Ramzy Baroud's Blog

The 25th annual World Food Day, marked on 16 October, was an occasion whose
arrival and passing received little media attention or governmental fanfare.
Evidently, much of the world media and governments are consumed with an economic
crisis of epic proportions, which is perceived in the US as the worst such
upheaval since the Great Depression. In the rest of the world, it's depicted as
the worst economic crisis in recent memory or, as the BBC termed it, "the most
tumultuous times on record in the global financial markets." 

There is hardly any disagreement that Wall Street's woes are manmade.
Regardless of what terminology one wishes to apply (miscalculations, greed, or
wholesale failure in the US capitalist system, rooted in the economic
philosophies of Milton Friedman and his ultra laissez- faire approach), the fact
is the US economic crisis is not a fleeting phenomenon and no quick fixes can
provide a magic remedy. 

In an interview with Fox Business Network, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
expressed regret, unusual to any top US official, for the economic "mistakes"
made and which are promising a global recession for years to come. "We're not
proud of all the mistakes that were made by many different people, different
parties, failures of our regulatory system, failures of market discipline that
got us here." However, he promised that the US "will mitigate the impact on the
real economy and we'll get this financial system working again." 

There is no reason to doubt Paulson's commitment to the financial system. In
fact, when it's the rich and powerful whose wealth and influence are at stake,
the US government, if not most world governments, hold true to their word. While
the IMF had repudiated governments in Asia, Africa and South America for many
years for any slight intervention in their country's economies (for a "free
market economy" has to be entirely unregulated in order for natural checks and
balances to resolve whatever crisis is at hand, they were told), the Bush
administration and leading Western powers moved with no hesitation to
nationalise some of the largest institutions in their own markets. Like China's
brand of capitalism that operates under communist symbols, the US, the UK and
others are becoming increasingly socialist under the banner of capitalism. Of
course, it's not socialism for the downtrodden, but corporate welfare in its
most stark manifestations.

Consider the size of the entire US GDP for 2007 -- $13,800 billion -- to
appreciate the awesomeness of the US rescue package of $700 billion. Still, in
the UK the percentage is much higher as the country's GDP for 2007 was estimated
at $2,457 billion while the government's rescue package is $680 billion. A more
astonishing number: the rescue package for the entire Eurozone estimated at
$1,370 billion. Conventional wisdom, as parroted by almost every financial
expert on most media outlets, states that such lofty numbers are simply a
reflection of the scale of the crisis at hand. In fact, some argue that the Bush
administration's greatest fault is intervening too little too late, by failing
to nationalise Lehman Bros as it did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

It's rather ironic that those who cried foul every time a Third World
government dared intervene in their national economy -- even if to guarantee the
welfare of the poorest segments of society -- said nothing as the US, the UK and
others defied every rule of the free market economy long championed by
neoliberal economists. Even leading US Republicans who chastised "Big
Government" at every turn (especially to block welfare programmes that mostly
benefit the poor) cheered the government on as it moved to bail out the rich
who, as usual, are likely to remain unaccountable for risking the retirement
funds and life savings of millions of Americans. 

A dominant argument to justify government behaviour is, yet again, the trickle
down effect: a term coined by a Ronald Reagan speechwriter that simply means
that what is good for the rich is, eventually, good for the poor. While elites
in every society eagerly infuse such "Reaganomics" at every turn, the world's
poor is yet to feel the trickles, which poses an interesting question: Why the
unprecedented and historic urgency to bailout the rich (for the sake of the
poor, at an imaginary point in the future), while the poor can easily be saved
without such roundabouts plans? 

The fact is that neither America's poor nor Africa's poor are on the minds of
European leaders, nor the Bush administration, as their high officials continue
to hold anxious meetings and offer the most generous rescue packages. If indeed
it's the plight of humanity that is worrying these governments, then maybe they
should consider the following, according to Oxfam, UK: "The number of hungry
people now stands at 967 million. And around 24,000 people die daily of
hunger-related causes. Around 2.7 billion people live on less than £1 a day; up
to 80 per cent of this income goes on food." Care International's calculations
are equally bleak, with 220 million people of the number above on the brink of
starvation. 

According to Oxfam, the main reasons for world poverty are also manmade:
"biofuel policies, high fuel prices, growing global demand, unfair world trade
rules, and climate change." Long before the Wall Street financial crisis, there
existed a much more dangerous crisis, the world food crisis, dubbed a "perfect
storm". The latter is much more consequential for it affected the very lives,
not simply the standard of living, of many millions around the world. 

Barbara Stocking wrote in the New Statesman, "According to the latest figures,
the food crisis has resulted in an extra 119 million malnourished people,
bringing the total to almost one billion -- nearly one in seven people now goes
hungry. This is hunger on so vast a scale that it is difficult to understand how
the world arrived at this point." 

It's very telling that trillions have already been spent to patch up leading
world financial institutions, while out of the comparatively small sum of $12.3
billion pledged in Rome earlier this year, to offset the food crisis, only $1
billion has been delivered. The hope that at least extreme poverty can be
eradicated by the end of 2015, as stipulated in the UN's Millennium Development
Goals, seems as unrealistic as ever, not due to lack of resources but a lack of
true concern for the world's poor. 

Whether the American, European or any other government infused bailout packages
rectify the financial crisis or not, chances are that 16 October 2009 will bring
similarly devastating news about the plight of the world's poor and which is
likely to remain that: mere "news" that requires little action, if any at all. 

One should rightly assume that the weight of the US financial crisis, the full impact of which is just beginning to unravel, and the widening military debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, would compel new thinking amongst leading US politicians. And then again, maybe not.

Aside from tactical and rhetorical differences, presidential candidates and their vice-president-hopefuls are yet to strictly champion and act upon a truly different leadership strategy: Barack Obama’s current foreign policy visions are more or less those of President Bush in his second term. Republican candidate John McCain, however, advocates a less solid and increasingly confusing set of principles: he strives to distance himself from a discredited, unpopular president, position himself as a man of experience and resolve, yet pander to the religious right and defend a hawkish strategy that is no less destructive than that championed by the neoconservative-designed Bush Doctrine, which led to two major wars and a near-complete loss of US credibility and leadership abroad.

More alarmingly however, are both candidates’ choices for their vice president. Obama, who has repeatedly cornered his old rival Hilary Clinton with the tireless accusation that, unlike him, she is a Washington-insider, has chosen Senator Joe Biden, the embodiment of what partisan politics is all about, and someone who, prior to his candidacy, seemed much closer to McCain’s views, than to those of Obama. On the other hand, McCain, in an apparent game of wit, picked Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, a poor choice by any count, simply because he wished to exploit Obama’s fallout with a supposedly disgruntled female constituency following the defeat of his Democratic rival, Clinton.

Back to the seemingly odd choice of Biden. Columnist Susan Abulhawa rationalized Obama’s decision. “Biden, the self-proclaimed Zionist, assuages Israeli and Jewish American fears that Mr. Obama might not be so accommodating to Israel.” This view was corroborated repeatedly in Israeli media, but most importantly by Biden himself in the first vice presidential debate on October 3. To outdo Palin’s passionate answer to a question about Israel, where she asserted that a McCain-Palin administration “will never allow a second Holocaust,” Biden cut to the chase: “… no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.”

The new mantra was sure to work. At least he tried it successfully in a talk before Jewish Democratic audience in Florida, on September 23. According to the Israeli Jerusalem Post, Biden sent the audience to repeated rounds of laughter, then, in a solemn decided moment he declared: "My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head ..I promise you, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama's campaign as vice president if I had any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shared the same commitment to Israel that I share."

Considering the deafening cries for war that emanated from Israel and neoconservative circles prior to the Iraq war - and now against Iran - and the unmistakable disastrous policy that has contributed to America’s largest foreign policy breakdown in the Middle East, one would think that the agents of “change” in this time of political decline and economic collapse would have the courtesy to exercise a level of restraint in their love for Israel, and, for once place the long-term interests of their country, and the world, first.

Following his ‘knockout’ answer, Palin graciously opted out of the who-loves-Israel-the-most debate: “I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that.”

It’s not an overstatement to argue that peace with justice in Palestine and Israel should be the most pressing issue before any future US administration. In order for that administration to embark on a serious rethink with any chances of success in the Middle East, there has to be a complete overhaul in the US’ total backing of Israel, and total disregard for Palestinian rights. But neither Biden and Palin, nor Obama and McCain have expressed the slightest interest in abandoning the current course of action, which has fueled untold animosity towards the US in the Middle East and far beyond.

Unlike the Palestinian-Israeli problem, where both parties are clear on their love for Israel and their total dismissal of Palestinians, the Iraq debate is much convoluted. Republicans continue to push mantras of a victorious America with global military responsibilities. Democrats, on the other hand, wary of the unpopular Iraq war, feel the need to paint a different image, albeit a more confusing one. Yet, ironically, according to Biden: “Barack Obama offered a clear plan; Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops…you've got to have a time line to draw down the troops…we're spending $10 billion a month while Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus. Barack says it's time for them to spend their own money and have the 400,000 military we trained for them begin to take their own responsibility.” Not only does Obama’s plan, articulated by Biden lack clear finality, and can always finds reasons to justify the delay of the promised withdrawal (such as the Iraqis are not taking responsibilities, the Iraqi army is not yet ready, and so forth), it lacks any hint of moral liability. After all, the US invaded, under flimsy excuses, a sovereign country to control its oil and to extend US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Pointing the finger at the Iraqis for Bush-made disasters is highly dishonest, to say the least.

It’s unfortunate that even such hard times as these when America is rife with fears and anticipation, are yet to awaken top politicians in the two leading parties to the urgent need for a different and more sensible course of action in foreign policy. Yet more clichés and more mantras, ones that can perhaps rake in substantial donations but do nothing by way of earnest and decided change, for the sake of America itself, and by extension, the world.

The numbers are grim, whether in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The
Palestinian economy is in one of its most wretched states, and the disaster is
mostly, if not entirely manmade, thus reversible. 

The World Bank made no secret of the fact that Israeli restrictions are largely
to blame, as poverty rates in the Gaza Strip and West Bank have soared to 79.4
per cent and 45.7 per cent respectively. It concluded: "With a growing
population and a shrinking economy, real per capita GDP is now 30 per cent below
its height in 1999." "With due regard to Israel's security concerns, there is
consensus on the paralytic effect of the current physical obstacles placed on
the Palestinian economy," it added.

With a declining economy, lack of developmental projects and Israeli
restrictions, Palestinians are increasingly reliant on foreign aid, which is
largely controlled by political interests. For example, the US proved more
generous than ever in supporting the Ramallah-based government of Mahmoud Abbas
as it led an international regime of sanctions and embargo against the
Gaza-based Hamas government. Such funds are often conditioned on such murky
concepts as "cracking down on the terrorist infrastructure", which is duly
understood as fighting those who challenge Israel and Palestinian Authority (PA)
rule in the West Bank. 

Nonetheless, even if the PA had no history of corruption and genuinely intended
to invest in a sustainable economy, no truly free and independent economy can
flourish under occupation, whose very intention is the disempowerment of
Palestinian workers, farmers and the middle class. It is these strata of
Palestinian society that have led the struggle to end the occupation on the one
hand and to resist local corruption on the other. 

Indeed, Israeli restrictions are not coincidental and hardly confined to the
classic reasoning pertaining to national security. "In reality, these
restrictions go beyond concrete and earth-mounds, and extend to a system of
physical, institutional and administrative restrictions that form an impermeable
barrier against the realisation of Palestinian economic potential," the World
Bank said. It concluded that more aid would not revive the Palestinian economy,
unless the above restrictions are removed. 

But these restrictions represent the backbone of Israeli policy; removing them
would deny the Israeli government political leverage over Abbas's government. By
extension, the US is in no mood to help Palestinians develop a strong economic
base and infrastructure, enough to spare Palestinians the indignity of living on
international donor handouts.

In the West Bank, Palestinian economic woes are compounded by a terrible water
crisis, a nightmare for farmers who are already struggling to endure Israeli
water theft and disproportionate water distribution. According to a recent
report by the Israeli human rights group B'tselem, an Israeli household consumes
on average 3.5 times as much water as a Palestinian household. The group blames
Israel for its discriminatory policy and tight restrictions that prevent
Palestinians from drilling new wells. One fails to see how Israel's "security"
concerns can ever justify Israel's plundering of Palestinian water using West
Bank aquifers while many Palestinian families in cities like Jenin have been
denied water since April.

While many farmers found themselves unable to preserve their livelihoods,
ordinary people have to spend a significant proportion of their meagre incomes
buying water. A recent UN report, cited by news agencies, estimated that
Palestinians in the hardest-hit communities spend 30 to 40 per cent of their
incomes to purchase water delivered by trucks. How can a sustainable economy
with a sensible growth level be achieved under these circumstances? 

If the situation is difficult in the West Bank, it's impossible in Gaza. A
report in March sponsored by Amnesty International, Care International UK,
Christian Aid, Oxfam and others, described the situation in the Strip as the
worst humanitarian crisis since the Israeli occupation of 1967. The report
called on Israel to change its policies towards Gaza. A few months following the
release of the report, Israel seems to be stiffening its control over the
impoverished Strip, rendering its hapless 1.5 million inhabitants more miserable
by the day. 

According to the report, 80 per cent of the Gaza population relies on food
assistance. Some 1.1 million people receive their food aid from UN agencies,
which are themselves struggling to operate under fuel cuts and the near-total
isolation of Gaza. 

Unlike the West Bank, Gaza's aim is hardly economic development but mere
survival. Gaza's reliance on food aid has increased tenfold since 1999,
according to the report. Concurrently, 98 per cent of Gaza's factories are no
longer functioning, leaving thousands unemployed and wreaking havoc on the
income of numerous families. 

Coupled with inner-Palestinian violence, US-led international sanctions and the
perpetual Israeli siege and violence are destroying the very fabric of
Palestinian society in Gaza while turning the West Bank into a charity-based
society, with funds provided largely as political incentives with hardly any
long-term vision.

Equally disheartening is that the PA in the West Bank has actively shut down
Muslim charities, kindergartens, orphanages and schools in the ongoing
tit-for-tat action between rivals Fatah and Hamas. It's intolerable that the
animosity between both parties has reached a point of victimising the most
unfortunate in society: orphans, widows and the physically and mentally
impaired. Some 82 children didn't return to school this year -- they were killed
in the previous year. And over one million students will have to negotiate their
way around 600 Israeli military checkpoints. With the shutting down of Muslim
charity-run schools, hundreds of students will lose their right to education.
But this time, Israel is not the one entirely to blame.

Palestinians cannot survive on handouts through a charity- like economic
system. They need, and deserve, sustainable economic development, with a
long-term vision, one that can overhaul the economies of the West Bank and Gaza
and make use of the precious human resources available. Israel will do its
utmost to undermine such a possibility, as it has done for decades. This
represents the very struggle that Palestinians are undergoing: between their
need to break free, and Israel's insistence on maintaining its matrix of
control. Without proper channels to empower the Palestinian individual and
community, Palestinians will remain economically disadvantaged and thus
politically handicapped. This is hardly a recipe for an equitable, lasting peace
with justice.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa used exceptionally tough language
during a Cairo news conference 9 September, when he lashed out at Palestinian
factionalism, saying that the League is going as far as studying the possibility
of imposing sanctions on quarrelling Palestinians. 

"I am extremely angry with the Palestinian organisations... We are studying the
measures to be taken in the face of the current Palestinian chaos," he said,
after a meeting of Arab foreign ministers. He added, "the sanctions would not be
against anyone in particular. They would be against the party which obstructs
reconciliation and maybe against everyone or against the organisation which
obstructs Egyptian efforts."

Considering Moussa's devoted efforts in the past aimed at solidifying a
Palestinian front and generating a semblance of a Arab unity in its support, one
can only sympathise with the head of the League's frustration and indeed
"extreme anger".

Palestinian disunity, and political -- if not, geopolitical -- fragmentation is
eroding the Palestinian cause more than all Israeli efforts, walls and military
incursions combined. The painful-to-watch televised bickering between
representatives of various Palestinian factions has led to confusion among
traditionally pro-Palestinian groups worldwide. The political objectives -- once
agreed upon as "constants" -- and symbols that once united Palestinians
everywhere are now wide open for extreme interpretation. 

In fact, "respecting the sanctity of Palestinian blood", which for long served
as the lowest possible denominator agreed on by every Palestinian grouping, has
been violated many times in recent months and years; too many times to count.
Repeating the slogan is, at this point, an empty mantra, joining the numerous
other mantras that have for long served as a sedative for the hapless masses,
whether Arabs, Palestinians or both. 

That said, a reality check is also in order. It might be easy for the Arab
League to pass a measure or two to sanction Palestinian groups who might be
perceived as the ones jeopardising the Cairo talks, whether the ones underway or
the larger gatherings scheduled for October. Not even Palestinians would dare
criticise the League for practising some brotherly tough love for the sake of
the cause of Palestine, which is supposedly the main overriding priority for
every Arab state -- another mantra. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on the Arab
League, as it mulls over the issue of sanctions, to consider the role that some
of its own members have played in instigating Palestinian infighting. 

Following Hamas's majority victory in Legislative Council elections in January
2006, Arab countries could have congratulated the winner, promised cooperation
and urged unity among rivals. Instead, some chose to do the exact opposite,
ostracising Hamas from their meetings and conferences, playing favourites and
smoothing the way for US-led international sanctions that have devastated
Palestinian society in Gaza, leading to utter desperation and strife.

Moreover, some of those countries found it appropriate to train Palestinian
fighters loyal to the Fatah faction in preparation for combat not against Israel
but against their own Palestinian brethren in Gaza and the West Bank. The funds
for such camps were, of course, provided courtesy of Uncle Sam, and some of the
weapons were widely reportedly to have been channelled through Israel. 

As for the embargo that has turned an already desperate Gaza into a secure
open-air prison, with medicine being smuggled through tunnels and malnutrition
wreaking havoc among the young and old, it would have not succeeded if Israel
were the only gatekeeper. Unfortunately, the fact that Egypt has sealed its
borders to Palestinians in Gaza made the punishment complete. 

Secretary-General Moussa perhaps enjoys more respect among Palestinians than
some of their own leaders, but the truth must be told, especially since has he
had the courage to open the door of candour and honesty. "Do they [the
Palestinians] have a state for them to be fighting over [for] ministerial
positions? We kidded ourselves and called it the state of Palestine. It's not a
state until it obtains its full rights." 

He cannot possibly be anymore accurate. Palestinians are nowhere near the
process of state building and they should remain a national liberation movement
until freedom is attained. But equally we also kid ourselves when we place our
full trust in the Arab League, which is merely a reflection of the wishes of its
members with records that are morally porous themselves. 

What is the point of lending the Egypt talks complete trust if some parties
receive their pointers from Washington and brazenly consult with their "peace
partners" in Tel Aviv? It makes good sense for those who are not on Washington's
payroll -- but on its "terror list" -- to be immensely wary and constantly
alarmed. 

On the other hand, one cannot completely override the possibility that Hamas is
in consultation with, and maybe to a degree influenced by, Iran. But let's be
realistic for a moment. What is Hamas's political leverage amid reconciliation
talks given the level of political and financial validation and backing that its
main rival enjoys? Very little, indeed, aside from its ability to hold on to the
impoverished Gaza Strip and with a lonely Israeli soldier in its custody. Iran
stepped up its support of Hamas and the latter is willing to accept the support
of Micronesia if that latter is willing to offer it. 

True, Palestinian unity is a must and is a prerequisite to any meaningful,
large scale Palestinian strategy aimed at ending the Israeli occupation. But the
term must be appreciated, qualified and its practical meaning understood fully
before it too turns into another cheap Arab mantra, inscribed on many street
corners, but no longer meaning anything.

Few would argue that the indirect Israel-Syria talks through Turkish mediation,
which were first announced 21 May, were a sign of political maturity and
readiness for peace. In fact, while the discussions seemed concerned with the
occupied Syrian Golan Heights and Israel's desire for security at its northern
borders, the true objective behind the sudden engagement of Syria is largely
concerned with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas. 

A precarious report published in The Jerusalem Post -- citing a news report in
the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai on 2 September -- claimed that the Damascus-based
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has left Syria and moved to Sudan. "Palestinian
sources told the paper that Meshaal had come to an understanding with Damascus
whereby the Hamas chief would agree to leave the state," according to the
report. It suggested that the indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel
"may have played a part in the decision". Hamas soon denied the report. 

Whether the report is fully, partially or not at all accurate, the fact remains
that Israel's key objective in engaging Syria is to further isolate Hamas and to
deny its leadership safe haven. Syria opened its doors to several Palestinian
factions, who have operated politically with a degree of unison, following the
September 1993 Oslo Accords. The relationship between Syria and Hamas in
particular was often scrutinised as a Syrian bargaining chip in any future
negotiations with Israel over the fate of the Golan. It is no secret that Israel
would not transfer the Golan back to its rightful owner if Hamas and other
Palestinian groups continue to use Damascus as their headquarters, a platform of
political freedom and a degree of legitimacy. 

But this is an issue that even Hamas itself doesn't seem to be concerned with,
at least at the moment, for it's equally understood that Israel is not serious
about its negotiations with Syria, and that the whole affair is a political
manoeuvre aimed at disturbing the Syria-Iran alliance, cutting off the supposed
Hizbullah weapon supply route, and further de-legitimising Hamas, while propping
up its Palestinian rivals. Israel is "engaging" Syria because it's simply
running out of options.

Consider A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a report
prepared and signed by major Washington-based neoconservatives in 1996. It made
the following recommendation to the Israeli government at the time:
"Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious realism. One
cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel
to deal naïvely with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive
towards its neighbours, criminally involved with international drug traffickers
and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organisations." 

The mindset behind the report had great sway over Israeli thinking, as was made
clear in 2000 when then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak froze Israeli-Syrian
negotiations at a point that an agreement was reportedly at hand. The thrust of
Israel's policy towards Syria was predicated on the latter's presence in
Lebanon. Even after Hizbullah forced Israel out of Lebanon in the summer of
2000, Israel never disavowed its interests in that small country, and thoroughly
focussed on removing Syria, a task that was made possible with backing from
Washington.

"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with
which Americans can sympathise, would be if Israel seized the strategic
initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, as
the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon," the Clean Break report
recommended. 

That was tried and failed miserably. Israel's goals were trashed in its war on
Lebanon in July-August 2006. The war delivered more than a military blow to
Israel and a political blow to its benefactors in Washington. It empowered
Hizbullah to emerge as Lebanon's strongest party without any direct Syrian
involvement.

Since then, Israel has resorted to a strategy of scare tactics against Syria
and its Iranian ally. French President Nicolas Sarkozy used a recent four-way
summit in Damascus to deliver an essentially Israeli message. He warned Iran of
a "catastrophic" Israeli strike if it insists on pursuing its nuclear programme.
Although the message was to Iran, the hope was for Syria to take notice as well.

But Sarkozy's choice of Damascus to promote Israel's ominous threat further
highlights the relevance of Iran to his efforts, which would not have actualised
without prior Israeli consent. Considering how quickly the Iraqi regime fell
following the US invasion in 2003, and the succumbing of the Libyan government
soon after, Syria is treading carefully, while trying to hold on to several
winning cards, its strong relationship with Iran being one. 

Although Syria is eager to reclaim the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights,
its leaders must also realise that the current Israeli leadership is in no
position to negotiate withdrawal from what was illegally annexed by the Israeli
Knesset in 1982. To override the strong opposition to withdrawal, the Israeli
leadership must be indisputably interested in ending the occupation -- which it
is not -- and strong enough to pull off such a major "concession", which is also
not the case. 

Nonetheless, Syria carries on with its indirect talks with Israel, one round
after the other, with much enthusiasm, coupled with talks about economic
development, investment, etc. 

It is clear that neither Israel nor Syria is anticipating a "breakthrough"
anytime soon. For now, talking is an end in itself. Concurrently, Israel wishes
to woo Syria to break with Hamas and other Palestinian groups, break with Iran
and, at least, twist Hizbullah's arm in Lebanon. Syria, on the other hand, knows
well that indirect talks with Israel are an unmatched act of political
validation in the West, enough to lessen US threats, win France's friendship,
and appear in a positive light internationally. 

Both parties want to come across as accommodating, willing partners in peace
and, at a future point, there might be a few overtures, the extent of which
could be devastating to Palestinian factions in Damascus. Meshaal might not be
in Sudan, but if he is, or will be soon, one cannot be entirely surprised. 

Ahmed Moussa was a 12-year-old Palestinian boy from the West Bank village of
Nilin, near Ramallah. Mohamed Bahloul is a 12-year-old Palestinian boy from Gaza
City. The former was shot and killed 29 July by Israeli forces following a
peaceful protest against the Israeli apartheid wall. The latter is awaiting
death in a dilapidated hospital in Gaza.

Reports on Moussa's death vary. The Anti- Apartheid Wall Campaign's report said
that the boy was "sitting under a tree with his friends when a military jeep
drove up and the army shot him -- a live bullet pierced his head. The boy died
immediately." 

Agency France Press's report, the day following his death, confirmed the nature
of the death but said that the boy was killed during the demonstration. Nilin,
one of the numerous villages losing land to the Israeli wall -- deemed illegal
according to the International Court of Justice in 2004 -- holds regular
protests against the confiscation and destruction of the village's farms. It's
part of a sustained non- violent campaign that brings together Israeli,
Palestinian and international peace activists. 

"Moussa tried to run away but his sandal slipped off after he stumbled over a
part of the fence," according to one of Moussa's friends. 

The fact is, a young boy who should be at home enjoying the company of his
family and friends, or attending a summer camp, or playing in the sunshine, is
now dead. He is one of hundreds of Palestinian children killed by Israeli
soldiers in recent years in a consistent pattern of deliberately targeting
children. 

Trying to make sense out of his tragedy, the father had this to say: "God gave
me my son Ahmed, and he took him as a martyr." 

Not an hour and a half drive away from Nilin, Bahloul is suffering from kidney
failure. He is hooked up to a pitiable looking dialysis machine in a Gaza
hospital. Aljazeera.net reported on Bahloul's case: for three months, said his
mother, Nadia, he received no medication and no vitamins to strengthen his
sickly body. "There isn't one door I didn't knock on, hoping to find medicine
for Mohamed," said Nadia. In a place similar in many respects to a concentration
camp, where 1.5 million people are subject to the most inhumane conditions,
Bahloul's case is hardly the exception. 

Despite the ceasefire between the Hamas government in Gaza and Israel that
ensured that homemade Palestinian rockets are no longer fired at southern
Israeli towns, there is no respite from poverty and siege in Gaza. UNRWA's head
of Gaza operations, John Ging, said that the situation is getting "worse and
worse" for the people in Gaza, who are largely aid- dependant. He promised that
his office would do all it can to help "those poor people, as they continue to
get poorer and poorer."

The extent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has already passed many
thresholds as poverty has rendered most Gazans dependant on food aid for
survival. Hospitals are lacking equipment and medicine, and neither Israel nor
Egypt allows Palestinians from Gaza suffering from life threatening illnesses to
travel freely, and on a regular basis. Now even water in Gaza is polluted beyond
foreseeable remedy.

The Christian Science Monitor reported 21 July that only one-sixth of Gaza's
daily sewage -- estimated at up to 120 million litres a day -- is fully treated.
The massive amount of untreated sewage finds its way into the sea, and into the
Strip's water supply. "If there is a stronger word than catastrophe, I would use
that word," said Nader Al-Khateeb, the Palestinian director of Friends of the
Earth Middle East. The catastrophe is a "result of Gaza's dilapidated water and
sewage infrastructure undermined by [Israeli] attacks and fuel blockades."

According to Monther Shoblak, director of the Gaza Emergency Waste Project
funded by the World Bank, due to sewage seeping into the ground, the aquifer
beneath Gaza, which provides water for drinking and washing, is now so polluted
with nitrates that only 10 per cent currently meets World Health Organisation
standards for safety. As a result, water-related diseases in Gaza are rife. 

Gaza is experiencing devastation on so many levels that it is impossible to
locate any positive health or economic indicators. Bahloul's mother's wrenching
search for medicine to save her son is compounded by her husband having lost his
job due to the Israeli siege and while there are other mouths to feed.
Unemployment in Gaza is skyrocketing and children are often forced out of school
to help bolster the meagre incomes of poor families. Selling tea in the street
from giant teapots hauled by children often not old enough to enrol in school is
a growing profession. 

While Palestinian villagers in the West Bank are fighting eviction notices from
their homes and lands to make space for Israel's projected 723 kilometre (454
miles) long wall, of which 57 per cent is already complete, Palestinians in Gaza
are fighting for bare survival. Their plight is dreadfully similar. Despite the
fact that the West Bank and Gaza were divided by occupation and self- seeking
and wealthy politicians, they are united by grief, and by their common struggle.


Meanwhile, in a report released 30 July, Human Rights Watch claims that Hamas
and Fatah have both carried out serious human rights abuses, including torture,
against members of the opposing group. While Hamas is regularly derided for
human rights violations reported in Gaza, which have been used to
retrospectively justify the lethal siege, Mahmoud Abbas's party hardly receives
any reprimand. The report faulted "the United States and other donors, which
have bankrolled President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority and
Fatah-dominated security agencies", for "not paying adequate attention to the
systematic abuses by those forces," reported Al-Bawaba in Jordan.

Media reports with titles such as "Palestinians torture Palestinians" quickly
flooded newspapers. Hamas and Fatah members screamed obscenities against each
other and the arrests and torture campaign, reportedly continued. The conflict
seemed for a moment entirely Palestinian, with Israel an innocent observer. 

Meanwhile, Moussa's father continues to seek "God's mercy" for his son's soul.
Prayer and supplication are his only resort. In Gaza, death continues to hover
over Bahloul's household. 

There is something utterly cruel about all of this, utterly inhumane.

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

A six-year-old Palestinian girl from Gaza was killed by Israeli fire on 12 June. "Medics say the girl was decapitated by a [tank] shell," Associated Press (AP) reported the next day. The Israeli military said the soldiers opened fire in retaliation against "militants launching rockets into Israel". AP dispassionately elaborated that, "Gaza militants fire rockets and mortars into Israel almost daily." The story of a few lines ended with another corroboration of the claims made by the Israeli military: "The shelling occurred near the border where militants fired 30 rockets into Israel on Tuesday."

This is not another tirade about dehumanising media reporting in which the death of innocent Palestinians is so often blamed, one way or another, on the "militants". Neither is the evoking of this freshest tragedy -- the child victim is later named Hadeel Al-Smeiri -- intended to underscore the daily crimes committed by the Israeli military against Palestinians in the occupied territories, crimes that largely go unnoticed, buried in the not-so-important news items, nor to accentuate cold-hearted assertion that the Palestinians are to blame for forcing Israel to carry out such tragic "acts of retaliation".

The story struck me as significant beyond its value in attempting to analyse mainstream reporting or the way it highlights the callousness required to defend the decapitation of a six year-old as necessary retaliation. For equally disturbing is the fact that Palestinian factions fail to see in Hadeel's death a compelling argument for unity: rather, they carry on with their political sparring as if they have the luxury of endless time while helpless Palestinians are victimised daily, an ordeal that is followed by no serious repercussions save the firing of useless rockets that fuel yet more Israeli retaliation, thus justifying the slow genocide and the starvation of the imprisoned Palestinians of Gaza.

Some Palestinians, especially those in Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas's camp, are still struggling with their sense of priorities.

The BBC's Jeremy Bowen wrote on 11 June: "The humiliation of June 2007 [when Hamas took over Gaza] will not easily be forgotten by Fatah's people. For the last 12 months the suggestion that they should try to end their argument with Hamas has been guaranteed to get a testy response from senior figures close to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas... One of his senior ministers exploded with such fury whenever I asked him about it that his voice sent the dials on the BBC's recording equipment hurtling into the red."

Reading the above I wondered if the minister would respond with such intensity if Bowen sought his views on the murder of Hadeel or on the fact that the minister's own people are caged, not only in Gaza, but large parts of the West Bank, behind Israeli military barricades, electric fences and security walls?

If the minister fails to appreciate the misery of Hadeel's generation, maybe he should take a few minutes away from his busy schedule to browse some of the grim data on the daily victimisation of Palestinian children. Sigrid Kaag, UNICEF's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, visited the Jabaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip on 9 June. The poorest of Gaza's slums, it is where the uprising of 1987, unsurprisingly, broke out. "To witness the impact of the current blockade on the children of Gaza firsthand was a daunting experience," Kaag said. "This situation must end."

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "as of 26 May, 64 children had been killed in the conflict since the beginning of the year -- more than the total child death toll for all of 2007. Fifty-nine of the deaths were in Gaza and another four victims were Israeli children."

Bowen wrote: "The fighter who emptied his Kalashnikov into the desk of Mohamed Dahlan, until that day the Fatah strongman in Gaza, yelled 'this is the fate of traitors like the scumbag Dahlan' as he pulled the trigger, and it was recorded and put on television for all to see." The minister finds it difficult to forgive such an action by Hamas, conveniently forgetting reports in the US media -- Vanity Fair to be more precise -- that Dahlan headed a US-Israeli plot to carry out a military onslaught against the democratically elected government in Gaza. The plan was botched because of Hamas's pre- emptive take-over of the Strip.

Consider this: UNICEF reports that, "across the West Bank some 600 obstacles to movement -- and the barrier separating the West Bank from Israel -- make it difficult for children to attend schools, patients to go to health centres and families to see each other... the closure regime is tightening even for UN humanitarian operations".

Yet the minister, and many like him, find Hamas's violence in June 2007 the pinnacle of humiliation. Puzzling, indeed.

What is more humiliating, I wonder: the sight of Dahlan's office chair filled with bullet holes, or Palestinian mothers, elders and children lining up before an abusive group of trigger-happy Israeli soldiers, jeering in broken Arabic every racist word they can conjure.

Meanwhile, recent news reports spoke of assurances made by Abbas to the anxious Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that his offer of dialogue with Hamas would be conditional. Why condition talks among brethren while allowing Israel endless benefit of the doubt in stretching out a meaningless "peace process" while allowing its army to kill children like Hadeel at will?

Perhaps Abbas, and the angry minister in the BBC report, are confused about the Palestinian state Israel tirelessly promises. "The future Palestinian state must be established according to Israel's security needs, including supervision of border crossings and the disarming of militants," reported Haaretz, referring to comments made by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. So much for sovereignty.

The Israeli paper went on to report: "Israel says it intends to keep major settlement blocs in the West Bank under any future peace deal with the Palestinians and that its network of roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank helps to prevent attacks on Israelis."

Even if the Israeli promise of statehood ever actualises it has apartheid written all over it.

Palestinians need not pay much attention to Livni's futile visions. They should focus their energies on unifying their ranks for nothing compels more fury than their disunity, and nothing is as humiliating as their reliance on Israeli and US arms and money to keep their own brethren in Gaza starved and browbeaten.

When US forces descended on Baghdad five years ago, they seemed unstoppable.
Military arrogance had reached an all time high, and it seemed only a matter of
time before the same frenzied scenario took place in Teheran, Damascus, and
elsewhere.

As it turned out, festivities began dwindling almost as soon as they were
pronounced. One could argue that the day Saddam's status was toppled was the
very same day that the US army faced its real battle in Iraq, one that continues
to hinder long-term strategic planning, if not the once-touted US Middle East
project altogether. 

Five years of continuous and unrelenting blood baths may have toned down Bush's
expectations. The lonely crusader who once vowed to fight tyranny at any cost is
now trying to secure a treaty that would indefinitely secure US interests in
Iraq. His administration may essentially be hoping to achieve what it regards as
the best possible outcome of a worst possible situation.

Co-opting the UN has helped secure temporary legitimacy to the occupation. The
international body, once rendered irrelevant, became a major hub for American
diplomacy seeking to legitimise its occupation in a country that refuses to
concede. Even willing Iraqi leaders, perfectly rehearsed elections and mass
suppressions have failed to bring the desired stability and validation. 

Of course, White House, State Department and US military spokespeople ventured
into endless predictable talk about democracy, freedom, liberty and security in
order to woo an increasingly agitated American public. But US action on the
ground spoke of another reality: an imperial quest, with monopoly on violence
and disregard of international law, the national sovereignty of Iraq and near
total disregard of the human rights of its citizens. 

Now the Bush administration is ready to crown its Iraq travesty with a
long-term strategy that would turn Iraq's occupation into a lasting one. The US
is 'negotiating' a treaty with the Iraqi government, one that would replace the
UN mandate and legalise the US occupation of Iraq permanently. 

Basically, time is running out for Bush. If no treaty is reached by the end of
the year, his administration could find itself pleading to the Security Council
for another extension of the mandate. This would be an embarrassing and
dangerous scenario for US diplomacy because it would allow Russia and China to
re-emerge as important players wielding fearsome veto powers. 

By signing a long-term treaty, the Bush administration would pre-empt any
action by a future Democratic president of Iraq. 

When the UN Security Council voted unanimously to extend the US-led
multinational forces in Iraq in November 2005, the US celebrated the decision as
a sign of international commitment to Iraq's political transition. 

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN at the time, had repeatedly lambasted the
UN and now saw "the unanimous adoption of this resolution (as) a vivid
demonstration of broad international support for a federal, democratic,
pluralistic and unified Iraq." After this the Pentagon said the "US planned to
cut the numbers of troops next year." Since then, the opposite has actualised.
Iraqi troops failed their first serious test — in failing to crack down on Al
Mahdi army — and US forces grew in numbers. 

In order for the US to sign a long-term strategic treaty with the Iraqi
government, it needs a level of stability. The US military should be able to
macro-manage Iraq as troops relegate to their permanent bases — 50 according
to a report by Patrick Cockburn in the UK Independent — while their Iraqi
allies give an illusion of sovereignty in dealing with day-to-day life in Iraq.
The US' dilemma is that this coveted stability is nowhere in sight. 

Since late 2007, officials in the US, the UN and Iraq have asserted that they
have no intention of seeking another UN mandate. The US-Iraq treaty is thus the
only option that will legalise the American occupation. The idea of the treaty
is to give the impression that the relationship between the two is not that of
the occupied and the occupier, but two sovereigns with mutual interests and
equitable rights. 

Iraqis are, unsurprisingly, furious about US expectations from the treaty.
According to Cockburn, "Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US
troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis
and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the
Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country."

Iraqi cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh was quoted by Iraqi TV as saying that
government will not compromise on Iraq's sovereignty and is committed to
"safeguarding Iraq's full sovereignty in line with international  resolutions." 

Although it is difficult to believe in Prime Minister Al Maliki's commitment to
'full sovereignty,' one cannot underestimate the pressure he faces at the
parliament — fractious alliances, nationalists from various backgrounds,
unstable Shia front, sceptical Sunni leadership. Aljazeera reported on how two
of these legislators testified to the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that,
"US troops should leave Iraq before talks on a long term security pact could be
completed." 

Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, the founder of the National Dialogue Council wants talks
delayed "until there is a new administration in the United States," the exact
scenario that the Bush administration is hoping to avoid. The US wants an
agreement by July, one that would be hard to reverse even by a Democratic
president. 

To avoid embarrassment, "it's entirely possible that the Bush Administration,
sometime this summer, will force the hapless regime of Prime Minister Maliki to
submit to a US diktat on a US-Iraq accord." (Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation). "If
Maliki signs the accord, and ignores the opposition from parliament, he would
instantly lose whatever remaining credibility he has left as an Iraqi leader,"
which would lead to more violence in Iraq at the eve of US elections. "Not a
pleasant scenario," asserts Dreyfuss. 

One can argue that no pleasant scenarios are possible in Iraq at any time under
a US military presence. Iraq's past treasures were squandered immediately after
its 'liberation' by US forces, and its present is daunted by bloodshed and
uncertainty. The Bush administration now wants to ensure that the country's
future is also compromised by violence, humiliation and war. 

The recent uproar surrounding Pastor John Hagee is only remarkable in the sense that it took so long in coming. The fundamentalist pastor of the 19,000-member Cornerstone "mega-church" in San Antonio, Texas has long shown himself to be not just anti-Semitic, but also anti-Islamic and anti-Catholic.

It doesn't take much probing to find ample examples of racism, bigotry and justification of violent tragedy in the words of the man once described by Senator Joe Lieberman as 'Ish Elokim' — 'Man of God'. 

Republican presidential candidate John McCain severed his ties with the pastor after the recent publicising of a sermon in which Hagee seemed to rationalise the Holocaust. Hagee's suggested that the Holocaust fulfilled biblical prophecies because it 'enabled' the return of Jews to Palestine. According to this logic, Hitler was doing God's work.

McCain decided to reject Hagee's endorsement on May 22, stating that "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them...I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

ABC News website reported on the scandal: "A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things."

Anyone who has followed Hagee's remarks in the past would have a hard time believing McCain's statement. Hagee is a Christian Zionist, and the Executive Director of Christians United for Israel. While he may have been embraced by Israel and its backers in Washington for his support of Israeli aggressions and policies, Christian Zionists are hardly fond of the Jewish people. In fact, their entire project is shaped by very anti-Semitic beliefs, perceiving Jews as lesser beings whose 'redemption' and 'conversion' are prerequisites for the Second Coming of Jesus. Despite these beliefs being well known, Israel found in Hagee an irreplaceable friend and ally. The self-proclaimed Jewish state seems willing to work with even anti-Semites to achieve political goals. 

Max Blumenthal is one of many writers who have tried to point out the palpable racism in Hagee's discourse. He wrote in the Huffington Post on the day of McCain's announcement that "during a press conference at the 2007 Christians United for Israel Washington-Israel Summit, I asked CUFI Executive Director Pastor John Hagee about passages in his book Jerusalem Countdown in which he appeared to blame Jews for their own persecution. Hagee was visibly piqued by my question, insisting that his statements were directly inspired by the Book of Deuteronomy. When I attempted to ask Hagee a follow-up question, a public relations agent, Alison Silverman, the former assistant communications director for AIPAC, cut me off." 

Blumenthal was eventually removed from the conference under threats of arrest by DC police. What's interesting about this is the AIPAC connection. The influential American-Israel lobby had invited Hagee to headline its conference in March 2007. While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unconditionally condemned for his Holocaust statements, Hagee's hateful references did not jeopardize his welcomed trips to Israel, and nor did it prevent US politicians in general from embracing him.

Aside from ardent Israel supporter Joe Lierberman's glowing dedication, President Bush said he appreciated "CUFI members... for your passion and dedication to enhancing the relationship between the United States and Israel." When McCain received Hagee's endorsement he was "very honoured" and "very proud".

Aside from Hagee's largely forgiven anti-Semitism, the pastor was also a much valued member of the warmongering camp. Robert Weitzel writes, "Hagee formed CUFI in 2005 following the publication of his book, The Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, which sports a mushroom cloud on its cover and argues for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West."

Passages in Hagee's book indeed read as a horror movie script - Arabs united under Russian leadership, inferno exploding in the Middle East, and finally, the much-coveted Armageddon. 

Aside from his insistence that the US government hasten the End Times by provoking war with Iran, Hagee also has his own interpretation on the causes of Hurricane Katrina. "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."

Hagee's hate speech targeting Muslims (which suggested that all Muslims are programmed to kill and cannot be negotiated with), the Catholic Church (the 'great whore' of a 'false cult') were not enough to inspire politicians to repudiate the man. Hardly surprising, of course, considering that Hagee's offensive uttering is consistent with the politics of his supporters in Congress or the White House. Why should McCain who wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" busy himself worrying about a biblical vision that guarantees the same end? Also, what is the difference between Hagee's biblical prophecies regarding Iran and the Arabs, and Hillary Clinton's warning to 'completely obliterate' Iran? Hagee is indeed in a good company.

Hagee was allowed to foment hateful, dark views of Muslims, Catholics, and others, while still being welcomed into the fold of politicians and statesmen. He was only criticised when his madness touched on the Holocaust. But isn't it true that his book and speeches help promote a regional Holocaust in the Middle East, one which would actually encompass numerous nations? Shouldn't the vow of 'never again' include the many millions that Hagee wants to see incinerated in his quest for Armageddon?

Hagee is not just an anti-Semite; his views are largely anti-human. Still, he is an invaluable asset to a select few who have managed to streamline the beliefs of millions of people into active political and financial advocacy for Israel. As far as Israel is concerned, Hagee is and will always be an Ish Elokim — perhaps until another war is realised.

Don't ask for what you never had,' is the underlying message made by supporters
of Israel when they claim Palestine was never a state to begin with.

The contention is, of course, easily refutable. Following the disintegration of
the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th Century, colonial powers plotted to divide
the spoils. When Britain and France signed the secretive Sykes-Picot agreement
in 1916, which divided the spheres of influence in west Asia, there were hardly
any 'nation-states' in the region which would fit contemporary definitions of
the term.

All borders were colonial concoctions that served the interests of the powerful
countries seeking strategic control, political influence and raw material. Most
of Africa and much of Asia were victims of the colonial scrambles, which
disfigured their geo-political and subsequently socio-economic compositions.

But Palestinians, like many other people, did see themselves as a unique group
linked historically to a specific geographic entity. All That Remains by
Professor Walid Khalidi is one leading volume which documents a thriving
pre-Israel history of Palestine and the Palestinian people. Such history is
often overlooked, if not entirely dismissed. Some choose to believe that no
other civilization ever existed in Palestine, neither prior to nor between the
assumed destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE until the
founding of Israel in 1948. But what about irrefutable facts? For example, the
Israeli Jerusalem Post was called the Palestine Post when it was founded in
1932. Why Palestine and not Israel? Whose existence, as a definable political
entity, preceded the other? The answer is obvious.

It isn't the denial or acceptance of Israel's existence that concerns me.
Israel does exist, even if it refuses to define its borders, or acknowledge the
historic injustices committed against the Palestinian people. The systematic and
brutal ethnic cleaning of the majority of Palestinian Christians and Muslims
from 1947 to 1948 is what produced a Jewish majority in Palestine and
subsequently the 'Jewish state' of Israel.

Also worth remembering are the equally systematic attempts at dehumanising
Palestinians and denying them any rights. When Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of
Israel at the time, compared Palestinians in a Jerusalem Post interview (August
2000) to “crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more,” he was
hardly diverting from a consistent Zionist tradition that equated Palestinians
with animals and vermin. Another Prime Minister, Menahim Begin referred to
Palestinians in a Knesset speech as “beasts walking on two legs.” They have
also been described as “grasshoppers”, “cockroaches” and more by famed
Israeli statesmen.

Disturbingly, such references might be seen as an improvement from former Prime
Minister Golda Meir's claim that “there were no such thing as
Palestinians...they did not exist." (June 15, 1969)

To justify its own existence, Israel has long subjugated its citizens to a kind
of collective amnesia. Do Israelis realise they live on the rubble of hundreds
of Palestinian villages and towns, each destroyed during a most tragic history
of blood, pain and tears, resulting in an ethnic cleansing of nearly 800,000
Palestinians?

As Israel celebrates its 60th birthday, nothing is allowed to blemish the
supposed heroism of its founding fathers or those who fought in its name.
Palestine, the Palestinians, and an immeasurably long relationship between a
people and their land hardly merit a pause as Israeli officials and their
Western counterparts carry on with their festivities.

While some conveniently forgot many historic chapters pertinent to the
suffering of Palestinians, Israeli leaders — especially those who took part in
the colonization of Palestine — were fully aware of what they did. David Ben
Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, warned in 1948, “We must do
everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.” By ensuring
that Palestinians were cut off from their land, Ben Gurion has hoped that time
will take care of the rest. “The old will die and the young will forget,” he
said.

Moshe Dayan, a former Israeli Defence Minister also had no illusions regarding
the real history beneath Israel's momentous achievements. His speech at the
Technion in Haifa (April 4, 1969) was quoted in the Israeli daily Haaretz thus:
“We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building
here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages
were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not
blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish
settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village.”

Israel has, since its foundation, laboured to undermine any sense of
Palestinian identity. Without most of their historic land, the relationship
between Palestinians and Palestine could only exist in memory. Eventually
though, memory managed to morph into a collective identity that has proved more
durable than the physical existence on the land. “It is a testimony to the
tenacity of Palestinians that they have kept alive a sense of nationhood in the
face of so much adversity. Yet the obstacles to sustaining their cohesiveness as
a people are today greater than ever,” reported the Economist (May 8, 2008).

Living in so many disconnected areas, removed from their land, detached from
one another, fought with at every corner, Palestinians have not just been
oppressed physically by Israel, but physiologically as well. There are attempts
from all angles to force them to simply concede, forget, and move on. It is the
Palestinian people's rejection of such notions that makes Israel's victory and
'independence' superficial and unconvincing.

Sixty years after their Catastrophe (Nakba), Palestinians still remember their
past and present injustices. Of course more than mere remembrance is necessary;
Palestinians need to find a common ground for unity — Christians and Muslims,
poor and rich, secularist and the religious — in order to stop Israel from
eagerly exploiting their own disunity, factionalism and political tribalism.

But, despite Israel's hopes and best efforts, Palestinians have not yet
forgotten who they are. And no amount of denial can change this.

The data provided in the US State Department's annual terrorism report for 2007 points to some interesting if puzzling conclusions. The much publicised document, made available 30 April via the State Department's website, makes no secret of the fact that Al-Qaeda is back, strong as ever. It also suggests that violence worldwide is nowhere near subsiding, despite President Bush's repeated assurances regarding the success of his "war on terror".

Will the report inspire serious reflection on the US's detrimental foreign policy and its role in the current situation?

Let's look at some of the data. To start with, take Pakistan. Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda-inspired attacks in the country more than doubled (from 375 to 877) between 2006 and 2007. These attacks have claimed the lives of 1,335 people, compared to 335 in a previous report. That is a jump of almost 300 per cent.

Then there's Afghanistan, which was supposedly "liberated" shortly after 11 September 2001. The number of attacks reported there increased a sharp 16 per cent in 2007. Some 1,127 violent incidents killing 1,966 people represent a significant surge in violence compared to 2006's 1,257 deaths.

There have also been many other violent incidents around the world, including but not limited to North Africa, the terrorist bombings in Algeria in particular.

But this is barely half the story -- or 40 per cent of it, if we want to be as specific as the terrorism report. Iraq accounted for 60 per cent of worldwide terrorism fatalities.

Considering the fact that the horrifying violence currently witnessed in Iraq was unheard of prior to the US invasion of 2003, will the Bush administration take a moment to connect the dots? Even a third grader could figure this one out: the US occupation was a major, if not sole factor, in Iraq's relentless bloodbath. In order to right the wrong in Iraq, the US military should clearly just withdraw, and Bush -- or whoever next claims the White House -- should stop fabricating pretexts to justify a prolonged mission.

On 1 May 2003, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. As he stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln a huge banner behind him bore the words "Mission Accomplished". The New York Times then wrote, "the Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall."

Instead, more than five years after Bush's speech, the administration seems determined to maintain a military surge, having added 20,000 soldiers. Making no apologies for the war's contribution to an increase in terrorist activities, Bush's officials continue to rationalise the surge as a commonsense response to ongoing violence, conveniently omitting the US's own part in this violence. The State Department report doesn't classify any of the thousands of innocent victims killed by US or coalition forces as victims of terrorism.

Russ Travers, deputy director of the Counterterrorism Centre, stated on the day the report was published, "It's a fair statement that around the globe people are getting increasingly efficient at killing other people." While Travers' assertion is undoubtedly true, there seems to be no intention of providing any context, no connection drawn to the US's direct invasions, or indirect but equally devastating role in campaigns of violence, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

But what the State Department's terrorism report didn't fail to do was once again identify Iran as the world's "most active" state sponsor of terrorism. As reported in the Associated Press on 1 May, Iran was responsible for "supporting Palestinian extremists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, whereة elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps continued to give militants weapons, training and funding."

The irony is that the report further contributes to the US's long-touted case for war against Iran; ironic because the report's findings, if viewed responsibly, substantiate the claim that the Bush administration's policies have only made the world more unsafe. Wouldn't a war against Iran hike up the number of violent or terrorist incidents?

It also remains unclear how powerful Al-Qaeda really is, and how much of its capabilities were hyped in order to enable the Bush administration to continue its mission. Consider the two occasions Al-Qaeda was back in the news recently.

News media cited official Afghani reports attributing the recent assassination attempt on US-ally Afghani President Hamid Karzai to Al-Qaeda. In other reports, the US rationalised its own assassination of a leading Somali militia leader Aden Hashi Eyrow on 1 May as targeting a key Al-Qaeda member. It's not the logic of the assassination that is key here, but rather the fact that while Al- Qaeda has reached a position of strength that can penetrate several layers of defences in Afghanistan, the US is getting itself involved in a regional feud in Somalia. Why would the Bush administration be chasing Al-Qaeda in Somalia, as in Iraq, if the group is reportedly in the most powerful position in Afghanistan?

Moreover, if Al-Qaeda indeed exists on such a large and influential scale in so many countries, isn't it time to question the logic used by the Bush administration's "war on terror" that was meant to weaken and destroy Al- Qaeda in the first place?

It may be, of course, that Al-Qaeda's power and outreach is inflated for political reasons, where every conflict the US is involved in becomes immediately reduced to those who support, shield or host Al-Qaeda or Al- Qaeda inspired groups, thus justifying US military intervention anywhere.

Instead of dealing with the obvious truths that the terrorism report highlights, the authors of the report have resorted to another logic that places blame squarely on external circumstance, never holding the US government accountable for its actions.

Finally, is there really a need for lengthy reports that cost large sums of money and thousands of work hours if the lessons gleaned are always the wrong ones, leading to more blunders that prompt more violence, and more terrorism reports?

On February 12, 2008, Arab League information ministers issued a communique
outlining 'tough' guidelines for Arab satellite channels. The new guidelines
specifically prohibited the broadcasting of negative reporting of heads of
state, religious or national figures. 

In following days, a massive campaign of denunciation, led by those who felt
targeted by the new policy, joined by various rights organizations, ensued. The
communiqué was unfair, they argued, because it was largely political, and aimed
at protecting from censure the very individuals and institutions that have
brought about many of the ailments afflicting Arab societies and governments. Of
course, they were correct. 

How can the media in the Arab world fulfil its duties - as a platform from
which civil society is able to monitor the state, and hold to account those who
deviate from the principles of the relevant social and political contracts –
under such ‘guidelines’? 

While only two countries – Qatar and Lebanon – refused to sign, many
intellectuals, journalists and rights advocates protested. However, Abd A-Rahman
A-Rashid, general manager of the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite channel, told
the Media Line website that the Arab ministers’ guidelines were largely
ineffectual and would not stop the spread of information. 

The story in the West naturally generated immense interest; for once again
Arabs were wrangling with issues of freedom of expression, a value for which
successive US administrations have supposedly advocated.

More, forums were abruptly held where the official transgressions of Arab
governments were candidly chastised. In its monthly policy discussion, the
Brookings Centre Doha raised the question: ‘Forward or backward? The 2008 Arab
satellite TV charter and the future of Arab Media, society and democracy’.
Speakers included Saad Eddin Ibrahim, professor of Political Sociology at the
American University in Cairo, Ibrahim Helal, deputy managing director, Al
Jazeera English, and Michael Ratney, Charge d’Affaires at the American
embassy. The session was chaired by Hady Amr, director of the Brookings Doha
Centre and fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings
Institute. The Saban Center at the Brookings Institute is headed by Martin
Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel, and despite his personal dedication to
the cause of Israel, remains one of the most frequent guests on Arab TV
stations. 

What is painted to look like a classic conflict between corrupt governments and
their fed up constituencies, the former labouring to gag the latter’s freedom
of expression, is a lot more convoluted. It is not that the corrupt elites are
not indeed labouring to suppress dissent, or that the suppressed multitudes are
not fiercely fighting back. In fact, it’s this relationship that constitutes
the push and pull which came to define Arab media in the first place. But who
has decided that Arab satellite stations – or pan Arab print publications or
other forms of media – represent in any way the interests of Arab masses, or
have improved in any measurable way the welfare of Arab people, especially the
poorer, discounted classes? 

More, how could entities such as the Brookings Institute and its Saban Centre
– known for holding and promoting policies that hardly deviate from that of
the US administration, if not its most rigid qualities - become themselves
mediators for such freedoms, which if genuinely granted would prove most harmful
to the US administration and its interests in the Arab world? 

So is the true state of Arab media, marred with confusion, uncertainty and
mixed messages. 

Since the advent of Aljazeera in 1996, something fundamental morphed in the
world of Arab media. We have heard this argument numerous times and for good
reason. True, but rash conclusions of ‘the Aljazeera revolution’ no longer
suffice. 

Aljazeera was not the only media forum that allowed for the expression of
tabooed views, while censoring others. Egypt’s Voice of the Arabs, during the
Nasser years, for example, decried reactionary Arab regimes left and right, and
it too enjoyed a large following amongst Arab masses from the gulf to the ocean
and beyond. Media technology has advanced immensely since then, and Aljazeera is
packed with less pan-Arab rhetoric and is much more discreet in its political
leanings. The fact that Aljazeera refrains from any serious criticism of Qatar
and is much more candid in targeting specific Arab countries is overlooked by
many since, frankly the world of Qatari politics is relatively trivial in the
greater scheme of things. 

Since then, numerous copycats have sprung up across the Arab world. Satellite
stations with or without political agendas have grown out of control and now
number over 500. This was accompanied by a massive surge of newspapers and
glossy magazines, most offering next to nothing in terms of content value. It
was a media revolution that lacked true substance, thus impacting little the
collective self-awareness of Arab peoples or the Arab individual’s need for
self-assertion in a time of considerable global transformation. 

Those who are on good terms with the official authorities can easily be granted
a license, and thus a new TV station or new magazine is welcomed into the fold.
Those who are not would only need to relocate to London or another, preferably
hostile Arab capital and resume his media ‘mission.’ Of course, funds for
such endeavours are available on conditions, either to refrain from bashing
certain entities and giving free hand to censure others, or to stay away from
politics altogether. 

With cheap American TV content and their Arab imitators, content per se is
never an issue. It’s quality content that poses a problem. To pretend that
such low quality programs haven’t deeply scarred Arab societies and their
cultural and societal identities is to defy reality, but that is for another
discussion. 

The fact is that Arab media is largely political, with political, religious,
nationalistic, even tribal leanings, affiliations and priorities. While some
media have done less harm than others, none represent the untainted exception. 

The Arab foreign ministers communiqué can be understood as a call for a truce
between various Arab governments: you hold your journalists back from attacking
me, I’ll hold mine. It’s neither a call for the suppression of civil society
nor the gagging of free expression: the former is largely suppressed and truly
free expression never fully existed. 

Two points remain to be made; one is that dominating media in the West is
afflicted by similar ailments, themselves owned by big corporations that pander
to their respective official authorities, with the US being the most notable
example. 

And two, a truly independent media that is completely free from the whims of
individuals or those holding the financial or political leverage is only
possible in theory. What civil society usually aspires to achieve, however, are
mediums that are less bias, less totalitarian and as representative of the whole
as possible. This can only be achieved by collective struggle, organization and
pressure, using home-grown platforms, as opposed to imported ones. 

When civil society organizes and speaks out, neither a communiqué by a few
ministers, nor a decree by a totalitarian ruler can silence it.