freepali

USA-IPA-Congress: Yes to Gravestones, No to Goldstone's

freepaliadmin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:08:00 GMT

cartoon by Khalil Bendib
BY: MOHAMED KHODR

The Proclamation Of An Independent Palestine: Long Live Palestine, Long live the Palestinians

To My Palestinian Brothers and Sisters in and out of Palestine:

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed". 
–Martin Luther King, Jr.

It's time to declare your Palestinian State independently of what Israel, America or the world will do. Israel can't do more than it's already done to you for 61 years. What are they going to do? Occupy you, imprison you, bomb you, murder your children, evict you from your homes and bulldoze them to rubble, destroy your schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, mosques and churches; burn your olive farms, deprive you of food, water, and medicines, humiliate and beat you at checkpoints, constantly annex your land for illegal, violent, hate filled settlers; prevent you from praying at Al Aqsa mosque, ethnically cleanse you from Jerusalem, prevent you from visiting your families, deny you residency permits and employment, prevent you from performing Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca), dishonor your women, turn off your electricity, use you as human shields—what more can they possibly do to you that they've not already done.

For 61 years you've had no one while living in camps, tents, and on handouts—not Arabs, Muslims, Europeans, Americans, Russians, Asians, Africans, Latin Americans, Australians, New Zealanders; no one has lifted a finger as you starve, die, and bleed as refugees in your homeland.

Each of you is responsible for the freedom of all. Enough words, useless U.N. Resolutions, lying negotiations, peace processes, and Arab and American lies. All have failed you, none more so than the Arabs and Muslims.

You want your freedom then you make it a reality by any means necessary.

Declare a State with East Jerusalem as your Capital and may the world go to hell.

God is with the oppressed. Trust Him and fight for your freedom. No one but God and yourselves can give you back your homeland. Seize the moment and the world's peoples will support you. Place your trust in God.

USA-IPA-CONGRESS

"Practically every congressman and senator says his prayers to the Israel lobby–they have done an enormous job of corrupting the American democratic process."
–George Ball, former Under Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and author of "The Passionate Attachment", a critique of Israel's power on U.S. MidEast Policy and its political, economic, and moral cost to the United States.

"The Israeli Prime Minister has a lot more influence over the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East than he has in his own country."
– Former Congressman Paul Findley, in his book "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby", p. 92.

"The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate … somewhere around 80 percent of the senate of the United States is completely in support of Israel — of anything Israel wants…."
– Senator William Fulbright, Chairman Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 7, 1973 on CBS' "Face the Nation".

"You can't have an Israel policy other than what A.I.P.A.C. gives you around here," Hollings said. "I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor president a chance."
–Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Speech on Senate Floor, May 20, 2004 (prior to his retirement after serving 39 years in the Senate)

"The political reality is that the Jewish Lobby intimidates a lot of people up here (Congress)".
–Senator Chuck Hagel in an interview appearing on Ambassador Aaron Miller's website

"My number one priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel." 
–*** Armey, former House Majority Leader (1995 – 2003)

"I would personally get in a ditch, grab a rifle, and fight and die (If Iraq attacks Israel)."
–President Bill Clinton, speaking at a Toronto Jewish Fund Raiser, July 30, 2002 (thestar.com)

"Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable . . . Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us . . . as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security."
–Candidate Barack Obama, June 2008 at the AIPAC Conference

Uri Avnery, former Israeli soldier and Member of Knesset, in his article on Counterpunch, "The Coronation Viewed from Israel. King George", January 24, 2005 wrote.

"Some people say, only half in jest, that the USA is an Israeli colony. And indeed, in many respects it looks like that. President Bush dances to Ariel Sharon's tune. Both Houses of Congress are totally subservient to the Israeli right-wing much more so than the Knesset. It has been said that if the pro-Israeli lobby were to sponsor a resolution on Capitol Hill calling for the abolition of the Ten Commandments, both Houses of Congress would adopt it overwhelmingly. Every year Congress confirms the payment of a massive tribute to Israel."

Israel "is why I went on the Foreign Affairs Committee….And on this particular issue, the single most important thing is to maintain the high level of Congressional support because they become a brake on– they become a force on what the Administration does."
–Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), Future Chair of House Foreign Relations Committee, after the death of the Premier Zionist in Congress, Rep. Tom Lantos, February 22, 2008

"The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever."
–Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Future Speaker of the House at AIPAC Annual Conference, 5/24/05

Office of the Speaker of the House:

Overheard at a meeting at the Speaker of the House's office with Democratic and Republican Congressional Leaders.

Speaker of the House:
"I called you today to discuss several important domestic issues on our agenda that we need to address as soon as possible. You all know the state of our economy, our astronomical debt and huge budget and trade deficits, the highest unemployment rate in decades, bank failures, home foreclosures, the ever rising number of the uninsured, especially children, the widespread and increasing hunger rates, homelessness, our deteriorating school systems, crumbling infrastructure of roads, bridges, tunnels, local budget cuts that result in less fire, police, and ambulance services, an almost bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system, funding Health Reform, Climate Change, and two ongoing g wars, that is if we're not pushed to bomb Iran and so much more. Now the President after his Afghan speech wants us to come up with $30 Billion to fund his surge.

I don't know where to begin or how on earth can we fund any of these issues when our economy is still shattered and our debt is exploding. I need some ideas on prioritizing and funding some of these domestic issues.

Suddenly there was a knock on the door:

The Speaker's aide opened the door and suddenly you can hear a pin drop on the floor.

The Speaker got up with a forced smile, running and sweating toward the door to meet this woman they all knew too well.

"What can I do for you?; the Speaker muttered.

The woman without speaking a word handed her one sheet of paper and left. The Speaker glanced at the paper and knew right away it demanded immediate attention.

"What is it Madame Speaker?", one asked.

"It's a letter from the man above my office demanding an immediate House Resolution that condemns the Goldstone Report along with an immediate transfer of $30 Billion to Israel's Central Bank. Well; what are you waiting for", She said with a crumbling voice.

Sure enough, by four p.m., the harshly worded Resolution was passed with the usual large bipartisan margin of 334 – 36 votes, and 22 abstentions. Only Israel can ensure bipartisanship in Congress.

The Resolution found the report, "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy", and demanded that Obama and Clinton, "oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration".

The Speaker ran up the stairs to the man and proudly delivered the passed Resolution and the successful transfer of the $30 Billion to Israel (she reminded herself that this was the money meant to support the troops as they head to Afghanistan. She wondered how many will die because the funds went to Israel and not to them, but she comforted herself that the White House would understand the "directions" she received from the man).

The man looked over the Resolution quietly and then lifted his eyes and said; "I want the names of those who voted no and abstained."

The Speaker humbly said that these men and women generally support Israel and she needs to keep the democrats to have a majority. She humbly reminded him that on March 5, 2008 the House defended Israel against Hamas during an episode of violence that killed over 100 Palestinians and 3 Israelis. She said the resolution passed by a vote of 404 – 1, so you see these men and women usually support Israel, I don't know why they didn't vote yes this time.

'Remind me who the sole person who voted no on that resolution", he demanded with anger.

"It was Rep. Ron Paul, republican from Texas, but he always goes his own way." She said hoping this meeting was over.

He stared her down and she quickly relented. "Yes, Sir, I'll have them on your desk tomorrow."

"I'd like to tell members that it's not just the House that's aligned with you but that the Senate is as well. Can you tell me what they've done lately in such regard?

"Yes," he answered, "76 Senators signed a letter I gave them to send to Obama to support Netanyahu and Israel. It's less then the usual 85 to 95 votes but I'll take it.'

He then added, "And by the way, just to let you know, the White House has dropped the stupid silly demand that Israel freeze its settlements."

He called in his Secretary and gave her the list of the Congressmen who dared not vote for his Resolution.
"Send this to our media across the country from the Networks, to the radio stations, newspapers, and pundits; they'll know what to do."

At the end of the day he left his office and headed to the Senate and House Chambers. Taking his keys out he locked the doors of both chambers. He then let out a loud kosher laugh at how the little Jewish state can kick the behind of the world's sole superpower. Such ignorant cowardly fools, he thought to himself.

Another day in the life of the USA-IPA-CONGRESS. A nation and government under Israel, not God.

No one in the White House, Senate, House, or Media ever read the entire 575 pages of the Goldstone Report. Why bother with facts and truth when it comes to Israel.

So what is the Goldstone Report?

The Goldstone Report:
Issued by the UNCHR Commission led by the renowned South African Jurist Richard Goldstone (Jewish).

On September 15, 2009, Judge Richard Goldstone and his Commission presented their 575-page Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict to its mandating authority, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Excerpt:

The United Nations fact-finding mission on Israel's 22-day offensive on the Gaza Strip between December 2008 and January 2009 found evidence that Israeli forces committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law.

"We came to the conclusion, on the basis of the facts we found, that there was strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza".

"The mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Force (IDF)."

On October 16, 2009 the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the Goldstone Report, with a 25 – 6 vote with 16 abstentions. The US automatically opposed the resolution while Britain and France abstained.

On November 5, 2009 the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of the resolution endorsing the Goldstone Report with a 114 – 8 vote (obviously Israel and U.S. voted no), with 44 member Abstentions.

The President of the General Assembly called the vote, "an important declaration against impunity. It is a call for justice and accountability…Without justice, there can be no progress towards peace. A human being should be treated as a human being, regardless of his or her religion, race or nationality,"

Human Rights Organizations around the world praised and supported the findings of the Goldstone Report including Amnesty International which issued this statement: "UN vote on Goldstone report a defining step for accountability," November 6, 2009,

Israel was predictably outraged rejecting the resolution of the U.N. General Assembly and in a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor described the report as "completely detached from realities",

Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, described the Goldstone Report as "conceived in hate and executed in sin". (Haaretz 11/4/09).

The White House also adopted Israel's rejection of the Goldstone Report prompting Judge Goldstone to state: "The U.S. does not have to support Israel blindly".

Israel's 22 day Genocide on Gaza: The Aftermath

1417 dead, including 320 children and 109 women, 5300 injured (many seriously), 1606 were children; the far majority of the dead and injured were civilians, 60 of those killed were infants and children under the age of five. (According to B'tselem: 9 Israelis died: 6 were soldiers–some killed by friendly fire-and 3 civilians)

2000 – 2200: Number of Children Orphaned
52,000 homes destroyed
100,000 Gazans left Homeless
90% of Gazans depend totally on Food Aid
34: Number of Hospitals and Clinics destroyed or damaged
214: Number of Schools (including U.N. Schools) destroyed or damaged.
52: Number of Mosques and Churches destroyed or damaged.
25,000 – 50,000: Gazans suffering long term psychological damage (W.H.O.)

"The vast majority of the Palestinians killed in Israel's operation in the Gaza Strip last winter were innocent civilians rather than combatants, according to a new report to be published by the B'Tselem organization Wednesday morning. This is the opposite of what the Israel Defense Forces have said."
–Haaretz, "Rights group: Most Gazans killed in war were civilians", 9/9/09

The Israeli Human Rights Organization, B'Tselem's report on Israel's genocide upon Gaza sought to emphasize that "behind the dry statistics lie shocking individual stories. Whole families were killed; parents saw their children shot before their very eyes; relatives watched their loved ones bleed to death; and entire neighborhoods were obliterated." (September 9, 2009)

Let's take a look at a few Congressional Bills and Resolutions adopted by AIPAC's Congress comparing those dealing with Israel, ALL PRAISE, and those dealing with Muslim nations, ALL CONDEMNATION.

Bills/Resolutions Passed by House of Representatives Only During Years: 2003 2009 (105th – 111th)
1906 Bills/Resolutions Praising Israel. 3386 Bills/Resolutions condemning just 6 Muslim Nations

Thus there can only be one conclusion:

"The Arabs are right when they paint America as a great Zionist conspiracy"
–Doughlas Rushkoff, Professor New York University
In "Wrestling with Zion" (Grove Press, 2003)

Pity the American and Muslim peoples who despite their obvious differences live in similar political, economic, military and social environments. Both are ruled by powerful wealthy elites whose priority is to generate self wealth and ensure that the world is stable for doing business regardless if such nations are run by dictators, autocrats, communists, socialists, atheists, black, white, yellow, or brown. Both are dumbed down by an overwhelming pro-government pro-business media owned by the few who ensure a compliant unthinking population. Like sheep, both societies follow the shepherd called television in thought and deed. Both are demoralized, alienated, and detached from their political system, with one difference, Americans think they have a democratic vote and Muslims know they don't but the end result is the same-an Oligarchy: Money is the sole foundation of all things and of the so called "national interest" of a nation.

Historians will for centuries argue over how a small nation like Israel, a nation transformed from former slaves to modern day masters, was powerful and able enough to manipulate an entire world to be mindful, sensitive, and compliant to its psyche and will.

In total ignorance, Americans are complicit with Israel's atrocities given that Israel's killing machine is paid for by these hapless taxpayers.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever".
–President Thomas Jefferson

Some quotes on Israel Militarism, Terrorism, and the Power of its U.S. Lobby, primarily AIPAC.

"Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered–death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights…in Sarajevo–but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport,"
–Chris Hedges, The Nation, March 11, 2002

"Jews must learn to say without excuse, without equivocation, despite our history and our powerlessness in the past, despite all the injustices that we have endured-today, now, the Palestinians are the victims of oppression, and their oppressors are the Israelis." 
– Irena Klepfisz, (Bartleby.com)

"Since 1967, millions of Palestinians have been under a military occupation, without any civil rights, and most lacking even the most basic human rights. The continuing circumstances of occupation and repression give them, by any measure, the right to resist that occupation with any means at their disposal and to rise up in violence against that occupation. This is a moral right inherent to natural law and international law. Even today, most of the public simply does not know that every violent step taken against the Palestinians – let alone the aggregate of those steps – borders on war crimes…. A state that regards itself as enlightened cannot behave like a terror-state, even if it suffers from terrorism."
–Professor Baruch Kimmerling, Haaretz, "The Right To Resist", March 27, 2001

The front jacket of the book "Jewish Power" states:
"..a frank look at Jewish power and influence in America today…a rare insider's portrait of the people, the institutions, the money, and the ideas that make up Jewish political influence in the U.S., from the Anti-Defamation League to the United Jewish Appeal, to the New York Times, to the…Jewish caucus in the House of Representatives…He details the absolutely vital role Jews play in Democratic party politics and fund raising. He describes the inner workings of the feared pro-Israel lobby….and its surprising role in shaping American foreign policy. He tackles……Jewish media influence."
–J. J. Goldberg, "Jewish Power", 1996: Addison-Wesley Publications, Co., Inc.

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews. [Former Secretary of State George] Marshall and [former Defense Secretary James] Forestall learned that….. Terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen…. I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country"
–Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in February 1957 quoted in Donald Neff's "Fallen Pillars", page 99.

"We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own"
–Ari Shavat. New York Times, May 27, 1999 (Referring to the 1996 Israeli massacre of over 100 Lebanese civilians seeking protection at a U.N. compound in Qana, Lebanon. The U.N. condemnation of this attack led the U.S. to defeat the re-election of Butros Butros Ghali as U.N. Secretary General)

"In the world according to U.S. media, the high moral ground in the Middle East belongs to Israel's government…In news coverage; Israeli casualties are apt to have names, faces and bereaved relatives, while Arab victims are likely to be fleeting images: nameless, faceless, distant. Israel's most crucial allies include the mass media of the United States. Together with top officials in Washington, news outlets keep reinforcing the assumption that the Israeli government can do little wrong. Vigorous debate about Israeli policies, however, is not on the media agenda…For decades, strong critics of Israel have encountered charges of Anti-Semitism. The constant threat of the accusation has a chilling effect on debate. But, sadly, there's not much to chill. Even when the lives of children hang in the balance, the U.S. media debate about Israel seems to ends before it begins."
–Normon Solomon and Jeff Cohen, "The Wizard of Oz", pg. 243 – 246

"Israel, world's biggest threat to world peace!"
The headlines blared across Europe when the "Eurobarometer" poll conducted in 15 E.U. nations, done by the European Commission was released. It reported that more than 59% of EU citizens see Israel as a threat to the world.
–AFP-Reuter-Agencies, Brussels, Nov. 2003.

"The politics and policies of the so-called "state of Israel" should play no part in governing the United States or in our upcoming elections. Rather, the focus should be on the needs of the American people. Jews in the United States are USA Citizens and are as concerned with improving the lives of the people of the USA as any other American citizen….The politicians who continue expound on supporting the "state of Israel are trying to bolster their campaigns and popularity, thinking that this will sway the Jewish vote."
–Rabbi Joseph Dershowitz, "Keep Israel Out of American Politics", May 7, 2004 (TrueTorahJews.org)

Sources:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
Entire Goldstone Report

http://www.ziomania.com/holocaust/holocaust.htm
Graphic Photos of Victims of Israel's Genocide upon Gaza

http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/jps.2009.XXXVIII.3.210?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jps
Total Assessment of Gazans killed, injured, homes destroyed, plus other vital stats.

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf
The Actual List of Names, Ages, and Occupation of Casualties of Operation Cast Lead

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113402.html
"Rights group: Most Gazans killed in war were civilians", 9/9/09

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3774217,00.html
"B'Tselem: 773 of Palestinians killed in Cast Lead were civilians", only 330 were combatants, 9/9/09

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133349
"B'Tselem Backs Hamas Casualty Report", 12/5/09

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html
Government Site for All Congressional Bills/Resolutions and Actions.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Pelosi_AIPAC_Speech.html
Nancy Pelosi Speech to American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]
Text of Remarks, 5/24/05

http://mondoweiss.net/2008/02/foreign-affairs.html#high_4
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), Future Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee; 2/22/08

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126213.html
"Israel" UN "detached from reality" for adopting Goldstone Report, 116/09

http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com/2009/11/zionists-investigatedtoday-is-day.html
UK Channel 4 Investigates the Power of Israel Lobby in England

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127942.html
Goldstone: "U.S. does not have to protect Israel blindly", 11/13/09

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127198.html
"French FM: It seems Israel no longer wants peace" By Reuters, 10/11/09

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01242005.html
Uri Avnery, "The Coronation Viewed from Israel. King George", January 24. 2005

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit
–Ambassador's Charles Freeman's Letter of Resignation after a horrific smearing attack by the Israel Lobby and its subservient Congress. In his letter Ambassador Freeman wrote:
"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors." March 10, 2009

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11334&pageid=17&pagename=News
76 Senators Sign AIPAC letter to President Obama urging him to support Israel in its negotiations.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/15/gop-democratic-leader-inadvertently-expose-israeli-lobbyists-behind-their-letter-to-obama/
Inadvertent Leak of AIPAC letter adopted by Congress
A letter from Congressional leaders Rep's Steny Hoyer and Eric Cantor sent to President Obama urging him to support Israel during upcoming negotiations was leaked to the media. The leaked document was titled, "AIPAC Letter Hoyer-Cantor May 2009.pdf", thereby proving that AIPAC runs the show and that Congress unquestionably and in Pavlovian fashion adopt AIPAC's agenda.

http://wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2009/paccharts_32-37.pdf 2008
Pro Israel Pac Contributions to Congressional Members

Recommended Books:

"The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", Prof. Ilan Pappe
"What Price Israel?" by Dr. Alfred L. Lilenthal
"Bad News from Israel", Greg Philo and Mike Derry, Glasgow University Media Group, Pluto Press, 2004
"One Nation Under Israel" by Andrew Hurley
"The Question of Palestine" by Edward Said
"Jewish Power", by J. J. Goldberg
"Fifty Years of Israel", by Donald Neff
"The Arabs: Myth and Reality", by George Butt
"Original Sins", by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
"The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", by Benny Morris
"The Holocaust Industry", by Norman G. Finkelstein
"The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History", by Keith W. Whitelam
"The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World", by Avi Shlaim
"The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present", by George W. Ball
"They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby", by Paul Findley
"It's the Media, Stupid", by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years" by Prof. Israel Shahak
"Assault on the Liberty" by James M. Ennes, Jr.

NOAM CHOMSKY-NO CHANGE IN US 'MAFIA PRINCIPLE'

freepaliadmin — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:44:00 GMT

BY: MAMOON ALABASSI

Top American intellectual sees no significant change of US foreign policy under Obama.

As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington's foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

"As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," said Chomsky.

"But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story," he added.

"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as "the Mafia principle."

"The Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option," said Chomsky.

Because the US sees "successful defiance" of Washington as a "virus" that will "spread contagion," he explained.

Iran

The US had feared this "virus" of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.

"The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources," said Chomsky.

However, "in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion (of Iran)."

"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," said Chomsky.

"The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians," he stressed.

Nuclear attack

Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.

"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth — unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them," said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.

Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented.

"The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But …the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran — that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent," said Chomsky.

Iraq

Chomsky reminded the audience of America's backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq's war with Iran.

"The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons' training," said Chomsky.

This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.

"In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler," Chomsky added.

Then the people of Iraq were subjected to "genocidal" US-backed sanctions.

Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a " major crime", many critics of the invasion – including Obama – viewed it as merely as "a mistake" or a "strategic blunder".

"It's probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," he said

"There's nothing principled about it. It wasn't a strategic blunder: it was a major crime," he added.

Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection.

The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure.

But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues to seek a long term presence in the country.

The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.

Optimism

Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the 'West' can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of 'Western' governments.

"There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war," said Chomsky.

"In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially stated… and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical warfare – (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse," he said.

"And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step," he added.

"It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn't deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon – officially at least – virtually all the war aims," said Chomsky.

"As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by US investors – well they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse," he said.

"So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Laos," he added.

Turkey

Chomsky said that Turkey could become a "significant independent actor" in the region, if it chooses to.

"Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?," said Chomsky.

The Europeans "keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU," he explained.

But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.

But 'New Europe' was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations – which strongly objected to the Iraq war – and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.

So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the US.

Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the US-Israeli military exercises.

Fear factor

Chomsky explained that although 'Western' government use "the maxim of Thucydides" ('the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must'), their peoples are hurled via the "fear factor".

Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either "self defence" or "humanitarian intervention".

NATO

Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush's war in Afghanistan, using NATO.

NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies.

But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control.

"From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe might choose to follow an independent course," said Chomsky, "NATO was partially intended to counter this serious threat," he added.

Middle East oil

Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history," the most "strategically important area in the world," in Eisenhower's words.

Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with "substantial control of the world."

This meant that the US "must support harsh and brutal regimes and block democracy and development" in the Middle East.

Somalia

Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue.

"Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?"

Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is European counties and others are simply "destroying Somalia's territorial waters by dumping toxic waste – probably nuclear waste – and also by overfishing."

"What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then we're all upset about the piracy, not about having created the situation," said Chomsky.

Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia.

"One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly hailed in the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic charity – Barakat – which was identified as supporting terrorists.

"A couple of months later… the (US) government quietly recognised that they were wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it – but meanwhile, it was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn't have much of an economy but a lot of it was supported by this charity: not just giving money but running banks and businesses, and so on.

"It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia…closing it down… was another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very weak society…and there are other examples."

Darfur

Chomsky also touched on Sudan's Darfur region.

"There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with the region they don't amount to a lot unfortunately – like what's going on in eastern Congo is incomparably worse than in Darfur.

"But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you can blame it on an enemy – you have to distort a lot but you can blame it on 'Arabs', 'bad guys'," he explained.

"What about saving eastern Congo where maybe 20 times as many people have been killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky … for people who… are using minerals from eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals sponsoring militias which slaughter and kill and get the minerals," he said.

Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is a US alley, he added.

Goldstone's Gaza report

Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war was bias, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel.

The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel's right to self-defence, although it denounced the method this was conducted.

Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting to military force before "exhausting peaceful means", something Israel did not even contemplate doing.

In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself is an act of war.

As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that despite adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama made no real effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations.

In the absence of the threat of cutting US aid for Israel, there is no compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington.

What can be done?

Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and does make a difference for the better, urging people to continue activism and spreading knowledge.

"There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic."

Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.

"Public opinion is shifting substantially."

And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its policies without pressure from the 'West'.

"There is a lot to do in Western countries…primarily in the US."

Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in 'Western' countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated.

In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who famously called for "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."

GIVE UP ON OBAMA, DISBAND THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

freepaliadmin — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:39:00 GMT

BY: SAMI JAMIL JADALLAH

The issue of continuing and expanding Jewish settlements came back to haunt the Palestinian leadership that negotiated Oslo and continued to negotiate with Israel for the last 16 years while Israeli continued to build and expand its settlements, not to mention building the Apartheid Wall.

Now 16 years later finally the Palestinian leadership discovered there is a problem with the Jewish settlements. One has to wonder why did Arafat continue to negotiate with Israel while Israeli continued with its settlement program? And why did Abbas continue to negotiate with Netanyahu predecessor Olmert while Olmert continued with his settlement program not to mention his on War on Gaza?

There is something fundamentally wrong with this Palestinian leadership that accepted, and for so long, Israel’s settlements policy that saw settlements expand 150% since Oslo, while we hear nothing but lip service and denunciation from Ramallah, while it continues to deal with Israel business as usual.

Of course we do understand this leadership that lead the Palestinian people from one failure to another, from one disaster to another continues to proceed with its Oslo policies even though those policies simply failed to make a difference for the millions under occupation. Of course Oslo made a big and substantial difference to the leadership and its army of do-nothing functionaries.

The statement of Hillary Clinton that Israel made “unprecedented concessions” on the issue of settlements should be a red flag for the Palestinian leadership that America under Barack Obama is no different from America under George Bush and that peace in the Middle East is not an international issue but strictly a domestic issue. The Palestinian leadership has to come to terms with and has to understand that the powerful American Jewish leadership and community will never, ever allow any US president to proceed and make serious efforts in making peace possible in the Middle East. Peace is never in the interest of this leadership and community.

The shifting sands are not in the Middle East, the shifting sands are in Washington, with President Barack Obama under tremendous domestic pressure from the American Jewish leadership and community to simply give up on his commitments to make peace possible. Instead this leadership and community wants and is demanding President Barack Obama manage the conflict but not solve it. Hence the backtracking on the issue of settlements as illegal and obstacle to peace.

Of course Bibi Netanyahu is challenging the Palestinian leadership to start the negotiations without pre-conditions and as he stated “the Palestinians have been negotiating for the last 16 years while Israel was building the settlements why stop negotiating now?" And yes, perhaps Bibi Netanyahu is correct; why stop negotiating now? This is the question the Palestinian leadership must answer and now.

If the Palestinians and the leadership are counting on the US and the Obama administration to deliver peace or deliver Israel to withdraw and ends its occupation they better think twice. Now and for the foreseeable future there is no US president who can muster the courage to stand up to the powerful, vengeful and harmful American Jewish leadership and community. Peace for Israel, peace in the Middle East, ending the longest occupation in modern times will undermine the power and influence of this leadership and community, and its is not about to give all that up, even it means tens of thousands of lives are lost on both sides.

Now the Palestinian leadership has to understand that the people are fed with a dialed and inept leadership, fed up with the same excuses, fed up with everything that comes out of Ramallah and for that matter out of Gaza or Damascus. The people are fed up with the Oslo Team continuing to manage the Jewish Occupation as if there are no expanding settlements, as if there are no demolition of homes, as if there is no Apartheid Wall, as if there is no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Jerusalem, as if there are no 650 security checkpoints and expanding, as if there are no targeted assassinations. The people are fed with up the Ramallah negotiation team, fed up with Hamas stupid rockets and claims of effective armed resistance, fed up with Hamas, with Fatah and fed up with the PLO and the same leadership that failed them for so long. The Oslo Team that managed the Jewish Occupation since Oslo must close shop and close today before tomorrow.

We all know this is rather a difficult decision to make, not because it is the right thing to do, or because it is in the best interest of the people, no, because such a decision to close down Oslo Shop has so much implication for the rights, benefits privileges and personal financial interest of a leadership and a team that are direct beneficiaries of the continuing Jewish Occupation. Oslo was a bonanza.

Senior members will have to give up very expensive multi-million dollar villas, give up fleet of cars for them and members of their families, give up all the personal security guards and armed escorts, give up their Israeli issued VIP cards, give up on evenings in posh Tel-Aviv restaurants and night clubs, give up on business interests with the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Occupations. They simply have to give up salaries and benefits in the 6 digits figures. They have to give up all of this. Of course, tens of thousands of Fatah members also have to give up salaries paid directly by the PA since it is doubtful if Israel will keep them on its payroll. Members of Hamas will also have to give up similar privileges if Oslo closes shop.

There is no other choice but to disband the Palestinian Authority and to call Oslo null and void since Israel never had any intention to give up the Occupation, give up on settlements and was only interested in a Palestinian partner that can manage the Occupation but not deliver on ending the Occupation. The Road Map was a dead end to start with designed to allow Israel to continue with its Occupation. The Palestinian Authority and the PLO must stop being the manager of the Jewish Occupation and must stop begging for funds to fund the Jewish Occupation; time to let Israel pay for its own occupation.

Mahmoud Abbas should take the first flight to New York and demand to speak before the UN General Assembly and there and then announce the disbanding of the Palestinian Authority and asking the United Nations to take over managing the Jewish Occupation from the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. That step will make ending the Jewish Occupation not an American domestic issue but an international issue as well. The US and especially the Obama administration must then make up its mind whether it wants to manage the conflict to appease the powerful American Jewish leadership and community or it wants to end this conflict and do what is right, the only right thing to do, ending the Jewish Occupation that lasted for some 43 years. The Arabs also have a right to know where the Obama administration stands on ending the Jewish Occupation.

NUKE GAZA

freepaliadmin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:39:00 GMT

BY: JEFF GATES

Israeli officials are right to worry. Gazans too. Yet Americans should worry even more.

Israel's "legitimacy" will not last. Of course, that assumes its legitimacy was deserved. That issue also is now called into question in light of the consistency of Israeli behavior over the past six decades. The emerging issues are these:

When and how will the recognition of Israel's nation-state status be withdrawn? How will Tel Aviv behave in the interim?

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman may have tipped his Masada hand when he reportedly told Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan that Israel may use nuclear weapons against Gaza. The threat to Israel is not the 1.5 million Gazans who reside in the world's largest open-air prison.

The threat is the fast-growing global outrage at the abuse inflicted on Palestinians, commencing with the ethnic cleansing of 400-plus villages six decades ago.

Not since 1948 has this enclave of extremists mounted such a public relations offensive. Christian Zionist President Harry Truman trusted Jewish Zionist lobbyists when he solicited assurances that they would not become what they immediately became: a racist theocratic state with an expansionist agenda destined to create serial crises in the region.

The merciless global agenda pursued by Colonial Zionists is the single greatest threat to world peace, as confirmed yet again by Lieberman's warning. As the primary remaining ally of these Jewish nationalists, the risks to the U.S. increase with each passing day as Tel Aviv works behind the scenes to catalyze yet another conflict.

This entangled alliance was destined to provoke resentments that would eventually endanger their super power ally and foremost arms provider. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the mass murder of 9-11, conceded that the motivation for that attack was to focus "the American people…on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab Muslim people."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Truman 61 years ago that this militant enclave meant to establish Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East. Familiar with the duplicity for which Israel has since become infamous, the Pentagon chiefs warned: "All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders."

Nuclear-Armed Fanatics

With each passing year, Tel Aviv adds a new chapter to the agent provocateur handbook on How To Succeed as a Victim.

Israel's strategic success traces directly to its capacity to radicalize and enrage-as those residing in the Occupied Territories endure a third generation of deprivation, degradation and periodic starvation. Thus the in-depth planning that preceded Israel's brutal "defensive" assault on Gaza between Christmas 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama-who said nothing about the attack throughout its 28-day duration.

That silence continues even now after Richard Goldstone, a South African jurist, issued a report describing dozens of Israeli war crimes and evidence of crimes against humanity. In the lead-up to the report's release, a U.S. president gave Tel Aviv a rhetorical gift when, in a U.N. speech, the nation's first Black president used the code phrase "Jewish state" as an implied endorsement of the apartheid policies of this racist enclave. Even Truman did not go that far. But then his administration was not as thoroughly staffed with Zionists and pro-Israelis.

In addition to killing some 1400 Palestinians, one-third of them women and children, Israel destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza including farmlands, factories and schools as well as its water supply and sanitation works. The facts in the Goldstone Report were further confirmed by "Breaking the Silence"-the personal testimony by thirty members of the Israel Defense Forces who described a murderous policy meant to teach the people of Gaza a lesson for their support of Hamas-which came to power in 2006 elections that were universally appraised as free and fair.

As Israel's protector and apologist, the U.S. bears the brunt of the anger as Israeli extremism continues to enrage Muslims and radicalize the Islamic body politic. A systematic assassination campaign ensured that Tel Aviv had "no one to talk to" except known collaborators with the occupation authorities in Tel Aviv and their arms suppliers in Washington. Meanwhile, the steady expansion of Israeli settlements made a Palestinian state impossible-unless indigenous Arabs are happy to reside in an archipelago of isolated ghettos ringed by Israeli checkpoints.

To suggest that the U.S. is culpable only states the obvious. Yet Israeli extremism continues unabated even as Tel Aviv insists that its neighbors accept it as a "Jewish state" even before its borders are fixed and resolution of the occupied territories is known. After six decades of nonstop deceit, Arab states are understandably reluctant to further appease this "state." For Americans endangered by the behavior of Jewish fanatics, the lesson is uncomfortable but inescapable: we enabled this.

By our continued appeasement, Barack Obama is inviting another violent reaction to Israel's serial provocations. By failing to endorse the Goldstone Report, our commander-in-chief is putting U.S. forces at risk. By implying that Israel is above the law, he only emboldens Tel Aviv. By suggesting that Israeli conduct is consistent with the values of a "Jewish state," he endangers the broader Jewish community. That includes those moderate Jews who anticipated this extremist behavior when in May 1948 Truman overruled the strategic objections of Secretary of State George C. Marshall and enabled this fanaticism by extending nation-state recognition.

Small in numbers but large in ambition, this extremist enclave had no choice but to wage war by way of deception. The most insidious deceit was targeted, from within, at its purported ally to induce the U.S. military to lead an invasion of Iraq for its Greater Israel strategy. Absent an Israeli strategy able to sustain serial crises, a long-deceived public will awaken to the common source of the fixed intelligence that led us into the last war-and now seeks to induce the next.

As Americans awaken to how this duplicity proceeds in plain sight, they will see for themselves who and why. That knowledge is the threat that Tel Aviv most fears. As the facts become known, Israeli legitimacy will no longer be an issue. The only issue will be how best to dis-arm these extremists and how to hold accountable those lawmakers who enable this ongoing treason.

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide; an adviser to policy-makers worldwide; former counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee; and author of numerous articles and books including his latest book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com

At What Cost the Israel Lobby?

freepaliadmin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:11:00 GMT

BY: JEFF GATES

More than 46 years ago, President John F. Kennedy sought to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 1963, he wrote the last in a series of insistent letters to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Those letters sought what Israel now demands of Iran: international inspections of its nuclear facilities. The key difference: Kennedy knew for certain that Israel, while portraying itself a friend and ally, repeatedly lied to Kennedy about its nuclear weapons development at the Dimona reactor in the Negev Desert.

Best estimates point to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon in what is now a vast nuclear arsenal estimated at 200-400 warheads. Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was anything but friendly. The words he chose were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge gives a jury on criminal culpability. In that brusque letter, the U.S. commander-in-chief insisted that this purported ally prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the Zionist enclave was not developing nuclear weapons.

One day after that June 15th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. As his resignation was announced before the letter could be physically delivered, Jewish authors routinely claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion. Nonsense. That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies—and about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications.

Deprived of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, Kennedy was denied a national security victory that may well have spared the world a problem he foresaw almost a half-century ago. In retrospect, that Israeli conduct raises topical questions about the ability of the U.S.—or any nation—to hold Zionist extremists accountable.

The Khazars vs. the Kennedys

During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, a predecessor to the state of Israel. As a recipient of U.S. taxpayer funds, the Jewish Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy joined Fulbright in that quest. That effort was thwarted by the Israel lobby and then by the death of President Kennedy. Thereafter, concerns about the impact of Zionist influence on U.S. policy making continued to grow. By 1973, Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” In 1974, he lost his Senate seat. [See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.”]

Fast-forward to today and imagine the Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that Kennedy posed to Tel Aviv’s arsenal was eliminated five months after Ben-Gurion’s strategically well-timed resignation. When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as his successor, LBJ quickly increased the arms budget for Israel. Imagine today’s Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it is: a foreign agent.

Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach replaced RFK as Attorney General. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC now oversees a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operatives commonly known as “the Israel lobby.”

The Kennedy/Fulbright risk to Zionist influence reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war that was vastly expanded under the leadership of the Texan who replaced his brother as president. Another Kennedy presidency posed for Tel Aviv a two-fold threat.

First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy revived the possibility that he would pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Second, with Fulbright still wielding influence on U.S. foreign policy, a Kennedy administration revived concerns about restrictions on the Israel lobby.

When this charismatic contender surged in the political polls, that threat was eliminated June 5, 1968 at a campaign event in Los Angeles. His death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War. The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel.

With that murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, Nixon readily agreed to endorse an “ambiguous” status for Israel’s nuclear arsenal, akin to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Special Standard for a Special Friend

Due to its “special relationship” with the U.S., Tel Aviv remains a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its Dimona facility has never been subjected to the inspections it now seeks for Iran. But for photographs taken inside the Dimona facility in 1986 by nuclear technician Mordecai Vanunu, that “ambiguity” might well remain intact.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly certified that Iran is not enriching uranium beyond the 3.5% required for nuclear energy. Tehran has agreed to send its uranium abroad for the further enrichment required for medicine (19.5%), a level still well below the 90% required for nuclear weapons.

In mid-September, the U.S. intelligence agencies reported to the White House that their assessment since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 remains unchanged. They still do not believe that Iran has resumed nuclear weapons development work.

What about Israel? What has their lobby been doing? Answer: lobbying. As during the Kennedy era, Tel Aviv remains focused on a single goal: ensuring that its ally and patron continues a six-decade policy ensuring that Israel is not held accountable—for anything.

At what cost has the U.S. acted as if the Israel lobby is not a foreign agent? The strategic issue faced by Fulbright and the Kennedys remains unresolved: how best can the U.S. eliminate Israeli influence as a threat to national security? Since that fateful letter of June 1963, what has been the cost of this lobby to U.S. interests? What costs have been imposed on others by this special relationship? At what point will Americans say: Enough!

Care and Feeding of the Holocaust Elephant in the Room (spiced up by Ahmadinejad)

freepaliadmin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:03:00 GMT

BY: MARY RIZZO

While preparing the insertion of the article by Nahida Izzat About anti-Semitism, as do all of her thoughtful and intense contributions, many segments caused me to reflect. Her analysis and especially her questions are so important and meaningful, that it would only be logical to address them bit by bit, and I would like to begin with a segment that I believe holds the core to so many of the difficulties of keeping the Palestinian Nakba on the table… it’s that presence in the room of the elephant of the Holocaust.

Incredible, it seems as though it is often the primary argument discussed. I don’t mean only by those who back Israel tooth and nail, but even by those who claim that Israel as a Jewish State must come to an end. Nahida’s first question:

Why is it that we Palestinians are constantly reminded of the horrors of the holocaust, when we had nothing to do with it?

Yes. Why? Why is it the argument in a UN General Assembly the week that the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War was released? Why is it that we have to bear yet again with the Israeli PM raging on about the Holocaust and about how Ahmadinejad denies it, so therefore, “all good people of the world, keep the light of the Holocaust burning bright and let’s keep the focus on Israeli victimhood, current vulnerability and the danger Iran poses” becomes the leitmotif of the day, week, month, year… It is permanent, fuelled constantly.

The Goldstone Report was no small feat of the UN to pull off, and some focus there would have been something close to a dream come true: it was the outcome of an official UN commission headed by a respected judge (a Jewish South African) which revealed that Israel engaged wilfully, deliberately and recklessly in war crimes against the people in Gaza… not in the 1940s, but just last winter. So why did Netanyahu rant and moan? The response is simple: to shift focus with the justification for it that “Ahmadinejad is denying the Holocaust”. But the question begs… Did he?

Had he mentioned the Holocaust in the speech to the UN? I could find not one reference to the Holocaust, much less it’s being denied or not. It was not even mentioned. Yet, what does Netanyahu do? He brings the argument there, because it is beyond doubt that it is effective for Israel’s goal of achieving world sympathy as well as condemnation of Iran, which is a goal of a big part of the “International Community”, and for various nefarious reasons. It gets “sexed up” with the nuclear threat, as if this is indeed the major problem and issue regarding humankind, and we get more and more of these claims that are not really ever verified, “Iran’s got it,” “not yet but close,” “Iran could strike Israel very soon.” All of it backed a few days later by the most intense PR mistake that Iran could muster, long range missile tests. It doesn’t matter now what they do or say, we see the film of the missile set off in a loop for hours and hours on every news show or even commentary.

As I often do, I wonder who’s advising Ahmadinejad, because it sure works wonders for pushing the “Israelis in danger” narrative. Are nuclear weapons going to help bring down the Zionist regime? I really do doubt it, but they sure do a lot to gain them support from the wealthy international community and the political and public backing that would keep Israel’s survival (as a Jewish State) as the priority. I would say that on the face of it, it looks like backward logic.

While Netanyahu and the West rant and rage about the alleged sins of Iran’s President in order to help Israel stay on the top of the game, we see another really bizarre trend in this “constant reminder of the Holocaust”. Surprise surprise, it’s not only the main theme for those whose purpose for existing is to enable Israel who are keeping the “constant reminders of the Holocaust” in the place of prominence. It is also the committed anti-Zionists who like to keep this fil rouge of Ahmadi and the Holocaust running.

Gilad Atzmon, whose views about Zionism are almost always astute, makes the same mistake that Netanayahu does. In his recent paper about Ahmadinejad, Who is a Jew? just a few days after the UN brou-ha-ha he writes: “It is pretty much impossible to deny the fact that Ahmadinejad's take on the holocaust and Israel is coherent, consistent and valid. He seems to have three main issues with the narrative…” and he elaborates on these elements which include numbers, the relevance of historical revision and on the Western responsibility for it.

In the past few years, and in quite a noticeable way, the references to the Holocaust have been decreasing. Did Ahmadinejad deliberately omit the issue of the Holocaust in his important UN speech (which obviously, and predictably, no one seems to know the content of or its theme?) Quite apparently this is the case, and it is indeed plausible that he did it because this was his intention. Nor was the Holocaust mentioned in his speech in Geneva at the International Conference on Racism.

In fact, there is deliberate omission of the matter, and if the translation is to be trusted, we see that he actually says what is not even his own theory, but rather something close to a fact, that is repeated as well by Netanyahu, that the establishment of Israel in Palestine was “in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe.” Following is the entire quote:

Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings. And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine… [Delegates walk out in protest. Applause] And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe… Okay, please. Thank you. And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive, racist regime in Palestine. [Applause]

One may ask themselves the classic questions: If we know that the Israelis are always up in arms about Ahmadinejad/Holocaust, and that they use this as justification for reinforcing their garrison mentality and use it effectively to get more money, arms and support, and then if Ahamdinejad has actually reduced this kind of intervention from his international speaking appearances – why is this focus constantly there even by those who are against the Zionist State and its garrison mentality as if he had indeed said what Netanyahu wants everyone to believe he said? If we are getting our information from Ynet and the Western mainstream media, of course we are using distortion as our resource. We have to be careful to avoid that error. When we are debating, discussing the Holocaust of the Second World War, an event that is over, finished and (as both Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad concur) compensated for at least for the Jews, what space does that leave us for debate, discussion and dissemination of information on TODAY’S Holocaust, the Nakba of the Palestinian people? Has a single Palestinian EVER been compensated for the losses which started at the beginning of the last century and are increasing in violence and frequency? No. Certainly not. Nor have the Lebanese been compensated for the losses they have suffered in the brutal war raged against them… no, not in the past century, but just three years ago.

Is it very productive to reiterate the same narrative of Netanyahu even when it’s an instrumental distortion of reality and the Palestinians are tired of it? Is it productive for the Palestinian people?

Another question by Nahida: Why is it that we Palestinians, are to suffer the same fate as the victims of the holocaust by the hands of those who brag worldwide to act for “never again”?

I would venture to guess, Nahida, that your situation is always pushed to the margins because it is simply not deemed as being interesting enough, and Jews and Israelis have been successful in rendering their own situations more appealing, even by way of deceit and distortion.

It seems obvious that while the Holocaust was indeed used as a pretext for the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, it had a lot more than that “going for it”. It was always used by the West to cover its own sins such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden occurring in the same years. It was used to have an “ultimate evil” to point to… in this way, there is no self-reflection that would lead to change, which is actually what political writing in the West often aims to do. Once you have an evil that is defined as something that will be unequalled, once you have established clearly that there is a group that is represented as being a victim more worthy of pity than any other victim (so that any other suffering is going to be relatively inferior), the mechanism of turning a blind eye to Palestinian and Arab suffering can become the norm. And, suffer they must, if there is to be a Jewish State in Palestine, which is simply a racist construct that dictates that Jews have rights that “non-Jews” (the negation terminology is interesting) shall never have. In fact, those who are non-Jews are also peddled as “enemies” even by the institutional peaceniks adored in the West and used for the Hasbara, such as David Grossman and Noa. When you have an enemy, naturally, the narrator is a good guy and almost “forced” into “defence”. It’s a great and handy little game for the Israelis, and the Palestinians have not yet been able to show the world the full extent of their situation. Part of that is because Palestinians are denied a voice and they are often told that it would be preferable for them to follow the arguments that those in Europe or North America are dictating. The very most they can do is to learn to be satisfied with assuming the passive victim role in some progressive sites.

I’ve been running Palestine sites for a long time, but before that, I’ve been reading these sites. It is quite interesting that aside from independent blogs, the Palestinian voice is the exception, not the rule, in the progressive or pro-resistance media. I believe that Palestine Think Tank is a happy exception, because most of our contributors and editors are Palestinians, as well as the majority of our content being written by Palestinians. However, just a glance on almost any site about Palestine in English, you are going to find out quite soon that the Palestinian voice is nearly absent. You will see papers (mostly) by Jews and Israelis, articles taken from Haaretz, books by Americans and Britons, but the Palestinian voice is not given its due space.

It certainly is not because they do not have opinions and do not express them well. PTT alone is testament to the variety, vibrancy and originality of these writers. Sometimes, it seems, there is a lot of gatekeeping surrounding what Palestinians say, and by those who make a point of defending freedom of speech for those whose main or sole argument is the Holocaust. I will enter into detail further in this article.

Self-criticism and self-analysis are the basis of any transformation, personal and national alike. Active transformation in the form of popular uprising, which by now a vast majority of Palestinians see as inevitable and necessary, given the failure of politics, also entails the awareness of the level of distress that is growing, distress that time is running out and that even the most basic Palestinian requirements and demands will not be met, as even the most steadfast resistance movements contemplate the realpolitik of recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. This would ratify an enormous injustice, and cancel forever the chance of return. It is necessary for Palestinians to voice all of their views and to act, as the feeling is strong that time is not on their side.

Revolutions imported from anywhere else but internally, among the people, are by necessity viewed with suspicion. The foundation of a popular revolt is always internal. It entails coming into consciousness of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the system or leaders, and thus instilling and encouraging the active, revolutionary spirit of resistance. It is an overthrowing of the mentality that “the people” are passive subjects who must be controlled and must surrender their consent, even against their better judgment. There is no ruling or governing body in the world that tolerates too much dissent.

Every Western country prides itself on claiming that it tolerates dissent. Whether they actually do or not is questionable, but this is at any rate one of the yardsticks to measure the level of democracy they have achieved. Within activism, the dissenting voice is indeed the dominant one. Thus, promotion and support of self-critical voices, whenever they have the freedom to arise, as this is always a risk, is a necessary basis for changing a negative status quo. Fighting gatekeeping within our ranks is a primary concern, and Palestine Think Tank has never backed off on fighting this unhealthy censorship mechanism. Especially vocal gatekeepers, as we know, are the Jewish activists, who always have been very effective in keeping their agendas as the dominant ones. They tend to impose focus on arguments that are more interesting to them, and ones they presumably feel are interesting to others. These arguments are invariably the “Jewish experience”, past, present and future. This naturally includes the two hot topics that always stir up attention, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. These issues are woven into every discourse, as we have seen, by Zionists and anti-Zionists alike, as if the Jewish experience is indeed the interesting one, and the Palestinians simply have to adjust to playing second fiddle, even at the cost of “constantly being reminded” of these issues, precisely the complaint that Nahida has made in her recent article. As both Meshaal and Nasrallah have said, with the blood of their people still fresh from Israeli aggression, “there is a real Holocaust going on today”, the Holocaust against the people of Palestine and Lebanon.

It is with the goal of keeping the Palestinian and Arab demands for freedom and the necessity of promoting their own voices, that this site has published hundreds of articles by Palestinians and Arabs which call for a more active involvement in building their own future, and refusal to negotiate away their rights, or allow anyone else to set their agenda. At the end of the day, they ought to know what is best for themselves more than a European, American, Israeli or Jew does. This was the spirit of the excellent article by Mohamed Khodr, An Embarassment of Riches and Riches of Embarassments where he pointed out the vast level of the failure of governments in Arab nations to be true to the principles of Islam, often at the expense of the Palestinians. Another important article that was similarly self-critical was by Sami Jamil Jadallah What is Wrong with the Palestinian People? It was his appraisal of the apparent Palestinian complacency in the face of betrayal of the Palestinian people at every level. Anyone who engages regularly with Palestinians knows that this is a big part of the content of their conversations. There was nothing really new or shocking in these positions, despite the enormous pain being expressed of being unable to get angry enough at this state of affairs. The apathy, caused by years of neglect of their cause and the extreme subservience they have in the global sphere, leads to a lack of hope and the feeling that there is no chance to control their own destiny. There is also a frequent tendency of activists who are neither Muslims nor Palestinians to be unaware of this condition of frustration, and they prefer as well to not “offend” Palestinians and insist upon viewing them exclusively in the prism as the “victim” who is waiting for rescue from afar.

Certainly, Palestinians and Muslims are the victims of the worst sort of oppression and war. Their ability to counter the multitude of factors keeping them defeated can’t be denied by anyone. However even “victims” have the capacity to rise up and contribute to the discourse in all of its dynamics. They have the right to mobilise themselves, to speak their minds against not only the Israelis, but also against the “House Arabs” who sell them out or bend to pragmatism when it will run counter to their fundamental demands.

The only effective resistance has only ever been when people stop waiting for approval from outside, when they stop hoping for reform or rescue and when they point their fingers at traitors and encourage healthy rage. Effective resistance has only been determination to not be subjects of someone else’s projects for them or to fit into a profile people have outfitted for them, but to see themselves as the creators of their own destinies. The case of Palestinians is more complicated than one might imagine. It seems as if new hurdles are set in front of them at every turn: they have been unfortunately abandoned by the world when they applied the democratic principles of elections and their situation is further complicated by their’s being a dynamic and complex society that is divided into factions and geographically separated. Acquisition of one’s own narrative, of one’s own power to dissent, being recognised as the protagonists and not the side issue, this is something Palestinians are attempting to gain and their efforts are necessary to enable their own resistance at all levels, and the unity they need to succeed. One is free to disagree with the content of their discourse, but one has the obligation to not discourage the necessary act of their right to free speech.

While circulating especially thought-provoking or controversial papers, as I do at times to a small mailing list of readers, I encouraged the reading of this bitter, painful but powerful essay that offered many points for discussion. I was included in a group mailing of some dozen or so people started by a Jewish activist primarily focused on the subject of the Holocaust who has written a half dozen or so essays, some of which I’ve published. The fact that I may not agree with everything he has written did not however prevent me from encouraging him to write more often so that his right to say unpopular things that could be discussed was safeguarded by me. This is what he wrote:

I don't think this piece should have been written (certainly not in English) and should certainly not have been posted on your website.

I had to wonder if this the same person who wrote back in 2006, published on my previous site, Peacepalestine:

The last point on Ernst and Ingrid (Zundel) has become something of a mantra that I have had to recite so many times in the last year or so: Neither Ingrid nor Ernst has ever used violence, nor have they ever called on anyone else to use violence. Neither has ever discriminated against anyone on ethnic or religious grounds, nor have they called on anyone else to do so. Finally, and for me, most importantly, neither has ever suppressed anyone's right to think, speak and write freely or called on anyone else to do so. Can the same be said for their opponents – particularly those anti-Zionist, and often Marxist Jews?

Whatever I say or write is always characterised by doubt and hesitation. Some have said that this is because I'm afraid of coming clean about my beliefs. But that's not true. It's simply that I am never so sure about anything, other than the value of keeping an open mind and tolerating other opinions.

Evidently, the value of keeping an open mind and tolerating other opinions, well, at least a Palestinian one, has been scrapped.

Besides the fact that the Palestinian author has a long track record for actively demanding redress from the Jews without renouncing the Palestinian right of return, calls for justice, truth and comprehensive archives of all the appropriations of Palestinian property and of all crimes committed against his own people, something hindered time and again by the PLO, calling for his silencing or censorship of him on a Palestinian site is quite inappropriate.

Is tolerance of others’ opinions only a value if those opinions coincide with one’s own or if they are being expressed by a Westerner, Israeli or Jew? Wouldn’t it be more constructive, rather than suppressing someone else’s right to think, speak or write freely or telling an editor they should certainly not have published work one disapproves of, to debate the author? To understand his views? To challenge his claims that one disagrees with and ask him to substantiate them?

Well, my contact in the mailing group didn’t only ignore that invitation to him to do so, something I’ve always encouraged all to do with his own writing, he also chose to not participate in the lively debate between the author and many other people, most of them Palestinians. It seems as though the issue was of great interest and relevancy to quite a few people. Well, that’s his loss, because others have gained by the experience. Someone who is by and large considered to be the maximum expert on and opponent of the Israeli and Jewish lobby, Jeff Blankfort, had this to say in the comments:

Sami, your opening piece on this thread has really made me look at the reality with new eyes. The time has indeed come to put away the bombast, romanticism, and delusions that have contributed to the current situation and not wait for another generation yet to be born to liberate the land.

As an editor and translator of activists for a decade, particularly for writers whose focus is the occupation of Palestine, quite a few of them Palestinians, in fact, I have seen and edited and published every type of argumentation: obviously, this fact would prevent me from agreeing with all of the content, but it is not my duty to censor, but to facilitate discourse. The arguments are so varied in their dominating theme, be it religious, secular, socialist, revolutionary, feminist, Arab Nationalist, pragmatic, strategic, focused on sensitising Westerners, aimed at an Arab public, even satirical pieces that refer to themes that are quite particular. For many of these writers, getting their issues to a broad public is an infrequent event. Although the material is extremely enlightening, the lack of exposure of their voices keeps their issues in the margins. Just the idea that Arab Nationalism as a means of gaining Palestinian liberation, a major item of discourse in the Middle East, is all but unheard of in many progressive sites should not be surprising. These sites are busy (still) thinking about the Holocaust rather than issues that interest Palestinians and are part of a strategic paradigm. As a Palestinian person once wrote in comments on the site, “If I convert to Judaism, I think I will all of a sudden start becoming interesting to people. Should I do it?”

So, with all of this in mind, I have a few modest proposals to make for those who are involved in any way in the Palestinian issue:

1)      Freedom of speech should be the right of everyone. This would include the right and duty to critique people’s arguments as well as criticise across the board, “House Arabs”, “censors and gatekeepers”. They aren’t really serving the Palestinian cause, are they? If they are, we need to know how.

2)      Demand broader dissemination of the Palestinian and Arab voice. They alone are the victims of Western, Imperialist and Zionist domination, and indeed, they are the last victims of the Holocaust. Anyone who can, should encourage their right to dissent, just like Westerners expect for themselves.

3)      To get the Holocaust issue once and for all in its perspective and not as the core issue of international policy and the consequential activist focus. Just like 9/11 has shown us, focus on one single dramatic event, even when all the facts will never be made available, serves as a pretext to legitimise things such as the Global War on Terror and the actual wars against nations that are the consequence of this. New wars are being planned and justifications made for them in the same moment that old wars are still producing their scores of victims. This precaution should be heeded since it is proven again and again that this is the modus operandi. If focus on Holocaust we must, let us focus on the Holocaust of epic proportions going on in Gaza right now.

4)      Ahmadinejad is not Iran. He is the President who governs in a situation of major internal dissent on the verge of further popular explosions. He should not be used as a convenient instrument to attack the sovereign nation of Iran. His words about the world situation may be sincere, but he must be judged (primarily by his own people) by his actions, not all of which do gain popular support and some of which feed the Israeli paranoia. But, his words MUST actually be the ones he is using, not some narrative of him that can be pulled out as an instrument for any cause, be it Zionist or anti-Zionist.

The active choice for those who seek true and complete Palestinian liberation has to be openness to the voices that do not accept compromise or surrender of their rights. Support of people who will not betray the Palestinian and Arab search for freedom. We have to have faith in the power of the Word, in the power of popular uprising, and continue to have faith in the future of the Arab populations who WILL set their own agendas and speak their own minds without waiting for anyone’s permission or approval. Like all of us, they are seeking solutions to their problems and analysing their own reality, putting it in the spotlight, where it belongs. They are tired of being “constantly reminded of the Holocaust”, and who can blame them?

The diversity of their voices is an asset that needs to be consolidated, not a liability to eliminate. Different thoughts contribute to growth, and the more we hear, the more we learn. Variety, diversity, space for participation and discussion of the issues that Palestinians find important is the key to keeping their agenda on the table and raising the consciousness that is at the basis of all resistance. Free Minds for a Free Palestine is not just the motto of our site. This IS a THINK tank, after all!

UNRWA In the Focus of Accusations

freepaliadmin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:50:00 GMT

On Friday October 9 2009, the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Quds published a statement of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), Karen Koning AbuZayed in which she announced the discontinuation of some important activities of the UNRWA, such as scholarships for Palestinian students.

According to Al-Quds, the statement of Koning came during a political interview which she gave to the “Middle East Report” from London. According to Koning: “the UNRWA has a financial deficit estimated at $100 million, and that the UNRWA does not get a sufficient budget to cover its emergency activities”. (Click on pictures to make them bigger).

Koning said that “what most concerns us in the UNRWA is that we are not getting enough money to cover our activities such as education and health care”. She added: “At the end of this year we have deficit of $17 million. We hope that our contacts during the General Assembly in New York will fill the gap and help us to go ahead until the end of the year”. AbuZayed expressed her deep concern about next year, 2010, as the year will start “while we do not have anything”.
Questions Marks

As a comment on the announced discontinuation of some important activities of the UNRWA, such as scholarships for Palestinian students, I would like to ask the the UNRWA Commissioner-General, Karen Koning AbuZayed, some questions:

Where is the OPEC grant (US$1.2) of 1 July 2009 which the Commissioner-General which she personally accepted and received from the OPEC Fund as a donation towards a new scholarship fund for talented Palestinians?

Where is the OPEC grant of 1 July 2009 which she herself accepted from the OPEC Fund for International Development for a microfinance fund towards supporting the private business sector of Palestinian Refugees through a micro-finance scheme (PALFUND) which reached (US$10) million?

“Justified” Corruption at UNRWA

On 1 October 2009, Al-Nahar News from Deir Al-Balah in Gaza reported that Mr. Ramadan Al-Omari of the Comptroller General unit of UNRWA decided to leave his post after serving for more than thirty years in the position. Mr. Al-Omari sent an open letter to the Commissioner General of UNRWA, her deputy, and to all members of UNRWA Board, in which he revealed some aspects of corruption and misappropriation of funds and the budget of the UNRWA.

Al-Omari said that "the US$ twenty-five million budget of the UNRWA for the years 2010 / 2011 were spent without tangible returns for the Palestinians”. He added: "Most of that money has gone to consultants working in the UNRWA and for the employment of more than 15 international staff which were not needed, each one contracted with a salary of not less than one hundred thousand dollars (US$100.000) a year”.

Mr. Al-Omari criticized the work of UNRWA, which has recently adopted very questionable methods in terms of style, in terms of organizational development, and in the terms of making decisions. He said that “such developments have created an imposed upon us an international staff which we do not need”. He also stated that the UNRWA decisions are taken within a circle of agency managers who form a closed group, de-facto conspiring with each other, who have neither connection to nor interest in the Palestinians, and who take their decisions without consulting with the other responsible managers in the UNRWA work. Al-Omari was perplexed by how the UNRWA gives unlimited powers to the Director of Human Resources Management, taking in consideration any other input from within the organization or outside.

Al-Omari pointed to the main of contention that led to his resignation, which was related to the recent abolition by the higher UNRWA administration of the committees of human resources and contracts, in implement their plans without referral to the advice and review by these committees, which had been high regulatory powers within the agency.

Al-Omari said “the UNRWA wasted huge amounts of money on the so-called summer games in Gaza. This budget would have been enough to rebuild dozens of schools which were destroyed by the Israeli occupation during recent years”.

Karen Koning Denies

For her part, Karen koning, the UNRWA Commissioner-General, said that the statements and allegations of Mr. Al-Omari are wrong, different and far away of the truth. She added: "It is unfortunate that the Al-Omari letter was circulated (passed) to the press”. Koning considers that the open letter of Al-Omari is “damage to the Palestinian refugees and the UNRWA”. But her statement appears to be the usual “blame the victims” tactic used by psychopaths. See Koning denial as (PDF)

Al-Omari Replies to the Denial of Koning

Dear Karen,

Thanks for forwarding to me your message to the Management Committee members and for copying me on your letter to the HQ staff, both dated 4 September 2009. To a large extent the substance of both letters is the same and, therefore, I would like to address the two in this brief response, and to copy same to all addressees. Please note that I do not want to enter into a protracted exchange, but the way both letters were drafted for your signature indicates a lot of window dressing and a distraction from the real issues.

In this regard, I notice that in both letters you have chosen to ignore my comments in paragraphs six and seven of the open letter regarding the critical issues of “hiring friends and former colleagues” and the practice of “favoritism and marginalization” respectively. I blame no body for ignoring them, as I know none would have any defense in addressing these management lapses.

It is with regret that your reference in both letters to my “disagreement with the reform process” is incorrect and is out of context. I was, and remain, a big supporter of any reform process. I would very much be in support of the change to the better and not just the change for the sake of change as many of the OD activities have transpired to be. You may wish to recall that it was me who spearheaded the transformation of the Agency’s budget to a programme based budget since the beginning of the year 2000. You will also recall the more recent comment of the ACABQ which praised UNRWA’s budget to the extent that it was suggested to be used as a model by other UN organizations.

It is also with regret that the statement in respect of the “Comptroller’s assertion that consultants have been hired to perform tasks that could have been easily undertaken by UNRWA staff, ……. that the majority of the OD Budget goes towards the salary of new staff whom we are proposing for absorption into the UN Regular Budget” (the last sentence in the fifth paragraph of your letter to the MC members), is misleading and does not address the issue as discussed with you in person. I regret that I have to be more direct and explain. The example I referred to in paragraph six of my open letter regarding the use by HRD of a friend/former colleague consultant to perform a study on the retirement benefits in the area of operations where the consultant’s work ended with a report containing data about the retirement benefits in the region without giving any suggestions or recommendations as to how the various retirement schemes could be summed up to produce an UNRWA specific retirement system that would be compatible with the practice of the host authorities. You may wish to note that this useless study has cost the Agency $21,266.32 (doc 0-8AFV004095 refers) for work that was done in a month’s time. This is exactly what I meant with my earlier statement that the same task could have been easily undertaken by a local staff member from amongst the all competent ones in the Division of Compensation and Management Services.

In connection with the above the OD, in my view, has become a job creation programme for international staff. It so far employs sixteen international staff members, the actual cost of whom is, so far, some $ 4 million. It also involves the hiring of international consultants, the cost of whom is so far another $ 4 million! It is with sadness that I report that the cost so far paid to the local staff hired under the OD is only $ 133,000.

It is true that the OD is separately funded and that the General Fund money is not used for its activities, yet, I have to clarify, as you will appreciate, that donors have very limited funds to give to UNRWA against the various budget lines; hence any funding to the OD would certainly negatively affect the funding to the General Fund. Moreover, having the OD separately funded should not justify spending such funds on activities that do not produce any benefits to the Organization.

It is with regret that the OD defenders keep using the Gaza Field initiatives of the “Schools of Excellence” and the “Education Recovery Plan” as successes for the OD. You will agree with me that credit should go to where it belongs. These two initiatives were exclusively initiated and implemented by the GFO management totally independent from the OD, and that they are funded from the Field’s own resources, mainly the Emergency Appeal budgets. The fact that they coincided with the OD should not give any credit to the OD process itself.

Before I conclude, and by the way I still have a lot more to say, I want to ask you a question again on what basis the leading consultant of the OD said in the June QMC that “half of those around this table may not be here by this time next year”. Was this said in vacuum? Or it resulted from the “close” discussions within your inner circle? What else I need to say to further prove the existence of the closed circle management approach that has been prevailing for the last few years?

Finally, concerning your statement that my open letter contains “unsubstantiated accusations”, I believe the best judge here is to have an independent review of the issues raised with the objective of making the facts clear to the Agency’s management and staff, the host authorities, and the refugee community at large. Read the letter in Arabic as (PDF)

Regards,
Ramadan

Contradicting UNRWA Policies in Palestine

Recently, the UNRWA, which until now did not find it necessary to teach the Palestinians the ir own history, the history of 61 years of Catastrophe, the “Nakba”, and which keeps its schools in Palestinian refugee camps in Palestine and in the Diaspora in a miserable state, decided to teach the Holocaust to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Why must the Palestinians learn about the Holocaust at the UNRWA schools, while the UNRWA did never teach these children about their own history of Nakba, and the daily genocide which they live since 61 years under the Zionists occupation? Is the purpose of the defalcation of funds from the UNRWA by the cronies of Koning related to this travesty?

The shameful and contradicting standards of the UNRWA in the sector of education has brought about a huge reaction of anger in Palestine. On 1 July 2009 I asked the Commissioner-General, Karen Koning AbuZayed, personally:

Who is responsible for the eliminating the teaching of the Palestinian Nakba, the genocide of the Palestinians, from the curriculum of study of Palestinian children in schools and UNRWA?

Why does the UNRWA not teach the Palestinian children their own history in its schools in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan refugee camps? And which are the aims of the UNRWA in cultivating this ignorance of the Palestinian history in its schools?

Koning, who obviously considers teaching about the Nazi genocide during the second world war, which interests nobody in Palestine, to be a part of a “human rights” curriculum, did not answer my questions, she said anything, and continued squeezing her hair. She even turned off my tape recorder, which was in front of her on the table.

Decisions of Collaborators Furthers Palestinian Genocide

freepaliadmin — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:08:00 GMT

Addameer, Al Haq, Al Mezan, Badil, Civic Coalition for Jerusalem, DCI- Palestine. NSAN Centre, Independent Commission for Human Rights, Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Centre, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Ramallah Centre for Human Rights Studies, Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, wrote a statement:

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, Decision of Palestinian Leadership and International Pressure an Insult to the Victims

Yesterday, 2 October 2009, the Palestinian leadership, under heavy international pressure lead by the United States, deferred the draft proposal at the Human Rights Council endorsing all the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission (the Goldstone Report). This deferral denies the Palestinian peoples’ right to an effective judicial remedy and the equal protection of the law. It represents the triumph of politics over human rights. It is an insult to all victims and a rejection of their rights.

The crimes documented in the report of the UN Fact Finding Mission represent the most serious violations of international law; Justice Goldstone concluded that there was evidence to indicate that crimes against humanity may have been committed in the Gaza Strip. Violations of international law continue to this day, inter alia, through the continuing Israeli-imposed illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip. The findings of the Mission confirmed earlier investigations conducted by independent Palestinian, Israeli and international organizations.
The injustice that has now been brought upon Palestinians has been brought upon everyone on this globe. International human rights and humanitarian law are not subject to discrimination, they are not dependent on nationality, religion, or political affiliation. International human rights and humanitarian law apply universally to all human beings.

The rule of law is intended to protect individuals, to guarantee their fundamental rights. Yet, if the rule of law is to be respected it must be enforced. World history, and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land has shown us that as long as impunity persists, the law will continue to be violated; innocent civilians will continue to suffer the horrific consequences.

Justice delayed is justice denied. All victims have a legitimate right to an effective judicial remedy, and the equal protection of the law. These rights are universal: they are not subject to political considerations. In the nine months since Operation Cast Lead, no effective judicial investigations have been conducted into the conflict. Impunity prevails. In such situations, international law demands recourse to international judicial mechanisms. Victims’ rights must be upheld. Those responsible must be held to account.

The belief that accountability and the rule of law can be brushed aside in the pursuit of peace is misguided. History has taught us time and time again, that sustainable peace can only be built on human rights, on justice, and the rule of law. For many years in Palestine international law, and the rule of law, has been sacrificed in the name of politics, and cast aside in favour of the peace process. This approach has been tried, and it has failed: the occupation has been solidified, illegal settlements have continued to expand, the right to self determination has been denied; innocent civilians suffer the horrific consequences. It is now time to pursue justice, and a peace built on a foundation of human rights, dignity, and the rule of law. In Justice Goldstone’s words, there is no peace without justice.

As human rights organizations we strongly condemn the Palestinian leaderships’ decision to defer the proposal endorsing all the recommendations of the Fact Finding Mission, and the pressure exerted by certain members of the international community. Such pressure is in conflict with States' international obligations, and is an insult to the Palestinian people.

As human rights organizations concerned with rights and justice, we declare that we will double our efforts to seek justice for the victims of the violations of human rights and international law without delay.

The Israel Lobby's Global Propaganda Manual

freepaliadmin — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:45:00 GMT

BY: PAUL J. BALLES

Paul J. Balles views a major public relations manual for Israel lobbyists. Written by Dr Frank Luntz, a US Republican political consultant and pollster, on behalf of The Israel Project, a US media advocacy group, it teaches pro-Israel propagandists how to hoodwink people about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how to silence critics and how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

More than 50 years ago, Vance Packard shook the commercial world with the publication of his book The Hidden Persuaders. It was, as the book jacket claims, “A revealing, often shocking explanation of new techniques of research and methods of persuasion.”

Packard revealed, “If people couldn’t discriminate reasonably, marketers reasoned, they should be assisted in discriminating unreasonably, in some easy, warm, emotional way.”

Much merchandizing success, according to Packard, “…hinged, to a large extent, upon successfully manipulating or coping with our guilt feelings, fears, anxieties, hostilities, loneliness feelings, inner tensions”.

Packard raised serious questions of morality related to the “people-manipulating activities of persuaders … and their ability to contact millions of us simultaneously”, giving them “the power to do good or evil on a scale never before possible in a very short time”.

Among the most evil of the hidden persuaders are the political propagandists. Their “evil” stems from the fact that they have a political agenda, which discriminates unreasonably and is designed to manipulate emotions.

The manipulative approach to politics is, of course, not a discovery of the 1950s, or even the 20th century. Napoleon Bonaparte set up a press bureau that he called his Bureau of Public Opinion. Its function was “to manufacture political trends to order”.

Just as Napoleon Bonaparte believed that “public opinion is a mysterious and invisible power, to which everything must yield”, Niccolò Machiavelli, Italian author of The Prince, described the arts with which a ruling prince can maintain control of his realm.

In a document published by The Israel Project entitled “The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary”, Dr Frank Luntz unmasks a modern-day propaganda campaign that would have made Napoleon and Machiavelli proud. He writes:

There is NEVER, EVER, any justification for the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children. NEVER. The primary Palestinian public relations goal is to demonstrate that the so-called “hopelessness of the oppressed Palestinians” is what causes them to go out and kill children. This must be challenged immediately, aggressively, and directly.

The emotional appeal to saving children works, but the appeal is based on two lies:

(1) that Palestinians generally (not only suicide bomber extremists) are the ones who kill children, while Israelis (not individual extremists, but Israel’s armed forces) never slaughter Palestinian children.

(2) The second falsehood is that the Palestinians have a public relations goal that must be challenged when, in fact, the Palestinians have proven to be hopeless and goalless when it comes to public relations. Unlike Frank Luntz, the Palestinians have no effective PR voices. They can’t even get their ambassador in the UK to speak out to the British public about Israel’s lies and propaganda.

Next, Luntz attempts to sound reasonable by speaking of acceptable disagreements about economics or politics against fundamental principles of civilized people. The evil allusion here is that the Palestinians are the uncivilized people who target Israeli children.

“We may disagree about politics and we may disagree about economics. But there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death,” writes Luntz.

The entire passage, again appealing unreasonably to emotions, makes the pretence that Israel did not target innocent women and children for death with their murderous indiscriminate bombing and missile attacks on Gaza against a huge civilian population of women and children.

However, distorted propaganda about children isn’t enough for Luntz. This is but one part of a page out of 114 pages devoted to this manual for distribution to thousands of propagandists for Israel.

Advancing only as far as page nine, the guided Israel promoters will find “Words that work” (sections that are actually throughout the book). Here’s what Luntz has to say about Gaza:

Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process.

How generous he makes the Israelis appear, when in fact the removal of Jewish settlers from Gaza had nothing to do with giving peace a chance. As the Israeli Yossi Alpher points out, removal of the settlers gave a demographic advantage to Israel. He says, “no longer are Jewish and Arab populations mixed there in a manner that points to a single binational state as the solution”.

In other words, Ariel Sharon could close the borders, imprison Gazans, hoping they will simply be forced to leave by starvation, murder fishermen and initiate military operations whenever they’re not involved in attacking Lebanon to the north, to slaughter more Hamas women and children.

Then Luntz adds more “Words that work” for the indoctrination of his readers – Israeli propagandists:

Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders.

As mentioned earlier, withdrawal from Gaza had nothing to do with an “overture for peace”. The rocket attacks have been a response to being locked into an open-air prison; and they’re aimed at land stolen by Israel. The “drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis” are figments of Luntz’s imagination.

The “free from terrorism and live with defensible borders” line is the overworked motto that twists the truth in the continuing belief that if repeated often enough it will be believed.

No matter how often the propagandists repeat this mantra, the truth is that a few resistance fighters from Hamas have lobbed ineffective rockets against a well-supplied army of Israel’s state terrorists; and the borders they want to defend are on land stolen from the Palestinians.

One might wish that the training in how to spread Israeli propaganda would stop there. If the Palestinians were up to the task, they might counter the lies with what they know of the history and suffering of Palestinians under occupation. Unfortunately, those with the linguistic ability to cope with the Israeli propaganda machine worry about endangering themselves and their families by speaking the truth.

Those who can only speak Arabic fluently are often busy fighting tribal wars within (Gazans vs. the Palestinian Authority), and they can’t compete with Israel’s skilled English speakers or against the organized promotional efforts Israel makes with Americans and Europeans.

Making the task of exposing the lies and deceit exceptionally difficult, Luntz’s propaganda tract, which unravels advice about the “how-to” of Israeli propaganda for 114 pages, seems Herculean to say the least.

Luntz offers advice about things like “Americans want a team to cheer for. Let the public know GOOD things about Israel.” He follows that with “Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism.”

He tells his readers to make salient comparisons between Israel and America: “The language of Israel is the language of America: ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ’security’, and ‘peace’”.

Even while Israel is throwing Arabs out of their homes in East Jerusalem to make room for Jews, Luntz repeats the boast about how “Israel, America’s ally, is a democracy in the Middle East”. If he reported the truth about the so-called democracy in Israel, he would reveal how it’s really a bigoted apartheid state.

The book is full of charts showing just how effective Israel’s propaganda campaign has been. Not only do Americans believe that Israel is America’s closest ally in the Middle East, but that they both share the same values.

Another chart shows that 58 per cent of Americans believe that the US should support Israel, while only 9 per cent believe that they should support Palestinians. Even when coaching others in how to propagandize, Luntz couldn’t resist the revealing boast about how effective their PR work has been.

The entire screed utilizes all the tricks available to a clever wordsmith: how to use rhetorical questions to silence others, how to pretend that you’re sympathetic with the people but not their evil leaders, how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

All of that came from the first of 18 chapters. Several other chapters, especially on “words that work”, talk about settlements, Israel’s so-called right to self-defence, Hamas, and tackling a nuclear Iran will be taken up in coming exposures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years.

Ibish's new task: Defending the zionists' "right" to Palestine….And he's itching for a fight, but no one is taking him up on it

freepaliadmin — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:41:00 GMT

BY: YOUSEF ABUDAYYEH

One should become worried, when spent tools of corrupt Arab regimes start feeling ignored and anxious because no one is answering their URGENT questions. These people are so full of themselves, they actually believe that the Arab American community would go out and buy their "books". I am not a psychologist, but it looks like these people might very soon hurt themselves again if they do not get committed into an asylum and soon.

Asali, Ibish, Zogby and many others like them, lost credibility with the Arab American community when they chose, and for a clear personal benefit, to side with the enemies of the Arab people, from Saudi Arabia to the United States. The millions they're getting from these enemies and are using on a daily bases to put down the Arab masses, their resistance groups and their hopes, has only a one purpose; to defeat us.
Their direct relationship with the US government(s), has not worked like the US wanted or they themselves hoped. No one person or state, regardless of how strong and rich they might be, can force injustice on our people. The One Secular Democratic State solution has been around way before Ibish could eat his first pancake. It did not advance because none of the powers in charge is interested a just solution, after all, they are the ones that created this problem, and we need to force our solution on them. Could Ibish or his co-conspirators explain how a two state solution is just or even feasible? Is it just because the Zionists are obeying the unjust partition of '48 or Camp David or Oslo or any of the 100's of UN resolutions? Or did they listen to the US governments, who give them billions yearly, against the US laws because they use these billions in continuing an illegal occupation of the land and its people?
Ibish and his anti-Arab freedom camp should know that we do not rely on the Kings and Presidents of the Arab Regimes or on the US governments to get us our right. The Arab masses believe beyond any doubt, that Palestine is the heart of the Arab World and that no one will rest until it's free from the river to the sea, and that it will be liberated sooner than later despite the stand that the traitor Arab Regimes and their supporters are taking. Ibish and company are situated in the camp that is not on our people's side, so we really do not pay any attention to what they say or do anymore. And that is one of the reasons why nobody can even hear the little noise Ibish and company are making.

To read his article, see:
http://www.americantaskforce.org/in_media/in_print/2009/09/08/1252382400

YAHOO HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE PALESTINE SHOULD IT WANT TO FLIRT WITH OUR POCKETS

freepaliadmin — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:17:00 GMT

BY: IQBAL TAMIMI

One can't help but see malignant projects of gigantic companies committing forgery to steal the history of some nations in broad daylight.

As an example I would say Yahoo. For many years yahoo published pages on its websites and created online services where it has deleted Palestine from its charts, not just Palestine but the West Bank as well.

As an example, their UK website offers a daily horoscope for those who are interested to know what Yahoo believes their day or week is going to look like, despite the fact that the majority of people do not believe in this kind of speculation, it is still amusing to know how they are going to play with our minds. But for once I am going to read the horoscope of Yahoo, and tell the investors that they are entering a gambling game, beware of offending the players; otherwise you will notice a big hole in your pocket.

I looked at the list of countries should one has to fill his birthplace to hear the wisdom of Yahoo's fortune tellers, Palestine was not mentioned at all, and neither was the West Bank but surprise, surprise Israel is.

Yahoo never cared about Palestine before but I think it is about time that it does, for Yahoo has just acquired the Palestinian Maktoob portal founded by the Palestinian son of Nablus Samih Toukan. www.maktoob.com is considered the largest Arab online portal at a value of around $75M-$80M. This deal Yahoo is after to further its influence in the Arab World as a fast growing internet and mobile market will not be welcomed if it chooses to ignore the Palestinians who are still running the portal and will continue to do so according to the reported information.

The Maktoob portal is based in Jordan but owned and run by the Palestinians that Yahoo does not recognise, the majority of bloggers and business advertisers are Palestinians, even though many are not still based in Palestine but rather holding the most prestigious posts in the Gulf countries and owners and investors of the biggest businesses abroad on international level.

It has been reported that the new Yahoo division will be called Yahoo Middle East. And from now on Yahoo products will be made Arabic and content will be "Arabized" to serve 20 million users in the Arab world along with the original 16 million users of maktoob, thus "arabizing" the Yahoo Mail and messenger along with other services including the mobiles.

Yahoo is expecting to continue the strong commercial relationship with the companies that used to contribute to the success of Maktoob.com. Should this be the case I would say Yahoo should start the first step by respecting the Arab market that would feel offended by eliminating Palestine from every choice list created by Yahoo.

It has been said that Yahoo is concerned about freedom of speech in the region since it is known for its censorship online, while the Maktoob bloggers are concerned that Yahoo will bring with it its pro-Israel policies to the area.

I would advise Yahoo to rearrange its priorities and fix the way it is handling Middle Eastern issues and particularly Palestine. If Yahoo is intending upon digging deep into the pockets of the wealthy Arab business dynamos, it should start to show some respect and sensitivity to the people who are going to make or break its success, starting by acknowledging the fact that it can't hijack their history and remodel the geography of the area, otherwise it will face a great loss.

Can We Talk? The Middle East "Peace Industry"

freepaliadmin — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:31:00 GMT

BY: FARIS GIACAMAN

Upon finding out that I am Palestinian, many people I meet at college in the United States are eager to inform me of various activities that they have participated in that promote "coexistence" and "dialogue" between both sides of the "conflict," no doubt expecting me to give a nod of approval. However, these efforts are harmful and undermine the Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel — the only way of pressuring Israel to cease its violations of Palestinians' rights.

When I was a high school student in Ramallah, one of the better known "people-to-people" initiatives, Seeds of Peace, often visited my school, asking students to join their program. Almost every year, they would send a few of my classmates to a summer camp in the US with a similar group of Israeli students. According to the Seeds of Peace website, at the camp they are taught "to develop empathy, respect, and confidence as well as leadership, communication and negotiation skills — all critical components that will facilitate peaceful coexistence for the next generation." They paint quite a rosy picture, and most people in college are very surprised to hear that I think such activities are misguided at best, and immoral, at worst. Why on earth would I be against "coexistence," they invariably ask?

During the last few years, there have been growing calls to bring to an end Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people through an international movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). One of the commonly-held objections to the boycott is that it is counter-productive, and that "dialogue" and "fostering coexistence" is much more constructive than boycotts.

With the beginning of the Oslo accords in 1993, there has been an entire industry that works toward bringing Israelis and Palestinians together in these "dialogue" groups. The stated purpose of such groups is the creating of understanding between "both sides of the conflict," in order to "build bridges" and "overcome barriers." However, the assumption that such activities will help facilitate peace is not only incorrect, but is actually morally lacking.

The presumption that dialogue is needed in order to achieve peace completely ignores the historical context of the situation in Palestine. It assumes that both sides have committed, more or less, an equal amount of atrocities against one another, and are equally culpable for the wrongs that have been done. It is assumed that not one side is either completely right or completely wrong, but that both sides have legitimate claims that should be addressed, and certain blind spots that must be overcome. Therefore, both sides must listen to the "other" point of view, in order to foster understanding and communication, which would presumably lead to "coexistence" or "reconciliation."

Such an approach is deemed "balanced" or "moderate," as if that is a good thing. However, the reality on the ground is vastly different than the "moderate" view of this so-called "conflict." Even the word "conflict" is misleading, because it implies a dispute between two symmetric parties. The reality is not so; it is not a case of simple misunderstanding or mutual hatred which stands in the way of peace. The context of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that of colonialism, apartheid and racism, a situation in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, a colonizer and a colonized.

In cases of colonialism and apartheid, history shows that colonial regimes do not relinquish power without popular struggle and resistance, or direct international pressure. It is a particularly naive view to assume that persuasion and "talking" will convince an oppressive system to give up its power.

The apartheid regime in South Africa, for instance, was ended after years of struggle with the vital aid of an international campaign of sanctions, divestments and boycotts. If one had suggested to the oppressed South Africans living in bantustans to try and understand the other point of view (i.e. the point of view of South African white supremacists), people would have laughed at such a ridiculous notion. Similarly, during the Indian struggle for emancipation from British colonial rule, Mahatma Gandhi would not have been venerated as a fighter for justice had he renounced satyagraha — "holding firmly to the truth," his term for his nonviolent resistance movement — and instead advocated for dialogue with the occupying British colonialists in order to understand their side of the story.

Now, it is true that some white South Africans stood in solidarity with the oppressed black South Africans, and participated in the struggle against apartheid. And there were, to be sure, some British dissenters to their government's colonial policies. But those supporters explicitly stood alongside the oppressed with the clear objective of ending oppression, of fighting the injustices perpetrated by their governments and representatives. Any joint gathering of both parties, therefore, can only be morally sound when the citizens of the oppressive state stand in solidarity with the members of the oppressed group, not under the banner of "dialogue" for the purpose of "understanding the other side of the story." Dialogue is only acceptable when done for the purpose of further understanding the plight of the oppressed, not under the framework of having "both sides heard."

It has been argued, however, by the Palestinian proponents of these dialogue groups, that such activities may be used as a tool — not to promote so-called "understanding," — but to actually win over Israelis to the Palestinian struggle for justice, by persuading them or "having them recognize our humanity."

However, this assumption is also naive. Unfortunately, most Israelis have fallen victim to the propaganda that the Zionist establishment and its many outlets feed them from a young age. Moreover, it will require a huge, concerted effort to counter this propaganda through persuasion. For example, most Israelis will not be convinced that their government has reached a level of criminality that warrants a call for boycott. Even if they are logically convinced of the brutalities of Israeli oppression, it will most likely not be enough to rouse them into any form of action against it. This has been proven to be true time and again, evident in the abject failure of such dialogue groups to form any comprehensive anti-occupation movement ever since their inception with the Oslo process. In reality, nothing short of sustained pressure — not persuasion — will make Israelis realize that Palestinian rights have to be rectified. That is the logic of the BDS movement, which is entirely opposed to the false logic of dialogue.

Based on an unpublished 2002 report by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last October that "between 1993 and 2000 [alone], Western governments and foundations spent between $20 million and $25 million on the dialogue groups." A subsequent wide-scale survey of Palestinians who participated in the dialogue groups revealed that this great expenditure failed to produce "a single peace activist on either side." This affirms the belief among Palestinians that the entire enterprise is a waste of time and money.

The survey also revealed that the Palestinian participants were not fully representative of their society. Many participants tended to be "children or friends of high-ranking Palestinian officials or economic elites. Only seven percent of participants were refugee camp residents, even though they make up 16 percent of the Palestinian population." The survey also found that 91 percent of Palestinian participants no longer maintained ties with Israelis they met. In addition, 93 percent were not approached with follow-up camp activity, and only five percent agreed the whole ordeal helped "promote peace culture and dialogue between participants."

Despite the resounding failure of these dialogue projects, money continues to be invested in them. As Omar Barghouti, one of the founding members of the BDS movement in Palestine, explained in The Electronic Intifada, "there have been so many attempts at dialogue since 1993 … it became an industry — we call it the peace industry."

This may be partly attributed to two factors. The dominant factor is the useful role such projects play in public relations. For example, the Seeds of Peace website boosts its legitimacy by featuring an impressive array of endorsements by popular politicians and authorities, such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Shimon Peres, George Bush, Colin Powell and Tony Blair, amongst others. The second factor is the need of certain Israeli "leftists" and "liberals" to feel as if they are doing something admirable to "question themselves," while in reality they take no substantive stand against the crimes that their government commits in their name. The politicians and Western governments continue to fund such projects, thereby bolstering their images as supporters of "coexistence," and the "liberal" Israeli participants can exonerate themselves of any guilt by participating in the noble act of "fostering peace." A symbiotic relationship, of sorts.
SOURCE: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10722.shtml

The lack of results from such initiatives is not surprising, as the stated objectives of dialogue and "coexistence" groups do not include convincing Israelis to help Palestinians gain the respect of their inalienable rights. The minimum requirement of recognizing Israel's inherently oppressive nature is absent in these dialogue groups. Rather, these organizations operate under the dubious assumption that the "conflict" is very complex and multifaceted, where there are "two sides to every story," and each narrative has certain valid claims as well as biases.

As the authoritative call by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel makes plain, any joint Palestinian-Israeli activities — whether they be film screenings or summer camps — can only be acceptable when their stated objective is to end, protest, and/or raise awareness of the oppression of the Palestinians.

Any Israeli seeking to interact with Palestinians, with the clear objective of solidarity and helping them to end oppression, will be welcomed with open arms. Caution must be raised, however, when invitations are made to participate in a dialogue between "both sides" of the so-called "conflict." Any call for a "balanced" discourse on this issue — where the motto "there are two sides to every story" is revered almost religiously — is intellectually and morally dishonest, and ignores the fact that, when it comes to cases of colonialism, apartheid, and oppression, there is no such thing as "balance." The oppressor society, by and large, will not give up its privileges without pressure. This is why the BDS campaign is such an important instrument of change.

Faris Giacaman is a Palestinian student from the West Bank, attending his second year of college in the United States.

Source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10722.shtml

Ramadan in Gaza

freepaliadmin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:05:00 GMT

BY: SALEM EL-RAYYES

Gaza, August 21, 2009 In the market, sellers can be heard urging buyers to purchase goods before the start of the holy month of Ramadan. Goods to be purchased would be very little, if not for those which pass through the tunnels. Those that do line the shelves and tables are outrageously expensive, with only a few being able to afford the prices. Even the start of Ramadan will not motivate Gazans to purchase goods. The cause is the rise in poverty, which is a product of the continuing siege on Gaza.

High prices

Abu Hassan, an owner of a vegetable store in the corner market of Gaza City, attributes the rise in prices to the siege. "There is a rise in the prices of vegetables and fruits in this season, as a result of the Israeli siege on Gaza Strip and the high cost charged to farmers. Although it is the third time for us to spend Ramadan under siege, sales are down by 60% compared to those over the last three years."

"The market is in a recession, despite the approaching of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan," said Abu Alam, an owner of a butchers shop. "The price of meat is three times higher than the past years due to Israel not permitting it to pass through the borders."

According to Atef, a tool cleaning vendor, the high prices are from the lack of access to goods coming from the Israeli crossing points, the prohibition on what can enter, and those which come through the tunnels. Goods would not be coming through the tunnels, if Israel did not prohibit their entrance or restrict the level of foodstuff. Confounding the problem of high prices is low income. It is therefore not surprising that there is an absence of consumers. The people are suffering.

Suffering

With the suffering, many ponder how to feed their families. "We have never seen these high prices, low income and level of unemployment such as this year; we must but what is necessary and ignore everything else. It is too hard for us and we don't know how we will go on," says Abu Samir, a father of five and a grandfather of nine. Hossam, a father of three sons, wonders how he can feed his children. Parents are not the only ones suffering.

Youth also have issues that exacerbate their own suffering. Ahmed, who should be finished preparing to marry, is shocked and confused by the high the prices and low incomes. "Sometimes I regret thinking about getting married because of the situation. I don't know how people can afford their lives." The collapse of the economy is adding additional burdens to the lives of the young and old.

Economic collapse

The Gaza Strip is collapsing economically because of tightened siege. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, "the economic collapse in the Gaza Strip is as a result of the Israeli siege, which has led the unemployment rate to increase by 44% since April 2009. This is a huge increase in the percentage of poverty, with 70% of the population living in poverty and on 30 dollars a month." How could any individual live on such a small amount? How can one consider getting married or starting a family? How can one even have a future?

As Ramadan approaches, Palestinians living in Gaza will be struggling with high prices, unemployment and suffering. They will be worrying how to fed their families and survive from one day to the next.

What We Palestinians Need

freepaliadmin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:00:00 GMT

BY: MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI

Irrespective of what political settlement is ultimately embraced, Palestinians need a unified strategy for confronting and overcoming Israeli racism, apartheid and oppression. Mustafa Barghouthi* outlines the basis of such a strategy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palestinians have only two choices before them, either to continue to evade the struggle, as some have been trying to do, or to summon the collective national resolve to engage in it.

The latter option does not necessarily entail a call to arms. Clearly Israel has the overwhelming advantage in this respect in both conventional and unconventional (nuclear) weapons. Just as obviously, neighbouring Arab countries have neither the will nor ability to go the military route. However, the inability to wage war does not automatically mean surrender and eschewing other means to wage struggle.

As powerful as it is militarily, Israel has two major weak points. Firstly, it cannot impose political solutions by force of arms on a people determined to sustain a campaign of resistance. This has been amply demonstrated in two full-scale wars against Lebanon and, most recently, in the assault against Gaza. Secondly, the longer the Palestinians have remained steadfast, and the greater the role the demographic factor has come to play in the conflict, the more clearly Israel has emerged as an apartheid system hostile to peace. If the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and the colonialist expansionism describe the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Israeli state, the recent bills regarding the declaration of allegiance to a Jewish state and prohibiting the Palestinian commemoration of the nakba more explicitly underscore its essential racist character.

Ironically, just as Israel has attained the peak in its drive to fragment the Palestinian people, with geographical divides between those in Israel and those abroad, between Jerusalem and the West Bank and the West Bank and Gaza, and between one governorate and the next in the West Bank by means of ring-roads, walls and barriers, Palestinians have become reunified in their hardship and in the challenges that confront them. Regardless of whether or not they bear Israeli citizenship, or whether they are residents of Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza, they all share the plight of being victims of Israel's systematic discrimination and apartheid order.

If the only alternative to evading the struggle is to engage in it in order to resolve it, we must affirm that our national liberation movement is still alive. We must affirm, secondly, that political and diplomatic action is a fundamental part of managing the conflict, as opposed to an alternative to it. In fact, we must elevate it to our primary means for exposing the true nature of Israel, isolating it politically and pressing for international sanctions against it.

In this context, we must caution against the theory of building state institutions under the occupation. An administration whose security services would be consuming 35 per cent of the public budget, that would be acting as the occupation's policeman while furthering Netanyahu's scheme for economic normalisation as a substitute for a political solution, is clearly geared to promote the acclimatisation to the status quo, not change. Building Palestinian governing institutions and promoting genuine economic development must occur within the framework of a philosophy of "resistance development". Such a philosophy is founded on the dual principles of supporting the people's power to withstand the hardships of the occupation and reducing dependency on foreign funding and foreign aid. The strategic aim of the Palestinian struggle, under this philosophy, must be to "make the costs of the Israeli occupation and its apartheid system so great as to be unsustainable".

If we agree on this course for conducting the struggle, then the next step is to adopt a unified national strategy founded upon four pillars:

1. Resistance. In all its forms, resistance is an internationally sanctioned right of the Palestinian people. Under this strategy, however, it must resume a peaceful, mass grassroots character that will serve to revive the culture of collective activism among all sectors of the Palestinian people and, hence, to keep the struggle from becoming the preserve or monopoly of small cliques and to promote its growing impetus and momentum. Models for this type of resistance already exist. Of particular note is the brave and persistent campaign against the Separation Wall, which has spread across several towns and villages, offered five lives to the cause, and become increasingly adamant. The resistance by the people of East Jerusalem and Silwan against Israeli home demolitions and the drive to Judaise the city presents another heroic model. Yet a third promising example is to be found it the movement to boycott Israeli goods and to encourage the consumption of locally produced products. In addition to preventing the occupation power from milking the profits from marketing locally produced products, this form of resistance can engage the broadest swath of the population, from old to young and men and women, and revive the culture and spirit of communal collaboration. The campaigns to break the blockade against Gaza, as exemplified by the protest ships, the supply caravans and the pressures on Israel to lift its economic stranglehold, are another major type of resistance.

2. Supporting national steadfastness. The importance of this pillar is its focus on strengthening the demographic power of the Palestinian people so as to transform their millions into an effective grassroots force. It entails meeting their essential needs to enable them to remain steadfast in their struggle, and developing Palestinian human resources as the foundation for a strong and independent Palestinian economy. However, in order to achieve these aims the Palestinian Authority (PA) economic plan and budget must be altered in a way that pits their weight behind development in education, health, agriculture and culture, as opposed to squandering a third of the budget on security.

For example, the passage and immediate implementation of the bill for the national higher education fund would serve the educational needs of hundreds of thousands of young adults. In addition to elevating and developing the standards of university education, it would also work to sustain the impact of development aid and eventually reduce reliance on foreign support. The fund would also alleviate the school tuition burdens on more than 150,000 families, put an end to nepotism in the handling of student study grants and loans, and provide equal opportunity for academic advancement to all young men and women regardless of their financial circumstances. Equally innovative and dynamic ideas could be applied to other areas of education, or to stimulating the fields of public health, agriculture and culture with the overall aim of developing the educated, innovative and effective modern human resources needed to meet Palestinian needs as autonomously as possible and, hence, capable of weathering enormous pressures.

3. National unity and a unified national leadership. This strategic aim entails restructuring the Palestine Liberation Organisation on a more demographically representative basis and putting into effect agreements that have been previously reached in the Palestinian national dialogues held in Cairo. Over the past few years, the thrust of Israel's greatest advantage and the thrust of its assault centred around the Palestinian rift and the weakness of the disunited Palestinian leadership. In order to redress this flaw, the Palestinians must adopt a new mentality and approach. Specifically, they must: relinquish the mentality and practice of vying for power over an illusory governing authority that is still under the thumb of the occupation, whether in the West Bank or in Gaza; give up the illusion that Palestinian military might, however great it might become, is capable of leading the Palestinian struggle alone; adopt democracy and pluralistic democratic activities and processes as a mode of life, self-government, peaceful decision-making, and the only acceptable means to resolve our differences and disputes; resist all outside pressures and attempts (particularly on the part of Israel) to intervene in our internal affairs and to tamper with the Palestinian popular will. There must be a firm and unshakeable conviction in Palestinians' right to independent national self-determination.

The most difficult task that we face today is creating a unified leadership and strategy binding on all, from which no political or military decisions will depart, and within which framework no single group or party has a monopoly on the decision-making processes. Only with a unified leadership and strategy will we be able to fight the blockade as one, instead of evading unity for fear of the blockade. With a unified leadership and strategy we will able to seize the reins of initiative from others, as opposed to spinning from one reaction to the other, and we will be able to focus our energies on asserting our unified will instead of squandering them in internal power struggles in which the various parties seek outside assistance to strengthen their hand against their opponents on the inside. Only then will we be able to shift the equations that subordinated the national liberation movement to the narrow concerns of the PA (both in the West Bank and Gaza) and turn the PA into an instrument in the service of the national liberation movement.

4. Building and enhancing an international pro-Palestinian solidarity movement combined with a drive to impose sanctions against Israel. That such a movement already exists and is steadily growing is heartening. However, it will take enormous efforts to organise it and coordinate its activities properly so as to ensure it has the greatest possible influence upon decision-makers, especially in Europe and the West. Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities will need to be orchestrated towards the realisation of the same goals. If the solidarity movement has scored significant successes with the organisation of a boycott of Israeli products, the decision by the Federation of British Universities to boycott Israeli academics, and the decision taken by Hampshire College and some US churches to refuse to invest in Israel, much work has yet to be done to expand the scope of such activities and build up the momentum of the solidarity movement.

The Palestinian plight, which Nelson Mandela has described as the foremost challenge to the international humanitarian conscience, strongly resembles the state of South Africa at the outset to the 1980s. It took years of a concerted unified drive before the South African liberation movement finally succeeded in bringing around governments to their cause. The tipping point came when major companies realised that the economic costs of dealing with the apartheid regime in Pretoria were unsustainable. In the Palestinian case, the success of an international solidarity movement is contingent upon three major factors. The first is careful organisation and detailed planning, a high degree of discipline and tight coordination. Second is a rational, civilised rhetoric that refuses to play into Israel's tactics of provocation. The third is to address and recruit progressive movements and peoples in societies abroad, including anti-Zionist Jews and Jews opposed to Israeli policies.

None of the foregoing is new, by any means. However, these ideas have yet to be put into practice. The logical springboard for this is to operate on the principle that while the Palestinian cause is a Palestinian, Arab and Muslim one, it is above all a humanitarian cause that cries out to all in the world who cherish humanitarian principles and values. The success of the freedom fighters of South Africa, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the campaigners for the independence of India stemmed primarily from their ability to forge a universal appeal. And this is precisely what we must do. Our mottos for the solidarity movement with the Palestinian people must be "the fight against the new apartheid and systematic racism" and "the fight for justice and the right to freedom." The International Court of Justice's ruling on the Separation Wall, the illegality of Jewish settlements and altering the face of Jerusalem is a valuable legal precedent that official Palestinian governing institutions have ignored for four years. This ruling should now become our platform for a drive to impose sanctions against Israel, just as the UN resolution against the occupation of Namibia proved a platform for mounting a campaign against the apartheid system in South Africa.

The four-pronged strategy outlined above, which is espoused by the Palestinian National Initiative Movement, can succeed if it is guided by a clear vision, patience, and systematic persistence. I do not expect that it win the approval of all. The interests of some combined with their sense of frustration and despair have deadened their desire to engage in or to continue the confrontation with Israel. We also have to acknowledge that certain sectors of Palestinian society have become so dependent upon interim arrangements and projects and the attendant finances as to put paid to the possibility of their contributing to the fight for real change. Yet, the proposed comprehensive strategy does respond to and represent the interests of the vast majority of the Palestinian people and holds the promise of a better future.

The Palestinian national struggle has so far passed through two major phases: the first steered by Palestinians abroad while ignoring the role of Palestinians at home, and the second steered by Palestinians at home while ignoring the role of Palestinians abroad. Today we find ourselves at the threshold of a third phase, which should combine the struggle at home and the campaign of Palestinians and their sympathisers abroad.

In closing I would like to address the subject of a one-state or a two-state solution. It is both theoretically and practically valid to raise this subject here for two reasons. First, Israel has consistently tried to undermine the prospect of Palestinian statehood by pressing for such formulas as home rule, or an interim state, or a state without real sovereignty. Second, the changes produced on the ground by Israeli settlements and ring roads have come to render the realisation of a viable state unrealisable. To some, especially Palestinians in the Diaspora, replacing the call for a one-state solution with calling for a "two-state solution" seems to offer a remedy that gives relief. It is a better remedy, without a doubt, but it is a long way from offering relief. Slogans do not end liberation struggles. Slogans without strategies and efforts to back them up remain nothing but idle wishes or, to some, a noble way to avoid responsibility and the work that goes with it.

Now, let us be clear here. Israel has been working around the clock to destroy the option of an independent Palestinian state on the ground and, hence, the two-state solution. But that does not leave the Palestinian people without an alternative, as some Zionist leaders undoubtedly hope. The single democratic state (not the single bi-national state) in which all citizens are equal in rights and duties regardless of their religious affiliations and their origins is an alternative to the attempt to force the Palestinians to accept slavery under occupation and an apartheid order in the form of a feeble autonomous government that is dubbed a state.

However, whether the aim is a truly independent sovereign state or a single democratic state, both of which Israel dismisses with equal vehemence, neither of these aims can be achieved without exposing and destroying the apartheid system. This requires a strategy. Therefore, instead of allowing ourselves to become divided prematurely over whether to go for the one-state or two-state solution, let us unify behind the common aim required to achieve either: the formulation and implementation of a strategy to fight the occupation, apartheid and racial discrimination. This will lead us to something that is absolutely necessary at this stage, which is to move from the world of slogans to the world of practical activism in accordance with viable strategic plans that mobilise demonstrators against the wall, intellectuals and politicians and other sectors of society. It is high time we realise that diplomatic endeavours and negotiations do not free us from the nuts and bolts of actual struggle. We have one road that leads to a single goal: the freedom of the Palestinian people. There is nothing nobler than to follow this road to its end. This is not a project for some point in the future; it is one that cannot wait. Indeed, we should probably adopt the slogan of the freedom fighters of South Africa: "Freedom in our lifetime!"

FATAH: A New Beginning or an Imminent End?

freepaliadmin — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:30:00 GMT

BY: RAMZY BAROUD

This is hardly the rational order of things. An overpowering military occupation was meant to be resisted by an equally determined, focused and unyielding national movement, hell-bent on liberation at any cost and by any means. This is the unwritten law that has governed and shielded successful national liberation projects throughout history. The Fatah movement, under Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, however, wants to alter that order, meeting Israeli colonialism with ill-defined ‘pragmatism’, extreme violence with press statements laden with endless clichés that mostly go unreported, and a determined Israeli attempt at squashing Palestinian aspirations with political tribalism, factional decay and internal divisions.

Indeed, the long delayed Fatah Congress, held in Bethlehem on August 4 has underscored the obvious: the all-encompassing movement which was meant to exact and safeguard Palestinian national rights has grown into a liability that, if anything, will continue to derail the Palestinian national project. This comes at a time when the Palestinian people are in urgent need of a collective response that is strong enough to withstand Israeli military pressure and coercion at home, eloquent enough to communicate the Palestinian message to a global audience, and astute enough to galvanize international support and sympathy to the benefit of Palestinian freedom and independence.

But what we witnessed in Bethlehem was a bizarre manifestation of the discord of self-seeking and self-imposed elites vying for empty titles, worthless positions and hollow prestige. The mockery started when hundreds of additional delegates were invited to join in the already bloated number of Fatah members with the hopes that their presence would bolster the position of this factional leader or that. Oddly, the meeting place was occupied Bethlehem. The delegates of the ‘resistance’ movement must’ve passed through Israeli checkpoints and metal detectors to reach their meeting place and talk of hypothetical revolutions and imaginary resistance. Excluded were Fatah members who didn’t pass Israeli screening. Perhaps, they were not ‘revolutionary’ enough for Israeli taste.

Then the show started. One would hope to take an iota of pride in the fact that the delegates were not participants in a typical meet of conformists as is the case in ruling party conferences throughout the region. But this would be self-deceiving. The heated discussions which evolved into screaming matches, were of little relevance to the struggles and challenges facing the Palestinian people at home and abroad. It was not the plight of Gaza, nor the cause of the refugees, nor the best method of garnering international solidarity that invited the ire of most respected members. The disputes were most personal. A so-called younger generation trying to exact greater representation in the movement’s 21-strong Central Committee and the 120-member Revolutionary Council from the so-called Old Guard.

Many news reports reduced the ongoing turmoil in Fatah to sound bites and half-truths. The old recycled gibberish of ‘moderate’ Fatah was once more juxtaposed to ‘extremist’ Hamas; the latter’s violence with the former’s investment in a pretend ‘peace process’, those who want to live in peace, ‘side-by-side’ with Israel and those who want to ‘annihilate’ the Jewish State.

“Now the Palestinians – like the Israelis and the international backers of Fatah – are waiting to see the results,” reported the New York Times. True, but Palestinians were waiting for entirely different reasons.

Fatah has changed over the years. It started as a resistance movement of well-intended members, mostly students and young professionals in the 1950’s and 60’s. The young leadership was motivated by various factors, chief amongst them were the plight of the refugees, the lack of a truly independent Palestinian leadership and the failure of Arab governments to deliver on their promises to liberate Palestine. Resistance was in fact the core of Fatah’s liberation program.

One of the movement’s founders once wrote: “It was not only the experiences and the errors of our predecessors which helped guide our first steps. The guerrilla war in Algeria, launched five years before the creation of Fatah, had a profound influence on us. We were impressed by the Algerian nationalists’ ability to form a solid front, wage war against an army a thousand times superior to their own, obtain many forms of aid from various Arab governments, and at the same time avoid becoming dependent on any of them.”

Over the years, whether out of political of military necessity, internal divisions or any other factors, Fatah grew into a melting pot encompassing romantic revolutionaries and poets, wealthy elites and shifty politicians. It was a strange balance, but a balance nonetheless, which kept suspicious Palestinians hopeful that the revolutionary elements in Fatah would eventually prevail. But following Yasser Arafat’s signing of the Oslo Accord with Israel, in 1993, the millionaires and their dubious politician allies won, turning Fatah into a giant company, feeding on the empty rhetoric of ‘peace’, financed by international donors, and operated by the movement’s ‘pragmatic’ elements, who allied themselves with Israel to preserve their gains, however insignificant.

That is why “Palestinians (were) waiting”, perhaps with the hope that Fatah would once more revert to its founding principles, with a coherent national project, stipulating unity of purpose and clarity of aim. It was not that Palestinians were hungry for violent resistance and eager to blow things up, but they longed for a Fatah that would once more institute resistance as an idea, as a culture, with all of its manifestations, infused as necessary. They wanted Fatah to go back to the basics, own up to the struggle of its people, as opposed to the quisling rhetoric that turned Palestine into a collection of political tribes, each armed with NGO’s, newsletters and bloated bank accounts in various European capitals.

One wants to decry this shameful episode in the history of the Palestinian struggle, but one ought to remember that history has a way of repeating itself. The faltering Fatah that was once established to represent the aspirations of the downtrodden Palestinian refugees is now facing the same historical imperative that other failed movements have faced in the past. If Fatah fails to reclaim itself as a true national liberation movement, an umbrella that unites every facet of Palestinian society, then it will soon splinter and eventually dissolve, if not entirely disappear. But true challenge will remain; whether those who will carry the torch will learn from the “experiences and the errors of (their) predecessors.” Time will tell.