From the Desk of Reuven Kaminer

Being Nice to the King

2012-01-06T10:09:00.000+02:00

Abu Mazen Hopes

Last week, Israel and the Palestinians met in Amman at the behest of His Royal Highness and under the aegis of the Quartet.

This rather satirical command performance was justified as an act of courtesy for HRH, the King of Jordan, Abdullah. The King had urged the Palestinians to come by and say hello because of, or in spite of the fact that Tony Blair, that great friend of the Palestinians, will be there. And oh, almost by chance, Bibi’s emissary to the Palestinians, Advocate Molcho, will also be there. Who could refuse to honor the King in these difficult days.

In Amman, the farce ended with cynical smiles. No breakthrough.

It was just another exercise in futility. But, strangely, or not so strangely, Western diplomacy was awash with greetings on the successful resumption of talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. You did not have to be of a suspicious nature to see that the US, the Quartet and Molcho’s boss were laying a trap for the Palestinians.

And lo and behold, another meeting is going to take place this week as part of the resumption of talks with the Palestinians. And without any connection to the results of this week’s meetings, we learn that “exploratory talks” are going to go on for the whole month. The Palestinian News Agency Ma’an reports (4/1/12) that Abu Mazen “hopes that the meetings will revive peace talks.”

It is well known that you can fool all of the people some of the time, but it sure looks like the only ones being fooled here are the people around Abu Mazen. And they are, sadly enough, once again a sorry spectacle. Israel and its allies are touting a Palestinian return to genuine negotiations. The Palestinian leadership, which can only lose by this tricky attempt to confuse the public, including its own people, is characteristically confused and inefficient. One must hope that it is nothing worse than this.

Pity the Poor Egyptian Generals

They have been forced, literally forced into bringing Mubarek to trial - unable otherwise to escape the mass wrath of the Egyptian people. It is no accident that when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) hear the prosecution demand the death sentence for Mubarek, the generals can feel an impending noose tighten around their own necks. Just a month ago, they were clearly responsible for giving orders to assassinate tens of protesters, and wounding hundreds, i.e., orders identical to those issued by their former leader and colleague, Husni Mubarek. Same crime, same criminals.

The election of a new parliament where the tone is going to be set by the Moslem Brotherhood is a foregone conclusion. This will create a totally unbelievable situation. The Army (SCAF) does not intend to forfeit their entrenched control of the country. But they do need someone to promise them immunity. The Brotherhood are fully aware of SCAP’s difficulties. Their own ranks have provided no few victims and fatalities during the long night of Mubarek’s absolute reign. It remains to see whether the Brotherhood will ignore its own martyrs to cut a deal with SCAF.

Underreporting Unpleasant News

Death and destruction still haunt the streets of Tripoli. The various armed bands that made up the rebel army have not disbanded and are in no hurry to do so. As far back as November, there were clashes at a Tripoli hospital. This month, hundred of fighters in Benghazi are demanding their salaries. This week, four dead and more wounded resulted from a clash between Misrata and Tripoli rebel groups over control of a particular building in Tripoli. The different contingents of fighters, instead of going home quietly, have their eye on sharing $100 million in assets in the process of being unfrozen. Will Libya, “rescued” by the West have to undergo a fate similar to that of “liberated “Iraq?

Self-Criticism

2011-12-08T11:59:00.000+02:00

A. Routine Security Check

It appears in the media as a routine matter of prison discipline. After three hours (!)of search, and the discovery of a cell phone, Marwan Barghouti, was thrown into solitary confinement, which can be, in many instances, almost a form of torture. A word about the prisoner: Marwan Barghouti has ranked in many polls as the most popular person in Palestinian politics and is widely considered a likely successor to Mahmoud Abbas. Many Palestinian observers argue that the sooner such a succession occurs, the better, for Palestinian fortunes, at home and abroad.

It seems that last week, Barghouti committed an indiscretion:

“Earlier this week, Barghouti issued a statement in which he called for mass protests across the Occupied Territories and the Arab world in support of the Palestinian bid to secure U.N. recognition in September.”

“Winning the battle of next September, which is an important step in our struggle, requires the biggest peaceful popular protests here, and in the diaspora, and in Arab and Muslim countries and international capitals,” Barghouti wrote. (The Daily Star, July 23, 2011)

One of the tests for us on the Israeli left is, that while we involve ourselves, in spirit and body with the mass movement against the Israeli government’s neo-liberal onslaught, we must continue to protest each and every act of cruelty (and political idiotism) generated by the Israeli military-security apparatuses and demand that Israel stop the revenge motivated inhuman harassment against Marwan Barghouti!

B. Self-Criticism

Last week I finished a long article in Hebrew in which I announced that I can no longer support the so-called solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian conflict known as the “two-state solution.” I do not think that this change of my view on the question is of major importance, but do feel it necessary to explain to many friends and political associates, in the broadest of terms the reasons for the change.

I was slow in reading the transformations in the region. Over time, the US abandoned all pretext of objectivity and fairness regarding the Palestinian question. At the same time that Washington was betraying the Palestinians, they established a strategically important military presence in the West Bank, increased the flow of funds to the PA and to wealthy, influential Palestinians. The process was directed mainly by Salim Fayed, who morphed from a mid-level technocrat to the role of prime minister by virtue of his connections to the US.

Washington became more involved militarily and politically in Palestine and at the very same time abandoned any pretense of acting as an “honest broker.” The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (DFPE) in Israel continued its unqualified support for Mohammed Abbas and his leadership despite the sad fact that Abbas led the Palestinian Authority into a fateful alliance with US policy. [The DPFE is a broader affair built around the Communist Party of Israel. Both groups are a single political formation for all practical purposes] It is not as if the PA could point to any achievement “on the ground” as an excuse for its total subservience to the US patron. It seems that the DPFE, admittedly the strongest party among the Israeli Arab population felt obliged to stick with Abbas. When I and others tried unsuccessfully to convince the DPFE that they would be crossing a critical line by their unconditional support of an openly pro-imperialist leadership, we encountered the stubborn argument that support for the PA and its abject pro-US policies is a logical continuation of support for a two state solution.

Historically, support for the two state solution, was linked to attempts to prevent the US from dominating the Palestinian issue. The two-state solution did embody at one point certain high ideals of a compromise on the national question – though it was clear in the left that the Palestinians would be making disproportionate concessions. At any rate, faced with the DPFE position, I and others argued that in principle it was justified to continue to support the two-state solution despite the capitulation of the Abbas leadership.

Meanwhile, Obama and the entire US political establishment caved in again and again to the Israeli settler right. The US cynically claimed that the moral collapse of its policies and its sickening surrender to Netanyahu and the settler right was part of preparing a new round of negotiations. The two-state solution was rapidly being transformed into some sort of sick joke. In order to reach negotiations on a two state solution, the Palestinians were called upon to negotiate during settlement activity. I do not have the time here to go into the details of the weird process by which control of US policy on Palestine was delivered up to 500 messianic second class cheap politicians in the U.S Congress . One did not have to be a master of diplomatic dynamics to understand that the US would not and could not sponsor any solution that might conceivably meet the minimal demands of the Palestinians – even as defined by the Abbas “moderates”. Negotiations on any two-state solution in the present context appears as some sort of bone to be thrown to an increasingly unpopular Palestinian leadership, or still worse, negotiations based on US-Israeli connivance might well deliver the final death blow to any semblance of genuine Palestinian sovereignty. The two-state solution, I came to understand had lost any of its original humanistic impetus and had become a diplomatic bauble for the Dennis Ross types who organize an infinite amount of meetings and flights for the Tony Blairs of this world, devoid of any real content. I thus came to understand, admittedly a bit late, that there was no reason whatsoever to support the so called two state solution.

In order to keep the record straight I should clarify that I have not abandoned my total skepticism regarding the idea of a “one state” solution. Nothing is to be gained by pretending that there is a solution on the agenda taking into account the given relations of power and the growingly irrational elements in the deployment of US hegemony in its present crisis. The left in this country will not remain without work to do. There must be a constant unremitting effort to condemn the occupation and expose Palestinian suffering in the territories. The struggle for Jewish-Arab solidarity and the rights of Israel’s Palestinian citizens must remain high on the agenda. The renowned flag of Israeli equality has been ripped to shreds by vicious neo-liberal policies. Masses of young Israelis have setoff on a search for social justice. It will be very hard to find equality even for some without equality for all.

C. Irresponsible Hyperbole

The following little piece of hype has no foundation in all the serious reporting on the mega demo in support of the demands for social justice:

“Approximately 30,000 protesters marched in Tel Aviv last night,
with social justice activists blocking central streets and chants
of "Mubarak. Assad. Netanyahu" filling the air.”

The item which appeared on a progressive blog is unsourced and pure fantasy. As a matter of fact, the militant young Israeli marchers did not have the faintest idea of relating in any form or fashion to the Israeli-Arab Palestinian conflict. They are hankering after an elusive quality which goes by the name of social justice and deeply hurt that even large sections of the middle class need some relief from the vicissitudes of what goes in Israel by the name of “market economics.”

Many sharp observers of the ME scene, such as Prof. Joel Beinin from Stanford University, have cited the startling similarities between the effects of neo-liberalism on the middle class in Egypt and Israel. But Beinin among others is quite clear about the danger of stretching that analogy too far, even before examining the gigantic differences linked to the political and diplomatic roles of the two countries.

For quite a while there have been two opposing views regarding the potential of class struggle in Israeli Jewish society. Important leftists such as MK Dov Khenin (HADASH) and the militant journalist Ephraim Davidi have stubbornly defended the view that there is an unlimited revolutionary energy in the streets that can and must be harnessed to radical politics. Many others, myself included, have pointed out that Israel’s colonialist role, past and present has been, at least up to now, a serious brake on any motion past establishment politics in this country, which are, unfortunately Zionist to the core. And Zionist in this frame of reference, means maintaining and protecting Jewish privilege over and against Palestinian demands for national and civic equality.

The young people fighting for decent rental housing, the doctors fighting for reasonable wages and the salvation of the public health system and the consumers who have figured out that they are being ripped off by the big supermarket chains all deserve the warm respect and support of progressives here and abroad. In regards to the revolutionary potential of the movement - this may be another one of those cases where you hope that you are wrong and the widespread disgust at Bibi and his gang may generate one form or another of radical politics. You do hear the chant of “Bibi Go Home”, but for now, no voices coming out of the tent compounds are saying “Go Home Bibi and take your Wars and Occupation with you.”

Twelve Theses and Six Comments on the ME

2011-12-07T10:32:00.000+02:00

Thesis 1: Though the following axiomatic truth is, or should be clear, it is necessary to remind ourselves that we must continue to relate to the ME and the Arab countries, in terms of a system and a structure dominated by the US and its NATO allies, (or US for short) .

Comment 1

It is strange to come across detailed analyses of events in the region, even from people who see themselves as members of the left that stubbornly ignore the above factual background, essential in understanding currents and developments.

Thesis 2: The chief goals of US domination are (a) profits from and control of the region’s resources, e.g., oil and gas and (b) permanent presence of constant strategic military superiority. These goals are guaranteed by an extensive series of agreements, contracts, and treaties with the formally independent, but actually subservient. governments in the region.

Thesis 3: These agreements are based on and ensure super profits resulting from the practice of unequal exchange and implemented so as to establish and maintain ruling circles that govern the specific countries in order to maintain the status quo favorable to foreign domination and local reaction – based on feudal, clerical, dynastic and military circles.

Thesis 4: On the eve of the Arab spring (February 2011) the key factors impacting the US system of domination were:

a) Deepening relative weakness of US economy and international crisis of the capitalist system; b) emerging coalition of countries opposed to foreign domination: Iran; Syria, Gaza and Hezballah in Lebanon; c) relative independence of Turkey re US policy; d) relative failure of US war to control Iraq.

Thesis 5: The first great success of the Arab spring was to undermine the Mubarek regime in Egypt, which along with Israel and Saudi Arabia served as the main agencies of strategic control, military rule and dictatorship against the Arab masses.

Thesis 6: The Arab spring was the signal for the spontaneous and unprecedented rise of the Arab masses in rebellion against the status quo and challenging the leadership of all Arab countries. However, each and every spontaneous rebellion must in its development elaborate its principles and goals – and its orientation regarding possible common fronts and coalitions.

Thesis 7: There is every reason to support the spontaneous rebellion of the masses. But this position must be distinguished from a kind of “revolutionary romanticism” which ignores the capability of existing political forces to co-opt mass movements that are unable or refuse to define their own clear goals.

Comment 2: In Libya many leftist commentators identified left influence and even hegemony among the anti-Quadaffi fighters. Sadly, this turned out to be wishful thinking.

Comment 3: Today, we have to repel attacks on the Arab spring because of current disappointments. It is worth recalling that the rise of the masses in the original spring of nations (1848) met with a resounding defeat. The success of any uprising depends in the final analysis on the clear definition of goals and the ability to organize the movement and its leadership.

Thesis 8: The category of anti-imperialism is under sharp attack by many on the left who argue that it is immoral to define as anti-imperialist regimes characterized by forms of extreme repression. This moralistic approach ignores the following: a) the anti-imperialist nature of such regimes is not a question of abstract theory but of a real, on the ground, clash between the goals and policies of the various anti-imperialist countries, and the US-NATO system of domination and control. The dominant system identifies, for all concerned, threats to it smooth functioning and control. Imperialism knows its enemies.

Comment 4: No one wanted to describe Iraq under Sadam Hussein in progressive terms. But a blatant war of aggression was launched by the US and its allies against the regime and the people of Iraq…. because of their anti-imperialist positions; b) the ideological basis of this approach is widely understood and recognized by Marxism. Resistance to imperial diktat and the aspiration for independence is recognized as progressive even when implemented by backward or repressive regimes.

This policy was completely vindicated in Latin America where the national liberation movements became the foundation of a serious, anti-imperialist threat to Yankee domination.

Thesis 9:

All the regimes in the region are dictatorships. This means that the level of repression and its expressions is more a question of form than of substance. The practice of brutal dictatorship, corruption and unlimited exploitation, cruel and vicious methods of imprisonment, torture and the total subjugation of the masses is commonplace for decades in countries of the region and not headline material. This, the norm of pro-imperialist government, has been imposed on more than 350 million Arabs for decades.

Thesis 10: The countries in the region which have broken away from imperial domination bear witness to having grown up in the same neighborhood. They are no better and no worse in matters linked to individual freedoms and no different in the reliance of brute power when they consider themselves threatened. At any rate, from the minute that they defy imperial domination, they are in danger of bloody reprisal by internal and regional enemies.

Thesis 11: The principle of sovereign rights is an important element which enables and encourages local groupings to consider options based on policies developing national independence. The process of breaking away from imperial domination is an important factor in the acceleration of developing contradictions in the imperial system. This explains the centrality of the intervention issue. Since the West cannot claim the existence of any right of intervention, huge resources are devoted to slanted media coverage and commentary and to richly financed acts of subversion and conspiracy to justify every kind of intervention.

Comment 5: It is amusing to hear the left mocked because it raises the issue of imperial conspiracy and subversion. In the more sophisticated political and intellectual elements of the West it is common knowledge, and rarely denied that such practices are central to the responsible administration of state interests.

12) The system of Western exploitation and domination determines to a decisive degree the class structure of the states in the region. There is throughout the region an almost total lack of investment in manufacturing and industry. As a result it is hard to identify a sizable industrial working class. In many instances, the oil and gas industry is dependent on foreign labor in an area of immense labor surplus.

Comment 6: It can be presumed –though the matter requires further examination – that the strength of religious feeling stems from the fact that it is the main or often the single force that supplies a modicum of material, social and cultural solidarity. It appears that the Islamic clergy and charitable institutions act as a virtual sub-contractor instead of the state – in the area of social services. The source of funding is probably the only oil money that remains in the region that is not devoted to the corrupt regimes and their henchmen.

Ha'aretz Tails After Barak

2011-10-22T10:15:00.000+02:00

Ha’aretz Has A Big Front Page Scoop

The message in the front page headline, spread over six of the eight columns in today’s English edition of Ha’aretz (December 21, 2011) is clear and unequivocal . The headline states: ”Assad losing control as 10,000 soldiers desert Syrian military.” Here is the full text of the article, for your info.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/assad-losing-control-as-10-000-soldiers-desert-syrian-military-1.402625

However, there is a slight journalistic complication. No recognizable or identifiable source is given for the information. The only sources cited for these dramatic developments are simply “sources” or “Western intelligence agencies.” Moreover, Ha’aretz seems to be the only one out there with this tremendous scoop. The 10,000 deserters did not make it into the NYT today, which carried a routine balanced report on the daily casualties and on the preparations of the Arab League delegation to Syria.

Maybe the real clue to the Ha’aretz scoop is based on a statement by Defense Minister Barak a month ago (and cited in the very article) that Assad will fall in a few weeks. Now, it seems that the two Ha’aretz journalists, Issacharoff and Harel are playing that old Shin Bet game. They are converting their “personal” connections with Barak into a nice bit of journalistic hearsay. You see, no one can prove that they are wrong.

Ha’aretz, true enough is not the only media channel revealing a bit of hysteria these days. The “danger” of negotiations is looming and there are indications of attempts at a negotiated settlement. Such a negotiated settlement may be the only way to prevent a protracted civil war in Syria, which might easily mushroom into a regional conflagration. Now if you are against negotiations, the best argument against them, and you can hear it in the most recent Israeli commentary, is quite clear and simple. Asad is falling. He is dead. Why would anyone in his right mind want to negotiate with him?

Barak “knows” that Asad is going to fall any day. Barak’s buddies over at Ha’aretz send up this balloon. And this is Israel’s leading newspaper. Leading to where and to what?

All the above applies as well to the Hebrew edition of the paper, with one single difference. The banner heralding the scoop in the Hebrew paper was a bit longer.

ME Perspectives

2011-10-09T10:14:00.000+02:00

The ME does not seem to be quieting down. Neither now or in the near future.

Instability is the rule and not the exception all over the area. Change is on the agenda.

The change is not uni-directional and the level of violence is different from country to country. Any country by country summary of major events in the region verifies the clear conclusion that the scope and the depth of tensions and instability on a regional level is unique in every sense.

The fact that there are salient differences in trends and directions from country to country has allowed the so-called experts to come up with the brilliant assertion that things are different from country to country and one should avoid generalizations. This generalization about the danger of generalization is about the most superficial stupidity that the establishment punditry has to offer. Differences, even important ones exist.

Even so, can one ignore the pressing probability that there must be some common forces at work, that there must be some under the surface dynamic that is the key to understanding the discrete events.

First Summary

The following ME survey should get us on the way to some sort of over arching analysis, or at the least, the tools required for this purpose.

Egypt and Tunis

We have here two unfinished revolutions. The US and its European allies, for short “the West” have lost their “safe” regimes. At this point they are doing everything to contain the damage. The hatred for the former rulers keeps the revolution going but the stalled pace is being utilized by the West to develop a new set of alternative forces and bridges to the mainstream alternatives. The main search is for a “moderate Islamic” electoral winner. But even formally free elections can push the scene anywhere. The West is in no hurry. The signs of growing economic difficulties may push the electorate to the right if there is no credible nationalist or left alternative.

Libya and Syria appear to be two successes for the “West.” Libya is real gain. The military defeat of Gadaffi shows that intervention, if organized and staged properly, is still an effective weapon. As the West prepares to assume control, everybody can formulate their own conclusions from the almost hysterical debates that beset the left. I doubt if there are anyone on the left who still believes that the intervention was an act of moral justice to prevent the annihilation of the Libyan masses by the regime. It is absolutely tiresome to have to reconvince people on the left that you cannot judge the forces at work from reports of the danger of a single specific pending atrocity. Even if the reports on the impending danger were totally accurate, that danger was, for the West, no more than a flimsy excuse to show some muscle. Many thousands of Libyans are dead. Few, if any white Europeans were discomforted. It is clear that there were enough Libyan people on either side to justify the view that this was a civil war. The war was not about any pending atrocity that had to be prevented but about control of Libyan territory, Libyan oil and the possibility of enthroning a much more compliant regime.

I definitely understand and support the basic position of Castro and Chavez, which is that whatever the specific crisis in any one country, the left should maintain a firm and unyielding position against outside military intervention. Even when the crisis is a result of internal strife and there are masses facing the military dictatorship, it is the duty of the left to distinguish between justifiable condemnation of the use of force by the regime and the possibility of an outcome which is as bad if not worse than the present situation. Dictators will invariably use naked force to stay in power. The masses have an inherent right to rebel. But this does not relieve us from the hard questions. What forces are leading the opposition? What are their programs and international connections. Are there ways to avoid an all out civil war? The Western media would have us freeze our analysis to the original scenes and prepare us for the victory of their scenario. Even when, as in the present situation, it is our duty, especially ours, to condemn the brutality of the Assad regime, there is no reason to desist from an analysis of events to refrain from pursuing an outcome that could lead to more positive and progressive outcomes. We cannot exclude the possibilities that events in Syria have transformed into elements of civil war. And we cannot be blind to the powerful simplistic message in the daily media to the effect that only NATO has the answer to ending the crisis. Is it not clear that this message confirms our worst apprehension that NATO might be trying to influence events in Syria in directions that will increase its chances for intervention?

There of course people in the left who wish to seize on any deviation from the simplistic message – overthrowing Assad as the main and only goal of the Syrian struggle - as an act of complicity with the dictatorship. In the eyes of the “liberal left” any hesitation about supporting any and all opposition forces in Syria exposes the hesitators to the charge of refusing to abandon their previous positive evaluation of Syria’s regional role. However, the anti-Assad demand that refuses to discriminate between forces and trends in the opposition is precisely the NATO position. Nothing is clearer than the fact that NATO is desperately searching for any bloc of internal forces which could sponsor their intervention.

US Stabs Palestine in the Back

2011-09-24T10:30:00.000+03:00

Why Obama Stabbed the Palestinians in the Back

There are two ways of looking at the disgusting performance of Obama at the UN where he openly and cynically stabbed the Palestinians in the back. One explanation is based on Obama’s electoral considerations and his need to coddle Israel at Palestinian expense. The second explanation is based on the logic of great power imperial strategic considerations. Israel is a serious ally and its services may be required express any day in the present stormy ME region. Incidentally, the two versions are not mutually exclusive.

The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier

Firstly, it might be a bit unpleasant, and some of my friends will be offended by the stark language, if not the essence of the matter, but the truth must be told in clear and bold language. It has been clear now for quite a while. The abandonment of Palestine to de facto annexation into Greater Israel is a process enabled and facilitated by the United States. For its own selfish imperialist reasons, the United States, led by Barack Obama, is prepared to sell the Palestinians down the river. Thus, the deeper reason for Obama’s disgraceful performance is the rising importance of the US’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region. The US correctly views the Middle East as being in a free for all. After Mubarek has been deposed, with Yemen and Bahrain hemorrhaging, the US needs its main ally, Israel, always ready to fight at the drop of a hat. The US has made some gains in the ME, notably Libya and Syria. But the revolutionary processes in the region are just beginning. Just compare the performance of the two main US allies, Israel and Pakistan, to understand why the US with its waning powers refuses to complicate life for Netanyahu.

Of course, during the “peace process,”the United States promised everyone a “happy end” to the protracted drama. But as things got worse and worse and the US stopped calling back – it became clear that DC had other fish to fry and Netanyahu was and is Obama’s exclusive point man in the region.

Scared of Rick Perry – Fear of Losing Jewish Votes

I doubt whether the sordid US behavior is only a matter of Obama trying to protect the “Jewish vote.” The stench of growing anti-Semitic Christian fundamentalism will probably keep the Jewish voters, who can figure out that all this love and friendship is supposed to end in their conversion, in the Democratic Party. With all due respect to pro-Israel sentiment, the mass of Jewish voters just will not want to pray in Rick Perry’s church. However, if I am wrong about the imperialist essence of the matter, and Obama willfully and cynically sacrificed the interests of the entire Palestinian people for an uncertain cheap electoral consideration, this is also proof that the US is in the hands of irresponsible, dangerous politicians. The end result is not all that different, whether the motivation is imperial strategic needs or cheap, local politics. The US continues to build its regional strategy on a sick, blind devotion to an Israeli, anti-Arab, regional hegemony. The Likud people are chortling all over the place. Netanyahu has the President of the United States in his hip pocket. Members of the ‘moderate’ public in Israel have now joined legions of liberal and progressive people in the United States who, having been fooled by Obama at one stage or another, now justifiably consider themselves betrayed.

Illusions regarding the US

What with the illusions in the Palestinian camp, represented by the policies of Abu Mazen, it was hard for the moderate peace camp in Israel to see things as they actually were for quite along time. Stressing the difficult situation wherein the US reigned as the single super power and the fact that the main opposition to the US role was dominated by Islamic forces – many on the left refused to see the handwriting on the apartheid wall and ignored the deadly danger of the US embrace. The US was throwing peanuts to the Palestinian Authority, in order to debilitate its resistance and encourage false hopes. For little expense, the US could pretend to seem to be working for peace. But this game is also over.

Many dear friends on the left, supporters of a reasonable two state compromise fell asleep on the job. They refused to criticize Abu Mazen and the PA and defended them because they were willing to make serious concessions for peace. But they refused to warn that Abu Mazen’s “practical “ line of leaning on the US for day to day support and sustenance had involved him in a set of military and economic concessions which hollowed out his support among the Palestinians. One can understand how our friend Uri Avneri, an indefatigable opponent of the occupation, allowed himself to be hoodwinked by the Obama administration – because of all the chatter about supposed common values. But how did the leftist Democratic Front for Peace and Equality in Israel allow itself to become the loyal, almost servile supporter of Abu Mazen and his policies – despite the pro-US orientation of the PA and the scandalous establishment of General Dayton’s army?

Meanwhile the Likud hacks are going wild with joy. If they have unqualified support from the US – they do not have another care in the world. Bibi returns to Israel in a blaze of glory. He and his friends have appointed Netanyahu as the leader of the Jewish people. There is no base in law or morality for this claim, but he will do everything to usurp such a role. So far, his main contribution has been to justify some of the more flagrant accusations against Israel by openly and cynically using the sufferings of the Jewish people to justify the occupation and its crimes.

The Palestinians are going to the UN

2011-09-15T10:26:00.000+03:00

The Whole World is Watching

The Palestinians are going to the UN and demanding recognition as an independent state. It appears that the demand for UN recognition enjoys broad Palestinian support, chiefly for its symbolic value. It is not hard to understand that many Palestinians would prefer to be led by a more reliable and militant leadership. However, the dissenters would be making, in my humble opinion, a serious mistake were they to oppose the UN initiative with a long list of objections and reservations – howsoever justified. It seems that one needs only a minimum of political wisdom to understand that the complicated and fateful issues dividing the Palestinian public are almost totally irrelevant in this context. There will still be time for the complicated issues dividing Palestinian society.

Here in Israel, matters are even clearer. From Zionist doves to Anarchists Against the Wall (and everyone in between), “two staters,” “one staters” and “no staters” can all unite in protesting the disgusting and cowardly performance of the UN, which allows itself to be manipulated by every conceivable trick and tactic to block entrance of the Palestinians as full and equal members of the international community.

The Palestinian initiative is opposed by the main bitter enemies of the Palestinian people. The main culprits in this sordid and ugly crime against international morality are the US government and its leaders and its Israeli partner. Nor shall we ever forget the slimy role of the Tony Blair’s and the Dennis Ross’es who attempt to mask rank discrimination as honest mediation.

There is no reason for illusions regarding the Palestinian initiative. Things after the UN sessions on Palestine will not be radically different. There is reason to believe that the enemies of Palestine are not only evil, but increasingly out of touch with reality. One senses that they – the US and Israel - still believe that they are the unchallenged masters of the region. They are, we fear, laboring under a misconception that is both silly and extremely dangerous.

Ending Civil War in Libya – Preventing Civil War in Syria

2011-05-15T10:33:00.000+03:00

From the Desk of Reuven Kaminer May 16, 2011

Ending Civil War in Libya – Preventing Civil War in Syria

Just two long months ago, in the early stage of the Libyan crisis, advocates of UN intervention justified their position with the claim that Gadaffi was determined to slaughter thousands of his own citizens. There is no way of knowing whether that horrendous scenario was indeed going to materialize. Let us accept, for the sake of productive discussion in the left that the danger was real. Of course, this factor certainly influenced the public debate regarding intervention. It is understandable that many sincere people on the left supported the USNATO intervention because they did not want the blood of the citizens of Benghazi and other cities on humanity’s conscience. Two months later, the potential bloodbath in Benghazi, has been supplanted by a new dangerous reality, by the ongoing, real, undeniable bloodbath of civil war. Months of war and destruction are descending on Libya. Libyans, mobilized in two warring camps are killing each other daily.

We would like to assume that many friends on the left who supported intervention out of humanitarian considerations are not locked into irreversible support for the continuation of USNATO intervention and remain willing to analyze the situation as it unfolds. The humanitarian instinct, at the outset of the Libyan crisis, sought a particular solution for a specific drastic situation. Moreover, approval extended to the USNATO expedition by some on the left rarely, if ever, could be construed as to include a vote of confidence or any expression of confidence in the political-military leadership of the war against Gaddafi. One cannot be certain regarding motivations, but as far as we understood the bitter debate in the left, it appears that most pro-intervention sentiment was based on the assumption that the mission could be accomplished with speed and accuracy and if the intervention proved that Gadaffi had absolutely no support – his elimination from the political equation would be all for the better.

We know sincere people on the left who are increasingly aware that the UN mandate has been so distorted as to include regime change and even targeted assassination. This is not “mission creep,” but mission revision. And there is more to come.

It would seem that enough has happened – much of it unexpected -to renew the discussion in the left regarding this stage of development on a different level. There may still be some highly imaginative people on the left who are willing to stick with the intervention until victory, laboring under the illusion that with the final conclusive victory over Gadaffi, the revolution will reemerge in all its glory, thank the leaders of the free world for their assistance and relieve them of the keys of the kingdom. But the facts on the ground are quite clear and suggest the absence of any revolutionary perspective. The rebels are split into competing factions vying for USNATO backing and there is absolutely no reason to expect the emergence of anything progressive in the new regime when and if it is installed by Cameron and Sarkozy with Obama lurking in the wings.

It may appear a bit strange, but it is increasingly clear that USNATO is willing to cut any deal in Libya, if you can promise them Gadaffi’s head on a platter. It is not coincidental that the recent bombardment of command and control posts in Tripoli seems unmistakably similar to the targeted assassination techniques perfected by the IDF and learned by the U.S. Seals. There are many signs that the UN command is toying with the possibility of Gadaffi’s ‘accidental’ death. The USNATO stubborn insistence on death for Gadaffi is the kind of material that might well build a legend around him and the Libyan state-sponsored resistance. There is no reason to be certain that if Gadaffi is rubbed out he will not leave a camp of admirers who will continue the fight onwards. Real friends of Libya cannot be indifferent to the historical impact of the war that might cause irreparable damage to the very existence of Libyan society.

If there is an alternative path to stop the killing why would any progressive reject it out of hand? In diplomatic quarters, it is understood that the leadership of the West will suffer a serious blow to their prestige if Gadaffi survives. But, it would seem that no one on the left should be concerned with the danger to the crumbling prestige of the USNATO project, which needs Gadaffi dead to satisfy the appetite for his blood that they have nurtured in the Western media. The situation today in Libya is that the victory of any of the fighting sides might well be the occasion for bloody reprisals and massive revenge. The political will and the humanitarian instincts of people on the left should lead them – supporters and opponents of the intervention alike - to support the same demand today – immediate talks on a cease fire and a political solution.

Of course, there are “advisors” on the USNATO side calling for more and more military force for victory over Gadaffi. Is it conceivable that the left, humanitarian or otherwise, throw in its lot with the hawkish wing of the interventionists, who are calling for increased, more widespread bombing with bigger and more destructive bombs? Can there be a progressive position that calls for the USNATO to spill rivers of blood in Libya in order to end the mess that they have created?

In the face of this senseless killing, the idea of a cease fire has become compelling. Left wing supporters of the intervention are supporting the National Transition Council’s offer for negotiations after Gadaffi is removed. Now, the anti-imperialist left is called on to support the endless continuation of a civil war because the interventionist camp cannot negotiate until Gadaffi is eliminated from the picture. Here is another “anti-imperialist-pro intervention” position that just happens to fulfill the needs of imperial politics. Really.

Just one last comment on the dispute on the left. At this stage a lot of energy on both sides of the dispute is devoted to picking up and relaying particular news items that seem to have a bearing on who is right regarding the meaning of the intervention. The “dogmatists’ have been vilified for coming out automatically against the imperial initiative, though the anti-interventionist camp has massed sufficient evidence to fully prove the hypocrisy behind the whole attack.

Now, when each side to the argument on the left regarding the intervention is busy looking for quotations, it might be a good idea to ask who should carry the burden of proof. Do the anti-interventionists have to labor to show that it is silly if not worse to present the US-UK-French aggressors as disinterested volunteers in the cause of freedom? Even when the evidence regarding the mendacious nature of the NATO is plentiful, do we on the left have to labor to prove the wisdom of the principle that imperialist intervention is not and cannot be a vehicle of progress. Are we impartial regarding the loyal heirs of Bush and Blair?

Assad’s Last Chance

We remain unwilling to bow to the current fashion which refuses to see any difference, whatsoever, between the Assad regime, on one hand, and that of Mubarek in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia. As a matter of fact all the Arab regimes have been dictatorships as far back as we can remember. All dictatorships fight against the opposition with no holds barred. The level of brutality and repression usually varies in direct proportion to the danger. This world and its mode of operation have been dictated in large by the needs and demands of the imperial masters of the region. The real chances for a democratic opening involve disabling the military, economic and political control of the region from USNATO domination. Support for the intervention in Libya is support for USNATO domination in the region.

It seems quite clear that the Syrian dictatorship did not hesitate to resort to brute force in order to squelch the rising flames of genuine and legitimate protest. This is inexcusable, and those responsible for this kind of response must be brought before the bar of justice. This having been said without any further qualification, more has to be said on other aspects of the Syrian question. Syria’s defense of its sovereignty over the years and its refusal to play the US game in the region regarding Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian issue were and remain an important contribution to restraining US-Israeli aggression. Justified criticism of Syria by the left cannot ignore these positive elements in the picture because of justified concern for the rights of the Syrian people and clear opposition to the brutal repression we have witnessed for weeks.

The first reports regarding the repression in Syria appeared at a time of the intensive debate regarding USNATO intervention in Libya and there was reason to fear that confirmation of the repression in Syria would appear to support intervention in Syria.

Intervention, it turned out, is not for the moment on the agenda in Syria. Importantly, there are still no signs of any credible political opposition. The opposition in the streets to the Assad regime is based for the most part on different and even competing sectarian and ethnic groups. Moreover, some of the regimes traditional enemies appear to have exploited the opportunity to initiate armed action. The strength and the cohesion of the regime, which is trying to deflect mass opposition by the promise of serious reforms, have restricted the USNATO scope of action. But, let there be no doubt that the USNATO operation is looking for weak spots in Syria and hoping for an opening that might make intervention a more feasible option.

It is certainly for the good that the Libya intervention has reminded Obama, Cameron and Sarkozi that there are no easy interventions.

In Syria there are serious calls from the left and many popular organizations for dialogue and genuine reform. There are differing opinions regarding the sincerity or lack thereof of the Assad reform program. Window dressing and empty slogans will make things worse. The neo-liberal policies of the regime have completely alienated natural allies among the workers and peasants. Assad must change course or crash and if he relies on massive force and repression to save him, no one on the left will be sorry to see his regime go down in flames.

Israel Sics Dogs on Workers

I generally shy away from covering the atrocities and more disgusting aspects of the Israeli rule over the occupied Palestinian territories. This unpleasant but necessary mission is performed by many devoted groups and non-governmental organizations. But the following piece of information has to be shouted from the rooftops in the hope of shaming the perpetrators of this latest bit of pure ugliness. The courageous journalist, Gideon Levy, tells of the latest IDF technical upgrade in punishing workers who try to get into Israel to earn their daily bread. Haaretz Friday May 13, 2011. http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/israel-s-dogs-of-war-1.361449

The soldiers lay in wait on the border in the very early hours of the morning before dawn and sic the dogs on laborers trying to get into Israel for a few days work. The IDF explains that if not dogs, they would have to employ more severe measures. Iron logic and poison in the soul.

Danger!

Meir Degan, recently retired from his “distinguished career” as Mossad chief, came out openly against the idiotic idea of attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities. There is only one single explanation for Dagan’s speaking out. Just one: he has reason to fear that this option is being seriously considered by the Israeli leadership – here and now.

Intervention in the Name of Stability

2011-04-28T18:34:00.000+03:00

Intervention in the Name of Stability

Professor Noam Chomsky recently delivered an important address in Amsterdam entitled “Contours of the World Order.”(1)

A large part of the speech was devoted to the role of the US in defending its area of absolute hegemony. According to Chomsky’s excellent analysis, the United States relates to all countries with a simple rule of behavior. They must honor obligations stemming from US control and domination and governments which refuse to behave according to this universal principle will be the objects of US reprisals up to and including direct military threat to their very existence. Chomsky sums it up with his characteristic incisiveness. If you are on the US team, then you are part of the stability that must be treasured above all else. If you challenge US hegemony, you are an enemy of stability.

It is necessary to understand that this US policy has nothing to do with the internal nature of the given regime. Iraq was attacked, as we suspected, because it challenged US dictates regarding its use of its own oil. The nature of Sadaam Hussein’s regime or the scope of his repression against the people of Iraq was totally irrelevant when the US decided that he was getting out of line.

Regarding Iran, Chomsky explains that no military or security danger emanates from the Islamic Republic. The simple truth is that the carefully cultivated US-Israeli hysteria build-up stems from Iran’s success in the diplomatic and political field.

Apologetics for USNATO Intervention

It is almost a full time job following the intensive debate in large sections of the left regarding the USNATO intervention in Libya. The pro-interventionist current has an important spokesperson in the highly respected person of Prof. Gilbert Achcar, a theoretician close to the radical left. Achcar, who speaks for a minority of the left, supported UN intervention, and the “no fly” zone, but did criticize the interpretation of the UNSC 1973 which allowed for bombing the country. Achcar holds to the position that the USNATO intervention was justified by the danger to Benghazi which would have fallen to the merciless Gadaffi. In his most recent comments on events in Libya, Achcar warns against foreign “boots on the ground” but sticks to his support for the rebels National Transitional Council, and calls for massive arms shipments to the rebels.(2)

This position appears to your humble correspondent to be seriously flawed. Senator John McCain was in Benghazi this week also calling for arms for the rebels. At this point in the debate we have thoroughly examined all the theoretical approaches to the question and have entered the world of practical politics. A war is going on in Libya sponsored, administered and conducted by USNATO. The purpose of this war at this stage is to effect regime change without which USNATO will suffer a humiliating disgrace. One might argue that Gadaffi was guilty of attempts to snuff out the democratic elements in Libya which had raised the flag of the Arab democratic revolution and who should have received full support from the left.

However, by centering our whole analysis on the crimes of Gadaffi, we encounter a serious difficulty. This is the same difficulty that we encountered regarding the drive for intervention against a long list of unsavory characters, including the likes of Sadaam Hussein, the Taliban, or even El Qaida. Experience provides ample evidence that confrontation between the US, acting in its imperial interests, and the local tyrants, reactionaries and fundamentalists enables the most reactionary sections of society to present themselves as the legitimate voices of authentic identity and patriotism. This dynamic, which develops intensely, at the heart of almost all interventions, actually prevents the growth and development of the social forces that carry the seed of genuine emancipation and reform.

The pro-independence, pro-democracy forces in Libyan society, even if they were as originally influential at the beginning of the crisis, as some believe, could not have conceivably survived as a significant force when the fight against the Gaddafi forces was taken over, subverted and recast as a battle to impose the will of the USNATO coalition in order “to save civilization and the free world.” The world has seen just how this kind of subversion ends. By virtue of its results, the US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues the frenzied establishment of additional new military bases all over the globe. The name of this game is the right of intervention versus the right of self determination.

Syria in Crisis

As reports of large scale military and police attacks on peaceful demonstrating Syrian civilians are verified from objective sources, it will be the obligation of all democrats to call on the Asad regime to cease and desist immediately from such practices. Even so, we do not live in a romantic pseudo-democratic wonderland and we cannot be indifferent to the nature of the opposition in Syria, especially since it known that Syria is composed of a complex patch work of ethnic and sectarian entities. The empirical evidence of US involvement in the past so-called “velvet-color” revolutions will, as has happened invariably in the past, also surface here at a later stage regarding the crisis Syria.

There are unkind souls who will insist that all those who warn of US subversion and CIA provocations are claiming that the demonstrations and the protests in Syria are the work of the CIA. This is, of course, a gross falsification. The principles of the anti interventionist position is clear. There is every reason to believe that the mass protests in Syria reflect serious, genuine defects and weaknesses in the Asad regime. But, the crisis in Syria activates the hope in Washington for a pro-US regime in Damascus. And if this is not possible, the US and its faithful supporters might well prefer the disintegration of Syria into an ethnic-sectarian hodgepodge.

Up till now, the Syrian government has defended, over the years, its sovereignty and its independence against US pressures. It has acted with a modicum of solidarity and sensitivity to the Palestinian cause, when dictators such as Mubarek were openly conspiring with the US and Israel against the rights of the Palestinian people.

The survival of the Syrian government depends, in the final analysis, on its deserving the confidence and the support of the Syrian masses. Syria does have enemies but this is good reason for it not to become its own worst enemy.

1)[http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175382/tomgram%3A_noam_chomsky%2C_who_owns_the_world/]

(2) http://www.zcommunications.org/the-libyan-insurrection-between-gaddafis-hammer-natos-anvil-and-the-lefts-confusion-results-and-prospects-by-gilbert-achcar

Unity Vs. Intervention

2011-02-07T11:02:00.001+02:00

Dear friends,

Last week I sent out a note in Hebrew in which I condemned the Gadaffi regime in no uncertain terms. However, I found Castro’s fears that the anti-Gadaffi campaign being run by the US and the EU is, in essence, preparation for armed intervention. My sense is that anyone in the left should oppose, in principle, intervention by the US and its allies.* This applies, in addition to the negation armed invasion, to the full range of techniques and methods designed both to aid the rebels and to infiltrate and manipulate the anti-Gadaffi camp. I can understand and even support denunciations of Gaddafi and Gadaffi’s vicious response to mass struggle against his regime. But I cannot understand the vilification of the Castro-Chavez position. Indeed, the entire left shares with them and many others, the need to warn, above everything else, against US intervention in Libya. Indeed we may still have to meet, all of us, in mass action, under the unifying slogan: No to US intervention in Libya.

Friends, who are attacking Castro and Chavez on the Libyan issue, might ask themselves a rather simple but important question. What are the reasons behind the Castro-Chavez position? Is it possible that their experience affords a special vantage point? One might imagine that the direct responsibility for protecting the sovereignty and the rights on one’s own people and country, under constant threat, develops deeper insight into the dangers involved. For many who are examining the probability of an attack, this is a purely academic question. For Castro and Chavez, and indeed for all the forces arraigned against the US empire and battling it, the question is literally one of life or death.

My understanding is that It is precisely those who live in the sights of imperial threat and confrontation are the first to recognize the operation of mechanism by which remote, distant local conflicts morph into wider ones, especially when imperialism desires to expand its role on the ground.

The reality of US intervention covers an infinite amount of techniques and methods of varying intensity. Direct military intervention is usually the last stage of what often seems like rather innocuous interest and desire to help, of course, on a humanitarian basis. But most important for taking the temperature of US interventionist fever are the specific circumstances in which it appears.

A gigantic tidal wave of protest and reform is shaking the very foundations of United States interests in a region vital for it. And presently, the US feels itself being sidelined in its own bailiwick. The US, therefore, maneuvers to demonstrate that it is still relevant. For it, the game is not over and it must get into the thick of things as quickly as possible. For this very purpose, it has no difficulty in paying lip service to the Arab rebellion of 2011. And when Washington senses an opportunity to join the fray, it doesn’t hesitate to sacrifice Gadaffi, a mere pawn of a pro-Western tyrant, in order to insert itself, somehow, into the unfolding events.

Will US-Nato Intervene?

As we have noted, there is a full range of techniques and methods to intervene in budding civil war short of direct armed intervention. Usually, these can all be implemented while, simultaneously, many on the left explain why it is clear the US will not intervene. They mean direct invasion but meanwhile the intervention activity has already moved into high gear. Here we have a partial list: 1) supply of money and credit lines 2) information – current surveillance, tracking and espionage 3) bribery 4) dispelling propaganda and disinformation 5) jamming and blocking enemy communication 6) providing intelligence 7) making military material available 8) military advisors 9) making essential civilian material available, denying the same to enemy 10) threats and maneuvers that either require deployment of enemy forces or affect strategic lines 11) training troops

There must be more, but I do not have any personal experience in the field. One can rest assured that Washington and its various nefarious agencies are active in Libya from the first days of the crisis.

My First “Intervention”

I thought for a while I could continue to nurse my temporary writers block deepened by a perennial bout of sloth. But then I got this sinking feeling that the Yankees are up to something while everybody was busy talking almost exclusively about the extant of Gaddafi’s malevolence. I confess that Fidel’s first article convinced me that the main issue was and is the danger of US-Nato intervention.

Several Comments on the Libyan Issue

Reuven Kaminer

There is a basis for the accusation that the Gadaffi regime used brutal indiscriminate violence against demonstrators in his country when they were demanding a change in Libya, similar to that which occurred in Tunisia and Egypt. The Gadaffi people deny this. It is therefore vital that the accusation be clarified before an impartial body.

Gadaffi is only one of the more than a dozen tyrants in the region who enjoy the military, economic and political support of the US.

The US sensed that mobilizing support for the Libyan rebellion, perfectly justified in and by itself, offered a golden opportunity to intervene in Lybia. From that point, it did everything possible to transform the justified rebellion in Lybia into a confrontation between the USA, acting as the defender of democracy and the Gadaffi regime.

The US sought after and soon found among Gadaffi’s opponents, tribal chiefs, high level officers and ranking opportunists who held office in the Gadaffi government. These opponents of Gadaffi joined the battle in order to settle accounts with him and to advance their own agenda which is distinctively different from that of the mass uprising within the general Arab revolution.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the experience and the insight of the leaders of the countries of the Boliverian revolution, such as Castro and Chavez. They know, from their own experience, Washington’s strategy and the aims. They understood immediately that the US was ready to sacrifice the pawn, Gadaffi, (though friendly to the US) in order to gain some standing as an active participant in the Arab revolution.

The US and its allies faked an analysis to the effect that the Gadaffi regime was falling apart. On that background, they encouraged the Libyan opposition to organize a military campaign in order to achieve a quick military victory built on US political backing and military might.

Castro was right when he warned that the US was intervening

In Lybia in order to convince the popular movements in the Middle East that the US still has power and influence. But if we want to identify with battle of millions for freedom and democracy, it is vital to neutralize US influence in order to break up it’s regional hegemony. This hegemony operates through a chain of tyrants just like Gadaffi. Castro’s analysis is not simply one of a insightful observer. Castro expresses the sensitivities and the political instincts of an entire continent. The masses in Latin America have a wealth of experience of how the neighbor to the north uses power and money in order to lay down a smokescreen in preparation for aggressive action.

The demonization of Gadaffi deserves a special comment since even demonization has its limits. The media love to have a personality who can symbolize total evil in a single person. By intention or not, it happens that other actors in the drama such as Obama and Clinton, appear as nice, honorable people. Observers of the international crisis around Libya are led to concentrate their whole attention on Gadaffi’a weird behavior, to the point that they ignore all the elements of the entire picture. In this respect, one should not forget the role of the demonization of Sadaam Hussein in developments leading to the war in Iraq. Saadan was indeed a ruthless killer. But his demonization was an integral element in a successful propaganda campaign which led to a terrible catastrophe for the people of Iraq, which continues to this very day. And indeed, Gadaffi is a weird and disgusting character ready to use any means to defend his rule. But Gadaffi’s weird character is insufficient to justify intervention in Libya. Nor can we take comfort in the fact that the US operatives preparing for launch deadly military action are well groomed and well dressed. (End of my article)

I received a good many favorable comments on the article. Even so, it is necessary to reveal that there were those who wanted to know when I turned into a Gadaffi lover. Moreover, my detractors insisted that I was deceitfully hiding the fact that Castro and Chavez had expressed full approval of the Gaddafi regime.

Since Castro’s two letters on Libya were available on the net, I took the liberty of sending them to my readers. It is clear that the text dispel any doubts as to Castro’s intellectual capacity. It is also clear that Castro did not give full support to the Gadaffi regime.

Castro may be right or he may be wrong but senile he is not!

I was to discover after sending out the Castro texts that there are indeed people a few people on the left who consider support for Cuba pure Stalinism and wish to inform me that Cuba is not that different than Libya.

To all who approved of my written comments on Libya and even to those who suggested that I was suffering from some Stalinist recidivism, I suggest that we might still agree on our joint opposition to US-NATO intervention in Libya. And that, my friends, is the real issue.

The Israeli School of Misinterpretation

2010-12-06T16:51:00.000+02:00

It is clear enough that the WikiLeak affair will play out differently from country to country. The establishment here is quite pleased that there are no major revelations to embarrass the government – so far. The fact that Bibi Netanyahu, the leader of the “loyal opposition” bad mouthed his own government when visiting Washington was well known. No one thought otherwise. Still, many of the specific reactions by our widely recognized “experts” are worth a look. Their ranting and raving over the WikiLeak project are barren of any insight, but they do tell us much about their own political mentality.

Two very sour apples stand out: Professor Shlomo Avineri, who has abandoned the halls of academia for the pages of Ha’aretz, and one of Ha’aretz’s prime, well-connected court scribblers, Ari Shavit. (All quotes from Shavit and Avineri are from the English edition of Haaretz, December 3, 2010). Shavit has a field day maligning Assuage and WikiLeak. This ‘gentleman’ of the press fumes with hatred and violence. He slanders WikiLeak hysterically and incites to violence against Assange, the “dangerous criminal”, “the cyberterrorist”, the “delusory anarchist”, “the uninhibited megalomaniac”. But after presenting his anti-WikiLeak credentials, Shavit decides that Assange has unwittingly performed a service for him. It seems that for all his “misanthropy”, Julian Assange has “shattered the accepted dogma… that the main problem in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the occupation, the settlements.”

Now this accepted dogma did reign supreme precisely among the local “analysts” who presented this version of things so as convince the public that all the Arabs want to destroy Israel, the only democratic state in the area, and that the main obstacle to peace is arbitrary Arab intransigence. Now on the basis of WikiLeak info, the Israeli establishment is intensively promoting a brand new updated, post WikiLeak line. For its own nefarious strategic political aims, the Israeli establishment wants to impose its own “interpretation” of the WikiLink revelations concerning Arab presence in the anti-Iranian coalition. The new line goes like this:

All the blather about the centrality of the Israeli-Arab conflict and the urgent need to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue is without any base. On the level of propaganda and empty rhetoric, the “moderates” still talk about the suffering in Palestine, but they want and need Israel to protect their feeble, rotting regimes.

Even Abu Mazen and his weak Palestinian Authority know full well that they cannot survive Iranian ascendency. This is the real reason that they have pinned their fate to full scale military and strategic cooperation and integration with the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Thus, say our Israeli friends, all the story about the urgency and the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is pure twaddle and nonsense.

Now this twaddle and nonsense was precisely the way that Shavit and his buddies commented on events over the years. In fact they are the ones who built up the scenario in which about Israel, alone and isolated in the region, faced a united front of single minded Arab regimes. Now they have jumped on the emergence of a new stark game changing revelation. This so-called ‘”discovery” merely serves to verify the previous narrow minded short sightedness of the conformist Israeli and pro-Israeli media. It is Shavit and other court scribes who wanted the world to see the area in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even though they could have and should have known better.

On the left, it has been clear almost from the beginning of the conflict that developments in the Israeli-Arab conflict are the results of deeper and wider causes. These can be summarized in the following axiomatic terms. The mainspring of events in the region is the ongoing drive of the United States, acting in its imperial interests, to maintain control of the regions oil reserves and refineries and to maintain for this purpose a local configuration of “friendly” countries and forces which will defend US interests. The history of the Middle East is replete with instances where Israeli arms and/or military potential were employed for the overthrow of progressive Arab regimes or for the survival of reactionary Arab regimes, faced with popular uprisings.

The Real Contradictions

And relating to more current developments, I do not know of any serious left wing commentator, here and abroad, who has not noted the fact that the so called “moderate” Arab countries have become an integral link in the US-Israeli preparations for war against Iran. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all manifestly corrupt and unpopular regimes. The existence of an alternative based on the political and economic support of Iran, Turkey, Syria and Lebanon (and a host of political groups and forces) is an extreme and immediate danger to these unpopular regimes.

Even before WikiLeak leaked the truth about the real line up in the Middle East, Israel and its powerful friends in DC have blocked whatever remained of Obama’s intentions to try the ‘Palestine before Iran gambit. Thus, Washington’s slim hope of gaining prestige and using it against Iranian interests through progress in ending the Israeli-Palestinian stand off appears to have been seriously damaged. The Israeli establishment is using the WikiLeak details and general atmosphere to explain to all the softer hearted pro-Palestinians the hard facts. Palestine and the Palestinians are of secondary interest to the “Arabs.” Israel and the “Arabs” want to take out Iran.

Bibi’s racist coalition and the fundamentalist Saudi regime are harnessed to the US war machine and hum the same chorus: on to Teheran. The goal is simple – regime change in Iran. Simply taking out a few nuclear installations, which can be rebuilt in a matter of months, is clearly insufficient. Iran must be either destroyed or occupied. This is the common and urgent message of Bibi and Abdullah, the Saudi king.

Obama Downgraded - Netanyahu Elevated

The second bit of buzz around this place is that Obama is weak and getting weaker all the time. Whether or not there is any logic in blaming Obama for WikiLeak is irrelevant. It happened on his watch. In truth there are massive indications that the United States hegemony is crumbling and that the brains that advise the US President do not have the foggiest idea about how to reverse the trend. WikiLeak is just another unpleasant affair. And according to the Israeli school of flakey interpretations, if Obama is getting weaker, then Bibi is growing stronger. If not so long ago, DC was acting as if it was trying to convince Israel to stop construction in the territories – it is clear now – post WikiLeak, that nobody really cares about the Palestinian issue. Hillary does not need to waste her energy on finishing the letter about what she and Bibi did or did not agree on in their famous seven hour meeting. Bibi could not care less. The Israelis are convinced that WikiLeak has defanged US Middle East diplomacy on Israel-Palestine, leaving DC with only one real option- the military one against Iran.

Israeli Euphoria and the Stubborn Facts

It was indeed the routine practice of Israeli politicos to present the Middle East as a battleground between Arabs and Jews for favors from Washington. The truth is that the Arab Israeli conflict was and remains a subsidiary issue in the region. We repeat that the main issues were and remain the control of Middle East oil, its production and distribution and the political and strategic configuration designed to ensure that control. Coordinated activity between Israel and the Arab “moderates” against regional indigenous forces challenging that control is an old, well known story. The punsters believe it is to their advantage at this point to use WikiLeak to expose the seamy side of the Israeli and Arab connivance so as to absolve the US of any need to exert pressure on Israel if, indeed, it had contemplated anything so radical.

But let us get things straight. If Bibi feels elevated by Obama’s inadequacy, he is like that passenger going up the elevator in a ship that has begun its final stages of listing to its side. He and his patron are thinking about starting a war that is an act of desperation. They are contemplating a throw of the dice which means gambling with the fate of perhaps millions of men, women and children. The fact that the Jewish state is blindly leading the region into a new holocaust, under US auspices, is new evidence of the horrific corruption of humanity that can result from a regime, Jewish in name, but bereft of any roots in a philosophy of justice, a regime built around chauvinism, racism and occupation.

Who is Behind WikiLeak?

Our Israeli ideologues, whether a distinguished professor or a noted journalist, express the insecurity of a class, which has a deep distaste and suspicion of anything that challenges the need for control and order. The ideologues explain that we simply cannot have unauthorized people running around and speaking the truth. In particular, Prof. Avineri is angry about US inability to keep its secrets, the inadequate level of intelligence gathering, sloppy reporting and the clogging of future contacts. But this is nothing compared with Avineri’s disgust with Obama’s inability to understand the region where “we are looking at a political culture a bit different from the kind taken for granted by us and the Western democracies. We desire peace with our neighbors, but this isn’t a world into which we need or want to integrate into in terms of morality and values. It isn’t pleasant to say this, but it should be acknowledged.” Avineri dislikes two-facedness, but shows his racist mindset precisely in a week when the entire world is learning, via WikiLeak that among the all the powers that be two-facedness is the rule and not the exception.

Avineri is worried because he doesn’t know Assange’s political agenda, though he is certain that something smells bad. He warns us that, ”This is a person with clear aims – although no one has figured out exactly what they are.” (!!) Professor Avineri asks, ”Are we certain there isn’t a security service behind him and his efforts? This should be on the public agenda in the next few weeks.” Avineri must know that there are not too many possibilities. Al Quaeda, with a laptop in the cave? The North Koreans battling over the leadership succession. The “inscrutable Chinese”? Really!!

If Prof. Avineri had made a minimal effort to read about Julian Assange’s work and his philosophy, he might be surprised by the fact that Assange’s main political inspiration and references are standard liberal fare. Assange quotes as his mentors people like Lech Walenska and Solzhenitsin. He is quite open regarding his motives. All the following quotes are from an address by Julian Assange at the Stockholm Freedom Forum in May 2010.

“[We must] understand that the alliance which once existed between liberals and libertarians and the military-industrial complex in opposing Soviet abuses in the Cold War - is gone. Where once upon a time, people who stood up for enlightenment values domestically, in Western countries, who stood up for human rights and freedom of the press domestically in Western countries, liberals, libertarians and the press itself were in a tacit alliance with warmongers. They were in a tacit alliance with those people who opposed the Soviet Union merely for geopolitical reasons. And that alliance was to pick up a moral stick and to beat the Soviet Union for its abuses, its terrible abuses, censorship. The government and military joined this alliance in recognition of the geopolitical value of the alliance as a moral stick with which to beat the Soviet Union for its terrible abuses in its censorship. As of 1990-91 that artificial alliance, that temporary alliance had dissipated, with reversion to a different standard, where the natural interests of authority, the natural interests of the intelligence agencies and the natural interests of the military is in stifling press reportage of abuse, and it has been reasserted in Western countries.

In this broader framework of what we do, it's to try and build a
historical, intellectual record of how our civilization actually works
in practice, now, from the inside, everywhere, in every country around the world, from the inside.

Because all of our decisions, individual decisions, our political
decisions are based on what we know, humanity is nothing but what we know and what we have. And what we have can be replaced and degrades quickly. And what we know is everything and it is our limit of what we can be. So before we can embark on any particular political stratagem we first have to know where we are. If we don't know where we are, it's impossible to know where we're going. Likewise, it's impossible to correct abuses unless we know that they're going on.

So I ask you to think about the words of Macchiavelli, think about them in their negative, when he said, "Thus it happened in matters of state when knowing afar off which is only given a prudent man to do the evils that are brewing, they are easily cured; but when for want of such knowledge they're allowed to grow until everyone can recognize them, there is no longer any remedy to be found."

For secret planning is secret usually for a reason. This is because if it's abusive it is opposed. So it's our task to find secret abuses planned and expose them where they can be exposed before they are implemented: for if they are exposed by their implementation by people suffering from that abuse, then the abuse has already occurred and it is too late. He who controls today`s Internet servers, controls the intellectual record of mankind.”

Our good professor once understood something about contradictions and the limits of power, but he has reduced himself to the role of apologist for the Israeli state. Instead of calm discussion and reasoned disagreement, he joins the pack of jackals baying for the blood of an honest liberal.

Thus, the significance of the information culled from WikiLeak is interpreted by Israel’s ideological cadre so as to further the current strategic goals of the regime: The “Arabs”, (even if only the US hirelings among them) are on our side! We can now manage Palestine without outside interference and get down to business with Iran.

Another Act in a Sad and Sick Comedy

2010-11-14T18:14:00.000+02:00

On the face of it, it appears that these guys (Hillary and Bibi and their staffs) do not have anything to do with their time. The “negotiations” between the Israelis and the Americans, designed to convince the Israelis to stop building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, have reached a critical point. After weeks of jockeying and a seven hour marathon between Hilary and Bibi, the Israelis are supposed to respond to a package of goodies that they will receive if they are so kind and generous to agree to a three month freeze on settlements. If Bibi and his buddies condescend to stop building on Palestinian land, they will receive advanced fighter-bombers and sophisticated weaponry, diplomatic vetoes (when required) and backing in international forums, and even the right to never hear the word freeze again until hell freezes over. These people have lost all sense of decency and go about their protracted negotiations on the fate of the Palestinians as if their combinations and consultations do not concern the Palestinians. Moreover, the Israelis were quick to announce that this US-Israeli deal does not require Palestinian approval.

You would have be a political illiterate to not understand that the US is trying to buy off Bibi by sacrificing Palestinian rights and paying him with Palestinian concessions. Now this was to be expected by all, including most Palestinians. For some indecipherable reason, this Palestinian “leadership” thought that by ingratiating itself with Washington, they could hope for a modicum of fairness. How naïve.

The Americans think that renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will improve their image in the region. Indeed, everyone harbors their own set of illusions to get through the day. Logically, the U.S. should be pressuring both sides. But it does not want to put any real pressure on Israel because Israel is an important ally in the schemes for an attack on Iran. It may be that we have come to the point that it is really hard to pressure Israel because a weakened US administration has become completely scared out of its wits by the ugly AIPAC-Tea Party coalition. So what do you do? You make Palestinian concessions to Netanyahu’s annexationist government.

The Israelis claim that the deal excludes Jerusalem. The Palestinians say that this means that the freeze is non-starter. The only possible conclusion is that Hillary and Bibi believe that they will drag Abbas to the table or that they intend to lay the blame for a new failure to resume talks on Palestinian stubbornness.

This most recent expression of the US-Israeli love fest has reached a new level of perversity. This sliding scale of highly priced ‘freeze-time’ is particularly grotesque. The US, the world’s strongest and uncontested super power, buys ‘freeze time’, measured in days, from Israel in a transaction similar to many a shady bit of business. Give me 100 days of freeze-time and I will give you 20 F-35’s and a bunch of other murderous stuff and I promise never to ask for any more freeze-time and to organize full immunity from all charges and condemnation in all international forums. One can only wonder what would be the price of, say, six months of freeze time. Most curious is the object of Washington’s passion for this rare commodity called ‘freeze time.’ Both Obama and Clinton have recently stated very clearly that construction in the OPT is illegal, and this is still the official US position. Israel cannot “sell” willingness to desist from building in the OPT, because they have no such right. It seems that this is a clear case of the US
buying stolen goods.

Hillary and Bibi worked a bit on wrapping up this new bargain. As part of the deal, the US will do all sorts of things that it does anyhow like arming Israel, pressuring Iran, covering Israel’s “rear” in the UN and the International Atomic Energy Commision. Does anyone believe that US follow-through on this “package” of goodies for Israel depends on Israeli agreement to a three month construction freeze?

There does appear to be a single element of importance in all this yada, yada, yada. This is the proposal to concentrate on the delineation of the borders between Israel and Palestine. Some “brilliant” people figured out that if the borders are clearly marked, then everybody will agree as to where Israel can or cannot build. So the US is talking about the border issue being the main one and the most urgent. But this is just another case of the US maintaining the status-quo while promoting the illusion that some real negotiations are feasible. In fact, the Palestinians and the Israelis are still miles apart on this issue. Israel wants borders based on its annexations and settlements in the entire West Bank, including Jerusalem. No legitimate Palestinian representatives could agree. The US, in a desperate search for new subterfuges, touts the idea that a different, new agenda centering on the territorial issue will jump start the talks. But nobody really believes this. It is like suggesting that changing the language of the discussion will help to overcome or bypass the basic issues in dispute.

Palestinians Are Up a Blind Alley

It seems that the Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas is laboring under a serious misconception of the ME role of the United States and its ability to make a major contribution to Israeli-Palestinian peace. The US has little or no success in the successful solution of international conflicts. It does, however, have a lot of success, in subverting national and local leaderships. This is done by substituting material assistance (money), and military cooperation (police and special troops) for clear cut, principled political and diplomatic support. As time goes by, national and local leaderships comfort themselves by arguing that there is a lack of any other major power alternatives. The claim is that the U.S. is no better or worse than the other players of the international diplomatic game. The assistance supposedly designed to develop the struggle for real independence, turns out to be valuable in order to repel internal opposition. Meanwhile, the local leadership looses prestige and fractures as it becomes clear that it has “painted itself into a corner.” The connections with the US have become the only option. Even with partial autonomy, bills must be paid as if you are a full fledged sovereign country, even if you could not dream of a sovereign fund.

The most consistent supporters of the Palestinian cause cannot ignore the dangerous dependency of the Palestinian Authority on the United States. It is not only the fact that the US will not or cannot act as an “honest broker” regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under the pretext of including the Arab world in the negotiations for peace, the Palestinian Authority has requested backing by the Arab states. These turn out to be the narrowing group of pro-US moderates, presently engaged in intensive maneuvering to join the US-Israeli axis of aggression against Iran. Egypt is the major operator in this context. Their diplomats are also involved in suggesting modifications undercutting the Palestinian positions in the negotiations. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

The World’s Worst Play

The extreme right elements in Bibi’s coalition, spearheaded by the settlers, are on the warpath. Bibi’s internal enemies sense blood and are out to prove that Netanyahu is no real leader. A possible agreement for a three months freeze is portrayed as the end of Zionism and the betrayal of its goals. Everyone knows that you can tell Obama where to go, but Bibi reveals his fatal weakness when he has to tell the Hussein Obamites not to mess with Israel.

The US two-faced policy cannot do anything about Israeli lack of consideration for US sensitivities (including those in the entire Arab world) because the first sacred objective is to arm this country to the teeth and to reiterate US commitment to Israeli security. After demonstrating that these bedrock commitments are the cornerstone of US policy and that US support is absolute and unconditional, is it any surprise that a legion of cheap politicos can convince the public that the US can be easily rebuffed if Israel stands pat. The local cynics are not wrong when they argue that US diplomacy might attempt to simulate an occasional bark, but there is no way to hide the fact that there is no real bite. I guess that this is a comedy, but a sad and ugly one.

PACBI – Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel Criticizes the Boycott by Israeli Theater People on Ariel*

2010-09-13T13:08:00.002+02:00

As we know, some 60 Israeli theater people came out a few weeks back with a declaration that they will refuse to appear at the Ariel “Culture” Hall located in the occupied territories. It is important to stress that actors-artists are employees subordinate to the administrative and financial owners of the theater who are their employers in every sense. So, we are not speaking only of taking a courageous stand, but an act which puts the actor on a collision course with his boss. And we are not speaking of any kind of profession. An actor, without the theater, cannot work, create or make a living. Therefore, most honest people tend naturally to honor and applaud the brave tens of theater people for their act of protest.

It is also natural that the Israeli theater people received support from abroad. Indeed 150 central cultural figures, mainly from the US and the UK expressed their admiration for the courageous stand of the Israeli theater people.

This chain of events is yet another component in a broad movement in Israel and abroad serving to delegitimize the occupation regime and overall Israeli policies. It is important to note that this movement is itself composed of a variety of various, independent, groups and organizations, each of which has a record of long and difficult struggle against the occupation and its evils.

Boycott in Principle
For quite a while a serious debate has been taking place in our circles and in the broad public as to whether the boycott is an appropriate instrument for our struggle. There are those who argue that any boycott against Israel is unjust, really an act of anti-Semitism. But this is a rather naïve position of those who refuse to recognize the suffering and the deprivation of the Palestinian under Israel occupation. Those who support peace and are struggling against the occupation cannot reject any non violent activity aimed at advancing the struggle against the occupation. It is necessary to add that by virtue of its emotionally charged nature, boycott is never a simple affair. It is always a complex mechanism and should be employed with caution and wisdom. Boycotts should be aimed at a definite goal and should be accompanied with detailed political explanation on the cause and the goals of the boycott.

In general, the left in Israel supports boycott activity that conforms to the aforementioned reservations.

PACBI - The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Those who follow Palestinian politics know that we are talking about a small and energetic group of activists who have a very explicit political agenda. They see in boycott activity a political instrument with a clear and definite message. This message is revealed in the first statement of their program, which declares the purpose of the boycott: “the elimination of the colonization of all Arab lands.” (see here). This formulation expresses the position of the group, which negates the existence of the state of Israel. In of itself, there is nothing illegitimate about this position. We are talking about leading intellectuals who are members of a nation oppressed by Israel for decades. Difficulties arise on the strategic level. Within the framework of BDS activity, the PACBI people represent a determined line, which demands that boycott activity should conform to their principled position. It is worth being clear on this question from the onset: they do not support activity against the occupation in and of itself because they see such activity as a diversion from the main issue. Their hard-line interpretation that all Israel must be considered territory under occupation brought them into conflict with important leaders of the peace movement such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.

I confess that I am not enthused about getting into a critical discussion about PACBI. I have no doubt regarding the noble intentions of members of the group and their devotion to non-violent struggle against the occupation as they perceive it. However, when they decide to deride the brave struggle of Israeli members of the peace movement and at the same time demonstrate their lack of understanding of our conditions, it is necessary to comment on this. Precisely out of concern for the campaign of the Israeli left against the occupation it is necessary to come out clearly against Palestinian friends who desire to insult with callousness and derision courageous and effective protest.

PACBI Against the Theater People and their International Supporters
We cannot know why PACBI issued, in the space of two days, two separate declarations that deal with the Israeli protest action against the “Cultural” Hall in Ariel. We will deal first with the declaration dated 7th of September (see here). There is nowhere in this text a good word about the activity of the Israeli theater people, and the declaration gives us a detailed and lengthy explanation for this. “While we welcome acts of protest against any manifestation of Israel's regime of colonialism and apartheid, we believe that these acts must be both morally consistent and anchored in international law and universal human rights.” These words serve as an introduction to a text in which PACBI explains that the action by the theater people does not meet these criteria.

These are the faults in the behavior of the theater people:
“First, we believe that the exclusive focus on settlement institutions ignores and obscures the complicity of all Israeli academic and cultural institutions in upholding the system of colonial control and apartheid under which Palestinians suffer. PACBI believes there is firm evidence of the collusion of the Israeli academic and cultural establishment with the major oppressive organs of the Israeli state. Focusing solely on obviously complicit institutions, such as cultural centers in a West Bank colony, serves to shield mainstream Israeli institutions from opprobrium or, ultimately, from the growing global boycott movement that consistently targets all complicit institutions. Furthermore, the cherry-picking approach behind targeting a notorious colonial settlement in the heart of the occupied West Bank diverts attention from other institutions built on occupied land. Supporters of this peculiarly selective boycott must be asked: is lecturing or performing at the Hebrew University, whose Mount Scopus campus sits on occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, acceptable?

The PACBI people go on to submit a list of “test questions” to the theater people: why did they refrain from taking a position against the suffocation of Palestinian cultural institutions in conquered Jerusalem? The PACBI people continue the test questions: “If the artists' and intellectuals' role as voices of moral reason is behind this most recent call to boycott Ariel, where were these voices when academic and cultural institutions were wantonly destroyed in Israel's war of aggression on Gaza in 2008-2009?”

In all seriousness, there is no sincerity and no honesty in referring these questions to these people in these circumstances. The theater people under discussion were never a separate and organized movement but only an ad hoc formation. At the same time, among the theater people there are indeed those who protested the war on Gaza, against the occupation of East Jerusalem and the like. In any event, the “cross examination” style is not appropriate here.

The Second Document
As we have noted PACBI published a second declaration on this subject (see here). The second document, issued two days after the first, is different in that it is in the form of an open letter to the American and English cultural figures who cam out in support of the cultural boycott against the Israeli settlement of the West Bank. Their letter praises and commends the theater, film and television people following their declaration of support of those boycotting Ariel. Reasonably, PACBI calls on the artists abroad to deepen and expand their steps for yet a more comprehensive boycott. However, it is a bit strange to praise and to commend people abroad on their declared support for peace-loving Israelis, while the Israeli activity in itself is not considered worthy in PACBI eyes.

The explanation for this is contained in a paragraph which presents a set of “test questions” similar to those addressed to the Israeli theater people. PACBI wants to know why the cultural figures abroad refuse to act in good time: “In light of this inspiring history, we cannot but ask, why haven't you taken your taboo-breaking position in response to appeals by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, including almost all leading artists? Why did you have to wait for a relatively small number of dissenting Israeli artists and academics to initiate a boycott, a peculiarly selective and morally-inconsistent one at that? Do authentic voices of the oppressed, especially those in the besieged Gaza Strip, incarcerated in the world's largest open-air prison, also count?” PACBI concludes its letter to the artists abroad that they act according to the spirit of its positions.

In Summary
PACBI, as important as it is, is not the only political factor in Palestinian society, but only one of many Palestinian organizations. While all Palestinians support, in principle, actions against the occupation and against Israeli policies, there are discussions and debates all about the vital issue of strategy and tactics. PACBI represents a version that causes unnecessary difficulties for building the unity of all peace loving forces, who support the Palestinian right of self determination. The recent appearance of an important coalition built on the parties of the Palestinian left and on the political initiative of a grouping around Dr. Mustafa Barghouti is of tremendous importance. This group has criticized the defeatism of Abu Mazen and his people while continuing its support for a just peace. And in respect to our concern here it is important that this coalition supports cooperation on the basis of mutual respect between themselves and the democratic and peace forces in Israel. Solidarity can only be constructed on the basis of mutual respect and a deep understanding of the difficulties of the left opposition in both nations.

*This article was written and published originally in Hebrew. I was concerned that its publication in English might needlessly intensify the debate. However, a number of good friends, who are sincerely devoted to BDS activity, requested an English translation, and convinced me of its value.

A New Gimmick - Occupation With Equality

2010-07-27T09:33:00.002+03:00

No serious observer of the Israeli political scene ascribes any significance whatsoever to a new highly publicized flurry of publications emanating from right wing circles. For the journalist, ever in search of a new angle, these circles are supposed to represent a sea change in basic attitudes regarding the rights of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories. The evidence for this is that a number of right wing politicians came out for a one state solution based on equal rights for the Palestinians. Of course, there is no real program, and not even the semblance of an organization. Just a rather quaint list of right wingers who seem to be willing to make some limited concessions on their way to the imposition of complete, sovereign, control of all of the land of Palestine, the Land of Israel.

The best guess as to the reason for this wave of sensitivity among right wing annexationists for “equal rights for the Palestinians” appears to be linked to the ‘legitimacy crisis”. The existence of such a crisis is now part of the received wisdom of Israeli political discourse. Many semi-official experts (PR people, pollsters, analysts) have joined forces to impress the public that the deligitimization of Israel is the greatest threat, bar none, to the very existence of Israel. This is of course a rather superficial way of looking at matters, but even so, anyone can see that there is some truth to it. Israeli policy and actions have destroyed the last vestiges of sympathy for Israel the whole world over. But official Israel would have Israel’s growing isolation seen as matter of imagery, public relations and unfair coverage.

There are some annexationist politicians intelligent enough to understand that they need some sort of answer to the obvious objection that they meet with regularly. People have asked them what is supposed to happen after the annexation of the territories. Therefore, it has occurred to some of them that they need an answer to the objections against pure Israeli control, and so they came up with the idea of Israeli citizenship for all. None of them see any need to grapple with the fact that they have turned their back on the principles of democracy and equality absolutely essential in addressing the basic rights of the Palestinians. The individuals concerned (a few leading lights of the right, several MK’s and a former minister) reject, without exception, any solution of the Palestinian refugee problem or the inclusion of Gaza and its people as part of the new one state entity. None of these people have ever uttered a word of compassion and regret regarding the imposition of decades of suffering and degradation on the Palestinians under occupation. You do not even have to read the fine print. It’s a gimmick from the beginning to the end and almost all readers’ responses noted that the “plan” is based on the unilateral imposition of a new form of occupation. One can be certain that the inevitable resistance to the ‘approaching unilateral generosity’ will be suppressed with the full might of the Israel Defense Forces.

This being clearly the situation, it was rather strange to see that a number of Palestinians and their friends rose to take the bait. One outstanding example is Ali Abunima*, the editor of the Electronic Intifada. Abunima makes almost every conceivable mistake as he totally misreads the map and the significance of the latest gimmick. Believe it or not, for Abunima, the print splashed on a weekend supplement is, no more and no less than an important sign that the Israeli occupation is crumbling. Not only the occupation, but the entire Zionist edifice is shaking to its foundations.

“This awakening can be likened to what happened among South African whites in the 1980s. By that time it had become clear that the white minority government's effort to "solve" the problem of black disenfranchisement by creating nominally independent homelands -- bantustans -- had failed. Pressure was mounting from internal resistance and the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

By the mid-1980s, whites overwhelmingly understood that the apartheid status quo was untenable and they began to consider "reform" proposals that fell very far short of the African National Congress' demands for a universal franchise -- one-person, one-vote in a nonracial South Africa.”*

This attempt at a parallel interpretation of current events and South Africa before the end of Apartheid is so far off base as to almost eliminate any need for rebuttal. First of all, it exhibits a total and complete misunderstanding of Israeli politics and the power structure in the country. Secondly, it shows a strange inability to analyze current reality. The South African ANC was basically united and enjoying international prestige and respect. Unfortunately, the movement for Palestinian national liberation is deeply divided, in a deep crisis and the Palestinian Authority has lost all authority. Part of the Palestinian cause has been literally taken over by the military and economic direct control and influence of the United States, which also acts as a surrogate for Israeli interests. The US and Europe in its wake refuse to impose any genuine curbs on Israeli control and expansion. I could go on and on, but Abumima’s entire conception is obviously dictated by wishful thinking. He is so enthusiastic over the meager incomplete reflections of a handful of chauvinist politicians that he is close to declaring victory. Sadly, he is hopelessly wrong and conceptual narrowness has led him far astray from genuine contact with political reality.

Abunima goes on to define this week end supplement gimmick as a major development furthering the cause of a one state solution.

You see, the Israeli right and the militant Palestinians really want the same thing. It is only a question of terminology.

“The proposals from the Israeli right-wing, however inadequate and indeed offensive they seem in many respects, add a little bit to that hope. They suggest that even those whom Palestinians understandably consider their most implacable foes can stare into the abyss and decide there has to be a radically different way forward.

We should watch how this debate develops and engage and encourage it carefully. In the end it is not what the solution is called that matters, but whether it fulfills the fundamental and inalienable rights of all Palestinians.”

One is left with deep concern that our “one staters” have become the last bulwark of sterile dogmatism. If Abunima sees the statements of this almost random collection of Israeli annexationists as a serious political development, he will be sorely disappointed. One has the impression that his opposition to a two state solution and his dislike of the Zionist left has seriously impaired his critical faculties.

*Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. This article first appeared on Al-Jazeera English and is republished with permission.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11411.shtml

The Pearlman Affair

2010-07-25T11:16:00.002+03:00

The GSS (General Security Services), or the Shin Bet, is the Israeli intelligence service apparatus devoted to the formulation and the execution of policies designed to perpetuate the repression against Palestinian Arabs, especially in the occupied Palestinian territories. However, the Palestinian Arabs, citizens of Israel, who comprise a fifth of the Israel’s population, are also objects of the GSS attention.

Israeli expansion, annexation and expropriation have been at the heart of government practice since the establishment of Israel in 1948. Even so, there have always been dangerous, extremist circles which operated to the right of the government. These circles constantly attacked the various governments for not being consistent in ousting the Palestinians. The settler right argued that the ruling circles do not have the courage of their Zionist convictions. In short, the government was faulted for hesitating to carry out the full maximum program – a land of Israel, without Arabs.

Since 1967, there has been a consistent increase in the numbers and varieties of right-wing extremist groups. Their main base is in the settlements, where they are routinely issued guns and other military equipment, for the ostensible reason of “fighting terror.” Some of them are distinguished writers and academics while there is no shortage of activists who are clearly as nutty as a fruit cake. Many are “nice” souls trying to implement values with which they have been imbued from childhood. But, the main point is that they are all convinced that full redemption is just around the corner - if the regime and the citizenry would only dare to get on with the job.

There are two matters that require our attention at this point. Firstly, the settlement framework means that there are literally thousands of gun toting fanatics who believe that the redemption is right around the corner. Most of them are deep within the interstices of the IDF and the settler communities. They are not law abiding citizens but an angry constituency who fears that even Netanyahu could sell them down the river. Secondly, what they are saying is not too far from the core beliefs of Israeli society. There may be tactical differences with the establishment, but the settlers have a surefire technique how to easily overcome mainstream hesitation. The settler vanguard knows that in case of any serious clash between the Arabs and the settlers, the majority of Jews will ignore the real causes, as they line up with their Jewish brethren fighting the good fight for “our” land.

Now, any government that does not want the settlers to be the ones to set the time to embroil it into a major confrontation is advised to keep its eyes and ears open. This is why we are all protected here in Israel, in addition to our nuclear devices and our NATO size army, by the GSS in general and specifically by its Jewish division (GSS-JD). In order to feel really secure and safe, let us recall that it was the criminal negligence of the security pros in this unit who "guarded" Yitshak Rabin in a fashion that made him easy prey for assassination by a right wing fanatic back in 1995.

Ha’aretz military correspondent, Amir Oren, informed his readers this week that the current head of the Jewish division of the GSS makes his home in a settlement on the east side of the green line.

This helps me to illustrate that there may be differences between the GSS detachment monitoring the Jewish extremists in matters of form, and style and discourse, but there is a lot of spiritual symbiosis between the Jewish division and the objects of its attention. It is this mutuality of goals and aspirations that is at the heart of the inability of the Jewish division to function with a semblance of efficiency. Again and again, their operations tend to end up in a farce and a debacle.

The main strategy of the ultra-right is to find and exploit every opportunity for violence, open or hidden, to attack, maim or even murder Palestinians who are guilty of being Palestinians. So the announcement at the end of last week that the GSS was holding one, Chaim Pearlman, for a number of murders and attempted murders might have been greeted with some satisfaction. But it became clear right from the start that the GSS-JD just cannot get anything straight. Pearlman it turns out is fully prepared for the arrest. He has the services of on call legal counsel and his experienced buddies have prepared him with a bag of tricks to counter attack. Chaim, it appears, is well known to the GSS. He has worked for them, and received money. His line of defense is ready; he is being persecuted and falsely charged because he has rejected GSS overtures to continue to work for them.

Pearlman’s backers, the well known Meir Kahana disciples, Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben Gvir, began immediately to distribute videos to the media. They had in their possession a lengthy video of a GSS representative, disguised as a right wing militant, trying to convince Pearlman to perform specific acts of violence. Pearlman, aware that everything was being taped, lectures the GSS-JD agent about how he restricts himself to legal political work. At one point, the representative of the GSS, unaware, of course, that he was being filmed and staring right into the camera, tries to convince Chaim to carry out a joint project with him in which they would assassinate Sheikh Ra’ad Saleh. Saleh just happens to be the head of the northern section of the Islamic movement and probably the most influential individual in the Palestinian community in Israel.

The media are still sitting on this bombshell and waiting to see if the GSS will get an indictment. This is quite a technique that the GSS is employing. You try and entrap a terrorist suspect by enticing him into murdering a prominent Palestinian figure who enjoys the respect and admiration of tens if not hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Pearlman was free and on the loose at the time of the interview and could have conceivably tried to do something important for the cause. And the GSS feeds Pearlman with the idea of a project to murder a prominent Israeli Palestinian Islamic leader.

At this point Pearlman is being held on the basis of a court order, remanded while the GSS lawyers work on an indictment. But the clumsiness and ineptitude of the GSS has made the whole operation seem ridiculous. One can evaluate GSS efficiency from the fact that the three murders ascribed to Pearlman occurred as far back as 1998! There were, it seems some more murders and attempted murders between 1998 and 2004. The GSS which fell down on the job for years and years is now made out to appear vindictive since the arrest comes after Perlman refused to go to work for them and simply stated, the fascists are having a field day making a mockery of the GSSJD.

The left, for its part, is hardly surprised that the regime is so confused and disorganized when it comes to imposing the rule of law against the ultra-right. There is simply no clear line between principles commonly held by the extreme right and between the core political beliefs of many ranking GSS officers who are, supposedly, combating their illegal activities. In their arguments with the GSS apparatus, the theorists of the radical right sense that they hold the moral high ground. It is not hard to understand why the armed settlers roam the occupied territories with the sense that “God is on our side!” Unable to employ the brutal methods that are standard operating procedure against Palestinians, the Jewish Division flounders and bungles on with inefficiency and deadly negligence.

There are reliable accounts to the effect that the GSS has violated constitutional rights of many of the right wing activists. In principle, the left could deem itself obliged to denounce such violations as, per example, the denial of the rights of the defendant to meet with his or her lawyer. The same methods and many more are commonly used against Palestinians. The difficulty lies in the fact that more often than not, the clash between the radical right and the GSS is a chapter in an ongoing sham. We do not have even the most minimal information on the active network of connections and ongoing manipulation that characterize the constant large scale cooperation and mutual understanding between the two forces who work together against the Palestinians and their most basic rights. In this nether world of hatred and oppression first and foremost against Palestinians as Palestinians, much of what transpires as antagonism between the right and the GSS is far from being what it appears to be. The overall impression is that any crack down by the GSS, when and if it occurs has something to do with settling accounts. Though civil rights people will find it necessary to condemn certain high handed and even brutal practices, employed here and there against the radical right, it would be naïve to believe that we have the full and complete picture that would enable us to determine exactly the sources of these clashes. But both these operations are different arms of the same ruling regime. The GSS and the organized fundamentalist radical right thrive on deceit and prosper on lies. And more often than not their resources are pooled in coordinated efforts. Very few, if any, democratic principles are involved.

Solidarity with Iran Facing Aggression and the Nature of the Regime

2010-07-05T11:37:00.001+03:00

Fidel Castro, as is his custom, published his views on current developments in his June 26, 2010 column entitled Reflections. The thrust of Castro’s Reflections, printed last week, is crystal clear. Castro describes in detail the recent ongoing United States- Israeli naval build up in the Middle East, stressing that it is, “now a matter of calculating when the American and Israeli naval forces will be deployed off the coasts of Iran joining there the aircraft carriers and other US military ships already on watch in the region.”

In a matter of importance related to our discussion, Castro also makes short shrift of the opposition to the regime in Iran, exposing its class nature: “The US administration worked out a plan to promote a political movement that, based on capitalist consumerism, would divide the Iranians and overthrow the government. Such hope is now harmless.”

The Anti-imperialist Left
Even in the West, with all the weaknesses of the socialist movement, there fortunately persists a current of critical thought, best defined as the anti-imperialist left (AIL). The essential position of the anti-imperialist left is based on the contention that the United States acts as the global hegemonic force, imposing regimes of subservience and exploitation over great sections of the globe – wherever it can and for as long as it can.

As my reader might guess, the AIL is hardly a monolithic affair. As a matter of fact, Castro reignited a serious debate over important issues related to Iran, already the source of much acrimony and friction in the left.

The crux of the often heated debate involves the relation between the growing danger of US-Israel aggression against Iran and the serious charges regarding the reactionary and dictatorial record of the regime in that country.

The two opposing trends here are realists who stress the decisive importance of Iran’s international role and the democrats who call on the AIL to confront the Iranian regime’s record of repression. Naturally enough, there are shades and nuances both in theory and in practice. Even so, the opposing trends are quite recognizable in day to day political discourse.

Precisely, in the heat of the debate, it is vital to stress that all sections and streams in the AIL vigorously oppose US threats and preparations of war against Iran. It is important not to lose sight of this fact both on the theoretical level and in practical politics.

In practical day to day politics, the democrats are heavily engaged in exposing dictatorial repression in Iran and mobilizing support for the human and political rights of the opposition. The democrats insist on placing the issue of repression in Iran high on the public agenda.

The realists deny the progressive nature of the opposition in Iran and consider it linked, formally or not, to the interests of Iran’s enemies. For the realists the main objects of repression are linked to the opposition, which is mainly subversive.

The democrats argue that criticism of the regime and internal changes may be necessary to improve the capacity of the country to repel and overcome aggression. The weaknesses and repressive nature of the regime may even impair its ability to mobilize international sympathy and support.

Weaknesses in the Democratic Approach
This argument, lofty in intent, is essentially a matter of speculation. Even if we knew much more about Iranian society than we know, it is impossible to know the effects of this or that development on the overall strength and viability of the regime, especially in regards to its ability to resist provocations and foreign aggression.

We have no real evidence, as many democrats argue that U.S. intelligence prefers Ahmadinejad and the present rulers of Iran over the opposition, an accusation bandied about by people in the solidarity movement with the Iranian opposition. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that the Iranian opposition is a heterogeneous affair. But it would be naïve to doubt that it must include a major component of forces seeking to overthrow the present regime towards a rapprochement with the U.S. But it is also true that the opposition includes many noble, dedicated women and men of the radical left.

Even though it is correct to say that “in the long run” it is the internal dynamic that would determine Iran’s path. In the real world, here and now, the two fronts, the internal or the external front, are two separate arenas, much less interrelated than they would appear to be, especially in matters related to Iran’s ability to resist U.S.-Israeli aggression. Of course, the “home front” is important but that importance does not match the vital and all embracing importance of the international role of the regime, its will and ability to resist imperialism machinations. Of course, we cannot ignore the eventual significance of the internal dynamic, but we do argue that consistency and determination on the international front can create historical space for advancement on the internal domestic front, for greater democracy and human rights.

Chomsky Backs Fidel
An article published by Noam Chomsky two days after Fidel’s Reflections fully verifies Fidel’s analysis of the approaching storm. Of course, in his own inimitable fashion, Chomsky mobilizes overwhelming evidence for his central point. Iran is in danger of death and destruction not because it is a “terrorist entity,” but because of its deepening political influence in the region. No one could consider Chomsky, with his sensitivity to human rights issues, a friend of the Iranian regime which many have characterized as a regime in war with its own people.

I think that we in the independent left operating in circumstances of severe public debate, dominated by the imperial media monopoly on the prevailing discourse, must develop our own nuanced approach to the question at hand. It would be a crucial mistake if we fail to understand the justifiable reasons for Fidel’s blanket denunciation of the Iranian opposition and his characterization of it as ”a political movement based on capitalist consumerism.” On the other hand, there is an additional dimension, that on the level of human and civil rights, which demands a measured, serious response.

Fidel is telling us what we should already know. It is the duty of any progressive regime to identify in any given circumstances the forces with which it can develop cooperation and mutual advantage. Given the historical hegemony of imperialism over the years, it must be understood that this is a legitimate historical approach and a means of resistance. The principle is simple: the regime (our regime) must do and will do that which is essential to prevent isolation, to ensure security, to put bread on the table of its citizens. It must utilize all these opportunities as a matter of course.

I myself, and others of similar irrepressible sensitivities witness in Iran a series of sickening actions that jar the core our own values and political needs, legitimate in and of themselves. This might create false hope for the emergence of an opposition more to our taste. But is it so hard to understand, that Castro having seen the role of capitalist consumerism in the fall of the USSR, and on the basis of his own analysis of Cuban reality, sees the dreams of Westernized middle class for a “freer” society as one big trap? The U.S. is, as we know, ever ready to assist regime change, more democratic elections, a new lease on life for civil society – all for free.

Castro’s dismissive description of the Iranian opposition may be the basis of Cuban politics on this issue, and it may be basically correct, but it cannot serve all the requirements of those fighting against U.S. aggression in the heartlands of imperialism and its allies. The issue of human and civil rights, the protection against arbitrary arrest, torture and punishment cannot be ignored by the left, even in the rarified and tense atmosphere of an international campaign against the Iranian people and its leadership. Many things are happening which cannot be countenanced.

Strategy and Tactics on the Iran Issue
When we unavoidably relate to the glaring crimes of the Iranian regime, we are faced, whether we wish so or not, with a number of urgent practical and strategic questions. Since silence on this issue is not an option, but since we also refuse to reduce in any way our iron clad obligation to work with the forces in opposition to U.S.-Israeli aggression, we face the challenge of integrating the two elements, of conveying some sense of proportion between the importance of the two issues, and the choice of partners in the day to day political battle. There is, of course, no easy formula, but there are certain guidelines that might prevent serious distortions from the policy we seek.

The main front is the fight against U.S.-Israeli aggression, as long as the real danger persists. It is here that we are interested in the establishment of the widest possible front. The internal Iranian front is a secondary battle. We cannot prove this, but our instinctive sense is that the danger of war increases domestic chauvinism and disregard for human rights. An eventual relaxation in tension over a broad period should open the way for more respect for the rights of Iranians in all spheres. And as long as the danger of war is there, our main duty, is opposition to the war, which is in the final analysis the best thing that we can do for the people of Iran, including victims of repression in Iran.

Knowing that there is at the least some truth in the Castro point regarding the nature of the opposition, we should desist from undifferentiated, overall support for the opposition on the basis of liberal principles and democratic rights. We should support analytical and documentary reports to expose regime brutality. But we are not “fans“ of an entity identified in the media as the “democratic opposition” nor do we believe that the forces identified with the “democratic opposition” are a more humanitarian and just alternative.

Two categories: Iran’s international status, and Iran’s internal regime – reflect two important interrelated aspects of Iran’s existence. But they are not two dimensions of equal import and impact. The decisive axis of development, the major impact and influence stem from the first category, Iran’s international status. The Iranian issue has long lost any vestige of localism, of involvement in mere local interests. The battle around Iran has taken on immense importance as a critical stage in the weakening of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and even on a wider scope.

For the above reasons, we reject the simple formula often suggested in thorny issues like this one, i.e., Fight aggression against Iran without relating to the character of the regime in that country and fight against the regime, as if there were no danger of aggression. However, the two issues, both admittedly important, are not on the same scale of importance and influence on the course of events.

An Echo from the Past
Marxist theory on the issue suggests that it may seem as if this is some sort of “replay” of past disputes. But it isn’t. The material conditions obtaining today and their political ramifications are simply vastly different. The communist movement no longer exists as an international force, and Trotskyism has no role in presenting an alternative to the communist option. Moreover the theories associated with Stalin and/or Trotsky no longer possess, without further contemporary development, a degree of internal consistency that can supply answers to any strategic dilemma. Inevitably, they have become, on the theoretical level, historical schools of thought, which do inspire different and often conflicting approaches to the very same issue. In short, the dispute that we are dealing with is not based on the different theories of Stalin and Trotsky.

Realists, who have experience with the various oppositions against authoritarian governments which chose to set out on an anti-U.S. path, have reason to be highly suspicious. The pressures in the opposition to be drawn into the vortex of US support are tremendous. Orange, velvet, yellow or green oppositional forces do tend to go the way of U.S.-sponsored “democracy”, even when they set out to do battle on the basis of the most sincere and naïve basis. The realist challenge to the democrats centers, more than on anything else, on the question of the real nature of the Iranian. Their approach is that the opposition grew and developed on the basis of U.S. spiritual and ideological foundations, with the hope for a more material equivalent not too far off in the future. My impression is that the realists, in rallying to the defense of Iran, are not so much in sympathy with its rulers as motivated by anxiety over the negative repercussions of the possible downfall of the present leadership.

Between Two Worlds
One of the more intelligent attempts, from a friend in Europe, to come to grips with the two different approaches argues that –

“Fidel stands for the raison d’état, like Chávez, by the way. Both Cuba and Iran are harassed by the US, and both suffer the effects of an embargo. Whether this implies to embrace the regime in Iran is another story. Neither Chomsky nor myself have interests of state which might blind our critical approach. Therefore my position is that as citizens, and this extends to the civil society at large, we may not support a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism.

Any approach to Iran from the civil society should stress this paradox: Iran has the right to development but also to freedom, and a set of political liberties may be set aside temporarily on behalf of development, when the improvement of the people is delivered (like in China), and social and cultural overtures are promoted, and legal equality for all citizens is guaranteed.”

But despite the nature of the regime - a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism - This doesn't allow imperialist intervention to change the regime, as the only consequence it brings is chaos, civil strife, and political and economic subjugation. Iran is living out very interesting contradictions, but they are internal, and Iranians must be left alone in order to experience their own autonomous resolution.”

Our friend is mindful of the source of the different views on the issue and he tends to justify both, depending on the level of the discourse. But this solution, despite the penetrating analysis of the difference in the circumstances of states on one hand and actors in civil society, is still quite unsatisfactory. There is something both wrong and inadequate in the attempt to separate the worlds of power and interests on one hand and that of critical minded activists, on the other. There is some faulty, rather quaint logic here that implies that we would have to change our position if, God forbid, state power would be thrust upon us. But, to be practical, the distinction, between the two worlds, though tempting, is not really viable. If we accept the validity of the “reasons of state,” we are not and cannot remain indifferent to the intense political struggle regarding the actions of those countries which enter into alliances with Iran. This means on our part the active defense of Cuba, Venezuela, etc precisely on the Iranian issue. This calls for active support for Iran trying to break out of isolation imposed by the US. “Reasons of state,” when the state involved is struggling against suffocation by the still very powerful hegemonic force, are valid political currency in the real political battles.

Human Rights – Yes! Alternative Regime – No
I do not sense that there is any serious contradiction between full support for Iran versus the United States plans for aggression and refusing, at the very same time, to condone many of the ugly violations of human rights and dignity.

But there is a contradiction between support for Iranian resistance and the claim that there exists a completely satisfactory alternative to the given regime in the form of a democratic opposition which could with sweep of its hand, as it were, enhance Iran’s prestige as a democratic entity – thus erecting a moral barrier to aggression against the country. With all due respect, the orientation on an alternative regime means faith in a new formation that would emerge rather quickly as the true and tested ally of the United States. Aggression might be avoided in the new circumstances precisely because now that we have pro-Western government, it has been rendered superfluous. The country and its assets would be in safe hands, just like Iraq today.

Castro and Chomsky have made the dangers crystal clear indeed. The bloody war in Iraq is far from being over. Afghanistan is a quagmire of quicksand. Turkey is opting for neutrality. Syria and Lebanon insist on their independence. Obama and the U.S. are running out of money and corporate U.S. has barred governmental access to the mint. Faced with significant, multiple regional defeats, the United States entertains dreams of a military fix that might reverse the trends. Israel is pinning its hopes on confrontation. War to protect the edifice of a crumbling hegemony seems to be, for the rulers of the U.S., a way out of the swamp.

Against An Imposed Peace

2010-04-05T12:30:00.000+03:00

Two important voices for peace have come out openly in support of an imposed solution to the conflict: Uri Avneri and Professor Zev Shternhal. Their logic is that such a development, an imposed peace, is preferable to another war. However, this kind of argumentation has a number of serious drawbacks.
Firstly, the fact that peace must be imposed enables the diehard warmongers to claim that they are acting on the basis of democratic principles and that they enjoy the support of the people.

Secondly, public opinion in Israel may be faced in the wrong direction, but this is in large part due to the fact that the United States has been in the past and is still locked into an unholy alliance with the leaders of Israel. Public opinion forms its “rational mistakes” on the basis of the assumption that Obama and Washington are really not serious about changing their policies.

There is no reason to impose peace – to force Israel to adopt policies unacceptable to the majority of its citizens. The shoe is really on the other foot. It is incumbent on Obama to announce and put into action US policies for peace and against war in the region. He and the US administration remain responsible to this very day for the disorientation of the Israel public and the various addictions developed by the Israeli body politic. Instead of demanding the imposition of peace, let us suggest with all due respect that Washington impose on itself policies for peace. There is no cause for the use of force. If Obama and the U.S. conduct a clear, unequivocal policy on behalf of peace, the majority of the people of Israel will shed their illusions at record speed. In those circumstances, there will be know need to bypass democratic process and only a small minority of Israelis would opt for a Wissotzky tea party. All this is a bit academic, but in fact and in theory if peace is given a fair chance, peace will be the option of choice.

How Will We Know if Obama is Serious?
The hot political topic at social meetings over the Passover holiday is whether or not Obama is really going to wean Israel away from its addictions to annexation and aggression. I would not bet on it, but for assistance to friends I have worked out a few criteria to help them follow events. Not in order of their importance,
(1)Something will be really happening when Hilary Clinton calls in Dennis Ross and suggest that, instead of being on at least two payrolls, Dennis Ross starts getting his salary paid openly and directly from AIPAC.
(2) Something will be really happening when Barack Obama mentions the danger of Iranian and Israeli nuclear weapons in one sentence.
(3) Something will be really happening when the US Ambassador in Israel will enquire re Marwan Bargouti’s conditions of imprisonment and request a meeting with him.
(4) Something will be happening when Mitchell refuses to come to Israel without a guarantee that he will not receive the Biden treatment for the nth time.
(5) When Obama speaks to an “AAPAC – Arab-American Palestinian Action Committee” and promises that his commitment to Palestinian rights and security is eternal and rock solid.
(6) When the shipments of the “you know what thigamajigs” start falling behind schedule.
(7) When the four members of the Quartet ask each other if any one knows exactly what Tony Blair has been doing in the ME.
(8) When the settlements are classified as terrorist bases and Lieberman is classified as a terrorist agent by the US State Department.
(9) When the US State Department orders its people at the UN to at least read the draft proposals before vetoing them.

Local Boy Makes Good?
We should be able to congratulate Avishai Margalit as a perfect example of a local boy who made good in the tough competition of the academic world. Presently holding a chair at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies, Margalit is slated to receive an Israeli Prize within the approaching Independence Day festivities. He seems to have earned this prize by a slavish conformism to the mainstream of Israeli policies of aggression and annexation.

He has known better days and at one stage of his career was involved in an attempt to create a left-wing substitute for MAPAM, the then major force in Left Zionism. In and around Peace Now, Margalit would raise his voice now and then in the eighties against some of the most nauseating events in Israel’s descent to legalized barbarism.

Margalit was too busy gathering academic laurels to come out either against the Second Lebanon War or Operation Cast Lead. He was involved together Michel Walzer in a strange and obscure exchange of letters (New York Review of Books) in which he criticized the position of the IDF official philosopher, Asa Kasher, on some peripheral matter. Margalit and Walzer both “forgot” to take a position against the war. But they saw it important to challenge the IDF practice of totally disregarding the lives of Palestinian civilians in circumstances which may lead to IDF casualties. Interesting, but what about the character of the war? Margalit, in close association with Walzer, a presumed “expert” on “Just Wars” never came out against the Israeli operation.

Another sad aspect of the Israel establishment laureate’s role is the fact that his field is Moral Philosophy and he specializes, of all things, in Political Philosophy. There is no reason to spend too much time and effort to relate to Margalit’s work. My impression is that it is a repetition of barely warmed up liberal gruel, being specially re-cooked this time to ride the recent wave of Fascism = Communism and

Bewtween Caracas and Delhi

2009-12-05T16:04:00.000+02:00

Between Caracas and Delhi
It seems more than a coincidence that two important conferences of the international left took place last month, in November 2009. One, the 11th International Meeting of the Communist and Workers’ Parties was held in Delhi, India and issued the “Delhi Declaration” (DD) and the other, a World Meeting of Left Parties, met in Caracas, Venezuela and issued a document entitled the “Caracas Commitment.”(CC) There were approximately 50 organizations at each conference. I will try to relate here to some of the main issues raised by these two meetings and the calls that they issued.
There is some difficulty in comparing the two documents in that the Delhi Declaration (DD) is much shorter, about a third in length of the Caracas Commitment (CC) and much more general and less specific. In addition to listing the progressive position on the many fronts of concrete struggle, the CC suggests important international initiatives.
There are important differences between the two calls. However, it should be stressed that they are not and were not written as opposing or alternative theses. There is indeed some danger of “over analyzing” the differences many of which may have more to do with form than substance.
The general tone of both meetings reflects a desire to concretize the call for socialism. Both documents center on the analysis of the current crisis of capitalism and emphasize the need for a socialist solution to the crisis. The motivation is quite clear. The current crisis of capitalism poses the question of socialism as an urgent theoretical and political problem. The crisis is also a crisis for social-democracy, for class collaboration in the economy and a blow to the faith that things will work themselves out in the economy. One can hope that the common position of the DD and the CC on this vital question will afford a broad basis for unity and cooperation. Both conferences wish to reframe the demand for socialism and to transform it into an urgent social-political issue. It is no longer sufficient to think of socialism as an abstract perspective. If socialism means anything it must present itself as the best and most reliable solution for the present crisis.
What is Socialism?
There are important differences between the two documents in the treatment of socialism. CC talks clearly about 21st Century Socialism and Chavez has some clearly uncomplimentary things to say about the Stalinist deformation in the Soviet Union. Though Chavez and Venezuela’s Latin-American allies are in the forefront of the struggle against US imperialism, the CC clearly states that opposition to imperialism and the struggle for national sovereignty are not enough. In short, the time has come to move past the main slogan of the anti globalization movement to the effect that a “better world is possible”. The movement against capitalist globalization must transform itself into a revolutionary movement for socialism.

The DD is exceptionally cautious and restrained in its description of the current scene in Latin America. It categorizes the fight in Latin America as an essentially defensive front: ”Latin America, the current theater of popular mobilizations and working class actions, has shown how rights can be protected and won through struggle.” (www.11IMCWP.in) The dramatic difference between this DD description, which can be characterized as positive but cool, and the CC on this and other important strategic questions is a highly significant.

Though one can easily identify with the chief demands in the DD, it does seem a bit long on platitudes and short on specifics. There is a glaring discrepancy between the detailed and clear arguments against capitalism in the DD and the rather unclear role of the category of socialism in the very same document. Precisely, in the light of a new priority granted to the advance of socialism to a higher place on today’s agenda, the absence of a deeper analysis, historical and contemporary, on the outlines of the socialist alternative is sorely felt. No one could demand a single, one-size- fits all formula for socialism today from the DD. But this is a not a reason to ignore differences on the subject and the need for detailed analyses on the multiple paths to socialism. It is, of course, a fact that there are different ideological trends and political approaches on this key question in the Communist movement. If socialism is indeed to be on the agenda, the discussion of these trends and their significance cannot be suppressed.

The DD states correctly that “Imperialism,[has been] buoyed by the demise of the Soviet Union…and that the achievements and contributions of socialism in defining the contours of modern civilization remain inerasable.” (www.11IMCWP.in) However, nothing in the least critical is said of the Soviet project. There is something very problematic in the total evasion of any discussion regarding the weaknesses of Soviet socialism and its sad collapse. This is a serious weakness and silence on this matter would seem to open the door to attack by many enemies of the very idea of socialism. Moreover, for many serious progressives, the thinking of Communists on this question is of genuine interest.

The Bolivarian Revolution on the Move
The immediate historical background of the CC is the 2005 declaration by Chavez to build “21st Century Socialism” and the creation of a new, mass revolutionary party in Venezuela. It is important to add here the growing consolidation of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Paraguay and its historical link with revolutionary and independent Cuba.
The constant machinations by US imperialism to undermine and isolate the Bolivarian revolution by military, political, and economic means are convincing proof that this arena is presently the flash point of the battle against imperialism.
The CC does not, unlike the DD, stop at recommending general positions and ideas. It offers detailed plans for the creation of new platforms of joint action by the left, including (1) Establishment of a “Temporary Executive Secretariat (TES) that allows for the coordination of a common working agenda” on agreed policies; (2) Organization of a World Movement for Peace; (3) Special instruments to advance public communication and win the battle of the media.
All of the above, if properly implemented, could impart new vigor and enthusiasm to the fight for peace and socialism. But Chavez and the Venezuelan leadership have also moved far past the above initiatives, and presented a new, bold proposal for the establishment of a Fifth International.
“The international encounter of Left-wing Political parties held in Caracas on November 19, 20 and 21, 2009, received the proposal made by Commander Hugo Chavez Frias to convoke the V Socialist International as a space for socialist-oriented parties, movements and currents in which we can harmonize a common strategy for the struggle against imperialism, the overthrow of capitalism by socialism and solidarity based economic integration of a new type.” (www.venezuelanalysis.com)
Diversity and Controversy on the Way to a New International
Leftists and students of the modern era are cognizant of the complex issues involved in the conception, goals and practice of Marxist internationalism and its main tool, the international, which it established to create a material and organizational foundation for its ideals.
Chavez considered it important to outline from the outset of the discussion on a new international his own understanding of the historic outcome of previous attempts. These views were summarized in a report by Kiraz Janicke of his speech at the Caracas conference and published in an official Venezuelan website: “During his speech, Chavez briefly outlined the experiences of previous “internationals,” including the First International founded in 1864 by Karl Marx; the Second International founded in 1889, which collapsed in 1916 as various left parties and trade unions sided with their respective capitalist classes in the inter-imperialist conflict of the First World War; the Third International founded by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, which Chavez said “degenerated” under Stalinism and “betrayed” struggles for socialism around the world; and the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938, which suffered numerous splits and no longer exists, although some small groups claim to represent its political continuity. Chavez said that a new international would have to function ’without impositions’ and would have to respect diversity.” (www.venezuelanalysis.com)
It is of course far too early to jump to any kind of conclusions regarding the Chavez proposal on the basis of the above outline or the results of the first responses from various organizations. While it would be unwise to disregard the historical “hints” in Chavez’s outline, my reading of the proposal is that we are not going to be asked to return to an international based on “democratic centralism.” The idea of the international was associated historically with some sort of centrally disciplined world- wide party. It is important to stress that Chavez seems to understand his proposal as suggesting a new form of international built around the concept of unity in diversity.
At any rate, the Chavez project is a political thunderbolt and should initiate new and broad discussion of the role of internationalism in the struggle against imperialism and for socialism. Such a discussion can only contribute to our ideological and political consciousness. We are at the very beginning of a process and it would be wise to reserve any tendency to hasty judgment.

The Shalit Circus

2009-11-25T11:33:00.000+02:00

From the desk of Reuven Kaminer November 25, 2009
Bibi’s Bathosphere
The media circus around the negotiations between Hamas and Israel on the prisoner swap to free the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, grinds on and on, defying any vestige of proportionality. The media fuels artificial tension by trying to keep us guessing as to whether a deal is on or off. However, it should be understood that there are important ramifications of these lengthy negotiations independent of their final outcome.
You may have noticed that the Shalit show has just now returned to center stage, for the n’th time. Once again, there is tremendous discrepancy between endless volumes of coverage and the very sparse evidence of any factual developments. More and more irrelevant “activity” is reported even though it has nothing to do with facts on the ground. There appears to be some formula at work that makes this story serve the interests of both these bitter enemies. Meanwhile there is lots of noise and very little movement.
Some of the “noise” is almost hilarious. Israeli spokespersons, from the top down, grant lengthy interviews explaining why they cannot address the matter. It’s ”so sensitive” and any superfluous statement can cause irrevocable harm at this point of the negotiations.
Looking Good
But the main achievement of the Israeli role in this tawdry affair is to make Israel look good. We are to believe that those who train Israeli youth to kill and to die willingly to achieve Israel’s current strategic objective really care about each and every one of its soldiers. But it is common knowledge that the Israeli military, asides from the nefarious policies that it devotedly serves, has more than its share of serious fuck-ups which cost the lives of many a young person. There may be a middle class element here in that the more affluent and educated parents seem to want all the relevant details of the military action that cost them their child. As often as not, they know someone who knows someone.
Mentally they understand that war means death, but they would like to believe that in contradistinction to all relevant indications, the military and those that give the orders really care about the lives of their children. It often happens that bereaved parents go beyond regular channels in the search of details. The same channels are brought to bear when an Israeli soldiers falls into captivity. So if there is an opportunity – really a golden one - to demonstrate that the government and the army company really care about the fate of each and every soldier, then it is wise to exploit it fully. The regime scores points by being attentive to the parental pleas to ransom up the youngster. The story can even make Netanyahu look good.
The Israeli establishment loves to pose. One favorite pose is being in a dilemma between the head and the heart. The head rejects the very idea of freeing “hundreds of vicious murderous barbarians” but “how can we face the anxious parents without doing everything to bring their son back to them?” Can there be any better light in which to present our leadership than it being afflicted with a serious moral dilemma.
There once was a time when it was great fun to mock the left when it said that the main function of much ongoing public discourse and media coverage was to divert attention from more important matters. However, it seems that Bibi and Co. appreciate the diversionary value of the Shalit affair. Casting Netanyahu as the guardian of warrior solidarity does help to remove the glaring focus on the fact that the government is squandering what might have been the last chance of peace.
Talking about diversions, there is a list of burning issues before Israel that are really more decisive than endless negotiations on the Shalit issue. The peace process has been snuffed out by Israeli obstinacy and Washington’s clumsiness. Abu Mazen, Israel’s only potential “partner,” is barely hanging on to a shred of legitimacy. The settlers and their allies who seem to be multiplying in the IDF ranks and its young officer corps are fast achieving veto power over any “unfriendly” use of the IDF against the settlements.
Moreover, the talk about a possible swap and the price involved obscures the reality of some 10,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons. The Israeli attempt to criminalize these people, or to incite against them because they have “blood on their hands”, is really an attempt to hide the fact that these men and women answered the call of legitimate Palestinian leadership to fight for the rights of their people. Again and again the Israeli public must supposedly weigh the pros and the cons of releasing literally hundreds of “dangerous, blood thirsty, terrorist murderers to get Gilad back home. You get the point. We are so devoted to our soldiers that we are even considering this kind of dangerous concession to the terrorists.
Admittedly, there is intrinsic drama in the Shalit case, but there is also intrinsic drama in the case of every one of the 10,000 Palestinians and their families. It is fine to recognize the pain and suffering of Shalit’s parents. Remember though, that Shalit, the prisoner, has a face, while ten thousand Palestinian women and men prisoners remain faceless.
I, for one, do not believe that there is a real chance of a done deal with Hamas. We are still, despite the media blitz, far from an agreement. Bibi will still have many opportunities to scuttle the deal and he may even chose to stage a “retreat under popular pressure,” especially after the media starts detailing the “crimes” of the candidates for release.
Talking with Hamas
The Shalit negotiations are a serious boost for Hamas’s Arab and international standing. Islamic radicals, we learn, are just as amenable to diplomacy and hard bargaining as anyone else. The walls of isolation around Hamas are crumbling, as even Israel by virtue of these negotiations, extends de facto recognition. If Israel enjoys its role losing sleep over a single captured soldier, Hamas enjoys showing the only practical way to deal with Israel is by having something that Israel wants very much.
And if Hamas bends at any stage and approves a proposed deal, there is a thick Israeli Shin Bet file which contains any number and variety of documented proofs that it precisely Hamas which scuttled the deal to release Gilad Shalit.” Any fabricated accusation that Hamas is to blame that the deal fell through will be good enough for the Israeli public. And a failed deal should not disturb the flow of oil out of the region.

Who Killed Abu Mazen

2009-11-08T19:44:00.001+02:00

Who Killed Abu Mazen? Who Caused His Death?

Hillary Clinton killed Abu Mazen. Barack Obama set him up last June in his Cairo speech and Hillary killed him dead. Her repeated declarations last week regarding “unprecedented concessions” by Netanyahu on the settlement issue completed the job.
Are we exaggerating? Is Abu Mazen still alive? One would hope that as just another pensioner, Abu Mazen, will enjoy a healthy and vigorous private retirement. But politically he has become, despite illustrious chapters in his younger years, a political corpse. He simply bet everything on the U.S. And when it turned out that all the services he rendered to the U.S. were used and exploited by Obama to increase pressure against his own people, he was forced to understand that the game was over.

Abu Mazen was not born to deceive his people. But he (and many others) deceived themselves regarding Clinton, her boss and her associates. Is it clinically possible that Abu Mazen died of shame?

Of course, Clinton is a highly regarded figure. But the Clinton aura is just another trap. For her own convenience, she can turn the most faithful ally into a political non-entity. Abu Mazen began the descent to his own elimination last month when he issued orders to connive with Clinton to prevent the UN Human Rights Council from discussing the Goldstone Report. And now, Ms. Clinton, speaking words of adoration for Bibi, in her recent trip to the ME, finished him off.

There are three major lessons here, if you will. The first is the danger and the illusions of the theory which holds that since we live in a unipolar world, nothing can be done without an alliance with the US, which supposedly holds all the cards. Let the case of Abu Mazen be a lesson to all that hitching your wagon to the US train is the best way to go nowhere.
The second lesson is that Clinton’s knife in Abu Mazen’s back may well be a faithful reflection of US policy and practice all over the place. Obama’s rhetoric notwithstanding, his administration, so far, is a continuation of Bush’s. Obama is indeed under tremendous pressures and he may well decide on an orderly retreat. But so far, things gets worse and worse and the waters of the Potomac get muddier by the day. Hope, yes – illusions, no.
The third lesson is that Abu Mazen sealed his fate at least two years ago when he introduced a permanent U.S. military delegation into the West Bank. Headed by General Dayton, the US units were involved in an operation to establish “law and order.” Interestingly enough, this involved military and intelligence coordination between Jordan, the Palestinian forces and the Israeli Defense Forces, under General Clayton’s aegis. A lot of Abu Mazen’s friends would have served him well if they had told him loud and clear back then that this meant, in fact, an end to his political independence.

Obama Spurned

2009-09-18T18:09:00.000+03:00

September 18, 2009

Obama Spurned
There are some encouraging signs that Obama and his people are mixing his disastrous “rule-from-the-center” strategy with some more realistic steps, such as agreement to talks with North Korea and Iran, and modification of the missile program in Poland and the Czech Republic. If this is psychological preparation for a retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq, something significant is happening. But if Obama is just trying to “shorten the lines” in order to continue those wars, any realistic steps on different fronts will count for little.
Here, in the region, the Obama team has engineered a horrendous flop for U.S. prestige. Mitchell, who returned to the US empty handed after weeks of negotiations, achieved only the elevation of Netanyahu into a national hero, able to veto the designs of the U.S. President. One has to ask, what were the Obama people thinking? This looks like another total farce. If the U.S. apparatus had any sense of the objective situation, they would not have wandered into such an abject failure. The U.S. looks weak and confused, the Netanyahu government appears strong and competent. The only U.S. response so far, after Mitchell’s departure from the area, is to rush to the support of the Israeli government against the Goldstone report…
High Quality of Life in a Rare Environment
The moral, political and economic disintegration of the kibbutz and the kibbutz movement is for your correspondent some sort of personal obsession. This is the reason that I posses a busting file of clippings on events linked to the ongoing kibbutz crisis. It appears, unfortunately, that I will never get around to working this information into a comprehensive analysis of what Martin Buber called the “experiment in socialism that didn’t fail.”
I have, of course innumerable reasons, for not doing many of the things that I will not do. Here, the main reason for abandoning any extended projects on this subject is that the kibbutz is truly irrelevant to any central process in Israel today. It is interesting and instrumental to observe any social process, but alas, the kibbutz, is today really not that important. This being objectively true, I remain with my personal obsession on the subject. It may just happen that some of my friends and acquaintances will find sentimental interest in some of the material I have gathered and my comments on this sad, sad transition of the kibbutz as it morphs from collectives of devoted idealists who wanted, in their own fashion, to storm the gates of heaven into disparate and desperate groups trying to salvage economic remnants necessary for individual survival in a neo liberal wasteland.

(Newspaper Ad – September 18, 2009)
Kibbutz Hulda – Expansion
Kibbutz Hulda is honored to announce to the public the expansion of the residential area in the kibbutz. Candidates, interested in enjoying a high quality of life and a rare environment, are invited to contact us.
For your choice, a selection of single home and two- family models.
A private home on a half dunam * Convenient and Central Location: 30 minutes from Tel Aviv and 10 minutes from the #6 highway. The price: From *NIS 1,850,000. Sales have commenced ..for details call…additional information: hoolda.co.il
*U$ 500.000.

Growing Stature of a Rejected Poet
The Hebrew Poet Avoth Yeshuron
Those that know my background will understand that I do not have the slightest intention of presuming expertise in any subject connected to Hebrew literature. But any reader of the literary pages and supplements will have learned about the intriguing life and work of Avoth Yeshuron (1904-1992).
Ranked with the giants of Israeli poetry such as Alterman, Shlonsky and Uri Tzvi Greenberg, he was scorned and ostracized by the Labor party hacks in the fifties and deserted friends in the established literary circles. The event, that touched off waves of hysterical attacks related to a poem by Yeshuron in 1952, in which he dared to make a stark comparison between the plight of Jewish refugees in Europe and Arab refugees from Palestine.
A new collection of poems was the occasion for a major article (Ha’aretz, 18 September, 2009) devoted to the radical eccentric who started a long climb into the Israeli poetical canon from the Yom Kippur war in 1973 onwards. His daughter, Helit Yeshuron, told the critic, Maya Sela: “Yeshuron saw the Palestinian catastrophe, the Palestinian Arabs who were forced to flee, at a time when it was not customary to see them in the Israeli discourse. He was rejected both because of his Hebrew style and because of his attitude to the Arabs, said Helit Yeshuron… “Those were hard years. His comrades betrayed him…he was accused of the most horrible crime…hatred of the Jewish people, betrayal of the Jewish people.”
“In 1956, Yeshuron stated that the holocaust of the Jews and the holocaust of the Arabs were the holocaust of the Jewish conscience..he was not making comparisons but stated that what happened to the Arabs was a holocaust and that alone was desecration of the holy. He believed that we, the Jews, as a result of historical development caused a catastrophe to another people, and for us, as Jews, it was forbidden to happen.”
Yeshuron received the Israel Prize after his death in 1992.

Obama in the Center

2009-08-24T18:06:00.000+03:00

Obama Ruling from the Center
Obama supporters are justly aghast at the vicious attacks by the US ultra-right on the President. The natural response is to assume that Obama is being attacked because of decent, liberal policies at home and abroad. But any objective analysis of the record shows that Obama is carefully following suicidal neo-liberal policy recipes in DC and doing even worse abroad, where he seems to be working overtime to achieve his own “Vietnam” in Afghanistan.
The intensity of the attacks from the right stems from the inability of Obama to come up with serious alternative policy initiatives. Obama looks less and less like he knows what he is doing, and this is tragic for a person with his intelligence. But he is growingly confused and frustrated. The ultra-right senses a chance to move into the political vacuum and goes of course for the jugular vein. By insisting that he will rule from the center, Obama has moved the entire scene to the right. Sad, very sad.
There is a parallel phenomenon here in Israel. Nothing remains of the sense of shock and urgency after Obama’s Cairo speech. But Netanyahu senses that Obama is really not that serious and Israel commences the big stall on settlements. If the settlement issue regarding which the U.S. has a clear declared policy is a tough nut to crack for Obama and Mitchell, then you can forget about any serious US pressure to advance peace. Netanyahu, who proves to that he knows how to snub Obama, looks good to the Israelis who admire this sort of thing. Obama’s weakness emboldens the settler right which starts telling Bibi that he should simply tell Obama to keep his nose out of “our business,” without the diplomatic niceties required from the Prime Minister.
Idiots of the Thomas Freedman genre get all excited by the pockets of prosperity in a few Palestinian cities heavily patrolled by the U.S. – Jordanian trained Palestinian peace forces. The new money being spread around is just another method of splitting the Palestinians. Now the social gap widens in addition to the geographic and religious divisions. The Palestinian leadership, which reflects the nouveau riche has forgotten how to say no for a long time. One might assume mistakenly that the Palestinian situation is hopeless if one just could ignore the fact that the basic rights of a people are at stake. The Palestinians have has arisen from abject defeat e in the past and the present dire straits and hardships can only delay but not eliminate the day of reckoning for those who believe that the Palestinians have been outfought, outwitted and eliminated from the historical equation.
We are on the eve of a new set of seemingly dramatic events in the region. But instead of hope, all the moves and their futility are nauseatingly familiar. Meanwhile Netanyahu flaunts his refusal to cease settlement activity and issues demands for immediate acts of normalization by the Arab world. Instead of real pressure on Israel, Washington is scouting its Arab allies for help in meeting normalization (before peace) promises to Israel. The “Iran first and Palestine later” line promulgated by Israel achieves de facto acceptance in DC because a rapidly weakening Obama seems less and less willing or able to take on Israel and its AIPAC buddies.
Obama is knee deep in the muddy of US orthodox diplomacy. Fearing even the slightest confrontation with Israel, the US is trying to fashion a game plan to unite the region against the “extremists.” All this smells of Afghanistan as we rapidly approach the moment when Afghanistan becomes the issue in Washington. All the real action is along the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran-Iraq axis. The U.S. is in a frantic search of partners and allies in the fight against the Taliban. Obama believes, in opposition to all logic and diplomatic savvy that he can and must win this war. If he persists, he may lose much more than a war on the outlying borders of the U.S. empire.
Meanwhile Israel arrogates the right to unilaterally announce all the important dates. According to Israel, the Iranians must satisfy U.S. expectations by this September or suffer the first round of sanctions. Israel has announced that the talks with the Palestinians will resume in September. The need for a good photo-op in Washington will be enough to overcome Palestinian reticence. For those watching the scene carefully, the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be final proof that nothing is happening on the Palestinian issue, but that Obama and Co. need to save face.

Dr. Niv Gordon Speaks Out
In a reasoned and coherent matter, Gordon made the argument, in a recent op-ed peace in the LA Times that only serious international pressure can save Israel from clinging to its chauvinist path to moral degradation and eventual political isolation. To reach peace, in the form of a two- state solution, Gordon favors pressure on Israel through boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli policy.
It is difficult to decide which element in the BGU’s President’s response is more dangerous: Prof. R. Carmi’s dangerous McCarthyite impulses or her ignorance of the politics regarding Israel in the international academic community. Carmi has no legal right or status regarding Dr. Gordon’s opinions or their form of expression. Her “coy” suggestion that Gordon should leave the country because of his views is a kind of sick jingoism which most university presidents would have the sense to avoid. However, the fact that Carmi demonstrates a total inability to understand the nature of Gordon’s views and their political meaning is no less disturbing. Gordon represent a more moderate view in academic circles in that he is striving to rescue Israel from its moral degeneration. Whereas thousands of serious academicians who follow the conflict contend that the occupation is only a single aspect of Israel’s colonial nature, Gordon tosses a life-line to serious Israelis showing them a path away from the Apartheid destroying Israel’s soul. Carmi should stop reviewing politics about which she understands absolutely nothing. In any event it is not the role of the University President to pass judgment on the views of the faculty.
Boycott is Legitimate
In judging the work of the movement for Boycott, Divestment, Sanction inspired by the Ramallah initiative it is important to stress the principle that all non-violent activity against the occupation and the denial of the rights of the Palestinians is moral and legitimate. The occupation is built of steel, weapons, firepower, prisons, walls, and dungeons. The right of peaceful protest against its daily implementation is natural and elementary. Every positive response to the call for boycott, etc., is welcome.
Even so, on the strategic level, the exact goals of the boycott activity according to the BDS are often rather unclear. There seems to be some confusion as to whether the object of the protest is ending the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories, or whether the protest is directed against the very existence of Israel. There is a well known thesis that argues that all of Israel is essentially occupied Palestinian land and that all Palestinians suffer from a common set of repressive measures. Whatever the opinion on these distinctions, it should be clear that they have clear strategic implications for the movement against Israeli policy and practice. It should be clear that there are large constituencies for whom this distinction is critical in that they support boycott aimed against the occupation but insist that their activity does not undermine the existence of Israel.
Moreover, with all due respect for the Ramallah initiative, it is the local protest movements all over the world that must integrate the different considerations of “context, time and place”. It seems that the BDS people have a tendency to issue superfluous “encyclicals” dealing with fine distinctions of when and how to boycott and divest tactics.
In any event Dr. Niv Gordon has seized the moral high ground. Israel is becoming a pariah state. Every activity that points this out by boycott, divestment and sanctions is doing the Israelis a favor, whether they understand this or not.

Family Affairs

2009-07-28T21:01:00.000+03:00

July 28, 2009
Family Affairs
Obama’s ostensibly more realistic and sophisticated positions regarding foreign relations, which were supposed to have replaced US arrogance under Bush, are quickly dissipating. No sooner does Obama embark on steps designed to improve the US image abroad, than key people in his administration such as Clinton and Biden come out with declarations echoing the “cold war” policies of the previous administration.
Here in the ME, Obama is losing positive momentum created by his Cairo speech. His team, despite the addition of a “realist” diplomat here and there, is still the same old cluster of people whose main expertise is in organizing a peace process which is bereft of any substance at all. Since Obama’s real policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian issue is far from clear , there is room for endless diplomatic procrastination and bickering. How far can Obama go along the road to peace when he and his administration take care to remind us on every possible occasion that any differences with Israel are “in the family.”
In a recent statement at the beginning of the month, Xavier Solana, the retiring EU Minister of Foreign Affairs and a pro-US, pro-NATO politician if there ever was one, proposed a serious alternative to the current “piece by piece” technique. Solana’s proposal demonstrated the gap between the Mitchell mission and real action on the Israel-Palestinian issue. Solana merely suggested moving the whole issue to the UN Security Council, including setting a tangible date to work out a clear compromise on the final status agreement. Of course, Israel rejected the idea in less than 24 hours.
Meanwhile, the US and other important players on the international scene are busy expressing their displeasure at Israel’s continuing settlement provocations beyond the Green Line (the June 1967 borders). While it is a pleasant diversion to watch the Israeli establishment writhe and squirm in the July heat, one fears that Obama is helping Bibi on the tactical level and falling into the old “piece by piece” trap.
It is hard to describe the paroxysms of simulated righteous indignation which seize Israeli leaders over U.S. “intervention” in Israel’s “internal affairs.” Since holy Jerusalem was involved, the local media got busy declaring a new Israeli consensus supporting Netanyahu:
‘The US position which challenges our sovereign rights in Jerusalem is totally unreasonable and simply unacceptable. Jerusalem was ours long before DC was built. It is impossible to understand that the US cannot understand this.’
Though it is clear to any serious observer that the excitement in Bibi’s outfit is pure hypocrisy, the U.S. behavior is actually helpful to Netanyahu on the tactical level. The demand for cessation of building, even in East Jerusalem, seems to the average Israeli as a concession, unless it appears as an element in real, practical negotiations on peace with the Palestinians. Serious, active negotiations are what are needed to convince public opinion that it is worth compromising to reach peace.
At this point, every diplomatic meeting here begins and ends with ritual declarations by the U.S. that Israel is our faithful ally, with common goals and interests. This catechism of “kutzenyu, mutsenyu” (intimate familiarity) merely increases Bibi’s credibility when he claims that there are no real problems in the “special alliance.” However, the U.S. is only fooling itself when it pretends that direct, genuine, productive negotiations in the region are possible while Bibi is in the Israeli driver’s seat.
In truth, the U.S. could get rid of Bibi or cut him down to size with relatively little effort. A demand for vigorous actions against the outposts would meet with general approval here and suffice to shatter Bibi’s coalition. The U.S. reticence to do some of the vital work to clear Israel’s political swamp is another indicator that Washington is still far from being serious about real action for peace in the region.
It may be that Washington thinks that it has plenty of time to weaken Bibi’s power and prestige. This is another dangerous illusion. Cheap little chauvinist politicians like Bibi Netanyahu usually cultivate a gang of military strategists whose fondest dreams are to launch adventurous mega-provocations with gigantic destabilizing effects - perfectly designed to scuttle any possibilities for diplomatic progress. Uzi Arad, the Israeli choir master of the Dr. Strangelove disciples of the absolute deterrent, is only the tip of the non-conventional iceberg. The present Israeli coalition would prefer destabilization and chaos over the imposition of a just peace.
As George Mitchell, Bill Gates and James Jones come and go an eerie queasiness descends on the region. Is it really the case that Israeli-Palestinian peace is not urgent? Is it the least important element in this endless churning? One is tempted momentarily to believe that with all this motion something important must be happening on the peace front. However, despite al the diplomatic flurry, watching Bibi Netanyahu smirking at the head of a stable Israeli government should help to dispel any illusions.

________________________________________

Tough Love and Strange Love

2009-07-13T18:49:00.000+03:00

From the desk of Reuven Kaminer July 13, 2009

Tough Love and Strange Love

If you would know the historical roots of Israel’s current political strategic thinking under the Netanyahu administration, follow me into the not too distance past. Those were the days, when the Rand Corporation, really a think tank launched and funded by the U.S. Air Force, was explaining to John Foster Dulles that he was neglecting U.S. security. Dulles, it appears, did not understand that it was all important to prepare a second strike capacity to nuke the Russians after they, the Russians nuked the U.S., which had already nuked them the first time, because of a serious case of Soviet aggression against some vital U.S. interest somewhere on the globe. One of the geniuses who worked on explaining the necessity for being ready to launch nuclear war, with at least a double barrel was a dazzling young intellectual named Herman Kahn. Kahn made it clear that deterrence involved readiness to include, and plan for the possibility of a full scale nuclear counter-attack on the United States – after the first US nuclear attack on the USSR. If you were bright back then, you built yourself a well stocked nuclear-proof bomb shelter. Kahn advised digging deep into the rock under Manhattan, for one-big public shelter. One of the brightest ways to prevent war was to convince the Russians that the US had some sort of Doomsday Machine that would go off automatically and destroy the whole of the USSR, in case of a Russian counter-attack after a US attack. To package this bright idea, Kahn and his associates worked overtime to convince the US public that nuclear war was winnable and squeamishness about doing everything to survive meant certain death and annihilation.
The Current Israeli Disciple
Uzi Arad is Israel’s national security adviser and a close confidant of Netanayhau. Uzi came up in the ranks, after serving in the Mosad for twenty years. He became an expert in nuclear strategy via advanced study at Princeton and was recruited by the Hudson Institute outfit, where he became, by his own admission a devotee of Herman Kahn.
.” But above all I was drawn to Herman Kahn, with whom I worked at the Hudson Institute. Kahn is the original Dr. Strangelove. He was a Jewish-American genius who was a salient nuclear hawk and dealt with the planning and feasibility of nuclear wars. Kahn was a towering figure. He was a beacon of intelligence, knowledge and pioneering thought. He combined conceptual productivity, humor and informality. He attracted a group of devotees of whom I was one in the 1970s. But he also had bitter rivals who criticized him for even conceiving of the idea of a nuclear war. In the Cold War it was precisely those who talked about defense and survival who were considered nuclear hawks. The doves talked about "mutual assured destruction," which blocks any possibility of thinking about nuclear weapons… Like Kahn, I was one of the hawks.
On the face of it, what is the point of this? Why execute the enemy after deterrence has failed? But according to [Yeheskel] Dror (an Israeli political scientist of similar views – RK) , it is important to ascertain that the deterrence will work, even if you yourself have been destroyed. He sees this as a contribution to the repair of the world [tikkun olam]. (See Ha’aretz Magazine, July 10, 2009 pp. 8-11)
Eventually this kind of academo-paranonia, dressed up with a lot of “game theory”’ and claiming to improve on MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), which was deemed by Kahn to be too timid, became the object of ridicule and repugnance. The rejection of this kind of nuclear voodoo found expression in the famous, classic and highly regarded movie, directed by Stanley Kubrick, “Dr. Strangelove” (1964). Dr. S is a former Nazi, who has become a top advisor to the U.S. president. When nuclear war breaks out after a long series of stupidities, and not a few misunderstandings, Dr. S. starts instructing the government just what must be done to save at the least some Americans, in order to renew the battle, after the current round of mass death and destruction.
It may help observers of the scene here in Israel to understand that theories long repudiated even by the US strategic military establishment have become the current fashion here. In the long and detailed interview, Arad who is a government official reminds the reader that the views expressed are his own. This is a rather strange procedure for a high ranking government official in a super sensitive job. Arad, it is clear wants to lead the team and not just be a part of it. Ari Shavit, one of the more important “new -right” journalists stresses Arad’s importance:
“Arad holds tremendous power. He holds the Iranian portfolio, he conducts the sensitive dialogue with the United States, and he is the closest person to the Prime Minister.” (Ibid)
Lieberman, by comparison, is half racist buffoon and half shrewd ethnic politician. Though he is less of a fool than he seems, he is not in Arad’s class. On most issues, Arad is a bit more explicit (and embarrassing, for his boss), in explaining government policy. On the Palestinian front, he claims that there is no Palestinian partner for a true peace. “There are no true peace leaders among the Palestinians.” And…”even the moderates among them do not really want a settlement.” On the Syrian front: “The Syrians are certainly aware that the Netanyahu government and the majority of the public will not leave the Golan Heights.” He is certain that “the new U.S. administration is very realistic regarding the Syrian sector,” and that, in contradistinction to the Palestinian issue, “there are no comparable declarations.” We must deal with the Iranian issue first because “if Iran goes nuclear, everything that will be achieved with the Palestinians will be swept away in tidal wave.” He launches a tirade against the previous Israeli government whose concessions have left Netanyahu with “scorched earth.” He claims that “It is clear that they [the settlements] are not the most important or urgent problem.” The international attitude to Israel is “extremely unfair.” [All quotes are from the interview].
This not quite the brunt style used by the Israeli government people when speaking with the U.S. and other international parties, but this is the indisputable substance of Israeli policy, at least as long as Arad is around.
100 % Absolute Deterrence!
When talking about Iran, Arad explains, with coy modesty, that he is not at liberty to tell us “what the government of Israel thinks. Nor will I tell you what the U.S. government thinks.” Of course, after the caveat, he proceeds directly and immediately to expresses current Israeli positions. Israel should be the spokesperson for concerns and warnings to prevent the emergence of a multi-nuclear Middle East. According to Arad, Netanyahu is brilliant for avoiding any direct call to bomb Iran. Economic pressure, according to his boss, is the way to go and the best method would be a total maritime blockade on Iran. Of course, if the Iranians do not understand the message and react irresponsibly, then the time has come to ready the “military option” whose preparation is vital in any event. In fact, a sound military option would help the Iranians to understand their situation. Having a military option on the table increases the possibility that it will not be needed. So the strategy of provoke and bomb is, in essence, just the same, thinly disguised, hawkish rubbish. In all of this, Arad is just another neo-con.
The Really Scary Stuff
Arad is looking for a pretext to attack Iran, though he appreciates the importance of finding a way to keep the US in the picture. The classic Dr. Strangelove thinking is still around: “A situation of mutual armament is safer than a situation of mutual peace…the main reason for this is that in a situation of mutual peace, if one of the sides cheats it wipes you out. You have no means to deter them. So game theory pushes you into the corner of “both for us and them. I am not at liberty to discuss these issues explicitly…” So Arad refers us once more to Prof. Yehezkel Dror, and quotes him about “hard absolute deterrence…superb deterrence that will ensure that, even if the country is itself destroyed, the country that attacks it will be annihilated.” If you did not get the message, it is simple. Israel must involve itself in an arms race that can never end until Israel is certain – absolutely certain – that our current enemy, whomsoever it is, has interiorized that any kind of over reaction to Israel aggression– another unknown quantity - will touch off a fatal attack by Israel. The soul of Israel must torment itself, until it has convinced itself that its enemy(ies) are convinced that Israel, which no longer exists, at that point for all practical purposes, will press the button insuring that the destruction is indeed mutual.
Stay with us as we continue to analyze this zany stuff. Arad: “On the face of it what is the point of this? Why execute the enemy after deterrence has failed? But according to Dror, it is important to ascertain that the deterrence will work, even if you yourself have been destroyed.” This is for Arad nothing but simple defensive strategy.
Ha’aretz reported yesterday that the National Security Council, headed by Arad has become, because of Netanyahu’s trust, a much more significant factor in decision making. (Ha’aretz, July12, 2009). Today, there is quite a bit of fall out in the wake of the interview because many of those lambasted are still in prominent positions.
Tough Love or Strangelove
Well meaning people suggest that the Obama administration respond to the Israeli refusal to negotiate for peace in good faith with tough love. Anyone with the faintest acquaintance with Israeli politics can tell you that the Israelis will not respond to tough love. They have rising hopes that the Obama is a One Term President, and are willing to help realize this goal. A few weeks back, the Obamaites assured us that the prez is too smart to be outwitted and out-maneuvered by the Netanyahu government and the pro-Israeli lobby. But the Israeli policy of procrastination, endless discussion, claims they want to do something about the outposts and the settlements but they simply cannot, does seem to be blunting Obama’s initiative. Mitchell is running hard, going nowhere, and Obama is busy picking up after Joe Biden. Israel and its friends are watching Obama getting involved more in protracted negotiations in other areas that lead no where. Obama, was cool and calm in Cairo last month, but appears today more becalmed than calm. You may want to move the Israeli leadership with “tough love”, but Israel’s hero is, to this very day, Dr. Strangelove.

Exporting Utopia (Sasa) and Public Relations for Torture

2009-07-06T00:00:00.000+03:00

Kibbutz “Heh” – i.e., the fifth letter in the Hebrew alphabet – was the name given way back in 1943 by the Ha’shomer Ha’tsair (Young Watchman) socialist- Zionist movement in the United States because it was the fifth such group organized for the purpose of emigration, or aliyah, from North America. In 1949, the group eventually established a new settlement in the former Arab village of Sasa whose indigenous residents were forced to flee during the 1948 war.
The youngsters from the US had an exceptionally rough time in the rocky fields of the upper Galilee, close to the Lebanon border. Many left over the years but the U.S. “kernel” or garin received reinforcements over the years from Israeli and European members of the same youth movement. It turned out that the place had potential that enabled it to become over the years the wealthiest kibbutz in Israel.
The kibbutz movement in Israel is presently in the throes of a vicious wave of privatization that has engendered a severe moral, social and economic crisis of serious dimensions. Paradoxically or not, a few of the more prosperous kibbutz settlements, have remained full scale producer-consumer cooperatives and escaped the vicissitudes of a process of long and continued degradation. Be that as it may be, our Sasa is still a kibbutz in every sense. But alas, its role in the long and arduous path of humanity to utopia has become a bit problematic.
Working for the Yankee Dollar
Our kibbutz is still a full scale kibbutz, but you have to make a living some how. Well, with a bit of business savvy, Sasa converted its plastic factory into an industrial plant specializing in the production of technology for the reinforcement of military vehicles. The technical term is “add on armor sytems.” It appears that the company, Plasan Sasa (see Google ) has just what the United States Army needs, technology to minimize the damage when its vehicles are blown up. And so business is booming. Sasa which has found itself unable to create a just society in Israel has decided to help the US forces establish a utopia in Afghanistan. Sales in 2008 reached I.S. 2.8 billion, and that’s a lot of money even in shekels – about 700 million dollars. Seven hundred workers in Israel and another 400 in France and the U.S. are employed. This, in these quarters, passes somehow for success in advancing the cause of “socialism”, though there is a bit of suspicion about the means chosen. The pioneers had other, better dreams when they came to build a commune in Sasa in 1949. It may well be that when they closed their eyes to the fate of the Palestinians who lived in Sasa before them, only to become refugees over the border, they began to develop Sasa’s current case of myopia. (For information on the business success of Sasa, see the The Marker, Economic Supplement Ha’aretz, July 5, 2009)
Public Relations for Torture
The people who talk to the media on behalf of torturers are not usually endowed with a surplus of intelligence. This might explain the distasteful sense of excessive pride evident in their declarations to Ha’aretz (July 3, 2009) by Fatah and Palestine Authority spokespeople bragging that they already have “detailed confessions” regarding a recent plot to kill Mahmoud Abbas. A report on the break-up of Hamas cell by Ha’aretz correspondent, Avi Issaarcharof, is based on information received from Fatah spokesman, Fahmi Zarir and a statment by PA Secretary, Taib Abd-Arahim. The two were eager to trumpet the success of the PA security forces in foiling a plot by Hamas conspirators “to assassinate Abbas and sow confusion in the West Bank with the intention of disrupting unity talks between Hamas and the PA held in Cairo.” Conveniently, the Hamas activists were caught with weapons, maps and photos of senior Fatah people including Abbas. Even more conveniently, it is reported that “the Palestinian security forces have detailed confessions.” Desiring to “save” what sounds like a fishy story, Issacharoff comments that “if this is true, it is evidence not only of Hamas’ intention to scuttle reconciliation with Fatah, but also to stage a coup of sorts against the PA.” This probability of a “coup of sorts” is a bit far fetched, so the reporter informs the reader that the culprit is the “Hamas military wing that has an extremist agenda, while the Hamas political leadership …is thought not to have been aware of the plot.” Issacharoff filed the story, but implies that things are a bit more complicated than the information he received from his sources. (Ha’aretz, July 3, 2009, p.A3)

Getting Detailed Confessions
A recent report, dated July 1, 2009 from the Israeli human rights group, B’tselem, shows the way to achieve “detailed confessions” such as those mentioned above:
On 11 June 2009, Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank detained Haitham ‘Amru, 33, a resident of Beit a-Roush al-Fauqa, a village in Hebron District. ‘Amru, who was married with three children and worked as a nurse, belonged to Hamas and was a board member of the Islamic Charitable Society. He was taken to the detention facility of the General Intelligence Service (GSS) in Hebron, and PA officials denied his family’s requests to visit him there. On 14 June, at night, ‘Amru was taken, in critical condition, from the detention facility to ‘Aliyah Hospital in Hebron, and was pronounced dead within a few hours of arrival. His body was taken to the Abu Dis Forensic Institute for an autopsy.
A fieldworker for the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, who saw the corpse before it was buried, reported that there were signs of severe injury all over the body. These signs, clearly evident in photographs obtained by B'Tselem and in a video broadcast on Al-Jazeera, raise concern that ‘Amru died as a result of torture he sustained at the GIS’s interrogation facility.
At first, GIS officials told the media that ‘Amru had jumped from the second floor of a building in an attempt to escape from the detention facility…(
http://www.btselem.org/English/Inter_Palestinian_Violations/20090701_Death_of_detainee_in_interrogation_facility.asp)
For the record, we have seen reliable reports of parallel criminal acts against human rights by the Hamas authorities in Gaza. This kind of behaviour, whosoever the perpetrator, is not only a violation of the International Declaration of Human Rights, it is a crime against the Palestinian people and its unity.

A Battle on Two Fronts

2009-06-29T00:00:00.000+03:00

The polarization in the ranks of the left regarding recent events in Iran is natural and understandable but it stems from a certain narrowness of approach which can and should be avoided.
Iran was and is under threat of aggressive intervention because of the positive elements of its foreign policy and its international position. This truth must not obscure the reactionary nature of the regime and the Iranian leadership. The positive elements in Iranian policy stem from the refusal of the Iranian leadership to succumb to the economic and political pressures by the US and Europe in regards to the exploitations of its major resource, oil. It might be useful to employ an old but quite valid conceptual tool. There is a major, basic contradiction between the whole of the Iranian people and the US-European alliance which aims for the domination of Iranian resources.
At the same time, Iran is a class society dominated by reactionary clericalist circles, which have parleyed their past prestige into a dictatorial system for the repression of all and any challengers to the regime and the leadership. There exists a complex series of internal contradictions between the regime and the popular forces in Iranian society. The social-economic struggle of the workers and the peasants is foremost, but the role of the battle for democratic rights is increasingly important along with the battle of Iranian women and youth against the repressive nature of the Islamic Republic.
I have had recourse in previous communications whose main purpose was to denounce Israeli and US threats against Iran, to be absolutely clear as to the nature of the regime. The strategy of the left must encompass all the elements in Iranian reality. The Iranian policy of national independence is a serious contribution to the frustration of imperial design and must be supported. The battle by popular sections of the Iranian people for their rights must be supported.
No formula, howsoever correct can or should try to evaluate all elements in a particular crisis. But the two elements, i.e., international role and democratic rights are both of equal intrinsic importance. In fact, the left has had a wealth of experience with these two contradictory pressures in many national circumstances. Under the ruse of proletarian internationalism, the Soviet Union and its supporters determined the left position on the basis of “reasons of state” or in simple terms, the state interests of the Soviet Union. On the other side of the coin, the various human rights movements traditionally negate any considerations relating to the battle for independence vis a vis the imperial powers.
In the various responses to the Iranian crisis, one can usually discern the guiding motive for this or that political position. Those who wish to emphasize Iran’s international role can come up with contorted analyses defending the regime and the legitimacy of the recent electoral process and hurry to brand democratic mass movements for democracy as the tools of imperialism. On the other hand, opponents of the international role of Iran will do everything to minimize the importance of the Iranian struggle for independence. The resulting polarization on the left sows confusion and avoidable tensions.
But there is a pronounced historical tendency to reproduce these contradictions – progressive foreign policy and reactionary domestic policy, and they will surely reoccur. We can never be apologists for mass repression, nor should we ever forget the relevance of the battle for national independence.
Naturally, there is a flood of responses (still) coming in via the internet. Most of these express the unfortunate tendency to come down on one side of the question. But one position paper expressed my feelings exceptionally well. It was issued by a progressive group, Stop War, in Vancouver, Canada. The statement is balanced and clear:
STOPWAR COALITION (Vancouver, Canada)
Statement on the Iran crisis
[The Vancouver antiwar coalition StopWar adopted the following statement at its June 24 monthly membership meeting.]
StopWar, the broad-based anti-war coalition which has been active in the Vancouver area since 2002, sends warm greetings and solidarity to all those who are rallying for democracy and justice in Iran and abroad this week. We share your commitment to a peaceful and just resolution of the disputes brought to the surface by the recent presidential election in Iran, and your desire for Iranians themselves to determine the future of their country.
We condemn the regime’s killing of protesters and we join with others in demanding the right to organize, strike and protest, and to free speech and assembly for all Iranians. We demand the release of all arrested workers, students, and political prisoners.
We condemn any attempt by pro-war forces in the United States, Canada, and other countries to take advantage of this situation to push for ‘regime change’ imposed by outside powers. The drumbeat of threats against Iran should remind all peace-loving people of the build-up for war against Iraq seven years ago, which brought a terrible tragedy to that country without advancing the rights of the Iraqi people.
StopWar expresses our full confidence that the people of Iran will achieve their goals without the interference of governments such as that of Canada, which has only hindered genuine progress towards democracy, social justice and gender equality with the ongoing military mission in Afghanistan.
* * * * *
Clear thinking from Vancouver.

Notes on Obama-Netanyahu Meeting

2009-05-20T00:00:00.000+03:00

The unending torrent of news items and rivers of commentary tend to obscure, more than reveal, the real state of affairs after the meeting between Obama and Bibi. There is no sense in tiring my readers regarding Netanyahu, who has prepared the meeting with Obama with an intensive series of provocative, chauvinist actions and declarations. Netanyahu is preparing for a full scale propaganda battle with the White House. When he considers it necessary, Bibi is ready to launch a campaign to prove that Obama is grossly insensitive to the threat of a new Holocaust and that Jerusalem and not Washington is the locus of the really serious decisions. For now, regarding the Palestinian issue, the big stall is on, and Obama can forget about any progress there. If Obama accepts this set of affairs he will signal weakness that he can ill afford. This is especially obsequious, because he has the ready means to topple Bibi’s government by merely slowing down the flow of funds and guns - until Netanyahu starts taking down settlements. How many settlements? Enough settlements among those designated as “outposts” or illegal by the Sasson report, so as to create pressure from the settler right to destabilize his coalition.
If Bibi stands pat and refuses, Barak will start complaining that Bibi is starving the IDF to keep feeding the settlements. Livni’s Kadima, in the name of the alliance with the US, will reissue its demand for rotating Bibi out of power. Bibi’s coalition will be in tatters.
Israel is susceptible to the mildest forms of US pressure. Bibi’s only ammo is the threat to designate Obama as the latest candidate for the Amalek slot in Jewish history. If Obama does not call this bluff clearly and quickly, he can save the expenses of the trip to Cairo. Putting it simply, can Obama, on the basis of the US own’s commitments, force Bibi to take down a few illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory?
It has been suggested that forcing Bibi to take down settlements would force him to commit political suicide. Does Barak Obama, with all his concerns really have to worry about this…

“We Decided” – “He Said” – “We Agreed” – Bibi “Interprets” Obama
Since he walked out of the White House, Bibi has been working overtime to soft pedal the differences that were the central aspect of the meeting. But he seems to speak with authority of gaining full US support on a number of critical issues. Netanyahu plays the media well and more often than not everything he says about what Obama said is accepted as fact. So this leaves much of the media to depend on Bibi’s purposefully distorted rendition of what happened. The absence of a joint statement by the two leaders is indeed an indication of serious differences. But it opens space for Netanyahu’s maneuvers. Bibi is playing hard ball, while Obama’s people are just standing around and hoping that the unpleasant noise will end or recede to Jerusalem.
Two salient examples: Bibi says that Obama and he agreed that the Arab moderate countries must be brought into the negotiations picture immediately and a program of mutual concessions must be worked out between Israel and the Arab countries. And until this is worked out and cleared up, and the first steps are taken, then we are all back to square one.
If Obama agreed to anything like this, he did not have, with all his skill, the faintest idea of what he was talking about. It is most unlikely that even the moderates Arab countries agreed to anything of the kind. Any such agreements would simply prove Bibi’s thesis that the Palestinian question can be indefinitely sidetracked. But suppose Bibi is right, and Obama and his advisors were napping at one stage of the proceedings, it is clear that the White House has to get out an urgent clarification that they were not linking additional concessions to Israel at this stage to progress on the Palestinian issue. Such a declaration may be in the offing, but it is the height of sloppy inefficiency to allow Netanyahu to assume the mantle of Obama’s spokesperson while Obama runs off to deal with another subject.
The Crucial Iranian Issue
Bibi Netanyahu is smirking with satisfaction while he reports “agreement in principle” between the US and Israel to the effect that Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weaponry. Going in and coming out of the White House, Bibi declared that Israel reserves the right of self defense regarding Iran, which is a clear justification and threat of preventive war. Bibi is able to claim that Obama and he agree that Israel has the right to self defense regarding the Iranian threat. The fact that Obama did not relate clearly to this kind of saber rattling is in itself alarming. If you think that he is assuming that Israel could not and wouldn’t act alone, then you are dead wrong. Just two weeks ago, he sent CIA Director Leon Panetta to Israel on a stealth mission to warn the Israeli’s against such an attack. You do not rush the Director of the CIA to Jerusalem unless you are damned worried that Bibi is gearing up for action.
Washington should, according to its own declared policy, clearly and openly disassociate itself from the Israeli threat of preventive war against Iran and desisting from doing so is the height of folly. If the leader of the United States buries his head in sand while Bibi exploits his alliance with Obama to consecrate the goals and purposes of the attack on Iran, it must be assumed that Obama believes, mistakenly, that he can use Bibi’s clout to soften up the Iranians. Thus, Netanyahu has chipped away at the US initiative for dialogue and engagement.
The Netanyahu people are ready to fight Obama, if need be, but they are still hoping that he can be convinced that the easiest and best option is to leave the ME to the care of the loyal Israeli ally.

Triumphant PM Returns
Bibi just arrived back in the country, propaganda guns blazing. The communiqués supply evidence that the Prime Minister, covered in glory, has rejected spurious demands and gained support for Israel’s really important goals. On landing, Netanyahu’s people have cooked up a very interesting revelation for the media to the effect that anyone who believes in the two-state solution is “stupid and childish.” This appears to be the main thing that the Israelis learned in Washington.

Obama’s Low Rating with Netanyahu’s New Government

2009-05-05T00:00:00.000+03:00

Universally respected, even loved in many quarters, and still the embodiment of hope for many of the simple folk and the downtrodden, Barak Obama is not doing very well with the new government of Israel. Obama sounds well intentioned when he talks of peace in the area. But Obama, as shrewd a gentleman as he is supposed to be, is in no way prepared to handle the weird mix of arrogance and insult originating from Netanyahu and Lieberman and flooding the Israeli media.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, ignores the hints by many of the pundits that he may be embarrassing his boss, Bibi Netanyahu. Thriving on media attention, Lieberman keeps up a barrage of inanities like his statement in an interview to a Russian publication to the effect that “the US will do what we tell it to do.” Despite his appearance as a thug and a buffoon, Lieberman has a broad geo-political agenda and even presumes to explain to Obama that Pakistan and Afghanistan and not Iran are the chief problem. Lieberman is working on his very own contribution to world security by pushing the idea of a USA-Russia alliance against the Islamic world (civilization) to be brokered by…you guessed it…Israel and its foreign minister. There are people out there who take the clash of civilizations seriously. Just what we need – a Judeo-Christian alliance for the preservation of Western values.
Lieberman is no genius but he can pick up on a racist strain in US-European thinking. Bibi is a bit more elegant, but he is following the very same scenario as his buddy. This policy must be characterized as the right wing-extremist line of the more aggressive and adventurous elements in the US administration. These forces dislike Obama’s “moderate” style even when it is seen purely as a matter of form. They know the hard facts of imperial power and will exploit every element to wear down Obama, who has hitherto been simply unable to elaborate a coherent alternative to traditional hegemonic thinking.
Israel sees itself a pioneer in the war of civilizations. From its forward position it looks back at Obama and reminds him that, in the light of the conceptual continuity of US foreign policy, respect and consideration are due to the pioneers watching the fort.
Obama and the U.S. are in a particularly sensitive situation in the ME. Netanyahu has effectively scuttled the peace process, as faint and unconvincing as it was. Iran is exerting greater influence in the ME where the moderate Arab regimes are reduced to depending on Israel muscle to protect themselves from the fall out resulting from their collaborationist betrayal of the Palestinians. Odds and increasing signs on the ground indicate that the departure and the redeployment of US troops will have a destabilizing effect in Iraq. There are increasing signs that the present leadership in Baghdad might take a hike to Teheran. The US leadership has figured out it needs some secular horses in the Iraqi race and is busy trying to resurrect Sadaam Hussein’s old party. You see, this is the Middle East.
Meanwhile, for the last few weeks, Bibi Netanyahu has been working overtime to kill off any chance whatsoever for any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has already demonstrated clearly and unequivocally that, when and if he deigns to be so kind to his US buddy as to agree to go back to the negotiating table, he will talk only exclusively to a waterboarded Palestinian delegation that will kiss the whip after being thoroughly inundated by a flood of new unconditional demands.
Israel now demands that the Palestinians must not only recognize Israel and undertake peaceful coexistence with it, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. This recognition is to be interpreted by Israel, inter alia, as a clear renunciation of the demands for the rights of the Palestinian refugees. You see, Israel seeks closure.
The plain fact of the matter is that while Obama’s advisers’ limit him to bland generalities such as “Let’s have two states,” and “Everybody should behave well,” Lieberman and Netanyahu are hard at work. They are ostensibly reviewing their policy options, but really making sure that by issuing a slew of new demands, one more outrageous than the other, there will not be a Palestinian in sight who will dare to sit down to discuss “Two-states.”
Washington is stupefied and fails to react. Netanyahu says that Israel has just as much right to build in the occupied territories as the Palestinians and that the status of the land in the territories is “disputed land.” Washington is stupefied and fails to react. Netanyahu wants it clear right now that Palestine will never have any sort of army, and accept all kinds of limitations regarding water and elctro-magnetic fields on its truncated sovereignty. Washington is stupefied and fails to act.
Some wise guy pundit here called this new list of demands, Netanyahu’s shopping list for Obama. Obama has scheduled a full and frank discussion with Netanyahu for the 18th this month. Hilary Clinton is looking forward to hear about new developments in Israeli policy and hopes to explain to Netanyahu the danger of alienating the moderate Arab regimes. But Netanyahu is smart enough to exploit any opening given him in D.C. to present a new agenda of unlimited complications. Obama and Clinton may want to play dumb but if they allow Netanyahu to participate in shaping the agenda, they are selling the Palestinian down the river…again.
Netanyahu is not without friends and connections in D.C. within the present administration which is still in the grips of the political ideas and anti-Iran hysteria of its predecessor.
Making War for Peace or Making Peace for War
Everybody watching Bibi here knows how he is preparing himself for the coming meeting with Obama. The war on terror he says trumps peacemaking in the region. With Ahmadinajad on the loose, how could you conceivably talk to us about concessions affecting our vital rights. First lets take out Iran and then I will have time and patience to talk with you about Palestine. The hawkish, militarist, chauvinist boss here is telling Obama, no peace with Palestine without war on Iran.
Hilary Clinton was unable to understand that she was trailing far behind the discussion when she suggested that Netanyahu should desist from alienating the moderate Arab by making peace with the Palestinians. Despite the rumors that Lieberman is spitting in the soup, the Israeli-Egyptian love fest is on again. The Israeli government and the head of Egyptian intelligence, meet personally on a regular basis to work out the details of the siege and isolation of Gaza. When he has a chance, Bibi will explain to Hilary Clinton that he has the moderate Arab regimes in the palms of his hands. The moderates fear, more than anything else, political confrontation with Arabs and Muslims who have their very own ideas as to the disposition of their own oil. They, the “moderates”, are simply too busy defending their own privileges to be bothered by the fate of Palestine.
Even so, Obama and Hilary will tell Netanyahu that progress in the Palestinian talks is absolutely necessary to isolate Iran either for heavy sanctions or eventually a full sale attack. We must have peace they will explain before we can make war. Netanyahu, if it appears that he cannot really get his war (with Iran) for promising peace (with the Palestinians) will make the “ultimate concession” and agree to renew talks with the Palestinians. Obama will fake a victory, the “moderate” Arab countries will marvel at US diplomatic and the US will proceed on its mission to Teheran. The US will ostensibly have moved in the direction of dialogue but will brandish the Israeli sword in the face of the recalcitrant Iranians to keep them up to speed. With all this jockeying hither and thither very few bright people will be fooled into forgetting the name of the game. This region is oil country and it is the United States and it alone which wants it hands on the spigot. Iran with its reactionary regime and crude and clumsy leadership has the weird idea that it should decide how to dispose of its own oil, a crime punishable by death and invasion in the US playbook.
Barak Obama Really Seems Like a Nice Guy
I wish to avoid the full scale debate on the significance of the Obama presidency. Suffice it to say that even the most enthusiastic of Obama’s admirers on the left understand that he is the man responsible for tending store for the US empire and its interests. He himself has chosen to surround himself especially in foreign affairs by circles that represent continuity while he must rely on a state apparatus which honors the “virtues” of continuity above all else. Meanwhile, the US is in full retreat in the Middle East, where Iran and its allies enjoy a spurt of prestige for their support for the forsaken Palestinians. And now South Asia is falling apart. It is worth believing that the nuclear warehouse in Pakistan is in safe hands, but nothing else is safe and no where else is the area secure. Iraq is evermore inherently unstable, and the latest news is that the US is trying to resurrect Saadam Hussein’s party in order to balance the Shi’ite predilection for friendship in Teheran. Unless it is ready to radically increase its military activity, directly or by proxy, in these regions, the US must come up with a serious shift in policy and the cosmetic stuff is just not enough. In short, the US must demonstrate a serious willingness to recognize Iran’s legitimate interests and get rid of the “axis of evil” baggage.
And now back to Bibi and his plans for war. As long as the hard line Israeli policy and the softer line US policy are supposed to advance the same goal of thwarting and obstructing Iranian influence, as long as Washington buys the Israeli propaganda that Israel is in danger of a new Auschwitz and Ahmadinajad is a new Hitler (like Nasser and Arafat figured in previous Israeli narratives), there is a danger that Israel will attack. Equivocation in DC can easily translate to Israeli provocation in Boshir.
Our condemnation of the US-Israeli alliance in the ME does not mean that we have any sympathy whatsoever for the reactionary Islamic Republic and its leadership. Ahmadinajad seems totally unable to understand that his sloppy loose and crude formulations regarding Jewry and Israel are just what Bibi and Lieberman ordered. However, recent experience has shown that US intervention, direct or sponsored, will only strengthen a vicious regime, while spreading untold death and destruction among the people of Iran.

2009-04-13T13:24:00.004+03:00

April 12, 2009

Ha’aretz: The Wish is the Father of the Thought
The dovish Ha’aretz is busily engaged in advancing the thesis that Obama and Netanyahu are on a collision course. Last week, it published a (hitherto unconfirmed) scoop that Obama is to visit Israel at the beginning of June. It also reported an intensive ongoing campaign by Obama’s people in DC to prepare Congress for confrontation with a recalcitrant Israeli government.
One senses that these reports are more wishful than factual. At any rate, Lieberman’s deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Eilon, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., insists that relations are just fine. The assumption here is that Netanyahu will presently be invited to the White House to demonstrate the vigor of the ‘special relationship’.
As Obama repeats vague ‘two-states’ Bushisms, Lieberman says ‘nyet’ and Netanyahu smiles since he is, of course, willing to work out a compromise between Obama’s pious wishes and Lieberman’s populist stubbornness. When Lieberman said no to Annapolis, Obama answered yes to Annapolis. Thus, the President of the US is reduced to exchanging barbs with a local Israeli racist criminal. This is, in the inimitable words of Hilary about Israeli house demolition in the East Jerusalem, simply “unhelpful.”
Mitchell is coming again but it appears that Washington is unable or unwilling to actually say anything of importance regarding the final status talks. This being so, the best bet is that the game plan in DC is to have Obama pull off some symbolic, but totally empty gesture, like the renewal of negotiations. This would be a pleasant sound byte for the uninitiated, but reveal to everybody else that Obama is clueless about how to proceed. So far, Netanyahu hides behind Lieberman while Obama has been reduced to holding an indirect, but easily discernable conversation with Lieberman, who has duly explained to the US President that Obama must wait until the Israeli government exercises its natural right to reevaluate its policies. Netanyahu, it appears operates in a higher sphere, therefore, really cannot be bothered to declare that Israel accepts the two-state solution. It is quite probable that Netanyahu is saving his possible agreement to participate in negotiations with the PA as a “major concession.” However, the ME has already ‘been there and done that’, having already witnessed many rounds of empty, meaningless talks that lead nowhere…

European Hypocrisy

People are discussing the possible effect of the economic crisis on income of many of the NGO’s in the country which are dependent on the European Union. The impression is that, after a period of doubts and tension about future budgeting, the EU is still very much in the NGO business. It is interesting that Europe faced with a mounting financial crisis and slashing social benefits continues to attach great importance to the NGO efforts. Considering the economic picture and the level of waste and ostentation in the NGO area, one assumes that Europe feels that it is getting a good return on its money. Europe, with its complete support for US policies bears full responsibility for the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinian people and the stalled peace process, likes to point to the NGO’s as their contribution to peace and justice. This is much easier than openly confronting Israel on the inter-state level. The recipients of these funds usually refrain from censuring European hypocrisy. After all it is neither polite nor wise to bite the hand that feeds you.

Time for Reexamination

Philanthropy is a complex affair. After all is said and done it is mainly a method for transferring social issues which should be dealt with on a state level to the private sector. In the final analysis this is also true of the NGO complex.
We know that hundreds of devoted and conscientious people work in Israeli and Palestinian NGO’s. Some NGO’s are doing valuable, even dangerous work. However, the stated goals, the funding, and the organization of these institutions are highly problematic. It is increasingly clear that they are not a satisfactory alternative to openly political groupings on the left. However, for many, they seem mistakenly to fulfill this kind of role.
As these organizations increase their paid staff and develop hierarchies, they tend to develop a style and mentality more similar to that of the for-profit sector. Whatever their contribution, they are a sorry surrogate for a militant left with clear cut political goals.

2009-03-23T13:45:00.000+02:00

March 23, 2009

The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Expands its Activities in Israel

Most of those on the left here in Israel welcomed the foundation and the growing success of the party of the German left, “Die Linke.” The party was created two years ago with the unification between the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism), which rose in East Germany after the collapse of the Communist regime, and a radical wing of the Social Democrats which left their parent party. The unified party appears to be doing quite well and it is expected to earn some 10% (or more) of the vote in the next elections to the Bundestag.
Each of the two components is a story in itself, but, at this point, a few comments on the PDS may be helpful. The PDS established its own identity after the “fall” managing to break with Communist East German orthodoxy but insisting on the need to find its own path to the left of the cold-war Social Democrats. For a combination of strange historical factors, the PDS became a major party in the regions of the former German Democratic Republic. One of the important elements in its success was the task of exposing the hypocrisy of the German Federal Republic establishment which neglected and spurned the needs of the region, while waxing sentimental about the reunification miracle. The PDS continued over the years to do well in the eastern regions but had little or no presence in the other regions of the Federal Republic of Germany. This changed radically for the better after the unification with the breakaway Social-Democratic formation.
According to German law, each faction in the Bundestag (which must meet the 5% minimum for representation), receives in proportion to its strength, an allocation for cultural and educational activity conducted both within Germany and abroad. Here in Israel, we are familiar with the long active Adenauer, Ebert and Heinrich Boel foundations linked to the Christian Democrats, the Social Democrats and the Greens, respectively.
The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, which has been active in Israel for a number of years has recently upgraded its level of representation and activities, including the establishment of two new offices in Tel Aviv and Ramallah. It sponsored on March 11, 2009 in Tel Aviv a very impressive full day seminar devoted to Rosa Luxemburg and relations between the Israeli and the German left. It is almost superfluous to note here that the Polish, German, Jewish revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, was one of the giants of revolutionary socialism, an important theoretician, and an indefatigable proletarian leader. Luxembourg was murdered in 1918, a few days after she was released from prison where she was held because of her consistent opposition to the war.

A Complex and Sensitive Mission
Representing the German Left in Israel is a complex and sensitive mission. The relations between the German people and the Jewish people are suffused with painful memory and fraught with tensions on the background of the Holocaust, after the horrendous murder of a third of the Jewish people. Matters become more complex when one remembers that the “return of Germany to the family of nations” after the WWII was facilitated by a budding Israeli-German romance. Back then Germany was being transformed into the faithful ally of the United States and a major force in NATO. On this background, Israel, led by David Ben Gurion, initiated the historic reconciliation which included the (in)famous reparations agreement, thus granting major assistance to restoring the moral stature of the “new” Germany.
There are those on the German Left who believe that the traumas of the past dictate a common German position in favor of Israel, which includes special consideration for all and any of Israel’s actions. Gregor Gysi, a central political figure in the German “Die Linke” is a typical representative of this current of thought. In an important speech, marking the 60th anniversary of Israel (“The Position of the German Left Towards Israel ”-April 14, 2008) Gysi calls on the German left to maintain its embrace of the “pro-Israeli” approach of the German establishment. The practical effect of this approach is to render Israel immune to any serious criticism. With all due respect, this approach to the matter is unacceptable in terms of its content and its political implications. According to Gizi’s approach, Israel is the direct and legitimate heir of all the victims of Nazism. It is Israel which represents them and is authorized to act in their name. Therefore, all the governments of Israel must receive special consideration in every area, and this includes, of course, the Israeli-Arab conflict.
In the Israeli left, we are quite familiar with this thesis, according to which Israel is the authentic expression of all Jewish aspirations, past and present and that Israel’s establishment is in some way compensation for the crimes by Nazism against the Jewish people. It is obvious why the Israeli establishment adopted and energetically advanced this thesis which became over time an important ideological weapon in rationalizing its behavior in the Middle East conflict. But there is no basis in fact for this thesis in historical reality.
Gysi does try to be honest and objective, but one senses that feelings of guilt have taken precedence over political logic. This is clear from the extreme credibility that he extends to claims by the Zionist establishment and Israeli governments according to which Israel is “surprisingly democratic” and “forced to act” as it does.
The editors of the Israeli publication of Gysi’s speech did well to cite the fact that the speech is not an official party position, but a contribution to a discussion which evoked stormy and excited discussion.
With all the appreciation for the goals of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, one must express some apprehension that its efforts may be over responsive to current official German positions, especially in the light of the mutual admiration interaction governing relations between Israel and Germany. Any tendency to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism must encourage apologetics for actions by Israel. It is well known that Israel makes every effort to brand justified criticism of its actions as anti-Semitism. In such circumstances, why should Germany (and Europe) make life easier for Israel by indulgence and leniency towards actions by Israel which would be defined as clearly criminal if perpetrated by anyone else. Does Israel deserve this kind of forgiveness as it operates as a regional power in close alliance to US interests in the region?
It is to be hoped that the Foundation and its staff, who are democrats and socialists, will be discerning regarding the attempts by the Israeli establishment to exploit any tendency to leniency regarding the realities of the occupation and war crimes against the Palestinians. The Israeli establishment is quite adroit at exploiting the crimes of the past against the Jewish people as a blanket justification for its policies. It is suggested that the German Left, instead of any rapprochement with the Israeli establishment, might well cultivate and deepen relations of mutual understanding and solidarity with those in Israel who are fighting for peace and democracy, and with the Palestinian population in Israel. It is the view of the Israeli Left that the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation will fulfill its goals successfully if it refrains consistently from any whitewash of the sins and crimes of Israel and its policies. This is particularly true according to the legacy of Rosa Luxembourg who castigated all forms of militarism and unjust war. Her legacy continues to be a guideline for every democrat and every partisan of peace who recognizes the horrors of militarism in general and in its local and contemporary version, in particular.
The Real Rosa
It is quite normal that the authentic meaning of past legacies is subject to differences of opinion. Everyone is permitted to quote those passages that seem most important and characteristic in the legacy of this or that historical figure. But there is cause for concern that there are those who might forget, even though unintentionally, the most all important element in Luxemburg’s legacy: revolutionary theory and practice. The essence of her political life was devoted to elaborating revolutionary thought and practice. Here we have a problem – the interpretation of Luxemburg for those who operate in non-revolutionary periods and circumstances. This problematic is known in Marxism as “revolutionary practice in non-revolutionary circumstances”. It is therefore not totally surprising that those operating in a non-revolutionary period will try to “round off” some of Luxemburg’s “rough edges” and to emphasize those elements that tend to gloss over the tremendous contradiction between her position and reformism. It was precisely Luxemburg who delved deeper than anyone else into the roots of the conflict between revolution and reform.
One could argue that the lack of real revolutionary perspectives explained the surrender of reformism to the capitalist regime. But nothing can justify the faithful and blind support by social democracy for the imperialist project of their own ruling classes. In England, Germany, Holland and Belgium, among others, reformism enthusiastically supported the project of colonialist exploitation, whose dimensions approached that of a holocaust. It is worth recalling that the roots of the Holocaust of the Jewish people appeared and developed in the dark depths of racism which served so well the arguments for colonial expansion. Thus, Rosa Luxemburg should properly be seen as an opponent of all forms of imperial domination. In this sense, Luxemburg’s legacy would symbolize, more than anything else, solidarity with the victims of the Israeli occupation and with the workers and the down trodden here in Israel.

A Source For Concern
Hermann Dierekes, an activist in the German Left was a representative of the Die Linke in the Duisberg City Council and also a candidate of his party for mayor. Dierekes participated recently in the World Social Forum in Belem, Brazil and wanted to relay the decisions of the Forum to the German public. After Dierekes granted an interview to a conservative paper in Essen he was viciously attacked in a number of right-wing papers in Germany. But this was not enough, according to information at our disposal, Dierkes was severely attacked by central figures in the Linke and forced out of the party. This version of events is from Palestinian sources, but we were unable, despite our attempts, to find a different or an official version from Die Linke. We cannot be responsible for any Dierekes’ formulations, but it seems quite clear that he was a victim of those in the Die Linke who do not accept the very idea that it is possible and necessary to criticize Israel. How did Rosa put it? “Freedom is only the freedom for those who think differently.”

Comments
1) This article is based on, but not identical to an article by the writer published last week in Hebrew on the “Ha’gada Ha’smolit” website.
2) My arguments with certain tendencies in the German left which want to render exceptional consideration to Israel are part of a “family” dispute. I do appreciate the bitter hatred of anything remotely fascist or anti-Semitic in the German left. I am convinced that the motive on the left for avoiding sharp controversy over Israel is usually a noble one. However, bending over backwards to avoid confrontation with Israel’s actions may result in a dangerous lack of clarity on this and related issues and make it that much harder to distinguish between Israel’s state apparatus, on one had, and Jews and the Jewish people, on the other, such a distinction being basic to understanding events.
3) This actually happened one day during the eighties of the previous century. We were shopping at the local super in Jerusalem when a young woman came up and informed us (in complete innocence): “You are lucky, we have a special sale today on soap from Germany.”

2009-03-09T13:45:00.000+02:00

March 9, 2009

Pure and Unadulterated Racism

It might be difficult for the uninitiated observer to accept the fact that a racist, crypto-fascist politician is on his way to becoming the second most important figure in the Israeli political arena. It is, therefore, worth re-establishing the factual basis of the charge that we are dealing with the truly ugly face of racism, pure and unadulterated. Avigdor Lieberman is on his way to becoming the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Netanyahu’s new government.
It is clear that the person who shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre cannot claim the privilege of free speech and is responsible for the results of his action. Compare this with the prominent political figure, Avigdor Lieberman, who in Israel centered his recent electoral campaign on the slogan: No citizenship without loyalty.
The slogan, which is only one of the many items in Lieberman’s racist arsenal, is a clear provocation directed against Israel’s Arab population which comprises one fifth of Israeli citizens. Lieberman asserts that Israeli Arab citizens must be assumed to be insufficiently loyal to the state since they refuse, naturally enough, to support Israeli consensual policies on major political issues. Lieberman’s justification of his plan is also revealing. The loyalty oath is not racist, he argues, because it will be administered to all Israeli citizens. But only those who do not pass the test will have their citizenship revoked.
It should be clear to any objective observer that Lieberman’s program is a declaration of war against Israel’s Palestinian minority which comprises a fifth of the population. In our society, which lives on from one war to the next, in a sickening atmosphere of seething hatred and hostility one can, it has been proven, win many votes by calling for the disenfranchisement of 1.5 million Israeli Palestinians. It should be clear that what comes after disenfranchisement is ethnic cleansing…
Kingmaker Pogromchik
Avigdor Lieberman, as a senior partner in the new cabinet, is Netanyahu’s certain choice for Minister of Foreign Affairs. Lieberman, who happens to be officially a prime candidate for indictment in pending corruption cases, also gets to choose the Minister of Police and the Minster of Justice. The media, basing itself on the “verdict” of the election results is warming up to the idea that Lieberman is just another legitimate politician in the local arena. However, enlightened public opinion, here and abroad will not accept the fact that a racist, neo-fascist politician has Israel’s government in his pocket. No amount of votes and mandates can legitimize racism and chauvinism.
Maybe Ms. Clinton Did Not Notice
Clinton did try and restore a bit of enthusiasm for peace prospects in the region during her recent trip to the region. She said that “no time should be wasted” and that “a new and creative approach is necessary.”(Ha’aretz, March 4, 2008). The difficulty is that we have been down this path before and know something about its twists and turns. We have become a bit immunized to statements like this: “It is our assessment that eventually the inevitability of working towards a two-state solution is inescapable.” (ibid)
Sticking strictly to protocol, Ms. Clinton made it very clear that the United States would not conceive of interfering in the ongoing negotiations to form the Israeli coalition. She and Netanyahu came out of their meeting, both smiling from ear to ear. As long as Bibi is smiling, one can be sure that no progress is being made on the Palestinian issue. Moreover, it seems that the two were kindred souls regarding the danger from Teheran. Clinton was almost apologetic to the present and future leaders of the Israel, stressing that the US was proceeding with further sanctions against Teheran to limit the range of Iranian missiles. While Clinton was being nice to the Israeli leadership, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, came up with a really profound suggestion – to eliminate all nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction from the ME. Ms. Clinton might ponder the fact that the “inevitability” of discussing such a ban is also “inescapable.”
Clinton proved that she knows how to tread softly where Israeli interests are involved. She reached the area after Egyptian diplomacy had just overcome serious difficulties in hammering out a deal between Israel and Egypt on the border crossing issue, only to see the agreement sabotaged by Olmert who decided to surprise everyone including his own people by an ultimatum to include the prisoner swap as part of the border crossings agreement. Olmert, once again was trying to convince everyone that Hamas was on the verge of collapse, but managed to come out of another confrontation with empty hands. Clinton, with a minimum of responsibility, was clearly obligated, out of loyalty to the Egyptians who were carrying the ball for them to calm Olmert down. Instead she went back to the “Israel has the right to defend itself” mantra when the agreement scuttled by Olmert was the real cause for renewed tensions.
Instead of making an effort to save the border crossing agreement – the most effective way to stop the rockets, Clinton tried to expand the list of permitted items on the humanitarian supply. Olmert and Co. were not worried by the visit. They kept up with house demolitions in East Jerusalem and admitted the existence of immediate plans for settlement expansion. Clinton said that this was “unhelpful.”
But regarding Palestinians, where efforts are going on to restore a unity government, Clinton threw protocol to the wind and announced her opposition to the future participation of Hamas in a reconstituted Palestinian government. If this is indeed the US position it is worse than that of the previous Bush administration. A compromise had been worked out whereby Hamas, without changing its own ideological reservations, would agree to participate in a Palestinian government which would proceed on the basis of previous commitments. It may be helpful if she consults George Mitchell who knows all the fine points on this.
It should be appreciated that the Obama administration is conducting some sort of overall review of US foreign policy. But it is unnecessary, even completely “unhelpful” to conduct a visit to Israel according to the old Bush scenario and to signal a neurotic fear of offending Israel’s anti-peace coalitions. One thing is true about Israeli leaders. They have a sixth sense of when Washington is just not serious.

2009-02-12T13:45:00.000+02:00

February 12, 2009

Post-election Thoughts

It might seem incumbent on the media to master the complexities of the relevant political system before covering an election in a given country. However, there is a convenient short cut for lazy minds. You simply spread everything along a left-right axis. This makes it easier to report developments, though it may be totally misleading. The current nonsense is that the Israeli electorate split into two camps in the recent elections, a right-wing bloc headed by Bibi Netanyahu (65 seats) and a left-wing bloc headed by Tsipi Livni (55 seats).
Alas, there is no sizable left-wing block. But there is a right-wing block in Israel politics and it covers quite a bit of the map.
The Results
The Likud (27 seats in the new Knesset – 12 before) is a right-wing nationalist party. Kadima (28 seats – 29 before)is a center-right party (created and inspired by the right-wing militarist, Ariel Sharon.) Lieberman’s “Israel is Our Home” (15 seats – 11 in the previous Knesset ) is a right-wing, crypto-fascist, racist concoction. Labor (13 seats as against 19 before) is a right-wing, neo-liberal, Social Democratic entity. Shas is a right-wing fundamentalist clerical party (11 seats, one less than in the previous Knesset). The National Unity Party (4 seats) is the most militant settler party on the right and the open political heirs of Kahana; it splintered from a united list with the “Jewish Home” (3 seats – together they had 9 before). Jewish Home, is a moderate right-wing pro-settler party. Here, you have before you Israel’s the right block.

On the left, the Hadash-Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (4 seats – up from 3) and two other Arab lists (7 seats - unchanged), together with Meretz, (3 seats, 2 down from the previous Knesset) represent the only formations which could be considered, by any stretch of the imagination, to be on the left. There were some important positive developments and achievements in the Hadash campaign. I hope to discuss them and the demise of the Zionist left in a separate communication.

Historical Processes and Current Developments
The parliamentary picture is a direct result of long term processes and the more recent developments in Israeli society. Many observers have noticed that Israeli society from its inception expressed two main characteristics. In many senses, it qualified as a liberal democratic capitalist formation. However, in its deeper structures and dynamics it tended to revert to its colonial origins. Here, the battle to secure and expand the Zionist foothold – geographically and politically, went on continually, usually in the background, but often appearing at the center of events. It is the colonial nature of Israel which figures increasingly in its political make-up.

Groggy With Militarism and Racism
Given the poisonous concoction of militarism and chauvinism that goes for democratic process in present day Israel, it would take more than a miracle for these elections to produce any government conducive to meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians. Of course, we do not completely disregard the formal, but fragile nature of democracy in this country. But the substance of political life in this country is to convert Israel’s special relationship with the United States into a privileged strategic, economic and political formation and state-apparatus. These are the historical boundaries of Israeli democracy that predetermine the outcome of elections and other political tensions.
It was not necessary to be a seer to see that the latest murderous expedition in Gaza had all the necessary components needed to push an already frightened and despairing Israeli electorate further to the right. Once again the tedious well known scenario had to be played out. People actually believe that a resounding military victory was frustrated and negated by the “politicians”. In Lebanon before and in Gaza now, we were on the verge of complete and total victory if we had been permitted to complete the job at hand.
The Battle for Regional Ascendancy
From Barak to Lieberman via Likud and Kadima, Israel has been pushing hard for militant action against Iran. Israel led by Olmert, Livni and Barak tried, without success, to push Bush into confrontation with Iran or at the least to receive a U.S. umbrella for an Israeli adventure. It may be a bit more difficult to push Obama down confrontation lane. But Israel is busy installing a government, which for all practical purposes, will say no to negotiations even with the most compliant of the Palestinians. Instead, it will certainly continue building a coalition in Washington and the region pushing for confrontation with Teheran since this is its only excuse it can present for frustrating Washington’s “peace process” The new Israeli government will explain to DC that it cannot move on Palestinian independence before the Persian clouds over the region are dispersed.
Courtship instead of Ex-communication
Would it be possible for the leadership of a democratic society to go courting an openly racist crypto-fascist leader and his party for a central and pivotal role in a new coalition? This courtship is at the center of current bargaining. Could a politician who demanded constitutional changes disenfranchising, on an ethnic-national basis, twenty percent of the citizenry dominate the entire political scene and emerge as the king maker of the next coalition? Lieberman is the most sought after figure in mainstream coalition politics? Is the international diplomatic community which has a hard time rejecting the justified demands to censure Israeli aggression and the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, willing to overlook the influential presence of Lieberman in the next administration? The racist scoundrel is openly calling for the expulsion of entire towns and their population from Israel’s borders. In the face of this criminal drive for transfer of Israel’s Arab citizens, can the international community, governments and citizens alike remain silent as if this is an internal Israeli affair? Is fascism ever an internal affair?

2009-01-19T13:43:00.000+02:00

January 19, 2009

Israel Points the Way for Obama

The Israeli attack on Gaza is more than anything else an attempt to commit the Obama administration to a hard line policy on Iran.
Neither Obama nor Hilary Clinton has ever deviated from Bush’s core policy on Iran. Obama’s declared willingness to engage in some sort of dialogue with Iran is clearly positive. However, without readiness to try and work out sensible and genuine compromises on outstanding issues, tensions will not recede. The Israeli war on Gaza is a method to mobilize the sizable anti-Iranian block in US politics against any serious negotiation on substantive issues. The mobilized bi-partisan support for the AIPAC “Israel has the right to defend itself…” formula is designed to head off any semblance of even handedness and diplomatic flexibility in Washington.
Israel has more than a decent chance for success in this maneuver, not because it is so strong, but because the forces suggesting any basic change in the Bush era policies are so weak. Israel’s policy is clear and it was making every conceivable effort during 2008 to drag the US into a major confrontation. (See, David E. Sanger ,Bush Rebuffed Israeli Plans to Hit Iran Atomic Site, IHT, January 12,2009).
Absence of an Alternative Policy Conception
Neo-Conservatism still has important influence on US foreign policy because it is for the moment the only clear conceptual framework for relating to challenges to diminishing US hegemony. It takes time and a degree of political sophistication to work out a new overall analysis on major issues. It also happens to be one of those things that do not emerge

“from the center.”
It is of course a positive development that the US intends to engage Teheran in a dialogue. But the declared intention of denying Iran any and every form of access to nuclear capacity in exchange for a few carrots (some sort of version of a stimulus package for good behavior) is ill conceived. It is not only or mainly a question of Iranian prestige. Teheran has every reason to see itself threatened by Israel’s atomic arsenal.
This may be the last chance that US policy can conceivably do something against proliferation. Israel has defended its regional nuclear monopoly by declaring that it would not be the first to employ nuclear weapons in the region. However, many of the best strategic minds, including robust friends of Israel, have ever succeeded to conceptualize the non existent and inconceivable circumstances in which Israel might actually use the bomb.
The guardians of US interests might well have figured out by now that nuclear weapons in Pakistan and India are more of a deadly trap for that region than anything else. There is presently talk in the Middle East about nuclear proliferation at the mid-power level with Egypt and Saudi Arabia in line. Can anyone ignore these new dangers?
Now it may be a bit presumptuous for me to set myself up as an objective interpreter of US imperial interests, but it seems that Washington has an exceptional opportunity to make life a lot safer for all concerned. Is it so difficult for those who are going to call the shots in Washington to understand that the denuclearization of Israel is the best and least costly path to block Iranian nuclearization? This would clear the path to set up a atomic free zone in the Middle East for the benefit of all concerned. Of course, this happens to be in the interests of Israel, though it will take some convincing by way of iron clad guarantees, from the United States which are, for that matter already in effect.

Cease-fire
What we have here is another example of Hamas’s deviousness: Their leaders had the temerity to hide from bombs during the Israeli attack and their barely armed soldiers showed abject cowardice by refusing to come out of their tunnels and burrows to confront the tanks and their air support.
Israel is lucky though. Hamas, as a ruling governing entity will have plenty to do rebuilding after the widespread destruction. If it were merely a guerilla type terrorist outfit, it wouldn’t be concerned about the rebuilding aspect. Hamas, according to Israeli IDF intelligence will have to be cautious because it is the government in Gaza. It was a tough call. Israel had to eliminate Hamas, but make certain that it survived as the effective government of Gaza.
The burgeoning demand to release Gilad Shalit exposed the soft underbelly of public opinion in the country. Leaving aside the almost impossible logistics of an operation to extricate Shalit alive, even in the event of a total Israeli victory, the demand and the expectations for the release of Shalit showed that most Israelis do not have the foggiest idea of the very limited and even questionable success of the operation.
In the absence of unconditional surrender by any of the sides, it’s a complex matter to measure the results of the war on Gaza. One thing is certain. Reactionary “logic” seethes in the street. The average Israeli is beginning to buy the argument that the army was brave and decisive, but we were sold down the river by the old politicians, and so we need new leaders who know how to keep on bombing. Obama, take care, Netanyahu and Lieberman are looking for you.

2009-01-11T13:41:00.000+02:00

January 11, 2009

The Not So Automatic Veto

The UN Security Council decision Friday morning caught Israel when the troika, Olmert, Barak, Livni, was in another squalid fight, this time about whether to continue on to phrase III of the war. Phrase III is the plan to expand the ground operation to take complete control of the entire strip. Phase IV is presumably a door-to- door hunt for every member of the Hamas organization, including the annihilation of anyone in any kind of leadership position. But even this would fail to eliminate Hamas. It would mean only that Hamas would reorganize itself as a network of underground groups which could continue the struggle against the occupation.
Though the troika is posturing intensively about not allowing anyone else to determine Israeli security, it is hard to believe that they will give a green light to Phase III, for the full occupation of Gaza. Understandably enough, many in the public, who have been conditioned to believe that full and total victory is just around the corner, insist on fighting on. However, starting a major ground offensive now, in the face of the UN decision would be a major mistake for Israel as well as an act of criminal folly. Sadly, it is not the ensuing huge casualty count certain on both sides which will convince Israel to desist. As flustered and as confused as the troika is, even they have to understand the political danger of being out of step, or even in confrontation, with US policy, especially now on the eve of Obama’s inauguration. A split with the US is the nightmare of everyone in the country’s ruling circles, who understands just exactly how dependent this country is on US military and political backing.
Israel was caught last Friday night with its pants down when the tide, in the form of the US automatic veto, ebbed. It is doubtful whether in these conditions a denuded Israel will opt to continue the war for too long. The missing veto is more than embarrassing for official Israel which had hoped to attend the Obama inauguration ensconced in the warm folds of the “special relationship.”
The automatic US veto, which seems, at least for the moment, to have gone up in the smoke of the Gaza massacre, indicates that Israel’s trusted ally is chafing under the gigantic world wide outburst of rage over the crimes in Gaza. The scope of the protest and its depth confronts the US empire with an urgency parallel to the economic crisis at home.
Hard times are ahead for those who govern Israel. No serious political force in the world will buy the explanations for the unacceptable crimes against humanity in Gaza. At the same time, the Israeli government will find it almost impossible to justify to its public the glaring gap between officially pumped up high expectations and the meagerness of the results on the ground.
The diplomatic damage to Israel may be lasting. If Rice could no longer defend her Israeli partner’s brutal, blind aggression with the automatic veto, it will be that much more difficult for Obama to restore the automatic veto for an Israel led by Netanyahu. Indeed, chances are that Netanyahu, riding a wave of public frustration and bitterness over the failure of the Cast Lead adventure, will be the central figure in the next post-election coalition.

Start Talking With Hamas
Many sincere people in the peace camp have been tempted into entertaining the idea peace is the best way to eliminate the influence of Hamas, which is considered, after Israeli policy and deeds, the chief obstacle to peace in the region.
Now, even as official Israel performs the military operation designed to eliminate Hamas, there are voices in the peace camp which offer an alternative less violent path to the same end. Their argument is that Hamas can and should be marginalized, and that this goal can be reached by Israeli willingness to work out a serious two state peace agreement. But is this objective consistent with the chances for peace?
This strategy against Hamas might have succeeded in a much earlier stage, before Hamas emerged as a major force in Palestinian politics. However, since Hamas’ electoral ascendency, two processes have undermined the efficacy of the “peace in order to stop Hamas” formula. The first is the complete and total discrediting of the Palestinian Authority under Muhammed Abbas’s leadership. Total integration into Bush’s diplomatic and military apparatus, along with endemic corruption have destroyed its last shreds of credibility. Secondly, in the hearts and minds of the Palestinian and Arab masses, Hamas has come to represent the cause of Palestinian resistance.
In light of the fact that the Abbas leadership is so hopelessly compromised, the idea that Hamas can be marginalized by reaching a peace settlement with the Palestinian Authority is simply wishful thinking. On the contrary, it is doubly important for those who support the principles of the two-state solution to understand that Hamas is an essential element in achieving this solution. The left in Israel and the peace camp must be clear about their sympathy for efforts for Palestinian unity, which is an essential building block for any serious discussion of peace. Indeed, any serious supporter of Israeli-Palestinian peace must recognize the need for the de facto recognition of Hamas.
It is true that the murderous aggression by Israel against Gaza has complicated an already complicated situation. At the base of this aggression is a futile attempt to break out of the confines of given political reality and the central role of Hamas. In these circumstances, any criticism leveled, however justified, against the nature of Hamas, and its ideological character, must pale on the background of the crimes against the Palestinian people and the fact that Hamas leads the Palestinian resistance. Those who quote elements in Hamas ideology as an argument against de facto recognition must have forgotten that the peace movement in Israel called, correctly, for recognition of the PLO before the PLO was willing to recognize Israel. Those who want peace must demand that Israel be ready for serious negotiations on the basis of the Saudi-Arabian-European peace plan with a united Palestinian representation, including Hamas.
***
Israel is reaping the whirlwind. It “must” continue fighting until it can declare victory, if only on the basis of the flimsiest evidence. Israel seeks almost any consolation prize that it can throw to the angry masses, who having been fooled into believing that total and complete victory, and no more rockets over their homes, depends only on a few more days of military action. The leadership has every reason to fear the wrath of the public which they have fooled into a naïve belief in an approaching all-out victory. Sadly enough, the illusions cultivated by the leadership may well encourage the search for the false messiah on the fanatical right, with its eternal mantra, “If only we would have kept on bombing.”

2009-01-06T10:11:00.001+02:00

Looking the Other Way

January 4, 2009
Almost everybody in the world would like the horrendous spectacle in Gaza to end as soon as possible. That is everybody except the United States government. The Israeli attack is a great occasion for a parting shot by Bush at Barack Obama, who has unfortunately also endorsed the concept that “terrorism” is the root cause of the US’s troubles. Bush is presenting the play book on how this policy plays out to Obama. It is gift wrapped from Bush with a note: continue this policy from the center.

Bush has exploited Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians to dig a hole for Obama. Obama’s total deafness and thunderous silence over the massive war crimes in Gaza cannot be excused by the shameful, evasive nonsense about there being “one president at a time.” May we recall that in this world, there are, aside from office holders, past and future, also responsible human beings who, in all decency, should know how to recognize and condemn war crimes against one and half million civilians in Gaza. Now deep in the hole that Bush is digging for him, Obama will not be able to rule from the center. He will have to “rule” from the center of the bottom of the hole that Bush has dug for him.

It may be formally true that there is only one president at a time, but silence in the face of war crimes by your ally, Mr. Obama, can only be construed as rank complicity. We are sorry about this and had hoped it would be different – since what you should have after CHANGE is DIFFERENCE. This silent complicity on your part is not even elegant and you will get drenched, even as you try to walk between the rain drops.

Riding the Tiger

Sadly enough, war plays for many deluded citizens in Israeli society the role of a utopian path to calm and bliss. Since Israel enjoys an almost absolute military superiority over Hamas and the Palestinians, for many Israelis, suffering over the years from rockets coming in from over the border, their plight can have only one explanation, i.e., a lack of resoluteness on the part of the leadership. The solution is obvious.
The problem intensifies over time because the leadership hides the true state of affairs which is that there cannot be an immediate solution for burning security problems which are the direct product of mistaken policies and political illusions.
Israel’s policies push her to war and war appears as the panacea. When anybody in the media or even in power suggests that Israeli options are not unlimited and that there are serious obstacles to the use of force that can cause the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, they are warned by the hard-liners that a cease fire would be tantamount to ignominious defeat. In Uri Avneri’s accurate description, Israel is riding the tiger and does not know how to get off.
For the present, the only way to stop the rockets involves de facto recognition of Hamas. And Hamas’s basic demand for open border crossings has universal approval. This solution, no rockets – no siege, which is quite rational, will not play in Tel Aviv as an Israeli victory, because it impairs previously existing absolute Israeli control of the border crossings. So by the logic of its attack, Israel is forced to raise the ante. Israel must continue its attack on Hamas and on the Palestinian civilian population in the name of “creating a new reality” which means convincing Hamas to discontinue rocket fire under threat of more death and destruction. This Israeli attempt at behavior modification of Hamas reminds one of a torture procedure. But most important, no one can know how many Palestinians, fighters and civilians must die in the attempt to eliminate Hamas from the political equation, just as no one knows how many Israelis, soldiers and civilians, must die for the new “improved, Hamasless” equation.

The Israelis are impelled to go further and further into to the muddy, muddy without any certainty that there is dry land, meaning ‘Gaza without Hamas’, anywhere in the vicinity. At the same time, their only friends, Bush & Co., are reading reports from the field that the Israeli operation, an ugly and horrendous affair by any account, is costing the U.S. and its allies more and more.
As world public opinion pushes the world community to do something to calm the gathering storm, Israel’s leaders maneuver desperately to escape the nearly universal call for an immediate cease fire.

Ms. Livni & The Generals

2008-09-25T11:22:00.002+03:00

September 23, 2008

Tzipi and the Generals

Israel is in a tremendous state of instability and uncertainty. Olmert has tendered his resignation, but no one knows whether Livni will be able to form a coalition. If she cannot, then Israel is off to elections early in 2009. The annexationist right, organized in three major parties, the Likud led by Netanyahu, “Our Israel” led by Lieberman and the National Union led by Eitan, smells an electoral victory. The centrists, Kadima and Labor are in a state of disarray while, Meretz, Hadash and the Arab factions, unfortunately, can hardly make a difference. The bureaucracy, or more exactly, the state apparatus, continues to function. It should be appreciated that the military echelon and its “civilian” leadership has more, and not less, leverage in these conditions.

The cabinet, instead of throwing Olmert a farewell party at its last meeting, hosted a virtual oracle, who miraculously told them exactly what they wanted to hear. The oracle appeared in the form of Brig. General Yossie Baidatz, who bears the impressive title of the chief of the research department of Military Intelligence. Baidatz told the Israeli cabinet last Sunday that Iran is “galloping toward the nuclear point of no return” and that our friends in the West are just “weak” and not putting pressure on the [Iranian] regime. (Ha’aretz, September 22, 2009). Note the metaphors. This kind of info session is the Israeli version of the slam-dunk that is designed to free the Israeli government from the last remnants of rational caution.

Moreover, there are local and international developments that give renewed cause for concern. The deterioration of relations between Moscow and Washington on the backdrop of the Georgian issue serves the Bush-Cheney-Palin bloc, which rejects diplomacy, ab intio. In addition, despite conflicting reports, it is now clear that the Pentagon is sending Israel a good part of its weapons wish list.

Tzipi Won’t Fly

Some good friends have expressed a degree of cautious optimism over Livni’s potential. They are right about the fact that in the given constellation, Livni is about the best you can get. But any hopes regarding Livni are, I fear, just another case of the “wish being the father of the thought.” The Livni optimists are misled by her shrewd tactic of saying as little as possible about the issues. She is a “closet” Likudnick and this should not confuse anyone. Likudnicks are always quite ready to play the US diplomatic games, as long as they are all “process” and not real negotiations.

There is no reason to have any hopes for Livni simply because Israel cannot offer anything better. Under the pressures of endemic hatred and hostility to the Palestinians, the Israeli body politic is long on jingoism and short on sane, rational politics. Without a significant shift in international politics, Israel will continue to devote its thoughts, efforts and resources to maintaining its strategic superiority, by force if necessary. There are no serious policy differences here, at this stage, regarding this goal. The idea of a government of national unity is being bandied about as the best way to prepare for a decisive military showdown. But Netanyahu has cause to believe that he, and not Livni, will be able to form it in the not too distant future.

It is clear that Israel would like to attack Iran and will do so the minute it feels that it can get away with it. Here in the country, military logic and logistics are in charge and “normal” politics are in the back seat. The US cannot give Israel a green light, nor is it prepared for any active involvement, but the generals and their allies here argue that Washington will, as the phrase goes, refuse to second-guess Israel.

2008-08-02T11:39:00.000+03:00

August 2, 2008 From the desk of Reuven Kaminer

All Is Not Quiet on the Eastern Front

On the face of it, there is no immediate danger of a clash with Iran over its nuclear development project. The US military seems to have convinced the political echelon that the United States is simply unable to handle a third war, at this stage. This tactical input created the political basis for the shift in US policy in the Geneva talks. Still, there are very powerful forces in the US administration who do not like the idea of waiting around until it might be even more difficult to get an attack off the ground. These forces will try to exploit the to-be-expected difficulties in the Geneva talks as evidence to the effect that Teheran is not getting the message. When the attempt to ratchet up economic sanctions will prove ineffective, as it must in the given conditions, the hawks will be able to argue that it is time to proceed, quickly but surely, to the final option on the table. Even with the Geneva gambit, the basic line of the US administration (with Obama in tow) is that armed intervention would be legally and morally justified, because Iran – even without actually building the bomb - is a new “ticking bomb” in the region. The more aggressive the forces pushing for war in Washington, the deeper their coordination with Israel.

Israel Has Plenty of Room to Maneuver and to Manipulate

Nicholas Kristof (NYT, July 24, 2008) got it exactly right when he suggested that Obama was not doing Israel any favor by swallowing his host’s line on the Iranian crisis. Kristof criticized Obama for missing the critical issue: Israel is contemplating doing “something crazy”, which would include using all its resources and connections to drag the US into a full scale confrontation with Iran.

The prevailing, consensual anti-Iranian discourse creates political space for Israeli maneuvering. This discourse suggests that Israel, even if it ostensibly acts alone, can claim justifiably that it is implementing the principles and the logic of US policy. Israel is an expert in the limitless ways to increase tension in the region and many of these include threats to the Iranian interests. If the US really wants to discourage Israeli military initiatives against Iran, it is clearly insufficient for Washington to express mere unease and hesitation regarding an Israeli air strike. The dark threat of a potential Israeli strike will hover over the region until the US clearly announces that if it is not attacked, it would not intervene by military threat or action, even if Israel pushes the region to the boiling point. Given the level of ambivalence in Washington, Israel has sufficient grounds to assume that, even if the US is displeased (or apparently displeased), it would be forced to come to the aid of its faithful ally. The present posture in Washington is such that the US would not stand on the sideline.

Israel’s Agenda

There is no end of signs that the idea of an Israeli strike is being carefully weighed. General Mullen felt it necessary to repeat, just last week, an earlier warning on the danger of such a strike, for the second time this month. Olmert explained to Obama that time is running out since the Russians are going to upgrade the Iranian air defense system by the end of the year Defense Minister Barak and MK Mofaz, who holds a portfolio named Strategic Coordination with the US, held talks in Washington this week. Mofaz is the darling of the oil speculators for his constant flow of declarations that war is inevitable. This Saturday, MK Hanegbi, chair of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Security Knesset Committee, called for the establishment of a national unity government to deal with the Iranian crisis.

In this respect, it is practically a civic duty to carefully read the wild ranting and raving of Israeli historian, Professor Benny Morris. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?th&emc=th For Morris, it is the old story of good versus evil, and since a showdown is inevitable, better to bomb now and prepare the nukes, right away, for a necessary second strike. The really sad thing is that these Strangelovish illusions, which are based on the insatiable Israeli demand for absolute Israeli military superiority at all costs, are an integral element in Israel’s current security considerations.

Against Demonization of the Other Side

Many of my readers share with me a decided lack of enthusiasm for the policies and the rhetoric of Ahmadinajad and his circle. Without in any way ignoring the harm and the danger of some of the declarations coming out of Teheran, we must also admit that the Israeli propaganda is very adept at converting whosoever is its current adversary into a “new Hitler”. It should be recalled that both Abdul Nasser and Yassir Arafat were cast in the Hitler role, though their real core positions did not justify such a designation. In truth, their basic political platform created ample room for rational political responses which could have defused “inevitable” clashes. Nasrallah figures, with Ahmadinajad, as the current, not to be appeased, enemy. But there are abundant signs that Nasrallah knows how to do business responsibly and there is good reason to believe that the current leadership in Iran could be influenced by serious and thoughtful politics. It would certainly be helpful if the “rational” West offered total regional disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction (including Israel’s stockpile) to the “irrational and inscrutable” Iranian leadership. Perhaps, the Iranian leadership has cause to ask its critics as to why they consider it is perfectly acceptable that Israel and Pakistan are legitimate members of the nuclear club and why Iran must accept an inferior status. Even if the US and its allies are not ready for anything as fair and logical as regional disarmament, other sets of realistic and patient policies based on mutual respect could go a long way to prevent tensions from getting dangerously out of hand.

Barak In Washington

The month started with Mike Mullen’s warnings about the danger from an irresponsible Israeli air strike. But Barak was not in DC yesterday to relieve this anxiety. He made it clear that Israel continued to demand a sense of urgency and opposed any relaxation of tensions. Barack Obama had told friends that his impression from talks in Israel was that it had no faith in the sanctions track. The LA Times (July 30, 2008) summed it up adequately:

“Bush administration officials reassured Israel’s defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.”

Washington is clearly apologetic regarding its own policies and refusing to reign in its Israeli ally. An Israeli strike at Iran is very much on the table.

Sarcko the Ist; Prisoners and their fate; Obama and the Left

2008-07-18T14:44:00.003+03:00

The Anointment of Sarcko, the First – Release the Prisoners – Support Obama and Build the Left
Sarkozy's Annapolis

A regional or local conflict reaches crisis status when there is enough violence to fear continued death and destruction. As a rule, international power brokers pursue their interests by feeding the conflict, while they explain to the world that anything that can be done "to bring the sides together" is exactly what they are doing. So everybody else should mind their own business.

Ah, but our world of hype and PR demands more and much more. The dominant power is called on nowadays to show the world its efforts for a solution of the conflict – even though these do not exist. One would assume that serious people would not play with a conflict such as ours, and the vast sea of suffering and pain it involves, only on the hype-PR level. However, despite artificially inspired expectations, the promises for peace made in Annapolis turned into lengthy siege and massive malnutrition for Gaza and complete and utter degradation for the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank. And since the prisoner issue is in the news, let us note that Annapolis has left 10,500 Palestinian prisoners rotting in Israeli jails. We are just as realistic as the next person, but the US behavior – big talk and no action - in Palestine has broken every record for cynical hypocrisy.

Sarkozy: Thinking Big with A New Tin Messiah

The technique of making a splash in the media without actually doing anything is now being employed by the French President, Sarkozy, who at the least has a bit more style than the Yankee bumbler in DC. But the success of the technique requires many dull minds masquerading as political analysts. Roger Cohen is one of the dull minded hagiographers who is expert in promoting circuses as serious affairs.

First of all he loves Sarkozy. Second of all, he lists Sarko's immense achievements. (See, International Herald Tribune, July 17, 2008.)

"But this man is a tonic to his country and the most important European leader of his time. In the space of a year, he has transformed France's relations with the United States, Israel, its North African neighbors and NATO....Let's take international matters first. Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union summit — a kind of Club Med Bastille Day bash — had its share of vapid ostentation, but was significant for several reasons…"

The details of these transformations in France's relations with US, etc. are simply missing. No solid facts or significant changes in policy, on the ground, are noted. But sit tight, because Roger has a biggie for you. Do you know who showed up at Club Med?

"It got the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, in the same room, drew the latter out of isolation and signaled a new European awareness of how its identity has become inseparable from societies across the "mother sea" that have sent so many of their Muslim sons and daughters northward."

Olmert and Assad in one room is listed as gigantic achievement number one, though they did not meet or greet one another. Olmert and Sarkozy wanted to stage a handshake and declare success! Now it was not Sarkozy who pulled Assad out of isolation but Syria's success in Lebanon. If there was any new diplomacy, it came from Assad, who used the Turkish (and not the French) connection to signal a qualified degree of independence from Teheran. Sarko just wanted to steal the show.

But the biggest journalistic gobbledygook comes in those sentences which seem to mean something. Sarkozy has fostered it seems, according to Cohen "a new European awareness of how its identity has become inseparable," from the North African countries. More ephemera.

All this happens, says Cohen on the basis of the following miracle: "The Union for the Mediterranean is a near-empty shell but an important impulse for Europe to think big." Cohen, determined that Sarkozy is a world ranking leader by virtue of his thinking big. A near empty shell but an important impulse!?

Cohen, somehow fails to remark on another "gigantic success" of the Sarkozian festivities. There, our inimitable Prime Minister informed the whole world that the Israelis and the Palestinians had never been closer to an agreement. Now, it is common knowledge that the talks are paralyzed and that Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority have been totally marginalized by Israeli settlement activity. One of Mazen's leading negotiators, Yassar Ab'd Rabbo, has suggested that the Authority end the negotiations charade.

Definitions

Definitions in the region follow politics very closely. Our soldiers are heroes and theirs are vile murderers. We are motivated by morality and values and they are motivated by hatred and desire for revenge. You can follow the supposedly "free" government run Israeli television and radio for months without encountering a single dissenting voice to these axioms.

If wars are inevitable, prisoners should be treated fairly and repatriated speedily to their homes. But what kind of moral high ground can we hold when we hold more than ten thousand prisoners. Thousands of these are infirm, chronically ill, imprisoned for more than two decades, women and youngsters. Thus, it is very important for the average Israeli to be convinced, day after day, that these are terrorists and criminals though it is quite clear that almost all of them acted out of a sense of duty to redress the wrongs to their national rights and existence. Elementary decency requires massive release of these people. This might conceivably help in clearing some of the poisoned air hovering over all of us. It is worthwhile learning to respect all prisoners and fostering universal concern for their fate.

A Category Mistake

Let me reiterate the principles that could and should guide the response of the consistent left to many of Barak Obama's clearly incorrect, core positions. Obama is not the candidate of the left in the United States. Morally we have every right to demand a candidate from the left and for the left in the race to the White House. But the given relationship of forces is such that the left does not have sufficient clout at this stage to have its own candidate. Barak Obama who is not the candidate of the left will have the overwhelming support of the left in the US.

The nature of US politics is such that it is perfectly acceptable that a large section of the Obama supporters from the left have independent expression and their own frameworks within the Obama camp.
This is an excellent strategy for the rebirth of a strong independent left in the US.

Progress has been made in fortifying the correct impression that a sizable section of Obama's overall support comes from the left. Obama will have to take this fact into account. We will not condemn our friends on the left who feel it absolutely necessary to run a third party campaign. Disputes in the left must be the subject of friendly discussion and debate. But the facts are stubborn. The overwhelming majority of the left is in the Obama camp, and its potential constituency is right there. They can and will be influenced by the dynamic and open presence of a left wing in the Obama camp.

Scoop - Obama is not Che Guevara

2008-06-10T15:09:00.000+03:00

Scoop: Barak Obama Is Not Che Guevara
For some reason, it is difficult for many friends in the left to grasp two seemingly contradictory ideas in their minds without an avalanche of confusion at every turn in the road. Is the following truth so hard to understand? Obama, who is not the candidate of the left, was the only suitable strategic choice for the left.
The left, with few exceptions, overwhelmingly supported the candidacy of Barak Obama for the Democratic nomination. The left, with few exceptions, understood quite well that Obama is not the candidate of the left. Of course, here and there, there are good people who can develop illusions in the heat of the battle. But the overwhelming majority of those on the left who supported him understood that Obama is another representative of the political establishment of the powers that be in corporate America.
Barak Obama cannot be thrown out of the ranks of the revolution, despite the thundering demand of many dear friends, for the simple reason that he was never there. Many of these dear friends are beaming with a sense of superiority after Obama’s disgusting AIPAC performance. But it is not clear to whom they are saying “I told you so.”
The left, despite cynicism regarding its weakness, does exist. Because of its weakness, it has nowhere enough strength to mount a presidential campaign. In these conditions and in the light of the hawkishness of his opponents and the racist overtones of the campaign against him, the left identified, worked with, and supported Obama. This strategy was dictated by the circumstances and there is nothing wrong with it.
The Name of the Game
The name of the game is to stay in close contact with the grass roots elements of the Obama campaign and to contribute to the defeat of John McCain in November. At the same time, it is incumbent on those on the left, who remain to the left of Obama, to find suitable opportunities to voice their criticism from within the campaign camp and from outside it. The left must send its message to the millions who joined Obama because they felt instinctively that he was going in their direction. These millions are the potential constituency of the left on the rise.

Heaven Help Us From Military Logic
The official line goes like this: If the Hamas continues to dare to trade attacks with the IDF, if the Hezballah continues to promise revenge on Israel, if the Iranians refuse to understand that they are in line for obliteration – all this is the result of one simple fact: Israel has lost its deterrent power. The generals, who form the hegemonic political-military think-tank in Israel’s perpetual state of emergency are in the media, hour by hour, day by day to explain that Israel as a matter of national survival must teach our enemies a lesson that they never will forget. Deterrence will thereby be restored. Q.E.D.

Our attack, by all accounts, is pending. It has been in the offing since it became clear to all concerned that the Arabs – instead of just sitting there - are using the time at their disposal to improve their armory. They buy, they smuggle, they buy on the sly, they develop, they perfect and they improvise. Now this being the undeniable truth, it is completely imperative, since war is inevitable because of a failure of our deterrent power, that “business” be taken care of as soon as possible.

The rising tension in Israel’s ruling circles is not about whether to mount an attack. It appears that there are some difficulties regarding who can give the relevant ok and just who to attack. The Prime Minister is actually disabled by some form of diminished capacity – he can collect taxes but not declare war. There are so many Arab countries that are potential candidates for some “bang and its over” therapy, how is even a general to know which is the right one? In these circumstances, compromises are inevitable. The current suggestion is that Israel invade Gaza, arrange the massive execution of every Hamas figure from Prime-Minister to traffic cop, and then, get this, Israel will agree to a long term cease fire.
The second cause for indecision is how to evaluate the impact of simultaneous war on three fronts, politically and logistically. Will an attack Gaza make it easier or harder to launch an attack on Iran? At what stage, if any, will war in the north and in the south force Hizballah to enter the fray?
Somebody even cracked a joke and asked how a war on three fronts would influence the progress of the peace talks with Abu Mazen and Bashar Al- Asad.
The accepted wisdom is that the only competent people in Israel are generals and the only thing they are competent about is war. However, many nations have paid the price of countless victims to learn the lesson that war is too important a matter to be left to the discretion of generals.

To Utopia and Back

2008-06-08T16:55:00.002+03:00

From the desk of Reuven Kaminer June 7, 2008

To Utopia and Back

Prof. Gilbert Achcar of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies in London has made a unique contribution to the ongoing “one-state or two-states” debate in a recent wide ranging interview to Mesele, a progressive periodical in Turkey. (www.zmag.org.znet/view/Article/17808)
Achcar’s input is especially important coming from a Lebanese affiliated with the Trotskyist Fourth International and a prominent analyst regarding our region.

Achcar on the ongoing “two states versus one state” debate:

“To be frank, I consider this debate to be largely a waste of time. I mean this is a debate on utopias in both cases and yet, some are conducting it as if the stakes were at hand. Each side accuses the other of being utopian, and they are both right, because both `solutions` are utopian. Of course, an `independent Palestinian state` that would be limited to the West Bank and Gaza is totally utopian. But I would also say that a single state with ten million Palestinians and six million Jews is much more of a utopia, since it requires the destruction of the Zionist state if one wants to look at the issue seriously. Otherwise it cannot work. That is why I think that these are utopias and too much energy is focused on this debate, such that it becomes a waste of time.” Instead of diverting our energy into a growingly sterile debate, Achcar calls for concentrating efforts to end the occupation and support for Palestinian sovereignty over their territories.

In my view there are two levels to be considered when facing the Palestinian issue. On the one hand are the immediate and urgent interests or needs of the Palestinian people. What are the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank fighting for? They are fighting to get rid of the occupation, of course -- not for the right of voting in Israel. They want sovereignty over their territories. Their fight should obviously be supported. Even if you are a one-state solution proponent, can you say: I oppose the Palestinian fight against the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza because it doesn`t correspond to my maximalist view of the correct solution? That would be completely absurd from a political standpoint. Hence, if we put it in concrete terms, one has to support the actual struggle of the Palestinians for their immediate relief from the occupation.”
Achcar goes on to suggest that if we need to have a long-term utopian program it should be an attractive one, a socialist and regional solution of the conflict.

Three Utopias

Achcar and along with him, Michel Warshavski of the Alternative Information Center in Jerusalem, both with sterling left-wing credentials, have made it clear that the one-state solution does not, as many new to the controversy might have mistakenly assumed, enjoy automatic support from the left. Both clarify that the image of a simple left-right dividing line on this issue is incorrect. It is simply wrong to assume that the liberals tend to be “two-staters,” while consistent leftists support what appears to be the more radical the one-state solution. If it is true that many on the left have come out in support of a one-state solution, this seems to stem more from a desire to express the greatest possible solidarity with the Palestinian people, than any serious programmatic analysis.

Many of those who support the one-state solution seem to labor under the misapprehension that a new and better society can grow out of the present circumstances in some sort of evolutionary process. Achcar rightly stresses that the one state perspective involves the destruction of Israel before any possible agreement on a single unified state is possible. Thus, the one state solution for Israelis and Arabs, which, at any event, enjoys slim Palestinian support, is more a recipe for the continuation of the conflict than its solution.

What is to be Done Today and Tomorrow

Achcar’s input is also important in that it is informed by a realistic evaluation of the urgent strategic implications of “what has to be done.” It would be a terrible mistake for friends of the Palestinian cause to allow themselves to get bogged down in the final-outcome debate. The concrete aim of all those supporting Palestinian rights should be the fullest possible unity in the militant fight against the occupation and for all measures that can alleviate Palestinian suffering.

Unity between all concerned, including those with different positions on the sources and the resolution of the conflict, must be forged in a relentless attack on Israeli policy and the joint responsibility of Israel and its U.S. patron for the continued suffering of millions of innocent people.

Some Utopias are Less Utopian than Others

Achcar is right in the sense that at this point arguments about the final status solution are utopian and have almost no connection to events on the ground. This said, Achcar feels justified in reintroducing the preferred solution of the radical anti-imperialist left.

“Beyond that I would say that no long term, final, lasting and just solution can be conceived other than at a regional level and under socialist conditions -- through a socialist federation of the Middle East and beyond. Of course, this is a utopia, but this is an inspiring utopia.”
However, it should be noted that there are many who support the two- state solution, who also share with others a vision of a socialist regional solution of the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflict. Being realistic about short term possibilities and dangers does not involve the forfeit of an internationalist vision based on social justice in the region. It does however demand a sense of the historical agenda, its present and future stages.

Any peace-loving observer of the cynical and disgusting perversion of the two-state concept by Israel and its allies can understand the disgust and the despair that leads to the conclusion that this solution is no longer possible. The name of peace via two-states has been sullied and besmirched. But even so, as a matter of fact, it is incorrect to describe the two-state solution as utopian. This misunderstanding stems from the undeniable fact that the probability of a two state option is in pronounced retreat. But even with this admittedly diminished probability of a two-state solution, one can make a case for an immanent set of circumstances that would increase the motion towards the completion of a viable two state solution in a time frame that might be termed as the “foreseeable future.”

This is so because the existing stalemate is based on US hegemony in the region as a permanent and unchanging factor. Without illusions and knowing that changes in US imperialist policies are no simple matter, one can at the least, point out strong and important trends in the US political establishment and in the international arena which express, to say the least, dissatisfaction with the present strategic and political configuration of US policy in the region. Without exaggerating the potential of a new administration and more realistic voices such as the Iraq Study Group in Washington, it would be unwise to ignore possible shifts in US policy.

It is incumbent on the peace forces to define and encourage voices in the political establishment everywhere who may be willing to “reinvent” their diplomacy away from the hide-bound alliance with Israeli expansion and aggression. This is far from an easy task but it is an additional vital element in exposing the responsibility of the US and of Israel for rising tensions in the region and the tremendous suffering of the Palestinian people under a cruel and brutal occupation.

[Gilbert Achcar is Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. His books include Perilous Power with Noam Chomsky (2007), The 33-Day War (2007), The Clash of Barbarisms (2nd edn, 2006), The Israeli Dilemma (2006), and Eastern Cauldron (2004).]

The Syrian-Israeli Negotiations

2008-05-27T09:18:00.000+03:00

Do Negotiations Mean a Chance for Peace?

The logic of established patterns of behavior creates a set of expectations. For example, when countries involved in a sustained conflict decide to commence peace talks, such an act suggests that they believe that there is some chance for success. However, there are circumstances in which negotiations for peace have little or nothing to do with that objective. I am afraid that this is the case with the new round of negotiations between Syria and Israel.

Before the recent sensational announcement on talks between Israel and Syria, Israel was already involved in two sets of negotiations which have little or no connection with the achievement of any substantial serious agreement. In the given political circumstances, and despite the fanfare, there is no chance of any agreement between Israel and Syria, just as there is no chance of any permanent cease fire between Israel and the Hamas in the Gaza strip, and just as there is no chance of any comprehensive agreement between Israel and Palestine as a result of the current talks in Jerusalem.

Is it likely that ostensibly serious players in the international arena really invest so much energy in what are actually bogus negotiations? You might think that major powers would be embarrassed when it turns out that this much ado had nothing to do with peace. They might even be concerned at the loss of their own credibility. Well, Bush’s Annapolis “peace this very year” ploy should lay any doubts on this account to rest. Israel, the United States, with the cooperation of an increasingly isolated segment of the Palestinians, are involved in this charade for the ‘nth time.

Bush is not serious about peace. Meanwhile, the existence of horrific, desperate conditions for the people experiencing the conflict on the ground, are just as often as not, no more than golden opportunity for the public relations spinners to do their thing. The rich and the mighty can play hypocritically at “bringing peace” with little fear of negative consequences. They are able to disregard negative consequences when it becomes clear that the mission remains unaccomplished. Meanwhile, the repressive status quo remains in place with its devastating results for the people of the region.

We owe a word to friends who feel that we are unfair and cannot afford to be too choosy when it comes to peace initiatives. This argument is based on the “optimistic” assertion that it is better to talk than to fight. In order to bask in the glow of this kind of optimism, we are supposed to suspend our better judgment regarding the real motives behind this outbreak of negotiations. We are told to get real and respond positively to positive events. But we had this very same argument just a few months ago with those who asked that we reserve judgment before coming out against Annapolis. We must however, for our part, continue to relate to the politics of Annapolis and to the politics of the Turkish sponsored Syrian-Israel negotiations with a refusal to buy erzatz goods. These so-called diplomatic initiatives have one main purpose: to isolate Teheran.

“War is (indeed) the continuation of politics,” but it is also true that bogus negotiations are most often the continuation of preparations for war, or simply a convenient smokescreen for the continuation of the status quo. Sadly enough it is quite easy to play on the emotions of the people who sincerely hope for peace. For the uninitiated onlooker it is sometime difficult to perceive that the negotiations are really a form of camouflage for threats.

The Turkish Connection

The Turkish government has acquired a role in kind of farce for the same reason that Egypt is “mediating” between Hamas and Israel. Egypt has squandered its own prestige in order to placate Israeli whims, while Israel insists that it is not negotiating and will never negotiate with Hamas, even for a cease fire. After Egypt suffers the indignities of helping Israel to perpetuate the fraud that it is not negotiating with Hamas and actually comes up with a reasonable compromise, Israel, the “non-negotiator” sends the Egyptians back to Hamas with another package of new demands. Some of these are off the wall like demanding the return of Gilead Shalit as a pre-condition for a cease fire - when everyone knows that the negotiations regarding Shalit have been long mired in a disagreement about the composition of the Palestinian prisoners to be released. Hamas, which is supposed to act like a gangster earns respect by showing responsible good will. But Israel has its nose in the air and keeps talking about an impending invasion. The Egyptians know quite well that without Israeli willingness to reach a cease fire they are on a fool’s errand. On the surface, it makes Egypt appear as an important factor in the region. In fact, it demonstrates Egypt’s abject conformance to Israeli whims. But what some country’s leadership will do for a moment of glory, even when the moment must turn sour, quickly, very quickly.

The Turkish government wants to be considered a regional power. It believes that it can eventually distance itself from responsibility when the Israel-Syrian talks break down. But Turkey will not gain any prestige. Israel which has no intention of serious negotiations on the Golan, has already issued its real demand, a radical revision of Syria’s regional and international status. Syria will not get close to a clod of earth of its own territory until it will convince Israel and the United States that it has turned its back on its current association with Iran and Hezballa.

A Slavish Show of Independence

There are some commentators who are overwhelmed by the fact that the Israeli initiative comes without specific Washington blessing. This is even considered in some quarters as proof of Israeli independence. In truth, Israel is out to win a prize for its patron by showing Washington that it can use its regional strength and acumen to pull off something that Bush desires but which his advisers consider impossible. Washington considers Israel a strategic ally and a strategic partner. This partnership includes Israel’s right to sacrifice itself as a surrogate for the United States, up to and including Israel’s “right” to provoke Iran into a regional conflagration. Thus Israel is relatively independent in choosing the means to achieve results desired by the United States. This is especially true when the major partner is a walking political cadaver like George Bush.

And If Peace Wins Through

There are those who suggest that we desist from analyzing Israeli and United States machinations. They argue that we are back tracking on our traditional support for peace between the parties. However, If Israel is actually forced to really relinquish its control of the Golan, we will throw flowers at the retreating troops and see this as another indication that the occupation must end on all fronts for a stable peace. But this is not what is happening nor is there, unfortunately, any reason for assuming that this is happening.

All Roads Lead to Teheran

2008-04-26T18:44:00.000+03:00

All Roads Lead to Teheran

Preparations for war with Syria are proceeding at a reasonable pace. Given the unchallenged military superiority of the US, the logistic-technical aspect of an attack is no big problem. However, since the obstacles are political, Bush and his faithful assistants need to build up a case for an attack. Following the headlines of your local newspaper is the best way to observe how this is done.

Reactor Reaction – Bombs Away

It is always helpful to prepare people for your probable response to any real or imaginary provocation. If you see something you or your ally do not like, bomb it first and offer explanations afterwards. The gravity of the threat, or even its very existence, may be in doubt. But it is helpful to get people used to the precedent on your part of violation of every principle of international law and the execution of unchallenged aggression, against a sovereign government. In fact, there was no international outrage in the media or in the streets over the revelations that Israel had bombed what may or may not have been a North Korean reactor. This lack of response suggests that bombing Iran will be only a somewhat more delicate operation.

Why We Are Having Troubles in Iraq

The White House and the Pentagon are pushing revelations about Iranian ‘on the ground’ intervention in Iraq. But this is an old story. Given the deep connections between various Shiite groups and Iran, the big surprise is how little Iran is involved in the military scene in Iraq. Iran has tremendous influence on political groups in the establishment and in the Shi’ite opposition. It extends considerable economic aid to Iraq, especially in the Basra region. And even according to the most alarming US reports, its military involvement is still a marginal affair, and most important there is, even according to the US officials, no verifiable increase in the level of intervention.

But Bush and his apparatus have issued stern warnings to the Iranians, explaining that it is because of the Iranian military intervention that the United States will not be able to proceed with troop level deductions in Iraq.

Smoke and Mirrors

Pseudo-negotiations between traditional enemies do not in any way impinge on preparations for war. They tend to portray Israel and the US in a positive peace seeker role. But it is advisable not to look too closely into the real function of these negotiations.
Israel is talking with the tragic figure of Abu Mazen, who is completely alone in ascribing any importance to the talks. Israel uses the cover of talks with Abu Mazen to wage relentless war against Hamas and a million and half Palestinians in Gaza. The Egyptians are supposedly mediating between Israel and Hamas, but Israel has not even authorized the Egyptians to work on a cease-fire.

Meanwhile, Israel has indeed authorized the Turkish leadership to proposition Assad. The Golan Heights are the bait.
Olmert is helping the United States by using the Golan Heights as bait to get Assad to jump out of the Iranian pond. Israel tells Assad, that if he is smart like Sadaat (who ditched the Soviets for the Sinai), he will ditch Iran for the Golan and join the US camp.
Syria will then be removed from the US terrorist lists, becoming
like Jordan and Egypt, a respectable member of the moderate’s
club. Once again, we see how even “peaceful” negotiations with
Syria serve as preparations for war with Iran.

And if you think that encouraging anti-Iranian hysteria is a thankless job, listen to Hillary Clinton. When asked what she would do at 3A.M. in the morning if informed of a Iranian nuclear attack on Israel: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Phillip Stevens in the Financial Times (24/4/08) describes this as an attempt by Clinton to reinvent herself as the mad general in Dr. Strangelove. It may be to the point that even at 3 A.M. she might check her information before ordering the death of 70 million Iranians. After all, so far, it is Israel that has nuclear capacity and Iran, despite all the WMD noise, does not.

If One Had to Choose

There must be an important lesson in this week’s news. The illustrious Communist Party in Italy lost its parliamentary representation for the first time in more than a half of a century. The Rainbow coalition which it led saw its vote drop from about 10% to only 3% - one per cent less than the minimum required. The party is in a tremendous identity crisis.

In Nepal, the Maoist Communist Party scored a tremendous electoral victory after having come out of the underground armed struggle a year or so ago. The Nepal Maoists are in line to form a new government coalition.

I guess that there might be a lesson here. All other things being equal, if you have the choice of backing a weak centrist government, which is a mere appendage of the sinking status quo (as the Communists did in Italy for the last two years) or going underground to pursue policies that will represent a real alternative for the masses – it is better to go underground.

Bush's Last Gunboat?

2008-04-10T11:57:00.002+03:00

Palestine and the Crisis in US Middle East Policy

It appears that the United States is still relatively successful in blocking any real progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track. If the Palestinian question seems deadlocked for the moment, the Middle East is like a seething cauldron for the United States. Hamas ascendency in Gaza, the parliamentary stalemate in Lebanon, the failure to isolate Syria, the continuation of the lost war in Iraq and plans for US-Israel aggression against Iran suggest that the region is on the brink. These circumstances, as dangerous as they are, suggest the possibility that as volatility in the region develops, the Palestinian question will be less subject to exclusive US considerations.

As the United States tries to empty the two-state concept of any real meaning, one hears more voices which demand that we proceed without delay to a one-state solution. One of the more specious arguments in favor of a one-state solution is the sorry state of negotiations in and around the two-state solution. This situation appears as a golden chance for the supporters of the one-state solution to prove that the two-state option is long dead. This argument is premised, of course, on the assumption that the disappearance of the two-state option is a sure-fire indication that things are moving more rapidly in the direction of a one-state solution. This premise is illogical and delusionary. The inability of the international community to overcome the sabotage of progress on the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel is an expression of a specific balance of forces. Thus, the current US exclusive domination of the main political processes prevents recognition of any of the genuine rights of the Palestinians. One can only wonder at the logic that suggests that a one-state solution is now more likely because the two-state solution has been successfully frustrated up till now by the US and Israel. Are we to understand that the US will now force Israel into accepting a single democratic state? Or are we to understand that Israel has been waiting till now to confess that it opposed a Palestinian state because it really wants a single democratic state between the sea and Jordan? Or can we use a bit of our old Talmudic learning to the effect that says if the two- state proposal is a tough proposition, then the one-state alternative is a simple impossibility.

The option of a two-state solution is the almost universally recognized formula for ending the horrific suffering of the Palestinian people. It is almost consensual among governments and the media all over the world. This is so clear that one can say that if any solution is possible in the foreseeable future, it is clear that it is the two-state solution. It is equally clear what the contours of such a settlement will be: return to the June 1967 borders; a shared Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian national state and Israel; and a fair and just solution of the Palestinian refugee problem.

Just last week the Arab League and the summit of the Arab countries reaffirmed their support for the two-state solution. They were joined, in what appeared a surprising step, but which was really not, by Hamas.

The sense of paralysis and frustration over the possibilities of a two-state solution are understandable. The frustration is especially acute in the light of the Annapolis farce which continues to pay lip service to two states while actually preventing any progress in that direction. The name of the game is simple – ongoing collusion between Israel and the US.

It is not an accident that opposition to US policy and Israeli-US collusion is urgent on the other important fronts in the area. The US has stationed an aircraft carrier near Lebanon to signal the US-Israeli plans for intervention in Lebanon and to remind us about how Washington likes to settle conflicts if things are not going its way. Lebanon, important in itself, takes on added importance as a springboard for war with Tehran. In Palestine, In Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria and in Iran - the decisive challenge is overcoming US policy and blocking the danger of a new round of aggression. Meeting this challenge should be the main objective of all practical political endeavors in the region and everywhere else as a matter of fact.

We cannot know if and when the US will be forced to revise its dangerous war aims in the region. But we can say that the struggle on this front is far from hopeless and the chances for success are far from negligible. Why would any force with a minimum of political maturity abandon the obligation to create the strongest united force against US policy in order to plunge into a campaign centering on the blurry and remote intricacies of a one-state solution to the conflict?

There are two main approaches among the recent spate of calls for a one-state solution. Firstly, there are thousands of devoted advocates of peace who wish to express their justified wrath over Israeli policy. Israel’s role has been so abominable as to even encourage honest questioning of Israel’s right to exist. Facing understandable frustration over the lack of progress for peace, some of our friends are shopping for an ideal solution that will punish the Israeli establishment and, at the same time, secure the rights of both peoples in a free and democratic Palestine. The one-state solution might satisfy this psychological need, but it is totally bereft of any connection to given realities.

There is another grouping in the one-state camp that is there because it rejects the existence of two states, in principle. The one-state option is completely nebulous in every respect save one: it contemplates the dismantling of Israel. This has been and is still in many quarters the goal of traditional Palestinian-Arab militant nationalism. From this point of view the two-state solution is not so much impossible as undesirable.

Certainly, Palestinian nationalists have just as much right as Israeli nationalists to put off negotiations and suffer through the continuation of the conflict, with its horrendous costs, until a radical transformation in the balance of forces will create new possibilities for realizing the uncompromised national dream. Of course, the Palestinians are more justified in hanging on to their illusions because the international community has betrayed them again and again and ignored their willingness for a far reaching compromise. But even so Lenin’s dictum that the rights of an oppressed people should be recognized only up to the point where these demands infringe on the rights of the oppressing nation, is valuable here.

Without being in the least sarcastic, the one-state solution bears a family resemblance to the “united democratic secular state” that was for quite a while the official policy of the PLO. Those on the left were wont to add the important adjective “socialist.” These ideals are still morally relevant and shared by all democrats. The difficulty is that there are no serious political forces among the Palestinians or among the Israelis which believe that there are minimal political conditions for even discussing this perspective. Simply said, the proposal for a united democratic state for two peoples still locked in deadly conflict after decades of hostility is absent from the agenda because it cannot be taken seriously by any of the participants in the current circumstances. It cannot be a path to peace. The best thing that can be said about it is that it is a conceivable path for two sovereign peoples who living in conditions of relative calm opt for a deeper and closer relationship. Today, at this point, in present conditions it may serve, more than anything else, as a serious distraction.

The distractive element is the one that appears in real life when the one-state solution is presented as the exclusive incarnation of solidarity with the Palestinians. When everything possible must be done to build the broadest coalition to expose and condemn Israel’s policies and actions, there is a pronounced tendency among the “one-staters” to promote hyper maximalist demands. These demands have the practical results of upstaging all Palestinian leaderships and denouncing them for agreement in principle to a compromise. These accusations also have a deleterious effect on unity in that they suggest that the elimination of Israel as a sovereign country is the sine qua non of any reasonable solution.

The peace movement is involved in a very serious struggle against the Israeli lobbies and other pro-Zionist elements. The “trump card” of these forces is that the peace movement is really demanding the elimination of Israel and this is its condition for peace. But the truth is that the unanimous position of all sections of the Palestinian leadership is a willingness to accept a far reaching compromise. The Palestinians and the entire world have clearly declared that Israel can live in peace in the Middle East.

The international community, the Arab world, and the Palestinian leadership – including its two main factions are willing to negotiate a two-state solution. The support for this solution is so overwhelming that the US and Israel must play act as if they were doing just this – supporting a real peace process. This being so, the next logical and most effective step on our part is to condemn the hypocrisy of the United States on one hand, and the timidity of those, such as the moderate Arab states and Europe, who refuse to confront Bush. This can and must be done by exposing the wide gap between the professed policies of many fainthearted friends of the Palestinians and their actions on the ground. Instead of demanding that support for Palestine be translated into effective and militant opposition to the US and Israel should the Palestinians and their supporters accept the advice of those who want to wait and to tell the world that this is all a sad mistake – since no peace was or is possible? Isn’t this a rather nice way of letting Bush and his accomplices off the hook?

Any intelligent observer knows that the international community can let severe problems fester for a long time. In the light of this sad state of affairs, no one in the peace camp is saying that a two-state solution is just around the corner. Nor is it inevitable. However, the contrary thesis that the United States and Israel are invincible or that their collusion will always succeed against international pressure and sentiment is just as wrong. Moreover, it reflects the kind of thinking that ignores a clear and present crisis in US policies in the region. The development and strengthening of a broad alignment of consistent progressive forces against US aggression in the region is a realistic goal and a vital contribution to the struggle for a just peace for Palestine.

Women in Black - Courage & Steadfastedness

2008-03-17T16:48:00.002+02:00

The Personal is the Political

Dafna is active in Women in Black in Jerusalem. If Dafna is in the country, then rain or shine, she and her sisters take up their position in Hagar (Paris) Square denouncing the occupation and violence. I must admit that if there is any serious security tension in Jerusalem towards the end of the week, I become fraught with concern over the possibility that the vigil may be attacked. The criminal attack at the Merkaz Ha’rav Yeshiva occurred on Thursday at 8 PM. The country, the media and many ordinary citizens were seething with anger, most of it blatantly racist. If you are planning to go to the streets to continue the weekly protest, you are worried about Israelis who might be looking for revenge. There are settler crazies out there plotting away, though they really prefer taking out their frustrations on Palestinians. But there are any number of Jerusalemites, who can become unhinged. It was clear early Thursday evening that the vigil would be tense.

The vigil does enjoy a modicum of police protection, but it is very lay back. Their goal is more to protect the peace than anything else. Still, better than nothing. There were indeed 3-4 passers by that felt the need to scream and curse. Pretty ugly, but this is par for the course, when it looks like you can assume that the verbal attack will not get physical. But on Friday, March 7, 2007, the women were accosted by an extraordinarily viscous brute. The hooligan, who seems to have been an American, was brandishing the front page of a newspaper brandishing the photographs of the eight Merkaz HaRav victims right in the faces of the women and screaming Hamas Whores, Hamas Whores. He was of course working himself into a frenzy and screaming (in English). A policemen did gently move him away from direct physical contact with the women, but then the thug took up a position in the middle of the street and continued his harangue, explicitly demanding that the Hamas Whores submit to his crazed sexual demands. The police did not see this as a reason to interfere.

He was still uncomfortably close to the vigil when it began to break-up. The women had previously decided to have a very small party at the end of the vigil for one of the participants who was marking her 99th birthday. The thug had by this time gathered around him a few local fanatics. These grouped into a small gang of hooligans which accosted three groups of women on their way from the vigil, pushing and shoving and banging on the car of one woman. The police were gone by then. During the week, a delegation of women met with the police and requested a firmer hand against any form of harassment, which can easily set the stage for really violent attacks. Things were generally quiet this last Friday.

So if you want to know the meaning of courage and steadfastedness in the face of mounting chauvinist tension, come then, in body or spirit, to their vigil and stand with the Women in Black who are standing in Paris Square for peace, against hatred and racism. then, in body or spirit, to their vigil and stand with the Women in Black who are standing in Paris Square for peace, against

It’s a Success Story

2008-03-02T12:48:00.000+02:00

They finally succeeded. It cost 4,000 dead and another 29,000 seriously wounded US soldiers. But after almost a million dead Iraqis, after 500,000 Iraqi refugees who fled the country and another 500,000 “internal” refugees in the country, and after spending three trillion (three thousand billion) dollars, George Bush and his cohorts finally succeeded in organizing a royal reception by the Iraqi government for the chief of the axis of evil, Ahmadinejad, in Bagdad.