Robert Fisk: Posturing and laughter as victims rot

Mahmoud Abbas stepped further into humiliation by saying the only option for Arabs isto make peace with Israel

The front page of the Beirut daily As-Safir said it all yesterday. Across the top was a terrible photograph of the bloated body of a Palestinian man newly discovered in the ruins of his home while two male members of his family shrieked and roared their grief. Below, at half the size, was a photograph from Israel of Western leaders joking with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister. Olmert was roaring with laughter. Silvio Berlusconi, arms on the back of Olmert's shoulders, was also joshing and roaring – with laughter, not grief – and on Olmert's right was Nicolas Sarkozy of France wearing his stupidest of smiles. Only Chancellor Merkel appeared to understand the moral collapse. No smiles from Germany.

The sources of Arabs’ Shame: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia

The often asked question, when it comes to the Palestinians, is about the role of Arab countries in the Palestinian struggle for freedom. The people not familiar with the political landscape of the area often see the Middle East as two camps, Arab countries on one side and Israel on the other. The reality is totally different. Israel has seldom been alone. Beside its usual American, French, British and other staunch allies, she has had the hidden backing of several Arab countries.

Arabs lavish jewels on Secretary of State Rice

"...Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raked in at least $316,000 in gem-encrusted baubles from the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia alone, making her one of top recipients among U.S. officials of gifts from foreign heads of state and government and their aides in 2007."

Which only proves that "money can't buy you love..."

Arabs denounce cleric's fatwa on 'immoral' TV

A Saudi man drinks Arabic coffee as he watches Satellite TV at his home in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ,Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008. Arabs are denouncing a Saudi cleric's edict that it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV stations that show 'immoral' content. Many fear the fatwa could fuel vigilante attacks on the media. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)

Arabs across the ideological spectrum, from secular-minded liberals to Muslim hard-liners, are denouncing a top Saudi cleric's edict that it was permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV stations that show "immoral" content.

Arab-American paratrooper faces deportation after Afghan service

"Sgt Hicham Benkabbou has been served with an order to stand trial for deportation as soon as he arrives home, despite the fact that he has been on active service in Afghanistan for almost two years with the 508th parachute infantry regiment, known as the Red Devils."

Analysis : Who is anti-Semitic?

"It's become almost impossible to say anything about Jews, even as a mild joke. An African-American actress jokes about a photo showing her with a big nose ("That's my Jewish cousin")"

Israel's Sacred Terrorism

"It is our considered opinion that Sharett's Personal Diary, is a very important historical resource that sheds much light on Israel's policy towards the Arab world, particularly for all of us in the United States who have such a large stake in Middle Eastern developments and the eventual outcome of the conflict."

A Case for Arab Dignity

by Ramzy Baroud - Nov 3, 2007

The ongoing socio-economic and political ills that mar potential progress in Middle Eastern countries can largely be attributed to the ill-defined foreign policy of the United States. Utterly desperate situations have arisen whereby US clients rule with an iron fist, making prospects for a meaningful democracy sit at an all-time low. However it would be nothing less than self-deception to elucidate Arab social, economic and political ailments exclusively on US-Israeli military and political belligerency; there needs to be an element of self-reflection and responsibility to make viable any pragmatic steps towards improvement and justice.

The Arab Human Development Reports list political and economic regressions, rampant corruption, utter inequality, oppression of women, and indeed men, lack of cohesion, planning, and forward thinking as significant problems in Arab countries. The 2005 report laboured to put a positive spin on negative situations, choosing to focus on the empowerment of Arab women, who, in some Arab societies are denied access to schools, economic independence and political representation.

The oil boom of the 1970’s, and the wave of neo-liberalism in the 1990’s has turned most Arab countries into class societies, either creating new disparities or deepening already existing ones. But there is little class ‘conflict’ to speak of today; the poor are , in many cases, literally struggling to survive on day-to-day basis, while the rich have surpassed, in arrogance and attitude, the positions assumed by the elites of Central America. Their access to political power, economic wealth, and total control over most media channels has significantly deepened the divide. Many of Morocco’s poor are braving the tumultuous Mediterranean waters to make it to Europe, to secure meagre jobs with meagre pay, and an uncountable number of Egyptians are in constant hunt for opportunities elsewhere. The situation everywhere is getting more dire, opening the doors for even greater corruption and nepotism to permeate.

The media cannot be counted on to represent the reality on the ground. Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya remain the exception, but they too are receptive to political and economic pulls. And even without these, it takes more than couple of TV stations to cater to the local and national needs of hundreds of millions of people whose cultures, immediate realities and economic and political challenges are too varied to be encapsulated in a few news bulletins, erratic TV debates and passing slogans.

Saddest of all is the fact that Arab masses lack the ability to even vent their frustrations, having lived under a tight grip for decades and crushed mercilessly whenever they dared to march for their rights.

While the ruling elites lavishly spend to set themselves apart from those at the bottom, the latter are forced to learn the language of power, to cater to the elites’ every whim. No wonder many turn to the most immediate ways of escaping such reality. The Internet is thriving in major Arab cities, not so much as a tool of meaningful communication, but mostly for purposes of chatting and pornography. Both of these create alternate realities. Chatting could also represent the start of new opportunities, that of premeditated ‘love’, or, just maybe, a green card or its equivalent in some European country.

The situation is particularly dismal for Palestinians caught between a brutal Israeli occupation and their own corrupt elites. While many live under various regimes with an almost impossible legal status as stateless people, rich Palestinians in the Gulf (and elsewhere) seem blissfully far-removed; the immense Palestinian wealth abroad is yet to benefit the 1.4 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, 80% of whom are dependent on international aid for their survival.

The US and various European countries are contributing to the chaos, compounding neoliberalism with neo-imperialism, controlling the former colonial outposts via economic dependency in the form of aid, political and military posturing, and NGOs. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID are two prominent examples. NED, funded mostly by a Congressional annual allocation, was founded in 1983 to serve US foreign policy. It claims to be “guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values.” Considering NED’s role in the coup against Venezuelan democracy in April 2002 and other instances of soft intervention, one cannot help but question the organization’s democratic values.

The Arab peoples are in a situation that warrants little envy. In countries like Iraq, a functioning socioeconomic and political structure – despite its shortcomings – was simply written off in May 2003, with the signature of L. Paul Bremer, the first US ruler of Iraq. The disbanding of the army was followed by the country’s de-Baathification (undermining Sunnis for merely being the favored sect of Saddam), showing utter disregard for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

The Iraq scenario has set a dreadful precedent. Those not content by their current rulers were forced to rethink their priorities when they saw the US-induced chaos in Iraq in action. Those who giddily capitalized on the democracy window were mercilessly crushed. Palestinians were subdued and democracy was snatched away from its proper owners, the majority of the people, and was handed back to the corrupt few. In Egypt, coercion and corruption during elections has managed to maintain the status quo.

There are no easy answers here, no snappy recommendations or full-proof solutions. The task is truly overwhelming. But it is clear that the true interests of the Arab peoples can only be served by Arabs themselves; reforms can not be imposed, true, but that is impossible to achieve under the current power relations - rulers setting themselves up as unquestionably superior to their people, TV channels promoting rampant consumerism and providing endless distraction, and uncountable multitudes seeking deliverance, escapism and, often, falling prey to extremism. For Arab countries to have some hope of a meaningful future (and indeed present), grassroots work must replace intellectual detachment, wealth must be invested in building self-sustained societies, and, most importantly, the dignity of Arab women and men must be preserved above all else.

Arabic-speaking passengers sue American

by COREY WILLIAMS, Associated Press - Nov 1, 2007

Six men of Iraqi descent who were heading home from doing training for the U.S. military sued American Airlines on Thursday, saying employees detained and publicly humiliated them after another passenger voiced suspicions.

The men, who sued in U.S. District Court in Detroit alleging racial discrimination, say airline employees grounded their Aug. 28 flight from San Diego to Chicago and detained them, believing they were security risks.

The men, some of whom are U.S. citizens, were returning to the Detroit area after training Marines at California's Camp Pendleton on Iraqi culture when another passenger expressed concerns to guards partly because she heard the men speaking Arabic.

After taxiing from the gate, pilots returned the plane to the terminal. The six men were segregated and detained while the airline helped more than 100 passengers find hotel rooms, according to a prepared statement from the men.

The suit was filed on behalf of David Al-Watan, Talal Cholagh, Ali Alzerej, Hassan Alzerej, Hussein Alsalih and Mohammad Al-Saedy.

"They treated me like a terrorist," Al-Watan, 30, said in the statement. "We didn't do anything wrong, but they made everybody scared of us."

Flight 590's crew returned the plane to the gate to resolve potential security problems, airline spokesman Tim Wagner said in a statement.

"All passengers disembarked the aircraft after it was determined that it would not be able to redepart because of San Diego International Airport's 11:30 p.m. flight curfew," Wagner said. "Several passengers were briefly interviewed by law enforcement officers. No passenger was arrested."

The six men took flights with the airline the next morning, Wagner said.

The men worked for Defense Training Systems, a unit of International Logistics Services Corp. of Anchorage, Alaska. Their work involved teaching Marines about Iraqi culture, customs and etiquette, said their lawyer, Lawrence T. Garcia.

"These are some of the most pro-American people around," Garcia said. "There's no reason to suspect that these people were a threat on this airline. ... This is the face of prejudice and racism that happens today."

Strange or not so strange

Arablinks - October 31, 2007

Some think it strange so many Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Not so strange, however, once you weigh up all the propaganda against "those people".

Personally I found it strange so few Americans criticized the announcement of Israeli punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as a weapon against Hamas. But I guess it's not so strange when once you weigh up all of the propaganda against "those people".

And how strange, some think, that one of the oldest forms of organized torture, is in effect okayed by the nominee for Attorney General, provided it is done by nameless US officials carrying out orders, against nameless Arab detainees so designated by other nameless US officials. But I guess that too can be explained by the animus against "those people".

Racism is an inadequate expression for what is going on in America. But it is a good first approximation. What is genuinely strange is the lengths to which people--intellectuals and non-intellectuals, leftists and "progressives," Jews and gentiles, the famous and the obscure--will go to not talk about this.

The Liberator

"...the United States is arming the Arabs – to be its foot soldiers in a battle with Iran. However, as they are being armed to the teeth, the U.S. is ensuring that the weapons they are sold are far inferior to those received by Israel, that they are only ‘good enough’ for killing other Arabs, and for killing Iranians."

I agree that the US is looking for Arab support against her perceived threat from Iran, but considering the general lethality of weapons of this nature, the large numbers of other types of conventional weapon/missiles possessed by Israel's Arab neighbors, and the relative small size of the state of Israel, the "qualitative" difference that is so often spoken about will have no real "qualitative effect. Vietman, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan stands as shining examples of where superior weapons made/is making little or no difference. Another example is the recent Israeli - Hizbullah war. Hizbullah "killed" over 50 of Israel's "invulerable" Merkava tanks in just 34 days of battle.

By: Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

“He who lives by fighting with an enemy has an interest in the preservation of the enemy’s life.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Holding a joint press conference with the new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, George W. Bush called Iraq a ‘new democracy’; The gift of democracy from the Bush White House. It would seem appropriate that a statue of George W. Bush be erected where Saddam’s statue once stood – after all, he is the liberator. The momentous unveiling ought to be accompanied by the wailing of mothers rocking back and forth as they beat their chests holding corpses and shrieking in anguish. The ‘new democracy’ should have its orphaned children present, delivering their gratitude with growling stomachs and tears that are all they have to relieve their parched throats. The liberator’s statue would be adorned not with the promised flowers, but with stains left behind by the blood of the innocent buried in mass graves – the shame of women raped. Indeed, they were liberated from their dreams, their tomorrows, from their hopes.

And of so much more…

Perhaps the Iraqis should also thank the ‘liberator’ for unburdening them of their oil – it was the oil, and Saddam, that was a threat to them. Both are gone. While the Iraqis risk their lives standing in line for a can of gas, wondering what happened to their country’s riches, under the watchful eyes of soldiers, smugglers divert billions of dollars worth of crude onto tankers. This, thanks to the genius of Dick Cheney’s old company Halliburton (and Parsons) for the oil metering system that is supposed to monitor how much crude flows into and out of ABOT and KAAOT Southern oil terminals has not worked since the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.[i] The oil simply gets stolen, Halliburton does not fix it, and the soldiers don’t stop it.

Let’s not forget Saddam’s threat to the dollar. It’s simple to understand why he had to be eliminated. As Congressman Ron Paul puts it, the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to the American political and military strength, and due to its huge gold reserve, the world readily accepted the dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world's reserve currency.

However, the U.S. printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question--until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded it fulfill its promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard. On August 15, 1971, Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of the remaining 280 million ounces of gold; but not without devising a new system for the dollar hegemony to spread.An agreement was struck with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence "backed" the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. It was his arrogance that was a threat -- to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the major topic was how to get rid of Saddam Hussein--[ii]

Saddam was linked to al Qaeda – sovereign Iraq was invaded –Joe Wilson’s honest report was dismissed, his wife, Valerie Plame’s identity was revealed – and so the rest of the story goes….
The ‘liberators’ fight hard for the ‘new democracy’. The ‘new democracy’ had become the place where arms dealers line their pockets. War is good for business. Boardrooms are filled with delighted stockholders. Profits are rolling in. The bin Laden owned Carlyle Group, not content with making money out of arms, proposes to use its connections to get in other deals. It wants ‘to help manage’ up to $1 billion of the funds collected from the reparations and other claims to create an entity, initially funded by $2 billion in Kuwaiti government money, that would take control of any funds collected from Iraq [iii].

Indeed, the bin Laden owned Carlyle group fares well when it comes to death and destruction. As the Bush administration was supplying Israel with munitions to massacre the Lebanese men, women, and children, and as the United Nations was ordered by the U.S. to allow the destruction of a nation to continue, the Carlyle Group was ready to invest in Lebanon’s ruins – another one of Mr. Bush’s ‘new democracies’.[iv]

Was it all ‘bad intelligence’? Today we have the weapons manufacturers supplying the intelligence. An ad taken out by Lockheed Martin last year looking for intelligence recruits read: "on substantive intelligence matters involving terrorist groups and networks . . . Centcom experience is a plus," [v]. Raytheon, the other large defense contractor, is also supplying intelligence – to the point that corporate America, the weapons manufacturers, are capable of taking us to war. And war they want. Their stocks have gone through the roof – though the Iraqis had their roofs taken away with bombs and poverty.

The next ‘threat’ on the list is Iran. In 1999 Iran had stated that it plans to sell its oil in Euro currency (Du Boff 1)[vi] as the sanctions had made it impossible for Iran to trade in dollar. (In 2001, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from the CIA). Iran has started selling its oil in other currencies - Japan had to pay for its shipment in Yen. Iran has been the target of false allegations and ‘bad intelligence’ for the sole purpose of an attack which would profit corporate America, the military industrial complex, and their cohorts in the Middle East, with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon supplying intelligence[vii]. Even as the IAEA “inspectors have protested to the US government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest", and that Iran had not enriched uranium to weapons grade[viii], the warmongering media here continues to make accusations about Iran. Iran is being accused of killing Americans in Iraq, supplying weapons, and in short, of being the biggest threat to the U.S. No doubt many employees are being paid overtime to produce the right ‘intelligence’ reports on Iran to keep the war machines going and the profits coming in.

But why arm Arabs? The second volume of Henry Kissinger's memoirs of the Nixon era, “Years of Upheaval”, makes it clear that Kissinger made no decisions in the Middle East without Israel in mind. Kissinger used historic Persian-Arab antipathy, and the Shah's growing megalomania, to fashion the second half of a military pincer to squeeze the Arabs between a heavily-armed Israel and a similarly-armed Iran. Today, the Bush administration is scaremongering the Arabs into thinking that Iran’s civilian nuclear program poses a threat and that Iran has hegemonic ambitions. America is uniting the Arabs against Iran so that when Iran is attacked, fearing retaliation from Iran, as they have been made to believe, the Arab states armed with U.S. weapons, will be the foot soldiers that America lacks. Unwilling to enact the draft, and unable to enlist men to fight another illegal war, the United States is arming the Arabs – to be its foot soldiers in a battle with Iran. However, as they are being armed to the teeth, the U.S. is ensuring that the weapons they are sold are far inferior to those received by Israel, that they are only ‘good enough’ for killing other Arabs, and for killing Iranians.[ix]

I can’t be sure whether it is the loss of our dignity or our collective apathy, but we have reached the point of tolerating the intolerable. Accustomed to manipulation, we no longer even protest the abuse. What extraordinary power to subjugate a nation in the name of protection and freedom, lives bartered for power and wealth, and still no outrage.

Do you hear them?

Do not take the echo of your silence for the absence of their plea for help. Today, we could have spared a mother’s agony, a father’s frustration at watching his children go hungry – his wife getting raped. Instead, we allowed ourselves to become victims too. Tomorrow, there will be more losses. Let us not wait.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has lived and studied in Iran, the UK, France, Australia and the US. She obtained her Bachelors Degree in International Relations from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and she is currently pursuing a Masters Degree in Middle East Studies concentrating in Political Science. She has done extensive research on US foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program.

NOTES
[i] http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14427
[ii] > http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
[iii] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30798-2004Oct13?language=printer
[iv] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081801027.html
[v] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601088.html
[vi] Du Boff, Richard B. “U.S. Hegemony: Continuing Decline, Enduring Danger” Monthly Review. NY Dec. 2000. Vol 55:7:1
[vii] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070601993.html
[viii] http://www.makfax.com.mk/look/agencija/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=2&NrArticle=36506&NrIssue=139&NrSection=30
[ix] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6923430.stm

This is what the American Tax-Payer Willingly Finances for Israel (video)

This is what the silent and obedient American tax-payer has financed in Lebanon last year via America's dear beloved ally, Israel. The Bush regime expects the Lebanese people today to embrace its neocon Zionist "New Middle East" agenda... and with it of course the great American "democracy". How long are the American people going to continue silently financing the butchering and murdering of innocent people?

Mind you, these 2 videos are only about the 34 days in Lebanon in 2006. The US has been on a rampage in Iraq for 4 years... for each and every single day of every year. The US has equally been on a rampage in Afghanistan... and let's not forget that without US money, the Israelis wouldn't be able to sustain one day of fighting against the Palestinians or anybody else.

Until when will the American people silently finance all of this? How are the Arab people supposed to perceive the attitude of the American people? If you were the parents of one of the children in those videos, what would you think of the American people?

Arabs, like most people, are frankly extremely proud of Arab Resistance to occupation, oppression, and apartheid. A look however at the United States... and they ask themselves how it is that they could have been deceived so much into imagining for a single moment that America was the "land of the free" and "the home of the brave"?? It seems that Hollywood built a fictitious image for "the American" character just as it managed to build one for the Arab.

http://english.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=sounds&action=play&id=15

The New Middle East
The July War

http://english.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=sounds&action=play&id=16

The American Democracy
The July War

Israel's Fabled "Right to Exist"

For close to 60 years, the state of israel has struggled fruitlessly to gain legitimacy among its Arab neighbors.

"Arabs must recognize israel's right to exist," they insist.

The only problem is - that "right" doesn't exist - and no amount of idle "recognizing" in the world can change that reality. Only human beings have a "right to exist" - not institutions, or states, and certainly not corporations. These entities only have privileges - which are granted by human beings or conversely withheld or dissolved.

Rights are God-given and unique to human beings. With rights come obligations that can neither be curtailed nor denied. Privileges, on the other hand, are assigned by people, ideally for the benefit of everyone they effect. In other words, institutions have the privilege to exist among human beings, for the express benefit of those human beings.

Therefore, when institutions act, it must be in a representative capacity for the purpose of enhancing and protecting human rights - otherwise, they are in conflict with those rights. There is no in between.

If a state or an institution does not exist to enhance and protect human rights but instead requires their annihilation in order to exist - then it is defacto illegitimate and human beings who are adversely affected by its actions have not only a right but a duty to defend themselves against its assault.

Israel, by definition, is an illegitimate state, for its very foundation demands one group of people forfeit their right to exist in order for Israel to realize its so-called "right to exist" as a "Jewish" state.

It will never happen - at least not legitimately. It can only happen through fraud, corruption and brute force.

Israel can have no "right to exist" that supercedes the rights of human beings to exist. And, with every murderous move they make, Israelis demonstrate for the world that Israel is NOT a state - but a murderous CULT, that thrives on denying others what they demand for themselves.

A Declaration of Independence From Israel

By Chris Hedges

Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist. The country came perilously close to extinction during the October 1973 war when Egypt, trained and backed by the Soviet Union, crossed the Suez and the Syrians poured in over the Golan Heights. Huge American military transport planes came to the rescue. They began landing every half-hour to refit the battered Israeli army, which had lost most of its heavy armor. By the time the war was over, the United States had given Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid.

The intervention, which enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo that for a time wreaked havoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state. Israel was born at midnight May 14, 1948. The U.S. recognized the new state 11 minutes later. The two countries have been locked in a deadly embrace ever since.

Washington, at the beginning of the relationship, was able to be a moderating influence. An incensed President Eisenhower demanded and got Israel’s withdrawal after the Israelis occupied Gaza in 1956. During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli warplanes bombed the USS Liberty. The ship, flying the U.S. flag and stationed 15 miles off the Israeli coast, was intercepting tactical and strategic communications from both sides. The Israeli strikes killed 34 U.S. sailors and wounded 171. The deliberate attack froze, for a while, Washington’s enthusiasm for Israel. But ruptures like this one proved to be only bumps, soon smoothed out by an increasingly sophisticated and well-financed Israel lobby that set out to merge Israeli and American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually, roughly one-fifth of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Although most American foreign aid packages stipulate that related military purchases have to be made in the United States, Israel is allowed to use about 25 percent of the money to subsidize its own growing and profitable defense industry. It is exempt, unlike other nations, from accounting for how it spends the aid money. And funds are routinely siphoned off to build new Jewish settlements, bolster the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories and construct the security barrier, which costs an estimated $1 million a mile.

The barrier weaves its way through the West Bank, creating isolated pockets of impoverished Palestinians in ringed ghettos. By the time the barrier is finished it will probably in effect seize up to 40 percent of Palestinian land. This is the largest land grab by Israel since the 1967 war. And although the United States officially opposes settlement expansion and the barrier, it also funds them.

The U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems and given Israel access to some of the most sophisticated items in its own military arsenal, including Blackhawk attack helicopters and F-16 fighter jets. The United States also gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies. And when Israel refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the United States stood by without a word of protest as the Israelis built the region’s first nuclear weapons program.

U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States since 1982 has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It refuses to enforce the Security Council resolutions it claims to support. These resolutions call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

There is now volcanic anger and revulsion by Arabs at this blatant favoritism. Few in the Middle East see any distinction between Israeli and American policies, nor should they. And when the Islamic radicals speak of U.S. support of Israel as a prime reason for their hatred of the United States, we should listen. The consequences of this one-sided relationship are being played out in the disastrous war in Iraq, growing tension with Iran, and the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza. It is being played out in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is gearing up for another war with Israel, one most Middle East analysts say is inevitable. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. And it is doing so because of this special relationship. The eruption of a regional conflict would usher in a nightmare of catastrophic proportions.

There were many in the American foreign policy establishment and State Department who saw this situation coming. The decision to throw our lot in with Israel in the Middle East was not initially a popular one with an array of foreign policy experts, including President Harry Truman’s secretary of state, Gen. George Marshall. They warned there would be a backlash. They knew the cost the United States would pay in the oil-rich region for this decision, which they feared would be one of the greatest strategic blunders of the postwar era. And they were right. The decision has jeopardized American and Israeli security and created the kindling for a regional conflagration.

The alliance, which makes no sense in geopolitical terms, does makes sense when seen through the lens of domestic politics. The Israel lobby has become a potent force in the American political system. No major candidate, Democrat or Republican, dares to challenge it. The lobby successfully purged the State Department of Arab experts who challenged the notion that Israeli and American interests were identical. Backers of Israel have doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to support U.S. political candidates deemed favorable to Israel. They have brutally punished those who strayed, including the first President Bush, who they said was not vigorous enough in his defense of Israeli interests. This was a lesson the next Bush White House did not forget. George W. Bush did not want to be a one-term president like his father.

Israel advocated removing Saddam Hussein from power and currently advocates striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Direct Israeli involvement in American military operations in the Middle East is impossible. It would reignite a war between Arab states and Israel. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq.

President Bush, facing dwindling support for the war in Iraq, publicly holds Israel up as a model for what he would like Iraq to become. Imagine how this idea plays out on the Arab street, which views Israel as the Algerians viewed the French colonizers during the war of liberation.

"In Israel,” Bush said recently, “terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it’s not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that’s a good indicator of success that we’re looking for in Iraq.”

Americans are increasingly isolated and reviled in the world. They remain blissfully ignorant of their own culpability for this isolation. U.S. “spin” paints the rest of the world as unreasonable, but Israel, Americans are assured, will always be on our side.

Israel is reaping economic as well as political rewards from its lock-down apartheid state. In the “gated community” market it has begun to sell systems and techniques that allow the nation to cope with terrorism. Israel, in 2006, exported $3.4 billion in defense products—well over a billion dollars more than it received in American military aid. Israel has grown into the fourth largest arms dealer in the world. Most of this growth has come in the so-called homeland security sector.

"The key products and services,” as Naomi Klein wrote in The Nation, “are hi-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems—precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn’t threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the ‘global war on terror.’ ”

The United States, at least officially, does not support the occupation and calls for a viable Palestinian state. It is a global player, with interests that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, and the equation that Israel’s enemies are our enemies is not that simple.

"Terrorism is not a single adversary,” John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in The London Review of Books, “but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.”

Middle Eastern policy is shaped in the United States by those with very close ties to the Israel lobby. Those who attempt to counter the virulent Israeli position, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, are ruthlessly slapped down. This alliance was true also during the Clinton administration, with its array of Israel-first Middle East experts, including special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, one of the most powerful Israel lobbying groups in Washington. But at least people like Indyk and Ross are sane, willing to consider a Palestinian state, however unviable, as long as it is palatable to Israel. The Bush administration turned to the far-right wing of the Israel lobby, those who have not a shred of compassion for the Palestinians or a word of criticism for Israel. These new Middle East experts include Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, the disgraced I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser.

Washington was once willing to stay Israel’s hand. It intervened to thwart some of its most extreme violations of human rights. This administration, however, has signed on for every disastrous Israeli blunder, from building the security barrier in the West Bank, to sealing off Gaza and triggering a humanitarian crisis, to the ruinous invasion and saturation bombing of Lebanon.

The few tepid attempts by the Bush White House to criticize Israeli actions have all ended in hasty and humiliating retreats in the face of Israeli pressure. When the Israel Defense Forces in April 2002 reoccupied the West Bank, President Bush called on then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to “halt the incursions and begin withdrawal.” It never happened. After a week of heavy pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel’s allies in Congress, meaning just about everyone in Congress, the president gave up, calling Sharon “a man of peace.” It was a humiliating moment for the United States, a clear sign of who pulled the strings.

There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. The desire for American control of oil, the belief that Washington could build puppet states in the region, and a real, if misplaced, fear of Saddam Hussein played a part in the current disaster. But it was also strongly shaped by the notion that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel wanted Iraq neutralized. Israeli intelligence, in the lead-up to the war, gave faulty information to the U.S. about Iraq’s alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And when Baghdad was taken in April 2003, the Israeli government immediately began to push for an attack on Syria. The lust for this attack has waned, in no small part because the Americans don’t have enough troops to hang on in Iraq, much less launch a new occupation.

Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon. Israel’s iron determination to forcibly prevent a nuclear Iran makes it probable that before the end of the Bush administration an attack on Iran will take place. The efforts to halt nuclear development through diplomatic means have failed. It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East.

The alliance between Israel and the United States has culminated after 50 years in direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. This involvement, which is not furthering American interests, is unleashing a geopolitical nightmare. American soldiers and Marines are dying in droves in a useless war. The impotence of the United States in the face of Israeli pressure is complete. The White House and the Congress have become, for perhaps the first time, a direct extension of Israeli interests. There is no longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high.

This means there will be no peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It means the incidents of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. and Israel will grow. It means that American power and prestige are on a steep, irreversible decline. And I fear it also means the ultimate end of the Jewish experiment in the Middle East.

The weakening of the United States, economically and militarily, is giving rise to new centers of power. The U.S. economy, mismanaged and drained by the Iraq war, is increasingly dependent on Chinese trade imports and on Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. China holds dollar reserves worth $825 billion. If Beijing decides to abandon the U.S. bond market, even in part, it would cause a free fall by the dollar. It would lead to the collapse of the $7-trillion U.S. real estate market. There would be a wave of U.S. bank failures and huge unemployment. The growing dependence on China has been accompanied by aggressive work by the Chinese to build alliances with many of the world’s major exporters of oil, such as Iran, Nigeria, Sudan and Venezuela. The Chinese are preparing for the looming worldwide clash over dwindling resources.

The future is ominous. Not only do Israel’s foreign policy objectives not coincide with American interests, they actively hurt them. The growing belligerence in the Middle East, the calls for an attack against Iran, the collapse of the imperial project in Iraq have all given an opening, where there was none before, to America’s rivals. It is not in Israel’s interests to ignite a regional conflict. It is not in ours. But those who have their hands on the wheel seem determined, in the name of freedom and democracy, to keep the American ship of state headed at breakneck speed into the cliffs before us.

Why is US corporate media keeping al-Bashir and his government away from US viewers?

June 4, 2007

Most Americans are familiar with President Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdallah II of Jordan, King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, President Assad of Syria, and a few other Arab leaders. They are frequently seen in print media and on TV. They have one thing in common. Their skin is white. As a matter of fact, the Syrian leader is blond with blue eyes.

Though the Sudan is the largest country on the African continent (2.5 million square kilometers), and its population exceeds forty million, have you ever seen its President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on TV? Though the news of the Sudan and its western region, Darfur, appear almost daily in the U.S. media, have you at any time seen his picture in a newspaper or a magazine?

I doubt you did! It is not your fault. The U.S. media hides him from your sight.

The question is: Why do our media keep him away from public view?

Mr. al-Bashir is known to be gentle, kind, and pleasant. His smile is genuine. One can easily connect with al-Bashir for his humility, warmth, and frankness. He doesn’t play dirty games. He doesn’t speak in double tongues. He is a man of high principles.

Near the end of last February, Mr. al-Bashir spoke live to thousands of African-Americans via satellite at the Nation of Islam’s Savior’s Day convention in Detroit for almost an hour and a half. Without any form of censorship, he was prepared to respond to questions from the American media regarding any subject of concern, particularly Darfur.

Although the event had been highly publicized and the media had been informed long in advance, only a couple of major media outfits showed any interest. Their questions were outright stupid. They didn’t take advantage of this golden opportunity to relay to their viewers the other side of the story coming directly from its source. The only thing that concerned them was whether or not the Sudanese President was going to allow the so-called U.N. peace-keeping forces into Darfur. A reporter, who had not been to the Sudan and had earlier written about the imaginary "crimes" the central government carries out in Darfur, was urged by Akbar Muhammad, the coordinator of the press conference, to talk directly to the Sudanese President. The man declined. The extent, history, or the roots of the Darfur tragedy, the forces that ignite it, and why, were not of any importance. Again, no pictures!

Children were not terrified when they saw al-Bashir, who is accused of being "an ugly terrorist, mass murderer, and war criminal", addressing the convention. Men and women didn’t walk out to protest a speech delivered by a man described by the American media as "the world’s worse dictator" who is waging a war of "genocide and ethnic cleansing" against Blacks. On the contrary, the President of Sudan was met with warm applause. African-Americans of all faiths gave him a standing ovation.

Again! Why do the U.S. executives of the corporate media insist on keeping al-Bashir and members of his government away from American viewers? Not a single western newsperson has ever been hurt in the Sudan.

The reason is simple; a picture is worth a thousand words. The Sudanese President and his entire cabinet, though they are Arabs, are Blacks. All are Africans. Arabism is not a race or a blood relationship. It is a culture, a sense of belonging, history, geography, and a strong desire to unite to survive in a cruel and savage world. The lie that Arabs are carrying out massacres against Africans would immediately collapse. The propaganda machine greased by over one hundred and sixty Zionist organizations, in addition to constant falsehoods coming from the White House and Christian Right groups, to convince the world, particularly African-Americans that Arabs murder and discriminate against Blacks, will no longer function. The millions of dollars spent weekly by the vicious "Save Darfur" campaign on advertisements to vilify and dehumanize Arabs would become meaningless and a waste.

President al-Bashir is not popular here in the United States. Sudanese rebels, who are trained, financed and equipped, by the U.S. government, hope to soon enter into Sudan far behind U.S. tanks and marines, are occasionally invited to Washington to meet with the U.S. President and Congress. The legitimate leader of Sudan, who is determined to preserve the unity and sovereignty of his country, and protect its resources for the welfare of his people, is not entitled to receive this "honor".

However, Mr. al-Bashir is popular, not only at home, but across Africa, and the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Africans, Muslims, and Arabs strongly reject the falsehoods, lies, and smear tactics colonial governments manufacture to justify a regime change. His popularity stems from the fact that he refuses to recognize Israel, an illegitimate foreign identity established on stolen Palestinian land. He has showed the courage to stand firmly against the crimes committed daily by the U.S. and Israel in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and Somalia. He managed to establish excellent relations between the Iraq of Saddam Hussein and Iran, despite the eight year war fueled by the United States. He protected Sudan’s wealth and resources from U.S. corporate robbery.

To serve certain political agendas, Mr. al-Bashir is falsely labeled by the Zionist and US corporate media as "a monster, the world’s number one dictator and a war criminal". Washington lists Sudan as a terrorist and rogue nation that violates the basic principles of human and civil rights.

I met President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, years ago, twice, in his office in Khartoum. I was impressed. I felt most comfortable. He is one of the few leaders whom I respect and admire.

My late April 2007 visit to the Sudan, in a fact finding mission as a part of an African-American journalists’ delegation, is one of my most memorable experiences. I was moved by the president’s down-to-earth humility. It gave me the opportunity to meet and visit with him and his family at his private home in his village for several hours, and as a result has enabled me to learn more about him as a family man and as a leader. The visit also enabled me to closely observe the life style the Arab-African President chose for himself and his family. It has emphasized and strengthened the notions I had earlier of President al-Bashir and his administration. I was struck by his overwhelming temperate disposition and manners. Though he is obviously saddened and concerned about the wars imposed on the Sudan, I was captured by his smile that reflects the inner peace and tranquility he enjoys.

In the last eighteen years, I have visited more than eighty countries throughout the world, and met with many Arab, Muslim, and Third World leaders on three continents. I must confess, in terms of simplicity and disdain for materialistic lavish life, the leaders of the Sudan, Libya, Iran, and Cuba struck me the most.

Omar Hassan al-Bashir is so attached to his roots and place of his birth and upbringing. He frequently visits his village where he grew up. His old small one-storey house in which he stays in and meets some of his local and foreign guests is indistinguishable from any quarters occupied by ordinary citizens. The house and wall around it are made of mud. The tiny living room contains two old chairs and an old iron bed used as a sofa. The narrow passageway that leads to his entry door is nothing but sand. The food we shared with the President was a piece of chicken, a small roll of bread, an apple and a bottle of water. Our laps served as the dining room table. I don’t recall to ever eating something tastier.

I couldn’t believe my eyes.

President al-Bashir came out of his home to a nearby tent, addressed our delegation of 31 African-American journalists, and mingled freely with the men, women and children from the village who flocked to greet him. He also held his cane up high, and joined them in their traditional dance.

Surprisingly, no bulletproof! No electronic security check! No one among the delegates or the crowd was searched. No villager was pushed away or turned back.

There were no tanks, no armored cars, no Humvees, no Blackhawks, no Apache gunships, and not a single man with a military uniform.

BET (Black Entertainment TV) conducted a one hour exclusive interview with Mr. al-Bashir in his village. He was thorough, honest, open, and frank. The question remains: Will BET executives allow this rare interview to be aired in the United States? Will they let the truth be heard and their viewers see the facts? Another question: Will the TV crew who were able to produce a great piece of journalistic work have the courage and determination to stick to their guns, and convince BET to release the documentary they produced to the public? One would hope and pray that the crew will be true to high journalistic principles and not cave in to intimidation and pressure.

When the time of al-Asr (before sunset) prayer came, some raggedy rugs were laid on the floor. President al-Bashir stood shoulder to shoulder, in a straight line, with the other worshippers, irrespective of their position or rank, and solemnly prayed. He didn’t lead. A young man in his late twenties did.

The relationship between al-Bashir and God seems to be different from that of Bush and his Lord, who ordered the U.S. President to invade Iraq, and wage a "Crusade" of war against Muslims. Bush says, "May God Bless America." As we see from Bush’s actions, the rest of the world may go to hell.

When the prayer ended, President al-Bashir, with his eyes closed, raised his hands towards the sky, and with a gentle voice, asked God, the creator of the universe, to bless the earth that gives us life. He called upon the "Merciful and the Beneficent" to bring peace, and may prosperity prevail for the entire world, and to have that His blessings encompass all mankind.

Ali Baghdadi
(arabjournl@aol.com, arabjournl@hotmail.com, Chicago)