by David Rovics
The signs up all over the airport and various places elsewhere in town are calling it Hopenhagen, but everybody I know is calling it Cop-enhagen, which seems far more appropriate. The international media has been giving this lots of coverage, and rightly so. Of course much of the media is unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, so other things, such as the reason the protests are happening in the first place, can get lost.
Inside the Bella Center lots of stuff is going on. Namely the US, Australia and others leading the way in making sure nothing meaningful takes place there, while many other delegates and activists within try to make the best of it, or at least make the effort to thoroughly expose the bankruptcy of the position taken by the rich countries. The center itself is divided into floors where the big decisions are being made, and then the rest of the place for the little people, the delegates from unimportant countries like Tuvalu, representatives of small NGOs and other riffraff. Many of the folks involved with the process inside are dividing their time between the meetings and events outside in the streets and at the alternative conference going on elsewhere in town.
Copenhagen is a beautiful city. The architecture in the heart of the city is understated but exudes the wealth of a place that was once the capital of a fairly sizeable empire. Of course, though the Danish empire brought some riches home to Copenhagen, the wealth of modern Denmark is far greater, that being the product not so much of empire but of the Danish labor movement and Danish social democracy. It is this check on Danish capitalism that has allowed this wealth to be so impressively distributed, bringing Denmark a quality of life that is the envy of most anyone who knows about it.
Of course, as in any society there are different forces at work in Denmark. Most Danes would identify much more with those peasants who rebelled in the 17th century and helped pave the way for modern Denmark, not with the soldiers who massacred them, but those soldiers were also Danes. Most Danes would prefer to remember the heroic stories of resistance during the occupation of Denmark in the 1940's, but there were also many enthusiastic collaborators.
At so many points in history there are pivotal moments when things can go different ways, and something pushes events in a certain direction. The direction of social democracy has been the ascendant one in Denmark for quite some time, but this was able to happen for a variety of reasons – the strength and purpose of the Danish labor movement, the fear on the part of the rich of the spectre of communism, the moral bankruptcy of the leaders of society who collaborated with the Nazis after the war, and so on.
If people know anything about this most southerly of the Scandinavian countries they know it's full of windmills. Germany actually has lots more windmills than Denmark, but many of them are made in Denmark anyway, at the Vespas factories in Jutland (where they recently laid off thousands of workers).
There's a reason Denmark has been a pioneer in windmill technology, and it is, to a large extent, the Danish environmental movement. In the early 70's the Danish government was thinking about building their first nuclear reactor, following the example of Sweden, which has one right across the water, upwind. People inspired by ideas of communal living and experiential learning formed a community centered around a Free School near the little village of Ulfborg and began making plans to build the world's largest windmill. Over the course of three years, working with scientists, artisans and large numbers of hippies, they built the world's largest windmill. They refused to patent any of their ground-breaking technology, making it all available for anybody to use. Their windmill, still standing and providing power to the community 35 years later, is the prototype for the big windmills you'll see scattered around Denmark and the world.
This windmill provided more than just energy – it and the movement that built it provided political capital. Those in parliament arguing for a nuclear reactor lost the fight, and Denmark became a nation of windmills.
For the past decade or so, however, Denmark has been run by a coalition led by the neoliberal, xenophobic Vestre party. They have been privatizing hospitals and passing some of the most restrictive immigration legislation in the world. They have had troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and they have been forcibly deporting refugees back to these war-torn countries. Fueled by the changes to Danish society wrought by EU membership, this conservative coalition keeps winning elections. Along with a love of capitalism and a fear of foreigners, these people also can't stand hippies or punks or other dissenting elements, and they are on a quest to “normalize” the 900-person intentional community in the heart of Copenhagen known as Christiania. To that end they conducted a police raid early one morning in 2007 and destroyed a house they deemed to have been illegally constructed. (I got my first taste of Danish tear gas there a couple hours later.)
Shortly before this home demolition in Christiania, hundreds of Danish police had landed on the five-story squatted social center known as Ungdomshuset (“Youth House”) by helicopter early one morning. They fumigated the place with tear gas, arrested those inside, jailed them for several months, and proceeded to follow the new government policy of destruction of the house. Masked construction workers from Poland did the dirty work, since Danish unions forbid their members from doing work that requires police protection.
Over the course of the next 1-1/2 years, however, the government was forced to backtrack on their plan to civilize Denmark. The movement to support Ungdomshuset grew dramatically, involving a number of fairly significant riots and probably more importantly a weekly drill of marches every Thursday for a year and a half, involving many hundreds and often thousands every week. Eventually the chief of police and the mayor of Copenhagen had to admit that their policies had been a mistake and they gave the movement what it was demanding, a new house, bought and paid for by the city. (Leftwing foundations had offered to buy a new building for the movement but these offers were refused on principle – the line was that the government destroyed Ungdomshuset and they should replace it with something comparable.)
In the course of the riots and demonstrations around Ungdomshuset the police preemptively arrested hundreds of people on a few occasions. They weren't technically allowed to do this, but they came up with excuses. One eyewitness told me that the police started arresting people, claiming some of them were throwing rocks at them, although the rock-throwing had clearly started only after the police began arresting the assembled crowd.
A new law was passed in preparation for the climate summit which makes this kind of mass preemptive arrest perfectly legal – all the police need to do is arbitrarily determine that an area is designated as a “riot zone” and then they can arrest whoever they want. Any non-Danes arrested can be held for 40 days (including people who were born in Denmark but are not citizens, a reality for many here that may seem surprising to those in the US reading this). It went into effect a week before last Thursday, and since then the Danish police have carried out mass preemptive arrests that dwarf anything they've done before. They don't even need to pretend they had any justification for what is essentially collective punishment.
Those of you from the US reading this should be familiar with preemptive mass arrests. If you haven't had your head in the sand for the past few decades then you know this happens regularly at demonstrations throughout our great democracy. But it's new for Denmark, and it is a serious step in the direction of the Americanization, you could say, of the country. Being an American, I can say first-hand that emulating US policies in terms of law enforcement or in terms of the privatization and outsourcing of industry is all a very bad idea, at least as far as the vast majority of people are concerned – but the interests of a privileged minority are what moves people like the Danish Prime Minister, not the interests of society as a whole.
The policies and concerns of the new Danish government were represented eloquently by the kettling and mass arrest of a small march that was en route to commit acts of civil disobedience at the docks run by the Maersk corporation. Maersk is one of the world's richest men and runs one of the world's biggest shipping companies (look for his name, it's everywhere). Blockading docks is illegal, of course, and under the normal legal procedures in a democratic society people committing such acts would be told to stop and after a certain amount of time arrested, fined, brought to trial or whatever. Yesterday, however, as with the day before, hundreds of people were preemptively arrested, including many who had no intention of committing any illegal acts, such as one reporter for the Times of London.
I narrowly avoided being arrested two days ago. Of those arrested the overwhelming majority had nothing to do with the rock-throwing incident at the stock exchange that apparently set off the police action. The overwhelming majority didn't even know anything had happened at the stock exchange. All they knew was they were suddenly, randomly being arrested while taking part in a permitted march organized in part by the very mainstream Social Democratic Party. This was a family march involving tens of thousands of people with no civil disobedience or other illegal acts planned as part of it.
The new law may allow for mass preemptive arrests, but international treaties which Denmark has signed called the Geneva Conventions outline certain guidelines for the treatment of detainees which were clearly violated by the Danish police. People were handcuffed in uncomfortable positions for many hours on the frozen pavement, not allowed to move, not allowed to go to the toilet. Some fainted, many wet their pants, adding to the danger posed by the freezing temperatures. Elderly people were arrested along with teenagers. Anne Feeney's husband Juli, a 66-year-old Swede who had been slowly walking beside a carriage, was handcuffed and made to sit on the frozen ground. Among the marchers from Tvind, the Free School movement with whom I was walking, those arrested include headmasters and teachers from throughout Europe and Africa. Every one of the Norwegians I had just been hanging out with the day before from Trondheim were arrested.
I participated in a march that was very quickly thrown together involving several hundred people, starting near the Valby train station and going to the prison to which most detainees had been brought. The police surrounded (escorted?) us and seemed to be thinking about arresting all of us, but apparently ultimately thought better of it. Instead they informed us as we were marching towards the prison that most of those detained had just been released, and that we were welcome to march to the prison but no further.
Outside the prison – a temporary prison that used to be a brewery -- I heard more stories of how the Anarchist Black Cross representatives who had been attempting to provide soup and solace to people as they were being released were told to leave the premises. When they attempted to set up at the train station a kilometer away they were again told to leave. So as most people left the prison there wasn't even anyone to meet them and tell them where to find the train station. Most detainees were at no point given any food by the police. After six hours some had been given water.
Tonight after Naomi Klein, Lisa Fithian and others from Climate Justice Action held a meeting at the Big Tent in Christiania hundreds of police and dozens of police vehicles were involved in more or less laying siege to Christiania, which was defended, as in the past, by hundreds of masked, black-clad young people making burning barricades and throwing large numbers of bottles at the police, who then fired lots of tear gas. Tonight the police reportedly used a water cannon to extinguish the main burning barricade and arrested 200. Most of this happened while Anne Feeney and I were playing a concert in the Opera House, not far from the main entrance.
The future is not written. There was nothing inevitable about Denmark building a nuclear reactor, and because of the environmental movement it built windmills instead. Equally, there is nothing inevitable about Denmark becoming a neoliberal police state. The years ahead in Denmark -- and more broadly in the rest of Europe, run increasingly by pro-business and xenophobic governments – will determine in which direction things will go. And perhaps the next few days will be a particularly important moment in that process.
David Rovics
www.davidrovics.com
davidrovics.guestbooks.cc
www.soundclick.com/davidrovics
songwritersnotebook.blogspot.com
www.myspace.com/davidrovics
www.facebook.com/davidrovics
twitter.com/drovics
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Israeli settlers threaten 'Holocaust' in occupied Palestine
The BBC reports this morning that
Interesting choice of words, in particular from adepts of the "Holocaust religion1". See - the word "holocaust" comes from the Greek word ὁλόκαυστον (Holókauston): holos, "whole" and kaustos, "burnt" and it is a frankly bizarre choice of words to describe the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis during World War II considering that the vast majority of murdered Jews (and non-Jews) were, of course, *not* burned. In reality, of course, the reason for the choice of this word "Holocaust©" (written with a capital "c" and copyrighted to be applicable only to Jews) has nothing to do with the Nazi mode of corpse disposal and everything to do with the Biblical reference to "whole burnt offering which is brought up" to God, in Hebrew
(olah) (another frankly bizarre idea as it turns Hitler into some God-serving high priest, but nevermind).
The Old Testament is replete with references to a Messiah which will come one day and die for the sins of mankind, thereby freeing it from death and ushering it into a new Age. Christianity saw Christ as being this Messiah; the Holocaust religion sees the entire Jewish people (assuming, of course, that there is such thing, which, of course, is yet another a myth) as this Messiah. Take all the basic tenets of Christology (Christian dogmatic theology) and simply transpose them from Christ to "the Jewish people" and you will have a pretty good idea of what these self-worshipping racist crackpots actually think about themselves! High-Priest, King of Kings, Son of God - you name it, they claim it....
In this context, the slogan "we will burn you all" is clearly not an innocent choice of words. It is, in fact, a promise to do exactly that - to burn all of the Palestinians in a (real) holocaust (small 'c', copyright free). It would be irresponsible to dismiss this threat as the ravings of a small fringe of lunatics. Not after the use of phosphorus in Gaza, which many Israelis came to watch from specially prepared tourist observation stations. Not after the mass bombing of Lebanon in 2006. Not from a country which, unlike Iran, has never signed the NTP and which sits on several hundred nuclear weapons.
Sadly, and frighteningly, there is a consensus in Israel around the basic idea of taking over all of Palestine and either expelling or exterminating all the remaining Palestinians who still live there. That has been the not-so-secret program of all the Israeli governments since the foundation of this state and the vast majority of the Israeli people steadfastly support it. They differ only in the choice of methods, in tactical details if you wish, but the fundamental strategic goal is clear: a genocide of the Palestinian people.
What is taking place every day in occupied Palestine is a "slow-motion" genocide, an attempt to exterminate an entire people. This genocide is unique not only in that it is executed in slow motion, over many decades now, but by the fact that it is public knowledge, that not a single aspect of this abject enterprise is hidden from view. It is the first, and probably only, genocide in history which is a public genocide. Everybody knows about it, and everybody chooses to simply look away. As for our politicians, they will continue to mantrically repeat the the Zionist slogan of "never again" and spend their time (and our money) prosecuting the likes of Demjanuk for being an "accessory" to Nazi crimes.
But who cares, right?
"Hey, honey, what is the Holocaust© movie for this holiday season?"
The Saker
_______
1 The commandment of this cult are as follows:
1. Remember what Amalek (the Non-Jews) has done to thee.
2. Thou shalt never compare THE HOLOCAUST with any other Genocide.
3. Thou shalt never compare the Nazi crimes with those of Israel.
4. Thou shalt never doubt the number of 6 million Jewish victims.
5. Thou shalt never doubt that the majority of them died in gas chambers.
6. Thou shalt not doubt the central role of SATAN Hitler in the extermination of the Jews.
7. Thou shalt never doubt the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state.
8. Thou shalt not criticize the leading Jewish organizations and the Israeli government.
9. Thou must never criticize Jewish organizations and the Zionist leadership for abandoning the European Jewry in the Nazi era
10.Thou shalt take these commandments literally and never shew mercy to them that doubt!
Jewish settlers are suspected of being behind an attack on a mosque in the north of the occupied West Bank. Attackers set fire to bookshelves and a large area of carpet in the mosque, and sprayed graffiti in Hebrew on a wall (...) Israeli human rights groups have accused the police and army of running inadequate investigations into such incidents. One group reported that nine out of 10 investigations into alleged attacks on Palestinians by settlers end without anyone being charged. (...) One of the slogans sprayed on the wall of the mosque in Yasuf read: "Get ready to pay the price," Israeli public radio reported. Another read: "We will burn you all."
Interesting choice of words, in particular from adepts of the "Holocaust religion1". See - the word "holocaust" comes from the Greek word ὁλόκαυστον (Holókauston): holos, "whole" and kaustos, "burnt" and it is a frankly bizarre choice of words to describe the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis during World War II considering that the vast majority of murdered Jews (and non-Jews) were, of course, *not* burned. In reality, of course, the reason for the choice of this word "Holocaust©" (written with a capital "c" and copyrighted to be applicable only to Jews) has nothing to do with the Nazi mode of corpse disposal and everything to do with the Biblical reference to "whole burnt offering which is brought up" to God, in Hebrew
(olah) (another frankly bizarre idea as it turns Hitler into some God-serving high priest, but nevermind).The Old Testament is replete with references to a Messiah which will come one day and die for the sins of mankind, thereby freeing it from death and ushering it into a new Age. Christianity saw Christ as being this Messiah; the Holocaust religion sees the entire Jewish people (assuming, of course, that there is such thing, which, of course, is yet another a myth) as this Messiah. Take all the basic tenets of Christology (Christian dogmatic theology) and simply transpose them from Christ to "the Jewish people" and you will have a pretty good idea of what these self-worshipping racist crackpots actually think about themselves! High-Priest, King of Kings, Son of God - you name it, they claim it....
In this context, the slogan "we will burn you all" is clearly not an innocent choice of words. It is, in fact, a promise to do exactly that - to burn all of the Palestinians in a (real) holocaust (small 'c', copyright free). It would be irresponsible to dismiss this threat as the ravings of a small fringe of lunatics. Not after the use of phosphorus in Gaza, which many Israelis came to watch from specially prepared tourist observation stations. Not after the mass bombing of Lebanon in 2006. Not from a country which, unlike Iran, has never signed the NTP and which sits on several hundred nuclear weapons.
Sadly, and frighteningly, there is a consensus in Israel around the basic idea of taking over all of Palestine and either expelling or exterminating all the remaining Palestinians who still live there. That has been the not-so-secret program of all the Israeli governments since the foundation of this state and the vast majority of the Israeli people steadfastly support it. They differ only in the choice of methods, in tactical details if you wish, but the fundamental strategic goal is clear: a genocide of the Palestinian people.
What is taking place every day in occupied Palestine is a "slow-motion" genocide, an attempt to exterminate an entire people. This genocide is unique not only in that it is executed in slow motion, over many decades now, but by the fact that it is public knowledge, that not a single aspect of this abject enterprise is hidden from view. It is the first, and probably only, genocide in history which is a public genocide. Everybody knows about it, and everybody chooses to simply look away. As for our politicians, they will continue to mantrically repeat the the Zionist slogan of "never again" and spend their time (and our money) prosecuting the likes of Demjanuk for being an "accessory" to Nazi crimes.
But who cares, right?
"Hey, honey, what is the Holocaust© movie for this holiday season?"
The Saker
_______
1 The commandment of this cult are as follows:
1. Remember what Amalek (the Non-Jews) has done to thee.
2. Thou shalt never compare THE HOLOCAUST with any other Genocide.
3. Thou shalt never compare the Nazi crimes with those of Israel.
4. Thou shalt never doubt the number of 6 million Jewish victims.
5. Thou shalt never doubt that the majority of them died in gas chambers.
6. Thou shalt not doubt the central role of SATAN Hitler in the extermination of the Jews.
7. Thou shalt never doubt the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state.
8. Thou shalt not criticize the leading Jewish organizations and the Israeli government.
9. Thou must never criticize Jewish organizations and the Zionist leadership for abandoning the European Jewry in the Nazi era
10.Thou shalt take these commandments literally and never shew mercy to them that doubt!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check
by Stephen M. Walt for Foreign Policy
There is an amazing story in Ha'aretz today on the "pro-Israel" litmus test that determines who is permitted to serve in the United States government. Here's the sort of lede you're not likely to read in the New York Times or Washington Post:
Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."
The story goes on to rehearse what happened to Chas Freeman (whose appointment was derailed by the Israel lobby because he voiced a few mild criticisms of Israel's behavior) and reports that similar complaints are now being raised against the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel. Even more bizarrely, the Zionist Organization of America and other rightwing Jewish groups are complaining about the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to direct the Office to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism. Why? Apparently she's been involved with J Street and other "leftwing" organizations that ZOA et al deem insufficiently ardent in their support for the Jewish state, and has suggested that progressive forces need to be more vocal in advancing the peace process.
One has to feel a certain sympathy for Ms. Rosenthal, who is forced to defend her own appointment by telling an interviewer:
I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely."
These are fine sentiments, but isn't it odd that she has to defend her qualifications for a position in the U.S. government by saying how much she "loves" a foreign country? For an American official in her position, what matters is that she loves America, and that she believes anti-semitism is a hateful philosophy that should be opposed vigorously. Whether she loves Israel or France or Thailand or Namibia, etc., is irrelevant. (And yes, it's entirely possible to loathe anti-Semitism and not love Israel).
But the real lesson of all these episodes is the effect of this litmus test on the foreign policy community more broadly. Groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel, and Rosenthal because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on. And it works. Even if the lobby doesn't manage to block every single appointment, they can make any administration think twice about a potentially "controversial" choice and use the threat to stifle open discourse among virtually all members of the mainstream foreign policy community (and certainly anyone who aspires to public service in Washington).
The result, of course, is the U.S. Middle East policy (and U.S. foreign policy more generally) is reserved for those who are either steadfastly devoted to the "special relationship" or who have been intimidated into silence. The result? U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of "experts" whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure. If a few more Americans read Ha'aretz, they might start to figure this out.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Obama's Nobel & START: Peacemaker arrives empty-handed
There are many a smirk as US President Barack Obama flies to Oslo to be crowned Peacenik of 2009, but it is the Russians who get the prize for taking the shine off Obama's trophy, notes Eric Walberg
Obama desperately needed a new nuclear arms treaty to replace START I to provide some justification for the Nobel Committee's gamble. The award in the face of US imperial wars and hubris is proving to be extremely embarrassing to everyone, left and right. In awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama on 9 October, the selection committee “in particular looked at Obama’s vision and work toward a world without atomic weapons,” giving him an out, if he could at least bring a nuclear arms treaty with him.
Instead, US inspectors packed their bags last week and left Russian nuclear sites unmonitored for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union almost two decades ago. The expiration of the treaty and stalled talks on a replacement dealt a blow to those in the Obama administration who had hoped to achieve at least this one tangible step before the president goes to Norway.
The Kremlin knows when it has a good hand, and it coolly played along with White House officials frantically trying to broker a signing ceremony for the new START treaty in the Czech Republic on 11 December, after Obama's visit Copenhagen for global climate treaty negotiations and his trip to Oslo. Keep in mind that the Czechs are gung-ho to be part of US missile plans for Europe, which are clearly aimed at Russia as much as any other state. How fitting to have the Russians grovel in Prague and cheer on the war president as the world's symbol of peace and goodwill.
But few children older than six or seven believe in Santa, and the supposedly "minor" details left to negotiate to make sure Santa arrives on schedule at the White House are in fact not so minor.
Moscow December 2009 is not Moscow July 1991, when START I was signed, just weeks before the coup which deposed Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, as the Soviet Union descended into chaos. The original START allowed for US inspectors to live near the country’s primary missile production facility in Votkinsk in the Udmurtia republic, deep in the heart of Russia, and carry out intrusive inspections on demand, something which Gorbachev was in no position to demand from Bush senior.
The need to re-evaluate this lopsided one-way monitoring process just cannot be papered over. It amounts to whether Moscow will accept its subservient role in the US-run nuclear club or not. Russia wants to end the imbalance, while Washington wants to maintain and even increase its access to Russia military secrets.
The other issue -- how many warheads and launchers each side will be allowed -- probably could be settled without too much effort. The Russian government has said it is more than happy to reduce its strategic arms stockpiles by “several fold” if the US would only give up plans for Star Wars and its planned European bases. After all, what difference does it make if you can destroy the world twice as opposed to only once?
But, after Obama promised not to put its missiles in Russia's backyard in September in order to clinch a deal with the Russians to allow NATO weapons and armies to pass through Russia on their way to Afghanistan, his sundry minions have gone out of their way to backpedal. The Czechs and Poles are increasing their troop numbers in Afghanistan, after all, and they are not easily mollified. Likewise, US and NATO officials continue to assure Ukraine and Georgia that they will soon be part of the happy NATO family, despite Obama's obvious lack of interest in thereby further provoking the Russians. These unstated ploys are really just as much sticking points as the officially acknowledged ones.
START I was indeed historic. In 1985, at the height of the Cold War, the US and Russia possessed 23,000 and 39,000 operational warheads each. By 1995, these arsenals were more than halved to 11,000 and 16,000 respectively. When the Soviet Union was dissolved on 31 December, 1991, Russia and the former Soviet republics with nuclear capabilities (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazahkstan) agreed, in the Lisbon Protocol signed on 5 December, 1994, to abide by the treaty until its expiry 15 years later. Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, says that since the START I treaty was signed, the US and Russia have slashed their strategic nuclear arsenals even more. "Today, the United States deploys approximately 2,200 strategic warheads, and Russia deploys somewhere slightly above 2,200 strategic warheads today on a smaller number of strategic delivery vehicles."
The treaty looked doomed as time ran out under US president George W Bush, who dismayed the Russians as he pursued a policy of confrontation and encirclement of Russia and launched war after war abroad. But Obama seemed to promise a less confrontation approach with his talk of "pressing the reset button" with Russia, and during his state visit to Russia last July, Obama and Medvedev agreed to hold talks dedicated to extending START I.
With Obama's embarrassing dilemma -- the Nobel Peace Prize and his vow to intensify the war in Afghanistan -- he was keen to bring to Oslo at least a scrap of paper to justify the committee's faith in him. The Russians, eager to change the trajectory of their relations with Washington, played along. However, to expect the Russians to lie down and play dead again was foolish on the part of Obama's advisers. Sergei Markov, a United Russia State Duma deputy, said the main difficulty would be achieving a treaty that viewed Russia and the US as equals.“It was very difficult to negotiate a balance when in the Cold War the balance of power was 50-50, but in the 1990s it was 90-10 for the US. Today we are still far from equals,” he said, hinting at what might be the case if Russia continues its recovery and the US continues its decline.
But it is not just Russia that is the spoiler. Otfried Nassauer, director of the Berlin Information Centre for Transatlantic Security, said the US has also shown obstinacy on some issues for domestic political reasons. Obama needs at least seven Republican votes in the Senate to ensure ratification.
Anatoly Khramchikhin, an analyst with the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, said the political impetus might be lost if talks run into next year. “It is just very hard to bring the interests of both sides into one place,” he said.
As START I was due to expire, the US and Russian presidents issued a joint statement: "We express our commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enters into force at the earliest possible date." In July, Obama and Medvedev agreed to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear warheads to 1,700 each within seven years, a START I Mark II if you like, though they did not sign anything.
So we can hope that Obama's shiny medal will at least remind him of this one small step he has made towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons, a goal that he has expressed more than once. During his visit to Prague in April, for instance, Obama pledged to push for ratification of the 13-year-old Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, much to the displeasure of many a US hawk.
Ironically, it may be easier to pursue his dream without a new treaty, which would need those pesky seven Senate Republicans to get it ratified. The Senate is notorious for balking at approving peace treaties, most notably, the 10-year-old Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines. Obama supported it back in 2006, but as president, apparently is unable to do anything about getting the Senate to ratify it. Bemoans Senator Patrick Leahy: "The administration’s approach to this issue has been cursory, half-hearted, and deeply disappointing. One would hope that an administration that portrays itself as a global leader on issues of humanitarian law and arms control recognises this is an opportunity."
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
Obama desperately needed a new nuclear arms treaty to replace START I to provide some justification for the Nobel Committee's gamble. The award in the face of US imperial wars and hubris is proving to be extremely embarrassing to everyone, left and right. In awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama on 9 October, the selection committee “in particular looked at Obama’s vision and work toward a world without atomic weapons,” giving him an out, if he could at least bring a nuclear arms treaty with him.
Instead, US inspectors packed their bags last week and left Russian nuclear sites unmonitored for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union almost two decades ago. The expiration of the treaty and stalled talks on a replacement dealt a blow to those in the Obama administration who had hoped to achieve at least this one tangible step before the president goes to Norway.
The Kremlin knows when it has a good hand, and it coolly played along with White House officials frantically trying to broker a signing ceremony for the new START treaty in the Czech Republic on 11 December, after Obama's visit Copenhagen for global climate treaty negotiations and his trip to Oslo. Keep in mind that the Czechs are gung-ho to be part of US missile plans for Europe, which are clearly aimed at Russia as much as any other state. How fitting to have the Russians grovel in Prague and cheer on the war president as the world's symbol of peace and goodwill.
But few children older than six or seven believe in Santa, and the supposedly "minor" details left to negotiate to make sure Santa arrives on schedule at the White House are in fact not so minor.
Moscow December 2009 is not Moscow July 1991, when START I was signed, just weeks before the coup which deposed Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, as the Soviet Union descended into chaos. The original START allowed for US inspectors to live near the country’s primary missile production facility in Votkinsk in the Udmurtia republic, deep in the heart of Russia, and carry out intrusive inspections on demand, something which Gorbachev was in no position to demand from Bush senior.
The need to re-evaluate this lopsided one-way monitoring process just cannot be papered over. It amounts to whether Moscow will accept its subservient role in the US-run nuclear club or not. Russia wants to end the imbalance, while Washington wants to maintain and even increase its access to Russia military secrets.
The other issue -- how many warheads and launchers each side will be allowed -- probably could be settled without too much effort. The Russian government has said it is more than happy to reduce its strategic arms stockpiles by “several fold” if the US would only give up plans for Star Wars and its planned European bases. After all, what difference does it make if you can destroy the world twice as opposed to only once?
But, after Obama promised not to put its missiles in Russia's backyard in September in order to clinch a deal with the Russians to allow NATO weapons and armies to pass through Russia on their way to Afghanistan, his sundry minions have gone out of their way to backpedal. The Czechs and Poles are increasing their troop numbers in Afghanistan, after all, and they are not easily mollified. Likewise, US and NATO officials continue to assure Ukraine and Georgia that they will soon be part of the happy NATO family, despite Obama's obvious lack of interest in thereby further provoking the Russians. These unstated ploys are really just as much sticking points as the officially acknowledged ones.
START I was indeed historic. In 1985, at the height of the Cold War, the US and Russia possessed 23,000 and 39,000 operational warheads each. By 1995, these arsenals were more than halved to 11,000 and 16,000 respectively. When the Soviet Union was dissolved on 31 December, 1991, Russia and the former Soviet republics with nuclear capabilities (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazahkstan) agreed, in the Lisbon Protocol signed on 5 December, 1994, to abide by the treaty until its expiry 15 years later. Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, says that since the START I treaty was signed, the US and Russia have slashed their strategic nuclear arsenals even more. "Today, the United States deploys approximately 2,200 strategic warheads, and Russia deploys somewhere slightly above 2,200 strategic warheads today on a smaller number of strategic delivery vehicles."
The treaty looked doomed as time ran out under US president George W Bush, who dismayed the Russians as he pursued a policy of confrontation and encirclement of Russia and launched war after war abroad. But Obama seemed to promise a less confrontation approach with his talk of "pressing the reset button" with Russia, and during his state visit to Russia last July, Obama and Medvedev agreed to hold talks dedicated to extending START I.
With Obama's embarrassing dilemma -- the Nobel Peace Prize and his vow to intensify the war in Afghanistan -- he was keen to bring to Oslo at least a scrap of paper to justify the committee's faith in him. The Russians, eager to change the trajectory of their relations with Washington, played along. However, to expect the Russians to lie down and play dead again was foolish on the part of Obama's advisers. Sergei Markov, a United Russia State Duma deputy, said the main difficulty would be achieving a treaty that viewed Russia and the US as equals.“It was very difficult to negotiate a balance when in the Cold War the balance of power was 50-50, but in the 1990s it was 90-10 for the US. Today we are still far from equals,” he said, hinting at what might be the case if Russia continues its recovery and the US continues its decline.
But it is not just Russia that is the spoiler. Otfried Nassauer, director of the Berlin Information Centre for Transatlantic Security, said the US has also shown obstinacy on some issues for domestic political reasons. Obama needs at least seven Republican votes in the Senate to ensure ratification.
Anatoly Khramchikhin, an analyst with the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, said the political impetus might be lost if talks run into next year. “It is just very hard to bring the interests of both sides into one place,” he said.
As START I was due to expire, the US and Russian presidents issued a joint statement: "We express our commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enters into force at the earliest possible date." In July, Obama and Medvedev agreed to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear warheads to 1,700 each within seven years, a START I Mark II if you like, though they did not sign anything.
So we can hope that Obama's shiny medal will at least remind him of this one small step he has made towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons, a goal that he has expressed more than once. During his visit to Prague in April, for instance, Obama pledged to push for ratification of the 13-year-old Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, much to the displeasure of many a US hawk.
Ironically, it may be easier to pursue his dream without a new treaty, which would need those pesky seven Senate Republicans to get it ratified. The Senate is notorious for balking at approving peace treaties, most notably, the 10-year-old Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines. Obama supported it back in 2006, but as president, apparently is unable to do anything about getting the Senate to ratify it. Bemoans Senator Patrick Leahy: "The administration’s approach to this issue has been cursory, half-hearted, and deeply disappointing. One would hope that an administration that portrays itself as a global leader on issues of humanitarian law and arms control recognises this is an opportunity."
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
Monday, December 7, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Hezbollah manifesto and Hassan Nasrallah press conference
Dear friends,
I have received the full translation of the recently adopted Hezbollah Manifesto and a transcript of the subsequent press conference by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. These are long documents and rather than posting them here I have made them available for download at this location:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/htordymwmqw/hizballahmanifesto.zip
Both documents are included in the zipped file.
These are important documents for the future of the Middle-East, in particular at a time when the Obama Administration is executing a major military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan and when the USraelian Empire is poised to strike at Iran. I encourage you to read these documents.
The Saker
I have received the full translation of the recently adopted Hezbollah Manifesto and a transcript of the subsequent press conference by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. These are long documents and rather than posting them here I have made them available for download at this location:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/htordymwmqw/hizballahmanifesto.zip
Both documents are included in the zipped file.
These are important documents for the future of the Middle-East, in particular at a time when the Obama Administration is executing a major military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan and when the USraelian Empire is poised to strike at Iran. I encourage you to read these documents.
The Saker
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Gilad Atzmon: "Ethics and morality are far more crucial than some UN decision"
It is a huge pleasure for me to share with you the transcript of a Q&A by email which I did recently with Gilad Atzmon. I first discovered Gilad the jazz musician years ago when I myself was still playing jazz guitar (btw - I recently reviewed his latest album here), and only later did I learn of his political activism. Having since read as much of his writings as I could find, I now consider him to be one of the most intelligent, well-informed and insightful political activists ever. What I most love and respect in Gilad are his absolute commitment to the truth and his equally forceful determination to speak that truth to power; I can only begin to imagine the vitriolic hatred which Gilad elicits from the Zionist crazies which he relentlessly denounces.
I am deeply grateful to Gilad for taking the time for this Q&A even though he is very busy.
The Saker
-------
VS: Two leading intellectuals have recently made strong arguments for the so-called "right to exist" of Israel. Norman Finkestein's argument is simple, yet powerful. He says the international community, via the UN General Assembly and the World Court, has already decided what the solution of the conflict should be: two states in the 1967 borders, side by side, with refugees either back or compensated. He points to the fact that all the countries in the world agree on that except the Israel, the USA, and some small south Pacific Islands. He does not claim that this is the best solution, but he says that this is the only doable one. He therefore dismisses the "One State" solution as unachievable.
GA: In general, I am trying to avoid any discussion to do with discourse resolution. I avoid it for a few reasons. I do not live in the region and it is not down to me to decide for the Palestinian what country, political setting or resolution they should follow. However, I may use the opportunity to suggest that the Two State Solution doesn't address the Palestinian cause. It is impractical for the Israelis will never let refugees into their shtetle state. But most importantly, the right of return or the right to live on your land is not a subject to international community decisions or laws. It is actually a moral right. And as far as I am concerned as an individual, ethics and morality are far more crucial than some UN decisions that are made by Zionised politicians and corrupted diplomats.
VS: Shlomo Sand has recently stated that "even the child born of a rape has the right to live. Yes, 1948 was a rape, and that rape gave birth to Israel, but that is now a reality which cannot be dismissed".
GA: It is hard to avoid the fact that the "rape child" is living on a "stolen land', It is impossible to deny the fact that the "child" is now more than sixty years old and yet, he is still driven by murderous zeal. The "child"’ is yet to come to term with his original sin. In fact the "rape child" has transformed into a rapist father and then grandfather.
VS: I notice two fundamental features of these arguments. Both Finkestein and Sand fundamentally accept the authority of the United Nations to create a Jewish state in Palestine and both Finkestein and Sand seem to believe that the fundamental nature of that state has no bearing on the topic of the legitimacy of its existence. However, the creation of a state - any state - in Palestine without the consultation of the local people seems to me to violate the principle of the right of self determination.
GA: You are absolutely right. However, I am not that fascinated about the "right of self determination" for this right was exploited by the Jewish national project for more than a century, For some reason the national Jew believes that he is entitled to self determine himself on the expense of others.
VS: The principle of international law which states that no territory can legitimately be acquired by war would indicate that only the 1948 borders of Israel would have a legal basis and even here this basis would be tenuous because these borders were eventually agreed to with Arab neighbors and not with any body representing the Palestinians.
GA: Were they? After 60 years of Israeli barbarism and total failure of international community and of the international law to support the Palestinian, I just do not hold my breath any more. I believe that Palestinian will liberate themselves. Israel is living on borrowed time. I would invest my intellectual effort supporting Palestinian resistance.
VS: The other thing which bothers me is that in discussing the solution to the Middle-East conflict (somewhat of a misnomer), neither Finkestein nor Sand look at the nature of the self-declared "Jewish state". They seem to be talking about a state like Belgium or Spain. But Israel is qualitatively different. It is the last openly racist state on the planet, it is built on a mythology which many (such as Garaudy or Sands) have debunked.
GA: It is not just racist, it is also nationalist and expansionist, murderous and most concerning, democratic. Every Israeli is basically liable to the crimes committed by his state.
VS: Israel is also the Ueber-terrorist state of the planet which is conducing a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians and it is a state which has comprehensively rejected any kind of abidance by the rules of international law or even basic civilized behavior. Whether looked at from a legal or a moral point of view, the existence of a racist state like Israel is a monstrosity, a disgrace for all of mankind. So even if a child born of a rape has the right to exist, does that still mean that when this child turns into an adult self-worshiping mass-murderer it's existence is still a "right"? It is obvious that the only people who have a right to decide what solution is, or is not, acceptable to this conflict are the Palestinians themselves. But without prejudging of what they might decide, what is your opinion of the arguments presented by Finkelstein and Sand and what do you make of the so-called "right to exist" issue?
GA: I assume that everyone in the region has the right to decide. However, the Israelis have lost the battle. They cannot dictate a solution. I would agree that every nation should enjoy the right to exist. However this right cannot be celebrated on the expense of other nations or people.
VS: you say that "the Israelis have lost the battle". Why? Are they not being successful in their slow-motion genocide of the Palestinians?
GA: Indeed, the Israelis do realize that implementing genocidal measures is counter effective. Israel does realize that its Hasbara project is falling apart due to its unacceptable tactics. Some of its ministers and military official are under real threat of being arrested. If anything, the Palestinian movement and the Hamas included bought a lot of legitimacy during and after operation Cast Lead.
VS: The USA under Obama supports Israel as much as Bush did, even though the rhetoric is somewhat different.
GA: I am not so sure about it.. Monitoring Israeli press and other sources I get a different impression. Israel seems to be rather hesitant with Obama administration. However, Obama is irrelevant to the topic. He was elected by the American people to lead their nation rather than to liberate the Palestinian people. Palestinian people will liberate themselves, with Obama or without him. If Obama manage to pull out American soldiers from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan this would be a major step forward.
VS: To make things worse, Israel is now openly threatening Iran with war. And you yourself admit that these polices do have the support of a majority the Israeli public opinion. Where do you see the signs of the defeat of Israel and what kind of scenario do you envision for this defeat to become indisputable?
GA: I see the wall as an Israeli acknowledgment that Israel is a fearful entity. Israel accepts that time is running out. This itself leads to total panic. They do not have any long term solution within their disposal.
VS: speaking of the Israeli public opinion I want to ask you a simple question: what is wrong with them?!
GA: Let me say it clearly, something is wrong, what is it? I do not know. I spend much of my energy exposing the symptoms. What is the disease exactly, I do not know for sure but I guess that it is something between supremacy, chosenness and self loving.
VS: Surely the Israelis are "people like everybody else",
GA: In fact it is not that clear. The Zionists indoctrination may as well make them into a very dangerous collective, far more dangerous than anything we are familiar with.
VS: Yet they clearly support genocide, gross human rights violations, systematic violations of the laws of war, a racist ideology ("Jewish state"). What are the roots of all this evil?
GA: It must have something to do with their secular interpretation of the Bible and endorsement of the Holocaust religion as their main precept.
VS: How can people who emigrated to Israel from all over the world and who were presumably educated in very diverse circumstances all come together and unite a racist, self-worshiping and utterly inhuman ideology?!
GA: You probably hit the nail here, once you are a Zionist it doesn’t matter where you come from. You become a vengeance driven possessed human being. You do not even have to be Jewish. As we know, many of the Russian new immigrants to Israel were very quick to endorse the most militant right wing Ideas in spite of the fact that many of them were not Jewish at all.
VS: Rabbi Yeshaiahu Karelitz once said that "the secular-Jewish cart is empty" and Shlomo Sand, who quotes him, also agrees with him. Do you agree with that?
GA: For sure, but the secular and nationalist do manage to fill the empty box with a lot of phantasmic and imaginary content. As you probably know I insist that Jewish Marxist and Jewish anti Zionism are not different categorically from Zionism. They are both tribally orientated rather than universally driven.
VS: In your opinion, what cultural, national traits or ethos do Jews have in common which distinguishes them from non-Jews?
GA: Suffering, they are in love with the tail of suffering. This is probably why Israeli scholar Yeshayahu Leibowitz suggested that Holocaust religion is the new Jewish religion. However this is where the Jewish tragedy forms. The Holocaust religion lacks goodness, mercy or kindness. It offers redemption through vengeance and self love.
VS: Considering that most self-identified Jews are not religious, how could rabbinical Judaism define or determine their identity?
GA: It doesn't. Secular Jews are defined by negation. Rather than by what they are, they are defined by what they aren't. While the observant Jew is defined by his belief system. He follows the Halacha law, he observes the Sabbath and so on, the secular Jew is defined by a set of negations. He is not a religious Jew, yet he is not a Goy, he is neither American, English or French. The emancipated secular Jew is not defined by positive qualities but rather by some different sets of negations.
VS: Then what is the positive content of the Jewish self-awareness and how does it translate into the desire to either live in a racist and genocidal state or to support such a state from afar?
GA: Positive content is a relative notion. I assume that Jewish nationalism left right and center can be realized as futile craving for authenticity.
VS: Last question: you say that the Palestinians will liberate themselves - how do you see that happening? Do you believe that like the South African Whites, the Israeli Jews will come to realize that their racist regime is immoral and "switch sides" or do you think that, like in Algeria, the colonizers will have to leave on a boat?
GA: No, I do not believe that Israelis will ever come to acknowledge their immorality. Self mirroring is foreign to the Jewish philosophy and identity both religious and secular. I believe that Israel will be defeated into submission by facts on the ground. They are turning into a minority. Time is Israel’s biggest enemy. The only one who can save the Israelis of a rapid demographic disaster are the orthodox Jewish communities. Seemingly the Israeli resent their orthodox brothers more than the Palestinians. Israel is an isolated entity in a region that is becoming more and more unforgiving . Israel is entangled with its neighbors. At a certain stage it won’t be able to maintain its security by heavy policing. This will be the end of it.
I am deeply grateful to Gilad for taking the time for this Q&A even though he is very busy.
The Saker
-------
VS: Two leading intellectuals have recently made strong arguments for the so-called "right to exist" of Israel. Norman Finkestein's argument is simple, yet powerful. He says the international community, via the UN General Assembly and the World Court, has already decided what the solution of the conflict should be: two states in the 1967 borders, side by side, with refugees either back or compensated. He points to the fact that all the countries in the world agree on that except the Israel, the USA, and some small south Pacific Islands. He does not claim that this is the best solution, but he says that this is the only doable one. He therefore dismisses the "One State" solution as unachievable.
GA: In general, I am trying to avoid any discussion to do with discourse resolution. I avoid it for a few reasons. I do not live in the region and it is not down to me to decide for the Palestinian what country, political setting or resolution they should follow. However, I may use the opportunity to suggest that the Two State Solution doesn't address the Palestinian cause. It is impractical for the Israelis will never let refugees into their shtetle state. But most importantly, the right of return or the right to live on your land is not a subject to international community decisions or laws. It is actually a moral right. And as far as I am concerned as an individual, ethics and morality are far more crucial than some UN decisions that are made by Zionised politicians and corrupted diplomats.
VS: Shlomo Sand has recently stated that "even the child born of a rape has the right to live. Yes, 1948 was a rape, and that rape gave birth to Israel, but that is now a reality which cannot be dismissed".
GA: It is hard to avoid the fact that the "rape child" is living on a "stolen land', It is impossible to deny the fact that the "child" is now more than sixty years old and yet, he is still driven by murderous zeal. The "child"’ is yet to come to term with his original sin. In fact the "rape child" has transformed into a rapist father and then grandfather.
VS: I notice two fundamental features of these arguments. Both Finkestein and Sand fundamentally accept the authority of the United Nations to create a Jewish state in Palestine and both Finkestein and Sand seem to believe that the fundamental nature of that state has no bearing on the topic of the legitimacy of its existence. However, the creation of a state - any state - in Palestine without the consultation of the local people seems to me to violate the principle of the right of self determination.
GA: You are absolutely right. However, I am not that fascinated about the "right of self determination" for this right was exploited by the Jewish national project for more than a century, For some reason the national Jew believes that he is entitled to self determine himself on the expense of others.
VS: The principle of international law which states that no territory can legitimately be acquired by war would indicate that only the 1948 borders of Israel would have a legal basis and even here this basis would be tenuous because these borders were eventually agreed to with Arab neighbors and not with any body representing the Palestinians.
GA: Were they? After 60 years of Israeli barbarism and total failure of international community and of the international law to support the Palestinian, I just do not hold my breath any more. I believe that Palestinian will liberate themselves. Israel is living on borrowed time. I would invest my intellectual effort supporting Palestinian resistance.
VS: The other thing which bothers me is that in discussing the solution to the Middle-East conflict (somewhat of a misnomer), neither Finkestein nor Sand look at the nature of the self-declared "Jewish state". They seem to be talking about a state like Belgium or Spain. But Israel is qualitatively different. It is the last openly racist state on the planet, it is built on a mythology which many (such as Garaudy or Sands) have debunked.
GA: It is not just racist, it is also nationalist and expansionist, murderous and most concerning, democratic. Every Israeli is basically liable to the crimes committed by his state.
VS: Israel is also the Ueber-terrorist state of the planet which is conducing a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians and it is a state which has comprehensively rejected any kind of abidance by the rules of international law or even basic civilized behavior. Whether looked at from a legal or a moral point of view, the existence of a racist state like Israel is a monstrosity, a disgrace for all of mankind. So even if a child born of a rape has the right to exist, does that still mean that when this child turns into an adult self-worshiping mass-murderer it's existence is still a "right"? It is obvious that the only people who have a right to decide what solution is, or is not, acceptable to this conflict are the Palestinians themselves. But without prejudging of what they might decide, what is your opinion of the arguments presented by Finkelstein and Sand and what do you make of the so-called "right to exist" issue?
GA: I assume that everyone in the region has the right to decide. However, the Israelis have lost the battle. They cannot dictate a solution. I would agree that every nation should enjoy the right to exist. However this right cannot be celebrated on the expense of other nations or people.
VS: you say that "the Israelis have lost the battle". Why? Are they not being successful in their slow-motion genocide of the Palestinians?
GA: Indeed, the Israelis do realize that implementing genocidal measures is counter effective. Israel does realize that its Hasbara project is falling apart due to its unacceptable tactics. Some of its ministers and military official are under real threat of being arrested. If anything, the Palestinian movement and the Hamas included bought a lot of legitimacy during and after operation Cast Lead.
VS: The USA under Obama supports Israel as much as Bush did, even though the rhetoric is somewhat different.
GA: I am not so sure about it.. Monitoring Israeli press and other sources I get a different impression. Israel seems to be rather hesitant with Obama administration. However, Obama is irrelevant to the topic. He was elected by the American people to lead their nation rather than to liberate the Palestinian people. Palestinian people will liberate themselves, with Obama or without him. If Obama manage to pull out American soldiers from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan this would be a major step forward.
VS: To make things worse, Israel is now openly threatening Iran with war. And you yourself admit that these polices do have the support of a majority the Israeli public opinion. Where do you see the signs of the defeat of Israel and what kind of scenario do you envision for this defeat to become indisputable?
GA: I see the wall as an Israeli acknowledgment that Israel is a fearful entity. Israel accepts that time is running out. This itself leads to total panic. They do not have any long term solution within their disposal.
VS: speaking of the Israeli public opinion I want to ask you a simple question: what is wrong with them?!
GA: Let me say it clearly, something is wrong, what is it? I do not know. I spend much of my energy exposing the symptoms. What is the disease exactly, I do not know for sure but I guess that it is something between supremacy, chosenness and self loving.
VS: Surely the Israelis are "people like everybody else",
GA: In fact it is not that clear. The Zionists indoctrination may as well make them into a very dangerous collective, far more dangerous than anything we are familiar with.
VS: Yet they clearly support genocide, gross human rights violations, systematic violations of the laws of war, a racist ideology ("Jewish state"). What are the roots of all this evil?
GA: It must have something to do with their secular interpretation of the Bible and endorsement of the Holocaust religion as their main precept.
VS: How can people who emigrated to Israel from all over the world and who were presumably educated in very diverse circumstances all come together and unite a racist, self-worshiping and utterly inhuman ideology?!
GA: You probably hit the nail here, once you are a Zionist it doesn’t matter where you come from. You become a vengeance driven possessed human being. You do not even have to be Jewish. As we know, many of the Russian new immigrants to Israel were very quick to endorse the most militant right wing Ideas in spite of the fact that many of them were not Jewish at all.
VS: Rabbi Yeshaiahu Karelitz once said that "the secular-Jewish cart is empty" and Shlomo Sand, who quotes him, also agrees with him. Do you agree with that?
GA: For sure, but the secular and nationalist do manage to fill the empty box with a lot of phantasmic and imaginary content. As you probably know I insist that Jewish Marxist and Jewish anti Zionism are not different categorically from Zionism. They are both tribally orientated rather than universally driven.
VS: In your opinion, what cultural, national traits or ethos do Jews have in common which distinguishes them from non-Jews?
GA: Suffering, they are in love with the tail of suffering. This is probably why Israeli scholar Yeshayahu Leibowitz suggested that Holocaust religion is the new Jewish religion. However this is where the Jewish tragedy forms. The Holocaust religion lacks goodness, mercy or kindness. It offers redemption through vengeance and self love.
VS: Considering that most self-identified Jews are not religious, how could rabbinical Judaism define or determine their identity?
GA: It doesn't. Secular Jews are defined by negation. Rather than by what they are, they are defined by what they aren't. While the observant Jew is defined by his belief system. He follows the Halacha law, he observes the Sabbath and so on, the secular Jew is defined by a set of negations. He is not a religious Jew, yet he is not a Goy, he is neither American, English or French. The emancipated secular Jew is not defined by positive qualities but rather by some different sets of negations.
VS: Then what is the positive content of the Jewish self-awareness and how does it translate into the desire to either live in a racist and genocidal state or to support such a state from afar?
GA: Positive content is a relative notion. I assume that Jewish nationalism left right and center can be realized as futile craving for authenticity.
VS: Last question: you say that the Palestinians will liberate themselves - how do you see that happening? Do you believe that like the South African Whites, the Israeli Jews will come to realize that their racist regime is immoral and "switch sides" or do you think that, like in Algeria, the colonizers will have to leave on a boat?
GA: No, I do not believe that Israelis will ever come to acknowledge their immorality. Self mirroring is foreign to the Jewish philosophy and identity both religious and secular. I believe that Israel will be defeated into submission by facts on the ground. They are turning into a minority. Time is Israel’s biggest enemy. The only one who can save the Israelis of a rapid demographic disaster are the orthodox Jewish communities. Seemingly the Israeli resent their orthodox brothers more than the Palestinians. Israel is an isolated entity in a region that is becoming more and more unforgiving . Israel is entangled with its neighbors. At a certain stage it won’t be able to maintain its security by heavy policing. This will be the end of it.
Accessory vs. Perpetrator
by Gilad Atzmon
German State Prosecutors Hans-Joachim Lutz announced yesterday that Mr John Demjanjuk, 89, is accused of being an ‘accessory’ of the death of 27,900 Jews.
Many of us may not understand what the legal notion of ‘accessory’ stands for. An ‘accessory’ is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.
Bearing that in mind. I wonder what Demjanjuk’s court case is there to serve?
Clearly geriatric Demjanjuk is not a danger to society. He is neither blamed for being a murderer nor accused of being a mass murderer. Being an alleged ‘accessory’ he is not exactly the story of the Shoa either. If the Holocaust is an account of a racially driven industrial homicidal crime, a Ukrainian POW serving as a German guard while being a prisoner is not exactly a story of a principal executioner. If this court case is aimed at perpetuating the message of the holocaust, all it really does is spread the opposite message. It only proves once again that the Holocaust ideology is revengeful and merciless.
If the Germans are really after a last Holocaust spectacular trial can’t they pick something slightly more juicy than an ‘alleged accessory’?
In1986 John Demjanjuk was extradited to Israel where he was put on trial. According to the Israeli prosecutors, Demjanjuk was brought to a German POW camp in Chelmno in July 1942. He then volunteered to collaborate with the Germans and was sent to the camp at Trawniki, where he was trained to guard prisoners and was given a firearm, a uniform, and an ID card with his photograph. The principal allegation was that Demjanjuk was in fact "Ivan the Terrible" the notorious cold blooded murderer of Treblinka. On April 18, 1988, the Israeli court found Demjanjuk guilty of all charges. One week later it sentenced him to death by hanging.
In 1993, five Israeli Supreme Court judges overturned the guilty verdict on appeal. They realised that the case against Demjanjuk was based on ‘mistaken identification’. “We restrained ourselves” the Israeli judges wrote, “from convicting the appellant of the horrors of Treblinka. Ivan Demjanjuk has been acquitted by us, because of doubt, of the terrible charges attributed to Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka”
By the time the Israeli supreme court decided to release Demjanjuk the Israeli Attorney General was fully aware of John Demjanjuk being a guard in Sobibor. And yet he decided not to pursue accessory charges against him. Amongst other arguments in favour of Demjanjuk’s release Israeli Attorney General claimed that “new charges would be unreasonable given the seriousness of those of which he had been acquitted” he also argued that “conviction on the new charges (being a German guard) would be unlikely”. The Israeli Attorney General grasped that charging Demjanjuk for being an accessory would be counter effective.
Seemingly the German legal system lacks that necessary ‘Jewish’ wisdom performed by Israeli supreme judges and Attorney general. As it seems, the German court found a very embarrassing method to deal with the German past. They are now charging a dying Ukrainian/American for attempting to survive a Nazi POW camp by collaborating. That is, a onetime German prisoner became an ‘accessory’ of the German killing machine.
If the Germans are insisting to search for Nazi collaborators and brutal ‘accessories’, survivor Israel Shahak can adivise them where to find them. “Every Jewish child was taught (in the Ghettos)” says Shahak that "if you enter a square from which there are three exits, one guarded by a German SS man, one by a Ukrainian and one by a Jewish policeman, then you should first try to pass the German, and then maybe the Ukrainian, but never the Jew".( Prof. Israel Shahak, 19 May 1989. Kol Ha'ir, Jerusalem). Apparently, this story is reflected in many survivors’ personal and academic accounts. The Jewish capos and Judenrat were the most brutal of them all.
I think that the Germans better move on and let go of their past. Composing great symphonies and writing philosophy is by far a superior contribution to humanity than Holocaust trials. Guilt is a futile and destructive mode of being. However, if the Germans still feel at fault, they better transform their guilt into responsibility. They better remember that the Palestinians are de facto the last victims of Hitler. Their ordeal is far from being over. If the Germans feel culpable about their past they should never send German warships to Israel. If Germans are concerned with their history they better transform it into meaning. Rather than charging an 89 year old for being an alleged ‘accessory’ they better bring to justice some of the perpetrators of genocidal crimes that are taking place in front of our eyes.
Rather than pushing old Demjanjuk into court in a wheelchair, the German ministry of Justice better pursue Tony Blair, George Bush, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres. They are all free and healthy enough to stand a trial. Unlike alleged accessory Demjanjuk they are all perpetrators of colossal crimes against humanity.
German State Prosecutors Hans-Joachim Lutz announced yesterday that Mr John Demjanjuk, 89, is accused of being an ‘accessory’ of the death of 27,900 Jews.
Many of us may not understand what the legal notion of ‘accessory’ stands for. An ‘accessory’ is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.
Bearing that in mind. I wonder what Demjanjuk’s court case is there to serve?
Clearly geriatric Demjanjuk is not a danger to society. He is neither blamed for being a murderer nor accused of being a mass murderer. Being an alleged ‘accessory’ he is not exactly the story of the Shoa either. If the Holocaust is an account of a racially driven industrial homicidal crime, a Ukrainian POW serving as a German guard while being a prisoner is not exactly a story of a principal executioner. If this court case is aimed at perpetuating the message of the holocaust, all it really does is spread the opposite message. It only proves once again that the Holocaust ideology is revengeful and merciless.
If the Germans are really after a last Holocaust spectacular trial can’t they pick something slightly more juicy than an ‘alleged accessory’?
In1986 John Demjanjuk was extradited to Israel where he was put on trial. According to the Israeli prosecutors, Demjanjuk was brought to a German POW camp in Chelmno in July 1942. He then volunteered to collaborate with the Germans and was sent to the camp at Trawniki, where he was trained to guard prisoners and was given a firearm, a uniform, and an ID card with his photograph. The principal allegation was that Demjanjuk was in fact "Ivan the Terrible" the notorious cold blooded murderer of Treblinka. On April 18, 1988, the Israeli court found Demjanjuk guilty of all charges. One week later it sentenced him to death by hanging.
In 1993, five Israeli Supreme Court judges overturned the guilty verdict on appeal. They realised that the case against Demjanjuk was based on ‘mistaken identification’. “We restrained ourselves” the Israeli judges wrote, “from convicting the appellant of the horrors of Treblinka. Ivan Demjanjuk has been acquitted by us, because of doubt, of the terrible charges attributed to Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka”
By the time the Israeli supreme court decided to release Demjanjuk the Israeli Attorney General was fully aware of John Demjanjuk being a guard in Sobibor. And yet he decided not to pursue accessory charges against him. Amongst other arguments in favour of Demjanjuk’s release Israeli Attorney General claimed that “new charges would be unreasonable given the seriousness of those of which he had been acquitted” he also argued that “conviction on the new charges (being a German guard) would be unlikely”. The Israeli Attorney General grasped that charging Demjanjuk for being an accessory would be counter effective.
Seemingly the German legal system lacks that necessary ‘Jewish’ wisdom performed by Israeli supreme judges and Attorney general. As it seems, the German court found a very embarrassing method to deal with the German past. They are now charging a dying Ukrainian/American for attempting to survive a Nazi POW camp by collaborating. That is, a onetime German prisoner became an ‘accessory’ of the German killing machine.
If the Germans are insisting to search for Nazi collaborators and brutal ‘accessories’, survivor Israel Shahak can adivise them where to find them. “Every Jewish child was taught (in the Ghettos)” says Shahak that "if you enter a square from which there are three exits, one guarded by a German SS man, one by a Ukrainian and one by a Jewish policeman, then you should first try to pass the German, and then maybe the Ukrainian, but never the Jew".( Prof. Israel Shahak, 19 May 1989. Kol Ha'ir, Jerusalem). Apparently, this story is reflected in many survivors’ personal and academic accounts. The Jewish capos and Judenrat were the most brutal of them all.
I think that the Germans better move on and let go of their past. Composing great symphonies and writing philosophy is by far a superior contribution to humanity than Holocaust trials. Guilt is a futile and destructive mode of being. However, if the Germans still feel at fault, they better transform their guilt into responsibility. They better remember that the Palestinians are de facto the last victims of Hitler. Their ordeal is far from being over. If the Germans feel culpable about their past they should never send German warships to Israel. If Germans are concerned with their history they better transform it into meaning. Rather than charging an 89 year old for being an alleged ‘accessory’ they better bring to justice some of the perpetrators of genocidal crimes that are taking place in front of our eyes.
Rather than pushing old Demjanjuk into court in a wheelchair, the German ministry of Justice better pursue Tony Blair, George Bush, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres. They are all free and healthy enough to stand a trial. Unlike alleged accessory Demjanjuk they are all perpetrators of colossal crimes against humanity.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Train bombing serious blow to Russian security
by Eric Walberg
The worst terrorist attack to hit Russia in five years, the bombing of the Nevsky Express train last week, was almost certainly by Islamist extremists, and security forces are just not prepared for these less spectacular acts of terrorism, Russian security experts say.
The cause of the crash was identified as a homemade bomb that exploded on the tracks between Moscow and St Petersburg, killing 26, wounding scores and raising fears of a new era of terrorism in Russia. At the attack site, 320km northwest of Moscow, investigators found remnants of the bomb, equivalent to 15 pounds of TNT, that left a crater 1.5m deep. The bomb was apparently planted on the tracks and detonated while the second half of the train was passing. A second, less powerful explosive went off later at the site of the crash.
Russia suffered a wave of attacks in the early part of the decade as Muslim separatists from Chechnya struck trains and public places in Moscow and elsewhere, but there have been no such deadly assaults in recent years.
However, another Nevsky Express train was derailed in 2007 by an explosion, wounding more than two dozen people. Two men from Ingushetia were arrested, and just last month confessed to involvement in that blast. But the main suspect, a former Russian soldier-turned-Islamic-extremist, Pavel Kosolapov, remains at large. This previous blast and the sophistication of the present bombing, which involved two explosions, point to Islamists as the perpetrators. Aleksandr Bobreshov, a senior official of the state railway company, noted, “the second explosion, which occurred some time later, is the so-called double-blast method, carried out by North Caucasus sabotage groups.”
Police issued a sketch of a middle aged “stocky, red-haired man” seen in the vicinity of Friday’s blast, who may be Kosolapov. Kosolapov is believed to have been a close associate of Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev, killed by Russian security forces in 2006, who was the mastermind of several large-scale terrorist attacks, including the tragic 2004 Beslan school siege, which left 330 people dead, mostly children.
The 1990s were a violent and unstable period in Russia, though the only large-scale terrorist attack was during the 1994-96 First Chechen War -- the 1995 Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, which resulted in 200 deaths. It was Basayev’s first major “success” in as much as it led to peace talks with the Yeltsin’s government and resulted in the establishment of a quasi-independent Chechnya.
The next major terrorist acts were the five bombings of mostly Moscow apartment buildings that killed nearly 300 people in September 1999. None of the Chechen field commanders, including Basayev, accepted responsibility for the bombings and Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov denied involvement of his government. However, they coincided with border skirmishes between Chechnya and Dagestan, and evidence that Al-Qaeda and Wahabism were increasingly active in Chechnya. A ground offensive was launched from Dagestan by Russian troops in October which now marks the beginning of what is called the Second Chechen War, on which Vladimir Putin staked his presidency after he was appointed president by Boris Yeltsin in December 1999.
There followed a decade of gruesome war in Chechnya, with tens of thousands dying. There were also several spectacular terrorist attacks which this time Chechen rebels led by Basayev did take responsibility for. Russia’s security forces had to deal with the 2002 siege of a Moscow theatre which resulted in up to 200 deaths and the 2004 Beslan school assault. But Russia suffered no major attack after that, as the Chechen war ground to its supposed end.
Andrei Soldatov, editor of Agentura.ru, criticises Russian counter-terrorist efforts since Beslan, comparing officials to generals preparing for the last war, focussed on averting big attacks like Beslan, instead of preparing for smaller-scale strikes such as the bombings of the Nevsky Express, despite the 2007 warning blast. “We see new modus operandi taking shape, in which tiny cells of terrorists of three to five people plan and execute acts of sabotage,” he says. “But our security forces have militarised this problem, and are not set up to deal with small threats like that.”
Confirming his point, yet another bomb went off Monday in the southern republic of Dagestan, hitting a train travelling from the Siberian city of Tyumen to Baku in Azerbaijan. No one was injured in that blast, but analysts argue it was also by terrorists, who have never stopped operating in Dagestan, Ingushetia, and Chechnya, and warn that more ambitious attacks on Russia will no doubt follow. The northern Caucasus is witnessing a growth of forces that are no longer interested in local nationalism, or separatism, but “see themselves as being at war with Russia. Until lately, the most adventurous Russian Islamists tended to head for Afghanistan, or somewhere else, to wage jihad. Now there are signs that they are going to the Caucasus area, and this bodes very ill,” says Soldatov.
The Kremlin declared “mission accomplished” in Chechnya on 16 April 2009 after a decade and a half of military campaigning, pulling most of its forces out of the tiny republic, and leaving it under the control of local strongman Ramzan Kadyrov. Kremlin leaders argue that the harsh pacification of Chechnya, political crackdown and smarter security operations explain the fact that there has been no major terrorist attack on the Russian heartland since Beslan.
But it remains a fact that the terrorist tragedies in Russia during the past decade coincide with the brutal Second Chechen War, and that President Kadyrov himself is a loose cannon who has assassinated more than one opponent in the past year. Chechnya is also suspected of being a prime transit route for drug smugglers, and the lawlessness and threat to Russia emanating from Chechnya are not lost on other parties, in particular, the US and Israel. This latest incident is a serious blow not only to Putin’s strategy of holding on to Chechnya at all costs, but to overall Russian security.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
The worst terrorist attack to hit Russia in five years, the bombing of the Nevsky Express train last week, was almost certainly by Islamist extremists, and security forces are just not prepared for these less spectacular acts of terrorism, Russian security experts say.
The cause of the crash was identified as a homemade bomb that exploded on the tracks between Moscow and St Petersburg, killing 26, wounding scores and raising fears of a new era of terrorism in Russia. At the attack site, 320km northwest of Moscow, investigators found remnants of the bomb, equivalent to 15 pounds of TNT, that left a crater 1.5m deep. The bomb was apparently planted on the tracks and detonated while the second half of the train was passing. A second, less powerful explosive went off later at the site of the crash.
Russia suffered a wave of attacks in the early part of the decade as Muslim separatists from Chechnya struck trains and public places in Moscow and elsewhere, but there have been no such deadly assaults in recent years.
However, another Nevsky Express train was derailed in 2007 by an explosion, wounding more than two dozen people. Two men from Ingushetia were arrested, and just last month confessed to involvement in that blast. But the main suspect, a former Russian soldier-turned-Islamic-extremist, Pavel Kosolapov, remains at large. This previous blast and the sophistication of the present bombing, which involved two explosions, point to Islamists as the perpetrators. Aleksandr Bobreshov, a senior official of the state railway company, noted, “the second explosion, which occurred some time later, is the so-called double-blast method, carried out by North Caucasus sabotage groups.”
Police issued a sketch of a middle aged “stocky, red-haired man” seen in the vicinity of Friday’s blast, who may be Kosolapov. Kosolapov is believed to have been a close associate of Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev, killed by Russian security forces in 2006, who was the mastermind of several large-scale terrorist attacks, including the tragic 2004 Beslan school siege, which left 330 people dead, mostly children.
The 1990s were a violent and unstable period in Russia, though the only large-scale terrorist attack was during the 1994-96 First Chechen War -- the 1995 Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, which resulted in 200 deaths. It was Basayev’s first major “success” in as much as it led to peace talks with the Yeltsin’s government and resulted in the establishment of a quasi-independent Chechnya.
The next major terrorist acts were the five bombings of mostly Moscow apartment buildings that killed nearly 300 people in September 1999. None of the Chechen field commanders, including Basayev, accepted responsibility for the bombings and Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov denied involvement of his government. However, they coincided with border skirmishes between Chechnya and Dagestan, and evidence that Al-Qaeda and Wahabism were increasingly active in Chechnya. A ground offensive was launched from Dagestan by Russian troops in October which now marks the beginning of what is called the Second Chechen War, on which Vladimir Putin staked his presidency after he was appointed president by Boris Yeltsin in December 1999.
There followed a decade of gruesome war in Chechnya, with tens of thousands dying. There were also several spectacular terrorist attacks which this time Chechen rebels led by Basayev did take responsibility for. Russia’s security forces had to deal with the 2002 siege of a Moscow theatre which resulted in up to 200 deaths and the 2004 Beslan school assault. But Russia suffered no major attack after that, as the Chechen war ground to its supposed end.
Andrei Soldatov, editor of Agentura.ru, criticises Russian counter-terrorist efforts since Beslan, comparing officials to generals preparing for the last war, focussed on averting big attacks like Beslan, instead of preparing for smaller-scale strikes such as the bombings of the Nevsky Express, despite the 2007 warning blast. “We see new modus operandi taking shape, in which tiny cells of terrorists of three to five people plan and execute acts of sabotage,” he says. “But our security forces have militarised this problem, and are not set up to deal with small threats like that.”
Confirming his point, yet another bomb went off Monday in the southern republic of Dagestan, hitting a train travelling from the Siberian city of Tyumen to Baku in Azerbaijan. No one was injured in that blast, but analysts argue it was also by terrorists, who have never stopped operating in Dagestan, Ingushetia, and Chechnya, and warn that more ambitious attacks on Russia will no doubt follow. The northern Caucasus is witnessing a growth of forces that are no longer interested in local nationalism, or separatism, but “see themselves as being at war with Russia. Until lately, the most adventurous Russian Islamists tended to head for Afghanistan, or somewhere else, to wage jihad. Now there are signs that they are going to the Caucasus area, and this bodes very ill,” says Soldatov.
The Kremlin declared “mission accomplished” in Chechnya on 16 April 2009 after a decade and a half of military campaigning, pulling most of its forces out of the tiny republic, and leaving it under the control of local strongman Ramzan Kadyrov. Kremlin leaders argue that the harsh pacification of Chechnya, political crackdown and smarter security operations explain the fact that there has been no major terrorist attack on the Russian heartland since Beslan.
But it remains a fact that the terrorist tragedies in Russia during the past decade coincide with the brutal Second Chechen War, and that President Kadyrov himself is a loose cannon who has assassinated more than one opponent in the past year. Chechnya is also suspected of being a prime transit route for drug smugglers, and the lawlessness and threat to Russia emanating from Chechnya are not lost on other parties, in particular, the US and Israel. This latest incident is a serious blow not only to Putin’s strategy of holding on to Chechnya at all costs, but to overall Russian security.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Hezbollah New Manifesto: We Want Strong, United Lebanon
Hussein Assi reports for al-Manar TV:
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced on Monday the Resistance party's new political document that was approved during the party's General Conference that lasted for months.
Sayyed Nasrallah held a press conference through a giant screen at al-Jinan hall on the airport road to declare the new political document. The press conference was attended by prominent Lebanese, Arab and international journalists as well as some Hezbollah leaders and various political figures.
His eminence started the conference by noting that Hezbollah new political document aims to define the political vision of the party and includes its visions, stances, and aspirations. "This political document also comes as a result of the responsibility of sacrifice that we have experienced," his eminence added.
"At an exceptional time filled with transformations, it is no longer possible to address these changes without noting the special position our resistance has reached. We will address these transformations through two paths: the first is the Resistance one that resorts to the military and political victories as well as the expansion of the Resistance while the second focuses on the path of the US-Israeli mastery and hegemony which is witnessing military defeats that showed a failure in administering the developments."
"What strengthens the international hegemony system crisis are the actual collapses in the financial markets and the entry of the US economy in a situation of failure. Therefore, it's possible to say that we are amid historical transformations that signal the retreat of the US role as a predominant power and the demise of the Zionist entity."
"The resistance movements are at the heart of international transformations and emerge as a strategic factor after performing a central role in producing those transformations in our region," Sayyed Nasrallah read out, adding that the Resistance in Lebanon was the first to fight occupation and perceived since the beginning that it will reach victory at the end. "Through its long path and its depicted victories, the Resistance's project has grown from a liberation power to a balance and confrontation one to a defense and deterrence one in addition to its political and internal role as an influencing basis in building the just and capable state. The Resistance in Lebanon has evolved from a Lebanese national value to an Arab and Islamic value and has become today an international value that's taught all over the world."
"Hezbollah does not underestimate the size of current challenges and threats or the severity of the confrontation path. However, Hezbollah has now clearer choices and more trust in its people. In this context, Hezbollah defines the main headlines that constitutes a political and intellectual framework of its vision and stances towards the challenges," Hezbollah Secretary General read out, concluding the manifesto's introduction.
CHAPTER ONE – DOMINATION AND HEGEMONY
"Following the World War II, the United States became the center of polarity in the world, taking advantage of accomplishments on several levels of knowledge, including education, science and technology that are supported by an economic system that only views the world as markets that have to abide by the American own view. The most dangerous thing in their hegemony is that they consider that they own the world and therefore, the Western expanding strategy turned to be an international one without limits," Hezbollah new manifesto says, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
"Globalization has reached its most dangerous aspect when it turned to a military one led by those following the Western plan of domination and was reflected in the Middle East in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. This plot found its peak with the neoconservative grip under the administration of George Bush since their project found its way to execution after he was sworn in. It was neither weird nor surprised that what the neoconservative platform focused on the most was rebuilding US capabilities what reflected a strategic vision of US national security through building military strategies not only as a force of deterrence but also as a force of action and intervention. Following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration found that the opportunity was appropriate to exercise the largest possible influence under the slogan of universal war against terrorism. It has performed many attempts that were considered as successful in the beginning based on militarizing relationships with other countries and on having monopoly over decision-making by taking strategic decisions and rapidly ending war in Afghanistan to have the maximum amount of time for the next step, which is taking over Iraq and the foundation for launching the New Middle East project. Furthermore, the Bush administration sought to establish a conformity between terrorism and Resistance to remove the latter's legitimacy and therefore justify wars against its movements, seeking to remove the fundamental right of the nations of defending their right to live with dignity and national sovereignty."
"The Bush administration gave itself an absolute right to launch destroying wars that don't differentiate between human beings, given that the cost of the US terrorism wars has cost the humanity until now millions of people as well as global destruction. In brief, the Bush administration has transformed the United States into a danger that threatens the whole world."
"Terrorism has turned to be an American pretext for hegemony through many tools such as pursuit, arbitrary detention, unjust trials witnessed in Guantanamo as well as through direct meddling in the sovereignty of other countries and states in addition to impose sanctions against complete nations. The US terror is the root of all terror in the world."
"The failure and decline of the US strategy does not mean it will easily stop interfering, but will make an effort to protect its strategic interests. Indeed, if the whole world was suffering from the American hegemony, the Arab and Islamic nations seem to suffer even more for many considerations related to history, geographic site, civilization and culture. The Arab and Islamic world has always been subject to endless wild and savage wars. However, its most dangerous steps was reached with the creation of the Zionist entity. The central goal of the American hegemony resides in dominating the nations politically, economically, culturally and through all aspects. To achieve this goal, Washington resorted to different general policies and work strategies including providing the Zionist entity with stability guarantees, create sedition and divisions in the region especially sectarian ones."
"The American arrogance has left no choice to our nation and people but the choice of resistance, at least for a better life, and for a humanitarian future, a future governed by relations of brotherhood, solidarity and diversity at the same time in a world of peace and harmony."
CHAPTER TWO – LEBANON
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION ONE – THE HOMELAND
"Lebanon is our homeland and the homeland of our fathers, ancestors. It's also the homeland of our children, grandchildren, and the coming generations. It is the country to which we have given our most precious sacrifices for its sovereignty and pride, dignity and liberation," Sayyed Nasrallah read out from the political document introduction on Lebanon.
"We want Lebanon for all Lebanese alike, and we want it unified. We reject any kind of segregation or federalism, whether explicit or disguised. We want Lebanon to be sovereign, free, independent, strong and capable. We want it also to be strong, active, and present in the geopolitics of the region. We want it also to be a key contributor in making the present and the future."
"To conclude, it should be mentioned that one of the most important conditions for the establishment of a home of this type is having a fair state, a state which is capable and strong, as well as a political system that truly represents the will of the people and their aspirations for justice, freedom and security, stability and well-being and dignity. This is what all the Lebanese people want and work to achieve and we are a part of them."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION TWO – THE RESISTANCE
"Israel represents an eternal threat to Lebanon – the State and the entity – and a real danger to the country in terms of its historical ambitions in land and water especially that Lebanon is considered to be a model of coexistence in a unique formula that contradicts with the idea of the racist state which expresses itself in the Zionist entity. Furthermore, Lebanon's presence at the borders of occupied Palestine obliged it to bear national and pan-Arab responsibilities."
"The Israeli threat to this country began since the laying of the Zionist entity in the land of Palestine, an entity that did not hesitate to disclose its ambitions to occupy some parts of Lebanon and to seize its wealth, particularly its water. Therefore, it sought to achieve these ambitions gradually. This entity started its aggression on Lebanon since 1948 from the border to the depth of the country, from the Hula massacre in 1949 to the aggression on the Beirut International Airport in 1968, including long years of attacks on border areas, their land, population and wealth, as a prelude to seize direct land through repeated invasions, leading to the March 1978 invasion and the occupation of the border area, making its people subject to its authority at all levels, as a prelude to subdue the whole country in the invasion of 1982."
"All of this was taking place with a full support of the United States and ignorance until the level of complicity of the so-called international community and its institutions amid a suspicious Arab official silence and an absence of the Lebanese authority at the time leaving the land and people subject to the Israeli occupation without assuming its responsibilities and national duties."
"Under this great national tragedy, Lebanese who are loyal to their homeland didn't have the choice but to use their right and proceed from their national duty and moral and religious in the defense of their land. Thus, their choice was: the launch of an armed popular resistance to confront the Zionist danger and permanent aggression."
"In such difficult circumstances, the process of restoring the nation through armed resistance started, paving the way for liberating the land and the political decision from the hands of the Israeli occupation as a prelude to the restoration of the State and the building of its constitutional institutions. The Resistance has crowned all these dimensions together through achieving the Liberation in 2000 and the historic victory in July 2006, presenting to the whole world a true experience in defending the homeland, an experience that turned into a school from which nations and states benefit to defend their territory, protect their independent and maintain their sovereignty."
"This national achievement was made real thanks to the support of a loyal nation and a national army, thus frustrating the enemy's goals and causing him a historic defeat, allowing the Resistance to celebrate alongside its fighters and martyrs as well as all of Lebanon through its nation and army the great victory that paved the way for a new phase in the region entitled pivotal role and function of the resistance to deter the enemy and ensure the protection of the country's independence, sovereignty and defend its people and completing the liberation of the rest of the occupied territory."
"The Resistance role is a national necessity as long as the Israeli threats and ambitions continue. Therefore, and in the absence of strategic balance between the state and the enemy, the Israeli threat obliges Lebanon to endorse a defensive strategy that depends on a popular resistance participating in defending the country and an army that preserves the security of the country, in a complementarity process that proved to be successful through the previous phase."
"This formula, developed from within the defensive strategy, constitutes an umbrella of protection for Lebanon, especially after the failure of other speculations on the umbrellas, whether international or Arab, or negotiating with the enemy. The adoption of the Resistance path in Lebanon achieved its role in liberating the land, restoring the State institutions and the protecting the sovereignty. Afterwards, Lebanese are concerned with safeguarding and maintaining this format because the Israeli danger threatens Lebanon in all its components, what requires the widest Lebanese participation in assuming responsibilities of defense."
"Finally, the success of the Resistance experience in fighting the enemy and the failure of all plots and schemes to delete resistance movements or besieging them or even disarming them annexed to the continuation of the Israeli threat in Lebanon obliges the Resistance to do its best to strengthen its abilities and consolidate its strengths to assume its national responsibilities and liberate what remains under the Israeli occupation in the Shebaa farms and Kfarshouba Drills and the Lebanese town of Ghajar as well as liberating the detainees and missing people and martyrs' bodies."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION THREE – STATE AND POLITICAL SYSTEM
"The main problem in the Lebanese political system, which prevents its reform, development and constant updating is political sectarianism," Hezbollah manifesto clearly states.
"The fact that the Lebanese political system was established on a sectarian basis constitutes in itself a strong constraint to the achievement of true democracy where an elected majority can govern and an elected minority can oppose, opening the door for a proper circulation of power between the loyalty and the opposition or the various political coalitions. Thus, abolishing sectarianism is a basic condition for the implementation of the majority-minority rule."
"Yet, and until the Lebanese could reach through their national dialogue this historic and sensitive achievement, which is the abolishment of political sectarianism, and since the political system in Lebanon is based on sectarian foundations, the consensual democracy will remain the fundamental basis for governance in Lebanon, because it is the actual embodiment of the spirit of the constitution and the essence of the Charter of the co-existence."
"From here, any approach to the national issues according to the equation of the majority and minority awaits the achievement of the historic and social conditions for the exercise of effective democracy in which the citizen becomes a value in itself. Meanwhile, the Lebanese will to live together in dignity and equal rights and duties requires a constructive cooperation in order to consolidate the principle of true partnership, which constitutes the most appropriate formula to protect the full diversity and stability after an era of instability caused by the different policies based on the tendency towards monopoly, cancellation and exclusion."
"The consensual democracy constitutes an appropriate political formula to guarantee true partnership and contributes in opening the doors for everyone to enter the phase of building the reassuring state."
"Our vision for the State that we should build together in Lebanon is represented in the State that preserves public freedoms, the State that is keen on national unity, the State that protects its land, people, and sovereignty, the State that has a national, strong and prepared army, the State that is structured under the base of modern, effective and cooperative institutions, the State that is committed to the application of laws on all its citizens without differentiation, the State that guarantees a correct and right parliamentary representation based on a modern election law that allows the voters of choosing their representative away from pressures, the State that depends on qualified people regardless of their religious beliefs and that defines mechanisms to fight corruption in administration, the State that enjoys an independent and non-politicized Justice authority, the State that establishes its economy mainly according to the producing sectors and works on consolidating them especially the agriculture and industry ones, the State that applies the principle of balanced development between all regions, the State that cares for its people and works to provide them with appropriate services, that State that takes care of the youth generation and help young people to develop their energies and talents, the State that works to consolidate the role of women at all levels, the State that care for education and work to strengthen the official schools and university alongside applying the principle of obligatory teaching, the State that adopts a decentralized system, the State that works hard to stop emigration and the State that guards its people all over the world and protects them and benefits from their positions to serve the national causes."
"The establishment of a state based on these specifications and requirements is a goal to us just like it's the goal of every honest and sincere Lebanese. In Hezbollah, we will exert all possible efforts, in cooperation with the popular and political forces, to achieve this noble national goal."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION FOUR – LEBANESE-PALESTINIAN TIES
"One of the tragic consequences of the emergence of the Zionist entity on the land of Palestine and the displacement of its inhabitants is the problem of Palestinian refugees who moved to Lebanon to live temporarily in its land as guests to their fellow Lebanese until returning to their homes from where they were expelled."
"The original and direct reason of the sufferance of Lebanese and Palestinians was actually the Israeli occupation of Palestine and all the resulting tragedies and calamities in the region. Moreover, the suffering of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon was not limited to the pain of forced migration but also to the Israeli massacres and atrocities in addition to what happened in the Nabatiyeh camp that has been fully destroyed. Palestinian refugees are also deprived of all civilian and social rights since the Lebanese governments didn't assume their responsibilities towards them."
"The Lebanese authorities are nowadays called to assume their responsibilities and therefore build the Lebanese-Palestinian relations under right, solid and legal bases that respect the justice, rights and mutual interests' balances to both nations. It is imperative that the Lebanese-Palestinian relationship remains governed by the whims and moods, as well as political calculations and internal interactions and international interventions."
"We believe that succeeding in this mission requires a Lebanese-Palestinian direct dialogue, a permission for Palestinians in Lebanon to agree on a unified reference that represents them, providing Palestinian refugees with their social and civilian rights, committing to the Right of Return and reject settlement."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION FIVE – LEBANON AND ARAB TIES
"Lebanon is committed to the just and fair Arab causes, at the top of which comes the Palestinian cause as well as the conflict with the Israeli enemy. Even more, there is a definite need for concerted efforts to overcome the conflicts that run through the Arab ranks."
"The contradiction of strategies and the difference of alliances, despite their seriousness and intensity, doesn't justify the policies of targeting or engaging in external projects, based on the deepening discord and inciting sectarianism, leading to the exhaustion of the nation and therefore serving the Zionist enemy in the implementation of the purposes of America."
"The Resistance choice constitutes once again a central need and an objective factor in strengthening the Arab stance and weakening the enemy. In this context, Syria has recorded a distinctive attitude and supported the resistance movements in the region, and stood beside us in the most difficult circumstances, and sought to unify Arab efforts to secure the interests of the region and challenges."
"Hence, we emphasize the need to adhere to the distinguished relations between Lebanon and Syria as a political and security and economic need, dictated by the two countries and two peoples and the imperatives of geopolitics and the requirements for Lebanese stability and common challenges. We also call for an end to all the negative sentiment that have marred bilateral ties in the past few years and urge these relations to return to their normal status as soon as possible."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION SIX – LEBANON AND ISLAMIC RELATIONS
"The Arab and Islamic world is facing challenges that shouldn't be undermined. Indeed, the sectarian fabricated conflicts, especially between Sunnis and Shiites, are threatening the cohesiveness of our societies. Therefore, and instead of being a source of wealth, the sectarian diversities seem to be exploited as factors of division and incitement. The situation resulting from this bad use seems to be the result of the intersection of Western deliberate policies, the US in particular."
"Hezbollah emphasizes the necessity to cooperate will Islamic states at different levels to gain strength in confronting hegemony schemes. Such cooperation also serves in facing the cultural invasion of the community and media, and encourages the Islamic states to take advantage of its resources in the exchange of the different benefits between these countries." "In this context, Hezbollah considers Iran as a central state in the Muslim world, since it is the State that dropped through its revolution the Shah's regime and its American-Israeli projects, and it's also the state that supported the resistance movements in our region, and stood with courage and determination at the side of the Arab and Islamic causes and especially the Palestinian one."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION SEVEN – LEBANON AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
"Hezbollah considers that the unilateral hegemony in the world overthrows the international balance and stability as well as the international peace and security. The unlimited US support for Israeli and its cover for the Israeli occupation of Arab lands annexed to the American domination of international institutions and the American meddling in various states' affairs and adoption of the principle of circulating wars puts the American administration in the position of the aggressor and holds it responsible in producing chaos in the international political system."
"The American administration's unlimited support to Israel ... places the American administration in the position of the enemy of our nation and our peoples."
CHAPTER THREE – PALESTINE AND COMPROMISE NEGOTIATIONS
"The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict proves that armed struggle and military resistance is the best way of ending the occupation. The method of negotiations has proven that the Zionist entity becomes more boastful and more belligerent, and that it has no intention of reaching an accord. The resistance has managed to achieve a huge victory over the Zionist entity, provide the homeland with protection, and liberation of the remainder of its land. This function is a lasting necessity before Israel's expansionist threats and ambitions as well as the lack of a strong government in Lebanon. The ongoing Israeli threat forces the resistance to continue to boost its capacity ... in order to fulfill its role in liberating occupied territory."
"We categorically reject any compromise with Israel or recognizing its legitimacy," his eminence concluded. "This position is definitive, even if everyone recognizes Israel."
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced on Monday the Resistance party's new political document that was approved during the party's General Conference that lasted for months.
Sayyed Nasrallah held a press conference through a giant screen at al-Jinan hall on the airport road to declare the new political document. The press conference was attended by prominent Lebanese, Arab and international journalists as well as some Hezbollah leaders and various political figures.
His eminence started the conference by noting that Hezbollah new political document aims to define the political vision of the party and includes its visions, stances, and aspirations. "This political document also comes as a result of the responsibility of sacrifice that we have experienced," his eminence added.
"At an exceptional time filled with transformations, it is no longer possible to address these changes without noting the special position our resistance has reached. We will address these transformations through two paths: the first is the Resistance one that resorts to the military and political victories as well as the expansion of the Resistance while the second focuses on the path of the US-Israeli mastery and hegemony which is witnessing military defeats that showed a failure in administering the developments."
"What strengthens the international hegemony system crisis are the actual collapses in the financial markets and the entry of the US economy in a situation of failure. Therefore, it's possible to say that we are amid historical transformations that signal the retreat of the US role as a predominant power and the demise of the Zionist entity."
"The resistance movements are at the heart of international transformations and emerge as a strategic factor after performing a central role in producing those transformations in our region," Sayyed Nasrallah read out, adding that the Resistance in Lebanon was the first to fight occupation and perceived since the beginning that it will reach victory at the end. "Through its long path and its depicted victories, the Resistance's project has grown from a liberation power to a balance and confrontation one to a defense and deterrence one in addition to its political and internal role as an influencing basis in building the just and capable state. The Resistance in Lebanon has evolved from a Lebanese national value to an Arab and Islamic value and has become today an international value that's taught all over the world."
"Hezbollah does not underestimate the size of current challenges and threats or the severity of the confrontation path. However, Hezbollah has now clearer choices and more trust in its people. In this context, Hezbollah defines the main headlines that constitutes a political and intellectual framework of its vision and stances towards the challenges," Hezbollah Secretary General read out, concluding the manifesto's introduction.
CHAPTER ONE – DOMINATION AND HEGEMONY
"Following the World War II, the United States became the center of polarity in the world, taking advantage of accomplishments on several levels of knowledge, including education, science and technology that are supported by an economic system that only views the world as markets that have to abide by the American own view. The most dangerous thing in their hegemony is that they consider that they own the world and therefore, the Western expanding strategy turned to be an international one without limits," Hezbollah new manifesto says, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
"Globalization has reached its most dangerous aspect when it turned to a military one led by those following the Western plan of domination and was reflected in the Middle East in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. This plot found its peak with the neoconservative grip under the administration of George Bush since their project found its way to execution after he was sworn in. It was neither weird nor surprised that what the neoconservative platform focused on the most was rebuilding US capabilities what reflected a strategic vision of US national security through building military strategies not only as a force of deterrence but also as a force of action and intervention. Following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration found that the opportunity was appropriate to exercise the largest possible influence under the slogan of universal war against terrorism. It has performed many attempts that were considered as successful in the beginning based on militarizing relationships with other countries and on having monopoly over decision-making by taking strategic decisions and rapidly ending war in Afghanistan to have the maximum amount of time for the next step, which is taking over Iraq and the foundation for launching the New Middle East project. Furthermore, the Bush administration sought to establish a conformity between terrorism and Resistance to remove the latter's legitimacy and therefore justify wars against its movements, seeking to remove the fundamental right of the nations of defending their right to live with dignity and national sovereignty."
"The Bush administration gave itself an absolute right to launch destroying wars that don't differentiate between human beings, given that the cost of the US terrorism wars has cost the humanity until now millions of people as well as global destruction. In brief, the Bush administration has transformed the United States into a danger that threatens the whole world."
"Terrorism has turned to be an American pretext for hegemony through many tools such as pursuit, arbitrary detention, unjust trials witnessed in Guantanamo as well as through direct meddling in the sovereignty of other countries and states in addition to impose sanctions against complete nations. The US terror is the root of all terror in the world."
"The failure and decline of the US strategy does not mean it will easily stop interfering, but will make an effort to protect its strategic interests. Indeed, if the whole world was suffering from the American hegemony, the Arab and Islamic nations seem to suffer even more for many considerations related to history, geographic site, civilization and culture. The Arab and Islamic world has always been subject to endless wild and savage wars. However, its most dangerous steps was reached with the creation of the Zionist entity. The central goal of the American hegemony resides in dominating the nations politically, economically, culturally and through all aspects. To achieve this goal, Washington resorted to different general policies and work strategies including providing the Zionist entity with stability guarantees, create sedition and divisions in the region especially sectarian ones."
"The American arrogance has left no choice to our nation and people but the choice of resistance, at least for a better life, and for a humanitarian future, a future governed by relations of brotherhood, solidarity and diversity at the same time in a world of peace and harmony."
CHAPTER TWO – LEBANON
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION ONE – THE HOMELAND
"Lebanon is our homeland and the homeland of our fathers, ancestors. It's also the homeland of our children, grandchildren, and the coming generations. It is the country to which we have given our most precious sacrifices for its sovereignty and pride, dignity and liberation," Sayyed Nasrallah read out from the political document introduction on Lebanon.
"We want Lebanon for all Lebanese alike, and we want it unified. We reject any kind of segregation or federalism, whether explicit or disguised. We want Lebanon to be sovereign, free, independent, strong and capable. We want it also to be strong, active, and present in the geopolitics of the region. We want it also to be a key contributor in making the present and the future."
"To conclude, it should be mentioned that one of the most important conditions for the establishment of a home of this type is having a fair state, a state which is capable and strong, as well as a political system that truly represents the will of the people and their aspirations for justice, freedom and security, stability and well-being and dignity. This is what all the Lebanese people want and work to achieve and we are a part of them."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION TWO – THE RESISTANCE
"Israel represents an eternal threat to Lebanon – the State and the entity – and a real danger to the country in terms of its historical ambitions in land and water especially that Lebanon is considered to be a model of coexistence in a unique formula that contradicts with the idea of the racist state which expresses itself in the Zionist entity. Furthermore, Lebanon's presence at the borders of occupied Palestine obliged it to bear national and pan-Arab responsibilities."
"The Israeli threat to this country began since the laying of the Zionist entity in the land of Palestine, an entity that did not hesitate to disclose its ambitions to occupy some parts of Lebanon and to seize its wealth, particularly its water. Therefore, it sought to achieve these ambitions gradually. This entity started its aggression on Lebanon since 1948 from the border to the depth of the country, from the Hula massacre in 1949 to the aggression on the Beirut International Airport in 1968, including long years of attacks on border areas, their land, population and wealth, as a prelude to seize direct land through repeated invasions, leading to the March 1978 invasion and the occupation of the border area, making its people subject to its authority at all levels, as a prelude to subdue the whole country in the invasion of 1982."
"All of this was taking place with a full support of the United States and ignorance until the level of complicity of the so-called international community and its institutions amid a suspicious Arab official silence and an absence of the Lebanese authority at the time leaving the land and people subject to the Israeli occupation without assuming its responsibilities and national duties."
"Under this great national tragedy, Lebanese who are loyal to their homeland didn't have the choice but to use their right and proceed from their national duty and moral and religious in the defense of their land. Thus, their choice was: the launch of an armed popular resistance to confront the Zionist danger and permanent aggression."
"In such difficult circumstances, the process of restoring the nation through armed resistance started, paving the way for liberating the land and the political decision from the hands of the Israeli occupation as a prelude to the restoration of the State and the building of its constitutional institutions. The Resistance has crowned all these dimensions together through achieving the Liberation in 2000 and the historic victory in July 2006, presenting to the whole world a true experience in defending the homeland, an experience that turned into a school from which nations and states benefit to defend their territory, protect their independent and maintain their sovereignty."
"This national achievement was made real thanks to the support of a loyal nation and a national army, thus frustrating the enemy's goals and causing him a historic defeat, allowing the Resistance to celebrate alongside its fighters and martyrs as well as all of Lebanon through its nation and army the great victory that paved the way for a new phase in the region entitled pivotal role and function of the resistance to deter the enemy and ensure the protection of the country's independence, sovereignty and defend its people and completing the liberation of the rest of the occupied territory."
"The Resistance role is a national necessity as long as the Israeli threats and ambitions continue. Therefore, and in the absence of strategic balance between the state and the enemy, the Israeli threat obliges Lebanon to endorse a defensive strategy that depends on a popular resistance participating in defending the country and an army that preserves the security of the country, in a complementarity process that proved to be successful through the previous phase."
"This formula, developed from within the defensive strategy, constitutes an umbrella of protection for Lebanon, especially after the failure of other speculations on the umbrellas, whether international or Arab, or negotiating with the enemy. The adoption of the Resistance path in Lebanon achieved its role in liberating the land, restoring the State institutions and the protecting the sovereignty. Afterwards, Lebanese are concerned with safeguarding and maintaining this format because the Israeli danger threatens Lebanon in all its components, what requires the widest Lebanese participation in assuming responsibilities of defense."
"Finally, the success of the Resistance experience in fighting the enemy and the failure of all plots and schemes to delete resistance movements or besieging them or even disarming them annexed to the continuation of the Israeli threat in Lebanon obliges the Resistance to do its best to strengthen its abilities and consolidate its strengths to assume its national responsibilities and liberate what remains under the Israeli occupation in the Shebaa farms and Kfarshouba Drills and the Lebanese town of Ghajar as well as liberating the detainees and missing people and martyrs' bodies."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION THREE – STATE AND POLITICAL SYSTEM
"The main problem in the Lebanese political system, which prevents its reform, development and constant updating is political sectarianism," Hezbollah manifesto clearly states.
"The fact that the Lebanese political system was established on a sectarian basis constitutes in itself a strong constraint to the achievement of true democracy where an elected majority can govern and an elected minority can oppose, opening the door for a proper circulation of power between the loyalty and the opposition or the various political coalitions. Thus, abolishing sectarianism is a basic condition for the implementation of the majority-minority rule."
"Yet, and until the Lebanese could reach through their national dialogue this historic and sensitive achievement, which is the abolishment of political sectarianism, and since the political system in Lebanon is based on sectarian foundations, the consensual democracy will remain the fundamental basis for governance in Lebanon, because it is the actual embodiment of the spirit of the constitution and the essence of the Charter of the co-existence."
"From here, any approach to the national issues according to the equation of the majority and minority awaits the achievement of the historic and social conditions for the exercise of effective democracy in which the citizen becomes a value in itself. Meanwhile, the Lebanese will to live together in dignity and equal rights and duties requires a constructive cooperation in order to consolidate the principle of true partnership, which constitutes the most appropriate formula to protect the full diversity and stability after an era of instability caused by the different policies based on the tendency towards monopoly, cancellation and exclusion."
"The consensual democracy constitutes an appropriate political formula to guarantee true partnership and contributes in opening the doors for everyone to enter the phase of building the reassuring state."
"Our vision for the State that we should build together in Lebanon is represented in the State that preserves public freedoms, the State that is keen on national unity, the State that protects its land, people, and sovereignty, the State that has a national, strong and prepared army, the State that is structured under the base of modern, effective and cooperative institutions, the State that is committed to the application of laws on all its citizens without differentiation, the State that guarantees a correct and right parliamentary representation based on a modern election law that allows the voters of choosing their representative away from pressures, the State that depends on qualified people regardless of their religious beliefs and that defines mechanisms to fight corruption in administration, the State that enjoys an independent and non-politicized Justice authority, the State that establishes its economy mainly according to the producing sectors and works on consolidating them especially the agriculture and industry ones, the State that applies the principle of balanced development between all regions, the State that cares for its people and works to provide them with appropriate services, that State that takes care of the youth generation and help young people to develop their energies and talents, the State that works to consolidate the role of women at all levels, the State that care for education and work to strengthen the official schools and university alongside applying the principle of obligatory teaching, the State that adopts a decentralized system, the State that works hard to stop emigration and the State that guards its people all over the world and protects them and benefits from their positions to serve the national causes."
"The establishment of a state based on these specifications and requirements is a goal to us just like it's the goal of every honest and sincere Lebanese. In Hezbollah, we will exert all possible efforts, in cooperation with the popular and political forces, to achieve this noble national goal."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION FOUR – LEBANESE-PALESTINIAN TIES
"One of the tragic consequences of the emergence of the Zionist entity on the land of Palestine and the displacement of its inhabitants is the problem of Palestinian refugees who moved to Lebanon to live temporarily in its land as guests to their fellow Lebanese until returning to their homes from where they were expelled."
"The original and direct reason of the sufferance of Lebanese and Palestinians was actually the Israeli occupation of Palestine and all the resulting tragedies and calamities in the region. Moreover, the suffering of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon was not limited to the pain of forced migration but also to the Israeli massacres and atrocities in addition to what happened in the Nabatiyeh camp that has been fully destroyed. Palestinian refugees are also deprived of all civilian and social rights since the Lebanese governments didn't assume their responsibilities towards them."
"The Lebanese authorities are nowadays called to assume their responsibilities and therefore build the Lebanese-Palestinian relations under right, solid and legal bases that respect the justice, rights and mutual interests' balances to both nations. It is imperative that the Lebanese-Palestinian relationship remains governed by the whims and moods, as well as political calculations and internal interactions and international interventions."
"We believe that succeeding in this mission requires a Lebanese-Palestinian direct dialogue, a permission for Palestinians in Lebanon to agree on a unified reference that represents them, providing Palestinian refugees with their social and civilian rights, committing to the Right of Return and reject settlement."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION FIVE – LEBANON AND ARAB TIES
"Lebanon is committed to the just and fair Arab causes, at the top of which comes the Palestinian cause as well as the conflict with the Israeli enemy. Even more, there is a definite need for concerted efforts to overcome the conflicts that run through the Arab ranks."
"The contradiction of strategies and the difference of alliances, despite their seriousness and intensity, doesn't justify the policies of targeting or engaging in external projects, based on the deepening discord and inciting sectarianism, leading to the exhaustion of the nation and therefore serving the Zionist enemy in the implementation of the purposes of America."
"The Resistance choice constitutes once again a central need and an objective factor in strengthening the Arab stance and weakening the enemy. In this context, Syria has recorded a distinctive attitude and supported the resistance movements in the region, and stood beside us in the most difficult circumstances, and sought to unify Arab efforts to secure the interests of the region and challenges."
"Hence, we emphasize the need to adhere to the distinguished relations between Lebanon and Syria as a political and security and economic need, dictated by the two countries and two peoples and the imperatives of geopolitics and the requirements for Lebanese stability and common challenges. We also call for an end to all the negative sentiment that have marred bilateral ties in the past few years and urge these relations to return to their normal status as soon as possible."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION SIX – LEBANON AND ISLAMIC RELATIONS
"The Arab and Islamic world is facing challenges that shouldn't be undermined. Indeed, the sectarian fabricated conflicts, especially between Sunnis and Shiites, are threatening the cohesiveness of our societies. Therefore, and instead of being a source of wealth, the sectarian diversities seem to be exploited as factors of division and incitement. The situation resulting from this bad use seems to be the result of the intersection of Western deliberate policies, the US in particular."
"Hezbollah emphasizes the necessity to cooperate will Islamic states at different levels to gain strength in confronting hegemony schemes. Such cooperation also serves in facing the cultural invasion of the community and media, and encourages the Islamic states to take advantage of its resources in the exchange of the different benefits between these countries." "In this context, Hezbollah considers Iran as a central state in the Muslim world, since it is the State that dropped through its revolution the Shah's regime and its American-Israeli projects, and it's also the state that supported the resistance movements in our region, and stood with courage and determination at the side of the Arab and Islamic causes and especially the Palestinian one."
CHAPTER TWO, SECTION SEVEN – LEBANON AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
"Hezbollah considers that the unilateral hegemony in the world overthrows the international balance and stability as well as the international peace and security. The unlimited US support for Israeli and its cover for the Israeli occupation of Arab lands annexed to the American domination of international institutions and the American meddling in various states' affairs and adoption of the principle of circulating wars puts the American administration in the position of the aggressor and holds it responsible in producing chaos in the international political system."
"The American administration's unlimited support to Israel ... places the American administration in the position of the enemy of our nation and our peoples."
CHAPTER THREE – PALESTINE AND COMPROMISE NEGOTIATIONS
"The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict proves that armed struggle and military resistance is the best way of ending the occupation. The method of negotiations has proven that the Zionist entity becomes more boastful and more belligerent, and that it has no intention of reaching an accord. The resistance has managed to achieve a huge victory over the Zionist entity, provide the homeland with protection, and liberation of the remainder of its land. This function is a lasting necessity before Israel's expansionist threats and ambitions as well as the lack of a strong government in Lebanon. The ongoing Israeli threat forces the resistance to continue to boost its capacity ... in order to fulfill its role in liberating occupied territory."
"We categorically reject any compromise with Israel or recognizing its legitimacy," his eminence concluded. "This position is definitive, even if everyone recognizes Israel."
Bogus Honduran Elections Today: Hypocrites Washington, Costa Rica, Panama, Perú, Colombia & Israel the only nations to recognize the illegal elections
by Eva Golinger
"What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told reporters in Washington.
The true divides in Latin America - between justice and injustice, democracy and dictatorship, human rights and corporate rights, people's power and imperial domination - have never been more visible than today. People's movements throughout the region to revolutionize corrupt, unequal systems that have isolated and excluded the vast majority in Latin American nations, are successfully taking power democratically and building new models of economic and social justice. Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador are the vanguard of these movements, with other nations such as Uruguay and Argentina moving at a slower pace towards change.
The region has historically been plagued by brutal US intervention, seeking at all costs to dominate the natural and strategic resources contained in this vast, abundant territory. With the exception of the defiant Cuban Revolution, Washington achieved control over puppet regimes placed throughout Latin America by the end of the twentieth century. When Hugo Chávez won the presidency in 1998 and the Bolivarian Revolution began to root, the balance of power and imperial control over the region started to weaken. Eight years of Bush/Cheney brought coup d'etats back to the region, in Venezuela in 2002 against President Chávez and Haiti in 2004 against President Aristide. The former was defeated by a mass popular uprising, the latter succeeded in ousting a president no longer convenient to Washington's interests.
Despite the Bush administration's efforts to neutralize the spread of revolution in Latin America through coups, economic sabotages, media warfare, psychological operations, electoral interventions and an increasing military presence, nations right across the border such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala elected leftist-leaning presidents. Latin American integration solidified with UNASUR (the union of South American nations) and ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas), and Washington's grip on power began to slip away.
Henry Kissinger said in the seventies, "if we can't control Latin America, how can we dominate the world?" This imperial vision is more evident today than ever before. Obama's presence in the White House was erroneously viewed by many in the region as a sign of an end to US aggression in the world, and especially here, in Latin America. At least, many believed, Obama would downscale the growing tensions with its neighbors to the south. In fact, he himself, the new president of the United States, made allusion to such changes.
But now, the Obama administration's "Smart Power" strategy has been unmasked. The handshakes, smiles, gifts and promises of "no intervention" and "a new era" made by President Obama himself to leaders of Latin American nations last Spring at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad have unraveled and turned into cynical gestures of hypocrisy. When Obama came to power, Washington's reputation in the region was at an all-time low. The meager attempts to "change" the North-South relationship in the Americas have made things worse and reaffirmed that Kissinger's vision of control over this region is a state policy, irrespective of party affiliation or public discourse.
Washington's role in the coup in Honduras against President Zelaya has been evident from day one. The continual funding of coup leaders, the US military presence at the Soto Cano base in Honduras, the ongoing meetings between State Department officials and the US Ambassador in Honduras, Hugo Llorens, with coup leaders, and the cynical attempts to force "mediation" and "negotiation" between the coup leaders and the legitimate government of Honduras, have provided clear evidence of Washington's intentions to consolidate this new form of "smart coup". The Obama administration's initial public insistence on Zelaya's legitimacy as president of Honduras quickly faded after the first weeks of the coup. Calls for "restitution of democratic and constitutional order" became weak whispers repeated by the monotone voices of State Department spokesmen.
The imposition of Costan Rican president Oscar Arias - a staunch ally of neoliberalism and imperialism -to "mediate" the negotiation ordered by Washington between coup leaders and President Zelaya was a circus. At the time, it was apparent that Washington was engaging in a "buying time" strategy, pandering to the coup leaders while publicly "working" to resolve the conflict in Honduras. Arias' insincerity and complicity in the coup was evident from the very morning of Zelaya's violent kidnapping and forced exile. The Pentagon, State Department and CIA officials present on the Soto Cano base, which is controlled by Washington, arranged for Zelaya's transport to Costa Rica. Arias had subserviently agreed to refuge the illegally ousted president and to not detain those who kidnapped him and piloted the plane that - in violation of international law - landed in Costa Rican territority.
Today, Oscar Arias has called on all nations to "recognize" the illegal and illegitimate elections occurring in Honduras. Why not? he says, if there is no fraud or irregularity, "why not recognize the newly elected president?" The State Department and even President Obama himself have said the same thing, and are calling on all nations - pressuring - to recognize a regime that will be elected under a dictatorship. Seems that fraud and irregularity are already present, considering that today, no democracy exists in Honduras that would permit proper conditions for an electoral process. Not to mention that the State Department admitted to funding the elections and campaigns in Honduras weeks ago. And the "international observers" sent to witness and provide "credibility" to the illegal process are all agencies and agents of empire. The International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute, both agencies created to filter funding from USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to political parties abroad in order to promote US agenda, not only funded those groups involved in the Honduran coup, but now are "observing" the elections. Terrorist groups such as UnoAmerica, led by Venezuelan coup leader Alejando Peña Esclusa, have also sent "observers" to Honduras. Miami-Cuban terrorist and criminal Adolfo Franco, former USAID director, is another "heavyweight" on the list of electoral observers in Honduras today.
But the Organization of American States (OAS) and Carter Center, hardly "leftist" entities, have condemned the electoral process as illegitimate and refused to send observers. So has the United Nations and the European Union, as well as UNASUR and ALBA.
Washington stands alone, with its right-wing puppet states in Colombia, Panamá, Perú, Costa Rica and Israel, as the only nations to have publicly indicated recognition of the electoral process in Honduras and the future regime. A high-level State Department official cynically declared to the Washington Post, "What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" Well, Washington has sat for 50 years and refused to recognize the Cuban government. But that's because the Cuban government is not convenient for Washington. The Honduran dictatorship is.
The Honduran resistance movement is boycotting the elections, calling on people to abstain from participating in an illegal process. The streets of Honduras have been taken over by thousands of military forces, under control of the coup regime and the Pentagon. With advanced weapons technology from Israel, the coup regime is prepared to massively repress and brutalize any who attempt to resist the electoral process. We must remain vigilant and stand with the people of Honduras in the face of the immense danger surrounding them. Today's elections are a second coup d'etat against the Honduran people, this time openly designed, promoted, funded and supported by Washington. Whatever the result, no justice will be brought to Honduras until Washington's intervention ceases.
"What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told reporters in Washington.
The true divides in Latin America - between justice and injustice, democracy and dictatorship, human rights and corporate rights, people's power and imperial domination - have never been more visible than today. People's movements throughout the region to revolutionize corrupt, unequal systems that have isolated and excluded the vast majority in Latin American nations, are successfully taking power democratically and building new models of economic and social justice. Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador are the vanguard of these movements, with other nations such as Uruguay and Argentina moving at a slower pace towards change.
The region has historically been plagued by brutal US intervention, seeking at all costs to dominate the natural and strategic resources contained in this vast, abundant territory. With the exception of the defiant Cuban Revolution, Washington achieved control over puppet regimes placed throughout Latin America by the end of the twentieth century. When Hugo Chávez won the presidency in 1998 and the Bolivarian Revolution began to root, the balance of power and imperial control over the region started to weaken. Eight years of Bush/Cheney brought coup d'etats back to the region, in Venezuela in 2002 against President Chávez and Haiti in 2004 against President Aristide. The former was defeated by a mass popular uprising, the latter succeeded in ousting a president no longer convenient to Washington's interests.Despite the Bush administration's efforts to neutralize the spread of revolution in Latin America through coups, economic sabotages, media warfare, psychological operations, electoral interventions and an increasing military presence, nations right across the border such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala elected leftist-leaning presidents. Latin American integration solidified with UNASUR (the union of South American nations) and ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas), and Washington's grip on power began to slip away.
Henry Kissinger said in the seventies, "if we can't control Latin America, how can we dominate the world?" This imperial vision is more evident today than ever before. Obama's presence in the White House was erroneously viewed by many in the region as a sign of an end to US aggression in the world, and especially here, in Latin America. At least, many believed, Obama would downscale the growing tensions with its neighbors to the south. In fact, he himself, the new president of the United States, made allusion to such changes.
But now, the Obama administration's "Smart Power" strategy has been unmasked. The handshakes, smiles, gifts and promises of "no intervention" and "a new era" made by President Obama himself to leaders of Latin American nations last Spring at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Trinidad have unraveled and turned into cynical gestures of hypocrisy. When Obama came to power, Washington's reputation in the region was at an all-time low. The meager attempts to "change" the North-South relationship in the Americas have made things worse and reaffirmed that Kissinger's vision of control over this region is a state policy, irrespective of party affiliation or public discourse.
Washington's role in the coup in Honduras against President Zelaya has been evident from day one. The continual funding of coup leaders, the US military presence at the Soto Cano base in Honduras, the ongoing meetings between State Department officials and the US Ambassador in Honduras, Hugo Llorens, with coup leaders, and the cynical attempts to force "mediation" and "negotiation" between the coup leaders and the legitimate government of Honduras, have provided clear evidence of Washington's intentions to consolidate this new form of "smart coup". The Obama administration's initial public insistence on Zelaya's legitimacy as president of Honduras quickly faded after the first weeks of the coup. Calls for "restitution of democratic and constitutional order" became weak whispers repeated by the monotone voices of State Department spokesmen.
The imposition of Costan Rican president Oscar Arias - a staunch ally of neoliberalism and imperialism -to "mediate" the negotiation ordered by Washington between coup leaders and President Zelaya was a circus. At the time, it was apparent that Washington was engaging in a "buying time" strategy, pandering to the coup leaders while publicly "working" to resolve the conflict in Honduras. Arias' insincerity and complicity in the coup was evident from the very morning of Zelaya's violent kidnapping and forced exile. The Pentagon, State Department and CIA officials present on the Soto Cano base, which is controlled by Washington, arranged for Zelaya's transport to Costa Rica. Arias had subserviently agreed to refuge the illegally ousted president and to not detain those who kidnapped him and piloted the plane that - in violation of international law - landed in Costa Rican territority.
Today, Oscar Arias has called on all nations to "recognize" the illegal and illegitimate elections occurring in Honduras. Why not? he says, if there is no fraud or irregularity, "why not recognize the newly elected president?" The State Department and even President Obama himself have said the same thing, and are calling on all nations - pressuring - to recognize a regime that will be elected under a dictatorship. Seems that fraud and irregularity are already present, considering that today, no democracy exists in Honduras that would permit proper conditions for an electoral process. Not to mention that the State Department admitted to funding the elections and campaigns in Honduras weeks ago. And the "international observers" sent to witness and provide "credibility" to the illegal process are all agencies and agents of empire. The International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute, both agencies created to filter funding from USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to political parties abroad in order to promote US agenda, not only funded those groups involved in the Honduran coup, but now are "observing" the elections. Terrorist groups such as UnoAmerica, led by Venezuelan coup leader Alejando Peña Esclusa, have also sent "observers" to Honduras. Miami-Cuban terrorist and criminal Adolfo Franco, former USAID director, is another "heavyweight" on the list of electoral observers in Honduras today.
But the Organization of American States (OAS) and Carter Center, hardly "leftist" entities, have condemned the electoral process as illegitimate and refused to send observers. So has the United Nations and the European Union, as well as UNASUR and ALBA.
Washington stands alone, with its right-wing puppet states in Colombia, Panamá, Perú, Costa Rica and Israel, as the only nations to have publicly indicated recognition of the electoral process in Honduras and the future regime. A high-level State Department official cynically declared to the Washington Post, "What are we going to do, sit for four years and just condemn the coup?" Well, Washington has sat for 50 years and refused to recognize the Cuban government. But that's because the Cuban government is not convenient for Washington. The Honduran dictatorship is.
The Honduran resistance movement is boycotting the elections, calling on people to abstain from participating in an illegal process. The streets of Honduras have been taken over by thousands of military forces, under control of the coup regime and the Pentagon. With advanced weapons technology from Israel, the coup regime is prepared to massively repress and brutalize any who attempt to resist the electoral process. We must remain vigilant and stand with the people of Honduras in the face of the immense danger surrounding them. Today's elections are a second coup d'etat against the Honduran people, this time openly designed, promoted, funded and supported by Washington. Whatever the result, no justice will be brought to Honduras until Washington's intervention ceases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
