A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing ~ Alexander Pope
Olmert's Speech
It came no surprise that Olmert's seize of fire justified Israel's butchery of 1200 Palestinians in the sense of the IDF defending the victims against terrorists. The timing of Olmert's 'unilateral' seize of fire was also perfect. He secured three goals through bloodshed:
• Making use of Bush's presence and unlimited support to Israel's atrocities till Bush's final moments
• Sending a signal to Obama that no one will obstruct Israel's bloody policies
• Making use of the International Media where all world attentions were focused on Obama's elections instead of the evidence of Israel's genocidal policies on the Palestinians after the media was more loose to wonder around Gaza.
This reflected on Obama's speech, where he mentioned global peace and hope, while not mentioning anything on Israel and Palestine, specially on the recent butcheries that took place. Luckily, U2 where there two days earlier to remind Obama on the Israeli/Palestinian question.
Fear of the Other: A Look at the Terrorists
Israel as always successfully integrated the fear of Palestinians. The nation of Israel is fully convinced that they live in the middle of an ocean of war mongrels of barbarians. The sporadic attacks of the Palestinians on the Israelis are depicted as terrorist attacks on a nation that wants to live peace. What the story is untold is the exact history on how Palestinians of 1948 were expelled from their homes, and the butcheries never stopped since that day. Almost on daily basis, Israelis are free to run, shoot randomly couple of Palestinians every day, and then argue that they were shot at. That was the case in 1948, and that is the case today. 9/11, where everyone assumes that the Arabs celebrate that day, was the greatest bad news for the Arabs. 9/11 brought the justification for Bush and Israel to do any activity they want in the name of "War of Terror" and open a full scale war under the banner of "Pre-Emptive Strikes".
Tarek Ali, in his book Bush in Babylon: The Recolonization of Iraq, divulges the primary reasons why Palestinians become militants. For these people are the terrorists that Israel is supposed to defend. This phenomenon is universal for the Israelis, bomb your victims to kingdom come, and drive them to join a militant group, which represents a liberation movement, and dub it terrorism.
" By making Ariel Sharon a co-leader in the 'war against terrorism', the regime in Washington consciously blurred the distinctions between national liberation and terror. The result has been catastrophic. Not a day passes without an email from Israel and Palestine informing me of the latest atrocity. The material on my computer would fill two large volumes if it were presented as evidence before a war crimes tribunal. One of these emails arrived on 9 July 2003 and is less typical because no young children were killed. It was sent to me by Palestinian Monitors:
In the early hours of this morning Israeli Special Forces and soldiers entered the West Bank town of Burkin, killing one man, seriously injuring his wife and arresting another Palestinian man. The Israeli army claims that they were fired upon when entering the village, so they returned fire, however according to Palestinian witnesses this is not true.
The Troops entered the village and went to the house next door to ours. My wife and I were sleeping on our roof when suddenly we heard some shots. We immediately entered our house. The shooting ended as soon as it began – only about four shots were fired. About 10 minutes later our door bell rang and it was Iyad and his wife. They had crawled to our front door, covered in blood and still bleeding. We called for an ambulance, and eventually it came. The medics said the soldiers had stopped them for only about 10 minutes.
We went over and spoke to Iyad's father to see what had happened and he told us the soldiers had entered his house and arrested his 20-year-old son Fadi. Iyad, his other son, and Khaloud, Iyad's wife, and their three children, were sleeping on a bed in the garden as it was too hot in their house. When the soldiers left after arresting Fadi they must have seen them and opened fire. There was no shooting from the Palestinians – just the Israelis. We saw the mattress where the couple had been sleeping and it too was covered with blood.
Iyad later died, according to the doctors at Rafidiya hospital in Nablus, from bullets to his throat and arms. Khaloud was shot in the face, and is currently in hospital in a critical but stable condition; their children, the eldest of whom is five years old, escaped uninjured.
With this going on every single day since 9/11 how can any thinking person be surprised that young kids are desperate to join one of the militant organizations resisting the Israelis. There is a purity and moral integrity in children that illuminates a struggle. A single hair on their head is worth more than all those who sit in judgement on them, let alone their killers. " (Tarek Ali, Bush in Babylon, Verso 2003 – Page 13 – 14)
Joe Sacco, during his visit to Palestine, quoted several Arab Jews arguing that Zionism came from Europe. The British mandate recorded several procedures of extortions of Zionists on local Palestinian Jews whereby the latter were forced to recruit Jewish labor and expel their own Palestinian Arab friends from their farms. The Ottomans' legacy also included tolerance and coexistence, which was more than comfortable for the World Zionist Organization to visit the Sultan and attempt to purchase Palestine. Of course, the final 9 years of the Ottoman empire changed radically when the nationalist Young Turks revolution took place. Bottom line, the policies of the Zionists, and their revisionist counterparts of Vladimir Japotinsky, stressed on expelling the expulsion of the local inhabitants of Palestine, and secure it to the Jewish nation. Hence, from their first moments of arrival to Palestine, their philosophy rotated around imposing the ethnic line. Suddenly, Palestinian Christians and Muslims suddenly found themselves gradually kicked out of their homes in Jerusalem, and elsewhere. Any Jew who didn't follow-up their program, the Zionists had all the means to extort and threaten the non-Zionist Jews.
King-Crane Commission and Lord Grey's Anti-Zionist Approach
As a revolutionary Marxist obliged to reconstruct history as it happened, we shall begin with the Zionist claims that Palestine was empty, The Zionists also had their cover-up in Europe. Supported by their vast network of contacts, and their advanced organization allowed them in World War I, the Zionists were able to receive offers from both, the Germans and the British, in regards to Palestine. Eventually, their socialist infrastructure allowed them to organize themselves better than the Palestinians who just immerged from the Ottoman dominion and jumped into British brutal rule and biased support to the Jews. As riots started to spring in the early 1920s and climaxed in 1929, the Zionists' propaganda was in jeopardy, Palestine was not an empty desert. Nevertheless the King-Crane commission proved the British wrong, sadly their advices were not listened to, and it meant that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians would begin shortly after the Versailles treaties. The report and statistics of the Commission were as follows (after visiting Palestine in 1919):
Out of 260 petitions in Palestine:
For Complete Zionist Program: 7 Petitions (2.7%)
Modified Zionist Program: 8 Petitions (3%)
Against the Zionist Program: 222 Petitions (85.3%)
The recommendations of the Commission actually warned against the implementation of the Zionist Program, which was facilitated by Lord Balfour, by saying:
'For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State, nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accompanied without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.'
The Commission also accused Zionism of breaching the very concept of Woodrow Wilson's 'Right for Self-Determination', and warned against the implementation of the Zionist Program, whereby they argued:
"If that principle is to rule [US President Woodrow Wilson's Self-Determination], and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine – nearly nine-tenths of the whole – are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed on this." (in regards to the numbers given above)To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted (Wilson's Self-Determination), and of the people's rights, though it kept within the forms of law.
They summed the demands of the Palestinians as follows:
"We oppose the pretentions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country for we do not acknowledge their title, but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view..."
The Commission recommended that the Zionist program be reduced drastically, : " In view of these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine a Jewish commonwealth should be given up."
In Parallel, Sir Edward Grey, who was Foreign Secretary of the British Empire from 10905 – 1916, exploded in the House of the Lords in regards to the Balfour Declaration: "It promised a Zionist home without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the population of Palestine. A Zionist home, my Lords, undoubtedly means or implies a Zionist Government over the district in which the home is placed, and 93 per cent of the population of Palestine are Arabs, I do not see how you can establish other than an Arab Government, without prejudice to their civil rights."
And prejudice was the correct term but the application was ethnic cleansing. The British mandate played a massive role in giving the Zionist Jews the right mechanisms.
Lt. – Col. W. F. Stirling, British Army Officer and Chief Staff Officer under T.E. Lawrence as well as ex-governer of Jaffa/Yafa) gave important testimonies on the riots that broke up that year in Jaffa (called in Arabic Yafa). In reaction of Jewish colonies expanding by that year, riots broke up between the Arabs and Jews:
"The [Balfour] declaration, however, coupled with the attitude of the Jews, caused the Arabs to fear an eventual Jewish domination; for while in stated that the British Government favoured the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the Jewish interpretation of it, which was openly preached, suggested that we favored the conversion of the whole country into a national home for them. The Arabs, not unnaturally, took alarm. Poor an dinexperienced, they saw little chance of competing against their rivals, who were rich and clever, and who were also, as it seemed, being supported by the powerful British Government."
Riots broke out, while the government ordered that Hebrew, English, and Arabic to be used, the Zionist section refused to use the Arabic words. It is, in their nature, to divide the population as Jewish and non-Jewish. "Atrocities were committed by both sides, and some Arab women lying wounded in the fields were seen to have their breasts scythed off by Jewish colonists."
A final quote I will borrow from Stirling is on the ethnic character of Zionism. Most of the Jews were not Zionists, they regarded their fellow Christian and Muslim friends as colleagues. As I always mentioned, Zionism is the greatest bad news for Judaism. It is not recent that we saw the Orthodox Jews opposed Zionism. Zionism despised equality of the inhabitants of Palestine, and imposed this racial segregation:
"In the early days there were many Jews in Palestine who were not Zionists, but the pressure applied by the Jewish Agency became so great, and its Gestapo methods so severe, that few Jews dared openly express any other faith. Just before I left Jaffa a very important Jewish farmer from Richon-le-Zion sent a message asking if he could come and see me. I accordingly invited him to come to my office the following morning, but he refused to do that and asked for an appointment at my house after dark.
When he arrived he told me he had come to ask for my advice on a personal problem. He explained how, as a small boy, he had been brought to Palestine by his father, one of the biggest landowners of his village. Growing up there, he had made numerous friends among the little Arab boys of his own age. On his father's death he had taken over the property and naturally continued to employ his boyhood friends as herdsmen, ploughmen and teamsters. That morning, however, the Jewish Agency had ordered him to dismiss all his Arab employees and to engage some newly arrived Jewish immigrants at a wage-rate far excess of the pay of his Arab workmen. What should he do? If he dismissed the Arabs in the summary manner suggested, such bad feeling would be created, being a vindictive people, they might well burn his crops. Apart from this consideration, they also happened to be his friends. The Jews who had been proposed to him as labourers knew nothing about farming, and certainly nothing about the local conditions. The Arabs would work to all hours of the night if it were a question of getting a crop in before the rain; the Jews would down tools precisely at six o'clock, no matter what the weather. He now saw no possibility of working his land on economic lines, and he would inevitably go bankrupt." (Walid Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest, P. 219 – 237).
In his notebook, C.R. Ashbee (British Architect, Civic Adviser to the Palestine Administration), wrote:
"There is then the effort of clearing up and rebuilding a country, and the city of Jerusalem – for here the part is always greater than the whole – a country which to all men has a strange unreal sanctity. Palestine for most of us was an emotion rather than a reality."
"There was next the half-generous, wholly ignorant impulse, that this, as we English thought, empty land, this no man's land, this land lost to us when were last there in the days Edward Longshanks, might as we had now conquered it of the Turk be tossed to the Jews. So we thought."
"There was then – and here came the rub – a certain chivalrous reaction, and it came with greater knowledge. This country, it appeared, belonged after all to other people and they, too, had helped us win the war [WWI]. Who were these other people? What right had we to mortgage their inheritance? Might it not be a breach of trust? We have recently begun to find out the truth, to answer some of these troublesome questions."
The greater knowledge, clinging round the word "self-determination," came as an eye-opener. It showed us two things: first, that we were after all, as far as Palestine was concerned, only a part of Christendom; Greek, Italian, French, German, Russian, also had a share in the Holy Land, perhaps a greater share than we, even as St. Bernard, St. Francis, and St. Louis did more for Palestine, and meant more for the world, than Richard Coeur-de-Lion or Edward Longshanks. It showed us next there were also the Arab and the Moslem to be reckoned with, him to whom the Holy Land actually belonged , to whom the Holdy Land was equally holy, and whose record and achievement it – Amr, Abdul Malek, Al-Mamun , Saladin , Kalaoun , Kait Bey – were far greater than ours. We were learning a little history. "
Next Chapter: Roots for Zionist Tactic of the Modern Day
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
War Crimes and Puppies...
Beirut of the July War 2006 seems heavenly compared to Gaza of January 2009...
Israeli atrocities never ended...
In the words of UN officials go as follows:
"A spokesman for Unrwa in Gaza, Chris Gunness, said: "There has to be an investigation to determine whether a war crime has been committed."
This is not the first time the UN has talked about war crimes in Gaza.
Earlier this month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said some Israeli actions reported in Gaza might warrant prosecutions for war crimes. "
On Thursday, Israel bombed three hospitals at the same time. This falls down as self defense.
Just like the seize fire of Lebanon in 2006, where the Arab Ministers assembled 'bravely', before leaving to New York, after a month of bombardment, they are taking the credit of stopping the war. The same is done by Mr. Puppy Ban as well. Israeli leadership is supposed to meet today to vote on a unilateral decision. Like always, they didn't do anything but massacres in the end result. Some argue that they want to maximize damage on the Palestinians of Gaza prior to Obama taking the Presidential seat, such as bombing 50 targets over the night.
As a matter of fact, Israel shelled again a UN school, but this time from an IDF tank. Death tolls in less than a month has totalled according to the UN 1203, and among them 400 children. UNRWA spokes man said:
"The Israeli army knew exactly our GPS co-ordinates and they would have known that hundreds of people had taken shelter there," he said.
"When you have a direct hit into the third floor of a UN school, there has to be an investigation to see if a war crime has been committed."
Picture from here
The UN at the top level been in a state of chaos, while Mr. Ban indirectly appeared helpless in front the Lebanese Parliament, elsewhere:
The president of the United Nations General Assembly has accused Israel of violating international law with its war on Gaza in which almost 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, nearly half of them civilians.
"Gaza is ablaze. It has been turned into a burning hell," Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann told an emergency session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday.
He said Israel's offensive was "a war against a helpless, defenceless and imprisoned people" and accused Israel of carrying out attacks on civilian targets.
"The violations of international law inherent in the Gaza assault have been well documented: collective punishment, disproportionate military force [and] attacks on civilian targets, including homes, mosques, universities, schools," he said.
He also rebuked UN member-states for their lack of action over the crisis, saying: "The [UN Security Council] may have found itself unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to impose an immediate ceasefire, but outsourcing that effort to one or two governments, or through the quartet, does not relieve the council of its own responsibilities under the UN charter.
"The council cannot disavow its collective responsibility. It cannot continue to fiddle while Gaza burns."
(link)
Nobody dares not to compare Karadzic to Olmert.
On a side note, yesterday's summit in Qatar witnessed Mauritanya and Qatar 'suspend' ties with Israel on the economic and political level. Suspend doesn't mean end actually, but it was enough to put Egypt's leadership in a more shameful position.
Israel also continues to reveal its true form of hypocracy even from the inside. Other than barring out the media from covering Gaza, they also barred out two of the three parties that run to their parliament from the Arab side.
"This racist government want us out of the Knesset during the war on Gaza," Mr Tibi told the BBC's Fouad Abu-ghosh.
"They are accusing us of supporting the terror while they are killing children in Gaza," he added.
President Moubarak (el Sharmout)
Moubarak speaks that he helped Gaza, what a hypocrite. He claims he allowed 1000 tons of aid through Egyptian borders and pressured Israel, and even had the nerve to say that Egypt hospitalized a 100 Palestinian. Funny he allowed Israel to bomb the hell out of Gaza, arrest pro-Gaza supporters, and shattered the Arab leaders from taking serious decisions against the genocide. Funny, Egypt can simply cut ties with Israel. Just when the seize fire is about to take place, Moubarak is taking credit for it "I demand Israel to stop its activities now", which also coincides with Israel voting on the unilateral decision. He also blames the Palestinian militants by 'listening to reason' and be quiet in order to lift the blockade. He kept the Rafah Corridor closed all the time and the Egyptian army shot at Palestinian refugees... what a bullshiter. He is a simply-sold out. Now he wants to organize a big summit to rebuild Gaza, again trying to shove Egypt as the central player in Arab affairs, at the expense of Palestinians facing starvation. One day, either him or his son will have a bad ass revolution. He is hilarious on how he ordered Israel to practice 'self-restraint'. Traitor! Even Turkey at least demanded the barring out of Israel outside the UN.
Isn't it funny he is repeating the same demands of the Doha summit where he refused to participate in?
The following demands will be taken to Sunday's Kuwait summit for pan-Arab approval:
- Strong condemnation of Israel
- Israel withdraws from Gaza
- Legal liability for Gaza "crimes"
- Re-opening of crossings
- "Sea-bridge" to supply Gaza
- Assist Palestinian reconciliation
- Establish Gaza rebuilding fund
Moubarak this is your self-restraint
(Pic taken from al-Jazeera main page)
no comment on Condi and Levni signing an agreement on blocking arms to Gaza which means Israel can have the perfect US coverage for bombing Gaza anytime they want?
Unilateral Seize Fire?
Israel are supposed tonight to be holding a meeting for their miniature government to vote on a unilateral seize fire. This seize fire is meaningless if they do not withdraw of Gaza. I remember perfectly clear what seize fire means to the Israeli in 1982, whereby they vote on a seize fire, but can continue moving wherever they want. If shot at, the IDF will reply with all brutality. This was one of the first slaps of the US diplomats in Lebanon then realizing how dirty the Israelis are when they agreed to a seize fire but proceeded moving towards the Syrian army which shot at them. Seize fire has to be a seize fire in motion and location. That is another plan to show how Israel wanted peace by stopping their inferno arsenal on the Palestinians, then be shot at (if they don't withdraw from Gaza and open the blockades).
Finally
Anyone feels to play darts on Mahmoud Abbas's picture?
Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabre el Thani (Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Qatar) exposed why Mahmoud Abbas failed to come in a dialogue manner on phone calls that took place five times from Doha to Abbas:
"Why are you not attending the Doha Summit, you are the president of the people, you are responsible for your people, and your presence is important"
Abbas: "I called Omre Moussa, he said there is no summit"
el Thani: Why didn't you call us?
Abbas: I need an authorization to leave, I cannot leave
El-Thani: We can fix you an authorization to leave
Abbas: I cannot leave, there are a lot of pressure on me, if I leave, I would seal myself to a sacrifice...
Afterwards Qatar sent one of its planes to bring Hamas. This exposes to what extent Moubarak, Abbas, and Isreali leadership are intertwined...
Time to dismantle the Arab League as a whole or move its HQ elsewhere...
MFL
Israeli atrocities never ended...
In the words of UN officials go as follows:
"A spokesman for Unrwa in Gaza, Chris Gunness, said: "There has to be an investigation to determine whether a war crime has been committed."
This is not the first time the UN has talked about war crimes in Gaza.
Earlier this month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said some Israeli actions reported in Gaza might warrant prosecutions for war crimes. "
On Thursday, Israel bombed three hospitals at the same time. This falls down as self defense.
Just like the seize fire of Lebanon in 2006, where the Arab Ministers assembled 'bravely', before leaving to New York, after a month of bombardment, they are taking the credit of stopping the war. The same is done by Mr. Puppy Ban as well. Israeli leadership is supposed to meet today to vote on a unilateral decision. Like always, they didn't do anything but massacres in the end result. Some argue that they want to maximize damage on the Palestinians of Gaza prior to Obama taking the Presidential seat, such as bombing 50 targets over the night.
As a matter of fact, Israel shelled again a UN school, but this time from an IDF tank. Death tolls in less than a month has totalled according to the UN 1203, and among them 400 children. UNRWA spokes man said:
"The Israeli army knew exactly our GPS co-ordinates and they would have known that hundreds of people had taken shelter there," he said.
"When you have a direct hit into the third floor of a UN school, there has to be an investigation to see if a war crime has been committed."
Picture from here
The UN at the top level been in a state of chaos, while Mr. Ban indirectly appeared helpless in front the Lebanese Parliament, elsewhere:
The president of the United Nations General Assembly has accused Israel of violating international law with its war on Gaza in which almost 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, nearly half of them civilians.
"Gaza is ablaze. It has been turned into a burning hell," Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann told an emergency session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday.
He said Israel's offensive was "a war against a helpless, defenceless and imprisoned people" and accused Israel of carrying out attacks on civilian targets.
"The violations of international law inherent in the Gaza assault have been well documented: collective punishment, disproportionate military force [and] attacks on civilian targets, including homes, mosques, universities, schools," he said.
He also rebuked UN member-states for their lack of action over the crisis, saying: "The [UN Security Council] may have found itself unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to impose an immediate ceasefire, but outsourcing that effort to one or two governments, or through the quartet, does not relieve the council of its own responsibilities under the UN charter.
"The council cannot disavow its collective responsibility. It cannot continue to fiddle while Gaza burns."
(link)
Nobody dares not to compare Karadzic to Olmert.
On a side note, yesterday's summit in Qatar witnessed Mauritanya and Qatar 'suspend' ties with Israel on the economic and political level. Suspend doesn't mean end actually, but it was enough to put Egypt's leadership in a more shameful position.
Israel also continues to reveal its true form of hypocracy even from the inside. Other than barring out the media from covering Gaza, they also barred out two of the three parties that run to their parliament from the Arab side.
"This racist government want us out of the Knesset during the war on Gaza," Mr Tibi told the BBC's Fouad Abu-ghosh.
"They are accusing us of supporting the terror while they are killing children in Gaza," he added.
President Moubarak (el Sharmout)
Moubarak speaks that he helped Gaza, what a hypocrite. He claims he allowed 1000 tons of aid through Egyptian borders and pressured Israel, and even had the nerve to say that Egypt hospitalized a 100 Palestinian. Funny he allowed Israel to bomb the hell out of Gaza, arrest pro-Gaza supporters, and shattered the Arab leaders from taking serious decisions against the genocide. Funny, Egypt can simply cut ties with Israel. Just when the seize fire is about to take place, Moubarak is taking credit for it "I demand Israel to stop its activities now", which also coincides with Israel voting on the unilateral decision. He also blames the Palestinian militants by 'listening to reason' and be quiet in order to lift the blockade. He kept the Rafah Corridor closed all the time and the Egyptian army shot at Palestinian refugees... what a bullshiter. He is a simply-sold out. Now he wants to organize a big summit to rebuild Gaza, again trying to shove Egypt as the central player in Arab affairs, at the expense of Palestinians facing starvation. One day, either him or his son will have a bad ass revolution. He is hilarious on how he ordered Israel to practice 'self-restraint'. Traitor! Even Turkey at least demanded the barring out of Israel outside the UN.
Isn't it funny he is repeating the same demands of the Doha summit where he refused to participate in?
The following demands will be taken to Sunday's Kuwait summit for pan-Arab approval:
- Strong condemnation of Israel
- Israel withdraws from Gaza
- Legal liability for Gaza "crimes"
- Re-opening of crossings
- "Sea-bridge" to supply Gaza
- Assist Palestinian reconciliation
- Establish Gaza rebuilding fund
Moubarak this is your self-restraint
(Pic taken from al-Jazeera main page)
no comment on Condi and Levni signing an agreement on blocking arms to Gaza which means Israel can have the perfect US coverage for bombing Gaza anytime they want?
Unilateral Seize Fire?
Israel are supposed tonight to be holding a meeting for their miniature government to vote on a unilateral seize fire. This seize fire is meaningless if they do not withdraw of Gaza. I remember perfectly clear what seize fire means to the Israeli in 1982, whereby they vote on a seize fire, but can continue moving wherever they want. If shot at, the IDF will reply with all brutality. This was one of the first slaps of the US diplomats in Lebanon then realizing how dirty the Israelis are when they agreed to a seize fire but proceeded moving towards the Syrian army which shot at them. Seize fire has to be a seize fire in motion and location. That is another plan to show how Israel wanted peace by stopping their inferno arsenal on the Palestinians, then be shot at (if they don't withdraw from Gaza and open the blockades).
Finally
Anyone feels to play darts on Mahmoud Abbas's picture?
Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabre el Thani (Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Qatar) exposed why Mahmoud Abbas failed to come in a dialogue manner on phone calls that took place five times from Doha to Abbas:
"Why are you not attending the Doha Summit, you are the president of the people, you are responsible for your people, and your presence is important"
Abbas: "I called Omre Moussa, he said there is no summit"
el Thani: Why didn't you call us?
Abbas: I need an authorization to leave, I cannot leave
El-Thani: We can fix you an authorization to leave
Abbas: I cannot leave, there are a lot of pressure on me, if I leave, I would seal myself to a sacrifice...
Afterwards Qatar sent one of its planes to bring Hamas. This exposes to what extent Moubarak, Abbas, and Isreali leadership are intertwined...
Time to dismantle the Arab League as a whole or move its HQ elsewhere...
MFL
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Doha Conference, A Great Divide, and A Whirlpool of Ironies
The Doha Conference:
'They come in fancy planes while the people are dying...'
As the number of Palestinian casualties jumps to 1133, those rotten Arab countries so far offered nothing to Palestine. Just as Israel got away in dissecting the West Bank, the massacres of Gaza are exceeding all forms of butcheries. More than 20 Palestinians had been located under the ruins of a building, which means some of them died out of suffocation. Of course, this is dubbed self – defense by Israel.
Conferences and more conferences
The split of the Arab League peaked officially today. Saudi Arabia and Egypt clearly displayed their muscles by blocking the Qataris from having a quorum to meet under the patronage of the Arab League, and take decisions in that regard. This however doesn't mean Qatar is a weakling compared to the former two. Qatar managed to gather 13 voters within the Arab league despite Egypt and Saudi Arabia's obstructions, even though that was not enough to hold a quorum. The Saudi Regime and their allies the Egyptian Regime never forgave how Prince Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani took the lead in spearheading a Lebanese Dialogue that brought a temporary peace to Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Abbas still argues that the peace treaty is under threat, and still unaware that there never was anything called Peace. The Israeli war-machinery never stopped to do peace. Elsewhere the Doha conference kicked off in order to discuss different means of halting the war. Again, no results, but interesting headlines popped out.
Hamas's Mishaal was present, which is natural. Where there is no Fatah, there is Hamas. Hamas repeated their insistence on halting the butchery of the innocent civilians. He argued that Israeli Forces should withdraw from Gaza, cut their war, end the blockade, open the routes of Gaza, and hold Israel accountable for their war crimes. He insisted on how the Palestinians are practically unarmed. He insisted on the time factor, where as they speak, more citizens are dying. Hamas had secured its representation of the Palestinian resistance and the sufferings of the people of Gaza. He also stressed on how Israel is trying to invent new realities, something that Rice supported. In her own words, the seize fire will not take place or else a temporary peace will take place and a new war. Nevertheless, she failed to mention who is the real aggressor on the issue. Mishaal also described the harsh conditions the people of Gaza are living through, and equated his resistance to that of Hezbollah where he argued that it was the same resistance that expelled Israel from the Southern Lebanese region and Gaza. He also highlighted that the resistance of the Palestinians is capable to achieve victory, mainly because they can remain alive after Israel bombed everything. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, Israel's main purpose is not to dismantle Hamas, rather the Zionist country needs Hamas to gain more funds, arms, and settle internal scores in the elections. For example Ehud Barak jumped 17% in the Israeli opinion when the offensive started, which made him the primary competitor to Levni for the Prime Minister position. Nevertheless, Mishaal's pleas to save the Palestinians was fully felt, but the method he gave his pleas, with a steadfast position, allowed him to divulge the charisma he has. Unlike Abbas who is begging the international community to send an international force, similar to UNIFIL, but to bring Hamas under control so that he can live in peace Israel; hence disregarding all the demonstrations that took place in the West Bank in solidarity with Gaza, to which he barely expressed anything.
I have to admit, what nerves of steel Meshaal displayed, specially in less than 24 hours the Israelis killed his colleague, Hamas's minister of interior Said Siam, along with his brother and son.
The Syrian President
The Syrian President spoke next, as always, he took the leadership of opposing the Israelis and fighting for the Arab cause. He gave credit to the Lebanese resistance for defeating the Israelis in 2000 and 2006, and how both the Lebanese and Palestinians are exporting the spirit of resistance to elsewhere in the Arab world. Indirectly, he separated the Arab world to those who surrender, and those who are resisting. He also argued how those who achieve peace by resisting an occupier, and those who accept peace in seeking their own interests. He also, to give himself credit for the July war, also stressed on the importance of standing next to a country. Although as far as I remember, Syria made money on Lebanon's expense due to the July war, he refused to open a front on his side, denied any Israeli missiles falling on Syrian grounds, and probably the credit he takes is using his land to smuggle weaponry to Hezbollah and their allies.
Nevertheless, the Syrian president, in my personal opinion scored highly in the face of other Arab leaders. While it is true that the majority of the Arab citizens are frustrated by their helplessness, he used the 1970s language of the 'Arab revolutionary' where he summarized that time is not on the Israeli side, but he got philosophical on how each generation becomes more wrathful to Israeli brutality. Throughout his speech, he also hinted to Egypt and Saudi Arabia on their unwillingness to do anything about the on-going massacres. He also expressed the distrust of the Arab world in the International Court to hold Israel accountable.
Finally, his contribution to the summit is by suspending the indirect negotatiations with Israel, spoke in an apocalyptic manner in regards to Gaza and the Golan Heights witnessing a new victory, and the importance of funding the Palestinians with all means possible, ranging from materialistic aid to moral boast.
Lebanese President
The Lebanese President, Michel Suleiman, was next to speak. Unlike the days of Emil Lahoud, for once the Lebanese President's speech was different than what the Syrians wanted him to deliver. The other side of the story, Michel Suleiman's travel to Qatar was dubbed as Hezbollah and Amal imposing their demands on the Lebanese President to travel. Nevertheless, the speech he read in Doha was quiet different. Again, the Suleiman succeeded in copy pasting demands of what was known as the 'Opposition' and 14th of March demands. The Prince of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, back in the July war was regarded a 14th of March supporter, now he is regarded as an 8th of March follower.
President Suleiman's speech began with how Lebanon 'victoriously' extracted UN resolution 1701, and insisted on how Israel continued to breach it. He gave credit to the Lebanese citizens, the Lebanese resistance, and the Lebanese army for crushing the Israeli offensive of 2006. Nevertheless, Suleiman's speech rotated around on keeping Lebanon out of war with Israel, and stressed on how Lebanon's role is non-alignment, whereby its role is to tackle those rifts in the Arab World. Of course, he didn't give any hints on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other country, rather projecting on how the Arabs should be united and gave a long-run period for that, which till then probably half of the people of Gaza would be killed.
Nevertheless, being a president of country that defeated Israel on three different eras, he had the aura to escalate, but didn't escalate beyond providing sympathy to the people of Gaza. Prince Hamad bin Khalifa hailed the President as being part of the resistance when he was the head of the Lebanese Army.
It has to be noted, that the Qatari Prince, and the Lebanese & Syrian Presidents, appeared while reading their speeches as if they are in the middle of an Arabic reading test. Other than Meshaal's eloquent Arabic, the others repeated several times Arabic words, and corrected grammar rules as they read.
The Moon Islands , Mauritania, and Iraq
The Moon islands are a couple of small islands that were glued into a republic. While repeating the atrocities of the Israelis, and like the earlier presidents, blamed the Arab leaderships for taking so much time in taking any actions, proposed to form a committee from the attendees, and tour around the major players in the International Community to raise awareness against the Israelis, and properly to unify media efforts in exposing the Israeli brutality, mainly to the Western audience.
Mauritania was probably the most hilarious country of them all. Just recovering from a military coup and preserving a peace treaty with Israel, all eyes went on the speaker. Nobody understood anything what he said, as his Arabic was rather very weak, and he didn't discuss anything about cutting ties with Israel. He did condemn the Israeli brutality, based on what was understood, but that was it. Everyone issued relief sighs of 'Thank Heaven the torture is over' when he finished.
The Iraqi Vice President was next, as much as he condemned the Israeli aggression, he reiterated Iraq's historical role in standing next to Palestine. Nevertheless, he didn't express anything about the US intervention in Iraq, nor whether Iraq as a nation state still exists theoretically with all the cantons present there. But I also realized that their minister of education was targeted in a bomb there, and I wondered for how long this man will stay alive.
Iran's Ahmadinejad
As probably participating as a guest, he expressed his ideas as well. We all know what Iran's role in arming Hezbollah, and giving them the right technology in beating Israel's ass out of Lebanon, then watching how their infantry were sitting ducks to Hezbollah's warriors. Who would thought that those Merkava tanks are destructible? Not complaining on seeing a popped out tank of that caliber. Yet, the Iranian president repeated the same words where Israel's attrocities in Lebanon and Palestine had been repeating themselves for so long, and demanded that the leadership of Israel should be held in a court.
In Parallel...
The Arab League's official meeting of foreign ministers FINALLY agreed for calling the opening of the borders of Gaza. In a nutshell, that is the biggest crap I ever heard for a while. After three weeks of butchery, the Arab League till this day simply issued out such a decision? After what, 1133 (so far), had been killed, and over 5000 wounded? Isn’t it ironical that such decisions come out when Israel is so close to accept a seize fire agreement? That doesn't stop the butchery of the Palestinians...
Collisions also took place in the West Bank between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. In a large demonstration in solidarity with the people of Gaza, a small group raised the flags of Hamas, where the PA security beat and arrested them. Hence, Abbas reinforces the division between Fatah and Hamas. BBC's article, under the title of Gaza and West Bank: Growing Divide explains it in a nice way.
Bush's final speech:
Bush hailed himself as giving democracy for different countries; some of those he named were Lebanon, Kosovo, and Iraq.
I accuse Bush of being the biggest liar the world has ever seen, and makes Saddam Hussein look like an angel next to him. For starters, Bush didn't do anything to Lebanon, he sold out on his allies (yet again) the 14th of March, leaving them stranded in the middle of nowhere. The expulsion of the Syrian army didn't come from Bush, rather a strong reaction of the Lebanese on the assassination of Harriri and the fact they were fed up from their crap. As a matter of fact, it was his 'Green Card' to the Israelis that allowed all those Lebanese and Palestinian citizens to flourish.
Kosovo was totally irrelevant to Bush's policy, It was Bill Clinton's policy to the Balkans that gave Kosovo its independence, amidst never-ending chaos in the Balkans that secured Kosovo its independence.
Finally, Iraq, Bush gave them no democracy at all. He shattered a country into a three way ethnic divisions, and gave the al-Qaeda the space to crawl into Iraq. His war on terror cost the Iraqis over 650,000 citizens, and that was prior to the execution of the tyrant Saddam. He waged a war on Iraq under the banner of saving the Americans from weapons of mass destruction which were never found, then turned out Jesus inspired him. He also ruined the US economy, which in turn ruined the global economy by spending over 800 billion dollars a year on upgrading weapons, and producing unneeded weapons that no way a group of Qaeda or even the Iraqi regime was able to counter.
Democracy in Bush meant also to support the Moubarak regime, the Saudi regime, and the Jordanian regime. This led the Muslim Brotherhood in specific to grow even stronger in Egypt, while Saudi Arabia's instability is growing even more.
I will tackle his farewell speeches in details. But I would like to add one note: Afghanistan:
His 'War on Drugs' prior to his 'War on Terror' made him a buffoon in protecting his own citizens, when he was warned. Earlier US Administrations funded the Taliban who were actually needed to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Actually in a period of four months prior to 9/11, he disregarded the issue of Bin Laden wanting to strike the US, and gave the Taliban government almost 45 million dollars in fighting drugs and opium. Ironic, isn't it?
Bush is responsible for almost every civilian's death that took place, for promoting dictatorships, and even funding terrorists like al-Qaeda. So the hell with you Bush, and I sure wish there is a hell, to see you rotting in it.
'They come in fancy planes while the people are dying...'
As the number of Palestinian casualties jumps to 1133, those rotten Arab countries so far offered nothing to Palestine. Just as Israel got away in dissecting the West Bank, the massacres of Gaza are exceeding all forms of butcheries. More than 20 Palestinians had been located under the ruins of a building, which means some of them died out of suffocation. Of course, this is dubbed self – defense by Israel.
Conferences and more conferences
The split of the Arab League peaked officially today. Saudi Arabia and Egypt clearly displayed their muscles by blocking the Qataris from having a quorum to meet under the patronage of the Arab League, and take decisions in that regard. This however doesn't mean Qatar is a weakling compared to the former two. Qatar managed to gather 13 voters within the Arab league despite Egypt and Saudi Arabia's obstructions, even though that was not enough to hold a quorum. The Saudi Regime and their allies the Egyptian Regime never forgave how Prince Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani took the lead in spearheading a Lebanese Dialogue that brought a temporary peace to Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Abbas still argues that the peace treaty is under threat, and still unaware that there never was anything called Peace. The Israeli war-machinery never stopped to do peace. Elsewhere the Doha conference kicked off in order to discuss different means of halting the war. Again, no results, but interesting headlines popped out.
Hamas's Mishaal was present, which is natural. Where there is no Fatah, there is Hamas. Hamas repeated their insistence on halting the butchery of the innocent civilians. He argued that Israeli Forces should withdraw from Gaza, cut their war, end the blockade, open the routes of Gaza, and hold Israel accountable for their war crimes. He insisted on how the Palestinians are practically unarmed. He insisted on the time factor, where as they speak, more citizens are dying. Hamas had secured its representation of the Palestinian resistance and the sufferings of the people of Gaza. He also stressed on how Israel is trying to invent new realities, something that Rice supported. In her own words, the seize fire will not take place or else a temporary peace will take place and a new war. Nevertheless, she failed to mention who is the real aggressor on the issue. Mishaal also described the harsh conditions the people of Gaza are living through, and equated his resistance to that of Hezbollah where he argued that it was the same resistance that expelled Israel from the Southern Lebanese region and Gaza. He also highlighted that the resistance of the Palestinians is capable to achieve victory, mainly because they can remain alive after Israel bombed everything. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, Israel's main purpose is not to dismantle Hamas, rather the Zionist country needs Hamas to gain more funds, arms, and settle internal scores in the elections. For example Ehud Barak jumped 17% in the Israeli opinion when the offensive started, which made him the primary competitor to Levni for the Prime Minister position. Nevertheless, Mishaal's pleas to save the Palestinians was fully felt, but the method he gave his pleas, with a steadfast position, allowed him to divulge the charisma he has. Unlike Abbas who is begging the international community to send an international force, similar to UNIFIL, but to bring Hamas under control so that he can live in peace Israel; hence disregarding all the demonstrations that took place in the West Bank in solidarity with Gaza, to which he barely expressed anything.
I have to admit, what nerves of steel Meshaal displayed, specially in less than 24 hours the Israelis killed his colleague, Hamas's minister of interior Said Siam, along with his brother and son.
The Syrian President
The Syrian President spoke next, as always, he took the leadership of opposing the Israelis and fighting for the Arab cause. He gave credit to the Lebanese resistance for defeating the Israelis in 2000 and 2006, and how both the Lebanese and Palestinians are exporting the spirit of resistance to elsewhere in the Arab world. Indirectly, he separated the Arab world to those who surrender, and those who are resisting. He also argued how those who achieve peace by resisting an occupier, and those who accept peace in seeking their own interests. He also, to give himself credit for the July war, also stressed on the importance of standing next to a country. Although as far as I remember, Syria made money on Lebanon's expense due to the July war, he refused to open a front on his side, denied any Israeli missiles falling on Syrian grounds, and probably the credit he takes is using his land to smuggle weaponry to Hezbollah and their allies.
Nevertheless, the Syrian president, in my personal opinion scored highly in the face of other Arab leaders. While it is true that the majority of the Arab citizens are frustrated by their helplessness, he used the 1970s language of the 'Arab revolutionary' where he summarized that time is not on the Israeli side, but he got philosophical on how each generation becomes more wrathful to Israeli brutality. Throughout his speech, he also hinted to Egypt and Saudi Arabia on their unwillingness to do anything about the on-going massacres. He also expressed the distrust of the Arab world in the International Court to hold Israel accountable.
Finally, his contribution to the summit is by suspending the indirect negotatiations with Israel, spoke in an apocalyptic manner in regards to Gaza and the Golan Heights witnessing a new victory, and the importance of funding the Palestinians with all means possible, ranging from materialistic aid to moral boast.
Lebanese President
The Lebanese President, Michel Suleiman, was next to speak. Unlike the days of Emil Lahoud, for once the Lebanese President's speech was different than what the Syrians wanted him to deliver. The other side of the story, Michel Suleiman's travel to Qatar was dubbed as Hezbollah and Amal imposing their demands on the Lebanese President to travel. Nevertheless, the speech he read in Doha was quiet different. Again, the Suleiman succeeded in copy pasting demands of what was known as the 'Opposition' and 14th of March demands. The Prince of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, back in the July war was regarded a 14th of March supporter, now he is regarded as an 8th of March follower.
President Suleiman's speech began with how Lebanon 'victoriously' extracted UN resolution 1701, and insisted on how Israel continued to breach it. He gave credit to the Lebanese citizens, the Lebanese resistance, and the Lebanese army for crushing the Israeli offensive of 2006. Nevertheless, Suleiman's speech rotated around on keeping Lebanon out of war with Israel, and stressed on how Lebanon's role is non-alignment, whereby its role is to tackle those rifts in the Arab World. Of course, he didn't give any hints on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other country, rather projecting on how the Arabs should be united and gave a long-run period for that, which till then probably half of the people of Gaza would be killed.
Nevertheless, being a president of country that defeated Israel on three different eras, he had the aura to escalate, but didn't escalate beyond providing sympathy to the people of Gaza. Prince Hamad bin Khalifa hailed the President as being part of the resistance when he was the head of the Lebanese Army.
It has to be noted, that the Qatari Prince, and the Lebanese & Syrian Presidents, appeared while reading their speeches as if they are in the middle of an Arabic reading test. Other than Meshaal's eloquent Arabic, the others repeated several times Arabic words, and corrected grammar rules as they read.
The Moon Islands , Mauritania, and Iraq
The Moon islands are a couple of small islands that were glued into a republic. While repeating the atrocities of the Israelis, and like the earlier presidents, blamed the Arab leaderships for taking so much time in taking any actions, proposed to form a committee from the attendees, and tour around the major players in the International Community to raise awareness against the Israelis, and properly to unify media efforts in exposing the Israeli brutality, mainly to the Western audience.
Mauritania was probably the most hilarious country of them all. Just recovering from a military coup and preserving a peace treaty with Israel, all eyes went on the speaker. Nobody understood anything what he said, as his Arabic was rather very weak, and he didn't discuss anything about cutting ties with Israel. He did condemn the Israeli brutality, based on what was understood, but that was it. Everyone issued relief sighs of 'Thank Heaven the torture is over' when he finished.
The Iraqi Vice President was next, as much as he condemned the Israeli aggression, he reiterated Iraq's historical role in standing next to Palestine. Nevertheless, he didn't express anything about the US intervention in Iraq, nor whether Iraq as a nation state still exists theoretically with all the cantons present there. But I also realized that their minister of education was targeted in a bomb there, and I wondered for how long this man will stay alive.
Iran's Ahmadinejad
As probably participating as a guest, he expressed his ideas as well. We all know what Iran's role in arming Hezbollah, and giving them the right technology in beating Israel's ass out of Lebanon, then watching how their infantry were sitting ducks to Hezbollah's warriors. Who would thought that those Merkava tanks are destructible? Not complaining on seeing a popped out tank of that caliber. Yet, the Iranian president repeated the same words where Israel's attrocities in Lebanon and Palestine had been repeating themselves for so long, and demanded that the leadership of Israel should be held in a court.
In Parallel...
The Arab League's official meeting of foreign ministers FINALLY agreed for calling the opening of the borders of Gaza. In a nutshell, that is the biggest crap I ever heard for a while. After three weeks of butchery, the Arab League till this day simply issued out such a decision? After what, 1133 (so far), had been killed, and over 5000 wounded? Isn’t it ironical that such decisions come out when Israel is so close to accept a seize fire agreement? That doesn't stop the butchery of the Palestinians...
Collisions also took place in the West Bank between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. In a large demonstration in solidarity with the people of Gaza, a small group raised the flags of Hamas, where the PA security beat and arrested them. Hence, Abbas reinforces the division between Fatah and Hamas. BBC's article, under the title of Gaza and West Bank: Growing Divide explains it in a nice way.
Bush's final speech:
Bush hailed himself as giving democracy for different countries; some of those he named were Lebanon, Kosovo, and Iraq.
I accuse Bush of being the biggest liar the world has ever seen, and makes Saddam Hussein look like an angel next to him. For starters, Bush didn't do anything to Lebanon, he sold out on his allies (yet again) the 14th of March, leaving them stranded in the middle of nowhere. The expulsion of the Syrian army didn't come from Bush, rather a strong reaction of the Lebanese on the assassination of Harriri and the fact they were fed up from their crap. As a matter of fact, it was his 'Green Card' to the Israelis that allowed all those Lebanese and Palestinian citizens to flourish.
Kosovo was totally irrelevant to Bush's policy, It was Bill Clinton's policy to the Balkans that gave Kosovo its independence, amidst never-ending chaos in the Balkans that secured Kosovo its independence.
Finally, Iraq, Bush gave them no democracy at all. He shattered a country into a three way ethnic divisions, and gave the al-Qaeda the space to crawl into Iraq. His war on terror cost the Iraqis over 650,000 citizens, and that was prior to the execution of the tyrant Saddam. He waged a war on Iraq under the banner of saving the Americans from weapons of mass destruction which were never found, then turned out Jesus inspired him. He also ruined the US economy, which in turn ruined the global economy by spending over 800 billion dollars a year on upgrading weapons, and producing unneeded weapons that no way a group of Qaeda or even the Iraqi regime was able to counter.
Democracy in Bush meant also to support the Moubarak regime, the Saudi regime, and the Jordanian regime. This led the Muslim Brotherhood in specific to grow even stronger in Egypt, while Saudi Arabia's instability is growing even more.
I will tackle his farewell speeches in details. But I would like to add one note: Afghanistan:
His 'War on Drugs' prior to his 'War on Terror' made him a buffoon in protecting his own citizens, when he was warned. Earlier US Administrations funded the Taliban who were actually needed to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Actually in a period of four months prior to 9/11, he disregarded the issue of Bin Laden wanting to strike the US, and gave the Taliban government almost 45 million dollars in fighting drugs and opium. Ironic, isn't it?
Bush is responsible for almost every civilian's death that took place, for promoting dictatorships, and even funding terrorists like al-Qaeda. So the hell with you Bush, and I sure wish there is a hell, to see you rotting in it.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Israel and the Arab Divide
Kosovo of 1998 Looks Heavenly Compared to Gaza...
The Israeli army killed almost in one day an extra 100 Palestinian in one day, the wounded exceeded 5000, whereby 50% of them are elderly, women, and children. These are the Hamas soldiers. Newly born babies are dying or on the brink of death, water is almost depleted, and Israel of course argues that they are targeting Hamas. They even justified to Mr. Ban that Hamas operatives shot from the UN building before bombing it as an excuse. The real alibi was of course to demolish whatever supplies the UN held in Gaza for people living in months of blockade, followed by this butchery.
Israel also started bombing News Agency to cut down on reporters' activities . The News Agency building suffered an Israeli artillery, but Zionist sympathizers would answer, they simply retaliated.
On a bigger scale, anti-Israeli activities have been spreading around the world. The Arab World is also witnessing a great rift since 1936. This doesn't mean that Qatar and Syria are lovers of the Arab cause. The Palestinian issue had always been hijacked by Arab dictators to profit from political points. Just like in Lebanon during 1976 where the Syrians and Egyptians competed who is more 'Palestinian' and Arab, the same is taking place on a regional scale. Qatar, after hosting last year the Religious Dialogue, with war-criminal Levni as a VIP guest, surprisingly called Arabs to boycott Israel, cut diplomatic ties, and stop normalizations. This sounds awekward since Prince Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani is rumored to have a nice house in Tel Aviv, and not to forget that he has an Israeli Commercial & Diplomatic hub on his own land, along with the biggest US military base after Iraq. We also remember that Qatar opened its lands for US laser guided missiles to be delivered to Israel in order to bomb Lebanese citizens.
Forgetting the past, al-Assad directly supported Qatar's call for an urgent meeting, whereby we do not know how it will stop the Israeli offensive. Only 13 countries replied to it, while Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, are blocking the meeting of the emergency summit to take place. Jordan's King to this very day remain silent. Everyone is using Palestine to score political points to gain regional power. Saudi Arabia lost drastically in Lebanon after Qatar hosted the Lebanese dialogue to generate the Doha Accords. Israel is enjoying its ally, the US, pulling strings on the Arabs to fight with each other. Of course, to all of them, regional power is more important than human lives.
Israel, unlike Serbia, is getting away with its massacres of the Palestinian people. Finally I agree with the Kuwaiti MP, who proposed in the Parliament to move the Arab League from Cairo to Venzuela.
MFL
The Israeli army killed almost in one day an extra 100 Palestinian in one day, the wounded exceeded 5000, whereby 50% of them are elderly, women, and children. These are the Hamas soldiers. Newly born babies are dying or on the brink of death, water is almost depleted, and Israel of course argues that they are targeting Hamas. They even justified to Mr. Ban that Hamas operatives shot from the UN building before bombing it as an excuse. The real alibi was of course to demolish whatever supplies the UN held in Gaza for people living in months of blockade, followed by this butchery.
Israel also started bombing News Agency to cut down on reporters' activities . The News Agency building suffered an Israeli artillery, but Zionist sympathizers would answer, they simply retaliated.
On a bigger scale, anti-Israeli activities have been spreading around the world. The Arab World is also witnessing a great rift since 1936. This doesn't mean that Qatar and Syria are lovers of the Arab cause. The Palestinian issue had always been hijacked by Arab dictators to profit from political points. Just like in Lebanon during 1976 where the Syrians and Egyptians competed who is more 'Palestinian' and Arab, the same is taking place on a regional scale. Qatar, after hosting last year the Religious Dialogue, with war-criminal Levni as a VIP guest, surprisingly called Arabs to boycott Israel, cut diplomatic ties, and stop normalizations. This sounds awekward since Prince Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani is rumored to have a nice house in Tel Aviv, and not to forget that he has an Israeli Commercial & Diplomatic hub on his own land, along with the biggest US military base after Iraq. We also remember that Qatar opened its lands for US laser guided missiles to be delivered to Israel in order to bomb Lebanese citizens.
Forgetting the past, al-Assad directly supported Qatar's call for an urgent meeting, whereby we do not know how it will stop the Israeli offensive. Only 13 countries replied to it, while Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, are blocking the meeting of the emergency summit to take place. Jordan's King to this very day remain silent. Everyone is using Palestine to score political points to gain regional power. Saudi Arabia lost drastically in Lebanon after Qatar hosted the Lebanese dialogue to generate the Doha Accords. Israel is enjoying its ally, the US, pulling strings on the Arabs to fight with each other. Of course, to all of them, regional power is more important than human lives.
Israel, unlike Serbia, is getting away with its massacres of the Palestinian people. Finally I agree with the Kuwaiti MP, who proposed in the Parliament to move the Arab League from Cairo to Venzuela.
MFL
Fmr. Clinton Special Counsel Lanny Davis vs. Israeli Professor Neve Gordon: A Debate on the Israeli Assault on Gaza
Taken from here
AMY GOODMAN: Israeli troops are pushing deeper towards Gaza's towns and cities as thousands of Israeli reservists enter the conflict for the first time. Israeli warplanes continue to bombard targets across northern Gaza and in the town of Rafah on the southern border with Egypt. Meanwhile, Palestinian militants continue to fire rockets into southern Israel.
The Israeli military is continuing to surround Gaza City, and many residents in the outlying suburbs are moving into the city center. A Palestinian human rights group told The Guardian newspaper up to 90,000 Gazans, more than half of them children, had fled their homes across the territory. Israel and Egypt have refused to open their borders to allow Gazans to flee the fighting.
The death toll now stands at nearly 900 Palestinians, many of them civilian, including 275 children. Another 4,100 Palestinians have been injured. Thirteen Israelis have been killed, including three civilians hit by rocket fire and ten soldiers. Four of those soldiers died in friendly fire incidents.
Aid agencies are warning of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza with the territory's one-and-a-half million residents in urgent need of food and medical aid. The BBC reports the main hospital in Gaza is close to collapse with patients reportedly dying because of a lack of specialist doctors and basic medical equipment.
On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the offensive was nearing its goals but that the assault will continue. Olmert also spoke out in defiance of the UN Security Council's call for an immediate ceasefire, saying, "Nobody should be allowed to decide for us if we are allowed to strike." Both Hamas and Israel have rejected the UN resolution. Meanwhile, talks between Hamas and Egyptian officials are continuing in Cairo.
We turn now to a debate on the issue. Attorney Lanny Davis is with us. He's a senior adviser and spokesperson for the Israel Project, former special counsel to President Clinton. He joins us from Washington, D.C. Joining us on the line from Beersheba, Israel is Neve Gordon. He's the chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. He is author of Israel's Occupation.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Lanny Davis, you're in full support of the Israeli invasion. Tell us why.
LANNY DAVIS: The right of self-defense. When terrorism kills innocent civilians intentionally, there isn't a civilized nation in the world that wouldn't attack back to try to prevent that terrorism. I use "terrorism" with a very specifically defined expression. When a party shoots to kill innocent civilians intentionally for a political purpose, including one's own citizens to be exposed to death for political purposes, that's terrorism. So I support the right of self-defense against terrorism, as any country would if this were happening, I believe. And the United States certainly would. If Rochester were being exposed to mortars and rockets from Montreal, I believe that the United States would not sit idly by and allow the Canadians to do that. So I think the first and most foremost right is the right of self-defense against terrorism, which is intentional killing of civilians.
AMY GOODMAN: And the issue proportionality, the number of people we've seen dead, close to 900 Palestinians, over 200 of them children, overwhelmingly civilian, versus the thirteen Israelis who have died, ten of them soldiers, four of them in friendly fire.
LANNY DAVIS: Yes, it's very disturbing that there are so many more deaths and suffering by innocent people in Gaza. I grieve and regret that as a human being, as an American, as a Jew who has supported a Palestinian state ever since I was a child and have been very critical through the years of the Israeli government not supporting a Palestinian state until just recently. So I grieve for those numbers, but I don't understand the word "disproportional."
Number one, if it was one child, if it was your child who was intentionally killed by a terrorist, and you asked your government to respond, and in order to respond, the people who launched the rockets placed their rockets among schoolchildren and innocent civilians deliberately—and that is an undisputed fact that Hamas has located its rocket launchers deliberately among civilians in schools, beneath hospitals—then that unfortunate and terrible tragic death of innocent civilians has to be more attributed to Hamas's calculated strategy of exposing its civilians to death, but certainly does not take away from my first statement of the horror and the grief of any innocent civilians, whether it's one child in Israel or a hundred children in Palestine or in Gaza. To me, they're equally tragic. There is no disproportionality. They're equally tragic.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Neve Gordon, you and your family have spent a good deal of time in a bomb shelter against the Hamas rockets in Ben-Gurion University, in the area around Ben-Gurion University where you live. You have called for the invasion to end now. Why?
NEVE GORDON: I would call for the invasion not to begin. We just had a rocket here about an hour ago, and the issue—I agree with some of what Lanny says. First of all, I agree with the idea of a basic right to self-defense. And the right to self-defense is a right to self-defense from violence. We have to understand that the occupation itself is violence. It's an act of violence. Putting people in a prison, in a prison of one million and a half million people and keeping them there for years on end without basic foodstuff, without allowing them to enter and exit when they will, is an act of violence. Without electricity, without clean water, it's all an act of violence. And these people are resisting. I am against the way they're resisting, but we have to look at their violence versus our violence.
About between ten and twenty people, Israelis, have died from rockets in the eight years that rockets have been launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel. During the same amount of time, 4,000 Israelis have died from car accidents. And yet, we don't see an outrage against the terrorism on the streets in Israel. But from these twenty people, we're allowed to enter into the Gaza Strip and bomb them from the air into their cage and kill 275 children. And Lanny says that it's not about disproportionality, but it is. Disproportionality is a term from international law. And by saying that he doesn't agree with it, he's defying international law.
And Israel has been defying international law and international agreements and international decisions from 1967, or probably from before. One of these decisions is that Israel must return these territories. And by maintaining and holding onto these territories through violent means, Israel is creating a situation where basically all the doors in the Gaza Strip are closed except one door. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, said it. Israel has closed all the doors in the Gaza Strip again, except for the mosque doors. We've closed the school doors. We've closed the economic doors. We've closed the medical doors. And so, and then we're surprised that we have to deal with Hamas.
So I think we need to change the hard drive, and the hard drive has to be that you don't solve things through violence. You solve things—you solve diplomatic issues, political issues through negotiations and talks. And it's about time that Israel sat down with Hamas and started negotiating with them. Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinian people. We don't need to like them. I don't like them. But they are the elected government, and we need to sit down and talk with them and not bomb them.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, your response?
LANNY DAVIS: Well, first of all, I appreciate—Professor Gordon and I probably have the same heart, and we probably have the same empathy, and we probably have the same goals of a two-state solution where people negotiate peace. And I appreciate Professor Gordon is sitting in a situation where his family is exposed to death, and I'm sitting safely here in Washington. So I don't mean to be judgmental, and I greatly respect what the professor just said, but I focus on facts, and I'm sorry to say that I must disagree with the professor's misstatement of certain facts, or omission might be also accurate.
Let's start with the international law issue. It is a violation of international law to deliberately launch rockets from within civilian areas. Article 53 of the Geneva Accords expressly says that. Yet the professor forgot to mention that. It is not a violation of international law to defend yourself if you're not intentionally targeting civilians. The Hamas is intentionally targeting civilians. The professor forgot to mention the distinction between defending yourself and tragically killing civilians in trying to find those who are launching missiles against you intentionally to kill civilians.
And finally and most importantly, I share the professor's desire for negotiations. And as I said, since I was a child, contrary to my father's strong views, I favored a Palestinian state, independent, and I still do. But Hamas's stated public objective is the destruction of Israel. There isn't a civilized country in the world that would sit across the table from a party that is launching terrorist—and it is defined as terrorism to intentionally kill civilians, as opposed to military. Nobody denies that's what Hamas is doing. And to sit across the table from an organization that says, "We will not recognize you. We want to destroy you, and we will use terrorism against your innocent children," is impossible. We did sit across the table from Fatah. We do have the beginnings of a negotiation with Mr. Abboud [sic.]. And we certainly do have the Fatah opposed to the terrorism of Hamas. After all, they were expelled by a military coup by Hamas.
So all of the issues that I believe the professor and I have in common, we should at least agree on basic facts, and the overwhelming one that I don't think the professor would deny is Hamas's aim is terrorism, to kill innocent civilians, and its objective is the destruction of Israel, not the recognition of Israel, not two states that can live side by side in peace.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Neve Gordon?
NEVE GORDON: The problem is the—yes, intentions are important, but the facts are more important. And the fact is that Israel is the one that's doing the harm to—much more harm to civilians than the Hamas ever did and ever will do. Israel has killed in the past two weeks 275 children, and not Hamas, regardless of the intentions. You mentioned the school. Israel is dealing with a propaganda war. Israel is the one that disseminated a video of Hamas shooting rockets from a school, a video that's almost two years old, claiming that the video was taken a day or two earlier. So Israel is in a propaganda war. Yes, the Hamas is fighting out from a civilian population, but Israel has the choice whether it's going to bomb the civilian population ore not, and it is intentionally deciding to bomb the civilian population. So in terms of intentionality in bombing areas where there are civilians, Israel is acting like a state terrorist. So, if your definition of terrorism doesn't take into account the identity of the actor—and state actors can also be terrorists—then when you bomb a school and when you bomb a university and when you bomb a neighborhood and you're killing much more civilians than militants, then you're doing something that is an act of terror.
And I have a problem. I think my views are pro-Israelis. I would like to see Israel existing in the Middle East sixty years down the line, and not only the first sixty years. And the only way for Israel to continue to exist in the Middle East is if it changes its approach towards the region and see itself as a leader of peace and not a belligerent actor in the region. And Israel has been living on the sword. Some of our neighbors have been living on the sword. But we have to come out and say we no longer want to live on the sword, because those who live on the sword, as the Bible tells us, also die on the sword. We have to come out and say we are willing to talk with our enemies, even with people that say that they do not believe in the existence of Israel. The PLO—you mentioned Fatah—the PLO said that they do not believe in the existence of Israel for many years. And ultimately, we sat down and talked with them, and they are now considered our Palestinian partner. I believe that if there is a pragmatic side, a strong pragmatic wing in Hamas, that if we start negotiation with them, over the years these people will also agree to the existence of Israel and be willing to live side by side with us. If we do not talk with them, if we continue this cycle of violence, ultimately Israel will be destroyed, because ultimately, the technological edge that we have over our neighbors will not be meaningful. So we have to change our approach. We have to be pro—by changing our approach, we're actually pro-Israeli. We say we want to see Israel a hundred years from now. And the only way we'll see Israel exist a hundred years from now is if Israel makes peace with Syria, with Lebanon and with the Palestinian people.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Neve Gordon and Lanny Davis, we're going to break, then come back. Then, we will be joined by Congress member Dennis Kucinich, speaking to us from Cleveland, one of five Congress members to vote against the resolution in support of Israel. And then we'll be speaking with Jewish women who are standing up to the Israeli invasion of Gaza, one in Toronto, one here in New York. A major protest is planned today outside the Israeli consulate at 5:00 in the afternoon. Lanny Davis is former attorney, former special counsel to President Clinton. He is currently an attorney, and he's a senior adviser and spokesperson for the Israel Project. Neve Gordon is in Beersheba in Israel, chair of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are attorney Lanny Davis, senior adviser, spokesperson for the Israel Project in Washington, D.C., and Professor Neve Gordon, chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, author of Israel's Occupation. I want to talk about why Israel invaded at this point. What is your understanding of this? They said Hamas broke the ceasefire. Professor Gordon, is that the reason you feel that this happened?
NEVE GORDON: Hamas did launch an incredible amount of rockets at the end of the ceasefire. Israel actually is a first actor that broke the ceasefire on November 1st, when it attacked in the Gaza—November 4th, when it attacked in the Gaza Strip.
I think the actual reasons have to do—the two major reasons—with rebuilding the reputation of the Israeli military after its humiliation in 2006 in Lebanon and the upcoming Israeli elections. Both Labor and Kadima, the two out of the three major parties, were behind in the polls against BB Netanyahu's Likud, who was blaming them of being soft on the Palestinians. And I think the timing, in terms of the elections, which are on February 10th, was perfect to show that Kadima and Labor, that are in party, know how to be tough on the Palestinians. And in fact, already in the polls we see that Labor has added almost 50 percent to what it had before the war began. So I think there's some cynical political issues and reputation issues that played a dramatic part in initiating this war.
I think that Hamas also acted—or miscalculated and acted totally wrong, that it launched the rockets on Israel. I think, strategically and morally, it was a mistake. But I'm not sure Israel had to react through such a war. I think through diplomatic means it could have been stopped.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, are you concerned about the blockade not only on the Palestinians, but also on information? The New York Times, the BBC, Reuters, CNN have all filed a complaint with the Israeli prime minister not allowing international press into Gaza. Why do you think Israel is not allowing press in?
LANNY DAVIS: Well, first of all, I don't want to duck your latter question, because I'm in favor of greater media going into Gaza so they can report the facts rather than false reporting. I'd like to get back to that.
But let me start with your use of your word "blockade." That's an inaccurate or at least a biased word. I don't say that you intended it that way, but it is. There is a blockade of tunnels and any other means of access that the Hamas has used to allow the import of these rockets from Iran. This is an Iranian-subsidized operation, just like Hezbollah. And yet, 165 trucks of humanitarian, medical, food aid went into Gaza yesterday from Israel. It is the Egyptians that have blocked access. You must ask the Egyptian government, "Why are you blocking access?" Because they know these tunnels have been used by Hamas not to resupply their people with food and medical aid, but with rockets who are placed among civilians, next to schools, under hospitals, to kill civilians in Israel. So "blockade" is really, I think, a word that needs to be changed. It's a selective blocking of terrorist war instruments that are being supplied primarily by Iran, and the Egyptian government has the ability to open those tunnels, and they see the same danger as does Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me put that question—
LANNY DAVIS: On the issue—
AMY GOODMAN: Just one sec—on the issue of the blockade to Professor Neve Gordon, which predates the Israeli invasion, the total blockade of Gaza that many people have been challenging around the world. Can you explain what that blockade is, Professor Gordon?
NEVE GORDON: Well, since Hamas was elected into government in a democratic election, Israel decided basically to economically boycott the Palestinian people, and particularly Hamas and the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, and is basically controlling all the borders and deciding who can enter and who can leave and what can enter and what can leave. And it is actually allowing a certain amount of humanitarian aid, and it's allowing this humanitarian aid, according to Israel's own claims, in order that there won't be a humanitarian catastrophe. So, basically, Israel is saying, "We'll allow 165 trucks so there won't be a humanitarian catastrophe, so we can continue the war against Hamas." So it's a kind of new war ethics, a war ethics that you're fighting against not another military, but militants in an armed wing of an organization that are within the civilian population, and so you're basically attacking the civilian population, and you're saying, "We don't want a catastrophe to happen, so we can continue attacking you." There's something very cynical about it and something horrific about it.
And so, actually, there has been a blockade on Gaza, and it's been a very severe blockade on Gaza. And even Israel claims that there's been a blockade on Gaza and saying that Israel allows humanitarian assistance to enter so it can continue bombing them is very, very cynical.
LANNY DAVIS: Let's agree on a basic fact here. Ms. Goodman, you used the expression "absolute blockade" a second time after I said the first use of your expression "blockade" was inaccurate or imbalanced. So I would like to suggest that you at least say "partial blockade," because it is not aimed at anything other than preventing munitions and rockets coming in from Iran. That's a fact. And ask the government of Egypt whether they agree. Secondly—
NEVE GORDON: If a Palestinian wants to import a car—
LANNY DAVIS: Professor, professor, let me just—let me just make one other point.
NEVE GORDON: —a car, he can't import the car. If a Palestinian wants to import a cow, he can't import a cow.
LANNY DAVIS: I really—I really wanted to interrupt you badly, but I appreciate you have a lot to say, and I'd like you to allow me to finish.
I am very surprised that you don't start with the fact that we agree on: all Hamas has to do is stop sending terrorist rockets aimed at civilians—you've never disagreed with me on that; we agree on that—and make peace with Israel. That's all they have to do, the same way that Mr. Abboud [sic.] and the Fatah have done in the West Bank, which is flourishing.
And secondly, most importantly, the occupation ended. In 2005, Israel took all of its troops out. Faced with a state or a terrorist state or a government that says, "I'm trying to destroy you, and I'm going to send rockets to kill your civilians," is the reason why the economic boycott, as you call it, would occur in any civilized country in the world. If Canada or Mexico had a destruction objective of the United States and were launching rockets against Houston or against Boston—if you think the United States or any other country in the world would allow that to happen without at least economic boycott while allowing humanitarian aid, then I would beg to differ with you.
On the media, Ms. Goodman, I—
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, we began with you—I just—we're going to have to wrap up because we're headed to Dennis Kucinich.
LANNY DAVIS: OK. Well, just a quick comment on the media, which I didn't answer. I think that there ought to be more exposure, and there should be more openness with the media. I think Israel is moving in that direction. I certainly think that the propaganda, for example, a false report that an Israeli tank shot on a UN convoy, took forty-eight hours for the United Nations spokesperson who put that statement out to say, "Well, I'm not so sure." That was a forty-eight hour time gap. Everybody still believes it happened, because the withdrawal of the statement or the modification of the statement didn't get the front-page headlines that the statement did.
So we have to be very careful that when we get our media into Gaza, that we get people who are objective reporting the facts as to where are these missiles. Are they under schools? Are they in hospitals? And if so, is that an act that is a violation and a war crime in and of itself? That's why I want the media in Gaza, to prove the war crimes being committed by Hamas are where they're placing their rockets.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, we began with you; we will end with Professor Neve Gordon in Beersheba.
NEVE GORDON: I have two comments to make, one related to protest in media. 700 Israelis have been arrested since this war began, because they protested this war. This has not made it to an international media, and it's an act of intimidation by the state against those who protest the war.
Second, regarding what Lanny said, that no country would allow another country to bomb its citizens, he's right. He forgets one essential fact, and that is the occupation. And Gaza was not—is still under occupation, because Israel controls all of its borders, and the West Bank is under occupation, and East Jerusalem is under occupation. And the act—the first, the initial, the primordial act of violence is the occupation. The rockets are a reaction to that act of violence. And so, we have to keep in mind that within—it's not between a state and another state. It's been between an occupier and an occupied.
AMY GOODMAN: We will leave it there. Professor Neve Gordon in Beersheba, chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. He is author of Israel's Occupation. Lanny Davis, senior adviser and spokesperson for the Israel Project, attorney and former special counsel to President Clinton. Thank you both for being with us.
LANNY DAVIS: Thank you so much.
AMY GOODMAN: Israeli troops are pushing deeper towards Gaza's towns and cities as thousands of Israeli reservists enter the conflict for the first time. Israeli warplanes continue to bombard targets across northern Gaza and in the town of Rafah on the southern border with Egypt. Meanwhile, Palestinian militants continue to fire rockets into southern Israel.
The Israeli military is continuing to surround Gaza City, and many residents in the outlying suburbs are moving into the city center. A Palestinian human rights group told The Guardian newspaper up to 90,000 Gazans, more than half of them children, had fled their homes across the territory. Israel and Egypt have refused to open their borders to allow Gazans to flee the fighting.
The death toll now stands at nearly 900 Palestinians, many of them civilian, including 275 children. Another 4,100 Palestinians have been injured. Thirteen Israelis have been killed, including three civilians hit by rocket fire and ten soldiers. Four of those soldiers died in friendly fire incidents.
Aid agencies are warning of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza with the territory's one-and-a-half million residents in urgent need of food and medical aid. The BBC reports the main hospital in Gaza is close to collapse with patients reportedly dying because of a lack of specialist doctors and basic medical equipment.
On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the offensive was nearing its goals but that the assault will continue. Olmert also spoke out in defiance of the UN Security Council's call for an immediate ceasefire, saying, "Nobody should be allowed to decide for us if we are allowed to strike." Both Hamas and Israel have rejected the UN resolution. Meanwhile, talks between Hamas and Egyptian officials are continuing in Cairo.
We turn now to a debate on the issue. Attorney Lanny Davis is with us. He's a senior adviser and spokesperson for the Israel Project, former special counsel to President Clinton. He joins us from Washington, D.C. Joining us on the line from Beersheba, Israel is Neve Gordon. He's the chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. He is author of Israel's Occupation.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Lanny Davis, you're in full support of the Israeli invasion. Tell us why.
LANNY DAVIS: The right of self-defense. When terrorism kills innocent civilians intentionally, there isn't a civilized nation in the world that wouldn't attack back to try to prevent that terrorism. I use "terrorism" with a very specifically defined expression. When a party shoots to kill innocent civilians intentionally for a political purpose, including one's own citizens to be exposed to death for political purposes, that's terrorism. So I support the right of self-defense against terrorism, as any country would if this were happening, I believe. And the United States certainly would. If Rochester were being exposed to mortars and rockets from Montreal, I believe that the United States would not sit idly by and allow the Canadians to do that. So I think the first and most foremost right is the right of self-defense against terrorism, which is intentional killing of civilians.
AMY GOODMAN: And the issue proportionality, the number of people we've seen dead, close to 900 Palestinians, over 200 of them children, overwhelmingly civilian, versus the thirteen Israelis who have died, ten of them soldiers, four of them in friendly fire.
LANNY DAVIS: Yes, it's very disturbing that there are so many more deaths and suffering by innocent people in Gaza. I grieve and regret that as a human being, as an American, as a Jew who has supported a Palestinian state ever since I was a child and have been very critical through the years of the Israeli government not supporting a Palestinian state until just recently. So I grieve for those numbers, but I don't understand the word "disproportional."
Number one, if it was one child, if it was your child who was intentionally killed by a terrorist, and you asked your government to respond, and in order to respond, the people who launched the rockets placed their rockets among schoolchildren and innocent civilians deliberately—and that is an undisputed fact that Hamas has located its rocket launchers deliberately among civilians in schools, beneath hospitals—then that unfortunate and terrible tragic death of innocent civilians has to be more attributed to Hamas's calculated strategy of exposing its civilians to death, but certainly does not take away from my first statement of the horror and the grief of any innocent civilians, whether it's one child in Israel or a hundred children in Palestine or in Gaza. To me, they're equally tragic. There is no disproportionality. They're equally tragic.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Neve Gordon, you and your family have spent a good deal of time in a bomb shelter against the Hamas rockets in Ben-Gurion University, in the area around Ben-Gurion University where you live. You have called for the invasion to end now. Why?
NEVE GORDON: I would call for the invasion not to begin. We just had a rocket here about an hour ago, and the issue—I agree with some of what Lanny says. First of all, I agree with the idea of a basic right to self-defense. And the right to self-defense is a right to self-defense from violence. We have to understand that the occupation itself is violence. It's an act of violence. Putting people in a prison, in a prison of one million and a half million people and keeping them there for years on end without basic foodstuff, without allowing them to enter and exit when they will, is an act of violence. Without electricity, without clean water, it's all an act of violence. And these people are resisting. I am against the way they're resisting, but we have to look at their violence versus our violence.
About between ten and twenty people, Israelis, have died from rockets in the eight years that rockets have been launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel. During the same amount of time, 4,000 Israelis have died from car accidents. And yet, we don't see an outrage against the terrorism on the streets in Israel. But from these twenty people, we're allowed to enter into the Gaza Strip and bomb them from the air into their cage and kill 275 children. And Lanny says that it's not about disproportionality, but it is. Disproportionality is a term from international law. And by saying that he doesn't agree with it, he's defying international law.
And Israel has been defying international law and international agreements and international decisions from 1967, or probably from before. One of these decisions is that Israel must return these territories. And by maintaining and holding onto these territories through violent means, Israel is creating a situation where basically all the doors in the Gaza Strip are closed except one door. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, said it. Israel has closed all the doors in the Gaza Strip again, except for the mosque doors. We've closed the school doors. We've closed the economic doors. We've closed the medical doors. And so, and then we're surprised that we have to deal with Hamas.
So I think we need to change the hard drive, and the hard drive has to be that you don't solve things through violence. You solve things—you solve diplomatic issues, political issues through negotiations and talks. And it's about time that Israel sat down with Hamas and started negotiating with them. Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinian people. We don't need to like them. I don't like them. But they are the elected government, and we need to sit down and talk with them and not bomb them.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, your response?
LANNY DAVIS: Well, first of all, I appreciate—Professor Gordon and I probably have the same heart, and we probably have the same empathy, and we probably have the same goals of a two-state solution where people negotiate peace. And I appreciate Professor Gordon is sitting in a situation where his family is exposed to death, and I'm sitting safely here in Washington. So I don't mean to be judgmental, and I greatly respect what the professor just said, but I focus on facts, and I'm sorry to say that I must disagree with the professor's misstatement of certain facts, or omission might be also accurate.
Let's start with the international law issue. It is a violation of international law to deliberately launch rockets from within civilian areas. Article 53 of the Geneva Accords expressly says that. Yet the professor forgot to mention that. It is not a violation of international law to defend yourself if you're not intentionally targeting civilians. The Hamas is intentionally targeting civilians. The professor forgot to mention the distinction between defending yourself and tragically killing civilians in trying to find those who are launching missiles against you intentionally to kill civilians.
And finally and most importantly, I share the professor's desire for negotiations. And as I said, since I was a child, contrary to my father's strong views, I favored a Palestinian state, independent, and I still do. But Hamas's stated public objective is the destruction of Israel. There isn't a civilized country in the world that would sit across the table from a party that is launching terrorist—and it is defined as terrorism to intentionally kill civilians, as opposed to military. Nobody denies that's what Hamas is doing. And to sit across the table from an organization that says, "We will not recognize you. We want to destroy you, and we will use terrorism against your innocent children," is impossible. We did sit across the table from Fatah. We do have the beginnings of a negotiation with Mr. Abboud [sic.]. And we certainly do have the Fatah opposed to the terrorism of Hamas. After all, they were expelled by a military coup by Hamas.
So all of the issues that I believe the professor and I have in common, we should at least agree on basic facts, and the overwhelming one that I don't think the professor would deny is Hamas's aim is terrorism, to kill innocent civilians, and its objective is the destruction of Israel, not the recognition of Israel, not two states that can live side by side in peace.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Neve Gordon?
NEVE GORDON: The problem is the—yes, intentions are important, but the facts are more important. And the fact is that Israel is the one that's doing the harm to—much more harm to civilians than the Hamas ever did and ever will do. Israel has killed in the past two weeks 275 children, and not Hamas, regardless of the intentions. You mentioned the school. Israel is dealing with a propaganda war. Israel is the one that disseminated a video of Hamas shooting rockets from a school, a video that's almost two years old, claiming that the video was taken a day or two earlier. So Israel is in a propaganda war. Yes, the Hamas is fighting out from a civilian population, but Israel has the choice whether it's going to bomb the civilian population ore not, and it is intentionally deciding to bomb the civilian population. So in terms of intentionality in bombing areas where there are civilians, Israel is acting like a state terrorist. So, if your definition of terrorism doesn't take into account the identity of the actor—and state actors can also be terrorists—then when you bomb a school and when you bomb a university and when you bomb a neighborhood and you're killing much more civilians than militants, then you're doing something that is an act of terror.
And I have a problem. I think my views are pro-Israelis. I would like to see Israel existing in the Middle East sixty years down the line, and not only the first sixty years. And the only way for Israel to continue to exist in the Middle East is if it changes its approach towards the region and see itself as a leader of peace and not a belligerent actor in the region. And Israel has been living on the sword. Some of our neighbors have been living on the sword. But we have to come out and say we no longer want to live on the sword, because those who live on the sword, as the Bible tells us, also die on the sword. We have to come out and say we are willing to talk with our enemies, even with people that say that they do not believe in the existence of Israel. The PLO—you mentioned Fatah—the PLO said that they do not believe in the existence of Israel for many years. And ultimately, we sat down and talked with them, and they are now considered our Palestinian partner. I believe that if there is a pragmatic side, a strong pragmatic wing in Hamas, that if we start negotiation with them, over the years these people will also agree to the existence of Israel and be willing to live side by side with us. If we do not talk with them, if we continue this cycle of violence, ultimately Israel will be destroyed, because ultimately, the technological edge that we have over our neighbors will not be meaningful. So we have to change our approach. We have to be pro—by changing our approach, we're actually pro-Israeli. We say we want to see Israel a hundred years from now. And the only way we'll see Israel exist a hundred years from now is if Israel makes peace with Syria, with Lebanon and with the Palestinian people.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Neve Gordon and Lanny Davis, we're going to break, then come back. Then, we will be joined by Congress member Dennis Kucinich, speaking to us from Cleveland, one of five Congress members to vote against the resolution in support of Israel. And then we'll be speaking with Jewish women who are standing up to the Israeli invasion of Gaza, one in Toronto, one here in New York. A major protest is planned today outside the Israeli consulate at 5:00 in the afternoon. Lanny Davis is former attorney, former special counsel to President Clinton. He is currently an attorney, and he's a senior adviser and spokesperson for the Israel Project. Neve Gordon is in Beersheba in Israel, chair of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are attorney Lanny Davis, senior adviser, spokesperson for the Israel Project in Washington, D.C., and Professor Neve Gordon, chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, author of Israel's Occupation. I want to talk about why Israel invaded at this point. What is your understanding of this? They said Hamas broke the ceasefire. Professor Gordon, is that the reason you feel that this happened?
NEVE GORDON: Hamas did launch an incredible amount of rockets at the end of the ceasefire. Israel actually is a first actor that broke the ceasefire on November 1st, when it attacked in the Gaza—November 4th, when it attacked in the Gaza Strip.
I think the actual reasons have to do—the two major reasons—with rebuilding the reputation of the Israeli military after its humiliation in 2006 in Lebanon and the upcoming Israeli elections. Both Labor and Kadima, the two out of the three major parties, were behind in the polls against BB Netanyahu's Likud, who was blaming them of being soft on the Palestinians. And I think the timing, in terms of the elections, which are on February 10th, was perfect to show that Kadima and Labor, that are in party, know how to be tough on the Palestinians. And in fact, already in the polls we see that Labor has added almost 50 percent to what it had before the war began. So I think there's some cynical political issues and reputation issues that played a dramatic part in initiating this war.
I think that Hamas also acted—or miscalculated and acted totally wrong, that it launched the rockets on Israel. I think, strategically and morally, it was a mistake. But I'm not sure Israel had to react through such a war. I think through diplomatic means it could have been stopped.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, are you concerned about the blockade not only on the Palestinians, but also on information? The New York Times, the BBC, Reuters, CNN have all filed a complaint with the Israeli prime minister not allowing international press into Gaza. Why do you think Israel is not allowing press in?
LANNY DAVIS: Well, first of all, I don't want to duck your latter question, because I'm in favor of greater media going into Gaza so they can report the facts rather than false reporting. I'd like to get back to that.
But let me start with your use of your word "blockade." That's an inaccurate or at least a biased word. I don't say that you intended it that way, but it is. There is a blockade of tunnels and any other means of access that the Hamas has used to allow the import of these rockets from Iran. This is an Iranian-subsidized operation, just like Hezbollah. And yet, 165 trucks of humanitarian, medical, food aid went into Gaza yesterday from Israel. It is the Egyptians that have blocked access. You must ask the Egyptian government, "Why are you blocking access?" Because they know these tunnels have been used by Hamas not to resupply their people with food and medical aid, but with rockets who are placed among civilians, next to schools, under hospitals, to kill civilians in Israel. So "blockade" is really, I think, a word that needs to be changed. It's a selective blocking of terrorist war instruments that are being supplied primarily by Iran, and the Egyptian government has the ability to open those tunnels, and they see the same danger as does Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me put that question—
LANNY DAVIS: On the issue—
AMY GOODMAN: Just one sec—on the issue of the blockade to Professor Neve Gordon, which predates the Israeli invasion, the total blockade of Gaza that many people have been challenging around the world. Can you explain what that blockade is, Professor Gordon?
NEVE GORDON: Well, since Hamas was elected into government in a democratic election, Israel decided basically to economically boycott the Palestinian people, and particularly Hamas and the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, and is basically controlling all the borders and deciding who can enter and who can leave and what can enter and what can leave. And it is actually allowing a certain amount of humanitarian aid, and it's allowing this humanitarian aid, according to Israel's own claims, in order that there won't be a humanitarian catastrophe. So, basically, Israel is saying, "We'll allow 165 trucks so there won't be a humanitarian catastrophe, so we can continue the war against Hamas." So it's a kind of new war ethics, a war ethics that you're fighting against not another military, but militants in an armed wing of an organization that are within the civilian population, and so you're basically attacking the civilian population, and you're saying, "We don't want a catastrophe to happen, so we can continue attacking you." There's something very cynical about it and something horrific about it.
And so, actually, there has been a blockade on Gaza, and it's been a very severe blockade on Gaza. And even Israel claims that there's been a blockade on Gaza and saying that Israel allows humanitarian assistance to enter so it can continue bombing them is very, very cynical.
LANNY DAVIS: Let's agree on a basic fact here. Ms. Goodman, you used the expression "absolute blockade" a second time after I said the first use of your expression "blockade" was inaccurate or imbalanced. So I would like to suggest that you at least say "partial blockade," because it is not aimed at anything other than preventing munitions and rockets coming in from Iran. That's a fact. And ask the government of Egypt whether they agree. Secondly—
NEVE GORDON: If a Palestinian wants to import a car—
LANNY DAVIS: Professor, professor, let me just—let me just make one other point.
NEVE GORDON: —a car, he can't import the car. If a Palestinian wants to import a cow, he can't import a cow.
LANNY DAVIS: I really—I really wanted to interrupt you badly, but I appreciate you have a lot to say, and I'd like you to allow me to finish.
I am very surprised that you don't start with the fact that we agree on: all Hamas has to do is stop sending terrorist rockets aimed at civilians—you've never disagreed with me on that; we agree on that—and make peace with Israel. That's all they have to do, the same way that Mr. Abboud [sic.] and the Fatah have done in the West Bank, which is flourishing.
And secondly, most importantly, the occupation ended. In 2005, Israel took all of its troops out. Faced with a state or a terrorist state or a government that says, "I'm trying to destroy you, and I'm going to send rockets to kill your civilians," is the reason why the economic boycott, as you call it, would occur in any civilized country in the world. If Canada or Mexico had a destruction objective of the United States and were launching rockets against Houston or against Boston—if you think the United States or any other country in the world would allow that to happen without at least economic boycott while allowing humanitarian aid, then I would beg to differ with you.
On the media, Ms. Goodman, I—
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, we began with you—I just—we're going to have to wrap up because we're headed to Dennis Kucinich.
LANNY DAVIS: OK. Well, just a quick comment on the media, which I didn't answer. I think that there ought to be more exposure, and there should be more openness with the media. I think Israel is moving in that direction. I certainly think that the propaganda, for example, a false report that an Israeli tank shot on a UN convoy, took forty-eight hours for the United Nations spokesperson who put that statement out to say, "Well, I'm not so sure." That was a forty-eight hour time gap. Everybody still believes it happened, because the withdrawal of the statement or the modification of the statement didn't get the front-page headlines that the statement did.
So we have to be very careful that when we get our media into Gaza, that we get people who are objective reporting the facts as to where are these missiles. Are they under schools? Are they in hospitals? And if so, is that an act that is a violation and a war crime in and of itself? That's why I want the media in Gaza, to prove the war crimes being committed by Hamas are where they're placing their rockets.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, we began with you; we will end with Professor Neve Gordon in Beersheba.
NEVE GORDON: I have two comments to make, one related to protest in media. 700 Israelis have been arrested since this war began, because they protested this war. This has not made it to an international media, and it's an act of intimidation by the state against those who protest the war.
Second, regarding what Lanny said, that no country would allow another country to bomb its citizens, he's right. He forgets one essential fact, and that is the occupation. And Gaza was not—is still under occupation, because Israel controls all of its borders, and the West Bank is under occupation, and East Jerusalem is under occupation. And the act—the first, the initial, the primordial act of violence is the occupation. The rockets are a reaction to that act of violence. And so, we have to keep in mind that within—it's not between a state and another state. It's been between an occupier and an occupied.
AMY GOODMAN: We will leave it there. Professor Neve Gordon in Beersheba, chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. He is author of Israel's Occupation. Lanny Davis, senior adviser and spokesperson for the Israel Project, attorney and former special counsel to President Clinton. Thank you both for being with us.
LANNY DAVIS: Thank you so much.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Israeli On-Going Brutality
A new day, and the Palestinian victims are exceeding 900 dead. Last time I checked as a matter of fact, they were more than 930.
Israel improved (being sarcastic) 1% by easing down its brutality (not!). They at least warned on Saturday the Christian Aid Clinic that they have only 15 minutes to evacuate because their building was suspected of hosting 'terrorists'. The UN itself, unless dumb Zionists want to accuse the UN of racism, reported that 40% of these victims are women and children. Valuable medical supplies required to assist the Palestinians were destroyed. Other clinics remain under threat of being bombed... those threats come straight from the Israeli Defense (still wondering about the defense part) Forces. According to the BBC statistics, only 13 Israelis are killed, whereby three of them are citizens. Only three citizens, whereby 3/4 of the killed by the Palestinians were military, now compare that to the 930 killed. Isn't that ethnic cleansing? Or as some naïve Zionists claim: Self-Defense... still wondering what self-defense has to do with the butchery of almost a 1000 citizens...
One of the comrades posted the damage Hamas is inflicting on Israeli targets, this is the damage:
Another comrade at the Further Left Forum, also provided valuable information on boycotting Israeli products.The bar codes on the packages acually expose the country of origin. The first three numbers, circled in green, related to Israel.
Now of course, a dumb-ass Zionist will tell you they are boycotting Israeli products because they are Jews, not at all. Israel has to learn that their self-victimization strategy is running out of fuel.People are fed up of attrocities covered up by the American propaganda media.
Speaking of media, the echoes of the July War 2006 are repeating itself. Israel, like two years ago, have prepared packages for the newspapers and the media to publish. They are limiting access of media, the BBC World Correspondent expressed deep frustration on Israeli monopoly in regards of imposing its own version on the media. In the words of BBC's Paul Reynolds: Israel has been aiming for total air supremacy in more than one way in Gaza - it wants to dominate the airwaves of the news organisations with its own narrative.
A person is wondering why? Because they are worried that the Israeli government is the barbarian and uncivilized rather the Palestinians who are the real victims? Olmert defended his army by stating that Israel is using acceptable war weapons.... he also added that such weapons are used by all Western Democracies. Now, to what extent Olmert expects people to believe that Israel is the beacon of democracy in the Middle East amidst this butchery. Or is a 'civilized country' justified to bombard the hell out of the Palestinians? To those who support such a logic, they are no better than Hitler or Milosevic, who based attoricities based on race and ethnicity.
It is enough that each Palestinian is suffering in his/her home from explosions, food shortages, diseases, but it is not enough to Israel, they are also calling the victims and laughing on them that they will be killed because Hamas. Now correct me, who is driving those aircrafts? Who is doing the killings? Hamas or the IDF? Of course, the IDF. However, the words of my history professor in school still find resonance in my brains: "The Israelis pull all the triggers, kill people, and they are still crying. When they invaded Beirut in 1982, they were crying. When they brutally took Palestine to announce their fake nation, Israel, they were crying that they are victims! Damn it, they are all candidates for the Grammy Awards!" Indeed, the Palestinians of Gaza are treated as if they carry the blood of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Oh I forgot, to some, Israel was a nation 2000 years ago and the Palestinians are simply the conquerors... how pethatic! It reminds us of Mussolini restoring the Roman Empire back in World War II.
Well Israel bombed overnight 60 targets tonight. Mr. Ban of the UN decided finally to visit the region for attrocities. After how many days of on-going Palestinian genocide? Oh sorry, the general secretary cannot do anything except equate the butcherer and the victim's violance and call for peace. The same what Mr. Obama, who promised change. It just hurt his heart to see all those victims, "whether Israeli or Palestinian?" Did he really check out the scene over here? Doesn't this remind us of Bosnia's war where the UN called all parties to seize power and called for an Arms Embargo? Leaving an entire ethnic group at the mercy of two fully armed groups? I seriously find no difference between Karadzic and Olmert, or Levni and the notorious Beljana Plavsic, who based everything on genetic differences to justify attrocities.
Finally, Jon Stewart, probably the most followed comedy program, did it again by mocking Bush and the situation of what is going on in there. This doesn't mean Stewart is a pro-Palestinian. Stewart feeds on the contradictions of the leadership in the US, and uses their archives against them:
We have seen Jon Stewart during the July War as well, a video that was very popular in Lebanon two years ago... :
Also, I highly recommend readers to check Marcy Newman's amazing blog for details on the situation of Gaza. That activist is all energy, and a source for inspiration, read for the details of Gaza at Newman's Body on the Line.
Finally, I cannot forget my mother, sticking up her middle finger to the TV, as she watched the Bush family mourn the death of their 'first' pet. The pictures of dead children do not affect Bush, apparently their pet seems more human. I wish I can upload the photo, but that would expose who I am.
MFL
PS: Darko, I will fix everything within the two days...
Israel improved (being sarcastic) 1% by easing down its brutality (not!). They at least warned on Saturday the Christian Aid Clinic that they have only 15 minutes to evacuate because their building was suspected of hosting 'terrorists'. The UN itself, unless dumb Zionists want to accuse the UN of racism, reported that 40% of these victims are women and children. Valuable medical supplies required to assist the Palestinians were destroyed. Other clinics remain under threat of being bombed... those threats come straight from the Israeli Defense (still wondering about the defense part) Forces. According to the BBC statistics, only 13 Israelis are killed, whereby three of them are citizens. Only three citizens, whereby 3/4 of the killed by the Palestinians were military, now compare that to the 930 killed. Isn't that ethnic cleansing? Or as some naïve Zionists claim: Self-Defense... still wondering what self-defense has to do with the butchery of almost a 1000 citizens...
One of the comrades posted the damage Hamas is inflicting on Israeli targets, this is the damage:
Another comrade at the Further Left Forum, also provided valuable information on boycotting Israeli products.The bar codes on the packages acually expose the country of origin. The first three numbers, circled in green, related to Israel.
Now of course, a dumb-ass Zionist will tell you they are boycotting Israeli products because they are Jews, not at all. Israel has to learn that their self-victimization strategy is running out of fuel.People are fed up of attrocities covered up by the American propaganda media.
Speaking of media, the echoes of the July War 2006 are repeating itself. Israel, like two years ago, have prepared packages for the newspapers and the media to publish. They are limiting access of media, the BBC World Correspondent expressed deep frustration on Israeli monopoly in regards of imposing its own version on the media. In the words of BBC's Paul Reynolds: Israel has been aiming for total air supremacy in more than one way in Gaza - it wants to dominate the airwaves of the news organisations with its own narrative.
A person is wondering why? Because they are worried that the Israeli government is the barbarian and uncivilized rather the Palestinians who are the real victims? Olmert defended his army by stating that Israel is using acceptable war weapons.... he also added that such weapons are used by all Western Democracies. Now, to what extent Olmert expects people to believe that Israel is the beacon of democracy in the Middle East amidst this butchery. Or is a 'civilized country' justified to bombard the hell out of the Palestinians? To those who support such a logic, they are no better than Hitler or Milosevic, who based attoricities based on race and ethnicity.
It is enough that each Palestinian is suffering in his/her home from explosions, food shortages, diseases, but it is not enough to Israel, they are also calling the victims and laughing on them that they will be killed because Hamas. Now correct me, who is driving those aircrafts? Who is doing the killings? Hamas or the IDF? Of course, the IDF. However, the words of my history professor in school still find resonance in my brains: "The Israelis pull all the triggers, kill people, and they are still crying. When they invaded Beirut in 1982, they were crying. When they brutally took Palestine to announce their fake nation, Israel, they were crying that they are victims! Damn it, they are all candidates for the Grammy Awards!" Indeed, the Palestinians of Gaza are treated as if they carry the blood of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Oh I forgot, to some, Israel was a nation 2000 years ago and the Palestinians are simply the conquerors... how pethatic! It reminds us of Mussolini restoring the Roman Empire back in World War II.
Well Israel bombed overnight 60 targets tonight. Mr. Ban of the UN decided finally to visit the region for attrocities. After how many days of on-going Palestinian genocide? Oh sorry, the general secretary cannot do anything except equate the butcherer and the victim's violance and call for peace. The same what Mr. Obama, who promised change. It just hurt his heart to see all those victims, "whether Israeli or Palestinian?" Did he really check out the scene over here? Doesn't this remind us of Bosnia's war where the UN called all parties to seize power and called for an Arms Embargo? Leaving an entire ethnic group at the mercy of two fully armed groups? I seriously find no difference between Karadzic and Olmert, or Levni and the notorious Beljana Plavsic, who based everything on genetic differences to justify attrocities.
Finally, Jon Stewart, probably the most followed comedy program, did it again by mocking Bush and the situation of what is going on in there. This doesn't mean Stewart is a pro-Palestinian. Stewart feeds on the contradictions of the leadership in the US, and uses their archives against them:
We have seen Jon Stewart during the July War as well, a video that was very popular in Lebanon two years ago... :
Also, I highly recommend readers to check Marcy Newman's amazing blog for details on the situation of Gaza. That activist is all energy, and a source for inspiration, read for the details of Gaza at Newman's Body on the Line.
Finally, I cannot forget my mother, sticking up her middle finger to the TV, as she watched the Bush family mourn the death of their 'first' pet. The pictures of dead children do not affect Bush, apparently their pet seems more human. I wish I can upload the photo, but that would expose who I am.
MFL
PS: Darko, I will fix everything within the two days...
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Main Stream Media On Gaza - Propaganda - Israel = THE OCCUPIER
To The American Public, you guys only see 4% of what is going in Palestine and specifically Gaza...
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Cartoon
Written in Arabic: Resolution 1860
Taken From Annahar
Picture Speaks for itself, always loved Annahar Cartoonist
Waking Up to Abu Mazen's Rotten Voice...
To my rotten luck, I had to wake up and see Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas speak.
Abbas is still speaking about peace. He also seems to have forgotten that it is by resistance the Palestinians bulldozed their way into getting international recognition of their existence. Abbas simply wants the Egyptian Initiative which cripples the Palestinians, places high restrictions on Gaza, and doesn't condemn the war crimes committed by Israel.
Not in a life time of a war, specially against a war machinery that kills over 780 citizens in two weeks (excluding the fact that over 400 wounded Palestinian are in critical situation, with 150 Palestinians reported missing), we see a president doing lip service to Israel in order to halt the war, and argue that he wants peace by all costs. We all know that such peace will dismantle whatever chances the Palestinians have to fight for their rights.
Abbas also forgot that diplomacy with the Zionists brings nothing good. Yasser Arafat tried diplomacy and ended up living his final years in confinement in Ramallah. Abbas had been giving the Israelis everything they need, now if Abbas is AWARE that nothing good comes out, then Abbas is simply thinking for the short-run, which is to eradicate any competitor to Fatah. Abbas also so far got nothing from the Israelis except fancy pictures with a stupid American President, Mr. Bush. The fastest question to the PA, if there were no resistance, how is Abbas able to negotiate?
Now if we assume that Abbas is really dumb, then I am not surprised. Yasser Arafat's death left a lot of void in his party. Like a one man show, Arafat was everything, and always refused to delegate or empowers his senior party members. I guess it is understandable that Abbas was the one who did the morning coffee to Arafat. For this reason, it is not surprising that Abbas appears to think that way, disregarding the Zionist butchery and simply focus on Hamas, and argue that 'Peace is under threat'
Disgusting...someone bring Abbass back to Planet Earth...
MFL
Abbas is still speaking about peace. He also seems to have forgotten that it is by resistance the Palestinians bulldozed their way into getting international recognition of their existence. Abbas simply wants the Egyptian Initiative which cripples the Palestinians, places high restrictions on Gaza, and doesn't condemn the war crimes committed by Israel.
Not in a life time of a war, specially against a war machinery that kills over 780 citizens in two weeks (excluding the fact that over 400 wounded Palestinian are in critical situation, with 150 Palestinians reported missing), we see a president doing lip service to Israel in order to halt the war, and argue that he wants peace by all costs. We all know that such peace will dismantle whatever chances the Palestinians have to fight for their rights.
Abbas also forgot that diplomacy with the Zionists brings nothing good. Yasser Arafat tried diplomacy and ended up living his final years in confinement in Ramallah. Abbas had been giving the Israelis everything they need, now if Abbas is AWARE that nothing good comes out, then Abbas is simply thinking for the short-run, which is to eradicate any competitor to Fatah. Abbas also so far got nothing from the Israelis except fancy pictures with a stupid American President, Mr. Bush. The fastest question to the PA, if there were no resistance, how is Abbas able to negotiate?
Now if we assume that Abbas is really dumb, then I am not surprised. Yasser Arafat's death left a lot of void in his party. Like a one man show, Arafat was everything, and always refused to delegate or empowers his senior party members. I guess it is understandable that Abbas was the one who did the morning coffee to Arafat. For this reason, it is not surprising that Abbas appears to think that way, disregarding the Zionist butchery and simply focus on Hamas, and argue that 'Peace is under threat'
Disgusting...someone bring Abbass back to Planet Earth...
MFL
Friday, January 09, 2009
The United Nations: As Always: Clowns
Someone said that the United Nations is nothing but a forum to display muscles.
As always, we see the UN as an inefficient tool that requires immediate replacement. So far, the only side that bombed UN based buildings, or staff had been Israel, but no condemnations had taken place, because Mr. Ban is simply terrified to lose his job.
Two years ago, Israel bombed UNIFIL which prompted scandanavian objections to the level of brutality that Israel was using on citizens.
Once it gets too hot for the UN on the ground, they just FLEE the scene. While Gaza had been suffering for quiet a long time from blockades, patients dying due to lack of medical supplies, and day-to-day picking lottery winners randomly of its winners, the UN realized that it is too dangerous for it to remain there, instead to broadcast world wide the attoricities of the Israeli Defense Forces, hence they simply request for immediate seize fire from both sides, which places Hamas to the level of Mr. Olmert, whose war machinary had devastated the lives of thousands of people in less than two weeks. Of course, that is called self-defense. Now Mr. Olmert still believes that they will bomb the hell out of the people of Gaza, reject any peace offers, and the UN meantime goes: 'in principle' reached an agreement. Can those diplomats tell that to the surviving relatives of the Palestinian genocide? UNRWA when needed most are considering to suspend their operations.
Israel is also focused on Gaza, today, unknown missiles were launched from South Lebanon. The villagers were terrified. All eyes go on Ahmad Gibreel's General Command, nevertheless Israel's reply was smooth. Six rockets in retaliation (for once in equal numbers almost, although it also proved that their warning systems suffered malfunctioning. When asked by New TV if they would like to open a new front with Israel, the border villagers' reply was: "they wouldn't mind as long as all other Arab countries do so, we already suffered enough". This leads us again to the pethatic performance of the UN, a dysfunctional system where one country can veto the decisions of the majority within the security council. This reminds us of the UN's capabilities of not protecting normal citizens, like the Qana martyrs of 1996, who were killed hiding at the UN HQ there, or worse, Marwaheen, where a massacre took place by the hands of the Israelis because the UN refused to grant refugees who had no where to run assylum. Israel of course, called that self-defense. This also reminds us of when Fawaz Traboulsi disparaged Hezbollah and the 14th of March (then) based government for not building safety underground rooms for the citizens on the borders, and prepare an evacuation route for them to escape faster the Israeli blind machinary.
Over 750 palestinians are killed, and out of those so far, 245 are children. The UN is also aware of Israel's use of banned weaponry, and of course, the UN General Secretary, keeps his mouth shut and says: "both sides should hold a seize fire". Someone reminds us on how Kofi Anan, after finishing his term, bluntly said that the Palestinians are the most marginalized and require aid; of course, he didn't mention all the injustices when he was the general secretary, but afterwards. One wonders how cheap a human life can be when it doesn't enjoy the coverage of CNN and ABC news (along with others).
Of course, Israel after the UNRWA bombings, decided to show its "merciful" side by stopping the destruction for three hours per day. Also, of course, sometimes they issue warnings on the locations they will bomb. Nevertheless, we all remember how Israel has this hobby of bombing first all routes of escaping, then bomb the citizens, later warn them of incoming bombs, then bomb again. That is exactly what happened in the July War of 2006. Any more meetings and statements to be done while innocent people are dying?
Damned UN Security Council and the Entire UN Institution...since 1947 the UN had taken decisions destructive to the Palestinians, what kind of an international body that recognizes Israel back then which built its roots on ethnic cleansing and expulsions?
MFL
As always, we see the UN as an inefficient tool that requires immediate replacement. So far, the only side that bombed UN based buildings, or staff had been Israel, but no condemnations had taken place, because Mr. Ban is simply terrified to lose his job.
Two years ago, Israel bombed UNIFIL which prompted scandanavian objections to the level of brutality that Israel was using on citizens.
Once it gets too hot for the UN on the ground, they just FLEE the scene. While Gaza had been suffering for quiet a long time from blockades, patients dying due to lack of medical supplies, and day-to-day picking lottery winners randomly of its winners, the UN realized that it is too dangerous for it to remain there, instead to broadcast world wide the attoricities of the Israeli Defense Forces, hence they simply request for immediate seize fire from both sides, which places Hamas to the level of Mr. Olmert, whose war machinary had devastated the lives of thousands of people in less than two weeks. Of course, that is called self-defense. Now Mr. Olmert still believes that they will bomb the hell out of the people of Gaza, reject any peace offers, and the UN meantime goes: 'in principle' reached an agreement. Can those diplomats tell that to the surviving relatives of the Palestinian genocide? UNRWA when needed most are considering to suspend their operations.
Israel is also focused on Gaza, today, unknown missiles were launched from South Lebanon. The villagers were terrified. All eyes go on Ahmad Gibreel's General Command, nevertheless Israel's reply was smooth. Six rockets in retaliation (for once in equal numbers almost, although it also proved that their warning systems suffered malfunctioning. When asked by New TV if they would like to open a new front with Israel, the border villagers' reply was: "they wouldn't mind as long as all other Arab countries do so, we already suffered enough". This leads us again to the pethatic performance of the UN, a dysfunctional system where one country can veto the decisions of the majority within the security council. This reminds us of the UN's capabilities of not protecting normal citizens, like the Qana martyrs of 1996, who were killed hiding at the UN HQ there, or worse, Marwaheen, where a massacre took place by the hands of the Israelis because the UN refused to grant refugees who had no where to run assylum. Israel of course, called that self-defense. This also reminds us of when Fawaz Traboulsi disparaged Hezbollah and the 14th of March (then) based government for not building safety underground rooms for the citizens on the borders, and prepare an evacuation route for them to escape faster the Israeli blind machinary.
Over 750 palestinians are killed, and out of those so far, 245 are children. The UN is also aware of Israel's use of banned weaponry, and of course, the UN General Secretary, keeps his mouth shut and says: "both sides should hold a seize fire". Someone reminds us on how Kofi Anan, after finishing his term, bluntly said that the Palestinians are the most marginalized and require aid; of course, he didn't mention all the injustices when he was the general secretary, but afterwards. One wonders how cheap a human life can be when it doesn't enjoy the coverage of CNN and ABC news (along with others).
Of course, Israel after the UNRWA bombings, decided to show its "merciful" side by stopping the destruction for three hours per day. Also, of course, sometimes they issue warnings on the locations they will bomb. Nevertheless, we all remember how Israel has this hobby of bombing first all routes of escaping, then bomb the citizens, later warn them of incoming bombs, then bomb again. That is exactly what happened in the July War of 2006. Any more meetings and statements to be done while innocent people are dying?
Damned UN Security Council and the Entire UN Institution...since 1947 the UN had taken decisions destructive to the Palestinians, what kind of an international body that recognizes Israel back then which built its roots on ethnic cleansing and expulsions?
MFL
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Who To Blame for this Israeli Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinians?
Imagine This:
People are cornered in cities, towns, and villages; the army is bombing based on ethnicity and sect. The people have no space to run. Borders are closed for refugees, and the army has the orders to shoot to kill anyone who was not of their sect. Victims' bodies are carried by the hostile army in dozens, with bulldozers, and dumped in large holes; then the same bulldozers, carry the soil, hide the hundreds of bodies of normal citizens in the ground. No border was open for them, except probably for one, and starvation has spread around. The hostile army argued that they were defending themselves against the enemy, and always promoted that these Muslims cannot tolerate civilization. They live to rape their women. This was for them a battle, two races stuck in one border. That army refused to abide by international warnings against such ethnic cleansing.
The whole world, without exaggeration, was shocked. The UN called for immediate seize of fire. Bill Clinton was ready to send his airplanes to support the underdogs. London was prepared to send its forces. Eventually the army was bombed, and the man who gave the order for ethnic cleansing was sent to the Hague Tribunal. That man was Milosevic, and the people were the Muslim Albanians of Kosovo. Now, isn't that ironic if we compare the situation to Gaza and the Palestinians?
Lost their homes to a European form of racial colonialism, the Palestinians were stripped from their homes, their lands, and their basic rights. The Zionists came from Europe with the sole mission to expel the Palestinians out of their homes, committed the first recorded ethnic cleansing directly after World War II, and established a racist nation called Israel, where the Zionists argued they are restoring their homeland which they lost 2000 years ago, and they are still on a mission to re-unite a Diaspora that is even 2500 years old.
The Story of Gaza: A Twist of Events
For those who wonder how the Palestinians received self-autonomy, amidst Israeli brutality, in Gaza and The West Bank; the story rotates around Arab treason.
When the 'glorious' Arab armies entered Palestine to liberate the Palestinians from the genocidal policies of the Hagannah , the pre-infrastructure to the Israeli Defense Forces, they raised the banner of the Arab Cause. The Arabs at first overwhelmed the Israelis, and the Jordanians took over the West Bank. Surprisingly, the Jordanian Army, whose king was a puppet to the British Mandate, ordered his army to a halt, and started surprisingly negotiations. He took mandate over the West Bank. The head of the Egyptian Army, the soon to be president, Jamal Abdul Nasser, took a look at the Jordanian acquisitions, decided to do the same, and halted at Gaza. Unlike the Jordanian King though, with less fronts for the Israeli army to worry about, Abdul Nasser, had to pull an urgent defensive maneuvers, and sustained heavy casualties. Abdul Nasser blamed the Egyptian monarchs for supplying the army on purpose corrupt weapons. Nevertheless, Egypt got its control on Gaza till the 1967 wars. The rest is not important for the current research, but we will hop to the Oslo Agreement of 1993. Under the patronage of Bill Clinton, Israel's Isaac Rabin, and Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians were given Gaza and the West Bank, as a quasi state to run, in attempt to create two states within one borders of historic Palestine. I will not dwell also on my opinion of the Oslo agreement, but it is enough for me to accuse Arafat of treason for selling out most of the refugees' right of return to gain semi presidential powers, this includes also my mother's right to return to her home.
The Hamas and Fatah Dance
Back in the 1970s, the Israelis had a short run strategic management. Back in the 1970s, Israel's arch-enemy, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, were fought fiercely because the PLO brought international recognition for the Palestinians. The different factions then were Arafat's Fatah, George Habash's The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Ahmad Gibreel's Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine – General Command. Their funding came from some gulf and Arab nations, and the Soviet Union in terms of arms and weaponry. Fatah were dubbed as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups back then, and no US diplomat supposedly was allowed to meet with a terrorist group. As a matter of fact, during the 1982 Israeli invasion, the American Presidential Diplomat, Philip Habib, threatened Sharon to cut down on his bombing by meeting with Yasser Arafat face to face.
One of Israel's tactics to weaken Fatah's influence and their secular allies, the factions of the PLO, was to strengthen the Islamist groups. Hamas, at its moment of birth, was not an entity or a party of its own; it was and currently stills a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. As a matter fact, Hamas, during the first Intifada, was the alias name or a camouflage of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, in 1987. The Muslim Brotherhood started officially around 1943, their roots dated back much earlier, and as an influence from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Unlike the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood had a national character while in Egypt they promoted the universality of Islam across borders. They collected funds based on the Quran in order to expand their spheres of influence in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. The Israelis, promoting then that their civilized citizens were under-threat from barbarians in order to hide their own atrocities. From this tactic, it is not surprising that a large population of the US citizens who are actually interested in Middle Eastern issues are pro-Israel and Zionism. Their media reports one side of the story, just as today. The International Media, at least the influential ones, do not show the 650 bodies of martyrs (at least the number last I checked), rather how one Israeli woman is crying. Only when Israel commits a big blunder live on an American or British TV, a reaction rises. Now, returning to the story of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were back then the quietest type. They never launched any activities against the Israeli, but they did fight the PLO with all they got, after all they were their rivals. The purpose of not doing any activities against Israel was the Islamic belief to win Israel in the long-run. Israel, turned a blind eye on the Muslim Brotherhood as they constructed their Islamist nodes, and expanded on the expense of the PLO, and primarily Fatah. In 1977, Fatah bluntly accused the Muslim Brotherhood as Israeli agents. What the Israelis didn't consider that the Muslim Brotherhood will be their archenemies, and definitely the Israelis last they expected was to be allied to Fatah in present times... something that I like to call an Irony of Situation.
In 1987, the Palestinian Intifada uprisal took place. The main trend was the circumstances the Palestinians were living in. While the PLO had little control over, an inner coup took place inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The younger generation decided to disengage away from the quietest approach of opposing Israel, and decided that the their time has come to be engaged. In order to safeguard the Israeli loose hand over their movements, they invented Hamas. Operations carried out by the name Hamas bluffed Israelis for a brief moment, but Hamas emerged as a powerful opponent to Fatah. Actually, Fatah turned a blind eye back in the early 1980s as Muslim Brotherhood extremists took out Habash's comrades, which allowed them greater strength on the ground. The end result of course for Fatah was victory in the end of the Intifada in 1993, whereby the Oslo Accords were signed. Fatah was successful in attracting international attention to Palestinian suffering, especially where children were captured live on TV being shot at while throwing stones. This allowed Fatah to emerge as the negotiators under the banner of Peace for Land, and got the current semi-autonomous state.
Yasser Arafat's relationship with the Israelis wasn't on the best of terms. At a one point, Ramallah was over-run by Israeli tanks, and he was under siege in his own office, and last two years in Ramallah. The Oslo Accords even got Arafat, along with Rabin and Peres the Noble Peace Prize, but other PLO factions, primarily the George Habash faction of the PFLP, accused him of being too softy with the Israelis. This trend started in 1988, when Arafat accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was to recognize Israel's rights for existence. His main opponents were Hamas. By 2002, around 35% of the Palestinians were dependent on Hamas's welfare nodes, whom they attained through the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hamas and Fatah: The Collisions with Each Other instead with Israel
Third World Politics rotate around declining long-run strategic goals for short-run political gains. The same is applied on Hamas and Fatah, even though currently Hamas evolved to be the representative of the Palestinian will to survive, like Arafat's PLO in the 1970s, even though he always collided with George Habash and the pro-Syrian Ahmad Jebreel. The suicide bombings of Hamas always instigated Israel to go punish Arafat, but with his death, Hamas gathered the storm to balance out against Fatah inside the Palestinian grounds. It has to be noted that in Lebanon for example, the majority of the Palestinians, at least prior to their latest butcheries on the Palestinians in Gaza, are pro-Fatah and Yasser Arafat.
Hamas, instead of limiting their activities to warfare and welfare against the Israelis, they became involved in politics. They harvested more supporters that way because every time Fatah messed up in the Palestinian parliament (to be noted: almost half of the Palestinian Parliament currently are in Israeli prisons). Operations against Hamas leadership escalated where in broad daylight its leadership were bombed by Israeli planes in 2004, but, Hamas continued to gather opposition whether through their welfare networks, using the easiness of their location in the Opposition to criticize Fatah, and offer themselves as an alternative. This was facilitated to the Palestinians through the weakening of the PFLP party by Fatah, Hamas, and the Israelis. Furthermore, the latter contributed in imprisoning PFLP's Ahmad Saadat. Fatah lost a lot of figures as well after the Oslo Accords, the first to abandon the PLO was Edward Said, who denounced the Oslo Accords immediately. Other Palestinian intellects lost grounds as well. Finally, the large gap left by Arafat's death meant practically undisputed political figure in the scene died with a weakling like Mahmoud Abbass taking over. Even though Arafat declined a lot to the Israelis, Abbas was even worse. As a matter of fact, Israel paid for its non-strategic calculations of the 1960s and 1970s of giving free passage to the Muslim Brotherhood, and selected Abbas as its ally. As a matter of fact, they publicly supported Fatah, along with the White House in the next elections.
When Hamas won the majority of parliament, they didn't sweep in a landslide. The matter remains that Hamas remained Islamist in nature, despite the fact it distinguished itself from other Brotherhoods by stressing on Palestinian identity and nationalism. The primary factor, on the other hand, for Hamas's victory bottoms down to the fact that people were fed up from Mahmoud Abbas's acceptances of Israeli pressures and even adopted speeches promoted by the Pentagon, such as "Peace, and Democracy". Since the options are similar to the US electoral dual competitive coalitions, Hamas in its position as the Opposition, made it as a majority block to the Parliament. Hence, there was a Fatah President (Palestinian Authority) represented by Abbas, and a Prime Minister represented by Ismael Haniya.
Just like in Lebanon, both factions didn't agree with each other. Peace treaties pop up, which are automatically are accompanied with Israeli brutality in East Jerusalem, bulldozers to expand on settlements, and mostly, day to day atrocities. Just like Lebanon, both sides accused each other with treason. Fatah accused Hamas as being a pawn for Iran, and Hamas accused Fatah of being US agents. Fatah received reinforcements when Israel arrested the Palestinian Parliament, and also Israel on different occasions released Palestinian prisoners that are members of Fatah. On one day, Hamas succeeded in kidnapping an Israeli soldier, which caused the entire Palestinians to live under hell, ironically, after the bombing, they decided to seek negotiations, leaving several Palestinian citizens dead. The exact scenario replicated itself in Lebanon when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and Israel bombed the hell out of Lebanon. Only difference though between the two incidents, that the ground forces of the Israeli Defense Forces appeared weak compared to Hezbollah's paramilitary operations; Hezbollah even inflicted severe damage on their naval power.
Same Butchery, Different End Results
The tactic of bombing citizens, and inflicting maximum damage on the Palestinians had been the same tactic of Israel for three decades. Israeli genocidal warfare is usually covered by media blackout on the 'other side'. The Europeans and Americans in general receive 5% of the overall story of what is going on. The bombing of the Palestinians in retaliations of the kidnapped IDF soldier was probably to support Fatah and encourage Palestinians to seek the peace option. Peace so far, with the Israelis, had been fake. No peace is followed by racism, and reaction would trigger another reaction, in here means the Qassam and Grad Rockets. When Hamas and Fatah finally had a military show-down, Hamas over-whelmed Fatah, which caused Mahmoud Abbas to expel Ismael Haniya as the Prime Minister. Shoot-outs were bloody, and the Palestinians were shocked on the notion how two mighty Palestinian factions were shooting on each other, instead the Israelis. When the Gulf nations succeeded in reconciling Hamas and Fatah, the streets of Gaza and the West Bank were flooded with Palestinians hugging each other, and raising their fingers in a V form. This reflects the will of the Palestinians, to seek unity. Fatah till this very day is still incapable to compete with Hamas's welfare networks, and actually do not complain about it since these nodes save a lot of money on the tiny budget of the autonomous regions.
This was followed by a breakdown of further collapse of negotiations between Fatah and Hamas, Israel again enforced a blockade on Gaza, whereby over 50 citizens died in hospitals due to lack of electricity. The blockade lasted months. Israel remained expanding in East Jerusalem to compensate the dismantlement of certain settlements in autonomous grounds, after Israel disregarded the International Community. Again, Israel always failed to generate a real peace treaty. The current Palestine genocide, where the final round of missiles were shot by Hamas in reaction to Israeli brutality triggered the bombing of Gaza where we see about 75 to 80 citizens killed per day, and over 200 wounded a day.
Unlike the last bombing, this one is different. The Israelis for sure do not seek to dismantle Hamas; rather they always need an enemy. That is the case of every extremist nationalist ideology, like Zionism. While the people think that Hamas's very existence in Gaza is threatened, Israel wants Hamas, just as Hamas needs Israel. This is the very important tactic of demolishing reformist alternatives. Israel is certain that Hamas will emerge stronger after these collisions, and actually that suits their 'defensive' policies. Israel is not that stupid to wage a war that is clearly against Hamas, bomb randomly citizens, of whom, according to today's statistics: 215 children were killed,89 women murdered, with a total estimate of 680 killed in less than two weeks, and 3075 severely wounded. Entire families had been eradicated by a single bomb. Now of course, freaks like Bush, Levni, and Rice would call it "fighting terrorism". Yet how can a country, that was established on the expense of others, based its existence on ethnic cleansing, and form blockades on the most crowded region in the world (and poorest I might add), is natural. Israel was formed out of the blues. Its very existence is not natural, and there is nothing called "Natural Rights". Again, this proves that Zionism is the biggest bad news to Jews of the world, whereby they are a minority. Israel requires wars in order to receive funding, justify its on-going atrocities, and probably will never seize till that racist nation succeeds in attaining complete control of Palestine Proper. Finally, the notion of towns in Israel is totally ironic if that country is genuine, there is no country in the world that calls its urban centers as "settlements".
Arab Nationalism is Opium of the Masses
Just as the Arab countries sold out Palestine in the great Palestinian rebellion of 1930s and 1948, they are doing it again, and probably will continue to do it again and again in the future. The reason for this again lies down for Arab regimes in selecting short-run goals, which is the society's elites maximizing power for their own welfare at the expense of their people. This was applied on Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in the 1930s; also Iraq then was included. Their entire rulers were under allegiance to the British Empire then, and it was no coincidence the rebellion then lost its momentum. The idea of giving false promises and empty words to maximize their own strength with stronger nation states had been the name of the game. The elites of these nations led the Palestinians to disasters, and of course, that was followed by dictatorships and poverty on their own people.
Just like the July War on Lebanon in 2006, the 2008 Holocaust of the Palestinians also was followed by Arab rulers who do not want to risk their personal interests at the expense of the murdered children of Israeli artillery. This includes almost every nation state except probably for Yaman who hit the streets in less than 24 hours to demand the halt of Israeli butchery, and protect the Palestinians. The other country is definitely Lebanon. The second most bombed country by Israel after the Palestinians. Several Lebanese had flashbacks of horrific Israeli brutality in 2006, 1996, 1993, and the 1982 invasion. This also doesn't exclude the people of the South suffering on daily basis from the Southern Lebanese Army and their masters, the different Israeli Prime Ministers.
The term Arab nationalism lost its value for almost two decades ago. Chomsky himself in the American University of Beirut said: "Which Arab and Israeli War, currently there are the Lebanese and Syrians." Even Syria itself is seeking its own interests at the expense of the Palestinians, by trying to get the Golan heights, not to forget how Bashar el Assad used the defeat of the Israeli infantry in the July War to maximize his bargaining cards (note: The Israeli airplanes flew above his head one month prior to the war in 2006).
Arab Nationalism, like most cross-nation states nationalism, are a thing of the past. Solidarity between the Arabs had been simply restricted on the potential level. It had been used between between rival politicians to distinguish themselves from each other. For example, the two dictators of Syria and Egypt had been competing with each other to argue who is more Arab.
Arab Nationalism on its first roots rose as a unified concept to face the different European Colonialist powers in Northern Africa and the Middle East. To others, Arab Nationalism was a great factor to block the rise of extremist Islamist movements. The first people to embrace Arab Nationalism in Lebanon for example were the Lebanese Christian Maronites, to counter the Ottoman Empire and specially during its final stages of existence: Post-Young Turks revolution. As a matter of fact, one naively argued that the ideological idea of Antoun Saadi's Greater Syria by Christians is due to the fear of the rise of extremist Islamists. To what extent that is true, we cannot have a concrete materialistic measurable output. Nevertheless, Arab nationalism was the banner for dictatorship leaders to rule. Abdul Nasser's entire logo was to unite Arab nations into a single nation. Something that is impossible to happen.
One major error in pro-Zionist supporters' is to assume that Arabs are the same. The some Western pro-Zionists wonder: "You Arabs have so much land, you can give Palestine to the Jews." That sounds rather plain stupid. It is as if saying, Europeans have so much land, why don't we give Hungary or Belgium to the Jews." To this I can say two errors:
1) The first error is to segregate the Jews as a single entity that doesn't belong in Europe, or Arab lands, whereby we both no there are European Jews and Arab Jews. Just as prior to the Balfour promise, there were Palestinian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Polish Jews, the same applies to Palestinian Christians, Lebanese Christians, or Polish Christians.
2) Just as Europe is divided into unique countries with their own complex dynamics, the same is about the Arabs. To deny the Palestinians' right to claim justice is a fatal error, and even worse, to deny them the right for existence, and practice the process of genocide on them under the banner of "natural rights" without giving history any real meaning.
Having said this, the notion "We are Arabs" had been an over-rated country. If you go to the US, the first thing that hits you is to see "the Lebanese Communities living together, Syrians together, and others together." By this , several distinctions can be separated. Now , when the Arab nation states say "We are Arabs", it means that they are simply alienating their people from real activism, which is developing class awareness and overthrowing those same corrupt rulers. Moubarak still hails Egypt as the defender of the Arab cause. Moubarak practically is a living proof why Arab nationalism is dead. His justification for not opening his borders with Gaza is "not to divide Gaza from the West Bank." When Nasrallah accused Moubarak with treason, his reply was "Everyone can testify to the sacrifices of Egypt", which according to my knowledge dates back to 1973. Probably, if his son manages to continue his father's reign like the Assads and the Saouds, our grandchildren will hear the same logos. Although I doubt that will happen as everyone knows that the Moubarak regime is close to erupt into a revolution any day within the decade or so.
What challenged the Islamists back in the 1940s and 1950s were the Arab Nationalists. The Arab Nationalists forced the Islamists to be marginalized. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Pre-1948 Palestine were such an example. As those leaders delivered force promises on the "Arab causes", several people became alienated in order to earn their daily bread or out of fear from retribution from the leaders' oppressive regime. When the Arabs failed to demolish Israel, whereby only Syria and Egypt were involved in the 1960s and 1970s, this gave rise to the Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and Syria demanded that Arab nationalism is to be nullified in the consciousness of their supporters, only to have Islam as a perfect substitute, because the ones who die in such a cause, end up in heaven. As Palestinian suffering continued, Arab defeats increased. The Arab defeats were also accompanied with dictators who purged their own educated classes in order to remain undisputed in power (like Moubarak two years ago sending his goons to beat up and arrest a peaceful demonstration of Judges against corruption). In response to Moubarak, no one is asking him to go to war, but at least he can expel the Israeli ambassador, a heroic act done by the reactionary Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. But there are reasons why his regime will not. Nevertheless, the failure of Arab leaderships to have a single victory till the year 2000 were Lebanon successfully expelled Israel outside its borders, and the group to expel them took the hegemony of resistance is an Islamist group, like Hamas, with a nationalist twist: Hezbollah.
It is not a coincidence that King Abdullah the first was shot dead in the early 1950s, under the banner of punishing a traitor. It is also not a coincidence that the Jordanians and the Egyptians pay lip-service to the US under current circumstances. They just camouflage their betrayal of the interests of their normal citizens with "Arab Nationalism" and how four decades ago they sacrificed a lot. Just as the British Empire realized back in 1917 that by securing Palestine into their Commonwealth in order to secure both flanks of the Suez Canal, so did the US Administration. While Israel is by far the most funded country from tax payers' money, the second and the third trailing way behind Israel, are Egypt and Jordan. Egypt's brutal regime caused the Muslim Brotherhood to expand supporters while Nasser's regime and Sadat demolished secular movements such as Unions, Communists, and Socialists. The Jordanian King wouldn't hesitate to bomb anyone in Jordan that challenges his authority, the current king's father did so in collaboration with Israel. No way Egyptian and Jordanian dictators will lose their short run interests, at the expense of having Muslim Brotherhoods stretching their own strengths who would become a real replacement to them.
The other traitor to the cause of the Palestinian Proletariat is the Syrian regime. Assad Sr. did his best to gain monopoly over the Palestinians, marginalize Arafat, in order to promote himself as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Ahmad Jibreel's loyalty to Assad is one example, while the expulsion of Arafat from Tripoli is another. The Palestinian factions are just a pawn for a dictator to expand his own sphere of power, marginalize opponents as traitors to the regime, and alienate activists. Of course, I wouldn't like to exclude the gulf nations who live in a separate world of their own.
So who needs Arab nationalism? It got disintegrated between Islamists, dictatorship pawns, and local nationalism. This of course adds to the Zionist segregation of Jews and non-Jews of the Proletariat. A real socialist perspective in my opinion is the salvation for this region where all the people should unite as part of the global collision, away from nationalism. The diversion of bad economies of dividing people into sects, extremists, and ethnicities is that the solution although it appears to be the easiest at a first glimpse.
Repercussions for the Present and Future
Other than the divide between the Jews and Non-Jews will increase in Palestine proper, the Zionists enjoy this growing rift between the people there. After all, segregationist nationalism doesn't support interactive society. Zionism, like al-Qa'eda's obsession of fighting non-Muslims, is involved with fighting non-Jews in the region.
Israel got what they wanted, get Hamas alive and kicking undisputedly. If they targeted Hamas alone, they wouldn't have committed the greatest butchery so far in the 21st century. For this, they secured more funding from the US Administrations to come (yes, that includes Barack Obama), more reasons to carry out building hilarious settlements that have 30% of population, and deny the Palestinians their right to go back home.
This also meant that the Israelis will feel more pressured and boxed inside their own borders. As tensions are building up throughout the Arab countries, the Israelis will have no choice but to opt for war options as their regime's activities strengthens extremist Jews, ie Zionists.
Now of course, the saddest part of the whole story is the death of the citizens, mainly those 680 martyrs who died under the banner of fighting terrorism (personally, Israel has the highest record of butchering civilians, and they always claimed they are patient). These citizens are also blamed for the war, but as one conspiracy theory goes: Israel wants Gaza in the long run empty for themselves. For now, assuring that Hamas wins elections gives them momentum. Of course, Hamas will have more recruits since citizens, whether Hamas or not, will be bombed.
This also gives Hezbollah a refreshing momentum as well. Now Hezbollah's victories against the IDF made convincing arguments the legitimacy of Hezbollah to their supporters and allies, compared to Hamas's weak performance in facing the Israeli war machinery. Israel also sent a message that Hezbollah will receive the same brutality, although history always proved that the IDF, other than the 1948 victory in building Israel's existence, are always weak on the infantry level.
This also weakens Moubarak's regime, where the Opposition gathered new material to weaken the legitimacy of Moubarak, a person wonders how long that man can remain in power. The Leftists and the Islamists both are on a roll of reaching grassroots level. Moubarak enjoys faking different elections results. Poverty had been increasing more and more, and Moubarak simply says it is Hamas's fault. Not the blockades, and not the day to day atrocities.
The Israeli brutality also blew off a lot of efforts for the progressives like myself. All our activities in fighting racism against the Jews were pushed back, and personally I feel I lost 10 years of my life for nothing while being involved in such a cause. Several people through out the years that I reached out their stubborn minds that "no, not every Jew is a dirty Jew" went down the drain. While I was Marxist line of a Communist revolution where the Jews of Israel are part of it, now a lot of people that I got through want to do what the Zionists did to the Palestinians, practically: every Jew coming from Europe since 1920 to be dumped in the sea because they are as savage as Hitler. The road for this struggle continues. At least not all Jews in the world are dubbed traitors.
Finally, Israel has itself to blame for the Islamist groups, because it suits its policies to have such groups. Zionism is a war machinery ideology that constantly requires blood to continue running. With the international media swaying international opinion by providing only repetitive snapshots of Israeli victims, (yes I did say victims, victims to Zionism), instead of placing pictures of the other side, and the whole story as well, instead of angry bearded men burning the Israeli flag.
This is a class war par excellence where religion and ethnicity plays a role to preserve themselves in power. Hamas currently are the underdogs, and of course as always Israel places non-applicable goals so that a weaker Hamas pops up and the war option remains alive. It is not the first time Israel bombs UN havens and schools on purpose in order to "reconsider" seize fires. Reconsider means more time to bomb innocent victims, 685 victims is still not enough for them.
The Tribunal, during the Yugoslav crisis, sent soldiers to the Tribunal for simply firing artillery, what about Israel's 680 victims and 3075 wounded (so far)? Or These victims to be blamed for allowing Hamas to operate? Who demolished the alternatives in the first place? And who allowed Hamas's Muslim Brotherhood to grow stronger for decades? No Comment
No War but Class War
MFL
PS: Is there anyone else finding Mahmoud Abbass pethatic for threatening Hamas to cut out the launching of the Rockets or else the Peace Process will Collapse? What Peace?
People are cornered in cities, towns, and villages; the army is bombing based on ethnicity and sect. The people have no space to run. Borders are closed for refugees, and the army has the orders to shoot to kill anyone who was not of their sect. Victims' bodies are carried by the hostile army in dozens, with bulldozers, and dumped in large holes; then the same bulldozers, carry the soil, hide the hundreds of bodies of normal citizens in the ground. No border was open for them, except probably for one, and starvation has spread around. The hostile army argued that they were defending themselves against the enemy, and always promoted that these Muslims cannot tolerate civilization. They live to rape their women. This was for them a battle, two races stuck in one border. That army refused to abide by international warnings against such ethnic cleansing.
The whole world, without exaggeration, was shocked. The UN called for immediate seize of fire. Bill Clinton was ready to send his airplanes to support the underdogs. London was prepared to send its forces. Eventually the army was bombed, and the man who gave the order for ethnic cleansing was sent to the Hague Tribunal. That man was Milosevic, and the people were the Muslim Albanians of Kosovo. Now, isn't that ironic if we compare the situation to Gaza and the Palestinians?
Lost their homes to a European form of racial colonialism, the Palestinians were stripped from their homes, their lands, and their basic rights. The Zionists came from Europe with the sole mission to expel the Palestinians out of their homes, committed the first recorded ethnic cleansing directly after World War II, and established a racist nation called Israel, where the Zionists argued they are restoring their homeland which they lost 2000 years ago, and they are still on a mission to re-unite a Diaspora that is even 2500 years old.
The Story of Gaza: A Twist of Events
For those who wonder how the Palestinians received self-autonomy, amidst Israeli brutality, in Gaza and The West Bank; the story rotates around Arab treason.
When the 'glorious' Arab armies entered Palestine to liberate the Palestinians from the genocidal policies of the Hagannah , the pre-infrastructure to the Israeli Defense Forces, they raised the banner of the Arab Cause. The Arabs at first overwhelmed the Israelis, and the Jordanians took over the West Bank. Surprisingly, the Jordanian Army, whose king was a puppet to the British Mandate, ordered his army to a halt, and started surprisingly negotiations. He took mandate over the West Bank. The head of the Egyptian Army, the soon to be president, Jamal Abdul Nasser, took a look at the Jordanian acquisitions, decided to do the same, and halted at Gaza. Unlike the Jordanian King though, with less fronts for the Israeli army to worry about, Abdul Nasser, had to pull an urgent defensive maneuvers, and sustained heavy casualties. Abdul Nasser blamed the Egyptian monarchs for supplying the army on purpose corrupt weapons. Nevertheless, Egypt got its control on Gaza till the 1967 wars. The rest is not important for the current research, but we will hop to the Oslo Agreement of 1993. Under the patronage of Bill Clinton, Israel's Isaac Rabin, and Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians were given Gaza and the West Bank, as a quasi state to run, in attempt to create two states within one borders of historic Palestine. I will not dwell also on my opinion of the Oslo agreement, but it is enough for me to accuse Arafat of treason for selling out most of the refugees' right of return to gain semi presidential powers, this includes also my mother's right to return to her home.
The Hamas and Fatah Dance
Back in the 1970s, the Israelis had a short run strategic management. Back in the 1970s, Israel's arch-enemy, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, were fought fiercely because the PLO brought international recognition for the Palestinians. The different factions then were Arafat's Fatah, George Habash's The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Ahmad Gibreel's Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine – General Command. Their funding came from some gulf and Arab nations, and the Soviet Union in terms of arms and weaponry. Fatah were dubbed as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups back then, and no US diplomat supposedly was allowed to meet with a terrorist group. As a matter of fact, during the 1982 Israeli invasion, the American Presidential Diplomat, Philip Habib, threatened Sharon to cut down on his bombing by meeting with Yasser Arafat face to face.
One of Israel's tactics to weaken Fatah's influence and their secular allies, the factions of the PLO, was to strengthen the Islamist groups. Hamas, at its moment of birth, was not an entity or a party of its own; it was and currently stills a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. As a matter fact, Hamas, during the first Intifada, was the alias name or a camouflage of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, in 1987. The Muslim Brotherhood started officially around 1943, their roots dated back much earlier, and as an influence from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Unlike the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood had a national character while in Egypt they promoted the universality of Islam across borders. They collected funds based on the Quran in order to expand their spheres of influence in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. The Israelis, promoting then that their civilized citizens were under-threat from barbarians in order to hide their own atrocities. From this tactic, it is not surprising that a large population of the US citizens who are actually interested in Middle Eastern issues are pro-Israel and Zionism. Their media reports one side of the story, just as today. The International Media, at least the influential ones, do not show the 650 bodies of martyrs (at least the number last I checked), rather how one Israeli woman is crying. Only when Israel commits a big blunder live on an American or British TV, a reaction rises. Now, returning to the story of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were back then the quietest type. They never launched any activities against the Israeli, but they did fight the PLO with all they got, after all they were their rivals. The purpose of not doing any activities against Israel was the Islamic belief to win Israel in the long-run. Israel, turned a blind eye on the Muslim Brotherhood as they constructed their Islamist nodes, and expanded on the expense of the PLO, and primarily Fatah. In 1977, Fatah bluntly accused the Muslim Brotherhood as Israeli agents. What the Israelis didn't consider that the Muslim Brotherhood will be their archenemies, and definitely the Israelis last they expected was to be allied to Fatah in present times... something that I like to call an Irony of Situation.
In 1987, the Palestinian Intifada uprisal took place. The main trend was the circumstances the Palestinians were living in. While the PLO had little control over, an inner coup took place inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The younger generation decided to disengage away from the quietest approach of opposing Israel, and decided that the their time has come to be engaged. In order to safeguard the Israeli loose hand over their movements, they invented Hamas. Operations carried out by the name Hamas bluffed Israelis for a brief moment, but Hamas emerged as a powerful opponent to Fatah. Actually, Fatah turned a blind eye back in the early 1980s as Muslim Brotherhood extremists took out Habash's comrades, which allowed them greater strength on the ground. The end result of course for Fatah was victory in the end of the Intifada in 1993, whereby the Oslo Accords were signed. Fatah was successful in attracting international attention to Palestinian suffering, especially where children were captured live on TV being shot at while throwing stones. This allowed Fatah to emerge as the negotiators under the banner of Peace for Land, and got the current semi-autonomous state.
Yasser Arafat's relationship with the Israelis wasn't on the best of terms. At a one point, Ramallah was over-run by Israeli tanks, and he was under siege in his own office, and last two years in Ramallah. The Oslo Accords even got Arafat, along with Rabin and Peres the Noble Peace Prize, but other PLO factions, primarily the George Habash faction of the PFLP, accused him of being too softy with the Israelis. This trend started in 1988, when Arafat accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was to recognize Israel's rights for existence. His main opponents were Hamas. By 2002, around 35% of the Palestinians were dependent on Hamas's welfare nodes, whom they attained through the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hamas and Fatah: The Collisions with Each Other instead with Israel
Third World Politics rotate around declining long-run strategic goals for short-run political gains. The same is applied on Hamas and Fatah, even though currently Hamas evolved to be the representative of the Palestinian will to survive, like Arafat's PLO in the 1970s, even though he always collided with George Habash and the pro-Syrian Ahmad Jebreel. The suicide bombings of Hamas always instigated Israel to go punish Arafat, but with his death, Hamas gathered the storm to balance out against Fatah inside the Palestinian grounds. It has to be noted that in Lebanon for example, the majority of the Palestinians, at least prior to their latest butcheries on the Palestinians in Gaza, are pro-Fatah and Yasser Arafat.
Hamas, instead of limiting their activities to warfare and welfare against the Israelis, they became involved in politics. They harvested more supporters that way because every time Fatah messed up in the Palestinian parliament (to be noted: almost half of the Palestinian Parliament currently are in Israeli prisons). Operations against Hamas leadership escalated where in broad daylight its leadership were bombed by Israeli planes in 2004, but, Hamas continued to gather opposition whether through their welfare networks, using the easiness of their location in the Opposition to criticize Fatah, and offer themselves as an alternative. This was facilitated to the Palestinians through the weakening of the PFLP party by Fatah, Hamas, and the Israelis. Furthermore, the latter contributed in imprisoning PFLP's Ahmad Saadat. Fatah lost a lot of figures as well after the Oslo Accords, the first to abandon the PLO was Edward Said, who denounced the Oslo Accords immediately. Other Palestinian intellects lost grounds as well. Finally, the large gap left by Arafat's death meant practically undisputed political figure in the scene died with a weakling like Mahmoud Abbass taking over. Even though Arafat declined a lot to the Israelis, Abbas was even worse. As a matter of fact, Israel paid for its non-strategic calculations of the 1960s and 1970s of giving free passage to the Muslim Brotherhood, and selected Abbas as its ally. As a matter of fact, they publicly supported Fatah, along with the White House in the next elections.
When Hamas won the majority of parliament, they didn't sweep in a landslide. The matter remains that Hamas remained Islamist in nature, despite the fact it distinguished itself from other Brotherhoods by stressing on Palestinian identity and nationalism. The primary factor, on the other hand, for Hamas's victory bottoms down to the fact that people were fed up from Mahmoud Abbas's acceptances of Israeli pressures and even adopted speeches promoted by the Pentagon, such as "Peace, and Democracy". Since the options are similar to the US electoral dual competitive coalitions, Hamas in its position as the Opposition, made it as a majority block to the Parliament. Hence, there was a Fatah President (Palestinian Authority) represented by Abbas, and a Prime Minister represented by Ismael Haniya.
Just like in Lebanon, both factions didn't agree with each other. Peace treaties pop up, which are automatically are accompanied with Israeli brutality in East Jerusalem, bulldozers to expand on settlements, and mostly, day to day atrocities. Just like Lebanon, both sides accused each other with treason. Fatah accused Hamas as being a pawn for Iran, and Hamas accused Fatah of being US agents. Fatah received reinforcements when Israel arrested the Palestinian Parliament, and also Israel on different occasions released Palestinian prisoners that are members of Fatah. On one day, Hamas succeeded in kidnapping an Israeli soldier, which caused the entire Palestinians to live under hell, ironically, after the bombing, they decided to seek negotiations, leaving several Palestinian citizens dead. The exact scenario replicated itself in Lebanon when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and Israel bombed the hell out of Lebanon. Only difference though between the two incidents, that the ground forces of the Israeli Defense Forces appeared weak compared to Hezbollah's paramilitary operations; Hezbollah even inflicted severe damage on their naval power.
Same Butchery, Different End Results
The tactic of bombing citizens, and inflicting maximum damage on the Palestinians had been the same tactic of Israel for three decades. Israeli genocidal warfare is usually covered by media blackout on the 'other side'. The Europeans and Americans in general receive 5% of the overall story of what is going on. The bombing of the Palestinians in retaliations of the kidnapped IDF soldier was probably to support Fatah and encourage Palestinians to seek the peace option. Peace so far, with the Israelis, had been fake. No peace is followed by racism, and reaction would trigger another reaction, in here means the Qassam and Grad Rockets. When Hamas and Fatah finally had a military show-down, Hamas over-whelmed Fatah, which caused Mahmoud Abbas to expel Ismael Haniya as the Prime Minister. Shoot-outs were bloody, and the Palestinians were shocked on the notion how two mighty Palestinian factions were shooting on each other, instead the Israelis. When the Gulf nations succeeded in reconciling Hamas and Fatah, the streets of Gaza and the West Bank were flooded with Palestinians hugging each other, and raising their fingers in a V form. This reflects the will of the Palestinians, to seek unity. Fatah till this very day is still incapable to compete with Hamas's welfare networks, and actually do not complain about it since these nodes save a lot of money on the tiny budget of the autonomous regions.
This was followed by a breakdown of further collapse of negotiations between Fatah and Hamas, Israel again enforced a blockade on Gaza, whereby over 50 citizens died in hospitals due to lack of electricity. The blockade lasted months. Israel remained expanding in East Jerusalem to compensate the dismantlement of certain settlements in autonomous grounds, after Israel disregarded the International Community. Again, Israel always failed to generate a real peace treaty. The current Palestine genocide, where the final round of missiles were shot by Hamas in reaction to Israeli brutality triggered the bombing of Gaza where we see about 75 to 80 citizens killed per day, and over 200 wounded a day.
Unlike the last bombing, this one is different. The Israelis for sure do not seek to dismantle Hamas; rather they always need an enemy. That is the case of every extremist nationalist ideology, like Zionism. While the people think that Hamas's very existence in Gaza is threatened, Israel wants Hamas, just as Hamas needs Israel. This is the very important tactic of demolishing reformist alternatives. Israel is certain that Hamas will emerge stronger after these collisions, and actually that suits their 'defensive' policies. Israel is not that stupid to wage a war that is clearly against Hamas, bomb randomly citizens, of whom, according to today's statistics: 215 children were killed,89 women murdered, with a total estimate of 680 killed in less than two weeks, and 3075 severely wounded. Entire families had been eradicated by a single bomb. Now of course, freaks like Bush, Levni, and Rice would call it "fighting terrorism". Yet how can a country, that was established on the expense of others, based its existence on ethnic cleansing, and form blockades on the most crowded region in the world (and poorest I might add), is natural. Israel was formed out of the blues. Its very existence is not natural, and there is nothing called "Natural Rights". Again, this proves that Zionism is the biggest bad news to Jews of the world, whereby they are a minority. Israel requires wars in order to receive funding, justify its on-going atrocities, and probably will never seize till that racist nation succeeds in attaining complete control of Palestine Proper. Finally, the notion of towns in Israel is totally ironic if that country is genuine, there is no country in the world that calls its urban centers as "settlements".
Arab Nationalism is Opium of the Masses
Just as the Arab countries sold out Palestine in the great Palestinian rebellion of 1930s and 1948, they are doing it again, and probably will continue to do it again and again in the future. The reason for this again lies down for Arab regimes in selecting short-run goals, which is the society's elites maximizing power for their own welfare at the expense of their people. This was applied on Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in the 1930s; also Iraq then was included. Their entire rulers were under allegiance to the British Empire then, and it was no coincidence the rebellion then lost its momentum. The idea of giving false promises and empty words to maximize their own strength with stronger nation states had been the name of the game. The elites of these nations led the Palestinians to disasters, and of course, that was followed by dictatorships and poverty on their own people.
Just like the July War on Lebanon in 2006, the 2008 Holocaust of the Palestinians also was followed by Arab rulers who do not want to risk their personal interests at the expense of the murdered children of Israeli artillery. This includes almost every nation state except probably for Yaman who hit the streets in less than 24 hours to demand the halt of Israeli butchery, and protect the Palestinians. The other country is definitely Lebanon. The second most bombed country by Israel after the Palestinians. Several Lebanese had flashbacks of horrific Israeli brutality in 2006, 1996, 1993, and the 1982 invasion. This also doesn't exclude the people of the South suffering on daily basis from the Southern Lebanese Army and their masters, the different Israeli Prime Ministers.
The term Arab nationalism lost its value for almost two decades ago. Chomsky himself in the American University of Beirut said: "Which Arab and Israeli War, currently there are the Lebanese and Syrians." Even Syria itself is seeking its own interests at the expense of the Palestinians, by trying to get the Golan heights, not to forget how Bashar el Assad used the defeat of the Israeli infantry in the July War to maximize his bargaining cards (note: The Israeli airplanes flew above his head one month prior to the war in 2006).
Arab Nationalism, like most cross-nation states nationalism, are a thing of the past. Solidarity between the Arabs had been simply restricted on the potential level. It had been used between between rival politicians to distinguish themselves from each other. For example, the two dictators of Syria and Egypt had been competing with each other to argue who is more Arab.
Arab Nationalism on its first roots rose as a unified concept to face the different European Colonialist powers in Northern Africa and the Middle East. To others, Arab Nationalism was a great factor to block the rise of extremist Islamist movements. The first people to embrace Arab Nationalism in Lebanon for example were the Lebanese Christian Maronites, to counter the Ottoman Empire and specially during its final stages of existence: Post-Young Turks revolution. As a matter of fact, one naively argued that the ideological idea of Antoun Saadi's Greater Syria by Christians is due to the fear of the rise of extremist Islamists. To what extent that is true, we cannot have a concrete materialistic measurable output. Nevertheless, Arab nationalism was the banner for dictatorship leaders to rule. Abdul Nasser's entire logo was to unite Arab nations into a single nation. Something that is impossible to happen.
One major error in pro-Zionist supporters' is to assume that Arabs are the same. The some Western pro-Zionists wonder: "You Arabs have so much land, you can give Palestine to the Jews." That sounds rather plain stupid. It is as if saying, Europeans have so much land, why don't we give Hungary or Belgium to the Jews." To this I can say two errors:
1) The first error is to segregate the Jews as a single entity that doesn't belong in Europe, or Arab lands, whereby we both no there are European Jews and Arab Jews. Just as prior to the Balfour promise, there were Palestinian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Polish Jews, the same applies to Palestinian Christians, Lebanese Christians, or Polish Christians.
2) Just as Europe is divided into unique countries with their own complex dynamics, the same is about the Arabs. To deny the Palestinians' right to claim justice is a fatal error, and even worse, to deny them the right for existence, and practice the process of genocide on them under the banner of "natural rights" without giving history any real meaning.
Having said this, the notion "We are Arabs" had been an over-rated country. If you go to the US, the first thing that hits you is to see "the Lebanese Communities living together, Syrians together, and others together." By this , several distinctions can be separated. Now , when the Arab nation states say "We are Arabs", it means that they are simply alienating their people from real activism, which is developing class awareness and overthrowing those same corrupt rulers. Moubarak still hails Egypt as the defender of the Arab cause. Moubarak practically is a living proof why Arab nationalism is dead. His justification for not opening his borders with Gaza is "not to divide Gaza from the West Bank." When Nasrallah accused Moubarak with treason, his reply was "Everyone can testify to the sacrifices of Egypt", which according to my knowledge dates back to 1973. Probably, if his son manages to continue his father's reign like the Assads and the Saouds, our grandchildren will hear the same logos. Although I doubt that will happen as everyone knows that the Moubarak regime is close to erupt into a revolution any day within the decade or so.
What challenged the Islamists back in the 1940s and 1950s were the Arab Nationalists. The Arab Nationalists forced the Islamists to be marginalized. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Pre-1948 Palestine were such an example. As those leaders delivered force promises on the "Arab causes", several people became alienated in order to earn their daily bread or out of fear from retribution from the leaders' oppressive regime. When the Arabs failed to demolish Israel, whereby only Syria and Egypt were involved in the 1960s and 1970s, this gave rise to the Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and Syria demanded that Arab nationalism is to be nullified in the consciousness of their supporters, only to have Islam as a perfect substitute, because the ones who die in such a cause, end up in heaven. As Palestinian suffering continued, Arab defeats increased. The Arab defeats were also accompanied with dictators who purged their own educated classes in order to remain undisputed in power (like Moubarak two years ago sending his goons to beat up and arrest a peaceful demonstration of Judges against corruption). In response to Moubarak, no one is asking him to go to war, but at least he can expel the Israeli ambassador, a heroic act done by the reactionary Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. But there are reasons why his regime will not. Nevertheless, the failure of Arab leaderships to have a single victory till the year 2000 were Lebanon successfully expelled Israel outside its borders, and the group to expel them took the hegemony of resistance is an Islamist group, like Hamas, with a nationalist twist: Hezbollah.
It is not a coincidence that King Abdullah the first was shot dead in the early 1950s, under the banner of punishing a traitor. It is also not a coincidence that the Jordanians and the Egyptians pay lip-service to the US under current circumstances. They just camouflage their betrayal of the interests of their normal citizens with "Arab Nationalism" and how four decades ago they sacrificed a lot. Just as the British Empire realized back in 1917 that by securing Palestine into their Commonwealth in order to secure both flanks of the Suez Canal, so did the US Administration. While Israel is by far the most funded country from tax payers' money, the second and the third trailing way behind Israel, are Egypt and Jordan. Egypt's brutal regime caused the Muslim Brotherhood to expand supporters while Nasser's regime and Sadat demolished secular movements such as Unions, Communists, and Socialists. The Jordanian King wouldn't hesitate to bomb anyone in Jordan that challenges his authority, the current king's father did so in collaboration with Israel. No way Egyptian and Jordanian dictators will lose their short run interests, at the expense of having Muslim Brotherhoods stretching their own strengths who would become a real replacement to them.
The other traitor to the cause of the Palestinian Proletariat is the Syrian regime. Assad Sr. did his best to gain monopoly over the Palestinians, marginalize Arafat, in order to promote himself as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Ahmad Jibreel's loyalty to Assad is one example, while the expulsion of Arafat from Tripoli is another. The Palestinian factions are just a pawn for a dictator to expand his own sphere of power, marginalize opponents as traitors to the regime, and alienate activists. Of course, I wouldn't like to exclude the gulf nations who live in a separate world of their own.
So who needs Arab nationalism? It got disintegrated between Islamists, dictatorship pawns, and local nationalism. This of course adds to the Zionist segregation of Jews and non-Jews of the Proletariat. A real socialist perspective in my opinion is the salvation for this region where all the people should unite as part of the global collision, away from nationalism. The diversion of bad economies of dividing people into sects, extremists, and ethnicities is that the solution although it appears to be the easiest at a first glimpse.
Repercussions for the Present and Future
Other than the divide between the Jews and Non-Jews will increase in Palestine proper, the Zionists enjoy this growing rift between the people there. After all, segregationist nationalism doesn't support interactive society. Zionism, like al-Qa'eda's obsession of fighting non-Muslims, is involved with fighting non-Jews in the region.
Israel got what they wanted, get Hamas alive and kicking undisputedly. If they targeted Hamas alone, they wouldn't have committed the greatest butchery so far in the 21st century. For this, they secured more funding from the US Administrations to come (yes, that includes Barack Obama), more reasons to carry out building hilarious settlements that have 30% of population, and deny the Palestinians their right to go back home.
This also meant that the Israelis will feel more pressured and boxed inside their own borders. As tensions are building up throughout the Arab countries, the Israelis will have no choice but to opt for war options as their regime's activities strengthens extremist Jews, ie Zionists.
Now of course, the saddest part of the whole story is the death of the citizens, mainly those 680 martyrs who died under the banner of fighting terrorism (personally, Israel has the highest record of butchering civilians, and they always claimed they are patient). These citizens are also blamed for the war, but as one conspiracy theory goes: Israel wants Gaza in the long run empty for themselves. For now, assuring that Hamas wins elections gives them momentum. Of course, Hamas will have more recruits since citizens, whether Hamas or not, will be bombed.
This also gives Hezbollah a refreshing momentum as well. Now Hezbollah's victories against the IDF made convincing arguments the legitimacy of Hezbollah to their supporters and allies, compared to Hamas's weak performance in facing the Israeli war machinery. Israel also sent a message that Hezbollah will receive the same brutality, although history always proved that the IDF, other than the 1948 victory in building Israel's existence, are always weak on the infantry level.
This also weakens Moubarak's regime, where the Opposition gathered new material to weaken the legitimacy of Moubarak, a person wonders how long that man can remain in power. The Leftists and the Islamists both are on a roll of reaching grassroots level. Moubarak enjoys faking different elections results. Poverty had been increasing more and more, and Moubarak simply says it is Hamas's fault. Not the blockades, and not the day to day atrocities.
The Israeli brutality also blew off a lot of efforts for the progressives like myself. All our activities in fighting racism against the Jews were pushed back, and personally I feel I lost 10 years of my life for nothing while being involved in such a cause. Several people through out the years that I reached out their stubborn minds that "no, not every Jew is a dirty Jew" went down the drain. While I was Marxist line of a Communist revolution where the Jews of Israel are part of it, now a lot of people that I got through want to do what the Zionists did to the Palestinians, practically: every Jew coming from Europe since 1920 to be dumped in the sea because they are as savage as Hitler. The road for this struggle continues. At least not all Jews in the world are dubbed traitors.
Finally, Israel has itself to blame for the Islamist groups, because it suits its policies to have such groups. Zionism is a war machinery ideology that constantly requires blood to continue running. With the international media swaying international opinion by providing only repetitive snapshots of Israeli victims, (yes I did say victims, victims to Zionism), instead of placing pictures of the other side, and the whole story as well, instead of angry bearded men burning the Israeli flag.
This is a class war par excellence where religion and ethnicity plays a role to preserve themselves in power. Hamas currently are the underdogs, and of course as always Israel places non-applicable goals so that a weaker Hamas pops up and the war option remains alive. It is not the first time Israel bombs UN havens and schools on purpose in order to "reconsider" seize fires. Reconsider means more time to bomb innocent victims, 685 victims is still not enough for them.
The Tribunal, during the Yugoslav crisis, sent soldiers to the Tribunal for simply firing artillery, what about Israel's 680 victims and 3075 wounded (so far)? Or These victims to be blamed for allowing Hamas to operate? Who demolished the alternatives in the first place? And who allowed Hamas's Muslim Brotherhood to grow stronger for decades? No Comment
No War but Class War
MFL
PS: Is there anyone else finding Mahmoud Abbass pethatic for threatening Hamas to cut out the launching of the Rockets or else the Peace Process will Collapse? What Peace?
Marjorie Cohn - Israel's Collective Punishment of Gaza
Article Taken from here:
Since Israel began its war on Gaza 11 days ago, more than 560 Palestinians - about a quarter of them civilians - have been killed. Some two thousand Gazans, including hundreds of children, have been wounded. Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" marks an escalation of Israel's two-year blockade of the Gaza Strip which has deprived 1.5 million Palestinians of necessary food, medicine, fuel and other necessities.
Israel is using white phosphorous gas, an illegal chemical weapon that burns to the bone. Dr. Mads Gilbert, a member of a Norwegian triage medical team working in Gaza, has documented Israel's use of Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME), which cuts its victims to pieces and reportedly causes cancer in survivors. Gilbert, who has worked in several conflict zones, said the situation in Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. Two United Nations schools have been hit by airstrikes, killing at least 30 people. The New York Times reported on Monday that Gazan hospitals are full of civilians, not Hamas fighters.
The targeting of civilians violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel cannot distinguish between civilians and military targets, they are illegal. But Israel's air and ground attack in Gaza violates Geneva in four ways. First, it constitutes collective punishment of the entire population in Gaza for the acts of a few militants. Second, it targets civilians, as evidenced by the large numbers of civilian casualties. Third, it is a disproportionate response to the rockets fired into Israel. Fourth, an occupying power has an obligation to ensure food and medical supplies to the occupied population; Israel's blockade has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Israel's airstrikes and ground assault on the people of Gaza have little to do with the Gazan rockets, which hadn't killed any Israelis for a year before Israel's current military operation. Israel's leaders are bombing and attacking Gaza in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming Israeli elections in February.
Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni is locked in a tight race with Benyamin Netanyahu, who has criticized Livni for her "soft" treatment of the Palestinians. The Israeli government seeks to do as much damage as possible to Gaza while Bush is still in office. The New York Times cited several Middle East experts who "believe that Israel timed its move against Hamas, which began on Dec. 26, 25 days before Mr. Bush leaves office, with the expectation of such backing in Washington." Obama, in spite of his unequivocal support for the policies of Israel during the campaign and his deafening silence about the recent casualties, is an unknown quantity.
Israel would be unable to carry out its aggressive policies in Gaza without the support of the United States, which gives Israel $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer money each year. The F-16 bombers and Apache attack helicopters Israel is using on Gaza were bought with U.S. money.
The war on Gaza also violates U.S. law. The Human Rights and Security Assistance Act mandates that the United States cease all military aid to Israel, which has engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. The Arms Export Control Act prohibits U.S. weapons from being used for any purpose other than inside the borders of a country for self-defense. Targeting schools, police stations and television broadcast centers is not self-defense.
Although Israel's supreme court ordered the government to allow international media into Gaza to report on the situation there, Israel has refused. But, according to the New York Times, Israel has given "full access to Israeli political and military commentators." Ethan Bronner, the Times bureau chief in Jerusalem, said, "Israel has never restricted media access like this before, and it should be ashamed . . . It's betraying the principles by which it claims to live."
In spite of the one-sided pro-Israel media coverage in the United States, Newsweek said, "Does it make sense for America to support [Israel's] policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no." An editorial in the Los Angeles Times called for "an end to a blockade that amounts to the collective punishment of Palestinians under Hamas rule." And the New York Times editorialized that "the longer the Israeli incursion. . . the more Hamas's popularity grows among its supporters."
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are protesting Israel's aggression in Gaza. Ten thousand demonstrated in Israel and scores have taken to the streets in Europe, the Middle East and throughout the United States.
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza strip." But Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin (31-55%). Republicans, on the other hand, overwhelmingly support it (62-27%). Nevertheless, Democratic Party leaders have followed Bush in their uncritical support for Israel.
The United States has blocked a ceasefire resolution in the Security Council. In the absence of council action, the General Assembly is empowered to act under the Uniting for Peace Resolution 377. Assembly president Miguel D'Escoto, who has been critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, said that "the time has come to take firm action if the UN does not want to be rightly accused of complicity by omission." The Human Rights Council should send a high level fact finding mission to Gaza.
It's time to call a halt to the violence and bloodshed.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law." Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.
Since Israel began its war on Gaza 11 days ago, more than 560 Palestinians - about a quarter of them civilians - have been killed. Some two thousand Gazans, including hundreds of children, have been wounded. Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" marks an escalation of Israel's two-year blockade of the Gaza Strip which has deprived 1.5 million Palestinians of necessary food, medicine, fuel and other necessities.
Israel is using white phosphorous gas, an illegal chemical weapon that burns to the bone. Dr. Mads Gilbert, a member of a Norwegian triage medical team working in Gaza, has documented Israel's use of Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME), which cuts its victims to pieces and reportedly causes cancer in survivors. Gilbert, who has worked in several conflict zones, said the situation in Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. Two United Nations schools have been hit by airstrikes, killing at least 30 people. The New York Times reported on Monday that Gazan hospitals are full of civilians, not Hamas fighters.
The targeting of civilians violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel cannot distinguish between civilians and military targets, they are illegal. But Israel's air and ground attack in Gaza violates Geneva in four ways. First, it constitutes collective punishment of the entire population in Gaza for the acts of a few militants. Second, it targets civilians, as evidenced by the large numbers of civilian casualties. Third, it is a disproportionate response to the rockets fired into Israel. Fourth, an occupying power has an obligation to ensure food and medical supplies to the occupied population; Israel's blockade has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Israel's airstrikes and ground assault on the people of Gaza have little to do with the Gazan rockets, which hadn't killed any Israelis for a year before Israel's current military operation. Israel's leaders are bombing and attacking Gaza in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming Israeli elections in February.
Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni is locked in a tight race with Benyamin Netanyahu, who has criticized Livni for her "soft" treatment of the Palestinians. The Israeli government seeks to do as much damage as possible to Gaza while Bush is still in office. The New York Times cited several Middle East experts who "believe that Israel timed its move against Hamas, which began on Dec. 26, 25 days before Mr. Bush leaves office, with the expectation of such backing in Washington." Obama, in spite of his unequivocal support for the policies of Israel during the campaign and his deafening silence about the recent casualties, is an unknown quantity.
Israel would be unable to carry out its aggressive policies in Gaza without the support of the United States, which gives Israel $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer money each year. The F-16 bombers and Apache attack helicopters Israel is using on Gaza were bought with U.S. money.
The war on Gaza also violates U.S. law. The Human Rights and Security Assistance Act mandates that the United States cease all military aid to Israel, which has engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. The Arms Export Control Act prohibits U.S. weapons from being used for any purpose other than inside the borders of a country for self-defense. Targeting schools, police stations and television broadcast centers is not self-defense.
Although Israel's supreme court ordered the government to allow international media into Gaza to report on the situation there, Israel has refused. But, according to the New York Times, Israel has given "full access to Israeli political and military commentators." Ethan Bronner, the Times bureau chief in Jerusalem, said, "Israel has never restricted media access like this before, and it should be ashamed . . . It's betraying the principles by which it claims to live."
In spite of the one-sided pro-Israel media coverage in the United States, Newsweek said, "Does it make sense for America to support [Israel's] policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no." An editorial in the Los Angeles Times called for "an end to a blockade that amounts to the collective punishment of Palestinians under Hamas rule." And the New York Times editorialized that "the longer the Israeli incursion. . . the more Hamas's popularity grows among its supporters."
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are protesting Israel's aggression in Gaza. Ten thousand demonstrated in Israel and scores have taken to the streets in Europe, the Middle East and throughout the United States.
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza strip." But Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin (31-55%). Republicans, on the other hand, overwhelmingly support it (62-27%). Nevertheless, Democratic Party leaders have followed Bush in their uncritical support for Israel.
The United States has blocked a ceasefire resolution in the Security Council. In the absence of council action, the General Assembly is empowered to act under the Uniting for Peace Resolution 377. Assembly president Miguel D'Escoto, who has been critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, said that "the time has come to take firm action if the UN does not want to be rightly accused of complicity by omission." The Human Rights Council should send a high level fact finding mission to Gaza.
It's time to call a halt to the violence and bloodshed.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law." Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Hezbollah Slap Themselves in the Face!
While facing a powerful army like Israel, they are accurate with their operations.
While sweeping through Beirut, they were accurate! They never shot a single bullet on the army...
But in time of peace, how the hell a Hezbollah militant shot a Lebanese Army helicopter in the head?
Hezbollah could defeat anyone militarily, and obviously only a Hezbollah militant can mess Hezbollah's role on victory, and give 14th of March the stamina to return back politically.
Whereby 14th of March are having a field day on Hezbollah's blunder, the assassination of of the officer stunned the Lebanese society. Furthermore, the co-pilot was detained for two hours, handcuffed, and beaten.
The incident confirmed the fear of Hezbollah-land. Very few people argued that the army should have informed Hezbollah; however, these few people are not aware that the Lebanese army, by Nasrallah's own words, is the ultimate authority. Hence, chaos occurred. The Free Patriotic Movement, which has key-figures of ex-army officials, toned down the incident on their official site, and officially the supporters are lost. The 14th of March became more wrathful than ever, ever since Hezbollah's allies ended the deadlock of almost two years in less than 3 days.
Hezbollah's only statement was that the culprit should be handed out and condemned the operation; however, the Hezbollah militant couldn't have shot the helicopter without an order, and also what about the others who detained the copilot and beat him; specially the helicopter had been conducting training flights for two days.
The picture of Samer Hannah's fiance crying is all that left the Lebanese audience in tears. They were supposed to be wed this saturday.
Hezbollah to ease down tensions, surrendered the "supposed" shooter on the helicopter, but not the others who beat up the co-pilot. Now, we will see how the different party will tone down the publicities.
A final question goes to MP Ali Ammar: "Is it his turn to purify his own chin after Elias Atallah?" Or we are still not allowed to form critiques of his party because it is "God Given"?
MFL
While sweeping through Beirut, they were accurate! They never shot a single bullet on the army...
But in time of peace, how the hell a Hezbollah militant shot a Lebanese Army helicopter in the head?
Hezbollah could defeat anyone militarily, and obviously only a Hezbollah militant can mess Hezbollah's role on victory, and give 14th of March the stamina to return back politically.
Whereby 14th of March are having a field day on Hezbollah's blunder, the assassination of of the officer stunned the Lebanese society. Furthermore, the co-pilot was detained for two hours, handcuffed, and beaten.
The incident confirmed the fear of Hezbollah-land. Very few people argued that the army should have informed Hezbollah; however, these few people are not aware that the Lebanese army, by Nasrallah's own words, is the ultimate authority. Hence, chaos occurred. The Free Patriotic Movement, which has key-figures of ex-army officials, toned down the incident on their official site, and officially the supporters are lost. The 14th of March became more wrathful than ever, ever since Hezbollah's allies ended the deadlock of almost two years in less than 3 days.
Hezbollah's only statement was that the culprit should be handed out and condemned the operation; however, the Hezbollah militant couldn't have shot the helicopter without an order, and also what about the others who detained the copilot and beat him; specially the helicopter had been conducting training flights for two days.
The picture of Samer Hannah's fiance crying is all that left the Lebanese audience in tears. They were supposed to be wed this saturday.
Hezbollah to ease down tensions, surrendered the "supposed" shooter on the helicopter, but not the others who beat up the co-pilot. Now, we will see how the different party will tone down the publicities.
A final question goes to MP Ali Ammar: "Is it his turn to purify his own chin after Elias Atallah?" Or we are still not allowed to form critiques of his party because it is "God Given"?
MFL
Remembering Leon Trotsky: The Arrest of Trotsky
(Every year, I publish the same articles at this time to honor the living ideas of our fallen comrade, whose last words in his death bed was: "Long Live the Fourth International")
BackGround
While the Menchivics were arguing how to transfer Russia from feudal to capitalistic in nature, and the Second International was entering its recessionary crisis (plenty of different political & ideological reasons), a 26 year old foresaw, through his expertise in Historical Materialism and under the studies of Parvus that the seeds to establish a Soviet is possible due to plenty of reasons. When the first Soviet (Workers Council) was built in 1905, Lenin and Julius Martove go "what is that". When the revolution ended, it ended with Trotsky's head up while the Tsarist army baffled that this young fellow was the transformer of a simple demonstration to the 2nd workers' revolutions and established the Second Workers' Council after the Paris Commune of 1871.
This piece is taken from Isaac Deutcher's Prophet Armed timeless masterpiece, that depicts the very end of the first Soviet (Second compared to Paris Commune), and how its organizer got arrested. The 1905 revolution was about to end with the Tsar's army entering the Soviet HQ, Trotsky at such a young age, 26, successfuly transformed a demonstration to a revolution and established the first Soviet in the history. The 21st Century Communists should learn from their history, and above all how the ideology is placed in the service of the Marxist Revolutionary. This is the second post about probably one of the most important figures/thinkers of Communism, and the saver of the Marxist doctrine from being misunderstood as Stalin's Mother Russia, I published the article last year, and thought it would be a good idea to republish it in the honor of a man who sacrificed everything for the sake of the Proletariat:
The Arrest
"From a balcony Trotsky shouted to the delegates: 'Comrades, offer no resistence. We declare beforehand that only an agent provocateur or a policeman will fire a shot here!" He instructed the delegates to break the locks of their revolvers befure surrendering them to the police. Then he resumed his chair at the Executive's conference.
A trade-union spokesman was just declaring his union's readiness ot join in the general strike, when a detachment of soldiers and police occupied the corridors. A police officer entered the room where the Executive was sitting and began to read a warrant of arrest. It was now only a question whether the Soviet would carry its own weakness and humilation with dignity. Resistence was ruled out. But should they surrender meekly, gloomy-faced, without a sign of defiance? Trotsky's pride and his sense of stage effect would not perit him to preside over so flat and disheartening a scene. But he could not afford any serious act of defiance, he could relieve the gloom of the situation only with humour. And so he turned the last scene of this spectacle into a witty burlesque of a bold performance. As the police officer, facing the Executive, began to read the warrant of arrest, Trostsky sharply interrupted him: "Please do not interfere with the speaker. If you wish to take the floor, you must give your name and I shall ask the meeting whether it wishes to list to you."
The perplexed officer, not knowing whether he was being mocke at or whether he should expect armed resistence, waited fo rthe trade-union delegate to end his speech. Then Trotsky gravely asked the Executive whether he should allow the officer to make a statement "for the sake of information". The officer read the warrant, and Trotsky proposed that the Executive should acknowledge it and take up the next item on it agenda. Another speaker rose.
"Excuse me", the police officer, disconcerted by this unheard of behavior, stammered and turned towards Trotsky, as if for help.
"Please do not interfere", Troskty sharply rebuked him. "You have had the floor; you have made your statement; we have acknowledged it. Does the meeting to have further dealings with the policeman?"
"No!"
"Then, please, leave the hall."
The officer shuffled his feet, muttered a few words and left. Trotsky called upon the members of the Executive to destroy all documents and not to reveal their names to the police. From the hall below rose the clangour of broken revolver-locks-the delegates were carrying out Troskty's order.
The police officer re-entered, this time leading a platoon of soldiers. A member of the Executive rose to address the soldiers: The Tsar, he said, was at this very moment breaking the promise of the October Manifesto; and they, the soldiers, were allowing themselves to be used as his tools against the people. The officer, afraid of the effect of the words, hurriedly led the soldiers out into the corridor and shot the door behind them. "Even through closed doors", the speaker raised his vice, "the brotherly call of the workers will reach the soldiers."
At length, a strong detachment of police entered, and Trotsky declared the meeting of the Executive closed.
Thus after fifty days ended the epic of the first Soviet in history."
taken from Isaac Deutcher, Prophet Armed Trosky 1879 - 1921 ( Verso, 2003), p. 118 - 119
BackGround
While the Menchivics were arguing how to transfer Russia from feudal to capitalistic in nature, and the Second International was entering its recessionary crisis (plenty of different political & ideological reasons), a 26 year old foresaw, through his expertise in Historical Materialism and under the studies of Parvus that the seeds to establish a Soviet is possible due to plenty of reasons. When the first Soviet (Workers Council) was built in 1905, Lenin and Julius Martove go "what is that". When the revolution ended, it ended with Trotsky's head up while the Tsarist army baffled that this young fellow was the transformer of a simple demonstration to the 2nd workers' revolutions and established the Second Workers' Council after the Paris Commune of 1871.
This piece is taken from Isaac Deutcher's Prophet Armed timeless masterpiece, that depicts the very end of the first Soviet (Second compared to Paris Commune), and how its organizer got arrested. The 1905 revolution was about to end with the Tsar's army entering the Soviet HQ, Trotsky at such a young age, 26, successfuly transformed a demonstration to a revolution and established the first Soviet in the history. The 21st Century Communists should learn from their history, and above all how the ideology is placed in the service of the Marxist Revolutionary. This is the second post about probably one of the most important figures/thinkers of Communism, and the saver of the Marxist doctrine from being misunderstood as Stalin's Mother Russia, I published the article last year, and thought it would be a good idea to republish it in the honor of a man who sacrificed everything for the sake of the Proletariat:
The Arrest
"From a balcony Trotsky shouted to the delegates: 'Comrades, offer no resistence. We declare beforehand that only an agent provocateur or a policeman will fire a shot here!" He instructed the delegates to break the locks of their revolvers befure surrendering them to the police. Then he resumed his chair at the Executive's conference.
A trade-union spokesman was just declaring his union's readiness ot join in the general strike, when a detachment of soldiers and police occupied the corridors. A police officer entered the room where the Executive was sitting and began to read a warrant of arrest. It was now only a question whether the Soviet would carry its own weakness and humilation with dignity. Resistence was ruled out. But should they surrender meekly, gloomy-faced, without a sign of defiance? Trotsky's pride and his sense of stage effect would not perit him to preside over so flat and disheartening a scene. But he could not afford any serious act of defiance, he could relieve the gloom of the situation only with humour. And so he turned the last scene of this spectacle into a witty burlesque of a bold performance. As the police officer, facing the Executive, began to read the warrant of arrest, Trostsky sharply interrupted him: "Please do not interfere with the speaker. If you wish to take the floor, you must give your name and I shall ask the meeting whether it wishes to list to you."
The perplexed officer, not knowing whether he was being mocke at or whether he should expect armed resistence, waited fo rthe trade-union delegate to end his speech. Then Trotsky gravely asked the Executive whether he should allow the officer to make a statement "for the sake of information". The officer read the warrant, and Trotsky proposed that the Executive should acknowledge it and take up the next item on it agenda. Another speaker rose.
"Excuse me", the police officer, disconcerted by this unheard of behavior, stammered and turned towards Trotsky, as if for help.
"Please do not interfere", Troskty sharply rebuked him. "You have had the floor; you have made your statement; we have acknowledged it. Does the meeting to have further dealings with the policeman?"
"No!"
"Then, please, leave the hall."
The officer shuffled his feet, muttered a few words and left. Trotsky called upon the members of the Executive to destroy all documents and not to reveal their names to the police. From the hall below rose the clangour of broken revolver-locks-the delegates were carrying out Troskty's order.
The police officer re-entered, this time leading a platoon of soldiers. A member of the Executive rose to address the soldiers: The Tsar, he said, was at this very moment breaking the promise of the October Manifesto; and they, the soldiers, were allowing themselves to be used as his tools against the people. The officer, afraid of the effect of the words, hurriedly led the soldiers out into the corridor and shot the door behind them. "Even through closed doors", the speaker raised his vice, "the brotherly call of the workers will reach the soldiers."
At length, a strong detachment of police entered, and Trotsky declared the meeting of the Executive closed.
Thus after fifty days ended the epic of the first Soviet in history."
taken from Isaac Deutcher, Prophet Armed Trosky 1879 - 1921 ( Verso, 2003), p. 118 - 119
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Israel calling Lebanese!
Finally I had the chance to hang up the phone on a Zionist!
Well, it started four days ago, my Mother, who is originally Palestinian, received a call saying in Arabic, readable Arabic: "You can win 10,000,000$ by providing concrete information on missing Israeli soldiers..." My Mother simply said on the phone: "To hell with them."
Yesterday, my phone rang, and heard the same recorder, "You can win 10,000,000$..." and simply hung up laughing on the people who thought of such an idea. After all, Israel is wasting budget money on such silly issues. Yet, as an Anti-Zionist, I support Israel spending money, if the IDF is behind such "wonderful" ideas.
Whereby Israel is promoting that these missing soldiers are fighting terrorism, we regard that these soldiers are doing terrorism by butchering civilians and citizens, under US patronage.
Now why I said "silly":
1) No one knows where the hell is Ron Arad or the body parts of other IDF soldiers
2) Even someone knew, it will most probably be in the battlefronts with Hezbollah and after the last Israeli defeat by freeing Samir Quntar, Hezbollah proved to the whole world that only Hezbollah members know where are the Soldiers or their status...
3) Even if non-Hezbollah knew, no one in their sane mind will cooperate with the country that holds the largest number of Lebanese victims on their hand. It is true Syria oppressed our freedom for quite a long while, but it is Israel that bombarded us.
And hence that blood lust machinery called the Israeli Defense Forces are doing their best to find out about Ron Arad. Despite all searches, Israel always called the Lebanese. Sometimes Israel called the Southern Lebanese to threaten them that Judgement day is coming. During the July War, Israel called Lebanese, either mocking them or promising them blood, or called them to help Israel fighting "terrorism". I find it ironic that Israel is calling their victims to surrender Hezbollah fighters. Hezbollah successfully countered such a propaganda by sending messages to Northern Israel's residents that their government is the real terrorist, and so far they issued lies.
Such phone calls are primarily designed to intimidate the Lebanese whereby the victims have to hear their butcher's voice. Nevertheless, Lebanon so far won the race of intimidation. The liberation of Samir Quntar amidst fireworks and celebrations to be followed by a National Holiday, got the Intelligence officers of Israel to go threatening: We will assassinate Samir Quntar, or "level down the entire Lebanon" (to the last, they already did that several times. Leaving 30 or 40% of Beirut standing I guess doesn't qualify to the bloodlust of Israel as pure leveling down Beirut).
Whereas Israel is lost in mazes of chaos, the Israeli public has been losing faith in their officials. Political apathy in their polls has decreased drastically. The question to the Israelis: When are they willing to abandon the Zionist racist exclusivist doctrine and apologize officially for the demolishment of Palestine? In case they never noticed from the 2006 war and 2000 evacuation, the underdogs caught up with the tyrants.
One final note, Israel called the July war as "The Second Lebanese War"; however, that is the biggest lie in the world. Israel after the Civil War remained in Southern Lebanon till the year 2000, whereby they fled like little scared soldiers. Even when Lebanon was freed (till the issue of Sheb'a arms is settled), Israel intimidated the Southern Lebanese, fishermen, and others as well. This not to forget the Southern Lebanese Army, whereby they were Israel's "Lebanese" army collapsing!
What intimidates the Lebanese most is the on-going butchery of the Palestinians on day-to-day basis, whereas international media doesn't display the reality of the situation to their local audiences.
Now, what else Israel got to say? More empty threats? Or more tears to the cameras to hide the reality of the Palestinian people? Aren't the Zionists fed up from isolating the Jews from their neighbors?
No War but Class War
MFL
Well, it started four days ago, my Mother, who is originally Palestinian, received a call saying in Arabic, readable Arabic: "You can win 10,000,000$ by providing concrete information on missing Israeli soldiers..." My Mother simply said on the phone: "To hell with them."
Yesterday, my phone rang, and heard the same recorder, "You can win 10,000,000$..." and simply hung up laughing on the people who thought of such an idea. After all, Israel is wasting budget money on such silly issues. Yet, as an Anti-Zionist, I support Israel spending money, if the IDF is behind such "wonderful" ideas.
Whereby Israel is promoting that these missing soldiers are fighting terrorism, we regard that these soldiers are doing terrorism by butchering civilians and citizens, under US patronage.
Now why I said "silly":
1) No one knows where the hell is Ron Arad or the body parts of other IDF soldiers
2) Even someone knew, it will most probably be in the battlefronts with Hezbollah and after the last Israeli defeat by freeing Samir Quntar, Hezbollah proved to the whole world that only Hezbollah members know where are the Soldiers or their status...
3) Even if non-Hezbollah knew, no one in their sane mind will cooperate with the country that holds the largest number of Lebanese victims on their hand. It is true Syria oppressed our freedom for quite a long while, but it is Israel that bombarded us.
And hence that blood lust machinery called the Israeli Defense Forces are doing their best to find out about Ron Arad. Despite all searches, Israel always called the Lebanese. Sometimes Israel called the Southern Lebanese to threaten them that Judgement day is coming. During the July War, Israel called Lebanese, either mocking them or promising them blood, or called them to help Israel fighting "terrorism". I find it ironic that Israel is calling their victims to surrender Hezbollah fighters. Hezbollah successfully countered such a propaganda by sending messages to Northern Israel's residents that their government is the real terrorist, and so far they issued lies.
Such phone calls are primarily designed to intimidate the Lebanese whereby the victims have to hear their butcher's voice. Nevertheless, Lebanon so far won the race of intimidation. The liberation of Samir Quntar amidst fireworks and celebrations to be followed by a National Holiday, got the Intelligence officers of Israel to go threatening: We will assassinate Samir Quntar, or "level down the entire Lebanon" (to the last, they already did that several times. Leaving 30 or 40% of Beirut standing I guess doesn't qualify to the bloodlust of Israel as pure leveling down Beirut).
Whereas Israel is lost in mazes of chaos, the Israeli public has been losing faith in their officials. Political apathy in their polls has decreased drastically. The question to the Israelis: When are they willing to abandon the Zionist racist exclusivist doctrine and apologize officially for the demolishment of Palestine? In case they never noticed from the 2006 war and 2000 evacuation, the underdogs caught up with the tyrants.
One final note, Israel called the July war as "The Second Lebanese War"; however, that is the biggest lie in the world. Israel after the Civil War remained in Southern Lebanon till the year 2000, whereby they fled like little scared soldiers. Even when Lebanon was freed (till the issue of Sheb'a arms is settled), Israel intimidated the Southern Lebanese, fishermen, and others as well. This not to forget the Southern Lebanese Army, whereby they were Israel's "Lebanese" army collapsing!
What intimidates the Lebanese most is the on-going butchery of the Palestinians on day-to-day basis, whereas international media doesn't display the reality of the situation to their local audiences.
Now, what else Israel got to say? More empty threats? Or more tears to the cameras to hide the reality of the Palestinian people? Aren't the Zionists fed up from isolating the Jews from their neighbors?
No War but Class War
MFL
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Strategy of Land Acquisition
The current bulldozers entering the "Arab Side of Jerusalem" is nothing new to us. Whenever a peace treaty enters, the Zionists send their bulldozers to oust residents from their homes, and then encourage people to become extremists whereby they encourage vengeance from the Palestinians who lost their homes. Already, several Arab locations suffer a lot of harsh conditions in regards to water, and Israel usually takes either 12 years or even doesn't reply to resident demands for basic needs of life (such as water), bulldozers are sent to demolish a fictional peace which is simply a cover for the Zionist government to proceed with expanding their settlements at the expense of the Palestinian residents. To analyze their history, I shall use a summary of an article, which was written by A. Granott, under the title of "The Strategy of Land Acquisition".
Granott, who clearly supported the Zionist non-objective false history, discusses the history of Zionist acquisition of land in Palestine and how their tactics evolved with time. At first, the theme of purchase was simply purchasing without having any land policy. The first company to buy land and dominated within the Jewish sphere, was P.I.C.A. which was initiated by Baron De Rothschild, which aimed at establishing Jewish Settlements. Afterwards, the Jewish National Fund replaced the P.I.C.A settlements as it grew stronger along with time, dominated 9/10 of purchased land.
The purchasers never really focused on buying land to fit the settlement scenario they had in their minds; on the contrary, they bought land first, then planned how to establish the settlement based on the contingency situation of that newly purchased land. After all, according to British Officials, the Jewish community was only 9% with the 2% increasing from 1917 till 1919. The value of the land appeared if it can be agriculturally exploited, or used for Sub/Urban purposes. It shows that the Zionists lacked any real planning in their first stages. With the availability of funds, they were able to buy more land from Arab Land Owners. The author attributes the expansion of Jewish ownership as a good cause to economic prosperity of the region, which is totally biased.
The purchasers were lost for a while as they faced problem whether to proceed with stockpiling land reserves or simply suspend the processes of purchases. They decided to purchase when circumstances allowed to. Hence, the quest for purchasing land at any price is over, and the Zionists focused on purchasing land in cheapest manner.
When Palestine became under British Mandate, things became easier, and Jewish immigration to Palestine was facilitated by the system, but there were disturbances from Arabs as a reaction to extortion, forced evacuation, and assistance from the British soldiers in clearing Arab inhabited sites. This led the Zionists to focus on purchasing land for security reasons, and prevent the isolation of Galilee. Whenever the concentration of land purchases to strengthen and expand a settlement is feasible, they purchased, and that policy led them as far as Nagaf; however, the Zionists were afraid of the British to change their minds in terms of assisting the Zionists, after all the British got their own priorities. British logic to support the Zionists was to empower a tiny minority to control the majority, and hence have both flanks of the Suez Canal under control. This obsession of losing the Suez Canal was due to the attempt of the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, to take control over the Suez Canal and cut the British Empire between the Far East and Mediterranean in half.
The author then talks of the "dark ages" within the purchase processes, which according to him an alliance between the Arabs and the Brits occurred that totally hindered Zionist purchasing tactics and almost crippled immigration to the holy land (Post-Wailing Wall incident in 1929). The fact this unholy "alliance" is treated that way was simply to aggrandize Zionist myths. The real facts were the awareness of the British Empire that Palestine was neither "empty" according to Zionist claims, nor it can host two "nations". There was no alliance at all, as a matter of fact, the British forces remained easy on the Zionists, even turning the other eye whenever the Zionists forced Palestinian Jews to use Jewish labor under the threats of extortions, blackmail, and threats. The critique to this theory is that the British during "the dark moments" started to train the Haganah, initiated by a religious hardliner called Odre Wingate. Politics played a role in Land Purchases afterwards. As security of Jewish immigrants was being threatened, they decided to establish settlements towards the North (facing Lebanese borders) and focused on security settlements as a whole. Security settlements were important every time the political situation switched to the advantage of the Arabs. Hence, land was the main factor to establish a state. A big difference appeared in the separate partition of land between Jews and Arabs between 1937 & 1947. In 1947, the Jewish side was much bigger than 1937 as more land was purchased in a concentrated manner with settlements and everything; this is due to the fact the Zionists focused mostly on land purchase security.
The Zionists didn’t have everything planned since dawn of history as some Arab scholars say. On the contrary, they just knew how to adapt their policies of purchase to every change in the political situation.
The best reference for what happened afterwards in 1947 - 1949 is tackled by two scholars. The first scholar ironically is an Israeli Zionist, Benny Morris, in his book "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947 - 1949"; the author was almost accused of treason for reporting history as it happened. The second scholar is Palestinian, Walid Khalidy, who introduced the "Masterplan" theory applied by the Zionists whereby Plan D was planned before hand to oust the Palestinians out of their homes.
(Picture Above: Gradual Expansion of the Zionist Settlements)
Granott, who clearly supported the Zionist non-objective false history, discusses the history of Zionist acquisition of land in Palestine and how their tactics evolved with time. At first, the theme of purchase was simply purchasing without having any land policy. The first company to buy land and dominated within the Jewish sphere, was P.I.C.A. which was initiated by Baron De Rothschild, which aimed at establishing Jewish Settlements. Afterwards, the Jewish National Fund replaced the P.I.C.A settlements as it grew stronger along with time, dominated 9/10 of purchased land.
The purchasers never really focused on buying land to fit the settlement scenario they had in their minds; on the contrary, they bought land first, then planned how to establish the settlement based on the contingency situation of that newly purchased land. After all, according to British Officials, the Jewish community was only 9% with the 2% increasing from 1917 till 1919. The value of the land appeared if it can be agriculturally exploited, or used for Sub/Urban purposes. It shows that the Zionists lacked any real planning in their first stages. With the availability of funds, they were able to buy more land from Arab Land Owners. The author attributes the expansion of Jewish ownership as a good cause to economic prosperity of the region, which is totally biased.
The purchasers were lost for a while as they faced problem whether to proceed with stockpiling land reserves or simply suspend the processes of purchases. They decided to purchase when circumstances allowed to. Hence, the quest for purchasing land at any price is over, and the Zionists focused on purchasing land in cheapest manner.
When Palestine became under British Mandate, things became easier, and Jewish immigration to Palestine was facilitated by the system, but there were disturbances from Arabs as a reaction to extortion, forced evacuation, and assistance from the British soldiers in clearing Arab inhabited sites. This led the Zionists to focus on purchasing land for security reasons, and prevent the isolation of Galilee. Whenever the concentration of land purchases to strengthen and expand a settlement is feasible, they purchased, and that policy led them as far as Nagaf; however, the Zionists were afraid of the British to change their minds in terms of assisting the Zionists, after all the British got their own priorities. British logic to support the Zionists was to empower a tiny minority to control the majority, and hence have both flanks of the Suez Canal under control. This obsession of losing the Suez Canal was due to the attempt of the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, to take control over the Suez Canal and cut the British Empire between the Far East and Mediterranean in half.
The author then talks of the "dark ages" within the purchase processes, which according to him an alliance between the Arabs and the Brits occurred that totally hindered Zionist purchasing tactics and almost crippled immigration to the holy land (Post-Wailing Wall incident in 1929). The fact this unholy "alliance" is treated that way was simply to aggrandize Zionist myths. The real facts were the awareness of the British Empire that Palestine was neither "empty" according to Zionist claims, nor it can host two "nations". There was no alliance at all, as a matter of fact, the British forces remained easy on the Zionists, even turning the other eye whenever the Zionists forced Palestinian Jews to use Jewish labor under the threats of extortions, blackmail, and threats. The critique to this theory is that the British during "the dark moments" started to train the Haganah, initiated by a religious hardliner called Odre Wingate. Politics played a role in Land Purchases afterwards. As security of Jewish immigrants was being threatened, they decided to establish settlements towards the North (facing Lebanese borders) and focused on security settlements as a whole. Security settlements were important every time the political situation switched to the advantage of the Arabs. Hence, land was the main factor to establish a state. A big difference appeared in the separate partition of land between Jews and Arabs between 1937 & 1947. In 1947, the Jewish side was much bigger than 1937 as more land was purchased in a concentrated manner with settlements and everything; this is due to the fact the Zionists focused mostly on land purchase security.
The Zionists didn’t have everything planned since dawn of history as some Arab scholars say. On the contrary, they just knew how to adapt their policies of purchase to every change in the political situation.
The best reference for what happened afterwards in 1947 - 1949 is tackled by two scholars. The first scholar ironically is an Israeli Zionist, Benny Morris, in his book "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947 - 1949"; the author was almost accused of treason for reporting history as it happened. The second scholar is Palestinian, Walid Khalidy, who introduced the "Masterplan" theory applied by the Zionists whereby Plan D was planned before hand to oust the Palestinians out of their homes.
(Picture Above: Gradual Expansion of the Zionist Settlements)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Mahmoud Darwish - By Mahir Ali
Article taken from here
FROM the ridiculous to the sublime: last Saturday brought sorrowful tidings from Houston, where efforts by surgeons to mend Mahmoud Darwish's broken heart came to naught. "We have lost part of our essence, the essence of the Palestinian being," commented Hanan Ashrawi on the death of a poet who for nearly five decades inimitably articulated the suffering of his people, the agony of dispossession and exile, and - unfailingly - the hope of reunion with the beloved, a dream that remained unfulfilled. Darwish parted ways with the PLO in the wake of the Oslo travesty 15 years ago, yet Mahmoud Abbas didn't think twice before declaring three days of mourning in a nation that remains bereft of statehood.
In 1971, when his decision to live outside the occupied territories was roundly criticized throughout the Arab world, Darwish noted: "I am not the first patriot or poet to leave his country in order to draw nearer to it." He lived in Moscow, in Cairo, in Beirut, in Tunis; it was 26 years before he returned to a homeland from which he perforce remained estranged, settling in Ramallah. During a poetry reading last year, he described the violence between Fatah and Hamas as "a public attempt at suicide in the streets".
Many years earlier, he had lamented: "If only these verses/ Were a chisel in the grip of a worker,/ A grenade in the hand of a fighter/ ... a plough in the hands of a peasant". In due course he was elevated, inevitably, to the ranks of a 20th-century pantheon that includes the likes of Pablo Neruda, Nazim Hikmet and Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Darwish, who once described himself as "the envoy of a wound that does not bargain", shared with these three a Marxist-humanist perspective that ensured he was always more popular among Arab people than among their unrepresentative rulers.
Israeli reports of his demise mentioned that in 2000 the education minister, Yossi Sarid, had recommended including some of Darwish's poems in the high school curriculum, but the idea was vetoed by the prime minister, Ehud Barak. It is unlikely that the Israelis will change their minds now that the poet has been interred in the land he loved so passionately, perhaps amid an olive grove. And even if they did, it is all but inconceivable that they would authorize schoolchildren to become acquainted with particularly potent diatribes such as the early poem On Man, which goes:
They gagged his mouth,
Bound his hands to the rock of the dead
And said: Murderer!
They took his food, clothes and banners,
Cast him into the condemned cell
And said: Thief!
They drove him away from every port,
Took his young sweetheart,
Then said: Refugee!
O you with bloodshot eyes and bloody hands,
Night is short-lived,
The detention room lasts not for ever,
Nor yet the links of chains.
Nero died, Rome did not:
With her very eyes she fights.
And seeds from a withered ear
With wheat shall fill the valley.
FROM the ridiculous to the sublime: last Saturday brought sorrowful tidings from Houston, where efforts by surgeons to mend Mahmoud Darwish's broken heart came to naught. "We have lost part of our essence, the essence of the Palestinian being," commented Hanan Ashrawi on the death of a poet who for nearly five decades inimitably articulated the suffering of his people, the agony of dispossession and exile, and - unfailingly - the hope of reunion with the beloved, a dream that remained unfulfilled. Darwish parted ways with the PLO in the wake of the Oslo travesty 15 years ago, yet Mahmoud Abbas didn't think twice before declaring three days of mourning in a nation that remains bereft of statehood.
In 1971, when his decision to live outside the occupied territories was roundly criticized throughout the Arab world, Darwish noted: "I am not the first patriot or poet to leave his country in order to draw nearer to it." He lived in Moscow, in Cairo, in Beirut, in Tunis; it was 26 years before he returned to a homeland from which he perforce remained estranged, settling in Ramallah. During a poetry reading last year, he described the violence between Fatah and Hamas as "a public attempt at suicide in the streets".
Many years earlier, he had lamented: "If only these verses/ Were a chisel in the grip of a worker,/ A grenade in the hand of a fighter/ ... a plough in the hands of a peasant". In due course he was elevated, inevitably, to the ranks of a 20th-century pantheon that includes the likes of Pablo Neruda, Nazim Hikmet and Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Darwish, who once described himself as "the envoy of a wound that does not bargain", shared with these three a Marxist-humanist perspective that ensured he was always more popular among Arab people than among their unrepresentative rulers.
Israeli reports of his demise mentioned that in 2000 the education minister, Yossi Sarid, had recommended including some of Darwish's poems in the high school curriculum, but the idea was vetoed by the prime minister, Ehud Barak. It is unlikely that the Israelis will change their minds now that the poet has been interred in the land he loved so passionately, perhaps amid an olive grove. And even if they did, it is all but inconceivable that they would authorize schoolchildren to become acquainted with particularly potent diatribes such as the early poem On Man, which goes:
They gagged his mouth,
Bound his hands to the rock of the dead
And said: Murderer!
They took his food, clothes and banners,
Cast him into the condemned cell
And said: Thief!
They drove him away from every port,
Took his young sweetheart,
Then said: Refugee!
O you with bloodshot eyes and bloody hands,
Night is short-lived,
The detention room lasts not for ever,
Nor yet the links of chains.
Nero died, Rome did not:
With her very eyes she fights.
And seeds from a withered ear
With wheat shall fill the valley.
And Hence, I bought a Book...
This article is nothing but a personal recount about one of the ironies (and for a change it is not a historical irony in terms of Lebanese power-struggle politics) that I encountered. I went to Virgin Megastore to buy some books. In 99% of the cases, I boycott those multi-national institutions, and to go one step further, I promote their dangers as an example of class struggle, with one perspective at least required for this post (there are several dimensions to that story, I recommend corpwatch to read), whereby the big corporations oust the smaller businesses with their gigantic budget, international links, and gain monopoly on the access of information. In a sense, to be seen in Virgin Megastore, I find that rather embarrassing, or rather subdue to the system. Most of my ideological readings have been on the Marxist Internet Archives; however, not everything is available to the public for free.
The story goes that I go with a fellow comrade to buy a book for Isaac Deutcher. As I enter the store, I bump to a fellow Comrade of mine, who probably in my own honest opinion, is the most powerful academic (and a Marxist with a little bit of Arab nationalist affiliations). That man was Fawwaz Traboulsi. The story took place four years ago. I meet up with him and as always, ask him a zillion questions on life, work, activism, academics, what to read, ...etc. I told him that my purpose to this place was to buy a book written by Isaac Deutcher. Other than the fact he knew his wife, the man never seized to surprise me. I always hear him on TV, and read his articles, and his book "A History of Modern Lebanon" has become almost a bible to be read on daily basis.
I told him: "I came here to buy a book by Deutcher"
Traboulsi: "It is interesting that they import a lot of books on the Soviet Union, and Soviet characters."
Me : "Indeed, that is true"
Traboulsi: "But I find it strange to see books on Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and others but not a single book written by those authors."
Well, it is true. After a brief moment of debate, we went our separate ways.
Now, here we were, couple of Comrades, at Virgin Megastore, whereas some of them were going to buy books on Communism. Now of course, to answer Traboulsi's complaint, those who can access the Marxist Internet Archives, they can access them, or try to print them out for future photocopies. Almost 95% of what all of the previous mentioned Communist intellects have their writings present in those earlier Marxist archives (even minutes of meetings).
Moving around the story of Mr. Deutcher. The book cost me a bundle, and unlike several "Communists", cash flow is a problem for me. Amen for internationalism within the Marxist doctrines, whereby comrades are not bounded by borders. So I contacted two comrades in the US who were on their way to Beirut, and I got the final required original copy for Isaac Deutcher. When I wanted to pay for it, my comrade replies: "No need comrade, I got almost for free." In a stunned manner, I look at him and answer back: "But the book is an original and new", and my comrade replied: "I got it at a second shop."
Now you have to understand, when several comrades meet, and they originate from different borders, a zillion question pops up. Luckily for us, we entered the debate on "Access of Information" while having a quick 8 shots of Vodka (four of them were on the house). He asked:
Comrade: "Where did you get the book?"
Me : "Don't laugh, from Virgin Megastore"
Comrade: "For real, they actually sell our stuff at Virgin Megastore?"
Me : "Don't Laugh, I couldn't find the Isaac Deutcher series except in Virgin Megastore"
Comrade: "Interesting, over here they never sell anything Communist or Anarchist"
Well, from that perspective, it was interesting. Whereas I felt being a slave forced to buy a book that I needed for different reasons, but I couldn't attain it anywhere but Virgin Megastore. Damned Capitalists!
MFL
The story goes that I go with a fellow comrade to buy a book for Isaac Deutcher. As I enter the store, I bump to a fellow Comrade of mine, who probably in my own honest opinion, is the most powerful academic (and a Marxist with a little bit of Arab nationalist affiliations). That man was Fawwaz Traboulsi. The story took place four years ago. I meet up with him and as always, ask him a zillion questions on life, work, activism, academics, what to read, ...etc. I told him that my purpose to this place was to buy a book written by Isaac Deutcher. Other than the fact he knew his wife, the man never seized to surprise me. I always hear him on TV, and read his articles, and his book "A History of Modern Lebanon" has become almost a bible to be read on daily basis.
I told him: "I came here to buy a book by Deutcher"
Traboulsi: "It is interesting that they import a lot of books on the Soviet Union, and Soviet characters."
Me : "Indeed, that is true"
Traboulsi: "But I find it strange to see books on Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and others but not a single book written by those authors."
Well, it is true. After a brief moment of debate, we went our separate ways.
Now, here we were, couple of Comrades, at Virgin Megastore, whereas some of them were going to buy books on Communism. Now of course, to answer Traboulsi's complaint, those who can access the Marxist Internet Archives, they can access them, or try to print them out for future photocopies. Almost 95% of what all of the previous mentioned Communist intellects have their writings present in those earlier Marxist archives (even minutes of meetings).
Moving around the story of Mr. Deutcher. The book cost me a bundle, and unlike several "Communists", cash flow is a problem for me. Amen for internationalism within the Marxist doctrines, whereby comrades are not bounded by borders. So I contacted two comrades in the US who were on their way to Beirut, and I got the final required original copy for Isaac Deutcher. When I wanted to pay for it, my comrade replies: "No need comrade, I got almost for free." In a stunned manner, I look at him and answer back: "But the book is an original and new", and my comrade replied: "I got it at a second shop."
Now you have to understand, when several comrades meet, and they originate from different borders, a zillion question pops up. Luckily for us, we entered the debate on "Access of Information" while having a quick 8 shots of Vodka (four of them were on the house). He asked:
Comrade: "Where did you get the book?"
Me : "Don't laugh, from Virgin Megastore"
Comrade: "For real, they actually sell our stuff at Virgin Megastore?"
Me : "Don't Laugh, I couldn't find the Isaac Deutcher series except in Virgin Megastore"
Comrade: "Interesting, over here they never sell anything Communist or Anarchist"
Well, from that perspective, it was interesting. Whereas I felt being a slave forced to buy a book that I needed for different reasons, but I couldn't attain it anywhere but Virgin Megastore. Damned Capitalists!
MFL
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Zionists and the Bible
Luckily for me, I inherited a large collection of books on Palestine from my grandparents that are all in good shape. One article I enjoyed reading 14 years ago was by Professor Alfred Guillaume, under the title of Zionists and the Bible (published by Igram Press, and sold for 50 cents). The article was part of a bigger pamphlet that included several articles, under the title of Israel: According to the Holy Scriptures.
Just when I wanted to type it out, I found the article over here,now the source might be controversial; however, it saved me hours of typing.
The article discusses in details whether or not Israel was a Promised Land in the 20th Century, and furthermore reveals whether of not the Zionists actually followed the 'Bible' or not. Despite my athiesm, I enjoy following someone's claim all the way, as a Lebanese proverb says: "Keep Following the Liar to his/her house". It is interesting to read that perspective as well...
Professor Alfred Guillaume is a professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of London, has authored various works on the Old Testament and is co-editor of "The Legacy of Islam".
I know the article is not of class struggle in nature, but enjoy it
MFL
Just when I wanted to type it out, I found the article over here,now the source might be controversial; however, it saved me hours of typing.
The article discusses in details whether or not Israel was a Promised Land in the 20th Century, and furthermore reveals whether of not the Zionists actually followed the 'Bible' or not. Despite my athiesm, I enjoy following someone's claim all the way, as a Lebanese proverb says: "Keep Following the Liar to his/her house". It is interesting to read that perspective as well...
Professor Alfred Guillaume is a professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of London, has authored various works on the Old Testament and is co-editor of "The Legacy of Islam".
I know the article is not of class struggle in nature, but enjoy it
MFL
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Lebanese – Israeli Lullaby
Introduction
Probably the most interesting and most complex relationship between the Zionists and the Lebanese was the contradictions of regarding Lebanon as part of the Israeli plans.
Lebanon Proper, under the Ottomans, was divided into several regions, which included some parts existing in Syria and Palestine. Lebanon by the 19th century was divided into an autonomous Mutasarifieh in Mt. Lebanon which covered the Druze and Christian lands, the Tripoli governorate which included Northern Lebanon and parts of Syria, the Damascus governorate, which included the Bekaa, and the A'ka governorate, which included parts of the South as well as occasionally Sour (aka Tyre). Now these borders fluctuated, but in general, for most of the centuries of Ottoman rule, that is how Lebanon administratively was divided.
For starters, Lebanon since Prince Fakhridean II had enjoyed autonomy, sometimes that autonomy expanded to include certain Syrian areas, and sometimes that autonomy got demolished. Eventually, there was an interruption of 9 years under Mohammad Ali Basha, and his son Ibrahim Basha, of Egypt, for nine years. In the 19th century, Prince Bashir II, an ex-Sunni converting to Christianity, created the concept of Mt. Lebanon based on Christian premises, the concept of sovereign Lebanon and the Lebanese Christians became intertwined since then, specially in a later phase of the 19th century, when it was an autonomous region, under an Ottoman governor, with the patronage of six European imperial forces. By then, Europe's super powers followed the logic of "protecting the minorities" to expand their territorial acquisitions.
By the time the French successfully dominated Syria and Lebanon Proper regions, the British successfully ousted the French from the Sykes-Pico agreement, and took over Palestine. Jordan was separated from Syria, under the British Mandate, while Iraq broke the norm of carving out nations, rather, that country was patched up from three large governorates into a gigantic country, Iraq. Under Archbishop Howayek, from Mt. Lebanon, the second Lebanese delegation travelled to Versailles negotiations, and demanded that the French rule Lebanon directly after WWI. Clemenceau appeared in the newspapers hugging Archbishop Howayek. Modern Lebanon was officially created in 1920. One purpose for its creation was the Christians seeking autonomy in a Muslim world. It has to be noted, the Christians were the first to advocate Arab nationalism in the face of the Ottomans, but when having the chance to break free, the Versailles treaty gave them that chance.
The Zionists, on the other hand, didn't have a land to demand. The Palestinians, made up of Muslims, Christians, and Jews were living in harmony and didn't accept the isolationist logic of the Zionists. Till current days, Arab Jews still argue that Zionism came from Europe. Israel was not supposed to take place, the British promised the Zionists a national home and not a nation in the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Zionists were actually desperate, they were cajoled by the Germans and the British, and the Zionists almost opted for the German option, however, due to Germany's alliance to Turkey, the Germans couldn’t deliver their promises. It has to be noted, that the Zionists were a huge minority in Europe. The Communist Jews, the Jewish Socialist Party (Bund), and the Jewish assimilation associations were much more popular. Probably the most famous Jews of that era were Clara Zatkin, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Leon Kamenev. The fact that Jews were leading revolutions throughout Europe placed Weizmann in an awkward position to the extent in a 1919 meeting with Lord Balfour in Paris, his men had to convince Lord Balfour that Lenin's mother was not a Jew, rather Lenin's background was pure Christian.
Nevertheless, once landing in Palestine, the Zionists started their expulsions, purchases of land, and importation of Jews from Europe under the promise of a better world. The British officials were surprised that Palestine "was not empty".
The Zionists nevertheless, using history to justify their 19th century ethnic and segregationist movement, to argue that they are reunite a Diaspora of Jews that dated back 2000 years ago. The irony is that Israel as a nation state didn't last even a century when it was crushed by the Romans. Nevertheless, they regarded themselves as a minority surrounded by Arabs and Islam. The Lebanese Christians, unlike the Palestinian Christians, were regarded differently. While the Palestinian Christians were regarded as enemies, same as the Muslims, the Zionists used history to regard the Lebanese Christians as Phoenicians.
Certain Christians did promote the Phoenician nationality in the area of Lebanon then. Their argument is to give legitimacy for the ideals of independent Lebanon by providing roots that dated back to the pre-Islamic conquests, hence the Phoenician identity. It was first triggered in the 19th century by a certain French sociologist, however, it didn't gain momentum accept when the Christians needed autonomy. There was never a Phoenician state, the Phoenicians were divided into Phoenician city states and kingdoms. Each mini-kingdom had its own policy, such as the colonization of Libya as an escape route for what was happening in the homelands. Probably the only time the Phoenicians fought as a single identity is when they pooled their resources to halt the advancing Assyrians. They were successful the first time militarily.
Several Zionist documents in the early 20th century referred to the Christians as Phoenicians and wanted to revive the over 2200 year old relationship with them. They regarded the Phoenicians as the perfect allies. Since the Lebanese Jews and Zionist Jews were a minority. Probably the first contact between the Zionists and the Lebanese was through the Soursok family, which sold the Jewish Agency Palestinian Lands, even though they didn't own property of them. According to Amin Mustapha's book: History of Resistance in Lebanon, the Zionists even had the proposal to shift the Christians to South in an autonomous region in alliance to Israel, to safeguard their Northern borders.
1930s - 1940s
The most notorious Lebanese back then to have contacts with them was the Lebanese President Emile Edde (Lebanese President from 1936 – 1941), whose offspring Reymond Edde challenged his father's ideas. Emile Edde was known for his Christian hardliner perspective. He was quoted of saying that whoever doesn't like Lebanon, there is always Mecca. In the early half of the 1930s, he sent Weizmann a congratulating letter that it seems he will establish the nation-state he seeks.
Even worse, Emile Edde had plans to carve out Lebanon and give parts of Muslim majority to the Zionists' forthcoming nation. Itimar Rabinovich wrote: "Another School of thought, headed by Emile Edde, was convinced by the 1932 census that the Muslims were about to become the majority in the Lebanese state and that the possibility of France abandoning the Lebanese Christians had to be taken seriously. Edde concluded that it was essential that to 'expedite the territorial reduction of Lebanon in order to enable the latter state to have a more consistent Christian majority.' By 'amputating' Tripoli and Southern Lebanon from the Lebanese state, 'Lebanon will be rid of almost 140,000 Shi'I and Sunni Muslims and will be left with a Christian majority equaling about 80% of its population.' Edde tried to win the support of the French government, which was not unimpressed with his reasoning but which in the end chose to preserve the territorial status quo. Still, Edde did not abandon his idea, and in 1946 he sent an emissary to Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, to attempt to persuade Weizmann to seek the incorporation of southern Lebanon and its predominantly Muslim population into the Jewish national home."
(Picture Above: President Emile Edde)
To confirm the validity of this historical disastrous point in Lebanese history, Itimar Rabinovich's footnote included the following: "In a meeting of the directorate of the Jewish Agency on February 11, 1945, Weizmann, the president of the agency, reported that, "The son of the former president came to me. A Christian under a strong French influence – he came with a proposal ... that he would like to hand over to us, to the national home Tyre and Sidon ... because there are there a hundred thousand Muslims. I responded by saying that my grandfather used to say that he would not receive a 'biting' gift; but he would not relent and said that he will come again" (minutes of the Jewish Agency Directorate General).
(Picture Above: Ben Gurion)
Of course, Israel was announced as an entity in 1948, and Lebanon participated in the mockery of the Arab world sending their soldiers to Israel. Lebanon won its front at Malikieh, and progressed to link up with the Syrian army. However, the Jordanian and Egyptian treason for territorial expansion led to the Israeli Defense Forces to have time to equip their armies and eventually ousting all Arab regions except Ghaza and the West Bank due to Egyptian and Jordanian treason.
It has to be noted, that Lebanon was under the French Mandate from Post WWI till 1943, and the Phoenician Christians didn't represent the entire Christian community. According to Wilson's commission, the majority of the Christians preferred the link-up with Faysal's Kingdom.
To understand the vision of the Israelis to Lebanon in the 1950s, we have to look at Yossi Schwartz's article, who highlighted important aspects on Ben Gurion's perspective and Israeli aims. I hope he will continue to highlight more: "
Two important sources on the Zionist plans for Lebanon are the diary of Moshe Sharett, who was the Prime Minster of Israel in 1954-1955 and who was considered a "soft Zionist", and Livia Rokach's Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary, and other documents. In the latter we find some very interesting information, and it is worth quoting from Sharett's diary at length:
"Then he [Ben Gurion] passed on to another issue. This is the time, he said, to push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State. I said that this was nonsense. The Maronites are divided. The partisans of Christian separatism are weak and will dare do nothing. A Christian Lebanon would mean their giving up Tyre, Tripoli, and the Beka'a. There is no force that could bring Lebanon back to its pre-World War I dimensions, and all the more so because in that case it would lose its economic raison-d'etre. Ben Gurion reacted furiously. He began to enumerate the historical justification for a restricted Christian Lebanon. If such a development were to take place, the Christian Powers would not dare oppose it. I claimed that there was no factor ready to create such a situation, and that if we were to push and encourage it on our own we would get ourselves into an adventure that will place shame on us. Here came a wave of insults regarding my lack of daring and my narrow-mindedness. We ought to send envoys and spend money. I said there was no money. The answer was that there is no such thing. The money must be found, if not in the Treasury then at the Jewish Agency! For such a project it is worthwhile throwing away one hundred thousand, half a million, a million dollars. When this happens a decisive change will take place in the Middle East, a new era will start. I got tired of struggling against a whirlwind. (27 February 1954,)"
The next day David Ben Gurion sent Sharett the following letter:
"To Moshe Sharett the Prime Minister,
Sdeh Boker, February 27, 1954
"Upon my withdrawal from the government I decided in my heart to desist from intervening and expressing my opinion on current political affairs so as not to make things difficult for the government in any way. And if you hadn't called on me, the three of you, yourself, Lavon and Dayan, I would not have, of my own accord, expressed an opinion on what is being done or what ought to be done. But as you called me, I deem it my duty to comply with your wishes, and especially with your own wish as Prime Minister. Therefore, I permit myself to go back to one issue which you did not approve of and discuss it again, and this is the issue of Lebanon.
(Picture Above: Moshe Sharrett)
"It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Muslim, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid block, of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. Also within the wider borders (this was the worst mistake made by France when it extended the borders of Lebanon), the Muslims are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there (and I don't know if they are, indeed, a majority) for fear of the Christians. The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant...
D.B.G. (27 February 1954)"
Sharett responded a few weeks later with the following:
"Mr. David Ben Gurion, March 18, 1954, Sdeh Boker
"As far as I know, in Lebanon today exists no movement aiming at transforming the country into a Christian State governed by the Maronite community...
"This is not surprising. The transformation of Lebanon into a Christian State as a result of an outside initiative is unfeasible today... I don't exclude the possibility of accomplishing this goal in the wake of a wave of shocks that will sweep the Middle East... will destroy the present constellations and will form others. But in the present Lebanon, with its present territorial and demographic dimensions and its international relations, no serious initiative of the kind is imaginable.
"The Christians do not constitute the majority in Lebanon. Nor are they a unified block, politically speaking or community-wise. The Orthodox minority in Lebanon tends to identify with their brethren in Syria. They will not be ready to go to war for a Christian Lebanon, which is for a Lebanon smaller than it is today, and detached from the Arab League. On the contrary, they would probably not be opposed to a Lebanon united to Syria, as this would contribute to strengthening their own community and the Orthodox community throughout the region... In fact, there are more Orthodox Christians in Syria than in Lebanon, and the Orthodox in Syria and Lebanon together are more numerous than the Maronites...
"... There are also decisive economic arguments against it. We are not discussing the issue in 1920/21... but 30 years later. Mount Lebanon has meanwhile integrated into one organic unit with the coastal plane of Tyre and Sidon, the Valley of Baalbeck and the city of Tripoli. They are commercially and economically interdependent and inseparable. Mount Lebanon was not a self-sufficient unit even before World War 1... The annexation of the three regions plus the city of Beirut to the Lebanese State has rendered possible the creation of a balanced economy. A return to the past would not just mean a surgical operation but also a disintegration leading to the end of Lebanon...
"When all this has been said, [I should add that] I would not have objected, and on the contrary I would have certainly been favorable to the idea, of actively aiding any manifestation of agitation in the Maronite community tending to strengthen its isolationist tendencies, even if there were no real chances of achieving the goals; I would have considered positive the very existence of such an agitation and the destabilization it could bring about, the trouble it would have caused the League, the diversion of attention from the Arab-Israeli complications that it would have caused, and the very kindling of a fire made up of impulses toward Christian independence. But what can I do when such an agitation is nonexistent? ... In the present condition, I am afraid that any attempt on our part would be considered as lightheartedness and superficiality or worse-as an adventurous speculation upon the well being and existence of others and a readiness to sacrifice their basic good for the benefit of a temporary tactical advantage for Israel.
"Moreover, if this plan is not kept a secret but becomes known a danger which cannot be underestimated in the Middle Eastern circumstances-the damage which we shall suffer... would not be compensated even by an eventual success of the operation itself...
"M. S. (18 March 1954)"
At that time Ben Gurion did not convince Sharett. The conditions were not ripe for such an attempt. But the idea never went away and remained in the minds of the leading Zionists as an option. The time to put into practice came in 1978 during the civil war when the "Litani Operation" was launched.
Israel was created at a terrible price. The Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, pushed into refugee camps all around the region. Israel thus came into being in an almost permanent state of war against its Arab neighbours. Israel was envisaged as an outpost of western imperialism, a "safe ally" that could police this oil-rich region. For decades it played that role quite successfully. Part of that task involved trying to get at least one "friendly" regime to its north in Lebanon. But this was easier said than done. Because of its delicate ethnic makeup, Lebanon dominated by the Christian elite could never be a stable country. Class conflict would emerge and re-emerge in the form of ethnic conflict due to the lack of a clear working class, socialist leadership that could cut across the ethnic divide.
1960s - 1970s
(Picture Above: Kamal Junblatt)
1960s and 1970s witnessed the Israelis focusing on the destruction of the PLO who started to gain international recognition. The Christians and Israelis had common interests. The Christians considered PLO activities as downsizing the sovereignty of Lebanon, and worse, their own, specially the PLO misconduct gave the Phalange mainly the ability to recruit over 90,000 Christian, whereby such a number is too large for a small country like Lebanon. They were already allocated densely in Lebanon and Jordan. Their warplanes saved the Monarchy and the PLO became cornered in Lebanon. As thousands of PLO warriors moved to Lebanon from Jordan after 1970, Israeli efforts were focused on how to contain the PLO in Lebanon.
(Picture Above: Palestinian Refugee Camp in Jabal Hussein in 1970)
(Picture Above: Refugee Camp in New Amman following Black September in 1970)
The first logic was bomb Lebanon and specially the entire South and blame it on the PLO operations, which actually paid off extensively because the Shiites became wrathful of the Palestinians and stood politically next to the Christian Government. Moussa al Sadre and later Nabih Berri built AMAL movement based on the anti-Palestinian resentments. Kamal Junblatt was critical against Moussa el Sadre's indirect alignment with the Christians despite the fact that Fatah played a role in building that militia. The second logic was how to help the Christians, who were the primary spearheads against the PLO activities. Hence, minor arms were sent to the Phalange/Tigers/Tanzeem via Jounieh port. Most of the weapons that were sent have been Soviet manufactured and captured from the PLO militants in occupied Palestine and Jordan. The smuggling occurred via Cyprus, and in case the weaponries were discovered, the Lebanese National Movement, PLO's allies, or the Palestinians themselves will take the blame and Israel will not be linked to the Christians. The Israelis clearly didn't want direct confrontation in Lebanon, rather, they preferred that the Christians were helped to stand on their own two feet. The first man to establish contacts with the Israelis was head of the most feared militia, the army offshoot leader of al-Tanzeem, Georges Adwan (current member of Parliament).
(Picture Above: Yasser Arafat reacts to applause at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in this Nov. 13, 1974)
Prior to the Lebanese Civil War, Yasser Arafat gave the peace initiative of "Olive Instead of Bullets", whereby he declared that he will be satisfied with rump Palestine, which included the West Bank and Ghazza, the Israelis refused such a peace offering, however, it gave the Palestinian people the status of observant in the UN, which meant half-way recognition of Palestinians internationally. Some question if the Israelis accepted the offer then instead almost 20 years later, would have been there war in Lebanon? Or at least a war to last 17 years?
(Picture Above: Syrians enter Lebanon)
When the Lebanese National Movement and the PLO dominated over 81% of Lebanon in 1975-1976 wars, Israeli interests switched whereby they gave Henry Kissinger the blessing to let the Syrians uproot the PLO from existence. Hence, the Syrians, under the hesitated blessings of Pierre Gemayel, Camille Shamoun, and Suleiman Franjieh, as well as Israel and USA, entered Lebanon. The Israelis still didn't want to be directly involved, because then the Christian militias would lose legitimacy in the Arab World. In 1977, Israel pulled the Litani operation to safeguard its Northern borders.
1980s
(Picture Above: War-Criminal Ariel Sharon)
Bashir Gemayel's Zahli Crisis successfully got the Israelis and Syrians involved. When Israeli planes should down Syrian aerial vehicles, the Palestinians rained in the South missiles on Northern Israel. Hence, Ariel Sharon, then Minister of Defense, wanted to permanently demolish the PLO. The settlement in post-Zahli crisis, stopped everyone from shooting, but kept the PLO growing stronger without any interventions. In 1981, Sharon visited Bashir Gemayel in East Beirut, and had dinner with Pierre Gemayel and Camille Shamoun, with the promise to invade Lebanon since now the Syrians – Lebanese National Movement – PLO forged an undefeatable alliance. The logic for such a move was to uproot the PLO once and for all and block any sovereignty. Sharon's second logic was install a satellite president and impose a peace treaty. Bashir Gemayel already became the most popular Christian since the 100 Days War where the Syrian forces bombed brutally East Beirut for a 100 days.
When the invasion began in 1982, the Israelis failed to demolish the PLO since they were severely allocated in West Beirut. Sharon's plan was to have the Lebanese Forces (then a unity of militias under one banner militarily) enter the street to street fights. Bashir Gemayel, knowing his men's disability to face the cornered PLO and Lebanese National Movement, preferred not to.
(Picture Above: Israel Bombing West Beirut residential areas)
(Picture Above: Times cover in 1982)
Israel's main man was Bashir Gemayel, he suited their plans to be president, whereby Israel will have military benefits, and even joint business markets, Bashir became stubborn under US support. For the Israelis, they always thought that peace with Lebanon will eventually come, but after a stronger country signs peace. Bashir was assassinated. Prior to the assassination; however, Bashir had his undelivered inauguration speech. In it again, Bashir stressed on how Lebanon is an Orientalist nation rather an Arab nation again giving its existance roots to a pre-Islamic era. Furthermore, he didn't regard Lebanon in a state of civil war, rather under Palestinian and Syrian invasion without refering to the Israelis, more like hinting to the Israelis to oust the PLO militant remainders and Syrian forces out. It is worthy to note, that Sharon had a Plan B, which was transferring the PLO and the whole Palestinians to Jordan after assassinating the Jordanian King, hence establish a "New Palestine" for the Palestinians. The US diplomats accused Sharon as an 'asshole'.
(Picture Above: Bashir Gemayel)
While trying to salvage a deal with Amin Gemayel, even the Americans hindered several of their efforts. However, it is known that Sharon tried to pull a deal with Amin Gemayel behind the Americans' backs, through a business merchant called Sami Marun. It was intercepted, and the Americans changed a lot of the items which went to Lebanon's benefits. However, the 17th of May Accord was shot down via Syria, and its allies Junblatt and Berri. Israel's primary concern became on how to pull out from Lebanon since they couldn't tolerate military operations conducted on them.
Their sudden pull-out from Mt. Lebanon, witnessed pro-Lebanese Forces residents demonstrating in front their headquarters over there not to withdraw, but the IDF couldn't tolerate any more casualties. The sudden pull-out from Mt. Lebanon witnessed the bloodiest collisions in Mt. Lebanon between Walid Junblatt and Samir Geagea, which ended up with bloodshed, mostly on Christian areas, and resulted in the biggest sectarian cleansing since Bashir Gemayel's cleansing of East Beirut from Non-Christians. Since then, the Christian leadership lost confidence with the Israelis and felt they were betrayed.
(Picture Above: Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon)
1990s - 2000s
The case of the Northern borders became the priority of Israel, specially Hezbollah arming itself under the Syrian Mandate in Lebanon. They attempted to preserve the 40 Km area in South Lebanon with their puppy army, the South Lebanese Army, but failed. After confrontations in 1993, 1996, the year 2000 they were expelled in Lebanon.
Ehud Barak actually won elections in Israel with the promise of withdrawing from South Lebanon. At first, his government launched "Lebanon First", whereby they sought to seek a peace treaty, the negotiations were shot down because the Lebanese, under Syrian hegemony, demanded that Israel would negotiate with Lebanon and Syria at the same time. When the Israelis initiated "Syria First", the Syrian regime directly hopped the negotiating table. While Hezbollah operations aggravated, the Israelis preferred to preserve their tight grip on the Golan Heights in Syria, and withdrew suddenly from Southern Lebanon, leaving Syria shocked without any means to bargain in 2000.
Post 2005 events
(Picture Above: July War 2006 was more than the IDF soldiers can handle, another contributing factor on Israel's crackdown for Lebanese demands)
After Harriri's assassination in 2005, Israel held high hopes towards Lebanon after Syria was ousted out by internal activism and international pressure. Nevertheless, the participation of their sworn enemies, Hezbollah, in the government meant bad news. The US hoped that the anti-Syrian 14th of March can contain Hezbollah, but to no productive results. At first, some expressed hope when Hezbollah participated in the government that they will become gradually a political party, but they ended up as both: political and militant. Israel, in collaboration with the US, decided to end Hezbollah, with the support several Arab leaders, according to Bolton at Marcel Ghanem's talk show. Their primary lookout was certain Christian Groups, the Druze, and the Sunni Street. When Hezbollah, for different speculated reasons pulled their military operation on July 12, 2006, the war began, and the promise of Olmert was "extermination of Hezbollah". From this perspective, they will proceed bombarding Hezbollah, and hoped that a civil war will break between the 14th of Marchers and Hezbollah. Yet, the Lebanese despite political divisions, united on assisting the refugees throughout Lebanon. Hence their plans that were relatively successful in the late 1960s, and very successful in the 1970s ended up in failure. Yet, Hezbollah emerged even stronger, calling the war "Divine Victory". Their hopes of 14th of March to balance against Hezbollah evaporated when Hezbollah within 72 hours swept Lebanon politically and militantly under their grip. Even worse for the Israelis, the appearance of two powerfully militant parties preserving their trainings since the days of the civil war: AMAL Movement and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. This doesn't mean that 14th of March have been collaborating with Israel, rather, they shared the hatred to Syria in Lebanon. 14th of March also didn't express any need to forge any peace treaty with Israel, specially their mass butchery of the Lebanese, and destructive operation against Lebanon as a whole. Hence, Israel's key component, the undefeatable army, changed their plans and followed an informal disengagement plan. Whereby they successfully were willing to give Hezbollah the remaining prisoners, and a large chunk of martyrs, willing to withdraw from Sheba'a farms, and initiated via Turkey, under US patronage, the withdrawal from the Golan Heights, in order to focus on their internal problems, and probably gain some time to rebuild their army and sort internal problems for future wars.
(Picture Above: Israeli Brutality on Beirut during the July War of 2006)
MFL
Probably the most interesting and most complex relationship between the Zionists and the Lebanese was the contradictions of regarding Lebanon as part of the Israeli plans.
Lebanon Proper, under the Ottomans, was divided into several regions, which included some parts existing in Syria and Palestine. Lebanon by the 19th century was divided into an autonomous Mutasarifieh in Mt. Lebanon which covered the Druze and Christian lands, the Tripoli governorate which included Northern Lebanon and parts of Syria, the Damascus governorate, which included the Bekaa, and the A'ka governorate, which included parts of the South as well as occasionally Sour (aka Tyre). Now these borders fluctuated, but in general, for most of the centuries of Ottoman rule, that is how Lebanon administratively was divided.
For starters, Lebanon since Prince Fakhridean II had enjoyed autonomy, sometimes that autonomy expanded to include certain Syrian areas, and sometimes that autonomy got demolished. Eventually, there was an interruption of 9 years under Mohammad Ali Basha, and his son Ibrahim Basha, of Egypt, for nine years. In the 19th century, Prince Bashir II, an ex-Sunni converting to Christianity, created the concept of Mt. Lebanon based on Christian premises, the concept of sovereign Lebanon and the Lebanese Christians became intertwined since then, specially in a later phase of the 19th century, when it was an autonomous region, under an Ottoman governor, with the patronage of six European imperial forces. By then, Europe's super powers followed the logic of "protecting the minorities" to expand their territorial acquisitions.
By the time the French successfully dominated Syria and Lebanon Proper regions, the British successfully ousted the French from the Sykes-Pico agreement, and took over Palestine. Jordan was separated from Syria, under the British Mandate, while Iraq broke the norm of carving out nations, rather, that country was patched up from three large governorates into a gigantic country, Iraq. Under Archbishop Howayek, from Mt. Lebanon, the second Lebanese delegation travelled to Versailles negotiations, and demanded that the French rule Lebanon directly after WWI. Clemenceau appeared in the newspapers hugging Archbishop Howayek. Modern Lebanon was officially created in 1920. One purpose for its creation was the Christians seeking autonomy in a Muslim world. It has to be noted, the Christians were the first to advocate Arab nationalism in the face of the Ottomans, but when having the chance to break free, the Versailles treaty gave them that chance.
The Zionists, on the other hand, didn't have a land to demand. The Palestinians, made up of Muslims, Christians, and Jews were living in harmony and didn't accept the isolationist logic of the Zionists. Till current days, Arab Jews still argue that Zionism came from Europe. Israel was not supposed to take place, the British promised the Zionists a national home and not a nation in the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Zionists were actually desperate, they were cajoled by the Germans and the British, and the Zionists almost opted for the German option, however, due to Germany's alliance to Turkey, the Germans couldn’t deliver their promises. It has to be noted, that the Zionists were a huge minority in Europe. The Communist Jews, the Jewish Socialist Party (Bund), and the Jewish assimilation associations were much more popular. Probably the most famous Jews of that era were Clara Zatkin, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Leon Kamenev. The fact that Jews were leading revolutions throughout Europe placed Weizmann in an awkward position to the extent in a 1919 meeting with Lord Balfour in Paris, his men had to convince Lord Balfour that Lenin's mother was not a Jew, rather Lenin's background was pure Christian.
Nevertheless, once landing in Palestine, the Zionists started their expulsions, purchases of land, and importation of Jews from Europe under the promise of a better world. The British officials were surprised that Palestine "was not empty".
The Zionists nevertheless, using history to justify their 19th century ethnic and segregationist movement, to argue that they are reunite a Diaspora of Jews that dated back 2000 years ago. The irony is that Israel as a nation state didn't last even a century when it was crushed by the Romans. Nevertheless, they regarded themselves as a minority surrounded by Arabs and Islam. The Lebanese Christians, unlike the Palestinian Christians, were regarded differently. While the Palestinian Christians were regarded as enemies, same as the Muslims, the Zionists used history to regard the Lebanese Christians as Phoenicians.
Certain Christians did promote the Phoenician nationality in the area of Lebanon then. Their argument is to give legitimacy for the ideals of independent Lebanon by providing roots that dated back to the pre-Islamic conquests, hence the Phoenician identity. It was first triggered in the 19th century by a certain French sociologist, however, it didn't gain momentum accept when the Christians needed autonomy. There was never a Phoenician state, the Phoenicians were divided into Phoenician city states and kingdoms. Each mini-kingdom had its own policy, such as the colonization of Libya as an escape route for what was happening in the homelands. Probably the only time the Phoenicians fought as a single identity is when they pooled their resources to halt the advancing Assyrians. They were successful the first time militarily.
Several Zionist documents in the early 20th century referred to the Christians as Phoenicians and wanted to revive the over 2200 year old relationship with them. They regarded the Phoenicians as the perfect allies. Since the Lebanese Jews and Zionist Jews were a minority. Probably the first contact between the Zionists and the Lebanese was through the Soursok family, which sold the Jewish Agency Palestinian Lands, even though they didn't own property of them. According to Amin Mustapha's book: History of Resistance in Lebanon, the Zionists even had the proposal to shift the Christians to South in an autonomous region in alliance to Israel, to safeguard their Northern borders.
1930s - 1940s
The most notorious Lebanese back then to have contacts with them was the Lebanese President Emile Edde (Lebanese President from 1936 – 1941), whose offspring Reymond Edde challenged his father's ideas. Emile Edde was known for his Christian hardliner perspective. He was quoted of saying that whoever doesn't like Lebanon, there is always Mecca. In the early half of the 1930s, he sent Weizmann a congratulating letter that it seems he will establish the nation-state he seeks.
Even worse, Emile Edde had plans to carve out Lebanon and give parts of Muslim majority to the Zionists' forthcoming nation. Itimar Rabinovich wrote: "Another School of thought, headed by Emile Edde, was convinced by the 1932 census that the Muslims were about to become the majority in the Lebanese state and that the possibility of France abandoning the Lebanese Christians had to be taken seriously. Edde concluded that it was essential that to 'expedite the territorial reduction of Lebanon in order to enable the latter state to have a more consistent Christian majority.' By 'amputating' Tripoli and Southern Lebanon from the Lebanese state, 'Lebanon will be rid of almost 140,000 Shi'I and Sunni Muslims and will be left with a Christian majority equaling about 80% of its population.' Edde tried to win the support of the French government, which was not unimpressed with his reasoning but which in the end chose to preserve the territorial status quo. Still, Edde did not abandon his idea, and in 1946 he sent an emissary to Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, to attempt to persuade Weizmann to seek the incorporation of southern Lebanon and its predominantly Muslim population into the Jewish national home."
(Picture Above: President Emile Edde)
To confirm the validity of this historical disastrous point in Lebanese history, Itimar Rabinovich's footnote included the following: "In a meeting of the directorate of the Jewish Agency on February 11, 1945, Weizmann, the president of the agency, reported that, "The son of the former president came to me. A Christian under a strong French influence – he came with a proposal ... that he would like to hand over to us, to the national home Tyre and Sidon ... because there are there a hundred thousand Muslims. I responded by saying that my grandfather used to say that he would not receive a 'biting' gift; but he would not relent and said that he will come again" (minutes of the Jewish Agency Directorate General).
(Picture Above: Ben Gurion)
Of course, Israel was announced as an entity in 1948, and Lebanon participated in the mockery of the Arab world sending their soldiers to Israel. Lebanon won its front at Malikieh, and progressed to link up with the Syrian army. However, the Jordanian and Egyptian treason for territorial expansion led to the Israeli Defense Forces to have time to equip their armies and eventually ousting all Arab regions except Ghaza and the West Bank due to Egyptian and Jordanian treason.
It has to be noted, that Lebanon was under the French Mandate from Post WWI till 1943, and the Phoenician Christians didn't represent the entire Christian community. According to Wilson's commission, the majority of the Christians preferred the link-up with Faysal's Kingdom.
To understand the vision of the Israelis to Lebanon in the 1950s, we have to look at Yossi Schwartz's article, who highlighted important aspects on Ben Gurion's perspective and Israeli aims. I hope he will continue to highlight more: "
Two important sources on the Zionist plans for Lebanon are the diary of Moshe Sharett, who was the Prime Minster of Israel in 1954-1955 and who was considered a "soft Zionist", and Livia Rokach's Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary, and other documents. In the latter we find some very interesting information, and it is worth quoting from Sharett's diary at length:
"Then he [Ben Gurion] passed on to another issue. This is the time, he said, to push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State. I said that this was nonsense. The Maronites are divided. The partisans of Christian separatism are weak and will dare do nothing. A Christian Lebanon would mean their giving up Tyre, Tripoli, and the Beka'a. There is no force that could bring Lebanon back to its pre-World War I dimensions, and all the more so because in that case it would lose its economic raison-d'etre. Ben Gurion reacted furiously. He began to enumerate the historical justification for a restricted Christian Lebanon. If such a development were to take place, the Christian Powers would not dare oppose it. I claimed that there was no factor ready to create such a situation, and that if we were to push and encourage it on our own we would get ourselves into an adventure that will place shame on us. Here came a wave of insults regarding my lack of daring and my narrow-mindedness. We ought to send envoys and spend money. I said there was no money. The answer was that there is no such thing. The money must be found, if not in the Treasury then at the Jewish Agency! For such a project it is worthwhile throwing away one hundred thousand, half a million, a million dollars. When this happens a decisive change will take place in the Middle East, a new era will start. I got tired of struggling against a whirlwind. (27 February 1954,)"
The next day David Ben Gurion sent Sharett the following letter:
"To Moshe Sharett the Prime Minister,
Sdeh Boker, February 27, 1954
"Upon my withdrawal from the government I decided in my heart to desist from intervening and expressing my opinion on current political affairs so as not to make things difficult for the government in any way. And if you hadn't called on me, the three of you, yourself, Lavon and Dayan, I would not have, of my own accord, expressed an opinion on what is being done or what ought to be done. But as you called me, I deem it my duty to comply with your wishes, and especially with your own wish as Prime Minister. Therefore, I permit myself to go back to one issue which you did not approve of and discuss it again, and this is the issue of Lebanon.
(Picture Above: Moshe Sharrett)
"It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Muslim, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid block, of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. Also within the wider borders (this was the worst mistake made by France when it extended the borders of Lebanon), the Muslims are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there (and I don't know if they are, indeed, a majority) for fear of the Christians. The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant...
D.B.G. (27 February 1954)"
Sharett responded a few weeks later with the following:
"Mr. David Ben Gurion, March 18, 1954, Sdeh Boker
"As far as I know, in Lebanon today exists no movement aiming at transforming the country into a Christian State governed by the Maronite community...
"This is not surprising. The transformation of Lebanon into a Christian State as a result of an outside initiative is unfeasible today... I don't exclude the possibility of accomplishing this goal in the wake of a wave of shocks that will sweep the Middle East... will destroy the present constellations and will form others. But in the present Lebanon, with its present territorial and demographic dimensions and its international relations, no serious initiative of the kind is imaginable.
"The Christians do not constitute the majority in Lebanon. Nor are they a unified block, politically speaking or community-wise. The Orthodox minority in Lebanon tends to identify with their brethren in Syria. They will not be ready to go to war for a Christian Lebanon, which is for a Lebanon smaller than it is today, and detached from the Arab League. On the contrary, they would probably not be opposed to a Lebanon united to Syria, as this would contribute to strengthening their own community and the Orthodox community throughout the region... In fact, there are more Orthodox Christians in Syria than in Lebanon, and the Orthodox in Syria and Lebanon together are more numerous than the Maronites...
"... There are also decisive economic arguments against it. We are not discussing the issue in 1920/21... but 30 years later. Mount Lebanon has meanwhile integrated into one organic unit with the coastal plane of Tyre and Sidon, the Valley of Baalbeck and the city of Tripoli. They are commercially and economically interdependent and inseparable. Mount Lebanon was not a self-sufficient unit even before World War 1... The annexation of the three regions plus the city of Beirut to the Lebanese State has rendered possible the creation of a balanced economy. A return to the past would not just mean a surgical operation but also a disintegration leading to the end of Lebanon...
"When all this has been said, [I should add that] I would not have objected, and on the contrary I would have certainly been favorable to the idea, of actively aiding any manifestation of agitation in the Maronite community tending to strengthen its isolationist tendencies, even if there were no real chances of achieving the goals; I would have considered positive the very existence of such an agitation and the destabilization it could bring about, the trouble it would have caused the League, the diversion of attention from the Arab-Israeli complications that it would have caused, and the very kindling of a fire made up of impulses toward Christian independence. But what can I do when such an agitation is nonexistent? ... In the present condition, I am afraid that any attempt on our part would be considered as lightheartedness and superficiality or worse-as an adventurous speculation upon the well being and existence of others and a readiness to sacrifice their basic good for the benefit of a temporary tactical advantage for Israel.
"Moreover, if this plan is not kept a secret but becomes known a danger which cannot be underestimated in the Middle Eastern circumstances-the damage which we shall suffer... would not be compensated even by an eventual success of the operation itself...
"M. S. (18 March 1954)"
At that time Ben Gurion did not convince Sharett. The conditions were not ripe for such an attempt. But the idea never went away and remained in the minds of the leading Zionists as an option. The time to put into practice came in 1978 during the civil war when the "Litani Operation" was launched.
Israel was created at a terrible price. The Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, pushed into refugee camps all around the region. Israel thus came into being in an almost permanent state of war against its Arab neighbours. Israel was envisaged as an outpost of western imperialism, a "safe ally" that could police this oil-rich region. For decades it played that role quite successfully. Part of that task involved trying to get at least one "friendly" regime to its north in Lebanon. But this was easier said than done. Because of its delicate ethnic makeup, Lebanon dominated by the Christian elite could never be a stable country. Class conflict would emerge and re-emerge in the form of ethnic conflict due to the lack of a clear working class, socialist leadership that could cut across the ethnic divide.
1960s - 1970s
(Picture Above: Kamal Junblatt)
1960s and 1970s witnessed the Israelis focusing on the destruction of the PLO who started to gain international recognition. The Christians and Israelis had common interests. The Christians considered PLO activities as downsizing the sovereignty of Lebanon, and worse, their own, specially the PLO misconduct gave the Phalange mainly the ability to recruit over 90,000 Christian, whereby such a number is too large for a small country like Lebanon. They were already allocated densely in Lebanon and Jordan. Their warplanes saved the Monarchy and the PLO became cornered in Lebanon. As thousands of PLO warriors moved to Lebanon from Jordan after 1970, Israeli efforts were focused on how to contain the PLO in Lebanon.
(Picture Above: Palestinian Refugee Camp in Jabal Hussein in 1970)
(Picture Above: Refugee Camp in New Amman following Black September in 1970)
The first logic was bomb Lebanon and specially the entire South and blame it on the PLO operations, which actually paid off extensively because the Shiites became wrathful of the Palestinians and stood politically next to the Christian Government. Moussa al Sadre and later Nabih Berri built AMAL movement based on the anti-Palestinian resentments. Kamal Junblatt was critical against Moussa el Sadre's indirect alignment with the Christians despite the fact that Fatah played a role in building that militia. The second logic was how to help the Christians, who were the primary spearheads against the PLO activities. Hence, minor arms were sent to the Phalange/Tigers/Tanzeem via Jounieh port. Most of the weapons that were sent have been Soviet manufactured and captured from the PLO militants in occupied Palestine and Jordan. The smuggling occurred via Cyprus, and in case the weaponries were discovered, the Lebanese National Movement, PLO's allies, or the Palestinians themselves will take the blame and Israel will not be linked to the Christians. The Israelis clearly didn't want direct confrontation in Lebanon, rather, they preferred that the Christians were helped to stand on their own two feet. The first man to establish contacts with the Israelis was head of the most feared militia, the army offshoot leader of al-Tanzeem, Georges Adwan (current member of Parliament).
(Picture Above: Yasser Arafat reacts to applause at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in this Nov. 13, 1974)
Prior to the Lebanese Civil War, Yasser Arafat gave the peace initiative of "Olive Instead of Bullets", whereby he declared that he will be satisfied with rump Palestine, which included the West Bank and Ghazza, the Israelis refused such a peace offering, however, it gave the Palestinian people the status of observant in the UN, which meant half-way recognition of Palestinians internationally. Some question if the Israelis accepted the offer then instead almost 20 years later, would have been there war in Lebanon? Or at least a war to last 17 years?
(Picture Above: Syrians enter Lebanon)
When the Lebanese National Movement and the PLO dominated over 81% of Lebanon in 1975-1976 wars, Israeli interests switched whereby they gave Henry Kissinger the blessing to let the Syrians uproot the PLO from existence. Hence, the Syrians, under the hesitated blessings of Pierre Gemayel, Camille Shamoun, and Suleiman Franjieh, as well as Israel and USA, entered Lebanon. The Israelis still didn't want to be directly involved, because then the Christian militias would lose legitimacy in the Arab World. In 1977, Israel pulled the Litani operation to safeguard its Northern borders.
1980s
(Picture Above: War-Criminal Ariel Sharon)
Bashir Gemayel's Zahli Crisis successfully got the Israelis and Syrians involved. When Israeli planes should down Syrian aerial vehicles, the Palestinians rained in the South missiles on Northern Israel. Hence, Ariel Sharon, then Minister of Defense, wanted to permanently demolish the PLO. The settlement in post-Zahli crisis, stopped everyone from shooting, but kept the PLO growing stronger without any interventions. In 1981, Sharon visited Bashir Gemayel in East Beirut, and had dinner with Pierre Gemayel and Camille Shamoun, with the promise to invade Lebanon since now the Syrians – Lebanese National Movement – PLO forged an undefeatable alliance. The logic for such a move was to uproot the PLO once and for all and block any sovereignty. Sharon's second logic was install a satellite president and impose a peace treaty. Bashir Gemayel already became the most popular Christian since the 100 Days War where the Syrian forces bombed brutally East Beirut for a 100 days.
When the invasion began in 1982, the Israelis failed to demolish the PLO since they were severely allocated in West Beirut. Sharon's plan was to have the Lebanese Forces (then a unity of militias under one banner militarily) enter the street to street fights. Bashir Gemayel, knowing his men's disability to face the cornered PLO and Lebanese National Movement, preferred not to.
(Picture Above: Israel Bombing West Beirut residential areas)
(Picture Above: Times cover in 1982)
Israel's main man was Bashir Gemayel, he suited their plans to be president, whereby Israel will have military benefits, and even joint business markets, Bashir became stubborn under US support. For the Israelis, they always thought that peace with Lebanon will eventually come, but after a stronger country signs peace. Bashir was assassinated. Prior to the assassination; however, Bashir had his undelivered inauguration speech. In it again, Bashir stressed on how Lebanon is an Orientalist nation rather an Arab nation again giving its existance roots to a pre-Islamic era. Furthermore, he didn't regard Lebanon in a state of civil war, rather under Palestinian and Syrian invasion without refering to the Israelis, more like hinting to the Israelis to oust the PLO militant remainders and Syrian forces out. It is worthy to note, that Sharon had a Plan B, which was transferring the PLO and the whole Palestinians to Jordan after assassinating the Jordanian King, hence establish a "New Palestine" for the Palestinians. The US diplomats accused Sharon as an 'asshole'.
(Picture Above: Bashir Gemayel)
While trying to salvage a deal with Amin Gemayel, even the Americans hindered several of their efforts. However, it is known that Sharon tried to pull a deal with Amin Gemayel behind the Americans' backs, through a business merchant called Sami Marun. It was intercepted, and the Americans changed a lot of the items which went to Lebanon's benefits. However, the 17th of May Accord was shot down via Syria, and its allies Junblatt and Berri. Israel's primary concern became on how to pull out from Lebanon since they couldn't tolerate military operations conducted on them.
Their sudden pull-out from Mt. Lebanon, witnessed pro-Lebanese Forces residents demonstrating in front their headquarters over there not to withdraw, but the IDF couldn't tolerate any more casualties. The sudden pull-out from Mt. Lebanon witnessed the bloodiest collisions in Mt. Lebanon between Walid Junblatt and Samir Geagea, which ended up with bloodshed, mostly on Christian areas, and resulted in the biggest sectarian cleansing since Bashir Gemayel's cleansing of East Beirut from Non-Christians. Since then, the Christian leadership lost confidence with the Israelis and felt they were betrayed.
(Picture Above: Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon)
1990s - 2000s
The case of the Northern borders became the priority of Israel, specially Hezbollah arming itself under the Syrian Mandate in Lebanon. They attempted to preserve the 40 Km area in South Lebanon with their puppy army, the South Lebanese Army, but failed. After confrontations in 1993, 1996, the year 2000 they were expelled in Lebanon.
Ehud Barak actually won elections in Israel with the promise of withdrawing from South Lebanon. At first, his government launched "Lebanon First", whereby they sought to seek a peace treaty, the negotiations were shot down because the Lebanese, under Syrian hegemony, demanded that Israel would negotiate with Lebanon and Syria at the same time. When the Israelis initiated "Syria First", the Syrian regime directly hopped the negotiating table. While Hezbollah operations aggravated, the Israelis preferred to preserve their tight grip on the Golan Heights in Syria, and withdrew suddenly from Southern Lebanon, leaving Syria shocked without any means to bargain in 2000.
Post 2005 events
(Picture Above: July War 2006 was more than the IDF soldiers can handle, another contributing factor on Israel's crackdown for Lebanese demands)
After Harriri's assassination in 2005, Israel held high hopes towards Lebanon after Syria was ousted out by internal activism and international pressure. Nevertheless, the participation of their sworn enemies, Hezbollah, in the government meant bad news. The US hoped that the anti-Syrian 14th of March can contain Hezbollah, but to no productive results. At first, some expressed hope when Hezbollah participated in the government that they will become gradually a political party, but they ended up as both: political and militant. Israel, in collaboration with the US, decided to end Hezbollah, with the support several Arab leaders, according to Bolton at Marcel Ghanem's talk show. Their primary lookout was certain Christian Groups, the Druze, and the Sunni Street. When Hezbollah, for different speculated reasons pulled their military operation on July 12, 2006, the war began, and the promise of Olmert was "extermination of Hezbollah". From this perspective, they will proceed bombarding Hezbollah, and hoped that a civil war will break between the 14th of Marchers and Hezbollah. Yet, the Lebanese despite political divisions, united on assisting the refugees throughout Lebanon. Hence their plans that were relatively successful in the late 1960s, and very successful in the 1970s ended up in failure. Yet, Hezbollah emerged even stronger, calling the war "Divine Victory". Their hopes of 14th of March to balance against Hezbollah evaporated when Hezbollah within 72 hours swept Lebanon politically and militantly under their grip. Even worse for the Israelis, the appearance of two powerfully militant parties preserving their trainings since the days of the civil war: AMAL Movement and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. This doesn't mean that 14th of March have been collaborating with Israel, rather, they shared the hatred to Syria in Lebanon. 14th of March also didn't express any need to forge any peace treaty with Israel, specially their mass butchery of the Lebanese, and destructive operation against Lebanon as a whole. Hence, Israel's key component, the undefeatable army, changed their plans and followed an informal disengagement plan. Whereby they successfully were willing to give Hezbollah the remaining prisoners, and a large chunk of martyrs, willing to withdraw from Sheba'a farms, and initiated via Turkey, under US patronage, the withdrawal from the Golan Heights, in order to focus on their internal problems, and probably gain some time to rebuild their army and sort internal problems for future wars.
(Picture Above: Israeli Brutality on Beirut during the July War of 2006)
MFL
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Not the Final Chapter of the July War
I have not been blogging due to personal obligations but intended to return blogging in two months. Now, that a lot of events took place, I have no choice but to write...
Introduction and Cont'd of an Earlier Article
Last year, I wrote extensive analysis in "Lessons from the July War". Now, the main logo of Hezbollah for launching their July War "Operation Honest Promise" was achieved. Israel gave Hezbollah Samir Quntar in return for their two soldiers, who so far, we didn't know what happened to them till the last moment.
In Israel, the primary question was bombarded on Olmert and his allies as follows: "Why did we enter a war if there was going to be a swipe?" Hence, what started Israel's humiliation in 2000, aggravated in 2006, and climaxed in the liberation of Lebanon's national hero, Samir Quntar, a man who symbolized resistance to the Zionists, and resilience to the Zionists' attempts to crush the soul of resistance.
Samir Quntar argued in TV that his 1978 operation, the hostages were shot by Israeli soldiers. While the Israeli media hovered around how their government released him, the whole media of the world forgot how many Lebanese children the Israelis have cold-bloodedly butchered. Of course, whenever the pictures of our massacred children pop up the news, the Israelis rudely accuse the Lebanese as "faking" the picture.
The Israeli media also accused Nasrallah as shrewd, since he considered the liberation of Samir Quntar as a national victory. This was not the first time, when the Lebanese ousted the Israeli Defense Forces and their puppies, the Southern Lebanese Army, from Lebanese soil, Nasrallah argued it was a victory for the resistance, Lebanon, the Muslims, and the entire Arab World. The fact all the Lebanese politicians were there to welcome Quntar and the last Hezbollah soldiers, reflected the dimension of the long awaited victory of Samir Quntar, whom we were raised to hear his name: the man whose will never shook down.
Brief Bolshevik Point
Now for me, as a revolutionary Marxist, we oppose individual acts of operations from the view point that such operations aggravate the unity of the Proletariat across borders, hence our unity as Lebanese Proletariat, with the residents of Occupied Palestine and Israel minus the Arab reactionary leaders and the Zionists. We believe in longer run emancipation tactics which requires more patience while focusing on welfare policies and women empowerment in the short-run. What I would respect about Samir Quntar is what he did inside the Israeli prisons. The man was named "Dean of the Prisoners" not because he is the oldest of prisoners, rather, his activism inside the Israeli prisons. He was the one who organized informal networks inside Israeli prisons across nationalities whereby the prisoners self-educated themselves, resisted Israeli pressure to break the will of the prisoners, and always held their heads high in the face of Zionist brutalities.
Impact of Samir Quntar's release
The release of Samir Quntar was greeted by over a million Lebanese (mainly) citizens, among a small minority of others. Quntar's freedom brought Lebanon to the 1970s nostalgia where dreamers hoped for the crush of Israel and liberation of Palestine whereby the Palestinians can finally and peacefully return to their homes. This nostalgia which witnessed the PLO and other radical factions waging operations against Israel also included the factions of the Lebanese National Front, and the Lebanese Resistance Front (whose three pillars were the SSNP – LCP – Order for Communist Action). Now my personal opinion is known, I oppose the ideological demands of the Lebanese National Movement, while I oppose their tactics, specially going blindly behind the PLO. The higher euphoria, in the words of Jubran Arayji, an SSNP top official to NBN," was the belief in your own platform to be actualized".
While Israel wept, Lebanon celebrated. The Israelis in a pathetic manner tried to show that the Lebanese are barbaric while they are a civilized nation surviving this barbaric world is the fact that the Lebanese danced, celebrated, while Hassan Nasrallah did a sudden appearance in the festivalities to greet his own soldiers and Samir Quntar. Quntar, for a man living 30 years in prisons, always kept his head up and till now he doesn't show his real age, 47. The insistence of Quntar to remain wearing his military suit showed to what extent his will remained unbroken.
Dancing Coffins
The Israelis also were baffled on how the Lebanese and Palestinians welcomed the martyrs' bodies with rice, dancing, and flowers. To this Perez called our traditions as "shameful". The Lebanese and the Palestinians, from years of agony, learnt to welcome their beloved in a "marriage" ceremonial manner. Several Muslim and Christian traditions of funerals included whistling, dancing, clapping, throwing rice, and "dancing the coffin" whereby the people carrying the coffin get the coffin to move up and down which appears dancing. The purpose of such a process is to pay tribute to the deceased. When Samir Qassir was buried, his coffin was dancing amidst flying flowers, wedding singing called "Zalghota" in Arabic, amongst others. When George Hawwi, the ex-stalinist Communist Party leader was assassinated, everyone clapped and danced as the men "danced the coffins". Such traditions are a tribute to the deceased and paying respect. The second significance is to show for the deceased and whoever wanted him/her dead that the people are not weeping, rather they do a wedding instead of a funeral to pay respect because one popular culture includes the belief that the deceased do not want their beloved to cry for them, rather they should celebrate and rejoice. The final reason for such festivities is to prove to the deceased and to recharge amongst them that they are celebrating instead of mourning because the person involved is not dead, rather still alive in their hearts. And that is how the Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians welcomed the deceased martyrs' bodies.
Israel yet again Humiliated
Now for the celebrations of what that ugly Levni proclaimed as shameful welcome of a criminal, the Lebanese are over-joyous in welcoming a hero who made the enemy cry on their knees after killing over 60,000 Lebanese, across the years, displacing over a quarter of citizens (in 2006), and eventually proving how stupid she and her country is. They waged a war on the Lebanese, called it "War on Hezbollah" which included the killing of everyone except Hezbollah in general, such as the red cross, the foreign journalists, the Lebanese Army, and the Police, and even three members of Hezbollah's archenemies: the Lebanese Forces. Hence, that war was everything but a war on Hezbollah. The other dimension is that almost the entire Lebanese citizens across political and sectarian lines in one way or another cooperated to contain the Southern exodus. Even Palestinian camps such as Ain el Hilwi welcomed Lebanese fleeing under bombardment their homes for safety. After all, Israel used the refugee buses as target practice. Shameful and uncivilized. Hence, how can Lebanon not welcome Samir Quntar as a hero, or even as a liberator, who proved to the Lebanese and Palestinians that the Israelis are ineffective to do anything right? He even inspired to others that Israel's days are countable, so many believed that thought, happily to see their Southern racist neighbor drowning in tears, same people whose media forgot to announce how many they killed of children in Palestine and Lebanon, forgot to compare Israel's operation to Palestine in 1948 to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in 1999 to Kosovo. In one of those few occasions Lebanon celebrated in joy and happiness while Tel Aviv drowned in tears.
Israeli reactions to the Lebanese victory were different in several manners. For starters, the Israeli intelligence added Samir Quntar's name to be assassinated next to Nasrallah. After all, Lebanon shouldn't go against the flow of Arab regimes trying to convince that Israel is here to stay. Reactions from normal Israeli citizens within Israeli media demanded that the next war with Lebanon have Beirut leveled down. I have news to them, in the last war, half of it was already leveled down. Finally, to the families of the deceased soldiers, they should expect such operations when they are wearing the military suit.
Israel since the year 2000 has had their victories cut short. All of Israel is in a way trained soldiers because all its citizens should serve the Israeli Defense Forces. Hence such an operation impacted them in 2006 because each citizen thought to himself/herself "It could have been me or my relatives". Well, to them, start changing your racist policies if you want legitimacy within your neighborhoods.
Impacts of Hezbollah and Lebanese Victory
While the entire cabinet of different political parties gathered in the airport , Israel tried to downsize Lebanon's happiness as "Nasrallah has the entire Lebanese as hostages". If that is true, I love Israel's way of dealing with a hostage crisis, burn the entire country to kingdom come (2006).
Hezbollah have been in a winning since 2000. They ousted the Israelis outside Lebanon in 2000 and proclaimed themselves as the descendants of the Resistance front forged by the Lebanese Communist Party and Order for Communist Action, and followed by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. However, the latter three's leaders were marginalized and persecuted by Syria. In the words of one Iranian Diplomat during the July war to Ahmad Fatat, "we the Iranians learnt how to resist from the Christians, such as George Habbash and George Hawwi." Hezbollah by 2004 proved their complete dominance over the Bekaa and South in municipalities elections whereby AMAL movement's influence was downsized. In the end, Syria had to intervene to face-save their allies AMAL. Hence, Hezbollah officially dominated the Shiite sect while AMAL became a relative minority. The defeat of 2006 of Israel on the infantry level reflected how the underdogs caught up with the giants. Israel's army is not indestructible. The assassination of Imad Moghnieh was again a defeat to Israel even if it is not 100% confirmed that they assassinated him. Hezbollah's alliance to the Christian bloc, the Free Patriotic Movement, moved them away from isolation as well as a Shiite sect. Their military power also remained undisputed in Lebanon when they swept Beirut against 14th of March in one evening, while Mt. Lebanon collapsed in two hours. Hence, they got the demands they have been requesting: Red lines on Hezbollah's arms, no Western power can oust Hezbollah out, got the national unity government they needed to veto any governmental decisions that might touch their arms. Finally, to complete Hezbollah's euphoria, they did the impossible and liberated Samir Quntar and left the Israelis feeling canned inside their borders. The timing of Samir Quntar was marked with the 2nd memory of the July war.
The liberation of Samir Quntar was highly valuable for Israel. Their 2006 across borders operation was called "The Honest Promise", which means the promise to liberate Samir Quntar. Olmert and his goons crumbled down at timing more perfect for Hezbollah. For starters, they pulled Lebanon in a euphoria outside the last civil war we had couple of months ago and diverted attention to this blunder operation they did whereby retribution will take a long run form between the Sunnis and Druze and the Shiites. Their and their allies' vulgar behavior "as peaceful" diverted to the liberation of Samir Quntar. Trying to erase the breach in their promise "no weapon shall be turned to the inside of Lebanon", they proved that they are the only force to inflict defeat on Israel and their arms are still needed.
As a matter of fact, the pro-14th of March are trying to pull a symbolic victory by getting Shebaa farms diplomatically. Second, Samir Quntar's allegiance to Hezbollah was also what they needed. After all, Quntar spent his time reading Israeli media, whereas the most hated to them were Hezbollah, hence, they became his favorites, specially they were the ones who liberated him. So, whereas March 14th accused Hezbollah to ignite the July war in 2006 to protect their allies Syria from the International Tribunal, now got their promise actualized and diverted attention that the war was not about Syria's attention. Although, Bashar Assad's hypocritical attitude celebrating the July war as the real victor on the ashes of Lebanon is quiet lame. Sadly, Quntar supported Syria blindly without investigating what has happened during their era. Hopefully he will have much more time to do so to fill the gap.
Now the term resistance became over-charged, Ali Kanso was bragging that the SSNP will not surrender their weapons because it is "Arms for Resistance" although we didn't see a single shot directed on Israel all this time except on other Lebanese. The election of Assad Herdan as SSNP president shows the partial return of the Syrians, and the military urgency that the SSNP are currently living in especially several Ras Beirut zones are still within the newly resurrected SSNP cantons. Hence, Hezbollah's allies are now justified to preserve their weapons while leaving the 14th of Marchers in another security dilemma to rebuild their forces, hence a new showdown coming soon within the next decade.
Now, Hezbollah can behave the Judge and Executioner if things don't go the way they don't like. Simply unleash the AMAL movement goons on those supporters.
More to the point, Hezbollah's victories have an impact on the Arab region and the World as a whole. Most of the Arab regime, dictators like Egypt's Moubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's al-Saud, Qatar's Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, and most recently Iraq's Maliki, among others, are having aftermaths of Hezbollah and Lebanon's victories. While al-Assad, along with Libya and few other Arab nations support War with Israel, the majority don't The mentioned states are satellite regimes for the USA, who established peace with Israel on the account that "Israel is here to stay" and "let us do the best out of it". Hence, they oppressed their people under that logo plus receiving US funds as support. Egypt and Jordan are the second and third most funded governments by the US for signing peace treaties. Such victories, destabilize Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt whereby the oppressed majorities can dream of ousting their tyrants and boycott Israel.
The questions goes: how long Israel plans to distort history, for 1948 has its impact on all Arab worlds, specially Lebanon. How long they plan to remain racists and Zionists, after all Racism and Zionism go hand in hand with each other. The underdogs in a military sense are catching up, once the underdogs know how to shoot down Israeli planes, Israel's very existence is threatened with extermination and the Jewish Proletariat are threatened with another ethnic cleansing as a payback for what their Zionist leaders pushed to do throughout the British mandate. The on-going atrocities do not help on the Palestinians. Furthermore, how long can those US satellite regimes hold on, and haven't they realized the more the Israelis are brutal, the more secular and progressive forces are purged or shoved into Islamic movements, like Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhoods. Finally, Hezbollah's victories sustained the Assad regime to rule for the next decade or two with maximum peace inside his lands and oppress his own people; specially the British themselves declared that Assad is different than Saddam. The reason for this is the fact that the alternative to Assad's regime in Syria would be the three more oppressive, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Last, I hope Nasrallah would live as long as possible, because the scariest of all is the relations of Hezbollah to Ali Khamanei through the Iranian funds and Wilayat el Faqih. If Nasrallah passes away, the option is not a moderate tolerant leader like Hassan Nasrallah, rather the extremist Na'im Qassem who, all Hezbollah's allies on grassroots level from pro-Hezbollah Palestinians, Syrians, Aounis, and even the SSNP, expressed that "all hell would break loose if he takes control."
Unwanted Palestinians
What were most disgusting about 14th of March, the Opposition, Hezbollah, the Lebanese President, and others is their behavior: "Palestinians are not welcomed to stay here" hence the "Liberation".
Finally
With Nasrallah declaring that the war with Israel is an open war, following Moghnieh's assassination, and promising us future wars, paralleled with Israel's nutcases such as Olmert and Perez that new wars are coming up as retributions, a doomed nation like Lebanon has no choice but to wait for the next disaster.
MFL
Introduction and Cont'd of an Earlier Article
Last year, I wrote extensive analysis in "Lessons from the July War". Now, the main logo of Hezbollah for launching their July War "Operation Honest Promise" was achieved. Israel gave Hezbollah Samir Quntar in return for their two soldiers, who so far, we didn't know what happened to them till the last moment.
In Israel, the primary question was bombarded on Olmert and his allies as follows: "Why did we enter a war if there was going to be a swipe?" Hence, what started Israel's humiliation in 2000, aggravated in 2006, and climaxed in the liberation of Lebanon's national hero, Samir Quntar, a man who symbolized resistance to the Zionists, and resilience to the Zionists' attempts to crush the soul of resistance.
Samir Quntar argued in TV that his 1978 operation, the hostages were shot by Israeli soldiers. While the Israeli media hovered around how their government released him, the whole media of the world forgot how many Lebanese children the Israelis have cold-bloodedly butchered. Of course, whenever the pictures of our massacred children pop up the news, the Israelis rudely accuse the Lebanese as "faking" the picture.
The Israeli media also accused Nasrallah as shrewd, since he considered the liberation of Samir Quntar as a national victory. This was not the first time, when the Lebanese ousted the Israeli Defense Forces and their puppies, the Southern Lebanese Army, from Lebanese soil, Nasrallah argued it was a victory for the resistance, Lebanon, the Muslims, and the entire Arab World. The fact all the Lebanese politicians were there to welcome Quntar and the last Hezbollah soldiers, reflected the dimension of the long awaited victory of Samir Quntar, whom we were raised to hear his name: the man whose will never shook down.
Brief Bolshevik Point
Now for me, as a revolutionary Marxist, we oppose individual acts of operations from the view point that such operations aggravate the unity of the Proletariat across borders, hence our unity as Lebanese Proletariat, with the residents of Occupied Palestine and Israel minus the Arab reactionary leaders and the Zionists. We believe in longer run emancipation tactics which requires more patience while focusing on welfare policies and women empowerment in the short-run. What I would respect about Samir Quntar is what he did inside the Israeli prisons. The man was named "Dean of the Prisoners" not because he is the oldest of prisoners, rather, his activism inside the Israeli prisons. He was the one who organized informal networks inside Israeli prisons across nationalities whereby the prisoners self-educated themselves, resisted Israeli pressure to break the will of the prisoners, and always held their heads high in the face of Zionist brutalities.
Impact of Samir Quntar's release
The release of Samir Quntar was greeted by over a million Lebanese (mainly) citizens, among a small minority of others. Quntar's freedom brought Lebanon to the 1970s nostalgia where dreamers hoped for the crush of Israel and liberation of Palestine whereby the Palestinians can finally and peacefully return to their homes. This nostalgia which witnessed the PLO and other radical factions waging operations against Israel also included the factions of the Lebanese National Front, and the Lebanese Resistance Front (whose three pillars were the SSNP – LCP – Order for Communist Action). Now my personal opinion is known, I oppose the ideological demands of the Lebanese National Movement, while I oppose their tactics, specially going blindly behind the PLO. The higher euphoria, in the words of Jubran Arayji, an SSNP top official to NBN," was the belief in your own platform to be actualized".
While Israel wept, Lebanon celebrated. The Israelis in a pathetic manner tried to show that the Lebanese are barbaric while they are a civilized nation surviving this barbaric world is the fact that the Lebanese danced, celebrated, while Hassan Nasrallah did a sudden appearance in the festivalities to greet his own soldiers and Samir Quntar. Quntar, for a man living 30 years in prisons, always kept his head up and till now he doesn't show his real age, 47. The insistence of Quntar to remain wearing his military suit showed to what extent his will remained unbroken.
Dancing Coffins
The Israelis also were baffled on how the Lebanese and Palestinians welcomed the martyrs' bodies with rice, dancing, and flowers. To this Perez called our traditions as "shameful". The Lebanese and the Palestinians, from years of agony, learnt to welcome their beloved in a "marriage" ceremonial manner. Several Muslim and Christian traditions of funerals included whistling, dancing, clapping, throwing rice, and "dancing the coffin" whereby the people carrying the coffin get the coffin to move up and down which appears dancing. The purpose of such a process is to pay tribute to the deceased. When Samir Qassir was buried, his coffin was dancing amidst flying flowers, wedding singing called "Zalghota" in Arabic, amongst others. When George Hawwi, the ex-stalinist Communist Party leader was assassinated, everyone clapped and danced as the men "danced the coffins". Such traditions are a tribute to the deceased and paying respect. The second significance is to show for the deceased and whoever wanted him/her dead that the people are not weeping, rather they do a wedding instead of a funeral to pay respect because one popular culture includes the belief that the deceased do not want their beloved to cry for them, rather they should celebrate and rejoice. The final reason for such festivities is to prove to the deceased and to recharge amongst them that they are celebrating instead of mourning because the person involved is not dead, rather still alive in their hearts. And that is how the Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians welcomed the deceased martyrs' bodies.
Israel yet again Humiliated
Now for the celebrations of what that ugly Levni proclaimed as shameful welcome of a criminal, the Lebanese are over-joyous in welcoming a hero who made the enemy cry on their knees after killing over 60,000 Lebanese, across the years, displacing over a quarter of citizens (in 2006), and eventually proving how stupid she and her country is. They waged a war on the Lebanese, called it "War on Hezbollah" which included the killing of everyone except Hezbollah in general, such as the red cross, the foreign journalists, the Lebanese Army, and the Police, and even three members of Hezbollah's archenemies: the Lebanese Forces. Hence, that war was everything but a war on Hezbollah. The other dimension is that almost the entire Lebanese citizens across political and sectarian lines in one way or another cooperated to contain the Southern exodus. Even Palestinian camps such as Ain el Hilwi welcomed Lebanese fleeing under bombardment their homes for safety. After all, Israel used the refugee buses as target practice. Shameful and uncivilized. Hence, how can Lebanon not welcome Samir Quntar as a hero, or even as a liberator, who proved to the Lebanese and Palestinians that the Israelis are ineffective to do anything right? He even inspired to others that Israel's days are countable, so many believed that thought, happily to see their Southern racist neighbor drowning in tears, same people whose media forgot to announce how many they killed of children in Palestine and Lebanon, forgot to compare Israel's operation to Palestine in 1948 to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in 1999 to Kosovo. In one of those few occasions Lebanon celebrated in joy and happiness while Tel Aviv drowned in tears.
Israeli reactions to the Lebanese victory were different in several manners. For starters, the Israeli intelligence added Samir Quntar's name to be assassinated next to Nasrallah. After all, Lebanon shouldn't go against the flow of Arab regimes trying to convince that Israel is here to stay. Reactions from normal Israeli citizens within Israeli media demanded that the next war with Lebanon have Beirut leveled down. I have news to them, in the last war, half of it was already leveled down. Finally, to the families of the deceased soldiers, they should expect such operations when they are wearing the military suit.
Israel since the year 2000 has had their victories cut short. All of Israel is in a way trained soldiers because all its citizens should serve the Israeli Defense Forces. Hence such an operation impacted them in 2006 because each citizen thought to himself/herself "It could have been me or my relatives". Well, to them, start changing your racist policies if you want legitimacy within your neighborhoods.
Impacts of Hezbollah and Lebanese Victory
While the entire cabinet of different political parties gathered in the airport , Israel tried to downsize Lebanon's happiness as "Nasrallah has the entire Lebanese as hostages". If that is true, I love Israel's way of dealing with a hostage crisis, burn the entire country to kingdom come (2006).
Hezbollah have been in a winning since 2000. They ousted the Israelis outside Lebanon in 2000 and proclaimed themselves as the descendants of the Resistance front forged by the Lebanese Communist Party and Order for Communist Action, and followed by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. However, the latter three's leaders were marginalized and persecuted by Syria. In the words of one Iranian Diplomat during the July war to Ahmad Fatat, "we the Iranians learnt how to resist from the Christians, such as George Habbash and George Hawwi." Hezbollah by 2004 proved their complete dominance over the Bekaa and South in municipalities elections whereby AMAL movement's influence was downsized. In the end, Syria had to intervene to face-save their allies AMAL. Hence, Hezbollah officially dominated the Shiite sect while AMAL became a relative minority. The defeat of 2006 of Israel on the infantry level reflected how the underdogs caught up with the giants. Israel's army is not indestructible. The assassination of Imad Moghnieh was again a defeat to Israel even if it is not 100% confirmed that they assassinated him. Hezbollah's alliance to the Christian bloc, the Free Patriotic Movement, moved them away from isolation as well as a Shiite sect. Their military power also remained undisputed in Lebanon when they swept Beirut against 14th of March in one evening, while Mt. Lebanon collapsed in two hours. Hence, they got the demands they have been requesting: Red lines on Hezbollah's arms, no Western power can oust Hezbollah out, got the national unity government they needed to veto any governmental decisions that might touch their arms. Finally, to complete Hezbollah's euphoria, they did the impossible and liberated Samir Quntar and left the Israelis feeling canned inside their borders. The timing of Samir Quntar was marked with the 2nd memory of the July war.
The liberation of Samir Quntar was highly valuable for Israel. Their 2006 across borders operation was called "The Honest Promise", which means the promise to liberate Samir Quntar. Olmert and his goons crumbled down at timing more perfect for Hezbollah. For starters, they pulled Lebanon in a euphoria outside the last civil war we had couple of months ago and diverted attention to this blunder operation they did whereby retribution will take a long run form between the Sunnis and Druze and the Shiites. Their and their allies' vulgar behavior "as peaceful" diverted to the liberation of Samir Quntar. Trying to erase the breach in their promise "no weapon shall be turned to the inside of Lebanon", they proved that they are the only force to inflict defeat on Israel and their arms are still needed.
As a matter of fact, the pro-14th of March are trying to pull a symbolic victory by getting Shebaa farms diplomatically. Second, Samir Quntar's allegiance to Hezbollah was also what they needed. After all, Quntar spent his time reading Israeli media, whereas the most hated to them were Hezbollah, hence, they became his favorites, specially they were the ones who liberated him. So, whereas March 14th accused Hezbollah to ignite the July war in 2006 to protect their allies Syria from the International Tribunal, now got their promise actualized and diverted attention that the war was not about Syria's attention. Although, Bashar Assad's hypocritical attitude celebrating the July war as the real victor on the ashes of Lebanon is quiet lame. Sadly, Quntar supported Syria blindly without investigating what has happened during their era. Hopefully he will have much more time to do so to fill the gap.
Now the term resistance became over-charged, Ali Kanso was bragging that the SSNP will not surrender their weapons because it is "Arms for Resistance" although we didn't see a single shot directed on Israel all this time except on other Lebanese. The election of Assad Herdan as SSNP president shows the partial return of the Syrians, and the military urgency that the SSNP are currently living in especially several Ras Beirut zones are still within the newly resurrected SSNP cantons. Hence, Hezbollah's allies are now justified to preserve their weapons while leaving the 14th of Marchers in another security dilemma to rebuild their forces, hence a new showdown coming soon within the next decade.
Now, Hezbollah can behave the Judge and Executioner if things don't go the way they don't like. Simply unleash the AMAL movement goons on those supporters.
More to the point, Hezbollah's victories have an impact on the Arab region and the World as a whole. Most of the Arab regime, dictators like Egypt's Moubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's al-Saud, Qatar's Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, and most recently Iraq's Maliki, among others, are having aftermaths of Hezbollah and Lebanon's victories. While al-Assad, along with Libya and few other Arab nations support War with Israel, the majority don't The mentioned states are satellite regimes for the USA, who established peace with Israel on the account that "Israel is here to stay" and "let us do the best out of it". Hence, they oppressed their people under that logo plus receiving US funds as support. Egypt and Jordan are the second and third most funded governments by the US for signing peace treaties. Such victories, destabilize Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt whereby the oppressed majorities can dream of ousting their tyrants and boycott Israel.
The questions goes: how long Israel plans to distort history, for 1948 has its impact on all Arab worlds, specially Lebanon. How long they plan to remain racists and Zionists, after all Racism and Zionism go hand in hand with each other. The underdogs in a military sense are catching up, once the underdogs know how to shoot down Israeli planes, Israel's very existence is threatened with extermination and the Jewish Proletariat are threatened with another ethnic cleansing as a payback for what their Zionist leaders pushed to do throughout the British mandate. The on-going atrocities do not help on the Palestinians. Furthermore, how long can those US satellite regimes hold on, and haven't they realized the more the Israelis are brutal, the more secular and progressive forces are purged or shoved into Islamic movements, like Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhoods. Finally, Hezbollah's victories sustained the Assad regime to rule for the next decade or two with maximum peace inside his lands and oppress his own people; specially the British themselves declared that Assad is different than Saddam. The reason for this is the fact that the alternative to Assad's regime in Syria would be the three more oppressive, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Last, I hope Nasrallah would live as long as possible, because the scariest of all is the relations of Hezbollah to Ali Khamanei through the Iranian funds and Wilayat el Faqih. If Nasrallah passes away, the option is not a moderate tolerant leader like Hassan Nasrallah, rather the extremist Na'im Qassem who, all Hezbollah's allies on grassroots level from pro-Hezbollah Palestinians, Syrians, Aounis, and even the SSNP, expressed that "all hell would break loose if he takes control."
Unwanted Palestinians
What were most disgusting about 14th of March, the Opposition, Hezbollah, the Lebanese President, and others is their behavior: "Palestinians are not welcomed to stay here" hence the "Liberation".
Finally
With Nasrallah declaring that the war with Israel is an open war, following Moghnieh's assassination, and promising us future wars, paralleled with Israel's nutcases such as Olmert and Perez that new wars are coming up as retributions, a doomed nation like Lebanon has no choice but to wait for the next disaster.
MFL
Monday, June 09, 2008
Iran, Wilayat el Faqih, and Historical Facts
Introduction
A lot of the Shiites never heard of this theory, the Wilayat el Faqih theory, championed by a man who have this famous quote: "There is no fun in Islam!", Mr. Ayatollah Khomeini. I have been studying this dimension for three years. Personally I hate it for different reasons. I remember one person from the LCP and two others from the SSNP telling me: "If Nasrallah supports it, then it is our pride". It saddens me how these two forgot the magic formula of the 1980s while the seculars resisted Israel: AMAL butchered Communists, Hezbollah butchered SSNP. Someone would tell me Hezbollah of the 1980s are different after Nasrallah. Well let us investigate it BRIEFLY, and I repeat this post is briefly written on the topic.
The summary of the Wilayat el Faqih is as follows:
With the early Islamic Expansions, the Sunnis dominated politically. The Shiites kept a low profile and they followed as what is called in th medieval times: "The Quietest Movements". The base of the theory rotates around the Theory of 12 Imams in the Shiites. The first Imam is of course, Imam Ali, what you would call as the Imam el Ma'soum, as the know it all. One man who was offensive on that theory was the man who paved way for the term "Who ever thought, committed Heresy", Ibn Ghazali under the hypothesis that the Prophet Mohammad came to the world, gave the complete theory and practice of Islam, and departed the world henceforth, there is no need for this Imam Ma'asoum.
Now the Wilayat el Faqih goes as follows: with the sudden disappearance of the 12th Imam, Imam el Mehdi el Montazar, Islamic theology of the Quietists argued that the Mehdi shall appear again, and most probably when Judgment Day appears. However, with the absence of the Imam, there is the need for a Wali el Faqih, or as the translation goes: Governor of the Jurisprudence. This theory was evolved and upgraded by Khomeini, and was of making Khomeini in post-revolutionary years as "the supreme leader". Guess who self-proclaimed himself as the Wali, Khomeini himself.
Now, I won't deny the Islamists didn’t play a role in the Iranian revolution, but I will not say to the extent as a lot of people try to depict it. I shall dedicate a nice post on that in the near (hopefully) future. For Starters, there were three players in Iran. The Shah mismanaged Iran drastically, and his ties with Israel/USA weren’t making him popular. Second, Mohammad Pahlavi didn't notice that when the Islamists failed to oust his father, Reza Shah, they were quiet. Reza Shah was more like the man who gave the command to the army "tear every veil you see", and forced women by this to hide at home. In any case, the big revolution exploded due to poverty, and the three parties were: the Communists – the Mujahidean (Islamists with a less extremism) – Wilayat el Faqih. Women who didn't wear the veil even wore it in solidarity of all revolutionaries against the Shah. The Communists took the lead and were successful to establish 9 Soviets throughout Iran. More to the point, Stalinist Moscow forced them to side with Khomeini since he too opposed the US (dubbing them as the white devil). Eventually, and not to dwell on details, Khomeini demolished all rivals as he installed himself as the "Supreme Leader of the Revolution", the position of the 20th Century Wali el Faqih, despite the fact there is an almost dead council.
Wali el Faqih in theory should be well-informed in the Koran, theology, and Islam as a whole. The second dimension of Wali el Faqih, that he should be the source of Emulation. The theory of Emulation itself is interesting. In medieval Islam (if you read Ibn Tufayl whose story explains it clearly), the person who got closest to God is the wisest. While European medieval theologians (like St. Augustine, St. Simonides, St. Acquinas, St. Damasenes...others) borrowed the logic from Aristotle: the more you get closer to God, the more you are wiser, hence this implies the following formula =
God = Ultimate Truth = Ultimate Wisdom = Ultimate Happiness
The theologians then added of course faith, and some tried to make Aristotle a Christian, and hence (as appearing in Dante's Purgatory), reason stops at a point, faith continues to guide the person to the ultimate truth. In Islam, the theory remained the same, but some theologians and thinkers added a touch of Emulation. A person has to emulate God to reach God. The Wali el Faqih is actually the source of emulation. This is where Khomeini became a tri-partite power source:
1) Source of Emulation
2) Ultimate Knowledge and Closest to the Truth
(hence the first two points make him the supreme leader of the revolution)
3) Leader beyond borders to lead the Revolution anywhere in the world
Now after Khomeini butchered in his last days over 21,000 Mujahid, he passed away. Khomeini, brutally oppressed all progressive powers, ruined all talents, and he stuck to his famous quote (and damaging Islam): "There is no fun in Islam". All Western features in Iran were taken out under his reign. You will never see a politician or citizen from Iran wearing "the tie", or a woman able to walk without having to worry about the threat of the Basij (Militant Youth of the Wali) or Ansar Hezbollah (not to be mistaken with the Lebanese Hezbollah) who are Ali Khamenei's hooligans, or as one author described them: "Angry Bearded Men on Motorcycles with Ak-47s". Dancing and Clapping are forbidden in Iran, even with the iron grip loosened up after Khatami's elections, it is forbidden. The Iranian theater suffered drastically (after all during the late 1970s, they were targeted most by Khomeini's followers) and massive censorships. You will notice by the late 1990s, the directors had to improvise new forms of Cinema directing and script writing. Finally, nothing takes place in Iran without the consent of the Wali's council, who elect the Wali himself for a lifetime, the Guardian Council.
So it is true that Iran has a quasi – democratic system. Yet let us take a deeper look on that quasi-democratic system. The Iranians vote for their municipalities, constituencies, and their president. Yet, everything has to pass by the Guardian Council. The Candidates have to be decided that they fit to be Muslim enough to pass. Even Parliamentary decisions have to pass by the Guardian Council, which pushed the reformist leader himself, President Khatami, to pass a bill by the Parliament that the Guardian Council doesn’t intervene in political life. Of course, Khatami was repaid with Ansar Hezbollah and Basij beating the hell out of his supporters.
To bring back to life something I wrote (but a paper I wrote 3 years back, and I wish the footnotes can appear as they did at Word)
The Iranian Revolution: Hegemony and Survival
The political framework has to be understood within Iran in order to understand the social framework whereby movements function within in the disappearance of solid Political Parties. Without understanding the hegemony of Ali Khamenei and his allies, from a religious, dogmatic, and political perspective, the framework of the social movements and social life in general cannot be tackled. Despite the fact that Iran has a parliament and presidential elections, the President of the republic is rather weak and cannot pass any legislative reform without the satisfaction of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since he can veto anything through the constitutional systems.
Supremacy of the Clerical Elites
When the 1979 revolution was over, the most powerful figure was Ayatollah Rouhallah Khomeini. He demolished anything that can be considered as Western whether from Legislative or Social perspective. The authority went directly to the Elite Clerics (el-Foqaha), and assigned them supremacy on the basis that the nation is ruled by those who understand God most. Hence, they interpret God’s law and rely on jurisprudence as an alternate means to Parliamentary votes. He also assigned the Guardian Council which is composed of 12 clerics who can over-rule any parliamentary decisions and are allowed to intervene in the President’s political affairs directly.
The Wali el-Faqih
The Guardianship Council is given the title of “Welayat-e Faqih” while its leader is considered the Wali, Guardian, and Supreme Leader of the revolution. Khomeini was the first Supreme Leader and he even reversed several decisions taken by Guardian Council and the Parliament. The Wali’s term is a life long period, the moment the candidate is elected by the Assembly of Experts as Wali, his mandate lasts as long as he is alive. The Experts have a sole performance which is to elect the Leader and do periodical reviews on the Leader. They are the sole authority to take away the Leader’s mandate.
The Wali el Faqih’s concept, which was advocated by Ayatollah Khomeini, is a hybrid mix of Islam and Modernity. In the Shiite ideology, there is a need for a source of emulation in the absence of the twelfth Imam in order to understand his will. Khomeini made the theory modern by integrating it within the Iranian Constitution.
The current Wali is Ali Khamenei, who was elected on the basis of having religious credentials and is supposed to be a “modern Leader” to act on the basis what the society required; however, he was no religious source of emulation. The clerics who attained such a status were the quietist clerics who focused on understanding the “Shari’a” and always attacked the Waliyat el Faqih concept. Ali Khamenei, like his predecessor Khomeini, attacked the quietest clerics for focusing on the details of the society rather the overall situation. Khamanei’s overall situation started rather unstable as the constitution was amended in 1989 which spared the Supreme Leader to be a source of emulation and after Khomeini’s close friend and designated successor as a Leader resigned (Ayatollah Montazari), henceforth Khamanei became the Leader. This information is important in order to understand the Islamic moderate clerics’ opposition in the mid-1990s, activists who will try to establish a better freedom and are willing to take the risk to contradict loudly anti-Supreme Leadership slogans.
What keeps Ali Khamenei’s on going mandate in the face of a political coup d’etat from within is his direct control of the Revolutionary Guards, his ability to intervene in any decisions within the government or parliament, and even decide the overall nation’s policy. He also got the non-governmental hooligans of the Ansar-e Hezbollah movement to support the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij, who are composed of youth military volunteers in allegiance to the Wali. Such abuse of power would determine the different strategies of the social movements, specially after the election of the advocates of democracy in the face of the Supreme Leader.
Khamenei’s Ground Forces
Khamenei’s role as the Supreme Leader was supposed to be the judge when disputes rise in the Parliament, called the Majles, but always ended up siding with the Conservative Hard-liners. His three primary ground forces are the official Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, and Ansar-e Hezbollah.
The Ansar-e Hezbollah are not to be mistaken with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, even though its leader believes in the Wali el Faqih. Ansar-e Hizbollah are usually present to attack any student or journalist activism and rid the accusation towards the government. They have been extensively involved in putting down the students’ reprisal in 1999, and several units were armed with automatic rifles. They are used to counter any demonstration or ruin it if it is directed away from the “Islamic Iran”. The Ansar-e Hezbollah do not dress any Western Clothes and they are made mainly of youth. They, on several occasions, have beaten up girls, couples, or western dressed like guys without being held accountable. The sponsor of Ansar-e Hezbollah is the Guardian Council spokesman himself, Ayatollah Jannati.
The Basij are youth volunteers in the service of the Islamic Republic of Iran and are also support to the revolutionary guards. Their allegiance is to Imam Khomeini and to the current Wali Faqih, Ali Khamenei. One Basiji member told an author of a book : “We will continue the path of our imam [Ayatollah Khomeini]. We will not let the West’s cultural onslaught take over and dilute our Islamic principles.” They are deployed extensively to scatter the youth with open gunshots to the air or engage in arrests when the crowds to do not move. The Ansar-e Hezbollah would come to their aid in case the gatherings or demonstrations are not controlled.
The Revolutionary Guard were established in 1979 with the sole purpose of protecting the Islamic revolution inland and exporting it outside Iran. They and the Law Enforcement Forces, have been involved in subduing possible de-stabilizing factors in Iran’s social or political life. They have the authority to interrogate anyone they want, arrest anyone under the “Moral Law Enforcement” and even beat up detainees. One academic observant was arrested for simply spending time with his female friend in a park, slapped couple of times and eventually detained for a night. It is also reported that bureaucratic corruption at the police station is intolerable to the extent some people prefer not to file a complaint of a robbery instead of being humiliated.
Against The Great West and Reform
When Khomeini took power in Iran and his faction overcame all rivalry parties, the 1980s can be identified with the gradual elimination of Western ideas. The Shah dynasty was symbolic against the West’s “Satanic” ideas and the elimination of all symbols of the west was necessary. Streets that carried names of the Shah or Western titles were transformed into Islamic names. For example, Shah Street and Shah Reza Street were renamed Islamic Republic Street and Revolution Street respectively. Any movements or parties that were secular were arrested, such as the arrest of the Communist Tudeh Party leader, Noureddin Kianouri, in 1983 as well as 1000 others of his comrades.
The media was in no better situation. Satellites were banned in 1994 since they contain Western poisoned ideas and Khamenei’s newspaper, Kayhan, waged an offensive on ex-President Rafsanjani’s brother, then director-general of Iranian broadcasting, while mobs of Ansar-e Hezbollah demonstrated in front of the TV stations. Films, such as Baywatch, Neighbors, and even Cartoons as far as Tin Tin, were all part of the “West’s scheme to invade culturally Iran”. The hardliners were optimistic that local media can replace the ill-intentioned Western Media. Even commercials, which are assumed to be symbols of Western Greed, were even banned after the revolution. Newspapers, magazines, TV programs about earthly love and materialism are always censored or banned. Any newspaper that would advocate social change or even attempt to discuss process of reforms were also closed through the accusation of “Westoxification”, even if they belonged to the close friends of Khatami when he was president. Poets or academics were also imprisoned or assassinated if they spoke of overall freedom/democracy or attacked by the clerics on Friday Sermons.
Now this is what you get from a Wali el Faqih :
Every time he nominated someone, that someone lost. Probably elections were the pacifist tool. When Ali Khamenei nominated Nateq Nouri in face of Khatami , Khatami swept with the majority of votes, special thanks to the votes of the women, student movements, and intellects. When Ali Khamenei nominated Rafsanjani, he lost to Ahmadinejad. Probably now the only way to express solid dislike to Khamanei is to outvote his candidate.
What Hezbollah do not tell you about Iran is as follows:
1) Iran witnessed its official mass demonstration when Iran defeated USA in Football, while Hezbollah supporters in 1998 were celebrating by shooting in the air, Tehran witnessed women in a massive way taking out the veil, demonstrations, dancing in the streets and a lot of clapping. As a matter of fact, when the Basij came to intervene, the demonstrators clapped to them and sang: "Basij must dance!"
2) Ayatollah Yezdi called those who voted Khatami as "20,000,000 punks voted for Khatami" which ignited what also Hezbollah do not tell you in Lebanon, the students' revolution. Of course, Ansar Hezbollah over there are unleashed to beat the hell out of the Reformist supporters. Khamenei called them: "the mysterious hand of God.
3) Over a 100 Newspaper and Media was closed in the year 2000 alone
4) The Man who was supposed to be the next Wali el Faqih was Ayatollah el Muntazari, a man who called for the empowerment of women, get the Wali elected by the people for a periodic time, separate powers in Iran, and open Iran to the world. He was overruled when the Guardian Council amended the council to oust him out as the next heir under the accusation that he betrayed Khomeini when he objected to the execution of the over 20,000 mujahid.
5) Iran is democratic? Not... The Council bars out anyone they want (including Khatami's brother) which actually in the recent years so the decline of the reformists because they refused to confront the Supreme Leader directly and went on a very slow pace of reforming, hence between barring out several candidates, growing political apathy, and extortion (yes we haven’t forgot the purges of the intellects in post-1999 events).
6) Khamanei has total control of the Revolutionary Guards, the police, the courts, the barring of parliament/presidential candidates (as not Muslim enough), the Ministry of Interior, the Secret Service, and practically the capability to terrorize anyone who opposes him.
7) To the 14th of Marchers, Iran witnessed a gigantic revolution in Tehran triggered by the brutality of the Ansar-Hezbollah when they beaten students in their dormitory, and Tehran was closed down for three days. Khatami was given the choice of revolution/civil war or obedience, he chose the latter. The students till this very day remain the most powerful source of anti-Khamenei (whom he dubs as US puppets).
8) Khamenei's other rival to the Wilayat el Faqih was IRONICALLY Lebanon's Sheikh Fadlallah. He was the first to oppose Khomeini that Lebanon can never be an Islamic republic. Khomeini hated him; however, he is the source of emulation. This made him in defecto the second rival to the Wilayat el Faqih after el Muntazari (who remained under house arrest). Ironically, Sheikh Fadlallah's views affected Lebanon's Hezbollah, but Khamenei never forgave him for being that rival. It appeared clearly when Khatami visited Lebanon, and visited almost all Shiite figures except Sheikh Fadlallah. The biggest Irony is when Israel attempted to bomb Sheikh Fadlallah during the July War, the only real obstacle between Khamenei and Hezbollah.
9) Iran has barred out every woman nominating herself for presidency, and of course the Basij or the Ansar were sent to arrest her.
10) Despite satellite bans and internet bans, Iran was successful through its pirated satellites. Actually, if Iran was so "wonderful", why the green card lottery online was so popular that businesses opened up in 2005 to get as many people to sign up for that.
11) Women may have received a better form of rights than the 1980s, however, things are still reversible. A lot of court issues were given on women to be executed for doing what we in a liberal form of countries take for granted: enjoy life. Now behind the scenes and underground life, things may be a better way to loosen up, but still... it is a sexist law.
12) When the moderate Sheikh el Mussawi was assassinated, Sheikh Tufayli lusted power again as the General Secretary. Tehran intervened to block his return and favored his number 1 disciple, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Actually, Khomeini himself read some writings for Hassan Nasrallah when he was in his youth years and predicted that he will play a glorious part in Hezbollah's history and recommended that this person should be well preserved. Now the purpose I am mentioning that part is because again, out of the blues, we have no gurantees when Tehran will intervene again, and who knows, probably Sheikh Na'em Qassem would return. As a matter of fact, AMAL supporters, another Shiite group, themselves dread the moment Sheikh Na'em Qassem takes over because he is famous for his hardlining policies.
Now Nasrallah was quoted several times saying that the strength of Hezbollah emerges from Wilayat el Faqih. It is true, the supreme "living" leader of Hezbollah is Wali el Faqih, who comes after the disappeared Imam, outranked by Imam Ali, Prophet Mohammad, and eventually God. To Hassan Nasrallah, I opposed your party, and everything else. By all means I oppose Wilayat el Faqih, specially in the memory of our fallen comrades who sacrificed their lives to make Iran a better life, and got executed for their progressive beliefs. I consider myself lucky to be in Lebanon because what I as a teenager in a post-war era I had a way of life, a lot in Iran would have to fight for it. One revolutionary guard arrested a woman in 1993 and beat her because she was dancing "naked" in a "WOMAN'S BEACH"; when the reporter asked how "naked", he said she was wearing a top and jeans, without the veil!! To all those women who suffered in the past. To all our comrades in Iran and abroad fighting the Wilayat el Faqih, to our fellow student movements who are beaten till this very day, and to the stupidity and blindness of the people in the last appearance of Nasrallah when they cheered for him when Nasrallah expressed his pride in Wilayat el Faqih. Let them know what to expect, even pro-AMAL movement Beydoun recently nicely said: "not all the Shiites endorse that theory". However it is not a theory, it is a practice, and oppressive! Hezbollah may have liberated the South, and may defeated (at least on the infantry level) the Israelis, but excuse me, as a Marxist, I say NO TO YOUR Wilayat el Faqih! No to the Opium of the Masses! And No to anyone who promotes Wilayat el Faqih.
I would like to say, I tracked the Wilayat el Faqih liasson with Hezbollah for four fours, long before Junblatt used it as a campaign. I didn't change my opinion for almost a decade, I oppose all political parties and still do. A lot accused me I am an Opposition supporter, well here was my answer. Let us see how interesting to be accused of 14th of March sympathy. Even more, the fact Hezbollah changed their policies and aimed their weaponry to the inside, that makes me fear even more the Liasson. Hezbollah should provide better proofs about their intentions, their renewed promise!
Having expressed a long post pending (and I wish I can upload fully what I wrote on the topic; however, it is 32 pages long, with the reference to over 41 books).
No War but Class War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MFL
PS: There are few trusted comrades that I trust, I urge them not to open this blog in a nearby place, and also won't recommend anyone to read this article because it might get them in trouble. I prefer to be 100% secure!
A lot of the Shiites never heard of this theory, the Wilayat el Faqih theory, championed by a man who have this famous quote: "There is no fun in Islam!", Mr. Ayatollah Khomeini. I have been studying this dimension for three years. Personally I hate it for different reasons. I remember one person from the LCP and two others from the SSNP telling me: "If Nasrallah supports it, then it is our pride". It saddens me how these two forgot the magic formula of the 1980s while the seculars resisted Israel: AMAL butchered Communists, Hezbollah butchered SSNP. Someone would tell me Hezbollah of the 1980s are different after Nasrallah. Well let us investigate it BRIEFLY, and I repeat this post is briefly written on the topic.
The summary of the Wilayat el Faqih is as follows:
With the early Islamic Expansions, the Sunnis dominated politically. The Shiites kept a low profile and they followed as what is called in th medieval times: "The Quietest Movements". The base of the theory rotates around the Theory of 12 Imams in the Shiites. The first Imam is of course, Imam Ali, what you would call as the Imam el Ma'soum, as the know it all. One man who was offensive on that theory was the man who paved way for the term "Who ever thought, committed Heresy", Ibn Ghazali under the hypothesis that the Prophet Mohammad came to the world, gave the complete theory and practice of Islam, and departed the world henceforth, there is no need for this Imam Ma'asoum.
Now the Wilayat el Faqih goes as follows: with the sudden disappearance of the 12th Imam, Imam el Mehdi el Montazar, Islamic theology of the Quietists argued that the Mehdi shall appear again, and most probably when Judgment Day appears. However, with the absence of the Imam, there is the need for a Wali el Faqih, or as the translation goes: Governor of the Jurisprudence. This theory was evolved and upgraded by Khomeini, and was of making Khomeini in post-revolutionary years as "the supreme leader". Guess who self-proclaimed himself as the Wali, Khomeini himself.
Now, I won't deny the Islamists didn’t play a role in the Iranian revolution, but I will not say to the extent as a lot of people try to depict it. I shall dedicate a nice post on that in the near (hopefully) future. For Starters, there were three players in Iran. The Shah mismanaged Iran drastically, and his ties with Israel/USA weren’t making him popular. Second, Mohammad Pahlavi didn't notice that when the Islamists failed to oust his father, Reza Shah, they were quiet. Reza Shah was more like the man who gave the command to the army "tear every veil you see", and forced women by this to hide at home. In any case, the big revolution exploded due to poverty, and the three parties were: the Communists – the Mujahidean (Islamists with a less extremism) – Wilayat el Faqih. Women who didn't wear the veil even wore it in solidarity of all revolutionaries against the Shah. The Communists took the lead and were successful to establish 9 Soviets throughout Iran. More to the point, Stalinist Moscow forced them to side with Khomeini since he too opposed the US (dubbing them as the white devil). Eventually, and not to dwell on details, Khomeini demolished all rivals as he installed himself as the "Supreme Leader of the Revolution", the position of the 20th Century Wali el Faqih, despite the fact there is an almost dead council.
Wali el Faqih in theory should be well-informed in the Koran, theology, and Islam as a whole. The second dimension of Wali el Faqih, that he should be the source of Emulation. The theory of Emulation itself is interesting. In medieval Islam (if you read Ibn Tufayl whose story explains it clearly), the person who got closest to God is the wisest. While European medieval theologians (like St. Augustine, St. Simonides, St. Acquinas, St. Damasenes...others) borrowed the logic from Aristotle: the more you get closer to God, the more you are wiser, hence this implies the following formula =
God = Ultimate Truth = Ultimate Wisdom = Ultimate Happiness
The theologians then added of course faith, and some tried to make Aristotle a Christian, and hence (as appearing in Dante's Purgatory), reason stops at a point, faith continues to guide the person to the ultimate truth. In Islam, the theory remained the same, but some theologians and thinkers added a touch of Emulation. A person has to emulate God to reach God. The Wali el Faqih is actually the source of emulation. This is where Khomeini became a tri-partite power source:
1) Source of Emulation
2) Ultimate Knowledge and Closest to the Truth
(hence the first two points make him the supreme leader of the revolution)
3) Leader beyond borders to lead the Revolution anywhere in the world
Now after Khomeini butchered in his last days over 21,000 Mujahid, he passed away. Khomeini, brutally oppressed all progressive powers, ruined all talents, and he stuck to his famous quote (and damaging Islam): "There is no fun in Islam". All Western features in Iran were taken out under his reign. You will never see a politician or citizen from Iran wearing "the tie", or a woman able to walk without having to worry about the threat of the Basij (Militant Youth of the Wali) or Ansar Hezbollah (not to be mistaken with the Lebanese Hezbollah) who are Ali Khamenei's hooligans, or as one author described them: "Angry Bearded Men on Motorcycles with Ak-47s". Dancing and Clapping are forbidden in Iran, even with the iron grip loosened up after Khatami's elections, it is forbidden. The Iranian theater suffered drastically (after all during the late 1970s, they were targeted most by Khomeini's followers) and massive censorships. You will notice by the late 1990s, the directors had to improvise new forms of Cinema directing and script writing. Finally, nothing takes place in Iran without the consent of the Wali's council, who elect the Wali himself for a lifetime, the Guardian Council.
So it is true that Iran has a quasi – democratic system. Yet let us take a deeper look on that quasi-democratic system. The Iranians vote for their municipalities, constituencies, and their president. Yet, everything has to pass by the Guardian Council. The Candidates have to be decided that they fit to be Muslim enough to pass. Even Parliamentary decisions have to pass by the Guardian Council, which pushed the reformist leader himself, President Khatami, to pass a bill by the Parliament that the Guardian Council doesn’t intervene in political life. Of course, Khatami was repaid with Ansar Hezbollah and Basij beating the hell out of his supporters.
To bring back to life something I wrote (but a paper I wrote 3 years back, and I wish the footnotes can appear as they did at Word)
The Iranian Revolution: Hegemony and Survival
The political framework has to be understood within Iran in order to understand the social framework whereby movements function within in the disappearance of solid Political Parties. Without understanding the hegemony of Ali Khamenei and his allies, from a religious, dogmatic, and political perspective, the framework of the social movements and social life in general cannot be tackled. Despite the fact that Iran has a parliament and presidential elections, the President of the republic is rather weak and cannot pass any legislative reform without the satisfaction of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since he can veto anything through the constitutional systems.
Supremacy of the Clerical Elites
When the 1979 revolution was over, the most powerful figure was Ayatollah Rouhallah Khomeini. He demolished anything that can be considered as Western whether from Legislative or Social perspective. The authority went directly to the Elite Clerics (el-Foqaha), and assigned them supremacy on the basis that the nation is ruled by those who understand God most. Hence, they interpret God’s law and rely on jurisprudence as an alternate means to Parliamentary votes. He also assigned the Guardian Council which is composed of 12 clerics who can over-rule any parliamentary decisions and are allowed to intervene in the President’s political affairs directly.
The Wali el-Faqih
The Guardianship Council is given the title of “Welayat-e Faqih” while its leader is considered the Wali, Guardian, and Supreme Leader of the revolution. Khomeini was the first Supreme Leader and he even reversed several decisions taken by Guardian Council and the Parliament. The Wali’s term is a life long period, the moment the candidate is elected by the Assembly of Experts as Wali, his mandate lasts as long as he is alive. The Experts have a sole performance which is to elect the Leader and do periodical reviews on the Leader. They are the sole authority to take away the Leader’s mandate.
The Wali el Faqih’s concept, which was advocated by Ayatollah Khomeini, is a hybrid mix of Islam and Modernity. In the Shiite ideology, there is a need for a source of emulation in the absence of the twelfth Imam in order to understand his will. Khomeini made the theory modern by integrating it within the Iranian Constitution.
The current Wali is Ali Khamenei, who was elected on the basis of having religious credentials and is supposed to be a “modern Leader” to act on the basis what the society required; however, he was no religious source of emulation. The clerics who attained such a status were the quietist clerics who focused on understanding the “Shari’a” and always attacked the Waliyat el Faqih concept. Ali Khamenei, like his predecessor Khomeini, attacked the quietest clerics for focusing on the details of the society rather the overall situation. Khamanei’s overall situation started rather unstable as the constitution was amended in 1989 which spared the Supreme Leader to be a source of emulation and after Khomeini’s close friend and designated successor as a Leader resigned (Ayatollah Montazari), henceforth Khamanei became the Leader. This information is important in order to understand the Islamic moderate clerics’ opposition in the mid-1990s, activists who will try to establish a better freedom and are willing to take the risk to contradict loudly anti-Supreme Leadership slogans.
What keeps Ali Khamenei’s on going mandate in the face of a political coup d’etat from within is his direct control of the Revolutionary Guards, his ability to intervene in any decisions within the government or parliament, and even decide the overall nation’s policy. He also got the non-governmental hooligans of the Ansar-e Hezbollah movement to support the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij, who are composed of youth military volunteers in allegiance to the Wali. Such abuse of power would determine the different strategies of the social movements, specially after the election of the advocates of democracy in the face of the Supreme Leader.
Khamenei’s Ground Forces
Khamenei’s role as the Supreme Leader was supposed to be the judge when disputes rise in the Parliament, called the Majles, but always ended up siding with the Conservative Hard-liners. His three primary ground forces are the official Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, and Ansar-e Hezbollah.
The Ansar-e Hezbollah are not to be mistaken with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, even though its leader believes in the Wali el Faqih. Ansar-e Hizbollah are usually present to attack any student or journalist activism and rid the accusation towards the government. They have been extensively involved in putting down the students’ reprisal in 1999, and several units were armed with automatic rifles. They are used to counter any demonstration or ruin it if it is directed away from the “Islamic Iran”. The Ansar-e Hezbollah do not dress any Western Clothes and they are made mainly of youth. They, on several occasions, have beaten up girls, couples, or western dressed like guys without being held accountable. The sponsor of Ansar-e Hezbollah is the Guardian Council spokesman himself, Ayatollah Jannati.
The Basij are youth volunteers in the service of the Islamic Republic of Iran and are also support to the revolutionary guards. Their allegiance is to Imam Khomeini and to the current Wali Faqih, Ali Khamenei. One Basiji member told an author of a book : “We will continue the path of our imam [Ayatollah Khomeini]. We will not let the West’s cultural onslaught take over and dilute our Islamic principles.” They are deployed extensively to scatter the youth with open gunshots to the air or engage in arrests when the crowds to do not move. The Ansar-e Hezbollah would come to their aid in case the gatherings or demonstrations are not controlled.
The Revolutionary Guard were established in 1979 with the sole purpose of protecting the Islamic revolution inland and exporting it outside Iran. They and the Law Enforcement Forces, have been involved in subduing possible de-stabilizing factors in Iran’s social or political life. They have the authority to interrogate anyone they want, arrest anyone under the “Moral Law Enforcement” and even beat up detainees. One academic observant was arrested for simply spending time with his female friend in a park, slapped couple of times and eventually detained for a night. It is also reported that bureaucratic corruption at the police station is intolerable to the extent some people prefer not to file a complaint of a robbery instead of being humiliated.
Against The Great West and Reform
When Khomeini took power in Iran and his faction overcame all rivalry parties, the 1980s can be identified with the gradual elimination of Western ideas. The Shah dynasty was symbolic against the West’s “Satanic” ideas and the elimination of all symbols of the west was necessary. Streets that carried names of the Shah or Western titles were transformed into Islamic names. For example, Shah Street and Shah Reza Street were renamed Islamic Republic Street and Revolution Street respectively. Any movements or parties that were secular were arrested, such as the arrest of the Communist Tudeh Party leader, Noureddin Kianouri, in 1983 as well as 1000 others of his comrades.
The media was in no better situation. Satellites were banned in 1994 since they contain Western poisoned ideas and Khamenei’s newspaper, Kayhan, waged an offensive on ex-President Rafsanjani’s brother, then director-general of Iranian broadcasting, while mobs of Ansar-e Hezbollah demonstrated in front of the TV stations. Films, such as Baywatch, Neighbors, and even Cartoons as far as Tin Tin, were all part of the “West’s scheme to invade culturally Iran”. The hardliners were optimistic that local media can replace the ill-intentioned Western Media. Even commercials, which are assumed to be symbols of Western Greed, were even banned after the revolution. Newspapers, magazines, TV programs about earthly love and materialism are always censored or banned. Any newspaper that would advocate social change or even attempt to discuss process of reforms were also closed through the accusation of “Westoxification”, even if they belonged to the close friends of Khatami when he was president. Poets or academics were also imprisoned or assassinated if they spoke of overall freedom/democracy or attacked by the clerics on Friday Sermons.
Now this is what you get from a Wali el Faqih :
Every time he nominated someone, that someone lost. Probably elections were the pacifist tool. When Ali Khamenei nominated Nateq Nouri in face of Khatami , Khatami swept with the majority of votes, special thanks to the votes of the women, student movements, and intellects. When Ali Khamenei nominated Rafsanjani, he lost to Ahmadinejad. Probably now the only way to express solid dislike to Khamanei is to outvote his candidate.
What Hezbollah do not tell you about Iran is as follows:
1) Iran witnessed its official mass demonstration when Iran defeated USA in Football, while Hezbollah supporters in 1998 were celebrating by shooting in the air, Tehran witnessed women in a massive way taking out the veil, demonstrations, dancing in the streets and a lot of clapping. As a matter of fact, when the Basij came to intervene, the demonstrators clapped to them and sang: "Basij must dance!"
2) Ayatollah Yezdi called those who voted Khatami as "20,000,000 punks voted for Khatami" which ignited what also Hezbollah do not tell you in Lebanon, the students' revolution. Of course, Ansar Hezbollah over there are unleashed to beat the hell out of the Reformist supporters. Khamenei called them: "the mysterious hand of God.
3) Over a 100 Newspaper and Media was closed in the year 2000 alone
4) The Man who was supposed to be the next Wali el Faqih was Ayatollah el Muntazari, a man who called for the empowerment of women, get the Wali elected by the people for a periodic time, separate powers in Iran, and open Iran to the world. He was overruled when the Guardian Council amended the council to oust him out as the next heir under the accusation that he betrayed Khomeini when he objected to the execution of the over 20,000 mujahid.
5) Iran is democratic? Not... The Council bars out anyone they want (including Khatami's brother) which actually in the recent years so the decline of the reformists because they refused to confront the Supreme Leader directly and went on a very slow pace of reforming, hence between barring out several candidates, growing political apathy, and extortion (yes we haven’t forgot the purges of the intellects in post-1999 events).
6) Khamanei has total control of the Revolutionary Guards, the police, the courts, the barring of parliament/presidential candidates (as not Muslim enough), the Ministry of Interior, the Secret Service, and practically the capability to terrorize anyone who opposes him.
7) To the 14th of Marchers, Iran witnessed a gigantic revolution in Tehran triggered by the brutality of the Ansar-Hezbollah when they beaten students in their dormitory, and Tehran was closed down for three days. Khatami was given the choice of revolution/civil war or obedience, he chose the latter. The students till this very day remain the most powerful source of anti-Khamenei (whom he dubs as US puppets).
8) Khamenei's other rival to the Wilayat el Faqih was IRONICALLY Lebanon's Sheikh Fadlallah. He was the first to oppose Khomeini that Lebanon can never be an Islamic republic. Khomeini hated him; however, he is the source of emulation. This made him in defecto the second rival to the Wilayat el Faqih after el Muntazari (who remained under house arrest). Ironically, Sheikh Fadlallah's views affected Lebanon's Hezbollah, but Khamenei never forgave him for being that rival. It appeared clearly when Khatami visited Lebanon, and visited almost all Shiite figures except Sheikh Fadlallah. The biggest Irony is when Israel attempted to bomb Sheikh Fadlallah during the July War, the only real obstacle between Khamenei and Hezbollah.
9) Iran has barred out every woman nominating herself for presidency, and of course the Basij or the Ansar were sent to arrest her.
10) Despite satellite bans and internet bans, Iran was successful through its pirated satellites. Actually, if Iran was so "wonderful", why the green card lottery online was so popular that businesses opened up in 2005 to get as many people to sign up for that.
11) Women may have received a better form of rights than the 1980s, however, things are still reversible. A lot of court issues were given on women to be executed for doing what we in a liberal form of countries take for granted: enjoy life. Now behind the scenes and underground life, things may be a better way to loosen up, but still... it is a sexist law.
12) When the moderate Sheikh el Mussawi was assassinated, Sheikh Tufayli lusted power again as the General Secretary. Tehran intervened to block his return and favored his number 1 disciple, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Actually, Khomeini himself read some writings for Hassan Nasrallah when he was in his youth years and predicted that he will play a glorious part in Hezbollah's history and recommended that this person should be well preserved. Now the purpose I am mentioning that part is because again, out of the blues, we have no gurantees when Tehran will intervene again, and who knows, probably Sheikh Na'em Qassem would return. As a matter of fact, AMAL supporters, another Shiite group, themselves dread the moment Sheikh Na'em Qassem takes over because he is famous for his hardlining policies.
Now Nasrallah was quoted several times saying that the strength of Hezbollah emerges from Wilayat el Faqih. It is true, the supreme "living" leader of Hezbollah is Wali el Faqih, who comes after the disappeared Imam, outranked by Imam Ali, Prophet Mohammad, and eventually God. To Hassan Nasrallah, I opposed your party, and everything else. By all means I oppose Wilayat el Faqih, specially in the memory of our fallen comrades who sacrificed their lives to make Iran a better life, and got executed for their progressive beliefs. I consider myself lucky to be in Lebanon because what I as a teenager in a post-war era I had a way of life, a lot in Iran would have to fight for it. One revolutionary guard arrested a woman in 1993 and beat her because she was dancing "naked" in a "WOMAN'S BEACH"; when the reporter asked how "naked", he said she was wearing a top and jeans, without the veil!! To all those women who suffered in the past. To all our comrades in Iran and abroad fighting the Wilayat el Faqih, to our fellow student movements who are beaten till this very day, and to the stupidity and blindness of the people in the last appearance of Nasrallah when they cheered for him when Nasrallah expressed his pride in Wilayat el Faqih. Let them know what to expect, even pro-AMAL movement Beydoun recently nicely said: "not all the Shiites endorse that theory". However it is not a theory, it is a practice, and oppressive! Hezbollah may have liberated the South, and may defeated (at least on the infantry level) the Israelis, but excuse me, as a Marxist, I say NO TO YOUR Wilayat el Faqih! No to the Opium of the Masses! And No to anyone who promotes Wilayat el Faqih.
I would like to say, I tracked the Wilayat el Faqih liasson with Hezbollah for four fours, long before Junblatt used it as a campaign. I didn't change my opinion for almost a decade, I oppose all political parties and still do. A lot accused me I am an Opposition supporter, well here was my answer. Let us see how interesting to be accused of 14th of March sympathy. Even more, the fact Hezbollah changed their policies and aimed their weaponry to the inside, that makes me fear even more the Liasson. Hezbollah should provide better proofs about their intentions, their renewed promise!
Having expressed a long post pending (and I wish I can upload fully what I wrote on the topic; however, it is 32 pages long, with the reference to over 41 books).
No War but Class War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MFL
PS: There are few trusted comrades that I trust, I urge them not to open this blog in a nearby place, and also won't recommend anyone to read this article because it might get them in trouble. I prefer to be 100% secure!
Friday, June 06, 2008
Regarding Bush's Speech in the Institute of Peace
Latest Presidential Speech delivered here
"Struggle against Soviet Communism; a struggle that was eventually won by freedom because of peace through strength, and because of the help of the Institute of Peace."
Umm, not that I am defending Stalinist Russia, but his logic of winning the cold war was actually supporting Islamist radical groups against the allies of Russia. Some evolved to become al-Qa'eda, others were dictators like Saudi Arabia and Pinochet, enslaving the 3rd World with sweatshops, and of course giving the OK on Israel's policy to allow the Muslim Brotherhood (which became Hamas in the 1980s) to evolve in the 1970s as a counterpart to Fatah. As a matter of fact his version of victory is supporting lunatics like Saddam Hussein to face Iran, and of course dismantling that regime and triggering a civil war. Every Iraqi citizen killed, it is the fault of the United States of America, and whoever voted for George Bush.
"We're in a different struggle today, but we're in an ideological struggle against violent extremism"
The same ones previous US administrations funded in general to face the Russians.
"In Afghanistan, you're helping a young democracy establish the rule of law and strengthen public education and build civil society. In Iraq, you're helping the nation overcome the legacy of decades of tyranny by strengthening government institutions and promoting peaceful engagement."
These two countries are the clear examples were US funding was at its peak in the 1980s whereby Bin Laden's Group was funded to face Russian soldiers, and Saddam was made too powerful to counter Iran. We still await Bush's Weapons of Mass Destructions.
"And although the struggle against violent extremism is in its early years, there's no doubt in my mind freedom will again prevail -- and your help is going to be important."
Freedoms where bloodbath takes place like Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or Latin dictators such as those US satellites in Bolivia and Handuras? Or friendly dictators like Tudjman, Moubarak, al-Saud, and king Abdullah II, and of course most recently: al-Qazzafi. Of course, we cannot forget Musharref in Pakistan! The only freedom Bush is thinking about is how the US corporations can maximize profit at the expense of third world countries.
"Freedom is universal. We believe that freedom is the birthright of every man, woman and child. Free societies are peaceful societies."
Tell that to the arrested journalist of al-Jazeera in Guantanamo Bay, tell that to the Palestinian and Lebanese children who died at the hands of the Zionist Israelis. Tell that to every woman oppressed in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (well in the later case, the local Qataris). Tell that to the executed Nigerian activists in 1997 by Shell.
"Freedom helps supplant the conditions of hopelessness that extremists exploit to recruit terrorists and suicide bombers."
How can you have freedom if you have poverty and rob the 3rd world nations from their local wealth? How can you not investigate the psychology of those who bombed themselves (mind you, as Marxists we oppose such operations). People are not born as suicide bombers you know.
"Our most solemn obligation is to protect the American people. That is why we're pursuing and bringing to justice terrorists. We're fighting them overseas so we don't have to face them here in the United States of America."
Great! Bush is promising us with new imperial conquests in an indefinite framework for war. What we would call as "pre-emptive wars" in the name of protecting Americans from those they funded back in the 1970s – 1980s.
"We're helping nations across the world build these institutions, and we face three challenges as we do so. First of all, there are developing nations, many on the continent of Africa, that are facing extreme poverty and health epidemics and humanitarian catastrophes, and are therefore vulnerable to extremists who take advantage of chaos and instability. "
Previous European imperialists robbed these nations' history and lives without compensation, followed by the US corporations and sweatshops... spare me the drama Bush!
"Secondly, there are nations like Colombia and Lebanon and Pakistan that are facing transnational threats from drug cartels or terrorist networks that seek safe haven on their territory and threaten to overwhelm their institutions. "
Well, in our case, the United States did nothing. As a matter of fact, they aggravated things by contributing to divide Lebanon into two camps, and intervening in its domestic politics. Bush didn’t even trigger the 14th of March "Cedar Revolution". Sectarianism did, and normal people who had better hopes that their economic nightmares will end all economic dampening. Bush did nothing to Lebanon. He just watched and watched as Israel bombed Lebanon, while he tried to cover that up and say: "Israel is not harming the Lebanese, they are only bombing Hezbollah". Well tell that to two of my friends who died from Israeli bombing, with one of the two a Christian working in the Red Cross. Heck, even the Lebanese Forces complained that they had three martyrs at the hands of Israel.
"And thirdly, there are nations like Afghanistan and Iraq, where we removed dangerous regimes that threatened our people, and now have a special obligation to help them build free societies that become allies in the fight against these extremists."
Bush, your previous administrations placed these regimes.
"The whole idea is to work to train international peacekeeping forces so they can do the work necessary to provide stability and security, so institutions can advance. So far, we've trained more than 40,000 peacekeepers, and the plan is to train 75,000 additional."
They haven't done anything in Lebanon. As a matter of fact, UNIFIL has strong contacts with Hezbollah to coordinate certain security issues, and all the presidents of the dispatched UNIFIL soldiers threatened that the first war they detect, these soldiers are going home.
Btw, Bush didn’t mention anything about Hezbollah's offensive on Beirut, usually he promotes their evilness on day to day basis. This sheds light that Bush is partly involved or at least had knowledge of what was coming last month to hit Lebanon.
Finally, go rot in Hell Bush and along with your stupid supporters who are desperately waiting for emancipation!
MFL
"Struggle against Soviet Communism; a struggle that was eventually won by freedom because of peace through strength, and because of the help of the Institute of Peace."
Umm, not that I am defending Stalinist Russia, but his logic of winning the cold war was actually supporting Islamist radical groups against the allies of Russia. Some evolved to become al-Qa'eda, others were dictators like Saudi Arabia and Pinochet, enslaving the 3rd World with sweatshops, and of course giving the OK on Israel's policy to allow the Muslim Brotherhood (which became Hamas in the 1980s) to evolve in the 1970s as a counterpart to Fatah. As a matter of fact his version of victory is supporting lunatics like Saddam Hussein to face Iran, and of course dismantling that regime and triggering a civil war. Every Iraqi citizen killed, it is the fault of the United States of America, and whoever voted for George Bush.
"We're in a different struggle today, but we're in an ideological struggle against violent extremism"
The same ones previous US administrations funded in general to face the Russians.
"In Afghanistan, you're helping a young democracy establish the rule of law and strengthen public education and build civil society. In Iraq, you're helping the nation overcome the legacy of decades of tyranny by strengthening government institutions and promoting peaceful engagement."
These two countries are the clear examples were US funding was at its peak in the 1980s whereby Bin Laden's Group was funded to face Russian soldiers, and Saddam was made too powerful to counter Iran. We still await Bush's Weapons of Mass Destructions.
"And although the struggle against violent extremism is in its early years, there's no doubt in my mind freedom will again prevail -- and your help is going to be important."
Freedoms where bloodbath takes place like Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or Latin dictators such as those US satellites in Bolivia and Handuras? Or friendly dictators like Tudjman, Moubarak, al-Saud, and king Abdullah II, and of course most recently: al-Qazzafi. Of course, we cannot forget Musharref in Pakistan! The only freedom Bush is thinking about is how the US corporations can maximize profit at the expense of third world countries.
"Freedom is universal. We believe that freedom is the birthright of every man, woman and child. Free societies are peaceful societies."
Tell that to the arrested journalist of al-Jazeera in Guantanamo Bay, tell that to the Palestinian and Lebanese children who died at the hands of the Zionist Israelis. Tell that to every woman oppressed in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (well in the later case, the local Qataris). Tell that to the executed Nigerian activists in 1997 by Shell.
"Freedom helps supplant the conditions of hopelessness that extremists exploit to recruit terrorists and suicide bombers."
How can you have freedom if you have poverty and rob the 3rd world nations from their local wealth? How can you not investigate the psychology of those who bombed themselves (mind you, as Marxists we oppose such operations). People are not born as suicide bombers you know.
"Our most solemn obligation is to protect the American people. That is why we're pursuing and bringing to justice terrorists. We're fighting them overseas so we don't have to face them here in the United States of America."
Great! Bush is promising us with new imperial conquests in an indefinite framework for war. What we would call as "pre-emptive wars" in the name of protecting Americans from those they funded back in the 1970s – 1980s.
"We're helping nations across the world build these institutions, and we face three challenges as we do so. First of all, there are developing nations, many on the continent of Africa, that are facing extreme poverty and health epidemics and humanitarian catastrophes, and are therefore vulnerable to extremists who take advantage of chaos and instability. "
Previous European imperialists robbed these nations' history and lives without compensation, followed by the US corporations and sweatshops... spare me the drama Bush!
"Secondly, there are nations like Colombia and Lebanon and Pakistan that are facing transnational threats from drug cartels or terrorist networks that seek safe haven on their territory and threaten to overwhelm their institutions. "
Well, in our case, the United States did nothing. As a matter of fact, they aggravated things by contributing to divide Lebanon into two camps, and intervening in its domestic politics. Bush didn’t even trigger the 14th of March "Cedar Revolution". Sectarianism did, and normal people who had better hopes that their economic nightmares will end all economic dampening. Bush did nothing to Lebanon. He just watched and watched as Israel bombed Lebanon, while he tried to cover that up and say: "Israel is not harming the Lebanese, they are only bombing Hezbollah". Well tell that to two of my friends who died from Israeli bombing, with one of the two a Christian working in the Red Cross. Heck, even the Lebanese Forces complained that they had three martyrs at the hands of Israel.
"And thirdly, there are nations like Afghanistan and Iraq, where we removed dangerous regimes that threatened our people, and now have a special obligation to help them build free societies that become allies in the fight against these extremists."
Bush, your previous administrations placed these regimes.
"The whole idea is to work to train international peacekeeping forces so they can do the work necessary to provide stability and security, so institutions can advance. So far, we've trained more than 40,000 peacekeepers, and the plan is to train 75,000 additional."
They haven't done anything in Lebanon. As a matter of fact, UNIFIL has strong contacts with Hezbollah to coordinate certain security issues, and all the presidents of the dispatched UNIFIL soldiers threatened that the first war they detect, these soldiers are going home.
Btw, Bush didn’t mention anything about Hezbollah's offensive on Beirut, usually he promotes their evilness on day to day basis. This sheds light that Bush is partly involved or at least had knowledge of what was coming last month to hit Lebanon.
Finally, go rot in Hell Bush and along with your stupid supporters who are desperately waiting for emancipation!
MFL
Angry Anarchist is Back!!!!
Dear readers
The person who motivated me to blog first is back!!! My dearest comrade, (and pain in the neck) is back!!! Angry Anarchist is Back!!!! :)
Hopefully soon that it will be followed by an announcement :)
This is the new Blog of Angry Anarchist... finally all this begging paid off well...
The person who motivated me to blog first is back!!! My dearest comrade, (and pain in the neck) is back!!! Angry Anarchist is Back!!!! :)
Hopefully soon that it will be followed by an announcement :)
This is the new Blog of Angry Anarchist... finally all this begging paid off well...
Return of the Republic - What Republic?
(Future Prime Minister Seniora - Cooking the Ministries , ala Lebanese way, while everyone is shoving their demands) taken from Annahar
We saw President Suleiman giving his speech, more like copy paste all demands from every political statement from all parties... well he did forget to mention the Lebanese Detainees in Syria. We also noticed the Lebanese Forces not satisfied at all, and also Aoun looked sick as dead man since he was not elected. To be honest, this fiasco sounded as if it was a comedy show with Nabih Berri as its host. Personally, I do not see how the election of Suleiman would solve any problem, the core problems, mainly sectarianism and corruption, are not tackled. It only means that the leaders agree on Suleiman, and when they disagree, everyone will be a traitor in the other's eyes.
After two years of instabilities, sporadic terrorist acts, riots, random shoot-outs, and everything... we discover that Hezbollah doesn’t want to oust "the imperialist" Seniora out... although this demand was included within their zillion demands. On the contrary, they just wanted the status quo revived politically. The Christian side from the Opposition (11 Ministers) were given five Ministerial Posts, and of course Aoun and We'am Wahhab (they kinda look similar these days) voice went down the drain that Seniora is coming back. 2 years of economic hell, waiting for the civil war, and the return of the militia cantons, ruined the lives of a lot of people, and not to forget how many lost their jobs. The government turns out they can accept the "National Unity Government" whereby the Opposition Ministers can veto the Majority Decisions (and vice versa). Personally, I think Harriri doesn’t have the experience to be that Prime Minister yet, and also the key figures of the Opposition don't mind it. After all, Nabih Berri remained the Speaker of the Parliament.
The short lived civil war taught us a lesson, that the greatest politicians will return to their sects. Salim el Huss, Omar Karami, and Najib Meqati (all ex-prime ministers) became extra Sunnis when Hezbollah and their allies pulled their military offensive (protecting the resistance arms they called it, specially when they bombed randomly Durzistan locations). Talal Irslan suddenly became a super Durzi and Walid Junblatt became a red line (khat Ahhmar).
The scenario to look at it: Ok, two armed coalitions are ready there, with one side more organized than the others, then one armed gangsters (Hezbollah included... they are no longer resistance specially they aimed their arms to the inside whereby last time we saw it in 1989, and Preaching over bluntly about Wilayat el Faqih – ie Ali Khamenei) attack the other and disarm it... the army watches, then takes the losing faction (usually Government forces), and then the army after watching takes over). Horrific massacres occurred in Lebanon that we thought they are long gone since the civil war days: return of PSP style of executions on the frontiers of Durzistan, the bloody butchery (dubbed on Future Movement) on the SSNP and the SSNP parading the pictures of the martyrs without they mentioning how some of their members shot an RPG in West Beirut on an unarmed civilian car, and finally, the Militias taking full control in a (behind the scenes) manner even though the police forces are just a show. A saying in the North spread after the violent confrontations: "The Army everywhere in the world protects its people, but in Lebanon the people died to protect the Army's unity." Minor confrontations are taking place in Sunni Resident areas, and some have been wounded.
Syria
Now, Syria has a major turn out. Just when peace spread its wings (in a temporarily manner) in Doha, Israel and Syria decide to revive their peace deals (and allow me to remind you only four months after Imad Moghnieh was bombed to kingdom come over there in Damascus and the Baathis argued it was Israel). Hence, was Imad Moghnieh a prelude or a Syrian Initiative for peace? Or vice versa, Israel saw the chance to grab hold of him and bombed him. How come Hezbollah have been silent about that fact toward their allies? What about the fact Hamad Bin Khalifa flirting with the Israelis? How come Hezbollah sat with them while Berri treated the Qatari Prince with Royalty?
Hezbollah's Super Bomb! Proud of Wilayat el Faqih!!
First, I think it is very hypocritical for Hassan Nasrallah to tell the parents of the victims that their children sacrificed their lives for peace... specially his canons, in no difference than any Lebanese militia, bombed randomly citizens. The question goes to Nasrallah, what would have he done if Junblatt didn't surrender the mountain? Would he behave the same way like the Americans behave prior to their offensive to a country? Bomb it to ashes till the leader surrender? And of course Nasrallah mentioned his pride in Wilayat el Faqih!!!! This I will explain on the next incoming post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
