US Stabs Palestine in the Back

Why Obama Stabbed the Palestinians in the Back

There are two ways of looking at the disgusting performance of Obama at the UN where he openly and cynically stabbed the Palestinians in the back. One explanation is based on Obama’s electoral considerations and his need to coddle Israel at Palestinian expense. The second explanation is based on the logic of great power imperial strategic considerations. Israel is a serious ally and its services may be required express any day in the present stormy ME region. Incidentally, the two versions are not mutually exclusive.

The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier

Firstly, it might be a bit unpleasant, and some of my friends will be offended by the stark language, if not the essence of the matter, but the truth must be told in clear and bold language. It has been clear now for quite a while. The abandonment of Palestine to de facto annexation into Greater Israel is a process enabled and facilitated by the United States. For its own selfish imperialist reasons, the United States, led by Barack Obama, is prepared to sell the Palestinians down the river. Thus, the deeper reason for Obama’s disgraceful performance is the rising importance of the US’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region. The US correctly views the Middle East as being in a free for all. After Mubarek has been deposed, with Yemen and Bahrain hemorrhaging, the US needs its main ally, Israel, always ready to fight at the drop of a hat. The US has made some gains in the ME, notably Libya and Syria. But the revolutionary processes in the region are just beginning. Just compare the performance of the two main US allies, Israel and Pakistan, to understand why the US with its waning powers refuses to complicate life for Netanyahu.

Of course, during the “peace process,”the United States promised everyone a “happy end” to the protracted drama. But as things got worse and worse and the US stopped calling back – it became clear that DC had other fish to fry and Netanyahu was and is Obama’s exclusive point man in the region.

Scared of Rick Perry – Fear of Losing Jewish Votes

I doubt whether the sordid US behavior is only a matter of Obama trying to protect the “Jewish vote.” The stench of growing anti-Semitic Christian fundamentalism will probably keep the Jewish voters, who can figure out that all this love and friendship is supposed to end in their conversion, in the Democratic Party. With all due respect to pro-Israel sentiment, the mass of Jewish voters just will not want to pray in Rick Perry’s church. However, if I am wrong about the imperialist essence of the matter, and Obama willfully and cynically sacrificed the interests of the entire Palestinian people for an uncertain cheap electoral consideration, this is also proof that the US is in the hands of irresponsible, dangerous politicians. The end result is not all that different, whether the motivation is imperial strategic needs or cheap, local politics. The US continues to build its regional strategy on a sick, blind devotion to an Israeli, anti-Arab, regional hegemony. The Likud people are chortling all over the place. Netanyahu has the President of the United States in his hip pocket. Members of the ‘moderate’ public in Israel have now joined legions of liberal and progressive people in the United States who, having been fooled by Obama at one stage or another, now justifiably consider themselves betrayed.

Illusions regarding the US

What with the illusions in the Palestinian camp, represented by the policies of Abu Mazen, it was hard for the moderate peace camp in Israel to see things as they actually were for quite along time. Stressing the difficult situation wherein the US reigned as the single super power and the fact that the main opposition to the US role was dominated by Islamic forces – many on the left refused to see the handwriting on the apartheid wall and ignored the deadly danger of the US embrace. The US was throwing peanuts to the Palestinian Authority, in order to debilitate its resistance and encourage false hopes. For little expense, the US could pretend to seem to be working for peace. But this game is also over.

Many dear friends on the left, supporters of a reasonable two state compromise fell asleep on the job. They refused to criticize Abu Mazen and the PA and defended them because they were willing to make serious concessions for peace. But they refused to warn that Abu Mazen’s “practical “ line of leaning on the US for day to day support and sustenance had involved him in a set of military and economic concessions which hollowed out his support among the Palestinians. One can understand how our friend Uri Avneri, an indefatigable opponent of the occupation, allowed himself to be hoodwinked by the Obama administration – because of all the chatter about supposed common values. But how did the leftist Democratic Front for Peace and Equality in Israel allow itself to become the loyal, almost servile supporter of Abu Mazen and his policies – despite the pro-US orientation of the PA and the scandalous establishment of General Dayton’s army?

Meanwhile the Likud hacks are going wild with joy. If they have unqualified support from the US – they do not have another care in the world. Bibi returns to Israel in a blaze of glory. He and his friends have appointed Netanyahu as the leader of the Jewish people. There is no base in law or morality for this claim, but he will do everything to usurp such a role. So far, his main contribution has been to justify some of the more flagrant accusations against Israel by openly and cynically using the sufferings of the Jewish people to justify the occupation and its crimes.

The Palestinians are going to the UN

The Whole World is Watching

The Palestinians are going to the UN and demanding recognition as an independent state. It appears that the demand for UN recognition enjoys broad Palestinian support, chiefly for its symbolic value. It is not hard to understand that many Palestinians would prefer to be led by a more reliable and militant leadership. However, the dissenters would be making, in my humble opinion, a serious mistake were they to oppose the UN initiative with a long list of objections and reservations – howsoever justified. It seems that one needs only a minimum of political wisdom to understand that the complicated and fateful issues dividing the Palestinian public are almost totally irrelevant in this context. There will still be time for the complicated issues dividing Palestinian society.

Here in Israel, matters are even clearer. From Zionist doves to Anarchists Against the Wall (and everyone in between), “two staters,” “one staters” and “no staters” can all unite in protesting the disgusting and cowardly performance of the UN, which allows itself to be manipulated by every conceivable trick and tactic to block entrance of the Palestinians as full and equal members of the international community.

The Palestinian initiative is opposed by the main bitter enemies of the Palestinian people. The main culprits in this sordid and ugly crime against international morality are the US government and its leaders and its Israeli partner. Nor shall we ever forget the slimy role of the Tony Blair’s and the Dennis Ross’es who attempt to mask rank discrimination as honest mediation.

There is no reason for illusions regarding the Palestinian initiative. Things after the UN sessions on Palestine will not be radically different. There is reason to believe that the enemies of Palestine are not only evil, but increasingly out of touch with reality. One senses that they – the US and Israel - still believe that they are the unchallenged masters of the region. They are, we fear, laboring under a misconception that is both silly and extremely dangerous.

Ending Civil War in Libya – Preventing Civil War in Syria

From the Desk of Reuven Kaminer May 16, 2011

Ending Civil War in Libya – Preventing Civil War in Syria

Just two long months ago, in the early stage of the Libyan crisis, advocates of UN intervention justified their position with the claim that Gadaffi was determined to slaughter thousands of his own citizens. There is no way of knowing whether that horrendous scenario was indeed going to materialize. Let us accept, for the sake of productive discussion in the left that the danger was real. Of course, this factor certainly influenced the public debate regarding intervention. It is understandable that many sincere people on the left supported the USNATO intervention because they did not want the blood of the citizens of Benghazi and other cities on humanity’s conscience. Two months later, the potential bloodbath in Benghazi, has been supplanted by a new dangerous reality, by the ongoing, real, undeniable bloodbath of civil war. Months of war and destruction are descending on Libya. Libyans, mobilized in two warring camps are killing each other daily.

We would like to assume that many friends on the left who supported intervention out of humanitarian considerations are not locked into irreversible support for the continuation of USNATO intervention and remain willing to analyze the situation as it unfolds. The humanitarian instinct, at the outset of the Libyan crisis, sought a particular solution for a specific drastic situation. Moreover, approval extended to the USNATO expedition by some on the left rarely, if ever, could be construed as to include a vote of confidence or any expression of confidence in the political-military leadership of the war against Gaddafi. One cannot be certain regarding motivations, but as far as we understood the bitter debate in the left, it appears that most pro-intervention sentiment was based on the assumption that the mission could be accomplished with speed and accuracy and if the intervention proved that Gadaffi had absolutely no support – his elimination from the political equation would be all for the better.

We know sincere people on the left who are increasingly aware that the UN mandate has been so distorted as to include regime change and even targeted assassination. This is not “mission creep,” but mission revision. And there is more to come.

It would seem that enough has happened – much of it unexpected -to renew the discussion in the left regarding this stage of development on a different level. There may still be some highly imaginative people on the left who are willing to stick with the intervention until victory, laboring under the illusion that with the final conclusive victory over Gadaffi, the revolution will reemerge in all its glory, thank the leaders of the free world for their assistance and relieve them of the keys of the kingdom. But the facts on the ground are quite clear and suggest the absence of any revolutionary perspective. The rebels are split into competing factions vying for USNATO backing and there is absolutely no reason to expect the emergence of anything progressive in the new regime when and if it is installed by Cameron and Sarkozy with Obama lurking in the wings.

It may appear a bit strange, but it is increasingly clear that USNATO is willing to cut any deal in Libya, if you can promise them Gadaffi’s head on a platter. It is not coincidental that the recent bombardment of command and control posts in Tripoli seems unmistakably similar to the targeted assassination techniques perfected by the IDF and learned by the U.S. Seals. There are many signs that the UN command is toying with the possibility of Gadaffi’s ‘accidental’ death. The USNATO stubborn insistence on death for Gadaffi is the kind of material that might well build a legend around him and the Libyan state-sponsored resistance. There is no reason to be certain that if Gadaffi is rubbed out he will not leave a camp of admirers who will continue the fight onwards. Real friends of Libya cannot be indifferent to the historical impact of the war that might cause irreparable damage to the very existence of Libyan society.

If there is an alternative path to stop the killing why would any progressive reject it out of hand? In diplomatic quarters, it is understood that the leadership of the West will suffer a serious blow to their prestige if Gadaffi survives. But, it would seem that no one on the left should be concerned with the danger to the crumbling prestige of the USNATO project, which needs Gadaffi dead to satisfy the appetite for his blood that they have nurtured in the Western media. The situation today in Libya is that the victory of any of the fighting sides might well be the occasion for bloody reprisals and massive revenge. The political will and the humanitarian instincts of people on the left should lead them – supporters and opponents of the intervention alike - to support the same demand today – immediate talks on a cease fire and a political solution.

Of course, there are “advisors” on the USNATO side calling for more and more military force for victory over Gadaffi. Is it conceivable that the left, humanitarian or otherwise, throw in its lot with the hawkish wing of the interventionists, who are calling for increased, more widespread bombing with bigger and more destructive bombs? Can there be a progressive position that calls for the USNATO to spill rivers of blood in Libya in order to end the mess that they have created?

In the face of this senseless killing, the idea of a cease fire has become compelling. Left wing supporters of the intervention are supporting the National Transition Council’s offer for negotiations after Gadaffi is removed. Now, the anti-imperialist left is called on to support the endless continuation of a civil war because the interventionist camp cannot negotiate until Gadaffi is eliminated from the picture. Here is another “anti-imperialist-pro intervention” position that just happens to fulfill the needs of imperial politics. Really.

Just one last comment on the dispute on the left. At this stage a lot of energy on both sides of the dispute is devoted to picking up and relaying particular news items that seem to have a bearing on who is right regarding the meaning of the intervention. The “dogmatists’ have been vilified for coming out automatically against the imperial initiative, though the anti-interventionist camp has massed sufficient evidence to fully prove the hypocrisy behind the whole attack.

Now, when each side to the argument on the left regarding the intervention is busy looking for quotations, it might be a good idea to ask who should carry the burden of proof. Do the anti-interventionists have to labor to show that it is silly if not worse to present the US-UK-French aggressors as disinterested volunteers in the cause of freedom? Even when the evidence regarding the mendacious nature of the NATO is plentiful, do we on the left have to labor to prove the wisdom of the principle that imperialist intervention is not and cannot be a vehicle of progress. Are we impartial regarding the loyal heirs of Bush and Blair?

Assad’s Last Chance

We remain unwilling to bow to the current fashion which refuses to see any difference, whatsoever, between the Assad regime, on one hand, and that of Mubarek in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia. As a matter of fact all the Arab regimes have been dictatorships as far back as we can remember. All dictatorships fight against the opposition with no holds barred. The level of brutality and repression usually varies in direct proportion to the danger. This world and its mode of operation have been dictated in large by the needs and demands of the imperial masters of the region. The real chances for a democratic opening involve disabling the military, economic and political control of the region from USNATO domination. Support for the intervention in Libya is support for USNATO domination in the region.

It seems quite clear that the Syrian dictatorship did not hesitate to resort to brute force in order to squelch the rising flames of genuine and legitimate protest. This is inexcusable, and those responsible for this kind of response must be brought before the bar of justice. This having been said without any further qualification, more has to be said on other aspects of the Syrian question. Syria’s defense of its sovereignty over the years and its refusal to play the US game in the region regarding Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian issue were and remain an important contribution to restraining US-Israeli aggression. Justified criticism of Syria by the left cannot ignore these positive elements in the picture because of justified concern for the rights of the Syrian people and clear opposition to the brutal repression we have witnessed for weeks.

The first reports regarding the repression in Syria appeared at a time of the intensive debate regarding USNATO intervention in Libya and there was reason to fear that confirmation of the repression in Syria would appear to support intervention in Syria.

Intervention, it turned out, is not for the moment on the agenda in Syria. Importantly, there are still no signs of any credible political opposition. The opposition in the streets to the Assad regime is based for the most part on different and even competing sectarian and ethnic groups. Moreover, some of the regimes traditional enemies appear to have exploited the opportunity to initiate armed action. The strength and the cohesion of the regime, which is trying to deflect mass opposition by the promise of serious reforms, have restricted the USNATO scope of action. But, let there be no doubt that the USNATO operation is looking for weak spots in Syria and hoping for an opening that might make intervention a more feasible option.

It is certainly for the good that the Libya intervention has reminded Obama, Cameron and Sarkozi that there are no easy interventions.

In Syria there are serious calls from the left and many popular organizations for dialogue and genuine reform. There are differing opinions regarding the sincerity or lack thereof of the Assad reform program. Window dressing and empty slogans will make things worse. The neo-liberal policies of the regime have completely alienated natural allies among the workers and peasants. Assad must change course or crash and if he relies on massive force and repression to save him, no one on the left will be sorry to see his regime go down in flames.

Israel Sics Dogs on Workers

I generally shy away from covering the atrocities and more disgusting aspects of the Israeli rule over the occupied Palestinian territories. This unpleasant but necessary mission is performed by many devoted groups and non-governmental organizations. But the following piece of information has to be shouted from the rooftops in the hope of shaming the perpetrators of this latest bit of pure ugliness. The courageous journalist, Gideon Levy, tells of the latest IDF technical upgrade in punishing workers who try to get into Israel to earn their daily bread. Haaretz Friday May 13, 2011. http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/israel-s-dogs-of-war-1.361449

The soldiers lay in wait on the border in the very early hours of the morning before dawn and sic the dogs on laborers trying to get into Israel for a few days work. The IDF explains that if not dogs, they would have to employ more severe measures. Iron logic and poison in the soul.

Danger!

Meir Degan, recently retired from his “distinguished career” as Mossad chief, came out openly against the idiotic idea of attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities. There is only one single explanation for Dagan’s speaking out. Just one: he has reason to fear that this option is being seriously considered by the Israeli leadership – here and now.