Archives: Articles

Last weekend, as tens of thousands of unarmed refugees marched toward Israel from all sides in a symbolic effort to reclaim their right of return, the world suddenly discovered the power of Palestinian nonviolence. Much like the “Freedom Flotilla,” when nine activists were killed during an act of nonviolent international disobedience almost a year ago, the deaths of unarmed protesters at the hands of Israeli soldiers drew the world’s attention to Palestine and the refugee issue.

The world shouldn’t have been so surprised. The truth is that there is a long, rich history of nonviolent Palestinian resistance dating back well before 1948, when the state of Israel was established atop a depopulated Palestine. It has just never captured the world’s attention the way violent acts have.

Indeed,  by the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, well before the establishment of the state of Israel, and during a period when the Jewish population of historic Palestine had yet to reach 10 percent, the native Arabs of Palestine could already see that their hopes for self-determination — in a homeland where they constituted a vast majority — were being jeopardized by their soon-to-be colonial master.

Resistance to Zionism during this period was characterized by various efforts led by elite members of Arab society who raised awareness about the dangers Zionism posed. Just before the war, Palestine saw a huge spike in new newspapers, and writers and editors such as Ruhi al-Khalidi, Najib Nassar, and Isa al-Isa regularly zeroed in on the threat of Zionism to Palestinian life. Diplomatic efforts to lobby the mandatory government ensued while concurrently peasants occasionally clashed with the European newcomers, but violence was largely localized and communal and took place amid larger, more peaceful, and political efforts to resist Zionist aims.

As Jewish immigration into Palestine increased and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration became more apparent, Palestinians who feared marginalization (or worse) under a Jewish state continued to resist. In the early 1930s, numerous protests and demonstrations against the Zionist agenda were held, and the British mandatory government was swift to crack down. The iconic image of Palestinian notable Musa Kazim al-Husseini being beaten down during a protest in 1933 by mounted British soldiers comes to mind.

It was not until nonviolent protests were met with severe repression that Palestinian guerrilla movements began. After the 81-year-old Husseini died a few months after being beaten, a young imam living in Haifa named Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (the namesake of Hamas’s military wing) organized the first militant operation against the British mandatory government. His death in battle with British soldiers sparked the Arab rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted until 1939.

The first phases of this revolt began with nonviolent resistance in the form of more strikes and protests, and the economy ground to a halt for six months when Palestinian leaders called for a work stoppage. This was put down harshly by the mandatory government, according to British historian Matthew Hughes, including the bombing of more than 200 buildings in Jaffa on June 16, 1936. The repression of both violent and nonviolent Palestinian dissent significantly destroyed the capacity of Palestinian society, paving the way for the depopulation of Palestine and the establishment of the state of Israel a decade later.

During the Nakba, which is what Palestinians call the period of depopulation from 1947 to 1949, nonviolent resistance became harder to see again, as armed conflict and violence dominated headlines. But one anecdote, which hits close to home, suggests that thinking about nonviolent resistance in the Palestinian context requires broadening our conventional understanding of the concept.

3

My hometown, Al-Lyd, (which is today called Lod), was besieged by Haganah troops in mid-July 1948. As part of Operation Dani, Al-Lyd and the neighboring town of Ramla were depopulated of tens of thousands of Palestinians. At the time, the city was filled with at least 50,000 people, more than twice its usual population, because it had swelled with refugees from nearby villages. After the siege, my grandparents were among the 1,000 original inhabitants who remained. They and many others refused to flee during the fighting and hid in the city’s churches and mosques. Unlike their neighbors, who were hiding in the Dahmash mosque where scores of refugees were massacred by Haganah troops, they managed to survive and walk out of their refuge into the destroyed ghost town they called home.

We tend to think of nonviolent resistance as an active rather than passive concept. In reality, even though the majority of the native inhabitants were depopulated during the Nakba, thousands of Palestinians practiced nonviolent resistance by refusing to leave their homes when threatened. Today, through its occupation, Israel continues to make life unbearable for Palestinians, but millions resist the pressure by not leaving. This is particularly notable in occupied Jerusalem, where Palestinians are being pushed out of the city. For those who have never lived in a system of violence like the Israeli occupation, it is hard to understand how simply not going anywhere constitutes resistance, but when the objective of your oppressor is to get you to leave your land, staying put is part of the daily struggle. In this sense, every Palestinian living under the Israeli occupation is a nonviolent resister.

The first and second intifadas were very different. In the first intifada of the late 1980s, Palestinians employed various nonviolent tactics, from mass demonstrations to strikes to protests. Even though the vast majority of the activism was nonviolent, it is the mostly symbolic stone-throwing that many remember. The Israeli response to the uprising was brutal. In the words of Yitzhak Rabin, then the Israeli defense minister, the policy was “might, power, and beatings” — what became known as the “break the bones” strategy, depicted in this gruesome video. Mass arrests also ensued, and according to the NGO B’Tselem more than a thousand Palestinians civilians were killed from 1987 to 1993. Thousands more were injured or crippled at the hands of Israeli troops. Yet, only 12 of the 70,000 Israeli soldiers regularly posted in occupied territories during the intifada died in the four-year uprising, clearly demonstrating the restraint with which Palestinian dissent was carried out.

The second intifada, which began in 2000 after a decade of negotiations yielded only more Israeli settlements, violence was used much more readily, including armed attacks. Yet while the acts of violence by both sides were more likely to feature in the headlines, many Palestinians were still employing nonviolent means of resistance; protests and marches, many at nearly daily funerals, were commonplace. It is during this period that the seeds of present-day nonviolent resistance in Palestine were planted.

Before we can think about whether nonviolent resistance is likely to factor heavily in the next chapter of the Palestinian struggle, we must first consider its aims. Nonviolent resistance, like armed resistance, is a tactic or tool primarily used to draw attention to a cause. The difference between the two is, of course, more important than the similarities. While armed resistance is likely to draw more attention to a cause by grabbing headlines, it’s also likely to bring with it plenty of negative attention. Nonviolent resistance is far less likely to make it into the international news, though when it does get coverage, it’s usually overwhelmingly positive. But a strategy of nonviolence only works if the world is paying attention and rewarding nonviolence with meaningful action.

The atmosphere in the Middle East and North Africa today is electric. Thanks to the scenes of peaceful protesters ousting dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, belief in nonviolent people power is at an all-time high. But for Palestinians to continue making the same decision, they have to believe they will succeed. If nonviolent Palestinian protesters are crushed by force and their repression is met with silence from the Western states that support Israel, many might choose an alternate path. That’s why the U.S. response to the Nakba Day protests — pointing the finger at Syria instead of criticizing Israel for shooting unarmed demonstrators — is so disappointing.

If ever there were a moment for Palestinians to overwhelmingly embrace nonviolence, that moment is now. The new media environment has created space for peaceful Palestinian voices that would never have been heard in the past. Many nonviolent protests continue to take place regularly: from the aid flotillas and convoys, along with repeated demonstrations against buffer zones in Gaza, to protests against the separation wall in Bilin, Nilin, Nabi Saleh, and al-Walaja; to demonstrations against home eviction and demolition in Jerusalem neighborhoods like Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan; to regular marches in refugee camps inside and outside of Palestine.

But Western gobernments need to end their silence. By condemning Palestinian violent resistance while failing to condemn Israel’s repression of nonviolent resistance, Israel’s allies — above all the United States — are sending the dangerous message to young Palestinians that no resistance to Israeli occupation is ever acceptable. The fact that the nonviolent protest of the Arab Spring has come to Palestine is not a threat. It’s a historic opportunity for the West to finally get it right.

BY YOUSEF MUNAYYER

18 MAY 2011

@ Foreign Policy

From: http:/ /www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/18/palestines_hidden_history_of_nonviolence?page=full

President Obama billed his secretive, fly-in, fly-out trip to Afghanistan in the early hours of Wednesday morning as marking a new dawn—the withdrawal of American troops and an end to more than a decade of war. In reality, the visit has set the stage for an open-ended US military presence in Afghanistan in line with Washington’s aims to transform the country into a permanent base of operations in Central Asia.

Obama’s unannounced trip to Afghanistan on the anniversary of the assassination of Osama bin Laden was also pitched towards his re-election campaign. He took the opportunity once again to glorify his role in ordering bin Laden’s murder and to posture as the leader who had successfully ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama met briefly with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sign an “Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement” between the two countries. While the plan is to withdraw the bulk of US troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and shift responsibility for security operations to the Afghan army and police, US special forces and trainers will remain, ostensibly in a support role, for at least a decade.

In a speech from the huge Bagram military complex, Obama declared that the US did not seek permanent bases inside Afghanistan. However, as well as the continued presence of US troops, the US military will have access to and use of Afghan facilities beyond 2014. A new bilateral security agreement will be negotiated over the next year to supersede the current Status of Forces Agreement giving US troops unfettered access throughout the country.

Obama claimed that the agreement marked the beginning of “an equal partnership between two sovereign states”, but the terms of the arrangement were clearly dictated by the US to its puppet regime in Kabul. Karzai remains completely dependent economically and militarily on Washington. Afghan security forces, which are due to peak at 352,000 in October before dropping to 230,000 in 2017, will be almost completely funded by Washington and its allies.

The timing of the visit was bound up with a NATO meeting due to take place in Chicago on May 20 to discuss the withdrawal of NATO combat troops. A number of US allies, facing widespread hostility to the war at home, have announced the pull-out of troops prior to the 2014 deadline. The Obama administration will use the meeting to pressure other NATO countries to commit to funding the Afghan security forces and providing other financial aid.

In his speech, Obama claimed that the US had reached its main goal, declaring that the defeat of Al Qaeda “is now within our reach.” Whatever the exact state of the Al Qaeda network, more than a decade of brutal neo-colonial war has embittered the Afghan population, providing a ready stream of recruits for anti-occupation militias such as the Taliban and the Haqqani network.

Just hours after Obama flew out of Afghanistan, Taliban fighters attacked a heavily-fortified residential compound in Kabul housing foreigners including American military contractors and defence employees. Suicide bombers detonated their explosives, blowing open the main gate. Fighting continued for hours before Afghan forces and private guards finally silenced the attackers, leaving at least seven Afghans and a guard dead.

The ability of the Taliban to mount high-profile attacks in the heavily-guarded capital underscores the tenuous character of the US-led occupation. While Obama claimed that “the tide had turned” against the Taliban insurgency, most analysts are pessimistic about the future of the Karzai regime once most US forces leave the country.

In an essay published on Tuesday, Anthony Cordesman from the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies wrote: “The broader problems in creating effective Afghan forces is increasingly questionable, the insurgents are clearly committed to going on with the fight, and relations with Pakistan seem to take two steps backward for every apparent step forward.”

Despite tactical reversals, Cordesman explained, the Taliban and other insurgents were not defeated. The present US strategy “will almost certainly fail to secure the south and east of Afghanistan” prior to 2014. Given this bleak picture, Cordesman advocated concentrating on shoring up areas still under Afghan government control and boosting pro-government local militias and warlords, despite their corruption and brutality.

Obama claimed that the strategic agreement signed yesterday will help “strengthen democratic institutions”, “advance development and dignity” for the Afghan people, and protect human rights. But this is belied by the corrupt and autocratic character of the Karzai regime and the social crisis confronting the vast majority of the Afghan people.

After more than a decade of American occupation, 70 percent of Afghans struggle to survive on less than $US2 a day. Unemployment is rampant and will certainly worsen as sectors of the economy dependent on the occupation decline or collapse. Food prices are rocketing due to drought. According to a report in the Independent earlier this year, more than 30,000 children die every year in Afghanistan due to the lack of nutritious food, leaving them vulnerable to diseases such as pneumonia or diarrhoea.

Far from ending a decade of war, Obama’s drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan is the preparation for new military adventures. The NATO war to oust the Gaddafi regime in Libya is being followed by escalating threats of intervention in Syria. At the same time, the US, together with its ally Israel, is threatening to attack Iran.

Even more recklessly, the Obama administration is refocussing the American military in the Asia Pacific region as part of its diplomatic/strategic efforts to undercut Chinese influence. By deliberately raising tensions with China, the US is increasing the danger of a slide towards a catastrophic conflict between two nuclear-armed countries.

By Peter Symonds

3 May 2012

@ WSWS.org

An editorial in the British newspaper the Independent called it the most important G8 summit for three decades, as the deepening financial crisis in Europe threatened the entire global economy. The communiqué issued after a day of talks at the US presidential retreat at Camp David, however, revealed there was no plan to meet the crisis, just a decision to put the best face on a worsening situation.

It began with two outright falsehoods—declaring that “our imperative is to promote growth and jobs” and that the “global economic recovery shows signs of promise.”

President Obama emerged from the summit to declare “so far so good” and claim “there’s now an emerging consensus that more must be done to promote economic growth and job creation, right now.” In a later statement, he pointed to the record of his administration in putting in place “some of the strongest financial reforms since the Great Depression”—an assertion belied by the recent $3 billion-plus loss by JPMorgan Chase in derivative trades.

The communiqué sought to do two things: give the impression that the G8 leaders have some response to the global crisis, and paper over differences where these exist. Much has been made in press coverage of the emphasis placed by Obama and his supporters in the G8 on “growth,” while German Chancellor Angela Merkel is portrayed as the chief proponent of austerity.

The differences are minor and largely tactical. Insofar as the US favours growth, it wants to see more money injected into the European financial system to protect the banks, and thereby US financial interests, as well as the implementation of “structural reforms” to drive down wages and working conditions. It would also like to see some limited infrastructure projects to provide a lift to the European economy, assisting American exporters.

The communiqué welcomed “the ongoing discussion in Europe on how to generate growth, while maintaining a firm commitment to fiscal consolidation to be assessed on a structural basis.” In other words, the austerity measures, involving cuts in government spending targeting social programs, will be continued.

While there were minor differences in emphasis, all the G8 leaders agreed there would be no return to the fiscal stimulus measures of 2008-2009. In any case, such measures could not be carried out in the face of ferocious opposition from global financial markets, representing the interests of the banks and financial institutions.

If Spain, Portugal or even France were to initiate spending measures aimed at boosting jobs, their bonds would be sold off en masse on financial markets, forcing up interest rates and creating a financial crisis.

As for Germany, Merkel’s opposition to an easing of the austerity program reflects the fear of German finance capital that it will be dragged deeper into the mire if it is forced to provide more money for rescue operations.

Merkel indicated her support for the call in the communiqué for “investment in education and in modern infrastructure,” but added “this doesn’t mean stimulus in the traditional sense.” US officials were reported to have agreed, saying growth did not require outright public spending, but could take the form of public-private partnerships and the loosening of credit.

One-on-one talks between Obama and Merkel after the conclusion of the formal session made clear there were no fundamental differences. A White House official, briefing reporters after the discussion, said there was an understanding that the push for growth was “not to take the place of fiscal reform” but that the two would go “in tandem.”

“There’s a growing recognition of the need to take steps in the immediate term that can promote growth in the euro zone… and also pursue fiscal consolidation that Chancellor Merkel and others have been focused on,” he said.

On the crucial issue of the future of Greece, the summit declaration said only that “we reaffirm our interest in Greece remaining in the euro zone while respecting its commitments.” In other words, austerity measures that have plunged the country into economic conditions not seen since the 1930s have to be continued.

The summit leaders left Camp David without anything even resembling a plan to meet the crisis and with no one committed to anything, despite the worsening situation.

On the eve of the talks, the British government’s chief economic forecaster warned that the UK economy would suffer “permanent damage” and would “never quite get back up” if the euro collapsed. UK Chancellor George Osbourne said the “storms” of the euro zone crisis were gathering again.

Even as the summit was convening, fresh concerns emerged over the stability of Spain, with the news late on Friday that its 2011 public deficit was significantly higher than previously reported because of adjusted accounts in three of the country’s regions.

The public deficit for 2011 is now estimated to be 8.9 percent of gross domestic product, compared to the previous estimate of 8.5 percent. The news of the Spanish government’s worsening position will add to pressure on the interest rates on 10-year government bonds, which have already gone over 6 percent, reaching levels considered to be unsustainable.

While advancing no measures to meet the economic crisis, the G8 leaders indicated their backing for the US push for regime-change in Syria, welcoming the current UN mission in Syria and resolving to “consider further UN measures as appropriate.”

The line-up behind the US extended to Iran, with the communiqué expressing “grave concern over Iran’s nuclear program” and calling on its government to “address without delay all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program.”

The focus of economic attention will shift back to Europe this week, where EU leaders are holding an informal summit on Wednesday. Among the items to be discussed is a proposal to empower the euro zone’s €500 billion rescue fund to directly recapitalise European banks and to issue euro zone bonds.

The proposals have been floated before but rejected because of German opposition. But now there are fears that a bank run is developing in parts of the European banking system, following questions about the stability of the Greek and Spanish banks last week.

Two comments are devoted to this question in today’s Financial Times.

According to columnist Gavyn Davies; “A bank run is now happening within the euro zone. So far it has been relatively slow, but it is a run nonetheless. And last week, it showed signs of accelerating sharply in a way which demands an urgent response from policymakers.”

European economics commentator Wolfgang Münchau pointed to press reports that Spanish savers had withdrawn €1 billion from the troubled Bankia conglomerate, noting that while this was not a bank run, “it may be the beginning of one.”

By Nick Beams

Israeli leaders have spent years calling for international unity to face down the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. Now they are seeing this common front crumble in the one place they thought was safe: Israel itself.

Over the past week, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has faced an unprecedented barrage of criticism at home for its stance on Iran, in particular for the implied threat of air strikes. Leading the latest charge was Yuval Diskin, the former director of the Shin Bet internal security service, whose incendiary remarks have dominated the Israeli political debate for days.

Mr Diskin, who left his post amid much praise last year, publicly slammed Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, as “messianic” politicians who could not be trusted, especially on Iran. The two men, he said, were “not the people I would like to be holding the steering wheel” during a crisis.

Mr Diskin also warned that an Israeli strike against Iran, contrary to government assurances, was likely to hasten the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

His remarks were quickly dismissed by government officials as the words of a disgruntled ex-officer angered by his failure to secure another top job. Yet others rushed to his defence, including Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad intelligence service, and Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister.

Speaking in New York on Sunday, Mr Olmert raised a question debated with growing intensity in Israel and abroad: “What has happened,” he asked, “that all the leaders of Israel’s security services suddenly think in the same way?”

There is strong evidence that the Israeli defence and intelligence establishment is opposed to a strike on Iran, at least for the time being. Mr Dagan, for one, made his position clear last year, when he famously described an Israeli attack on Iran as the “stupidest idea” he had ever encountered.

His assessment has since been echoed by other retired intelligence officials and generals, giving rise to speculation that Mr Dagan, Mr Diskin and others are merely saying in public what their successors say in private.

Another blow to the government came last week, when Lieutenant General Benny Gantz, current head of Israel’s armed forces, voiced a string of opinions that differed from official government rhetoric. He said, among other things, that he did not believe that Iran would build a nuclear weapon and described the leadership in Tehran as “very rational”.

The splits are plain to see, says Yossi Alpher, a political analyst and a former adviser to Mr Barak. “We can conclude from all these statements that there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion at the top, and that certainly a major part of the Israeli security establishment is more cautious on Iran than the political leadership.”

He added: “The purpose of these statements is to make it more difficult to decide on an attack. If Barak and Netanyahu order strikes now, they will seem to be acting out of the irresponsible calculus that is being attributed to them. And if things go wrong, there will be plenty of people who can say: we told you so.”

For Mr Netanyahu, the public display of dissent from Israel’s military and intelligence officials comes at a particularly critical moment.

Speculation is mounting that the prime minister will call an early election, possibly in August or September. The issue of Iran is likely to feature strongly in any election campaign, and has until now been widely seen as one of his strong cards.

Meanwhile, Iranian negotiators are locked in talks over the country’s nuclear programme with the EU and six other powers. Analysts agree the talks have gained urgency because of fears Israel will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities unless a diplomatic solution is swiftly found.

Israeli leaders now fear the escalating internal strife will convince Tehran a strike is less likely than before and reduce its incentive to compromise. That concern was echoed by Ari Shavit, an influential columnist in the Haaretz daily on Monday.

“Diskin tried to empty the ammunition from the Israeli gun threatening Iran with a military strike,” he said. “But it was that loaded gun that made the international community impose a diplomatic and economic siege on Iran.”

By Tobias Buck

30 April 2012

@ The Financial Times

The Context

As Sri Lanka makes its way from a phase of post-war to post-conflict, the potential, the challenges and the successes are worthy of reflection. The time is fitting not only because it is exactly three years since the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) but also because considerable events, circumstances and eventualities of significance have transpired for this nation in transition.

The aim of this article is to highlight key progress that has been made within the country, irrespective of the actors involved, but rather from the perspective of the hope that has dawned for the future of both the nation and its peoples. The challenges that remain to be addressed, the lacunae that beg to be filled and more importantly the sustainability and consolidation of the dividends that come with the ending of a three-decade conflict are highlighted constructively, with the objective of fostering both national and international discourse on Sri Lanka, to inform processes of governance, provide direction and inspire action for rebuilding the country – a country that yearns for a stable future with the full realization of potential for all its peoples.

I. CONSOLIDATING PEACE AND ENSURING SUSTAINABILITY OF ITS DIVIDENDS

The engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil National Alliance, the main Tamil political party, in talks at arriving at a political settlement commenced with considerable interest on both sides, while awakening hope in the citizenry of a new era of peace to be beckoned. However, the talks have reached a stalemate. There is a need at present requiring the casting aside of political rivalries on both sides, to ensure that a framework of peace and understanding for both the majority Sinhalese community and the Tamil and Muslim minorities are guaranteed, through the speedy resumption of talks.

The Government of Sri Lanka appointed a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) following the conclusion of the war, which has completed its term issuing recommendations for a peaceful and sustainable era to be ushered into the country. The LLRC report calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to, among others, arrive at a political solution. The home grown mechanism, that was developed to reflect upon and recommend action, drew on solicited and unsolicited submissions from the public in all areas of the country and hence has been hailed for its credibility and transparency. The final report has been tabled in Parliament and remains to be implemented.

Pursuant to its pledges at the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review, the Government of Sri Lanka embarked on drafting a National Human Rights Action Plan in 2009. The Action Plan has sought to address the objective of improving the human rights protection and promotion in all aspects, with targets to be achieved in five years. The Action Plan has subsequently been adopted by the Cabinet. The time for implementing the Action Plan has arrived, with repeated calls for same by all concerned for the future of the country. The role of human rights protection and promotion in both peace-building and nation-building cannot be overstated. While upholding civil and political rights help to create in the citizenry a sense of security and belonging to the nation, the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights ensures that opportunities are generated through which a connection is felt towards the newly rebuilt state. Such an endeavour is not only beneficial for the citizenry but also for the state as it improves the relationship between the two, strengthening the social contract, and hence contributes to a new culture, structure and system of governance.

Furthermore, a draft National Reconciliation Policy has been prepared by the Office of the Presidential Advisor on Reconciliation which clearly addresses the aspect of consolidating peace in the interests of genuine healing and reconciliation, both comprehensively and convincingly. The Draft Policy has currently been circulated amongst all political parties and Members of Parliament following which consultation with civil society and the public is envisaged before being taken through the adoption process in Parliament.

The three landmark initiatives discussed above, while being key to the nation building enterprise in terms of consolidating peace, have not been the only such of its kind. The following sections discuss other aspects that have been engaged. Before proceeding, however, it is critical to mention, that one of the key challenges to the successful realization of such national mechanisms has been the lack of subsequent implementation, both in terms of machinery and administrative and political will. The lack of implementation has not been due to a lack of local expertise or experience by nationals and interested parties. Rather, what is required is the need to garner the required will and corporate ambition for implementation of such measures, whilst strengthening the machinery of implementation, if national mechanisms are to reach fruition.

Since the end of the armed struggle in May 2009, both organized and natural processes of reconciliation are taking place in Sri Lanka. Experts have opined that that the path to moderation, tolerance and coexistence must be paved as prerequisites for any endeavour to usher in a new chapter for the country based on reconciliation amongst all communities.

In particular, it must be emphasized that there exists the need for an organized process of reconciliation so as to prevent a relapse or resurgence of past animosities that initially led to hostilities. Accordingly, a four pronged strategy can be proposed: The first, second and third has already been completed with the rehabilitation of 11,500 LTTE-rs, the reintegration of 280,000 displaced and the reconstruction of the north and east particularly the Wanni. It is now time for the various sectors to actively initiate programmes on reconciliation highlighting its role in realizing the fourth aspect, namely, the building of relationships between and within communities.

It must be highlighted that the nature of the conflict in Sri Lanka has been one where the Tamil community sought to restructure the State with a view to removing features discriminatory of the minorities as opposed to what has been usually described as a struggle between the Sinhala majority community and Tamil minority community per se. While the Government of Sri Lanka’s efforts in the Northern and Eastern rehabilitation and resettlement processes have been commendable, it is imperative that the important next step is taken, namely, reaching out to the Tamil community to address their concerns and grievances. The Muslim community has oft been caught in the cross-fires and hence need to be taken seriously and made stakeholders in any endeavour to move the country forward to lasting peace and stability. Accordingly, the minority communities too must be urged to reposition themselves – by not only demanding equality but also conducting themselves as equals. One way of doing this is for the minority communities not to speak on issues affecting their respective communities only but also to participate in national issues and lead national campaigns.

II. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BASED ON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES AND CONFLICT

SENSITIVITY

Since the end of the war much has been done in terms of infrastructure development, restoring commerce and re-establishing administrative structures. While progress has been remarkable, the sustaining of such initiatives as meaningful have not always been evident, what with a lack of proper planning and administrative efficiency. There has begun a national momentum in Sri Lanka to raise awareness on the development of the social conscience of the private sector, following the conclusion of the three-decade war.

It is possible to identify four key aspects for engagement of the business community in the processes of national reconciliation and peace-building. First, livelihood and income generation activities; second, infrastructure development in the North and other conflict-affected areas; thirdly a need for the business community to engage directly with individuals and communities in war-affected regions of the country and finally, to ensure that all endeavours undertaken embrace the vision of preventing economic stagnation which has been at the root of most political conflicts.

There needs to be awareness raised of the existing investment opportunities present in former conflict zones such as Jaffna, where there is an availability of rich natural resources in the region such as limestone, land, groundwater, sea salt, fisheries and agriculture that could be tapped into in order to create industries, income generation and livelihood opportunities. Additionally, the market demand for produce and jobs is increasing with the return of formerly displaced persons to their original habitats. Thirdly, there exists potential for the development of tourism-related infrastructure as Jaffna is gaining increasing currency as a tourist destination, both by locals and foreigners.

The conflict between the north and south of Sri Lanka has been largely due to the lack of economic opportunities. Furthermore, there are considerations that need to be made when decision to invest in the north and the east are taken, namely, that income generation activities must be undertaken in a conflict-sensitive manner ensuring that all communities are given opportunities to participate in the planning of and benefit from the projects. The business community is well placed for developing capacity of potential entrepreneurs by playing a major role in skill building.

Recognition of such a role for the private sector and business community is beginning to emerge in the country. Such recognition needs to be developed further and translated into concrete strategies and action plans by the business community for contributing to the enterprise of nation building.

Although engagement of the business community has been acknowledged as essential for peacebuilding by both the World Bank and the United Nations, a system of rewards to lure early private sector entry has yet to be devised, at the international and national levels. Further, it is recommended that involving the private sector in the larger work of formulating the post-war recovery strategy in Sri Lanka will help generate ownership of the process, and in turn sustainability of outcomes. This would require innovative thinking by both the public and private sectors. The challenge therefore lies in finding new means to make such engagement attractive by establishing appropriate economic and non-economic incentives for investment. Despite their having been private sector investment since the ending of the war in May 2009, it has been with much hesitation and furthermore, chiefly by the large and successful blue-chip companies operating in the country.

The identification of the benefits of early involvement for private businesses in post-war, uncertain and fragile contexts need to be brought to the forefront in any discourse on the role of the business community in reconciliation and peace-building. First, it is a test of the resilience of the sector’s ability to navigate adverse conditions and establish suitable conditions for economic proclivity. Second, it can play a crucial self-serving role in shaping of the market for decades to come by securing preferential rights for early entrants and contributing to developing the legal and regulatory framework in which they will have to operate. Such need to be highlighted to the private sector in Sri Lanka who are still weary of potential fallouts associated with investing in the war-affected regions of the country; and are only now being sensitized to the critical role that they can play in re-building the nation and fostering durable peace.

Sri Lanka’s strategy of building and strengthening a public-private sector partnership to create economic growth in north and east is visionary. That said, much remains to be done in the north and east of the country. At present, the approach has been one of a charitable orientation. There is an urgent need to integrate such investments into the paradigm of the agenda, goal and vision of the private sector and business community, so that they begin to see themselves as one of the stakeholders in bringing the country to economic prosperity and sustainable peace. Although a growing number of companies throughout the world are involved at the early stage of war-topeace transitions, few will be able to sustain their involvement, absent extraordinary profits, unless initiation of the rule of law and institutions practicing good governance soon follow. For this reason there is a business interest in promotion of the rule of law and the development of open markets as a means for creating an environment conducive to doing business.

The challenge now is to promote awareness on how the notions of social justice and peace could in fact be profitable which would in turn lead to it becoming a priority in the business agenda. This would involve minimizing the risk associated with entry of businesses in war-torn areas with uncertain futures. Under these circumstances, there appears a proclivity today to venture forth where a decade ago business would have feared to tread.

A potential nexus that needs to be highlighted as crucial to the development of sustainable peace and reconciliation is the need for economic prosperity in post-war contexts and the role of the businesses in such a national endeavour. In Sri Lanka, the need for economic prosperity or at least movement away from abject poverty and economic hopelessness is pivotal to moving towards reconciliation and peace building if the spirit of peace is to not falter and be extinguished. It is the private sector that can provide in the long-term for economic growth opportunities, jobs and wealth creation.

The second challenge then is how to induce the entry of the business sector at the early years following the end of terrorism in Sri Lanka, being only three years since the armed combat ended. Possible ways of stimulating such an inducement would be to develop commitment within the international private sector to envision that investment abroad would also be an investment in social change. Closely related to this is the need to cultivate a positive attitude towards state structures, administrative structures, public service and international institutions. Hence, these two considerations ought to be integral to Sri Lanka’s foreign policy strategy, which would necessarily involve both direct bilateral and multi-lateral engagement with relevant foreign powers and world bodies.

III. THE RULE OF LAW, HEALING AND RECONCILIATION

The key purpose of reconciliation is to address the underlying suspicion, mistrust and discrimination that has been a manifest and symptomatic of the three-decade conflict that existed in Sri Lanka. Creating a sense of inter-dependence between all communities is crucial if minority communities are to feel a connection to the newly rebuilt nation. In this connection, two positive developments in the current political context are worthy of note – increasing acceptance that the conflict requires a political settlement as opposed to the view that it is only a terrorist problem; and rather than operating through a top-down approach of political patronage and proxies there is now a recognition of the need to engage elected representatives of the Tamil community in the nation building endeavour.

The recognition of a need for reconciliation in post-war Sri Lanka has been reflected by the appointment of a Presidential Advisor on Reconciliation. Prof Rajiva Wijesinha assumed duties last year and, inter alia, has been involved in setting up District Reconciliation Committees in the former conflict regions of the country while leading the formulation of a Draft National Policy on Reconciliation which has been released in March 2012, and is set to be taken through a process of consultation with political parties and civil society, with the aim of leading up to a formal national adoption process.

Acknowledgement of the need for a collaborative effort for successful and genuine reconciliation has been reflected in the inauguration of a series of national conferences on reconciliation convened by the Lakshman Kadirgamar Centre for International and Strategic Studies, Sri Lanka’s national think tank. The series of specialist seminars on the various aspects of reconciliation engages the several stakeholders to the process, creating awareness, sensitization and space for networking and future collaborative efforts on reconciliation. Furthermore, there have been a range of civil society initiatives and dialogue forums on reconciliation engaging the various dimensions, including, accountability, justice, peace, the spiritual perspectives, the military perspectives, the political perspectives, the economic perspectives and the devising of national historical narratives of the conflict as a tool for conflict resolution.

While both natural and organized reconciliation are underway, it must be remembered that reconciliation is both a process and a goal. Hence, it will necessarily require time and space to bear fruit. Reconciliation cannot be imposed or forced on a nation as an event. It requires both a strategy and a systematized response mechanism by the state and other stakeholders to deal with the likely obstacles that will emerge along the way.

Another aspect of nation-building that requires immediate attention in Sri Lanka is the promotion and protection of the rule of law. The rule of law should be considered as the the bedrock for achieving a democratic and economically developed society.

Where States are viewed as having open transparent laws and economic markets, the likelihood of receiving outside investment and increased economic growth is high. This, in turn, boosts investment and sustainable development. That said, more than having the laws in place is needed. The political will has to be garnered or else the efforts will be hindered.

The rule of law ought to be promoted as the method by which development, democratisation and good governance is to be achieved due to the links which institutions and advocates bring into its definitional scope. By addressing the mechanisms and infrastructure which prevents equality and civilian participation in the political and economic process, Sri Lanka could potentially become both democratic and developed.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

Sri Lanka has undoubtedly been through a difficult and devastating period in its history. That said, the need to cultivate and capitalize on the crucial aspect that unites all its peoples – the common identity of being Sri Lankan, is imperative in the ultimate analysis of moving the nation forward to a sustainable and durable peace and prosperity. It is time to celebrate similarities and preserve the differences that in turn contribute to strengthening the national identity of being Sri Lankan. It makes one realize that it is in fact the different cultures, religions and ethnicities that converge into a ‘melting pot’ and is what indeed makes for a Sri Lankan.

The notion of Sri Lankan is then not an identity separate from each of the differences. Rather, it is an identity that has resulted from the combination and cohabitation of the various identities. If each citizen sees that being Sri Lankan does not necessitate the need to give up their own identity or multiple identities but rather that the notion of being Sri Lankan subsumes all such identities, we will then reconcile our differences more easily. For what affects the individual and separate identities will in turn affect the common identity of all.

The approach to healing and reconciliation as echoed by scholars such as Martha Minow has been that of adopting a path of moderation. As such she declares the wisdom in adopting an approach that is ‘Between Vengeance and Forgiveness…’ as the path to achieving lasting healing and reconciliation. As any model for healing and reconciliation based on revenge would only foster more evil and hatred descending into a spiral of further divisiveness, any model purely based on a blank check of forgiveness is believed to promote further impunity coupled with invalidating feelings of loss and suffering and having the reverse of restoring dignity on victims. While justice, accountability, and political solutions are imperative for the nation building strategy, they must be Lankan-led to ensure local ownership and buy-in to the process which will contribute significantly to sustainability of outcomes.

Any country recovering from decades of conflict must put a strategy in place to prevent the relapse into violence. No country should take peace and security for granted. The stabilization strategy should seek to influence the general population where the very conflict emerged.

Moreover, it is important for all sectors of society – and, in particular, minority groups –to be able to feel a connection to the newly rebuilt nation. In the absence of such a sense of belonging, it is inevitable that civil unrest will return. If human rights are able to help citizens and other peoples within the nation to feel safe and secure in their environment, then civil unrest is much less likely to occur. For this reason, human rights should be considered to be an important part of the nation-building process and imperative to sustaining the dividends of peace.

Ultimately, it is a home gown political process addressing the economic social and political grievances and aspirations, acceptable to all sections of society, that will address the critical aspects of nation building – a nation that yearns to metamorphoses into one that sees its strength in multiculturalism and diversity.

By Salma Yusuf

Comments to salmayusuf@gmail.com

Dedicated to Palestinians who still holding the dream to return back home.

Anyway, Zionist occupied Palestine that is true, but to keep Palestine a racist state for Jews is a goal I doubt Zionist will ever achieve.

By Dr Salim Nazzal

Dr. Salim Nazzal, a Palestinian-Norwegian historian on the Middle East, He has written extensively on social and political issues in the region.

A quarter-century ago I barnstormed around the United States encouraging Americans, particularly students, to press for divestment from South Africa. Today, regrettably, the time has come for similar action to force an end to Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestinian territory and refusal to extend equal rights to Palestinian citizens who suffer from some 35 discriminatory laws.

I have reached this conclusion slowly and painfully. I am aware that many of our Jewish brothers and sisters who were so instrumental in the fight against South African apartheid are not yet ready to reckon with the apartheid nature of Israel and its current government. And I am enormously concerned that raising this issue will cause heartache to some in the Jewish community with whom I have worked closely and successfully for decades. But I cannot ignore the Palestinian suffering I have witnessed, nor the voices of those courageous Jews troubled by Israel’s discriminatory course.

Within the past few days, some 1,200 American rabbis signed a letter — timed to coincide with resolutions considered by the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) — urging Christians not “to selectively divest from certain companies whose products are used by Israel.” They argue that a “one-sided approach” on divestment resolutions, even the selective divestment from companies profiting from the occupation proposed by the Methodists and Presbyterians, “damages the relationship between Jews and Christians that has been nurtured for decades.”

While they are no doubt well-meaning, I believe that the rabbis and other opponents of divestment are sadly misguided. My voice will always be raised in support of Christian-Jewish ties and against the anti-Semitism that all sensible people fear and detest. But this cannot be an excuse for doing nothing and for standing aside as successive Israeli governments colonize the West Bank and advance racist laws.

I recall well the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail in which he confesses to his “Christian and Jewish brothers” that he has been “gravely disappointed with the white moderate … who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action;’ who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom. …”

King’s words describe almost precisely the shortcomings of the 1,200 rabbis who are not joining the brave Palestinians, Jews and internationals in isolated West Bank communities to protest nonviolently against Israel’s theft of Palestinian land to build illegal, Jewish-only settlements and the separation wall. We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand as relentless settlement activity forecloses on the possibility of the two-state solution.

If we do not achieve two states in the near future, then the day will certainly arrive when Palestinians move away from seeking a separate state of their own and insist on the right to vote for the government that controls their lives, the Israeli government, in a single, democratic state. Israel finds this option unacceptable and yet is seemingly doing everything in its power to see that it happens.

Many black South Africans have traveled to the occupied West Bank and have been appalled by Israeli roads built for Jewish settlers that West Bank Palestinians are denied access to, and by Jewish-only colonies built on Palestinian land in violation of international law.

Black South Africans and others around the world have seen the 2010 Human Rights Watch report which “describes the two-tier system of laws, rules, and services that Israel operates for the two populations in areas in the West Bank under its exclusive control, which provide preferential services, development, and benefits for Jewish settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians.” This, in my book, is apartheid. It is untenable. And we are in desperate need of more rabbis joining the brave rabbis of Jewish Voice for Peace in speaking forthrightly about the corrupting decadeslong Israeli domination over Palestinians.

These are among the hardest words I have ever written. But they are vitally important. Not only is Israel harming Palestinians, but it is harming itself. The 1,200 rabbis may not like what I have to say, but it is long past time for them to remove the blinders from their eyes and grapple with the reality that Israel becoming an apartheid state or like South Africa in its denial of equal rights is not a future danger, as three former Israeli prime ministers — Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and David Ben Gurion — have warned, but a present-day reality. This harsh reality endured by millions of Palestinians requires people and organizations of conscience to divest from those companies — in this instance, from Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett Packard — profiting from the occupation and subjugation of Palestinians.

Such action made an enormous difference in apartheid South Africa. It can make an enormous difference in creating a future of justice and equality for Palestinians and Jews in the Holy Land.

By Desmond Tutu

2 May 2012

@ The Tampa Times

Desmond Tutu, winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, is archbishop-emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa.

South Sudan’s leaders have stolen at least $10 billion in oil revenues shared with them by Sudan in the past 7 years. With somewhere between $12 to $17 billion turned over to South Sudan, Africa’s newest “government”, during this time frame some say estimates of only $10 billion stolen is to conservative.

South Sudan has about 8 million people so the oil revenues amount to somewhere between $1,500 to $2000 per man, woman and child in a country where everyday hundreds if not thousands die from hunger and disease.

Where has the $10 billion gone? In some cases directly into London City bank accounts, never having made it into South Sudan’s official treasury. In one instance the South Sudanese Minister of Finance managed to have $300 million “disappear” at one time.

And what has South Sudan to show for its $12 billion+ share of the oil revenues? Almost no infrastructure, few schools, fewer medical facilities and millions suffering from malnutrition and sickness.

The South Sudanese leadership can’t even claim to have spent the money on their military for they have little in the way of modern armament, never mind all the claims of Israeli arms sales to them.

The Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), if you can call it that, for years was revolting over unpaid salaries, resulting in the USA stepping in and providing over $100 million a year to pay its salaries since the last major mutiny in 2009.

The SPLA itself is an ethnic or tribal based military force with little centralized control. Ethnic minorities make up the companies, brigades or even divisions that are based in their own tribal territories. When tribal conflicts over land and water rights break out the local militias quickly call in their “big brothers” in the SPLA and local conflicts become inter-SPLA warfare.

Many times the local commanders are at odds with the largest, ethnically Nok based units and do not coordinate their actions with them.

In other words there are serious doubts whether South Sudan’s President Salva Kir actually controls South Sudan’s army. The latest attack on Heglig, recognized internationally as part of Sudan may not have been initiated by Salva Kir but by the local SPLA commander.

Since convincing South Sudan to stop all oil production in late January 2012 (see “US Plan To Destabilize Sudan”) the USA has continued its history of broken promises and blackmail against both parties and failed to deliver the aid it was secretly promising to South Sudan if it implemented the USA’s plan to evict China from Sudan’s oil fields and, in killing two birds with one stone, destablizing or even bringing down the Bashir government in Sudan by depriving it of it main source of income.

After three months without any oil income at all South Sudan President Salva Kir had to take an emergency trip to China hat in hand to try and keep his government afloat, returning with a Chinese promise of some $8 billion in aid. Hopefully he has learned not to trust the USA, though one should not hold ones breath in this regard.

The World Bank has also signed a several hundred million dollar “loan” agreement with a very smug looking South Sudanese robber baron a.k.a. Finance Minister though no one has bothered asking how with their oil fields shut down, their only source of income, South Sudan will be able to repay the World Bank.

With Hollyweirdo’s such as George Clooney and Angelina Jolie accusing Sudan’s government of everything from food aid blockades to genocide coupled with the Phony Kony/Silent Children 2012 pr blitz that has the CIA’s fingerprints all over it via the Enough Project (the people of north Uganda, the region the program claimed to be portraying, threw stones at the screen when it was shown there) western attention has been diverted from the real reason for the suffering in South Sudan due to the massive theft of almost all of the countries income.

While the USA certainly has a hidden hand behind the recent fighting between South Sudan and Sudan, hunger, disease and the missing $10 billion may very well be behind South Sudan’s recent military offensive against Sudan. As the saying goes “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”, what better way to distract your people from hunger, disease and Grand Theft International than starting a war with your erstwhile partner.

One thing is for sure and that is that South Sudan has more than its share of scoundrels and that the USA has more dirty tricks up its sleeve for the people of the region.

By Thomas C. Mountain

3 May 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Thomas C. Mountain is the only independent western journalist in the Horn of Africa, living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. He can be reached at thomascmountain at yahoo dot com.

 What must be said

Why have I kept silent, held back so long,

on something openly practised in

war games, at the end of which those of us

who survive will at best be footnotes?

It’s the alleged right to a first strike

that could destroy an Iranian people

subjugated by a loudmouth

and gathered in organized rallies,

because an atom bomb may be being

developed within his arc of power.

Yet why do I hesitate to name

that other land in which

for years – although kept secret –

a growing nuclear power has existed

beyond supervision or verification,

subject to no inspection of any kind?

This general silence on the facts,

before which my own silence has bowed,

seems to me a troubling, enforced lie,

leading to a likely punishment

the moment it’s broken:

the verdict “Anti-semitism” falls easily.

But now that my own country,

brought in time after time

for questioning about its own crimes,

profound and beyond compare,

has delivered yet another submarine to Israel,

(in what is purely a business transaction,

though glibly declared an act of reparation)

whose speciality consists in its ability

to direct nuclear warheads toward

an area in which not a single atom bomb

has yet been proved to exist, its feared

existence proof enough, I’ll say what must be said.

But why have I kept silent till now?

Because I thought my own origins,

tarnished by a stain that can never be removed,

meant I could not expect Israel, a land

to which I am, and always will be, attached,

to accept this open declaration of the truth.

Why only now, grown old,

and with what ink remains, do I say:

Israel’s atomic power endangers

an already fragile world peace?

Because what must be said

may be too late tomorrow;

and because – burdened enough as Germans –

we may be providing material for a crime

that is foreseeable, so that our complicity

will not be expunged by any

of the usual excuses.

And granted: I’ve broken my silence

because I’m sick of the West’s hypocrisy;

and I hope too that many may be freed

from their silence, may demand

that those responsible for the open danger

we face renounce the use of force,

may insist that the governments of

both Iran and Israel allow an international authority

free and open inspection of

the nuclear potential and capability of both.

No other course offers help

to Israelis and Palestinians alike,

to all those living side by side in enmity

in this region occupied by illusions,

and ultimately, to all of us.

By Günter Grass

5 April 2012

@ Suddeutsche Zeitung

Translated by Breon Mitchell. You can read the poem in the original German here.

• This poem was amended on 10 and 11 April 2012 after it was revised by the translator. This was further amended on 13 April 2012 to include a link to the original poem in German.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

On 01 April 2012, the so-called “Friends of Syria” met in Istanbul to plan their agenda of fomenting civil war in Syria to destroy the country and oust the Syrian Government, using “human rights” as a pretext. They have agreed to provide finance and arms to outlawed groups attacking the Syrian state and the people of Syrian people.

For a start, the anti-government violence in Syria has nothing to do with popular civilian uprising. It is a Western-sponsored armed insurrection that is condemned and rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Syrian population. Even Syrian civilians who opposed the current Government have rejected the armed insurrection. The U.S. and its allies (vassals) will never support an anti-imperialism popular uprising.

From the outset, the armed insurrection has been instigated and financed by the U.S. and its allies not only to destroy the country (Iraq and Libya are good examples) but also to oust the legitimate Syrian Government and replace it with a U.S.-controlled despotic regime. Hence, Syria is a sovereign nation and has the right to take a sovereign decision to defend the Syrian nation from foreign-sponsored armed insurrection.

According to the Lebanese newspaper Al-Manar (05 March 2012), the armed insurrection is led by a collection of Western-sponsored criminals, C.I.A. assets, Israeli terrorists, blackwater mercenaries and bribed army deserters. In short, they are C.I.A.-Mossad led paramilitary militias (a.k.a. terrorists). They are well armed and well paid by foreign powers. The U.S., Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing arms and cash. France and Britain are actively providing military training and advice. The terrorists are committing heinous crimes against the Syrian population, including torture, rape, and mass executions of young men.

The terrorists have been instructed by their Western handlers to engage in violence and acts of terrorism to terrorise the population and tarnish the image of the Syrian Government. They have rejected peaceful negotiations and are demanding U.S./NATO military intervention based on the Libyan model to oust the legitimate Syrian Government. To enhance their image, the terrorists have been glorified by Western media and promoted as, the “Free Syrian Army”, the “Syrian National Council” and “Opposition activists”. They have powerful “friends” no other anti-government protesters have.

The major players of the “Friends of Syria” are: the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain and other U.S. vassals. Almost all of them are repressive states and violators of human rights. Many of these states are tyrannical dictators. The U.S., Israel, Britain and France (under Nicolas Sarkozy) are police states that espoused a fascist ideology under a veneer of fake democracy. The U.S. and its allies have supported and continue to support the most repressive and murderous regimes on the planet. The U.S., Britain, Israel, France and Turkey are vicious enemies of the Arab people. In fact, the prevalent attitudes of U.S.-NATO states toward the Arabs (and Muslims in general) are reminiscent of the Nazis’ attitudes toward Russians, Roma people, and Jews.

In addition to powerful friends, the terrorists can counts on the support of the leading capitalist media. The main Zionist propaganda organs, the BBC, New York Times and Al-Jazeera have formed a second front in the war against Syria. Specialised in distortion of facts and fabrication of false stories, the media are guilty of war crimes. And with dishonest journalists and pundits, such as Robert Fisk, Andrew Cockburn and Gilbert Achcar, the people of Syria are facing a criminal conspiracy.

It is important to remember that, “Friends of Syria” are the same friends who colluded with George Bush to invade and destroy Iraq. The barbaric invasion and murderous Occupation caused the death of more than 1.5 million innocent Iraqi men, women and children. More than 5 million Iraqis have become displaced refugees. After nine years of murderous Occupation, Iraq and the Iraqi society are in ruins mired in U.S.-sowed violence.

After Iraq, Libya suffered the same criminal destruction as Iraq. The barbaric destruction of Libyan and the on-going destabilisation of Syria are part of a much larger Zionists agenda designed to: (1) undermine the democratic aspirations of the Arab people (e.g., Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia) and their struggle for social change and liberation (de-democratisation); (2) spread chaos throughout the region, using the people as the “walk-ons”; (3) remove Israel as the enemy of the Arab people by co-opting Arab dictators to act as financiers of U.S. wars and as proxy foot soldiers for U.S. and Israel; and (4) deflect attention away from Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians, including the Judaization of Palestine.

Now, you wonder why “Friends of Syria” are not “Friends of Palestine”. We all know that the Palestinians have been at the receiving end of Israeli violence and Nazi-like occupation for more than six decades. If “Friends of Syria are concern about “human rights” abuses, they should call themselves “Friends of Bahrain”. The majority of the people in Bahrain deserve all the support to end state repression and violence against peaceful protesters. Where were “Friends of Syria” when hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered by U.S.-led invading forces? One wonders where were Amnesty International (AI), the United Nations (UN), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) when thousands of Iraqi men, women and children were tortured, raped and brutally murdered by U.S.-British occupying forces. This classic Western hypocrisy doesn’t end there.

In March 2012, Navi Pillay, the United Nations’ Human Rights chief, accused the Syrian Government of orchestrating the violence and targeting children. She said: “ Because President al-Assad could simply issue an order to stop the killings and the killings would stop.” She added: “ Hundreds [of children have been] detained and tortured … it’s just horrendous,” Her information, as always, was second-hand, and she has no basic knowledge of Syria, but she proved to be a useful propagandist.

Can you imagine Navi Pillay telling the BBC that, she is “deeply concerned about the fate of thousands, not hundreds of Palestinian children being held in detention by the Israeli regime in cruel and inhumane conditions”? My guess is, if she does, she will have no job at the UN and she will be sent back to South Africa. Since 2000, the Israeli army has killed 1,471 Palestinian children in the Ghettoes of Occupied Palestinian Territories, the majority of whom were aged between 13 and 17 years. Nearly a quarter of all children arrested are held in solitary confinement. Children are forcefully taken from their families, during night raids, imprisoned, beaten and tortured, intimidated and often subjected to electric shocks. Their “crime” is throwing stones at soldiers armed with M16 rifles and tear gas. What Navi Pillay has to say about the 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned and terrorise (on a daily basis) by the Israeli fascist army in the world’s biggest open-air Concentration Camp, Gaza. Israel is not Syria, and the Israeli fascist regime is the U.S. most financed and armed regime on the planet.

Despite the violence and economic hardships (caused by U.S. economic warfare) imposed on Syria, President Bashar al-Assad remains the most popular president not only in Syria, but in the region. Syria is not a repressive regime like most of the U.S.-endorsed regimes in the region; it is a one-party state with on reform path. Indeed, al-Assad commitment to democratic reform is unique in the region and he doesn’t need the US to tell him about democracy. In fact, the U.S. has a shameful and well-documented history of undermining democracy around the world, including Syria in 1849.

Furthermore, as the leader of a small nation, President al-Assad is not an American stooge and has shown great courage in the face of imminent threats by the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. real agenda in Syria is the destruction of the Syrian Government and the ruling Ba’ath Party. It is a Zionist agenda designed to protect Israel and advances Israel’s Zionist expansion.

If the war on Syria continues, it will destroy the third and last most progressive, educated and secular nation in the region. It will leave the Middle East backwards and ruled by repressive and weak monarchies subservient to U.S.-Israel Zionist diktats.

As efforts to find a peaceful resolution continues, “Friends of Syria” are fighting tooth and nail to discredit an undermine Kofi Annan’s so-called “peace plan”. If Annan’s plan fails to oust the current Syrian Government – most likely – it will be used as a pretext to justify U.S.-NATO military intervention. As a former UN Secretary-General, Annan served U.S. imperialism with distinction. His current task is to plan a war against the Syrian people, and he shows no pretence which side he is on. Annan’s “peace plan” makes the case for war against Syria much stronger.

Annan’s successor, Ban Ki-Moon, a complicit in U.S.-NATO war crimes against Libya in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, has now turned against Syria, blaming the Syrian Government for the violence. Ban, of course, has no courage to condemn the supply of arms and cash to the terrorists.

If the U.S. and is allies attack Syria, the UN Secretary-General should tell the world what will happen to the million Iraqi refugees who fled to Syria to escape the U.S. murderous Occupation? Ban should tell the world what will happen to the 500,000 Palestinian refugees living in Syria? Will they be massacred in their refugee camps like the Palestinian refugees that were massacred in Sabre and Shatila refugee camp during Israel’s fascist occupation of Lebanon?

“Friends of Syria” have already said that they will take “measures”, including unprovoked aggression to oust President al-Assad. On 25 April 2012, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said recently, if the “peace plan” fails; “we would have to move to a new stage with a Chapter Seven resolution (which allows for action that could be backed by force) to stop this tragedy”. One wonders why Minister Juppe has no concern to stop the six decades-long tragedy in Palestine and the decade-long tragedy in Afghanistan. And where was Mr Juppe during Iraq’s decades-long tragedy? If Mr Juppe is really concern about human rights, he needs to look no further than in his own backyard. France is the most anti-Muslim racist country in Europe, and second only to the Netherlands. Mr Juppe knows very well that France does not give a damn about human rights. Strategic interests override any criminal violation of human rights. Adolf Hitler used “humanitarian” military invasions (“to protect human rights”) as a pretext to justify Nazi’s aggression and war crimes. Today, the U.S. and its allies use the camouflage of “human rights” to manipulate the public to justify aggression and war crimes against small defenceless nations.

Instead of promoting peaceful resolution “Friends of Syria” are engaging in a campaign of mischaracterisation the Syrian Government and the violence. It is obvious why “Friends of Syria” have set conditions for the Syrian Government to fulfil, while leaving the terrorists free to terrorise the Syrian population, including supplying them with bombs, ammunitions and cash at the expense of dialogue and peace. As Russian foreign ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich rightly said that, the terrorists are waging a reign of terror to terrorise the Syrian civilian population and they are not interested in peace. Furthermore, the Israeli website, DEBKA file reported Monday (30 April2012) that: “The suicide bombings hitting Damascus and Idlib in the last 24 hours were the work of al-Qaeda in Iraq – AQI, whose operatives have been pouring into Syria [from Turkey and Jordan] in the last two weeks.” With allies like al-Qaeda, “Friend of Syria” cannot claim to be friends of the Syrian people.

The meeting of “Friends of Syria” in Istanbul was not a meeting for peace. Rather it was a prelude to instigate more violence and destruction in Syria. Whatever the outcome, “Friends of Syria” will be held to account for their complicity in crimes against the Syrian people.

By Ghali Hassan

3 May 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Ghali Hassan is an independent political analyst living in Australia.