just commentary april 2015

Vol 15, No.04 April 2015

Turn to next page

ARTICLES

THE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT: A STEP IN THE RIGHT

DIRECTION

. LIBYA: WAR-TORN COUNTRY BECOMING NEW HUB

FOR IS ACTIVITIES

BY SERGE JORDAN........................................P 7

.YEMEN: NO MILITARY SOLUTION BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.........................P 2

. NOAM CHOMSKY: DEFEATING ISIS STARTS WITH

US ADMITTING ITS ROLE IN CREARING THIS

FUNDAMENTALIST MONSTER

BY AMY GOODMAN/DEMOCRACY NOW!......P 10

.FOUR YEARS OF SYRIAN RESISTANCE TO IMPERIALIST

TAKEOVER

BY SARA FLOUNDERS AND LAMONT LILLY...P 13

. SLLEP WALKING INTO WORLD WAR THREE? WHY

THE MEDIA IS VITAL

BY COLIN TODHUNTER..........................P 17

. BETTER THAN HATRED

BY IZZELDIN ABUELIASH........................P 19

STATEMENT

.HOW THE AIIB IS TRANSFORMING THE BALANCE

OF POWER IN EAST ASIA

BY MARTIN JACQUES.................................P15

. THE MESSAGE FROM ISRAEL’S ELECTION

BY IIAN PAPPE..............................................P 5

There is no guarantee that the preliminaryagreement reached in Lausanne,Switzerland, on 2nd April 2015 betweenIran, on the one hand, and the UnitedStates and five other world powers,namely, Britain, China, France, Germanyand Russia, on the other, in relation toIran’s nuclear programme will lead to afinal accord at the end of June this year,as envisaged by the parties concerned.

There is considerable opposition to theagreement especially in the US. A lot ofRepublican lawmakers and somedemocrats are opposed to it. They allegethat the deal does not protect Israeliinterests. There are powerful Israelilobbies in the US who have condemnedit. The Israeli Prime Minister, BenjaminNetanyahu, an implacable opponent of anynegotiations with Iran from the very

beginning, has described the agreementas a threat to the very survival of Israel!Netanyahu and his allies in the US aremobilizing various groups andindividuals to stop the signing of thefinal accord.

Some of the hardliners in Iran withinreligious, political and media circles arealso unhappy with the Lausanneagreement. They feel that it imposessevere restrictions upon Iran’s nuclearprogramme and infringes upon thenation’s sovereignty. But the vastmajority of Iranians — it appears frommedia reports — are in a celebratorymood. They are happy because thefinal accord will lead to the lifting ofsanctions pushed forward by the US,the European Union and the UnitedNations in recent years that have

weakened the Iranian economy andbrought widespread suffering to thepeople.

The sanctions were terribly unjustbecause they were based upon thefalse premise that Iran wasmanufacturing nuclear weaponswhen the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) which hadover years conducted the mostintrusive and extensive inspectionsof Iran’s nuclear facilities failed toproduce even an iota of hardevidence that suggested that Iran’snuclear programme had some otherulterior motive. Doubts raised on acouple of occasions and accusationshurled by IAEA inspectors,highlighted by the global media,

.VENEZUELA: A THREAT? BY CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.........................P 4

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

2

continued from page 1

L E A D A R T I C L E

continued next page

turned out to be hollow largely becausethey were inspired by fabricated“evidence” supplied by Israeliintelligence.

It is also important to emphasise thatright from the outset Iran’s supremeleaders, first Imam Khomeini and thenthe current spiritual head, AyatollahKhamenei, had declared on a numberof occasions that manufacturing,storing and deploying nuclear weaponsis “haram” ( prohibited) in Islam.Iran’s nuclear programme is only forpeaceful purposes with the focus upongenerating electricity and undertakingmedical research. The agreementrecognizes Iran’s right to developnuclear energy for such goals.Harnessing nuclear energy for peacefulpurposes is part and parcel of thenational agenda of more than 40countries — a right recognized underthe Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) ofwhich Iran is a signatory.

To demonstrate in unequivocal termsits total commitment to peaceful usesof nuclear energy, Iran should now leada campaign to declare West Asia andNorth Africa (WANA) a NuclearWeapons Free Zone. No country and

no entity in the region should beallowed to manufacture, keep or usenuclear weapons. Every country andevery entity should be prepared to besubjected to IAEA inspections. Thiswill put the only state in the region thatis known to possess nuclear weaponsto the test. Israel should not be treatedas a special case in this instance. Thereshould be a massive mobilization ofpublic opinion within and withoutWANA to force Israel to dismantle itsnuclear arsenal. It is grossly unfair thatthe one entity that has been most vocalin denouncing Iran’s unproven nuclearweapons has escaped scrutiny of, andcensure about, its own nuclearweapons arsenal from the worldcommunity. After the Lausanneagreement we should all now turn ourattention to Israel and demand thatIsrael demolish its stock of nuclearweapons immediately and pledge notto produce such weapons any more.A nuclear weapons free WANA is thebest hope for peace and security forall the states in that region, includingIsrael.

Iran should also campaign to abolishother weapons of mass destructionsuch as biological and chemicalweapons from WANA. There are a few

states in the region that continue tostockpile such weapons. This again willhelp usher in an era where there is lessbarbaric violence and brutal massacres.

In this regard, Iran should also joingroups in other parts of the world andcampaign for the prohibition of war asa means of settling conflicts betweenand within nations. It would be amazingif such a campaign took root in WANAwhich has witnessed so many warssince the end of the Second World War.In fact, I had hoped when a revolutiontook place in Iran in the name of Islamin 1979 that Iran would pioneer a newapproach to international relations bychampioning the cause of a worldwithout war and a world withoutnuclear weapons and other weaponsof mass destruction.

It may still happen if the agreement of2nd April evolves into a comprehensiveaccord at the end of June 2015 andpolitics in WANA slowly moves in adifferent direction.

4 April 2015.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is Presidentof the International Movement for aJust World (JUST).

YEMEN: NO MILITARY SOLUTION

STATEMENTS

There is no military solution to the Yemencrisis. It is essentially a tussle for powerbetween various political actors. Thesolution has to be political.

Military air-strikes helmed by SaudiArabia, and supported by most of theother Gulf monarchies and othergovernments in the region, notably Egypt,have exacerbated an already volatilesituation. If these governments decide inthe next few days to launch a groundoffensive, the consequences will be

horrendous.

One, the casualties which are mountingwill increase dramatically. Yemen haswitnessed a great deal of death anddestruction in recent years and does notdeserve to suffer more pain and anguish.

Two, Yemeni society which is alreadydeeply polarized will become even moredivided. An all-out war will make it moredifficult to work towards reconciliationand to restore peace in the future.

Three, any escalation of aggression onthe part of the Saudi elite and its allieswill tear the region asunder especiallysince they are projecting the Yemen crisisas a Sunni-Shia conflict. It will haverepercussions for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and even SaudiArabia itself. These are all Arab stateswhere Sunnis or Shias are in themajorityor are a minority. Shia Iran andSunni Turkey will also be drawn into themaelstrom.

By Chandra Muzaffar


3


continued next page

The danger of perceiving the Yemenconflict in Sunni-Shia terms is furtheraggravated by a stark anti-Iran rhetoricemanating from Saudi and Egyptian elitecircles which has even hinted of aforeign, non-Arab — read Persian —threat that dredges deeply ingrainedsentiments rooted in the past that havealways dichotomized the Muslimummah. The implication is that Persiansare manipulating an Arab tribe, theHouthis, in Yemen for their ‘imperial’interests. One should not be surprised ifthe Iranian government reacts to suchmischievous rhetoric.

It is against this backdrop that one shouldview the proposal by the EgyptianPresident, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, toestablish a unified Arab military force todefend Arab identity. It is a shame thatal- Sisi should forefront this idea whichis in the Charter of the Arab League inpursuit of religious sectarianism whenhe like his allies in the coalition formedto fight the Shia Houthis of Yemen havenever thought of forging a united militaryfront against Israel. After all, it wasbecause of Israel that the Charterconceived of a unified Arab militaryforce in 1950! No wonder the IsraeliPrime Minister, Netanyahu, is euphoricover developments in Yemen which hehas described as proof that Iran isseeking to dominate the entire region.

It is also explains why the United Statesgovernment is supporting the Saudis, theEgyptians and the others in the anti-Houthis coalition. A US National SecurityCouncil spokesperson admitted that theUS was “ establishing a joint planningcell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate USmilitary and intelligence support” in theon-going military operations in Yemen.This is yet another example of aconvergence of interests between the USand Israel on the one hand and thestrengthening of these interests throughcollaboration with other close allies,agents and proxies in West Asia such asSaudi Arabia, Egypt and a number ofother Arab states, on the other. The

special significance of US collusion withthese regional actors on this occasionlies in the fact that the US is also at thesame time holding critical talks with Iranover its nuclear programme in Lausanne.It is partly because of these talks whichboth Saudi Arabia and Israel are opposedto, that the former has initiated militaryaction in Yemen on its own accord outof a belief that the US can no longer betrusted to safeguard Saudi interests. Ina sense, the Saudi elite has forced theUS to get involved in Yemen on its sideagainst Iran.

But Saudi intervention is not going tohelp resolve the quagmire in Yemen. Atthe root of the present conflict is thestruggle for power between Abed RabboMansour Hadi — the President who fledYemen on 25 March 2015 — and AliAbdullah Salleh, the longtime dictatorwho was deposed through a popularuprising in early 2012. Salleh stillcommands considerable loyalty withinthe military and has been trying to makea comeback. It is reliably learnt that hehas forged an alliance of sorts with theHouthis, who constitute about 40% ofthe population and belong to the Zaydibranch of the Shia sect. This is anopportunistic relationship because Sallehhad in 2004 attempted to mercilesslycrush a Houthi rebellion which was alsodirected against Israeli and USinterference in Yemeni affairs.

This power struggle has been renderedeven more complicated by theemergence of yet another actor. Since2009, Yemen has served as a base forAl-Qaeda. The Al-Qaeda in the ArabianPeninsula (AQAP) is a major Al-Qaedaaffiliate and is the coordinating centrefor operations of the terrorist outfit in

many parts of West Asia, North Africaand even Europe and the US. The UShas been targeting AQAP terroriststhrough its drone attacks which havealso killed scores of innocent civilians.These drone attacks have made the USimmensely unpopular among the Yemenipeople. Since the Yemeni government ofboth Salleh and his successor Hadi isseen as a collaborator, it has also lost alot of credibility. The AQAP, it should beemphasized, is not just fighting theYemeni government; it is also fiercelyantagonistic towards the Houthis sincethey are Shias.

If the US is determined to destroy theAQAP, it is mainly because Yemen, oneof the world’s poorest countries isnonetheless of tremendous strategicsignificance. At the southwestern tip ofthe Arabian Peninsula, it “is located alongthe major sea route from Europe to Asia,near some of the busiest Red Seashipping and trading lanes. Millions ofbarrels of oil pass through these watersdaily in both directions, to theMediterranean through the Suez Canaland from the oil refineries in Saudi Arabiato the energy-hungry Asian markets.” Itis not just the US that regards Yemen asstrategic. All the countries in West Asia,South Asia,East Asia and Europe that aredependent upon trade and concernedabout the security of those sea lanes thatare critical to their economies, arewatching nervously what is happeningin Yemen.

Strategic significance, drone attacks,AQAP, the domestic power struggle, theSunni-Shia divide,the tussle betweenSaudi Arabia and Iran for regionalinfluence, the Israeli game and thecontinuing US drive for hegemony whichare all intertwined are unfolding in acorner of the earth that is riddled withother challenges. There is a north-southdivide which was not really resolvedwhen the two parts, NorthYemen andSouth Yemen, decided to merge in 1990.A civil war erupted in 1994 andthousands died. The uneasy alliance hasheld on. There are also a number of self-

S T A T E M E N T S


4

S T A T E M E N T S


VENEZUELA: A THREAT?

continued next page

governing tribes.

On top of all this, Yemen faces hugeeconomic challenges. It is estimated that40% of men between the ages of 20 and24 in the south are unemployed. Drugaddiction is rife. Corruption is rampant.During Salleh’s long rule, Yemendeveloped a reputation as a kleptocracy.

To bring order and stability to a nationwhich is in such a terrible mess, one has

to persuade all the relevant players to talkto one another, to negotiate, tocompromise. The peaceful, non-violentapproach to conflict resolution has notbeen given enough space and scope tosucceed in Yemen. The UN has beentrying to play a role in a very difficultsituation. The UN should be given fullsupport by all the contending forces.

It should use its moral authority todemand that both sides stop fightingimmediately. It should then help to

establish an interim government in Sana’aof technocrats which will not onlyadminister but also make all the necessarypreparations for free, fair elections forboth the presidency and parliament. Aneffective interim government and theentire electoral exercise under UNsupervision will undoubtedly take time.But it will be worth the while if it bringsto an end the war and violence we arenow witnessing.

30 March 2015

The most absurd political pronouncementof 2015 was made on 9 March.

The US President issued an ExecutiveOrder that declared “a nationalemergency with respect to the unusualand extraordinary threat to the nationalsecurity and foreign policy of the UnitedStates posed by the situation in Venezuela…” A White House spokesman explainedthat Venezuela was a threat because of“Venezuelan officials past and presentwho violate the human rights ofVenezuelan citizens and engage in actsof public corruption…” He furtherasserted that these officials will not bewelcome in the US, “and we now havethe tools to block their assets and theiruse of US financial systems.” Sevenindividuals have been targeted by theWhite House. There have been othersanctions against Venezuelan officials andcitizens in the past.

So far the US has not provided anytangible evidence of how Venezuelanofficials have violated human rights orindulged in public corruption. Its recklessallegations have been effectively refutedby the Caracas government. Even leadersfrom other Latin American countries havecondemned the statements emanatingfrom Washington DC.

They have also criticized Washington for

demanding that Caracas release all“political prisoners” allegedly detained bythe government including “dozens ofstudents.” The Venezuelan governmentinsists that those detained are facing trialfor criminal offences linked to violentattempts to destabilize the situation andoust the democratically electedgovernment of the day. The governmenthas been able to offer incontrovertibleproof of this to the public.

Former Caracas mayor, AntonioLedezma, for instance, was arrested inFebruary for his role in the February 12coup which also implicated Air Forcepersonnel and terrorists such as LorentSaleh. Another opposition leader facingtrial is Leopoldo Lopez who was at thehead of a series of violent oppositionprotests in 2014 that sought to overthrowthe Nicolas Maduro government. Theprotests that Lopez led caused the deathof 43 people, the majority of whom werefrom the security forces or followers ofthe charismatic late President ofVenezuela, Hugo Chavez.

In fact, Ledezma and Lopez, togetherwith a third right-wing leader, MariaCorina Machado, were actively involvedin the infamous April 11 2002 coupagainst Chavez. The coup failed, it isworth reiterating, mainly because tensof thousands of ordinary Venezuelans

came out in full force to demand thatChavez be restored to power. As I statedin an article on the 1st of June 2009,“Never before in history have ordinaryunarmed people played such a decisiverole in defeating a coup.” The US,through the CIA, was, needless to say,responsible for engineering the coup.

This time all three coup manipulatorsfrom 2002, had allegedly signed adocument which openly espoused theoverthrow of the Maduro government.President Maduro has shared with hispeople recordings of phone conversationsthat some of these individuals had inrecent months with other Venezuelanpoliticians living in New York and Miamiwhich suggest a complex coup plot. Theexecution of the plot envisaged theprivatization of most public services andthe intervention of the IMF, the WorldBank and the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank in the Venezuelaneconomy for the benefit of the pro-USelite in the country and their masters inWashington and other Westerncapitals.Maduro has promised to revealmore details of the planned coup at theSummit of the Americas scheduled forApril in Panama.

Since this is what is happening — aconcerted drive by the US elite to oust a

By Chandra Muzaffar


5

continued next page

A R T I C L E S


ARTICLES

THE MESSAGES FROM ISRAEL’S ELECTION

By Ilan Pappe

democratically elected governmentwhich has been going on for at least 13years — how can Obama talk of aVenezuelan threat to the US? If anything,it is the US that is a present andcontinuous threat to the people ofVenezuela. It is the US elite that isundermining Venezuelan democracy.

Why is the US doing this to Venezuela?The reason is simple. Since Hugo ChavezFrias became President through theballot-box in 1998, he and his successor,Nicolas Maduro, have been determinedto preserve and enhance theindependence, sovereignty and integrityof their nation. The Venezuelan peopleas a whole are not prepared to yield toUS dominance and control over theirland which was the reality for longdecades before 1998.

It is not just because of the resistance ofthe Venezuelan people to US hegemonythat they are being threatened andpunished in this way. The US elite knowsthat their resistance is part of an ever-widening, ever-expanding resistance thatencompasses a large number of countriesin Latin America and the Caribbean. Theircollective desire to protect and enhancetheir sovereignty and independence hasnow found expression through regionalinitiatives such as ALBA and CELAC. TheVenezuelan leadership itself continues toplay a significant role in these initiatives.

As more and more nations in a regionthat was once contemptuously referredto as “the US’s backyard” assert theirdignity and self-respect, it is obvious thatUS power and influence in Latin Americaand the Caribbean is waning rapidly. Thevery fact that the overwhelming majority

of states in the region have rallied aroundVenezuela as it faces threats from itsnorthern neighbor is proof that the tidehas changed. A while ago, Latin Americanstates also stood by Argentina when itwas subjected to enormous pressuresfrom Wall Street speculators andfinancers. If the US realizes that it cannotthrow its weight around anymore it isalso because of the increasingly close tiesthat are developing between nations inthe region and China, and to a lesserextent, Russia. In other words, the newscenarios that are unfolding are not tothe US’s liking.

Perhaps, it is in that sense that Venezuela— one of the movers of change in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean — is a“threat” to a declining hegemon.

14 March 2015

Those of us who know the nature ofthe beast could not have been surprisedby the results of the Israeli election.

Like many of my friends, I was alsorelieved that a liberal Zionist governmentwas not elected. It would have allowedthe charade of the “peace process” andthe illusion of the two-state solution tolinger on while the suffering of thePalestinians continues.

As always, Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu himself provided theinevitable conclusion when he declaredthe end of the two-state solution —inviting us all to the long overdue funeralof an ill-conceived idea that providedIsrael with international immunity for itscolonialist project in Palestine.

The power of the charade was on show

when the world and local punditsunrealistically predicted a victory forliberal Zionism, an Israeli ideologicaltrend that is near extinction — embodiedby the Zionist Union list headed by IsaacHerzog and Tzipi Livni.

The exit polls compiled by Israel’s fineststatisticians reinforced the wishfulthinking, leading to a huge media fiascoas expectations of the “liberal” camp’svictory turned into shock and dismayover Netanyahu’s triumph.

Debacle

It is worthwhile to begin an initial analysisof the Israeli elections with closerattention to this debacle.

An important segment of those who votefor Netanyahu’s Likud Party belong to

the second generation of Jews who camefrom Arab and Muslim countries.

They were joined this time by settlercommunities in the occupied West Bankwho voted as a bloc for Netanyahu. TheArab Jews voted for Likud much morethan they voted for Netanyahu. Thesettlers did so at the expense of their newpolitical base — Naftali Bennett’s JewishHome party that promises outrightannexation of the West Bank — so as toensure that Likud would be the largestparty in the next parliament.

Neither group was entirely happy withtheir choice and were not so proud towear on their sleeves their decision to voteyet again for Netanyahu. That is perhapswhy many of them did not admit to theexit polls who they really voted for.


6

continued next page

A R T I C L E S


The result was quite catastrophic for allthe renowned pollsters. They missed theheadline that should have been announcedwhen the exit polls were done — asmashing victory for the Likud in 2015and a disappointing result for the liberalZionist camp. The more exciting newswas the success of the Palestiniancitizens of Israel who united to form theJoint List and won the third largest blocof seats after the Likud and the ZionistUnion.

Likud’s victory

The three outcomes — an invigoratedLikud, a defeated Labor Party (the ZionistUnion is a partnership of Labor andLivni’s “Initiative” list) and a unitedPalestinian representation — can eitherbe ignored by the internationalcommunity or serve as a catalyst for newthinking on the evergreen question ofPalestine.

The victory of Likud, despite the socialunrest in Israel over growing economichardships, and the unprecedented lowstanding of the Jewish state in theinternational community, indicate clearlythat there will be no change from withinIsrael in the near future.

Labor, meanwhile, has maximized itspotential: it is not likely to do better andhence it does not offer an alternative. Themain reason for this is that it is not analternative. Israel in 2015 is still a settler-colonialist state and a liberal version ofthis ideology cannot offer a genuinereconciliation to the indigenous people ofPalestine.

Ever since Likud took power for the firsttime after its historic 1977 victory, Jewishvoters have preferred the real thing, soto speak, steadily turning away from thepaler, liberal version of Zionism.

Labor was in power long enough for us

to know that it could not offer even themost moderate Palestinian leaders anydeal that would have granted themgenuine sovereignty — not even in theWest Bank and Gaza Strip, which formonly a fifth of historic Palestine.

The reason is very simple: the raisond’etre of a settler-colonialist society isdisplacement of the natives and their

replacement by settlers. At best nativescan be confined in gated enclaves, atworst they are doomed to be expelled ordestroyed.

Decolonization

The conclusion for the internationalcommunity should be clear now. Onlydecolonization of the settler state can leadto reconciliation. And the only way tokick off this decolonization is byemploying the same means exercisedagainst the other long-standing settlerstate of the twentieth century: apartheidSouth Africa.

The option of BDS — boycott,divestment and sanctions — has neverlooked more valid than it does today.Hopefully this, together with popularresistance on the ground, will entice atleast some of the second and thirdgeneration of the Jewish settler-colonialsociety to help stop the Zionistcolonization project.

Pressure from outside and from theresistance movement within are the onlyway to force Israelis to reframe theirrelationship with all the Palestinians,including the refugees, on the basis of

democratic and egalitarian values.Otherwise, we can expect Likud to winforty seats in the next elections, perhapson the back of the next outragedPalestinian uprising.

There are two reasons why this approachis still feasible. One is the Joint List. Itwill have no impact whatsoever on theIsraeli political system. In fact, like thePalestinian Authority, the days ofPalestinian representation in the Knesset,Israel’s parliament, are numbered. If aunited list can have no impact, and if adisempowered PA does not satisfy evenliberal Zionists, then the time has cometo look for new forms of representationand action.

The Joint List’s importance lieselsewhere. It can ignite the imaginationof other Palestinian communities aboutthe possibilities of unity of purpose. ThatIslamists and secular leftists can worktogether for a better future is an examplethat can have far-reaching implicationsnot only for Palestinians and Israelis, butfor an increasingly polarized Europe. TheJoint List represents a group of nativePalestinians who know the Israelis well,are deeply committed to democraticvalues and have risen in importanceamong the rest of the Palestinians afteryears of being marginalized and almostforgotten.

The second reason for hoping that newalternatives will emerge is that despite allits nastiness and callousness, the Zionistsettler-colonial project was not the worstin history.

With all the horrendous suffering it hascaused, most recently during thesummer massacre in Gaza, it did notexterminate the local population and itsdispossession project remainsincomplete. This does not mean that itwill not get worse or that one shouldunderestimate the suffering of thePalestinians.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

7


continued next page

Vision

What it means is that the main impulseamong Palestinians is not for retributionbut for restitution. Their wish is to livenormal lives — something Zionismdenied all the Palestinians ever since theideology’s arrival in Palestine in the latenineteenth century.

Normal life means an end to thediscriminatory apartheid policies againstthe Palestinians in Israel, the end of themilitary occupation and siege of the WestBank and Gaza Strip and recognition ofthe right of the Palestinian refugees toreturn to their homeland.

The quid pro quo is accepting the Jewish

ethnic group that emerged in Palestineas part of a new, decolonized and fullydemocratic political dispensation basedon principles that would be agreed on byall concerned.

The international community can play apositive role in bringing this vision aboutif it adopts three basic assumptions. Thefirst is that Zionism is still colonialismand hence anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism but anti-colonialism.

The second is that if it leaves behind theexceptionalism it granted Israel over theyears, mainly in the realm of humanrights, it has a better chance of playing aconstructive role towards safeguardingthese rights in the Middle East as a whole.

And finally, we should all be aware thatthe window of opportunity for savinginnocent lives in historic Palestine israpidly closing — if Israel’s power remainsunchecked a repeat of the massacres ofrecent years is all but certain. It is urgent toforsake old formulas for “peace” that didnot work and start looking for just and viablealternatives.

21 March 2015

The author of numerous books, Ilan

Pappe is professor of history anddirector of the European Centre forPalestine Studies at the University ofExeter.

Source: Electronic Intifada

LIBYA: WAR-TORN COUNTRY BECOMING NEW HUB FOR ISACTIVITIES

By Serge Jordan

Libyan people bearing the brunt ofNATO’s fiasco

On February 15, a Libyan group actingallegedly on behalf of the self-proclaimedIslamic State (IS), released a gruesomevideo. It was of the beheading of 21Egyptian Coptic Christian workers heldhostage by them since last December.While some technical experts have sinceargued that parts of the video, such asthe backdrop of the beach of the portcity of Sirte where these beheadingsappear to have been staged, have beenfaked, the fate of these workers is likelysealed. Recent events have in any casebrought to light how the Libyan territoryhas become a new ground for the ISproject of geographical expansion.

This video of the beheadings immediatelyprovoked retaliations from Cairo’smilitary regime. Egyptian fighter-jetslaunched a series of airstrikes in Darna,a city under effective IS control sincelast year. Despite official claims of

targeting “training camps and weaponscaches”, seven innocent civilians werekilled in heavily populated areas of thecity during the course of the operation.Last Friday, a group of militants claimingloyalty to IS killed another 42 people inthree suicide car bombings in Qubbah, asmall mountain town in eastern Libya, inapparent response to the Egyptian airstrikes. More Egyptians have also beentaken hostage since. About 15,000workers have reportedly fled Libya backto Egypt in the last couple of days, fearingfurther retribution.

This recent show of force marks a newescalation in the violence which hasgripped Libya in recent years.

Egypt’s role

The Egyptian rulers’ pretext of avengingthe blood of the Coptic workers killedby IS is farcical. For decades, the Copticminority in Egypt has been enduringnumerous abuses, repression and

scapegoating by the ruling class. For allits posturing, the Egyptian state is alsothe custodian of the very economicsystem which pushes hundreds ofthousands of Egyptians to try and escapepoverty and unemployment by seekingjobs abroad. Despite many leaving, it isestimated that over 700,000 Egyptianworkers still currently live in Libya.

Many of them, coming from the poorestareas of Egypt, work in low-paid andprecarious jobs to sustain their familiesback home, despite the appalling securityconditions. As reported by Reuters: “Inthe Egyptian village of Al-Our, about 200km (125 miles) south of Cairo, it is easyto see why young men take the risk.There are no paved roads, clean drinkingwater or adequate health care.”

The military intervention of the Egyptianarmy on the Libyan battlefield is not new;the regime, in collaboration with theEmirati government, has carried out

A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

8

continued next page


several airstrikes before. Egypt’sPresident Abdel Fattah el-Sisi seeks toexport his battle between brutaldictatorship and religious extremism onto Libyan soil, to divert attention awayfrom the growing crisis of his regime,and to whip up the fractured prestige ofhis army - responsible for mass murders,torture and other brutal methods ofrepression against political opponents. Sisialso hopes to use the airstrikes as a launchpad for installing a like-mindedauthoritarian regime on Egypt’s westernborders.

Egyptian generals, along with SaudiArabia and the United Arab Emirates, havethrown their weight behind LibyanGeneral Khalifa Haftar, an ex-officer ofGaddafi’s army. He broke with Gaddafi’sregime at the end of the 1980s to defectto the United States, and has workedclosely with the CIA ever since. Haftaris an aspiring dictator who thinks that aniron rule is the only way to sort out thecountry’s problems. “Eliminating theIslamist threat”, with whom he foughtside-by-side during the war againstGaddafi, has become his new mantra.

Haftar’s army, composed of manyresidues from the old regime’s military,until now has been in a precarious alliancewith the so-called ‘official’ governmentof Libya. This government, which hasthe blessing of Western imperialism, isnow based in the Eastern city of Tobruk,close to the Egyptian border. It wasthrown out of the capital Tripoli in August2014 by Libya Dawn. This is a loosenetwork of Islamist-leaning militias alliedwith brigades from the north-western cityof Misrata and with officials of theformer Parliament, the General NationalCongress.

Libya Dawn has since established acompeting government and parliamentwith the backing of the Qatari and Turkishregimes, and is controlling Tripoli and afew chunks of the western side of the

country.

In reality, both these ‘governments’ arebarely able to impose much order beyondthe cities where they are based. Thecountry is breaking apart into an intricatepatchwork of fiefs controlled by localmilitias, often based on tribal or regionalaffiliations, fighting for territories andinfluence.

The idea often propagated in the mediaof a battle between an ‘Islamist’ and a‘secular’ government is over-simplistic.The Saudi and Emirati monarchies, whoare backing the Tobruk-based governmentand General Haftar’s campaign, are notmodels of secularism themselves. Libyahas become the scene of a bloody battlebetween rival power centres backingcompeting militias, supported by variousoutside players using the country as astage for a new version of the proxy warsengulfing the region. Oil wealth andweapons have become much moreimportant bargaining chips for thesemilitias and their political backers thanprincipled considerations of any sort.

For these reasons, shifts in existingloyalties are probable in what appears tobe an extremely volatile situation. Amongother things, tensions are developingbetween the weak, exiled rulers ofTobruk (so weak they had to retreat fora time to a Greek car ferry on the city’sharbour!) and the would-be militarystrongman Haftar. Haftar is buildingsupport for military rule, boosted byEgypt’s cash and weapons. He might aimto sideline his previous allies to impose adictatorial statelet in the eastern part ofthe country, installing himself in power.

Another failed State

In 2011, Libyan dictator MuammarGaddafi warned that if toppled, he wouldbe replaced by “tribalism, Islamicextremism and anarchy”. This warningwas thrown out as a threat against all those

daring to challenge his regime, butsucceeding developments have provedhim right. Yet this was not inevitable.The lack of a viable left-wing alternativeto Gaddafi’s rule allowed what wasinitially a popular uprising to be derailed.While signs of regionalisation and city-based differences in the protestmovement existed from the start, in partinherited from Gaddafi’s divide-and-rulesystem of favours and retributions, thesubsequent military intervention by theNATO powers paved the way for thecolossal disaster that we are witnessingtoday.

Three years ago, the Obamaadministration and its French and Britishcounterparts heralded the toppling ofGaddafi as a humanitarian triumph anda new model for Western intervention.NATO officials even declared that themission in Libya had been “one of themost successful in NATO history.”

But as the Committee for a WorkersInternational (CWI) highlighted at thetime, the NATO forces never intervenedin Libya with the aim of coming to therescue of the Libyan people. The aimwas to turn the tide of the massrevolutionary uprisings which hadstarted in Tunisia and Egypt and hadcaught them off guard, to sideline themost popular grassroots elements of theanti-Gaddafi rebellion, and to impose aregime more subservient to the interestsof Western oil giants and multinationalcorporations. This was even thoughGaddafi’s clique had cozied up toWestern governments and to neo-liberalreforms in the last decade of his reign.

For this purpose, Western powers didnot hesitate to provide training, weaponsand money to notorious Al Qaeda-linkedjihadists. Some of the most prominenttrainers of rebel forces in 2011 includedmilitants who had been imprisoned atGuantanamo. This included, as revealedby the New York Times back in April


9

A R T I C L E S


continued next page

2011, the notorious Abu Sufian BinQumu, a founding member of the Salafistmilitia Ansar al Sharia. This group is heldresponsible for the deadly attack on theUS consulate in Benghazi in September2012. Its Tunisian branch also organisedthe assassination of two prominent left-wing political leaders in 2013.

While the demise of Gaddafi waswelcomed by significant layers of theLibyan population, this was done througha mass bombing campaign that causedlarge-scale civilian killings and destructionon the country’s infrastructure. It wasalso through the promotion of a myriadof unaccountable militias, of pro-imperialist “free market upstarts” keento do business with the West, and ofreligious fundamentalists ready to usetheir newly acquired influence to bite thehand that had fed them before.

On the toppling of Gaddafi, the CWIcommented in October 2011: “If this hadbeen purely the result of struggle by theLibyan working masses it would havebeen widely acclaimed, but the directinvolvement of imperialism casts a darkshadow over the revolution’s future”.

The CWI argued against those on theleft such as the Alliance for Workers’Liberty (AWL) or the so-called Marxistprofessor and USFI supporter GilbertAchcar, who had stood in favour ofimperialist intervention in Libya under theguise of preventing Gaddafi fromcommitting atrocities against his ownpeople. Figures from Claudia Gazzini, ajournalist for the Middle East Researchand Information Project, have exposedthe fallacy of such arguments: “the deathtoll subsequent to the seven-monthNATO intervention was at least ten timesgreater than the tally of those killed inthe first few weeks of the conflict”.

Revealingly, the same “leftinterventionists” have since been totallyoblivious to the horrors and sufferings

generated by the policy they supportedat the time, which has made life forordinary Libyans far worse than what itwas even under the tyranny of Gaddafi.

Libya has now become a source ofinstability for the whole region, a regionalmagnet for the training and harbouringof jihadist fighters, as well as aflourishing market for weapons, drugsand human trafficking. According to theUN, at least 400,000 people have beeninternally displaced by fighting across thecountry, with as many as 83,000 peopleliving in camps, schools and abandonedbuildings. Over a million Libyan refugeeshave fled to Tunisia. Several reports

indicate that the vast majority of theLibyan exiles who had returned afterGaddafi’s fall have left as well.

The country is facing an unprecedentedlevel of violence. Targeted assassinationsand torture have become commonplace;migrant workers are subject to horrificabuse; and a lot of basic services aredysfunctional if they have not collapsedall together. “Your friends in Britain andFrance will stand with you as you buildyour democracy” were the words ofBritish Prime Minister David Cameronas he visited Benghazi with ex-FrenchPresident Nicolas Sarkozy in September2011. Yet, all Western embassies in Libyahave now packed up and gone, incapableof even guaranteeing the security of theirown staff.

Islamic State

Several armed radical Islamist factions

in Libya have declared their recentallegiance to IS, as the latter has gainedsupporters in some key parts of thecountry. Religious fundamentalist groupsadmittedly existed in Libya prior to 2011,but their influence was relatively limited.Sectarian killings, such as perpetratedagainst the Egyptian Christian workers,is a recent phenomenon.

The calamitous state of the country, thefree fall in living standards, the hugeresentment against the actions of Westernimperialism, and the massive amount ofweaponry available in the country haveall provided a breeding ground for IS-type jihadists. It is no accident that thecoastal town of Sirte has arguablybecome a stronghold of IS militancy. Thebirthplace of Gaddafi and once arelatively prosperous city, Sirte has beenreduced to ruins by intense NATObombings.

Socialist programme needed

Only formed by the Italian colonial powerin 1934, Libya is facing the possibilityof violent break-up. The toppling ofGadaffi has given birth to a multitude oflittle tyrants, mercenaries and warlordscarving up the country. The addedintervention of various foreign actors isexacerbating existing tensions andheightening the possibility for morebloodshed.

The Libyan people, the poor, theoppressed and the workers, need to buildwherever possible independently-runorganisations that can help them bringback on the agenda a collective strugglefor their most vital and pressing needs.They will need to confront all thoseforces basing themselves upon any formof economic plundering, corruption andviolent suppression of the people.

Such a struggle would need to beequipped with a programme standing forfull and equal democratic and social rights


10

A R T I C L E S

continued next page


for all, repudiating any form ofdiscrimination based on gender, ethnicity,religion, tribe, regional or city affiliation.

The potential for ordinary people tochallenge the rule of reactionary militiashas been expressed on a number ofoccasions in the last period. The settingup of democratically organised,accountable and non-sectarian workersand poor people’s defence committeesin the neighbourhoods could assist ingiving a more organised expression tothis struggle, and in protectingcommunities from the rampagingviolence from multiple sides which isripping the country’s apart.

The Libyan people need to be able todetermine their own future. Any furthermeddling and military intervention byregional and western powers needs tobe vigorously opposed. The drums for anew international military interventionhave been beating from some Europeanquarters even though it is rather likelythat Western governments will try toavoid a new military campaign in thecountry at this stage.

These powers have clearly demonstratedthat they are no friends of ordinaryLibyans. As revealed by the first wave

of revolts and revolutions that sweptthrough the Middle East and North Africain early 2011, only in the masses of theworking class, the youth and theoppressed of other countries will theLibyans find a genuine ally in theirstruggle for social and political change.

A “neat” military coup on a national scaleis unlikely, seeing the state of erosion ofthe Libyan state machine. But a sectionof the military wing led by General Haftarand his clique could exploit the despairand the fear of jihadists among largesections of the Libyan population to tryand impose some form of military rulein the eastern side of the country.

However, as shown by the growingviolence in the Sinai Peninsula and otherparts of Egypt, the butcher-like methodsof repression of Sisi, that his henchmanHaftar wants to emulate in Libya, willonly lead to further terrorist blowbacks.This will not address any of the problemsfaced by the Libyan people.

Mass action from the grassroots isnecessary to oppose jihadists’ atrocities,corrupt militias, military adventurers, andthe broader, nightmarish scenario of aviolent disintegration of the country.

Importantly, a struggle for decent jobs

and better living standards, for adequateand functioning infrastructure andservices needs to take centre stage, inorder to cut across the social basis ofsupport for religious extremism.Independent trade unions need to be builtin the workplaces to defend migrantworkers and all workers’ rights, to fightfor better wages and working conditions.Such unions can play a pivotal role inresisting the spread of racism andreligious sectarianism.

Eventually, the Libyan people shouldstrive for a government based onrepresentatives of workers and poor andall oppressed layers of society, electedvia democratic structures in theworkplaces and communities.

By refusing any deal with big businessand any privatisation of Libyan assets,by bringing back under public ownershipand democratic people’s control themassive gas and oil reserves and otherresources, a plan could be outlined forrebuilding the country to offer a betterfuture for all Libyans.

26 February 2015

Serge Jordan works for the Committeefor a Workers’ International

Source: Socialistworld.net

NOAM CHOMSKY: DEFEATING ISIS STARTS WITH USADMITTING ITS ROLE IN CREATING THIS FUNDAMENTALIST

MONSTER

By Amy Goodman/ Democracy Now!

It would take remedying the massivedamage inflicted on Iraq in order to dealwith the turmoil in the region.

We air the second part of our two-dayinterview with Noam Chomsky, theworld-renowned political dissident,linguist and author. Chomsky is instituteprofessor emeritus at MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, where he has

taught for more than 50 years. As Iraqlaunches an offensive to retake Tikrit andCongress prepares to debate anexpansive war powers resolution for U.S.strikes, Chomsky discusses how hethinks the U.S. should respond to theself-proclaimed Islamic State.

Below is an interview with Chomsky,followed by a transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Today, part two ofour discussion with Noam Chomsky, theworld-renowned political dissident,linguist and author, institute professoremeritus at Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, where he’s taught for morethan half a century. On Monday onDemocracy Now!, Aaron Maté and Iinterviewed him about Israeli Prime


11

continued next page


Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speechon Iran to Congress. Today, in part two,we look at blowback from the U.S. droneprogram, the legacy of slavery in theUnited States, the leaks of EdwardSnowden, U.S. meddling in Venezuela andthe thawing of U.S.-Cuba relations. Webegan by asking Professor Chomskyhow the U.S. should respond to the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s very hard tothink of anything serious that can bedone. I mean, it should be settleddiplomatically and peacefully to the extentthat that’s possible. It’s not inconceivable.I mean, there are—ISIS, it’s a horriblemanifestation of hideous actions. It’s areal danger to anyone nearby. But so areother forces. And we should be gettingtogether with Iran, which has a hugestake in the matter and is the main forceinvolved, and with the Iraqi government,which is calling for and applaudingIranian support and trying to work outwith them some arrangement which willsatisfy the legitimate demands of theSunni population, which is what ISIS isprotecting and defending and gaining theirsupport from.

They’re not coming out of nowhere. Imean, they are—one of the effects, themain effects, of the U.S. invasion of Iraq—there are many horrible effects, but one ofthem was to incite sectarian conflicts, thathad not been there before. If you take alook at Baghdad before the invasion, Sunniand Shia lived intermingled—sameneighborhoods, they intermarried.Sometimes they say that they didn’t evenknow if their neighbor was a Sunni or aShia. It was like knowing whatProtestant sect your neighbor belongs to.There was pretty close—it wasn’t—I’mnot claiming it was—it wasn’t utopia.There were conflicts. But there was noserious conflict, so much so that Iraqisat the time predicted there would neverbe a conflict. Well, within a couple ofyears, it had turned into a violent, brutal

conflict. You look at Baghdad today, it’ssegregated. What’s left of the Sunnicommunities are isolated. The peoplecan’t talk to their neighbors. There’s wargoing on all over. The ISIS is murderousand brutal. The same is true of the Shiamilitias which confront it. And this is nowspread all over the region. There’s nowa major Sunni-Shia conflict rending theregion apart, tearing it to shreds.

Now, this cannot be dealt with by bombs.This is much more serious than that. It’sgot to be dealt with by steps towardsrecovering, remedying the massivedamage that was initiated by thesledgehammer smashing Iraq and hasnow spread. And that does requirediplomatic, peaceful means dealing withpeople who are pretty ugly—and we’renot very pretty, either, for that matter.But this just has to be done. Exactly whatsteps should be taken, it’s hard to say.There are people whose lives are at stake,like the Assyrian Christians, the Yazidi andso on. Apparently, the fighting thatprotected the—we don’t know a lot, butit looks as though the ground fightingthat protected the Yazidi, largely, wascarried out by PKK, the Turkish guerrillagroup that’s fighting for the Kurds inTurkey but based in northern Iraq. Andthey’re on the U.S. terrorist list. We can’thope to have a strategy that deals withISIS while opposing and attacking thegroup that’s fighting them, just as itdoesn’t make sense to try to have astrategy that excludes Iran, the major statethat’s supporting Iraq in its battle withISIS.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the factthat so many of those who are joiningISIS now—and a lot has been made ofthe young people, young women andyoung men, who are going into Syriathrough Turkey. I mean, Turkey is a U.S.ally. There is a border there. They freelygo back and forth.

NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s right. And it’s

not just young people. One thing that’spretty striking is that it includes peoplewith—educated people, doctors,professionals and others. Whatever we—we may not like it, but ISIS is—the ideaof the Islamic caliphate does have anappeal to large sectors of a brutalizedglobal population, which is under severeattack everywhere, has been for a longtime. And something has appeared whichhas an appeal to them. And that can’t beoverlooked if we want to deal with theissue. We have to ask what’s the natureof the appeal, why is it there, how canwe accommodate it and lead to some, ifnot at least amelioration of the murderousconflict, then maybe some kind ofsettlement. You can’t ignore these factorsif you want to deal with the issue.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask youabout more information that’s come outon the British man who is known as“Jihadi John,” who appears in the IslamicState beheading videos. MohammedEmwazi has been identified as that manby British security. They say he’s a 26-year-old born in Kuwait who moved tothe U.K. as a child and studied computerscience at the University of Westminster.The British group CAGE said he facedat least four years of harassment,detention, deportations, threats andattempts to recruit him by British securityagencies, which prevented him fromleading a normal life. Emwaziapproached CAGE in 2009 after he wasdetained and interrogated by the Britishintelligence agency MI5 on what he calleda safari vacation in Tanzania. In 2010,after Emwazi was barred from returningto Kuwait, he wrote, quote, “I had a jobwaiting for me and marriage to getstarted. But know [sic] I feel like aprisoner, only not in a cage, in London.”In 2013, a week after he was barred fromKuwait for a third time, Emwazi lefthome and ended up in Syria. At a newsconference, CAGE research directorAsim Qureshi spoke about his

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L DA R T I C L E S

12


continued next page

recollections of Emwazi and comparedhis case to another British man, MichaelAdebolajo, who hacked a soldier to deathin London in 2013.

ASIM QURESHI: Sorry, it’s quite hard,because, you know, he’s such a—I’mreally sorry, but he was such a beautifulyoung man, really. You know, it’s hardto imagine the trajectory, but it’s not atrajectory that’s unfamiliar with us, forus. We’ve seen Michael Adebolajo, onceagain, somebody that I met, you know,who came to me for help, looking tochange his situation within the system.When are we going to finally learn thatwhen we treat people as if they’reoutsiders, they will inevitably feel likeoutsiders, and they will look for belongingelsewhere?

AMY GOODMAN: That’s CAGEresearch director Asim Qureshi. Yourresponse to this, Noam Chomsky?

NOAM CHOMSKY: He’s right. If you—the same if you take a look at those whoperpetrated the crimes on Charlie Hebdo.They also have a history of oppression,violence. They come from Algerianbackground. The horrible Frenchparticipation in the murderous war inAlgeria is their immediate background.They live under—in these harshlyrepressed areas. And there’s much morethan that. So, you mentioned thatinformation is coming out about so-calledJihadi John. You read the British press,other information is coming out, whichwe don’t pay much attention to.

For example, The Guardian had an articlea couple of weeks ago about a Yemeniboy, I think who was about 14 or so,who was murdered in a drone strike. Andshortly before, they had interviewed himabout his history. His parents and familywent through them, were murdered indrone strikes. He watched them burn todeath. We get upset about beheadings.They get upset about seeing their father

burn to death in a drone strike. He saidthey live in a situation of constant terror,not knowing when the person 10 feetaway from you is suddenly going to beblown away. That’s their lives. Peoplelike those who live in the slums aroundParis or, in this case, a relativelyprivileged man under harsh, pretty harshrepression in England, they also knowabout that. We may choose not to knowabout it, but they know. When we talkabout beheadings, they know that in theU.S.-backed Israeli attack on Gaza, atthe points where the attack was mostfierce, like the Shejaiya neighborhood,people weren’t just beheaded. Theirbodies were torn to shreds. People camelater trying to put the pieces of the bodiestogether to find out who they were, youknow. These things happen, too. Andthey have an impact—all of this has animpact, along with what was justdescribed. And if we seriously want todeal with the question, we can’t ignorethat. That’s part of the background ofpeople who are reacting this way.

AARON MATÉ: You spoke before abouthow the U.S. invasion set off the Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq, and out of that cameISIS. I wonder if you see a parallel inLibya, where the U.S. and NATO had amandate to stop a potential massacre inBenghazi, but then went much furtherthan a no-fly zone and helped toppleGaddafi. And now, four years later, wehave ISIS in Libya, and they’re beheadingCoptic Christians, Egypt now bombing.And with the U.S. debating this expansivewar measure, Libya could be next on theU.S. target list.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that’s a veryimportant analogy. What happened is, asyou say, there was a claim that theremight be a massacre in Benghazi, and inresponse to that, there was a U.N.resolution, which had several elements.One, a call for a ceasefire andnegotiations, which apparently Gaddafiaccepted. Another was a no-fly zone,

OK, to stop attacks on Benghazi. Thethree traditional imperial powers—Britain, France and the United States—immediately violated the resolution. Nodiplomacy, no ceasefire. They immediatelybecame the air force of the rebel forces.And, in fact, the war itself had plenty ofbrutality—violent militias, attacks onAfricans living in Libya, all sorts of things.The end result is just to tear Libya to shreds.By now, it’s torn between two majorwarring militias, many other small ones. It’sgotten to the point where they can’t evenexport their main export, oil. It’s just adisaster, total disaster. That’s what happenswhen you strike vulnerable systems, as Isaid, with a sledgehammer. All kind ofhorrible things can happen.

In the case of Iraq, it’s worth recallingthat there had been an almost decade ofsanctions, which were brutallydestructive. We know about—we can,if we like, know about the sanctions.People prefer not to, but we can findout. There was a sort of humanitariancomponent of the sanctions, so-called.It was the oil-for-peace program,instituted when the reports of the sanctionswere so horrendous—you know, hundredsof thousand of children dying and so on—that it was necessary for the U.S. and Britainto institute some humanitarian part. Thatwas directed by prominent, respectedinternational diplomats, Denis Halliday, whoresigned, and Hans von Sponeck. BothHalliday and von Sponeck resigned becausethey called the humanitarian aspectgenocidal. That’s their description. And vonSponeck published a detailed, importantbook on it called, I think, A Different Kindof War, or something like that, which I’venever seen a review of or even a mentionof it in the United States, which detailed, ingreat detail, exactly how these sanctionswere devastating the civilian society,supporting Saddam, because the people hadto simply huddle under the umbrella ofpower for survival, probably—they didn’tsay this, but I’ll add it—probably saving


13

continued next page


FOUR YEARS OF SYRIAN RESISTANCE TO IMPERIALIST

TAKEOVER

By Sara Flounders and Lamont Lilly

U.S. efforts to overturn the government ofSyria have now extended into a fifth year.It is increasingly clear that thousands ofpredictions reported in the corporate mediaby Western politicians, think tanks,diplomats and generals of a quick overturnand easy destruction of Syrian sovereigntyhave been overly optimistic, imperialistdreams. But four years of sabotage,bombings, assassinations and a mercenaryinvasion of more than 20,000 fightersrecruited from over 60 countries havespread great ruin and loss of life.

The U.S. State Department has once againmade its arrogant demand that SyrianPresident Bashar al-Assad must step down.This demand confirms U.S. imperialism’sdetermination to overthrow the electedSyrian government. Washington intends toimpose the chaos of feuding mercenariesand fanatical militias as seen today in Libyaand Iraq.

A delegation from the International ActionCenter headed by former U.S. AttorneyGeneral Ramsey Clark traveled to Syria inlate February to present a different message.

Visits to hospitals, centers for displaced

families and meetings with religious leaders,community organizations and governmentofficials conveyed the IAC’s determinationto resist the orchestrated efforts of U.S.imperialism acting through its proxies inTurkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan andIsrael.

The IAC’s opportunity to again visit Syriacame following its participation in a packedand well-organized meeting of theInternational Forum for Justice in Palestine,held in Beirut on Feb. 22 and 23. Theconference was initiated by Ma’an Bashourand the Arab International Centre forCommunication and Solidarity and againconfirmed the centrality of the burning,unresolved issue of Palestine in the region.

The solidarity delegation to Syria includedCynthia McKinney, former six-termmember of the U.S Congress; Lamont Lilly,of the youth organization FIST – FightImperialism, Stand Together; Eva Bartlett,from the Syrian Solidarity Movement; andSara Flounders, IAC co-director.

The delegation traveled the rutted,mountainous, blacktop road from Beirut toDamascus to the Lebanon-Syria border. On

the Syrian side, this road was a modern, 6-lane highway, a reminder of Syria’s highlevel of infrastructure development. Evenafter four years of war, this is still a well-maintained highway. Due to sanctionsagainst Syria, hundreds of trucks attemptingdeliveries stretched for miles on both sidesof the border.

Compared to two years ago, when the IACvisited Damascus, this year we didn’t hearthe constant thud of incoming rockets frommercenary forces shelling the city. Thesemilitary forces have been pushed back fromtheir encirclement of the capital. Syrianmilitary units, checkpoints, sandbags, blastwalls and concrete blocks were now lesspervasive. Markets were full of people andheld more produce.

A visit to Damascus’ largest hospital showedthe cumulative impact of four years ofdevastation. At the University Hospital,where children with amputated limbsreceive treatments in the ICU, many childrenhad been brought in maimed from explosivesand with shrapnel wounds from mortarsand rockets fired on Damascus by terroristforces.

Saddam from the fate of other dictatorswho the U.S. had supported and wereoverthrown by popular uprisings. Andthere’s a long list of them—Somoza,Marcos, Mobutu, Duvalier—you know,even Ceau’escu, U.S. was supporting.They were overthrown from within.Saddam wasn’t, because the civil societythat might have carried that out wasdevastated. He had a pretty efficientrationing system people were living on forsurvival, but it severely harmed the civiliansociety. Then comes the war, you know,massive war, plenty of destruction,

destruction of antiquities. There’s now, youknow, properly, denunciation of ISIS fordestroying antiquities. The U.S. invasiondid the same thing. Millions of refugees,a horrible blow against the society.

These things have terrible consequences.Actually, there’s an interesting interviewwith Graham Fuller. He’s one of theleading Middle East analysts, longbackground in CIA, U.S. intelligence. Inthe interview, he says something like,“The U.S. created ISIS.” He hastens toadd that he’s not joining with theconspiracy theories that are floating

around the Middle East about how theU.S. is supporting ISIS. Of course, it’snot. But what he says is, the U.S. createdISIS in the sense that we established thebackground from which ISIS developedas a terrible offshoot. And we can’toverlook that.

3 March 2015

Amy Goodman is the host ofDemocracy Now! and the co-author ofThe Silenced Majority.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/


14


continued next page

At a visit to a center for displaced familiesat a former school, we met with universitystudents, who provide sports, crafts,tutoring and mentoring programs. Medicalcare, free food and education programs areprovided by the centers. But conditions aredesperately overcrowded. Each homelessfamily, often of 6 to 10 people, is allocateda single classroom as housing. Almost halfthe population has been displaced by theterror tactics of mercenary forces.

A Mosaic of cultures

A theme in almost every discussion wasSyria’s heritage as a diverse, rich mosaicof religious and cultural traditions. Sectariandivisions and intolerance are consciouslyopposed. One can see the determination tooppose the rule of foreign-funded forces.

A visit with Syria’s Grand Mufti AhmadBadr Al-Din Hassoun and Syrian GreekOrthodox Bishop Luca al-Khoury reflectedthe centuries of religious harmony thatpreviously existed in Syria.

Mufti Hassoun stressed the need forreconciliation. He described to the visitorsthe assassination three years ago of his 22-year-old son, Saria, who “had never carrieda weapon in his life.” Saria was gunneddown after leaving his university. At thefuneral, Mufti Hassoun declared he forgavethe gunmen and called on them to lay downtheir weapons and rejoin Syria. He describedhis Greek Orthodox counterpart, BishopLuca al-Khoury, as his cousin and brother.

Bishop Khoury described the ease withwhich he received a visa to the U.S., whileMufti Hassoun was denied a visa, althoughboth are religious leaders. “Why do theydifferentiate between us?” said Khoury. “It’spart of the project to separate Christiansand Muslims here. It’s over gas pipelineswhich are supposed to run through Syrianterritory. This will only happen if there is aweak Syrian state.

“If the Syrian government would agree to

give a monopoly to France to extract gasfrom Syria, then you would find [PresidentFrançois] Hollande visiting Syria the nextday. If the Syrian government would givethe monopoly to [the United States of]America, [President Barack] Obama woulddeclare President al-Assad as the legitimateruler of the Syrian people.”

“Turkey is warring on us,” Khourycontinued, “with financial support fromSaudi Arabia and Qatar, and political supportfrom America, Europe and Britain. Dronescross our borders daily, providingcoordinates for the terrorists as to where tostrike.”

Both religious leaders declared, as did manyothers in Syria, that the only solution is aninternational effort to stop the flow of arms:“If the American government would like tofind a solution for the Syrian crisis, theycould go to the Security Council and issue aresolution under Chapter 7 for a total ban ofweapons from Turkey to terrorists in Syria.In one week this would be over.”

Syria’s accomplishments

Political and media adviser to President al-Assad, Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, describedthe problem of stopping the weapons andmercenaries flooding into the country: “Withexternal support and financing, and an over800-kilometer border with Turkey, it’s verydifficult to stop the flow of terrorists.

“Syria was formerly one of the fastestdeveloping countries in the world,” Shaabancontinued, “and one of the safest. We havefree education and health care. We did notknow poverty; we grew our food and

produced our own clothing. At universities,55 percent of the students were women.In whose interest is it to destroy thisheritage? Who is the beneficiary of this?”

Shaaban described her time as a Fulbrightscholar at Duke University in Durham,N.C., and later as professor at EasternMichigan University: “I always wanted tobe a bridge between Syria and Westerncultures. At the beginning of the crisis, theytried to buy me. They urged me to ‘cometo a civilized place,’” she said. “We havebaths which are over 1,000 years old andstill functioning. I studied Shelley: Theydidn’t have baths 800 years ago in England.We did. We were having baths and coffee.”

The delegation headed by Ramsey Clarkalso had an important opportunity to meetwith Abu Ahmad Fuad, deputy generalsecretary of the Popular Front for theLiberation of Palestine, and Abu SamiMarwan, of the Political Bureau of thePFLP, and hear of the ongoingdevelopments in Palestine and the region.

According to a Feb. 25 statement releasedby the PFLP after the meeting, “The PFLPleaders discussed the nature of the U.S./Zionist aggression against the people of theregion, their intervention in Syria and theattempts of colonial powers to impose theirhegemony by force and military aggression,through division of the land and people,and by pushing the region into sectarian orreligious conflict.

“This U.S. policy is nothing new.” TheFront noted that the colonial powers havewaged an ongoing war against the Arabpeople to prevent any real progress for theregion on the road to liberation, self-determination and an end to Zionistoccupation.

“The U.S. delegation discussed the urgentneed for building ongoing solidarity withPalestine in the United States andinternationally,” continued the release, “inparticular to confront the deep involvement



15

continued next page

of the United States — militarily, politicallyand financially — in the crimes of theoccupier, and to end its attacks on Syria,Iraq and the people of the entire region.

“The solidarity delegates noted that there isa colonial scheme to divide and repartitionthe region according to the interests of majorcorporations and imperial powers, targetingthe resources of the people, sometimesthrough blatant political interference in theaffairs of the region and other times throughwars and military attacks on states andpeoples.

“The two sides emphasized the importanceof communication between the Palestinian

Arab left and progressive and democraticforces in the United States to confrontZionism and imperialism in the U.S. and inPalestine alike.”

Ramsey Clark described the aim of the visit:“To find more opportunities for dialogueand coordination among the Syrian andAmerican people. We saw culture andcredibility in Syria and we appreciate thestruggle of this people. We will disallowthem to shift Syria into Iraq or Libya.”

Cynthia McKinney, former member at theU.S. Congress, said that she appreciated“Syria’s heroic stance, as people andleadership, in its war against the U.S.imperialism. The Syrian people are

exceptional in their capability of resistanceas the acts during four years have failed toachieve their goals.”

17 March 2015

Sara Flounders is an American politicalwriter and has been active in ‘progressive’and anti-war organizing since the 1960s

Lamont Lilly is a contributing editor withthe Triangle Free Press, Human RightsDelegate with Witness for Peace andorganizer with Workers World Party.

Source: www.workers.org

By Martin Jacques

HOW THE AIIB IS TRANSFORMING THE BALANCE OF POWER IN

EAST ASIA

The UK’s decision to become a foundermember of the Asian InfrastructureInvestment Bank (AIIB) is a major historicalevent. Until then no Western country, withthe exception of New Zealand, had signedup to join, not least because of intenseAmerican pressure. The UK, moreover,cannot be counted as any old Westernnation; on the contrary, ever since 1945, ithas been the US’s closest ally. For Britishpoliticians, Conservative and Labour alike,the ‘special relationship’, as it has beenknown, was sacrosanct. A decade ago, theUK stood shoulder to shoulder with the USin the disastrous invasions of Iraq andAfghanistan.

So how do we explain Britain’s about-turn?

The UK is certainly not what it was. Alongwith the other major European nations, itsrelative strength in the world has declinedprecipitously, accelerated in the recent periodby the western financial crisis. Today itseconomy is barely bigger than it was in2007. Unsurprisingly in such circumstances,economic and commercial considerations

have loomed ever larger in the public mindwhile foreign policy concerns have cometo be seen as something of a luxury. Thisshift in priorities has been accentuated bythe dismal failure of the military adventuresin Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention themore recent one in Libya.

Previously the United States could rely onthe UK always being by its side, foreverprepared to do its bidding; America’s poodle,as it has often been described. But recentlylittle cracks have begun to appear. The UShas been arguing that its European alliesshould agree to spend not less than 2% oftheir GDP on defence. The UK has refusedto commit. Strikingly it has played virtuallyno role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict,leaving Germany and France to take thelead. None of these events, however, takensingularly or together, can be comparedwith, or prepared us for, the UK’s seismicdecision to ignore American pressure andjoin the AIIB.

The game-changer is China. There is not asingle European country – the same can be

said of virtually every country in the world– that has not been affected and challengedby China’s rise and what attitude to adopttowards it. This has been a constantlymoving process: starting with disbelief andscepticism, followed by growing interestand curiosity, and finally arriving atrecognition, engagement and enthusiasm.Britain was a laggard, way behind Germany,for example, Europe’s pioneer in itsrelationship with China. The presentcoalition government spent the first twoyears playing the same old game of lecturingChina on its shortcomings. Then DavidCameron, the prime minister, met the DalaiLama and in response China gave the UKthe deep freeze treatment. Britain finally gotthe message. If it was going to be seriousabout pursuing a positive relationship withChina, it had to show the latter due respectand be wholly committed.

Britain came to recognise that China wasan enormous opportunity – a potentialsource of much-needed investment and therenminbi as crucial to the future of the City



16

continued next page

of London. All the old reservations, quibbles,complaints and misgivings were pushedaside as the UK sought to make up for agreat deal of lost time. But even this doesnot quite explain its willingness to join theAIIB. After all, no major Western nationhad made such a move, not even Germany.Britain, furthermore, has hitherto had littlepresence in East Asia. And, most cruciallyof all, its godfather, the United States, waspushing hard against the AIIB. In otherwords, Britain’s decision to join went entirelyagainst the grain, an unpredicted andspectacular event, which took everyone bysurprise. If Britain wanted to show Chinaand the world how serious it now was aboutits relationship with China then this wasexactly the way to do it. As the first majorWestern country to join, it reaped all thegoodwill that went with that as far as theChinese were concerned; and by doing soin the face of US opposition, itdemonstrated its determination and intent.

It was already clear when the launch of theAIIB took place in October that, with 21countries already signed up, and only Japan,South Korea, Australia and New Zealandchoosing to remain on the sidelines, thatthe AIIB, by virtue of its reach andinclusivity, especially given such determinedAmerican opposition, would have the effectof transforming the arguments in the AsiaPacific about its future trading and financialarrangements. Indeed, I would argue thatthe AIIB, at the moment of its launch, servedto redraw the balance of forces in the regionand largely undermined the American‘rebalancing’ or ‘pivot’. As a result, thefallout from the success of the AIIB isbound to affect negotiations over the TPPand RCEP and their respective fortunes. Notleast, it will surely make American effortsto exclude China, as in the case of the TPP,hugely more difficult if not impossible.

If this was true before the UK’s decision tojoin, the latter has only served to ratchet upthe effect. New Zealand has already joinedthe AIIB negotiations. Australia has

announced its attention to do so. South Koreanow seems likely to join before the March31st deadline. Most unexpectedly, even theJapanese are said to be divided about whatto do. Which threatens to leave the UnitedStates – and probably still Japan – in aposition of pretty much splendid isolationin Asia . The Americans have boxedthemselves into a corner, increasinglydeserted by all and sundry. As has beenpointed out, they would have been betteroff joining the AIIB, but this was never aserious option because such a move wouldhave been rejected by the US Congress.

The ramifications of the UK’s decisionto join the AIIB go far beyond East Asia,Asia Pacific or Asia. Germany, Franceand Italy have announced their intentionto join, and it seems likely that others,for example Luxembourg andSwitzerland, will sign up. Where oncethe only Western countries that involvedthemselves in such Asia-Pacificinstitutions were, as a rule, the UnitedStates, Australia and New Zealand, theAIIB is drawing in a growing number ofEuropean countries. A Chinese-inspiredand led multilateral institution is fastachieving a global membership, exactlythe opposite of what the United Stateswants, a rival not only to the AsiaDevelopment Bank, but in some respectsthe World Bank itself. At the same timethe debate over the AIIB has served tosow major divisions between the US onthe one hand and a growing number ofEuropean nations on the other.

I conclude with two general thoughtsconcerning the United States. Ever since

the 1990s, if not earlier, the US has beena declining economic power in East Asia:in trading terms, for example, China andthe US have more or less swapped placeswith China now occupying the positionthat the United States once did. There isno sign whatsoever that this situation willbe reversed. The AIIB is a classicmanifestation of China’s economic powerin the region and the kind of influencethat it now exercises. The United Statescannot compete with this: its offer in theregion is military strength. But in thelonger run, economic power trumpsmilitary strength, as we have seen soclearly demonstrated over the last twodecades. Furthermore, the fact thatChina, like the other 20 countries thatfirst signed up to the AIIB, is a developingcountry gives it a unique insight, into andaffinity with, the problems they face andthe kind of things they need.

My second thought concerns thedilemmas that the United States faces asa declining power. It seeks to preservethe position and authority of theInternational Monetary Fund and theWorld Bank, the two major institutionsof the post-1945 international economicorder. But as Western-made institutionsthey are creatures of the West, above allthe United States. As the centre ofeconomic gravity moves from thedeveloped world to the developingcountries, they are threatened withbecoming an anachronism. To survivethey must reinvent themselves, so theyare no longer the preserve of the Westbut are representative, above all, of thedeveloping countries. But how to do thatwithout losing control: this is theAmerican dilemma. This is why, fiveyears on, the modest structural reformsagreed by the IMF in 2010 are still waitingfor approval by the US Congress.Similarly the US Congress would notcountenance the US joining the AIIBbecause they perceive it as a threat tothe position of the IMF and the WorldBank.

continued next page


17


However, the longer reform of the IMF andWorld Bank is delayed, the more theirinfluence and credibility will decline andcrumble. At the same time, if the UnitedStates refuses to join Chinese-inspired

institutions like the AIIB, the more isolatedit will find itself. With each day that passes,it becomes more likely that the oldinstitutional structure will decline and decay,to be increasingly replaced by institutionslike the AIIB.

31 March 2015

Martin Jacques is the author of the globalbest-seller ‘When China Rules the World:the End of the Western World and the Birthof a New Global Order’ and a Senior Fellowat Cambridge University.

SLEEPWALKING INTO WORLD WAR THREE? WHY THE

INDEPENDENT MEDIA IS VITAL

By Colin Todhunter

NATO countries are to all intents andpurposes at war with Russia. The USknows it and Russia knows it too.Unfortunately, most of those living inNATO countries remain blissfullyignorant of this fact.

The US initiated economic sanctionson Russia, has attacked its currencyand has manipulated oil prices todevastate the Russian economy. It wasbehind the coup in Ukraine and is nowescalating tensions by placing troopsin Europe and supporting a bunch ofneo-fascists that it brought to power.Yet the bought and paid for corporatemedia in the West keeps the majorityof the Western public in ignorance bydepicting Russia as the aggressor.

If the current situation continues, theoutcome could be a devastating nuclearconflict. Washington poured five billiondollars into Ukraine with the aim ofeventually instigating a coup onRussia’s doorstep. Washington andNATO are supporting proxy forces onthe ground to kill and drive out thosewho are demanding autonomy fromthe US puppet regime in Kiev. Hundredsof thousands have fled across theborder into Russia.

Yet it is Washington that accusesMoscow of invading Ukraine, ofhaving had a hand in the downing of acommercial airliner and of ‘invading’Ukraine based on no evidence at all –

trial by media courtesy of Washington’sPR machine. As a result of this Russian‘aggression’, Washington has slappedsanctions on Moscow.

The ultimate aim is to de-link Europe’seconomy from Russia and weakenRussia’s energy dependent economy bydenying it export markets. The ultimateaim is to also ensure Europe remainsintegrated with/dependent onWashington, not least via theTransatlantic Trade and InvestmentPartnership (TTIP) and in the long termvia US gas and Middle East oil (sold indollars, thereby boosting the strengthof the currency upon which US globalhegemony rests).

The mainstream corporate media in theWest parrots the accusations againstMoscow as fact, despite Washingtonhaving cooked up evidence or inventedbaseless pretexts. As with Iraq, Libya,Afghanistan and other ‘interventions’that have left a trail of death anddevastation in their wake, the Westerncorporate media’s role is to act ascheerleader for official policies and US-led wars of terror.

The reality is that the US has around800 military bases in over 100 countriesand military personnel in almost 150countries. US spending on its militarydwarfs what the rest of the worldspends together. It outspends China bya ratio of 6:1.

What does the corporate media sayabout this? That the US is a ‘force forgood’ and constitutes the ‘world’spoliceman’ - not a calculating empireunderpinned by militarism.

By the 1980s, Washington’s wars,death squads and covert operationswere responsible for six million deathsin the ‘developing’ world. An updatedfigure suggests that figure is closer toten million.

Breaking previous agreements madewith Russia/the USSR, over the pasttwo decades the US and NATO havemoved into Eastern Europe andcontinue to encircle Russia and installmissile systems aimed at it. The UShas also surrounded Iran with militarybases. It is destabilising Pakistan and‘intervening’ in countries across Africato weaken Chinese trade andinvestment links and influence. Itintends to eventually militarily ‘pivot’towards Asia to encircle China.

William Blum has presented a long listof Washington’s crimes across theplanet since 1945 in terms of itsnumerous bombings of countries,assassinations of elected leaders anddestabilisations. No other countrycomes close to matching the scale ofsuch criminality. Under thesmokescreen of exporting ‘freedomand democracy’, the US has deemed



18

continued next page

it necessary to ignore internationallaws and carry out atrocities to furtherits geo-political interests across theglobe.

Writing on AlterNet.org, Nicolas JSDavies says of William Blum’s bookKilling Hope: U.S. Military and CIAInterventions since World War II: ifyou’re looking for historical context forwhat you are reading or watching onTV about the coup in Ukraine, ‘KillingHope’ will provide it.

Davies argues that the title has neverbeen more apt as we watch the hopesof people from all regions of Ukrainebeing sacrificed on the same altar asthose of people in Iran (1953);Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957);Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960);Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador(1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963);Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic(1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras(1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003);Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia(1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967);Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia(1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh(1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada(1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea(1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay(1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia(1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya(2011).

Davies goes on to say that the list abovedoes not include a roughly equalnumber of failed coups, nor coups inAfrica and elsewhere in which a USrole is suspected but unproven.

The Project for a New AmericanCentury (PNAC) is a recipe for moreof the same. The ultimate goal, basedon the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’, is toprevent any rival emerging to challengeWashington’s global hegemony and tosecure dominance over the entireplanet. Washington’s game plan for

Russia is to destroy is as a functioningstate or to permanently weaken it so itsubmits to US hegemony. While themainstream media in the West set outto revive the Cold War mentality anddemonise Russia, Washington believesit can actually win a nuclear conflictwith Russia. It no longer regardsnuclear weapons as a last resort butpart of a convention at theatre of warand is willing to use them for pre-emptive strikes.

Washington is accusing Russia ofviolating Ukraine’s territorialsovereignty, while the US has itsmilitary, mercenary and intelligencepersonnel inside Ukraine. It is moreoverputting troops in Poland, engaging in‘war games’ close to Russia and haspushed through a ‘Russian anti-aggression’ act that portrays Russia asan aggressor in order to give Ukrainede facto membership of NATO andthus full military support, advice andassistance.

Washington presses ahead regardless,as Russia begins to undermine dollarhegemony by trading oil and gas andgoods in rubles and other currencies.History shows that whenever a countrythreatens the dollar, the US does notidly stand by.

Unfortunately, most members of theWestern public believe the lies beingfed to them. This results from thecorporate media amounting to littlemore than an extension ofWashington’s propaganda arm. The

PNAC, under the pretext of somebogus ‘war on terror’, is partly builton gullible, easily led public opinion,which is fanned by emotive outburstsfrom politicians and the media. We havea Pavlov’s dog public and media, whichrespond on cue to the moralisticbleating of politicians who rely on thepublic’s ignorance to facilitate war andconflict.

Former US Ambassador to UkraineJohn Herbst has spoken about themerits of the Kiev coup and theinstallation of an illegitimategovernment in Ukraine. Last year, hecalled the violent removal of Ukraine’sdemocratically elected government asenhancing democracy. Herbstdisplayed all of the arroganceassociated with the ideology of US‘exceptionalism’. He also displayedcomplete contempt for the public byspouting falsehoods and misleadingclaims about events taking place inUkraine.

And now in Britain, the public is beingsubjected to the same kind ofpropaganda by the likes of ForeignSecretary Philip Hammond with hismade-for-media sound bites aboutRussia being threat toworld peace:

“We are now faced with a Russianleader bent not on joining theinternational rules-based system whichkeeps the peace between nations, buton subverting it… We are in familiarterritory for anyone over the age ofabout 50... Russia’s aggressivebehaviour a stark reminder it has thepotential to pose the single greatestthreat to our security.”

In a speech that could have comestraight from the pen of some warmongering US neocon, the US’s toymonkey Hammond beat on cue thedrum that signals Britain’s willingness


continued next page


19

to fall in line and verbally attack Putinfor not acquiescing to US globalhegemonic aims.

The anti-Russia propaganda in Britainis gathering pace. Defence SecretaryMichael Fallon has said that Putin couldrepeat the tactics used to destabiliseUkraine in the Baltic states. He said thatNATO must be ready for Russianaggression in “whatever form it takes.”He added that Russia is a “real andpresent danger.” Prior to this, PMDavid Cameron called on Europe tomake clear to Russia that it faceseconomic and financial consequencesfor “many years to come” if it doesnot stop destabilising Ukraine.

Members of the current administrationare clearly on board with US policy andare towing the line, as did Blair before.And we know that his policy on Iraqwas based on a pack of lies too.

If Putin is reacting in a certain way, itis worth wondering what the USresponse would be if Russia had putits missiles in Canada near the USborder, had destabilised Mexico andwas talking of putting missiles theretoo. To top it off, imagine if Russiawere applying sanctions on the US forall of this ‘aggression’.

What Russia is really guilty of is callingfor a multi-polar world, not of onedominated by the US. It’s a goal thatmost of humanity is guilty of. It is a

world the US will not tolerate.

Herbst and his ilk would do well tocontemplate their country’s record ofwars and destabilisations, its globalsurveillance network that illegally spieson individuals and governments alikeand its ongoing plundering of resourcesand countries supported by militarism,‘free trade’ or the outright manipulationof every major market. Hammond,Fallon and Cameron would do well toremember this too. But like their USmasters, their role is to feign amnesiaand twist reality.

The media is dutifully playing its partwell by keeping the public ignorantand misinformed. A public that isencouraged to regard what ishappening in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine,Afghanistan and Libya, etc, as aconfusing, disconnected array ofevents in need of Westernintervention based on bogus notionsof ‘humanitarianism’ or a ‘war onterror ’, rather than the plannedmachinations of empire whichincludes a global energy war and theassociated preservation andstrengthening of the petro-dollarsystem.

Eric Zuesse has been writingextensively on events in Ukraine for thelast year. His articles have beenpublished on various sites likeCountercurrents, Global Research andRINF, but despite his attempts to gethis numerous informative and well-

researched pieces published in themainstream media, he has by and largehit a brick wall.

This is because the corporate mediahave a narrative and the truth does notfit into it. If this tells us anything it isthat sites like the one you are readingthis particular article on are essentialfor informing the public about thereality of the aggression that could besleepwalking the world towardshumanity’s final war. And while themainstream media might still be ‘main’,in as much as that is where most peoplestill turn to for information, there isnothing to keep the alternative web-based media from becoming‘mainstream’.

Whether it involves Eric’s virtuallydaily pieces or articles by other writers,the strategy must be to tweet, shareand repost! Or as Binu Mathew fromthe India-based Countercurrentswebsite says:

“It is for those who want to nurturethese alternative communicationchannels to spread the word to tell theworld about these avenues. ‘Each onereach one, each one teach one’ can bea good way to sum up.”

15 March, 2015

Colin Todhunter : Originally from thenorthwest of England, Colin Todhunterhas spent many years in India.Source: Countercurrents.org

A Bereaved Father’s Call for Peace

I was born and raised in a Palestinianrefugee camp. As a child I nevertasted childhood. I was born to face

misery, suffering, abject poverty, anddeprivation. However, the sufferingin this world is man-made; it’s notfrom God. God wants every goodthing for us and he created us for

the good. But just because sufferingis man-made, there is hope. It’s thehope that we can challenge this man-made suffering by not accepting it,

BETTER THAN HATRED

By Izzeldin Abuelaish

continued next page



20

and by taking responsibility. I can’tchallenge God, but I can challengesomeone on earth. And you can dothe same.

People can deprive you, imprisonyou, or kill you, but no one canprevent any of us from dreaming. Asa child, I dreamed of being a medicaldoctor. Through hard work Iachieved my dream. Now I fight ona daily basis to give life to others.

There are others who live to fight. Isthis the purpose of our existence: tofight and to end others’ lives? Ahuman life is the most precious thingin the universe. I know from mypractice as a gynecologist how hardwe work to save one life. Someoneelse can put an end to a life inseconds with a bullet. Each humanbeing is a representative of God onearth, God’s most holy creation. Wemust value human life and be strongadvocates of saving human life.

This world is endemic with violence,fear, and injustice. We often mentionthat one hundred, one thousand, orten thousand people have been killedhere or there. But people are notnumbers or statistics: we need tozoom in to think of each of them asa beloved one. Each person who iskilled has a name, a face, a family, astory.

I was the first Palestinian doctor topractice medicine in an Israelihospital . Many Israelis see

Palestinians only as workers andservants. I wanted them to see thatPalestinians are human and that weare not so different. Medicine has oneculture and one value: the value ofsaving humanity. Within the walls ofa hospital we treat patients equally,with respect and privacy, wishingthem to be healed. We don’t designtreatment according to their name,religion, ethnicity, or background, butaccording to their disease and theirsuffering.

Why don’t we practice this equalityoutside of these institutions? Insidethem we are angels and we rememberthat we are equal. We need to practiceit outside. The happiest moment inmy life is when I hand a baby to itsmother; the cry of a newborn is thecry of hope that a new life has cometo this world. There is no differencebetween the cry of a newborn babyof Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze,or Bedouin parents. They are thesame.

The most difficult time in my life wasone four month period while I wasworking at this Israeli hospital. OnSeptember 16, 2008, I lost my wife,Nadia, to acute leukemia. It wassudden, taking only two weeks. I feltit was the end of the world. I believethat a mother is everything in life. Themother is the main pillar of the house;she is the one who gives, sacrifices,and builds without limits. In the lossof a mother, we lost her big heart,kindness, mercy, and love. But Icouldn’t change it; I had to move withit. I was blessed to have six beautiful,bright daughters and two sons. Icontinued my work.

Then the unexpected happened. OnJanuary 16, 2009, just four monthsafter the loss of my wife, an Israelitank bombed my home in Gaza,killing three of my daughters and one

niece. There was no reason to killthem. They were girls armed onlywith love, education, and plans. Iraised them to serve humanity. Theywere drowning in their blood in theirbedroom, their bodies spreadeverywhere. I wanted to see them.Where was Bessan, whom I saw afew seconds before? Where wereMayar, Aya, and Noor? Mayar wasnumber one in math in Palestine andplanned to follow my path andbecome a medical doctor. She wasdecapitated. I couldn’t recognize her.Where was Aya, 13, who planned tobe a lawyer, the voice of thevoiceless, to speak out and break thesilence? Where was Noor, 17, whoplanned to be a teacher?

At that moment I said that God seesthis tragedy, and it will be investedfor the good. I asked myself why Ihad been saved; if I had stayed a fewmore seconds with them, I wouldhave been gone. It was God’s mercyand plan that I was scheduled to beinterviewed live on Israeli TV. My

cries were heard through the world.

Even when the whole world seemsdormant and paralyzed, God isawake. God is alive. At that momentI directed my face to God, the onewho is alive, awake, and strong. Ididn’t feel angry. I only felt that Icouldn’t accept what was happeningand asked what I could do. At thatmoment I swore to God and to mydaughters: I will never rest. I will


A R T I C L E S

21


never relax. I will never give up orforget you. How can I forget them?They are my beloved ones and I missthem.

I believe I will meet my daughtersagain, and they will ask me, “Whatdid you do for us?” Until then they

are alive in me, and I will meet themwith a big gift, and that gift is justicefor them and for others. I must provethat their lives and noble blood werenot wasted. That they made adifference in others’ lives. That theysaved others. But to do that, we can’tuse bullets and bombs like the onewhich killed them.

The bullet is the weapon of the weak:it kills once. You have the strongestweapon. It’s your wisdom and yourkind, courageous words. Words arestronger than bullets. We need to saythe right word in time. What is thevalue of saying it afterward? What isthe value of treating patients afterthey have died?

The first message of support camefrom my fourteen-year-old son,Mohammed. While I was crying helooked at me and said, “Why are youcrying? Why are you screaming? Youmust be happy.” I said that he didn’tknow his sisters had been killed. Howcan he tell me to be happy? He said,“No, I know my sisters are killed,but I know that they are happy there.They are with their mom. She askedfor them.” That fourteen-year-old

Palestinian child could teach worldleaders to be patient. I thought thatif he said that, I don’t need to worryabout him. He knows his way. And Itoo have to move forward. As Einsteinsaid, life is like riding a bicycle. Tokeep balanced we must keep moving.I kept moving faster, stronger, moredetermined. Not looking backward,only forward.

I wrote my book I Shall not Hatebecause people expected me to hate.Maybe I have the right to hate. Butwe are blessed to be human, to havechoices in life between the dark andthe light, between what is right andwhat is wrong. If I want to bring mydaughters justice, is it with hatred?Is it with darkness, with blindness?

Hatred is a disease that eats the onewho carries it. It is poison. It is afire which burns the one who startedit. It is cancer, a self-destructivedisease. It’s a heavy burden withwhich you can’t move forward. Itmakes you sink deeper. Don’t allowthis disease. Build a shield aroundyou. Don’t allow hatred. I said that Ishall not hate, meaning that I’m notgoing to be sick. I will never bebroken or defeated by this disease. Iwill challenge it and takeresponsibility. Don’t blame others,but take responsibility and moveforward. Be angry, but in a positiveway. When you see somethingwrong, don’t accept it. Ask, “Whatcan I do to change it?” Don’t feel soangry that you lose control and thenregret it. We need a constructive,positive anger that energizes us.

Whatever you do makes a difference.Don’t say it won’t impact others. Thepatient needs action, a prescription.They don’t need words. Everythingstarts with words, but these wordshave no meaning if they are nottranslated into action. It starts with

small actions. First make a differencein your local community. Speak out.Evil flourishes in this world whengood people do nothing and thinkthey are far from risk. What do youhear? What do you see? Does it harmhuman beings? This world isbecoming smaller and smaller. Welive in one boat. We must not allowanyone to do harm to this boat or wewill all sink.

Your freedom depends on mine. Noone is free as long as others are not.We must stand for the freedom ofall. We must speak out about thefreedom of all – freedom from need,ignorance, poverty, sickness, andfear. In memory of Bessan, Mayar,

Aya, and Noor, I established theDaughters for Life Foundation for theeducation of girls and women fromthe Middle East. Social and economicchallenges should not be a barrier togirls’ education. In these girls I seemy daughters’ dreams and plansbeing fulfilled. I see these girls as mydaughters. God took three daughtersand one niece from me, but has givenme hundreds more.

24 July 2014

Izzeldin Abuelaish is a Palestinianmedical doctor and author.

Source: www.plough.com

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque

addressed to:

International Movement for a Just World

P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:Malayan Banking Berhad, Petaling Jaya Main

Branch, 50 Jalan Sultan, 46200, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan,MALAYSIA

Account No. 5141 6917 0716

Donations from outside Malaysia should be made

by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.

In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to

similar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you

could share this copy of the JUST Com-

mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-

ter still invite him/her to write to JUST

so that we can put his/her name on our

Commentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

just commentary april 2015

Documents