Washington Report on Middle East Affairs | September-October 2011

cover1r1_Cover1 8/10/11 3:56 PM Page 1

POLL: U.S. MUSLIMS TOLERANT, REJECT VIOLENCE

helping_hand_c2_Helping Hand C2 September-October 2011 8/9/11 11:15 PM Page c2

UN has declared famine

toc_3-4_September-October 2011 TOC 8/11/11 12:57 PM Page 3

On Middle East Affairs Volume XXX, No. 7

September/October 2011

Telling the Truth for 29 Years…

Interpreting the Middle East for North Americans

■

Interpreting North America for the Middle East

THE U.S. ROLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE 8 Israel Clashed With Peace Activists—But Who Came Out Ahead?—Rachelle Marshall 10 With Iran on the Border, Expect No Quick Exit From Iraq—Rachelle Marshall 11 In Israel, It’s Kosher to Discriminate Against NonJewish Citizens—Jonathan Cook 12 U.N. Recognition of Palestine: Leaping Over the U.S.-Israeli Roadblock—Two Views

—Patrick Seale, Charles Glass 15 The Score: BDS 1, Israel 0—William Parry 16 U.S. Tries—but Fails—to Pull Pre-Emptive Fast One On Quartet—Ian Williams

21 Affluence for a Few, Austerity for Millions— Mohammed Omer 22 Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. PAC Hedges Its Party Bets, But Favors Zionists—Janet McMahon 24 Congress Passes Resolutions Supporting Israel’s Hard-Line Positions—Shirl McArthur 28 Making an Enemy of Iran—Patrick Seale 29 October Surprise Evidence Surfaces—Robert Parry 32 Selective FARA Enforcement: Pakistan’s Alleged Agents Prosecuted, Israel’s Ignored—Grant F. Smith

SPECIAL REPORTS 18 Terror in Oslo—Two Views —Jim Lobe, Uri Avnery 34 The Moroccan Way—Marvine Howe 38 World-Class Tunisian Artists Exhibited at New Sahara Gallery in L.A. Suburb

51 Restructuring U.S. Foreign Assistance in the Wake Of the Arab Spring—Mathew O’Sullivan 74 In Memoriam: Frank Collins (1911-2011) —Andrew I. Killgore

STAFF PHOTO DELINDA HANLEY

—Pat McDonnell Twair

Washington Report summer 2011 interns included Helen Goelet and (l-r) Kassondra Cloos, Layla Gama, Alia Lahlou, Awrad Saleh and Mathew O’Sullivan. Their talents and energy inspired (and multiplied) our tiny staff.

ON THE COVER: An Egyptian demonstrator holds (from bottom) the Palestinian, Libyan revolution, Syrian and Egyptian flags during a July 8 rally in Cairo’s Tahrir Square protesting the slow pace of reform since the February toppling of President Hosni Mubarak.

KHALED DESOUKI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

toc_3-4_September-October 2011 TOC 8/11/11 12:57 PM Page 4

(A Supplement to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs available by subscription at $15 per year. To subscribe, call toll-free 1-800-368-5788, and press 1.

For other options, see page OV-3 in this issue.)

Other Voices

Compiled by Janet McMahon

TIAA-CREF Should Hear Us, Divest From Israeli Apartheid, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, The Charlotte Observer “J Street” Official Takes Care not to Mention “Occupation” Till After the Speech, Philip Weiss, http://mondoweiss.net Things You Can Say, Things You Cannot, Ran Ha Cohen, www.antiwar.com An Open Letter to Israeli Boycott Activists, David Samel, http://mondoweiss.net

OV-1

Leon Panetta, a Defense Secretary With a Long History of Cooperation With Israel, Nathan Guttman, The Forward

OV-2

Documents Shed Light on Those Underwriting The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Eli Clifton, www.thinkprogress.org OV-9

OV-3

Palestinians Won’t Learn Israeli Lessons, Jillian Kestler-D’Amours, Inter Press Service

OV-10

Killer Drones Take the Place of War, Doug Noble, www.truth-out.org

OV-11

Next Up: Pakistan, Justin Raimondo, www.antiwar.com

OV-13

Wanted: Courses on Arab and Muslim Americans, Dr. Aref Assaf, Star Ledger

OV-14

Rais Bhuiyan, Victim of Post-9/11 Shooting Spree, Pleads to Spare Attacker Mark Stroman’s Life, John Rudolf, www.huffingtonpost.com

OV-15

OV-4

Amid Murdoch Scandal, Some Fear Pro-Israel Media Voice Will Be Muted, Ron Kampeas (JTA), The Forward

OV-5

Terrorism Experts on Parade, Philip Giraldi, www.antiwar.com

OV-6

Where Rachel Maddow Dares Not Tread, Daniel C. Maguire, www.consortiumnews.com

OV-8

OV-8

DEPARTMENTS 5 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

48 ISRAEL AND JUDAISM:

66 OTHER PEOPLE’S MAIL

Jewish Opinion Being Alienated 7 PUBLISHERS’ PAGE

by Israeli Policies, Not by Any

68 THE WORLD LOOKS AT THE MIDDLE EAST — CARTOONS

40 NEW YORK CITY AND TRISTATE NEWS: Hamid Dabashi,

“Delegitimization” Campaign

—Allan C. Brownfeld

69 BULLETIN BOARD

Bassam Haddad Discuss Arab Spring—Jane Adas

54 ARAB-AMERICAN ACTIVISM: Rami Kashou Fashion Show

42 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHRONICLE: Time for Peace, End of Permanent War, Says

54 HUMAN RIGHTS:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey at San Rafael

Back From Greece,

Rally—Elaine Pasquini

Massachusetts Activist Discusses Gaza Flotilla

44 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

70 BOOK REVIEW: Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism

—Reviewed by Allan C. Brownfeld 71 NEW ARRIVALS FROM THE AET BOOK CLUB

CHRONICLE: KinderUSA Sends SOS to Fulfill Ramadan Pledges

55 MUSLIM-AMERICAN

To Needy Families

ACTIVISM: CAIR Releases

—Pat and Samir Twair

Report on Islamophobia

46 ISLAM IN AMERICA: U.S. Muslims More Tolerant,

56 WAGING PEACE:

Opposed to Violence Than Other

A General and Two Senators

Faiths—Jim Lobe

Discuss Afghanistan’s Future

72 2011 AET CHOIR OF ANGELS 49 INDEX TO ADVERTISERS

lte_5-6_September-October 2011 LTE 8/10/11 7:47 PM Page 5

ANDREW I. KILLGORE Executive Editor: RICHARD H. CURTISS Managing Editor: JANET McMAHON News Editor: DELINDA C. HANLEY Book Club Director: ANDREW STIMSON Circulation Director: ANNE O’ROURKE Administrative Director: ALEX BEGLEY Art Director: RALPH U. SCHERER

LetterstotheEditor

Publisher:

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (ISSN 8755-4917) is published 9 times a year, monthly except Jan./Feb., May/June and Sept./Oct. combined, at 1902 18th St., NW, Washington, DC 20009-1707. Tel. (202) 939-6050. Subscription prices (United States and possessions): one year, $29; two years, $55; three years, $75. For Canadian and Mexican subscriptions, $35 per year; for other foreign subscriptions, $70 per year.

Periodicals, postage paid at Washington, DC and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, P.O. Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009-9062.

Published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states. AET’s Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright, and Republican Sen. Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Members of AET’s Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242’s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, it supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, selfdetermination, and fair play.

Material from the Washington Report may be reprinted without charge with attribution to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Bylined material must also be attributed to the author. This release does not apply to photographs, cartoons or reprints from other publications.

Indexed by Ebsco Information Services, InfoTrac, LexisNexis, Public Affairs Information Service, Index to Jewish Periodicals, Ethnic News Watch, Periodica Islamica.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Editorial Office and Bookstore: P.O. Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009-9062 Phone: (202) 939-6050 • (800) 368-5788 Fax: (202) 265-4574 E-mail: wrmea@wrmea.com bookclub@wrmea.com circulation@wrmea.com advertising@wrmea.com Web sites: http://www.wrmea.com http://www.middleeastbooks.com Subscriptions, sample copies and donations: P.O. Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009-9062 Printed in the USA

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

US(S) Liberty and Jewish Power John Hrankowski was a survivor of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, a deliberate attack that cost the lives of 34 Americans and the wounding of 174 more. Like the other Liberty survivors he suffered not only from his physical wounds from shrapnel but also from the disrespect and denial by the United States government of what really took place on that fateful day in June 1967.

In his final years John worked tirelessly to build a memorial for the USS Liberty.

With the help of other veterans he succeeded in getting a beautiful site in the harbor of his home town in Rochester on the shores of Lake Ontario across from the Coast Guard station.

The black granite stone is engraved with an image of the Liberty and a brief list of those decorated for this “military action.”

The stone is a testament to the brave men who served on the Liberty. It is also a testament to Jewish power that prevented Israel from being identified as the perpetrator of the attack, which lasted over two hours with bombing, strafing, napalming and torpedoing of the lightly-armed, flagflying American intelligence ship.

That United States Sen. Chuck Schumer declined to come to this veteran dedication ceremony in his home state of New York speaks volumes to his allegiance to Israel.

Had Syria or al-Qaeda perpetrated the attack on the USS Liberty, it most assuredly would have its name engraved in infamy and vilified with cries of “Never Again.”

Daniel McGowan, professor emeritus, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY Schumer certainly is not the only U.S. senator whose solicitude for a foreign country takes precedence over the needs of his American constituents. In every instance it’s shameful—but especially when Americans who have died for their country are abandoned and ignored.

Thank you for pointing out that Israel’s name is not mentioned on the memorial, pictured in our May/June 2011 table of contents.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

A Disgraceful Action Passage of House Resolution 268 is the most disgraceful action I have ever seen taken by Congress. It is filled with distortions, half truths, and outright falsehoods.

Please expose it for what it is and inform your readers as to who voted for it.

Henry Clifford, Essex, CT Congressional correspondent Shirl McArthur reports on H.Res. 268 on p. 24 of this issue. The non-binding resolution, introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), cites the “kidnapping” of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit but makes no mention of the American civilians who have been killed by

Israel, including Rachel Corrie and Fulkan Dogan—and certainly not the 34 crewmembers of the USS Liberty. It passed by a vote of 407-6, with 13 House members voting “present”—in effect, abstaining—and 6 not voting. We commend those who voted against the resolution: Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Walter B. Jones (R-NC), Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Nick Rahall (D-WV).

Write Your Lawmakers The horrifying spectacle of Israeli troops raiding a popular theater for Palestinian children, breaking windows and arresting its hugely popular director, is further proof of a deepening malaise gripping Israel. The Freedom Theater in Jenin has been a great boon to Palestinian children living under Israel’s brutal apartheid system. Two of the theater’s co-founders were surrounded by 50 heavily armed soldiers and forced to squat next to a family with four small children. According to the Economist, every Friday and after school Israeli soldiers “fire tear gas and sonic bombs at Palestinian children in the village of Nabi Saleh.” Children as young as 11 have been detained; many snatched from their beds and sent off to languish in Israel’s dark dungeons for months. Apparently, no Palestinians—not 5

lte_5-6_September-October 2011 LTE 8/10/11 7:47 PM Page 6

even children—are afforded basic human rights that we take for granted in the U.S. Iran Segal, a settler at a Jewish Halamish settlement, was heard complaining that “the soldiers don’t maim enough Palestinians.”

Predictably, there was no outrage shown by the “pro-Israel can do no wrong” letterwriting lobby. It is unconscionable that our lawmakers and administration continue to remain silent in response to Israel’s outrageous behavior. I would urge readers to write to your lawmakers and demand that we end our military and economic support to Israel. Our own economy is in a free fall and there is no justification in sending billions of “deficit-dollars” to enhance Israel’s already bloated military and encourage its continuous violations of international law.

Jagjit Singh, Los Altos, CA After a disgraceful—and ultimately unsuccessful—effort to salvage the U.S. economy by raising the debt ceiling, members of Congress have fled Washington and embarked on their August recess. Surely they should be here sweltering with the rest of us!

The point, however, is that, especially with 2012 being an election year, most will probably be holding town meetings in an effort to convince their constituents that their interests are being looked after.

What if, rather than raising these issues in private communications between voter and representative, Americans attended these open meetings and asked the candidates in public about their priorities—thereby alerting their fellow constituents, and getting a response on the record?

See the May/June 2011 Washington Report for the total pro-Israel PAC contributions received by House and Senate candidates. That information also is available on our Web site, <www.wrmea.com>, under “Activist Resources/Congress & U.S. Aid to Israel.” There visitors will also find voting records for the last (111th) Congress, pro-Israel PAC contributions to all 100 U.S. senators, and other useful information.

“So What Else Is News?”

Thank you for the July 14 action alert providing a link to Richard H. Curtiss’ article on Rupert Murdoch in the June 2003 Washington Report. I recall reading his article at the time and have now reread it.

What was said then is even more relevant today in the light of the extraordinary revelations coming out of the U.K. If politicians rise to and fall from power not through the free expression of the voters’ choice via the ballot box but by the actions of a powerful media mogul who may not be even a citizen of the country, then one needs to stop and think which way our democratic system is going.

Granted that elections that support the democratic process need money to conduct, we have to find some way of freeing our politicians from the baleful influence of special interests with huge funds at their disposal.

Such special interests distort our democratic system insofar as more often than not the general good of a large body of the population has to be sacrificed for the good of a well-heeled few. We need a good clean-up!!

M. Habib Quader, via e-mail Other prescient articles written more than a decade ago by executive editor Curtiss regard the extent of Israeli wiretapping: “DeOther Voices is an optional spite Coverup, Is16-page supplement available rael Caught Spying in Washingonly to subscribers of the ton Again” (June Washington Report on Middle 2000 Washington Report, p. 6), and East Affairs. For an additional “Report of Israeli $15 per year (see postcard Eavesdropping on White House Teleinsert for Washington Re phones Gets Varyport subscription rates), ing Media Treatment (July 2000 subscribers will receive Other issue, p. 43). On p.

Voices bound into each issue of their Washington 22 of this issue, managing editor Report on Middle East Affairs.

Janet McMahon Back issues of both publications are available. To sublooks at U.S. camscribe telephone 1 (800) 368-5788 (press 1), fax (202) 265paign contributions by Mur4574, e-mail <circulation@wrmea.com>, or write to P.O. d o c h ’s N e w s Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009.

Corp.-affiliated PAC.

6

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

A Deadly Discrepancy It has occurred to me recently that there has never been a published report of the descrepancy between the number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli military and Israeli citizens and Israelis killed by Palestinian militants and anti-Israeli civilians.

Perhaps a published ad in a major newspaper would have some effect on the proIsrael people in this country.

An ad which appeared many years ago had a tremendous influence on my objectivity in regard to the problem in the Middle East.

It’s worth thinking about.

Vern H. Weeler, Munger, MI In 2002 we first published the brochure Remember These Children, which lists the name, age and circumstance of every Palestinian and Israeli child under 18 killed since the second intifada broke out in September 2000. This compilation is updated on the Web site <www.rememberthesechildren. org>, which shows that as of Aug. 8, 2011, 1,467 Palestinian and 125 Israeli children have been killed—a ratio of more than 10:1. According to <www.ifamericans knew.org>, at least 6,430 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis have been killed since Sept.

29, 2000.

Another Palestinian Prisoner at Coleman Penitentiary My name is Wahdan Wahdan, I am a Muslim prisoner from Palestine. I never knew that a magazine like yours existed to help our voice be heard and the truth about Zionist Israel be exposed. Thank you! If at all possible, for an indigent Palestinian prisoner, maybe you can help me receive your monthly magazine?

Thank you!

Wahdan Wahdan, #30462-160, U.S. Penitentiary #1, P.O. Box 1033, Coleman, FL 33521 One of our many angels (see pp. 72 and 73) has made it possible for us to provide you a subscription to the Washington Report. We note that you are being held in the same penitentiary where another Muslim Palestinian, political prisoner Dr. Sami al-Arian, was held following his Feb. 20, 2003 arrest in Tampa, FL. Despite his not having been convicted of a single charge against him, he has spent more than 5 and a half years in prison—3 and a half of them in solitary confinement—and three years under house arrest.

We hope you are receiving more just and humane treatment than he has, and are including your complete address in case any of our readers would like to correspond with you. ❑ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

publishersSep_7_September-October 2011 Publishers page 8/11/11 12:57 PM Page 7

American Educational Trust Washington Woes.

President Barack Obama held a special White House pep talk for jittery Americans on Aug. 8, after Taliban fighters shot down a helicopter in Afghanistan, killing 30 U.S. special forces and 8 Afghans; Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history; and the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged to the lowest levels since the 2008 crash. The president said there was a “renewed sense of urgency” to address the country’s fiscal problems—which, he assured investors, are “eminently solvable” when Congress gets back from its August recess. After the speech, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell and other reporters repeatedly asked Press Secretary Jay Carney, “Why not call Congress back to work?” Carney chuckled, but the answer he should have given, according to Philip Weiss, who runs the popular blog Mondoweiss, is that…

“They’re in Israel.”

Instead of facing a well-deserved grilling from constituents back home worried about jobs, the damaging debt-ceiling fight, and the resulting global financial markets’ free fall, 81 U.S. representatives—nearly 20 percent of the House—and their spouses took off for a week of whining and dining in Israel. The American Israel Educational Foundation, an AIPAC affiliate (natch), sent both Democrats and Republicans on summer holiday junkets to learn the vital lesson guaranteed to make or break a re-election campaign and unite members across the aisle:

Help Israel, not Americans, First.

Israeli leaders explained why Congress, which is happily cutting domestic programs that benefit millions of Americans, should nevertheless send $30 billion in U.S. tax dollars over 10 years—from 2009-2018, as pledged—to a foreign country. And not an impoverished foreign country but a wealthy industrial one, with universal health care and a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain. Now that Palestinians have a unity government that includes Hamas, insisted these foreign leaders—some of whom have called for the expulsion of Israel’s non-Jewish citizens—Washington should continue to downgrade cooperation and financial aid to the Palestinian Authority. Most importantly, the American legislators were inSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Publishers’ Page

structed that the U.S. should ignore justice, civil and human rights and common sense and cast its....

42nd U.N. Veto in 40 Years.

Should the Palestinians’ formal request to the General Assembly for U.N. membership come up for a vote in September, more than 130 of the U.N.’s 192 member states are expected to support it. But when Israel says “jump,” American presidents and lawmakers are expected to obediently respond…

“Yes, Dear.”

In furtherance of the anti-U.N. effort, the Israel Project (TIP), another American “non-profit educational organization”— one which includes 22 House members and 15 senators on its “Board of Advisers”— sent 19 ambassadors to Washington from nations in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas on their own free junket to Israel.

In between tours, shopping trips, dinners and dips, they met with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, who urged them as well to oppose Palestinian U.N. membership.

“Palestine 194.”

The Palestinian Authority has joined imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti’s call for peaceful mass marches against Israel’s occupation to take place on Sept. 20, when the U.N. General Assembly begins its general debate. The nonviolent rally, the first of a prolonged effort, is called the “Palestine 194” campaign because Palestinians hope to become the 194th member of the U.N. “The appeal to the U.N. is a battle for all Palestinians, and in order to succeed, it needs millions to pour into streets,” said Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo.

World-wide demonstrations in support of Palestinians are planned for Arab and Western streets. A U.S. veto in the Security Council will alienate millions of Americans, the entire Arab and Muslim world, and the majority of the international community.

When All Else Fails, Sabotage.

Hundreds of thousands of individuals and organizations signed petitions endorsing Palestine’s application for U.N. membership.

Israel-firsters tried to sabotage the Washington Report’s petition, which we placed on “PetitionOnline” in June. Fakers entered famous or infamous names along with inTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

flammatory statements, which petition author Dr. Mohamed Khodr meticulously weeded out each day. Inflammatory ads soon appeared as well. The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and Jewish Voice for Peace then launched their own excellent petitions. In only four days Avaaz.org, the World in Action, collected 500,000 signatures, on its petition, and continues to collect new signatures by the minute.

Arab Revolts and Palestinian Rights.

In addition to providing a new sense of Arab identity, the Arab revolts have rejuvenated hopes for the Palestinian cause, correspondent Anthony Shadid reported in the Aug. 9 New York Times. The embrace of the Palestinian issue confirms its status as a barometer of justice and freedom for many Arabs and Muslims, he wrote, noting that “the demands of an empowered public raise the possibility of a significant change in the region’s foreign policies which, at least tacitly, capitulated to the dictates of the United States and Israel.”

A Hopeful Future.

This summer our tiny Washington Report staff was multiplied and energized by six bright young interns (see picture on table of contents page). They tweeted, friended, stuffed envelopes, recycled, organized, researched and covered important events at Washington think tanks, embassies, Capitol Hill, and even Quantico Marine base.

In fact, they were so prolific that we had to save half their articles for our next issue.

But rest assured, the next generation of journalists, diplomats and policymakers in both America and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are coming right along—as, we hope, are our fall interns. (We admit it, we’ve been spoiled!)

True, there have been dramatic, sometimes catastrophic, changes recently in the media, along with the disappearance of bookstores and of funding for education and public and academic libraries. But we can testify that the next generation’s appetite for justice and balanced information about the Middle East from all sources—including social media, books and magazines like the Washington Report—should encourage us all to keep on keeping on and try our best to....

Make a Difference Today!

7

marshall_8-10_Special Report 8/11/11 11:22 AM Page 8

Israel Clashed With Peace Activists—But Who Came Out Ahead?

SpecialReport

AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

By Rachelle Marshall

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish man and two children walk July 2, 2011 on the grounds of Jerusalem’s ancient Mamun Allah Muslim cemetery, where Israel has approved the building of a Museum of Tolerance sponsored by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

A Jewish Home in Palestine built upon bayonets and oppression is not worth having.—Rabbi Judah Magnes in a letter to Chaim Weizmann, Sept. 7, 1929.

Israel is a state which has adopted the language of force throughout its existence and does not know another language.— Abir Kopty, former member of the Nazareth city council, July 14, 2011. s a few hundred unarmed peace ac-

Ativists attempted to sail to Gaza in

late June, carrying letters addressed to the children of that besieged territory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that any action Israel took to stop them would be justified. “The Israelis have the right to defend themselves,” she declared. She did Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Mill Valley, CA. A member of Jewish Voice for Peace, she writes frequently on the Middle East.

8

not explain why Israel was endangered by a group with the motto, “Stay Human,” that included 85-year old Hedi Epstein and 67-year old Alice Walker.

President Barack Obama showed similar concern for Israel’s survival when he vowed to veto a resolution granting U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state if it comes up for a vote at the Security Council in September. Given Washington’s support for an intransigent Israeli government, an appeal to the international community was the only recourse left to the Palestinians.

“Where else can we go?” asked Mohammad Mustafa, chairman of the Palestine Investment Fund. “We are in a financial crisis, thousands of our people are in Israeli jails, we can’t cross our borders. How long can the world ask us to wait?”

More than a hundred countries have indicated they will support a statehood resolution, and France and Spain are leaning in favor. Obama nevertheless condemned it as a “symbolic action to isolate Israel,” and THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

Congress is threatening to cut off the $500 million a year the U.S. gives to the cashstrapped Palestinian Authority. Israel, meanwhile, is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes that belong to the Authority, and holding up projects in the West Bank financed by Turkey, France and Japan.

The inconsistencies of U.S. Middle East policy were highlighted on July 15, when the administration recognized the Libyan rebels’ Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority of Libya and gave the Council access to $30 billion in frozen Libyan assets. Again, neither Obama nor Clinton explained why rebel forces beset by tribal rivalries are worthy of support while Palestinians struggling to achieve freedom from a brutal and illegal military occupation deserve to be chastised by the U.S. and accused of terrorism by Israel.

It is not terrorism, however, that is prompting Israel’s fears but the power of nonviolent resistance by the Palestinians SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

and their supporters. In response to the planned sailing this summer of a few unarmed boats intending to call attention to Israel’s five-year blockade of Gaza, the Israelis behaved as if the Spanish armada were on the way. The cabinet held emergency meetings, the navy spent weeks on full alert, and the army conducted rounds of military exercises in preparation.

While the passengers endured endless delays in Athens, the propellor shafts on two of the boats were found to be seriously damaged. In one case, if the damage had not been discovered by chance the ship would have sunk in mid-ocean along with its passengers. Israeli officials refused either to deny or admit responsibility for the sabotage, and insisted that the whole project was organized and inspired by “Islamic radicals” seeking to provoke violence.

If the Israelis were right, those Islamic radicals had fooled several members of the European Parliament, a British MP, and mostly middle-aged activists, many of whom were Jews, from nearly a dozen countries. Also duped by the mythical Islamists were 10 Israeli human rights organizations, including Rabbis for Human Rights and the veterans’ organization Yesh G’vul, which expressed “Full-hearted support for the Freedom Flotilla as a courageous act of political protest and rejection of Israel’s oppressive occupation.”

In the end, because of pressure from Israel and Greece’s severely crippled economy, only a small French boat managed to sail from the island of Kastellorizo before it was surrounded by Israeli warships in midocean and towed to shore. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has assiduously cultivated a relationship with his Greek counterpart George Papandreou ever since Israel’s relations with Turkey cooled over Israel’s killing last May of eight Turks and one American, members of a peace flotilla to Gaza. With Greece heavily indebted and desperately in need of foreign investment and a bail-out by the European Union, Netanyahu obligingly came to its help.

“Netanyahu has become Greece’s lobbyist to the EU,” Haaretz commented. Spiro Spiro, the governor of the Ionian Islands, told the Guardian, “Greece loves peace but at this moment it can’t confront more powerful economic forces.”At a June 30 speech to graduates of the Israeli Flight School, Netanyahu publicly thanked Papandreou for his close cooperation with Israel in preventing the flotilla from leaving port.

But who in fact benefited from the episode? Had the flotilla been allowed to sail, and its cargo of letters distributed in SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

marshall_8-10_Special Report 8/11/11 11:22 AM Page 9

Israeli uniformed and plainclothes police arrest an activist at Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion Airport, where a small group of protesters had gathered to welcome the arrival of international activists planning to travel en masse to the West Bank, July 8, 2011.

Gaza, the action would hardly have been news. Instead, Israel’s strenuous efforts to block passage to Gaza of a group of harmless civilians appeared as an act of panic, publicized day after day in the world media. The same sense of panic was evident in early July, when another group of peace activists flew to Israel intending to meet with Palestinian hosts in the West Bank.

The travellers, ranging in age from 9 to 85, had been invited to attend a weeklong program called “Welcome to Palestine” organized by Sami Awad of Holy Land Trust, Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh of Bethlehem University, and other advocates of nonviolent protest. Since the Palestinians have no airport of their own, their guests were forced to land at Ben-Gurion Airport, where they encountered what can only be called official paranoia.

Hundreds of police who had been gathered at the airport for several days descended on the arriving travellers as Israeli bystanders shouted “Go back to Syria,” “Nazis!” and “They should all be raped!”

Since many of the potential visitors had already been turned back at European airports at Israel’s request, only 124 managed to arrive. They were immediately handcuffed and jammed into tiny insect-infested cells—some for several days—until they could be deported. A handful of Israelis carrying signs saying “Welcome to Palestine” were also arrested.

Israel’s Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharanovitch claimed the visitors were “hooligans” and “provocateurs,” and THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

cabinet minister Eli Yishai boasted of Israel’s success in blocking “enemies of Israel” and “pogromists.” More rational Israelis accused the government of acting like a frightened bully. “What happened today at Ben-Gurion International Airport was simply an inexcusable absurdity,” journalist Hagai Matar commented.

Calling the event “a day of madness at the airport,” Matar pointed to a feeling of “fear, siege and persecution, which dominates political discourse in this country and reaches scary dimensions.” Much of this fear, he suggested, stems from the Palestinians’ decision to seek U.N. recognition, a decision that prompted Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to warn that Israel faced “a diplomatic tsunami.” Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress, maintains that what Israel fears most is any form of international recognition of a border between Israel and Palestine.

“Israel’s goal,” he said in an interview in mid-July, “is to prevent a border being drawn between them and the West Bank.

The goal has been to retain permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza.” With the U.S. acting as its enabler, the Israeli government is carrying out the dream of militant Zionists from the beginning: to reclaim the Land of Israel as it was defined in the Bible. A third of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is now off limits to Palestinians without special permits. Two-thirds of West Bank roads are either closed to Palestinians or controlled by Israeli guards stationed at 585 permanent roadblocks.

9

marshall_8-10_Special Report 8/11/11 11:22 AM Page 10

With Iran on the Border, Expect No Quick Exit From Iraq When former CIA head Leon Panetta took office as secretary of defense on July 1 he made it clear there would be no let-up in U.S. intervention abroad. He talked of “a big CIA presence” in Afghanistan, and pointed out that the CIA had “a lot of bases in Iraq” and “a number of operations” in Yemen. He failed only to mention the active U.S. military presence in Somalia, where the CIA maintains a large headquarters, drone missile sites, and an underground prison. Former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said his priorities were to stabilize Afghanistan and end the war in Iraq. Panetta said his goal, “quite frankly, is to defeat al-Qaeda.”

Panetta then flew to Baghdad, where he told an audience of American soldiers that “the reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked.” When reporters reminded Panetta that Iraq had no ties with the 9/11 attackers he replied that al-Qaeda fighters are there now. But he soon made it clear that Iran poses an equal challenge to U.S. interests in Iraq.

At a July 11 press conference, Panetta charged that Iran was providing Shi’i militias in Iraq with the weapons they used to kill Americans, and said, “We cannot simply stand back and allow this to happen.” He threatened that the U.S. would act if the Iraqis did not.

Panetta was joined in challenging Iran by Adm. Mike Mullen, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who added that any discussion of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq after next year “has to be done in conjunction with controlling Iran in that regard.”

The topper to U.S. charges against Iran came when the Obama administration accused Iran of allowing al-Qaeda to funnel funds and people through its territory. In a statement reminiscent of those used by the Bush administration to whip up war fever against Iraq, David S. Cohen of the Treasury Department said on July 28, “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. We are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism.”

Cohen did not explain why predominantly Shi’i Iran would aid alQaeda, which adheres to a radical Sunni theology and has bitterly condemned Iran in the past.

According to a U.S. agreement with the Iraqis, all American forces must leave Iraq by the end of 2011 unless the Iraqis ask them to stay.

Panetta along with other U.S. military commanders are pressuring them to do so. The problem Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki faces is that his coalition’s parliamentary majority requires the support of Shi’i cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and al-Sadr has vowed to take up arms against U.S. forces if they remain past the deadline.

Nevertheless, given Israel’s proclaimed fear of a nuclear Iran, and U.S. charges linking Iran to al-Qaeda, it seems certain that thousands of American soldiers, private contractors and CIA operatives will be

By demolishing hundreds of Palestinian homes and doubling the number of illegal settlements in the Jordan Valley, Israel has accomplished the de facto annexation of that fertile area as well, and cut off the Palestinians’ only link to the outside. Israel is steadily expanding existing illegal settlements elsewhere in the West Bank. On July 18 the government announced plans to build 294 more homes and 6 factories in Ma’ale Adumim, the giant settlement east of Jerusalem, an expansion that further erases the chance of a contiguous Palestinian state.

Among the most maddening of the injustices inflicted on the Palestinians is the refusal by Washington and its allies to ac10

in Iraq long after 2011. According to Yale professor David Bromwich, President Obama shows increasing signs of buying into lsraeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s claim that Iran’s nuclear capability poses an “existential threat” to Israel.

Bromwich writes in the July 14 issue of the New York Review of Books that the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate concluded there was no evidence that Iran’s nuclear program could yet produce a weapon and, according to Bromwich, Israeli intelligence sources are saying the same thing. But the Obama administration has suppressed the NIE report and Obama’s security advisers have blocked access to him by experts who defend its finding. Meanwhile, as Netanyahu drums up war fever in Israel and Washington, Obama has appointed as new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, who has close ties to the Israeli military. A June 1 article in Haaretz referring to Dempsey was even headlined, “Obama’s New Security Staff May Approve Attack on Iran.”

Former Israeli intelligence officials recently warned that the current Israeli government intends to carry out such an attack, and the same warning was repeated by Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East. Baer predicts that Israel will launch an air strike in September aimed at incapacitating Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz. Citing former Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s description of Netanyahu as “dangerous and irresponsible,” Baer said an Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably provoke retaliation, quite possibly against U.S. forces in Iraq. If so, the U.S. would be embroiled in yet another Middle East war.

That possibility undoubtedly figures in the administration’s determination to keep soldiers and other security personnel in Iraq until well after 2011. It seems never to have occurred to either the U.S. or Israel that Iran has far more reason to feel threatened than does Israel. The continued presence of U.S. troops on two of Iran’s borders, along with bellicose threats from Israel, are likely to convince the Iranians to do everything possible to defend themselves—including producing a nuclear deterrent.

Such a reaction, though understandable, could prove disastrous for the Middle East and the rest of the world. As U.S. officials were trying in late July to secure the Iraqis’ agreement to an extended U.S. military presence, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Walter Jones (RNC) wrote a letter to Obama saying, “Leaving troops and military contractors in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in our nation’s security interests, it is not in our nation’s strategic interests, and it is not in our nation’s economic interests.” Despite such truths, the sad reality is that American soldiers will continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan—if for no very good reason.

—R.M.

knowledge the brutality of the Israeli occupation. Yitzak Laor writes in the July 5 issue of Haaretz that Palestinians “live under a regime that few other occupations allowed themselves—imagine your children being awakened at night by the shouting of armed men, breaking down doors and blinding them with flashlights; imagine living without any protection whatever.”

The gratuitous, often sadistic cruelty to which Israel subjects Palestinians was illustrated recently when its army raided the Freedom Theater in Jenin. The famed theater was founded by Arna Khamis, an Israeli married to a Palestinian, who intended it as a cultural and creative outlet for young THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

Palestinians trapped by the occupation.

Dozens of Israeli commandoes stormed the theater at 3 a.m. on July 27, smashed several windows with stone blocks, and arrested two men, including Bilal Saadi, chairman of the theater’s board. They also smashed the windows of Saadi’s house. The two men were ordered to remove their pants, then taken off to prison. When the theater manager arrived on the scene and asked what was happening, soldiers pointed their guns at him and ordered him to be quiet.

As settlements encroach on Palestinian land, settler violence against Palestinians is increasing as well, while the army looks the Continued on page 14 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

cook_11_The Nakba Continues 8/11/11 11:28 AM Page 11

In Israel, It’s Kosher to Discriminate Against Non-Jewish Citizens The NakbaContinues

By Jonathan Cook e don’t employ Arabs”—or so

rael’s Yellow Pages directory boast to potential customers.

The businesses, which include a bus company, plumbers, electricians and a moving firm, openly advertise under the banner of “Hebrew labor”—a policy to hire only Jews—in violation of Israel’s anti-discrimination laws.

According to Israeli civil rights groups, a spate of recent initiatives seeks to favor Jewish jobseekers over the country’s Palestinian Arab citizens, 20 percent of the population.

(By contrast, African Americans constitute 13 percent of the U.S. population.)

The trend toward “Jews-only” employment practices reflects Israel’s rapid shift to the right, they say, and warn that anti-discrimination laws are rarely being enforced to protect Arab workers’ rights.

Initiatives from right-wing groups include awarding “kosher” certificates to companies that restrict hiring to Jews, and a campaign by Orthodox religious communities to boycott businesses identified as employing Arabs.

In addition, growing anti-Arab sentiment in the parliament has prompted a raft of so-called loyalty bills from right-wing parties, including on employment policies.

In June the country’s chief law officer warned Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that a bill drafted by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s party, reserving many public-sector jobs for former soldiers, was “unconstitutional.”

Arab citizens are generally exempted from army service and would therefore be ineligible for many jobs.

“We’re seeing a disturbing trend to create Arab-free workplaces,” said Sawsan Zaher, a lawyer with the Adalah legal center for Israel’s Arab minority.

“In the current climate, firms are increasingly confident that it will be good for business if they declare themselves opposed to hiring Arab workers.”

Jonathan Cook is a free-lance journalist based in Nazareth and the author of Blood and Religion and Israel and the Clash of Civilizations, both available from the AET Book Club.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

PMENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

“Wdozens of companies listed in Is-

A Jewish settler working for Yoram Cohen, owner of the Tany Kosher winery in the illegal West Bank Jewish settlement of Ofra, some 20 miles north of Jerusalem, empties a crate of harvested grapes.

The controversy over the Yellow Pages ads has highlighted the revival of “Hebrew labor” practices that predate Israel’s creation in 1948.

The policy of segregated employment originally was devised by early Jewish immigrants in Palestine to strengthen their position as they settled among the large native Palestinian population.

But prejudice against Arab workers has remained widespread to this day: a survey in late 2009 showed that 83 percent of Israeli employers admitted being opposed to hiring Arab graduates.

Ron Gerlitz, a co-director of Sikkuy, an organization that works to advance equality between Jews and Arabs in Israel, said a coalition of nine Israeli rights groups had launched a campaign to put public pressure on Yellow Pages to withdraw the ads.

He said he had first become aware of the “Hebrew labor” firms when he searched for an emergency plumber in his local directory.

“Publication by the Yellow Pages of these ads gives a seal of approval to the refusal by businesses to employ Arabs,” he said.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

In practice, he added, thousands of Israeli firms refuse jobs to Arab workers, but most have been reluctant to publicize the fact. “What is shocking is that the ‘Hebrew labor’ companies are proud to declare their racism,” Gerlitz noted.

In a statement, Yellow Pages defended its inclusion of the firms, saying that the use of the term “’Hebrew labor’ has not been made illegal.”

However, Adalah said it believed that not only were the companies breaking Israel’s Equality in Employment Law of 1988, but so too was Yellow Pages.

“The directory, for example, does not allow prostitutes to advertise in its pages because prostitution is illegal in Israel, so what is different in the case of these firms?” asked Zaher.

Civil rights groups have been equally disturbed by a new bill—the latest in a string of “loyalty laws” presented in the Knesset over the past two years—that gives priority to employing discharged soldiers in the civil service.

The courts have previously ruled that Continued on page 53 11

views_12-14_Four Views 8/11/11 11:31 AM Page 12

Four Views U.N. Recognition of Palestine: Leaping Over the U.S.-Israeli Roadblock

ABBAS MOMANI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

ica, now seen as a dishonest broker in the iron grip of Zionist lobbies, a pro-Israel Congress and right-wing Jewish and Christian-Zionist forces.

Obama’s defeat by Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and America’s blatant pro-Israeli bias have driven the Palestinians to try to leap over the U.S.-Israeli roadblock and seek a multilateral approach at the U.N., now seen as the center of international decision-making.

In the run up to the vote in September, both Israelis and Palestinians have been furiously lobbying. The Palestinians know that they will have no trouble rallying support from developing countries. Of the 193 U.N. members, more than 122 already recognize Palestinian statehood. This figure could rise to about 154, almost on a par with Israel, which has diplomatic relations with 156 states. The problem for the Palestinians lies with A Palestinian man in Ramallah displays a map showing flags of countries that have recognized the Pales- the rich, powerful and developed world of North America, tinian state, Aug. 7, 2011.

Europe and Australasia. That is where Israel has the advantage.

The Palestinian Battle for recognition of a Palestinian state via the Se- The European Union will be the real batStatehood curity Council. tleground for the coming diplomatic conIsrael is mobilizing all its friends and its test, and there the key swing votes are

By Patrick Seale own formidable energies to counter the those of Britain, France and Germany. his September, the United Nations in Palestinian move, while U.S. President It was anticipated that France would New York will be the scene of a great Barack Obama has already indicated that vote for the Palestinians—President Nicopolitical battle when Mahmoud Abbas, he will use the U.S. veto to block it. Why las Sarkozi said as much. But he seems to president of the Palestinian Authority, sub- then are the Palestinians taking the grave have recently moved back to the pro-Israeli mits a formal request to the Security Coun- risk of alienating the United States by camp. Germany will as usual vote against cil for U.N. recognition and membership doing battle with Israel on the interna- the Palestinians, while Britain sits on the for the State of Palestine. tional stage? fence. Officially, the EU has long come out The Palestinian move has full Arab backThe reasons are clear: Israel’s relentless in favor of a two-state solution. But some ing. On July 14, the Arab League pledged land-grab on the West Bank and in East European states may fear that a “unilatto “take all necessary measures” to secure Jerusalem; the total deadlock in Israeli- eral” Palestinian move might risk splitting Palestinians negotiations; and the Palestin- the EU and deepen the transatlantic Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the ian sense that, with the Arab world rocked divide.

Middle East. His latest book is The Struggle by revolution, it is time for them, too, to The U.N. vote could be of considerable for Arab Independence: Riad el-Solh and the make some international headlines. significance for the United States. AmerAnother reason why the Palestinians are ica’s influence in the Arab and Islamic Makers of the Modern Middle East (Cambridge University Press). Copyright © 2011 going to the U.N.—and perhaps the main world has already suffered a catastrophic one—is their utter disillusion with Amer- decline. Together with its blind support for Patrick Seale. Distributed by Agence Global.

T

12

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

views_12-14_Four Views 8/11/11 11:31 AM Page 13

Israel, its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and its strikes against militant Muslim groups in Yemen and elsewhere, have aroused great hostility. According to John Zogby, the well-known Arab-American pollster, America’s favorable ratings have fallen to a minuscule 5 percent in Egypt. Even in Morocco, a country traditionally close to America, they are down to 12 percent. If Obama vetoes Palestinian statehood at the Security Council, as seems very likely, America’s alienation from the Arab and Muslim world will be very great.

In a recent article, an influential member of the Saudi Royal family, Prince Turki alFaysal, former head of intelligence and former ambassador to London and Washington, warned the United States that “there will be disastrous consequences for U.S.-Saudi relations if the U.S. vetoes U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state.” He added that “the game of favoritism toward Israel has not proven wise for Washington... It will soon learn that there are other players in the region...” This angry tone from America’s main Arab ally is highly unusual.

Among the actions which have shocked the Arabs are America’s veto last February of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s continued building of illegal settlements; the resignation in May of George Mitchell, Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, after a frustrating two years in which he was unable to get Netanyahu to move an inch; Obama’s declared opposition to the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation; and his scornful dismissal of the PLO’s U.N. strategy.

The mechanics for securing U.N. recognition and membership for a Palestinian state are fairly tortuous. They would require a nine-vote majority in the Security Council as well as finding a way around a potential U.S. veto. One way being considered by Palestinian strategists would be for the General Assembly to invoke Resolution 377 of November 1950. Known as the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution, it was adopted during the Korean crisis to overcome a Security Council deadlock. The solution found then was for the U.N. General Assembly, convened in an Emergency Special Session, to recommend collective action in order to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council was unable to block it. It might provide a model.

What would the Palestinians gain from U.N. recognition of their state? It would not at once end the Israeli occupation nor change much on the ground. But they would gain “virtual citizenship,” a passport and sovereignty; legal protection SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

against violence by Israeli settlers; the right to fight back in self-defense if attacked; potential backing for their claims from international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

A favorable U.N. vote, however, could have dire consequences. The U.S. Congress could cut U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority of $550 million a year. Israel’s rightwing government might react aggressively by annexing Area C of the West Bank, amounting to almost 60 percent of the territory, or by scrapping the Oslo accords, and therefore ending economic and security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority. Any of these moves could trigger an outbreak of Palestinian violence, even a third intifada. But determined at all costs to keep his coalition intact, Netanyahu will fight to the end. His fanatical far-right, national religious and settler constituency wants nothing less than a “Greater Israel”—whatever the cost to Israel’s international reputation and long-term security.

The Palestinians are still a long way from exercising their basic right of self-determination. But the battle at the U.N. will alert the world to the gross injustice they are suffering. The jailed Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti—perhaps the most famous of the many thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons—wrote a recent letter from his prison cell calling for “a peaceful million-man march during the week of voting in the U.N. in September.” Israel promptly placed him in solitary confinement—a punitive response which betrays its nervousness at the Palestinians’ U.N. strategy and also its contempt for Palestinian human rights.

The Palestinians hope to swap the charismatic Barghouti and a thousand other prisoners for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier being held by Hamas in Gaza. But the last thing Netanyahu wants is to face a Palestinian leader who could unite his people behind a nonviolent program for statehood. That would be a real threat.

A New State of Affairs as U.N. Nears a Vote on Palestine

By Charles Glass

n July 9, the world welcomed a new O country into the community of nations. South Sudan has achieved independence from the northern half of the country, as Sudan itself did in 1956, when Egypt surrendered control of what had been known as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.

However, “independence” is not synonymous with “freedom,” as the presence of THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

the Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe at the independence celebrations in the capital, Juba, should remind South Sudan’s eight million new citizens. The hard part is just beginning.

South Sudan is entitled to govern itself, although it faces residual hostility from its former governors in Khartoum, unimaginable poverty, massive illiteracy and heartbreaking infant mortality. The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who attended the Juba jamboree, wrote in The New York Times that the U.N. has a duty to its newest member: “Our purpose is to do more than celebrate this milestone. It is to stand by the people of South Sudan as they seek to build a stable, strong and ultimately prosperous nation.”

In September, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote whether to recognize the independence of another state that has been long in the making.

That state, as we all know, is Palestine. The United States and Israel are resisting Palestinian recognition with every means at their disposal, threatening the Palestinian Authority with new sanctions and vowing to withdraw American funding of the U.N. itself.

The U.S. and Israel protest too much.

Palestine, although not yet independent of Israeli occupation or freed from Israeli land seizure, is a fact acknowledged by at least 130 countries. While it has no vote in the General Assembly, its representatives participate in most U.N. agencies. Palestinian diplomats have a status akin to that of ambassadors even in Western Europe, and Palestinian delegations to most developing countries are regarded as full embassies.

Palestine has greater international recognition and legitimacy now than Israel had when it declared its statehood in May 1948.

Why the fear? First, the West Bank and Gaza would cease in international law to be occupied territories and become an occupied state. That is equivalent to Kuwait’s occupation by Iraq in 1990, which took a war to end. Second, Palestine’s voice would be heard in international forums on an equal plane to Israel’s. No longer would the Palestinian representatives speak on sufferance, while an Israeli ambassador dismisses them as representing nothing. Third, PalesCharles Glass is the author of several books on the Middle East, including Tribes with Flags and The Northern Front: An Iraq War Diary.

He is also a publisher under the London imprint Charles Glass Books. This commentary first appeared in the UAE’s The National, July 11, 2011.

13

views_12-14_Four Views 8/11/11 11:31 AM Page 14

tinians would have citizenship and passports recognized by most of the world.

Fourth, the state of Palestine would have the right to demand help to achieve what all states expect: no foreign occupation.

Fifth, Israeli isolation in the world will increase until it too recognizes and withdraws from Palestine.

The stakes are high for both Israelis and Palestinians, and both are maneuvering for the U.N. General Assembly to see the issue their way. Israel, however, has more to gain than to lose in the long run by welcoming the state of Palestine. Israel itself became a state courtesy of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 that called for the creation of two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

Statehood for Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, roughly along the lines of the 1949 armistice accords between Israel and the neighboring Arab states, means Palestinian recognition and acceptance of the other state beside it. That recognition, as long as this September’s resolution is tied to the Resolution 181, would be irreversible. That resolution was Israel’s birth certificate, and at long last it would serve the same purpose for the Palestinian state.

It would be the end in fact and in law of any claim by Palestinian Arabs on territory lost in 1948.

The 1947 resolution proposed a transitional phase under U.N. trusteeship to oversee full independence for both states.

Within that legal framework, the new state of Palestine could enjoy a period of U.N. trusteeship to end the daily confrontations between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians, build trust between the people of the two states and create cooperative institutions of the kind the original resolution called for—a customs union, shared currency and major services undertaken jointly by the two states. Cooperation and trust would be necessary for mutual survival.

International recognition of Palestine would be the world’s signal that it will no longer tolerate this conflict. It will give hope to the Israeli peace camp, which has suffered more reversals at the polls than liberal white South Africans did during the death throes of apartheid. The potential ramifications of Palestinian statehood have already galvanized sectors of Israel’s business community to revisit negotiating the Geneva Accord. They have also brought back discussion of the compromises, including full recognition of Israel by all Arab states, that the Saudi government passed through the Arab League in 2002.

The Palestinian Authority, an elected administration denied power so long as the occupation continues, has offered to withdraw its support of a statehood resolution 14

at the U.N. if Israel will stop building settlements and accepts the notion of a second state. Israel’s government is unlikely to do either, making a vote in the General Assembly inevitable. If two-thirds of the members give their approval, the Palestinians will have a state on paper.

If the document becomes reality, as with South Sudan, Palestine’s leaders owe their people a country worth living in. That means a state in which rule of law prevails over the will of despots, where freedoms are guaranteed and where all are equal.

When asked what kind of state they would like to achieve, most Palestinians responded in polls taken before Israel’s repression of the second intifada, a democracy like Israel’s. That is a healthy start for both countries. ❑

Peace Activists…

Continued from page 10

other way. According to a U.N. study, 178 Palestinians were run over, stoned, or shot by settlers, and 3 killed, during the first 6 months of 2011. Olive groves, the only source of income for many Palestinians, are a major target of the Israelis. Settlers destroyed 3,600 trees in June alone. Not surprisingly, the government has not condemned the vandalism, since the more Palestinians who can be encouraged to leave, the easier it will be for Israel to maintain control of the West Bank.

Meanwhile, Israel is using every effort to discourage peaceful protest. Participants face teargas, rubber bullets and stun grenades, but stand their ground. Villages where protests take place endure midnight invasions of Israeli soldiers firing tear gas and stun guns. Yet “We do not harm human lives,” said their organizer, Bassem Tamimi. “The very essence of our activity opposes killing.” Tamimi, like several other organizers of the movement, are now in Israeli military prisons, but the protests continue to spread across the West Bank. According to Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, a longtime peace activist, “Popular nonviolent resistance is so powerful, and that’s precisely why the Israelis are so afraid.”

The freedoms most Israelis enjoy are now becoming a victim of that fear. On July 11 the Knesset passed a law making it a crime to call for an economic, cultural or academic boycott directed at Israel or the occupied territories. Supporters claim the law is necessary in the fight against “global deligitimization.” But critics of the law, in both Israel and the U.S., were quick to react.

Peace Now and the Israel Association for Civil Rights immediately challenged the law by endorsing a boycott of settlement-proTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

duced goods. Mossi Raz, a member of the liberal Meretz party, called it “One of the most dastardly laws in the history of the state of Israel.” In the U.S., even the staunchly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League—which has its own history of spying on Americans—expressed concern that the law violates Israelis’ right to selfexpression, and Americans for Peace Now and Jewish Voice for Peace openly support a boycott.

Haaretz warned that laws such as the anti-boycott act were “transforming Israel’s legal code into a disturbingly dictatorial document.” A similar bill would authorize the government to investigate human rights organizations that do not meet the standards of “fairness and national security,” and another would politicize the Supreme Court by giving the Knesset, which is dominated by right-wing members, the right to appoint justices.

According to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, such laws are necessary to combat “terror groups and terror supporters.” However one group that could be affected is We Will Not Obey, composed of Israeli women who smuggle West Bank Palestinian women into Israel to enjoy a day of ocean bathing, relaxation, and cross-cultural socializing. Hanna Rubenstein, one member of the group, explained, “One day people will ask, like they did of the Germans, ‘Did you know?’ And I will be able to say, ‘I knew. And I acted.’” At least 28 of the Israeli women have been questioned by the police, and their cases are pending.

The laws that give the government a free hand to silence criticism could also make Israel more vulnerable. The increasing dominance of the messianic right threatens to isolate secular and liberal Israelis. The recent mass protests by Israelis who have seen their income reduced, while the nation’s growing wealth becomes concentrated at the top, points to another deepening division within Israel. At the same time, support for Israel among young American Jews is reportedly diminishing.

It may soon be harder for the pro-Israel lobby to justify sending $5 billion a year in U.S. aid to a country with a flourishing economy but an eroding democracy.

There is no danger as yet that Washington will abandon Israel. But a combination of reduced support by American Jews and the rise of democratic movements in the Middle East should cause both Israel and the Obama administration to reconsider their policies. The danger Israel faces today is not from terrorism but from an increasingly polarized society, and the moral appeal of Palestinians who seek only to be free of an oppressive occupation, and the right to live a normal life. ❑ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

parry_15_Special Report 8/11/11 11:27 AM Page 15

The Score: BDS 1, Israel 0 SpecialReport

By William Parry

o one delegitimizes Israel as well

says Shir Hever, an Israeli economist associated with the Jerusalem-based Alternative Information Society. His comment is in response to the controversial anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) “Law Preventing Harm to the State of Israel by Means of Boycott–2011,” which the Israeli Knesset passed in early July.

The anti-BDS law applies to anyone in Israel “who knowingly publishes a public call for a [cultural, economic or artistic] boycott against the State of Israel, where according to the content and circumstances of the publication there is reasonable probability that the call will lead to a boycott, and he who published the call was aware of this possibility.” According to a convenient Q&A to the new law, provided by the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI—see <www.acri.org.il/en/ ?p=2806>), such groups or individuals “could be subject to a civil lawsuit (for compensation) filed by those who were harmed by this boycott, for damages, economic or otherwise, caused to them,” as well as to economic sanctions.

Apart from the far-right Israeli coalition government that passed the law, it has few defenders in Israel or abroad. Israel’s liberal-left newspaper Haaretz called it “a politically opportunistic and anti-democratic act” that “accelerates the process of transforming Israel’s legal code into a disturbingly dictatorial document,” warning that “very soon, all political debate will be silenced.” In an editorial entitled “Not befitting a democracy,” The New York Times wrote that “Israel’s reputation as a vibrant democracy has been seriously tarnished” by the law. Even the U.S.-based, rabidly pro-Israel lobby group the Anti-Defamation League regarded it with “deep misgivings.”

But here in occupied East Jerusalem and Israel, among the Palestinian and Israeli activists who support the BDS movement, the law is creating a different reaction. Despite concerns about the ongoing erosion William Parry is a free-lance writer and photographer based in London. His book Against the Wall is available from the AET Book Club.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

PHOTO W. PARRY

“Nas the Israeli government itself,”

Omar Barghouti at the July 28 launch in East Jerusalem of his book Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: the Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights. of civil liberties by Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition government, for the small cluster of far-left Israeli activists and organizations that support Palestinian civil society’s boycott call—a group one activist estimates to number no more than a thousand individuals—their main concern is not about Israeli democracy under threat; indeed, they regard Israeli democracy as a sham and argue that this latest Israeli law, and a raft of others, should show the world that Israel is anything but a vibrant, isolated democracy in the Middle East.

“Israel is not a democracy with or without the law, period,” says Ofer Neiman, a member of Boycott From Within. This is reiterated by others, including Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. In East Jerusalem, at the late (July 28) but otherwise timely launch of his book Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: the Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights (published in March and available from the AET Book Club), Barghouti said that this law strips Israel of its “last veneer of democracy.” “For us [Palestinians],” he told a packed audience, “it’s never been a democracy, it has always been an ethnocracy— ’democracy’ only for the master.”

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

There’s frustration that Israeli and Western media are missing the point by giving valuable air time and ink to Israel’s descent into fascism rather than the BDS campaign and its raison d’etre—Israel’s illegal occupation, its institutionalized racist policies toward its Palestinian minority citizens, and its failure to uphold the rights of Palestinian refugees.

According to Hever, “The law needs to be put into perspective. We’re not supporting the boycott to test the limits of freedom of speech in Israel. This law is another Israeli violation of human rights.

Let’s talk about injustice against the Palestinians, the reason that the boycott should make headlines. One-and-a-half million Gazans don’t have safe drinking water [because of Israel’s illegal blockade]—that should be headlines. The media is making this law into a big deal, when Israel’s crimes over the decades are far worse.”

Eliat Maoz, coordinator of an Israeli organization called Women for Peace (WfP), which initiated and led the campaign against the anti-boycott law, articulates WfP’s position succinctly: “An illegitimate government passes an illegitimate law to protect an illegitimate occupation, while Continued on page 53 15

williams_16-17_United Nations Report 8/9/11 11:22 PM Page 16

U.S. Tries—but Fails—to Pull Pre-Emptive Fast One on Quartet

United Nations Report

By Ian Williams

MARK WILSON/GETTY IMAGES

icy is a diplomatic form of coitus interruptus: going through the motions to please its American partner, but always sure to pull out before consummation. So Israeli leaders have, sort of, kind of, allowed that they might, under carefully unspecified conditions, recognize a Palestine State—of sorts—and that yes, the 1967 boundaries are significant—as long as they can be safely ignored in any final solution.

Implied but never explicitly stated is that this would be a Bantustan-style state, modelled on the South African regime’s sequestration of unwanted ethnic groups in the most undesirable territories and giving them a quasi-independence but in which the white settler regime had all significant power. And the Bantustans did not last more than At a July 11 working dinner at the State Department, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is seated be- days after the establishment of tween U.N. Secretary-General Ki-moon (l) and Quartet Representative Tony Blair. Also present were majority rule.

If Israel succeeded in setting up EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. a “Palistan” like that, we can be o, an occupied territory is partitioned similarly inconclusive results to the previ- sure that it, and the U.S., would be lobbying the U.N. and the world to extend by an intrusive wall marching across ous 11 rounds.

The talks, currently under the aegis of recognition to lend some verisimilitude to the arid landscape. The Arab inhabitants are either under occupation, or huddled in the secretary-general’s special representa- an otherwise bald and unconvincing naran unproductive corner of their own land. tive for Western Sahara, former U.S. diplo- rative of statehood.

As it is, like Saint Augustine’s famous Some countries still give recognition to a mat Christopher Ross, have produced some government in semi-exile in a tiny enclave results that have ameliorated conditions for plea for virtue “but not just yet” while he the Sahrawis, in family visits for example, rampaged through his riotous youth, the of the nation.

Despite repeated U.N. resolutions, Inter- but their most outstanding characteristic is U.S. is reduced to saying that of course national Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments, the refusal of the international community Palestine should have statehood—but not and blandishments from most countries, to take Morocco to task, let alone threaten just yet. Once clear manifestation of the the occupiers refuse to allow self-determi- any consequences for its blatant illegality. flexibility of nay-saying is how quickly the The parallels are obvious in the similar arguments changed from denying the nation within the internationally agreed boundaries, instead offering interminable case at the other end of the Sahara—in Palestinian Authority’s representativeness talks in which everyone is too polite to which, however, the victims do have at because it did not control Gaza, to denying point out to the occupying state that it is least the lip service of the Arab states. The its legitimacy if elected representatives violating international law, U.N. decisions U.S., Europe and everyone else says the from Hamas took part in the government.

These evasive policies allow Washington Palestinians should have a state of their and its own promises.

But Arab states join France and the U.S. own. Almost every government agrees that to be wagged by its Israeli tail while mainin giving Morocco a free pass in scofflaw the basis should be the 1967 boundaries. taining the polite fiction that Israel seribehavior—which is why the 12th round of Yet Washington is telling everyone how ously wants a peace settlement in a form U.N.-sponsored talks between POLISARIO important it is that the United Nations not that would be acceptable to the Palestiniand the Moroccans ended in July with recognize a Palestinian State in the forth- ans, the Arabs, the rest of the world, and international law. coming General Assembly.

The depths to which the Obama adminIf in doubt about why U.S. policy bows to Ian Williams is a free-lance journalist based at the United Nations and has a blog at illogicality, it is always sound analysis to istration has sunk since the president’s <www.deadlinepundit.blogspot.com>. look at what Israel wants. And Israel’s pol- promising start in Cairo and Istanbul be-

S

16

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

williams_16-17_United Nations Report 8/9/11 11:22 PM Page 17

came apparent when the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Quartetâ&#x20AC;? of Russia, the U.S., the EU and the U.N. met in Washington in July and for the first time did not issue a statement. This was a good thing. Daniel Levy revealed the contents of Obamaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed draft statement that the U.S. tried to pass off onto the Quartet, and its contents leave one at a loss whether to be more outraged at the administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perfidy or its naĂŻvetĂŠ in thinking that it could persuade other countries to accept what was effectively a Netanyahu-authored document.

According to Levy, the U.S. tried to commit the Quartet to say, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The parties themselves will negotiate a border between Israel and Palestine that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967, to take account of changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides,â&#x20AC;? and went on to rule out a U.N. role on the issue.

That coy phrase â&#x20AC;&#x153;demographic realitiesâ&#x20AC;? did not conceal that this amounted to giving Israel title to already stolen, and currently being stolen, property, in violation of U.N. decisions, international law, and stated positions of the EU, the ICJ and indeed of successive U.S. administrations. Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile with the presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own statements on the â&#x20AC;&#x2122;67 boundaries.

The administration draft also tried to outlaw negotiations with Hamas, once again against the policies of all other parties except Israel, which have all in varying degrees been pushing for unity talks between Fatah and Hamas.

To their credit, the other members of the Quartet did stand up against the enfeebled U.S., and refused to accept a statement that was clearly designed to head off a Palestinian move in the U.N.â&#x20AC;&#x201D;and keep AIPAC off the presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s back in an election year. It is, of course, futile domesticallyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;since no matter what Obama does, the Likudniks dominating AIPAC will always hate him, and all the evidence is that most American Jews would support him anyway. It appears that Ban Ki-moon, not unsurprisingly, refused to accept a statement that in effect invited his organization to take a hike.

Currently, the PLOâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;not the Palestinian Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;has observer status at the U.N. The former represents all Palestinians worldwide, while the PA only administers some of those living in the West Bank and, technically, in Gaza. During many years, as chronicled in these Washington Report columns, the Palestine Mission to the U.N. fought a war of attrition to extend the recognition and resolutions of the General SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Assembly awarding it all the privileges of membership short of voting.

However, Palestineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s observer mission is still in Limbo, compared with the Vatican (which incidentally abolished Limbo itself in a fit of theological revisionism some time ago). The Holy See also is accepted as an observer state, but has never applied for actual membership. Its status is controversial. The Vatican was smuggled in through the back door by membership of the Universal Postal Union, since it issued stamps and since the UPUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s head was a devout son of the Church.

Even though it is not a member state, and not recognized by all members, the Holy See signs international treaties and, in the case of conventions involving family planning, often uses its position to thwart consensus.

Other non-member states have signed international conventions and been accepted as sovereign states, not least some of the smaller island states that at the time could not afford U.N. membership. No one disputed their sovereignty and ability to sign treaties as independent states, however.

Universal Membership a Recent Principle Indeed, it is worth remembering that the principle of universal membership of the U.N. is a recent one. Membership originally was limited to states that were prepared to join the coalition against the Axis powers and were explicitly prepared to commit to the Charter. That is why when Israel became a member, with the blessings of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Abba Eban had to explicitly pledge acceptance of all previous U.N. decisions, not least because the boundaries of the new state had not been established to international satisfaction, unless one counted the partition resolution itself.

Until the mid-1950s, Spain and Ireland, for example, were refused membership because of their unsatisfactory showing in World War Two. Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, was refused because Moscow saw it as a surrogate for British imperialism, and so on. In a massive tradeoff, East and West accepted each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prodigal protectorates as members.

Currently, there are states like Kosovo or Taiwan that have wide recognition but are presently prevented from joining the U.N., primarily because other countries that are members consider them an integral part of their territory. Where does Palestine fit in this scenario? Israel has not explicitly claimed the occupied territories. Insofar as it has a stated position it is an only slightly THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

more sophisticated version of â&#x20AC;&#x153;finders keepers.â&#x20AC;?

Despite numerous U.N. decisions and resolutions and ICJ rulings that these are in fact â&#x20AC;&#x153;occupied territories,â&#x20AC;? Israeli jurists have argued that they are â&#x20AC;&#x153;disputedâ&#x20AC;? because they were taken from Egypt, Jordan and Syria, which had no legal title to them.

Some of the more Talmudical cite the Balfour Declaration and the consequent League of Nations mandate decisions to prove good title not just to mandatory Palestine, but Jordan as well. Needless to say, internationally these arguments have scarcely more weight than if they produced Mosesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; original title deeds signed by the deity on tablets of stone.

So what does Palestine gain from recognition? On one level, it must be a good thing if it has the Netanyahu regime so upset. Ironically enough, Israel is always quick to quote the law, and there is little doubt that the Israeli self-image is of a nation of law. It is just that its interpretation of the law is frequently radically different from everyone elses.

U.N. membership and or statehood would certainly erode even further their contradictory and confused claims to the territories, and it reinforces the Palestinian title to those lands. That does not preclude territorial exchanges, but it clearly gives the Palestinian negotiators a better hand to play with. Property with clear title is clearly a more valuable bargaining chip than â&#x20AC;&#x153;disputed.â&#x20AC;?

Hence the heightened perfidy of the U.S. in its call for negotiations with no legal or international parameters. That has always been the equivalent of calling for a fair fight between a toddler and a Sumo wrestlerâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;but now they want to tie the toddlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hands behind its back. â?&#x2018; (Advertisement)

-53,)-3

"!+% #!+% 4HERE S ALOT MORE YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT YOUR MUSLIM NEIGHBORS

6JG /WUNKO .KPM VJG NCTIGUV PGYURCRGT HQT CPF CDQWV VJG /WUNKO %QOOWPKV[ KP &% /& CPF 8# #XCKNCDNG CV OQUV /QUSWGU #TCD +PFQ 2CM CPF 2GTUKCP TGUVCWTCPVU CPF ITQEGTKGU KP VJG ITGCVGT 9CUJKPIVQP $CNVKOQTG OGVTQRQNKVCP CTGC #XCKNCDNG (TGG

0HONE &AX

WWW -USLIMLINKPAPER COM 17

views_18-20_Two Views 8/11/11 11:32 AM Page 18

Two Views Terror in Oslo

JON-ARE BERG-JACOBSEN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Web-based community of antiMuslim, anti-government and anti-immigration bloggers, writers and activists,” according to Archer.

He also noted that, in contrast to the traditional European right, this network tends to be philo-Semitic and supports the most extreme rightwing parties in Israel.

Particularly striking is the overlap between the U.S. members of this network—all of whom are identified with the neo-conservative movement— with the leaders of last year’s controversial campaign to prevent the construction of a Muslim community center near the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan, the socalled “Ground Zero Mosque.”

The same bloggers and groups also actively promoted “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” a film produced by the Clarion Fund, an apparent front for the farright Israeli group Aish Hatorah, that compares the threat posed by radical Islam to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Some 28 million DVD copies of the video were distributed Norwegian terror suspect Anders Behring Breivik (in red sweater) leaves an Oslo courthouse following to households in key swing a hearing to determine the terms of his detention. states on the eve of the 2008 presidential elections in an apU.S. Islamophobes Distance phobic message appears to have fueled the parent effort to sway voters against Barack Themselves From Norway alleged perpetrator’s murderous rage.

Obama.

Killings Their identity was established through At one point in his manifesto, Breivik rethe on-line publication by the alleged terferred readers to YouTube segments of all

By Jim Lobe rorist, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, 10 parts of “Obsession.” s Norway mourns the loss of at least of a 1,500-page manifesto entitled “2083: A Among other sources cited by the mani76 of its citizens in the July 22 bomb- European Declaration of Independence” festo, the “Jihad Watch” blog and its ing of government buildings in Oslo and purportedly authored by an “Andrew author, Robert Spencer, is cited no less mass shootings at a Labor Party youth Berwick.” than 162 times, while Daniel Pipes and his camp, attention here has focused on the All belong to what Toby Archer, a re- Middle East Forum (MEF) gets 16 menU.S. bloggers and groups whose Islamo- searcher at the Finnish Institute of Interna- tions, according to a tally by the Center for tional Affairs, referred to as a “transatlantic American Progress, a liberal think tank in Jim Lobe is Washington, DC bureau chief for movement that often calls itself ‘the Washington.

Inter Press Service. His blog on U.S. foreign counter-jihad’” in an article published July Another blogger, Pamela Geller, and her policy can be read at <www.lobelog.com>. 25 by foreignpolicy.com.

“Atlas Shrugs” blog is cited 12 times in the Copyright © 2011 IPS-Inter Press Service.

“As his writings indicate, Breivik is manifesto, while the Center for Security All rights reserved. clearly a product of this predominantly Policy (CSP), its president, Frank Gaffney,

A

18

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

views_18-20_Two Views 8/11/11 11:32 AM Page 19

and CSP’s senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, Caroline Glick, appear a total of eight times.

All of them have sought to distance themselves both from Breivik and the July 22 terrorist acts since his identity first became known the following day, and have furiously protested suggestions in the media that they bore any responsibility for what took place in Norway that Friday.

Geller, who co-authored a book with Spencer last year that accused President Barack Obama of waging “war on America” (and for which the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, wrote the foreword), called a front-page New York Times article that noted the couple’s frequent citations by Breivik “outrageous.”

“It’s like equating Charles Manson, who heard in the lyrics of [Beatles song] ‘Helter Skelter’ a calling for the Manson murders,” she wrote on her atlasshrugs.com blog.

“It’s like blaming the Beatles. It’s patently ridiculous.”

Citing the same Beatles-Charles Manson analogy, Spencer also expressed outrage on his jihadwatch.org blog both at Breivik’s alleged acts and the suggestion that he may have been responsible in some way for them.

Although he was only mentioned once in the manifesto, David Horowitz, whose David Horowitz Freedom Center, according to Politico, provided some $920,000 to Jihad Watch in the latter part of the last decade, also defended Spencer on the farright FrontPage Web site.

Most of that money was donated by the Fairbrook Foundation, which is run by Aubry and Joyce Chernick and which has funded other Islamophobic groups, including Pipes’ MEF, Gaffney’s CSP, and Aish Hatorah, as well as the far-right Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), according to 2009 tax records. Indeed, many of the same funders—many of them right-wing Jews—have provided support to such Islamophobic organizations in recent years.

“Robert Spencer has never supported a terrorist act,” wrote Horowitz on FrontPage July 25. “His crime in the eyes of the left is to have told the truth about Islamic fanatics beginning with the Islamic prophet who called for the extermination of the Jews…”

For his part, Gaffney, who has long claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood is organizing to impose Islamic law, or shariah, on the West, including the United States, expressed concern on his center’s web site that “the wrong lessons will be learned from the mayhem” in Norway.

“The murderous attacks in Norway last week cry out for justice for the victims…,” SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

he wrote. “They also demand that Norway and other civilized nations respond thoughtfully—notably, by resisting the temptation to suppress those warning of encroaching shariah and, in the process, abet those who are striving to insinuate that totalitarian program into freedomloving lands.”

According to Archer, much of the larger trans-Atlantic network of which CSP, Spencer, Geller, Pipes and Horowitz are a part was inspired by Bat Ye’or, a BritishSwiss researcher whose 2005 book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, purports to describe “Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization…into a postJudeo- Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers that propagate it.”

As a concept, “Eurabia,” she said at a presentation at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, is anti-Semitic and aimed against both Israel and the U.S. The book boasts favorable blurbs by Pipes, Spencer, the late Italian author Oriana Fallaci, and British historian Niall Ferguson, among others. Ye’or is cited 59 times in Breivik’s manifesto.

Some experts on U.S. Islamophobic movements observed on July 25 that Breivik’s philo-Semitism and strong support for Israel were ironic, and not only because the far right in Europe historically has been anti-Semitic.

They said the manifesto’s repeated emphasis on “Cultural Marxism” as the great enemy of Western civilization reflected the latest incarnation in a long line of essentially anti-Semitic conspiracy theories depicting a small group of Jews as the corrupters of native societies.

“Breivik is clearly a rabid Islamophobe, but it’s clear from the text that he has adopted a theory about ‘Cultural Marxism’ that argues that multiculturalism and political correctness are a conspiracy launched by Marxist Jews of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s, the result of which is Muslim immigration, which will destroy Norway and the rest of Europe and crush Western Christian culture,” Chip Berlet, an analyst at Political Research Associates in Boston, told IPS. A veteran observer of far-right U.S. groups, Berlet said Breivik’s manifesto echoed the themes set out in an open letter published by the late founder of the farright Free Congress Foundation, Paul Weyrich, in 1999 in which he charged that “Cultural Marxism” as conceived by the Frankfurt School was “succeeding in its war against our culture.”

“Breivik is pro-Israel because he sees it as a bulwark against Islam,” he told IPS. “I THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

don’t think he’s personally anti-Semitic, but he’s adopted a conspiracy theory that is anti-Semitic.” ❑

The New Anti-Semitism

By Uri Avnery

The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, calls his boss, Adolf Hitler, by hell-phone.

“Mein Führer,” he exclaims excitedly.

“News from the world. It seems we were on the right track, after all. Anti-Semitism is conquering Europe!”

“Good!” the Führer says. “That will be the end of the Jews!”

“Hmmm…well…not exactly, mein Führer. It looks as though we chose the wrong Semites. Our heirs, the new Nazis, are going to annihilate the Arabs and all the other Muslims in Europe.” Then, with a chuckle, “After all, there are many more Muslims than Jews to exterminate.”

“But what about the Jews?” Hitler insists.

“You won’t believe this: the new Nazis love Israel, the Jewish State—and Israel loves them!” he atrocity committed July 22 by the T Norwegian neo-Nazi—is it an isolated incident? Right-wing extremists all over Europe and the U.S. are already declaiming in unison: “He does not belong to us! He is just a lone individual with a deranged mind! There are crazy people everywhere!

You cannot condemn a whole political camp for the deeds of one single person!”

Sounds familiar. Where did we hear this before?

Of course, after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

There is no connection between the Oslo mass-murder and the assassination in Tel Aviv. Or is there?

During the months leading up to Rabin’s murder, a growing hate campaign was orchestrated against him. Almost all the Israeli right-wing groups were competing among themselves to see who could demonize him most effectively.

In one demonstration, a photo-montage of Rabin in the uniform of an SS officer was paraded around. On the balcony overlooking this demonstration, Binyamin Netanyahu could be seen applauding wildly, while a coffin marked “Rabin” was paraded below. Religious groups staged a medieval, kabbalistic ceremony, in which Rabin was condemned to death. Senior Uri Avnery, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, is a founder of the peace organization Gush Shalom, <www.gush-shalom.org>.

19

views_18-20_Two Views 8/11/11 11:32 AM Page 20

rabbis took part in the campaign. No rightwing or religious voices were raised in warning.

The actual murder was indeed carried out by a single individual, Yigal Amir, a former settler, the student of a religious university.

It is generally assumed that before the deed he consulted with at least one senior rabbi.

Like Anders Behring Breivik, the Oslo murderer, he planned his deed carefully, over a long time, and executed it cold-bloodedly.

He had no accomplices.

Or had he? Were not all the inciters his accomplices? Does not the responsibility rest with all the shameless demagogues, like Netanyahu, who hoped to ride to power on the wave of hatred, fears and prejudice?

As it turned out, their calculations were confirmed. Less than a year after the assassination, Netanyahu indeed came to power.

Now the right-wing is ruling Israel, becoming more radical from year to year, and, lately, it seems, from week to week.

Outright Fascists now play leading roles in the Knesset.

All this—the result of three shots by a single fanatic, for whom the words of the cynical demagogues were deadly serious.

The latest proposal of our fascists, straight from the mouth of Avigdor Lieberman, is to abrogate Rabin’s crowning achievement: the Oslo agreements. So we come back to Oslo.

A New Wave Prototype When I first heard the news about the Oslo outrage, I was afraid that the perpetrators might be some crazy Muslims. The repercussions would have been terrible. Indeed, within minutes, one stupid Muslim group already boasted that they had carried out this glorious feat. Fortunately, the actual mass-murderer surrendered at the scene of the crime.

He is the prototype of a Nazi anti-Semite of the new wave. His creed consists of white supremacy, Christian fundamentalism, hatred of democracy and European chauvinism, mixed with a virulent hatred of Muslims.

This creed is now sprouting offshoots all over Europe. Small radical groups of the ultra-Right are turning into dynamic political parties, taking their seats in Parliaments and even becoming kingmakers here and there. Countries which always seemed to be models of political sanity suddenly produce fascist rabble-rousers of the most disgusting kind, even worse than the U.S. Tea Party, another offspring of this new Zeitgeist. Avigdor Lieberman is our contribution to this illustrious world-wide league.

One thing almost all these European and American ultra-Rightist groups have in 20

common is their admiration for Israel. In his 1,500-page political manifesto, on which he had been working for a long time, the Oslo murderer devoted an entire section to this. He proposed an alliance of the European extreme Right and Israel. For him, Israel is an outpost of Western Civilization in the mortal struggle with barbaric Islam.

(Somewhat reminiscent of Theodor Herzl’s promise that the future Jewish State would be an “outpost of Western culture against Asiatic barbarism”?)

Part of the professed philo-Zionism of these Islamophobic groups is, of course, pure make-believe, designed to disguise their neo-Nazi character. If you love Jews, or the Jewish state, you can’t be a Fascist, right? You bet you can! However, I believe that the major part of this adoration of Israel is entirely sincere.

Right-wing Israelis, who are courted by these groups, argue that it is not their fault that all these hate-mongers are attracted to them. On the face of it, that is of course true. Yet one cannot but ask oneself: why are they so attracted? Wherein lies this attraction? Does this not warrant some serious soul-searching?

I first became aware of the gravity of the situation when a friend drew my attention to some German anti-Islamic blogs.

I was shocked to the core. These outpourings are almost verbatim copies of the diatribes of Joseph Goebbels. The same rabble-rousing slogans. The same base allegations. The same demonization. With one little difference: instead of Jews, this time it is Arabs who are undermining Western Civilization, seducing Christian maids, plotting to dominate the world. The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca.

A day after the Oslo events I happened to be watching Aljazeera’s English TV network, one of the best in the world, and saw an interesting program. For a whole hour, the reporter interviewed Italian people in the street about Muslims. The answers were shocking.

Mosques should be forbidden. They are places where Muslims plot to commit crimes. Actually, they don’t need mosques at all—they need only a rug to pray. Muslims come to Italy to destroy Italian culture. They are parasites, spreading drugs, crime and disease. They must be kicked out, to the last man, woman and child.

I always considered Italians easygoing, loveable people. Even during the Holocaust, they behaved better than most other European peoples. Benito Mussolini became a rabid anti-Semite only during the last stages, when he had become totally dependent on Hitler.

Yet here we are, barely 66 years after Italian partisans hanged Mussolini’s body THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

by his feet in a public place in Milan—and a much worse form of anti-Semitism is rampant in the streets of Italy, as in many other European countries.

Easy Targets Of course, there is a real problem. Muslims are not free of blame for the situation.

Their own behavior makes them easy targets. Like the Jews in their time.

Europe is in a quandary. They need the “foreigners”—Muslims and all—to work for them, keep their economy going, pay for the pensions of the old people. If all Muslims were to leave Europe tomorrow morning, the fabric of society in Germany, France, Italy and many other countries would break down.

Yet many Europeans are dismayed when they see these “foreigners,” with their strange languages, mannerisms and clothes crowding their streets, changing the character of many neighborhoods, opening shops, marrying their daughters, competing with them in many ways. It hurts. As a German minister once said: “We brought here workers, and found out that we had brought human beings!”

One can understand these Europeans, up to a point. Immigration causes real problems. The migration from the poor South to the rich North is a phenomenon of the 21st century, a result of the crying inequality among nations. It needs an all-European immigration policy, a dialogue with the minorities about integration or multiculturalism. It won’t be easy.

But this tidal wave of Islamophobia goes far beyond that. Like a tsunami, it can result in devastation.

Many of the Islamophobic parties and groups remind one of the atmosphere of Germany in the early 1920s, when “völkisch” groups and militias were spreading their hateful poison, and an army spy called Adolf Hitler was earning his first laurels as an anti-Semitic orator. They looked unimportant, marginal, even crazy.

Many laughed at this man Hitler, the Chaplinesque mustachioed clown.

But the abortive Nazi putsch of 1923 was followed by 1933, when the Nazis took power, and 1939, when Hitler started World War II, and 1942, when the gas chambers were brought into operation.

It is the beginnings which are critical, when political opportunists realize that arousing fear and hatred is the easiest way to fortune and power, when social misfits become nationalist and religious fanatics, when attacking helpless minorities becomes acceptable as legitimate politics, when funny little men turn into monsters.

Is that Dr. Goebbels I hear laughing in hell? ❑ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

omer_21_Gaza on the Ground 8/9/11 11:24 PM Page 21

Affluence for a Few, Austerity for Millions Gazaon the Ground

By Mohammed Omer

ccording to Israeli and foreign press

two luxury hotels recently opened; thousands of brand new cars are on the road; new shops are opening, and there is an abundant supply of goods.

But the headlines are deceiving. Yes, two hotels did open, and by Gaza standards they are luxurious. But they are hardly the equivalent of The Drake, Four Seasons or Ritz Carlton found in international capitals.

They’re more like the small hotels found in most cities around the world—nice, with very good service and food. Construction on both began prior to the Israeli siege on Gaza. In other words, what normally would require nine months to complete in Tel Aviv took more than six years in Gaza—and more than a decade in the case of the Movenpick Hotel, which PADICO, a family-owned hospitality company based in Nablus, began building in 1998. The second hotel is owned by outside investors inspired by the upbeat atmosphere and hope of rebuilding Gaza’s once-thriving economy following the 2005 withdrawal of Israel’s illegal Jewish-only colonies.

As for the thousands of sparkling new cars roaming Gaza’s streets? The majority of these cars are not new, but used, and originated in Egypt and Libya. With the Arab Spring uprisings, their owners found themselves living in a designated war zone and could no longer afford the insurance.

They cut their losses by selling their cars, which were then smuggled into Gaza through the tunnels for a fee of $7,000 each—price of the car not included.

True, new shops are opening. Palestinian society has always been entrepreneurial. But with a 45 percent unemployment rate and hundreds of thousands of families living on less than $1.60 a day, according to U.N. estimates, few can afford to buy even the most basic necessities. For example, upon the land of an evacuated Jewish colony, a huge fruit orchard was planted by the Hamas-led government. The food is there—but hardly anyone can afford it.

The reality is that the occupation conAward-winning journalist Mohammed Omer reports on the Gaza Strip, and maintains the Web site <www.rafahtoday.org>. He can be reached at <gazanews@yahoo.com>.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

PHOTO M. OMER

Areports, all is well and good in Gaza:

Palestinian children in the Al Shati refugee camp west of Gaza City, less than 2 miles from a new luxury hotel. tinues to take its toll. The majority of university graduates have no job prospects in Gaza. The middle class, consisting primarily of civil servants, is a shadow of what it once was. As for the traditional occupations of farmer and fishermen, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reports that “35 percent of Gaza’s farmland and 85 percent of its fishing waters are totally or partially inaccessible due to Israeli military measures.”

Given that the siege continues and the majority of Gazans see little improvement in their current or future prospects, where is this affluence coming from?

“This question is not hard to answer,” a 12-year-old boy in Gaza volunteers. “It’s the tunnel owners.”

As was the case with the collapse of the Soviet Union, these new elites—the wealthy of Gaza—are those who provide what policy denies through the fusion of privilege, power and governance. Cronyism reigns. A man holding a doctorate in Gaza is likely to be unemployed and living below the poverty line. But a tunnel-digger, like drug dealers and smugglers around the world, can amass millions and THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

enjoy a life of luxury. Gaza’s new wealthy, most of whom were paupers five years ago, have created a capo community, insulated by wealth, enforced through fear, and operating as if within an alternate reality. A simple school notebook, which once sold for a single shekel, today costs three.

It is within this economy of deprivation assuaged by smuggling that the best opportunities exist. Abu Awni, just 26 years old, began working as a tunnel runner a few years ago. At the time he was a poor young man with no education. Today he operates his own tunnel and is considered a founder of the lifeline tunnels critical to an economy under siege. Awni provides the items banned by Israel, ranging from chandeliers, cooking and heating gas to electronics equipment, ketchup and potato chips. His business is booming. With the proceeds he’s saved nearly $3 million, built a new home, bought a new car and got married.

The Palestinian Ministry of Economy estimates that each day nearly 3,000 tons of building materials are smuggled through tunnels into Gaza. They are being used to build establishments to serve the new elite.

Continued on page 36 21

mcmahon_22-23_Special Report 8/10/11 5:07 PM Page 22

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. PAC Hedges Its Party Bets, But Favors Zionists SpecialReport

By Janet McMahon

OLIPHANT (C) 2011 UNIVERSAL UCLICK. USED BY PERMISSION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Other frequent recipients over the years—for all of whom Israel is a top priority—include Berman’s Democratic California neighbors Reps. Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff and Jane Harman (the latter having recently decamped to head the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC).

Nor has the House leadership been neglected: Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer can count on Murdoch’s PAC, which in 2010 also gave $6,700 to soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and $10,000 to soon-to-be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The Senate leadership did not fare quite so well, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who was in a very tight race, receiving a mere $1,000 and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who was not even up for re-election in 2010, receiving $5,000.

After Kevin McCarthy, the recipient of the most Murdoch PAC funds for the 2012 election is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), ranking Democrat and former chair of the House Judiciary Committee. While some might think Murdoch suspected he might soon need an ally on that important committee, Conyers in fact has received PAC contributions every election year since 2002, for a total of $17,500.

The current chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) also has been a regular recipient of Murdoch’s PAC largesse, having received a total of $11,000 since 2002. This year both the Texas congressman and his Longhorn PAC have received contributions from Murdoch.

Murdoch’s PAC also gave $5,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, and has contributed to the individual campaigns of many of its members—12 of 43, to be precise. The recipients do not appear to be chosen at random, however, since they do not include Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim-American member of Congress, or Barbara Lee (D-CA), the only member of either the House or Senate to vote against authorizing the use of military force following the 9/11 attacks, and one of

elevision viewers around the world

Twatched media baron Rupert Mur-

doch’s July 19 testimony before the British Parliament regarding allegations that his News of the World tabloid had hacked into the cellphones of numerous Britons, including a kidnapped girl. The following day in Washington, DC, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) released filings by News America Holdings Inc.–Fox Political Action Committee (hereafter referred to as Murdoch’s PAC), News Corp.’s U.S. PAC, detailing its contributions to 2012 federal candidates, as well as to other PACs (see chart on facing page).

Most Americans know the components of Murdoch’s U.S. empire—including Fox News, the New York Post and Wall Street Journal—as conservative outlets which are pro-Israel and anti-Muslim. Not surprisingly, Murdoch’s PAC contributions reflect these biases—but candidates who seemingly do not adhere to them have received funds as well. Apparently, like any smart businessman, Murdoch wants to ensure that he has allies—or, some might say, indebted congressmen—on both sides of the aisle.

Janet McMahon is managing editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

22

A person focused on pro-Israel PACs might initially sound like an ancient Roman, exclaiming “Mirabile visu!” (“wonderful to see”) upon encountering a PAC that actually reveals on whose behalf it operates. Not only do all pro-Israel PACs describe themselves as “unaffiliated,” but with rare exceptions their names—Desert Caucus, for example—give no indication of their agenda.

In an even more shocking comparison, from 1998, when Murdoch’s PAC began making contributions, until 2006, its filings with the FEC actually included a “Foreign Parent Company: News Corp.” and “Country of Origin: Australia”—this despite the fact that Murdoch became an American citizen in 1985. The PAC is now based in Washington, DC. The most regular recipient of Murdoch’s PAC contributions might be Rep. Howard “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist” Berman, formerly the chair and now the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Not only has Berman been a recipient in every election year except 2002, in 2010 he received the maximum contribution of $10,000 (as did fellow Zionist Sen. Charles Schumer [DNY]). Since 1998 Berman has received a total of $28,500 from Murdoch’s PAC. THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

mcmahon_22-23_Special Report 8/10/11 5:07 PM Page 23

NEWS CORP. PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2012 FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND PACS House Candidates Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) Berman, Howard (D-CA) Cantor, Eric (R-VA) Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) Coble, Howard (R-NC) Conyers, John (D-MI) Deutch, Ted (D-FL) Dingell, John (D-MI) Engel, Eliot (D-NY) Gardner, Cory (R-CO) Gingrey, Phil (R-GA) Gonzalez, Charles (D-TX) Guthrie, S. Brett (R-KY) Harper, Greg (R-MS) Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) Jordan, James (R-OH) Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) Mack, Connie (R-FL) Markey, Edward (D-MA) Matsui, Doris (D-CA) McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) Pallone, Frank (D-NJ) Scalise, Stephen (R-LA) Schiff, Adam (D-CA) Shimkus, John (R-IL) Smith, Lamar (R-TX) Stearns, Cliff (R-FL) Walden, Greg (R-OR) Senate Candidates Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT) Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Wicker, Roger (R-MS)

$2,000 2,500 2,500 1,000 2,500 1,000 4,500 1,000 1,500 1,000 2,000 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,500 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 2,500

only 36 House members who voted not to condemn the Goldstone Report on Israel’s 2008-09 assault on Gaza. Another member voting not to condemn the report was Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD). She has not received a dime from Murdoch’s PAC, although her predecessor, Rep. Albert Wynn, whom Edwards defeated in 2008, received $3,000 in 2004.

Because senators run for office only every six years, they tend to receive less frequent—albeit often larger—PAC contributions. Interestingly, of the six senators receiving Murdoch PAC contributions this year (see chart), half—Blumenthal, Landrieu and Rubio—are not up for re-election in 2012. Blumenthal, who received no contributions from Murdoch for his successful 2010 race, has announced that he plans to keep the money. In what appears to be non-explanation, his spokeswoman SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Other PACS Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $15,000 National Republican Congressional Committee 15,000 Blue Dog Political Action Committee 5,000 Congressional Black Caucus PAC 5,000 Every Republican Is Crucial PAC (affiliate: Rep. Eric Cantor, R-VA) 5,000 Motion Picture Assn. of America 5,000 National Cable & Telecommunications Assn.

5,000 TFB-FOJB Committee (affiliate: Rep. John Boehner, R-OH) 5,000 Green Mountain PAC (affiliate: Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT) 2,500 Longhorn PAC (affiliate: Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX) 2,500 Kelly PAC (affiliate: Sen. Kelly A. Ayotte, R-NH) 1,000 Build America PAC (affiliate: Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-NY) 1,000 CHC-Building Our Leadership’s Diversity -2,500* *returned contribution

ELECTION YEAR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES Year 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Amount Republicans $ 48,000 71% 82,500 62% 87,710 45% 215,500 48% 256,000 60% 242,850 47% 244,200 41% 38,500 (as of 7/21/11) 53%

Democrats 29% 38% 55% 52% 40% 53% 58% 48%

Sources: Center for Responsive Politics (<www.opensecrets.org>) Federal Election Commission (<www.fec.gov>) Kate Hansen told Politico: “He enjoys broad support in Connecticut and across the country, and the people of Connecticut know that he’ll continue to put them first as he works to create jobs and get our economy back on track.”

A former favorite Senate recipient of Murdoch PAC contributions was George “makaka” Allen (R-VA), a strong supporter of Israel who, after his election-dooming comment, “discovered” that his mother was Jewish—meaning he is eligible to become an Israeli citizen and move to an illegal West Bank settlement should he so choose. Despite receiving $8,000 from Murdoch’s PAC in 2006, Allen was defeated that year by James Webb (D-VA).

Webb is not running for re-election in 2012, and Allen is hoping to regain his old seat, but is being challenged by Tea Party activists. Perhaps he will see no money THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

coming from Murdoch’s PAC until the Republican senatorial nominee is chosen.

Making sure he’s got both sides of the aisle covered, Murdoch’s PAC has given $15,000 to both the Democratic and Republican Congressional Campaign Committees this year. Another $5,000 went to the conservative Blue Dog PAC, perhaps to offset the $5,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Murdoch’s PAC clearly did not want to be so even-handed as to contribute $5,000 to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, however. But were that to happen, one could justifiably expect to see pigs fly.

Finally, Murdoch does not limit his financial activism to his PAC. In 2010 News Corp.’s general fund contributed $1.25 million to the Republican Governors Association and $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. No pretense of even-handedness there. ❑ 23

mcarthur_24-26_Congress Watch 8/9/11 11:26 PM Page 24

Congress Passes Resolutions Supporting Israel’s Hard-Line Positions CongressWatch

By Shirl McArthur IPAC’s congressional arm-twisting paid off with the June 28 passage in A the Senate of the non-binding S.Res. 185 and, in the House, of H.Res. 268 on July 7.

As reported in the previous Washington Report, these measures were a major lobbying focus during AIPAC’s May “policy conference.” Both “reaffirm” support for a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and “opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence,” and declare “that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued U.S. aid.”

Most members of Congress caved under AIPAC’s relentless pressure. When passed, H.Res. 268, introduced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), had 357 co-sponsors, including Cantor. S.Res. 185, introduced

by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), had 90 co-sponsors, including Cardin.

Of the other previously described measures supporting the intransigence of Israel’s Likud-led government, only S.Con.Res. 23, introduced in June by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and H.Res. 270, introduced in May by Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL), have gained support. According to the former, “it is contrary to U.S. policy and our national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967.” It has gained three co-sponsors and now has 34, including Hatch. H.Res. 270, which would reaffirm the “principles regarding the security of Israel and peace in the Middle East” articulated in two resolutions passed in 2004— including one affirming “that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949”—has also gained three co-sponsors and now has 43, including Dold.

It’s worth noting that, speaking on the House floor on June 24, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) pointed out that President Barack Obama did not say that Israel should return to the pre-1967 borders, but instead that resolution of the disputed lands should be based on the “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” She also noted that this “is an almost two-decade old U.S. position,” supported by Presidents George Shirl McArthur, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is a consultant based in the Washington, DC area.

24

W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and “is well understood as the mainstream position by every diplomat, pundit, and scholar familiar with this issue.”

Another focus of AIPAC’s lobbying efforts, the previously described, far-reaching H.R. 1006, introduced in March by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), has made only scant progress, however. It would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, cut off some State Department funding unless the U.S. Embassy in Israel is established in Jerusalem no later than Jan. 1, 2013, and remove the presidential waiver authority included in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. It has gained seven co-sponsors and now has 43, including Burton.

Palestinian-Bashing Measures Introduced; Aid Cut-Off Threatened Of three new anti-Palestinian measures introduced, the most significant was H.R. 2457, the “Palestinian Accountability Act,” introduced on July 7 by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), with 32 co-sponsors, all Republicans. Its stated purpose is “to restrict funds for the Palestinian Authority.” Unless certain—unlikely—conditions are met, it would prohibit U.S. government documents from referring to areas controlled by the PA as Palestine; would prohibit U.S. funds to the PA; would prohibit U.S. funds to the U.N. or any U.N. entity if it declares or recognizes statehood for the Palestinian territories; and would bar U.S. funding for UNRWA unless it meets the same conditions imposed on the Palestinians.

The other two new anti-Palestinian measures were H.Res. 314, introduced on June 16 by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) with eight co-sponsors, and H.R. 2261, introduced on June 21 by Reps. Thaddeus McCotter (RMI) and Burton. H.Res. 314 declares that “it is U.S. policy to support its ally Israel in seeking peace with its neighbors.” It also commends Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his efforts to achieve peace, and calls on the Palestinian leadership to return to the negotiating table. H.R. 2261 would “withhold U.S. contributions to the U.N. or a U.N. agency if the U.N. or such agency supports the recognition of an independent Palestinian state.”

Several members of Congress continued to react strongly to Palestinian efforts to form a unity government between the PA and Hamas and to gain U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood. Most notably, Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee chair Kay Granger (R-TX) and ranking Democrat Nita Lowey (D-NY) wrote to THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

PA President Mahmoud Abbas on July 11 implicitly threatening to withhold aid if the PA seeks U.N. statehood recognition.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Middle East subcommittee chair Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) held a July 12 hearing on “Re-examining U.S. Aid to the Palestinian Authority” (see p. 62). While Chabot did commend the state-building efforts of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and the U.S. program to develop professional Palestinian security services, he also said that “both the reconciliation government and the pursuit of a unilateral declaration of statehood could not be more contrary to U.S. interests in the region.” He repeated that point in an opinion piece in the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call.

But the peak of recklessness was reached with Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s (R-FL) July 19 introduction of H.R. 2583, the Foreign Affairs Authorization bill, and the full committee’s July 20-21 markup of the bill. The bill would cut $6.4 billion from Obama’s $51 billion request, including eliminating or restricting aid to, among others, the PA, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and Pakistan unless certain stringent conditions are met. Of course, the $3 billion request for military aid to Israel is left intact. There is no point in describing the bill’s Middle-East related provisions, because, even if it passes the House, it has no chance of getting through the Senate.

It is not necessary to pass a Foreign Affairs Authorization bill for the appropriations process to move forward. The last time such a bill became law, in fact, was in 2005.

Committee Democrats reacted with dismay to the bill. In his opening statement, committee Ranking Democrat Howard “Even before I was a Democrat I was a Zionist” Berman (D-CA) said, “I get the sense that what I already consider a bad bill is going to get much worse in this markup and on the floor. That will simply ensure that this is a one-house bill.” Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said sarcastically, “I may offer an amendment to pull out of the world, to build a moat around the United States, and put a dome over the thing.”

Libya Continues to Receive Congressional Attention On June 24 the House defeated competing measures regarding U.S. military actions in Libya. First to be considered was H.J.Res. 68, introduced June 22 by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL). It would have authorized “the limited use of the U.S. Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya,” SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

mcarthur_24-26_Congress Watch 8/9/11 11:26 PM Page 25

but was defeated by a roll call vote of 123295. Then came H.R. 2278, introduced June 22 by Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL), which would have prohibited Defense Department funds from being used to support NATO operations in Libya, except for certain, limited uses. It was defeated by a roll call vote of 180-238. However, The Cable reported that a number of anti-war Democrats voted no because the bill was too weak, did not cut off all funds, and implicitly authorized the intervention.

The applicability of the War Powers Act (WPA) to U.S. involvement in Libya is a continuing subject. As previously reported, legal and legislative experts are divided, and since its enactment it has been ignored by both Republican and Democratic presidents. At issue is a provision in the act that says the president must get congressional approval within 60 days of notifying Congress of military hostilities, or begin withdrawing forces. On June 15, in a 32-page report to Congress, Obama said that the military intervention in Libya does not require congressional approval because it does not count as “hostilities,” since U.S. forces are playing only a supporting role. This did not go over well on Capitol Hill, with some members saying that Obama’s argument defied both logic and the law. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, “It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test in my view.” Then, at a June 29 news conference, Obama repeated his argument and said “a lot of this fuss is politics,” which did nothing to quiet the congressional criticism.

Also on June 15, 10 House members, led

by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), filed a complaint in federal court against Obama saying he had overstepped his constitutional authority.

In a different look at the WPA, Hastings on June 22 introduced H.R. 2285 to amend the WPA to require the president to develop a post-deployment strategy when introducing the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities.

In the Senate, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ), after the House votes described above, apparently abandoned the previously described, non-binding S.Res. 194 supporting the use of military force in Libya. Instead they, along with 11 bipartisan co-sponsors, on June 21 introduced the more comprehensive, binding H.J.Res. 20. It would specifically authorize limited use of U.S Armed Forces in Libya and explicitly say that this constitutes statutory authorization under the WPA. The resolution was scheduled to be considered by the full Senate on July 5, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNV) pulled it from the floor when it became apparent that it would not have enough votes to pass.

A different Senate bill, S. 1180, introduced on June 13 by Sen. Tim Johnson (DSD) and six co-sponsors, would “authorize the president to confiscate and vest certain SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

property of the government of Libya and to authorize the use of that property to provide humanitarian relief to and for the benefit of the people of Libya.”

In the House, two new bills were introduced disapproving U.S. military action in Libya. On June 21, Rep. Joseph Heck (RNV) and eight co-sponsors introduced H.R. 2259 “to require the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from operations in Libya.”

Then, on June 22, Rep. Louie Gohmert (RTX) and four co-sponsors introduced H.R. 2283 that “no federal funds may be expended, obligated, or used in any manner to support directly or indirectly operations in or over Libya.”

Of the previously described measures concerning Libya, only two have received additional support. S.J.Res. 18, introduced in June by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), has one new co-sponsor and now has three, including Webb. It would prohibit “the deployment, establishment, or maintenance of a presence of units and members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya.” H.Con.Res. 58, introduced in June

by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), has gained two co-sponsors, and now has 80, including Turner. It would specifically disapprove of U.S. intervention in Libya.

Congressional Pressure Increases to Reassess Afghanistan, Pakistan Aid Following the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, an increasing number of

lawmakers are urging the accelerated withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and questioning U.S. assistance programs there and in Pakistan. While there is limited support for reducing military aid, reconstruction assistance is under fire. On June 15, 27 senators, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), wrote to Obama urging him to “follow through on the pledge you made to the American people to begin the redeployment of U.S. forces from Afghanistan this summer, and to do so in a manner that is sizable and sustained, and includes combat troops as well as logistical and support forces.”

A new House measure, H.Res 331, introduced on June 24 by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) and six co-sponsors, expressed the sense of the House that the president should reassess the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. A new Senate bill was S. 1169, introduced on June 9 by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and two co-sponsors, directing the president to establish benchmarks “toward the transition of security responsibilities in Afghanistan to the government of Afghanistan.”

The previously described H.R. 1735, the “Afghanistan Exit and Accountability” bill introduced in May by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), has gained 11 co-sponsors and now has 74, including McGovern. It would require the president to submit to Congress “a plan with a timeframe and completion date for the accelerated transition of U.S. military and security operations in Afghanistan to the government of Afghanistan” within 60 days.

(Advertisement)

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

25

mcarthur_24-26_Congress Watch 8/9/11 11:26 PM Page 26

Regarding Pakistan, H.R. 1790, introduced May 5 by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), would prohibit assistance to Islamabad.

AIPAC-Driven Iran Sanctions Bills Draw Strong Support Of the several previously described Iranrelated measures, only the two comprehensive Iran sanctions bills that were a focus of AIPAC’s lobbying efforts continue to gain co-sponsors. H.R. 1905, introduced in May by Ros-Lehtinen and titled the “Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011,” has gained 93 co-sponsors and now has 207, including Ros-Lehtinen. S. 1048, introduced in May by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) “to expand sanctions with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea, and Syria,” has gained 27 co-sponsors and now has 53, including Menendez.

On June 23, Ros-Lehtinen’s Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing entitled “Iran and Syria: Next Steps.” In spite of its title, the hearing focused on Iran, and, in addition to Ros-Lehtinen, the witness list was packed with hard-liners: former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, who for over a year has been telling anyone who would listen that either the U.S. or Israel

must take out Iran’s nuclear facilities sooner rather than later; and Robert Satloff, executive director of the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute of Near East Policy. Urging more sanctions, Ros-Lehtinen said that “it is vital that Congress act to close loopholes identified in the current sanctions structure.” Predictably, Bolton said that “the only realistic alternative” is “to use force pre-emptively against Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” and since “the Obama administration will not use force… the burden of decision will fall on Israel.”

He also claimed that “nearby Arab states would privately welcome an Israeli attack.”

As noted above, the hearing hardly touched on Syria. Of the previously described Syria-related measures, only H.Res. 296, introduced in June by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), has gained any support. It now has 32 co-sponsors, including Lamborn.

Aid to Lebanon Threatened On June 16 Berman along with ArabAmerican Reps. Charles Boustany (R-LA), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Nick Rahall (DWV), joined later by eight other co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 2215, the “Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act.” With certain exceptions, the bill would prohibit aid to “a Hezbollah-dependent government of

Lebanon.” The exceptions include aid to meet basic human needs, to promote democracy, to support the military training program, and to Lebanese educational institutions. The bill also includes limited presidential waiver authority.

Two New Private Sector Development Bills Introduced S. 618, introduced in March by Kerry, “to promote the strengthening of the private sector in Egypt and Tunisia” now has five co-sponsors, including Kerry. On June 16 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced the identical H.R. 2237. Then, on July 19 Sens.

Kerry, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and McCain introduced the more expansive S.1388 “to support private sector development, employment growth, rule of law, democratic reform, and accountable government in qualified transition governments in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Negatively, H.R. 1514, introduced in April by Ros-Lehtinen’s good buddy Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), “to limit assistance to Egypt unless Egypt is honoring its commitments under the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel” has gained a couple of co-sponsors and now has six, including Berkley. ❑

(Advertisement)

26

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

arab_film_festival_ad_27_Arab Film Festival Ad Sept-Oct. 2011 8/9/11 11:36 PM Page 27

seale_28_Special Report 8/10/11 5:10 PM Page 28

Making an Enemy of Iran

By Patrick Seale

MATTY STERN/U.S. EMBASSY TEL AVIV VIA GETTY IMAGES

SpecialReport

Dennis Ross (l), special assistant to the president and director of the Central Region at the National Security Council, following an Aug. 5, 2010 meeting in Tel Aviv with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Ross, a former Ziegler fellow at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is known for his hawkish stance on Iran. t is now widely accepted—and lament - idation aimed at isolating Iran, subverting its economy and overthrowing its regime.

Israel and its friends led the campaign failed dismally in attempting to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians. against Iran, demonizing it as a threat to all Defeated by Israel’s hard-line Prime Minis- mankind, and forcing the United States to ter Binyamin Netanyahu, and by Israel’s follow suit. Israel has repeatedly, and very friends in the United States—lobbyists, publicly, threatened to strike at Iran’s nucongressmen and women, neoconserva- clear facilities, and has done its best to drag tives, Christian Zionists, and assorted the United States into war against it, in Arab-haters both inside and outside the much the same way as pro-Israeli neoconadministration—the president threw in servatives—such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon—maniputhe towel.

What is less well understood is that lated intelligence to push America into war Obama was also defeated in another major against Iraq in 2003, with catastrophic conarea of foreign policy—relations with Iran. sequences for the United States.

Why did Wolfowitz and his friends do When he came to office he vowed to “engage” with the Islamic Republic, but this it? Because they feared that, having suradmirable objective was soon supplanted vived the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, Saddam by a policy of threats, sanctions and intim- Hussain’s Iraq might just possibly pose a threat to Israel. It had to be destroyed.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister at the the Middle East. His latest book is The time, himself something of a Christian Struggle for Arab Independence: Riad el- Zionist, was foolish enough to tag along.

Solh and the Makers of the Modern Mid- The war totally discredited him.

The neocons’ strategic fantasy was not dle East (Cambridge University Press).

Copyright © 2011 Patrick Seale. Distributed just to use American power to smash Iraq.

Once Saddam had been dealt with, they

by Agence Global.

Ied—that U.S. President Barack Obama

28

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

planned to use the U.S. military again and again to “reform” Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, the Palestinians and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia so as to make the whole region safe for Israel. Such demented folly is hard to comprehend.

Having brushed the Iraqi fiasco under the carpet, Israel and its friends are now doing it again. In recent weeks there has been a flurry of reports that Israel was planning to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities this September—a bluff clearly intended to pressure the United States into taking ever tougher measures against Iran so as to make it unnecessary for Israel to attack.

In addition to such a transparent propaganda ploy, Israel has in the past two years murdered a number of Iranian nuclear scientists—two were killed and one was seriously injured last year and a fourth was killed last month. Israel’s Mossad has made murdering its enemies something of a speciality. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s it carried out several assassinations, or attempted assassinations, of scientists working for Egypt and Iraq, not to mention the many Palestinian activists it has killed around the world over the past half-century.

Apparently with American help, Israel has also sought to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program by introducing a virus, Stuxnet, and possibly other viruses, into its nuclear facilities. Not surprisingly, Tehran now views the United States and its aggressive Israeli ally as one and the same enemy.

Assassinations and other acts of state terrorism are short-term expedients which usually end up being paid for dearly.

Countries have long memories. Hate is not easily expunged. The United States, and to a lesser extent Britain, are still paying for their clandestine overthrow in 1953 of Muhammad Mosaddeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, whose “crime” was to seek to protect Iran’s oil from imperialist predators.

Why has Netanyahu chosen to portray Iran’s nuclear program as the gravest threat to the survival of the Jewish people since Hitler? He must know that this is pure fantasy. Ehud Barack, his defense minister, Continued on page 31 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

parry_29-31_Special Report 8/10/11 5:11 PM Page 29

October Surprise Evidence Surfaces SpecialReport

By Robert Parry

n November 1991, as Newsweek and

IThe New Republic were ridiculing the

idea that Ronald Reagan’s campaign chief William Casey might have made a secret trip to meet Iranians in Madrid in 1980, a senior State Department official was informing George H.W. Bush’s White House that Casey indeed had gone to Spain on a mysterious visit.

State Department legal adviser Edwin D. Williamson told associate White House counsel Chester Paul Beach Jr. that among the State Department “material potentially relevant to the October Surprise allegations [was] a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown,” Beach noted in a “memorandum for record” dated Nov. 4, 1991.

In other words, as Newsweek and The New Republic were making the October Surprise story into a big joke in mid-November 1991, Bush’s White House had information that contradicted the smug selfcertainty of the two magazines. Not surprisingly, the White House made no effort to clarify the record.

I found Beach’s memorandum among about 4,800 pages of documents identified by the George H.W. Bush presidential library as related to the so-called October Surprise controversy, the longstanding mystery of whether the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 contacted Iranians behind President Jimmy Carter’s back, thus undermining his efforts to gain freedom for 52 American hostages.

Carter’s failure to pull off an “October surprise” by winning release of the hostages was a key factor in Reagan’s landRobert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at <neckdeepbook.com>. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth,” are also available there.

This article was first posted on <www.consortiumnews.com> July 14, 2011 and updated July 15. Reprinted with permission.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

slide victory in 1980. Reagan got another boost when the Iranians released the hostages immediately after he was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981.

Though Reagan talked tough about Iran—and his handlers suggested that fear of him was why the Iranians surrendered the hostages on Inauguration Day—the reality was different. His administration soon was giving secret approval to Israel to ship U.S.-manufactured weaponry to Iran.

It had the look of a payoff.

ny deal that predated A Reagan’s inauguration as president could be viewed as treasonous.

Reagan’s politically risky move of secretly arming Iran was nearly exposed when one of the Israeli flights strayed into Soviet airspace in July 1981 and crashed. To cover the administration’s tracks, misleading press guidance was issued, according to Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East Nicholas Veliotes.

The U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline to Iran stayed secret from the American people until November 1986 when—despite Reagan’s long-running insistence that he would never trade arms with a terrorist state like Iran—the operation was exposed. The scandal became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

Yet even after the existence of the secret U.S.-Israeli arms pipeline was revealed, the Reagan-Bush administrations and congressional Republicans kept the investigative focus on the later chapter of the arms shipments, from 1985 to 1986, not the earlier phase that Veliotes and other insiders said could be traced back to Campaign 1980.

The reasons were obvious. While the secret arms sales to Iran in 1985-86 were legally questionable, any deal that predated Reagan’s inauguration as president could be viewed as treasonous.

For the first few years of the Iran-Contra investigation, the scandal stayed contained around the later years. However, that damage-control operation was threatened when more evidence began to emerge in 1991 about secret Republican contacts with Iran THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

that dated back to 1980.

The possibility that the Iran arms-forhostage scandal could jump the 1985-86 firebreak and spread back to 1980 endangered Republican rule in 1991 because the secret deals allegedly implicated then-President George H.W. Bush.

Faced with this danger, Bush’s White House worked frantically to beat back the widening threat. The newly released documents from the Bush library reveal that the White House coordinated with other federal agencies and congressional Republicans to delay, discredit and destroy the October Surprise investigation.

In this endeavor, the Bush team was aided immensely by neoconservative, right-wing and mainstream news outlets which saw the October Surprise allegations as potentially devastating to Israel, to Reagan’s legacy, and to the Washington Establishment. (See Consortiumnews.com’s “The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter.”)

A Weary Press Corps By 1991, the Washington press corps also had grown weary of the complex IranContra investigation, led by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. Among Washington’s many lazy journalists and jaded pundits, there was little stomach for an expansion of that complicated story back to 1980.

Thus, on the same weekend in mid-November 1991, Newsweek and The New Republic published matching debunking stories on the October Surprise case. At the center of both articles was an interpretation of attendance records for an historical conference in London in late July 1980.

From those records, both magazines concluded that Casey, then Reagan’s campaign chief, had been present for a morning session on July 28, 1980, and thus could not have attended a two-day meeting in Madrid, as described by Iranian businessman Jamshid Hashemi.

Hashemi, who was an official in Iran’s new revolutionary government, had been recruited by the CIA in early 1980 but claimed to have begun working behind the scenes with his financier brother, Cyrus, to help Republicans make contact with key Iranians. Cyrus Hashemi had personal business ties to William Casey.

29

parry_29-31_Special Report 8/10/11 5:11 PM Page 30

Jamshid Hashemi said—both in press interviews and in sworn testimony—that he and his brother arranged meetings in late July 1980 in Madrid for Casey and a senior Iranian cleric, Mehdi Karrubi.

Hashemi described those conversations as spilling over into a second day, as Casey sought to ensure that the Iranians would not release the hostages to Carter before the U.S. elections in November.

In the October Surprise debunking articles, Newsweek and The New Republic claimed to have shut the window on Casey’s whereabouts by placing him at the London conference on the morning of July 28, thus making a two-day Madrid meeting impossible and proving that Jamshid Hashemi was lying.

And, since the Casey-Madrid allegations were central to the October Surprise mystery, the whole story must be a myth, a “conspiracy theory” run wild.

White House Rejoicing It is hard to overstate the impact of those matching debunking stories, splashed across the magazines’ covers. The articles and their sneering tone scared the Senate into backing away from a full-scale October Surprise investigation and the House acted as if it would only go through the motions before clearing Reagan and Bush.

The Republicans rejoiced and escalated their counteroffensive to shut down any further inquiries. The just-released White House documents show senior Bush officials and other Republicans circulating the magazine articles, which were used to bludgeon any remaining skeptics into submission.

Among neocon journalists in Washington, there was plenty of high-fiving. They had never liked the Iran-Contra scandal to begin with, since it put the Reagan administration and the Israeli government in a negative light.

In particular, ABC’s “Nightline” program came in for a nasty round of ridicule because it had highlighted Hashemi’s Madrid account. The producer who handled the Hashemi interview was soon out of a job.

Steven Emerson, the lead author of The New Republic’s story, basked in his glory as the new standard-setter for investigative journalism. Newsweek drew praise for its readiness to expose a baseless “conspiracy theory.”

The only problem was that both magazines had sloppily misread the London attendance records and had failed to do the necessary follow-up interviews, which would have revealed that Casey was not at 30

the morning session on July 28 after all. He didn’t arrive until that afternoon, leaving the “window” open for Hashemi’s account.

At PBS “Frontline,” where I was involved in the October Surprise investigation, we talked to Americans and others who had participated in the London conference. Most significantly, we interviewed historian Robert Dallek, who gave that morning’s presentation to a small gathering of attendees sitting in a conference room at the British Imperial War Museum.

Dallek said he had been excited to learn that Casey, who was running Reagan’s presidential campaign, would be there. So, Dallek looked for Casey, only to be disappointed that Casey was a no-show. Other Americans also recalled Casey arriving later, and the records actually indicate Casey showing up for the afternoon session.

In other words, the high-profile Newsweek-New Republic debunking of the October Surprise story had itself been debunked. However, typical of the arrogance of those publications—and our inability to draw attention to their major screw-up— the magazines never acknowledged their gross error.

Update I learned on July 14 that the journalistic malfeasance at Newsweek was even worse than sloppiness.

Journalist Craig Unger, who had been hired by Newsweek to work on the October Surprise story, told me that he had spotted the misreading of the attendance records before Newsweek published its article and alerted the investigative team, which was personally headed by executive editor Maynard Parker.

“They told me, essentially, to f--- off,” Unger said.

During my years at Newsweek, from 1987-90, Parker had been my chief nemesis. He was considered close to prominent neocons, including Iran-Contra figure Elliott Abrams, and to Establishment Republicans, such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Parker also was a member of banker David Rockefeller’s Council on Foreign Relations—and viewed the IranContra scandal as something best shut down quickly.

Jumping to a false conclusion that would protect his influential friends and allies would fit perfectly with what I knew of Parker.

In November 1991, after the NewsweekNew Republic tandem finished jumping into the ring, there would be no serious reTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

consideration of the October Surprise mystery. The damage was done.

Still, the evidence of the Newsweek-New Republic error was so obvious that the House Task Force investigators had no choice but to jettison the magazines’ London alibi for Casey. But they then replaced it with another equally ridiculous one, putting Casey at California’s Bohemian Grove of all places and having him take an overnight flight from San Francisco to London, arriving on the afternoon of July 28.

That alibi was bogus, too. Casey actually attended the Bohemian Grove on the first weekend of August, not the last weekend of July, as documentary evidence and witnesses made clear.

But these continued absurdities spoke to the determination of official Washington to put the October Surprise story to bed, a Zeitgeist that Newsweek and The New Republic had helped create with their false reporting in mid-November 1991. (For more details on this journalistic fiasco, see the author’s Secrecy & Privilege.)

White House Silence Yet, what Beach’s “memorandum of record” suggests is that Bush’s White House knew in real time—as Newsweek and The New Republic were trumpeting their misplaced certainty about Casey never going to Madrid—that U.S. Embassy officials on the ground were indicating that he had been there.

At this point, it’s still impossible to say what was in the Madrid cable that Williamson mentioned to Beach. The archivists at the Bush library in College Station, Texas continue to withhold nearly one-quarter of the 4,800 “October Surprise” pages, citing national security and other reasons. So, it is not clear whether the State Department ever turned over the cable or how conclusive it was.

Other documents at the Bush library suggested tensions within Republican ranks over how cooperative to be with the October Surprise investigation.

One document reveals that Secretary of State James Baker favored quicker production of documents and viewed “the delay/filibuster strategy of the House and Senate Republicans as counterproductive.”

Another set of cryptic notes, apparently reflecting comments from Republican national security official Gardner Peckham, makes apparent references to the State Department’s “‘anxiousness’ abt. awareness of Oct Surprise” and adds “believes DOS already has docs.” DOS is the common government abbreviation for the Department SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

parry_29-31_Special Report 8/10/11 5:12 PM Page 31

of State.

There are other signs that Republicans went to some length to conceal Casey’s clandestine travels in 1980.

In 1991-92, as October Surprise investigators tried to nail down Casey’s whereabouts on key dates, their efforts were frustrated by Casey’s family, which had received many of Casey’s personal records from the CIA after his death from a cancerous brain tumor on May 6, 1987. Casey had become Reagan’s first CIA director in 1981, was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal when it broke open in fall 1986, and collapsed shortly before he was scheduled to testify.

Casey’s family grudgingly turned over his personal records to congressional investigators, but Casey’s 1980 passport was missing, along with several pages from his personal calendar for that year.

From the Bush library files, there’s no indication that the White House told investigators about Williamson’s information regarding a Casey trip to Madrid. Nor did anyone in power do anything to stop the Washington press corps’ rush to judgment, which condemned Jamshid Hashemi as a liar and a perjurer.

Instead, the media stampede was allowed to surge forward, trampling anyone still foolish or brave enough to stand in the way—and making a mess of U.S. history in the process. ❑

Enemy of Iran…

Continued from page 28

has himself admitted that Iran poses no “existential threat” to Israel. With its own vast nuclear arsenal, Israel has ample means to deter any attack.

But a nuclear Iran—if it ever came to that—would indeed pose a different sort of challenge to Israel: It would not threaten its existence, but it would curtail its freedom to strike its neighbors at will. Israel has always sought to prevent any of its neighbors acquiring a deterrent capability.

It wants to be the uncontested military power from Tehran to Casablanca. Hence the hysteria it has sought to generate over Iran’s nuclear program and over Hezbollah’s rockets. How dare Israel’s neighbors seek to defend themselves!

In recent weeks, the troubles in Syria have encouraged Israel and its friends to seek to disrupt, and if possible destroy, the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis which has challenged the regional hegemony of Israel and the United States The WashingSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

ton Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), part of the Israeli lobby in the United States, has been particularly active in rousing opinion against all three members of the axis. To quote a single example among many, in an overheated article in Foreign Policy on July 27, Matthew Levitt, one of WINEP’s propagandists, described Hezbollah as “one of the largest and most sophisticated criminal operations in the world.”

The “crime” of this Lebanese resistance movement was to have forced Israel out of south Lebanon after an 18-year occupation (1982-2000) and to have built up a minimal capability to deter future Israeli aggressions, such as its invasion in 2006 which killed 1,600 Lebanese.

The United States has already paid dearly—in men, treasure, and reputation—for its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It remains trapped in the AfPak theater of war. It must surely know that there can be no settlement in Afghanistan without Iran’s support. A glance at a map is enough to confirm it.

But the relentless demonizing of Iran goes on. In late July, David S. Cohen, undersecretary for terrorism at the U.S. Treasury—a job which seems reserved for proIsraeli neocons to wage economic warfare against Tehran—made the excitable accusation that “Iran is the leading state spon-

sor of terrorism in the world today.” Without advancing a scrap of evidence, Cohen alleged that Tehran had a “secret deal” with al-Qaeda to use Iranian territory to transport money and men to the war in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This fabrication is eerily like the one the neocons made against Saddam Hussain to justify the 2003 invasion.

Instead of such mendacious propaganda, the United States would be better advised to listen to Turkey and Brazil. Having approached Iran with respect and understanding, these two powers concluded a deal in May last year whereby most of Iran’s low-enriched uranium would have been swapped for fuel for Tehran’s research reactor. Had the United States conceded Iran’s right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, as allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the deal could have provided the basis for a global settlement.

Obama rashly dismissed this highly promising approach. Instead, yielding to his ill-intentioned advisers, he pressed for a new round of Security Council sanctions against Iran. But by making an enemy of Iran, he has simply increased the bill the United States will eventually have to pay—in Afghanistan, and no doubt in Iraq and elsewhere as well. ❑

(Advertisement)

Help make sure that the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs will be here for the next generation. By remembering the Washington Report in your will, you can: • Make a significant gift without affecting your current cash flow; • Direct your bequest to a vital purpose—educating readers about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East; • Receive a charitable estate tax deduction; • Leave a legacy for future generations.

Bequests of any size are honored with membership in the American Educational Trust’s “Orchestra,” named for angels whose foresight and dedication ensured the future of the Washington Report and AET Book Club.

For more information visit www.wrmea.com/donate/bequests.pdf, contact us at circulation@wrmea.com, write: Washington Report, 1902 18th St., NW, Washington, DC 20009, or call 202-939-6050 or 1-800-365-5788 ext 1.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

31

smith_32-33_Special Report 8/10/11 5:13 PM Page 32

Selective FARA Enforcement: Pakistan’s Alleged Agents Prosecuted, Israel’s Ignored SpecialReport

By Grant F. Smith n the surface the Justice Department’s recent criminal complaint against associates of the nonprofit Kashmiri American Council (KAC) seems like a legitimate application of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. FARA requires individuals or organizations lobbying on behalf of a foreign principal to periodically disclose their activities and programs in a publicly accessible office. The KAC indictment appears to be a form of U.S. pressure on Pakistan over its performance in the socalled “war on terror.”

As Confucius might say, however, it is “interesting” to compare the Justice Department’s application of FARA to Israel’s foreign agents—who have caused far more damage to the U.S. than Pakistan could ever even imagine. (See chart on facing page.)

KAC was founded in 1990 as a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization chartered to raise awareness about Kashmir.

India has claimed Kashmir as an “integral” part of India, while Pakistan and others have pressed for Kashmiri “self-determination.” The FBI affidavit filed on July 18, 2011 charges Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai and Zaheer Ahmad with conspiring to act as “agents of a foreign principal without registering with the attorney general, and to falsify, conceal, and cover up material facts they had a duty to disclose by tricks, schemes and devices…”

The FBI used exhaustive phone and ISP intercepts along with confidential witnesses in its investigation. The criminal complaint details how Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) allegedly laundered payments to KAC’s administrators through “straw donors.” KAC allegedly “propagandized” on behalf of the government of Pakistan “with the goal of uniting Kashmir,” according to one confidential witness in the criminal complaint. Another claimed the ISI had been “handling” Fai for at least 25 years. When interviewed by the FBI in 2007, Fai claimed not to know of any ISI

O(DOJ)

Grant F. Smith is director of the Washington, DC-based Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy. Declassified files referred to in this article (including the Fulbright memo) may be browsed at the Israel Lobby Archive, <www.IRmep.org/ila>.

32

presence in the U.S. Allegations in the Indian press that Fai was a Pakistani agent drove DOJ to advise Fai of his possible obligation to register under FARA in the fall of 2010. Fai refused, claiming “KAC or I have never engaged in any activities or provided any services to any foreign entity. And KAC or I have never had written or oral agreements with Pakistan or any other foreign entity. Thereafter, this report categorically denies any connection to any foreign agent including Pakistan.”

srael’s long history of Icostly challenges to American sovereignty has only been possible through the systematized, ongoing subversion of FARA. The indictment presents compelling FBI analysis of cash flows, intercepted phone and e-mail communications, and contributions to Congress to prove that KAC was indeed lobbying—albeit with a minuscule budget—on Kashmir. Application of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act appears to have stopped the KAC, which had little success in mustering the lobbying potential of the estimated 700,000 Pakistani Americans or concerned Muslim groups in America. The U.S., which India chides for having “no clear position” on Kashmir, does not appear to have ever tilted in Pakistan’s direction over the issue.

But despite the appearance of robust enforcement, as Paul Pillar recently noted in The National Interest, FARA has never been successfully applied to a far larger and more insidious foreign interest. Pillar charges that Israel’s U.S. lobby has used “institutional subterfuges and the sheer clout of the lobby itself to escape prosecution under FARA.” Indeed, Israel’s long history of costly challenges to American sovereignty through unregulated front groups has only been possible through the systematized, ongoing subversion of FARA. When David Ben-Gurion visited the United States as director of the Jewish Agency in the 1940s, he convinced U.S. THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

donors and activists to incorporate an archipelago of front companies to violate the Arms Export Control Act and other laws. The Jewish Agency, a parastatal nonprofit organization, originally was formed to promote Jewish settlement of Palestine.

Through Foundry Associates, Service Airways, Materials for Palestine and other Jewish Agency front companies flowed purchased and stolen surplus WWII explosives, munitions and arms vital for Jewish fighters in Palestine to wage war and eventually displace the native Arab population. According to political fund-raiser Abraham Feinberg’s newly released FBI file, when federal law enforcement finally got close to prosecuting key members, Israel’s government deployed Feinberg with explicit orders to pressure top U.S. government officials to quash law enforcement proceedings.

It worked. Although a few small-time Jewish Agency smugglers (such as the recently deceased Adolph “Al” Schwimmer) were eventually prosecuted, hundreds more identified by the FBI were never charged. Financiers caught writing Jewish Agency checks to fund major arms export violations, such as the highly connected New York lawyer Nahum Bernstein (whose FBI file was just released this June) went unpunished. In 1952 Feinberg successfully avoided his own FARA order by quickly shutting down a front company called “Israel Speaks” after briefly considering selling it to the Jerusalem Post.

Emboldened by these early successes, the Jewish Agency funneled in millions more dollars to institutionalize U.S. support for Israel by building up a permanent lobbying infrastructure. In the late 1950s it unleashed lavishly funded PR campaigns through multiple front organizations directed to subvert U.S. proposals for the repatriation of some Palestinians as part of a peace settlement.

Jewish Agency funding promoted “experts” in the establishment news media deployed to deny that Israel was engaged in building an atomic arsenal even as Feinberg secretly raised money for Israel’s Dimona nuclear weapons facility under order of Prime Minister Ben-Gurion. By the early 1960s, as Israel’s arms smuggling network began to move nuclear technologies and SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

smith_32-33_Special Report 8/10/11 5:13 PM Page 33

highly enriched uranium, Congress began to buckle under a massive lobKashmiri American Council American Zionist Council bying effort directed by the Jewish Date of FARA order March 22, 2010 Nov. 21, 1963 Agency’s primary foreign agent, the American Zionist Council (AZC).

Funds used in $4 million $5 million (equivalent to $35 The AZC’s wholesale diversion of PR/lobbying million today) overseas Jewish relief funds was aimed at shifting the burden of supLegal strategy Denial of foreign agency, Hire ally of president to porting Israel from donors onto U.S. Pakistani direction and claim FARA not meant to taxpayers. A non-Zionist Jewish funding. apply to Israel, refuse to group, the American Council for Jufile, delay, demand secrecy, daism, complained to the DOJ. The shut down, reconstitute a Justice Department finally uncovnew front group. ered the AZC as the primary “conduit” of Jewish Agency funding to FBI investigation file Filed in Eastern District of Still classified. In 2011 the FBI sympathetic scholars, nascent Israel Virginia federal court in a reiterates commitment lobby think tanks, and even The criminal complaint. not to release its AZC file New York Times. The AZC was finally ordered by the Justice DepartFARA registration Refused. Claimed to be Refused. Later allowed to ment to register as a foreign agent. doing U.S. public relations for file a three-month “summary” The AZC quickly fired back, hiring Kashmiri independence, not disclosure detailing funding a former federal judge and close conlobbying for Pakistan. to think tanks, academics, fidant of President John F. Kennedy. and media outlets. Kept Judge Simon Rifkin argued that, secret by DOJ (in violation while FARA was indeed a necessary of FARA transparency law, it was intended to be applied to rules) until 2008.

Soviet Communists and Nazi infiltrators rather than Israel. After years of Outcome Likely termination of covert AIPAC incorporated six intense behind-the-scenes battles, the Kashmir lobbying by Pakistan weeks after AZC FARA DOJ finally allowed the AZC to file a in U.S. order, took over AZC non-public FARA registration “sumlobbying and public mary” statement that failed to disrelations activity. Never close most of its egregious activities. registered under FARA. The AZC’s public relations and lobContinues to push Israeli bying director, Isaiah Kenen, was the government policy in beneficiary of tens of thousands of the U.S. dollars in funds earmarked to him from the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem. Just six weeks after the AZC FARA was a favor to Israel. Rabinowitz later re- non-Zionist American Council for Judaism order, Kenen quietly incorporated the AZC’s canted his testimony after coming under all failed in their effort to get Israel’s foreign agents to properly register under FARA. Unlobbying division as an entirely separate en- heavy Jewish Agency pressure.

We now finally know that Fulbright like the KAC, FBI files of the AZC investigatity (the American Israel Public Affairs launched his Senate investigation of the Jew- tion were never summarized and distilled Committee, or AIPAC).

Reviewing the FBI’s account of the KAC’s ish Agency and AZC because of Senate con- into indictments. Worse, in 2011 the FBI has careful structuring of ISI funding designed cerns about the 1954 Israeli false flag terror reaffirmed its commitment never to publicly to make it appear to be grassroots U.S. sup- attack on United States facilities in Egypt, release a single page of its own lengthy AZC port produces a sense of déjà vu. National known as the Lavon Affair (see July 1992 investigation files under the Freedom of InArchives and Records Administration files Washington Report, p. 41). This key 1962 formation Act. Fifty years later, they still are opened in 2010 of a Senate investigation Senate memo (declassified in 2010) chartered apparently too hot to handle.

As Pillar accurately laments in The Nainto Israel lobbying conducted by Sen. the investigation worrying that, “In recent J.William Fulbright reveal that the vast ex- years there has been an increasing number tional Interest, “Sometimes the issue has tent of Jewish Agency FARA violations of incidents involving attempts by foreign arisen whether AIPAC itself ought to regnever made it into the published Senate governments, or their agents, to influence ister under the FARA, but each time the record. While both the KAC and AZC care- the conduct of American foreign policy by lobby’s own political power—greater now fully reported their U.S. accomplishments to techniques outside normal diplomatic chan- than in Senator Fulbright’s time—has been their foreign principals, the Jewish Agency nels….there have been occasions when rep- sufficient to stifle any moves in that direcalso “structured” funding, passing tens of resentatives of other governments have been tion. An objective inquiry into this subject thousands of dollars through the Rabi- privately accused of engaging in covert ac- such as Fulbright initiated would be unnowitz Foundation to support a friendly tivities within the United States and else- thinkable on Capitol Hill today.”

Today, the AZC is still with us, as reconthink tank. A Jewish Agency representative where, for the purpose of influencing told Victor Rabinowitz they represented the United States Policy (the Lavon Affair).” But stituted into AIPAC—which, along with Israeli government, and that moving funds Fulbright, the Justice Department and the Continued on page 73 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

33

howe_34-36_Special Report 8/9/11 11:28 PM Page 34

The Moroccan Way SpecialReport

PHOTO M. HOWE

By Marvine Howe

A voter at a polling station at Rabat’s Hassan Tower district is told how to put his envelope with yes or no into a plexiglass box during Morocco’s July 1 referendum. he first thing that strikes a frequent

Tvisitor to Casablanca, Morocco’s eco-

nomic capital, is that sidewalks, shoulders of boulevards, even some neighborhoods have been occupied by street-vendors with a wide range of business activities, from lingerie and electronic goods to vegetables and snails. As the Casablanca weekly La Vie Eco pointed out, in the past hawkers were mainly country people, fleeing drought and other hardships. Now, however, they are unemployed college graduates, even families, who can make more as marchands ambulants than working for the minimum wage. Also, there’s been a change in attitudes. Before there were regular sweeps of the illegal tradesmen and confiscation of their wares. “Since the Arab Spring, they have taken over the streets without fear,” La Vie Eco noted, emphasizing that the authorities have shown “unbelievable indulgence” toward the transgressors ever since the Tunisian vender Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire last December, starting the whole Arab democracy movement.

Nor have the lessons of the Arab Spring been lost on Morocco’s rebellious youth Marvine Howe, a former New York Times bureau chief, is the author of Morocco: The Islamist Awakening and Other Challenges (available from the AET Book Club). Her new book, Al Andalus Rediscovered: Iberia’s New Muslims, is due out later this year.

34

and the general public, frustrated with omnipresent corruption, high unemployment and abysmal social services. Emulating their Tunisian and Egyptian peers, Moroccan university students and graduates congregated on Facebook and organized their first mass rallies on Feb. 20, which were such a runaway success that the date became the name of the reform movement.

Initially, the February 20 Movement attracted broad solidarity with its goals of liberty, justice and human dignity, and stipulation that it was not anti-monarchy.

Soon thousands of protesters took to the streets in some 50 cities around the country.

Acutely aware of the Feb. 20 stirrings in the wake of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Moroccan Palace moved swiftly.

On March 9, King Mohammed VI, 47, renewed his program for democratic reform, originally proclaimed on his accession to the throne in 1998. Early on, the son of King Hassan II had made important advances in human rights, but other reforms were delayed by security considerations, inertia and special interests. Now, according to the accelerated royal timetable, an independent commission of jurists, academics and human rights experts was to draft constitutional amendments, which would be submitted to the political parties, unions and associations for comment, then put to the public by referendum on July 1.

Rejecting the undemocratic nature of THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

this procedure, the February 20 Movement called for a constituent assembly. Again the young Facebookers took their demands to the streets—but now they were part of a coalition that included three small leftist parties, the Socialist labor federation and youth organization, the main Islamist opposition association, and the Moroccan Association for Human Rights (AMDH). Their slogans became more pointed, denouncing not only corruption but members of the government and even members of the king’s entourage. People were no longer afraid to speak out: this, too, was a legacy of the Arab Spring.

On June 17, King Mohammed VI presented his draft proposal for “a democratic, constitutional and parliamentary monarchy.” It was a skillfully crafted document, sure to please large sectors of the population with its emphasis on democratic rights and freedoms, recognition of the native tongue of the large Amazigh or Berber minority as an official language along with Arabic, and the enhanced powers of parliament and the chief of government. The Moroccan establishment and its press hailed a new democratic era and the foundation of a modern state.

More circumspect, the publisher of the independent weekly Tel Quel, Karim Boukhari, wrote that King Mohammed’s text “is definitely better” than his father’s 1996 constitution, but emphasized: “We are still very far from the goal of a parliamentary monarchy, and the separation of powers does not exist since the king hasn’t given up any of his powers.”

In comments on the popular French and Arabic electronic media, critics of the royal project argued that nothing had changed.

On its Web site Mamfakinch (“We will not give up”), the February 20 Movement denounced “the profoundly anti-democratic” campaign and called on all Moroccans to boycott the July 1 referendum.

Having accompanied Morocco’s long and tortuous trajectory to democracy, I flew to Casablanca the week before the referendum to evaluate the chances of success of what was already described in the Western press as the Moroccan Model and try SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

to determine if this westernmost Arab country could escape the political upheavals that have occurred in much of the region.

The mood of the country was generally calm, with occasional points of effervescence. The day after my arrival in Casablanca, two mass demonstrations failed to disrupt the city’s Sunday routine of outings at the beach. Along the central Boulevard Mohammed VI, more than 100,000 members of the Boutchouchiya Islamic order, bussed in for the event, joined labor unions and political parties waving Moroccan flags, pictures of the king and banners that said “Yes” in Arabic. In the outlying poor district of Hay Mohammadi, about 5,000 February 20 protesters, chanting “we will not vote” in Arabic, were attacked by stone-throwing royalist militants, injuring one person, who was taken to the hospital. Another lesson learned from the Arab Spring; both security services and demonstrators had orders to avoid violent confrontation.

I was not surprised that most Moroccans I met during my visit readily expressed intentions to vote yes to the king’s constitution. The Palace’s propaganda machine had turned the referendum into a vote for the king and stability against chaos. Only one person admitted voting no, a Casablanca businessman and fervent monarchist, afraid the new constitution gave too many prerogatives to political parties. Even old political friends, long committed to the struggle for democracy, generally saw the new charter as an advance, but were concerned about its implementation.

“You know we have been asking for a parliamentary monarchy since 1978—long before the Arab Spring,” recalled Abderrahmane Youssoufi, former prime minister and retired leader of the main left-wing party, the Socialist Union of Popular Forces. “This text satisfies 97 percent of our demands and includes the seven points of the USFP memorandum of 2009 asking for constitutional reforms,” he said, listing the most important changes: an independent executive whose head of government has real powers, a legislature with expanded powers, guarantees of the independence of judges, recognition of a role for the parliamentary opposition, and the designation of the king as chief of state.

Likewise, Khadija Rouissi, a veteran human rights advocate and now a leader of the royalist Party of Authenticity and Modernity, stressed that the country has made “strategic gains” under the new constitution, namely the recognition of the deSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

PHOTO M. HOWE

howe_34-36_Special Report 8/9/11 11:28 PM Page 35

A group of February 20 activists, including (from left) Tahani, Hassan and Abdelatif, engage in heated discussion at the Casablanca office of L’Economiste. mocratic choice, the equality of men and women, and the outlawing of any form of discrimination. “The king has shown he’s reform-minded, but now the political parties have to step up to their responsibilities,” Rouissi emphasized. “The February 20 Movement can serve as a watchdog, a constant reminder of our democratic goals.”

A keen observer of the political scene, Nadia Salah, managing editor of the EcoMedias Group, told me, “We’re living through a rich and exhilarating experience. Every time I pick up the constitution, I discover something new. The drafting commission went much further than I could imagine, introducing the idea of citizenship, enabling citizens to question the constitutionality of a law, even banning torture and other serious human rights violations.” Some contradictions will have to be ironed out, she acknowledged, for example the equality of men and women, which goes against Islamic law.

Asked about the February 20 Movement, Salah said there was no leader because anyone who appeared as a spokesperson was promptly excluded.

However, she arranged for me to meet a group of activists at her office. Six representatives of the Movement showed up; all claimed to be politically independent, but appeared deeply divided. Abdelatif, a 40year-old accountant, said they were inspired by Tunisia but stressed that the situation in Morocco was different because there was more freedom here. “We want change with the king, not against him,” he declared. He and three colleagues announced they were campaigning in favor of the king’s constitution, and accused the Movement’s leftist and Islamist allies of seeking to manipulate the inexperienced young people.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

On the other hand, Hassan, a 27-year-old director of an audio-visual firm, contended that the Movement shouldn’t tell people how to vote. “We have other demands: the release of political prisoners, trial of embezzlers, fight against unemployment, free health care and increase in the minimum wage,” he stressed. From Rabat, Tahani, a 20-year-old student at the National School of Applied Sciences, staunchly denied that the Movement was controlled by its partners. Disagreeing with her Casablanca elders, Tahani asserted: “All the sections of the movement all over the country decided to boycott the referendum because the process is not democratic and because our number one demand was the separation of powers, which did not happen. All of the institutions are presided over by the king.”

On the eve of the referendum, I went to Rabat, where the February 20 Movement had called for another demonstration. I met Tahani at the AMDH headquarters, and we walked to the rally nearby. Some 500 young activists, demanding “boycott” and “peace,” were being harassed by nearly as many angry red-shirted zealots, brandishing flags and portraits of the king.

“Each time we hold a demonstration, the baltagis, or militia, try to break it up with a counter-demonstration,” Tahani explained. Separating the two camps was a cordon of riot police, who did not intervene when the redshirts moved into the protesters’ territory, bearing a white coffin inscribed with the words “burial of February 20,” which they later burned. Nor did the police prevent the baltagis from laying siege to the demonstrators and holding them hostage for an hour.

Although I had to leave, the events that ensued are described in an open letter to the minister of interior by AMDH vice president Abdelhamid Amine. He recounts 35

PHOTO M. HOWE

howe_34-36_Special Report 8/9/11 11:28 PM Page 36

Exuberant redshirt militia youths arrive by truck at a Rabat demonstration. that when the police finally opened a narrow breech in the siege for demonstrators to escape, he was attacked by several bal tagis, calling him traitor, spitting in his face, kicking him and “trying to force me to say long live the king.” At that point, the police offered Amine the protection of their car, but he refused. Two other leaders of the human rights association were beaten by militias with electric clubs and had to be taken to the emergency ward. “Isn’t it paradoxical that all this happened on the eve of a referendum on an amended constitution with numerous clauses on the respect for human rights...?” Amine concluded.

After the emotional campaign, the referendum passed smoothly. Everything appeared normal at the Rabat polling stations, with a respectable turnout but no long lines, and nationally no incidents were reported. The shock came the following day with the official results: 98.5 percent voted yes, with 73.5 percent participation—statistics worthy of the old Soviet Union or Ben Ali’s Tunisia, remarked a member of the February 20 coalition. A lesser victory would have been more credible. “All fears of contagion from the ‘Arab Spring’ seem to have been warded off,” declared a headline in the establishment weekly Maroc Hebdo International. As it turned out, however, it was premature to talk of a Moroccan Model. That Sunday, thousands of demonstrators turned out in Rabat and Casablanca to call for real reforms and vowed to continue their struggle until their demands were satisfied. There were angry counter-demonstrators as well.

Clearly King Mohammed has bought time with his new constitution, but he will have to produce concrete changes soon.

The Palace and political parties will face their first opportunity to demonstrate their 36

commitment to democracy in the fall, when national elections are to be held for a new parliament with reinforced powers under the new constitution. It was also evident that the authorities should rein in the baltagis, whose ugly shenanigans are counter-productive, dangerous and unnecessary. Moroccans may be divided on their goals, but they have demonstrated that they don’t want the bloody revolutions taking place in Libya and Syria and threatening other Arab countries. ❑

Gaza on the Ground…

Continued from page 21

One such new business is the Mazaj restaurant. According to its owner, Mohammed Haniyeh, his establishment caters to NGO workers, a few journalists and wealthy merchants. The tunnel owners qualify as the latter.

As in post-Soviet Russia, however, the cost to play is enormous. One Gazan interviewed earns $5,000 per month working as a consultant to international organizations.

“I am still hardly able to live on this amount,” he said. “So how about those who get nothing and live only on aid from U.N. handouts?”

“Things are better than a year ago,’’ said Dr. Jamal El-Khoudary, who leads Gaza’s Popular Committee Against the Siege. “The siege on goods is now 60 to 70 percent over.’’

He and others attribute this to the fallout after Israel’s attack on the Mavi Marmara in which Israeli commandos killed eight Turkish and one American activist attempting to bring in goods to the Gaza Strip. Prior to the attack, Israel allowed only 80 items into Gaza. Afterward, under THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

international pressure, a few more items were allowed in.

Although the Israeli government approved a range of infrastructure projects aimed at improving sanitation, education and health facilities, the UNOCHA notes in its July 2011 Facts Sheet that “few of these projects have been implemented. This is mainly due to the…cumbersome approval process and difficulties in importing materials.” U.N. officials note that Gazans have seen “no real improvement in the quality of services.”

Getting supplies into Gaza is only half the battle, of course, because for an economy to thrive trade must go both ways. Yet neither Israel nor Egypt will allow exports to leave the Gaza Strip. On average, just two truckloads of goods a day leave Gaza.

That amounts to a few tons of strawberries, boxes of flowers or bell peppers. Prior to the siege, Israel pledged to allow 400 tons of products to leave Gaza every day. As the Israeli human rights group Gisha noted in a June 26 press release, however, “not a single truck has been allowed to leave Gaza since May 12. Even during the winter agricultural season, when Israel allowed the export of agricultural produce, the quantities were economically negligible: an average of two trucks per day, compared to the 400 trucks a day agreed upon in the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access.”

Thousands of homes, hospitals and schools destroyed during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead attack on Gaza two and a half years ago remain in ruins. Hospitals regularly cancel elective surgery due to lack of medical supplies and medicines. Electricity remains sporadic. UNOCHA notes that 90 percent of the water from the Gaza aquifer is undrinkable.

In Gaza, the abnormal has become normal. Commented one young person, “I would be suspicious and feel something was wrong if we had full-time electricity.”

Prior to Israel’s occupation of Gaza in 1967, the region was known for its nearuniversal literacy, relatively low infant mortality and comfortable standard of living. It was like most middle- and uppermiddle-class communities around the world. Indeed, 44 years ago Gaza’s health and lifestyle were better than those of most developing countries. But today only Gaza’s elite, their partners, and international workers enjoy such luxury. One has to wonder what will happen when the tunnel economy is no longer a necessity— and whether that future certainty serves to prolong the suffering of millions for the benefit of a few. ❑ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

dish_network_c2_Dish Network September-October 2011 8/9/11 1:46 PM Page 37

twair_38-39_Special Report 8/10/11 5:15 PM Page 38

World-Class Tunisian Artists Exhibited at New Sahara Gallery in L.A. Suburb

STAFF PHOTO SAMIR TWAIR

While curator Doonan rhapsodizes that “Azimuth-Ascension” is the title of this inaugural ex- Mahdaoui is a choreographer of Arabic lethibition. Azimuth (direction) ters, traditionalists criticize his calligraphic invokes to Mahdaoui, 74, his fantasies on the grounds that they detract trip from Tunisia to Los An- from the meaning of the sacred letters. geles in April of this year. As- Nonetheless, the identifiable Arabic word cension, says Doonan, is the for “spirit” appears in his works. fundamental theme of Ben Slimane’s artistic expression.

It was a real coup for the emerging gallery to obtain the Tunisian artists’ permission to bring their works to California.

The versatile Mahdaoui has created monumental stainedglass windows for public buildings in the United Arab Emirates. His spectacular calligraphic designs on the exterior of Gulf Air passenger New Sahara Gallery curator Owen Doonan in front of a jets stand out among Nja Mahdaoui canvas. other aircraft at interyrian artist Reem Hamad insisted we national airports, his paintings hang see the initial two-man show that in permanent collections of the Lonopened April 9 at the New Sahara Gallery don and Smithsonian Museums, in the Los Angeles suburb of Northridge. and he is a jurist at such internaAlthough we protested that we had many tional competitions as the UNESCO exhibitions to review, our friend was Prize for the Promotion of Arts.

Doonan lyrically describes Mahadamant that we visit this unique space and daoui as a modernist heir to Wassily the works of two major Tunisian artists.

The resulting tour of New Sahara with Kandinsky or Jackson Pollack. Born its curator, Owen Doonan, was an unex- in 1937 near Tunis, Mahdaoui later pected discovery of two world-class artists moved to Rome and Paris to study featured in a Los Angeles suburb. Nja at the Accademia del Sant’ Andrea, Mahdaoui and Khaled Ben Slimane cus- the Ecole du Louvre and the Cite Intomarily exhibit their paintings and ce- ternational des Arts.

In the 1960s, Mahdaoui launched ramics in Dubai, London and other global his career as an abstract painter, capitals.

How they came to show their works at then began experimenting with New Sahara Gallery’s inaugural exhibition Arabic calligraphy. Today he is is due to the pioneering efforts of Doonan, known as the inventor of abstract a professor of art history at California State calligraphy, since his designs resemUniversity, Northridge (CSUN), and his ble Arabic letters, but have no literbusiness partner, D. Carl Dentzel, who ate meaning.

Stating that conventional calligraserved as a diplomat in the U.S. Embassy in phy ignores the aesthetic effect of TOP: Nja Mahdaoui’s signature sheepskin under Tunis during the 1990s. the letter, Mahdaoui explains, “I glass abstract calligraphy on vellum parchment.

Pat McDonnell Twair is a free-lance writer use fragmented and distorted letters ABOVE: Mahdaoui’s abstract calligraphy on silk screen. to reject valuing each character.” based in Los Angeles.

COURTESY NEW SAHARA GALLERY

SpecialReport

By Pat McDonnell Twair

38

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

STAFF PHOTO SAMIR TWAIR

S

STAFF PHOTO SAMIR TWAIR

twair_38-39_Special Report 8/10/11 5:15 PM Page 39

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Qlam (pens), hand-painted ceramic cylinders by Khaled Ben Slimane. ject Sufi humanism and Zen philosophy, suggests Doonan.

An assemblage of ceramic cones conjures to many the robes of whirling dervishes. A ceramic sculpture, entitled “Pont,” was created in 2003 in response to the destruction of Manhattan’s Twin Towers. It fea-

STAFF PHOTO SAMIR TWAIR

The venerated artist arrived in California for the New Sahara Gallery’s April 9 opening. Days later, he was celebrated at nearby CSUN, where he gave a master class in Arabic calligraphy to art students. Modern dance students then performed to Tunisian music as the spotlight centered on a huge drum painted with Mahdaoui’s abstract letters.

“Even though he lectured in Arabic,” Doonan recalled, “the students were in awe, they reacted to him like he was a rock star.”

Sunlight fills the rooms of the secondfloor gallery where Mahdaoui’s dazzling canvases garner appreciative comments.

His signature works are sheepskins under glass. The distinctive circular abstract calligraphic designs swirl on vellum parchment—a viewer who looks closely can distinguish the cells of the sheepskin.

Sharing the gallery space are the ceramics and paintings of Ben Slimane, who was born in 1951 in Sousse, Tunisia and has honed his skills by working with indigenous potters in North Africa, Spain, India and Japan.

At the Fine Arts Massana School of Barcelona, he worked with the assistant of Llorens Artigas, a collaborator of Joan Miró. The bold colors and forms Ben Slimane uses reflect his training in Spain inspired by Miro. His preference for simple geometric forms and texture of the brush are the product of studying under master potters and calligraphers at the Idemitsu Museum in Japan. The artist’s works pro-

COURTESY NEW SAHARA GALLERY

Japanese and Arabic influences prevail in Khaled Ben Slimane’s “Brown Vase.”

Ben Slimane’s “Ascension.”

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

tures two cylinders joined by a “bridge of fate.” Another assemblage of hand-painted cylinders is titled “Qlam” (pens).

Serious collectors of Middle Eastern and North African art might consider a trip to Northridge instead of to Dubai or London to examine the works of Mahdaoui or Ben Slimane, which will be on display through Sept. 30.

They can be viewed by appointment by calling (818) 772-5700 from Aug. 22. That is when Doonan returns from Turkey, where he’s been directing an archaeological survey in the Black Sea region.

The New Sahara Gallery’s next exhibit, entitled “Living Out Loud: The Colorful World of Tunisian Women,” will open in November. It will showcase the works of Rym Karoui and Feryel Lakhdar. ❑ 39

adas_40-41_New York City and Tri-State News 8/10/11 5:17 PM Page 40

Hamid Dabashi, Bassam Haddad Discuss Arab Spring

New York City and Tri-StateNews

By Jane Adas

countercoups of the 1950s & ‘60s, are more afraid of a vacuum than of the regime.

However, he added, it is possible that the state might cross a threshold of violence that would overcome people’s fear—but no one knows where that would be.

STAFF PHOTO J. ADAS

Prof. David Kretzmer on Israeli Democracy and Occupation

Profs. Hamid Dabashi (l) and Bassam Haddad. rofessors Hamid Dabashi of Columbia

PUniversity and Bassam Haddad of

George Mason University spoke about the uprisings in the Arab world at Alwan for the Arts on June 8. In Dabashi’s view, the Arab Spring is part of a global movement to overcome inherited, colonially manufactured barriers. Whether in Arab countries, or in Zimbabwe, Kashmir or Iran, Dabashi identified three social groups as critical for all the current political struggles: labor unions to stop the World Bank from micromanaging economies; student assemblies, because young people are the majority in most of these countries; and women’s rights groups, because such important issues shouldn’t be left to men.

Within the Arab world, Dabashi noted, uprisings are happening in both pro- and anti-Western countries, among Shi’i and Sunni majority populations, and are not wedded to particular ideologies, such as Arab nationalism or the Muslim Brotherhood. Nor are any of them identified with a strong personality, as was the case with Mossadegh in Iran or Nasser in Egypt.

Rather, Dabashi concluded, the Arab Jane Adas is a free-lance writer based in the New York City metropolitan area.

40

Spring is an unfolding and open-ended “retrieval of our multifaceted culture.”

Haddad agreed that in a political sense there is a global revolution that essentially constitutes a popular rejection of neo-liberalism. Cynics may dismiss “people power” as romantic and naïve, but Haddad maintains that is exactly what is most significant: unprecedented mass gatherings opening a space for the public to advance its interests. Even if a regime falls quickly, it takes time to build anew, he pointed out, adding that he is comfortable with the chaos in the interim, so long as there is home-grown collective action and no grand schemes.

The particulars are also important, Haddad said. He focused on Syria, a country that has endured 40 years of repressive rule in a sum-zero game, where the state gains at the expense of the people and proximity to power matters more than sectarianism.

Haddad suggested that the mobilization in Syria was triggered externally, and perhaps prematurely. Because of the lack of credible, independently verified information, he noted, we don’t know what the opposition is made of, other than that it is mostly rural and not well co-coordinated. The majority of Syrians, remembering the coups and THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

David Kretzmer, professor emeritus of international law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a founding member of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, spoke about “Israel’s democracy in the shadow of the occupation” at the New York office of the New Israel Fund on June 17.

Kretzmer mentioned that in other venues, when he has pointed out that Israel has been an occupying power for more than two-thirds of its existence with no end in sight, he often gets the indignant response, “How dare you talk about ‘occupation?’” The fact remains, he insisted, that of the subjects under Israeli control, 35 percent do not have a vote in the political structure. Therefore he has doubts about whether it is still legitimate to regard Israel as a democracy. Kretzmer recognizes that there is a debate about the status of Gaza: the international community considers it still occupied, while the Israeli government and High Court say it is not. “But even so,” he said, “Israel has tremendous influence over every aspect of life in Gaza.”

Within Israel, Kretzmer sees a dangerous deterioration of civil liberties. Supporters of Israel’s settlement project are attempting to totally delegitimize any support for getting out of the West Bank, including projects funded by the New Israel Fund. Such attitudes, he warned, exist deep within Israel’s political structure, including the Ministry of Education. Kretzmer taught for 40 years at Hebrew University and never felt threatened, but these days, he said, academia is under systematic attack from groups like Im Tirtzu, which sends students to photograph and record liberal professors with the intent to oust them.

The police as well have become highly political. Kretzmer told of an experiment where students demonstrated with rightwing flyers, eliciting no response from the SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

adas_40-41_New York City and Tri-State News 8/10/11 5:17 PM Page 41

diers repeatedly searching homes in the middle of the night.

Journalist Gideon Levy describes Hebron as the occupation at its most cruel and brutal. Some in the audience applauded when Levy adds, “Palestinians are among the most tolerant and least violent people in the world.” Yehuda Shaul, who served in Hebron from 2001-03, says the soldiers’ orders are to protect the settlers, yet the settlers treat the soldiers like servants. He describes Shuhada Street and the old market as “now sterilized.” Shaul sees the real story as the political power settlers have: “Any brigade commander knows that if he confronts the settlers, it is the end of his career.”

Noam Arnon, a spokesman for the Hebron settlers, says, “We are the wall between Islamic terrorism and Europe.” Another settler claims there were no Arabs in Hebron before the settlers arrived. Sani Horowitz describes the Palestinian presence as the “swamp people have to deal with.” The news is slanted, she adds. “People can feel normal here. It’s not just an army base.” Another settler woman, Miriam Grabovsky, claims, “There are no questions in Hebron, only answers.”

“This is My Land…Hebron” is disturbing, as it is intended to be. Still, given the range of viewpoints expressed, it was more disturbing that so many in the audience accused the filmmakers of being onesided, imbalanced, and anti-Semitic.

Natanson refused to answer a questioner who demanded to know if he is Jewish.

The filmmakers said afterward that nothing like this had happened after screenings in Europe.

STAFF PHOTOS J. ADAS

police. Later that day the same students passed out leftist flyers, and police arrived to stop the demonstration.

Kretzmer concluded by considering the “tremendous political implications” of Palestinians going to the U.N. in September. He considers the U.S. veto in the Security Council irrelevant, but expects the General Assembly to pass a resolution recognizing Palestine as a state within the 1967 borders. Palestine would then be able to become party to international conventions, such as the International Criminal Court, which would then have jurisdiction over the Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem. This would create a legal burden for Israel, he explained, given that Israel’s transference of its population into the West Bank is a war crime under international law.

“This is My Land…

Hebron” Screened at Lincoln Center Giulia Amati went to Hebron to teach filmmaking for a project financed by the EU. When she met Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, an organization that collects testimonials from Israeli soldiers who have served in the occupied territories, the idea of making a documentary about Hebron became clear to her. Amati wanted to include the settlers’ point of view, but they consider Shaul an enemy and refuse to talk to him.

Amati therefore recruited Stephen Natanson, a British filmmaker based in Rome.

The result, “This is My Land…Hebron,” screened at Lincoln Center in late June as part of the Human Rights Watch film festival. Amati, Natanson, and Dotan Greenvald of Breaking the Silence were on hand for questions after the screening.

The documentary intermixes incidents—Israeli schoolgirls kicking a Palestinian headmistress; a Jewish celebration at the Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of Machpelah, where a settler claims even Adam and Eve are buried; the main road of Shuhada Street, where soldiers have welded shut the doors of Palestinian homes; a settler woman cursing a Palestinian family in their home that has become a barred cage for their own protection; Hebrew graffiti “Better them than us” and “Kill Arabs”—with wideranging interviews evenly divided among Palestinians, settlers, and Israelis critical of the settlers.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Nir Rosen on Aftermath

TOP: Prof. David Kretzmer; MIDDLE: filmmaker Giulia Amati (l) with Stephen Natanson; ABOVE: Nir Rosen.

Osaid Rashid accuses the settlers and army of doing everything possible to make Palestinians leave the Old City so settlers can take control. A Palestinian complains that Israeli soldiers posted on his roof defecate on their ration plates and throw them down. Hani Abu Heikal tells of Israeli solTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

For the past decade, writer Nir Rosen has been doing “field work in conflict zones” for such organizations as Refugees International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. He discussed his recent book, Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America’s Wars in the Muslim World (available from the AET Book Club), June 28 at Alwan for the Arts in New York.

Rosen expressed frustration that people are no longer interested in Iraq, explaining that he is uncomfortable when Americans Continued on page 74 41

pasquini_42-43_Northern California Chronicle 8/10/11 5:19 PM Page 42

Time for Peace, End of Permanent War, Says Rep. Lynn Woolsey at San Rafael Rally

By Elaine Pasquini

Representatives who think our deficit is so bad that we need to destroy Medicare, but they don’t lose a wink of sleep spending $10 billion a month for a military occupation in Afghanistan.”

our presence today sends a power-

“Yful message about the grassroots

passion for peace,” Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California’s 6th congressional district told the crowd in San Rafael’s City Plaza on June 25, just days before the Democrat officially announced that she would not seek re-election in 2012. “Now is the moment to express our patriotism by saying loud and clear it’s time for peace. It’s time to support our troops by bringing them home.”

In February, Woolsey led 42 members of Congress in sponsoring H.R. 651, urging the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

“The price we’re paying for war is too steep. The human cost is too devastating,” she said. “No one has sacrificed more than the men and women of the U.S. military who have been on the frontlines, but every taxpayer is also paying a price. Every day I deal with the majority in the House of Elaine Pasquini is a free-lance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

42

David Harris on Human Cost of Wars Longtime anti-war activist and author David Harris—the most revered of the progressive luminaries who spoke at the San Rafael rally— revved up his audience when he recited his open letter to President Barack Obama.

“This policy of empire in the Hindu Kush and Tigris Valley is a disaster,” he charged. “At a time when we need friends

ABOVE: IVAW Bay Area Chapter President Eddie Falcon (l) and Ethan Kreutzer.

RIGHT: Anti-war icon David Harris.

“The war started for me when I was 17 and stupid enough to talk my parents into signing permission,” Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) member Ethan Kreutzer said at the peace rally. “I’m 26 now and I’m still living with that decision every day.”

The young Army veteran, who served in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2004, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

“We are now losing 18 veterans a day to suicide, and there are more attempting it every day,” Kreutzer told the crowd. “It has become an epidemic.”

IVAW Bay Area chapter president Eddie Falcon—who was honorably discharged from the Air Force seven years ago after twice being deployed to both Afghanistan and to Iraq—discussed the problems returning veterans are confronting.“Every day there are veterans returning home who are dealing with PTSD issues. Some are homeless and also dealing with alcoholism and drug addiction.”

Believing that traumatized troops deserve time to heal, IVAW launched Operation Recovery to stop the redeployment of traumatized troops suffering from PTSD. THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

STAFF PHOTO E. PASQUINI

Lynn Woolsey, Democratic Congresswoman from California’s sixth district.

“We find this situation unacceptable and demand an end to it,” Falcon said. “Our troops are human beings, not government property.”

STAFF PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

STAFF PHOTOS PHIL PASQUINI

Veterans Speak Out

Northern California Chronicle

badly it has alienated the friends we had and made it virtually impossible for any more of them to join us.”

Addressing the crowd’s concerns over the financial cost of war, Harris noted the $2 trillion price tag so far—“which we had to borrow from the Chinese,” he pointed out, “and will probably cost us another two trillion in the future, at least.”

But for Harris, who was heavily involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the human cost of the war is even more unconscionable.

“Seven thousand dead Americans, at least 300,000 who will be damaged in ways that they will never completely recover SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

pasquini_42-43_Northern California Chronicle 8/10/11 5:19 PM Page 43

Ending War Is About “a Shift in Consciousness”

STAFF PHOTO E. PASQUINI

“Without the Roni Krouzmans of the world our future isn’t going to go very far,” said the 73-year-old Woolsey, introducing the rally’s last speaker. “He’s a passionate and dynamic young leader – actually our future.” An activist, author and founder of

Roni Krouzman.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Norman Solomon for Congress

Egyptian Delegation Visits Silicon Valley

STAFF PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Next Generation, one of the Bay Area’s leading youth environmental organizations, the 33-year-old Krouzman currently counsels nonprofits as head of his own consulting firm.

“We know that war cuts deep and that as a people and a global community we have a lot of healing to do to build the kind of society that we want,” he said. “I don’t think it’s just going to be about changing policies or changing governments. I think it’s going to be about a shift in consciousness that makes it unthinkable to slaughter people at the level that we are now. We must figure out a way to work together in order to see the future we want for the next generations.”

Dr. Magued Osman, Egypt’s former minister of communications and information technology.

STAFF PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

from,” he lamented. “We have no knowledge of just how many Iraqis have died, but it is at least in the six figures.”

The activist, who served time in federal prison for refusing to deploy to Vietnam, drew the rally’s most vocal and sustained applause when he decried the loss of America’s morality and credibility.

“And, finally, of course, what this has cost us is ourselves,” Harris said. “We have become a people who hijack strangers off the street and hang them up by their thumbs. We have become a people who from the top of the government on down declare that we torture and like doing it.

I’m old enough to remember when we attributed these qualities to our enemies.

And now we are those people and there is only one antidote to it: you bring the boys and girls home—every last one of them— and keep them home where they belong.”

Noting that human rights supporters like those gathered at the peace rally brought Obama to the White House, Harris warned the president, “We deserve better than this, and if you are not smart enough to drop your George Bush costume and act like the sensible, intelligent man we expected you would be, then we’re going to have to go out and find a president who is.”

Norman Solomon speaks at the San Rafael peace rally.

In anticipation of Woolsey’s June 27 announcement that she would not run for re-election in 2012, Norman Solomon, author of Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters With America’s Warfare State, officially announced in April that he would run for her congressional seat.

The popular media critic from West Marin has pledged a campaign that focuses on core issues of local, state and national concern.

While challenging “the undue corporate power that stands in the way of real change,” he is advocating for “guaranteed health care, full employment, green sustainability, full funding for public education, fundamental changes in federal spending priorities and an end to perennial war.”

Now in his third term as an elected member of the California Democratic Party’s state central committee, Solomon was an Obama delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He also is national co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

A contingent of Egyptian businessmen and policymakers recently visited the U.S. seeking investments in post-revolutionary Egypt.

“We’re here to deliver a message to the American community that we are interested in foreign investments and committed to the role of the private sector,” explained Dr. Magued Osman, who until a July 20 cabinet reshuffle was Egypt’s minister of communications and information technology. “Post-revolution, we have ups and downs, but we’re going in the right direction. We have a new Egypt, and the most important change is that people are now feeling a sense of ownership, a sense of positive thinking, a sense that the future belongs to them. This has created a momentum and a lot of energy for the future,” he told the Washington Report during his visit to Silicon Valley.

The minister met with Egyptian Americans who are excited to participate in upcoming elections, as well as new business ventures. “The revolution has created new energy among Egyptians living in Europe and North America,” Osman explained, “and this is a good opportunity for Egypt.”

The delegation began its U.S. visit June 27 in Washington, DC, at the “Egypt Forward” forum sponsored by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and aimed at encouraging trade and economic development in Egypt. ❑ 43

twair_44-45_Southern California Chronicle 8/10/11 5:21 PM Page 44

KinderUSA Sends SOS to Fulfill Ramadan Pledges to Needy Families

Southern California Chronicle

STAFF PHOTO S. TWAIR

By Pat and Samir Twair

VIPs at the KinderUSA fund-raiser (l-r) national chairwoman Dr. Laila al-Marayati, keynote speaker Dr. Tariq Ramadan, and Dr. Basil Abdelkarim. he dire situation facing Palestinian fam-

Tilies in the Middle East was addressed

July 23 by Islamic philosopher and academic Tariq Ramadan at the annual fund-raising dinner of KinderUSA in the Universal Sheraton Hotel.

In keeping with the theme of the event, “Supporting Our Children: The Seeds of the Future,” Dr. Ramadan stated that when schools are destroyed, the future is destroyed.

The challenge for Muslims in the West, he said, is to explain to the general population that sending donations to educate Palestinian children is not against the interests of the U.S. If aid given to children in Haiti or Africa is considered admirable, then Muslims must speak out that assistance to Palestinians should not be criminalized.

Ramadan, a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University and president of the European Muslim Network in Brussels, Belgium, stressed that the majority of Americans are not aware of what’s truly happening in the Middle East. Therefore, he argued, Muslims in the U.S. shouldn’t be afraid to tell what actually is Pat and Samir Twair are free-lance journalists based in Los Angeles.

44

taking place in Palestinian population centers targeted by Israel’s military.

“What we’re saying here is that we should always be on the side of the oppressed, people who are calling for freedom and justice,” stated the scholar and author.

The holy month of Ramadan, a week away, should be viewed by all faiths as a time for justice, he urged.

The Ramadan season represents KinderUSA’s biggest challenge, since on top of providing medicine, food and therapeutic programs for needy Palestinians yearround, it also must provide iftar meals and provisions to impoverished families who otherwise would go without holiday food, and gifts for their children.

This year, the organization pledged $250,000 for its charitable projects, but has not met its fund-raising goals. “A donation of $110 will feed a family of 10 for one month,” explained national chairwoman Dr. Laila al-Marayati, “or help women’s cooperatives prepare jams, fresh vegetables, dairy and poultry grown by local farmers.

Instead of a basket of dry foods presented at Ramadan, KinderUSA sees that children receive nutritional meals made of local ingredients.”

Dr. Maher Hathout, senior adviser to the THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

Muslim Public Affairs Council, welcomed the crowd of 250 by commenting on the world’s callousness for allowing Israel to blockade medicine, food and construction materials into Gaza or prevent the seriously ill to exit to other countries for necessary treatment. “Anything short of tearing down the wall of occupation is simply putting a band-aid on Palestinian misery,” he concluded.

A short film entitled “Noor,” written and directed by Mustafa Shakarchi, was shown.

He made his initial trip to the Middle East in February 2010, Shakarchi explained, and was so moved by the plight of Palestinian orphans who peddle goods on the streets of Beirut that he wrote the script about a young girl who survives by selling trinkets.

“It took 30 days to shoot the film. I recruited my wife’s family members to be actors,” he acknowledged. “Many who viewed the film said they’d been unaware of the homeless kids in Beirut.”

Prof. Jess Ghannam, chief of medical psychology at University of California, San Francisco, was master of ceremonies. Donations to KinderUSA can be mailed to P.O. Box 222846, Dallas, TX. Further information is available at <www.kinderUSA.org>.

SAC Town Hall Outlines Priorities More than 250 Syrian Americans concerned with atrocities perpetrated against nonviolent protesters since March by the Assad regime convened June 26 at a town hall meeting called by the Syrian American Council of greater Los Angeles (SAC).

Speakers were Mahsa Maleki, Syria country specialist for Amnesty International (AI), psychology professor Mais Jasser, Dr. Louay Safi, national chairman of SAC; and USC sociology professor Dr. Mazen Hashem.

Maleki presented facts AI has documented proving the Syrian government carries out a shoot-to-kill policy targeting nonviolent crowds of protesters, murders children and women, and tortured Hamza al-Khatib, 13, to death. AI has called upon the International Criminal Court to try members of the government for crimes against humanity, she said.

Dr. Jasser stressed that many Syrians are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of attacks by government SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

STAFF PHOTOS S. TWAIR

twair_44-45_Southern California Chronicle 8/10/11 5:21 PM Page 45

forces and police.

Dr. Safi pointed out that the Assad regime’s bloody suppression of the democratic revolution has caused it to lose international legitimacy and led to economic and regional isolation. It no longer is a question of if, he emphasized, but when the Syrian dictatorship will fall. In the past, the opposition couldn’t resist internally, but now the demands of the Syrian people cannot be silenced.

“We don’t want intervention by foreign forces, Safi concluded: “We ask only for international pressure to isolate the corrupt dic- TOP: SAC-LA Town Hall speakers (l-r) Mahsa Maleki, Dr. Louay Safi, Dr. Mais Jasser and Dr. tatorship.”

Dr. Hashem told how revolu- Mazen Hashem. ABOVE: Speaking at a screentionary movements originate with ing of “The Light in Her Eyes” are (l-r) anthroa broad base of united people. pologist Dr. Saba Mahmood and producer/direc“You can’t undo the revolution,” tors Julia Meltzer and Laura Nix. RIGHT: he observed, “you can’t go back. MPAC President Salam al-Marayati (l) with The history of Syria is being Media Award recipient Hiam Abbass. shaped as we speak.”

For more information, visit <syrianet- servative male voice.” fla@gmail.com>.

In 1982 there were only two registered women’s mosques in Syria, New Film Focuses on Women’s Meltzer said. Now there are thouMosques sands. Her interest in Syria stems from A June 18 fund-raiser for a documentary her stint as a Fulbright Fellow teachexamining the rising popularity of women’s ing journalism at the University of mosques in Muslim countries was hosted Damascus in 2005-06.

“We live in a country that has a problem by filmmaker Julia Meltzer in her Los Anwith Islam,” she stated. “The purpose of geles Clock Shop studio and home.

Entitled, “The Light In Her Eyes,” the making the documentary is to provide infilm tells the story of two Syrian women, sight into Muslim society that may improve Houda al-Habash and Riham Ba’labaki, Americans’ perception of Islam.”

For more information, visit <www.thewho have founded women’s mosques in the lightinhereyesmovie.com>. capital of Damascus.

Since women have never been a part of the social life of the mosque, explained Uni- MPAC Media Awards versity of California at Berkeley anthropol- The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) ogist Saba Mahmood, in the past three Foundation hosted its 20th annual Media decades they have created their own pub- Awards gala June 25 in the Sheraton Gatelic space in mosques spreading from Egypt way Hotel, Los Angeles. In 1991, noted and Syria to Southeast Asia.

MPAC president Salam al-Marayati, there “This is not a feminist movement,” she was only one feature film that cast a Muslim cautioned, “but it is challenging the con- character in a favorable light.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

“This year,” he told a full house of more than 400 guests, “we had 30 nominations for dramatic presentations featuring admirable Muslims.”

Palestinian actress Hiam Abbass, who starred in “The Visitor,” received the 2011 MPAC Media Award for her performance as Hind Husseini in “Miral.” Cherien Dabis, who wrote and directed the feature film “Amreeka,” presented the award to Abbass.

Visibly moved by the showing of a scene in which she spoke to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, played by Juliano Mer Kamis, Abbass tearfully said it was the first time she had seen Juliano on screen since he was murdered by unknown assailants in front of his Freedom Theater in the West Bank town of Jenin.

Also receiving awards were writers of two episodes of the CBS series “The Good Wife” which

challenged Islamophobia and negative stereotypes of Muslims. They were Ted Humphrey, who wrote “Boom,” and Leonard Dick who penned “On Tap.” In accepting his award, Dick commented: “Who would have thought a Jewish boy from Canada would be honored here tonight?”

Ash-har Quraishi and Rachid Ghazi received awards for “Fordson,” a documentary about a predominantly Muslim high school football team in Dearborn, MI. The film focuses on the athletes as they gear up for their senior year rivalry game and tackle post9/11 questions about their Muslim identity while fasting during the final 10 days of Ramadan. “Fordson” will debut on Sept. 9 in 40 to 50 theaters in major U.S. cities. ❑ 45

lobe_46-47_Islam in America 8/11/11 11:50 AM Page 46

U.S. Muslims More Tolerant, Opposed to Violence Than Other Faiths Islamin America

STAFF PHOTO DELINDA HANLEY

By Jim Lobe

Muslim Americans host their Christian and Jewish neighbors at a 4th of July celebration at the Islamic Center in Gaithersburg, MD. uslims in the United States express

Mgreater tolerance for members of

other faiths than any other major religious group, according to a major new survey and report released Aug. 2 in Washington, DC by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center.

They are also more likely than any other religious group to oppose violent or military attacks against civilians, according to the survey, “Muslim Americans: Faith, Freedom, and the Future.”

Nearly four out of five (78 percent) U.S. Muslims say that military attacks against civilians can never be justified. That compares with less than two of five Protestants (38 percent) and Catholics (39 percent) and just over four out of [nine] Jews (43 percent) who take that position, the poll found.

Jim Lobe is Washington, DC bureau chief for Inter Press Service. His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at <www.lobelog.com>.

Copyright © 2011 IPS-Inter Press Service.

All rights reserved.

46

Similarly, 89 percent of Muslims said attacks by “an individual person or a small group of individuals to target and kill civilians can never be justified.” Between 71 percent and 75 percent of Christian and Jewish respondents agreed.

The survey also found that Jewish and Muslim Americans shared many views, including how best to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Eighty-one percent of Muslims and 78 percent of Jews queried by Gallup said they supported a two-state solution.

Jewish respondents were also more likely than any other group, including Muslims themselves, to believe that Muslims face prejudice in the U.S. While 60 percent of Muslims agreed with the proposition that “most Americans are prejudiced against Muslim Americans,” that was less than the 66 percent of Jews who agreed with it. Protestants and Catholics, in contrast, were roughly evenly split on the question.

Jewish respondents (80 percent) were THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

also more likely—besides Muslims themselves (93 percent)—to see Muslim Americans as being loyal to the United States, compared to less than 60 percent of Christian respondents. Conversely, more than a third of Protestant and Catholic respondents questioned Muslims’ loyalty, as did 19 percent of Jews.

The survey, which was based on nearly 2,500 interviews with respondents, 475 of whom said they were Muslim, poses a major challenge to efforts, primarily by right-wing Christian and Jewish groups in the U.S., to depict Muslims—and Islam as a religion—as fundamentally alien, if not actively hostile, to “Judeo-Christian” or “Western” values and U.S. society.

Those efforts reached a high point over the past year in the form of a largely successful effort to derail the construction of a Muslim community center—the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, and an ongoing state-by-state campaign led by the neoconservative Center for Security Policy (CSP) to outlaw the application of shariah, or Islamic law, in U.S. courts.

The latter campaign, headed by a former resident of a Jewish settlement on the occupied West Bank, has claimed that shariah is part of a plot by the Muslim Brotherhood to transform the United States into an Islamic, “totalitarian” state.

Those campaigns—as well as congressional hearings chaired by Republican Rep. Peter King this year on threats allegedly posed by Muslim extremism in the U.S.—have affected the public’s perceptions of U.S. Muslims. Their perceptions of the U.S. were not addressed by the survey, which is based on interviews conducted early last year and again last October, according to Mohamed Younis, a senior analyst at the Washington-based Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and main author of the survey analysis.

“I really can’t speculate on the impact of those events,” he told IPS. The survey also didn’t break down differences of views—based on ethnicity or other factors—among U.S. Muslims, who make up the most racially diverse religious SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

lobe_46-47_Islam in America 8/11/11 11:50 AM Page 47

community in the country.

Asian Muslims, who comprise about 18 percent of the total Muslim population, enjoy particularly high incomes on average, for example, while African-American Muslims—about 35 percent of the total— are least well off, according to the last major Gallup survey, “Muslim Americans: A National Portrait,” published in 2009.

Overall, Muslim Americans expressed more optimism about their lives, including their economic well-being, than all the other major religious groups, according to the survey.

They felt especially positive about President Barack Obama, the first president with Muslim roots. Eighty percent said they approved of his performance, compared to 65 percent of Jews, and only 37 percent of Protestants.

On the more negative side, nearly half of all Muslim respondents (48 percent) said they had experienced discrimination over the past year, compared to an average of 20 percent of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and 31 percent of Mormons.

And while, of all religious groups, Muslim respondents were most likely to express confidence in the honesty of elec-

tions (57 percent), they were the least likely to be registered to vote (65 percent), and to express confidence in the military (70 percent) and in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (60 percent), no doubt because they have been the target of repeated investigations, especially since 9/11.

Four out of five Muslims said they do not believe it is possible to profile a terrorist based on his or her gender, age, ethnicity or other demographic traits. Slightly less than half of the other major religious groups agree with that view.

According to a “religious tolerance index” devised by Gallup, in which respondents assess how strongly they identify with other religions, the survey found that Muslims and Mormons were the most accepting or “integrated”—defined as going “beyond a live-and-let-live [or ‘tolerant’] attitude (to) actively seek to know more about and learn from others of different religious traditions.”

Forty-four percent of Muslim respondents fit that definition, compared to 34 percent of Catholics, 35 percent of Protestants, and 36 percent of Jews.

Asked whether U.S. Muslims were sympathetic to al-Qaeda, 92 percent of Muslim

respondents, 70 percent of Jews, 63 percent of Catholics, and 56 percent of Protestants responded negatively. Nonetheless, about one-third of Christian respondents did not dismiss the possibility of Muslim Americans holding some sympathy for alQaeda.

On foreign policy in the Muslim world, U.S. Muslims tended to be more skeptical than other religious groups. Eighty-three percent of Muslims said they thought the Iraq war was a mistake, compared to 74 percent of Jews, and an average of 47 percent of Christian respondents. Muslim Americans (47 percent) were also the most likely to see U.S. military action in Afghanistan as mistaken, compared to about one-third of Jews and Catholics and 29 percent of Protestants.

While most respondents of all religious groups said the U.S. suffered a negative image in Muslim world, Muslim Americans (65 percent) were the only group that attributed it to “what the U.S. has done,” as opposed to “misinformation…about what the U.S. has done.” Seventy percent of Catholics, 65 percent of Protestants, and 55 percent of Jews attributed Washington’s negative image to misinformation. ❑

(Advertisement)

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

47

brownfeld_48-49_Israel and Judaism 8/9/11 11:31 PM Page 48

Jewish Opinion Being Alienated by Israeli Policies, Not by Any “Delegitimization” Campaign Israel andJudaism

By Allan C. Brownfeld here is an effort by the Israeli govern-

Tment and the organized American Jew-

ish community to make it appear that there is a concerted international effort to “delegitimize” Israel. Thus, when there is criticism of particular Israeli policies, the treatment of Palestinians under occupation, or the growing influence of the settler movement and religious extremists, it is all said to be simply an effort to “delegitimize” the state.

In June, one of the panels at the Third Annual Presidential Conference in Jerusalem was titled “Delegitimization: Who is at fault? Us or them?” Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, provided as a working definition for delegitimization the questioning of “The right of Israel to exist.

It’s not about policies, it’s not 1967, it’s 1947. It’s denying Israel the right that all other countries have.”

According to Abraham Foxman, executive director of the Anti-Defamation League, delegitimization is “Rejection of Israel. Period. It’s just a fancy name for nonacceptance of Israel.”

Quite to the contrary, however, the fact is that world opinion, including Jewish opinion, is changing with regard to Israel not because there is an effort to challenge its right to exist as a state, but because of sharp disagreement with its policies and its retreat from the democratic values it repeatedly says it represents, as in its claim to be the “only democracy” in the Middle East.

In an article published in the June 23 Huffington Post entitled “Netanyahu is the One ‘Delegitimizing’ Israel,” M.J. Rosenberg argued that it is Israel’s own actions that are eroding its legitimacy. He described attacks upon critics as “delegitimizers” as an effort “to change the subject from the existence of the occupation to the existence of Israel...That is why Prime MinAllan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism.

48

ister Netanyahu routinely invokes Israel’s ‘right to self-defense’ every time he tries to explain away some Israeli attack on Palestinians...If the whole Israeli-Palestinian discussion is about Israel’s right to defend itself, Israel wins the argument. But if it is about the occupation—which is, in fact, what the conflict has been about since 1993 when the PLO recognized Israel—it loses...

Israel is not being isolated because it is a Jewish state and hence illegitimate, but because of how it treats Palestinians.”

he calls to boycott “T the State of Israel increasingly have come from within our own midst.”

Prof. Lawrence Davidson of West Chester University in Pennsylvania, writing in the June 6 issue of Consortium News, pointed out that, “The distinction drawn by the Zionists between acceptable and unacceptable criticism works only if one assumes that the policies and tactics of the Israeli state leading to, on the one hand, expansion into the occupied territories, and on the other, the segregation of its non-Jewish minorities, are not structural. Or to put it another way, that Israel’s imperial and discriminatory policies are not a function of the ethnic/religious definition of the state.

But what…if the behavior of the government flows from the very nature of a country designed first and foremost for a specific group? If that is the case, you cannot separate out criticism of this or that policy from criticism of the very character of the Israeli polity. Policies and state ideology are all of one piece.”

Dr. Davidson makes clear that he is “not singling out Israel in this regard...Actually, it would not matter if Israel (or any other country) was Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, White, Black or created for little green men from Mars. If any state (a) is designed to first and foremost serve one specific group while (b) having in its midst minorities which it systematically segregates by, (c) either structuring its laws in a discriminatory way, and/or purposely educating its citizenry to act in a discriminatory THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

fashion, (d) then from the standpoint of civilized, modern democratic principles, one can justly question not only its tactics and policies, but the legitimacy of the social/political structure that generates them.”

Beyond all of this is the reality of Israel’s movement away from the democratic principles it has always proclaimed to embrace.

Writing in the July 13 edition of Haaretz, Carlo Strenger reported that, “The flood of anti-democratic laws that were proposed, and partially implemented, by the current Knesset, elected in February 2009, constitute one of the darkest chapters in Israeli history. The opening salvo was provided

by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party with its Nakba law, that forbids the public commemoration of the expulsion of approximately 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war. Since then, a growing number of attempts were made to curtail freedom of expression and to make life for human rights groups more difficult.”

In July, the Israeli parliament passed legislation that effectively bans any public call for a boycott against the state of Israel or its illegal West Bank settlements, making such action a punishable offense. Critics and civil rights groups denounced the new law as anti-democratic and a flagrant assault on the freedom of expression and protest.

The so-called Boycott Bill was sponsored

by Ze’ev Elkin of Likud, the conservative party led by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In an opinion issued prior to passage of the bill, the legal adviser to parliament, Eyal Yinon, determined that elements of the bill bordered on unconstitutionality and struck at the core of political freedom of expression. Nevertheless, Attorney General Yehuda Weinberg gave the bill his approval.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel and other human rights groups said they were preparing to challenge the law in the High Court of Justice. The association described the law as “an anti-democratic step, intended to create a chilling effect on civil society.” Ilan Gilon, a legislator from the SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

brownfeld_48-49_Israel and Judaism 8/9/11 11:31 PM Page 49

leftist Meretz Party, said, “I do not know of anything that creates more delegitimization of Israel abroad than these laws.”

Last year, Israeli theater artists refused to perform at a new cultural center in the urban settlement of Ariel and in other West Bank settlements, causing a public uproar.

They were followed by scores of liberal Israeli academics, writers and intellectuals who said that they would not lecture at the center or in any of the settlements.

Elkin, the sponsor of the legislation, said that its principal importance was “the fact that the calls to boycott the State of Israel increasingly have come from within our own midst, and that makes it hard to wage a battle against a boycott in the world.”

Haaretz’s Strenger wrote that, “After talking to a number of right-wing politicians, I am unfavorably impressed by their total lack of understanding of the international scene. They have profound misconceptions about the Free World’s attitude toward Israel, and very little real understanding of the paradigm shift toward human rights as the core language of international discourse. They buy into Netanyahu’s adage that Israel’s existence is being delegitimized, rather than realizing that Israel’s settlement policy is unacceptable politically and morally to the whole world. Out of their utter confusion between international criticism of Israeli policies and existential danger for Israel, the right-wing coalition members look for a scapegoat to be blamed for Israel’s unprecedented isolation. The Israeli left and human rights organizations are an easy target. Instead of understanding that Israel’s settlement policy is a genuine catastrophe, they claim that NGOs provide the international community with ammunition for criticizing Israel, and are trying to silence them.”

Of growing influence in Israel, and perhaps the driving force behind the current anti-democratic initiatives, is the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which represents largely the nearly one million Jews who arrived in Israel after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Twelve years after its founding, it has become the third largest party in the Knesset, and its leader, Foreign Minister Lieberman, is now the kingmaker in Israeli politics.

Prime Minister Netanyahu now holds office primarily because Lieberman chose him.

In an article in the July 8 Forward entitled “Israel’s Soviet Political Party,” Liam Hoare pointed out that “Yisrael Beiteinu has a strikingly Soviet response to the question of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Soviet historian David Shearer in his essay ‘Elements Near and Alien’ asSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

serted that the Kremlin governed the empire as a succession of ‘special areas,’ which required careful management. As such, in borderland regions judged to be more vulnerable to external, non-socialist influence, so-deemed untrustworthy national groups were transported en masse to ‘safer’ parts of the union. This was the rationale behind, for example, the wholesale deportation of Crimean Tatars from the Ukraine to Uzbekistan and the Kazakh steppe in 1944.”

Hoare went on to argue that “Lieberman’s thesis is that the current consensus on a two-state solution is ‘based on a disturbing disparity,’ namely one that calls for ‘a Palestinian territory with no Jewish population and a Jewish state with a minority group comprising over 20 percent of the general population,’ the Arabs. To counter this perceived demographic imbalance, Yisrael Beiteinu proposes annexing all settlements on the West Bank which rest along the Green Line, thus abandoning some outposts, and in return areas of Arab concentration in the Galilee and Judean Desert would become parts of an autonomous Palestine...Writing off this political manifestation of Russian Jewry as simply a fringe influence clearly isn’t going to work anymore.”

At What Cost?

According to Eric Alterman, distinguished professor of English and journalism at the City University of New York, until the establishment of Israel in 1948 “Zionism was never required to define its goals. Was it a national liberation movement for the Jewish people, allowing them to create a society where they could be free of persecution and in control of their own destiny in their biblical homeland? Or was it a movement to liberate—or, more accurately, conquer— the land itself, regardless of the cost not only to its previous inhabitants, but also to the other values that modern Jews hold dear, including, most particularly, democracy and human and civil rights ?”

In the past, Alterman declared in a July 15 Forward article, the refusal of Palestinian leaders to become serious about a negotiated settlement allowed these two versions of Zionism to co-exist. “But those days are over,” he wrote, “and the tragedy of recent history is the fact that just as a majority of Palestinians have finally come to recognize that they must accept the inevitable and bargain from their position of relative weakness, the ascendant Zionist right has no interest whatsoever in peace, whatever the costs to Israel or to world Jewry, if it means parting with even an acre of ‘holy land.’”

Outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan reTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

cently made headlines in Israel when he complained that the Israeli government had failed to put forward a peace initiative with the Palestinians and that it had foolishly ignored the Saudi peace initiative, which promised full diplomatic relations in exchange for a return to the 1967 boundary lines. Dagan, a decorated hero, also warned against an attack on Iran.

Needless to say, he has come under brutal criticism. According to the June 10-16 edition of the International Jerusalem Post, “Minister-with-out-Portfolio Yossi Peled (Likud), a former head of IDF Northern Command...claims Dagan’s outspokenness ‘damages state security.’ Netanyahu’s associates and advisers have reportedly accused Dagan of ‘sabotaging democratic institutions.’ Science and Technology Minister Daniel Herschkowitz (Hebayit Hayehudi) said Dagan should stand trial for his comments.”

There can be little doubt that Israel’s policies and its retreat from democratic values, rather than any campaign of “delegitimization,” is causing its increased isolation in the world. Changing those policies—and moving toward genuine peace—is the most effective way to end that isolation. Israel’s American friends would aid Israel far more by urging such a change in policy than by assaulting those—both in Israel and elsewhere—who point to the counter-productive policies of the Netanyahu government.

Friends, as we like to say, don’t let friends drive drunk. ❑

IndextoAdvertisers Dish World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Friends of Sabeel . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Helping Hand for Relief and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF) . . . . . . . . 50 Kinder USA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Muslim Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Radio Baladi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 San Francisco Film Festival . . . . 27 Syrian American Council. . . . . . 26 United Palestinian Appeal (UPA). . . . . . . Inside Back Cover 49

hcef_ad_50_HCEF Ad 8/9/11 1:58 PM Page 50

mathew_51-53_Special Report 8/11/11 11:26 AM Page 51

Restructuring U.S. Foreign Assistance in The Wake of the Arab Spring SpecialReport

By Mathew O’Sullivan oreign aid is the U.S. government’s

channel of involvement in the Middle East.

Through financial assistance, Washington seeks to influence markets, militaries, societies and governments abroad. But just as recent popular uprisings demonstrate the Arab world’s disapproval of long-standing regimes, so too do they indicate objection to the external powers that have backed and funded the region’s status quo.

A recent poll by Zogby International reveals that favorable attitudes toward the United States in the Middle East are lower now than they were in 2008, during the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency.

This represents a marked shift from the relatively positive perceptions of the American government following President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009.

Polling conducted by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center between March and April 2011 shows 52 percent of Egyptians opposing any sort of U.S. economic aid to their country at all.

Although these stances may be in part a product of the vocal political climate currently pervading the Middle East, they unquestionably reveal the need for a drastic transformation of America’s financial engagement in the region. A new approach should stabilize Middle Eastern economies in order to bolster the progress of the Arab Spring, empower individuals to become involved in public affairs, and demonstrate that Washington is interested in supporting the people of the Middle East, and not just the governments that march in step with U.S. policy.

In the months since the Arab Spring blossomed, both President Obama and U.S. policymakers have sought to communicate a change in aid strategy—away from topdown statebuilding and toward increased civil society assistance, investments in small- and medium-sized enterprises, and public-private partnerships. Ideally, such efforts would bypass corruption-ridden state bureaucracies and allow communities Mathew O’Sullivan is a senior at Washington and Lee University and a former intern at the Washington Report. He can be contacted at <osullivan.mathew@gmail.com>.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

STAFF PHOTO M. O’SULLIVAN

Fmost significant and wide-reaching

(L-r) Daniel Brumberg, U.S. Institute of Peace; Michael Ryan, The Jamestown Foundation; Stephen McInerney, Project on Middle East Democracy; and Cole Bockenfeld of POMED discuss shifting military assistance to development assistance at a July 19 panel on Capitol Hill. to achieve prosperity and democracy through decentralized and locally tailored means. Obama’s May 19 pledge of $2 billion to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) for new ventures in Egypt and Tunisia supports the government’s recent and growing focus on producing bottom-up development by providing much-needed capital to entrepreneurs in the Middle East and by building bridges between U.S. and Arab businesses.

At a July 21 event hosted by the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN), Tamara Cofman Wittes, formerly with the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy and now deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, further conveyed the U.S. government’s intent to transform its aid strategy, stating that “the citizens of the region have made their own priorities clear” and that Washington will redirect foreign assistance programs according to the demands and democratic framework put forth by the Arab public. Wittes cited the State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative as an example: it distributes grants of $25,000 THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

to $100,000 to civil society groups that are locally run and benefit their own communities. Such initiatives are extremely important—especially since historically, as noted by James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, eighty-two cents on the dollar of foreign assistance have remained in American hands through donations and payments to major development organizations and U.S. contractors.

Despite these efforts, Washington’s rhetoric on restructuring its foreign assistance still fails to overcome many of the weaknesses that have defined its Middle East aid policies and provided support to autocratic regimes for decades. In a review of the federal budget and appropriations for fiscal year 2012, Stephen McInerny of the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) describes burdens on U.S. foreign assistance, including “dysfunction in the congressional appropriations process,” unsatisfactory levels of funding for democracy programs and civilian assistance throughout the region, and an enduring “imbalance between military and nonmilitary aid.”

51

mathew_51-53_Special Report 8/11/11 11:26 AM Page 52

Funding cuts implemented by Congress have a particularly strong impact on nonmilitary programs, which are deemed less important to national security. These budget reductions are affecting civilian assistance projects in Iraq and risk worsening the situation in the country as the U.S. military withdraws. In addition, Congress tends to overlook certain countries (such as Morocco) where civil society is thriving but in need of cash, while pouring unmanageable sums of U.S. dollars into others where there is insufficient institutional capacity to effectively use the assistance (as is the case in Egypt).

Congress also complicates the effectiveness of U.S. aid by attaching conditions to aid funding. When debating the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2012, some members of Congress—such as House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC)—proposed amendments that would prohibit bilateral economic assistance based on the country’s voting record in the United Nations and on the representation of certain non-secular government groups. The latter stipulation has routinely affected financing to the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority due to the political activity of Hezbollah and Hamas, respectively, and it is likely that Congress will impose similar restraints on Egypt based on the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement in the country’s emerging democracy.

The greatest mishandling of U.S. foreign assistance continues to result from the inflated allocation of funding to defense and security over development. MFAN listed the need to “budget for civil-military balance” as one of the key elements of foreign aid the government needs to fix “in the days and weeks ahead.” Yet in a July 19 POMED panel discussion on Capitol Hill, analysts voiced their doubt as to whether, due to legislative barriers, a shift of military assistance to development assistance could even be achieved in the short-run. It would be extremely difficult and almost impossible to initiate a massive direct transfer of funding from military to economic aid, explained Michael Ryan, senior research associate at The Jamestown Foundation.

Nonetheless, given the overwhelming burden of military financing on the U.S. foreign aid purse, a solution is essential.

For the eight Middle East recipients of U.S. assistance analyzed by McInerny in his report on the FY ‘12 budget and appropriations—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Mo52

rocco, Tunisia, Yemen and the Palestinian Authority—more than 55 percent of resources, or nearly $2 billion of a total of $3.5 billion, are assigned specifically for military and security assistance. The largest recipient by far on the list was Egypt, whose government received $1.3 billion exclusively for military support out of a total aid package of $1.55 billion. This strategy is worrying given the position the military currently holds in post-Mubarak Egypt and the possible negative impact that strengthening the armed forces may have on the democratic process there.

McInerny’s analysis did not include other major recipients of U.S. military aid, including Israel and Bahrain. Israel’s $3 billion foreign aid package—all of it devoted to the military—will remain unchanged for the coming fiscal year. As evidenced by recent demonstrations in the country, however, Israel has a growing need for social programs as well.

Is there any hope for an improved system of U.S. aid to the Middle East, or will strategic interests and institutional hurdles continue to hamper the potential for American-guided economic development in the region? Ideally, budget constraints, research on the security benefits of civil society projects, and the questionable role played by domestic armed forces in the Middle East in response to the Arab Spring will deter U.S. lawmakers from distributing the majority of foreign assistance to militaries in the future.

On the development side of foreign assistance, the executive branch and State Department fortunately are well aware of the need to invest less through large, centralized agencies and more through local groups and firms focused on human rights, political engagement and job creation. As the Arab Spring shows, central governments and politicians cannot always be trusted with the responsibility of guiding widespread economic and democratic advances. Nor is the United States ordained to draw the roadmap for growth and governance in the region. In the Arab world today, progress toward prosperity and representative government is being driven chiefly at the sub-national level, and it will behoove the U.S. to provide support accordingly and trust that communities and local, private organizations are best suited to work toward their own development.

Populations throughout the Middle East may not want the U.S. to be a leader or architect in the region, but would welcome it as a partner in the pursuit of economic and political empowerment. ❑ THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

“Hebrew Labor” …

Continued from page 11

the common practice by Jewish-owned companies of requiring army service when hiring for non-security positions is illegal, because it discriminates against most Arab citizens.

Yehuda Weinstein, Israel’s attorney general, wrote to Binyamin Netanyhau in June urging him to do everything in his power to stop the new bill from advancing.

He also pointed out that it violated a legal requirement in effect since 2000 to take affirmative action to increase the number of Arabs in the civil service. A series of targets set by the government have had to be reduced as the proportion of Arab workers has barely risen above 5 percent over the past decade.

Asked Gerlitz, “What is the point of objecting to racist plumbers when the Israeli parliament is trying to pass laws to do the same thing on an organized and much larger scale?”

Civil rights groups have long complained that Israel’s anti-discrimination employment laws are rarely enforced. The government responded in 2008 by establishing a Commission for Equality in Employment.

However, Jafar Farah, director of Mossawa, an advocacy group for Israel’s Palestinian minority, said the commission—as well as the police and government bodies—had proved “unwilling” to enforce laws when discrimination occurred against Arabs.

He said Mossawa had been trying for several months, so far without success, to close down a “Hebrew labor” Web site set up by Lehava, a far-right organization. The site promotes companies that hire only Jewish employees and serve only Jewish customers.

Lehava came to prominence earlier in the year when it unveiled a scheme to award firms barring Arab workers a “kosher” certificate—echoing the regulation of food by rabbis to accord with Judaism’s strict purity codes.

The certificate states that “the owner of this business employs only Jews, and not the enemy.”

Some Orthodox rabbis have given their blessing to the campaign, as well as overseeing a related boycott of businesses that employ Arabs.

Janet Shalom, a lawyer for the equality commission, said the “Hebrew labor” companies were clearly breaking the law, but SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

mathew_51-53_Special Report 8/11/11 11:26 AM Page 53

that the legal position of Yellow Pages in publishing the ads “needs investigating.”

No action had been taken against the companies so far, she said, because the commission lacked the resources to investigate.

Asked why the commmission had not prosecuted companies promoted on the “Hebrew labor” Web site, she replied: “It’s true we’re not doing that. It’s something to be considered.”

Zaher said she could think of only a few cases in which anti-Arab discrimination by employers had led to prosecutions.

The most prominent was a ruling by a labor tribunal in 2009 that Israel Railways had broken the law in firing more than 40 Arab crossing guards because they had not served in the army.

More recently, a supermarket chain in the Jewish town of Modiin was forced to rehire more than 20 Arab workers who were fired in March on the grounds that they posed a “threat to the lives” of Jewish colleagues.

Israel’s financial daily Globes suggested that the sackings may have been retaliation by management for the killing of five members of the Fogel family in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank a few days earlier.

In May Arab activists announced at a meeting in Nazareth the founding of the first independent Arab trade union in Israel since 1948, overcoming decades of opposition from Israeli officials.

The main trade union federation, the Histadrut, has long been criticized for giving preference to Jewish workers at the expense of their Arab colleagues.

Until 1959, Arab workers were barred from the Histadrut, also one of the country’s largest employers. Even after the reform, Arab members were restricted to a separate section of the union for many years.

A report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which admitted Israel last year, was highly critical of Israel’s treatment of Arab workers.

It showed that half of the Arab population lived in poverty, a rate more than three times higher than for Jews; less than 20 percent of Arab women were employed, despite high levels of education; a large proportion of Arab graduates could not find jobs or worked in unskilled jobs; Arab workers earned 40 percent less than Jews; there were few jobs for Arabs in the public sector; labor laws and the minimum wage were weakly enforced; and industrial zones had not been provided in Arab communities. ❑ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

BDS 1, Israel 0…

Continued from page 15

complaining about de-legitimization. We will continue boycotting, protesting, demonstrating and resisting the occupation—and we call on everyone else to do so.”

And that seems to be what the activists intend to do—positive defiance despite the threat of punitive civil suits.

“We’ve not come up with any comprehensive strategy on how to proceed,” acknowledges Neiman, “just to keep doing what we’re doing. We’re still privileged Jewish Israeli people, so this shouldn’t be about us.”

The same group of Israeli and Palestinian activists say the law shows that BDS is biting, and believe that the law’s passage will bolster the BDS campaign here and abroad, while exposing Israel’s colonial and racist nature to greater numbers in the West.

“This law tells a very interesting story about the level of confusion within the Israeli government and is another example in a pattern showing its inability to respond rationally to problems it has created,” says Hever. “Think in terms of a strategy – what problem is the Israeli parliament addressing? The growing international boycott campaign against it. Its solution?

Make the boycott illegal in Israel. Is that rational?”

Barghouti adds that this law is also important because it marks the first time that Israel—used to punishing Palestinians and international activists for any resistance— is now prepared to punish Jewish Israelis who criticize Israel’s human rights violations. “Israel is digging its own grave,” Barghouti says, through this escalation.

The threat to Israeli citizens “won’t lead to anything exciting, like unleashing a radical left,” jokes Hever, but it has provoked awareness and a rebellious spirit in many Israelis, including prominent artists and intellectuals.

Israeli journalist Yossi Gurvitz, who writes for the Israeli Web-based 972mag, says that the law has already brought some progress: “Peace Now, a rather lukewarm and controversy-shy movement, has—for the first time in its history—announced support of a settlement boycott. Many people who were not aware of the issue are now very much aware of it.”

It also provoked Roger Waters, a founding member of the rock band Pink Floyd and an outspoken critic of Israel’s human rights violations, to declare his alarm and THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

to extend his “full and passionate support” to those groups within Israel who endorse the BDS campaign and Palestinian rights: “What an extraordinarily retrograde step…to pass a bill that denies its people the right to protest the activities of their own government, which is all that BDS is,” Rogers said in a video he posted on the Internet as the bill was about to be passed by the Knesset.

McCarthyite Parallels Now Israelis sit and wait to see what will happen next. Like others, Ofer says he believes the law will fail—mainly because Israeli authorities are concerned about the McCarthyite parallels that are being made here and abroad to this and recent laws, with even mainstream and hawkish Israel supporters like the ADL voicing their opposition to the law. He also expects that Israelis who profit from the illegal occupation will not initiate any civil suits because they are aware that they may backfire.

Were they brazen enough to do so, however, Ofer anticipates that they would go after the larger, rather than smaller, organizations and individuals, as the latter have very few assets and the larger targets would send a clearer and more strategic message.

Several Israeli human rights groups, including ACRI, filed petitions with Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) as soon as the bill became law, and these might result in the law being overturned. Many in the pro-BDS camp view this as a mistake and say the law should have been left as is. Giving it to the HCJ to decide upon will perpetuate Israel’s “façade” of democracy internationally and silence many of its critics, they argue. Hever predicts that “Israel’s judges will play along” with this rationale and that the HJC will overrule the law as unconstitutional.

“Going to the HCJ…is putting a Band Aid on a gangrenous limb,” writes Gurvitz.

“What we need is an amputation. We should not go to the courts unless forced to—thus allowing Israel to be seen for what it is. In due time…the [European Union] will take notice of what happens in Israel and act accordingly… And the settlers will finally pay the price of the occupation the rest of us have been bearing for them in the last 44 years.”

In the meantime, once again, Israel’s government has scored an own-goal. This time, however, the home team is booing rather than defending the serious gaffe.

And the world is watching with increasing interest and scrutiny. ❑ 53

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 54

STAFF PHOTO H. GOELET

Rami Kashou Fashion Show

The American Federation of Ramallah’s annual conference included a spectacular July 8 fashion show by the renowned PalestinianAmerican designer Rami Kashou (c).

At the 53rd Annual Ramallah Convention, held at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC from July 6 to 9, Rami Kashou hosted an exclusive fashion show for attendees. Born in Jerusalem in 1976 and raised in Ramallah, the young designer grew up with a passion for fashion. Upon his arrival in the U.S. in 1996 he worked in retail before starting his own line. Runner-up on the popular Bravo TV series “Project Runway,” Kashou has become one of the elite in the fashion business. By dressing Queen Rania of Jordan, Heidi Klum, Jennifer Lopez, American singer “Fergie” and many more Hollywood “A-Listers,” Kashou has made a name for himself in the business.

For more information on this year’s conference, visit www.afrpdc2011.com. For more information on Rami Kashou visit www.ramikashou.com.

—Helen Goelet

Human Rights Back from Greece, Massachusetts Activist Discusses Gaza Flotilla At a July 8 press conference in Northampton City Hall, Massachusetts activist and Audacity of Hope passenger Paki Wieland described her efforts to reach Gaza as a member of the Gaza Flotilla Two. “We challenged the ridiculous notion that the people of Gaza are children and need to be taken care of [by Israel],” she said. “They’re an occupied people.”

More people know about Gaza now than 54

had promised them—he had actually gone did three weeks ago, Wieland added.

Wieland was among 37 Americans on to Gaza before we were there—promised the U.S- flagged vessel, which was stopped them money for reconstruction, and a year by the Greek coast guard about 45 minutes later I visited one of his aides in Washingafter departing for Gaza the previous ton. He said, ‘We can’t do it because week. When the ship returned to port, U.S. Hamas is in power,’” Wieland recalled.

Wieland said Gazans are capable of recitizen John Klusmire, captain of the Audacity of Hope, was arrested and jailed by building their shattered economy, but IsGreek authorities in Piraeus. Wieland, a rael, with U.S. support, prevents them Northampton resident, was among five from doing so.

Israeli pressure on the Greeks to stop the Americans arrested later by Greek authorities in front of the U.S. Embassy in Athens Gaza Flotilla ships took many forms, where they engaged in a hunger strike in Wieland noted. Someone telephoned an protest of Klusmire’s arrest and detention. anonymous complaint alleging that the “When the American captain of the boat Audacity of Hope was not seaworthy, she was put under arrest and incarcerated, we said. Under Greek law, even an anonymous thought the least the American govern- complaint about a vessel must be followed ment could do was visit him, which they up. The captain said the inspection was didn’t do,” Wieland said, “and certainly, of unusual, not the normal type of inspection for safety issues. “It was political,” insisted course, to advocate for his freedom.”

According to Wieland, the Flotilla effort Wieland. The complaint was later linked to was successful in once again focusing pub- the Israeli Law Center, an organization that lic attention on the plight of Palestinians has been supported by the controversial living under occupation in the West Bank Christian Zionist preacher Pastor John Hagee of San Antonio, TX. and under a punishing siege in Gaza.

While the Greek coast guard stopped Israel blockaded Gaza in 2006 after Hamas, which Israel and the U.S. have de- the ship, the heavily armed commandos clared a terrorist organization, won parlia- did not board it, she said. Under threat of mentary elections in the West Bank and boarding, the captain made the decision to Gaza alike that former U.S. President allow the Greek government vessels to esJimmy Carter certified as fair and legiti- cort the Audacity of Hope back to port.

Wieland described herself as a social jusmate. Carter has characterized U.S.-supported Israeli actions against Gaza as crim- tice activist and a retired social worker.

“What do you do with that last piece of inal.

Wieland told this reporter that she had your life? You try to make the world betpreviously visited Gaza in March 2009— ter than it was when you got here!” she deabout a month after Operation Cast Lead, clared. “The more people know about why Israel’s attack and invasion that took the we did this, the more public opinion will lives of some 1,400 Gazans, mostly civil- be on the side of freedom and justice for the people of Palestine, and particularly ians, including women, and children.

“I have seen the conditions on the the people of Gaza.” —Michael Gillespie ground,” she explained.

“It was terrible. We met with people who had lost family members.

Just the destruction of property in itself—even if 1,400 people had not been killed it would have been terrible. But all of those lives—it was just devastating.”

Wieland said she has been disappointed by her elected representatives’ responses to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“Unfortunately, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, our At a July 8 press conference, Paki Wieland of Northampton, own Sen. John Kerry, MA spoke about her attempt to reach Gaza.

STAFF PHOTO M. GILLESPIE

Arab-American Activism

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 55

Muslim-American Activism

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

(L-r) CAIR’s national executive director Nihad Awad, legislative director Corey Saylor (hidden) and Dr. Hatem Bazian from the University of California, Berkeley. lighting the absurd nature of anti-Muslim sentiments in America; and an innumerable group of interfaith leaders who have devoted themselves to promoting understanding between different religions. For their “Worst” list, CAIR singled out Reps.

John Shadegg (R-AZ), Paul Broun (R-GA),

Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Sue Myrick (RNC), who called for an investigation of Muslim Capitol Hill interns, asserting that these young individuals were possible “spies.” CAIR also highlighted the detriment caused by Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy and by Osama

STAFF PHOTO D. HANLEY

On June 23, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released its groundbreaking new report, “Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States 2009-2010,” researched and authored in partnership with the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender. The report, the first of its kind, examines the widespread presence of Islamophobia in American society, the source of prejudice against American Muslims, and the admirable work of individuals, institutions and groups seeking to counter Islamophobic trends in the U.S. CAIR intends to distribute the report widely, and asks the general public to stand up against Islamophobia.

The report focuses specifically on individuals with “rigid views” against Islam, rather than Americans who simply may be misinformed about certain aspects of the faith. CAIR defines an Islamophobe as one “who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims,” explaining that “it is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes.”

On this point, CAIR national legislative director Corey Saylor, one of the report’s co-authors, noted that while 70 percent of the American public opposed the construction of an Islamic cultural center at Park 51 in New York City, not all of these Americans necessarily possess unyielding views against Muslims—rather, their opinions may be informed by strains of Islamophobia in the media or in politics. The report therefore aims to investigate where the sources of Islamophobia lie and highlights how certain extreme, anti-Muslim individuals are attempting to impose their beliefs on the American public. CAIR hopes its report will expose how these individuals are threatening the rights of American minorities.

The report goes on to identify “The Best” and “The Worst” individuals and organizations regarding their impact on the improvement or worsening of the perception of Islam in America. The report’s “Best” list includes New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his statements on the Park 51 Islamic cultural center; comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for satirizing and high-

PHOTO COURTESY CAIR

CAIR Releases Report on Islamophobia

The Islamic Center in Gaithersburg, MD, held an Independence Day barbecue and invited the whole town to share hot dogs, hamburgers, chicken, corn and watermelon. Children enjoyed cotton candy and ice cream, and played on a moonbounce while their parents chatted with their friends and neighbors, including members of churches and synagogues, and local police. The Washington Report had a booth next to Susan Kerin (above), who told children about the U.S. ship Audacity of Hope, part of the second Freedom Flotilla, which tried to carry thousands of letters of love to the Palestinian people of Gaza from supporters around the United States. On July 4 the ship was tied up at a Greek military pier near Athens, while its captain sat in jail.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

55

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 56

Waging Peace A General and Two Senators Discuss Afghanistan’s Future The Institute for the Study of War hosted a panel entitled “Afghanistan in 2011 and Beyond: Counterinsurgency, Transition and Drawdown” featuring Gen. Jack Keane and the “neocon duo” of Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (ICT). Dr. Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution moderated the June 30 panel at the Newseum in Washington, DC. Keane, a four-star general who spent 37 years in public service, most notably as U.S. Army vice chief of staff, described the current U.S. military situation in Afghanistan as the best since 2001, when the U.S. invaded. In his view, the addition of 30,000 American troops helped the counterinsurgency effort and succeeded in taking control of Taliban strongholds in the south, the “birthplace” and ideological center of the Taliban. The Taliban will not return to power in those regions so long as the U.S. continues on this path, he argued.

This military progress has not ensured political progress, however, as the U.S. deals with an “ineffective and corrupt” Afghan government under its former protégé President Hamid Karzai. Looking forward to 2014, the U.S. needs to ensure fair elections as well as Karzai’s departure, the general said. Keane sharply criticized President Barack Obama’s troop withdrawal plan, calling it an “irresponsible decision” that undermines the gains that have been made as well as the campaign against the Haqqani network, an insurgent group closely allied with the Taliban in the eastern provinces, set to begin in 2012.

Senator McCain, a war veteran and the 2008 Republican nominee for president, echoed Keane’s criticism of the planned troop pullout, arguing that the decision was made without any military expert ap56

STAFF PHOTO A. LAHLOU

bin Laden and al Qaeda. Both sides of the spectrum—extreme Islamophobes and extreme religious militants—create a distorted and harmful perception of Muslims in the United States.

The report goes on to consider the presence of Islamophobia in all aspects of American life—from schools and communities to government and the media—and provides recommendations for how the American public can help to counter Islamophobia. The report is available in its entirety at <www.CAIR.com>.

—Mathew O’Sullivan (L-r) Dr. Michael O’Hanlon, Gen. Jack Keane, and Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. proval. McCain spoke of the risk of Afghanistan either falling back into the hands of the Taliban or becoming the battleground for wars between neighboring states such as Iran, India and Pakistan. The senator praised the military leadership and responded to claims that troops are exhausted. “They’re exuberant, they’re winning the fight,” he insisted. “You get exhausted when you lose.”

Senator Lieberman agreed that the U.S. is “succeeding” in Afghanistan. He mirrored the criticism of the planned troop withdrawal, arguing that, despite the vast technological advances in military warfare, the number of troops on the ground matters. Citing the reasons for America’s involvement in Afghanistan—which he described as the birthplace of the 9/11 attacks and a strategic area whose stability concerns the entire world—Lieberman defined “winning” the war as achieving the self-governance of Afghans without a radical government tyrannizing them.

McCain praised the U.S. military’s “remarkable” relationship with Afghan locals, but criticized President Karzai for his statements calling the U.S. an occupying power.

“He knows better,” McCain said, implying that the Afghan president uses such terms only to appeal to his domestic audience.

Lieberman added that, given the choice between the U.S. and the Taliban, Afghans would not choose the latter. He noted that it is also crucial for the United States to improve relations with Karzai, who will be in office until 2014.

The two senators expressed further concern with the Obama administration’s public discourse about the war. McCain told the audience he was “worried” about what he labeled “war weariness” in the U.S. government. Instead, he said, it should warn Americans about what is at stake in this reTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

gion of the world and explain why sending troops is worth the cost. Lieberman said he was disturbed by the administration’s reluctance to use the term “violent Islamist extremism” instead of “violent extremism,” which denies that the U.S. is fighting a specific kind of extremism. He proceeded to compare Islamic extremism with examples of white supremacist and animal rights extremism.

General Keane gave examples of Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghan war, notably the fact that 80 percent of arms used against the U.S. Army and its Afghan allies come from within Pakistan. “Radical Islam wants to take over Pakistan,” he warned.

The general also suggested that the Arab Spring is not only a repudiation of the Jihadist model, but is also inspired by the model of the United States—a view many Arab activists would reject.

In view of China’s rising power and potential conflict of interest with the U.S., McCain encouraged the United States to explore and expand relationships in the Pacific. “The Vietnamese are [our] new best friends,” he quipped as the former prisoner of war pointed to himself, “[showing] that if you live long enough, anything is possible.”

—Alia Lahlou

Nicholas Burns on Implications of Arab Spring for U.S. Policy U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns discussed “The Arab Spring and Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy” at a June 23 World Affairs Council luncheon held at the City Club of Washington, DC. After three decades as a diplomat, during which he served as under-secretary of state for political affairs, U.S. ambassador to NATO and Greece, and State Department spokesman for Secretaries Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, Burns joined the faculty at SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 57

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

has always been based on concern for stability. “We made mistakes in the past,” he admitted. “Now we need to recognize the changes that need to be made.” He described Secretary of State Hilary Clinton as the “perfect person” to lead the U.S. in a new foreign policy direction that focuses more on interaction with the region’s people, not just governments. —Alia Lahlou

After The Arab Spring: Toward Political and Economic Inclusion STAFF PHOTO A. LAHLOU

Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

He began his remarks by placing the Arab Spring in an international context he described as “the most challenging time for the U.S. since World War II.” The global recession, tensions with Iran and North Korea, and the multiple wars that the U.S. is fighting in the Middle East, along with transnational issues like climate change, trafficking and terrorism, have created a complex agenda for the U.S. “America today no longer has the choice to be isolationist,” stated Burns.

Praising President Barack Obama for his management of the Arab Spring thus far, Burns countered allegations that the U.S. is acting inconsistently in the region by arguing that “We cannot have a one-size-fitsall policy in the Middle East.” Differing political, military and economic interests throughout the Middle East justify the vastly different responses to crises, he maintained.

Burns defended Obama’s behind-thescenes work in Egypt during President Hosni Mubarak’s ousting and his decision to intervene in Libya despite initial skepticism. Deep concern from Britain and France, and support from the Arab League and the Security Council, pushed Obama to act proactively to “avoid a bloodbath in Benghazi,” Burns explained. Efforts in Libya are undermined, however, by the lack of support from key NATO allies who publicly criticize the mission, most notably Germany, a country Burns called “semiisolationist.”

Asked why Washington responded to the Libyan and Syrian crises so differently, Burns pointed out that the two countries are vastly different. Syria is more densely populated, making an air attack more likely to cause a high number of civilian casualties. The lack of consensus in the U.N. Security Council on how to move forward also makes the Syrian case more complex, he noted, saying he supports isolating and sanctioning the Syrian government while encouraging its people to continue fighting.

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Burns believes that, despite the difficulties, the issue must remain a priority for the U.S. government. “In 63 years, Israel hasn’t had a single day of security, and Palestinians not a day of justice,” he observed. A U.S. veto on the expected Palestinian declaration of statehood at the United Nations in the fall “would be very unfortunate,” he said, sharing his hope that the U.S. will either vote in favor of the

Ambassador Nicholas Burns said he hopes the U.S. will not veto the upcoming Palestinian declaration of statehood. resolution or abstain altogether. “We support a Palestinian state, we shouldn’t veto the most symbolic act,” he insisted.

Burns called Iran “the most serious security challenge [the world] faces globally,” describing it as a threat to the U.S., the Arab world and to Israel. He stood in support of the consensus in the U.S. administration that tough containment rather than military action is the preferred course of action in Iran. The U.S. should surround Iran with allies and keep a military presence in the area, he argued.

The ambassador spoke of the necessity of finding a balance between competing interests and ideals in the Middle East.

While the U.S. must support democracy and freedom, it is also tied to crucial economic and political interests, he noted.

“We cannot forsake our friends in the Gulf,” Burns said, adding that while this statement may sound hypocritical, “it is the only way to achieve balance in a complex region.”

Concerning the uncertain future of the Arab Spring, Burns opined that “it all depends on Egypt.” With a population of 85 million people, Egypt is “the heart of the Arab world” and is looked to as an example. He expressed disappointment over the lack of political encouragement and economic help coming from the Arab world, particularly the Gulf monarchies that have shied away from supporting demands for democracy, calling this policy “shortsighted.”

Ambassador Burns’ forthright remarks included criticism over traditional U.S. policy in the Middle East, which he argued THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

At a June 22 event hosted by the Washington, DC-based Middle East Institute (MEI), Helen Clark, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) administrator, and other panelists discussed how best to address political, economic and human development needs in the Arab world after the Arab Spring. Months after the successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the world is watching closely as the countries struggle to rebuild their economic and political institutions.

Clark noted that in recent months there have been more drastic changes in UNDP National Reports among the Arab states than there have been in decades. The challenges Arabs now face range from education to unemployment. “There is a mismatch between the supply of university graduates and jobs available for them,” she pointed out. “Over a quarter of graduates in Egypt are unemployed and 40 percent in Tunisia.”

The panelists made it clear that what needs to follow the toppling of decades-old regimes is building more inclusive societies, economies and governance systems.

“We do not know what the full outcome of the events unfolding across the region will be,” Clark acknowledged. “We do know that where regimes have fallen and transitions are on the way, hopes are very high.

Inevitably there will be bumps and setbacks.”

Robert Hormats, under secretary for economic, energy and agricultural affairs, gave a brief description of the recent UNDP report on the Arab region, which was conducted and written by Arab scholars. According to Hormats, formerly vice chairman of Goldman Sachs (International), the Arab Spring exposed four myths that have long been used to justify a stagnant status quo: 1) Governments can hold onto power without responding to people’s aspirations or respecting their legitimate rights; 2) The only way to produce change in the region is through violence or conflict; 3) Economies based on the concentration of 57

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 58

he said. “The problems that Egypt and Tunisia faced under Mubarak and Ben Ali in the ‘90s are still what they are facing now, just without leaders,” Walker noted.

“But with the economic dislocation and protest, they might be worse.”

—Awrad Saleh

UNDP Administrator Helen Clark describes the challenges facing Arab states. wealth and power in the hands of the few can be competitive in the 21st century; and 4) People of the region do not share universal aspirations of freedom, dignity, and opportunity.

Today’s new generation of Arabs reject all these false narratives, Hormats said.

They do not accept the status quo and are, in fact, connected to the wider world.

They also know that they can have a better future.

Hormats stressed the U.S. commitment to a long-term relationship with the people of the Middle East and North Africa. “We share with enormous admiration the efforts of many people across the region who have bravely and peacefully called for democracy and opportunity even in the face of brutal repression,” he added.

The U.S. has had a long and strong economic relationship with countries in the region and, in most cases, this has been mutually beneficial. In the past 30 years, Hormats explained, the U.S. has provided Egypt with over $28 billion to help advance healthcare and decrease child mortality, which has added 15 years to Egyptians’ life expectancy. America has also helped modernize the Egyptian banking system. “The U.S. will continue to encourage a credible transition to democracy that responds to their legitimate aspirations,” he concluded.

Former Ambassador Edward Walker, currently a scholar at MEI, joined the panelists and discussed similar points regarding U.S. relations with countries in the region. He explained that it will not be sufficient for the U.S. to be doing the same things and expect change. It is a critical time for the U.S. to be carefully engaged, 58

The Islamic Republic of Iran—relatively quiet amid the revolts of the Arab Spring—was discussed at length at a June 16 panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC. The event, titled “Iran: Will Repression Succeed?”, covered such topics as Iranian domestic politics, the strength of and challenges faced by the Green Movement, and the prospects for political transformation in Iran. The event was presided over by Prof.

Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University.

Robert Toscano, public policy scholar at the Wilson Center and former Italian ambassador to Iran and India, opened the conversation with an analysis of the Iranian regime’s claims to authority and the government’s inherent weaknesses. Speaking on the country’s theocratic foundations, Toscano noted that while the government claims to uphold Islam, “clericalism is no religion…You can be clerical and go against the principles that you’re preaching.” Corruption and clerical involvement in political matters are facilitating the deterioration of the regime’s religious and moral authority, Toscano stated.

Alireza Nader, policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, pointed out that the decline of the Islamic authority of Ayatollah Khamenei is attributable to the abandonment of his traditional role as national arbitrator in favor of increased involvement in Iranian politics.

The decreasing relevance of theocratic institutions in Iran has given way to the rising importance of nationalism, spearheaded in part by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and diverting attention away from the political supremacy of Islam.

As Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei bump heads, the Green Movement is gaining influence and now boasts roughly three million Iranian sup- (L-r) Alireza Nader, Shaul Bakhash and Ambassador Robert porters. This impressive Toscano discuss rising nationalism in Iran.

STAFF PHOTO M. O’SULLIVAN

STAFF PHOTO A. LAHLOU

Wilson Center Hosts Event on Iranian Politics, Reform and Repression

following, however, may not produce specific legislative gains or reforms anytime soon, Toscano cautioned, since the movement’s strength is largely due to its unspecified and broadly defined goals. Those aligned with the Green Movement range from members of Iran’s conservative Revolutionary Guards to young, secular progressives. Thus the leaders of the Movement, interested in maintaining such a wide base, are unlikely to come up with a detailed platform any time soon, and the party remains more of a social movement than a political body. Translating such an impressive expression of civil society into politics “is not automatic,” Toscano emphasized, and greater leadership within the Green Movement will be necessary in order to bring about a significant change in governance.

According to Nader and Toscano, the diminishing legitimacy of Iran’s clerical regime puts the system in danger of toppling. Nader noted that the loss of the ayatollah’s religious mandate as a unifying element for the country puts Iran in a position comparable to Egypt’s, when the government could no longer rely on Nasserism or Pan-Arabism as legitimizing ideologies.

And, Toscano pointed out, repression will not be a dependable method of preserving stability for three reasons: an overwhelming percentage of the population is unsatisfied with the government; repression would further decay of the regime’s authority; and, most importantly, internal divisions will be exacerbated under such an abrasive policy. The government therefore seems ill equipped to handle Iranians’ brewing discontent.

What will happen if the country enters another period of popular upheaval is difficult to predict, however. While Iran’s history of democratic systems—dating back

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 59

Bahrain’s Arab Spring The Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) hosted a June 29 panel discussion at the Capitol Visitor Center on “Tensions in the Arab Gulf After the Arab Uprisings: Implications for U.S. Policy.” During his introduction of the panel, POMED executive director Stephen McInerney called Bahrain a test of U.S. pledges about supporting democracy. The uprisings there are viewed as a challenge to the other monarchs in the Gulf, he said, and have prompted military intervention from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Panelist Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division, provided historical background to the “deep, deep roots” of the conflict between the Sunni ruling family and Bahrain’s majority-Shi’i population.

After a brief period of reform under the current king’s father, he explained, the years 2007-08 were marked by a rise in torture and sharp restrictions on civil society organizations. Street violence in August 2010 prompted a government crackdown that Stork labeled “disproportionate.” Uprisings in other Arab countries revived the opposition movement in Bahrain.

Stork noted that widespread arrests— part of a strategy of “political decapitation”—are reminiscent of the practices under police rule that marked 25 years of Bahrain’s history. He described the current legal system and the lack of rights afforded to prisoners, who are tried in military courts called National Safety Courts. In Stork’s opinion, there is a lot of “diplomatic wishful thinking” that the upcoming National Dialogue will solve the conflict between the protesters and the government, but the problem, he said, lies in how the dialogue is structured and who is and who isn’t at the table.

Hans Hogrefe, chief policy officer and Washington director of Physicians for Human Rights, discussed Bahrain’s violation of the principle of “medical neutrality” that is rooted in international and humanitarian law. The most important violations, he noted, are the lack of protection of medical personnel and material, of unhindered access to medical care, and of humane treatment of civilians. He pointed to the Bahraini government’s arrest of 47 medical personnel charged with siding SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

STAFF PHOTO A. LAHLOU

to 1903—may facilitate a smooth transition of power, Nader concluded, the situation could easily mirror the violent clashes experienced in Syria and Yemen.

—Mathew O’Sullivan

(L-r) Joe Stork, Hans Hogrefe, Leslie Campbell, Ambassador Martin Indyk and Stephen McInerney provide context to Bahrain’s uprising and advise a shift in U.S. foreign policy. with the protesters. Fourteen of them remain behind bars today. Hogrefe noted that this is secondary information, gathered through friends and families of the victims, as the Bahraini government doesn’t release official information. He criticized the U.S. for not having paid attention to human rights violations in the island country, and encouraged the government to express a position on the National Dialogue, which he feared would turn out to be “sham negotiations” similar to those held in Burma.

Leslie Campbell, senior associate and regional director for the Middle East and North Africa at the National Democratic Institute, outlined the format of the National Dialogue. Of the 297 representatives, only 15 members will come from the majority Al Wafaq Party, and some will come from political parties the government itself has created. The Dialogue is also very rushed, he noted, leaving little time for debate of the new recommendations. Despite the structural problems, however, Campbell encouraged the opposition to participate in the Dialogue.

Ambassador Martin Indyk, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, focused on U.S. policy in the context of the Arab Spring. The U.S. must balance democracy advocacy with the protection of its interests—most notably the free flow of oil at a reasonable price—in this vital and volatile region, said Indyk, a former AIPAC official and U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Washington “gave [authoritarian regimes] a pass” on political reforms and “turned the other way,” he said. Indyk described the toppling of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak as a “startling and deeply worrying development” for the Gulf monarchs, who now fear that President Barack Obama could call for them to leave as he did with long-time U.S. ally Mubarak. According to Indyk, this fear has created tension between the White House and the THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

Gulf palaces.

Clamping down on legitimate protest is a ”recipe for disaster,” said Indyk, who argued that the U.S. is not taking a clear stance toward Bahrain’s protests. The demands represent the very founding values of the United States, he added, but U.S. support for the Bahraini opposition would undoubtedly lead to tension with Saudi Arabia. Indyk argued that with regard to Saudi Arabia, Washington should focus on containing Iran and stabilizing the price of oil. It should also reassure Gulf monarchies that it does not advocate their downfall, but rather wishes for the establishment of constitutional monarchies, said Indyk, citing Morocco as a successful example of such a system.

The panelists advocated that continued events about the Arab Spring be held in Washington, noting the different centers of power and the role that civil society can play in shifting policy.

For more information on the Project for Middle East Democracy, visit <www. pomed.org>.

—Alia Lahlou.

Carnegie Center Discusses PostElection Turkey On June 15, the Carnegie Center in Washington, DC hosted, “Turkey After the June 12 Elections,” a timely panel in which the three featured speakers discussed the impressive victory by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Turkey’s developing foreign policy and relationship with the United States. Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the upcoming book The Struggle For Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square, opened the discussion by pointing out that AKP’s victory, while by no means a surprise, grants the party a “renewed mandate” and vindicates the policies that it has enacted thus far.

Commentator Ömer Taşpinar, professor at the National War College and adjunct 59

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 60

60

STAFF PHOTO M. GILLESPIE

PHOTO COURTESY CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE

One possible issue in need of Turkish leadership, Taşpinar added, is the sectarian rift affecting Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and other countries. With regard to how Egypt’s renewed foreign policy will take shape, Cook predicted that while Arab leaders will be able to use Turkey’s regional engagement as a model, they will far more likely create an independently tailored form of diplomacy than one that is heavily based (L-r) Ömer Taşpinar, Steven Cook and Henri J. Barkley pre- on another state. dict Turkish foreign and domestic policy changes.

Moderator Henri J. Barkley concluded the professor at the Johns Hopkins School for discussion by remarking that the complexAdvanced International Studies, said that ity and uncertainty of the continuing pothe AKP’s achievement—and its growing litical turmoil in the Middle East is far too electoral success over the past few voting much for Turkey to handle alone—thus cycles—is largely attributable to the Ankara will need to work closely with its party’s economic performance, particularly European and American allies to effecwith regard to the provision of social ser- tively involve itself in the region. The need vices, productive healthcare reform and for partnership will go against Turkey’s rising GDP. Although the AKP’s win was historical tendency to act unilaterally, but massive, Taşpinar explained, it failed to Barkley believes that Turkey nonetheless achieve the supermajority needed to will be less reluctant to participate in joint amend the current constitution and estab- diplomatic efforts in the future.

—Mathew O’Sullivan lish a French-style governing system, in which the current prime minister would UNAC-Boston Hosts Vijay Prashad likely run for president.

Cook and Taşpinar expressed similar The United National Antiwar Committee views concerning the implications of (UNAC) of Boston hosted Trinity College AKP’s recent election victory and the Arab professor and director of international Spring on Turkish foreign policy. Both studies Vijay Prashad on July 7. About 50 scholars noted that foreign affairs was not people gathered at Encuentro 5 in Boston’s an issue of central importance in the elec- theater district to hear Prashad’s presentations, despite the fact that Turkey’s diplo- tion, “Arab Spring/Libyan Winter.” matic standing in the Middle East may exPrashad is author of the award-winning perience a significant shift due to ongoing The Darker Nations: A People’s History of transformations in the region. The country the Third World (2009) and a soon-to-behas, in recent years, filled a political vac- published collection, Dispatches from Pakuum left by Arab leaders.

Now, with Arab populations finding their own voice, Turkey will potentially need to move aside on such issues as the IsraeliPalestinian conflict while Egypt becomes a more influential mediator between parties.

Previously, Turkey attempted to claim that, as a Muslim nation, it possessed a special understanding of and relationship with its neighbors; but with Ankara equally caught off-guard with the rest of the world in the wake of the Arab Spring, this no longer appears to be the case. Taşpinar remarked that Turkey will need to find a new mission in the Middle East where it can still play an es- Prof. Vijay Prashad of Trinity College spoke in Boston on July 7. sential diplomatic role.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

istan. In addition to an overview of Libya’s recent history, he discussed U.S. interests and actions in the region, “the emergence of alternatives to militarism in the world… and how the antiwar movement could position itself against this bout of militarism.”

The United States and France were both very uneasy regarding the revolutionary uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia respectively, Prashad said, and it was unfortunate for the U.S. government that Arab Spring protests spread to Bahrain, because that country is an anchor of American power, policy and interests in the region. “[The peaceful protests in] Bahrain had to be stopped,” he said, because Bahrain’s collapse would have seriously endangered U.S. policy in the Middle East.

“At that moment, Libya provided an historic opportunity,” continued Prashad, who recalled for his audience Libya’s preQaddafi history, dating back to the 1920s, as an important base of Western power and influence in Africa. “People don’t remember that the U.S. had a major base in Wheelis AFB north of Tripoli. It was a principal place from which bombing raids were conducted in WWII, both in North Africa and in Southern Europe.”

Prashad described the anti-Qaddafi group that defected to Benghazi in February as a sort of right-wing neo-liberal establishment within the Qaddafi government. That provided a huge opportunity for Washington, he said: “How better to take charge of the dynamic in the Arab Spring than to defend this particular uprising as the most authentic democratic uprising in the region?” He described the rebels as Libyans who had already sought to make a deal with the West and were close to the Pentagon, the World Bank, and other Western institutions.

From February to March, as the Egyptian struggle was increasing and gaining tempo, as the Tunisian struggle ended in one sense but as the protests continued, and as Bahrain picked up, Prashad explained, the U.S. and the French pushed in the U.N. for a second resolution on Libya.

“My thought was, ‘Why do they need a second resolution, when there was a pretty good resolution already?’” he recalled.

Washington and Paris began to amp up the rhetoric that civilians were going to be killed. Meanwhile civilians were being killed in Bahrain and Yemen, Prashad pointed out, but there was no question of any U.N. resolutions—“which is why I was puzzled when some of our friends on the Left got themselves so excited about Libya.

When they then said, ‘Well, just because SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 61

Two Views on Future U.S. Engagement in Iraq Washington policymakers and analysts continue to debate the future of the U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond 2011. On June 23, the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, chaired by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), organized public testimony on the topic. The invited panelists and members of Congress focused SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

specifically on President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing troops in Iraq to 10,000 men and women, and the implications for the Arab country’s stability. The decision to allow 10,000 troops to remain in Iraq would go against the previously determined security agreement that calls for all American forces to leave I r a q by D e c . 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 .

Richard Fontaine, senior adviser and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Lt. Col. Douglas Ollivant and Linda Robinson, author of Security, pointed out that Tell Me How This Ends: General David Petraeus and the such a move “would require a Search for a Way Out of Iraq. new security agreement with tive” of attributing Iraqi stability to the the government of Iraq.”

Even though Washington would need to military impact of the American surge. rewrite its defense contract with the Iraqi While U.S. armed forces certainly had some government, there is ample reason to be- sort of role in ameliorating the situation in lieve that both the Iraqi and American gov- Iraq between 2006 and 2008, he explained, ernments will be interested in maintaining a “military-centric” view does not acAmerica’s troop presence, Fontaine argued. knowledge the “deep social and political Keeping American forces in Iraq would forces that are in play during any civil conallow the U.S. government to oversee oil flict.”

Ollivant linked overcoming civil strife in production and nationwide stability until the Iraqi military is independently reliant Iraq with four specific elements: The leadand functioning effectively, which could ership of Sunni elites in establishing a political settlement; the desire of Shi’i leaders, happen as early as 2014, he predicted.

Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Re- and particularly Maliki, to achieve stabillations commented during his House testi- ity in order to consolidate power; the demony that Iraq’s situation has improved velopment of key Iraqi institutions and the drastically in recent years after the 2003 empowerment of Iraq’s central governU.S. invasion. In 2006, Iraq suffered from ment; and the support provided by the sustained civilian casualties and the poten- U.S. through newfound civil-military parttial for full-fledged civil war. Now, civilian nerships. All of these factors emerged in casualties in Iraq are down more than 90 addition to the alignment of local Iraqi inpercent, sectarian relations are improving, terests with U.S. goals, Ollivant added. and the Iraqi government appears gen- Sunnis in Iraq began to turn away from aluinely interested in the strengthening of a Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) not because of U.S. inilegitimate and representative political sys- tiatives, but because local populations optem, Boot said. Prime Minister Nouri al- posed AQI’s extreme social conservatism, Maliki has proven himself to be a reliable specifically with regard to shariah law. figure in the new Iraqi government, he And the Shi’i population’s rejection of added, and observers are confident that Muqtada al-Sadr’s militancy was not a the current political leadership in Iraq will product of American efforts as much as it continue to progress toward a well-operat- was in the interest of Shi’i leaders like Maliki to operate through stronger central ining democratic system.

Why has Iraq so successfully emerged stitutions rather than through partisan from the war and political turmoil that groupings.

Based on this argument about the surge, seemed to be suffocating the country only a few years ago? Some attribute Iraq’s se- one can contend that advances toward stacure position and political progress to the bility in Iraq—while potentially butmilitary accomplishments of the American tressed by the U.S. military—were derived “surge” in Iraq, which brought 30,000 ad- from the endeavors of Iraqi citizens deterditional U.S. troops to the country in 2007. mined to better their own situations and On June 28 at the New America Founda- the well-being of their country. Yet during tion, senior national security fellow and re- the House subcommittee testimonies, contired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Douglas Ollivant gressional representatives largely disreprovided an “alternative, counter-narra- garded this fact and were instead preoccuSTAFF PHOTO M. O’SULLIVAN

it’s happening in Bahrain doesn’t mean we have to not support [intervention] in Libya’—well, I’ve lived long enough to know that any imperialist intervention is a bad idea when it claims to be on the side of civilians,” Prashad said, drawing applause from his audience.

“If Libya goes to the American column, Wheelis AFB is going to be the home of AFRICOM…Nothing like having a huge air force base between Libya on one side and Egypt on the other. Libya is strategically located,” he added.

Reducing U.S. Middle East policy to a slogan, Prashad declared, “Oil must flow; Iran must go!” The other two pillars of American policy, he said, are Israeli interests and the war on terror.

The West is addicted to war, said Prashad. Rhetoric about helping women and civilians is often a smokescreen, and aerial bombardment as a failed strategy for delivering freedom to people has a terrible history. Prashad noted that, ironically, it is three very important women in the Obama administration—Susan Rice, Samantha Powers and Hillary Clinton—who have been pushing the humanitarian intervention line.

“Others are watching. Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—this BRICS formation—is interesting. It’s not a socialist formation. It’s not even necessarily antineoliberal,” he said.

“The BRICS countries, during the emergence of the Libyan crisis, tried to put forward an alternative strategy…Now the BRICS countries are trying aggressively, very hard, to create an alternative platform, again virtually unreported in the American and European media,” an alternative to the NATO/G7 approach to international conflict, the Kosovo model, which, according to Prashad, is to bomb from the air, isolate and put the leader before the International Court, and set up a government friendly to Western neo-liberalism.

The formation of UNAC is evidence that the American antiwar movement in the USA is reforming itself, Prashad concluded.

—Michael Gillespie

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

61

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 62

Quigley outlined a number of options that can be pursued in September: a General Assembly resolution which would call on member states to recognize Palestine as a state; asking the General Assembly to change the designation of the observer mission of Palestine to that of an observer state; and, finally, to actually apply for U.N. membership.

Palestinian Statehood: Sovereignty Ambassador Areikat discussed the legal And a New Reality at the U.N. background regarding the U.N. Security “The Palestinian people are fed up and are Council membership committee, noting not going to tolerate the continuation of that it can delay the process of submitting the status quo,” explained Ambassador the request to the General Assembly, Maen Areikat, chief PLO representative in which has happened before under U.S. Washington, DC. He and Prof. John pressure. The Security Council does not Quigley, President’s Club professor of law have the mandate to veto or to prevent a at Ohio State University, opened the 12th country from becoming a full member of Annual Summer Intern Lecture series July the United Nations, he explained, but it 12 at the Jerusalem Fund in Washington, can delay the process. On the other hand, DC. Prior to his assignment in Washington, the Palestinian Authority can resubmit its Ambassador Areikat served 11 years with request every day if it does get vetoed.

The ambassador proceeded to clear up the Negotiations Affairs Department. Professor Quigley authored the 2010 book The some of the many misconceptions regardStatehood of Palestine: International Law in ing the meaning of the Palestinian move.

“Some talk about unilateral declaration, the Middle East Conflict.

The two panelists examined the upcom- which is completely untrue,” he stated. ing September vote at the United Nations “We declared statehood in 1988, and it is regarding admission of Palestine as a mem- not unilateral. When you go to a body that ber state, and the implications its result consists of 192 countries that represent the will have for Palestine, Israel and the Arab whole world, and tell them that you want world. When Israeli Prime Minister them to accept you legally and legitimately, Yitzhak Rabin concluded the Declaration it’s not a unilateral move…This is a word of Principles in 1993, known as the Oslo that is used by Israel and its supporters accords, with Yasser Arafat, he received here [in the United States] to show that the some objection from members of the Knes- Palestinians are breaching their previous set who thought that Israel was actually commitments and obligations—as if the Isrecognizing Palestine as a state. But the De- raelis are honoring their commitments and claration of Principles stated that borders obligations.”

Recognition takes place not through inwere to be negotiated, Quigley pointed out: “You don’t negotiate a border with ternational organizations, Quigley noted, Amnesty International; you negotiate the but between sovereign states.

Another misconception is that the Palesborder with the entity that has sovereignty over a piece of territory…on that issue it’s tinians are going to the U.N. for recogniquite clear that Palestine constitutes a tion—a misconception widely used by Israel and the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol state,” he argued.

Hill, Areikat pointed out.

“What we are doing is going for admission to the U.N., not [for] unilateral declarations or recognition,” he explained.

The ambassador charged that Israel is trying to undermine and completely destroy the two-state solution, and said that the Palestinian effort is aimed at preserving the two-state solution.

“Now that they are targetAmbassador Maen Areikat (l) and Prof. John Quigley ex- ing Palestinian neighboramine the rationale for Palestinian membership in the U.N. hoods in Jerusalem, they are STAFF PHOTO A. SALEH

pied with the importance of American combat forces in Iraq. Until members of the U.S. government recognize the virtues of local statecraft, as explored by Ollivant, Washington will continue to be misguided about America’s own relevance in building stability in post-conflict environments.

—Mathew O’Sullivan

62

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

no longer building in ‘Jewish neighborhoods,’” he said. “If we cannot convince the Israeli prime minister and the Israeli government to accept the basis that the whole world accepts today, that it has to be 1967 borders plus agreed swaps, it has to be certain principles and parameters that even children all over the world understand today, what future state do we have left for negotiations?”

By seeking U.N. membership in September, he added, the Palestinian Authority is trying to show the international community that it is trying to preserve a two-state solution—because the only other alternative is a continuation of the status quo.

“We are not in the business of delegitimizing Israel,” the ambassador concluded.

“We are in the business of legitimizing Palestine.”

—Awrad Saleh

Congressional Hearing Re-examines U.S. AID to Palestine U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, held a July 13 hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC to re-examine U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Calling the recent unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah a “very troubling development,” Chabot emphasized that the safety of Israelis is a priority, and echoed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s opinion that Palestinian leadership can’t be a “serious partner for peace if it welcomed into its ranks vicious terrorists who continue to deny the very right of the State of Israel to exist.“ Chabot expressed his concern that Palestinian leaders are “willing to sacrifice the tremendous gains” they have achieved for a unilateral declaration of independence before the U.N. General Assembly this September, which he described as “political theatrics.”

“We are rapidly approaching a watershed moment in U.S.-Palestinian relations,” he said. “Both the reconciliation government and the pursuit of a unilateral declaration of independence at the U.N. could not be more contrary to U.S. interests in the region.

“The Palestinian Antiterrorism Act of 2006 very clearly stipulates conditions that must be met in order for U.S. assistance to continue,” Chabot added, “including that any Palestinian government accept the three Quartet principles: Acknowledging Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence, and agreeing to abide by past agreements.

No U.S. taxpayer money can or should go SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 63

STAFF PHOTO D. HANLEY

PHOTO COURTESY REP. CHABOT’S WEBSITE

ica’s international law, he Arab-Israeli diplomacy to a lively discusstated—but this does not sion on June 28 regarding the current immean that Palestine deserves passe in the peace process, possible U.N. our continued support any action in the fall, and the implications of less. Walles emphasized that both for Americans, Palestinians and Isnot only is such aid important raelis alike. to the wellbeing of the PalesWashington Post editor and columnist tinian people, but it also is ex- Jackson Diehl opened the discussion by tremely important to the well- asking each panelist how close the two being and safety of the U.S. sides are to reaching an agreement. AcMoeller pointed out that cording to Brandeis University Prof. Shai the Israeli government has Feldman, Israeli-Palestinian relations are agreed to all U.S. funding that headed for a train wreck at the U.N. Genhas gone to the PA. He cited eral Assembly in September. The PalestinU.S. assistance in training the ian train is moving at high speed toward new Palestinian national full membership in the U.N., Feldman said, army, its national security while the Israeli train is stationary, unable forces, as a fundamental rea- or unwilling to avoid the collision. The U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot reads his opening statement. son to provide aid to the PA. U.N. vote will be seen as a “green light” by There won’t be any changes young Palestinians who are planning to to a Palestinian government that does not in personnel or chain of command after the stage a massive march to Jerusalem, a Hamas/Fatah reconciliation, he noted, em- peaceful protest similar to Cairo’s Tahir embrace these three simple principles.”

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), the sub- phasizing that a Palestinian force must be Square demonstrations. This nonviolent committee’s ranking Democrat, who has re- well trained and maintained as it enhances protest would result in a massive clash with Israel Defense Forces, Feldman ceived more than $55,000 in pro-Israel PAC both Israeli security and life in Palestine.

Finally, Laudato discussed the important warned. contributions, described the Palestinian Dr. Hussein Ibish, senior fellow at the Authority (PA) as having a “split personal- role that USAID has played in developing ity disorder,” with leaders supporting the rule of law, civil rights and respect for American Task Force on Palestine, pointed peace with Israel on one hand but taking local government. Supporting the Palestin- out that there already has been a clash of troubling steps on the other, including co- ian justice sector increases the public’s policy and politics. Prime Minister operating with the “blood-soaked terror- knowledge of the rule of law, he pointed Binyamin Netanyahu is doing nothing but ists in Hamas.” It was time, according to out, adding that there has been a notice- perpetuating the status quo because it Ackerman, for the “convenient ambigu- able increase in the level of literacy and “works for him politically” with his doity” of the “Jekyll and Hyde government” growing academic communities in the mestic audience. Regarding the Palestinian West Bank. USAID has helped improve national unity agreement, Ibish said, to end.

In Ackerman’s opinion, the presence of roads in the West Bank, which has in turn “There is a Palestinian agreement to make Hamas in a recognized Palestinian govern- created jobs for those living there. Accord- an agreement, but nothing has been agreed ment and subsequent U.S. aid to Palestini- ing to Laudato, high-tech U.S. firms have on yet.”

As for the U.N. General Assembly vote, ans was equivalent to funding a terrorist also increased their presence in the West organization. We “can’t make peace with Bank. The USAID official was adamant there may be hope for a diplomatically usethat the money coming from his agency ful vote, especially if Palestinians receive half of a wannabe country,” he added Other members of Congress, including goes directly to projects that will increase the support of Spain, Britain, France and Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), John Duncan (R- job security and progress in the West other countries. Ibish said he believed that TN) and Brian Higgins (D-NY), echoed this Bank, and that the money is not going to restarting negotiations would avoid this —Helen Goelet “unnecessary conflict” at the U.N. in Sepsentiment. In fact, Higgins argued that ne- terrorist organizations. tember, which he said is against the intergotiating with the PA is not “complicated” ests of all parties. The prospects for reby Fatah’s integration with Hamas. “Hamas An Israeli-Palestinian Agreement? obliterates their legitimacy,” he stated.

The Woodrow Wilson Center in Washing- newed negotiations before September are The three panelists defending continued ton, DC invited three seasoned observers of not as grim as most people think, he added.

U.S. aid to the PA were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jacob Walles, U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and Palestine Lt. Gen. Michael Moeller, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Special Assistant to the Administrator for the Middle East George A. Laudato.

Walles began his remarks by saying that decisions must be made through direct discussion about institution building. The reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah will demand the full implementation of Amer- (L-r) Prof. Shai Feldman, Jackson Diehl, Aaron David Miller and Dr. Hussein Ibish.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

63

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 64

Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who has advised six U.S. secretaries of state on mostly fruitless Arab-Israeli negotiations, said that a solution to the conflict is not possible now.

In addition to the four final status issues— Jerusalem, borders, refugees and settlements—Netanyahu has added another: that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Miller predicted that the Arab Spring will continue to shape the region, not necessarily for the better, for months and even years. Israeli and Palestinian relations have not recovered from the disappointment at Camp David in July 2000, he stated, and warned there would be explosive consequences from re-launching premature negotiations that end in failure. Another failure would undermine the accomplishments Israel and Palestinians have managed to achieve on the ground: state building and security cooperation.

—Delinda C. Hanley

Potential for Peace in Palestine?

New Story Leadership: A Conversation About the Conflict

STAFF PHOTOS A. LAHLOU

The Middle East Policy Council’s 65th Capitol Hill Conference, “Arab and Israeli Peace Initiatives: A Last Chance for Negotiations?” examined potential developments in the Middle East peace process.

The July 25 event was moderated by MEPC executive director Thomas R. Mattair.

Shibley Telhami, professor at the University of Maryland, argued that the backbone of Israeli foreign policy is its close relationship with the United States. In times of uncertainty or fluidity in international politics, Israel’s top priority is always to secure its strategic relationship with the U.S. The recent Arab uprisings have made Israel’s attachment to the U.S. stronger, he stated, especially as an uncertain political future tests Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. “The Arab Peace Initiative is worth twice as much now as in 2002,” said Telhami, arguing that it would serve to revalidate the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

The potential retaliation to a declaration of statehood also carries tremendous economic weight: Congress has threatened to cut off U.S. aid to the Palestinians. Ibish suggested the possibility of Palestine becoming a non-member state as an alternative to full membership, a development that would both save face for the PA and result in greater privileges for it within the U.N. This would be a positive development, he said, as all 16 non-member states in the history of the U.N. are now member states.

Dr. Graeme Bannerman, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and founder of the international consulting firm Bannerman Associates, offered brief remarks on the effect of regional developments on the Israeli-Arab peace process. He outlined the events that led to the signing of the Camp David and Oslo agreements. Today, he said, the Arab Spring, shifting public opinion in Europe, and changing demographics in Israel and Palestine show the need for renewed negotiations.

To watch the entire event, visit <www. mepc.org/hill-forums/arab-and-israelipeace-initiatives-last-chance-negotiations>.

—Alia Lahlou

Dr. Scott Lasensky, a senior research associate with the U.S. Institute of Peace, outlined the Israeli Peace Initiative—a project that an “impressive” group of people have signed on to, he said, including academics, diplomats, business leaders and political figures. The initiative approximates the “consensus ideas” of the Clinton plan and of President Barack Obama’s May 19 speech, such as a return to the 1967 borders and a shared Jerusalem. The initiative—called Israel Yozemet, or Israel Initiates—is new, however, Lasensky said, as it approaches the conflict in a comprehensive and broad regional framework.

Lasensky, who earned his Ph.D. in international relations from Brandeis University and advised both the Obama-Biden and Gore-Lieberman presidential campaigns on Middle East issues, spoke of the nervousness in Israel surrounding the Arab Spring.

While Israelis may support democracy in the abstract, he said, day-to-day pragmatism has them worried about the changes sweeping the region. Touching on the general trend to the right and rising intolerance in Israeli society, Lasensky cited as an example the recent ban on boycotting settlement goods. Israel is “hungry for heroes, hungry for vision,” he concluded.

Dr. Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, focused on the expected Palestinian Authority (PA) application for full U.N. membership in the fall. This initiative came out of the PA’s frustration at its lack of agency within the peace process, he said, which depends on Israeli enthusiasm and on U.S. efforts.

Bringing the issue of Palestinian statehood in front of the U.N. proves that the PA has alternative ways of moving forward, Ibish pointed out. If the U.S. vetoes the effort as expected, he cautioned, there will be huge potential consequences. Since the February U.S. veto on a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, both Palestinian and international responses to continued settlement growth have been muted.

(L-r) Hussein Ibish, Scott Lasensky, Shibley Telhami and Graeme Bannerman.

64

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

New Story Leadership for the Middle East (NSL), a program designed to bridge cultural differences and disagreements by bringing together a select group of young adults, held a Congressional Forum at the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill July 14. This summer NSL brought four Israelis, four Palestinians and two Arab Israelis to Washington, DC to fuel discussion about the future of the two nations. In several public forums the 10 students shared their stories about living with American host families and interning at American organizations and congressional offices. Six of the students spoke on the Hill and shared their frustration with the current situation of Palestine and Israel.

The stories all started differently, but ended with the same hopes for peace.

The first speaker, Manar Saria, an intern at the World Bank who attends Ben-Gurion University in Israel, is an Arab Israeli whose generation, she explained, is able to speak both Arabic and Hebrew fluently and cross borders freely. “I know something about coexistence,” she said.

Saria said she has heard about the conflict from earlier generations and she knows what this new story should look like. “The opportunity is there,” she said.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

STAFF PHOTO K. CLOOS

activisms_54-65_Sept-Oct 2011 Activisms 8/9/11 11:10 PM Page 65

(L-r) Manar Saria, Samer Anatabwi, Bahaa Milhem, Jad Keir, Maria Ginzburg and Rotem Gabay don’t want to trapped by history and “live in the older generations’ drama.”

“We don’t have to be trapped in the history and past of the first generation.” Israelis and Palestinians don’t have to “live in the older generations’ drama. They can decide to live in the here and now.”

Maria Ginzburg, who studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and was an intern at the American Task Force on Palestine, described herself as an “Israeli by choice.” She grew up in Russia, where she said she could never escape prejudice and discrimination as a child. During a layover in Moscow after a short trip to Israel when she was 22, Ginzburg overheard someone commenting that she was Jewish and that she should move to Israel.

“I decided I will,” she said. For Ginzburg, moving to Israel meant finding a safe haven where she could escape lifelong discrimination and live in safety.

“I can’t speak for others, but I never intended to take someone else’s home or land,” she said. “Especially because I know what it’s like to be judged…I don’t want to be the reason for others to be displaced.”

All the speakers recounted childhood fears and memories of prejudice or violence.

For Rotem Gabay, an Israeli also studying at Hebrew University, who interned in the office of Rep. Jarad Polis (D-CO), the memory of a kidnapped cousin is what made her realize that she could not take her security for granted. At the age of 26, Gabay had never met a Palestinian before joining NSL. “An enemy is someone whose story you have not heard yet,” she said.

The story of two peaceful nations living side by side is one that Bahaa Milhem said he hopes to one day be able to tell. He grew up in Dheisheh refugee camp in Bethlehem and is studying journalism at London City University, hoping to follow in the footsteps of his father, an influential journalist.

“In a few years’ time, I don’t want to go back to Palestine to go cover conflict again,” Milhem said. “I have a dream today to cover peace between Palestinians and IsSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

raelis.”

Samer Anatabwi, who is attending Illinois College as a Hope Fund scholar (see August 2007 Washington Report, p. 36, for an article about the Hope Fund), told a similar story. As a 9-year-old child in Jenin during the second intifada, Anabtawi recounted the fear he felt as the Israeli army opened fire on his school bus. Years later, he said, he witnessed “orchestras of explosions” in his neighborhood. He learned bullets could also come from helicopters and saw a neighbor’s child screaming in a pool of blood. Anatabwi said he doesn’t want future children to witness the same horrors.

“I cannot be a part of the problem any more,” he said. “I cannot remain silent and let my children and Israeli children go through the pain I did as a child…Speak up for Israel. Speak up for Palestine. Speak up for a solution. Help us walk the path to nonviolence, help us end the occupation, help us be together, not one against the other…I will always refuse to hate.”

Despite their varied backgrounds, the students all shared the common dream of one day living in a society of peace between Arabs and Israelis. “There’s one shared story I think we’re all hearing today,” said the last speaker, Jad Kheir, an Arab Israeli Druz from Haifa who is a medical student at Technion and interned at the office of Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). “We are on a common quest for home. It doesn’t really matter—whatever you are. We are all on the same quest…we’re just looking for a place to belong. Is that too much to ask?”

—Kassondra Cloos

Ten Young Israelis and Palestinians Discuss Their Vision for the Future New Story Leadership (NSL) held a July 6 panel discussion at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. NSL selects young people under 30, rather than politicians or the so-called “experts,” to come to WashTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

ington, DC to intern each summer and tell their stories. While each arrived in the United States with different experiences and opinions of their conflict-ridden homeland, these young activists came together to open dialogues in hopes of bringing all communities affected by the conflict together once and for all.

Opening the talk Paul Costello, NSL’s founder and director, described NSL’s mission by saying, “We want to be representatives of a better future.” The interns put their differences aside, get to know and respect one another, and share their common desire for peace.

Four of the interns told their stories and explained how important the “shared willingness to embrace a diversity of human experience” is to the future of both Israel and Palestine. Goni Zilberman said her time in the IDF defined her beliefs today.

After joining the Israeli air force, she realized that “most of us Israelis can never get off ‘Military Road,’” and will be seen as militants for the rest of their lives.

Zilberman’s roommate, Manar Sarie, explained that her Israeli-Palestinian, or “grey,” identity spurred her desire to be part of the group of young men and women coming to intern in the United States. Her experience as an Israeli-Palestinian has made her realize that her “identification is neither accepted by Palestinians nor Israelis,” Sarie said. Through the group she is able to be “grey” and accepted for her identity. She is a symbol for thousands of people living in her “grey zone.”

Bshara Nassar said his grandfather’s dreams to “build bridges of peace and understanding” between conflicting peoples in his own home has helped him understand the importance of discourse between Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Finally, Tomer Mazie spoke for the entire group by saying that the only option for a peaceful future is to “be optimistic no matter what.”

These young leaders spent their summer spreading their message across the United States. After describing her first few days living with her Palestinian-Israeli roommate, Manar, Goni said she realized that “a good friend, like a mother, is someone who recognizes your weaknesses, but keeps dancing.”

While these young people certainly have their differences, they are determined to keep dancing until peace between their people is achieved.

To follow their journey visit <www. newstoryleadership.org>.

—Helen Goelet 65

opm_66-67_Other People's Mail 8/10/11 5:23 PM Page 66

Other People’s Mail Compiled by Alia Lahlou and Kassondra Cloos Our Own Worst Enemy To The Boston Globe, July 27, 2011

It was fascinating to read Renny McPherson’s analysis of the businesslike practices of al-Qaeda in Iraq. However, I was left with the insight that it was the U.S. invasion and subsequent toppling of the Saddam Hussain regime that was primarily responsible for the creation of this “criminal syndicate or mafia’’ in the first place.

McPherson showed that this was an organization founded by a Jordanian thug looking for a new gang and a new territory to terrorize. By putting the members of [Saddam] Hussain’s forces out of work, we provided the gang, and by creating havoc in the country we laid the groundwork for alQaeda in Iraq to gain a foothold.

This is just one more example of why we need to overhaul our policy in the region. Beyond the huge waste of billions of dollars of our money for misguided ends, we continue to prove that we are our own worst enemy. How long will our hubris in thinking we hold the answers to the world’s problems keep the people of other countries from solving them on their own terms? How long will it blind us to the need to solve our own?

Jeff Grove, Somerville, MA

Eight Years of Deaths To the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 3, 2011 For the last eight years on Sundays, I have gone to the California section and taken a moment to remember those listed in the military deaths.

Last Sunday, the feature had the note “The Defense Department last week did not identify any U.S. military personnel killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.” I wept. For me, that should have been under a front-page headline.

Dolly Burgess, Huntington Beach, CA

The Arab Uprisings To UK’s The Guardian, Aug. 3, 2011 For the third time since the uprising which overthrew Mubarak, Egypt’s army has beaten peaceful protesters out of Tahrir Square, arresting dozens including a 12year-old child. Families of the hundreds of Egyptians killed by Mubarak’s police during the uprising were among those attacked with Tasers and clubs on Aug. 1—a shocking return to the tactics of the old regime.

66

Although of course the assault on Tahrir Square is not nearly on the same scale as the horrific violence we are now witnessing in Hama and other Syrian cities, the attacks on the revolutionary movement in Egypt and Syria are linked. They are a reminder both of the courage of ordinary people in fighting for change from below, and a sign of how far these revolutions have yet to go to realize the hopes of millions across the Arab world.

We call on the Egyptian and Syrian governments to cease attacks on their people, and pledge our continued support for the struggle for democracy and social justice across the Arab world.

Signed by a long list of UK professors

Uncertainty in Israel To The New York Times, Aug. 1, 2011 It is unlikely that Israel’s prime minister can avert a fiasco as Aluf Benn contemplates in his enlightening article “Netanyahu’s fading opportunity.” A deep mistrust between the three key parties— President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian leadership—hinders any reconciliation and productive talk. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not on top of Mr. Obama’s agenda.

Mr. Netanyahu acts for his own survival, not the survival of his country. Palestinian leaders and their public hope for the best and are compelled to accept the worst.

The Palestinians’ plan to go to the United Nations in September to seek recognition of statehood is the only practical course to dislodge Mr. Netanyahu’s adherence to the status quo. The motion is likely to win support in the General Assembly.

Even if Washington vetoes the resolution in the Security Council, the Palestinians will have advanced their cause. It is anyone’s guess where the next steps will lead, but certainly America and Israel will come out the losers.

Samih A. Sherif, Montreux, Switzerland

Recognize Palestine Now To The Washington Post, July 22, 2011 Ziad J. Asali was mistaken in his July 22 column [“A showdown Palestinians should avoid”] when he advised Palestinians to yet again postpone the realization of their basic human right to self-determination. The longer it takes to establish the Palestinian state, the worse the frustration that PalesTHE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

tinians suffer and the more desperate they become, which inevitably leads to violence.

Worse, the more the delay, the better the chances of Israelis intent on making Jerusalem and as much of Judea and Samaria as possible Jewish.

This dangerous trend of provocative settlements and violent reactions, sustained since 1967, then justifies Israeli refusal to withdraw. This pattern has been repeated over and over. No more delays. Do it now.

Charles Kestenbaum, Vienna, VA

Zionist Colonization To Prime Minister Netanyahu, July 15, 2011 I applaud your offer to answer questions on any topic, from Arabs and others, worldwide. The old saying is correct: “Better jaw-jaw than war-war.”

As an 11-year-old, I remember the creation of Israel in 1948 and the race between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. to recognize the new state. But, as I became a historian, I realized that the American public’s support for Israel was based on sympathy for the survivors of the holocaust, and the Biblical notion that God had given Israel to his chosen people. Few American Jews, fewer gentiles, had an indepth knowledge of Zionism’s history. That remains true to this day.

You recently addressed America’s Congress. Many Americans support some of your positions. But few can outline your Likud Party’s politics beyond your speech, or know anything about its history. Revisionist Zionism is the dominant ideological movement in the party. Indeed your father was secretary to Vladimir Jabotinsky, Revisionism’s founder. But how many American politicians can define Revisionism? How many American Jews have read even one word by Jabotinsky?

The U.S. Congress arms Israel, Egypt and Lebanon. It also funds the Palestine Authority and trains its police. In 2012 the president and Congress will be elected by that public which knows so little about Zionism or Arab nationalism. No mincing words: Isn’t a politically illiterate American electorate a recipe for more dead Israelis and Palestinians, and perhaps some Americans?

With that in mind, I must now question you re Jabotinsky’s most important writing, his 1923 article, “The Iron Wall (We SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

opm_66-67_Other People's Mail 8/10/11 5:23 PM Page 67

and the Arabs),” so that Americans can at least have a clearer perspective on the Zionist aspect of the Middle East’s politics. As I know you are busy, I’ll wait seven days for your reply, and then circulate this note and your reply over the Internet. If you don’t reply, I’ll circulate this note and an English translation of “The Iron Wall.” In either case, Americans will have a clearer historical perspective re the Likud’s politics.

Jabotinsky defined Zionism as a colonizing movement. There are 14 usages of “colonization,” “colonists,” “the Jewish colonist,” etc., in the article. He insisted that: “Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population—behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate?

Their value to us is that an outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.”

You frequently use Jabotinsky’s term, the iron wall. How do you, today in 2011, evaluate Jabotinsky’s 1923 article? Is it still valid? In what ways is it out of date? Was Zionism indeed a colonial movement in 1923? Is it still a colonial movement?

I look forward to your answers to these questions and your further comments about Jabotinsky’s article.

Lenni Brenner, New York, NY

Awakening to Injustice To Pete Seeger, July 21, 2011 I am a product of upstate New York as, I understand, are you. For the past year I have been a resident in The Redwoods, a retirement home here in Mill Valley, 15 miles north of San Francisco.

It took me 65 years to flush myself clean of my early Columbia County Republican brainwashing, only to find myself in a country which is now a Zionist snake-pit.

The announcement of your own awakening to the injustice of the Israeli “colonial enterprise” in Palestine in the [July 2011, p. 65] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is great news. How could I also have sat uncomplaining for so many years watching TV scenes of men with machine guns chasing stone-throwing kids trying to protect their homes?

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

No words can express the depth of my admiration and gratitude. I will try to support your efforts.

I hope this letter reaches you.

George W. Buffington, Mill Valley, CA

Flotilla Deserves Credit To Canada’s The Guardian, July 11, 2011 Regarding the “Door is open for providing aid to Gaza” [reprinted from Winnipeg Free Press], the statement is made that the flotilla serves no good purpose because aid could be delivered by other means.

I suggest the Winnipeg Free Press send or follow reporters and volunteers when this aid is delivered by “other means.” The world needs to hear the result of that effort. It’s disappointing that the efforts of the volunteers in the flotilla are not given credit for good works but are labelled “anti-Israel” and are only “seeking confrontation with Israel.” Does the editor believe that is the only motive of the volunteers?

I suggest he and others read What’s It All About? Israel vs Palestine by Paul Middleton, if they want to learn about the problems there.

Lynne Thiele, Stratford, Ontario

Norway Tragedy To Norway News, July 27, 2011 I was surprised to see no mention about the student protest of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, along with their boycott signs of Israel, on your Web site. This took place one day prior to the shootings on the island of Utoya. Also, Norway is voting for the entry of Palestine into the U.N. Could this have been a reason for the attack in Oslo? I’ll never believe that one man alone carried this attack out. I admire the Norwegian people for taking a stand on behalf of human rights for the people in Gaza and Palestine. Unfortunately, I believe your news is also censored, as is the case in the U.S. Barbara Gravesen, Lady Lake, FL

Islamic Law and Judaism

President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20500 (202) 456-1414

To The New York Times, Aug. 7, 2011 Re: “Behind an Anti-Shariah Push” I wonder what David Yerushalmi, a Jew, would do if he got his ban on Shariah and somebody else wanted to ban halacha (Jewish law)? What would he do when somebody wanted to ban circumcision or slaughtering animals according to Jewish dietary laws?

To win his self-invented war with Shariah, he will have to shred all of the protections that keep things like this from happening. Mr. Yerushalmi’s misguided campaign divides our society while it diverts our attention from the real fight with terrorists.

Mitchell A. Levin, Cedar Rapids, IA

White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111 Fax: (202) 456-2461

Targeting Muslims

WRITE OR TELEPHONE THOSE WORKING FOR YOU IN WASHINGTON.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Department of State Washington, DC 20520 State Department Public Information Line: (202) 647-6575 Any Senator U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3121 Any Representative U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-3121

E-MAIL CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE E-mail Congress: visit the Web site <www.congress.org> for contact information.

E-mail President Obama: <president@whitehouse.gov> E-mail Vice President Joe Biden: <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

To the Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2011 [Presidential candidate] Herman Cain’s comment about the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro left me, a Muslim, not only perplexed, but deeply despondent. Cain claims to believe in American laws, but his call to halt the construction of this mosque violates the First Amendment, as it would inhibit Muslims from praying in their place of worship.

Incidents like this put the future of the nation at stake. Extremists in the Middle East never hear about peaceful Americans who don’t detest Islam. Instead, they hear Cain’s comments. They hear Newt Gingrich’s comments.

I see a struggle in the minds of many young Muslims, both foreign and domestic, who look at these remarks and fear the direction these people want to take this great nation.

Syed Mubaahil Ahmed, Allen, TX ❑ 67

cartoons_68_Sept-Oct 2011 Cartoons 8/10/11 4:01 PM Page 68

Lexington-Herald Leader, Lexington

CWS/CARTOONARTS INTERNATIONAL www.cartoonweb.com

CWS/CARTOONARTS INTERNATIONAL www.cartoonweb.com

Morning Herald, Sydney

CWS/CARTOONARTS INTERNATIONAL www.cartoonweb.com

OLIPHANT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SYNDICATEDUNIVERSAL UCLICK. REPINTED WITH PERMISSION

THE WORLD LOOKS AT THE MIDDLE EAST

The Economist, London

KHALIL BENDIB

CWS/CARTOONARTS INTERNATIONAL www.cartoonweb.com

The New York Times Syndicate, NY

The Miami Herald, Miami

68

The Muslim Observer, Livonia

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

bull_board_69_Sept-Oct 2011 Bulletin Board 8/9/11 11:32 PM Page 69

Upcoming Events, & Obituaries —Compiled by Andrew Stimson Upcoming Events: Los Angeles-based Syrian-American hiphop artist Omar Offendum will perform at the Arab American National Museum (AANM), 13624 Michigan Ave., Dearborn, MI 48126, Sept. 8 at 7 p.m.

Tickets are $10, and $9 for AANM members. For more information visit <www.arabamericanmuseum.org>.

Café Palestine Freiburg will host a conference Sept. 10 and 11 on Palestine, Israel, Germany—The Boundaries of Open Discussion at Jos Fritz Café, Wilhelmstr 15/1, 79098 Freiburg, Germany.

Speakers will include Gilad Atzmon, Ramzy Baroud, Ibrahim El-Zayat, Alan Hart, Hajo G. Meyer and Sabine Schiffer.

There will also be an art exhibit by Viqar Ali and David Borrington. For more information, visit <http://paltagefreiburg2011.blogspot.com/>.

The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation will hold its 10th Annual National Organizers’ Conference in Washington, DC, Sept. 16 to 19 at the Thurgood Marshall Center, 1816 12th St. NW, Washington, DC 20009. Speakers will include Omar Barghouti, Phyllis Bennis and Rami Khoury, and internationally renowned violinist and oud player Simon Shaheen will perform. For more information e-mail <membership@endtheoccupation.org>, call (202) 332-0994 or visit <www.endtheoccupation.org>.

The Palestine Children’s Relief Fund will hold its 2011 Annual Benefit Gala, Healing Hands, with guest speaker Diana Buttu, on Saturday, Sept. 24, at the Hilton Anaheim, 777 W. Convention Way, Anaheim, CA 92802. For reservations or donations, call (562) 432-0005 or e-mail <pcrfsc@pcrf.net>.

The Arab American Institute and the National Network of Arab American Communities will hold their 2011 National Leadership Conference at DoubleTree Dearborn-Detroit, Detroit, MI from Sept.

30 to Oct. 3. Presidential candidates will address the community members during AAI’s gala on Friday evening. For more information visit <www.aaiusa.org> or call (202) 429-9210.

The Middle East Children’s Alliance will present An Evening with Ali Abunimah with Special Guest Alice Walker Oct. 5 at 7 p.m., at the First PresSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

byterian Church of Oakland, 2619 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612. For more information visit <www.mecaforpeace. org>.

Obituaries: Hyman H. Bookbinder, 95, a Washington lobbyist who represented the American Jewish Committee (AJC), died July 21 in Bethesda, MD, from complications related to dementia. Widely regarded as the doyen of Jewish representatives on Capitol Hill, he regularly testified before Congress, published op-ed articles in The New York Times and Washington Post, appeared on public affairs television shows, and personally briefed legislators.

Bookbinder began his career in Washington as a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, later working in President Kennedy’s Commerce Department. He was a key aide in President Johnson’s war on poverty, and served as director of the Eleanor Roosevelt Memorial Foundation. He also co-authored the book Through Different Eyes, a collection of debates between himself and former U.S. Sen. James G. Abourezk (D-SD), founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Motivated by the loss of 80 relatives in the European Holocaust, Bookbinder worked on such Jewish issues as U.S. foreign aid to Israel and the planning of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. He was also heavily involved in the 1960’s civil rights movement, participating in the 1963 March on Washington, and joining Coretta Scott King and others in the Capitol Gallery when the Senate voted to establish a holiday in Martin Luther King Jr.’s honor in 1983.

Archbishop Pietro Sambi, 73, a career diplomat who served in the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, died July 27 in Baltimore, MD. His postings included serving as the apostolic delegate in Jerusalem and Palestine, and as papal ambassador to the United States since 2005.

Born in Sogliano al Rubicone, Italy, Pietro Sambi was ordained a priest in 1964.

He joined the Vatican diplomatic service in 1969, and served in Cameroon, Cuba, Algeria and Nicaragua. After being appointed Vatican ambassador to Israel and apostolic delegate to Jerusalem in 1998, he became an outspoken advocate for peace and was respected by both Palestinians and Israelis. The archbishop famously criticized the building of Israel’s apartheid wall as “a shame to humanity,” stating, “this region requires bridges, not walls.”

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

BulletinBoard Sambi was heavily involved in planning Pope John Paul II’s historic visit to the Holy Land in 2000. During Israel’s 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity he proposed that Israel allow the 200 Palestinians to be escorted to Gaza. When the Israelis, citing security concerns, refused, Sambi responded, “This is the time to abide by the words and concepts that were born here: love, forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, peace, resurrection.”

He also was responsible for the Vatican’s condemnation of Palestinian schoolbooks as anti-Semitic, which led the Italian government to suspend its financial support for the Palestinian Ministry of Education.

In 2003, while addressing a U.S. congressional delegation, Sambi strongly criticized the Palestinian Authority’s new constitution. In 2007, he stirred further controversy by pointing out that Israel had failed to implement the terms of the 1993 treaty that established diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Israel. The Vatican distanced itself from his comments.

Throughout his career, Sambi frequently campaigned for the plight of Christians in Palestine. In 2009, the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation presented Sambi with its highest honor, the Path of Peace Award. Reflecting on his four decades of diplomatic service, the archbishop said, “If there is to be peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it must begin with U.S. actions here.”

Stephen Everhart, 53, associate dean of the School of Business at The American University in Cairo (AUC), was killed June 23 when a roadside bomb struck his car while en route to the U.S. Embassy from Mustansiriyah University in eastern Baghdad. He was in Iraq directing a series of USAID-funded seminars aimed at helping Iraqi business schools to achieve international standards.

After working as a trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Dr. Everhart earned a Ph.D. in economics from Georgia State University. He went on to develop a career in international business, focusing on investment in emerging markets.

He held senior positions at the World Bank and International Finance Corporation, taught at several institutions, and was eventually named director of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. In 2008, Everhart moved with his family to Cairo to join the AUC faculty and was named associate dean of the School of Business less than a year later. ❑ 69

book_review_70_Book Review 8/10/11 5:24 PM Page 70

Books Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger And American Jewish AntiZionism

By Jack Ross, Potomac Books, 2011, hardcover, 232 pp. List: $29.95; AET: $19.

Reviewed by Allan C. Brownfeld While many Americans may not know it, Jewish opposition to Zionism has a long history.

Rabbi Elmer Berger was probably the best known Jewish anti-Zionist during most of his lifetime, particularly from World War II through the l967 Six Day War and its aftermath.

A Reform rabbi, Berger served throughout the period as executive director of the American Council for Judaism, a group founded by leading Reform rabbis emphasizing its belief that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, and that Americans of the Jewish faith are Americans by nationality and Jews by religion, just as other Americans are Catholics, Protestants or Muslims.

In an important new biography of Rabbi Berger, Jack Ross places liberal Jewish antiZionism (as opposed to that of Orthodox or revolutionary socialist Jews) in historical perspective. That brand of anti-Zionism, Ross believes, was embodied by Elmer Berger and his predecessors in the Reform rabbinate.

According to Ross, the classical doctrine of Reform Judaism, which prevailed for the century of its existence until about the 1930s, “based its opposition to Zionism on two premises: first that Judaism was a religion only and not the basis of an ethnic or national identity, and second, the renunciation of any messianic expectations, be it the coming of a personal messiah, the restoration of a Jewish state, or of the ancient sacrificial religion and priesthood.”

The definitive statement of Reform Jewish belief was issued in 1885, reflecting the classical liberalism of Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, who founded the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. This was the Pittsburgh Platform, which declared, “We consider

ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore, expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any laws concerning the Jewish state.”

Elmer Berger, born in Cleveland in 1907, was ordained at Hebrew Union College, which upheld the Classical Reform philosophy. While Berger maintained these views throughout his life, Reform Judaism itself slowly abandoned them and embraced Zionism. Those Jews who maintained the Classical Reform ideas, notes Ross, were viewed by the organized Jewish community as mortal enemies: “the exorcism of the antiZionists from the Reform movement would undeniably be among the most vicious and merciless purge of heretics in the history of American religion, perhaps rivaled only by the suppression of Mormon polygamy.”

The American Council for Judaism was organized in 1942 to maintain the traditional Reform view of a universal prophetic Judaism and opposition to Jewish nationalism. Many prominent rabbis attended the first meeting in Atlantic City, including Morris Lazaron of Baltimore, Irving Reichert of San Fransisco, and Samuel Goldenson of New York. Berger was named its first executive director, and the widely respected philanthropist Lessing Rosenwald became its president.

The Council opposed the creation of a Jewish state but called for Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British Mandate to ease the post-World War II refugee crisis in Europe. In 1947, it formally accepted partition, wished the new state well, but declared that, “Nationality and religion are

separate and distinct. Our nationality is American. Our religion is Judaism. Our homeland is the United States of America.”

Throughout his long life, Berger argued on behalf of prophetic and humane Judaism. He worked closely with U.S. government officials to oppose any idea that the State of Israel could speak in the name of the “Jewish people,” rather than its own citizens. He also worked with, among others, Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to have Zionist groups register as foreign agents of Israel. He wrote and spoke frequently about the plight of the Palestinian refugees.

In this excellent biography, author Ross argues that the majority of American Jews now reject the Zionist notion that Israel is their “homeland” and that they are in “exile” in America.

During a dark period, Ross believes, Berger and his colleagues kept the faith.

Concludes Ross: “when we consider the fallen nature of mankind, the record of the Jews remains by far among the better in existence for persistently serving as an example of justice and righteousness. Under the same appalling circumstances of the 20th century, it is indeed difficult to imagine any other group producing such extraordinary men of conscience as Elmer Berger, Lessing Rosenwald, Uri Avnery...to name but a few.

Like the Prophets of old their example remains for the time when the world finally begins to retreat from barbarism and looks to those who warned against the madness in seeking how it might do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.” ❑

Allan C. Brownfeld, a syndicated columnist and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism, knew Rabbi Elmer Berger for many years.

70

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

book_catalog_71_Sept-Oct 2011 8/11/11 10:15 AM Page 71

AET Book Club Catalog Literature

*

Music

*

Film

*

Monographs

*

More

Fa l l 2 0 1 1 Suspended Somewhere Between: A Book of Verse

by Akbar Ahmed, PM Press, 2011, paperback, 144 pp.

List: $15.95; AET: $12. This collection of poems from the author of the groundbreaking works Journey Into Islam and Journey Into America represents a lifetime of writing. Exploring a world in turmoil—from the forbidding valleys and mountains of Waziristan to the think tanks and halls of power in Washington, DC—Ahmed’s works are introspective, emotive, and reflect his never-ending faith in humanity.

The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists by Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 2011, hardcover, 248 pp. List: $24.95; AET: $17. This surprising book asks an important question: with more than a billion Muslims in the world, why don’t we see more attacks every day? Drawing from government sources, public opinion surveys, and interviews with Muslims, Missing Martyrs provides a much-needed corrective to the West’s destructive misconceptions about Muslims and the Islamic world.

Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World by Robin Wright, Simon & Schuster, 2011, hardcover, 320 pp. List: $26.99; AET: $20. Acclaimed foreign correspondent Wright chronicles the new order being shaped by youth-inspired revolts toppling leaders, clerics repudiating al-Qaeda, playwrights and poets crafting messages of a counter-jihad, comedians ridiculing militancy, and women mobilizing for their own rights. Rock the Casbah captures a stunning moment in history and candidly details both the possibilities and pitfalls ahead.

Tahrir Square: The Heart of the Egyptian Revolution by Mia Gröndahl, American University of Cairo, 2011, paperback, 144 pp. List: $22.95; AET: $17. Capturing the great humanity of the revolution that impressed the world, this book presents a selection of Swedish photographer Mia Gröndahl’s moving photographs from those historic days, along with the verbal testimony of some of the people who were there. Includes a forward by Al Jazeera correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin.

Israeli Rejectionism: A Hidden Agenda in the Middle East Peace Process, by Zalman Amit & Daphna Levit, Pluto Press, 2011, paperback, 216 pp. List: $30; AET: $23. Delving into the “peace process” to discover why little progress has been made, Amit and Levit find overwhelming evidence of Israeli rejectionism as the main cause for the failure of peace. The authors demonstrate that the Israeli leadership has always been against a fairly negotiated peace and have deliberately stalled negotiations for the past 80 years.

Gaza Graffiti: Messages of Love and Politics by Mia Gröndahl, American University of Cairo, 2009, paperback, 156 pp. List: $29.95; AET: $20. Documenting the graffiti found throughout Gaza over a period of seven years, the Swedish photojournalist exposes the colorful and surprising range of artistic expression, and explores how these messages have been changing with the political situation.

Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism by Jack Ross, Potomac Books, 2011, hardcover, 233 pp. List: $29.95; AET: $19. Author Ross places liberal Jewish anti-Zionism in historical perspective as embodied by Rabbi Berger and his predecessors in the Reform rabbinate. The growing renaissance of liberal Jewish antiZionism, combined with the forgotten work of Rabbi Berger and the American Council for Judaism, makes a compelling case for revisiting his work in this full-length, definitive biography.

Light From the East: How the Science of Medieval Islam Helped to Shape the Western World by John Freely, I.B. Taurus, 2011, paperback, 256 pp. List: $28; AET: $19. Freely’s spellbinding story is set against a background of the melting pot of the cultures involved. It concludes with the decline of Islam’s Golden Age, which led the West to forget the debt it owes to the Muslim world and the influence of medieval Islamic civilization in forging the beginnings of modern science.

Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Vol. 3, Conflict without End? by Alan Hart, Clarity Press, 2010, paperback, 392 pp. List: $21.95; AET: $16.

The third installment of Hart's multi-volume work explores Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty and the repercussions of U.S. vetoes against U.N. Security Council resolutions criticizing Israeli aggression. Hart asks if President Obama can deliver an acceptable degree of justice for the Palestinians in order to achieve peace for all.

Shipping Rates Most items are discounted and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Orders accepted by mail, phone (800-368-5788 ext. 2), or Web (www.middleeastbooks.com). All payments in U.S. funds. Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express accepted. Please make checks and money orders out to “AET.”Contact the AET Book Club for complete shipping guidelines and options.

U . S . S h i p p i n g R a t e s : Please add $5 for the first item and $2.50 for each additional item. Canada & Mexico shipping charges: Please add $11 for the first item and $3 for each additional item. International shipping charges: Please add $13 for the first item and $3.50 for each additional item. We ship by USPS Priority unless otherwise requested.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

L i b r a r y p a c k a g e s (list value over $240) are available for $29 if donated to a library, or free if requested with a library’s paid subscription or renewal. Call the Book Club at 800-368-5788 ext. 2 to order. AET policy is to identify donors unless anonymity is specifically requested.

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

71

angels_72-73_Sept-Oct 2011 Choir of Angels 8/10/11 5:26 PM Page 72

AETâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2011 Choir of Angels Following are individuals, organizations, companies and foundations whose help between Jan. 1 and Aug. 1, 2011 is making possible activities of the tax-exempt AET Library Endowment (federal ID #52-1460362) and the American Educational Trust, publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. We are deeply honored by their confidence and profoundly grateful for their generosity.

HUMMERS ($100 or more) Americans For a Palestinian State, Oakland, CA Ahsen Abbasi, Leesburg, VA Catherine Abbott, Edina, MN Jeff Abood, Silver Lake, OH Diane Adkin, Camas, WA Dr. M.Y. Ahmed, Waterville, OH Emeel & Elizabeth Ajluni, Farmington Hills, MI Raji Akileh, Tampa, FL H.R. Alalusi, Moraga, CA Haroune Alameddine, Canton, MI Dr. & Mrs. Salah Al-Askari, Leonia, NJ Hamid & Kim Alwan, Milwaukee, WI Louise Anderson, Oakland, CA Dr. Nabih Ammari, Cleveland, OH Sylvia Anderson de Freitas, Paradise Valley, AZ Dr. Abdullah Arar, Amman,Jordan M. Arefi, West Bloomfield, MI David & Kathryn Asfour, Vallejo, CA Dr. Robert Ashmore, Jr., Mequon, WI Fuad Baali, Bowling Green, KY Alma Ball, Venice, FL Dr. Sami Baraka, Wyandotte, MI Rev. Robert Barber, Parrish, FL Jamil Barhoum, San Diego, CA Stanton Barrett, Ipswich, MA William Battistoni, Dickinson, TX Joseph Benedict, Mystic, CT George Wesley Buchanan, Gaithersburg, MD John Carley, Pointe-Claire, Canada Ouahib Chalbi, Coon Rapids, MN Patricia Christensen, Poulsbo, WA Donald Clarke, Devon, PA Joan & Charles Collins, Willard, MO Dr. Robert Collmer, Waco, TX Mr. & Mrs. Rajie Cook, Washington Crossing, PA William Coughlin, Brookline, MA Walter Cox, Monroe, GA Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Curtiss, Herndon, VA Taher & Sheila Dajani, Alexandria, VA Dr. Hassan Dannawi, Macon, GA Glenn Davenport, Corvallis, OR Hon. John Gunther Dean, Paris, France Lee & Amelia Dinsmore, Elcho, WI Dr. George Doumani, Washington, DC Gloria El-Khouri, Scottsdale, AZ Kassem Elkhalil, Arlington, TX Osamah Elkhatib, Dubuque, IA 72

M.R. Eucalyptus, Kansas City, MO Dr. & Mrs. Hossam Fadel, Augusta, GA Mr. & Mrs. Majed Faruki, Albuquerque, NM Barbara Ferguson & Tim Kennedy, Arlington, VA Paul & Lucille Findley, Jacksonville, IL Elisabeth Fitzhugh, Mitchellville, MD Patrick Flynn, Yorba Linda, CA Robert Gabe, Valatie, NY Ken Galal, San Francisco, CA Joseph & Angela Gauci, Whittier, CA Ahmad & Shirley Gazori, Mill Creek, WA Dr. & Mrs. Frederick Guenther, Newtown, PA Joyce Guinn, Germantown, WI Raymond Haddock, Spotsylvania, VA Dr. Wasif Hafeez, West Bloomfield, MI Dr. Marwan Hajj, Towson, MD Allen Hamood, Dearborn Heights, MI Erin Hankir, Ontario, Canada Shirley Hannah, Argyle, NY Robert & Helen Harold, West Salem, WI Prof. & Mrs. Brice Harris, Los Angeles, CA Masood Hassan, Calabasas, CA Albert Hazbun, El Dorado Hills, CA Alan Heil, Alexandria, VA Dr. Colbert & Mildred Held, Waco, TX Rich Hoban, Cleveland Heights, OH Veronica Hoke, Hillcrest Heights, MD Edmund Hopper, Hilton Head Island, SC Dr. Sami Husseini, Ithaca, NY Said Jibrin, Bethesda, MD Anthony Jones, Alberta, Canada Omar & Nancy Kader, Vienna, VA Akram Karam, Charlotte, NC Mr. & Mrs. Basim Kattan, Washington, DC Martha Katz, Youngstown, OH Ambassador Robert Keeley, Washington, DC Gloria Keller, Santa Rosa, CA Rev. Charles Kennedy, Newbury, NH Susan Kerin, Gaithersburg, MD Dr. Mazen Khalidi, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI Akbar Khan, Princeton, NJ Dr. M. Jamil Khan, Bloomfield Hills, MI Majid Khan, Bloomfield Heights, MI Dr. & Mrs. Assad Khoury, Potomac, MD N. Khoury, Pasadena, CA Paul Kirk, Baton Rouge, LA

Donald Kouri, Quebec, Canada Ronald Kunde, Skokie, IL Kendall Landis, Media, PA William Lawand, Mount Royal, Canada Fran Lilleness, Seattle, WA J. Robert Lunney, Bronxville, NY Anthony Mabarak, Grosse Pointe Park, MI Helen Mabarak, Ann Arbor, MI Robert Mabarak, Grosse Pointe Park, MI A. Kent MacDougall, Berkeley, CA Peter MacHarrie, Silver Spring, MD Farah Mahmood, Forsyth, IL Dr. Asad Malik, Rochester Hills, MI Joseph Mark, Carmel, CA Trini Marquez, Beach, ND Martha Martin, Paia, HI Tom & Tess McAndrew, Oro Valley, AZ Ben Monk, St. Paul, MN John & Ruth Monson, La Crosse, WI Maury Keith Moore, Seattle, WA Robert Moran, Richmond, VA Ahmed Mousapha, Madinah, Saudi Arabia Liz Mulford, Cupertino, CA John & Gabriella Mulholland, Alpharetta, GA Charles Murphy, Upper Falls, MD Joseph Najemy, Worcester, MA Jacob Nammar, San Antonio, TX Neal & Donna Newby, Mancos, CO Howard & Mary Norton, Austin, TX Michio Oka, El Sobrante, CA Dr. Ibrahim Oweiss, Kensington, MD John Pallone, Rapallo, Italy Edmond & Lorraine Parker, Chicago, IL Jim Plourd, Monterey, CA Patricia & Herbert Pratt, Cambridge, MA Catherine Quigley, Annandale, VA Cheryl Quigley, Toms River, NJ Dr. Amani Ramahi, Lakewood, OH Mr. & Mrs. Duane Rames, Mesa, AZ Nayla Rathle, Belmont, MA Frank & Mary Regier, Strongsville, OH Kyle Reynolds, Cypress, TX Neil Richardson, Randolph, VT Sean Roach, Washington, DC Rose Foundation/Wheeler and Makdisi Fund, Oakland, CA Dr. Wendell Rossman, Phoenix,AZ Brynhild Rowberg, Northfield, MN Edward & Alice Saad, Cheshire, CT Gabrielle & Jalal Saad, Oakland, CA

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

angels_72-73_Sept-Oct 2011 Choir of Angels 8/10/11 5:26 PM Page 73

Hameed Saba, Diamond Bar, CA Denis Sabourin, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Ma-moun Sakkal, Bothell, WA Dr. Yahya Salah, Amman, Jordan Anis Salib, Huntsville, AL Betty Sams, Washington, DC Dr. H.I. Sayed, Charlottesville, VA Elizabeth Schiltz, Kokomo, IN Dr. Abid Shah, Sarasota, FL Mahmud Shaikhaly, Hollywood, CA Richard Shaker, Annapolis, MD Theodore Shannon, Middleton, WI Lt. Col. Alfred Shehab, Odenton, MD Kathy Sheridan, Mill Valley, CA Shahida Siddiqui, Trenton, NJ Lucy Skivens-Smith, Dinwiddie, VA James Smart, Keene, NH Glenn Smith, Santa Rosa, CA Edgar Snell Jr., Schenectady, NY David Snider, Airmont, NY John Soderberg, Foley, AL Gregory Stefanatos, Flushing, NY Mubadda Suidan, Atlanta, GA Beverly Swartz, Sarasota, FL Thomas & Carol Swepston, Englewood, FL Mr. & Mrs. Ayoub Talhami, Evanston, IL Dr. Yusuf Tamimi, Hilo, HI Joan Tanous, Boulder, CO Cheryl Tatum, Owensboro, KY John Theodosi, Lafayette, CA Charles Thomas, La Conner, WA Charles & Letitia Ufford, South Bristol, ME Paul Wagner, Bridgeville, PA Joseph Walsh, Adamsville, RI Carol Wells & Theodore Hajjar, Venice CA John V. Whitbeck, Paris, France Nabil Yakub, McLean, VA Raymond Younes, Oxnard, CA Bernice Youtz, Tacoma, WA Munir Zacharia, La Mirada, CA Dr. Henry Zeiter, Lodi, CA Hugh Ziada, Garden Grove, CA

ACCOMPANISTS ($250 or more) Michael & Jane Adas, Highland Park, NJ Khaled Al-Maeena, Jeddah, Saudia Arabia Dr. Joseph Bailey, Valley Center, CA Heidi Beck, Cedarville, CA Elizabeth Boosahda, Worcester, MA Dr. & Mrs. Issa J. Boullata, Montreal, Canada William Carey, Old Lyme, CT William Coughlin, Brookline, MA Mr. & Mrs. John Crawford, Boulder, CO Richard Curtiss, Boynton Beach, FL Mohamed Dabbagh, Mahwah, NJ Dr. Rafeek Farah, New Boston, MI SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Eugene Fitzpatrick, Wheat Ridge, CO E. Patrick Flynn, Carmel, NY Bill Gartland, Rio, WI Ray Gordon, Venice, FL H. Clark Griswold, Woodbury, CT Fahd Jajeh, Lake Forest, IL Issa & Rose Kamar, Plano, TX Sandra La Framboise, Oakland, CA Matt Labadie, Portland, OR Barbara Leclerq, Overland Park, KS Jack Love, Escondido, CA John Malouf, Lubbock, TX Amb. Clovis Maksoud, Washington, DC Eric Margolis, Toronto, Canada Jean Mayer, Bethesda, MD Bill McGrath, Northfield, MN Alice Nashashibi, San Francisco, CA John Parry, Chapel Hill, NC Ambassador Ed Peck, Chevy Chase, MD*** Hertha Poje-Ammoumi, New York, NY Sam Rahman, Lincoln, CA Henry Schubert, Damascus, OR Yusef & Jennifer Sifri, Wilmington, NC Mae Stephen, Palo Alto, CA Michel & Cathy Sultan, Eau Claire, WI Union of Arab American Journalists, Dearborn, MI John Van Wagoner, McLean, VA James Wall, Elmhurst, IL Nigel Wright, Delmar, NY

TENORS & CONTRALTOS ($500 or more) Mohamed Alwan, Chestnut Ridge, NY Drs. A.J. and M.T. Amirana, Las Vegas, NV Dr. Lois Aroian, Willow Lake, SD Kamel Ayoub, Hillsborough, CA Dr. Joseph Bailey, Valley Center, CA Graf Herman Bender, North Palm Beach, FL Rev. Ronald C. Chochol, St. Louis, MO Lois Critchfield, Williamsburg, VA Douglas A. Field, Kihei, HI Michael Habermann, Hackettstown, NJ Hind Hamdan, Hagerstown, MD Ambassador Holsey G. Handyside, Bedford, OH Salman & Kate Hilmy, Silver Spring, MD Brigitte Jaensch, Carmichael, CA Rachelle Marshall, Mill Valley, CA Paul Meyer, Iowa City, IA Bob Norberg, Lake City, MN William O’Grady, St. Petersburg, FL Gennaro Pasquale, Oyster Bay, NY Phil & Elaine Pasquini, Novato, CA Ruth Ramsey, Blairsville, GA Dr. Mohammed Sabbagh, Grand Blanc, MI Mr. & Mrs. Donn Trautman, Evanston, IL David Willcox, Harrison, AR Ghulam Qadir & Huda Zenati, Dearborn, MI THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

BARITONES & MEZZO SOPRANOS ($1,000 or more) Asha Anand, Bethesda, MD The Estate of Pascal Biagini, Drexel Hill, PA G. Edward Brooking, Jr., Wilmington, DE Aston L. Bloom & Rev. Rosemarie Carnarius, Tucson, AZ Joe Chamy, Colleyville, TX Luella Crow, Eugene, OR Dr. & Mrs. Rod & Carole Driver, West Kingston, RI Linda Emmet, Paris, France Dr. & Mrs. Clyde Farris, West Linn, OR Gary Richard Feulner, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Evan & Leman Fotos, Istanbul, Turkey Dr. & Mrs. Hassan Fouda, Berkeley, CA Mary Ann Hrankowski, Rochester, NY** William Lightfoot, Vienna, VA John McLaughlin, Gordonsville, VA Luella Moffett, Virginia Beach, VA Mark Sheridan, Alexandria, VA

CHOIRMASTERS ($5,000 or more) Dick & Donna Curtiss, Kensington, MD* John & Henrietta Goelet, Meru, France Andrew I. Killgore, Washington, DC* *In memory of Grace Perolio **In memory of John Hrankowski ***In honor of the marriage of Marianne Tralewski and Harry Dennis

FARA Enforcement…

Continued from page 33

other parastatal Israeli foreign agents, are beginning to ramp up a new campaign to provoke the United States into attacking Israel’s current arch-nemesis, Iran. Meanwhile, the DOJ is sailing the wrong seas, using its FARA harpoon to hunt guppies rather than far more dangerous quarry.

Fortunately, there is growing public awareness that FARA has been undermined and misused. In May 2011 the Justice Department nervously witnessed the first ever public protest outside its headquarters in Washington.

As captioned by USA Today, the citizen objective was as pointed, direct and as substantiated by evidence as DOJ’s own recent charges against the KAC: “to re-regulate AIPAC under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act.” ❑ 73

killgore_74_In Memoriam 8/10/11 5:28 PM Page 74

Frank Collins (1911-2011) InMemoriam

By Andrew I. Killgore

the Palestinian West Bank.

He worked closely with Dr. Israel Shahak, the ago, Frank Collins immiJewish Israeli retired prograted to San Francisco fessor of chemistry at with his family in 1923.

Hebrew University. EvenAfter graduating from the tually Frank became the University of California at U.S. publisher of Shahak’s Berkeley, he worked for a translations into English time for Shell Oil Comfrom the Hebrew-language pany. In World War II he press. Even though he athelped produce explosives tracted many subscribers, for the war effort.

Frank sometimes spent his After the war, he went to own money to increase cirNew York and studied at culation.

Columbia University. There Frank Collins had a keen he earned his Master’s and interest in cosmology. He Ph.D. degrees in physical once noted wryly that few chemistry. He joined the of his friends in the retirefaculty of Brooklyn Polytechnic University (now Dr. Frank and Toni Collins on top of Mount Tamalpais, north ment facility where he lived understood what he Polytechnic Institute of of San Francisco’s Golden Gate, in 2004. was talking about. He even New York University) as a professor of physical chemistry where sultant on oil and nuclear issues with questioned Albert Einstein’s calculathe Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Work- tions, maintaining that the cosmos is he taught, published, and lectured. circular.

During the 1960s Dr. Collins was a ers Union.

Frank was notably generous to the It was in the 1980s that Frank leader of protests against the Vietnam War, and organized anti-war “teach- Collins became an advocate for Pales- Washington Report, and was always ins.” A longtime supporter of labor tinian rights. He made numerous trips willing to help the magazine when it unions, in the 1970s he became a con- to the Middle East and often divided had trouble paying its bills. We will his time between Jerusalem and his greatly miss his friendship and support.

His sister, brother and son predeAndrew I. Killgore is publisher of the home in Virginia. In the late 1980s he Washington Report on Middle East wrote many articles for this magazine, ceased him. He is survived by his focusing on illegal Israeli activities in wife, Isabel Routly “Toni” Collins. ❑ Affairs. orn in New Zealand

COURTESY BRIGETTE SCHEEL

Bjust short of a century

Nir Rosen…

Continued from page 41

make their cause Sudan and Nepal, where the U.S. is not involved, rather than places like Iraq, where we have so greatly contributed to the problems. For Iraqis under U.S. occupation, Rosen said, every day was Abu Ghraib when American soldiers routinely traumatized Iraqi families. The U.S. viewed Sunnis as bad and wrongly identified them with Saddam Hussain’s Ba’athist party.

Rosen accused Americans of seeming to view liberating Shi’i from Sunnis as comparable to liberating Jews from Nazis. When in 2003 the puppet governing council established sectarian quotas, Iraqis suspected Washington 74

of trying to push them into civil war.

That finally happened a year later, Rosen said, at an enormous cost that may never be known. By 2006 it was clear that the majority Shi’i had won.

Advertisement

**SABEEL DC METRO SYMPOSIUM** Saturday, October 29, 2011 9:30-4:30 “Jesus, Justice, Palestine-Israel: Challenging the Politics of Empire” Featuring Prof. Richard Horsley, PhD Ravensworth Baptist Church Annandale, VA (near Beltway I-495) Reservations: $30, students $10 (incl. lunch), scholarships available Info: phverduin@gmail.com, or call Paul Verduin 301-518-5551

THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

Rosen, who spent three months in Iraq earlier this year, described the situation as “terrible, but stable.”

Many former sectarian militias have turned to organized crime, violence, corruption and torture have become normal, and services are still inadequate, he said. The 40,000 to 50,000 American soldiers are mostly out of sight, their checkpoints and barriers now run by Iraqis. According to Rosen, the state today resembles Israel in that it has adopted a strong Shi’i identity; Sunnis are no longer killed, but they remain intimidated and comprise the bulk of the refugees now in Jordan and Syria. Iraq’s social fabric has been destroyed and its population decimated. This is a situation that should continue to concern Americans. ❑ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

upa_ad_c3_UPA Ad C3 September-October 2011 8/9/11 11:20 PM Page c3

!

!"#$%&'"&())*+,('*&'-*&%.//*#,01&"/&2()*%',0,(0%3&4(#',5.)(#)6&'-"%*&,0&'-*& !*%'&7(0$3&8(9(&(0:&'-*&#*/.1**&5(;4%&"/&<*=(0"03&(0:&'"&5"0'#,=.'*&'"& '-*&)"01>'*#;&%"5,"*5"0";,5&(0:&5.)'.#()&:*+*)"4;*0'&"/&2()*%',0,(0& %"5,*'6?&

! &

O-#".1-&6".#&1*0*#".%&:"0(',"0%&G*& (5-,*+*&".#&;,%%,"0?& ! &

@0,'*:&2 2()*%',0,(0&A A44*()3&BB05?&C CDDE&F F*G&H H(;4%-,#*&A A+*&F F!3&I I.,'*&C CEJ&& !(%-,01'"0&K KL&M MEEDN& O*)&M MEM&N NPQ>PEER&&&&S S;(,)T&55"0'(5'&U U-*)4.4(?"#1&&&&G GGG?-*)4.4(?"#1& & @2A&BB05?&,,%&( (&##*1,%'*#*:&P PECV5WVDW&0 0"0>4#"/,'&" "#1(0,9(',"0&( ())&: :"0(',"0%&( (#*&& O(X>:*:.5',=)*&''"&''-*&* *X'*0'&( (+(,)(=)*&. .0:*#&''-*&))(G?&

cover4_cover4 8/10/11 3:59 PM Page c4

American Educational Trust The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs P.O. Box 53062 Washington, DC 20009

September/October 2011 Vol. XXX, No. 7

Afghan volunteers with the SELA group carry bags of food supplies to donate to needy families in Kabul during the holy MASSOUD HOSSAINI/AFP/Getty Images month of Ramadan, Aug. 5, 2011.