Khalil and Linda: Israel denying medical aid to Gaza

Another frustrating day at the Rafah crossing point to Gaza for Khalil and Linda as they wait to hear if the aid van they've driven all the way from Edinburgh will be allowed through.

The cruel siege and suffering inflicted on the people of Gaza has not been seriously abated by the ceasefire. Meanwhile, a nearby hospital waits desperately for delivery of these essential medical supplies.

And it begs these most obvious of compassionate questions (answers below):

How can Israel, in refusing delivery of such basic humanitarian items, call itself a civilised state?

Why is Egypt conniving in this cruelty?

Why is the British government doing or saying nothing in critical response?

Why aren't the mainstream media, notably the BBC, reporting this as another crime against humanity?

Answers:

Because it's not civilised, it's a ruthless, apartheid state.

Because, as a client state of the US, it's beholden to Tel Aviv's dictat.

Because, as Mr Brown intimated to the Knesset last week, Britain will continue to back Israel unremittingly in its punishing actions.

Because, as Helen Boaden and her co-directors maintain, the BBC must always remain "impartial" - which, as has repeatedly been shown, means ignoring such stories.

The noun "a career of villians" comes to mind.

John

http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php
http://gphrc.org/main.html

And Brown spoke unto the land of apartheid

Two questions.

What 'modern' country maintains a system of social separation which most of the world struggled to end in South Africa? And what kind of 'moral ' leader would speak in open support of such a country?

This week, a British Prime Minister, the first ever, stood before the Knesset, a parliament founded on the same 'participatory' ideals as Westminster, and told its assembled members that Britain fully backs the state of Israel. Citing his biblical upbringing, Gordon Brown reaffirmed his commitments to a state which has, in any true religious or moral sense, Christian, Judaic or otherwise, transgressed the most basic values of human decency.

Brown's cursory 'criticism' of Israel's West Bank settlements was of paltry significance in a speech unambiguous in its endorsement of a state which practices institutional racism. No amount of biblical reference can disguise the literal truth of Israel's crimes, including its apartheid containment of the Palestinian people.

Apartheid is apartheid

The word "apartheid" carries powerful connotations. How, the uninitiated might wonder, could such a label be applied to Israel, a country whose people 'look and sound' just like 'us' democracy-loving Westerners.

Yet, imagine, if you will, a 'liberal democracy' where racist separation of that country's ethnic majority from its ethnic minority is routinely encouraged. A country where discrimination and transfer of 'Arab Israelis' is endemic. Might we have cause to wonder at the true 'democratic' and 'liberal' claims of such a state?

Much of this mindset derives from the formative ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. But it also sits rigidly today as a de facto civil policy; part of an ongoing project to rid Arabs from Israel.

While religious freedom is nominally protected (under the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty), organisations like Yad L'achim are given wide scope to practice their doctrines of religious exclusivism and 'racial purity'. More specifically, its Anti Assimilation Department is tasked with preventing inter-ethnic development between Jews and Arabs. This is going on just now in places like Kiryat Gat under the approving eye of its local authorities and police.

Such groups may be regarded by more progressive elements in Israel as anachronistic. Yet, the state permits such activities as a way of helping to enforce social and ethnic separation.

Beyond the dark variations of racist ideology here in Britain, from BNP to Daily Mail hatemongering, there remains, at least, a healthy respect for multicultural principles. The idea of promoting ethnic or/and religious segregation of this sort would be regarded as not just racist but illegal. Yet, Israel disseminates this kind of ideology across the society, most notably in schools and workplaces.

It's why even the liberal Israeli media is prompted to report the appalling levels of racist sentiment towards Arabs. In one recent poll by the Association of Civil Rights Israel (ACRI), over seventy percent of Israeli respondents said they thought Arabs were "unclean" and wouldn't want to live in the same building as them. Over half believed Arabs should be denied the same civil rights as Jews.

Again, much of this civil racism stems from state policy:

"The ACRI says that bills introduced in the Knesset contribute to delegitimize the country's Arab citizens, such as ones that would link the right to vote and receive state allowances to military or national service. They also include bills that require ministers and MKs to swear allegiance to a Jewish state and those that set aside 13 percent of all state lands owned by the Jewish National Fund for Jews only."

Similar discrimination is occurring across the academic field, yet another area of civil separation ignored by Gordon Brown:

"The British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), the main organisation in the UK promoting the academic and cultural boycott of Israel, condemned the academic initiative announced by Gordon Brown in yesterday’s Knesset speech as “abject hypocrisy”. BRICUP called on British academics to refuse the “blood money” promised for Israeli-British collaboration through the Britain-Israel Research and Academic Exchange Partnership (BIRAX) which Brown announced will provide grants for joint scientific research and exchanges between Israel and Britain.

BRICUP notes that Brown had nothing to say about the systematic sabotage of Palestinian centres of learning and research by the Israeli separation wall, by military incursions and checkpoints, and by the detention of tutors and students. Mr. Brown spoke of peace and collaborative endeavour; he turned his eyes away from the cultural and educational deprivation, imposed as a matter of policy, on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and from the Palestinians discriminated against in education and research inside Israel itself."

Little or nothing of this is being reported in the Western media. Which is why "Apartheid Israel" is also the great no-go label for the BBC and other obedient media.

Director of BBC News, Helen Boaden, recently dismissed as mere "opinion" the idea that Israel could be likened to apartheid South Africa. This despite the concise association being made by prominent international figures like Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter and UN human rights rapporteur John Dugard.

Israel's apartheid system needs to be called precisely that. It's a term that should be used openly and consistently, a valid identifier that would help focus the world's attentions on its dark policies of segregation, institutional discrimination and murderous Occupation.

Suffering Palestinians will, of course, wait a long time in the wilderness before the prophet Gordon and his media disciples ever concede this unholy truth. But it's a truth that can't be hidden. Israel is, by any reasonable definition, an apartheid state.

John

Best of times, worst of Times: Murdoch goes after Media Lens

The Times, under Rupert Murdoch's News International, has threatened Media Lens with legal action, claiming that it had published an e-mail from Times journalist Bronwen Maddox without permission. It also alleges that Maddox had received intimidating letters from ML contributors.

Maddox had written a typical piece castigating Iran as a menacing threat to the West, part of the 'sensible' fearmongering output we've been seeing from the 'quality' press towards Tehran. ML had challenged Maddox's views and noted her reply as part of their exchange, a standard convention in any such correspondence. NI's legal manager, Alastair Brett, responded with the threat of legal proceedings, demanding that ML remove Maddox's e-mailed comments from their Alert piece. As a nominally-funded outfit, ML was forced to comply. Except for one outlandish e-mail from an unknown source, Brett has produced no evidence of these 'intimidating letters' to Maddox.

In a subsequent Alert , Media Lens detail the flimsy and malevolent nature of Brett's case:

"Brett claimed Times journalist Bronwen Maddox had been subject to “vexatious and threatening” emails from Media Lens readers, which constituted “harassment”. If this did not stop, Brett told us, he would notify the police who might wish to investigate the matter with a view to bringing a criminal prosecution. "

"Brett also claimed that we would be acting unlawfully by publishing an email from Maddox without permission. We sought advice and one legal expert told us:

“The Times has no case over the confidentiality of email correspondence. Email correspondence, in itself, is not considered confidential - unless the precise contents of an email are confidential.” "

"Douwe Korff, Professor of International Law at London Metropolitan University and an expert on the European Convention on Human Rights, commented:

"I find the stance of the Times appalling in moral terms and flimsy at best in law. Their legal position, if endorsed by the courts, would severely limit freedom of the press over issues of major public concern. Is that what they want? I have little doubt their arguments would be kicked out by the UK courts if they pursued them here; they would certainly not be upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This is simply an attempt by a heavy-weight corporation to brow-beat a small freelance news operation that dares to be critical of its editorial line. It is quite scandalous. The Times should be ashamed of itself." (Email to Media Lens, July 8, 2008)"

An impressive flow of support for Media Lens has followed, even from some often at the receiving end of ML's (always rationally-argued and polite) output. The Times, meanwhile, has fallen strangely silent, refusing, of course, to print a single letter in their organ in defence of Media Lens.

It's an encouraging sign of the times for an expanding alternative media that News International should concentrate its corporate wrath on a small, but highly effective, site like Media Lens. It shows the gathering impact ML is having in exposing slavish journalism, corporate control and the liberal media's servility to power.

In contrast, while an establishment organ, long-standing, this episode reveals the Times in its worst incarnation to date: that of a bullying attack dog using its corporate teeth to silence dissent.

The Times assault on Media Lens is but the latest exercise in Murdoch's instructions-to-purge. We also have the ongoing persecution of Tommy Sheridan, his family and his colleagues by News International. One strongly suspects that, when the dust settles on this case, formal inquiry-type questions will have to be asked about those, at the highest levels, who instructed and pursued this cruel and political vendetta.

Like the attack on the 'Sheridan 7', NI's efforts to intimidate Media Lens illustrates the kind of Orwellian times we're living in. While the government pursues unprecedented draconian legislation to silence and detain, its corporate intimates are using their muscle to pick-off those beyond easy reach.

While the prospect of further legal action, and possible closure, remains, the Media Lens editors can take great heart from News International's militant 'attentions'. It's a testament to their rational, forensic and humanitarian output that Murdoch and the elite he represents wish to see them cowed and silenced.

Of course, while his legal hench-persons may have selected the wrong grounds this time for pursuing their kill - as shown by the widespread support and sympathy for Media Lens - the Empire is unlikely to give up. As shown in the Sheridan case, Murdoch is not known for graceful retreat.

In the meantime, ML's stellar output is proving a considerable problem for those continuing to hide behind the veil of 'professional journalism'. Particularly those 'sensible liberals' with their 'worried readings' of the 'Iranian menace'. There's a certain irony here that it's taken someone like Murdoch to 'act on their behalf' in trying to muzzle Media Lens. They would, no doubt, disapprove of such censorship, proclaiming ideals of a free media. Yet, it's a sign of the times, nonetheless, that the bully tactics of News International are serving to protect their hallowed liberal status. Which goes to show that, in times of war and the 'menacing other', this broad media amalgam can be safely relied upon to promote the same essential message of support for the West's lies and aggressions.

John

The UK war regime and its merchants of death

First up, proud salutations to the courageous 'Raytheon 9', six of whom were recently acquitted of criminal damage charges following their occupation of Raytheon offices in Derry.

The action by the nine Derry Anti War Coalition members had taken place on 9 August 2006 while Israel was bombarding Lebanon with Raytheon-produced bombs, among them the infamous Bunker-Buster. Over 1000 Lebanese civilians were killed - while the countryside remains littered with deadly cluster bombs. Raytheon also list in their catalogue of death Cruise, Patriot, Sidewinder and Tomahawk missiles. The Derry activists succeeded in damaging much of the computer software and other Raytheon property, serving to highlight the company's own criminal activity. What we might call constructive destruction of destructive constructions.

Following the judgement, one of the 9, veteran writer Eamon McCann, made this admirable statement:

"The outcome of this case has profound implications.

The jury has accepted that we were reasonable in our belief that: the Israel Defence Forces were guilty of war crimes in Lebanon in the summer of 2006; that the Raytheon company, including its facility in Derry, was aiding and abetting the commission of these crimes; and that the action we took was intended to have, and did have, the effect of hampering or delaying the commission of war crimes.

We have been vindicated.

We reject entirely and with contempt the statement by Raytheon this evening suggesting that the result of the trial gives them concern about the safety of their employees. This is an abject attempt to divert attention from the significance of the outcome. Not a shed of evidence was produced that we presented the slightest danger to Raytheon workers. The charge of affray was thrown out by the court without waiting to hear defence evidence.

Our target has always been Raytheon as a corporate entity and its shareholders and directors who profit from misery and death.

There is now no hiding place for those who have said that they support the presence of Raytheon in Derry on the basis that the company is not involved in Derry in arms-related production. We have established that not only is the Derry plant involved in arms-related production, it is also, through its integration into Raytheon as a whole, involved in war crimes.

We call on all elected representatives in Derry, and on the citizens of Derry, to say now in unequivocal terms that the war criminal Raytheon is not welcome in our city.

We call on the office of the Attorney General and the Crown Prosecution Service, in light of this verdict, to institute an investigation into the activities of Raytheon at its various plants across the UK, with a view to determining whether Raytheon is, as we say it is, a criminal enterprise.

We believe that one day the world will look back on the arms trade as we look back today on the slave trade, and wonder how it came about that such evil could abound in respectable society. If we have advanced by a mere moment the day when the arms trade is put beyond the law, what we have done will have been worthwhile.

We took the action we did in the immediate aftermath of the slaughter of innocents in Qana on July 30th 2006. The people of Qana are our neighbours. Their children are the children of our neighbours. We trashed Raytheon to help protect our neighbours. The court has found that that was not a crime. This what the Raytheon case has been about.

We have not denied or apologised for what we did at the Raytheon plant in the summer of 2006. All of us believe that it was the best thing we ever did in our lives."

The trial, moved from Derry to Belfast, and subject to a gagging order preventing media coverage of Raytheon's dealings in the province, illustrates the deep sensitivities felt by the British state when the profits and interests of arms companies are threatened.

The decision of a people's jury against Raytheon is also a reminder to pliant politicians that procurers of WMD are not always welcome in one's locale - even if they are providing those 'much-needed jobs'. For those endorsing Raytheon at Glenrothes, Scotland, and other UK locations, take note: this is not just about economic livelihoods, it's about the economy of death and the taking of others' actual lives.

Ruling the waves - and the skies

On which note, by what stretch of the caring imagination should we condone the ongoing spending of vast sums on military hardware? The Ministry of Defence has just signed contracts for two new aircraft carriers worth £4 billion. The proposed HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, so we're told by captains of industry and unions, alike, are great news for the economy and local communities.

Defence Secretary, Des Browne, said:

“This is a historic day for everyone in defense. The two aircraft carriers will provide our forces with the world-class capabilities they will need over the coming decades. They will support peace-keeping and conflict prevention, as well as our strategic operational priorities. Today’s contract signing seals the future for thousands of jobs, and ensures that we will have a Royal Navy fit for the 21st century.”

But, what motivations really apply here? Forward defence thinking and the national economy in support of a peaceful world? Or backward power and cravings of imperial grandeur? Still burdened by delusions of the latter, Britain is really a war economy state driven by corporate interests and the need to make the world a more, not less, warmongering place.

There's also the more 'mundane' question of how these pieces of high-tech flotsam help prevent a lone Al Qaeda operative leaving a bomb on a train.

It's a sobering thought when we stop to ponder what exists behind the respectable facade and language of the 'defence economy'. This is a war regime dedicated to protecting and enabling its arms masters around the globe. It's why Gordon Brown takes his eager turn in the prime ministerial arms tour to Saudi Arabia. It's why the Ministry of Defence is a revolving door to BaE and other elite arms corporations. It's why my MP, and New Labour clone, Tom Harris, blanked all efforts to explain and oppose the safe passage of US-Israeli bombs for Lebanon through Prestwick and other UK airports.

The UK was recently 'elevated' to the highest position in world arms-sales ranking following the signing of a £10 billion deal to supply the Saudis with a new 'kill' (my collective noun) of Eurofighter/Typhoon jets and other military equipment. Without a hint of irony:

"The Ministry of Defence says the terms of the contract - called Salam, Arabic for peace - and the total expenditure involved are confidential."

Meanwhile, back in ethical blighty, £76 billion will be released from the New Labour Treasury over the next 30 years to replace Trident and maintain its successor - all in breach of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Alert to the 'menace'

All this while Gordon Brown, Des Browne and their war crimes syndicate ratchet-up the 'gathering menace' of Iran's 'nuclear ambitions'.

In sympathetic tones, the BBC have been eagerly repeating US 'concerns' about Tehran's "provocative" missile-testing exercise.

The BBC's own 'defence system' usually involves the claim that it's simply engaged in 'impartial' reporting of such 'worries', whereas, it's selective filtering and delineation of such stories forms a vital and offensive part of the propaganda armoury.

Likewise with 'studious' diplomatic editors across the liberal press, such as the Sunday Herald's Trevor Royle, who, for good measure, offers this gushing account of Israel's 'understandable' rationale for bombing the people of Iran:

“There is one other scenario no-one should ignore. The Israelis could act unilaterally, or at least with covert US support. They certainly have the motive. Not only has president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made unpleasant noises about removing Israel from the map, but a nuclear-armed Iran would be a very real threat to regional stability. During its 60 years of existence, the state of Israel has always obeyed the realistic military rule that it attacks if it feels threatened - just ask Egypt, Syria or Jordan - and there is no shortage of hawks to ram home that message. When former chief of staff Shaul Mofaz said an attack on Iran is "inevitable" he meant just what he said.”

Beyond the usual "from the map" distortion, Royle is positively flowing in his admirations for Israel, a commentary, we're encouraged to believe, to be 'balanced' by 'sober' reading of the 'military realities'. His, like the BBC's, is a voice typical of the 'sensible liberal' 'new world order' in which Britain, the US and Israel still have imperial prerogatives in 'responding' to the 'provocations' of dark-hued Others.

Britain's war regime

Thankfully, we still have voices of sane humanity like John Pilger and Mark Curtis to dig-deep into Britain's real murderous activities. In a ready-reminder of its ongoing crimes around the world, Pilger writes this week about the true, dark nature of Britain's military brutalities:

"A wall of silence has always surrounded the British military, its arcane rituals, rites and practices and, above all, its contempt for the law and natural justice in its various imperial pursuits...An even more imposing wall of silence ensures that the British public remains largely unaware of the industrial killing of civilians in Britain's modern colonial wars. In his landmark work Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses, the historian Mark Curtis uses three main categories: direct responsibility, indirect responsibility and active inaction. "The overall figure [since 1945] is between 8.6 and 13.5 million," Curtis writes. "Of these, Britain bears direct responsibility for between four million and six million deaths. This figure is, if anything, likely to be an underestimate. Not all British interventions have been included, because of lack of data." Since his study was published, the Iraq death toll has reached, by reliable measure, a million men, women and children."

Across the globe, the pretence of 'ethical intervention' and concern for human rights is underwritten by the real business of warmongering:

"The militarising of how the British state perceives and treats other societies is vividly demonstrated in Africa, where ten out of 14 of the most impoverished and conflict-ridden countries are seduced into buying British arms and military equipment with "soft loans". Like the British royal family, the British Prime Minister simply follows the money. Having ritually condemned a despot in Zimbabwe for "human rights abuses" - in truth, for no longer serving as the west's business agent - and having obeyed the latest US dictum on Iran and Iraq, Brown set off recently for Saudi Arabia, exporter of Wahhabi fundamentalism and wheeler of fabulous arms deals."

With complementary intent, notes Pilger:

"the Brown government is spending £11bn of taxpayers' money on a huge, privatised military academy in Wales, which will train foreign soldiers and mercenaries recruited to the bogus "war on terror". With arms companies such as Raytheon profiting, this will become Britain's "School of the Americas", a centre for counter-insurgency (terrorist) training and the design of future colonial adventures. It has had almost no publicity."

Britain's playing of the modern Great Game in Afghanistan is treated, similarly, as some kind of benign and honourable sacrifice:

"The shabby, destructive colonial war in Afghanistan is now reported almost entirely through the British army, with squaddies always doing their Kipling best, and with the Afghan resistance routinely dismissed as "outsiders" and "invaders"."

Pilger's indictment and Curtis's investigations of Britain's war regime would, in a rational and compassionate society, be the subject of shameful reflection and progressive policy debate. Instead, we're regaled, courtesy of an obedient media, by a culture of respectable militarism, serving to maintain the noble charade of Britain's enlightened interventionism around the world.

Here's to more humanitarian 'invasions' and caring interventions against Raytheon and the offices of Britain's other corporate arms despots.

John

Israel and its thugs

News reaches us of award-winning Gazan journalist Mohammed Omer's detention and assault at Jordan's Allenby Bridge crossing to the West Bank. Unsurprisingly, there's been not a whisper of the crime from the BBC. Mohammed had been in London to receive the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Prize for outstanding journalism, and was making his way back to Gaza for a family wedding.

As Mohammed later recounted from a hospital bed in Gaza:

"They behaved with unimaginable hatefulness and vindictiveness. They couldn’t accept the very idea of a Palestinian journalist winning a renowned journalism prize. They wanted to punish me for being a successful journalist and especially for exposing Israeli barbarianism to the people of Europe."

The Shin Bet officers who terrorised and hospitalised Mohammed seem blatantly unconcerned at the adverse publicity they must have known would follow. Which leads us to conclude that, as with the open murder of countless Palestinian children, Israel is engaged in a gratuitous policy of civil terrorism, using such incidents to threaten and induce fear in the Palestinian population.

A group of Mohammed's friends have written an open letter to Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the UK, requesting an urgent inquiry and explanation. As with the Shin Bet's unapologetic actions, we await his diplomatic 'response' with little confidence.

Mohammed's distressing experience is a stark reminder of the ruthless treatment being meted out to anyone found highlighting Israel's criminal behaviour. Norman Finkelstein was recently detained and deported by Israel for doing so.

Whether it's standing on a Palestinian's neck, as happened to Mohammed, or 'diplomatising' such crimes, all participants in this oppression are thugs.

Recently, we joined a protest, near Glasgow, against the Jewish National Fund's staging of a pro-am golf event. Behind its 'charitable' front, the JNF is a racist organisation engaged in appropriating Palestinian land and concealing evidence of the ethnic cleansing. One disturbing image of the fundraising golf day saw young Zionists shrugging their shoulders and laughing when told about the Israeli army's murder of Palestinian children. Complicit thugs, on this occasion, dressed-up in sporting clothes.

But it's the 'respectable' thugs in their political suits who must take the greatest blame for allowing such crimes to continue. Some, at least, are trying to come to terms with their past silences, such as former Dutch Prime minister Andreas Van Agt:

"I'm driven partly by my shame for not speaking up for the Palestinians when I was in power, and partly by some striking experiences I had when visiting the Occupied Territories in the recent past," he says. "People often ask me how come I'm so outspoken now, but did not speak up when I was in a position of power. And it's true, I never spoke up for the Palestinians, except for when Sabra and Shatila happened. And even that was in soft terms."

"In one of my visits to Bethlehem I heard a story, which now I know is just one of many," Van Agt recalls. "It was a story horrendous humiliation [sic] of a Palestinian student trying to get to university for a collective exam. His story, which the university president told me, struck me like lightening..[sic]"

At the last IDF checkpoint on the way, according to the story which Van Agt says he heard from the university president, the student was pulled over and ordered to climb out of the window. "Then the humiliation began. He fell down and was then ordered to walk on hands and feet and bark. Then the soldiers laughed about the Palestinians all being dogs."

"I began studying, figuring out what's going on there. I found one story after the other. Then I started thinking about the 39 United Nations resolutions begging, demanding and imploring Israel to vacate the Occupied Territories. All were dismissed by Israel. Saddam Hussein was attacked after four resolutions, but Israel got 39 and nobody talks about applying even the slightest pressure on Israel to comply with them," he complains.

For those in thrall to Israel as a bastion of 'freedom, democracy and tolerance' amid a region of 'despotic' Arabs, here's a useful reminder of its actual criminal standing. As these key UN resolutions on Palestine detail, no amount of public relations or official denials is ever going to conceal the wanton brutality of Israel's actions. Yet, whether openly flouting international law or publicly beating and murdering innocent civilians, this regime, it seems, is without shame or remorse in its capacity for arrogant thuggery.

John

Obama's Israel

Casual enquirers at our weekly Palestinian stall often ask why America doesn't just apply the necessary pressure on Israel to effect a just settlement for the Palestinians. Sometimes it takes that kind of elementary question to remind us of the root causes and continuation of the Palestinian predicament.

A little explanation of Washington's massive financial, political and ideological backing for Israel and its apartheid policies usually helps to illuminate. Yet, even those loosely aware of America's dark hypocrisies on matters of 'freedom and democracy' are often taken aback at the scale of this patron-client enterprise.

Lately, a more particular variation on the question has been posed: will Barack Obama, if elected, bring some of that pressure to bear. The question is usually tinged with a sense of hope. Yet, as we've seen, the signals suggest little room for optimism.

Obama's victory speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), 4 June 2008, was a reaffirmation of where he, and political America at large, stands in relation to Israel:

"Let me be clear..Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided".

Many observers will likely read this as a pragmatic electoral play to the US Zionist constituency: once elected, a less Israel-friendly politics will prevail, with some sort of 'gentle leaning' on Tel Aviv to agree a just settlement for the Palestinians.

The recent dress rehearsal of mass Israeli F-16s adds another dark dimension to where the warmongering policy is situated, vis-a-vis intimidation of Iran and the last manic hours of the Bush presidency. For some liberal analysts, Obama's election is an immediate imperative.

Yet, can we really foresee an Obama White House as the catalyst for meaningful change in the US-Israel relationship? Will his election presage a less indulgent view of Israeli belligerence towards Tehran? On the Palestinian ground, will he advocate for key 'final status' concessions like the removal of all West Bank settlements?

Alas, as the 'undivided Jerusalem' pledge would indicate, the dual-speak of US-Israeli policy would appear to negate such prospects.

Haven't we been here many times before? Here's an informative reminder of Bill Clinton's tenure for those hopeful of an Obama assertiveness once in power:

"Throughout the Arab world, Clinton’s election was heralded. Those who opposed the Iraqi embargo said that Clinton would represent a fresh look at the sanctions. It soon became evident that it was business as usual. Under the Clinton administration, more Iraqis died than in the two military actions by a couple of Bushes. Here we go again. Barack Obama is the posterperson of the left and of those who want to see the Arab world get a fair shake in dealing with Israel. The same statements abound: "He’ll change when he’s in office;" "We know he’s not ideal, but he represents a new look in politics." Many Arab-Americans are putting Obama on a pedestal. Unfortunately, that pedestal has already begun to crumble."

Realistic hope should never be sacrificed to cynical despair. But, as with the 'redemptive' promises of Blair, we should, at least, be alert to how such 'bright new saviours' come to display rapacious capacities for warmongering. Unlike Blair, Obama, of course, opposes the war in Iraq. But he does so not because it's basically immoral and illegal, but because it's fundamentally unwinnable.

The principal home truth for Americans and the world at large is Obama's reassuringly safe pair of hands. His is a candidacy endorsed, financed and lauded by corporate America. Nothing he may do once in office is likely to upset that set of crucial interests. Indeed, as the financial system lurches towards deeper structural crisis, the hegemons of Wall Street appear ready once again for the 'soft' version of world domination. From Clinton to Bush, neo-conman to neo-con man, the political managers of the corporate order know what's expected of them. Mr Obama will be no exception.

Pilger sees the Obama 'coming' as 'Liberalism's last fling' - which reminds one of Gore Vidal on how FDR's 'liberal interventions' once helped save capitalism. Elucidating the stakes for a 'new' Democrat version of capitalist democracy, Pilger offers this sober comparison with Robert Kennedy:

"In the US, where unrelenting propaganda about American democratic uniqueness disguises a corporate system based on extremes of wealth and privilege, liberalism as expressed through the Democratic Party has played a crucial, compliant role."

"What is Obama’s attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy’s. By offering a “new”, young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party – with the bonus of being a member of the black elite – he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell’s role as Bush’s secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent."

"The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may well “chart a new direction for America” in specious, media-honed language, but in reality he will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy."

Reviewing his tough words on Latin America, Pilger provides this further reality check on Obama's hawkish tendencies, all in the traditional war-making spirit of past Democrat leaders:

"It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged."

Dogs and tails

Challenging the Israeli game in Palestine, and America's continued participation in it, returns us to the key dynamic shaping the 'special relationship'.

In his latest book, Israel and the Clash of Civilisations (Pluto Press, 2008), Jonathan Cook offers an incisive reading of the US-Israeli dialectic.

Refining the Mearsheimer and Walt thesis of the Jewish lobby's 'tail' wagging the US policy 'dog', and incorporating Chomsky's core views on how US interests remain the predominant factor in US policy-making, Cook argues that the true relationship is actually one of mutual interests and benefits - in effect, the tail and the dog are wagging each other. This, for Cook, is amply illustrated by the common agenda envisaged and cultivated by Israel and the US neo-cons:

"Israel persuaded the US neocons that their respective goals (Israeli regional dominance and US control of oil) were related and compatible ends...Israel's military establishment started developing an ambitious vision of Israel as a small empire in the Middle East more than two decades ago. It then sought a sponsor in Washington to help it realise its vision, and found one in the neocons. The Jewish neocons, many of them already with strong emotional ties to Israel, may have been the most ready to listen to the message coming from Tel Aviv, but that message was persuasive even to the non-Jewish neocons precisely because it placed US interests - especially global domination and control of oil - at the heart of its vision." (pps 90-91.)

Cook goes on to detail the antecedents of this evolving relationship, a not always smooth or fluid one - as with certain policy tensions between Carter and Begin in the seventies. Yet, while dynamic, it has always been subject to the basic assumption that Washington would never take serious reprisals for Israel's conduct.

Cook cites, for example, the Johnson administration's hushing-up of the Israeli air force attack on the US spy ship, Liberty, during the 1967 war, killing 34 US sailors. Israeli defiance, even of this kind, could always be tolerated because "on strategic issues Israeli policy was seen in Washington as according with larger US interests." (p 99.)

And, as Cook shows, it's that deep convergence of interests which lies at the heart of the present theatre of conflict in the Middle East. In essence, both the US and Israel are intent on destabilising the Arab world as part of a joint enterprise in regional authority and energy controls. In particular, Washington wants ownership and control of Iraqi oil, allowing it an enhanced position over OPEC, as well as the geopolitical muscle that goes with that military presence. Tel Aviv, in turn, sees its mission to expand into Palestinian land as dependent on its ability to subvert surrounding Arab states. Israeli and US neocon calls to bomb Iran are, thus, of mutual significance.

Again, this agenda has not been without tension. As Cook argues, while "the Israeli-neocon plan for remaking the Middle East was about undermining the oil states", the interests of Big Oil were not necessarily best-served through this strategy of chaos. One broad scenario it fears, notes Cook, is the possibility of a shift from Sunni to Shia majority influence across Iraq and Iran, and with it a displacement of Saudi Arabia as the key OPEC state, a development which many of the major oil businesses oppose given their profit-guaranteed agreements with OPEC countries.

Nonetheless the neocons have, at this late point of the Bush presidency:

"succeeded in setting in motion a process of destabilisation that was providing a taste of what they intended and what Israel want for the region." (p 121.)

Whatever the contingencies and unravelling to come for the Middle East, there's a dark truth to Cook's view of how the Israeli-US neo-con project utilises insecurity, provocation and division to pursue their joint interests.

Israel's lockdown of Gaza and enforced separation from the West Bank has been a central part of this agenda, allowing it to use the Occupied Territories as a military and human laboratory for US-Israeli policing of the region.

And, as Obama's reassuring speech to the AIPAC elite suggests, those same strategic fundamentals will continue under a Democrat administration. There may be moderations to the policy with Obama at the desk. But they will be moderate alterations, paying dutiful lip service to Israel's version of a 'two-state solution'.

Never say never, of course. As other international pressures are brought to bear, we're also seeing a qualitative change in public and political perceptions of the issue. With the Hamas-initiated ceasefire, Israel has - again - been put on the back foot, effectively forced to acknowledge the gathering criticism of its occupation and blockade of Gaza. Despite the usual skewed media reports of 'Israeli scepticism' over Hamas's intentions for peace - it is, as always, Israel who will seek to destroy it in order to maintain its military imperatives.

Yet, it's that same intransigence, aggression and compliance in a policy of inhuman expansion which also keeps both Israel and the US on the wrong side of the legal and moral fence. That's what they can never disguise. Ultimately, theirs is a politics of domination and coercion which, as history shows - in South Africa, Vietnam, East Timor and other brutalised places - can't be sustained. Indeed, one might reasonably argue that, in Gramscian terms, the US-Israeli project is in a state of hegemonic crisis, failing in popular legitimacy and international authority.

As the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust showed, might can never be right, truth can never be suppressed, compliance can never be hidden. There will, in due course, be a rightful, truthful exposure of Palestinian suffering. One ex-Democrat president, Jimmy Carter, has taken a laudable position on expediting the cause. If Obama, while actually in office, was willing to act upon Carter's denunciation of Israel's apartheid policies that day could be much sooner. If only.

John

Palestine, violence and the 'two sides' narrative

Isn't the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians just tit-for-tat violence? Aren't they just as bad as each other? Surely there's two sides to the story?

Such are the loaded and feeble impressions we're fed of the illegal occupation, daily atrocities and international compliance over Palestinian suffering.

Politicians and journalists alike utilise this narrative to spin the issue, typically characterised as a 'relentless conflict' of two irreconcilable, warring sides. It's a standard set of messages, bordering on cliché, dutifully popularised by the mainstream media and received by the public as 'balanced truth'.

In practice - as I had occasion to remind an insistent enquirer at our weekly Palestinian stall - it's a bogus distraction from the actual truth of a grossly one-sided persecution.

Yes, Palestinians resort to violence, in response to Israeli violence. But it's not a 'violence of equals' - as the overwhelming might of Israel's US-gifted arsenal plainly shows. Nor is it just Palestinian reaction to the latest Israeli 'incursion' - media-speak for state-military murder. Rather, it's a violence of continued resistance to generations of Israeli violence.

For the oppressor, that violence serves an explicit purpose. Israel not only breeds violence through its occupation, it actually needs that violence to manage and pursue the Zionist project of territorial, political and ideological expansion.

The more searching question is how, or whether, the Palestinian case is advanced through violence. And this takes us on to a more qualitative engagement of the violence issue.

Here's a useful reminder from Chomsky on the case for a non-violent response:

"My opinion all along has been that the Palestinian leadership is offering Israel and its US backers a great gift by resorting to violence and posturing about revolution -- quite apart from the fact that, tactical considerations aside, resort to violence carries a very heavy burden of justification. Today, for example, nothing is more welcome to Israeli and US hawks than Qassam rockets, which enable them to shriek joyously about how the ratio of deaths should be increased to infinity (all victims being defined as "terrorists"). I have also agreed all along with personal friends who had contacts with the Palestinian leadership (in particular, Edward Said and Eqbal Ahmad) that a non-violent struggle would have had considerable prospects for success. And I think it still does, in fact the only prospects for success."

Chomsky's thoughts, of course, transcend the standard condemnation of Palestinian violence and the 'two-sides' distortion. The question, rather, is how much more effective would the Palestinian case be if based solely on non-violence?

Chomsky's views on the matter prompted this recent exchange at the Media Lens board (June 8 2008).

Posted by Stephen Soldz in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

The question Chomsky is raising is, are the Palestinians willing to forgo the easy boost to self-esteem from launching a few rockets in exchange for a possible long-range victory. I certainly understand the impulse behind the violent strategy, but its total failure should be clear to all. It should be clear by now that the Palestinians cannot defeat the Israelis militarily. In fact, they can only be an irritant aiding the most repressive and regressive forces in Israeli society. The greatest threat to the occupation would be a mass movement demanding among the occupied voting rights in Israel. A reasonable two-state solution would then appear to be a "moderate" compromise.

Posted by Jimbob in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

One problem with this argument is that the Palestinians have tried non-violent protest before (the first intifada, and before the war in Lebanon in 1982) and been met with just as much brutality. If you look at the majority of anti-colonial struggles then violence and the threat of violence has proved fairly effective.

Posted by dereklane in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

I know I'm repeating myself, but for the last hundred years or so Aborigines in Australia have more or less practised a non-violent protest (fear of reprisal may have had more than a little to do with it - the slightest revolt gets met with armed military, threatening and beating men, women and children). It has got them nowhere.

A non-violent oppressed minority is easier to ignore, and to manipulate with token gestures and allegations and assault of character; easier to erode culturally, mentally, physically. You need the will of a Buddhist monk to maintain the strength to remain passive in the face of continuous barbarity, and most people in the world do not have that (me included). I don't condone the violence, but I think its fanciful to suggest their cause would be any further advanced without it.

cheers,
Derek

Posted by John Hilley in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

I take your point entirely, Derek, about the historical plight of the Aborigines, though I suspect they would have met the full force of white violence with or without armed resistance.

The case for a non-violent response in Palestine is, to my mind, a tactical one. Israel, as we've repeatedly seen, will go to any lengths to provoke the Palestinians into violent action, thus maintaining the pretext for 'retaliatory' 'self-defence' - the repressive modus operandi of the occupation.

Chomsky (as with the late Said) is essentially correct in his analysis. Despite Western support for Israel, there's a growing awareness of the Palestinians' case internationally, significantly highlighted by people like Carter, Tutu, Dugard et al. Hamas need to capitalise on that. Indeed, one can see that strategy evolving in the Hamas offer of a hudna.

No one who seriously understands the Palestinians' desperate predicament can easily condemn their resort to violence. But we must consider how best to advance that cause, a process which involves highlighting and isolating the real practitioners of mass violence - the Israeli state. Peaceful exposure of Israel as an apartheid state akin to South Africa will bear greater fruit than any token military response.

John

Posted by dereklane in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

"there's a growing awareness of the Palestinians' case internationally, significantly highlighted by people like Carter, Tutu, Dugard et al."

That's the real point, isn't it? That now - when recognition of the Palestinian genocide/oppression is growing (rather than hidden or ignored) - the next step to take is the non-violent path (perhaps a long term ceasefire). Without the international knowledge of their plight, such a step might just prove to be a slow suicide, but with it, it might make their case even stronger. Hard, of course, to implement - Hamas, like any government, doesn't have the last word on what Palestine's citizens do.

I can see it working more from a 'from now on' perspective, just not so from the idea that had Palestinians not indulged in violence across the years, they would be further advanced to a positive end to their oppression today. To many people, the highlighting of Palestinian suicide bombers in the media hasn't resulted in the standard media reaction of 'how barbaric those Palestinians are', but the more obvious question of 'well, what could drive a man to do such a thing?' - a question that leads invariably to enlightenment on the issue. In that sense, however gruesome and reprehensible (where innocent people suffer), it has worked.

cheers,
Derek

Posted by JJ in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

I don't wish to appear reductive but shouldn't non-violence be a goal entirely on its own merits and in a moral context rather than a tactical one? Apart from anything else, a non-violent policy founded on tactical motives would surely prove unstable and unlikely to last for any length of time. Any political advances from a non-violent approach are the result of its moral strength, so the morality at the heart of the issue should be catalyst, rather than trying to sneak a non-violent approach through the backdoor, as it were, based on tactical reasons.

Posted by Miriam in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

Recognition of the Palestinian cause has been almost entirely the result of the efforts of Palestinian people themselves to promote awareness of their plight. It's a pity that 'big name' recognition now seems to carry more weight when it comes to taking advantage of the heightened recognition they have achieved.

I agree that non-violence should be a matter of principle rather than tactics. But that said, it's surely inhumane not recognise the severe provocation caused to Palestinians by Israel's actions - along with the disgusting complicity of the US, the UK, the UN (despite all manner of ineffectual hand wringing). Isn't retaliatory violence in that context not a matter of regret but of inevitability - if not outright necessity?

Posted by John Hilley in reply to "Re: Chomsky's view on violence in Palestine"

I think you're fundamentally right here [JJ]. Non-violence is a moral imperative in itself. It's also the most human form of action. The suggestion of its tactical value really stems from a basic recognition that violence is already an understandable reality here.

My point, thus, is not to invoke or 'preach' the case for non-violence in a situation where it's almost inevitable, but to argue that the Palestinian cause would be better served through a non-violent response.

I also take Derek's point that the actions of suicide bombers may have caused many to ask 'what drives them' rather than resort to outright denunciation. However, there are two key sets of forces always encouraging the latter reaction: the mainstream media and the Israeli state itself. Both, as I've said, help provide and maintain the pretext for deeper repression and 'legitimation' of the occupation.

One of the things that continues to terrify Israel is the prospect of mass peaceful civil protest, as happened recently during the 'Gaza breakout'.

The 'big names' may be late in coming to the cause. But their voices do count, serving, alongside all the grassroots work of ISM and others to shame and isolate Israel. Desmond Tutu calling the blockade of Gaza "an abomination" is part of the critical process of building international awareness.

John

Reinforcing the 'two-sides' agenda

As suggested, images of Israeli violence against Palestinians have the power to shock and bring home the reality of that "abomination". The trouble is that it can't happen without sustained coverage of Israeli violence. And here, again, we see the crucial role of the media in fostering the 'two-sides' narrative.

This is evident even where reports of brazen Israeli violence are given more 'serious' space. The BBC recently applauded themselves for airing disturbing pictures of an old Palestinian lady and her husband being viciously beaten by baseball-stick-wielding Israeli settlers.

It was, indeed, a shocking piece of footage, captured by a young Palestinian with a hand-held video camera. The film, then passed on to the BBC, has correspondent Tim Franks relate the obvious brutality of the incident.

Yet, despite this, and the report's reference to Palestinian land rights, Franks's concluding words return us to the safe, 'objectivity' of the 'two-sides' context:

"Violence against Jews as well as Palestinians has long scarred this place. Video may now may be giving us a new and raw view. But for most people here, the only answer - a political deal - remains out of sight."

It may seem a 'fair' and 'balanced' conclusion: violence is occurring 'on both sides', everyone is "scarred" and a settlement between these adversaries seems a distant promise. But, while much of this is evident, such statements help reinforce the notion that 'one side is as bad as the other'.

Here was a film which could have been used to explain the true extent of settler brutality in Hebron and other places of Palestinian suffering. Instead, it felt like a token nod to the Palestinian 'side' of the 'argument'.

Why, moreover, have the BBC been failing to shoot such daily images themselves rather than relying on civilian witnesses to highlight this supposed "new and raw" reality?

Last week, the Israeli army used live rounds against peaceful demonstrators at Bil'in. The week before, three visiting European envoys were injured by tear gas and a tear gas round. Neither story, apparently, merited any coverage by the BBC.

In truth, there is no 'two-sides' to the occupation and murder of Palestinians by the Israeli state. Just as there was no 'two-sides' to the Holocaust and mass murder of Jews by the Nazis. We can have philosophical debates about man's inhumanity to man. But, fundamentally, the ethnic cleansing and systematic murder of peoples comes down to an examination of one-sided power. There's the oppressor and the oppressed. And those who portray it as a two-sided affair merely enhance and legitimate the one-sided dominance of the oppressor.

If the BBC acknowledged even a fraction of the massively disproportionate violence visited on the Palestinians every single day, the public might be some way forward in understanding that raw reality. Instead, the 'two-sides' narrative serves to obscure the truth, prolong the violence and further empower the Israeli regime. That's a form of complicit violence in itself.

John