Pelosi's Misguided Middle East Visit

by Dr. Marcy Newman, Electronic Lebanon

This week U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi concluded her visit to the Middle East in Damascus, Syria, to which President George W. Bush's response was that her visit "sends mixed messages." While Pelosi's delegation to the region should be met with applause for refusing to participate in isolating Syria, her visit to Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria should be met with a great deal of caution.

Twice in the last month Pelosi delivered a speech -- of more or less the same message -- before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference and before the Israeli Knesset. In these speeches, she unequivocally stated: "When Israel is threatened, America's interests in the region are threatened. America's commitment to Israel's security needs is unshakable." Statements such as this have made Pelosi, along with her traveling companion Congressman Tom Lantos, one of the top ten recipients of AIPAC donations. She received a standing ovation for these sentiments in the Knesset where she linked the U.S. and Israel's "common cause": " a safe and secure Israel living in peace with her neighbors."

Perhaps Pelosi genuinely wants to secure peace in the region. If this were the case, however, we would have seen some indication of balance in her fact-finding mission. While in Israel, Pelosi discussed her visits with the families of Israeli soldiers taken last summer in Gaza and Lebanon, naming them and relaying stories about them. Not once was a Palestinian or Lebanese killed or wounded in Israel's wars dignified with any such humanizing gesture. Instead Pelosi focused entirely on Hezbollah's violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 for failing to disarm. Not once did she mention Israel's almost daily violation of that same resolution with military jets invading Lebanese airspace or recent military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, she failed to mention Israel's continued occupation of Shaaba Farms and Ghajar, which are also violations of 1701; nor did she engage with serious discussions of the occupation of the Golan Heights or the Palestinian Territories with leaders in the region.

If Pelosi, Lantos, and the other congressional leaders traveling in their delegation wanted to understand what peace means to all parties they could have spent their time in Lebanon meeting with victims of Israel's war and she could have toured the areas of the country destroyed by Israel. She could have visited with Lebanese families affected by American-made cluster bombs. Such meetings could have helped Pelosi to respond to a report on her desk from the State Department, which states Israel may have violated legal agreements made with the U.S. in the 1970s when it dropped between 2.6 and 4 million American-made cluster munitions on Lebanon last summer in the last 72 hours of the war after the cease fire agreement had been brokered. The report explores Israel's violation of the Arms Export Control Act, which stipulates that American-manufactured weapons must only be used in self-defense, in an open area against two or more invading armies, and never used against civilians.

As Speaker of the House it is Pelosi's job (along with Senator Majority Leader Joseph Biden) to review this report and if the violations are corroborated, which evidence from organizations like Human Rights Watch already substantiated, Israel could be sanctioned. Indeed, in response to Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last summer, Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch reported, "we've never seen use of cluster munitions that was so extensive and dangerous to civilians ... The issue is not whether Israel used the American cluster munitions lawfully, but what the US is going to do about it." As Speaker, Pelosi can and should do something about it. After all, there is a precedent: Ronald Reagan imposed a six-year ban on the sale of munitions to Israel in 1982 after Congress investigated Israel's use of cluster bombs against civilians.

For all the talk about "peace" before AIPAC and the Knesset, if Pelosi were actually invested in regional peace she could begin by holding Israel accountable for its violations of the Arms Export Control Act by sanctioning Israel. But this option seems rather unlikely given her congressional voting record. For instance, last summer she voted for her colleague Lantos' resolution in Congress (HR 921), entitled "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes." That bill, which overwhelmingly passed (410-8), led to "other purposes," namely selling $120 million of oil to re-fuel Israel's American-made fighter jets that bombed and killed civilians in Lebanon as well as an expedited delivery of 1,300 M26 artillery rockets for Israel to use in its war on Lebanon.

If Pelosi's delegation to the Middle East is seriously interested in creating "peace" here, it should begin at home. She should respond to the report on her desk and make the decision to sanction Israel. Moreover, Pelosi and Lantos should both draft legislation that does not focus exclusively on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran for their weapons if only because the U.S. itself provides Israel with extensive military support and political cover. The burden should be shifted to Israel as the occupying power of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Further, Pelosi would do well to join her colleagues in the Senate who drafted the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S 594) and support the effort of forty other nations who have banned cluster munitions.

Dr. Marcy Newman is a Visiting Professor at the Center for American Studies and Research at the American University of Beirut and a Fellow at the Initiative for Middle East Policy Dialogue.

A very thin slice of earth

Related
Israeli-Arab lawmaker disappears
---
Interview: Azmi Bishara

A very thin slice of earth

29 minutes

Head of the National Democratic Assembly political party, Azmi Bashara was born in Nazareth to Christian parents. He is a Palestinian and a citizen of Israel. He represents Israel's Palestinian minority in the Knesset. Bishara studies at Humboldt University in Germany, is head of the philosophy department at Bir Zeit University, and is senior researcher at the Van-Leer Institute in Jerusalem. He was one of the founders of the National Democratic Assembly, or Balad. He describes himself as a humanist, a democrat, a liberal, and a neo-nasserite. In this interview Bishara examines turning Israel into a state of all of its citizens, opposing the institutionalized inequality that exists now between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel. Producer: Ed Sweed (2004)

Produced by Alternate Focus

Based in San Diego, California, Alternate Focus is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational media group promoting an alternative view of Middle East issues. They use the web, cable and satellite television, and DVDs to showcase media not usually seen by American audiences.


Azmi Bishara

Azmi Bishara is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and a member of the Knesset. He was born in Nazareth to a Christian family in 1956. He studied at Humboldt University in East Germany. He was senior lecturer and head of the Philosophy Department at Bir-Zeit University, and senior researcher at the Van-Leer Institute in Jerusalem. He is also a published novelist.

Bishara started his political activity in 1974 as chairman of the National Committee of Arab High-School Pupils. He was active in the establishment of the students committee and Arab campus organizations at Haifa University and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He was also active in the Committee for the Protection of Lands, established in 1976, and against the Israeli occupation of the territories.

Bishara was one of the founders and heads the National Democratic Alliance (Balad), that ran in the elections to the 14th Knesset together with Hadash, and a member of the 14th Knesset. He defines himself as a humanist, democrat, liberal and Neo-Nasserite. He advocates turning the State of Israel into a state of all its citizens and the granting of cultural autonomy to the Arabs in Israel, and a bi-national solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

His brother, Marwan Bishara, also appears in this database of writers on the situation in Palestine/Israel.

Depending on availability of the US National Public Radio archives, you may be able to hear an interview with Azmi Bishara which was broadcast on US National Public Radio on 20 June 2001, on All Things Considered. The interview was about a visit that Bishara made to Syria, a visit that caused controversy in Israel and has led to his parliamentary immunity being removed, so that he could be placed on trial. This controversy led to the estabishment of an International Committee for the Protection of Azmi Bishara, comprised of politicians, intellectuals and academics from many countries around the world.

You may also be able to hear an interview with Azmi Bishara which was broadcast on US National Public Radio on 10 October 2000, on All Things Considered. The interview was about an attempt by Israeli Jews to burn down his home in Nazareth.

Israeli-Arab lawmaker disappears

Analysis

Joshua Brilliant

UPI Israel Correspondent
April 13, 2007

TEL AVIV -- An Arab member of Israel's Knesset who is abroad while security authorities investigate his alleged offenses symbolizes the deep division and suspicions between the country's Jewish majority and Arab minority.

Azmi Bishara, 51, heads Balad - the National Democratic Assembly that has three seats in Israel's 120-member legislature. He spent the Easter holiday with his family in Amman, met Jordan's foreign minister - and disappeared.

Rumors abound: He requested asylum in Qatar, he decided to quit the Knesset (Parliament) and not return to Israel; he is going to Spain, France, Egypt, and India; or he is still in Jordan, keeping a low profile and not granting interviews. The chairman of Balad's Knesset faction, Jamal Zahalka, said in a telephone interview that he had not talked to Bishara in the past two days and did not know his whereabouts.
Bishara "will return shortly or not [so] shortly," said his aide, Badran Ezz Al Dinh.

According to daily Yedioth Ahronoth, Bishara said in Amman that if he would return to Israel he would be detained "immediately."

Government and Knesset spokesmen said that they did not know what Bishara is suspected of having done. Israeli media has been talking of "legal obstacles" to reporting the facts. The Palestinian Maan news agency, which is not subject to Israeli law, gave a reason for this approach: a gag order.

Two prominent politicians nevertheless hinted suspicions.

"Long ago he crossed the boundary lines" of what a Knesset member may do while fulfilling his duties, said education minister Yuli Tamir.

Bishara made several trips to Syria and Lebanon and met officials including Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. Israeli law bans unauthorized trips to enemy states but Bishara said that he was fulfilling his duties as a member of the Knesset and therefore had full parliamentary immunity.

The Knesset then amended the law, also banning legislators' trips to enemy states - and Bishara went again.

Knesset Member Danny Yatom, a former head of the Mossad spy service, said that Bishara demonstrated "a pattern of behavior that might be worse than anything we've known."

Bishara's trips to enemy states would obviously arouse suspicions that he met foreign agents and passed information. That would certainly be a good reason to stay away.

Israeli security officials who have experience fighting hostile organizations are known to have examined their finances to try to plug their sources. Balad seemed to have a lot of money during the 2006 election campaign, and the state comptroller said in a report that its accounts presented to him "were not complete."

Zahalka denied "all the accusations" and accused the authorities of a "frame-up."

"They are trying to control the political activities of Palestinians in Israel and to oppress any national dimension of [our] politics," he charged.

Bishara has been "one of the most successful intellectual, charismatic politicians" that local Arabs have had, observed Adel Manaa, director of the Center for the Study of the Arab Society in Israel at Jerusalem's Van Leer Institute.

Born in Nazareth in 1956, he received a Ph.D. in philosophy in Berlin, headed the philosophy department at Birzeit University in the West Bank, helped establishing Balad in 1995, and joined the Knesset the following year.

He is an Arab nationalist, an advocate of Pan-Arabism and as such kept hammering at the Jewish state. "Israel is the biggest robbery of the century ... Return Palestine to us and take your democracy with you. We, the Arabs, are not interested," he reportedly said.

To some Israelis he was a person who ruined efforts at a dialogue. His success was ominous.

Yoel Hasson, a former deputy head of the Shabak security service and now a member of the hawkish Israel Beitenu Knesset faction, noted that seven years ago Balad was just a group of some 200 intellectuals. However, in last year's Knesset elections Balad won 72,066 votes. Some Arabs boycotted the elections. According to As'ad Ghanem of Haifa University's School of Political Science, Arab participation in Israeli elections has been dropping at a faster rate than Jewish turnout, and the most common reason was "political protest against the situation of the Palestinians in Israel."

Documents that Arab intellectuals published in recent months have been demanding changes in Israel's character from being a Jewish state to a bi-national entity, "cultural autonomy," and giving the Arabs, who are almost 20 percent of the population, a right to veto laws.

A recent public-opinion poll by Haifa University's Dean of Social Sciences Professor Sammy Smooha showed that Jews and Arabs felt threatened.

The Arabs fear that the Jews would deny them civil rights, confiscate their lands, and transfer some of them to the Palestinian Authority. The Jews feared that the Arabs would outnumber them and join the violent struggle that the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians have been waging.

The Shabak security service reportedly warned of a "rise of subversive elements," and according to Ma'ariv some Shabak officials described Israeli Arabs as "a real strategic threat." Smooha found that 48 percent of the Arabs justified Hezbollah bombings of Israel during the last war.

And thus Uri Dromi, of the Israel Democracy Institute, recalled having warned an Arab interlocutor that Bishara and the leader of the militant wing of the Israeli Islamic movement, Sheikh Raed Salah, would bring upon Israeli Arabs a second Nakba (catastrophe). The first one was in the 1948 war when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced to flee.

"The majority is not going to commit suicide," Dromi said.

He criticized Bishara for going to Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War and expressing support for Hezbollah. "He sits in Syria and talks to the heads of the terrorist organizations. He is stretching freedom of expression with a chutzpah ... and a democracy has a right to defend itself," Dromi argued.

Ganging up on Iran

Published: 27/03/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)

By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News

I'll begin with a question. Is Iran an aggressor or a victim? If you've answered aggressor then may I suggest you take a moment to reflect.

Unfortunately, the fabricated scenario that led us into Iraq is at play again. And once again we're being suckered into being accepting of a neoconservative plan designed to ensure America's domination over this region's oilfields and maintain Israel as the sole nuclear power in the Middle East.

This is practically a replay of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. In this case, the US-driven UN Security Council has ganged up to coerce Iran with sanctions into giving up its legitimate right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 30 days, the UN screws will, no doubt, be further tightened.

Iran's angry response is to reduce cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to threaten prosecution of British sailors and marines for operating in Iranian waters.

Backed by the US and the EU, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair is becoming bellicose over that issue while a slew of Israeli spokesmen make demands on the international community to forcibly prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

What you don't hear is that there is no proof that Iran intends to develop nukes. IAEA chief Mohammad Al Baradei has repeatedly said there is no smoking gun.

Moreover, as even the hawkish former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has admitted on CNN, US intelligence on the subject of Iran is sparse. Indeed, the latest National Intelligence Estimate suggests that Iran wouldn't be capable of producing a bomb until 2015, so, in that case, what's the rush?

Iran's numerous calls for a nuclear-free Middle East have been barely mentioned in the Western media and have not been taken seriously by the UN, fearful of debate over Israel's policy of "nuclear ambiguity".

The US has been gunning for Iran ever since the overthrow of its puppet, the Shah, in 1979 when the US embassy was seized. In 1980, the Carter administration authorised radio broadcasts to Iran calling for the toppling of Khomeini.

That same year Saddam Hussain, then Washington's friend, launched a war on Iraq that lasted eight years and which adversely affected or robbed the lives of millions.

As the Guardian reported on December 31 2002, "Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instruction the administration to do 'whatever was necessary and legal' to prevent Iraq losing the war" with Iran.

Now let's fast forward to January 29, 2002, the day that George W. Bush famously included Iran in an "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. This was no accidental inclusion.

General Wesley Clark reveals this on page 130 of his book Winning Modern Wars.

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more.

"This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran Somalia and Sudan." Clark says he left the Pentagon that afternoon "deeply concerned".

Gels perfectly

Clark's revelation gels perfectly with the Project for a New American Century document Rebuilding America's Defences; a blueprint for a global Pax Americana, signed onto by Dick Cheney and his neocon friends in 2000.

So now ask yourself the question posed at the beginning of this column again. Is Iran an aggressor or a victim?

Perhaps you're still not convinced. Before you answer think on this.

In 2003, Tehran proposed negotiations with the White House over its nuclear programme and offered to cease its support for groups that the US deems "terrorist". This overture was rejected out of hand by President Bush.

Today, Bush and co are intent on cornering Iran with the object of regime change. According to the New Yorker's investigative journalist Seymour Hersh there are plans on the table to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities using bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons. Ironic isn't it! Hersh says Bush privately calls the Iranian president "the new Hitler".

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext to attack Iran.

At the same time Washington is funding Iranian opposition groups in the diaspora as well as militant ethnic separatist groups within Iran. There have already been several violent incidents in country stamped with the CIA's fingerprint.

Draw your own conclusions as to who is aggressing whom but bear in mind that Iran has never threatened to attack the US or its allies other than in retaliation for a strike on it. Moreover, unlike the US, Iran does not harbour neo-imperialist ambitions and does not have a record of launching wars or invading other countries.

It is true that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't pull any punches when it comes to Israel but the feeling is mutual.

In reality, Iran would be justified in fearing the US and Israel, which, together, constitute the most potent force in the world, than vice-versa.

I've got one final question. Should we fear a country that has no record of invasion or occupation and no nuclear weapons above one that espouses not only full spectrum dominance over the planet's resources, waters and skies but also outer space?

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com