Ramzy Baroud's Blog

My three-year-old son Sammy walked into my room uninvited as I sorted through another batch of fresh photos from Gaza.

I was looking for a specific image, one that would humanise Palestinians as living, breathing human beings, neither masked nor mutilated. But to no avail.

All the photos I received spoke of the reality that is Gaza today - homes, schools and civilian infrastructure bombed beyond description. All the faces were either of dead or dying people.

I paused as I reached a horrifying photo in the slideshow of a young boy and his sister huddled on a single hospital trolley waiting to be identified and buried. Their faces were darkened as if they were charcoal and their lifeless eyes were still widened with the horror that they experienced as they were burned slowly by a white phosphorus shell.

It was just then that Sammy walked into my room snooping around for a missing toy. "What is this, daddy?" he inquired.

I rushed to click past the horrific image, only to find myself introducing a no less shocking one. Fretfully, I turned the monitor off, then turned to my son as he stood puzzled. His eyes sparkled inquisitively as he tried to make sense of what he had just seen.

He needed to know about these kids whose little bodies had been burned beyond recognition.

"Where are their mummies and daddies? Why are they all so smoky all the time?"

I explained to him that they are Palestinians, that they were hurting "just a little" and that their "mummies and daddies will be right back."

The reality is that these children and thousands like them in Gaza have experienced the most profound pain, a pain that we may never in our lives comprehend.

"I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons," Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor who had recently returned from Gaza told reporters in Oslo.

"This is a new generation of very powerful small explosives that detonates with extreme power and dissipates its power within a range of five to 10 metres

"We have not seen the casualties affected directly by the bomb, because they are normally torn to pieces and do not survive, but we have seen a number of very brutal amputations."

The dreadful weapons are known as dense inert metal explosives (DIME), "an experimental kind of explosive" but only one of several new weapons that Israel has been using in Gaza, the world's most densely populated regions.

Israel could not possibly have found a better place to experiment with DIME or the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas than Gaza.

The hapless inhabitants of the strip have been disowned. The power of the media, political coercion, intimidation and manipulation have demonised this imprisoned nation fighting for its life in the tiny spaces left of its land.

No wonder Israel refused to allow foreign journalists into the tiny enclave and brazenly bombed the remaining international presence in Gaza.

As long as there are no witnesses to the war crimes committed in Gaza, Israel is confident that it can sell a fabricated story to the world that it is, as always, the victim, one that has been terrorised and, strangely enough, demonised as well.

The Jerusalem Post quoted Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on January 15.

"Livni said that these were hard times for Israel, but that the government was forced to act in Gaza in order to protect Israeli citizens.

"She stated that Gaza was ruled by a terrorist regime and that Israel must carry on a dialogue with moderate sources while simultaneously fighting terror."

The same peculiar message was conveyed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as he declared his one-sided ceasefire on January 17.

Never mind that the "terrorist regime" was democratically elected and had honoured a ceasefire agreement with Israel for six months, receiving nothing in return but a lethal siege interrupted by an occasional round of death and destruction.

Livni is not as perceptive and shrewd as the US media fantasises. Blunt-speaking Ehud Barak and stiff-faced Mark Regev are not convincing men of wisdom. Their logic is bizarre and wouldn't stand the test of reason.

But they have unfettered access to the media, where they are hardly challenged by journalists who know well that protecting one's citizens doesn't require the violation of international and humanitarian laws, targeting medical workers, sniper fire at children and demolishing homes with entire families holed up inside. Securing your borders doesn't require imprisoning and starving your neighbours and turning their homes to smoking heaps of rubble.

Olmert wants to "break the will" of Hamas, i.e. the Palestinians, since the Hamas government was elected and backed by the majority of the Palestinian people.

Isn't 60 years of suffering and survival enough to convince Olmert that the will of the Palestinians cannot be broken? How many heaps of wreckage and mutilated bodies will be enough to convince the prime minister that those who fight for their freedom will either be free or will die trying?

Far-right politician Avigdor Lieberman, a rising star in Israel, is not yet convinced. He thinks that more can be done to "secure" his country, which was established in 1948 on the ruins of destroyed Palestinian towns and villages. He has a plan.

"We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II," said the head of ultra-nationalist opposition party Yisrael Beitenu.

A selective reader of history, Lieberman could only think of the 1945 atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But something else happened during those years that Lieberman carefully omitted. It's called the Holocaust, a term that many are increasingly using to describe the Israeli massacres in the Gaza Strip.

It is strange that conventional Israeli wisdom still dictates that "the Arabs understand only the language of force." If that were true, then they would have conceded their rights after the first massacre in 1948. But, following more than 60 years filled with massacres new and old, they continue to resist.

"Freedom or death," is the popular Palestinian mantra. These are not simply words, but a rule by which Palestinians live and die. Gaza is the proof and Israeli leaders are yet to understand.

My son persisted. "Why are Palestinians so smoky all the time, Daddy?"

In times of crisis, most Arabs tune in to Aljazeera television. Sometimes it’s comforting for the truth to be stated the way it is, with all of its gory and unsettling details, without blemishes and without censorship. When Israel carried out massive air strikes against Gaza on Saturday, December 27, terrorizing an already hostage and malnourished population, I too tuned in to Aljazeera.

Within seconds I learned of the tally: 290 deaths and climbing, with 700 more wounded, all in one day. But as dramatic as this event may have seemed – the highest Israeli inflicted death toll in one day in Palestine since Israel’s establishment in 1948 – there was nothing new to learn. Tragedies anywhere - natural or manmade – tend to lead to social, cultural, economic and political upheavals, revolutions even, that somehow alter the social, cultural, economic and ultimately political landscapes in the affected regions, save in Palestine.  

I gazed pointlessly at the screen. Learning of the aftermath of such tragedies seems more of a ritual than a purposeful habit. The Arab and international responses to the killings can only serve as a reminder of how ineffectual and irrelevant, if not complacent their timid mutterings are.

Once again the US blamed Palestinians, and the Hamas “thugs” using words that defy logic, such as “Israel has the right to defend itself.” The statement remains as ludicrous as ever, for a country like Israel with an army that possesses the world’s most lethal weapons, including nuclear arms, cannot possibly feel threatened by an imprisoned population whose only defense mechanism are fertilizer-based homemade rockets. While Israel has killed and wounded thousands of Palestinians in Gaza (one thousand on Saturday alone) a handful of Israelis have reportedly died as a direct result of the Palestinian rockets in years. Do numbers matter at all?

European governments chose their words carefully, “expressing concern”, “calling on Israel to use restraint” and so on. Arab governments were, as usual, distracted with trivialities, protocols and easily lost sight of the crisis at hand.

Then, the same, ever predictable outbursts began. Passionate callers from all over the world called various TV and radio stations in the Middle East and shouted, yelled, cried, vented, called on God, called on Arab leaders, called on all of those with “living conscience” to do something. In turn, audiences too cried at home as they listened to the heated commentary and watched footage of heaps of Palestinian bodies throughout the Gaza Strip.

The passion soon spilled to the streets of Arab capitals, of course under the ever-vigilant eyes of Arab police and secret services. Flags of US and Israel, and in some cases Egypt were sat ablaze along with effigies of Bush and Israeli leaders.

‘Rising up to the occasion’ some Arab governments declared, with much hype their intention to send an airplane or two of medicine and food to Gaza, a few boxes clad with the donor country’s flag, flashed endlessly on local media. Meanwhile, news reports spoke of Palestinians attempting to flee the Gaza prison into the Sinai desert. They were met with decisive Egyptian security presence at the border. 

Strangely enough, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas remained faithful to the script, despite Gaza’s unprecedented tragedy. On Sunday, he blamed Hamas for the bloodbath. "We talked to them (Hamas) and we told them, 'please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop", so that we could have avoided what happened."

Was Mr. Abbas informed of the fact that Hamas hasn’t carried out one suicide bombing since 2005? Or that the ‘truce’ never compelled Israel to allow Palestinians in Gaza access to basic necessities and medicine? Or that it was Israel that attacked Gaza in November, killing several people, claiming that it obtained information of a secret Hamas plot? 

Even stranger that while Abbas has chosen such a position, many Israelis are not convinced that the war on Gaza was at all related to the Hamas’ rockets, and is in fact an election ploy for desperate politicians vying for Israel’s dominating right wing vote in the upcoming February elections. In fact, the Israeli design against Gaza had little to do with the ‘escalation’ of the rocket attacks of mid December.

"Long-term preparation, careful gathering of information, secret discussions, operational deception and the misleading of the public - all these stood behind the Israel Defense Forces "Cast Lead" operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip," wrote the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz on December 28, which also revealed that the plan had been in effect for six months.

"Like the US assault on Iraq and the Israeli response to the abduction of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser at the outset of the Second Lebanon War, little to no weight was apparently devoted to the question of harming innocent civilians," said Haaretz.

And why should Israel devote a moment to the question of harming civilians or violating international law or any such seemingly irrelevant notions – as far as Israel is concerned - as long as their “Palestinian partners”, the Arab League, or the international community continue to teeter between silence, complacency, rhetoric and inaction?

By Thursday, January 1, the death toll climbed to 420, according to Palestinian medics and news reports, and over 2000 wounded. A doctor from a Khan Yunis clinic in Gaza told me on the phone, “scores of the wounded are clinically dead. Others are so badly disfigured; I felt that death is of greater mercy for them than living. We had no more room at the Qarara Clinic. Body parts cluttered the hallways. People screamed in endless agony and we had not enough medicine or pain killers. So we had to choose which ones to treat and which not to. In that moment I genuinely wished I was killed in the Israeli strikes myself, but I kept running trying to do something, anything.”

The plot, so unexpectedly, thickened in Iraq on a Sunday like no other. The two main actors - US President George W. Bush, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki – took to the stage to perform another well-rehearsed press conference. The scripts were ever so predictable: Bush to tout the ‘progress’ achieved in Iraq, while al-Maliki to express gratitude for the freedom bestowed on his country. Both men were to caution from overstated optimism, and to forewarn of the great challenges that are yet to come. The two partners were to shake hands, smile and walk away. Things, however, didn’t go according to plan on Sunday, December 14.

A surprise appearance by till then little-known Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi provided a most unpredictable conclusion to the public performance regularly held in Baghdad’s Green Zone theater. Every joint press conference of US and Iraqi officials has, for years, concluded, more or less according to plan. Since the toppling of President Saddam Hussein’s statue in 2003, in a well orchestrated - Shakespearean even - series of events, until that fateful Sunday, few have dared to violate the carefully prepared, monotonous media appearances, which often end with a handshake, unconvincing smiles, and the mutter of disgruntled journalists for failing to land a last minute question.

But al-Zaidi changed all of that when he hurled his shoes at President Bush at the exact moment the two main actors were scheduled to exit the stage - compelling the US president to duck twice, astoundingly escaping the makeshift, but largely symbolic weapon. Truth be told, Bush’s timely dodges, were as impressive, as al-Zaidi’s seemingly impeccable pitches.

Much has been said of al-Zaidi’s daring act, which will indeed secure a permanent footnote in history books for an Iraqi man’s footwear. Stories are told of poems, computer games and artwork idealizing al-Zaidi’s shoes; and a rich Arab has reportedly offered millions of dollars for the pair of shoes that were meant as a “farewell kiss” to Bush. While most Americans are likely to remember Bush’s legacy as that of a man who has guided a nation into unprecedented economic mayhem, Iraqis, and others, will remember him as a brutal, self-righteous zealot, who invited untold bloodshed, humiliation and the destruction of a once a magnificent and leading civilization.

According to the US government’s logic, Iraq is now better off than ever before. As for the millions of lives that have been unjustly taken, and the millions of Iraqis on the run, their plight is a worthy price for freedom and democracy, precious US commodities that apparently come at a heavy price. Americans and the sanctioned Iraqi government are never to blame for any wrong doing. Iraq’s tragedy is always someone else’s fault, but largely the making of elusive terrorists, whose identities and sources of funds change according to whatever Washington’s political mood dictates. The insurgents, as they were called until recently, were initially remnants of and Ba’ath Party loyalists, disgruntled Sunnis, then they morphed into foreign fighters, then they were depicted as al-Qaeda sympathizers, copy-cats, then al-Qaeda itself, then Iranian agents in cahoots with rogue Shitte militants loyal to whatever character doesn’t suit the interests of the US and its allies. New characters were occasionally added to the Green Zone’s ever predictable play, unwanted characters were swiftly removed, and the play’s language was repeatedly rewritten.

Then al-Zaidi showed up and hurled his shoes at a grinning Bush, who just finished shaking al-Maliki’s hand and was ready to conclude his own ominous chapter in Iraq, one filled with lies, deceit, and the blood of many people, in fact too many to count.

As al-Zaidi was being overpowered, then dragged away by Iraqi security - who must’ve tried to impress their American security ‘counterparts’ by teaching the poor al-Zaidi a lesson in good manners, Abu Ghraib-style – the script writers, and stage directors and actors were likely to have been summoned to discuss what CNN described as a ‘security breach,’ but what should be more accurately described as a deviation from the script. Their orders were straightforward and seemingly simple: to create a parallel reality to the anti-occupation fervor and bloodbath outside, by staging a play of few actors that depicts the occupier as a friendly, obliging outsider, violence against the Iraqi people as a war on terror on behalf of the Iraqi people, governmental corruption as a fostering process of democracy and good governance, and so on. Naturally, the moment that al-Zaidi flung his shoes at cowering Bush, a new, although haphazard play was drafted, mixing the painful reality outside the Green Zone, with the comforting, imagined reality inside. If the al-Zaidi episode is to be credited in one thing, it should be for tossing up the terminology of the two stages. Bush was called “dog” by angry Iraqis for years, but not in a press conference. Iraqis mourned their dead, cried for their orphans and widows, millions of them, outside and Green Zone, but never inside. An Iraqi man, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, in a seemingly fleeting moment, changed everything.

What also confused the script is that al-Zaidi was not al-Qaeda, or an al-Qaeda sympathizer, not a foreign fighter, not a member of the dissolved Ba’ath Party, nor was he affiliated with it in any way, and not even an Iraqi Sunni, for any such affiliation would fit perfectly in the political and media scripts that would demonize the man as an enemy of the Iraqi people, stability, democracy, freedom, and the rest of the redundant clichés. Al-Zaidi is simply an Iraqi man who has, as a journalist, highlighted the suffering of his people as politely, ‘objectively’ and ‘professionally’ as he could, and when he could no longer tolerate the lies told in the Green Zone’s ever malicious drama, he scrapped the script altogether, chucking his shoes at the main actor: This is a farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.” His words, although uttered for the first time in the Green Zone theater, echoed the voices of millions of Iraqis outside, who have chanted these words, for six long, tragic years.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

The sovereignty of an independent, stable country that has carried out many constructive moves in recent months and weeks, which could have surely contributed to the stabilization of the Middle East, has been violated, its borders breached and its civilians killed.

But when the country targeted is Syria, an Arab country, and the perpetrator is the US military, then, somehow things are not as appalling as they may seem.

The US raid on a small farming community near the Iraq-Syria border on October 26 is being treated differently than the Russian attack on Georgia in August 2008. The latter was vehemently condemned by every last leading US official, who specifically decried Russia’s violation of international law, laws governing the sovereignty of nations, and the destabilization of a whole region. Few in the US government, and fewer in the ever-willing mainstream media, dared offer any alternative reading to what truly triggered the conflict. For example, Georgia’s initial violent attacks on South Ossetia, killing many Russian citizens and peacekeepers, seemed a negligible fact.

The Syria case, where a dozen US commandos killed eight Syrian civilians, including a father and his four sons, is somehow an entirely different story. Georgia is an ally of the US; Syria is not. Georgia was armed and trained largely by US-Israeli weapons and military experts; Syria is a key recipient of Russian weapons. Georgia was used as another US foothold in an extremely strategic and rich region; Syria is a safe haven for the political leaderships of various Palestinian groups that continue to fight the Israeli occupation. Georgia is serving the essential role of tightening the geopolitical belt around Russia; Syria’s strong relations with Iran, is rather complicating US efforts to tightly control Iraq.

Considering the Bush doctrine - not just that of preemptive war and rationalising torture, but others that rank US interests above international law, and regards US actions with different standards to those of any other nation — one hardly needs to infuse UN resolutions that forbid the sort of action as bombing a quiet village inside some other country’s borders. It is simply ‘irrelevant’, a term that is dear to President Bush, for that is how he wished to delineate his government’s view of the UN for refusing to give him the green light to invade Iraq.

True, the attack on Syria may seem like a classic belligerent military policy, carried out by a president who defines national security as perpetual violence. But there is certainly more to the story that is largely missing from most analyses offered by government officials and in US media.

The Times of London quoted an anonymous US official in an October 29 report as saying: “You have to clean up the global threat that is in your backyard (that being Iraq) - and if you don’t do that, we are left with no choice but to take these matters into our own hands.”

The official repeated the claim that the target was an Iraqi national affiliated with Al Qaeda, Abu Ghadiyah. His real name is Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidh, who “was appointed as an Al Qaeda commander by the organisation’s late founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Of course, once alien Arabic names are offered, then most analysts take such claims at face value. Who is daring enough to question the integrity of that claim altogether, especially as Abu Ghadiyah has allegedly been killed. Thus, Randall Mikkelsen’s Reuters analysis: “The US helicopter attack into Syria this week underscores the Bush administration’s determination to cross borders when it can strike an enemy target, and to weather any international backlash.”

But here is the source of oddity. Syria had recently initiated indirect peace talks with Israel, via Turkey. It officiated its diplomatic relations with Lebanon, raising hopes that both countries might settle their protracted feud that has affected the stability of Lebanon, and more recently of Syria itself. These friendly moves had already inspired even more surprising gestures in Lebanon itself, as the leaders of the country’s main rivals, Hezbollah and the Future Movement, have met amidst smiles and friendly handshakes. More, Syria and Iraq are also closer than ever, to the point that the Iraqi government offered some of the strongest condemnations of the US attack on Syria, using Iraqi territories.

Equally important, is that Syria has been improving its relations with Europe, including its once greatest detractor, France. Not only is the relationship between Syria, its neighbors and the EU significantly improving, but also the type of language used to describe such relationships: endless accolades of Syria’s important regional role in bringing peace and stability to the Middle East and so forth. The European response to the US military raid also highlights the already existing rift between the US and the EU. “France calls for restraint and underlines its attachment to the strict respect of the territorial integrity of states,” read a statement by Sarkozy’s office. Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos of Spain demanded an end to “such dangerous events.”

The claims that US national security comes first, and that Al Qaeda terrorists are infiltrating the border into Iraq, hardly suffice. In recent weeks, US military officials admitted that “Syria has been more cooperative than in the past in dealing with the problem of foreign fighters entering Iraq, and the number has declined over the past year.” The percentage decline of the reported infiltration is so significant that one has to question the military wisdom in carrying out such a raid now, while refraining from doing so in the past.

The Syrian regime is aware of its limited military options, and had opted to choose a calmer approach to mend fences with others, while, at the same time, hoping to strengthen its relationship with Russia, inviting the latter to plant Russian missile defense system in its territories. Naturally, neither Israel - who wants to ensure that the balance of power remains in its favour — nor the US — who wants to keep Syria isolated regionally and internationally, and keep Russia at bay, are pleased with the successful Syrian strategy, thus the bombing of October 26. Indeed, it was a warning to Syria, but considering Bush’s dwindling weeks in office, it might as well be a late warning that would yield nothing but further animosity towards the US, not just in Syria but throughout the world.

Europe has showed greater willingness in recent months to play a larger part in the Middle East's most protracted conflict, that of Israel and Palestine. But willingness doesn't necessarily indicate readiness.

For the European Union (EU) to be truly ready to take on a conflict of such magnitude, it must fully and clearly abandon its old ways of almost complete subservience to US-tilted and pro-Israel stances, and of refusing to treat Palestinians as equally deserving of the same rights and security gladly assigned to Israel.

In other words, Europe would have to function as a truly independent political body, and renounce the damaging policy of treating Israel with utter sensitivity, and perceiving Palestinians, at best, as a people undergoing economic hardship.

True, Palestinian projects funded by the EU are many and far reaching, but while Europe has demonstrated a degree of generosity towards Palestine, it has never had a fraction of the leading role that the US gives itself in the region. This is partly because while Israel mostly welcomes American involvement, it has long shunned a significant European role under various guises and logic, claiming Europe is soft on terror and that the continent is rampant with anti-Semitism.

Israel is, of course, referring to the fact that Europe has been much more receptive to the idea of dialogue with Palestinians, even with groups which are dubbed "terrorist". Public opinion polls in much of Europe have long reflected much greater sympathy for Palestinians, and regarded Israel as a danger to world peace. From Israel's point of view, that qualifies as anti-Semitism.

Thus, the nature and extent of any European role has always been delineated by the US and Israel. If the EU, or one of its countries dared to defy its appointed role, Israel would immediately cry foul and the organization would simply back off. Even when Israel bombed several projects that were fully or largely funded by the EU in Gaza and the West Bank, including Gaza's electric generator, the EU failed to act in any consequential fashion, aside from a measly and ineffective statement.

While Gaza is punished by Israel and others for electing Hamas, and as the EU watches the unfolding human drama, it continues to be Israel's largest trading partner.

But is Europe ready to step up to the challenge of taking over as America's influence is likely to wane in the coming months and years? And why is there growing media focus - especially in Israel - on the rising EU role and involvement in the Middle East?

There are many signs that reflect a clear shift in the EU's level of involvement in the Middle East. Starting in March, several European heads of state traveled to Israel in highly touted and "historic" trips, including a visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

These appearances were followed up by equally important visits by European dignitaries, last of whom was French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in early-October. The number of official statements made by the EU, and the nature of these statements are all promising a different kind of European involvement. Yet again, so what?

Some of the officials used their visits as an opportunity to chide Palestine on violence, terrorism and so forth. Some failed to utter a word of disapproval over Israel, as if a country that maintains a decades-long, and oppressive occupation, as well as a long record of violating international law, can do nothing wrong.

That said, there is no denying that Europe has been more, if not much more sensible in its treatment of Palestine, and not just because of its many vital development projects in the occupied territories. Europe unlike the US, doesn't always view its relationship to Palestine as an arrogant power with a list of uncompromising demands which have to be fulfilled or else.

The US's fundamentally erroneous approach to the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, has created untold animosity towards Washington, and generated a lack of trust that will eventually undermine its position in the entire region - a process currently underway.

Europe on the other hand, still has a chance, and a good one. True, Sarkozy sang the Israeli tune like the "true friend of Israel" that he is during his visit, but he also dared to criticize Israel's settlement policies, even before the Knesset. The EU has followed the US-Israel lead of isolating, and eventually destroying the fresh Palestinian democratic experience, but some European countries seemed willing to engage Hamas, and invite some of their top officials for "unofficial" dialogue.

Various news outlets reported in April that Switzerland had invited then prime minister of the newly formed unity government, Ismail Haniyeh, for his first official European state visit. Norway and other European countries seemed willing to explore various channels of dialogue with Palestine.

Although very careful with his wording, French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, said in a Jerusalem news conference on October 5, 2008: "Officially, we have no contact with Hamas, but unofficially, international organizations working in the Gaza Strip - in particular, French NGOs [non-governmental organizations] - provide us information." His statement was understood as an indication of French willingness to indirectly talk to Hamas, the isolation of which has spelled disaster for the Palestinian communities of Gaza.

It's no secret that the EU is positioning itself to play a greater role, but little is known of what that means. Is that new role orchestrated jointly with the US and Israel, or is it taking place in spite of both governments? The answer would certainly help determine the future direction and degree of the EU's involvement.

If the EU is there to supplement the US's expected absence due to economic crisis at home and endless wars abroad, then little change is expected. If, however, Europe has decided to tackle the conflict as an independent power, separate from the discredited US, then it's an entirely different story.

Just days after the Hamas-Fatah clash last June in Gaza, Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas looked firm and composed as he shook hands with members
of his new emergency government. He made sure his move appeared as legitimate as
possible, issuing decrees that outlawed the armed militias of Hamas, and also
suspended consequential clauses in the Palestinian Basic Law, which had thus far
served as a constitution.

The Basic Law stipulates that the Palestinian parliament must approve of any
government for it to be constitutional. Abbas simply decreed that such a clause
was no longer valid, effectively robbing Palestinians of one of their greatest
collective achievements — democracy.

This system, when truly representative, is indeed precious and meaningful.
Considering the impossible circumstances under which Palestinian democracy in
particular was spawned and nurtured — military occupation, international
pressure, extreme poverty — it was also deeply historic. Contrary to the
conventional wisdom that followed the US occupation in Iraq, Arabs showed
themselves as ultimately capable of carrying out democratic process.

Unfortunately, the achievement of democracy cannot guarantee its preservation.

Almost immediately after Hamas’ sizable election victory in January 2006,
both local and international forces scrambled to suffocate and reverse the
outcome of this vote. Conceited intellectuals wrote about the incompatibility of
Islam and democracy, politicians decried Hamas’ victory as signalling the
encroachment of militarism and extremism, and world leaders clambered to
affiliate themselves with the ‘legitimate’ Abbas, as opposed to the
‘illegitimate’ Hamas. Indeed, it was a mockery. 

For Israel, the clash between Abbas’ Fatah and Islamic Hamas was a golden
opportunity, one that is comparable to the benefits gleaned from another
opportune moment, the terrorist attacks of September 11. The latter was recently
— and not for the first time — described by Israeli Likud leader Benjamin
Netanyahu as good for Israel (Haaretz, April 16).

The Palestinian fight was also good for Israel; no longer would the nuisance of
Palestinian democracy compete with Israel’s self-ascribed “only democracy in
the Middle East.” More, Palestinians were once again depicted as the unruly
mob, incapable of producing responsible peacemakers and creating an environment
of ‘security’, which the state of Israel so often claims to covet. 

As for Abbas and his ministers, they knew too well that the newfound
American-Israeli fondness for them was conditional. After all they are the same
people, holding the same position and playing the same roles that they have
always played. They are the ministers, aides, friends and officials of late
Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who were, like their president,
repeatedly shunned. They also understood well their new appeal in representing
the antithesis to Hamas. Rather than rejecting the role of the stooges, Abbas’
cabinet ministers played along. 

Suddenly the conflict that was hitherto seen as one between Israel and the
Palestinians became one between Abbas and his supporters (Israel and the US) on
one hand, and Hamas alone on the other. The problem as reported in mainstream
media ceased being about settlements, occupation, and violations of
international law, but rather about the anti-democratic ‘forces of darkness’
in Gaza as opposed to the forces of peace and civilization in Ramallah and Tel
Aviv. To re-enforce these highly deceptive images with ‘action’, Abbas and
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated their quest for illusive peace.
This started in Annapolis and was followed by regular, although equally futile
‘rounds’ of talks in Israel. Few expected such meets to yield any meaningful
outcomes; they were clearly intended only to further isolate Hamas and
underscore the Abbas-Israeli alliance. 

In order for the show to go on, Hamas and Fatah will not be allowed to
reconcile, at least not until Israel and the US decide to change tactics. Of
course this doesn’t mean that there is no basis for reconciliation.
Palestinian factionalism equals capitulation in the face of a harsh, emboldened
enemy. Recently we have seen the 2005 Cairo Agreement, the 2007 Mecca Agreement
and the March 2008 Yemen Agreement. But to win the approval of Israel in the
West Bank — and to avoid the tragic fate of Gaza — Abbas is not interested
in the points of agreement, but rather in the points of discord. Aljazeera
reported that Azzam al-Ahmad, the Fatah member who signed the Hamas-Fatah
memorandum in March, was chastised openly for keeping Abbas “in the dark”,
regarding the nature of the agreement. Al-Ahmad insisted that Abbas knew exactly
what the agreement stipulated. It seems that a document that merely highlights a
course of action towards full reconciliation between the two parties was too
much for Israel to accept. Not even the blood of over 120 Palestinians in Gaza,
who were killed in the matter of six days in early March, seemed a strong enough
motive to override Israel’s threats of Palestinian unity signalling the end of
the futile ‘peace process’.

And, of course, there is the money trail. Just days before the Yemen fiasco,
the US had agreed to transfer $150 million in support to the Palestinian
Authority as “part of past pledges to boost President Mahmoud Abbas’
government.” Boost against whom? Surely not Israel.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad reportedly said it was “the largest
sum of assistance of any kind to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority by
any donor in one tranche since the Palestinian Authority’s inception (in
1994).” Heart-rending indeed, Mr Fayyad, but one must wonder how much of the
money will go to feed the starving in Gaza, or rehabilitate the refugee camps of
the West Bank? 

While such noble efforts by the UN’s John Dugard, former US President Jimmy
Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have brought much needed attention to the plight
of Palestinians and Gazans in particular, PA officials are too busy attending
donor’s conferences and issuing empty statements which few even bother to
read. They act as if they are a neutral party caught in the middle of religious
fanatics and Israel. Their fight no longer seems even remotely related to
Palestine or its people. These are hardly the qualities of any liberation
movement or leadership anywhere, in any period of history, recent or otherwise.
Neither Abbas nor Fayyad are likely to be the exception.

I still vividly remember my father’s face - wrinkled, apprehensive, warm - as he last wished me farewell fourteen years ago. He stood outside the rusty door of my family’s home in a Gaza refugee camp wearing old yellow pyjamas and a seemingly ancient robe. As I hauled my one small suitcase into a taxi that would take me to an Israeli airport an hour away, my father stood still. I wished he would go back inside; it was cold and the soldiers could pop up at any moment. As my car moved on, my father eventually faded into the distance, along with the graveyard, the water tower and the camp. It never occurred to me that I would never see him again.

I think of my father now as he was that day. His tears and his frantic last words: “Do you have your money? Your passport? A jacket? Call me the moment you get there. Are you sure you have your passport? Just check, one last time…”

My father was a man who always defied the notion that one can only be the outcome of his circumstance. Expelled from his village at the age of 10, running barefoot behind his parents, he was instantly transferred from the son of a landowning farmer to a penniless refugee in a blue tent provided by the United Nations in Gaza. Thus, his life of hunger, pain, homelessness, freedom-fighting, love, marriage and loss commenced.

The fact that he was the one chosen to quit school to help his father provide for his now tent-dwelling family was a huge source of stress for him. In a strange, unfamiliar land, his new role was going into neighbouring villages and refugee camps to sell gum, aspirin and other small items. His legs were a testament to the many dog bites he obtained during these daily journeys. Later scars were from the shrapnel he acquired through war.

As a young man and soldier in the Palestinian unit of the Egyptian army, he spent years of his life marching through the Sinai desert. When the Israeli army took over Gaza following the Arab defeat in 1967, the Israeli commander met with those who served as police officers under Egyptian rule and offered them the chance to continue their services under Israeli rule. Proudly and willingly, my young father chose abject poverty over working under the occupier’s flag. And for that, predictably, he paid a heavy price. His two-year-old son died soon after.

My oldest brother is buried in the same graveyard that bordered my father’s house in the camp. My father, who couldn’t cope with the thought that his only son died because he couldn’t afford to buy medicine or food, would be found asleep near the tiny grave all night, or placing coins and candy in and around it.

My father’s reputation as an intellectual, his obsession with Russian literature, and his endless support of fellow refugees brought him untold trouble with the Israeli authorities, who retaliated by denying him the right to leave Gaza.

His severe asthma, which he developed as a teenager was compounded by lack of adequate medical facilities. Yet, despite daily coughing streaks and constantly gasping for breath, he relentlessly negotiated his way through life for the sake of his family. On one hand, he refused to work as a cheap labourer in Israel. “Life itself is not worth a shred of one’s dignity,” he insisted. On the other, with all borders sealed except that with Israel, he still needed a way to bring in an income. He would buy cheap clothes, shoes, used TVs, and other miscellaneous goods, and find a way to transport and sell them in the camp. He invested everything he made to ensure that his sons and daughter could receive a good education, an arduous mission in a place like Gaza.

But when the Palestinian uprising of 1987 exploded, and our camp became a battleground between stone-throwers and the Israeli army, mere survival became Dad’s new obsession. Our house was the closest to the Red Square, arbitrarily named for the blood spilled there, and also bordered the ‘Martyrs’ Graveyard’. How can a father adequately protect his family in such surroundings? Israeli soldiers stormed our house hundreds of times; it was always him who somehow held them back, begging for his children’s safety, as we huddled in a dark room awaiting our fate. “You will understand when you have your own children,” he told my older brothers as they protested his allowing the soldiers to slap his face. Our ‘freedom-fighting’ dad struggled to explain how love for his children could surpass his own pride. He grew in my eyes that day.

It’s been fourteen years since I last saw my father. As none of his children had access to isolated Gaza, he was left alone to fend for himself. We tried to help as much as we could, but what use is money without access to medicine? In our last talk he said he feared he would die before seeing my children, but I promised that I would find a way. I failed.

Since the siege on Gaza, my father’s life became impossible. His ailments were not ‘serious’ enough for hospitals crowded with limbless youth. During the most recent Israeli onslaught, most hospital spaces were converted to surgery wards, and there was no place for an old man like my dad. All attempts to transfer him to the better equipped West Bank hospitals failed as Israeli authorities repeatedly denied him the required permit.

“I am sick, son, I am sick,” my father cried when I spoke to him two days before his death. He died alone on March 18, waiting to be reunited with my brothers in the West Bank. He died a refugee, but a proud man nonetheless.

My father’s struggle began 60 years ago, and it ended a few days ago. Thousands of people descended to his funeral from throughout Gaza, oppressed people that shared his plight, hopes and struggles, accompanying him to the graveyard where he was laid to rest. Even a resilient fighter deserves a moment of peace.

Five years after the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, mainstream media is once more making the topic an object of intense scrutiny. The costs and implications of the war are endlessly covered from all possible angles, with one notable exception -- the cost to the Iraqi people themselves.

Through all the special coverage and exclusive reports, very little is said about Iraqi casualties, who are either completely overlooked or hastily mentioned and whose numbers can only be guesstimated. Also conveniently ignored are the millions injured, internally and externally displaced, the victims of rape and kidnappings who will carry physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives.

We find ourselves stuck in a hopeless paradigm, where it feels necessary to empathise with the sensibilities of the aggressor so as not to sound "unpatriotic", while remaining blind to the untold anguish of the victims. Some actually feel the need to go so far as to blame the Iraqis for their own misfortune. Both Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expressed their wish for Iraqis to take responsibility for the situation in their country, with the former saying, "we cannot win their civil war. There is no military solution."

It would have been helpful if Clinton had reached her astute conclusion before she voted for the Senate's 2002 resolution authorising President Bush to attack Iraq. For the sake of argument, let's overlook both Clinton's and Obama's repeated assertions that all options, including military ones, are on the table regarding how to "deal" with Iran's alleged ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. But to go so far as blaming the ongoing war on the Iraqis' lack of accountability is a new low for these "antiwar" candidates.

Is it still a secret, five years on, that the war on Iraq was fought for strategic reasons, to maintain a floundering superpower's control over much of the world's energy supplies and to sustain the regional supremacy of Israel, the US's most costly ally anywhere?

Of course, there are those who prefer to imagine a world in which a well-intentioned superpower would fight with all of its might to enable another smaller, distant nation to enjoy the fruits of liberty, democracy and freedom. But it is nothing short of ridiculous to pretend that Iraqis are capable of controlling the parameters of the ranging conflict, that a puppet government whose election and operation is entirely under the command of the US military is capable of taking charge and assuming responsibilities.

Equally absurd is the insinuation that the civil war in Iraq is an exclusively Iraqi doing, and that the US military has not deliberately planted the seeds of divisions, hoping to reinterpret its role in Iraq from that of the occupier to that of the arbitrator, making sure the "good" guys prevail over the "bad".

The idea of the US making an immediate exit from Iraq or taking full financial and legal responsibility for the devastation and genocide -- yes, genocide -- that occurred in the last five years is simply unthinkable from the viewpoint of the corporate US media, which still relates to the war only in terms of American (and never Iraqi) losses.

There are very few commentators who are actually arguing that the reasons for war were entirely self-serving, without an iota of morality behind them. Would Bush employ the same logic he used to justify Saddam Hussein's execution -- suggesting this was warranted by the Iraqi president's violence against his own people -- when dealing with those responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqis as a result of this war?

And indeed Iraqis are dying in numbers that never subside regardless of the media and official hype about the "surge". Just Foreign Policy says the number of dead Iraqis has surpassed one million, while a survey by the British polling agency ORB estimates the number at over 1.2 million. But the plight of Iraqis hardly ends at a death count, since those left behind endure untold suffering: soaring poverty, unemployment rates between 40-70 per cent (governmental estimates), total lack of security in major cities and, according to Oxfam International, four million in need of emergency aid.

"Baghdad has become the most dangerous city in the world, largely as a result of a US policy of pitting various Iraqi ethnic and sectarian groups against one another. Today, Baghdad is a city of walled-off Sunni and Shia ghettoes, divided by concrete walls erected by the US military," reports Dahr Jamail, one of the few courageous voices that honestly relayed the horrendous outcomes of the war.

Indeed, there seem to be no promising statistics coming out of Iraq. Even under the previous regime and the debilitating sanctions imposed by the US and the UN, Iraqis were much better off prior to the war. Now, Iraqis are relevant only as pawns of endless US government propaganda. From the viewpoint of Bush, McCain and Cheney, they are the victims of Al-Qaeda, which must be fought at all costs. From the viewpoint of Clinton and Obama, they need to fight their own wars and take responsibility for them, as if Iraqi "irresponsibility" is the main problem.

In yet another "surprise visit" to Iraq by a US official, Vice-President Dick Cheney declared that Iraq was a "successful endeavour". Considering the exorbitant contracts granted to selected corporations, the war has indeed succeeded in making a few already rich companies and individuals a lot richer.

Meanwhile, Shlomo Brom, a senior fellow at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Israeli army's Strategic Planning Division, sees things from a slightly different angle. "Any Iraq will be better than Iraq under Saddam, because the Iraq of Saddam had the ability to threaten Israel," he was quoted as saying in the Christian Science Monitor.

In considering such skewed logic, one can only hope that Cheney's successful experiment will end soon, and that Israel's desire for security is now sated. The people of Iraq cannot tolerate any more "success".

When Admiral William J "Fox" Fallon was chosen to replace General John Abizaid
as chief of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in March 2007, many analysts didn't shy
from reaching a seemingly clear-cut conclusion: the Bush administration was
preparing for war with Iran and had selected the most suitable man for this job.
Almost exactly a year later, as Fallon abruptly resigned over a controversial
interview with Esquire magazine, we are left with a less certain analysis.

Fallon was the first man from the navy to head CENTCOM. With the US army
fighting two difficult and lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and considering
the highly exaggerated Iranian threat, a war with Iran was apparently
inevitable, albeit one that had to be conducted differently. Echoing the
year-old speculation, Arnaud de Borchgrave of UPI wrote on 14 March 2007 that an
attack against Iran "would fall on the US Navy's battle carrier groups and its
cruise missiles and Air Force B-2 bombers based in Diego Garcia". 

Fallon is a man of immense experience, having served equally high-profiled
positions in the past (he was commander of US Pacific Command from February 2005
to March 2007). The Bush administration probably saw him further as a
conformist, in contrast to his predecessor Abizaid who promoted a diplomatic
rather than military approach and who went as far as suggesting that the US
might have to learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. 

Fallon's recent resignation may have seemed abrupt to many, but it was a
well-orchestrated move. His interview in Esquire depicted him as highly critical
of the Bush administration's policy on Iran; the magazine described him as the
only thing standing between the administration and their newest war plan.
Further, his resignation and "Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's handling of
[it] is the greatest and most public break in the Bush team's handling of
preparations for war against Iran that we are ever likely to see," wrote
respected commentators and former CIA analysts Bill and Kathy Christison on 12
March. "Gates has in fact publicly associated himself with the resignation by
saying it was the right thing for Fallon to do, and Gates said he had accepted
the resignation without telling Bush first." 

Fallon's resignation represents a bittersweet moment. On the one hand it's an
indication of the continued fading enthusiasm for the militant culture espoused
by the neo-conservatives. On the other, it's an ominous sign of the Bush
administration's probable intentions during the last year of the president's
term. Sixty-three-year-old Admiral Fallon would not have embarked on such a
momentous decision after decades of service were it not for the fact that he
knew a war was looming, and -- having considered the historic implications for
such a war -- chose not to pull the trigger. 

Unlike the political atmosphere in the US prior to the Iraq war -- shaped by
fear, manipulation and demonisation -- the US political environment is now much
more accustomed to war opposition, which is largely encouraged and validated by
the fact that leading army brass are themselves speaking out with increasing
resolve. Indeed pressure and resistance are mounting on all sides; those rooting
for another war are meeting stiff resistance by those who can foresee its
disastrous repercussions. 

The push and pull in the coming months will probably determine the timing and
level of US military adventure against Iran, or even whether such an adventure
will be able to actualise (one cannot discount the possibility that as a token
for Israel, the US might provide a middle way solution by intervening in
Lebanon, alongside Israel, to destroy Hizbullah. Many options are on the table,
and another Bush-infused crisis is still very much possible). 

In an atmosphere of hyped militancy, Fallon's resignation might be viewed as a
positive sign, showing that the cards are not all stacked in favour of the war
party. Nonetheless, it is premature to indulge in optimism. Prior signs have
indicated a serious rift among those who once believed that war is the answer to
every conflict. Yet that didn't necessary hamper the war cheerleaders' efforts. 

Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate -- an assessment composed by
all American intelligence agencies -- concluded that Iran halted its nuclear
weapons programme in 2003, and that any such programme remained frozen.
Meanwhile the "bomb-first-ask-questions-later" crowd suggested that such an
assessment is pure nonsense. Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain
has since then sung the tune of "bomb Iran", -- literally -- and Israel's
friends continue to speak of an "existential" threat Israel faces due to Iran's
"weapons" -- never mind that Israel is itself a formidable nuclear power.

According to Borchgrave, "McCain's close friend Senator Joe Lieberman...
invoking clandestine Iranian explosives smuggled into Iraq, has called for
retaliatory military action against Tehran. He and many others warn that Israel
faces an existential crisis. One Iranian nuclear-tipped missile on Jerusalem or
Tel Aviv could destroy Israel, they argue."

In fact, Lieberman, and other Israel supporters need no justification for war,
neither against Iran nor any of Israel's foes in the Middle East. They have
promoted conflicts on behalf of that country for many years and will likely
continue doing so, until enough Americans push hard enough to restack their
government's priorities. 

An attack on Iran doesn't seem as certain as the war against Iraq always did.
Public pressure, combined with courageous stances taken by high officials, could
create the tidal wave needed to reverse seemingly determined war efforts.
Americans can either allow those who continue to speak of "existential threats"
and wars of a hundred years to determine and undermine the future of their
country, and subsequently world security, or they can reclaim America, tend to
its needy and ailing economy, and make up for the many sins committed in their
name and in the name of freedom and democracy. 

Why did Israel attack Gaza with such brutality? Did Israeli officials think, even for a fleeting moment, that their army's attacks could halt, as opposed to intensify, Palestinian rockets or retaliatory violence? Indeed, was Palestinian violence at all relevant to the Israeli action? Was the Israeli bloodletting in Gaza solely relevant to the Gaza/Hamas context, or is there a regional dimension that is largely being overlooked? 

In an al-Jazeera English TV discussion, Israeli journalist Gideon Levy and al-Quds al-Arabi editor-in-chief Abd al-Bari Atwan attempted to decipher Israel's actions in Gaza which have, since February 27, killed more than 120 Palestinians and four Israeli soldiers. These attacks were followed by incursions and further violence, including an attack on a Jewish seminary school in Jerusalem.

Levy explained that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak wanted to demonstrate to the Israeli public that he was "doing something" about the regular launching of rockets from Gaza. Although Levy wasn't justifying the Israeli government's inhumane and misguided logic, he disagreed with Atwan over the use of terminology. The latter (who is also an outstanding journalist) had asserted that the killings in Gaza represented a form of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". 

Arab intellectuals, often wary of the use of certain terminology - since Western sensibilities don't accept associating Israel with genocide and ethnic cleansing - became less hesitant after Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai warned Palestinians in a radio interview to expect a "bigger Holocaust".

But terminology aside, are we to really believe that the wanton killing in Gaza - a major violation of international and humanitarian laws - was meant to send a message to the Israeli public, or to carry out genocide for its own sake? 

Initially, albeit unsurprisingly, the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas seemed oblivious, and then at best neutral, to the carnage. First, it asked both Israel and Hamas to cease their violence, and then it accused Israel of attempting to "derail" the peace process (what peace process?). Finally, and only after the Vatican, thankfully, decried the Israeli killings, Abbas announced the halt of all contacts with Israel.

A few days later, following a trip by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region, Abbas reversed his position. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman of the presidency, quoted Abbas as stating that "we intend to resume the peace talks with Israel which reserve the aim of ending the occupation". 

Considering the heavy toll that Palestinians endured by a deliberate Israeli attempt to cause a "bigger holocaust", Abbas' agreement to the resumption of futile chats with the same men who ordered the death of scores of his people is a mockery to say the least. 

While Palestinian, Israeli and international responses to violence remain predictable, this view still doesn't explain the timing or the underlying objectives.

In my view, historically, Israel's behavior, regardless of its outcome, is always politically motivated, and it never fails to keep a regional picture in mind.

There are two lines of military logic that Israel resorts to. One is motivated by the "chaos theory", the idea that seemingly minor events accumulate to have complex and massive effects on dynamic natural systems. For example, Gaza might have been attacked with the hope of provoking a streak of suicide bombings that would eventually be blamed on Syrian planning and Iranian financing - thus provoking a major showdown in Lebanon. The history of Israeli-Arab conflicts demonstrates how many major invasions are justified by seemingly irrelevant events, such as the 1982 Lebanon War.

But is Israel capable of sustaining another conflict in Lebanon after its miserable - and costly - failure in July-August 2006?

That's when the US becomes even more relevant. Just as Israeli attacks occupied major headlines around the world, the USS Cole and two additional ships - including one amphibious assault vessel - were quietly making their way from Malta to the shores of Lebanon. The ships were dispatched as a "show of support for regional stability", according to US Navy officials.

With the gung-ho George W Bush administration's time in office coming to an end and waning public enthusiasm for war against Iran, Israel cannot afford allowing the regional setup to be stacked in the following way: Hezbollah dominating south Lebanon, Hamas dominating Gaza and Iran becoming an increasingly formidable regional power.

This leads to the other line of Israeli military logic, the "big bang" theory. The self-explanatory logic of this theory is applicable in the sense that a regional war - accompanied by mini civil wars in Palestine and Lebanon, along with other attempts at destabilizing Iran and Syria - could work in Israel's favor.

Under no condition would the US be able stay out of such a conflict (considering its regional interests, allies and own war in Iraq). Revelations of the sinister role played by the Bush administration in organizing and provoking a civil war among Palestinians shows the extent to which Bush is willing to go to achieve Israel's objectives. More, it shows the willingness of various Arab and Palestinian players to readily participate in the bloody and costly US-Israeli ventures.

With all due respect to Levy and Atwan, I think Israel's main aim was neither to send a message to its public nor to commit genocide - though these are not unreasonable possibilities. Indeed, the majority of the Israeli public, according to a Tel Aviv University poll, wished that their government would negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas, as bombs were falling atop the hapless Gaza residents.

The facts - as demonstrated by the US-Israeli role in the turmoil in Lebanon, the consistent attempt to arraign Iran, and the Israeli provocations and bombings in Syria - all indicate that Israel's plans are regional, with Gaza being a testing ground, and the least costly target to isolate and brutalize. Already a massive concentration camp with a largely starving population, Gaza has provided Israel with a perfect opportunity to start sending stern messages to the other players in the region.

Death hovered over Gaza long before locally-made Palestinian rockets struck near the Israeli southern town of Sderot on February 27, killing Roni Yechiah and sparking an Israeli ‘retaliation’ that has already claimed over 120 Palestinian lives.

Yechiah’s death was actually the first of its kind in nine months, and understandably so. The crude Palestinian rockets were often criticised even by Palestinians as useless in the tit-for-tat style of war underway, while easily used by Israeli officials as a cacus belli, or at least as an excuse for keeping Gaza ‘contained’, besieged and on the brink of starvation.

For Israel the rockets are important as a pretext to maintain a state of siege against Hamas, and a low-intensity warfare that creates permanent distraction from the confiscation of Palestinian land and the expansion of illegal settlements – and also as justification for the slow moving ‘peace process’.

However, while pro-Israeli pundits in the US and elsewhere are prepared to defend Israel’s actions, many Israelis are no longer buying into their government’s pretexts.

According to a recent Tel Aviv University Poll, cited by the Israeli daily Haaretz on February 27, “sixty-four per cent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza towards a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit."

The mayor of the Israeli town of Sderot – which borders Gaza and is the main target of rockets – had also told the British Guardian on February 23, "I would say to Hamas, let's have a ceasefire. Let's stop the rockets for the next 10 years and we will see what happens."

Hamas was actually first to issue calls of ceasefire. In fact, for years it has held true to a self-declared abstention from carrying out any suicide bombings inside Israel.

Meanwhile, the uneven numbers of casualties speak volumes.

While Yechiah’s death is tragic, he was the “first person killed by rocket attacks from Gaza since May 2007, and the fourteenth overall since the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian armed clashes in September 2000,” according to a Human Rights Watch Press release on February 29, citing Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem.

B’Tselem reported that “1,259 of the 2,679 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip (since September 2000) were not participating in hostilities when they were killed, and 567 were minors.”

According to news agencies’ report published in Al-Arabiya website, as of February 22, 190 Palestinians were killed since the resumption of the peace process in Annapolis last November. That number received a major boost when the Israeli army escalated its attacks against the Gaza Strip, killing 34 Palestinians in 48 hours between February 27 and 28, and over 60 on March 1 alone, not counting several other Palestinians killed in the West Bank during the same period.

Despite the facts, Israel’s actions are repeatedly accepted by most media as a legitimate ‘response’ to Palestinian violence.

In an article published days before Yechiva’s death, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the death of three Palestinians who were killed by Israeli tank missile. The men were picnicking at the time, according to eyewitness accounts. However, the article seemed to report an entirely different story, featuring a photo of a Palestinian rocket that hit an empty field. “Deadly rain,” read the caption, conveniently forgetting that the rockets had not caused any deaths. The article also undermined the fact that the killed Palestinians had been picnicking, citing this as yet another Palestinian ‘claim’. 

Donald Macintyre of the British Independent, who is usually much more objective than his counterparts elsewhere, reported on the killing of four Palestinian children: “Four boys playing football have been killed in Gaza by Israeli air strikes...as Israel responded to the death of a man from a barrage of rocket attacks with a bloody escalation of violence.”

The perpetuation of the idea of Israel always ‘responding’ to events and never initiating them is indeed unfair.

When the utter desperation of Gazans forced them to storm massive walls separating them from Egypt in search of food and medicines, their cry fell largely on deaf ears. Palestinians were herded back into Gaza, and the border was sealed once more, followed by an escalation of troop levels alongside it (reportedly beyond those set in a 30-year-old peace accord).

Besieged, browbeaten and starved — in a way that all major human rights groups have decried as illegal and inhumane — Palestinians are told to expect more of the same. Only this time the terminology used is much more frightening. Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai threatened Palestinians in the Gaza strip with a ‘holocaust’, stating that, “the more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah (Hebrew term of Holocaust) because we will use all our might to defend ourselves."

Since the Nazi Holocaust, the Hebrew term has been used almost exclusively to describe the tragic event. While many media commentators jumped to limit the damage caused by Vilnai’s revelation, the acknowledgment of the Israel-imposed crisis on Palestinian – and the term ‘bigger’ in particular – is but another fleeting reminder of the horrors under which Gaza lives, and Gaza alone is blamed for.

As Palestinians hurriedly buried their dead, US and Israeli celebrities — including Sylvester Stallone, John Voight and Paula Abdul — rallied at an LA benefit concert for Sderot.

Speaking via Satellite, Clinton, McCain and Obama also expressed their unquestionable allegiance to Israel, as if only Israel’s dead counted, only Israel’s security mattered. Clinton – as the other presidential contenders — received another golden opportunity to express her ‘unwavering commitment’ to Israel.

When will US officials begin to acknowledge that both Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights and equal responsibilities?

When will the media begin to provide the needed context and stop manipulating terms and numbers in such a way that the Palestinians are always at fault?  When will we all accept that military occupation and state-sponsored terror beget violence and breed more terror, and how this will always be the case in Palestine – as anywhere else — as long as the circumstances remain unchanged? 

Time is running out for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Although both men are still committed to their risky venture of marginalising Hamas at any cost, the latter’s obduracy and recent events in Gaza point to the inescapable conclusion — the undertaking was doomed from the start.

For Olmert the issue demographics remains. He told Israeli daily Ha’aretz in an interview published in November 2007 that if it didn’t agree to an independent Palestinian state, Israel would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished”. The Apartheid analogy is of course not a new one. Leading South Africans themselves were the first to make the comparison, and Israel’s history of aiding and abetting the infamous Apartheid South African governments is no secret either.

But Olmert’s belated rude-awakening aside, it is Mahmoud Abbas who is running out of options. Unlike Olmert, Abbas has no real, measurable powers. For one, his popularity amongst his own people has never been high. Past quarrels with late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat during the early years of the Palestinian Uprising singled Abbas out at an untrustworthy opportunist. Late professor Edward Said once called him ‘moderately corrupt.’ The formidable intellectual died before seeing the moderate corruption of Abbas morphing into a wholesale onslaught on democracy, freedom and every noble principle the Palestinians ever fought for. I wonder what Said would have said after seeing the people of Gaza suffering beyond comprehension while Abbas and Olmert meet in the latter’s Jerusalem residence, exchanging words of praise and vowing their undying commitment to ‘peace’.

A photo released by the Israeli government Press office on February 19 showed both leaders leaving another futile meeting in Jerusalem, with Olmert — aware of the cameras flashing all around them — holding an umbrella for the widely grinning Abbas. The post card-like scenario is of course part of the continuing charade of peace talks, deadlines and deadline extensions, interrupted by temporary quarrels, which are sorted out by US envoys before resuming more talks.

But how long can Abbas and Olmert carry on with this charade?

For Olmert, the objective and endgame are clear: stall until a ‘solution’ can be finalised and imposed on the Palestinians. This in turns depends on the finalisation of the construction of the illegal settlements, the wall and the network of Jewish-only bypass roads in Occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank. However, Olmert’s poor standing among the Israeli public and the aforementioned ‘demographic threat’ will not make it possible for him to stall indefinitely. Still, with the US’ record of unconditionally backing Israeli policies, Olmert will remain in a relatively safe spot, regardless of which major presidential candidate goes on to claim the White House.

One can hardly say the same about Abbas. His usefulness for Israel, and thus the US administration, is entirely dependent on his level of ‘cooperation’, which essentially means ensuring Palestinian disunity, fighting Hamas, and remaining a pawn in the US’ imaginative view of the entire region (whereby ‘moderates’ stand united against ‘extremists’ and ‘rejectionists’).

Yet, unlike other Arab ‘moderates’, Abbas lacks all leverage. He ‘presides’ over an ever shrinking entity, itself under military occupation. Many of his people regularly accuse him of ‘treason’, or at best, of ‘selling out’. On top of this, his party is falling apart. Mohammed Dahlan is already acting with the air of presidency. Now based in Egypt, he has been gathering support for himself amidst scattered talks about his desire to form an alternative party to Fatah.

Worse yet, Mohamed Nazzal, a visible member of Hamas’ political bureau in Damascus told Aljazeera.net on February 19 that despite Hamas’ insistence on the inclusion of Marwan Barghouti (a leading Fatah figure who is greatly supported by the movement’s youth and strongly disliked by the old guard) in any future prisoner swaps, Israel has removed the latter’s name from the list, at Abbas’ behest.

Abbas’ lack of any meaningful political vision is also promoting other members of his team to speak of political programmes entirely inconsistent with his own style. Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee told Reuters in an interview on February 20 — views which he repeated to AFP and Palestinian radio in Arabic — what Palestinians should consider should talks continue to falter. “If things are not going in the direction of actually halting settlement activities, if things are not going in the direction of continuous and serious negotiations, then we should take the step and announce our independence unilaterally.”

Abbas’ answer was his intent to continue negotiating, and that he was “optimistic and hopeful.”

It’s unclear where from Abbas’ hope originates. He stands on very shaky grounds, not only in his conditional relationship with Israel, the US and his own party, at home and abroad, but with Hamas as well. His earlier rhetoric about Hamas’s ties to Al Qaeda and the ‘forces of darkness’ are softening, but he knows he has no mandate to reach out to his opponents. But it is increasingly clear to the world that isolating Hamas means the continuation of Gaza’s mass hunger and suffering. This is so extreme that even Europeans are reportedly rethinking their stance on Hamas, which the EU had deemed ‘terrorist’.

If Abbas, however, tried to rethink his relations with Hamas, he would be abandoned by Israel and the US, and might find himself a victim of a calculated coup led by his party’s strongmen. If he continues with the charade of endless and futile talks with Israel, the patience of his people would eventually run out. Considering all of this — Abbas’ shared responsibly for the plight of Gaza, his anti-democratic legacy and his inability to reunite his faltering party — the president seems condemned to a lose-lose scenario, one which would take no less than a miracle to put right.

We know well who killed the top Hezbollah commander, Imad Mugniyah on Feb 12th in Damascus.

While in the US media, only journalists like Seymour Hersh will have the nerve to point out the obvious, the Israeli media has not shied away from evidence of the Israeli intelligence’s involvement in this well-calculated assassination.

A major Israeli daily newspaper Maariv shared the views of many others when it concluded that: “Officially, Israel yesterday denied responsibility for the killing. But experts say the brilliant execution of the attack was characteristic of the Mossad.”

The Financial Times reported on the “triumphant mood” of the Israeli Press which hailed “the demise of one the country’s most feared adversaries” and quoted an Israeli paper stating “the account is settled.”

The Financial Times also quoted a most telling analysis offered by one Israeli commentator. “Mugniyah’s assassination is perhaps the hardest blow Hezbollah has taken to this day. Not just because of his operational abilities, his close ties to the Iranians, and the series of successful terror attacks that he carried out. But because he was a symbol, a legend, a myth.”

Donald Rumsfeld is no longer in public eye but his wisdom lives on. “We also know there are known unknowns,” he once told perplexed reporters. Precisely, the unknown known is that the Israeli Mossad killed Mugniyah, and killed him for specific political reasons, at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government’s point of view.

Let’s first look at the timing.

President Bush’s second term in office will expire in one year. For the president who has unconditionally rubber-stamped Israeli policies, one year is not enough to set long-term goals, but it’s enough to ignite chaos.

"If you want chaos, then we welcome chaos. If you want war, then we welcome war. We have no problem with weapons or with rockets which we will launch on you." These were the words of Lebanon’s MP Walid Jumblatt of the ruling March 14 Coalition, directed at the Hezbollah-led opposition a few days prior to the third year anniversary of Rafiq Hariri’s assassination. Considering the military strength of Hezbollah within Lebanon, it isn’t difficult to guess where the MP’s rockets would come from.

Indeed, the internal disunity and open hostility – notwithstanding the political impasse over the future of the country’s parliamentary and governmental organisation -- all point at the readiness of Lebanon to descend into chaos. This is good news for Israel and the Bush administration. A civil war could achieve what Israel’s botched, illegal war of 2006 could not.

The 34-day war, celebrated by Hezbollah as a victory, was a massive setback to Israel’s regional designs and to those who wanted Hezbollah removed from the country’s political equation. The war backfired, achieving the exact opposite: Hezbollah emerged triumphant. More recently, Israel’s own investigation into the war admitted, if somewhat circuitously, Israel’s defeat.

The Winograd Commission’s report indicted the army, and largely absolved Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It described the war’s failure as a “serious missed opportunity.” The report didn’t chastise war, but decried its lack of effectiveness and poor execution.

How could Olmert correct the mistakes of war without leading another?

And what a better timing for war if not at a moment when Hezbollah and its rivals in Lebanon are engaged in one of their own?

But the assassination of a high profiled person like Mugniyah was not merely an opportunity to boast over a classic Mossad operation. It was a major ingredient in a larger scheme, the end result of which is maybe war with both Lebanon and Syria – with the hope of getting Iran involved.

Israel didn’t hide its disappointments from the US’ National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran is no longer in the nuclear weapons manufacturing business. It simply meant that the US will not attack Iran at this time. But for Israel, “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” – another Rumsfeld quote. Fearing that unchecked Iran could dominate the region, Israel, with Bush’s green light, is now ready for escalation.

Israel officials and pundits – and their friends in the US government and media – are building a case for a confrontation with Iran. In a recent trip to Germany, after talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Olmert was “sure” of Iran developing nuclear weapons. “The Iranians are moving forward with their plans to create a capacity for non-conventional weapons,” he told reporters.

Israel, however, is neither capable, nor willing to face Iran in a conventional war.

For Israel’s scheme to succeed, the internal conflict in Lebanon must escalate and internal cohesion must not be achieved, a mission entrusted to the ‘mysterious’ car bombings that have been blamed squarely on Syria and its Lebanese allies.

By gloating, yet without revealing much about the assassination of Mugniyah, Israeli commentators might have lost sight of the great gamble of their government. Hezbollah’s response, articulated by their leader Hassan Nasrallah, was a vow for an ‘open’ war. The group will most likely avoid border clashes, and take the war against Israel to the international arena, like Israel has. And like Israel, it may gloat but officially refrain from sponsoring whatever operations it carries out.

As the race for the United States presidential nominations progresses, the stances of and attitudes towards both Republican and Democratic candidates continue to bring up causes for concern, in terms of their past behaviour, current appeal and general trustworthiness.

Republican Mitt Romney's exit has practically assured Senator John McCain's victory in his party. While we might expect McCain's narrow-mindedness and pro-war rhetoric to make him an uncontested darling of conservatives, the doubts that remain about his credibility -- and the seemingly absurd accusations by some that he is more liberal than Democratic liberals -- highlight two disturbing trends.

The first is the extent of the moral corruption among many Republicans that would enable viewing McCain as a liberal. Then again it might be a fair assessment in the context of Armageddon enthusiast, Mike Huckabee, surpassing expectations on Super Tuesday. The rise of the former Arkansas governor -- highlighting the growing power of fundamentalist evangelical Christians -- should have been picked up as an alarming trend by Americans, but the media was largely unmoved.

The second is that making such comparisons between McCain and Democratic nominees doesn't necessarily point to a lack of judgement in characters. Clinton's hawkish foreign policy views would indeed qualify her as a faithful follower of the warmongering policies of Bush himself.

On the Democratic side, Super Tuesday only served to confirm Barack Obama's recent gains. After the vote count, Clinton, who was previously seen as the uncontested frontrunner was now conceivably the underdog. True, the numbers of delegates' votes garnered by both nominees is too close to place either on top, but Obama's speed in squashing Clinton's lead in national polls and his fundraising ability should be a cause for great concern in the Clinton camp.

Naturally, as both nominees will vie for as many votes as possible in the next round, charm and charisma alone can no longer suffice. The sizeable dilemma is that Obama and Clinton elections programmes are in many ways only superficially different.

Both nominees claim to be establishment nominees. Clinton appeals to an older generation by virtue of her "experience". Obama appeals to the impressionable young, who have been taught political correctness early in life, and who are eager for new language and a new approach.

Obama's record is certainly more honourable than Clinton's. His genuine involvement in community activism at a young age and his anti-war stance during his Senate years point at a certain degree of moral clarity, a rare quality in Washington indeed.

But both nominees walk a very fine line. Aside from the Iraq issue -- Obama voted against the war while Clinton voted for it -- the remaining differences are not significant enough to be exploited by either to guarantee the decisive victory needed before the August Democratic Convention. If neither have enough votes to become the uncontested nominee, the party's more influential delegates -- the super-delegates -- will have the final say, a worst-case scenario that could compromise the very democratic nature of the entire process.

There is a good chance that both candidates will avoid an all-out war over issues that are significant concerns for most Americans. While race and gender are supposedly defining issues for most voters, the fact that Clinton is a woman, and Obama is African-American does not mean they represent the interests of their respective group. Moreover, neither Obama wishes to be defined solely by his colour nor Clinton by her gender.

The Iraq war will most likely define President Bush's legacy. Moreover, once the presidential candidates for both parties are determined, the war will probably position itself as the lead point of contention. Senator McCain is already gearing up for the anticipated fight over war with the democrats. In Norfolk, Virginia, he attacked Obama and Clinton for wanting to set dates for withdrawal from Iraq. "I believe that would have catastrophic consequences. I believe that Al-Qaeda would trumpet to the world that they had defeated the United States of America, and I believe that therefore they would try to follow us home."

McCain -- presumably a "war hero" -- realises that the disastrous Iraq war is most likely to be his campaign's weak point, and the faltering economy will not divert attention from it. In fact, in the minds of many Americans, both issues are linked. According to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll after Super Tuesday, the majority of Americans believe that the best way to escape recession is to pull out of Iraq.

If the Iraq debate has indeed emerged as the most significant in coming months, the chances are Obama will have the upper hand. But Obama's anti-war stance has become a source of concern to Israel, whose "pro-Israel" camp in the US remains too significant to overlook. Justin Elliot, writing for Mother Jones, discussed Obama's challenges in putting that group at ease. After all the man is black, his middle name is "Hussein" and has a few "slips" of a tongue on his record -- notwithstanding his statement last March that "no one has suffered more than the Palestinian people," which he grossly reinterpreted later.

MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish advocacy group, told Elliot, "the more right-wing segments of the Jewish community are the least likely to be comfortable with an African-American president."

To prove them wrong, Obama sent a letter to the US ambassador at the Security Council demanding that the council "should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel... If it cannot... I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all." He also claimed to understand why Israel was "forced" to impose a siege on Gaza, a siege that human rights organisations have held responsible for causing mass starvation and unparalleled catastrophe.

What's important about Obama's dramatic shift is that he has proven to be just as self-serving and easily manipulated as the rest. If he can so readily support the starvation of 1.5 million people, who is to guarantee that he will not renounce his moral stances on issues pertaining to Iraq, Iran, and indeed America itself?