Punishment of Palestinians will create a crucible of trouble for the world
George Bush’s policies helped build Hamas; now a dangerous linkage with Iran and Iraq threatens a mega-crisis
David Hirst, Monday May 29, 2006, The Guardian
Patients with chronic kidney disease dying for lack of their routine dialysis; 165,000 employees of the Palestine Authority unpaid for two and a half months; women selling jewellery for fuel or food … the “humanitarian crisis” of the West Bank and Gaza is not a Darfur. And what most shocks Arabs and Muslims is that it stems from a conscious political decision by the world’s only superpower. First, they say, you give us Iraq, now on the brink of civil war. Then this: the starving of a whole people.
The psychological and strategic linkage between Iraq and Palestine is far from new. But its latest, most intense phase began with the US invasion of Iraq - conceived by the Bush administration’s pro-Israeli neoconservatives as the first great step in their region-wide scheme for “regime change” and “democratisation”, whose consummation was to be an Arab-Israeli settlement. Indeed, professors Mearsheimer and Walt argue in their study, The Israel Lobby, that there very likely wouldn’t have been an invasion at all but for Israel and, above all, its partisans inside the US.
But it had always been crystal clear that the more authentic any democracy Arabs or Palestinians did come to enjoy, US-inspired or not, the more their conception of a settlement would collide with the US-Israeli one. The point was swiftly proved, in the wake of Hamas’s assumption of power, when President Bush declared: “We support democracy, but that doesn’t mean we have to support governments elected as a result of democracy.” And his administration set about engineering Palestinian “regime change” in reverse.
Its strategy found more or less willing accomplices - Europeans, Arab governments, the Palestinians themselves. But it was always going to be a perilous one; the more vigorously it was pursued in the face of the opposition that it was bound to encounter, the more likely it was to make of Palestine a crucible of trouble for its own people, the region and the world - very much like the one that other quasi-colonial western intervention had already made of Iraq.
Israel’s new plan: A land grab
By Jimmy Carter
New Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has announced that Israel will take unilateral steps to establish its own geographical boundaries during the next four years of his administration. His plan, as described during the recent Israeli election and the formation of a new governing coalition, would take about half of the Palestinian West Bank and encapsulate the urban areas within a huge concrete wall and the more rural parts of Palestine within a high fence. The barrier is not located on the internationally recognized boundary between Israel and Palestine, but entirely within and deeply penetrating the occupied territories.
The only division of territory between Israel and the Palestinians that is recognized by the United States or the international community awarded 77% of the land to the nation of Israel and the other small portion divided between the West Bank and Gaza. Only about twice the size of Washington, D.C., Gaza is now a politically and economically non-viable region, almost completely isolated from the West Bank, Israel and the outside world.
The United States’ will to war
By: AIJAZ AHMAD, Frontline, May 20 - June 2
What drives the `sole superpower’ inexorably towards perpetual warfare?
“Perhaps the most disheartening fact about the U.S. is the absence of an organised and sustained anti-war movement despite the mounting human costs of the Iraq war.”
THE United States claims that it is bringing democracy to West Asia. We shall first summarise the contrasting results of four elections that have indeed taken place recently in the core crisis region of West Asia. We shall then examine at some length the prevailing situation within the U.S. itself and the reason behind the inexorable drive toward perpetual warfare, regardless of human and financial costs.
THE ELECTORAL MAP
There was, first, the surprising electoral upset that brought the ascetic and efficient but not entirely prudent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the popular former Mayor of Teheran, to the presidency of Iran in the teeth of opposition from the whole of the so-called “reformist bloc” and the westernised middle class that had held power for eight years under Mohammad Khatami; even more formidable opposition of the pro-American, neoliberalist, corrupt and clerical tycoon, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had been President for eight years earlier and had been tipped to win by every media pundit; and opposition even from sections of the clerical elite ensconced in the Guardians’ Council, which oversees the functioning of government in Iran.
Expecting Rafsanjani to win and then to do business with him, the U.S. and its Western allies were outraged when Iranians defied predictions and elected an underdog. Having declared Iran as one of the three countries that comprise an “Axis of Evil” even while the reformist Khatami was in power, the U.S. now declared - as this year’s National Security Document puts it - that in today’s world Iran poses the principal threat to the U.S. We have documented in much detail in the previous pieces how the preparations for invasion of Iran have been unfolding inexorably, on the non-issue of nuclear enrichment to which Iran has a right according to the very terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and despite the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) own finding that even with its best efforts Iran is still a decade away from production of a credible nuclear weapon, let alone a delivery system that could launch an attack on the U.S. 10,000 miles away.
The war machine rolls on anyway, and has now arrived in the Security Council in the shape of a resolution sponsored by the U.S. and its European allies, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which forbids Iran to exercise its legal right, which Iran is expected to reject. And the rejection would then be used for imposing sanctions and even invasion at a time of America’s choosing. Even if either Russia and/or China veto the resolution, the Euro-American West can grumble about “inaction” by the “international community” and proceed with sanction, invasion and so on, if and when it so chooses.
Iranians are thus to be punished for electing a government of their choice and wanting to exercise their rights under international law. The vilification of Ahmadinejad as an anti-Semite and another Hitler - just as Saddam Hussein was once described - now abounds in the Western media. When the Iranian President wrote directly to U.S. President George W. Bush offering comprehensive dialogue, the latter did not even reply. So much for respect for law, democracy and elementary diplomatic norms when it comes to the elected government of Iran.
RM57.6m aid for Palestine: Casting a lifeline for cash-strapped Palestine
22 May 2006
Mustapha Kamil reporting from Sharm El- Sheikh, Egypt
MALAYSIA has pledged US$16 million (RM57.6 million) to cash-strapped Palestine in a move to help its local government resume operations.
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Malaysia, as chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), would also urge member nations to help Palestine.
The Prime Minister said he would ask donor nations to quickly resume aid to the strife-torn nation.
Abdullah made the offer in a meeting with Palestine president Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday.
Abbas will visit Malaysia soon to discuss with Abdullah how the aid will be channelled to Palestine.
Saturdayās meeting, the first between the two leaders, came at a time when Palestineās economy is grinding to a halt and its political situation is facing fresh challenges not only from Israel but also from the sharpening crisis between the Fatah and Hamas factions.
The Palestinian Authority has been in the grip of a financial crisis since the Hamas factionās victory in the recent election.
The “Quartet” of Middle East negotiators ā the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia ā immediately suspended Palestineās access to international funding and aid unless certain conditions were met.
They wanted Hamas to renounce violence, recognise Israel and abide by existing interim peace deals.
At the same time, local, regional and international banks have also refused to deal with the Palestinian Authority, fearful of being hit by US anti-terrorism sanctions and lawsuits.
The World Bank has reported that Palestineās financial crisis was much deeper than earlier thought, and if left unattended could render the West Bank and Gaza ungovernable.
It now considers “underestimated” its projections in March this year that by the end of 2006, Palestinian poverty and unemployment levels would rise to 67 and 40 per cent respectively while personal incomes would drop by 30 per cent.
The Hamas-led Government has not been able to pay salaries to 165,000 public employees since March, giving rise to concerns of a humanitarian crisis that could degenerate into an upsurge in violence in West Asia.
While the EU recently backed the creation of a special trust fund to help the Government in Palestine pay salaries to at least health and education workers, diplomats say the US has been trying to block the proposal.
Abdullahās aides said the EU had shown willingness to allow Malaysia to play an important part in bringing the stalled peace process in Palestine back on track.
It is believed Abdullah will discuss the plight of the Palestinians with Russian President Vladimir Putin during his forthcoming visit to Moscow.
DLC launches Islamophobic textbook
Michael Carmichael
Entitled With All Our Might and heralded under the banner of ‘defeating Jihadism’, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) have launched a book of essays predicated on Islamophobia, the 21st century equivalent to the anti-Semitism that plagued the 20th.
With a cover blurb by Tony Blair, whose popularity in Britain (21% approval rating) has plummeted to levels lower than his American partner in Holy War and Islamophobia, the DLC book urges the Democratic Party to become intensively militaristic in order to adopt a wartime footing to combat the evil emanating from the oil-rich Middle East.
Inspired by the writings of David Horrowitz, a rabid Islamophobic writer who is the driving force behind FrontPage Magazine, the DLC book proposes the shaping of the global battlefield into a frightening plan that is tantamount to the adoption of the Project for a New American Century’s (PNAC) dangerous and threatening, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century.”
Nowhere does the the DLC volume present a serious critique of Bush administration foreign policy failures. Quite the contrary, the authors would have the Democratic Party default to the PNAC positions on virtually every point of defense, military and foreign policy.
The DLC’s misreadings of Tony Blair epitomize their failure to come to grips with the American foreign policy disasters of the 21st century. Blair is now weaker in Britain than Bush in America. He rules through his weakening majority in parliament, but he has recently been forced into a highly publicized secret agreement to step down from his office in July of next year. In recent weeks, Blair has become visibly more isolated and imperial in his bearing, recalling the final days of lingering power that toppled Margaret Thatcher.
It is sad to report that General Wesley Clark has collaborated with the DLC in co-authoring a chapter proposing the undermining of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by establishing a double standard for nuclear weapons whereby India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan will be allowed to flaunt international law governing WMDs while Iran will not - specifically because of its status as as an Islamic state.
With All Our Might is edited by Will Marshall, a top-ranking Islamophobe resident at the DLC.
Planetary urges all responsible Democrats to ignore the DLC’s campaign to impose the neoconservative agenda on the Democratic Party.
Reference
Iraq: Time to go
Here are just a few statistics about Iraq today under US/UK occupation:
- The bodies of 1,100 people who had suffered violent deaths were taken to the Baghdad morgues in the month of April.
- According to the Iraqi government and UNICEF, a quarter of all Iraqi children suffer from chronic malnutrition.
- Public order in Basra, Iraq’s second city, has virtually collapsed and one person is being assassinated every hour.
- Attacks on American and British troops are increasing dramatically and the casualty figures are now the highest for over a year.
- Baghdad is slipping into civil war — with dozens of mutilated bodies discovered every day — almost certainly killed by death squads connected to the Iraq government.
- 100,000 people have fled their homes in Baghdad for fear of sectarian killings at the hands of the death squads.
(For more details about the catastrophe Iraq is suffering, go to the NEWS and STATISTICS pages on the Stop the War website:
Don’t punish Palestinians for choosing Hamas
19 May 2006
PANGKOR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has called on Western countries, particularly the United States, to change their attitude towards the Palestinians and not persecute them just because the Government is led by Hamas.
He said Palestinians should not be made to suffer simply because they elected a Government of their choice.
“We have to respect their choice. The people should not be made to suffer,” he said. “As chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Malaysia will lead in providing the necessary assistance to the Palestinians.
“It is, after all, our duty to help those in need, especially those who are suffering not because of their own doing,” he told reporters after officiating at the groundbreaking of the Global Hi-Q Biotechnology Fish Breeding Farm in Teluk Dalam here yesterday.
The Prime Minister was asked if the OIC was planning to provide assistance to Palestine, after the United States and the European Union stopped aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
Hamas is seen as an Islamic militant group by the US, which has accused the group of refusing to renounce violence and recognise the Jewish state. US aid is a small part of the US$1.6-billion (RM5.7 billion) annual budget of the Palestinian Authority.
About US$1 billion comes from overseas donors, more than half of it from European nations.
The rest is a mix of funds from international donor agencies and Arab and Asian governments.
Hamas has failed to get foreign aid because international banks are worried of repercussions from the US if they oblige them.
Source: http://www.nst.com.my
Italy to pull out troops from Iraq
War in Iraq was ‘grave mistake,’ says Prodi
By Malcolm Moore in Rome, The Telegraph, UK, 19 May 2006Romano Prodi, Italy’s new prime minister, pledged yesterday to pull Italian troops out of Iraq, saying that the war had been a “grave mistake” which could make “the whole region explode”. “We consider the war and occupation in Iraq a grave mistake because it has not solved the problems of security, it has complicated them, and opened Pandora’s box,” he said, in his maiden speech to the senate. “Terrorism has found a new base and new excuses for internal and external terrorist action.”
Silvio Berlusconi, whom Mr Prodi narrowly defeated in last month’s general election, sent 3,000 Italians to Iraq in 2003.
The move, seen in Italy as a play for the affection of President George W Bush, was extremely unpopular. Almost three million people took to the streets of Rome to demonstrate against it. In an attempt to win over the crowd before the general election, Mr Berlusconi promised that troops would be home by last September, but he backtracked after he received a telephone call from Mr Bush.
Mr Prodi did not give a date for the pull-out, but said that he would negotiate with the United States on the issue.
Italy was a vital ally in Europe on the war in Iraq, and Mr Prodi’s decision to withdraw troops leaves Tony Blair isolated.
Read the rest of the article here.
The Israel Lobby: A Commentary on Reactions
Please refer to: The Israel Lobby
By John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, Letters, London Review of Books, May 11, 2006
We wrote āThe Israel Lobbyā in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. We have also been gratified by the many positive responses we have received, and by the thoughtful commentary that has begun to emerge in the media and the blogosphere. It is clear that many people ā including Jews and Israelis ā believe that it is time to have a candid discussion of the US relationship with Israel. It is in that spirit that we engage with the letters responding to our article. We confine ourselves here to the most salient points of dispute.
One of the most prominent charges against us is that we see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy. Jeffrey Herf and Andrei Markovits, for example, begin by noting that āaccusations of powerful Jews behind the scenes are part of the most dangerous traditions of modern anti-semitismā (Letters, 6 April). It is a tradition we deplore and that we explicitly rejected in our article.
Instead, we described the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews, and many Jewish-Americans do not endorse its positions on some or all issues. Most important, the Israel lobby is not a secret, clandestine cabal; on the contrary, it is openly engaged in interest-group politics and there is nothing conspiratorial or illicit about its behaviour. Thus, we can easily believe that Daniel Pipes has never ātaken ordersā from the lobby, because the Leninist caricature of the lobby depicted in his letter is one that we clearly dismissed. Readers will also note that Pipes does not deny that his organisation, Campus Watch, was created in order to monitor what academics say, write and teach, so as to discourage them from engaging in open discourse about the Middle East.