Palestine « Tikkunista!

3. Israel: Dramatic Changes

May-18-2012 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: Two major developments in Israel: Netanyahu ditches the far-right for the centre-right, and manages to survive without an election, and the Palestinian hunger-strikers wins most of what they wanted. We offer two reports on each.

* The Netanyahu-Mofaz Pact Uri Avnery Counterpunch

THE MASTER magician has drawn another rabbit from his top hat. A real and very lively rabbit. He has confounded everybody, including the leaders of all parties, the top political pundits and his own cabinet ministers. He has also shown that in politics, everything can change – literally – overnight.

At 2 a.m. the Knesset was busy putting the finishing touches to a law to dissolve itself – condemning half of its members to political oblivion. At 3 a.m. there was a huge new government coalition. No elections, thank you very much.

An operetta in 5 acts.

Act One: Everything tranquil. Public opinion polls show Binyamin Netanyahu in absolute control. His popularity is approaching 50%; nobody else’s even approaches 20%. The largest party in the Knesset, Kadima, sinks in the polls from 28 seats to 11, with all indications that it will continue to fall. Its new leader, former Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, gets even less points as candidate for Prime Minister. Netanyahu could sun himself on the roof of his luxury villa and contemplate the future with equanimity. All is well in the best of all Jewish states….

* New Israeli Government Likely Won’t Launch Iran Attack Juan Cole Informed Comment

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu moved from the far right to just the Right on Tuesday by bringing into his government the center-right Kadima Party, led by Shaul Mofaz.

Mofaz has been sharply critical of reported plans by Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak, to launch a go-it-alone military attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Mofaz is not opposed to military action against Iran in and of itself, but wants it coordinated with the United States. He last week aligned himself with the views of former Israel domestic intelligence head Yuval Diskin, who strongly opposed a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran and who attacked Netanyahu as erratic. Mofaz said, “Let President Obama handle Iran. We can trust him…”

Having Mofaz in the cabinet makes Netanyahu less dependent on extreme hawks, and makes it highly unlikely that Israel will act on its own against Iran.

* Many Winners, Few Losers In Deal To End Palestinian Prisoners’ Hunger Strike Haaretz Daily Newspaper

The agreement that brought the Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike to an end on Monday, alongside a decision to return 100 bodies of Palestinian terrorists buried in Israel, as a gesture to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, were less about possible progress in peace attempts as much as they were about an Israeli effort to preserve the relative silence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Despite the fact that peace negotiations aren’t likely to restart, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Israel are all interested in getting rid of anything that could pose a threat to stability in the region. And so, while the Middle East continues burning (Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon and others), and on a day that was once considered highly likely to draw violent confrontations in the Palestinian territories, the Shin Bet and prisoner’s leadership managed to reach a deal that essentially had many winners and few losers.

The Shin Bet has emphasized their significant “achievement” in the deal: having the Palestinian prisoners sign that they will not return to terrorist activities within the prison walls. One does not need to be a security analyst to understand that despite the deal, at least some of them will repeatedly engage in terrorist activity. Their real achievement lies elsewhere: the fact they could neutralize the ticking bomb of 1,500 hunger-striking prisoners.

* In Support of the “Battle of the Empty Stomachs” Rabbi Brant Rosen

After nearly a full month of fasting, around 2,000 Palestinian political prisoners ended last night their mass hunger strike upon reaching an agreement with the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) to attain certain core demands…This is heartening news to be sure, particularly for the families of the strikers. But on an even deeper level, this deal is a testimony to the astonishing moral/political power of fasting in response to oppression.

Hunger striking is, of course, is an ancient time-honored form of protest. As a Jew, I’m particularly mindful that the Book of Isaiah passionately connects the act of fasting to the pursuit of justice:

Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?

Indeed, it is critical that we understand that the Palestinians’ “Battle of the Empty Stomachs” as part of this long and honorable tradition of nonviolent resistance. As we have seen from the events of the past several months, it has lasted so long largely because it is a tactic that works.

2. Voices From the Other Side of the Media

Apr-20-2012 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: What’s the other side? The one the main stream media don’t carry. Mehanna’s speech is hugely moving, utterly cogent, depressingly convincing, essential reading. Barghouti, the Palestinian leader is also convincing on why “apartheid” is the right word. I don’t know of any other to describe this system of rule. I’ve been enjoying Cenk Uygur’s rants… and I haven’t seen that the supreme head of Iran ruled officially that the use of nuclear weapons is forbidden. Curious how all our papers and radio and TV missed that, isn’t it?

* Sentencing Statement By American Tarek Mehanna, Convicted Of Helping Al Qaeda Salon

In one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech seen in quite some time, Tarek Mehanna, an American Muslim, was convicted this week in a federal court in Boston and then sentenced yesterday to 17 years in prison. He was found guilty of supporting Al Qaeda (by virtue of translating Terrorists’ documents into English and expressing “sympathetic views” to the group) as well as conspiring to “murder” U.S. soldiers in Iraq (i.e., to wage war against an invading army perpetrating an aggressive attack on a Muslim nation)…. I urge everyone to read something quite amazing: Mehanna’s incredibly eloquent, thoughtful statement at his sentencing hearing, before being given a 17-year prison term.

In your eyes, I’m a terrorist, and it’s perfectly reasonable that I be standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US military in foreign countries, yet somehow I’m the one going to prison for “conspiring to kill and maim” in those countries – because I support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a ”terrorist,” yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put her on that witness stand and ask her who the “terrorists” are, she sure wouldn’t be pointing at me.

The government says that I was obsessed with violence, obsessed with ”killing Americans.” But, as a Muslim living in these times, I can think of a lie no more ironic.

* Mustafa Barghouti to J Street: I know you don’t like the word apartheid, but what do you call a system that gives a settler 50 times more water than a Palestinian? via Mondoweiss

On March 26, at the J Street conference in Washington, D.C., Palestinian leader Mustafa Barghouti described apartheid in Palestine to a largely-Jewish audience. As he spoke, you could have heard a pin drop in a room jammed with 500 people hearing about the one-state option. His comments have resonated in the weeks since.

Some people might not like the word apartheid, when we say that we live in a system of apartheid and segregation, and I understand why you wouldn’t like it. Because there is nothing to be proud about having a system of apartheid and segregation in the 21st century. But as Menachem [Klein] said, we actually live in that system. It’s one regime.

What is apartheid? Apartheid is a system where you have two laws, two different laws, for two people living in the same area. If you don’t like the word apartheid, give me an alternative to a situation where a Palestinian citizen is allowed to use no more than 50 cubic meters of water per capital year, while an Israeli illegal settler from the West Bank is allowed to use 2400. How would you classify a situation where the Israeli gdp per capita is about $30,000 while a Palestinian’s gdp per capita is less than $1400?

Yet we are obliged to pay the same prices for products as Israelis do. More than that: We are obliged to pay double the price for electricity and water that Israelis do though they make 30 times more than we do.

* Khamenei’s Fatwa against Nukes (Cenk Uygur Rant) via Informed Comment

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks on the progressive network Current TV gives us an insightful rant on Big TV News’ lack of interest in Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s fatwa declaring making, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons a sin. He points out that you almost never hear about this fatwa on television news, and performs a thought experiment. How often would a fatwa to the opposite effect have been mentioned?

3. The Two State Solution Is Dead. Deal With It.

Apr-13-2012 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: There has been a huge debate among those who care about Israel, in response to Peter Beinart’s “The Crisis of Zionism”. (All Amazon reviews are either 5 stars or 1 / 2 stars. No middle ground.) But what seem startlingly clear in the debate is a increasingly universal agreement that the time is finished when it might have been possible to have two states, an Israeli and Palestinian country side by side. No Israeli government could survive removing the settlers; no Palestinian country is possible while they’re there. So now the debate is about a one-state solution, and how best to get there.

* The Two-State Solution on Its Deathbed Robert Wright The Atlantic

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator, once told me that part of the problem is a kind of catch 22. When Palestinians aren’t threatening Israelis with violence, there’s no sense of urgency in Israel about dealing with the settlement problem. And when there is ongoing violence (which of course Levy doesn’t support), and therefore there is a sense of urgency, the fear that drives the urgency has an unfortunate byproduct: Israelis don’t trust Palestinians enough to offer a two-state deal that the Palestinians, or any self-respecting people, would accept. (Beinart’s examination of the Camp David talks–see chapter 4–undermines the official Israeli-American story that the Palestinians have been offered great deals but have inexplicably turned them down.)

My point isn’t that we should blame the Israelis for the death or very-near-death of the two-state solution. It’s not surprising that people with their history and geopolitical predicament would let fear get the better of them. (They’re being no more irrationally fearful than Americans were in the wake of 9/11, which led us to launch two wars, one of them against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and that posed no threat.) By the same token, it’s not surprising that the Palestinians wouldn’t endure 45 years of subjugation, during which they’ve been denied basic human rights, without any eruptions of violence (which of course isn’t to say I support the violence). That’s the depressing thing about the Israel-Palestinian conflict: It results from the Israelis and Palestinians acting more or less the way you would expect people in their shoes to act.

But that’s why it’s crucial that those of us who live at a safe remove from the conflict, and can in theory summon detachment, should try hard to see the situation clearly, succumbing neither to paralyzing fear nor cozy illusions. And the most common cozy illusion is that, though the time may not be right for a two-state solution now, we can always do the deal a year or two or three down the road.

The truth is that a two-state solution is almost completely dead, and it gets closer to death every day. If there’s any hope at all of reviving it, that will involve, among other things, somehow delivering a shock to the Israeli system. Peter Beinart has an idea for how to do that. Does Zvika Kriegert? Do any of the other well-intentioned liberal Zionists who keep affirming their allegiance to a two-state solution as if that ritual incantation was somehow helping things?

* Staying Up To Date On Israel-Palestine Stephen M. Walt

I haven’t commented on Peter Beinart’s new book The Crisis of Zionism for the simple reason that I haven’t read it yet. It’s on my list, but will probably have to wait till the end of the term. In the interim, here are a few things you ought to read if you believe that the Israel-Palestine issue is at least as important as our current obsession with Iran.

You might read Isabel Kershner’s New York Times piece on the eviction of an Israeli settler family from an illegal outpost in Hebron. The kicker, of course, is that the removal of one settler family was accompanied by an announcement that the Netanyahu government had authorized construction of 800 new homes in Har Homa and Givat Zeev, and intended “to seek the necessary permits to retroactively legalize three other West Bank settler outposts that went up without authorization.” And lest you be confused about the Netanyahu government’s intentions, here’s what Netanyahu himself had to say about it (my emphasis):

“The principle that has guided me is to strengthen Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Today, I instructed that the status of three communities — Bruchim, Sansana, and Rechalim — be provided for. I also asked Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to see to it that the Ulpana hill in Beit El not be evacuated. This is the principle that has guided us. We are strengthening Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and we are strengthening the Jewish community in Hebron, the City of the Patriarchs. But there is one principle that we uphold. We do everything according to the law and we will continue to do so.”

So Netanyahu’s aim is clear: keeping control of the West Bank forever. And the reference to “doing everything according to the law” is revealing, because “law” here means the law of the occupation, which is the same law that has allowed a half a million Israelis to move onto the territories conquered in 1967 over the past forty years.

* The Real Radical Left Gideon Levy Haaretz

The battle for Hebron has been decided. All that remains is to ask what will replace the solution that was put to death. There will not be two states. Even a child knows the alternative: one state. There is no third option. Israel’s most radical left won. For years it said one state, even as we played with ourselves at two states. Now everyone says two states, in unison, only because they know that train has left the station, and the great train robbery was pulled off.

From now we need only take care with our definitions: The extreme left is whoever endeavors toward a single state – the plundering settlers, the establishment that embraces them and the majority of Israelis, who do not lift a finger to stop them.

The Palestinians, as everyone knows by now, aren’t going anywhere. There is even a handful of settlers that has begun talking about giving them citizenship. If this, too, is not a ruse, then this little group is openly reconciling with the great victory of Israel’s most extreme left.

The struggle? From now on it must focus on human rights. Yes, equal rights for everyone who lives in Greater Israel, just as you wanted.

* Why Continue To Build The Settlements? By Andrew Sullivan The Daily Beast

Why continue to build the settlements? …the evasions of this central point of Beinart’s book by its vitriolic critics are as legion as they are predictable. And they matter. Because the evaders do not want to answer the question: why continue to build the settlements? They do not want to answer that question and dodge it relentlessly because the answer is obvious and devastating to their position. The answer is that the settlements are there because the current Israeli government has no intention of ever dividing the land between Arabs and Jews in a way that would give the Palestinians anything like their own state; and have every intention of holding Judea and Samaria for ever. Netanyahu is, as Beinart rightly calls him, a Monist. He is the son of his father, Ben Zion, as Jeffrey Goldberg has also insisted on. But what Peter does is spell out one side of the Netanyahu vision that Goldberg elides.

4. Thinking about Israel

Mar-30-2012 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: Birds can fly over fences, but the rest of us can’t. A set of fascinating insights into the changes that are taking place in Israel. Al Jazeera has a discussion with three distinguished guests of a quality I can’t imagine another media outlet having. Carlo Strenger, who has long favoured the two-state solution, has now abandoned it. Sadly I see no flaw in his reasoning. And once again, Richard Silverstein breaks important news before anyone else.

* Israel and Democracy: Inside Story video Al Jazeera (Thanks, Gabe)

Is Israel violating Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Territories? What does this tell us about the Israeli government and its policy of settlement expansion in Palestinian territory? And, does that contradict its claim of being the only democracy in the region? Joining Inside Story with presenter Hazem Sika to discuss these questions and more are guests: Jessica Montell, the executive director of human rights group B’Tselem; Akiva Eldar, the chief political columnist and editorial writer for Haaretz; and Mark Ellis, the executive director of the International Bar Association.

*Open Letter To Peter Beinart: Boycotting The Settlements Will Not Save The Two-State Solution Carlo Strenger Haaretz

This brings me to the final point of disagreement. You hope to save the two state solution. But I think you try to save spilt milk. You probably know the wisdom of every investment advisor. It is profoundly wrong to handle your investment portfolio reacting to previous losses. You need to look at it as if you were creating it now.

There is little use for us to decry the folly of Israel’s policy of the last forty years. We need to look at the situation as it is now: no Israeli politician will be able to retreat to the 1967 lines as long as Hamas will not radically change its views, and this, researchers familiar with the movement tell me, is not likely to happen soon.

The problem is that the longer the status quo continues, the more impossible the two state solution will become. In fact, it may already be dead. Hence the real question for liberal Jews and gentile friends of Israel is where we need to aim now.

* “Israel Bought an Airfield called Azerbaijan” Richard Silverstein Tikun Olam

One of the logistical nightmares of an attack on Iran is getting Israeli planes to and from their target, a flight of 2,000 miles. The IAF simply doesn’t have the refueling capability that’s required. Thanks to Perry, we’ve just learned one of the ways Israel plans to eliminate the problem:

…Four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran’s northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. “The Israelis have bought an airfield,” a senior administration official told me in early February, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”

Though the country’s foreign minister recently dismissed the notion that his country would serve as a base for an attack on any other country, Perry writes:…Even if his government makes good on that promise, it could still provide Israel with essential support. A U.S. military intelligence officer noted that Azeri defense minister did not explicitly bar Israeli bombers from landing in the country after a strike. Nor did he rule out the basing of Israeli search-and-rescue units in the country. Proffering such landing rights — and mounting search and rescue operations closer to Iran — would make an Israeli attack on Iran easier.

* New Israeli Fence The Guardian

A frontier fence is being erected at high speed along the 150-mile boundary between the Sinai and Negev deserts. Once it is finished, Israel will be almost completely enclosed by steel, barbed wire and concrete, leaving only the southern border with Jordan between the Dead and Red Seas without a physical barrier.

3. Syria: Will Assad Survive?

Feb-24-2012 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: Two articles arguing that Assad’s rule will survive in Syria. Rosen analyzes the fragmented nature of the opposition within Syria; War Tard does a superb job of looking at the gridlock country by country that prevents any intervention. And the Times’ piece exemplifies the pointless posturing to which Western leaders have been reduced.

* Nir Rosen’s predictions for Syria Al Jazeera (Thanks, Gabe!)

Journalist Nir Rosen recently spent two months in Syria. As well as meeting members of various communities across the country – supporters of the country’s rulers and of the opposition alike – he spent time with armed resistance groups in Homs, Idlib, Deraa, and Damascus suburbs.

Al Jazeera: To quote General David Petraeus in Iraq: ‘Tell me how this ends.’
Nir Rosen: The regime can survive for a long time, even if it steadily loses control of territory within the country. It is very unlikely that there will be any large-scale international military intervention. In Washington, there is a great deal of frustration. Zionists and advocates of the muscular use of US power, including several Republicans, are calling for Obama to arm the opposition. Even the neoconservatives are climbing out from under their rocks to call for a US military intervention. Fox News has seized on this cause too.
Contrary to conspiracy theories, until now the Obama administration has not made the policy decision to aid the opposition on the ground, as far as I know, let alone provide it with weapons. US and European officials who would like to intervene in Syria complain that there is no “silver bullet” or easy option for them. They don’t even know who to support inside Syria. The exiled opposition, such as the Syrian National Council, are too busy fighting among themselves and too disconnected from events on the ground, so the outside powers do not even have a convenient local collaborator or proxy to deal with.

* The Syrian Uprising: No Foreign Intervention When You’ve Got No Oil? War Tard

The fun question is whether NATO or the Russians or even the Arab League will get involved to stop the shooting? And the short answer is no. For lots of reasons, not all of which are predicated on the fact that, unlike say Libya, Syria has no oil so there’s nothing obvious for anyone to grab. That doesn’t mean that Syria doesn’t figure in to our global proxy resource war future. It’s geography is pretty critical in Middle East strategic terms and that makes it important enough that Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel and the US all have a stake in how this mess plays out. That, paradoxically, means it’s probably too risky for any foreign player to allow a rival power to get directly involved. That’s really bad news if you’re a Syrian protester dodging artillery fire. This war has long drawn out stalemate written all over it.

… Let’s take a look at the complex web of foreign players with a stake in this mess.

Israel: Obviously, Israel would like Syria destabilized but this is a risky game even for them. When Mubarak fell in Egypt, they lost a compliant dictator on their southern border. It remains to be seen if a new regime in Damascus would be compliant enough to settle the Golan Heights dispute. Strangely, you can throw Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Sunni Arab US allies in the region in with Israel as they all fear the growing power of Iran. A weakened Syria plays to this interest.

* Wounded Journalists Appeal for Evacuation From Homs New York Times

A French reporter wounded in the Syrian government’s bombardment of Homs made a video appeal on Thursday for a cease-fire and evacuation for urgent medical attention. “My leg is broken at the level of the femur, along its length and also horizontally,” said the reporter, Edith Bouvier, in a video posted by antigovernment activists. “I need to be operated upon as soon as possible.”…

The journalists had taken great risks to enter the besieged city and report on that part of a government crackdown that has left thousands of civilians dead. The government’s assault on the makeshift media center where the journalists were working brought a new intensity to international condemnations of President Bashar al-Assad and his forces. Activists who created the media center said that satellite transmitters on the roof had probably been spotted by Syrian reconnaissance aircraft before the strike.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France called the journalists’ killings “murder” and repeated demands that the Syrian government stop attacking peaceful demonstrators and allow humanitarian aid from abroad. He said that “this regime should leave” power. “Those who did this will have to account for it,” Mr. Sarkozy said during a campaign visit to northern France. “Thanks to globalization, you can no longer commit murder under cover of utter silence.”

4. US Decline: As Seen By Chomsky

Feb-17-2012 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: Every website I went to this week had reposts of these two major pieces by Chomsky. That’s a slight hyperbole, but Google reports over 1000 reposts already of these two. As always, Noam is scathing, cogent, and specific about the ongoing decline of the American Empire.

* “Losing” the World Noam Chomsky NationofChange

Significant anniversaries are solemnly commemorated — Japan’s attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, for example. Others are ignored, and we can often learn valuable lessons from them about what is likely to lie ahead. Right now, in fact.

At the moment, we are failing to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s decision to launch the most destructive and murderous act of aggression of the post-World War II period: the invasion of South Vietnam, later all of Indochina, leaving millions dead and four countries devastated, with casualties still mounting from the long-term effects of drenching South Vietnam with some of the most lethal carcinogens known, undertaken to destroy ground cover and food crops. … The aggression later spread to the North, then to the remote peasant society of northern Laos, and finally to rural Cambodia, which was bombed at the stunning level of all allied air operations in the Pacific region during World War II, including the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When the war ended eight horrendous years later, mainstream opinion was divided between those who described the war as a “noble cause” that could have been won with more dedication, and at the opposite extreme, the critics, to whom it was “a mistake” that proved too costly. By 1977, President Carter aroused little notice when he explained that we owe Vietnam “no debt” because “the destruction was mutual.”

There are important lessons in all this for today, even apart from another reminder that only the weak and defeated are called to account for their crimes. One lesson is that to understand what is happening we should attend not only to critical events of the real world, often dismissed from history, but also to what leaders and elite opinion believe, however tinged with fantasy.

* The Imperial Way Noam Chomsky Truthout

In the years of conscious, self-inflicted decline at home, “losses” continued to mount elsewhere. In the past decade, for the first time in 500 years, South America has taken successful steps to free itself from western domination, another serious loss. The region has moved towards integration, and has begun to address some of the terrible internal problems of societies ruled by mostly Europeanized elites, tiny islands of extreme wealth in a sea of misery. They have also rid themselves of all U.S. military bases and of IMF controls.

A newly formed organization, CELAC, includes all countries of the hemisphere apart from the U.S. and Canada. If it actually functions, that would be another step in American decline, in this case in what has always been regarded as “the backyard.”

Even more serious would be the loss of the MENA countries — Middle East/North Africa — which have been regarded by planners since the 1940s as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” Control of MENA energy reserves would yield “substantial control of the world,” in the words of the influential Roosevelt advisor A.A. Berle.

3. Countries Under Threat in the Middle East

Jan-20-2012 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: Besides geography, what do Syria, Israel, Palestine, and Afghanistan have in common? The legitimacy of their governments is under severe attack. “Don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin, and there’s no tellin’ who that it’s naming. For the losers now may be later to win, for the times they are a changing”, as Mr Z. once sang.

* Syria: Al-Assad’s Last Roar Al-Ahram Weekly

“What is being debated now is ending the regime of Al-Assad, one way or another,” says a source within the Cairo-based Syrian opposition. “Nobody, not even the Russians with whom we have been talking, or Iran, Al-Assad’s strongest ally, have any illusions about him remaining in power.” The consensus within political and diplomatic quarters is that 2012 will likely see the end of the rule of Bashar Al-Assad, the ophthalmologist who took over in 2000 from his father Hafez Al-Assad, Syria’s president since 1970.

“Bashar Al-Assad might be in denial. He might even believe what he said [on Tuesday], that what is happening in Syria is not an uprising against his rule but an attempt by some armed groups to overthrow him in order to destabilise Syria and undermine Iran and Hizbullah,” speculated one Arab diplomat.“This would be a wrong assessment. The key players have all decided Bashar must exit the stage. How that happens is something he can decide.”

* Afghanistan: The Dust Settles Eric Walberg

Obama’s record on foreign policy has been shocking in retrospect. His call from Cairo for a new dispensation in the Middle East soon after his vow to close Guantanamo, along with this vow, are now in history’s dustbin. His enthusiastic embrace of the worst of Bush’s policies, from drones, assassinations and mercenaries to Orwellian police-state security are frightening proof of the helplessness of US politicians these days.

No better evidence that this paralysis will make the next four years the most perilous in US history is found in the bloody news dripping out of Afghanistan. NATO soldiers, Afghan soldiers and police, resistance fighters, and, of course, women and children continue to be killed at alarming rates, even as the Taliban open an office in Qatar (originally denied by all parties). Peace negotiations came to a standstill last year after the assassination of High Peace Council chief Burhanudin Rabbani (Afghan president 1992-96) by a visitor posing as a peace messenger from the Taliban.

The idea is to whip into shape an Afghan security force/ army and hand over nominal power by the end of 2014. But this force will be predominantly northern Tajik-speaking Afghans who make up only 28 per cent of the population and form the backbone of the current government. Less than 10 per cent of officers are Pashtun (vs 42 per cent of Afghans), and in any case the army attrition rate is 30 per cent, not to mention the infiltration rate of Taliban suicide martyrs.

Just as in 2012 in Iraq, we can expect some kind of handover in 2014 — the US people and economy simply cannot bear much more, but it will be to a chaotic police state, headed by the weak, discredited Hamid Karzai, with a confusing mix of army, police and mercenaries, much like the situation Afghanistan faced in 1993, at the end of the last US-Afghan love-in, in the 1980s. By 1996 a violent civil war had brought the country to a stand-still and the Taliban was the only way out. This scenario is about to repeat itself.

* Israel: French Parliament Report Accuses Israel Of Water ‘Apartheid’ In West Bank Haaretz
The French parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee published an unprecedented report two weeks ago accusing Israel of implementing “apartheid” policies in its allocation of water resources in the West Bank.
…The report said that water has become “a weapon serving the new apartheid” and gave examples and statistics that ostensibly back this claim. “Some 450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there,” the report said. “In times of drought, in contravention of international law, the settlers get priority for water.”
….Senior [Israeli] Foreign Ministry officials said the Paris embassy had been asleep at the switch. “This report is a serious mishap that has caused diplomatic damage and has seriously damaged Israel’s image in France,” one senior official said.

* Palestine: The ‘Invented People’ Stand Little Chance Robert Fisk (Thanks, Gabe)

In the United States, where Netanyahu received so many standing ovations from a Congress that apparently thought it was the Knesset – far more ovations than he would ever have received in the real Knesset in Jerusalem – Israel is increasingly relying on the support of Christian fundamentalists.

This support has now coalesced with the Republican Party against Obama – whose grovelling to Netanyahu has won him no new friends – so that over recent years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is routinely used to attack the Democrats. Having once been sustained by the progressive left, Israel now draws its principal support from right-wing conservatism of a particularly unpleasant kind. Christian evangelicals believe that all Jews will die if they do not convert to Christianity on the coming of the Messiah. And right-wing racists in Europe – the most prominent of them being Dutch – are welcome in Israel, while the likes of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are not.

3. Palestine, and Why UNESCO Matters

Nov-04-2011 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: UNESCO voted to admit Palestine this week, and the US immediately stopped funding them, as was mandated by law. (Not 100% sure of what UNESCO does? Wikipedia will help) Why does this matter? We explain

* UNESCO approves Palestinian membership bid Al Jazeera

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) voted on Monday to admit Palestine as a member, a move which is likely to cause the US government to cut off tens of millions of dollars in annual funding to the body. The Palestinian bid received 107 “yes” votes during a UNESCO meeting in Paris, with 14 countries voting against and 52 abstaining, enough to satisfy a two-thirds majority of those countries present and voting.

The decision grants full membership to Palestine, which has had observer status since 1974; it allows the Palestinians to register certain sites, like the Church of the Nativity, in UNESCO’s World Heritage register. Riad al-Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, said the vote would help to “preserve cultural heritage in Palestine.”

* UNESCO Palestine Vote Isolates US FurtherJuan Cole Informed Comment

Since a law passed by Congress in the 1990s forbids the US from funding UN bodies that recognize Palestine, the Obama administration has no choice but to withdraw the $80 million a year it gives UNESCO, which is a fifth of the agency’s budget. But what this step really means is that the US loses influence over UNESCO, and indeed, it might well lose its membership in the organization. UNESCO may have to close some offices and lose employees. Or someone else, such as Saudi Arabia or China, might pick up the $80 million, gaining influence over UNESCO at US expense.

If the move becomes common, the US could end up further and further isolated and helpless. What if the International Atomic Energy Agency recognizes Palestine as a member? If the US cuts it off, it loses a key arena within which it has been pressuring Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. And so on and so forth.

* Defunding UNESCO for the 1 percent Salon Magazine

Achieving full membership in UNESCO is only the first step in the broader Palestinian plan at the U.N. Other organizations will follow, and one of the first is likely to be WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO is hardly a household word but it is an important entity. WIPO figures out how to protect patents, royalty arrangements and trademarks, so not only cultural workers but the biggest high-tech industries have a huge investment there too. That’s why the Obama administration convened a high-power meeting of corporate giants – Google, Microsoft, Apple and others – the day before the UNESCO vote, to see if they might have ideas to get out of the impasse.

… The problem is that if the United States has to leave WIPO, a lot of powerful corporations are going to be very unhappy. After WIPO, which U.N. agencies will be next to be defunded? Will it be the International Atomic Energy Agency, on whose reports U.S. strategists rely to figure out Iran’s nuclear power program? If an IAEA member state doesn’t pay its dues, will it still have access to the agency’s classified reports? Will it be the World Health Organization, leaving the U.S. Centers for Disease Control outside of the global collaborations it depends on to fight the spread of devastating diseases?

5. Exploring the Shalit Deal

Oct-21-2011 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: More than a thousand prisoners, “murderers with blood on their hands” traded for one Israeli soldier? Why would Netanyahu make that deal? Why now? We have a few theories to share. We start with the Guardian, look at Bradley Burston in Haaretz, and end with the always excellent Uri Avnery.

* Gilad Shalit Release: Winners And Losers The Guardian

The agreement to release the captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners is a dramatic story. But what is its wider significance? Why has it happened now? Who are the winners and losers? And what are the implications for the future of the Middle East’s most intractable conflict?

The deal is being claimed as a triumph by Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls Gaza and is anxious to bolster its position. Many commentators argue that the agreement was approved by Israel partly out of pique at the recent unilateral attempt by the Palestinian president,Mahmoud Abbas, to seek membership of the UN while peace talks with Israel are stalled.

* Bravo For These People, These Israelis Bradley Burston Haaretz

On the face of it, the exchange is preposterous, in some ways, borderline suicidal. On the face of it, agreeing with Hamas to the release of more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners, many of them to this day proud of having committed heinous murders of innocent people in premeditated acts of terrorism, makes little sense.

Israelis know that the exchange will bolster the recently flagging popularity of Hamas, in particular its more militant figures. It could seriously undermine Palestinian moderates, foster a return of large-scale terrorism, and deal a telling blow to the Palestinian Authority, in the process eroding the security of Israelis on both sides of the Green Line.
The deal to bring Gilad Shalit back to his family is painful to Israelis bereaved by terror. It is, by any measure, chillingly dangerous.

And it was the right thing to do.

* Uri Avnery on Gilad Shalit–the real story Tikkun Magazine

Journalists asked me if Binyamin Netanyahu had not been disturbed by the fact that the swap was bound to strengthen Hamas and deal a grievous blow to Mahmoud Abbas. They were flabbergasted by my answer: that this was one of its main purposes, if not the main one. The master stroke was a stroke against Abbas.

Abbas’ moves in the UN have profoundly disturbed our right-wing government. Even if the only practical outcome is a resolution of the General Assembly to recognize the State of Palestine as an observer state, it will be a major step towards a real Palestinian state…. For Netanyahu and Co. this is the real danger. Hamas poses no danger at all. What can they do? Launch a few rockets, kill a few people – so what? In no year has “terrorism” killed as many as half the people dying on our roads. Israel can deal with that. ….That, by the way, also explains the timing. Why did Netanyahu agree now to something he has violently opposed all his life? Because Abbas, the featherless chicken, has suddenly turned into an eagle.

Oct 7th, 2011 :: Year 8, Issue 29

Oct-07-2011 | Comments (1)

1. Followups

Bird’s Eye: Fukushima has irrevocably changed the way the Japanese feel about their government argues “Contaminated by Mistrust”, the powerful lead story in this week’s Guardian Weekly, as it looks at the psychological fallout from the nuclear disaster. From the Middle East, Al-Jazeera looks at why Palestinians have a problem recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. And a followup to last week’s Asian pictures, a wonderful “Big Picture” set of pictures explores Kashmir and Ladakh.

* Fukushima disaster: it’s not over yet Jonathan Watts The Guardian

….Before publication, I sent Reiko a draft of this article. Her reply was polite, but I felt she was disappointed. “Maybe you can find the answer. Maybe it is too much to ask. If so, just forget it. Even though I am much louder than other Japanese, I feel I am lost. My life here requires me to be normalised, to behave like we used to. I have to work, I have to eat. After five months of struggling, I am getting tired of worrying. It is much easier to give up pursuing reality. What bothers me most is being torn in this conflicting situation with no answer, every moment.”

I sympathise immensely but regret that I cannot offer the comfort of clarity. The nuclear disaster has been terrifying, but not as expected. If someone had told me a year ago that three reactors would melt down simultaneously, I would have assumed an apocalypse. Yet Japan today is not like any doomsday I imagined. Instead, there is a kind of slow decay. After three visits to Fukushima, I am less afraid of radiation than I was a year ago but more worried about Japan.

* Muslim Philosopher Dissembles the Concept of a “Jewish State” Al-Jazeera

First, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term “Jewish” can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always. For example, some ethnic Jews are atheists and there are converts to Judaism (leaving aside the question of whether these are accepted as such by Ultra-Orthodox Jews) who are not ethnic Jews.

Second, let us suggest also that having a modern nation-state being defined by one ethnicity or one religion is problematic in itself – if not inherently self-contradictory – because the modern nation-state as such is a temporal and civic institution, and because no state in the world is – or can be in practice – ethnically or religiously homogenous.

Third, recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word “Jewish” to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word “Jewish” to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy – something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country’s founding in 1948.

* Scenes from Kashmir The Big Picture

Sept 30th, 2011 :: Year 8, Issue 28

Sep-30-2011 | Comments (0)

1. Followups

Bird’s Eye: Robert Fisk, always fascinating and usually insightful, speculates about the future fall out from Palestine’s request for UN recognition. We hear endless amounts about Libya and its relationship to the Arab Spring; here’s a fascinating perspective on how outing Gaddafi changes its relationship to Africa. And an amazing surfing picture that we missed last week

* Why The Middle East Will Never Be The Same Again Robert Fisk The Independent

The Palestinians won’t get a state this week. But they will prove – if they get enough votes in the General Assembly and if Mahmoud Abbas does not succumb to his characteristic grovelling in the face of US-Israeli power – that they are worthy of statehood. And they will establish for the Arabs what Israel likes to call – when it is enlarging its colonies on stolen land – “facts on the ground”: never again can the United States and Israel snap their fingers and expect the Arabs to click their heels. The US has lost its purchase on the Middle East. It’s over: the “peace process”, the “road map”, the “Oslo agreement”; the whole fandango is history.

…This vote at the UN – General Assembly or Security Council, in one sense it hardly matters – is going to divide the West – Americans from Europeans and scores of other nations – and it is going to divide the Arabs from the Americans. It is going to crack open the divisions in the European Union; between eastern and western Europeans, between Germany and France (the former supporting Israel for all the usual historical reasons, the latter sickened by the suffering of the Palestinians) and, of course, between Israel and the EU.

* Has Africa lost Libya? Knox Chitiyo The Guardian

For decades, Libya has been an integral part of Africa. Indeed Sirte, the Colonel Gaddafi stronghold where fighting still continues, was the birthplace of the Organisation of African Unity in 1963. About a quarter of indigenous Libyans are black, while African migrant workers in Libya exceed one million; and during his 40-year rule Gaddafi championed pan-Africanism and African multiculturalism.

…The revolution has moved Libya into the democratic wave of the Arab spring. There will be continued interactions between Libya and Africa; but culturally, ideologically and financially, Libya has moved towards a greater identification with its north African, Middle Eastern and south Mediterranean neighbours. Libya is embracing its Arab heritage. In a way this should be no surprise: Gaddafi’s embrace of pan-Africanism, while popular south of the Sahara, had little backing from Libyans. But the question of support for Libya’s revolution has divided sub-Saharan Africa.…

* Surfing Camera EyeWitness

Pro tip: When glueing your camera to a surfboard, it is important to choose your adhesive carefully

3. Obama to Palestinians: “No Change, No Hope”

Sep-30-2011 | Comments (0)

Bird’s Eye: So Obama has made it clear where he stands on the Palestinian question, and the reactions to his position come thick and heavy. A surprisingly compassionate “gedanken” experiment in Mondoweiss imagines what would happen politically in the US if Obama took the positions his critics want. The Guardian explains why Obama supports Netanyahu when Netanyahu consistently sabotages him (“It’s the election, stupid”), and Marc Ellis (University Professor of Jewish Studies, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University) mourns the Jewish New Year.

* Obama’s Impossible Dilemma–And Ours Jerome Slater Mondoweiss

Let us suppose that instead of saying all the wrong things, Obama were to say all the right ones. Let us further suppose that he didn’t merely say all the right things, he actually did the right things, at least insofar as he had the power to do so. Suppose he said that from this moment on, the Obama administration would end all its diplomatic, political and moral support of Israel until it agreed to the international consensus two-state settlement? What would be the consequences?

First, Congress would refuse to support him, and so the administration would be unable to end U.S. economic and military support of Israel, by far the most important components of potential U.S. leverage.

Second, as in the past the outcome of both the presidential and congressional elections could turn on just 2-3% (or indeed, much less) of the electoral vote. That means that there is a huge risk that the next presidency and both houses of Congress will come under the control of a Republican party that is dominated by know-nothings and the lunatic fringe. That is unbearable to contemplate—it could result in the worst crisis in American history since the Civil War.

Third—and this is really the clincher—I fear that Israel is so far gone that even if Obama said and did all the right things, even if he was reelected, and even if the Democrats controlled both houses of congress, it would not move Israel in the right direction.

* Barack Obama caught between Israel and his Palestinian ‘promise‘ Guardian

When the White House asked it to halt construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories to give peace talks a chance, the building went on. After Washington pressed Binyamin Netanyahu to embrace the promise of Palestinian independence within months, the Israeli prime minister did his best to scupper any prospect of new talks. Netanyahu even went so far as to publicly dress down the president of his country’s closest ally by lecturing Obama on Jewish historical claims and the Arab threat in front of the press at the White House. The president was furious at the humiliation and the administration made it known in private.

Barack Obama has good reason to ask what the present Israeli government has ever done for him.

…But Obama is is taking an unequivocal stand in favour of Israel in saying America will veto the Palestinian bid at the UN despite alarm in the Arab world. The former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence and ex-ambassador to Washington, Turki al-Faisal, this week warned that an American veto will make the US “toxic” in the region. Whatever the foreign policy implications, Israel is primarily a domestic political consideration and Obama’s position on Palestinian statehood is staked out with one eye firmly on the consequences at the ballot box and in dealings with Congress.

* Mourning the Jewish New Year Marc Ellis Mondoweiss

How sad the end is. I rend my garments. I mourn. Last week, I listened to Barack Obama, an African American and my President, speak at the United Nations. I became sad beyond words. I wonder where his sense of history went.

I am a Jew. President Obama spoke of Jewish history – the years of exile and persecution, the Holocaust, the return to our ancient homeland. We deserve the respect of our Arab neighbors and the world. I wonder if he speaks of American history in the same way.

…Is it possible to remain silent about slavery? Slavery is the defining moment of American history. Can Jews be silent about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine? The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is among the defining moments of contemporary Jewish history.

Older Posts »

RSS Feed