Sabbah Report » Democracy

Israeli Democracy Fades To Black

Lawrence Davidson — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:55:50 +0000

Bad Movies

Israel was never a democracy for anyone. (Illustrative photo: flickr/ElvertBarnes

Have you seen those old time movies notable for their endings? The cowboy is seen riding into the sunset or the lovers are reunited, etc. And then comes the end - the screen dramatically fades to black. Most of these movies are pretty bad. The stories are predictable, the acting melodramatic and directing inept. Well, this genre seems to be making a comeback, but off the screen rather than on it. In this revival, the Israelis are leading the way.

Israel's bad movie starts out as an historical drama with moral overtones. It's the story of Israeli democracy but, unfortunately, it has an illogical and misguided script. It begins with the premise that you can have a religiously exclusive democracy amidst a multi-religious population. Under these circumstances happy endings are impossible and the drama quickly turns to tragedy.

Final Act

The final act of this tragedy appears to be playing itself out before our eyes. It opened in 2009 with the second term of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He is a hard-line "Likudnik" determined to expand Israel to the Jordan River (if not the Potomac). That makes him an ally and supporter of the settler fanatics who represent today's version of Zionist fascists.

There is a correlation between the condition of Israeli democracy and the ambitions of Netanyahu's allies. As the settlements expand, Israeli democracy shrinks. This in turn is tied into the fact that the prime minister is determined to keep greater Israel demographically Jewish, and this means expansion must be coupled with ethnic cleansing. One can see this clearly in present Israeli policies in East Jerusalem as well as the violent harassment of Palestinians by settler thugs throughout the West Bank. Following logically from the flawed premise in the original script, this is a perfectly predictable ending for the story of modern Israel.

The drama now turning into tragedy has its peculiarly Jewish subplots. There have always been multiple expressions of Judaism. One has been the East European insular version born of acute persecution. This version expressed an inward tribal orientation that assigned the role of real or potential anti-Semites to all those who are non-Jews. Then there was the pre-1967 American version. This one was outward looking and held in high esteem the general principles of tolerance. Here the reasoning was that, as a minority, Jews were safest in a world where tolerance was a universal virtue. In Israel/Palestine it was the East Europeans who shaped the outlook of most Jewish citizens.

That paranoid outlook is certainly the one held by Netanyahu, but he inherited it from others of East European origin. He, and his supporters, are the heirs of Vladimir Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin. This is not to say that Israel's Labor Party heritage was not also insular and expansionist. After all David Ben Gurion was from Russian controlled Poland. The differences between the two groups are a matter of quantitative and not qualitative. However, it is Netanyahu and his coalition who control the Israeli government. They rule in the Knesset. And they are using their power to destroy not only the Palestinians but also those Israeli Jews who would defend the bygone American version of tolerant Judaism. One can only imagine that Netanyahu and his fanatics look upon these other Jews, who would make their peace with the Palestinians, as the Bolshevik fanatics once looked upon the Kronstadt sailors. They ultimately see them as dangerous traitors.

Just in the past few weeks the Knesset has spat out a number of bills aimed at restricting the voices of Jewish opponents and to make it more difficult for them to secure appointed offices. Part of a continuing line of similar legislation, these new potential laws represent scenes in the final act of this tragedy. Here are some highlights:

1. A bill to "ban political organizations in Israel from receiving donations of more than $5000 from foreign governments and other international groups." Peace groups such as Peace Now and human rights organizations such as B'Tselem, as well as others which are normally critical of the Israeli government would lose much of their funding under the new law.

2. Another bill in the pipeline would then tax at 45% all remaining income from foreign governments. Put together the two bills will have a "staggering" impact.

Yet, it will come as no surprise that individual donors, such as wealthy right-wing Zionists who give millions of tax free dollars to sustain the settler movement, are exempt from the new laws.

As noted, there are other laws as well that are causing concern. It is now a criminal offense in Israel to advocate a boycott of the country and its illegal settlements, or to mark the occurrence of the Nakba. There are bills pending that would make it easier to pack the Israeli supreme court with rightists and even to punish media outlets who dare to investigate the prime minister or his wife. Thus does Israeli democracy fade to black.

The Reviews

The argument on the part of the Netanyahu forces is that the money coming from foreign governments and organizations represents "meddling" in the internal affairs of Israel. Well the Israeli establishment should certainly know meddling when they see it. Their politicians and agents are no doubt the world's experts at meddling in the affairs of other countries, particularly the United States. Here, through the manipulation of large cash donations, they meddle away to their heart's content, to the predicable detriment of U.S. national interests in the Middle East. Simultaneously, these same Israeli politicians see no problem in receiving a minimum of $3 billion a year from the foreign government in Washington.

These new laws have a lot of Israelis upset, and not just those who are going to be directly impacted. The official opposition in Israel, the Kadima Party (ambitiously translated as the "forward" party) has suddenly taken it upon itself to warn the nation that democracy is in danger. Tzipi Livni, former foreign minister and now leader of the opposition (also rather infamous for her part in the "Cast Lead" invasion of Gaza), said that "this is an attempt to turn Israel into a dark...dictatorship." The ceremonial president of Israel, Shimon Peres, has declared that "these proposals deviate from the basis of democracy." Of course there is a good bit of hypocrisy in these protests. These dissenters never exercised their consciences over the suppression of the democratic rights of non-Jews. Nevertheless, the targeting of the rights of Jews, even tolerant ones, is "beyond the Pale." But that is what you get when you deny the rights of others. Sooner or later the process comes full circle and those in the in-crowd lose their rights too.

When the screen fades to black all that will be left of Israeli democracy is a facade, a democracy in name only. For many, however, that will be sufficient. It will certainly be sufficient for the Israeli politicians who, living wholly within their Zionist ideology, prize its commandments above all else. And it will suffice for the lobbyists and propagandists who must manage the image of the Zionist state so that those Americans who give money and make the policies can maintain the fantasy that Israel is "just like us." And finally, it will no doubt suffice for American Jewish congregants who do not want to be ostracized from synagogues run by businessmen whose only connection to "their people" comes from blindly supporting Israel.

Will it suffice for the rest of us? Hopefully not. Perhaps as the last act of this bad movie plays out many other reviews will come forth criticizing the media image of Israel as fraudulent, the product of half-truths running on to lies. That might take a bit of lobbying on the part of those who see this movie as a real disservice not only to Palestinians, but also to Jews. But take heart and remember what Will Rogers once said, "there is only one thing that can kill [bad] movies and that's education."

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Dreams of Democracy

Paul J. Balles — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:13:05 +0000

"Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven."
--H. L. Mencken

Voices among Arab protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria have been calling for "democracy".

Voices from Israel have falsely boasted that Israel has the only democracy in the Middle East.

Voices in the U.S. have praised American democracy as the ideal form of government.

What is it that these voices are urging? None of these voices is celebrating the same thing. Nothing they're exalting would be praiseworthy by the people.

Sound arguments can be made against any form of democracy. One need only view comedian Jay Leno when he interviews people on the street.

Leno asks questions that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge should be able to answer. The extent of the ignorance of the average public is perfect for a comedian, but disastrous for a democracy.

Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

John F. Kennedy, obviously thinking about the average voter, said, "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."

Returning to the voices for democracy, Arab protesters often don't know what it entails other than a constitution, a vote and representative voices in a parliament or congress.

Franklin D. Roosevelt warned, "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

How many protestors that we've seen on television have the education needed to make wise choices either as voters or elected representatives?

What is the appeal of "democracy" to the masses? George Orwell had it right when he wrote:

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.

The next voice - the voice of Israel, has long claimed its uniqueness as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Not by any reasonable definition of democracy can ethnic favouritism claim to be democratic. For Israeli Arabs, Israel behaves like an apartheid state.

Americans should have listened more closely to Woodrow Wilson who saw in the microcosm of his time the truth that has persisted in what Americans call democracy.

Early in the 20^th century, Wilson observed, "The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy."

The protests in America against Wall Street, now spreading around the country and the world, reflect the growing resistance of the masses to control by the wealthy.

Those bosses and their lobbyists control the Congress. The rich have bought the democracy. The Zionist lobby has significant control over the members of Congress.

Special interest groups have complete control over the media. Major newspapers, magazines, TV or radio stations dare not criticise Israel or vote against Zionist wishes.

Those who believe that democracy is the perfect form of government should examine closely what the people want, and then consider those desires next to Israel that's touted as the only form of democracy in the Middle East.

Consider the actual operation of democracy in America and the UK, where Zionists, representing foreign interests and lobbyists for the wealthy, control Congress and Parliament.

The world has known benevolent rulers who have done much better by their publics.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

From Arab Spring to jobless summers

Paul J. Balles — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:36:29 +0000

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

JIM Hoagland, writing in the Washington Post, says: "We have seen how information technology can provide a spark that sets afire the kindling of economic and social distress."

That was Hoagland's way of concluding an opening salvo that said: "Grinding civil war in Libya, a state-organised bloodbath in Syria and troubling stumbles in Egypt's march to democracy dim the lustre of Arab revolts that began the year in glory. This Arab summer is a political season of reaction and reversal."

What Hoagland refers to as "the virus of modern communication" most pundits have labelled "the Arab Spring".

The implication is that all protests have occurred for the same reason and in the same part of the world. That's simply not true.

Not all demonstrations have been agitating for democracy. According to Don Tapscott writing in The Guardian:

"A common thread to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and protests elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa is the soul-crushing high rate of youth unemployment. Twenty-four per cent of young people in the region cannot find jobs."

But the reasons for youth rebellions differ from place to place. Not all have been due to unemployment.

Commenting on student dissent in Chile, writer John Daly says:

"An element common to all these events is the population's rising anger over governments' perceived ineptitude and even outright corruption, inflicting financial misery on all but a privileged elite."

Few young people consider what effect their protests will have. Little heed gets paid by these youthful protesters to the cost of their revolutionary zeal. They blithely ignore the disaster their activities have caused to their national economies.

Millions in Tunisia and Egypt, for instance, have been dependent on the tourist trade, now lost and sacrificing the livelihoods of the entire industry's workers.

The demonstrators in the recent revolts only look at perceived injustices and pay scant attention to what will replace the systems they oppose.

Even Israel is hosting an Arab Spring. After experiencing demonstrations that saw "hundreds of thousands of Israelis" take to the streets, a Haaretz editorial comments: "We are in the midst of what is increasingly shaping up to be an Israeli revolution."

Monarchs, presidents and prime ministers are almost never universally opposed.

During the demonstrations in North Africa, those who supported the existing governments didn't take to the streets until large numbers of Libyans rose up to defend the Gadaffi regime in Tripoli.

And what of the prospects for more protests and demonstrations in Europe?

Protests in Europe have been largely due to youth unemployment and worse are expected because of budget cutbacks and debt crises.

Kids with no jobs ran amok in London.

Look for more demonstrations in Europe like those in Greece (with 38.5pc unemployment) and by the jobless in countries facing financial crises like Spain (45.7pc unemployment), Italy (27.8pc unemployment) and Ireland (26.9pc unemployment).

Who knows? Disastrous economics in America could usher in a riotous summer. There are already calls for a "Day of Rage" in the US.

US Independence Day reflections

Paul J. Balles — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:53:17 +0000

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

I'm writing this on the 4th of July, the American Independence Day. In America and on US military bases and embassies around the world, it's a day for celebration of a memorable day in 1776.

It's a day for outdoor barbecues – hotdogs, beer and beans – and fireworks, like independence days everywhere.

Revellers often use the holiday to toast the country's founding fathers who, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin were revolutionary signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Their names and those of John Adams, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton to a lesser degree, have been memorialized in the names of cities, streets and institutions everywhere in America.

Though much of the history of American independence is unknown by many, a few notable remnants from the declaration have become widely known, the most popular being:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The slogan that permeated the air during the revolution, like all chants of revolutionaries, has been equally famous: "No taxation without representation," they repeated.

The British parliament under King James II had insisted on collecting taxes from the British colonists in America who had no representatives in the British parliament.

If, as the Declaration says, "all men are created equal", why do Americans act as if that fundamental principle applies only to citizens of the USA?

Why should the UNALIENABLE rights - among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, proudly celebrated by Americans on the 4th of July, not be extended to humans everywhere?

As former US intelligence analyst Ray McGovern observes, "The Declaration of Independence was meant to be a statement expressing the 'self-evident' rights of all mankind. Those principles had a universality that was a beacon to the world."
McGovern points out that many Americans think of the "Declaration of Independence as applying to Americans, but not to many others - like the 1.6 million people locked in the narrow confines of Gaza."

No matter what biblical right has been claimed by Israel for six decades of the subjugation of Palestinians and the theft of their land, America violates its own most basic principles by failing to support Palestinian statehood.

America has no compunction against infringing on others' independence. The US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has robbed those countries of their independence.

The same thing can be said of the victims of all of Israeli and American occupations. After the celebrations of this Independence Day, Americans should take a sober look at the independence they are depriving others of in the Middle East.

The questionable justification for the occupation of Afghanistan ceased to exist once Osama bin Laden was assassinated by an American Seal unit.

The excuse for continuing occupation of Afghanistan has been "nation building". America has no legitimate business building any other nation but its own.

The rationale given for the destruction, invasion and occupation of Iraq was a complete fabrication designed only to destroy that country's independence.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the criminal supporters of Israel in the American government engineered the travesty in Iraq for one reason only: to prevent Iraq from EVER threatening Israel with weapons of mass destruction.

To achieve this, America will have to keep troops in Iraq, continuing its prevention of Iraq's independence. US troops have no legitimate business in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else.

Finally, now that the 4 July celebrations are over, America desperately needs to declare its independence from Israel.

The Death of American Democracy [Video]

Anthony Lawson — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:04:53 +0000

By Anthony Lawson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Video link: http://vimeo.com/25588822
Alternative link: http://youtu.be/iK7SRYp4sBc

The collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre, on September 11, 2001, were the most frightening images that I have ever seen, up until May 24th, 2011, when Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the United States Congress and received 29 standing ovations, along with many other outbursts of sycophantic applause.

It was the final nail in a coffin, the construction of which began long ago, and in it all remaining vestiges of democracy were joyfully laid to rest—by those sworn to protect it-as it became clear that the United States was now controlled by Enemies Inside it's Gates.

* Anthony Lawson (known professionally as Tony Lawson) is a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad agency creative director and voice over. He used to be known for shooting humorous commercials, but doesn’t find much to laugh about, with the way the world is going, these days.

The West Is Terrified of Arabic Democracies

SR Editor — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:50:15 +0000

Ceyda Nurtsch interview with Noam Chomsky* about the Arabic spring in its global context.

Nurtsch: Mr. Chomsky, many people claim that the Arab world is incompatible with democracy. Would you say that the recent developments falsify this thesis?

False friends: Iran' democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh during a visit in the US in 1951, two years before the CIA's coup d'état that ousted him

Noam Chomsky: The thesis never had any basis whatsoever. The Arab-Islamic world has a long history of democracy. It's regularly crushed by western force. In 1953 Iran had a parliamentary system, the US and Britain overthrew it. There was a revolution in Iraq in 1958, we don't know where it would have gone, but it could have been democratic. The US basically organized a coup.

In internal discussions in 1958, which have since been declassified, President Eisenhower spoke about a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. Not from the governments, but from the people. The National Security Council's top planning body produced a memorandum – you can pick it up on the web now – in which they explained it. They said that the perception in the Arab world is that the United States blocks democracy and development and supports harsh dictators and we do it to get control over their oil. The memorandum said, this perception is more or less accurate and that's basically what we ought to be doing.

Nurtsch: That means that western democracies prevented the emergence of democracies in the Arab world?

Chomsky: I won't run through the details, but yes, it continues that way to the present. There are constant democratic uprisings. They are crushed by the dictators we – mainly the US, Britain, and France – support. So sure, there is no democracy because you crush it all. You could have said the same about Latin America: a long series of dictators, brutal murderers. As long as the US controls the hemisphere, or Europe before it, there is no democracy, because it gets crushed.

Nurtsch: So you were not surprised at all by the Arab Spring?

On 6 April 2008 Egyptian workers, primarily in the state-run textile industry, striked in response to low wages and rising food costs. Strikes were illegal in Egypt, and the protests were eventually crushed

Chomsky: Well, I didn't really expect it. But there is a long background to it. Let's take Egypt for instance. You'll notice that the young people who organized the demonstrations on January 25th called themselves the April 6th movement. There is a reason for that. April 6th 2008 was supposed to be a major labour action in Egypt at the Mahalla textile complex, the big industrial centre: strikes, support demonstrations around the country and so on. It was all crushed by the dictatorship. Well, in the West we don't pay any attention: as long as dictatorships control people, what do we care!

But in Egypt they remember, and that's only one in a long series of militant strike actions. Some of them succeeded. There are some good studies of this. There is one American scholar, Joel Beinen – he is at Stanford – he has done a lot of work on the Egyptian labour movement. And he has recent articles and earlier ones, in which he discusses labour struggles going on for a long time: those are efforts to create democracy.

Nurtsch: Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, claimed to cause a domino effect of freedom with his policy of the "New Middle East". Is there a relation between the uprisings in the Arab world to the policy of George W. Bush?

Chomsky: The main theme of modern post-war history is the domino effect: Cuba, Brazil, Vietnam… Henry Kissinger compared it to a virus that might spread contagion. When he and Nixon were planning the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende in Chile – we have all the internal materials now – Kissinger in particular said, the Chilean virus might affect countries as far as Europe. Actually, he and Brezhnev agreed on that, they were both afraid of democracy and Kissinger said, we have to wipe out this virus. And they did, they crushed it.

Today it's similar. Both Bush and Obama are terrified of the Arab spring. And there is a very sensible reason for that. They don't want democracies in the Arab world. If Arab public opinion had any influence on policy, the US and Britain had been tossed out of the Middle East. That's why they are terrified of democracies in the region.

Nurtsch: The well-known British Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk recently stated that Obama and his policy is irrelevant for the developments in the region…

Chomsky: I read the article, it's very good. Robert Fisk is a terrific journalist and he really knows the region well. I think what he means is that the activists in the April 6th movement don't care about the United States. They have totally given up on the US. They know the United States is their enemy. In fact in public opinion in Egypt about 90 per cent think that the US is the worst threat that they face. In that sense the USA is of course not irrelevant. It's just too powerful.

Nurtsch: Some criticize the Arab intellectuals for being too silent, too passive. What should the role of the Arab intellectual be today?

Chomsky: Intellectuals have a special responsibility. We call them intellectuals because they are privileged and not because they are smarter than anyone else. But if you are privileged and you have some status and you can be articulate and so on we call you an intellectual. And it's the same in the Arab world as anywhere else.

Ceyda Nurtsch
© Qantara.de 2011
Editor: Lewis Gropp/Qantara.de

* Noam Chomsky is one of the major intellectuals of our time. The eighty-two-year-old American linguist, philosopher and activist is a severe critic of US foreign and economic policy.

No Savior

SR Editor — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:49:18 +0000

The West's lofty expectations for Salam Fayyad went far beyond what he was ever able to deliver.

By Nathan J. Brown* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Salam Fayyad, Palestinian Prime Minister. STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

If Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's political career came to an end today, he could still proudly claim to be Palestine's most accomplished prime minister ever. The problem is that all of his predecessors -- Ahmad Hilmi, Mahmud Abbas, Ahmad Qurei, and Ismail Haniyya -- were impotent, transitory, or frustrated occupants of the post, and collectively set a very low bar. But judged by the enormous expectations and hoopla his Western cheerleaders burdened him with, Fayyad will leave only disappointment behind him.

The prime minister's departure from the Palestinian political scene appears likely but not inevitable. With Fatah and Hamas striving to form a unity government, Fayyad may very well be sacrificed on the altar of Palestinian unity.

Neither the sunny nor the cynical view of Fayyad is fair. His optimistic smile obscured an impossible situation: Fayyad's main achievement has not been to build the structures of a Palestinian state, but to stave off the collapse of those structures that did exist. An equally important achievement was his ability to persuade Western observers that he was doing much more. In the process, however, he raised expectations far beyond his ability to deliver.

What Fayyad Did Not Do: In enumerating Fayyad's accomplishments, it is necessary -- if churlish -- to begin by explaining what Fayyad did not accomplish.

First, he did not build any institutions. The state-like political structures now in the West Bank and Gaza were either built during the heyday of the Oslo Process in the 1990s or in the more distant days of Jordanian and British rule.

Second, he did not bring Palestinians to the brink of statehood. The Palestinian Authority, for all its problems, was actually far more ready for statehood on the eve of the Second Intifada in 1999 than it is on the possible eve of the third in 2011. A dozen years ago, Palestine had full security control of its cities, a set of institutions that united the West Bank and Gaza, a flourishing civil society, and a set of legitimate structures for writing authoritative laws and implementing them. Those accomplishments were in retreat long before Fayyad took office, and he was hardly able to restore them.

Third, Fayyad did not strengthen the rule of law. He could not have done so, since the only legitimate law-making body the Palestinians have, the Legislative Council, has not met since he came to power.

Fourth, Fayyad did not prove to Palestinians that they should rely on themselves. Just the opposite. He showed Palestinians that if they relied on him, foreigners would show them the money. At the heady days at the beginning of Oslo, the United States pledged half a billion dollars for the entire five-year process during which the parties were supposed to negotiate a permanent agreement. They have given Fayyad more than that almost every year that he has been in office. The Europeans have opened the purse strings for him too. It is utterly baffling that a figure so completely dependent on Western diplomatic and financial support would be seen by outsiders as an icon of Palestinian self-help.

Finally, he did not bring economic development to the West Bank. What he made possible was a real but unsustainable recovery based on aid and relaxation of travel restrictions. Year-to-year economic indicators in both the West Bank and Gaza are dependent on foreign assistance, and even more on the political and security situation. Fayyad can thus take some credit for the upturn, but Hamas can make a similar claim for the mild improvements in Gaza since Israel relaxed some of the closure last year. Neither has laid the groundwork for real development or attraction of foreign investment. Nor could they in the stultifying and uncertain political environment.

None of these failings was personal. Fayyad could not have accomplished any of these goals even had he wanted to. He led half of a dysfunctional Palestinian Authority, governed scattered bits of territory in the West Bank, and was forced to rattle the cup constantly in order to pay the bills.

What Fayyad Did Do: However, if Fayyad could not walk on water, he did an almost miraculous job of not drowning. This is not to damn Fayyad with faint praise; the prime minister assumed control of a Palestinian Authority that was unable to pay all of its salaries, deeply mistrusted by Israel, and treated as irrelevant by many Palestinians.

His first and most impressive accomplishment was to gain the trust of Western governments. The unrealistic hopes placed in his premiership were partly a testimony to the esteem in which he was held in some international circles. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken of her pride in his efforts and informed Palestinian youth that Fayyad has given them hope. No diplomatic statement from Western governments is complete without a kind word for his accomplishments. Fayyad was even able to earn a grudging Israeli trust through renewed security cooperation and efforts to rebuild the Palestinian security services. These accomplishments allowed him to pay government salaries, redeploy police, and attract enormous amounts of aid.

And Fayyad was able to win some modest victories in Palestinian governance. The security services became less partisan, public finances became more transparent (even without any domestic oversight), corruption likely decreased, pockets of the civil service were rebuilt on a more professional basis, and basic order in Palestinian cities was improved. When it comes to progress in these areas -- sharply limited but still significant -- Fayyad can even claim to have gone beyond maintenance to improving the Palestinian situation beyond where it stood in 1999.

The Poverty of Politics: All along, however, this was a difficult juggling act. Enthusiastic international support would continue only so long as it was possible to pretend that Fayyad was making dramatic gains; domestic acceptance of Fayyad was dependent on his continuing to pay salaries and provide for basic order. Pulling aside the curtain and revealing that Palestinians were not building a state thus risked undermining Western support for him, which would in turn remove the raison d'être of his premiership in Palestinian eyes.

Thus Fayyadism was a political house of cards. There was no domestic foundation for Fayyad's efforts; for Palestinians, he was simply an unsolicited gift from the United States and Europe -- a welcome one for some, but not for others. And to his international backers, Fayyad was completely frank about his limitations: His efforts, he said, would only pay off in the context of a meaningful diplomatic process that reinforced the drive toward statehood. This was an ingredient that has been missing for many years, and Fayyad was powerless to procure it.

Earlier this year, there were signs that Fayyad himself had begun to look for ways to escape Fayyadism. It was Fayyad, rather than Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who reached out to Hamas in February. The reconciliation file was quickly snatched out of his hands, however, and his hold on the premiership is now on the bargaining table.

What is remarkable, however, is how Fayyadism soldiered on in some Western eyes even after Fayyad himself had begun to distance himself from it. American pundits continued to trumpet his successes without missing a beat right up until the April reconciliation agreement. In March, Thomas Friedman was still writing about Fayyad's gaining momentum and even upped the ante by claiming that his program posed the "biggest threat to Iran's strategy." Meanwhile top policymakers continued to be mesmerized by Fayyad's poll numbers, which were less bad than those of most other leaders, and simply ignored the hollowness at the core of their own policies. Nor did the polls translate into any kind of political party or movement that could have run in, much less won, an election -- if one were ever held.

The Perils of Positive Thinking: For years, Fayyad's soft talk and cheery dedication enabled policymakers throughout the world to ignore the brewing crisis. And this may be where Fayyad, despite his impressive management skills, did Palestinians a disservice.

In 2009, the incoming Obama administration was quickly lured into a set of approaches (many inherited from the Bush years) that proved their complete bankruptcy this year -- ignoring Gaza and allowing its population to be squeezed hard, pretending that there was a meaningful Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process at hand, assuming that Hamas could be dealt with after the peace process and Fayyad had worked their magic, and making the paradoxical and erroneous assumption that the best way to build Palestinian institutions was to rely on a specific, virtuous individual.

Fayyad cannot be held primarily responsible for this collective self-delusion; at most, he facilitated it. And in the process he provided all actors with a breathing space that is now disappearing. Ultimately, the ones who convinced themselves he was capable of completely transforming Palestine are most responsible for squandering the brief respite his premiership offered.

* Nathan J. Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Source: Foreign Policy

The Democracy Revolutions and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

SR Editor — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:27:25 +0000

By Henry Siegman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

For the longest time, Israeli governments have explained their resistance to Palestinian statehood by pointing to the Palestinians' and the Arab world's democracy deficit.

The dishonesty of that explanation has now been exposed to even the most credulous by the reaction of Israel's government to the democratic revolutions sweeping the region. We are now told by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government that the overthrow of Tunisia's and Egypt's rulers and the challenges to other regional autocrats, whose regimes provided Israel with a certain stability by repressing forcefully popular Arab anger over Israel's occupation policies, no longer allows Israel to accede to risky "concessions" that a peace accord entails.

So that while until now it was the region's democratic deficit that supposedly prevented Israel from ending its occupation, now it is the region's surfeit of democracy that stands in its way.

It is hard to believe there is today even a single head of state anywhere who still does not understand that Israel's settlement project in the West Bank-secretly encouraged, financed and protected by successive Israeli governments and the IDF-never had a purpose other than to secure permanent Israeli control of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordanian border. Even Chancellor Angela Merkel, who not so long ago pledged Germany's unflagging support for Israel's quest for security, recently told Netanyahu that no one can any longer believe anything he says about Israel's interest in peace.

It is therefore hard to understand those who believe that the democracy revolutions in the region are a reason to urge Israelis and Palestinians to resume direct talks. Direct talks have not been resisted by Netanyahu, for they have served as an ideal cover for the continued expansion of the settlements-falsely holding out the promise that the controversy over the settlements will be resolved as soon as agreement is reached and a border has been set. So why waste time arguing about a settlement freeze now?

But the border is the one subject that Netanyahu refuses to discuss in these direct talks. If he were to disclose where he intends to draw that border, his intention to retain control over the entire West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state would be exposed for all to see. Instead, Netanyahu speaks of a solution consistent with Israel's security, which in his conception of that term cannot accommodate a Palestinian entity that is not fully under Israel's control.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu has been aided and abetted in his deceptions by the U.S., for the Obama administration refused to endorse terms of reference that identify the 1967 border as the starting point of negotiations. The inescapable implication of that refusal is that, for all practical purposes, the Obama administration accepts the Likud's definition of the occupied territories as "disputed territories," to which Israel has as much a claim as the Palestinians do. Imagine what the U.S. would say to the Palestinians if they were to refer to any part of Israel as "disputed territory" to which they too have a claim.

It is not that President Obama is unaware of what Netanyahu is up to. But rather than calling a spade a spade, his administration thought it would work its way around Netanyahu's deceptions by pressing for a settlement freeze. Instead, it was Netanyahu who worked his way around the freeze.

The lesson to be learned from the serial failures of America's peace initiatives is that they cannot be based on a lie. We cannot pretend to believe Netanyahu's recently announced acquiescence to a two-state solution if we are not prepared to hold his feet to the fire when it comes to the issue of the 1967 border. Our recent veto of the UN resolution condemning the settlements was so shameful not only because it helped Israel continue its settlement project but because it abetted Netanyahu's lie that he can be for peace even if he rejects Palestinians' rights on their side of the 1967 border.

There is no better time for a resort to truth-telling than now, when citizens in countries neighboring Israel are risking their lives in the hundreds and thousands to put an end to the lies of dictatorial "security" regimes that have denied them their rights and their very humanity.

The truth the U.S. needs to tell Netanyahu and his government is not that they must return to meaningless peace talks, but that international law and previous agreements do not allow Israel to acquire territory beyond the 1967 border without Palestinian consent. They must be told that their insistence that Palestinians must wait a generation or two, if not longer, before they will be ready for statehood is indistinguishable from the insistence of Arab dictators that they must remain in power because their people cannot be trusted to rule themselves-and equally repugnant to America's values.

* Henry Siegman, President of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a non-resident visiting professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London and a consultant to the Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre.

Britain cherry-picks which war criminals to prosecute and where to impose no-fly zones

Stuart Littlewood — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:00:24 +0000

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

After maintaining a deafening silence about Israel's atrocities against civilians, Britain suddenly wants a "day of reckoning" for war criminals – as long as they are Libyan.

While protestors' attempts to oust Gaddafi and his scum continued, the UK's Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Peter Gooderham, called on the UN Human Rights Council Special Session on Libya to take whatever steps were necessary "to ensure that those responsible for the awful human rights violations that are currently occurring in Libya are held to account".

He said the Libyan government was trying to stop the world seeing what was happening, adding:

We are appalled by the levels of violence... The use of military force against civilians and the attacks on funeral processions have caused deep anger throughout the country and across the world... We join the High Commissioner in calling for an international inquiry into the violence... The United Kingdom will do everything we can to make sure those responsible in the Libyan regime are held accountable for their actions...

Foreign secretary William Hague announced he had signed a directive revoking Gaddafi's diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom and also the diplomatic immunity of his sons, his family and his household. He spoke of Britain's readiness to provide humanitarian help. "Our Department for International Development now has teams on both borders, on the Tunisian and Egyptian borders of Libya, looking at how we can deliver such assistance if necessary."

He bragged about how the UK "drove" through a Security Council resolution referring what was happening in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. "That sends a clear message to all involved, in the regime and any other groups that if they commit crimes and atrocities there will be a day of reckoning for them."

Bravo. What a splendidly high-principled chap that Mr Hague suddenly seems to be. And how swiftly he managed to get the International Criminal Court's attention when he wanted to.

But we didn't hear Hague and his colleagues call for a reckoning with the psychopaths of the Israeli regime when they committed mega-atrocities against Gaza's civilians just two years ago. We haven't heard them driving anything constructive through the UN to halt those endless crimes. On the contrary, they're busy tinkering with our laws of universal jurisdiction to enable Zionist thugs to come and go without fear of arrest.

Gaddafi may not be welcome in London but the Foreign Office will happily roll out the red carpet for Tzipi Livni, Avigdor Lieberman, Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu, while Hague conducts the brass band.

And nobody saw the Department for International Development waiting on Gaza's borders with humanitarian help.

Where was HMS Cumberland when British nationals on the Mavi Maramra and the Dignity and other vessels were being assaulted and terrorized in international waters by Israeli pirates, abducted and thrown in their stinking jails?

Our warships HMS Cumberland and HMS York magically appear in the Mediterranean when Hague or Prime Minister David Cameron snaps his fingers. The ships have been protecting victims of the lunatic Gaddafi, and HMS York unloaded tons of medical supplies and other humanitarian aid for the Benghazi Medical Centre, donated by the Swedish government.

Funny how these two vessels couldn't be deployed to bring life-saving aid to innocent Palestinians after Israel's indiscriminate Operation Cast Lead blitzkrieg. Those same Palestinians civilians are still being bombed and strafed with impunity on a daily basis, so when the Libyan crisis dies down shouldn't HMS York be loaded up with more supplies and sail for Gaza, where the humanitarian crisis continues unabated?

On the Libya situation Hague has been sounding off with loud threats of retribution. "Crimes will not go unpunished and will not be forgotten; there will be a day of reckoning and the reach of international justice is long," he says.

He also talks of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to protect its people. One option would involve RAF patrols from Cyprus. Hague told Sky News: "One thing we have to plan for and work out how we would do it with allies and partners if it became necessary and if it had the necessary international support."

The BBC reported that, according to Hague, a no-fly zone over Libya would not necessarily need a green light from the UN. "There have been occasions in the past when such a no-fly zone has had clear, legal, international justification even without a Security Council resolution. It depends on the situation on the ground."

Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that he had asked the head of Britain's armed forces to work with allies to see if a military no-fly zone was possible.

So if the answer is "yes", there's no reason not to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza, is there? Oops, I forgot. The maniacs doing the murdering there are Whitehall's "friends", right? And Hague and Cameron have publicly pledged undying support for them, right? So, their balls are in a vice, right?

Even 1,400 dead, the vast majority civilians including 350 children, is not slaughter enough to wrench them free – the thousands maimed and the tens of thousands homeless not enough cruelty.

As for freedom and democracy in the Middle East, spare us the sermon. The British government has pissed on Palestinian democracy since 2006 and ganged up with other bullies to spitefully punish the people for making the "wrong" choice. Britain chose (as if it was any of our business to do the choosing) to prop up the treacherous and utterly discredited election losers and stand idly by while the decades of imprisonment and suffering continue.

The Israeli newspaper the Jerusalem Post reports this week how David Cameron told Jewish dinner guests: "With me you have a prime minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible... I will always be a strong defender of the Jewish people. I will always be an advocate for the State of Israel."

He also said Israel has a right to search vessels entering Gaza. Oh? So Israeli piracy on the high seas or in Palestinian waters is OK? The blockade is OK? Does this mean vessels sailing for Israeli ports can be stopped and searched for weapons that might be used against Israel's neighbours?

Cameron also said: "Some people try to judge Israel's government by a higher code of conduct than they would apply to their own government."

And he said that when the Israeli authorities had revoked the Jerusalem residency permit of the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, a state of affairs that has dragged on for six months "without tangible results" despite efforts by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the British foreign secretary (Hague) and the British ambassador. The bishop will now have to resort to legal remedies to go about his duties.

What sort of buffoon is Cameron?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

What next?

Paul J. Balles — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:44:43 +0000

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Revolutions raise more questions than answers. The prime one: What happens after the thrill of protest victory wears off?

Zen master Alan Watts once said there are only four basic questions that apply to anything:

What are we going to do?

Who's going to do it?

How are we going to do it?

Who's going to clean up the mess afterwards?

Protests in the streets are only part of the answer to Watt's first question. Do the protestors know or agree upon what they want?

The desire for some kind of change is obvious. But what change will satisfy most or all?

Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator says, "They have been impelled into action by mass poverty and unemployment, allied to a sense of disgust at vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption."

Will removal of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali or Hosni Mubarak or Ali Abdullah Saleh respond to the problems of "mass poverty and unemployment?"

What's to be done about the "vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption referred to by Oborne?"

What about those not actually involved in the demonstrations? How many Tunisians, Egyptians or Yemenis were actually among the protestors? Hundreds of thousands?

What about the rest of the populations (more than 80 million in Egypt)? Do the demonstrators represent them? Should the protestors make decisions about what to do simply because they took part in the shouting and waving of arms and flags?

Oborne questioned the popular belief that the revolutionary activity was stimulated by social networking.

He wrote, "Far from being inspired by Twitter, a great many of Arab people who have driven the sensational events of recent weeks are illiterate."

The last I heard, Egyptian males have a literacy rate of 83%, with females at 59.4%. In Tunisia, it's 78% for all.

While these are a long way from the 90% to 100% rates of 98 countries, they don't preclude the use of social media like Twitter to organize the youth.

However, not even 83% literacy can solve the post demonstration problems. There are those who want constitutional changes. Others look for leaders who will not follow in the footsteps of their predecessors.

Then there are dreamers who hope that employment and elimination of poverty will somehow come out of a genii's bottle.

Protestors look back with obsessions about the ills that brought them into the streets. As long as the past commands attention, the question of "who" cannot be focused on tomorrow.

Answers to "what are we going to do?" should extend beyond cleaning the political house.

Some semblance of unity must preclude the choice of "who's going to do it?" Things don't simply run by themselves. Post revolutions require leaders to take over the task of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

If supreme councils or parliaments could lead, the loudly touted democracies wouldn't need presidents or prime ministers or cabinets to run things.

How much do the demonstrators take into account the need for leaders with the expertise or experience necessary to make the decisions that keep a country functioning?

The mess to be cleaned up afterward includes recovering an economy wrecked by the revolution.

The Egyptian economy, for example, depends heavily on a tourist trade that is now in shambles.

Dear protestors, in getting rid of one problem, you have created another that may be harder on your pocket book than the one you eliminated.

The problems you create will be greater than the ones you solve. Look at the history of any revolution. Then go home and start answering Watt's questions.

Roots of the Arab Revolts and Premature Celebrations

James Petras — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:28:06 +0000

By James Petras* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Introduction

Most accounts of the Arab revolts from Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq and elsewhere have focused on the most immediate causes: political dictatorships, unemployment, repression and the wounding and killing of protestors. They have given most attention to the "middle class", young, educated activists, their communication via the internet, (Los Angeles Times, Feb. 16, 2011) and, in the case of Israel and its Zionists conspiracy theorists, "the hidden hand" of Islamic extremists (Daily Alert Feb. 25, 2011).

What is lacking is any attempt to provide a framework for the revolt which takes account of the large scale, long and medium term socio-economic structures as well as the immediate 'detonators' of political action. The scope and depth of the popular uprisings, as well as the diverse political and social forces which have entered into the conflicts, preclude any explanations which look at one dimension of the struggles.

The best approach involves a 'funnel framework' in which, at the wide end (the long-term, large-scale structures), stands the nature of the economic, class and political system; the middle-term is defined by the dynamic cumulative effects of these structures on changes in political, social and economic relations; the short-term causes, which precipitate the socio-political-psychological responses, or social consciousness leading to political action.

The Nature of the Arab Economies

With the exception of Jordan, most of the Arab economies where the revolts are taking place are based on 'rents' from oil, gas, minerals and tourism, which provide most of the export earnings and state revenues(Financial Times, Feb. 22, 2011, p. 14). These economic sectors are, in effect, export enclavesWorld Bank Annual Report 2009). These export sectors do not have links to a diversified productive domestic economy: oil is exported and finished manufactured goods as well as financial and high tech services are all imported and controlled by foreign multi-nationals and ex-pats linked to the ruling class (Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 12, 2011, p. 11). Tourism reinforces 'rental' income, as the sector, which provides 'foreign exchange' and tax revenues to the class – clan state. The latter relies on state-subsidized foreign capital and local politically connected 'real estate' developers for investment and imported foreign construction laborers. employing a tiny fraction of the labor force and define a highly specialized economy (

Rent-based income may generate great wealth, especially as energy prices soar, but the funds accrue to a class of "rentiers" who have no vocation or inclination for deepening and extending the process of economic development and innovation. The rentiers "specialize" in financial speculation, overseas investments via private equity firms, extravagant consumption of high-end luxury goods and billion-dollar and billion-euro secret private accounts in overseas banks.

The rentier economy provides few jobs in modern productive activity; the high end is controlled by extended family-clan members and foreign financial corporations via ex-pat experts; technical and low-end employment is taken up by contract foreign labor, at income levels and working conditions below what the skilled local labor force is willing to accept.

The enclave rentier economy results in a clan-based ruling class which 'confounds' public and private ownership: what's 'state' is actually absolutist monarchs and their extended families at the top and their client tribal leader, political entourage and technocrats in the middle.

These are "closed ruling classes". Entry is confined to select members of the clan or family dynasties and a small number of "entrepreneurial" individuals who might accumulate wealth servicing the ruling clan-class. The 'inner circle' lives off of rental income, secures payoffs from partnerships in real estate where they provide no skills, but only official permits, land grants, import licenses and tax holidays.

Beyond pillaging the public treasury, the ruling clan-class promotes 'free trade', i.e. importing cheap finished products, thus undermining any indigenous domestic start-ups in the 'productive' manufacturing, agricultural or technical sector.

As a result there is no entrepreneurial national capitalist or 'middle class'. What passes for a middle class are largely public sector employees (teachers, health professionals, functionaries, firemen, police officials, military officers) who depend on their salaries, which, in turn, depend on their subservience to absolutist power. They have no chance of advancing to the higher echelons or of opening economic opportunities for their educated offspring.

The concentration of economic, social and political power in a closed clan-class controlled system leads to an enormous concentration of wealth. Given the social distance between rulers and ruled, the wealth generated by high commodity prices produces a highly distorted image of per-capital "wealth"; adding billionaires and millionaires on top of a mass of low-income and underemployed youth provides a deceptively high average income (Washington Blog, 2/24/11).

Rentier Rule: By Arms and Handouts

To compensate for these great disparities in society and to protect the position of the parasitical rentier ruling class, the latter pursues alliances with, multi-billion dollar arms corporations, and military protection from the dominant (USA) imperial power. The rulers engage in "neo-colonization by invitation", offering land for military bases and airfields, ports for naval operations, collusion in financing proxy mercenaries against anti-imperial adversaries and submission to Zionist hegemony in the region (despite occasional inconsequential criticisms).

In the middle term, rule by force is complemented by paternalistic handouts to the rural poor and tribal clans; food subsidies for the urban poor; and dead-end make-work employment for the educated unemployed (Financial Times, 2/25/11, p. 1). Both costly arms purchases and paternalistic subsidies reflect the lack of any capacity for productive investments. Billions are spent on arms rather than diversifying the economy. Hundreds of millions are spent on one-shot paternalistic handouts, rather than long-term investments generating productive employment.

The 'glue' holding this system together is the combination of modern pillage of public wealth and natural energy resources and the use of traditional clan and neo-colonial recruits and mercenary contractors to control and repress the population. US modern armaments are at the service of anachronistic absolutist monarchies and dictatorships, based on the principles of 18^th century dynastic rule.

The introduction and extension of the most up-to-date communication systems and ultra-modern architecture shopping centers cater to an elite strata of luxury consumers and provides a stark contrast to the vast majority of unemployed educated youth, excluded from the top and pressured from below by low-paid overseas contract workers.

Neo-Liberal Destabilization

The rentier class-clans are pressured by the international financial institutions and local bankers to 'reform' their economies: 'open' the domestic market and public enterprises to foreign investors and reduce deficits resulting from the global crises by introducing neo-liberal reforms (Economic and Political Weekly, 2/12/11, p. 11).

As a result of "economic reforms" food subsidies for the poor have been lowered or eliminated and state employment has been reduced, closing off one of the few opportunities for educated youth. Taxes on consumers and salaried/wage workers are increased while the real estate developers, financial speculators and importers receive tax exonerations. De-regulation has exacerbated massive corruption, not only among the rentier ruling class-clan, but also by their immediate business entourage.

The paternalistic 'bonds' tying the lower and middle class to the ruling class have been eroded by foreign-induced neo-liberal "reforms", which combine 'modern' foreign exploitation with the existing "traditional" forms of domestic private pillage. The class-clan regimes no longer can rely on the clan, tribal, clerical and clientelistic loyalties to isolate urban trade unions, student, small business and low paid public sector movements.

The Street against the Palace

The 'immediate causes' of the Arab revolts are centered in the huge demographic-class contradictions of the clan-class ruled rentier economy. The ruling oligarchy rules over a mass of unemployed and underemployed young workers; the latter involves between 50% to 65% of the population under 25 years of age (Washington Blog, 2/24/11). The dynamic "modern" rentier economy does not incorporatethe street as venders, transport and contract workers and in personal services. The ultra- modern oil, gas, real estate, tourism and shopping-mall sectors are dependent on the political the newly educated young into modern employment; it relegates them into the low-paid unprotected "informal economy" of and military support of backward traditional clerical, tribal and clan leaders, who are subsidized but never 'incorporated' into the sphere of modern production. The modern urban industrial working class with small, independent trade unions is banned. Middle class civic associations are either under state control or confined to petitioning the absolutist state.

The 'underdevelopment' of social organizations, linked to social classes engaged in modern productive activity, means that the pivot of social and political action is the street. Unemployed and underemployed part-time youth engaged in the informal sector are found in the plazas, at kiosks, cafes, street corner society, and markets, moving around and about and outside the centers of absolutist administrative power. The urban mass does not occupy strategic positions in the economic system; but it is available for mass mobilizations capable of paralyzing the streets and plazas through which goods and services are transported out and profits are realized. Equally important, mass movements launched by the unemployed youth provide an opportunity for oppressed professionals, public sector employees, small business people and the self-employed to engage in protests without being subject to reprisals at their place of employment – dispelling the "fear factor" of losing one's job.

The political and social confrontation revolves around the opposite poles: clientelistic oligarchies and de clasé masses (the Arab Street). The former depends directly on the state (military/police apparatus) and the latter on amorphous local, informal, face-to-face improvised organizations. The exception is the minority of university students who move via the internet. Organized industrial trade unions come into the struggle late and largely focus on sectoral economic demands, with some exceptions – especially in public enterprises, controlled by cronies of the oligarchs, where workers demand changes in management.

As a result of the social particularities of the rentier states, the uprisings do not take the form of class struggles between wage labor and industrial capitalists. They emerge as mass political revolts against the oligarchical state. Street-based social movements demonstrate their capacity to delegitimize state authority, paralyze the economy, and can lead up to the ousting of the ruling autocrats. But it is the nature of mass street movements to fill the squares with relative ease, but also to be dispersed when the symbols of oppression are ousted. Street-based movements lack the organization and leadership to project, let alone impose a new political or social order. Their power is found in their ability to pressureseize power and protect the entire rentier state and economic structure while sustaining their ties with their imperial mentors. existing elites and institutions, not to replace the state and economy.

Hence the surprising ease with which the US, Israeli and EU backed Egyptian military were able to seize power and protect the entire rentier state and economic structure while sustaining their ties with their imperial mentors.

Converging Conditions and the "Demonstration Effect"

The spread of the Arab revolts across North Africa, the Middle East and Gulf States is, in the first instance, a product of similar historical and social conditions: rentier states ruled by family-clan oligarchs dependent on "rents" from capital intensive oil and energy exports, which confine the vast majority of youth to marginal informal 'street-based' economic activities.

The "power of example" or the "demonstration effect" can only be understood by recognizing the same socio-political conditions in each country. Street power – mass urban movements – presumes the streetlocus of the principal actors and the takeover of the plazas as the place to exert political power and project social demands. No doubt the partial successes in Egypt and Tunisia did detonate the movements elsewhere. But they did so only in countries with the same historical legacy, the same social polarities between rentier – clan rulers and marginal street labor and especially where the rulers were deeply integrated and subordinated to imperial economic and military networks. as the economic

Conclusion

Rentier rulers govern via their ties to the US and EU military and financial institutions. They modernize their affluent enclaves and marginalize recently educated youth, who are confined to low paid jobs, especially in the insecure informal sector, centered in the streets of the capital cities. Neo-liberal privatizations, reductions in public subsidies (for food, unemployment subsidies, cooking oil, gas, transport, health, and education) shattered the paternalistic ties through which the rulers contained the discontent of the young and poor, as well as clerical elites and tribal chiefs. The confluence of classes and masses, modern and traditional, was a direct result of a process of neo-liberalization from above and exclusion from below. The neo-liberal "reformers" promise that the 'market' would substitute well-paying jobs for the loss of state paternalistic subsidies was false. The neo-liberal polices reinforced the concentration of wealth while weakening state controls over the masses.

The world capitalist economic crises led Europe and the US to tighten their immigration controls, eliminating one of the escape valves of the regimes – the massive flight of unemployed educated youth seeking jobs abroad. Out-migration was no longer an option; the choices narrowed to struggle or suffer. Studies show that those who emigrate tend to be the most ambitious, better educated (within their class) and greatest risk takers. Now, confined to their home country, with few illusions of overseas opportunities, they are forced to struggle for individual mobility at home through collective social and political action.

Equally important among the political youth, is the fact that the US, as guarantor of the rentier regimes, is seen as a declining imperial power: challenged economically in the world market by China; facing defeat as an occupying colonial ruler in Iraq and Afghanistan; and humiliated as a subservient and mendacious servant of an increasingly discredited Israel via its Zionist agents in the Obama regime and Congress. All of these elements of US imperial decay and discredit, encourage the pro-democracy movements to move forward against the US clients and lessen their fears that the US military would intervene and face a third military front. The mass movements view their oligarchies as "third tier" regimes: rentier states under US hegemony, which, in turn, is under Israeli – Zionist tutelage. With 130 countries in the UN General Assembly and the entire Security Council, minus the US, condemning Israeli colonial expansion; with Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and the forthcoming new regimes in Yemen and Bahrain promising democratic foreign policies, the mass movements realize that all of Israel's modern arms and 680,000 soldiers are of no avail in the face of its total diplomatic isolation, its loss of regional rentier clients, and the utter discredit of its bombastic militarist rulers and their Zionist agents in the US diplomatic corps (Financial Times 2/24/11, p. 7).

The very socio-economic structures and political conditions which detonated the pro-democracy mass movements, the unemployed and underemployed youth organized from "the street", now present the greatest challenge: can the amorphous and diverse mass becomes an organized social and political force which can take state power, democratize the regime and, at the same time, create a new productive economy to provide stable well- paying employment, so far lacking in the rentier economy? The political outcome to date is indeterminate: democrats and socialists compete with clerical, monarchist, and neoliberal forces bankrolled by the U.S.

It is premature to celebrate a popular democratic revolution....

* James Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

Major Media Promote War on Libya

Stephen Lendman — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:05:40 +0000

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media reports supporting militarism, not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo Chavez's government is one. On February 28, Venezuela's Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, warned against belligerence saying:

"We would be against any military intervention against the Arabic people of Libya, and I'm sure that all peoples of the world would support a struggle against any interventionism that some powerful countries would commit against it....Arabic people who are in a process of rebellion, seeking a better destiny, (can) find their way to peace. (Venezuelans understand) very difficult times, (but have) gone about finding our ways to independence, democracy, and freedom, which in our case" is Bolarivarianism.

"Just as we were against the invasion of Iraq and the massacre of the Palestinian people of Gaza, we would be against any military (attack or) invasion of Libya."

Chavez added: We "want peace for this country and for the peoples of the world. Those who immediately condemn Libya don't talk about (Israel's) bombing (of Gaza, America assault on) Fallujah, and the thousands and thousands of deaths including children, women, and whole families. They are quiet about the bombing and massacres in Iraq, in Afghanistan, so they don't have the right to condemn anyone," especially from unverified reports.

Amidst hawkish official rhetoric and supportive media reports, Chavez and Maduro are shut out, unheard voices in the wilderness outside Venezuela and parts of Latin America.

Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No

For imperial America, giving peace a chance isn't an option when war is planned to destroy another nation, replace its leader with a more amenable one, and plunder its resources. In Libya, its to exploit its vast energy reserves and people, commodities for greater profit.

A previous article said Gaddafi without question is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," as well as spawning a hierarchy of corrupt officials, disdainful of popular interests.

The same holds for dozens of other countries, most of which Washington supports, some as close allies. Ones allied with America escape media scrutiny, their crimes airbrushed from daily reports. Enemies, however, are pilloried, including by unverified misreporting, willfully distorting the truth, violating good journalism principles.

Until it closed at year end 2005, Chicago's famed City News Bureau gave young reporters rigorous training, explained in its notable principle: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources." In other words, get it right or not at all, what's absent in today's deplorable reporting, from Fox to The New York Times, BBC and others, offering managed, not real news and information.

Fox News especially, as America's official voice of right wing politics. On US television, it's in full battle mode, beating the drums of war, its staff under strict management guidelines, manipulating facts to be hardline.

As a result, news anchor Jon Scott said, "If I were President Obama, I would unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, no matter that doing so is an act of war. Bill O'Reilly called Obama's position "beyond wimpy." Sean Hannity wonders when America will attack Libya, calling Obama "extraordinarily weak." Glenn Beck said Wisconsin protests prove the Caliphate's presence in America. Other hosts are just as extreme. No wonder Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) calls Fox "the most biased name in news." It reports. It decides. Truth is nowhere in sight.

The New York Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," matched Fox, saying:

His "crimes continue to mount." Citing unverified reports, it said "Libyan Air Force warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country. Libyan special forces mounted ground assaults on two breakaway cities near the capital. (Finally), the United States (EU and UN want) Qaddafi and his cronies to go (and) called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes."

This is the same paper that exonerated Washington and Britain for fabricating Iraq WMD intelligence to justify war, citing London's whitewash Hutton inquiry in its January 29, 2004 editorial headlined, "Testing Two Leaders; Tony Blair, Vindicated."

Despite clear indictable evidence, The Times endorsed the findings for being "fully consistent with the information available to British intelligence (and Washington) at that time and that no claims then known to be false or unreliable were concluded." In fact, they were independently exposed as false and misleading, though nonetheless used to wage war.

Moreover, discredited reporter Judith Miller wrote daily propaganda, functioning as a Pentagon press agent, not a legitimate journalist. Commenting on her earlier, Alex Cockburn said:

"With Miller, we (sunk) to the level of straight press handout. Lay all Judith Miller....stories end to end, from late 2001 to June 2003, and you (got) a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda, both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists."

Worst of all was The Times itself for giving her daily front page space, then never adequately apologizing when their complicity was exposed. Powerful media outlets never have to say they're sorry. They stay in full battle mode against new targets.

Now Times editors have the audacity to advocate Libyan intervention for reasons other than humanitarian, including asset freezes, a no-fly zone, harsh sanctions, travel bans, encouraged insurrection, criminal prosecution, stopping just short of endorsing war, but expect that to change if Washington attacks.

The Washington Post is just as belligerent, its February 21 editorial headlined, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for atrocities," saying:

His "beleaguered dictatorship (is) waging war against its own people and committing atrocities that demand not just condemnation but action by the outside world," accusing Gaddafi of committing genocide based on mostly unverified reports, according to reliable independent in-country sources. Nonetheless, the Post endorses "regime change" and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution, ignoring far greater Bush and Obama administration crimes, ongoing daily but not reported.

On March 2, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "The Reluctant American," saying:

"The moral and strategic case for US leadership in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering its people who will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an ideal home for terrorist groups. The US should support a provisional government that can take over when the regime collapses....What is Obama waiting for?"

Ask beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans if they appreciate US intervention, occupation, mass destruction, genocide, depravation, disease, and for many living early deaths! Ask them if they recommend this for Libyans! Ask them if they prefer America to Saddam and Taliban rulers!

Ask Kosovars and Serbs! Ask Koreans and Southeast Asians with long memories! Ask Central and Latin Americans! Ask Somalis and other African nationals! Ask Palestinians! Ask Libyans if they know what awaits them if America intervenes! If not, explain and let them decide! It won't for Washington's military option, growing more imminent daily.

On February 28, New York writers Mark Landler and Thom Shanker headlined, "US Readies Military Options on Libya," saying:

"The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in (its) assets on Monday," ahead of plundering them, Libyan oil, and other resources, not mentioned in The Times report.

Conflict looks increasingly likely. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton want Gaddafi out "without further violence or delay." "No option is off the table," said Clinton, stopping just short of declaring war. Secretaries of State can't do it. Neither can presidents, but it hasn't stopped them since December 8, 1941, the last time America legally went to war.

In meetings with NATO allies, said The Times, "European officials have resisted military action," but didn't rule it out. "Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean," asked French Prime Minister Francosi Fillon? "It is a question that at least merits some reflection before being launched," weasel words perhaps ahead of proceeding.

Pentagon officials want an international action mandate, either from NATO or the UN, usually easily pressured to get. War winds are blowing. Expect anything ahead, especially if misreporting incites it the way it precedes all US wars.

Notable was Al Jazeera's March 1 report headlining: "Battles rage in Libya," saying:

Gaddifi's forces stepped up attacks, including "fighter jets bomb(ing) an ammunition depot in the eastern city of Ajdabiya." Up to 2,000 deaths were reported in Tripoli. Many thousands fled. Gaddafi remains defiant.

Most of what Al Jajeera and Western media report isn't verified. Yet it's inflammatory enough to stoke war for "humanitarian intervention," the usual bogus reason America and Western nations use, the same one earlier for Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial interventions. Affected nations are never the same.

Breaching Libyan Sovereignty

Britain and Germany already launched air operations to evacuate their citizens. France is sending two or more planeloads of aid to opposition forces in Benghazi. Italy suspended its Libyan nonaggression treaty, saying the state no longer exists, an outrageous assertion.

In a BBC interview, Gaddafi called Western actions "betrayal," adding: "They have no morals." Indeed not and never did, despite Big Oil profiting handsomely in Libya, and Gaddafi offering his security forces for America's "war on terror."

Nonetheless, he's targeted for removal, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley saying US officials have "been reaching out...to a range of figures within the opposition." Hillary Clinton added: "We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the US." Nothing is ruled out, including weapons, intervention and war.

Nothing is said about client regimes engaged in similar or worse practices, including killing, arresting, torturing, and otherwise abusing thousands of its citizens. Decades of Israeli atrocities are ignored. So are those of Iraq and Afghanistan puppet governments, proxy force belligerence in Somalia and elsewhere, and numerous global client states doing the same things.

Only outlier leaders are vilified, in Gaddafi's case an embraced one now betrayed for broader aims. Washington seeks greater regional dominance. Doing it requires compliant leaders, willing to let America and European nations colonize their countries, plunder their resources, exploit their people, and provide locations for new Pentagon bases. For six and half million Libyans, that awaits them as Washington moves in for the kill.

Final Comments

According to Russia Today (RT) television:

Russia's military has been monitoring Libya by satellite since unrest began for accurate information about what, in fact, is ongoing. Its Joint Staff confirms no evidence of air strikes or destruction on the ground. Reports from US media, BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are entirely bogus.

Writer Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian special maintains reliable Libyan contacts, essential for accurate accounts on the ground.

On March 2, he said the following:

-- "Qaddafi still has control over much of the country."

-- "There are claims that cities have fallen, but in reality old videos or (ones) of other cities are being shown (in airing) these reports....to the public."

-- "The words 'claim' and 'claimed' are now systematically being used....to (corroborate) distorted or incorrect information."

-- World attention is on Libya, excluding other vital events "in the Arab world - such as the continued protests and demands of the Egyptian people (and others regionally) for authentic democracy," jobs, better wages, and other social issues.

-- "Reports have been made (about) fighting in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, (saying) parts of it have fallen, when it has been peaceful for days."

-- "On February 26, 2011, claims were (falsely) made that all the main cities were not in Qaddafi's control." In fact, he controls the following ones: "Sabha (in central Libya), Sirt/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli) and Tripoli itself."

-- Media reports ignore Qaddafi "trying to negotiate with the places not under his control."

-- Most important: Outrageous misreporting persists, "blowing the violence out of proportion to justify foreign intervention."

It's coming - Washington-led naked aggression justified as "humanitarian intervention." In fact, it's imperial lawlessness against another target before advancing to the next one.

While one-sidely focusing on Libya, Western media ignore the March 1 Amnesty International (AI) report titled, "Tunisia in Revolt: State Violence during Anti Government Protests," saying:

During December and January protests, Tunisian security forces engaged in "unlawful killings and acts of brutality....act(ing) with reckless disregard for human life in all too many cases," according to Malcolm Smart, AI's Middle East and North African program director.

"People detained by the security forces were also systematically beaten or subjected to other ill-treatment, according to (corroborated) evidence" obtained. Innocent bystanders were killed in cold blood, some shot from behind. Death, injury and arrest numbers are far higher than acknowledged. Major media sources, including Al Jazeera, largely suppress this.

Brutal Egyptian military treatment is also ignored, including mass arrests, disappearances and torture. An Egyptian human rights group said thousands are in military custody. Many have been beaten or tortured. US media ignored Egypt after Mubarak was ousted, despite protests, strikes and violence continuing after a brief quiet period.

On February 15, AI condemned Bahrain's "heavy-handed....excessive police force" violence, including killings against peaceful protesters. An eyewitness said police, without provocation, opened fire on demonstrators, wanting a new constitution and democratically elected government.

In its January 11 report titled, "Crackdown in Bahrain: human rights at the crossroads," AI cited serious human rights abuses, including suppressing free expression, closing critical web sites, and banning opposition publications, besides arrests, killings, beatings and other abuses.

US major media reports suppress client regime crimes. Only leaders Washington opposes draw attention, mostly by distorted misreporting. Major focus now is on Gaddafi to provide legitimacy for imperial intervention. As issue is replacing one despot with another willing to open Libya to Western colonization, ahead of regional expansion for greater plunder, exploitation and profits.

Arabs and North Africans want democratic change. Washington and Western allies plan raw power to suppress it. Battle lines are drawn. Sustained popular resistance is essential for real reform, what people want, not dark forces allied against them repressively, especially America treating all developing countries as exploitable low-hanging fruit. What better time than now to stop it.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

Wolf in Shepherd’s Clothing: Gadhafi Blames al-Qaeda and Arms Supporters

SR Editor — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:38:36 +0000

By Maria Rainier* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Just one day after blaming Bin Ladin and al-Qaeda for arming Libyan youngsters and spurring them with drugs and alcohol to "destruction and sabotage," Col Moammar Gadhafi appeared at Green Square in Tripoli to announce that he would "open the arms depot so all Libyans and tribes become armed."

NPR says that Gadhafi's civilian supporters have already taken full advantage of their brawn. Many opened fire with automatic and anti-aircraft weapons from rooftops and on street level on Friday during demonstrations. Multiple deaths have been reported by witnesses who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Since Friday, NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro says that "security forces, irregular troops allied to Gadhafi [have been] firing on demonstrators in many neighborhoods." Militias have allegedly been using ambulances for transportation. The wounded remain on the streets.

Seif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son, claims that the firefight was only "fireworks." Meanwhile, the capital is allegedly "calm ... everything is peaceful" with no casualties.

NPR further reports that later on Friday, forces backing Gadhafi went east to attack Misrata Air Base on Libya's coastline. The base had been taken by rebels, and much east of Sirte (a Gadhafi stronghold) is currently under opposition control. As of Saturday, February 26, they still held much of the base and had had captured two fighters, including a senior officer.

Gadhafi's Cheap Shot

Earlier, on February 24, Gadhafi took what BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says is a cheap shot by blaming al-Qaeda for the recent uprisings in the Middle East.

"You should not listen to Bin Ladin and his followers," Gadhafi advised, addressing the residents of al-Zawiya, where heavy gunfire and a case of arson were recently reported. "It is obvious now that this issue is run by Al-Quaeda. Those armed youngsters, our children, are incited by people who are wanted by America and the Western world."

If this was an ego stroke for listening American officials, Obama didn't seem to be swayed when he signed the executive order to freeze Gadhafi's and his children's assets in the US. The sanctions also apply to the Libyan government. Obama added his signature hours after the last plane full of US citizens took off for Turkey on February 24^thafter temporarily abandoning their embassy in Tripoli.

Economic Sanctions Not Likely to Sway Gadhafi

How Gadhafi will respond to the economic sanction is predictable, but not in the US's or UN's favor. NPR's Peter Kenyon reports from Cairo, "The Gadhafi family is quite used to being isolated and shunned and their defiant tone indicates that economic sanctions will have little effect."

Meanwhile, Gadhafi insists Libya's rebellion is different from Egypt's and Tunisia's, since the people of Libya had committees and therefore their paths in their own hands. It seems Gadhafi thought it only fair that he put guns in the hands of his supporters.

"This is your country and it is up to you how to deal with it," he said. "Those inciting are very few in numbers and we have to capture them. . . . [They are] trigger happy and they shoot especially when they are stoned with drugs."

Cheap shot, indeed. The jihadist movement within the Middle East has been pushed aside amidst recent popular uprisings. Religion, according to BBC, has hardly played a role. This is merely Gadhafi putting on a hero's cape while standing in a pool of blood.

The US and UN are currently pondering an international response.

* Maria Rainier is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at First in Education where she writes about education, online degrees, and what it takes to succeed as a student getting an online associates degree remotely from home. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.

Freedom From Arab Tyrants Will Free Palestine

Haitham Sabbah — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:29:30 +0000

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"This must be a world of democracy and respect for human rights, a world freed from the horrors of poverty, hunger, deprivation and ignorance, relieved of the threat and the scourge of civil wars and external aggression and unburdened of the great tragedy of millions forced to become refugees"
--Nelson Mandela, Acceptance Speech of Nobel Peace Prize, 1993

Four Arab Dictators from Left to Right: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Tunis: GONE); Ali Abdullah Saleh (Yemen: On the Way); Muammar Al Gaddafi (Libya: On the Way); Hosni Mubarak (Egypt: GONE)

Far too long we Arabs have been silent while our tyrants, our faith, our trillions, our oil, our land, our people, and our Palestine have long been subjected to the political, economic, and military brutal occupation, genocide, theft, racism, Islamophobia, and domination by the Israeli-American axis; but we Arabs will be silent no more.

What a difference a few decades make in the Arab world that had patriotic heroes fighting European colonialism in the past only to replace such occupiers with homegrown dictators. What a difference between the martyred, beloved, highly intelligent, well educated, and revered leader of Libya's revolt against Italy, Omar Al Mukhtar, and today's mad delusional psychotic leader of Libya, Muammar Al Gaddafi.

"We the Mujahids (fighters) swore to Allah that we would fight until we die one after the other. We do not surrender nor do we quit. I have never surrendered and I will continue to fight"
–Omar AlMukhtar; A hero fighting foreign occupiers

"I am a fighter, a revolutionary from tents... I will die as a martyr at the end to my last drop of blood....You men and women who love Gaddafi... Get out of your homes and fill the streets....Leave your homes and attack them in their lairs. The police cordons will be lifted, go out and fight them ...for the defense of the revolution and the defense of Gaddafi."
– Muammar Al Gaddafi, on State TV, February 22, 2011; A madman fighting and killing his own people.

The greatest gain from today's Arab Revolutions sweeping across the Middle East is the "Arab Awakening"; from a demoralized dormancy of mind and spirit and a stagnation from hope. The Arab youth are strong, determined, and dedicated to dust off their silence and subservience to tyrants who never knew nor cared that they had a population to serve. They served themselves; they served America's interests and thereby served Israel.

My beloved Arab brothers and sisters, be steadfast, be patient, and never surrender again to fear; with God's promise to help those oppressed you will be victorious. Victory only comes from God. Many of you may die or be injured, but no revolution is without sacrifice, without suffering, hunger, and thirst, Many more have died over the decade's rule of European colonialists, American invasions and hegemony, Israeli genocides, and most egregious of all, at the hands of our tyrannical dictators who like all oppressors see the lives of their people as cheap and expendable. Millions of Arabs and Muslims have been killed by the West, Israel, and their tyrants. They are the forgotten "Unpeople", but not in the hearts and minds of their families, their brethren, and in the larger Arab and Muslim world. They all will be held accountable on this earth and in the hereafter. With divine justice they are the ultimate losers not the martyred innocent who died as victims of western arrogant greed.

Europe and the U.S.'s urgent fear concerning Libya's revolution has nothing to do with civilian casualties and everything to do with the rise in gas prices. The western economies are in a recession and a rise in gas prices could sink them deeper into recession thereby jeopardizing the reelection chances of Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and others. Hence the contemplation of a military intervention although they are highly sensitive and aware that such an operation is not viewed as another Iraqi invasion and occupation. The Arab world must, must reject any western intervention and continue its revolts against their American doormats, i.e. their tyrants, fighting on their own to liberate their countries. If you let a western nation into your life be prepared to live in perpetual occupation and domination.

The U.S. will never leave Iraq given that it has spent trillions of dollars to "liberate" it from Saddam and its oil The same applies in Afghanistan. God willing all Arab nations will achieve their freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. Once national, patriotic, and democratically elected governments, legislatures and an independent Judicial system are established, a total reassessment and revision of political, economic, military, social and infrastructure development is done. Budget priorities are set with an eye to return much of the trillions of dollars currently residing in western government bonds, banks, and financial institutions. Domestic and Foreign policies are developed in the national interest not to serve foreign interests. They must support the development of the private sector rather than continue the wasteful and corrupt public sector, currently the major employer in the region. Education must be the number one priority, especially for girls, for it is the sole provider of financial and social stability and future progress. The health sector is non-existent and measures must be developed to ensure quality primary, preventive, and tertiary care is provided.

The Arab world is facing a massive crisis of water shortage which must be addressed immediately. The region must be viewed as starting from scratch and thus short and long term plans must be developed utilizing the expertise of national and international institutions especially from nations that have turned their economies around or developed rapidly since their near total destruction during World War II. People must feel free and secure in their lives thus basic freedoms must be constitutionally guaranteed and all previous security, police, and intelligence services used by the tyrants to oppress their populace must be eliminated immediately. We can take the best the west has to offer in education, industry, technology, and administration but never comprise our faith, culture, or values.

Omar AlMukhtar

Confident and strong Arab governments with wide support of the people can challenge any superpower or foreign government. They need our oil, we don't need them. Oil at a profitable price is needed around the world and can be sold to nations who support and partner with us in peace and mutual benefit. Arabs have the strongest leverage on western economies who politically, economically, and desperately need our oil to sustain their already fragile economies.

Our tyrants for too long have supplied Europe the U.S. and Israel with cheap gas and oil. For too long they've kept America's economy flourishing through the purchase of hundreds of billions of military arms that are simply stored in desert hangers due to a most illiterate, corrupt, untrained, well compensated and fat military leaders who couldn't shoot straight if a target is at arms length. Thus the Arabs have four vital resources to use as political and economic leverage on the West, especially the United States.

Oil
Military Weapon Sales
Trillions of Dollars invested in U.S. Treasury Bonds, Banks, Financial Institutions, Corporations, Real Estate, Media, Casinos, Hotels, and Hollywood.
Vast Importation of diverse American and European products.

Western nations are money driven and money is their driving "national interest". They would sell and drop their mothers to make money or prevent the loss of profit. With a legal, smart, rational, and selective strategies of a mixture of political, economic, and military pressure with the subtle hint that Arab resources are easily marketed elsewhere if political gains that serve the Arab national interest are not met, there is no doubt that America will respond positively.

No politician wants to be responsible for an economic crisis; not while America is collapsing under the overwhelming weight of foreign debt, enormous trade and budget deficits at all government levels, high unemployment, and an ever growing gap between the rich and the poor. China is a prime example of how to use economic policies to extract American concessions. If the Arab world, both governments and populations, are united and fully dedicated to such strategies in an unwavering manner with the backbone and courage to say 'NO' to America's demands, America will capitulate.

We must keep in mind that America's demographics will undergo a historic change within forty years where today's minorities will become the majority and thus potentially can become the majority in the government. Building strong bridges with these minority communities now will bring important dividends in the future.

Now, let's take a leap of faith after assuming such a scenario is achieved. A free Arab world with enough strength and pressure on the United States can only lead to the greatest freedom of all in modern world history-the FREEDOM OF PALESTINE-from the grip of Israel and its domination of U.S. politics. America for decades has had its cake and eaten it too. It managed to blindly support the rogue terroristic State of Israel as it commits constant genocides, ethnic cleansing, and illegal occupation of Palestine, a land to which it has no claim, given that the Jews of today are not the Hebrews of the Bible promised a land in Palestine; while simultaneously owning the silent submissive Arab Tyrants who have greedily and cowardly surrendered to America's will. ENOUGH! There needs to be a heavy cost to America for it to change its policies in the Middle East. Given that it owns the Arab tyrants it can easily ignore the legitimate and just cause of the Palestinians and simply concentrate on meeting the needs and demands of Israel and its powerful Israeli lobbies, especially the feared AIPAC, America's shadow government, that is destroying it from within.

A free Arab world that has political, economic, and military unity can easily break the shackles and bond between the U.S. and Israel. Here's what the U.S. will face as a choice.

EITHER: Choose Israel and continue your loss of independence to a foreign nation that you've showered with trillions of dollars, the latest weapons and technology, allowed its constant spying on government national secrets as well as industrial espionage, cast countless Vetoes to protect its militaristic Zionist expansionism and send your youth and treasure to fight its enemies, be internationally and constantly embarrassed by having to support it even when it commits "war crimes", as well as have an annual trade deficit where you are forced to buy its products while it receives any American product free. Israel has nothing to offer the U.S. except constant wars.

OR: Partner with the Arab and Muslim world in a mutually beneficial relationship that begins with an end to America's blind support of Israel and together with the rest of the world demand once and for all Israel end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem and thus establish a FREE INDEPENDENT PALESTINE. If it refuses then it must be isolated with the U.N. Security Council, imposing trade and travel sanctions, cut off of all financial, military and intelligence aid it receives from any nation, and freeze all its financial assets around the world. Much like America does quite easily against Arab and Muslim nations, from Iraq, to Iran, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan.

Here's what America will receive in return for this partnership compared to Israel:

Oil-Military Sales-Vast Import of products by 57 Muslim nations with sales to 1.6 Billion Muslims (compared to Israel's 6 million Jews) -Investments in America-Employment for over one million Americans in the oil and petrochemical industry-and peace in the Middle East because in a democratic Arab and Muslim world all extremist and terrorist groups will end either peacefully or by war. America, your passionate attachment to Israel is the greatest threat to your national interest and security. America, it's your choice.

The Arab Muslim world provides you with enormous benefits while Israel serves as a constant liability to your national interest. To my Arab Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters I pray that in victory you do not take vengeance into your own hands. Be gentle and magnanimous to your enemies but seek Justice in court for the murderers, rapists, thieves, and traitors who killed, harmed, raped, stole, or injured the innocent. That is what our beautiful faith and beloved Prophet taught us.

* Mohamed Khodr is an American Muslim born in the Middle East. He is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Tripoli – A City in the Shadow of Death

SR Editor — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:49:24 +0000

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

Gunfire in the suburbs – and hunger and rumour in the capital as thousands race for last tickets out of a city sinking into anarchy

By Robert Fisk

Up to 15,000 men, women and children besieged Tripoli's international airport last night, shouting and screaming for seats on the few airliners still prepared to fly to Muammar Gaddafi's rump state, paying Libyan police bribe after bribe to reach the ticket desks in a rain-soaked mob of hungry, desperate families. Many were trampled as Libyan security men savagely beat those who pushed their way to the front.

Among them were Gaddafi's fellow Arabs, thousands of them Egyptians, some of whom had been living at the airport for two days without food or sanitation. The place stank of faeces and urine and fear. Yet a 45-minute visit into the city for a new airline ticket to another destination is the only chance to see Gaddafi's capital if you are a "dog" of the international press.

There was little sign of opposition to the Great Leader. Squads of young men with Kalashnikov rifles stood on the side roads next to barricades of upturned chairs and wooden doors. But these were pro-Gaddafi vigilantes – a faint echo of the armed Egyptian "neighbourhood guard" I saw in Cairo a month ago – and had pinned photographs of their leader's infamous Green Book to their checkpoint signs.

There is little food in Tripoli, and over the city there fell a blanket of drab, sullen rain. It guttered onto an empty Green Square and down the Italianate streets of the old capital of Tripolitania. But there were no tanks, no armoured personnel carriers, no soldiers, not a fighter plane in the air; just a few police and elderly men and women walking the pavements – a numbed populace. Sadly for the West and for the people of the free city of Benghazi, Libya's capital appeared as quiet as any dictator would wish.

But this is an illusion. Petrol and food prices have trebled; entire towns outside Tripoli have been torn apart by fighting between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces. In the suburbs of the city, especially in the Noufreen district, militias fought for 24 hours on Sunday with machine guns and pistols, a battle the Gadaffi forces won. In the end, the exodus of expatriates will do far more than street warfare to bring down the regime.

I was told that at least 30,000 Turks, who make up the bulk of the Libyan construction and engineering industry, have now fled the capital, along with tens of thousands of other foreign workers. On my own aircraft out of Tripoli, an evacuation flight to Europe, there were Polish, German, Japanese and Italian businessmen, all of whom told me they had closed down major companies in the past week. Worse still for Gaddafi, the oil, chemical and uranium fields of Libya lie to the south of "liberated" Benghazi. Gaddafi's hungry capital controls only water resources, so a temporary division of Libya, which may have entered Gaddafi's mind, would not be sustainable. Libyans and expatriates I spoke to yesterday said they thought he was clinically insane, but they expressed more anger at his son, Saif al-Islam. "We thought Saif was the new light, the 'liberal'", a Libyan businessman sad to me. "Now we realise he is crazier and more cruel than his father."

The panic that has now taken hold in what is left of Gaddafi's Libya was all too evident at the airport. In the crush of people fighting for tickets, one man, witnessed by an evacuated Tokyo car-dealer, was beaten so viciously on the head that "his face fell apart".

Talking to Libyans in Tripoli and expatriates at the airport, it is clear that neither tanks nor armour were used in the streets of Tripoli. Air attacks targeted Benghazi and other towns, but not the capital. Yet all spoke of a wave of looting and arson by Libyans who believed that with the fall of Benghazi, Gaddafi was finished and the country open to anarchy.

The centre of the city was largely closed up. All foreign offices have been shut including overseas airlines, and every bakery I saw was shuttered. Rumours abound that members of Gaddafi's family are trying to flee abroad. Although William Hague's ramblings about Gaddafi's flight to Venezuela have been disproved, I spoke to a number of Libyans who believed that Burkina Faso might be his only viable retreat. Two nights ago, a Libyan private jet approached Beirut airport with a request to land but was refused permission when the crew declined to identify their eight passengers. And last night, a Libyan Arab Airlines flight reported by Al Jazeera to be carrying Gaddafi's daughter, Aisha, was refused permission to land in Malta.

Gaddafi is blamed by Shia Muslims in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran for the murder of Imam Moussa Sadr, a supposedly charismatic divine who unwisely accepted an invitation to visit Gaddafi in 1978 and, after an apparent argument about money, was never seen again. Nor was a Lebanese journalist accompanying him on the trip.

While dark humour has never been a strong quality in Libyans, there was one moment at Tripoli airport yesterday which proved it does exist. An incoming passenger from a Libyan Arab Airlines flight at the front of an immigration queue bellowed out: "And long life to our great leader Muammar Gaddafi." Then he burst into laughter – and the immigration officers did the same.