanistan. We’re trying to change a country that no one else has changed. It’s different from Iraq in a multitude of ways. At least Iraq had a semblance of government. Afghanistan has none of that.”

§â€ˆThe Afghan Infrastructure Fund of $400 million “would help create another ‘bridge to nowhere,’” Jones contended in championing an amendment to eliminate the money. It is “going to be borrowed money from the Chinese to begin with…. We’re propping up a corrupt, dishonest government headed by President Karzai,” he said. “And we’re going to say to the American people, we can’t help you with your infrastructure needs in your counties, in your towns.” Jones’s amendment was defeated 294 to 135, but he got ninety-nine Democrats and thirty-six Republicans, including Republican Fred Upton of Michigan, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to vote with him.

§â€ˆ”I want to share very quickly a letter from a retired colonel who’s a marine [who] lives in my district,” Jones told his House colleagues. He quoted: “‘I would have been on my third or fourth deployment by now to a war that has gone on too long…. It makes no sense if we’re there four years or forty. The results will be the same…. This war is costing the United States billions of dollars a month to wage, and we still continue to get more young Americans killed. The Afghan war has no end state for us.’”

Some questions about a transition to one state

May 30, 2011

Robert

It has been a little over a year since John Mearsheimer gave his talk “The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews versus New Afrikaners” which clearly and unequivocally predicted that the I-P conflict would end with the One State Solution. A year of shock and recognition has now led to great curiosity about the how the transition to One State is going to come about. I would like to ask some open-ended questions and elicit the response, and the knowledge base of the Mondoweiss community. I encourage critical responses to all the questions and points that I’m bringing up here. The essential questions are in bold.

Inability to get recognition at UN – Sep 2011

Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad is making his push for UN recognition of Palestine in September 2011, following his two year state-building program. However, the vote in the Security Council is virtually certain to be vetoed by the Security Council. Joseph Deiss, the President of the UN General Assembly, said that there was no way that the UNGA would go ahead with a vote on Palestine statehood without a recommendation from the Security Council.  Approval in the Security Council can be expected to by blocked by an American veto.

Thus it appears that the September vote will fail to achieve the desired goal of UN recognition of statehood in September. The Palestinians will have a choice thereafter to continue with the status-quo, which is more palatable for the leadership, while providing sustenance to the Occupation. The alternative choice is to take the One State road, the first step of which is the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority.

Dissolution of the Palestinian Authority

How is the dissolution of the PA going to take place? The international donors funding the PA support hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers in the West Bank, and of course power and prestige for the leaders. First question, I would like to know if the dissolution of the PA would create a hardship so difficult that it is impossible? I’ll then ask the question in a softer way: if not impossible, is it merely improbable? Will Israel succeed in forestalling the One State Solution for decades to come by buying off Palestinians with PA jobs?

While I can see that dissolution of the PA, and demands by Palestinian citizens for a binational state will be a powerful force, Palestinians must be willing to pull the trigger on it. That means giving up the idea of an independent state. If Palestinians are flatly unwilling to give up on the independent Palestinian state, and they stick to it like glue, then the Israelis might win and the Palestinians will get Bantustans for a long time to come.

I would like to ask commenters, particularly Palestinian commenters, what is the feeling and thinking in the Palestinian community regarding attachment to the state, overriding the leverage created by dissolving the state and making the conflict exclusively about voting rights?

Is it sufficient for Palestinians to have a only a cultural identity, as opposed to an exclusive national identity?

Following the Push for One State

I agree with Mearsheimer’s overall outline that the apparent nature of Israel as an Apartheid state. The framing of the issue as one of voting rights seems powerful, in that it resonates with America’s civil rights history. However, the Zionist hold on American thinking processes is also powerful. Is it conceivable that even after the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority, that the American public still would not be persuaded to extend equal voting rights to Palestinians?

The visit by Netanyahu to Congress and AIPAC, showed a frightening level of power over Congress, akin to a hammerlock. Is it possible that the power of the Israel Lobby is so strong in the US, and to some degree the EU, that even if the PA dissolves itself, that there still would be no effective action?

Is it possible that BDS would fail to be of sufficient power to effect change? Is it possible that even if there were a realistic medium degree of European BDS, that American, Canadian, Chinese and Russian trading would simply fill the gap?

There is a danger that the One State threat is a bluff that will be called by Israel. The danger is that Israel will buy off the PA and the Palestinians and give just enough progress to keep it from dissolving itself. In other words, find ways to continue the time-wasting negotiation game.

Demographic picture of One State

The demographic reunification of Israel-Palestine has three stages: integration of the West Bank, integration of Gaza, and the resettlement of those refugees that wish to return.

The current Jewish/Palestinian demographic ratio in Israel is 75.3%/20.5% .

With West Bank-only (no Gaza) integration, the ratio is 56.6%/40.3%.

With West Bank and Gaza integration, the ratio is 48.8%/48.4%.

With West Bank, Gaza, and return and integration of refugees from Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan (specifically those still in camps, and without Jordanian government services) the ratio is 44.2%/53.4%.

The numbers don’t add up to 100% because of citizens who are neither Jewish nor Palestinian.

The question being asked here is: Will the changes in demography, created by Palestinian integration in the One State Solution, materially affect how Americans, Europeans, and others feel about BDS of Israel? Will the Israel Lobby be able to use the demographic picture to block effectiveness of BDS?

I recognize that these questions are very difficult, but Mondoweiss has numerous well read readers who have already have insight on questions that I am only beginning to ask. I look forward to investigation of how the One State Solution will ever be brought about, or if, in fact, it will be.

When Satloff says 1967 is a ‘major departure from policy,’ he’s wrong

May 30, 2011

Michael Several

In an opinion piece written for the Jewish Journal on May 24, Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Washington Institute of Middle East Policy, characterized President Obama’s statement that “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states” as “a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy.” That simply is false.

First, the Congress of the United States recognizes the importance and significance of the 1967 border. Public Law 108-11, enacted in 2003 to provide among other items, $9 billion dollars in loan guarantees to Israel, states:

“That guarantees may be issued under this section only to support activities in the geographic areas which were subject to the administration of the Government of Israel before June 5, 1967: Provided further, That the amount of guarantees that may be issued shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount extended or estimated to have been extended by the Government of Israel during the period from March 1, 2003, to the date of issue of the guarantee, for activities which the President determines are inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and the Government of Israel regarding the implementation of the loan guarantee program: Provided further, That the President shall submit a report to Congress no later than September 30 of each fiscal year during the pendency of the program specifying the amount calculated under the preceding proviso and that will be deducted from the amount of guarantees authorized to be issued in the next fiscal year”. According to the Congressional Research Service, “in 2003 and 2005, the United States reduced loan guarantees to Israel by an amount equal to Israel’s estimated spending on settlement construction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip”.

Second, numerous statements were made from 2009 through 2010 by government officials that made the same points that President Obama made. The following are some of those statements:

Clinton Remarks with Egyptian FM Gheit, 11/4/09:

We would not be having this discussion if we had reached a deal [in 2000], because as you remember, the parameters that were laid out would have recognized a state on the ’67 borders with some swapping of land agreeable to both sides, and it would have also established the capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, and it would have created a shared responsibility with international support to protect the holy places that are holy to all three major religions.

Clinton Remarks after meeting with Jordan FM Nasser Judeh, 1/8/10:

The United States believes that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

Clinton remarks: AIPAC, 3/22/10.

But, we believe – (applause) – we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements. (Applause.)

Clinton Remarks at U.S.-Islamic Forum, 4/14/10

We believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

Remarks by Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, U.S. Deputy Representative to the United Nations, on the Middle East, in the Security Council Chamber, April 14, 2010

Only through good-faith negotiations can the parties mutually agree on an outcome that ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

Clinton remarks: opening of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, 4/15/10

But as a good friend, we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.

Remarks by Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary, Political-Military Affairs, at the Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Washington, DC, July 16, 2010

We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

Clinton speech ATFP, 10/20/10

We remain convinced that if they persevere with negotiations, the parties can agree on an outcome that ends the conflict; reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps – (applause) – and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements. (Applause.)

For Satloff to now characterize President Obama’s statement as a major departure from U.S. policy because he was the first president to say this principle, you would have to believe that our State Department and our mission to the United Nations do not speak for the government they represent. With all due respect to Mr. Satloff, such a belief is nonsense.

Michael Several co-edits the website, Settlements in Palestine.

Learning Torah in the West Bank, with the protection of the IDF, and US donations

May 30, 2011

Philip Weiss

The following is part of an email from Yaakov David Ha’ivri, who directs the Shomron Liaison Office, which supports Israeli settlers in the Nablus area of the northern West Bank. I’m leaving his spelling as is.

Dear Friends, Please see below information on the concert we have planed to celebarte Jerusalem day this coming Teusday night. The amazing miricles of the Six Day War with the return of our holy city Jerusalem and all of our bibical heartland Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people is a clear mark of the begining of the redemtion of our people and the honor of HaShem. I hope that you can join us at the concert and if you can’t be there in person that you will tak part through a donation to help sponsor the event. If you would like to make a donation online you can do so via paypal at this link…

or send a check to: Shuva Israel PO Box:

27255 Austin TX 78755 USA

And this is from the Shomron site, for Tuesday night, they’re planning a visit to Joseph’s Tomb.

On the day of the liberation of Jerusalem and the Shomron We are giving thanks to Hashem and taking a firm hold of our homeland. On Tuesday, the eve of the 28th of Iyar (31/5/2011) We will go up to Mitzpeh Yosef at the top of Mount Gerizim, overlooking Shechem, with the cry: Kever Yosef must be given equal status with the Machpela Cave!

We demand free passage into Yosef’s resting place for people coming to pray and to learn Torah under the IDf’s complete jurisdiction.

Obama is the wrong target

NOVANEWS

 

capitol 

When I was reflecting on Netanyahu’s domination and control of the Congress of the United States of America, the first headline that came into my mind for this article was Goodbye to peace. I’ll now explain why I think the headline above is more appropriate.

Because of its flirtation with the proposition that peace between an Israeli and Palestinian state must be based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps, President Obama’s speech on Middle East policy principles did one useful thing. And it was Ha-aretz’s Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, who put his finger most firmly on it. We should be grateful to Obama, he wrote, because his speech “exposed the naked truth – that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want peace.”

The Gentile me almost always agrees with Gideon but on this occasion, and leaving aside the fact that it was Netanyahu’s rejection of what Obama said initially that exposed the naked truth, I think Gideon’s version of it needs two clarifications.

One is that the truth was exposed like never before only to those who have not been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda – only a minority of Americans, for example.

The other boils down to this. What Netanyahu does want, and only because of his concern about Israel’s growing isolation in the world, is peace on Zionism’s terms, which means the Palestinians giving up their struggle for an acceptable minimum of justice and accepting crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of three or four Bantustatans on about 40% of the West Bank, and which they could call a state if they wished. That’s what Netanyahu meant but did not say when, at his arrogant, insufferably self-righteous and devious best, he assured both houses of the U.S. Congress that “We’ll be generous about the size of the Palestinian state.” Put another way, what Netanyahu doesn’t want is peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims could accept – a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation and a contiguous and viable Palestinian mini state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem an open city and the capital of two states.

The only question of interest about Netanyahu is this. Does he really believe the nonsense he speaks about the alleged threats to Israel’s security or is he a smooth-talking but diabolical salesman, selling what he knows to be Zionist propaganda lies as truth?

Obama’s speech also exposed (again) the weakness of his own position on policy matters for Israel/Palestine when he said: “Ultimately it is up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them – not by the United States, not by anybody else.”

As things are that means Israel remains free to continue its criminal ways:

– defying UN Security Council resolutions and international law;

– pushing ahead with more and more illegal settlements to consolidate its hold on those parts of occupied West Bank it intends to keep for ever;

– oppressing the occupied Palestinians in the hope that, out of complete despair, they will either give up their struggle for an acceptable minimum amount of justice and be prepared to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table or, better still from Zionism’s perspective, will abandon their homeland and seek a new life elsewhere in the Arab world and beyond; and

– resorting to state terrorism (attacks on neighbouring Arab countries and possibly Iran) whenever its leaders feel the need to impose their will on the region.

Because of Israel’s dependence on the U.S. in a number of ways, not the least of them being the American veto of Security Council resolutions not to Israel’s liking, Obama does have the leverage to impose a Middle East peace on terms that would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice without any risk to Israel’s security. And there’s a very compelling case for saying he ought to do so if only to best protect America’s own interests. I believe Obama knows this, so the question of real interest about him is this. Why won’t he act?

The answer of almost all of his critics who call and campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians is that he’s a willing tool of the Zionist lobby. I don’t believe this to be the case. I think the reality of Obama’s position was best summed up by Professor John J. Mearsheimer. To Al Jazeera recently he said this:

“ The sad fact is that Obama has remarkably little manoeuvre room on the foreign policy front. The most important item on his agenda is settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there he knows what has to be done: Push both sides toward a two-state solution, which is the best outcome for all the parties, including the United States. Indeed, he has been trying to do just that since he took office in January 2009. But the remarkably powerful Israel lobby makes it virtually impossible for him to put meaningful pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is committed to creating a Greater Israel in which the Palestinians are restricted to a handful of disconnected and impoverished enclaves. And Obama is certainly not going to buck the lobby – with the 2012 presidential election looming larger every day… The bottom line is that the US is in deep trouble in the Middle East and needs new policies for that region. But regrettably there is little prospect of that happening anytime soon. All of this is to say that there was no way that Obama could do anything but disappoint with Thursday’s speech, because he is trapped in an iron cage.”

This cage is, of course, the Zionist lobby’s control through its many stooges in Congress of policy for Israel-Palestine. It’s the cage in which post Eisenhower every American president has been trapped. As former ambassador Chas Freeman put it in a recent interview with Russia Today, Israeli leaders don’t have to listen to the president because they know their lobby can block him in Congress.

And that’s why, despite the fact that like Ilan Pappe I am sick and tired of Obama’s rhetoric, I’ve come to the conclusion that no useful purpose is served by supporters of justice for the Palestinians attacking him. He’s the wrong target.The right target is America’s pork-barrel system of politics which puts what passes for democracy up for sale to the highest bidders. In this context I say, have always said, that I don’t blame the Zionist lobby for playing the game the way it does. It is only playing by the rules. It’s the rules that need to be changed if Obama in a second term, or any future American president, is going to be able to escape from the cage and use the leverage he has to oblige Israel to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.

Some members of Congress who applauded Netanyahu in a scene that reminded me of the enthusiasm for Hitler at Nazi rallies accused Obama of betraying Israel. There has indeed been a betrayal, but what has been betrayed is democracy in America. The many members of Congress who read from Zionism’s script and dance to its tune in order to secure election campaign funds and organized Jewish votes in tight races are not merely stooges. Because they are putting the interests of a foreign power above those of their own country, it’s time to call them what they really are – traitors.

In my view exposing them as such should be given the highest priority by all who campaign in various ways for justice for the Palestinians and peace for all.

Footnote:

Memo to all concerned in Congress and the White House.

Israel is not a “Jewish state”. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslim? Israel is a Zionist state. It will only be a Jewish state when it has completed its ethnic cleansing program.

30 STANDING OVATIONS…AS JOPLIN DIGS ITSELF OUT OF THE RUBBLE

NOVANEWS

Do members of the U.S. Congress know any shame? Is it possible for them to even feel such?


On Tuesday, as the people of Joplin, Missouri were digging out of the rubble and searching for the dead and missing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was received with flattering, abject deference by members of the U.S. Congress. In a speech which offered virtually nothing new, the leader of Israel was given a total of 30 standing ovations—or 31 if you want to count the fawning introduction offered up by House Speaker John Boehner, in which the Ohio Republican adoringly referred to Netanyahu as “His Excellency.”
Do members of Congress feel any shame? I do not know the answer to that, but their kowtowing to a foreign head of state has, in a very real sense, brought shame upon America. Forget Barack Obama. The real power in Washington now is AIPAC. Describing the spectacle, Lamis Andoni, a columnist for Aljazeera, referred to Netanyahu as “the unchallenged king of Capitol Hill”, and then added the following:

It was shocking, almost surreal, watching the smiling faces of Congressmen and Senators enthralled at Netanyahu’s glorification of the subjugation of another people under the yoke of military oppression. It was the equivalent of celebrating the war of extermination of Native Americans, slavery and racial segregation all at once.

On Friday, authorities in Joplin raised the death toll to 132. It is clear that our “leaders” in Washington have misplaced their priorities. Their love for a foreign head of state and their attachment to a nation which violates international law and practices apartheid seems genuinely to outweigh their concern for Americans coping with a major disaster. Below, listed in order, are the passages from Netanyahu’s speech which prompted their rising to their feet in homage.

House Speaker John Boehner:

“I have the high privilege and the distinct honor of presenting to you His Excellency, Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel.””

Netanyahu:

1. “I’m deeply moved by this warm welcome…I see a lot of new friends of Israel here as well—Democrats  and Republicans alike!” (standing ovation)

2. “Israel has no better friend than America and America has no better friend than Israel.” (standing ovation)

3. “Congratulations America. Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance!” (standing ovation)

4. “You don’t need to send American troops to Israel, we defend ourselves.” (standing ovation)

5. (Netanyahu gets heckled by protestor Rae Abileah. Abileah is booed, but Netanyahu gets another standing ovation—for saying nothing)

6. “You know, I take it as a badge of honor and so should you—that in our free societies you can have these protests. You can’t have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This is real democracy!” (standing ovation)

7. “In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out! It is different!” (standing ovation)

8. “Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East!” (standing ovation)

9. “Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet!” (standing ovation)

10. “There are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies. Not you. Not America!” (standing ovation)

11. “The more that Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation.”(standing ovation)

12. “And this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message—that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons!” (standing ovation)

13. “We’re a nation that rose from the ashes of the holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again!” (standing ovation)

14. “The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan are vital, but they’re not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians.” (standing ovation)

15. “You have to understand this. In Judea and Samaria the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers!” (standing ovation)

16. “No distortion of history could deny the 4,000 year old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land!” (standing ovation)

17. “The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they’ll be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in their own state!” (standing ovation)

18. “You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about!” (standing ovation)

19. “And worst of all, they (Palestinians) continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. My friends, this must come to an end!” (standing ovation)

20. “It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state!’” (standing ovation)

21. “I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise.” (standing ovation)

22. “Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967!” (standing ovation)

23. “It means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel!” (standing ovation)

24. “Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel!” (standing ovation)

25. “Could you live that way? Well we’re not going to live that way either!” (standing ovation)

26. “So it’s therefore vital, absolutely vital, that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it’s vital, absolutely vital, that Israel maintain a long term military presence along the Jordan River!” (standing ovation)

27. “Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated!” (standing ovation)

28. “Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaida! That we will not do!” (standing ovation)

29. “And if you do, I promise you this, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so!” (standing ovation)

30. May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America! (standing ovation)

View the four-part video presentation of Netanyahu’s speech, courtesy of MoxNews.com:

Part one

Part two

Part three

Part four

And finally, a refutation of some of Netanyahu’s assertions courtesy of Aadel M Al-Mahdy at Uprooted Palestinians:

“You don’t need to send American troops to Israel, we defend ourselves.“
Not true. Israel does not defend itself. Israel is historically the number one recipient of US foreign aid. The US gives Israel a whopping $3 billion a year in aid and military equipment, most of which is used to defend Israel’s illegal occupation.
“In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not occupiers.” (Raucous standing ovation.)
Not True. Israel’s nearly 44-year long occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal according to international law. The more than 500,000 Jewish Israelis who have been moved into the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967 are settlers who occupyPalestinian land – much of it privately owned by Palestinians and stolen by Jews the rest of it expropriated by the Israeli state – all taken for exclusive Jewish use. This is occupation.
Moreover, “Judea and Samaria” are the biblical terms for that piece of land. Is Bibi suggesting a state based not on secular law but on the Bible? A Jewish theocracy? Is this the Israel that our Congress promotes?
“You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it.”
Not true. Within Israel, the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian do have the right to vote and run for office. But they are victims of systematic housing, workplaceand resource discrimination. For example, 93% of Israeli land is reserved for Jews. In the West Bank, more than 2 million Palestinians live under Israeli occupation—that is, their lives are ruled by Israeli military law, while their Jewish settler neighbors are subject to Israeli civil law. Another 1.5 million Gazans live under siege by the Israeli military. Is this democracy?

“Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.”
Not true. The original UN charter that created Israel, as still recognized by the international community, identified Jerusalem as an internationalized zone that must be shared by all parties.

PARROTING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S LINE ON IRAN AND SYRIA—THE WASHINGTON POST IS AT IT AGAIN

NOVANEWS

 


 

One of the great benefits of blogging is the opportunity to learn from those who comment on our posts.  We thought that Pirouz’s contributions regarding this post, “Parroting the Obama Administration’s Line on Iran and Syria,” added substantially to our arguments in the original version.  Therefore, we have revised the piece to take account of Pirouz’s contributions.  Please see the new version below.

Last year, we took The Washington Post’s Joby Warrick to task for stories he published that relied “almost entirely on unnamed U.S. officials and a known terrorist organization” to advance “Iraq-redux” claims that the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear weapons, see here andhere.  Now, Warrick published a front-page story in The Washington Post—a story which relied entirely (no “almost”) on unnamed “U.S. officials and a diplomat from an allied nation” to report that

“Iran is dispatching increasing numbers of trainers and advisers—including members of its elite Quds Force—into Syria to help crush anti-government demonstrations that are threatening to topple Iran’s most important ally in the region.  The influx of Iranian manpower is adding to a steady stream of aid from Tehran that includes not only weapons and riot gear but also sophisticated surveillance equipment that is helping Syrian authorities track down opponents through their Facebook and Twitter accounts.”

We would directly challenge Warrick’s assertion that “anti-government demonstrations” in Syria “are threatening to topple Iran’s most important ally in the region”.  Another story, see here, in the same edition of The Washington Post as Warrick’s offers a far more accurate characterization of the Syrian protests as having “failed to muster the numbers that brought down the presidents of Egypt and Tunisia earlier this year”, and further notes that “despite [protestors’] efforts, there has been no indication that the army would be willing to break ranks with the regime.”  We would add that the demonstrations in Syria, while persistent, have been concentrated in essentially peripheral areas of the country.

But to explore such issues would constitute serious journalism, and that is not what Warrick is doing here.  What he is doing is helping to disseminate what amounts to the Obama Administration’s chosen propaganda line:  popular unrest is making President Assad as “illegitimate” as Qaddafi in Libya, and the Islamic Republic of Iran—unlike the United States, which is valiantly standing by the “people” of Libya in their efforts to overthrow a dictator—is propping up a dictator in Syria.

We would argue that reality is quite different from this propaganda line:  the United States, without having done its homework, intervened on behalf of one side in a civil war in Libya, and still has not managed to oust Qaddafi.  Conversely, the unrest in Syria does not come anywhere close to a “civil war” threshold.  In our view, President Assad continues to command the support of at least half of Syria’s population.  But the Administration is worried about Iran’s rising standing and influence across the region—and is turning to every propaganda tool it can think of to “push back” against the Islamic Republic’s popularity in the Middle East—something attested to over several years by multiple public opinion polls.

In his story, apart from the very obvious limitations on his sourcing, Warrick makes no effort to offer an alternative perspective on the line he was fed by the Obama Administration.  Warrick cites one outside commentator—Michael Singh, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  We know, like, and respect Michael Singh.  But, before Warrick’s story was published byThe Washington Post, Michael had already published his own Op Ed, see here, in The Wall Street Journal subscribing to the Obama Administration’s narrative about Iranian involvement in Syria.  Moreover, the Washington Institute is an AIPAC-created entity with its own agenda regarding both the Islamic Republic and Syria.  By going to Michael Singh as his sole outside commentator, Warrick assured that the Obama Administration’s preferred propaganda line would not be challenged in his “news story”.

Warrick’s story notes that

“many previous reports, mostly provided by Western officials, have described Iranian technical help in supplying Syria with riot helmets, batons and other implements of crowd control during 10 weeks of demonstrations against President Bashar al-Assad”.

Even if this is true, would Warrick or his unnamed sources prefer that the Iranians send tanks and armored personnel carriers to Syria, to support a more militarized response?  We will have more on this point below.  Now,

“in the account provided by the diplomat and the U.S. officials, the Iranian military trainers were being brought to Damascus to instruct Syrians in techniques Iran used against the nation’s Green Movement in 2009.”

What “techniques” does Warrick mean?  Effective crowd control and letting the opposition show it had no credible evidence of electoral fraud in the Islamic Republic’s June 2009 presidential election, thereby losing most of its social base—which was never close to a majority anyway?

Perhaps if Warrick had been more assiduous in his reporting he would have identified some of the flaws in the story he was handed by the Obama Administration.  As one of our regular contributors on www.RaceForIran.com points out, the Administration’s narrative about Iranian support to Syria’s security apparatus—support allegedly coming from either the NAJA (Iranian national police) or the Revolutionary Guard, depending on the (unsubstantiated) source—is fundamentally at variance with what the Syrians are actually doing.  The Syrian response to popular unrest has become heavily militarized, with extensive deployments of army units—in particular, armored and mechanized units—to deal with demonstrations.  This is something the Islamic Republic never did.

The Iranian response to urban disturbances following the June 2009 presidential election was carried out by NAJA with basij volunteers.  Neither the regular military nor the Revolutionary Guard was deployed for this purpose.  Moreover, it is outside of the training and experience of either the NAJA or the Revolutionary Guard to use armored and mechanized units for “crowd control” purposes.  So, our contributor asks—how, exactly, is it that the NAJA and/or the Revolutionary Guard are supposedly contributing advice in support of the response that the Syrians are actually carrying out?  Warrick does not even begin to explore these discrepancies.   He uncritically parrots a narrative which accuses Iran of supporting Syria in carrying out a response to popular demonstrations which the Syrians are not actually implementing.

This is all strongly reminiscent of the sorts of journalistic malpractice committed by The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other august media organizations in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  As the Iraq precedent demonstrates, sanctioning “rogue regimes” (and the Obama Administration has now sanctioned Iranian officials and agencies for their alleged involvement in human rights abuses in Syria) on the basis of demonizing narratives that are uncritically parroted by the mainstream media can put the United States on a slippery slope to war.  Given America’s experience in Iraq, it would be truly criminal for the United States to go to war again in the Middle East under false pretenses.

Warrick adds—in a completely un-sourced editorial statement—that “the Iranians were brutally effective in crushing those protests.”  By buying into the Washington political establishment’s contrived line about Iranian political life—again, without any effort at critically evaluating that line—Warrick does a disservice to his readers.  The competitive nature of Iranian politics—which assures that groups or factions which lose a political battle today will have other bites at the apple in the future—distinguishes the Islamic Republic from Bahrain or other places in the Middle East where huge chunks of the society (in Bahrain’s case, a clear majority) have no bite at the apple at all.  This might help to explain why protests in Iran after the June 2009 presidential election died out very quickly, leaving only a small contingent of oppositionists who put themselves outside the established political order—a trajectory very different from what happened in Egypt or Tunisia, or from what is happening now in Syria.  That kind of comparative analysis would be potentially enlightening, but Warrick makes no attempt at it.

Likewise, it would be good journalistic practice, in exploring how the Syrian government is responding to popular unrest, whether with foreign support or not, to compare the Syrian response to that of other regional regimes currently facing similar challenges (which Iran is not).  If The Washington Post or any other media outlet were to compare the Syrian response to that of the Bahraini regime, its reporters would not have to resort to exclusive reliance on unnamed official sources in Washington making unsubstantiated statements about foreign involvement.  For there is actual film footage, from Al Jazeera and other professional media organizations, of Saudi soldiers pouring en masse across the causeway from the Kingdom into Bahrain, to suppress a mass movement for political change that clearly did represent a majority of Bahrainis.

Surely, The Washington Post can do better than simply parrot Obama Administration propaganda.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett