Jim Abourezk on Obama Groveling at AIPAC
(note: Today Jim Abourezk is a South Dakota lawyer. Some 30 years ago he represented his state as a Democrat in the US Senate. In that capacity he was invited – I believe but am not sure it was in 1977 – to address the annual Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner here in Denver. The fact that he is of Lebanese descent apparently was unsettling to some in the party’s Denver leadership and a nasty gesture, Abourezk was duly un-invited. Even in these heady times for Israel in the state’s Democratic Party, this was a bit too crude. There was – believe it or not – a rebellion from within the party ranks, with many calling on the party to `re-invite’ Abourezk. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the party leadership decided it would be less embarrassing to re-issue the invitation which they did. As a result of all the controversy, interestingly enough, the event was well attended. I even went!
As Abourezk told it then, ironically, he had no intention at the outset to even talk about the Middle East! But having been so treated, he decided to do just that. I wish I could find my copy of his speech. It is a testament to how little things have changed (or if they have, the situation has only deterioriated). It was also a clear sighted, progressive and humane speech, one that got a standing ovation from those present.
That evening came back to me as I read Abourezk’s criticism of Obama’s recent remarks before AIPAC. They are along lines similar to Uri Avnery’s, Chris Hedges and my own below. rjp)
————————————-
Deadly Fallout From Obama’s Groveling Before Israel Lobby
By James G. Abourezk
http://www.counterpunch.org/abourezk06102008.html
Like a Moslem undertaking the Hajj, the once in a lifetime trip to Mecca, or a Catholic chancing to see the Pope speak from his Vatican window, presidential candidates seemingly long to trudge to the annual AIPAC conference to pay fealty to Israel and its Lobby.
This year we were fortunate enough to witness John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton taking turns losing their dignity before the AIPAC crowd. At one point in his parody on The Daily Show , Jon Stewart spoke of John McCain taking with him Senator Joe Lieberman on a visit to Israel, advising McCain that when you visit Israel “you don’t need to bring your own Jew.”
Hillary’s declaration of support for Israel was merely icing on the cake that she earlier baked during the campaign by promising to “obliterate” Iran if it ever attacked Israel. That, without even a declaration of war called for by the U.S. Constitution should we attack another nation. (But see George W. Bush’s attack on Iraq without such a declaration as precedent).
Neo-cons and AIPAC.
(note: This from an email I sent to two friends in the Colorado mountains…slightly altered).
It is difficult to accurately assess who has the upper hand on policy.
I don’t think AIPAC was the driving force for getting the US into Iraq – it was the neo-cons with their plan of pre-emptive world domination, control of ME energy resources and their plan to bring the region democracy with F-22s and Abrams tanks that dominated that decision. The Israelis and their US supporters like AIPAC were actually divided on whether to attack Iraq not being sure it was in Israel’s interest. What they had hoped was that the US would attack Iran early on which Israel and AIPAC feared more. Remember that by 2003 when Bush invaded that Iraq had already suffered 12 years of punishing sanctions – mostly the policy of Clinton Democrats, including Madelaine Albright who graced Colorado with her presence recently – that had exhausted the country and left it easy picking for military intervention. It wasn’t necessary for the US to attack Iraq as Iraq was at that point already terribly weak and essentially deflated as an effective regional power. Bush went in to establish military bases and control the oil. The point here is that it is not likely that AIPAC `drove’ US policy on that one. I have some very conservative Jewish friends who were as much against the U.S. invasion as I was (and I suppose you both were).
On Iran, however, all that opposition disappears. Iran was and is seen as a rising regional power (in part because it was strengthened by the US invasion of its regional enemy Iraq) that the US will not tolerate in the oil producing region as a counterforce to US policy there. Israel sees Iran today pretty much the way it saw Egypt in the 1960s – as a regional competitor for political and economic strength in the region. so US and Israeli strategic interests merge around countering Iran, exagerating its `strength’ (it is pretty weak itself from what I can tell), and its `threat’.
As for which is stronger, the neo-cons or AIPAC..
I believe that the neo-cons are far stronger than AIPAC, even now. They, the neo-cons, control the state apparatus, US military policy and they have the backing of powerful strategic interests (without which they could not have gone down the road they have) in the country including an important element of finance capital looking to pry open yet more sources of profit in an era of declining domestic profitability, major parts of the military (air force in particular), some corporations but whose importance cannot be minimized (defense contractors, multinational constructrion companies, the new security for profit folks) among others.
AIPAC is strong. no doubt. But its strength comes from hitching is star to different administration strategic goals and blending what it understands to be Israel’s strategic interests with those of US foreign policy in the Middle east. No doubt this last AIPAC meeting was mostly muscle flexing…when you get congress to vote 412 to 0 in favor of Israel (I think that is what the vote was) that does say something. and watching the entire US political class grovel before the AIPAC altar really makes one (one = me) nauseous, but still, the very fact that they have to try harder, that they have put on such a public display of power suggests that they perhaps in the end, they do not have quite as much as they seem. Theirs is a more open, blatant, `in-your-face’ type of power, the very fact that they have to impress suggests their limits.
I know this is controversial…and I’m not even saying AIPAC doesn’t have power – it does have inordinate influence on US policy towards Israel, but there are limits to their influence, they do not `run the show’ although they are extremely politically savvy, flexible and have learned to how to push their issues in Congress as well as or better than any other lobby I can think of (many of which have more financial resources than AIPAC).
Keep in mind that I consider them thoroughly reactionary and have been openly critical of them for years (to no avail) and will continue to be. If the US attacks Iran, as it is becoming more and more likely, much of the responsibility for whipping up the political climate for going to war will fall at their feet . There are a few – to date – feeble efforts to build more liberal, less over-the-top pro-Israel lobbying efforts, that are more moderate, but they are in an `incipient’ stage and for the moment no match for the AIPAC types.
My best.
Iran: Rumors of War Dispatches From The Edge
(note: below a piece by Conn Hallinan on the danger of a major US attack on Iran. He is not predicting it, just worried that it could happen. Useful piece. ps. Hallinan lives in N. California, is the former chair of the journalism dept of University of California – Santa Cruz and a long time and perceptive critic of US foreign policy)
Conn Hallinan
The May 8 letter from U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to George W. Bush, received virtually no media coverage, in spite of the fact that it warned the President that an attack on Iran without Congressional approval would be grounds for impeachment. Rumor has it several senators have been briefed about the possibility of war with Iran.
Something is afoot.
Just what is not clear, but over the past several months, a number of moves by the White House strongly suggest that the Bush Administration will attack Iran sometime in the near future. According to the Asia Times, “a former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community” said an air attack will target the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Quds Force garrisons. Not even the White House is bonkers enough to put troops on the ground amid 65 million Iranians.
There is a certain disconnect to all this, particularly given last December’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluding that Iran had abandoned its program to build a nuclear weapon. The NIE is the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence services. At the time, the report seemed to shelve any possibility of war with Iran.
However, shortly after the intelligence estimate on Iran was released, the old “into Iraq gang” went to work undermining it.
According to Newsweek, during his Middle East tour in January, President Bush “all but disowned the document” to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. A “senior administration official” told the magazine, “He [Bush] told the Israelis that he can’t control what the intelligence community says but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views.”
Neither do they reflect the views of Vice-President Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
In an interview with ABC during his recent 10-day visit to the region, Cheney downplayed the NIE: “We don’t know whether or not they’ve [the Iranians have] restarted.” Cheney also said Iran was seeking to build missiles capable of reaching the U.S. sometime in the next decade.
On April 21, Gates said that Iran was “hell bent” on acquiring nuclear weapons, and, while he was not advocating war with Iran, the military option should be kept on the table.
A month before Gates’ comment, the White House quietly extended an executive order stating that Iran represented an “ongoing threat” to U.S. national security. The Bush Administration claims that the 2002 resolution that led to the war in Iraq gives it the right to strike at “terrorists” wherever they are. Last September, the Kyl-Lieberman Sense of the Senate resolution designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization.”
The Administration has sharply increased its rhetorical attacks on Iran in a way that is disquietingly similar to the campaign that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Take the current charge that the Quds Force is arming anti-American groups in Iraq and providing them with high tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets.
General David Petraeus, the new head of Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “special groups” are “funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran’s Quds Force… It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government” in the Green Zone.
Patraeus replaced Admiral William “Fox” Fallon, who had openly opposed a military confrontation with Iran.
But the U.S. has never presented any evidence to back up those charges. U.S. officials say the rockets pounding the Green Zone have Iranian markings on them, but they have yet to show any evidence to that effect. And, as for the special roadside bombs, or explosively formed penetrators (EFP), the evidence is entirely deductive.
The U.S. argues that the copper cores used in these bombs requires using a heavy machine press and that Iraq has no such presses. But before the invasion, Iraq was the most industrialized Arab country, with a sophisticated machine tool industry, and a study by Time magazine says the cities of Basra, Karbala and Najaf “may indeed have such presses.”
The Time article, “Doubting the Evidence Against Iran,” concludes, “No concrete evidence has emerged in public that Iran was behind the weapons [EFPs]. U.S. officials have revealed no captured shipments of such devices and offered no other proof.”
The lack of evidence has hardly cooled down the rhetoric. President Bush said in a speech at the White House that “two of the greatest threats to America” were Iran and al-Qaeda.
U.S. preparations for war, however, have been more than rhetorical.
According to the Israeli website, DEBKAfile, Cheney’s trip to the Middle East in March was seen in the region as a possible harbinger of war. “The vice-president’s choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again,” DEBKA concluded. “America will need the cooperation of all four [countries he visited]—Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey.”
There has also been a steady build-up of naval and air power in the region. A new aircraft carrier battle group has been assigned to the area, Patriot anti-missile missiles have been deployed, and U.S. naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean have been beefed up.
What would likely happen if the U.S. did elect to attack?
Militarily there is little Teheran could do in response.
Iran’s army is smaller than it was during the Iran-Iraq war, and in a recent “show of force” its air force mustered a total of 140 out-of-date fighters. It navy is mostly small craft, and while it has anti-ship missiles, Teheran would probably think twice about trying to shut down the Gulf. The current regime depends on the sale of oil and gas to shore up its fragile economy.
While the White House portrays the militias in Iraq and Hezbollah as Teheran’s cats’ paws, that is nonsense. The militias in both countries will act on the basis of what is in their interests, not Iran’s.
There is talk that Iran might target Israel, but the Israelis have made it clear that any such attack would be met with a massive retaliation, probably nuclear. “An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel,” National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Elizer warned, “which would destroy the Iranian nation.”
In any case, it is far more likely that Israel would attack Iran than vice versa.
Any American attack would further isolate the U.S. in the Middle East. Ethan Chorin, of the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies, says U.S. threats against Iran are running cross current to efforts by other nations in the Gulf region to establish a détente with Teheran. “The U.S. seeks to defend the Arabs from Iran, but they are increasingly trying to defend themselves from the U.S. efforts to defend them against Iran,” he wrote in a recent commentary in the Financial Times.
All the war talk, says Chorin, “is translating into increasing open sympathy on the part of many Gulf Arabs for Iran and increasing skepticism about U.S. efforts to isolate the country.”
A U.S. war would deeply divide Europe as well, and might lead to a German withdrawal from Afghanistan. What Russia’s, China’s and India’s response would be is not clear. China and India are major clients for Iranian natural gas.
Domestically, the Bush Administration may see this as its only opportunity to hold on to the White House. The Republicans know they are going to lose seats in the House and the Senate, but at this point the race for the presidency is still tight. Might a new war against the demonized Iranians make voters stick with “war hero” John McCain? It’s a long shot, but this administration has always had a major streak of riverboat gambler about it.
All this talk of war, of course, could be sound and fury signifying nothing. But it might also be the run up to a limited conflict, maybe one set off by a manufactured incident.
Once unleashed, however, no one controls the dogs of war. As hard as it is to imagine, war with Iran might top the Iraq War as a foreign policy disaster.
Iran In the Crosshairs, a 44 page primer by Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies
Note – Although still far from clear, it appears that Bush Administration plans to attack Iran before the end of the year are still very much alive. I cite the following as examples:
1. a Jerusalem Post article when Bush was in Israel claiming that the Bush Administration intends to attack Iran.
2. a recent Asia Times article suggesting that the attack would come sometime in early August.
3. shifting attacks against Iran (Petraeus’ testimony that Iran is behind instability in Iraq, distortion of the latest IAEA report on Iran, etc)
4. continued deepening of economic sanctions against Iran let by the US and Israel
5. exagerating the `Iranian threat’ in a manner similar to the way the Iraqi threat was overstated before the March, 2003 US led invastion of that country.
6. continued intensive anti-Iranian propaganda coming from mainstream Jewish-American publications and website (the Israeli Project among others)
A major attack against Iran is not certain, but it certainly remains on the table in Washington with the Bush Administration doing everything in its power to justify military action. I would add that the Democratic opposition to such an attack is quite weak although Barak Obama did come out opposing such action.
Phyllis Bennis’ back ground paper is worth reading.
Back In The Saddle
Just a brief note to blog readers…
Have had two weeks of `technical problems’ during which time the blog was down. I believe these problems are now resolved and I will be writing once again in the days to come.
Some subjects I hope to cover in the coming period.
1. Continued threat of war – a major US attack against Iran.
2. More on the state Democratic Party Convention (haven’t finished with that subject)
3. Impressions of Madelaine Albright’s visit to the University of Denver this past week.
4. More splits over protest demonstrations at the upcoming Democratic Party National Convention…(or..R-68 in the doldrums)
5. As always, more on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the attempts to hi-jack PERA (the state pension fund), etc, etc.
Thanks to those who actually inquired – there were a fair number – as to the fate of the blog these past few weeks.
The Colorado State Democratic Party Convention in Colorado Springs (2 – The Convention and the Middle East)
Today, I ran into a friend at work who was a delegate to the state Democratic Party Convention in Colorado Springs. I asked her how it went. She liked the whole meeting, was impressed with the numbers (I’ve seen different states on it – some friends saying 8,000 attended, the Denver Post saying 6,000). Regardless it was the biggest Democratic Party state convention in the state’s history, an indication almost for certain how serious Colorado dems are about giving Bush and McCain the boot in November.
One of the reasons I wanted to talk to people who attended is because the Denver Post story on the event in the Sunday newspaper was insipid beyond belief, leaving a reader with little more than a clue as to what transpired at this historic event. Another reason I sought people out was to hear their version of the debate over the two Israel-Palestinian planks that were presented at the meeting.
In terms of the more general tone of the meeting, the Post essentially described – in terms that could not have been more trite – the Obama-Hillary tit-for-tat. From the article you’d think that was all that happened in Colorado Springs.
Hardly historic. Indeed since Coloradoans voted on this issue a few months ago, it was also hardly newsworthy.
Today’s reporting was somewhat better but still sketchy, as if the paper did not want to delve too much into the details. Still it reported the following:
• Iraq: The party called for “the immediate, safe and responsible withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq” and “the closing of all U.S. bases in Iraq, the end of funding for the U.S. occupation of that country and the recognition of the United States’ obligation to reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people.”
• Health care: Colorado Democrats called for the “implementation of a quality universal single-payer health care system, independent of employment.”
• Reproductive rights: In addition to traditional support for abortion rights and contraception, the party opposed the “personhood amendment,” which would declare a fertilized human egg to be a person, being proposed by anti-abortion groups.
• Impeachment: Colorado Democrats said President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney “have abused their power and appear to have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They should be investigated, censured, and, if appropriate, impeached.”
If the party’s elected officials even came close to following these platform planks, the Congress and the nation would be in a far better place today.
Of course the article failed to mention that the call for impeachment didn’t just evoke support, but nothng short of a collective uproar of consent from those present – in contrast to Nancy Pelosi’s `impeachment is off the table’ position.
Also left out of the Post’s reporting was the political wrangling over the Israeli-Palestinian Middle East position. In fact, other than a KGNU interview with Harvie Branscomb, one of the movers of what is referred to as `the minority plank’ on the issue, to date at least there has been no mention of the issue at all.
The Colorado State Democratic Party Convention in Colorado Springs (1 – Some Background and Texture)
I’m going to write a few pieces on the state convention of Democrats that took place in Colorado Springs yesterday. Although in some ways I was `there in spirit’, physically I wasn’t present. Did attend a lively caucus meeting though in the neighborhood a few months back and several neighbors and my wife were delegates to the Denver city convention in March.
I’m rather cynical about the Democratic Party here in Colorado – more its leadership than its base which is vibrant, progressive and delightfully rebellious towards an old guard leadership wedded to Democratic Leadership Council policies. In these past years though, the challenge from below has made the goings a bit tougher for those in control. Four years ago, a true party hack – Chris Gates – former state party chair and master manipulator was swept from office and replaced by a geniunely more progressive Pat Waak.
Waak gained her place as a part of a reform movement that stunned the party and the state at the time. The shining light of that reform movement was a Colorado Springs educator – part Black, part Japanese – and former military man, Mike Miles. Although Miles lost the Democratic nomination for the US Senate races seat to party operative Ken Salazar (he’s genuinely bright, but is basically a part of the party’s old guard and has remained very faithful to it) , still, Miles stunned the party hierachy – and his supporters even more – by winning the support of the majority of Democratic delegates at the state convention
Miles also did something I personally considered truly unique – forgotten by many – by publicly endorsing the Geneva Accord – informal peace document developed by both Israeli and Palestinians negotiators. I believe he was the only politican in the state to do so and he did it repeatedly. There is little doubt that in so doing and by `violating party etiquette’ by not sufficiently groveling before the powers that be in the first place, that Miles was challenging the party’s old guard, in particular, elements of the Democratic Party’s power structure that gravitate around two Denver local power brokers – Norm Brownstein and Steve Farber.
Miles’ run was a kind of a trial balloon that was watched very closely by some wealthy Democratic newcomers wanting to break into politics, among them Jared Polis, Russ Bridges, Tim Gill and Pat Stryker. They were wondering what were the chances to challenge the old party hierarchy, skirt its system of obligations and favors, and get elected anyhow. Miles’ campaign indicated considerable grass roots malaise with the old ways. For Polis and Bridges in particular Miles’ campaign was an indication of new winds blowing among Colorado Dems and they watched as the party’s old boy network reeled in confusion at Miles’ rise from complete obscurity to becoming nothing less than the darlilng of the progressive and newly energized elements in the state’s party. He (Miles) even got me to come in from the cold and register Democrat! Miles campaign suggested that new forces – especially if they had a generally left program (in contrast to the dlc types) – had a real possibility of winning political support. Pity these main `post Miles’ players also happen to be multi-millionaires who think that their money buys their political influence. Of course it does up to a point but the going still is apparently not so easy.
A grass roots progressive-left movement blossomed around Miles’ campaign that called itself `Be The Change’. Mostly made up of white middle class types with virtually no support from the state’s labor, Blacks, Hispanics, still it was surprisingly resilient and had some influence. Pat Waak comes out of this movement as do a number of organizers – quite talented actually – working directly for the national Democratic Party throughout the state. Be The Change still exists and is active, although it seems to have lost some of its former radicalism which attracted so many people to it in the first place.
My own take as to what happened – I could be wrong about this and would be interested in other views on the subject – is that Waak and the Be The Change people were simply out organized by the old guard with whom they felt they had to make peace (and did). Putting Waak in as head of the Colorado party essentially neutralized her and the movement. She was put in the position of having to balance off the new more radical elements – (represented by the views of the state’s party platform, a genuinely impressive and generally left document, with a few notable exceptions that will be discussed in the next few days) with the old guard, the elected officials (the Salazar brothers, De Gette, Ritter, etc), the Brownstein and Farber circle, a fair number of wealthly liberal (but hardly) lawyers etc.
So over a two year period the party was first energized with new blood and political energy infused through the Miles campaign (he by the way disappeared from the scene, at least temporarily). Then these more radical elements were – as has often happened before – either more or less coopted, absorbed into the party’s mainstream or at least had their wings clipped some. This was cleverly but easily done as Be the Change’s political and financial base was no match for the party’s seasoned players. Besides, the old party power players are eminently flexible and willing to make compromises left and right when necessary. This they did.
Watching how that all played out one could not helped to be impressed by the political acumen of the old guard and amateurism of the new forces. This is not to be too harsh on the latter. They were newcomers to a powerful and flexible machine. And the wave did produce a new crop of democratic politicans on the local and state level, a few of whom are very interesting as well as a new generation of more democratic party activists (especially but not uniquely on the Western Slope). And besides, there will be a next round with more seasoned players.
Governor Ritter, himself quite moderate, has had to take some of the issues of this new base to heart, especially where it concerns labor rights and the what I can only describe as the vast rape of the Colorado mountains by the state’s oil and gas industry. But for the most part, Be The Change and Waak were mostly outmaneuvred and the radical (the more interesting) element of their politics somewhat neutralized. Still, `A’ for effort as they say.
Besides a new radical wave – this one stronger that the last – emerged in the last year. If the former one in 2004 was triggered by the Mike Miles campaign, the new one – without a doubt – is stimulated by several elements: the dominant one is the presidential campaign of Barak Obama, another is the widespread opposition among Colorado Democratis to US Middle East policy in all its aspects: the continued occupation of Iraq, the danger of an attack against Iran before November, and growing dissatisfaction within the ranks of Colorado Democrats to the party’s slavish one-sided support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all of which will be discussed in entries to come. And last but not least, there is the energy orgy unfolding in this state – a state with a long history of mining and neo-liberal economic excesses, none represented better than those committed under the administration of the last governor, Bill Owens, a former oil and gas lobbyist.
More in the next few days.
With Friends Like These…(another Avnery piece)
(note: apparently Jewish billionaires like to have Israeli generals as house pets – this according to Uri Avnery. To read his piece – click on the title or right here. In response I sent him the following email – slightly spruced up – that I want to share:
Just came back from a `Nakba’ memorial in downtown Denver. It was small – maybe 75 people — but tastefully done. When possible, I go. Just to be there. A number of us present were Jews. We go to show our respect, to acknowledge. What is there to say? It happened. Some resolution of the conflict – i still think a two state solution – would take into consideration the aspirations and grievances of both peoples.
Here in the great state of Colorado we too – not to be outdone by you Israeli’s – have our Jewish billionaires (well – some are only multi-millionaires but we did have ONE billionaire named Marvin Davis, made his money in Oklahoma oil before moving into pretty much every other aspect of high finance and blessing us with his presence for a while in Colorado. Now we have another one – Larry Mizel of Silverado and MDC fame)
I don’t know if ours have any Israeli generals as house pets, but Binjamin Netayahu – whose father long ago taught at the University of Denver – seems to have some influence here. I’ll have to look and see if there are any Israeli generals with condos in Aspen and Vail. Dunno. And besides since this community’s wealthiest are only in the multi-million rather than the billion dollar range perhaps their Israeli house pets are only mere colonels or majors. That would perhaps be more appropriate as a general is a little more than we can afford here in the boonies.
Most of the `big Jewish money’ here in Colorado was made by developers…people who started out like my grand fathers – construction workers from Eastern Europe. While my grandfathers never made it beyond the salaried classes, a few of the more successful ones here became builders. And a few of these then became successful contractors and developers. They in turn made alliances with different elements of big finance (here in Denver i believe their ties are mostly with Chicago and Texas banking interests) and politicans.oh yes, there is the Samonsite company, a sporting goods store (Gart) and an influential printing firm (or used to be – Hirshfelds) and that rounds out the picture. Ours like very much to have buildings named after them and compete among themselves whose name will appear largest at the Jewish Community Center and the University of Denver. They like to imagine themselves as philanthropists, but knowing who they are and how they made their money, it’s a hard sell.
And yet, from what I can tell – despite the fact that this money does translate into political power – especially in Denver and in the state’s Democratic party – our Rocky Mountain high Jewish millionaires are only one of a constellation of political forces that run the state, and in the end there are far more powerful political forces than our landsmun – like the oil, gas and mining industry, ski industry and not to be outdone – one should never forget the hold that the military has over this state. Add to that some right wing Christian fundamentalists (Hagee’s buddy’s) down the road in Colorado Springs and our star right wing conservative beer manufacturing family – the Coors – .
So Jews here are a part of the constellation of power, but the more I study their power base, the less substantial i think it is in terms of the overall picture. They have some clout but must work and find common ground with even more powerful forces, the real heavy hitters who have run the state since the outset to one degree or another. Yes, they seem to have incidental inordinate influence on the state’s Democratic Party Israel-Palestinian platform planks, but in terms of the genuine cool-as-a-cucumber REAL POWER, you know – the quiet kind that doesn’t advertise itself and doesn’t have to, sorry, believers in Jewish conspiracy theories,,,,it just doesn’t add up, not in the past, not now and probably not in the future from what I can tell.
But Colorado’s Jews try harder! and do have some influence. We also have some political power brokers that the community is very proud of – very close to the Clintons – a team called Brownstein and Farber – that are players not only in Colorado but to a certain degree nationally. They are very bright, hard ball political players and it deepely saddens me that I am not on the same side as them on many issues because they are so smart politically and i am so stupid, (stupid but principled I’d like to believe, a deadly combination) But so it goes. Had Hillary done better in her campaign it is likely they would have had some roll in her possible presidency.
The best book I have on `Jewish billionaires’ is Anthony Bianco’s `The Reichmanns’ about the Canadian family who has done so well. Denver’s more prosperous Jewish families follow a similar model in many ways. You’ve probably read it and even if you haven’t, you know it anyway. And if you want to get a taste for power in Colorado you might get a copy of John Sayles `Silver City’… a wonderful metaphor on how politics works `in these parts’ (as they say here).
I guess things didn’t go as Bush and Olmert had hoped in Lebanon. But what now? I fear the lesson they will learn is that failing to dislodge both Hamas and Hezbollah, that the two global partners will turn their military attention to Iran.
My best regards,
—————–
Avnery – With Friends Like These May 17, 2008
Uri Avnery
17.5.08
1. With Friends Like These…
LATELY WE are flooded with friends. The Great of the Earth, past and present, come here to flatter us, to fawn on us, to grovel at our feet.
“God, save me from my friends, my enemies I can deal with myself!” says an old prayer.
They disgust me.
LET’S TAKE for example the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Her pandering was free of any criticism and she reached new heights of obsequiousness in her speech to the Knesset. I was invited to attend. I relinquished the privilege.
I shall also pass the pleasure when I am invited to the session with the hyper-active Nicholas Sarkozy, who will try to break the flattery record of his German rival.
Before that we were visited by John McCain’s mentor, the evangelical pastor John Hagee, the one who described the Catholic Church as a monster. Oozing sanctimonious flattery from every pore, he forbade us, in the name of (his) God, to give up even one inch of the Holy Land and commanded us to fight to the last drop of (our) blood.
However, not one of them has come close to George Bush. Approaching the end of the most disastrous presidency in the annals of the Republic, he really forced a lighted match into the hand of our government, encouraging it to ignite the barrel of gunpowder between our feet.
BUT THE list of present-day leaders who participate in the pandering competition pales in comparison with the long parade of Has-Beens who lay siege to our gates.
A world-wide swarm of Has-Beens is flying from place to place like bees, all for one and one for all. This week they alighted in Jerusalem, on the invitation of Has-Been No. 1: Shimon Peres, a politician who in all the 84 years of his life has never won an election, and who was finally handed, out of sheer compassion, the largely meaningless title of President of Israel.
The common denominator of this group is that their prestige at home is close to nil, while their standing abroad is sky-high. Their mutual adoration compensates them for the lack of respect in their own countries.
One of the senior members of this club is Tony Blair, who has been pushed from power in his own country but is not content to enjoy his pension and raise roses. As a consolation prize he has been granted the pleasure of playing around with our conflict.
Every few weeks he convenes a press conference to present the good tidings of his phenomenal success in ameliorating the lot of the Palestinians, while the actual situation in the occupied territories goes from bad to worse. Our security establishment treats him like a bore who has to be thrown a crumb from time to time to keep him happy.
In the conference that took place this week there were also some good people, but the scene was stolen by the Has-Beens, from the retired war criminal Henry Kissinger to the dethroned peace hero Mikhail Gorbachev (whom I still consider a hero for preventing bloodshed during the collapse of the Soviet empire.) Pity to see him in this company.
All the participants in this orgy heaped mountains of fawning adulation on Israel. Not one of them had a word of criticism. No occupation. No settlements. No Gaza blockade. No daily killings. Just a wonderful, peace-loving state that the bad, bad terrorists want to throw into the sea.
Not one of the guests stood up to warn us against going on with the present policy. Not one of them stood up to proclaim the truth: that the continuation of this policy may lead our state to disaster.
He who has friends like these has no need for enemies. A person who sees his friend playing Russian roulette and offers him bullets – is he a real friend? One who sees his friend standing on the brink of an abyss and tells him “go ahead” – is he a friend?
AMONG THE fraternity of flatterers, the ones that attracted the most attention were the Jewish billionaires from America (who also paid for the extravaganza).
Several of them were summoned to police headquarters immediately on arrival to give evidence on the affair that is rocking Israel now – the corruption investigation of Ehud Olmert.
A smell of corruption has accompanied Olmert right from his beginnings in politics, 45 years ago. But this time, the smell is overpowering. The police has made it known that the American-Jewish billionaire Moshe Morris Talansky has been supplying him with cash-filled envelopes for years.
Where have we seen this before? Of course, in American movies and TV-series. Somebody opens a suitcase stuffed with bundles of banknotes. The donor invariably belongs to the Mafia, and the recipient is generally a corrupt politician.
Can it be that Olmert has never seen these films – he of all people, who started his career with demagogic speeches denouncing “Organized Crime”?
But it is not Olmert who interests me in this affair so much as Talansky.
He belongs to a species of “Israel-loving” billionaires, most of them resident in the US, but also in Canada and Switzerland, Austria and Australia and other places.
They are all Israeli patriots. They are all philanthropists. All contribute millions to Israeli politicians. And almost all of them support our extreme Right.
What makes them run? What induces these billionaires to do what they are doing?
A research in depth discovers that a great many of them made their money in dark corners. Some are gambling barons, casino-owners with all the inevitable connections with violence, crime and exploitation. One at least made his fortunes from brothels. Another was involved in a scandal involving old people’s homes. Yet another is a scion of a family who made their money bootlegging during prohibition days. Some are arms merchants of the most despicable kind, selling weapons to the political gangs which sow death and destruction in Africa.
But money, as is well known, does not smell.
Most of the multi-millionaires of this kind feel that they are not receiving the honor due to them. Their co-billionaires, high society people, treat them with disdain. A person reaching this position is not satisfied with money alone. He craves honor. Such honor can be bought in Israel, on the cheap.
Israel is selling honor of all kinds, no questions asked. For a suitable donation, even a gambling hell owner will be received by the Prime Minister, dine with the President, put his name on a university building.
(Once I wrote a light-hearted piece about the Third Temple, may God build it soon, Amen: the Rosenstein Holy of Holiest, the Rosenzweig altar, the Rosenberg cherubim, etc.)
Just after the Six-day War, during the great days of our generals, a new fashion spread among the best Jewish billionaires: to keep an Israeli general, in order to present him to friends as a pet.
Some generals found no fault in this. It was owed to them, after all.
One billionaire kept Ezer Weizman, the Air Force hero (who had to resign from the presidency when it came out). Two billionaires adopted Ariel Sharon and set him up in the largest farm in the country. Shimon Peres was no general (and not even a soldier), but at least three billionaires took him under their golden wings.
No billionaire ever lost money by keeping an Israeli general, supporting an Israeli politician or making a generous donation to an Israeli cause. Ego is ego, patriotism is patriotism, but business is business.
That’s where the corruption set in. A person who donates millions to a politician in Israel (or, for that matter, the US, or Italy or any other place on the globe) knows full well that he will get it back with interest. When the politician becomes a minister, or Prime Minister, or President, the supporter has hit the jackpot.
In politics there is no innocent donation. One way or another, the donor will reap his reward – many times over. That’s true in the US, that’s true in Italy, that’s true in Israel, too. If the donor declares to the police that he has no business interests in Israel, all it means is that they must dig deeper.
THE OLMERT affair confirms anew what we have known for a long time: the fuel Israeli politics runs on is not just money, but money from abroad. To win primaries and campaign in elections, a candidate needs millions, and these almost always come from foreign donors.
Foreign billionaires financed Olmert in the party primaries, and they financed him in the general elections, in which he was assured of becoming Prime Minister. After being elected, he started Lebanon War II, with all its death and destruction. It can be said: American Jewish billionaires killed the soldiers and civilians, Israeli and Lebanese, who lost their lives in the war.
In his speech to the Jerusalem conference, Shimon Peres lauded Israeli chutzpa. What we need is more chutzpa, he said. That sounded fetching and naughty, but was pure poppycock.
I want to speak about another chutzpa. Not metaphorical, but real. Simple chutzpa. The chutzpa of billionaires in New York and Geneva and all the other places who interfere in our elections and determine the fate of our nation. The chutzpah of donating for a war in which not their sons, but ours, are killed. The chutzpah of sending billions for the establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and especially in Jerusalem, which are put there for the express purpose of preventing peace and imposing on us a permanent war, a war that threatens our future – not theirs.
Let’s be clear: I am not criticizing well-meaning donors, who feel a moral need to contribute to a hospital wing or a university building in Israel. I appreciate people who send a few hundred dollars to a political cause close to their heart. I object to foreign billionaires who aspire to dictate the direction of our state.
Perhaps in other countries, too, politicians receive donations from foreign sources. But it is generally a marginal phenomenon. Here it is a major factor.
That is one of the ill effects of the definition of Israel as a “Jewish State”. Because of this, these donors do not look like what they are – impertinent foreigners who interfere in our lives and corrupt our state – but like “warmhearted Jews” who support a state that belongs to them as well.
Gideon Levy has recently written an article in which he begged them to “leave us alone”. Being a less refined person than he, I shall say this in a ruder way: Go home and take your money with you. We are not for sale. Stop trying to manage our life (and death)!
Israel At 60 (2) (first entry on May 3, below)
Israel Parties Like It’s 1948: Marketing Ethnic Cleansing
by Linda Mamoun
(note: Linda Mamoun lives in Boulder. Have met and talked to her briefly. Was impressed with this article which appeared both on `Alternet’ and `Counterpunch’. I thought the piece well researched and well written – and just plain interesting. It captures much of the mood about the celebrations of Israel’s sixtieth anniversary and the underlying anxiety beneath the surface. Mamoun is a PhD candidate in International Studies, an activist, and a dual US/Lebanese citizen. rjp)
Israel Parties Like It’s 1948
Marketing Ethnic Cleansing
By LINDA MAMOUN
Two weeks before Israel’s 60th anniversary the House and Senate voted unanimously to pass resolutions honoring “the founding of the modern State of Israel.” Before the House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighed in on the deliberations saying, “I urge our colleagues to speak with one voice, and support this resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel. In doing so, we not only commend Israel, we also bring luster to this House by associating ourselves with that great state of Israel.” To further commemorate Israeli independence, Pelosi reserved time through the month of June for a weekly series of floor speeches.
Israel Independence Day has been celebrated within Jewish communities in the United States since Israel was founded. Traditionally the celebrations were organized by synagogues or Hebrew schools. Children would sing Ha’Tikvah, the Israeli national anthem, and read scriptures on the Promised Land. But these days the anniversaries are geared toward the broader public, making headlines in places where there are large Jewish communities, but also in areas where one would be hard-pressed to find a single person identifying as Jewish. Not only are the anniversaries endorsed by celebrities and political committees (this year’s “National Committee” includes former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the three presidential frontrunners, and all living secretaries of state), but the organizers offer a dizzying array of festivities, requiring careful planning by those hoping to partake in all the revelry.
Israel’s Independence Day fell on May 8 this year, but in the US the festivities run from early April through the beginning of June. With all the events going on around the country, have you planned how you will celebrate Israeli independence?
Mark Your Calendar
If you really had your act together, you could have booked a trip to the Holy Land with Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel (CUFI) tour. During ten days in early April, the Celebrate Jerusalem Tour featured a Night to Honor Jerusalem, a Middle East Intelligence Briefing, a luncheon at the Jerusalem Convention Center, a Jerusalem Unity Rally Walk, and a “special CUFI salute” to Israel’s 60th anniversary. Best of all, you would have gotten to hear Hagee’s rallying speech, in which he announced his pledge of $6 million for Israeli causes (mostly settlement-related) and declared that ”Turning part or all of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians would be tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban.”
For those who don’t like to travel, not to worry. You can get a taste of Israel from the comfort of your own suburb. On May 18, jaunt on over to Dunwoody, just outside of Atlanta, where you can see all the major Israeli cities with the “re-creation” of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, the Negev, Sefat and Haifa. The Dunwoody events feature “interactive family activities, such as camel rides, rowing across the Dead Sea, and climbing Masada.”
In Beachwood, Ohio, party planners are encouraging revelers to “Take in the sights and sounds of Israel without leaving home!” Among other festivities, organizers have planned a faux Israeli marketplace, where shoppers can “wander displays of one-of-a-kind jewelry, crafts and artwork; smell the flowers; pick up a unique book; and enjoy family-friendly crafts, games, songs and dances.”
In April, homebodies in north Jersey could have seen West Englewood Avenue in Teaneck transformed into Jerusalem’s Ben Yehuda Street, featuring “wonderful vendors, delicious food and fabulous music.”
If you’re not into sightseeing, don’t fret. You can celebrate in more traditional ways -with parades, marching bands and fireworks. To learn about festivals near you, sign up for Facebook’s “Party Like It’s 1948” group, or just google “Israel@60” and the name of your town.
The Israel Hobby
You’ve heard of the Israel Lobby? Well, this is the Israel Hobby, and there’s something for everyone. (If you missed this year’s big events, it’s not too early to start planning for next year.)
If you’re a poetry or film buff, drop by an Israel@60 reading or film festival. If you’re a bookworm, join a 60th birthday book club. If you’re a cyclist, register for a 5k, 10k or 60k “Ride with Israel@60” race.
If you like to pamper yourself, try Dead Sea Spa Days. If you’re an art lover, why not amble into an exhibit commemorating Israeli independence? If you’re a foodie, join the Israel@60 Mission, which offers a “food and wine tour of Israel culminating in a star-studded international leadership gathering.” If you prefer to cook your own Israeli delicacies, sign up for an Israel@60 pita-making or Israeli hors d’œuvre class.
Not into falafel? Other options beckon.
If you’re an American Idol addict, check out the results of the Israeli Idol Competition (part of a series of anniversary events in Ann Arbor). If The Amazing Race is more your thing, see who won the 2nd Annual Amazing Israel Race (a citywide treasure hunt in NYC to commemorate Israel’s 60th birthday.)
If you’d rather concentrate on learning a new language, launch a “Café Ivrit” club and commit to speaking 60 minutes of Hebrew each month to honor Israel’s 60-year history. If you’re a budding filmmaker, try your luck in the Israel@60 video contest. If you’re a famous blogger, well, you guessed it: Blog ’til you drop on 60bloggers.com. (Or mark your personal blog with the Israel@60 icon.)
If music is what you live for, hopefully you saw the “60@60” opening night gala at Radio City Music Hall on May 7. (60@60 is a “month-long musical celebration comprising 60 musical events across North America through June 1.”) If you’re a left coaster, you probably dropped by the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles on May 10 for the “Israel 60 At The Kodak” extravaganza. (The Los Angeles “mega-celebration” is a continuation of 60@60, but is also part of another series featuring “60 hours of live entertainment in and around L.A. culminating in an exclusive, star-studded concert.”)
Didn’t get your tickets on time? There are still other options.
If you’re an Indiana Jones-type, go on an Israel@60 archaeological dig, or watch one on video. If you’re more of an intellectual, sign up for a history course on the Israeli Declaration of Independence, or join other “mythbusters” in a class that promises to “break through the myths and get to the truth of Israel’s contributions to the world… technology, medicine, television, music and more.” (Light refreshments served.)
If all this sounds too tame, journey to the front lines with Volunteers for Israel where you’ll commemorate Israeli independence by working on special projects to support the IDF in northern and southern Israel.
With so much going on, you won’t even have time to wonder why we’re seeing such a proliferation of festivities.
The Sellabrations
In economic terms, you could say that Israel Independence Day has “market dominance.” When most people think of Israel Independence Day -if they contemplate it at all- they think of it in terms of Israel’s national narrative.
But in spite of all the festivities, Israel Independence Day may be losing some of its market share. Unable to market the brand to at least two demographics (Muslim and Arab Americans) and losing market share to a generation transformed by a deeper understanding of military occupation (whether in Palestine, Iraq or Tibet), a quality of desperation seems to underlie the latest efforts to sell the holiday.
While advocates of Israel Independence Day still market the holiday to the country as a whole, they’re increasingly turning to niche markets like health & wellness and adventure travel to achieve their main objective: market saturation.
But is it working?
According to Marc Ellis, a Jewish theologian and professor of American and Jewish Studies, the festivities that mark Israel’s anniversaries have little public support in the US, even in the Jewish community: “Look at what happened with Israel’s 50th. They planned a lot of things, but it just sort of fizzled. This is typically what happens.”
Ellis thinks the celebrations fizzle for a variety of reasons. First, despite the attempts to make it seem otherwise, Israel isn’t a top priority for most Americans, even Jewish Americans. Opinion polls, including one recently commissioned by a prominent Israel advocacy group, confirm this. (News flash for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who recently surmised that Israel is the “one key concern” of Jewish voters.)
But Israel’s anniversaries fizzle for other reasons, as well. The most obvious is that many people don’t see much to celebrate. Blaring Kool & the Gang as loud as you can won’t block out the roar of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. And if the myriad celebrations have anything in common -aside from their glorification of Israel- it is that they all downplay the decades-long war. The party planners seem to think they can erase the image of Israel as it really is by evoking the Israel of legend and lore. (If you google “Israel” and “make the desert bloom” you’ll see how often they try.)
But the edifice of legend is cracking. M.J. Rosenberg, director of the Israel Policy Forum, recently wrote about the reluctance of young Jewish Americans to embrace the Israel of lore, saying in a newsletter that “The Internet generation is not into tired organizational talking points which mix facts and myths in equal measure.” Rosenberg argues that, “you can’t defend the occupation and sell Israel at the same time.”
For those trying to sell Israel to the public, opinion polls show that, while Americans tend to sympathize more with Israelis, most people believe that Israelis and Palestinians share the blame for their conflict -along with the United States. A BBC World Service Poll released in early April describes the American public as “nearly evenly divided” in their opinions on Israel. This doesn’t jibe with a narrative that casts Israelis as innocent transplants who got stuck in a bad neighborhood, but are thriving just the same.
The frenzy around Israel Independence Day can be seen as an attempt to freeze history back to 1948 when the public’s support of Israel was mostly unequivocal.
People vs. Projects
There is a new ethos now: If you feel for one side, you should feel for the other. Those who subscribe to this view condemn all violence. They put the needs of the people, Israelis and Palestinians, before everything else. You could call them the People-First Movement.
The advocates of this movement, many of whom are American Jews and Israelis, believe that the official Israeli story has to be outsold by a new narrative. This means, first, acknowledging all that happened in 1948, including al nakba: the organized killings of Palestinians, the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages, and the expulsion of over seven hundred thousand Palestinians from their land. And it means looking at the US-backed occupation, and the fact that all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank live under the reach of Israeli military power.
The most striking thing about this movement is how grassroots it is. Although it has a growing DC contingent, the movement is comprised mainly of peace activists, faith-based organizations, and campus groups, which means it doesn’t get much attention from the press. Even so, it has certain people worried, and they have mounted a Herculean effort to regain control -with support from the political and religious establishment, evangelical Christian groups like CUFI and the Joshua Fund, lobbies like AIPAC and the American Jewish Committee, and newer organizations like the Israel Project, the David Project, and the Solomon Project. You might well call this the Project-First Movement. And it has well-funded campus arms like Stand With Us, Campus Watch, and the Israel On Campus Coalition.
The Project-First Movement has begun to use niche marketing to attract narrower and narrower cross-sections of the American public. The goal is to enshrine ever more abstracted conceptions of Israel in the minds of key constituencies, increasingly on the right.
For these activists, the state of Israel -or at least its governing regime- comes first. And just as they direct many of their appeals to the most extreme right-wing constituencies in America, they are increasingly aligned with the most hawkish Israeli politicians.
The movement has a grassroots following (and history), but its core organizations tend to be centralized with munificent funding for PR. They administer surveys, conduct focus groups, implement dial testing, and do interviews to fine-tune their campaigns. This might explain why the PR initiatives behind Israel Independence Day tend to be sophisticated, even if their output seems relatively uninspired.
The Marketing Wars
There is a clear connection between public discourse and policy. Majority support of the status quo has to be maintained if Americans will continue to allow $3 billion of their tax dollars to be allocated annually to Israeli aid. (And up to $3 billion more in loan guarantees.) And what people hear about Israel, Palestine, and US policy in the region shapes how they think.
Public discourse affects policy in more indirect ways, as well. If the root causes of a conflict are obscured, or if one side is characterized as inherently violent, then efforts to negotiate a fair resolution are undermined. In a forthcoming book, Challenging Global Terrorism and American Neo-Conservatism, international law scholar Tom Farer writes that Israel “has championed the view that groups and governments employing terrorist means either have non-negotiable ends or should at least be treated as if they had them, the view that negotiations or even the examination of the substantive claims such groups make merely feeds the terrorist appetite.” The Project-First Movement promotes this narrative above all others, leaving pro-peace policy initiatives dead on arrival.
Although the Project-First Movement is succeeding on the political front, and probably will for the foreseeable future, the People-First Movement has been winning some of the most important narrative wars. In the IPF newsletter cited earlier, Rosenberg describes this trend within the Jewish community: “They are losing the campus battle big time….I’m talking about young opinion leaders who are turned off by the occupation and identify Israel with settlers there and neoconservatives like Feith, Perle, and Krauthammer here. They hate the paranoid style in which all dissent from the status quo is deemed anti-Israel or anti-Semitic and, generally, have no use for the mindless emotionalism and ethnic sentimentality that characterize so much of the organized pro-Israel community. As third or fourth generation Americans, they cannot be won over with scare tactics about the Holocaust or Ahmedinejad.”
For the Project-First Movement to prevail -within the Jewish community and in the broader society- it needs to succeed in two gargantuan tasks: it has to construct a narrative that perpetually glorifies Israel, and it has to block all counter-narratives so that even questioning its project is unthinkable.
For the People-First Movement to succeed, it has to achieve only one goal: to humanize the conflict. And this is how they do it:
Through events focused on local organizing, public education, and interfaith dialogue. The main orgs here are peace centers, student and faith-based groups, and indy media outlets.
Through non-violent campaigns to end the Israeli occupation and lift the siege of Gaza. These include everything from action alerts and petitions to boycott, divestment and sanctions initiatives to fact-finding tours and direct action in the West Bank and Gaza.
Through policy and media work by advocacy groups. A random list (pulled from my inbox) of different kinds of US-based groups includes the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Jewish Voice for Peace (and their MuzzleWatch and StopCaterpillar sites), Electronic Intifada, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, J Street, the American Task Force on Palestine, Americans for Peace Now, Al Awda, and SUSTAIN (Stop US Tax-funded Aid to Israel NOW).
In the last decade, there has been a surge of activism in the US, Canada and Europe. Omar Baddar, who works with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, explains that “Activism had died down in the 1990s due to the misconception that the ‘peace process’ was working and could achieve something. Once that fell through, and it became obvious that Israel was choosing illegal territorial expansion over peace with the Palestinians, people felt the need to get active on the issue again.” Baddar believes the movement is growing because it engages supporters “democratically and on many different levels.” The anniversary of Al Nakba on May 15 provides a focal point.
On its website, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation lists commemorations happening around the country. Just looking at the cities where I’ve lived, there has been a firestorm of activism: In Philadelphia, a coalition of groups organized “60 Days for 60 Years,” a series of events and actions to commemorate Al Nakba and mobilize support for ending the occupation. In New York, a group called “Jews Remember the Nakba” held a No Time To Celebrate rally on May 7 outside the Israel@60 gala at Radio City Music Hall. New York peace activists will also converge on Dag Hammarskjöld Park (May 16) to commemorate Al Nakba. In Chicago, home to one of the largest Palestinian communities in the US, people will mark the anniversary at the Palestinian American National Conference from May 23 – 25. In Denver, activists organized a variety of educational and cultural events, which will conclude in a demonstration at the state Capitol on May 17.
Some anniversary events focus attention on specific campaigns like divestment initiatives targeting companies that are involved with the occupation, or ending the siege of Gaza. Several organizations planned cross-country speaking tours to coincide with the anniversary. I met Marc Ellis, the Jewish theologian referenced earlier, before a lecture on Jewish activism against the occupation. He was invited by Students for Justice in Palestine (University of Colorado) to take part in a commemoration of the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre.
The last group I’ll mention is an Israeli organization called Zochrot (which means “remembrance” in Hebrew). Its members post signs on the sites of Palestinian villages destroyed by the IDF and distribute maps identifying these sites. To commemorate the events of 1948, activists in Israel and the US have been displaying Zochrot’s maps to show how Palestinians have been cleansed from their land.
The Forecast
Sociologists look at holidays as a form of public ritual. Not only do holidays reflect a society’s values, but they serve to mold these values. With Israel Independence Day, we see a reflection of America’s strategic and cultural alliance with Israel. But we also see the outlines of a continuing military project: A campaign to sanitize Israel’s history and legitimize its aggression against the Palestinians.
On April 24, The Washington Post reported on the Bush Administration’s “secret” agreement with Israel to support settlement expansion in the West Bank. But it’s no secret that, even since the Annapolis talks in November, the Israeli government has authorized a surge of settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And it’s no secret that the US backs virtually all of Israel’s policies: its settlements and separation wall, its occupation and siege; policies that have strangled the Palestinian people and resulted in many lost lives on both sides.
Because Project-First organizations promote these policies, and thwart people’s desire for peace, they’re essentially a movement without a people, representing the needs of no one but a narrow fringe of ideologues and PR professionals.
Linda Mamoun is a PhD candidate in International Studies, an activist, and a dual US/Lebanese citizen.
More on Lebanon…
Two Articles from the L.A. Times on Lebanon
1. Interview With Augustus Richard Norton (May 14, 2008)
2. L. A. Times May 12, 2008 article on the `Future Movement’ in Lebanon and its Militia (which was soundly defeated in the fighting that just transpired)
Brief Note: Although both the Norton Interview and the article on the Lebanese `Future Movement’ are quite imperfect – neither deals with who has armed and trained this and other militias – at least the subject of the militias is addressed and the fact that the recent military confrontation resulted in significant setbacks for both the United States and Israel. Norton’s vision for political solutions to the crisis is unusually rational for an American commentator as is his criticism of US policy toward Lebanon these past few years. The other country which was severely stung by these events was Saudi Arabia – which, is nothing short of howling in pain over the results. I will be writing much more on all this, but what is becoming crystal clear from my different goggle probes, is the degree to which the current crisis was planned and orchestrated in Washington DC with players like Ohud Barak, Waild Jumblatt and the Saudis huddling with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gates and the folks at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (an AIPAC spin off think tank). More on all this as I put the pieces – or try to – together.
What I can share with you now are the following insights: what happened this past week in Lebanon was Israel’s attempt (using proxies) to gain in influence in Lebanon what it lost in the 2006 summer war. It failed completely. Again. Having been twice politically embarrassed in three years, the vultures of war have to regroup and consider their next steps. They (the US, Israel and the Saudis) are quite upset, actually beside themselves. The usually demure Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talks of `giving the Iranians a lesson’ (and then had to back off from such bellicost rhetoric the next day). Equally stung is US columnist, Thomas Friedman, whom my friend Irving Greenbaum in Boulder refers to apty as `the perfect whore’. Irving has a point. Friedman is also beside himself `pissing in the wind’ – as my father so graphically used to say – and whining in anger at the Iranians and Hezbollah. The Saudi press – needless to say one of the least open and democratic presses in the region if not in the world – likewise stung by the defeat and humiliation of the Lebanese proxis it financed, armed and trained (the Future Movement and a few others Sunni militia groups) has descended to name calling, comparing Hizbollah leader Nasrallah to Ariel Sharon (needless to say – about the worst insult they can come up with) and former head of Israeli intelligence, Aharam Zeevi Farkesh is claiming that three years of his government preparing Lebanese militias have dissolved in 24 hours. After pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon and celebrating the fact, now the Saudi’s are angered that the Syrians refuse to re-enter Lebanon to help clean up the mess that the Saudis helped make. Bush’s trip to the Middle East – to drum up support for the next anti-Iranian campaign and for money to prop up the still ailing financial sector is already the joke of virtually the entire Middle East media, be it Israeli, Arab or Iranian.
Problem is the old `beware-the-wounded-beast syndrome’. I don’t know what is worse, that the US and Israel lost in Lebanon, or if they would have won. In the end they just might come to the same conclusion: that military action is necessary. That is the great danger, that they’ll follow up on their Lebanese set back with an even more foolish policy.
______
1.
May 14, 2008
LEBANON: Dangerous times and encouraging signs
Scholar and Lebanon expert Augustus Richard Norton recently took time out for a lengthy e-mail interview with the Los Angeles Times about the confusing conflict in Lebanon.
Lebanon watchers have been worried for some time that the current political stalemate between the Western-leaning government and the Iranian-backed opposition could explode and plunge the country into civil war.
“While many Lebanese adults have a living memory of the 15-year civil war that ended in 1990, many shabaab or ‘young bloods’ on all sides have been rearing for a fight,” wrote Norton. “On several occasions dangerous clashes emerged and the country seems to have been close to the brink, and then wiser heads prevailed on all sides.”
Norton knows Lebanon well. He served as a peacekeeper in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) during the 1980s and wrote the groundbreaking book “Amal and the Shi’a” in 1987.
Now a professor of international relations and anthropology at Boston University, he recently published the timely “Hezbollah: A Short History,” described by Publisher’s Weekly as a “remarkably thorough, articulate portrait” and by the Washington Post as a “lucid primer” on the group.
He’s a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and was an advisor to the Iraq Study Group in 2006.
Below is the interview.
Los Angeles Times: In your opinion, what is happening now in Lebanon?
Augustus Richard Norton: Lebanon has been trapped in a dangerous stalemate for nearly a year and a half. The stalemate was provoked by Hezbollah in league with its opposition allies — Amal, retired Gen. Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement, the Syrian Socialist National Party and a variety of other groups, including some Sunni Islamists.
From the standpoint of the opposition, the political motives vary. Some opposition supporters call for an ending to corruption, improving governance and other prosaic political goals, but for Hezbollah, the leading opposition power, the agenda includes stifling the French and U.S. goal of supporting and consolidating a friendly government in Beirut that will disarm Hezbollah.
From Hezbollah’s perspective, and particularly its many supporters in the Shiite community, Hezbollah’s arms provide security for a community that has suffered disproportionately from more than three decades of internal war and foreign invasion. Indeed, Hezbollah’s security narrative has actually garnered more support in the Shiite community since the summer war of 2006. The Iraqi civil war has also had a spillover effect in Lebanon, further encouraging Sunni-Shiite animosities.
Obviously, Hezbollah’s adversaries who support the Siniora government understandably see the party’s military wing as a threat to their own security. External powers, including the U.S., France, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, have imposed their own agendas on Lebanon with the result that a political compromise has actually become harder to reach. In effect, the internal political struggle in Lebanon is hostage to the geopolitical struggle that is underway between the U.S. and it allies on the one side, and Iran and its supporters on the other.
LAT: What has changed in Lebanon?
NORTON: The events of the past week or so have dramatically changed the terms of reference for the political struggle in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its allies have handily defeated their prime adversaries, yet done so in a way that signals what we might call “restrained aggression.”
The opposition forces did not seize any government offices in Beirut to my knowledge, but primarily targeted the organizational offices of the Future Movement led by Saad Hariri, the son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri who is the effective leader of the pro-government forces.
Rather than holding on to the offices they captured, the opposition turned over these positions to the Lebanese army. In effect, they signaled a respect for the army as a legitimate agency of the state, while demonstrating that not even the army can contain their might when they choose to unleash it.
While the political stalemate may continue in form, in substance the weakness of the U.S.-supported government is now on full display. In short, what has happened is a decisive setback for the U.S. agenda in Lebanon.
LAT: Is this the end of the democratic experiment in Lebanon?
NORTON: Lebanon’s democratic institutions have had to weather some violent political storms, but however tattered and battered, they have survived. Despite the harsh words that have been exchanged recently in Lebanon, and the frustrating inability of the parliament to actually convene to elect a president, most Lebanese understand quite well that, despite many imperfections, their democratic institutions are essential to Lebanon’s survival. It is noteworthy that one of the key elements of debate between pro-government and opposition forces is over the rules for the parliamentary elections in May 2009. I take that to be an encouraging sign.
LAT: Where is this going? What does Hezbollah’s latest move mean for Lebanon?
NORTON: My view is that Hezbollah has demonstrated that the dangerous stalemate will not end without compromise on all sides. Historically speaking, Lebanese politics has been marked by consensus, compromise and accommodation. No side can dominate the system by itself, at least for very long.
LAT: What does it mean internationally? What are some potential regional consequences?
NORTON: There are a number of mostly negative (and linked) consequences, including:
The risk that Sunni-Shiite tensions will be further excited in places like Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and certainly Iraq.
The risk that the U.S.-Iran contest for position and influence will lend ammunition to those who advocate attacking Iran.
The risk that the slowly developing U.S.-Iranian dialogue in Iraq will be jeopardized.
On the other hand, prudent decision-makers may take the Lebanese events as an illustration of why it is important promote non-zero-sum solutions, including a thoroughgoing security dialogue with Iran.
LAT: What role does Iran play in this whole equation? Syria? Saudi Arabia? The U.S.?
NORTON: Iran and the U.S. are in a gladiatorial contest and that does not augur well for regional serenity. Syria would like to insinuate itself yet again into a dominant role in Lebanon, and the success of its ally Hezbollah lends it encouragement (sadly).
As for Saudi Arabia, the kingdom has worked hard to challenge the Shiite-Iranian threat in Lebanon, including pouring in more than a billion dollars. Saudi Arabia may now redouble its efforts, which would risk stoking the internecine flames once again.
There is a non-trivial risk that unless wiser heads prevail, Lebanon could descend once again into civil war, even though many Lebanese understand that what a great disaster that would likely be.
LAT: How does the latest news in Lebanon help or hurt the Bush administration’s vision for the Middle East?
NORTON: I take no joy in saying it, but the Bush administration has continued to blunder badly in Lebanon. In 2006, the U.S. stiff-armed attempts to reach a ceasefire early in the war between Hezbollah and Israel with the result that Hezbollah was seen in many quarters as the victor. Since the war ended in August 2006, the US has thrown spanners in the works to prevent a compromise that would be seen as benefiting Hezbollah or its allies.
There is also credible reporting … that the U.S. has attempted to build up anti-Hezbollah militias (much as it did in Gaza vis-a-vis Hamas) and those efforts have come up short this past week.
The latest statements by President Bush reveal that he has learned little from what has been happening in Lebanon, and he seems to be drawing battle lines for a confrontation in Lebanon, which would be unfortunate, in my view.
LAT: If you were advising the Bush administration right now, what course of action would you recommend?
NORTON: I would tell the president that the notion that “our side” can impose its will on the “bad guys” is a bad bet. If the U.S. wishes to constrain Hezbollah, it stands a better chance of doing so politically than militarily. As for the reality of Hezbollah’s military power and despite clear Security Council resolutions demanding that the group be disarmed, I see little prospect that that will soon happen.
LAT: What do Syria and Iran want from Lebanon?
NORTON: I believe there is a significant difference between Syrian and Iranian goals in Lebanon. Syria would like to return to something that looks like the status quo ante, which is completely unacceptable in my view, and most importantly for many Lebanese as well.
However, I think Iran’s goals are more nuanced, which is to say that while Iran is certainly intent on seeing Hezbollah prosper, Iran has a compelling interest in a viable Lebanon that leans neither too far toward Washington or Tehran. In that sort of neutral Lebanon, the Islamic Republic, which maintains a large embassy in Beirut, would enjoy an important Arab redoubt.
Would the U.S. be willing to accept that outcome as part of a grand bargain, which included stability in Iraq, controlling Iranian nuclear weapons development, and tempered support for Palestinian groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas? I doubt the Bush White House could embrace that sort of outcome, but perhaps the next president should.
—Borzou Daragahi in Beirut
Photo: Augustus Richard Norton.
____
2. Lebanon’s Sunni bloc built militia, officials say
The Future movement used a security firm to assemble a private force, officials say. But the fighters were no match for the Shiite group Hezbollah.By Borzou Daragahi and Raed Rafei
Special to The Times May 12, 2008
BEIRUT — For a year, the main Lebanese political faction backed by the United States built a Sunni Muslim militia here under the guise of private security companies, Lebanese security experts and officials said.
The fighters, aligned with Saad Hariri’s Future movement, were trained and armed to counter the heavily armed Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah and protect their turf in a potential military confrontation.
But in a single night late last week, the curious experiment in private-sector warfare crumbled.
Attacked by Hezbollah, the Future movement fighters quickly fled Beirut or gave up their weapons. Afterward, some of the fighters said they felt betrayed by their political patrons, who failed to give them the means to protect themselves while official security forces stood aside and let Hezbollah destroy them.
“We are prepared to fight for a few hours but not more,” said one of the Sunni fighters in the waning moments of the battle. “Where do we get ammunition and weapons from? We are blocked. The roads are blocked. Even Saad Hariri has left us to face our fate alone.”
The head of a conventional private security firm in Beirut, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the Sunni force was “not really ready.”
“You can’t just spend millions of dollars to build an army in one year,” he said. “They have to be motivated and believe in something. They have to be willing to die.”
Lebanon’s U.S.-backed government and the Iranian-backed opposition led by Hezbollah have been mired in a political stalemate for more than a year. The country has been without a president since November.
Amid the political crisis that has sharpened differences among various religious communities, Lebanon’s army and Internal Security Forces had played a peacekeeping role, preventing clashes without confronting any of the different armed groups. They feared any robust intervention would break the unity of the armed forces and plunge the country into civil war.
But the crisis has created a power vacuum. Hariri’s deputies have denied his movement was building a militia, though ranking military officials, independent analysts and employees of the security firm, called Secure Plus, say it was doing just that.
Private security firms are the latest arrivals to a hodgepodge of armed groups that include Islamic militants inspired by Al Qaeda, Palestinian militias based in the country’s dozen refugee camps and Hezbollah.
With speed that surprised observers, Hezbolllah last week took over West Beirut and crushed the Future movement’s fighters.
Hezbollah said its move was aimed at stopping the government, which had outlawed the militant group’s private communication system, from hampering its ability to confront Israel. But it appears the Shiite militia’s main targets were the Future fighters, some of them operating under the guise of Secure Plus.
For months, Lebanese security officials in the army and the Internal Security Forces warily watched the growth of the Future-Secure Plus fighting force. Officials close to and inside Hezbollah said they were monitoring the growth of the potential threat.
Over the last year, Secure Plus went from a small security company to an organization with 3,000 employees and unofficial associates on the payroll, mostly poor Sunnis from the country’s north. Some were armed with pistols and assault rifles.
“We have . . . thousands of young people in plainclothes working with us all over the country,” a company official said before the clashes started.
Even those who feared the development hoped the Future movement’s growing military capacity would create a “balance of terror” with the more heavily armed Shiite fighters, government officials and members of the group say.
“On the one side, Hezbollah has trained military groups allied with it,” said a high-ranking official with the Internal Security Forces, which has received $60 million in training and equipment from the U.S.
“On the other side, the Future movement has created security firms to protect itself.”
Secure Plus declined multiple requests for interviews. It was the largest of dozens of security firms that have sprung up in recent years. Run by retired Lebanese army officers, it ostensibly provides security for banks, hotels and offices. Hariri’s media office denied there were any official links between Secure Plus and the Future movement.
“Future bloc has members of parliament, not fighters,” said Hani Hammoud, a spokesman for Hariri. It “believes in the rule of law, and that it is up to official security and military agencies to resolve any problem that might arise.”
Secure Plus employees, in beige pants and maroon shirts, were drilled for months in basic military training, including hand-to-hand combat. At least two dozen informal offices were opened in Beirut.
For a monthly salary of at least $350, they served eight hours a day guarding offices, patrolling neighborhoods on motorcycles, communicating via walkie-talkie and remaining on call to defend against threats to Sunni neighborhoods or offices of the Future bloc, employees of the company said. Though the group was officially barred from carrying weapons, many had them anyway. One said he bought guns from Hezbollah.
In the last few months, fighting regularly broke out between Sunni supporters of the Future bloc working formally or informally with Secure Plus and Shiites allied with Hezbollah and Amal, another militia. The clashes often took place in West Beirut, a patchwork of Sunni and Shiite areas.
The government became so worried about street battles that in February it convened an emergency meeting of military officials and government and opposition leaders. All agreed to stand by the army and the security forces if they intervened, even if it meant some of their own fighters would sustain casualties. But Lebanon’s weak government made little attempt to interdict the arming of such groups.
“We cannot ask the Christian Lebanese or Sunni Lebanese to give up their arms when others have arms,” said Ahmed Fatfat, a leader of the Future bloc and a Cabinet minister.
The Events In Lebanon: Prelude to Regional War?
Took a great deal of notes today, copied articles, etc, with the intention of working them up for something this evening, but as usual, left all of it at work and now I am at home. In a way though, it’s a challenge to see what I can put together without those little crutches.
And as usual, the reporting on these events is – with a few exceptions – dismal and biased. A few examples suffice to show how once again public opinion here in the USA has been been manipulated in such a way to suggest this is all some kind of Iranian-sponsored plot in which Teheran is using Hizbollah as its Lebanese lever… when it is much more of a Bush Administration plan which has been brewing for some time.
No Hezbollah…
– Although it was broadly reported that Hezbollah did the fighting in Beirut, this does not appear to be accurate. It was another Shi’ite militia – that of Amal, whose leader, Nabil Berri is in the Lebanese parliament. According to several reliable (at least to me) Middle East sources I checked with, Hezbollah never entered Beirut and was not involved at all in the military action there. Interesting, most reports here in the US referred openly to Hizbollah; other referred to Hezbollah `backed’ guerilla fighters (which is not the same thing). That is as close as it got to a more honest description.
– Except in the Israeli press (which admitted this military action had been in the planning for three years) and with the lone exception of the Los Angeles Times (today’s article), the US press was virtually silent on the arming and training of Lebanese militias by the US and its allies. These militias had secretly been transferred to secret spots inside Beirut in preparation for military action. These facts have been widely reported and are generally known in the Middle East. One hardly reads or hears anything about them in the USA.
Apparently knowing where every last hidden base and arms catch was located (or so it seemed), Amal’s military arm struck and neutralized the militias before they could be fully mobilized for action, thus preventing what could have been a terrible blood bath and the opening of something approaching a full scale Lebanese civil war once again. The US backed (and created) militias proved completely unprepared and incapable of military action. Their military performance was pathetic, embarrassing considering how much time and money went into training them. They got the stuffings kicked out of them and surrendered in great disarray. Their members could easily have been slaughtered in great numbers by Amal. They weren’t, and basically surrendered (and then talked to the Arab media in great detail).
Bipartisan Support and Funding from the US Congress
One of my main concerns is that the current fighting in Lebanon is the prelude to a broader regional war, one that has been in the planning (and replanning) stages for three years at least with bipartison support in Congress. Andrew Cockburn’s excellent recent short piece (in Counterpunch) suggests that something more than Lebanon is at stake. The goal is for the Bush Administration in tandem with Israel in some shape or form to reshape the Middle East region as decisively as possible before Bush leaves office. The targets vary but include Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and of course Iran. I put all this out as a hypothesis and not yet a fact, but the details are adding up.
And if this is the case, the defeat of and, actually, the preemptive strike against the US, Saudi, Israeli, and Jordanian backed militias in Beirut – which was probably Act One of a longer and crueler military campaign – has thrown the Bush Administration and the Israelis into a kind of confusion not unlike what happened after Israeli’s unsuccessful venture into Lebanon two summers ago. One can say at this point that the US and its allies have lost the first skirmish. Once again they seriously underestimated the political and military acumen of their opponents – a classic miscalucation of colonial logic – and are now paying the price of international (if modest) humiliation.
Beirut’s Version of `Blackwater’ A Bust
`Act One’ was to neutralize Hezbollah and its Lebanese allies and was meant to open the door to more elaborate military campaigns – otherwise known as acts of international aggression. This would have eased the military pressure on Israel’s northern border (without another Israeli invasion) and opened the door to more directly targeting Syria, itself a stepping stone to hitting Iran. A seriously weakened Hizbollah would have been easier picking for another Israeli military incursion which remains problematic. It all might have been done in stages or all at once…this I don’t know. While I am glad that it was announced yesterday that the Israeli’s might be willing at long last to talk to Hamas, it might be to provide a temporarly lull in Gaza and the West Bank so Israel can concentrate its political and mlitary energies of Lebanon and Syria now that the 60th anniversary celebrations are fading into history.
The fact that these US (and Saudi and Israel and Jordanian) trained and back militias – the Middle East’s version of Blackwater – failed so miserably – and were figuratively caught with their pants down, raises the question: what now? My great fear is that the consultations taking place right now between Rice and her Middle East associates — and with Bush when he ventures into the region again to beg regional sovereign wealth funds for money to ease the US financial crisis –is that the possibility of US or US-Israeli military action will be put back on the table if it isn’t there already.
Regardless of how it plays out, very dangerous times…
View from the Left Bank: Rob Prince's Blog 