IN the final days of the Libyan conflict, as NATO conducted a nonstop bombing campaign, an Aljazeera Arabic television correspondent’s actions raised more than eyebrows. They also raised serious questions regarding the journalistic responsibility of Arab media – or in fact any media - during times of conflict.

Using a handheld transceiver, the journalist aired live communication between a Libyan commander and his troops in a Tripoli neighborhood targeted by a massive air assault. Millions of people listened, as surely did NATO military intelligence, to sensitive information disclosed by an overpowered, largely defeated army. The Doha-based news anchor sought further elaboration, and the reporter readily provided all the details he knew.

Did Abdel-Azim Mohammed, a journalist reputed for his gutsy reports from Iraq’s Fallujah, violate the rules of journalism by transmitting information that could aid one party against another, and worse, cost human lives?

While there are few doubts about the impressive legacy of Aljazeera – and the valuable individual contributions of many of its reporters – urgent questions need to be asked regarding its current coverage of the so-called Arab Spring that began in December 2010.

Some of us have warned against the temptation of a one-narrative-fits-all style of reporting. A non-violent popular uprising is fundamentally different from an armed rebellion, and a home-grown peaceful Tahrir Square revolution is different from NATO-Arab military and political campaigns aimed at settling old scores and fomenting sectarian conflict (as in Libya and now Syria).

Aljazeera coverage of the Egyptian revolution was, for the most part, impeccable. It was the type of coverage that reflected the revolutionary fervor felt throughout the country. Even when the former regime of Hosni Mubarak pulled the plug on Aljazeera coverage, it somehow found a way to transmit the country’s mood with impressive clarity.

Yet, despite the fact that some Arab uprisings are inherently more complex than others (because some societies embody a more involved sectarian makeup, for example), Aljazeera news anchors continue to jump from one country to the other, as if addressing different points of the exact same topic. In the channel’s coverage of Libya, NATO’s unwarranted bombing campaign received little reporting. The targeting of black Africans (covered by some Western and African media) earned little airtime at Aljazeera Arabic. Ever-available guests were often immediately dispatched to dismiss any reports of maltreatment of captured soldiers accused of being ‘loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi’. Aljazeera had indeed striven to present a perfect scenario of a perfect revolution. Now that the sentimentalization of the revolution is fading out, a harsh new reality is setting in, one that encompasses numerous arms groups, infighting and Western countries ready to share the spoils.

Aljazeera’s priority has now shifted from Libya to Syria, a country that has been on Washington’s radar for many years and long irked Israel for its support of Lebanese and Palestinian resistance factions.

From a political and humanitarian viewpoint, there is no denial that Syria is in need of fundamental political reforms. More, the blatant violence employed against the uprising was simply indefensible. However, unlike what Aljazeera Arabic and other media may claim on an hourly basis, there is more to Syria than a brutal ‘Alawite regime’ and a rebelling nation that never ceases to demand ‘international intervention’. There is also the reality of ill-intentioned parties seeking their own objectives, such as further isolating Iran, strengthening allies in Lebanon, weakening Damascus-based Palestinian factions, and aiding US allies in rearranging the entire power-paradigm in the region.

One would argue that whatever ambitions some small Arab country may have, these should not be pursued at the expense of the Syrian people, who are seeking real democracy in a sovereign country free from meddling, armed militias and unexplained car bombs. The fact is, insecurity and political uncertainty will be the future of Syria if a political settlement is not achieved between the government – which must end its violent crackdowns on pro-democracy protests – and a truly patriotic opposition that doesn’t call for foreign intervention or ‘no-fly-zones’. The Iraq no-fly-zone in 1991 and the Libya no-fly-zone in 2011 were mere prologues to military actions that devastated both countries.  There is little justification in repeating this scenario; the Syrian people did not rise merely to see their country being destroyed.

In January 5, a massive blast killed 26 people in Damascus, exactly two weeks after twin bombings killed 44. Between the two bombings, hundreds of Syrians were reportedly killed and wounded in the armed conflict involving the Free Syrian Army. Considering the large and porous border areas between Syria and Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and the contentious border area with the occupied Golan Heights (illegally annexed by Israel), one cannot dismiss the possibility that Syria has been infiltrated on many fronts. But this also goes unreported.

While one lacks sympathy for any regime that brutally murders innocent people, journalists are also accountable to both balance and humanitarian standards. They cannot completely dismiss one party and embrace another. Aljazeera Arabic channel has done just that. It has failed to maintain its independence, and is growingly covering the upheaval in the Arab world from the narrow political prism of its host country.

In Aljazeera’s early days in the mid and late 1990s, the channel took on taboo subjects and proudly challenged the status quo. This continued with Aljazeera’s coverage of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, when mainstream western media were disowning their own proclaimed standards of objectivity and treating Iraqis like dispensable beings underserving of even a body count.

In recent months, however, Aljazeera has begun to change course. It has deviated from its journalistic responsibilities in Libya, and is now completely losing the plot with Syria.

The channel is in urgent need to revisit its own code of ethics, and to fulfill its promise of treating its audience “with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture.” Yes, perhaps the Syrian regime should be changed, and perhaps an armed rebellion in Syria will eventually overtake the non-violent uprising. But the outcome is not for me, Aljazeera, The New York Times or any other journalist or publication to decide. The revolution belongs to the Syrian people alone, and only they can determine where it leads.

THE sectarian and ethnic divisions among Iraqi politicians have now become so deep that trust across the sectarian and ethnic schisms, Shia, Sunni, Kurdish, is now practically non-existent. Any action or statement by any politician, whether well-intentioned or not, is viewed through this destructive prism.  Where do we go from here?  Is there any action that all politicians could agree upon that could not possibly be interpreted as suspicious?

Of all the statistics that describe the devastation wreaked upon Iraq by the illegal war, I find the figures describing the plight of Iraqi children the most troubling and heart-wrenching.   These children are the ones who will determine what sort of future Iraq will have.  Their well-being, or lack of it, will impact on the lives of all Iraqis regardless of sect, religion, or ethnicity.

A study by the Iraqi Society of Psychiatrists in collaboration with the World Health Organization found that 70% of children (sample 10,000) in the Sha’ab section of North Baghdad are suffering from trauma-related symptoms.

Even if this study is not completely replicated in the whole of Iraq, it clearly shows that huge numbers of children are growing up with mental problems. Many of these childrenhave seen close family members killed; they have walked in streets where they have seen dead and mutilated bodies just lying around. If left untreated, what impact will these mental problems have on the future of Iraq?

First, of course, the suffering, the stress, and the depression that afflicts these children must be alleviated.  All of Iraqi society must see that providing expert medical intervention to help these children cope is a moral imperative.

The effect of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is bad enough for professional soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is hard to imagine the effects on a child growing up amongst such carnage.  In macho Iraqi society, such children, particularly the boys, tend to suffer in silence for fear of being labelled wimps. In any case, expertise to treat such cases is woefully inadequate in Iraq,

It is unfortunate that Iraqi society and possibly the entire Arab world is pervaded by a macho culture that sees people who express fear, anxiety and emotional distress as weak, particularly boys and men.  Education is essential to puncture this erroneous and destructive trait.   People need to be able to express these emotions, and be taught that these are expected reactions to the trauma they have experienced.

The Iraqi government must provide the necessary funds to train professionals to treat these children to relieve their stress and misery, of whom 4.6 million have lost one or both parents. Over half a million children live on the streets prey to physical and emotional abuse.

Surely politicians from whatever sect, supported by the intelligentsia and opinion-formers, could work together to make the goal of helping the children of Iraq a priority. Working collaboratively on such a project would, one hopes, generate trust across the ethnic and sectarian fault lines and may lead to further cooperation.

The West can help by providing scholarships to Iraqis to gain the expertise necessary to save Iraq from the consequences of mental impairments that could condemn Iraqi society to a bleak future, with its ripples fanning out well beyond its borders.

Iraqis need to start somewhere to work together, and what better goal to aim for than the future of Iraq’s children. All Iraqis, instead of continuously engaged in blaming each other, could focus on such a worthy, humane, and moral project, and with its success improve the chances of a peaceful, prosperous future to the benefit of all.

Dr Adnan Al-Daini is a retired University lecturer. He is a British citizen born in Iraq, which he left in 1962, age 17, on a scholarship to study in Britain. He writes regularly on issues of social justice and the Middle.

What truly worries Israel is not the radicalization of Muslim societies, but the rise of Islamic politics to represent a rational, mainstream political discourse. It threatens Israel because it could rally many Arabs around one cohesive political agenda, and repositions Palestine, once more, as central to what many Muslim intellectuals refer to as the “Islamic Awakening”.

Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (R) kisses the head of Egyptian Muslim brotherhood leader Mohammed Badie before their meeting at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Cairo December 26, 2011.

THERE was an unmistakable hint of triumph in the comments made by Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the elected Hamas government in Gaza when he was hosted by Mohammed Badie, Supreme Guide of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Both leaders said what would be expected of them under these circumstances. Haniyeh asserted that his movement’s “presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity,” and Badie reaffirmed the Brotherhood’s commitment to “issues of liberation, foremost the Palestinian issue” (MENA and AP, December 26).

It is very telling that Haniyeh’s first official visit outside Gaza as prime minister was to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in Cairo's Moqattam district. He shared his message - of resistance against Israeli occupation, national unity with rival Fatah and reaching out to Muslim countries – and then resumed his regional tour.

Since 2006, Hamas has attempted, but largely failed to win the approval of governments in Muslim-majority countries. Muslim solidarity was the thrust of Hamas’ foreign policy, aimed at lessening Palestinian political and financial dependence on the US and other Western governments. It failed because, as it turned out, US financial and political leverage is too overpowering and far-reaching for a relatively small movement like Hamas to singlehandedly challenge. But, as Haniyeh himself reiterated, times are changing

In the first and second rounds of Egyptian elections, the Brotherhood’s newly created Freedom and Justice party won more than 35 percent of the vote. The electoral success was hardly an anomaly. The Islamic Nahda party, which formed the first post-revolutionary government in Tunisia, won more than 40 percent of the vote last October. Morocco’s Justice and Development party won the November elections and the Islamic leaning of Libya’s new political set up is all too palpable. There have been marks of Islamic political influence in other countries across the region.

The reformation of the political landscape in the Arab region has tempted many to infer polarizing, if not frightening conclusions. Israeli army Home Front Command Chief Major General Eyal Eisenberg was one of the first in Israel to refer to these developments as an Arab Spring turning into a “radical Islamic winter”. He said, “This leads us to the conclusion that through a long-term process, the likelihood of an all-out war is increasingly growing” (Arutz Sheva, September 5).

However, what truly worries Israel is not the radicalization of Muslim societies, but the rise of Islamic politics to represent a rational, mainstream political discourse. It threatens Israel because it could rally many Arabs around one cohesive political agenda, and repositions Palestine, once more, as central to what many Muslim intellectuals refer to as the “Islamic Awakening”.

Israeli fear mongering aside, the US – Israel’s main benefactor - must find ways to co-exist with the new political arrangement. Other Western governments too “will have to adapt to a power shift they have long sought to prevent,” wrote Roula Khalaf and Heba Saleh in the Financial Times (December 28).

For Israel, however, the transformation in regional politics will prove unbearable. It is not Tunisia’s Nahda party that Israel is most concerned about, of course; it is Hamas. This is partly what compelled Haniyeh to venture out of Gaza. As the US is hoping to control, if not manage, the rise of Islamic parties, Hamas aims at ensuring a primary position for Palestine - as seen through the prism of the Islamic movement – in the region’s new political landscape.

There is little doubt that Hamas’ rise to political prominence in 2006, and the numerous subsequent attempts at isolating and destroying it will influence new Islamic parties in various Arab countries. Hamas’ ability to survive has certainly registered among new Muslim politicians in Egypt and elsewhere. Now, with the early fruits of the Egyptian revolution being plucked by Islamic parties, Hamas is guardedly making its move. Hamas is a “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face,” said Haniyeh in Cairo.

A quick look at the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine shows that Haniyeh was hardly exaggerating. Since the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Ismailiyya, Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna and a few others, it quickly found in Palestine a rally cry to unite Muslims through the entire region. The first link between the movement and Palestine was formed in 1935, when Abd al-Rahman al-Banna (the founder’s brother) visited Palestine and met with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

The Brotherhood became visible during the revolt of 1936, as they communicated the Palestinian message with an Islamic tone to the rest of the Arab world. The cause of Palestine promptly became the central mission and calling of the Brotherhood, as Hasan al-Banna himself headed the newly founded General Central Committee to Aid Palestine.

More, in April 1948, when most Arab governments delayed in partaking in the defense of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood deployed three battalions of volunteers. Estimates of the number of Brotherhood volunteers in Palestine during the war and the subsequent Nakba vary, but Hasan al-Banna himself noted, in March 1948, that the movement had approximately 1,500 volunteers in Palestine.

The relationship between the Brotherhood and Palestine had it ebbs and flows, but the rapport was never completely severed. Even before Hamas was officially established 1987, the movement functioned under various classifications, all directly affiliated with Egypt’s Brotherhood.

The recent Cairo meeting between Haniyeh and Badie could be understood within that historical context, representing a triumphant reunion and possibly open coordination. This would once again rejuvenate the Brotherhood’s Palestine connection, and grant Hamas greater political leverage - after years of isolation, and despite the current political turmoil in the region.

Of course, Hamas’ challenges are many and growing. Leading among them is Israel’s violent escalation in Gaza, and the unremitting US pressure. Still, it is expected that Hamas’ political message and outlook will continue to find balance between Palestinian exceptionality and the more inclusive Arab and Islamic framework.

By venturing out of Gaza, Haniyeh is hoping to expand the diameters of the Palestinian Islamic movement into Egypt and beyond – thus reclaiming what Hamas once considered ‘the strategic depth’ of the Palestinian cause. While such a push failed to attain its objectives in 2006, 2012 is a brand new year.

Bishop Yuhanna Qultah

BISHOP Yuhanna Qultah, Deputy Patriarch of Coptic Catholics in Egypt, welcomed the arrival of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) members to the first post-revolution parliament, pointing out that they are the men of clear vision, moderate mainstream views, who seek a balanced consensus parliament, and whose main concern is uphold the national interests and dignity of the country.
In an interview, in the program “Ahl Albalad” on the satellite channel "Misr 25", Thursday afternoon, Dr. Qultah expressed his sincere appreciation to Dr. Mohamed Morsi, FJP Chairman, for his re-iteration in repeated responses to repeated questions and suggestions  that he should send ‘reassurance’ messages to the Copts after the victory of FJP candidates in parliamentary elections, as he (Morsi) always says: “How do I send messages to reassure them when they are partners in this one homeland?!”
Bishop Yuhanna Qultah pointed out that the MB’s comprehensive, all-inclusive, understanding is just what is required to achieve balance and advancement for the whole nation which needs cooperation and synergy for a total renaissance.
He added that: “If Christians suffer injustice as Islamists rule the country, they (Copts) will find support in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law) with its established principles of tolerance, and in Al-Azhar. The texts of the Quran safeguard the freedom of belief for all.” He then quoted the words of God in Quran: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Al-Baqarah: verse 256).

He pointed out that the Islamic civilization and the Islamic conquest of Egypt did not confiscate the freedom of belief, and that for more than 1400 years, Muslims never boycotted their Christian fellow citizens because of religion, and they have lived as brothers side by side all along that history.

The Bishop Qultah stressed that those seeking support from abroad, the West or the USA, are wrong and inane, calling them absurd, and arguing that they do not seek but their own interests, citing the U.S. invasion of Iraq where Christians were killed next to their Muslim brothers.

He also stressed the need for Arab to unite and integrate as one  nation, to reject division and fragmentation, and benefit from the Arab spring to achieve this cooperation and integration, with Arab peoples having emphasized that there is no turning back to the ages of tyranny, injustice, authoritarianism, and the deification of the president or the ruling family.

He denied reports that the Copts are concern about the ascent of Islamists, stressing that Islamic presence in Egypt was not a sudden or short-lived phenomenon that surfaced overnight, and that in modern times it was represented in the calls of Jamal Aldeen Al-Afghani and Sheikh Mohamed Abdu, and that the presence of Islamists now is quite natural after they have been subjected to repression, injustice and oppression for such a long period of time, adding that the challenge for Islamists is the practical application of the enlightened principles of Islamic Sharia.

Dr. Qultah noted that the migration of Egyptians to Western countries and the USA is not confined to Christians, and that it is not - as some say - a ‘religious’ migration, and that it comes out of fear for the future, for freedoms and financial stability.

He said that no country in the world boasts such strong solidarity between Muslims and Christians, in general goals, as in Egypt, and that discord which had sown division among partners of the same homeland in Egypt is on its way to extinction.

Bishop Qultah called on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to endeavour to maintain the armed forces’ honorable  track record and its place in the hearts of the Egyptian people and the love they feel for doing their duty, protecting the revolution and promising to safeguard and achieve their demands, and to hand over power to civilians after the current parliamentary elections, which Dr. Qultah considers the start of the construction of the modern Egyptian state.

Ikhwan Web

IPS — Defence Secretary Leon Panetta’s suggestion that the end of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is part of a U.S. military success story ignores the fact that the George W. Bush administration and the U.S. military had planned to maintain a semi-permanent military presence in Iraq.

The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmanoeuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement.

A central element of the Maliki-Iran strategy was the common interest that Maliki, Iran and anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr shared in ending the U.S. occupation, despite their differences over other issues.

Maliki needed Sadr’s support, which was initially based on Maliki’s commitment to obtain a time schedule for U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.

In early June 2006, a draft national reconciliation plan that circulated among Iraqi political groups included agreement on “a time schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq” along with the build-up of Iraqi military forces. But after a quick trip to Baghdad, Bush rejected the idea of a withdrawal timetable.

Maliki’s national security adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaei revealed in a Washington Post op-ed that Maliki wanted foreign troops reduced by more than 30,000 to under 100,000 by the end of 2006 and withdrawal of “most of the remaining troops” by end of the 2007.

When the full text of the reconciliation plan was published June 25, 2006, however, the commitment to a withdrawal timetable was missing.

In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Maliki immediately sent Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari to Washington to dangle the bait of an agreement on troops before then Vice President Dick Cheney.

As recounted in Linda Robinson’s “Tell Me How This Ends”, Zebari urged Cheney to begin negotiating the U.S. military presence in order to reduce the odds of an abrupt withdrawal that would play into the hands of the Iranians.

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according to Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

Maliki’s national security adviser was also seeking to protect the Mahdi Army from U.S. military plans to target it for major attacks. Meeting Bush’s coordinator for the Iraq War, Douglas Lute, Rubaie said it was better for Iraqi security forces to take on Sadr’s militias than for U.S. Special Forces to do so.

He explained to the Baker-Hamilton Commission that Sadr’s use of military force was not a problem for Maliki, because Sadr was still part of the government.

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on January 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on March 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

But Maliki had a surprise in store for Washington.

A series of dramatic moves by Maliki and Iran over the next few months showed that there had been an explicit understanding between the two governments to prevent the U.S. military from launching major operations against the Mahdi Army and to reach an agreement with Sadr on ending the Mahdi Army’s role in return for assurances that Maliki would demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

In mid-March 2007, Maliki ignored pressure from a personal visit by Cheney to cooperate in taking down the Mahdi Army and instead abruptly vetoed U.S. military plans for a major operation against the Mahdi Army in Basra. Maliki ordered an Iraqi army assault on the dug-in Sadrist forces.

Predictably, the operation ran into trouble, and within days, Iraqi officials had asked General Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard, to intervene and negotiate a ceasefire with Sadr, who agreed, although his troops were far from defeated.

A few weeks later, Maliki again prevented the United States from launching its biggest campaign yet against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. And again, Suleimani was brought in to work out a deal with Sadr allowing government troops to patrol in the former Mahdi Army stronghold.

There was subtext to Suleimani’s interventions. Just as Suleimani was negotiating the Basra ceasefire with Sadr, a website associated with former IRGC Commander Mohsen Rezai said Iran opposed actions by “hard-line clans” that “only weaken the government and people of Iraq and give a pretext to its occupiers”.

In the days that followed that agreement, Iranian state news media portrayed the Iraqi crackdown in Basra as being against illegal and “criminal” forces.

The timing of each political diplomatic move by Maliki appears to have been determined in discussions between Maliki and top Iranian officials.

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down.

In the end, however, Bush administration officials realised that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.

The ambitious plans of the U.S. military to use Iraq to dominate the Middle East militarily and politically had been foiled by the very regime the United States had installed, and the officials behind the U.S. scheme had been clueless about what was happening until it was too late.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

DISSIDENT VOICES

The daughter of Essam-Al-Batsh mourns as she holds her brother during their father's funeral in Gaza City.

ESSAM Al-Batsh and his nephew, Sobhi Al-Batsh, are the latest in a long line of reported Palestinian ‘militants’ killed by Israel. They were both targeted while driving in a car in downtown Gaza on December 8. According to an Israeli army statement, “(They) were affiliated with a terrorist squad that intended to attack Israeli civilians and soldiers via the western border” (Reuters, December 8).

Another ‘militant’ had been killed two days earlier. Israeli military aircraft “had targeted two militant squads that were preparing to fire rockets into southern Israel,” according to the Associated Press. AP quoted Israeli official saying the army would “continue to take action against those (who) use terror against the state of Israel.”

It really doesn’t take much to kill a ‘militant’ in Gaza. Israeli military intelligence officers simply select a weapon and zoom in on their chosen person on any given day. This is not a difficult task really since the entire population of the Strip are besieged in Gaza’s open air prison. The same statement issued regarding the assassinated ‘militant’ can then be easily rewritten, using the same predictable justifications.

Israel’s excuses actually tell nothing of the history behind the phenomena of ‘militancy’. To know why some young men in Gaza decide to mask their faces and carry arms, they need to abandon the media’s reductionist characterization of Gaza’s armed struggle. This goes back much earlier than Hamas and Fatah, the 2006 elections, the 2007 siege or the 2008-09 war.

The phenomenon began shortly after the Nakba – The Palestinian ‘Catastrophe’ in 1948, which saw the destruction of Palestine and the erection of today’s Israel. During this time nearly a quarter a million were evicted or forced to flee to Gaza. A displaced population then yearned to go home, and many wished to recover the lifesavings they had buried under patches of earth in their Palestinian villages. Some wanted to harvest their crops, and others sought family members that had gone missing during the forced march out of Palestine.

Once they crossed into newly established Israel, many refugees never returned. But the boldness of the ‘fedayeen’ – freedom fighters – now began to grow rapidly.

The refugees eventually began organizing themselves, with or without help from the Egyptian army, which was still stationed at the outskirts of Gaza and the southern borders of the Sinai desert. Groups quickly assumed names and became factions, and their members acquired military fatigues. The fighters used kuffiyehs – traditional headscarves – to cover their faces to escape the watchful eyes of Israeli collaborators, who were also growing in number.

Over time, Palestinian guerrilla commandos began carrying out daring strikes deep inside Israel. The fedayeen were mostly young Palestinian refugees. Their operations grew bolder by the day, as they snuck into Israel, like ghosts in the night, with primitive weapons and homemade bombs. They would target Israeli soldiers, steal their weapons and return with the new weapons the second night. Some would sneak back into their villages in Palestine; they would ‘steal’ blankets and whatever money they had saved but failed to retrieve in the rush of war. Those who never returned received the funerals of ‘Martyrs’. Following every fedayeen operation, the Israeli army would strike Gaza’s refugees, inspiring yet more support and recruits for the young, but growing commando movement.

The phenomenon quickly registered among Palestinian youth in Gaza - not due to any inexplicable desire for violence, but because they saw in the fedayeen a heroic escape from their own humiliating lives. Indeed, the fedayeen movement was the antithesis of the perceived submissiveness experienced by refugees. It was a manifestation of all the anger and frustration they felt. They simply wanted to go home, and freedom-fighting seemed the only practical way of fulfilling this wish.

As refugees stayed put in their tents, and as more Palestinians were killed by Israeli military incursions and snipers, the numbers of fedayeen multiplied. In a historic visit to Gaza in 1955, then Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser promised to fight on until all of Palestine was liberated. Soon after, amid angry demands for action, Egypt decided to establish ten battalions of the National Guard, which were made up mostly of Palestinian fedayeen and led by Egyptian officers. It signaled an Egyptian attempt to take charge of the situation and control the scattered Palestinian leaderships and its armed factions. Cross-border skirmishes culminated, at times, into full-blown border battles. Israeli mortar attacks reached many areas in Gaza. There was no safe place to hide.

The factions changed names. The fedayeen wore different colored kuffiyehs. But in essence, little changed. Poverty persisted. Human rights continued to be routinely violated. Not a single refugee returned home. And three, if not four generations of fedayeen, carried on with the fight.

In some way, the media perception of these masked men also remained largely unchanged. The ‘militant’ has always been reported as an inexplicable irritant. At best, he served as a reminder, not of a poignant history that must be unearthed and understood, but of why Israel is, and will always remain, threatened by masked Palestinians. When a so-called ‘militant’ is brutally killed, little justification is offered. If any ‘militants’ respond to the killing, such retorts could possibly serve as a casus belli for an already planned Israeli military escalation.

It is important that we understand that ‘militancy’ in Gaza is not linked to any Palestinian faction per se, nor is it incited by a specific ideology or individual. The phenomenon had indeed preceded all the factions and individuals that dot Gaza’s political landscape. It was caused by the single event of the Nakba, and all the tragedies that manifested as a result of it.

Chances are, the ‘militants’ – or fedayeen, or even ‘terrorists’ by the standards of Israel and its supporters – will continue to exist as long as the conflict remains unsolved per the necessary standards of justice and fairness.

As for the media, it behooves reporters to dig a bit deeper than an image of the charred remains of an uncle and his nephew - and to see beyond the predictably false accusations that underlie official Israeli statements.

In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

THE economic collapse that began in 2008, that was duly declared unpredictable and thoroughly unforeseen across the entire Western media, was, in fact, anything but. Indeed, the capitalist cycle of expansion and collapse has repeated itself so often, over hundreds of years, that its existence is openly accepted across the whole spectrum of economic thought, including in the mainstream – which refers to it, in deliberately understated terms, as the “business cycle”. Only those who profit from our ignorance of this dynamic – the billionaire profiteers and their paid stooges in media and government – try to deny it.

A slump occurs when “capacity outstrips demand” – that is to say, when people can no longer afford to buy all that is being produced. This is inevitable in a capitalist system, where productive capacity is privately owned, because the global working class as a whole are never paid enough to purchase all that they collectively produce. As a result, unsold goods begin to pile up, and production facilities – factories and the like – are closed down. People are thrown out of work as a result, their incomes decline, and the problem gets worse. This is exactly what we are seeing happen today.

In these circumstances, avenues for profitable investment dry up – the holders of capital can find nowhere safe to invest their money. For them, this is the crisis – not the unemployment, the famine, the poverty etc (which, after all, remain an endemic feature of the global capitalist economy even during the ‘boom times’, albeit on a somewhat reduced scale). The governments under their control – through ownership of the media, currency manipulation and control of the economy – must then set to work creating new profitable investment opportunities.

One way they do this is by killing off public services, and thus creating opportunities for investment in the private companies that replace them. In 1980s Britain, Margaret Thatcher privatised steel, coal, gas, electricity, water, and much else besides. In the short term, this plunged millions into unemployment, as factories and mines were closed down, and in the long term it resulted in massive price rises for basic services. But it had its intended effect – it provided valuable investment opportunities (for those with capital to spare) at a time when such opportunities were scarce, and created a long term source of fabulous profits. This summer, for example, saw the formerly publicly owned gas company Centrica hiking its prices by another 18% to bring in a £1.3billion profit. The raised prices will see many thousands more pensioners than usual die from the cold this winter as a result, but gas – like all commodities in capitalist society – is not there to provide heat, but to increase capital.

In the global South, privatisation was harsher still. Bodies like the IMF and the World Bank used the leverage provided by the debt-extortion mechanism (whereby interest rates were hiked on unpayable loans that had rarely benefited the population, often taken out by corrupt rulers imposed by Western governments in the first place) to force governments across Asia, Africa and Latin America to cut public spending on even basics such as health and education, along with agricultural subsidies. This contributed massively to the staggering rates of infant mortality and deaths from preventable disease, as well as to the AIDS epidemic now raging across Africa. But again the desired end for those imposing the policies was achieved, as new markets were created and holders of giant capital reserves could now invest in private companies to provide the services no longer available from the state. The profit system was given a new lease of life, its collapse staved off once again.

The World Bank’s closure of the Indian government’s grain rationing and distribution service, for example, meant that a scheme providing affordable grain to all Indian citizens was closed down, allowing private companies to come in and sell grain at massively increased prices (sometimes up to ten times higher). Whilst this has led to huge numbers of Indians being priced out of the market, and a resulting 200 million people now facing starvation in India, it has also led to record profits for the giant private companies now holding the world’s grain stocks – which is the whole point.

This round of global privatisation from the 1980s onwards, however, was so thorough that when the 2008 crisis hit, there were few state functions left to privatise. Creating investment opportunities now is much trickier than it was thirty years ago, because so much of what is potentially profitable is already being thoroughly exploited as it is.

In Europe, what is left of public services is hastily being dismantled, as right wing political leaders happily privatise what is left of the public sector, and currency speculators use their firepower to pick off any country that attempts to resist. David Cameron, following the path forced on the global South over recent decades, for example, is busy opening up Britain’s National Health Service to private companies, and massively cutting back on public service provision for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the jobless.

In the global South, however, there is little left for the West to privatise, as successive IMF policies have long ago forced those countries in their grip to strip their public services to the bone (and beyond) already.

But there is one state function which, if fully privatised across the world, would make the profits made even from essentials such as health care and education look like peanuts. That is the most basic and essential state function of all, indeed the whole raison d’etre for the state: security.

Private security companies are one of the few growth areas during times of global recession, as growing unemployment and poverty leads to increased social unrest and chaos, and those with wealth become more nervous about protecting both themselves, and their assets. Furthermore, as the Chinese economy advances at a rate of knots, military superiority is fast becoming the West’s only “competitive advantage” – the one area in which it’s expertise remains significantly ahead of its rivals. Turning this advantage, therefore, into an opportunity for investment and profit on a large-scale is now one of the chief tasks facing the rulers of Western economies.

A recent article in the Guardian noted that British private security firm Group 4 is now “Europe’s largest private sector employer”, employing 600,000 people – 50% more than make up the total armed forces of Britain and France combined. With growth last year of 9% in their “new markets” division, the company have “already benefited from the unrest in north Africa and the Middle East.” Group 4 are set to make a killing in Libya, following the total breakdown of security, likely to last for decades, resulting from NATO’s incineration of the country’s armed forces and wholesale destruction of its state apparatus. With the rule of law replaced by warfare between rival gangs of rebels, and no realistic prospect of a functioning police force for the foreseeable future, those Libyans able to manoeuvre themselves into positions of wealth and power will likely have to rely on private security for many years to come.

When Philip Hammond, Britain’s new Defence Secretary and a multi-millionaire businessman himself, suggested that British companies “pack their suitcases and head to Libya”, it was not only oil and construction companies he had in mind, but private security companies.

Private military companies are also becoming huge business – most famously, the US company Blackwater, renamed Xe Services after its original name became synonymous with the massacres committed by its forces in Iraq. In the USA, Blackwater has already taken over many of the security functions of the state – charging the Department of Homeland Security $1000 per day per head in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, for example. “When you ship overnight, do you use the postal service or do you use FedEx?” asked Erik Prince, founder and chairman of Blackwater. “Our corporate goal is to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did to the postal service”. Another Blackwater official commented that “None of us loves the idea that devastation became a business opportunity. It’s a distasteful fact. But that’s what it is. Doctors, lawyers, funeral directors, even newspapers – they all make a living off of bad things happening. So do we, because somebody’s got to handle it.”

The danger comes when the economic climate is such that the world’s most powerful governments feel they must do all they can to create such business opportunities. During the Cold War, the US military acted (as indeed it still does) to keep the global South in a state of poverty by attacking any government that seriously sought to challenge this poverty, and imposing governments that would crush trade unions and keep the population cowed. This created investment opportunities because it kept the majority of the world’s labour force in conditions so desperate they were willing to work for peanuts. But now this is not enough. In slump conditions, it doesn’t matter how cheap your workforce is if nobody is buying your products. To create the requisite business opportunities today – a large global market for its military expertise – Western governments must impose not only poverty, but also devastation. Devastation is the quickest route to converting the West’s military prowess into a genuine business opportunity that can create a huge new avenue for investment when all others are drying up. And this is precisely what is happening.  David Cameron is, for once, telling the truth, when he says “Whatever it takes to help our businesses take on the world – we’ll do it.”

As The Times put it recently, “In Iraq, the postwar business boom is not oil. It is security.” In both Iraq and Afghanistan, a situation of chronic and enduring instability and civil war has been created by a very precise method. Firstly, the existing state power is totally destroyed. Next, the possibility of utilising the country’s domestic expertise to rebuild state capacity is undermined against by barring former officials from working for the new government (a process known in Iraq as “de-Ba’athification”). Linked to this, the former ruling party is banned from playing any part in the political process, effectively ensuring that the largest and most organised political formation in each country has no option but to resort to armed struggle to gain influence, and thereby condemning the country to civil war. Next, vicious sectarianism is encouraged along whatever religious, ethnic and tribal divisions are available, often goaded by the covert actions of Western intelligence services. Finally, the wholesale privatisation of resources ensures chronically destabilising levels of unemployment and inequality.  The whole process is self-perpetuating, as the skilled and professional sections of the workforce – those with the means and connections – emigrate, leaving behind a dire skills shortage and even less chance of a functioning society emerging from the chaos.

This instability is not confined to the borders of the state which has been destroyed. In a masterfully cynical domino effect, for example, the aggression against Iraq has also helped to destabilise Syria. Three quarters of the 2 million Iraqi refugees fleeing the war in their own country have ended up in Syria, thus contributing to the pressure on the Syrian economy which is a major factor in the current unrest there.

The destruction of Libya will also have far reaching destabilising consequences across the region. As the recent United Nations Support Mission in Libya stated, “Libya had accumulated the largest known stockpile of Manpads [surface-to-air missiles] of any non-Manpad-producing country. Although thousands were destroyed during the seven-month Nato operations, there are increasing concerns over the looting and likely proliferation of these portable defence systems, as well as munitions and mines, highlighting the potential risk to local and regional stability.” Furthermore, a large number of volatile African countries are currently experiencing a fragile peace secured by peacekeeping forces in which Libyan troops had been playing a vital role. The withdrawal of these troops may well be damaging to the maintenance of the peace. Similarly, Libya, under Gaddafi’s rule, had contributed generously to African development projects; a policy which will certainly be ended under the NTC – again, with potentially destabilising consequences.

Clearly, a policy of devastation and destabilisation fuels not only the market for private security, but also for arms sales – where, again, the US, Britain and France remain market leaders. And a policy of devastation through blitzkrieg fits in clearly with the big three current long term strategic objectives of Western policy planners:

1. To corner as large a share as possible of the world’s diminishing resources, most importantly oil, gas and water. A government of a devastated country is at the mercy of the occupying country when it comes to contracts. Gaddafi’s Libya, for example, drove a notoriously hard bargain with the Western powers over oil contracts – acting as a key force in the 1973 oil price spike, and still in 2009 being accused by the Financial Times of “resource nationalism”. But the new NTC government in Libya have been hand picked for their subservience to foreign interests – and know that their continued positions depend on their willingness to continue in this role.
2. To prevent the rise of the global South, primarily through the destruction of any independent regional powers (such as Iran, Libya, Syria etc) and the destabilisation, isolation and encirclement of the rising global powers (in particular China and Russia).
3. To overcome or limit the impact of economic collapse by using superior military force to create and conquer new markets through the destruction and rebuilding of infrastructure and the elimination of competition.

This policy of total devastation represents a departure from the Cold War policies of the Western powers. During the Cold War, whilst the major strategic aims remained the same, the methods were different. Independent regional powers in the global South were still destabilised and invaded – and regularly – but generally with the aim of installing ‘compliant dictatorships’. Thus, Lumumba was overthrown and replaced with Mobutu; Sukarno with Suharto; Allende with Pinochet; etc, etc. But the danger with this ‘imposed strongmen’ policy was that strongmen can become defiant. Saddam Hussein illustrated this perfectly. After having been backed for over a decade by the West, he turned on their stooge monarchy in Kuwait. Governments that are in control can easily get out of control. However, for as long as these strongmen were needed for the services provided by their armies (protecting investments, repressing workers struggles, etc), they were supported. The crisis now underway in the economies of the West, however, calls for more drastic measures. And the development of private security and private mercenary companies mean that the armies provided by these strongmen are starting to be deemed no longer necessary.

Congo is a case in point. For three decades, the Western powers had supported Mobutu Sese-Seko’s iron rule of the Congo. But then, in the mid-90s, they allowed him to be overthrown. However, rather than allowing the Congolese resistance forces to take power and establish an effective government, they then sponsored an invasion of the country by Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. Although these countries have now largely withdrawn their militias, they continue to sponsor proxy militias which have prevented the country seeing a moment’s peace for nearly fifteen years, resulting in the biggest slaughter since the end of the Second World War, with over 5 million killed. One result of this total breakdown of functioning government has been that the Western companies that loot Congo’s resources have been able to do so virtually for free. Despite being the world’s largest supplier of both coltan and copper, amongst many other precious minerals, the total tax revenue on these products in 2006-7 amounted to a puny £32 million. This is surely far less than what even the most useless neo-colonial puppet would have demanded.

This completely changes the meaning of the word ‘government’. In the Congo, the government’s best efforts to stabilise and develop the country have so far proved no match for the destabilisation strategies of the West and its stooges. In Afghanistan, it is well known that the government’s writ has no authority outside of Kabul, if there. But then, that is the point. The role of the governments imposed on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, like the one they are trying to impose on Syria, is not to govern or provide for the population at all – even that most basic of functions, security. It is simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the occupation of the country and to award business contracts to the colonial powers. They literally have no other function, as far as their sponsors are concerned.

It goes without saying that this policy of devastation is turning the victimised countries into a living hell. After now more than thirty years of Western destabilisation, and ten years of outright occupation, Afghanistan is at or very hear the bottom of nearly every human development indicator available, with life expectancy at 44 years and an under-five mortality rate of over one in four. Mathew White, a history professor who has recently completed a detailed survey of the humanity’s worst atrocities throughout history, concluded that, without doubt, “chaos is far deadlier than tyranny”. It is a truth to which many Iraqis can testify.

Dan Glazebrook writes for the Morning Star newspaper and is a member of the editorial board of OURAIM publications.

DISSIDENT VOICE

Egyptian protesters demand the ruling military council to step down during a mass demo in Cairo, November 25, 2011

TENS of thousands of Egyptians have held mass rallies across the country to renew their protest against the military junta's rule in post-revolution Egypt.

THE million man march was scheduled to be held on Friday, dubbed "The Friday of the last Chance."

An analyst says that Egypt's resurgent protests against the Military Council could deteriorate into an armed conflict driven by class divisions in Egyptian society.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Abayomi Azikiwe, Editor of the Pan-African News in Detroit, to share his opinion on this issue.

Following is a transcript of the interview.

Press TV: There is political talk in Egypt right now ranging from protesters to analysts that is rife with rumors that there is a foreign hand at play. This regards the upcoming parliamentary elections; that there is a plan to create chaos that is in someone's interest to benefit from the delay of these elections; that someone is benefiting from this chaos. If so, who or what is the foreign hand and who would be benefiting?

Azikiwe: Well maybe it's not clear at this time exactly who would be benefiting in regard of the current resurgent of the upheaval in Egypt. I think that what transpired on Friday will be widespread political reaction to the insufficient proposal, a political dispensation of the future of Egypt illustrates that there is still a lot of divisions-class cleavages within Egyptian society.

I think also the role of the military is something that is really going to be resolved very soon because at this point we've had reports of dozens people being killed; the utilization of all types of riot gears and efforts to quell the demonstrations in Cairo, Suez and Alexandria.

I think it really sends a message to the international community that the country could perhaps be on the verge of, if not a civil war, then at least some type of armed insurrection that could develop inside Egypt itself and I think there should be a resumption of dialogue. And I think a lot of these countries, international communities and even the United Nations should play a constructive role in the process of fostering a dialogue in Egypt.

Press TV: To whose benefit would that be? Given the scenario if it descends into chaos, into civil war - to whose benefit would that be - the protesters or the SCAF who holds all the military equipment and enforcement?

Azikiwe: Well it may appear to be serving the benefit of the Supreme Military Council, but in actuality the situation could develop where it could be a split within the military itself in Egypt. And we've seen a trend towards this even in terms of what happened back in January and February where there was the division of which direction the state should take in dealing with these mass demonstrations.

But I think a lot of these developments that are going on right now in North Africa are clearly related to the economic crisis that is going on around the world and all of these countries are still integrated into the world system and when we have this kind of turmoil in Europe and in North America, it's definitely going to have even a more profound impact in developing countries particularly in North Africa and the Middle East.

Press TV: Along the lines of what our other guest Clovis Maksoud said - Do you agree that what people don't want is what's serving US interests given the support for Palestinians based on Mubarak, the futility of the Israeli Palestinian peace process and the overall hatred toward Israel and the gas deal into a Peace Accord?

Azikiwe: I agree with Ambassador Maksoud, I think that the future of Egypt is definitely going to have a lot to do with its relationship with the United States as well as the state of Israel. This is a key aspect of the underlying anger that people have inside the country at this time.

They don't feel they have an equal relationship with the state of Israel and we've seen recently the sabotage of the natural gas pipeline; and of course there was a military activity associated with that as well. So I think there needs to be dialogue inside of Egypt with all the parties involved in the political situation.

If the American public doesn't find out about it from the pro-Israel biased media, they don't have a chance. And that's the issue we have here in America. It's very, very concerning, and it's very dangerous.

A prominent political analyst says that all Republican presidential candidates -- with one exception -- are working with Israeli lobbies to expand the wars in the Middle East.
PRESS TV has conducted an exclusive interview with James Morris, editor of america-hijacked.com, to further dissect the issues.

The following is a transcript of the interview.

Press TV: Let's look at Ron Paul's comments about the situation in dealing with Israel and possibly attacking Iran. What makes Ron Paul able to speak in the way that he does? Because we know, in general, with anyone running for president in the United States, if they do not come a straight beeline in support of Tel Aviv policies, basically, they're finished. What makes the situation a little bit different for Ron Paul? And, thanks so much for being with us.

Morris: Thank you very much for having me on Press TV, again. I should put a disclaimer out there that I'm an ardent Ron Paul supporter. I voted for him as a candidate in the last election, and I will do so again even if I have to do so as a write in.

You know, I didn't completely agree with everything Ron Paul said with regard to allowing Israel to attack Iran. But I did agree with most of what he said especially with what you mentioned here in the newscast. He can say what he just did because he's not owned by AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - and the neo-conservatives.

There's been a long running rift in the Republican Party, the neo-conservatives such as American Enterprise Institute which sponsored that debate tonight. And, mind you, it was hosted by the former AIPAC news letter editor, Wolf Blitzer, who use to be a correspondent for the hawkish Jerusalem Post whose issue really set the context for that too. And he's been pushing for war with Iran as well.

For former Republicans like myself, I'm a registered independent now, I did that last year, we're sick and tired of the neocons hijacking, and the Republican Party and these perpetual wars for Israel.

And Ron Paul's voice is actually out there reflecting my voice and millions of other Americans who are just tired of it. And he can get away with saying that because he's got nothing to lose. He knows America is on the brink. If we do another war for Israel with Iran, we'll go broke; and not only that but it could result in a wider war in the region which could result in the next World War if China and Russia get involved.

I also think it was very interesting how Ron Paul touched on the Patriot Act, as well, in his opening comments that you had. Ed Meese, who was an Attorney General, he was basically [endorsing the Patriot Act].

If you look at why we have the Patriot Act come into play and all our civil liberties being eroded as a result after 9/11, we got hit on 9/11 because of support for Israel. And after that the Patriot Act was put in.

And none of these neo-conned Republican candidates including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich - who is a favorite of the AEI neocons, the American Enterprise Institute, again, who they sponsored this debate - one thing they want to touch on is why we have a terrorist problem, and they all claim that Israel is an ally of America.

Well, I suggest they do some historical research and look at when Israel murdered 34 American sailors and marines on the USS Liberty and wounded 174. They all conveniently looked past that.

And they all also said they like to listen to the generals and take advice from the generals. Why don't they listen to what General Petraeus had said when he conveyed to Congress last year that US support for Israel is a threat to US troops in theater? He conveyed that to Congress, and the pro-Israel biased media barely touched on that.

I had email exchanges with General Petraeus to show how much influence another neo-conservative, Max Boot, had on him but yet that was overlooked by the pro-Israel, neocon biased American media. And I think we saw an example of that tonight.

We have AEI, the basin of neo-conservativism with Paul Wolfowitz and the Jewish neocon Fredrick Kagin who came up with the “Iraq Surge”, all for Israel, of course. They went into Iraq for Israel with a neocon claim break agenda. And it just shows you how much of a grip the neocons still have in the Republican Party, and why many real conservatives likes myself actually left the party and became independents. And we're ardent supporters of Ron Paul, as I just said.

Press TV: You just talked about the neocons and the effect that they have on the Republican Party, but let's look overall on the American populace as more and more of these Occupy movements take hold in the United States. Do you think there's becoming a greater awareness by the average American in dealing with Israel and how the American-Israeli policies have actually harmed the United States?

Morris: Well, the problem is, as I mentioned last time I was on Press TV, most Americans don't know. They don't know about the 9/11 connection to support for Israel being the primary motivation as former CIA Ben Rodenyuden and Michael Sheuer had said on CSPAN's Washington Journal program. That was said to all of America.

He responded to a telephone call that I had, you can go to it be visiting [tinyurl.com/911motivemediabetrayal]. And he had said that Israel is a threat to American troops in theater, the same thing that General Petraeus had said which the pro-Israel biased American media hadn't touched on.

None of these neo-conned Republican candidates during the debate touch on it. All they wanted to do, like Mitt Romney, is fall over each other for how much they support Israel so they can get the Jewish vote in America, get Jewish campaign donations to get the support of the neoconservatives, the upper echelon of that pro-Israel lobby and, of course, AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write about in their excellent book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

Just to touch on this too, they were all advocating an attack on Iran which is very concerning. And that's for Israel, as well. I mean, they brought up Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria - these are all Israeli problems, not American problems. But because of the effectiveness of the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, and the neo-conservatives which is the upper echelon of it, we're talking about wars now not only with Syria but Iran. And it's all for Israel. It's about time it comes to a stop.

But like you said, back to your question about Occupy Wall Street, if the American public doesn't find out about it from the pro-Israel biased media, they don't have a chance. And that's the issue we have here in America. It's very, very concerning, and it's very dangerous.

PRESS TV

SYRIANS continue to be victimized, not only in violent clashes with the Syrian military, but also by regional and international players with various agendas.

Protests in Syria began on January 26, and a more inclusive uprising was set in motion on March 15. The initial demand was for serious political reforms, but this was eventually raised to a demand for full regime change, encompassing the unconditional departure of President Bashar al-Assad and his Baath Party, which has ruled Syria for decades.

Soon, there was a deadlock. The uprising failed to weaken the links between the regime, army and other security agencies. It also remained confined to areas outside the two most populated cities, Damascus, in the southwest, and Aleppo in the north. On the other hand, protests seemed extensive and prevalent enough to reflect a real sense of outrage at government practices, which grew with the reported deaths of Syrians all over the country. Despite a relentless military crackdown, and the killing of 3500 Syrians (according to a recent UN human rights office report), the government has not been able to quell the uprising, nor to provide a convincing political initiative that could spare Syria further bloodletting.

It could be argued that the impasse originated in Syria’s own political culture, espoused by the Baath Party’s legacy of shunning dialogue in times of crisis. More, those who ultimately designated themselves as Syria’s opposition remain largely divided, and often seemed to provide conflicting roadmaps for achieving democracy.

Earlier revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were spared the terrible fate of people’s priorities becoming merely another agenda item to be decided by outside powers. Both revolutions had quickly reached the critical mass required to topple their dictators, denying outsiders the chance of meddling in the outcome. The situation in Syria, however, developed at a different pace. The uprising lacked the full support of the urban middle class. The army neither broke away from the ruling party, nor remained neutral. Additionally, months of violence – in which a successful Western military intervention in Libya toppled the regime of Mummer Ghaddafi – provided outside powers with the needed time to position themselves as the caretakers of Syria’s future. In other words, a popular uprising was decidedly hijacked and is currently being managed from Western and Arab capitals.

It was as though ordinary Syrians began realizing that their vision of achieving revolution from within was futile, and they bought into the illusion that only outside intervention could bring lasting change. These voices were emboldened by members of the Syrian National Council – seen as the lead opposition to the Baath regime – whose behavior seemed to model that of the Libyan National Transitional Council. The latter had blithely welcomed NATO to Libya, initially to ‘protect civilians’ from possible Libyan army retaliation, but eventually to carry out an airstrikes campaign that largely increased the number of deaths in Libya.

Adopting a model that rationalizes foreign intervention – which is incapable of exacting change without extreme violence – will bode horrible consequences for the Syrian people and the whole region. With the Syrian government failing to win the trust of large segments of the Syrian population, the opposition’s growing dependency on outside forces, and some Arab media networks fanning the flames of sectarianism and civil war, the Syrian deadlock is morphing into something even more dangerous: a Lebanon-style civil war or a Libyan-style foreign military intervention.

The fate of Syria is no longer likely to be influenced by the Syrian people themselves, nor by their government. All eyes are now on the United States. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tried to clarify the US position in her recent comments. In the case of Libya, NATO and Arab countries banded together “to protect civilians and help people liberate their country without a single American life lost,” she said. But in other cases, as in Syria, “to achieve that same goal, we would have to act alone, at a much greater cost, with far greater risks and perhaps even with troops on the ground.”  For now, according to Clinton, US priorities in the region would have to remain focused on “our fight against al-Qaeda; defense of our allies; and a secure supply of energy” (The Washington Post, November 7).

Russia and China, worried that another US regime change venture could jeopardize their interests in the region, remain steadfast behind Damascus and critical of the factions that oppose the Assad regime. “We are concerned with news of ongoing aggression by extremist gunmen such as those which took place in Homs, Hama and Idlib in recent days with the provocative aim of forcing security agencies and the army in Syria to retaliate, and then launching a campaign via international media outlets,” said Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov in a recent statement (The Lebanese Daily Star, November 11).

The lines are thus drawn, between US-led Western camp and Russia and its own camp, which vehemently rejects a repeat of a Libyan scenario in a volatile region of unmatched geopolitical significance.

Whatever the outcome of this tussle, the Syrian uprising is increasingly being deprived of its own initiative. Currently, the issue of Syria is being entrusted to the Arab League, which lacks both credibility (since it is too divided between regional interests) and any history of successful political initiatives. On November 2, Syria announced that it had agreed to an Arab League plan which called for the withdrawal of security forces from the streets, the release of prisoners and talks with the opposition.

However, it is very probable that some Arab countries are keen to employ the league in a similar fashion to the way it was used with the war on Libya: a mere springboard that eventually allowed NATO’s war to take place. Signs of such a scenario are becoming clearer, especially following the league’s vote to suspend Syria’s membership on November 12. Indeed, In a New York Times editorial on November 8, the role of the Arabs seems to be confined to just that. The Arab League “should eject Syria and urge the United Nations Security Council to condemn Mr. Assad and impose international sanctions against the regime,” the Times counseled. “Russia and China will find it harder to block a Security Council resolution — as they did in October — if the Arab world calls for action that goes beyond the sanctions already imposed by the United States and Europe.”

And so the saga continues. If Syria doesn’t wrestle its fate from the hands of these self-serving forces, the Syrian uprising and Syria as a whole will continue to be marred by uncertainties and foreboding possibilities.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.