Cairo Post

 

So the Democrats swept Congress, although the feeling and excitement of the moment was muted by being far away in Cairo.

I volunteered briefly for the DNC in Boston in 2004, working at post-convention parties and attending one night of the convention (by chance the night of Barack Obama’s keynote address). His speech aside, I was disillusioned by the big money, big party pomp of a political convention; my job as a "Finance Volunteer" was to direct people to the bar at the Science Museum party and stand around looking formal, accepting compliments from drunk delegates trying to get into the roped-off VIP area to see Wesley Clark.

There is some lingering disappointment in this Democratic sweep, since I know a shift in parties does not mean a shift in American policy in the Middle East. This is not directed at Iraq; our interests will leave us in Iraq for a few years no matter who is in power. Oil and stability are too precious.

This is directed at the elephant that is the Palestine-Israel conflict and the connected conflicts between Israel and neighboring Arab states. American politics is stuck in a dialogue about Israel’s right to defend itself, the monolith of "militants" and "extremists," and an apparent need to either look tough on security, appeal a vague idea of "the Jewish vote," or listen to AIPAC (probably all three). Today’s rejection of the UN Security Council condemnation of the Beit Hanoun killings is John Bolton’s work, to be sure, but it’s hard to think that a Democratic-appointed UN representative would act any differently.

The big faces and talking heads of the party have clear positions when it comes to Israel. Last summer, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin condemned Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki’s statement about Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, threatening to boycott his then-upcoming speech to Congress. In the House, Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi echoed their calls.

What, after all, had the Iraqi PM said?

That the international community should "take a quick and firm stance to stop this aggression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure. What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force that Israel has — and Lebanon does not."

Not off the mark, if you look at the rubble, but deniable if you’re a Democrat or a Republican in Congress.

Late last summer, NY Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who once wanted to be mayor of New York City, tried to bar a Palestinian delegation at the UN. They "should start packing their little Palestinian terrorist bags," the Congressman said of the delegation. Weiner later wrote a letter to Columbia urging the firing of Joseph Massad, a professor of Arab politics for his "displays of anti-Semitism."

Here is one of the briefings on AIPAC’s website after the election:

AIPAC Builds Ties With New Lawmakers
AIPAC reached nearly every lawmaker elected in Tuesday’s mid-term congressional elections as part of its effort to educate political candidates on the value of the U.S.-Israel relationship. During the campaign that ended Tuesday, nearly every viable candidate met with AIPAC professional staff members and submitted a position paper summarizing his or her views on U.S. Middle East policy. A non-partisan organization, AIPAC has for decades worked with Republican and Democratic members of Congress to strengthen the ties between the United States and Israel.

Nancy Pelosi is a definite improvement over Dennis Hastert. But here’s Pelosi at an AIPAC delegation in May 2005, via Counterpunch:

"There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."

Apparently Pelosi has never asked a Palestinian what they think of Israel’s brutality. Not that she hasn’t witnessed the occupation first hand; Pelosi is just not concerned in the least with the Palestinian resistance.

"This spring, I was in Israel as part of a congressional trip that also took us to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq," said Pelosi. "One of the most powerful experiences was taking a helicopter toward Gaza, over the path of the security fence. We set down in a field that belonged to a local kibbutz. It was a cool but sunny day, and the field was starting to bloom with mustard. Mustard is a crop that grows in California, and it felt at that moment as if I were home. And then we were told that the reason we had to land in that field, as opposed to our actual destination, was because there had been an infiltration that morning, and they weren’t sure how secure the area was. And that point alone brought us back to the daily reality of Israel: even moments of peace and beauty are haunted by the specter of violence."

Yes. And perhaps if Pelosi had gone over that security fence and into Gaza, she would have seen that violence is not a specter in the Occupied Terrorties, like it is in the mustard fields of Israel that remind Pelosi of California.

 

 

For a long time Robert Fisk has filed Middle East stories for The Independent you wouldn’t find in any mainstream American paper. This summer as he documented the Israeli destruction of Lebanon better than most, he reiterated the line that Hizbullah started the war. Not surprising to read in a newspaper, where it’s most often history that gets cut during copy. But Fisk went farther, as Jonathan Cook points out in this critique:

The problem is in his constantly aired statement that “Hizbollah provoked this war by capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three others on 12 July” (16 Aug 2006). Left as a simple statement of fact, it could be allowed to pass without comment. But Fisk repeatedly adds a series of further insinuations: that Hizbullah wanted Israel to attack, that it planned the war (not just that it planned for the war), that it knew precisely the scale of destruction Israel would unleash, that it was following Syria’s orders, and that by implication Syria — and possibly Hizbullah — wanted Lebanon’s destruction.

I haven’t been watching Fox News here in Cairo. I do at home now and then, mostly with my sister, when we want to reevaluate our Boston isolation, or more often just laugh depressingly at the slick deception of Rupert Murdoch’s programs. I don’t know if O’Reilly’s been quoting Fox correspondents saying similar things. Maybe.

But Fisk’s reporting usually stands out from the glut of articles written with a State Department glossary and a copy of Muslim Rage. What’s going on?

Surely, after the apparent inconsistencies in Fisk’s own commentaries over more than a month of reporting, his readers deserve a profounder summation of his views than this. How and why did two hostile sides — Syria, and Israel and the US — both plan a war, much at the same time, whose outcome was the certain destruction of Lebanon?

We can speculate about Israel’s interests in doing this. It may have hoped to provoke a civil war in Lebanon, much as it is trying to do in Gaza, to weaken its neighbor. It may have believed that by terrifying the general Lebanese population from the south, it could permanently reoccupy the area. It may also have hoped that, if it were winning such a war, it could drag in Syria and Iran.

But why would Syria want Lebanon destroyed? A fit of pique at being expelled from Lebanon last year according to US designs for a Cedar Revolution? Is that Fisk’s conclusion?

Read the rest of Cook here.