Nakba Day: Remembering Palestine's 1948 Humanitarian Disaster

Check out some interesting reading on the matter here and here.

Palestinian protestor uses tennis racket to smack back tear gas canister fired by Israeli troops (Reuters)

May 14, 2018: US inaugurates its newest embassy in Jerusalem while IDF shot dead over 50 unarmed Palestinians protesters and injured more than 2400, on the Gaza border.

Photo by Reuters

MSM wants the spotlight on Iran

Documentary: IRAN (Is Not The Problem)

Ten years later and it still makes sense....

"We have heard that Iran is a nuclear menace in defiance of the international community, bent on "wiping Israel off the map", supporting terrorism, and unwilling to negotiate. This documentary disputes these claims as they are presented to us and puts them in the context of present and historical US imperialism and hypocrisy with respect to Iran. It looks at the struggle for democracy inside Iran, the consequences of the current escalation and the potential US and/or Israeli attack, and suggests some alternatives to consider."

When Israel Meets Opposition

From the left to the right: MEP Ana Gomes, MEPNeokilis Sylikiotis and Omar Barghouti, European Parliament, February 2018.

The Portuguese MEP Ana Gomes is at odds with Israeli organisations that accused her of being “anti-Semitic”, following an event at the European Parliament, in Brussels, on February 28.

The accusations sprung up in a conference co-hosted by the S&D Ana Gomes, with MEP Neokilis Sylikiotis, entitled “The Israeli Settlements in Palestine and the European Union”. During her speech, Gomes condemned the organisations as a "very perverse lobby that tries to intimidate people."

Gomes claimed the Israeli delegations in Brussels attempted to block her from hosting Palestinian human rights campaigner Omar Barghouti for a debate at the European Parliament.

The panel that caused jitters

Before the conference took place, the Jewish organisations opposed to Ana Gomes’ host Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (DBS), a movement working “to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law”.

On February 14, ahead of the conference, the Jewish communities of Lisbon and Belgium, the European Jewish Congress, ELNET, AJC Transatlantic Institute, the European Union of Jewish Students and the B’nai B’rith International penned a letter to the president of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani expressing “deep concern and opposition” over Barghouti’s invitation.

Barghouti is a fierce defender of the Palestinian state and his presence at the Parliament sparked waves. Often caractherised as an eloquent speaker, Barghouti has authored two books - Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights and The Case for Sanctions Against Israel - being the latter of evident disagreement with Israeli policy. 

Gomes denounces smear campaign

It seems there’s more to add to this political clash. On March 7, Ana Gomes presented a letter to the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, the High representative Federica Mogherini and to the EU watchdog Emily O’Reily demanding an investigation to the Commission’s officer Katharina Schnurbein and the EU delegation to Israel.

On her letter, Gomes declared being victim of a smear campaign: “I later learnt that this campaign had an instrumental promoter in Ms Katharina Schnurbein, appointed in December 2015 as the European Coordinator on combating anti-Semitism at the European Commission. Ms Schnurbein helped spread accusations misconstruing my legitimate denunciation of ‘a very perverse lobby that tells lies and uses intimidation tactics’ to prevent discussion on Israel illegal occupation and settlements in Palestine.”

Back in June 2016, the Electronic Intifada, an independent online news publication focusing on Palestine, accused Schnurbein of “smearing the Palestine solidarity movement”. At stake were, according to the author David Cronin, unfounded declarations stating: “Reports show that anti-Semitic incidents rise after BDS activities on campuses.” According to Cronin, such evidence was never found.  

Recently on April 25, the same publication denounced “B’nai B’rith expends much of its efforts attacking people who defend Palestinian rights against Israel’s abuses and war crimes, and promoting the Israeli government’s positions.”

Jewish organisations in uproar 

The Brussels-based EU office of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) reacted in fury calling on the European Parliament to “discipline” Gomes. On March 19, the European Jewish Congress released a joint statement on behalf of Jewish organisations urging the European Commission to publicly condemn the S&D MEP. Nonetheless, the umbrella of Jewish organisations was not so prompt to reply to online criticism on the social media network Twitter.

How is Israel’s criticism defined?

The words proffered by MEP Ana Gomes have been subject to open criticism and countless interpretations, thereby bringing to light what exactly is considered criticism of Israel.

Firstly, it is of imperative importance that one does not confound the Israeli people with Israeli organisations or the Israeli state. This is a very dangerous generalisation that must be demystified. For that purpose, the British historian and author Alison Weir wrote a piece for Global Research, a Canadian-based independent research media organisation, where she debunks the semantics around the definition of anti-Semitism. On her 2017 May article entitled “International Campaign is Criminalising Criticism of Israel as  ‘Anti-Semitism’”, Weir claims that:

“Where most people would consider “anti-Semitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an Israel-centric definition.” Weir argues that the definition acts as an instrument of censorship saying that it  “can then be used to block speech and activism in support of Palestinian human rights as ‘hate.’”

Originally, the definition of this new concept was associated to a man named Natan Sharansky, who was Israel’s Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharansky founded a Global Forum against Anti-Semitism in 2003, stating: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

On the fall of 2004, Sharansky wrote a position paper claiming, “Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”

Such claims establish a very narrow window to Israel’s criticism, almost suggesting that any sort of disapproval or denunciation of actions coming from Israel is a blasphemy.

Final remarks

The concept of free speech is hailed in the European Union as an elementary pillar of the block. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union expresses: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers; 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.”

Ana Gomes’ case and specific words - "a very perverse lobby that tries to intimidate people" – where nothing but her viewpoint and opinion. Anyone is allowed to agree or disagree, however, accusing the S&D MEP of anti-Semitism is a serious accusation that goes a step further.

If the Israeli organisations are to openly attack every individual who speaks up against the conduct of Israel, a fair discussion ought to be hailed where a full picture should be considered when accusing someone’s actions and behavior.

Chemical attacks and other motivations behind Trump’s recent raids

Article published in Katoikos

                                           U.S. Navy Destroyers Launch Strikes on Syria on April 7, 2017 © Google

International finger-pointing will not bring justice for the chemical attack in Syria. With tensions running high, only a thorough investigation can reveal the truth and diffuse the critical situation.

The recent US airstrikes on the Al-Sha’ayrat airbase were the first time in six years that Washington has directly interfered in the Syrian conflict, and they bring to the surface memories of the US invasion of Iraq, in March 2003.

These warlike actions have triggered a diplomatic row throughout the international community. The question of who is responsible for the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoum, in the district of Idlib, which killed dozens of civilians, remains open. It also seems clear that US President Donald Trump’s order for the raid was not only a knee-jerk reaction to the use of chemical weapons but should be seen in a wider geopolitical context. The blame game has started once again and the international community is deeply divided and apprehensive as to what will follow.

 United States

At the United Nations, on 7 April, US Ambassador Nikki Hailey delivered an accusatory speech blaming the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian regime. Hailey claimed: “Assad did this [chemical attack] because he thought he could get away with it as he knew Russia would have his back.” A different opinion was expressed by Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who affirmed during a CNN interview that “what matters here is the evidence and the facts”, after having characterised Trump’s military airstrikes as “reckless”. In addition, Gabbard acknowledged being “sceptical” of Assad’s involvement in the chemical attack.

Moreover, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard whether she believed the Pentagon’s claims of having evidence to prove Assad’s culpability. She replied that “they did not bring up that evidence before Congress, to the American people”, further adding that “they have not sought authorisation from Congress to launch this military action on another country”. The Congresswoman accused the US of for years “waging this war covertly through the CIA” in order to overthrow the Syrian government.

Meanwhile, on 11 April, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went on his first official visit to Russia with the arduous quest of trying to convince Moscow to choose sides. Tillerson posed a “friendly ultimatum” to  Moscow, requesting that the Russians join the US and “their like-minded people” or remain on the side of Assad and Iran.

Syria and Russia

Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister Walid al-Moallem stated on Thursday, 6 April, that the Syrian Army did not use chemical weapons “even against the terrorists” who threaten their own people. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, he considers the US strikes on Syria to represent “an act of aggression against a sovereign country violating the norms of international law”. Furthermore, the Russian leader requested theUS to provide the evidence they claim to have: “Show it to UN observers and at the Security Council,” said Putin.

The recent veto from Russia at the Security Council on the draft US-UK resolution to punish Assad for the chemical attack thus came as no surprise.

Europe’s reactions

The US attack hailed a low-point for trust between Russia and the US, prompting international reactions that reveal very different positions. Overall in the West, the main chorus of voices can be heard clinging to the premise that “Assad must go”.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have attributed responsibility for the attacks to Assad alone. Merkel characterised the US airstrikes as “understandable”, given the critical situation in Syria.

The UK has also stood beside the US, with Prime Minister Theresa May demanding an investigation into the attack, while defending the view that Assad cannot stay in power. Yet, British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stated that Britain would not be joining airstrikes in Syria. A different position was adopted by Peter Ford, an ex-UK Ambassador who gave an interview defending that it is “highly unlikely” that Assad or Russia were behind the chemical attacks. Ford claims that the Assad regime was aware that it would never have benefited from such an assault.

If this form of atrocity seems like an act of desperation, why would the Syrian regime jeopardise its reputation in a war in which it is has lately gained the upper hand? Equally odd is the immediate response by the US, just two days after the incident. A fact that gave the Russian Foreign Ministry a good opportunity to accuse Washington of “preparing the airstrikes” long before the attack in Idlib.

At EU level, Foreign Affairs chief Federica Mogherini was quick to respond to the chemical attack, saying that “there was a primary responsibility” from the Syrian government. However, on behalf of the EU, she has condemned the US airstrikes of 6 April. At the same time, following her recent official visit to Moscow, Mogherini reaffirmed the EU’s stance on extending Russian sanctions.

NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in an official statement that “the Syrian regime bears the full responsibility for this development”. The organisation’s chief further stated that “NATO has consistently condemned Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons as a clear breach of international norms and agreements”, even though, so far, no real proof of such accusations has been made public.

Turkey and the Israeli Connection

Turkey belittled the US attack as a “cosmetic intervention” that will not serve to oust Assad. Israel and its security officials, meanwhile, said it was only “highly probable” that the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian regime.

There is another surprising thing about Trump’s swift military response: the policy that he promptly followed was very much aligned with Hillary Clinton’s conviction, as revealed by Wikileaks, that “the best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad”, an ally of would-be nuclear power Iran.

According to the Syrian analyst Afraa Dagher, it was no coincidence that the US chose Al-sha’ayrat airbase as a target: “The Al-Sha’ayrat airbase was the place from which Syria fired anti-missile Sam rockets at attacking Israeli warplanes, two weeks ago. Syria downed one of the four warplanes, hit another and forced the remaining two fighter jets to quickly fly out of Syrian airspace.” Dagher believes Trump’s actions have sent a strong message of support to Israel, which continues its illegal occupation of the Syrian territory of Golan Heights.

Further research from the Canada-based organisation Global Research has brought to light information stating that the “Pentagon trained Syria’s Al-Qaeda “rebels” in the use of chemical weapons”. This piece of news was originally published in the British Daily Mail in January 2013, but it has vanished from the website after the controversy around the “mysterious” chemical attack followed by the US airstrikes on Syria. Furthermore, before these airstrikes, Assad gave an interview to a Cypriot paper, in which he pointedly stated that “to protect Europe from terrorists, (the West) should stop backing them in Syria”.

Wikileaks revelations with Geopolitical Implications

To add fuel to this diplomatic conflict, Wikileaks revealed US State Department plans to destabilise Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2006. Additional cables revealed the existence of CIA involvement on the ground in Syria, fomenting mass demonstrations as early as March 2011.

The leaks suggest direct involvement by the Israeli government in the plans to provoke civil conflict and sectarianism through partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt, aimed at demolishing the power structure in Syria in order to weaken Iran and Hezbollah.

According to Mint PressNews, “It became then evident that the US, UK, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be jumping on to organise, arm and finance rebels from the Free Syrian Army.” In 2012, “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People” was created by these very nations with an agenda to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “The plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear a coup,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

As always, global energy supply may shed some light on possible geopolitical motivations. According to one view by Dmitry Minin, published in May 2013 by the Strategic Cultural Foundation, based in Moscow, “a battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realised that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favour of Iran and Russia; thus, it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.”

What’s next?

Russia and Iran, the alliance behind Assad, have warned that they will retaliate should red lines be crossed again. While the drums of war are being banged with increasing intensity and the investigations at a standstill, with Russia and the West unable or unwilling to agree even on basic facts, it is crucial to conduct an independent, in-depth investigation in order to bring to justice those who are responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria.