US Republican candidate and ex speaker of the house Newt Gingrich, when asked if he was a Zionist recently said :
"I believe that the Jewish people have the right to a state .... Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the early 20th century .... I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic."
(see http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/201112108493783540.html)
He also said his world view was "pretty close" to that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and promised to take a tougher pro-Israeli position if elected.
His fellow Republican candidate Mitt Romney then said that put him to the right of the Israeli Prime minister. This is not true. The idea that the Palestinians do not have rights in Israel-Palestine, and they are only Arabs who should go somewhere else, is and has always been a mainstream Zionist position. It is not now mentioned in public by Israeli politicians, because this would undermine the belief in the fictional "peace process" in the minds of the public in Western countries. This peace process is a way for the Israeli government to buy time at a lower diplomatic cost to colonize the occupied territories, principally the West Bank.
I know this is a mainstream Zionist position from the literature, but also from direct experience. When I get the chance to travel I make a point of attending pro Zionist events. At least a dozen times I have seen in Europe, US and Canada the same style of map with a relatively tiny blob of "Jewish" Israel (always including the occupied territories) contrasted with the wide expanse of the "Arab" Middle East. Also there is always the statement that Israel has been fighting wars against Arab countries due solely to the very existence of the Israeli state since 1948.
Gingrich in this statement is very much a mainstream Zionist. It is argued that the threats to Israel's existence will necessitate a meaningful peace, even if Zionists feel this is unfair. The problem with this argument is that Israel's existence has not been in contention since 1948. The West has supported Israel in wars of dominance (mostly against the former Soviet Union) in the Middle East since 1948. This is why Israel went to war with Egypt over Suez in 1956, over defeating Pan Arab Nasser-ism in the Six Day War of 1967 (no modern historians as opposed to chroniclers dismiss the claims that Egypt invaded Israel as propaganda) and the return match that the Egyptians were forced to actually start the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
So Palestinians have no chance and never did have a chance of getting a state. They will remain an underclass in the Middle East. The Jewish people who have been expelled from Arab countries as retaliation since 1948 are going to an Israeli state that actively wants to gather in the Jewish people. The Palestinians that have been expelled and will be expelled from Israel-Palestine are going into a region of general poverty still dominated by foreign backed dictatorships (mostly backed by Western countries thanks in part to Israeli help). Their cause is celebrated by local politicians wanting to stir pan Arab sentiment, while they as individuals are an economic nuisance who are outside local clans who control access to economic and educational opportunities.
This is the real ongoing tragedy, someone should really tell Newt. The worst thing is when people claim that God is in favour of this. Take this comment as typical of Christian Zionist nonsense .......
How we treat Israel will be as it has been since Abraham, "God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel". Please pray for the peace of Israel and that the Lord will change the heart of our President so he will support God's chosen land and people. Pray for the Jewish people to open their hearts to Jesus. Thank you, many blessings!
And this brilliant response .....
The prayer as we Palestinian Christians know should be for all nations .... Jesus came for everybody,and when we followed him we became chosen.The Palestinian history is very clear and rich more than you can understand. And because the God we trust and worship is a Just and Loving and Caring God he cannot choose one nation or religion. Please read some history so you can land down from space.
(See http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Israel.php )
No person who believes in God can support the real Zionist policy of the Israeli Government towards the Palestinians, which is one of time wasting, lying, discrimination and ethnic cleansing. At the same time No person of God can support the discrimination and violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt, or support the Islamophobic discrimination against Muslims in Europe and the US.
We cannot say one religion is as bad as another, this is not a tribal game, because we all owe our allegiance to God. If I am a Jew I am also a Muslim and a Christian. If I am a Muslim I am also a Jew and a Christian. If I am a Christian I am also a Jew and a Muslim.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Alastair Crooke's Pro Syrian Government Propaganda Echoes The Tactics Of The Corrupt Algerian FLN.
"goldenruleapplies" on the Guardian "Comment Is Free" website..................
Alastair Crooke's thesis is that the Arab Democratic Uprising is a game instigated by foreign powers and local elites to control the Middle East. All this sounds like the racist notion that people in the Middle East are fundamentally different to us. The truth is that the Middle East has been extensively internally colonized by regimes which do not represent their people or Islam. The people especially the youth are sick of it, and shout loudly a plague on all your houses.
The real parallel here is not Afghanistan as Crooke claims but the Algerian Civil War of the 1990s. In 1988 the ruling FLN (that ousted the French in the 1960s) allowed multi party elections. When the fairly moderate Islamic Salvation Front (in French "Front Islamique du Salut" or FIS) were about to win elections in 1992, the ruling FLN cancelled elections. The result was a radicalization of the regime's opposition with the creation of armed guerrilla groups. The resulting "dirty" civil war, lead to 200,000 deaths, 15,000 disappeared and the extensive use of extreme torture as an instrument of intimidation. The conflict only wound down after eight years.
The FLN created a propaganda campaign to try to persuade Western governments that the opposition to their rule came from foreigners, rather than a popular rejection of their corrupt rule.
"Within months of the latest insurgency, the Algerian government, in effect run by a coterie of privileged and immensely powerful army officers, cast around the Middle East for inspiration in their struggle against 'fundamentalist terrorism'. They produced books and pamphlets on the roots of Islamic revivalism in an effort to persuade diplomats and foreign journalists that the roots of Algerian 'terrorism' lay in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia ..... The Algerians searched everywhere - anywhere - for some way of proving that the Algerian insurgency was not Algerian."
[pp649 Robert Frisk " The Great War For Civilization." 2005]
This is exactly what Bashar al-Assad is dong. He is paying foreign public relations companies to do the work. What is Beirut based "Conflicts Forum" and what previous statements have they made? They claimed for example that the Iranian government did not steal the 2009 election.
I assume Bashar is hoping to be like the FLN who clung to power, and continue to have Syria run by the same corrupt elite. The difference is that in Syria, it has been and will be, mostly Shia Alawites killing and torturing mostly Sunnis. If there is no intervention then Assad will create the regional conflict that he is warning will be created if there is intervention. Iran will be drawn in further as the self declared defender of Shia Islam, while Saudi Arabia will be arming Sunnis some of whom will be foreign radical salifists.
We must trust in the ordinary people in Syria who are putting everything on the line for their human rights. We must support them now. They are calling to us directly.
Alastair Crooke's thesis is that the Arab Democratic Uprising is a game instigated by foreign powers and local elites to control the Middle East. All this sounds like the racist notion that people in the Middle East are fundamentally different to us. The truth is that the Middle East has been extensively internally colonized by regimes which do not represent their people or Islam. The people especially the youth are sick of it, and shout loudly a plague on all your houses.
The real parallel here is not Afghanistan as Crooke claims but the Algerian Civil War of the 1990s. In 1988 the ruling FLN (that ousted the French in the 1960s) allowed multi party elections. When the fairly moderate Islamic Salvation Front (in French "Front Islamique du Salut" or FIS) were about to win elections in 1992, the ruling FLN cancelled elections. The result was a radicalization of the regime's opposition with the creation of armed guerrilla groups. The resulting "dirty" civil war, lead to 200,000 deaths, 15,000 disappeared and the extensive use of extreme torture as an instrument of intimidation. The conflict only wound down after eight years.
The FLN created a propaganda campaign to try to persuade Western governments that the opposition to their rule came from foreigners, rather than a popular rejection of their corrupt rule.
"Within months of the latest insurgency, the Algerian government, in effect run by a coterie of privileged and immensely powerful army officers, cast around the Middle East for inspiration in their struggle against 'fundamentalist terrorism'. They produced books and pamphlets on the roots of Islamic revivalism in an effort to persuade diplomats and foreign journalists that the roots of Algerian 'terrorism' lay in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia ..... The Algerians searched everywhere - anywhere - for some way of proving that the Algerian insurgency was not Algerian."
[pp649 Robert Frisk " The Great War For Civilization." 2005]
This is exactly what Bashar al-Assad is dong. He is paying foreign public relations companies to do the work. What is Beirut based "Conflicts Forum" and what previous statements have they made? They claimed for example that the Iranian government did not steal the 2009 election.
I assume Bashar is hoping to be like the FLN who clung to power, and continue to have Syria run by the same corrupt elite. The difference is that in Syria, it has been and will be, mostly Shia Alawites killing and torturing mostly Sunnis. If there is no intervention then Assad will create the regional conflict that he is warning will be created if there is intervention. Iran will be drawn in further as the self declared defender of Shia Islam, while Saudi Arabia will be arming Sunnis some of whom will be foreign radical salifists.
We must trust in the ordinary people in Syria who are putting everything on the line for their human rights. We must support them now. They are calling to us directly.
Pro Syrian Government Propoganda In Guardian From Lobbyist Alastair Crooke Of "Conflicts Forum".
Transcript of Article In British Newspaper: "Guardian" Saturday 5th November 2011 by Alastair Crooke.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/syria-iran-great-game )
Syria and Iran: the great game.
Regime change in Syria is a strategic prize that outstrips Libya – which is why Saudi Arabia and the west are playing their part.
This summer a senior Saudi official told John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, that from the outset of the upheaval in Syria, the king has believed that regime change would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: "The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria."
This is today's "great game" – losing Syria. And this is how it is played: set up a hurried transitional council as sole representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of whether it has any real legs inside Syria; feed in armed insurgents from neighbouring states; impose sanctions that will hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately President Assad will fall – so its initiators insist.
Europeans, Americans and certain Gulf states may see the Syria "game" as the logical successor to the supposedly successful Libya game in moulding the Arab awakening towards a western cultural paradigm. In terms of regional politics however, Syria is strategically more valuable, and Iran knows this. Iran has said that it will respond to any external intervention in Syria.
It is already no "game", as the many killed by both sides attests to. The radical armed elements being used in Syria as auxiliaries to depose Assad run counter to the prospect of any outcome emerging within the western paradigm. These groups may well have a bloody and very undemocratic agenda of their own. I warned of this danger in connection to Afghanistan in the 80s: some of the Afghan mujahideen had real roots in the community, I suggested, but others posed a severe danger to people. A kindly American politician at the time placed his arm around my shoulder and told me not to worry: these were the people "kicking Soviet ass". We chose to look the other way because kicking the Soviets played well to US domestic needs. Today Europe looks the other way, refusing to consider who Syria's combat-experienced insurgents taking such a toll of Syrian security forces truly are, because losing Assad and confronting Iran plays so well, particularly at a time of domestic difficulty.
Fortunately, the tactics in Syria, in spite of heavy investment, seem to be failing. Most people in the region believe that if Syria is pushed further into civil conflict the result will be sectarian violence in Lebanon, Iraq and more widely too. The notion that such conflict will throw up a stable, let alone western-style, democracy, is fanciful at best, an act of supreme callousness at worst.
The origins of the "lose Assad" operation preceded the Arab awakening: they reach back to Israel's failure in its 2006 war to seriously damage Hezbollah, and the post-conflict US assessment that it was Syria that represented Hezbollah's achilles heel – as the vulnerable conduit linking Hezbollah to Iran. US officials speculated as to what might be done to block this vital corridor, but it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who surprised them by saying that the solution was to harness Islamic forces. The Americans were intrigued, but could not deal with such people. Leave that to me, Bandar retorted. Hannah noted that "Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern. But Bandar working as a partner … against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset." Bandar got the job.
Hypothetical planning, however, only became concrete action this year, with the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak. Suddenly Israel seemed vulnerable, and a weakened Syria, mired in troubles, had heightened strategic allure. In parallel, Qatar had stepped to the fore. Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arabist who resigned from the Israeli Knesset and self-exiled to Doha, was according to some local reports involved in a scheme in which al-Jazeera would not just report revolution, but instantiate it for the region – or at least this is what was believed in Doha in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Qatar, however, was not merely trying to leverage human suffering into an international intervention, but was also – as in Libya – directly involved as a key operational patron of the opposition.
The next stages were to draw France's President Sarkozy – the arch-promoter of the Benghazi transitional council model that had turned Nato into an instrument of regime change – into the team. Barack Obama followed by helping to persuade Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – already piqued at Assad – to play the transitional council part on Syria's border, and lend his legitimacy to the "resistance". Both of the latter components, however, are not without challenges from their own security arms, who are sceptical of the efficacy of the transitional council model, and opposed to military intervention. Even Bandar is not without challenges: he has no political umbrella from the king, and others in the family are playing other Islamist cards to different ends. Iran, Iraq and Algeria – and occasionally Egypt – co-operate to frustrate Gulf manoeuvres against Syria at the Arab League. The transitional council model, which in Libya has displayed the weakness of leveraging just one faction as the government-in-waiting, is more starkly defective in Syria. Syria's opposition council, put together by Turkey, France and Qatar, is caught out by the fact that the Syrian security structures have remained near rock solid through seven months – defections have been negligible – and Assad's popular support base are intact. Only external intervention could change that equation, but for the opposition to call for it would be political suicide, and they know it.
The internal opposition gathering in Istanbul demanded a statement refusing external intervention and armed action, but the Syrian national council was announced even before the intra-opposition talks had reached any agreement – such was the hurry on the part of external parties.
The external opposition continues to fudge its stance on external intervention, and with good reason: the internal opposition rejects it. This is the flaw to the model – for the majority in Syria deeply oppose external intervention, fearing civil conflict. Hence Syrians face a long period of externally mounted insurgency, siege and international attrition. Both sides will pay in blood.
But the real danger, as Hannah himself noted, is that the Saudis might "once again fire up the old Sunni jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shiite Iran", which puts Syria first in line. In fact, that is exactly what is happening, but the west, as before in Afghanistan, prefers not to notice – so long as the drama plays well to western audiences.
As Foreign Affairs reported last month, Saudi and its Gulf allies are firing up the radical Salafists (fundamentalist Sunnis), not only to weaken Iran, but to do what they see is necessary to survive – to disrupt and emasculate the awakenings that threaten absolute monarchism. This is happening in Syria, Libya, Egypt Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
This Islamically assertive, literalist orientation of Islam may be generally viewed as nonpolitical and pliable, but history is far from comforting. If you tell people often enough that they can be king-makers and throw buckets of money at them, do not be surprised if they metamorphose – yet again – into something very political. It may take some months, but the fruits of this new attempt to use radical forces for western ends will yet again backfire. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, recently warned that the Hillary Clinton-devised response to the Arab awakening, of implanting western paradigms, by force if necessary, into the void of fallen regimes, will be seen as a "cultural war on Islam", and will sow the seeds of a further round of radicalisation.
One of the sad paradoxes is the undercutting of moderate Sunnis, who now find themselves caught between the rock of being seen as a western tool, and the hard place of radical Sunni Salafists waiting for the opportunity to displace them and to dismantle the state. What a strange world: Europe and the US think it is OK to "use" precisely those Islamists (including al-Qaida) who absolutely do not believe in western-style democracy in order to bring it about. But then, why not just look the other way and gain the benefit of the public enjoying Assad's kicking?
Comment On Article By "goldenruleapplies" ..............................
This article by Crooke is rubbish on so many levels, it hardly seems worth mentioning. This ex MI6 30 yr career spy has form see the extract below.
"Remaking the Middle East in Syria's Image." Huffingtonpost, 9th September 2010.
Syria's vision of a New Middle East made its way to Foreign Policy magazine, months after being printed in the Washington Post by the same authors.
The vision echoes what was put out by a Hezbollah friend, former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke. In a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) publication, Crooke argued that Washington should replace its current alliance with the Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian coalition with another consisting of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iran-dominated Iraq and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.
The Middle East might not be changing as fast as Malley, Harling or Crooke suggest. It is Washington, however -- where "unfriendly" countries have finally learned how to lobby the administration to their own advantages -- that has changed.
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hussain-abdulhussain/remaking-the-middle-east-_b_709060.html )
His Conflicts Forum lobby organization is based in Beirut. Most western ex-government people end up working as paid lobbyists for the Saudi "proud desert kingdom" brigade. Mr Crooke is a lobbyist for the Iran-Syria-Iraq lobby.
I say it is these conflicts of Sunni v Shia, Islam v Secular, Left v Right that has traditionally allowed external forces to encourage elites to internally colonize the Middle East. This time the ordinary people of the region are standing up for their rights. The self serving conflicts have been seen through, by the people who are not stupid.
For more information on Mr Crooke see ....
http://www.ibishblog.com/article/2011/08/01/alastair_crooke_ex_spy_who_stepped_cold_authored_michael_weiss
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Essay-response-How-not-to/
In the spirit of the Gaza youth statement, f**k off Israel, US, Hamas, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran .... It is about REAL PEOPLE, please support the Syrian Democratic Uprising.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/syria-iran-great-game )
Syria and Iran: the great game.
Regime change in Syria is a strategic prize that outstrips Libya – which is why Saudi Arabia and the west are playing their part.
This summer a senior Saudi official told John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, that from the outset of the upheaval in Syria, the king has believed that regime change would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: "The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria."
This is today's "great game" – losing Syria. And this is how it is played: set up a hurried transitional council as sole representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of whether it has any real legs inside Syria; feed in armed insurgents from neighbouring states; impose sanctions that will hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately President Assad will fall – so its initiators insist.
Europeans, Americans and certain Gulf states may see the Syria "game" as the logical successor to the supposedly successful Libya game in moulding the Arab awakening towards a western cultural paradigm. In terms of regional politics however, Syria is strategically more valuable, and Iran knows this. Iran has said that it will respond to any external intervention in Syria.
It is already no "game", as the many killed by both sides attests to. The radical armed elements being used in Syria as auxiliaries to depose Assad run counter to the prospect of any outcome emerging within the western paradigm. These groups may well have a bloody and very undemocratic agenda of their own. I warned of this danger in connection to Afghanistan in the 80s: some of the Afghan mujahideen had real roots in the community, I suggested, but others posed a severe danger to people. A kindly American politician at the time placed his arm around my shoulder and told me not to worry: these were the people "kicking Soviet ass". We chose to look the other way because kicking the Soviets played well to US domestic needs. Today Europe looks the other way, refusing to consider who Syria's combat-experienced insurgents taking such a toll of Syrian security forces truly are, because losing Assad and confronting Iran plays so well, particularly at a time of domestic difficulty.
Fortunately, the tactics in Syria, in spite of heavy investment, seem to be failing. Most people in the region believe that if Syria is pushed further into civil conflict the result will be sectarian violence in Lebanon, Iraq and more widely too. The notion that such conflict will throw up a stable, let alone western-style, democracy, is fanciful at best, an act of supreme callousness at worst.
The origins of the "lose Assad" operation preceded the Arab awakening: they reach back to Israel's failure in its 2006 war to seriously damage Hezbollah, and the post-conflict US assessment that it was Syria that represented Hezbollah's achilles heel – as the vulnerable conduit linking Hezbollah to Iran. US officials speculated as to what might be done to block this vital corridor, but it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who surprised them by saying that the solution was to harness Islamic forces. The Americans were intrigued, but could not deal with such people. Leave that to me, Bandar retorted. Hannah noted that "Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern. But Bandar working as a partner … against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset." Bandar got the job.
Hypothetical planning, however, only became concrete action this year, with the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak. Suddenly Israel seemed vulnerable, and a weakened Syria, mired in troubles, had heightened strategic allure. In parallel, Qatar had stepped to the fore. Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arabist who resigned from the Israeli Knesset and self-exiled to Doha, was according to some local reports involved in a scheme in which al-Jazeera would not just report revolution, but instantiate it for the region – or at least this is what was believed in Doha in the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Qatar, however, was not merely trying to leverage human suffering into an international intervention, but was also – as in Libya – directly involved as a key operational patron of the opposition.
The next stages were to draw France's President Sarkozy – the arch-promoter of the Benghazi transitional council model that had turned Nato into an instrument of regime change – into the team. Barack Obama followed by helping to persuade Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – already piqued at Assad – to play the transitional council part on Syria's border, and lend his legitimacy to the "resistance". Both of the latter components, however, are not without challenges from their own security arms, who are sceptical of the efficacy of the transitional council model, and opposed to military intervention. Even Bandar is not without challenges: he has no political umbrella from the king, and others in the family are playing other Islamist cards to different ends. Iran, Iraq and Algeria – and occasionally Egypt – co-operate to frustrate Gulf manoeuvres against Syria at the Arab League. The transitional council model, which in Libya has displayed the weakness of leveraging just one faction as the government-in-waiting, is more starkly defective in Syria. Syria's opposition council, put together by Turkey, France and Qatar, is caught out by the fact that the Syrian security structures have remained near rock solid through seven months – defections have been negligible – and Assad's popular support base are intact. Only external intervention could change that equation, but for the opposition to call for it would be political suicide, and they know it.
The internal opposition gathering in Istanbul demanded a statement refusing external intervention and armed action, but the Syrian national council was announced even before the intra-opposition talks had reached any agreement – such was the hurry on the part of external parties.
The external opposition continues to fudge its stance on external intervention, and with good reason: the internal opposition rejects it. This is the flaw to the model – for the majority in Syria deeply oppose external intervention, fearing civil conflict. Hence Syrians face a long period of externally mounted insurgency, siege and international attrition. Both sides will pay in blood.
But the real danger, as Hannah himself noted, is that the Saudis might "once again fire up the old Sunni jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shiite Iran", which puts Syria first in line. In fact, that is exactly what is happening, but the west, as before in Afghanistan, prefers not to notice – so long as the drama plays well to western audiences.
As Foreign Affairs reported last month, Saudi and its Gulf allies are firing up the radical Salafists (fundamentalist Sunnis), not only to weaken Iran, but to do what they see is necessary to survive – to disrupt and emasculate the awakenings that threaten absolute monarchism. This is happening in Syria, Libya, Egypt Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
This Islamically assertive, literalist orientation of Islam may be generally viewed as nonpolitical and pliable, but history is far from comforting. If you tell people often enough that they can be king-makers and throw buckets of money at them, do not be surprised if they metamorphose – yet again – into something very political. It may take some months, but the fruits of this new attempt to use radical forces for western ends will yet again backfire. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, recently warned that the Hillary Clinton-devised response to the Arab awakening, of implanting western paradigms, by force if necessary, into the void of fallen regimes, will be seen as a "cultural war on Islam", and will sow the seeds of a further round of radicalisation.
One of the sad paradoxes is the undercutting of moderate Sunnis, who now find themselves caught between the rock of being seen as a western tool, and the hard place of radical Sunni Salafists waiting for the opportunity to displace them and to dismantle the state. What a strange world: Europe and the US think it is OK to "use" precisely those Islamists (including al-Qaida) who absolutely do not believe in western-style democracy in order to bring it about. But then, why not just look the other way and gain the benefit of the public enjoying Assad's kicking?
Comment On Article By "goldenruleapplies" ..............................
This article by Crooke is rubbish on so many levels, it hardly seems worth mentioning. This ex MI6 30 yr career spy has form see the extract below.
"Remaking the Middle East in Syria's Image." Huffingtonpost, 9th September 2010.
Syria's vision of a New Middle East made its way to Foreign Policy magazine, months after being printed in the Washington Post by the same authors.
The vision echoes what was put out by a Hezbollah friend, former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke. In a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) publication, Crooke argued that Washington should replace its current alliance with the Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian coalition with another consisting of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iran-dominated Iraq and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.
The Middle East might not be changing as fast as Malley, Harling or Crooke suggest. It is Washington, however -- where "unfriendly" countries have finally learned how to lobby the administration to their own advantages -- that has changed.
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hussain-abdulhussain/remaking-the-middle-east-_b_709060.html )
His Conflicts Forum lobby organization is based in Beirut. Most western ex-government people end up working as paid lobbyists for the Saudi "proud desert kingdom" brigade. Mr Crooke is a lobbyist for the Iran-Syria-Iraq lobby.
I say it is these conflicts of Sunni v Shia, Islam v Secular, Left v Right that has traditionally allowed external forces to encourage elites to internally colonize the Middle East. This time the ordinary people of the region are standing up for their rights. The self serving conflicts have been seen through, by the people who are not stupid.
For more information on Mr Crooke see ....
http://www.ibishblog.com/article/2011/08/01/alastair_crooke_ex_spy_who_stepped_cold_authored_michael_weiss
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Essay-response-How-not-to/
In the spirit of the Gaza youth statement, f**k off Israel, US, Hamas, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran .... It is about REAL PEOPLE, please support the Syrian Democratic Uprising.
Friday, October 14, 2011
The Egyptian Revolution Is Being Stolen : What is going on ?
In an article in the British Guardian newspaper on Tuesday and BBC Newsnight on Monday, the Novelist Ahdaf Soueif , described the murder of 25 people (310 injured) in Cairo by the army last Sunday. This followed a 1000 strong protest against the attack on a church in southern Egypt. The march included Christians and Muslims. When they reached the State TV building, unidentified armed gangs suddenly appeared and attacked the army, who then had the excuse of a riot to attack the demonstrators.
Ahdaf Soueif stated that although Mubarak (the head of the old regime) has been forced out, the rest of the regime is still in power. Under Mubarak there was proof that the interior ministry was organizing attacks against Christians, in league with minority Muslim fundamentalist Salafist groups.
The storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo on 10th September (following the killing of five Egyptian soldiers by Israel in Sinai) involved an unidentified but disciplined gang of around one hundred, many carrying sledge hammers. This incident gave the interim military government (SCAF) the excuse to reinstate emergency law. Since the revolution in February SACF have been prosecuting civilians in military courts for criticizing their actions.
In August the influential presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei, criticized SCAF for passing an electoral law in consultation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which will ban foreign monitoring of forthcoming elections. He said:
“Refusal of international election monitoring, one of the main seven demands voiced before the revolution for democratic transition (is based) on the erroneous understanding of interference in (the country’s) sovereignty….”
Compared this will Libya, where the NTC explicitly guarantee international monitoring in their Roadmap for democratic transition.
What is going on?
In April the journalist Robert Frisk wrote in an article…. “Field Marshal Tantawi, the head of the Egyptian army, for example, is now running Egypt. Yet he is not only a close friend of America, but a childhood and lifelong friend of Mubarak, who was allowed to whinge the usual ex-dictator’s self-congratulatory excuses on al-Arabia television (‘my reputation, my integrity and my military and political record’) prior to his own questioning – and inevitable emergency entry into hospital. When the latest Tahrir Square crowds also called for Tantawi’s resignation, the field marshal’s mask slipped. He sent his troops to ‘cleanse’ the square.”[ British Newspaper: The Independent “A long Time Coming” 15/4/2011 Robert Fisk]
The Egyptian regime was and is very corrupt, with a wealthy elite controlling extensive business interests, this includes senior army generals. The army is the most powerful and best funded institution in Egypt. Mubarak lost the support of the generals by favoring a rival power base of business cronies. The generals saw an opportunity to get rid of him when ordinary Egyptians rose up in protest against the regime.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the most successful and well established political party in Egypt, who could command around a third of the popular vote. It is a broad movement, with a generally older conservative wing, and a younger progressive wing closer to the demonstrators of Tahrir square.
The army generals have done a deal with the conservative wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to steal the Egyptian revolution. There will be no foreigners to observe the forthcoming rigged elections. Instead the Egyptian Justice Department stuffed with people from the old regime will do the monitoring.
The fundamentalist Salafists with the encouragement of the generals will stir up sectarian trouble with the ten percent of Egyptians who are Coptic Christians. This gives an impression of chaos, to justify martial law at home and especially abroad in Western countries sympathetic to attacks on Christian minorities.
Paramilitary gangs linked to the old regime, will provoke violence at otherwise peaceful demonstrations (ie by attacking the army and storming embassies).
Behind all this is Saudi Arabia. This repressive country, founded in 1936, that has stolen considerable wealth from the Arab people, is desperate to end the Arab Democratic Uprising. They are willing to fund in the short term, the buying of the votes of poor Egyptians (those that are not stolen) with promises of aid if they support the MB. About 30% of Egyptians thanks to Mubarak and others, live below the poverty line.
The Saudis have close links to the MB, when many of their members fled persecution under Nasser. They also directly fund Salafist groups throughout the Middle East, including Egypt.
The ordinary people of the Middle East are being denied the chance to get back on the path of progress, which has been blocked to them by internal colonization backed by foreign interests for over a century. The ordinary people in Western countries are being denied the chance to spread democracy to a key part of the world, when democracy needs to expand or face decline in Western countries. The ending of the Egyptian revolution is a crime against all our humanity.
Ahdaf Soueif stated that although Mubarak (the head of the old regime) has been forced out, the rest of the regime is still in power. Under Mubarak there was proof that the interior ministry was organizing attacks against Christians, in league with minority Muslim fundamentalist Salafist groups.
The storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo on 10th September (following the killing of five Egyptian soldiers by Israel in Sinai) involved an unidentified but disciplined gang of around one hundred, many carrying sledge hammers. This incident gave the interim military government (SCAF) the excuse to reinstate emergency law. Since the revolution in February SACF have been prosecuting civilians in military courts for criticizing their actions.
In August the influential presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei, criticized SCAF for passing an electoral law in consultation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which will ban foreign monitoring of forthcoming elections. He said:
“Refusal of international election monitoring, one of the main seven demands voiced before the revolution for democratic transition (is based) on the erroneous understanding of interference in (the country’s) sovereignty….”
Compared this will Libya, where the NTC explicitly guarantee international monitoring in their Roadmap for democratic transition.
What is going on?
In April the journalist Robert Frisk wrote in an article…. “Field Marshal Tantawi, the head of the Egyptian army, for example, is now running Egypt. Yet he is not only a close friend of America, but a childhood and lifelong friend of Mubarak, who was allowed to whinge the usual ex-dictator’s self-congratulatory excuses on al-Arabia television (‘my reputation, my integrity and my military and political record’) prior to his own questioning – and inevitable emergency entry into hospital. When the latest Tahrir Square crowds also called for Tantawi’s resignation, the field marshal’s mask slipped. He sent his troops to ‘cleanse’ the square.”[ British Newspaper: The Independent “A long Time Coming” 15/4/2011 Robert Fisk]
The Egyptian regime was and is very corrupt, with a wealthy elite controlling extensive business interests, this includes senior army generals. The army is the most powerful and best funded institution in Egypt. Mubarak lost the support of the generals by favoring a rival power base of business cronies. The generals saw an opportunity to get rid of him when ordinary Egyptians rose up in protest against the regime.
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the most successful and well established political party in Egypt, who could command around a third of the popular vote. It is a broad movement, with a generally older conservative wing, and a younger progressive wing closer to the demonstrators of Tahrir square.
The army generals have done a deal with the conservative wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to steal the Egyptian revolution. There will be no foreigners to observe the forthcoming rigged elections. Instead the Egyptian Justice Department stuffed with people from the old regime will do the monitoring.
The fundamentalist Salafists with the encouragement of the generals will stir up sectarian trouble with the ten percent of Egyptians who are Coptic Christians. This gives an impression of chaos, to justify martial law at home and especially abroad in Western countries sympathetic to attacks on Christian minorities.
Paramilitary gangs linked to the old regime, will provoke violence at otherwise peaceful demonstrations (ie by attacking the army and storming embassies).
Behind all this is Saudi Arabia. This repressive country, founded in 1936, that has stolen considerable wealth from the Arab people, is desperate to end the Arab Democratic Uprising. They are willing to fund in the short term, the buying of the votes of poor Egyptians (those that are not stolen) with promises of aid if they support the MB. About 30% of Egyptians thanks to Mubarak and others, live below the poverty line.
The Saudis have close links to the MB, when many of their members fled persecution under Nasser. They also directly fund Salafist groups throughout the Middle East, including Egypt.
The ordinary people of the Middle East are being denied the chance to get back on the path of progress, which has been blocked to them by internal colonization backed by foreign interests for over a century. The ordinary people in Western countries are being denied the chance to spread democracy to a key part of the world, when democracy needs to expand or face decline in Western countries. The ending of the Egyptian revolution is a crime against all our humanity.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Mahatma Gandhi Top Quote
"All humanity is one undivided and indivisible family and each one of us is responsible for the misdeeds of all the others. I cannot detach myself from the wickedest soul."
Mahatma Gandhi
Monday, August 22, 2011
Today Tripoli, Next Stop Damascus
Marvelous news from Libya. Abdel Jalil of the Transitional National Council is speaking on Al Jazeera; stating that the New Libya will be a country based on a "moderate" Islamic framework, where all Libyans regardless of religion or ethnicity will be equal, and people from all areas of Libya will live in freedom and respect. This is what the TNC have been saying since the start of the revolution six months ago. Gaddafi's hold on Tripoli has largely fallen apart in a few days, showing that he ruled mainly by fear and bribery. His power is now evaporating, although some will still be connected to him by the stain of their past crimes.
Let us give thanks to God , the courage of mainly ordinary people fighting Gaddafi's mercenary army and the skill of Nato's armed forces (who in this case) have given the Libyan people the military space to shake off the internal colonisation of the Gaddafi family. One citizen soldier said early in this conflict that this was a "revolution of common sense." This summed up for me the madness of the Gaddafi regime, the maturity of politics in the Middle East especially amongst young people and the popular realization that time is running out for a new approach to change in this crucial region.
Now the question is, how many powerful authoritarian regimes outside Libya will want the New Democratic Libya to fail (Iran? Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? Algeria? and even some right wing American and European elites?). Let us therefore pray that God will give the Libyan people the strength of purpose to overcome the obstacles of the near future, when others will be tempted to privately exploit their weaknesses. More importantly pray that God will speak to ordinary people in outside countries that the success of Libya and the Arab Democratic Uprising is in our continuing common interest.
Remember that Iraq was a disaster because the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussien gave way to sectarian strife. The Sunni versus Shia versus West conflict was fought out in Iraq. This was fueled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sunni Fundamentalists in general. On top of this the United States pursued the policies that encouraged a vacuum for the Iraqi civil war to take off.
Next let us pray that Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will appear in the International Criminal Court in the Hague or a similarly constituted tribunal in Libya. This will be right in itself, and the right start for the New Libya.
The next problem is to :
1. Remove Bashir al-Assad from control of Syria. To put at the very heart of the projected "Transitional Council of Syria", the truth that common humanity and a shared believe in the one God, rises many times above smaller differences of Sunni, Shia, Christian and Jew.
2. Prevent the governments of Israel and Iran from derailing the Arab Democratic Uprising (which is not in the interests of either of these countries elites) by genocide in Gaza.
3. Of critical and urgent importance to put pressure on the Egyptian military council, to change the current plan, so that international observers will be present to ensure fairness in the upcoming elections in Egypt in November this year.
If it is right that Gaddafi has gone, then is many times more right that Bashar al-Assad goes. I say as a Christian, but more importantly as a believer in God and his kingdom in this world, “Next Stop Damascus God Willing”.
(see Winning the battle of Libya after Gaddafi.)
Let us give thanks to God , the courage of mainly ordinary people fighting Gaddafi's mercenary army and the skill of Nato's armed forces (who in this case) have given the Libyan people the military space to shake off the internal colonisation of the Gaddafi family. One citizen soldier said early in this conflict that this was a "revolution of common sense." This summed up for me the madness of the Gaddafi regime, the maturity of politics in the Middle East especially amongst young people and the popular realization that time is running out for a new approach to change in this crucial region.
Now the question is, how many powerful authoritarian regimes outside Libya will want the New Democratic Libya to fail (Iran? Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? Algeria? and even some right wing American and European elites?). Let us therefore pray that God will give the Libyan people the strength of purpose to overcome the obstacles of the near future, when others will be tempted to privately exploit their weaknesses. More importantly pray that God will speak to ordinary people in outside countries that the success of Libya and the Arab Democratic Uprising is in our continuing common interest.
Remember that Iraq was a disaster because the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussien gave way to sectarian strife. The Sunni versus Shia versus West conflict was fought out in Iraq. This was fueled by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sunni Fundamentalists in general. On top of this the United States pursued the policies that encouraged a vacuum for the Iraqi civil war to take off.
Next let us pray that Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will appear in the International Criminal Court in the Hague or a similarly constituted tribunal in Libya. This will be right in itself, and the right start for the New Libya.
The next problem is to :
1. Remove Bashir al-Assad from control of Syria. To put at the very heart of the projected "Transitional Council of Syria", the truth that common humanity and a shared believe in the one God, rises many times above smaller differences of Sunni, Shia, Christian and Jew.
2. Prevent the governments of Israel and Iran from derailing the Arab Democratic Uprising (which is not in the interests of either of these countries elites) by genocide in Gaza.
3. Of critical and urgent importance to put pressure on the Egyptian military council, to change the current plan, so that international observers will be present to ensure fairness in the upcoming elections in Egypt in November this year.
If it is right that Gaddafi has gone, then is many times more right that Bashar al-Assad goes. I say as a Christian, but more importantly as a believer in God and his kingdom in this world, “Next Stop Damascus God Willing”.
(see Winning the battle of Libya after Gaddafi.)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Short history of Syria, Chapter 1: Until 1946.
The essential prerequisite to civilization is agriculture. This was invented in Syria around 10,000 BC. In Roman times Antioch (1938 annexed into Southern Turkey) was the capital of Syria, and was one of the largest cities in the ancient world. Later Saint Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus, became an important figure in the early Christian Church based in Antioch. With the rise of Islam in the 7th Century Damascus became the capital of the mighty Umayyad Empire, that stretched from what is now Spain to Pakistan. This lasted until the 10th century when Syria was taken over by the Islamic Abbasid dynasty based in Baghdad. Then the Christian Byzantine Empire, then the Crusaders and by the 13th Century it was on the western edge of the Mongol Empire. Then from the 16th to the 20th centuries Syria became part of the huge Turkish Ottoman Empire.
A map is needed to understand what has happened to Ottoman Syria since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria was an area bordered to the west by the Mediterranean and to the east the Syrian Desert (a continuation northwards of the Arabian Desert). It ended in the south with the Sinai desert and the Red Sea, and in the north with the slopes of the Tauras Mountains. The fertile areas of this region are shown in green above. This area forms the western arm of the "Fertile Crescent". The eastern arm "Mesopotamia" follows the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as they flow south east from the Tauras Mountains to the Persian Gulf.
Britain and France cheated the Arabs out of independence after the First World War, with the creation by the League of Nations of the British and French Mandates. King Faisal's brief reign in Syria (1918–1920) was ended by the French deposing him. He had wanted to unite Syria and Mesopotamia into one nation, and bridge the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Control of Southern Syria (Palestine and Transjordon) was given to the British. After the Second World War this area became Israel and Jordon. The map above shows the Israeli Occupied Territories as part of Israel (going north to south .... Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza) because unfortunately the chance of anyone forcing Israel to give any of them up is about nil. It should be noted that water supply is a key strategic asset in this semi arid region, and not sharing this resource fairly from the Golan Heights, Jordan River and the aquifers of the West Bank are seen by the Israeli establishment as essential.
In addition the British were given control of the Ottoman Mesopotamian provinces (now modern day Iraq). Kuwait (a semi independent emirate on Iraq's Persian Gulf coastline) had been under British protection since 1899. In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans were attempting to consolidate the outer reaches of their Empire, which threatened British interests and the autonomy of local rulers. The deposed King Faisal was installed by the British as King of Iraq in 1921, although they kept effective control. The King had enough authority among the diverse tribes of Iraq to help keep control, while still being vulnerable enough to be dependent [the classic definition of a good proxy colonial ruler or "satrap"]. The British also sowed the seeds of tragedy after independence by encouraging Sunnis to become the officer class of the new Iraqi army they formed. It should be noted that Faisal and his descendants failed to rule Iraq effectively, due to their feudal beliefs leading to a failure to distribute wealth to the majority of the poverty stricken population.
From 1920 France ruled the Northern part of Syria. They controlled their area by favoring minorities over the majority Sunni population. The country was divided into a number of statelets, such that in many cases minorities gained more local autonomy. After the Second world War this area became modern day "Syria" and "Lebanon".
The country of "Lebanon" (like the other fragments of Ottoman Syria) was created by foreign interests. In 1860 the French under Napolean III had already intervened in Ottoman Syria when fighting broke out between Shia Druzes and Catholic Maronites, resulting in a very large massacre of Maronites. The Sultan was forced to change the administration of the area and provide an enclave "Mount Lebanon" for the Maronites. In 1920 France created the Statelet of "Greater Lebanon" by expanding on the enclave, which eventually became modern day "Lebanon". This new state incorporated many Muslims and Orthodox Christians, creating the tensions which together with external influences from the Israel-Palestine conflict lead to the disastrous 1975-1990 civil war.
In modern "Syria" the Aliwi are now a powerful minority, from which has come the current ruling Assad dynasty. Before the French Mandate they were seen as heretics and often discriminated against, by the Sunni majority and their religious leaders. The Aliwite promotion of the fourth caliph Ali into a deity, went beyond mainstream Shia Islam, into something that contradicted the orthodox Islamic idea that Mohammed was the “last” messenger from God. [Personally I do not hold with any Jewish, Christian or Islamic religious ideas that seek to limit God to how many messengers, prophets, saviors etc…. he can send to show us the way. We should only be interested in knowing and following the way.]
The Ismaili Shia sect and it’s esoteric offshoot the Druzes were also discriminated against, but the Alawis were singled out because of their perceived total lack of orthodoxy and their obsessive secrecy which encouraged the creation of myths about them. I find it difficult not to see the comments of previous writers on the Alawi and their religious believes, as being motivated mainly by prejudice and rumour rather than truth. It should also be noted that since the French Mandate and particularly since the1970s the religious position of the Aliwites has moved significantly towards mainstream Shia Islam.
The French created the “State of Latakia” for the Alawi in July 1922. This statelet was then granted low taxation and a generous French subsidy. In return Alawites formed about half of the French controlled colonial “Troupes Spéciales du Levant” army units , as well as serving in the colonial police. Nearly all Alawites lived in the countryside, and they were used by the French to control uprisings and strikes by Sunnis in the cities.
It is true in 1921 that the Alawis under the leadership of Salih al-‘Ali did revolt against the French. This stopped as soon as the French gave them autonomy in their own statelet, and from then on they supported the continuation of French colonialism. In truth it is difficult to blame them given their previous conditions.
The French continued the process of division of "Ottoman Syria" started with the creation of French and British Mandates. The French Mandate was further divided into a number of "statelets". This created new minorities within these statelets, which encouraged sectarian strife. Obviously colonial powers need to dominate colonies by encouraging divisions between indigenous groups, which in theory prevents them making common cause against the colonialists. This also creates a number of local elites with limited powers, who can be held responsible for disobedience of the people in their areas, and if necessary threatened with replacement.
Having created this corrupt colonial system the French, also sought to then improve Syrian society by weakening the power of feudalism. Clearly a noble aim in other circumstances. The humiliation of the Druze nobility backfired with a revolt in 1925 in the "Jabal Druze" statelet led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash. The Syrians overcame sectarian differences, and the revolt spread to many other statelets. After many victories against the French, they sent in thousands of colonial troops from Morocco and Senegal. Modern weapons eventually overcame the less well equipped rebels.
Even after the rebellion was crushed the French had the common sense to realize they had underestimated their Syrian subjects, and the harsh tactics of the early years were softened. On 27th September 1941 Syria was granted token independence. However the French were reluctant to leave. On 29th May 1945 they bombed Damascus from the air, and tried to arrest its new democratically elected leaders. Only pressure from Syrian Nationalists and the British lead to the last French troops leaving on April 17th 1946.
A map is needed to understand what has happened to Ottoman Syria since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria was an area bordered to the west by the Mediterranean and to the east the Syrian Desert (a continuation northwards of the Arabian Desert). It ended in the south with the Sinai desert and the Red Sea, and in the north with the slopes of the Tauras Mountains. The fertile areas of this region are shown in green above. This area forms the western arm of the "Fertile Crescent". The eastern arm "Mesopotamia" follows the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as they flow south east from the Tauras Mountains to the Persian Gulf.
Britain and France cheated the Arabs out of independence after the First World War, with the creation by the League of Nations of the British and French Mandates. King Faisal's brief reign in Syria (1918–1920) was ended by the French deposing him. He had wanted to unite Syria and Mesopotamia into one nation, and bridge the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Control of Southern Syria (Palestine and Transjordon) was given to the British. After the Second World War this area became Israel and Jordon. The map above shows the Israeli Occupied Territories as part of Israel (going north to south .... Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza) because unfortunately the chance of anyone forcing Israel to give any of them up is about nil. It should be noted that water supply is a key strategic asset in this semi arid region, and not sharing this resource fairly from the Golan Heights, Jordan River and the aquifers of the West Bank are seen by the Israeli establishment as essential.
In addition the British were given control of the Ottoman Mesopotamian provinces (now modern day Iraq). Kuwait (a semi independent emirate on Iraq's Persian Gulf coastline) had been under British protection since 1899. In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans were attempting to consolidate the outer reaches of their Empire, which threatened British interests and the autonomy of local rulers. The deposed King Faisal was installed by the British as King of Iraq in 1921, although they kept effective control. The King had enough authority among the diverse tribes of Iraq to help keep control, while still being vulnerable enough to be dependent [the classic definition of a good proxy colonial ruler or "satrap"]. The British also sowed the seeds of tragedy after independence by encouraging Sunnis to become the officer class of the new Iraqi army they formed. It should be noted that Faisal and his descendants failed to rule Iraq effectively, due to their feudal beliefs leading to a failure to distribute wealth to the majority of the poverty stricken population.
From 1920 France ruled the Northern part of Syria. They controlled their area by favoring minorities over the majority Sunni population. The country was divided into a number of statelets, such that in many cases minorities gained more local autonomy. After the Second world War this area became modern day "Syria" and "Lebanon".
The country of "Lebanon" (like the other fragments of Ottoman Syria) was created by foreign interests. In 1860 the French under Napolean III had already intervened in Ottoman Syria when fighting broke out between Shia Druzes and Catholic Maronites, resulting in a very large massacre of Maronites. The Sultan was forced to change the administration of the area and provide an enclave "Mount Lebanon" for the Maronites. In 1920 France created the Statelet of "Greater Lebanon" by expanding on the enclave, which eventually became modern day "Lebanon". This new state incorporated many Muslims and Orthodox Christians, creating the tensions which together with external influences from the Israel-Palestine conflict lead to the disastrous 1975-1990 civil war.
In modern "Syria" the Aliwi are now a powerful minority, from which has come the current ruling Assad dynasty. Before the French Mandate they were seen as heretics and often discriminated against, by the Sunni majority and their religious leaders. The Aliwite promotion of the fourth caliph Ali into a deity, went beyond mainstream Shia Islam, into something that contradicted the orthodox Islamic idea that Mohammed was the “last” messenger from God. [Personally I do not hold with any Jewish, Christian or Islamic religious ideas that seek to limit God to how many messengers, prophets, saviors etc…. he can send to show us the way. We should only be interested in knowing and following the way.]
The Ismaili Shia sect and it’s esoteric offshoot the Druzes were also discriminated against, but the Alawis were singled out because of their perceived total lack of orthodoxy and their obsessive secrecy which encouraged the creation of myths about them. I find it difficult not to see the comments of previous writers on the Alawi and their religious believes, as being motivated mainly by prejudice and rumour rather than truth. It should also be noted that since the French Mandate and particularly since the1970s the religious position of the Aliwites has moved significantly towards mainstream Shia Islam.
The French created the “State of Latakia” for the Alawi in July 1922. This statelet was then granted low taxation and a generous French subsidy. In return Alawites formed about half of the French controlled colonial “Troupes Spéciales du Levant” army units , as well as serving in the colonial police. Nearly all Alawites lived in the countryside, and they were used by the French to control uprisings and strikes by Sunnis in the cities.
It is true in 1921 that the Alawis under the leadership of Salih al-‘Ali did revolt against the French. This stopped as soon as the French gave them autonomy in their own statelet, and from then on they supported the continuation of French colonialism. In truth it is difficult to blame them given their previous conditions.
The French continued the process of division of "Ottoman Syria" started with the creation of French and British Mandates. The French Mandate was further divided into a number of "statelets". This created new minorities within these statelets, which encouraged sectarian strife. Obviously colonial powers need to dominate colonies by encouraging divisions between indigenous groups, which in theory prevents them making common cause against the colonialists. This also creates a number of local elites with limited powers, who can be held responsible for disobedience of the people in their areas, and if necessary threatened with replacement.
Having created this corrupt colonial system the French, also sought to then improve Syrian society by weakening the power of feudalism. Clearly a noble aim in other circumstances. The humiliation of the Druze nobility backfired with a revolt in 1925 in the "Jabal Druze" statelet led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash. The Syrians overcame sectarian differences, and the revolt spread to many other statelets. After many victories against the French, they sent in thousands of colonial troops from Morocco and Senegal. Modern weapons eventually overcame the less well equipped rebels.
Even after the rebellion was crushed the French had the common sense to realize they had underestimated their Syrian subjects, and the harsh tactics of the early years were softened. On 27th September 1941 Syria was granted token independence. However the French were reluctant to leave. On 29th May 1945 they bombed Damascus from the air, and tried to arrest its new democratically elected leaders. Only pressure from Syrian Nationalists and the British lead to the last French troops leaving on April 17th 1946.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Anders Breivik, Oslo, Utoeya and Far Right Christian Fundamentalism.
Aljazeera was yesterday interviewing a security export from London, who said the terrorist atrocities in Norway were almost certainly the work of Islamists. He claimed they had targeted Norway partly because security there was comparatively lax. It has since emerged that the bombing in Oslo and the mass shooting on the island of Utoeya were the work of a 32 year old far right Christian fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik. We do not know at the moment whose his accomplices were.
Today Professor Paul Rogers (Peace Studies, Bradford University) on the BBC was claiming that Breivik was a political freak with no popular support. Later it emerged that Breivik had posted many comments of forums praising Geert Wilders. I hope Professor Rogers intention was to calm public fear, as he is wrong.
Geert Wilders ironically named Dutch "Party For Freedom" won 15.5% in parliamentary elections in 2010. The equally right wing Islamophobic "Freedom Party of Austria" won 17.5% of the vote in 2008 parliamentary elections. In Sweden the far right wing and certainly Islamophobic "Swedish Democrats" have broken into national politics with 5.7% of the votes in 2010. Rather than Breivik being an isolated incident he is on the rising edge of a dark political tide, which is set to expand rapidly as economic stagnation grips Europe.
Breivik’s Christian fundamentalism is also far from unique. How can a grown man walk around an island shooting unarmed teenagers and not feel deep shame? How can he believe that Jesus Christ could possibly approve of car bombs on crowded city streets?
A sarcastic joke defines a Christian fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry. There is some truth to this. Evangelicals believe in the absolute truth of every word of the Bible (inerrancy in the jargon). This standpoint allows the human inspired content of the Bible to dilute the content inspired by God. In order to claim to be taking every word literally an artificial balancing act of interpretation is required, which has the result of allowing the human content of the Bible to diminish the divine view of God it contains. Normally enough of the good content survives to temper the temptation to go too far with the bad. Except in anger, hence the barb in the joke. How many evangelicals are there? Therefore how many people have been converted to Breivik's extreme religious views?
If you think I am being unfair to evangelicals, then I should also say that liberal Christianity seems to lack positive strong beliefs. As if they are following the obsession with "good character" that evangelicals promote, but simply reacting to the right wing version with a left wing version. It should also be said that the same criticism could be made of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism.
Go beyond character, we are out to change the world with prayer and action. We are certain to fail, but we are going to try, because God belongs to all and everything.
Let us pray for Anders Breivik to see the absolutely terrible mistake he has made, and put all his energy for the rest of his life into trying to refute what he did yesterday and the false ideas that lead him there.
Today Professor Paul Rogers (Peace Studies, Bradford University) on the BBC was claiming that Breivik was a political freak with no popular support. Later it emerged that Breivik had posted many comments of forums praising Geert Wilders. I hope Professor Rogers intention was to calm public fear, as he is wrong.
Geert Wilders ironically named Dutch "Party For Freedom" won 15.5% in parliamentary elections in 2010. The equally right wing Islamophobic "Freedom Party of Austria" won 17.5% of the vote in 2008 parliamentary elections. In Sweden the far right wing and certainly Islamophobic "Swedish Democrats" have broken into national politics with 5.7% of the votes in 2010. Rather than Breivik being an isolated incident he is on the rising edge of a dark political tide, which is set to expand rapidly as economic stagnation grips Europe.
Breivik’s Christian fundamentalism is also far from unique. How can a grown man walk around an island shooting unarmed teenagers and not feel deep shame? How can he believe that Jesus Christ could possibly approve of car bombs on crowded city streets?
A sarcastic joke defines a Christian fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry. There is some truth to this. Evangelicals believe in the absolute truth of every word of the Bible (inerrancy in the jargon). This standpoint allows the human inspired content of the Bible to dilute the content inspired by God. In order to claim to be taking every word literally an artificial balancing act of interpretation is required, which has the result of allowing the human content of the Bible to diminish the divine view of God it contains. Normally enough of the good content survives to temper the temptation to go too far with the bad. Except in anger, hence the barb in the joke. How many evangelicals are there? Therefore how many people have been converted to Breivik's extreme religious views?
If you think I am being unfair to evangelicals, then I should also say that liberal Christianity seems to lack positive strong beliefs. As if they are following the obsession with "good character" that evangelicals promote, but simply reacting to the right wing version with a left wing version. It should also be said that the same criticism could be made of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism.
Go beyond character, we are out to change the world with prayer and action. We are certain to fail, but we are going to try, because God belongs to all and everything.
Let us pray for Anders Breivik to see the absolutely terrible mistake he has made, and put all his energy for the rest of his life into trying to refute what he did yesterday and the false ideas that lead him there.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Justice, Respect and Dignity .... Israel Plus Palestine = Hope.
I imagine Alice Walker, well known American Activist and Novelist never did get to Gaza this year on the freedom flotilla. Today the last surviving small boat "Dignite al-Karama" (dignity in French and Arabic) was forced to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod. The rest of the flotilla have been prevented by sabotage, or diplomatic pressure on Greece (economy in crisis) and Turkey (struggling with regime change in neighboring Syria). This at least prevents the violence of last year when nine activists were killed ( I should probably say murdered ) by Israeli soldiers on the "Mavi Marmara".
In Alice Walker's article in the British "Guardian" Newspaper called "This is why I sail" she explains the reasons for her proposed voyage ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/25/alice-walker-gaza-freedom-flotilla ). One of these is Melvyn Roseman Leventhal, her ex-husband's, answer to why he had become involved with the civil rights struggle in sixties America :
" I thought he might say it was the speeches, the marches, the example of Martin Luther King Jr, or of others in the movement who exhibited impactful courage and grace. But no. Thinking back, he recounted an episode from his childhood that led him, inevitably to our struggle.
He was a little boy on his way home from yeshiva, the Jewish school he attended after school let out. His mother a bookkeeper, was still at work; he was alone. He was frequently harassed by older boys from regular school, and one day two of these boys snatched his yarmulke (skull cap), and, taunting him, ran off with it, eventually throwing it over a fence.
Two black boys appeared, saw his tears, assessed the situation, and took off after the boys who had taken his yarmulke. Chasing the boys down and catching them, they made them climb the fence, retrieve and dust off the yarmulke, and place it respectfully back on his head."
She then goes on to say "It is justice and respect that I want the world to dust off and put - without delay, and with tenderness - back on the head of the Palestinian child."
The claim of the Zionist propagandists is that Palestinians have the rest of the Arab world to move to. They are fond of the map with the sea of the Arab world set against the small island of Israel. In reality this Arab world is impoverished, deliberately fragmented by foreign powers, (until recently) almost entirely ruled by dictators propped up by powerful foreign governments and even in it's geography largely inhospitable and arid. The propagandists retort falsely that it is the "evil" religion of Islam that is responsible, often claiming that fragmentation and dictatorship is the only way to constrain it. There has even been the absurd notion that Arab backwardness had made the land arid and infertile. Really this is racism. The experience of the Palestinian refugees is that often there has been nowhere else to go. The struggle for freedom for Palestine has been going on for nearly 90 years since the 1917 Balfour agreement.
We pray that one day a Jewish Israeli, a person with the rare gift of inspiring humanity, will look with fresh eyes on the experience of the Jewish people, and say "I am a Palestinian".
In Alice Walker's article in the British "Guardian" Newspaper called "This is why I sail" she explains the reasons for her proposed voyage ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/25/alice-walker-gaza-freedom-flotilla ). One of these is Melvyn Roseman Leventhal, her ex-husband's, answer to why he had become involved with the civil rights struggle in sixties America :
" I thought he might say it was the speeches, the marches, the example of Martin Luther King Jr, or of others in the movement who exhibited impactful courage and grace. But no. Thinking back, he recounted an episode from his childhood that led him, inevitably to our struggle.
He was a little boy on his way home from yeshiva, the Jewish school he attended after school let out. His mother a bookkeeper, was still at work; he was alone. He was frequently harassed by older boys from regular school, and one day two of these boys snatched his yarmulke (skull cap), and, taunting him, ran off with it, eventually throwing it over a fence.
Two black boys appeared, saw his tears, assessed the situation, and took off after the boys who had taken his yarmulke. Chasing the boys down and catching them, they made them climb the fence, retrieve and dust off the yarmulke, and place it respectfully back on his head."
She then goes on to say "It is justice and respect that I want the world to dust off and put - without delay, and with tenderness - back on the head of the Palestinian child."
The claim of the Zionist propagandists is that Palestinians have the rest of the Arab world to move to. They are fond of the map with the sea of the Arab world set against the small island of Israel. In reality this Arab world is impoverished, deliberately fragmented by foreign powers, (until recently) almost entirely ruled by dictators propped up by powerful foreign governments and even in it's geography largely inhospitable and arid. The propagandists retort falsely that it is the "evil" religion of Islam that is responsible, often claiming that fragmentation and dictatorship is the only way to constrain it. There has even been the absurd notion that Arab backwardness had made the land arid and infertile. Really this is racism. The experience of the Palestinian refugees is that often there has been nowhere else to go. The struggle for freedom for Palestine has been going on for nearly 90 years since the 1917 Balfour agreement.
We pray that one day a Jewish Israeli, a person with the rare gift of inspiring humanity, will look with fresh eyes on the experience of the Jewish people, and say "I am a Palestinian".
Thursday, June 16, 2011
A Poem and a Prayer: One day in Jerusalem
A Poem and a Prayer: One day in Jerusalem
We are born close to God’s thoughts, seeing the unity of all behind the reality of now. So much time adults waste on religious doctrine that tries to capture God within comprehensions that he could not make for himself. We are close to God; every move to give ourselves for peace, every attempt to walk in another’s shoes, every act to cooperate to clothe and feed ourselves and others in all that body and soul needs, every word that plans for a future with space for all people strong and weak as well as God’s vast natural creation, every prayer for unity in the face of the disjointed essence of reality that always surprises us …. All these and much more have a multiplicity of explanations, the least of all these is that every thought or feeling or soul or bending figure strung out over years and over unreadable bundles of cells all touch at one point. None can flinch in mind or body without touching this point, the least and the most utterly existential. You know what this is called, and where our true allegiance and reality lies.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Why Assad's Regime Is Over.
" Hamza al-Khateeb used to love it when the rains came to his small corner of southern Syria, filling up the farmers' irrigation channels enough so that he and the other children could jump in and swim. But the drought of the last few years had left the 13-year-old without the fun of his favourite pool.
Instead, he'd taken to raising homing pigeons, standing on the roof of his family's simple breeze-block home, craning his neck back to see the birds circling above the wide horizon of fields, where wheat and tomatoes were grown from the tough, scrubby soils. "
He was arrested during a protest near Daraa on the 29th April. The scars on his body showed that the Syrian "security" forces attacked this thirteen year old boy during the month he was in their care, with electric shocks and by whipping him with wire cables. Even in his death they degraded themselves by shooting him through the arms into his stomach, breaking his neck, and cutting off his genitals. His mother was only allowed to see his face, while his father looked on his son's body and fainted.
According to Ricken Patel of Avaaz (the international rights and advocacy group) " This is a campaign of mass terrorism and intimidation: Horribly tortured people sent back to communities by a regime not trying to cover up its crimes, but to advertise them. "
The treatment of Hamza al-Khateeb is not an isolated incident but part of a campaign. The aim is to intimidate some of the Syrian population. While others will be driven to such rage that they will try to take revenge against the armed forces, the security forces or the Alawite minority. This would then allow Assad to claim he was fighting a civil war.
The unrest started in Deraa on the 6th March, when 15 boys between the ages of 10 and 15 were arrested by the security forces for painting "The people want to topple the regime!" on the walls. They were beaten, burned with cigarette ends and then had their fingernails removed. Only after two weeks of protests were the boys released. By this time three people had been shot dead by the security forces, and many others wounded. After this there was a spiral of violence with each protest by the people of Deraa being met with increasing violence by the security forces. The city has now been under siege by the army since the 25th April.
According to the Humans Rights Watch report “We’ve Never Seen Such Horror, Crimes against Humanity by Syrian Security Forces." published on the 1st June 2011. " The security forces have killed at least 418 people in the Daraa governorate alone, and more than 887 across Syria.... "
There have also been around 10,000 people arrested in Syria by the security forces since the protests began, with all the terrible suffering that this involves.
See: "We are all Hamza al-Khateeb." https://www.facebook.com/hamza.alshaheed?sk=wall
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Saudi Arabia a badge of shame for the Arab world.
Saudi Arabia has little to do with Islam, apart from custodianship of the holy sites at Mecca and Medina. Indeed Saudi Arabia is a symptom of the defeat of Islam.
The Saud monarchy have wasted billions of dollars of oil wealth, to fund the lavish and often decadent lifestyles of thousands belonging to the extended royal family, while the hypocritical Wahhabi (or Salafi if you prefer this name) religious establishment supports the monarchy by imposing a fundamentalist puritanical version of Islam on everyone apart from the royals cocooned in their countless palaces. They then have the gall to invert Islam and claim obedience to royal authority as an Islamic virtue.
The huge wealth of the country comes from beneath the Earth and therefore in Islam belongs to no one, and should be used for God's purposes. It should have been used to develop the Arab world. Instead it has mostly funded hypocrisy at home, and the export of fundamentalist versions of Sunni Islam abroad. This is partly responsible for conflict with Shia Islam, and giving an excuse to racists in the West to indulge in Islamophobia.
The country was only founded in 1932 after tribal wars, that received foreign backing! It would have been part of a larger pan-Arab country long ago, without the support of the US. I am sickened to hear apologists for Saudi Arabia in the West describing it as a proud desert kingdom, while obviously indulging their own private interests, while claiming to be doing so in the name of the pubic in western democracies. It is time to describe Saudi Arabia for what it is, a badge of shame for the Arab world.
The Saud monarchy have wasted billions of dollars of oil wealth, to fund the lavish and often decadent lifestyles of thousands belonging to the extended royal family, while the hypocritical Wahhabi (or Salafi if you prefer this name) religious establishment supports the monarchy by imposing a fundamentalist puritanical version of Islam on everyone apart from the royals cocooned in their countless palaces. They then have the gall to invert Islam and claim obedience to royal authority as an Islamic virtue.
The huge wealth of the country comes from beneath the Earth and therefore in Islam belongs to no one, and should be used for God's purposes. It should have been used to develop the Arab world. Instead it has mostly funded hypocrisy at home, and the export of fundamentalist versions of Sunni Islam abroad. This is partly responsible for conflict with Shia Islam, and giving an excuse to racists in the West to indulge in Islamophobia.
The country was only founded in 1932 after tribal wars, that received foreign backing! It would have been part of a larger pan-Arab country long ago, without the support of the US. I am sickened to hear apologists for Saudi Arabia in the West describing it as a proud desert kingdom, while obviously indulging their own private interests, while claiming to be doing so in the name of the pubic in western democracies. It is time to describe Saudi Arabia for what it is, a badge of shame for the Arab world.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Winning the battle of Libya After Gaddafi.
Now at the start of June the chances of the survival of Gaddafi's regime appear to be close to zero. The rebels are holding the line at Brega in the East, while the perimeter around Misrata has been extended to 30km. In the Western mountains there is still fierce fighting based around Zintan, although the rebels here are now in dire needs of Nato air support. Meanwhile the oil minister and three more generals have recently joined the stream of top people abandoning Gaddafi. The rebels now await the arrival of Nato Apache ground attack helicopters which can give close aerial support. They may well be the decisive factor that tips the balance and allows the rebels to roll up Gaddafi's army.
Clearly Libyans have a natural interest in ending forty years of dictatorship by Gaddafi. The success of this revolution is also important to the whole of the Arab Democratic Uprising. It shows that Tunisia and Egypt are not special cases, and democracy can succeed even against large scale state violence.
Indeed UN war crimes investigator Cherif Bassiouni of Egypt, has recently produced a report accusing Gaddafi of "crimes against humanity". Although he also found the rebels guilty of far fewer incidences of "war crimes" against government loyalists and suspected mercenaries.
The ordinary people in Western countries (not their self interested elites) have an interest in the Libyan revolution succeeding, because democracy abroad is crucial to democracy at home. The ultimate success of the Arab Democratic Uprising and the Libyan revolution in particular, is for ordinary people in Western countries, in our direct interest.
So we have a right to ask what will happen after Gaddafi is gone.
Back in March the National Transitional Council released "A vision of a democratic Libya" statement. The contents can be summarized as:
1. Create a constitution, balancing legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Form political parties and civil society.
3. Peaceful transfer of power, to allow political participation without
discrimination.
4. Right to vote in free elections, and run for office for all citizens.
5. Freedom of media and for peaceful protest.
6. State based on strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality.
7. (a) Prosperous economy to get rid of poverty and unemployment.
(b) Strong public and private sectors, without corruption.
(c) Invest in education and science. Guarantee rights of women.
(d) Get rid of religious and ethnic intolerance and discrimination.
8. (a) Respect neighbouring nations and join the international community.
(b) Condemn authoritarian and despotic regimes. Respect foreign companies.
(c) State will strongly support peace, democracy and freedom.
Also on the 7th May a road map was produced, whose contents can be summarized as follows:
1. Declare Interim Government within 2 days of withdrawal by Gaddafi forces.
Agree members of this government in advance.
Interim Government to maintain security and order.
Members of government from National Transition Council,
technocrats, military and security (not involved in past crimes),
judge and civil and religious society.
Also three members from Gaddafi's government.
2. National Conference within two weeks of Gaddafi regime going.
Members from all over the country. Representation
depending on population size of regions or cities.
3. National Conference and National Transitional Council join together.
Committee creates draft constitution within 45 days.
4. Draft constitution shown to Libyan people, who vote in referendum
under UN supervision.
5. Parliamentary elections four months after constitution adopted,
voting under UN supervision.
6. Presidential elections two months after first Parliament created.
7. President selects Prime Minister, who then selects cabinet.
8. If Parliament approves, the Interim Government is dissolved.
9. As a "dry run" the UN will oversee municipal elections in rebel
held areas as soon as possible.
Will the road map lead to the fulfillment of the vision? So far the experience of the Transitional National Council gives genuine reasons for concern, inspite of the incredible odds that it has overcome. It is a purely practical body, that has tried to be inclusive, whose purpose is to bring to an end more than 40 years of brutal dictatorship.
Radek Sikorski the foreign minister of Poland after a trip in May to Benghazi said:
"Poland learned the hard way that demanding change and defying oppression are much less difficult than formulating and delivering a clear, reasonable programme for a better future. Not all popular demands for freedom succeed: in the confusion, reactionary forces can make their move."
He then cited Belarus as an example, of what can go wrong.
The well known disputes between General Abdul Fatah Younis and General Khalifa Hifter in the rebel army are worrying. This is an army which is not well trained or equipped. It's members could well have stronger ties to individuals within the ruling council (or later on the government), than they do to the nation. The danger is then of real civil war, if tensions within the newly liberated country are not dealt with, when the unifying opposition to the tyrant Gaddafi has gone. In addition a poorly equipped army will not be able to provide protection against break away groups. Foreign governments should have been quicker to help develop the professionalism of the rebel army with training and equipment, especially after the terrible disaster of the security vacuum in Iraq.
The wiki leak US cables about Libya display an almost racist attitude that ordinary Libyans are not really interested in democracy, and are wholly concerned with money. This inspite of the existence of the "National Conference of the Libyan Opposition" ( www.libya-nclo.com ), and the thirty year history of the "National Front For The Salvation Of Libya" ( www.libyanfsl.com ). What the wiki leak cables say about the Gaddafi regime may still be true "....country where personalities and relationships often play more important roles than official titles".
There has been criticism that within the National Transitional Council "there is little transparency about the process or criteria of portfolio allocation". However it has to be understood that security concerns mean that some people cannot be even named, and there is a natural tendency to depend on people you know and trust.
It seems unlikely that a new government that is democratic and stable is just going to appear in Libya. Will political parties be formed around regions, who will then make alliances in Parliament to secure a disproportionate percentage of the country's resources for their regions? Given a weak army that has a tendency to fragment, the resulting frustrations could then lead to uncontrollable armed conflicts within the country. How can this be resolved in advance? Surely waiting till after the constitution has been adopted will be too late.
A centralized federal structure for the country could be adopted in the constitution, which would give people freedom to organize their own local activities.
More importantly there has to be a way to guarantee, within the constitution and so at the very core of the national government , that both regions and groups within the country are not discriminated against in wealth distribution or in any other way. Especially as this technique was used by Gaddafi and other dictators, to punish rebellious regions.
Obviously since 95% of exports and 40% of GDP depend on the one source, that is oil, the problem of wealth distribution is critical. If there were guarantees in the constitution of economic equality for regions and ethnic or religious groups within society, then people could take their grievances to court rather than having to resort to violence. It would also discourage political parties from forming on regional lines, and trying to win elections by promising to obtain unfair economic advantage for their voters, as this technique could not succeed in the long run.
Given the possibility critical nature of the constitution for the future of Libyan democracy, is four or six months really long enough to discuss the options, and allow people to arrive at a considered decision in a referendum? Holland for example has a very clear guarantee of equality within it's constitution, which gives the concept of equality a power that normal legislation cannot give it.
Surely given the experiences in the region there needs to be detailed discussions about the length that any president can serve, and the limit of his powers.
Note that many of the problems of US democracy stem from representatives going to Washington to secure unfair economic advantages for their state. Although this process can be contained as America now has a strong central government, and regional identities are relatively weak with a very mobile population. In the nineteenth century it was economic conflicts between regions, that discriminated between North and South, that eventually led to the American Civil War. The factor of slavery was really of subsidiary importance.
(See: "The Roots Of The Modern American Empire" by William Appleman Williams, Anthony Blond Ltd, 1969 )
Just as importantly and aside from the constitution, there needs to be agreement on how loyalists to Gaddafi are to be treated in the new Libya. There needs to a South African style truth and reconciliation process.
Given that Qatar and the excellent Aljazeera have been so supportive of the revolution, where is the new vibrant free Libyan media? Surely it is needed to contrast with the absurd propaganda of the Gaddafi era, to hold the rebel administration to account by communicating successes and failures to the public and to provide a central space for discussion about rebuilding Libya and the options for a new constitution. Surely the resources and expertise exist to make this happen now.
Success in Libya would have a big effect on democratic uprisings elsewhere in the region. This could be the crucial link to bridge the gap between success in Tunisia and Egypt, to success in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran and even Bahrain. Leaving Saudi Arabia isolated and ready to negotiate and adopt a progressive role.
There are many countries and regimes that cling to the old style of doing things, which has impoverished and humiliated the people of the region for so long. Activists in Yemen have said that Saudi Arabia have been undermining their attempts to create a successful federal structure for Yemen after Saleh. In the same way Israel has recently been signaling that a new conflict with Hezbollah, that would indirectly aid the Syrian Assad regime, is in the pipeline. The Libyan revolution has many enemies, from Tehran to Riyadh To Washington, who are looking for weaknesses to exploit. So in mechanical terms, this is a time for an over engineered solution to rebuilding Libya with large margins for safety.
Clearly Libyans have a natural interest in ending forty years of dictatorship by Gaddafi. The success of this revolution is also important to the whole of the Arab Democratic Uprising. It shows that Tunisia and Egypt are not special cases, and democracy can succeed even against large scale state violence.
Indeed UN war crimes investigator Cherif Bassiouni of Egypt, has recently produced a report accusing Gaddafi of "crimes against humanity". Although he also found the rebels guilty of far fewer incidences of "war crimes" against government loyalists and suspected mercenaries.
The ordinary people in Western countries (not their self interested elites) have an interest in the Libyan revolution succeeding, because democracy abroad is crucial to democracy at home. The ultimate success of the Arab Democratic Uprising and the Libyan revolution in particular, is for ordinary people in Western countries, in our direct interest.
So we have a right to ask what will happen after Gaddafi is gone.
Back in March the National Transitional Council released "A vision of a democratic Libya" statement. The contents can be summarized as:
1. Create a constitution, balancing legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Form political parties and civil society.
3. Peaceful transfer of power, to allow political participation without
discrimination.
4. Right to vote in free elections, and run for office for all citizens.
5. Freedom of media and for peaceful protest.
6. State based on strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality.
7. (a) Prosperous economy to get rid of poverty and unemployment.
(b) Strong public and private sectors, without corruption.
(c) Invest in education and science. Guarantee rights of women.
(d) Get rid of religious and ethnic intolerance and discrimination.
8. (a) Respect neighbouring nations and join the international community.
(b) Condemn authoritarian and despotic regimes. Respect foreign companies.
(c) State will strongly support peace, democracy and freedom.
Also on the 7th May a road map was produced, whose contents can be summarized as follows:
1. Declare Interim Government within 2 days of withdrawal by Gaddafi forces.
Agree members of this government in advance.
Interim Government to maintain security and order.
Members of government from National Transition Council,
technocrats, military and security (not involved in past crimes),
judge and civil and religious society.
Also three members from Gaddafi's government.
2. National Conference within two weeks of Gaddafi regime going.
Members from all over the country. Representation
depending on population size of regions or cities.
3. National Conference and National Transitional Council join together.
Committee creates draft constitution within 45 days.
4. Draft constitution shown to Libyan people, who vote in referendum
under UN supervision.
5. Parliamentary elections four months after constitution adopted,
voting under UN supervision.
6. Presidential elections two months after first Parliament created.
7. President selects Prime Minister, who then selects cabinet.
8. If Parliament approves, the Interim Government is dissolved.
9. As a "dry run" the UN will oversee municipal elections in rebel
held areas as soon as possible.
Will the road map lead to the fulfillment of the vision? So far the experience of the Transitional National Council gives genuine reasons for concern, inspite of the incredible odds that it has overcome. It is a purely practical body, that has tried to be inclusive, whose purpose is to bring to an end more than 40 years of brutal dictatorship.
Radek Sikorski the foreign minister of Poland after a trip in May to Benghazi said:
"Poland learned the hard way that demanding change and defying oppression are much less difficult than formulating and delivering a clear, reasonable programme for a better future. Not all popular demands for freedom succeed: in the confusion, reactionary forces can make their move."
He then cited Belarus as an example, of what can go wrong.
The well known disputes between General Abdul Fatah Younis and General Khalifa Hifter in the rebel army are worrying. This is an army which is not well trained or equipped. It's members could well have stronger ties to individuals within the ruling council (or later on the government), than they do to the nation. The danger is then of real civil war, if tensions within the newly liberated country are not dealt with, when the unifying opposition to the tyrant Gaddafi has gone. In addition a poorly equipped army will not be able to provide protection against break away groups. Foreign governments should have been quicker to help develop the professionalism of the rebel army with training and equipment, especially after the terrible disaster of the security vacuum in Iraq.
The wiki leak US cables about Libya display an almost racist attitude that ordinary Libyans are not really interested in democracy, and are wholly concerned with money. This inspite of the existence of the "National Conference of the Libyan Opposition" ( www.libya-nclo.com ), and the thirty year history of the "National Front For The Salvation Of Libya" ( www.libyanfsl.com ). What the wiki leak cables say about the Gaddafi regime may still be true "....country where personalities and relationships often play more important roles than official titles".
There has been criticism that within the National Transitional Council "there is little transparency about the process or criteria of portfolio allocation". However it has to be understood that security concerns mean that some people cannot be even named, and there is a natural tendency to depend on people you know and trust.
It seems unlikely that a new government that is democratic and stable is just going to appear in Libya. Will political parties be formed around regions, who will then make alliances in Parliament to secure a disproportionate percentage of the country's resources for their regions? Given a weak army that has a tendency to fragment, the resulting frustrations could then lead to uncontrollable armed conflicts within the country. How can this be resolved in advance? Surely waiting till after the constitution has been adopted will be too late.
A centralized federal structure for the country could be adopted in the constitution, which would give people freedom to organize their own local activities.
More importantly there has to be a way to guarantee, within the constitution and so at the very core of the national government , that both regions and groups within the country are not discriminated against in wealth distribution or in any other way. Especially as this technique was used by Gaddafi and other dictators, to punish rebellious regions.
Obviously since 95% of exports and 40% of GDP depend on the one source, that is oil, the problem of wealth distribution is critical. If there were guarantees in the constitution of economic equality for regions and ethnic or religious groups within society, then people could take their grievances to court rather than having to resort to violence. It would also discourage political parties from forming on regional lines, and trying to win elections by promising to obtain unfair economic advantage for their voters, as this technique could not succeed in the long run.
Given the possibility critical nature of the constitution for the future of Libyan democracy, is four or six months really long enough to discuss the options, and allow people to arrive at a considered decision in a referendum? Holland for example has a very clear guarantee of equality within it's constitution, which gives the concept of equality a power that normal legislation cannot give it.
Surely given the experiences in the region there needs to be detailed discussions about the length that any president can serve, and the limit of his powers.
Note that many of the problems of US democracy stem from representatives going to Washington to secure unfair economic advantages for their state. Although this process can be contained as America now has a strong central government, and regional identities are relatively weak with a very mobile population. In the nineteenth century it was economic conflicts between regions, that discriminated between North and South, that eventually led to the American Civil War. The factor of slavery was really of subsidiary importance.
(See: "The Roots Of The Modern American Empire" by William Appleman Williams, Anthony Blond Ltd, 1969 )
Just as importantly and aside from the constitution, there needs to be agreement on how loyalists to Gaddafi are to be treated in the new Libya. There needs to a South African style truth and reconciliation process.
Given that Qatar and the excellent Aljazeera have been so supportive of the revolution, where is the new vibrant free Libyan media? Surely it is needed to contrast with the absurd propaganda of the Gaddafi era, to hold the rebel administration to account by communicating successes and failures to the public and to provide a central space for discussion about rebuilding Libya and the options for a new constitution. Surely the resources and expertise exist to make this happen now.
Success in Libya would have a big effect on democratic uprisings elsewhere in the region. This could be the crucial link to bridge the gap between success in Tunisia and Egypt, to success in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran and even Bahrain. Leaving Saudi Arabia isolated and ready to negotiate and adopt a progressive role.
There are many countries and regimes that cling to the old style of doing things, which has impoverished and humiliated the people of the region for so long. Activists in Yemen have said that Saudi Arabia have been undermining their attempts to create a successful federal structure for Yemen after Saleh. In the same way Israel has recently been signaling that a new conflict with Hezbollah, that would indirectly aid the Syrian Assad regime, is in the pipeline. The Libyan revolution has many enemies, from Tehran to Riyadh To Washington, who are looking for weaknesses to exploit. So in mechanical terms, this is a time for an over engineered solution to rebuilding Libya with large margins for safety.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Good News General Mladic to face justice.
Good News General Ratko Mladic is probably now going be tried at the Hague, for crimes against humanity. In July 1995 he commanded troops who killed 8000 Muslim men and boys from the Bosnian town of Srebrenica. He is recorded on the notoriously propagandist Serbian State Television before the massacre as saying
"Here we are, on July 11, 1995, in Serbian Srebrenica, just before a great Serb Holy day. We give this town to the Serb nation. Remembering the uprising against the Turks [in 1875?] , the time has come to take revenge on the Muslims."
The Dutch UN peace keepers were utterly useless, and lacked meaningful support. 15,000 men and boys fled into the hills after the town was taken. The Bosnian Serbs under Mladic hunted down and murdered 8000 of them. Some where beaten to death, some men and boys were made to endure mock executions before being finally shot, some were killed by grenades in confined spaces, some were made to run for their lives while being shot for sport, some where made to sit in buses and witness the execution of others before their own .... the relatively lucky ones were just shot.
He was also in ultimate command of the Serbian troops who besieged the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo from April 1992 to February 1996. 12,000 of the city's inhabitants were killed, many by sniping and the systematic artillery barrages from the surrounding hills. He denied them water in summer and fuel during the harsh winters.
Mladic is only 69 and certainly should face trial. His victims have been denied justice for too long. He should not be denied the opportunity to look objectively on his crimes.
The war in Bosnia was a bitter dispute with crimes committed by Serbs, Muslims and Croats. The crime of the Srebrenica Massacre stands above all this. In any case, the real distinction to be made is between soldiers and war criminals, rather which side they belong to.
The war occurred after the breakup of Yugoslavia, when the Serbs effectively acquired the majority of the weaponry of the old Yugoslav armed forces. The West then put an arms embargo on all sides. Meanwhile Russia supported the now well armed attempt to create a "Greater Serbia". Only after the Srebrenica Massacre did public opinion finally force the West to really intervene, and managed to bring the conflict to halt by taking the breaks off the Muslims and Croats, after which the Serbs rediscovered their willingness to negotiate. There must surely be a lesson from this conflict that "Power Will Not Negotiate".
"Here we are, on July 11, 1995, in Serbian Srebrenica, just before a great Serb Holy day. We give this town to the Serb nation. Remembering the uprising against the Turks [in 1875?] , the time has come to take revenge on the Muslims."
The Dutch UN peace keepers were utterly useless, and lacked meaningful support. 15,000 men and boys fled into the hills after the town was taken. The Bosnian Serbs under Mladic hunted down and murdered 8000 of them. Some where beaten to death, some men and boys were made to endure mock executions before being finally shot, some were killed by grenades in confined spaces, some were made to run for their lives while being shot for sport, some where made to sit in buses and witness the execution of others before their own .... the relatively lucky ones were just shot.
He was also in ultimate command of the Serbian troops who besieged the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo from April 1992 to February 1996. 12,000 of the city's inhabitants were killed, many by sniping and the systematic artillery barrages from the surrounding hills. He denied them water in summer and fuel during the harsh winters.
Mladic is only 69 and certainly should face trial. His victims have been denied justice for too long. He should not be denied the opportunity to look objectively on his crimes.
The war in Bosnia was a bitter dispute with crimes committed by Serbs, Muslims and Croats. The crime of the Srebrenica Massacre stands above all this. In any case, the real distinction to be made is between soldiers and war criminals, rather which side they belong to.
The war occurred after the breakup of Yugoslavia, when the Serbs effectively acquired the majority of the weaponry of the old Yugoslav armed forces. The West then put an arms embargo on all sides. Meanwhile Russia supported the now well armed attempt to create a "Greater Serbia". Only after the Srebrenica Massacre did public opinion finally force the West to really intervene, and managed to bring the conflict to halt by taking the breaks off the Muslims and Croats, after which the Serbs rediscovered their willingness to negotiate. There must surely be a lesson from this conflict that "Power Will Not Negotiate".
Israel and Netanyahu Are Trying To Make Racism Respectable
Netanyahu's speech was not shocking in it's content, as many of us have heard the same Zionist propaganda a hundred times. The shocking aspect was the 29 standing ovations with which a packed Congress responded to the speech. What is happening to American democracy, without which the World would have sunk into dictatorship and tyranny long ago?
Supporters of Israeli government policies (just like any other country we must be careful to distinguish between these people (many of them non Israelis) and Israelis in general) often state that the reason Israel receives so much criticism is antisemitism, and they then correctly state that there are other countries with worst human rights records. People who have been involved in the struggle against racism for a long time, will recall that the South African supporters of Apartheid used a very similar argument.
The developed world is supposed to be involved in a process called "progress", in which technology and society improve together. Israel like the white minority in South Africa pride themselves on following Western values, and so they must expect justified and vigorous criticism for abandoning the social aspect of progress by embracing racism.
A secondary and still important argument, is that logically, someone cannot justify their evil by comparing it to a greater unconnected evil.
As the famous Israeli author and peace activist Amos Oz pointed out sometime ago, it is hypocritical to excuse Palestinians their violent response to ethnic cleansing by Israelis, while not excusing Zionists the violence they used to establish their state after centuries of European Antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust.
Israel is now firmly established, with a military capability that overshadows any other in the Middle East (fifth largest army in the World, 400 nuclear war heads, third largest arms exporter). As Amos Oz points out in this collection of essays "The Slopes of Lebanon" (1987) when he parodies and summarizes right wing Zionist propaganda as follows:
" Our sufferings have granted us immunity papers, as it were . . . After what all those dirty goyim [non Jews] have done to us, none of them is entitled to preach morality to us. We, on the other hand, have carte blanche, because we were victims and have suffered so much. Once a victim, always a victim, and victimhood entitles its owners to a moral exemption."
Now there is a new racism emerging in Europe and the USA called "Islamophobia", which uses many of the arguments of the old antisemitism. Far right groups throughput Europe and the USA regularly appear at demonstrations with Israeli flags, because Israel has become the most acceptable face of racism. Far right well funded Zionist groups are even providing practical support to these groups. Then there is the growing popularity of so called Christian Zionism, with it's associated anti Muslim misinformation.
It is blackly ironic that Zionism is now giving support to the possibility of a new Holocaust. Clearly they can only be held responsible for a small slice of the responsibility, but still this must be exposed. Now should be the time to realize the deep madness of all this and change direction.
Already American politics through the Tea Party movement is moving towards racially segregated politics, while the far right throughout Europe have been having significant success at the polls. Given the deep enduring economic problems of America and Europe, the possibility of the far right gaining even more ground is high.
This could then be followed by the same system employed in Israel, in which only some of the people under the government's control are officially considered citizens. If the non-citizens resist, then they must have more of their rights stolen to encourage them to negotiate. If they do not accept the empty terms dictated to them, they are unreasonable. On the other hand is they do not resist then they will be quietly ignored and squeezed year by year. Could this happen in a civilized country? How could this be justified by a nominally democratic government with a free media? Look at Israel for all the answers.
So when the Congress of the USA gives 29 standing ovations to the right wing Likud Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, you know that now is the time to worry.
Supporters of Israeli government policies (just like any other country we must be careful to distinguish between these people (many of them non Israelis) and Israelis in general) often state that the reason Israel receives so much criticism is antisemitism, and they then correctly state that there are other countries with worst human rights records. People who have been involved in the struggle against racism for a long time, will recall that the South African supporters of Apartheid used a very similar argument.
The developed world is supposed to be involved in a process called "progress", in which technology and society improve together. Israel like the white minority in South Africa pride themselves on following Western values, and so they must expect justified and vigorous criticism for abandoning the social aspect of progress by embracing racism.
A secondary and still important argument, is that logically, someone cannot justify their evil by comparing it to a greater unconnected evil.
As the famous Israeli author and peace activist Amos Oz pointed out sometime ago, it is hypocritical to excuse Palestinians their violent response to ethnic cleansing by Israelis, while not excusing Zionists the violence they used to establish their state after centuries of European Antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust.
Israel is now firmly established, with a military capability that overshadows any other in the Middle East (fifth largest army in the World, 400 nuclear war heads, third largest arms exporter). As Amos Oz points out in this collection of essays "The Slopes of Lebanon" (1987) when he parodies and summarizes right wing Zionist propaganda as follows:
" Our sufferings have granted us immunity papers, as it were . . . After what all those dirty goyim [non Jews] have done to us, none of them is entitled to preach morality to us. We, on the other hand, have carte blanche, because we were victims and have suffered so much. Once a victim, always a victim, and victimhood entitles its owners to a moral exemption."
Now there is a new racism emerging in Europe and the USA called "Islamophobia", which uses many of the arguments of the old antisemitism. Far right groups throughput Europe and the USA regularly appear at demonstrations with Israeli flags, because Israel has become the most acceptable face of racism. Far right well funded Zionist groups are even providing practical support to these groups. Then there is the growing popularity of so called Christian Zionism, with it's associated anti Muslim misinformation.
It is blackly ironic that Zionism is now giving support to the possibility of a new Holocaust. Clearly they can only be held responsible for a small slice of the responsibility, but still this must be exposed. Now should be the time to realize the deep madness of all this and change direction.
Already American politics through the Tea Party movement is moving towards racially segregated politics, while the far right throughout Europe have been having significant success at the polls. Given the deep enduring economic problems of America and Europe, the possibility of the far right gaining even more ground is high.
This could then be followed by the same system employed in Israel, in which only some of the people under the government's control are officially considered citizens. If the non-citizens resist, then they must have more of their rights stolen to encourage them to negotiate. If they do not accept the empty terms dictated to them, they are unreasonable. On the other hand is they do not resist then they will be quietly ignored and squeezed year by year. Could this happen in a civilized country? How could this be justified by a nominally democratic government with a free media? Look at Israel for all the answers.
So when the Congress of the USA gives 29 standing ovations to the right wing Likud Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, you know that now is the time to worry.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Transcript Rae Abileah interview after Netanyahu Speech May 2011.
Transcript of Rae Abileah interview with "Democracy Now", 25th May 2011.
AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was warmly received by Democrats and Republicans in Congress. According to ABC News, Netanyahu received 29 standing ovations during his address, four more than President Obama received during his State of the Union earlier this year. However, there was at least one dissenting voice inside the halls of Congress Tuesday.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Yet, as we share their hopes—
RAE ABILEAH: No more occupation! End Israeli war crimes! No more occupation! End Israeli war crimes!
AMY GOODMAN: That was Rae Abileah, a Jewish-American activist with the group CodePink. She was disrupting Netanyahu’s speech. Standing in the congressional gallery, she was yelling, "No more occupation! Stop Israel war crimes! Equal rights for Palestinians! Occupation is indefensible!"
As she was screaming, members in the audience tackled her to the ground. Undercover security forces dragged her outside. She was taken to George Washington University Hospital, where she was treated for neck and shoulder injuries. At the hospital, police arrested Abileah and charged her with disorderly conduct for disrupting Congress. Her protest came as part a week-long series of actions organized by CodePink called Move Over AIPAC.
Rae Abileah is joining us in Washington, D.C.
Explain your protest yesterday, Rae.
RAE ABILEAH: Thanks, Amy, for having me on. Yesterday I stood up and unfurled a banner and spoke the truth about what’s going on in Israel. The war crimes and occupation, oppression and inequality that Palestinians are suffering from must end. And it was absolutely despicable to see our Congress pandering to Netanyahu as if he was the president of the United States. And I think after seeing the speech, every American should be outraged, and the progressive community needs to rise up and take courage and take action for justice, democracy, freedom and equality, in the Middle East as well as here at home.
I think that the act I took of courageously standing up in front of Congress doesn’t—the opportunity to do that doesn’t come along very often. But every day, as Americans, we have an opportunity to stand up. And whether it’s putting our money where our hearts are, by participating in economic pressure against Israel through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or calling our Congress people or taking other actions, it’s time for us to say no to this terrible policy that, just as Dr. Barghouti has illustrated, will not bring about peace. Netanyahu proved yesterday that he is the primary obstacle to peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians. And to see our Congress giving away three billion of our tax dollars every year to Israeli war crimes, while our economy suffers, while our kids can’t go to college, while our needs aren’t being met here at home, is absolutely an outrage.
AMY GOODMAN: Rae, Rae, let me—
RAE ABILEAH: The thing I want to say is that when I stood up and was tackled yesterday—
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you—
RAE ABILEAH:—it was by members of AIPAC. Yes?
AMY GOODMAN: What were you just saying? You were tackled by members of AIPAC?
RAE ABILEAH: I just wanted to say that the people that were sitting around me in the gallery of Congress yesterday were mostly wearing badges from the AIPAC Israel lobby conference. And I did not expect that people holding such power and representing such a huge lobby group would respond so violently to my peaceful disruption. And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, "This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia." And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.
AMY GOODMAN: Ha’aretz newspaper in Israel identified you as a Jewish-American activist of Israeli descent. Is your family from Israel?
RAE ABILEAH: My father’s family is from Israel, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does it mean for you to speak out? Often in this country, the Jewish community is portrayed as monolithic when it comes toward—to dealing with Israel policy and supporting the Israeli government. Your thoughts on that? And what does it mean for you to speak out, with your family from Israel?
RAE ABILEAH: I’ve been to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza several times. And after witnessing the destruction, the Jewish-only roads, the wall, the bombing of Gaza and the inequality there, I feel like, when I returned to the U.S., I had no option but to speak out for justice. And I feel this tremendous responsibility as a Jewish American to speak out for justice and against these war crimes that are being committed in my name as a Jew, as a U.S. taxpayer.
But it’s not easy, for sure. There’s a culture of silence and fear in the Jewish community around speaking out about this. And it’s certainly—I get some blowback from family and friends. But I think it’s so important to follow my principles, my integrity and my heart. And I urge other especially young Jews to do the same. I think that us, as the next generation, we see things differently than the kind of brainwashing—or, we call it "bluewashing"—that we’ve been fed, sometimes by our congregations or by Israel. We have to see through the veil of religious narrative to see that what Israel is doing is not in the best interest of Judaism either. And you were just asking Mr. Barghouti about the Jewish state. I think that what Israel is doing is completely out of line with Jewish values. The value of tikkun olam, of repairing and healing the world, is totally absent from the Netanyahu administration. So we have to reclaim those values—
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you—
RAE ABILEAH:—and say that it’s not in the best interest of any faith to do this.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, Rae Abileah, peace activist with the group CodePink, who was tackled yesterday as she shouted out during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was warmly received by Democrats and Republicans in Congress. According to ABC News, Netanyahu received 29 standing ovations during his address, four more than President Obama received during his State of the Union earlier this year. However, there was at least one dissenting voice inside the halls of Congress Tuesday.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Yet, as we share their hopes—
RAE ABILEAH: No more occupation! End Israeli war crimes! No more occupation! End Israeli war crimes!
AMY GOODMAN: That was Rae Abileah, a Jewish-American activist with the group CodePink. She was disrupting Netanyahu’s speech. Standing in the congressional gallery, she was yelling, "No more occupation! Stop Israel war crimes! Equal rights for Palestinians! Occupation is indefensible!"
As she was screaming, members in the audience tackled her to the ground. Undercover security forces dragged her outside. She was taken to George Washington University Hospital, where she was treated for neck and shoulder injuries. At the hospital, police arrested Abileah and charged her with disorderly conduct for disrupting Congress. Her protest came as part a week-long series of actions organized by CodePink called Move Over AIPAC.
Rae Abileah is joining us in Washington, D.C.
Explain your protest yesterday, Rae.
RAE ABILEAH: Thanks, Amy, for having me on. Yesterday I stood up and unfurled a banner and spoke the truth about what’s going on in Israel. The war crimes and occupation, oppression and inequality that Palestinians are suffering from must end. And it was absolutely despicable to see our Congress pandering to Netanyahu as if he was the president of the United States. And I think after seeing the speech, every American should be outraged, and the progressive community needs to rise up and take courage and take action for justice, democracy, freedom and equality, in the Middle East as well as here at home.
I think that the act I took of courageously standing up in front of Congress doesn’t—the opportunity to do that doesn’t come along very often. But every day, as Americans, we have an opportunity to stand up. And whether it’s putting our money where our hearts are, by participating in economic pressure against Israel through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or calling our Congress people or taking other actions, it’s time for us to say no to this terrible policy that, just as Dr. Barghouti has illustrated, will not bring about peace. Netanyahu proved yesterday that he is the primary obstacle to peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians. And to see our Congress giving away three billion of our tax dollars every year to Israeli war crimes, while our economy suffers, while our kids can’t go to college, while our needs aren’t being met here at home, is absolutely an outrage.
AMY GOODMAN: Rae, Rae, let me—
RAE ABILEAH: The thing I want to say is that when I stood up and was tackled yesterday—
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you—
RAE ABILEAH:—it was by members of AIPAC. Yes?
AMY GOODMAN: What were you just saying? You were tackled by members of AIPAC?
RAE ABILEAH: I just wanted to say that the people that were sitting around me in the gallery of Congress yesterday were mostly wearing badges from the AIPAC Israel lobby conference. And I did not expect that people holding such power and representing such a huge lobby group would respond so violently to my peaceful disruption. And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, "This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia." And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.
AMY GOODMAN: Ha’aretz newspaper in Israel identified you as a Jewish-American activist of Israeli descent. Is your family from Israel?
RAE ABILEAH: My father’s family is from Israel, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does it mean for you to speak out? Often in this country, the Jewish community is portrayed as monolithic when it comes toward—to dealing with Israel policy and supporting the Israeli government. Your thoughts on that? And what does it mean for you to speak out, with your family from Israel?
RAE ABILEAH: I’ve been to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza several times. And after witnessing the destruction, the Jewish-only roads, the wall, the bombing of Gaza and the inequality there, I feel like, when I returned to the U.S., I had no option but to speak out for justice. And I feel this tremendous responsibility as a Jewish American to speak out for justice and against these war crimes that are being committed in my name as a Jew, as a U.S. taxpayer.
But it’s not easy, for sure. There’s a culture of silence and fear in the Jewish community around speaking out about this. And it’s certainly—I get some blowback from family and friends. But I think it’s so important to follow my principles, my integrity and my heart. And I urge other especially young Jews to do the same. I think that us, as the next generation, we see things differently than the kind of brainwashing—or, we call it "bluewashing"—that we’ve been fed, sometimes by our congregations or by Israel. We have to see through the veil of religious narrative to see that what Israel is doing is not in the best interest of Judaism either. And you were just asking Mr. Barghouti about the Jewish state. I think that what Israel is doing is completely out of line with Jewish values. The value of tikkun olam, of repairing and healing the world, is totally absent from the Netanyahu administration. So we have to reclaim those values—
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you—
RAE ABILEAH:—and say that it’s not in the best interest of any faith to do this.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, Rae Abileah, peace activist with the group CodePink, who was tackled yesterday as she shouted out during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress.
The true voice of Judaism, Rae Abileah, interrupting Netanyahu's Congress speech.
During Netanyahu's Speech in Congress on Tuesday 24th May 2011 one person courageously spoke out against the collective madness. She was immediately dragged to the ground by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) supporters in the public gallery, injured so she had to go to hospital and then arrested for disturbing Congress. Rae Abileah is an American Jewish woman in her late twenties of Israeli descent. She is a member of the women's anti war group Code Pink.
She was interviewed on the web based news outlet "Democracy Now".
In Congress she shouted “No more occupation! Stop Israel’s war crimes! Equal rights for Palestinians! Occupation is indefensible!”
Below is a short summary of the "democracy now" interview:
Rae Abileah said that the suffering and inequality suffered by the Palestinians must end, and that it was appalling to see "Netanyahu pandered to by Congress as if he was the President of the United States". The progressive community must rise up for freedom, democracy, justice and equality in the Middle East as well as at home in the USA. They should support sanctions and disinvestment against Israel, and put pressure on their own elected representatives.
"Netanyahu proved in his speech that he is primary obstacle to peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians". It is an outrage to see the US give 3 billion dollars each year for Israeli war crimes. She was surprised to be attacked so violently by people wearing AIPAC badges. After visiting Palestine she felt she had no option but to speak out for freedom and justice. These war crimes were being carried out in her name as a Jew and a US tax payer.
There is a culture of fear and silence in the Jewish community in the US against speaking out against Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians. She urged young Jews to stand up against the "blue washing" that they have been fed. She said it was important for her to stand up for her principles, integrity and her heart. The new generation should look through the "veil of religious narrative" to see that what Israel is doing in not in the best interests of Judaism either. What Israel is doing is completely out of line with Jewish values, "...the value of Tikkun olam, to repair and heal the world, is completely absent from the Netanyahu administration. We have to reclaim these values, and say it is not in the best interests of any faith to do this."
End of short summary.
I think she deserves everyone's support. Absolutely spot on. Deep insight, matched by true religious conviction and real courage. Shine on Rae Abileah, may God bless you.
She was interviewed on the web based news outlet "Democracy Now".
In Congress she shouted “No more occupation! Stop Israel’s war crimes! Equal rights for Palestinians! Occupation is indefensible!”
Below is a short summary of the "democracy now" interview:
Rae Abileah said that the suffering and inequality suffered by the Palestinians must end, and that it was appalling to see "Netanyahu pandered to by Congress as if he was the President of the United States". The progressive community must rise up for freedom, democracy, justice and equality in the Middle East as well as at home in the USA. They should support sanctions and disinvestment against Israel, and put pressure on their own elected representatives.
"Netanyahu proved in his speech that he is primary obstacle to peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians". It is an outrage to see the US give 3 billion dollars each year for Israeli war crimes. She was surprised to be attacked so violently by people wearing AIPAC badges. After visiting Palestine she felt she had no option but to speak out for freedom and justice. These war crimes were being carried out in her name as a Jew and a US tax payer.
There is a culture of fear and silence in the Jewish community in the US against speaking out against Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians. She urged young Jews to stand up against the "blue washing" that they have been fed. She said it was important for her to stand up for her principles, integrity and her heart. The new generation should look through the "veil of religious narrative" to see that what Israel is doing in not in the best interests of Judaism either. What Israel is doing is completely out of line with Jewish values, "...the value of Tikkun olam, to repair and heal the world, is completely absent from the Netanyahu administration. We have to reclaim these values, and say it is not in the best interests of any faith to do this."
End of short summary.
I think she deserves everyone's support. Absolutely spot on. Deep insight, matched by true religious conviction and real courage. Shine on Rae Abileah, may God bless you.
Netanyahu's Congress speech destroys the possibility of a Palestinian state.
In Congress on Tuesday the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu effectively denied the possibility of a Palestinian state, while producing the now familiar catalog of Israeli Government propaganda. How his position is really different from the old Hamas position (which he knows has changed) I do not really know. Except that Israel has the fifth largest army in the world, is the third biggest arms exporter and has 400 nuclear weapons, so I suppose the difference is that his government has the means to actually destroy the possibility of a Palestinian state. Netanyah's speech reminds me of Tom Lehar who said that giving Henry Kissinger the Nobel peace prize made political satire obsolete. Netanyah lied and distorted in a full Congress, to rounds of applause from genuinely enthusiastic Senators while talking about peace, democracy and even God, and nobody seems to have really noticed. Expect I must say for one remarkably brave Jewish woman. See a transcipt of the speech in the previous posting.
The central sections in the speech, in terms of actual position in the speech and meaning, were these:
" It's not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we'll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. (Cheers, applause.) [Note: Judea and Samaria means the West Bank]
We're not the British in India. We're not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw his vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history -- and boy am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new -- no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land. (Sustained applause.)
But there is another truth. The Palestinians share this small land with us. (Applause.) We seek a peace in which they'll be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in their own state. (Applause.) They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish."
The first paragraph states that all of Israel-Palestine belongs to the Jewish people. The second paragraph appeals to the 45% of Americans who insult themselves and God by actually believing in the literal truth of every word in the Bible. The third paragraph only acknowledges the existence of the Palestinians, and wishes them a future in their own state somewhere. I am sorry to sound inflammatory, but he is talking about Palestinian land. He talks as if no one was there between the 2nd and 20th centuries. What can satire do, when politicians are talking such absurd "no sense", and nobody seems to notice?
The truth is that Israel controls 80% of Israel-Palestine. In the West Bank the settlements already control 85% of the water resources, which in a semi-arid area is of absolute importance. [Note: This is why the Golan Heights matters so much to Syria] Later on he talks about "We'll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state." Where? He talks nonsense about the distribution of settlers on the West Bank, which is crisscrossed throughout by "settler only" roads. Israel is currently building a nationwide road hub which fully integrates these settler roads in the West Bank. Construction speaks louder than speeches.
He then gives a rosy picture of economic development in the West Bank which is a huge distortion. Followed by the official story that Palestinians have been offered real peace many times in the past but have refused it, and so peace has not been possible because:
" Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it's always been about the existence of the Jewish state. (Applause.) This is what this conflict is about. (Extended applause.)"
Two questions. 1. In a Jewish State what will happen to the 1.5 million Israeli Palestinian Arabs? Israeli politicians like the leader of the opposition Tzipi Livni have already spoken of transferring them out of Israel to any newly established Palestinian State (which will in reality be a series of disconnected refugee camps on waste ground on the West Bank which is wholly controlled by Israel). In this speech quoted above he says "We seek a peace in which they'll [Palestinians] be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens." 2. Where is or where will be the Palestinian State that Israeli politicians say that they recognize?
This is like a bully playing with words, while demanding that his victim apologizes for being beaten up. Israeli and our Western politicians must say that they believe that Jews and Palestinians have EQUAL RIGHTS. If either live in a country where there rights are protected then they should stay there, while if not it is up to West, whose Horrific Antisemitism and colonialism created this situation, to find a way to guarantee the equal rights of the rest. FULL STOP. Sorry to get bombastic.
He then goes on to say that:
" Jerusalem must never again be divided. (Applause.) Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. (Applause.)"
What will happen about the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam (remember that gap 2nd to 20th century mentioned above) from which site the prophet Mohamed is said to have ascended into heaven? Where will the capital of the Palestinian state be, if not in East Jerusalem?
He then goes on to give the official distortion of the Gaza conflict, omitting the siege and the continual air strikes. Just as he began the speech with a description of the democratic rights of Israeli Palestinian Arabs. Who can elect a dozen MPs, but omitting that these are then ignored in the Knesset. Also omitting that they cannot peacefully demonstrate without being beaten up by the police. Some rights, but better than military rule by Israel in the occupied territories. [Note: Hence the much reported propaganda that 80% Palestinians would rather live in Israel proper that the territories.] He also talks about Iran and it's nuclear threat, a rare oasis of truth in an ocean of deceit. This deceit also includes hinting at the threat of Islamic Extremism in the Arab Democratic Uprising, which he claims to support. Shame on you Netanyahu.
He then speaks about the threat of Hamas' almost exclusively home made rockets to justify the following:
" But Israel under 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth. So it's therefore vital -- absolutely vital -- that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized, and it's vital -- absolutely vital -- that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. (Applause.)"
This means the Palestinian State on the West bank would be fully surrounded by Israel. When Israel controls the borders and water supply of a physically divided, crowded and unarmed Palestinian State, who is going to provide for the security of the Palestinians against any demand that the Israelis make? This is completely absurd.
He then finishes with the biggest distortion of all....
"....I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.
May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America. (Cheers, extended applause.) "
He does not speak for the Jewish people or for all of the Israeli Jews. God does not approve of this ethnic cleansing. This is not an example of America defending freedom. Rather the response to his speech is a warning about the failing state of freedom in the USA. God help us.
The central sections in the speech, in terms of actual position in the speech and meaning, were these:
" It's not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we'll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. (Cheers, applause.) [Note: Judea and Samaria means the West Bank]
We're not the British in India. We're not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw his vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history -- and boy am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new -- no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land. (Sustained applause.)
But there is another truth. The Palestinians share this small land with us. (Applause.) We seek a peace in which they'll be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in their own state. (Applause.) They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish."
The first paragraph states that all of Israel-Palestine belongs to the Jewish people. The second paragraph appeals to the 45% of Americans who insult themselves and God by actually believing in the literal truth of every word in the Bible. The third paragraph only acknowledges the existence of the Palestinians, and wishes them a future in their own state somewhere. I am sorry to sound inflammatory, but he is talking about Palestinian land. He talks as if no one was there between the 2nd and 20th centuries. What can satire do, when politicians are talking such absurd "no sense", and nobody seems to notice?
The truth is that Israel controls 80% of Israel-Palestine. In the West Bank the settlements already control 85% of the water resources, which in a semi-arid area is of absolute importance. [Note: This is why the Golan Heights matters so much to Syria] Later on he talks about "We'll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state." Where? He talks nonsense about the distribution of settlers on the West Bank, which is crisscrossed throughout by "settler only" roads. Israel is currently building a nationwide road hub which fully integrates these settler roads in the West Bank. Construction speaks louder than speeches.
He then gives a rosy picture of economic development in the West Bank which is a huge distortion. Followed by the official story that Palestinians have been offered real peace many times in the past but have refused it, and so peace has not been possible because:
" Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it's always been about the existence of the Jewish state. (Applause.) This is what this conflict is about. (Extended applause.)"
Two questions. 1. In a Jewish State what will happen to the 1.5 million Israeli Palestinian Arabs? Israeli politicians like the leader of the opposition Tzipi Livni have already spoken of transferring them out of Israel to any newly established Palestinian State (which will in reality be a series of disconnected refugee camps on waste ground on the West Bank which is wholly controlled by Israel). In this speech quoted above he says "We seek a peace in which they'll [Palestinians] be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens." 2. Where is or where will be the Palestinian State that Israeli politicians say that they recognize?
This is like a bully playing with words, while demanding that his victim apologizes for being beaten up. Israeli and our Western politicians must say that they believe that Jews and Palestinians have EQUAL RIGHTS. If either live in a country where there rights are protected then they should stay there, while if not it is up to West, whose Horrific Antisemitism and colonialism created this situation, to find a way to guarantee the equal rights of the rest. FULL STOP. Sorry to get bombastic.
He then goes on to say that:
" Jerusalem must never again be divided. (Applause.) Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. (Applause.)"
What will happen about the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam (remember that gap 2nd to 20th century mentioned above) from which site the prophet Mohamed is said to have ascended into heaven? Where will the capital of the Palestinian state be, if not in East Jerusalem?
He then goes on to give the official distortion of the Gaza conflict, omitting the siege and the continual air strikes. Just as he began the speech with a description of the democratic rights of Israeli Palestinian Arabs. Who can elect a dozen MPs, but omitting that these are then ignored in the Knesset. Also omitting that they cannot peacefully demonstrate without being beaten up by the police. Some rights, but better than military rule by Israel in the occupied territories. [Note: Hence the much reported propaganda that 80% Palestinians would rather live in Israel proper that the territories.] He also talks about Iran and it's nuclear threat, a rare oasis of truth in an ocean of deceit. This deceit also includes hinting at the threat of Islamic Extremism in the Arab Democratic Uprising, which he claims to support. Shame on you Netanyahu.
He then speaks about the threat of Hamas' almost exclusively home made rockets to justify the following:
" But Israel under 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth. So it's therefore vital -- absolutely vital -- that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized, and it's vital -- absolutely vital -- that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. (Applause.)"
This means the Palestinian State on the West bank would be fully surrounded by Israel. When Israel controls the borders and water supply of a physically divided, crowded and unarmed Palestinian State, who is going to provide for the security of the Palestinians against any demand that the Israelis make? This is completely absurd.
He then finishes with the biggest distortion of all....
"....I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.
May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America. (Cheers, extended applause.) "
He does not speak for the Jewish people or for all of the Israeli Jews. God does not approve of this ethnic cleansing. This is not an example of America defending freedom. Rather the response to his speech is a warning about the failing state of freedom in the USA. God help us.
Transcript Speech Israeli PM Netanyahu Congress 24th May 2011
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of U.S. Congress on May 24, 2011:
Vice President Biden, Speaker Boehner, distinguished senators, members of the House, honored guests, I'm deeply moved by this warm welcome, and I'm deeply honored that you've given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.
Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time that we were the new kids in town? (Laughter, applause.) And I do see a lot of old friends here, and I see a lot of new friends of Israel here as well -- Democrats and Republicans alike. (Applause.)
Israel has no better friend than America, and America has no better friend than Israel. (Applause.) We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations, America. Congratulations, Mr. President: You got bin Laden. Good riddance! (Cheers, applause.)
In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America's unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American. (Applause.)
My friends, you don't have to -- you don't need to do nation- building in Israel. We're already built. (Laughter, applause.) You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. (Applause.) And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves. (Cheers, applause.)
You've been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you, President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel's security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this. (Applause.)
Some of you have been telling me that your belief has been reaffirmed in recent months that support for Israel's security is a wise investment in our common future, for an epic battle is now under way in the Middle East between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar.
The tremors have shattered states. They've toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting.
Now, this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty. These extraordinary scenes in Tunis, in Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet, as we share their hopes --
You know, I take it as a badge of honor, and so should you, that in our free societies you can now protest. You can't have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This is real democracy. (Cheers, applause.)
So as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the Middle East and Iran, that they'll be able to do what that young woman just did -- I think she's young; I couldn't see quite that far --(laughter) -- we must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out, as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then.
The brief democratic spring in Tehran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. And it's this same tyranny that smothered Lebanon's democratic Cedar Revolution and inflicted on that long- suffering country the medieval rule of Hezbollah.
So today the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. And like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty. (Applause.)
No one knows what this path consists of better than you.
Nobody. This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It's paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule. Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different. And this was seen -- (applause) -- thank you.
There was a great English writer in the 19th century, George Eliot. It's a she; that was a pseudonym in those days. George Eliot predicted over a century ago that, once established, the Jewish state -- here's what she said: "The Jewish state will shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East." Well, she was right.
We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates -- (laughter) -- now, don't laugh -- (laughter) -- ah, you see? You think you're tough on another -- on one another here in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest! (Laughter, applause.)
Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud in Israel that over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. (Applause.) Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. (Applause.) Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of 1 percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel. (Applause.)
This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East; Israel is what's right about the Middle East. (Applause.)
Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the -- in the Middle East.
Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium. By the way, it hasn't changed. (Laughter.) I stood here and I said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab world. Well, it's begun to take root, and this beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity, because I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.
But while we hope for the best and while we work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.
Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against Americans troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.
When I last stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.
Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam.
Now, I have no doubt -- I'm absolutely convinced -- that it will ultimately be defeated. I believe it will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. It depends on cloistering young minds for a given amount of years, and the process of opening up information will ultimately defeat this movement. But like other fanatacisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact an horrific price from all of us before its eventual demise.
A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world.
See, I want you to understand what this means, because if we don't stop it, it's coming. They could put a bomb anywhere. They could put it in a missile; they're working on missiles that could reach this city. They could put it on a -- on a ship inside a container; could reach every port. They could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway.
Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads on the stand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. (Applause.)
But there's something that makes the outrage even greater. Do you know what that is? It's the lack of outrage, because in much of the international community, the call(s) for our destruction are met with utter silence. It's even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran's terror proxies. Not you. Not America. (Applause.)
You've acted differently. You've condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You've passed tough sanctions against Iran.
History will salute you, America. (Applause.)
President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the U.N. to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions.
Now, these words and deeds are vitally important, yet the ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. In that same year, Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. (Applause.) And this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. (Applause.)
Now, as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously.
We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. (Applause.) Israel always reserves -- (applause) -- Israel always reserves the right to defend itself. (Applause.)
My friends, while Israel will be ever-vigilant in its defense, we'll never give up our quest for peace. I guess we'll give it up when we achieve it. (Applause.) Because we want peace. Because we need peace. Now, we've achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and these have held up for decades.
I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal -- I mean that literally -- inside the Suez Canal.
And I was going down to the bottom with a 40-pound pack -- ammunition pack -- on my back, and somebody reached out to grab me.
And they're still looking for the guy who did such a stupid thing. (Laughter.) I was nearly killed there. And I remember battling terrorists along both banks of the Jordan.
Too many Israelis have lost loved ones, and I know their grief. I lost my brother. So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days.
The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East. (Applause.) And this peace -- this peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace. (Applause.) The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan are vital, but they're not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. (Applause.)
Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples -- a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state.
(Applause.) I'm willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it's my responsibility to lead my people to peace. (Applause.)
Now, this is not easy for me. It's not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we'll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. (Cheers, applause.)
We're not the British in India. We're not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one god, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw his vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history -- and boy am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new -- no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land. (Sustained applause.)
But there is another truth. The Palestinians share this small land with us. (Applause.) We seek a peace in which they'll be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in their own state. (Applause.) They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.
Now, we've already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. By the way, Prime Minister Fayyad has led this effort on their part, and I -- I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation. (Applause.)
We've helped -- on our side, we've helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people, and the results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming; it's growing by more than 10 percent a year. And Palestinian cities -- they look very different today than what they looked just a few years -- a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks.
They even have e-businesses, but you can't see that when you visit them. (Scattered laughter.)
That's what they have. It's a great change. And all of this is happening without peace. So imagine what could happen with peace. (Applause.)
Peace would herald a new day for both our peoples, and it could also make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility. So now, here's the question. You've got to ask it: If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo Accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included; so why has peace not been achieved?
Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it's always been about the existence of the Jewish state. (Applause.) This is what this conflict is about. (Extended applause.)
In 1947, the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes; the Palestinians said no.
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War. They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. My friends, this must come to an end. (Applause.)
President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people -- and I told you, it wasn't easy for me -- I stood before my people and I said, "I will accept a Palestinian state." It's time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, "I will accept a Jewish state." (Cheers, applause.)
Those six words will change history. They'll make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end; that they're not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it.
And those six words will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.
With such a partner, the Palestinian -- or rather the Israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. (Applause.)
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.
Now these areas are densely populated, but they're geographically quite small. And under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, we'd -- be incorporated into the final borders of Israel. (Applause.)
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations, but we must also be honest. So I'm saying today something that should be said publicly by all those who are serious about peace. In any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel's borders. Now the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We'll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. (Applause.) Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967. (Cheers, applause.)
So I want to be very clear on this point. Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state but will be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle, shouldn't be lost.
We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, to be independent, to be prosperous. All of you -- and the president too -- have referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as you've been talking about a future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Well, Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the one and only Jewish state, and Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state.
And here is what this means. It means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. (Applause.)
You know, everybody knows this. It's time to say it. It's important.
And as for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. (Applause.) Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Moslems could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites has been during Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem.
Jerusalem must never again be divided. (Applause.) Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. (Applause.)
I know this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe that, with creativity and with good will, a solution can be found.
So this is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is the peace you can defend. So peace must be anchored in security. (Applause.)
In recent years, Israel withdrew from south Lebanon and from Gaza. We thought we'd get peace. That's not what we got. We got 12,000 rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon, they failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza, they evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked, and missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute.
I want you to think about that, too. Imagine there's a siren going on now and we have less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Do you think anybody can live that way? Well, we're not going to live that way either. (Cheers, applause.)
The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. It's one of the smallest countries in the world. Mr. Vice President, I'll grant you this: It's bigger than Delaware. (Laughter.) It's even bigger than Rhode Island. But that's about it. (Laughter.) Israel under 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.
Now, here's a bit of nostalgia. I came to Washington 30 years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: there is an America beyond the Beltway. (Laughter, applause.)
But Israel under 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth. So it's therefore vital -- absolutely vital -- that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized, and it's vital -- absolutely vital -- that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. (Applause.)
Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace; they're necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels, because in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. And my friends, when I say tomorrow, I don't mean some distant time in the future; I mean tomorrow. (Applause.)
Peace can only be achieved around the negotiating table.
The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. (Applause.) It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the president's clear position on these -- on this issue.
Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. (Applause.)
But peace can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace, and Hamas is not a partner for peace. (Applause.) Hamas -- Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, it says: Kill the Jews everywhere you find them.
Hamas' leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now, again, I want to make this clear:
Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaeda. That we will not do. (Applause.)
So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate. Make peace with the Jewish state. (Applause.) And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations; it will be the first to do so. (Extended applause.)
My friends, the momentous trials over the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike. I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.
May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America. (Cheers, extended applause.)
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
(Extended applause.)
---------------- THE END -----------------------
Vice President Biden, Speaker Boehner, distinguished senators, members of the House, honored guests, I'm deeply moved by this warm welcome, and I'm deeply honored that you've given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.
Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time that we were the new kids in town? (Laughter, applause.) And I do see a lot of old friends here, and I see a lot of new friends of Israel here as well -- Democrats and Republicans alike. (Applause.)
Israel has no better friend than America, and America has no better friend than Israel. (Applause.) We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations, America. Congratulations, Mr. President: You got bin Laden. Good riddance! (Cheers, applause.)
In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America's unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American. (Applause.)
My friends, you don't have to -- you don't need to do nation- building in Israel. We're already built. (Laughter, applause.) You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. (Applause.) And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves. (Cheers, applause.)
You've been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you, President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel's security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this. (Applause.)
Some of you have been telling me that your belief has been reaffirmed in recent months that support for Israel's security is a wise investment in our common future, for an epic battle is now under way in the Middle East between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar.
The tremors have shattered states. They've toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting.
Now, this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty. These extraordinary scenes in Tunis, in Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet, as we share their hopes --
You know, I take it as a badge of honor, and so should you, that in our free societies you can now protest. You can't have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This is real democracy. (Cheers, applause.)
So as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the Middle East and Iran, that they'll be able to do what that young woman just did -- I think she's young; I couldn't see quite that far --(laughter) -- we must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out, as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then.
The brief democratic spring in Tehran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. And it's this same tyranny that smothered Lebanon's democratic Cedar Revolution and inflicted on that long- suffering country the medieval rule of Hezbollah.
So today the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. And like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty. (Applause.)
No one knows what this path consists of better than you.
Nobody. This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It's paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule. Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different. And this was seen -- (applause) -- thank you.
There was a great English writer in the 19th century, George Eliot. It's a she; that was a pseudonym in those days. George Eliot predicted over a century ago that, once established, the Jewish state -- here's what she said: "The Jewish state will shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East." Well, she was right.
We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates -- (laughter) -- now, don't laugh -- (laughter) -- ah, you see? You think you're tough on another -- on one another here in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest! (Laughter, applause.)
Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud in Israel that over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. (Applause.) Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. (Applause.) Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of 1 percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel. (Applause.)
This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East; Israel is what's right about the Middle East. (Applause.)
Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the -- in the Middle East.
Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium. By the way, it hasn't changed. (Laughter.) I stood here and I said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab world. Well, it's begun to take root, and this beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity, because I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.
But while we hope for the best and while we work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.
Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against Americans troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.
When I last stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.
Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam.
Now, I have no doubt -- I'm absolutely convinced -- that it will ultimately be defeated. I believe it will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. It depends on cloistering young minds for a given amount of years, and the process of opening up information will ultimately defeat this movement. But like other fanatacisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact an horrific price from all of us before its eventual demise.
A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world.
See, I want you to understand what this means, because if we don't stop it, it's coming. They could put a bomb anywhere. They could put it in a missile; they're working on missiles that could reach this city. They could put it on a -- on a ship inside a container; could reach every port. They could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway.
Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads on the stand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. (Applause.)
But there's something that makes the outrage even greater. Do you know what that is? It's the lack of outrage, because in much of the international community, the call(s) for our destruction are met with utter silence. It's even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran's terror proxies. Not you. Not America. (Applause.)
You've acted differently. You've condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You've passed tough sanctions against Iran.
History will salute you, America. (Applause.)
President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the U.N. to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions.
Now, these words and deeds are vitally important, yet the ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. In that same year, Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. (Applause.) And this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. (Applause.)
Now, as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously.
We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. (Applause.) Israel always reserves -- (applause) -- Israel always reserves the right to defend itself. (Applause.)
My friends, while Israel will be ever-vigilant in its defense, we'll never give up our quest for peace. I guess we'll give it up when we achieve it. (Applause.) Because we want peace. Because we need peace. Now, we've achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and these have held up for decades.
I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal -- I mean that literally -- inside the Suez Canal.
And I was going down to the bottom with a 40-pound pack -- ammunition pack -- on my back, and somebody reached out to grab me.
And they're still looking for the guy who did such a stupid thing. (Laughter.) I was nearly killed there. And I remember battling terrorists along both banks of the Jordan.
Too many Israelis have lost loved ones, and I know their grief. I lost my brother. So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days.
The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East. (Applause.) And this peace -- this peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace. (Applause.) The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan are vital, but they're not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. (Applause.)
Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples -- a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state.
(Applause.) I'm willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it's my responsibility to lead my people to peace. (Applause.)
Now, this is not easy for me. It's not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we'll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. (Cheers, applause.)
We're not the British in India. We're not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one god, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw his vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history -- and boy am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new -- no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land. (Sustained applause.)
But there is another truth. The Palestinians share this small land with us. (Applause.) We seek a peace in which they'll be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in their own state. (Applause.) They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.
Now, we've already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. By the way, Prime Minister Fayyad has led this effort on their part, and I -- I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation. (Applause.)
We've helped -- on our side, we've helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people, and the results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming; it's growing by more than 10 percent a year. And Palestinian cities -- they look very different today than what they looked just a few years -- a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks.
They even have e-businesses, but you can't see that when you visit them. (Scattered laughter.)
That's what they have. It's a great change. And all of this is happening without peace. So imagine what could happen with peace. (Applause.)
Peace would herald a new day for both our peoples, and it could also make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility. So now, here's the question. You've got to ask it: If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo Accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included; so why has peace not been achieved?
Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it's always been about the existence of the Jewish state. (Applause.) This is what this conflict is about. (Extended applause.)
In 1947, the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes; the Palestinians said no.
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War. They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees. My friends, this must come to an end. (Applause.)
President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people -- and I told you, it wasn't easy for me -- I stood before my people and I said, "I will accept a Palestinian state." It's time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, "I will accept a Jewish state." (Cheers, applause.)
Those six words will change history. They'll make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end; that they're not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it.
And those six words will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.
With such a partner, the Palestinian -- or rather the Israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. (Applause.)
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.
Now these areas are densely populated, but they're geographically quite small. And under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, we'd -- be incorporated into the final borders of Israel. (Applause.)
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations, but we must also be honest. So I'm saying today something that should be said publicly by all those who are serious about peace. In any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel's borders. Now the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We'll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. (Applause.) Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967. (Cheers, applause.)
So I want to be very clear on this point. Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state but will be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle, shouldn't be lost.
We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, to be independent, to be prosperous. All of you -- and the president too -- have referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as you've been talking about a future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Well, Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the one and only Jewish state, and Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state.
And here is what this means. It means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. (Applause.)
You know, everybody knows this. It's time to say it. It's important.
And as for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. (Applause.) Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Moslems could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites has been during Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem.
Jerusalem must never again be divided. (Applause.) Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. (Applause.)
I know this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe that, with creativity and with good will, a solution can be found.
So this is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is the peace you can defend. So peace must be anchored in security. (Applause.)
In recent years, Israel withdrew from south Lebanon and from Gaza. We thought we'd get peace. That's not what we got. We got 12,000 rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon, they failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza, they evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked, and missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute.
I want you to think about that, too. Imagine there's a siren going on now and we have less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Do you think anybody can live that way? Well, we're not going to live that way either. (Cheers, applause.)
The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. It's one of the smallest countries in the world. Mr. Vice President, I'll grant you this: It's bigger than Delaware. (Laughter.) It's even bigger than Rhode Island. But that's about it. (Laughter.) Israel under 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.
Now, here's a bit of nostalgia. I came to Washington 30 years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: there is an America beyond the Beltway. (Laughter, applause.)
But Israel under 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth. So it's therefore vital -- absolutely vital -- that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized, and it's vital -- absolutely vital -- that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. (Applause.)
Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace; they're necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels, because in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. And my friends, when I say tomorrow, I don't mean some distant time in the future; I mean tomorrow. (Applause.)
Peace can only be achieved around the negotiating table.
The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. (Applause.) It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the president's clear position on these -- on this issue.
Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. (Applause.)
But peace can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace, and Hamas is not a partner for peace. (Applause.) Hamas -- Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, it says: Kill the Jews everywhere you find them.
Hamas' leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now, again, I want to make this clear:
Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaeda. That we will not do. (Applause.)
So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate. Make peace with the Jewish state. (Applause.) And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations; it will be the first to do so. (Extended applause.)
My friends, the momentous trials over the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike. I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.
May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America. (Cheers, extended applause.)
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
(Extended applause.)
---------------- THE END -----------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)