Detecting 400 meter-long tunnel between al-Musika barrack and Harmala roundabout in Jobar

May 24, 2013 12:03 AM
Section: Politics – Syria
Breaking News Network- Exclusive

.

Palestinian refugees from Syria erect a tent as they protest in front of the UNRWA offices in Sidon, Thursday, April 11, 2013. (The Daily Star/Mohammed Zaatari)
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2013/May-11/216697-palestinians-from-syria-in-lebanon-number-55000.ashx#ixzz2U4BT0jtE
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

by FRANKLIN LAMB

Homs Palestinian Refugee Camp

Historically, Palestinian refugees, wherever they have sought temporary sanctuary following the ethnic cleansing of their country by the 19th century Zionist colonial enterprise, and
pending their return to Palestine, have insisted on avoiding local and
international conflicts while seeking a modicum of interim civil rights from
the host countries.

This was true in Jordan during the run up to Black September in 1970,
at the beginning of the Lebanese Civil war in 1975, the 1991 Kuwait crisis, the
2003 US invasion of Iraq and obtains especially today in the current crisis in
Syria. For a number of reasons including poor tactical decisions by their
leadership they have not always succeeded, and consequently they have paid
s steep price in lives, jobs, housing and expulsions from host countries.

In Syria, both the largest Palestinian refugee camp, Yarmouk, with its
125,000 residents, and Khan al-Sheeh, the second largest of the 14 camps with
45,000 before the crisis but currently swelled by another 26,000 mainly from
Yarmouk camp, have become virtual war zones with large sections of the
camps being overrun by gunmen fighting in support of the “Free Syrian
Army.” All but two of the camps in Syria have been infiltrated by opposition
forces and consequently have been targeted by government forces seeking
to destroy the rebels. At times the camp residents have resisted both sides by
demanding that the camps’ normally strict neutrality be respected. Engaging
initially in peaceful protects when outsiders invaded, some protests turned
violent when their demands for camp neutrality were rejected.

Khan al-Sheeh, whose residents are from tribes and clans in northern
Palestine, and who lost 22 camp residents to Zionist occupier gunfire during
the May 2011 Nakba Day events on the Golan Heights, will be a formidable
foe if they take up arms which they have not done for the past 33 years.
In January 2013, the Syria conflict entered into the camp when opposition
forces — a combination of Free Syrian Army (FSA) and al-Nusra Front
fighters — arrived and insisted on recruits, offering $200 per month cash, free
cigarettes, a uniform, boots and of course an AK-47.

For the past five months, again like Yarmouk, Khan al-Sheeh and the other
camps in Syria have been caught in the crossfire as opposition fighters try
to advance toward the capital, while regime forces used cannons and rocket
fire to block their advance, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths and
injuries. This week, so far in vain, the camp popular committees yet again
appealed to both sides to observe a ceasefire within any Palestinian camp in
Syria and also in Lebanon, the latter currently experiencing increased
challenges for its 12 camps to stay out of the conflict.

Pressuring Lebanon’s camps to join Syria’s civil war

Lebanon’s widely respected independent leftist daily, As-Safir, has reported
that veteran security and intelligence officers of the Lebanese security
services are claiming to have information, but not precise details regarding
number and location of “organized Takfiri (Sunni) networks” in Lebanon.
The head of one security service told As-Safir, “the monitoring of the terrorist
networks cannot be very detailed since they are solely located in the
Palestinian camps, mainly in Ain el Helweh.”

This statement, like others these days in the Lebanese sectarian media,
appears intended to incite the public against the refugees, inducing them to
join the fighting. Another officer, closely working on the Lebanese
government “terrorism” file, claims, again without offering any probative or
material evidence, that “the only serious faction in Lebanon right now
consists of the Ziad al-Jarrah Units that are affiliated with the Abdullah
Azzam battalions.” Both have some Palestinian gunmen. Abdullah Azzam is
the most experienced group and it is present in Ain el Helweh. The officer
indicated that he agrees with the general theory that as long as the military
situation in Syria remains unsettled, the Lebanese Palestinian camps are
open to all possibilities, including Palestinian armed involvement.

Other calls are being heard from Beirut, Saida and Tyre in the south, and also
up north in Tripoli for Palestinians to comply with the fatwas being issued
for all Sunni to fight the Bashar Assad regime and to build a “Sunni army”
patterned after the Lebanese civil war-era PLO forces. How significant is the
sentiment favoring this dangerous call is unknown. However, in all of the
above noted areas, some Palestinians, mainly unemployed youngsters have
been lured by offers of cash to take part in training, much like occurred
before the 26 month old Syria conflict.

Some Salafist-jihadist types in Lebanon, especially near Tripoli’s Bedawi,
and Nahr al Bared camps, as well as Ain el Helwe down south in Saida, are
pushing among Palestinian youth the argument that if they join the war in
Syria they will gain the internationally-guaranteed civil rights that all the
other refugees receive except Palestinians in Lebanon. Part of the argument
being pitched is that they are not going to get even elementary civil rights
in Lebanon from Israelis, the UN or the international community, and
certainly not from the EU or the Americans. Palestinians in Lebanon’s camps
are being lectured that they will get civil rights here only when they take
them by force, which is their right and their jihadist religious duty.

These arguments will fail, with few exceptions, among the quarter million
Palestinian refugees actually still in Lebanon, as they have in the past.
But the Palestinians’ decent into deepening sectarian and religious divisions
here in Lebanon is worrisome. Scholars, political analysts and even elements
of the National Lebanese Resistance are counseling that an effective, moral,
religious, and political measure that could bring Sunni and Shia together in
Lebanon, while thwarting the schemes being hatched to get the Palestinians
involved in the Syrian crisis, would be for the Lebanese Parliament to use
90 minutes of its ample free time — in as much as the Parliamentary elections
will not take place next month as scheduled — to address the issue of
Palestinian civil rights in that country.

By using 20 minutes of the proposed 90, recommended by the Palestine Civil
Rights Campaign here, Lebanon’s Parliament can, in one fell swoop, reach
out to the Sunni community and the Christian community (about 90% of
Palestinians in Lebanon are Sunni and approximately 10% Christian) by
employing a quick and tidy yea-nay vote to repeal the 2001 racist law that
forbids home ownership for Palestinian refugees here. This law outlawing
the home ownership civil right for Palestinians only, as expressed by the two
initial sponsors still in Parliament, was only originally meant as a 2001
election year gimmick to garner anti-Palestinian votes and not ever intended
to be implemented.

History teaches us that the 2001 law was in fact part of the anti-Palestinian
“pay-back” for the PLO’s involvement in the fifteen-year Lebanese civil war
(1975-1990). In what many Palestinians in the camps here objected to then
and continue to view as a cataclysmic error, its leadership ignominiously
withdrew from Lebanon in the late summer of 1982, under Zionist and
Reagan administration pressure and false promises of an immediate
Palestinian homeland.

With the remaining 70 minutes, the Resistance-dominated Parliament could
reach out to the Sunni and Christian communities as noted above and grant
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon the same right to work that every refugee
everywhere has, including those in the apartheid state of occupied Palestine.
The same right as everyone is immediately granted when their passport is stamped at any
Lebanese border post.

This single act by Lebanon’s Parliament, would help repair Shia-Sunni
relations globally and would dampen down — and expose for what they are,
the extremist Salafist-jihadist-Wahhabist incitements to religious hatred,
both intra-Muslim and Muslim-Christian. It would also, according to several
Palestinian NGO’s working in Lebanon, keep Palestinians out of the Syrian
conflict.

Allowing Palestinians in Lebanon the internationally guaranteed right to
work, would also, according to studies by the UN International Labor
Organization and other academic studies, substantially build up Lebanon’s
fragile economy by creating more than twice the number of jobs that
they would be employed at, including  those in the 32 professions  currently outlawed for Palestinian  refugees.

Dr. Franklin Lamb is Director of the Sabra Shatila Foundation. Contact him at: fplamb@sabrashatila.org. He is working with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign in Lebanon on drafting legislation which, after 62 years, would, if adopted by Lebanon’s Cabinet and Parliament grant the right to work and to own a home to Lebanon’s Palestinian Refugees. One part of the PCRC legislative project is its online Petition which can be viewed and signed at: petitiononline.com/ssfpcrc/petition.html. Lamb is reachable at fplamb@palestinecivilrightscampaign.org. Franklin Lamb’s book on the Sabra-Shatila Massacre, International Legal Responsibility for the Sabra-Shatila Massacre, now out of print, was published in 1983, following Janet’s death and was dedicated to Janet Lee Stevens. He was a witness before the Israeli Kahan Commission Inquiry, held at Hebrew University in Jerusalem in January 1983.

–

UPDATE Tue, 05/21/2013

Al Jazeera roiled by US manager’s decision to censor Joseph Massad article

al-shihabi-rahm.jpg

• Al Jazeera restores Massad’s article and denies political pressure.
• Massad expresses disappointment in network’s actions.
• The Electronic Intifada reveals the political and commercial fears that motivated top manager Ehab Al Shihabi’s move to remove article.
• Azmi Bishara condemns “cowardly” decision.

Days after a top Al Jazeera executive ordered the removal of an op-ed critical of Zionism by Joseph Massad, the article was today restored to the network’s English-language website.

Imad Musa, the head of Al Jazeera English Online, also posted a statement on the Editor’s Blog denying that Al Jazeera had “succumbed to various pressures, and censored its own pages” when it removed the article.

The about-face follows a growing uproar inside and outside Al Jazeera over the article’s removal, amid fears for editorial independence and freedom of speech as the Qatar-based network prepares to launch Al Jazeera America.

Musa’s statement claims that “After publication, many questions arose about the article’s content. In addition, the article was deemed to be similar in argument to Massad’s previous column, ‘Zionism, anti-Semitism and colonialism,’ published on these pages in December.”

However, Musa acknowledges that “We should have handled this better, and we have learned lessons that will enable us to maintain the highest standards of journalistic integrity.”

Massad “heartened” by reaction

Massad, who has written for the Al Jazeera English website for two years, welcomed the restoration of his article, but expressed disappointment in Al Jazeera’s statement in a response sent to The Electronic Intifada:

I am heartened to know that there has been a huge and widespread upheaval among Al Jazeera journalists and staffers against this arbitrary decision, which flew in the face of professional journalistic standards and the freedom of expression. Their opposition along with the reaction and outrage expressed by the general public internationally in the last two days clearly tipped the balance against the peremptory power of the profit-seeking executives and has put the latter on notice.

While the restoration of my article is a triumph against the political commissars of Al Jazeera, the statement that Al Jazeera issued, which contained no apology, falls short of being a triumph for all those who insist on maintaining Al Jazeera’s independence and critical edge from American media restrictions. I am saddened that their principled stance has yet to fully triumph in this important fight.

Political decision made by “higher ups”

Massad rejected Al Jazeera’s claim that the article had been removed due to its similarity to a previous article, and said he had been given the same line by Imad Musa, who telephoned Massad from Doha last night.

“I quickly disabused him of it, explaining that while ‘The Last of the Semites’ was related to the article I published last December,” Massad wrote, “it was a different article altogether and had a different frame and a different set of arguments and facts.”

Massad said the excuse was “a damage control move that refuses to take responsibility for Al Jazeera’s submission to American Zionist dictates.”

Massad recounts his conversation with Musa:

I explained that since he was the new Head of Al Jazeera Online (he told me that he had been appointed in this new position ten days ago), he could restore the article and issue the apology immediately and not have to wait till the next day. He explained that the matter was “more complicated than that.” I retorted: “Are you or are you not the Head of Al Jazeera Online?” He murmured embarrassingly that the matter was not in his hands. I responded by reaffirming to him that indeed it was not and that the matter was not up to him but to the higher ups who made the decision for political reasons.

Musa did not respond to an email from The Electronic Intifada requesting comment.

The debacle unfolds

Speaking with multiple sources over the course of several days, The Electronic Intifada has been able to piece together and corroborate key elements of what happened and these inquiries confirm that politics and commercial interests were indeed at play.

As Massad explained in a statement in Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar, he filed “The Last of the Semites” after a request from his editor to submit a piece for Nakba Day – the annual 15 May commemoration of Israel’s ethnic cleansing and colonization of Palestine.

Massad’s article, based on a lecture he gave in Stuttgart, Germany on 10 May, was published on 14 May. The entire conference, including Massad’s speech, was carried on the network’s live channel Al Jazeera Mubasher. Mhamed Krichen, one of Al Jazeera’s star anchors, participated on two panels at the conference, including one with Massad.

But in the days after Massad’s article appeared, as The Electronic Intifada previously reported, there was a more than usually intense outcry from high-profile Zionist commentators including The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who grossly distorted Massad’s article and escalated their defamation and slurs against him.

Suddenly, on 19 May, the article disappeared from Al Jazeera’s main English website, and hours later from its mobile site. What happened?

Fear that op-ed would hurt Al Jazeera America launch

The person who got spooked by the volume of criticism was Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director for international operations of Al Jazeera America, and the man in charge of launching the network’s high-profile, high-risk US venture.

Al Shihabi, a Palestinian American, demanded that the article be taken down, and, by several accounts, management in Doha acquiesced.

A career management consultant with no journalistic background and no formal editorial role, Al Shihabi’s intervention was unusual to say the least. But Al Shihabi’s power in the company has grown tremendously in recent years, along with criticism that he is accountable to no one.

Massad wrote in Al-Akhbar that when he saw that his article had been removed, he called one of the two editors with whom he normally works.

That editor was also initially unaware that the article had been removed, and when he got back to Massad after looking into it, could only confirm that it had been “pulled by management.”

Al Shihabi did not respond to an email from The Electronic Intifada requesting comment.

Political repurcussions

Al Shihabi’s reason for wanting Massad silenced was fear of the political repurcussions for Al Jazeera America.

He conveyed his concerns that the intensified criticism could jeopardize his efforts to launch the channel including winning cable distribution deals needed to get the channel into American living rooms.

“It will be the voice of Main Street,” Al Shihabi recently said of the nascent US-based Al Jazeera offshoot.

Clearly, in Al Shihabi’s eyes, Massad’s searing, well-researched criticism of Zionism was not going to fly in the American mainstream.

Al Shihabi has positioned himself as the face of Al Jazeera America, barnstorming US campuses and other locations, often promoting pictures of himself on the company blog.

Yet, the huge embarrassment Al Shihabi’s intervention to remove Massad’s article has caused the network suggests a serious lack of judgment.

Breaking into American market

Al Shihabi certainly knew that Al Jazeera, which has cleverly used the Internet to reach primary audiences, has had a hard time getting its English-language channels carried by US cable distributors.

It has often faced politically-motivated and racist opposition and accusations that the channel promotes “terrorism” because of its Arab and Qatari background and willingness to air viewpoints routinely suppressed in mainstream American media.

In January, Al Jazeera bought Current TV, a cable network founded by former US Vice President Al Gore, which instantly enabled it to expand its reach to 40 million American homes from just 4.7 million before the deal.

Soon after, the deal was criticized by former long-time Washington Post media commentator and CNN host Howard Kurtz, who also pointed out that the network has been called “anti-American” and a “fount” of “anti-Israel propaganda.”

The vast majority of the criticism of Al Jazeera’s US expansion plans has indeed come from extreme Islamophobic and pro-Israel sources.

Just weeks ago, The New York Post reported that Al Jazeera was in talks to buy more cable networks – a move that is likely only to generate more opposition.

Perhaps hoping to head off such resistance, Ehab Al Shihabi, an intensely political operator, has sought to cozy up to key players in the US establishment, such as his recent, high-profile meeting with influential Democratic Party power-broker and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel, President Obama’s first White House chief of staff, has been, as the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist gang, the Irgun, a hardline supporter of Israel.

Breakdown of editorial control

Clearly, the normal editorial controls had been circumvented in order for Massad’s article to be removed. The breakdown in accountability demonstrated by this incident has caused soul-searching among Al Jazeera staffers.

Several journalists on several continents spoke of a widespread sense that the blunder damaged the reputation of the whole network, especially in light of persistent criticism that Al Jazeera’s legendary independence, particularly of its Arabic channel, has been sacrificed to the interests of Qatar’s foreign policy.

Al Shihabi, an unaccountable senior manager, ordering the deletion of an article without telling either the author or the editors who commissioned it, seemed to confirm the worst expectations.

“Cowardly” decision

Azmi Bishara, the Palestinian political leader and academic and one of Al Jazeera’s most prominent commentators, forcefully condemned the network’s action as “cowardly and opportunistic.”

In a statement on his Facebook page hours before Massad’s article was restored, Bishara said that the deletion of Massad’s article followed false accusations of anti-Semitism by “Zionist” and “racist” individuals.

Relating the move to the planned launch of Al Jazeera America, Bishara added, “If the price of Al Jazeera’s entry into the United States means its submission to Zionist dictates, then this means that America will be moving into Al Jazeera and not the reverse.”

Given that even Massad’s university, Columbia, had eventually stood up to similar false and disproven accusations and campaigns, Bishara noted that Al Jazeera had been “even less vigilant than Columbia in defending the rights of an Arab professor to express his opinion. Shame on you.”

Massad echoed this theme in his statement, noting that “the attempt to censor my article is the price that Al Jazeera, or at least Ehab Al Shihabi and other upper management executives, are willing to pay in order to enter the US media market.”

Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald added his own searing indictment of the network earlier today:

No media outlet can possibly do something like this without publicly accounting for what happened and expect to retain credibility. How can you demand transparency and accountability from others when you refuse to provide any yourself? Refusing to comment on secret actions of this significance is the province of corrupt politicians, not journalists. It’s behavior that journalists should be condemning, not emulating.

Restoring credibility?

What Bishara has said publicly, many present and former Al Jazeera staffers have been saying privately. Yet many Al Jazeera journalists are determined to retain the respect that the network has enjoyed for being willing to take on stories and offer voices – especially on Palestine – that no other network of its size would touch.

The restoration of Massad’s article, they must hope, will be a first step towards regaining Al Jazeera’s reputation as a place where free discussion of Palestine, Zionism and Israel are still permitted, even if it doesn’t always sell on Main Street. But there’s no doubt the damage has been great.

Joseph Massad’s statement in full

I am heartened to know that there has been a huge and widespread upheaval among Al Jazeera journalists and staffers against this arbitrary decision, which flew in the face of professional journalistic standards and the freedom of expression. Their opposition along with the reaction and outrage expressed by the general public internationally in the last two days clearly tipped the balance against the peremptory power of the profit-seeking executives and has put the latter on notice.

While the restoration of my article is a triumph against the political commissars of Al Jazeera, the statement that Al Jazeera issued, which contained no apology, falls short of being a triumph for all those who insist on maintaining Al Jazeera’s independence and critical edge from American media restrictions. I am saddened that their principled stance has yet to fully triumph in this important fight.

It seems to me that the attempt to censor my article is the price that Al Jazeera, or at least Ehab Al Shihabi and other upper management executives, are willing to pay in order to enter the US media market. This means that Al Shihabi and other executives at Al Jazeera see no problem in sacrificing Al Jazeera’s freedom of expression and subjecting it to the severe restrictions of the American mainstream media on the question of US foreign policy in the Middle East and on the question of Israel, thus eliminating in the process Al Jazeera’s critical coverage of both. Clearly, American Zionist pressure, placed on Al Shihabi and on Al Jazeera, is intended to impart to Al Jazeera the mediocre standards of mainstream American journalism and its commitment to severe censorship of views critical of US policy and of Israeli colonialism. When Oscar Wilde was asked in 1882 upon entering the US if he had anything to declare to the customs authorities of New York, he responded: “I have nothing to declare but my genius;” Not only is Al Jazeera having to declare its journalistic independence as a foreign taxable commodity, but it is also surrendering it at the US border altogether.

As for the line that someone made a mistake and removed my article because it resembled the one I had published last December, this line was tried on me on the phone when the new Head of Al Jazeera online Imad Musa called me yesterday evening to discuss the matter. Mr. Musa used that line as an opening bid but I quickly disabused him of it, explaining that while “The Last of the Semites” was related to the article I published last December titled “Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and Colonialism,” it was a different article altogether and had a different frame and a different set of arguments and facts. I also informed him that I had a very good idea how this decision had been taken and that Al Shihabi was the man behind the ban. He offered to arrange a meeting in New York between Al Shihabi and me, but I quickly told him that we could not ponder any such meetings until after Al Jazeera restored my article and issued a public apology. I also informed him that I do not meet with people who coordinate with the likes of Rahm Emanuel.

After making a few phone calls, Mr. Musa called me back to assure me that I would be pleased with what Al Jazeera would do tomorrow (i.e. today). I explained that since he was the new Head of Al Jazeera Online (he told me that he had been appointed in this new position ten days ago), he could restore the article and issue the apology immediately and not have to wait till the next day. He explained that the matter was “more complicated than that.” I retorted: “Are you or are you not the Head of Al Jazeera Online?” He murmured embarrassingly that the matter was not in his hands. I responded by reaffirming to him that indeed it was not and that the matter was not up to him but to the higher ups who made the decision for political reasons.

At any rate, Mr. Musa never called back today, though he issued a statement on the Al Jazeera website this afternoon which does not contain an apology to the readers or to me. There are no expressions of regret either, or any acknowledgment of the motivations for the censorship. Musa repeats the shameful excuse that the reason why the article was pulled was due to it alleged similarity with the December article. I find this to be a damage control move that refuses to take responsibility for Al Jazeera’s submission to American Zionist dictates.

 

*************

Al Jazeera management orders Joseph Massad article pulled in act of pro-Israel censorship

Professor Joseph Massad

Al Jazeera management orders Joseph Massad article pulled in act of pro-Israel censorship.

by Ali Abunimah – Electronic Intifada

In an unprecedented act of political censorship Al Jazeera English has deleted an article by noted Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad after coming under intense criticism from Zionists in recent days.
Massad told The Electronic Intifada that he had “received confirmation” from his editor at Al Jazeera English that “management pulled the article.” The Electronic Intifada was able to independently confirm that the article was pulled.
The piece, “The Last of the Semites,” published on 14 May, was taken down from the main Al Jazeera English site Sunday morning – the link now redirects to Al Jazeera’s main page. It has also disappeared from Massad’s personal page on the Al Jazeera website.
The article had been one of the most viewed and emailed articles on the site and had been tweeted hundreds of times.
Al Jazeera has yet to offer any public explanation for its action.

Intense criticism

Since its publication, the article generated intense criticism from Zionist extremists, including a columnist in the virulently anti-Palestinian Jerusalem Post, and condemnation on Twitter from President Barack Obama’s favorite Israel lobby gatekeeper and former Israeli prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg:

on Twitter

John Podhoretz, editor of the neoconservative anti-Palestinian Zionist magazine Commentary, tweeted about Massad: “Congratulations, donors to Columbia University, for paying this monstrous fuckhead’s salary!”
The backlash has been so intense precisely because Massad goes to the core of Israel’s claim to represent Jews and to cast its critics as anti-Semites by showing that indeed it is Israel and Zionism that partake of the same anti-Semitism that targeted European Jews.
In doing so, Massad pulls the rug from under Zionists and Israel lobbyists by demonstrating that they are the anti-Semites and taking away the most formidable weapon they wield against critics of Israel: the accusation that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
By neutralizing this ideological weapon that Israel has used so effectively in the Western media to cover up its colonization of Palestine, Massad’s pro-Jewish position and strenuous attack on Zionist anti-Semitism is clearly understood by Israel lobby figures such as Goldberg as a complete obliteration of their ideological arsenal.

Zionism and anti-Semitism: two sides of the same coin

Goldberg’s claim that Massad’s article is an “anti-Jewish screed” could not be further from the truth.
Massad has long argued – convincingly – that Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin. It is a theme he develops with great erudition in his 2006 book The Persistence of the Palestinian Question, and one to which he returns in his latest article, “The Last of the Semites,” published on Al Jazeera on 14 May, which opens thus:

Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti-Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the “Jewish Question.” What galled anti-Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the “solution” to the Jewish Question that anti-Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

Last December, in another piece for Al Jazeera, Massad explained how “Zionist leaders consciously recognized that state anti-Semitism was essential to their colonial project” in Palestine, a recognition epitomized by the notorious Transfer Agreement Zionist leaders signed with the Nazi government of Germany in 1933.
A theme that Massad develops in his latest piece is that European, and especially Germany’s, support for Israel after 1948, is no break with the anti-Semitic past:

West Germany’s alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s.

The “The Last of the Semites” was based on a lecture Massad gave at a conference in Stuttgart (PDF), Germany, to a largely German audience, just last week:

2. Palästina-Solidaritätskonferenz in Stuttgart am 10. Mai 2013 – Joseph Massad [publicsolidarity]

Censorship

Although Qatar-based Al Jazeera receives much criticism, and often deserved, for reflecting Qatar’s foreign policy, the censorship of Massad’s article for political reasons is unprecedented because the English-language website had, until now, enjoyed complete editorial independence.
It is well understood that Al Jazeera’s red lines have always been criticism of Qatar or its Emir, and yet, Massad has even published several articles on Al Jazeera English that harshly criticized both Qatari foreign policy (See here, here and here) and the Emir himself without ever being censored.
And Massad has written plenty of articles that have enraged Zionists.
This indicates, without doubt, that the decision to remove Massad’s article today was taken at the highest level.
But why would this happen now?
One reasonable interpretation would be that the removal of Massad’s article reflects a tightening of the editorial line as the network launches its new channel, Al Jazeera America, which will rely – for access to cable systems, and “mainstream” credibility – on forging good relations with US elites.
An illustration of what this process might look like was on display when Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director of Al Jazeera’s international operations and the official responsible for setting up Al Jazeera America, recently visited Chicago – which will be home to a major Al Jazeera bureau.
While in the city, Al Shihabi struck up a cozy relationship with Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff.
Emanuel, a major powerbroker in America’s ruling Democratic Party, is, of course, also notorious for his hardline pro-Israel positions.
It is unknown if Al Shihabi had anything directly to do with the removal of Massad’s article – that decision would almost certainly have been taken at an even higher level in Doha – but his dalliance with Emanuel is a good indicator of who Al Jazeera is out to impress.
Until late Sunday, Massad’s piece could still be read in full on Al Jazeera’s mobile site, but by late evening, that too had disappeared.
Here is a PDF image of the censored article.
The Last of the Semites – Joseph Massad – Al Jazeera English

YouTube – Videos from this email

 *******

Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, and author of One Country: A Bold-Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

Over the past four or five months it has become increasingly clear that
public opinion in Syria is shifting

                                                                      Franklin Lamb

Homs, Syria — It’s not hard to find critics of the Assad government in the
Governorate (Muhafazat) of Homs or for that matter, to varying degrees in
Syria’s other thirteen Governorates according to Syrian analysts interviewed
by this observer, and reports from human rights groups including lawyers
representing dissidents in Syria. However, after nearly 27 months of turmoil,
the public opinion pendulum is markedly shifting back in support of the
current regime.

One international political result was registered at the United Nations this
past week when a US-Qatari-Saudi-drafted General Assembly Resolution that
was designed to increase pressure on the Assad government stumbled badly
and fell far short of what the Saudi Ambassador to the UN and other US
allies predicted would be an overwhelming vote in favor.

Effect of shift in popular opinion in Syria

Over the past four or five months it has become increasingly clear that
public opinion in Syria is shifting for reasons that include the following:

While inflation at the grocery stores in probably the most common complaint
heard from a cross-section of society here, the population is adapting
somewhat to higher prices and it appears to credit the government for efforts,
some successful, to soften the impact of the illegal US-led sanctions that
target this same Syrian population for purely political reasons to achieve
regime change.

While Syrians demand dignity and freedom from oppressive security forces
and an end to corruption, as all people do in this region and beyond, they are
witnessing a return to near normalcy with respect to supplies of electricity,
benzene (gasoline), mazout (fuel oil), bus schedules, schools, and a host of
public services such as garbage collection, street sweeping, park maintenance,
and sympathetic traffic cops who are rather understanding of short-cuts
taken by drivers and pedestrians due to “the situation.” In addition, public
service announcements and even text messages demonstrate that the
government is aware of the degree of suffering among the population,
accept partial blame, and are focusing on remedial measure and, crucially,
ending the crisis with its horrific bloodshed.

One observes here a definite trend of the pulling together of a high percentage
of Syrians who share a very unique history and culture and who are deeply
connected to their country and who are increasingly repelled by the
continuing killing from all sides, including the recent barbarisms of body
mutilations and summary executions videotaped and broadcast on YouTube
by jihadist elements who these days come from nearly three dozen countries,
paid for and indoctrinated by enemies of both Syria’s Arab nationalism and
deep-rooted resistance to the occupation of Palestine.

In addition, many among Syria’s 23 million citizens, who initially supported
the uprising following government reaction to event in Deraa in March 2011,
now have serious second thoughts about who exactly would replace the
current government. Events in Syria are also making plain that the army is
still loyal to the Assad government, and according to Jane’s Defense Weekly, is
actually gaining experience and strength. Also, the well-known fact now
being admitted by western diplomats is that the opposition militias,
essentially mafia outfits, are hopelessly fractured, turning against one another and
beginning to resemble their fellow jihadists from Libya, Chechnya and other
areas of this part of the world.

Opinion in Damascus and surrounding areas I visited this past week,
confirms my experience the past five months of a sharp and fairly rapid shift
in opinion that now strongly favors letting the Syrian people themselves
decide, without outside interference, whether the Assad regime will stay, and
indeed, whether, the Baathist party will continue to represent the Syrian
public, not through wanton violence but rather via next June’s election. Many
express confidence in the run up to this critical vote, noting that the election
will be closely monitored by the international community to assure fairness.

Perhaps aided by the current glorious May weather, a certain optimism, that
was more scarce in the past, pervades many neighborhoods.

For different reasons, foreign powers, including the USA, Turkey, European
Union, the UK Jordan and even the majority population of the six Gulf
Cooperation Council family-run countries, according to Pew Research, are
shifting their earlier positions which were based in part of the US
administration, NATO, and Israeli assurances that the Assad government
would surely fall quickly, “A matter of days, not weeks,” US President
Obama promised. That was two years ago.

As noted above, this trend has accelerated since the UN General Assembly
vote with last weeks which did not go as planned on the biased and
politicized non-binding draft resolution on Syria.

The public reaction in Syria and across the Middle East is substantially
that the “Friends of Syria” non-binding GA resolution contradicts the reality
on the ground, backs terrorism in Syria and hinders the international efforts
to help achieve a political solution to the crisis in this country. Only 107 states
voted in favor of the resolution, 12 against while 59 countries, mostly from
Africa and Latin America, abstained.

One reason the vote fell short of the 130 favorable votes that the basically
same resolution garnered the past two times is that it is widely viewed as
ignoring the crimes and atrocities committed by the armed jihadist groups in
Syria and the flow of thousands of international terrorists backed by the
West, the Gulf states and Turkey who provide them with weapons and
money. According to the Russian delegate, backed by several other speakers,
“the resolutions ignores all the terrorists’ heinous crimes and denounces what
it called the escalation of the attacks by the Syrian government.” Afterward
one Latin American Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that the
count would have been below 100 if not for some “last minute arm-twisting.”
As it turned out, 15 countries didn’t vote at all, opting to “get coffee,” as one
African Permanent Representative put it before the vote.

Syria’s Ambassador al-Jaafari exposes a hoax in the Gulf

Syria’s permanent Envoy to the UN, Bashar al-Jaafari, said his country
regretted the adoption of a biased and unbalanced UN resolution, thanking
the countries that rejected the resolution “for their responsible positions
which support the UN principles and the international law articles”. He
noted that the decrease in the number of countries that voted in favor and
the increase of numbers of those who abstained from voting indicates the
growing international understanding of the reality that what is happening in
Syria is due to foreign support of terrorism, the spread of extremism and
incitement, and rejection of dialogue. “We rely on the UN and its member
states to support Syria and its people against the culture of extremism and
terrorism, and to encourage the comprehensive national dialogue to
peacefully resolve the Syrian crisis,” he said. In a statement released after
the vote on the UN draft resolution on Syria, al-Jaafari noted that the French
delegation had foiled the issuance of a number of UN press releases to
condemn the terrorist acts committed by al-Qaeda-linked groups in Syria,
just as it had foiled a UN release to condemn the attempted assassination of
the Syrian Premier.

After Qatar’s ambassador spoke in favor of the resolution his country drafted
(and re-drafted several time), al-Jaafari revealed that there existed an e-mail,
from the representative of the Syrian opposition given to Syria’s embassy in
Qatar, showing Qatar’s involvement in the kidnapping of UN peacekeepers
by the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade.* He read out a phone number from the
e-mail as several Gulf diplomats grimaced or scowled, and three left the
Chamber.

Visibly stunned, the UK Permanent Representative Lyall Grant called the
whole matter “deeply confusing.” Another Permanent Representative, from a
militia-contributing country, said that if true, it’s “very problematic.” This
after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had just thanked Qatar for its role
in the release of the UN Peacekeepers, whose kidnapping may in fact have
been planned and paid for by the Qatari government.

Meanwhile, Ban Ki-moon’s spokesperson Martin Nesirky said he would not
disclose any more about the “negotiations to free the peacekeepers or who
was behind the crime.”

Rather a diplomatic victory for Syria’s UN Ambassador in the run-up to the
Geneva II conference being organized by the White House and the Kremlin.

* “Ban Thanking Qatar for Freeing of Peacekeepers UNexplained, Others UNnamed”
by Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press, May 13, 2013
http://www.innercitypress.com/syria1qatarothers051313.html

********

Dr. Franklin Lamb is Director of the Sabra Shatila Foundation. Contact him at: fplamb@sabrashatila.org. He is working with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign in Lebanon on drafting legislation which, after 62 years, would, if adopted by Lebanon’s Cabinet and Parliament grant the right to work and to own a home to Lebanon’s Palestinian Refugees. One part of the PCRC legislative project is its online Petition which can be viewed and signed at: petitiononline.com/ssfpcrc/petition.html. Lamb is reachable at fplamb@palestinecivilrightscampaign.org. Franklin Lamb’s book on the Sabra-Shatila Massacre, International Legal Responsibility for the Sabra-Shatila Massacre, now out of print, was published in 1983, following Janet’s death and was dedicated to Janet Lee Stevens. He was a witness before the Israeli Kahan Commission Inquiry, held at Hebrew University in Jerusalem in January 1983.

–

Bashar al-Assad interview with Argentine newspaper Clarin: “I don’t give up. People say who stays and who should go, not U.S.”

President al-Assad: Basis for Any Political Solution for Crisis in Syria is What the Syrian People Want
May 18, 2013 – DAMASCUS President Bashar al-Assad affirmed that the basis for any political solution for the crisis in Syria is what the Syrian people want, which is decided through ballots, saying that Syria welcomes the Russian-US rapprochement, voicing Syria’s support for any suggestion which halts violence and leads to a political solution and its readiness to hold dialogue with any Syrian side which didn’t deal with Israel secretly or publically and which rejects terrorism.

In an interview with Argentina’s Clarin newspaper and Telam news agency, President al-Assad said that Israel supports terrorists, directs them and gives them the general plan of their movements according to its interests which intersect with those of several foreign sides including Qatar and Turkey which don’t want a political solution in Syria and which support terrorism.

Following is the full text of the interview:

~

Q1:

What has made the Syrian Crisis so complex and protracted?

Firstly, numerous factors have influenced the Syrian crisis both internally and externally, the most significant of which is foreign interference. Secondly, the calculations of confrontational states that intervened in Syria have now proven incorrect. These states perceived their plan would succeed within weeks or months; this has not materialized. What has transpired is that the Syrian people have resisted, and continue to resist and reject all forms of external intervention. For us, it is a matter of safeguarding Syria.

~

Q2:

What is the total number of fallen victims in the crisis so far? Some sources report that the numbers exceed 70.000 people.

The death of any Syrian is a tragic loss, regardless of the numbers; but one has to examine the credibility of these sources. We cannot ignore the fact that many of those that have died were foreigners who came to Syria to kill Syrians. There are also many missing who have been accounted for as dead without real authenticity. This affects the accuracy of the quoted numbers of the death toll. How many are Syrians? How many are foreigners? How many are missing? At present, there is no precise comprehensive number to quote. These numbers are constantly changing. Terrorists kill people and often put them in mass graves. We can only discover and account for those losses after the Syrian army goes into these areas.

~

Q3:

On this note, has excessive force been used by the government throughout the conflict?

Here it is imperative to determine the meaning of “excessive force” in order to determine whether it has been used or not. Without a clear criterion to this notion, it is inconceivable to discuss the concept.

The response of the state generally amounts to the level of terrorism perpetrated against it. With more sophisticated levels of terrorism, our response to those threats intensifies.

At the beginning of the crisis, acts of terror were carried out by local groups using local armaments. With time, these armed groups were able to source more sophisticated and destructive weaponry and fighters, which allowed them to carry out terrorist acts on a much wider scale. This warranted a similar response from the Syrian army and security forces. The response in each scenario differs according to the form or methods of terror adopted by the terrorists and in a way to repel an area from terrorist insurgents whilst protecting civilian lives.

Therefore, the factors that determine our level of force relate to the types of weapons and terrorism techniques we are dealing with as well as our ultimate goal of protecting the lives of civilians and the country as a whole.

~

Q4:

At the start of the crisis, there were some foreigner fighters. It has been two years into the crisis now; do you believe that dialogue could have prevented foreign intervention and the involvement of the crisis into its current shape?

It was seemingly apparent at the beginning that demands were for reforms. It was utilized to appear as if the crisis was a matter of political reform. Indeed, we pursued a policy of wide scale reforms from changing the constitution to many of the legislations and laws, including lifting the state of emergency law, and embarking on a national dialogue with all political opposition groups. It was striking that with every step we took in the reform process, the level of terrorism escalated.

This ultimately begs the question: what is the relationship between demanding reforms and adopting terrorism? Terrorism can never be the instrument to achieve reforms. What interest does an internationally listed terrorist from Chechnya or Afghanistan have with the internal political reform process in Syria? How is the legitimate demand for reform linked with terrorist activities adopted by radicalized foreign fighters? The same context applies to those external fighters from Iraq, Lebanon and others. Recent credible reports show that there are approximately 29 nationalities of foreign fighters engaged in terrorism activities within Syria’s borders.

We were staunchly committed to political reforms and have implemented them, and we have presented a broad political initiative based on a national dialogue. The essence of any political solution is the aspirations of the Syrian people, decided by the ballot boxes. States do not negotiate with terrorists. However dialogue with the political opposition has been a fundamental policy of ours, which we remain deeply committed to.

Terrorism struck in countries from the United States to Europe. Have these states ever negotiated with terrorists? Dialogue is with legitimate political entities and a conventional opposition, not with terrorist groups who maintain a code of killing, beheading and administering violence including the use of poisonous gas, which amounts to chemical weapons.

~

Q5:

Mr. President, would these reforms bring about genuine democratic representation of the Syrian people including freedom of press and expression?

You may be aware that there is a new media law already established amongst the recent reforms adopted. We aimed at an ultimately more comprehensive process; we envisioned a national dialogue for all political entities, which would then act as a pre-requisite for a unified national charter and a new constitution with a wider range of freedoms, including political and media freedom. This new constitution would then be put to a referendum.

Freedom of press and political freedom are two inextricably intertwined concepts, which reinforce and supplement each other, the pursuit of one is impotent without the other, they must both work in tandem with each other.

~

Q6:

Your Excellency always emphasize that the key to resolving the crisis is dialogue, which is most agreeable. How do you see the conference proposed at the end of this month in light of the initial agreement between the USA and Russia? How do you evaluate this process especially with the interference of France and UK?

We reiterate our support for all steps that would entail stopping the violence in Syria and lead to a political solution. However, the cessation of violence is paramount to reaching a political settlement.

We welcome the Russian-American rapprochement and support its potentiality of being a platform to facilitate the resolution of the Syrian crisis. We do remain skeptical of the genuine intentions of certain western administrations towards seeking a realistic political solution in Syria. This caution is based on their continued support of terrorist groups in Syria. We are dedicated to pursuing a political solution, yet there are powers who are pressing for the failure of such a solution. This is a two-way process; it needs commitment from all sides.

~

Q7:

Are these doubts related to opposition entities or to certain countries and major international players that are hindering a political solution in Syria?

Essentially, some foreign-based opposition elements that you mentioned are far from autonomous independent decision makers, their policies are crafted by the countries that give them leverage. These opposition segments survive on the aid given to them by their patron states, in essence manipulated by the nations that provide their flow of finance. They live under the auspice and control of their intelligence agencies and thus submit to what is imposed upon them. Therefore their decisions are not self-governing; most significantly, they lack a popular base in Syria. If they believed that they had public support, they would have functioned politically from within Syria’s borders, not extrinsically from abroad. We do currently have internal political opposition parties based from within, enjoying varying levels of popular intrinsic support. The Syrian government has not intimidated or been hostile to these internal political entities.

Subsequently, the resonant question here is: what justifies the presence of parts of the opposition abroad, except for the notion that they are led by external agendas? In short, are we skeptical of both these opposition groups and the countries supporting them, they are very closely linked. Importantly, these are not doubts; it is a well-documented fact that they have until last week clearly and repeatedly rejected political dialogue.

~

Q8:

How can this dialogue be achieved when the opposition factions are fragmented? When talking about dialogue, who is the dialogue to be held with?

We have always advocated and remain vehemently committed to a comprehensive national dialogue to include all who have a genuine desire to participate, with no exclusions. We take into consideration the premise that they are dedicated towards a better Syria within the limits of its sovereignty and right to self-determination. This is subject to the fact that they have not engaged with Israel either acquiescently or in secret.

This process of course does not include terrorists. There is no state that would ever negotiate with terrorists. However, we welcome those who lay down their weapons and engage in constructive political dialogue. There are empirical examples of many who took up arms, subsequently laid down their weapons and moved into political participation and are engaging with the Syrian state. They do have legitimate demands and suggestions; the Syrian government is openly addressing them.

We reinforce the notion that a peaceful political solution would not be feasible when terrorism is supported. There is fundamental contradiction in supporting terrorism whilst claiming to support the success of a political conference at the same time. Certain countries are aiding terrorism in Syria through financing and the streaming of arms. Our assumption is that these countries would not cease this policy as their main goal is to undermine and thus weaken the Syrian state. A political resolution in Syria would help the country to develop and prosper, contrary to what these particular countries are attempting to achieve.

The Syrian people would form a vision towards the future with all the political entities drawn towards the congress, and potentially reach palpable comprehensive agreements on matters stretching from the constitution, to new laws and legislations. Also spanning issues such as discussing the desired shape of the future political structure in Syria, evoking debates regarding the most suitable system, be it parliamentarian or presidential. Such a process would correctly shape the future of Syria.

Terrorism is a separate concern. Even when we succeed in reaching a Syrian-led political agreement, certain countries such as Qatar, Turkey and others will continue to work to fuel violence and terrorism in Syria. Therefore, our main precedence from an international conference is an immediate cessation of finance and weapons that are regularly streamed into Syria, placing emphasis on preventing the terrorists and fighters from being flooded into Syria principally through Turkey, with financial support primarily from Qatar and also from other Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia.

When major international powers act ardently to stop the financing, training and streaming of terrorist, fighting terrorism in Syria becomes considerably simpler and then a real political solution would generate genuine results. New constitution and new laws, while the Syrian people are being victims of indefensible terrorism would not produce any real realistic solution.

~

Q9:

So would you talk to foreign –based entities?

We would engage in dialogue with all political entities, internal or external with no set pre-conditions. This also includes the armed groups who lay down their weapons and renounce terrorism. Guns and dialogue are clearly incompatible.

As a matter of fact, there are certain groups and entities, which are subject to legal prosecution; up until this point we have not initiated formal legal proceedings against them in any capacity, in order to facilitate the proposed dialogue. This will culminate with the Syrian people eventually judging their agendas; they themselves will decide who is credible and who is fraudulent. We have not administered a state-imposed recipe for the solution; this in its entirety has been left for the Syrian people to decide.

~

Q 10:

What role is Israel playing in the Syrian crisis, especially after the Israeli air strikes on sites inside Syria?

Israel directly supports the terrorist movements in two ways. Firstly, through logistical means manifested by them publicly providing medical aid and hospital facilities to the injured terrorist fighters in the Golan Heights. Secondly, they provide them with directions and navigational support, regarding how to mount their attacks and which sites to target. For instance they attacked Radar sites, which are strictly related to the air defense systems that would detect and intercept any foreign air force activity. They have mobilized them to attack these air defense systems since they are an important deterrent in any military confrontation between Syria and Israel.

Therefore the Israeli support for the terrorists is twofold, logistical assistance and navigational help to direct the terrorist movements and operations on the ground.

~

Q11:

You condemn the presence of foreign fighters in Syria. Some would argue that fighters from Hezbollah and Iran are fighting alongside the Syrian army. What do you say on that?

This narrative was crafted in the West when we documented the presence of foreign jihadists fighting in Syria. They created this notion that Hezbollah and Iran are also fighting in Syria as a counterweight.

Syria can rely on a population of 23 million; it does not require manpower sustenance from any country. We have at our disposal an army, security forces and the Syrian people to defend our country. Therefore, we have no necessity for any other group to fight on our behalf regardless of whether they are from Iran or Hezbollah. Our relations with Iran and Hezbollah are well known and span decades. It is well known that we exchange expertise on many fronts.

Regarding the claims that there are fighters from these entities in Syria, this would be a matter that is practically impossible to hide. First and foremost, the Syrian people would have identified them. So where could they possibly be? If there is ever a need or a requirement, we will be transparent and announce it formally. We are certainly not utilizing any external fighters in Syria from any Arab or foreign nationality. Personnel from Iran and Hezbollah have existed in Syria for years before the crisis, under agreements they do come and go into Syria formally.

~

Q 12:

If no progress is made on dialogue, do you anticipate that the armed opposition would lay down their weapons and reach an agreement? Would your government take political steps to resolve the crisis; would Your Excellency relinquish power?

The Syrian people will decide whether I remain in office or not. As a president, it is not for me to decide whether I stay or go, this is the decision of the electorate. It is impossible to lead when you are not desired by the public; this is essentially common sense and doesn’t need much debate. Through the constitution and the presidential elections in 2014, the people will decide.

As for the armed groups you cited, they are not one single autonomous group. We are dealing with hundreds of small fractured militias. One of the fundamental reasons for Kofi Annan’s resignation was that he did not know whom to negotiate with from the other side.

From our perspective, there is one state with one president and one prime-minister and a clear coherent political structure. As for the terrorist entities, they are in groups and militias with a constellation that includes convicted criminals, drug smugglers, and fundamentalist movements. Each anarchical movement has its local leader. Therefore we are talking about thousands of differentiating personalities. The logical question is: who can unite these? One cannot conceivably account for and build a road map with these ambiguous groups who have no political agendas. As noted previously, not all of these groups are extremists. Some of them are thieves, some are building material wealth out of the crisis and others are outlaws or opportunists with a direct interest in prolonging the crisis. Building a tangible political process with these groups is a complex task. If they had a conventional structure, it would have been more feasible to envisage a way of doing so.

This reality means we deal with each case individually and according to its circumstances. Once an armed individual or group lay down their arms, we automatically engage with them and move towards dialogue. We recognize that this is not a conclusive comprehensive dialogue; however, we do not believe in a policy of “all or nothing”. We are incrementally building on this strategy, which has indeed helped to attenuate the crisis in several parts in Syria.

~

Q13:

So, Mr President, you continue to reject stepping down?

As I previously specified, remaining or leaving my position is not my individual choice. As President, I was elected by the Syrian people and therefore only the Syrian people have the authority to decide on this matter, through dialogue or the forthcoming presidential elections as I mentioned earlier. But to ascertain that the Syrian President must step down because the United States wants him to or because terrorists and certain countries desire so is totally unacceptable. This matter solely relates to the electorate’s decision through ballot boxes.

~

Q 14:

The United States of America gave indications through President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s statements that it does not want to intervene in Syria. However Kerry stated that any dialogue should include the possibility of you leaving power. If you reach this dialogue on an international level, could this be of the cards that you may use to reach a solution to the crisis?

I do not know if Mr. Kerry or others like him have a mandate from the Syrian people to speak on their behalf as to who stays and who leaves. We clearly stated from the beginning of the crisis that any decision relating to internal reform or any other political activity is a Syrian internal domestic decision and the United states or any other country for that matter have no say in the matter. To be even more concise and clear, we are an independent state, we are a people who respect ourselves and our right to self-determination. We do not accept for anyone to dictate to us how to act, whether it is the United States or any other country. Therefore this possibility is to be solely determined by the Syrian people; put simply one stands for office at election time, he either wins or he loses. This is the mechanism in which a president may leave power, not that of entering a conference with pre-dictated conditions, which the people have not chosen.

The country now faces a crisis; when a ship is in the eye of the storm, the Captain does not jump. On the contrary, his duty is to face the storm and navigate the ship to safe waters. Any abandonment of my duties now is an attempt to escape from responsibility and I’m not the type of person who runs away from his responsibilities.

~

Q 15:

In addition to the early pre-condition of you stepping down particularly by France and Britain, they have accused your government of using chemical weapons. Mr. Kerry stated yesterday that there was “strong evidence” that in March 2013 the Syrian army used Sarin Gas in Aleppo. What would you say on that? Do you think that the western emphasis on this issue is a prelude to military intervention in Syria? Are you worried about such scenario transpiring?

The statements made on Syria by Western countries, whether it is regarding chemical weapons or the President stepping down, vary on almost a daily basis. One day they infer that they have evidence on the use of chemical weapons and the following day they conclude that there is no such evidence, the subsequent day they say there is evidence again. We shall wait to see if they settle on one narrative.

But we shouldn’t be wasting time with empty rhetoric, what is more important is reality. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction; the accusation is that we have used them in populated areas. If, for instance, a nuclear weapon is deployed in a city or populated district, is it plausible that it merely kills ten or twenty people? The use of chemical weapons in populated areas would result in the death of thousands or tens of thousands within minutes. Can this really be concealed? We need to look closer, especially at the timing. These allegations appeared after terrorist groups mounted chemical attacks in Aleppo, which we have substantiated with tangible evidence – we have the missile that was used and its chemical materials. We sent an official letter to the United Nations Security Council requesting a formal investigation into the incident. This no doubt left certain countries such as the United States, France and Britain in a difficult quandary. Soon afterwards, they began to allege that Syria had used chemical weapons against the terrorists. To avoid the investigations, they instead requested to send inspectors with unconditional and unfettered access to different locations in Syria, away from the area where the actual incident occurred. In fact, a member of the UN investigators, Carla Del Ponte, stated last week that there was evidence that the terrorists in Syria had used nerve agents.

Using these allegations as a clear pretext for military intervention in Syria is a possible scenario, as it did occur in Iraq when Colin Powell stood in the Security Council and presented what we now know to be false evidence of Iraqi WMD’s; but where were the WMD’s? It is common knowledge that western administrations lie continuously and manufacture stories as a pretext for war.

Any war against Syria will not be a picnic, the situation here is very different. Whilst it is quite plausible that they may contemplate the idea of war on Syria, we have no evidence that this is anything more than theory. We do however always keep this in mind.

~

Q16:

At present, are you concerned about military action against Syria? Perhaps not in the form of conventional invasion like in Iraq, but a direct military strike?

This is precisely what Israel acted upon last week. It is always a standing possibility and occurs from time to time, especially when we continue to make progress across the country against the terrorist groups and shift the balance of power on the ground.

The countries cited earlier delegated Israel to commit its aggression in order to improve the morale of the terrorist groups. These nations serve to prolong the violence and bloodshed in Syria in order to significantly weaken the Syrian state. Therefore military action against us is not an improbable scenario; it may transpire at any time, even on a limited-scale.

~

Q17:

You now say that the situation in Syria is under control, however we hear many echoes of guns and mortars, how has the crisis developed militarily in recent days especially after the armed groups have closed in on Damascus?

The term control is often used when waging a war against a foreign army on your own territory; where we can state that we dominate this region or control another. The situation in Syria differs completely; we are dealing with terrorists who have infiltrated specific areas. They could be occupying a certain building in an area, this does not mean they have full control over that particular area. Since they are not a typical army, they have the ability to hide and escape from one place to another relatively quickly. As for the Syrian Army, there has not been any instance where they have planned to enter a particular location to control the area and have not been able to do so. This is where we can use the term control.

There are areas where terrorists are able to maneuver more easily, especially since it is only normal that no army in the world that can present in every corner of any given country. Our military activities are aimed at striking terrorism, not on freeing land. We have achieved significant results in recent weeks and as such a large portion of terrorists have left Syria, whilst others have surrendered to the state. We are not looking to control a particular region or another. We are fighting a war against terrorism, the battle is long and we are making good progress.

~

Q 18:

Mr President, to what extent do you think that Obama’s foreign policy is considerably different to previous American leaders?

The United States is broadly governed by certain institutions and particular lobbies. Any new leader can contribute and leave their mark, however, they cannot draw their own autonomous policies independently from those existing institutions and lobbies. So changes in American administrations create only subtle differences in foreign policy, because the governing institutions and lobbies do not change. This makes it difficult to measure the impact of any particular President or Foreign Minister.

Most importantly to us in Syria, is that foreign policy in the United States is still profoundly biased towards Israel against the legitimate rights of the Arab people, particularly Palestinians. In the last 20 years, the United States has not taken any serious or genuine steps to push for a peace process. They invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and are still adopting the same policies. From a humanitarian perspective, they still administer and run the prison at Guantanamo. So what has changed? The rhetoric? That has no real value, what is important is action on the ground. So as I said the American administrations on this topic are very similar.

~

Q 19:

George W Bush commanded a better economy and rushed into war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama repeated it in Libya but it seems he has no real desire to intervene in Syria. Do you think this reflects a shift in American policy? Do you think this is due to the change in the world order? When I met you 7 years ago, China was not as powerful as it is currently. In light of this, do you think that American forces would invade Syria?

This question can be addressed from two viewpoints. There is a view within the United States that the current administration is not keen on wars – we have to ask ourselves why? Is it because of the economic situation, the changes in the global power structure, their failure in Afghanistan, Iraq and others? Or is it genuinely due to a matter of principles? I doubt that this change is about principles. There are changing circumstances that prevent the United States from engaging in new military adventures, especially since these have proven to be costly and have failed to achieve any benefit for them politically. However, Americans are better equipped to determine this than anybody looking in from the outside.

However, from another perspective which we see very clearly and has a direct affect on us, is their continued policy of supporting terrorism logistically and politically in our country, with so-called “non-lethal” aid. Let me ask you, were the events of 9/11 perpetrated by lethal aid? No, quite the contrary, which means you do not necessarily need to support terrorism with weapons. By simply providing financial, logistical and technological support, you make the terrorists ability to kill more lethal. Therefore, it seems as though American policy has shifted away from direct military invasion to more unconventional warfare.

Another more significant question we need to ask ourselves is whether current US foreign policy fostering international stability? Clearly not. Neither the United States nor Western governments are doing anything for international stability. Look at what is happening in North Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and many other Arab countries, there is no stability; this is what we should be focusing on. War is only a tool, we are talking about principles not tools. If America has shifted away from direct military invasion, it does not mean they have changed their principles. They have changed their tools – yes, but their principles – I doubt it.

~

Q 20:

When you say war is a means, do you infer that it is a way for the West to impose a Wahhabi or extremist government in Syria? Is it to control Syria’s new gas and oil resources, or a mix of both? Do you think that America works with Qatar and Saudi Arabia so an extremist government can take power in Syria?

The primary aim of the West is to ensure that they have “loyal” governments at their disposal, similar to those administrations that existed previously in Latin America, which facilitate the exploitation and consumption of a country’s national resources.

As to the West’s desire to install an extremist government, there are two distinct perspectives. The first, is that some in the West genuinely fear an extremist government and hence are pushing towards a non-extremist government that is however still ‘loyal’ to their agenda. The second perspective is that others do not have a problem with an extremist government, which they can ‘use now and fight later on’. This policy is ultimately short-sighted. The events in Afghanistan and subsequently New York were the result of these ideas and policies implemented by the United States. They supported the Taliban at varying times and, on September 11, they paid a hefty price. Previously they entered Afghanistan using the prerogative that they are fighting terrorism, and today terrorism and extremism is much more prevalent than it was 10 years ago. In essence they invaded Afghanistan and implicitly made terrorism stronger by doing so. Whilst it was confined to Afghanistan before, today it has developed and has become more widespread in numerous parts of the world. The West works to impose puppet governments loyal to them which ardently implement their policies in whatever form that may be.

What is more dangerous however, is that the Wahhabi states in the region are looking to spread extremist ideologies to the broader public and not just at a government level. In Syria our notion of Islam is very moderate, we do not have any extremist Wahhabi orientations or Wahhabi schools of thought. We reject and resist these extremist ideologies that they are trying to instill into Syrian society. We do this by fighting it politically and through the teaching of proper religion, of the moderate Islam that is Syria is well known for.

As for the gas, this issue has never been discussed with us. However, we had planned and announced major railway transportation projects for the region, other projects linking the five seas, as well as the transfer of oil and gas, north and south, east and west. These would enhance the development process of the region and prosper the economies of all of its countries.

A country like Syria is not by any means a satellite state to the West. Syria is an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West. It is only normal that they would not want us to play a role, preferring instead a puppet government serving their interests and creating projects that would benefit their peoples and economies. Syria is strategically placed not just for oil and gas projects, but also to shift the balance of power between the major players.

~

Q 21:

Will the forthcoming 2014 presidential elections be internationally monitored? Will the international media be given free access?

Even as a president, international monitoring is not my own decision. This is subject to the national dialogue process which we are preparing for. At present we are consulting with the diverse internal political powers in Syria to initiate this national dialogue. This would then design the roadmap for the elections.

Certain segments of Syrian society reject the idea of external monitoring and believe that it undermines our national sovereignty. These groups are skeptical of western intentions in Syria and refuse any input from foreign parties on how to “rightly” conduct their own internal affairs. Differing segments feel that the topic of monitoring very much depends on the actual countries involved. If monitoring is to happen, they ask whether it shall be conducted by historically friendly countries – Russia or China for example.

I reiterate, this is not my own decision. This is exclusively a decision to be taken by the Syrian people through a comprehensive national dialogue process encapsulating all Syrian political entities.

~

Q 22:

With regards to the upcoming presidential elections in Iran, do you think there will be any change overall in Iranian policy?

Of course Iran is a vital country in the region. It is a large country with a key and integral political role. Events in Iran will inevitably have a positive or negative bearing on neighboring states and could affect the stability of the region. From this perspective, Iran is highly significant to Syria. From another perspective, the durable alliance between Iran and Syria has stretched for over three decades. As a friendly state, we closely observe their internal changes, which, one way or another, will affect Syria’s role in the region.

Similar to any other state in the Middle East, Iran has a constantly evolving internal political dynamic and it periodically undergoes political changes. The upcoming elections will reflect the changes in Iranian society, and their increasing weight and political clout in the region.

Iran today is very different from ten years ago. Today, it is one of the most essential and powerful states in the region. This will unquestionably be echoed in the elections. Most certainly, a new Iranian president would not serve the aspirations of the United States by turning the Republic of Iran into an American puppet state; they should not hedge their bets on this. The elections will reflect the changes in Iran internally and not the change that western administrations seek unscrupulously in Iran.

~

Q 23:

When I interviewed Your Excellency in Buenos Aires, you condemned the Holocaust and denounced any form of genocide. This is different to the Iranian perception. What is the significance of this difference?

The fundamentally important question here is: how can we discuss the Holocaust whilst overlooking the mass killings that have been perpetrated for years upon the Palestinians, or the million and half Iraqis killed by the Americans or the millions of North Koreans killed in the 1950’s during the war?

Therefore, this advocates a notion denoting the utilization of the Holocaust as a specifically politicized topic, rather than a pure unadulterated documentation of history. As to its actuality, well I am not a historian to be able to determine accurately fact from fiction. Historical events are determined by those who document these events and can easily be changed or manipulated according to agendas and viewpoints. If you were to ask two Syrian historians about the history of the country, you would most likely get two differing accounts. If the Holocaust is purely a historical issue, why are countless examples of historically well renowned genocides committed against Arab and non-Arab nations totally disregarded?

~

Q 24:

Mr. President, during the interview I conducted with you in Buenos Aires, you discussed the significance of Syria to the region, particularly to Iraq where you received millions of Iraqi refugees. Now the situation is different, there are many Syrian refugees abroad. How do you see this crisis as a concern to your security and the security of your family? Are you concerned for their lives or not?

My concern is for my country, for Syria. I am a part of this country and a president cannot feel safe or comfortable when his country is in a crisis. I strongly believe that when Syria is well, then every family will be safe including my own.

Syria cannot be well when there is such a difficult humanitarian crisis with numerous refugees displaced externally and an even higher amount internally. How can I work to resolve this humanitarian crisis other than by being a part of this society?

National interests and national security should always take precedent over your own personal security. By adopting this attitude you no longer fear for yourself and your primary concern becomes the safety of the Syrian people

~

Q 25:

What would be your primary or most recent self-critique, Mr. President?

Self-critique should be a continuous process. However if we are talking about evaluating a particular period of time or incident, then it is only normal to wait until the event or period has passed. Evaluating the performance and decisions made during this crisis can only be objectively done when we have all the information available and a long term view in mind. Only then can we determine right from wrong. What we are doing at the moment is learning from day to day experiences to ensure that our effectiveness on the ground has more impact.

On the other hand, I believe that what is more important than your own evaluation of yourself is the public’s view and opinion on the matter. They ultimately have the concluding say on whether you were right or wrong.

~

Q 26:

In Latin America, there are approximately 15 million descendants of Syrian origin. They are genuinely concerned over the unfolding events in Syria, and the information they receive is relatively partial. Here I have two questions: what would you like to say to them regarding these concerns? Secondly, when the crisis is over, how will history judge you?

The future will essentially determine your place in history. In a position of responsibility, as is normal in human nature, one can be right or wrong. What is important though is that your decisions were understood to be taken based on national interests. In that way people may agree or disagree with your actions, but they will understand and accept that you were working in the best interests of your country. History will then remember that you were working for your country’s interest and not your own.

As for the large expatriate community in Argentina and Latin America, we have always viewed it as a cultural bridge between two distant regions. Because of this great expatriate community, the peoples in Latin America have a better understanding of the situation in our region than those societies in countries closer to the Middle East and the Arab World.

In the current situation and the changes that are taking place on the ground in Syria and Middle East as a whole, these communities now more than ever have a vital and integral role to play. They have an excellent in-depth understanding of the nature of our societies, they are well aware of colonial policies and intentions towards our region. As such, they are able to convey and reflect an accurate account of events in Syria to people in Latin America, especially since your region underwent similar historical changes in previous decades. The countries in your region were transformed from being satellites commanded by the United States into independent and progressive nations. However, an important difference between the two experiences is that your revolutions served your national interests, however our revolutions are fundamentally externally administered, be it their imported ideologies, resources or even through foreign fighters. It is crucial that this expatriate community shares its insights and understanding of the region in a way that helps people in Latin America understand the situation as it is in reality.

~

Q27:

Mr. President, last question. There are two journalists who are missing in Syria. The first of Italian nationality, disappeared last March, and the latter was reported missing after he entered Syria six months ago. Do you have any information about them? I would also like to ask you about the two kidnapped Syrian bishops?

There have been certain cases where journalists have illegally entered Syria without the knowledge of the Syrian government. They entered into areas that have a known presence of terrorists and according to their media organizations have gone missing. We continue to search for them through our on-going military operations, and on occasions our forces have been successful in releasing journalists who were kidnapped in areas infiltrated by terrorists. Whenever there is information regarding journalists who have entered Syria illegally, we directly communicate with the concerned country. At present we have no information about the two journalists you mentioned.

As for the two bishops, we have preliminary information that they are near the Turkish-Syrian border. We are closely following this issue and liaising with the Orthodox Patriarchate in Syria to free them from the terrorists groups who abducted them.

*

Text by SANA

Original from
http://www.clarin.com/mundo/renuncio-pueblo-queda-debe-EEUU_0_921508165.html
~
reloaded by SyrianFreePress.net  &  TG24Siria.com  Patriotic  Network
at
http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/17485/

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Israelis did not halt their atrocities at the end of 1948 war, but adopted aggressive policies of wiping off everything Palestinian.  The Israeli Transfer Committee hastened to supervise the destruction of all abandoned Arab villages and repopulating them with recent Jewish immigrants.

By Dr. Elias Akleh

Every 15^th of May Palestinians; old and young, all over the world, within Zionist occupied Palestine, in every Palestinian refugee camp, and in every exile country, commemorate the Palestinian Nakba; Arabic for national catastrophe.  Palestinians contemplate their stolen homeland, the genocide of hundreds of thousands of their Palestinian and Arab brothers and sisters, the total destruction of hundreds of their towns, the wiping off Palestine of the map and the sub-planting to the terrorist state of Israel in its place.

  National catastrophe is the proper description of the Palestinian plight caused by the Zionist Jewish occupation of Palestine and the creation of a terrorist state called Israel.  Israel is the invention of Zionism, which is a colonial expansionist terrorist movement based on an extremist ethnocentric supremacist Judaic religious discriminative concept of God’s chosen people in God’s promised land. Its primary objective is the establishment of a Jewish only super power state in the heart of the Arab World to control its most needed natural resource of oil in order to control the economy of the whole world and to become the masters of the world as prescribed by their own Judaic religion. To accomplish this Zionist Jews sought to annihilate Palestinians, raze their towns, wipe off their homeland of the map, and erase their culture from history, for an independent Palestinian state negates Israel’s so-called right of existence.

 The Zionist occupation of Palestine is a historically unprecedented unique form of occupation.  While traditional military occupations take place when a colonial military power occupies another country to control its people, their natural resources, and their government, the Zionist Jewish occupation, on the other hand, is a religiously-racist genocidal obliterating occupation, whose primary goal is the complete annihilation of all indigenous Palestinian inhabitants, the complete destruction of their towns, the wiping off of their culture and history, the creation of an alien state, and the sub-planting of aggressive terrorist alien groups, with different citizenships of various countries, in the area.

 Zionist Jewish leaders had openly and shamelessly declared this genocidal goal as their policy. Ardent Zionist Ukrainian Jew Yosef Weitz, the director of Land and Afforestation Department of the Jewish National Fund, had formed the “Transfer Committee”, whose primary function was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the destruction of their villages and the forestation of these villages to cover the Israeli crimes. He confined to his diary on December 20^th 1940:

“It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people … the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs.  There is no room here for compromise … There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries … Not one village must be left, not even one Bedouin tribe.”  

 On June 22^nd, 1941 he also wrote:

“The land of Israel is not small at all, if only the Arabs were removed, and its frontiers enlarged a little, to the north up to the Litani (river in Lebanon), and to the east including the Golan Heights … with the Arabs transferred to northern Syria and Iraq … Today we have no other alternative … We will not live here with Arabs.” (Benny Morris “Birth of Palestinian Refugee Problem”)

 Russian Jew Chaim Weizmann, born in Belarus; part of Russian Empire at the time, who was president of the Zionist Organization and the first president of Israel, saw no room for Palestinians in Palestine. He wrote in his autobiography “Trial and Error”:

“Palestine will become as Jewish as England is English.”

 The Polish born David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister and chief architect of the state of Israel declared openly:

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population … Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they (the Palestinians) defend themselves … The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.”

 Moshe Dayan, the Israeli Defense Minister during the 1950’s, gave a lecture at the Technion University in Haifa in March 19^th, 1969. The Israeli daily Haaratz of April 4^th 1969 quoted him saying:

“We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state. Instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established.  You even do not know the names of the Arab villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist.  There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village. You do not know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist also the Arab villages are not there either.  Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul, Kibbutz Gv’at in the place of Jobta, Kibbutz Sared in the place of Huneifis, and Kfar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

 Zionist Jewish Israeli leaders had always tried to negate, falsify and wipe off every aspect of Palestinian existence to a point where their ex Prime Minister Russian Golda Meir, born Golda Mabovitz, stated in 1969: “There is no such thing as Palestinians; they never existed.” Golda Meir was echoing the lie created by Jewish British Lord Shaftesbury and the originally Russian Jewish writer Israel Zangwill. In July 1853 Shaftesbury wrote to Foreign Minister Aberdeen that Greater Syria was:

“… a country without a nation in need of a nation without a country … Is there such a thing?  To be sure there is; the ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews!”

 Shaftesbury also wrote in his diary:

“… these vast and fertile regions will soon be without a ruler, without a known and acknowledged power to claim dominion.  The territory must be assigned to someone or to another … There is a country without a nation; and God now in his wisdom and mercy, directs us to a nation without a country.”

 Israel Zangwill, a Jewish writer, whose nickname was “the Dickens of the Ghetto”, had also claimed in 1901 that Palestine had no nation. In his book “Land of Israel” he described the Zionist colonial plan in Palestine by using the slogan of “Palestine is a land without a people for a people without a land.”

 Today, after 65 years of brutal genocidal Zionist Jewish Israeli colonization of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the Polish born Israeli President Shimon Peres, despite the steadfastness of about 4 million Palestinians still living in occupied Palestine, continues the myth of “land without people” and keeps on denying the existence of Palestinians by flagrantly stating:

“I remember how it all began.  The whole state of Israel is a millimeter of the whole Middle East.  A statistical error, barren and disappointing land, swamps in the north, desert in the south, two lakes, one dead sea and an overrated river.  No natural resource apart from malaria.  There was nothing here. And we now have the best agriculture in the world. This is a miracle: a land built by people.” (Maariv, 14 April 2013)

 Even before the end of WWII Zionist leaders formed terrorist groups from the same Jewish elements trained by the British army in North Africa, who were an adjunct to the British WWII effort against the Nazis. These Jewish terrorist groups became known as the Hagana, the Lehi (Stern) and the Irgun (Etzel), later joined to form the Israeli army. These Jewish terrorist groups were the first to introduce terrorist attacks in Palestine. They attacked British as well as Palestinian targets; the bombing of King David Hotel, the assassination of Lord Folke Bernadotte, attacks against British troops, and bombing of Palestinian buses and markets.

 In March 1948, before the end of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion launched extensive military genocidal campaigns to cleanse Palestine from its indigenous inhabitants and to destroy as much of their towns as possible. Within 6 months, Zionist terrorist organizations, not just Irgun and Lehi as Israelis want to blame but also the Hagana, went on a rampage massacring and expelling Palestinians and destroying their homes and villages. According to the archives of the history of the Palmach (the assassinating striking force of the Hagana) released in full in 1972, more than 13 underground military operations were carried out by Jewish terrorist organizations against Palestinian targets. Some have heard of the infamous plan Dalet, yet there are also the less publicized other terrorist plans such as Hiram, Kadish, Nachson, Gideon, Barak, Yoram, Ben Ami, Ben Nun, Qilshon, Dani, Lot, and Assaf.

 These Jewish terrorist attacks caused the Nakba, the Palestinian Catastrophe; 78% of Palestine was occupied, a total of 530 Palestinian villages and towns were depopulated and razed off the ground (Walid Khalidi’s “All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948”), almost 800 thousand Palestinians became refugees (now more than 8 millions), and 70 confirmed and documented massacres were perpetrated against Palestinian civilians. The Deir Yassin massacre is very well known because it was intentionally publicized by Jewish terrorist groups to scare Palestinians into flight.  Other savage massacres also include Al-Qastal, Beit Mahsir, Deir al-Hawa, Beit Jibrin, Burqa, Kafr Saba, Kafr Qasim, Ein Ghazal, Abu Shusha, and many more other massacres where Palestinians; men, women, and children, were savagely murdered in cold blood.

 The Israelis did not halt their atrocities at the end of 1948 war, but adopted aggressive policies of wiping off everything Palestinian.  The Israeli Transfer Committee hastened to supervise the destruction of all abandoned Arab villages and repopulating them with recent Jewish immigrants. Ben-Gurion formed a special committee of experts in history, geology, and Torah study, and assigned them the task of distorting Palestinian culture and substituting the name of Palestinian cities with Jewish names. Thus Tel al-Rabi’ became Tel Aviv, Al-Quds became Yerushalayim, Um-Rashrash became Eilat, Shu’fat became Nevi Yacub, Beit-Jala became Gilo, Beit Mahsir became Beit Ma’ir, Qualandia became Atarot, and so on. Even the names of the streets were changed from Palestinian to Jewish names.

 Successive Israeli governments adopted the harshest oppressive policies against the Palestinians in an attempt to push them out of the country. They deprived Palestinians from the simplest human rights, denied them education, health, and work opportunities, imposed special heavy taxes on them, confiscated their land and homes, jailed and tortured many of them, and forcefully transferred many of them to the neighboring Arab countries.  To legalize their oppressive measures the Israeli governments did not hesitate to use the oppressive old Ottoman laws, the Jordanian laws, their own Israeli laws, and many time they would improvise new laws to be used on the spot against Palestinians.

 The illegal creation of terrorist Zionist state of Israel is the primary cause for the Palestinian catastrophe and the cause for all the wars and conflicts that is tearing apart the Middle Eastern region. To sustain and to expand the Zionist Israeli project Israeli Jews needed to avoid all peace agreements that would designate fixed borders for Israel, and to wage many wars against steadfast internal Palestinians and against its Arab neighboring countries. This was expressed by Aron Soffer, head of research and lecturer at the Israeli Forces National Defense College addressing the issue of Palestinians in Gaza strip, where he said on May 21^st, 2004:

“When 2.5 million people live in a closed off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe.  Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam.  The pressure at the border will be awful.  It’s going to be a terrible war.  So if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill.  All day … every day.” (Jerusalem Post; 10/10/2007)

 Thus, successive Israeli governments had rejected, and still reject, all peace agreements including the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that could have ended Arab/Israel conflict. Their rude belligerent response to Arab Peace Initiative came from “bulldozer” Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Prime Minister, who drove Israeli tanks into every major Palestinian city murdering civilians, destroying infrastructures, and besieging Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah’s headquarter.

 Since the 1948 Palestinian Nakba Israeli governments continued their terrorist expansionist wars in the region not just against Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also against Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and their terrorist attacks reached Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Iran. All of Israel’s wars were waged on the expense of European and American tax money, military technology and weapons, and political support. After exhausting their Israeli army the Zionist leaders were successful in getting NATO and American troops to fight their wars in proxy; the Lebanon war, wars against Iraq (once very closed friend to US), wars against Afghanistan, the division of Sudan, the war against Libya (close friend to Italy and France), arming and supporting Syrian terrorists, and economic sanctions against Iran with the future plan of pushing an alliance of US/Gulf states to wage war on Iran.

 Zionism is just the latest Judaic façade based on Jewish ethnocentric divine superiority complex and the complete denial of the humanity and rights of all other nations; Goyims without any exception. This leaves no room for peace with such an ideology, not just with the Zionist terrorist state of Israel in Palestine but in any other place in this world. Supremacist Jews keep on planting more seeds of hatred among nations, and as in the past they will reap only hatred. Jewish history repeats itself.

 ***********

 Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the “Nakba” of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the “Nakseh” of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.

by Mazin Al Nahawi

The Canadian government has a history of supporting apartheid, along with other destructive policies from mining, to militarism, and backing up big corporations stealing from poor nations.

(Victoria, BC) It is a shame that John Baird and his boss Stephen Harper haven’t learned yet from Canada’s colonial past.

For over a century, the Palestine question has been described as the most complex political issue of our modern time. A very “complicated” equation that after a half of a century of Zionist colonization to set up and establish a colonial “Jewish state” in Palestine, a mathematician, none other than Einstein himself, had something to say about the crimes committed in his name as a Jew, and in the name of Judaism.

In a letter by Einstein to the Zionist, Shepard Rifkin, executive director for “American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”, dated April 10, 1948 (the date is very important, it’s only a month before the illegal creation of the Zionist state in Palestine), he wrote:

Mr. Shepard Rifkin
Dear Sir:

When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organizations build up from our own ranks.

I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed, ‘A. Einstein’)

It didn’t require more than three lines to solve this “complex” matter, and it seems that Einstein was very confident in naming the culprits for the “catastrophe in Palestine”, as he precisely described it.  One month after that letter, the Palestinian Arabs began to call the day of the creation of the Israeli occupation state, which consisted of the robbery of their homeland and existence, as AL NAKBA (Cataclysm or Catastrophe). That was 65 years ago.

The fact that someone like Einstein could figure out such a complicated issue can not eliminate the complexity of the matter. Indeed, Palestinians are still waiting, because 65 years was not enough for most of the “civilized world” to understand the Palestinian struggle for liberation and justice and to acknowledge its root causes.

Unlike the Zionist sympathizers, apologists and propagandists nowadays, the Zionist leadership who committed genocide against the indigenous Arabs of Palestine in order to establish a “Jewish state” in a land that originally had less than 3.5 % Jewish population by 1880s¹, were more frank about the colonial nature of their Zionist project, and from its beginning and early formation stages.

Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian, journalist and the father of the political Zionist movement, wrote in his diary:

We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.²

More sickening, and in order to accomplish his fantasy plan and “buy” Palestine from the Turks, Herzl was ready to exploit the Turkish crimes against the Armenians and “to influence the European press (in London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna) to handle the Armenian question in a spirit more friendly to the Turks.” ³  In his admission, he used his profession and betrayed his integrity as a journalist. A journalist must have principles, morals, integrity and honesty, and Herzl, at his best, was an excellent professional propagandist.

Russian colonialist Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the Zionist state, in an address to the English Zionist Federation on September 19, 1919:

By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American.⁴

Concerning the issue of Palestine’s native population, Weizmann, in his remarks about the 1917 Balfour declaration, on record with the Jewish Agency Executive, stated:

With regard to the Arab question – the British told me that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but that this matter has no significance. ⁵

The British colonialists were not less racist toward the Arab Palestinians.  They had already sponsored and incorporated the Zionist colonization in their own imperial project to dominate the East Mediterranean strategic position and secure the on-going theft of its resources. Balfour, the author of the shameful Balfour Declaration, explained the British position toward the natives of Palestine:

For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right. ⁶

Of course, the natives who suddenly inhabited Balfour’s “ancient land“ and their whole existence are only a matter of “desire and prejudices” and for the sake of humanity they needed to be expelled to open the door for Britain’s new 20th Century Crusade and expand its imperial needs.

Another Russian colonialist, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the icon of the Zionist right wing, explained the Zionist aims in Palestine in his article “The Iron Wall”. He wrote:

We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in total, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts. ⁷

For Jabotinsky it was just another European settler colonization, like the United States, Canada or Australia. He was aware of Zionism as a colonial adventure with direct brutal assault against the indigenous natives. He stated:

My readers have a general idea of the history of colonization in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.” He added later: “Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”. ⁸

Moshe Dayan, a Zionist war criminal who helped form the Haganah gangs, and participated in organizing the terror and massacres against the Palestinians to expel them from their ancestors’ land, in a rare confession said:

Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before [the Palestinians'] very eyes we are possessing the land and villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived … We are the generation of colonizers, and without the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home. ⁹

Finally, David Ben Gurion, the main director of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, in a letter to his son in 1937, stated:

We must expel the Arabs and take their places and if we have to use force, to guarantee our own right to settle in those places ­ then we have force at our disposal.¹⁰

The conscience of that Polish colonist surprisingly developed later when he told Nahum Goldman president of the World Jewish Congress:

“I don’t understand your optimism,” Ben-Gurion declared. “Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is NATURAL: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism: ¹¹  the Nazis, ¹²  Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out. ¹³

Ben Gurion was an atheist. Still, while admitting to the Zionist theft of Palestine, he managed to talk about an imaginary friend in the sky, God and his “promised land”! And based on a book Ben Gurion published in 1918 in New York, he believed that the Arab natives of Palestine were the “flesh and the blood of old Judeans”,¹⁴ yet later when the same natives rejected his “Jewish state” in their land, he did not object to expelling them and stealing their land. Actually, with regard to the Arabs expulsion, he told a meeting of the Jewish Agency:

I don’t see anything immoral in it. ¹⁵

Now if I should put all these damning statements and confessions in one sentence to explain why the Palestinians are resisting it would be:

It is the occupation, stupid!

In spite of all of the Zionist leadership literature, writings, documented minutes of cabinet meetings regarding colonization and the plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous Arabs (See Plan Dalet), still Canada has sustained all manner of support for the Zionist project and its racist establishment, including military, while promoting itself as a “fair and peace-loving state”.

Before the Zionists decided on Palestine as a homeland for Jews, in their first conference in Basel 1897, Canadian Evangelicals were already sending their religious colonial settlers and crusades to “prepare” the land for the “return” of the Jews to quicken the Apocalypse. Even before Herzl initiated his efforts to approach the Ottomans, who were themselves occupiers in Palestine, a Canadian Christian Zionist, Henry Wentworth Monk, was working to accomplish that exact goal, to “buy” Palestine from the Turks.

On the state level, Lester Pearson summarized Canadian foreign policy regarding Palestine. He was a devoted Christian Zionist whose memoirs refer to the Zionist state as “the land of my Sunday school lessons”. ¹⁶ The same Sunday religious “lessons” taught him the geography of his imaginary biblical holy land so he knew it “more than the geography of Ontario”. ¹⁷  If someone with these qualifications chaired the pivotal United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, there can be no surprise when later the Zionist state was carved out of historical Palestine. Pearson stated:

I have never waivered in my view that a solution to the problem was impossible without the recognition of a Jewish state in Palestine. To me this was always the core of the matter. ¹⁸

As if Palestine was a part of Pearson’s family property and the Arab “tenants” having no say.  Gandhi, who luckily missed Pearson’s type of “school and lessons,” had the simple common sense which easily debunked the racist mentality of Pearson and his Zionist buddies. Gandhi wrote in September 1938:

The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?  Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews, partly or wholly as their national home. ¹⁹

It is important to note that Pearson upheld the racist Mackenzie Law which did not allow European Jews fleeing the Holocaust in Europe to enter Canada. His desire to “protect” Jews was not different from Ben Gurion’s who said:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel. ²⁰

Talking of the imaginary history which many Zionists like Ben Gurion and Pearson have used to legitimize their crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Arab Palestinians, Tel Aviv University Professor of Archaeology Ze’ev Herzog summed up the major archaeological findings of 70 years of intensive excavations in Palestine with the following:

The patriarchs’ acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it.²¹

The core of the matter for colonialists like Pearson and his overseers in London and Washington is simply to allow greedy corporations, destructive oil and gas companies, to continue their theft of the resources and minerals underneath a “land without people.” “Balfour of Canada” or “Rabbi Pearson”, as many Zionists once called him, said: “Israel may assume an important role in Western defence as the southern pivot of current plans for the defence.” ²² Pearson’s devotion to Zionism did not add much to the nonsensical Zionist colonial narrative. Theodor Herzl already portrayed the prospective “Jewish state” as Europe’s “wall of defense against Asia” and an “outpost of civilisation against barbarism.”²³

Let us remember Pearson’s true legacy: he “refused to call for Nelson Mandela’s release from prison, and had Canada deliver weapons to the French to put down the Algerian and Vietnamese independence movements.” ²⁴ Many other atrocities are detailed in Yves Engler’s book, Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping – The Truth may Hurt.

Actually Noam Chomsky outlined what kind of war criminal Pearson was when he wrote in the foreword of Engler’s book:

Lester Pearson was a major criminal, really extreme. He didn’t have the power to be like an American president, but if he’d had it, he would have been the same. He tried. ²⁵

So what John Baird did during his recent visit to Jerusalem, occupied Palestine is nothing but another example of the long bond and co-operation between the Canadian state and the Israeli occupation state.

Another obvious sign of the unconditional support, aid, and cover-up for the racist Israeli apartheid in Palestine, John Baird, still proud of the shameful ties, said:

Let me state at the outset, and for the record, that Israel has no greater friend in the world than Canada. I make that point around the world often. ²⁶

The irony is that Canada refused entry to Jewish refugees who were trying to escape the European Holocaust and helped to block every escape route except Palestine. This same Canada is now claiming to be the greatest friend of the “Jewish state”. Herzl foresaw the help being offered by the anti-Jewish societies who do not accept Jews among themselves, but want them to “return to their ancient homeland”, Palestine. He predicted in his diary that:

The antisemites will become our most loyal friends, the antisemites nations will become our allies.²⁷

The Canadian government has a history of supporting apartheid, along with other destructive policies from mining, to militarism, and backing up big corporations stealing from poor nations. Just ask Haitians about Canada’s part in dismantling and privatizing their country,²⁸ but the Canadian corporate media does a good job of comforting and baby sitting the Canadian audiences.

In the past the Canadian government gave similar support and aid to the other European racist apartheid in South Africa. Nelson Mandela said clearly:

But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.²⁹

Not so in the case of Canada which acts as if it still does not “know” about its continuing complicity with apartheid. Although it was exposed in South Africa, it is still patiently waiting to be exposed in Palestine.

John Baird needs to visit the indigenous “reservations”, the Canadian bantustans style in his “democratic state” and listen to their vocabulary. Words like “Colonization” and “Decolonization” are very common and repeated consistently among the threatened indigenous people inside Canada and outside. Both terms express reality and solution to their struggle. But these words are absent and will never be heard in any of the mainstream corporate media.

A colonialist promoter like Baird should know that he is not welcome in Jerusalem, occupied Palestine, nor in Canada State if it were up to the indigenous people.

But unlike Einstein’s brain, the Zionist brains of Pearson, Harper and Baird are the average abnormal brains in the Canadian government, never evolved from their colonial racist limited mentality.

In 1904 a Canadian Christian Zionist called Reverend Lucas, who had qualifications to be a Sunday school teacher anywhere in Canada, wrote a book called Canada and Canaan, and in it he made this amazing note:

Canada instead of Canaan! Moses would have danced with joy. ³⁰

Indeed, Canada and the Israeli apartheid in Canaan/Palestine are nothing but twin colonial settler states built on racism, genocide, and dispossession.

Source: Dissident Voice

*********

1. The Population of Palestine: Population Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and The Mandate (Ch 1, Table 1.4D) by Prof Justin McCarthy (Columbia University Press, 1990). [↩]
2. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, vol. 1, p. 88. [↩]
3. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.387. [↩]
4. Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948, by Nur Masalha, p. 41. And The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann: August 1898-July 1931, by Chaïm Weizmann, p. 257. [↩]
5. Chaim Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, by Noam Chomsky, p481. Source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140]. [↩]
6. Crossroads to Israel 1917-1948, by Christopher Sykes, (1965, reprinted Indiana University Press, Bloomingtron, IN, 1973), p. 5. [↩]
7. The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs. 1923. [↩]
8. Ibid. [↩]
9. The Iron Wall, by Avi Shlaim, p. 101. [↩]
10. See the full English translation of Ben-Gurion’s letter. The original Hebrew (from the Ben-Gurion Archives) – Source: Journal of Palestine Studies. [↩]
11. The word “Semitic” is an adjective derived from “Shem”, one of the three sons of “Noah” in the Biblical mythology (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21). The term was first coined by a German “historian” theologist August Ludwig von Schlözer in Eichhorn’s “Repertorium”, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Schlözer used the term to refer to the languages related to “Hebrew”, which is nothing but an appropriation of a square Aramaic (See: Hidden Histories: Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean, by Basem L. Ra’ad.) The term “antisemitism” was first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904), a German racist nationalist Journalist, who created it in 1879 to describe the anti-Jewish campaigns in Europe. Ironically the Zionists themselves carry on the same term. [↩]

12.See: The Zionist-Nazi Collaboration, by William James Martin. [↩]

13.The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldman, 1978, p. 99. [↩]

14.David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present, 1918. [↩]

15. Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris, p. 144. [↩]

16.Personal Policy Making: Canada’s Role in the Adoption of the Palestine Partition Resolution, by Eliezer Tauber, p. 84. [↩]

17. Ibid [↩]

18.The Domestic Battleground: Canada and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by David Taras, p. 129. [↩]

19.The Jews In Palestine, by Mahatma Gandhi. Published in the Harijan 26-11-1938. [↩]

1. The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, by Tom Segev, Henry Holt and Co., New York, First Owl Books Edition 2000, p. 28. [↩]

21.Ha’aretz Magazine, Friday, October 29, 1999 . [↩]

1. Lester Pearson’s 1952 memo to cabinet. [↩]
2. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, by Tom Segev, 2001, p. 150. [↩]
3. See Yves Engler’s post: “The truth about Lester Pearson”. [↩]
4. Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping – The Truth May Hurt, by Yves Engler. Publisher: RED Publishing (Mar 15 2012), p. 9. [↩]
5. Address by Minister Baird to the American Jewish Committee May 3, 2012 – Washington, D.C. [↩]
6. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl. Vol. 1, p. 84. [↩]
7. See this article: “Canada’s ‘Right Arm’: FOCAL’s Role in the Privatization of Haiti. And this one: A Very Canadian Coup d’état in Haiti: The Top 10 Ways that Canada’s Government Helped the 2004 Coup and its Reign of Terror. [↩]
8. From President Mandela’s speech at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, 04 December 1997, Pretoria. [↩]
9. Lucas, D.V., Canaan and Canada. Toronto: William Briggs, 1904, p. 33. [↩]

**********

About the Author

Mazin Al Nahawi is a Palestinian refugee from Safad, occupied Palestine. He finished the Higher Institute of Dramatic Arts – Criticism Department, Damascus, Syria in 1996. Now he lives in Victoria, BC, Canada, on land that is the traditional territory of the Lkwungen, Esquimalt, and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples.

by Dr. Lawrence Davidson

I – Who Is Alan Hart?

 Alan Hart is an author and a journalist. He is the former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Britain’s Independent Television News and a former BBC Panorama presenter whose beat was the Middle East. He has written a number of books, including Arafat: Terrorist or Peacemaker? (1984) and the three-volume Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews (2009-2010). He is also a longtime activist for various causes, particularly his three-decade struggle on behalf of justice for the Palestinian people.

 II – Alan Hart Resigns

 On April 25 Alan Hart, the activist for Palestine, literally turned in his resignation letter. In it he states, “I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for the truth of history as it relates to making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine.” Why did he do this? In Hart’s opinion, the struggle for justice in Palestine is “mission impossible.” The information/propaganda war between Zionists and those, such as himself, supporting the Palestinians (which, in any case, had always been “the most asymmetric of all information wars”) is lost. He notes that the Western media still follow a Zionist line and asserts that most of the Western populations remain either pro-Israel or indifferent to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

 Hart blames this alleged Zionist victory in the propaganda war on a lack of financial support for those trying to write and speak out for Palestinian justice, and contrasts their plight to the situation of the Zionist writers and advocates, who enjoy almost unlimited funds. Hart feels it is mainly wealthy Palestinians and other Arabs who have failed to support pro-Palestinian activists. These wealthy Arabs have failed to step forward because they either are afraid of Zionist retribution that would damage their businesses or careers, or are afraid of their own Arab governments, which do not want trouble with Israel because of assertive actions by pro-Palestinian wealthy citizens.

 III – Mr. Hart’s Plight

 With all due respect to Mr. Hart, who certainly does deserve our respect, I can’t help asking myself whether his assessment of this “war for the truth of history” is objectively true or an expression of personal disappointments. According to his own explanation, Alan Hart’s decision to leave the struggle is connected to the fact that Arab publishers and media failed to financially support and promote his recent book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. This was a great disappointment to him because the Arab media had serialized his prior work on Yasser Arafat and this had brought him “a significant income.” He had obviously made the assumption that the situation would repeat itself. So strong was that expectation that, as Mr. Hart tells us in his resignation statement, he made certain decisions, such as mortgaging his property in order to support the production of the Zionism study, which have now brought him into financial distress. Hart appears to see the failure of Arab money to come to his assistance as indicative of Arab failure to support the Palestinian cause.

 IV – How accurate Is Alan Hart’s Assessment?

 As disappointing as the Arab failure to promote Hart’s important work on Zionism may be, it is not accurate to conclude, as Hart does, that most wealthy Arabs “do not care about the occupied and oppressed Palestinians.” Before the first Iraq war, both public and private Arab money generously supported the PLO. Yasser Arafat’s unfortunate attempt to mediate that conflict and prevent a war against Iraq stopped most (but never all) of that support. Whether the wealthy Arabs could now do much more is another question. However, and this is an important point, this is not the same question as to whether Western supporters of the Palestinian cause should or should not give up.

 Hart is correct that in the past thirty years supporters of Palestinian justice have not been able to create the necessary critical mass of public opinion to change the policies of national governments. However, that does not mean there has been no progress. It does not mean this is a lost cause.

 I too have been a strong supporter of the Palestinians for decades, and I have seen a tremendous difference over time. Thirty years ago you could not critically raise the subject of Israel in public, and thus the Zionists had a monopoly on the entire history of this issue. That is emphatically not the case today. Despite Alan Hart’s unfortunate experience, the fact is that, at a popular level, the Zionists have lost control of the Palestine narrative. There are other real positive signs in this struggle that Hart fails to mention, including the progress of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement; the continuing maturation of counter-lobbies, particularly in the United States; and the growing worldwide recognition of Israeli criminality, which has slowly increased that country’s sense of isolation. In other words, there is more to this than the Arab failure to support Mr. Hart’s latest work.

 V – How Do We Measure Success?

 One has to also understand that success and failure come on many levels. On the macro level, progress is slow, but as pointed out above, it is far from nonexistent. Sometimes you just need to know where to look to see the ongoing activity. For instance, in the case of the United States, there are a growing number of organizations that are constantly busy getting out the message of Israeli crimes and the Palestinian demand for justice. There are the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (a coalition of almost 400 member groups and organizations), Jewish Voices for Peace, and the Council for the National Interest, to name just a few. The struggle against Israeli apartheid might well be, as it was in the case of South Africa, multigenerational. But among the many organizations waging this struggle there is no sign of slacking.

 On the micro level, success comes when one is consistently true to one’s principles in a manner that is personally acceptable. No one is asking Western supporters of the Palestinian cause to go bankrupt or put themselves in physical danger, although in the latter case notably heroic individuals such as Rachel Corey and Tom Hurndall have chosen to do so, with tragic results. However, there are less dangerous routes. To do what you can in a steady, consistent way for a just cause in which you believe is already to have achieved success at the personal level. We struggle not only for the cause, but also because of who we are.

 Alan Hart is an admirable man who has done admirable things, and we all owe him our thanks for his contributions to the Palestinian cause. But his decision to retire from the field should in no way be taken as a sign that that cause is lost. It is emphatically not lost. It has made significant progress over the past three decades and it is well positioned to make more progress in the future.

********

Dr. Lawrence  Davidson has done extensive research and published in the areas of American perceptions of the Middle East, and Islamic Fundamentalism. His two latest publications are Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 1998) and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood  (University Press of Florida, 2001). He has published thirteen articles on various aspects of American perceptions of the Middle East. Dr. Davidson holds a BA from Rutgers, an MA from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Alberta.

Journalists Memorial Wall, Newseum, Washington D.C.
(Photo Credit: Fallen Soldier/Wikimedia Commons)

by Nima Shirazi

Just two days before Palestinians commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Nakba, the names of two Palestinian cameramen targeted and killed by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza last November were dropped from a dedication ceremony held to honor ”reporters, photographers and broadcasters who have died reporting the news” over the past year. The move followed an Israel lobby pressure campaign led by anti-Palestinian organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the American Jewish Committee, efforts that were openly supported by the Israeli government.

The Atlantic Wire‘s J.K. Trotter summarizes:

Two days after Washington, D.C.’s Newseum announced its intent to honor Hussam Salama and Mahmoud al-Kumi, who were killed in November while working as cameramen for the Middle East-based Al-Aqsa TV, the well-known temple of journalism has decided — for now — not to recognize Salama and al-Kumi, citing their employer’s deep ties to Hamas, a Palestinian organization currently designated by the United States as a terrorist group.

The Newseum, which honored 82 journalists on May 13, 2013, stated that it had “decided to re-evaluate their inclusion as journalists on our memorial wall pending further investigation,” even though just last week, in response to the hysterical reaction to Salama’s and al-Kumi’s initial inclusion, the museum had affirmed and defended their decision, noting that “the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers all consider these men journalists killed in the line of duty.”

Indeed, as Joe Catron notes on Mondoweiss, Reporters Without Borders has pointed out, “Even if the targeted media support Hamas, this does not in any way legitimize the attacks,” while the Committee to Protect Journalists ”found that the Israeli military’s official justifications for its attacks on journalists…’did not specifically address CPJ’s central question: how did Israel determine that those targeted did not deserve the civilian protections afforded to all journalists, no matter their perspective, under international law?’”

Mahmoud Al-Kumi                                                        Hussam Salama

The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers includes both Salama and al-Kumi on its list of “69 Media Employees Killed in 2012,” as does the International Federation of Journalists in its report, “In the Grip of Violence: Journalists and Media staff Killed in 2012.”

Human Rights Watch, in its December 20, 2012 report on “Unlawful Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Media,” concluded,

Four Israeli attacks on journalists and media facilities in Gaza during the November 2012 fighting violated the laws of war by targeting civilians and civilian objects that were making no apparent contribution to Palestinian military operations.

The attacks killed two Palestinian cameramen, wounded at least 10 media workers, and badly damaged four media offices, as well as the offices of four private companies. One of the attacks killed a two-year-old boy who lived across the street from a targeted building.

The Israeli government asserted that each of the four attacks was on a legitimate military target but provided no specific information to support its claims. After examining the attack sites and interviewing witnesses, Human Rights Watch found no indications that these targets were valid military objectives.

“Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”

HRW added, “The two men’s families, interviewed separately, said the men were neither participating in the fighting nor members of any armed group. Human Rights Watch found no evidence, including during visits to the men’s homes, to contradict that claim. Hamas’s armed wing, al-Qassam Brigades, has not put either man on its official list of killed fighters – an unlikely omission if the men had been playing a military role.”

For the Newseum to be bullied into omitting Salama and al-Kumi from its rededication ceremony by avowedly Zionist groups and right-wing media outlets demonstrates that the institution itself is no less a propaganda outfit than Al-Aqsa TV. This shameful last minute decision effectively grants the U.S. and Israeli governments the ability to decide who is and who is not a journalist and who should and who should not be honored for their work.

But the decision also reeks of hypocrisy and Manichean double standards.

The Newseum is essentially suggesting that sycophantic journalists parroting government propaganda may be legitimate targets in military operations and should be labeled combatants, rather than civilians who enjoy press freedoms and are subject to protection.

Yet this only extends as far as the U.S. State Department says it does.

The ADL’s Abe Foxman called Salama and al-Kumi “members of a terrorist organization advancing their agenda through murderous violence” and “terrorist operatives” who “were working for a propaganda outlet, not a legitimate news organization.” The AJC’s David Harris echoed these sentiments, labeling Salama and al-Kumi as “brazen terrorists” and “two individuals who were integral to the propaganda machine of the Hamas terrorist organization,” that could not be considered “a legitimate media operation.”

Such terms as “terrorism” and “terrorist” are perhaps the most loaded, politicized, exploited and, consequently, meaningless words in our current lexicon, employed as a bludgeon against critical thinking in order to reinforce “us vs. them“ narratives.

Apparently, the Newseum has determined that our propaganda deserves respect and admiration, while their propaganda (in this case, documenting on camera the effects Israeli bombs and missiles have on the human flesh of Palestinian people at Gaza’s al-Shifa Hospital) should be condemned, targeted and investigated.

By this measure, plenty of alleged propagandists grace the memorial wall of the Newseum already, with more added during today’s ceremony.

Mohamed Al-Massalma, a freelance reporter for Al Jazeera, was killed by a sniper while covering the Syrian civil war in Busra Al-Harir in late January 2013. The Syrian journalist, working under the pseudonym Mohamed Al-Horani, was “an activist in the revolt against President Bashar al-Assad,” before joining Al Jazeera.

In January 2012, Mukarram Khan Aatif was gunned down in the Pakistani town of Shabqadar by members of the Pakistani Taliban. Aatif was a journalist working for Deewa Radio, the U.S. government’s Voice of America Pasto-language service. He was among those honored by the Newseum this year.

The taxpayer-funded Voice of America (VOA) and its affiliated services have been legally banned from broadcasting or distribution here in the United States for the past 65 years because of a Congressional act prohibiting the government from propagandizing to its own citizens. Only last year was this law reversed; the ban will be officially lifted this coming July 2013. VOA is literally U.S. government propaganda, yet its reporters are accorded due protection from violence, as they should be.

Another VOA journalist, Mohammed Ali Nuxurkey, was killed in an al-Shabab bombing in Mogadishu, Somalia, this past March There is no doubt he will be added the Newseum’s wall next year.

If any distinctions are to be made among different categories of journalists caught in the line of fire or deliberately targeted for murder, international law does not, in fact, favor the Foxman’s and Harris’ of the world.

While war journalists who are not embedded with troops or themselves soldiers taking direct part in hostilities are legally protected by the law of armed conflict, embedded reporters are not necessarily similarly protected.

According to international law professor Sandesh Sivakumaran, writing for the Oxford University Press, embedded journalists, while civilians, may be “casualties of lawful attacks” as “[t]he law allows for the targeting of troops and that targeting may result in bystanders or embedded reporters becoming casualties.”

Still, embedded journalists who were killed while accompanying American occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan – a policy promoted by the U.S. military in order to ensure positive reporting on American actions (some might call that propaganda) – have also rightly been accorded a place in the Newseum’s memorial. Journalists like Spanish reporter Julio Anguita Parrado and German correspondent Christian Liebig, killed by Iraqi missiles in an April 7, 2003 attack on the U.S. Army’s 3rd Division headquarters in Baghdad, are honored by the Newseum as is NBC News soundman Jeremy Little, killed in Fallujah in July 2003 while embedded with the Army’s 3rd Infantry.

Sivakumaran also explains that “[j]ournalists who work for media outlets or information services of the armed forces” are legally considered “members of the armed forces,” and therefore “don’t benefit from the protections afforded to civilians and their deaths don’t constitute a violation of the law.”

As such, the Newseum’s glaring duplicity is all the more evident when considering the case of James P. Hunter. A staff sergeant, reporter and photographer with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Hunter was killed on June 18, 2010 by an IED while covering the massive U.S. offensive taking place in Kandahar, Afghanistan, for The Fort Campbell Courier, an Army newspaper in Kentucky. He was an active duty soldier and the first Army journalist to die in combat since 9/11. Still, the Newseum saw fit to honor Hunter on its memorial wall.

Yet in the case of Salama and al-Kumi, “Israeli officials sought to justify attacks on Palestinian media by saying the military had targeted individuals or facilities that ‘had relevance to’ or were ‘linked with’ a Palestinian armed group, or had ‘encouraged and lauded acts of terror against Israeli civilians,’” according to Human Rights Watch. “These justifications, suggesting that it is permissible to attack media because of their associations or opinions, however repugnant, rather than their direct participation in hostilities, violate the laws of war and place journalists at grave risk.”

If repellant statements, including the justification of and praise for acts of violence against civilians, are the benchmark of propaganda and thereby constitute legitimate targeting for death by those opposed to such statements, then countless American journalists and commentators from across the political spectrum would be subject to the same fate as Salama and al-Kumi.

Warmongering and incitement abound in the editorial pages of The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Liberal commentators like Joe Klein and former White House spokesman Robert Gibbs exhalt the extrajudicial executions by flying robot of countless civilians, including a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen and hundreds of children in Pakistan. Right-wing pundits like Jennifer Rubin and her friends at Commentary and The Weekly Standard openly advocate for the murder of Iranian and Palestinian civilians, endlessly call for permanent war and occupation, support torture and indefinite detention, advocate for the assassination of whistleblowers, scientists and foreign officials, and justify the war crimes of their preferred military forces and governments.

Just days before the car in which Salama and al-Kumi were traveling, marked clearly as a press vehicle, was blown up by an Israeli bomb, Rubin published a post praising the IDF assault on Gaza. Hardly able to contain her glee, Rubin anonymously quoted “an old Middle East hand” declaring that, after weeks of sporadic Israeli airstrikes (“a form of messaging to Hamas”), “the Israelis escalated. But still they are avoiding infrastructure, hitting pinpoint high-level Hamas target.”

A recent B’Tselem report on Israel’s actions last November, however, “challenges the common perception in the Israeli public and media that the operation was ‘surgical’ and caused practically no fatalities among uninvolved Palestinian civilians,” noting that, “in some cases at least, the [Israeli] military violated IHL [international humanitarian law] and in other cases there are substantial reasons to believe IHL was violated.” Israeli airstrikes killed 167 Palestinians in Gaza, at least 87 of whom were noncombatants, including 31 minors.

Two days after cheering Israeli war crimes, Rubin set her sights on a bigger target. “Israel can keep swatting down Hamas, using air power or, if need be, going into Gaza on land,” she wrote. “It has a solemn obligation to defend itself against what was a deliberate escalation by Hamas in the number and quality of weapons launched against Israel’s civilian population. But even with the most robust U.S. support this is not a long-term solution. That will only come when Iran is dealt with, either militarily or via regime change.”

Anyone arguing that Rubin could be targeted with violence for writing her opinions would be labeled sociopathic and lambasted for incitement, and for good reason. And there is no doubt that if correspondents from Israeli Army Radio or employees of the state-run Israel Broadcasting Authority were killed, they would be honored by the Newseum, without so much as a whiff of dissent, let alone outrage.

It is evident that, as always, Palestinians are subject to unparalleled scrutiny and suspicion due to the tireless defamation and lobbying efforts of big-moneyed Zionist organizations and ideological zealots.

But is it surprising that the Newseum should jump on this bias bandwagon?

In the late 1940′s, Bugsy Siegel’s former publicist Hank Greenspun was recruited by Jewish militias in Palestine to help them fight against both the occupying British and indigenous Palestinians. He hijacked a yacht and laundered $1.3 million through Mexico in order to smuggle machine guns stolen from the U.S. Navy in Hawaii to the prolific terrorist group Irgun, which had blown up Jerusalem’s King David Hotel the year before and would massacre the residents of Deir Yassin a year later. Soon thereafter, Greenspun was apprehended by the FBI while attempting to illegally ship surplus combat airplane engines to Haganah.

In 1950, he was convicted of violating the U.S. Neutrality Act and fined $10,000 for his arms deals. The same year, he purchased the Las Vegas Review-Journal and renamed it the Las Vegas Sun, serving as publisher for the next four decades.

Upon his death in 1989, former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres called Greenspun “a hero of our country and a fighter for freedom – a man of great spirit who fought with his mind and his soul; a man of great conviction and commitment.” In 1993, a one-acre plaza in the Jerusalem Botanical Garden of Hebrew University was dedicated to him.

In 2006, the Greenspun Family donated $7 million to the Newseum, which named a terrace in his honor. It overlooks Pennsylvania Avenue.

Source: Wide Asleep in America

**************

Nima Shirazi

Nima Shirazi is a writer and musician from New York City. Contact him at: wideasleepinamerica@gmail.com. Read other articles by Nima, or visit Nima’s website

Dr. William A. Cook

(LAVERNE, CA) – The question jolted him out of his lethargy as he suddenly sat upright in the soft chair he had slumped into when she came for “her time with Daddy.” It had the ring of a catechism question; “What is God, Daddy?” How does one answer that without a torrent of other questions cascading from this innocent mouth one after another? His first impulse was to ignore it; his second, to discombobulate the response with obfuscation, to deflect the question with words she could not understand; his third, to respond directly to her question, to speak the truth knowing that she would not comprehend the intricacies of the policies that legalize the use of drones.

He remembered the story of Hawthorne’s good Dr. Grim who had to address a similar question when Little Ned asked him, “Whence came I here and why?” Indeed, the good doctor answered honestly, truthfully, bluntly, and, dare we say it, wisely.

“Whence did you come? Whence did any of us come? Out of the darkness and mystery, out of nothingness; out of a kingdom of shadows; out of dust, mud, clay, I think, and to return to it again. Out of a former state of being, whence we have brought a good many shadowy revelations, purporting that it was not a very pleasant one. Out of a former life, of which the present one is hell.

And why are you come? Faith, Ned, he must be a wiser man than Doctor Grim who can tell you why you or any other mortal came hither; only one thing I am well aware of, —it was not to be happy. To toil and moil and hope and fear; and to love in a shadowy, doubtful sort of way, and to hate in bitter earnest, —that is what you came for.”

“Daddy, what is a Drone?” she asked again, noticing his sudden reaction and his hesitancy.

“Darling, I think your mother called; yes, I’m certain. Please go to her and we’ll talk about this later.”

He sagged back into the chair as she left the room conscious that he was no Doctor Grim though the power of Doctor. Grim’s cynical answer to Ned held an unexplainable fascination for him as it sprung to mind when his daughter asked her question. Perhaps Hawthorne had responded for his character because he had grappled with the consequences of the world that surrounded him as he tried desperately to bring closure to this last novel that eluded a meaningful ending.

He sat there musing, recalling that Hawthorne had gone ‘to see the war,” to attempt to understand what it was and why, so he travelled by buggy to Washington “to see the war.” And he saw it, upfront and personal: brother slaughtering brother, the ideals of this new, innocent nation built on such mighty principles of equality for all, of laws that protect all, where the corruption of Europe and thousands of years of wars and devastation, of barbarism and savagery could not taint this new Eden where each could achieve as he or she desired, as he, Hawthorne had determined was the meaningful end of his last novel, The Marble Faun. Hawthorne realized that the world around him had gone mad: the Confederates fought to protect a medieval system of privilege and slavery while the north had capitulated to survival of the fittest and cut throat Capitalism. The evils of Europe had come home to roost.

Daddy sat there ruminating on Dr. Grimshawe’s “kingdom of shadows” and the “dust, mud, clay” and the hell that is the life we live, “to toil and moil and hope and fear” and, above all, and, oh, how pitiful and absolute the truth of it, “to hate in bitter earnest.” Strange how the world has not changed since the Civil War; we simply move the war elsewhere, manufacture schisms, fracture governments, supplant elected officials with western puppets, support dictators with weapons of mass destruction to carry out our will, buy off the representatives of the people, and create laws that erase individual rights while proclaiming we do God’s will.

How then to tell a daughter this truth when in fact she will in time know that he is the one who decides who will live and who will die, which children will be scattered over the landscape as they scramble for the detritus of human waste in the dumps that litter the hills and valleys in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Palestine, which mothers and daughters and sons may be the accidents of the Tuesday night gathering of enlightened men when they decide to do what drones do in the silence and darkness and mystery of the kingdom of shadows that hovers above all the living and the dead. How explain the unexplainable when she asks the next question:” Daddy, who tells the computer when to fire a missile?” “Daddy, why don’t these people get arrested and charged with their crimes?” “Daddy, why don’t you use the courts and the laws of the country?” “Daddy, who is God? Are you God, Daddy? Who made you God, Daddy?”

As he listened in silence to the unuttered words of his daughter, he gave utterance to Dr. Grimshawe’s response to Little Ned:

“And why are we come? Faith, my Darling, I am not a wiser man than Doctor Grim and I can’t tell you why you or any other mortal came hither; like Dr. Grim, only one thing I am well aware of, —it was not to be happy. To toil and moil and hope and fear; and to love in a shadowy, doubtful sort of way, and to hate in bitter earnest, —that is what you came for and as long as I am the determiner, that is the way it will be.”

 **********

Prof. William A. Cook

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His works include Psalms for the 21st Century, Mellon Poetry Press, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy, The Rape of Palestine, The Chronicles of Nefaria, and most recently in 2010, The Plight of the Palestinians. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com.