Ali Palestine and The Middle East A Chronicle of Passion and Politics 2003

Preface
One can ask without sounding petty: Does the world need
another book written about the Middle East? My personal library
is a testimony that might argue against this books printing. But
few books cover analytical as well as emotional components of
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, preferring to stress one over the
other. This collection of essays follows no such restrictions.
I started writing about the Middle East when I was twelve
years old. Little did I know then that this would provide the
subtext for most of my intellectual endeavors for the rest of my
life. Growing up as a Palestinian-American, one is apt to view
things with different filters than those without a hyphen in their
ethnic designation. I only hope this group of articles and essays
offers a viewpoint that will expand readers notions of Middle
Eastern politics.
This book deals mainly with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Several articles deal with the Iraq war, but the main thrust is
how the idea of Palestine has captivated millions of people over
generations. The Palestinian narrative is only now becoming
familiar to American audiences.
But there is not just one narrative that can define or represent
Palestinians. This book therefore represents a personal journey.
Although it might have begun when I was twelve, the writings
took their inspiration from the outset of the second Uprising
(Intifada) against Israeli Occupation. In addition to the personal
accounts, several essays deal with the hard edge of realpolitik.
Just as the flowers bloom and the birds sing because they
must, so too was I compelled to write. This collection is meant to
bring understanding on many levels. Each essay stands or falls on
its own. Hopefully you will feel the urge to continue your read-
ings on the subject to learn about this crucial part of the world.
Jaffer Ali
May, 2003
Contents
Introduction xi
1. The Making of a Palestinian 1

2. Do They Really Hate Us? 4
3. Arafat and the Rhetoric of Blame 7
4. Run for Cover 9
5. The Cult of Zionism 11
6. Yaba, Why Do They Do That? 14
7. Why the Occupation Will End 16
8. Assumptions 19
9. The Palestinian Struggle 22
10. Sari Nusseibeh and the Right of Return 25
11. An Open Letter to My Palestinian
Brothers and Sisters 27
12. Discovering the Chasm 32
13. The Torment of Occupation 34
14. Why Is Israel So Scared? 37
15. The Moral Question: An Israeli Reckoning 40
16. The Perfect Storm 43
17. Sharons Pyrrhic Victory 46
18. Let Them Bleed 48
19. Democracy in the Middle East 51
20. Why Does Israel Want a US War with Iraq? 54
x Contents
21. Inside the LabyrinthPart One 57

22. Inside the LabyrinthPart Two 61
23. Does Justice Matter? 66
24. US Interests and the Middle East 68
25. US Foreign Policy and the Middle East 72
26. The US Peace of Despair 77
27. An Open Letter to President Bush 81
28. The Credible Threat of Force 84
29. The Anglo-Saxons Are Coming 88
30. Military Triumphs and Political Defeats 92
31. In Praise of Dreams 96
32. Reaching for the Stars 99
33. Principles, Alliances and Interests 101
About the Author 105

Index 106
Introduction
This collection of articles and essays was written over the last
three years. At times it will seem like two different people were
writing the articles. Dont let the different styles surprise you
because both represent something pivotal in the Palestinian
experience.
Both styles carry components that accompany the reality
of living as a Palestinian in America. One style captures the
emotive experience of living in Diaspora. The other captures
the hard edge of realpolitik that living in a western country can
illuminate.
I began writing just after the second Uprising or Intifada
began. Many of the articles first appeared in the online publica-
tion called Viewpoint (www.gophercentral.com) and they have
the feel of events as they were happening. Other articles have a
historical overview that is timeless.
Reading about the Palestinian-Israel conflict through the
narrative of a Palestinian-American should demonstrate that
Palestinians are not a monolithic block. There is a greater diver-
sity within Palestinian society than the rest of the Arab world,
largely due to the fact that over 5 million of us live all over the
world.
The purpose for writing each and every word was to help
explain the issues that have shaped the Middle East for decades.
How can one understand what the issues are without under-
standing the passions of the region? How can one understand
the conflict without understanding the historical roots?
Each essay was written to stand on its own. They have been
arranged in chronological order as much as possible and they
represent a journey for me as the writer. Hopefully they will
help you, the reader, on a journey of discovery.
1
The Making of a Palestinian
(12/28/00)
Amidst the polemics that rage on and off line, sometimes it is

helpful to take a step back to understand the human dimension
of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If you please, indulge the
following reminiscences, for I believe they reveal why Israel
must necessarily abandon Occupation.
My father was born in the small West Bank village of
Beitunia in 1930. His family owned an orange grove in Lydda
and after 1948 neither he nor his siblings ever saw the grove
again.
He came to the US for good in 1949. He was a mans
man with shoulders that appeared Atlas-like to me while
growing up.
When he was alive, I only saw my father cry three times in
my life. The first time transformed me forever. I was eleven
years old and the year was 1968. My father received a package
in the mail. Apparently he had donated some money and he
received a book. I do not remember what kind of book, but
inside when he opened it, I will never forget what I saw. It was
a small Palestinian flag.
My father took it out and with his head bowed... he wept.
I distinctly remember a sense of bewilderment. I had never seen
this hulk of a man cry before. I quizzically asked, Yaba, whats
wrong? But he never told me. His was a generation that found
these emotional outbursts confusing and embarrassing. But
somehow I instinctively knew what had happened. And some-
thing happened to me. That day I became a Palestinian.
2 Palestine and the Middle East
It was the next year in school that the teacher assigned

each of us to give a speech. Most of the boys gave speeches on
football and baseball and the girls on dolls and make-up.
My speech was on the disastrous consequences of the Balfour
declaration.
Fast forwarding to the year 2000, history has somehow
come full circle. This time, I am the father. One evening my
wife, three boys and I decided to break the Ramadan fast at a
restaurant. The waitress came over to ask what beverage we
wanted. I answered for the table, Bring three Cokes for the
boys and two glasses of water.
My ten-year-old looked at me with surprise and said,
Yaba, should we be drinking Coca Cola? We should order
something else because Coke is helping the Israelis.
With this statement, my ten-year-old became a Palestinian.
Now, if you think that our home is a den of indoctrination, you
would be dead wrong. He overheard me speaking about a
Middle Eastern boycott of American goods, which included
Coke. I believe my son instinctively knew that we should not
lend ourselves to helping Israel brutalize our brothers and sis-
ters, even indirectly.
These two incidents, separated by more than thirty years,
reveal something fundamental, almost metaphysical. What con-
nects all Palestinians in the world is a shared psychic experience.
And this experience solidifies a Palestinian identity, no matter
where one lives. Diaspora has not eradicated this identity. Time
has not eradicated it. Neither prosperity nor privation has eradi-
cated it. Being a Palestinian transcends geography and time. It is
an eternal thought that lies dormant, waiting for a chance to
express itself.
In the refugee camps of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon every
Palestinian dreams of freedom and living in dignity without
despair. In the villages of the West Bank and Gaza every
Palestinian dreams of a life without identity cards, without Israeli
snipers shooting the eyes out of children in dubious self-defense.
Every Palestinian living in countries from Australia to the US is
connected to every other Palestinian. We will not go away.
The Making of a Palestinian 3
Israel has falsely assumed that time was on its side. Their
belief was that successive generations of Palestinians would
assimilate into neighboring Arab countries. Israel believed that
creating conditions of deprivation would cause a mass exodus
without a longing to return. They have forgotten their own
history. Israeli brutality has solidified Palestinian identity and
demands its expression.
My father died almost twenty years ago and before he
became ill and died, he looked me in the eye and said, Son,
I may not live to see Palestine, but InshaAllah you will.
Although it is true that Palestinians clutch the past to preserve
our identity, we are ready to embrace the future. My fathers
hope still rings in my ears.
2
Do They Really Hate Us?
(10/18/01)
Hope is a waking dream.
Aristotle
Monday night, I heard an analyst say that we had not tapped

into the Arab-American community enough to spread the word
back home about the nobility of the US war against terror-
ism. A friend of mine told me the foreign services office is busy
trying to recruit hundreds of Arab-Americans as well.
When you have a hyphen in your self-definition, you often
have a unique perspective. My father became a hyphenated
American and I maintain the hyphen to this day. As I mentioned
previously, he came to the US in 1949 after the Nakba (catas-
trophe) when the familys orange grove in Lydda was lost to the
newly formed Israel. He spoke little English when he arrived
and taught himself the language by going to the movies. He was
17 years old.
Thirty years later, at the tender age of 47, the American
dream let him retire and he moved to sunny Arizona. This brief
introduction should give you an idea that I am a product of the
American dream, where a penniless immigrant, through hard
work and dedication, can retire in thirty years.
But if I am a product of the American dream, I have also
been infused with the wonder and promise of the possibilities of
that dream. America embodies the freedom to express oneself,
freedom to live without fear of a military dictatorship throwing
you in jail for holding unpopular ideas. And what you do with
your life is up to you. In short, dreams animate my life.
Do They Really Hate Us? 5
Ill let you in on a little secret. The same dreams in

American hearts are also yearned for in the Middle East. They
are universal human impulses, yet remain buried in the sleep of
despair. That is why so many people flock to the US from all
over the world. They cannot realize those aspirations in their
home countries. Why?
Lets take a look at the landscape of Middle East regimes.
Saddam Hussein, once a US ally, strangles and gasses his own
people, using largely US weaponry. Iran, through CIA and
MOSSAD intervention, maintained a monarchy that brutalized
its own people until 1979. In Jordan, the monarchy has moved
to quell all forms of expression that run counter to the throne.
All media is controlled.
A colonel in the Jordanian army once told me that in the
US, the army is trained to fight outside enemies. But in the
Middle East, armies are trained to fight their own people.
Where did he get his training? Of course, here in America.
In Saudi Arabia there are 30 multi-billionaires in the royal
family and the rank and file citizen is practically destitute. The
royal family appears pious for domestic consumption, then
goes whoring and drinking all over the world. Saudi citizens
have few jobs in their countries. My aunt brought my children
souvenirs from Mecca. They were made in Taiwan. The Saudi
monarchy cannot rely on its own military to maintain itself, so
the US is there to help it fight its citizens, should the need arise.
The monarchy would topple within one month should the US
withdraw its support.
The Palestinian Authority, created by the CIA from PLO
remnants, has cut a deal with the US. In exchange for crack-
ing down on its own people and supporting US military goals,
America will supply riot gear and slap its bette noir, Israel. A
Palestinian state is planned, but without the democratic ideals
that animate the human soul.
In Egypt, the second largest recipient of US aid in the world,
cries for freedom land you in jail. In fact, the US asks its client
state (with little opposition) to suppress the demonstrations for
freedom. US aid is contingent upon it.
Syrian despotism is well known. Syria can occupy neighbor-

ing Lebanon with US approval as long as it goes along with its
military objectives. Oh, by the way, we admitted them to the
Security Council, wiping away its crimes against its own people.
The US now welcomes Syria into its political sphere where the
dream is only real for those who flee.
Of course, the granddaddy of them all is Israel. Israels pres-
ent leader, Ariel Sharon is a master butcher. The massacres at
Sabra and Chatila are just examples of his desire to kill the
dream. The crimes Israel has accumulated over the last 50 years
are almost too numerous to mention... except that they were
done with either US complicity or the US turning a blind eye.
The US has given Israel over $100 billion since its inception.
The result? More brutalization and Occupation, paid for by
the US.
People in the Middle East do not hate Americans. They
certainly do not hate the American Dream. Everywhere, people
yearn for freedom. And in this oil-rich region, everywhere are
regimes, either created or propped up by the US. No regime in
the region has legitimacy. Everyone violates human rights.
Every regime attempts to kill the American Dream.
So what am I supposed to say to the other side of my
hyphen? Forget the dream? Stop trying to lift yourself from the
servitude of your masters?
The people in the Middle East do not hate Americans. They
rightly hate those trying to squeeze the American Dream from
their hearts.
3
Arafat and the Rhetoric of Blame
(12/06/01)
A man who lives, not by what he loves but what
he hates, is a sick man.
Archibald MacLeish
The horrendous events of this past week need to be put into

context. If I had a nickel for every time I heard the words
Arafat is responsible for the violence in the region, I would
instantly retire. One would think that all parties live by the
above quoted reference rather than reason. But the truth of the
matter is more serious than adding up debating points between
Palestinian and Israeli spokesmen.
Israelis and the media know that to simplify a conflict, it is
often desirable to personalize it. Personify evil in the name and
face of a leader. Quadaffi served this purpose in the 80s, and of
course Saddam Hussein was the 90s version of evil incarnate. Bin
Laden is the poster boy for everything evil in the 21st Century.
So Israelis have a well-worn media plan with which they
can make political hay. But we can ask with sobering reflection
whether Arafat is actually responsible for everything that ails
the region. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the solution
is rather simple. If this is actually the case, let me be the first
Palestinian to say it... execute him now.
Israelis know where he is. To eliminate the responsible party
is simple. One attack helicopter will do. Eliminate the responsible
party, and the trouble goes away.
Who believes this? Rhetoric aside, everyone knows that
even if Arafat were killed, the problem would still exist.
And what is the problem? Occupation. Collective punishment

and enslavement of over 3.5 million Palestinians living under
oppressive conditions is the breeding grounds for violence.
Kill Arafat and the problem remains. Israel has bombed
everywhere except where Arafat is actually lurking. Why? They
do not want to kill him. They want to keep him alive and lay
the blame on a person instead of a situation. If Arafat were
eliminated and the next suicide bomb went off, who would the
Israelis blame? What would they say?
Make no mistake about it... Arafats days are numbered. He
made a deal with the devil when he decided to become the de
facto police force for an occupying power. He is caught between
the hammer and the anvil. He is not a very good policeman and
he certainly is not a very good leader for the Palestinian people.
The simplistic personification of the conflict is really a
diversion. Dont fall for it. If Arafat were dead tomorrow, mil-
lions of people would still be brutalized by Israeli Occupation...
and as long as this is the case, there is no power on earth that
can bring an end to the violence.
There can be no security for Israelis while they continue to
occupy Palestinian lands. There can be no peace while there is
a continued Occupation.
4
Run for Cover
(10/25/01)
My cousin phoned me yesterday to tell me he saw our 80-year-old

aunt, half blind being interviewed on Al Jazeera, the Arab equiv-
alent of CNN. She was actually wailing to the cameraman,
Al Yahoud... Keteloona, which translates to The Jews are
killing us.
Putting aside the notion that most of World Jewry actually
does not support Israels brutal Occupation, the conflict became
more real after that call. Everyone has a personal story to tell,
a tragedy that has touched their life. Israelis have them too. My
aunt was left wailing to the entire Arab world... but who would
hear?
Israeli soldiers have lionized for years. In 1967 they swept
through most of the Middle East in six days. I suspect they feel
those were the good old days. But today, the face of the Israeli
soldier represents something different to the world. When they
invade neighborhoods with tanks and infantry, their soldiers
know where to go to stay safe.
Where is that? Tony Karon, of Time magazine wrote of
Israeli soldiers using children as a shield. Karon reported,
A PR disaster followed reports of [Palestinian] children hud-
dling frightened in a Lutheran orphanage while Israeli soldiers
took up firing positions in their building. The State Department
specifically appealed for the safety of the children.
Other tactics have Israeli soldiers placing 10-year-old
Palestinian children on their tanks advancing into Arab neigh-
borhoods. The goal is to suppress fire. They found this really
does work. Children as human shields... a practice Israelis long

condemned as proof positive of decadent morality.
There comes a point in every colonial adventure when the
Occupiers realize they simply cannot win. Israel is close to this.
One measures colonial resolve by the desperation of its soldiers.
When Israelis use children as human shields, their desperation
is clear. Their colonial adventure is about to come to an end.
5
The Cult of Zionism
(05/21/01)
Language is truly an amazing phenomenon. It is as if words

have a transcendent quality that mean more to us even than we
think we know. Take for example the word thug. In the past I
have used this word in the phrase, Zionist thugs. This is not
a new term to anyone who has ever felt the humiliation of a
checkpoint, the terror of an F-16 or Apache helicopter dispens-
ing its payload.
But the word thug has an interesting etymology. The
word comes from the old Hindu cult called Thugee. The cult
was devoted to Kali, the goddess of death and destruction.
For hundreds of years the Thugee cult practiced an organized
campaign of assassinations. Strangulation was the preferred
method. Thugees claimed tens of thousands of victims.
The British Raj hanged nearly 4,000 Thugees in the 19th
century and the cult has only survived as a word to be applied
with discretion. I began to think of the term, Zionist thugs in
a different light. What makes a former human rights activist
with dignity like Nathan Sharansky begin to advocate oppres-
sive racial policies? What makes seemingly intelligent, articulate
Israelis turn so completely away from reason and accept myth
instead of historical truth? What makes Israel, as a nation, elect
known war criminalsnot once, not twice, but consistently
elect leaders with so much blood on their hands?
The answer might lie in the notion that the spiritual heirs of
the Thugees are Zionists. This is not just a rhetorical phrase. Is
Zionism a cult? And if it is, what can you do with them?
Dr. Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal has

developed a brief checklist to determine if a movement is a cult:
The group is focused on a living leader or idea to whom

members seem to display excessively zealous, unques-
tioning commitment.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even
punished.
The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how
members should think, act, and feel.
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for
itself, its leader(s), and members.
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality,
which causes conflict with the wider society.
The groups leader is not accountable to any authorities.
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted
ends justify means that members would have considered
unethical before joining the group.
The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order
to control them.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of
time to the group.
I am not sure if Zionism has ever been considered as a cult

before. So the question for concerned Jews who are not part of
this cult, and Palestinians is: How should this cult be dealt
with? Since reason alone is ineffective in transforming cult
members, and mass de-programming is not viable, we have a real
problem on our hands. We are beyond 19th century mass execu-
tions (the method the British used in India), so how can we break
through and cure such a large cult? We need to understand
that after converts commit themselves to Zionism, the cults
way of thinking, feeling, and acting becomes second nature,
while important aspects of their pre-cult personalities are sup-
pressed or, in a sense, decay through disuse.
The Cult of Zionism 13
A normal level of psychological development and personality

integration is very difficult for a cult member to achieve. Nathan
Sharansky is a prime example of exhibiting a decayed sense of
human rights... probably through disuse. He needs to be cured or
rehabilitated... not killed. I am not being facetious. Zionism is an
anachronistic cult based upon an ultra-nationalistic ethic. We
need the best minds in the world to work on this if there will ever
be a solution to the problem between Israelis and Palestinians.
6
Yaba, Why Do They Do That?
(05/30/02)
After a recent suicide bombing that was reported on television,

my twelve-year-old asked me, Yaba, why do they do that?
I must admit, I did not know how to answer him. He has
never experienced what living under Occupation means. Living in
suburban Illinois and alternately fishing and playing with the lat-
est X-box video game, what frame of reference or context could
he possibly relate to in grasping whatever answer I could give?
I put him off saying that it was complicated and he walked
away less than satisfied. This is an attempt to explain to my son
why someone would become a human bomb and kill himself
along with innocent people in a crowded market. In trying to
find my words, the answer began to assume a rather simple
truth. The American physicist and teacher Richard Feynman
once said, The truth always turns out to be simpler than you
thought.
This is what I wish I could have told him then.
When a people have been stripped of everything they have, are

denied the expression of who they are, humiliated by those
occupying their land, their homes destroyed, schools closed,
children not being allowed to play, put in jail without trials,
executed without being tried... life becomes intolerable.
In fact, the notion of simple earthly pleasures becomes out
of reach. The Israelis control every facet of Palestinian life.
Suicide bombings are a reaction to this oppressive control of life.
These people are telling Israelis, You can starve us, beat us,
humiliate us, but you will never control our spirit. We will
Yaba, Why Do They Do That? 15
choose the day of our death, and in the process make you feel a
bit of the pain you, our Occupiers, inflict on our entire society.
Palestinians exist in an environment so dire that the
prospects of death overshadow their prospects for life. Imagine
your mother spat upon by a nineteen-year-old Israeli soldier
simply because she was your mother... imagine our neighbor-
hood being bombed by powerful planes and helicopters and we
had no way to protect ourselves. Suicide bombings are acts of
desperation and mean that a people have been pushed to the
brink. There is not one incident that leads to one of these
actions. Rather it is a systematic matrix of actions by Israeli
Occupation that terrorizes an entire population. Palestinians
have been pushed so hard, they no longer fear death nor the
enemy.
The rightness or wrongness of these suicide bombings
can be debated by everyone, but failure to understand why
these happen will make certain that they will continue. Without
understanding the causes that lead to the bombings, one will
never eliminate them. This simple truth seems to evade most
commentators, pundits and politicians; and of course seems to
be missed by most Israelis and those who support them.
I wish I could have said this to my son when he asked. I had
not yet truly understood that the answer was simple. In another
time, at another place... but for the grace of God, I too might
have become desperate enough to become part of such horrific
events.
7
Why the Occupation Will End
(01/10/02)
So much torture, bloodshed, deceit. You cannot
make your young people practice torture twenty-
four hours a day and not expect to pay a price for it.
Jean Paul-Sartre
It is strange to be writing a letter about Occupation while I sit

safe in Illinois, typing away at the keyboard. For the last sixteen
months of this Uprising, I have noticed a change in myself. My
heart has been broken, then hardened, and then finally uplifted.
Uplifted because I see now, more clearly than ever, that the
Zionist Occupation must necessarily end.
Are these bold words from the safety of 7000 miles away?
Is this boastful panache characteristic of Arabic rhetoric?
I think not. The conclusion is inevitable. Occupation will
never do the Occupiers any good. In fact, Occupation destroys
the soul of the Occupier. It turns decent human beings into
oppressors. Occupiers compartmentalize their humanity. In one
compartment, there is the compassion for their own. Another
compartment is filled with the bile necessary to maintain
Occupation over what is not theirs.
One of the ways you know that the Occupation is near its
end is by studying language. Fifteen years ago, the word
Occupation was never used except within Palestinian circles.
In fact, Israelis denied there was even an Occupation, and the
western media generally used the language and frame of
reference of the Occupier. But today, even most of the
Occupiers readily admit to the fact of Occupation.
Why the Occupation Will End 17
The Occupiers relationship with the Occupied is like that

of the slave owner over the slave. If one wishes to understand
the Occupiers psychology, look back to other 19th century
racist ideologies. The plantation owner comes to mind.
The Zionist conquest of 1967 made Israel drunk with
power, and with this power came arrogance.
Here are some of the reasons why we shall see an end to
the Occupation of Jerusalem and the rest of the Palestinian
territories:
Zionism as a political philosophy is losing its appeal to

Jews around the world. Its 19th century ethno-national
ideology is an anachronism.
Emigration from Israel is outstripping immigration.
The Israeli economy is in shambles. This includes high tech,
tourism and military industrial sales to other countries
(Turkey and China, the most glaring examples).
The costs versus the economic benefits of Occupation is
staggering.
The world is growing increasingly impatient with the
high casualty toll inflicted on the Palestinian civilian
population, with over 22,000 people injured and over
1200 killed in the last 16 months.
The Oil companies are becoming increasingly concerned
that the continued Occupation of Jerusalem will ignite
the Arab and Muslim street, thereby causing destabilized
regimes and unsure access to the oil. It should come as no
surprise that these companies influence policy.
Despite all the resources utilized for building a security
apparatus, the most insecure nation in the world is Israel.
This is not a point argued by Israelis, as the number one
issue for Israelis is security. Occupation can never bring
security.
The US has begun to squeeze Israel economically. Why?
Zionism has become bad for business. The policy
changes, while subtle, are clear to the Israelis and well
documented in the Israeli press.
In the New World Order, Israel is the odd man out.

Historically, Israel acted as a western military outpost to
counter-balance Soviet designs. Now, Israel must sit on
the sidelines as the coalition of Arab countries join
that New World Order.
The list could go on. But the main reason there must be an
end to the Occupation is that Zionism itself is trying to swim
against the tide of history. It foolishly believed that its success
was self-made. In reality, Zionist and western economic inter-
ests coincided for many years. This has changed foreveran
economic fact that is beyond dispute. The global economic
forces that helped create the Occupation are now about to
dismantle it.
8
Assumptions
Begin challenging your own assumptions. Your
assumptions are your windows on the world.
Scrub them off every once in awhile, or the light
wont come in.
Alan Alda
The terrible toll in Israel and the Occupied territories mounts

daily, and the cycle of violence brings more pain and suffering
to all parties. Yet, if you hear the pundits that grace the US
media you get an odd feeling. The list of American authorities
speaking about US interests is almost nonexistent.
This is odd indeed. The average American needs to know
how this conflict affects them. What are the strategic interests
of the United States? Why should it matter if Palestinians and
Israelis kill each other in an orgy of violence? No American
pundit tries to answer these questions.
Which policies are likely to advance US interests? No
American Senator who is interviewed speaks about thisyet
how could they, since the interests remain hidden under a cloak
of abject silence?
It serves one well to ask WHY?
The answer is actually rather simple. For years, Americans
took it for granted that Israel served US interests. It was the bul-
wark against Soviet expansion. The Israeli port, Haifa, was a
second home to the US Sixth Fleet. Israels secret service,
Mossad, had spies throughout the region and shared intelligence
with the CIA. Israel diverted internal pressures from various
regimes in the area and focused them on anti-Zionist campaigns.
In its role as scapegoat for the regions troubles, Israel was a

convenient ally for maintaining regional stability.
If there were going to be wars in the region, Israel was the
only reliable ally for the US. US could use her bases for launch-
ing whatever strikes were needed to maintain its interests.
These and other advantages brought Israeli and US interests
into almost perfect alignment. The result was a media that
internalized these interests into a reflexive mindset. No one
needed to question these premises. It was not even debatable
amidst the corridors of power.
Even a President such as Richard Nixon, who had anti-
Semitic tendencies, realized that although he didnt like Jews,
Israel was an indispensable ally and served US interests. In
1973, those interests made Nixon save Israel after it was
attacked in the Yom Kippur war.
But that was then and this is now.
It is now essential to shake off those assumptions that had
been so internalized they were never questioned. The Soviet
Union is no more. The US has bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Egypt and Jordan have become reliable US allies. The US led a
coalition in 1991 against an Arab state and the only ally in the
region that could not join that coalition was Israel. There was
a New World Order, proclaimed by George Bush, Sr. in 1991,
and it merits consideration how Israel may or may not be
an essential cog in the US vision first outlined by our current
presidents father.
So let me be blunt. Is it in the US interest to support Israel?
Although it is most certainly the case that a moral argument
outlining Palestinians legitimate grievances can be made, this is
not the subject of this essay. In the world of Realpolitik,
alliances are made or broken in direct relation to how strategic
interests are aligned between countries.
It is now the case that Israel is finding itself increasingly at
odds with the strategic interests of the US. The continued
Occupation of Palestinian lands, especially East Jerusalem, con-
flicts with the prime directive of US interests in the region...
namely stability. Instability threatens the economic interests of
Assumptions 21
the entire Western world. Israel, once a quasi-guarantor of

stability has now become the major catalyst for the opposite.
Saudi Arabia sits atop twenty-five per cent of the worlds
known oil supplies. There is no single regime in which stability
is more important for the US than this country. Increasingly the
Saudis are facing internal pressures questioning its relationship
with the US. Critics point to the way the US-Israeli relationship
has resulted in the Occupation of Jerusalem, Islams third holi-
est city, as just one grievance.
The entire region is suffering under the economic effects of
the Gulf War. Most of the financing of that war was born by
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Their economies have suffered
dramatically because of this, creating more fodder for their
internal critics. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and
Kuwait need peace in the region. Military spending is too high
for their economies to sustain. Israel is not totally immune from
the economic pressures either, although the US has subsidized
Israel to the tune of over $100 billion since its inception. This
amount of money lends additional credence to the notion that
Israel historically served US interests. It was not spent for
whimsical reasons.
To decrease military spending in the region, a comprehensive
peace agreement with Israel needs to occur. And here once again,
we come back to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There simply can
be no peace in the region without a solution to the Palestinian
problem that all of the Arab leaders can sell to their constituency.
So what course will yield the best route to stability in the
region? The answer to thisand only thiswill answer the
question as to what is in the best interest of the US. Only after
we begin to ask this question will we understand policy. It is
about time to take those old assumptions and scrub them, to let
the light shine through.
9
The Palestinian Struggle
(07/04/02)
To hear how Palestinians are characterized in the US media, one
is apt to believe they are a monolithic group with one mindset.
But as is often the case, conventional wisdom is wrong. There
is a diversity of opinion on just about every subject imaginable.
The only point of universal agreement is the understanding that
Palestinian dispossession by the Zionists has been a price paid
by few groups in the history of the world.
Presently a debate rages about how the struggle for freedom
should be conducted. Some believe an armed struggle is neces-
sary. Within this camp is division as to the nature of the targets.
Another camp wants to wage a campaign of Civil
Disobedience along the lines of Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin
Luther King.
These debates take place far outside the reach of newspaper
headlines or the glare of television cameras. They occur in living
rooms across the world as well as those under intense and
suffocating Israeli occupation. Everyone has an opinion, and
developing a consensus is not likely to emerge in the near
future.
Some groups, although thankfully in the minority, even
believe it is no longer a viable option to struggle for freedom.
These groups believe the Palestinians must rely solely on
American largesse to achieve political aims.
This last group represented by an elite weaned on CIA
perks, including PA security chiefs, Dahlan and Rajoub, may be
the best choices for US interests. But through corruption, they
have marginalized themselves with the Palestinian people.
The Palestinian Struggle 23
Arafat may be blamed for using corruption to control those

under him, although he personally lives a Spartan life. He
has used the character flaws of underlings to create corrupt
replacements.
Without a doubt, one of the most laughable phrases to
come out of the Bush administration rhetoric is the American
call for transparency and democracy inside the Palestinian
government. The US has used corruption in the Middle East
from the time of their initial involvement. The US also supports
every authoritarian regime in the region. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Oman, and Jordan are true authoritarian monarchies. The US
press seems not to mention this very often.
Egypt is known to be the most corrupt country in the region
and Saudi Arabias prince Bandar has said that if $50 billion
has been stolen in his country, it was not that big of a deal.
Unfortunately, Palestinian liberals remained too quiet in the
past concerning issues of corruption and transparency. They
feared that criticism of the PA would have weakened Arafat and
increased HAMAS role in intra-Palestinian politics. HAMAS,
whatever one thinks of them, is known to be free of corruption.
Palestinians are learning there is never a bad time to speak
against authoritarian and corrupt institutions. Palestinians do
not need the US to instruct them on their deserving freedom.
But the Palestinian struggle is not that easy to commandeer
not for the US, not for Arafat and certainly not for Sharon. There
are over 3.5 million Palestinians in Diaspora. We have something
to say about the nature of the struggle. Increasingly more
Palestinians are suggesting there can be one state, two states,
three states, or no states... but until the Middle East is rid of the
vile and racist ideology known as Zionism, there can never really
be a peace that can last.
I see no reason to stand mute on this subject. As long as
there is any state in the area that defines citizenship by racial,
ethnic or religious categorization, there will never be a lasting
peace. Zionism is the last vestige of sanctioned racial ideology
on the planet. It was born in the 19th Century and shared the
same racial premises of Fascism, Apartheid and Nazism. Israel
inserts the notion of insuring a Jewish majority into its

national charter. Jewishness becomes the driving political
force. One can be an atheist and still be Jewish, as long as one
has certain genetic heritage or lineage.
The Palestinian struggle is actually a human struggle that
transcends Palestine. As long as there is Zionism, the struggle
will continue. As long as people will have rights based on their
race instead of the content of their character, the struggle will
continue. There is no longer a place for Zionism in the 21st
Century. It must go the way of Apartheid. It must go the way
of Nazism. It must go the way of Fascist nationalism.
Is there a difference between American nationalism and
Zionist nationalism? You bet, and the distinction requires
elucidation. The Unites States is a nation of citizens, regardless
of race or religion. Once upon a time the US was not so distin-
guished. Once upon a time a black man was considered only 3/5
of a man and had no vote. One had to be a white-male-property
owner to be a full citizen. But not anymore. American nation-
alism by definition only requires citizenship, without regard to
race, creed or ethnicity.
A Zionist Israel states that the country must have a Jewish
majority. Ones nationality is defined by ones race.* It is built
into the fabric of its society. Regardless of what Arafat, Bush or
Sharon say... the Palestinian struggle will continue until the last
vestige of racial politics is eradicated from the planet. One day
there will be a country in that part of the world where Jew and
gentile will live in harmony without the privileges and chains of
racial identification. These are the values I grew up with, owe
to the memory of my father... and bequeath to the budding
minds of my sons.
* Race by definition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 1. a family,

tribe, people, or nation of the same stock; 2. a group of individuals
within a biological species able to breed together.
10
Sari Nusseibeh and
the Right of Return
(10/10/02)
A Palestinian growing up outside ones ancestral home often

encounters a contradiction between the Real Politik contem-
plated in the mind, and the dreams one feels in the heart. Today
I write from the heart to address what some Palestinians seek to
surrender: the inalienable Right of Return.
The Right of Return is an internationally recognized principle
guaranteeing an indigenous population the right not to be relo-
cated against their will. No nation, however powerful, has the
right to ethnically cleanse a population. In short, might does
not dictate right. Israels birth was not the virginal affair
depicted in movies and books like Exodus. Hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians were uprooted... and dispossessed.
Today, from that number, over four million Palestinians, many
of them living in refugee camps, are asserting their right to
return to their historic homeland.
The Israelis have been unable to crush the Palestinian spirit,
that dream of returning that lives in their hearts. But incompre-
hensibly, a small band of Palestinian intellectuals led by the
quasi-official PLO spokesperson Sari Nusseibeh is trying to
convince Palestinians all over the world that the Right of
Return is nothing but vain folly.
Without a doubt, we stand at a special moment. Men like
Dr. Nusseibeh offer a solution without justice. All people
should jealously guard justice and be suspicious of all who seek
to diminish its precepts. Every solution that carries within its

bosom great and unrelieved injustice cannot prevail.
Dr. Nusseibeh has chosen a course to undermine the Right
of Return, all in the name of Real Politik. All he sees in over
50 years of struggle is failure. I see the beautiful spirit of a peo-
ple that has never given up their dream to live in a land without
regard to ethnicity or religion. I do not see failure, but an
indomitable will and faith that even if success may not come
today, it shall come tomorrowand if not then, after thousands
of tomorrows.
Dr. Nusseibeh presents a greater darkness than the one
Palestinians have fought for over 50 years. It is the darkness of
a soul that has lost its way. Couched in gentle rhetoric, he offers
a world devoid of right and wrong. He offers a world where the
cold edge of Real Politik replaces the foolish notion that
decency will somehow triumph in the end.
It is this simple notion that has fueled the hearts and minds
of millions of Palestinians over the decades. This simple notion
was served to me with mothers milk. Thousands of people have
died rather than give up the innocent notion that justice
matters.
Dr. Nusseibeh suggests that the time for pain must be over
and the price must be to relinquish our hopes and dreams. Is it
not the case that greater than the death of flesh is the death of
dreams... the death of hope? Dreams and hopes are not the stuff
of Real Politik, but they are what animate the human soul.
These dreams are part of the Palestinian soul and cannot be
waived with a casual hand.
The choices for Palestinians seem stark. They are offered
the despair of occupation or the despair of unredressed injustice
in Dr. Nusseibehs world. Palestinians must reject this cold
world that prizes expediency over human rights.
11
An Open Letter to My Palestinian
Brothers and Sisters
(02/19/02)
One of the most difficult things to do when engaged in a life

and death struggle is to entertain internal critiques that go
beyond hand wringing. Critique is a fundamental necessity in
order to develop concrete steps of action. It is also difficult to
remain dispassionate when passion is one of the few things with
which we are left.
But it appears to me that many of our leaders and activists
have embarked upon a course that is more than fruitless; it is
also counter-productive. We have become a people so completely
absorbed by the US agenda that we feel impotent in the face of
the US juggernaut. We make the same appeals over and over
again, while expecting a different outcome. This is one psychi-
atrists definition of insanity. A few quotations may illustrate
my point:
The American administration should take a firm and

strong position to put an end to the Israeli aggression
against the Palestinian people and force Israel to return
to the negotiations table and deal positively with the
international initiatives.
Nabil Abu Rudeineh, Yasser Arafats Media Advisor
Go and beg the Americans for aid, because they are the
only ones that can do anything for you with Israel.
Qatari Foreign Minister
Any attack on Iraq or Iran should not be contemplated

at all. It would not serve the interests of America...
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah
Instead of hiring suspect spin-doctors and Hollywood

image-makers, it behooves the US administration to
re-examine both its words and deeds (as well as its
silence and inaction) when it comes to the Palestinians,
the Israelis, and the Arab world.
Hanan Ashrawi, Minister of Information for the Arab
League, Palestinian Legislative Council Member
What each of these quotations has in common is the appeal

to the Americans. Either an appeal to US interests or outright
pleading is the theme of most of our best and brightest. After
years of listening to Israelis telling us what is in the Palestinian
best interests or listening to the endless stream of advice from
our chief tormenters about what we need to do to achieve our
aims, it is ironic that we should attempt this same strategy when
addressing the most powerful nation on earth.
Is it really the case that the US needs Palestinians to instruct
them as to what is in US best interests? Is not that Colin
Powells, George Tenets and Condoleezza Rices job? How
many times must we be rebuked or ignored when offering
advice to seemingly deaf ears? Yet we continue the steady
stream of rhetoric.
It is sheer arrogance on our part to suggest to Americans
that we understand what their interests are better than they
do... just as it is American arrogance to suggest what is in
Palestinian best interests. The US will act in accordance with
their perception of US interests. If we seek to change those per-
ceptions, then we must fundamentally understand that the only
thing the US fears in the region is instability. Unstable regimes
would lead to a catastrophic period of American occupation of
the oil fields. The United States is run by corporate, economic
interests, and a precise kind of regional stability is the overall
animating principle for US policy.
An Open Letter to My Palestinian Brothers and Sisters 29
But the selection of the quotations above clearly demonstrates

that the Palestinian agenda remains one not of our own making.
We think about US interests. We think about Israeli security.
We think about what others need to do instead of thinking about
what we need to do. By adopting the frame of reference of the
other, we lose our sense of self.
To add insult to injury, it makes our own people feel impo-
tent. It reinforces the notion that our destinies are not in our
own hands. When an adversary is successful in controlling the
agenda, they control the situation. We, as a people, have too
often been willing to adopt the frame of reference of others.
So what should we do?
We must understand the frame of reference of the US. We
must understand the frame of reference of the Israelis. But we
must not internalize them. We should stop trying to lecture
the US on what is in their best interests and try to influence
those interests... not by preaching to them, but by understand-
ing dynamic forces that animate US policy. Then we can
construct strategies that push at the buttons.
Directly before Clinton left office, there was a flurry of
visits to the Middle East by top Clinton officials. Why? US offi-
cials did not (and still do not) believe Arab leaders that the
region is as stable as Arab leaders proclaim. One can almost
hear Mubarak extolling that everything is under control,
similar to the assurances to the CIA by the Shah of Iran in
1979. Cheney, who has been the Invisible Man since 9-11,
will soon tour the region. He wants to see for himself if the
Arab street is as docile as it appears. This potential unrest is
what worries the US administration. It is the Achilles Heel for
US policy.
Jerusalem is an issue that ignites the passions of the
Arab and Muslim street. Yet it is not a Palestinian priority to
make this an issue to 1.2 billion Muslims. A demonstration of
250,000 Arabs in Egypt protesting the Occupation of Islams
third holiest site would do more than all the pleas to Powell and
company. Organizing a peaceful Palestinian march to Jerusalem
to pray would be broadcast to the entire Arab and Muslim
world. Let Israel turn away our people. Would this harm
Palestinian aspirations or forward them?
Instead, we opt for the defeatist attitude that Arab public
opinion does not count. We adopt the notion that influencing
someone in Idaho or New York is worth more of our time than
applying our skills to connecting with our own people. We feel
abandoned by our seemingly indifferent cousins and thus
abandon the Arab and Muslim street in favor of the tired
appeals to US officials.
Once Arafat stated words to the effect that the Palestinian
people are the glue that holds the Middle East together, or the
dynamite that blows it apart. Those words are truer today
than ever before. The only thing that stands between
Palestinians and genocide is a fear of what this would do to
regional stability. It is not a sense of Israeli morality that retards
their version of a final solution, and we fool ourselves if we
believe US morality is any more of a restraining factor. US inter-
ests restrain Sharons passions.
It is a cosmic irony that Palestinian interests are now
aligned with US interests as never beforeyet we have not
recognized this. The latent potential of regional identification
with Palestinian pain and suffering is our asset. You notice this
immediately if you go to Hajj. Upon hearing one is a
Palestinian, hugs and kisses follow.
It is not our brethren who have abandoned us. They have
their own conditions with which to deal. Their hearts are
with us, and if we ignore these in favor of trying to appeal to
the American heart, we abandon our chief asset. If we
stress how we have endured against the might of 50 years of
US-Zionist collusion, the sleeping giant, our Arab and
Muslim street will awaken. The events of 9-11 may have
delayed awakening from the slumber, but it has not altered
the existential equation of regional economics. The US will
necessarily dump Zionism when it behooves them, and the
time is coming.
An Open Letter to My Palestinian Brothers and Sisters 31
We have lived the Dalai Lamas words when he said,
It is in the inherent nature of human beings to yearn for

freedom, equality and dignity. Brute force, no matter
how strongly applied, can never subdue the basic desire
for freedom and dignity.
Let the truth of our cause be the beacon of light. Let us turn
toward our own people, educate them, speak with them and
thus, indirectly further the process of De-Zionization. We
should assume that the US follows its interests. We are now at
a precious moment that allows for cleaving those interests from
the historic Zionist colonial enterprise by directing our efforts
toward the Arab and Muslim street.
12
Discovering the Chasm
(11/16/02)
Every once in a great while one or more events occur that

transform the nature of a struggle. As if by magic or Divine
Intervention, a people decides collectively that the chasm
between freedom and death is the only alternative of their exis-
tence. They reach a point when they decide that the years of
humiliation, the years of waiting for deliverance from outside
parties, and the years of placing faith in their leadership must
be rejected once and for all. It is a point of no return.
The Palestinians have discovered this chasm.
I am a forty-four year old Palestinian-American business-
man and I discovered the chasm after watching a thirteen-year-
old boy in the Occupied Territories face an Israeli tank with
nothing more than a stone in hand. This boy had discovered the
chasm long before me. In that one brave act of defiance, this
boy became my leader. After first seeing that image, I cried.
Every night as I go to sleep safely tucked away in my suburban
home in Mokena, Illinois, that image haunts me... and I cry.
Even as I type this with tears running down my cheek, the
chasm beckons.
Israel has lost this struggle, only they have not yet fully dis-
covered this. For years they have been so militarily successful
that the arrogance of power has distorted their sensibilities.
Menachem Begin clearly outlined Israeli strategy when he
said: We have made the Arabs lose faith and confidence in them-
selves. Now we must make them lose the hope of pressuring us
through the United States.
Discovering the Chasm 33
The chasm is proving Israels well-worn strategy obsolete.

Last month, a twelve-year-old Palestinian boy in Amman,
Jordan woke up at six in the morning and left a note for his
parents. The note said that he was leaving to join the Uprising
with his brothers and sisters in the Occupied Territories. He
could not wait for Arafat to deliver them from apartheid; he
could not wait for America to free his people. He embarked
upon a solitary journey, fifty miles to a place he had never been.
After walking for eighteen hours, exhausted and lost, he fell
asleep in a field only to be found by Bedouins. They took him
back to his family. This boy became my leader.
Muhammad Dura was a twelve-year-old boy shot while in
his fathers arms by Israeli Occupation Forces. We are told he
was at the wrong place at the wrong time. His place and
time in the struggle are timeless, captured on film for a world
wishing to turn a blind eye; his place in the struggle cemented
forever. This boy became my leader.
The human heart knows no bounds... once it is opened.
Through the brutality of Occupation, through the humiliation
of Occupation, through the injustice of Occupation, our people
have rekindled a dignity that has lain dormant for hundreds of
years. Through our pain has come a rebirth. This rebirth tran-
scends religion and ideology. It transcends economics and
public relations.
The brutality of Israeli Occupation has an air of despera-
tion. Israelis are clinging to a dead corpse, not quite realizing
that a rebirth is under way and cannot be aborted. Try as they
may, Israeli gunmen cannot extinguish the Phoenix rising from
the rubble and ashes they have so artfully created. For every
child they shoot, another picks up a stone to lead our people.
And I will follow from this point until the day I die.
13
The Torment of Occupation
(03/01/03)
One would think that a Palestinian safely living in the US would
not feel the torment of a siege taking place 7000 miles away.
But the simple truth is that every Palestinian shares in the
misery of Occupation. One barely needs to close ones eyes
before the senses are filled with the sights, sounds and feelings
of Israeli Occupation.
How can this be? To be a Palestinian means that one shares
in a collective experience that is overwhelmingly shaped by
Occupation.
The last time I visited my fathers village, I had graduated
college. The year was 1978 and I traveled to Jordan to visit my
aunt before crossing the Allenby Bridge into the Occupied
territories. I remember crossing the bridge by bus and meeting
a University of Virginia graduate, Ahmed. He was going to the
West Bank to see his father who had taken ill.
Once we crossed the bridge, the humiliation began. I was
asked where in Israel I planned to go. I innocently said I had no
plans to go to Israel at all. I had only planned to go to
Ramallah, Deitunia, and of course the old city of Jerusalem.
These areas were not Israel in any part of my mind. But the
mind of the Occupier pays little attention to such sensibilities.
They let me in, after a strip search and X-raying my shoes.
Ahmed was not so lucky. He was denied entry and I never
found out what happened to him.
That was almost twenty-three years ago and I yearn to
visit today more than ever. But the agony of Occupation is
ever present, casting its ever ominous shadow. Keeping family
The Torment of Occupation 35
members from each other is just one of the torments of

Occupation.
One does not need to look far for the torment. It exists with
every Israeli shelling of our villages with Apache helicopters. It
exists when Israel imposes collective punishment over an entire
town. It exists when Israeli Occupation forces block all medical
supplies from entering a town, crippling efforts to mend the
broken bones of children and adults alike. This is the torment
of Occupation.
There are so many episodes of humiliation, it is hard to
choose which to recount. There is the Israeli soldier who forced
a young Palestinian to lie on the ground and placing his boot on
the neck of the boy proclaimed ...your parents and your
grandparents were servants to us in this land of Israel and you
will continue to be our servants! The degradation is built into
the very nature of Occupation.
Certainly there are atrocities on both sides, but the injustice
is built into the fabric of Occupation. Palestinian violence aimed
to rid itself from Occupation is episodic and a reaction to the
daily violence experienced by the population as a whole. There
is no moral or physical equivalency between the violence
inflicted on the other. The humiliation and violence of Israeli
Occupation forces is an existential component required to main-
tain the status quo. This is the torment of Occupation.
Apologists for Israeli Occupation have but one goal: to
prove that all of the violence is squarely the responsibility of
those wishing to be free. It is a spectacular Orwellian achieve-
ment that a recent opinion poll of US residents showed that
18.1% of Americans believe that Palestinians are to blame for
the violence. To be the victim of Occupation and then be
blamed for the human impulse of yearning for freedomthis is
the torment of Occupation.
Thanks to the Internet and satellite television, Israels hege-
mony over the portrayal of Occupation is crumbling. They can-
not count on influencing a few network television news outlets
to control public perceptions. Below are some of the facts of the
torment that can no longer be suppressed. This information is
from the Health, Development, Information, and Policy Institute

(HDIP). These reports can be found at http://www.hdip.org and
they cite all relevant sources.
As of 2/13/01, number of Palestinians killed since the

beginning of the new Intifada: 368
Number of Palestinians killed under the age of fifteen: 56
[15.2%]
Number of Palestinians killed over the age of fifty: 20
[5.4%]
Number of Palestinians murdered by Israeli security
forces after being captured, or simply shot at close range
without any provocation whatsoever: 32 [8.7%]
Number of Palestinians murdered by Israeli settlers: 22
[5.9%]
Number of Palestinians who died because they were not
allowed to get medical treatment: 8 [2.1%]
Percent of Palestinians killed who were not involved in
demonstrations or clashes: 44%
Number of Israelis killed in this Uprising: 35
Number of journalists either shot at or beaten up by
Israeli soldiers or settlers: 44
Percent of Palestinian Red Crescent (like the Red Cross)
ambulances hit by live ammunition: 68%
Number of cases in which Palestinian ambulances were
not allowed to go through a road block: 109
This is the torment of Israeli Occupation.

14
Why Is Israel So Scared?
(04/12/01)
The days for unqualified US support for Israel are rapidly

coming to an end. I say this with full knowledge that the recent
US veto in the United Nations might seemingly contradict this
premise. For years, most informed sources within Israel have
been dreading this inevitable fall from grace. Without unqualified
US support, Israel could not and will not survive in its present
state.
To the casual observer, one could be forgiven for missing
the signs. Viewpoint commissioned the largest study on the
Palestinian/Israeli attitudes ever conducted and the results were
revealing. Despite massive PR campaigns from hired agencies
and millions of dollars spent by the Israeli lobby, the US
population has actually seen through the fog and believes that
mainstream media is biased in favor of Israel. Most people feel
that Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame for the ongoing
violence in the region. This parity is a dramatic shift in percep-
tion, and is not by accident. It actually serves a latent US desire
to switch horses.
Israel has illegally Occupied the West Bank and Gaza since
1967. Only now is the word Occupation routinely used.
In fact, in 1990 I worked for a company distributing a video
called Israels Shattered Dreams and the New York PR agency
hired to promote the video refused to use the word Occupation
in the press release. Language is an important component in
altering the way people think.
Israeli brutality is required to maintain Occupation and this
has led Israel to spasmodically flail away in the political waters.
Instead of treading these waters, it is obvious that Israel is

sinking. That is not to say that Israel will no longer exist. But
the days of defining itself in ultra-nationalistic, racist ways are
drawing to a close. The days of maintaining the fiction of
defining itself as a Jewish and a democratic state are ending.
In fact, one Israeli general has called for a dictatorship to
maintain demographic balance. He was clearly stating that
Israel could be a Jewish state or a democracy... but not both. By
the year 2020, the Palestinian population inside pre-1967
borders could easily exceed that of the Jewish population. This
is one reason for Israels recent escalation of brutality, since it
hopes to change the demographic character with its own brand
of ethnic cleansing.
These dynamics, however, are not new to informed Israelis.
The new reality is that Israel has become a liability to US interests
in the region; namely the steady and stable flow of oil. Oil
regimes in the region do not require the enthusiastic support of
its people. They only need their acquiescence. With satellite
television and the Internet bringing daily information about
how many Palestinians are injured, the entire Arab (and
Muslim) world is increasingly sympathetic and making their
leadership anxious. The increasing call for action is shaking the
stability of these oil regimes. This hasnt only scared rich oil
sheiks. Israel shares that fear.
Israel is not afraid militarily. It knows the US wants stable
oil regimes as a strategic imperative. If Israel ceases to serve
these strategic interests, or as in the present case, actually
interferes, the US will throw her over.
The monarchies in the region are in mortal fear that they
may lose their seats at the table. They survived losing wars but
cannot survive continued humiliation in the face of protracted
unqualified US support for Israels illegal occupation. The US is
about to shift from its historic, unilateral support for Israel. It
is impossible for the oil regime leaders to ignore the new
dynamic in the region. Even though they are dictators and
monarchies, they still need a minimum of support from the
streets or else their fate will be similar to that of the once
Why Is Israel So Scared? 39
powerful Shah of Iran. Revolution is not conducive to a steady

and stable flow of oil to the US.
As one Israeli commentator told me, We know that today
the US supports Israel but tomorrow may easily shift to
supporting the Arabs.
The shift is happening before our eyes. This is why Israel is
so scared.
15
The Moral Question: An
Israeli Reckoning
(05/31/01)
The uprising against Israeli Occupation has fundamentally

changed the nature of Middle East discourse in the United
States. For years, Israel had enjoyed a public relations advan-
tage in the media. This advantage translated into controlling
the actual topics to be discussed. Historically, this usually
meant that Palestinian violence was the preferred discussion
point, rather than the fundamental legitimacy of Israeli
Occupation.
In fact, Israeli propaganda was so successful, few people in
the US were even aware that Israel was illegally occupying the
West Bank and Gaza. The word Occupation was not a term
used by the mainstream press. But today we find Israels public
relations machinery running into the cruel reality of Israeli
brutality. Trying to crush a popular uprising using F-16s has not
helped Israels image. Israel can no longer control the funda-
mental framework of discourse.
In short, the basic question of Occupations morality can no
longer be put off. In the first eight months of this uprising,
Israeli Occupation Forces have injured over 17,000 Palestinians,
31% under the age of fifteen. Supporters of Israel are uncharac-
teristically befuddled. As long as they controlled the parameters
of debate, they were comfortable. But now they find themselves
trying to defend policies of collective punishment, where entire
Palestinian villages are under siege. They must defend apartheid
policies that give economic and social preferences to one ethnic
The Moral Question: An Israeli Reckoning 41
group over another. They must defend using F-16 planes against
a civilian population. They must defend expropriating more
land to build more colonial settlements that are internationally
recognized as illegal. These are the realities of Occupation.
How do Israelis and their supporters defend these actions?
The morality of Occupation is not defended. In fact it is not
discussed by apologists. How often have you seen an editorial by
an Israeli or Israeli supporter defend the right to defy interna-
tional law and Occupy the West Bank and Gaza? Rather than
discuss the merits of Occupation, Israeli supporters want to move
the discussion from Occupation to the tactics of resistance.
Israeli apologists want to speak about Palestinian violence.
But as long as ten Palestinians are killed for every Israeli, as
long as there are fifty Palestinians injured for every Israeli, this
public relations ploy will no longer be effective. The underlying
morality of Occupation is the question of the day and this is
tantamount to the reckoning for Israel. Try as they may, they
are boxed in by the existential problem they have managed to
previously avoid. Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
is immoral.
One can see the desperation in the Letters to the Editor
pages in newspapers across the country. Israeli apologists are
now pleading for editorial pages to report both sides. To the
apologists, they attempt the age-old practice of blaming the
victim... blame those who suffer under the oppression. This is
because the oppression itself is rarely to be acknowledged. But
what these apologists want is not a discussion of the fundamental
issue; they want to change the issue itself. Liberal Zionists
try the reasonable approach by acknowledging Israeli
mistakes but immediately segue to Palestinian mistakes, as
if they are somehow equivalent.
This particular tactic once again attempts to skirt around
the fundamental issue of Occupation by diverting discussion to
the tactics of Occupation and the tactics of resistance. Can
anyone defend Israeli Occupation (and here I exempt the fringe,
who make some sort of Biblical claim)?
Israel and its supporters will be no more successful in justi-

fying Occupation than were Afrikaners in justifying apartheid...
Southern slaveholders in justifying slavery... Japan, in occupy-
ing China. It cannot be done with credibility. There are not two
moral sides to every issue.
16
The Perfect Storm
(08/16/01)
In 1991 off the coast of Bermuda, a once-in-a-lifetime

meteorological event took place as three separate hurricanes
collided. Each was an independent storm until the collision,
causing a single, giant storm seldom witnessed by even the most
seasoned weathermen. The storms fed into each other, giving
each their energies. The ensuing cataclysm became known as
The Perfect Storm.
Today, in the Middle East, we are witnessing the collision of
three forces that promise to change the landscape of the entire
region forever. But the forces are not meteorological in nature.
They are man-made, political forces.
The first force is an Israeli Prime Minister known for his
anti-Arab constitution: Ariel Sharon. Sharons rsum includes
being sued in Belgium for his role in the 1982 massacre of
Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila. Sharon
as a force goes in a straight line. His energy and raison detre
come from his deep hatred of Palestinians.
The second force is one that Israel, in 53 years, has been
unable to eradicate. This is the indomitable Palestinian will.
Israeli Occupation brutalizes the Palestinian population, yet
they have endured. Whatever Israel has thrown at them, they
have borne with stubborn resolve. This will comes from some-
thing deep inside the human psyche or soul. It is the universal
desire to be freea force with which Israel has never come to
terms.
The third force in the region is the most powerful of all:
economic interests. In the Middle East, economic interests
translate into oil interests. For the first 53 years of Israels

existence, the West supported Israel to be a bulwark against
Soviet influence and its chief export: revolution. Israel would
also be a military, colonial outpost for the US military, or
surrogate if the need arose. Revolution is decidedly bad for
business.
But as the 20th Century drew to a close, we witnessed the col-

lapse of the Soviet Union. We also witnessed a New World
Order, and the US created a coalition of Arab regimes that
would eventually adopt globalization policies rather than revo-
lutionary programs. During the Gulf War, Israel was seen as a
political and military liability. Ever since the end of the Gulf
War, it has become more evident that Zionism was becoming
bad for business, since its very existence threatened the stability
of the region. Israels historic role of serving the regions
economic interests has come to an end.
The collapse of the Oslo process was Zionisms last hope of
regional dominance. The three forces are now on a collision
course. Each of the three forces: Sharon, Palestinian will and
economic interests have their own dynamic. But the collision
today is certainly due to change the political realities forever.
Simply put, these forces are colliding to create another Perfect
Storm. The landscape will never be the same.
What will the region look like when the storm runs its course?
To answer the question, one needs to imagine a region
where Zionism is defunct as an ideology. This means that those
who believed they were entitled to benefits because they were
Jewish, will simply leave when they no longer have preferential
status. These supremacists will pack their bags and head for
New York, Paris or wherever else they wish to go. Agencies will
be established to aid the de-Zionization process.
De-Zionization will not occur overnight. There will
probably be an interim two-state solution. Without the racial
entitlements of Zionism, fewer Jews will immigrate to Israel.
Instead, they will opt for the US, which will open its borders
The Perfect Storm 45
to Jews all over the world. This will exacerbate the

demographic time bomb, as Jews will soon become a
minority. In Israel, the Palestinian population will continue to
skyrocket. Jewish emigration will continue to outstrip immigra-
tion and eventually there will be a federation between the
former combatants. The two states will become one.
Once the region is de-Zionized, Jew and Arab will live
together in harmony as they did before Zionism ravaged the
Jewish soul.
The storms are feeding each other right now, drawing
strength from each other. We are witnessing a once-in-a-lifetime
political change. The skies may be dark and black at this time,
but this truly makes the stars easier to see. The Perfect Storm
is about to sweep away the Zionist landscape. In its wake will
be the calm after the storm.
17
Sharons Pyrrhic Victory
(02/10/02)
Pyrrhus was the Greek king of Epirus. In 281 BC he invaded

Italy with 25,000 men and 20 elephants. His was the most
powerful army in the world at the time. But his victories against
Rome were so costly, he had to totally withdraw from Italy. His
now famous remark, Another such victory and I shall be
ruined eventually gave name to the term Pyrrhic victory for
a victory obtained at too great a cost.
It is worthwhile to consider whether Ariel Sharon is a
modern-day Pyrrhus. In 2002, Ariel Sharon invaded the West
Bank and Gaza with 21,000 men and 20 Apache helicopters.
He now has the most powerful army in the region. His invasion
of the refugee camps and villages across the West Bank and
Gaza will certainly result in his own Pyrrhic victory. Why?
Without a doubt, Israels Occupation of Palestinian territo-
ries has become costly on every front. The Intifada and armed
resistance is devastating Israel in every way. Beside the loss of
life, the one existential problem for Israel, demography, is the
unspoken cost to the state. Due to differing birth rates among
the ethnic populations, all demographic studies estimate that
the Palestinian population will exceed the Jewish population
by the year 2020. Adding to the disparate birthrates, Israel,
self-defined as a Jewish state, is a shrinking country. In order
to maintain a demographic majority, Israel must rely on immi-
gration of Jews throughout the world.
Is it surprising that there are few takers on the road to the
Zionist Paradise? To exacerbate its existential dilemma, the
country is beginning to de-Zionize. Zionists are leaving in droves,
Sharons Pyrrhic Victory 47
returning to the safe haven of Brooklyn, Miami or from wher-

ever they immigrated. In the last year alone, over 3% of its
Jewish population has fled.
On the Israeli economic front, the miracle in the desert is
near bankruptcy. Its military sales have declined. Its tourism
industry has been eradicated. Its currency has lost over 11% of
its value in one year. Its technology industry has been devastated
by the worldwide technology slump. Its stock market continues
to slide into negative territory. The recent military invasion is
costing Israel more than 1% of its entire GDP. Unemployment
is almost 11%, the highest in its 54-year history. And its
number one export market, the Occupied territories, has been
shut down. Israels economy has been turned into a third world
agrarian economy, with Europe recently threatening to ban all
economic trade with her.
So what kind of victory can Sharon and company claim
when its very economic viability is threatened? And even mili-
tarily, can Israel achieve security while devastating civilian
population centers? The mounting war crimes are the source of
suicide bombings. They are created out of desperation, injustice
and a feeling that there is no other way to confront such
inhumanity.
Oh yes, and what happened to Pyrrhus? He returned to
Epirus, invaded Macedonia and made an unsuccessful attack
on Sparta where he was killed.
18
Let them Bleed
(03/14/02)
I want an agreement, but first they have to be

beaten so they get the thought out of their minds
that they can impose an agreement on Israel that
Israel does not want... We have to cause them
heavy casualties.
Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel
The most current and succinct way to describe US foreign policy

in the Middle East can be summed up by Colin Powells missive:
Let them bleed. He of course was referring to the Israelis and
the Palestinians. The policy is meant to soften both sides, to let
them both feel enough pain so they will be more pliable.
Flexibility has not always been the hallmark of Israelis. Israel has
never been flexible until its own body count started to mount.
Lebanon proved this point.
The recent escalation in the body count is beginning to
worry US officials. The cycle of violence and counter-violence
shows no signs of abating. But the worry to US officials is not
quite great enough for a dramatic change in policy... yet. So the
operative policy remains: Let them bleed.
For Americans, the disquieting feeling emerging over this policy

stems from how the violence is seen outside US borders. For
most of the world, the perception of on-the-ground events is
further isolating Israel. Israel is seen (especially by the Arab
world) as the party using sophisticated weapons to maintain an
Let them Bleed 49
illegal Occupation. Israelis are seen as using American arms to

brutalize a civilian population.
Israel is the aggressor and no longer the Israeli David to the
Arab Goliath.
The Palestinians on the other hand, are seen as a population
pushed to the brink of desperation. In a desperate environment
when one is pushed against the wall and robbed of any semblance
of humanity, desperate acts become common.
To most of the world, the violence used in pursuing an end
to Occupation is perceived as legitimate in the face of over-
whelming oppression. Palestinian resistance is likened to that of
the French Resistance of Nazi Occupation in WW II. Palestinians
are considered heroes in the Middle East and most of the world.
This fact is not readily acknowledged within Israel or by casual
observers in the US.
No matter how hard Israel attempts to brand Palestinian
resistance as terrorism, as long as Israel invades refugee camps
with tanks and Apache helicopters, it is they who are seen as
illegitimate aggressors. The past gulf in perceptions between the
US and the rest of the world is striking. When Palestinians seek
arms to protect themselves, in the US and Israel this was per-
ceived somehow as illegitimate. Outside the US and Israel, secur-
ing the means to launch an armed resistance is not only seen as
legitimate, but heroic.
So we have these two antithetical perceptions that are
sweeping in nature. But trouble is afoot with the present Israeli
perception. The US and Israeli versions of reality are beginning
to diverge. Reasons for this split have more to do with the
changing face of US interests rather than a sympathetic view of
Palestinian suffering. The Let them bleed policy has actually
begun to stir the Arab and Muslim street. If stirred too much,
regimes could become unstable.
This is what is causing anxiety from certain US officials... and
certainly one reason for Cheneys and Zinnis visits to the region.
To widen the gulf in perceptions regarding Israelis and
Palestinians, the Arab and Muslim world perceives the US in
increasingly harsh terms. America was once seen to embody

greatness when it projected its ideals and values. Today, the
projection of power at the expense of its ideals has eroded the
regions historic good will toward the US.
Also, Israel is becoming more isolated as its policies based
upon race are appearing like those concocted in the German
Reichstag. They have even begun to put serial numbers on
refugees forearms. They are not tattooed but marked in ink, a
distinction better left for esoteric arguments. Collective punish-
ment for entire villages in retaliation for suicide bombings
remains par for the course.
These realities have played out in the glare of the television
cameras. The pain and determination of the Palestinians are
raising their stature amongst the Arab world and Europe
(100,000 people demonstrated in Italy in support of Palestinians).
And now a growing number of Americans are beginning to see
Israel for what it always was: a colonial outpost imposed on a
native population.
19
Democracy in the Middle East
(07/25/02)
Separating rhetoric from reality when speaking about the

Middle East is not an easy task. President Bush recently favored
the world with his vision of a Palestinian state. The President
additionally also suggested that the Palestinian people deserve
transparency, corrupt-free leaders and democratic institutions.
These principles are not usually public fodder for debate. What
person or group in their right mind could be against these
public statements? And that was, of course, the raison dtre for
the statements.
In other words, the statements demonstrated a triumph of
rhetoric over reality.
Is it the case that democracy in the Middle East is really a
high priority of the US? If it were, wouldnt the US be promoting
Saudi Arabia to develop transparency, corrupt-free leaders and
democratic institutions? How about Egypt, where Mubarak has
run unopposed for twenty years? What about advocating
democracy for the kingdom of Kuwait, for whom we went to
war? There is also Jordan, another monarchy that is not known
for democracy, but is one of Americas best friends in the
region. They are such friends, they even got a pass for
supporting Saddam Hussein in the last war. That is what
friendship is all about...
So lets be clear. The US does not universally promote these
principles in the region. Principles that are selectively applied
are not worthy of the name. If the US does not actively and
publicly endorse democracy across the board, it is safe to

assume that something other than principle is animating policy.
The reality is that democracy in the Middle East has never
been a priority of the US. Poll after poll taken in every Middle
East country shows the citizenry hostile to its government and
the United States. In fact, the regimes privileged class are
considered proxy leaders for US interests. This perception cou-
pled with the very real problems that there are no freedoms and
no democracythat corruption runs rampantautomatically
has the US identified with these authoritarian practices.
In short, the authoritarian regimes lack legitimacy and the US is

seen as their sponsor. There is no feeling that those running
Middle Eastern countries have independent wills, and citizens
actually conjoin the US with their leadership.
Dissidents in these countries want to overthrow their gov-
ernments and are hostile to nations (read Americans) who prop
up these authoritarian regimes.
If there were true democracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Dubai, Egypt, Jordan, etc., there is not a chance that the
current leadership in those countries would survive. This fact
also means that resources in the region would be at risk,
subject to a new force: the will and caprice of a hostile popula-
tion. For many years the US ceased projecting values of
democracy for the region and has settled for projecting military
might.
This is what Empires do, and the American Empire is no
different in this respect, from Empires of the past. When the
projection of power replaces the projection of ideals, hostility
to the US and its proxies increases.
Democracy in the Middle East is not safe for US interests as
long as there is an atmosphere of hostility. If the popular will
were expressed in all of the oil regimes, it is likely that oil and
gas would be used as a weapon to deter US military might.
At the very least, these resources would be utilized for the
development of the regions economy. Presently the combined
GNP of 22 Arab countries equals that of Spain, even though
Democracy in the Middle East 53
over half of all the worlds oil sits in various deserts. The oil
may benefit a handful of leaders and their extended families,
but over 85% of the region lives under the poverty line.
All people yearn to be free. This is part of human nature.
When the US abandons its rhetoric and idealism to prop up
authoritarian regimes, it sows the seeds of a certain, bitter
harvest. The regimes leaders could not maintain themselves
without active US support. This makes the leaders beholden to
the US rather than their citizens. So the US is in a temporary
bind caught between rhetoric and reality.
The rhetoric of democracy that emerges from the present
US administration should be taken with a certain amount of
skepticism. When democracy coincides with US interests, it will
assume an exalted position on the US agenda. When the promo-
tion of democracy and US interests diverge, American rhetoric
usually subsides with only occasional appearances (see China,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait...).
Thus, the US call for democratic institutions for Palestinians
should be examined within this context. It is not ideals that are
animating the rhetoric, but interests. The US has become fed up
with a Palestinian leadership that has expressed an independent
will. In short, Arafat and his cronies have many faults, but they
have not become quite the quislings that other regime
leaders have been for years.
Legitimate democratic voices are inside Palestinian politics.
Ashrawi, Bassam Abu Sharif, and Abdul Shaffi have been
advocates of transparency and corruption-free politics for
years. Their ultimate success will rest on whether they hop on
the US tiger and are co-opted by US interests, or chart a course
independent from the US rhetoric. True democracies stand on
principle and do not look toward expedient alliances in achieving
goals emanating from the human heart.
20
Why Does Israel Want
a US War with Iraq?
(11/21/02)
No country in the world yearns for the US to go to war with

Iraq more than Israel. They even pay PR firms to promote this
agenda in the media. What is behind Israels passion for having
Americans march off to war?
On first blush one might think it is because Iraq poses a
threat to Israeli security. But no military analyst believes that
Iraq could do much in the way of attacking Israel. They do not
share a border with them and Jordan is not likely to allow Iraqi
tanks to cross its border to attack Israel. Iraq does not have an
air force. What missiles they have are generally ineffective, and
Israel has all the firepower to repel any attack. As one Israeli
military analyst said, We dont lose sleep over Iraqs military
threat to us.
If Israel is not worried about Iraqs military capabilities,
why all the PR? The reason is simple. Israel pines for a role in
the New World Order. Trying to find a place in the New World
Order is a preoccupation for most countries in the world.
Remember, President G.W. Bush stated clearly: You are either
with us or against us. This has countries all over the globe
trying to find a way to be with us.
Israel is therefore not alone in this desire. In the past, it was
easy for it to align with US interests. A new global realignment
is taking place and Israel is having a hard time finding a seat at
the table. Plainly stated, their interests and the New World
Order are at odds, and this means that Israeli and American
Why Does Israel Want a US War with Iraq? 55
interests are diverging. US interests and the New World Order

are interchangeable phrases.
After the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Israel no longer was
needed to be a bastion against Soviet expansion. Its service to
the US has been declining ever since. As the US forged new and
special relationships with Arab countries, Israel lost its exclusive
role of US ally in the Middle East. Many entities in the region
are lining up to replace Israel.
Israels role in the Middle East was largely to help stabilize
certain regimes that served US economic interests. To do this, they
would make their vast intelligence assets available to America.
But the New World Order has a different operative plan than
the post-WW II US strategy that used Israel to promote its
agenda.
Continued Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has
become a destabilizing factor in the entire Middle East and even
larger Muslim world. Israel is now a liability in the region and
truly disrupts the New World Order. Its continued oppression
of the Palestinian people is a time bomb that can only lead to
chaos, not order.
Why is Israel at odds with the New World Order?
In 1991, when George W. Bushs father ushered in the New
World Order, Israel was the odd country out. There was no
place for it any more. The US coalition in the Gulf War did not
need Israel to accomplish its goals. In fact, it was an unwanted
complication to the New World Order. Israel had no role
to play.
Equally problematic for Israel is its reliance on the anachro-
nistic ideology of Zionism. Modern intellectual roots of Zionism
are founded in ethnic nationalism. This formed the basis of
ethnic laws promoted by fascists, Nazis, segregated countries
such as South Africa, and of course is the basis of Israel as a
nation.
The New World Order is about globalization and interna-
tionalism, not ideologies that confer rights based upon
ethno-nationalism. Israels raison detre is therefore opposed in
principle to the New World Order.
In the New World Order, Israel has no role to play.

This explains why Israel pays certain American journalists
to call for war... and why they pay PR firms to promote an
agenda that inflames public opinion. Israel needs a role to play,
and what they pine for is a recurrent conflict between the US
and Islamic countries. If this can be accomplished, then Israel
can assume a role in the Middle East as the bastion against
Islamic extremism.
Even though Iraq is not considered an extremist Islamic
state, a war between the US and Iraq will undoubtedly increase
the ire and enmity between the US and Muslim world. This
enmity is the breeding ground of extremism. Israel knows this.
Israel is the beneficiary of this enmity because it can then, AND
ONLY THEN, have a role to serve US interests or its other
name, the New World Order.
Without a role in serving the New World Order, Israel could
become irrelevant and cast aside. Most critics of Israel have his-
torically misunderstood how Israel served US interests in the
past. That is the reason they fail to see why Israel no longer
serves those interests.
Israel has understood its historic role and is frantic to find
a way to serve those interests once again. Israelis in-the-know
understand that their existence depends upon US largesse.
Alliances change. Interests always trump alliances.
Oh yes, one other thing. The US promised a $10 billion
aid package to Israel should they go to war with Iraq.
No warno aid. Just another incentive for Israel to pine for the
war. Ten billion dollars is approximately 10 percent of its
entire GNP.
This is just what the Israeli economy needs because it has
been neglected by its American sponsor. Israelis do not view
their economic woes as benign neglect. They privately mutter
about Washington not bailing out their economy. They
understand full well that without finding a way to ally with US
interests, it may not survive as presently constituted. War
between Iraq and the US remains their number one goal.
21
Inside the LabyrinthPart One
(01/08/03)
Understanding Middle East politics is a treacherous endeavor.

It is a labyrinth with many false paths, designed to confuse any
who seek to enter its corridors. Obfuscation is built into the
very fabric of this political realm. Richard Feynman, famed
physicist once said, The truth always turns out to be simpler
than you thought. The truth behind US foreign policy is not
necessarily complicated.
The elaborate labyrinth was specifically designed with the
purpose to mislead. Why? Political motives once revealed lose
their power... and the revelation itself becomes a clarion call for
action. In the oil-rich Middle East, wrong actions by involved
political players lead to severe economic consequences. What
follows is an attempt to clarify misconceptions regarding the
essence of American foreign policy.
Penetrating the Labyrinth

If we are to understand why the US has supported Israel for
over fifty years, we must first examine the rhetoric behind this
support. It is necessary to deconstruct both the official rhetoric
as well as the conventional critique.
US and Israel Share Common Values?

The most common fallacy offered by pro-Israeli circles is that
the US supports Israel because the two share common values.
At the base of this assumption is that values, not interests,

animate foreign policy. A solid case certainly can be made that
the ethno-national ideology inherent in Zionism is not compat-
ible with the value system of post-Civil War America. It is hard
to imagine that Israels apartheid system by which rights are
granted based upon ones religion, is compatible with the
America of today. But it is irrelevant whether or not Israel and
the US share common values, because values have little to do
with assembling allies.
If we demonstrate several examples of how US foreign
policy has rendered common value systems irrelevant, we should
put the nave values principle to rest. The list is rather long
indeed. The US does not share autocratic value systems with
Pakistan... with Egypt... with the dictatorial monarchies of
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan... yet these countries are allies.
One of our largest trading partners in the world is Communist
China, and the human rights abuses of South Korea are
legendary.
In each of these scenarios, where are the common values?
What about US support of right-wing dictators in Latin
America? Why did the US back a coup against the democrati-
cally elected President of Venezuela? If values determined
foreign policy, one would have to say that American policy
would be opposed in principle to these autocratic regimes, or
the toppling of a democratic Venezuela.
The above examples clearly demonstrate the null hypo-
thesis. This is where a thesis is proved wrong by demonstrat-
ing examples contrary to the premise. So even if we accepted
the supposition that Israel and the US shared common values,
this alone does not prove persuasive as the imperative behind
US support. Too many examples are contrary to the premise.
The immediate question would be: why would US foreign
policy regarding Israels values be more important than any
other country? There must be some other reason.
If sharing values alone is not enough to create foreign policy
imperatives, we have the critique most offered by the pro-Arab
voices.
Inside the LabyrinthPart One 59
The Pro-Israel Lobby Controls

American Foreign Policy?
The critique of the values argument most often used by Israels
detractors has American foreign policy as the handmaiden of
behind-the-scenes Zionists. This theory is usually bolstered by
references to congressmen who have been voted out of office.
Paul Findley, a former Illinois congressman even wrote a book
titled They Dare To Speak Out, chronicling the control of pro-
Israel lobbying and how this presumably controls policy.
The underlying premise of this theory suggests that foreign
policy is beholden to domestic political forces. Foreign policy,
the theory must hold, results from different political viewpoints
entering a policy arena with the most powerful voice or lobby
winning and thus controlling the agenda/policy.
This appeals to the democratic impulses of critics because
it still has policy resulting from a pluralistic process. The
prescription for winning and losing is clear. If you are
pro-Arab and wish to have your policy adopted, organize and
offer a counter punch to pro-Israeli lobbies. According to this
analysis, one replicates the pro-Zionist lobby and beats them
at their own game. In point of fact, many Arab-Americans
waste their time chasing string because they operate under false
premises.
Proponents of the control theory ardently believe that
Congress originates foreign policy and therefore if congressmen
are deposed for not towing the Israeli line, this proves the theory.
But is it the case that Congress dictates foreign policy at all?
Realpolitik suggests that the executive branch is responsible for
foreign policy with Congress almost rubber-stamping the funds
necessary for implementation.
Many argue that the Executive branch is not immune from
Israels AIPAC (American-Israeli Political Action Committee)
and that this group controls the agenda. Although many
instances point to an apparent linkage between lobbying and
foreign policy, enough examples of divergence in US policy and
Israeli wishes demonstrate that no amount of lobbying was able

to dictate US foreign policy:
After Israel attacked Egypt in 1956, Eisenhower ordered

them to leave immediately... Israel complied.
Although it yearned to be part of the Persian Gulf coali-
tion, Israel was not. It sat out the war after being pres-
sured by the US.
Ten billion dollars in loan guarantees were held up due to
illegal Israeli settlements in 1990.
Although the Israeli lobby opposes all military sales to
Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, these decisions sail
through Congress despite AIPAC lobbying efforts.
Many more examples prove the null hypothesis and need

not be enumerated. It is clear... something else other than
lobbies wedded to foreign interests is behind US foreign policy.
Domestic policy may result from a pluralistic struggle in a
policy arena, but foreign policy is made differently. The
pro-Israel lobby as a cabal has many proponents. But at the
heart of the theory is political navet. It is politically nave to
believe that American policy serves foreign interests over its own.
From the time of Sparta, the Roman Empire, Ottomans,
Dutch, Spanish and British Empires, foreign policy has always
been about economic advantage. It has always been thus... and
always will be...
22
Inside the LabyrinthPart Two:
Zionist Controlled Media?
(01/08/03)
This is the second part of an analysis that seeks to

understand US foreign policy in the Middle East.
When there are billions of dollars involved, people
do not always want their intentions under scrutiny.
Foreign policy is never quite as advertised by
administrations or proponents. One needs to enter
the labyrinth to understand its paths.
Related to the pro-Israel lobby theory of political control in

foreign policy-making is the oft-repeated canard that Zionists
control the media. At times this slips into the racist formulation
that Jews control the media. This theory hypothesizes that
because of this control, Israel therefore will always enjoy
favorable positioning in the media.
It is undeniable that Jewish representation in the film and
television industries outweighs their proportional numbers. Is it
reasonable to ask whether this really makes a difference? The
media control theory suggests that public opinion determines
foreign policy. But is US public opinion important in the formu-
lation of foreign policy? If Congress does not create foreign
policy, neither will a constituency of which 66% of the popula-
tion doesnt even know where Canada is located.
With the notable exceptions of Conrad Black, Norman
Podhoretz and Mortimer Zuckerman, large corporate media
companies are beholden to their shareholders and not foreign

interests. The three listed Zionists are rather marginal characters
in the entire media landscape, and the premise of media control
is unfortunately used to distract from the true reality. Public
media companies must answer to shareholders, and today, most
news is in the hands of large media conglomerates.
This aside, only public acquiescence is required to maintain
various foreign policy agendas. Public opinion is malleable to a
large extent. Consider how malleable it is when 90% of the US
public supported the first Persian Gulf War... to ostensibly
reinstall one dictatorial regime from the ravages of another.
The war was sold with an almost hysterical media band-
wagon.
Most people simply do not care about foreign policy until
American soldiers begin to die. In most cases, mainstream
media reflects official US policy. There is a subtle collusion
between conventional media and official policy. If reporters
buck the official policy line, they may find themselves without
future access to inside sources.
News divisions once upon a time were immune to economic
pressures. This meant they could run more stories that con-
nected policies to large corporate interests without fear of
losing their advertisers. But now that news divisions must also
be profit centers, they are beholden to advertisers. British
Petroleum, Chevron, Unisys and others will not advertise in
network news slots if they run counter to their interests. These
economic giants therefore can influence the agenda of media
outlets just enough to create the necessary acquiescence.
The media has had a love affair with Israel for over 50 years.
For all intents and purposes, the Palestinian narrative was almost
never heard. This was because official US policy did not recognize
Palestinians. Many Israelis still hold to the notion that there are
no Palestinians. The fact of an almost non-existent Palestinian
narrative led most to believe that Zionist media control kept that
voice mute. Again, we have the wrong culprit... and the wrong
analysis. In the corporate world of media, only narratives that are
in sync with official policy break through the clutter.
Zionist Controlled Media? 63
Fifty Years of Coinciding Interests

The hidden truth is that American and Israeli interests
coincided for so many years. But the reality of coinciding interests
remained almost a state secret for both countries. US Middle
East foreign policy is about O-I-L... and connecting the dots to
deliver the truth about how Israel helped promote oil interests
was to be hidden at any cost. Why?
The Arab oil monarchies required this fact to be hidden
from view. If it looked like there was collusion between oil
interests and the establishment, and subsequent promotion of a
Zionist state, the constituencies of these autocratic regimes
might rise and destabilize the regime... thus interfere with cheap
access to the oil.
That is why every single Arab regime obfuscates the connec-
tion between Israels historic role in the region and oil politics.
It is legerdemain of the highest order. The Arab street has
been pacified for years through obfuscation. Thrones depended
upon it!
What is Israels historic role in the region? Israel was to be
the quasi-colonial implant created to preserve Western interests.
It was to be the bulwark against post-WW II revolutionary
movements. In Cold War politics, it would be a bastion against
Soviet expansion. It would share intelligence with the West... all
designed to maintain regional proxy leadership like the Shah of
Iran and the House of Saud. This is, after all, where the oil was.
Israels MOSSAD would train SAVAK (Iranian secret police)
and guarantee the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan through
secret alliances.
Israel would create cover for regional monarchies. All Arab
governments lack legitimacy. Arab leaders did not ascend to
power through the ballot box... but were basically installed.
As long as Israel could be blamed for a lack of freedom, dissent
was harmlessly channeled from internal dynamics to external
issues.
Israel served the role of the goat led to draw the wolves away
from the flock. In 1948, Secretary of State George Marshall
argued vociferously against this position, suggesting that

eventually a western colony would backfire against US
economic interests. He lost the argument.
The cost to the US in maintaining Israel is a matter of
intense debate. Forecasts range from $170 billion in actual aid
to over $1 trillion when you add the soft aid that is doled out
to countries like Turkey. Turkey has received billions of dollars
in subsidies to trade with Israel. Israel receives oil from the US
because no Arab country (until recently) could openly sell gas
and oil to it, lest the collusion be revealed (Egypt now sells gas
to Israel, although it is not a widely circulated fact).
The Changing Face of American Interests

One can reasonably argue that the cost of maintaining Israel
has outweighed the benefits. This is certainly the case with
many colonial adventures. The notion that the Islamic Middle
East could ever have been overrun by godless Communism
seems ridiculous in retrospect (see Chechnya and Afghanistan
of the 80s). So the Israeli role as a counter balance to Soviet
designs was always a questionable assertion. But today the
Soviet Union is only a faded memory. Revolutions occurred in
Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Iran in spite of Israels existence.
The emergence of criticism and dissent that questions the
legitimacy of regional monarchies has begun... and will not abate.
Israeli bases are no longer needed as a staging point since
facilities in Qatar are closer to the oil fields than Haifa. Israel is
a nuisance when it comes to building any coalition in the
region, and its vaunted intelligence capabilities did not help the
US prior to the 9-11 carnage.
When considering Israels past role compared to todays
reality, it becomes self-evident that she is no longer needed.
When colonies no longer serve the interests of their sponsors,
they become a burden. Israel is an economic burden to the US.
The Palestinian narrative has begun to surface almost
on cue. Large media outlets including the Chicago Tribune, CNN
Zionist Controlled Media? 65
and the Washington Post are routinely picketed by pro-Zionist

supporters. This severely challenges the Zionist control
theory of the media. Observing media spin is one way of dis-
cerning the direction of foreign policy. Remember, media
reflects policy. Israeli occupation has done what no Muslim
leader has been able to do in 1000 years... and that is to unite
the Islamic street.
We see US goods boycotted en masse. Zam Zam Cola is
outselling Coca Cola throughout the Middle East. McDonalds,
an American icon, has its stores coming under pressure in the
Muslim world from Indonesia to Amman. Restaurant closings
all over the Middle East and Muslim countries have become
routine. Why?
All polls suggest that US support of Israel has broadened the
enmity to include US economic interests. Thirty percent of all
US exports go to the Middle East, and this is declining due to
the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The Israeli colonial adventure has finally reached the point of
all colonial endeavors. The cost outweighs the benefits. Palestine
is now the number one issue, not just in the Arab countries but in
the entire Muslim world from Kenya to Pakistan. Proxy Arab
leaders are losing their grip on their illegitimate thrones.
George Marshall warnings have come to pass... and as Lord
Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary said in the 19th
Century, There are no permanent alliances, only permanent
interests.
We are at the beginning of a new age in which Israeli and
US interests are diverging. Globalization, the new requirements
for maintaining access to cheap oil, the growing Islamic market
for US goods and culture, the necessity to solve the Palestinian
question and Israels colonial past, are all coinciding for a new
foreign policy agenda.
23
Does Justice Matter?
(05/10/03)
Reconciliation should be accompanied by justice,

otherwise it will not last. While we all hope for
peace it shouldnt be peace at any cost but peace
based on principle, on justice.
Corazon Aquino
The latest catch phrase used by Middle East pundits is Road

Map, signifying the longitude and latitude of the destination
for peace in the Middle East. The plan outlined is a document
devoid of one essential component: justice.
Henry Kissinger once said that the dilemma between Israelis
and Palestinians boiled down to the tension between European
rationalism and Arab romanticism. He was of course denigrating
the notion that justice matters. For him, it was a silly romantic
notion that could not be contemplated in his world of real-
politik. The Road Map was born from these sensibilities.
Today, Palestinians are more at risk than ever before. Why?
A mood now permeates the region that justice must not inter-
fere with pragmatic notions. The worlds only superpower, now
in economic duress, must have regional stability. Its economic
future depends upon this.
To further its hegemonic agenda, a phrase embraced by
even those like William Kristol who rationalize US foreign
policy, it appears that there are a multitude of cheerleaders for
the Road Map. Besides the Quartet supporting the plan, a
minority of Palestinians have also embraced the process. Israels
acceptance remains one of straddling the fence to avoid
antagonizing the cartographer.
Does Justice Matter? 67
The rhetoric we hear grows louder yet remains empty. All

are for peace. This is a given. Palestinians who have lived in
refugee camps for over fifty years want peace. Palestinians who
live under a brutal occupation want peace. Palestinians living in
Diaspora want peace.
Most Israelis want peace as long as justice remains only a
romantic notion. Justice for them is a stinging indictment of
even their raison detre.
But as Martin Luther King Jr. said, True peace is not merely
the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice. And where
is the justice in this document?
Is it justice to deny Palestinians a right to return to their
land? Is it justice to maintain a neighbor state with embedded
racism that insures rights based upon some ethno-national des-
ignation? Can there be justice without liberating the region
from the ravages of racial politics?
A Zionist state in the region that defines itself as a state for
Jews is as much an abomination as a state for white people,
as a state for Muslims, as a state for Christians. These kinds of
definitions are an anathema to justice and liberty for all.
Thankfully America abandoned these designations long
ago. Is it not worthwhile to ask if the region can truly be free as
long as we divide, exalt and privilege ourselves on antiquated
19th century notions of ethno-national ideology?
There can be one state, two states or pick a number. This
matters less than an authentic peace. If we Palestinians dont
stand up and shout for justice, then we dont stand for much.
Its a time for principlenot privilege. Its a time for idealism
not ideology. It is a time less for judicious words, and more for
justice in action.
Baruch Spinoza said: Peace is not the absence of war; it is a
virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence;
and justice.
Let every Palestinian rise. Let every Palestinian pull
together. Let their raised voice proclaim untold injustices and
demand a solution tempered with virtue and conscience. Let all
those who love freedom and justice sustain them, for the future
of Palestine lies in the hope and future of the world.
24
US Interests and the Middle East
(10/11/01)
As the US continues its military operations, it

should be clear that something has changed
significantly in the Middle East. Former
adversaries have become allies while a former
ally is forced further from the fold. These changes
actually bring into question long held beliefs
behind policy decisions.
Growing up as an Arab-American, political discourse was

as familiar in our home as Sesame Street. I remember the first
time I was allowed to sit in on the discussions. I was twelve
and the feeling that I was an adult was overwhelming at the
time. Shortly thereafter, I gave my first political speech at
school... it was a fifteen-minute exposition on the Balfour
Declaration.
Ever since that time, Middle East politics was in my blood.
Like most who discussed and debated in the living room,
I found my only point of agreement centered around the Zionist
or Jewish lobbys success in controlling US policy. Among
many observers on Middle Eastern affairs this perception
still persists to this day. Coincidentally, it was also promoted
by Zionists, since the perception of power often becomes the
reality.
Signs for Zionist influence were all around. The media
lionized Israelis. Movies such as Exodus, starring the handsome
Paul Newman added to the mystique. Editorials helped cast
US Interests and the Middle East 69
the patina of invincibility around whatever Israel did. Congress

gave billions of dollars in aid without much dissension.
Senators would fight over who could wax more eloquently
in praise of Israel. And of course, woe be to those who dared
stand up to this force. Senator Charles Percy and Representative
Paul Findley failed to get enough winning election votes because
they swam against the tide regarding Israeli policies.
But as is often the case, conventional wisdom was wrong.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attack on 9/11, the mechanism
for what animates regional dynamics is crystal clear. US
economic interests are first and foremost in the region. As
the grand coalition is built, regional regimes walk the tight-
rope to align themselves with US interests. And which
country is the odd man out? If you guessed Israel, you would be
correct.
For years, Israel was always on the wrong side of history.
Holding onto an ideology based upon an ethnic-religious-
national definition of being Jewish and granting preferential
treatment based on this definition was never viable for the long
term. It could only be sustained by its alignment with US
national interests.
As a Palestinian-American, this eluded me for years and my
critique therefore was misguided. It was too easy to point a
finger at the Jewish lobby, and this obscured what was
animating US policy in the region.
But, it must be said that for years Israel truly did serve
US interests. How? After WW II, Israel became a bulwark
against Soviet expansion. Cold War politics allowed Israel
to be a colonial outpost in the Middle East. Israel was to be
the eyes and ears for US interests. The US Navy would frequent
the port of Haifa, and of course be re-supplied as well.
MOSSAD would train US allies intelligence services (Irans
SAVAK the most notorious). Israel would share intelligence
assets with the US. Israel also became the release valve for inter-
nal dissent all over the Middle East, thus further maintaining
the stability of friendly regimes to the US.
For fifty years, this symbiotic relationship between US and

Israeli interests had few divergences. There was Israels attack
on Egypt in 1956, but this was rolled back quickly after
Eisenhowers demands. There was the Israeli attack on the USS
Liberty during the 1967 war, but US interests required a strong
ally in the region and suppressed the information. Jonathan
Pollard was a source of irritation, but by and large, the history
of Israel was an ode to serving US interests. As long as it did
this, Zionism was safe.
But today, we have a different reality. US troops are in Saudi
Arabia. Arab regimes friendly to the US are aligning with her.
The Soviet Union is only a faint memory. Israeli intelligence did
not presage the most massive terrorist operation in the history
of the world. This intelligence failure further negated yet
another interest for which Israel was supposed to serve.
Israel is no longer a military asset to the US. Since the Gulf
War, Israel has had to sit on the sidelines as the US exercised its
military muscle. Not only was Israel not an asset; it is a
strategic military liability to US interests. Israels military
expertise cannot be used as long as a coalition of Arab nations
is desired.
The coup de grace for diverging Israeli and US interests
must be seen as the growing instability its policies are bringing
to the region. Israels brutal Occupation of Jerusalem and the
rest of the West Bank and Gaza require a solution. Without one
in the near future, the stability of friendly regimes to the US
could be in jeopardy. Instability means economic upheaval
regarding oil. And this is a vital, strategic interest of the US.
As long as Israel served US interests, we were treated to an
Orwellian world of discourse. One could rattle them off as if
talking points:
Israel, the lone democratic regime in the region...

Israel made the desert bloom...
Israel was attacked in every war...
Israel was the only reliable ally in the region...
US Interests and the Middle East 71
These and many other myths became part and parcel of

conventional thinking. But today, the long Orwellian nightmare
is giving way as the absurdity of Israels brutal Occupation is
seen worldwide. US and Israeli interests will never again
converge. And with this, the myth of the invincible Jewish
lobby will forever be laid to rest.
25
US Foreign Policy and
the Middle East
(02/07/02)
All Arab governments fear destabilization... because

there is simply nothing they can do about it.
Danny Rubinstein, Israeli journalist
Lift the Fog

To achieve clarity when asking what the US really wants
in the Middle East, first one has to lift the layers of fog to get
to the simple imperatives of the region. Many forces operate for
the purpose of cloaking true intentions.
Two overriding impulses basically define US interests in the
Middle East and they are both related. The first is to maintain
cheap access to the huge reservoirs of oil in the region. This can
only be accomplished through stable regimes that can control
the passions of the Arab street. In the opening quotation from
Danny Rubinstein, he clearly outlines how Arab governments
fear destabilization.
What exactly is destabilization? The paradigm for both
US and Arab governments to avoid is the Iranian revolution,
where a religious clergy overthrew a government predisposed
towards US interests. If Rubinstein is correct, it is certainly
the case that many Arab leaders seek US help in maintaining
stability, which is another way of saying they need US support
in order to stay in power.
US Foreign Policy and the Middle East 73
US and Arab leaders interests coincide to the extent that

they both want to avoid revolution. Revolutions are bad for
business and in the Middle East, oil is the only business that
counts. Stability in the region is necessary to maintain cheap
access to oil.
The second foreign policy imperative for the US is to influence
Arab leadership in supporting those same economic interests.
Maintaining an empire (whether the Ottoman, the British or
the current American Empire) is not an easy task. It requires a
combination of force (see Afghanistan and Iraq) and pliable
leaders to serve as surrogates. This is important unless one
wishes to occupy every region under ones influence or control.
It is much more cost effective and efficient to have surrogate or
proxy leaders serve the interests of the empire.
As you can readily see, both imperatives are closely related.
In the Realpolitik of foreign policy, economic interests reign
supreme. Morality does not play much of a role when deciding
courses of action. That is why appeals to morality usually are
met with blinding indifference. When dissecting US Middle East
policy, one needs to forget about what is said and look to those
twin pillars of what animates policy. If you want to understand
why the US gives Israel and Egypt so much foreign aid, look to
US interests.
Leaders in the region are not above reminding each other
about their respective roles. Recently Israel chastised Egypt for
their seeming indifference to the current Intifada.
This certainly endangers regional stability, and he [Mubarak]
must surely roll up his sleeves, hike up his pants and get
into this matter, stated Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Dalia
Rabin-Pelosof.
The reader may ask how Israel served the two foreign policy
imperatives that are behind all US policy decisions in the region.
After all, Israel has no oil, yet the entire world understands the
US has been one of the few friends Israel has enjoyed in the last
fifty years. It is clear that Israel had secret alliances with several
regimes in the region. Chief among these was its relationship
with the Shah of Iran. Israel even trained his brutal secret
service, SAVAK. Israels secret alliance with King Hussein of
Jordan is still a classified state secret to this day, even though he
is long dead.
For those Arab regimes that were not under the direct
sphere of US influence, Israel was the proxy military power that
would help enforce US policy. There could be wars, but as long
as the flow of oil was maintained at favorable prices to the oil
companies, US interests were satisfied. Israel also served
another major function for the US. The stability of regional
regimes was enhanced because Israel became the outlet or
diversion for Arab dissent. Instead of dissent becoming an inter-
nal critique, energies were diverted toward an outside enemy,
namely Israel. In this way, Israel aided regional stability by
being a pressure valve for regional leaders. Had Israel not
existed, all the monarchies in the region would have been over-
thrown long ago.
But now a growing internal critique from the Arab street
is emerging. Osama Bin Laden is only one manifestation, as he
is decidedly against the Saudi monarchy even more than he is
against the US. Arab dissent is growing and the War on
Terrorism should be viewed through the lenses of what ani-
mates US foreign policy. The War on Terrorism is actually a
war on dissent. The US stands ready to help all oil regimes
stamp out dissenters that would seek to destabilize or over-
throw its leadership. Pliable surrogate leadership is necessary
for maintaining US economic interests.
I am often asked, What is the US policy toward Yasser
Arafat?
Once again, one must understand the twin filters of US for-
eign policy: Oil and controlling regional leaders. Yasser Arafat
met with Colin Powell at the beginning of the Intifada and was
given a to do list or script to follow. He was to be rewarded
with the privilege of joining the ranks of regional rulers. Arafat
was positively beaming, since he was promised statehood, only
if he played ball with US demands and followed the script
offered by the US administration.
US Foreign Policy and the Middle East 75
This was at the time editorials from the Chicago Tribune,

LA Times and even the New York Times surfaced, condemning
Sharon and Israel. Arafat began arresting those who were put
on the list.
Eventually, the US administration put the dreaded label of
terrorists on these groups, further pressuring Arafat to do its
bidding.
After Israel began a strategy of assassinating Palestinians
without benefit of trials, Arafats internal political situation made
it untenable to follow the US script, chapter and verse. What
was, and is, the US response? The US is using Arafat as an abject
lesson to other regional leaders.
The lesson?
If you fail to follow the dictates of US demands, you will
end up in the doghouse. And worse, the Israelis would threaten
your very existence.
So the US can accomplish one of two goals: gain another
regional leader to do its bidding (Arafat), or if he does not, use
this as an opportunity to teach others in the region what hap-
pens to those who fail to capitulate to the US agenda with
unwavering enthusiasm.
Specific US foreign policy positions are malleable. Arafat
can go from terrorist to statesman and back to terrorist...
depending upon how closely he follows US demands.
Will Arafat Survive?

Presently, Arab leaders are engaged in begging the US to let
Arafat survive. A minister from Qatar told Palestinian representa-
tives: Go and beg the Americans for aid, because they are the
only ones that can do anything for you with Israel. (Quoted
from the Israeli paper, Haaretz)
So it appears that behind all the rhetoric, one can discern
which way US Middle East foreign policy will turn by simply
understanding what policies are likely to lead to the stable flow
of oil in the Middle East and what policies will most likely keep
those in power, viz., those who can assure the former.
It is this writers opinion that Israels historic role has fun-
damentally become irrelevant and it is next on the docket for a
major policy reassessment by the US. It is no longer a stabilizing
force and is running smack dab into US economic interests.
26
The US Peace of Despair
(05/09/02)
It is not only casual observers who are somewhat confused over

US Middle East policy. Even those who study the region
intensely admit to confusion. But, if one looks at the policy
through certain lenses, the political landscape begins to clear.
The Bush Administration came into office with the Uprising
in full swing. Their initial policy was considered to be laissez
faire. But there was a method to this hands off approach.
One State Department official described the policy as let them
bleed. Who was to bleed? Israelis and Palestinians.
Looking at US political moves (or lack of them in many
instances) through the prism of let them bleed, we then gain
an insight into a carefully constructed policy. This is a policy of
pain. In the amoral world of Realpolitik, it is not sadism that
animates the Bush Administration.
They have made the calculation that both Israelis and
Palestinians could never reach a peace as long as they both had
hope. As long as both sides spoke of the price of peace
instead of the costs of war there could be no solution. Thus,
a carefully constructed policy to make the cost of Occupation
overwhelming that would require both the Israelis and
Palestinians to feel desperation.
In fact, senior Bush officials have suggested that the Clinton
peace process broke down because both sides held out hope of
making a better deal. Further psychological profiles of Arafat
and Sharon fed the notion that neither would make a deal as
long as each felt they held the upper hand. US policy would
soon disabuse both sides of this notion. In the Bush teams

assessment, neither side had reached the point where the only
solution is peace. Each administration official would have its
role. Some would dispatch despair to Israelis... others to
Palestinians. It would appear that there was a rift in the
administration, but the overall plan would have been executed
almost without flaw.
Resulting actions have had only one goal since the Bush
Administration team took office: to create a matrix of circum-
stances that would lead to a US imposed peace plan.
In order to gain compliance from both sides, a maddening
campaign of despair has been thrust upon the region. This
Machiavellian approach resulted in feigned indifference while
Palestinians and Israelis engaged in the inevitable escalation.
The body count mounted.
Zinnis mandate in the region was to create a situation that
the US knew Arafat could not accept. This involved a deal over
Israeli security and had no political objective.
When confronted with political objectives, Zinni in fact
stated, That is beyond my mandate. The US therefore maneu-
vered rejection of the Zinni proposal and Sharon was free to do
his part in upping the desperation factor on Palestinians.
When Powell made his leisurely stroll through the
Mediterranean, many people took this as an incredible lack of
caring. But he and Bush insiders knew the real goal; give more
time for Sharon to create despair. Bush calling Sharon a Man
of Peace, a moniker that few inside Israel would dare use,
also was designed to dash hope in the heart of Palestinians,
signaling that the US would never be an honest broker in a
peace deal.
Palestinians have endured over 50 years of disenfranchise-
ment, exile, refugee status and Occupation. Yet hope still
pursed the lips of almost every Palestinian. The election of
Sharon offered the US a chance to further its strategy of despair.
They would give a wink and a nod to the age-old Palestinian
nemesis to flex Israels overwhelming military might against the
civilian population. To date, over 35,000 Palestinians, mostly
The US Peace of Despair 79
civilians, have been injured. That is one percent of the entire

Palestinian population living under Occupationthe equivalent
of over 2.8 million Americans, should the same percentage be
applied to the US population.
US disengagement from the political process threw
Palestinians further and further into despair. The invasion of
Israel into almost every West Bank town and the eventual house
arrest of Arafat was of course done with US under-the-table
knowledge, all the while allowing the Bush team to maintain
plausible deniability. The Bush team ignored Arafat, one of
the worst things you could do to him. Israel declared him
irrelevant, and the despair increased. And, yes, the body
count mounted.
But the Bush policy was also calculated to throw Israel into
despair. Without US intervention and a peace deal on the horizon
or even articulated, the cost of Occupation for Israel began to
soar. Suicide bombings increased. The general feeling of
security eroded. But the military ability of Palestinians to create
the kind of desperation necessary to bring Israel in line is
limited. Economics would have to be used to make Israel toe
the line. And the Israeli economy began to sink. Unemployment
is at a 54-year high.
The shekel has devalued almost 25% in 18 months. The US
has refused a supplemental aid package for Israel, voted for
several anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and condemned the
invasion publicly. The US has been a party to Israels precipi-
tous slide, and warnings issued in private to its leaders have
been maintained in silence. The widening rift or threat and
actual distance between Israel and the US was designed to create
despair. The US strategy has been to make the cost of Occupation
be a heavier toll to pay than the price of peace.
The US has canceled joint military operations, issued travel
warnings from the beginning of the Intifada, exacerbating the
decline of tourism, and even canceled the US Sixth Fleet docking
at the Israeli port of Haifa, which brings in a great deal of
money to the city. To further Israels economic woes, military
deals between Israel and China were canceled by the US under
the guise of transferring sensitive technology. A $750 million

tank deal between Turkey and Israel was canceled when the US
promised to lease tanks to Turkey at favorable rates. Israel is
now facing a severe financial collapse and the US is not stepping
in to help as they have traditionally done. Every Israeli is feeling
something new: despair. And, yes, the body-count mounted.
The fits and turns, some say flip-flops of US policy are
designed to create despair. Not allowing Israel to finish off
Arafat was designed to instill frustration for Israel.
Much of the US pressure on Israel is under-the-table. If this
pressure is made public and Israels lobbying and PR machine
put to use, it threatens to lead to a cataclysmic break between
Israel and the US. Each action undertaken by the Bush team is
designed to extract the last bit of hope from both sides.
And now, Palestinians beg for US active engagement. Europe
begs for engagement. The Arab nations beg for engagement.
The UN begs for engagement. Republicans in the House and
Senate beg for engagement. Democrats in the House and Senate
beg for engagement. Everybody is looking for the US to impose
a solution.
Behold, a peace born of D-E-S-P-A-I-R.
27
An Open Letter to President Bush
(02/05/03)
Mr. President, I write today with a heavy heart after listening
closely to your State of the Union speech. As a first-generation
American of Arab and Muslim descent, I feel peculiarly quali-
fied to express not just my thoughts, but also my feelings about
your speech.
On my office wall hangs a framed reproduction of The
Declaration of Independence. In fact, every office I have ever sat
in had this same framed reproduction, cut from the July Fourth
issue of the Chicago Tribune in 1976; the two hundredth
anniversary of our nations independence.
It has been these stirring words and ideals that have
animated my heart and soul ever since I first read the words.
Freedom and the inalienable rights of Man are not just words
for me; they are the very reason for living.
In your speech, you spoke about war with Iraq. You spoke
the words of freedom, but somehow they seemed... false. Why?
Freedom is not a thing bestowed to a people as a gift from
Uncle Sam. The gift is even more awkward when it comes
wrapped with an invasion force of 250,000 US soldiers, carpet-
bombing, and missiles raining from the sky.
You cannot give the Iraqi people their freedom at the barrel
of an American gun. The Iraqi people must earn their own free-
dom if it is to be worth more than words.
Our freedom was not a gift from France, but earned through
the toils of those early Americans, and paid for by successive
generations that have ensured my right to address my President

as I do now.
You say that the Iraqi people deserve freedomand who
can deny any this dream? But no freedom deserved is without a
price. Whose price? Is Iraqi freedom more precious than
Palestinian freedom? Is Iraqi freedom more precious than those
suffering from our own allies in the region?
Is the price of Iraqi freedom worth a single American
parent grieving for his or her son, sent to Baghdad to do for the
Iraqi people what they do not do for themselves?
The answer, Mr. President, is a resounding NO.
I suggested that your rhetoric seemed... false. Again, you
might ask: why?
Your rhetoric of freedom rings false because you cannot
speak of freedom on Tuesday, and support the brutal Occupation
of Palestine on Wednesday. You cannot speak of freedom on
Tuesday, and support dictatorial monarchies like Saudi Arabia
and Jordan on Wednesday. And of course, you should not speak
of freedom on Tuesday while giving Most Favored Nations
trading agreements with slave labor countries like China on
Wednesday. There are more examples, but the point is made.
Freedom is a principle. Selectively applied, they are no longer prin-

ciples but thinly veiled rationalizations for domestic consumption.
Your selective application of freedom is what makes your words
hollow and ultimately devoid of the spirit to which it is aimed. You
have taken the words that Thomas Jefferson dreamed so beauti-
fully and crafted them into sound bytes for news headlines. You
have stripped them of their meaning... their soul... by selective
application, intended to gain support for a crusade.
As an American of Arab and Muslim descent, the hollowness
of those words is haunting. I know that when Saddam was a US
ally in the eighties, Kurds were slaughtered without Vice President
Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld raising their voice.
Kurds were slaughtered by our ally, Turkey, as we looked
away. Freedom did not ring from the Washington steps then,
and freedom is not the goal of your policy now.
An Open Letter to President Bush 83
One million Iranians were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein,

then an American ally, utilizing American-made weapons. Our
country did more than look away, but supported his military
adventure.
This is what I knowso your words condemning Saddams
aggression against Iran were equally false... rhetoric used for an
American people who do not devote the time to sift through the
fog of Middle East politics.
It is true that I follow the Middle East more closely than my
neighbors in the suburbs of Chicago. But there are 1.4 billion
Muslims in the world who also follow what happens in
Jerusalem and the rest of the Middle East. The list of dictators
in Muslim countries who get active US support in suppressing
and denying freedom to its people is long indeed. Muslim people
feel the shackles of CIA-trained forces helping to maintain the
thrones of power. Every Muslim, therefore, feels the hollowness
of your rhetoric.
Israel has weapons of mass destruction, but you,
Mr. President, and successive presidents before you, spoke
not of these weapons. Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 and
again in 1967, and presently practices a form of Occupation
unknown since the time of Hitler, yet your silence only under-
scores the hypocrisy.
Mr. President, how can I tell you the depth of distrust the chasm
between your rhetoric of Tuesday night and the reality outlined
above, creates in the hearts of 1.4 billion Muslims? These con-
tradictions cannot be swept away easily.
Your new crusade against Baghdad harkens back to another
time, to another era. Your crusade against Iraq is felt to be
exactly what the word implies. As you rally our nation to join
this crusade, the heaviness of heart for what this means saddens
me, because I know the words of Jefferson may be used, but his
ideals have been swept under the table.
28
The Credible Threat of Force
(11/17/02)
The airwaves fill every Sunday with experts speaking about an

imminent attack on Iraq. The pundits are not alone in their belli-
cosity. Plenty of administration spokespersons are weighing in on
the need to send a message to Saddam Hussein. Powell, Rice,
Rumsfeld, Cheney, and, of course, President Bush are not shy
when it comes to publicly promoting this agenda.
Besides the US, no other country (except Israel) feels so
threatened by Iraq that they advocate war. Are they devoid of
their senses, or is the US rhetoric not quite what it appears to
be? Is it even possible that the rhetoric itself has become a
weapon? It is becoming increasingly clear that maintaining the
New World Order in the 21st Century cannot be accomplished
with military might alone.
There are simply too many areas beyond Bushs axis of
evil in which the US cannot impose a military solution. The
actual use of force must be liberally sprinkled with the credi-
ble threat of force. There are times when the threat of force by
itself is designed to achieve political objectives without the
necessity of actual military adventures.
In order for a threat to be effective, it must be credible.
Paul Wolfowitz clearly stated this when he said, The issue is
how we can best achieve a peaceful outcome that resolves the
danger we face. The only way to have a peaceful disarming of
Iraq is with a credible threat of the use of force.
In order for a threat to be credible, it must not be so trans-
parent that all the actors in the drama, or charadeif there is
The Credible Threat of Force 85
onecan see through it. Force must be believable. The threat

must be convincing to everyone.
How does a super power establish credibility?
Experience certainly helps to pave the way. The US bomb-
ing of Afghanistan helped greatly to establish US credibility and
demonstrate its willingness to use force. Not a single country on
the planet questions anymore whether the US is willing to use
force to advance political objectives. Certainly the Persian Gulf
War over ten years ago also established credibility.
Although it takes a long time to build, it can easily be

destroyed. The present US administration is unified in building
credibility through bellicose speeches. They build it by creating
conditions that allow unilateral action.
Congress has given its unconditional blessing upon the
authorization of force. It appears that a majority of Americans,
even if that majority is only a slim margin, also are supporting
the use of force.
All of this strengthens the threat to all the evil doers in
the world. It makes the threatcredible. Wolfowitz has clearly
made the case; the more credible the threat, the less likely the
actual use of force is necessary.
A friend recently introduced me to a concept called inter-
mittent reinforcement. Scientists have found that rats in a cage
are more controlled when behavior is intermittently reinforced
through a series of positive and negative stimuli. In essence, it
is not necessary to impose punishment to rats every time to con-
trol behavior. It is enough for the rat to know that punishment
is a real option.
This is why the US need not attack North Korea for harbor-
ing terrorists (which they do), or having weapons of mass
destruction (which they have). US policy is not determined by
consistency. The US can pick and choose its time and place for
using actual force to achieve objectives.
The US can use force intermittentlyactually can only use it
intermittently. It is not possible to intervene all over the world,
no matter how powerful a nation or Empire is. A combination

of actual force and threats of force must be used to achieve
political and economic objectives. What is likely to happen in
Iraq? Most people who make predictions regarding the Middle
East wind up looking silly. So at the risk of appearing silly, here
goes my prediction.
The US will not attack Iraq.
Lord Browne, the CEO of British Petroleum has warned
against the danger of attacking Iraq. He has concluded
that western interests would be threatened by the actual use of
force. BP, the worlds largest oil company, is still feeling
the effects of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. An
attack on Iraq will increase Islamic extremism all over the
world. This is not in the interests of the US or any oil company
in the world.
In addition to creating conditions for recruiting extremists,
the US economy is in shambles. Most military experts
suggest that a war will cost the US $100 billion, and no other
countries will be willing to pick up the tab, as they did for
the last Gulf War. The US economy might suffer from this
adventure.
The entire world, with the exception of Israel (support
for the war in the UK has eroded significantly) is saying No
to war. Former generals like Schwarzkopf are saying No
to war; former government officials like Zbignew Breczinski
and James Baker are saying No to war. So we are left with
believing that this administration sees what few seeor there is
something else.
Now that the midterm elections are over in the US, the war
talk should subside. In addition to the credible threat by
the administration team, there was the added benefit of dis-
tracting the electorate from the economy. People usually vote
their pocketbooks, but the war talk surely took many
headlines away from the flailing economy. The Republican
clean sweep of the House and Senate was aided by the
drumbeats to war.
The Credible Threat of Force 87
I do not believe this administration is silly or stupid. They

understand all of the arguments against war. But they have a
charge that the others do not have. That charge is maintaining
the New World Order. And to quote Wolfowitz once again:
The issue is how we can best achieve a peaceful outcome that
resolves the danger we face. The only way to have a peaceful
disarming of Iraq is with a credible threat of the use of force.
29
The Anglo-Saxons Are Coming
(03/13/03)
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Newtons Third Law of Motion
With so much disinformation regarding the impending war in

Iraq, it is useful to develop a framework for understanding the
issues in a dispassionate way. In this chapter we have a global
analysis that suggests a new way to view events.
In 1991, Bush the Elder proclaimed that we were embarking

upon a New World Order. At that time, nobody really knew
if this was simply rhetoric, and if not, what it really meant. It is
important to figure out not just what it means but what the
likely equal and opposite reaction to the NWO might be.
Simply put, the NWO means the Anglo-Saxons are
coming. The crumbling of the Soviet Union left the United
States the sole super power. The Nineties was the decade of trying
to understand new global dynamics and how the US could use
its newly unopposed status. Think tanks worked overtime in
developing scenarios regarding what new course the sole super
power should take.
The bedrock of the New World Order presupposes
unmatched military might. Neo-conservatives spoke of hege-
mony and insisted that domination of the worlds resources was
natural. They used this term to replace the word imperialism.
This strategy was hardly covert. Many familiar faces in the
present Bush administration gathered in 1997 to form an
organization called The New American Century. [See
http://www.NewAmericanCentury.org.]
The Anglo-Saxons Are Coming 89
Every global strategy requires anticipating what kind

of Newtonian reaction might take place upon implementation.
The theses must always be viewed with corresponding antitheses
taken into account. The present administration has done a poor
job in anticipating the reactions of the world to its policies.
What would fill the vacuum left by the fallen Soviet Union?
Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Bush the Younger came
into office weighing in against think tanks that proposed
nation building as a primary US responsibility. He was never
against military adventures; he just did not want to stick
around after the bombing to do the nasty job of nation building.
Regime change was not part of his ideology.
The President was then in the company and tradition of a
long line of conservative thinkers stretching back more than
eighty years. Conservatives opposed the grand policy designs of
President Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to make the world
safe for democracy.
In the post 9-11 world of Bush the Younger, a vision of
The New World Order began to take shape. Conservative
ideals began to give way and the spirit of Woodrow Wilson
entered the White House once again, even if only rhetorically.
So-called nation building is an essential component of this
policy. In Afghanistan, regime change and a new nation with
democratic institutions were the declared goals of the invasion.
Putting aside the miserable failure of achieving anything
resembling nation building or democracy in that devastated
country, the rhetoric was clear. It would be shared for the most
part by two countries: England and the US.
Today we hear that England and America want to bring
democracy to the Middle East after a regime change in Iraq. This
is more rhetoric than reality. Our allies in the region do not exactly
have a record of democracy and, to any fair-minded person, the
continued silence over the strangulation and occupation of the
Palestinian population by Israel makes any rhetoric sound hollow.
Nevertheless, nation building is proposed as a policy thesis.
Policy pundits predict the reaction or antithesis to be a
domino effect that would presumably sweep the Middle East
and bring democracy to all the countries in the region.
This is rather insane.

Although the military adventure in Afghanistan enjoyed
global support, England and the US (the Anglo-Saxon Alliance)
encountered a problem with the rest of the world when the
alliance pressed its case to preemptively strike Iraq.
As stated several times, no action goes unchallenged without
an equal and opposite reaction. The US miscalculated the
nature of the reaction toward an Anglo-Saxon alliance trying to
impose its will on the world. The US believed the only negative
reaction to its designs in Iraq would be relegated to Islamic and
Arab countries.
Besides the predicted democratic domino effect, the
Anglo-Saxon alliance anticipated terrorist threats for continu-
ing the pursuit of its global strategy. The Homeland Security
Department was more than a reaction to 9-11. The department
braced itself for antithetical reactions to its global strategies.
Rather than adjust policies that might reduce the threat,
beefing up security was necessary if the alliance were to con-
tinue its march toward regional hegemony or domination.
Terrorism Was the Reaction to

the Anglo-Saxon Alliance That
American Policy Designers Expected
When the world discovered that Anglo-Saxon hegemony was the
practical embodiment of the New World Order, those who were
not part of this order rebelled. Couching belligerence in the noble
rhetoric of self-defense lacked credibility to the world. When
Spains Prime Minister Aznar, anxious to join the NWO, wailed
that Iraq is a severe threat to the security of Spain, he added
the trappings of the clown to the growing circus.
The antithesis to this Anglo-Saxon hegemony was more
than an Islamic reaction. Equal and opposite reaction to this
development has been a global anti-war movement, encouraged
by countries wishing to fill the political vacuum left by the former
Soviet Union. Russia, France and China have geo-political
The Anglo-Saxons Are Coming 91
reasons for voting against the Anglo-Saxon alliance. They want

to check the unilateral power of this alliance. They cannot offer
a credible antithetical military threat, but politically, these
governments are opposing Anglo-Saxon hegemony.
What most pundits have not yet recognized is that the
political struggle being waged today in the corridors of the
United Nations is far more important and inclusive than
the Iraqi situation. It is more important than even the UN itself.
Many countries are discussing whether they plan to be vassals
of the Anglo-Saxon alliance, or a global counter force.
We are actually living in a world of increasing clarity. Bush
the Younger said, You are either with us or against us...and
he said this with the belief that the world would obey the
dictates of its power. The British have thrown in their lot with
the New World Order, but the vast majority of the world is
saying loudly, Mr. President, we are against you!
What is the world against?
The world is against the doctrine of preemption. The world
is against the doctrine of bombing a people into the lap of
democracy. The world is against the unilateral use of force.
The world is against the ascendancy and perpetuation of
Anglo-Saxon hegemony.
This Was Not Expected by the Alliance

Remember, the only antithesis expected was the rise of Islamic
militancy. This, in turn, was expected to strengthen the alliance
vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The 9-11 aftermath proved the
world would support the alliance against Islamic extremism.
When the Anglo-Saxon hegemony replaced self-defense, a
new reaction surfaced.
The antithesis or reaction to Anglo-Saxon hegemony has
been worldwide opposition. Islamic countries have been joined
by Western European, African, Asian, and, of course, the
Middle Eastern countries.
The world hears the words: The Anglo-Saxons are coming.
30
Military Triumphs and
Political Defeats
(04/07/03)
War is merely the continuation of politics by

other means.
Carl Von Clausewitz (17801831)
The war in Iraq is almost three weeks old and military profes-
sionals on the major television channels are proclaiming how
successfully the war is being waged. However, a more honest
and realistic assessment should move beyond the military
aspects of the moment to consider the real metric of success,
namely the political ramifications.
If Clausewitz was correct, unless the US succeeds politically,
there will be no real victory. War and politics are inseparable.
Military success without political success is nonsensical. One
need only ask the Israelis the truth of this aphorism. Israel has
succeeded militarily but has failed on every political and moral
front on the world stage. Their military prowess has brought
them neither security nor peace.
Although all the political ramifications have not yet flow-
ered, enough seeds have been sewn to predict what kind of
harvest they will yield. Many of these seeds were planted long
before the official beginning of the war. And with every addi-
tional bullet fired by Anglo-American forces, another seed is
planted.
The war, however brilliantly waged by Anglo-American
forces, is an unmitigated political disaster.
Military Triumphs and Political Defeats 93
Emails are already pouring in, asking What do you know

that the President, Vice President and Donald Rumsfeld do not
seem to know?
A fair question, and one that deserves an answer.
1) As a Muslim of Arab descent, I understand what the

emotional word crusade means. It harkens back to a time of
invasion. The President and a clever wordsmith used this
ill-conceived description of our countrys mission, and only
understood what this word meant in retrospect. Almost one and
a half billion Muslims in the world knew what the President did
not know. Words spoken are like missiles launched. They prove
difficult to recall before they land near their targets. This word
found its political target in the Muslim world.
2) If Iraqis possess Weapons of Mass Destruction and do not

use them when their country is invaded, what does this say
about the threat they posed before the war? Even if WMDs are
found, if they are not used, the entire Arab and Muslim world
will ask why the war was fought. The existence of WMDs is not
a cause for war on its own, since the entire Arab and Muslim
world knows that WMDs exist in Israel. Every view of the
political landscape is complicated by Israel.
3) One Israeli official privately acknowledged that an adminis-

tration official promised the war would only last five days.
But here is a recent excerpt from Haaretz writer, Ari Shavit:
At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate

Iraq wasnt looking good. Not even in Washington. The
assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein
regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the
Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty
America entered the country proved unfounded. The
Shiites didnt rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi
guerrilla warfare found the American generals unpre-
pared and endangered their overextended supply lines.
The political fallout for the war not going exactly as

planned will be enormous. Iraqi resistance will be lionized in
the Islamic and Arab world, much like Palestinian resistance to
Israeli occupation. But in this part of the world, one is defined
by the power of the adversary. America, the worlds only super-
power, represents an adversary of epic proportions.
Each day the war drags on, hostility toward the US
increases. This hostility is not only in the Muslim world; it is
everywhere. The unilateral exercise of power (actually bilateral
if you count the UK) creates an international political climate of
illegitimacy.
Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times:
International legitimacy is essential so you will have

enough time and space to execute your presumptuous
project. But George Bush didnt have the patience to glean
international support. He gambled that the war would
justify itself, that we would go in fast and conquer fast
and that the Iraqis would greet us with rice and the war
would thus be self-justifying.
That did not happen.
4) The notion that liberation is truly the goal of American

foreign policy has an overwhelming sense of falseness in the
Arab and Islamic world. Why? Palestinians need liberation
because they live under the most brutal occupation in the
world. In the last two years alone, Israeli occupation forces
have shot over 1% of the Palestinian population. That is the
equivalent of over 2.8 million Americans. Based on this reality,
how could liberation for Iraqis be seen as a priority?
Most quarters in favor of the war either ignore authentic polit-

ical realities or apply fanciful notions that do not conform to
genuine attitudes of the region. One cannot ignore the political
environment of a region when the stated goal is to remake that
environment. When liberation is seen as selective, with the most
Military Triumphs and Political Defeats 95
egregious violatorIsrael ignored, then no military

victory can achieve the political agenda desired. It is manifestly
idiotic to suggest otherwise.
Arnuad de Borchgrave, Washington Times editor wrote:
Veteran Mideast observers cannot remember such una-

nimity among Arab public opinions against their
do-nothing, pro-Western governments. No one sees the
US as a liberating force. America is already being
equated with Israel as the colonial occupier. In Britains
case, it is the re-occupier... There is a total disconnect
between the Arab world and Washington.
Ignoring the disconnect between the Arab world and

Washington or pretending it does not exist will not yield a polit-
ically viable solution to the region. We may succeed in chang-
ing the regime. We may replace the Euro with the US dollar as
the currency used for Iraqi oil. We may temporarily install a
western-friendly government in Baghdad. Few people ques-
tion whether there will be a military victory for the Anglo-
American forces. But what seems almost certain: whatever
military victory is to be had will not win the hearts and minds
of the Arab and Muslim world.
31
In Praise of Dreams
(01/25/01)
You dont promote the cause of peace by talking

only to people with whom you agree.
Dwight David Eisenhower
Over the years, I have written countless articles, engaged in

hundreds of debates and it is tough to admit I have had little
effect in actually changing anyones mind. I navely felt that the
justice of the Palestinian cause only needed the rational telling.
For me this took the form of endless historical detail. I was a
walking encyclopedia of facts, dates, and mind-numbing detail.
Even though Palestinian leadership has always been suspect,
too often there were self-imposed boundaries of my critique. I
rarely strayed from the boundaries of critiquing Israeli policy.
This was by and large an unwritten rule. If Arafat was a buf-
foon, he was our buffoon and, for better or worse, a national
symbol. This was the conventional thinking and even an infor-
mal adherence to the unwritten rule has created the external
appearance that all Palestinians shared equally in his buffoonery.
Sometimes we are lucky enough to know that our lives have
been changed and it is time to discard the old and embrace some-
thing new. It is time to acknowledge that there is a diversity and
pluralism within our community that needs expression. In fact,
about the only thing that unites over 8 million Palestinians all
over the world is the desire to be free from Israeli Occupation.
As Palestinians, we are caught between the hammer and
the anvil. There is the Israeli hammer and the Palestinian
Authority anvil, both working to shape our people into a vision
In Praise of Dreams 97
without soul. They agree with each other more than anyone
cares to admit publicly. Both leaderships dare not speak things
that need saying. Why? Because the leadership is not leading
but following old, worn out ideas. But a new dialog must enter
the public arena if we are to find a way out of the morass.
The rapprochement of peoples is only possible when differ-
ences of culture and outlook are respected and appreciated
rather than feared and automatically condemned. Once this
process begins, then and only then can the common bond of
human dignity be recognized and the basis of peace rear its
head. It is difficult to forge a peace tempered exclusively with
anger, for what it wants it buys at the price of its soul.
Israelis and my Palestinian brethren need to find a new
sense of mission, purpose and reason for being; in short, a new
image of the future that speaks to us in human terms and
appropriate to the problems and opportunities of our situation.
We both need security. We both need an end to Occupation. We
both need to be brave.
Amelia Earhart, the famous aviator said, Courage is the
price that life exacts for granting peace.
Both sides need to act with courage and dignity and to fol-
low the ideals that give meaning to life. For Israelis, this means
abandoning Occupation, and the brutality needed to maintain
it. Occupation is a festering sore on its national psyche.
For Palestinians it means abandoning the legacy of corruption
and anti-democratic impulses that grips the entire region. In a real
sense, we are bound together by a destiny that makes us brothers.
Whatever we send into the lives of the other comes back into our
own. This is true for the bad as well as the good.
If we possess the wisdom to know what to do, let the virtue
be in actually doing it. Let us create a vision that is a promise
of what we shall become. This requires a respite from the
pragmatists and an embrace of dreamers. For without
dreams, not much happens, and behind every great achievement
lies a dreamer of great dreams. Sadly, we hear so little about the
nature of those Israeli and Palestinian dreams because both
peoples are paralyzed with leaderships clutching onto the past
and old formulas. Historically, these formulas have never

worked, and they will not work in the future.
While this is not a pragmatic exposition, it is a plea for a
fundamental transformation of the spirit. In the late 19th
Century, Darwin suggested it was not the strongest of the
species that survived, nor the most intelligent. Those who sur-
vived the evolutionary journey were the ones most responsive
to change. Palestinians need a new leadership imbued with a
responsibility to the suffering of its people. Israelis need to
acknowledge that force is not the solution to what ails her.
32
Reaching for the Stars
(03/15/01)
Reach high, for stars lie hidden in your soul.

Dream deep, for every dream precedes the goal.
Ralph Vaull Starr
An old friend visited me recently. We have known each other

for over 30 years. We spoke about the old days as is the
practice when you become aware that you are most likely on
the back half of your life. You close your eyes and are
transported to the sights and sounds of those times when it was
easy to dream the dreams of youth.
The dreams of youth are external. They lie outside ones
yet-to-come experiences. As time passes and one experiences
life, this becomes the internal fodder for new dreams. They
become part of your soul. But the tragedies of life also become
the fodder for nightmares. The more severe the trial, the harder
it is to dream deep.
As Palestinians enter the sixth month of the Uprising
against a brutal Israeli Occupation, it is becoming clear that one
of the goals of Occupation is to eradicate the ability for
Palestinians to dream deep. Israelis understand this prerequisite
for Palestinians achieving their goal of freedom. If one can
thwart the dream, one automatically thwarts the goal.
Maintaining an Occupation is really about the attempt to
thwart dreams. When Israel bulldozes a Palestinian home it
believes it is bulldozing a dream. In the process it pushes even
further away, the goal of achieving freedom. Make no mistake
about it: when Israel destroys an olive grove it believes it is
destroying dreams.
But when the dreams are part of your soul, they can never
be destroyed. Israeli Occupation is effective in crushing the
bones of children. It is effective in robbing 2.7 million people
inside the Occupied territories of the joy of life. It is extremely
effective in limiting journeys from one village to the other.
Not even Israels might is able to stop the journey toward
freedom as long as the dream lives.
The apologists for Occupation believe Palestinians deserve
neither the goal of self-determination nor the goal of freedom.
This mindset creates an Occupation reality designed to snuff
out dreams. Even if Occupation snipers blind our youth, we
may not be able to see the stars, but we will continue to reach
for them. If Israelis conquer and confiscate our lands, they
cannot rob us of our dreams.
Israeli Occupation forces have maimed over 3000 people in
the last six months. This would be the equivalent of 311,100
Americans if the same percentages were applied. Yet
Occupation apologists would incredulously have us believe that
Israel is the victim of violence.
No matter how hard Israeli Occupation attempts to crush our

will, we realize that what lies behind us in our past and what
lies ahead in our future are of less import than what lies within
us as a people.
We will not stop searching for a new tomorrow. Our
dreams are forever.
33
Principles, Alliances and Interests
(10/17/02)
There are no permanent alliances, only

permanent interests.
Lord Palmerston, 19th century
British Foreign Secretary
Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos and

Chang Kai Shek might have thought that Lord Palmerstons
ghost invaded the Whitehouse. Each was allied closely with the
United States only to be cast away when the alliance no longer
served its interests. Ariel Sharon is in a similar position today and
is well aware of his dilemma. Israeli and US interests are rapidly
diverging and panic is setting in for Sharon. He understands, like
Palmerston, that interests trump all alliances. Interests trump all
principles. Let us examine this premise more closely.
War with Iraq

The recent vote in both houses of Congress authorizing
President Bush to use preemptive force offers a unique window
into a rare time in the history of the United States. We are
clearly witnessing the triumph of interests over the application
of principles. Never before has it been more nakedly obvious
that the driving forces behind foreign policy are not universally
applied principles but interests rationalized as principle.
Before we examine what interests are at stake for the US, let
us first consider the principles for which war against Iraq has
been enthusiastically forwarded.
Principle #1: Iraq is in violation of UN Security Council

Resolutions
This sounds pretty clear. Violate UN Security Council resolu-

tions and incur the wrath of either the UN or the US. But is this
a principle or causus belli? The short answer is no. Turkey is
presently in violation of 40 UN resolutions and Israel has defied
more UN resolutions than any other country in the world...
more than 70. So as a matter of principle, it is clear that defy-
ing UN resolutions has not yet risen to a principle for war.
Principle #2: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
Obviously this is not a principle that can be applied universally

(and all principles need universal application to be considered
principles). North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Turkey and
Egypt (not to mention the five permanent members of the
Security Council) all have weapons of mass destruction. If this
were a principle to be applied universally, then we would be dis-
arming a lot more people by going to war. Selective application
of a principle erodes its own authority.
Principle #3: Saddam is a dictator and no lover of freedom
This was true when he was a US ally and it is true now. It is true
for US allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, China, and so
many regimes. It is not close to being a rule, let alone principle, for
going to war. The US historic support for certain dictators is not a
new phenomenon and is not likely to subside in the near future as
long as the dictator in question acts in accordance with US wishes.
South Korea has been renounced for decades as one of the biggest
violators of human rights, yet it remains a steadfast ally of the US.
Principle #4: Saddam has brutalized his own people
The list of countries or dictators who have brutalized their own

people, with whom the US did not go to war, is lengthy. Even if
Principles, Alliances and Interests 103
we put aside the fact that Saddam brutalized his own people
while still a US ally, brutalizing ones own people has never been
a principle for war. Castro, Stalin and Mao are three tyrants
from history, and while only one survives today, the combined
total of their own people that were killed runs into the millions.
Despots tyrannize their own people... otherwise they would not
be tyrants. This does not rise to the level of a principle for war.
Principle #5: Iraq poses a great threat to the US
Does the appearance of a threat become a principle for war?

This has never been the case. In the past, the former Soviet
Union and China posed much greater threats to the US than
Iraq presently does. Elevating a threat to a principle for going
to war could then justify an Iraqi attack on the USsince, as
such, it undeniably threatens Iraq. Principles are not deter-
mined by where one lives.
So if principles are not behind the US policy of war, what inter-

ests are?
When no discernible principle is present, look to interests as
the animating factor behind policy. And the granddaddy of all
interests is oil. Saudi Arabia is not a stable regime.
If the regime should fall, it would be difficult for a US occu-
pation of Islams holiest site. Iraq has the second largest oil
reserves in the world. If the US deems it is in its interests to
secure Iraqs oil reserves, then it will attack and occupy this less
sensitive place. All of the posturing of principle is disingenuous
and rather silly.
The British Empire of Lord Palmerston did not have to
think about the same principles that the US must consider. US
principles, at least those of the founding fathers, actually stand
in opposition to Empire (the revolution was decidedly against
the Empire). Because the US was founded on precepts inimical
to Empire, it takes an Orwellian feat to conjure principles
where none exist.
The American people want to believe that principles matter.

They do not wish to believe that Lord Palmerstons ethic runs
rampant. That is why so much energy has been expended by the
administration, House and Senate. They tried to create the illu-
sion that there are solid principles behind attacking Iraq.
Who would support the war if the truth were well known?
Master Nazi propagandist Goebbels said:
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State
can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the great-
est enemy of the State.
About the Author
Jaffer Ali is a Palestinian-American businessman who has been
writing on politics and business ethics for over twenty-five
years. He credits his political sensibilities to his father and the
time he spent going to school in Ramallah. Jaffer came back to
the US in 1967, two months before the war.
He is editor and contributor to Viewpoint, the largest publi-
cation dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the English
language. Jaffer is the author of Corporate Soul and co-author
of a book based on the psychological television series, The
Prisoner. He has also written more than 150 essays and articles
published globally on corporate ethics and Middle East politics.
Jaffer received his undergraduate degree in business from
the University of Illinois and graduate degree in Political
Philosophy from Arizona State University. Currently he is the
CEO of Penn Media, www.pennmedia.com, one of the largest
online media and publishing companies.

Ali Palestine and The Middle East A Chronicle of Passion and Politics 2003

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ali Palestine and The Middle East A Chronicle of Passion and Politics 2003

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Preface

1. The Making of a Palestinian 1

21. Inside the LabyrinthPart One 57

About the Author 105

Amidst the polemics that rage on and off line, sometimes it is

It was the next year in school that the teacher assigned

Monday night, I heard an analyst say that we had not tapped

Ill let you in on a little secret. The same dreams in

Syrian despotism is well known. Syria can occupy neighbor-

The horrendous events of this past week need to be put into

And what is the problem? Occupation. Collective punishment

My cousin phoned me yesterday to tell me he saw our 80-year-old

does work. Children as human shields... a practice Israelis long

Language is truly an amazing phenomenon. It is as if words

Dr. Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal has

The group is focused on a living leader or idea to whom

I am not sure if Zionism has ever been considered as a cult

A normal level of psychological development and personality

After a recent suicide bombing that was reported on television,

When a people have been stripped of everything they have, are

It is strange to be writing a letter about Occupation while I sit

The Occupiers relationship with the Occupied is like that

Zionism as a political philosophy is losing its appeal to

In the New World Order, Israel is the odd man out.

The terrible toll in Israel and the Occupied territories mounts

In its role as scapegoat for the regions troubles, Israel was a

the entire Western world. Israel, once a quasi-guarantor of

Arafat may be blamed for using corruption to control those

inserts the notion of insuring a Jewish majority into its

* Race by definition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 1. a family,

A Palestinian growing up outside ones ancestral home often

to diminish its precepts. Every solution that carries within its

One of the most difficult things to do when engaged in a life

The American administration should take a firm and

Any attack on Iraq or Iran should not be contemplated

Instead of hiring suspect spin-doctors and Hollywood

What each of these quotations has in common is the appeal

But the selection of the quotations above clearly demonstrates

We have lived the Dalai Lamas words when he said,

It is in the inherent nature of human beings to yearn for

Every once in a great while one or more events occur that

The chasm is proving Israels well-worn strategy obsolete.

members from each other is just one of the torments of

from the Health, Development, Information, and Policy Institute

As of 2/13/01, number of Palestinians killed since the

This is the torment of Israeli Occupation.

The days for unqualified US support for Israel are rapidly

Instead of treading these waters, it is obvious that Israel is

powerful Shah of Iran. Revolution is not conducive to a steady

The uprising against Israeli Occupation has fundamentally

Israel and its supporters will be no more successful in justi-

In 1991 off the coast of Bermuda, a once-in-a-lifetime

translate into oil interests. For the first 53 years of Israels

But as the 20th Century drew to a close, we witnessed the col-

to Jews all over the world. This will exacerbate the

Pyrrhus was the Greek king of Epirus. In 281 BC he invaded

returning to the safe haven of Brooklyn, Miami or from wher-

I want an agreement, but first they have to be

The most current and succinct way to describe US foreign policy

For Americans, the disquieting feeling emerging over this policy

illegal Occupation. Israelis are seen as using American arms to

increasingly harsh terms. America was once seen to embody