By FRANK SCOTT

Columnist

San Rafael, CA

The breakdown of global economics dominated by capital is more apparent with each local crisis. Even Israel has seen Jewish citizens demonstrating against the inequality of what they think is their own economy, just as all over the world people are rising up against injustice seen as unique to their nations. Of course, Israeli Jews demonstrating against an economy which has become more unequal for them are missing the point that what was previously so fair to them was derived at the expense of the Palestinians who still suffer unfairness and inequality that date back earlier than the current crisis. Even further back than 1948; the official birth of the settler, apartheid Jewish state.

And, it should be added, at the expense of the American taxpayers who not only finance Israel’s military power and fight its wars but pay for a government frequently operating more in Israel’s than America’s interest. In fact, even as signs of a crippled political economy loom so large, 82 members of the American government embarked on a tour of Israel paid for by sponsors who insure their continued role as an Israeli Knesset within the American congress.

Nevertheless, the continued actions around the world, both peaceful and violent, make it clear that the system under stress and causing breakdowns is not confined to any one nation or area of the globe.

Here in the USA, as public service programs are being savaged while great wealth increases its share of national income, the 2012 presidential campaign is already in full swing. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been banked by candidates with hundreds of millions more being raised among their wealthy employers. This, while a majority of Americans suffer declining status in every aspect of their lives, is indication of both inequality and immorality in the political economic system. But it may still be a while before we all understand that the system conducting assaults on working majorities for the benefit of wealthy minorities in the USA, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Egypt, England and more, is the same one that is killing people and fomenting strife in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and more.

Under the control of mind managers who teach us individuality and self esteem in the face of social disaster, it must begin to sink into even the most set upon that we suffer from a common and not unique-to-ourselves disorder. It is global capitalism, the private profit/public loss system making rich people much richer, poor people much poorer, the supposed middle less middle, and putting the earth itself under more stress than at any time in recorded history.

The Bipolar performance of a financial market with ever more rapid and rabid mood swings accompanies a crazed military policy killing more people every day while alienating more old friends, creating more new enemies, and pushing everything closer to disaster. Still, the bipartisan political process pits one set of corporate capital’s servants against another, both competing for power but only to maintain a system that needs to be radically changed for the salvation of the human race.

The over extended empire’s attempts to destroy Libya joined with previous assaults in Iraq , Afghanistan and other places is taxing the imperial dominators to the point at which collapse, if not sudden, is certainly a near future possibility. People are straining against the irrationality of having to struggle for survival while a tiny minority lives in luxury beyond the dreams of ancient despots. The sooner a democratic tendency such as finally seems to be operative in many places takes hold everywhere the better for humanity, but the USA is not only still far behind the pack but suffering political forces working to further impede its progress.

The USA is at the center of this flailing monster and its people need to take control from the minority only concerned about acquiring more and more wealth at the cost of less and less hope for the majority’s future. Democratic action is needed to end the bloody wars, create public banks, invest our massive public wealth in jobs that put people before profit, and transform our energy base from fossil fuels and other synthetics which pollute to abundant biological sources which can strengthen society in cooperation with nature. While growing numbers of Americans favor such moves, the power structure reflects none of that impulse unless it can create a private profit for some that always means a public loss for most.

Negative signs of collapse are increasing but positive reactions have a greater chance at success than ever before. Coordinated democratic action needs to end the divisive battling among a global majority which has been boxed into being a group of minorities in order to keep it from seeing its common interest and predicament. Human survival is not simply the concern of members of minority groups, people of alleged color or no color, those who choose to marry or stay single, have babies or adopt, or speak different languages.

Food, clothing, shelter and the niceties of life do not exist for the exclusive consumption of special individuals but for the continuation of the human race. The longer we allow minority control of our environments both social and natural, the closer we will come to failure as a human race. The present crisis will continue and get worse until we react as global citizens and demand, and achieve, global democracy. If that seems beyond us, we can at least begin the easy part and create a truly democratic transformation here at the center of the global problem.

By IHSAN ALKHATIB, Ph.D, ESQ. Staff Writer
Dearborn, MI

“[S]tark reality of national selfishness behind the rhetoric of commitment to the cause of the Palestine Arabs”
Abdullah I changes the League’s attack plans to suit his dynastic ambitions
There are a many myths surrounding the Palestine question. Many of these myths are demolished by Avi Shlaim’s Collusion Across the Jordan, a book that serious supporters of Palestine would not only buy it and read it, they would also buy it and gift it to their friends. This article is the third article based on Shlaim’s invaluable book. This article deals with the 1948 war and the circumstances surrounding it as presented by Shlaim.
In his memoirs, the late Hussein of Jordan defends his grandfather by saying that he was basically a realist who saw the Zionist threat and tried to deal with it while other Arab leaders basically  spoke nonsense and did not prepare for the challenge. Shlaim responds to that by countering that Abdullah’s collusion with the Zionists was a self- interested ploy and at the expense of the Palestinians. The collusion of Abdullah I with the Zionists prevented the creation of a Palestinian state and thwarted the internationalization of Jerusalem- invaluable strategic goals for the Zionist movement.
A study of the record of that war is not only an exercise in understanding critical history but of understanding today’s Arabs and today’s Arab regimes. The sage saying of there is nothing new under the sun comes to mind when reading Shlaim’s description of inter-Arab politics. The following are questions answered by direct quotes, without quotation marks, from Shlaim’s book.
*Were the Arabs united in their confrontation with the Zionists in the 1948 war? A second major casualty is the notion of Arab unity which is so dear to the hearts of all Arab nationalists. In a very real sense this book is a case-study in inter-Arab conflict, rivalry, intrigue, an deception. It exposes the stark reality of national selfishness behind the rhetoric of commitment to the cause of the Palestine Arabs. It shows the Arab leaders to have been incapable of co-ordinating their diplomatic moves or their military strategy in face of the common enemy. When one looks at the military operations of the 1948 war, as dozens of historians have done, one gets one the familiar picture of a broad and united Arab coalition in confrontation with Israel for possession of the whole of Palestine. But the politics underlying this war give a very different picture of a tacit understanding between Abdullah and the Zionists, with limited territorial objectives on both sides, and with common interests which Abdullah did not share with his comrades -in-arms. In short, the Hashemite-Zionist connection is one of the keys to understanding how Palestine came to be partitioned , and why the Palestinian national movement suffered such a catastrophic defeat while the Jewish national movement realized its ambition of establishing an independent Jewish state over a substantial part of Palestine.
* Did the Arab contingents fight well enough that they posed a threat to the Jewish state? Did they do better than the petty politicians who “lost” Palestine? The amateurism in operational matters displayed by Arab politicians was fully matched by the political amateurism of the Arab military some of whom embodied the worst vices of both groups: the politicians’ bombastic trumpeting of Arab rights without due regard for the balance of forces, and the officers’ tendency to be diverted from their true task by political interests and political considerations…A swarm of Syrian and Iraqi officers buzzed around the building seemingly more familiar with the science of intrigue than with that of warfare. The distribution of funds, of commands, or rank, of operational zones, of arms and materials, all were objects of bargaining as intensive as any displayed in the city’s souks.’
* Did the Arab regimes commit the manpower and the resources needed for battle? Eleven days was the estimated duration of the campaign. To carry it out [East Jordanian officer]Tall asked that virtually all the Arab armies be placed under one supreme commander. In the opinion of informed observers, if those forces, prepared or not, could have been made available, Tall’s plan would have had every chance of success- ‘It was the stuff of which Ben Gurion’s nightmares were made.’ But the forces demanded by the young and very capable operations officer could not be made available and as a result Ben-Gurion’s worst nightmare did not come true. The forces actually made available by the Arab states for the campaign in Palestine were well below the level demanded by the Military Committee.
*Why was the original plan developed by the Arab League changed, who wanted it changed and what impact on the war did it have? The danger to the Jewish state [from the original war plan] did not materialize however, because the Damascus plan was not put into operation in the way that the Arab chiefs of staff had originally recommended. General Mahmud changed the plan by moving the Syrian army from the north to the southern tip of Lake Tiberias, alongside the Iraqi army. This change was made at the request of the Transjordanian authorities. The Transjordanians insisted on the concentration of their forces in the Jerusalem area, Hebron and the Nablus-Jenin-Tulkarem Triangle, and despite all his efforts Mahmud was unable to persuade the m to act in accordance with the original plan….No doubt, the original agreement that Jews would not stand in his [Abdullah’s] way played a part here. Nevertheless, Abdullah did not subvert the Arab Leagues invasion plan in collusion with the Jews, he replaced it with a different plan tailored to serve his specific dynastic ambitions.
*  What is Shlaim’s assessment of the Arab leaders who were involved in the Palestine [ongoing} nakba? [w]hereas all the other Arab states sided with the Palestine Arabs in their conflict with the Jews, Abdullah pursued a policy of collaboration with the enemy. Does this make Abdullah the only villain in the Palestine story or are the other Arab leaders no less culpable? If Abdullah double-crossed his partners just as they were about to do battle with the Zionist enemy in Palestine, none of those partners appear in retrospect to have been a shining example of integrity or altruism. All betrayed by their actions the pan-Arab ideal they professed to be serving in their rhetoric. All displayed suspicion and anxiety lest their rivals should exploit the Palestinian Arab cause as a vehicle for promoting their separate regional ambitions. Indeed, it may be argued that the Arab League’s decision to intervene was rooted not in a common interest to save Palestine for the Palestinians or to defeat Zionist ambitions but in inter-Arab fears and rivalries… It is because the Arab military effort in May 1948 was in itself inadequate and related to wider societal factors and temperamental peculiarities, and because suspicion and conflicts of interest among the Arabs themselves was so pervasive, that it would be misleading to single out Abdullah’s deviousness and duplicity as the sole reason for the marked disarray in Arab League quarters on the eve of battle. Such a single-factor explanation may seem superficially plausible but it does not survive a more penetrating analysis of the kind offered by Wasfi Al -Tall.

BY GHASSAN RUBEIZ, Ph.D.
Columnist, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Ideological differences within Arab societies will slow the process of their liberation. While people are well aware that their rulers are barriers to freedom, they are not yet fully committed to protect all minorities, offer women their inalienable rights and tame the religious institution.
The dramatic spread of Arab revolts and the ease of ousting President Ben Ali and Mubarak have raised unrealistic expectations about the speed of political and social change in the Middle East. It may take the entire twenty first century to fulfill the promises of the Arab Spring.
Resistance to social change is universal. After the American Revolution of 1776, it took about ninety years and a civil war to acknowledge that slavery is an evil. It took an additional hundred years to issue historic civil rights legislation. And today every society on earth has its liberals, who push for change and conservatives who pull for discipline.
The great news is that the process of change in the Arab world has already started with immense courage. The marathon race for freedom started in January 2011, and the contestants are running at different speeds.
Some Arab uprisings have already achieved the first level of liberation: political reform or regime change. Constitutional reform, the second stage of the struggle, has proven to be tough. And the third level, liberty in the practice of religion, has yet to start.
A few societies are in the front in this race. Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco have already accomplished the first stage of liberation.
Other societies are struggling hard to complete the first phase: revolts confront obstinate, insecure, entrenched and tough regimes in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.
Rightly or wrongly, some rulers consider their systems relatively shock resistant: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Jordan.
Syria’s allies are out of this race; the Spring of Lebanon and the future wave of uprising of the Palestinians are tied to the fate of the Assad regime. The Syrian rule supports the powerful Lebanese Hizbullah and the Palestinian Hamas. Both movements treat the “Spring” as a diversion and continue to target the highly unpopular Israeli occupation.
In stage two, the struggle for constitutional reform, the participation of women and other civic groups are particularly important.
Tunisia and Morocco are well into the second stage, but Egypt is faltering. The shaky progress in Egyptian constitutional change is a result of marginalization of secular parties and the prohibitive interference of the military.
The marginalization of women is symptomatic of a wider syndrome of power grabbing in the post Mubarak era. To a large extent, Arab resistance to change is a product of a severe gender gap. The status of women in society is the best indicator of the future.
Revolt in stage three, the struggle for religious freedom, is dormant. Reviewing the paradigm of religious socialization is crucial.
Here again, women have a strong stake in religious freedom; it is men who define religious practice. Would the empowerment of women indirectly lead to a spiritual renaissance? To bring about this “miracle” the women and youth movements should form a strong alliance in every Arab society.
At the present, reform for religious liberty is blocked. It is hard to advocate for secularism, for the right to interpret faith, to change affiliation, to marry “outsiders” and to have civil marriage. Egypt, a lead country in Arab affairs, has a special problem in religious freedom; to sustain their power both Mubarak and Sadat exploited religious differences within Muslim groups, and between Christians and Muslims.
Resistance to religious reform is reinforced by several factors. Family law is under the administration of religious authority. Secularism is confused with atheism or Westernization. Religious education is dull and literal. Science education is shallow.
International and local politics reinforce religious triumphalism. The highly political and provocative American religious fundamentalism reinforces homegrown Arab fanatic movements. Not unrelated to cross-border theological war is the Arab Israeli conflict, which perpetuates religious tension throughout the region. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would facilitate inter-religious harmony.
It is difficult to imagine a sudden rush to the street to protest against religious institutions. It is also hard to imagine a well tested methodology for a religious intifada. But in one way or another- Insha a llah- reason will ultimately prevail, and clerics will be guided to concentrate on faith, rather than on monopoly of social legislation.
Regime change, constitutional reform and a new outlook on faith indeed take decades to mature. Can Arabs wait that long to install a system of freedom, equality and religious liberty? The answer is not clear.
Are there are indications for some optimism?
We have already witnessed the miraculous speed of social change in an age of digital communication. Close interdependence of nations ought to accelerate genuine external support for the Arab Spring. The slow, but certain, withdrawal of American forces from the region will favorably impact social change. Mounting pressure for respect of universal human rights will have an effect on the Arab conscience.
Moreover, countries like Egypt and Yemen, two nations with a desperate need for revenues, can hardly survive without openness to modernity. Another sign of hope is in the Arab youth: They are no longer ready to accept political lies.
An uprising is the first step toward societal awakening. While modern technology has significantly accelerated, the art of reconstructing nations remains primitive.

Courtesy of Middle East Monitor

The concerted Zionist campaign to smear the Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) failed dismally last night as the two groups co-hosted one of their most successful public events to date. The topic up for discussion was “Complicity in Oppression – Does the Media Aid Israel?” The panellists consisted of Prof. Greg Philo who discussed his new book “More Bad News from Israel” (an excellent academic analysis of the media’s skewed coverage of news coming out of Palestine-Israel); Tim Llewellyn, former BBC Middle East correspondent, and Abdel Barri Atwan, expert Palestinian commentator on the Middle East. The discussion was chaired by Victoria Brittain, former associate foreign editor of the Guardian.

The atmosphere of the evening was lively and informative, despite the cloud of tension that had threatened to overshadow the proceedings. Having advertised the topic of our public lecture weeks previously, the event had come under heavy attack from Zionist and Islamophobic lobby groups. The English Defence League’s (EDL) Jewish division leader Roberta Moore had tried to rally her minions to hold a demonstration outside the event venue at Amnesty International’s Human Rights Centre in London, and other Zionists had circulated a petition and had begun a letter campaign to try and get Amnesty to cancel the event. Even the Labour Party Friends of Israel (LFI) had sent around a mass email trying to get their members to write in and complain to Amnesty about the event. Nevertheless, Amnesty, PSC and MEMO stood firm, unwilling to back down from holding what was a legitimate discussion on an important subject. The irony seems lost on the detractors of this event that they were essentially trying to censor a public debate on the topic of censorship! In the end there was, what must have been – for the Zionists – an embarrassing turn out of demonstrators as probably no more than a dozen people made it and they all left before the event even started. Their presence had no effect on the meeting whatsoever and the event was extremely well received by our guests many of whom gave their thanks to the teams for organizing it.

Professor Greg Philo, who kindly signed books at the end of the evening, was the first speaker. He explained that there are clearly two sides to every story and yet for some reason the Israeli narrative is consistently given preference over the Palestinian narrative by news and media outlets in the West. His academic and objective analysis of the news coverage, as set out in his book, clearly shows that the Israeli side is relentlessly churned out while the Palestinian narrative is rarely put forward, and if it is, it is to a much lesser degree. He puts this down to the dedication and cohesion of the Israeli lobby groups and the Zionist propaganda machine that essentially serves to inform the language and tone of the media. He discussed the level of tension inside media bodies and the fact that many news groups are actually afraid of complaints from the Zionist lobby who are experts at sending in complaints in relation to any news items that do not show Israel in a positive light. He therefore emphasised the importance of direct contact with these news and media bodies and the importance of utilising the internal power structures and complaints procedures to ensure a fair and accurate representation of the reality of the news.

Having worked for the BBC for around 10 years in senior positions, including many years as BBC Middle East Correspondent based at times in Palestine, Israel and around the Arab world, Tim Llewellyn was able to give a very valuable insight into the inner workings of the organisation. He stated that although overall he greatly admires the BBC “on this particular crisis the BBC is failing to tell us the truth.” His main focus was the lack of independent review of BBC programmes and decisions. He stated that “the BBC has started to build an iron wall around itself.” He confirmed what we all know, which is that it is almost impossible to raise complaints with the BBC about their programmes. Phone calls and emails are not answered, he said, even from someone like himself who they know well.

He used the BBC’s report into the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara as a case in point. Hundreds of complaints were made about the nature of the programme and finally the BBC did look into it and came up with a 50,000 word report which was “one of the most tendentious pieces of garbage I’ve ever read in my life” full of “self-contradictions”.
He attributed the media’s kowtowing to the Israeli narrative partly to Israel’s massive propaganda campaign, fronted by organisations like BICOM, as well as to the way the Israeli propaganda machine successfully “co-opted the terror of 9/11” and managed to convolute issues in people’s minds. He ended his talk by saying that we must ensure that the BBC “no longer is its own final judge and final arbiter on the question of its own editorial policy” and that the BBC should be made to answer to an “independent body” in the same way that other media outlets do.

Abdel Bari Atwan gave a very riveting and poignant account of his own personal experiences as a commentator on the Middle East and his desire as a Gazan to give a voice to the Palestinian struggle. He elucidated on the Zionist attempts to smear his character over the years in an effort to discredit experienced Palestinian commentators such as him in order to give more weight to Israeli commentators. He expressed his disgust at the fact that an expert and experienced commentator such as himself, who is from Gaza no less, was given almost no airtime on many high profile news outlets at the time of the Israeli attacks on Gaza in the winter of 2008-9 relative to Israeli spokespersons who were given as much airtime as they wanted. This lack of impartiality pervades the Western media and we need to step up our campaigns to persuade media outlets to be more unbiased and fair in their coverage.

All in all the night was extremely successful and the message to come out of the meeting was that the battle to present the truth about Palestinian-Israeli issues can be won if we just all work together to get fairer, unbiased coverage of the facts and issues surrounding the conflict. We must use all forms of media and social networking available to get the truth of the matter out there, as once the facts are laid bare then the wider public can judge matters for themselves in which case they will see Israel for the occupier that it is and the Palestinians as the occupied fighting for the preservation of their homes and their lives.

By IHSAN ALKHATIB, Ph.D, ESQ. Staff Writer
Dearborn, MI

The Zionist Movement: Flexible tactically, inflexible strategically
Ben Gurion: “The rest will come in the course of time”

Recently the discussion on Palestine centered on the 1967 borders and the declaration of the future state of Palestine. Zionist voices oppose the Palestinians going to the UN for recognition and repeat the lies of Zionists suing for peace while the Arabs rejecting peace. The lies that get repeated over and again are that the Palestinians initiated the conflict and rejected the 1948 partition which the peace- loving Zionists embraced.

Tactically flexible, strategically inflexible

Avi Shlaim’s Collusion across the Jordan, using the historical record, helps debunk these widespread myths. Myth number one is that the Palestinians have refused the UN partition plan while the Zionists sincerely accepted it and grabbed what they could of Palestine in the war merely as a result of Palestinian refusal and war contingencies. The record exposed by Shlaim shows that this is a blatant lie. The key explanatory principle about the Zionist movement is that it was, as Shlaim summarized it, tactically flexible but strategically inflexible. The inflexible strategic goal is the control of the whole of Palestine, including the East Bank of Jordan. In working toward this strategic goal, the Zionists are willing to make tactical compromises along the way. An example of this tactical flexibility is how the Zionists dealt with the 1948 UN partition plan. The Zionists colluded with Abdullah I of Transjordan to divide mandatory Palestine and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and the internationalization of Jerusalem as the UN mandated. From the beginning the strategic goal of the Zionists is the control of the entirety of Palestine. However, as a tactical compromise the Zionists were willing to let Abdullah I have a portion of Palestine for some time until opportunity develops or is manufactured to “redeem” the rest of Palestine. Abdullah I must have gotten that sense when the Zionists insisted that Abdullah I’s common defense agreement with Britain not apply to the portion of Palestine temporarily ceded to Abdullah I in 1948. By making this tactical compromise with Abdullah, the Zionists neutralized the threats of internationalization of Jerusalem and the creation of an Arab state in Palestine. They waited until 1967 to move toward the strategic goal of complete domination of Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. A number of questions are answered with direct quotes from Shlaim:

*What do the diaries of Theodor Herzl indicate as to the intentions of Zionists as to the Arabs of Palestine- was it a vision of sharing or of armed conquest and ethnic cleansing?  By quoting from the diaries of Theodor Herzl, Hirst tries to show that the prophet of Zionism foresaw that coercion and physical force were inevitable, that military power was an essential component of his strategy, that, ideally, he wanted the Zionists to acquire the land of their choice by armed conquest, but he also contemplated more discreet and circumspect means for removing the native population and expropriating its land. The French saying , ‘Qui vent la fin, veut les moyens’- he who desires the end desires the means- was cited by Herzl with approval. ‘But in proposing such an end- a Jewish state in Palestine- and such means,’ argues Hirst, ‘he was proposing a great deception, and laying open his whole movement to the subsequent charge that in any true historical perspective the Zionists were the original aggressors in the Middle East, the real pioneers of violence, and that Arab violence, however cruel and fanatical it might eventually become, was an inevitable reaction to theirs.”

*Were the Zionists, especially Ben-Gurion, sincere in speaking about peaceful coexistence at the beginning of the colonization process? A wide gulf separated Ben- Gurion’s public utterances on the Arab question from his real convictions…A careful comparison of Ben Gurion’s public and private positions leads to the conclusion that the twenty-year denial of the nature of the conflict was dictated not by genuine conviction but by the tactical need to gain time and retain British support for the Zionist project…Reluctant to embark overtly on a collision course when the balance of power between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine could not guarantee the desired outcome, Ben-Gurion developed a gradualist long-term strategy whose starting point was the acceptance of the principle of partition. A final point, a final goal, a final destination did not exist. In Ben- Gurion’s thinking, as his biographer points out, every objective, every goal was just a stage in the march of history and every goal, once attained, became a staging post for the attainment of the next goal. The partition lines were of secondary importance in Ben-Gurion’s eyes because he intended to change them in any case; they were not the end but only the beginning.

* Why were the Zionists so eager to declare a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948 was it to take a share of the land and live in peace with their neighbors if they accept the 1948 borders or was that UN- recognized state a first step in an expansionist project? The key question was: would the formation of a Jewish state help to turn the country into a Jewish one or would it hamper this? Ben-Gurion professed himself to be an enthusiastic advocate of a Jewish state, even if it involved the partitioning of Palestine, because he worked on the assumption that a partial Jewish state would not be the end but only the beginning. The acquisition of land was important not only for its own sake but because it would increase the strength of the Jews and help them acquire the whole country. The formation of a state could accelerate this process and constitute ‘a powerful lever in our historic effort to redeem the country in its entirety’. The plan was to bring into this state all the Jews it could possibly hold, to build a Jewish economy, to organize a first-class army, and then ‘I am certain we will be able to settle in all the other parts of the country, whether through agreement and mutual understanding with our Arab neighbours or in another way’.  With a state, continued Ben- Gurion, the Jews would be able to penetrate deeper into the country. They would be stronger vis-à-vis the Arabs, and as the Jews grew in strength the Arabs would realize that it would be impossible to oppose them and that it would be and that it would be best to work together and to allow them to settle in all parts of the country. If the Arabs were to act from ‘sterile national feelings’ and say ‘We don’t want your honey or your sting. We would rather the Negev remained desert than that it should be settled by Jews’, it would be necessary ‘to speak to them in another language. And we will have another language then- which we should not have without a state. ‘Both his mind and his heart told Ben-Gurion: ‘Establish a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.’

By MAZIN QUMSIYEH
Courtesy of Popular Resistance

Israel reported a record $7.2 billion weapons exports solidifying its position in the top four countries profiting from war and destruction.  The other two main official sources of income for Israel (foreign aid and its pillaging of the Palestinian economy) are also at a record high.  A fourth source of income that is less publicized but certainly is in the billions is money laundering and other criminal activities.  Many make billions by illicit schemes in their own countries and then move to Israel or at least move their money there (there are many example among Russian and American Zionists).  Israel is indeed in a very strong position financially and militarily.  Israel is also aided by a massive media campaign that vilifies Palestinians (and now Muslims and Arabs in general). On the ground, Jerusalem has largely been transformed and its multi-ethnic, multi-religious character meticulously eroded just like what happened to Jaffa and Haifa before and just like what is happening in Hebron and elsewhere today.  But we are not entirely helpless in facing the last remaining bastion of fascism and racism that is protected by state power and a global network of hate peddlers.

Yes, it is true that our struggle is more difficult than what transpired against apartheid in South Africa. Yes, it is true that our “leadership” has been reduced making weak declarations in fancy hotels and conference centers and to the media. This “leadership” is paid handsomely for doing nothing useful to change the political discourse or even increase the cost of this colonial Zionist venture.  Worse yet, a good segment of this “leadership” actually aids and abets the occupiers.  Salam Fayyad who worked at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), declares that he is fully in favor of the appointment of the head of the Central Bank in Israel as head of the IMF!  He also worked hard to get funding to pave alternative roads that made it easier on the apartheid system isolating Palestinians in cantons than need not interfere with the plans to control the natural resources and best lands of the West Bank. And then there is Mahmoud Abbas who declared on more than one occasion and also even signed a provisional agreement with Israelis that also declared that refugees need not return to their homes and lands but only to the demilitarized denuded bantustan called a Palestinian state.  Abbas also declared repeatedly that his options are negotiations, negotiations, negotiations.  He and his associates (Saeb Erekat, Abu Ala’ etc) have been negotiating for 20 years with the only tangible accomplishment being giving Israel economic and diplomatic space to consolidate Zionist colonialism.  But this era of Israeli colonial superiority must and is coming to an end.

While we in the civil society still hope for these “leaders” to change their ways, we have not been waiting.  We have been acting and must act more. The upcoming escalation in confrontation will not be between states nor will it be with “insurgency” in its classic sense.  What we see instead is a growth in boycotts, divestment, and sanctions and what transpired by freedom flotilla I, events of May 15, June 5th, the upcoming freedom flotilla II, and July 8-16 are so critical.  We have individual and collective responsibility to change things by moral and determined ways.  The other options have been proven catastrophically negative: relying on politicians (elected or self-appointed) or on the vagaries of shifting military capabilities (a dangerous development in the era of advanced science that makes development of weapons of mass destruction relatively easy even for small state and non-state actors).  Let no one have any illusion: we are coming to a major confrontation.  It can either be 1) a civil confrontation where civil society wins the struggle because it got engaged in these tactics of strong and determined popular resistance, or 2) it can happen via armed insurgency that uses modern technology to challenge conventional military forces.  Hezbollah in Lebanon provides a model of mixing the two but with more reliance on the second.  In challenging local dictatorship, we saw the power of civil resistance in Egypt and Tunisia.  Challenging colonialism successfully happened with a mix of the two in Algeria (liberated in the 1960s) and South Africa (more recently).  But the mix in South Africa was improved thanks to International civil participation. Each situation is unique and our local history here and the upcoming confrontation will also be unique to Palestine and different than in these other places. But it is clear that we have a responsibility as individuals in our society to try to shape the coming confrontation so that it is not catastrophically violent (i.e less “military might makes right” and more “people power”).  Our future as humans depends on us working together to change our circumstances.  Those who think they can afford to sit and wait (and watch TV news) will miss the moving train of justice and will regret their apathy.  We Palestinians must carry the bulk of the weight (I remember the image of the old man carrying Jerusalem and Palestine on his back).  But we humans are all responsible.  We cannot be lulled by “humanitarian aid” or by “state” and non-state structures that give the illusions of safety and security whether in the US, Europe, Australia, the apartheid state of Israel, or in the bantustans called a Palestinian state.  Everyone knows that that old system merely makes the rich richer, the poor poorer, destroys our environment, and lets us have fake elections between waves of certain economic downturns and the occasional war or terror attack that aims to distract us.

For those of you in Palestine, you may want to join us for a workshop this Saturday, 18 June, at 11 Am in the Bethlehem area that will bring dozens of activists from throughout Palestine and some internationals to help organize us better for the week of activities in July and beyond.  We also just updated our website with new answers to frequently asked questions on this (see http://palestinejn.org/section-blog ).  For those of you abroad, you could intensify your efforts to challenge the status quo.  We are one world and our struggles are one.

By IBRAHIM HEWITT

We will probably never really know if, as Israel’s Prime Minister claimed, Iran and Syria orchestrated the Nakba demonstrations which led to the deaths of at least 12 Palestinians over the weekend. Accusations and counter-accusations will fill the media for a few days and then life will carry on as abnormal as it does in Israel and the territories it has occupied since 1967. There is clearly going to be no outcry from Israel’s friends in the West about abuses of human rights and democratic freedoms of the kind we have seen in response to the killing of demonstrators in other parts of the Middle East. Nor are we likely to see an ICC warrant for the arrest of Israeli leaders on war crimes charges, even though the independent evidence is at least as strong as that against Gaddafi who now faces such charges. Israel, as usual, is allowed to get away with murder.

Benjamin Netanyahu, of course, knows this full well, which is why he can continue to make statements which illustrate that Zionists have a completely different worldview: Israelis, he said after Sunday’s shootings, “are determined to defend our borders and sovereignty.” Media reports follow suit, each describing the clashes taking place “on Israel’s borders”. This is all fantasy, because Israel has never declared what its borders are and has taken every opportunity since 1948 to push the extent of the territory under its control ever further outwards. The Golan Heights, where Palestinians exiled in Syria crossed rather ineffective (thank goodness) minefields at the weekend, are in fact the occupied Syrian Golan Heights; the border that was breached was not and if justice prevails never should be “Israel’s border”. The Zionist state may have control of the area but the demonstration last weekend was not a breach of its “sovereignty” as Netanyahu claimed.

Such realities do not deter Zionists and the well-oiled pro-Israel lobby from purveying distortions of the truth as “facts” in their hasbara (propaganda). This well-funded campaign which answers to the Israeli Foreign Ministry focuses its current efforts to “de-legitimise” those who would “de-legitimise” the state of Israel. Hence, the pressure on Amnesty International to close its doors to a MEMO-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) event looking at if and how the media assists Israel in its hasbara. Zionists are experts at ignoring the issues and shooting the messengers instead, but even when they do set out to purvey their own version of reality, they twist the facts to suit their agenda. Few dare to ask if Israel actually ever had any legitimacy in the first place, but should a state founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing ever be accorded any legitimacy by democratic states?

Convinced of Israel’s right to do what it likes to the Palestinians if they have the gall to resist the occupation and settlement of their land such propagandists peddle lies and half-truths to brush away criticism of the state’s actions. Hence, the massive wall being built across the occupied West Bank is described rather benignly as the “separation wall”; even “separation fence”, as if 8m high concrete blocks with gun emplacements and watchtowers could ever constitute a “fence” in any normal person’s mind. It is, almost exclusively, being built on Palestinian land; it encircles major Palestinian population centres and somehow – purely for the purposes of “separation”, you understand – manages to put the West Bank’s major water sources on the Israeli side; surprise, surprise. If this monstrosity is really about keeping two peoples apart, why was it not built on the old Green Line, the armistice line between Israel and the West Bank? The answer is simple: the intention was never separation alone, but annexation of as much of the West Bank as possible. While the Palestinian Authority has been kept talking for the past 20 post-Oslo years in the quest for a Palestinian state, the Israelis have been working to ensure that if such a state ever comes into existence it will be a fraction of the size envisaged when the “peace negotiations” began.

That is the nature of Zionism, a pernicious ideology which is both racist and unjust, an ideology backed by governments across the Western world due to the power and influence of the pro-Israel lobby; that influence ensures that Netanyahu can talk about Israel’s “borders and sovereignty” without fear of any dissenting voice emanating from Berlin, London or Washington.

On the contrary, an Editorial in the Washington Post bemoans the lack of any “concessions” by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as if the Al Jazeera Palestine Papers leaks hadn’t revealed the extent to which Palestinian negotiators had been willing to concede on major issues such as the right of return for refugees. The principle is simple: keep repeating a lie often and loud enough and the world will come to believe it. The whole “peace process” has been one long concession by the Palestinians: is there any other example of illegal activity – such as Israeli settlements   by a state anywhere in the world that Western governments have allowed the cessation of which to be subject to negotiations? The very fact that the Palestinians actually agreed to sit in the same room as the occupying power while the occupation is ongoing and as brutal as ever is itself a massive concession that no other people have been asked to make. The Post’s editorial is one good reason of many why the MEMO-PSC event on the media and its bias is both essential and the target of the Israel lobby’s ire.

The concept behind all of this is “exceptionalism”, a euphemism for “we will do whatever we want, to whomsoever we want and whenever we want, in order to dominate and serve our own narrow, selfish interests, and if it means throwing the baby out with the bath water and riding roughshod over the principles which we claim to uphold, so be it”. Exceptionalism is demanded by the Americans and the Israelis in the delivery of their policies. Moreover, evidence suggests that if push ever came to shove, even the US would play second fiddle to the Zionist state; a cursory glance at US foreign policy and its favouring of Israel to no apparent benefit for the people of the United States illustrates this point. The EU is also guilty of this hypocritical approach to foreign relations.

The world can expect little of US presidents or European prime ministers by way of justice for the oppressed of the world, especially if they are Palestinians. Obama and his cohorts in European capitals are in thrall to other interests, despite their grand pronouncements about democracy and human rights. If the latter conflict with their national interests, or those of Israel, they are discarded or ignored, in clear breach of their treaty obligations under the UN charter. The hypocrisy of these politicians is so obvious that it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious, and the fact that Israel is a nuclear-armed state means that Zionism’s warped version of reality backed by Obama et al is a very serious matter indeed. Israel and its supporters have lost touch with reality and they are prepared to lie through their back teeth to push the Zionist agenda. How long are we in the West going to be complicit in perverting the course of justice with our silence?

Courtesy BBC news

Organizers said that, despite the opening of Gaza’s Egyptian border, the territory remained under “unlawful blockade” by the Israelis.

Fifteen ships will leave for Gaza from various Mediterranean ports in the second half of June, a spokesman said.

Israel accuses activists of provoking last year’s bloodshed.

Fighting had ensued when its marines boarded the lead aid ship, the ferry Mavi Marmara, in international waters before dawn on 31 May 2010.
Israel’s assault on the ship drew widespread foreign criticism and strained its relations with Turkey, one of its few partners in the Muslim world.

A four-man UN panel appointed in August to look into the affair has yet to report back.

Istanbul’s central Taksim Square became a sea of Palestinian and Turkish flags on Monday night as thousands of demonstrators gathered to mourn the nine dead activists and condemn Israel.
Bulent Yildirim, chairman of the Turkish Islamic charity IHH which was in charge of the Mavi Marmara, said he had received about one million applications from volunteers wanting to take part in the next flotilla.

“We are not sailing to death,” he told Reuters news agency.

“We are making use of the right provided by the United Nations and Geneva Convention. We are going there to establish a corridor to deliver humanitarian aid.
Vangelis Pisias, the Greek coordinator of the new flotilla, told reporters that Israel’s blockade remained intact.

“Israel still prevents Palestinians from using their sea, and controls and severely restricts all goods entering and exiting Gaza,” he said.

Huseyin Oruc, another senior member of the IHH, said about 1,500 activists from about 100 countries would board the vessels, which would also carry humanitarian aid, medical equipment, school supplies and construction materials, including up to 700 tons of cement.

The activists were speaking to reporters aboard the Mavi Marmara, which is moored at Istanbul.

Ramallah – PNN –On April 22, 16 civilians injured, four arrested as Israeli troops attacked the weekly anti-wall protests in the villages of Bil’in, Nil’in and al-Nabi Saleh, in central West Bank as well as the village of al-Ma’ssra, in the south.

In Bil’in, 15 protesters were injured when troops attacked the weekly march. Today the protest in Bil’in ended the three day conference on popular struggle in Palestine. On Wednesday the village of Bil’in started its Sixth International Conference on the Palestinian Popular Struggle. This year the conference was dedicated to the Italian activist Vittorio Arrigoni who was killed last Friday by a Salafist group in Gaza.

The conference was aimed at providing opportunities to build and strengthen ties between Palestinian, Israeli and international activists working against Israeli “apartheid” as organizers called it.

Today international and Israeli activists joined the villagers and marched towards the wall built of farmers lands after the midday prayers. Soldiers stopped protesters before the wall and fired tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets at them to force them back. People continued forward and reached to the gate of the wall as they do every Friday since 2005.

Troops fired tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets at them, injuring 15 people among them a journalist and three international supporters. Later soldiers forced people back into the village and stormed it firing tear gas at people’s homes; many were treated for the effects of tear gas inhalation.

In 2009 the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled in favor of Bil’in residents and ordered the military to reroute the wall giving back the village half of the land originally taken by the army to build the wall. Till today the military has not adhered to the court order.

In the nearby village of Nil’in, many were treated for the effects of tear gas inhalation today during the anti wall protest there. Troops attacked people using tear gas as soon as they reached the gate of the wall separating farmers from their lands.

Meanwhile two locals and two internationals were arrested when troops attacked the weekly protest against the wall and settlements in the village of al- al-Nabi Saleh. Villagers along with international and Israeli supporters marched to their lands where Israel is trying to build a new settlement. Troops fired tear gas at them to force them back into the village.

In southern West Bank, the villagers of al-Ma’ssara along with their international and Israeli supporters protested the Israeli wall being built on local farmers lands. Israeli soldiers attacked the protesters before leaving the village using tear gas; many were treated for the effects of tear gas inhalation.

By OMAR RADWAN
Courtesy Middle East Monitor

Palestinian Prisoners’ Day was observed on April 17th with a series of events and functions across the West Bank and Gaza. Its commemoration this year stressed how important the issue of the prisoners held by Israel is for Palestinians, even though this matter is almost completely ignored by the rest of the world. There are currently more than 7,000 Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails. Israel would like the world to believe that their imprisonment is justified; that they have been convicted of crimes under due process and are a threat to Israel’s security. When speaking of them Israel often refers to them as “having Israeli blood on their hands”.

However, this is far from the case. When a Palestinian prisoner is arrested, he is kept in custody and interrogated by the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security organisation. Shin Bet officers abuse Palestinian prisoners as a matter of course in order to extract confessions.

Detainees are kept in isolation, deprived of sleep, threatened, deceived and denied contact with their families. They are usually also denied access to a lawyer until they agree to sign confessions. These confessions are later used to condemn them to lengthy jail terms. Many Palestinians in Israel’s jails have not been convicted of any crime at all; they are held under “administrative detention”. This is prolonged detention of a prisoner without charge or trial or judicial review. While it is sanctioned under international law, it is only meant to be used under the most extreme circumstances; strict conditions have to be met before it is used. Israel has abused this provision consistently, using it to lock up thousands of Palestinian prisoners without charge over the 44 years it has occupied the West Bank and Gaza. At the beginning of 2011 there were 207 prisoners held under administrative detention. They included Kifah Qutaish, a 38 year old female prisoner suffering from a rare condition known as Reynaud’s Syndrome, which is similar to gangrene. She was arrested in August 2010, kept in solitary confinement, and subjected to physical and psychological torture. Her condition has worsened because of this and because her medical needs were neglected. No reason has been given for her imprisonment. She was expecting to be released on 5th April and was looking forward to seeing her young son and daughter when she received news that her “administrative detention” had been extended for the third time. Again, no reason has been given and no due legal process has taken place.

Kifah is only one of thousands of Palestinians who have been subjected to mistreatment in Israeli jails. Palestinian prisoners are tortured routinely, their most basic rights are denied, and they often have to endure solitary confinement; there are reports that some prisoners have been held in solitary confinement for over five years. According to the Public Committee against Torture in Israel and the Israeli Human Rights Organisation B’Tselem, the methods of torture include “slapping, kicking, threats, verbal abuse and humiliation, bending the body in extremely painful positions, intentional tightening of the handcuffs, stepping on manacles, application of pressure to different parts of the body, choking and other forms of violence and humiliation (pulling out hair, spitting etc.), exposure to extreme heat and cold, and continuous exposure to artificial light.” Thousands of parents, children, and spouses have been separated from their loved ones after being incarcerated by Israel without a fair trial.

The Zionist state of Israel has been in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967. Over this period it has at one time or another arrested over 650,000 Palestinians – more than 20% of the total population of the West Bank or Gaza. The entire occupation is illegal under international law, as is Israel’s policy of transferring detainees from the occupied territories to prisons in its own territory and of course, its torture and maltreatment of detainees. However, the pressure it has faced from the international community over this issue has been insignificant at best and non-existent at worst. In the meantime, the international community has been preoccupied with the only Israeli prisoner in Palestinian custody, Gilad Shalit, the soldier captured by Hamas in 2006. The European Union has participated directly in efforts to secure his release and his case is well known and publicised throughout the world. He has been made an honorary citizen of Paris, New Orleans and Miami, and his continued detention by Hamas is even given as a justification for the siege of Gaza. President Nicholas Sarkozy of France has become personally involved in Shalit’s case, meeting with his family and condemning Shalit’s imprisonment in the strongest possible terms. French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie was mobbed by an angry crowd in Gaza when she met with Shalit’s family and ignored the issue of Palestinian prisoners. It is a little known fact that it is Israeli intransigence which has kept Shalit in captivity for so long. Hamas has declared its willingness to release him if Israel releases 1,000 of the Palestinian prisoners it is holding, including all the women and all of the children. But Israel refuses to release some of the prisoners that Hamas has asked for in exchange for Shalit, including Marwan Barghouthi, a key leader of the Palestinian intifada which broke out in 2000.

Israel would like the world to believe that Marwan Barghouthi is a murderer but his real crime is leading an effective campaign against Israel’s military occupation between 2000 and 2002. Most of the Palestinians Israel is holding are either totally innocent and do not know why they are being held, or they are only there because they have taken part in resistance activities against the Israeli occupation. Armed resistance to occupation is a right enshrined in international law; Palestinian resistance is, however, often entirely non-violent civil protest and completely peaceful. Israel’s definition of security, its eternal justification for holding Palestinian prisoners, is so broad that it doesn’t even give the Palestinians the most basic rights of free speech and free association. As one Israeli observer noted, were such measures to be applied to the Israeli public, half of the governing Likud party would be in jail.

It is time for the international community to stand up to Israel’s illegal and unjustified detention of thousands of Palestinians. The world quite rightly took note of and protested about the detention of Nelson Mandela in apartheid South Africa, and the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. The Palestinians in Israeli jails are there for the same reason that these leaders were imprisoned in their respective countries; they too refuse to live under tyranny and oppression. Why, then, should Palestinians be less deserving of the world’s support for their freedom?