Tag Archives: Middle East

Posted on by

No politician with an “anti-Zionist mindset” could ever dream of living in the White House: Naseer Aruri

Naseer Aruri

Kourosh Ziabari, 14 April 2011

Naseer Aruri

Naseer Aruri

Naseer Aruri is Chancellor Professor (emeritus) of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He is president of Trans-Arab Research Institute in Boston. Prof. Aruri is the a contributor to the book “Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War” by the South End Press and the author of the book “Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return” published by the University of British Columbia Press in 2001. Prof. Aruri is on the Advisory Board of the Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation.
Aruri has also written the book “The Obstruction of Peace: The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians.” Amazon.com has described this book “a Palestinian perspective on the peace process in his Middle Eastern region which provides a different view for the reasons behind Palestinian-Israeli impasses.”
According to Wikipedia, Aruri contributed to the foundation of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in 1983. From 1984-1990, Aruri was elected to three consecutive terms on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, USA, and served on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch/Middle East from 1990 to 1992.
What follows is the complete text of my exclusive interview with Prof. Naseer Aruri in which we discussed a variety of topics including the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the role of the United States in the solving the crisis in Palestine and the performance of PLO as the defacto representative of the Palestinian nation in the international level.

Kourosh Ziabari: Dear Prof. Aruri; there are various interpretations regarding the truth behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides of the conflict cite claims over the land which is known as the Land of Israel. So, from an impartial and objective point of view, which side is the righteous? Which of them tells the truth?

Naseer Aruri: This is not a conflict between two equal claims. The Palestinian population is the indigenous party living on the land since the days of the Cananites. Their presence as the dominant party was interrupted by the Crusades but it was restored by the Islamic conquest of the 7th century A.D. When the Zionists received the Balfour Declaration from Britain in 1917 the Jewish population constituted less than 7% of the population. It was an unauthorized promise made by an imperial power to a colonial settler movement at the expense of the Majority (the indigenous Palestinians). By World War II the Jewish population had increased to one-third mainly as a result of colonial settlement. This minority was in possession of less than 6% of the land. Today it controls all of historic Palestine through the force of arms, an illegal phenomenon under international law.

Kourosh Ziabari: You’re said to be an outspoken critic of the Oslo Accords and described it a cover for territorial conquest. Would you please explain for us the reasons you oppose Oslo Peace Process? Given that the Declaration called for the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from parts of Gaza Strip and West Bank and facilitated the creation of a Palestinian National Authority, what are your reasons for contesting the Oslo Accords?

Naseer Aruri: The Oslo Accords constituted an act of surrender by Yaser Arafat, whose movement was facing economic, diplomatic and leadership crises, and having recognized Israel in 1988, it took the easy way out by concluding an unauthorized deal with Israel in 1993 in which Israel did not cede any bit of sovereignty whatsoever not only in historic Palestine but even in the West Bank, which constitutes 22% of historic Palestine. The phrase “external security” was the corner stone of the document and it served as a euphemism for sovereignty, which remained in the hands of Israel. Oslo has also negated the culture of the Intifada, which was based on voluntary maxims and associational values In brief, Oslo created a facade of equality when Israel was an occupant within the meaning of International law, while the Palestinians were occupied rather than co-equal. Under such a cover, Israel was given license to expand its territorial conquest even farther and this added territory was acquired under presumed “peaceful conditions.” Colonial settlements in the occupied territories have more than doubled since 1993 and they continue to constitute the single most intractable obstacle to a diplomatic settlement until this day. Technically, Oslo was an agreement to reach agreement, but better yet, an agreement to obfuscate an equal settlement and an honorable and principled compromise.

Kourosh Ziabari: Although the Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and made several concessions during its interactions with the State of Israel, the United States still considers it a terrorist organization. What’s your viewpoint regarding the performance of PLO? Has it succeeded in representing the Palestinian people and defending their demands? Recently leaked documents show that the PLO under Mahmoud Abbas had agreed to Israel’s sovereignty over nearly all Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. What’s your take on that?

Naseer Aruri:: I think that the answer to your question is embedded in the question itself. Moreover, the PLO should have never accepted the stipulation that it is a terrorist organization which must “renounce” and not “denounce” as Arafat had attempted unsuccessfully and reminded about the crucial difference between the two concepts. The assumption that the US was a judge and jury while at the same time a chief armed supplier, bank roller, and diplomatic backer was unfortunately accepted by the PLO leadership since the 1980s  and should not have been a surprise when the so-called Palestine papers were released and leaked out quite recently. Under both Arafat and Abbas, the PLO concessions were bottomless and these concessions had only encouraged Israel to throw more obstacles to peace and to encourage Washington to act as a “Dishonest Broker.”

Kourosh Ziabari: Some commentators refer to Israel as an artificial state and believe that it was created through the efforts of politicians and leaders who wanted to sympathize with and satisfy the expansionistic demands of the Zionists in Europe; however, there are a group of thinkers who believe that to the extent that Israel is an artificial state, countries such as United Arab Emirates or Kosovo should be considered artificial as well, because they lack a historical background as independent nations. What’s your estimation of these viewpoints?

Naseer Aruri: It serves no useful purpose to debate the moot issue of whether Israel, UAE, and Kosovo are artificial states. The important thing is that they are defacto states which through admission to the UN become de jure states. Irrespective of who wins the argument, Israel is a state, but the important thing is what kind of a state? A state of its own citizens? a state of all Jews in the world? A state of the Jewish people in historic Palestine? What are the boundaries of this state? Is it not an apartheid state as it exists at the present? These questions are far more important than whether Israel is artificial or natural?

Kourosh Ziabari: The Stance of President Bush Sr. on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had convinced many international observers that the pro-Israeli era of Ronald Reagan was over. On May 22, 1989, Secretary of State James Baker had told an AIPAC audience that Israel should abandon its expansionist policies. On his part, George H. Bush had indicated that he was under the pressure of Zionist lobby by saying to reporters on the sidelines of an AIPAC summit that “I’m one lonely little guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” He was forced to apologize consequently; however, he was opposed to grant a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel as long as Israel continued building homes on the Palestinian lands. What’s your viewpoint regarding Bush’s Israel policy? Why did his son adopt a totally opposing stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compared with that of his father?

Naseer Aruri: True, there is a vast difference between the policies of the two Bushes. Bush senior had a major conflict with Israel and its Zionist lobby in Washington. He and his Secretary of State James Baker challenged Israel’s settlement building in occupied territory, particularly Jerusalem and its environs. Israel and its minions in the U.S. such as former Senator George Mitchell objected to the assumption that Jerusalem is “occupied” territory. Perhaps Bush, Sr’s Iraq policy illustrates the major differences between the father and son. If one looks at the Israeli press during the summer of 1990 when U.S. forces were in Saudi Arabia while Saddam Hussein’s army was occupying Kuwait, one finds an important reality: Bush was in effect telling Israel that, we the U.S., as the sole super power, are in charge of security in the [Persian] Gulf region and in the whole Middle East.. Consequently, Israel has nothing to worry about and it must come to terms on the Palestine question knowing that Washington is in charge of security. That was probably the closest that the U.S. had ever come to the concept of an imposed settlement in which Israel must abide by Washington’s will based on its national interest as a super power.
But the plan did not come into fruition particularly when Bush was defeated in the presidential elections by Bill Clinton, who derailed Bush’s diplomatic train and diverted it to Oslo instead, hence the end of Bush, Sr’s designs.
When Bush the son came to the White House, the neo-conservatives had managed to secure a position of power and station themselves strategically around the New President who had to shoulder the whole issue of “terrorism” after September 11. These developments hastened the penetration of Bush’s policies by neo-conservatives, hence the difference between the two Bushes.

Kourosh Ziabari: Upon taking office, the Presidents of the United States conventionally make trips to Israel and pay homage to the Israelis by saying that they are committed to the security of Israel and that they will try their best to serve the interests of the Jewish regime. Is the Zionist lobby so influential to prevent from coming to power a President who has an anti-Zionist mindset? Is it ever possible for an anti-Zionist politician to rise to power in the United States?

Naseer Aruri: The answers to both questions are yes and yes. No politician with an “anti-Zionist mindset” could ever dream of living in the White House. The American political system has institutional and constitutional barriers against anti-Zionists winning the U.S. presidency. Take for example the Electoral College by which Americans elect their presidents. The EC stipulates that a candidate to the presidency must gain plurality and the winner takes all. These two factors (plurality and winner takes all) tend to polarize the system and promote the two party system. In that setting, there is no place for a minority, which is likely to be the anti-Zionist mindset. Rather, the system would promote two polarities and avoids the diffusion of power. In the US minorities which are cohesive and disciplined can easily develop factions such as Afro-Americans or Zionists who would give their votes to their co-nationals and insure the victory of disciplined, single-minded, and organized constituencies. In such a political system, anti-Zionists could never aspire to win a senatorial or even a lower House position, let alone win the Presidency. That is an impossible task.

Kourosh Ziabari: What’s in your view, the source of Zionist lobby’s enormous power and wealth? You may admit that the majority of mainstream media in the United States are being run by the well-off Jews and that the Zionist lobby plays a central role in the decision which the U.S. congress makes. What is the source of this power and influence?

Naseer Aruri: The sources of Zionist power in the US stem from superior organization, good finance, a ready-made “defense” of their cause such as “anti-Semitism,” which serves as a sort of black-mail and a barrier against valid criticism of policies. While the public can criticize Obama and his policy and expect no retribution, that same public cannot criticize Israel in the same way. Look at what happened to Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House journalists since the 1950s when she dared to express her opinion on the Israeli theft of Palestinian land, ongoing since the 1940s. Senators and Congress people have been dumped by the Lobby upon the first sign of dissent and deviation from the delivered wisdom and accepted orthodoxy on Israel. In short, the Zionist lobby is fortified by a shield which enables it to suppress dissent in a democratic nation.

Kourosh Ziabari: As my final question, I would like to ask you to propose your solution for drawing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you champion a two-state solution? Do you believe that the Jews should be returned to their original homelands in Europe? What’s your viewpoint in this regard?

Naseer Aruri: As for the ideal solution, I am afraid no just and lasting solution seems to be on the horizon at the present time. Israel and its supporters have stood firmly during the past four decades against the global consensus which demanded withdrawal from occupied territories and a just resolution of the refugees problem in accordance with UN resolutions and the general principles of international law– a resolution based on the principles of equal justice, equal protection of the law, and an end to apartheid, which now prevails throughout historic Palestine pre and post 1948. As for the two-state solution, there is no such a thing. It is already too late for that, as the entire spectrum of Israeli politics allows no sovereignty on any piece of land lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That leaves one just solution: a single state in which Muslims, Christians and Jews can live together on the basis of equal justice and equal protection of the law.

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.

He has interviewed political commentator and linguist Noam Chomsky, member of New Zealand parliament Keith Locke, Australian politician Ian Cohen, member of German Parliament Ruprecht Polenz, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, former U.S. National Security Council advisor Peter D. Feaver, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics Wolfgang Ketterle, Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry Kurt Wüthrich, Nobel Prize laureate in biology Robin Warren, famous German political prisoner Ernst Zündel, Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, American author Stephen Kinzer, syndicated journalist Eric Margolis, former assistant of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, American-Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud, former President of the American Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Sid Ganis, American international relations scholar Stephen Zunes, American singer and songwriter David Rovics, American political scientist and anthropologist William Beeman, British journalist Andy Worthington, Australian author and blogger Antony Loewenstein, Iranian geopolitics expert Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, American historian and author Michael A. Hoffman II and Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon.

Posted on by

U.S. Human Rights Policy is Self-serving and Duplicitous

Kourosh Ziabari

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari, 6 March 2011

George Katsiaficas is a renowned university professor, sociologist, author and activist. He is a visiting American Professor of Humanities and Sociology at Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea where he teaches and does research on the 1980s and 1990s East Asian uprisings.

George Katsiaficas

George Katsiaficas

Katsiaficas has a Ph.D. of sociology from the University of California, San Diego. Since 1990, he has taught sociology at the Wentworth Institute of Technology’s Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. During the period between 2006 and 2008, he was an Associate in Research at the Harvard University and Korea Institute.

He specializes in social movements, Asian politics, the U.S. foreign policy, comparative and historical studies and has written numerous books in these fields.

In 2003, he won the American Political Science Association’s Special Award for Outstanding Service and in 2008, received the Fulbright Senior Scholar Research Fellowship.

Among his major books are “The Battle of Seattle” by the New York’s Soft Skull Press, “Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party” by New York’s Routledge Press and “South Korean Democracy: Legacy of the Gwangju Uprising” by London’s Routledge Press.

What follows is the complete text of interview with Dr. George Katsiaficas on the recent uprising in the Arab world, its impacts on the international developments and its implications for the United States and its European allies.

Kourosh Ziabari: After Tunisia and Egypt in which the revolutionary forces and people on the ground succeeded in ousting the U.S.-backed puppets, several other Arab nations joined them and staged massive street demonstrations to call for civil liberties, improved living conditions, freedom and democratic governments. Now the whole Arab world is in a state of turmoil and unrest and the U.S.-backed dictators are facing the bitter reality that their autocracies are about to fail and collapse. What factors led to the extension of anti-government protests to the whole Arab world? Can we interpret this collective uprising a result of the explosion of strong pan-Arabist sentiments?

George Katsiaficas: No one could have predicted that the suicide of a vegetable vendor in rural Tunisia would unleash long pent-up frustrations on such a scale. If we take a long historical view, the Arab world went into a steep decline after Europeans discovered how to round Africa and established direct trade with the East. While oil has provided a huge stimulus for recovery in the 20th century, its effects have been drastically mitigated by elite corruption. The Arab people are finally awakening from a long slumber. The masses of ordinary Arabs today know in their hearts that they are more intelligent than their rulers. They know that they could all live better lives if they could get rid of the corrupt and often stupid elites trampling on their freedoms and hogging the money that rightfully belongs to everybody.

The phenomenon of uprisings spreading from place to another and drawing in ever more sectors of the population is one that I first uncovered when I studied the global movement of 1968. Unlike armed insurrections of the early part of the 20th century, the New Left involved a rapid proliferation of popular unarmed revolts—historically a new phenomenon. As I pulled together my empirical studies, I was stunned by the spontaneous spread of revolutionary aspirations in a chain reaction of uprisings and the massive occupation of public space—the sudden entry into history of millions of ordinary people who acted in a unified fashion, intuitively believing that they could change the direction of their society. Although they were not united by any centralized organization or even loosely tied together by any coordinating body, everyone was inspired by the heroic struggle of Vietnam. All over the world—from Paris to Prague, Chicago to Mexico City, and Dhaka to Beijing—people’s revolutionary aspirations and actions were not only synchronized, but they were also remarkably similar to each other in their international solidarity and desire for self-government.

After analyzing the proliferation of the global movement, especially the strikes of May 1968 in France and May 1970 in the US, I coined the term the “eros effect” to explain the rapid emergence of global solidarity and love. From my case studies, I came to understand how in moments of the eros effect, universal interests become generalized at the same time as the dominant values of society are negated (such as national chauvinism, hierarchy, and individualism). At that time, for example, opinion polls consistently showed that Ho Chi-minh was more popular than Richard Nixon on American college campuses. See The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of 1968 (Boston: South End Press, 1987.)

At first glance, the current revolt appears to be confined to the Arab world, but in fact, it has already had a much wider effect: Gabon, Iran, and China have all felt the tremors from the rising in Egypt. Even workers in Wisconsin, who are fighting cutbacks in their standard of living, expressed admiration for, and inspiration from, the Egyptian uprising. Certainly pan-Arab sentiments are a driving force, yet they are not essential. People feel in their bones that change is possible—and not only in the Arab world.

KZ: Many Iranians believe that the uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt have been inspired by Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979. They compare the overthrowing of U.S.-backed Mubarak and Ben Ali to the dissolution of Mohammad Reza Shah’s government which was unconditionally supported by the United States and its European allies. Do you find such a relationship between these revolutions which took place during an interval of 32 years?

GK: Revolutions and popular uprisings have unexpected results—and not necessarily immediate ones. Even generations later, people’s memories and psyches assimilate lessons from previous eaves of struggles. The courage of Iranians in 1979, their withstanding of ferocious repression by the Shah and his forces, was evident for people all over the world, and inspired Haitians and Filipinos to overthrow their dictators. In 1987, I wrote that, “In the epoch after 1968, popular movements have internalized the New Left tactic of the occupation of public space as means of social transformation, and this tactic’s international diffusion led to the downfall of the Shah, Duvalier, and Marcos…the significance of the eros effect and the importance of synchronized world-historical movements will only increase.”

KZ: In your recent article, you’ve compared the new Middle East revolutions to the Korea’s 1987 June Uprising when after 19 consecutive days of massive street demonstrations, people could finally bring down the 26-year autonomy of military forces and hold direct presidential elections. In what ways are these movements similar to each other?

GK: In both cases, people basically fought with bare hands against mighty police forces and defeated them. Thousands of ordinary citizens claimed the right to remain together in public and refused to go home when ordered to do so. Small informal leadership circles emerged in the course of popular struggles, drawn initially from extant activist circles but also porous enough to admit many newcomers from a variety of constituencies. Most significantly, both revolts were quickly ended by the peaceful retirement of the incumbent president and vague promises made by the military—which in both cases remained in power as the uprising subsided. It took South Koreans another five years of struggle before the first civilian was elected president, and it took until 1996 to put the previous dictators in prison. While one agreed to the order to return some US$300 million that he had stolen from the public, Chun Doo-hwan famously testified he had less than $100 to his name—thereby losing his honor but keeping a fortune of perhaps $700 million. Both sums pale in comparison to the estimated fortune amassed by Mubarek. It remains to be seen how much of the Mubarek family holdings will be recovered—or, more importantly, whether or not Egypt will move toward substantive democracy. The longer people adopt a “wait and see” attitude, the less chance there is of change. Millennia of pharonic rule and dictatorships are not easily undone.

KZ: The Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is said to have deposited $90 billion in Italian and other European banks. Since 1990s, the European states moved towards normalizing their ties with the dictator and supported him both politically and financially. Now, these Western states with which the Libyan dictator was once a close friend are calling for a unified international action against him. The old friend has now become a bitter enemy. Isn’t this an exercise of double standards by the Western governments?

GK: This double standard is nothing new. The US has a long history of riding on the backs of dictators in Third World countries and then tossing them away like a used car once they have outlived their usefulness. Longtime Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos was ousted with US approval in 1986; the CIA maintained real time connection to the rebels and provided them with invaluable intelligence information. Much earlier, in 1961, Rafael Trujillo, who had ruled the Dominican Republic with an iron fist for decades, was assassinated. Many people suspect the CIA provided the assassins with the weapons they used. In 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem, who had faithfully served US interests in South Vietnam from 1956 to 1963, was overthrown in a military coup about which the US had advance knowledge, and US refusal to assist him led to his assassination. Many people believe long-time US ally Park Chung-hee, ruler of South Korea from 1961 to 1979, was killed with advance US approval.

KZ: The media have reported that the mercenaries of Colonel Gaddafi have so far killed more than 6,000 protesters in Tripoli and other cities of Libya. What’s your prediction for the political future of Libya? Gaddafi has vowed to remain in power and “die as a martyr”; however, the protesters, despite the large-scale crackdown by the government haven’t retracted from their stance and are still calling for the ouster of the old dictator. What will be the outcome of these tumultuous clashes in Libya? Will the revolution finally end in the overthrowing of Muammar Gaddafi?

GZ: That is a life and death question for thousands of Libyans. It is too early for us to tell whether or not the armed revolt will prevail. With the US and NATO already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Joints Chiefs are resisting the call by conservatives here to implement a no-fly zone and come to the assistance of the rebels. We should not forget that Gaddafi has played ball with the US in recent years, and he is certainly calling in every favor he is owed. In 1980, the US encouraged Korean General Chun Doo-hwan to suppress the democratic popular uprising in Gwangju. There can be no doubt that it may well stand by and watch as Gaddafi crushes those opposed to his rule.

KZ: Prof. Rashid Khalidi believes that the recent uprisings in the Arab countries have transformed and changed the mainstream media’s portrayal of the Muslim world. The people that were once introduced as fanatic terrorists and extremists are now being called freemen who sacrifice their lives for the sake of achieving freedom and liberty. Do you agree with this viewpoint? Has the communal uprising of the Arab world changed the public’s viewpoint regarding the Arabs and Muslims?

GK: In my view, US public opinion has not really shifted much. The self-organization of armed resistance to Gaddafi astounds American journalists. American young people note with amusement that soccer and dating web sites were used by young Libyans to organize their uprising, but my students complain that they feel burdened by the region’s peoples looking to the US for help.

I suspect the change in Arabs’ own self-understanding is far more significant. For too long, the role of public opinion and the importance of ordinary people has been disregarded in the region, especially by insurgencies, which instead of seeking to stimulate popular movements and raise consciousness, instead pinned their hopes on elites or organized armed commando actions. The first and most influential shift occurred with the first Palestinian intifada in the late 1980s. The people’s uprising was ruthlessly crushed—remember Yitzhak Rabin’s orders to break bones of unarmed children—but the spirit of popular resistance was kindled throughout the region.

KZ: We already know that the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya are among the major human rights violators in the world; however, the United States and its European cronies who frequently boast of their concerns about the preservation of human rights and freedom have been long indifferent to the persecution of political activists, incarceration of journalists and bloggers and other abuses of human rights in these countries. On the other hand, the superpowers have always employed the excuse of human rights for pressuring the independent and non-aligned nations such as Iran. What do you think about this dualistic approach?

GZ: From the very beginning, US human rights policy has been self-serving and duplicitous. In the name of democracy and enlightenment, the US exterminated millions of Native Americans. The US government broke nearly every treaty it ever signed with native peoples, a sad history known as the “Trail of Broken Treaties.” It would be laughable if it were not so tragic that a country based upon enslavement and murder of millions of Africans and genocide against Native Americans, a country that killed at least three million Koreans and more than two million Indochinese, a country that today is massacring thousands more in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, could seek to instruct anyone on “human rights.” Yet it is precisely a self-righteous belief in American freedom and superiority that motivates continuing genocide.

President Jimmy Carter, with whom the modern version of human rights policy is thought to originate, collaborated with Indonesian generals in the bloody invasion of East Timor. Carter approved the suppression of the Gwangju Uprising at the cost of hundreds of lives. Years later, when evidence of his actions could be assembled, a Peoples Tribunal found Carter and 7 other high US officials guilty of “crimes against humanity for violation of the civil rights of the people of Gwangju.” Five months afterwards, Carter was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The hypocrisy continues unabated. Obama enlarges the war in Afghanistan and attacks Pakistan, and he, too, is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Should we be surprised that an award named after the inventor of dynamite provides international legitimation of Western imperialism and aggression?

KZ: As my final question, what’s your prediction for the future of Arab countries which have been engulfed by the waves of popular upsurge in the recent weeks? Will the autocratic regimes of the Persian Gulf region finally yield to the demands of the protesting revolutionaries?

Unfortunately, my prognosis is that the region will continue to be burdened by corrupt elites, but also that existing rulers will have to permit larger circles of economic innovators to emerge and grant people a wider range of civil liberties. With a population of 90 million, Egypt barely managed to manufacture what Costa Rica (population 900,000) could produce. Historically speaking, uprisings have opened the doors to subsequent economic development, as we readily see today in East Asia.

I suspect that substantive democracy in the Arab world (nor practically anywhere else for that matter) is not in the cards—at least for now. Elections may well be permitted but, as in the US, candidates will reflect the dominant parties, not any meaningful alternative. Military spending will continue to be lavish and result in enormous waste of resources. Militarized nation-states armed with weapons of mass destruction, although widely understood as historical anachronisms, will continue to reign supreme. Ordinary people’s dreams of a world at peace reveals a wisdom that far surpasses their rulers’ capacity to think, yet the resultant contradiction requires a globally synchronized effort to result in real change.

In my view, the synchronicity of revolts and occupation of public space that began in 1968 is continually widening its circles. Besides the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, we saw a wave of uprisings after Gwangju that spread in six years from 1986 to 1992 through the Philippines, Burma, Tibet, China, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Thailand. This most recent emergence of the eros effect in the Arab world indicates that popular movements are building to an even more intense climax, to a global uprising that might finally bring an end to the scandalous control of humanity’s collective wealth by a handful of billionaires.

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

 

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.

Posted on by

Working around America: a new strategy on Israel/Palestine

Obama_relaxing-2-37618

Jeff Halper, 25 Feb 2011

Last Friday’s vote in the UN in which the US refused to follow the other 14 members of the Security Council in condemning Israel’s ongoing settlement project – including, it should be noted, such traditionally pro-Israel stalwarts as Britain, France and even Germany and India (for whom Israel is the #2 supplier of arms, as it is with China) – revealed what international isolation into which the US has fallen. Without being pollyannish over the human rights records of the other members of the Security Council, human rights does, nevertheless, motivate the foreign policy of many countries of the world, if only because to be seen respecting human rights has become a standard of national legitimacy. Israel’s blatant violations of international law threaten the consensus upon which the international order rests, even if it is upheld in the breech.

The Security Council vote show that this is not true for the United States, whose perceived cultural and legal exceptionalism rests upon a rapidly eroding economic and military hegemony. The very message of the American vote – that we do not see ourselves subject to international law and human rights; we set the policies and rules, not the UN or international courts – sends a chill down the spine of people everywhere, especially those, such as the peoples uprising in the Middle East or those in Burma, the Congo, China and in American prisons, who cannot revolt yet hold out hope that struggles for human rights will eventually each them.

The American vote sent yet another, more concrete message: the United States simply cannot deliver on a just peace in Israel/Palestine. Assuming that Obama, Gates, perhaps Clinton and certainly Petraeus “get it,” that they understand that Israel’s occupation is unsustainable and only isolates the US in the international community, then how does one account for the American vote? The explanation given, that turning to the UN will somehow “undermine” a non-existent “peace process,” is laughable and persuaded no one. The answer, of course, is Congress. Structurally, not because of policy or will (though contempt for international law plays its role), the American Administration cannot resolve the conflict because the overwhelming majority of Congress, in both houses and both parties, feel they must be unwaveringly and uncritically “pro-Israel” if they are to be re-elected (even though this is patently mistaken; only 7 percent of Jews polled after the 2010 elections identified Israel as a decisive issue in their vote).

Unlike other foreign policy issues, Israel has become a domestic American issue. A candidate for office, even in a state such as Nevada, Iowa or Maine with few Jews or Christian fundamentalists, must often stake out a more “pro-Israeli” position than his or her opponent before getting on to even local issues. The strategic funding and political support (or the threat of withdrawing them) of candidates in both parties by AIPAC and the clout of the Christian Right in the Republican Party is matched by the influence of Pentagon defense contractors, who keep members of Congress in line by arguing that any cut in the billions given to Israel and, by extension, to the other countries in the region (totaling some $125 billion over the next decade), will cost jobs in their states and districts. Indeed, Susan Rice’s vote in the Security Council cannot be explained in any way except as a capitulation of vital American interests to “pro-Israel” forces and manufactured perceptions on the part of the Administration and Congress alike.

Faced with the spectacle of an almost totally isolated US, why should any of us cling to the American default strategy of the past 44 years, whereby the United States is seen as the sole and ultimate arbitrator of the conflict? And in particular, why should the Palestinians? If the US cannot actually deliver on a just peace for structural reasons, and yet insists on an absolute monopoly over any “peace process,” the time is long overdue to develop a “working around America” strategy. Let’s look at the world beyond the US:

· At least ten countries in Europe seem to be moving towards unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state within the ‘49/’67 borders; Cyprus did so a couple weeks ago. In fact, public opinion favoring the Palestinians is far in advance of the foot-dragging governments. Efforts to mobilize public opinion there should be redoubled, although much work needs to be done in the extremely conservative pro-American/pro-Israel states of Eastern Europe, which, Slovenia aside, hold the rest of the EU back on this issue.

· Most Latin American countries have already recognized a Palestinian state within recognized borders, although they have also accepted Israel as become the first non-Latin American country to sign a trade agreement with Mercosur, the region’s emerging common market. Given strong sympathies of Latin American peoples towards the Palestinians, vigorous campaigns calling for stronger government actions and BDS are called for.

· Turkey has become a lead player against the Occupation in the Middle East and internationally, while the fundamental changes sweeping the Arab world signal a fundamental shift in relations to Israel and the US – and perhaps a more critical and active role for the Arab League and the possibilities of mobilizing the wider Muslim world. Here, ironically, pressure has to be put on the Palestinian Authority to be more pro-active. It deserves credit for bringing the anti-settlement resolution before the Security Council despite strong US pressures, but Abbas’s refusal to bring a Palestinian declaration of independence within recognized borders before the UN in the end neutralizes the recognition accorded the Palestinians by Latin American and other countries.

· South Africa, recently made a member of the BRIC group of countries, is capable of taking a more active role on this issue given its expressed support for the Palestinian cause, and could play a leading role in mobilizing other African states.

· Russia recently reaffirmed its recognition of a Palestinian state, although it does not seem eager to confront the US in an American “sphere of influence.” China and India have yet to play a major role – in part because Israel is the #2 arms supplier to both countries. But certainly in India and other countries of Asia much more could be done to mobilize both the peoples and their governments.

The UN vote demonstrates the great potential in organizing beyond the US, although it remains to be seen whether the PA is capable of pushing its case beyond the confines of American patronage, or having the courage to do so. Until now it has failed to mobilize and harness its greatest ally – us, the peoples of the world, the international civil society. Still, with or without the PA, the grassroots should pursue the next phase of the struggle: refocusing our efforts on a “working around America” strategy. Eventually the US will have to realize that its growing isolation is simply too great a price to pay for supporting an unsustainable occupation, or it will be left in the dust.

Jeff Halper is the Director of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org.

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is based in Jerusalem and has chapters in the United Kingdom and the United States. ICAHD campaigns against Israeli occupation and oppression in the Palestinian Territories and to Bedouin communities within Israel

Posted on by

Middle East Protests, Violence and Strikes Continue

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman, 18 Feb 2011

Whatever set them off, the genie is out of the bottle and spreading from Tunisia to Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and perhaps America, in Wisconsin over proposed wage, benefits, and union bargaining rights cuts. A forthcoming article covers outrage in the US heartland, inspiring others Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, and perhaps wherever aggrieved workers reside, awaken, and react against intolerable outrageous policies.

On February 17, New York Times writers Michael Slackman and Nadim Audi headlined, “Bahrain’s Military Takes Control of Key Areas in Capital,” saying:

Its military, “backed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, took control of most of this capital (Manama) on Thursday, hours after hundreds of heavily armed riot police officers fired shotguns, tear gas and concussion grenades to break up a pro-democracy camp inspired by the tumult swirling across the Middle East.”

Hundreds were injured. At least six died, some killed while they slept with scores of shotgun pellets to the head and chest, according to witnesses and attending doctors. Others were attacked when they ran to avoid violence. Foreign minister, Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed al-l-Khalifa, defended street violence as a last resort to save Bahrain from the “brink of a sectarian abyss.”

Al Jazeera’s unnamed correspondent for his safety said “clashes were no longer limited to one place….They are now spread out in different parts of the city.” Hospitals are filled with wounded people. “Some of them are severely injured with gunshots. Patients include doctors and emergency personnel who were overrun by the police while trying to attend to the wounded.” Some are in critical condition.

Angry crowns are chanting, “Down with Al-Khalifa,” referring to Bahrain’s ruling family. “People are also chanting that the blood of the victims will not be in vain.” The kingdom’s main opposition bloc, Wefaq, denounced government violence as “real terrorism,” women and children attacked like men.

Bahrain’s king, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa expressed condolences on state television for “the deaths of two of our dear sons,” saying a committee would investigate the killings, adding:

“We will ask legislators to look into this issue and suggest needed laws to resolve it.” However, human rights activist Alkwaka said attacking peaceful protesters casts doubt on his credibility as numbers of deaths and injuries rise.

Initially, protesters demanded a constitutional monarchy. Now after days of violence, many want the ruling family ousted. “Bring down the government,” thousands chanted, including women and children. An identified surgeon for his safety said Bahrain’s Health Ministry prevented ambulances from reaching victims. Police beat medical staff. Wefaq’s Hussein Mohammed called it “a slaughter.” Taghreed Hussein said “We are a people of mourners now, we have nothing” as she and others suffered in grief.

Bahrain is strategically important to Washington as home for its Fifth Fleet. It’s responsible for security in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important chokepoint for 16 million daily barrels of oil, the Bab-el-Mandeb strait separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily, the Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, Suez Canal, Arabian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. Thus, security remains tight and ready to respond violently if Bahrainians try breaching base defenses.

Libyan Protests

On February 17, Al Jazeera headlined “Deadly ‘day of rage’ in Libya,” saying:

Reports say over a dozen demonstrators were killed in clashes with security and pro-government forces. Faiz Jibril, an opposition leader in exile told Libyans to “br(ake) the barrier of fear, it is a new dawn.” A Benghazi eye witness told Al Jazeera he saw police kill six unarmed protesters Thursday. He also said 30 released prisoners were armed and paid to attack people demonstrating peacefully.

Mohammed Al Abdellah, deputy leader of the exiled National Front for the Salvation of Libya, said al-Baida hospitals were short of medical supplies because authorities refused to supply them for dozens being admitted, some critically with gunshot wounds.

In Zentan, southwest of the capital, government buildings were set ablaze. Deaths were reported in a number of cities. Darnah and protesters in other cities were chanting “the people want the ouster of the regime.”

Libya is tightly controlled, run by Muammar Gaddafi for over 40 years, the region’s longest ruling strongman. Thursday is the anniversary of the February 17, 2006 Benghazi clashes when security forces killed several protesters attacking the city’s Italian consulate. Wednesday night in al-Baida alone, 11 protesters were killed, scores wounded.

In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera, Libyan novelist/writer Idris Al-Mesmari said plainclothes security forces dispersed Benghazi protesters with tear gas, batons, and hot water. Hours later he was arrested. Authorities also temporarily cut off telephone connections, blocked social networking sites, and removed Al Jazeera from state-owned TV. It’s still available online, including in America where cable companies block its access as in Chicago by Comcast and smaller competitors.

Yemeni Protests Continue

Day seven of violent Yemen protests continue, a group of senior clerics calling for a national unity government to save the country from chaos. Al Jazeera said:

“influential figures are demanding a transitional unity government that would see the opposition represented in key ministries, followed by elections in six months.”

They commented as fresh clashes erupting between pro and anti-government protesters in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital. Deaths and numerous injuries were reported.

“Police are trying to form lines to separate protesters and pro-government supporters – but they’re also attempting to disperse crowds with live ammunition, a sign of the very tense situation in the capital ahead of calls for today’s ‘Friday of Fury,’ ” according to correspondent Hashem Ahelbara.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh meets daily with powerful tribal chiefs, requesting their support at this crucial time. “He has struck a very harsh tone, describing the protesters as ‘anarchists.’ ”

Demonstrators reject his demand to delay elections to 2013, saying: “The only way is for us to keep fighting in the streets to bring about the dramatic changes that have taken place in Tunisia and Egypt,” that, in fact, remain very much unresolved, entrenched power in both countries retaining firm control.

In Sanaa, hundreds of students joined other protesters. So did workers at several state-owned companies, demanding their managers step down. Like others, they also want higher wages in the region’s poorest country plagued by extreme poverty, unemployment and hunger.

According to Sanaa University Professor Abullah Al-Faqih:

“This is what both Saleh’s ruling party and the opposition feared most – loud and violent protests organized by people that have no allegiance to any of the political parties.”

Protests in Iraq

In Iraq, protests spread over anger about government corruption, unemployment, few public services, spotty electricity if any, repression and occupation by hated Americans.

In Kut, 2,000 protested for lack of work and electricity, among other grievances. It turned deadly when private guards employed by the provincial government open fire at crowds, killing three or more and injuring dozens.

Eyewitnesses told the Washington Post that:

The provincial “governor escaped through a back door with his bodyguards….Footage broadcast on Iraqi television showed black smoke billowing from the headquarters as protesters clambered over walls into the compound. Other members of the provincial council also reportedly escaped, and the Iraqi army was called in to quell the turmoil.”

They rushed reinforcements to the city, blocked its entrances, and prevented people in surrounding areas from joining demonstrators. Several government buildings were set ablaze, including the governorate’s main administration one and the governor’s official residence.

Unrest was also reported in Afak in neighboring Diwaniyah province, where demonstrators stormed a building housing the local city council, setting it afire. Several killings and numerous injuries were reported there and elsewhere, including at gatherings of lawyers, judges, students, oil workers and others voicing specific complaints.

Political analyst Ibrahim Sumaiedi called outbreaks “very dangerous. Society is divided along ethnic and sectarian lines, and everyone is armed. If this (spreads), we will face not reform or change but something far more devastating, because there are a lot of weapons in Iraq.” In Yemen also, heightening the chance for greater violence.

Anticipation is now building for February 25, called a “Revolution of Iraqi Rage,” a month after the Facebook-organized “Day of Rage” that toppled Mubarak. Numerous groups urge Iraqis to take to the streets that day to protest. What began localized potentially could spread and engulf the entire country, despite low Internet access unlike Egypt. However, once protests erupt, they gain momentum of their own.

Striking Egyptians Persist

Ignoring military council prohibitions, tens of thousands across the country demand higher pay, better working conditions, and corrupt officials purged. In Mahall al-Kubra, Egypt’s largest industrial center, 12,000 workers struck the Misr Spinning and Weaving factory, wanting their grievances addressed.

In Damietta, 6,000 textile workers continued their walkout at the company’s facility south of Cairo, also for similar demands. Across Cairo, Alexandria, Qaliubiya, and the Suez Canal area, strikes and protests continued. In Port Said, 1,000 demonstrated, demanding closure of a chemical factory polluting a local lake. At Ismailiya, irrigation, education and health ministry workers want higher wages and other grievances redressed.

Cairo International Airport workers walked out, hundreds demanding higher wages, better healthcare coverage and other benefits. Other strikes affect banks, transport, oil, tourism, and various government agencies. One of the most important actions impacts major Cairo banks, forcing many businesses and factories to close because customers can’t get funds to buy products being produced.

Many factories closed when even small numbers of workers struck to prevent actions gaining traction and spreading to other facilities. Plants affected include textiles, chemicals, cement, ceramics, steel and others.

According the the newspaper Al-Masri Al-Youm:

“In the wake of the 25 January uprising, employees in many sectors – including state-owned publishing houses and the supply directorate (rations) – took to the streets for the first time. While their demands were primarily economic, they also included pleas against corruption and nepotism.”

Social injustice is a major concern it stressed, saying:

“Although protesters have clear economic grievances, they primarily lament what they perceive as unfair procedures, either in regard to unequal pay among employees of various government institutions or the arbitrary dismissal of workers.”

So far, banks, businesses, factories, schools, universities and the stock exchange remain closed. Workers also expressed anger over the state-controlled Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF). Thousands demonstrated outside its headquarters, demanding its chief, Hussein Megawer, resign along with members of his governing board.

AP reported that:

“Since the military took power from (Mubarak), Egyptians have been airing grievances everywhere over just about everything, from meager wages to police brutality and corruption.”

What unites them is being able to voice complaints publicly for the first time. Driven by economic despair, they now demand redress, their passion perhaps strong enough to resonate, grow, and spread for real change if millions join them in solidarity, knowing ousting Mubarak was a small first step, achieving nothing so far with generals still in charge. They’re part of the old regime resistant to change.

Egyptians’ main task lies ahead against formidable odds for success, but nothing was ever achieved without sustained, determined trying. A better world is possible, maybe first in some unlikely places, but never easily, quickly, or without great cost.

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Posted on by

Middle East Protests Continue

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman, 16 Feb 2011

They continue in Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, and most recently in Iran and Bahrain, Al Jazeera saying:

“At least one person has been killed and several others injured after (Bahrain) riot police opened fire at protesters holding a funeral service for a man killed (a) day earlier.”

Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at thousands in Manama, Bahrain’s capital, demanding the regime’s removal. Majority Shias want redress, saying Sunni rulers unfairly discriminate. However, more than sectarian issues are involved. Others include political freedoms, ending media and Internet state controls, prohibiting police use of excessive force, and addressing the extreme wealth gap between Bahrain elites and majority citizens.

On February 15, Al Jazeera’s unnamed correspondent for his safety said:

“Police fired on the protesters this morning, but they showed very strong resistance. It seems like (a) funeral procession was allowed to continue, but police are playing a cat-and-mouse game with protesters.”

Angered by deaths from their ranks, al-Wefaq Shia opposition members suspended their parliamentary participation, calling it a first step toward continuing or resigning, depending on future developments. In a rare gesture, Bahrain’s king, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, offered condolences on state television. Words, of course, don’t suffice.

On February 15, Al Jazeera headlined, “Deaths reported in Iran protest,” saying:

A member of parliament told the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) about two deaths and others injured, including members of Tehran’s security forces. Al Jazeera’s Dorsa Jabbari said police used tear gas, pepper spray and batons against protesters. Judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei said, “Those who created the public disorder on Monday will be confronted firmly and immediately.

On February 13, AP headlined, “US Starts Farsi Twitter Account Aimed at Iranians,” saying:

“The US State Department began sending Twitter messages in Farsi on Sunday in the hope of reaching social media users in Iran.”

USA darFarsi told Iranians, “We want to join in your conversation.” Other tweets accused Iran’s government of targeting dissent while praising Egypt’s protesters, the same ones Hillary Clinton urged to stay calm despite harsh security force crackdowns.

US tweets also called on Iran “to allow people to enjoy the same universal rights to peacefully assemble and demonstrate as in Cairo,” what’s viciously attacked when Americans protest against globalization, IMF and World Bank injustice, as well as Republican and Democrat party conventions over legitimate political and social justice grievances.

Washington’s policy is do as we say, not as we do, including its imperial wars, torture and other civil and human rights abuses committed globally, including at home.

Yemenis Continue Protesting

Anti-government demonstrators protested for the fifth day, Al Jazeera saying thousands demanded political reforms, including President Ali Abdullah’s ouster after ruling despotically for 32 years. Pro-regime loyalists and plainclothes police confronted them, dispersing crowds with tear gas, batons, tasers, electric cattle prods, rifle butts, and knives.

Lawyers dressed in black robes joined protesters, chanting: “The people want the regime to step down. Leave Saleh, (and) After Mubarak, Ali.” Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra said:

“What we are seeing is thousands of pro-government protesters (and security forces), armed with batons, attacking the pro-democracy protesters and dispersing the crowd using violence. The situation is very tense. The government has been describing the pro-democracy protesters as traitors and accusing them of pushing foreign agendas. But the mood of the pro-democracy protesters is on the rise and they are saying that they will continue their fight to bring down this regime and to bring about a change.”

The Yemen Post said, “Police and bullies hurled stones at the protesters fed up with bad living conditions, high unemployment rates, widespread corruption at the public institutions and oppression. They also beat them with stun batons, and police fired live ammunition in the air in an attempt to disperse the protesters.”

Numerous injuries were reported. In Aden, dock workers stormed the Yemen Gulf of Aden Port Corporation offices, seizing top officials, including chairman Mohamed Bin Aefan. One protester said, “We have had it with corrupt officials and it’s time to tell them to leave. What happened in Egypt and Tunisia motivated the workers to demand their rights.”

Even after opposition parties accepted Saleh’s dialogue offer, demonstrations grew. He also agreed not to change Yemen’s constitution to remain president for life and have his son, head of the Republican Guard, succeed him. At the same time, a new National Defense Council law lets it freely tap phones, open mail, and monitor Internet and other electronic communications repressively.

For Washington, Yemen is strategically important, located near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.

As a result, military ties between Washington and Saleh have grown stronger, said Al Jazeera, as the country faces a southern secessionist movement, besides rising food and energy costs in the Arab world’s poorest country. Nearly half its people live on $2 or less a day for those lucky enough to have work. Nearly half of Yemenis don’t. They want better lives, including ending Saleh’s 32 year dictatorship.

Updating Egypt

On February 15, Haaretz writer Avi Issacharoff headlined, “Reports say Mubarak’s health gravely deteriorated since stepping down,” saying:

Reportedly ill with pancreatic cancer, he’s “rumored to be in a coma or even close to death.” A senior Egyptian official told the London-based Asharq Awsat that his death could come any time. What’s certain “is that his state of health is declining drastically.” It’s just a matter of time until he expires. Few will mourn him, but what remains is as bad or worse. Egyptians aren’t close to liberation, and won’t be unless sustain pressure in large enough numbers to matter.

Meanwhile, on February 14, London Guardian writer Hossam el-Hamalawy headlined, “Egypt protests continue in the factories,” saying:

From January 25, the uprising’s start, workers took part in protests, first as demonstrators, then as strikers unable to support their families on meager wages. Emboldened by Mubarak’s ouster, they’ve made demands, including for independent union representation “away from the corrupt, state-backed Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions.”

BBC reported bank, transport and tourism workers striking for better pay and working conditions. So are police, steel and sugar factory ones, activists among them expressing unease about Egypt’s ruling generals – “the same junta that provided the backbone of” Mubarak’s regime for three decades.

Moreover, even if civilian authority follows, they believe Egypt’s military will have final say, assuring support for “the much hated US foreign policy….The military has been the ruling institution in this country since 1952. It’s leaders” were weaned on the system. As a result, “we cannot for one second lend our trust and confidence to the generals.”

In a February 15 press release, trends watcher Gerald Celente agrees headlining, “Egypt Welcomes the New Boss – Same as the Old Boss,” saying:

On February 1, his Trends Journal told subscribers:

“As we will see in Egypt, military coups will be disguised as regime changes. Already the public is being conditioned to view the Egyptian military as beloved liberators. But in fact they are simply another arm of the autocratic government, no more familiar with democratic ideals than the dictator they replace,” himself a former general.

As a result, “(h)istory has not been newly made – it has only been repeated.” Yet Obama praised Egypt’s transition to “genuine democracy….The people of Egypt have spoken – their voices have been heard and Egypt will never be the same again.”

In fact, one despot’s removal doesn’t bring reform. Ahead “(e)xpect something even more dramatic, drastic and long-lasting when the nationwide, inescapable non-change sinks in a few months from now.” Similar developments are unfolding in Yemen, Tunisia, Algeria and elsewhere regionally. Celente calls it “Off With Their Heads 2.0″ he sees as a prelude to civil wars, regional ones, then the first “Great War” of the 21st century.

For now, defying junta orders, strikes for higher wages, better working conditions, and removing corrupt state-owned enterprise managers are ongoing. BBC reported “a whole series of mini-revolutions going on” after Mubarak’s removal.

Egypt’s largest state bank was struck, the National Bank of Egypt (NBE). Hundreds of its temporary workers want permanent jobs. Thousands of oil and gas workers joined them with various economic and political demands, including ending abusive management practices, reinstating sacked employees, raising wages, establishing independent unions, stopping gas exports to Israel, and firing “corrupt” oil minister Sameh Fahmy.

Across Egypt, transport workers, including EgyptAir, ambulance paramedics, employees of a key Cairo traffic tunnel, others at Cairo’s Youth and Sports Organization, Opera House, education ministry, post office, as well as steel, textile and other factory workers want redress for long unaddressed grievances, including enough pay to feed their families, pay rent and cover other basic needs.

Outside Cairo, Sukari gold mine and tourism workers protested. In Beni Sweif, thousands demand promised state-built, low-cost apartments, usually for well-connected favorites. Police also want better pay, Al Jazeera, BBC and other media outlets prohibited from broadcasting their Tahrir Square protest to project an image of “normality,” when, in fact, public anger remains strong beneath the surface. However, it may resurface quickly if key demands aren’t met.

They haven’t been beyond rhetorical promises. So perhaps Celente is right expecting a much bigger eruption, engulfing Egypt and other regional countries in convulsive revolutionary revolts, exceeding far less threatening uprisings so far. If so, expect much harsher military responses, its friendly face replaced by iron-fisted toughness with full Washington support to crack down, restore order, and get Egypt back to business, including running the country despotically like always. Will it work? In the fullness of time, we’ll know.

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Posted on by

Obama’s many broken promises in the Middle East.

Sami Jamil Jadallah

Sami Jamil Jadallah, 10 Feb 2011

When President Obama ran for office, America and the world looked for and prayed for change, a change that never came at least to the Middle East. It did not come to Iraq, did not come to Afghanistan, and certainly did not come to the Middle East conflict. President Obama’s speech in Cairo was full of promise and hope, a promise that remained unfulfilled and a hope that vanished quickly. Obama’s” wishy washy” management of Egypt “people’s revolution” showed the Arab and Muslim world that America is America, the world change but America will not change.

Millions of people took to the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, Rafah and many towns demanding the ouster of a failed, corrupt and criminal regime of Hosni Mubarak and America was at lost in what to do. No one expects and no one wants America to intervene on either side of the conflict, but every one wants and expects America to stand by its ideals and commitments to democracy and freedom, even if this democracy and freedom is by the Arabs and for the Arabs.

George Bush, Hosni Mubarak, Mahmoud Abbas and Israel all conspired to abort and render null and void the only free, open and closely monitored election in the Middle East, the one that took place in the Occupied Palestinian territories where Hamas won the election hand down over corrupt, incompetent and inept Fatah.

President Obama had every opportunity to make things right. He had the opportunity of not “veto” the Mecca Accord between Hamas and Fatah. The “reconciliation agreement” engineered by Omar Suleiman was designed to fail to keep Hamas and Gaza under siege. Every one should remember the role played by Mubarak and Suleiman for facilitating from Egypt large shipments of arms, armored carriers and millions of dollars going to Gaza to Fatah strong man Mohamed Dahlan with the idea of putting Hamas out of business once and for all. Fatah army of thugs disappeared and evaporated as Egypt police did during the early days of Egypt “people revolution”.

President Obama had the chance after the criminal war on Gaza where thousands killed by American bombs, and planes to do the right thing, to end the illegal and criminal siege of Gaza. He missed the opportunity and be worthy of his Noble Peace Prize, to be a world hero he was when elected, and a world leader not only demanding but also making sure the siege of Gaza comes to an end. Instead he chose to follow the advice of Mubarak, Suleiman and Abbas finding many excuses in keeping the 1.5 people in Gaza under siege, and locked up in the prison called Gaza.

The people know America’s Obama can end the siege of Gaza, but could not end the Israeli Occupation that lasted 44 years. The Arabs know that America’s Obama or Clinton or Bush does not have what it takes to end the Israeli Occupation, since Israel and its Occupation are domestic issues, the prerogative of the American Jewish Lobby but the prerogative of any American administration. And the talks of solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, as a strategic interest is nothing but empty talks, nonsense.

The US continued to support dictatorial corrupt and criminal regimes in the Middle East like Bin Ali’s Tunis and Hosni Mubarak Egypt. The most powerful intelligence organization (CIA) in the world with a budget in the tens of billions of dollars failed to forecast or anticipate the Jasmine Revolution and failed to anticipate the frustration and anger in the streets of Egypt and Tunisia and once again proved to be the most “unintelligent” intelligence agency in the world.

The Obama Administration simply failed to tell the Arab people and governments it supports in words and actions and without reservation the people including the Palestinians, right to freedom, liberty and democracy. Freedom from a police and “ mokhabarat” state, freedom for the people to organize, demonstrate, associate, and elect their own representatives and freedom to have accountable, transparent government of the people for the people and freedom from the 99% votes for the sitting president and ruling party.

For over 2 weeks since the start of the Egyptian Revolution, nothing but double talk, nothing but gray language coming out of the White House, State and Defense Department. Of course there should be no foreign intervention in the affairs of Egypt, but the US should make it clear to Mubarak an his government, that it respect and support the people’s right and demands for freedom, liberty, accountable transparent and freely elected government, and does not support lifetime presidency, does not support corruption and violation of human and civil rights of the people. The message to the people of Egypt, to Mubarak, to the Arab people and their governments must be clear the people come first.

Sami Jamil Jadallah

Sami Jamil Jadallah

Born in the Palestinian city of El-Bireh ( presently under Israeli Military Occupation, Armed Jewish thugs and settlers). Immigrated to the US in 62. After graduating from high school in Gary, Indiana was drafted into the US Army ( 66-68) received the Leadership Award from the US 6th Army NCO Academy in Ft. Lewis, Washington. Five of us brothers where in US military service about the same time. Graduated from Indiana University with BA-72, Master of Public Affairs-74 and Juris Doctor-77, and in senior year at IU,was elected Chairman of the Indiana Student Association. Sami Jamil Jadallah is an international legal and business consultant and is the founder and director of Palestine Agency and Palestine Documentation Center www.palestineagency.com and founder and owner of several business in technology and services. Sami also runs an online website (Jefferson Corner)

Posted on by

Sovereignty in the Middle East

Middle East 2003

Dina Jadallah, 25 Jan 2011

It is a sad state of affairs, but indicative of the times, that talk of sovereignty around the world is usually limited to the level of the state.

What about the people? Are they not (ideally) the body for whose benefit the state exists? Do they not constitute the basis of the nation-state? Consequently, should we not be focusing just as intently on sovereignty’s people-based counterpart, agency?

Until the revolution in Tunisia, these questions were especially irrelevant from the point of view of Arab rulers and of their Western-backers. This is definitely the case with the “moderates” among them who “normalize” relations with Israel. It is as if states are denuded of people. While they retain subjects (in the subjugated sense), they lack citizens.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the modern usage of the word sovereignty as “supreme power, especially over a body politic,” and as “autonomy” or freedom from external control. Sovereignty is usually used in reference to states, who ideally, possess this quality both internally and externally. It is further associated with a specific territory, a fixed population, a monopoly on the use of violence, and the decisional ability to make the laws.

Intellectually, the conceptualization of sovereignty took two divergent paths.

One argues that sovereignty is dependent on the inherent rationality of laws that are constituted by the people who reside within the state. This position relies on the concept of a social and political contract that bridges the gap between the people and the state. Theoretically, the contract embodies the sovereignty of the people, who are ultimately the source of the law as well as being simultaneously subject to the law. This capacity for effective action is called agency. In many respects, therefore, there is an intertwined relationship between the two concepts of sovereignty and agency. It is this relationship that lies at the source and center of rationality, meaning, and purpose at the levels of the polity and of the individual or group. Intellectually, this conception was developed by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant.

The alternative view of sovereignty depends on the exceptional decision and might of the sovereign ruler who alone chooses when to uphold or suspend the law. The state of exception argument was propounded most forcefully by (Nazi German jurist and political theorist who is currently admired by neo-conservatives) Carl Schmitt. It has been articulated also in the work of Giorgio Agamben. Intellectually, it relies on the intellectual legacy of Hobbes and Machiavelli. This latter conception is usually conceived as a temporary phenomenon invoked when there is a threat to the underlying democratic constitution of the state.

On so many levels, the preceding discussion is of little relevance to the reality of politics in the Middle East. This includes not only all Arab governments but also occupying states such as Israel (and the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan) who, as dispossessing and occupying states, have no democratic basis to return to — should they miraculously and uncharacteristically — choose to suspend the state of exceptionalism that has become the norm.

Not only is there a permanent and unbridgeable divide between state and people under these conditions, but dispossession, occupation, and fake sovereignty mutate the (Humanist) assumption of national progression through time. Instead of benefiting the people, state power is pursued for its own sake.

Middle Eastern states negotiate the modern age through the standards set by dominating powers. The peoples’ awareness of this reality often means that proclamations of sovereignty by rulers creates cognitive dissonance. This is in addition to provoking derision!

The hegemonic imperialism that is practiced in the Middle East today, especially in the form of “interventions” (“humanitarian,” rhetorical, and military) typify ethnocentric assumptions as they simultaneously enhance exploitative power. Rhetoric like “protecting our way of life,” “freedom,” “security,” and “stability” are all examples of the greater “good” of the world being served by hegemonic interventions. Such rationalizations derive from assumptions of the universal applicability of Western-derived “rational” standards that supposedly propagate an Enlightenment project of “progress” for the rest of humanity.

In practice, intervention entails a denial of agency for the people who are the objects of this interventionism. Counter-intuitively from the perspective of the hegemon, but predictably from the long view of history as well as from insights into what it means to be fully human, this has led to increased resistance (aka. instability), the very opposite of the hegemons’ intent.

Parasitic Symbiosis and al-Karama

The reality is that most Middle Eastern governments exist in a state of symbiosis with the Western hegemonic powers. This symbiotic congruence of hegemonic interests practices parasitic forms of extraction, oppression, and subjugation for the benefit of external beneficiaries. Some of these beneficiaries may be of the local variety. Nevertheless, their parasitism and externality reside in their roles, not in their “nationality.” This is similar to the Philippines model of American imperialism which was practiced through a circumscribed ruling cabal. (Notice that the Philippines is the only country in East Asia that has not experienced the Asian economic “miracle” – even if we contest how a “miracle” ought to be socio-economically defined.)

The Philippines model was exported and is practiced in many parts of the world today, especially the Middle East. Tunisia had its Trabulsi and Ben ‘Ali clans and their cohorts. Yet, there are still today replica-Trabulsis and Ben-Alis all over.

The opposite of this state of parasitic symbiosis, also known as (fake) sovereignty, in the Middle East is al-karama. Fundamentally, it is in each individual. But it needs the collective to reach its full potential. Herein lies its power: it has the ability to connect the practice of sovereignty at the level of the people, with its actualization at the level of the state.

Al-Karama is a word that is rich in meaning. It has far-reaching semantic, intellectual, socio-cultural, and political dimensions. Simply put, it means dignity. Its Arabic root is karam, which means magnanimity and generosity. The two concepts are related at many levels. A person’s dignity is naturally multi-faceted. It implies that one has basic needs such as life, food, health, intellectual, associational, political, and expressive freedoms, the capacity to have meaningful and fulfilling work, and so forth.

This is not to say that a person who lacks these things does not have dignity, because that is clearly (and fortunately) not the case. Many maintain their dignity despite living under conditions of political and economic deprivation and oppression. Nevertheless, such systemic subtractions of individual dignity necessarily mean a violation and a degradation of a quality that humans possess. Idealistically, one wants the opportunity to substantiate and practice this inherent quality in order to attain the limits of one’s potential.

It is at this point that karama intersects with karam, its root. For it is difficult to give that which one does not possess. Not impossible, just difficult. Moreover, karam adds a sociological dimension that is imbricated and intermeshed with the ability to possess and to practice life with dignity. One is generous to others. Furthermore, generosity with what is most dear – especially with qualities that are not material, but which are inherent in what it means to be human – is especially significant. Frequently, in Arabic the term karam is conjoined with al-akhlaq (a complex word that combines culture with ethical behavior). Karam al-akhlaq therefore implies that culturally- or communally-inspired ethics, insofar as they constitute each individual, necessarily reverberate onto the larger community, to the benefit of all. Bonds formed out of these relationships are not captured in the economic accountancy of “national gross domestic product(s).” And yet without them the latter could not be. One is magnanimous when one interacts in a positive and meaningful way with one’s community as well as with those who share one’s life, including those who are spatially far, but intellectually and ethically close. Thus, what is thought of as a personal quality is really no such thing. It flourishes best, it means the most, and it may practically exist only insofar as it is part of a larger network. The resultant reciprocal and reinforcing relationships are positive and cumulative in their ability to benefit all. The communal network formulates, activates, and practices those activities that are deemed meaningful and that give meaning to every human’s life.

There can be no dignity without generosity. There can be no dignity without the collective. To achieve all of these things requires an act of will by many. That is what the Tunisian Revolution has shown the world.

There is oftentimes contestation between the will and reason. Tunisian poet, Abu el-Qassem ash-Shabbi wrote a famous poem that most Arab schoolchildren learn. It is called Iradat al-Hayat (the will to life). Al-iradah is also an instinct. Living things instinctually desire life. Ash-Shabbi collectivizes this instinctual will to life to the level of a people. His poem expresses an insight that is revolutionary as such, and also in its potential. Al-Iradah (the will) has the ability to be optimistic even when political apathy and frustration, combined with decades of oppression, can stultify the mind into a state of utter pessimism. This pessimism is both an expression of, but importantly, is a (non-practice) of life, of dreams, of hopes….

These insights have socio-political repercussions. The Tunisian people, in what is described in Arab media as the “venge-less” (as opposed to vengeful) revolution, are showing the world (so far) a variant that is unique, authentic, and culturally-defined. Despite numerous (and heretofore Western-backed) attempts to subvert and abort the revolution, the mass of the Tunisian people have voiced a principled insistence on attaining their karama in all its dimensions. These include the right to represent themselves both personally via the free articulation and dissemination of their views both institutionally and in traditional and cyber medias; as well as the right to choose representatives who are true to the meaning of the word (but not to historical- and political- type!).

Tunisians also call for justice and restitution – in a legal manner. They further insist on revolutionizing politics and not merely reforming it. Reform has acquired a bad taste in the age of American hegemony. It risks not only keeping some old, coopted, and corrupt figures in new disguises, but it also risks maintaining the (non-democratically formulated) constitutional framework that would maintain the oppressive system even if the faces change.

Despite years of oppression, of subjugation to the will and whim of corrupt rulers, of decades of frustrated economic and political aspirations, the Tunisians are expressing their inherent karama. They are practicing their agency as political actors who wish to make their own history.

Very importantly, their karama is drenched in karam. This is demonstrated internally and externally. Inside, the revolution mobilized the vast majority of Tunisian society. The Tunisians’ rich culture managed to welcome diverse identities into a meaning-producing, cohesive entity that is networked, expressive, mobilized, and able to be politicized in the most positively meaningful way possible. Externally, their karam extends to the rest of the people in the Arab world, especially those who are downtrodden and oppressed. It is most vividly and meaningfully expressed in countless interviews and in chants that animate their demonstrations. One with particular resonance all over the Arab world (despite decades of Arab governments attempting to obliterate it as a mobilizational or even theoretical pan-Arab cause) is: el-raheel, el-raheel, ya ‘isabat israel (departure, departure, you gang of Israel). It falls on masses of welcoming ears.

May the Tunisians’ karam be reciprocated. And may karama prevail everywhere in the world.

Dina Jadallah is an Arab-American writer and artist. She has a background in political science and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona. She is the author of numerous articles dealing with political developments in the Arab world, especially Palestinian issues. Her work was published at Palestine Chronicle, Counterpunch, Arab Studies Quarterly, Ramallah Online, and Global Research, among others.  You can Contact her: d.jadallah@gmail.com.

Posted on by

Obama’s last card – Will he play it?

President Barack Obama talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the conclusion of a statement to the press in the East Room of the White House, Sept. 1, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Alan Hart, 13 Dec 2010

President Obama ought to have trouble sleeping at night knowing that by allowing Israel to continue its illegal settlement activity on the occupied West Bank he has made himself, and his country, openly complicit in the Zionist state’s defiance of international law. In a different America that ought to be enough to have any president removed from office.

Do I have a picture in my mind of a different America? Yes. In a recent interview with Der Spiegel,Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser, said that most Americans are “stunningly ignorant” about the world. By definition a different America would be one in which Americans were aware of the fact that almost everything they have been conditioned to believe about the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel is Zionist propaganda nonsense. (Properly informed Americans would understand, for example, why continued, unconditional White House and Congressional support for the criminal state of Israel is not in America’s own best interests and is, actually, provoking a real and growing threat to them).

My main point comes down to this. Now that he doesn’t have to honour any of the promises Secretary of State Clinton is said to have made to Prime Minister Netanyahu in a desperate (and predictably doomed) effort to persuade him to deliver a 90-day settlement freeze, Obama does have one last card that he could play.

For an Israel that is becoming a pariah state in the view of many people around the world, the promise that mattered most was that Obama would go on doing what all of his predecessors have done – veto any resolution in the Security Council that was not to Israel’s liking.

In the coming days, weeks and months it’s not impossible that the Security Council will be asked to vote on resolutions condemning Israel. One might call for recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 (pre-war) borders. This would be, effectively, a demand for Israel to end its occupation. Another might call for sanctions to be imposed on Israel if it goes on defying international law.

Until Obama’s decision not to confront Netanyahu over settlements, there was little or no prospect of a resolution aimed at calling Israel to account getting as far as the Security Council. But that prospect is now a real one because the European Union is openly exasperated by Obama’s lack of leadership on the matter. (Privately, some if not all EU leaders may well share Eric Margolis’s view that Obama has shown himself to be “utterly without spine” and “terrified” of the Zionist lobby).

In her public statement, Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, said this: “I note with regret that Israel has not been in a position to accept an extension of the moratorium as requested by the US, the EU and the Quartet.The EU position on settlements is clear – they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace.”

But that was a only the tip of an EU iceberg. For some months my sources have been telling me that almost without exception European governments, behind closed doors, are really “pissed off” with Israel, and were hoping that once the U.S. mid-term elections were out of the way, Obama would be ready to read it the riot act and apply some real pressure.

A hint of what lies below the tip of the EU iceberg was made public in a letter 26 members of the European Former Leaders Group (EFLG) wrote to Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, with copies to the governments of its 27 member states. It called for strong measures against Israel in response to its colonial policy and refusal to abide by international law.

One of the letter’s main proposals was that the EU should announce that it will not accept any unilateral changes to the 1967 border that Israel carried out against international law, and that the Palestinian state must cover an area the same size as the area occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem its capital. To leave as little room as possible for ambiguity, the letter also recommended that the EU should support only minor land swaps on which the two sides agreed.

The signatories were:

Chris Patten, UK,
(co-chair), former Vice-President of the European Commission; Hubert Védrine, France,
(co-chair), former foreign minister; Andreas van Agt, Netherlands, former prime minister; Frans Andriessen, Netherlands, former finance minister and former Vice-President of the European Commission; Guiliano Amato, Italy, former prime minister; Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Netherlands, former minister and vice-prime minister; Hans van den Broek , Netherlands, former foreign minister and EU Commissioner; Hervé De Charrette, France, former foreign minister; Roland Dumas, France, former foreign minister; Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Austria, former European Commissioner; Felipe Gonzales, Spain, former prime minister; Teresa Patricio Gouveia, Portugal, former foreign minister; Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Sweden, former deputy prime minister; Lionel Jospin, France, former prime minister; Jean Francois-Poncet, France, former minister and senator; Romano Prodi, Italy, former President of the EU Commission and prime minister; Mary Robinson, Ireland, former President; Mona Sahlin, Sweden, chairman Swedish Social Democratic Party; Helmut Schmidt, Germany, former chancellor; Clare Short, UK, former minister; Javier Solana, Spain, former High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy; Thorvald Stoltenberg, Norway, former prime minister; Peter D. Sutherland, Ireland, former Director-General of the WTO; Erkki Tuomioja, Finland, former foreign minister; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia, former president; Richard von Weizsäcker. Germany, former President.

They noted that “The year 2011 will be of critical importance in determining the fate of the Middle East, perhaps for many years to come.” And one year on from their last report in December 2009 they said (my emphasis added):

“We appear to be no closer to a resolution of this conflict. To the contrary, developments on the ground, primarily Israel’s continuation of settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) including in East Jerusalem, pose an existential threat to the prospects of establishing a sovereign, contiguous and viable Palestinian state also embracing Gaza, and therefore pose a commensurate threat to a two-state solution to the conflict…
We consider it vital that the Council should identify concrete measures to operationalize its agreed policy and thence move to implementation of the agreed objectives. Europe cannot afford that the application of these policy principles be neglected and delayed yet again. Time to secure a sustainable peace is fast running out… It is eminently clear that without a rapid and dramatic move to halt the ongoing deterioration of the situation on the ground, a two-state solution, which forms the one and only available option for a peaceful resolution of this conflict, will be increasingly difficult to attain…
The EU has stated unequivocally for decades that the settlements in the OPT are illegal, but Israel continues to build them. Like any other state, Israel should be held accountable for its actions… It is the credibility of the EU that is at stake. The EU position could not be clearer, but – as we have argued above – failure to act accordingly, in the face of contraventions and disregard by Israel, undermines the EU and its credibility in upholding international law…
At stake are not only EU relations with the parties directly involved in the conflict but also with the wider Arab community, with which the EU enjoys positive diplomatic and trade relations.”

One possible translation of that is something like, “Europe can no longer allow its own best interests to be damaged by support for Israel right or wrong.”

It’s no secret that Israel’s deluded leaders and many of its brainwashed Jewish people don’t give a damn about what the EU really thinks because, they believe, only America matters. That has been the situation to date, but could it be about to change?

There’s a case for saying “Yes, perhaps”, but not in the way Israelis might imagine. In their letter the 26 said that “key U.S. figures” had suggested to them that “the best way to help President Barack Obama in his efforts to promote peace was to make policy that contradicts US positions” and which imposed consequences and costs on Israel.

One possible implication is that European leaders have been made aware that Obama needs and wants to be able to say behind his own closed doors something like: “If we don’t require Israel to act in accordance with international law, we’re heading for trouble with Europe and will become as isolated in the world as Israel is. We cannot let this happen.”

Which brings me back to Obama’s last card. The fact is that he does not have to instruct the US ambassador to the UN to vote against Israel in the Security Council. An American abstention would be enough to empower the nearest thing we have to world government to be serious about calling and holding the Zionist state to account for its crimes. And that could be, I repeat could be, a game changer.

Alan Hart

Alan Hart

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

Alan maintains an online blog with a wealth of articles that can be found here http://www.alanhart.net/

More Articles on RamallahOnline can be found here

Posted on by

Leaks Suggest Iran Is Now Winning in the Middle East

Juan Cole

Juan Cole, 8 Dec 2010

My new column is out in Truthdig: Leaks Suggest Iran Is Now Winning in the Middle East”

Excerpt:

Iran is winning and Israel is losing. That is the startling conclusion we reach if we consider how things have changed in the Middle East in the two years since most of the WikiLeaks State Department cables about Iran’s regional difficulties were written. Lebanon’s Sunni prime minister, once a virulent critic, quietly made his pilgrimage to the Iranian capital last week. Israeli hopes of separating Syria from Iran have been dashed. Turkey, once a strong ally of Israel, is now seeking better relations with Iran and with Lebanon’s Shiites.

Read the whole thing.

Juan Cole

Juan R. I. Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. For three decades, he has sought to put the relationship of the West and the Muslim world in historical context. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World (Palgrave Macmillan, March, 2009) and he also recently authored Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). You can visit his site at http://www.juancole.com/

Posted on by

Wikileaks, What the US & Israel are not saying about Iran

Nick Marouf

Nick Marouf, RamallahOnline, 30 Nov 2010

According to recent survey carried out by the US Zogby polling organisation and the University of Maryland, conducted June 29 – July 20, 2010 with a wide range of participants from various Arab countries showed that Arabs would positivity view a nuclear Iran while over 75% view Israel and the US as the greatest threat towards the Middle East.

Both Netanyahu and Hillary Clinton are exploiting the fact that recent Wikileaks documents show that Arab states share Israel’s anxiety over Iran’s Nuclear program. Furthermore the US media fans the smoke on the fire by only showing that side of the story, ignoring the Brookings survey. “When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here- Clinton and the media- have drawn.  Noam Chomsky.”

A recent interview on Democracy Now with Noam Chomsky summaries the survey as follow:

“The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel- that’s 80. The second major threat is the United States- that’s 77. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%.”

“With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority- in fact, 57–say that the region would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons.”

Download the full Polling Results (PDF)

Wikileaks has not shed light on anything new for the most part, but rather confirmed suspicions which most historians would find useful. Most of the cables to date seem to play into the hands of Israel. One should ask, who has the most to benefit from Wikileaks. Keeping the answer simple, Israel, and maybe the United States depending on how this all plays out over the next few weeks.