Lettre 13

Here’s two very interesting podcasts where you can hear from people who where there and running either the war to occupy Iraq, or the country at the beginning of the occupation.

First an interview of Charles Ferguson (with some excerpts from the movie) which is the director and Producer of No End in Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq.

It seems that for almost two years, the President Bush was completely disengaged from Iraq and the whole show was run by a very small group composed of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bremer and Wolfowitz. Some decisions where made without consulting the US military, and against their will (like the disbanding of the Iraq army). One of the theory that emerges is that the US lost the peace at the beginning of the occupation when the US army let the looting out of control.

No End in Sight, On Point, guest host Jane Clayson.

The second podcast involve peoples that were in charge of the invasion. General Richard Myers seems less dumb that what I though. But doesn’t really come clean. The others, General William Wallace and General Jack Keane are more interesting. What is fascinating is how the BBC journalist, Owen Bennett-Jones, can ask direct questions, without spinning and reverence to these generals. I wish it could be possible to have such an interview in the US.

The Generals Debate Iraq, Documentary Archive , BBC World Service (mp3)

Blair’s negatives in the Middle East are well known, and are not counter-balanced by his many successes at home or in Europe. His main problem is not only that he has been hypocritical or partial to Israel and the United States rather than truly even-handed; it is also that his policies have contributed directly and abundantly to the Arab-Israeli conflict and associated tensions in the Middle East that he is now going to try and resolve. Appointing Tony Blair as special envoy for Arab-Israeli peace is like appointing the Emperor Nero to be the chief fireman of Rome.

Rami G. Khouri, A peace envoy whom we can do without, The Daily Star (Lebanon)

Here’s a couple of podcasts on the 1967 Six Day-War between Israel and Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

Something I didn’t know or forgot is that there was a debate in the Israel cabinet about conquering the West Bank and the Gaza strip. It seems that at the stage of the Six Day-War (day three I think) when the cabinet decided to takes these territories from Jordan, they were no military reasons for doing so. Futhermore, some members of the cabinet were against such a move, understanding all the problems this move would cause to Israel. As we see today, you have to ask what the Six Day-War accomplished for Israel when they conquered the West Bank and Gaza.

On the other side, many in Egypt and Jordan saw the disaster coming, and the people that could have prevented the situation to degenerated where not listened too, or didn’t talk.

The Six-Day War, On Point (Windows Media, Real Audio)

Six Days that Changed the Middle East, BBC News, 4 parts (mp3-1, mp3-2, mp3-3, mp3-4)

An articulate and informed discussion on applying the word “apartheid” to the situation in Israel and Palestine. This review of President’s Carter last book by Joseph Lelyveld of the New York Reviews of Books shows the limitations and analogies that can help or impede the discourse when Israel is considered like an apartheid state. Although, I think that the comparison of Israel with South African apartheid is not an equivalence, it still contains underlying truths. Yet, this advice by Meron Benvenisti cited by the author nevertheless makes some sense for me.

Meron Benvenisti, who has been intrigued by the comparison to South Africa over the years, now calls for a rhetorical cease-fire. The use of the term “apartheid,” he wrote back in 2005, has become in Israel a “mark of leftist radicalism,” while its denial stands as proof of “Zionist patriotism.” Objective comparison or discussion of the validity of any comparison is “nearly impossible.” Anyone who goes into the question, Benvenisti wrote, “will be judged by his conclusions.” The choice, he said, is between being called an anti-Semite or a fascist. The occupation should be seen in its own harsh light, he concluded, rather than subjected to a comparison.

Joseph Lelyveld, Jimmy Carter and Apartheid, The New York Review of Books

It’s also worthwhile to listen to J.J. Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Forward on Zionism. Too much people equate zionism to racism or apartheid while this word cover many different realities and historical contexts.

J.J. Goldberg, But Is It Good for the Jews?, truthdig.com (mp3)

You have to wonder why the BBC journalist Alan Johnston is still a hostage in Gaza. I have seen a number of its pieces on BBC News, and you can say that he is not an advocate of the Israeli intervention in Gaza. Quite the contrary. He is one of the occidental journalism that was able to give you a taste on how Israel was conducted itself as a ruthless killer in Gaza. I have in mind a particular segment where Alan Johnston was hiding on the top of the roof of a building, while Israeli drones where humming, trying to find a target. You could feel how frightening the situation was, with the BBC journalist whispering, trying not to attract the missile carried by the Israeli drone.

Now, clearly this journalist is in the hand of a gang of mobster. You have to wonder why either the Fatah or Hamas are not capable of liberating someone that you perfectly know in what hands he is. This show the limit of the power of the government in Gaza. In my opinion, the culprit is Israel which attacked what have been proto state entities, capable of imposing the law, and the Fatah and Hamas themselves that have, by corruption (Fatah), maximalism (Hamas), and infighting, discredit themselves to the point that they are no more capable to impose their legitimacy and will to mobsters carrying actions that are detrimental to the Palestinian cause.

Martin Fletcher, Mafia-Style Violence in Gaza and BBC Reporter, NBC News

The Observer, Feuding clan holds key to kidnap riddle, The Guardian

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue. It is a dispute over land, it is about an occupation that must end and it is about a people who deserve a state. But it is not a religious dispute. Clerics, rabbis, priests and any one else who claims religious authority for his opinion should stay out of it. As a Muslim, I’m particularly eager to keep our clerics away from Palestine.

The conflict has been one of the most jumped upon bandwagons in both the Arab and the Muslim world – but framing it in religious terms serves no one’s interest, least of all the Palestinians. With the Islamist Hamas at the helm of the Palestinian government the temptation is great to lose ourselves in the religious kaleidoscope they would love to wrap around the conflict. But just as Islamists are more about power than religion, so is the conflict less about religion than land.

Mona Eltahawy, Qaradawi Damages Palestine’s Cause by Turning Global Issue Into Islamist Weapon, muslimwakeup.com

Somber assessment on Iraq by Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post correspondent in Iraq. He thinks the American have no control on the events, and that they will be there for two decades. And last, but not least, there is no easy solution for this fiasco, and that’s why he thinks that Iraq is a tragedy.

On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Thomas Ricks on Iraq Today (mp3)

Darryl Li: This is life in a ‘disengaged’ Gaza: It is not enough to be locked into an open-air prison by Israel. Nor to be turned into a beggar by the international community for voting in a democratic election. Nor to be torn apart by internal feuding. Now Palestinians have to drown in their own shit? I can’t wait to hear the latest excuse about how this, too, is their own fault.

A vivid account on the history that is behind the collapse of Gaza’s northern sewage treatment where five palestinians dies.

Laila El-Haddad, The Death Swamps, Raising Yousuf: a diary of a mother under occupation

Powerful analysis from Roni Ben Efrat reprinted from CHALLENGE magazine.

Here, once again, Hamas reveals a characteristic lack of consistency. We saw this first a year ago, when it chose to take part in elections that were based on an infrastructure provided by the Oslo Accords. It accepted the Oslo framework without the content. Now it deepens its entrapment by entering a unity government, hoping to gain Western funds without accepting Western conditions. Saudi Arabia has won a brief span of glory, but what about the Palestinian people?

The election of Hamas did not bring a change of direction. Even if we acknowledge that the movement is not corrupt, it offered no alternative to the donations state. On the contrary, the notion of charity rather than work is a principle of the Hamas movement. Now this notion has become the basis of the entire unity government. Unless the latter can thaw Western coffers, the streets will again erupt.

Roni Ben Efrat, The Mecca Charity Show, electronicintifada.net

On Saudi diplomacy, see also this podcast from On Point with Tom Ashbrook.

On Point, The New Saudi Pushback, wbur.org (mp3)

Deep analysis on the political dance around the Mecca accord. A fascinating narrative by Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry on how the Saudi diplomacy distanced itself from the US to try to end the infighting between Hamas and Fatah. Infighting partly supported by the US diplomacy (Elliot Abrams from the NSC and the neocons) against Condi Rice. So, it seems to me that the infighting inside the White House are doing a spill over on the Middle East.

Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry, How the Saudis stole a march on the US, atimes.com

Another good read is this analysis on Barack Obama’s position toward Israel from Ali Abunimah.

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha’aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama “sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.”

Although, Abunimah think that Obama is more favorable to Palestinians than what he profess now, the interesting part of this article is, in my opinion, the conclusion.

Obama has also been close to some prominent Arab Americans, and has received their best advice. His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy. Money and votes, but especially money, channelled through sophisticated and coordinated networks that can “bundle” small donations into million dollar chunks are what buy influence on policy. Currently, advocates of Palestinian rights are very far from having such networks at their disposal. Unless they go out and do the hard work to build them, or to support meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact. (For what it’s worth, I did my part. I recently met with Obama’s legislative aide, and wrote to Obama urging a more balanced policy towards Palestine.)

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

Ali Abunimah, How Barack Obama learned to love Israel, electronicintifada.net [via SyriaComment]