US Military Aid To Israel Increases Yet Again
President Bush’s FY2009 budget request to Congress includes $2.55 billion in military aid to Israel, a 9% increase over actual spending in FY2007. This increase in aid is the first installment of a ten-year agreement between Israel and the United States to increase military aid to Israel by 25%, totaling $30 billion over the next decade.
This is an indication of the strength of the US-Israeli bond. The aid should be cut until the occupation ends and then re-evaluated. Needless to say, dogs will fly and Bush will become a socialist and Cheney a pacificst before anything close to this happens.
Lessons From Finland on Education
Click here
An Urban Tale
It felt like a story right out of `The Wire’ – the best tv series ever – which I don’t doubt, but it really happened.
He knocked on the front door about 5:45. Could he come in and use the phone. `No,’ says I, `you can’t come in, but yes, you can use the phone – I’ll bring it to you on the porch’, which I did.
He was obviously distraught, disoriented and in tears. He said his car had broken down nearby. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. I never saw a car. He was trying to get a friend or relative to pick him up. There was a call to his father that left him very upset and disturbed, `He’s disowned me…his own son and he won’t speak to me’ as he broke into tears. And then turning to me, somewhat contemtuously he said, `Don’t worry, I won’t steal it’, `it’ being the phone. `You could steal it if you like, it’s a piece of shit anyhow’ says me trying to get a sense of what was going but not being sure.
He was short, a Chicano, either in his late teens or early 20s and he obviously was hurting, in real pain, the kind that just doesn’t go away and just gnaws at your insides. Either that or he was a pretty good actor. Either way it was ok. I was more concerned than afraid. Actually I was hardly afraid at all just sad that `the world’ had somehow burst on to my porch. Didn’t have a clue as to why he was so unhappy but felt like he wasn’t putting me on. Kept weeping about his father, and how God made all people equal `even Chicanos’ he said. I was kind of startled by that, didn’t know from whence it came.
He tried a few more calls to his `niggers’, his `homies’ as he called them. Had no idea what that meant. One of my daughters explained it me later. He went on how his homies wouldn’t let him down, but I guess this time they did for no one responded.
I offered to drive him somewhere if it wasn’t too far and he accepted `Wadsworth and 90th’ – about 20 minutes away. Ok says I, let’ go. And we did. It was only in the car that I could see that he probably was on something, although what I don’t know. He kept talking, `I wanted to go to CSU, but my father wouldn’t pay’.
`Is he poor?’ I asked. `No, he just doesn’t like the fact that I’m a dope dealer. ‘` Yes, that would be a problem, wouldn’t it?…What’s your first name anyhow?’ `Carlos’.
Carlos kept talking. I’d ask him questions now and then and mostly he answered. I was curious, `What sells on the streets.’ `Crack, cocaine, meth and ectasy…. in that order’. `Can you make a living?’ He claimed his operation brings in `3-4 K’ – which I guess means $3000-$4000 a day. Not a bad living but the thing with his father was eating out his insides, that combined with the fact he can’t see his wife in Missouri. ____________________________________________________________
…they told me I either have to go to prison or to Iraq. f**k Iraq, f**k the war. It ain’t my war ____________________________________________________________
`Why not?’..`I broke parole there’, Carols said, `because they told me I either have to go to prison or to Iraq. f**k Iraq, f**k the war. It ain’t my war.’
An anti-war dope dealer. Kept wondering if he really took in that much money and if I was, perhaps, in the wrong profession.
He told me more, how the operation was a family deal, his mother, brother and sister were involved with him and they worked as a kind of family small business. `Family …family is important to me’ and he went on, in tears again about how he missed his wife and 2 kids back in Missouri but `a man has to make a living’. Didn’t the police bother him. `Not really, not here, there’s some Mexican politican – I forget his name – he fixes things for us with the cops, works pretty well, they don’t bother us and businss is good’. No it’s not the cops, it’s the other dealers coming up, fighting us for customers. Competition’s stiff’.
More crying and then alot of sloppy emotional shit about how I was a nice man because I wasn’t afraid of him,,, but why wasn’t I afraid of him? `I don’t know’ I said, which was an honest answer. `I probably should be afraid of you…but then, I’m not in your line of fire? not a customer, not a competitor, not a cop…why should you do me any harm?’ …`Besides,’ I told him, `you’re just trying to make it in a world where there isn’t much else to do, is there?…and you’re hurting and you’re not putting it on. I can see that.’..
He’s used to bossing people around…`Turn left, turn right..’ – I told him I knew how to get there. Didn’t need his advice. He acted surprised and actually said `excuse me’ and stopped doing it.
And then I dropped him off where I promised and turned to go him. I had this funny take on him – in the 30s or 40s he would have been a communist, in the 60s and 70s he would have been one of those kids who gravitated to and worked with the Crusade for Justice. In 2008 he’s just a young dope dealer caught in a world that seemed to be closing in on him from all sides.
First thanks for the email and thanks to xyz for getting you in touch with me.
I participated in a `Progressive Dems’ caucas training about a month ago and presented their resolution on Iraq to my caucaus. It passed
Concerning Joan Fitz Gerald…
On domestic issues I have come to appreciate her and many of her positions. She is a solid liberal who has earned her spurs on public education, labor, civil rights, and done so consistently from what I can tell. The more I compare her policies with those of Jared Polis the more I have come to believe that on most issues, her approach is more consistent and generally humane.
I don’t much trust Polis despite his position on Iraq and just see him as someone who is trying to turn his millions into political power. That is common enough and there is, I suppose, nothing wrong with it, it just rubs me the wrong way to see someone who thinks he can buy his way to office. Admittedly, he’s certainly not unique in trying this approach. Besides he refuses to define himself on issues, suggesting that this is an old way of doing politics. What is the new way? Just figure out where public opinion is for his funders and potential voting base?
With Joan…I have been critical of her foreign policy statements concerning the Middle East for some time. On that issue – either for questions of principle or convenience – she has been long in bed with AIPAC. Three short examples:
1. – accepting AIPAC paid trips to Israel where one sees only one side of the conflict
2. – her sickening position in support of Israel during the Lebanon War
3. – lending her name to the campaign to go to war with Iran (an op ed in the Rocky September 16, 2007) in support of economic sanctions against Iran buying into the inaccurate and worn out charges that exaggerate the `Iranian threat’ all out of proportions. it triggered a campaign to get the state pension fund PERA to divest from companies doing business with Iran. (by the way, Leroy Moore, Carolyn Bninski, Ron Forthofer among others, could easily give her valuable advice on Middle East policy. She seems not to listen to such voices).
She is not alone in being more liberal on domestic issues and being awful on Middle East questions (sorry I cannot be kinder in my description – but Ken Gordon, Andrew Romanoff and Diana De Gette, Ken Salazar have essentially the same approach), aligning herself with Bush Administration policies. It seems to be rather common among the state’s liberal Dems. The thinking comes out of two streams:
– the positions of the Democratic Leadership Council
– pressure from Denver’s mainstream Jewish Community (AIPAC-ADL) which has influence in Democratic Party politics on the issue.
I have criticized her sharply for these and have heard (can’t confirm) she is aware of my comments.
I do believe that she has – to her surprise – taken some hits for her Middle East positions and is beginning to get a tad uncomfortable – but not yet enough to change her approach much. Allthough I can’t prove it, I think that part of the reason for Ken Gordon’s defeat in the Secretary of State race came from following more or less the same path, especially during the Lebanon War. Fitz Gerald is probably aware of this (Indeed Gordon and Fitz seem to have been a team – rolled out at key moments to genuflect to AIPAC policies) (By the way I don’t think AIPAC `all powerful’ – far from it – but in Colorado politics, on this issue, they have clout)
In any case, how to deal with her and that whole band of DLC brothers and sisters on the Middle East.?
I really don’t know. but here is what i suggest…
I recommend at this point getting her support for broad principles…that include
a. that it is in the US interest to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict with a two state solution as soon as possible. Some recognition – there has been none – of the long suffering of the Palestinian people and criticism of the Israeli Occupation of the 1967 Territories is essential.
b. that the solution must include final status talks on jerusalem, settlements, refugees taking into consideration both israel’s security needs (within its 1967 borders) and palestinian aspirations for a state of their own
c. that no solution to this conflict will be achieved unless the US stops trying to split the Palestinian movement. the US – and Israel need to include Hamas in any serious discussions
d. that going to war with iran – which is what she is supporting – is a terrible mistake – there needs to be a negotiated settlement with the iranians.
e. that the US – not in a unilateral, but in a multi-lateral fashion – must take an active part in pressuring the sides to come to an agreement – and the US must be more evenhanded – it is not. it is completely one-sided as you know.
These are positions that would nudge the US to change it current policies; these are not particularly radical positions. I seriously doubt that Fitz will listen to you though – she sees her political future, especially right now, as tied to AIPAC positions and she is unlikely to budge from this approach.
Still I believe it worth the effort – very much so – that she begin hearing these kind of positions that sooner or later she’ll have to consider because they are fair, just and in the interests of this country.
Public pressure moved her to the left on iraq. I am convinced that she just didn’t have a change of heart `on her own’. It will take an even bigger movement to move her positions left on israel-palestine.
so…let’s build it.
This is pretty much what i would say to Joan F. and her `inner’ or `outer’ circles. If you would like to forward this to her that is fine with me. I send her my regards. I simply don’t believe that she doesn’t understand the issues discussed above. She’s a gutsy lady with a good political mind. Just lost her way abit on the Middle East. This isn’t rocket science -either politically or morally. She might also look at my last blog www.cpjnews.com/blog.htm where I take her to task again for lending her name to the Iran-PERA divestment campaign.
Best,
Rob P.
The PERA-Iran Divestment Campaign …Some Afterthoughts: How It Was Done Politically
1.
A few months ago, Howard Boigon, husband of Denver City Council woman Carol Boigon and Elliott Husney made the rounds of the Colorado State Legislature seeing if they could get some sponsors for a resolution pressuring the state pension fund, PERA, to divest from companies doing business with Iran’s energy sector.
Both are Democrats who have supported the party’s more liberal wing for several decades and they are, as they say in the political sense, `players’. Boigon is a legal expert on the state’s oil and gas industry and an advisor to Governor Ritter. Husney is a venture capitalist and former chair of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Colorado. Both also have long been active leaders in Denver’s Jewish Community and both are currently endorsing Joyce Foster in her run for a state senate seat against current House Representative Alice Borodkin.
Although there were other forces involved (see blog entries from early January), the mainstream Jewish Community in Colorado, represented by the Allied Jewish Federation of Colorado and the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) spearheaded the effort, and have been preparing for it for some time.
Who’s Sleeping With Whom (Politically Speaking Of Course)
It’s kind of interesting to see who is sleeping with who (or is it `whom’?) – politically speaking of course. The key legislative players, State Senator Ken Gordon and State Representative Andrew Romanoff pushed the effort in the legislature. The JCRC produced some written material `Colorado: Divesting from Iran’s Energy Sector’ borrowing the Bush Adminstration propaganda line that `Iran Poses An Imminet Threat to the International Community’. There were a number of other prominent Jewish Denverites working their contacts on this behind the scenes.
The public political campaign was kicked off in September with an op ed in the Rocky Mountain News `It’s Imperative To Divest From Iran’ signed by four Colorado legislators, Dems Joan Fitz-Gerald (now running for Congress in the 2nd District) and Ken Gordon, Republicans Andy McElhany and Josh Penry. Two other players – who were ready to introduce legislation on the matter are Joe Rice and Steve Ward, both from Littleton, both, until a few weeks ago active duty military in Iraq.
It was thus a well sculpted bi-partisan effort that brought liberal Dems like Gordon, Fitz Gerald and Andrew Romanoff (who pushed the idea in his trips round the state) together with more conservative Republican military types like Ward and Penry. They even got Governor Ritter on board, it seems, during Ritter’s visit to Iraq where he met with both Rice and Ward as was reported on several occasions in the local press last December.
Initiated several years ago by Israeli right-wing politican Binjamin Netanyahu, who called on the US Jewish Community to support such an effort, the campaign has garnered support among Jewish communities throughout the nation. Here in Colorado, targeting the state’s pension fund, is a part of a misguided national effort to get state pension funds to divest from Iran that is being coordinated on a national level by AIPAC that has supported Bush policies in the Middle East – be they in Iraq, Israel-Palestine or towards Iran, rather closely.
Interestingly, the campaign is targeting only state-run pension funds, but not private ones, nor mutual funds nor stocks. Thus tailored, it appeals to neo-conservatives of all stripes (it includes some Dems) who are champing at the bit to find different ways to privatize, weaken what is a $2.7 trillion treasure trove that the financial sector would like to pry open for their usual predatory reasons.
2.
The logic used to justify this divestment campaign is more or less the same used by the Bush Administration in its push towards a military confrontation with Iran. It is rather thin, but that doesn’t seem to matter. And while most of the arguments put forth to justify the Bush Administration’s policy have little or not legitimacy, this didn’t seem to matter either. The September 16, 2007 op ed leaned heavily on the myth of the Iranian nuclear threat but then a few months later, that argument lost its potency when the National Intelligence Estimate – the combined thinking – I won’t call it `wisdom’ – of 16 US intelligence agencies asserted that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003.
There are some voices, among them the former US weapons inspector for the UN, Scott Ritter, who argue that Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program to begin with. Again, no evidence other than the much repeated accusations, has been presented to disprove Ritter’s thesis.
With the nuclear weapons scare denied them, the emphasis of the divestment supporters shifted to the claim that Iran was supplying road side bombs – improvised explosive devices (IED’s) and their more sooped up versions, explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) to guerilla movements inside Iraq that were doing significant damage to US forces in Iraq. So as the nuclear threat lost traction, the IED-Iran-terrorism argument gained steam and seemed to carry the day in the Colorado state legislature which is anyway not known for having much of a handle on foreign (or for that matter state) policy.
It is interesting that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, rejected in the claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, was already completed way back in February 2007 but not released for another nine months. This gave the Bush Administration – who absolutely knew the main lines of its content – a chance to reshape its anti-Iranian public opinion campaign from Iran’s nuclear threat to the new inflated IED-Iran conspiracy. The shift and the IED-Iran connection began to be publicly marketed repeatedly by Administration and US miltary in the late Spring and early summer of last year. (Just about the time the Iran-divestment people began their public campaign here in Colorado). By the time the NIE report was released at the end of 2007, one hardly heard about the Iranian nuclear threat anymore.
There is no question that IED’s and EFPs are doing considerable damage to US forces in Iraq. Small, cheap (`cost about as much as a pizza’), easily made, these roadside bombs can be triggered by radio waves, cell phones, laser light sources and who knows how many other routes. With their armor-piercing capabilities, they are responsible for a fair number of US deaths in Iraq.
Interesting how resistant movements over the decades have found cheap ways to neutralize multi-billion dollar new US high tech weapons systems…from Vietnam to Iraq. The United States has already invested more than $6 billion to research ways to counter their effectiveness, but with virtually no success. Earlier in the war, IED’s were said to be responsible for about a third of US deaths, now it is up to 75%, this according to General Petraues’ report to Congress last summer.
Similar to all the claims of Iraqi `weapons of mass destruction,’ it doesn’t take long or much research to discover how thin is the IED-Iran connection. While the allegation has been repeated by the Bush Adminstration, reported dutifully in the media (including by Colorado military reps like Rice and Ward) and then emphasized for over a year, the evidence is virtually non-existent.
It is possible that some IED’s do come from Iran, but they are insignificant. Iraq was a country that had an advanced military most of whom lost their jobs immediately after the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was completed. Many, many of them knew not only how to make IEDs but how to handle far more advanced weaponry. The weapons’ caches – and the bomb making factories around the country number in the thousands. There is also the fact that despite the Bush Administration claims, actually Iran has no interest in seeing the situation in Iraq deteriorate any further and the consequences of a total collapse will affect them deeply as well.
Bye Bye Nukes, Hello IEDs
It is fascinating that while the United States (and Israel) continue to hammer home the `Iran-threat’ message that in the Arab World no one is buying it. Even US allies like Saudi Arabia and now Egypt are calling on the United States to cool its anti-Iranian rhetoric. Furthermore, Bush’s grand plan to establish an anti-Iranian coalition in the Middle East – the key goal of his recent trip to the region besides selling weapons – has essentially gone bust. Nothing symbolizes the degree to which the anti-Iranian hysteria here is out of touch with reality than the fact that the US installed Iraqi regime has just invited the Iranian President on an official visit to Baghdad.
As discussed below (see entries from early and mid January), the Iran-divestment campaign succeeded in away here in Colorado despite many logical arguments to counter the claims made in support of this misguided initiative. In the end, from what I can tell, AIPAC’s victory on this seems more pyrrhic than real. The goal of the campaign is to keep the vilification of Iran before the public eye, to mobilize public opinion in support of a military strike. This broader goal appears to have failed as well. Although AIPAC won its divestment plan (sort of) here in Colorado, the public has not responded to this fear tactics towards Iran in the same manner as was achieved before the war in Iraq when public opinion, at least at first, stood behind the president.
Of course the fact that public opinion has not been mobilized does not mean that the Bush Administration’s plans to attack Iran are off the table. It must be remembered the degree to which this administration’s Middle East policy is fueled primarily by ideological and not practical considerations. But let us hope that the situation will not come to that. It could be catastrophic and not just for Iran.
Diverse Notes (on Obama’s `anti-Israel’ positions, on the independence of Kosovo).
`Developers? They’re even worse than drug dealers’ from `The Wire’ Season 3, Episode 4.
`Colorado lasses with their asses bound in leather, fancy vests upon their breasts and nothing on their minds’…from Mary McCaslin `Oh Hollywood’ (slightly revised)
1.
A friend told me a story yesterday worth sharing of the kind that would be funny but for the fact that it was true. He happened to be having dinner at the home of one Denver’s most prosperous Jewish families, one of those that made their fortune through land development and now – along with a few others of the same sorry ilk – live a life of sumptuous vapidity, smug in the illusion that somehow their wealth is contributing to the common good. Picassos on the walls, golden handles on the toilets and not much in their brains – although their face lifts were exquisite, etc etc. `Way down deep, they’re shallow’, as the song goes.
In any case, it should be no surprise that the contest for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination between Clinton and Obama came up during dinner with the relative merits and shortcomings of both being considered in some detail. But a difficulty of great intellectual import struck those present: it seemed that after much discussion that no one could distinguish the policies of the one from the other. Hillary and Obama seemed pretty close on the issues although one touted experience, the other made the vague promise of change.
Such a dilemma.
Then one of the more brilliant participants in this discussion found a path through this political road block.
`But then Obama is anti-Israel’.
A heavy and knowing silence filled the room. Now people could decide for whom to vote.
The crisis, over, the tension lifted, the issue seemed resolved until my friend asked the innocent question: What does that mean, to be anti-Israel?
Once again, a heavy silence fell over the room as it seems that no one present could answer the question. And they thought to have resolved the issue. A short discussion ensued. Honesty did reign however. In the end they weren’t sure what being `anti-Israel’ meant but whatever it was, it was quite serious.
2.
Kosovo’s declaration of Independence
A friend sent me an article on Kosovo’s independence. It was written by one Chris Marsden on `the World Socialist Website’…web home of the Fourth International. I wasn’t sure the Fourth International was still around and I’m glad to know they’re still gracing us with their vision – impractical then, impractical now – of worldwide revolution. A few days ago I just bored a class stiff going through the history of the first, second, third and fourth internationals and I could see from the glaze which came over their eyes that they cared about as much about the subject as when I went through, in sadistic detail, all the Protestant splits off of the Catholic core beginning in the early 16th Century.
Still it was a decent piece, good enough to copy and reprint in its entirety. (Click here for it) that captured some of my own concerns – although I approach it from a somewhat different angle. Still it’s main point – that this independence will enhance regional instability and could lead to an outbreak of war – I agree with. I’m not saying that the people of Kosovo shouldn’t have the right to self-determination, nor that the Albanian population of Kosovo ever enjoyed anything close to equal rights either under the Communist Yugoslav or later Serbian rule – all of that is true enough. It’s too bad that all this could not have been resolved in some other form other than a complete break.
Beyond what Marsden writes here – no need to repeat his analysis – I would add the following:
1. Although the political agreement reached with the EU specifies that Kosovo will not link up with another nation in the region – a way to try to allay Serbian and Russian fears of Kosovo unifying with Albania sometime in the future – this clause is as empty as the day is long. Kosovo has no future from what I can tell on its own, no serious independent possibility to develop as a nation state given its poor economic potential. If it breaks its economic ties with Serbia or downplays them significantly, it will have to turn elsewhere, elsewhere almost certainly being Albania. Defacto unification with Albania is in the offing. It is only a matter of time, another decade? before the de facto unification becomes de jure.
2. The independence of Kosovo will put great strains on the weakest and smallest of the post-Yugoslav new nation states – Macedonia, itself with a large Albanian population in its western sector. Kosovo independence will in short order greatly encourage Albanian separatism in this fragile state which also must contend with territorial claims from neighboring Greece and Bulgaria. It is not unlikely that this combination of pressures will result in the collapse of Macedonia as a short-lived national experiment in the not too distant future.
3. Almost 20 years after the collapse of Communism, what is that the post Communist era has accomplished. True, countries gained independence and a degree of economic and political self-determination from what was an oppressive Soviet overlord. But if life in someways improved, in others it has resulted in economic trauma (the shock therapy of the 1990s) and has been replaced by great uncertainty for the future. It is highly debateable that life `improved’. If one looks from the Baltic to the Balkans across Central Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of Communism, one sees a fracturing of the entire region into small, somewhat ethnically cleansed units from Lithuania to Albania. Not a pretty picture.
Tiny states – none of which can survive economically or politically on their own without major economic and political support from some stronger neighbor, either east or west. True some are dong better than others (Estonia, Hungary, Czech Republic come to mind), but the overall picture is one of an uncertain, unstable future for most of them. And in all of them the dangers of narrow ethnic nationalist responses to crises are very real.
4. Add to this that Kosovo nationalism – in part as a result of the nature of long term Serbian oppression – most especially that variety which has come to power on the shoulders of the KLA – has a bitterly narrow ethnic extremist edge to it – nothing like the more tolerant, moderate forms that first emerged with collapse of Yugoslavia in the late 1980s. The moderate phase of Kosovo nationalism did not last long.
Who knows where it will go but whever the Europeans have created a mess, one that could easily undermine the project of European integration and although it is not written in stone yet – lead to war. Balkan wars have, when they happen, an extraordinarily ruthless character to them. Not only that which transpired in the 1990s. Getting back to the Fourth International, pick up Trotsky’s `Balkan Wars’ – from my perspective, perhaps the best stuff the guy ever wrote – about the Balkan Wars that preceded `the big one’ (WWI) from 1910-1912. Gives a nice taste of what could still lie ahead in this still chronically unstable region of Europe.
I can find no reason to cheer.
Blood and Champagne
Uri and Rachel Avnery
(note: two days ago, disturbed by the gleeful celebrations in Israel and among American Jews over the assassination of Hizbullah military strategist Amin Fayez Moughniyah, I wrote some comments about him and about the futility of targeted assassinations, at which the Israelis so excel and now the US has picked up on, in its `war on terrorism’. Since then I have spoken with a few friends who are quite knowledge – far more than myself – on Moughniyah’s life work. Still, rereading what I wrote, most of it holds. I enclose below yet another piece by Uri Avnery – this one on Moughniyah with more probing thoughts about the futility of targeted assassinations, which he refers to as liquidations. I was thinking of actually researching all this in more depth as I was fairly certain that these acts have resulted in very little. Another fine piece. I have seen three spellings of Moughniyah’s name already. Mine comes from the Financial Times ).
__________________________
Uri Avnery
16.2.08 Blood and Champagne
EVERY PEOPLE elevate the profession in which they excel.
If a person in the street were asked to name the area of enterprise in which we Israelis excel, his answer would probably be: Hi-Tech. And indeed, in this area we have recorded some impressive achievements. It seems as if hardly a day passes without an Israeli start-up company that was born in a garage being sold for hundreds of millions. Little Israel is one of the major hi-tech powers in the world.
But the profession in which Israel is not only one of the biggest, but the unchallenged Numero Uno is: liquidations.
This week this was proven once again. The Hebrew verb “lekhassel” – liquidate – in all its grammatical forms, currently dominates our public discourse. Respected professors debate with academic solemnity when to “liquidate” and whom. Used generals discuss with professional zeal the technicalities of “liquidation”, its rules and methods. Shrewd politicians compete with each other about the number and status of the candidates for “liquidation”.
INDEED, FOR a long time now there has not been such an orgy of jubilation and self-congratulation in the Israeli media as there was this week. Every reporter, every commentator, every political hack, every transient celeb interviewed on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers, was radiant with pride. We have done it! We have succeeded! We have “liquidated” Imad Mughniyeh!
He was a “terrorist”. And not just a terrorist, a master terrorist! An arch-terrorist! The very king of terrorists! From hour to hour his stature grew, reaching gigantic proportions. Compared to him, Osama Bin-Laden is a mere beginner. The list of his exploits grew from news report to news report, from headline to headline.
There is and never has been anyone like him. For years he has kept out of sight. But our good boys – many, many good boys – have not neglected him for a moment. They worked day and night, weeks and months, years and decades, in order to trace him. They “knew him better than his friends, better than he knew himself” (verbatim quote from a respected Haaretz commentator, gloating like all his colleagues).
True, one killjoy Western commentator argued on Aljazeera that Mughniyeh had dropped from sight because he had ceased to be important, that his great days as a terrorist were in the 80s and 90s, when he hijacked a plane and brought down the Marine headquarters in Beirut and Israeli institutions abroad. Since Hizbullah has turned into a state-within-the-state, with a kind of regular army, he had – according to this version – outlived his usefulness.
But what the hell. Mughniyeh-the-person has disappeared, and Mughniyeh-the-legend has taken his place, a world-embracing mythological terrorist, who has long been marked as “a Son of Death” (i.e. a person to be killed) as declared on TV by another out-of-use general. His “liquidation” was a huge, almost supra-natural, achievement, much more important than Lebanon War II, in which we were not so very successful. The “liquidation” equals at least the glorious Entebbe exploit, if not more.
True, the Holy Book enjoins us: “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth / Lest the Lord see it and it displeases him.” (Proverbs 24:17) But this was not just any enemy, it was a super-super-enemy, and therefore the Lord will certainly excuse us for dancing with joy from talk-show to talk-show, from issue to issue, from speech to speech, as long as we do not distribute candies in the street – even if the Israeli government denies feebly that we were the ones who “liquidated” the man.
AS CHANCE would have it, the “liquidation” was carried out only a few days after I wrote an article about the inability of occupying powers to understand the inner logic of resistance organizations. Mughniyeh’s “liquidation” is an outstanding example of this. (Of course, Israel gave up its occupation of South Lebanon some years ago, but the relationship between the parties has remained as it was.)
In the eyes of the Israeli leadership, the “liquidation” was a huge success. We have “cut off the head of the serpent” (another headline from Haaretz). We have inflicted on Hizbullah immense damage, so much that it cannot be repaired. “This is not revenge but prevention”, as another of the guided reporters (Haaretz again) declared. This is such an important achievement, that it outweighs the inevitable revenge, whatever the number of victims-to-be.
In the eyes of Hizbullah, thing look quite different. The organization has acquired another precious asset: a national hero, whose name fills the air from Iran to Morocco. The “liquidated” Mughniyeh is worth more than the live Mughniyeh, irrespective of what his real status may have been at the end of his life.
Enough to remember what happened here in 1942, when the British “liquidated” Abraham Stern (a.k.a. Ya’ir): from his blood the Lehi organization (a.k.a. Stern Gang) was born and became perhaps the most efficient terrorist organization of the 20th century.
Therefore, Hizbullah has no interest at all in belittling the status of the liquidatee. On the contrary, Hassan Nasrallah, exactly like Ehud Olmert, has every interest in blowing up his stature to huge proportions.
If Hizbullah has lately been far from the all-Arab spotlight, it is now back
with a bang. Almost every Arab station devoted hours to “the brother the martyr the commander Imad Mughniyeh al-Hajj Raduan”.
In the struggle for Lebanon – the main battle that occupies Nasrallah – the organization has scored a great advantage. Multitudes joined the funeral, overshadowing the almost simultaneous memorial parade for his adversary, Rafiq al-Hariri. In his speech, Nasrallah described his opponents contemptuously as accomplices to the murder of the hero, despicable collaborators of Israel and the United States, and called upon them to leave the house and move to Tel Aviv or New York. He has gone up another notch in his struggle for domination of the Land of the Cedars.
And the main thing: the anger about the murder and the pride in the martyr will inspire another generation of youngsters, who will be ready to die for Allah and Nasrallah. The more Israeli propaganda enlarges the proportions of Mughniyeh, the more young Shiites will be inspired to follow his example.
The career of the man himself is interesting in this respect. When he was born in a Shiite village in South Lebanon, the Shiites there were a despised, downtrodden and impotent community. He joined the Palestinian Fatah organization, which dominated South Lebanon at the time, eventually becoming one of Yasser Arafat’s bodyguards (I may even have seen him when I met Arafat in Beirut). But when Israel succeeded in driving the Fatah forces out of South Lebanon, Mughniyeh stayed behind and joined Hizbullah, the new fighting force that had sprung up as a direct result of the Israeli occupation.
ISRAEL NOW RESEMBLES the person whose neighbor overhead has dropped one boot on the floor, and who is waiting for the second boot to fall.
Everybody knows that there will be revenge. Nasrallah has promised this, adding that it could take place anywhere in the world. For a long time already, people in Israel believe Nasrallah much more than Olmert.
Israeli security organs are issuing dire warnings for people going abroad – to be on guard at every moment, not to be conspicuous, not to congregate with other Israelis, not to accept unusual invitations, etc. The media have magnified these warnings to the point of hysteria. In the Israeli embassies, security has been tightened. On the Northern border, too, an alert has been sounded – just a few days after Olmert boasted in the Knesset that, as a result of the war, the Northern border is now quieter than ever before.
Such worries are far from baseless. All the past “liquidations” of this kind have brought with them dire consequences:
– The classic example is, of course, the “liquidation” of Nasrallah’s predecessor, Abbas Mussawi. He was killed in South Lebanon in 1992 by Apache gunships. All of Israel rejoiced. Then, too, the Champagne was flowing. In revenge, Hizbullah blew up the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, as well as the Jewish community center there. The planner was, it is now alleged, Imad Mughniyeh. More than a hundred people perished. The main result: instead of the rather grey Mussawi, the sophisticated, masterly Nasrallah took over.
– Before that, Golda Meir ordered a series of “liquidations” to revenge the tragedy of the Israeli athletes in Munich (most of whom were actually killed by the inept German police trying to prevent their being flown to Algeria as hostages). Not one of the “liquidated” had anything to do with the outrage itself. They were PLO diplomatic representatives, sitting ducks in their offices. The matter is described at length in Stephen Spielberg’s kitschy film “Munich”. The result: the PLO became stronger and turned into a state-in-the-making, Yasser Arafat eventually returned to Palestine.
– The “liquidation” of Yahyah Ayyash in Gaza in 1996 resembles the Mughniyeh affair. It was carried out by means of a booby-trapped cellular telephone. Ayyash’s dimensions, too, were blown up to giant proportions, so that he had become a legend already in his own lifetime. The nickname “the engineer” was attached to him because he prepared the explosive devices used by Hamas. Shimon Peres, who had succeeded to the Prime Ministership after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, believed that the “liquidation” would lend him huge popularity and get him re-elected. The opposite happened: Hamas reacted with a series of sensational suicide-bombings and brought Binyamin Netanyahu to power.
– Fathi Shikaki, head of Islamic Jihad, was “liquidated” in 1995 by a bicyclist who shot him down in a Malta street. The small organization was not eradicated, but on the contrary grew through its revenge actions. Today it is the group which is launching the Qassams at Sderot.
– Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al was actually being “liquidated” in a street in Amman by the injection of poison. The act was exposed and its perpetrators identified and a furious King Hussein compelled Israel to provide the antidote that saved his life. The “liquidators” were allowed to go home in return for the release of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmad Yassin from Israeli prison. As a result, Mash’al was promoted and is now the senior political leader of Hamas.
– Sheik Yassin himself, a paraplegic, was “liquidated” by attack helicopters while leaving a mosque after prayer. A previous attempt by bombing his home had failed. The sheik became a martyr in the eyes of the entire Arab world, and has served since as an inspiration for hundreds of Hamas attacks.
THE COMMON denominator of all these and many other actions is that they did not harm the organizations of the “liquidatees”, but boomeranged. And all of them brought in their wake grievous revenge attacks.
The decision to carry out a “liquidation” resembles the decision that was taken to start the Second Lebanon War: not one of the deciders gives a damn for the suffering of the civilian population that inevitably falls victim to the revenge.
Why, then, are the “liquidations” carried out?
The response of one of the generals who was asked this question: “There is no unequivocal answer to this.”
These words are dripping with Chutzpa: how can one decide on such an action when there is no unequivocal answer to the question of its being worth the price?
I suspect that the real reason is both political and psychological. Political, because it is always popular. After every “liquidation”, there is much jubilation. When the revenge arrives, the public (and the media) do not see the connection between the”liquidation” and the response. Each is seen separately. Few people have the time and the inclination to think about it, when everybody is burning with fury about the latest murderous attack.
In the present situation, there is an additional political motivation: the army has no answer to the Qassams, nor has it any desire to get enmeshed in the re-occupation of the Gaza Strip, with all the expected casualties. A sensational “liquidation” is a simple alternative.
The psychological reason is also clear: it is satisfying. True, the “liquidation” – as the word shows – is more appropriate for the underworld than for the security organs of a state. But it is a challenging and complex task, as in a Mafia film, which gives much satisfaction to the “liquidators”. Ehud Barak, for example, was a liquidator from the start of his military career. When the “liquidation” ends in success, the executioners can raise glasses of champagne.
A mixture of blood, champagne and folly is an intoxicating but toxic cocktail.
The death of Hezbollah military leader Imad Fayez Moughniyah by a car bomb in Damascus had triggered nothing short of gleeful cheers both in the United States and Israel. Through its spokesperson, Sean McCormick, the State Department issued a statement rationalizing the killing: `The world is a better place without this man in it. He was a cold blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost’. The Wall Street Journal chimed in `Moughniyah died in a car bombing, probably orchestrated by the Mossad, though Israel denies it. It’d be nice to think the CIA was up to this, but we have our doubts.’ What’s worse, the Israeli policy of targeted assassination or the unflagging US support for this policy? You decide.
Hezbollah on the other hand will give him a hero’s funeral in Beirut and has already promised revenge. There is no reason to doubt this claim. So another round of tit-for-tat bloodshed has opened atop an already existing mountain of death and suffering. While denying responsibility – which is Israeli policy in any event – much of the world – as the Wall Street Journal piece suggests, credits Israel with the murder. Isn’t that right word? Murder? – the pre-meditated killing of a human being? A revenge killing if you will – quite a primitive response in a world supposed to be governed by `the rule of law’?
Although the American press has already found Moughniyah guilty of many high crimes, the Financial Times (2-14-08) is more careful pointing out how he was never indicted for many of the incidents he was given credit for masterminding, including the 1984 bombings of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon. It’s hard to tell what Moughniyah did or didn’t do. The US government certainly hasn’t presented a strong case beyond accusations.
But magnifying Moughniyah’s importance is essential to justify his killing just as magnifying Saddam Hussein’s `weapons of mass destruction was necessary to justify the invasion of Iraq before the public. If Moughniyah is just a bit player, or, someone who has, as I suspect, essentially retired from military activities to Damascus, the murder doesn’t play as well to audiences in Israel or elsewhere.
Israel’s record of targeted assassination, that includes several hundred Palestinians and Lebanese over the years, includes Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s leader, killed by an Israeli helicopter attack in 1992. Rather than destabilize Hezbollah, it lead to the emergence of Hassan Nasrallah as that organization’s leader and a considerable strengthening of both its political and military wings. In 2004, death by helicopter rocket was also the fate of Sheik Ahmad Yassin, paraplegic Hamas spiritual leader who was leaving a mosque in a wheel chair. It was an especially obscene and inhumane act, broadly supported in both the United States and Israel. Interestingly, Yassin was among those in Hamas that supported, under certain circumstances, negotiating with Israel. And now , continuing in this great tradition, members of the Israeli cabinet are openly calling for the assassination of Nasrallah.
Furthermore now both in Israel and the United States it is claimed that Moughniyah’s assassination will greatly destabilize and undermine Hezbollah’s military capacity in S. Lebanon. This is ludicrous as both the Israelis and the Bush Administration are well aware. Before his assassination Moughniyah seemed to be in semi-retirement in Syria. This is what is made him such an easy – and actually not very strategic target in Damascus. His death will have no impact whatsoever on Hezbollah’s military or political activities.
Like virtually all actions of this gendre, although by now an accepted modus vivendi for the Israeli military, this was an exceedingly politically stupid act, but a typical Israeli response to a frustrating situation that will only strengthen Hezbollah’s appeal throughout the region and once again ratchet up the tensions will lead to yet another war.
_____________________________________________________________
It is more than likely that this assassination is a response to the damning indictment the Israeli military suffered in the recently published Winogar Report which made the world’s fourth largest military and its leadership look pretty pathetic in the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
______________________________________________________________
It is more than likely that this assassination is a response to the damning indictment the Israeli military suffered in the recently published Winogar Report which made the world’s fourth largest military and its leadership look pretty pathetic in the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Thus humiliated, in an effort to show the world that they still possessed a fair share of military Viagra – and to re-enforce the notion that Israel can strike anywhere in the region at will – they knocked off a man who was little more than a spent guerilla.
Plays well at home perhaps. A bit like, in 1975, after losing the war in Vietnam, President Gerald Ford, hoping in vain to turn defeat into victory, attacked the Mayaguez off the coast of Cambodia. It changed nothing. Regardless how many movies since 1975 suggest the opposite, the US lost the war in Vietnam and Israel, despite killing Moughniyah, still lost 2006 war in Lebanon.
____________________________
A Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Group) poem puts it nice and succinctly (again)
Experience shows
That nothing good
Comes out of
Assassinations.
An assassination
Is followed by
Revenge.
Dozens of innocents
Are killed in the
Vicious circle of
Revenge and bloodshed.
Experience shows
That the place
Of the assassinated,
Is almost always
Taken by a
More talented
Enemy.
—————-
Oh yes, Happy Valentine’s Day.
Caucus Round Up 6:
(note: for those interested, the notes from my talk at the Abu Bakr Mosque yesterday `Palestine: 1800-1917′ appear just after the Caucus Round Up entries. Just scroll down a bit).
DLV summarizes…
1) turn-out was even larger than expected (latest stats suggest almost 15% of registered Dems — a near-record and more than 2x 2004 — showing how low standards have slipped);
2) whether by plan or incompetence, the massing of precincts into ‘vote centers” was an even greater boondoggle than in past, cramming folks into small and often hot rooms, thus leaving impatient new voters and elderly vets to whims of whomever ran the caucus;
(3) registrations and credentials were seldom checked and verified for eleigibility, opening the proceedings to more partic! ipants but also to possible fraud and vote-stacking;
(4) party insiders/hacks took advantage of rules and mechanics to browbeat cranky mobs into quick straw votes for presidential front-runners’ personality contest in a rush to report (inaccurate) results to eagerly superficial media, thus
(5) thwarting efforts to organize the remainder around uncommitted delegates committed to raising issues like war and health care at district-county conventions (although Ned broke through in his precinct, or so I hear);
(6) this had the effect (again, method to madness?) of stifling discussion and deliberation with neighbors over resolutions, no matter how “nuanced” or exaggerated; and therefore
(7) leaving platform/policy in the hands of the DLC-dominated appointees and the presidential nomination to the unelected “super-delegates”
(8) and neglecting any real debate over the candidates for other open seats (e.g., Udall v. Green Bob Kinsey for Senate)
i.e., pretty much pro-forma, but lessons to be learned are:
1) organization may be based on enthusiasm and even knowledge but discipline and a plan make the difference between winning and losing, so
2) it pays to talk to party-goers before-hand and round-up support in advance
3) taking thge levers on the apparatus ultimately matters, but requires more time, commitment
4) while some argue this all shows the wisdom of moving the caucuses up earlier and earlier, the leapfrogging has actually made the votes of those who waited more valuable;
5) a statewide or regional primary will only accelerate the trend favoring monied interests who can buy TV and other media (and thus the corporate media’s role in picking “credible” candidates and excluding others from the debates a la Kucinich)
6) the better alternative is not to scrap the caucuses but to decentralize, make them more neighborly and democratic, consultative and deliberative as fora for dis! cussing issues, selecting candidates and organizing
Caucus Round Up 5: Nancy Fey
At the caucus for precinct 413 which Rob and I attended there were at least 5 times (106) as many people as in 2004. It did make discussion difficult with so many people but it is also true that no discussion was asked for by the precinct captain. However, Rob and I presented planks to the precinct captain on the war, healthcare, impeaching Cheney and adhering to the Geneva Conventions including no torture. He read them out loud a couple of times; no discussion was called for, and then we voted. They all passed though the antiwar one was so close hands had to be counted. It was all done in an hour. I agree that a plan would be useful; at least we took a list of platform plank topics. Part of the problem for me was not being able to anticipate the setup or the rules so that I didn’t know how to maneuver since I’m not a fast thinker. It was interesting to be there.
Nancy
Caucus Round Up 4: Bob Ross
Lois and I went to the caucus for precinct 421. There were 74 voters milling around and it was a little confusing. Perhaps “herding Democrats” (or better yet “herding peace activists”) should replace the older expression “herding cats” in the lexicon. This was the first caucus for Lois and me as well as many if not most of the other people attending. Even though I had talked to Ned earlier in the day and looked at the Democratic Party website, like Nancy, I couldn’t really anticipate the setup or the rules. This is from the Democratic Party website:
In 2008, we are asking that a Presidential preference poll be conducted as the first order of business after the election of the Chair and Secretary, and immediately report those results to your County Party Chair, so that the County Chair can report the county results to the State Party to report to the press and media by 9:30 p.m. on caucus night. ” (” immediately” is underlined in the original, the press and media is underlined by me)
Originally there were 4 uncommitted voters, 23 Clinton supporters and 46 Obama supporters and 0 for Gravel. At this point Lois and I switched from uncommitted to Obama the final tally was 24 Clinton 48 Obama and 1 uncommitted. Someone was asked to speak for Obama and someone else spoke for Clinton. What I didn’t realize was that I could have stayed uncommitted and tried to persuade other voters to switch and if I failed to get the 7 more uncommitted voters needed still become an Obama supporter. This is in fact what Ned was able to do, though in his case I think he only had to persuade two voters to switch (and he is married to one of them). Dennis is now the uncommitted delegate from Ned’s precinct which broke 4 Obama, 2 Clinton, 1 uncommitted. Pharlain’s precinct in Sunnyside also broke similarly 5 to 2. I had printed out the 17 pages of the 2006 Colorado Democratic platform which was surprisingly progressive calling for universal health care and the investigation and if appropriate impeachment of Bush and Cheney. We passed a resolution proposing that the 2006 Colorado platform be adopted as the 2008 Colorado Democratic platform. The precinct captain (obviously a Progressive party hack) then read through the resolutions of the Colorado Progressive Democratic principles which he had brought with him. All of these passed with near unanimous voting. My daughter’s precinct also passed the Progressive Dem’s platform. Guess its a good sign that these passed, but obviously the 2006 Colorado platform has had little if any effect.
Caucus Round Up 3: Chris Kendall:
Precinct 513 met at Horace Mann Middle School, along with about 5 other precincts. There were so many people from 513 that they had to send us all to another gymnasium, which we weren’t authorized to use. There were at least 150 of us. By unanimous acclaim, we elected the woman who stood up on a table to bring us to order our caucus chair. We took a straw poll immediately for president, dividing about 7 to 2 for Obama, with 7 uncommitted voters. Then we took 10 minutes for discussion, which was barbeque style, with several people from each side gathering around the uncommitted voters and trying to talk them into flipping. In the end, each side got 3 or 4 to come over, and we took our binding vote, 29 for Clinton, 122 for Obama. Then, before the vote for Senator, a representative for Udall was introduced and gave a 5 minute speech extolling his virtues, after our caucus chair had spent a few moments describing what a parcel of evil the likely Republican challenger for the seat happens to be. No mention was made of any Democratic challenger for the nomination, and I’m ashamed to say I didn’t know of one, either, or I would have brought the critter up. A voice vote was taken immediately, which was unanimous for Udall. Before selecting delegates, the chair announced that anyone who was not interested in being, or voting for, the delegates, was free to go. Of course, we were free to go at anytime, but about 130 people took this as a cue, and left the gym. There were barely enough folks left to fill out the delegate and alternate lists. I didn’t put myself forward, as I already have a commitment for March 8.
(note: there are two more `Caucus Round Up’ entries below, one from Cheryl Kasson, the other from myself)
Palestine: 1800-1917: Notes from My Talk at Abu Bakr Mosque, Feb 9, 2008
1
Thanks for the invite
– Special thanks to Imam Mohammed, to Leila Sulieman who doesn’t take no for an answer
– One little correction – I am a Senior Lecturer of International Studies – work for the Graduate School of International Studies at DU, not the Poli Sci Dept.
– I am honored to be asked to kick off this series of lectures as a lead up to events here in Colorado that will commemorate the `Nakbah’ – the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that accompanied the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.
– My sense is that this tragedy – and it was a great one – should be approached from two aspects:
o Education as we are now doing
o Political activism: working together to change US policy towards this conflict
– Also want to note – the modern parallel – the second great refugee crisis of the region in the past 60 years: the 6 million – according to UN statistics – Iraqis forced to leave their homes as a result of the current US Occupation, 1.5 million of whom are refugees within Iraq, 4.5 million of whom have fled to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Iraqis forced to leave their homes and find sanctuary abroad. They are not the focus of our talk, but theirs too is a Nakbah, a Nakbah of great proportions whose tragedy will be played out for decades to come – if not longer.
______________________________________________________
2
– Have had a lifelong interest in the Middle East. I suppose it comes from my Jewish background, but it was rather greatly intensified by three years in the Peace Corps in Tunisia (66-69) during which time I taught at the University of Tunis and was also on staff.
– Believe that I can say that I have some genuine expertise most especially on the modern history of Tunisia and Algeria
– I have taught 3 Middle East related classes in the past 5 years
o A course on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict at the Iliff School of Theology
o A course on the political history of 20th Century Iraq, also at Iliff
o A course – with Dr. Aurelia Mane Estrada of the University of Barcelona – at the Graduate School of International Studies – called `Oil and Democracy’ which focused in particular on the history and economy of Algeria, both before and after its 1962 independence
o I am about to become a part of the editorial board of a new periodical on Algerian economic and political developments in association with Dr. Mohammed Alkacem of Metro State.
o About 5 years ago I began publishing something which I called the Colorado Progressive Jewish News. I put out 4 issues a year for four years. To my utter amazement, it was read, people contributed to it which encouraged me to continue. The newsletter has morphed – in this modern age – into a blog on which I write, or try to regularly.
_____________________________________________________
3.
In the time we have together, I hope to touch on a number of themes.
a. The General situation in Palestine at the end of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
b. Some reflections on the origins of Palestinian nationalism as it emerged in the period between 1850-1917
c. My understanding of a few of the dynamics of early Zionism in that period
d. Reflections on the Balfour Declaration
I already understand that I can not do this subject justice in 45 minutes to an hour, but I will do my best and hope what I don’t cover in the lecture – we can address in the discussion, questions and answers, – and the lectures that follow.
_____________________________________________________
4.
World War One marked a turning point for the entire world. After it ended, truly, the world was not the same…
– It was in that war that people learned to kill each other like never before, a skill that would only be further refined in the next world war
– But it was also a war that saw the collapse of three empires:
o The Russian Empire – to be replaced by the USSR
o The Hapsburg Empire, centered in Vienna, that included much of Central Europe and parts of the Balkans
o The Ottoman Empire – based in what is now known as Istanbul, but which was still called Constantinople
– And it was a war that supposedly was to be `a war to end all wars’ – needless to say that didn’t happen – but out of it came two documents whose impact would shape the political aspirations of the next century up until the present:
o The first is what was referred to as Wilson’s 14 points – presented first to the US Congress in January 1918 and later at the Paris Peace Conference which would shape the Treaty of Versailles
o The second was a declaration of the Baku Congress of the Peoples of the East.
– In both cases, the right of nations – most especially former colonies – to national self-determination – was asserted, giving great impetus to nationalist movements all over the world, including in the Middle East
All this would give great impetus to anti-colonial movements in the Middle East including the Palestinians
That said, history suggests rather vividly that European powers involved – while they might grudgingly accept the principle of national self determination had other plans .
In the case of the Ottoman Empire
1. It had been in decline for about a century and even before its collapse had become more and more dominated by different European powers in one way or another – in particular UK, France, Germany and Russia…when it found it possible, Italy too tried to horn in
2. European interests in the region:
a. Remember this is `pre-oil’. Oil only becomes a factor later in the game – during WWI itself and then it is mostly Iranian Oil. But during the war, oil is discovered in what is now N. Iraq. Main point: there were regional interests other than oil
b. What were these interests in the period 1850-1917?
c. The region is essentially hostage to a strategic chess game between the great powers, especially the UK, France and Russia over control of trade routes between India and Europe
d. Significance of the Suez Canal, trade in the Persian Gulf, the Berlin to Bagdad railroad
e. There is some production – cotton in Egypt to UK, wheat in Egypt, Algeria to France, Palestine and also the region was being penetrated more and more by European industrial products
f. There was already considerable Christian missionary interest in the region – Protestants from the US and UK, Catholics from France, Orthodox from Russia
g. Main point: the economic interests – at least until near the very end of this period – were growing, but were modest and secondary to strategic and trade interests.
3. The Vilayet Structure of the Ottoman Empire…
a. Essentially the region was broken down into provinces and in some cases – and the case of Palestine included here, the provinces broken down into smaller units (sanjaks) – or in the case of the region around Jerusalem special administrative zones (mutasarriflik)
b. What would become the British Administrative Zone of Palestine after 1917 was during the Ottoman Empire partitioned into three of these ottoman administrative entities:
i. The mutasarriflik of Jerusalem
ii. The wilayet of Damascus
iii. The wilayet of Beirut
c. The population was predominantly Moslem with about 10% Christians among them and a small sprinkling of Jews, Armenians and Greeks
d. A little description of the `millet’ system and how it worked – it did work – for 500 years
_____________________________________________________________________________
5a.
Palestinian Nationalism:
A quote – it is from Palestine and the Palestinians by Samih K Farsoun – an old friend..
“The modern history of Palestine before al Nakbah – Palestine’s catastrophic destruction – begins around 1800 and ends in 1948. It is divided into two historical periods: the first covers the 19th Century and World War One and the second begins after World War One with the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine under the auspices of the League of Nations. The transforming forces of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries affected the social history of the entire Arab Mashref (East) and the whole Middle East. Their particular configuration in Palestine, however, had consequences far more devastating for the indigenous Arab population of the country.”
“Together these powerful forces may be summarized in one phrase: European interventionalism”
1. European penetration of the region and of Palestine in particular intensify after the end of the Crimean War (which Russia lost) giving Britain a stronger hold on the E. Mediterranean
2. Historic shift – taking place wherever European influences came: breakdown of the traditional semi-feudal, largely subsistence economy, based upon a tribute paying clan based society into a peripheral zone of the global market economy producing food stuffs and raw materials for the core (mostly Europe). Products included cotton, olives, wheat, corn, barley and sesame. Manufactured products included olive oil, soap, textiles, grain exports
– British helped the Ottomans regain control of Egypt (and thus Palestine and Syria).. but the Ottoman’s paid a high price: the British acquired strategic power of the whole Near East
– Series of trade agreements followed – 19th century examples of structural adjustment – that opened up Palestine and the whole Near East to British manufactured goods.
– Period of a great increase in trade between Europe and Middle East, – some prosperity, but unequally divided.
– Different cities affected in different ways
Damascus and Aleppo were hit hard as centers of production – could not compete with European products. Nablus however, underwent a commercial renaissance..
Reforms:
A series of Ottoman reforms issued in 1856 – by the Sultan Abdul – Majid `the Hatt i Humayu’ – the Imperial Rescript). It included:
– Equal rights for non muslims
– Protection of private property rights
As such, it helped ease the way for more liberalized economic activity
3. Palestinian feudalism – less developed than in Lebanon yes, some feudal holdings, but many private peasant plots, communal plots as well
4. Relationship to the Ottoman rulers – complex – ottomans had power in the urban areas, but much less in rural and mountain regions. Main goal – extraction of taxes. Considerable tax resistance existed as was true everywhere. Patron-client relations: Ottomans working in conjunction with local sheiks..
5. Example of Nablus – trade center – caravan terminus from Saudi Arabia … goods from Damascus…a kind of regional hub…not unlike Denver structurally – minus the camels.
6. This was a period of changes in land tenure (from clan based to private property), of what has sometimes been referred to as `the new peaceful crusade’ of religiously inspired European immigration, investment and institutional development
7. Many modern ideas from Europe emerged during this period…
8. It is in this period that the first threads of modern nationalism took form..actually at the outsets there were three themes that took shape all of which are still alive in one form or another:
a. Broader (secular based) Arab Nationalism (one Arab Nation)
b. A specifically Palestinian Nationalism
c. An Islamic nationalism
9. All of this occurred within the context of rising population, some of it indigenous as a result of increased food production and modern health measures, some of it as a result of European (Jewish and Christian immigration) which would become an increasing factor beginning in the 1880s.
10. Ottoman political structures remained stable through out the period and were quite similar to how they worked elsewhere, but there was one fundamental difference:
– The Ottoman’s permitted significant European penetration into the Palestinian regions
– Merchants, missionaries and consuls were permitted to reside within the territory, especially in Jerusalem
– Beginning in the early 1880s, first through the auspices of Baron Rothschild who supported Zionist settlement and later in conjunction with the World Zionist Organization formed in 1898, the Ottomans permitted the Jewish purchase of land in Palestine. (we’ll talk more about this later)
____________________________________________________________________
5b.
19th Century Rebellions/Reforms
4 armed uprisings between 1800 and 1917
– –
1. Resistance to Napoleon…1798-9 Napoleon invades Egypt and also Palestine and Syria. Stopped at the gates of Akka by a combined force of Ottomans and local Arabs. As he retreated he followed a scorched earth policy, his troops burning and destroying all of coastal Palestine
2. Resistance to Egyptian domination of Palestine (1840) Muhammed Ali – Ottoman Egyptian governor – rebels against Constantinople and conquers Palestine and Syria (for a while). Attempts of secularization of the legal system (came into conflict with the ulema). But Egyptian policies became burdensome (the tax burden). Led to an open rebellion in 1840 when local sheiks and urban notables informed Ibrahim Pasha that they would not supply his army with the quota of conscripts. This rebellion was crushed by an Egyptian army of some 10,000 and an iron rule was re-imposed.
3. Scattered, but growing political resistance to Zionist settlement starting in the 1880s – that included some armed clashes
4. Palestinian participation in the Arab Uprising Against the Ottomans – in conjunction with the British
_______________________________________________________________________
6a.
The Arab Awakening/ the Sykes Picot Agreement/Balfour Declaration
At the same time the British were negotiating with the Arabs to enlist their military support against the Ottoman Turks, they were also negotiating with representatives of the Zionists (more or less with the same goal in mind – Jewish support for the war effort) over formalizing the Jewish presence in Palestine.
– Promise to the Arabs: One Arab Nation – (compare with Russian attempts to divide the Turkish speaking regions – fear of a unified Arab state/fear of a unified Turkish speaking state) – both peoples have legitimate grievances for how all this played out. Role of Sati al Husri
– Rashid Khalidi: `there was a clear difference before 1914 between the majority of Arabists, who emphasis on Arab identity was linked to continued loyalty to the Ottoman Empire and a tiny minority of extreme Arab nationalists who called for secession from the empire’
– Nature of the French-British negotiations: the split
– Palestine: seen as a buffer zone within the British sphere of influence
– British-French negotiations over Palestine:
o British want to push the frontier further north
o French want Lebanon to extend further south
– British strategic interests
push the French as far away from the Suez Canal as possible
use Jewish colonialism as a kind of human buffer zone against a possible French invasion-
___________________________________________________________________
6b
The Balfour Declaration – –
– Zionist dilemma: finding a sponsor for the project?
– Tried the Turks, the French, the Germans, the Brits
– Before 1898 there were many possible other sites for the project among them: Uganda, Argentina and I have read somewhere western Kansas.
– But by the first Zionist Congress – the issue was settled that the main target community would be Palestine
– The movement lacked international legitimacy and indeed was only one of three trends among European Jews that included:
o Assimilation
o Revolution
o Establishment of a Jewish national entity
– What Balfour gave the Jews – I would argue – is an appearance of legitimacy – without its essence – but that was enough.
– Analysis of the statement itself – the British government looks with favor upon the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine as long as it does not `prejudice the rights of the existing populations there.
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
_____________________________________________
Selected Bibliography:
Antonius, George. The Arab Awakening
Chomsky, Noam. Fateful Triangle: The US, Israel and the Palestinians
Farsoun, Samih. Palestine and the Palestinians
Fromkin, David. A Peace To End All Peace
Pappe, Ilan. A History of Modern Palestine
________________________________________________________
Caucus Round Up 2: Cheryl Kasson Writes From SW Denver
(note Kasson is a friend and progressive Jewish activist)
Rob,
I just came back from my caucus and read your most recent
entry. Like you, I switched my straw vote from Uncommitted to Obama, just so that there would be delegates for both candidates and the
process could continue.
I live in Southwest Denver, in a heavily Latino neighborhood with
also a considerable number of us Anglos, both young and old. There
were a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters among the Latino women in my
precinct, but also many Obama supporters in the crowd.
We held the caucus in the same middle school cafeteria it was in two
years ago, but this time so many people showed up that we had to
shove a couple of long tables together to fit everyone in. The
precinct seated next to ours took a lot of time going over and voting
on the resolutions, but my precinct members were more
business-like. They just wanted to get the delegates and alternates
picked and get out of there.
Nevertheless, it was a group very involved in and dedicated to the
political process. I am proud to be part of this diverse, mostly
lower-middle-class neighborhood. I volunteered to be a precinct
committee person and help call other Democrats for meetings and carry
info door-to-door before I realized what I was getting into. I
suppose I could be jaded about the fact that the really progressive
candidates have little chance of getting elected. However, I can’t
help continuing to be amazed by our political process, warts and all,
that enables us to keep expressing our desires and working to elect
representatives who really represent us.
Like it states during the Torah service, “A good doctrine has been
given to you.” Our Constitution is our secular Tree of Life, and I
continue to embrace it.
Keep the faith,
Cheryl
February 5, 2008 (2)
Caucus Roundup: Obama A Hit In Northwest Denver
The truth be told (might as well – it comes out in the end anyway) I wasn’t even sure I was still registered as a Democratic till yesterday. I usually change my registration to independent after elections to cleanse my soul spiritually. But I forgot to this time and figured I might as well accompany Nancy to the caucas. Besides, it’s pretty much the only time we see and talk to our neighbors, promising to get together sometime.
The last time I participated in the Democratic Party caucus process in Colorado was four years ago. About 15 people showed up from the precinct, most for Kerry on the national level, a few of us for Kucinich. But there was an upstart Democratic challenger in the race for the nomination to the US Senate, Mike Miles, who wanted to support against Ken Salazar (who won the nomination and the election). There were a good many resolutions presented and one on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict featured two Jews arguing with each other over whether Israel should be praised or criticized. I was one of them
Tonight was different, quite different. In my neighborhood people swarmed to the caucuses in record numbers.
Just how many precincts met at Skinner Middle School from where one of my daughters graduated some 16 years ago, I do not know. But this time our little precinct caucus of 15, four years ago, exploded into 104 last night. Four years of Bush and Cheney’s shinnanigans did not bring out the masses, but eight years of neo-conservative economic policies with recession either here or not far off, five years into the war of Iraq with Afghanistan and Pakistan exploding and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict festering towards nowhere, seemed to tip the balance.
All ages, mostly working and middle class, a fair number of chicanos and a sprinkling of blacks. The meeting was chaired by an openly gay man whose husband was recording secretary. Sitting in front of Nancy and me were two women who introduced themselves as wife and wife. Northwest Denver …home sweet home.
Turns out Precinct 413 doesn’t like torture, Walmarts or Hillary (who, if I remember correctly, serves on the board of Walmart). People weren’t especially interested in resolutions but in the presidential preferences. But there were a few presented. . Resolutions that passed go on to the next level, the county convention. The one that drew a roar from the entire precinct was one fashioned by Colorado Progressive Dems condemning the use of torture. (They don’t like Walmart’s either and defeated an initiative a few years ago to pollute our neighborhood with one. That was nice.)
A single payer healthcare bill also got near unanimous support. The vote on a strong anti-Iraq war resolution (also presented by the Progressive Dems) passed by about a three to two margin, some people opposed to the call for an immediate pull out, the dismantling of US bases and reparations to the Iraqis. Still, it made it to the next level.
There were alot of signs and leaflets for Hillary and Obama but more for the latter than the former. A number of people from our block were there, some disappointed that Edwards and Kucinich had dropped out of the running. A straw poll was taken that revealed only 6 or 7 of us were `uncommitted’, not enough to merit even one delegate. Nancy and I were among them. We switched our votes to Obama but one guy abstained rather than voting for Clinton and Obama.
The preference vote in Denver’s Precinct 413 was decidedly lopsided. Of 104 eligible voters Obama got 81 votes, Hillary 22, plus the one abstention. Although I could not detect much of a pattern, it seemed that Clinton won the support of some of the neighborhood’s gay women, a distinct number of Chicanos and long time Democratic Party functionaries. Everyone else – and I mean everyone – chose Obama. Among the five other precincts caucasing tonight only one came out in support of Hillary, and that by a narrow margin. The others were lopsided victories for Obama in proportions 4-to1 in our case, 3-1 in the others. A preference vote for the US Senate candidate also took place. Mark Udall swept the field with only a few of us – 3 in my precinct to be exact – supporting anti-war activist and Udall-challenger Mark Benner from Colorado’s eastern plains.
Poor Benner.
_____________________________________________________________
Menachem Klein Returns to Colorado
(Note: Israeli Scholar and Geneva Accord signer Menachem Klein just completed a tour of Colorado where he spoke at a number of places all over the Front Range [Colo Springs, Denver, Boulder]. This is, I believe, his third visit to the state in recent years. Klein has just completed a book on the Geneva Accord Process. The different feed back I got on his talk was quite positive. He injects a bit of hope into a rather grim situation, the on-going Israeli Occupation of the 1967 Territories. I did catch him on the radio but missed his presentations. )
But a friend – a B’rit Tzedek activist, caught three of his talks. The friend’s comments below:
“Here are my thoughts on the Menachem Klein American tour in the Rockies.”
“I went to three sessions: Auraria, JCC, and Boulder. I also went to the get together in Boulder Saturday night at Leslie Lomas’ house. I think Kleinwas very good for people just beginning to get into the issue. For example, my optometrist, who I recently found out has a Jewish background, came to the JCC event and was pleased to hear a rationale for a rational solution to the problem. Rabbi Booth-Nadav gave a very supportive introduction. We maybe got 35 people there.”
“The party in Boulder was cool and I met some more soldiers in the war on neo-Fascism. I’ve forgotten the names already . It was good for me to get Menachem’s statements about the Israeli and West Bank populace (Arab, Muslim, Jewish & Other), but somewhat depressing. Almost everybody on all sides is relatively fatalistic and just taking care of themselves and their families on a day-to-day basis. Very few people see any kind of peace on the horizon. If anything, this trend has just increased over the last several years since Geneva (2003).
He said they used to get 200k to 300k people out for peace rallies, and now they’re lucky to get a tenth of that. One thing he said stuck: “This is the same in Tel Aviv as it is in Ramallah”. Oh, the Muslim (I think) portly guy who spoke up at the Iran in the Crosshairs discussion also attended the JCC event. He and I had a short and friendly conversation at the end of the talk. I think he mostly appreciated Dr. Klein.”
__________________________________________________________
“Almost everybody on all sides is relatively fatalistic and just taking care of themselves and their families on a day-to-day basis. Very few people see any kind of peace on the horizon.”
_____________________________________________________
“The Boulder meeting had the biggest, most knowledgeable and most enthusiastic crowd. (Did I mention that I met Tirzah Firestone and Ira Chernus last month)? Rabbi Firestone did a nice introduction.
Unfortunately, I hit a deer with a glancing blow from my car on the way up to the event, but I don’t think I killed it and made it to the church (ooops, meeting house) on time. I was tired and somewhat distracted. I’d be interested in getting Leslie L’s and Dr. Chernus’ opinion of the event.”
IED’s and ERM’s in Iraq Are Not Made in Iran
(note: The Governor, Bill Ritter, and many in the legislature, have been using the notion that Iran is providing many or most of the road side bombs (called i.e.d.s and e.r.m.’s as an excuse to push the legislature to support divestment of the state pension fund, PERA, from companies doing business with Iran, despite the fact that the evidence is very thin. Below some links are provided to suggest just how think is the evidence)
March 2006 Clip from `The Daily Show’
note: this clip from the Daily Show…shows General Pace denying that he has proof that Iran is providing IEDs to Iraq
3/6/2006 ABC News Clip Claiming IED’s in Iraq Come From Iran
note: typical piece from ABC News: accusation is made, although in somewhat couched language…but there is no proof offered.
3/6/2006 Blog Entry on how IED’s `made in Iran’ were actually made in Ireland
note: an interesting piece that suggests that the ieds were possibly made in the UK and that the British press in October presented no evidence to prove that ieds in Iraq came from Iran.
1/17/2007 Article by Gareth Porter
note: gareth porter…very reliable source – strongest case against the Iranian-ied claim
2/7/2007 Washington Post Article Claiming Iran is Furnishing IED’s and ERP’s to Iraqi Insurgents
note: the military’s case of linking erp’s to Iran in Washington Post
2/7/2007 New York Times Article Claiming Iran is Furnishign IED’s and ERP’s to Iraqi Insurgents
note: the military’s case of linking the erp’s to Iran in New York Times
2/11/2007 AntiWar Blog
note: from a blog, but it cites General Pace’s quote
2/16/2007 – Andrew Cockburn Rebuttal to the Iran IED/ERP Connection Claim
note: This piece, in the LA Times, is by Andrew Cockburn, one of the finer British journalists covering the war in Iraq: main point: anyone can make an erp and there is no evidence that Iranians are supplying them
2/16/2007 – `IED Lies’ – Piece from Znet
note: znet – yes a `left’ source, the `net’ version of Z Magazine, but almost always reliable…again like gareth porter’s piece, it argues that no evidence has been presented to conclude the Iranians are providing ied’s to Iraq
2/26/2007 – Lawyers Guns and Money Blog
note: main point: US military doesn’t know where erp’s are being manufactured.
2/26/2007 – Iraq’s Bombs Home Made?
note: excellent blog piece – refers to Andrew Cockburn article above
6/21/2007 – PBS news item on IED’s
note: this article doesn’t say that ied’s were or weren’t manufactured in iran but it emphasizes how easy it is to make them.
9/24/2007 – Raw Story: CIA said to step up operations in Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs to Tehran
note: – again, a claim is made, no evidence…although in this one it explains what might actually be going on…the c.i.a. has been involved in covert operations in iran, it uses the ied issue as a cover. i am told that today’s (Feb 2, 2008) New York Times has a piece on a botched CIA operation in Iran. haven’t seen it yet
1/4/2008 – Canadian News Out Claims Iran Providing IED’s to Afgan Rebels
note: now the claim that Iran is supplying ied’s to Afganistan as well – but note once again, a charge, no evidence provided.
2/1/2008 – Article from the Asia Times
note: deep in this article is the reference to the cost of building an ied `approximately the cost of a pizza’…
__________________________________________________________
View from the Left Bank: Rob Prince's Blog 