|
October 9, 2002 Opinion Editorials |
|||||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
|
Palestinians are not
alone LONDON, 9 October — The Palestinians are no longer alone; Israel,
despite the craven intimidation of some of its supporters, has ceased to
be immune from truthful media criticism. Edward Said once asked who, if
not the writer, will “defeat the imposed silence and normalized quiet of
power”. Ghada Karmi is such a writer. Her book In Search of Fatima: A
Palestinian story, to be published this month by Verso, is one of the
finest, most eloquent and painfully honest memoirs of the Palestinian
exile and displacement, which Western power and its creature, Israel, have
“normalized”. As a child in British Mandated Palestine, Ghada Karmi watched Jewish
terrorists create the climate of fear and terror that gave Palestinian
families the choice of fleeing or expulsion. She notes the irony that the
word “terrorist” was invented by the British to describe the Jewish
Irgun and the Stern Gang and its killers, two of whom became prime
ministers of Israel. Her family came as refugees to Britain, settling in, of all places,
Jewish Golders Green. A few years ago, she looked for her home in
Jerusalem and found in its place a kindergarten for religious Israelis.
Everything of her childhood was gone, as if it had been airbrushed. “The
scene could have come from the Orthodox Jewish part of Golders Green,”
she wrote. “Unutterably dismayed, I walked back and stood staring at
what had been the site of our house. I squeezed my eyes shut to banish the present from my consciousness and
recall the memories of childhood, the echoes of laughter and the scents
and sounds which had been homely and familiar. But I could not. Flotsam
and jetsam, I thought, that’s how we ended up, not a stick or stone to
mark our existence. No homeland, no reference point, only a fragile,
displaced and misfit Arab family in England to take on those crucial
roles.” The “quiet of power” is no more; the Palestinians, having fought
back, are no longer alone. Last Saturday, up to 400,000 people filled much
of central London calling for justice for them, and in opposition to the
proposed criminal attack on Iraq. The two are linked; only the vintage of
the imperial regime in Whitehall is different. At the Israeli Ministry of Truth on Palestine, and its branches in
America and this country, there is panic, which is understandable. Until
recently, a Zionist narrative has dominated much of the region’s
historiography in the west; and Israel’s immunity from truthful media
criticism has been almost guaranteed. Tim Llewellyn, for many years the
BBC’s Middle East correspondent, has described this, accusing the BBC of
“continuing to duck” its public service duty to explain “the true
nature of the disaster [of the occupation] and Israel’s overwhelming
responsibility for it”. Merely to say that invites intimidation and smear, which, says Yishai
Rosen-Zvi, one of the brave Israelis who have refused to serve in the
Occupied Territories, “has been the huge bluff of the Israeli
establishment. [Every] criticism of its policies is called anti-Semitism,
[when] criticizing your country’s policy is the only patriotic thing
that one can do.” He said this in my documentary Palestine Is Still the
Issue, which was broadcast on ITV1 last month. The horde of mostly vicious, violent and threatening bigots who
assaulted Carlton Television following the film’s transmission made no
mention of him or the other decent, reasoning Israelis I interviewed and
featured. The wisdom and compassion of Rami Elhanan, a veteran of the Yom
Kippur war, who lost his teenage daughter in a suicide bombing, were
ignored. He told me: “Someone who murders little girls is a criminal and
should be punished. But if you think from the head and not from the guts
and you look what made people do what they do, people that don’t have
hope, people who are desperate enough to commit suicide, you have to ask
yourself, have you contributed in any way to this despair and craziness .
. . the suicide bomber was a victim the same as my girl was . . .
understanding is part of the way to solving the problem.” Those like
Rami and Yishai, wrote Miriam Karlin in a letter to the Guardian,
“represent the best of Israel, humanity and true Judaism”. Indeed, most of those interviewed were Israelis, including
“settlers” and Ariel Sharon’s closest adviser, who was given the
most airtime. Not a word about this was uttered by the ranters, who
e-mailed their abuse and screamed down the phone from all points west of
Finchley, including New York and California. Many were Americans, none of whom had seen the film. Analyzing the
e-mails, we calculate that around 10 percent are genuine critical
responses to the film. Most of the rest have a generic theme, including
those clearly orchestrated by a thoroughly sinister organization called
HonestReporting. Following a similar assault last year on the Guardian’s Middle East
correspondent, Suzanne Goldenberg (who was abused as a “self-hating
Jew”), an investigation by the paper revealed a website,
www.honestreporting.com, that gave no address and was registered under a
London name and phone number that seemed not to exist. The site was set up
by a 27-year-old called Jonathan, who pleaded, as cowards in his situation
do, that his name not be published. This organization is now funded in
America by a front called Media Watch International, run by one Shraga
Simmons. Simmons is employed by a group of Zionist fanatics known as Aish
HaTorah. According to David Leigh in the Guardian, Aish HaTorah was
“founded by Rabbi Noah Weinberg, who complains that “20,000 kids a
year” are being lost to Judaism by marrying out. Aish invented
speed-dating — eight-minute sessions in cafés to help New Yorkers find
compatible Jewish partners. They’re widely regarded as right-wing
extremists. And they’re certainly not entitled to harass the media into
what they would call ‘objectivity’.” It goes beyond that. Many of the e-mails are quite disgusting,
containing menacing racist filth of the kind you associate with
anti-Semitic fascists. The murder of my family is considered “not a bad
idea”. I am a “demonic psychopath” and likened to David Irving.
Someone called Arie Karseboom says that I must belong to a Nazi party or
have an Arab wife: otherwise, a film explaining the injustice done to the
Palestinians is simply inexplicable! The distinguished Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, whose works are taught
in universities all over the world and who describes my film as
“balanced [and] faultless in its historical description”, is called a
“pro-Arab dog” and worse. In order to create the impression of an avalanche of complaints, many
of the e-mails run to five or six pages. Not all the writers are American
fanatics. At Carlton’s offices in London, the duty officers have been
abused by those close by. They have been called “worse than Hitler”. I
have had death threats. A Jewish friend says that the Jewish community has
to take some responsibility for this outrageous behavior from even its
“respectable” members. For example, a doctor from Cheshire suggested in an e-mail that I had
been personally bribed by Yasser Arafat in return for “programs like
that [that] encourage the murder of innocent Jewish civilians . . .”
Note the American spelling of program, which indicates that the nice
doctor from Cheshire may not write his own bile. The invective and threats increased noticeably the day after Michael
Green, the Jewish chairman of Carlton, attacked his own company’s film
in off-the-cuff abuse in the Jewish Chronicle, calling it “a tragedy for
Israel” and “inaccurate”. Two weeks on, Green has yet to identify
let alone substantiate a single “inaccuracy”. He should apologize to
those of us who have distinguished his company with careful, fair and
truthful work. His irresponsibility is a disgrace. The Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem has complained to the
Israeli government about its “defense force” targeting journalists —
that is, shooting to kill them, just as they routinely kill Palestinians.
The next step is for the same foreign journalists, who privately express
understanding of the historic injustice done to people suffering one of
the longest occupations in modern times, to reject the craven intimidation
coming from New York and Finchley and Cheshire, and speak the truth.
Israeli propaganda mill is at work again
Israel is worried about its image these days.
With scenes of Israeli soldiers in full battle regalia beating young boys
at checkpoints and bulldozing homes and orchards, the Israeli army is
looking as though it just stepped out of an old black-and white World War
II movie. All it requires are jackboots to complete the parody. They
already have the shades.
US policy unchanged There are a number of things that must be said about President Bush’s
decision to sign the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (also called H.R.
1646). In case you were on expedition to Antarctica and missed the news, H.R.
1646 includes a number of controversial and even outrageous provisions
that were soundly criticized in much of the Arab press and resulted in
bloody demonstrations in Palestine. The most sensitive issue, that received the greatest attention were
provisions in the Act, which would have forced US recognition of
Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem. Specifically, the Act would bring
the US consulate in East Jerusalem under the control of the Embassy in Tel
Aviv, and require all US official maps and documents to refer to Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel. There were other equally controversial elements of the Act that
received less attention. They included: • allocating $100 million in extra US military supplies to Israel;
providing an additional $260 million in other forms of US aid to Israel; • withholding $10 million from US aid to Lebanon; and • outlining a series of sanctions that the President could apply to
the PLO and the Palestinian Authority which, if implemented, would deny US
visas to Palestinian officials and close down the PA’s Washington
office. It is, of course, disturbing that such a bill could be passed at all.
For members of Congress to have done so at this time is more than
disgraceful. Given the profound alienation from and anger at the US that currently
exists in the Arab world, the growing frustration over the continuing
violence and repression in Palestine, and concern that the US is
determined to launch a strike against Iraq, passage of H.R. 1646 ought to
be viewed as criminal. It is, however, important to note that most members of Congress had no
idea what was in this bill. Many voted on what they believed was merely an
appropriations bill to fund the activities of the Department of State and
to pay long owed back dues to the United Nations. Some of the disturbing
sections of the bill were the mischievous work of a few extremists. They
were added after Congress voted and were not known until after the process
was completed. While some of these provisions were a surprise to the administration,
others, like the Jerusalem sections, were known. The administration made its displeasure clear during negotiations over
the bill, but not forcefully enough, it appears, to have dissuaded a
willful few from doing their work. As a result, a handful of pro-Israel
members of Congress were allowed to impose their extremist positions on
the rest of the legislation body. And so late last week when H.R. 1646 finally passed Congress and was
put on the president’s desk, the administration was forced to respond. They did not want to veto the entire budget since it included a number
of important items, most notably the US dues. The decision, therefore, was
made to have the president sign the bill, but to simultaneously issue a
statement of clarification regarding the administrations understanding of
the Act. The statement by the president was a detailed four-page document that
made clear the administration’s rejection of many of the bills most
controversial elements. It began: “Regrettably, the Act contains a number of provisions that
impermissibly interfere with the constitutional functions of the
presidency in foreign affairs, including provisions that purport to
establish foreign policy that are of significant concern. Such provisions,
if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, would impermissibly
interfere with the president’s constitutional authorities to conduct the
nation’s foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and
supervise the unitary executive branch.” With regard to the sections dealing with Jerusalem, the president’s
statement says: “Section 214, concerning Jerusalem, impermissibly interferes with the
president’s constitutional authority to conduct the nation’s foreign
affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Moreover, the
purported direction in section 214 would, if construed as mandatory rather
than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the president’s
constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States,
speak for the nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on
which recognition is given to foreign states. US policy regarding
Jerusalem has not changed.” Much the same is said regarding the matter of PLO sanctions. The president’s statement concluded: “My approval of the Act does
not constitute my adoption of the various statements of policy in the Act
as US foreign policy. Given the Constitution’s commitment to the presidency of the
authority to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs, the executive branch
shall construe such policy statements as advisory, giving them the due
weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should
require, to the extent consistent with US foreign policy.” To the administration the matter seemed resolved. To a distrustful Arab
world it all appeared to be a sleight of hand trick. The explanation was
neither understood not accepted. And, to be blunt, the United States did
not take either Arab opinion or the importance of the matter seriously
enough. For example the president’s statement while technically and
legally satisfactory, was too long and too dense. What was needed was a
direct “We will not recognize this provision, it is unconstitutional and
wrong. Our policy has not changed.” But such a direct statement did not come until too long after the
signing. And by then it was too late. What should be clear is that a real problem exists. It is not the
status of Jerusalem. That, in fact, has not changed. The problem is that the administration does not see how out of touch it
is with an increasingly angry Arab world that is distrustful of US
intentions. Even while the State Department maintains that policy has not
changed, that is of little comfort to an Arab audience deeply troubled by
that very unchanging policy. For comments or information, contact jzogby@aaiusa.org or check the
website http://www.aaiusa.org.
Blair
takes a significant stand on Palestine
Sad tale of partisan American intervention S. Nihal Singh, Khaleej Times, 10/9/02
Few had illusions about the complexity of the task and the opposition of right-wing Israelis and religious fundamentalists on the Israeli side and of organisations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Hezbollah on the other. But the premise of those who tried to make the agreements work was that once progress was achieved in implementing the step by step approach of the Oslo accords, the majority on the two sides of the divide would see the benefits of a negotiated settlement. Oslo began to unravel because the Israelis fudged the deadlines on implementation, aided no doubt by the suicide bombings and other acts of Palestinian rejectionists, and sought to use the process of peace to expand illegal settlements and build new ones. Yitzak Rabin and Yasser Arafat sought to plough the field of peace despite these ominous developments, but an Israeli assassin ended Rabin's quest and Arafat was made to traverse minefields as he sought room for manoeuvre between Israeli and American pressures and the clamour of the Palestinian rejectionists. The latter gained in direct proportion to Palestinian disillusionment with Oslo even as Israelis voted in hardliners in their quest for security. The high point in the effort to find peace was reached towards the end of the Clinton presidency during the Camp David negotiations and, even more strikingly, at Taba. The myth of Arafat spurning a golden opportunity has since then been exploded, and it is significant that president Bill Clinton had to wait till the last months of his final second term to give a serious push to make peace in the Middle East. Thereby hangs the sad tale of the United States' traditionally partisan intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US has strategic interests in supporting Israel in its predominantly Arab neighbourhood, giving it a military edge over its adversaries through military and economic help of very generous proportions. First, Washington co-opted Egypt through a separate peace negotiated at Camp David and America's military strength has enabled it largely to insulate Israeli actions from the ambit of the United Nations and European initiatives. Apart from president Eisenhower's intervention to stop the Israeli-inspired Anglo-French war in the region, no US president has felt strong enough to challenge Israel head on. President Bush senior's decision to withhold housing loans worth $10 billion to make his point on illegal settlements turned out to be largely symbolic. So great is the American Jewish lobby's hold on America's Middle East policy that Capitol Hill routinely passes blatantly pro-Israeli resolutions and the Middle East section in the US State department is, more often than not, staffed by men and women of Jewish faith. In any event, Israel has shown time and again that it can force a US president to do its bidding by going to Capitol Hill and exercising other levers of power it enjoys in the US. Of the two intifadas resorted to by Palestinians, the first was more successful in bringing the Palestinian plight to the world's attention. The second intifada became counter-productive because it gave the right-wing Israelis the excuse to bury the Oslo process, already deeply flawed, and gave the hardliner Ariel Sharon the opportunity to demolish and humiliate the Palestinian Authority and demonise Arafat. The conjunction of stars was favourable for Sharon because he found a willing accomplice in President George W. Bush. The White House first adopted a hands-off policy - in effect giving a licence to Sharon to do as he pleased - and later parked the whole problem through a grand declaration, which amounted to letting the Israelis complete their demolition of the Palestinian Authority. In essence, the Oslo accords were weighted against the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat and his Fatah faction accepted them because of their belief that they would eventually lead to an independent Palestinian state. It was this very belief, shared by the Israeli right-wing, that galvanised the latter to frustrate Oslo. In the end, since Rabin's Labour Party successors could not provide either peace or security, the rightists came into their element and succeeded in wrecking the Oslo edifice. In hindsight, the Oslo process failed because the Israelis, aided by suicide bombers, repudiated the basis on which it was premised. The 'final status talks' were mocked by the Israelis through more than five years of illegal settlement building and expansion and their refusal to undertake the step by step measures required of Oslo. Where do we go from here? The dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has changed, thanks to the September 11 events and the Bush administration's new focus on removing Iraq's President Saddam Hussein by force. The terror attacks in America gave a handle to Sharon to reoccupy Palestinian towns and try to suppress a whole Palestinian population while the Bush war plan, Sharon hopes, will turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on its head. It was the Second Gulf War that had led to Madrid and Oslo. The American impulse to go to war to throw Iraq out of Kuwait - an indefensible Iraqi act in itself - sat ill with Washington turning a blind eye to the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. The Iraqi authorities had highlighted this point as they sought to counter the American-led onslaught. Will the Third Gulf War America is planning to fight finally resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The Sharon game plan seems clear. He wants a pliant Palestinian authority to take charge of as little occupied land as possible, leaving Israel supreme in a new post-Saddam Iraq run by a puppet regime beholden to Washington. There are many reasons why such a plan cannot succeed. Palestinians will never accept a make-believe state and Arabs will rebel at being governed by a new American colonial dispensation. In the near term, Palestinians will continue to suffer as will Iraqis as the American war machine readies for the new military assault. The tragedy will be compounded by the Israelis' failure to secure what most of them desire: peace with security.
Democratic process without military intervention Mushahid Hussain, Khaleej Times, 10/9/02 THREE years after the military coup of October 12, 1999, Pakistan is holding general elections on October 10. These elections may not alter Pakistan's power structure or even lead to a genuine transfer of power. But they will certainly inject a new dynamic with the potential to challenge the post-October 12 status quo. However pliant a politician may be, ultimately the politician is beholden to his civilian constituency and not to his powerful military mentors. And politicians the world over, not just in Pakistan, are survivors who know how to adjust to new realities because their trade is dependent on the art of compromise. It is the men in khaki who find difficulty in adjusting to new situations since their rigid mindset is often averse to compromise, for compromise is seen as being synonymous to retreat. This is the crux of the problem of transition from military to civilian rule. Even today, three years after the October 12 coup, the fact is that all political parties are playing on the military regime's wicket, accepting its ground rules and pursuing the path of power separately. They have demonstrated their proclivity for partisan politicking rather than an ability to unite for their common interests. Compounding this weakness is the failure to provide an alternative vision and world view. Barring the religious Right, none has dared to debate Pakistan's foreign policy post-September 11 for fear of annoying the Americans. Like any government, this military regime too will be judged on its performance. Three years later, what is the scorecard like? On the plus side: Absence of high level corruption, although no change is evident on lower level corruption, which remains pervasive. Opening up of the political system to women, minorities, youth and representatives of smaller provinces. Hauling up Pakistan's powerful and moneyed élite; cracking down on sectarian terrorism. Burying some key ghosts from Pakistan's unsavoury past like the apology to Bangladesh, publication of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report and accepting that the Army Chief has been equally responsible among power brokers for misusing his office. On the minus side: Failing to provide Pakistan with a healing touch, given the 'divide and conquer' approach; Selective accountability only of civilians, and making the khaki appear to be above accountability of any sort. Tinkering with the status quo without really changing it, although the notion of subordinating the bureaucracy to the elected representatives is sound and democratic. People's lives have not changed and neither has the manner in which Pakistan is governed. It remains a one-man-show largely, relying on intelligence agencies for information and decision-making. Harassment of prominent journalists like Hussain Haqqani, Shaheen Sehbai and Amir Mateen, not for anything they may have done but for what they wrote. This reflected an intolerant and vindictive approach. Abysmal failure, in law and order and in protecting people's lives. Although the army prides itself on being an institution unique from any other, its ethos, ideology and policy is largely shaped by one individual who heads it, the chief. Thus the same institution can change colours, roles and policies under different army chiefs. It became 'liberal' under General Asif Nawaz and General Pervez Musharraf, 'radical' under General Mirza Aslam Beg, 'religious' under General Zia ul Haq, low-key under General Tikka Khan and displayed high key activism under General Waheed Kakar. The army has no stated ideology as such, since the chief decides direction and policy. Hence, 'strategic depth' under Beg led to the subsequent adoption of the Taleban as a 'national security interest'. After September 11, the 'national security interest' was deemed necessary by the same institution to ditch the Taleban without batting an eyelid. So the way the army will act is determined less by any institutional traditions and moreso by individual whims and interests of the incumbent chief. The army's institutional character is more administrative and organisational rather than ideological. In the Pakistan Army's history, two chiefs have had a non-establishment mindset and both were 'accidental' appointees, following unexpected events. General Beg took over after the sudden death of General Zia and General Musharraf was appointed after the sudden exit of General Karamat. Both defied their civilian superiors and both tried to alter the traditional establishment view - Beg on the Gulf War in 1991 and Gen. Musharraf on Afghan policy post-September 11. While all coup-makers by definition are risk-takers, Musharraf also happens to be a dealmaker. He is willing to cut deals that give him something in return. He has demonstrated this in his dealings with his nemesis, Nawaz Sharif, through the December 10 exile and subsequent messages to the Sharif family in Jeddah. He also showed this in his dealings with Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in Agra, by seeking a compromise on Kashmir. And finally, this was evident after September 11, with respect to the key facets of Pakistan's foreign policy. But he shares his military predecessors' distrust and contempt for civilian politicians, which also stems from insecurity and fear of the unknown. Hence, the overkill of the referendum in April or the subsequent arbitrary constitutional amendments aimed at bypassing the elected parliament. The real test of General Musharraf's leadership will come after the October 10 polls. Will he be able to compromise with the new realities and cut the 'mother of all deals' with the new parliament, allowing for a democratic process unfettered by khaki monitors? Or will he go the conventional route, fighting a bruising battle for every inch of turf and terrain in a high stake power game destabilising Pakistan in the process? Parting partially with power or even sharing power is not easy for absolute rulers. For all his political savvy and survival instincts,
General Zia failed to co-exist with the politicians selected by him,
ultimately destroying the very system he had spawned. Will General
Musharraf be any different?
A strange case of Jared Israel The Masters of the Discourse would not be what they are unless they
were cunning. Many people arrive to the conclusion that they are misled by
the media, experts and politicians. But what is the true reality? The
Masters provide a huge choice of traps and misleading explanations of
reality, partly true, partly false. Only careful reading allows us to
notice the hidden trap. The site Emperor’s Clothes has all the qualities to pass for an
opposition. They object to the present policies of Bush administration.
They can disapprove of Israeli high-handedness. They show very well some
of the lies permeating the media and politics of the politics in the US.
And only sometimes their words express their true agenda. A letter from a
reader Mr Golub alerted me to one of the traps. A recent exchange of remarks http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/joan.htm
between Jared Israel, one of the Emperor’s Clothes most active voices,
and a reader provides us with unique opportunity to see through the fake
opposition. A reader asks Jared Israel, does not he see a connection
between the war ax grinding of Bush administration and the Jewish lobby.
And the fake opposition voice immediately denies it: “I know many Jewish
people and I can tell you that, regarding Israel, they are mostly
convinced that the aftermath of 9-11 has made things much worse for that
country. Most US Jews do *not* want war with Iraq”. If you believe that one day you will buy Brooklyn Bridge. Most US Jews
THAT MATTER push for the Doomsday. Among them Richard Perle, the chairman
of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, an ex-employee of an Israeli
weapon manufacturer Soltam, and the great supporter of the war, Paul
Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, a leading Zionist Douglas Feith, a
representative of an “Israeli Armaments Manufacturer”, Dov Zakheim,
under secretary of defense, Edward Luttwak, of the National Security Study
Group of the Department of Defense at the Pentagon, Lewis Libby, Vice
President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff and a lawyer for the thief Mark
Rich, Robert Satloff, the US National Security Council Advisor, and the
executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, Elliott Abrams, National Security Council
Adviser, and many, many others. For sure, there should be some Jews
against the war, but they keep their quiet. It is not classified information, spread by obscure sites: an honest
Jewish voice, Philip Weiss, admits in the NY Observer, “Holy or Unholy,
Jews and Right in an Alliance” and they push for War. “What about the
natural proclivity of Jews to be liberals? asks Weiss, and replies:
liberals have yielded authority in the debate. The refusal of liberal American Jews to make an independent stand has
left the American left helpless. American liberalism has always drawn
strength from Jews. Liberal Jews often have private conversations about
the Middle East in which they acknowledge the absence of leadership in the
Israeli government and the desperation of the Palestinians, but they
generally do not wish this to become a public conversation with other
American citizens”. Intra-Jewish discourse became coarsely racist, and
the Jewish Press published an attack on “The Plague of Jewish-Arab
Marriages”, concludes Weiss. So much for the first lie of Jared Israel. But he does not stop here.
He has to dissuade his readers that it is Israel and the US Jews who push
for war. In a stupefying piece of disinformation, he writes: “There is
*nothing* worse for Israel than war in the Middle East. Israel is a tiny
country with very hard-to-defend borders, surrounded by Muslim-dominated
countries with about 50 times Israel’s population . The worst thing for Israel is a war in Iraq because it can only fan the
flames of Muslim fanaticism, which will then be directed at Israel. The US
and England attack; Israel pays”. Well, Israel is surrounded by ‘Muslim-dominated countries’, but
this ‘tiny country’ with the third nuclear potential in the world is
fully supported by the ‘Jew-dominated country’, which happens to be
the world’s only superpower. Though Jared Israel thinks the war against Iraq is the worst thing for
Israel, probably he has in mind some other Israel, as all senior
politicians of the Jewish state, its prime-ministers and ministers for
defense, its spokesmen, official and unofficial, publicly and privately
call for war. An ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky asked his superiors why they were
trying to cause a war between the US and Iraq. The reply was that Israel
does not have the manpower and aircraft carriers to do the job. First
thing said by Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu on 9/11 was their demand to
destroy Iraq (followed by Iran and Libya). Ariel Sharon pushes for war
relentlessly and even now went to Moscow in order to bring President Putin
to support the war. Yes, the war is against true interests of Jews living in Israel. But we
have no voice: our politicians are fully integrated in the Judeo-American
establishment, they get their financial support from the American Jews,
they dance to their fiddle. Our true interests can emerge only if and when
the American Jews will lose their commanding heights in the American
discourse. The third lie of Jared Israel is even more brazen: “The US and
England attack; Israel pays”. What nonsense! Israel NEVER pays. Whatever
happens, Israeli Army’s redeployment or violent attack on Palestinians,
the settlements on the occupied territories or murder of children,
everything is paid for by the people of the United States and Europe. They
paid for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and from a part of Golan Heights,
they pay now for food for the starved Palestinians, they will pay for any
‘peace settlement’ Israel would agree to sign. When Israeli ‘peace
camp’ promotes an idea of some compensation for the Palestinian
refugees, they never offer to pay for the stolen lands and houses they
live in: it is always one condition: “all will be paid for by the world
community”. The bill of Israel is not paid by the US Jews, either: they
are not that silly. The US Jews pay their politicians or threaten them
into political oblivion, unless they pay with the money of American Goyim.
If political considerations cause them to desist, they force the Goyim of
Germany or Swiss to foot the bill. How can a reader become aware of the hidden agenda of a liar with the
straight face? There are telltale signs. He throws “Nazi” at
everybody, from brothers Dulles to your truly. He needlessly invokes the
Jewish holocaust. And whenever pushed he immediately refers to
‘conspiracy theories’. Jared Israel writes to his reader: “If you
see an Israeli plot in Fleischer being Jewish, why not see an Israeli plot
in *my* being Jewish as well?” Well, that is what they said when all the
luminaries of the Jewish America AND of the state of Israel, from Foxman
to Barak, begged Bill Clinton to pardon their crony Mark Rich. The
clear-thinking Jewish American writer, Norman Finkelstein, remarked: “If
the leading Jews act together, should we shut our eyes in despair and cry:
oh no, it can not be, otherwise we shall be condemned as
‘conspiracy-theorists’?” In plain words, yes, Jared Israel, you are
a part of the Judeo-Zionist plot. You provide the Jewish instigators of
the war with much needed camouflage. It is very good that Emperor’s Clothes object to the war. It is good
that they do not support the war effort of the Jewish Lobby. But it is not worth one penny if they do not speak against the real
instigators of the war. It is not the nincompoop in the White House,
neither Pentagon, but the US Jewish establishment, *the Jews that matter*,
push for the war, with connivance of silent liberals. Our only hope was
expressed by the brilliant Canadian Jewish philosopher Michael Neumann:
“Sooner or later, the great white men of America will wake up to their
true interests, and get themselves a new set of speechwriters and pundits.
The Jews will go out of style”. — Israel Shamir is an Israeli journalist based in Jaffa. His articles
can be seen on the site www.israelshamir.net
Sharon doing to courts what he
has done to TV Who doesn’t remember the picture: a Jew is put on trial in Moscow as
a Zionist spy. Family members and friends come to observe the trial but
are turned away. No place left, they are told, all the seats have already
been taken. And indeed, KGB agents have filled the hall early, and with
the entrance of the accused start to shout: “Traitor!” “Spy!”
“Kill him!” The day before yesterday I witnessed something frighteningly similar in
Tel-Aviv. The prosecution’s request to keep Marwan Barghouti in prison till the
end of his trial was due to be heard in the District Court. Barghouti, a
prominent political personality, has been known for years as the leader of
Arafat’s Fatah movement on the West Bank. After Oslo, he participated in
many peace demonstrations. He was kidnapped by the Israeli forces and put
on trial as a terrorist. Gush Shalom activists and others decided to
attend and observe the proceedings. I arrived two hours early, but was not allowed into the courtroom, in
spite of my press card. All the members of the public had been evicted,
because inside a briefing of security personnel was taking place. I had a
peek at dozens of security people and others inside the room. They
obviously were planning what was about to happen. In the meantime, a crowd had assembled in front of the door. The
security people ordered everyone to descend one floor and erected a
barrier at the foot of the steps. Behind it, security people and officials
of the prime minister’s office took up positions. They had lists in
their hands. “Only people who appear on the lists will be allowed in!”
they announced. Who did enter? A number of journalists and TV teams, according to a
list prepared by the Government Press Office (a branch of the prime
minister’s office). A few diplomats and a Knesset member. Apart from
those, only people appearing on the list provided by the “Organization
of Terror Victims”. This is an innocent name for a well-known group: a radical right-wing
body, well organized and trained, that specializes in extremely vociferous
Arab-bashing demonstrations. Often, the “victims” appear side by side
with the rowdies of Kach – an outlawed Jewish terrorist group. The
“victim’s organization” represents, of course, only a tiny part of
the tens of thousands of families hurt by the violence, who belong to all
segments of society. Suicide bombers do not differentiate between leftists
and rightists, Jewish and Arab citizens. Apart from the members of this organization, no one – not one single
person!!! – was allowed into the courtroom. I am a journalist. For some
50 years a have held a press card issued by the Government Press Office. I
am also a former Knesset member. No matter, for two-and-a-half hours I
stood in front of the barrier, crowed in on all sides, unable to move,
hardly breathing in the stifling heat, while the members of the
“Victim’s Organization” passed by me, holding folded posters and
large photos. Around me there were lawyers, peace activists, foreign
journalists and ordinary spectators. In Israel and around the word people saw what happened in the
courtroom: When Barghouti was brought in, the public inside started a
riot, waving placards and pictures and shouting “Murderer!”
“Terrorist!” “Kill him!” It looked like the circus in ancient Rome
or a lynch mob. People seeing this on TV had no way of knowing that this
was a show planned and organized well in advance by the Sharon government. The aim was clear. One of the participants, a man called Swiri,
confessed to it candidly when interviewed on TV: “I wanted the world to
see the victims of this murderer, Barghouti!” Meaning: the participants
in the riot had not come to see and listen. They have convicted the
accused even before the start of the trial. The principle, that every
person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a proper trial, is not
recognized by them. It certainly does not apply to Palestinians. The very decision to stuff the hall with “terror victims”, to the
exclusion of everybody else, amounts to a conviction in advance. The
victims versus the perpetrator. This means that the whole “trial” is
nothing but a propaganda exhibition, a show-trial of the sort that used to
be associated with Fascist and Communist regimes. The pre-planned riot took place in a court. The Court Guard, which
includes many Security Service agents, took part in the organization of
the show, which was orchestrated by the prime minister’s office. It is
hard to believe that all this happened without the knowledge – and,
indeed, the cooperation — of the court. This puts the whole justice system, once the pride of Israel, to shame.
But probably this debasement was inevitable. After the decisions of the
Supreme Court approving torture (”moderate physical pressure”),
exiling and demolishing the homes of relatives of suicide bombers, holding
kidnapped people as “bargaining chips” (Sheikh Obeid and Dirani), this
is another inevitable stage. It adds to the price of the occupation and
the intifada: in this field, too, we are descending into the Third World. Israeli TV channels gave much prominence to the riot in the courtroom,
without reporting how it was planned and orchestrated. And no wonder: what
is happening now to the courts has already happened to TV. Since Ariel
Sharon recently took direct control over the electronic media, everybody
can see the result with his or her own eyes. Like the late Stalin, Sharon
now appears on TV almost every day, speaking at length to the nation. Each
such “event” is meticulously planned and directed by his spin doctors. He appears among soldiers, against a background of tanks, in the
company of children, at meetings of bereaved parents, at memorial
ceremonies. Never with the jobless in Yerucham or the hungry families in
Dimona, who pay the price of the intifada. Every day one minister is invited, in his turn, to a long TV interview,
explaining the government’s and his own immense achievements. For the
sake of balance, a right-wing politician is often confronted with an
extreme-right-wing colleague. Sometimes, but on fewer and fewer occasions, a “leftist” is called
in for alibi purposes, and is allowed to utter a few sentences about
peace, before he is interrupted by angry shouts. What a show! This is how the “only democracy in the Middle East” looks now. Once
this was called a “people’s democracy”. (Uri Avnery, award-winning Israeli journalist and writer, three-time
member of Knesset and a columnist for the Ma’ariv daily, is a founding
member of the Gush Shalom peace movement.)
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |