What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
THE INSIDE HISTORY OF THE
ISRAEL LOBBY
Former top
CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison give CounterPunchers
the real scoop on the Israel lobby and precisely how powerful
it is. Read
how US presidents from Wilson, through FDR to Truman were manipulated
by the Zionist lobby; how Israel bent LBJ, Reagan and Clinton
to its purpose; how Bush's White House has been the West Wing
of the Israeli government; how Washington's revolving doors send
full-time Israel lobbyists from think-tanks to the National Security
Council and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. For all who want a
true measure of the Lobby's power, the Christisons' 8-page dossier,
exclusive to CounterPunch newsletter subscribers, is a MUST read. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains
fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation
for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
Labeling as 'dangerous' the violent
escalation in the Gaza Strip between supporters of the Fatah
and Hamas movements is an understatement, to say the least. The
situation in the Occupied Territories is more perilous than any
media account, however decent, can portray. In fact, the once
distanced possibility of a Palestinian civil war is forcing its
way back to the forefront, not merely as an Israeli fantasy,
but a looming, albeit wicked reality.
But to reduce the Gaza turmoil
to a few clichés, the likes of "If Palestinians cannot
get along with each other, how should they be expected to get
along with Israel", is either politically naïve or
self-serving. Viewing the current crisis outside its wider regional
context, it would rightly appear as if the Palestinian clash
is simply evidence of an inherently militant culture.
But if Palestinians were inherently
militant, then why, under the most extreme, frustrating and intimidating
of circumstances, did they manage to defy all odds on March 25,
voting in droves and achieving one of the most genuine democratic
experiences ever recorded in the history of the Middle East?
In a land that is still under the boots of Israeli soldiers,
holding democratic elections is most taxing, if not impossible
altogether. But Palestinians in the Occupied Territories did
it. International monitors seemed more shocked than relieved
at the transparency of the voting process.
International media, including
a large mass of Arab media celebrated the 'Palestinian model'
as one to pursue in what was hoped to become a propeller of Arab
democratic reforms. But something went horribly wrong: the wrong
party, Hamas won the elections in a landslide that left no room
for the traditional political elites of the Palestinian society.
Lowly refugee camp dwellers claimed a political role that was
for decades preserved for the 'upper crust', with their gun wielders,
entrusted to protect the interests of the aristocracy.
Unfortunately, most, if not
all media reports on this matter including those with typically
radical interpretations have incessantly failed to understand
this divergence. Instead, some choose to investigate the subject
from the more traditional slant - that of political Islam, while
others Israel and its patrons insist that 'Palestinians
have elected a terrorist government.' Even some Palestinians
seem unaware of the monumental social reconstruction that they've
introduced to the region. But why is this at all significant?
And how is it related to the current panic and chaos engulfing
Gaza?
Consider a CNBC televised forum
on May 21, where a panel of a few eloquent Arabs joined
with a friendly American Congressmen discussing the economic
and social challenges facing democratic reforms in the Middle
East. The Arab guests looked and sounded pleasant, assured investors
of the immense opportunities still available in their region,
concluding that a free market economy is the best option available
for the region to develop economically, socially and thus politically.
Interestingly, the Arab guests
were either members of ruling Arab families or they were tightly
connected to Arab regimes with bleak records of human rights
violations. And it is not as if the CNBC producers failed to
distinguish such a fact: the affiliations of those individuals
were proudly flashed at the bottom of the screen once every a
few seconds. Not one person genuinely attempted to represent
the unseen 'multitudes' who have suffered eternally under the
iniquitous political arrangements in their respective countries
and the equally unfair distribution of wealth and power in the
region.
This is the typical and prevailing
Western understanding of democracy in the Middle East, reflected
perhaps inadvertently, but indeed eloquently through
the lens of the media. The West lead by the US and EU -
wishes not to see serious restructuring of society, redistribution
of wealth and power and rewriting of the region's destiny to
serve those condemned to perpetual oppression and poverty. What
they are keenly interested in is complete 'liberalization' of
the economy, coupled with mediocre and highly symbolic political
gestures, enough to justify their meddling in the region's affairs,
but not enough to change the nature of the relationship between
the Arabs and the West, where the latter has been the greatest
beneficiary. Thus talks about women rights in Saudi Arabia, and
freedom of assembly in Egypt have largely been smokescreens:
that the US and EU are unreservedly protective of individual
liberties in the Arab world, even in 'friendly' countries.
It's precisely because of this
well-observed charade, maintained through decades of political
doubletalk and duplicity, that the Palestinian elections ignited
such anger, if not panicky responses from the West that went
as far as denying Palestinians food and medicine which
has already resulted in many deaths. Those who expressed shock
of why the Arabs are not doing much to quell the tragedy created
by the political boycott and economic siege of the Palestinians,
failed to comprehend the challenge, if not the threat, posed
by the first official defeat of the elites in Palestine and its
socio-economic implications on the whole region. While Fatah
was effectively the loser and a sore loser at that
in the Palestinian elections, the apprehension that such a scenario
might be repeated elsewhere in the Arab world, sent shockwaves
across the region, causing spontaneous, yet rational alliances
that unified Western powers, Israel, Palestinian elites (the
effective rulers of Fatah), the Arab League, and various Arab
countries some more tacitly than others thus creating
a highly effective state of siege, not against the Hamas government
- as has been claimed repeatedly - but rather against the Palestinian
people, who voted for Hamas. Of course, Aljazeera and other pan
Arab television stations made sure that the rest of the Arab
peoples elsewhere got the gist of the message as well: either
fake democracy or starvation.
Needless to say, a wide assortment
of Fatah elements are keenly interested in toppling what increasingly
looks like a temporary deviation in Arab politics. One needs
no 'insider information' to conclude that some in Fatah are intentionally
hoping to provoke a military confrontation, for as disastrous
as it may seems, it will ensure that those with the bigger guns
win, and later, entrust themselves in the historic mission of
'restoring democracy'. Neither Israel, nor neighboring Arabs
would find such a scenario too troubling, for a return to the
status quo is of essence.
But even then, Palestinians
cannot be absolved from their responsibility to prevent further
bloodshed. They owe it to themselves, and to the region as a
whole, to shield their democratic experience and to use it as
a means to counter their greatest challenge, that of the Israeli
occupation. A violent Palestinian showdown will ensure that Israel's
imperialist project will continue unhindered, and will serve
to fulfill Israel's convenient claims that Palestinians are essentially
chaotic, violent and "no partner of peace,' purportedly
leaving Israel with no other option but further unilateral 'disengagements'
in the West Bank. If such unilateralism effectively means robbing
Palestinians of their land, then be it, or so the Israeli logic
goes, for Israel's security is too precious to be compromised,
and Palestinians are too busy fighting each other to notice.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.