Desicritics Author: Liam Bailey

Pieces of State - Part II

Liam Bailey — Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:33:12 EST

The first article (Arab News changed title) in this series covered how the Palestinian Authority (PA) economy has been strangled by Israeli security measures and plundered by Palestinian corruption. Things were made even worse with the start of the Second Intifada causing Israel's security measures to tighten even further and be employed yet more frequently. Not to mention the destruction to businesses, crops and workforce deaths caused by the renewed violence. This led to a recession in 2001-02. The intifada and the Israeli separation wall, started in late 2002, led to hundreds of Palestinians losing work in Israel. This, among other things meant the PA economy struggled to climb out of recession.

The western boycott of the PA, withholding of aid and tax revenues collected on their behalf by Israel, initiated after the Hamas victory in the January 2006 elections, made things far worse. The PA had no money to pay its 140, 000 employees; the main breadwinners for a third of families and the limping PA economy was crippled. I'm sure you can imagine the extreme levels of unemployment and poverty this created in the Palestinian territories.

I believe with western support, both financially and in applying pressure on Israel to ease restrictions, Palestinian exports could be a major boost for the fragile economy. As things stand, Palestinian exports are tiny compared to what they could be. For instance, despite the warm climate and fertile land, there are no significant fruit exports or vineyards. Because of the publicity Palestine has received through news coverage of the conflict and the novelty, I believe Palestinian wine could be massive on the global export market.

The olive tree originated in Palestine - there are olive groves which are 1500 and 2000 years old. The Mediterranean climate, fertile soil and organic farming methods should make Palestinian olives and olive oil world beating products.

The West Bank's estimated ten million olive trees, and the 36,000 tonnes of oil they produce make up a fifth of Palestinian agriculture, a vital part of the crippled Palestinian economy. Despite its heritage and quality it is estimated that half the Palestinian olive crop goes unsold. This is largely because of the restrictions I mentioned above.

The growers tending their groves day to day, often depends on whether or not the IDF patrol knows or cares its their duty not to hinder them. Not only do the IDF often prevent the growers from reaching their crop, they also stand idly by while land-hungry settlers harass, beat and throw rocks at the growers daily in a bid to drive them off their land. Many times settlers harvest the crop for themselves.

The violence is worst during harvest, in the past olive growers have been shot by settlers while harvesting their crop. Another issue is the security wall separating the farmer and crop in many places and destroying olive groves in others. All this before the growers even attempt to sell one olive. Things are being improved now by the persistence of Rabbis for peace (check) who went to court to secure IDF protection for the harvest, but the IDF still airs on the side of the settlers. Rabbis for peace have teamed up with other international groups to supervise individual harvests with great success in ensuring IDF protection and stopping settler violence. Without their watchful eye it is doubtful the harvest would be so peaceful.

For the olive growers, selling and exporting their produce is a whole new set of problems as Heather Gardiner of Zaytoun told me:

Zayotun imports olive oil from the Jenin region in the West Bank, olive oil from Palestinian farmers of the Galilee region, Zaatar-wild grown herb mix, olive soap from Nablus in the West Bank and Peace Lamps made in Ramallah with olive oil unsold due to difficulties with exports since the intifada began. A new range started in December 2006: almonds from Jenin, dates from the Jordan Valley and cous cous from Gaza.

Zaytoun's mission statement:

Zaytoun is an ethical business established to support marginalized farming communities in Palestine. Palestine is the home of the olive tree, supporting over half the population and dominating the agricultural landscape. Zaytoun finds a market place for Palestinian produce in the UK.

As a non-profit company our primary objectives lie with the welfare of the producing communities. We invest in empowering farming communities & developing the agricultural infrastructure in Palestine.

How many Palestinians do the producers you work with employ?

We source through around 70 cooperatives, who have between 20-100 members.

What is your annual turnover?

Approximately 250,000 pounds.

On your website I saw that your products are labelled as coming from Palestine. Joe Turner said the factory owner he works with refused to put Palestine on the label because it could get him into trouble. They settled on 'Made in the West Bank and Gaza'. Has your Palestine labelling caused you any problems?

It has in some circles, many do not recognise Palestine. But this was core to our aim in recognising that the Palestinian people are still there and there is a place called Palestine.

Do you receive aid from any governments?

Do you take part in the boycott against Israel, by not buying consumables from Israeli companies etc?

It is very hard to work with Palestine without working to some degree with Israel. For example, as Palestine does not have any border or air control we have to rely on an Israeli shipping agent to export the goods to the UK.

Does Israel make running your business easy or difficult?

Difficult, it is not easy to work in a business fashion with a land that is under military occupation. Everything in Palestine (movement of goods and people, border control) is at the whim of Israel.

In what ways does the Israeli occupation affect your business?
The Palestinian economy is tied to the Israeli one in a way which artificially increases costs.

Do you think your turnover would increase if you were trading from an independent Palestinian state?

Yes, the product would become more economically viable.

Tell me about some of the problems you encounter?

Delays at Haifa port, goods damaged with impunity, our suppliers not being able to access bottles and storage tanks which they have ordered from abroad as Israel controls border access.

In what ways has the conflict affected you and the business?

Our aim is very much solidarity focused. It has hardened my resolve to help the Palestinian people who do not deserve this injustice.

If Israel completely annexed the West Bank, and expelled Arabs who fought the occupation as some Israelis call for, would you close the business?

Yes, this scale of ethnic cleansing would render the West Bank an unviable part of the Palestinian State. What do you mean by fought? Every day life in Palestine can be seen as resistance. The producers we work with can risk their lives by accessing their groves. The Settler and IDF violence on farmers is documented.

Zaytoun is not the only importer of Palestinian olive oil and related produce, similar ethical companies have sprung up around the world. I will be looking at these as well as global importers of other Palestinian goods in future articles.

Laying the Groundwork - Iran Attack Imminent?

Liam Bailey — Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:10:49 EST

I was talking about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran in the very near future with my dad the other day. Now my dad doesn't follow politics or current affairs as avidly as me, i.e. he watches the T.V. news if it happens to be on, but his exact words were, "yeah, it's bubbling away nicely innit." For those not from Yorkshire in England innit means isn't it. "Bubbling away nicely" said it all for me; it put into words my own feelings on the matter. Small steps, none too significant but all in succession are threatening to lead us into another war, and I don't think anything can stop it.

Like everybody else I believed the Afghanistan invasion was purely a response to 9/11. Then the blame for the attack was shifted to Iraq, followed by rapidly intensified pressure over Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction and immediate threat to the Western world, leading very quickly to another invasion. This made me suspicious. So when Iran became the focus shortly after, I immediately started thinking Iran is the next target. Of course by that time I was a fully paid up subscriber to the theory that the two invasions were part of a massive imperialistic drive by the Neo-conservatives. I waned on that when Iraq became such a massive failure and it's cost spiralled.

I waned further still when I read an article, the gist of which was that the massive amount of U.S. money being spent on funding wars is threatening the very future of America, if Iran is attacked the threat will be multiplied. The U.S. war budget is running higher than America's Gross Domestic Product meaning America is spiralling deeper into debt. It went on to explain that much of America's debt is owned by banks in countries on the opposite side of the Iran debate, in the main China.

The author feared that China could wait till America was at a critically weak point, i.e. another few years of such massive defense spending and pull the rug out from under Washington. I disbelieved America would put its overstretched economy at risk by again putting its overstretched military into another --suicidally-- difficult mission.

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are currently at an all time high. China and Russia are strong allies. U.S. money is important to the Chinese economy, in capitalist investments, exports and interest payments, but I have no doubt that China would favour Russia over the U.S if the chips were down. So, the rug probably won't be removed until the Chinese economy can, not only survive, but continue to grow without U.S. money, which will probably never happen, or the chips are down, which should make me even more sure that the U.S won't attack Iran.

However, in the last two weeks or so, major changes have happened. Firstly when U.S. plans for an Iran attack were released it was stated what would be needed to warrant such an attack and for the first time two things were mentioned, not only proof of a working nuclear weapon, but proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths in Iraq. I saw this as laying the groundwork in preparation for U.S. plans being good to go, and then all of sudden we'll see a "smoking gun" and all hell will break loose.

This was followed just days later by a positive buzz in the mainstream media, from U.S. officials claiming to have "compelling evidence" that components for a new type of roadside bomb, explosively formed projectiles (EFP), which are capable of piercing armoured vehicles at 100 yards, were manufactured in Iran.

There has been a lot of hype also about the EFP's being an advanced weapon, to strengthen the case for Iranian involvement in their manufacture. From what I can gather they aren't all that advanced. A six-nine inch steel pipe, sealed at one end with a projectile of shaped steel or copper either inside the pipe or fitted to the other end, therefore anyone with explosives, metal and a lump of pipe can make an EFP. As most of the attacks on U.S. forces come from Sunni's who are equally as busy killing Iran's Shia brethren, obviously there are many bomb makers in Iraq quite capable of making an EFP and nothing to do with Iran.

U.S. generals in Iraq, who likely see the Bush administration attempting similar propaganda as led to the carnage their troops are struggling to survive in Iraq, have since came out denying the proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths.

The question is: why has the future of such a dominant country been placed in the hands of China, at best a reluctant ally? And why does war with Iran and an increased risk to America's future hegemony seem so likely?

The answer: the Neocon's thirst for oil, allegiance to Israel and control of Bush administration foreign policy.

In the case of Afghanistan, a massively profitable UNOCAL pipeline was being hindered by the uncooperative Taliban regime. When 9/11 provided justification for an invasion and it was rapidly successful in removing the Taliban from power, Hamid Karzai, previously on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as Prime Minister. Neocon Zalmay Khalizad, also on UNOCAL's payroll was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. That part of the plan was complete, and the blame for 9/11 was then put on Saddam Hussein to, along with other fabrications, justify another invasion of an oil rich country. The Neocons' UNOCAL operative Zalmay Khalizad was moved to Iraq in his U.S. ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits.

Now the case is being made for a third invasion of an oil rich country. Iran is in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan meaning an invasion can easily force Iran to fight a war on two fronts, suggesting that indeed, this may well have been their plan from the start. Many people will believe the line that any attack will be from the air only, but the U.S attack plans released recently suggest otherwise. When the gun starts smoking the plan is to attack not only Iran's fledgling nuclear sites, but to take out their entire military-industrial complex in a series of devastating air-strikes. Shock and Awe all over again.

Of course, it has been written many times that Iran's military will be a lot harder to take out than Iraq's was. So the bombing will probably be intensified, prolonged, will definitely involve bunker busting bombs and possibly even tactical nuclear weapons. Once Iran's military-industrial complex has been decimated Iran's rich oil reserves will be easy pickings for the U.S. forces occupying countries either side. The Neocons taking up such prominent positions in the Bush administration will make sure they go in and finish the job.

Attitudes Stop Israeli/Palestinian Peace

Liam Bailey — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:08:21 EST

To achieve a lasting peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict some major compromises are needed from all parties. Unfortunately, because of the duration of the conflict, attitudes, policies, strategies and aims have become so engrained that such compromises have become extremely difficult. The number of people killed in the conflict has also become a factor in each side's reluctance to compromise. The additional cause now and for many years has been to ensure that those killed did not die in vain.

The Palestinian Perspective:

More Palestinians have been killed in the struggle than Israelis. Therefore the Palestinians have a greater weight on their shoulders to avenge their deaths by gaining the state and conditions they died in the fight for. However this also gives the Palestinians the greater desire for peace because as the conflict goes on they will continue to be the biggest losers in terms of civilian casualties.

The Palestinians have also come to believe that Israel does not want peace, because of the provocative tactics employed by the IDF during ceasefires and negotiations. Like the West Bank arrest raids during the recent ceasefire, and the current operation in Nablus, which has dampened hopes of restarting the stalled peace process. Israel's failure to adhere to previous peace deals, like the settlement expansions contrary to the U.S. brokered roadmap agreement, reinforces the Palestinian view.

As does the West Bank "security" wall Israel's government is building. Mainly because the Palestinian negotiations rely on the formation of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, in places the wall is well inside these borders. Palestinian Negotiations Minister Saib Uraiqat told Al Jazeera Mar. 2005:

"This is a policy of dictation and not negotiation, this prejudges and prejudices the outcome of permanent status negotiations."

This prevents the Palestinians from making any further concessions or compromise, because the concessions they have made in the past --like the Palestine Liberation Organization's recognition of Israel-- have brought nothing in return. In their resistance lies their dignity, and their dignity is almost all they have left.

The Israeli Perspective:

The Israeli government has received heavy financial and military support from the U.S. throughout decades of conflict, and they may well doubt whether this would continue if they were no longer under threat from Palestinian terror. Although the U.S. supports Israel because it is keen to keep an ally in a position of supremacy in the vital Middle East region, Israel being under threat certainly makes it easier to justify such heavy support to the U.S. public.

The Israeli government also has strong remnants of the Zionist movement that was the driving force behind the creation of the Jewish state on the very land so symbolically important to the Jewish faith. As Israeli academic and author, Ilan Pape told me in a recent interview, "Israel is an unfinished project of statehood."

The Zionists crave certain lands that they believe religious heritage has dictated for the final Jewish state, hence Israel's reluctance to define borders. To this end the conflict is necessary because it diverts attention from Zionist transgressions and because the Palestinian threat begets strong security measures, like occupying Palestinian land whenever necessary and the --desired land annexing-- security wall. These measures are also extremely provocative and fuel the vicious cycle of --necessary-- violence.

The wall has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice. And the United Nations Security Council has tried many times to issue resolutions against the high civilian death toll of IDF operations, occupations and Israel's transgression of human rights laws, as well as taking measures to bring about Israel's adherence with past resolutions. The U.S. has used its veto almost every time to prevent the UNSC from condemning Israel's activities. Over the years the U.S.' unquestioning support for Israel has become engrained in the Washington psyche.

The duration of the conflict has also allowed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to become one of the strongest lobbying groups in the U.S. Its primary objective is ensuring continued U.S. support for Israel. Until Israel is held accountable for its actions, the Zionist element will remain strong and will continue to strive for its dream at the expense of peace and the Palestinian population.

The threat that makes this possible is constantly manipulated to present fear for Israel's existence and to allow constant reminders of the Holocaust and the guilt we should all feel --especially the U.S.-- for failing to stop it. This aim was helped by the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel, despite the fact that Hamas has never been close to having the means to achieve this aim. It is this manipulation that makes the Israeli population support its government's reluctance to compromise for peace. Because the fear of Palestinian terrorism is amplified so the Israeli population believes that giving them their own state would not stop the terror, and in fact the terror groups would continue to force the Israeli government to concede more and more land.

This view was strengthened after the Gaza disengagement. Because the Israeli government evicted Jewish residents to allow for the withdrawal, in Israel it was seen as a significant concession by the government, but the terror continued.

The terror continued because the Palestinians were still under the Israeli microscope, still had no control of their border and were still enduring flyovers and high decibel sonic booms from Israeli fighter jets, thought to cause pregnant women to miscarry. Thus Palestinians saw the disengagement as creating an open air prison and a propaganda tactic to strengthen support for Israel's government at their expense. It worked, like all similar tactics in the past, the disengagement strengthened the Israeli view, that their government wants only peace. The provocative actions over the years suggest the opposite.

Needed for Peace:

The Palestinians too, are guilty of allowing other issues to cloud their judgment and supersede their desire for peace. It is the Israeli government though that needs to take the first step.

Until Israel puts Zionism back in its box --having served its purpose-- and makes some sort of compromise to counter the Palestinian views caused by the years of the cruel occupation and Zionist land grabs, there will be no compromise from the Palestinians. Until there is compromise from the Palestinians, especially over the right of return, which Israel cannot grant because it would end their Jewish status, there will be no final status agreements and no lasting peace.

Israel won't take the first step until the international community starts holding it accountable for its actions, and this won't happen until the U.S. stops shielding it from the UNSC. This, if it ever happens will likely come in line with U.S. pressure on Israel to commit to achieving a lasting peace with the Palestinians, and perhaps a threat to withdraw support if they don't. This would put significant pressure on the Israeli government to commit to peace, but will only happen if U.S. interests in the region change drastically.

If Israel committed unquestioningly to peace, after the initial doubts, it would undoubtedly trigger a similar commitment from the Palestinian population and government. Such a commitment from both sides is what is really needed to end this conflict.

Lebanese Army Standing Up to Israel

Liam Bailey — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:21:37 EST

Since the Second Lebanon war -- as it is called in Israel -- in 2006 between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah militia based in south Lebanon, there had been relative calm in border areas. February 2007 has seen a series of events heighten tensions between forces on both sides of the border. This time, though it is the Lebanese army facing off against Israeli forces, not Hezbollah.

Feb. 24 saw a stand-off between Israeli forces and the Lebanese army. The National News Agency reported that Lebanese infantry soldiers were on a routine border patrol when they were surprised by an Israeli patrol on the other side of the barbed wire fence. Some of the Israeli soldiers were pointing their weapons at the Lebanese and the Lebanese army mobilized troops ready to deal with any ensuing military action.

A tense 25 minutes later, the Israeli soldiers withdrew to the Israeli settlement of Mutilla and Spanish troops from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) took over the patrol. Three UNIFIL bulldozers were stationed at Fatima gate, where the stand-off took place to prevent any ensuing clashes. Under the U.N. brokered Resolution 1701, which brought the ceasefire that ended the summer conflict, the Lebanese army and UNIFIL were designated to patrol the border.

Just two days before the border incident, Lebanese anti-aircraft guns fired on Israeli warplanes as they flew low altitude reconnaissance missions over south Lebanon on Feb. 22. Israeli jets have been flying such missions over Lebanon for years, but this is the first time the Lebanon army has opened fire. In the recent war, Israeli jets flew thousands of combat missions over Lebanon, inflicting heavy civilian casualties. The Lebanese army remained neutral. U.N. Resolution 1701 reiterated the UN's support for Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty. The resolution has not stopped the flyovers, which have continued without response from the Lebanese army since the war ended.

On Feb. 7 Lebanese and Israeli troops exchanged fire at the border near Marun al-Ras, the scene of heavy fighting in the recent war. According to totallyjewish.com, the Israeli Defence Forces [IDF] were combing for mines between the Israeli fence and the Lebanon border. Lebanese troops, who accuse the IDF of crossing the border, fired shots into the air. The IDF warned that they would respond if the shots continued; when their warning wasn't heeded the IDF fired two tank shells in the direction of the gunfire. No injuries were reported.

Throughout the summer war, the Lebanese military had remained neutral and the government seemed reluctant for them to fight Israeli forces. The Lebanese army acting now could signify an attempt by the Lebanese government to counter Hezbollah's growing support and influence in south Lebanon.

Hezbollah started out as a militia in 1985 and its main objective was to force an end to the first Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. Since then Hezbollah has evolved into a hybrid political movement/militia with popular support from Lebanon's predominant Shia population. Hezbollah is heavily armed and massively funded by Iran and Syria and had 14 seats in the Lebanese parliament before the November resignations.

Hezbollah's support increased during the July [2006] war, --as it is called in Lebanon-- as the population grew angry at what seemed like indiscriminate killing of Lebanese civilians by the Israeli forces, and at the government for not ordering the army to take action. Hezbollah held its own in many gun battles with Israeli forces, building popular acclaim for the group, although the Lebanese people who believed Hezbollah were responsible for starting the war were angry with it for prolonging the conflict.

When the war ended Hezbollah was credited with a victory because, although heavily outmanned and outgunned, it maintained fierce resistance until international pressure forced Israel to withdraw. The so-called victory increased Hezbollah's support even further at a time when government popularity was dwindling.

Hezbollah attempted to capitalize on the situation, demanding a unity government in late October-early November, which would have given the group veto power in government decisions. When a deal was not reached, five Hezbollah and AMAL members resigned on Nov. 12, leading to fears over whether the government could continue. At least eight members would have to resign before the government could be considered dissolved, but it was feared that without sufficient representation of the majority Shia community the government would struggle.

Hezbollah planned a protest to ratchet up the pressure on the government, but it was postponed when Christian and anti-Syria (Hezbollah's ally) industry minister Pierre Geymal was assassinated on Nov. 21.

Many believe Syria was responsible for the assassination, because their operatives were implicated in a U.N. report into the similar assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al Hariri. The U.N. report was sponsored by the U.S. and U.K., staunch adversaries of Syria. Hezbollah could also be held responsible as it had the same motive for removing Hariri as Syria did, further weakening the Lebanese government. Conspiracy theorists claimed that Israel used the attack to foment sectarian tensions, which it did excellently, regardless of who was actually responsible.

When the planned Hezbollah protest went ahead on Dec. 1, their leader, Hassan Nasrallah released a statement:

"We appeal to all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration on Friday to rid us of an incapable government that has failed in its mission."

800,000 Hezbollah supporters and those supporting other opposition groups did as he said and took to the streets in a protest sit-in, surrounding the government offices and other areas in central Beirut. The army cordoned off the government offices and protesters planned to keep up the blockade until the government resigned. According to a senior opposition source, a dialogue between Arab diplomats and opposition leaders was successful in easing the blockade and ending the protest.

An undercurrent of sectarian tension remained, as well as a strong lack of faith in the government and doubts over its survival. Then and currently the Lebanese government is under tremendous pressure, pressure that Hezbollah is keen to maintain. Therefore, the Lebanese army acting against IDF and Israeli air-force actions that are harming no one, when they failed to act against the Israeli onslaught that killed thousands in the summer, can easily be viewed as an attempt by the Lebanese government to regain the faith of their people.

Somalia's Government, Somalia's Affair

Liam Bailey — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:57:52 EST

In the west there is a fear of Islamic terrorism, triggered in the most part, and rightly so, by two New York skyscrapers being brought down by hijacked civilian airliners on Sep. 11 2001, and subsequent attacks in Europe. This has led to Muslims being dehumanized. Islamaphobia as it is termed, is currently at an all time high.

Take Britain for instance, the terrorists who attacked three London underground trains simultaneously on July 7 2005 wanted to bring down the British government and for Britain to become an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law. To the British people, who are used to having freedom of choice, the thought of Britain being ruled with the strict behavioural codes and punishments associated with Sharia law is a scary thought. I know, because it instilled fear in me, until I began talking about these matters with Muslims.

Abdallah, who commented on one of my articles on the Somali crisis at Desicritics.org (comment #7) told me:

Honestly as a Muslim and one who knows and understands the Sharia law very well there is nothing oppressive or unjust about it, however, what is oppressive and unjust is having a handful of tribal-based-military-styled-self-serving-ignorant-misdirected so called mullahs take oath to up hold the laws of Islam that they really don't practice in their own houses!

Introduction of Sharia Laws goes further than someone pushing it down people's throat, it needs preparations, and has to be on whole hearted consent. In a sense it most be voted on and everyone participate, not by some fools [Union of Islamic Courts] who thought they had the whole country under their thumb.

It suddenly occurred to me, Sharia law doesn't scare Muslims, because good Muslims live by strict behavioural and religious codes anyway, such as no alcohol or sex before marriage, and only eating a certain type of meat etc.

Somalia's Union of Islamic Courts have been branded as extremists by the west, and some hard-liners within the group deserve the title. However the courts have also been the victim of the one-size-fits-all War on Terror branding and are labeled as an Al Qaeda affiliate. Now, I don't know whether or not the group has harboured or is harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists, as has been alleged by the U.S.. What I do know is that, now, while they are employing similar insurgent tactics as Al Qaeda (in Iraq) and other groups in Iraq, there is one key difference: they are not targeting civilians.

So, if they were and/or are sheltering Al Qaeda it is because they share a common enemy, the U.S., which over the years and even more currently has created the impression that it is an enemy of Islam. A view commonly held by extremists. Not because the UIC are an Al Qaeda affiliate, or because they are fighting the same war with the same tactics.

Although the UIC is not specifically targeting civilians, they are being killed in the crossfire. Like Dec. 23's audacious UIC attack on a Transitional Federal Government military base, when Ethiopian and TFG forces retaliated with heavy artillery and tanks. At least three people died and fifteen were injured as the 20 minute battle spilled into surrounding neighbourhoods. Such battles and civilian deaths have again become a daily occurrence in Somalia. Under the UIC they were a rarity.

If some within the UIC were administering a misinterpretation of Sharia law from a bad interpretation of Islam, at least Somali citizens weren't being killed and injured in their droves each day. In fact they were relatively safe if they lived to the letter of the UIC's Sharia law.

Now death is much harder to avoid. In clashes Dec. 23 a woman died and six children were injured when artillery shells landed on their tin shacks, one of the children's life hung in the balance, witnesses told CNN his head was severed. Another nine people were injured and one killed when a rocket struck a house.

It was strange when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), who made short work of overthrowing the warlords that ruled Somalia with anarchy for years, were ousted with so little resistance by the Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces. The two week conflict was more of a chase than a war as the Ethiopian forces followed the trail of the UIC in an almost constant retreat. Now, as the UIC launch daily attacks, growing in severity and audacity it becomes clear that they were conserving men and ammunition for a bloody guerrilla war.

They are employing much the same tactics as they did when they swept into control of most of Southern and central Somalia, lightning raids. The differences are that against the superior Ethiopian military they are striking then retreating. What the UIC lack in heavy armor they make up for in higher mobility and their ability and willingness to use it to their advantage.

So, Somalia is likely to face similar chaos as Iraq for the foreseeable future, and why, because an Islamic movement wanted to govern with Sharia (Islamic) law. Somalia is an Islamic country. Whether the UIC's interpretation of Sharia was wrong and it was being administered too strictly it was up to the Somali people to sort out. After all, they have a much better knowledge of it than the U.S. administration, or Christian Ethiopian government who were responsible for the end of UIC control and the beginning of anarchy. However strictly the UIC were ruling I bet Somalis would turn back time in a heart beat, especially those who have lost loved ones in the recent fighting.

When are the U.S., and their proxies like Ethiopia going to learn that a country's government and the way it chooses to rule is an internal affair, and should be dealt with internally. In any interpretation of the Islamic faith, Jihad is not to be shied away from. It is true, that under the Islamic faith, those dying fighting Jihad go straight to paradise. Where the extremists misinterpret, intentionally or otherwise is that suicide is forbidden under any circumstances, Jihad included. If the UIC continued on the path of governance they were on before they were ousted, and angered the Somali population. I fully believe the Somali population would eventually have risen up in Jihad to install a true and pure version of Sharia law.

Now, that may well have led to the same kind of chaos that Somalis are currently enduring, but at least it would have been their choice, and they would be dying for their freedom. Instead they are dying as part of a western war on an abstract noun.

Governing Somalia

Liam Bailey — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:28:46 EST

In the last throws of 2006 Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia, and with Somalia's Transitional Government (TG)forces drove the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) out of Mogadishu, and with the help of American air strikes, supposedly, out of Somalia. Somali residents had lived in a state of anarchy since the dictator Siad Barre was ousted in 1991. The Union of Islamic Courts restored order and allowed people to go about their normal lives in relative security.

In UIC controlled areas children could go to school safely and once more hospitals could treat the sick without flows of injured coming in from daily violence. However, the UIC ruled with a strict code of Sharia law, meaning the security came at the cost of some personal freedoms and civil liberties. With the UIC ousted, 2007 began a new chapter for Somalia, a new chapter of violence and insecurity.

The UIC began their sweep to power, taking the capital Mogadishu Jun 2006. By December they controlled most of Southern and Central Somalia. The Transitional Government's one remaining stronghold was Baidoa and a small area surrounding it, where it is widely believed Ethiopian troops were stationed to protect the government.

The United Nations was responsible for the imposition of the TG. In early December they still recognized it as the only governing body in Somalia or "The only route to peace and stability" --as it was called in Resolution 1725--, despite it being made up of warlords. The warlords were responsible for much of the violence, insecurity and terrorizing of the civilian population before the UIC took power.

The U.S gave strong support to the TG, against the UIC forces. Strong support to the very warlords that, by inflicting heavy casualties, forced the withdrawal of U.S. forces in a peacekeeping mission in the early nineties. U.S support failed to stop the UIC advance. Shortly before the Ethiopian invasion the U.S presented a draft Resolution to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The Resolution laid out the rules of engagement for a proposed Inter-Governmental Authority on Development and African Union force to enter Somalia. The fore was to protect the TG, to restart the peace negotiations between the TG and the UIC, but ultimately to reinstall the UN recognized government and engage any forces running contrary to that mission.

It was adopted as Resolution 1725 but the UIC's rapid sweep to power gave the impression that they were a strong determined and highly capable fighting force. This combined with the UIC's war declaration on Ethiopian forces in Somalia, their threats to attack peacekeepers and the Iraq quagmire, which started from a similar mission, to make IGAD countries reluctant to send their forces into what could easily become another Iraq.

Ethiopia showed no such reluctance, because Ethiopia had no such noble intentions.
With U.S. support, Ethiopia responded to the UIC's final attack on the last remaining government stronghold of Baidoa. Ethiopia said throughout that it had no intention of occupying Somalia, its only mission was to oust the UIC and return the TG to the seat of power. Unexpectedly the UIC put up little resistance, displaying none of the fight to the death attitude they had spoken of. Ethiopian and TG forces made short work of removing the strict regime of the UIC. As they beat a hasty retreat the UIC made statements to the press promising to wage a guerrilla war, "like Iraq".

So, it seems that the U.S., Ethiopia and the UN believe freedom is more important than security.

Ethiopia is keeping to its word and their forces have already begun to withdraw. The UIC is also keeping its promise and since their defeat, Somalia, more specifically Mogadishu has been rocked by almost daily, mortar, rocket propelled grenade attacks, and occasional suicide bomb attacks. According to reports an 8000 strong African Union force is now expected to enter Somalia in mid-April 2007. Uganda was due to announce a date for a small Burundian advance force but the news conference was cancelled.

Given the failure of 7000 AU troops to stop the violence in Darfur, Sudan, it is unlikely they will adequately fill the vacuum left by the Ethiopian forces. It is also unlikely they will afford the TG the same protection as the Ethiopian force and a UIC uprising could begin anew. Given the consistent UIC statements to view peacekeepers as an invading force it is almost certain the peacekeepers will become targets for insurgent warfare, and even more certain they will fail to stop the insurgency.

Mogadishu residents are fleeing the city en masse to take residence in makeshift refugee camps on the outskirts. Without security people can't live their day to day lives but have the freedom to make personal choices. I believe Somalis would rather be secure in their day to day lives, be able to live in their homes, be able to go out without getting caught up in violence or fear of not returning home, or having no home to return to, and be able to send their kids to school without fear of them being killed on the journey. Even if it meant they couldn't enjoy western comforts, listen to western music, or go to the cinema.

So, by trying to give the Somali people freedom, Ethiopia and the U.S. have returned them to the anarchy they have already endured far too much of. Some people are forced to leave their homes, and so not free to live where they choose, others are forced to stay indoors. Therefore security is more important than freedom, because without security there isn't much freedom, and what little there is can't be enjoyed.

A Brighter Palestinian Future

Liam Bailey — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:44:22 EST

The new Palestinian Authority (PA) unity government is being hailed as a great thing for Palestinians. I don't deny it is a step in the right direction but tough decisions, and hopefully negotiations, lie ahead. If the right decisions aren't made by all parties involved it will not improve one thing in the occupied territories.

Speaking to Israel's Haaretz Daily on condition of anonymity, one Israeli official said: "The conditions have not been met. This is not something we can live with." The U.S. State Department reiterated its call that the new government must meet international demands. It is clear from recent U.S. and Israel policies and their reactions to the new accord that a serious change in Hamas' overtures will be needed if the unity government is to be treated differently than its predecessor.

The reason for hostility towards Hamas is because their charter calls for the destruction of Israel and despite the international siege since early last year they have continually refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and adhere to previous agreements made between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel.

The unity accord makes no mention of recognizing Israel or the other demand to renounce violence, only stipulating that Hamas will "respect" previous agreements made between the PLO and Israel. Abbas had held out for a commitment to adhere to previous agreements, but Hamas held firm and the wording was watered down.

The watered down wording gave weight to the reactions from the U.S and Israel, and the European Union said it would study the new administration "in a positive but cautious manner." The Quartet, (the EU, Russia, the U.S and the UN) has been pressuring the U.S for an end to the PA blockade for months. The U.S and Israel have been as stubborn as Hamas.

A Russian Foreign Ministry statement on Dec. 9 welcomed the new deal between rival Palestinian factions and made a fresh appeal for the lifting of a freeze on direct aid to the Palestinian government. It remains to be seen whether the slight concession from Hamas, the first from them since they took power will allow the other Quartet members to sufficiently tighten the thumbscrews on the U.S. to end the blockade.

It is almost certain the Arab states friendly to the Palestinians will make the most of a momentous achievement by the PA and use their leverage as a much needed Middle East ally for the U.S in stabilizing Iraq and ratcheting up the pressure on Iran's nuclear regime, to secure some badly needed aid back to PA. An injection of aid from friendly Arab states will alleviate the Palestinian's plight, not least in allowing them to pay their employees a full salary for the first time since Hamas was elected. This will make things exponentially better for the workforce and the third of Palestinian families they support.

The normalization of relations with Israel and the U.S. is what's really needed to bring PA life back to the reality before Hamas was elected, which still isn't western life but it is a good jumping off point for a new push for peace from both sides. This would include unfreezing banks and accounts and releasing the $800 million dollars of withheld Palestinian tax revenues and an end to the measure.

The new unity in the PA gives its parties the chance to attempt normalizing their relationships with each other and the international community. They badly need the international community on their side, or at least not against them, if they expect Israel to come to the table with a serious offer for peace.

What is also needed is the serious change in Hamas rhetoric towards Israel I mentioned, preferably in them accepting the three demands of the Quartet. I suspect that their "respecting" past agreements will be enough to satisfy the Quartet on that demand, at least until the negotiation stage. The other demands are the hardest for Hamas to accept, and in fact, what the U.S. fails to realize, or, like Israel, doesn't care about, is that Hamas accepting the most crucial demand --Israel's right to exist-- will take away the unity government's credibility in the eyes of its members and the population at large.

Such an acceptance, to Palestinians would mean accepting that Israel had the right to expel Arabs in the 1948 war. Any negotiations would then risk being interrupted or at worst derailed by gunmen and/or armed wing members attacking each other or Israel.

I have a solution. The new unity government accepts the demands and maintains credibility by watering down the wording and expanding on the stipulation. For instance:

We, the PA unity government unconditionally recognize Israel's existence within the 67 borders, as stipulated by the UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The same could be done with the renounce violence demand:

We, the PA unity government make a declaration to completely renounce all forms of violence for a period of 6 months to allow preparations to be made for the full reinstatement of aid, unfreezing of accounts and return of withheld revenues in Israel and elsewhere it applies, and fresh negotiations with the starting point that adheres to Security Council Resolution 242. The formation of a completely independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem according to the borders before the 1967 war, is a guarantee, regardless of the talks' outcome.

The ball is then well and truly shifted into Israel and the U.S' courts. UNSC Resolution 242 calls for the return of the above stated land, which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. There are arguments that Resolution 242 could be backed up with force as it is legally binding under article 25 of the UN charter on the grounds of its incorporation in UN Resolution 338, presented to the UNSC by the U.S and Russia to end the Yom Kippur war. Resolution 338 may well have been backed up with force. The PA government could approach the UN about a reaffirmation of the resolution's demands for the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

There has never been a better time for Palestinians to maintain a peace, because the U.S needs friends like it never did before. The friendly Arab states, the EU, Russia, and the UN Security Council are all necessary allies for cranking up diplomatic pressure on Iran, The U.S also needs its Arab allies in stabilizing Iraq and possibly for airspace and bases in the event of war with Iran. Israel has always said that its main objective is peace and it is willing to give land to achieve it, whereas the Arabs objective is land and Israel expects them to give peace to achieve it. With the Palestinians doing everything that was expected of them, the U.S and Israel's rhetoric and incessant peace overtures would back-fire on them. There would be no excuses left.

The Palestinians would need to ensure that they resist the Israeli tactics that would undoubtedly ensue, like the West Bank arrest raids and new settlement in the recent ceasefire. And the most recent "renovations" at Al Aqsa mosque, which led to violence after the unity government deal was reached. The clashes add further difficulty for a new government that will undoubtedly struggle to regain control after the fierce factional fighting of the last few months. These tactics are aimed at drawing the Palestinians into actions that would end Israel's uncomfortable predicament.

If the PA could keep to its side of the bargain any reluctance by Israel, which there would undoubtedly be, would be overruled by Iran's nuclear program being firmly number one on the U.S' agenda. Iran being such a U.S. priority is almost as much Israel's fault as anyone else's, vis-a-vis the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's influence in the current U.S administration. This would make it a double backfire when the U.S. applies pressure on Israel to give the Palestinians the talks they and the world community -- badly needed allies -- would be shouting for.

When talks commence the ball comes back into the Palestinians court on the basis of needing to compromise on other final status issues, such as the right of return. The Palestinians want refugees to return to the very land they were expelled from, after nearly 60 years. This is impractical if not impossible for Israel to grant. I read about one Palestinian refugee who, if granted the right of return, would be building his house on the grounds of Jerusalem airport. Not to mention it would risk Israel becoming predominantly Arab, which would in turn further reduce the number of Jews immigrating to Israel under their Law of Return. Two things Israel will never risk.

A suitable compromise may be accepting a limited right of return, whereby refugees could only return on the grounds that they take up land in the now formally and completely independent Palestinian state. Three generations after the Naqba many of the people expelled in the 1948 war of [Israeli] independence are no longer refugees. They or their descendants have made lives for themselves and their families elsewhere in the world and wouldn't want to return. The Palestinians clinging uncompromisingly to achieving this right in full is an unnecessary obstacle to peace.

The other thing that would undoubtedly be a new sticking point in any such negotiations would be the separation wall Israel has almost completed. When complete it originally would have enclosed the West Bank. Palestinians complained because it is built inside the land that should become the independent Palestinian state. Since it started there have been extensions to the planned route taking even more land the Palestinians feel is rightly theirs. The wall has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice. The new pressure on Israel should also be taken advantage of by the Palestinians to achieve the tearing down of the wall, again, simply by maintaining the peace from their side. If they did this, despite Israel's delaying and provocative tactics, Israel would eventually have to face the inevitable:

No security wall is needed with the PA adhering to its commitments and peacefully waiting for Israel to meet theirs. However reluctantly the U.S supported the PA, with their and the rest of the international community's support for the new, moderate and peaceful unity government, Israel would be left with nowhere to go.

This might prove difficult. The longer Israel delays meeting its commitments, which based on previous initiatives could mean years of provocative actions, the more time the Palestinians would have for one person or small group to revert to the habits of a lifetime. I'd like to hope the Palestinians would give the new unity government the respect they expect from the international community and that it would well and truly deserve for having the courage to compromise for a brighter Palestinian future.

Palestine: Excluding Hamas Won't Bring Peace

Liam Bailey — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:09:12 EST

The latest push for Middle East peace focuses on strengthening moderates against "the extremists". Fatah's Abbas is the policy's patron saint, well, a patron anyway. The policy has and is exacerbating a rift that worsened when talks collapsed to create a unity Palestinian Authority government. A rift that quickly escalated in an environment under the pressure of extreme poverty caused by the western government boycott of the January elected Hamas government.

The policy won't work, to the Palestinian people Fatah has sold itself time and time again, first and foremost by accepting Israel's right to exist. To Palestinians this means accepting that Israel had the right to expel their Arab brethren in 1948. Something they will never do. Hamas in government gives the PA a shred of credibility in the eyes of the Palestinian people. Until Fatah can unite under this credibility but use their moderate status to push for Palestinian rights peacefully, any deals made and agreements reached will not bring peace. What's more Israel and the west know this; one reason for the Hamas boycott is their refusal to renounce violence.

I believe that Hamas joining democratic proceedings and adhering to two ceasefires, one for almost a year, proves they are willing to renounce violence if it is reciprocated and leading to an independent Palestinian state within the 67 borders. The right of return and other final status issues could be settled in further negotiations in --a new concept for both states--, peacetime. Hamas certainly won't renounce violence to adhere to an agreement reached on the basis of --Fatah--succumbing to Israeli demands and putting self-importance and greed before Palestinian rights. Hamas remaining outside the process that led to the Oslo accord and attempting to sabotage the process through terrorism showed this. However neither Israel nor the PLO adhered to their commitments under the accord anyway.

The Palestinian people showed their displeasure for Fatah by electing Hamas. Therefore an agreement between Israel and Fatah would not be appreciated or adhered to by the Palestinian population at large either, including Islamic Jihad. Palestinians will not support any peace that will not change their lives for the better. In the conditions they live a fair and just deal would be a complete turnaround in their lives. Only Hamas looks capable of sustaining its commitment to Palestinian rights and achieving such a deal. Israel may deal with Hamas if they can form a coalition with the more moderate Fatah. So, the big push for peace, by worsening PA division to crisis point, and now, beyond that point, is actually pushing us away from peace.

The latest policy is not new, it started late Dec. 2006, with Abbas meeting Olmert, who promised to free $100 million of withheld Palestinian tax revenues. He made good on his promise a few days later. His other concessions however agreeing to take away some West Bank checkpoints and ease the strangulation of there and Gaza, followed the history of such concessions in being much easier said than done. As Israeli analyst Gershon Bashkin put it in the Jerusalem Post Feb. 5: "the proof is in the pudding, and so far the pudding is rotten." The meeting was followed by a massive arms transfer from Egypt, allowed to reach Fatah security forces by Israel. The U.S recently pledged $84 billion to Abbas as part of the large and multilateral campaign to arm and fund Fatah against a militarily stronger Hamas.

The other arm of the policy was a new peace process involving the Quartet, but completely excluding Hamas. If Hamas are to be ignored politically, all they have left is violence. This and the program of funding and arming Fatah militias was always going to make Hamas feel threatened and angry, which of course was going to escalate the fighting.

The rift between the Palestinian factions started just weeks before the Abbas/Olmert meeting, shortly after unity government talks collapsed three sons of a Fatah allied security guard were gunned down. Hamas were blamed but denied the attack. A Hamas judge was killed in a reprisal attack, for which Fatah denied responsibility. Things escalated again when the Hamas leader and PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, returning because of the fighting, was held at the Gaza border by Israel. Hamas militants went to the border, which was being patrolled by Fatah security forces at the time. Fierce fighting broke out between the two factions. After a few hours Haniyeh was allowed to pass and in the chaos, bullets entered the car. Crossfire or not it was taken as an attempt on the Prime Ministers life. Haniyeh's bodyguard was killed in the attack and his son wounded. Again Fatah were blamed but denied the attack.

Both Abbas and Haniyeh agreed many truces to end the infighting and called for all gunmen to leave the streets. Unfortunately the Hamas military wing is controlled from Syria by Kaleed Meshal. This current push for peace presented the appearance that they [the U.S. and Israel] intended to arm and fund Fatah until Hamas was defeated or forced into submission and accepting the --unacceptable-- demands laid on them by the west. With Hamas under such a threat and felt to be militarily stronger, Khaled Meshaal sought to ensure Hamas' survival by defeating Fatah once and for all. At the same time ensuring Hamas' survival in the political arena and therefore ensuring the Palestinian people will not be willingly led into an agreement of subdifuge.

Hamas and Fatah reached agreement for a power sharing government Feb. 8. Israel officials are casting doubt on whether the planned peace summit Feb. 19 with Abbas, U.S secretary of state Condoleeza Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will go ahead with an Abbas now sharing power with Hamas. They are also talking about a reduced likelihood of Olmert making any concessions to Abbas if the meeting does go ahead. Whether it goes ahead or not will likely depend on the rhetoric from the new government towards Israel, and whether the U.S. pressures for it to go ahead under the facade that they are committed to a peace deal. If their commitment to peace was a strong as their commitment to Israel peace wouldn't look such a far off prospect.

The unity agreement makes no mention of recognizing Israel or the other demand to renounce violence, only stipulating that Hamas will "respect" previous agreements made between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. Abbas had held out for a commitment to adhere to previous agreements, but Hamas held firm and the wording was watered down.

Both Meshal and Abbas have stated their commitment to the deal and their desire for no fuirther internal fighting in the PA, and that they hope the international siege of the PA will be lifted because of the new government. While U.S allies in the region, and the other three members of the quartet (Russia, the E.U. and the U.N.), who have been pressuring the U.S. to end the siege may reinstate diplomatic relations with the PA as a first step to making pledges of aid, the U.S. state department has already reiterated that the new government is required to meet international demands.

Just days after the latest push was started by the Abbas/Olmert meeting, the Israeli government approved a new settlement in the West Bank, one which was nearly completed before government approval. The settlement has now been "frozen" because of U.S pressure. The settlements approval, has recently been followed by another Jerusalem home demolition as part of the campaign to keep Jerusalem's Arab population low and an extension to the planned route of the separation wall. The new route annexes even more land from the final Palestinian state.

This all happened while Palestinian infighting was diverting attention, as well as freeing Israeli security forces to carry out the operations. All are operations that help toward the Zionist dream of a pure, or at least remaining predominantly Jewish, Israel.

Therefore, even people adverse to conspiracies can see that Israel was the main beneficiary of the Palestinian infighting. Their policies since it began proved, at the very least, that they weighed capitalizing on it above creating a suitable environment for a lasting peace.

Meanwhile the U.S is still treating Israel as an ally in the war on terror and Hamas as an enemy in it. This conflict was going on before Osama Bin Laden could trouble anyone, Hamas were attacking Israel before Al Qaeda were attacking the West, Hamas could have jumped on the Al Qaeda band wagon but, despite Zawahiri's best attempts, they haven't.

If the solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict was strengthening moderates against extremists, it would have been over years ago. The only push that will bring peace is all parties pushing the desire for peace to number 1 on the agenda. After nearly a century of conflict isn't it about time they did?

Israel's Bedouin: Hidden Victims

Liam Bailey — Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:59:48 EST

I read the other day about a terrible act. I didn't read it in the Guardian, the Times, the NY Post or any of the other major newspapers or mainstream media websites. The Electronic Intifada (EI) ran the report by the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages (RCUV) with the headline Israel Destroys Bedouin Village for the Second Time. A report on the Israeli government destroying Twail Abu Jarwal (pic 1) for the second time in as many months: "Large police forces, with the aid of special-task forces and with the aerial help of a helicopter and two bulldozers, demolished the entire village."

Bedouin Villages have been on the land since before the state of Israel was conceived. The Israeli government doesn't recognise them and calls them illegal, therefore they are not entitled to any infrastructure. The "illegal" villages lack even basic amenities such as running water and electricity.

According to Yeela Raanan of the RCUV the elders have held receipts since the 70's of payments made to Israel for plots of land in the town of Laquia. They lived on other people's land in shacks and tents on the outskirts of the town, waiting for their land -- which never came -- to build homes for their families. A few years ago, their makeshift homes outgrown, the Bedouin returned to their ancestral land.

The recent demolitions flew in the face of the Israeli Knesset Interior Affairs and Environment Committee (IAEC) recommendation to postpone the demolitions of Bedouin villages until the residents could find alternative housing. Israeli Interior Minister Roni Bar-On told the IAEC that the state has the authority to demolish all 42, 000 illegal building of the Negev's unrecognized villages.

"Knesset member Talab El-Sana from the United Arab List called the actions a crime no better than the IDF committed in Beit Hanoun. She also said the demolitions left children and the elderly without a roof over their heads in the dead of winter, and signified "a declaration of war by the state against its Bedouin citizens." Arguing that while the state was demolishing Bedouin houses, it was also approving the construction of tens of farms and houses for Jewish residents of the Negev. According to El-Sana this derived from "a policy of racism."

Echoing a 2003 Guardian report, the Dec 2006 RCUV report said:

This policy's aim is to force the Bedouins off their ancestral lands and to concentrate the Bedouins in urban townships, regardless of their wishes or their culture. However, there are no options for living in the concentration towns the government has built, as there are no available plots of land for homes. Therefore the government can "legally" demolish the homes of 80,000 members of this community, while they cannot build one "legal" home.

According to the RCUV's Yeela Raanan, the latest demolition left 63 children and 30 adults without shelter in winter.

Yeela (Pic 2) was born and brought up in the Israeli Negev (southern region, desert). She spent a year (8th grade) in W. Sussex England during her father's Sabbatical year in 1978 and studied for her PHD in anthropology in Utah, where she lived with her family for ten years. Returning to Israel after her studies, Yeela worked as the coordinator for the Negev Coexistence Forum, a Jewish-Arab organization based in the Negev. She left the organization, and has been with the RCUV for almost two years. She also teaches for the department of Public Administration at Sapir College. Yeela is 41 years old, married and has three teenage sons. She has returned to the Negev and lives with her family in Kibbutz Beeri today.

As the RCUV liaison to the Civil Society, Leela is responsible for creating and maintaining working relationships with other (mostly Jewish) NGOs in Israel that are willing to work to promote the residents' rights of the unrecognized villages. She handles the RCUV's lobbying efforts. She also organizes the sheep and goat heard owners in their struggle for more rights in Israel and to forward their economic development.

Yeela answered a few of my questions by e-mail:

Where are the homeless residents of Twail Abu Jarwal living now?

The Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages (RCUV) found an organization that donated 21 excellent large tents for the 21 homes that were demolished a couple of weeks ago. In addition people have been re-building their very modest tin homes (Pic 3). In any case, they have nowhere else to go, so they can stay at family for a day or so, but since we are talking about 100 people, their families cannot host them for more than a night or two.

What plans do you have in action to stop Israel 's minister of interior, Roni Bar-On from enacting his plans to destroy all Bedouin homes that Israel deems to be illegal?

Roni Bar-On cannot destroy all "illegal" homes, because it will be too much of an uproar, but he will push the borders of how many homes can be destroyed before the Negev burns. We have been working in all manners we can think of with the resources we have - including working with Israeli ministers (Meir Shitrit the minister of building and residence, who is "in charge of the Bedouins", for example) and with other members of Knesset. In addition we are trying to get others to pressure our government - for example I am pleased that you received information of what is going on here, but we don't have enough resources to pursue this as much as is needed. We are also working to empower the community, which has been suffering oppression for the last 58 years, and therefore is hard to bring together -they are afraid, and rightly so, of what will be done to them if they fight the system. Beyond working as we are today, the government, and Roni Bar-On in particular, have a lot of power and very little good will.

Why do you think the mainstream media hasn't covered the story of Twail Abu Jarwal's relentless destruction?

Because the Israeli government has launched an excellent campaign that portrays the Bedouins as land-grabbers, squatters and robbers of government (Jewish) lands, they are Arabs, and so in the Israeli psyche part of the enemy camps. The governmental story is therefore believable for most Israelis.

What other major incidents have there been since 1948?

In the early 1950s all were concentrated in a reservation called the "Siyag" area. That means that many were uprooted, put on trucks and moved forcefully. This continued until the 1970s. Also Israel sprayed Bedouin crops sowed on disputed lands with herbicides, until the Israeli Supreme Court stopped this. The government is still destroying Bedouin crops with the use of tractors, but even leaving the villages of 80,000 citizens as "unrecognized", meaning no water, electricity, roads, municipal services such as garbage disposal and sewer systems - and minimal community services such as medical care and schools - is a crime. Over half of the Bedouins citizens of Israel live in these conditions.

Has the mainstream media covered any of them?

Very scantly, and only when catastrophes occur. For example a child's head was literally picked off by a bus that had to pass another bus driving in the opposite direction (in October of 2006) because the paths the busses take to the schools are impossibly narrow.

What do you think the International community should be doing to help the Bedouin tribes?

The international community must become knowledgeable, we will be happy to take people to visit the unrecognized villages, update via emails. The international community must use all channels available to pressure Israel to deal with this issue, and deal justly. To give these communities an economic boost, while allowing them to maintain their traditions and customs - for example allowing use of land for agriculture, animal husbandry, community size villages, and maintaining ownership of their ancestral lands.

You can contact Yeela by telephone on 054 7487005 or by e-mail for more information.

Israel May Attack Iran, With or Without The US's Help

Liam Bailey — Tue, 6 Feb 2007 00:49:09 EST

Like everybody on the Haaretz mailing list, I received an e-mail from them with the subject line: Stand up to Ahmadinejad. Inside was an advertising banner with the subject line above a picture of an exuberant Ahmadinejad speaking into a microphone. The banner linked to a two minute video by Aish.com.

It is really a slideshow starting with a picture of Adolf Hitler. Followed by a gruesome picture of tens of undernourished adult males, one standing, the rest lying in what I can only describe as a wall of pigeon-hole bunks. Some are peering at the camera. I assume it was taken in a liberated concentration camp. The narrator says: "Imagine you could have stopped Hitler in 1938." another wall of pigeon holes, this time much smaller filled with human skulls. "Imagine you could have stopped him, but didn't."

Showing Ahmadinejad above the quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," the narrator announces: "Today a new Hitler is on the world stage calling for the destruction of the state of Israel." The narrator falls silent for the display of two more pictures of Ahmadinejad above the quotes: "The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm" and: "The Elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple."

The first quote about Israel being wiped off the map is a matter of international debate. Some analysts say Ahmadinejad has never made such a statement, that it is an intentional mistranslation by Israel or their supporters to overstate the danger from Iran. If they are right and only the latter two quotes can be accredited to Ahmadinejad, he is not alone in wanting Zionism to be eliminated, which doesn't necessarily mean exterminating Jews or obliterating Israel. In my recent interview with Israeli author and academic Ilan Pape, he said: "Israel has to be de-Zionised to a point before any genuine reconciliation can be attempted." He was talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Whether Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be wiped off the map" or not, the comparison to Hitler and the holocaust is a blatant misrepresentation of one of the world's most horrific acts. In 1938 the world was a different place, not least in the perception of Jews. 1938 was in an era when stereotypes were treated as fact and taught to children. Discrimination was accepted, in some cases even expected of people. Jews were stereotypically evil, greedy and devious and persecuted because of it.

When Hitler's views began emerging, for those who didn't hate Jews, such entrenched stereotypes made them indifferent. In short the Jews had no friends in the world capable of or willing to stop Hitler. Today the situation is very different.

The holocaust was a horrific and tragic occurrence. The world not even attempting to stop it pre-emptively was a disgrace. However, the world's guilt over not stopping the holocaust, even if only indirectly, led to the partitioning of Palestine for a Jewish homeland.

In its infancy Israel faced threats from the Arab countries surrounding it, who really did want to carry out a second holocaust, who really did want, and try to wipe Israel off the map. As Egypt's President announced before the Sinai war: "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." The U.S began supporting Israel militarily in the sixties and rescued Israel from the brink of defeat by airlifting military supplies during the Yom Kippur war, the aggressors Egypt and other neighboring Arab states learned that the U.S wasn't going to let Israel be defeated.

Since then and currently Israel faces a very small threat from neighboring countries, some have signed peace accords. The others are reduced to funding internal resistance groups against Israel's occupation, none of which is anywhere near capable of wiping Israel off the map.

In any case, the developed world is a different place, an era of equal rights for all. With equal access in the media and satellites beaming different cultures to western television, stereotypes are no longer people's first reference. Persecution is a crime no matter the victim, and children are being brought up to treat everyone the same.

Let's assume Ahmadinejad does want Israel wiped off the map.

Far away from having no friends in the world, Israel is now in the "in" crowd, among the most powerful friends in the world, the U.S., U.K. and any other states wanting to stay in America's favor. With the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), perhaps the most powerful lobby in America, America's world influence and massive nuclear arsenal, Israel is one of the best protected countries in the world. If this support wasn't enough to deter anyone considering an attack, or "the destruction of Israel", the Jewish state having another of the world's largest nuclear arsenals certainly should be.

What's more Israeli officials know that there is no such "second holocaust" threat from a nuclear Iran. As Gareth Porter reported in the Electronic Intifada:

An article in the online journal of a hard-line think-tank, the Ariel Centre for Policy Research, in August 2004 revealed that "one of the options that has been considered should Iran publicly declare itself to have nuclear weapons is for Israel to put an end to what is called its policy of 'nuclear ambiguity' or 'opacity'.
The author, Shalom Freedman, said that in light of Israel's accumulation of "over 100 nuclear weapons" and its range of delivery systems for them, even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons within a few years, the "tremendous disproportion between the strength of Israel and an emergent nuclear Iran should serve as a deterrent."

Returning to the Aish.com slideshow, after the Hitler comparisons displaying the existential threat to Israel from Iran, it goes on with yet more groundless scaremongering: "This is a war" (a war?) "not only against Israel, but against the west as well." The picture shows angry Muslims burning an American flag with the quotation. I warn the great powers [who] fan the flames of Muslim rage, [we] will annihilate them all. The narrator continues: "Iran is close to developing the technology needed to build nuclear weapons. Iran's Shahab 3 missile can carry nuclear warheads to a range of 2000km capable of reaching Europe, Israel and American forces in the Middle East."

As yet, Iran hasn't built a nuclear warhead, therefore nobody knows what size or weight it will be, and therefore nobody can speculate whether the Shahab 3 will carry it, let alone how far.

You may be wondering why Israelis would want to create mass hysteria on the basis of lies, the same reason it denies Palestinian right of return, and is building a great wall around the Jewish state... Zionism's greatest fear, Israel becoming predominantly Arab.

You may be confused, Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh explained in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, saying that under the threat from a nuclear Iran: "most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with their families; and Israelis who can live abroad will. People are not enthusiastic about being scorched." Thus the danger, Sneh elaborated, is that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would "be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs."

Therefore, the fear is not over the existence of Israel, but over how Israel exists.

I suspect Washington's war planners know the existential threat is non-existent, but have their own reasons for failing to dispel the myth. America does not want allied Israel's Middle East hegemony to end, especially not in favor of an enemy as staunch as Iran.

Israel putting such weight on their lies taking hold in the world media, has guaranteed their fears will be a reality should Iran successfully enrich uranium to weapons grade. That is why you can rest assured, if diplomacy and sanctions fail to stop Iranian enrichment, Israel will attack with or without U.S help. There is a distinct possibility that the attack will involve the use of nuclear weapons, therefore Iran is more in danger of a nuclear holocaust from Israel.