US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has just (10/1) given a speech at the American University in Cairo. It is essentially, to borrow the words of The Bard, a tale told by a Christian Zionist idiot, full of imperial sound and fury, signifying God-only-knows-what in the years ahead. Since Pompeo is a little shaky on historical context, not to mention the most basic understanding of modern Western history - "In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation" - I couldn't help but comment and quip as the spirit moved me. These gems, btw, are but excerpts, albeit in chronological order:
"This trip is especially meaningful to me as an evangelical Christian... In my office, I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and the Truth."
OMG! Note the capitals.
"America's penchant for wishful thinking led us to look the other way as Hizballah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime, accumulated a massive arsenal of approximately 130,000 rockets and missiles... aimed squarely at our ally Israel."
Of course, Hezbollah was only formed to resist the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982. And Hezbollah only exists today to prevent the Israeli re-occupation of south Lebanon. And of course Israel couldn't possibly be described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the US, now could it? Or is it the other way around?
"The good news is this. The age of self-inflicted American shame is over... Now comes the real new beginning... The Trump administration did not stand idly by when Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his people."
US imperialism has never known shame. Nor has it ever stood idly by.
"For those who fret about the US of American power, remember this: America has always been, and always will be, a liberating force, not an occupying power. We've never dreamed of domination in the Middle East. Can you say the same about Iran? In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation. (!) Fifty years later, we assembled a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Would the Russians and Chinese come to your rescue in the same way... that we have?"
So, in Iraq, the US was a "liberating force, not an occupying power," while the tread of Iranian jackboots can be heard over vast swathes of the Middle East. Really, inhabiting a parallel universe doesn't begin to describe the world of Pompeo and his fellow Christian Zionist brethren.
And yes, he did say that American troops "helped free North America from Nazi occupation." But then again, he comes from a country where only 1% of university graduates study history.
"Let's turn to Iran. President Trump has reversed our willful blindness to the regime and withdrew from the failed nuclear deal, with its false promises. The US re-imposed sanctions that should never have been lifted. We embarked on a new pressure campaign to cut off the revenues the regime uses to spread terror and destruction throughout the world. We joined the Iranian people in calling for freedom and accountability. And importantly, we fostered a common understanding with our allies of the need to counteract the Iran regime's revolutionary agenda. Countries increasingly understand that we must confront the ayatollahs, not coddle them."
"Pressure campaign" = war of regime change.
"Spreading terror and destruction around the world": an precise description of the globe-girding depredations of the American capitalism and imperialism.
"We're building out (?) a healthy dialogue with the Government of Iraq, a thriving and young democracy. We're also building relationships for our shared prosperity. It is time for old rivalries to end for the sake of the greater good of the region."
To quote Tacitus' rendition of the words of the Caledonian chieftain who fought the Romans in first century Scotland: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
"We're also seeing remarkable change. New bonds are taking root that were unimaginable until very recently. Who could have believed a few years ago that an Israeli prime minister would visit Muscat?... In October of last year, the Israeli national anthem played as an Israeli judo champion was crowned the winner of a tournament in the United Arab Emirates. It was the first time - the first time - that an Israeli delegation was allowed to participate under its own national flag. It was also the first time an Israeli culture and sports minister attended a sports event in the Gulf. She said, and I quote, 'It is a dream come true. For two years we had talks in order to reach this moment.' It was hard for her to stop the tears."
I know the feeling.
"We strongly support Israel's efforts to stop Tehran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon."
And I can fully understand the Lebanese people strongly supporting Hezbollah's efforts to stop Tel Aviv from turning south Lebanon into the next Golan Heights.
"It is important to know also that we will not cease our campaign to stop Iran's malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world, the nations of the Middle East will never enjoy security, achieve economic stability, or advance the dreams of their people if Iran's revolutionary regime persists on its current course. February 11th will mark 40 years since the oppressive regime came to power in Tehran. America's economic sanctions against the regime are the strongest in history, and will keep getting tougher until Iran starts behaving like a normal country."
No mention, of course, of the CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, or the oppressive US-backed regime of the Shah (1941-1979), which led to the birth of "the oppressive regime (which) came to power in Tehran" in 1979.
And what's with this rhetoric about "security" and "economic stability" in the Arab world that Iran is supposedly standing in the way of? What Pompeo really means here is that the Arab world must lie back, spread its legs wide, and allow US corporations (and Israel) to have their way.
"Iran may think it owns Lebanon. Iran is wrong."
The mind boggles.
"In Iraq, the United States will help our partners build a nation free of Iranian influence."
With friends like the US, who needs enemies?
"And I think this is clear, but it is worth reiterating: The United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself against the Iranian regime's aggressive adventurism. We will continue to ensure that Israel has the military capacity to do so decisively."
He means here that the US will underwrite Israel's top-dog status in the Middle East as per the doctrine of maintaining its QME (qualitative military edge) over the Arabs.
"The Trump administration will also continue to press for a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Again, we've adhered to our word. President Trump campaigned on the promise to recognize Jerusalem - the seat of Israel's government - as the nation's capital. In May, we moved our embassy there. These decisions honor a bipartisan congressional resolution from more than two decades ago. President Trump acted on this commitment."
Oh, the Palestinians! Yes, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will ineluctably lead to "a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians." How come only Trump, Bolsanaro, Morales and Morrison could manage to come up with this magic solution to the Israeli lion lying down with the Arab lamb in Palestine/Israel? Nobel peace prizes all round. Now!
Showing posts with label Lebanon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lebanon. Show all posts
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Thursday, November 15, 2018
What Ethnic Cleansing? 2
So what happened to Safad? Here's the account in Nafez Nazzal's study, The Palestinian Exodus from Galilee 1948 (1978):
"Although 200 to 250 men of Safad were armed with various kinds of rifles and 35 to 50 rounds of ammunition each, very few had any systematic military training; they depended greatly on the Arab forces positioned in the city. Nevertheless when the Zionists attacked 'Ein ez Zeitun, the Arab [volunteer] forces refused to join in the fighting and would not permit the militia to join the villagers in defending themselves, assuring everyone that Shishakli and his men would repulse an attack on the city, and that the task of the Arab forces in Safad and the militia was to defend the city. The people of Safad became discouraged and lost confidence in their forces. 'Issa 'Abid al-Khadrah, a merchant and a member of the Safad militia, recounted:
'We could not defend the city, nor did we count on the Arab forces to protect it. Rumours spread that the Jews had been given 'Ein ez Zeitun... The fall of this village left the city besieged from the south, east and north. We felt that the Arab forces did not try to prevent this situation... If Sari Fnaish and his men did not protect 'Ein ez Zeitun, what would make you think he would protect Safad... what interest would they have in defending Safad but not 'Ein ez Zeitun?'
"The decisive battle for Safad began on the night of May 9-10. The Palmach opened heavy artillery fire on all positions occupied by by Arab forces in the city. Their use of the homemade mortar, the Davidka, which produced a great deal of noise, left the people of Safad in a state of shock. Usamah al-Naqib, a member of the militia reported:
'On the night of the attack, the responsible Arab commanders: Shishakli, Sari Fnaish, Ihsan Kamlamaz (trainer of the local militia); were out of the city. We did not have a unified command. Everyone fought on his own... We were unaware of what was happening in the other quarters of the city. Rumours spread that the ALA [Arab Liberation Army] had begun to withdraw... The people of Safad began to flee in panic. We could not find out what was happening... It was raining hard. We knew we could not sustain the defence of our city alone and so by midnight decided to retreat. We heard that the city fell to the Jews by the morning.'
"The fall of Safad on May 10, 1948 was a great shock to the Palestinians in Galilee. The villagers of the Hula Valley were disheartened and terrified; a great number of the villagers in Eastern Galilee began to flee. Almost all of the villages surrounding the city of Safad were now evacuated."
In Michael Palumbo's The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from their Homeland (1987), you can read about the sickening murder of a group of Arab POWs by a hoe-wielding Israeli intelligence officer (pp 114-15). On page 115, you'll also find the admission of Yigal Allon, Commander in Chief of the Palmach, that his aim with regard to Safad and its surrounding villages was "to cleanse the Upper Galilee and create a continuous strip of Israeli territory in the region," and that he wanted to do this before May 15.
In Ilan Pappe's more recent book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), we learn that while the Palmach had 1,000 well-trained troops, the Arab volunteer force was only 400 strong, only half of whom were armed with rifles (p 97). Then there's this revelation on p 98: "The Palmach troops drove most of the people out, only allowing 100 old people to stay on, though not for long. On 5 June, Ben-Gurion noted dryly in his diary: 'Abraham Hanuki, from [Kibbutz] Ayelet Hashahar, told me that since there were only 100 old people left in Safad they were expelled to Lebanon."
The likes of journalists such as Michael Bachelard need to ponder and understand this simple fact:
"In virtually every war of modern and ancient times civilians have been forced to flee to escape the fighting, taking refuge elsewhere until, with the cessation of hostilities, they could return to their homes. [But] what occurred in Palestine during the war of 1947-49 was an exodus of a fundamentally different character. It involved the systematic expulsion of most of the Arab population from its homes, and its exile from Palestine, as part of a premeditated scheme to transform radically the demography of the country in fulfilment of the colonial ideal of Zionism - making Palestine 'as Jewish as England is English.' This colonial settler nature of Zionism - the substitution of one people for another by force of arms - and the tragic situation it has created in Palestine over the past half century, is at the heart of the current conflict in the Middle East, although this essential fact has unfortunately been obscured by Israeli and much Western scholarship on the Palestine question." (From Rashid Khalidi's foreword to Nazzal's book cited above, p IX)
But Bachelard not only clouds the reality of the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, he goes on in his pathetic piece on Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp to broadcast the following Israeli propaganda trope: "We are in a concrete room inside a concrete jungle, behind concrete walls administered by an unyielding Lebanese state that believes these people to be a demographic problem, and so is adamant that these men, and their families, will never become citizens."
What an exercise in reality inversion is that!
No mention whatever that Israel, not Lebanon's concerns with disrupting its confessional balance, is the root cause of the Palestinian refugee problem as exemplified in Ain al-Hilweh and other Palestinian refugee camps throughout the Middle East.
A mere tweak of Bachelard's text suffices to illustrate the extent of his cover-up of this elementary fact: '... an unyielding Jewish state that believes these people to be a demographic problem, and so is adamant that these men, and their families, will never be allowed to return to their Palestinian homeland and become equal citizens with Israeli Jews.'
Better by far that Bachelard had never set foot in Lebanon than do propaganda service for apartheid Israel.
"Although 200 to 250 men of Safad were armed with various kinds of rifles and 35 to 50 rounds of ammunition each, very few had any systematic military training; they depended greatly on the Arab forces positioned in the city. Nevertheless when the Zionists attacked 'Ein ez Zeitun, the Arab [volunteer] forces refused to join in the fighting and would not permit the militia to join the villagers in defending themselves, assuring everyone that Shishakli and his men would repulse an attack on the city, and that the task of the Arab forces in Safad and the militia was to defend the city. The people of Safad became discouraged and lost confidence in their forces. 'Issa 'Abid al-Khadrah, a merchant and a member of the Safad militia, recounted:
'We could not defend the city, nor did we count on the Arab forces to protect it. Rumours spread that the Jews had been given 'Ein ez Zeitun... The fall of this village left the city besieged from the south, east and north. We felt that the Arab forces did not try to prevent this situation... If Sari Fnaish and his men did not protect 'Ein ez Zeitun, what would make you think he would protect Safad... what interest would they have in defending Safad but not 'Ein ez Zeitun?'
"The decisive battle for Safad began on the night of May 9-10. The Palmach opened heavy artillery fire on all positions occupied by by Arab forces in the city. Their use of the homemade mortar, the Davidka, which produced a great deal of noise, left the people of Safad in a state of shock. Usamah al-Naqib, a member of the militia reported:
'On the night of the attack, the responsible Arab commanders: Shishakli, Sari Fnaish, Ihsan Kamlamaz (trainer of the local militia); were out of the city. We did not have a unified command. Everyone fought on his own... We were unaware of what was happening in the other quarters of the city. Rumours spread that the ALA [Arab Liberation Army] had begun to withdraw... The people of Safad began to flee in panic. We could not find out what was happening... It was raining hard. We knew we could not sustain the defence of our city alone and so by midnight decided to retreat. We heard that the city fell to the Jews by the morning.'
"The fall of Safad on May 10, 1948 was a great shock to the Palestinians in Galilee. The villagers of the Hula Valley were disheartened and terrified; a great number of the villagers in Eastern Galilee began to flee. Almost all of the villages surrounding the city of Safad were now evacuated."
In Michael Palumbo's The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from their Homeland (1987), you can read about the sickening murder of a group of Arab POWs by a hoe-wielding Israeli intelligence officer (pp 114-15). On page 115, you'll also find the admission of Yigal Allon, Commander in Chief of the Palmach, that his aim with regard to Safad and its surrounding villages was "to cleanse the Upper Galilee and create a continuous strip of Israeli territory in the region," and that he wanted to do this before May 15.
In Ilan Pappe's more recent book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), we learn that while the Palmach had 1,000 well-trained troops, the Arab volunteer force was only 400 strong, only half of whom were armed with rifles (p 97). Then there's this revelation on p 98: "The Palmach troops drove most of the people out, only allowing 100 old people to stay on, though not for long. On 5 June, Ben-Gurion noted dryly in his diary: 'Abraham Hanuki, from [Kibbutz] Ayelet Hashahar, told me that since there were only 100 old people left in Safad they were expelled to Lebanon."
The likes of journalists such as Michael Bachelard need to ponder and understand this simple fact:
"In virtually every war of modern and ancient times civilians have been forced to flee to escape the fighting, taking refuge elsewhere until, with the cessation of hostilities, they could return to their homes. [But] what occurred in Palestine during the war of 1947-49 was an exodus of a fundamentally different character. It involved the systematic expulsion of most of the Arab population from its homes, and its exile from Palestine, as part of a premeditated scheme to transform radically the demography of the country in fulfilment of the colonial ideal of Zionism - making Palestine 'as Jewish as England is English.' This colonial settler nature of Zionism - the substitution of one people for another by force of arms - and the tragic situation it has created in Palestine over the past half century, is at the heart of the current conflict in the Middle East, although this essential fact has unfortunately been obscured by Israeli and much Western scholarship on the Palestine question." (From Rashid Khalidi's foreword to Nazzal's book cited above, p IX)
But Bachelard not only clouds the reality of the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, he goes on in his pathetic piece on Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp to broadcast the following Israeli propaganda trope: "We are in a concrete room inside a concrete jungle, behind concrete walls administered by an unyielding Lebanese state that believes these people to be a demographic problem, and so is adamant that these men, and their families, will never become citizens."
What an exercise in reality inversion is that!
No mention whatever that Israel, not Lebanon's concerns with disrupting its confessional balance, is the root cause of the Palestinian refugee problem as exemplified in Ain al-Hilweh and other Palestinian refugee camps throughout the Middle East.
A mere tweak of Bachelard's text suffices to illustrate the extent of his cover-up of this elementary fact: '... an unyielding Jewish state that believes these people to be a demographic problem, and so is adamant that these men, and their families, will never be allowed to return to their Palestinian homeland and become equal citizens with Israeli Jews.'
Better by far that Bachelard had never set foot in Lebanon than do propaganda service for apartheid Israel.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
What Ethnic Cleansing? 1
Please tell me what is the point of 'journalism' such as this if not to keep readers in the dark and shield the apartheid state from the pariah status it so richly deserves:
"When the state of Israel was being formed in 1948, and a war with the Arab world raged, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes into neighbouring Lebanon and set up temporary camp." (The day I drank (bad) coffee with heavily armed militants, Michael Bachelard, The Sun-Herald, 11/11/18)
Nothing like the old passive voice to avoid the fact that Israel was created in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. And nothing like a hyped "war with the Arab world," to divert attention from the fact that that the campaign of ethnic cleansing began long before Arab League troops moved to put a stop to it.
Bachelard is either involved in self-censorship here, or is one of those who can see ethnic cleansing everywhere but Palestine.
The "heavily armed militants" with whom this late-sipper shared "(bad) coffee," were residents of Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon in south Lebanon, more than 95% of whose inhabitants originally came from the kaza of Safad and the surrounding area, in northern Palestine, according to French Middle East scholar Bernard Rougier's study of the camp, Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon (2004 French/ 2007 English translation).
The Palestinian city of Safad, now Israeli, and its surrounding villages, now in ruins, are situated in the eastern Galilee, so let's examine, shall we, what exactly went on there before any Arab armies arrived on the scene on May 15 when the British Mandate over Palestine officially ended.
Take, for example, the village of Ayn az-Zaytun, some 1.5 kilometres north of Safad, whose inhabitants cultivated olives, grain and fruit.
It was first attacked by Zionist forces as early as January 1948. Later, it was occupied by Palmach forces on May 1, 1948, as a prelude to the occupation of Safad. These Zionist shock troops first unleashed a mortar barrage at 3 am, followed by a ground assault. After taking the village, they rounded up its inhabitants.
As Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi recounts in his exhaustive study All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied & Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (1992):
"The men... were taken away and the rest were humiliated and expelled while shots were fired over their heads, according to the villagers' testimony and Israeli sources. As for the men, some were later expelled and enabled to join their families, but 37 of them, selected at random, were taken captive. According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, they were probably among a group of 70 people later massacred in a gully between 'Ayn al-Zaytun and Safad under orders from Moshe Kelman, the commander of the Palmach's Third Battalion. Morris reports that... after the prisoners were killed, and in anticipation of a Red Cross visit to the area, he ordered their hands to be untied, to conceal the fact that the killing had been done in cold blood.
"Several villagers attempted to return to their homes over the next couple of days but were fired upon by the Palmach; one of them was killed, according to Morris. As for the village houses, they were burned or blown up by Palmach sappers on 2 and 3 May. The destruction was carried out partly in order to terrify the inhabitants of Safad, who could watch the spectacle from nearby hills. The sight of the village being leveled had a demoralizing effect in the city, as well as in the surrounding villages of eastern Galilee." (p 437)
Continued in my next post...
"When the state of Israel was being formed in 1948, and a war with the Arab world raged, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes into neighbouring Lebanon and set up temporary camp." (The day I drank (bad) coffee with heavily armed militants, Michael Bachelard, The Sun-Herald, 11/11/18)
Nothing like the old passive voice to avoid the fact that Israel was created in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. And nothing like a hyped "war with the Arab world," to divert attention from the fact that that the campaign of ethnic cleansing began long before Arab League troops moved to put a stop to it.
Bachelard is either involved in self-censorship here, or is one of those who can see ethnic cleansing everywhere but Palestine.
The "heavily armed militants" with whom this late-sipper shared "(bad) coffee," were residents of Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon in south Lebanon, more than 95% of whose inhabitants originally came from the kaza of Safad and the surrounding area, in northern Palestine, according to French Middle East scholar Bernard Rougier's study of the camp, Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon (2004 French/ 2007 English translation).
The Palestinian city of Safad, now Israeli, and its surrounding villages, now in ruins, are situated in the eastern Galilee, so let's examine, shall we, what exactly went on there before any Arab armies arrived on the scene on May 15 when the British Mandate over Palestine officially ended.
Take, for example, the village of Ayn az-Zaytun, some 1.5 kilometres north of Safad, whose inhabitants cultivated olives, grain and fruit.
It was first attacked by Zionist forces as early as January 1948. Later, it was occupied by Palmach forces on May 1, 1948, as a prelude to the occupation of Safad. These Zionist shock troops first unleashed a mortar barrage at 3 am, followed by a ground assault. After taking the village, they rounded up its inhabitants.
As Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi recounts in his exhaustive study All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied & Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (1992):
"The men... were taken away and the rest were humiliated and expelled while shots were fired over their heads, according to the villagers' testimony and Israeli sources. As for the men, some were later expelled and enabled to join their families, but 37 of them, selected at random, were taken captive. According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, they were probably among a group of 70 people later massacred in a gully between 'Ayn al-Zaytun and Safad under orders from Moshe Kelman, the commander of the Palmach's Third Battalion. Morris reports that... after the prisoners were killed, and in anticipation of a Red Cross visit to the area, he ordered their hands to be untied, to conceal the fact that the killing had been done in cold blood.
"Several villagers attempted to return to their homes over the next couple of days but were fired upon by the Palmach; one of them was killed, according to Morris. As for the village houses, they were burned or blown up by Palmach sappers on 2 and 3 May. The destruction was carried out partly in order to terrify the inhabitants of Safad, who could watch the spectacle from nearby hills. The sight of the village being leveled had a demoralizing effect in the city, as well as in the surrounding villages of eastern Galilee." (p 437)
Continued in my next post...
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
One Movie Hollywood Will Never Make
Following on from my last post about a fictional US diplomat in Lebanon, and moving to the real thing - John Gunther Dean, US ambassador to Lebanon from 1978 to 1981...
Hollywood would NEVER in a million make a movie with Dean as its protagonist. Read this excerpt from a 2002 essay on Dean by Andrew I. Killgore, a retired foreign service officer and former US ambassador to Qatar, and you'll see why:
"Just before John Gunther Dean was to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing as American ambassador to Lebanon in 1978 he received an urgent telephone call from the office of the secretary of state. 'John,' the caller said, 'we have just noticed that your mother's [maiden] name is Ashkenacsi. Does this make a serious problem for you?' 'Absolutely not,' the near legendary Dean replied, 'my father was Jewish, too. I represent a secular America, so that's all there is to it.'
"In a Sept. 6 talk in Washington, DC before an audience made up of mainly retired American diplomats, Ambassador Dean, as related to the Washington Report by one of those in attendance, described his 3 turbulent years in Beirut. There he did his courageous best to implement stated American policy goals in Lebanon, maintaining its territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty. For his pains, Israel tried but failed to assassinate him and his family. In a period of brutal civil war amid more than a dozen political/religious factions Dean, who already had held ambassadorships in Cambodia and Denmark, traveled from one end of the country to the other, calling personally on the leaders of every group. Israel, meanwhile, maintained a rump state in southern Lebanon under Lebanese mercenary Maj. Saad Haddad while encouraging unrealistic dreams of a small Christian 'Maronistan' state. As US ambassador, John Gunther Dean, renowned for his physical and moral courage, opposed Israeli machinations, arguing that close ties with Israel would harm Christian interests in the long run.
"Ambassador Dean, who does not speak Arabic, conducted his relations with Lebanese officials in French, then the second language of educated Lebanese. He believed, moreover, that he could not properly operate in the country without maintaining close relations with France and the French Embassy. In a perhaps uniquely rare role for any US ambassador, while serving in Lebanon Dean had co-signing authority with President Elias Sarkis on Lebanon's hundreds of millions of dollars deposited in Swiss banks. John Gunther Dean sought and obtained authorization to deal with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) if it was deemed to be in America's security interests. When an 'interlocutor' in Washington wondered if the Palestinians could help release American diplomatic hostages being held in Tehran, Dean sought - and received - Palestinian help. PLO leader Yasser Arafat and his aide Abu Jihad themselves went to Tehran in 1978 and secured the release of 13 Americans. Never, Dean noted, did the two receive any thanks from Washington for their efforts. Ambassador Dean's diligence in knowing everybody paid off in an astonishing incident when the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Lebanon was shot. As the intermediary in transferring the ambassador to the American University of Beirut (AUB) Hospital for treatment, John Dean reached the secretary to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, as well as Yasser Arafat, who was able to stop the firing on the hospital occasioned by the Saudi ambassador's presence there.
"In a prescient reference to his role in Lebanon, Dean reportedly remarked that anyone who gets between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel 'finds himself in trouble.' An amusing anecdote: Riding in his armored limousine in Beirut with ardently pro-Israel Congressman Steve Solarz, a bullet hit the car. 'What's that? Solarz asked. 'Just a bullet,' Dean replied, 'but don't worry. We are armored.' Solarz insisted on returning to the American Embassy, where he cabled home, 'Arafat shot at me!'
"To stress his support for the sovereignty of Lebanon Dean always cabled protests to Tel Aviv and the State Department in Washington whenever Israeli planes intruded - as they frequently did - into Lebanese airspace. These reminders irritated US Ambassador to Israel Sam Lewis, with whom Dean preserved cordial relations but who suffered to a notable degree from what the US Foreign Service calls 'localitis' (not Ambassador Dean's term). Other irritants flowed from Dean's urging Lebanese Christian leader Bashir Gemayel to stop seeing Israel Mossad officers.
"Dean's staunchly courageous defense of Lebanese (and American) interests came to a head in the early evening of Aug. 27, 1980, when, according to all the evidence, Mossad tried but failed to assassinate Dean, his wife (whose French family had old business connections in Lebanon) and their daughter. The long-rumored attempted murder of Dean by Mossad, infamously more noted for its prowess at assassinations than for its abilities as an intelligence agency, was publicly confirmed for the first time in Dean's Washington talk. En route from his residence in Lebanon's hills to the Beirut residence of the AUB president, Dean's limousine and convoy took 21 rifle bullets. The automobile bearing the ambassador and Mrs Dean was also struck by two light anti-tank weapons. The shot-out tires of the Deans' bulletproof car automatically reinflated. The second car, however, carrying their daughter and her fiance, did not have bulletproof tires and was momentarily stranded. The security guards in the convoy's third car pushed the daughter and her fiance into the Deans' vehicle, and they sped away. Incredibly, none of the ambassador's party or security guards were seriously wounded. Some shots struck where Dean was sitting, but bulletproof plastic windows saved his life.
"Picked up by Lebanese security, the anti-tank canisters had made-in-America markings. After unanswered telegrams to the State Department and all but silent responses to his telephone inquiries, Dean eventually learned that the anti-tank weapons were sold and shipped to Israel in 1974. Dean apparently mused to himself on the irony of an American ambassador being subjected to an Israeli assassination attempt with American weapons supplied to Israel for defense. The ambassador did not explicitly accuse Israel of trying to assassinate him, but let the facts as he related them speak for themselves. But Washington's acute unease in responding to his inquiries testifies to the deadening influence of the Israel lobby on American diplomacy... " (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2002)
"Ambassador Dean, who does not speak Arabic, conducted his relations with Lebanese officials in French, then the second language of educated Lebanese. He believed, moreover, that he could not properly operate in the country without maintaining close relations with France and the French Embassy. In a perhaps uniquely rare role for any US ambassador, while serving in Lebanon Dean had co-signing authority with President Elias Sarkis on Lebanon's hundreds of millions of dollars deposited in Swiss banks. John Gunther Dean sought and obtained authorization to deal with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) if it was deemed to be in America's security interests. When an 'interlocutor' in Washington wondered if the Palestinians could help release American diplomatic hostages being held in Tehran, Dean sought - and received - Palestinian help. PLO leader Yasser Arafat and his aide Abu Jihad themselves went to Tehran in 1978 and secured the release of 13 Americans. Never, Dean noted, did the two receive any thanks from Washington for their efforts. Ambassador Dean's diligence in knowing everybody paid off in an astonishing incident when the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Lebanon was shot. As the intermediary in transferring the ambassador to the American University of Beirut (AUB) Hospital for treatment, John Dean reached the secretary to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, as well as Yasser Arafat, who was able to stop the firing on the hospital occasioned by the Saudi ambassador's presence there.
"In a prescient reference to his role in Lebanon, Dean reportedly remarked that anyone who gets between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel 'finds himself in trouble.' An amusing anecdote: Riding in his armored limousine in Beirut with ardently pro-Israel Congressman Steve Solarz, a bullet hit the car. 'What's that? Solarz asked. 'Just a bullet,' Dean replied, 'but don't worry. We are armored.' Solarz insisted on returning to the American Embassy, where he cabled home, 'Arafat shot at me!'
"To stress his support for the sovereignty of Lebanon Dean always cabled protests to Tel Aviv and the State Department in Washington whenever Israeli planes intruded - as they frequently did - into Lebanese airspace. These reminders irritated US Ambassador to Israel Sam Lewis, with whom Dean preserved cordial relations but who suffered to a notable degree from what the US Foreign Service calls 'localitis' (not Ambassador Dean's term). Other irritants flowed from Dean's urging Lebanese Christian leader Bashir Gemayel to stop seeing Israel Mossad officers.
"Dean's staunchly courageous defense of Lebanese (and American) interests came to a head in the early evening of Aug. 27, 1980, when, according to all the evidence, Mossad tried but failed to assassinate Dean, his wife (whose French family had old business connections in Lebanon) and their daughter. The long-rumored attempted murder of Dean by Mossad, infamously more noted for its prowess at assassinations than for its abilities as an intelligence agency, was publicly confirmed for the first time in Dean's Washington talk. En route from his residence in Lebanon's hills to the Beirut residence of the AUB president, Dean's limousine and convoy took 21 rifle bullets. The automobile bearing the ambassador and Mrs Dean was also struck by two light anti-tank weapons. The shot-out tires of the Deans' bulletproof car automatically reinflated. The second car, however, carrying their daughter and her fiance, did not have bulletproof tires and was momentarily stranded. The security guards in the convoy's third car pushed the daughter and her fiance into the Deans' vehicle, and they sped away. Incredibly, none of the ambassador's party or security guards were seriously wounded. Some shots struck where Dean was sitting, but bulletproof plastic windows saved his life.
"Picked up by Lebanese security, the anti-tank canisters had made-in-America markings. After unanswered telegrams to the State Department and all but silent responses to his telephone inquiries, Dean eventually learned that the anti-tank weapons were sold and shipped to Israel in 1974. Dean apparently mused to himself on the irony of an American ambassador being subjected to an Israeli assassination attempt with American weapons supplied to Israel for defense. The ambassador did not explicitly accuse Israel of trying to assassinate him, but let the facts as he related them speak for themselves. But Washington's acute unease in responding to his inquiries testifies to the deadening influence of the Israel lobby on American diplomacy... " (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2002)
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Candy Royalle 1981-2018 RIP
Memories
I am my grandfather's memories
of sunshine streaming through olive trees,
Of women sitting around and clucking like hens
as they crush garlic with spices to make
that night's meal
whilst men tend gardens
plough the fields
of their baladi
their homeland.
I am my grandfather's memories
remembering that he was raised as a Christian
in a land of Muslims
with Jewish friends.
He played in the dirt
with his future enemies
shared meals
and didn't yet know
that history was in the making
somewhere in Europe.
I am my grandfather's memories
and the things he doesn't even know yet
Like: he was one of millions of pawns
negotiated in a deal
that would alleviate the guilt of the world
for crimes committed
that they had no hand in
there was no hatred -
yet.
I am my grandfather's nightmares
where stories came
horrors that caressed the ears
of him
his parents
others in their community.
It whispered that death
was wiping out whole villages
mass graves were being filled
blood was being shed
so much
that rivers ran upon the earth
turning it crimson.
Violence was making the ard arid
land once fertile -
wasted.
I am my grandfather's nightmares
where he wished to be deaf
to the stories of the nakba.
Where to stay was to die
where to leave was to die -
death comes in many forms
and when your feet can no longer
touch the dirt
you took your first steps upon
that's a form of death too.
I am my grandfather's memories
of the stories coming closer
of terror being sowed
whilst the peasants plowed the land.
He thought of the danger
his aging parents were in
he thought of his own life ahead of him
he'd seen his people torn from the earth
no more roots
they wandered out
dazed
confused
crying for their losses
mourning the dead
asking allah what they did
to deserve this.
He'd seen whole villages
razed to the ground
and he knew
that a knock on the door
was imminent
that the violence ravaging his land
would not stop
in fact it intensified daily
and so knowing that under occupation
was no place to live
he left one day
saying goodbye to his parents
he swore he would send for them
once he had found somewhere safe.
I am my grandfather's memories
as he stepped out that door
one last time
held his hand up
to shield his eyes
breathed in slow through his nostrils
and forced himself to remember
every smell.
He opened his eyes wide
allowed them to sting
and looked upon his village
one last time
he forced himself to remember
every sight
then closed his eyes
and committed to memory
all those memories before 1948
so that he would leave in love
and not hate.
Opening his eyes
I am his memory
of walking away
of the crunch of dirt beneath his feet
listening to the earth's conversation with him
how the wind wished him well
through the trees
and he talked back with his heart
knowing he wouldn't return
he swore to his homeland
it would reside forever inside.
I am my grandfather's memories
as he immigrated to Lebanon
to try to start again.
How he worked long hours
as a refugee in a foreign land
trying to gather the money required
to save his parents
from the death which was beckoning.
I am my grandfather's memories
as he managed to bring his parents over
then start his own family
getting married
having children
tragically losing a wife
getting married again
having more children
and trying to provide for them.
I am my father's memories
of being born into a displaced family
where the homeland is referred to constantly
where he had a sense
that he belonged elsewhere
where the injustice was keenly felt
but where the world seemed not to care
nor understand
the plight of his people.
I am my father's memories
of a family striving to survive
always on the outside
and he as a child growing
in another war-torn country
but knowing that he would leave
before the army could get to him.
I am my father's memories
of being kidnapped twice
and twice being set free
for he did not subscribe
to any form of religious extremism.
I am my father's memories
of constant warfare
being shot by rubber bullets
choking on tear gas
listening to missiles
soar overhead
hoping against all hope
that their bullet-riddled apartment block
would not be hit next.
I am my father's memories
of being 18 and knowing if he did not leave
he would have to bear a weapon
and the death that comes with it -
either behind it
or in front.
So he left that land
knowing that he could never return -
he became a deserter of a war
he did not agree with.
As that plane
ascended towards the heavens
I am his memories of hope
for a better future
but sadness that he may never
see those whom he loves
again.
I am my father's memories
of picking grapes in France
trying to save enough money
to get further away.
I am my father's memory
of boarding a plane for Australia
where he knew my mother to be
and tearing up his passport
arriving as a refugee.
I am my own memory
of being 8 or 9 years old
and listening
to the voice of my grandfather
on a tape he's sent us
from a land I can barely imagine
but whose music I hear
whose food I eat
whose history I am already learning.
I am my own memory
of being 10 or 11 years old
and seeing my Dad
cry for the first time
because we would no longer be
receiving those tapes.
My father who knew his father was dying
and couldn't return
didn't get to say goodbye to his Baba
on his deathbed.
That's when I became
my grandfather's memories
you see he could no longer remember
now that he had been buried.
I am my own memory
of being a teenager
and struggling to exist
between two cultures:
one which sought me to hang on to a past
and one which forced me into the future
one which sought to fill me with love
and one which forced me to belong to this land.
I am my own memory
of trying to understand
why my father was always so angry
until I was old enough to see
that where once my father
had been a warrior
he was now nothing more than a worrier
and I mistook that fear
at losing his family
his land
everything that I took for granted
for anger.
I am my family's blood
where these memories
these histories
course through my veins.
Where my own feet
have not yet touched the soil
of where my great grandfather
my grandfather and
my father's footsteps roamed.
I am the memories of the displaced
the lost
the hidden
the lies
the propaganda
the hatred.
I am the memories
of blue skies
dry heat
homous
tabouli
tabla.
I am the memories
of that lost land
and this land gained.
I am my grandfather's memories
of sunshine streaming through olive trees,
Of women sitting around and clucking like hens
as they crush garlic with spices to make
that night's meal
whilst men tend gardens
plough the fields
of their baladi
their homeland.
I am my grandfather's memories
remembering that he was raised as a Christian
in a land of Muslims
with Jewish friends.
He played in the dirt
with his future enemies
shared meals
and didn't yet know
that history was in the making
somewhere in Europe.
I am my grandfather's memories
and the things he doesn't even know yet
Like: he was one of millions of pawns
negotiated in a deal
that would alleviate the guilt of the world
for crimes committed
that they had no hand in
there was no hatred -
yet.
I am my grandfather's nightmares
where stories came
horrors that caressed the ears
of him
his parents
others in their community.
It whispered that death
was wiping out whole villages
mass graves were being filled
blood was being shed
so much
that rivers ran upon the earth
turning it crimson.
Violence was making the ard arid
land once fertile -
wasted.
I am my grandfather's nightmares
where he wished to be deaf
to the stories of the nakba.
Where to stay was to die
where to leave was to die -
death comes in many forms
and when your feet can no longer
touch the dirt
you took your first steps upon
that's a form of death too.
I am my grandfather's memories
of the stories coming closer
of terror being sowed
whilst the peasants plowed the land.
He thought of the danger
his aging parents were in
he thought of his own life ahead of him
he'd seen his people torn from the earth
no more roots
they wandered out
dazed
confused
crying for their losses
mourning the dead
asking allah what they did
to deserve this.
He'd seen whole villages
razed to the ground
and he knew
that a knock on the door
was imminent
that the violence ravaging his land
would not stop
in fact it intensified daily
and so knowing that under occupation
was no place to live
he left one day
saying goodbye to his parents
he swore he would send for them
once he had found somewhere safe.
I am my grandfather's memories
as he stepped out that door
one last time
held his hand up
to shield his eyes
breathed in slow through his nostrils
and forced himself to remember
every smell.
He opened his eyes wide
allowed them to sting
and looked upon his village
one last time
he forced himself to remember
every sight
then closed his eyes
and committed to memory
all those memories before 1948
so that he would leave in love
and not hate.
Opening his eyes
I am his memory
of walking away
of the crunch of dirt beneath his feet
listening to the earth's conversation with him
how the wind wished him well
through the trees
and he talked back with his heart
knowing he wouldn't return
he swore to his homeland
it would reside forever inside.
I am my grandfather's memories
as he immigrated to Lebanon
to try to start again.
How he worked long hours
as a refugee in a foreign land
trying to gather the money required
to save his parents
from the death which was beckoning.
I am my grandfather's memories
as he managed to bring his parents over
then start his own family
getting married
having children
tragically losing a wife
getting married again
having more children
and trying to provide for them.
I am my father's memories
of being born into a displaced family
where the homeland is referred to constantly
where he had a sense
that he belonged elsewhere
where the injustice was keenly felt
but where the world seemed not to care
nor understand
the plight of his people.
I am my father's memories
of a family striving to survive
always on the outside
and he as a child growing
in another war-torn country
but knowing that he would leave
before the army could get to him.
I am my father's memories
of being kidnapped twice
and twice being set free
for he did not subscribe
to any form of religious extremism.
I am my father's memories
of constant warfare
being shot by rubber bullets
choking on tear gas
listening to missiles
soar overhead
hoping against all hope
that their bullet-riddled apartment block
would not be hit next.
I am my father's memories
of being 18 and knowing if he did not leave
he would have to bear a weapon
and the death that comes with it -
either behind it
or in front.
So he left that land
knowing that he could never return -
he became a deserter of a war
he did not agree with.
As that plane
ascended towards the heavens
I am his memories of hope
for a better future
but sadness that he may never
see those whom he loves
again.
I am my father's memories
of picking grapes in France
trying to save enough money
to get further away.
I am my father's memory
of boarding a plane for Australia
where he knew my mother to be
and tearing up his passport
arriving as a refugee.
I am my own memory
of being 8 or 9 years old
and listening
to the voice of my grandfather
on a tape he's sent us
from a land I can barely imagine
but whose music I hear
whose food I eat
whose history I am already learning.
I am my own memory
of being 10 or 11 years old
and seeing my Dad
cry for the first time
because we would no longer be
receiving those tapes.
My father who knew his father was dying
and couldn't return
didn't get to say goodbye to his Baba
on his deathbed.
That's when I became
my grandfather's memories
you see he could no longer remember
now that he had been buried.
I am my own memory
of being a teenager
and struggling to exist
between two cultures:
one which sought me to hang on to a past
and one which forced me into the future
one which sought to fill me with love
and one which forced me to belong to this land.
I am my own memory
of trying to understand
why my father was always so angry
until I was old enough to see
that where once my father
had been a warrior
he was now nothing more than a worrier
and I mistook that fear
at losing his family
his land
everything that I took for granted
for anger.
I am my family's blood
where these memories
these histories
course through my veins.
Where my own feet
have not yet touched the soil
of where my great grandfather
my grandfather and
my father's footsteps roamed.
I am the memories of the displaced
the lost
the hidden
the lies
the propaganda
the hatred.
I am the memories
of blue skies
dry heat
homous
tabouli
tabla.
I am the memories
of that lost land
and this land gained.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
When Arabs Vote...
When next you hear the empty boast* that Israel is the Middle East's only democracy, consider its sabre-rattling response to Lebanon's perfectly democratic vote on the weekend, giving Hezbollah and its Christian allies over half the seats in Lebanon's parliamentary elections:
"Hezbollah=Lebanon. The state of Israel will not differentiate between the sovereign State of Lebanon and Hezbollah, and will view Lebanon as responsible for any action from within its territory." (Israeli education minister Naftali Bennett, quoted in Hezbollah allies set for parliament gains, Tom Perry, Reuters/Sydney Morning Herald, 8/5/18)
IOW, Lebanon must be collectively punished for voting the wrong way.
Just as the Palestinians were following their perfectly democratic vote in 2006, which led to Hamas's overwhelming victory over the corrupt Fatah - by withholding Palestinian tax and customs revenues collected from Palestinian importers; by closing the Karni crossing, the major pipeline for food and industry supplies into Gaza (or, as Sharon adviser Dov Weisglass infamously referred to it, "putting the Palestinians on a diet."); and by refusing to allow newly elected Palestinian officials to travel from Gaza to the West Bank.
[*See my 1/12/16 post Israel is a Democracy & Other Fairy Tales.]
"Hezbollah=Lebanon. The state of Israel will not differentiate between the sovereign State of Lebanon and Hezbollah, and will view Lebanon as responsible for any action from within its territory." (Israeli education minister Naftali Bennett, quoted in Hezbollah allies set for parliament gains, Tom Perry, Reuters/Sydney Morning Herald, 8/5/18)
IOW, Lebanon must be collectively punished for voting the wrong way.
Just as the Palestinians were following their perfectly democratic vote in 2006, which led to Hamas's overwhelming victory over the corrupt Fatah - by withholding Palestinian tax and customs revenues collected from Palestinian importers; by closing the Karni crossing, the major pipeline for food and industry supplies into Gaza (or, as Sharon adviser Dov Weisglass infamously referred to it, "putting the Palestinians on a diet."); and by refusing to allow newly elected Palestinian officials to travel from Gaza to the West Bank.
[*See my 1/12/16 post Israel is a Democracy & Other Fairy Tales.]
Saturday, November 25, 2017
MBS's 'Impulsive Intervention Policy'
Must read:
The reverse Midas touch of Saudi Arabia's crown prince is turning the Middle East to dust, Mehdi Hasan, theintercept.com, 14/11/17
"Kudos to Germany's spooks. Back in December 2015, the German foreign intelligence agency, BND, distributed a... memo to various media outlets titled: 'Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation.' The document was pretty astonishing, both in its undiplomatic bluntness and remarkable prescience: 'The current cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy,' the memo warned, focusing on the role of Mohammed bin Salman, who had been appointed as deputy crown prince and defense minister at the age of 30 earlier that year.
"Both MBS, as he has come to be known, and his elderly father King Salman, the BND analysts wrote, want Saudi Arabia to be seen as 'the leader of the Arab world' with a foreign policy built on 'a strong military component.' Yet the memo also pointed out that the consolidation of so much power in a single young prince's hands 'harbours a latent risk that in seeking to establish himself in the line of succession in his father's lifetime, he may overreach,' adding: 'Relations with friendly and above all allied countries in the region could be overstretched.'
"And so it has come to pass. In fact, despite being repudiated at the time by a German government more concerned about diplomatic and commercial relations with Riyadh, the BND warning turned out to be eerily prophetic.
"Consider recent events in the Gulf. Can you get more 'impulsive' than rounding up 11 fellow princes, including one of the world's richest men and the commander of the national guard, and holding them at the Ritz Carlton on charges of corruption? Especially since MBS, who ordered the arrests only a few hours after his father set up an anti-corruption committee and put him in charge of it, isn't exactly a paragon of probity and transparency himself. Where, for example, did the crown prince find more than five hundred million dollars to spend on a luxury yacht while vacationing in the south of France last year?
"Is it anything other than 'interventionist' to force the resignation of the prime minister of Lebanon on a visit to your country and then put him under a form of house arrest (though the hapless Saad Hariri, a long-standing client of Riyadh, publicly claims otherwise and says he is heading back to Beirut this week)? Or to also detain the president of Yemen? According to an investigation by the Associated Press, 'Saudi Arabia has barred Yemen's President, along with his sons, ministers and military officials, from returning home for months.'
"That the crown prince of Saudi Arabia can, essentially, kidnap the elected leaders of not one but two Middle Eastern countries - and, incidentally, put the leading Saudi royal he replaced as crown prince under house arrest - speaks volumes about not just his 'impulsive intervention policy' but the shameless pass he gets from Western governments for such rogue behaviour. Imagine the reaction from the international community if Iran had, say, detained the Iraqi prime minister on Iranian soil after forcing him to resign on Iranian television. Yet President Donald Trump has gone out of his way to tweet his support for the crown prince and his father: 'I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing.'
"The more sober Europeans haven't been much better. President Emmanuel Macron of France, on a surprise visit to Riyadh last week, saluted MBS 'on the opening of his country and support for a moderate Islam.'
"Meanwhile, are we supposed to call the rift between the Gulf countries, instigated by the Saudis, with the support of the Emiratis, anything other than 'overreach,' to quote the BND, on the part of MBS? The crown prince and his cronies had assumed that tiny, defenceless Qatar would be brought to heel within a matter of weeks, if not days. Five months on, however, the Qataris continue to reject the long list of Saudi/UAE demands - including the closure of the Qatar-owned Al-Jazeera media network - and have retreated into the warm embrace of MBS's key regional rivals, Iran and Turkey. Bravo, Crown Prince!
Then there is Yemen. More than two years after the richest country in the Middle East began bombing the poorest country in the Middle East, there is no end in sight. MBS owns this disastrous conflict - he pushed for it, defended it, escalated it. But wasn't the recent Houthi rocket attack on Riyadh - which the crown prince called an act of 'direct military aggression by the Iranian military regime' - evidence of a complete failure of Saudi military strategy? Weren't those pesky Houthi rebels supposed to have been vanquished by the Royal Saudi Air Force by now? Instead, Yemen has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis - which MBS, as defence minister, shamefully intensified with his order last week to blockade all entry points into the country.
"From Lebanon to Qatar to Yemen, the much-lauded MBS has in fact proved to be the reverse Midas - everything he touches turns to dust. Maybe the authors of that scathing BND memo underestimated just how much of a disaster this favoured son of Salman would be both for the kingdom and for the wider region. The inconvenient truth about the crown prince is that he isn't only impulsive, he's incompetent: he isn't only ambitious, he's reckless. He is also a nationalist and a hawk who is bent on turning the longstanding Saudi/Iran cold war into a very hot war - and is even willing to ally with Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel in order to do so."
The reverse Midas touch of Saudi Arabia's crown prince is turning the Middle East to dust, Mehdi Hasan, theintercept.com, 14/11/17
"Kudos to Germany's spooks. Back in December 2015, the German foreign intelligence agency, BND, distributed a... memo to various media outlets titled: 'Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation.' The document was pretty astonishing, both in its undiplomatic bluntness and remarkable prescience: 'The current cautious diplomatic stance of senior members of the Saudi royal family will be replaced by an impulsive intervention policy,' the memo warned, focusing on the role of Mohammed bin Salman, who had been appointed as deputy crown prince and defense minister at the age of 30 earlier that year.
"Both MBS, as he has come to be known, and his elderly father King Salman, the BND analysts wrote, want Saudi Arabia to be seen as 'the leader of the Arab world' with a foreign policy built on 'a strong military component.' Yet the memo also pointed out that the consolidation of so much power in a single young prince's hands 'harbours a latent risk that in seeking to establish himself in the line of succession in his father's lifetime, he may overreach,' adding: 'Relations with friendly and above all allied countries in the region could be overstretched.'
"And so it has come to pass. In fact, despite being repudiated at the time by a German government more concerned about diplomatic and commercial relations with Riyadh, the BND warning turned out to be eerily prophetic.
"Consider recent events in the Gulf. Can you get more 'impulsive' than rounding up 11 fellow princes, including one of the world's richest men and the commander of the national guard, and holding them at the Ritz Carlton on charges of corruption? Especially since MBS, who ordered the arrests only a few hours after his father set up an anti-corruption committee and put him in charge of it, isn't exactly a paragon of probity and transparency himself. Where, for example, did the crown prince find more than five hundred million dollars to spend on a luxury yacht while vacationing in the south of France last year?
"Is it anything other than 'interventionist' to force the resignation of the prime minister of Lebanon on a visit to your country and then put him under a form of house arrest (though the hapless Saad Hariri, a long-standing client of Riyadh, publicly claims otherwise and says he is heading back to Beirut this week)? Or to also detain the president of Yemen? According to an investigation by the Associated Press, 'Saudi Arabia has barred Yemen's President, along with his sons, ministers and military officials, from returning home for months.'
"That the crown prince of Saudi Arabia can, essentially, kidnap the elected leaders of not one but two Middle Eastern countries - and, incidentally, put the leading Saudi royal he replaced as crown prince under house arrest - speaks volumes about not just his 'impulsive intervention policy' but the shameless pass he gets from Western governments for such rogue behaviour. Imagine the reaction from the international community if Iran had, say, detained the Iraqi prime minister on Iranian soil after forcing him to resign on Iranian television. Yet President Donald Trump has gone out of his way to tweet his support for the crown prince and his father: 'I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing.'
"The more sober Europeans haven't been much better. President Emmanuel Macron of France, on a surprise visit to Riyadh last week, saluted MBS 'on the opening of his country and support for a moderate Islam.'
"Meanwhile, are we supposed to call the rift between the Gulf countries, instigated by the Saudis, with the support of the Emiratis, anything other than 'overreach,' to quote the BND, on the part of MBS? The crown prince and his cronies had assumed that tiny, defenceless Qatar would be brought to heel within a matter of weeks, if not days. Five months on, however, the Qataris continue to reject the long list of Saudi/UAE demands - including the closure of the Qatar-owned Al-Jazeera media network - and have retreated into the warm embrace of MBS's key regional rivals, Iran and Turkey. Bravo, Crown Prince!
Then there is Yemen. More than two years after the richest country in the Middle East began bombing the poorest country in the Middle East, there is no end in sight. MBS owns this disastrous conflict - he pushed for it, defended it, escalated it. But wasn't the recent Houthi rocket attack on Riyadh - which the crown prince called an act of 'direct military aggression by the Iranian military regime' - evidence of a complete failure of Saudi military strategy? Weren't those pesky Houthi rebels supposed to have been vanquished by the Royal Saudi Air Force by now? Instead, Yemen has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis - which MBS, as defence minister, shamefully intensified with his order last week to blockade all entry points into the country.
"From Lebanon to Qatar to Yemen, the much-lauded MBS has in fact proved to be the reverse Midas - everything he touches turns to dust. Maybe the authors of that scathing BND memo underestimated just how much of a disaster this favoured son of Salman would be both for the kingdom and for the wider region. The inconvenient truth about the crown prince is that he isn't only impulsive, he's incompetent: he isn't only ambitious, he's reckless. He is also a nationalist and a hawk who is bent on turning the longstanding Saudi/Iran cold war into a very hot war - and is even willing to ally with Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel in order to do so."
Monday, November 13, 2017
A 'Guest' of the Kingdom
Exclusive: How Saudi Arabia turned on Lebanon's Hariri, Samia Nakhoul, Laila Bassam & Tom Perry, Reuters, 11/11/17)
"From the moment Saad al-Hariri's plane touched down in Saudi Arabia on Friday Nov. 3, he was in for a surprise. There was no line-up of Saudi princes or ministry officials, as would typically greet a prime minister on an official visit to King Salman, senior sources close to Hariri and top Lebanese political and security officials said. His phone was confiscated, and the next day he was forced to resign as prime minister in a statement broadcast by a Saudi-owned TV channel.
"The move thrust Lebanon back to the forefront of a struggle that is reshaping the Middle East, between the conservative Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite revolutionary Iran. Their rivalry has fueled conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, where they back opposing sides, and now risks destabilizing Lebanon, where Saudi has long tried to weaken the Iran-backed Hezbollah group, Lebanon's main political power and part of the ruling coalition.
"Sources close to Hariri say Saudi Arabia has concluded that the prime minister - a long-time Saudi ally and son of late prime minister Rafik al-Hariri, who was assassinated in 2005 - had to go because he was unwilling to confront Hezbollah. Multiple Lebanese sources say Riyadh hopes to replace Saad Hariri with his older brother Bahaa as Lebanon's top Sunni politician. Bahaa is believed to be in Saudi Arabia and members of the Hariri family have been asked to travel there to pledge allegiance to him, but have refused, the sources say."
"From the moment Saad al-Hariri's plane touched down in Saudi Arabia on Friday Nov. 3, he was in for a surprise. There was no line-up of Saudi princes or ministry officials, as would typically greet a prime minister on an official visit to King Salman, senior sources close to Hariri and top Lebanese political and security officials said. His phone was confiscated, and the next day he was forced to resign as prime minister in a statement broadcast by a Saudi-owned TV channel.
"The move thrust Lebanon back to the forefront of a struggle that is reshaping the Middle East, between the conservative Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite revolutionary Iran. Their rivalry has fueled conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, where they back opposing sides, and now risks destabilizing Lebanon, where Saudi has long tried to weaken the Iran-backed Hezbollah group, Lebanon's main political power and part of the ruling coalition.
"Sources close to Hariri say Saudi Arabia has concluded that the prime minister - a long-time Saudi ally and son of late prime minister Rafik al-Hariri, who was assassinated in 2005 - had to go because he was unwilling to confront Hezbollah. Multiple Lebanese sources say Riyadh hopes to replace Saad Hariri with his older brother Bahaa as Lebanon's top Sunni politician. Bahaa is believed to be in Saudi Arabia and members of the Hariri family have been asked to travel there to pledge allegiance to him, but have refused, the sources say."
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Molan Rattles the Sabre for Israel
Vintage Jim Molan... strutting Israel's stuff on the opinion page of yesterday's Australian:
"Everything that is concerning about the Middle East could now manifest itself on the southern Lebanese border... Iran, which finances Hezbollah to at least 80% of its annual $US1 billion budget, is achieving its grand geo-strategic aims by influence, aid and proxies in the failed states of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon." (Puppet-state Lebanon a pawn for ambitious Iran)
Oh, really? If Iraq is a "failed state," who then is responsible?
Moylan, of course! As his appended bio states, "Jim Molan is a retired army officer who served as chief of operations in Iraq..."
And if Syria ever becomes a "failed state," it'll only be because the Americans, their allies, and their various jihadi proxies, will have succeeded in toppling Asad - as with Saddam and Gaddafi in Iraq and Libya respectively.
As for Lebanon, the only thing that stands in the way of it becoming an Israeli colony is the determined resistance of Hezbollah, which emerged as the spearhead of Lebanon's national resistance to Israel's 1982-2000 occupation of south Lebanon.
Let's be clear here: the only grand plan at play in the Middle East today is Israel's. The Middle East's only apartheid state, financed by its US proxy to the tune of $US3 billion plus annually, and armed to the teeth with its proxy's weapons of mass destruction, wants a balkanised Arab world over which it has undisputed hegemony.
And here's Molan, almost salivating at the prospect of Israel's next rampage in Lebanon:
"[Iran's] most reliable proxy is Hezbollah, which has had thousands fight in Syria... The skills and experience gained by Hezbollah in Syria will be brought back to Lebanon for use when Iran next wants trouble to occur... Of course Israel will not stand for this. It is poised and ready, as I saw in a recent Israeli-sponsored trip to its northern border. If Hezbollah starts something, then Israel is likely to see the Lebanese government, people and supporting infrastructure as one with Hezbollah, and all as legal targets for the best air force in the world... If Israel replies to Hezbollah provocation, it will take a decade for Lebanon to recover."
Lebanon and its people as "legal targets for the best air force in the world." Chilling.
Thank God Abbott's "Special Envoy for Sovereign Borders" failed in his bid to win a Senate seat for the Liberals in the 2016 election.
"Everything that is concerning about the Middle East could now manifest itself on the southern Lebanese border... Iran, which finances Hezbollah to at least 80% of its annual $US1 billion budget, is achieving its grand geo-strategic aims by influence, aid and proxies in the failed states of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon." (Puppet-state Lebanon a pawn for ambitious Iran)
Oh, really? If Iraq is a "failed state," who then is responsible?
Moylan, of course! As his appended bio states, "Jim Molan is a retired army officer who served as chief of operations in Iraq..."
And if Syria ever becomes a "failed state," it'll only be because the Americans, their allies, and their various jihadi proxies, will have succeeded in toppling Asad - as with Saddam and Gaddafi in Iraq and Libya respectively.
As for Lebanon, the only thing that stands in the way of it becoming an Israeli colony is the determined resistance of Hezbollah, which emerged as the spearhead of Lebanon's national resistance to Israel's 1982-2000 occupation of south Lebanon.
Let's be clear here: the only grand plan at play in the Middle East today is Israel's. The Middle East's only apartheid state, financed by its US proxy to the tune of $US3 billion plus annually, and armed to the teeth with its proxy's weapons of mass destruction, wants a balkanised Arab world over which it has undisputed hegemony.
And here's Molan, almost salivating at the prospect of Israel's next rampage in Lebanon:
"[Iran's] most reliable proxy is Hezbollah, which has had thousands fight in Syria... The skills and experience gained by Hezbollah in Syria will be brought back to Lebanon for use when Iran next wants trouble to occur... Of course Israel will not stand for this. It is poised and ready, as I saw in a recent Israeli-sponsored trip to its northern border. If Hezbollah starts something, then Israel is likely to see the Lebanese government, people and supporting infrastructure as one with Hezbollah, and all as legal targets for the best air force in the world... If Israel replies to Hezbollah provocation, it will take a decade for Lebanon to recover."
Lebanon and its people as "legal targets for the best air force in the world." Chilling.
Thank God Abbott's "Special Envoy for Sovereign Borders" failed in his bid to win a Senate seat for the Liberals in the 2016 election.
Monday, November 16, 2015
When Journalists Sound Like IS Terrorists
Question: Why did the jihadi mongrels who perpetrated the attacks in Paris have it so damn easy?
Answer: Because there were no obstacles of any kind to obstruct them. Just your average civilian infrastructure: you know, streets, cafes, theatres, stadiums, what have you. Stroll in, stroll out:
"France has vowed a 'merciless' response to an unprecedented terrorist atrocity: six-co-ordinated attacks that stained Parisian streets with blood and left more than 120 people dead." (Paris attacks: France vows 'merciless' response to unprecedented atrocity, Nick Miller, The Sun-Herald, 15/11/15)
Question: Why did the same pack of jihadi mongrels who perpetrated the earlier attacks in Beirut have it so damn hard?
Answer: Well, they had to overcome a bastion, which is to say the projecting part of a fortification built at an angle to the line of a wall, so as to allow defensive fire in several directions, a structure that is part of a stronghold, which is a place that has been fortified to protect it against attack. Seriously:
"Lebanon was holding a day of mourning yesterday for 41 people killed in twin bombings... in southern Beirut... More than 200 people were also wounded... by the explosions... in the Burj al-Barajneh neighbourhood that is a bastion of the Shia Hezbollah movement... The attacks were the deadliest to hit a Hezbollah stronghold..." (Lebanon mourns bomb victims, AFP/The Australian, 14/11/15)
Now for all I know, whoever wrote that Agence France Presse piece, with its bastion and stronghold, could have been an IS operative. After all, look at how IS claimed responsibility for the Beirut blasts:
"In a statement posted online, IS claimed... 'Soldiers of the caliphate blew themselves up in the stronghold of the heretics...'" (IS claims twin suicide blasts, Ruth Pollard, Sydney Morning Herald, 14/11/15)
Stronghold! It's like an IS signature word, know what I mean?
Happily, I think we can safely assume that Herald journalist, Ruth Pollard's no jihadi because she didn't use the term at all in her piece, except, of necessity, in the IS quote:
"Islamic State has claimed responsibility for twin suicide blasts in the southern Beirut area of Burj al-Barajneh that killed at least 41 and injured more than 200." (ibid)
See? Not a bastion or a stronghold anywhere in sight, just your common and garden area, you know, with streets and cafes and theatres and stadiums and the like.
But just remember, from now on, whenever you see a journalist use the words stronghold or bastion in connection with an IS bombing in southern Beirut, it means that he/she is actually excusing what, if it occurred anywhere else, would be described as nothing less than a monstrous act of terrorism directed at innocent civilians. That, and sounding suspiciously like an IS propagandist.
Answer: Because there were no obstacles of any kind to obstruct them. Just your average civilian infrastructure: you know, streets, cafes, theatres, stadiums, what have you. Stroll in, stroll out:
"France has vowed a 'merciless' response to an unprecedented terrorist atrocity: six-co-ordinated attacks that stained Parisian streets with blood and left more than 120 people dead." (Paris attacks: France vows 'merciless' response to unprecedented atrocity, Nick Miller, The Sun-Herald, 15/11/15)
Question: Why did the same pack of jihadi mongrels who perpetrated the earlier attacks in Beirut have it so damn hard?
Answer: Well, they had to overcome a bastion, which is to say the projecting part of a fortification built at an angle to the line of a wall, so as to allow defensive fire in several directions, a structure that is part of a stronghold, which is a place that has been fortified to protect it against attack. Seriously:
"Lebanon was holding a day of mourning yesterday for 41 people killed in twin bombings... in southern Beirut... More than 200 people were also wounded... by the explosions... in the Burj al-Barajneh neighbourhood that is a bastion of the Shia Hezbollah movement... The attacks were the deadliest to hit a Hezbollah stronghold..." (Lebanon mourns bomb victims, AFP/The Australian, 14/11/15)
Now for all I know, whoever wrote that Agence France Presse piece, with its bastion and stronghold, could have been an IS operative. After all, look at how IS claimed responsibility for the Beirut blasts:
"In a statement posted online, IS claimed... 'Soldiers of the caliphate blew themselves up in the stronghold of the heretics...'" (IS claims twin suicide blasts, Ruth Pollard, Sydney Morning Herald, 14/11/15)
Stronghold! It's like an IS signature word, know what I mean?
Happily, I think we can safely assume that Herald journalist, Ruth Pollard's no jihadi because she didn't use the term at all in her piece, except, of necessity, in the IS quote:
"Islamic State has claimed responsibility for twin suicide blasts in the southern Beirut area of Burj al-Barajneh that killed at least 41 and injured more than 200." (ibid)
See? Not a bastion or a stronghold anywhere in sight, just your common and garden area, you know, with streets and cafes and theatres and stadiums and the like.
But just remember, from now on, whenever you see a journalist use the words stronghold or bastion in connection with an IS bombing in southern Beirut, it means that he/she is actually excusing what, if it occurred anywhere else, would be described as nothing less than a monstrous act of terrorism directed at innocent civilians. That, and sounding suspiciously like an IS propagandist.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Reap & Sow
Shallow and misleading opinion pieces such as Waleed Aly's on Lebanon in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, which merely skate around issues and tell us more about the ignorance of the writer and the red lines he's afraid to cross, do nothing to enlighten readers on the issue at hand.
How do I know? Well, just take a look at the following selection of the 9 comments (now closed) in the thread which follow his piece online:
There's Rex:
"'Only recently has this sectarianism become so radioactive.' Sorry, Waleed, this is pure wishful thinking! Look at the power that religious leaders have in places like Iran, and it is obvious that 'political' has religious fanaticism at its core: there are no deeper reasons for intolerance and for more than half the Middle East's problems."
For Rex, the Middle East is just one big blur - Lebanon=Iran; the overriding problem is political Islam; and USrael is nowhere in view.
There's Don:
"This is what the money for nothing that is crude oil will buy you. A pity it poured into arming militias and stirring up trouble but there you are."
For Don, the problem is that your Ayrabs won the oil lotto, and Ayrabs being Ayrabs, they just can't handle their winnings, know what I mean? Nothing to do with things like imperialism or colonialism or that spoilt Israeli brat and his permissive US dad.
There's Andy:
"It reminds me of the thirty years war in Europe in the 1600s. Protestants v Catholics. Sunnis v Shiites. History repeats itself with bigger guns. Now we have a milder form of Christianity. Hopefully something similar will happen [to] Islam."
For Andy, religion's the root of all evil. And the beast can rear its ugly head anywhere, anytime, though thanks to Western Genius it's under control here. (Although, after listening to Christopher Pyne recently, I'm wondering what rough Judeo-Christian beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.) Don't, whatever you do, confuse Andy by mentioning those besties, the US-backed, sectarian, Jews-only state of Israel and the US-backed, sectarian, Sunni Muslim-only state of Saudi Arabia.
Here's Mark:
"Yes Andy we got it out of our system a few hundred years ago. Hopefully the Muslim world will get their act together one day."
Yeah, like we've really got our act together, right Marky?
Here's Lazy Jesus:
"'The National Museum of Beirut houses one of the greatest prehistoric collections in the world.' Presumably this is where the Muslim guidelines for the treatment of women are kept."
Oh Jesus! But wait, what's this?
Julian:
"If you go a bit deeper you'll find Israel's involvement in this mess."
Right on, Julian, at last the elephant-who-occupies-the-room! Bet he's going to list Israel's serial aggressions against Lebanon, something like this, to name but a few:
1968: 13 passenger planes destroyed at Beirut airport;
1973: raid on Beirut, killing 3 PLO officials;
1978, Operation Litani River, installing Lebanese puppet force (South Lebanon Army) before withdrawing;
1979 car bomb attack on PLO official;
1982 Operation Peace for Galilee > occupation of West Beirut > Sabra & Shatila massacre > Israeli/SLA occupation of South Lebanon until 2000;
1992 assassinates Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abbas Musawi;
1993 Operation Accountability launched against Lebanon;
1996 Operation Grapes of Wrath launched against Lebanon;
2006 Operation Just Reward launched against Lebanon.
Let's see:
"Lebanon should already be a serious cultural, economic and financial (albeit peaceful) competitor to Israel with a geographic advantage. While the world's best and brightest Jews moved into Israel, the best and brightest Lebanese went into exile."
Jeeeesus!
Finally, there's Thepres:
"Julian, If a country like Lebanon thinks nothing of killing it's [sic] own people with car bombs, it cannot be taken seriously by the rest of the world. Perhaps if the best and brightest Lebanese would return from exile they could change things. The answer of course is that they will not be returning to be killed by their own people urged on by the clergy."
Fair dinkum... where do you even begin? Certainly not with Waleed Aly's rubbish that's for sure.
How do I know? Well, just take a look at the following selection of the 9 comments (now closed) in the thread which follow his piece online:
There's Rex:
"'Only recently has this sectarianism become so radioactive.' Sorry, Waleed, this is pure wishful thinking! Look at the power that religious leaders have in places like Iran, and it is obvious that 'political' has religious fanaticism at its core: there are no deeper reasons for intolerance and for more than half the Middle East's problems."
For Rex, the Middle East is just one big blur - Lebanon=Iran; the overriding problem is political Islam; and USrael is nowhere in view.
There's Don:
"This is what the money for nothing that is crude oil will buy you. A pity it poured into arming militias and stirring up trouble but there you are."
For Don, the problem is that your Ayrabs won the oil lotto, and Ayrabs being Ayrabs, they just can't handle their winnings, know what I mean? Nothing to do with things like imperialism or colonialism or that spoilt Israeli brat and his permissive US dad.
There's Andy:
"It reminds me of the thirty years war in Europe in the 1600s. Protestants v Catholics. Sunnis v Shiites. History repeats itself with bigger guns. Now we have a milder form of Christianity. Hopefully something similar will happen [to] Islam."
For Andy, religion's the root of all evil. And the beast can rear its ugly head anywhere, anytime, though thanks to Western Genius it's under control here. (Although, after listening to Christopher Pyne recently, I'm wondering what rough Judeo-Christian beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.) Don't, whatever you do, confuse Andy by mentioning those besties, the US-backed, sectarian, Jews-only state of Israel and the US-backed, sectarian, Sunni Muslim-only state of Saudi Arabia.
Here's Mark:
"Yes Andy we got it out of our system a few hundred years ago. Hopefully the Muslim world will get their act together one day."
Yeah, like we've really got our act together, right Marky?
Here's Lazy Jesus:
"'The National Museum of Beirut houses one of the greatest prehistoric collections in the world.' Presumably this is where the Muslim guidelines for the treatment of women are kept."
Oh Jesus! But wait, what's this?
Julian:
"If you go a bit deeper you'll find Israel's involvement in this mess."
Right on, Julian, at last the elephant-who-occupies-the-room! Bet he's going to list Israel's serial aggressions against Lebanon, something like this, to name but a few:
1968: 13 passenger planes destroyed at Beirut airport;
1973: raid on Beirut, killing 3 PLO officials;
1978, Operation Litani River, installing Lebanese puppet force (South Lebanon Army) before withdrawing;
1979 car bomb attack on PLO official;
1982 Operation Peace for Galilee > occupation of West Beirut > Sabra & Shatila massacre > Israeli/SLA occupation of South Lebanon until 2000;
1992 assassinates Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abbas Musawi;
1993 Operation Accountability launched against Lebanon;
1996 Operation Grapes of Wrath launched against Lebanon;
2006 Operation Just Reward launched against Lebanon.
Let's see:
"Lebanon should already be a serious cultural, economic and financial (albeit peaceful) competitor to Israel with a geographic advantage. While the world's best and brightest Jews moved into Israel, the best and brightest Lebanese went into exile."
Jeeeesus!
Finally, there's Thepres:
"Julian, If a country like Lebanon thinks nothing of killing it's [sic] own people with car bombs, it cannot be taken seriously by the rest of the world. Perhaps if the best and brightest Lebanese would return from exile they could change things. The answer of course is that they will not be returning to be killed by their own people urged on by the clergy."
Fair dinkum... where do you even begin? Certainly not with Waleed Aly's rubbish that's for sure.
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Phenomenon of Waleed Aly
Reading Waleed Aly's opinion piece on Lebanon in today's Sydney Morning Herald (Nation with no real unity stuck as proxy for region's conflict) helps one understand the phenomenon of how an Australian of 'Middle Eastern appearance' and Arab name can find a prominent place in the mainstream Australian media - in Aly's case, the ABC (Radio National) and Fairfax press: offer plausible-sounding, but lame and simplistic, comment with little or no real historical context, and... shhhhh... no mention whatever of USrael.
His contention is that Lebanon has no 'real' national identity. He quotes Ataturk thus: "Nations which don't find their national identities are doomed to be the prey of other nations," concluding: "It's hard to imagine a more penetrating description of Lebanon."
Tellingly, however, he advances no historical reason for this state of affairs. The reader is left to presume that the Lebanese, unlike the Turks, simply don't have what it takes to create a genuine nation. The fact of the matter is that the modern state of Lebanon cannot be understood without clear reference to Anglo-French imperialist machinations prior to and during World War 1.
In 1916, after decades of interference in the Ottoman Turkish provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean region, Britain and France secretly decided, via the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement, that once the Turks had been ousted from the 'Greater Syria' area, they'd divide the spoils, with the French taking the northern, and the British the southern, part. The French then set about dividing the 'Mt Lebanon' area from its 'Syrian' hinterland, and enlarging it in the process, to create the highly artificial colonial construct known today as Lebanon.
Why then, with French imperialism calling the shots in the area and laying the foundations for Lebanon's current 'confessional' democracy, is it any wonder that Lebanon lacks the kind of national identity referred to by Ataturk?
It is only at the very end of his piece that Aly refers vaguely to the Middle East being "crammed with countries whose national identities have never truly been resolved; whose borders have been horrifically drawn to capture almost nothing coherent." You'd almost think the Arabs had scored an own goal here.
Now look at this:
"[T]he Shiites - most actively represented by Hezbollah - take orders from Iran and the Assad regime in Syria, while Sunnis seek support from Saudi Arabia and embrace Syria's increasingly radical rebels."
So Lebanese Shiites are the mindless puppets of Iran and Syria, while Lebanese Sunnis, who are presumably capable of thinking for themselves, merely "seek support from Saudi Arabia"?
And this:
"The assassination [of "a former [Sunni] finance minister"] is most likely an order from Syria, reasserting Assad's will in Lebanon."
So "an order" from Israel is less likely? And Assad is secure enough in Syria to focus on "reasserting [his] will in Lebanon"? I guess the uncivil war in Syria must be all but over then.
Finally, there is also the assertion that Hezbollah's involvement in Syria "has merely encouraged the same international terrorist groups fighting Assad to start terrorising Lebanon, thereby exposing Hezbollah's claim to be 'resisting' foreign aggression on behalf of Lebanon as a sham..."
Why is there no acknowledgment here that LEBANESE Sunni jihadists were involving themselves in the war in Syria long before Hezbollah's intervention? And why is Hezbollah's highly successful role in RESISTING ISRAELI AGGRESSION in Lebanon from the 80s on written off merely as "Hezbollah's claim to be 'resisting' foreign aggression..."
His contention is that Lebanon has no 'real' national identity. He quotes Ataturk thus: "Nations which don't find their national identities are doomed to be the prey of other nations," concluding: "It's hard to imagine a more penetrating description of Lebanon."
Tellingly, however, he advances no historical reason for this state of affairs. The reader is left to presume that the Lebanese, unlike the Turks, simply don't have what it takes to create a genuine nation. The fact of the matter is that the modern state of Lebanon cannot be understood without clear reference to Anglo-French imperialist machinations prior to and during World War 1.
In 1916, after decades of interference in the Ottoman Turkish provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean region, Britain and France secretly decided, via the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement, that once the Turks had been ousted from the 'Greater Syria' area, they'd divide the spoils, with the French taking the northern, and the British the southern, part. The French then set about dividing the 'Mt Lebanon' area from its 'Syrian' hinterland, and enlarging it in the process, to create the highly artificial colonial construct known today as Lebanon.
Why then, with French imperialism calling the shots in the area and laying the foundations for Lebanon's current 'confessional' democracy, is it any wonder that Lebanon lacks the kind of national identity referred to by Ataturk?
It is only at the very end of his piece that Aly refers vaguely to the Middle East being "crammed with countries whose national identities have never truly been resolved; whose borders have been horrifically drawn to capture almost nothing coherent." You'd almost think the Arabs had scored an own goal here.
Now look at this:
"[T]he Shiites - most actively represented by Hezbollah - take orders from Iran and the Assad regime in Syria, while Sunnis seek support from Saudi Arabia and embrace Syria's increasingly radical rebels."
So Lebanese Shiites are the mindless puppets of Iran and Syria, while Lebanese Sunnis, who are presumably capable of thinking for themselves, merely "seek support from Saudi Arabia"?
And this:
"The assassination [of "a former [Sunni] finance minister"] is most likely an order from Syria, reasserting Assad's will in Lebanon."
So "an order" from Israel is less likely? And Assad is secure enough in Syria to focus on "reasserting [his] will in Lebanon"? I guess the uncivil war in Syria must be all but over then.
Finally, there is also the assertion that Hezbollah's involvement in Syria "has merely encouraged the same international terrorist groups fighting Assad to start terrorising Lebanon, thereby exposing Hezbollah's claim to be 'resisting' foreign aggression on behalf of Lebanon as a sham..."
Why is there no acknowledgment here that LEBANESE Sunni jihadists were involving themselves in the war in Syria long before Hezbollah's intervention? And why is Hezbollah's highly successful role in RESISTING ISRAELI AGGRESSION in Lebanon from the 80s on written off merely as "Hezbollah's claim to be 'resisting' foreign aggression..."
Thursday, December 26, 2013
'They Never Left'
Whether it was done deliberately, to placate the usual suspects, or out of sheer ignorance, the writer of the following introduction to a news item on Syrian refugees aired on ABC Radio National's "flagship current affairs program" AM on 23 December deserves the severest censure:
"The Lebanese government is refusing to build permanent homes for the many Syrian refugees that are enduring a harsh winter in camps across the country. Lebanon is bearing the greatest burden of the exodus from war-ravaged Syria, with a million refugees taking shelter there. The government is wary of the new arrivals because it doesn't want a repeat of 1948 when thousands of Palestinian refugees fled to Lebanon and never left." (Harsh winter ahead for Syrian refugees across the Middle East)
The hell they never left! They certainly tried, and here's what happened:
"Israel's defensive anti-infiltration measures resulted in the death of several thousand mostly unarmed Arabs during 1949-56, the vast majority between 1949 and 1952... Thus, upward of 2,700 Arab infiltrators, and perhaps as many as 5,000, were killed by the IDF, police and civilians along Israel's borders between 1949 and 1956. To judge from the available documentation, the vast majority of those killed were unarmed 'economic' and social infiltrators." (Israel's Border Wars: 1949-1956, Benny Morris, 1997, pp 135-7)
IOW, any Palestinian refugee caught trying to return to his home or land in 'Israel' after the ethnic cleansing of 1948, whether from Lebanon, Jordan or the Gaza Strip, was simply shot on sight by Israeli terrorists.
"The Lebanese government is refusing to build permanent homes for the many Syrian refugees that are enduring a harsh winter in camps across the country. Lebanon is bearing the greatest burden of the exodus from war-ravaged Syria, with a million refugees taking shelter there. The government is wary of the new arrivals because it doesn't want a repeat of 1948 when thousands of Palestinian refugees fled to Lebanon and never left." (Harsh winter ahead for Syrian refugees across the Middle East)
The hell they never left! They certainly tried, and here's what happened:
"Israel's defensive anti-infiltration measures resulted in the death of several thousand mostly unarmed Arabs during 1949-56, the vast majority between 1949 and 1952... Thus, upward of 2,700 Arab infiltrators, and perhaps as many as 5,000, were killed by the IDF, police and civilians along Israel's borders between 1949 and 1956. To judge from the available documentation, the vast majority of those killed were unarmed 'economic' and social infiltrators." (Israel's Border Wars: 1949-1956, Benny Morris, 1997, pp 135-7)
IOW, any Palestinian refugee caught trying to return to his home or land in 'Israel' after the ethnic cleansing of 1948, whether from Lebanon, Jordan or the Gaza Strip, was simply shot on sight by Israeli terrorists.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Follow the Thread...
So who was behind the latest suicide bombings at the Iranian Embassy in Beirut?
The Al-Qaida-linked Abdullah Azzam Brigade, we are told in press reports.
And who is/was Abdullah Azzam?
Azzam was the CIA's right arm in its jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s:
"Azzam traveled the globe under CIA patronage. He appeared on Saudi television and at rallies in the United States. A CIA asset who appeared as the embodiment of of the holy warrior and 'toured the length and breadth of the United States in the early and mid-1980s recruiting for holy war, ostensibly only in Afghanistan." (Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, & the Roots of Terror, Mahmood Mamdani, 2004, p 127)
He was also the teacher of the CIA's star recruit in its Afghan jihad, a wealthy Saudi contractor by the name of Osama bin Laden.
So was Azzam a Saudi?
No. He was a Palestinian, born in the West Bank. He was part of the refugee exodus into Jordan during the Israeli conquest and occupation of the West Bank in June, 1967.
So who was ultimately responsible for the latest bloody Beirut bombing?
If the phrase 'the big picture' has any meaning, Israel and the CIA.
Just follow the thread...
The Al-Qaida-linked Abdullah Azzam Brigade, we are told in press reports.
And who is/was Abdullah Azzam?
Azzam was the CIA's right arm in its jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s:
"Azzam traveled the globe under CIA patronage. He appeared on Saudi television and at rallies in the United States. A CIA asset who appeared as the embodiment of of the holy warrior and 'toured the length and breadth of the United States in the early and mid-1980s recruiting for holy war, ostensibly only in Afghanistan." (Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, & the Roots of Terror, Mahmood Mamdani, 2004, p 127)
He was also the teacher of the CIA's star recruit in its Afghan jihad, a wealthy Saudi contractor by the name of Osama bin Laden.
So was Azzam a Saudi?
No. He was a Palestinian, born in the West Bank. He was part of the refugee exodus into Jordan during the Israeli conquest and occupation of the West Bank in June, 1967.
So who was ultimately responsible for the latest bloody Beirut bombing?
If the phrase 'the big picture' has any meaning, Israel and the CIA.
Just follow the thread...
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Neighbour from Hell
Israeli threats, intimidation and bullying have a too-long history:
Lebanon today:
"According to Lebanese news sites, Israeli fighter jets circled over Beirut and staged mock strikes over several towns on Thursday..." (Israel bombed Syria, says US, Ruth Pollard, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/5/13)
Gaza 2005:
"Israel is deploying a terrifying new tactic against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by letting loose deafening 'sound bombs' that cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children. The removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip opened the way for the military to use air force jets to create dozens of sonic booms by breaking the sound barrier at low altitude, sending shockwaves across the territory, often at night. Palestinians liken the sound to an earthquake or large bomb. They describe the effect as being hit by a wall of air that is painful on the ears, sometimes causing nosebleeds and 'leaving you shaking inside'." (Palestinians hit by sonic boom air raids, Chris McGreal, The Guardian, 3/11/05)
Cairo 60s-70s:
"I remember earlier visits to Egypt when, every day, the Israelis would send jet fighters screaming down the Nile, flying over Cairo's bridges with just metres to spare, mocking the anti-aircraft gunners crouching under their camouflage nets - reminding Egyptians that a few dam-buster raids on the High Dam at Aswan could send the mightiest of all floods pouring down." (Devotion & division, Phillip Adams, The Weekend Australian Magazine, 21/2/09)
Palestine 1948:
"Leo Heiman, a Haganah officer, wrote honestly about the methods used by the Jews. According to him the Haganah brought up jeeps with loudspeakers that broadcast recorded 'horror sounds'. These included 'shrieks, wails and anguished moans of Arab women, the wail of sirens and the clang of fire-alarm bells, interrupted by a sepulchral voice calling out in Arabic: Save your souls all ye faithful! Flee for your lives.' According to Heiman, Haganah loudspeakers warned the Arabs that the Jews were using poison gas and atomic weapons. In view of what had recently taken place at Deir Yassin, the Arabs took these warnings seriously." (The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from Their Homeland, Michael Palumbo, 1987, p 64)
Lebanon today:
"According to Lebanese news sites, Israeli fighter jets circled over Beirut and staged mock strikes over several towns on Thursday..." (Israel bombed Syria, says US, Ruth Pollard, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/5/13)
Gaza 2005:
"Israel is deploying a terrifying new tactic against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by letting loose deafening 'sound bombs' that cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children. The removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip opened the way for the military to use air force jets to create dozens of sonic booms by breaking the sound barrier at low altitude, sending shockwaves across the territory, often at night. Palestinians liken the sound to an earthquake or large bomb. They describe the effect as being hit by a wall of air that is painful on the ears, sometimes causing nosebleeds and 'leaving you shaking inside'." (Palestinians hit by sonic boom air raids, Chris McGreal, The Guardian, 3/11/05)
Cairo 60s-70s:
"I remember earlier visits to Egypt when, every day, the Israelis would send jet fighters screaming down the Nile, flying over Cairo's bridges with just metres to spare, mocking the anti-aircraft gunners crouching under their camouflage nets - reminding Egyptians that a few dam-buster raids on the High Dam at Aswan could send the mightiest of all floods pouring down." (Devotion & division, Phillip Adams, The Weekend Australian Magazine, 21/2/09)
Palestine 1948:
"Leo Heiman, a Haganah officer, wrote honestly about the methods used by the Jews. According to him the Haganah brought up jeeps with loudspeakers that broadcast recorded 'horror sounds'. These included 'shrieks, wails and anguished moans of Arab women, the wail of sirens and the clang of fire-alarm bells, interrupted by a sepulchral voice calling out in Arabic: Save your souls all ye faithful! Flee for your lives.' According to Heiman, Haganah loudspeakers warned the Arabs that the Jews were using poison gas and atomic weapons. In view of what had recently taken place at Deir Yassin, the Arabs took these warnings seriously." (The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from Their Homeland, Michael Palumbo, 1987, p 64)
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Israel's Australian Solution
Breaking through the Great Fire Wall of self-censorship ringing the ABC, comes this rarest of insights* into the racist ideology and legislation that underpins Israeli apartheid: Israeli politician pushes to offload refugees, 7pm ABCTV news 3/7/11:
"An Israeli politician is calling on Australia to take the country's African refugees. Danny Danon says the arrival of thousands of Muslim and Christian refugees is a threat to the state's Jewish identity and he says they'd have a better life in countries like Australia. ABC Middle East correspondent Ben Knight reports:
BK: Each year thousands of Muslim and Christian refugees walk into Israel from Eritrea and Sudan seeking asylum. Many of them end up here in south Tel Aviv. Now a member of Israel's right-wing Likud Party wants them to keep moving: 'Israel is a very small country. We have a lot of security expenses'.
BK: Danny Dannon wants the Australian government to include them in its annual refugee quota and take them off Israel's hands.
DD: We know that every year thousands of people are being accepted by Canada, Australia and other strong Western societies.
BK: It's certainly an unusual idea. Some Israelis though are appalled by it: 'It's verging on racism'.
BK: Yael Dayan is a member of the Tel Aviv City Council with the portfolio for refugees.
YD: It's not his business really to send them to either Australia or Canada. It's his business to take care of Israeli commitments having signed the refugee covenant [sic].
BK: There are around 20,000 Eritrean and 6,000 Sudanese refugees currently in Israel. It's not many in a country of 7.5 million but this is a country with an immigration policy that's unique in the world. Under Israel's Law of Return any Jew anywhere in the world has the right to migrate to this country and each year thousands do, particulatly from Ethiopia, and Israel spends millions of dollars helping them.
DD: Israel is a Jewish state and the only Jewish state. You have 22 Arab countries. You have lots of spaces for other people to live. We have to invest in the Jews who want to come to Israel.
BK: And that he says is Israel's unashamed priority."
Legal eagles out there might benefit from the following more technical rendering of Israel's "unique" immigration policy by Israeli academics, Tally Kritzman-Amir and Yonotan Berman (Responsibility sharing & the rights of refugees: The case of Israel, The George Washington International Law Review, 6/1/11):
"While Israel has been a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees for many decades (since 1951) the Israeli asylum system only started functioning in 2002. Most of the asylum seekers were coming from relatively nearby African countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Ivory Coast. Of these asylum seekers, most have crossed one or more intermediate states to get to Israel. In other words, since 2005, Israel has started to shoulder the burden of the refugee problems resulting from the turbulences in the region in which it is located.
"To understand Israel's policy towards asylum seekers, one must evaluate it in light of the state's general immigration regime. As a Jewish democratic state, Israel's immigration and citizenship regime is based on a Jewish/other distinction. Israel has jus sanguinis ('according to blood') citizenship norms, which display a significant preference for providing citizenship to Jews and their relatives. Israel's immigration policy, therefore, almost exclusively allows for the immigration of Jews and their relatives to Israel. The few exceptions to this rule are typically made for workers, migrating for employment, a process that is heavily governed and restricted by a guest-worker program. Conversely, different policies provide the Israeli government with the power to annul the status of Palestinian residents as well as to deny immigration requests by Palestinians and citizens of several other Arab countries almost categorically.
"The recently developed asylum system in Israel follows the same norms central to Israel's citizenship and immigration process. As the statistical information makes obvious, Israel has long demonstrated a general reluctance to grant refugees protection. To maintain this policy, Israel has resorted to complementary protection mechanisms to the refugee convention such as (formal or informal) temporary protection. Additionally, Israel has made it difficult for asylum seekers to live within the nation after entering. Asylum seekers have been, to a large extent, denied access to the Israeli welfare state; many have also been prohibited from staying or working within the country's urban centres. Furthermore, Israel has chosen to interpret its obligation to accept immigrants restrictively. Having adopted a narrow reading of Article 1(D) of the Refugee Convention, Israel has determined that all Palestinians are ineligible to be given asylum (forcing Palestinians either to stay in the Palestinian territories or to seek asylum in other countries, mostly the neighboring Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan)."
Got the picture? If you're black, get back; if you're Palestinian, piss off. Unless of course you've got a Jewish mummy, which, face it, not many Africans or Palestinians have handy.
Of course, it's not as if the idea of shipping Israel's rejects off to Australia sprang fully-formed from Danon's brain. No, we've been there before, 2001 to be exact. Here's the ABC TV's 7.30 Report of 2/4/2001:
Kerry O'Brien: "Now to the fuss over [Howard government] Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock's decision to accept up to 200 people associated with the South Lebanese Army, or SLA, into Australia. The SLA was a militia force comprising mostly Maronite Christians sponsored and trained by Israel to police Israel's security zone in occupied southern Lebanon. But international watchdogs have accused the SLA of committing numerous human rights abuses against Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. The SLA members fled across the border to Israel when the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon without warning 10 months ago and are too afraid to return to their homeland. Israel has asked other countries to accept the refugees. But, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, which has obtained documents on the issue, apart from Germany, only Australia has agreed, a move that has triggered an angry reaction from various ethnic groups in the Arabic community." (Controversy over Ruddock's acceptance of Lebanese militiamen)
So, even if you've murdered and tortured for Israel, so long as you've entered this world from a non-Jewish womb, there's no place for you in the Jewish state. But fear not - Israel has a fond and foolish friend downunder.
[* In fact this is the only reference I've ever come across in the Australian ms media to Israel's bedrock apartheid Law of Return.]
"An Israeli politician is calling on Australia to take the country's African refugees. Danny Danon says the arrival of thousands of Muslim and Christian refugees is a threat to the state's Jewish identity and he says they'd have a better life in countries like Australia. ABC Middle East correspondent Ben Knight reports:
BK: Each year thousands of Muslim and Christian refugees walk into Israel from Eritrea and Sudan seeking asylum. Many of them end up here in south Tel Aviv. Now a member of Israel's right-wing Likud Party wants them to keep moving: 'Israel is a very small country. We have a lot of security expenses'.
BK: Danny Dannon wants the Australian government to include them in its annual refugee quota and take them off Israel's hands.
DD: We know that every year thousands of people are being accepted by Canada, Australia and other strong Western societies.
BK: It's certainly an unusual idea. Some Israelis though are appalled by it: 'It's verging on racism'.
BK: Yael Dayan is a member of the Tel Aviv City Council with the portfolio for refugees.
YD: It's not his business really to send them to either Australia or Canada. It's his business to take care of Israeli commitments having signed the refugee covenant [sic].
BK: There are around 20,000 Eritrean and 6,000 Sudanese refugees currently in Israel. It's not many in a country of 7.5 million but this is a country with an immigration policy that's unique in the world. Under Israel's Law of Return any Jew anywhere in the world has the right to migrate to this country and each year thousands do, particulatly from Ethiopia, and Israel spends millions of dollars helping them.
DD: Israel is a Jewish state and the only Jewish state. You have 22 Arab countries. You have lots of spaces for other people to live. We have to invest in the Jews who want to come to Israel.
BK: And that he says is Israel's unashamed priority."
Legal eagles out there might benefit from the following more technical rendering of Israel's "unique" immigration policy by Israeli academics, Tally Kritzman-Amir and Yonotan Berman (Responsibility sharing & the rights of refugees: The case of Israel, The George Washington International Law Review, 6/1/11):
"While Israel has been a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees for many decades (since 1951) the Israeli asylum system only started functioning in 2002. Most of the asylum seekers were coming from relatively nearby African countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Ivory Coast. Of these asylum seekers, most have crossed one or more intermediate states to get to Israel. In other words, since 2005, Israel has started to shoulder the burden of the refugee problems resulting from the turbulences in the region in which it is located.
"To understand Israel's policy towards asylum seekers, one must evaluate it in light of the state's general immigration regime. As a Jewish democratic state, Israel's immigration and citizenship regime is based on a Jewish/other distinction. Israel has jus sanguinis ('according to blood') citizenship norms, which display a significant preference for providing citizenship to Jews and their relatives. Israel's immigration policy, therefore, almost exclusively allows for the immigration of Jews and their relatives to Israel. The few exceptions to this rule are typically made for workers, migrating for employment, a process that is heavily governed and restricted by a guest-worker program. Conversely, different policies provide the Israeli government with the power to annul the status of Palestinian residents as well as to deny immigration requests by Palestinians and citizens of several other Arab countries almost categorically.
"The recently developed asylum system in Israel follows the same norms central to Israel's citizenship and immigration process. As the statistical information makes obvious, Israel has long demonstrated a general reluctance to grant refugees protection. To maintain this policy, Israel has resorted to complementary protection mechanisms to the refugee convention such as (formal or informal) temporary protection. Additionally, Israel has made it difficult for asylum seekers to live within the nation after entering. Asylum seekers have been, to a large extent, denied access to the Israeli welfare state; many have also been prohibited from staying or working within the country's urban centres. Furthermore, Israel has chosen to interpret its obligation to accept immigrants restrictively. Having adopted a narrow reading of Article 1(D) of the Refugee Convention, Israel has determined that all Palestinians are ineligible to be given asylum (forcing Palestinians either to stay in the Palestinian territories or to seek asylum in other countries, mostly the neighboring Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan)."
Got the picture? If you're black, get back; if you're Palestinian, piss off. Unless of course you've got a Jewish mummy, which, face it, not many Africans or Palestinians have handy.
Of course, it's not as if the idea of shipping Israel's rejects off to Australia sprang fully-formed from Danon's brain. No, we've been there before, 2001 to be exact. Here's the ABC TV's 7.30 Report of 2/4/2001:
Kerry O'Brien: "Now to the fuss over [Howard government] Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock's decision to accept up to 200 people associated with the South Lebanese Army, or SLA, into Australia. The SLA was a militia force comprising mostly Maronite Christians sponsored and trained by Israel to police Israel's security zone in occupied southern Lebanon. But international watchdogs have accused the SLA of committing numerous human rights abuses against Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. The SLA members fled across the border to Israel when the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon without warning 10 months ago and are too afraid to return to their homeland. Israel has asked other countries to accept the refugees. But, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, which has obtained documents on the issue, apart from Germany, only Australia has agreed, a move that has triggered an angry reaction from various ethnic groups in the Arabic community." (Controversy over Ruddock's acceptance of Lebanese militiamen)
So, even if you've murdered and tortured for Israel, so long as you've entered this world from a non-Jewish womb, there's no place for you in the Jewish state. But fear not - Israel has a fond and foolish friend downunder.
[* In fact this is the only reference I've ever come across in the Australian ms media to Israel's bedrock apartheid Law of Return.]
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Zionist Hypocrisy Alert
Hypocrisy is a hallmark of Zionist scribblers, and Dvir Abramovich, director of the Centre for Jewish History & Culture at the University of Melbourne, Australian Jewish News columnist and occasional Fairfax blogger, is no exception.
Writing in the AJN on why Israel should not share Jerusalem with the Palestinians, he claims: "If the city was divided, there would be Palestinian army bases stationed at the edges of Jewish neighbourhoods." (Jerusalem on the block, 15/7/11)
Is that so? Then it'd merely mirror what Israel already does in the Galilee, wouldn't it?:
"During the [2006] War on Lebanon, the Israeli army installed rocket-launching bases near Arab towns and villages in the north, in some cases only a few metres away. The Arab towns of Fassuta, Tarsheeha, and Arab al-'Aramshe were all subject to this deliberate military policy. These rocket-launching bases are a serious threat to the residents of nearby towns and villages for a number of reasons. First, launching the rockets and firing is ongoing throughout the day and continues into the night. Second, there exists the possibility of misfiring which puts the lives of residents in danger. Finally, there is also the real danger of Hezbollah firing on these bases, exposing the residents of nearby towns and villages to a life-threatening reality. Indeed, it is not surprising that residents of these villages were killed by Hezbollah rockets. For example, 3 residents were killed by Hezbollah rockets near an Israeli rocket-launching base. In addition, the IDF has also transformed areas of certain Arab towns and villages into training camps in preparation for their ground incursion into Lebanon, which to date has been partially implemented. The training camps are located in the Arab towns of al-Jish, al-Shaghour, Fassuta, Kufr Manda and Lid. The army validated this decision by saying, 'The landscape of Arab towns [in Israel] is similar to Arab towns in Lebanon'." (Israeli rocket-launching bases & army training camps deliberately constructed near Arab towns & villages, Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA), electronicintifada.net, 17/8/06)
In the unlikely event that the Palestinians ever manage to convert East Jerusalem into the stuff of Abramovich's nightmares, perhaps they could validate their efforts by claiming that 'The landscape of our East Jerusalem is similar to Israeli West Jerusalem'. And why not? After all, it worked for Israel in 2006.
Writing in the AJN on why Israel should not share Jerusalem with the Palestinians, he claims: "If the city was divided, there would be Palestinian army bases stationed at the edges of Jewish neighbourhoods." (Jerusalem on the block, 15/7/11)
Is that so? Then it'd merely mirror what Israel already does in the Galilee, wouldn't it?:
"During the [2006] War on Lebanon, the Israeli army installed rocket-launching bases near Arab towns and villages in the north, in some cases only a few metres away. The Arab towns of Fassuta, Tarsheeha, and Arab al-'Aramshe were all subject to this deliberate military policy. These rocket-launching bases are a serious threat to the residents of nearby towns and villages for a number of reasons. First, launching the rockets and firing is ongoing throughout the day and continues into the night. Second, there exists the possibility of misfiring which puts the lives of residents in danger. Finally, there is also the real danger of Hezbollah firing on these bases, exposing the residents of nearby towns and villages to a life-threatening reality. Indeed, it is not surprising that residents of these villages were killed by Hezbollah rockets. For example, 3 residents were killed by Hezbollah rockets near an Israeli rocket-launching base. In addition, the IDF has also transformed areas of certain Arab towns and villages into training camps in preparation for their ground incursion into Lebanon, which to date has been partially implemented. The training camps are located in the Arab towns of al-Jish, al-Shaghour, Fassuta, Kufr Manda and Lid. The army validated this decision by saying, 'The landscape of Arab towns [in Israel] is similar to Arab towns in Lebanon'." (Israeli rocket-launching bases & army training camps deliberately constructed near Arab towns & villages, Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA), electronicintifada.net, 17/8/06)
In the unlikely event that the Palestinians ever manage to convert East Jerusalem into the stuff of Abramovich's nightmares, perhaps they could validate their efforts by claiming that 'The landscape of our East Jerusalem is similar to Israeli West Jerusalem'. And why not? After all, it worked for Israel in 2006.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Pigs Will Fly
"The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, who has been touring the region, stepped up his calls yesterday for the no-fly zone [against Gaddafi's air force] to be imposed with UN approval." (Gillard keen for closer military ties with the US, Phillip Coorey, Sydney Morning Herald, 9/3/11)
Yeah right, Kev, but fair shake of the sauce bottle, maaate - howzabout a no-fly zone over Lebanon first:
"The Lebanese army has said that an Israeli reconnaissance plane has breached the country's airspace in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution... Israeli warplanes violate the Lebanese airspace almost on a daily basis. The Hezbollah resistance movement in the Lebanese government, along with the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), has repeatedly called on Israel to halt its surveillance flights over Lebanon. The move is seen as a violation of UNSC resolution 1701 that called on Israel to respect Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and hence ended Israel's 33-day war against Lebanon in 2006. The 33-day offensive destroyed much of Lebanon's major infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mainly civilians. According to evidence-based statistics submitted to the UN by the Lebanese government in 2009, Israel has breached the provisions of the resolution on more than 7,000 occasions by violating Lebanon's airspace, territorial waters, and border. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman has also submitted an official complaint to the UNSC over Israeli espionage activities inside his country. (Israeli drone violates Lebanon airspace, turkishweekly.net, 7/3/11)
Yeah right, Kev, but fair shake of the sauce bottle, maaate - howzabout a no-fly zone over Lebanon first:
"The Lebanese army has said that an Israeli reconnaissance plane has breached the country's airspace in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution... Israeli warplanes violate the Lebanese airspace almost on a daily basis. The Hezbollah resistance movement in the Lebanese government, along with the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), has repeatedly called on Israel to halt its surveillance flights over Lebanon. The move is seen as a violation of UNSC resolution 1701 that called on Israel to respect Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and hence ended Israel's 33-day war against Lebanon in 2006. The 33-day offensive destroyed much of Lebanon's major infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mainly civilians. According to evidence-based statistics submitted to the UN by the Lebanese government in 2009, Israel has breached the provisions of the resolution on more than 7,000 occasions by violating Lebanon's airspace, territorial waters, and border. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman has also submitted an official complaint to the UNSC over Israeli espionage activities inside his country. (Israeli drone violates Lebanon airspace, turkishweekly.net, 7/3/11)
Friday, February 18, 2011
What's With SBS? 2
More blatant pro-Israel bias on yesterday's SBS' 6.30 pm World News Australia:
The segment Iran tensions flare is introduced thus by the newsreader:
"And in Iran tensions sparked by renewed opposition protests have flared again with clashes reported of supporters and opponents of the country's Islamic regime. Tensions are also brewing between Iran and its arch-enemy Israel, which has warned both Iran and its ally, Lebanon's Hezbollah against any provocation."
The take home message? While Iran (even with its current internal troubles!) and Hezbollah are constitutionally provocative, Israel, as usual, just stands around, minding its own business.
Having first covered the demonstrations in Iran, SBS reporter Vesna Nazor goes on:
"Israel's also reacted to the latest threat from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah after its leader told supporters to be ready to invade northern Israel in the event of any new conflict."
Just the latest in a long line...
The report then cuts to Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah: "I tell the warriors of the holy Islamic resistance... to be ready in case war is forced on Lebanon. The resistance command may ask you to take over Galilee."
Followed by Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu: "Hezbollah's leader announced that he intends to conquer the Galilee. Well, I have news for you - he won't."
Nazor concludes with a comment stressing Israel's always peaceful intentions: "Reacting to Egypt's uprising... Israel's leader said his country should hope for the best but prepare for the worst."
Poor, put-upon little Israel, just trying to live a normal life in the toughest of neighborhoods with psychos around every corner!
Except that Nasrallah's "latest threat" didn't just come out of the blue. Completely missing from SBS' shifty and deceitful little propaganda package was the following context: "Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday that Israel Defense Forces may be called into Lebanon in the future, during his first military tour with new IDF chief Benny Gantz along the northern border. 'Hezbollah remembers the heavy beating they suffered from us in 2006, but it is not forever, and you may be called to enter again', Barak told the IDF soldiers, adding that 'we must be prepared for every test'." (Barak: IDF soldiers may be called into Lebanon in the future, Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz, 15/2/11)
The segment Iran tensions flare is introduced thus by the newsreader:
"And in Iran tensions sparked by renewed opposition protests have flared again with clashes reported of supporters and opponents of the country's Islamic regime. Tensions are also brewing between Iran and its arch-enemy Israel, which has warned both Iran and its ally, Lebanon's Hezbollah against any provocation."
The take home message? While Iran (even with its current internal troubles!) and Hezbollah are constitutionally provocative, Israel, as usual, just stands around, minding its own business.
Having first covered the demonstrations in Iran, SBS reporter Vesna Nazor goes on:
"Israel's also reacted to the latest threat from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah after its leader told supporters to be ready to invade northern Israel in the event of any new conflict."
Just the latest in a long line...
The report then cuts to Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah: "I tell the warriors of the holy Islamic resistance... to be ready in case war is forced on Lebanon. The resistance command may ask you to take over Galilee."
Followed by Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu: "Hezbollah's leader announced that he intends to conquer the Galilee. Well, I have news for you - he won't."
Nazor concludes with a comment stressing Israel's always peaceful intentions: "Reacting to Egypt's uprising... Israel's leader said his country should hope for the best but prepare for the worst."
Poor, put-upon little Israel, just trying to live a normal life in the toughest of neighborhoods with psychos around every corner!
Except that Nasrallah's "latest threat" didn't just come out of the blue. Completely missing from SBS' shifty and deceitful little propaganda package was the following context: "Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday that Israel Defense Forces may be called into Lebanon in the future, during his first military tour with new IDF chief Benny Gantz along the northern border. 'Hezbollah remembers the heavy beating they suffered from us in 2006, but it is not forever, and you may be called to enter again', Barak told the IDF soldiers, adding that 'we must be prepared for every test'." (Barak: IDF soldiers may be called into Lebanon in the future, Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz, 15/2/11)
Monday, January 24, 2011
Museum Piece
The Australian's Middle East correspondent John Lyons resumes poking a stick at Hezbollah (See my 19/1/11 post South Side Story).
A guided tour:
1) Headline: Hezbollah's homage to a deadly past, and future (22/1/11). A thoroughly nasty piece of work indeed. Think venemous snake or scorpion. Israel? Think lamb or fluffy kitten.
2) Subhead: "A bizarre Lebanese theme park mocks Israel & signals the militants' vendetta can only escalate" Of course, deadly, bizarre, mocking, mafia-like. Be afraid, very afraid!
3) "Military museums across the world usually commemorate the efforts of their own country's soldiers. But this is different." Different? As in... bizarre?
4) "This park, at Mleeta, near the border with Israel, is about death, destruction, revenge and warning." Unlike Israel's which are all about life, creation, forgiveness and welcome.
5) "Given the animosity between Hezbollah and Israel, this is probably the only place in Lebanon where Hebrew words can appear in the open. At the centre of the park... is a mock graveyard with massive Hebrew words warning any Israeli drones or satellites overhead: one says 'The Abyss' while another says 'Lebanese Quagmire'." Ah yes, without Hezbollah, Hebrew would be very much in the open in Lebanon, taunting at checkpoints, barked orders over a loudspeaker to come out of your home at 2 in the morning with your hands raised, and cursing in prisons and torture chambers.
6) "A guide beckons us into a cinema... they begin rolling a history of the Israeli-Arab conflict... It shows Israeli 'Zionist' soldiers..." Oh, so they're not Zionist soldiers? Oh, I see, it's a dirty word these days? I wonder why.
7) "... storming the Old City as they conquer Jerusalem. The editor obviously forgot the bit about the UN General Assembly resolution in 1947..." Err... could that possibly be because Israel's storming of the Old City took place in 1967, John?
8) "... saying 'independent Arab and Jewish states... shall come into existence in Palestine'." And? What's with the "..." John? Shall I supply the missing bit?: "... and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem..." I mean you were talking about Jerusalem and the partition resolution of 1947, weren't you? Oh, I see, you didn't think it important to tell the punters that, according to that resolution, Jerusalem was supposed to have been internationalised under UN administration and that those Israeli stormtroopers had no right storming either East (1967) or West (1948) Jerusalem? Right...
9) "While Hezbollah... delights in the propaganda of the museum..." Ah, but not Israel. No propaganda at Yad Vashem. No propaganda at Yad ha-Shiryon (The Armored Corps Memorial Site & Museum at Latrun). No, sir, for Israel it's the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts, OK?
10) I'll end with a little quizz.
You are a Middle East correspondent, in Lebanon to do a story on Hezbollah. You want to consult some expert opinion. Here are 6 possibilities. Choose 3:
1) Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank established by AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee), and author of If War Comes: Israel vs Hizballah & Its Allies; 2) The Economist; 3) Jonathan Spyer, Israeli academic and author of The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict; 4) Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh, associate professor of political science at the American University of Beirut & author of In the Path of Hizbollah; 5) Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Lebanese scholar & author of Hezbollah: Politics & Religion; 6) Hala Jaber, British-Lebanese journalist (The Sunday Times) & author of Hezbollah: Born with a Vengeance.
Hm... too hard? I'll make it easier for you. You're not just any ME correspondent - you're John Lyons of Murdoch's Australian.
A guided tour:
1) Headline: Hezbollah's homage to a deadly past, and future (22/1/11). A thoroughly nasty piece of work indeed. Think venemous snake or scorpion. Israel? Think lamb or fluffy kitten.
2) Subhead: "A bizarre Lebanese theme park mocks Israel & signals the militants' vendetta can only escalate" Of course, deadly, bizarre, mocking, mafia-like. Be afraid, very afraid!
3) "Military museums across the world usually commemorate the efforts of their own country's soldiers. But this is different." Different? As in... bizarre?
4) "This park, at Mleeta, near the border with Israel, is about death, destruction, revenge and warning." Unlike Israel's which are all about life, creation, forgiveness and welcome.
5) "Given the animosity between Hezbollah and Israel, this is probably the only place in Lebanon where Hebrew words can appear in the open. At the centre of the park... is a mock graveyard with massive Hebrew words warning any Israeli drones or satellites overhead: one says 'The Abyss' while another says 'Lebanese Quagmire'." Ah yes, without Hezbollah, Hebrew would be very much in the open in Lebanon, taunting at checkpoints, barked orders over a loudspeaker to come out of your home at 2 in the morning with your hands raised, and cursing in prisons and torture chambers.
6) "A guide beckons us into a cinema... they begin rolling a history of the Israeli-Arab conflict... It shows Israeli 'Zionist' soldiers..." Oh, so they're not Zionist soldiers? Oh, I see, it's a dirty word these days? I wonder why.
7) "... storming the Old City as they conquer Jerusalem. The editor obviously forgot the bit about the UN General Assembly resolution in 1947..." Err... could that possibly be because Israel's storming of the Old City took place in 1967, John?
8) "... saying 'independent Arab and Jewish states... shall come into existence in Palestine'." And? What's with the "..." John? Shall I supply the missing bit?: "... and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem..." I mean you were talking about Jerusalem and the partition resolution of 1947, weren't you? Oh, I see, you didn't think it important to tell the punters that, according to that resolution, Jerusalem was supposed to have been internationalised under UN administration and that those Israeli stormtroopers had no right storming either East (1967) or West (1948) Jerusalem? Right...
9) "While Hezbollah... delights in the propaganda of the museum..." Ah, but not Israel. No propaganda at Yad Vashem. No propaganda at Yad ha-Shiryon (The Armored Corps Memorial Site & Museum at Latrun). No, sir, for Israel it's the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts, OK?
10) I'll end with a little quizz.
You are a Middle East correspondent, in Lebanon to do a story on Hezbollah. You want to consult some expert opinion. Here are 6 possibilities. Choose 3:
1) Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank established by AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee), and author of If War Comes: Israel vs Hizballah & Its Allies; 2) The Economist; 3) Jonathan Spyer, Israeli academic and author of The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict; 4) Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh, associate professor of political science at the American University of Beirut & author of In the Path of Hizbollah; 5) Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Lebanese scholar & author of Hezbollah: Politics & Religion; 6) Hala Jaber, British-Lebanese journalist (The Sunday Times) & author of Hezbollah: Born with a Vengeance.
Hm... too hard? I'll make it easier for you. You're not just any ME correspondent - you're John Lyons of Murdoch's Australian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)