Hypocrites-in-Chiefs

Throughout the history almost every religion, every philosopher, every thinker, every historian, and nearly every Wiseman has feverishly abhorred hypocrisy and detested it more often and with more passion than any other behavior.

Almost 3,000 years ago, Homer said, "I detest that man, who hides one thing in the depths of his heart, and speaks forth another." Jesus of Nazareth had such an abomination of hypocrisy that he said the hypocrites "have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness" (Matthew 23:23). Shakespeare also gave some insight into the underpinnings of hypocrisy, "With devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself."

Ironically, the true hypocrites never think of themselves to be hypocritical; therefore, they say one thing and do another with impunity and especially with pride. The same is also true with today’s global leadership, led by the likes of U.S President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the Israeli government.

We carry such short memories, that it wasn’t even couple of months after the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in the massacre of over 1,200 Lebanese citizens, all was forgotten and forgiven. It was during this instance of, often seen, Israeli barbarism new standards of hypocrisy were set by the self-proclaimed saviors of humanity.

• HYPOCRISY: With the complete blessings and support of the U.S and U.K, all hell was set loose on Lebanon and Palestine by the Israelis, because 3 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. In reality, the so-called moral leaders have never uttered a word over the countless abductions and targeted assassinations of dozens of democratically elected Lebanese and Palestinian legislators and officials. On August 19, 2006, Israel seized Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer, a top official of the Hamas militant group, at his home in the occupied West Bank. Not a word is wasted over the illegal and immoral incarceration of countless Lebanese and Palestinian civilians still rotting in Israeli dungeons. Not a single word is said over the collective punishment of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.
• HYPOCRITE: President Bush showed his real colors when he said, “this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom.” And with this racially-charged hypocritical outburst he belittled and generalized over 1.4 billion humans or 1/5 of humanity. But his racist comments beg even more questions. Whose ‘freedoms’ was he referring to? Did he mean Israel’s ‘freedom’ to violate international laws by freely embarking on Lebanese/Arab genocides, or it’s ‘freedom’ to legislate racist laws? Or did President Bush mean the ‘freedom’ of neo-con doctrine of pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations like the one on Iraq, in which, since the U.S occupation 60,000-500,000 Iraqis and close to 3,500 Americans have been killed? The reality is, in 2006, President Bush openly and unapologetically supported the bloodbath of Lebanese and Palestinians, and still turns blind eye to the daily massacres of Iraqi civilians. If there is anyone who deserves to be known as a ‘fascist’, it’s him, his neo-con hawks, his lackeys like Tony Blair, and the Zionist groupies who blame everyone else but themselves for their indiscriminate and unabashed murders of thousands upon thousands of Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Remarkably, it took them only less than 5 years to preside over all of these pogroms. The manner in which these saviors of the world are busy maligning Muslims can be directly collated to Adolph Hitler's deliberate vilification of Jews prior to World War II.
• HYPOCRISY: Israel and Bush Administration arduously justified the destruction of Lebanon and the massacres of its people, under the pretext of, the Lebanese supposedly violated the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) resolution 1559. In reality, the resolution 1559 called upon “all remaining foreign forces [including Israeli] to withdraw from Lebanon.” In a direct violation of the resolution, Israel never vacated the Lebanese territory of Shebaa-Farms. Therefore, it had no legal or moral right to cry foul, especially when it had flagrantly violated 60 other UNSC resolutions relating to Israeli-Lebanese situation alone (see Appendix - A for the complete list). Hypocrites need to be cognizant of the fact that Israel violated UNSC resolution 425 (1978) for twenty two years. The resolution called upon the “Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”. In an appearance on CNN’s ‘Paula Zahn Now’, the Lebanese consul general to the U.S Mohamad El-Harake shared his frustrations with the American hypocritical support of Israel at the UN Security Council. He said, “Let me tell you one thing before we finish. Israel took 22 years to implement Resolution 524, adopted in '78, to inviting Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. Israel couldn't wait for 1559 adopted on the 2nd of September, less than two years, giving us the possibility of implementing this among ourselves as Lebanese. This is the way Israel wants to see a strong Lebanon?” Hypocrites need to be cognizant of the fact that Israel violated UNSC resolution 425 (1978) for twenty two years. The resolution called upon the “Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”. In an appearance on CNN’s ‘Paula Zahn Now’, the Lebanese consul general to the U.S Mohamad El-Harake shared his frustrations with the American hypocritical support of Israel at the UN Security Council. He said, “Let me tell you one thing before we finish. Israel took 22 years to implement Resolution 524, adopted in '78, to inviting Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. Israel couldn't wait for 1559 adopted on the 2nd of September, less than two years, giving us the possibility of implementing this among ourselves as Lebanese. This is the way Israel wants to see a strong Lebanon?”
• HYPOCRITES: Some of Evangelical Christians shamelessly support Israel in its brutality because they believe, for the biblical prophecies (The Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 38) to come true and to prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus, Israel will have to annihilate its Arab neighbors. A 2003 Pew Research Centre poll found that 36 percent of Americans believe that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming of Jesus and that Israel must be supported if this was to come true. In reality, what these religious zealots fail to mention is that the same prophetic literature prophesies a dim ending for the Jews, who will be either converted or killed off in Armageddon.
• HYPOCRITES: American Zionists proudly send their children to Israel to get military training and to kill Arabs. American-media gives a flattering treatment to the American Zionists who join the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to fight the Arabs. They are revered as brave heroes. In reality, most of these heroes live in America, but they enlist only with the Israeli military. Not so surprisingly, the same media stereotypes the American Muslims as anti-American, even if they dare to participate in the humanitarian relief efforts for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.
• HYPOCRITES: During the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, on hourly bases, the vigilant American-media gave the latest count of Katyushas fired on Israel. In reality, Israel rained hundred times more weapons on Lebanon. The American-media never counted the Israeli cluster bombs, missiles, motors, rockets, and shells dropped by the Israelis on the hapless Lebanese civilians.
• HYPOCRITES: The American and Jewish (Amerco-Jewish) news media eulogized and deciphered each shrapnel, every ball bearing, and every patch of grass of Israeli manicured lawns burned by the Hezbollah rockets. In reality, whenever a non-American or non-Israel media outlet showed pictorial proof of the Israeli brutality or Lebanese carnage, the Amerco-Jewish media hypocritically cried bloody-Marie and blamed the non-Amerco-Jewish media for inciting hatred against Israelis and instantly labeled them as anti-Semite.
• HYPOCRITES: Amerco-Jewish news media claims to be fair and balanced. In reality, 90 percent of times, they ever so shamelessly, broadcasted a parade of ultra-Jewish diplomats who expectedly squarely blamed the Lebanese civilians for becoming victims of Israeli weapons. After the infamous 1982 massacres of Sabra and Shatila, the Jewish lobbies setup permanent institutional structures to sanitize its tarnished image and to win world opinion. Israel launched Hasbara project to win the U.S public opinion and trained its diplomats in public relations and communications. To cover-up its outed dirty secrets, Israel hired the largest U.S PR firms like NYPR to court favorable American public opinion. The Jewish propaganda machine put together groups and organizations with catchy names to marshal American support for the Israeli fascist policies. Americans for safe Israel, Christian coalition, Christian Broadcasting Network, American Jewish Congress, Christian Friends of Israel, Jews for Jesus, and AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful foreign lobby) are the most active organizations that remain busy with cloaking Israeli dirty deeds with an image of a pristine nation obsessed with humanitarian works. Then there are organizations like CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). CAMERA, through its persistent harassment of journalists, ensures that media coverage remains pro-Israel.
• HYPOCRISY: Israel and American government place themselves at the highest pedestal of morality and for the respect of law. In realty, the Human Rights Watch said the responsibility for the massacre in Qana rested "squarely with the Israeli military." Whenever Israelis killed the UN personnel, Red-Cross workers, or Lebanese civilians; the Israelis, Bush Administration, and the American-media nonchalantly dismissed the deliberate killings as accidents; even better, they blamed the Lebanese for bringing Israeli wrath upon themselves.
• HYPOCRISY: Despite displacing 1 million and massacring over 1,200 Lebanese civilians during the first month of Israeli savage attack, it’s the Israelis that were portrayed as the victim by the Israelis, Bush Administration and the American-media. In reality, during the fighting 116 Israeli soldiers and only 43 Israeli civilians were killed. Israel massacred close to 28 Lebanese civilians for each Israeli civilian lost.
• HYPOCRITE: In his comments, on July 31, 2006, President Bush said he wanted more than a ceasefire. "We want there to be a long-lasting peace, one that is sustainable." The reality is President Bush has blood of over 1,200 Palestinians and Lebanese on his hands. The Bush administration has ridiculed and stalled every peace effort, including Security Council ceasefire resolutions that could have saved innocent lives of hundreds of Lebanese civilians. If that wasn’t bad enough, his administration donated $210 million worth of aviation fuel to ensure that Israeli F-16s do not skip a beat in dropping bombs on Lebanese population, and expedited the supply of precision-guided bunker buster bombs for Israel to hasten the Lebanese holocaust. One such Made-in-America precision-guided bomb dropped from an Israeli F-16 massacred 54 Lebanese civilians in Qana, of which half were blossoming children.
• HYPOCRISY: Israel claimed it warned the Lebanese civilians beforehand to leave. In reality, before sending out the warning, Israelis also ensured every route leading out of Southern Lebanon laid in ruins. They also made sure that every escaping vehicle, every civilian convoy flying white flags, every UN personnel carrier escorting the civilians, and every Red-Cross ambulance rescuing the civilians from the Israeli murderous campaign didn’t escape intact. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch said, "Just because the Israeli military warned the civilians… to leave does not give it carte blanche to blindly attack." Israeli fire was also directly responsible for the cold-blooded murders of 257 UN personnel.
• HYPOCRITES: American politicians and Media diligently harp on Israel being the most reliable ally and partner. In reality, the partnership had been largely one way, in favor of Israel. To date, Israel has received well over $110 billion FREE dollars in military and economic assistance from Washington.
• HYPOCRITES: American politicians and Media proudly call Israel to be its closest ally. In reality, Israelis have never shied away from shedding American blood whenever it suited them. On June 8, 1967, while patrolling in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, without any warning or justification, for several hours, the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked by Israeli air and naval forces. The Americans suffered 34 fatalities and 173 were wounded. To this day, not a single Israeli has been court marshaled or punished for deliberately slaughtering Americans.
• HYPOCRITES: Israel and the U.S complain to no end that Hezbollah is armed by Iran and Syria. In reality, Israel has received 17 billion dollars of arms from the United States in last 10 years alone. In 2002, U.S gave $6 billion free aid to Israel. $2 billion were for Israel to buy American made weapons. $1.5 billion for military ventures to subsidize Israeli domestic armament industry. This amount doesn’t include other forms of military aid, such as free weapons and fuel for IDF.
• HYPOCRITES: Pro-Israeli media repeatedly flashed Israeli propaganda videos showing infrared videos of firings of the so-called Hezbollah rockets as the Israeli spokespeople hammered their propaganda. In reality, the pro-Israeli media consistently failed to provide a neutral and reliable confirmation to support the Israeli propaganda. Experts familiar with Israeli tactics believed the alleged videos of Hezbollah rocket launches were the Oscar-Award winning self-engineered videos of the Israeli psych-ops (an Israeli military unit tasked to control and dominate the dissemination of information in favor of Israel, even through deceit and lies).
• HYPOCRISY: The UN bullied by the U.S conveniently found time during the Israeli invasion to pass a Security Council resolution to threaten Iran with sanctions. In reality, the UN couldn’t muster enough courage to even request Israel to temporarily halt Lebanese genocide, so the Lebanese could have buried the rotting bodies of their loved ones.
• HYPOCRITES: Israel and the U.S call Hezbollah a terrorist organization. In reality, survey after survey show that most of the world views Israel to be a terrorist state. With the exceptions of the U.S, Israel and their lackeys the Britain, no one else calls Hezbollah a terrorist organization, not even the UN or EU does.
• HYPOCRITES: Israel argues, since Hezbollah emerged from and flourishes with the help Southern Lebanese population, therefore, everyone from that area should be considered and dealt as a combatant. In reality, almost every able Israeli adult either serves or has served, or is a reservist in the Israeli military. Therefore, by Israelis’ logic, every Israeli adult associated with the IDF should also be treated as legitimate combatant.
• HYPOCRISY: Israeli government arms the Jewish settlers in occupied settlements with automatic guns and grenades for the supposed self-defense. In reality, the Jewish settlers mount vigilante attacks on the unarmed Palestinians. They destroy crops, uproot trees, and burn the homes of Palestinians who happened to be living there for last hundreds of years.
• HYPOCRITE: The U.S presents itself as a fair and honest broker. In reality, between 1973 and 2001, the U.S used veto 33 times at the UN Security Council to sabotage Israel-specific resolutions. In addition, since the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli war, the U.S has exercised its veto at the Security Council more than 90 times in support of Israel, rendering the UN totally impotent.
• HYPOCRITES: Bush and his poodle Blair never get tired lecturing the whole world on the virtues of democracy. In reality, they demand the Lebanese and Palestinians to exercise their democratic rights by electing only the candidates desired by the Tel-Aviv and Washington. Since the democratically elected Lebanese and Palestinian governments are not run by the puppets of Tel-Aviv and Washington, monetary aid for public (including humanitarian) projects for the Palestinians was cut off, and Israel clamped a virtual blockade of Gaza and Lebanon. The consul general Mohamad El-Harake summarized the Israeli strategy very well to CNN’s Paula Zahn. He said, “It is with Israel always a catch-22 situation. Either you kill each other as Lebanese, or I [will] come to kill you all.”
• HYPOCRITES: For several decades the British and Americans boycotted South Africa for its apartheid practices. In reality, neither the U.K, nor U.S ever utter a peep over illegal Israeli-occupation of Palestinian and Lebanese land, ethnic cleansing, and cold-blooded murders of Lebanese and Palestinians. Ironically, they declare the starvation of the Lebanese and Palestinians at the hands of Israelis as fair and legitimate.
• HYPOCRISY: The U.S allows the private sector to take high-resolution satellite pictures of its own military and nuclear installations. In reality, American laws bar everyone from taking satellite pictures of Israeli military and nuclear installations.
• HYPOCRITES: Upon the whims of Israel, Al-Minar, a Hezbollah T.V channel was banned in the U.S, Europe and India for allegedly spreading its propaganda. In reality, nobody says a word over the specially trained Israeli diplomats in public relations and communications -- like Alon Pinkas (a coordinator of PR efforts and the Israeli Counsel-General in New York) -- regularly winning and dinning with the America reporters and editors to disseminate the Israeli propaganda.
• HYPOCRITES: If anyone, even justifiably, dares to question or oppose the Zionist mantra or their behavior he/she is instantly labeled as “anti-Semite”. In reality, Zionists call every non-Jew a “Gentile”. Those who maybe unaware of the meaning, Gentile means, Heathen, Pagan, or Uncivilized. Social stigmatism/assassination through labeling is the most commonly employed tactic by the Zionists to intimidate and harass their perceived foes.
• HYPOCRITES: West never allows the whole world, especially the Germans, to forget the holocaust. In reality, for the last 60 years when it comes to Israel the West remains blind to making the 5 million Palestinians pay reparations for the holocaust.

It would be equally hypocritical to generalize every American and British and their whole media as biased in favor of Israel. U.S Congressman John Martha and the British Member of Parliament George Galloway are shinning examples of fair-minded politicians. Refreshingly, some of British news media, like ‘The Independent,’ provides unbiased coverage; occasionally, American media also exhibit glimpses of unbiased opinion. For example, August 1, 2006, in a ‘Los Angeles Times’’ Op-Ed, Adam Shatz pointed to the Israeli hypocritical humanitarian concerns, he wrote, “When Israel targets densely populated areas in hopes of killing one or a handful of militants, knowing that it may end up killing dozens of civilians, it can hardly claim to be showing concern for humanitarian law or civilian life. And by asking that we judge it by its professed intentions, rather than by its actions, Israel is asking too much of us and far too little of itself.”

Host of political satire John Stewart and the anchor of ABC World News Charles Gibson are also notable exceptions and pleasant examples of honorable and unbiased American journalists.

Maybe Andr Gide had Ehud Olmert and President Bush -- certainly not Tony Blair who merely loves to sit in Bush’s lap and wag his tail -- in mind when he observed, "The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity." Ehud Olmert flattened Lebanon under the pretext of self-defense, and President Bush flattened Afghanistan, Iraq and then helped Ehud Olmert flatten Lebanon under the pretext of self-defense and fighting terrorism. Who will fight the terror of these hypocrites?

APPENDIX - A

Following UN Security Council Resolutions directly name, condemn and/or deplore Israel for its violations. (Source: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html)

Directly or indirectly asks Israel to respect Lebanese territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence:

331, 337, 347, 425, 444, 467, 474, 490, 498, 501, 520, 549, 555, 561, 575, 583, 586, 587, 594, 599, 609, 617, 630, 639, 648, 659, 684, 701, 768, 803, 852, 1052

Deplores Israeli actions or lack of cooperation:

444, 467, 488, 517, 518

Condemns and calls upon Israel to cease military actions in Lebanese territories:

262, 270, 313, 316, 331, 347, 425, 450, 498, 501, 508

Condemns and deplores Israel for violating ceasefire and for military reprisals:

270, 280, 508, 509, 516, 517, 518, 520

Demands Israel to completely withdraw from the Lebanese territories:

242, 279, 313, 427, 501, 509, 517, 520, 587, 1559

Condemns and deplores Israel for violating Security Council resolutions:

248, 252, 256, 280, 337, 347, 444, 446, 467, 517, 520

Condemns and deplores Israel for violating Geneva Convention and Human rights Laws:

237, 248, 256, 280, 316, 347, 446, 450, 512, 513, 515, 518, 520

Deplores Israel for the interference and attacks on the UN Forces on the Israeli-Lebanese border:

427, 434, 467, 587, 1052

Demands Israel to release abducted/kidnapped Lebanese personnel:

316, 317, 347

What the moderate Arab world is

In the second of two pieces examining Iran's rising regional role, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb argues that attempts by "moderate" Arab leaders to whip up popular fear of Iran are US-orchestrated and aimed to keep in-check regional resistance to US-Israeli plans

---

Not only does the notion of an Iraq-inspired model of Shia empowerment fail to stand up to scrutiny, but the so-called "Shia crescent" that Iran allegedly seeks to fashion out of it is an equally unsound proposition denoting a sectarian enterprise defined by an exclusively Shia alliance, an all-Shia constituency, and a regional agenda that caters solely to Shia communal interests.

Judged by these criteria, the regional alliance of which Iran and Hizbullah are part, bears little, if any, resemblance to a Shia crescent and much more to a cross-sectarian strategic front, consisting of state and non-state actors, which commands the support of the vast majority of both Shias and Sunnis in the region based on its political and military confrontation to the US and Israel.

This quadripartite alliance is not confined to Shia actors such as Iran and Hizbullah, but also incorporates the Sunni movement Hamas and a predominantly Sunni Syria, led by a secular Baathist state. Although many proponents of the Shia crescent theory insist, nonetheless, on counting Syria as a Shia state on account of its Alawite regime, such an attempt is an overstretch given the highly disputable classification of Alawism as Shiism among Shia clerical circles. In fact, it was not until 1973 that Alawites were deemed to belong to the Shia sect by Imam Musa As-Sadr, who did so as a political favour to President Hafez Al-Assad. The inclusion of Hamas and Syria in this alliance, means that it cannot be considered Shia or even Islamic in character and composition, but more accurately regional.

Yet, this has not prevented Arab leaders from trying to stoke fears of an Iran-led Shia power grab in the region. Besides the now infamous "Shia crescent" spectre raised by Jordan's King Abdullah, Egypt's President Mubarak accused Shias of paying allegiance to Iran before their own nation-states while Saudi officials have also publicly expressed concern over Iran's cultural and political influence in the region. To a large extent, this scare-mongering rhetoric has failed to strike a chord among Arab Sunnis, despite reports to the contrary in Western and some Arab media. Though Sunni-Shia tensions cannot be discounted, they are far less the product of the ascent of a Shia power in the region like Iran, or the looming threat of a Shia crescent, than of concrete crises in Iraq, and to a much narrower extent, Lebanon.

The current Sunni-Shia rift is fundamentally a political one that has been fuelled by the ouster of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the institution of an American-backed, Shia- dominated state. Sunni rage was further ignited by the Iraqi government's highly incendiary execution of Hussein in December last year. While Iran is not feared as a Shia power as such, its support for the Iraqi government and its alleged links with Shia death squads in Iraq has earned it the reproach of many Sunnis and soured Sunni-Shia relations overall. In a similar vein, the crisis in Lebanon between the Siniora government and the Hizbullah-led opposition, has been interpreted by some Sunnis in the region as a flagrant Shia-instigated power struggle which has derailed Hizbullah from its loftier campaign of resistance to Israel.

Having said all this, the scope and intensity of sectarian tensions should not be exaggerated. Even in Lebanon, where the Sunni-Shia divide is only second to Iraq in its rancour, two-thirds of Sunnis do not support Sunni attacks against Shias in Iraq, while almost three-quarters of them do not view the Shia crescent as a reality, according to the findings of a Beirut Centre for Research and Information (BCRI) poll. In the region as a whole, Sunnis do not appear to be anywhere near as concerned as their leaders about Iran's rise as a regional powerhouse and its attendant sectarian implications. A joint survey conducted by Shibley Telhami and Zogby International in November 2006, revealed that only six per cent of a general sample of respondents from the predominantly Sunni countries of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and UAE, in addition to Lebanon -- states dubbed as "moderate" by the Bush administration -- regarded Iran as the greatest threat to their security, despite the fact that significant majorities in each of these countries viewed Iran's role in Iraq as negative. What these findings imply is that while the vast majority of Sunni Arabs are highly critical of Iran's policy on Iraq, they do not draw generalisations about Iran's Middle East policy on this basis. In other words, they do not see Iraq as the lynchpin of an incipient Shia crescent led by Iran that imperils their security. In fact, any misgivings Sunni Arabs may have about Iran and Hizbullah appear to be outweighed by the perception of these two strategic players as bulwarks against US hegemonic designs and Israeli territorial ambitions in the region.

As reported by the Telhamy-Zogby poll, 80 per cent of respondents see Israel and the US as posing the greatest threats to their security. Such fears have been prompted by the Bush administration's "war on terror," that is defined in part by doctrines of pre-emptive war and regime change that aim to reshape the face of the Middle East region. The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, with threats to do the same in Syria and Iran, have combined with its orchestration of the Israeli onslaught against Lebanon last summer and the international embargo it organised against the Palestinians, starving them of needed funds, to create an image of the US as not merely a civilisational threat to Arabs and Muslims, but increasingly an existential one.

In this connection, Iran's right to nuclear power is supported by 61 per cent of Arabs, according to the results of the Telhami-Zogby poll, although half of all respondents in the survey suspect that Iran's nuclear programme is intended for weapons manufacture. For the majority of "moderate" Sunni Arabs then, a nuclear- armed Iran is a desirable counterweight to US and Israeli military dominance in the region. This is further evinced by the fact that President Ahmadinejad was ranked the third most popular leader in the Sunni Arab world, as reported by the Telhami-Zogby survey, in light of his renowned defiance of the US and his highly inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric, which, while not sitting well with all Iranians back home, wins him much kudos in the Arab world.

Support for Iran also owes itself in large part to its longstanding sponsorship of popular Islamist resistance movements in the region -- Hizbullah and Hamas. Although Arab regimes castigated Hizbullah for its abduction of Israeli soldiers in July 2006, with Saudi Arabia condemning Hizbullah's actions as "irresponsible adventurism", popular Arab support for the movement reached its zenith in last summer's war, given the scale of the Israeli offensive and the resistance's ability to defeat the militarily superior Israeli army. As a consequence, the stature of Hizbullah's secretary-general, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, was elevated to heroic proportions in much of the Sunni Arab world, earning him the title of the "new Gamal Abdel Nasser" for his showdown with Israel. In the Telhami-Zogby poll, Nasrallah was ranked the most popular leader by Arab respondents, while in a BCRI survey commissioned by Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper in December, Nasrallah emerged as Sunni Kuwait's preferred leader, with 40 per cent of Kuwaitis expressing their preference for him over other Sunni leaders.

In keeping with the growing tide of anti-Israel sentiment, Sunni Islamist movements, including Muslim Brotherhood wings in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere, lent their full support to Hizbullah's war effort, while Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman Al Zawahiri, jumped on the anti- Israel bandwagon in support of the resistance. In turn, Arab regimes, which had previously underestimated Hizbullah's endurance and military strength, were compelled to considerably tone down their earlier rhetoric in a desperate bid to salvage what remaining legitimacy they had left with a staunchly pro-resistance Arab public.

What facilitates the appeal of Shia Islamic actors like Iran and Hizbullah to an Arab Sunni audience is their embrace of the core principles of a once predominately Sunni Arabist movement. Arabist slogans such as resistance to occupation, the liberation of Palestine and the struggle against imperialism for regional independence, resonate well with the Sunni Arab street. While Hizbullah's Arab nationality somewhat mitigates its Shia identity, the notion of a Shia-Persian power becoming the standard bearer of Sunni Arab causes, appears more paradoxical. But judging from the level of Sunni Arab support for Hizbullah and Iran, it appears as though the perceived restoration of Arab pride and dignity that these two strategic players have bought about overrides national and sectarian considerations.

In effect, the much promoted "Shia crescent" theory appears to be far less of a political reality, or widespread social concern, than a card played by "moderate" Arab regimes to whip up fears among their Sunni publics within the context of a wider, US-orchestrated campaign to enlist the support of Sunni Arab regimes in demonising and isolating Iran. Since these regimes are unwilling to forgo their alliances with the US, they feel compelled to invent an enemy to counter- balance and deflect attention away from the US- Israeli threat, on which they cannot deliver, with the purpose of winning back some popular legitimacy via an imagined threat called "Shiism".

While the spectre of a Shia-Iranian security threat is one concocted by Arab leaders, the Iran- Hizbullah model is a very real political threat to the popular legitimacy and regional influence of Arab regimes. What the "moderate" regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia fear is not so much the strategic threat posed to them by a nuclear-emboldened Iran, or even a Shia conversion campaign in their Sunni heartland, but rather, the model of political empowerment represented by Iran and Hizbullah. Arab alarmism is therefore not directed at the export of religious or cultural Shiism but, more significantly, at political Shiism as defined by its anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, pro-resistance identity. That the US supports Saudi efforts to play a more active role in resolving regional disputes, in a last ditch attempt to eclipse Iran's regional soft power, is indicative of the recognition by both parties of the extent of Iran's influence and appeal among Sunni Arabs. And it is precisely because Iran does not act like a Shia power, with distinctly Shia objectives, that makes it such a formidable challenge to the US and its Arab allies. For the US-allied moderate states, the gravest threat to the longevity and stability of their regimes is a strategic regional alliance that cuts across the Sunni-Shia, Persian-Arab and religious-secular divides.

In effect, the new fault lines dividing the region are not between Arab-led Sunnis and Persian-led Shias, nor between democrats and autocrats, a la yesteryear's Bush doctrine. Nor is the now fashionable "extremists" versus "moderates" schema an apt depiction of reality. Today's fault lines centre on ideological and strategic orientations. On one side of the divide lie Arab regimes, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as recently elected governments, all of which have earned their "moderate" epithets by dint of their alliances with the US and their moderation vis-à-vis Israel. Whether authoritarian or democratically elected, these governments are fully buttressed by the US, and are therefore widely accused of ceding their nation's sovereignty and lacking popular legitimacy.

On the other side of the divide sits the strategic front represented by Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas, formed in response to the US- Israeli axis and thus essentially a reactive alliance. As a defensive front, whose central objective is to actively resist US and Israeli political intervention, security/intelligence infiltration, and military occupation with a combination of cultural, political and military means, the most suitable designation for this coalition of forces is the "resistance and mumanaa front". While only Hamas and Hizbullah are currently engaged in military resistance, the term mumanaa -- derived from the Arabic word "to prevent" and which connotes all forms of non-military resistance, confrontation and rejection -- refers to the politically confrontational stands assumed by Iran and Syria. Though none of the actors that constitute this front actually label themselves as such, they often characterise themselves as being part of a "resistance camp", " mumanaa front", or "circle of steadfastness" that "rejects hegemony and defeat" and seeks "justice" and "dignity".

In the final analysis, a potential wide-scale attack by the US on Iran -- which would most likely involve Israel and engulf Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories, and possibly Syria as well -- would only serve to further unify Sunni-Shia ranks, as exemplified by the July 2006 war. In such a scenario, Iran would unleash the Shia Iraqi resistance in full force, thereby eliminating the main source of Sunni antagonism towards it. For Hizbullah, greater participation in strategic decision-making would become of negligible significance in the face of a US-Israeli offensive on the movement and its regional allies. Unfettered by concerns for national unity and internal stability -- which would cease to exist in the midst of a regional war -- Hizbullah would devote itself exclusively to its "resistance priority", thereby regaining any Sunni support it recently lost. Thus, the launching of yet another chapter of the "war on terror" would only serve to radicalise the people of the region beyond the level achieved by the so-called "Iraq effect", while promoting the popular standing of a resistance and mumanaa front in the Arab world and beyond.

* The writer is a leading Lebanese expert on Hizbullah and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment Middle East Centre. She is the author of Hizbullah: Politics and Religion, Pluto Press.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

Questioning the Shia crescent

The Host and The Parasite

Tuesday, 1 May 2007

Hello Marc:

In the past you have been kind enough to repost some of the columns I write for the Canadian Arab News, and which are also found on mediamonitors.net and my website www.gregfelton.com.

I am writing to let you know that my book "The Host and the Parasite—How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America" is available at amazon.com. If crimes and corruptions are your interest, I know that you'll like my analysis of the Bush junta and itrs place in the decades-long degeneration of the U.S. republic.

Thanks for all your support and keep upn the fight for a free press.

Cheers,

Greg Felton

The Host and the Parasite is on sale now!
The Host and The Parasite— How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America is the definitive study of Israel’s use of the U.S. economy, government and military to terrorize the Muslim world. Today the republic is dead, brought down by a junta that serves Israel’s colonial interests, not the U.S. national interest. This is the essence of “the war on terrorism” and the motive behind the Sept. 11 attack, the invasion of Iraq and the overt provocations of Syria and Iran.	“The Host and The Parasite is a profound reading of today’s world. It forcefully brings to the surface historical injustices that today’s powers-to-be buried in the trash bin of history.” —Sam Bahour, businessman, Ramallah, Palestine
To buy your copy go to amazon.com barnesandnoble.com, dandelionbooks.net or call toll-free 1-800-861-7899

Foreign policy challenge: see world as it really is

Published: 04.30.2007
ONLINE EXCLUSIVE

ROBERT ROBB

The neoconservative hubris that the United States can and should reshape the world has been a casualty of the Iraq war, both substantively and politically.

The practical limitations on the ability of the United States to direct the destiny of other peoples and cultures, and the cost of such ambitions, have been exposed.

Nevertheless, the three leading Republican candidates for president in 2008 - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney - cling to some version of the neoconservative vision.

This gives Democrats the chance to forge a new direction and consensus on foreign policy. However, if Barack Obama's speech last week to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs is illustrative, and it probably is, they aren't really up to the task.

The foreign policy challenge for the United States is figuring out how to operate in a world less and less interested in U.S. leadership.

Europe already has an economy roughly as large as that of the United States. The major Asian-Pacific economies (Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia and Taiwan) are now about three-quarters as large. So, while obviously still a very important market, the United States is no longer a dominant economic force.

The United States does still have the only military with truly global reach. However, this yields considerably less influence than it used to, particularly after Iraq.

For the most part, other global powers see the U.S. military as a force not so much to be feared, as to be harnessed for sanctioned international missions or in response to international calamities, such as tsunamis and earthquakes.

In his speech, Obama acknowledged that the willingness to accept U.S. leadership has waned. However, he seems to think that it is just because George Bush is such a boor.

With nice and skillful American diplomacy, he maintains, the United Nations can be effective, the countries of Europe will spend more on defense, and NATO can assume more of the military burden.

There's no objective basis for this belief. The U.N. is structurally dysfunctional and its members like it that way. No amount of skilled diplomacy by the U.S. is going to overcome the lack of domestic support for increased military spending in Europe.

And Afghanistan has demonstrated that, while NATO may be useful for peace-keeping missions, it is ineffective as a fighting force.

The harsh reality is that if there are tough things that have to be done in the world, the United States is not going to have much company or support in taking them on.

Bush believes that, to protect the country against terrorism, the United States has to be an active agent of democratic change around the world.

Obama seems to believe that, to protect the country against terrorism, the United States has to be an active agent helping to provide clean water, food, medicine, shelter and education around the world. He would increase foreign and developmental aid to $50 billion a year and establish a $2 billion "Global Education Fund."

The track record on foreign aid is abysmal. Countries with sound governance don't need it. It doesn't do any good in countries without sound governance. Nor is there any indication that it can lead to sound governance, a conceit Obama shares with Bush.

Obama says he supports a strong military, but apparently wants to turn it into a sort of international WPA. He quotes with great approbation a Djibouti U.S. base commander who said that "our mission is at least 95 percent civil affairs."

According to Obama, the United States "must lead the world, by deed and example."
The essence of Obama's foreign policy perspective, then, is this: If the United States tries hard enough to do good and be nice, the rest of the world will be impressed and grateful and accept U.S. leadership.

That's not the world as it really is.

Obama's delusion, widely shared by Democrats, isn't nearly as dangerous as the neoconservative delusion still being served up by the Republicans. It's still a delusion, nonetheless.

Better questions for the candidates

YOUR VIEW

By JUSTIN LOGAN

Mr. Logan is a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute and a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

April 29, 2007 6:00 AM

As political tides continue to turn against the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton's opponents have highlighted her refusal to apologize for supporting it. It's a fair critique, since the next American president will face a host of foreign-policy challenges while attempting to repair our post-Bush position in the world.

In their debate at South Carolina State University on Thursday, top Democratic candidates exchanged barbs over authorizing the Iraq war, but their preoccupation with the vote itself obscured larger issues and provided candidates a neat way out of other hard questions they should be made to answer.

Whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the fundamental postwar dynamic would have been the same. In 1999, Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command, conducted an Iraq war game titled Desert Crossing, which assumed a deployment of 400,000 U.S. troops. Even at these levels — more consistent with counterinsurgency doctrine — he still came to a host of pessimistic conclusions.

Zinni determined that "the country could fragment along religious and/or ethnic lines," that "Iranian support for U.S. intervention "¦ was critical to long-term success," that "differing visions of a unified Iraq complicate" the postwar political prospects, and last but not least, that "U.S. involvement could last for at least 10 years."

"Why," a reporter might ask a candidate, "did you not bring more attention to the requirements and dangers of occupying Iraq after the war?"

All the candidates have refused to rule out the use of force to delay Iran's nuclear program. Although some candidates might have left the option "on the table" in hopes of strengthening America's bargaining position on the diplomatic track, some appear to believe that military action would be a viable option if diplomacy fails.

Some observers have a rosy view of what such action would look like. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard has suggested that bombing might have the side benefit of causing the Iranian people to overthrow the government in Tehran, and Eli Lake of the New York Sun recently suggested that a bombing campaign against Iran "would be similar to Desert Fox," the four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998 that resulted in no U.S. casualties.

So, a reporter might ask, "What do you suspect the results, both positive and negative, of bombing Iran would be?"

In March 2006, two of America's top international-relations professors published an essay in which they argued that there is an "Israel lobby" in the United States that works to tip U.S. foreign policy in Israel's favor and constrain debate on U.S. policy in the Middle East. The authors of the essay were accused of, among other offenses, anti-Semitism.

A reporter might ask, "Is it anti-Semitic to claim that there is an Israel lobby in the United States that attempts to influence U.S. foreign policy in Israel's favor? Is it accurate?"

The concept of "democracy promotion" is a long-standing rhetorical component of U.S. foreign policy, but since 9/11/01 has taken on a different meaning and a different form. President Bush claims that in order to succeed in the war on terrorism, we must overturn the existing political order in the Islamic world, replacing authoritarian regimes with democracies. Since the war in Iraq has gone so roughly, and since the elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories have not gone as many in the West wanted, this thinking has been subject to severe criticism.

A reporter might ask, "Is promoting democracy in the Islamic world essential for victory in the war on terrorism? If so, what would be your strategy for doing so?"

The lessons of Iraq are important, and part of the campaign should involve determining whether the candidates have learned them. At the same time, focusing on that issue alone obscures many others that will have more bearing on U.S. policy in the years to come.

The candidates are ready for the Iraq question — indeed, we already know their answers. What are their views on the questions above?

Stop the war against Sudan

April 28, 2007

By David Rolde

The United States has been waging war against Sudan for the past 15 years, and we need to stop it. Just like with Iraq, the U.S. war against Sudan is a war for oil and a war for Israel. The proposed invasion of Sudan is based on lies. The lie of accusing the government of Sudan of "genocide in Darfur" serves the same function as the lie a few years ago accusing the government of Iraq of "possessing weapons of mass destruction". The U.S. government, and its allies the Israeli and U.K. governments, are the real world champion purveyors of genocide and possessors of WMDs.

Sudan, the geographically largest country in Africa and the home of 35 million people, has been devastated by U.S. attacks for the past 15 years. In the early 90s the U.S. government declared Sudan to be a "state sponsor of terrorism" because the government of Sudan does not support Israel. The U.S. government imposed sanctions against Sudan. The U.S. sanctions and trade boycott escalated in severity several times during the 90s and 00s and damaged the Sudanese economy, causing immense human suffering. Throughout the 90s the U.S. government armed and funded the SPLA rebels in the south of Sudan in a war against the Sudanese government, and against rival southern groups, in which millions of persons were killed or displaced. Millions of southern refugees fled from the SPLA and now live in Khartoum, the northern capital. The culmination of U.S. support for war in Sudan was the so-called "Sudan Peace Act," signed by George W Bush in 2002, which allocated one hundred million dollars per year to the SPLA.

One notable episode of the U.S. war against Sudan happened in 1998 when the U.S. government of Bill Clinton, with a missile strike, destroyed Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant, the al-Shifa plant near Khartoum. This rendered Sudan unable to produce needed human medications to treat endemic diseases such as malaria and also veterinary medicines needed by Sudan's livestock industry which is a major part of the livelihood of the people of Sudan.

In 2004, during the U.S. presidential election campaign, the U.S. government started leveling false allegations of "genocide" against the Sudanese government in regards to the new civil war in Darfur in the west of Sudan. The U.S. media and pro-imperialist "human rights" organizations (such as Human Rights Watch which is controlled by billionaire George Soros and the Council on Foreign Relations) falsely portrayed the conflict in Darfur as a slaughter of black Africans by a "white Arab" Sudanese government. In reality it was a civil war among many armed groups, some of which were supported by the U.S. and Israel, fighting over limited resources in an impoverished region. Nearly everyone in Sudan is a black African. And nearly everyone in Darfur is a black African, Arabic-speaking Muslim. The numbers cited for the "genocide" in Darfur were inflated estimates of how many people might die from famine and disease.

This year the propaganda against Sudan in the United States has intensified again. On April 30, 2006, the U.S. government in conjunction with U.S. Zionist groups, staged a large pro-war rally in Washington DC. U.S. congresspersons, as well as members of the Bush administration, spoke at the rally calling for the war against Sudan to be escalated by sending in an invasion force of U.N., NATO or U.S. troops. Nearly every pro-Israel group in the USA has anti-Sudan propaganda on the front of their website. In Massachusetts an example of a Zionist group doing pro-war activism is the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Greater Boston.

The anti-Sudan rhetoric is no different than the rhetoric that the U.S. government uses against other countries that the United States is attacking. One aim of U.S. attacks against Sudan is to gain or maintain control over Sudan's natural resources: notably petroleum but also uranium, other minerals, gum arabic, and the Nile River which supplies water to Egypt. China currently has access to oil from Sudan, and the U.S. government wants to cut China off. Destabilizing and impoverishing Sudan serves American and Israeli hegemonic interests to make sure there are no prosperous independent nations in the Middle East and North African regions.

But within the United States the anti-Sudan rhetoric is useful for more than just getting Americans ready for more overt war against Sudan. Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric regarding Sudan is part of the general anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda that is used to gain U.S. domestic support for the war in Iraq, continued U.S. support for Israel, and the so-called "war on terror". Zionist groups in the United States have been purveying anti-Arab propaganda regarding Sudan for many years before the Darfur war, making false claims about "slavery" in Sudan. Slave redemption efforts in Sudan have been shown to be a hoax. Divesting from Sudan is a Zionist anti-Arab counter-proposal to the idea of divesting from Israel. Lies about Arabs divert attention from efforts to end Israeli apartheid in Palestine.

On September 1, 2006, the U.S. rammed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council calling for tens of thousands of U.N. troops, ostensibly "peace-keepers" but really an imperialist invasion force, to be sent to Darfur to replace the current smaller U.S.-puppet African Union force. On September 17, Zionists and other pro-war Americans held an anti-Sudan rally in Central Park in New York City. The keynote speaker at the rally was Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, who is infamous for having admitted that the Clinton administration and the U.N. had killed half a million Iraqi children through the sanctions in the 90s but nevertheless defending the actions against Iraq as worthwhile. Rally attendees were asked to wear blue hats to signify their desire to send "blue helmet" U.N. troops to invade Sudan. These U.N. troops would not be "peace-keepers." We can see the likely outcome by looking at Haiti where, in 2004, the U.S. deposed the legitimate government and then sent in a U.N. occupation force which has terrorized the country and brutalized the Haitian people. When foreign U.N. soldiers get to Darfur and can't determine which black Arabic-speaking Muslims are the "bad Arabs" and which are the "good Africans", the U.N. troops will kill people indiscriminately. The Sudanese people will rightly resist. The situation will escalate. U.S. warmongers will call for sending more troops, including U.S. troops, and bringing the war to Khartoum. It will be a disaster. The U.S. war against Sudan needs to be stopped and reversed now.

Anti-war activists are not working hard enough to stop the U.S. and Zionist war against Sudan. The current threats against Sudan are just as serious as the threats against Iran. Anti-war activists should be focusing more effort to stop the war against Sudan and to work against U.S. imperialism in Africa in general - the current war against Sudan is just one manifestation of centuries of European colonialism and neo-colonialism in Sudan and Africa. The situation for the people of Sudan will improve once foreign intervention in Sudan stops.

Cementing Israeli Apartheid: The Role of World Bank

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

An Institution Created To Shore Up The Interests Of World Capitalism And US Imperialism

The World Bank along with the IMF have been the main instrument's of global capitalism and US imperialism.
___
Capitalism as always is searching for new methods of exploitation of workers, and with the help of the Zionist apartheid regime, they have found new ways to hold people captive, and exploit their labor.

____

Inside the giant walled prisons of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they are planning on developing what are being called "industrial Zones" which is basically going to be an imprisoned work force, who in order to survive will be forced to sell their labor at very cheap slave wage prices to the Zionist apartheid regime, so that the Zionist regime can then inturn sell the products created by this slave wage labor on the world market for hefty profits.

___

If this were Nazi Germany these so-called "industrial zones" would be called what they really are...

"work camps."

___

I am posting an article about this from left turn magazine, as well as yesterdays Flashpoints program with news about occupied Palestine, and other stories.

___

Flashpoints:

After a bloody weekend in the occupied West Bank, is Israel preparing to once again re-invade and destroy Gaza? We'll speak with the executive director of the International Middle East Media Center, George Rishmawi; PLAY or DOWNLOAD

____

Cementing Israeli Apartheid: The Role of World Bank

___
By Jamal Juma
Through the violent occupation of Iraq, the US is laying the foundations to further open the economy of the Middle East for their corporate interests. Countries once protected by oil revenues are lining up to sign bilateral agreements leading to a Middle East Free Trade Agreement. MEFTA would impose free market policies that have enslaved other regions of the global south to global capital. In Palestine, the World Bank has played a key role in facilitating the cooperation of global capital and occupation.

__
In Palestine, international powers are eager to implement plans to use the apartheid apparatus of the Israeli occupation—particularly the infrastructure created by the Apartheid Wall—for the establishment of industrial zones, guaranteeing economic dependency and exploitation of Palestinian communities on top of the occupation control.

___
The Apartheid Wall is a devastating extension and acceleration of occupation policies, designed to annex nearly half of West Bank lands and imprison the remaining population within 12 percent of historical Palestine. The Wall to date has destroyed thousands of dunums (4 dunums are equivalent to one acre) of land, uprooted olive trees, displaced families and communities, and separated Palestinians from their land and other Palestinians. Despite the 2004 International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision, which took up the Palestinian call that the Wall must be torn down and affected communities compensated—the construction of the Wall has only accelerated in the last year.

__
Legitimizing occupation

___
Global bodies have only increased their support for the Wall and occupation policies over the last year. The G-8 controlled World Bank has outlined the framework for this policy in their most recent report on Palestine published in December of 2004, Stagnation or Revival: Israeli Disengagement and Palestinian Economic Prospects.

____
In the report, the World Bank adopts the occupation’s strategically misleading terminology for the Wall, referring to it and its connected infrastructure as a “security fence” or “separation barrier.” This move by the World Bank seeks to legitimize the confiscation of Palestinian lands and obscures the reality on the ground in which 80 percent of the Wall’s destructive path deviates from the 1967 Armistice Line, separating Palestinians from other Palestinians, their capital Jerusalem, land, and essential sources of livelihood.

____
The World Bank’s vision of “economic development” evades any discussion of the illegality of the Wall, the occupation, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. To the contrary it takes Israeli “facts on the ground” as given scenarios and lays the foundations for the economic sustainability of the Palestinian ghettos created by the Wall. The World Bank thinks they can circumvent ICJ concerns if it is justified as a humanitarian project.

____

Central to the vision of the World Bank for a thriving and successful Palestinian “state” is the development of an export-orientated economy in which Palestinian dispossessed farmers are exploited as cheap labor and dominated by markets and free trade. Israeli and World Bank interests merge to destroy local forms of trade, sustainable patterns of agricultural production, and existing social structures.

____
Agriculture, traditionally the core sector of the Palestinian economy, is barely mentioned in the report, presumably because the World Bank realizes that Palestinians will be left with no land. The only mention of a future for agriculture in areas of Gaza focus on the use of land for export-oriented production, not local sustainability and consumption.

___
Industrial zones

___
Central to World Bank proposals are the construction of massive industrial zones to be financed by the World Bank and other donors and controlled by the Israeli Occupation. These are envisaged as forming the basis of economic “development” built on Palestinian land around the Wall. Previous initiatives in the Gaza Strip are being used as the “catalyst” and model for the way in which Palestinians imprisoned by the Wall can be put to work in industrial zones.

____
International Financing Institutions are proposing a series of new or revitalized industrial zones. Primary among these are the “Green Line” zones which would be located in areas close to or on the Green Line, including sites close to Jenin, Tarkumiya and Rafah which already have backing with several European and US firms.

____

The gates built on the 20 percent of the Wall that fall on the Green Line are integral to World Bank plans as the existing gates will facilitate their ability to fund high-tech checkpoints for the transport of goods and control of people with fewer legal barriers stemming from the ICJ decision. Further industrial parks are planned in “Seam Zones” in Palestinian land isolated behind the Apartheid Wall and the Green Line. Given that 80 percent of the Wall deviates from the Green Line, there is scope for various projects on isolated land confiscated by the Israeli Occupation.

___
One location highlighted in the Bank’s report is the so-called Tulkarm Peace Park where construction is already underway. Construction has involved using around 600 dunums of land from the villages of Irtah and Farun that have been confiscated by the Wall.

____
The industrial zones are designed to serve the needs of the industry markets of Israel, whether by doing the most environmentally destructive production in Palestinian areas or by providing cheap labor. Additionally these zones would benefit the Israeli Occupation abroad where goods “Made in Palestine” have more favorable trade conditions in international markets.

____
And while the Israeli Occupation plans to stop issuing work permits in 2008 cutting about 30,000 Palestinian jobs (adding to the potential labor force in industrial zones), the World Bank as part of the overall economic plan encourages the issuing of some permits so the Occupation economy can further profit from Palestinians.

____
Imprisoned labor

___
Through the Apartheid Wall, the occupation and international financing institutions aim to cement several realities into the future of Palestinian people. Primary among these is the long-term sustainability of the ghettoization of Palestinians.

____
This post-Wall vision includes complete control over Palestinian movement. The report proposes high-tech military gates and checkpoints, through which Palestinians and exports can be conveniently transported and controlled. This will be supplemented with a “transfer system” of walled roads and tunnels to funnel Palestinian workers to their jobs, while simultaneously denying them access to their land around them that lies outside the Bantustans created by the Wall.

___
The World Bank places these conditions of imprisonment within a scenario of exploitation of the workers who will be channeled through the Occupation control system. Sweatshops will be one of the only possibilities for earning a living for the Palestinians left in the disparate Bantustans throughout the West Bank.

___

The World Bank states:

___
“In an improved operating environment, Palestinian entrepreneurs and foreign investors will look for well-serviced industrial land and supporting infrastructure. They will also seek a regulatory regime with a minimum of ‘red tape’ and with clear procedures for conducting business. Industrial Estates (IEs), particularly those on the border between Palestinian and Israeli territory, can fulfill this need and thereby play an important role in supporting export based growth.”

___
The “red tape” which the World Bank refers to can be presumed to mean trade unions, a minimum wage, good working conditions, environmental protection and other workers’ rights that will be more flexible than the ones in the “developed” world. The World Bank explicitly states that current wages of Palestinians are too high for the region and “compromise the international competitiveness” even though wages compromise only a quarter of the average in Israel. On top of a military occupation and forced expulsion, Palestinians are to be subjects of an economic colonialism common throughout the Southern hemisphere for inflicting poverty and misery.

____
Aiding displacement

___
The governments of the G-8 have shown vivid interest in this project of displacement, imprisonment, and oppression of Palestinian communities under the pretense of development and humanitarian aid. In breach of the ICJ ruling, the US has already contributed $50 million to construct gates within these prisons to “help” serve the needs of Palestinians. Perhaps even more disturbing is the normalization of such brutal schemes within the programs of donors (such as USAID), who implement politically motivated projects under the rubric of humanitarian assistance.

___
The World Bank, alongside the US and significant portions of the international community, are using the Palestinian Authority (PA) as an institution through which these policies can be implemented and an “attractive environment for investors” created. The PA is given the role of prison guard, preventing the Palestinian people from defending their lands and rights. The responsibility of the PA towards the Palestinian people necessitates that it stands up against these projects—not by “modifying” or “only partially backing” them, but by completely opposing them.

___
Right to exist

___
The industrial zones and Bantustans are not new ideas; they are reminiscent of the economic models of racial capital promoted by apartheid South Africa in Bantustans like the Ciskei and Bophuthatswana. They reflect the World Bank’s conscious choice to support the needs and vision of the Occupation which entails the destruction of the Palestinian nation. While espousing the politics of free markets and free trade, the World Bank is not interested in the creation of a free people. Quite the opposite—its interests are best served by keeping Palestinians in economic enslavement.

___
The failure of the international community and financial institutions to work towards the implementation of the ICJ decision to tear down the Wall and to ensure the respect of Palestinian rights has come at an enormous human cost. And yet, against this bleak and overwhelming reality, Palestinian communities are actively defending their right to exist. Palestinians are implementing the ICJ decision with their own hands, where in villages like Bil`in, the Wall’s cement foundations were physically dismantled in active resistance.

____
Villages are mobilizing regular demonstrations against the construction of the Wall in the midst of violent reprisals by the Occupation Forces and continue to direct their protest beyond these imprisoned boundaries, towards the international community at large. As history illustrates repeatedly, attempted pacification of resistance to Occupation will always be thwarted by a people’s unrelenting will for self-determination.

___
Now more than ever it is crucial that movements step up efforts to isolate the Israeli Apartheid and support Palestinians in their struggle for their land. It is important to be prepared to resist new assaults masked in the guise of “development” and “aid” and stand behind the uncompromising demands of a Palestinian led movement—not for comfortable ghettos or colorful walls but liberation and justice.

____
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

___
Jamal Juma' is Campaign Coordinator for the Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (www.stopthewall.org).
For further information on the World Bank, and Boycotts against Israel, please refer to

http://stopthewall.org/factsheets/920.shtml

___

Article Link

__

"The Most Lawless War of Our Generation": The U.S. Sponsored War In Somalia

Related
Massacre in Mogadishu--war crime made in the USA
---
Friday, April 27th, 2007
"The Most Lawless War of Our Generation" - FPublishmr. UN Spokesperson on Somalia

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream

---

In Somali, fierce clashes in Mogadishu are being described as some of the heaviest fighting in the city's history. Some 329 people have been killed over the past ten days. This comes just three weeks after another series of battles claimed at least 1,000 lives. The United Nations says more people - over 350,000 - have been displaced in Somalia in the past three months than anywhere else in the world. [includes rush transcript]

---

In Somalia, clashes between U.S. backed-Ethiopian forces and fighters aligned with the Islamic Courts Union in the capital Mogadishu are being described as some of the heaviest fighting in the city's history.

Local human rights workers report at least 329 people have been killed over the past ten days. This comes just three weeks after another series of battles claimed at least 1,000 lives.

The fighting began in December when US-backed Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia. Four months ago today, Islamic fighters abandoned the capital, marking the official fall of the Islamic Courts Union, which had controlled Mogadishu for six months last year.

A humanitarian catastrophe now looms over Somalia. The United Nations says more people have been displaced in Somalia in the past three months than anywhere else in the world. Some 350,000 have fled fighting in Mogadishu since February, more than one-third of its population. That makes the rate of displacement in Somalia over the past three months worse than Iraq. Many of the those displaced are camped on the outskirts of Mogadishu and lack food, medicine and clean water. There is also concern for those trapped inside the capital where more than 600 people have died from acute diarrhea and cholera.

• John Holmes, United Nations emergency relief coordinator: "There are stocks available in the area. If we can sort out the access problems, if we can step up our presence, in particular if we could achieve a ceasefire in Mogadishu and the surrounding area, then I think we will be able to cope with the problem, with some difficulty. But if the fighting continues at its present intensity, if there is no halt in that, if there is no political progress made, then we could indeed be facing a very serious situation indeed. I think already this is one of the biggest movement of population, displacement of population we've seen this year, in terms of numbers, particularly in terms of comparative numbers, compared to the populations of Mogadishu or indeed of Somalia as a whole, greater in that sense than Darfur or eastern Chad, and the problems there are serious enough."

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Ghedi said on Thursday his forces were now in control of Mogadishu and the BBC reports for the first time in nine days, gunfire has stopped. Ethiopians and government troops are patrolling the city conducting house-to-house searches as residents collect rotting bodies that had been abandoned in the streets.

The escalating war in Somalia has received little attention in the U.S. media especially on broadcast television. Using the Lexis database, Democracy Now examined ABC, NBC and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts over the past three months. The result may surprise you: ABC and NBC has not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once. The network dedicated a total of three sentences to the story.

• Salim Lone, a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and a former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq.

---

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: In Somalia, fierce fighting has killed over 320 people over the past ten days. This comes just three weeks after another series of battles claimed at least a thousand lives. Agence France-Presse described Thursday’s clashes in Mogadishu as some of the heaviest fighting in the city’s history.

The fighting began in December when US-backed Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia. Four months ago today, Islamic fighters abandoned the capital, marking the official fall of the Council of Islamic Courts, which had controlled Mogadishu for six months last year.

A humanitarian catastrophe now looms over Somalia. The United Nations says more people have been displaced in Somalia in the past three months than anywhere else in the world. Some 350,000 people have fled fighting in Mogadishu since February, more than a third of its population. That makes the rate of displacement in Somalia over the past three months worse than Iraq. Many of the those displaced are camped on the outskirts of Mogadishu and lack food, medicine and clean water. There is also concern for those trapped inside the capital where more than 600 people have died from acute diarrhea and cholera.

This is UN relief coordinator John Holmes.

JOHN HOLMES: There are stocks available in the area. If we can sort out the access problems, if we can step up our presence, in particular if we could achieve a ceasefire in Mogadishu and the surrounding area, then I think we will be able to cope with the problem, with some difficulty. But if the fighting continues at its present intensity, if there is no halt in that, if there is no political progress made, then we could indeed be facing a very serious situation indeed. I think already this is one of the -- the biggest movement of population, displacement of population we've seen this year, in terms of numbers, particularly in terms of comparative numbers, compared to the populations of Mogadishu or indeed of Somalia as a whole, greater in that sense than Darfur or eastern Chad, and the problems there are serious enough.

AMY GOODMAN: Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Ghedi said Thursday his forces were now in control of Mogadishu. The BBC reports, for the first time in nine days, gunfire has stopped. Ethiopians and government troops are patrolling the city conducting house-to-house searches, as residents collect rotting bodies that have been abandoned in the streets.

The escalating war in Somalia has received little attention in the US media especially on broadcast television. Using the Lexis database, Democracy Now! examined ABC, NBC and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts over the past three months. The result may surprise you: ABC and NBC has not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once on a Sunday night news broadcast. The network dedicated a total of three sentences to the story.

Salim Lone is a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and a former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq. He joins us today from London. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Salim.

SALIM LONE: Thank you for covering Somalia, Amy. As you said, the coverage is absolutely shameless.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, first, Salim, can you describe who the fighting forces are and who's behind them?

SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, the key country there is Ethiopia. Their occupation forces have been there, in fact, long before the actual war began. They came in around September, October. But at the moment, those fighting the Ethiopians and the nominal transitional central government, which is really an absolutely puppet -- it’s quite hapless. In fact, the Ethiopians don't even deal with Somalis that their fighting through the transitional government. They go directly to the elders of the clans to try to negotiate ceasefires. But those fighting them are obviously the Hawiye Clan fighters who dominate Mogadishu. I mean, historically, they're the largest clan in there. But there are also many others, not just Islamists, which is a codeword for terrorists, but there are many Somalis. In fact, most Somalis will not abide this occupation. I mean, this is what is most distressing about this fighting. All fighting is terrible, but you hope in the end something good comes out of it. But in this particular case, it is clear Somalis will not abide the Ethiopian occupation or the government they put in place there. So it is not going to be a successful war for the Somali government, for Ethiopia and, of course, for the US, which is the orchestrator of the whole adventure this time.

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, you're now in London. The British think tank Chatham House criticized the US role in the war. The authors of the report write, “In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, general multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actors, especially Ethiopia and the United States.”

SALIM LONE: Well, you know, this is par for the course these days. What they also should have mentioned -- but it’s an excellent report, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it, and I’m so glad they were so candid. But one of the big issues here is not merely the unilateralism of the United States, but the inability of the international community and particularly the United Nations Security Council to try to play, if not an independent role, at least a moderating role. It is quite astonishing that for now three months, there has been terrible violence in Somalia, and yet we have not heard anything from the security council about how this carnage must stop. There is no interest whatsoever.

You know the death toll. I mean, you've given all the details. I don't want to go into it. But let me add that women are being raped, that hospitals are being bombed. This is clearly a huge effort to intimidate and terrorize all those who come from clans who are fighting the government. They want to intimidate the civilians, because most of the death toll is of civilians. So this has been going on, and there has been no call whatsoever for this to stop.

You had Sir John Holmes there. He's a Brit, who -- I don't know him personally, so I cannot speak for him. But clearly, he has been appointed, in fact, by the British to his crucial position as chief of humanitarian affairs.

So we are seeing the Security Council completely silent while these atrocities are going on. We are seeing Western governments completely silent. Nothing has come out of Washington. Nothing has come out of London. We now see, for the first time on Wednesday, the ambassador of Germany -- and Germany holds the EU presidency now -- the ambassador released a letter, which he had sent to Abdullah Yusuf, the president of the transitional government. It is a very candid and a very strong letter, and that's wonderful. However, where was Germany? Where was the EU for all this period? Their silence has really given the green light for the Ethiopians to do the terrible things they've been doing.

The death toll now in Somalia is greater than it was in Lebanon. And you will recall, of course, that even then, the big powers -- the US, UK, even initially the UN -- did not demand a ceasefire. But the world media was full of that story, and there were condemnations around the world for what the Israelis were doing. But, of course, Somalis and Africans don't count as nearly much, because there has just been no international outcry at all. It’s not just the media. So we really have a problem there.

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, we're going to break and come back to this discussion. We'll also play a comment or interaction in the State Department on what is happening right now in Somalia. Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, joining us from Britain. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Salim Lone. He is the former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq. He’s a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and is joining us right now from London. Salim, I wanted to talk to you about the US role in all of this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Ethiopian foreign minister on April 23. At a news conference the next day, State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said the two had discussed the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia. McCormack said the troops had “no desire to stay there any longer than they are needed,” but that they didn't want to withdraw to, quote, open up a -- “vacuum open up in Somalia.” A reporter questioned him about his comments. This is an excerpt.

REPORTER: Does it concern you at all that your little -- your opening readout, your opening statements, with the exception of some of the proper names, could have applied exactly to the situation in Iraq right now? Does that bother -- does that concern you at all?

SEAN McCORMACK: I'm not sure I see your point, Matt.

REPORTER: That the Ethiopians say that they don't want to stay there any longer than they're needed, but they don't want to leave a vacuum. It just sounds --

SEAN McCORMACK: Right.

REPORTER: -- an awful lot like they're taking a page from the administration's thoughts on what to do in Iraq.

SEAN McCORMACK: No. I mean, they're --

REPORTER: But I guess -- so my question is, are you concerned that they might be seeing the beginning or the -- in fact, the middle of an Iraq-style insurgency going on, obviously not directed at US soldiers --

SEAN McCORMACK: Right. Right, right, right.

REPORTER: -- but the same kind of thing. Are you concerned about that?

SEAN McCORMACK: The situations are completely separate. They are -- you know, each are sui generis, but you are in each case concerned about leaving the field to a group of violent extremists who do not have an interest in building up the institutions of a democratic state, so in that sense, in that sense, there are similarities. I think certainly the specifics of each situation are quite different, and the histories are quite different. And I think the level of intensity of fighting in Iraq is quite different than you're seeing in Somalia, and the scale of it is a lot smaller.

AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack. The reporter went on to ask him whether the United States is calling for a ceasefire.

REPORTER: Are you calling for a ceasefire in Somalia, or are you urging the Ethiopians to go for these insurgents with as much intensity as they could?

SEAN McCORMACK: You don't want to see any more violence in Somalia. Everybody would like that to be the case, but there are clearly people there, individuals who are intent upon using violence in order to further a so-called political cause. And we have seen that in other areas around the world. And what can't be allowed to happen is for those forces to gain a foothold to develop a safe haven, from which they could possibly launch attacks against other states in the region and further.

REPORTER: So you're not calling for a ceasefire?

SEAN McCORMACK: We want to see an end to the violence. But the real way to get an end to the violence is (a) stabilize the security situation, and (b) find a political situation that is workable for the major political factions in Somali life that have an interest in actually building a different kind of Somalia, as opposed to the one we've seen for the past few decades.

AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack. Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, your response?

SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, I’m very interested in the Iraq analogy, and it is really multiple, apart from what was already said there. The contrasts are striking, as well. But let me add to the analogy, actually, that May 1 is approaching. That was the day when on the -- right after the war, President Bush said that his mission had been accomplished. We have the same statement coming out of the prime minister of Somalia yesterday, that the mission has been accomplished and the insurgents have been wiped out.

But let's look at the other contrasts, which are very fascinating. In Iraq, the world body, the Security Council, for the first time in many years since the Soviet Union collapsed, stood up to the United States and refused, despite enormous pressure, to authorize a UN war in Iraq. In Somalia's case, it is precisely the opposite.

To begin with, the lawlessness of this particular war is astounding. I mean, this is the most lawless war of our generation. You know, all aggressive wars are illegal. But in this particular one, there have been violations of the Charter and gross violations of international human rights, but these are commonplace. But, in addition, there have been very concrete violations by the United States, to begin with, of two Security Council resolutions. The first one was the arms embargo imposed on Somalia, which the United States has been routinely flaunting for many years now. But then the US decided that that resolution was no longer useful, and they pushed through an appalling resolution in December, which basically gave the green light to Ethiopia to invade. They pushed through a resolution which said that the situation in Somalia was a threat to international peace and security, at a time when every independent report indicated, and Chatham House’s report on Wednesday also indicated, that the Islamic Courts Union had brought a high level of peace and stability that Somalia had not enjoyed in sixteen years.

So here was the UN Security Council going along with the American demand to pass a blatantly falsified UN resolution. And that resolution actually was a violation. It contravened the UN Charter. You know, the UN Charter is like the American Constitution. Legislators pass laws, but they have to be in conformity with the Constitution. In this particular case, the Charter is the UN’s constitution, and the Security Council cannot -- it's not allowed to really pass laws or rules that violate the Charter. And yet, who is going to correct them? So this --

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, on April 8, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration recently allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from North Korea, in violation of international sanctions. The US allowed the arms delivery to go through in January, shortly after Ethiopia invaded Somalia, from North Korea. Salim?

SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, this just, you know, shows the lawlessness, the complete lack of pretense, even, to try to honor these resolutions. The big powers decide what resolutions are passed. But now what we see is the big powers then decide, are we actually going to honor the resolution that we just passed?

I mean, I want to give you an incredible example of how the Security Council has become a plaything almost. There was a time when Security Council resolutions had gravitas. For example, everybody knew Resolution 242, asking Israel to vacate the Occupied Territories in exchange for peace. But now, it’s a plaything.

And I want to give the example of the bombings in Spain in the year 2004. Just before the Spanish election, there was this terrible atrocity, as you know. About 200 people, Spaniards, were killed in the terrorist attacks on the trains. Because it was on the eve of the election, the Aznar government, afraid that if it was known that this attack was by terrorists, might lose the election, got the US to support a Security Council resolution which condemned the Basque separatists for the attack. And the Security Council went along with that. I mean, a day later, it became clear that it was a total lie. So the Security Council resolutions really have no meaning now, because they can be passed and violated at will, especially by the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, the Dow Jones newswire has recently reported that the US-backed Somali prime minister wants to pass a new oil law to encourage foreign oil companies to return to Somalia. Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corporation once had exploration contracts in Somalia, but the companies left the country in 1991. How significant is this in the US involvement in Somalia today?

SALIM LONE: Well, you know, as you’ve discussed before, Somalia itself and the region, the Horn of Africa, is newly oil-rich. Kenya has some oil. Oil is the key to domination for the United States -- global domination, I mean. But it is going about, you know, the wrong way to get that oil. The US is also worried that its welcome in the Middle East is diminishing, and they need to make sure -- both they want to encircle the Middle East with the oil field, and they want to make sure they have Somalia and other countries handy for the oil.

But this -- you know, the prime minister’s attempt to lure Western oil companies is on a par with his crying wolf about al-Qaeda at every turn. Every time you interview a Somalia official, the first thing you hear is al-Qaeda and terrorists. They’re using that. No one believes it. No one believes it at all, because all independent reports say the contrary. But they are using that to try to develop support.

And, you know, this is why it is so important. Europe has now been coming into the forefront with its concern. It had this report about major human rights violations had occurred a month ago in Mogadishu. And the Europeans are afraid that they might be complicit in those, because they were supporting the warring -- the groups that were committing those atrocities. Germany, as I said, released that letter on Wednesday. Even the American ambassador has written to Abdullah Yusuf, the president. I mean, they are really writing letters to the Somali president. They will not raise this issue in the Security Council. They will not raise this issue in Washington or London. They want to keep this as a small African issue.

And it is so important for all of us to put pressure on the governments in Europe, in particular, and on Africa, too. I mean, Africa is weak. It cannot really take strong stands. In my own country, Kenya, we have played a terrible role in these extraordinary renditions and Guantanamo Bay that are going on. But, of course, one leading opposition, the candidate in Kenya, said that the US has promised to support the government in the elections at the end of this year in exchange for the terrible things it has been doing. So Africa is weak --

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, I want to ask you quickly, as you talk about Guantanamo, this secret prison in Ethiopia -- not clear how many people are being held there, if this is one of the black sites, one of the prisons that are not very well known about in the world that the US is involved with. But we do know that Amir Mohamed Meshal is there. He is a New Jersey young man from Tinton Falls. Jonathan Landay of the McClatchy Newspapers reported April 24th, Ethiopia has changed its mind and decided for the time being not to free the American Muslim who was captured trying to flee war-torn Somalia and was held without charge in Kenya and Ethiopia for more than four months. Can you talk about this secret prison?

SALIM LONE: Well, you know, there are -- did you say “secret prison”?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

SALIM LONE: Yes, yes, yes. You know, I mean, this whole enterprise -- the kidnappings on Kenyan streets, the grabbing refugees coming across the border -- has a “Made in America” stamp on it, because you’ve seen it all happen before. And these secret prisons, the US denies any responsibility in this whole operation. And yet, we know that CIA and FBI officials are in those prisons interviewing the inmates.

We also know, by the way, that many of the people who have disappeared are not in those secret prisons. Where are those people? Have they be killed? Are they being tortured somewhere else? This is, you know, utter lawlessness.

And we must try to get the Europeans, in particular -- I keep appealing to the Europeans, because I know -- I speak to many European ambassadors in Kenya -- I know that they're privately very concerned about what is going on. And we must get them to do more. It is fine to indicate there are war crimes to be committed. It's fine to say this must stop, and hospitals shouldn’t be bombed, and you can’t keep relief away from suffering people. But they must go beyond that. They must take an initiative, or talk privately to the United States and say, “Look, this is a lost cause. We are only creating suffering, and we're creating problems for ourselves, because there will be blowback on this. There will be animosities and angers, which will affect Europe, America, Africa, everywhere.” So they must [inaudible].

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General’s call for a coalition of the willing to go into Somalia? You’re a former UN official.

SALIM LONE: You know, it is so disgraceful. For him to try to get the Security Council -- that's what he proposes, the Security Council, in case there is no peace in Somalia in the meeting in June, in mid-June, to discuss it in the Security Council -- for him to propose that the UN should now go in to do what the US and Ethiopia have been unable to do, which is basically to impose a client regime on Somalia, it's just absolutely disgraceful. I mean, I read that report to the Security Council, and it is hard to believe that Mr. Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is so blatantly and comprehensively one-sided. There is not a word about the fact that the Ethiopians are there without any international legitimacy. They're occupiers. They violated the UN Charter. They were not in any danger of being attacked, and they invaded. So this notion must also -- this notion that a coalition of the willing must be formed -- as you know, that was how the first Gulf War was fought. And if this coalition comes into place, which I hope will not, it will merely internationalize the crisis and make things even worse. But I hope the Europeans, in particular, and the Africans who are on the Security Council will not allow that to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for joining us, Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq when it was bombed there, attacked there, several years ago, now living in Kenya, speaking to us, though, from London.