ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

... On the contrary the entire Jewish lobby echoed in precise detail the Israeli lies that the Lebanese deaths were caused by the Lebanese resistance's "use of human shields", despite the total devastation of the heavily populated southern suburbs of Beirut, completely out of range of any Hezbollah rockets.... .

The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism'
By Eric Margolis

08/29/06 "Lew Rockwell" -- -- The latest big lie unveiled by Washington's neoconservatives are the poisonous terms, "Islamo-Fascists" and "Islamic Fascists." They are the new, hot buzzwords among America's far right and Christian fundamentalists.

President George W. Bush made a point last week of using "Islamofacists" when recently speaking of Hezbullah and Hamas - both, by the way, democratically elected parties. A Canadian government minister from the Conservative Party compared Lebanon's Hezbullah to Nazi Germany.

The term "Islamofascist" is utterly without meaning, but packed with emotional explosives. It is a propaganda creation worthy Dr. Goebbles, and the latest expression of the big lie technique being used by neocons in Washington's propaganda war against its enemies in the Muslim World.

This ugly term was probably first coined in Israel - as was the other hugely successful propaganda term, "terrorism" - to dehumanize and demonize opponents and deny them any rational political motivation, hence removing any need to deal with their grievances and demands.

As the brilliant humanist Sir Peter Ustinov so succinctly put it, "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

Both the terms "terrorism" and "fascist" have been so abused and overused that they have lost any original meaning. The best modern definition I've read of fascism comes in former Colombia University Professor Robert Paxton's superb 2004 book, The Anatomy of Fascism.

Paxton defines fascism's essence, which he aptly terms its "emotional lava" as: 1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one's group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign "contamination."

Fascism demands a succession of wars, foreign conquests, and national threats to keep the nation in a state of fear, anxiety and patriotic hypertension. Those who disagree are branded ideological traitors. All successful fascists regimes, Paxton points out, allied themselves to traditional conservative parties, and to the military-industrial complex.

Highly conservative and militaristic regimes are not necessarily fascist, says Paxton. True fascism requires relentless aggression abroad and a semi-religious adoration of the regime at home.

None of the many Muslim groups opposing US-British control of the Mideast fit Paxton's definitive analysis. The only truly fascist group ever to emerge in the Mideast was Lebanon's Maronite Christian Phalange Party in the 1930's which, ironically, became an ally of Israel's rightwing in the 1980's.

It is grotesque watching the Bush Administration and Tony Blair maintain the ludicrous pretense they are re-fighting World War II. The only similarity between that era and today is the cultivation of fear, war fever and racist-religious hate by US neoconservatives and America's religious far right, which is now boiling with hatred for anything Muslim.

Under the guise of fighting a "third world war" against "Islamic fascism," America's far right is infecting its own nation with the harbingers of WWII totalitarianism.

In the western world, hatred of Muslims has become a key ideological hallmark of rightwing parties. We see this overtly in the United States, France, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Poland, and, most lately, Canada, and more subtly expressed in Britain and Belgium. The huge uproar over blatantly anti-Muslim cartoons published in Denmark laid bare the seething Islamophobia spreading through western society.

There is nothing in any part of the Muslim World that resembles the corporate fascist states of western history. In fact, clan and tribal-based traditional Islamic society, with its fragmented power structures, local loyalties, and consensus decision-making, is about as far as possible from western industrial state fascism.

The Muslim World is replete with brutal dictatorships, feudal monarchies, and corrupt military-run states, but none of these regimes, however deplorable, fits the standard definition of fascism. Most, in fact, are America's allies.

Nor do underground Islamic militant groups ("terrorists" in western terminology). They are either focused on liberating land from foreign occupation, overthrowing "un-Islamic" regimes, driving western influence from their region, or imposing theocracy based on early Islamic democracy.

Claims by fevered neoconservatives that Muslim radicals plan to somehow impose a worldwide Islamic caliphate are lurid fantasies worthy of Dr. Fu Manchu and yet another example of the big lie technique that worked so well over Iraq.

As Prof. Andrew Bosworth notes in an incisive essay on so-called Islamic fascism, "Islamic fundamentalism is a transnational movement inherently opposed to the pseudo-nationalism necessary for fascism."

However, there are plenty of modern fascists. But to find them, you have to go to North America and Europe. These neo-fascists advocate "preemptive attacks against all potential enemies," grabbing other nation's resources, overthrowing uncooperative governments, military dominance of the world, hatred of Semites (Muslims in this case), adherence to biblical prophecies, hatred of all who fail to agree, intensified police controls, and curtailment of "liberal" political rights.

They revel in flag-waving, patriotic melodrama, demonstrations of military power, and use the mantle of patriotism to feather the nests of the military-industrial complex, colluding legislators and lobbyists. They urge war to the death, fought, of course, by other people's children. They have turned important sectors of the media into propaganda organs and brought the Pentagon largely under their control.

Now, the neoconservatives are busy whipping up war against Syria and Iran to keep themselves in power and maintain the political dynamics of this 21st century revival of fascism.

The real modern fascists are not in the Muslim World, but Washington. The neocons screaming fascist the loudest, are the true fascists themselves. It's a pity that communist and leftist propaganda so debased the term "neo-fascist" that it has become almost meaningless. Because that is what we should be calling the so-called neocons, for that is what they really are.

August 29, 2006

Eric Margolis, contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website. http://www.ericmargolis.com/

Israeli Apartheid

Segregation, Control and the Creation of Bantustans in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

By Owen Powell

08/29/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The question of Israel as an apartheid state has received increasing attention over the last years as Israel has continued colonial expansion in the West Bank while simultaneously attempting to diverge itself from the Palestinians. The purpose of this article is to highlight the growing systemization of apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) with particular reference to Israel's policy of unilateral disengagement. The need for this debate is highlighted by the effective outcomes of disengagement which has already resulted in the segregation of Palestinian communities and delineation of exclusive Jewish space by means of the segregation barrier. Furthermore the creation of Palestinian enclaves or ghettos in the OPT bears a striking resemblance to the South African policies during the apartheid era which sought the establishment Bantustans as a means to facilitate segregation and to secure privileges for an ethnic minority.

The term "Bantustan" refers to an apartheid regime policy which set about the creation of "independent" homelands for black South Africans. These homelands possessed no genuine sovereignty and consisted of fragmented pieces of land in which the white authorities attempted to force people to live. Boundaries of the Bantustans were typically drawn to exclude valuable resources and arable land. The Bantustan policy was policy designed to facilitate the control of natural resources, exploitation of black South Africans and the delineation of excusive "white" space.

Expression of the term "apartheid" has been used to describe Israel's policies by a variety of prominent individuals including anti-apartheid campaigner Desmond Tutu, Israeli academics, left wing members of Israel's parliament and Palestinian human rights campaigners. Comparing the Bantustan policy to Israel's creation of Palestinian ghettos in the OPT shows the similarity of Zionist agenda to the racist ambitions of the South African apartheid regime. Enclaves in the West Bank are defined by the segregation wall, Jewish colonies, by pass roads, Israeli military orders and land restrictions. The Palestinian ghettos like the Bantustans are designed specifically to separate the native population for their land and resources and to enable the growth of Israeli settlements. In addition to this, the creation of enclaves surrounded by Israeli territory enables enhanced monitoring while acting as captive markets for Israeli goods and services.

Origins of Israeli apartheid date back to the occupation of West Bank and Gaza. Colonization of these areas immediately raised the question of what to do with the native inhabitants who would be act as an obstacle to colonial expansion while presenting a demographic threat to Israel's Jewish character. Up until the fist Intifada, the Zionist elite did not attempt to comprehensively address the Arab question. For instance, mass forced transfer of Palestinians was discussed but ultimately not adopted. Instead Israel preferred to ignore the presence of Arabs and continue building settlements and appropriating resources; attempting to create "positive" conditions in the OPT for the continued out migration of Palestinians particularly in East Jerusalem and along Israel's border regions. In this sense apartheid has not been an official policy of the state of Israel. Instead it has gradually manifested in the OPT as the logical conclusion to Zionist colonial ambitions which wants the land without the people.

Israel's unilateral disengagement is the final phase of the systemization of Israeli apartheid and adaptation to the social and political realities of occupation. The first Intifada sent a message to the Zionist elite that Palestinians would no longer tolerate occupation and the denial of their rights. More importantly it highlighted that in Palestinian areas would be difficult to control thus necessitating some form of disengagement.

Prior to the fist Intifada Israel was opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state considering all of Palestine to be rightful property of the Jewish people. However, with the emergence of resistance the two-state solution has been assimilated within Zionist colonial ambitions as a means of finally addressing the "Arab question". The creation of Palestinian "Bantustans" has enabled Israel to appear to be appeasing Palestinians by ending the occupation and giving them an independent "homeland". However, its ultimate purpose is to facilitate the preservation of Jewish space while increasing Israel's territory and control over resources for the benefit of its Jewish citizens.

Despite the apparent "closure" of unilateral disengagement, by observing population and social trends, this policy will ultimately fail in addressing Israel's security and demographic concerns. Palestinian populations in both Israel and the OPT are rapidity increasing and will continue to challenge the validity of a Jewish state where a sizable proportion of the population will be non-Jewish. Furthermore, as Israel continues colonization there is no guarantee that Palestinians will stop fighting for their rights and accept the "state" that Israel hands them. In twenty years time we might be seeing the Palestinian struggle less in terms of a national liberation movement but something similar to the black South African struggle against apartheid within a single state.

Owen Powell lives in Bethlehem, Palestine and is an assistant researcher at the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ).

Bibliography

Falah GW. (2004) War, Peace and Land Seizure in Palestine's Border Area Third World Quarterly 25 955-975

Falah GW. (2005) The Geopolitics of 'Enclavisation' and the Demise of a Two State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Third World Quarterly 26 1341-1372

Issac J., Qumsieh V., Owewi M., Hrimat N., Sabbah W., Sha'lan B., Hosh L., Bassous R., Al Hodali D., Al Dajani N., Abu Amrieh M., Al Junaidi F., Neiroukh F., Sleibi O., Al Halaykah A., Quttosh N., Al A'raj I., Zboun I. (1997) The Status of Environment in the West Bank Bethlehem: ARIJ, 1997

Isaac J., Rishmawi K., Safar A. (2004), The Impact of Israel's Unilateral Actions on the Palestinian Environment, Palestinian and Israeli Environmental Narratives, 5-8 December 2004, York University, Toronto

Jarbawi A. (2005) Remaining Palestinian Options Middle Eastern Studies 8 118-121

Lappin S. (2004) "Israel/Palestine: Is there a Case for Bi-Nationalism?" Dissent Magazine Winter, 2004

Morag N. (2001) Water, Geopolitics and State Building: A Case for Israel Middle Eastern Studies 8 179-198

Reuveny, R. (2005) The Binational State and the Colonial Imperative The Arab World Geographer 8 109-117

Moughrabi F. (2005) Waiting for the Barbarians: When Palestine Becomes Finland The Arab World Geographer 8 130-132

RAND (2005) Building a Successful Palestinian State RAND Corperation URL: http//www.rand.org

Sayigh Y. (2005) Closing Window of Opportunity for the Two-State Solution The Arab World Geographer 8 122-124

Schnell I. (2005) A Route Leading to Separation and Peace The Arab World Geographer 8 147-152

Tillely V. (2005) From "Jewish State and Arab State" to "Israel and Palestine"? International Norms, Ethnocracy, and the Two-State Solution The Arab World Geographer 8 140-146

Yiftachel O. (2005) Neither Two States or One: The Disengagement and "Creeping Apartheid" in Israel/Palestine The Arab World Geographer 8 125-129

Location: Washington DC...

...The term "Islamofascist" is utterly without meaning, but packed with emotional explosives. It is a propaganda creation worthy Dr. Goebbles, and the latest expression of the big lie technique being used by neocons in Washington's propaganda war against its enemies in the Muslim World.

This ugly term was probably first coined in Israel...

...
We disagree. I cannot prove to you my crystal ball is better than your crystal ball any more than you can prove the reverse to me. My crystal ball says the ITs (i.e., the Islamo-totalitarians) are evolving their ability to destroy America or our system of governance.

There's our choice:

Negotiate away our freedoms to the ITs over time in the false hope we can that way postpone or negotiate away confrontations;

or,

Give up some of our freedoms for a short time to enable us to completely defeat the ITs, and thereby rescue and retain all of our freedoms.

...

Specifically, which freedoms are you claiming would have to be negotiated away? Specifically, please.

Remember that we would not be negotiating with terrorists themselves, but the societies in which they inhabit.

Cycloptichorn

Osa: We want all Americans to leave Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine including Sinai.

Ram: We want all coalition forces to be no closer than 1,000 miles from the borders of any of these countries.
...
Moh: We will not stop the killing until all Americans leave our lands.
...
Osa: You Americans must accept our devotion to Allah and our one-world religion and culture, and eventually convert to it.
...
Osa: You 300 million Americans have spent more than 300 billion on the first three years of your fruitless escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's more than $333 per American per year. Collectively, we are a population of say 100 million. So instead pay us 100 billion dollars over three years, and we will save you lots of money, and stop the killing, if you move your troops at least 1,000 miles from the borders of any of the countries we specified ...
...
Jack: But they haven't agreed to disarm. That could mean they intend to build up their weapons for a later war using the 33 billion a year we pay them.
...

Yes, we would be negotiating with IT, because IT controls the murderers of non-combatants throughout the world and cannot be held accountable for their actions by "the societies in which they inhabit", or be compelled to abide by agreements negotiated by "the societies in which they inhabit".

ican711nm wrote:
Osa: We want all Americans to leave Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine including Sinai.

Ram: We want all coalition forces to be no closer than 1,000 miles from the borders of any of these countries.
...
Moh: We will not stop the killing until all Americans leave our lands.
...
Osa: You Americans must accept our devotion to Allah and our one-world religion and culture, and eventually convert to it.
...
Osa: You 300 million Americans have spent more than 300 billion on the first three years of your fruitless escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's more than $333 per American per year. Collectively, we are a population of say 100 million. So instead pay us 100 billion dollars over three years, and we will save you lots of money, and stop the killing, if you move your troops at least 1,000 miles from the borders of any of the countries we specified ...
...
Jack: But they haven't agreed to disarm. That could mean they intend to build up their weapons for a later war using the 33 billion a year we pay them.
...

As an alternative, we could offer to help the IT's reach paradise.

Quote:

Yes, we would be negotiating with IT, because IT controls the murderers of non-combatants throughout the world and cannot be held accountable for their actions by "the societies in which they inhabit", or be compelled to abide by agreements negotiated by "the societies in which they inhabit".

You are 100% incorrect with this statement.

For example, we here in America hold our terrorists and those who would disrupt society accountable. Our citizens do not harbor or support them, and they generally are not successful in their attempts to disrupt order. In fact, most world nations ar ethis way.

I'm 100% right!

Those Muslim nations currently harboring IT are not anything like America and are not able to act like they were, because the IT control those nations. When the IT in those nations are completely defeated, then those Muslim nations will be able to prevent future IT from killing non-combatants.

IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists)

Why would the Muslim societies be unable to do so, once they are convinced that it is the right thing to do? They would be compelled to abide by the agreements, because without them they would lose the popular support that they enjoy which allows them to carry out their plots without being discovered.

How many more non-combatants will be killed by IT before these Muslim societies you refer to will be "convinced that it is the right thing to do?"

Suppose it takes five years to completely defeat IT. At 1,000 non-combatants killed per month, 60,000 non-combatants would be killed by the time the Muslim societies you referred to would be "convinced that it is the right thing to do."

Suppose on the otherhand, it takes 20 years for the Muslim societies you referred to become via negotiations "convinced that it is the right thing to do." At 1,000 (more likely 2,000 or more) non-combatants killed per month, 240,000 non-combatants would be killed by the time the Muslim societies you referred to would be "convinced that it is the right thing to do."

This is an assertion that you have made, and it just doesn't stand in the face of available evidence.

What "available evidence?"

Also,

Quote:

ican711nm wrote:
Osa: We want all Americans to leave Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine including Sinai.

Ram: We want all coalition forces to be no closer than 1,000 miles from the borders of any of these countries.
...
Moh: We will not stop the killing until all Americans leave our lands.
...
Osa: You Americans must accept our devotion to Allah and our one-world religion and culture, and eventually convert to it.
...
Osa: You 300 million Americans have spent more than 300 billion on the first three years of your fruitless escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's more than $333 per American per year. Collectively, we are a population of say 100 million. So instead pay us 100 billion dollars over three years, and we will save you lots of money, and stop the killing, if you move your troops at least 1,000 miles from the borders of any of the countries we specified ...
...
Jack: But they haven't agreed to disarm. That could mean they intend to build up their weapons for a later war using the 33 billion a year we pay them.
...

These things you list aren't freedoms, except for the freedom of religion thing, which is a bullsh*t thing to be listing as no serious negotiation with Muslim societies is going to include our forced change to Islaam.

First, what you call, "a bullsh*t thing", conforms exactly with what the IT has persistently and repeatedly declared to be their goal.

Second, freedom of Americans to visit, invest in, or live in those countries listed is clearly a freedom IT would deny us.

Third, there will be no serious negotiation with Muslim societies, until IT are completely conquered. After that occurs, then "no serious negotiation with Muslim societies is going to include our forced change to Islaam."

Cycloptichorn

Second, freedom of Americans to visit, invest in, or live in those countries listed is clearly a freedom IT would deny us.

Quote:

Second, freedom of Americans to visit, invest in, or live in those countries listed is clearly a freedom IT would deny us.

American's don't get to make the internal rules of other countries.
...
True, Americans "don't get to make the internal rules of other countries." But currently, Americans are granted, by some of those countries listed that are not controlled by IT, the right to visit, invest in, or live in some of those countries currently not controlled by IT.

IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists)

Negotiations with IT controlled countries would cause those granted rights to be canceled in all those listed countries, thereby causing us to lose those granted rights in countries not controlled by IT, if we were to negotiate with IT controlled countries.

Remember, IT has repeatedly and adamantly demanded that all Americans leave all of the middle east.
Cycloptichorn