Articles

The Wall Street and Drug Cartel Partnership
May 20, 2011
USA
NOVANEWS   Imperialism: Bankers, Drug Wars and Genocide by James Petras In May 2011, Mexican investigators uncovered another mass clandestine grave ...Read more
Stealing Palestinian Land Dunam by Dunam
May 20, 2011
Palestine Affairs
NOVANEWS   by Stephen Lendman   One dunam is 1,000 square meters, four dunams to an acre. Israel is stealing them ...Read more
IsraHell’s Best Friends are its Worst Enemies
May 20, 2011
ZIO-NAZI
NOVANEWS by Eileen Fleming If we truly love our friends will we always tell them the truth and call them on ...Read more
Egyptian Intifada: Hidden Hands Stoke Sectarian Strife
May 20, 2011
Egypt
NOVANEWS   CAIRO, May 19 (IPS) – Recent Muslim-Christian clashes have renewed fears of sectarian conflict in Egypt. But many ...Read more
President Obama’s True Speech on Middle East
May 20, 2011
Middle East
NOVANEWS “This movement (International Jewry) amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. This world wide conspiracy for the ...Read more
Take Care, Soldier
May 20, 2011
USA
NOVANEWS   Don’t die, soldier, hold the radiophone, don your helmet, your flak jacket, surround the village with a trench ...Read more
IsraHell Lost in Denial
May 20, 2011
ZIO-NAZI
NOVANEWS Jewish Post & News By SAM BAHOUR The Israeli government’s sigh of relief was surely heard around the globe. ...Read more
ANAYAT DURRANI: EXPOSING DANGEROUS MYTHS (AL AHRAM WEEKLY)
May 20, 2011
Politics
NOVANEWS GILAD ATZMON http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1048/re6.htm Anayat Durrani interviews jazz musician extraordinaire Gilad Atzmon, discovering a secret weapon that Palestinians have in their ...Read more
Zionist Regime of Bahrain solidifies its Orwellian system
May 19, 2011
Bahrain
NOVANEWS   "Bahrain has set up new units within its Information Affairs Authority to monitor the output of foreign news ...Read more
A Saudi crude propagandist explains Saudi counter revolution
May 19, 2011
Saudi Arabia
NOVANEWS Enjoy his reference to Saudi Arabia "leading" the Arab world.  This is like saying that Fouad Ajami speaks for ...Read more
Bahrain hosts the Fifth Feet so who cares what royal Zionist family does
May 19, 2011
Bahrain
NOVANEWS   "In Bahrain doctors and nurses who treated protesters injured by security forces have vanished. Also in Bahrain, Abdulhadi ...Read more
Sectarian agenda of the Arab counter-revolution
May 19, 2011
Middle East
NOVANEWS Comrade Joseph:  "The ongoing uprisings in the Arab world today, as is clear to all observers, do not distinguish ...Read more

The Wall Street and Drug Cartel Partnership

NOVANEWS

 

Imperialism: Bankers, Drug Wars and Genocide

by James Petras

In May 2011, Mexican investigators uncovered another mass clandestine grave with dozens of mutilated corpses; bringing the total number of victims to 40,000 killed since 2006 when the Calderon regime announced its “war on drug traffickers”. Backed by advisers, agents and arms, the White House has been the principal promotor of a ‘war’ that has totally decimated Mexico’s

society and economy.

 

If Washington has been the driving force for the regime’s war, Wall Street banks have been the main instruments ensuring the profits of the drug cartels. Every major US bank has been deeply involved in laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in drug profits, for the better part of the past decade.

Mexico’s descent into this inferno has been engineered by the leading US financial and political institutions, each supporting ‘one side or the other’ in the bloody “total war” which spares no one, no place and no moment in time. While the Pentagon arms the Mexican government and the US Drug Enforcement Agency enforces the “military solution”, the biggest US banks receive, launder and transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to the drug lords’ accounts, who then buy modern arms, pay private armies of assassins and corrupt untold numbers of political and law enforcement officials on both sides of the border.

Mexico’s Descent in the Inferno

Everyday scores, if not hundreds, of corpses – appear in streets and or are found in unmarked graves; dozens are murdered in their homes, cars, public transport, offices and even hospitals; known and unknown victims in the hundreds are kidnapped and disappear; school children, parents, teachers, doctors and businesspeople are seized in broad daylight and held for ransom or murdered in retaliation. Thousands of migrant workers are kidnapped, robbed, ransomed, murdered and evidence is emerging that some are sold into the illegal ‘organ trade’. The police are barricaded in their commissaries; the military, if and when it arrives, takes out its frustration on entire cities, shooting more civilians than cartel soldiers. Everyday life revolves around surviving the daily death toll; threats are everywhere, the armed gangs and military patrols fire and kill with virtual impunity. People live in fear and anger.

The Free Trade Agreement: The Sparks that lit the Inferno

In the late 1980’s, Mexico was in crisis, but the people chose a legal way out: they elected a President, Cuahtemoc Cardenas, on the basis of his national program to promote the economic revitalization of agriculture and industry. The Mexican elite, led by Carlos Salinas of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) choseotherwise and subverted the election: The electorate was denied its victory; the peaceful mass protests were ignored. Salinas and subsequent Mexican presidents vigorously pursued a free trade agreement (NAFTA) with the US and Canada, which rapidly drove millions of Mexican farmers, ranchers and small business people into bankruptcy. Devastation led to the flight of millions of immigrant workers. Rural movements of debtors flourished and ebbed, were co-opted or repressed. The misery of the legal economy contrasted with the burgeoning wealth of the traffickers of drugs and people, which generated a growing demand for well-paid armed auxiliaries as soldiers for the cartels. The regional drug syndicates emerged out of the local affluence.

In the new millennium, popular movements and a new electoral hope arose: Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). By 2006 a vast peaceful electoral movement promised substantial social and economic reforms to ‘integrate millions of disaffected youth’. In the parallel economy, the drug cartels were expanding and benefiting from the misery of millions of workers and peasants marginalized by the Mexican elite, who had plundered the public treasury, speculated in real estate, robbed the oil industry and created enormous privatized monopolies in the communication and banking sectors.

In 2006, millions of Mexican voters were once again denied their electoral victory: The last best hope for a peaceful transformation was dashed. Backed by the US Administration, Felipe Calderon stole the election and proceeded to launch the “War on Drug Traffickers” strategy dictated by Washington.

The War Strategy Escalates the Drug War: The Banking Crises Deepens the Ties with Drug Traffickers

The massive escalation of homicides and violence in Mexico began with the declaration of a war on the drug cartels by the fraudulently elected President Calderon, a policy pushed initially by the Bush Administration and subsequently strongly backed by the Obama – Clinton regime. Over 40,000 Mexican soldiers filled the streets, towns and barrios – violently assaulting citizens – especially young people. The cartels retaliated by escalating their armed assaults on police. The war spread to all the major cities and along the major highways and rural roads; murders multiplied and Mexico descended further into a Dantesque inferno. Meanwhile, the Obama regime ‘reaffirmed’ its support for a militarist solution on both sides of the border: Over 500,000 Mexican immigrants were seized and expelled from the US; heavily armed border patrols multiplied. Cross border gun sales grew exponentially .The US “market” for Mexican manufactured goods and agricultural products shrank, further widening the pool for cartel recruits while the supply of high powered weapons increased. White House gun and drug policies strengthened both sides in this maniacal murderous cycle: The US government armed the Calderon regime and the American gun manufacturers sold guns to the cartels through both legal and underground arms sales. Steady or increasing demand for drugs in the US – and the grotesque profits derived from trafficking and sales— remained the primary driving force behind the tidal wave of violence and societal disintegration in Mexico.

Drug profits, in the most basic sense, are secured through the ability of the cartels to launder and transfer billions of dollars through the US banking system. The scale and scope of the US banking-drug cartel alliance surpasses any other economic activity of the US private banking system. According to US Justice Department records, one bank alone, Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo), laundered $378.3 billion dollars between May 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007 (The Guardian, May 11, 2011). Every major bank in the US has served as an active financial partner of the murderous drug cartels – including Bank of America, Citibank, and JP Morgan, as well as overseas banks operating out of New York, Miami and Los Angeles, as well as London.

While the White House pays the Mexican state and army to kill Mexicans suspected of drug trafficking, the US Justice Department belatedly slaps a relatively small fine on the major US financial accomplice to the murderous drug trade, Wachovia Bank, spares its bank officials from any jail time and allows major cases to lapse into dismissal.

The major agency of the US Treasury involved in investigating money laundering, the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, deliberately ignored the blatant collaboration of US banks with drug terrorists, concentrating almost their entire staff and resources on enforcing sanctions against Iran. For seven years, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey used his power as head of the Department for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to pursue Israel’s phony “war on terrorism” against Iran, rather than shut down Wachovia’s money-laundering operations with the Mexican drug terrorists. In this period of time an estimated 40,000 Mexican civilian have been killed by the cartels and the army.

Without US arms and financial services supporting both the illegitimate Mexican regimes and the drug cartels – there could be no “drug war”, no mass killings and no state terror. The simple acts of stopping the flood of cheap subsidized US agriculture products into Mexico and de-criminalizing the use and purchase of cocaine in the US would dry up the pool of ‘cartel soldiers’ from the bankrupted Mexican peasantry and the cut back the profits and demand for illegal drugs in the US market.

The Drug Traffickers, the Banks and the White House

If the major US banks are the financial engines which allow the billion dollar drug empires to operate, the White House, the US Congress and the law enforcement agencies are the basic protectors of these banks. Despite the deep and pervasive involvement of the major banks in laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in illicit funds, the “court settlements” pursued by US prosecutors have led to no jail time for the bankers. One court’s settlement amounted to a fine of $50 million dollars, less than 0.5% of one of the banks (the Wachovia/Wells Fargo bank) $12.3 billion profits for 2009 (The Guardian, May 11, 2011). Despite the death of tens of thousands of Mexican civilians, US executive branch directed the DEA, the federal prosecutors and judges to impose such a laughable ‘punishment’ on Wachovia for its illegal services to the drug cartels. The most prominent economic officials of the Bush and Obama regimes, including Summers, Paulson, Geithner, Greenspan, Bernacke et al, are all long term associates, advisers and members of the leading financial houses and banks implicated in laundering the billions of drug profits.

Laundering drug money is one of the most lucrative sources of profit for Wall Street; the banks charge hefty commissions on the transfer of drug profits, which they then lend to borrowing institutions at interest rates far above what – if any – they pay to drug trafficker depositors. Awash in sanitized drug profits, these US titans of the finance world can easily buy their own elected officials to perpetuate the system.

Even more important and less obvious is the role of drug money in the recent financial meltdown, especially during its most critical first few weeks.

According to the head of United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, “In many instances, drug money (was)… currently the only liquid investment capital…. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor…interbank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities… (there were) signs that some banks were rescued in that way.” (Reuters, January 25,2009. US edition). Capital flows from the drug billionaires were key to floating Wachovia and other leading banks. In a word: the drug billionaires saved the capitalist financial system from collapse!

Conclusion

By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it has become clear that capital accumulation, at least in North America, is intimately linked to generalized violence and drug trafficking. Because capital accumulation is dependent on financial capital, and the latter is dependent on the industry profits from the multi-hundred-billion dollar drug trade, the entire ensemble is embedded in the ‘total war’ over drug profits. In times of deep crises the very survival of the US financial system – and through it, the world banking system – is linked to the liquidity of the drug “industry”.

At the most superficial level the destruction of Mexican and Central American societies – encompassing over 100 million people – is a result of a conflict between drug cartels and the political regimes of the region. At adeeper level there is a multiplier or “ripple effect” related to their collaboration: the cartels draw on the support of the US banks to realize their profits; they spend hundreds of millions on the US arms industry and others to secure their supplies, transport and markets; they employ tens of thousands of recruits for their vast private armies and civilian networks and they purchase the compliance of political and military officials on both sides of the borders

For its part, the Mexican government acts as a conduit for US Pentagon/Federal police, Homeland Security, drug enforcement and political apparatuses prosecuting the ‘war’, which has put Mexican lives, property and security at risk. The White House stands at the strategic center of operations – the Mexican regime serves as the front-line executioners.

On one side of the “war on drugs” are the major Wall Street banks; on the other side, the White House and its imperial military strategists and in the ‘middle’ are 90 million Mexicans and 40,000 murder victims and counting.

Relying on political fraud to impose economic deregulation in the 1990’s (neo-liberalism), the US policies led directly to the social disintegration, criminalization and militarization of the current decade. The sophisticated narco-finance economy has now become the most advanced stage of neo-liberalism. When the respectable become criminals, the criminals become respectable.

The issue of genocide in Mexico has been determined by the empire and its “knowing” bankers and cynical rulers.

Stealing Palestinian Land Dunam by Dunam

NOVANEWS

 

by Stephen Lendman

 

One dunam is 1,000 square meters, four dunams to an acre. Israel is stealing them incrementally to control all valued Palestinian land, dispossessing indigenous people illegally in the process.

B’Tselem is the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. In May, it published a comprehensive report titled, “Dispossession & Exploitation: Israel’s policy in the Jordan Valley & northern Dead Sea,” saying:

Both areas contain “the largest land reserves in the West Bank,” covering 1.6 million dunams or 28.8% of the Territory. It’s home to 65,000 Palestinians in 29 communities, as well as another 15,000 in dozens of small Bedouin ones. In addition, about 9,400 Israelis live in 37 settlements, including seven outposts.

Israel intensively exploits these areas, notably their water and other resources, to a greater extent than elsewhere in the West Bank, “demonstrat(ing) its intention: de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea area….”

In fact, settlers and many Israelis consider these areas part of Israel, claiming they’re not Palestinian Judea and Samaria land (the West Bank and Jerusalem). Moreover, Israeli governments stress maintaining control as a strategic buffer zone between Israel and the “Eastern Front,” the earlier name given a potential Iraqi/Jordanian/Syrian military coalition no longer a threat.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu, like earlier prime ministers, opposes withdrawing from Jordan Valley land, wanting Israel’s security border there permanently. As a result, longstanding Israeli policy expropriated “large swarths” for military areas, nature reserves and state property.

However, the State Comptroller determined that “Israel stole thousands of dunams of privately-owned” Jordan Valley Palestinian land, in breach of Military Order No. 58, stipulating that:

– land transactions are valid as long as Israelis carry them out “in good faith.”

Most stolen land belonged to absentee Palestinians, mostly those fleeing the West Bank in 1967. In the late 1960s and 1970s, land was seized by exchanging it, Palestinians given “substitute land that had belonged to absentees, and by direct allocation of the land of absentees, amounting to thousands of dunams.”

However, the Civil Administration’s legal advisor held that allocating absentee Palestinian land was “prima facie unlawful.” Moreover, the State Comptroller said abandoned private property belonged to original owners.

Yet hundreds of them were denied West Bank entry to prevent returning expropriated land allocated for settlements, closed military areas, or other purposes. In addition, Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea areas were registered by Jordanian authorities as government property when occupation began in 1967.

Thereafter, Israel expropriated land various ways, including by:

– taking it from Palestinian refugees for settlements from 1968 through the 1970s in violation of Military Order No. 58;

– seizing and enlarging state land by legal maneuvers;

– declaring large areas military firing zones, despite locations near settlements, farmland, and main traffic arteries;

– designating other areas nature reserves, though small parts of them are suitable for visitors, and two-thirds of them are used as military firing zones; and

– seizing land for Separation Wall use.

In total, 77.5% of Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea land is off-limits to Palestinians. Moreover, Israel “cut up the Palestinian spatial sphere and isolated Palestinian communities in the area.” Hardline policies, including home demolitions and dispossessions accelerated the process.

Expropriating Area Water

Jordan Valley land is one of the West Bank’s richest natural water sources from the Jordan River Basin, floodwaters, and waters flowing into the Jordan River from West Bank streams and underground sources from the Mountain Aquifer’s eastern section. Moreover, it’s the highest quality available.

Under international law, some may be shared by Israelis and Palestinians, while other sources belong solely to Palestinians. Nonetheless, Israel expropriated most of it for settlers, creating chronic shortages elsewhere in the West Bank.

Beginning in 1967, Palestinians were prohibited from using water resources without permission. In 1995, an Interim Agreement restricted Palestinian usage, including from private wells, leaving them dependent on annual precipitation.

Mostly from the Jordan Valley, water provided settlers lets them develop “intensive-farming methods” for year round use. The amounts are far more than allowed Palestinians, exacerbated because some wells are drying up while others produce less water.

As a result, Palestinians neglected some arable land and switched to less profitable crops elsewhere. Jericho governorate is especially hard hit, its available farmland  to Palestinians the lowest in the West Bank at 4.7% compared to 25% on average elsewhere.

In the Jordan Valley overall, 209 operating Palestinian wells existed in 1967 compared to 89 today. Most are for agricultural use. They’re not deep, ranging from dozens of meters to 200, in contrast to much deeper Israeli wells, accessing greater amounts of water.

In addition, the area contains 22 springs, dependent on rainfall to supply them. In recent years, little precipitation caused water levels to drop, and Jordan Valley Palestinians are prohibited from accessing springs elsewhere.

As a result, per capita Israeli settlements are allocated 487 liters a day, three to four times more than Palestinians depending on their Jordan Valley location. In addition, they pay triple the amount assessed settlers, and for communities not connected to a water system, six times that amount or half their monthly expenditures.

In fact, according to UN standards, water consumption in Bedouin communities amounts to minimum amounts needed to survive in humanitarian disaster areas.

Restrictions on Movement and Building

Despite calm in the Jordan Valley, Palestinian residents are separated from the rest of the West Bank. Four checkpoints restrict them – Tayasir, Hamra, Ma’ale Efrayim and Yitav, permitting only Israeli-recognized vehicles to pass. In addition, 18 other obstructions include six trenches over a 24.8 km area, eight dirt mounds, and four agricultural gates, forcing farmers and workers to wait hours at times to pass through.

As a result, normal life is seriously impeded, restricting access to educational, medical, and other essential facilities, as well as the ability to visit friends and family.

Moreover, Israel’s planning policy severely restricts building and community development, prohibiting Palestinians from using over three-fourths of Jordan Valley/Dead Sea land. In fact, for years, Israel “prepared plans for only a tiny fraction of the Palestinian communities.” Moreover, no new land for construction and development was allocated, severely restricting a growing population.

Building without permission on their own land assures demolition in violation of international law. Article 46 of the Hague regulations states private property must be respected and can’t be confiscated. In addition, Fourth Geneva’s Article 53 prohibits destroying personal property “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

Israel also controls tourist areas, including the Dead Sea’s northern shore, Wadi Qelt, the Qumran caves, the Ein Fashkha reserve springs, access to Jericho, and  Qasr Alyahud where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

Exploiting Other Area Resources

Besides water, Israel controls fertile land, mineral resources, tourist sites, and cheap labor in spite of international law prohibitions and a 1983 High Court of Justice (HCJ) ruling that “area held in belligerent occupation is not an open field for economic exploitation.” Like many other HCJ decisions, Israel ignored it, denying or restricting Palestinians access to their own resources.

In fact, the World Bank said if Palestinians had greater water access, agriculture (their main economic sector) would nearly double its share of current GDP and increase employment by 100,000, nearly twice today’s level.

Moreover, if they had access to 50,000 more dunams of land and its water, they could develop a modern agricultural industry, generating about $1 billion annually and up to an additional 200,000 jobs.

In contrast, settlers engage in “intensive, year round, computerized,” innovative farming, switching crops depending on domestic and export markets demand.

Israeli enterprises also exploit the area’s resources. Examples include Ahava cosmetics using Dead Sea high-mineral content mud, Kochav Hashahar quarry extracting building materials, and Jordan Valley facilities treating Israel and settlements’ wastewater, burying it on Palestinian land.

As a result, B’Tselem and other human rights groups condemn Israel’s exploitative policies, an issue a May 18 Haaretz editorial touched on headlined, “Israeli policy will end up isolating it to the point of sanctions,” saying:

Ahead of traveling to Washington, Neyanyahu addressed the Knesset, “sketch(ing) out a diplomatic plan devoid of vision and totally detached from the new reality developing in the region.”

Offering no concessions, he made demands, including:

– maintaining the status quo;

– “demanding a military presence along the Jordan River;”

– asserting the right to Judaize East Jerusalem;

– demanding Palestinians recognize Israel “as the home of the Jewish people,” effectively ordering them to renounce their culture and heritage, leave, or stay with no rights; and

– cancel the Fatah/Hamas unity agreement as a condition for resumed negotiations.

As a result, his inflexibility and those around him may eventually subject Israel to “economic and cultural sanctions similar to those once imposed on apartheid South Africa.”

Calling it “a slippery slope,” Haaretz concluded saying Israelis will pay the price. Many others also if Netanyahu and other hardliners resort to familiar tactics, including belligerence, making a bad situation worse.


IsraHell’s Best Friends are its Worst Enemies

NOVANEWS

by Eileen Fleming

If we truly love our friends will we always tell them the truth and call them on their bad behavior. When religion and politics are in bed together we the people for Justice and Peace get screwed!

Many of my Christian sisters and brothers are members of the fastest growing cult in America: Christian Zionism-which has nothing much in common with what Jesus was all about- and one of its leader is the fundamentalist fire and brimstone preacher, John Hagee.

On 6 November 2007, I attended a Hagee fest in Miami, Florida at the James L. Knight Center that was packed to the rafters with Hagee’s tribe of Christian Zionists and south Florida’s right wing Jewish community.

Zion’s Fire Banners, dancers, singers and a band whipped the crowd into a frenzy of spinning, jumping, clapping, twirling and moved the rotund Hagee to link arms with men in skull caps and dance the Hora-not to Hava Nagila- but to repeated choruses of:

Shout for joy and victory! Bat Yerushalyim

From one end of the stage to the other, the largest American and Israeli flags I have ever seen were draped side by side and by the end of the evening I imagined every star on the red-white-and blue had morphed into the Star of David.

Miami-Dade County Commissioner Joe Martinez pointed to the flags and exclaimed: “Isn’t that beautiful up there together? I get goose bumps! All nations have been created by an act of man, except Israel was created by an act of God.”

Rabbi Freedman delivered the Invocation, “We are all friends of the only democracy in the Middle East.”
I immediately recalled what American Israeli, Jeff Halper, the Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions told me during one of my five journeys to Jerusalem:

“Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control.”

Rabbi Freedman continued on, “From Mount Sinai to Mount Zion to Mount Vernon we are all Zionists! Israel is second to America in how many immigrants we have absorbed.”

Immigrant absorption in Israel comes with perks and is called Aliyah, [“go up”] and is a fundamental concept of Zionism enshrined in Israel’s Law of Return, which permits any Jew from any where in the world the legal right to government assisted immigration and settlement in Israel, automatic Israeli citizenship, unemployment benefits, free medical, and subsidized housing. Young adult immigrants receive free room, utilities, and three meals a day for the first five months and 100 percent of their tuition is paid by the government.
Hagee’s mastery of manipulating the fears of his audience garnered him a standing ovation as the shofars blew, “Israel was re-born by an act of God and Israel lives! The Jews have suffered great persecution and survived slavery and the Final Solution! God Jehovah will bury Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran! The flag of Israel will fly over the undivided Jerusalem and be the praise of all the earth! It’s 1938 again and the new Hitler is Ahmadinejad! Radical Islamisicts are threatening to develop nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel and then the USA! But we are indivisible and we are both here forever!”

The oft repeated comment ascribed to President Ahmadinejad, that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” was addressed by Virginia Tilley, Professor of political science who wrote:

“In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word ‘map’ or the term ‘wiped off’. According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was ‘this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.’

“In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah’s regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the ‘occupying regime’ in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, ‘This too shall pass.’”

Tikkun is Hebrew for mend, repair and transform the world.

Tikkun is also an interfaith organization which researched to discover that there are three distinct elements energizing Christian Zionists:

1. A strong commitment to conservative and ultra-nationalist American politics (so strong, I believe, that if the U.S. were to decide to break with Israel, this part of the Christian Zionist leadership would go along with that and drop its defense of Israeli policies).

2. Dispensationalist religious commitments that lead many of the Christian Zionists to yearn for a cataclysmic “end of history” eschatological war in the Middle East that will precipitate the second coming of Jesus and the Rapture in which all true Christians will go to heaven and all Jews who have not yet converted to Christianity will burn in hell for eternity.

3. A widespread understanding among many Christians that atonement and repentance is needed for 1700 years of murder, rape, and oppression of Jews that was frequently generated by the Church (though, of course, the Evangelicals do not recognize that church as their church). In this category are many Christian Zionists who genuinely feel terrible about what has happened to the Jews and genuinely want to help the Jewish people. Their philo-Semitism is real and sincere. [Rabbi Lerner, Tikkun Magazine page 9, Nov/Dec. 2007]

But in Miami that night, multitudes of misled and misinformed Christian’s celebrated military occupation, violence, power and political control but ignored the gospel Jesus preached: “It is the peacemakers who shall be called the children of God.” –Matthew 5:9

Hagee repeatedly cited that all worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but neglected to mention that the first mention of Israel is in Genesis 32:22, when Jacob was renamed Israel for having wrestled and struggled with the Divine.

Hagee threw out the names of all the Hebrew prophets, but not the fact that God raised up prophets to speak truth to power and arrogance and to remind people of what God desires:

“What does God require? He has told you o’man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord.” -Micah 6:8

God also raised up prophets to remind them they cannot know the mind of the Mystery of the Universe, for “His thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.”- Isaiah 55:8

God raised up prophets to admonish the “stiff necked people” [Exodus 34:9, Proverbs 29:1] and that “My people are fools, they do not know me! They are skilled in doing evil, they know not how to do good.”-Jeremiah 4:22

Hagee invoked the “Torah Way” but neglected what the Torah commands:

“From Moses to Jeremiah and Isaiah, the Prophets taught…that the Jewish claim on the land of Israel was totally contingent on the moral and spiritual life of the Jews who lived there, and that the land would, as the Torah tells us, ‘vomit you out’ if people did not live according to the highest moral vision of Torah. Over and over again, the Torah repeated its most frequently stated mitzvah [command]:

“When you enter your land, do not oppress the stranger; the other, the one who is an outsider of your society, the powerless one and then not only ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’ but also ‘you shall love the other.’” [Rabbi Lerner, TIKKUN Magazine, page 35, Sept./Oct. 2007 ]

Because I love ALL people as sisters and brothers and I seek SECURITY for Israel by pursuing JUSTICE for Palestine, in 2005 I wrote KEEP HOPE ALIVE

Because as Don Hewitt always said: “The formula is simple and it’s reduced to four words every kid in the world knows: Tell me a story. It’s that easy.”

In Chapter 16, I told the story of  A CONFRONTATIONAL CONVERSATION

“Father Paul, you cannot possibly be telling me that an Episcopal priest has been taken in by fundamentalist theology?” Terese incredulously asked the new assistant to the rector at St. Joan of Arc Episcopal Church in Orlando, who also served at the noon mass every Wednesday.

Father Paul Hendricks was a passionate evangelist on a mission to convert every Jew he encountered to become a Christian. Terese had kept her silence for the first six months she had been listening to his Wednesday noon sermons, but finally broke her silence after the rest of the parishioners had departed.

Paul sighed and shook his head. “Look, Mrs. Hunter, I read your op/ed in the newspaper about Israel and Palestine, and we both agree we want peace; we just go about it differently.”

“Father, let me say that the fastest growing cult in the U.S.A. is the cult of Christian Zionism. Approximately 25 million U.S. Christians believe as you do, and I am most depressed to see that the simple answers of fundamentalism have reached their tentacles into the thinking man’s church. You just preached for thirteen minutes on Genesis 12:3–‘I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse: and in you all the families of the world are blessed’–as if God meant blessings to be political power and military might. Father, surely you understand that the belief of the ancient Israelites, who held that they were chosen, as if they were somehow special from others, as if God esteemed them above others, is just basic primitive nationalism. Come on, Father, looking down on one’s enemies to foster one’s own tribal interest and praying to God to smite one’s enemies is what the ancients did. Isn’t it about time we moved beyond that limited thinking?”

Father Paul clenched his fists and held them behind his back, as he suppressed a simmering rage. He stood nine inches above Terese’s upturned head, and with a slick smile and condescending tone told her, “Mrs. Hunter, you are very misled. The text is understood to mean a blessing to Abraham’s lineage–”

Terese cut in. “Agreed! And Genesis 12:3 was promised even before Ishmael, the father of the Arab nation, and Isaac, the Jew, were born! And what about the very first mention of Israel? Jacob was renamed Israel for having wrestled and struggled with God. That is how I understand Israel; everyone who struggles and wrestles with God is Israel, too. Israel means more than a geographical location, Father Paul.”

“Mrs. Hunter, the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of the prophetic scriptures, and God’s covenant with Israel is eternal, exclusive, and will not be abrogated. I refer you to Genesis 12:1-7, 15:4-7, 17:1-8; Leviticus 26:44-45; and Deuteronomy 7:7:8.”

“And Father, I refer you to Matthew 5:43-45, which does not only critique Genesis 12:3; it blows it apart, for Christ commanded, ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despite-fully use you, that you maybe children of your Father.’”

The two had reached Paul’s SUV and he silently prayed he could make a swift escape, but Terese had positioned herself at the driver’s door, and if he were to open it swiftly, she could be easily moved aside. Father Paul entertained the thought for more than a moment, but remained mute and still, as the tiny woman exploded with a torrent of words.

“Look, blind allegiance to the Israeli government has allowed them to become a big bully, and isn’t God always on the side of the oppressed? My sense is that you Zionists see the political state of Israel as a replacement for Christ and that certainly is not Christianity!

“How do you take Genesis 12:3 to literally mean that blessings equal land and political power, yet ignore God’s promise in Genesis 21:17-20 to ‘make a great nation out of Ishmael’s descendants and that ‘God was with the boy.’ Yet your way of thinking allows the growing apartheid wall to continue, and supports occupation and oppression of people that God also made promises too.”

“Mrs. Hunter, why don’t you make an appointment and we can discuss this further? I really have to go.”

“Okay, I can take a hint, but let me leave you with this: when religion and politics are in bed together, everybody gets screwed! The Israeli government is using you Zionists as apologists in support of their agenda of illegal occupation and settlements in the West bank, Golan, and Gaza, on literal biblical grounds taken out of context. Your blind allegiance to every act of Israel, understood as being orchestrated by God and which should therefore be condoned, supported, and even praised, makes me want to puke! And I wonder about the true motives of Christians who actually relish the idea of Armageddon and love to speculate on who gets ‘left behind.’ Christ was very clear that there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who were so sure they were in, but get left out. God has always been on the side of the oppressed, and your uncritical endorsement and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies are an abomination.”

The stunned and silent priest watched in relief as Terese turned, flipped her braid, and walked away…….

I will not, I cannot walk away until US policy changes course and Gaza Palestine are free from military occupation, so I am on my way to D.C. to converse with my American and Israeli sisters and brothers at AIPAC’s annual conference.

Egyptian Intifada: Hidden Hands Stoke Sectarian Strife

NOVANEWS

 

CAIRO, May 19 (IPS) – Recent Muslim-Christian clashes have renewed fears of sectarian conflict in Egypt. But many local analysts – along with wide swathes of the public – believe sectarian tensions are being stoked by elements loyal to the ousted Hosni Mubarak regime in possible coordination with Israel.


FALSE FLAG?: Cairo’s Church of the Virgin Mary in flames

“Whoever is fanning the flames of sectarian conflict has two objectives: to distract attention from the ongoing prosecution of Mubarak and his henchmen, and to derail what’s being described as the Third Intifada,” journalist and political activist Mugahid Sherara told IPS.

The most recent confrontation was triggered on May 7, when rumours that a Coptic-Christian woman who had converted to Islam was being held against her will in a church in Cairo’s Imbaba district. After a number of Muslim residents gathered outside the church to investigate, shots were reportedly fired from a neighbouring building, killing several of them.

“The first shots, fired from an automatic weapon, originated from a building adjacent to the church,” recalled Sherara, who witnessed the events.

Hearing the gunfire, hundreds of local residents quickly arrived to the area. Clashes soon erupted between Christians and Muslims, which quickly escalated into an exchange of gunfire. Eyewitnesses from both sides, however, later said that unidentified gunmen had instigated the violence by firing randomly into the crowd.

By the time the army arrived some 90 minutes later, 15 lay dead, both Muslims and Christians, and more than 230 injured. Dozens were arrested.

During the clashes, meanwhile, another Coptic church – located some two kilometres away – was set on fire by gunmen. While there were no resultant deaths or injuries, the church was badly damaged by the blaze.

While the twin incidents were initially attributed to local Muslim-Christian rivalries, it later emerged that the violence had been largely instigated by outsiders.

“Initial investigations confirm that the events in Imbaba were planned and instigated by hired ruffians, not religious zealots,” Justice Minister Mohamed Abdelaziz al-Gindi announced on May 11. He went on to blame the incidents on an ongoing “counter-revolution aimed at destroying national unity.”

Egypt’s recent January 25 Revolution led to Mubarak’s February ouster after 30 years in power. Since then, the country’s affairs have been run by Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

A May 11 report issued by the state-run National Council for Human Rights concluded that the church-burning incident had likewise been the work of “hired thugs who were not from the neighbourhood.”

Accounts by eyewitnesses appear to support this conclusion.

“The men who torched the church looked like professional thugs, not religious extremists. They weren’t from around here. It looked pre-planned,” one Coptic eyewitness, preferring anonymity, told IPS. The eyewitness added that frictions between the neighbourhood’s Muslims and Christians had been “previously unheard of.”

The May 11 edition of state daily Al-Missa quoted local Coptic clergymen who described the events as “a conspiracy.”

Nevertheless, hundreds of Coptic protestors have staged an open-ended sit-in in Cairo’s Maspero district since May 8 to protest perceived discrimination against Egypt’s Christian minority (estimated at roughly ten percent of the majority-Muslim country’s population of 85 million). On May 14, protesters clashed with armed thugs, leaving dozens injured from both sides.

It has not been the first time that apparent sectarian tensions have spilled out of control since Mubarak’s ouster.

In February, reports circulated that the army had opened fire on Coptic monks at a monastery in the Nile Delta, injuring several. Although the reports infuriated the Coptic community at the time, they later turned out to be false.

And in early March, the local press reported that several Christians had been killed after a church on the capital’s outskirts was torched by a Muslim mob. Although these reports, too, turned out to be wildly exaggerated, they nevertheless led to violent clashes in which 13 people – both Christians and Muslims – were killed.

Numerous local commentators blame the mounting sectarian tension on “remnants of the former regime,” which, they say, have a vested interest in derailing post-revolutionary Egypt’s transition to democracy. A number of commentators, including prominent political figures, have also alluded to a possible Israeli role in the recent sectarian flare-ups.

On March 15, Deputy Prime Minister Yehia al-Gamal, appointed by the ruling SCAF following Mubarak’s ouster, warned of a “counter-revolution directed by elements of the former regime and Israel, which… is currently working against Egypt’s interests.”

Mohamed Selim al-Awa, former secretary-general of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, speaking to Al Jazeera on May 10, alleged that “Israel is trying to thwart Egypt’s revolution by any means possible.” He went on to point to “elements of the former regime that will ally themselves with anyone to restore the status quo.”

On the following day, prominent political commentator Fahmi Howeidi asserted that “the possibility of Israeli involvement (in the ongoing sectarian strife) cannot be ruled out.” Israel, he wrote in independent daily Al-Shorouk, “was badly frustrated by the ouster of Mubarak, who Israel officials had publicly described as a ‘strategic treasure’.”

Notably, last November, former head of Israeli military-intelligence Amos Yadlin openly bragged about Israel’s success in “promoting sectarian tension” in Egypt. “We have succeeded in promoting sectarian and social tension there so as to create a permanent atmosphere of turmoil,” Yadlin was quoted as saying in the Hebrew- and Arabic-language press.

On Friday (May 13), hundreds of thousands of Egyptians amassed in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to both appeal for national unity and express solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

“Egypt’s Christians and Muslims have always lived side-by-side in peace,” Mikhail Henna, a Coptic political activist who attended the rally, told IPS. “But there are still elements loyal to the former regime – along with external forces hostile to Egypt – trying to sow fitna [discord] in hopes of destabilising the country and derailing our revolution.”

By Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani

President Obama’s True Speech on Middle East

NOVANEWS

“This movement (International Jewry) amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. This world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.  It played.. a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century. There is no need to exaggerate the part (they) played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.”–Winston Churchill, “Zionism vs. Bolshevism”, in Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920

by Mohamed Khodr

Obama: Regardless of Arab Upheavals, our Commitment to Israel and Oil Producing States is permanent and rock solid

State Department, May 19, 2011-05-18 – Secretary Clinton, Honored Guests, Department Officials and Civil Servants.  I am once again honored to be with you today to address the rapid and unpredictable transformation across the Middle East where people have for so long been deprived of their basic human rights of freedom, liberty, hope, and a prosperous economic future

We have seen young men and women risking their lives, families, and properties for a chance to live in free democratic societies where government powers stem from the will and acquiescence of its citizens.  We have seen the Arab youth brilliantly utilize modern technology, facebook, twitter, cell phones, and emails to awaken and unite the passions of the youth in Tunis, Egypt, Libya, and Syria to establish democracy in their nations.

These young people want to share, participate, and belong to a world that upholds the values we fought for and that are enshrined in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and our daily lives.  Values such as freedom, a democratic government, respect for the rule of law, with equal rights for all.

America’s gift to history has been this template of guaranteed liberties and human rights to all nations. While many nations have adopted our values, many still struggle to attain such liberties.   We live in the age of American and Israeli Exceptionalism.

What role will America play in the rapidly evolving Middle East?  What national interests in the region must we uphold and guarantee despite recent events?

We must strike a thoughtful rational strategy that will both meet our national interests while we continue to call for a democratic Arab world.  That is no easy task, but our nation has successfully met every challenge in our history and I am confident that we shall not only meet this challenge but exceed it.

First and foremost Let me be abundantly clear about one paramount national interest of this country and that is our unshakeable and undying support and commitment to the only democracy in the Middle East and our closest friend in the world, and that is the Jewish democracy of Israel.  Our chains and bond with Israel is independent of any change in the region or the world.   Israel is and will forever be America’s friend and in turn we will never let Israel down and will never turn its demands upon our treasury, our military support, our intelligence, or our consistent vetoes to shield it from any criticism at the U.N. or its agencies.

Most of the world, including many misinformed American and Israeli citizens, accuse the United States that our foreign policy is filtered through an Israeli prism.  I say, so what?  That’s the nature of true allies.   Many accuse us of supporting and protecting Israel as it launches preemptive wars on nations and civilians that threaten it.  I say, so what?  That’s the Bush doctrine that led to removal of the tyrant Saddam Hussein and established a flowering democracy in Iraq.  Many accuse us of sending hundreds of billions of dollars in free aid to Israel, the largest recipient of our foreign aid despite its enormous wealth, while our nation is economically suffering and millions of Americans are out of work.

But, isn’t that what friends are for?    Many accuse us that AIPAC’s influence on Congress and our foreign policy is overwhelming and unprecedented and only on Israel is their resounding bipartisan support   So what?  This is a free country where citizens and groups can freely lobby their government on issues of policy.

Until the American people say otherwise and until our campaign finance laws are reformed we as politicians are bound to our wealthy campaign donors whether it be Wall Street, the Oil, Banking, Health Insurance industry or from wealthy Jewish Americans whose primary allegiance is to Israel’s welfare.  That is American politics today, yesterday, and tomorrow until the American people unite and tell us to work for our national interest.

As you know I met with the young King of Jordan yesterday for a few minutes where I listened to his concern about the potential threat to his rule.  I informed him that he can count on our support as long as he upholds the Peace Treaty with Israel

You also know that yesterday I imposed sanctions on Syria’s regime for allowing Palestinian refugee thugs to enter the Jewish land of the occupied Golan Heights and attack peaceful Israeli soldiers who were then forced to defend themselves causing a few casualties which I deeply regret.  I gave President Assad ample time to stop the violence against his people.   I was heart broken when I saw innocent Syrian families carrying their infants or holding the hands of their children while carrying their simple belongings on their head leaving their homeland to seek safety in Lebanon.  It reminded me of the Nazi Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe.

I am happy to report that Prime Minister Netanyahu is in Washington.  I will be meeting with him tomorrow to review the cross border attacks by Palestinian refugees as well as how best to respond to the Arab uprisings.  I know we both share the loss of our dear friend, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.   I’m told the prime minister will  be asking for another $20 Billion to prevent further invasions of Palestinian refugees and to modernize Israel’s Anti Missile defense against a potential Iranian attack.

On Sunday he’ll be giving a speech to a joint session of Congress outlining the same issues we’ll discuss.  I am positive he’ll receive a resounding bipartisan support for Israel along with what I’m told will be Congressional approval of an additional $10 Billion in aid.

The Prime Minister and I are deeply concerned about the illegal unilateral proposal of the Palestinian Authority to submit to the General Assembly their request for recognition of a Palestinian State.  We both agree the United Nations has no charter authority to establish, recognize, or gift any land to any people as a national homeland and we will press that point.   America and Israel will work tirelessly to thwart this threat to Israel.  I have communicated such to President Mahmoud Abbas informing him that such an action will jeopardize the peace process and impact our mutual relations.

As my reelection campaign kicks off I will be attending the obligatory annual AIPAC conference this Sunday.  I will express the American people’s good wishes and congratulations to Israel on its 63rd anniversary of Independence.  I will also express my diehard allegiance to Israel as well as the support of all the American people for this miraculous nation that in sixty three years has established itself as a political, economic, and military juggernaut around the world.   No nation on earth can afford to ignore Israel’s interests knowing that our government is solidly behind it supporting its policies and interests around the world.

I deeply regret the resignation of my dear friend and envoy to the Israeli Palestinian issue, Senator George Mitchell.  He’s worked tirelessly to renew peace talks between the two parties only to be met time after time with Palestinian intransigence and demands for a halt in illegal settlement construction.  He will be sorely missed.   I plan to consult with Secretary Clinton on a new envoy to the region.

As for the broader region.  It needs no repeating that our main interest in the region is oil, the very lifeline of our economy.   President Carter accurately defined the Persian Gulf as vital to our national interest.

Let me be clear, we will allow no nation, no group, no organization, and no chaotic upheaval to disrupt the exploration, production, refining, and transport of oil to our nation.  We will always be on the side of democratic change and human rights but let’s be honest, as much as we dearly respect and uphold such ideals and values; Americans cannot and will not tolerate 6, 7, or 8 dollars a gallon of gas.   No President or Congress can survive such a domestic crisis.   Not only our economy but the entire world’s economy is growing but is still in a tepid fragile state that can easily be thrown into a deep depression with higher gas prices.

Secondly, our interest lies in maintaining stability and the status quo in the oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.   These monarchies have ruled their nations wisely using their enormous wealth to benefit their citizens who have among the highest per capita income in the world.   These nations are also our primary purchases of weapons and thus support an important segment of our economy with hundreds of thousands of jobs.  These weapons are strictly for self defense thereby meeting the requirement of our Arms Export Act which prohibits the use of American weapons in offensive wars or to kill innocent civilians.

Thirdly, the United States, the Arab world, and our closest of allies, Israel, all share the same threat of terrorism.   All of us have endured horrendous terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda and the Iranian supported Hezbollah and Hamas.

Terrorism is a constant threat that must be met with force and defeated and I want to assure the American people that we will defeat terrorism.   America and the world shared in the joy and relief of the murder of Osama Bin Laden.

The Chinese define a crisis as an opportunity for change.   The upheaval in the Middle East presents us with an opportunity, yes, a challenging opportunity, but nevertheless an opportunity to be proactive and mold the situations in each country, case by case, to serve America’s and Israel’s interests.   No matter the changes in the region no nation can afford ill will toward us or Israel

The Arabs are smart enough to know not to challenge our interests, our power, or even contemplate asking us to remove our basis.   For as long as there is oil, as long as there is Israel, the 300 million Arabs as well as the 1.6 Billion Muslims know instinctively not to cross swords with America or Israel.   We’ve demonstrated such in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In conclusion, let me be clear, America’s presence in the region is permanent and unchallengeable.  We are intent on establishing multiple military bases in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, in addition to those already in the Gulf, Jordan, Oman, and Africa.

Thank you and God bless America.

Take Care, Soldier

NOVANEWS

 

Don’t die, soldier, hold the radiophone,
don your helmet, your flak jacket, surround
the village with a trench of crocodiles, starve
it out if need be, eat Mama’s treats, shoot
sharp, keep your rifle clean, take care of the armored
Jeep, the bulldozer, the land, one day it will be
yours, little David, sweetling, don’t die, please.

Keep watch for Goliath the peasant, he’s trying to sell his
pumpkin at a local market, he’s plotting to buy a gift for his grandkid, erase
the evil Haman whose bronchitis you denied treatment, eradicate
the blood of Eva Braun by checking on the veracity of her labor pains, silence her
shriek, that’s how every maternity ward sounds, it’s not easy
having such humane values, be strong, take care, forget
your deeds, forget the forgetting.

That thy days may be long, that the days of thy children may be long, that one day
they shall hear of thy deeds and shall stick fingers in their ears and scream
with fear and thy sons’ and thy daughters’ scream shall never fade.
Be strong, sweet David, live long unto seeing thy children’s eyes,
though their backs hasten to flee from thee, stay in touch with thy comrades-at-arms,
after thy sons deny thee, a covenant of the shunned.
Take care, soldier-boy.

IsraHell Lost in Denial

NOVANEWS

Jewish Post & News


By SAM BAHOUR


The Israeli government’s sigh of relief was surely heard around the globe. When the rift between Palestinian factions existed, Israel simply brushed off any possibility for resolution of the conflict, claiming that the Palestinian president was simply too weak to implement any agreement as along as Hamas was in control of Gaza. Then, taking all by surprise, the two largest Palestinian factions declared an end to their five-year disunity and signed a reconciliation agreement brokered by the post-Mubarak Egyptian government. The agreement itself reads more like a power-sharing agreement, something every living democracy knows very well. However, before the ink on the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement was dry, Israel opened its worn out play script and started reading from past chapters; this time the Israeli kneejerk reaction–within hours–was that there is no way to make peace with Palestinians as long as Hamas is involved. This would be comic if lives, both Palestinian and Israeli, were not at stake.


Let’s take a step back and look at the facts, possibly inconvenient facts for many. Why did Israel, from the outset of the Oslo process nearly two decades ago, enter into an agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization, better known as the PLO? There is no secret here. The first step that kicked off the entire infamous Oslo Accords was an exchange of letters, one of which the PLO, via its late Chairman Yasser Arafat, provided to Israel. The full text of the document is public knowledge and states unequivocally, in its entirety:


“The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era…I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself…to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations…the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators…the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.”


On the very same day, September 9, 1993, Yitzhak Rabin, then Prime Minister of Israel, issued his own letter which stated the following, in its entirety:


“In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.”


Note two very important issues here, 1) the entity Israel recognized is the PLO (an organization composed of many different factions representing the full political and ideological spectrum), not Fatah, not Hamas and not the Palestinian Authority, which, by the way, is a product of the Oslo agreement itself and has no negotiating mandate, and 2) the PLO not only recognized Israel as other states did, as simply a member state of the United Nations, but went even further to state its “right…to exist in peace and security.” No country on earth has formally recognized Israel in such a comprehensive manner.


So all the rumpus about Fatah and Hamas reconciling their internal differences and all the immediate punishing of Palestinians by Israel for this reconciliation raises some key concerns. First and foremost, what does Israel want? Does it want a Palestinian partner who can actually reflect a representative political system with the potential to reach and then implement a peace agreement?


Likewise, what are all the old-new demands that Hamas must recognize Israel? Hamas does not recognize Israel anymore than Israel’s current foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party represents the State of Israel. What difference is there between the far right coalition in Israel and the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas?


The fact of the matter is that anyone observing the agonizing details of this conflict over the past six decades can only deduce one main thing: Israel has no intention to reach a lasting peace with Palestinians. Furthermore, in order to maintain the international community’s commitment to underwriting Israel’s continuing military occupation, Israel has perfected the sadistic game of maintaining a never-ending peace process, one that only gives it more time to create additional facts on the ground (such as settlements) which may be jeopardizing the entire two-state framework as a solution.


Ordinary Israelis are afraid to put down their guns and make peace because the scenarios seem too vulnerable and uncertain. Instead of calming these fears by forging good, new, functional partnerships with Palestinians as equals, the current Israeli government intensifies these fears with the same tired old angry rhetoric about terrorism and the culture, religion, and aspirations of their neighbors.


The missing voices in the debate are many, but a key voice that has yet to be heard is that of the world Jewry. After all, Israel is acting, or so it believes, in the best interest of Jews worldwide. It is hard for me to believe that continued settlement building, continued economic strangulation, continued collective punishment, continued denying of Palestinians from reaching their holy sites, including the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and other forms of repression of another people are in the interest of the world Jewry. However, until we hear loud and clear from Jewish communities around the globe that these acts of Israel are not being done in their name, we can only assume that Israel is drunk on its own arrogance and narcissism because of the unfettered support that it receives from the world Jewry, and this realization, if true, would be sadder than the lack of a peace agreement.


ANAYAT DURRANI: EXPOSING DANGEROUS MYTHS (AL AHRAM WEEKLY)

NOVANEWS

GILAD ATZMON

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1048/re6.htm

Anayat Durrani interviews jazz musician extraordinaire Gilad Atzmon, discovering a secret weapon that Palestinians have in their struggle for freedom

World-renowned Israeli-born jazz saxophonist Gilad Atzmon brought his ensemble to the United States on his third annual North America Jazz tour 4-15 May, crisscrossing the country from New York, to Chicago, Dallas and San Francisco, finishing up in Colorado. The concerts’ theme was “Music for Palestinians’ Resistance”, and the tour was used to raise awareness and fundraise for various humanitarian causes concerning Palestine.

Atzmon described his multi-city tour as giving him an opportunity to “talk about Israel, Palestine and the power of beauty”. His tour included a stop in Oakland to attend a benefit for the Bay Area’s flotilla passengers set to embark on the US-flagged Audacity of Hope in June to break Israel’s illegal naval blockade of Gaza. The novelist, political activist and writer, who now makes his home in England, said he began visiting the US four years ago and comes once a year for two weeks. He said he has a lot of fans in the US and believes the exchange of ideas is crucial.

“I visit as many cities as I can, I meet a lot of people, I give interviews. I believe that true spiritual and intellectual exchange can lead towards a shift of consciousness. It is crucial for me to unveil the spirit and ideology that drives the Jewish state and Zionists around the world,” Atzmon told Al-Ahram Weekly. “I believe that we are dealing with a unique ideology and practice and I am also aware that due to self censorship, not many people can discuss openly some of the topics I touch on, such as the fact that Zionism is a continuation of Jewish ideology.”

Atzmon, who was born in Tel Aviv and served as a paramedic in the Israeli Defence Forces, is known for his no holds barred criticism of Israeli policies. He has a master’s degree in philosophy and is a writer of both fiction and nonfiction, and speaker on Israel and Palestine. He is particularly outspoken on human rights denied the occupied Palestinian people.

“For me the support of the Palestinian cause was a lesson in humanity. Through Palestinian suffering I grasped the supremacy that was inherent in my culture,” said Atzmon. “I confronted the tribal and ‘chosen’ in me. I searched for a new meaning of universalism, humanism and empathy.”

Atzmon supports the Palestine right of return and the one- state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He believes one day there will be a Palestinian state. “For me it is clear that Israel is a state but Palestine is the Land. States can rise and fall, yet, the land is there to remain forever,” said Atzmon. “Israel belongs to the past. We will see a one state from the river to the sea and that state is going to be Palestine. This principle is both ethical and rational as opposed to the Zionist philosophy that is both nonethical and irrational. Israel is the most dangerous place for Jews to be in,” he told the Weekly.

On this visit to the US Atzmon said he was able to meet with many American Jews, including Rabbi Michael Lerner and members of his liberal congregation as well as leaders of the Jewish Voice for Peace. He even stepped outside a church hosting his concert-lecture and launched a dialogue with four Zionists that were sent by the Israeli consulate to picket his talk.

It’s not uncommon for his opponents to try to obstruct his appearance at events. Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists in the UK blocked a 3 May panel discussion he organised to debate “Jewishness and Israeli criminality” at the University of Westminster. He still held a panel event off campus the next day featuring former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent Alan Hart, Palestine Telegraph founder Sameh Habeeb and writer Karl Sabbagh that discussed “Jewishness, Zionism and Israel”.

“For me guilt becomes meaningful once transformed into responsibility. Unlike many Jews in the left who redeem themselves by shouting ‘not in my name’, I actually contend that every Israeli crime is committed in the name of the Jews,” explained Atzmon. “This is a very complicated moral issue that cannot be brushed aside easily. Israel defines itself as ‘the Jewish state’. It drops bombs on Gaza from airplanes decorated with Jewish symbols. It is my duty, as a thinker, to grasp what ‘Jewishness’ stands for.”

He said that, strangely enough, some of his most vocal opponents are Jewish anti-Zionists. Atzmon believes he is “standing at the core of a terminological shift in this movement”. He thinks Zionism should be redefined, adding that “Israel is not colonialism and it’s not exactly apartheid.” Atzmon said when he tried to raise concerns about what “Jewishness” stands for and it was the Jewish left that tried to stop him. “It made me realise that there is a kind of a strange continuum between Zionism and its so-called opposition within the Jewish discourse,” he said.

Atzmon is a prolific writer and his novels A Guide to the Perplexed and My One And Only Love have been translated into 24 languages. His popular writings on political matters, social issues, Jewish identity and culture have been published around the world.

“I am driven by search for beauty and ethics. When I write about Palestine I search for the metaphysics of the discourse. I search for truth rather than for a political message,” said Atzmon.

In his 15 May article “From ‘Right of Return’ to ‘Return in Practice'” at gilad.co.uk, Atzmon addresses the Israeli response to Nakba protesters in Gaza, the West Bank and in the Syrian and Lebanese borders. Referring to media reports that said the Israeli army used “all means” in order to “keep infiltrators out of Israel”, Atzmon responds, “Someone should remind the Israelis that it is actually the Israelis who are the infiltrators.” It is the Palestinians who are in fact the indigenous inhabitants of the land, he says, calmly exploding yet another Israeli myth.

“What we see today is a clear message to the Jewish state, the Israelis and Zionists around the world,” he writes. “Palestine is not an academic notion; it is actually a vibrant struggle for justice. The right of return is not just an ethical concept; it is now put into practice. The days of the Jewish state are numbered.”

Apart from his political writings, music has been an influential and life-altering force in Atzmon’s life. Atzmon discovered Charlie Parker’s “With Strings” at the age of 17 before his mandatory service in the Israeli army. The album moved him to purchase a saxophone and he grew to absorb the music of American jazz legends like Sonny Rollins and Hank Mobley. Atzmon told the Weekly that as he immersed himself in music, “my Zionist enthusiasm disappeared completely. Instead of flying choppers behind enemy lines, I started to fantasise about living in NYC, London or Paris.”

Atzmon has recorded nine albums so far, which touch on political themes and the music of the Middle East. He plays soprano, alto, tenor and baritone saxes, clarinet and flutes, both modern and traditional. His album “Exile” was the BBC jazz album of the year in 2003 and he was described by John Lewis in the Guardian as the “hardest-gigging man in British jazz”. Atzmon has worked with Ian Dury, Robbie Williams, Sinead O’Connor and Paul McCartney to name a few.

“I believe that music heals, it certainly amended my soul,” said Atzmon. “Along my ongoing struggle to learn how to play and understand Arabic music, I learned to listen. I realised that rather than the eye, it is the ear that holds the key to ethical thinking.”

Zionist Regime of Bahrain solidifies its Orwellian system

NOVANEWS

 

“Bahrain has set up new units within its Information Affairs Authority to monitor the output of foreign news services and social media, it was announced on Wednesday.   Nawaf Mohammed Al Mawadh, the IAA’s director of publication and publishing and acting director of foreign media, said the move was part of a new strategic plan for 2011-15.   Al Mawadh said that the IAA had restructured its directorates and created new ones to “further help project the kingdom’s achievements and respond to false information that some channels broadcast”.  He said in comments published by state news agency BPA that new directorates included one for media monitoring, another for media relations and one for social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.”

Bahrain sets up new units to monitor media output

Bahrain has set up new units within its Information Affairs Authority to monitor the output of foreign news services and social media, it was announced on Wednesday.
Nawaf Mohammed Al Mawadh, the IAA’s director of publication and publishing and acting director of foreign media, said the move was part of a new strategic plan for 2011-15.
Al Mawadh said that the IAA had restructured its directorates and created new ones to “further help project the kingdom’s achievements and respond to false information that some channels broadcast”.
He said in comments published by state news agency BPA that new directorates included one for media monitoring, another for media relations and one for social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Al Mawadh said there were “several procedures” that would be undertaken to correct inaccurate stories about Bahrain, without elaborating.
The IAA statement comes just days after Bahrain said it was expelling the Reuters correspondent in the Gulf kingdom.
Frederik Richter, who has been based in the capital Manama since 2008, was told to leave within a week after officials complained Reuters had lacked balance in its reporting during the recent crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.
In Bahrain, several journalists have been detained since protests began in February which have pitched Shi’ite Muslims, who form a majority of the island’s population, against the Sunni monarchy, which accused Shi’ite Iran of fomenting unrest.
Separately, four journalists from Bahrain’s only opposition newspaper pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to charges of fabricating news about the security forces’ crackdown on anti-government protests in the Gulf island kingdom.
Al Wasat’s former editor-in-chief Mansoor al-Jamri, one of the four, told Reuters a judge had added to the charge of fabricating news “the intention of causing instability in Bahrain”, punishable by up to two years in jail.
Jamri said that under Bahraini law, the judge can impose a fine instead of a jail sentence on a defendant found guilty of the new charge.
“My response to the charges is that Al Wasat was targeted by a campaign of misinformation and it was attacked,” he told Reuters by telephone.
The case was adjourned until June 15 to give defence lawyers time to review the prosecution’s evidence, journalists and colleagues who attended the court session said.

A Saudi crude propagandist explains Saudi counter revolution

NOVANEWS

Enjoy his reference to Saudi Arabia “leading” the Arab world.  This is like saying that Fouad Ajami speaks for Arabs.   “Saudi Arabia will not allow the political unrest in the region to destabilize the Arab monarchies — the Gulf states, Jordan and Morocco. In Yemen, the Saudis are insisting on an orderly transition of power and a dignified exit for President Ali Abdullah Saleh (a courtesy that was not extended to Hosni Mubarak, despite the former Egyptian president’s many years as a strong U.S. ally). To facilitate this handover, Riyadh is leading a diplomatic effort under the auspices of the six-country Gulf Cooperation Council. In Iraq, the Saudi government will continue to pursue a hard-line stance against the Maliki government, which it regards as little more than an Iranian puppet. In Lebanon, Saudi Arabia will act to check the growth of Hezbollah and to ensure that this Iranian proxy does not dominate the country’s political life. Regarding the widespread upheaval in Syria, the Saudis will work to ensure that any potential transition to a post-Assad era is as peaceful and as free of Iranian meddling as possible.”

Amid the Arab Spring, a U.S.-Saudi split

By Nawaf Obaid,

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA

A tectonic shift has occurred in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Despite significant pressure from the Obama administration to remain on the sidelines, Saudi leaders sent troops into Manama in March to defend Bahrain’s monarchy and quell the unrest that has shaken that country since February. For more than 60 years, Saudi Arabia has been bound by an unwritten bargain: oil for security. Riyadh has often protested but ultimately acquiesced to what it saw as misguided U.S. policies. But American missteps in the region since Sept. 11, an ill-conceived response to the Arab protest movements and an unconscionable refusal to hold Israel accountable for its illegal settlement building have brought this arrangement to an end. As the Saudis recalibrate the partnership, Riyadh intends to pursue a much more assertive foreign policy, at times conflicting with American interests.

The backdrop for this change are the rise of Iranian meddling in the region and the counterproductive policies that the United States has pursued here since Sept. 11. The most significant blunder may have been the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in enormous loss of life and provided Iran an opening to expand its sphere of influence. For years, Iran’s leadership has aimed to foment discord while furthering its geopolitical ambitions. Tehran has long funded Hamas and Hezbollah; recently, its scope of attempted interference has broadened to include the affairs of Arab states from Yemen to Morocco. This month the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Gen. Hasan Firouzabadi, harshly criticized Riyadh over its intervention in Bahrain, claiming this act would spark massive domestic uprisings.

Such remarks are based more on wishful thinking than fact, but Iran’s efforts to destabilize its neighbors are tireless. As Riyadh fights a cold war with Tehran, Washington has shown itself in recent months to be an unwilling and unreliable partner against this threat. The emerging political reality is a Saudi-led Arab world facing off against the aggression of Iran and its non-state proxies.

Saudi Arabia will not allow the political unrest in the region to destabilize the Arab monarchies — the Gulf states, Jordan and Morocco. In Yemen, the Saudis are insisting on an orderly transition of power and a dignified exit for President Ali Abdullah Saleh (a courtesy that was not extended to Hosni Mubarak, despite the former Egyptian president’s many years as a strong U.S. ally). To facilitate this handover, Riyadh is leading a diplomatic effort under the auspices of the six-country Gulf Cooperation Council. In Iraq, the Saudi government will continue to pursue a hard-line stance against the Maliki government, which it regards as little more than an Iranian puppet. In Lebanon, Saudi Arabia will act to check the growth of Hezbollah and to ensure that this Iranian proxy does not dominate the country’s political life. Regarding the widespread upheaval in Syria, the Saudis will work to ensure that any potential transition to a post-Assad era is as peaceful and as free of Iranian meddling as possible.

Regarding Israel, Riyadh is adamant that a just settlement, based on King Abdullah’s proposed peace plan, be implemented. This includes a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. The United States has lost all credibility on this issue; after casting the sole vote in the U.N. Security Council against censuring Israel for its illegal settlement building, it can no longer act as an objective mediator. This act was a watershed in U.S.-Saudi relations, guaranteeing that Saudi leaders will not push for further compromise from the Palestinians, despite American pressure.

Saudi Arabia remains strong and stable, lending muscle to its invigorated foreign policy. Spiritually, the kingdom plays a unique role for the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims — more than 1 billion of whom are Sunni — as the birthplace of Islam and home of the two holiest cities. Politically, its leaders enjoy broad domestic support, and a growing nationalism has knitted the historically tribal country more closely together. This is largely why widespread protests, much anticipated by Western media in March, never materialized. As the world’s sole energy superpower and the de facto central banker of the global energy markets, Riyadh is the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, representing 25 percent of the combined gross domestic product of the Arab world. The kingdom has amassed more than $550 billion in foreign reserves and is spending more than $150 billion to improve infrastructure, public education, social services and health care.

To counter the threats posed by Iran and transnational terrorist networks, the Saudi leadership is authorizing more than $100 billion of additional military spending to modernize ground forces, upgrade naval capabilities and more. The kingdom is doubling its number of high-quality combat aircraft and adding 60,000 security personnel to the Interior Ministry forces. Plans are underway to create a “Special Forces Command,” based on the U.S. model, to unify the kingdom’s various special forces if needed for rapid deployment abroad.

Saudi Arabia has the will and the means to meet its expanded global responsibilities. In some issues, such as counterterrorism and efforts to fight money laundering, the Saudis will continue to be a strong U.S. partner. In areas in which Saudi national security or strategic interests are at stake, the kingdom will pursue its own agenda. With Iran working tirelessly to dominate the region, the Muslim Brotherhood rising in Egypt and unrest on nearly every border, there is simply too much at stake for the kingdom to rely on a security policy written in Washington, which has backfired more often than not and spread instability. The special relationship may never be the same, but from this transformation a more stable and secure Middle East can be born.

The writer is a senior fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research & Islamic Studies.

Bahrain hosts the Fifth Feet so who cares what royal Zionist family does

NOVANEWS

 

“In Bahrain doctors and nurses who treated protesters injured by security forces have vanished. Also in Bahrain, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, the former head of the Centre for Human Rights and a fierce critic of the regime, was seized by armed men in the middle of the night. A month later he reappeared, tortured and is now facing trial.”

Human-rights abuses

Nothing new under the sun

Some dictators may have fallen, but human-rights abuses continue

The economist

Tunisian plainclothes back in action

THE world really can become a better place—that seemed to be the belief of the protesters who have thronged streets in the Middle East. Sadly, those who spoke this week at the Oslo Freedom Forum, a glittering gathering of veterans of human-rights struggles, instead attested to the wisdom of Ecclesiastes: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done.”
Take the impact of technology. Facebook and other social media services have created opportunities for dissidents and revolutionaries to organise and voice their opposition. But those in power have discovered that they, too, can use the internet, in their case to stifle freedom of speech. The dream of all dictators is to know as much about you as Google does, says Jacob Mchangama, a Danish human-rights lawyer.
Authoritarian states have also learned how to use the language of human rights to legitimise their oppressive tactics, for instance by claiming to defend religious groups. But their tools of abuse—violence, torture and censorship—remain depressingly familiar. The grand tradition of making opponents “disappear,” perfected by the military dictatorship in Argentina in the 1970s, is still flourishing today. In Bahrain doctors and nurses who treated protesters injured by security forces have vanished. Also in Bahrain, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, the former head of the Centre for Human Rights and a fierce critic of the regime, was seized by armed men in the middle of the night. A month later he reappeared, tortured and is now facing trial.

Post-revolutionary leaders can find it all too easy to slip into the abusive habits of their predecessors. In Oslo Lina Ben Mhenni, a Tunisian blogger, talked of her fear that the transitional government will use the methods of the ousted regime of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. When fresh demonstrations broke out in Tunisia in early May, police used tear gas and live ammunition. Journalists were beaten and had their equipment seized.
Nor do governments have a monopoly on violence. From Jamaica to South Africa, gays and lesbians continue to be the victims of vicious intolerance. Lesbians are raped in an effort to “correct” their sexuality. At the Oslo conference the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays, the first group of its kind on the Caribbean island, said it was remarkable that only one of its founders had been murdered in the past decade, such is the violence typically directed at its people.
Yet there was also brighter news in Oslo. As those in power become more inventive in their clampdowns, so do their opponents. Some have started to help victims make their experiences public. In Malawi children who have been raped or forced into marriage are encouraged to write letters to Radio Timweni, a national news programme, which then interviews them. In the age of Facebook and Google, the truth remains the most powerful weapon of all.

Sectarian agenda of the Arab counter-revolution

NOVANEWS

Comrade Joseph:  “The ongoing uprisings in the Arab world today, as is clear to all observers, do not distinguish between republics and monarchies. Indeed, in addition to the republics, demonstrations have been ongoing in Morocco, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia (and more modestly in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates), despite the brutal suppression of the major Bahraini uprising by a combined mercenary force dispatched by the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council led by Saudi Arabia.   The situation in Arab countries today is characterised as much by the counter-revolution sponsored by the Saudi regime and the United States as it is by the uprisings of the Arab peoples against US-sponsored dictatorial regimes.

While the US-Saudi axis was caught unprepared for the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, they quickly made contingency plans to counter the uprisings elsewhere, especially in Bahrain and Oman, but also in Jordan and Yemen, as well as take control of the uprisings in Libya (at first) and later in Syria. Attempts to take control of the Yemeni uprising have had mixed results so far.

Part of the US-Saudi strategy has been to strengthen religious sectarianism, especially hostility to shiism, in the hope of stemming the tide of the uprisings.   This sectarianism targets not only Iran but also Arab shias in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and even in Oman and Syria, while simultaneously encouraging anti-Christian zealotry in Egypt. The Sadat and Mubarak regimes encouraged anti-Christian zealots for decades. Part of the ongoing counter-revolutionary efforts is to resuscitate these sectarian forces to break Egyptian unity and bring about chaos.

The future of the Arab uprisings

The US, with its allies, has already begun plans to subvert the Arab Spring to save its own regional hegemony.

The US and its Arab allies are scrambling to control the outcome of the Arab Spring in a way that will prolong their regional dominance [GALLO/GETTY]

A specter is haunting the Arab world – the specter of democratic revolution. All the powers of the old Arab world have entered into a holy alliance with each other and the United States to exorcise this specter: king and sultan, emir and president, neoliberals and zionists.

While Marx and Engels used similar words in 1848 in reference to European regimes and the impending communist revolutions that were defeated in the Europe of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is much hope in the Arab world that these words would apply more successfully to the ongoing democratic Arab uprisings.

In the case of Europe, Marx ended up having to write the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon in 1852 to analyse the defeat of the 1848 revolution in France. He explained how revolutions could overthrow an existing ruling class but would not necessarily lead to the rule of the oppressed. He analysed the process by which Louis Napoleon was able to hijack the revolution and proclaim himself emperor, restoring monarchy to republican and revolutionary France, as his uncle Napoleon Bonaparte had done before him to the glorious French Revolution of 1789.

Since the end of World War I, European powers and the United States have appointed and removed Arab kings at will. Their actions were always taken to ensure the persistence of these dictatorial monarchies, rather than their removal, and to strengthen Euro-American control and hegemony over the region.

The only seeming exception to this rule was the French removal of King Faisal from the throne of Syria in 1919, ending the short-lived Syrian independence, only for the British to extend to him the throne of Iraq, which he assumed that same year, with the inauguration of British rule in that country.

This Euro-American power would include the granting of Abdullah the throne of Jordan in 1921 and the removal of his son King Talal from it, replacing him with his own son Hussein in 1952-53. The French would dethrone Mohammed V of Morocco in 1953 but would restore him again in 1955 when opposition to his removal weakened their control.

The British would remove Sultan Said bin Taymur in 1970 and replace him with his son Sultan Qabus, who was better able, with the help of the Iranian Shah, the Jordanian King, British and American military support, to quell the republican revolution in Dhofar.

Even the palace coup of 1995 by Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani of Qatar to oust his father, Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad al Thani, and replace him, received American support and enthusiasm, as it was carried out to strengthen, rather than weaken, the Qatari monarchy.

Imperialism and orientalism

Since World War II, but more diligently since the mid 1950s, the United States has followed two simultaneous strategies to exercise its control over the Arab peoples across Arab countries. The first, and the one most relevant to Arabs, was based on the early US recognition and realisation (like Britain, France, and Italy before it) that Arabs, like all other peoples worldwide, wanted democracy and freedom and would struggle for them in every possible way.

For the United States, this necessitated the establishment of security and repressive apparatuses in Arab countries, which the US would train, fund, and direct in order to suppress these democratic desires and efforts in support of dictatorial regimes whose purpose has always been and continues to be the defense of US security and business interests in the region.

These interests consist principally in securing and maintaining US control of the oil resources of the region, ensuring profits for American business, and strengthening the Israeli settler-colony.

Much of this was of course propelled by the beginning of the Cold War and the US strategy to suppress all forms of real and imagined communist-leaning forces around the world, which included any and all democratic demands for change in the region.

This strategy, which was formalised in the Eisenhower Doctrine issued in 1957, continues through the present. The Eisenhower Doctrine, issued on 5 January 1957, as a speech by the US president, declared the Soviet Union, not Israel or Western-supported regional dictatorships, as the enemy of the people of the Middle East.

To neutralise president Gamal Abd al Nasir’s wide appeal across the Arab world, Eisenhower authorised the US military “to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism.”

In contrast with its actual anti-democratic policies around the world, the US has always insisted on marketing itself as a force for global democracy. In line with this public relations campaign, the second strategy the US used to advance its anti-democratic policies in the Arab World was the importation of European orientalism, which acquired a central place in post-war US academia.

State Department funding assisted by funding from private foundations would solidify orientalist research that asserted that Arabs and Muslims were incompatible with democracy and that more often than not they love and prefer dictatorial rule and that it would be culturally imperialist for the US to impose democracy on them, leading to the conclusion that it would be best to uphold their dictatorial rulers whose repressive policies, we are told, are inspired by Islam and Arab culture.

Between the billions spent on repressing the Arab peoples and the millions spent to explain academically and in the American media the need to repress them, this two-pronged US strategy in the region since World War II has been coming apart at an accelerated rate since January 2011, a development that continues to cause panic in the Obama White House and manifests in the incessant fumbling of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who is much despised across the Arab world.

If president Jimmy Carter infamously declared on the eve of the Iranian Revolution in December 1977 that the Iran of the Shah was “an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world”, Hillary Clinton would declare Mubarak’s Egypt as “stable” days before he was overthrown.

Subverting democracy

The anti-democratic US campaign in the region started with the first coup d’état the US sponsored when it overthrew democratic rule in Syria in 1949 and was soon followed by the restoration of the Shah in neighbouring Iran in 1953 in a CIA-sponsored coup that overthrew the government of prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh and suppressed the democratic movement in Iran.

As the US was following similar strategies elsewhere in its expanding empire, especially in Guatemala where it sponsored an anti-democratic coup against the reform government of Jacobo Arbenz and unleashed a wave of terror that murdered hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans for the next four decades, it formalised its new strategy in the Arab world through the Eisenhower Doctrine.

Soon after, the US went into high gear suppressing democracy in the region, starting with intervention in Lebanon on the side of right-wing sectarian forces in 1957, moving to engineer the palace coup launched by the young King Hussein against the democratically elected parliament the same year in Jordan, and proceeding to help the Baath party assume power in 1963 in Iraq and massacre thousands in the process.

The defeat of Nasir in the 1967 war was followed by US support for the most repressive Sudanese regime ever under Jafar Numeiri and the suppression of the revolution across the Arabian Gulf in the early seventies with the assistance of the Shah’s forces and the Jordanian army, which stabilised the region for US oil profits and began the road to secure Israel’s supremacy.

In the meantime, the removal of Arab monarchies from power and replacing them with republics would take place through the mechanism of military coups, which, unlike Euro-American interventions, had much popular support. Beginning with the removal of King Farouk of Egypt in 1952 by the Free Officers, the removal of Arab monarchies would proceed with the overthrow of the Iraqi King and the Hashemite royal family in 1958, the Yemeni monarchy in 1962, and ended with the overthrow of the Libyan monarchy in 1969 by Gaddafi.

All other Arab monarchies have persisted, with massive American, French, and British financial, economic, military, and security support, despite a number of threats to these thrones over the decades. While only two monarchies survive outside the Arabian Peninsula, which only managed to lose its Yemeni monarch, all other Arab regimes have a republican form of government.

The US-Saudi axis

The ongoing uprisings in the Arab world today, as is clear to all observers, do not distinguish between republics and monarchies. Indeed, in addition to the republics, demonstrations have been ongoing in Morocco, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia (and more modestly in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates), despite the brutal suppression of the major Bahraini uprising by a combined mercenary force dispatched by the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council led by Saudi Arabia.

The situation in Arab countries today is characterised as much by the counter-revolution sponsored by the Saudi regime and the United States as it is by the uprisings of the Arab peoples against US-sponsored dictatorial regimes.

While the US-Saudi axis was caught unprepared for the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, they quickly made contingency plans to counter the uprisings elsewhere, especially in Bahrain and Oman, but also in Jordan and Yemen, as well as take control of the uprisings in Libya (at first) and later in Syria. Attempts to take control of the Yemeni uprising have had mixed results so far.

Part of the US-Saudi strategy has been to strengthen religious sectarianism, especially hostility to shiism, in the hope of stemming the tide of the uprisings.

This sectarianism targets not only Iran but also Arab shias in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and even in Oman and Syria, while simultaneously encouraging anti-Christian zealotry in Egypt. The Sadat and Mubarak regimes encouraged anti-Christian zealots for decades. Part of the ongoing counter-revolutionary efforts is to resuscitate these sectarian forces to break Egyptian unity and bring about chaos.

If the Eisenhower Doctrine insisted in 1957 that the Soviets, not Israel, were the main enemy of the Arab peoples, today the US insists that it is Iran and shiism who are their main enemy. With the US and Saudi-led suppression of the people of Bahrain, the hope is that this American-sponsored sectarian hatred and encouragement of sunni Arab chauvinism would in one swoop render Iran (and not the Arab dictators, their Israeli ally, or their US sponsor) the enemy of Arabs, if not the only enemy of Arabs, and delegitimise at the same time the uprisings in countries with a substantial number of Arab shiites.

The US sponsored this project several years ago with limited success. It would be best articulated by Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who warned in 2004 of a “shia crescent” threatening the region. The US and the Saudis are hoping that it could be more successful today.

The French and the British have continued to play important neo-colonial roles in the region, economically, militarily, and in the realm of security “cooperation”. They have strengthened their position by increasing their security and diplomatic “assistance” to their allies among Arab dictators.

The US-supported repression in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and in the United Arab Emirates goes hand in hand with the Euro-American-Qatari intervention in Libya to safeguard the oil wells for Western companies once a new government is in place.

The hijacking of the Libyan uprising and the defection of Gaddafi’s governing elite of politicians overnight to the side of the “revolutionaries” not only casts more than one shadow of suspicion on those claiming to lead the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi’s horrific dictatorship, but also on the Western powers who were Gaddafi’s major allies in the last decade until their recent defection.

The situation today is one of a struggle between the formidable US-Saudi axis, which is the main anti-democratic force in the region, and the pro-democracy uprisings.

The US-Saudi strategy is two-fold: massive repression of those Arab uprisings that can be defeated, and co-optation of those that could not be. How successful the second part will be depends on how co-optable the pro-democracy forces prove to be.

While it is true that revolutionaries make their own history, as Karl Marx famously put it, “they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.”

Guarding against the co-optation of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions is the hope of all Arabs today.

The US-Saudi axis will use every mechanism at its disposal to do so, not least of which will be the forthcoming elections in Egypt and Tunisia. The great Arab hope is that Tunisia and Egypt will write a new Revolutionary and Democratic Manifesto for the Arab peoples.

The concern and the fear remain, however, that we may end up with less of a Communist Manifesto and more of an Eighteenth Brumaire.

Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.