Israel Blind To Its Own Isolation

I wrote less than two weeks ago that Israel was in an accelerating decline as a result of changed geopolitical realities in the Middle East, most recently and acutely the Arab Spring. That Arab Spring is now in the throes of a 2.0 reawakening and reconstitution of last year's settlements, as events in Egypt in the last two weeks have made clear, not to mention the momentum of Syrian rebels, rioting in Tunisia and renwed protests in Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, etc.

But like a Saudi Emir who can't see the protests outside his window past his line of servants, the Israeli regime appears to have no idea that they are more isolated than ever. Or, perhaps they do, but are unable to change their modus operandi because it is hard-baked into how the state operates, ie. by terror, humiliation and intimidation.

In any case, there's no doubt the world is a changed place when the UK and France call in Israel's ambassador to condemn plans to build 3,000 illegal settler homes as revenge for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas seeking recognition at the UN. And the UK's mooting of the possibility that it will withdraw its own ambassador from Israel - a major diplomatic slap in the face - is a stunning development. You have to know that America's given its approval for this strong response - the UK is, after all, the tail that the American dog wags.

This is not really the result of Israel engaging in illegal or inhumane practices. Israel has been building settlements in the West Bank since it seized control of it, and Gaza, during the 1967 war. This is not a new event. What has changed isn't Israel, it's everything else.

The US and Europe all fear that Israel's uncontrollable brutality is inflaming the region, making it more unstable and more anti-American/anti-European. They are deepening the radicalization. Where once Israel's policy of armed fury towards all comers was useful to keep in line weak and despotic Arab regimes, it is now a hindrance. At a time when Mohammad Morsi, president of Egypt, is facing a revolt for being too much like Mubarak, despised in part for his refusal to confront Israel, Israel's actions could undermine Morsi's credibility further. Or it could force him to hit back at Israel to bolster his domestic position, putting the Camp David Treaty with Israel, which underpins American hegemony, at risk.

Israel really is shooting itself in the foot here. But it's not clear that they have any option. Already almost totally isolated - as the lopsided vote at the UN in support of granting statehood status to Palestine demonstrated - what is Israel to do? If it doesn't respond, coming after its perceived defeat in Gaza, it looks weak - which endangers its role as the American gendarme. And worse, it would look like it accepts the world's verdict that Palestine is a state, which would mean real negotiations towards a viable two-state solution. This it has never and will never accept. Israel has always played the long game, meaning it creates "facts on the ground" over time by stalling on negotiations as it pushes forward on settlement construction and economic strangling of the Palestinians. The end goal was always to gain control of all of Biblical Israel, in part because it provided a strong ideological underpinning justifying the right of European Jews to steal the land of the indigenous population, ie. Palestinians. But also because of the valuable natural resources - in particular water - that exists in the West Bank.

If the rest of the Middle East continues on its journey towards a deepening of democracy, Israel's bullyboy routine will put it increasingly in conflict with the policy of the Americans - and will stand out as anachronistic to the rest of the region. How this will play out in the end is unclear but if Israel closes off definitively the possibility of a two-state solution and the Americans place some distance between themselves (and their barrels of money) and Israel, they could be faced with their own Arab Spring - meaning a civil rights movement of Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs demanding full civil rights and equality.

France and Britain summon Israeli ambassadors - Middle East - Al Jazeera English:

'via Blog this'

Gaza & The Not So Slow Decline Of Israel

Not alone any more: Egyptian protestors in Tahrir last year

In some ways what just went down in Gaza was business as usual. Israel provoked a mini-war with Gaza killing a leading Hamas politician (who was, in fact, the chief negotiator for a long term ceasefire with Israel) after engaging in its "normal" policies of drone flights, missile strikes and, of course, economy-crippling embargoes. In the process they killed some Palestinians, primarily civilians, many of them children. The USA publicly backed every act of brutality and every lie of the Israeli government and military. Hamas, and other factions of the Palestinian resistance were hopelessly outgunned, while Abbas and the PLO were craven, irrelevant and despised by many Palestinians for being so. Most of the Israeli public cheered on the IDF and hoped for more Palestinian death and destruction.

And yet, things couldn't have been much different from one, let alone three decades ago. In the face of changes in the Middle East, not least the Arab Spring that kicked off last year, Israel is a European settler-colony in decline.

The changes are in many ways rooted in the economic developments of the Arab world that have pulled literally tens of millions of people into the cities - creating more workers, more literate people, more connected people. Turkey alone is industrializing with China-like speed, transforming the country and increasing its weight in the region. Alongside this has been a growing political awakening that received significant boosts from the two Iraq wars, the second Palestinian intifada and the indefatigability of Hizbullah in Lebanon. And the post-war, post-colonial set-ups, which often saw significant concessions to the masses by nationalist anti-colonial regimes – the Ba'ath party in Syria and Iraq, Nasser in Egypt, etc. – has been replaced by rapacious, go it alone neo-liberalism, creating resentment and class polarization.

Of course, this hasn't only affected Israel's standing as a few Arab dictators could woefully tell you - soon to be joined by Assad in Syria (I give him three months, tops). The accumulation of all those changes I indicated above were, at some point, bound to come together in an explosion. And what an explosion it has turned out to be. The Middle East is going through the kind of historic transformation that happens once in a century.

But neither has Israel been spared from this process. In many ways it had been spared from the more dramatic impacts of what was going on around it for the simple reason that it is the recipient of billions of economy boosting dollars in "foreign aid" from the USA (et al). It also receives the most advanced weaponry on the planet - often for free - from the USA. In fundamentals, Israel is a Sparta, an armed camp or, if you will, the USA's largest military base. Still, sooner or later, it was bound to catch up.

The first signs of how things were changing came from the invasion of Lebanon in 2006 (though I'm certain people could trace it back even further). Here was the IDF - an undefeated and feared military. It had launched wars before - pretty much every war, other than 1973 - and it had always won. In 2006, while it destroyed villages and neighbourhoods, and killed over 1000 people, it was forced to flee back to Israel. Hizbullah showed the whole of the Middle East (and the world) that Israel could be defeated and humiliated.

One year later Israel and the USA tried to depose Hamas in Gaza, though it had been chosen democratically in an election that was imposed upon Gaza - again, by the USA and Israel. And just as their forced election blew up in their faces, so did the attempt to foment a Fatah-led coup d'etat. Fatah was too corrupt and weak and Hamas simply drove them out of Gaza. In anger at their own stupidity and foreign policy failure, Israel imposed a near-total blockade of Gaza's economy. The idea was to put the Palestinians "on a diet" to cripple their ability to resist.

One year after that, in 2008, Israel invaded Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, wreaking wide destruction and killing over 1,000 Palestinians - again, mostly civilians. Israel's goal was to destroy Hamas - not stop rocket fire, which Hamas had effectively policed after agreeing a truce with Israel, which Israel repeatedly broke. Not only did Israel fail to dislodge Hamas, they generated an enormous amount of global criticism, which helped to create the movement to break the Gaza blockade. That movement spurred Turkey to break all ties with Israel, once its only Muslim ally in the region.

Now, here we are in 2012, still in the throes of the Arab Spring, which has deposed Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, once the region's greatest protector of the Israel/US hegemony in the Middle East. Israel is more isolated than it has perhaps ever been, with no regional friends whatsoever (though Morsi in Egypt is more moderate than his supporters and also more open to accepting the Camp David peace settlement as well - popularly hated in Egypt). This time Israel couldn't even invade Gaza. And, in proportion, as the popular voices in Israel became more shrill, with calls to wipe Gaza off the map and impose a Holocaust on the Palestinians, etc. Israel was more constrained from doing so.

Israel started this latest war by murdering Hamas' military leader and chief negotiator. And they have ended it by allowing Hamas to demonstrate that it is growing more powerful, more able to strike inside Israel. They have also agreed a ceasefire - that Israel will break, like all others - that includes an end to the blockade and the policy of targeted killings inside Gaza. Moreover, Egypt gave no commitment to stop the flow of arms into Gaza. It's no wonder that Netanyahu is being assailed from all sides. He presided over another humiliation that has left their comprador ally, Abbas, even more despised and discredited.

With this secular decline of Israel's role and power in the region, one wonders how long the Americans will continue to sponsor their favourite regional gendarme. What will be the next crisis for Israel and will it lead to its further isolation?

Arab Revolutions Put Iran Attack On Back Foot

There can be little doubt that the Arab revolutions have already transformed the Middle East and look set to continue and deepen that transformation. Dictators in Tunisia, Yemen and, most spectacularly thus far, Egypt have gotten the boot. In Tunisia and Egypt the working class played a sizeable role in their ouster and this has led to a labour spring involving the explosive growth in independent unions, rank and file confidence, wild cat strikes and political demands that would have been unthinkable even two years ago.

But while most of the left have applauded the revolts in those three above countries, they have been much more circumspect - and in some cases downright hostile - to the revolts in Syria and Libya (or the earlier and less successful Green Movement in Iran). The reason is honourable enough - they see the hand of imperialism stirring the pot in countries that, if not openly anti-imperialist now, were in the past and, in the case of Syria, still support anti-imperialist movements like Hizbollah and Hamas. The USA and its allies, the logic runs, want to see Assad overthrown in order to weaken the "axis of resistance" (as Iran's president branded Iran, Syria and Hizbollah in Lebanon, in a clever twist of the Bush mantra that labelled Iran and North Korea as part of an axis of evil). Many have even argued that the revolts in Libya and Syria aren't even really revolts but merely fabricated coups by pro-imperialist elements.

This is to miss the point on a number of levels. First the mass and sustained character of the revolts in both Libya and Syria (in particular Syria) bely the notion that these are mere quislings risking their necks to sell out their country. It also starts from a profoundly naive belief that true and pure revolts have no truck with imperialism. Sadly, no such revolt has ever existed. By definition a revolt is both the underdog - lacking the weapons and infrastructure of their oppressor state(s) - and heterogenous politically.

Since humans aren't the Borg and don't think the same things simultaneously, they can reach myriad conclusions, arising from their social location and personal experiences. Some sectors of a revolt will draw the conclusion that the quickest road to victory is by aligning with the big countries of Europe or America to get access to guns and even the playing field militarily - not thinking about the price to be paid (or even accepting that price). Others will resist the conditional aid of outside states and prefer to build an indigenous mass movement.

And, lastly, imperialist countries never just sit on the sideline. Their multitude of intelligence agencies, secret services, state-funded aid organizations, etc. exist for a reason: to promote the hegemony of their country abroad. They will seek to influence opposition organizations and individuals and to bend them - and through them opposition movements - to supporting the strategic interests of their state. The proxy wars of the Cold War era were precisely the result of maneuverings between the USSR and the USA. Sometimes it involved supporting opposition movements (particularly in the case of the USSR, which was always considerably weaker than the USA) and sometimes it involved supporting the regimes already in power to crush opposition movements. Imperialism is, by definition, opportunistic.

It is a mistake to base our support for opposition movements on whether or not imperialism is trying to influence them - and even where they are succeeding to a degree. Revolts, even ones compromised by imperialism, have a way of getting out of the control of those who would use them to their advantage. One need only look at the challenges that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is facing in trying to rein in the tumultuous movement in Egypt that brought them to power.

There is a final reason for supporting the Arab Spring with great enthusiasm and not viewing it through the narrow lens of state-to-state relations. Western imperialism's hope that the weakening of the Syrian regime would permit greater pressure on Iran isn't happening quite that way. The belief that the Arab Spring would allow Iran to be isolated and make it more susceptible to military assault has turned out to be quite the opposite as this article in the Guardian makes clear:

US naval, air and ground forces are dependent for bases, refuelling and supplies on Gulf Arab rulers who are deeply concerned about the progress Iran has made in its nuclear programme, but also about the rising challenge to their regimes posed by the Arab spring and the galvanising impact on popular unrest of an Israeli attack on Iran...

US naval commanders have watched with unease as the newly elected Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, has made overtures towards Iran. US ships make 200 transits a year through the Suez canal. Manama, the Fifth Fleet headquarters, is the capital of a country that is 70% Shia and currently in turmoil.

Ami Ayalon, a former chief of the Israeli navy and the country's internal intelligence service, Shin Bet, argues Israel too cannot ignore the new Arab realities.

"We live in a new Middle East where the street has become stronger and the leaders are weaker," Ayalon told the Guardian. "In order for Israel to face Iran we will have to form a coalition of relatively pragmatic regimes in the region, and the only way to create that coalition is to show progress on the Israel-Palestinian track."

The conclusion seems pretty clear: the greatest threat to the goals of western imperialism in the Middle East is the Arab Spring. The deeper grows that revolt, particularly in the Gulf states and especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the more imperialism will be constrained in its actions and agenda.

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Drops The "H-Bomb"

I'm not talking about that other H-bomb, the one that the US government dropped on innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, I'm talking about Adolph Hitler, yes, that H-Bomb. Every time our leaders want to justify a war against another people they whip out the Hitler's name. He is our Great Satan, the face of incomprehensible evil. There is nothing to be understood about Hitler, he was made of pure brimstone and, therefore, whenever he is reincarnated - which happens fairly often - he must be wiped out utterly and completely.

It's rather convenient and closes the door off from any sort of critical thinking at a moment when critical thinking should be at an absolute premium - prior to war. So, it has been used to label Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe and that favourite of mine "Islamofascism", which tars an entire religious tradition with being Hitler. This time, of course, it is the incomparably stupid and opportunist Canadian foreign minister, John Baird, who whipped it out after his fanboy tour of Israel.

“Obviously when the influential leader of Iran said [Friday] that he wanted to remove a cancer from the Middle East and remove Israel from the map, obviously you can understand why the Jewish people, why Israel would take him seriously,” he said. “Hitler wrote Mein Kampf more than a decade before he became Chancellor of Germany and they take these issues pretty seriously here. But it’s not just an Israeli question. The fear in the Arab world, in the entire region, the Gulf, and the entire Middle East is palpable on this issue. And it’s increasingly a significant security threat for the West: for Canada, the United States and our allies in Europe.”

And there you have it. Israel equals the Jews, Iran wants to eliminate Israel therefore Iran wants to eliminate the Jews. Adolph Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews. Iran is like Nazi Germany and its leadership is like Hitler. Bombs Away!

Except that it's rather more complex than our Tory friend, apparently, can fathom. First off there is no necessary identity between Jewishness and Zionism or Israel as John Baird - a tireless promoter of Israel - demonstrates. But, on the other side, Jews have been some of the most vocal opponents of Israel and its policies, from Norman Finklestein to Noam Chomsky to Shlomo Sand. Zionism and the founding of Israel was one amongst several political responses to anti-Semitism in Europe prior to World War Two.

Secondly, Baird demonstrates his inability to understand context. The Middle East is not Europe or North America, where Jews were historically terribly oppressed, particularly in Eastern Europe where pogroms were too often a matter of course - not to mention the ultimate pogrom, the terror of the Holocaust. That is not the history of the historic Jewish communities of the Middle East. The antipathy towards Israel is rooted rather in the fact that Israel is a settler-state, whose existence is founded upon the displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population and whose continued existence is premised upon its service to the American empire as a Sparta - an armed camp - to control uncooperative Arab regimes... like that in Iran.

Thirdly, Iran poses no threat to Europe or North America, unless we're talking about imperial interests in the Middle East. Iran's leadership are no radical democrats or serious anti-imperialists. They rule their country like our rulers rule theirs: in the interests of a ruling class who own and control all the levers of political and economic power. Iran has democratic elections - just like us. And it suppresses rights that are inconvenient, just like us. It's true that Iran is rather more repressive than, say, Canada. But it is a matter of degrees as the participants in the Occupy Oakland protests found out, or the G20 protestors in Toronto. But, in any case, even if Iran is qualitatively more repressive than North American governments it would be simple hypocrisy to suggest that we have any problems with dictatorships - after all, Stephen Harper has been touring China - a much more repressive regime - sucking up to any Communist Party bigwig that he could in order to sell our natural resources to them. Then there are "our allies" in the Middle East, like the Saudi dictatorship and the former dictator of Yemen. We have not a single problem with dictatorships.

And the idea that there is "palpable fear" in Israel is just so much bunk. How many countries has Iran attacked or invaded since the Iranian revolution in 1979? Zero. How many has Israel? Well, they bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 in a rather deja vu claim about it being intended for military purposes.

Iraq and France claimed that the Iraqi reactor was intended for peaceful scientific research.[8] Agreements between France and Iraq excluded military use. The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing plutonium for a weapons program". In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard University who visually inspected the partially damaged reactor in December 1982, said that "to collect enough plutonium [for a nuclear weapon] using Osirak would've taken decades, not years". In 2005, Wilson further commented in The Atlantic: the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June of 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit.

In addition to the Iraq bombing, Israel invaded Lebanon (for the second time) in 1982 and again in 2006. They invaded Gaza in 2008-2009, leading to widespread human rights abuses and destruction - which the Palestinians have been prevented from repairing by the Israeli blockade. Of course, if we went back farther we'd see that since Israel's founding (and since the majority of Jews at the founding were Europeans, one could easily argue that this was the first invasion) it has invaded Syria in 1951, Egypt in 1956, and in 1967 Israel attacked Syria, Egypt and Jordan. It is also likely that Israel is involved in the present covert (and illegal) operations against Iranian nuclear scientists and infrastructure. It's also worth noting that this, the most belligerent country in the region, is the only one that has nuclear weapons.

So, John Baird's H-bomb is meant as nothing more than mere handwaving to distract us from the truth of the situation in the region. It's job is to put the question of Iran outside of rational discourse. To even question the bellicose rhetoric is an admission that you WANT TO KILL THE JEWS! The idea is so stupid as to be utterly laughable, were it not so terribly dangerous and were it not for the fact that they are playing with the lives of tens of thousands of people. But then, who would expect anything less from people who would use the memory of the Holocaust for such cynical ends.

Baird compares Iran’s threats to Hitler's racist book - The Globe and Mail:

'via Blog this'

Is America Worried Israel Is Gonna Go Ape Shit On Iran?

Apparently the US Defence Secretary Leo Panetta is very worried that Israel will attack Iran come March. Those Israelis just can't control themselves in the face of Iran's intransigence over their - admittedly non-military - nuclear program. I mean, what if, you know, Iran decided down the road to make nukes. Then Israel wouldn't be the only country in the Middle East or, as Israel likes to put it - the only democracy in the Middle East. Oh, wait, Iran has democratic elections, don't they. Come to think of it, Egypt is now democratic. Oh, and then there's the fact that the Israeli government has vociferously opposed the democracy movements because only dictatorships can keep Israel safe from those ignorant Arabs with their hatred of Zionist colonialism Israel's right to exist.

Well, there's no doubt that Israel is as crazy as a Christian fundamentalist at a pagan sex party. I mean, besides their 44-year old illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, they have invaded and attacked their neighbours more often than America has overthrown unfriendly governments. Well, maybe not. But certainly lots of times. Iran? They have never started a war or invaded their neighbours. Not once. And while their government is repressive you can't call them warmongers. The Israeli government you definitely can.

And that brings us back to the point: Israel does what it does not because Jews are more prone to war and not even because zionism as an ideology is per se based upon behaving in a crazy, war mongering way. But for Zionism to exist as a small colony built on stolen land, surrounded by much larger numbers of people it degrades in a manner not dissimilar to South African apartheid, it needs two things: 1) a highly militarized culture, which valorizes violence and oppression against Arabs and a set of national priorities that values a big military and 2) an outside benefactor. In fact, it needs a very big, very powerful benefactor. And that benefactor is the American empire.

To the US of A, Israel is their largest foreign military base. It's so large that it has not only all the trappings of a military base, it even has some of its own industry. Just like Fort Bragg may have auto body shops and some restaurants on base, Israel also has industries to service it military but multiplied by a factor of one hundred. All of which is to say that Israel only exists at the pleasure of the United States government. Without the $3-$5 billion in cash and other forms of aid that Israel receives every year, plus the military and political backing of the United States, Israel wouldn't last a month - economically, politically, territorially. (well, we ought to add that the $1.3 billion bribe that is paid to the Egyptian dictatorship also bought peace for Israel)

Of course, Israel often chafes at this subordinate, dependent position and tries to develop some independent relationships - trade deals, sporting and cultural exchanges with other countries, etc -  so that it has leverage on its benefactor. But, in the end, it is not the Israel tail that wags this big American dog. So, the idea that Israel will launch an attack on Iran without the say-so of the President of the United States is stupid. This is America using its attack dog as it has always done - as a stick to try and beat its regional opponents. It is politically inexpedient for America to directly threaten to attack Iran - after the unpopularity of the Iraq war plus the Afghan adventure, it won't fly. So, Israel will do the military dirty work, draw Iran into attacking US ships in the Persian Gulf in retaliation and then, voila, the war will be merely an act of self defence. Will this actually be what happens? I have no idea, of course, and perhaps neither do the USA and Israel. But what is certain is that by Panetta publicly hand-wringing over Israel's plans to attack Iran he is setting the stage for this scenario and trying to increase the pressure on Iran - on top of the sanctions regime and the covert war against Iranian scientists and other elements of the nuclear program.

Panetta's hand-wringing is, transparently, a threat, nothing more or less.


Is Israel preparing to attack Iran? - The Washington Post:

'via Blog this'

Arab Democracy Makes Netanyahu Nervous

I'll give the Israeli PM this: he's at least honest. Israel's interests lie with the continued existence of Arab dictatorships that are bought and paid for by the USA. Why? Because Israel is a vile colonialist and racist regime whose existence is only made possible by the fact that tens of millions of Arabs have been suppressed and prevented from expressing their democratic desires. Israel's "democracy" - truncated and deformed as it is by its ethnocratic character and by the Occupation - is only made possible by the denial of democracy for the vast majority of the regional population. Netanyahu, like all the best Zionist politicians of the past 100 years from Herzl onwards knows this.

"In February, when millions of Egyptians thronged to the streets in Cairo, commentators and quite a few Israeli members of the opposition said that we're facing a new era of liberalism and progress...They said I was trying to scare the public and was on the wrong side of history and don't see where things are heading," he said.

But time has proved him right, Netanyahu said. His forecast that the Arab Spring would turn into an "Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli and anti-democratic wave" turned out to be true, he said.

OK, so his portrayal of why he opposes the Arab Spring is a lie. It is precisely its democratic aspirations that he loathes. But for saying as much of the truth as he can stomach, I'd like to wish Benny Netanyahu a happy thanksgiving, like I would a fat turkey.

Netanyahu: Arab world moving backward, not forward - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News:

'via Blog this'

Nobody Says "F*** You" Like Israel

As vile and racist as the regime is, you have to give them points for sheer chutzpah. Having denounced the Palestinians at the UN for not being serious about peace, Israeli PM Netanyahu has agreed two days later to build another 1,100 illegal buildings in occupied East Jerusalem. Of course, this has always been the strategy of Israel, ultimately emanating from the ultra-colonialist doctrine of Ze'ev Jabotinsky known as the Iron Wall. Basically, Israel will be so bad ass, so murderous and just plain crazy with a plentitude of American-bought weapons that the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Egyptians - the whole damn planet - will shut the hell up and do what Israel says. Unfortunately for the Palestinians what the state of Israel says is "fuck off and die", which isn't a very good place to start negotiations. And when Netanyahu says that negotiations must start from a perspective of "no preconditions", what he really means is that the only precondition is that the Palestinians will perform the above-noted-act of dispersal.

Unfortunately for Israel, the "we're-too-nuts-to-be-messed-with" line isn't carrying the same weight. Previously, they used the horrors of the Holocaust (which the Palestinians had nothing to do with) to justify their murderous, genocidal behaviour. Increasingly that doesn't hold much water - except with John Baird and the Harper Tories. Now there is no justification, just that they will kill whoever crosses them (and "crossing" them is broadly defined). But the Middle East is changing rapidly and Israel's actions have isolated it internationally, outside of the United States. With Turkey preparing a case against Israel's blockade of Gaza and threatening to escort aid ships with Turkish navy vessels and Egypt's post-revolution Prime Minister openly musing about the end of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, Israel is in danger of digging its hold deeper. Nor can it count on the power of the US to unilaterally discipline countries like Turkey, Egypt or even Saudi Arabia. The wave of revolutions have put everything on the table. Hell, the Saudis are even going to let women vote and run for office (well, insofar as anyone can vote or run for any office that has any power). And the rise of a dynamic and wealthy China, which doesn't demand the same fealty to every twist and turn of its foreign policy as the USA and Europe, has undermined America's power as a more attractive ally. The result is that while, in the past, Israel's "fuck you" was accepted, if grudgingly by everyone in the neighbourhood (bar, perhaps, Hezbollah), more and more of the world is replying back "no, fuck you." That will ultimately be to Israel's detriment.

Israel okays new buildings in east Jerusalem - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Baird's UN Rant Is A Museum Piece

Baird was the attack dog for the Harper government at the UN yesterday with his meandering rant that read like it was written by the Israeli ministry of international propaganda. Claiming people and nations who didn't support Israel were akin to appeasers of fascism and communism, Baird demanded that Israel's struggle against extremism and terrorism be recognized, along with its struggle to defend its borders.

Huh?

Apparently nobody sent Baird the memo that Israel is illegally occupying other people's land, not the other way around. Nor that Israel has initiated more wars against its neighbours than any other country in the region. In fact, it would be worth pointing out that Israel, as a colonial settler state, constitutes in its majority people who are not indigenous to the region. They have, in other words, taken over someone else's land. This is all in the public record and non-controversial.

Baird knows this, as does Harper and Jason Kenney, who have both been on the trail this week attacking the Palestinian leadership for finally standing up and stating what has been obvious since shortly after the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 - that negotiations with Israel are pointless appeasement. After all, Israel has accelerated its settlement building project since the Palestinians agreed to a negotiated solution to the Israel occupation, breaking both the spirit of the agreement and the letter of international law. As a result the two-state solution is all but dead as a realistic possibility, with close to half a million Israeli settlers now living in highly developed West Bank suburbs.

The reason for Baird's attack has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with playing to the band of Canada's homegrown Republicans. Most of the time foreign policy is a freebie, failing to rouse most Canadians to protest or even change the character of their vote. Harper and his cronies can say the most outlandish stuff, no doubt to many eye rolls and head shakes in the UN, because while the hard right in the Tories laps this stuff up with the Christian right believing that the ultimate domination of Jews over the ancient land of Israel will lead to the Return of Jesus (where he will then dispose of the Jews who fail to convert).

Playing to the Tories motivated, activist base at a time when Harper and Flaherty are intending on being "pragmatic" on government spending is a useful counterbalance to maintaining support where it really counts for the Tories. It's also true that these guys fully understand the important role that Israel plays as a watchdog for imperialism in the region. That role is under threat now more than at any time in Israel's history as a result of the Arab Spring, the mantle of which the Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas is now trying to seize for its own, rather more moderate ends. For Israel nothing could be worse than democracy in the Arab world. It has only been the restraints of domestic repression that have kept Israel from being utterly isolated in the region where the country is popularly seen for what it is: an invading, colonial regime with a racist disdain for the indigenous Arab population.

In addition to the explosive shifts in regional politics, there has also been the rise of Turkey, with a population the size of Egypt and a fast-growing economy. The US is also seeing a historic decline in its influence as its economic power  becomes relatively less important to the global economy and it has damaged its esteem and power of persuasion by its inability to get a handle on Afghanistan, the poorest nation on the planet. The rise of China is aiding this process as an alternative pole for developing nations. All this adds up to make Baird's speech look like the rantings of a cranky old man with a loose grasp on reality. But, then, that describes the core of Tory support so it will have done its job, even as it isolates Canada internationally as being led by extremists and, yes, appeasers.

The Palestinians Would Be Foolish To Trust Obama or Netanyahu

There's an old saying that goes "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". I'm not sure what the appropriate riposte is when you've been scammed by the same dishonest brokers a hundred times over. That sadly describes the behaviour of the Palestinian Authority who have gone along with the charade of negotiations and broken treaties so often that it's like watching reruns of a syndicated TV series - you know how every episode is going to end but you can't help but watch it anyway. Granted, the PA have often been duped not so much out of political cowardice or foolishness as a lack of alternatives. During the civil war in Lebanon in the early 1980s, the PLO were effectively defeated by the combined power of Lebanese fascists and Israeli military power and accepted a "peace agreement" that saw the Palestinian guerillas leave the country in return for a guarantee that Palestinian civilians would be protected. Within days the Israelis had facilitated a horrific massacre at the Sabra & Shatila refugee camps, carried out by the Israeli allied Lebanese falangists.

The same inability to mobilize sufficient levels of resistance during the first Intifada to defeat Israel - though enough to make Israel look like the child-murdering bastards that they are - led to the Oslo Accords. Oslo, lovingly pined after by squishy liberals everywhere as a way to avoid dealing honestly with Israel's racist colonialism while appearing sympathetic to an obviously oppressed people, was never anything other than an agreement to outsource the oppression and colonization to the Palestinians themselves. In return for suppressing resistance, the PLO would get authority at about the level of a municipal government, be allowed to fly the Palestinian flag, and Israel would even hand over tax dollars that were collected from and therefore legally belonged to the Palestinians. Israel would continue to build illegal settlements, kill Palestinians that the PLO, by then the Palestinian Authority, hadn't jailed or suppressed and, finally, chop up the West Bank with an Apartheid Wall and turn Gaza into a giant open-aired prison on the brink of starvation. Oslo, far from being the basis to establish a Palestinian state and end the conflict, was about neutering Palestinian resistance while continuing with the same genocidal policies.

That thoroughly dishonest, not to mention murderous, modus operandi has always been how Israel carried out its dirty deeds - claim to be under existential threat, plead a desire for peace, and then stage pre-emptive attacks on a people who have been disarmed by international conspiracy using the most advanced weapons on the planet, gifted to them by the most powerful empire in world history. When the oppressed fight back with stones and bottles filled with gasoline against heavily armoured tanks and sniper rifles with night vision or jet fighters flying at 10,000 feet, claim that this demonstrates the Palestinians are murderous, trained from birth to hate Jews, religious fanatics, etc. There is, in other words, "no partner for peace." How often did we hear that in the 1990s in relation to Yasser Arafat, even as he jailed oppositionists. That is, until Abbas finally stepped up and agreed to be a mini-Mubarak happily working on behalf of Israel's pantomime of being the USA in oppressing his own people even more profoundly. Then Arafat was no longer necessary and was conveniently disposed of.

This - and much more, frankly - is worth rehearsing as we hear Obama and Netanyahu pleading with Mahmoud Abbas not to bring the issue of recognizing Palestine as a state to the UN. Hilary Clinton even pretends to want to see a two-state solution and professes to be struggling to bring one about. Netanyahu has even offered direct negotiations. The only accurate words to describe this little charm offensive ought not to be used in polite company. Suffice to say that only an absolute moron with a profound memory disorder would fall for any of this. Obama had his chance to demonstrate having the Palestinians' interests at heart when Netanyahu accelerated the settlement building program and snubbed Obama's plea for a serious hiatus. Obama and the US government could have suspended the $3 billion in annual gift cash that Israel receives each year. They could have suspended the military aid and joint training exercises. They did nothing and not because of any Jewish/Israel lobby in Washington. They did nothing because of the vital role that Israel plays as America's loyal little Sparta, their watchdog in the Middle East, a bulwark against Arab democracy or any Arab dictator who gets delusions of anti-colonial grandeur. Or simply gets too big for his britches, as Saddam Hussein found out.

The trouble now for the Americans and the Israelis is that revolution is sweeping the region and all the old calculuses no longer hold. Just over a week ago Egyptians rioted outside of the Israeli embassy, forcing the embassy staff to flee for their lives. Turkey, emboldened by years of China-style economic growth, is flexing its muscles in the region and has threatened to send Turkish warships to accompany aid vessels going to Gaza. Turkey, with 74 million people and a modern economy and modern military is not so easy to push around as the disarmed Palestinians. Egypt, Israel's neighbour, is no longer under the thumb of a pro-Israel, pro-US dictator and everything, including the 35-year peace accord is now up in the air. The revolutionary wave has made Israel more isolated and the Palestinians more powerful than they have been in generations. And Abbas knows that. He also knows that the division between Hamas' controlled Gaza and the PLO controlled West Bank was a machination by the White House/Israel - one that he actively went along with, to be sure. But rather than cementing his rule and destroying his Hamas enemies, as it was meant to do, it weakened him, made him look like what he is - a comprador tool of Israel and the USA. All of this may have emboldened Abbas. Certainly he can't turn back now or he will be a corpse politically. He has nothing to lose - the Palestinians have nothing to lose - by pushing for a symbolic victory at the UN. Of course, the USA will - as they have promised - veto the Palestinian application in the Security Council. But at a time when the USA is trying to appear as the friend of the Arab Spring, this will seriously damage their image. And the world will see that the Palestinians have the support of the vast majority of countries. Israel will appear, again, as the molly-coddled bully boy of the Middle East, kept solvent and dangerous by their American benefactors. And there is yet a further danger. If the Americans and Israel publicly and actively stand up and say that Palestine isn't a country, there is every danger that the strategy of the "two-state solution" will be finally and completely dead; revealed as a façade behind which Israel could engage in endless, meaningless negotiations while creating "facts on the ground." If that leads to a civil rights struggle for a truly civil state - as opposed to the theocratic monstrosity that is Israel, the "Jewish state" - including calls for the right to democratic representation and an end to Apartheid-like policies, this will be very dangerous ground, especially in an era where everyone in the Middle East is engaging in the fight for democracy and freedom. If Abbas doesn't back down, this could open up a new round of struggle in Palestine that aligns it with a regional revolution. Palestine could truly join the Arab Spring. That can only end badly for Israel - and rightly so; they have sown the wind, it's about time for them to reap the whirlwind.

Netanyahu calls for talks with Palestinians - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Turkey's Snub & The Decline of Israel

Israeli blunder: Turkish ship Mavi Marmara as it's being attacked by Israeli
commandos during attempt by flotilla to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip.

It was just over 20 years ago that I first became politically active around the first war against Iraq by Bush Sr. It was all so new and I felt like my eyes were being opened to history and politics in so many profound ways that I have many indelible memories from this time. One of them is just how outside of the mainstream it was to criticize Israel. Of course, even by then, Israel had suffered some blows to its previously unassailable - and self-promoted - image as the plucky little democracy, the only one amongst a sea of Arab dictatorships. The war against Lebanon with its attendant brutalities, particularly the massacre at the Sabra & Shatila refugee camp by Israeli allied Christian fascists against unarmed Palestinians as Israeli troops watched on, had given the world a hint at just how brutal a regime it was. But it was still the case that even wearing a "Free Palestine" pin - as I did - was controversial. I remember being in the men's room on campus and was cornered by a Zionist who demanded to know why I wanted to drive the Jews into the sea. Later that year the York Arab Student's Federation attempted to hold a day in celebration of Palestine liberation and it almost led to a riot as Zionists showed up with massive Israeli flags that they used to try and prevent students from seeing the pro-Palestinian displays.

Those days are gone and Israel has only itself to thank for its growing isolation and the increase in awareness of Israel's viciousness. The 2006 war in Lebanon - and their effective defeat. The war against a semi-starved Gaza population in 2008. The refusal to stop the illegal settlements or end the blockade of the Gaza Strip has undermined Israel's attempts to portray itself as a bastion of moderation in a sea of extremism. None of that would have been possible, of course, without the struggles of Palestinians themselves, who have refused to lie down and die or vacate their ancestral lands no matter the punishment and humiliations meted out by Israel. And the international allies of the Palestinians have admirably carried the struggle abroad, in particular building and promoting the cause of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions [BDS] against Israel. At first BDS seemed like a hopeless cause - and I admit to having been skeptical about its potential, perhaps because of my memories of toilet harassments from university. But bit by bit the idea of BDS has taken hold as has the label of Apartheid, taken from the racist system of segregation maintained formerly in South Africa.

That isn't to say that Israel doesn't still have its supporters - particularly at the level of the US government. Israel is a key strategic partner and facilitator for American imperialism in the Middle East. It isn't for nothing that the US gives the largest share of its "foreign aid" budget to Israel, along with special access and deals on the most high tech military equipment. Israel is America's watchdog in the Middle East. But even in the face of bellicose pro-Israel propaganda and intimidation of pro-Palestinian activists, the arguments have gained ground to the point that Israel's supporters are increasingly forced to fight a rearguard action. It has become less about trying to prove that the Palestinians aren't terrorists by genetic or cultural disposition, as it once was, and more about proving that Israel is, in fact, a form of Apartheid regime. Witness the battle in Toronto about the participation of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in the Pride Parade. Of course this campaign against Pride by Mammoliti, Ford and every other bigot on council was as much about attacking gay & lesbian rights as Palestine. But they tried - and failed - to target it on the basis of the Israeli Apartheid label, giving the argument publicity. The city's discrimination officer found that labeling a country as racist was not discriminatory towards an ethnic group.

In the Middle East itself, the solidarity campaigns to bring aid to the Gaza Strip - in part as a means to expose the brutality and illegality of the blockade have also helped to isolate Israel. Last year's flotilla to Gaza, which was attacked in international waters by Israel commandos who shot first and asked questions later, has turned out to have been a significant breaking point in terms of its isolation. The international optics of Israel killing nine unarmed human rights activists was bad enough but their repeated refusals to apologize to Turkey for killing Turkish citizens has become a foreign policy disaster.

This has only added to the ideological crisis that was created by the vicious and hypocritical invasion of Gaza at the end of 2008. At the time I suggested that this war was a symbol of Israel's weakness, not its strength, particularly after the defeat in Lebanon in 2006. Israel was spoiling for a fight to prove that it could still be the neighbourhood bully - by picking on the weakest kid on the block. But the effect - aside from failing to destroy Hamas - was only to make it harder for regional allies like Egypt and Turkey to justify their continued ties when the whole world turned away from Israel in disgust. And, I argued in January 2009, this war's brutal and vicious character could lead to some major knock on effects throughout the region.

But even in the unlikely event that Israel is able to achieve a "total victory" there is still the growing danger that the Arab anger this present brutality has unleashed will destroy the American empire's already shaky hegemony in the Middle East...
If these regimes begin to collapse - and Egypt's is the one to watch - it will signal the collapse of four decades of work to create a compliant network of pro-American regimes, with Egypt as the jewel in the crown. America's rulers, already frustrated with Israel's failure in Lebanon to weaken Iran, may begin to raise graver doubts about the utility of Israel's Iron Wall strategy.

As it happens, Egypt's dictatorship did fall in rapid succession after revolution in Tunisia, leading to a season of upheaval throughout North Africa and the Middle East. Libya, while a mixed result because of the involvement of western imperialism, marks the fall of another dictator, which could inspire the movement in Syria. Upheaval seems to be returning to Bahrain after the Saudi monarchy tried to help the Bahraini monarchy crush the revolution. All of this upheaval, combined with the rapid economic growth of Turkey alongside a process of reform that has weakened the power of the Turkish military, has elevated that country's role in the Middle East. The immensely popular, moderate Islamism of the Justice & Development Party led by Tayyip Erdogan has sought increasingly to assert its own interests and authority as a leading Muslim power of significance.

Israel's political leadership is now paying the price for the inability of Israeli political institutions and political thinking to switch gears. With growing international isolation - and economic unrest at home - the Israeli leadership is a one note song: repress, expand the settlements, refuse responsibility, refuse negotiations, repress. It's clear that this strategy has reached the limits of its effectiveness. It was one thing for groups of activists to challenge Israel's policies but now a major regional power - Turkey - has all but broken diplomatic ties with Israel and has announced that it is taking Israel to the International Court of Justice to challenge the Gaza blockade. Besides being a major own goal for Israel, it marks a new stage in its decline.

Turkey no longer needs Israel as it once did and feels confident enough to suspend its military ties with the country. Erdogan will travel to Egypt later this month and, perhaps, even visit the Gaza Strip in a further slap in the face to Israel. Just as America and NATO have attempted to insert themselves into the Arab revolutionary process, in order to direct it towards neo-liberalism and western strategic advantage, primarily against China and Russia, so Turkey is also inserting itself into the process. But Turkey, as a Muslim democracy in the Middle East, has far more credibility amongst the regional population. After all, they weren't spending billions to prop up the recently overthrown dictators, unlike the NATO powers. This move by Turkey is a brilliant tactical move to raise its prestige yet further as a regional leader. One only wonders if Turkey will sideline Israel in importance for any empire that wants to have sway in the Middle East. If it does, if Israel's importance as a bagman for western imperialism becomes redundant, its decline will be accelerated. The voices in American ruling class circles who already have been raising doubts about the usefulness of Israel - like Walt & Mearsheimer - will become louder and more confident. Israel may soon discover that it is, in fact, the tail and not the dog, and a very expensive tail indeed.

Turkey to take Israel to ICJ - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Republocrats Agree To Sodomize Americans, Fund Israel

...and I don't mean sodomy in the fun frolicky sense of the world. What I mean is that they've agree that the deficit will not be "fixed" by raising taxes on the wealthy - whose tax breaks (along with multiple unwinnable and expensive wars & a defence budget that is unspeakably high) caused the deficit to begin with - but rather by cutting social programs & punishing the income-challenged majority of the US population.

But don't worry, they may gut Medicare, Social Security, education and even spending on collapsing infrastructure; Americans may continue to lose their homes to foreclosure at record rates and joblessness may remain stuck at historically high levels - but Israel's annual booty of greater than $3 billion will remain untouched.

The $3.075 billion in aid granted to Israel would remain intact under the 2012 State and Foreign Operations Act, Chairman of the House of Representatives' Appropriations Committee, Rep. Hal Rogers said in a joint statement with Rep. Kay Granger, chairwoman of the foreign operations subcommittee of Appropriations.

At least we know where their priorities lie. (And, for the record, no I don't think it's because the zionists/Jews control America - it's because Israel is a central strategic plank in America's Middle East hegemony and the Middle East remains key in terms of oil and empire).

As for Obama: can we now agree that he's betrayed every hope that was placed on him, except that he would be America's first African-American president?

Obama, U.S. lawmakers strike deal to raise debt ceiling - The Globe and Mail

Rupert Murdoch, Friend Of Israel

Well this article is an interesting addition to the swirl of debate and exposé that's happening around Rupert Murdoch. The attached article is from J-Wire and is written by Isi Leibler. As all this scandal and humiliation was unfolding, I hadn't considered the impact that it might have upon Israel. Luckily, the zionists never neglect to defend a friend, no matter how much of a dirtbag, dictator, liar, racist or generally unpleasant person that they are. As Mr. Leibler notes:

"... while his enemies continue baying for his blood, most Israelis will be hoping that despite the criminal nature of the News of the World scandal, Rupert Murdoch and his senior management will be exonerated of direct malfeasance and his media holdings will remain substantially intact."

To be fair, Mr. Leibler does say several times that the phone hacking was "unconscionable" and "a disgrace to journalism" but the main thrust of the article is that Murdoch is a victim of the liberal media - which has also abandoned Israel - and the far left in the media. Apparently, Murdoch saved the British nation from the clutches of the far left - I assume by smashing the unions in the press back in the 1980s and creating the conditions of hyper-competitiveness that was a key dynamic driving the turn to the use of phone hacking.

Leibler continues, defending Murdoch from accusations of bias: "most of the Murdoch outlets maintain a fair and evenhanded approach [to Israel]". Fox News? The New York Daily Post? The Sun? Bias? Heavens, no? Leibler focuses his argument on the fact that while the Murdoch empire may have been guilty of some transgressions, the great man was in the forefront of defending western civilization (i.e. Israel) from an assault by "hostile Muslims and other extremists." As an aside, does a Muslim become an extremist by virtue of being hostile to something or is it rooted in the very nature of being Muslim? My guess is the latter and the only good Muslim for Mr. Leibler is one that acquiesces to the Israeli colonialist project and to the US backed dictatorships in the Middle East.

I have to say that I'm grateful that Mr. Leibler brought in the Israel angle and defends Rupert Murdoch from the point of view of the Zionist project. It has given me one more reason to cheer the public dismemberment of his empire and the corruption woven through its every fiber. If it means that Israel's lies have one less mouthpiece in the west and their hold over the narrative of the roots of the conflict in that region are weakened, the world will be a tiny bit of a better place.

Israel Attacks Free Speech To Defend Democracy

When is an attack on democracy not an attack on democracy? When the government says that they are defending democracy, of course. That seems to be the thinking in Israel's higher circles in any case as a bill moves towards becoming law that will ban Israeli citizens from advocating boycotts of Israel or its illegal occupations. It seems likely that the bill will pass with more or less fillibustering from the parliamentary opposition.

The real story here is that it's not surprising that over the long term, in order to sustain the Israeli dictatorship over the Palestinian population, it will have to reduce more and more the trappings of democracy for the minority of its population who are Jewish. Since its founding Israel has moved more and more away from "labour zionism" and "socialist zionism" towards the kind of far-right revisionist zionism espoused by people like Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

And since the only justification that could exist for taking over Palestine and re-designating it by its (short-lived) biblical name was to refer to religious doctrine, it's also not a surprise that the reversion to open racism has been accompanied by a rise in power of obscurantist Jewish fundamentalism. The religious fervour, the racism, the regime of permanent military crisis, these things are all necessary to sustain the campaign to colonize "eretz Israel" by driving out the indigenous population.

The present law, a response to the global disgust and growing boycott/divestment movement directed towards Israel's apartheid policies, is just another step down a road whose path was laid at the very foundation. Any society that is founded upon oppressing, dispossessing and humiliating another, will ultimately turn inwards and devour itself.

Israel prepares to pass law banning citizens from calling for boycotts | World news | guardian.co.uk

Taking Sides In Syria

The article below is a reprint of a longer article by Simon Assaf, a British-Lebanese socialist, that will appear in the upcoming issue of the British magazine Socialist Review. It's an excellent overview of the history of Syria from its founding following World War One, up to the present round of resistance. It's also an excellent response to some anti-imperialists who fear that the revolt in Syria could play into the hands of the US, Saudia Arabia and Israel.


The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were hailed as a defining moment in the Arab world. Both revolutions, as well as the ongoing struggles in Yemen and Bahrain, are widely seen as major setbacks for regimes allied to western imperialism, and their downfall marked a massive reversal for the US and Israel.

The uprising in Libya, and Nato intervention in what was a genuine and popular rebellion, raised the possibility that imperialism could not only survive these revolutions, but in some cases emerge stronger, or as strong as before. Although the lines between popular rebellion and western intervention were blurred in Libya, in Syria the consensus over the Arab Spring has broken down. Those who found themselves on the same side over Egypt and Tunisia, have suddenly found sharp disagreement over the movement for change in Syria.

At the heart of this disagreement is Syria's opposition to imperialism and the dangers of the country becoming another failed revolution at the mercy of the western powers. What attitude should revolutionaries take towards the Syrian movement, and how should we assess a regime that, although the victim of imperialism, has unleashed harsh repression on those who have from the onset demanded modest reforms?

Imperialism's long history in Syria
The modern Syrian state was born out of the first sustained Arab rebellion against the carve-up of the Middle East by Britain and France following the First World War. The “Bilad al-Sham”, literally the lands of the north, is a geographical area of Syria that once included Palestine in the south, and Alexandretta in the north (now in Turkey).

The original Anglo-French plan was to divide geographical Syria into a patchwork of states that would be too weak to resist colonial rule. The southern regions, now Palestine and Jordan, were handed over to Britain, while the northern regions were to be divided into Christian, Alawi, Sunni and Druze states (part of the many religious communities in geographic Syria).

In 1925 a popular rebellion that began in the Druze regions of Syria quickly encompassed the whole of the country. The rebellion gave birth to Arab nationalist movement that partially succeeded in stopping French plans. Although France succeeded in creating "Christian Lebanon" — a sectarian state that included areas with large Muslim populations — it failed in the rest of Syria.

The Syrian national movement succeeded in ending French rule, but this movement also reflected the contradictions inside Syrian society. The leadership of the national movement was an alliance of feudal lords who had recently gained ownership of communal village lands, and a merchant class that found its markets destroyed by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire — the former rulers of geographic Syria. At its base were peasants, craftsmen, workers and the urban poor who saw independence as a chance to transform the country.

In the period following formal independence in 1944 the old classes became locked in a struggle with the movement from below that coalesced around Communist, socialist and radical Arab nationalist parties. The Baath party emerged as the dominant force after forging an alliance with a socialist movement among the peasantry, and winning some support among industrial workers.

The new rulers ended the stalemate by breaking the hold of the feudal lords and merchant classes, then muzzling the popular movement. The new regime realigned Syria with Soviet Union and the country was put on the path of "socialist development" — in effect a form of state capitalism. This period came to an abrupt end in 1967 when Israel seized the Golan Heights in its lightening Six Day War. The Israel army was now in command of the strategic heights some 50 miles from the Syrian capital.

The shock of 1967 destroyed the credibility of the regime and eventually triggered a coup by Baathists inside the army, headed by Hafez al-Assad, and drawn mainly from among the marginalised Alawi community. Now on a permanent war footing, Syria, along with other Arab countries, was alight with the rise of a popular resistance to imperialism, epitomised by the emergence of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). This wave of popular resistance reached its peak in 1973 when Syria and Egypt launched an offensive that almost succeeded in recapturing territory lost to Israel in 1967.

The failure of this war would have profound consequences on both countries. The strategic union between Syrian and Egypt came to an end in 1978 when Anwar Sadat, then Egyptian president, signed a separate peace with Israel. With Egypt now neutralised, Syria faced Israel alone. Isolated, the regime sought to use the popular resistance as a lever in negotiations for the return of the Golan Heights. Inside Syria this resulted in a gradual smothering of the popular resistance.

Egypt was not alone in seeking a separate deal with Israel. In 1976, prompted by the US, Assad sent troops into Lebanon to crush the popular rebellion sweeping the country at the time. The occupation of Lebanon, packaged as a peace keeping mission, destroyed the Lebanese national movement. The reward for “saving Lebanon” was to be a new initiative over the Golan. But Assad's hopes for an “honourable deal” came to nought.

Assad reacted with the rhetoric of "liberation and revolution" while his forces continued to strengthen its grip over Syria and Lebanon — reaching its height with the crushing of an uprising in the Syrian city of Hama in 1982, and a protracted siege of Sabra and Chatilla Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut in 1984.

Despite this, Assad never abandoned his strategy of a separate peace. But with Egypt out of the picture, Israel saw no reason to cut a deal over the Golan Heights. Assad again attempted to realign Syria with imperialism by sending troops to fight alongside the US and its allies in the 1990-91 Gulf War. But once again US promises to look at the Golan question proved an illusion.

When Hafez al-Assad died in June 2000 he was succeeded by his son Bashar Assad. Bashar never abandoned the strategy of compromise with imperialism, or the “red line” of the Golan Heights. His first act was an attempt to initiate a program of reforms — the so-called Syrian Spring — that he hoped could revive the economy and release some of the discontent that built up during his father's reign.

Central to these reforms where neo-liberal policies designed to “open up” the economy. Hardliners within the regime put an end to the political reforms, but the economic reforms moved apace. These reforms ended economic guarantees — such as the subsidy on bread — that had secured some degree of social peace.

These reforms, far from safeguarding the stability of the regime, plunged many already poor Syrians into destitution. As with Egypt and Tunisia, neo-liberal policies undermined what little hold the regimes had over their population. Meanwhile a small layer of businessmen close to the ruling circle amassed vast fortunes.

The deteriorating economy, rampant corruption, nepotism and harsh repression left the country tinder dry. Then came the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. For many Arabs these revolutions were clear-cut and uncomplicated. Both Ben Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt were strong allies of imperialism. These revolutions could be seen as a continuation of the struggle for national liberation.

The Syrian opposition now found it had the space to push forward a series of reforms, that at the onset, were modest. The main demands were for the relaunching of the stalled political reforms and an end the state of emergency. Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, where the calls for “the end of the regime” were heard on the first day of protests, in Syria this slogan emerged only after the bloody suppression of demonstrations in the southern city of Deraa.

Imperialism and the Arab revolts
Both the Syrian and Libyan uprisings have brought into sharp relief the relationship of the Arab Spring to imperialism. Western intervention in Libya has become a clear reminder that the Middle East cannot escape the reality of imperialism.

Mubarak could conjure up phantoms of “western agents” behind the revolution that toppled him. But with Syria the boundary between these phantoms and real western plots are blurred. Bashar Assad is not wrong to point to the fact that “external forces” are attempting to destabilise the country — it has been the stated policy of Saudi Arabia and the west for years.

The Syrian uprising is now seen through the prism of the Nato campaign in Libya. Nato's intervention has raised the real possibility of an incremental ratcheting up of military threats against Syria — not because the west is sympathetic to the demands of the popular movement, but as part of a strategy of isolating the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance.

In the months preceding the outbreak of the revolutions, Israel had been signalling a new war on Lebanon. The ever-present danger of this war has created doubts that the only winner in the Syrian revolution will be imperialism. This can be seen by the call from Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, on Syrians to support Bashar's regime.

Nasrallah's backing for Bashar Assad was widely interpreted as a sectarian Shia Muslim alignment with the Alawi dominated government in Syria. But Hezbollah's position has to be seen more as an expression of its assessment of the balance of forces with regard to imperialism, then some expression of sectarianism (the Alawis are an offshoot of Shia Islam).

Nasrallah's speech caused deep distress and confusion inside the Syrian opposition, some of whom reacted by burning Hezbollah flags (along with the Russian and Chinese flags). The images of flag burning created suspicion among Lebanese who, after 30 years of direct experience of the “Syrian security regime”, were sympathetic to the movement.

The west would like a managed transition to a compliant Syrian government — one prepared to abandon the resistance and its claim on the Golan Heights in return for “normalisation”. It fears above all a destabilised state that could open the way for the emergence of an armed anti-Israeli resistance reigniting a border that has been quiet for 30 years. The recent mass protests along the 1967 frontier by Palestinians refugees is a potent reminder of this. Israel, although hostile to Syria, could depend on the Baathist regime to keep the frontier quiet. Thus the criticisms of Bashar are more muted in Tel Aviv.

But what Nasrallah, and others, have failed to appreciate is that it is not certain that the Syrian opposition movement would simply become a plaything of the west. The unity of the opposition, and its constant appeals against sectarian and ethnic divisions, points to the real potential for there to develop a popular movement for change independent of west — and the re-emergence of the popular resistance that was crushed in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Up until now this movement has, despite its bravery, been unable to achieve a breakthrough. In Tunisia and Egypt the organised working class played a decisive role at key stages of their revolutions. There have been few, if any, strikes in Syria beyond the city-wide protest strikes by merchants and shopkeepers. The movement has still to reach the scale, or intensity, of Egypt or Tunisia.

This weakness, and the continuing menace of imperialism, can turn this movement from one that represents genuine desires for change, into one that could become aligned with Saudi Arabia and the west. But this uprising began in Deraa, the frontier city along the 1967 border with Israel. Deraa is home to many of the Syrians who were expelled from their lands by the Israeli occupation. The slogans that they chanted at Syrian security forces were, “Cowards of Golan, heroes of repression”.

The future direction of this movement depends on it spreading to the key cities of Damascus and Aleppo, and keeping in check the sectarian gangs and western-backed “opposition groups”. This is a popular movement with real demands, and over the next period it has to struggle to maintain this independence. The alternative is the kind of disaster that the west has inflicted on Libya, and the end of any genuine movement for change.

"Anti-Semitism" Committee A Rearguard Defence Of Israel's Crimes

It's nothing new really - the right wing, who can barely make their lips form the words "anti-racism", spend boatloads of cash to "take a stand" against anti-Semitism. Except that what they're really defending are the odious actions and policies of the state of Israel. That's exactly what this hokey Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism is all about.

When there was serious, life-threatening anti-Semitism prior to and during the Second World War, with the rise of Jew-hating fascism, did the Canadian Parliament set-up any special committees? No, the Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King pronounced that "none is too many" and turned away desperate Jewish refugees. Back then the Jews weren't of any particular political use to the ruling class in Canada or the US or the UK - or numerous other countries that turned them away. It's still the case that most Jews aren't of any particular political interest to the Canadian political elite. Most Jews don't live in Israel and aren't any more pro Israel than the rest of the population. In fact, this bullshit "coalition" specifically excluded a Jewish organization that didn't have a pro-Israel agenda, Independent Jewish Voices of Canada.

It's also worth noting that Parliament has never set up a committee to combat Islamophobia - even as Muslims suffered job and income losses, suffered harassment and attacks in the streets, campaigns against their places of worship and demonization in the media, not to mention no-fly lists that disproportionately target Muslims, etc. But then Canada's Parliament has facilitated that particular form of discrimination and oppression.

Nor has there been a coalition to combat homophobia, a fact that gay, former MP Mario Silva might want to ponder as he stands shoulder to shoulder with Tory MPs who would happily take away his right to get married, enjoy same sex spousal benefits or any other legal equality that has been fought and won in the last thirty years.

But, besides demonstrating an utterly craven hypocrisy on the question of racism, the existence of this committee also demonstrates something of greater significance - after all, we knew that Parliament was a corrupt dung heap filled with sycophants and toads. Israel and its racist, genocidal policies - it's Apartheid - is suffering the deepest international crisis of legitimacy in its history. The old methods of justifying Israel's uncivilized and inhumane practices by referring to the inhumanity suffered by the Jews during the Holocaust and, more generally, as a result of European anti-Semitism, has faded in potency. After all, why should the Palestinians be punished for crimes committed by Europeans over half a century ago?

Nor is the underlying racist, colonialist justification holding the same weight as it once did. The argument that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East is less impressive when not only are their Arab neighbours overthrowing dictatorships in favour of democracy, prominent Israeli officials have more than once expressed their dismay that they are losing "reliable" leaders. The truth is revealed that Israel's existence depends precisely on neighbouring dictatorships to suppress the solidarity felt by the Arab peoples of the region for their Palestinian brothers and sisters. The $2 billion/year that the US spent to prop up Hosni Mubarak actually saved billions more that Israel didn't have to spend on its military in fear of being swamped by the hostile nations around it. Israel could instead focus on their real goal and pleasure - squeezing the Palestinians bit by bit, through illegal settlement expansion, though constant harassment and humiliation, through economic destruction of any indigenous economy, with the goal of driving them out and taking over the whole of "eretz Israel" - from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This has been the goal from before the founding of Israel and has never been particularly hidden.

And just as Israel's "democratic security" depended upon pliant dictatorships for neighbours, it is dependent upon a pliant dictatorship to rule over the Palestinians. The real outrage over Hamas, and the illegal and ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip is entirely about the fact that the Palestinians - even faced with the full horrors of Israeli Apartheid, refused to submit and voted for a party not sanctioned by their Israeli/American overlords. They are to be punished in perpetuity for voting incorrectly. But as the recent high profile fiascos (and massacres) involving anti-Israel protestors has revealed - whether it is blockading aid boats or shooting unarmed protestors on Israel's border - Israel is just another tinpot dictatorship that allows a small minority within its borders to vote and have full rights.

What Mario Silva - happily voted out in my riding of Davenport - and the goons on Toronto council who tried to deny funding to Pride based upon the participation of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid don't realize is that they are fighting against the wheels of history. And with the revolutions in the Middle East still roiling and reshaping the region (and the world), the wheels of history have just sped up. Their pathetic committee will have no real impact on the inevitable: Israeli Apartheid will be revealed for what it is and defeated.

Anti-Semitism on the rise at Canadian universities, committee says - The Globe and Mail

Freedom For Palestine: Music Video

Any song that's pro-Palestinian and makes Glen Beck cry on TV is right on with me. At a time when Toronto city council is debating whether or not it's discrimination - against Jews!? - to say that Israel's practice of isolating, segregating and repressing the Palestinian population makes it an apartheid regime, this is welcome indeed. Fuck you, Rob Ford and Georgio Mamomliti. As an added bonus, it's even a good song. I've included an interview with the artist behind the project and an accompanying article from Socialist Worker UK below the youtube video. Enjoy it, pass it on - make Glen Beck cry more!




“Freedom for Palestine” is a new song by Dave Randall, best known for playing guitar with Faithless. He spoke to Siân Ruddick about the politics behind the music

Freedom for Palestine is performed by a specially assembled group, One World. It features Maxi Jazz from Faithless, Jamie Cato, FSK and the Durban Gospel Choir from South Africa.

The single will be officially released on 3 July, but it is already upsetting the right. Bigoted Fox News commentator Glenn Beck actually wept as he told viewers the song is “propaganda” that dares to accuse Israel of “occupying” the West Bank.

He went on to bemoan the fact that more than 5,000 people had already “liked” the song on a Facebook page.

Favour

Dave told Socialist Worker, “That’s the best bit of advertising we’ve had! Before, I’d only heard his name when Lupe Fiasco rapped, ‘Glenn Beck is a racist’. So a huge thanks to Beck—he’s done us a favour getting the song out there.

“I became interested in the issue of Palestine about ten years ago. Faithless were in Israel. Before our gig in Tel Aviv we had a day off so I visited Gaza.

“I also saw how the occupation of the West Bank impacts on people’s lives.

“I wanted to do whatever I could in solidarity with the Palestinians.”

Last year’s Faithless tour was again scheduled to visit Israel.

Dave said, “We had discussions inside the band and decided to join the cultural boycott. We not only refused to play but determined to use music to build solidarity.”

Dave got the idea for the single after meeting Jerry Dammers, who wrote the Special AKA’s “Free Nelson Mandela”.

That song became the anthem of Britain’s movement to end the racist South African apartheid regime in the 1980s.

“I thought we should do something similar for Palestine,” Dave explained. “It has been a year in the making, but the timing is rather fortunate. Last month the radio station BBC1 Xtra radio censored the words ‘Free Palestine’ in a track by Mic Righteous.”

In the context of the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, Israel’s position is being called more into question.

Dave went on, “The most important single factor for the liberation of Palestine is the revolutionary process in Egypt.

“Even president Barack Obama has had to pay lip service to the demand for Israel to return to 1967 borders.

“He recognises that right now the people are the real power brokers in the region.”

Radical

There is a long and proud history of radical music contributing to campaigns for justice and articulating the anger of ordinary people.

The group Faithless itself recorded the anti-war song “Mass Destruction” during the huge movement against the Iraq war.

It pointed out the hypocrisy of Western intervention: “Whether Halliburton or Enron or anyone/Greed is a weapon of mass destruction”.

Dave said, “That song was made because the movement was so strong. But it’s easy for big business to co-opt music, even that with a radical message.

“If you want to make political music you have to be aware of the ability of the system to sell everything back to us for profit.”

The mainstream media and Western governments distort the occupation of Palestine. Dave thinks that the first step to winning the argument about the cultural boycott is telling the truth about the situation.

“You have to start with the politics,” he said. “There is an idea that it is a battle with two equals at loggerheads. Many people don’t know about the theft of Palestinian land, the illegal settlements, the persecution and repression of Palestinians or the prison that Gaza has become.

“Israel is a heavily armed, Western-backed state. That’s the starting point.

“There are lots of things that people can do to support Palestine. Downloading the song is just one of them. If it gets into the charts there is more chance of it being played on the radio, challenging the censorship of pro-Palestine music.

“We want to encourage people to explore the issues for themselves and hearing the song can be part of that.

“And it is the hardest punch you can land for Palestine for 79p!”

Israel Is No Different Than Syria

Israel likes to tout itself as the "plucky little democracy" in the Middle East, and as an island of European-style democracy besieged by a sea of dictatorships and dark, Arabic hordes. Besides the (fading) appeal to the oppressions Jews suffered in Europe, particular the horrors of the Holocaust, it is this "light of nations" image - and the racist stereotypes of the Arab societies and peoples - that has been a key component of its PR in the west. For the political elites, of course, it is more real politick than that - Israel is their watchdog to keep the unruly Arabs who happen by unlucky accident to control the lion's share of the world's oil supply. These tropes have served Israel well since its founding in 1948.

However, you have to wonder how long this image can stick when it is so at variance with the reality of Israel's actual record. This weekend's murder of unarmed protesters by Israeli soldiers in the illegally occupied Golan Heights region of Syria reminds us once again that Israel, in fact, behaves no differently than the dictatorships that surround it - or used to before Egyptians did theirs in. The usual answer given to such accusations is that Israel only deals harshly with its enemies but practices an open form of democracy and vibrant civil debate amongst its multi-cultural citizenry. Well, this is as true of Israel as it was of the early United States of America - i.e. not at all. Because it disappears the many millions of people who are denied civil rights and who faced armed, murderous repression by the Israeli state, which exercises control over the most fundamental aspects of their lives - from control of tax revenues to control of ground water, airspace and international borders.

We shouldn't forget that it was less than two years ago that Israel - without provocation and having broken the terms of a peace treaty with Hamas several times - invaded Gaza and murdered over 1,000 civilians, including hundreds of children. Since then, another 200 Palestinians have been killed with dozens killed in the last month during the demonstrations to mark the Nakba ("catastrophe") and Naksa ("setback") that marked the founding of the state of Israel from the Palestinian point of view. In other words, Israel has killed as many protesters as the Syria security forces. Just because Israel goes one step further than the Syrian dictatorship and refuses to recognize the civil rights of a majority of the human beings over whom it rules - and kills - hardly makes Israel a better regime. Nor is the fact that Israel prevents the majority of the indigenous population from returning to their homeland as a way to avoid the overwhelming demographic challenge of denying democratic rights not only to a small majority - as is the case now - but to a massive an insurmountable one.

And the fact that Israel has such a large body of domestic support amongst the Jewish population for its actions provides no more of an exoneration than the denial of citizenship rights to the Palestinians makes its actions democratic. The reality is that Israel only exists because of the largesse of American dollars - to the tune of $3 million per day - and American high tech weapons. And just as in the Arab dictatorships where the regimes provide privileges to a section of the population, usually from the ruler's tribe, region or religious minority, in order to create a loyal base in the population, Israel does the same with the local Jewish population - it just so happens that American government money allows the base to be larger than in the relatively poorer Arab countries. The weight of history also brings support to the regime - in Egypt, the regime maintained for a long time the patina of support that carried over from the immense popularity of Gamal Nasser, the anti-imperialist and populist president until his death in 1970. With Israel the historic weight of the Holocaust and the previous oppression of the Jews in Europe provides a further base of support to the actions of the Israeli state.

These elements all combine to provide a cover to some of the most brutal crimes against democracy and human rights in the world today - all with the enthusiastic support of the Canadian government. And they make it clear that the struggle against this oppression of a multi-pronged one. The revolutions in the Arab world - and hopefully Assad will be the next dictator to fall - are a key element in undermining Israel legitimacy and support base. Along with those mighty events is the continued resistance of the Palestinians themselves both within the region and internationally along with their allies to expose Israel as an apartheid type state. And, lastly, to destroy western state and corporate support for Israel, which provides the domestic foundation for Israel's colonialist and *theocratic policies at home.

Israel fires on 'Naksa' protesters - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

*I deliberately use "theocratic" and not "ethnocratic" for a number of reasons. First, Jewishness or Judaism is both a religion and a set of cultural practices/shared history but this doesn't coincide with an ethnicity in the same way as, say, Han Chinese does (and this is still problematic), nor is it, like say, American or Canadian, the denotion of a civil conception of citizenship. And, as the original "liberatory" claims of Zionism dissipate, the state is more and more reliant upon religious justifications to support its claims over the land and the people.

When The Ex-Mossad Chief Thinks You're Crazy...

This article in the New York Times is interesting. The recently retired head of the Israeli Mossad (i.e. CIA) is using his newfound civilian freedoms to run around and say that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are, basically, f***ing nuts. Now, anyone with access to information more substantive than FOX News has probably known or suspected for some time that the Israeli leadership are apartheid-organizing, ethnocratic, colonialist scum - but that some of the people in the top tiers of the Israeli leadership think Bibi and Ehud are bonkers it tells you something. Just to put it in perspective, the ex-Mossad chief is hardly a bleeding heart liberal or lover of freedom. As the Times notes:

While in office, Mr. Dagan served three prime ministers, was reappointed twice and oversaw a number of reported operations that Israelis consider great successes — forcing delays in Iran’s nuclear program through sabotaging its computers and assassinating scientists; setting the groundwork for an attack on a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007; and assassinating Imad Mughniyeh, a top Lebanese Hezbollah operative, in 2008 .

When Ariel Sharon, the prime minister in 2002, appointed Mr. Dagan, he was reported to have told him he wanted “a Mossad with a knife between its teeth.” Mr. Dagan is widely thought to have complied and is not seen as a soft-hearted liberal.

What this schism reflects is the pressure coming to bear on sections of the Israeli ruling class as a result of the Arab revolutions, which are causing the region to shift wildly under their feet, and the growing sense that Israel is a pariah state utterly uninterested in peace or justice. The only thing that really allows the Israelis to continue with their policies is American support - political, financial and military. Israel wouldn't last a day without America. But there is a weariness within a section of the American elite for the rabid nature of the Israeli leadership. It's still a minority strand, to be certain, but it is an expression of the fact that some doubt how useful is a despised Jewish Sparta, surrounded by a sea of resentful Arabs ruled by increasingly unpopular and unstable dictatorships (also sponsored by the USA).

Well, the more splits the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. Splits make it more difficult for the Israelis to attack Iran - as Dagan suggests the leadership around Netanyahu wants to do - and can create an opening for the Palestinians to drive a wedge, particularly if there are more successful revolutions in the Arab world and the revolution in Egypt deepens. For one thing, Israel is at risk of losing a key ideological prop: it's claim to be the only democracy in the middle east. That looks laughable as 80 million Egyptians build a vibrant democratic society next door and, meanwhile, the majority of the population under the effective control of the Israeli government (i.e. the Palestinians inside Israel and in the Israeli colonized and controlled Territories) have no civil or democratic rights over that government.

Harper: More Hardline Than Most Israelis

Well, there ya go: Harper is to the right of everybody else in the G8 on the question of the character of a two state solution. Harper blah blahs about "balance" and then lays out what that means - everything for Israel and nothing for the Palestinians. Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state and the Palestinian "state" must be "de-militarized".

Let's unpack these two things for a moment, shall we.

To say that Israel is a Jewish state either means that it is a theocratic state - something that we oppose when that theocracy is Muslim, suggesting a double-standard that is frankly Islamophobic. Or Israel is an ethnic state that thus treats its significant non-Jewish population (20% are Palestinian/Arab-Israeli) as second tier.

The fundamentally racist character of Harper's attitude is made more obvious by the fact that Israel isn't expected to withdraw from land that it illegally occupied post-1967, after a war that it started, but the Palestinians aren't permitted the basic right to self-defense via a Palestinian military. They are to be treated as children, undeserving of the full right accorded to adult nations.

This is all the more shocking because Israel has started more wars, led more invasions and killed more civilians than any other country in the region and perhaps (USA aside) any other nation on the planet. If any country has shown that it is lacking in the ability to use its military in a "mature" way it is Israel. But, then, that is exactly the point. Israel is the west's watchdog in the Middle East, keeping the local indigenous population in line. The role of the Palestinians is to leave, die or become a compliant native population satisfied to live in ever smaller bantustans and, perhaps, provide Israel with a source of cheap labour.

It's worth noting that the position that Harper "pressed hard" for at the G8 summit was not only more harshly pro-zionist than every other leader in attendance, it is also less accommodating even than the long-standing majority viewpoint in Israel.

The irony of all this, of course, is that the absolute inability of the Israeli political class to accomodate a real Palestinian state or to stop colonial expansion into the West Bank as a core state agenda has all but killed the two state solution. Barring the mass expulsion of the Palestinian population in toto - a policy made less likely as a result of the Egyptian revolution having overthrown Mubarak - it becomes more and more likely that Israel will ultimately face a one state solution. The struggle will shift. Instead of being a national struggle - which allows Israeli politicians and their western supporters to portray this as a war - it will become a civil rights struggle that will be much more difficult to dismiss. And Israel will be faced with having to give citizenship rights to the millions of Palestinians who now live under its rule.

Harper blocks mention of 1967 border in G8 Mideast statement - The Globe and Mail