BBC Waging Israel’s Propaganda War V: Newsnight Does Palestine
November 30, 2006
BBC’s in-house Napolean, Gavin Esler, who in an earlier interview with Shimon Peres had shown more enthusiasm for destroying Lebanon than his interviewee - the kind of performance that has earned BBC the approval of Israel’s propaganda establishment - offers a new gem. ‘In pursuit of fairness’ in the coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, he brings ‘not one but TWO Quotes for the Day’: one from Israel’s Prime Minister, and another from the pro-Israel King of Jordan, who, besides spending quality time with his Playstation 2, had only recently sided with Israel in its brutal assault on Lebanon. (For a broader history of Israeli-Jordanian collaboration, see Avi Shlaim’s Collusion Across the Jordan, and Said K. Aburish’s A Brutal Friendship).
For the BBC, I presume, that is the acceptable range of opinion when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
To his credit, Esler did gather a panel for the debate which was more balanced than usual even though it included an illegal settler, a criminal under international law. Diana Buttu was articulate and effective — and attractive — and her reasoned arguments only brought the injustice of Israeli expectations, exemplified by the settler, into sharper relief.
Mark Urban’s short report that set up the debate, however, is typical of the crass propaganda that passes for journalism on BBC.
The report predictably frames the issue in the context of Israel’s ‘security’. Prospective members of Israel’s brutal occupation army are humanized with endearing images of proud mothers and jubilant families as they pass out. To the uninitiated it would appear as if it were the Israelis rather than the Palestinians who have been enduring the relentless air-raids, artillery barrages and armoured assaults.
There is ample talk of ‘both sides’ in the conflict, as if there were parity between Israel’s $5bn a year occupation army, and the handful of poorly equipped rag-tag Palestinian resistance fighters from among a population of 1.3m crammed inside the world’s largest open air prison – on the 6km stretch of Gaza.
In its characteristic blame-the-victim approach, the BBC fogey speaks about Israel’s unilateral ‘withdrawal’ from Gaza and how ‘subsequent violence’ from the Palestinians has undermined support for similar steps. He somehow manages to overlook the fact that Gaza’s land borders, airspace and coastaline are still controlled by Israel. The population of Gaza has since been starved in a blockade which Dov Weissglass, the advisor to the Israeli PM, referred to as a ‘diet’ in a splendid display of Israeli humour.
The BBC hack goes on dutifully to introduce viewers to Israel’s ‘demographic problem’ - namely, its non-Jewish population. For the BBC, presumably, ethnic cleansing is a respectable proposition worthy of unchallenged coverage. The reporter then interviews an Israeli arab, who – surprise, surprise – does not want to become a member of the ‘Palestinian State’ (an euphemism for the 200 odd Bantustans proposed as a solution for Israel’s ‘demographic problem’ with no sovereignty over its borders, defence or resources). Like most of us, perhaps, he does not relish the idea of living in the middle of a firing range; being harassed every time he leaves home; being humiliated every time he sets out for work; spending endless hours in ques at checkpoints; waiting ages at road crossings so that an Israeli settler can pass on the Jewish-only road without having to witness the faces of those he has disposessed.
Israel’s 25 foot high and 450-mile long annexation wall also receives BBC’s characteristic benign treatment. Declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in a near unanimous decision, the wall, we are told, is there for Israel’s security (a view shared by none except pro-Israel activists outside of Israel). The fact that it is built on Occupied Palestinian Territories, rather than on Israel’s borders (as common sense would suggest)and annexes 47% of the West Bank gets no mention.
The only problem that Urban sees with the wall is its effectiveness: quoting inhabitants of Sderot, he tells us that the Palestinian groups ’denied the chance to hit Israel one way, will do it another’. He tells us that in the past 6 years, Qassam rockets have killed 8 people in the town. To illustrate the horrors, we are introduced to Yaffa Malka, a hair-dresser, and her 13 year-old daughter who is ‘too afraid to go to school’. Yaffa turns out to be more hawkish than Hulagu (although not nearly as much as Gavin Esler – in this interview for instance) as she seeks the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure – their water, their electricity.
No mention, of course, is made of the fact that more than 1500 Palestinians have been killed in nearby Gaza in the same period, including 430 Children; that Gaza’s electricity and water sources have already been destroyed; that 2831 homes have been demolished (another 2427 partially demolished).
In his narration, Urban’s reference to Kafka is apt, as the same hawk who appears earlier in his report stressing unwillingness to give up an inch of occupied land, later metamorphosizes into a peacemaker ‘on the left’ - a reason for ‘hope’. He leaves us with a parting gem (with a smile this time). Having lived with Arabs and their ancestors ‘for 2700 years’ (he doesn’t appear that antient), he has apparently learned that ‘Arabs are patient people’. For this reason, he assures people in ‘Israel and the West’ that they will eventually see the light.
Not to be outdone, Urban offers his own nugget. Having earlier told us that Palestinians are unable to engage in dialogue because they keep ‘bickering among themselves’, he tells us that its the lack of leadership which is preventing resolution to the conflict.
Hmm…Now where have we heard that before?
Of course, its the famous official Israeli propaganda line that there is no peace because there is no partner for peace. Which makes one wonder: Are BBC’s reports on the Middle-East being written by the Israeli Ministry of Information?
Motive and Precedent in the Gemayel Assassination
November 27, 2006
In the aftermath of Pierre Gemayel’s assassination the Guardian raises a key question – Cui bono (who benefits)? The paper’s answer is typical of the mainstream media response to the event which remains confined in its scope to the usual suspects*. While there is ample speculation about who might benefit, the context provided only emphasizes a Syrian (and Hizbullah) motive and avoids mention of possible benefits to any other party – Israel or the March 14 Alliance for instance. As far as the media is concerned, Gemayel was anti-Syrian, hence a Syrian motive and with its alleged precedent of political murder further investigation is unnecessary.
To point out the obvious shortcoming in this approach, it is important to look at the context and parameters which invariably lead to the politically servicable conclusion of Syrian culpability.
The likelihood of an attack on Iran has diminished in the face of mounting opposition from the military, diplomatic and oil elites. Tony Blair has seemingly broken ranks with Bush to suggest engaging Iran and Syria in future discussions on Iraq. Israel’s humiliating defeat in Lebanon has strengthened Hizbullah politically. Leaders of the so-called March 14 Alliance have been discredited for having been abandoned by their erstwhile US-Saudi patrons during Israel’s brutal assault.
All in all, the Israeli/neocon grand plan for the Middle East — eliminating potential challengers to the Israel’s regional hegemony — had suffered major setbacks.
Then came the Gemayel assassination.
Accusations of Syrian culpability were quick to arrive as the media’s conviction — reinforced by statements from George W. Bush — rendered evidence superfluous. Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister wasted no time in pinning the blame on Syria. Stalwarts of the “Cedar Revolution” were equally unrestrained. Questions were raised as to the wisdom of including the outlaw regime in possible discussions on Iraq. Calls for investigations into its alleged involvement in the Hariri assassination were stepped up.
In short, all the predictable consequences of the murder of an anti-Syrian Lebanese politician have come to pass.
It would appear then that Syria is the party least likely to benefit from the Gemayel murder. Israel and the March 14 Alliance on the other hand have far more to gain. Syria, however, is singled out for its alleged precedent of murdering its opponents in Lebanon. If that is the only factor setting Syria apart, then perhaps it is crucial that we investigate motive as well as precedent in the case of each key player in the region to see whether the obsessive focus on Syria is warranted.
Syria
In the mainstream media so far Syria remains the prime suspect in the Gemayel assassination. With its history of interference in Lebanese politics and its overt hostility towards the US-Saudi backed Siniora government, it is perhaps not surprising that fingers should point at Syria. Just in the past two years, five prominent Lebanese personalities have been assassinated – all of them anti-Syrian. The answer seems straightforward – in Fisk’s words: “the butler did it”. Convenient; but is it convincing?
Syria is clearly aware of the highly charged Lebanese political atmosphere where it is blamed automatically for any attack on an anti-Syrian figure. Subterfuge is certainly not beyond its means. But this, of course, ignores the timing of the incident. Recall that Syria’s return to the mainstream was imminent; its services being considered for stabilizing Iraq with which it had just resumed diplomatic ties; Hizbullah, its key ally in Lebanon, had just repulsed a major Israeli invasion and was on the verge of bringing its adversaries in the Lebanese government down. It seems highly unlikely that Syria would jeopardize all this by an act for which it will most certainly bear the blame.
Some have argued that this might be Syria’s way of forestalling a UN investigation into the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. But it would be a rather novel way to quash an investigation in which it is being held as a prime suspect by carrying out another assassination for which it would predictably bear the blame.
Others have hinted at Syrian designs for instigating a civil war in Lebanon in order to intervene again on the pretext of bringing stability. But it is inconceivable that Syria would take such a massive risk for an outcome that is at best uncertain when its services are already being sought in ending another civil war – in Iraq.
Finally, if it was Gemayel’s vocal opposition to Syria that made him a target, there are others who are far more significant and effective who would have made eminently better targets.
Over all, the case for Syrian involvement in the assassination is so weak that even analysts in Israel have expressed doubt.
Hizbullah
Besides Syria, it is Hizbullah that has borne the brunt of the majority of accusations of involvement in the Gemayel assassination. The case against it is the shakiest as it stands on the assumption that it wanted to precipitate the collapse of the Lebanese government – from which its members had recently resigned – through an assassination. With its planned street protests, in the face of which the collapse of the US backed Siniora government was seen as a foregone conclusion, the proposition seems tenuous. With the widespread prestige and popularity it had gained in defeating Israel, it is highly unlikely that it will throw it all away and check its momentum – which for the first time was close to winning full representation for the marginalized Shia community in Lebanon’s political order rigged along confessional grounds – through an unnecessary act of murder.
March 14 Alliance
Israel’s assault on Lebanon, US support for it and Saudi indifference had completely discredited the US-Saudi backed March 14 Alliance government whose collapse was imminent in the face of Hizbullah’s planned street protests. The political climate in the US, its prime sponsor, has changed with the Republican defeat and the paradigm shift being considered includes bringing Syria, its bete noire, and Iran into the dialogue. Charles Harb writes in the Guardian:
The assassination…could not therefore have come at a more opportune moment for the March 14 alliance. Just two days before the planned start of mass public protests, the assassination halted the opposition’s momentum.
What better way to check US advance towards normalization with Syria than by an act which will in all likelihood be blamed on the latter, providing ammunition to the neocons – critics of the normalization policy and architects of the US orchestrated “Cedar Revolution”.
As regards the precedent, the person most vocal in pronouncing blame on Syria , Samir Geagea, is perhaps the best place to start. In the Guardian, Brian Whitaker et al speak about Geagea’s ‘prophecy’ just prior to the incident that ‘three ministers might be assassinated’ to precipitate the Siniora government’s collapse. Curiously, they overlooked the most significant episode of this prophet’s own past. Fisk reveals:
…Geagea’s lads blew up the congregation of the Church of Our Lady of Deliverance in 1994; the court said that he wanted to persuade Christians that Hizbollah had committed the crime.(emphasis added)
Then there is the case of Misbah Al-Ahdab, another stalwart of the ‘Cedar Revolution’, whose house in Tripoli was shot at by an unknown assailant.
He said that he was targeted (and implied that it was Syria behind the attack) because he praised Hariri prime minister, Fu’ad Sanyurah. A few days later, it was revealed that Misbah’s own body guard, Jihad `Abdul-Hamid Al-`Aklah, was the person who shot at the house. He was arrested and according to his family, admitted that Al-Ahdab asked him to shoot at the house to get fame and media attention. Yesterday, Al-`Aklah was found dead in his cell at a Lebanese prison.
Surely the aforementioned incidents are significant grounds for the connect-the-dots sleuths of the mainstream media to venture speculation in this direction.
Israel
With the plans for an attack on Iran being shelved and the plan to extend Israel ’s regional hegemony in tatters, this new turn of events could not have been more fortuitous for Israel and its allies.
In their internecine struggle against the Baker Commission’s old-guard, this would clearly strengthen the position of Israel-firster neocons. Sidney Blumenthal and Seymour Hersh have already reported on their concerted efforts to sabotage the commission’s proceedings. The assassination jeopardizes the likelihood of Syria being brought into the dialogue on Iraq. It provides Israel and its fifth column in the US an opportunity to renew their efforts for enlisting American military power in battering regional adversaries.
The assassination could also be aimed at precipitating a civil war which directly benefits Israel: It will effectively neutralize Hizbullah, against which Israel can then wage a proxy war by arming Christian and Sunni militias.
Most importantly it serves as a useful distraction from Israel’s horrific crimes against the defenseless Palestinians such as the recent murder of 19 sleeping men, women and children in Beit Hanoun.
Besides ample motive, it is the sheer abundance of precedents that leaves one baffled as to why the possibility of Israeli involvement has not been considered in the mainstream media.
First there is the series of bombings in Baghdad in 1950 whose targets included a Synagogue and other Jewish gathering places which precipitated the exodus of Iraqi Jews to Israel . It was since revealed that the bombings were carried out by the Israeli intelligence to encourage immigration to Israel .
Next there is the famous Lavon affair from 1954 when Mossad planted bombs at US-UK installations in Egypt in order to forestall the likely rapprochement between Egypt and the United States. Feeling insecure and isolated, Israel sent a team of Mossad saboteurs under Colonel Avraharn Dar to commit the act of sabotage which they hoped will be blamed on Egypt, scuttling Nasser’s growing relations with the West. The saboteurs were captured and exposed shortly afterwards, causing Israel major embarrassment (This did not prevent Israel from honouring the men for their service).
Most relevant to the present discussion, however, is the Israeli attempt to assassinate John Gunther Dean, the US ambassador to Lebanon , in 1979.
En route from his residence in Lebanon’s hills…Dean’s limousine and convoy took 21 rifle bullets. The automobile bearing the ambassador and Mrs. Dean was also struck by two light anti-tank weapons. The shot-out tires on the Deans’ bulletproof car automatically reinflated…Some shots struck where Dean was sitting, but bulletproof plastic windows saved his life.
Picked up by Lebanese security, the anti-tank canisters had made-in-America markings. After unanswered telegrams to the State Department and all but silent responses to his telephone inquiries, Dean eventually learned that the anti-tank weapons were sold and shipped to Israel in 1974.
The aim, once again, was to implicate its prime adversary in Lebanon – the PLO at the time – in order to gain fuller support from the Carter administration. (Evidence of the botched attempt has since been made available at Carter’s presidential library in Atlanta)
As elsewhere, assassinations in Lebanon have undesirable consequences – they bestow undeserved martyrdom. Pierre Gemayel – member of the Fascist Phalange which carried out the massacre of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Chatila under the protection of Ariel Sharon’s guns – is the latest on this list. In the death and destruction that Lebanon has witnessed throughout its recent history – particularly this year – this assassination in and of itself is of little significance. Its real importance, however, is its political utility, which ultimately relies on media credulity: the wars, interventions and ethnic/sectarian strife for which it will be used as a pretext. Although the official story is already crumbling, it remains to be seen whether the mainstream is able to challenge the official truth and entertain the more plausible alternative.
*To its credit, Guardian did entertain another theory in its pages – a possible American connection
US Support for Israel and the Portrayal of Arabs-Muslims in the Media
November 25, 2006
This is an interesting interview. As a former Jew, Schleifer brings important insights on the American Jewish lobby and its influence over the years.
I must admit, I had never heard of Schleifer, so here I am adding a brief bio:
Dr Abdallah Schleifer, Distinguished Lecturer in Mass Communication and Director of the Adham Center for Television Journalism at AUC, is a veteran journalist who has covered the Middle East for American and Arab media for more than 20 years.
Abdullah Schleifer was born a Jew in New York but converted to Islam in the 1960s. He is (2003) director of the Adham Center for Television Journalism and distinguished lecturer in mass communication at the American University of Cairo. He is also publisher and senior editor of Transnational Broadcasting Studies. Prior to joining the AUC faculty, Schleifer served as NBC News Cairo Bureau Chief and Middle East producer/reporter based in Beirut, and covered the Middle East for American and Arab media for over 20 years.
He supports (2002) the Palestinian American Research Center.
Lebanon and the Coming War
November 23, 2006
No, I am not talking about the much heralded civil war in Lebanon.
The likelihood of an attack on Iran has been diminishing in the face of mounting opposition from the military, diplomatic and the oil elites. Tony Blair has broken ranks with Bush to suggest engaging Iran and Syria in future discussions on Iraq. The week before, Syria reestablished its diplomatic ties with Iraq after nearly a decade and a half. Israel’s long planned invasion of Lebanon resulted in a humiliating defeat that has strengthened Hizbullah’s hand in Lebanon. Leaders of the so-called March 14 movement have been discredited for having been abandoned by their erstwhile US-Saudi patrons during Israel’s brutal assault. All in all the Ziocon’s grand plan for the middle-east — eliminating potential challenger’s to Israel’s regional hegemony — had suffered major setbacks. Then comes the Pierre Gemayel assassination.
Before Gemayel’s blood had dried, accusations of Syrian culpability were flying. Evidence is deemed unnecessary for Zionist dominated US media to declare Syria the culprit. Stalwarts of the “Cedar Revolution” followed suit. The execrable BBC floated its own unedifying innuendo. In the din, what was lost is a clear analysis of who might have benefited. While even the Independent gave column space to Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, to pin the blame on Syria, the more plausible counterthesis was entirely overlooked.
Lets examine here how this assassination impacts the key players in the middle east.
Syria:
The best answer to this perhaps is provided by Robert Fisk:
Yes, all five leading Lebanese men murdered in the past 20 months were anti-Syrian. And it’s a bit like saying “the butler did it”. Wouldn’t a vengeful Syria strike at the independence of Lebanon by killing a minister? Yes. But then, what would be the best way of undermining the new and boastful power of the pro-Syrian Hizbollah, the Shia guerrilla army which has demanded the resignation of Siniora’s cabinet? By killing a government minister, knowing that many Lebanese would blame the murder on Syria’s Hizbollah allies?
It would be quite odd for Syria to undermine its own imminent return to the mainstream and the chance of playing a key role in the future of Iraq by assassinating an insignificant Lebanese politican.
March 14 Movement:
Israel’s assault on Lebanon earlier in the year had greatly damaged the pro-American March 14 movement which more recentlly was facing an imment collapse in the face of Hizbullah and Amal’s withdrawal from the National Unity government. In the meanwhile, the US, their prime sponsor, was considering a paradigm shift which included bringing Syria, their prime enemy, and Iran into the dialogue. As Charles Harb put it in the Guardian:
The assassination of Pierre Gemayel could not therefore have come at a more opportune moment for the March 14 alliance. Just two days before the planned start of mass public protests, the assassination halted the opposition’s momentum.
Israel/Neocons
With the plans for an attack on Iran being shelved and the bold plan to extend Israel’s hegemony over the whole region in tatters, this new turn of events could not have been more fortuitous. The Ziocons are aware that they can always rely on the credulity of the media to deem evidence superfluous in denouncing established rogues such as Syria or Hizbullah. In their powerplay against the old-guard of the Baker commission, this would clearly strengthen their position. This scuttles any future plan to bring Syria into the dialogue on Iraq. This also provides Israel and its fifth column in the US an opportunity to renew their efforts for enlisting American military power to batter its regional adversaries. Mostly importantly it serves as a useful distraction from Isreal’s horrific crimes against the defenseless Palestinians, evident in its most brutal manifestation in the recent murder of 19 sleeping men, women and children in Beit Hanoun.
Lebanon’s Unwitting Martyrs
November 21, 2006
As in Pakistan, assassinations in Lebanon have undesirable consequences – they bestow undeserved martyordom. The latest to join this list is Pierre Gemayel – member of the Fascist Phalange which carried out the massacre of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Chatila under the protection of Ariel Sharon’s guns.
The assassination appears like Israel’s way of preempting Syria and Iran’s return to the mainstream through Baker’s Iraq Study Group recommendations. As Sidney Blumenthal and Sy Hersh have pointed out, there is a concerted neocon effort to sabotage the Baker commissions proceedings. The old-guard (Oil-men) want a unified Iraq, preferably under a Saddam like dictator, whereas the Ziocons are keen to see its breakup to use the resulting instability as leverage against Israel’s potential foes. Now, we will very likely be seeing the blame for this assassination laid on Syria and Iran’s doors in the Zionist dominated US media and by their ’moderate’ Arab allies. As a matter of fact it is already happening.
Here is how Richard Engel, MSNBC’s bureau chief in the middle east, just described the Gemayel assassination.
Lebanon is right now divided into two factions. One which is pro-Syrian, and another pro-American. This man was part of the pro-American faction. The pro-Syrian faction of course includes Hizbullah. The two sides are fighting because Hizbullah and Syria want more power. Hizbullah is now threatening to topple this government, threatening to hold street protests. Negotiations have been going on behind the scenes and this assassination is seen as one more way that Hizbullah, syria and other supporters of this faction are trying to influence those negotiations.
In subsequent statements, Engel continued to describe Hizbullah’s invovlement as a given fact.
US-Saudi stooge Saad Hariri is already leading the chorus:
“The Cedar Revolution is under attack…Today one of our main believers in a free democratic Lebanon has been killed. We believe the hand of Syria is all over [this],” he told CNN.
Land of the Free: “Here’s your Patriot Act!”
November 20, 2006
In Breaking the Silence at one point John Pilger asks the former CIA analyst Ray McGovern his view on Norman Mailer’s statement that the United States is in a pre-Fascist state. McGovern replies: “I hope that is true because there are others who think it already is a Fascist state”. As the following incident illustrates, this isn’t mere hyperbole.
Mostafa Tabatabainejad, an Iranian-American student was tasered atleast four times on November 16 for failing to produce an ID in a library. The Police subsequently threatened other students for questioning their methods.
David Remesnitsky, a 2006 UCLA alumnus who witnessed the incident, described it as “the most disgusting and vile act I had ever seen in my life” but the incident was best summed up in Tabtabainejad’s own words: “Here’s your Patriot Act! Here’s your fucking abuse of authority!”
Democracy Now is reporting that the officer in the incident has a history of physical confrontations.
Authorities have revealed the campus police officer who repeatedly shocked an Iranian-American student with a Taser stun gun has a history of physical confrontation with civilians. The officer, Terrence Duren, shot a homeless man on campus three years ago and was once recommended for dismissal over an alleged assault. One week ago, Duren shocked UCLA senior Mostafa Tabatabainejad five times after the student failed to produce a student ID while studying in the library.
As the Middle-East Burns, House of Saud Puts its Foot Down
November 20, 2006
According to the Times, at last Saudi Arabia ”is threatening to suspend diplomatic ties with Britain”. With British compliticity in the horrors being wrought on the Palestinians each day, its participation in the brutal occupation of Iraq and its demonization of its own Muslim population, its only fitting that the country home to Islam’s two holiest sites should use the leverage accorded it through its immense oil wealth to protect persecuted Muslims worldwide. It is hard to imagine the generally complacent Saudis being stirred to action by a nobler cause:
The Saudis are furious about the criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into allegations that BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest defence company, set up the “slush fund” to support the extravagant lifestyle of members of the Saudi royal family.
The payments, in the form of lavish holidays, a fleet of luxury cars including a gold Rolls-Royce, rented apartments and other perks, are alleged to have been paid to ensure the Saudis continued to buy from BAE under the so-called Al-Yamamah deal, rather than going to another country. Al-Yamamah is the biggest defence contract in British history and has kept BAE in business for 20 years.
Ah…I see.
But what exactly do the Saudis need all these weapons for? Every few years they get the latest in military technology, with the highest military expenditures of any country in the Islamic world, despite having no official enemies. As with most 3rd world regimes, the bulk of it, of course, is used for internal repression. Older weapon systems are replaced with new ones even before the Saudi military has trained in their proper usage. Most weapons manufacturers place Saudi princes on their boards in order to use their contacts to secure deals for weapons the country doesn’t need. The prince gets some millions and a yatch so that billions of the country’s petrodollars could be used on purposeless high-tech gadgetry which will be duly replaced before anyone has figured out their use. Just the magnitude of these transactions is staggering. Take the same case for example:
They have repeated their threat that they will terminate payments on a defence contract that could be worth £40 billion and safeguard at least 10,000 British jobs…
A defence official said that the preliminary contract, signed last August, to sell the first 24 of 72 promised Typhoons, better known as Eurofighters, was then temporarily suspended. That contract alone is said to be worth £11 billion and would safeguard 9,000 jobs at the Eurofighter’s UK headquarters in Warton, Lancashire, for the next decade…
Al-Yamamah… was signed in 1985 when Britain agreed to sell 72 Tornados and 30 Hawks to Saudi Arabia.
The deal was renewed in 1993 when the Saudis agreed to buy another 48 Tornado warplanes. In a third stage of the contract signed last year, Britain is selling up to 72 more planes, the Typhoons.
According to The Guardian, a dispatch from a British ambassador alleged the family of Crown Prince Sultan “had a corrupt interest in all contracts”.
The middlemen in the Al-Yamamah deal include “a prominent Lebanese politician” and “a wealthy Syrian.”
Lest anyone think that the lack of principles is a trait peculiar to Arabs alone, the Guardian reports:
…in 2001 Tony Blair pushed through cabinet a BAE £28m radar sale to one of Africa’s poorest countries against the heated opposition of then international development minister Clare Short…
Last month, the Guardian disclosed that accidentally-released Whitehall documents revealed how the price of BAE’s Tornado warplanes in Saudi Arabia’s original Al Yamamah contract had been inflated by 32%.
Dog & Pony Show in Pakistan
November 19, 2006
I bet that is a “moderate” muslim Blair’s posing with. Oh, wait, it is.
Palestinians are the Priority
November 18, 2006
An Open Statement of Commitment to the Palestinian Solidarity Cause
There are individuals within the Palestinian solidarity movement seeking to create divisions by:
* deliberately shifting focus away from Israel’s war crimes and its supremacist Zionist ideology;
* imposing unilateral agendas by presenting both sides as victims;
* sabotaging service to the just cause of the Palestinian people;
* ignoring the issue of right of return for the Palestinians;
* utilising the platform of the Palestinian discourse to argue about anti-Semitism, which is not a Palestinian problem and not created by Arabs.
Our primary and single concern is solidarity with the Palestinian people.
As ethical human beings we consider it our obligation to:
* do all we can to allow the information to be diffused as widely and as quickly as possible;
* ensure the argument of the oppression and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people stays in the forefront;
* present as clear and honest a picture as possible of the meaning of Zionism and the Jewish State;
* to cross the divide and to unite in our war against the Zionist crime.
We accept and believe in equality of all persons, regardless of their race, religion, political or other orientation. We believe that full and unconditional support of the Palestinian people is a condition sine qua non for activists to adopt, and we recognise that their attachment to their homeland is a fundamental and unalterable condition. To that end we advocate for one unified State with equal rights for all its citizens.
Any attempts at censoring reasoned critique of Israel and Zionism must be refused a priori, as it is in conflict with the goal of seeking to protect and support the Palestinian people – as their empowerment is the only way to peaceful coexistence for all the populations of the Middle East. Any attempts at dictating what the Palestinians should do will be looked upon with great circumspection and suspicion. Palestinians themselves wish to construct their own future and are not pawns to be shifted on the chessboard.
We demand free speech for sincere critics of Zionism and call for an end to campaigns created in order to ostracise its most vocal critics. Smear campaigns will not be tolerated, as we recognise that they are the instrument of choice of Zionists, and detract energy from our work. We will not hesitate to expose the instrumental usage of them, no matter the claimed principles of those who are engaged in creating such campaigns. On the other hand, open dialogue and reasoned argumentation is welcome and greatly encouraged as a tool to understanding and collaboration.
The indigenous people of Palestine are facing extermination by the hands of the Jewish State, and the world keeps silent. The sooner we draw public attention to Israel’s needless wanton destruction, the sooner we can do away with this horrifying, insufferable situation.
PLEASE, sign the petition if you share our concerns.
http://www.petitiononline.com/grosveno/petition.html
Einstein, Arendt et al’s Letter to the New York Times ’48
November 18, 2006
Letters to the New York Times
December 4, 1948
New Palestine Party: Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children — and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
(signed)
Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
This letter was recirculated when Menachem Begin was elected as Prime Minister in 1977 and because of Begin’s fascist past, it was necessary for the American Jewish lobby to come up with a new reason for maintaining US support for Israel. According to the late General Matti Peled, this was what gave birth to the myth of Israel serving the US as a “strategic asset.” –[Jeffrey Blankfort]
