MarxistFromLebanon

The Great Arab Spring and Its Implications

2011-03-22T20:25:00.001+02:00

A wave has been sweeping over the Arab world, and US Foreign Policy journal wondered that who would be the next Arab dictator to go down.

I would like to dissect the latest events and their broader implications for the long run:

The Revolutions themselves

Several Westerners considered the revolutions as sparked by a man who set himself on fire in Tunisia. This is a reductionist approach where US intelligence misread (probably on purpose given the available wrath of your average Arab “Joe” or “Omar”) with the hope that stability would prevail over the wishes of the average Arab citizen.

I have to admit, I did anticipate that Tunis would eventually go head to head with its dictator, but like many, I thought that the first spark would be in Egypt. Moubarak’s regime has bled dry his society and the Egyptian revolution informally started since 2000 against the regime. By revolution; I define people going down the streets and demanding a simple request under the threat of the gun: “Freedom of Expression.”

General Petreus warned last year that the Arab-Israeli conflict (well I would like to define it these days as Palestinian/Lebanese conflict with Israel) has serious impact on the US interests. The brutality of the Israeli conflict on different fronts and the fact Israel on daily basis is criticized for its on-going settlements, destroying the prospects of peace, and a regional bully. The fact that the US Administration blindly supports Israel; US troops are under constant threat and furthermore US interests in the region are under threat.

General Petreus’s comments came 9 years late (if not at least four decades late). As the Second Intifada exploded; its spill-over hit Egypt. Protestors hit the streets in solidarity with the Palestinian civilians while Hosni Mubarak’s apparatus simply crushed the demonstrators with an Iron Fist. Since then, solidarity with the Palestinians became the symbol of resisting Hosni Mubarak.

For those who have no clue about Palestine’s symbolism on the Arab world (and by Arab I do not mean Muslim only). Palestine proper (which includes currently Israel) has been regarded as the last of European colonialism by the Arabs; especially the Western support it harvested. The fact dictators of the Arab world (excluding Syria even though Syria and the US always flirted with each other) shook hands with the following agreement: “Pro-West alliances at the expense of the average citizen.” The Arab citizen has been oppressed by dictators who seek to renew their mandate indefinitely and the West who seek “stable Middle East” (a synonym for oil and imposing normalization with Israel on the people without Israel itself coming into terms on how it was founded on genocidal base).
In my opinion, pride as humans, economic repressions, Orientalism, and ongoing colonialism played its role. The Arab-Israeli conflict is included within all of them. The Palestinian question, as Arabs (Christians and Muslims) regard that the Palestinians historically have been most wronged among the Arabs. The fact the UN has been (till recently Libya) has been regarded a muscle show forum among the regional and international powers). They remained crippled against on-going atrocities (especially due to the veto power) and the very fact that the US-UK coalition simply by-passed the UN and invaded Iraq for securing the oils.

In a way, the average citizen lost voice; their dictators are praised as democratic or “friend of the West”. The Arab citizen has been depicted as stupid, Islamist conservative, and a hopeless case for evolving towards Western standards (as if your American average Joe as a clue at least about the geography of the world or Israel itself is really Western). There was no greater irony than Obama giving the greatest speech on Human Rights in Cairo in 2009 amidst mass demonstrations against Hosni Mubarak. Whether Obama was aloof (on purpose or not), but he did not mention the dictator of over 80,000,000 people.

Some people argued that faceook created those revolutions., I doubt that at all. In my opinion, online means of communications and reporting (in Egypt people read blogs to know what is going on and not puppy like official newspapers). If anything, the facebook phenomenon became a catalyst for the forthcoming rage of citizens oppressed for decades.

What are the implications due to the rise of the Arab spring?

For starters, there is no longer media blackout. The world became too small to cover the incidents across the Arab world. Just as the revolution resurrected on new levels in Egypt, the Western media (most of it) tried to marginalize the revolution as another factory rebellion and stressed on the peace process. Despite the fact that Tunis was the first to shoot down its dictator in the most heroic manner, Egypt was on the spotlight due to the peace treaty. Israel informed all its embassies across the world that they should pressure governments globally to support Mubarak. The US administration itself fluctuated its speeches depending whether the revolution appeared at its final breath or not. When it looked like Mubarak was about to reassert his iron grip, Clinton insisted that Mubarak should “lead” the democratic wave. When Mubarak finally fell down, Merkel appeared as ignorant as it can gets: “New Egypt should respect the peace treaty with Israel.” Israeli officials were pushing support to Hosni Mubarak without realizing that this accelerated his downfall.

The selfishness of Israel in imposing Hosni Mubarak on the Egyptian people for its own interest will have (hopefully) repercussions in the near future. Israel disregarded the beautiful images of demonstrators’ heroics because that entity expects a special treatment from the world. Even if we believe that Israel represents the interests of the Jews across the world (which we all know it is false), the number of Egyptians outnumbers the Jews globally).

Due to the dense coverage of al-Jazeera English in Tunis and Egypt forced other media outlets to follow pace with the Arab media. As a matter of fact, even US officials were depending on al-Jazeera to issue statements. With al-Jazeera proving its superiority against Western outlets, more and more non-Arabs will be exposed to the real situation in the Arab world, and actually hear Arab opinions on whatever happens anywhere (the next war on the Palestinian or Lebanese, I bet plenty of Westerns will be shocked to see the brutality of the Israeli army and its fascistic elements).

Just as Hosni Mubarak was promoted as a true friend of the West, it changed in a week as the horrible dictator. The same can be applied on Israel. It takes only a week of objective reporting to change the US mainstream towards Israel. Already the Palestinian papers showed that it was the Palestinians who were the true partners of “peace” (whatever that peace Fatah thought of) and they declined it. Pro Human Rights groups, Palestinian solidarity groups, Jewish and Arab organizations, American NGOs, the stupidity of the current Israeli leadership in not hiding its on-going genocidal policies, and other factors exerts more pressure on AIPAC to maintain its iron grip in the main hubs (DC, New York, Chicago, others).

The final question goes: “ok, what about Syria?”. Syria as I mentioned earlier as always flirted with the US Administration. The US regarded al-Assad regime as the lesser evil in the face of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. From such a view, al-Assad is a darling angel. When the tyrant Saddam hid, Bush declared that the Syrian Baathi Party shall follow the Iraqi Baathi, Tony Blair in less than an hour went on TV and gave a detailed speech why al-Assad is different than Saddam. Al-Assad regime has been brutal on its people; the difference is al-Assad gambled on a heavy security apparatus, provide the minimum of welfare (when available) to his people, and relied on the Arab-Israeli conflict to marginalize his opponents. I still find it amusing how he dubs the Syrian opposition as American or Israeli agents even though the ones accused are loud and clear Marxists.

The current situation teaches us that anything can happen in the Arab world. Just as CNN, despite AIPAC’s iron grip on the US media, tried the impossible to blackout the incidents of Egypt, started reporting the incidents as they were happening. CNN only reported objectively (despite blaming the victims themselves) was during the Qana massacres of 1996 and 2006 in Lebanon, where the CNN were present on site. Despite the challenges, Israel’s true face will one day be exposed and the US mainstream media will change its opinion (a growing fear for the past five years in Lebanon).

The current countries that have been affected by the Arab spring as follows: Tunis, Egypt, Libya, Yaman, and Bahrain. To a lesser extent, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. You never know where the Arab spring will explode.

Now when looking at the bigger picture, a different set of lessons are prevalent

1) The Arabs are not waiting for Western blessings to proceed and seek their freedom
2) The Revolutions are completely sparked from the inside.
3) Once the revolution picks up, the Arabs are willing to go seek their freedom or just die trying, as the case of Libya taught us. The Libyans from day 1 warned al-Qazzafi to step down or go ahead and kill the people; if the latter had happened, the Libyans were proud that Qazzafi would just rule empty buildings.
4) (This is my favorite part) The Arabs are teaching the whole world about freedom, human rights, and even democracy; something the average citizen has forgot about in the West or 3rd World due to media alienation and class struggle.

The other dimension to focus on is the decline of the West

Almost all the leaders facing protests and revolutions have been the friends of the West. AL-Saleh of Yamen or lunatic Qazzafi (Tony Blair’s best friend) were regarded as tyrants installed by the West. The West’s interests fluctuates and it is apparent on how they react. A dense media blackout was imposed on Bahrain (easiest way to call the Bahrain incidents as Iran led revolution, reminds us of Lebanon in 2006) as Bahrain is in the direct sphere of influence that is owned by Saudi Arabia. Bahrain in specific is a new battleground where the revolution in Al-Jazeera itself has been blacked out. Bahrain is a monarchy , and the only Arab state where the Arab spring has threatened a monarchy. While most gulf states are monarchies, they have to support militarily the Bahraini monarchy in order to maintain their own rule. Last thing the Monarchs of the Arab gulf want a domino effect spreading in their own turf (although factory strikes did start briefly in Saudi Arabia).

The other dimension to focus on is the stupidity of the US foreign Administration in approaching the Arab world historically. Their blatant arrogance of dictating terms on the dictators in returns of arms (Egypt’s entire aid from the US went to the pockets of Husni Mubarak who turned out to have more money than the Hariri family itself) cost it several allies. Whether Tunis’s Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, or excommunicating Qazzafi served as a lesson for the rest of the Arab dictators. They can be replaced. Tunis was swift and ended up in the downfall of its dictator. Egypt was a greater battle arena as Mubarak tried to contain the situation by draining the protestors’ energy, and stepped down just as the evening before the protestors started to become more militants and started to form a siege across governmental locations. Libya is the most brutal of all; because the nature of its dictator= insane with enough militias across the African continent. Anther blow for the US came when its primary ally, Saad el Hariri was ousted from the government (even though that is not related to the Arab Spring, but fits the picture of the different slaps the US administration has been facing).

As for Lebanon, the leftist youth tried to ride the wave and now are pushing for the abolition of the sectarian system. On weekly basis there has been the most beautiful demonstrations against the system. Sadly, we cannot go against our own leaders (for now) because Lebanon does not have one Hosni, one Qazzafi, or one Ben Ali. Each of Lebanon’s sects has three or four Hosni style of dictators and the battle in Lebanon is yet to rage on. In one of my greatest wishes and hopes to see the Left in Lebanon unified as the heroics of the proletariat across the Arab world inspired us.

As for the Palestinians, as hopeless as it is, especially for those in Palestine proper, their leaderships turned out to have one thing in common with the Israeli fascist government: they did their best to block demonstrators express solidarity with the Arab freedom lovers. Hamas, Fatah, and Israel are the biggest bad news for their people, with a bigger highlight on the fact that Israel is the biggest bad news for the global Jewish world as the latter bargains on the racism of the West to renew their legitimacy.

Finally , I would like to add the last lesson acquired from the Arab Spring. Several bourgeoisies in the Arab world and the West stressed that the civil society is the best option to reform the Arab world and make it democratic (for my readers’ information US AID was promoting in Tunis Ben Ali as the man for democracy). Some NGOs may achieve a tiny (irrelevant) progress but without impacting the structure of the state. In the end of the day, a class awareness is needed to demolish those dictators in power, with or without the approval of the West. The entire hopes on the civil society should be understood by now that it is false. Some NGOs are good in reporting and documenting violations or propose some changes (as long as it is not a free market or neocon logic).

The day of the proletariat in the Arab world has come. Decades of boiling wrath can no longer be subdued.

I apologize for not writing as often for different reasons that I will explain thoroughly one day.

No war but class war
MFL

Natanyyaho's Optimism

2010-09-30T07:23:00.002+03:00

Find it amusing!
He hopes that the Palestinians will continue with the peace talks despite the fact that crazy settlers are building in an insane matter on a land that is not their own; on a claim that is based 2000 years ago. Fascists.

Besides what is his optimism based on? It is more like: "We are stealing your land and hopefully you will want to reach peace with us?"

Or the fact Leiberman's lineage proposal involves race values to decide borders (instead of 'democracy'), on what is Jewish or not, hence what is race or not, hence Leiberman is a racist, Nazi style of racism that focuses on race and lineage (the fact a person can come from a Jewish Father but non-Jewish Mother means that their offspring has almost zero rights, due to lineage). Now that is fascism.

I find it even more amusing to see apologists justifying all that genocide... those supporters carry the blood of the dead children of the Palestinians on their hands... whatever they think... that is how history will remember it.... just as they tried to delete Palestine pre-1948 and failed.

MFL

Irene Ship Irony

2010-09-29T20:33:00.003+03:00

Taken from the comment section in Haaretz about the Holocaust survivor being attacked by the IDF: this man who survived the NAZIs now have to face IDF

Link: Jewish Gaza Bound Activists: IDF Used Excessive Force in Naval Raid

I find it ironic that in less than a week, a nobel prize winner, a former IAF, and a Holocaust survivor suffered IDF brutality. They were also lucky, imagine if they were Palestinians...

Also, I love seeing how Israel got slapped in the face after the activists shattered the image of IDF boarding a Jewish Ship "peacefully". Even Jews are not safe from Zionism...

MFL

Finkelstein: Crocodile Tears

2010-03-21T18:28:00.001+02:00

Reflects my sentiments exactly!
We are fed up of those crocodile tears every time we talk about apartheid or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Israel and the US

2010-03-15T15:22:00.002+02:00

"It isnt Israeli terrortists that are trying to bomb us. Can we befreind those who wish to destroy us" - Haaretz commentator

The recent condemnation of Clinton to the Bibi government doesn't express much except how much the US is expected to serve Israeli interests.

To the Haaretz commentator, it is about Israeli ongoing terrorism. It is not about Palestinian terrorism, rather it is about who destroyed Palestine in the first place, with records of British archives that the Zionists owned by 1948 only 6% of Palestine proper (with 50% of that 6% being owned by the Jewish Agency and its accessories). You cannot build an argument that "Israel had been occupied by the Arabs for 2000 years. As far as we know, the current Palestinians probably are the direct descendants of those 'biblical' Jews while the Jewish diaspora which is supposed to return has no means to prove anything. Probably the Arab Jews can prove to be descendants, but that is it. Jerusalem was never Jewish, it had been rather a mixed city for all. Since Zionists love to go back to the past, the place where Jews enjoyed best treatment in the past was during the Ottoman Empire, and even before. Shlomo Sands argued that during the Islamic conquests of the Arab peninsula, they played their cards right: Imagine that the Caliphate empire suddenly in the 21st century arrived to USA and promised everyone exemption from the IRS taxes if they converted, would they?

So who destroyed who? That is the question to always refer to back to 1948. That year is not that old for us, since the same genocidal messages continue to carry on:

1) Same logos used by the terrorists (later awarded prime ministers) of the Irgun/Stern/others. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between the Haganah or Stern

2) An entity that is based on genocide, bans the remaining natives from practicing their identity. The co-director of the Award nominated Ajami is the biggest example of crying racism against his people. He reinforced his Palestinian identity while denounced Israel as an entity that doesn't represent him or his rights. Someone will say: "if he hates it, he should leave", I argue that this is a real native, and has the right to pin-point racism. It is like saying to a native of Latin American or North America (with the latter denied identity and dubbed Indian) to leave the Americas if not happy.

3) Someone will highlight the post 1948 massacres of Jews in the Arab world. I agree, those were horrible brutality, and Arab leaders need to recognize those massacres. Nevertheless, given the temporal framework, Zionism brought racism to the Jews in the Arab World due to its behavior with the Palestinians.

4) Even if someone would tell me: there was never Palestinians, if that holds true, is it justified to murder all those "Arabs" and ethnically cleanse them, and demolish their towns?

Clinton's latest statements are nothing new. AIPAC's fury http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156467.html from heavens. Even that tiny chunk of land which is designated for the Palestinians is being ethnically cleansed. Gaza is under a worst siege in modern times (yes, I would bluntly argue worse than Sarajevo because no one is denouncing the siege). The West Bank is gradually losing to more settlements, while East Jerusalem is gradually being eliminated from natives, due to fascistic biblical claims (or let us call it superstition).

Had Clinton been serious about those negotiations, Biden wouldn't have had pledged the "We die for Israel's security" logic. I am certain the people in the White House are having headaches from Israel. Nevertheless, due to AIPAC, condemnations have been only words. Obama's administration's problem, to AIPAC, is that it is not giving the Israeli administration any greenlight enjoyed under the war-criminal Bush Jr.

Of all the countries in the world, Israel in theory should be the easiest country to pull all strings. Without the US, in terms of financial, military, and political aids (VETO POWER among other things in the UN), the US can simply cut down on these aids and twist Israel's arms. If the almighty US is facing all those political blockades, what did you leave for the Palestinians.

The saying goes: "Takes one to know one". The US, instead of highlighting how Palestinians are victims of past and present genocide, decided to go for the Armenian genocide. I agree, it is important to highlight that fact. Yet, the method of recognizing the Armenian Genocide is not logical at all, after all, the US itself committed genocide. If the US condemns Israel's current actions and links it to the past, I am certain, the Zionists will reply the same to the US, forgetting that the USA is the lifeline of Israel's survival.

The Cold war had been over, and Israel played its role. This doesn't mean that "War on Islam" as Israeli fanatics has been there. The US has almost allies in all the Arab world, except for Syria. Israel's role is diminishing, yet, the US congressmen cannot commit political suicide by denouncing activities. Clinton, whom we all hate, suddenly became a Muslim lover and anti-semite, due to the picture posted with Arafat's wife. Allow me to remember one thing, wasn't Moshe Dayan's wife, Ruth, in touch till this very day with Arafat's wife? Does that make Moshe Dayan a self hating Jew? The Jews are fed up from Zionism, and apparently so is the world (except for the countries that committed genocide during WWII).

If Israel expects the whole world to remember the Holocaust as Jewish (which wasn't just Jewish as far as I remember), the Palestinians have the right to exist and remember the on-going genocide (the attempt to build those new house units in East Jerusalem, although for the record, there are plenty more settlements). The US probably would have turned their eye on that issue had it not receive a slap in the face in the eyes of the world: Tiny Israel insulted the great United States of America. Of course, now the Zionist sympathizers, they argue that Obama is a Muslim in disguise. This also brings the African Americans (the religious ones) to hate Zionism as well. This is not anti-semitism.

With the situation of the "Israeli Arabs" whom we call heroic Palestinians who are surviving genocide under harsh conditions are reaching new poverty lines, the collisions between the Palestinians and the Zionists is evolving to become a new class struggle.

MFL

Jews of the world: denounce Zionism!

2010-02-26T19:34:00.004+02:00

MFL notes: An excellent piece of Class Struggle on Zionism and the Jews, taken from www.marxist.com, the link is here and was written by an Israeli Communist. Having said Israeli Communist, it means that the comrade doesn't believe in identities, rather, simply the struggle of the working class. Due to the on-going blunders of the Zionists in Israel, along with their religious die-hards and Torah based fanatics, I was forgeting the ABC of Marxist thought towards the case of Palestine. Of course, coming from the other side of the borders, I have more to say on the issue, but it is always great to see our comrades fighting for the working class wherever they go. I am certain that this author is also under persecution in Israel because those religious fanatics cannot swallow what he said.

The crimes of the Zionist ruling class in Israel against the Palestinian people have been rightly condemned by all progressive and left people around the world. However, there are reactionary right-wing elements that try to exploit this to push an anti-Semitic agenda. Genuine socialists reject both Zionism and anti-Semitism. The solution to ethnic and national conflicts is to be found in the class struggle and socialism. We publish this contribution on the question from a Jewish Marxist living in Israel.

During and after the Israeli massacre in Gaza, the world was flooded by an overwhelming wave of resistance to the Zionist crimes. How could anyone not protest at such a grotesque crime against a whole people, a people that has been without a genuine homeland ever since Israel was created?

However, there is also another side to this situation, an attempt by small Fascist and neo-Nazi groups in Europe to exploit this wonderful display of international solidarity to their own advantage. These forces take advantage of Zionist crimes, such as the bombing and invasion of Gaza a few months back, to promote their own anti-Semitic propaganda. They claim that these crimes and the refusal of the bourgeois governments throughout the world to intervene against them are "proof" of an inherent evil nature of Jews in general. They also use this to spread filth about the supposed desire for “world domination” on the part of the Jews. This is all reminiscent of anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda.

This attempt to divert a progressive and justified struggle along racist lines has produced its effects. Anti-Semitic crimes have risen substantially recently, particularly in Europe. The Gaza massacre gave rise to anti-Semitic incidents, not seen in Europe for quite some time. Surprisingly, the reactionary forces behind these attacks are being aided by the Jewish leaders throughout the world: they were mostly silent in taking a stand against the Zionist massacre. Mostly they collaborated with the Zionist and anti-Semitic lie that portrays Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Zionism as the national movement and sole representative of the Jewish "nation".

The truth is, that ordinary Jews from within, and particularly from without Israel have nothing to do with the massacre. They have nothing to do with Zionism altogether. But as long as they continue to support the Israeli state and the Zionist movement that gave birth to it and its crimes, the anti-Semitism fuelled by the fallacious associations made between Zionist barbarism and the Jewish people as a whole is likely to continue, putting many innocent Jews in jeopardy.

(Zionism cynically regards any criticism, as sounded and justified as it may be, against its crimes, as anti-Semitism. Drawing by Latuff.)

Zionism and anti-Semitism

Zionism cynically regards any criticism, as sounded and justified as it may be, against its crimes, as anti-Semitism. This, in turn, helps to confuse the progressive struggle against Zionism with the reactionary forces behind anti-Semitism. Both Zionism and anti-Semitism benefit from that confusion. It would not be the first time that Zionism and anti-Semitism have collaborated against Jews and other people.

Contrary to Zionist propaganda, Zionism is not the answer to anti-Semitism. It is a form of anti-Semitism itself. Zionism began with the fear of West European petty-bourgeois Jews of a flood of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. They collaborated with anti-Semites on more than one occasion for a common goal: to cleanse Europe from its Jewish inhabitants (mostly poor workers) and keep them away from collaborating with the growing workers' movement, and particularly with Bolshevism.

Similar to anti-Semitism, Zionism claims that Jews are inherently different from their non-Jewish neighbours and that they cannot and should not integrate with them. So Zionism gives the anti-Semitic answer to the Jewish question: the Jews should be evacuated from Europe to a place far away.

Zionism and imperialism

Zionism in practice meant two things in the past. First of all, it promoted "Jewish" colonialism in Palestine, starting with a group of adventurers who took over Palestinian land in order to build a kind of "White settler" colony on it, and then they imported ordinary Jews as workers and soldiers to be exploited on that same stolen land. Secondly, it also embodies the practice of keeping the local workforce divided along ethnic lines, with “Jews versus Arabs”, fighting each other constantly rather than uniting against their common oppressors. This situation produced a unique opportunity for imperialism, which is the main reason why it survives until today.

After the Israeli state was created, it eventually received recognition and support from imperialism. As the Cold War developed, the Soviet Union (which had originally supported the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel) threw its weight behind the Arab states, while American imperialism, in particular, came to understand the significance of such a state as Israel for its interests in the Middle East. Such an artificial state, which causes such antagonism amongst its neighbours will be forever dependent on imperialism, and will always need to depend heavily on the supply of arms for its survival. It thus serves as a garrison state in the service of global imperialism against the struggle of the Arab masses. This is the reason why Israel is so supported by the imperialist states. It is not because of some secretive "Jewish domination" over international capital as the anti-Semites claim. It is international capital itself, by its own logic, regardless of who "controls" it, which dictates the need for an artificial, disintegrated, hysterically violent and heavily armed state in the heart of the Arab world.

Why do Jews support Zionism?

How was it that Jews, who had always been at the forefront of the revolutionary forces in Europe, found themselves entangled in the most reactionary and barbaric forces in the world?

Initially, most Jews disregarded Zionism. Many of them loathed it. Only a minority of Jews migrated to Palestine. It took the rise of Nazi-fascism in Europe to radically change the picture. Jews that were being persecuted in Europe, their attempts to seek shelter in other countries being turned down, would go anywhere they could in search of refuge. Most of them still saw Palestine only as a last resort. They mostly fled to Latin America, North Africa, Russia, North America and other places. Only a minority found itself, not always willingly, moving to Palestine. In spite of this, an influx of Jews into Palestine did take place and it was sufficient to provide a solid base for the future Israeli state. After the Holocaust, many of the survivors were also evacuated to Palestine. The European bourgeoisie did not want to deal with the Jewish refugees and preferred their relocation to Palestine. Zionist delegations collaborated with that trend and persuaded the confused survivors to migrate to Palestine.

Today, it can be understood why the Jews who live in Israel support Zionism whether their ancestors wanted to migrate to Palestine or not. It is not just that they are constantly bombarded with Zionist propaganda from early childhood onwards. It is also because of the antagonism that Zionist colonialism has provoked in the surrounding Arab world, which pushes them to support the Zionist state as the only means for their protection.

It is less clear why Jews outside of Israel support Zionism. First of all, they do it to a far lesser extent than the Jews inside Israel. Many of the sharpest critics of Zionism are in fact Jews, and that is hardly surprising. Secondly, those who do support Zionism are doing it out for two reasons.

The first reason is that conservative Jews have come to understand that over time Jews will eventually integrate into the societies they live in. In this sense, Israel is regarded as the only place where Jews are incapable of “integrating” as there cannot be anything else but Jews.

The second reason and the more alarming one, is the vicious circle caused by the fear of anti-Semitism. Jews support Israel because they regard it as a shelter from a possible anti-Semitic resurgence, but that very support fuels anti-Semitism. This vicious circle must be broken if we want to rid the world of anti-Semitism. Zionism is not and cannot be a shelter for persecuted Jews. On the contrary, it is exactly what makes Jews easy victims of persecution. It is a convenient mechanism for keeping them apart from the societies they live in, and as long as they do not denounce this fact, loudly and clearly, it will be much easier for anti-Semitism to taint them with the crimes of Zionism.

There is no Jewish nation

Many Zionists raise what seems to be a legitimate question: don't the Jews deserve the right of self-determination like other nations? The answer to this should be unequivocal: whilst we support the right of Israeli Jews, who after all have been living in Palestine for 60 years now, to self-determination, this self-determination (based on the right of Israeli Jews to their own language and culture in the regions they inhabit) cannot be used as a justification for Zionist expansionism and occupation of another people. Nor can it be a substitute for the struggles of Jews living outside Israel, alongside their class brothers and sisters, against capitalism and racism. The answer to the plight of the Jews should not be sought in national grounds, but on social ones.

Contrary to Zionist propaganda, the Jews around the world have not been a ‘nation’ like the English, the Russian or the German nations for millennia. Jews share no common territory, they do not speak the same language, and they have different histories and different cultures. A Jew that lives in Argentina will have much more in common with his Argentine neighbours than he would have with another Jew, living in France or in Turkey. We reject unequivocally this ‘solution’ to the Jewish question proposed by the Zionists.

This is why any attempt to solve the "Jewish question" on national lines will be fallacious and harmful. The answer to the problems of anti-Semitism should be a social answer, and particularly a class answer. The struggle against anti-Semitism was always intertwined with the class struggles of society. It took the bourgeois revolutions to revoke the anti-Semitic laws and restrictions set up against the Jews in feudal times. It was also the class struggle of the proletariat that involved the fighting together of Jews and non-Jews against their common oppressors, particularly against the fascist elements who tried to no avail to separate the working class via nationalistic and anti-Semitic propaganda. Jews should not be coerced or encouraged to escape to Palestine, because there they will only be protected by the broken reed of the Zionist state, which makes the Jews under its rule more hated and vulnerable than in any other place. The labour movement should encourage Jews to stay in their respective countries, joining forces with the progressive and proletarian elements there, fighting together against any form of reaction.

Denounce Zionism, Move on to socialism!

Concentrating the Jews of the world in a small bracketed and violent state, at the expense of the native population, hated by everyone around them, is a very strange way to fight anti-Semitism. Nowadays it proves to be the main fuel for anti-Semitism in a time where such a phenomenon should have been eradicated long ago. Those Jews, in Israel or outside it, who support Zionism, end up unintentionally supporting the anti-Semitic forces which feed on this situation.

The answer to anti-Semitism is socialism. There is no way to evade that fact. Bourgeois society will always seek to divide the workers, and to lull them with reactionary fairy tails about a "glorious", "eternal" and "united" nation which can only be in conflict with other nations, never within itself. There will always be room for anti-Semitism in such an environment, and the Zionist crimes falsely associated with the Jews as a whole will make sure that this room will be ever larger. This is why we must urge anyone who regards him or herself as Jewish, to stand up against Zionism and to join forces with the progressive and revolutionary elements in his or her society. There is no other way if we desire a world without racism.

That said, socialists recognise that because Israeli Jews have lived in Palestine for over 60 years, and have developed something of a common language and culture, we reject reactionary calls (sadly sometimes seen also on the left) for them to be either ‘thrown into the sea’ or forced to live as second-class citizens in an Arab Palestine. Both the Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian peoples have the right to national, cultural and linguistic autonomy, but this is not something that can be granted by the imperialists and their ‘two-state’ solution (which in practice would mean a small, weak and divided Palestinian state under the iron heel of Israel). Only a single workers’ state of Israel/Palestine, with autonomy for both peoples but with free movement between them, and as part of a socialist federation of the Middle East, can provide these two peoples with what they desperately crave.

The Reality Behind Isreal's War of Words

2010-02-21T02:38:00.009+02:00

Again, today, another Syrian official reminded Israel of the disadvantages of war, its results would be catastrophic. Apparently Israel, with maximum under-estimation of its historic enemy, doesn't care.

The whole issue started with the arrival of Lieberman, an ultra-Zionist nutcase, and his clown, Ayalon. Displaying Israeli superiority complex, Ayalon insulted the Turkish ambassador in Israel. Ayalon argued that it was vengeance on what Turkey's spearhead, Mr. Tayeb Ordogan said in the World Economic Forum. The Turkish official simply highlighted the atrocities committed by the Israeli Defense Forces on Gaza. This was approved by the United Nation's Human Rights Committee, and voted on with a majority in the UN. Of course, the USA shut it down.

As Gaza's war left Israel militarily victorious, Israel hoped to boast its confidence in overcoming the defeat they suffered in 2006 by Hezbollah and the various civilian resistance movements (which included refugee relief, media wars, and exposing Israel for its real face: a Fascist state).

The plans of Israel backfired drastically. Ever since 2009, the majority of the world was disgusted by Israel's brutality. Another problem Israel faced is its arrogance, the majority of the world no longer looks at Israel as a victim, definitely, those World War II images were wiped out finally by its brutality on Gaza. As a matter of fact, a think tank in Israel argued that the entire world is hateful of Israel, and the last frontier was the United States. Even in the United States, according to the think tank, various informational hubs, university activists, left-wing activists, and others are exposing Israel for its reality, a fascist state that was based on ethnic cleansing. The think tank predicted that if Israel doesn't do anything drastic, Israel's final bastion for protecting its reputation (along where the real veto power lays) will collapse. Such a collapse is not any collapse, it is Israel's life-line supplier, the United States of America.

The Goldstone Affair played a role in exposing Israel's disgusting thoughts. Goldstone, a Zionist Jew himself, was traumatized to see what has happened in Gaza. A Zionist bashed Israel's Zionist regime for its inhumane activities. Israel accused its supporter of anti-semitism, which of course, remains the name of the game of shutting out critics. This reflected badly on Israel. As a matter of fact, 2009/2010 as two chronological years, appear as the breakdown of Israel's "anti-semitism" technique. Of course, Israel acknowledged that it used banned phosphoric bombs, and "persecuted" two high ranking officers. This accusation was launched during the July War on Lebanon as well as evidence of Israel's usage of banned weaponry. The world is fed up of Israel breaking International Law.

The blame of this hate, according to Lieberman and Ayalon, was directed on little Mahmoud Abbass, a clown that is selling everything in his power in the name of the Palestinians, and in the name of the 4.2 million Palestinian refugee (estimates on that number go as far as 7.2 million). Abbass, and the current form of Fatah, have been holding peace talks that was supposed to include 22% of historic Palestine. Earlier officials cut down the talks to 80% of the 22% of Palestine proper (preserving major settlements of the Zionists). Eventually, Sharon and his goons (special thanks to the Apartheid Wall and expanding settlements) cut down the negotiations to 42% of the 80%, which rotated around Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The last corner, as a matter of fact, had been gradually undergoing Palestinian expulsions while being replaced illegally by Zionist settlers. If anything, the Palestinians, according to Jonathan Cook (Disappearing Palestine), the Palestinians are left to negotiate for 42% of the 80% of the 22% of the 100% of their national homes. What a deal to the real natives of the land. It is not Abbass's fault, it is the fault of the world finally waking up to Israel's fascist mask.

The stubbornness of Israel to block settlements and give peace negotiations a chance angered the United States as well. Well, the United States, under AIPAC dominion, cannot react much. A group of congressmen in the US submitted a petition to the US Administration, that the United States should be more aggressive with Israel, the Israeli readers wondered how did AIPAC allow that to happen. Israel's non-democratic acts have reflected too long on US affairs. The United States' democracy itself is under threat because AIPAC should approve of congressmen.

Of course, Natanyaho and his goons were hoping for a face save. Hence, Haiti as a disaster took place, and Israeli media made sure to provide coverage for the 200 IDF units. This actually put Israel in trouble. Gaza remains shattered, burnt to the ashes, as Israel still inflicts a siege on it (well now Moubarak is helping Israel too).A lot argued that this was low blow to cover up for Gaza. In my opinion, I agree. When some Natanyaho officials bragged that they were the only ones to help Haiti, he didn't notice the billions of dollars coming from his Arab neighbors. Of course, some IDF soldiers may have the intent to help; however, these are the soldiers of an institution that is accused of war crimes against humanity.

The IDF as a matter of fact is facing another front, a rebellion from its veterans, those who were forced to serve in that fascist disgusting army, and decided to go in the open exposing Israel's "glorious brave army" for looting, humiliating, insulting, degrading, torturing, and even killing Palestinian citizens. The movement, Breaking The Silence, currently is touring the United States, again, the stronghold of Israel's propaganda centers, and I sure hope they can have listening ears.

The on-going attempted arrests which made Levni herself, another war criminal, a temprary fugitive in Britain also sored relations between Israel and the UK. Israel attempted to change the British law to make its war crimes an exception. The British audience were angered by Israeli arrogance while the leadership of Brown was totally embarassed. The law will not change.

Another damaging effect was the assassination of a Hamas figurehead in Dubai. That alone also got Israel alienated with France, England, Ireland, and other countries. This again goes down to the blunderous acts of Ayalon and Lieberman. As a matter of fact, these two clowns are soring relations between Israel and United States to the extent Israel's Peretz is negotiating with the United States, instead the foreign minister.

Israel also is irritating the United States as well, it depends on US funds and weapons, but Israel also has its own military trade, which ends up selling arms to China. AIPAC cannot justify that as well.

Such attempts have pushed the ruling elites of Israel to go and push for media war with Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon is always under threat from Israel, and Nasrallah pledged that if they go to war, it will not be a joy ride for their armies. This goes into Israeli calculations that Hezbollah had upgraded its missiles to repay Israel with "eye for eye, ear for ear", hence Nasrallah's famous speech, Ben Gurion's Airport for Beirut's Rafiq Harriri Airport. Syria pledged to rush for the aid of Lebanon, but not morally, rather militarily this time. The Lebanese are fed up of Syria's moral support then harvest victories on their backs. This also means if Israel targets Syria, it will rain rockets from Lebanon as well. Two fronts that I am certain Israel will be left in total loss. The Israeli Air Force is not that comfortable also, Nasrallah last year announced it that Hezbollah "has the capacities to shoot down Israeli Airplanes". If that is a fact, then, not just Israel is in trouble, but other regimes as well, specially the "peaceful" countries that surround Israel: Egypt and Jordan. Of course, this collission doesn't exclude the future confronation between Iran and Israel. Russia, which recieved a pleasant visit from the Israeli government, disregarded "Israeli favors" and sold Iran its latest state of the art Defense System.

The entire regimes of Jordan and Egypt are standing on the fact that "nothing can be done with Israel". The superior airforce of Israel allowed these two countries, among others, that nothing can be done to face the Israeli army. If Hezbollah accomplishes greater victories against Israel, specially by hindering Israeli Air Force, the regimes might not be able to justify to their people why the peace treaty stands. Of course, The Israeli Lobby Book, argues how Egypt and Jordan are the second and third most funded countries in the US agenda, after Israel. The two flanks of Israel will face rough time in controlling their people's wrath, who all are not happy with the peace treaty. Hence, if Hezbollah proves a real victory in a war against Israel, Moubarak in specific may be overthrown in the end of the day. Of course, I won't feel any sorrow towards his son not taking over "the presidential throne".

This leads to the question, how desperate is Natanyaho. Is he willing to make the blunders of Olmert and open two fronts? The Gaza front in the past was easy, but the Lebanese Front was devestative. Can Israel easily go to war with Syria and Lebanon? Is Israel going to destabilize its two allies, Egypt and Jordan? Natanyahou's blunders already pushed Syria and Turkey to reconcile. As a matter of fact, now Turkish citizens do not need VISA to go and visit Lebanon or Syria, and vice versa.

My Question is: For How long the United States is willing to allow Israel go on a rampage of racism, fascism, terrorism, and acts of war against humanity. Obviously the Iranian dilemma, Haiti bravery, escalation of political tensions in the Middle East didn't cover up anything.

Actually, I do have one more remark, while the Israeli movie, Ajami, is reeping awards on a global scale. Israel attempted to promote the film as an Israeli product done by the Israeli Arabs, the same Arabs who regard themselves as Palestinians, but under gunpoint, they are suffering cultural genocide. The actor in the film, who was then nominated for an Oscar, was brutally beaten up by the Israeli Army, and arrested. Another slap in the face, and another bullet in Israel's supposed democracy.

The final embarassment is the fanatic religious surges within Israel that are becoming more and more public. The gender division of women and men on buses, the attempts to ban internet, and the non-protected Palestinian Christians of Jerusalem who were threatened not to celebrate Christmas, reflects badly on Israel. For how long those idiots of the Neo-Christians want to support Israel?

J-Street was targeted last week by Ayalon as he refused to meet with J-Street Affiliated US Congressmen, which also triggered another fiasco between USA and Israel. J-Street is attempting to counter AIPAC, and in a short period of time had been assembling a lot of Jews there. Of course, Israel considered them "the enemy" because there is one color of Judaism, that is, Zionism. The Jews should be liberated from Zionism, because Zionism is holding every Jew in the world its hostage. If they disagree, just like Pape and Goldstone, they are traitors, self-hating Jews, and Muslim Lovers, in the eyes of the Israeli government. The latest escalations of the Israeli government will not shed its reality. Zionist Israel is losing its legitimacy.

MFL

Ironies and Lebanon's Democracy

2010-02-12T00:09:00.000+02:00

One of the biggest contradictions about Lebanon is the symbolism it represents.
For starters, Lebanon represents co-existence and the symbol of peace, where 18 sects co-exist with each other. The Lebanese President even praised the Lebanese model as "a model of coexistence". The other face of Lebanon is the fact it is the next of sectarianism. Sectarian wars that exploded in 1958, 1975 – 1990, 2008, are a proof also that Lebanon is a model for war. I am certain that a lot of Lebanese abroad spend a lot of their time explaining to the world that Lebanon is divided according to sectarian lines, but all Lebanese love each other. Personally, I agree with the former position, sectarianism is imposed from above, and was legitimated since the French mandate. Like all 19th and early 20th century colonial empires, the French mandate imposed a political body that was aimed to divide the communities in order to renew their mandate. The French are gone, but that type of a regime, that suits the traditional family leaders, remained. Few politicians are exceptions to the norm, they bulldozed their way and became integrated into the system. Coexistence also includes the abolishment of sectarianism towards the Palestinian refugees, seek common solutions with them, and the obliteration of racism towards foreign labor (unless they come from the West, then they are treated with royalty).

Lebanon is "Modern and European" but also "Backward". Sure, wherever the Lebanese go, everyone calls Beirut as the "Paris of the East", or dub Lebanon "Switzerland of the East". Of course the difference is, Paris with all its historic glory, is the symbol of academic discussions on racism exploding there: what it means to be a real French. Switzerland is famous for its historic breakthroughs in patching up its communities and enjoy a prosperous peace. Lebanon on the other hand, enjoys a unique night life that is undisputed by any capital in the world. Dubai, Tel Aviv, Istambul, and others tried to recreate that "rich night life" in Lebanon, but so far it didn't reach Beirut's standards. Nevertheless, Beirut, was the city that demolished on daily basis. Theodor Hanf highlights the remarkable phenomenon, during the 1975 – 1990 civil war, how Beirut was rebuilt itself every time there is a seize fire. Nevertheless, it gets demolished again. After the end of the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in 2006, Beirut automatically restored its night life after the Israeli siege of Lebanon was lifted. As a matter of fact, while Israel was bombing Lebanon, nightlife was also booming in Beirut's nightlife. Couple of pub and nightclub managers told me that their profits maxed out to a new level (two in Ras Beirut, two in Gemayzi) during the Israeli aggression. The time when night life plumbed down was during the 2008 mini civil war we experienced, everyone hid in their houses with few peace activists who were trying to build a front for peace. However, nightlife is not a standard measure for modernity. Such a belief makes some people to become backward. Backward is not to have a religious community as well. It is about sectarianism. Backward is not remembering that the politicians need the people, and not as it currently stands, the people need the leaders.

Lebanon is the beacon of "democracy in the Middle East", but Lebanon is ruled by feudal lords. Hence, is it really democratic when the bourgeoisie elites meet up for months and months discussing the layout of the electoral constituencies whereby most of the results are already determined by the borders and alliances? Sure, Lebanon has a democratic competition between two gigantic coalitions, nevertheless, the results of the competitive coalitions appear when only few constituencies determine the real victor. Usually, such constituencies, have the real balance of power. Another side of the coin is how sectarian or political minorities appear to be beaten up by the supporters of the majority. The elections of 2009 showed how even minorities in the same sect are beaten up. Hence, elections in general rotate around how many traditional figureheads will return. The electoral platform of a party or candidate doesn't matter much, it rotates around who is a real Shiite, Christian, Druzi, and Sunni, in the eyes of the voters. Other voters, who are not really that low in number, vote on the premises of choosing between "the lesser evil". In that sense, who will ruin Lebanon's economic statures less than the others. This boils down usually to two coalitions which we already have. Last but not least, Lebanon's "democratic" system is usually hostage for the elites. They spend a lot of time of choosing a government that suits all the tastes of the elites, and that doesn't save the Lebanese from political tensions. As a matter of fact, the stressing-out-of-the-people phenomena contributes in creating sectarian walls.

There is no war but class war
MFL

The tree-lined bunkers that could change the face of the Middle East

2010-02-01T19:22:00.001+02:00

An Excellent Article by Robert Fisk, taken from here

It looks like a hop, skip and a jump. There's the first electrified fence, then the dirt strip to identify footprints, then the tarmac road, then one more electrified fence, and then acres and acres of trees. Orchards rather than tanks. Galilee spreads beyond, soft and moist and dark green in the winter afternoon - a peaceful Israel, you might think. And a peaceful Lebanon to the north, tobacco plantations amid the stony hills, just an occasional UN armoured vehicle to keep you on your toes. "Major Pardin says you cannot take pictures," a Malaysian UN soldier tells me. Then a second one says the same. Then along comes a Lebanese army intelligence officer and stares at our papers. "OK, you have permission," he declares, and I snap away with my old 36-frame real-film Nikon; the fields, the frontier fence, the high-tech surveillance tower on the horizon. This must be the most photographed border in the world.

Of course, the gentle countryside is an illusion. Benjamin Netanyahu and his colleagues in the Israeli government have been announcing that the only "army" of Lebanon is the Hizbollah, the Iranian-armed and Syrian-assisted guerrilla force whose bunkers and missiles north of the Litani river might just tip the balance in the next Hizbollah-Israeli war. And Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the chairman of the Hizbollah, has been making some even more interesting threats: that his forces will "change the face of the Middle East region" if there is another war with Israel. No-one is in much doubt about what this means. The newly resurfaced Lebanese roads near the border - courtesy of Hizbollah money - suggest that someone might want to move men at high speed towards the frontier. Perhaps even to cross the border.

That's what the Israelis suspect, too - and it makes sense of Nasrallah's warning last week. The Hizbollah claimed that the 2006 war with Israel was a "divine victory" - it didn't feel that way to us in southern Lebanon at the time - yet even Israel admits it was a near-defeat for its own ill-trained soldiers. But how would Israel react if the Hizbollah managed to enter Israel itself? Israeli army commanders are talking about this in the Israeli press. A fast, dramatic spring across the frontier to the west - in the direction of Naharia, perhaps, or a grab at the settlement of Kiryat Shmona - and Hizbollah would announce it had "liberated" part of historic "Palestine". Israel would have to bomb its own territory to get them out.

This is no game. The Israeli army wants to revenge itself on the Hizbollah, which humiliated it in 2006. Nasrallah - on giant-wide screens, for security reasons - often talks as if he's the Lebanese president. Did the Israelis really think al-Qa'ida or the Hizbollah were behind the attempted killing of two Jordanian diplomats between Amman and the Allenby bridge, Nasrallah asked. No friend of al-Qa'ida, Hizbollah would have succeeded in blowing them up if it had been involved. The crowd roared its agreement.

But the threats continue. The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, says that the Lebanese government will be held responsible for any future war and the Lebanese have had the usual warnings from Israel. Lebanon's infrastructure will be attacked, its bridges and highways destroyed, its villages erased. Israel, Mr Barak has been saying, was restrained in 2006 - when it attacked Lebanon's infrastructure, destroyed its bridges and highways and erased its villages. Plus ça change.

But there's a good deal of "change". Syria is being courted by the Obama administration. Its old allies in Lebanon - Druze leader Walid Jumblatt among them - are uttering honeyed words to Damascus. Indeed, Jumblatt has been meeting both Nasrallah and his old enemy Michel Aoun, and concluding that he is three-quarters of the way down the road to Damascus. And President Assad of Syria has been visiting Tehran again, to assure the Islamic Republic of his ever-loyal support.

You can see the way everyone is thinking. And here's the big question, the camel in the room. If Israel ignores Obama and attacks Iran's nuclear sites - a real aggression if ever there could be - the Hizbollah could fire rockets into Israel, perhaps even revealing its new anti-aircraft missile capacity. Hamas might join in from Gaza. Hamas is a tin-pot outfit; the Hizbollah is not. An Israeli attack on Iran will unleash Iranian military power against America. But part of that power is Hizbollah in Lebanon. This is serious business.

Over Christmas, a parcel "from a foreign country" was delivered to three Hamas officials in Beirut and blew up, killing all of them. Last week, a bomb exploded in a building in southern Lebanon owned by two Hizbollah officials, wounding three children. One of them, 11-year-old Diana Zreik, had her left leg amputated. It looks like a glance at the past, to the 1970s, when Israel posted letter-bombs to its enemies in Lebanon.

The United Nations has been complaining at the increase in Israel's overflights of Lebanese territory. The Lebanese army has been opening fire on Israeli aircraft flying over the border - useless, of course, because the Americans don't give the Lebanese army weapons that can hurt Israel - while US Senator John McCain has dropped by in Beirut to complain about the Hizbollah's weapons which, under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, are supposed to be in the hands of the Lebanese army. This is the same resolution that should prevent Israeli overflights.

And what do those overflights show? "We see Hizbollah expanding inside Lebanon and its growing influence, political and otherwise," Barak said last week. "We again wish to make clear to the Lebanese leadership that we see everything, and we will hold the parties which cause increased tension responsible... the situation can quickly deteriorate." Thank you, Israel. Especially if Israel attacks Iran.

Party of God: Hizbollah and the politics of Islamic resistance

* Hizbollah, which can be translated as Party of God, is a Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian-backed, Shia Islamist political movement with a paramilitary wing known as "Islamic Resistance". It emerged in 1982 as a small militia force with the aim of ending Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon.

The movement is now a major player in Lebanese politics with its own satellite TV network, a radio station, and a vast network of social programmes from housing to agriculture. According to Hizbollah's manifesto, the Lebanese people must be free to choose what form of government they want, but they are strongly encouraged to pick the option of Islamic government. The movement's original goal of turning Lebanon into an Islamic Republic has been abandoned.

* Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah became Hizbollah's Secretary General in 1992. A popular and charismatic figure, his face appears from billboards and hoardings across Beirut and south Lebanon. The deeply religious 49-year-old studied theology in Iran and is noted for his fiery sermons, excerpts of which are sometimes heard on mobile phone ringtones.

* Israel tried to kill Nasrallah during the month-long war it fought against Hizbollah in 2006. The conflict followed a Hizbollah attack on an Israeli army convoy patrolling the border with south Lebanon. Nasrallah now says Hizbollah will defeat Israel in any new conflict. "I promise you that should a new war with the Zionists erupt, we will crush the enemy, come out victorious and change the face of the region," he said last week.

IDF Kidnaps Lebanese Citizen on Lebanese Grounds

2010-02-01T01:19:00.002+02:00

A shepherd, leading his flock, was kidnapped by the Israeli Deranged Forces as he was tending his sheep close to Shiba'a Farms. The IDF crossed and "arrested" him. The article is found here

As for the Israeli media, as always, they distorted the news, as Israeli army arrested a Lebanese carrying an army knife. Excuse me, if the poor lad was a shepherd, it is natural to have a knife wondering around. Haaretz, also failed to mention that the citizen was kidnapped on Lebanese grounds, rather claimed that the victim was in Sheba'a farms.

Then, of course, Israel wonders: Why Hezbollah are so damn popular in Southern Lebanon? Need a clue? Their brutality!

Israel Is Becoming as Religious as Saudi Arabia

2010-02-01T01:07:00.002+02:00

In Saudi Arabia, activists are doing their best to empower women against all odds. Israel on the other hand, is heading exactly towards the opposite direction, becoming as religious as Saudi Arabia fundementalists. Currently, they are half way in legalizing gender seperation on buses and elsewhere, a phenomenon that exists in the Arab Gulf areas. I can arrogantly say that Lebanon is more religious moderate than a country ruled by a fascist organization called Zionism, holding its own Jews as hostages by speaking in their name, and gradually becoming more and more religious zealots. Anyone want to tell me this is democracy (other than the fact non-Jews are also treated as class B or class Z citizens?)

This article below was written in Haaretz's staff

Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud) said on Sunday that Israel would allow the ultra-Orthodox community continue to run their private bus lines segregated by gender, but could not officially recognize the practice on public bus lines.

The minister was responding to a petition sent by the Israel Religious Action Center and a women's rights group to the government and to the Egged and Dan transportation companies.

Katz declared in his response that Israel does not disapprove of buses which separate between men and women to accommodate the Hardi community, but that segregation could not become institutionalized.

The minister added that buses should be permitted to hang signs explaining the ultra-Orthodox community's request to separate seating between men and women, however the request could not be enforced if passengers chose not to adhere to it.

Kats also said that violence and the disruption of order on segregated buses must be stopped, and instructed professional security forces on the matter.

Currently, there are 56 segregated bus lines operating throughout the country, a total of 2,108 buses a day. All the buses will be permitted to remain segregated so long as they choose to, but passengers will not be forced to adhere to the decision, only to respect it at will.

Most of the buses cater to ultra-Orthodox passengers.

"The minister expressed a worthy attitude towards the ultra-Orthodox community and he understands the publics' needs," Rabbi Shimon Stern of the Rabbis Transportation Committee said in praise of the decision.

Segregated buses are a relatively new phenomenon in Israel, with the first one appearing 10 years ago on a line between Jerusalem and neighboring Beit Shemesh

(MFL final note: Religion is the Opium of the Masses)

The Business of the Holocaust Memorial

2010-01-28T20:23:00.002+02:00

Anyone who objects to Israel's fascism and racism becomes anti-semite. This politics of anti-semitism of attempting to shut down opponents of Israel is losing its touch. Embarassingly, non-Zionist Jews are currently (after the Palestinians) the biggest victims of Zionism. The Zionists should realize that their tactics are no longer working except probably in the United States, and even there, the voices of the Palestinian victims are becoming heard ( when more than 50 congressman petitioned to Obama to be more strict with Israel's on-going fascist settlements, and the commentary of Haaretz wondered: "How did AIPAC allow that to happen"). I never knew that the US representatives have to answer to AIPAC on everything that relates to the Palestinians.

Gideon Levi just trashed the leadership once again over here

Mazen Kerbaj's Cartoon: My day to day life exactly

2010-01-28T17:44:00.003+02:00

This exactly what happens to me when I talk to a sectarian person:

Lessons of the Ethiopian Airlines: Chauvinism and Political Points

2010-01-28T17:29:00.004+02:00

The tragic horrible death of the Ethiopian airlines led to a shock, and a week of mourning. In what was a stand-off between the different reactionary parties in regards to several reforms, the plane crash bought some time.

There are several shocking events that generated prior and after the terrible crash which left several people of different nationalities mourning.

The first event were the reforms to be discussed in the Parliament.

The first focused on reducing the voting age to 18. The advocator to such change came as a surprise, at least in terms of parliamentary blocs, Nabih Berri and his hooligan AMAL. This of course, provides a trauma for me, since AMAL are notorious to enter fist-to-fist fights with almost anyone (a tend that has been operational since the days of the Lebanese Civil War). Nabih Berri, for the past three months or so has advocated all types of change, supporting Ziad Baroud's proposals, and seems to be trying to bring back the legacy of Imam Moussa Sadre's goals for reform back in the 1970s. Berri was involved in sparking the "Cancelation of Sectarianism" act, protecting the Ta'ef Accords (ironically), the Age Act reform, and giving strength to the Parliament (which was shut down for over two years by Berri himself).

The clash of reforms began with the head of the Reform and Change bloc, with lunatic General Aoun, and the other two Christian parties: Lebanese Forces and Phalange. The fear from the voting age reform scared the Christians that they will be overwhelmed by 'Muslim Votes'. The Christian parties eventually proposed that the Immigrants would have the right to vote under the basis that one reform cannot go without the other. This of course hinders all possibilities to implement the age 18 voting law. Since, the new age of the new parliament began under the banner of "Age of Love and Flirtations" among the elites, it was natural that the two camps in Lebanon bickered each other along the same alliances.

Just like the 14th of March and Opposition collisions, historical insights are highlighted and others forgotten, specially when Berri attacked Aoun that the latter was not present to forge the Ta'ef Accords.

The showdown between these two reached its climax when the infamous Monday parliamentary meeting was supposed to take place. Hezbollah attempted to sooth the situation, and it was anticipated that most of the blocs (pro Harriri or not) were going to avoid the making of such a meeting by making sure that the Parliament's quorum was not met. The different news media reported that meetings between AMAL and the Free Patriotic Movement remained taking place till 4:00 in the morning. The same day, the tragic death of the Ethiopian Airlines took place. This saved the politicians of the embarrassment of shooting down the parliament's meeting to take place.

Naomi Klein dubbed the Haiti disaster as Shock Capitalism, with highlights to Israel's 'humanitarian' activities to cover away its past sins in Gaza which turned world opinion against it. This is exactly what took place in Lebanon. A national mourning day took place, the parliamentary session was postponed.

The Lebanese-Ethiopian tragedy

As the plane collapsed, and all efforts took place in a very remarkable manner to salvage survivors, Lebanese pride rose up. Everyone on facebook, msn, and whatever placed a Lebanese flag with a black strip on their profiles. This is indeed a human tragedy.

All politicians diverted their attention into supporting the Red Cross and the Lebanese Army to save the survivors.

Nevertheless, Lebanese fascism sprang. Several Ethiopian blue collar proletariat in Lebanon were denied entrance to the hospitals in order to identify the bodies of their beloved. That is a typical country of contradiction: Co-existence and racism, tolerance and intolerance, and finally democracy and tyranny.

The incident itself was preceded by a controversial acts of beating activists in front of the Egyptian embassy because the activists there found it unusual to attack the apartheid wall of Israel, while Egypt's Moubarak is building another Iron Wall on the Rafah route, to force "coexistence between Hamas and Fatah".

Back to the plane incident, as much as Lebanon's president attempted to show Lebanon's humanitarian face to the world, the Human Rights Watch group slammed Lebanon for its mistreatment of foreign labor and Palestinians. Ironically that was celebrated by Fascist Israel who never bothered to read the entire report, as well to read the reports on their own country.

The acts of racism towards the foreign proletariat proved yet again, amidst this disaster, that foreign labor needs to be protected. The proletariat across the world, like the Lebanese, need to be protected and treated as humans. Every week we hear a story about a foreign laborer being maltreated, specially those who are abused to work almost for free as maids in households. It comes as a surprise for some Lebanese (those whom I spit on their faces) that labor from Sri Lanka, Syria, Jordan, Palestinians, India, Egypt, Ethiopia, Philippines, others are their own equal: simply humans. If Lebanese culture means superiority, for me, that equates to trash (Zionism is even more terrible by the way). It reminds me of France hailing itself as democratic while it was too busy demolishing Algerian proletariat back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, or Israeli "democracy" which rotates around only Judaism while trashing the rest of non-Jewish (and giving Jews of the world a bad name).

For those racist Lebanese, thing of it that Lebanese, Ethiopians, and others died equally as humans on that plane, equals also to the wife of the French Ambassador in Lebanon. May those who mourn find peace again in their hearts.

Again, we see that the whole world is governed by Class War under the banner of different logos: racism, reform, and political points

MFL

PS: The fact Berri is proposing all those reforms is still hard for me to digest

R.I.P. Howard Zinn

2010-01-28T05:45:00.004+02:00

By Mark Feeney and Bryan Marquard, Globe Staff - Boston News

Howard Zinn, the Boston University historian and political activist who was an early opponent of US involvement in Vietnam and whose books, such as "A People's History of the United States," inspired young and old to rethink the way textbooks present the American experience, died today in Santa Monica, Calif, where he was traveling. He was 87.

His daughter, Myla Kabat-Zinn of Lexington, said he suffered a heart attack.

"He's made an amazing contribution to American intellectual and moral culture," Noam Chomsky, the left-wing activist and MIT professor, said tonight. "He's changed the conscience of America in a highly constructive way. I really can't think of anyone I can compare him to in this respect."

Chomsky added that Dr. Zinn's writings "simply changed perspective and understanding for a whole generation. He opened up approaches to history that were novel and highly significant. Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement."
For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. "A People’s History of the United States" (1980), his best-known book, had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and union organizers of the 1930s.

As he wrote in his autobiography, "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train" (1994), "From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble."

Certainly, it was a recipe for rancor between Dr. Zinn and John Silber, former president of Boston University. Dr. Zinn, a leading critic of Silber, twice helped lead faculty votes to oust the BU president, who in turn once accused Dr. Zinn of arson (a charge he quickly retracted) and cited him as a prime example of teachers "who poison the well of academe."

Dr. Zinn was a cochairman of the strike committee when BU professors walked out in 1979. After the strike was settled, he and four colleagues were charged with violating their contract when they refused to cross a picket line of striking secretaries. The charges against "the BU Five" were soon dropped.

In 1997, Dr. Zinn slipped into popular culture when his writing made a cameo appearance in the film "Good Will Hunting." The title character, played by Matt Damon, lauds "A People’s History" and urges Robin Williams’s character to read it. Damon, who co-wrote the script, was a neighbor of the Zinns growing up.

"Howard had a great mind and was one of the great voices in the American political life," Ben Affleck, also a family friend growing up and Damon's co-star in "Good Will Hunting," said in a statement. "He taught me how valuable -- how necessary -- dissent was to democracy and to America itself. He taught that history was made by the everyman, not the elites. I was lucky enough to know him personally and I will carry with me what I learned from him -- and try to impart it to my own children -- in his memory."

Damon was later involved in a television version of the book, "The People Speak," which ran on the History Channel in 2009, and he narrated a 2004 biographical documentary, "Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train."

"Howard had a genius for the shape of public morality and for articulating the great alternative vision of peace as more than a dream," said James Carroll a columnist for the Globe's opinion pages whose friendship with Dr. Zinn dates to when Carroll was a Catholic chaplain at BU. "But above all, he had a genius for the practical meaning of love. That is what drew legions of the young to him and what made the wide circle of his friends so constantly amazed and grateful."

Dr. Zinn was born in New York City on Aug. 24, 1922, the son of Jewish immigrants, Edward Zinn, a waiter, and Jennie (Rabinowitz) Zinn, a housewife. He attended New York public schools and was working in the Brooklyn Navy Yard when he met Roslyn Shechter.

"She was working as a secretary," Dr. Zinn said in an interview with the Globe nearly two years ago. "We were both working in the same neighborhood, but we didn't know each other. A mutual friend asked me to deliver something to her. She opened the door, I saw her, and that was it."

He joined the Army Air Corps, and they courted through the mail before marrying in October 1944 while he was on his first furlough. She died in 2008.

During World War II, he served as a bombardier, was awarded the Air Medal, and attained the rank of second lieutenant.

After the war, Dr. Zinn worked at a series of menial jobs until entering New York University on the GI Bill as a 27-year-old freshman. He worked nights in a warehouse loading trucks to support his studies. He received his bachelor’s degree from NYU, followed by master’s and doctoral degrees in history from Columbia University.

Dr. Zinn was an instructor at Upsala College and lecturer at Brooklyn College before joining the faculty of Spelman College in Atlanta, in 1956. He served at the historically black women’s institution as chairman of the history department. Among his students were novelist Alice Walker, who called him "the best teacher I ever had," and Marian Wright Edelman, future head of the Children's Defense Fund.

During this time, Dr. Zinn became active in the civil rights movement. He served on the executive committee of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the most aggressive civil rights organization of the time, and participated in numerous demonstrations.

Dr. Zinn became an associate professor of political science at BU in 1964 and was named full professor in 1966.

The focus of his activism became the Vietnam War. Dr. Zinn spoke at many rallies and teach-ins and drew national attention when he and the Rev. Daniel Berrigan, another leading antiwar activist, went to Hanoi in 1968 to receive three prisoners released by the North Vietnamese.

Dr. Zinn’s involvement in the antiwar movement led to his publishing two books: "Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal" (1967) and "Disobedience and Democracy" (1968). He had previously published "LaGuardia in Congress" (1959), which had won the American Historical Association's Albert J. Beveridge Prize; "SNCC: The New Abolitionists" (1964); "The Southern Mystique" (1964); and "New Deal Thought" (1966).

He also was the author of "The Politics of History" (1970); "Postwar America" (1973); "Justice in Everyday Life" (1974); and "Declarations of Independence" (1990).

In 1988, Dr. Zinn took early retirement to concentrate on speaking and writing. The latter activity included writing for the stage. Dr. Zinn had two plays produced: "Emma," about the anarchist leader Emma Goldman, and "Daughter of Venus."

On his last day at BU, Dr. Zinn ended class 30 minutes early so he could join a picket line and urged the 500 students attending his lecture to come along. A hundred did.

"Howard was an old and very close friend," Chomsky said. "He was a person of real courage and integrity, warmth and humor. He was just a remarkable person."

Carroll called Dr. Zinn "simply one of the greatest Americans of our time. He will not be replaced -- or soon forgotten. How we loved him back."

In addition to his daughter, Dr. Zinn leaves a son, Jeff of Wellfleet; three granddaughters; and two grandsons.

Funeral plans were not available.

MFL Notes: For the Americans who don't know their own history of war crimes, I highly recommend to read A People's History of American Empire in Comics.

Some photos of the Comics is here

The Book can be found here

Case Point: Robert Weissman: Shed a Tear for Our (U.S.) Democracy

2010-01-28T05:41:00.002+02:00

Taken from Corpwatch.org

Yesterday, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.

Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Now, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.

In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.

The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.

Because the decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states and localities, including in state judicial elections.

In one sense, the decision was a long time in coming. Over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit corporations.

But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporations' purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line.

Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.

We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.

There are some things that can be done to mitigate the damage from today's decision.

First, we must have public financing of elections. Public financing will give independent candidates a base from which they may be able to compete against candidates benefiting from corporate expenditures. We will intensify our efforts to win rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to corporate-funded campaigns before fundraising for the 2010 election is in full swing. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, and Rep. John Larson, D-Connecticut, the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions in amounts of more than $100. The proposal has broad support, including more than 126 co-sponsors in the House.

In the wake of the court's decision, it is also essential that the presidential public financing system be made viable again. Cities and states will also need to enact public financing of elections.

Congress must ensure that corporate CEOs do not use corporate funds for political purposes, against the wishes of shareholders, with legislation requiring an absolute majority of shares to be voted in favor, before any corporate political expenditure is permitted. There are other legislative approaches to limit today's damage, including a range of measures proposed by Representative Alan Grayson, D-Florida.

These mitigating measures will not be enough to offset today's decision, however. The decision itself must be overturned.

We need a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. A constitutional amendment is not a thing to throw around lightly. But today's decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.

Winning a constitutional amendment will be a long-term effort. The starting point is for the people to petition their government to demand action. Public Citizen with allies has launched such a petition effort. Got to to sign the petition.

The Supreme Court has lost its way. Democracy is rule of the people -- real, live humans, not artificial entity corporations. Now it's time for the people to reassert their rights.

Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen .

Hezbollah's New Political Platform by Fawwaz Traboulsi

2010-01-27T02:14:00.002+02:00

Translated By Zmag and Taken from here

[Translator's Introduction: The following article by Fawwaz Traboulsi appeared in the Beirut daily as-Safir of December 2, 2009.

Traboulsi's article is an assessment and left critique of the main themes in Hezbollah's new political platform. The platform was released on November 30 at the conclusion of a general congress that had met intermittently over several months. It was published partially or entirely in several Arabic-language media outlets, inside and outside Lebanon, in early December 2009. The platform now becomes Hezbollah's political manifesto in place of its founding document, its so-called 1985 Open Letter.Hezbollah has undergone many changes since the mid-1980's. The most significant perhaps, seen from a Western perspective that tends to stress Hezbollah's narrow Islamist focus, is its gradual shift away from the call to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon. This call, as well as the allegiance to the Rule of the Jurisprudent (Wilayat al-Faqih), were explicit in the 1985 Open Letter. The new platform renounces the call for an Islamic state in Lebanon, accepts the diversity of Lebanese society, and makes no mention of the Rule of the Jurisprudent. This is of course a welcome development. But there are other aspects in the new platform that are far less praiseworthy, which Traboulsi addresses in his article. -- Assaf Kfoury]

What stands out in the political platform issued by Hezbollah at the conclusion of its recent general congress is how it assesses its own history and development since its founding in the mid 1980's. This document reviews a quarter of a century of multi-faceted experiences and sacrifices. It reflects a multiplicity of alliances and inspirations, if not splintered identities. At one and the same time, Hezbollah aspires to be a "national liberation" movement among other such movements in the world; a "resistance" movement at the regional level, with all the connotations the latter designation evokes among Arabs in relation to the Palestinian struggle; and increasingly a "force of national defense" for Lebanon. In this third designation, Hezbollah dispenses with any lingering doubt regarding its resolve to become a full partner in Lebanon's confessional system, if not its acceptance of the socio-economic conditions underlying such a system.

In its quest to position itself among national liberation movements worldwide, and to contribute to the regional struggle against colonial domination, Hezbollah's new political platform borrows many formulas and ideas elaborated by leftist traditions. Among these is its realization that imperialism's global reach today calls for a global mobilization in response to it. This becomes evident in the platform's insistence on the links between the struggles of Arab peoples and leftist movements in several countries of Latin America.

The platform offers a global view of the imperialist system led by the United States of which Israel is an integral part. It does not ignore the economic basis of imperialist domination, which it identifies as "savage capitalism" -- assuming it does not harbor any illusion that the alternative of "soft capitalism" will be any less cruel. Although its reference to the "military-industrial complex", rather than financial capitalism, is somewhat outdated as the determining factor shaping US policies, the platform rightly designates the latest stage of imperialism as the globalization of monopolies and military alliances. On this understanding, one would expect Hezbollah to reconsider its positions on the struggle between wealth and poverty and between oppressor and oppressed.

Apart from the rush to announce the imminent demise of the unipolar world and the Zionist project's inevitable downfall, Hezbollah's new platform does not include much that can be attributed to Ali Shariati's revolutionary ideas or to "revolutionary Islam", as some may contend. Instead, the platform reproduces some of the Islamic Republic's slogans under Ali Khamene'i, Iran's current supreme leader. These slogans are less about earlier republican values and revolutionary fervor than they are about the Iranian rulers' current need for security and ideological control.

On regional Arab affairs, the new platform abandons most of this earlier agenda [inspired by Ali Shariati's ideas], of which it mentions only the plundering by imperialism of the region's oil resources. Nonetheless, this emphasis on oil is important and cannot be overstated at a time when there is very little public discussion of it and its role in maintaining the region's despotic subservient regimes. These are a few welcome tokens to pry open a widely-ignored topic and raise important issues that have yet to be examined critically.

Turning to issues of resistance and negotiations in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Hezbollah's new platform completely evades the question of a Palestinian state and contents itself with a call for the total liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all Palestinian rights. Hezbollah reiterates its demand to Arab officialdom to desist from pursuing a negotiated settlement with Israel and offers its own experience of armed resistance as an example to follow and learn from.

On internal Lebanese matters, Hezbollah's new platform proclaims its unequivocal adherence to Lebanon's political system. It is reassuring to read this kind of proclamation from those who paid dearly in defense of the country. Equally satisfying is the platform's unambiguous respect of diversity, even though it extends the scope of this diversity to things other than political, cultural and ideological, to include Lebanon's entrenched confessional politics.

Although Hezbollah's new platform asserts that confessionalism is the bane of Lebanon's system of government and the chief obstacle to the realization of true democracy, it shies away from even issuing a call to supersede it. In the press conference on the day following the platform's publication, Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah's secretary general] limited himself to a call for the formation of a national council for the elimination of confessionalism, but quickly added that the formation of such a council does not necessarily mean adoption of its eventual directives. In the meantime, Hezbollah proclaims its respect of consociationalism* as reflecting best the spirit of the constitution. Of course, this ignores the fact that, whatever "spirit of the constitution" means, it cannot be a unilateral definition and must be reached by deliberation with other concerned citizens and groups.

Hezbollah's new platform does not stop at the enunciating of general principles of democracy and good governance, but goes on to spell out a specific blueprint for "building the state". On this issue, the platform contributes to a fraudulent consensus, common to all the branches of Lebanon's ruling establishment, by repeating a long inventory of desirable attributes for the future good state -- from the erection of modern institutions and the rule of law, down to the care of emigrants, and listing in between such things as fair parliamentary representation, end of corruption, independence of the judiciary, devolution of government administration, etc. -- as if the absence of such attributes is the root cause of a defective system rather than its effect.

What is said here about "building the state" is like what is said about "eliminating confessionalism". In both cases, they mix and conflate: the hoped for, the impossible, and the premature -- all in the same breath. It is incumbent on Hezbollah, as it is on all its partners in the ruling establishment, to break this riddle: How do they conceive "building the state" within the limits of a consociational/confessional system which they declare, at one and the same time, to be the fundamental obstacle to the realization of true democracy? How can this be done when the system is the chief stumbling block in the face of the aforementioned attributes of the good state [which Hezbollah and its partners in the government do not tire of mentioning]?

Hezbollah's new platform elicits a similar questioning in matters regarding the economy. It enumerates a long list of wishes -- a balanced development between regions, an economy based on productive sectors, improved means of production and distribution, adequate services in education, health care, and housing, the provision of work opportunities, etc. -- as if they are all within reach and without a need for fundamental structural changes. The platform declares Hezbollah's intention to reduce poverty, for example, but how will this be achieved by abiding by the World Bank's neo-liberal policies [readily accepted by successive Lebanese governments] rather than by reducing income disparities between classes? And what plan is there to reduce emigration and provide employment while Lebanon's educational system has been largely privatized, mostly divorced from the country's local needs, and increasingly directed at supplying university graduates to external economies? This long wish list is compiled without due consideration to the enormous national debt and the need to reconsider the decision-making process necessary to promote investments, protect the productive sectors, and undertake an equitable re-distribution of public resources and services.

It is remarkable how far Hezbollah has moved away from its earlier image as the party of the poor in rural areas and neglected urban suburbs, though it was always within the confines of the Shiite community. Does this reflect the sweeping transformations that this community has witnessed in the last quarter of a century? In recent years, Lebanese Shiites have fueled large waves of emigrants, developed a confident middle-class, produced large numbers of university graduates, and accumulated considerable wealth in distant places of immigration. Or does this changed image correspond to the shifting allegiances that other confessional communities in the Lebanese system have also experienced in the past, whereby the bourgeois section in each community tends to throw its weight behind the dominant power within its own community? Hezbollah is now the unchallenged political party among Lebanese Shiites, and more so since the July-August 2006 war.

It is worth noting that, in anticipation of having to resist future pressures to disarm, Hezbollah's new platform calls for maintaining a popular militia (exemplified by Hezbollah's current guerilla force) alongside a national army, with both involved in the country's defense. It is possible to read Hezbollah's refusal to ever recognize Israel as a prior warning that it will not relinquish its arms, in case of a resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria possibly leading to a peace agreement that will encompass both Lebanon and Syria.

Lastly, concerning Lebanese-Palestinian relations, Hezbollah's new platform does not share the anti-Palestinian racism of its ally, the Free Patriotic Movement led by General Michel Aoun. The platform insists instead on the respect of the Palestinians' civil rights. It does repeat the worn-out "refusal of a permanent settling" (of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon) -- a catchphrase of all the branches of the Lebanese ruling establishment -- but it couples it with the Palestinian right of return.

In a recent campaign to organize car traffic in the Dahiya (Beirut's sprawling southern suburbs where Shiites are the majority), Hezbollah displayed banners that read "order is from faith". Is this kind of order -- serving and controlled by bankers, traders, and contractors -- derived from faith or is it downright impiety?

Note

* Consociationalism (al-tawafuqiyyah or al tawafuqiyyah al-tawa'iffiyyah) is a current Lebanese euphemism for the more traditional but increasingly disparaged "confessionalism."

Fawwaz Traboulsi has written on history, Arab politics, social movements and popular culture and translated works by Karl Marx, John Reed, Antonio Gramsci, Isaac Deutscher, John Berger, Etel Adnan, Sa`di Yusuf and Edward Said. His most recent book in English is A History of Modern Lebanon (Pluto Press, 2007). The translator, Assaf Kfoury, is Professor of Computer Science at Boston University.

It's only human to rage at Israeli crimes

2010-01-27T02:12:00.001+02:00

Taken from the Daily Star here

The upcoming trip by an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset to Auschwitz is the latest chapter in the saga of seeing accusations of anti-Semitism used to smear the Arab and Muslim world. Mohammad Barakeh of the influential party Hadash will make the trek as part of an Israeli parliamentary delegation, which has predictably angered hardline Zionists who reject the idea of an Arab being allowed to participate in an official ceremony at a place with such symbolic meaning for Jews.

When the issue of the Holocaust arises in Arab and Muslim countries, there’s a pretty good chance that misunderstanding will follow. Defenders of Zionism are always quick to point to Palestinian-German contacts during World War II, even though the record shows that the contacts, such as they were, had a miniscule impact of the scheme of things, and were outweighed by the contacts between Zionists and Nazis. Back then, both Palestinians and Zionists had the same enemy – the British Mandate – and were willing to work with anyone to achieve their political goals.

If we leave aside the minority of active Holocaust deniers, we can say Arabs and Muslims view the massacres of Jews with revulsion and horror. But let’s not forget the real world: the organized annihilation of a religious group in Europe has been clouded by the fact that the Jewish victims of a European crime committed in Europe were “rewarded” with a state in a land where this genocide didn’t take place, and at the expense of people who had nothing to do with it.

There’s nothing wrong with actions by Barakeh and others who commemorate the tragedy of the Holocaust. Naturally, they’re criticized in their own communities, for political reasons: why help the Israelis and Jews with such an issue when Palestinians and Arabs are being displaced and oppressed on a daily basis by the Israeli state?

This invariably leads to the difficult-to-handle idea, for some, that there is a difference between Jews, on the one hand, and Zionism and Israel on the other.

In fact, it’s perfectly logical to condemn the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, while relentlessly criticizing the policies of the Israeli state.

Israeli leaders themselves are to blame for the growing difficultly to make the distinction. They occupy land and bomb people, under the aegis of the Star of David. They insist on the Jewishness of the Israeli state. They complain about anti-Semitism being on the rise, but forget salient facts.

The Jews of the 1930s were victims. The Israelis of this decade alone have launched wars against the Palestinian Authority (2002, 2004), Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008). And they’re popularly (and incorrectly) seen as being complicit in the 2003 war against Iraq.

People who are angered by this track record aren’t anti-Semites. They’re just reading the news.

To The Pro-Israeli Christians: Review Your Data

2009-12-25T20:42:00.001+02:00

Israel's fanaticism is becoming more and more public. If you are not Jewish, you won't have any cultural rights to enjoy what is supposed to be your right by birth. Now, some groups are trying to cleanse Jerusalem, the capital of the three major sects, from anything non-Jewish, and they fought Christmas, to the bone. Christmas, is the season of giving and charity.

This is the link
MFL

PS: Merry Christmas Jerusalem

Hmmm... if that is not Fanaticism, then what is?

2009-12-18T01:26:00.002+02:00

Israel accuses its surroundings of being fanatics, nevertheless, this group of people are considered then what? Assigning supremecy to the Torah over the civil republic can be just a little bit insane. I am glad Haaretz is publishing the stories of those fundementalists. Article is taken from here.

Crazy Israeli police: Police shoot U.S. student's laptop upon entry to Israel

2009-12-16T10:38:00.001+02:00

Well the article is taken from here, I think she is lucky because Palestinians are usually taken aside, tortured to admit they are terrorists, then imprisoned.

What makes the story funny is the comments of Zionists saying that range from "an honor to visit Israel" to "No to Peace Makers" bla bla bla

Zionism, I swear it, is a disease that needs to be cured.

Tony Cliff: Why socialists must support gays (1978)

2009-12-15T06:35:00.001+02:00

Article Taken from here, written in 1978.

IN CLASS-INFESTED society there is oppressor and oppressed in all walks of life. Employer oppresses employee; man oppresses woman; white oppresses black; old oppresses young; heterosexual oppresses homosexual.

The true socialist is able to overcome all these divisions. An engineering worker who can only identify with other engineering workers may be a good trade unionist but he has not proved himself to be a socialist. A socialist has to be able to identify with the struggles of all oppressed groups.

We are all the children of capitalism, so we tend to conceive of the future - even the socialist future - in an ordered and hierarchical way.

It is as though the socialist revolution will be led by the Father of the Chapel in the print union, the NGA working on Fleet Street. Second in command will be an AUEW Convenor Section 1 from the toolroom in a big car factory. The lieutenants of the revolution will all be forty-year-old white male shop stewards.

If there is enough space then we'll allow blacks and women and gays to take part - providing they stand quietly at the back!

A lot of socialists still have difficulty believing that gays will be taking part in the revolution at all.

On the contrary we should took forward now to the first leader of the London workers' council being a 19-year-old black gay woman!

The system rules by dividing us. This means there is no natural way by which one oppressed group identifies with another. The most racist extremists in the Southern States of America are the poor whites - not the rich whites.

In the same way blacks do not automatically support women and women do not automatically support blacks. Gays will not automatically support other oppressed groups.

The Nazis sent thousands of gays to concentration camps. In Chile gays were castrated and left bleeding on the street.

But it is not true that, even given these facts, gays automatically become anti-fascist.

Tens of thousands of gays supported Hitler. Many were in the Brownshirts. After Hitler took power he turned on the gay support and slaughtered them in the Night of the Long Knives.

How can we explain gays joining the Nazis?

If you are an oppressed gay putting on a Nazi leather jacket and leather boots gives you for the first time a sense of power. It makes it easy to put down Jews, women and anyone else.

For any oppressed group to fight back there is need for hope.

If you are on the way down you feel despair. You look for a victim to kick.

If you are on the way up you look for a back to pat.

That's why only by building a socialist movement can you unite workers with oppressed blacks, women and gays.

And that's why it is so important for gays to organise for demonstrations like at Brick Lane and to feel able to identify themselves proudly as gays and - where possible - as revolutionary socialist gays.

Karl Marx wrote that capitalism unites the forces of opposition. But it also divides us. We have to struggle consciously for that unity.

We are one - all of us together - but only when we fight together.

Arrest Warrant for Levni

2009-12-15T00:34:00.001+02:00

Damn it, next time we will get that war criminal: article taken from here This is what I was talking about earlier.

A British court issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni on war crimes charges but withdrew it on finding she had cancelled a planned trip to Britain, the Guardian newspaper reported.

Westminster magistrates court issued the warrant at the request of lawyers acting for Palestinian victims of fighting in Gaza earlier this year, the paper said in an article published online on Monday.

The warrant was later dropped after it was realized that Livni -- who had been due to address a meeting in London last weekend -- was not in Britain.

Human rights groups and UN investigators accuse Israel of war crimes in the Gaza Strip during a 22-day offensive against Hamas-led Islamist militants in which Palestinians say more than 900 civilians died -- a figure Israel disputes.

Livni, who is head of the opposition Kadima Party, played a key role in launching the offensive.

The Foreign Office said it was "looking urgently at the implications of this case."

"The UK is determined to do all it can to promote peace in the Middle East and to be a strategic partner of Israel," a spokeswoman said. "To do this, Israel's leaders need to be able to come to the UK for talks with the British government."

The justice ministry said it would not comment on individual cases and the interior ministry also declined to comment.

In September pro-Palestinian groups failed to persuade a London court to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whom they also accuse of war crimes.

The court said Barak, who attended the ruling Labour party's annual conference and met Prime Minister Gordon Brown, had diplomatic immunity.

(Reporting by Kylie MacLellan and Peter Griffiths, editing by Tim Pearce)

The Step By Step Return of the "Palestinian"

2009-12-14T21:41:00.002+02:00

Palestine may have been "temprarily" obliterated a by racist colonial movement that dates back to the 19th century, but the Palestinians needed at least 30 years to bring back the case of Palestine back.

One can never forget a lunatic speech delivered by Ben Gurion that traces the sufferings of the Jews to 2500 years ago. Ilian Pappe quotes him by saying: " We will establish a Christian State in Lebanon. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, an of Egupt will still continue to fight – we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis, and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical Times). " (I. Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestine, 144).
Having heard such a statement, it is no surprise that Israel is a perverted state, carved out by a minority called Zionism that doesn't even represent the majority of the Jews in the world. As a matter of fact, Zionism was and still the greatest bad news for Jews across the world because it calls for their isolation and importing them to Israel under a crazier banner: "Unifying the Diaspora". Some Christian fanatics support Zionism based on the biblical logic of "Israel was occupied for 2000 years by Arabs." They never read on how Israel of 1948 is different from the Kingdom of Israel 2000 years ago. They never read how Israel ethnically cleansed anyone who was not a Jew: Christian or Muslim Palestinian. They never bother to know how there was an entity called Palestinian Jews who were subjected to harassments by Zionism and threats.

Palestine by 1948 was omitted, and the logic of Israel was: "The Palestinians freely left their lands hence they have no right to return." Israel omits to mention Plan D which aimed way before the riots of 1947, after the partition with the Jews themselves being a minority in the Jewish half of Palestine, to clean the Palestinians out of their historical homelands. Yosif Weitz was not a manager of a luxury pub, rather the Transfer Committee of the Palestinians out of Palestine, ie , a genocidal committee since international law regards transferring populations as "an act of genocide."

Whenever someone mentioned Palestine since 1948, Israel and its lobbies attack the person as anti-Semite and brings back the memories of the Holocaust. Currently, in the Arab World, there is no longer the WWII Holocaust, it is the Gaza War of 2009. This became as the new Holocaust in the heads of every person who believes in Human Rights. For Gaza, it has been suffering from a blockade worse than that inflicted on Cuba, and living conditions couldn't have been more horrible as Israel remains to break international law and expand fake settlements on Gaza, West Bank, and attempt to take over East Jerusalem.

By 1951, things couldn't have been worse. The creator of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt, visited Israel. When humanitarian activists were cheerful of her visit, and hoped she would check out the refugees in Gaza and the West Bank then, she simply said that she is only visiting some friends in Israel. That, sadly, puts the United States as a 'defender' of human rights in the bottom.

Most of the Palestinian figureheads were originally from the Palestinian Middle Class. And for them, life was horrible. Edward Said, in the opening of the book Joe Sacco's Palestine, argued how by the 1960s, the term Palestine or Palestinian was barred out from usage. Several academics couldn't defend, or revive what happened in Palestine 1948 without risking their own jobs. This goes with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir's most racist statement on the behalf of the Palestinians: "Palestinians? What Palestinians? There was never a Palestine?". Apparently she never read President Woodrow Wilson's King-Crane Commission which proved that 92% of the people were Muslims and Christians, while only 8% are Jews.

Ironically, peaceful demands were never the solution. With the Arab defeat of 1967, the Palestinians found themselves in a position that only they should fight for their lands. This of course was accompanied with Arab treason. In 1948, when the Arab armies entered to protect the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq were still under the British Mandate. In 1967, they themselves sponsored the PLO but refused to assist them militarily, except in 1968's Battle of Dignity where Jordan along with the PLO blocked Israel's invasion.

Israel's plans of denying the existence of the Palestinians was part of the plan. There were several Palestinian authors, such as Sayyegh, and Hadawi, writing. It was Edward Said's Orientalism that shocked the foundation of the Zionist claims. Orientalism shed light on the treatment of Palestinians. This went hand in hand with the PLO bulldozing their way through military operations to the "Observant Status" in the UN. This was much to the disgust of Israel. When the Palestinians received such a status, it meant the Palestinians, Christians, Muslims, (and even Jewish), were recognized as an official nation. This nation, is dispersed, due to something, what was it? Oh yes, Israel's attempt to delete the existence of the Palestinians.

Till this day, Palestinians wonder: "How can the Zionists do to us what the Nazis did to them?" Rereading Ben Gurion's crazy statement in the beginning of the article answers this question: they are racists, and they do not care about human rights.
Israel's denial of Palestine/Palestinians falls in the category of blocking the return of the Palestinians. UN resolution 194 insists that every Palestinian has the right to return home, or at least compensated. The descendants of the Palestinians also have the right for such a claim. Some would argue that currently this is insane, bringing back Palestinians who were dispersed in 1948 and 1967 is out of reach. This is a false claim. Israel argued that it is bringing a state that existed 2500 years ago. If someone reads Shlomo Sands, most of these Jews that are "returning" to Palestine, are not originally part of the 2000 year old diasporas. They are people who converted into Judaism as a religious sect in Europe, Africa, or Europe. Nevertheless, the barring out of refugees returning to Palestine was the main goal of the Arab-Israeli peace process with Egypt and followed later by Jordan. Neither the Egyptians nor the Jordanians (whose population is beyond 80% composed of Palestinian refugees) are satisfied with the peace treaties, with the on-going atrocities of civilians in Israel and beyond it.

Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 probably opened the gateways for knowing the Israeli army for the truth it is: a racist army. Israel, amidst mass media, invaded Lebanon. Its atrocities were covered by several journalists, and these same journalists complained that Israel tried to force them to write "its' version" of the war. With Sabra-Chatila massacres taking place, Israel, as a beacon of democracy in the image of the West, fell. This of course was a concrete reference on Israeli behavior. People wondered who was the real democracy: Israel that focuses on Judaism as an ethnicity trait, or Lebanon: the homeland of 18 sects co-existing with each other till the civil war broke out.

Currently, more and more scandals are published on Israel, past or present. The world's shrinkage through the mass communication and media revolutions means that if Israel slaps a Palestinian in its ground, the whole world knows. Israel may have held the upper hand in the media, but the other side of the coin is finding more and more space to highlight the reality of the region, and Israel's racist atrocities.
This was caused by the neo-Israeli historians who found the guts to speak. Benny Morris, a hard core Zionist, was condemned by different Israeli spheres for being a traitor, because he simply brought into light what happened in 1948. ILan Pappe had to flee Israel out of safety because he also accused Israel of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.

The biggest example was probably the Israeli offensive on Lebanon 3 years ago. Israel was bombarding also the Palestinians as well. The reactions of Israeli offensive to Lebanon was highly condemned by mass demonstrations (part of the reason is the large Lebanese diaspora across the world), while the Palestinians were covered second. This lies in the fact that not everyday Israel bombed Lebanon, while the repetition news of Israel torturing Palestinians is new. The suicide bombings of some Palestinians across the 1990s gave Israel the pretext to behave under the banner of fighting terrorism. 9/11 also gave it the flexibilities to commit atrocities and massacres on the remaining Palestinians. This is changing.

With the offensive on Gaza 2009, several Israeli figureheads are getting cornered. The voting on the Goldstone Report in the UN highlights to what extent the world is fed up from Israel's butcheries. They still as arrogant as possible. They accused the entire world as "immoral" while only few states were "moral". Why? Because the majority of the world was disgusted with Israel's atrocities on the Palestinians. Luckily for Israel, the veto power always saved them.

Now, in 2009, when you say Palestinian, it is no longer: "non-existent". (PS: Times Square in New York has a gigantic road called Golda Mair St.), or terrorist. It is the struggle for existence. Israel's campaign of equating the Palestinians to terrorists is failing. More Israelis are speaking out against their racist government, and more people are informed of what is going on globally. Those who hate the Palestinians or believe that Israel is the suffering state for 2500 years are under bombardment of criticism, and the center for mockery. Palestinian these days means the exact definition of the fight for Human Rights. The fact the world is seeing the fanatic religious Jewish settlers, with their angry beards and automatic machine guns, brings the question of who is really the religious fanatic? The Palestinian Muslims? (Israel always attempts to omit its atrocities and racism towards the Palestinian and Arab Christians to avoid losing support from the Christian fanatics in the West). The fact the International Courts are tightening the knot on Israeli warcriminals is a beginning.

The battle for existence continues, and Israel is failing to do anything about it. If anything, they only have their superior airforce bombardment of innocent civilians and the veto power. At this slow rate, the way I see it, Israel is going to enter dark times. Other than the United States, we seriously do not see any media blackouts on what is happening there. And even in the United States, the alternate media of the truth is gradually breaching Israeli barriers.

MFL

Chibli Mallat: Is Israel a democracy? It's conditional

2009-12-12T17:32:00.002+02:00

Article taken from Daily Star

(MFL notes: I wanted to take a section out of it, but since articles usually disappear the next day, so I posted the whole thing)

On December 6, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI, website www.acri.org.il) released a 73-page report on democracy and human rights in Israel, entitled on “Human Rights – On Condition, Democracy – On Condition.” The chapters of the report develop the characteristic list of an authoritarian state: “Freedom of Expression – as long as you have nice things to say;

Harassment of Human Rights Organizations and Activists: Freedom of Expression and Activity – as long as you don’t criticize;

Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel: Rights – as long as you’re loyal,

Bedouin Rights – as long as you live where we tell you;

Criminal Justice Rights – as long as you’re not suspected of a security offense;

Hatred and Racism: Rights – as long as you’re one of us;

Rights of the Elderly – as long as you’re young;

The Right to Education – as long as you fit in;

The Right to Housing – as long as you’re one of us;

The Right to Social Security – as long as you’re gainfully employed; The Right to Health Care – as long as you pay;

The Occupied Territories: Rights – as long as you’re Israeli;” and a conclusion entitled “Undermining the Foundations of Democracy.”

As The Daily Star law page presents excerpts of the report, it is time for a serious discussion among jurists and human rights advocates on one basic premise which remains the received mantra in the West: can Israel be considered a democracy, in the same way we consider the US, France or India democracies?

I have argued in my “Introduction to Middle Eastern Law,” published two years ago, that Israel does not qualify as a democracy by standards a universal jury recognizes. This is not only on account of history, where patterns of ethnic cleansing and of legal discrimination are hardly in dispute. The argument of Israel not qualifying as a democracy rests on the persistence of these patterns as structural traits of Israel to date, six decades after its foundation.

The evidence is plain in the treatment of all the people living under Israeli control, by which I mean those whose lives have been and continue to be determined by Israel’s legal structure and its political treatment of their daily existence. Next to 7 million Jewish Israelis who enjoy by-and-large a Western-style democracy, over a million so-called Israeli Arabs have no place in governmental representation and are subject to a large array of rights breaches; 4 million “occupied Palestinians” in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem suffer from open legal exclusion in a system of Israeli decisions that have governed their lives for over a generation. West Bankers, Gazans and Jerusalemites are respectively the victims of land settlement and expropriation, siege and daily physical harassment of their right to live and move freely; and 4-6 million Palestinians are denied their universal right to return to the place from which they fled or were evicted in successive waves in 1948, 1949 and 1967. To this should be added over 100,000 Syrians in the Golan, not to mention the 22-year occupation of south Lebanon and the victims of repeat massacres, from Deir Yasin to Sabra and Shatila, Qana and Jenin.

This is a serious discussion to be undertaken on a world level on the type of system that Israel is, as serious indeed as the legal investigation carried out in the mid-1960s on the legal nature of the apartheid regime in South Africa. In the early 1960s, Yale Law Journal published a long, two-part article by Elizabeth Landis entitled “South African Apartheid legislation,” part one, “Fundamental structures,” part two “Extension, enforcement and perpetuation.” It was no longer possible for white Afrikaners and their US supporters to argue that apartheid, a neutral term until then in world politics, was an intolerable system of discrimination.

We need a similar study for Israel. While insufficient, the present ACRI report is a step toward a correction of the mantra of democracy for Israel’s legal and political system.

Chibli Mallat is a lawyer and law professor at the Universities of Utah and Saint Joseph in Lebanon. His books include “Introduction to Middle Eastern Law,” Oxford paperback 2009, and “The Middle East into the 21st Century,” at Ithaca press in 1996. He edits the weekly law page of The Daily Star.

Responding to Tony Blair

2009-12-12T16:49:00.004+02:00

In Response to Blair's "Removing Saddam Was Right"

Nobody likes Saddam, Mr. Blair.

Nevertheless, the problem is pulling such a crazy operation and by-passing the entire UN forums,

Attempting to re-invent the causes of war after the WMDs were not located, specially the invasion couldn't wait any longer due to Saddam's 'nuclear threat'.

There was no Qa'eda in Iraq till the US-UK invasion took place, thank you "democracy" for bringing terrorism to that region.

Thank you for demolishing a state entity called Iraq. If this war is war of democracy, then how come in the first two years of the Iraqi invasion, more Iraqis died than lunatic Saddam's entire rule era?

Wasn't the United States that funded Saddam in the Iranian-Iraqi war and made him a super dictator over his people? We know democracy, and fight for it, it is the United States that funds most of the dictators in the Arab World (Egypt's Moubarak, Morocco's Sultan dynasty, The Saudi Dynasty, ... etc).

Of all the Iraqi officials, whose legitimacy is severely under check, they couldn't find but this minister? BBC can do better.

Accelerating the operation without a Plan B to Iraq which led to the swift breakdown of the regime and the presence of terrorist groups and ethnic wars?

Does Blair know that every Iraqi that died and still dies blame him and Bush Jr. due to the swift breakdown of the state?

Finally, I love it how several people underscore the Iraqi lives by simply calling the war on Iraq as 'policy changing' and conflict management. People's lives from that corner can be so cheap for such men from this corner of the world.

MFL

Memoirs of a Defeatist - Too Many Slaps in the Face!

2009-11-23T09:39:00.004+02:00

Couple of years ago, I started blogging, and I decided to blog for change. I decided I needed change from face to face politics. I was writing extensively, almost on daily basis, but then... I lacked the time, there is no time to write. Eventually, I started running out of motivation and stamina. Even on the blogosphere I was losing it.

To be honest, ever since 1997 I have been active on the ground. I used to participate in a lot of demonstrations: freedom of speech, civil marriage, and against Israeli atrocities (to name few). I have been active since then, and in those days, me and the fellow "comrades" dreamt of a left-wing Lebanon free of all those corrupt political parties. We had a dream to demolish sectarianism, free ourselves from Syrian chains of thought control, and proceed to continue struggle against Israeli ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians and Lebanese. We had dreams to shatter the borders between Lebanon and Syria, get rid of the Baathi brutal regime, and establish people's republics away from tyranny. We already were dedicated leftists then: each one of us had the experience to be beaten by political party hooligans, the armies (Syrian or Lebanese), and had the guts to go to South Lebanon and stick up our middle fingers in the face of Israeli cowardly soldiers who occupied Lebanon (and still occupy Palestine). Some friends were even more bold, they were students, and they went in a demonstration and throw those chicken Israeli soldiers from Arnon for 24 hours (Israel brutally returned and almost committed a massacre against those brave university students). We were stalked by Syrian second bureau into our houses, and we demanded social justice. In a nutshell, what our non-political activists used to call us: crazy and insane.

One of our aspirations was to dismantle the Lebanese Communist Party and get rid of the Stalinist features. Of course, some broke out and triggered a chain reaction briefly. These people were saluted for their courageous move; nevertheless, they ended up as the founders of another reactionary movement (even though that movement barely has 150 people in it): the Democratic Leftist Movement (as in the Neo-con "Leftists").

We never knew religion, we thought that religion is an invention, and one day we will bury that feature of Lebanon in the graveyard without return. We used to meet up with all types of university students, go and talk to farmers, the proletariat, and anyone. We used to convert party members into free lancing leftists. We thought the whole world was ours. In 1998-1999, we thought that the revolution will begin. Civil marriage was close to be implemented, yet we were far to get that part alive. We retreated with more heat and excitement to change Lebanon, the Middle East, and even the whole blasted entire world. Breaking ethnicity and uniting the workers of the world was easy then. We did believe it, no matter how much the Syrian army tried to shut us up or demoralize us. We were seculars and against Zionism: how could they get their loyalists to accuse us of treason? Beat us instead. Yet, we stayed active. Heck, we had the chance to go to the Lebanese border, after the Israeli army withdrew like cowards, and we had the chance to stick up our middle fingers straight from the borders, with Palestinian grounds for the first time, appeared before our eyes. Yes! As one comrade said in excitement: We are one step closer to our zillion billion goals. Sadly, nothing good lasts for ever.

Then, slap after slap took place. Our different groups of lefties started to crumble down, one after the other. Part of the reason was power struggle and lust for power. Between the Democratic Leftists' bullshit of scaring people away from the left and the Lebanese Communist Party's crappy salutations to "Comrade" Stalin, we were losing grounds. The main reason of our failures were plenty. I demonstrated for Palestine for unaccountable times, yet nothing was done. It was the capitalist powers that decided everything over there. We demonstrated for Iraq in peace demonstrations that aimed against US Imperialism and the dictator Saddam, and the US – UK coalition by-passed the UN and shattered Iraq into a three way ethnic groups. Suddenly, to a lot of people: what is the use to go into demonstrations? We always had those rotten dinosaurs like Elias Atallah or a free lancing leftist suddenly jumping in front a demonstration and then pause to the cameras in order to appear they were demonstrating. Who invited those dorks (prior to the foundation of Democratic Left Movement)?

Then there were the anti-Syrian demonstrations, we took pride in those demonstrations. We succeeded in transforming several demonstrations from Christian versus Syrian to Lebanese versus Syrian hegemony. Walid Junblatt then was defending Syria for the sake of the "Arab Cause" against Israel. We emphasized that solidarity to our brothers and sisters of the Syrian proletariat is a must! That we should together get rid of all our leaderships. Of course, Syria responded with brutality, or get their allies to gather more of their supporters whereby rallies of praising: "Mother Syria". Yet, we stayed active despite the fact our jobs were threatened and everything. We wanted Syria out, but we demonstrated against Aoun's "Syrian Accountability Act" that was launched in DC. Yet, we were little people. The only time anti-Syrian hegemony kicked off in Lebanon is when the late Prime Minister Harriri was assassinated. Hence, mobilization was sectarian in basis, even though Bahiya el Harriri and the late Samir Qassir (the only decent figurehead in the DLM) tried their best to keep it secular (Elias Attallah by then was more Junblatti or Harriri than Junblatt or Harriri themselves, trust me, I know him in person).

Then afterwards, sectarianism entered our private lives. Several comrades started to argue that "we shall demonstrate for civil marriage, but we shall get married in a religious marriage" or "we shall not marry a person non-Christian or non-Muslim". Heck, I was told by several comrades: "if only you were of sect X or Y". Now, tell me dear reader, how does that make you feel?! Nevertheless, I thought we can get it through.

People were involved with jobs, they preferred to stay away from activism instead risking their jobs.

Each 10 lefties built a group, they proclaimed themselves: the real and only leftists fit to "rule" or "guide" other leftists.

Of course, that doesn't exclude other factors as well: the sudden birthrate of NGOs. Those took out a lot of activists from the arena, and suddenly they believe that "lobbying" is the only way to reform the Lebanese government. That is a different topic on its own, as I collected about 90 statements from fellow comrades who were active in NGOs. Nevertheless, these NGOs are business traders, get a part of whatever funding this or that NGO receives. The fact that Ziad Baroud made it as Minister on the behalf of the NGOs, gives them some sense to celebrate; however, Ziad Baroud, is not the NGOs, and Baroud is not involved in the power struggle of these NGOs that scavenge for funds and try to recruit people as "volunteers" (or the NGO term: free labor). Yet so far, these freaks of new capitalism had done better results than others (as much as I hate to admit it), even though at a very very slow pace whereby several top NGOs had scandals being leaked out.

Then 14th of March and 8th of March came out. The remainder of my friends were scattered between those two blocks. My "comrades" of each side accused me of treason for the Lebanese cause because I refused to join them. They accused me of treason for betraying the Palestinian cause. As far as I remembered: Being revolutionary Marxist doesn't mean I was a die-hard nationalist like the latter two. Each of the comrades of each block cut their connections with the other, after they had their blood mixed on the floor from beatings during demonstrations. Of course, they both boycotted the "non-nationalist camp" like me on a social level. By die hard nationalism, this is what I mean: half of the Lebanese are racists to the other half and vice versa (at least party affiliated people). Hence, at a one point, there was no difference between the stands of the Lebanese Communist Party and crazy Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement or the Democratic Left and Saad el Harriri (ultimate symbol of capitalism). That bogged me down.

Then the July war broke out, and I was involved extensively with relief activities in the war. There, I forgot all those lefty bureaucracies, treacheries, and other things. I poured my heart out in activity. I was convinced my activities were breaking the media black-out imposed by Israel on the world. I did great even. I saw the war join some friends, but the great divide remained between the comrades. Heck, some comrades enjoyed how Israel bombed Dahhieh with the hope that Hezbollah learnt a "valuable lesson". Others turned relief work into business (Does Lebanon Aid ring a bell to anyone?). As for our group of relief activists and media warriors, the movement became short-lived as the power-struggle came into existence. At that point, I lost hope, I was shattered.

It was around early 2006 that I started to blog, I decided to start reconstructing the history of Lebanon, Palestine, or anywhere as they happened. I thought that was the way. Then I started to meet other bloggers, some of them to this day do not know who I am. Others were wonderful, and blogging became a means to express my frustration. Yet, even blogging, what can it do on day to day basis except fuel the anger, and feel helpless against everything. I no longer crave for a demonstration. When Nahr el Bared bombardment took place, I spent it quarreling with other friends who were bravely active there (although to do a mini-save, I did announce their campaign). The quarrels were based on the fact I wasn’t participating. To be honest, the 2006 war took out my energy, and the disappointments kept slapping me on the face; work wise or activism wise. I couldn't tolerate another crap from anyone. I was totally drained. By then 11 years of activism was too much for me. We used to take one step forward, and three back.

Then I started to look elsewhere, where in the world the left is doing great? The man we hailed as a hero ended up turning as a dickhead, yes I am referring to Hugo Chavez. Of course, I love it every time he threw the Israeli ambassador out and cut ties with Israel; yet his blind support to anyone that opposes the United States got me punched in the stomach. How could he support Iran then while a lot of comrades were rotting in prison, our feminist sisters' lives are under threat. That didn't click in my head (and not to forget the more recently renewal of his mandate). The Trotskyites of Great Britain are fighting each other, and the only articles I enjoyed to read are the www.marxist.com. To be more exact, I adored their theoretical articles.

Hence, every time I believed we can do change, I was slapped. The unity of the Christians, Muslims, and Jews of Palestine/Israel was shattered as more Jews are becoming zealot fanatics and actually believe that God has chosen them and the great divide is growing as Hamas is gaining more popularity (because Fatah are bunch of sell-outs and leave the Palestinian proletariat with no option).

The Lebanese politicians are still there, and corrupt as ever. Heck we have new ones (in addition to the old) after the Syrians withdrew. Nothing can be done so far, and last year's mini-civil war became part of the amnesia within the people: a new "history" that will be distorted to suit the needs of the Politicians.

Zionist monopoly of the media keeps the US citizens away from knowing the truth in the middle east. Heck, alienation there is worse than here. To my laughter though, a lot of US citizens that I chatted with (or met) actually believe that the BBC is "Pro-Islam" because it reports all events (now how can that be?!)

What ought to be done? I am experiencing what Marx exactly warned... alienation from the cause due to the brutality of capitalism and its offspring (actually this part of the sentence is Lenin's): nationalism/sectarianism.

I still believe in the class struggle and the Marxist doctrines, but currently, the upper class are standing victorious over the divided alienated proletariat.

MFL

PS: Did you know that several "comrades" thing China is the real People's forthcoming Union? (Shoot me please!)

America, stop sucking up to Israel - Gideon Levy

2009-11-05T05:41:00.002+02:00

Taken from Haaretz

Barack Obama has been busy - offering the Jewish People blessings for Rosh Hashanah, and recording a flattering video for the President's Conference in Jerusalem and another for Yitzhak Rabin's memorial rally. Only Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah surpasses him in terms of sheer output of recorded remarks.

In all the videos, Obama heaps sticky-sweet praise on Israel, even though he has spent nearly a year fruitlessly lobbying for Israel to be so kind as to do something, anything - even just a temporary freeze on settlement building - to advance the peace process.

The president's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has also been busy, shuttling between a funeral (for IDF soldier Asaf Ramon, the son of Israel's first astronaut Ilan Ramon) and a memorial (for Rabin, though it was postponed until next week due to rain), in order to find favor with Israelis. Polls have shown that Obama is increasingly unpopular here, with an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent

He decided to address Israelis by video, but a persuasive speech won't persuade anyone to end the occupation. He simply should have told the Israeli people the truth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived here last night, will certainly express similar sentiments: "commitment to Israel's security," "strategic alliance," "the need for peace," and so on .

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched.

It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is viewed as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is force. Anwar Sadat may have been the last leader to win our hearts with optimistic, hope-igniting speeches. If he were to visit Israel today, he would be jeered off the stage. The Syrian president pleads for peace and Israel callously dismisses him, the United States begs for a settlement free ze and Israel turns up its nose. This is what happens when there are no consequences for Israel's inaction.

When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating the status quo will exact a painful price.

Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.

The Goldstone Effect: What Alternatives we have?

2009-10-17T22:24:00.003+03:00

Nothing to deny about, Israel has been accused of war crimes, its soldiers should stand up in an International Tribunal Court, and this bullshit of "self-defense" is not working as it used to in the past.

Isreal's main threat are plenty:

1) If the soldiers, officers, and politicians will be accused of war crimes, and proven guilty by the international court (who will be by all means possible), they cannot carry mass ethnic cleansing in the name of self-defense like this racist state used to do.

2) The accusation and proving of Israel as a war criminal nation based on the Gazza events will lead to the opening of all cases Israel has been involved as a war criminal (almost 24/7 in its lands against the Israeli Palestinians whom Israel tries to eradicate their identity as Israeli Arabs) , and its horrors elsewhere (such as 2006 war on Lebanon and Gazza, Beit Hannoun massacres, the 1996 Qana massacres, the law suits from Southern Lebanese on Israel, the 1982 invasion, Sabra-Chatilla Camps) and the list is really really long).

3) This leads to almost every politician in Israel's history to be held accountable (even if symbolically) that the Isreali "Defense" Forces are war criminals. Natanyaho is too scared of such an effect, because while he is defending Levni and Olmert from not being taken to the Tribunal, because for example Peres will go as well (Qana I massacre)

The Goldstone report was also sponsored by the UN Human Rights, the level of Israel's brutality on Gazza was too big for its allies: USA and UK to hide it or cover it up. Well, they didn't to hide it up! We got Mahmoud Abbass! He ordered, to the shock of the world, to withdraw the report's findings till six months (giving Israel and USA a lot of time to counter the Goldstone report and like many other reports--> Buried).

Abbass represents the new Palestinian elites, who are making money out of the PA. He sold out the Palestinians ages ago, and is paying lip services to everyone that sustain him in power. Hamas, the more radical alternative, also had committed blunters. Hamas, during the Gazza Holocaust, proved incapable of protecting its people, due to the fact that simply Hamas doesn't have the circumstances or funding to operate like Hezbollah when the latter humilated the Israeli infantry. Nevertheless, what do Hamas offer? They offered welfarism (covering 38% of the Palestinians in Gazza) amidst a brutal seige of the Israelis to keep Gazza locked out from the world. All reporters and official figureheads were not allowed to enter Gazza during the ethnic cleansing. However, Annahar reported two weeks ago that Hamas barred women from riding bicycles... again, where do we progress from here?

As a matter of fact, Goldstone himself complained that Israel didn't allow the investigators to enter Gazza through its lands. The answer is simple: Israel wants to get away with its ethnic cleansing---> Self-Defense logo again... lost its charm. Even the Obama administration is trying to cover this up, and the reason is simple, because the USA covered the attrocities of Israel against Muslim and Christian Palestinians. It is too embarassing. Yet, on a side note, I do believe Obama wants to be more strict with Israel, his problem is that his hands are tied over there. The only reason makes me think so because unlike all previous presidents during their mandates at the White House, Obama has very strong ties with a mighty Palestinian academic: Rashid Khalidi.

The summary of the Goldstone report is important, released by the UN, and can be found at their website

To all those pethatic supporters of Israel, do not preach me democracy and self-defense, you are racists and disgusting for supporting a nation that seggregates based on religion. As you see, the tides are beginning to turn against racism, slowly, but the tides are turning.

MFL

PS: Check www.zmag.org for more details on the updates!

And the Lebanese Never Learn... (surprised?)

2009-10-08T06:56:00.004+03:00

Not having a government is not noticed in Lebanon... some joke about it, and they are correct to joke about it; sadly, I notice that having a government eases down the tension between the bougeoisie of Lebanon.

Commenting briefly on the elections before proceeding to the incidents: Was anyone surprised of the results? Everyone claimed they are won, the 14th of March gathered the highest number of seats, and the Opposition gathered the highest number of votes; last but not least, Junblatt opened a minimarket for himself and became the actual veto vote on the government. Meanwhile, it was impressive that not much riots broke up on election days, nevertheless, while waiting for the government to form, we open the TV over here, we see bulletins telling us a grenade was thrown by a "mysterious" evil hand, and everyone denounces it. Tripoli became the source of clashes again, whereby "mysterious rpj" missiles fly, and then "mysterious" gunners reply back. Now wait, isn't that everyday news, I mean why I got bored from blogging on Lebanon? It is the same news, and everyone expects the results. Finally, a person died, stabbed brutally three times, who was supposed to hold a riot between two young groups. Hence, he became the latest in the line of martyrs for the "Lebanese cause", whatever the cause these days it is.

Are we surprised? Hell no, are we sad? Hell yes, I mean doesn't it bother you to hear a riot then you have to call your direct relatives first to check on them, and then call your friends who live there to double check, and finally call friends who actually might be in the region? Will we ever be used to that? Definietly not!

The reason for all of this is simple. All parties still preserve their militia weaponry. Access to arms is still cheap, and none of the political leaders are doing anything to stop it. This of course excludes the arms of Hezbollah which lost some credibility after last year's events of shoot-outs, at least in my own perspective, and also the Palestinian Refugee camps were at least three major factions have large stock of arms: Fatah, Osbat el Ansar, and PFLP-General Command (Gibreel's faction). In all of this chaos, we also had two coalitions going head to head in a militarily sense last year, one group overwhelmed the other, and the winner in these street to street shootouts had disarmed the loser and gave the light and middle ranged weapons to the Lebanese Army. The Lebanese army in such situations, where political parties clearly go and shoot at each other (ie the downfall of the government into militias) can do nothing but sit and watch. Last time the Lebanese army was ordered to bomb an armed political party, it was Hezbollah back in 1989. The result was Nabih Berri (then fresh of clashes with Hezbollah) told the Shiites to leave the army; guess what, they did! The army lost 60% of its units, and the army was threatened then (but yet again) to crumble down. The army these days are called to detect Israeli hidden cells (and may others be captured for the security of the citizens) but to be a riot intercepter: shoot out takes place, army comes, and case closed. Some are captured, but then we lack the follow-up on what happened. Hence, the army is really crippled to disarm anyone, probably not even We'am Wahhab's militants as well.

The reason these ugly incidents take place, like the Cola "mysterious" grenade (and whose echo rang in my ear the other day), is simple! The top leaders are soothing things down, but we see their second in command escalating (well except for Aoun and Jaajaa both competing to prove who is the real Lebanese Christian while Sami Gemayel and Suleiman Franjieh are just trying put their own political space in the mainstream. Walid Junblatt returned to be the pendulum of agreeing one day with this faction or that one, or even both at the same time. Bottom line is, each political party is driving a hard bargain on the government level, mainly Mr. Aoun wants his beloved adorable nephew, Jubran Bathil, to be a minister of interior, then a minister of something else (el-mohem: a minister), and Harriri. Harriri and everyone else would tell us on TV, "we are all happy about the atmosphere", but then their MPs and figureheads lash out on each other. This double tongue doesn't work out at all. Already people are overcharged, and the party militants won't hesitate to blow off some steam. The reason they would blow steam is for the fact simply they are fully convinced the leaders are representing their own sectarian interests (I would exclude the SSNP and the Democratic Left for two reasons):

1) The SSNP had been gaining a lot of grounds politically in Syria, and after last year's militant performance in Beirut, they are being rewarded; also for the fact they are the only official group in the Opposition that is secular (after all Aoun gave up years ago on secularism and preached Christianity). This allows Hassan Nasrallah to argue that whenever Sunni and Shiite militants collide (Future and AMAL to be exact), it is strictly political and not sectarian (same as Harriri) Of course, on TV, we see the MPs joking around, and the sort, hugging each other, laughing, and go back home to their fancy houses. I might exclude Ali Ammar (the MP that was actually a football player who takes in charge of agressively "purifying the chins" of those who mention Hezbollah badly. This guy is a walking time bomb to explode in the parliament. The fact that the Lebanese Communist Party walked out from the Opposition, means the SSNP are the only secular party within the Opposition, within the Lebanese borders.

2) The Democratic Left: Yes, you read that right. They are, much of my hate to them, back to the Parliament, even though with one MP. Why we may ask that question? Well they are the only group that is secular within the 14th of March, but also they carry the maryrdom of Samir Qassir in their files. For such a reason, again to preserve the monopoly of the 2005 - 2007 martyrs of figureheads, a DLM had to be elected. The other reason is the fact that the DLM figureheads, specially Elias Atallah, was the cofounder of the Resistance Front, which fought Israel skin to the teeth; hence 14th of March can use the fascinating relic of Elias Atallah to preach that they have militants that fought Israel in the past. We both remember how Prime Minister Seniora and Hassan Nasrallah competed about whose block was the resistance.

Main issue is: citizens are dying. The man who got stabbled, he may be a part of the Free Patriotic Movement, but he was a citizen, and not an armed militant. It gets worse, by-standers are getting wounded or killed (remember when AMAL's Berri spoke and couple recieved raining bullets? That case was closed swiftly). If we don't have Israel bombing over our heads, we have the political parties shooting at each other, with the occassion of someone mysterious releasing a missile from South Lebanon on Israel's Northern Frontier, and Israel replies with a massive bombardment on nearby villages as if these civilians shot the rockets. Security wise? Fantastic, what more can we ask?

The double tongue of the politicians of escalations and "love affairs of each other" caused this. The economic situation makes it worse, for people's lives are horrible in the country with minimum wages, and frustration goes on the "enemy". The "enemy" is not Israel, it is not the Qa'eda based Fatah Islam (whom we are still debating if it was Syria sending them through the borders or the US sent them), but each other. These riots just escalate more problems, for riots and hate bring more riots and fear, and eventually one day we will have those sporadic violence spreading across sensitive regions in less than 20 minutes. Of course, everyone will yell to their supporters: "go home" or "these parties are armed". I got news for you, a very nice juicy secret news for you: EVERYONE IS ARMED! What happened with the arms that the SSNP or AMAL carried with them? Still there under the banner of Resistance Arms! What happened with the weapons of 14th of March, apparently new ones can be bought easily, and with the latest military blunder of last year, they can learn from their mistakes (super yay for 14th of March, boohoo for the citizens). Having said all these, what about the Labenese in general?

This is why I watch few channels in Lebanon that go on Middle Grounds: LBC and NTV. The problem with NTV though, like Junblatt, they got a moodswing of their own as well: they swing between 14th of March, middle grounds, and the Opposition. By Middle Grounds, I sure do not mean "All the President's men", these people, like Ziad Baroud, will never be elected in a sectarian based state.

Anyways, the reason why I watch the LBC roundabout (yes, sure they put Jaajaa couple of minutes more than the rest) is the fact they ask everyone what happened and what they think. Well, what do they think?! Anyone noticed how the citizens of both sides of a conflicting regions go down screaming and yelling: "we have no problems with our neighbors", "we are all Lebanese", "Don't involve us with party politics", "Leave us alone". Anyone noticed as we sit on our chair (with a nice juicy glass of white wine in my hand) and notice how our proletariat hate what is going on? Notice that there are always a mini-angry crowd blaming the other party while the majority just expressing regrets? (glass finished in one sip after watching the old lady, heartbroken, saying to the politicians: leave us alone). The reason is that these political riots, including the mysterious Inerga (whatever spelled) missiles, and the hand grenades are just the beginning. They suit the politicians to divide the Proletariat according to their sects, and furthermore, and worse, they impose the political divisions on the Lebanese people. Thus, if affiliates of Sect A, but not party affiliates (perhaps some sympathy) has no issues with Sect B, on the contrary relations are fantastic, and these riots take place. Sect A, if losing casualties in this or that region, or even experiencing fear, doubts Sect B. What if some hot head militant that belongs to sect A, pays retaliates and hurts Sect B, the domino effect rolls. All politicians (including Hezbollah, our "defenders" and the "secular" Lebanese Forces) get what they want: isolated sects that clutch to the secatarian parties. Why? Simple... if Sect A for example supports Harriri, but its people are in good relations with Sect B (say supporters of Hezbollah), how to get neighbors to shoot at each other? Simple: bring the hooligans to do some riots, then viola! Fear of the other!

Who benefits: the politicians; who mourns: the proletariat
Who gets richer: the politicians; who mourns: the proletariat
Who goes to their rich houses, the politicians, who is getting poorer: the Proletariat.

The media of the parties are still charging the situation, depends on whenever Minister Baroud yells at them to cool it down aggressively or not!

Lately, these incidents (after the riots of three years, and of course 17 years of civil wars) seem normal to a lot of us. It is as if a Pavlov effect whereby we got accustomed to it!

As my beloved friend Darko said in two posts earlier, we are losing hope, I lost it ages ago, I mean I am still a Marxist, and not any Marxist, the one who still dreams to unite the world into a single classless society where everyone are equal (reminds us of John Lennon's Imagine; good song) I say, we have no choice, as activists to carry on with our belief and quest we can change Lebanon and the whole world (no, I am not doing an Obama ad. of Yes We Can), more like Connelly's logo of: Our demands most humble, we want the world. Neverthelesss, if we do not have the vision, what do we have on the ground? Sad pictures of Iraqis dying by the 100s every day while enjoying what Bush Jr. said: "Giving Freedom and Democracy?" (Side note: Bush Jr. I am still waiting for those damn Weapons of Mass Destructions, you did promise us they will pop up eventually).

It is now 6:51 in Beirut, I bid thee all good night/morning (yes, I am a night crawler, and had a whole rakwi of caffeine for myself in the afternoon)

PS: Doesn't my post on Iran, Hezbollah, and Wilayat el Faqih click on what happened on the elections over there? I love it when my analysis hits the right bullseye

MFL

Anti-Semite?

2009-10-07T04:13:00.003+03:00

To form critiques against the nation state of Israel is not to be antisemite, rather to assume that all Jews are Zionists is antisemitism. Israel's racist attacks on Palestinians and degradation of their way of living is antisemitism, even though both belong to same of origins. Zionism is a political racist movement, Judaism is a sect. There is a big difference when someone attacks Zionism for political reasons, and Judaism for racist reasons.

When I typed antisemite on the dictionary.com, it gave me prejudice or hated towards the Jews, that definition in fact is an error, the term Semites refer to the entire region. Semites include Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and also Hebrews. These are in geneal the Cena'anites. To the extreme non-Jewish Zionists in the US, get your facts straight!

Let us get this straight from the beginning, antisemitism refers to us all over here.

MFL

Oh... You Mean Israel Should Not Be Held Accountable?

2009-10-05T17:16:00.004+03:00

Well, we all know how the UN never punished Israel for its war-crimes, while in Eastern Europe, if a soldier shot a rocket on a civilian village, they faced the International Tribunal.

This of course rotates on how the UN also disregards Israel's abuse of human rights whereby it has the total freedom to arrest anyone and torture them, whereby the innocent signs a confession of a crime he/she do not know off. The latest proof is the women released by the Israeli Chicken Forces, 7 of the women were independent and non-party affiliates, and the rest according to the Israeli officials were not involved in "terrorist" acts. Of course, Israel could have started negotiations by 2006, instead of bombing the hell out of the Palestinian civilians while not hurting Hamas. Instead, Bomb them to kingdom come, kill as many as possible Palestinians, get a way with this ethnic cleansing, then start negotiating and pretend to be the victim.

Now, Mr. Mahmoud Abbass, also requests the prolonging of the Gazza report. How it can be so? Human Right activists hailed the report; however, Abbass put himself in a more sticky situation. Israel, trying as allows to ignore the facts, that the Gazza Holocaust was simply "self-defense", that the civilians who died were not to be considered as victims, that the IDF does not commit warcrimes. The US itself (under Obama's leadership) didn't like the conclusions. So Israel is not a war crime comitter? My memory tells me that the country to commit the highest number of attrocities and butcheries on civilians is Israel, and so far none is held accountable.

While Fatah is demanding to prolong the vote on the report for "political reasons", elsewhere, fellow British activists are just doing their jobs right, which is seeking justice for the civilians killed. Henceforth, the accused warcriminal Yaalon called it "de-legetimise" the state rather than doing his duty and answer for the deaths of the 14 citizens. Of course, in his eyes, Israel did its duty by expressing "regret" on their death. Sure, if a soldier kills a citizen, he/she should face justice, if it is an IDF soldier, well, he/she are victims for shooting a civilian.

This is the arrogance of racist Zionists allowed to construct their own state.

MFL

Democracy and its preachers

2009-10-05T07:16:00.005+03:00

Socialism Needs Democracy Like the Human Body Needs Oxygen - Leon Trotsky

The latest blabs on democratizing Iran by ousting its insane president Ahmadinejad had been rotating lately. Of course, as I wrote last year, the president is worthless, while it is the Wali el Faqih, currently Ali Khamanei, pulls all the major strings. This leads to the question: What is the use of throwing Mr. Ahmadinejad in the first place?

Nevertheless, my main interest is not writing about Iran at all currently, but rather on those capitalists who preach democracy, and lead a very normal life in the West. This is of course not to doubt the intentions of some of those who preach democracy, some of them have really the intent, but promoting the "US logic" of democracy in the Arab world yields zero feedback.

Democracy as we know it, took centuries to evolve in Western Europe, and rapidly in the US, with the African Americans hitting the streets to demand for their civil and human rights. Nevertheless, even in the West, where citizens get respect from their police force, democracy rotated around, to quote Karl Marx, electing the oppressors every certain time period.

Those preachers of Democracy of course come through several institutions, mainly through US AID, World Bank sponsored projects/proposals, and other institutions. As far as I know, both political parties of the US, whether Republican or Democrats, have branch parties across the globe, composed of ex-pats, seeking to promote the Western culture of democracy. However, if we consider the West as central and Western Europe (along with the US), then even there democracy is not really accessable for a lot of people. The US proletariat are as confused about the realities of the world due to media monopolation, and of course, they are alienated even from their surroundings due to the hectic business rush lifestyle to survive. Homeless people live in the streets of several US states, and if I remember correctly, there was an accusation between the Republicans and Democrats during Bush Jr's first election, that party representatives were going to the streets bribing the homeless with cigarettes to go and vote. Of course, we expect the preachers of democracy over there to come here. Latin Americans have been facing abuses all the time (even from African Americans), while several Arabs walk in fear due to fact any 'wild cowboy bill' can point at them and yell "terrorists".

Now I need to mention one tiny detail of all those "democratic crusades" that come to the Middle East and elsewhere (North Africa, Eastern Europe, others...), the majority of them come here because they are paid to come here. Their work involves think tanks, associations, organizations, and lectures. The bulk of their work ends up on a nice dry paper that nobody would read except few academics, and probably an official or two. Yet, emancipation on the ground provides fruitless communication. The fact that Ziad Baroud made it as a Minister due to his hard efforts and good reputation proves a victory of the local NGOs against such efforts of "democratization". Although Baroud's supporters in my opinion require a different post. Even Baroud, with the support of all the networks behind him, that include reforms & proposals, vanish into thin air at the first political instability that hits the area (whether local or regional). The main reason is: Democracy cannot begin except by empowering the proletarit to unify across the ethnic and sectarian borders.

The corrupt elites of the third world make sure that the status quo among the proletariat remain divided. It can be seculars, berbers, moderate Muslims, and Islamists in Morroco, or it can be sectarian isolation in Lebanon. The proletariat lack the means to identify their own rights, and their own strength if they are united. Now of course, someone will jump and say: our projects reach out grass root people on the ground and in rural areas. That person who actually jumped in front of me was a diet reformist in Kosovo. Well, the same person would jump anywhere in any country that wants to democratize. The Western preachers of democracy would assume that the people are ignorant of their rights, this can be solved by couple of workshops, some nice donations, and a nice group picture in the end of the event. So far, almost all nations excluding very few (even though those few as mentioned earlier have defective democracy) are still where they are: corrupt leadership at the expense of the people. My question to those crusaders of democracy would stem, why not change from their side of the continent? For example, why the activists won't ask the US administration why it still supports dictators like Moubarak and the Sauds regime. The support to these people thwarts democracy backwards, and bring instead Islamist groups as an option (due to the fact someone smart in the past thought that strengthening the Islamists would weaken the socialist tide in Asia and the MENA region.

In Lebanon at least, all those workshops, and all those conferences ended up in less than 24 hours when 14th of March and the Opposition hit the streets and shot at each other (not to exclude the heavy artillary exchanged between Hezbollah and Junblatt's PSP).

Socialism is the true path to democracy. Those in the West who sit in Lalaland and scream: "let us give them democracy" reminds me of the 16th - 19th century of Europe's colonial powers of taking in charge of "civilizing" the American continents, Asia, and Africa. I do believe the term was called "White Man's Burden". I guess now it transformed to "Western burden". Marxism is the real tool which breaks the grip of the elites on the proletariat over here, for the elites want their people to be divided into tiny ethnic and sectarian groups, that assists the flow of profits into their pockets, or their parties (as the case of Hezbollah benefiting from the funds from Iran, and the donations to the resistance). This is not an easy task, and its path is long; however, all other paths have been tried and they hit the wall. The current democratization processes include to preach a "common" person that they should vote, but democratization doesn't tell the person how he/she should form a unified front with other proletariats to safeguard their rights, for a vote is no longer a right. A vote is a game competition between the elties of the society. Instead, we have fancy conferences within the academic sphere whereby 20 professors travel abroad (to Beirut) to speak in panels, everyone dozes off, and whoever organized the conferences can click "check" next to his budget time plan sent to his donors.

They forgot that we inherited those democratic institutions from the colonial eras that were intended to divide and conquer. The elites kept them to safeguard, acquire, or renew their powers. Those crusaders of democracy should also know that the economic burdens of the proletariat, and how more "extra efforts" they should put to secure democracy (namely to sign a paper that they participated in workshop X or Y) are too much a waste of time.

I am sure more and more examples can be written on this topic
Let me be clear, there is no war but class war, end of story

MFL

Returning Back to the Blogosphere

2009-10-01T07:56:00.003+03:00

I have not opened the blog life since the Israeli brutality massacred the Palestinian citizens.

I am coming back to write, specially I missed writing on a lot of important and controversial incidents. As difficult it may seem from where I am currently and the situation I am in, I decided that writing is the most important tool to preserve the ideas. My email address will be activated in the next few days.

Last but not least, enjoy the latest brutality of the Zionist regime and their racist brutality.

Gaza peace protester is prisoner in own home

MFL

The Zionists: Philosophy of Fear and Hatred (Part I)

2009-01-21T19:22:00.006+02:00

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

War Crimes and Puppies...

2009-01-17T15:00:00.017+02:00

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

The Doha Conference, A Great Divide, and A Whirlpool of Ironies

2009-01-16T17:46:00.011+02:00

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.

Israel and the Arab Divide

2009-01-15T22:17:00.004+02:00

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

Fmr. Clinton Special Counsel Lanny Davis vs. Israeli Professor Neve Gordon: A Debate on the Israeli Assault on Gaza

2009-01-15T13:32:00.004+02:00

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.

Israeli On-Going Brutality

2009-01-13T14:10:00.011+02:00

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:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Strip Maul

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

We have seen Jon Stewart during the July War as well, a video that was very popular in Lebanon two years ago... :

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Intro - MSNBC's Mideast Crisis

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

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...

Main Stream Media On Gaza - Propaganda - Israel = THE OCCUPIER

2009-01-11T09:40:00.002+02:00

To The American Public, you guys only see 4% of what is going in Palestine and specifically Gaza...

Cartoon

2009-01-10T19:40:00.002+02:00

Written in Arabic: Resolution 1860
Taken From Annahar

Picture Speaks for itself, always loved Annahar Cartoonist

Waking Up to Abu Mazen's Rotten Voice...

2009-01-10T11:31:00.002+02:00

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

The United Nations: As Always: Clowns

2009-01-09T03:12:00.008+02:00

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

Who To Blame for this Israeli Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinians?

2009-01-08T19:29:00.000+02:00

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?

Marjorie Cohn - Israel's Collective Punishment of Gaza

2009-01-08T14:00:00.002+02:00

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.

Hezbollah Slap Themselves in the Face!

2008-08-29T20:19:00.006+03:00

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

Remembering Leon Trotsky: The Arrest of Trotsky

2008-08-29T00:20:00.002+03:00

(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

Israel calling Lebanese!

2008-08-28T13:34:00.002+03:00

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

The Strategy of Land Acquisition

2008-08-22T19:35:00.005+03:00

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)

Mahmoud Darwish - By Mahir Ali

2008-08-15T09:48:00.002+03:00

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.

And Hence, I bought a Book...

2008-08-15T09:19:00.002+03:00

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

Zionists and the Bible

2008-08-06T18:44:00.003+03:00

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

The Lebanese – Israeli Lullaby

2008-07-30T17:16:00.012+03:00

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

Not the Final Chapter of the July War

2008-07-27T00:04:00.008+03:00

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