Friday, March 7, 2014

Egypt bars Gaza-bound Irish Nobel Peace Laureate Maguire

CAIRO (AFP) -- Egypt detained and deported Northern Irish Nobel Laureate and peace activist Mairead Maguire on Wednesday and held up others who had been planning to go to neighboring Gaza, the activists and officials said.

Maguire had intended to join a delegation of women activists going to the blockaded Palestinian enclave on Thursday.

The group could embarrass the military-installed government, which is at odds with Gaza's Hamas rulers, yet does not want to be seen as party to a siege of Palestinians, blockaded by Israel.

On Tuesday, airport police had already detained and deported American anti-war activist Medea Benjamin, also part of the delegation, who told AFP police broke her arm.

Maguire said she arrived at Cairo airport on Tuesday night with fellow activist Ann Patterson.

"We were taken to the detention center and questioned and held for eight hours, and were told we would not be allowed entry into Cairo and would be put on a plane," she told AFP by telephone from Britain after her expulsion.

She said police were polite but gave no reason for barring her, while an airport official told AFP she had been blacklisted.

Maguire, born in 1944, won the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize with Betty Williams for founding a peace group to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland.

She has become a vocal supporter of the Palestinians and was expelled from Israel in 2010, after trying to enter the blockaded Gaza Strip aboard a ship with other activists.

The delegation of activists that will try to enter Gaza through the Egyptian Rafah border crossing was meant to be led by Djamila Bouhired, an icon of the Algerian war of independence from France.

Bouhired had been expected to arrive at 1800 GMT on a flight from Paris, but did not do so.

Meanwhile, about 15 other activists were barred from leaving the airport, their comrades said, and it was not immediately clear if they too would be deported.

Egypt controls the only border crossing with Gaza that bypasses Israel, and is accused of colluding with Israel to blockade the territory ruled by Hamas.

Complying 'with blockade'

The border crossing is opened irregularly.

"I think it's sad, what they've done," Maguire said of the reception she and the other activists received in Egypt.

"It is an example and confirmation of the Egyptian government's compliance with the blockade of Gaza."

In 2006, Israel imposed a blockade on the enclave and tightened the siege in 2007 when Hamas seized control of Gaza after routing forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas.

Egypt refuses to recognize Hamas' authority in Gaza and only infrequently allows some aid through the Rafah crossing.

Cairo says the crossing is meant for people, not goods, and a 2005 agreement between Israel and the Palestinians stipulates that Abbas's forces should be present at the passage.

Pro-Palestinian activists from abroad protested in Cairo in 2010 when they were prevented from entering Gaza.

The government of then president Hosni Mubarak eventually allowed some of the activists to cross.

Medea Benjamin on Her Egyptian Detention

This week on Truthdig Radio in association with KPFK: The CodePink co-founder tells us why Egypt thinks she’s a threat to national security. Also: Making sense of Ukraine, Uganda bans homosexuality, and the Advocate’s Matthew Breen on AIDS breakthroughs.

Listen to the show:

 


AP Photo/Chris Greenberg

CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin, left, and fellow anti-war activists, including actor Sean Penn, march past the U.S. Supreme Court in this 2007 photo.



Fly me, I'm the Iraqi minister's son!

Standard class, business class ... and nepotism class
By Brian Whitaker
"Do you know who I am?" That's a question that officials everywhere in the Arab countries dread hearing. If they don't know the answer they had better find out pronto – otherwise they will be in trouble.
Privilege, nepotism, corruption ... whatever you call it, it's bad news. It's also one of the main causes of public discontent in the region – the idea that rules and procedures exist to keep the plebs under control and don't really apply to those with plenty of money or connections in high places.
Pulling rank happens on a daily basis but yesterday brought an especially notable example.
A Middle East Airlines flight from Beirut to Baghdad was ready to take off but two of its passengers were missing. Staff checked the business class lounge and final calls went out over the loudspeakers but there was no sign of Mahdi al-Amiri and his friend, so the flight took off without them – six minutes late.
Shortly afterwards, Amiri turned up. Furious to find he had missed his flight, he then made a phone call to someone in Baghdad, according to MEA.
Mahdi al-Amiri is the son of Hadi al-Amiri, who happens to be Iraq's transport minister, and a few minutes after his phone call Baghdad airport contacted MEA to say the flight would not be allowed to land in Iraq. It therefore returned to Beirut.
However, if Amiri had been hoping he would then be allowed to board the plane and fly to Iraq, he was mistaken. MEA cancelled the flight, forcing Amiri and all the other passengers to wait 24 hours for the next one.
  
Transport minister Amiri
In customary fashion, the Iraqi transport ministry denied that the plane's return to Beirut had anything to do with the minister's son or his phone call. It claims the plane was not allowed to land in Baghdad because of "cleaning operations" there.
A check by Reuters established that 30 other flights landed normally in Baghdad yesterday and the only plane affected by these alleged "cleaning operations" was the one supposed to have Mahdi al-Amiri on board.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Real News Video: AIPAC Is Losing Influence Over U.S. Foreign Policy

Phyllis Bennis: The failure of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group to force congress to vote for intervention into Syria or for additional sanctions on Iran representing a significant decline in its influence


More at The Real News

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

الاتجاه المعاكس.. الجماعات الجهادية والثورات العربية

A Great Cartoon by Khalil Bendib: AIDS Cure From Egypt!

3-3-AIDS-Cure.jpg (600×431)

Crimea

By Signe Wilkinson

At AIPAC, Netanyahu launches “desperate” attack on BDS movement

By Ali Abunimah

BDS movement “will fail,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told cheering AIPAC delegates. (Screenshot)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today launched a frontal assault on the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
“One movement that’s definitely on the wrong side of the moral divide is the movement to boycott Israel, the so-called BDS,” Netanyahu told the cheering delegates, in his keynote speech to the annual gathering of the powerful Israel lobby group AIPAC in Washington, DC.
“That movement will fail,” Netanyahu predicted.
While claiming that people were “flocking to Israel” for its technology from all over the world, Netanyahu warned, “I don’t want you to get complacent – because the fact that they’re going to fail doesn’t mean that the BDS movement shouldn’t be vigorously opposed.”

“Anti-Semites”

Netanyahu proceeded to defame supporters of Palestinian human rights in the crudest terms: “Throughout history, people believed the most outrageously absurd things about the Jews, that we were using the blood of children to bake matzos, that we were spreading the plague throughout Europe.”
Those who support BDS today are just as bad, Netanyahu asserted: “Those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot. They should be exposed and condemned. The boycotters should be boycotted.”
This speech is Netanyahu’s highest profile attack on BDS, although last summer, he put responsibility for fighting against the movement for Palestinian rights into the hands of the “Ministry of Strategic Affairs.”
Israel is also placing dedicated anti-BDS operatives in its foreign embassies.
In recent months, top ministers in Netanyahu’s government have repeatedly declared that BDS is the “greatest threat” Israel faces.

Desperate

Responding to his remarks, Rafeef Ziadah, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, the Palestinian civil society coalition that leads the BDS movement, said in an emailed statement:
“Netanyahu’s desperate attack on the BDS movement comes as European pension funds are blacklisting Israeli companies and banks, as Israeli concert organizers find it increasingly difficult to persuade artists to perform in Israel and as governments begin to take action to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law.”
“At its core, the BDS movement is a movement against Israel’s systematic discrimination and apartheid policies. The BDS movement is opposed, as a matter of principle, to all forms of discrimination, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia. The world is growing increasingly weary of Israel’s attempts to conflate criticism of its violations of international law with anti-semitism.”
Ziadah is right. It’s hard to see how people who are not already on board with Netanyahu will be swayed by his invective.
If Israel’s only answer to people all over the world who are horrified by its oppression of Palestinians and ongoing theft of their land, is to call them “bigots,” then Netanyahu should fully expect the BDS movement to grow.

On Crimea 'invasion': Why the UN veto has to go


While the US has conditionally supported an increase in the permanent membership of the Security Council, it has been largely opposed to the removal of its veto power, writes LeVine [Reuters]

The best response to Russia's Crimea 'invasion'? Get rid of the Security Council veto.


By Mark LeVine
Al-Jazeera

The hypocrisy is as palpable as it is indefensible. So much so that it's hard to imagine how US Secretary of State John Kerry could have said the words with a straight face.
"You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped up pre-text," he explained on Sunday to David Gregory, host of the NBC Sunday talk show Meet the Press. No smile or even smirk can be spotted on his face, which remained as stoic as when he famously explained during his last Senate campaign how authorising the invasion of Iraq "met the national security interests of our country".
Inside Story: Russian defence or dominance?
The larger picture
President Barack Obama owes his presidency in good measure to his predecessor's "unwise" (in Kerry's words) use of his Congressionally mandated authority to deploy "all necessary means" to secure US interests in Iraq.
One wonders if Russia's next president will look back on its Parliament's authorisation of President Vladimir Putin to send Russian troops into the Ukraine with a similar sense of historical schadenfreude.
Much of that depends on how serious President Putin is about expanding Russia's control of Crimea and perhaps even parts of Eastern Ukraine, and whether such actions are part of a larger strategy to annex Russian-speaking parts of the country or  - at least - break them away from central government control and ultimately sovereignty.Militarily, there is little the United States, its NATO allies, or the Ukraine can do to stop Russia from taking control of as much territory as it likes, at least for the time being.
The stakes are even higher if Putin's motives are "taking aim at the United States and Europe", as the New York Times is arguing, as much as they are geared towards securing Russia's local interests. 
This leaves various forms of sanctions - suspending Russia's participation in the G-8, prohibiting various forms of visas for tourism and business, placing sanctions on various imports from and exports to Russia - as the most likely means of attempting to punish Russia.
And depending on the patriotism of middle and upper class Russians, for whom Europe is a primary location both for tourism and banking, such punishment might pressure the government to resolve the crisis in a way that restores something close to the status quo ante in Crimea.
But there's only so much pain such actions can inflict, in good measure because the US and Europe need Russia - its oil and gas, and its cash reserves, as well as its cooperation on issues from Syria to nuclear proliferation - more than it needs a Ukraine with its present borders.
New cold war?
While politicians and the media are already describing the events of the last week as the start of a new Cold War, that binary paradigm neither holds politically in the present multipolar globalised world system, nor does it offer a set of procedures that would effectively compel Russia or any other country to refrain from invading other countries or committing other violations of international law.
Militarily, there is little the United States, its NATO allies, or the Ukraine can do to stop Russia from taking control of as much territory as it likes, at least for the time being.
The one mechanism that could compel Russia or other countries to stop engaging in acts of aggression such as sending forces to seize parts of a sovereign state is the United Nations Security Council, which has the mandate to declare such actions illegal and demand violators remove their troops. The problem, of course, is that as long as Russia retains a veto, derived from Article 27 of the UN Charter, the Security Council is powerless to act to compel it to remove troops.
Of course, Russia is not the only country to use its weight as a permanent Security Council member to prevent votes that might challenge its policies. It and the former Soviet Union wielded their veto power dozens of times during the UN's history, although only the last nine were used by Russia.
In contrast the United States wielded the veto upwards of 70 times, with well over a dozen vetoes coming in the post-Cold War period (almost all US vetoes have concerned the Israeli occupation). And innumerable votes have never seen the light of day precisely because Council members knew they'd result in a veto.
Benefits of a 'P5' veto
Both the US and Russia, as well as China and the United Kingdom, enjoy the benefits of having a "P5" veto: It allows the great powers and their clients (like Israel and Syria) to violate international law, including the most serious of crimes, that of "aggression" against another state, with relative impunity. But while it ensures the greatest freedom of action to the most powerful countries, it doesn't necessarily serve their broader geostrategic interests.
Whether regarding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the Russian incursion today, the lack of veto power would have not merely given the international community a powerful tool to rein in excessive force, but, given the countries themselves, a mechanism for avoiding ultimately disastrous mistakes, as the US invasion of Iraq so well demonstrates, and Russia's Crimean folly could well confirm.
At the same time, bringing in countries such as Germany, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, and/or Indonesia as permanent members (India should be part of this group, but its ongoing occupation of Kashmir would disqualify its becoming a permanent member) would expand the ranks of the permanent membership.
It would also strengthen the hands of international forces and mechanisms that meaningfully rather than merely rhetorically support freedom and democracy across the globe.
While the US has conditionally supported an increase in the permanent membership of the Security Council, it has been largely opposed to the removal of its veto power (or even its weakening by requiring two or three no votes to be take effect); if not for the sake of its own imperial prerogatives than to ensure the continued protection of Israel, on whose behalf the vast majority of UN Security Council vetoes have been wielded.
Making the situation more difficult, according to Articles 108 & 109 of the Charter, amending the UN Charter to expand the Security Council and/or change or do away with the veto would require not just a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly, but constitutional ratification by all those states, and the agreement of all five current permanent members.
US condemns Russian 'aggression' in Crimea
With the civil war and attending humanitarian diaster in Syria, the Central African Republic spiraling into a conflict across the region, the showdown over Crimea threatening to resurrect the Cold War, there is a growing sense that the only way to get rising powers to play a more proactive role in managing regional conflicts is through their greater empowerment within the international system.  
There is also a congruence of interests to support a mechanism that would help save the big powers, and world community as well, from the costs of pursuing their basest geostrategic interests.
At the very least, whoever called for or supported such a change to the Security Council would show themselves to be at the forefront of the movement towards greater democratisation of global governance. Those opposing it would show themselves to be standing outside the global consensus for greater transparency and representation within the major institutions governing the international system.
In the kind of battles for world public opinion that are being waged now around the Ukraine and Crimea, the side that shows a willingness to relinquish some power to help ensure the great good for all sides will be the one that wins support for their policies towards resolving the conflict. 

World powers responsible for failing to stop Syria war crimes: U.N.

A general view of damage after what activists said was an air strike by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the Al-Maysar neighbourhood of Aleppo February 23, 2014. REUTERS/Hosam Katan
A general view of damage after what activists said was an air strike by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the Al-Maysar neighbourhood of Aleppo February 23, 2014.
CREDIT: REUTERS/HOSAM KATAN


(Reuters) - All sides in Syria's civil war are using shelling and siege tactics to punish civilians and big powers bear responsibility for allowing such war crimes to persist, U.N. human rights investigators said on Wednesday.
In their latest report documenting atrocities in Syria, they called again on the U.N. Security Council to refer grave violations of the rules of war to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution.
"The Security Council bears responsibility for allowing the warring parties to violate these rules with impunity," the report by the U.N. commission of inquiry on Syria said.
"Such inaction has provided the space for the proliferation of actors in the Syrian Arab Republic, each pursuing its own agenda and contributing to the radicalization and escalation of violence."
Divided world powers have supported both sides in Syria's three-year-old conflict and a diplomatic deadlock has exacerbated the bloodshed.
The independent investigators, led by Brazilian expert Paulo Pinheiro, said that fighters and their commanders may be held accountable for crimes, but also states which transfer weapons to Syria.
Syrian government forces under President Bashar al-Assad have besieged towns including the Old City of Homs, shelling relentlessly and depriving them of food as part of a "starvation until submission" campaign, the report said.
It said the Syrian air force had dropped barrel bombs on Aleppo with "shocking intensity", killing hundreds of civilians and injuring many more.

المجازر مستمرة دون ان يعبأ احد!
(Cartoon by Ali Farzat)
Insurgents fighting to topple Assad, especially foreign Islamic fighters including the al-Qaeda affiliated ISIS, have stepped up attacks on civilians, taken hostages, executed prisoners and set off car bombs to spread terror, it said.
The 75-page report, covering July 15-January 20, is the seventh by the United Nationssince the inquiry was set up in September 2011, six months after the anti-Assad revolt began.
The investigators have not been allowed into Syria, but their latest findings were based on 563 interviews conducted by Skype or by telephone with victims and witnesses still in the country or in person with refugees in surrounding countries.
FOUR LISTS OF SUSPECTS
All sides have violated the rules of war embodied in the Geneva Conventions, according to the team of two dozen who include former U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte.
It has now drawn up four confidential lists of suspects.
Despite some tactical gains by Syrian government forces backed by more foreign combat forces of Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi militia, the fighting has reached a stalemate, causing significant casualties and material losses, the report said.
"The government relied extensively on the superior firepower of its air force and artillery, while non-state armed groups increasingly resorted to methods of asymmetric warfare, such as suicide bombs and use of improved explosive devices."
As part of a strategy aimed at weakening the insurgents and breaking the will of their popular base, government forces have besieged and bombarded civilian areas, it said.
"Partial sieges aimed at expelling armed groups turned into tight blockades that prevented the delivery of basic supplies, including food and medicine, as part of a 'starvation until submission' campaign."
Rebels throughout Syria have "inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering on civilian populations in areas under their control", including on prisoners, it said.
Referring to the northern area of Raqqa that is under control of an al Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the report said: "The acts committed by non-state armed groups ... in areas under their control against the civilian population constitute torture and inhuman treatment as a war crime and, in the context of (Raqqa), as a crime against humanity."
Rebels have encircled Nubl and Zahra, besieging 45,000 people in the two Shi'ite towns in Aleppo province, it said.
"The siege is imposed by groups affiliated to the Islamic Front, Jaish Al Mujahedeen, Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Syrian Revolutionary Front by checkpoints erected around the area and by cutting off their electrical and water supply lines."
The war, which enters its fourth year next week, has become "deeply fragmented and localized", with multiple front lines involving different parties with shifting priorities, according to the report.
Kurdish forces in northeastern provinces were fighting radical Islamic armed groups in a "distinct sub-conflict".
Thousands of foreign fighters have joined the fighting, fuelling the sectarian dimension of the conflict that threatens to destabilize the wider region, the investigators said.
War crimes had been committed on both sides, including torture, massacres, rapes and recruitment of child soldiers.
"Government forces are conducting a sniper campaign in Bustan Al Qasr (Aleppo). On one day alone in October, doctors treated five men shot in the groin. The same month, six pregnant women were shot in the abdomen," the report said.

On the rebel side, a 26-year-old man was detained on the ground of his sexual orientation in October 2013. "He was beaten and hung by his arms from a ceiling by ISIS in Raqqa. On 31 October, a school headmistress was publicly lashed by ISIS in Raqqa for not wearing a hijab (Islamic head covering)."

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Hard to Believe, but This on Russian RT TV: Russia Today anchor Abby Martin Criticizing Russian invasion

Humanitarian Crisis Intensifies in Fallujah As Iraqi Government Accused of Killing Over 100 Civilians

Democracy Now!

"A new report by Truthout has revealed doctors, residents and non-governmental organization workers in the city of Fallujah are accusing the Iraqi government of war crimes and crimes against humanity in its ongoing attack against the city. According to one account, at least 109 civilians have been killed and 632 wounded since January when Iraqi government forces began shelling Fallujah in its fight against militants. For more on this developing story, we are joined by Dahr Jamail. a staff reporter at Truthout....."

“Help. They Broke My Arm. Egypt Police”: Peace Activist Medea Benjamin Detained en Route to Gaza

Democracy Now!

"U.S. peace activist Medea Benjamin was detained Monday at Cairo’s airport by Egyptian police without explanation. She says she was questioned, held overnight in an airport prison cell and then violently handcuffed by Egyptian officials, who dislocated her shoulder and broke her arm. She was then put on a plane and deported to Turkey, where she is now seeking medical treatment. We speak to her by telephone from the airport medical facility. Benjamin had intended to meet up with international delegates before traveling to Gaza for a women’s conference....."

Real News Video: From a Zionist Youth to Outspoken Critic of a Jewish State - Michael Ratner on RAI

In Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Ratner tells Paul Jay of his journey - from seeing Israel as an extension of his Jewish identity to realizing Israel was an settler, colonial state 




More at The Real News

Monday, March 3, 2014

Ali Farzat's Today's Cartoon

روسيا تدعم الأنظمة الدكتاتورية!
Russia Supports the Dictatorial Regimes

الفنان علي فرزات ينضم لأسرة ‘القدس العربي’

Ali Farzat Has Joined Al-Quds Al-Arabi


لندن ‘القدس العربي’: تبدأ ‘القدس العربي’ اليوم نشر رسومات فنان الكاريكاتير السياسي العالمي علي فرزات. 
ولد فرزات في مدينة حماه وسط سوريا عام 1951 وهو يرأس رابطة فناني الكاريكاتور العرب. حصل الفنان على جوائز عالمية عديدة بينها ‘المهرجان العالمي للتصميم الداخلي’ في المانيا عام 1980 وجائزة زاخاروف للسلام عام 2011، واختارته مجلة ‘تايم’ ضمن أكثر 100 شخصية مؤثرة في العالم عام 2012. 
بعد رسم كاريكاتور شهير ينتقد الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد خطفت أجهزة الأمن الفنان عام 2011 من سيارته وتقصّد الخاطفون كسر يديه لمنعه من الرسم وألقوه في طريق عامّ حيث أنقذه مواطن سوريّ من الموت نزفاً

Who Is Provoking the Unrest in Ukraine? A Debate on Role of Russia, United States in Regional Crisis

Democracy Now!

"Russia is vowing to keep its troops in the Ukrainian region of Crimea in what has become Moscow’s biggest confrontation with the West since the Cold War. Ukraine’s new Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said Russian President Vladimir Putin had effectively declared war on his country. Concern is growing that more of eastern Ukraine could soon fall to the Russians. Earlier today, Russian troops seized a Ukraine Coast Guard base in the Crimean city of Balaklava. On Sunday, the new head of Ukraine’s navy defected to Russia. To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine, we speak to Yale University History Professor Timothy Snyder. His latest article for The New York Review of Books is “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda.” We also speak to retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. He focused on Russian foreign policy for the first decade of his 27-year career with the Agency. He recently wrote an article titled, “Ukraine: One ‘Regime Change’ Too Many?”...."

From Azmi Bishara's Facebook Page



في مقاله النظري "المثقف والثورة"، في ملاحظة هامش رقم 10، وليس في متن النص، كتب عزم بشارة ما يلي: وأنا هنا أحذر طبعًا من احتساب جمهورٍ غفيرٍ من الكتّاب غير المثقّفين، المدافعين عن الأنظمة والأجهزة الأمنية ومثيري الشائعات للنيل من خصومها، على أنواعهم، وكأنهم مثقفون. فهم على كثرتهم المدهشة ظاهرة انثروبولوجية تستحق المناقشة والبحث، ولكنهم لا يدخلون في أي تعريفٍ للمثقّف عندي، بل هم أشبه ب"الإعلامي البلطجي" أو الأزعر أو "الشبيح"، أو غيرها من إبداعات الأنظمة في مواجهتها لخصومها مؤخرًا. إنّهم "الشبيحة الإعلاميون" بلغة الثورة والسياسة السورية القاسية التي لا ترحم. وحبّذا لو بقي لفظ الشبيح على أصله اللبناني في وصف الشخص الاستعراضي المتباهي برجولته الشرق-متوسطيّة، الفهلوي الذي لا يجد حرجًا في إبراز مفاتنه الجسديّة والشطارة الفهلويّة، فقد وُجِد دائما مثل هؤلاء الإعلاميين، والإعلاميّات أيضًا. ولكن ما أقصده هو تحوّل المصطلح إلى وصف الأوباش من أعضاء الميليشيات شبه المنظّمة الذين يمارسون أعمال القتل والاغتصاب والتعذيب، إما لغرض الردع والإرهاب غالبًا، وللساديّة بالتمتع بالعنف أحيانًا. وقد نشأت فئاتٌ واسعةٌ نسبيًّا من الناطقين في الإعلام المكتوب والمرئي والمسموع يتحلّون بهذه الصفات في مجالهم، وذلك بقتل الشخصيّة بدلًا عن قتل الشخص الذي يقوم به حلفاؤهم\اسيادهم في الواقع، وإثارة الشائعات والافتراءات التي تمس بالسمعة بدلًا عن التعذيب والاغتصاب الذي يقوم الجلادون الذين يدافعون عنهم. هؤلاء ليسوا مثقّفين، لا ثوريين، ولا محافظين، بل مجرّد أوباش". نحن نعتذر للدكتور عزمي بشارة أننا حولنا الهامش إلى متن نصي حين نشرناه وحده، ولكنه يستحق ذلك

Emad Hajjaj's Cartoon

اضغط على الكاريكاتير لإرساله إلى صديق!
2000-06-16أضف تعليقكأرسل لصديقعماد حجاج

Long Live Arab "Leaders"!

AIPAC: American watchdog or Israeli attack-dog?


Netanyahu has a good reason to be confident about Israel and AIPAC's capacity to get their way with the Obama administration on a host of issues, argues Bishara [Reuters]

The Lobby still has the capacity to get its way with the Obama administration


By Marwan Bishara

The annual "schmooze Israel" convention that opened in Washington this week has been overshadowed by two issues: the US administration's preoccupation with the Ukraine crisis and its insistence on negotiations with Tehran and on Palestine.
Neither, however, seems to have diminished AIPAC conventioneers' optimism regarding the future of the US Israel relationship. And for a good reason.
If all politics are more or less local, the upcoming mid term Congressional elections should provide AIPAC with a huge  "carrot or stick" leverage over the makeup of Congress, especially the Senate, and the legislative agenda in Washington for the next two years.
Netanyahu to attend AIPAC meeting in Washington
AIPAC is in a good position to influence the hotly contested races throughout the country. As its outgoing president, Michael Kassen told AIPAC's members on Sunday, while party politics "divides America", it "unites" the Jewish lobby.  
After all, AIPAC is focused on one issue, one cause: Israel. President Obama knows that all too well. That's why he decided to dispatch his Secretary of State to the convention, and to meet at the White House with Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu (whom I suspect he detests). 
Behind AIPAC's success
Created in the 1950s and empowered by Israel's 1967 war victory, the American Israel Public Action Committee, better known as AIPAC, has grown evermore influential since the mid 1970s. Known in Washington all too simply - and tellingly - as The Lobby, AIPAC's power has historically stemmed from two major sources: Domestically, from the influential and organised Jewish communities - all 49 leaders of major Jewish organization have seats on AIPAC’s executive committee; and internationally, it stems from Israel's regional utility to the United States in the context of the oil-rich Middle East and Cold War rivalry.  
Eventually, these two factors have paved the way for greater political alignment between the Jewish lobbying group and various interest groups, ranging from Christian Evangelicals to ideological militarists, to make up the larger "Israel lobby" in America. 
AIPAC's influence over Congress and its legislative agendas are paramount for its overall lobbying effort in the capital, on the White House and America's foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond. AIPAC's strategy is one of barter, pure and simple.
AIPAC helps congressmen and women get elected - financially and otherwise – in return for their support of its legislative agenda. Likewise, AIPAC helps US presidents pass their various agendas through Congress in return for White House support for Israel. 
And that has worked quite successfully over the past few decades as the US poured more money and arms to Israel than any other country in the world. And thanks to AIPAC, and other like-minded lobbying groups, Israel's status continued to improve in Washington despite its many strategic failures and political fiascos since the 1973 October War. 
Expect the Obama administration - like its predecessors - to prod the weaker Palestinians to make more concessions towards another framework agreement than to nudge the intimidating Israelis ahead of midterm elections.
In fact, regional experts argue rather convincingly that the Israel utilitarian argument fell short on accomplishments - at least - since the end of the Cold War. So much so, they argue, that strategically for America, Israel has been more of a burden than an asset.
But while AIPAC's record on behalf of Israel has been astounding, the overly confident group has overreached on a number of occasions leading to major crises in the relations. AIPAC has generally succeeded when it functioned as an American watchdog over Israel's immediate interests and its tight relationship with the United States.  
But when the lobby acted like an Israeli attack dog aggressively going after any and all American detractors of a narrow Israeli security agenda or a colonial agenda, the results have been mixed at best.
AIPAC's failures
AIPAC has started every decade since the early 1980s by picking a fight with the White House on behalf of Israel. In 1981, it was the AWACS sales to Saudi Arabia, in 1991 it was the loan guarantees to Israel, after 2001 it was Bush's anti-terror Arab coalition, and since 2011 it has been negotiations with Iran. Ronald Reagan was the first presidential candidate to garner more Jewish votes than his Democratic rival, and became the staunchest supporter of Israel upgrading its relationship to major international strategic ally. 
And yet, there was little or no hesitation at AIPAC when the group launched a political assault against the Reagan administration and especially on the likes Secretary of Defense Weinberger for supporting the $8 bn Airborne Warning and Control System surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. AIPAC dragged the issue but lost the battle with complete humiliation.
The lobby, however, took the offensive once again in 1991, after the Bush administration had made a $10 bn of loan guarantees contingent on Israel freezing its illegal settlement building. This was a small price to pay if the Bush administration was to introduce a new regional Pax Americana after its Cold War and Gulf War victories. Alas, AIPAC and its Israeli patron couldn't see the larger picture. 
Soon after his election for a second time in 1992, Israeli Premier Yitzhak Rabin's first challenge was to restrain AIPAC. A dress down soon followed when Rabin, himself a former ambassador to Washington, scolded the lobby for unnecessarily straining Israel's relationship with Washington.
In no time, Washington had provided the loan guarantees as settlement building picked like never before. The number of settlers increased by 50 percent during Rabin's rule from 1992 until his assassination in 1995. 
Again in October 2001, AIPAC echoed Ariel Sharon's warning to the United States that it risked appeasing Arab nations the way European democracies appeased Hitler on the eve of World War II. The nasty provocation could've easily escalated into an all out political confrontation between the US and Israel if it weren't for the stanchly pro Israeli stance of the Bush administration and W Bush's willingness to follow in Israel's footsteps in his "war on terror". 
This was to be repeated again after 2010/2011, as AIPAC began to confront the Obama administration over the peace process and Iran's nuclear program. Tensions escalated earlier this year after AIPAC tried to get Congress to impose new sanctions against Iran in contravention with the interim deal signed between the US and the World powers with Iran. Undermined by popular support for the deal and deterred by a presidential veto, AIPAC has put its sanctions on hold.

Inside Story - Succumbing to pro-Israeli lobby?
Meanwhile, the real opposition to AIPAC is coming not from the White House but rather from the American Jewish community that has been generally supportive of Israel but not necessarily AIPAC's way.
New Jewish voices critical of AIPAC and of Israel's colonial policies are on the ascendance even if they remain a minority within the organised Jewish groups. And relatively new Jewish groups like J street are also making their imprint on the political scene in Washington.
AIPAC as Israel's chutzpah 
During a recent Jerusalem meeting with Netanyahu, according to the Jewish daily Forward, the members of the conference of presidents of major Jewish organisations were essentially told to "renew their confrontation with the White House over increased sanctions, just 11 days after the effort was publicly abandoned by AIPAC".  
It remains to be seen whether this proves counterproductive and backfires against Israel or simply works in favor of Netanyahu's ongoing bargaining with Obama over Iran and Palestine. Israel would backtrack on Iran for now, only if Washington let go of Palestine.
Expect the Obama administration - like its predecessors - to prod the weaker Palestinians to make more concessions towards another framework agreement than to nudge the intimidating Israelis ahead of midterm elections.
Judging by the mute reactions of the Obama administration to recent insults against Secretary Kerry by Israeli defense minister, Ya'alon, Netanyahu has a good reason to be confident about Israel and AIPAC's capacity to get their way with the Obama administration on a host of issues.  
As Netanyahu told some Israelis during 2001 elections campaign: "America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."  

Current Al-Jazeera (Arabic) Online Poll



Do you believe that the Ukrainian crisis has an effect on the Middle East area?

So far, 78% have voted yes.