The Invasion of Gaza: Part of a Broader US-NATO-Israel Military Agenda. Towards a Scenario of Military Escalation?

Global Research
Michel Chossoduvsky

On November 14,  Hamas military commander Ahmed Jabari was murdered in a Israeli missile attack. In a bitter irony,  barely a few hours before the attack, Hamas received  the draft proposal of a permanent truce agreement with Israel.

“Hours before Hamas strongman Ahmed Jabari was assassinated, he received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the cease-fire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.”(Haaretz, November 15, 2012)

The targeted assassination  of  Ahmed Jabari was followed by an extensive bombing campaign under Operation Pillar of Cloud.  The latter consists of a carefully planned military endeavor.

F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters and unmanned drones were deployed. Israeli naval forces deployed along the Gaza shoreline were  involved in extensive shelling of civilian targets.

Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barack has confirmed a scenario of military escalation, blaming Palestine for having committed acts of aggression:

 “[t]he provocations we have suffered and the firing of rockets to the southern settlements within Israel have forced us to take this action. I want to make clear that Israeli citizens will not suffer such actions. The targets are to hit the rockets and to harm the organization of Hamas.”

The Israeli attacks were followed by the firing of dozens of rockets by Hamas against Israel.

Palestine’s response was known to Israeli war planners. The resulting Israeli civilian casualties are now being used to justify military escalation on humanitarian grounds.
What we are dealing with is a carefully planned operation, a clear act of provocation. The deaths of Israeli civilians (envisaged and foreseen by IDF military planners) are being used to muster the support of the Israeli  public.

Meanwhile, the Israeli attack is casually portrayed by the Western media as part of a legitimate counter-terrorism agenda.

The Obama administration is blaming the victims of Israeli atrocities. The victims are portrayed as “terrorists”.  According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

“Hamas [is] a U.S.-designated terror group, which governs the Gaza strip, that is instigating the violence. … Attacking Israel on a near daily basis does nothing to help Palestinians in Gaza or to move the Palestinian people any close to achieving self-determination.” (ABC News, November 15, 2012)

A scenario of military escalation has already been announced. Reports confirm that Israeli is contemplating a ground war, including an invasion of Gaza:

There are also reports that Israel may be preparing for a ground operation as it moves troops near the border. A ground incursion by Israel into Gaza could signal the beginning of an all-out war. (Ibid)

The Broader Middle East War

The attack on Gaza must be understood in relation to the broader Middle East war. The Israeli attack was approved by president Obama. It  has a direct bearing on US-NATO-Israeli war plans pertaining to Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

The timing is of utmost significance: one week following the US presidential elections.
Operation Pillar of Cloud is a deliberate act of provocation, intended to lead to military escalation.

The Israeli public is firmly opposed to a broader Middle East war including the conduct of Israeli surgical strikes directed against Iran’s  nuclear facilities.

Is the attack on Gaza  a trigger mechanism which could lead the World into a broader Middle East war?

We are not dealing with an isolated event. The invasion of Gaza is part of the broader US-NATO-Israel military agenda.

Back-flash to December 2008. Operation Cast Lead

It is also important to understand Israeli’s current plans to invade Gaza in relation to the December 2008 bombing and ground invasion of Gaza under Operation Cast Lead.  (See below)

Michel Chossudovsky, November 15, 2012
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Invasion of Gaza: “Operation Cast Lead”, Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda

by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 4, 2009
The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:

“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip.  Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.
The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.
In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel.  During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis.  Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)

Planned Humanitarian Disaster

On December 8, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.
“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.

What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)

The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:

“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)

“Operation Justified Vengeance”

A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset of the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that  F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).

According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.

Arafat's widow lodges legal suit over poison claim

PARIS: The widow and daughter of Yasser Arafat on Tuesday launched legal action in France over claims that the veteran Palestinian leader died of radioactive polonium poisoning, their lawyer said.

Suha and Zawra Arafat lodged a civil suit for murder against persons unknown with investigating magistrates in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, said lawyer Pierre-Olivier Sur.

Yasser Arafat died at a military hospital near Paris in 2004.

Allegations that the Nobel Peace Prize laureate was poisoned were resurrected earlier this month after Al-Jazeera news channel broadcast an investigation in which experts said they found high levels of polonium on his personal effects.
Polonium is a highly toxic substance which is rarely found outside military and scientific circles, and was used to kill former Russian spy turned Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko, who died in 2006 shortly after drinking tea laced with the poison.
Suha Arafat has said she backs exhuming her late husband's remains from his mausoleum in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

Arafat, who led the struggle for Palestinian statehood for nearly four decades, died in a French military hospital after being airlifted there for treatment from his Ramallah headquarters.

At the time of his death, Palestinian officials alleged he had been poisoned by long-time foe Israel, but an inconclusive Palestinian investigation in 2005 ruled out poisoning, as well as cancer and AIDS.

Israel has consistently denied the allegations, accusing Suha Arafat and Palestinian officials of covering up the real reasons for the former leader's death.

Palestinians pressured not to seek international probe into Arafat's death

Sign of the Times

The Palestinians' efforts to launch an international probe into the 2004 death of ex-leader Yasser Arafat face serious obstacles, a Palestinian official said Tuesday.

The obstacles stem from the opposition by some countries including the United States and France, the official said on condition of anonymity.

The United States has put pressure on the Palestinian leadership not to seek such an investigation because it can lead to some negative consequences on the Middle East peace process, which has been stalled since 2010, according to the official.

The amount of pressure mounted on the Palestinian leaders might foil their efforts to stage an international probe into Arafat's death, the official added.

The debate about ex-leader's death renewed last week after Arab satellite channel al-Jazeera aired an investigative report indicating that Arafat was poisoned with toxic radioactive polonium.

Arafat died three weeks after arriving at a French hospital near Paris in November 2004. No conclusive reason was given for his death. Before airlifted to France, Arafat had been ill for more than two years, confined by Israel in his West Bank headquarters.

On Monday, the Palestinian leadership asked Swiss scientists to come to the West Bank and take samples of Arafat's remains for additional tests.

The experts are from the Lausanne-based Institute of Radiation Physics, which al-Jazeera hired for testing Arafat's personal belongings.

Following al-Jazeera's report, the Palestinian leaders said they have no problem exhuming Arafat's body from his West Bank grave if his family requests more tests to be done on his remains.

Israel poisoned Arafat with polonium: nephew

AFP
Nasser Abu Bakr

Israel poisoned the late Yasser Arafat with the lethal radioactive substance polonium, a nephew of the veteran Palestinian leader alleged on Thursday.

But Israel denied the accusation, saying it was "not involved" in Arafat's death at a French hospital in November 2004.

"We accuse Israel of killing Yasser Arafat by poisoning him with that lethal substance," Nasser al-Qidwa told AFP, referring to polonium, traces of which were recently found on clothing worn by the ailing leader.

"Those responsible for that assassination should be held accountable and judged," said Qidwa, who is also president of the Yasser Arafat Foundation.

Allegations that the long-time Palestinian leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate was poisoned were resurrected earlier this month after Al-Jazeera news channel broadcast an investigation in which experts said they had found high levels of polonium on his personal effects.

Polonium is a highly-toxic substance which is rarely found outside military and scientific circles.

The radioactive substance was used to kill former Russian spy turned Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko, who died in London in 2006 shortly after drinking a cup of tea laced with the poison.

But a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu completely rejected Qidwa's charge, denying any involvement in the ailing 75-year-old's death.

"Israel was not involved in the death of Arafat," Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev told AFP. "All the medical files are in the hands of the Palestinians and it was not Israel who is preventing their publication."

Until now, none of the medical files pertaining to Arafat's illness and death have been made public.

But on Thursday, the Arafat Foundation for the first time released all the medical files in its possession, many of them from the French military hospital where he was treated.

The documents can be found here:

http://yaf.ps/yaf/web_files/news_file/The_Medical_Reports_0.PDF

"Since the martyrdom of the late president Yasser Arafat, we have said that he was assassinated by poisoning but we have never had any tangible proof," Qidwa said.

"But since the Al-Jazeera documentary confirmed he was poisoned by polonium, there is no longer any doubt," he added.

Although experts at the Swiss laboratory which conducted the testing said they had found "significant" traces of polonium on Arafat's effects, they said there could be no confirmation he was poisoned without exhuming the body and examining his remains.

Senior Palestinian officials have said they would agree to an exhumation of the body, which is buried in the West Bank town of Ramallah, if the family gave its permission, and Qidwa on Thursday said they would raise no objections.

"The Arafat Foundation contacted the Swiss laboratory and informed them that it had no objection to analysing samples from the body of the late Palestinian president Yasser Arafat if it is necessary," he said.

Last week, Arafat's widow Suha also said she was in favour of allowing tests on her husband's remains.

At the time of his death, she had refused to permit an autopsy.

The Palestinians have called for an international probe into Arafat's death based on the findings of Al-Jazeera's nine-month investigation which centred on the forensic testing of his personal effects handed to Suha by the French hospital where he died.

Traces of Arafat's hair as well as his sweat, urine and blood were found in his effects and on his clothing, all of which were sent for testing at several European laboratories.

Francois Bochud, head of the Institute of Radiation Physics at the University of Lausanne who participated in the investigation, told Al-Jazeera that tests on Arafat's remains would need to be done as soon as possible.

"We have to do it quite fast because polonium is decaying, so if we wait too long, for sure any possible proof will disappear."

It was not immediately clear when any exhumation process would take place.

Arafat, who led the struggle for Palestinian statehood for nearly four decades, died in a French military hospital on November 11, 2004 after being airlifted there for treatment from his Ramallah headquarters.

At the time of his death, Palestinian officials alleged he had been poisoned by long-time foe Israel, but an inconclusive Palestinian investigation in 2005 ruled out poisoning, as well as cancer and AIDS.

Israel has consistently denied the allegations, accusing Suha Arafat and Palestinian officials of covering up the real reasons for the former leader's death.

Israel Likely Killed Arafat

Chicago Independent Media Center
Stephen Lendman

Credible information on Arafat's death surfaced years ago. It wasn't natural. Evidence suggests he was assassinated. Israel most likely was responsible. More on that below.

Al Jazeera provided new information. On July 4, it headlined "Arafat's widow (Suha) calls to exhume his body," saying:

"A nine-month investigation suggests that the late Palestinian leader may have been poisoned with polonium."

"Eight years after his death, it remains a mystery exactly what killed the longtime Palestinian leader."
"Tests conducted in Paris found no obvious traces of poison in Arafat’s system. Rumors abound about what might have killed him – cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, even allegations that he was infected with HIV."

"A nine-month investigation by Al Jazeera has revealed that none of those rumors were true: Arafat was in good health until he suddenly fell ill on October 12, 2004."

Arafat's personal belongings were examined. They included his clothes, his kaffiyeh and toothbrush. Polonium traces were found.

In 1898, Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the substance. Laboratory exposure killed their daughter Irene. Marie died from symptoms related to radiation exposure.

Science Daily calls polonium a "rare and highly radioactive metalloid." It's chemically similar to tellurium and bismuth. It's found in uranium ores.

It's "around 109 times" more toxic than hydrogen cyanide. Its main hazard is radioactivity. It's "most lethal when ingested" or inhaled.

Evidence showed that polonium caused former Russian Federal Security Service officer Alexander Litvinenko's 2007 death. In November 2006 he was hospitalized. Three weeks later he died.
He became the first known polonium-210 victim. Acute radiation poisoning killed him. Tests found traces in his tea cup. Polonium is hard to detect because it doesn't emit gamma rays.
It emits only alpha particles. Normal radiation detectors don't recognize them. Hospital equipment only detects gamma rays.

Ingesting or inhaling alpha particles causes significant radiation damage. Special equipment is needed to recognize them.

Switzerland's Radiophysique (SR) analyzed Arafat's belongings. Blood, sweat, saliva and urine samples were obtained. Tests showed abnormal polonium levels in his body when he died.
SR director Dr. Francois Bochud said:

"I can confirm to you that we measured an unexplained, elevated amount of unsupported polonium-210 in the belongings of Mr. Arafat that contained stains of biological fluids."
As a result, Arafat's widow, Suha, asked Palestinian Authority (PA) officials to exhume his body. If bone, tissue, and/or other bodily evidence substantiates SR's diagnosis, conclusive proof of his poisoning will be confirmed.

"I know the Palestinian Authority has been trying to discover what Yasser died from," she said. "And now we are helping them. We have very substantial, very important results."

In 2004, Abbas was complicit in a coverup. Suha's hopes may go unfulfilled.

Known polonium poisoning deaths are rare. Scientific consensus on its symptoms is lacking. Litvinenko suffered from diarrhea, weight loss, and vomiting. Arafat exhibited the same ones.
Animal studied found similar symptoms. A US 1991 study said:

"The primary radiation target….is the gastrointestinal tract. (It) activat(es) the 'vomiting centre' in the brainstem."

SR scientists found Arafat's belongings contained abnormally high polonium levels.
It's present atmospherically. Natural amounts accumulating on bodily surfaces barely register. They dissipate rapidly. Polonium-210 found on Arafat's belongings has a 138-day half life. It means half the substance decays around every four and a half months.

SR said "(e)ven in case of a poisoning similar to (Litvinenko), only traces of the order of a few" millibecquerels would be found.

However, Arafat's belonging had much higher levels. Further tests "concluded that....between 60 to 80 percent (of the polonium) was 'unsupported.' " It means it didn't come from natural sources.
SR scientists ruled out official or suggested causes of Arafat's death. Lausanne University Institute of Legal Medicine director Dr. Patrice Mangin said:

"There was no liver cirrhosis, apparently no traces of cancer, no leukemia. Concerning HIV, AIDS – there was no sign, and the symptomology was not suggesting these things."

HIV specialist Dr. Tawfik Shaaban agreed there was no evidence of the disease.

Lausanne doctors wanted to study blood and urine samples taken when Arafat was hospitalized at France's Percy Military Hospital. His wife Suha requested them. She was told they were destroyed.
"I was not satisfied with that answer," she said. "Usually a very important person like Yasser" would require they be kept. Something suspicious was involved.

Tunisia Requests Arab League Meeting over Suspicions Arafat Murdered

Sign of the Times

The PA agreed on Wednesday to exhume Arafat's body after new allegations that he was poisoned with the radioactive element polonium-210 in 2004

Tunisia has called for Arab ministers to meet to discuss the death of former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat after new suspicions that he was murdered, a senior official in the Arab League said on Thursday.

The Palestinian Authority agreed on Wednesday to exhume Arafat's body after new allegations that he was poisoned with the radioactive element polonium-210 in 2004, the same substance found to have killed a former Russian spy in London in 2006.

"The general secretariat received a request today from the Tunisian representative to convene a ministerial meeting to study the circumstances of the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat," League Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli told a news conference.

Ben Helli said a request had been passed to Arab member states for a meeting and to determine how they wished to deal with the issue in coordination with the Palestinians.

A Swiss institute that examined clothing provided by Arafat's widow Suha as part of an Al Jazeera expose said it found "surprisingly" high levels of polonium-210, though symptoms described in the president's medical reports were not consistent with the radioactive agent.

The Palestinian administration said it would approve Suha Arafat's request to exhume Arafat's body from a limestone mausoleum in the West Bank city of Ramallah for an autopsy.

When Mike Wallace questioned Israeli story of ’90 massacre, he got called into the owner’s office

MondoWeiss 
Phillip Weiss

The late Mike Wallace was often called a "self-hating Jew," and it seems clear from his obits that it didn't really bother him. Community loyalty wasn't big on his list.

In this book of Jewish proclamations inspired by the last words of Daniel Pearl, Wallace says he got along better with Gaddafi and Arafat than he did with Menachem Begin. It appears that at least three of his four wives were not Jewish, and in this obit at the Forward, Barry Lando shows how Mike Wallace seems to have agreed with anti-Zionist Rabbi Elmer Berger that Jewish nationalism imposed a dual loyalty claim on Jews. Lando excerpts a 1958 interview of Abba Eban:

Wallace: Now then, Mr. Eban, regarding the American Jew and the State of Israel, the anti-Zionist rabbi, Dr. Elmer Berger, has written, “The Zionist-Israeli axis imposes upon Jews outside of Israel, Americans of Jewish faith included, a status of double-nationality,” a status which he deplores…. Your own Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion wrote back in 1953, “When a Jew in America speaks of our government to his fellow Jews, he usually means the government of Israel, while the Jewish public in various countries view the Israeli ambassadors as their own representatives.”

Wallace: Would a Jew, in your estimation, be any less a Jew if he were opposed to Zionism and to Israel?

Eban: In my own personal interpretation, I would say that a man who opposed the State of Israel and the great movement which brought it about would be in revolt against the most constructive and creative events in the life of the Jewish people.

Wallace: But Judaism is a religion, sir.

Great.

Al Aqsa massacre

I keep saying that I want to change American Jewish identity because we won't change American policy without changing the Jews; Jews are just too powerful in American establishment. And my thesis is amply demonstrated by another anecdote in the Barry Lando obit, where he shows how prevalent Jews are in the media, emphasizing that CBS is owned by a Jew, that many of the network's producers are Jewish, and that Wallace's social circle was Jewish too.

Lando explores an episode Linda Lotz described the other day here: Mike Wallace's role in exposing an Israeli massacre of Palestinians on the Haram al Sharif in 1990. Lando, himself Jewish, was a producer on the story:

But the one piece involving Mike that sparked the widest outrage involved the deaths of 17 Palestinians, shot down by Israeli police on Jerusalem’s ultra-sensitive Temple Mount (called Haram al Sharif in Arabic) on October 8, 1990.

NO POLITICIAN WITH AN “ANTI-ZIONIST MINDSET” COULD EVER DREAM OF LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Prof. Naseer Aruri

by: Kourosh Ziabari

Naseer Aruri is Chancellor Professor (emeritus) of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He is president of Trans-Arab Research Institute in Boston. Prof. Aruri is the a contributor to the book “Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War” by the South End Press and the author of the book “Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return” published by the University of British Columbia Press in 2001. Prof. Aruri is on the Advisory Board of the Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation.

Aruri has also written the book “The Obstruction of Peace: The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians.” Amazon.com has described this book “a Palestinian perspective on the peace process in his Middle Eastern region which provides a different view for the reasons behind Palestinian-Israeli impasses.”
According to Wikipedia, Aruri contributed to the foundation of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in 1983. From 1984-1990, Aruri was elected to three consecutive terms on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, USA, and served on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch/Middle East from 1990 to 1992.

What follows is the complete text of my exclusive interview with Prof. Naseer Aruri in which we discussed a variety of topics including the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the role of the United States in the solving the crisis in Palestine and the performance of PLO as the defacto representative of the Palestinian nation in the international level.


Kourosh Ziabari: Dear Prof. Aruri; there are various interpretations regarding the truth behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides of the conflict cite claims over the land which is known as the Land of Israel. So, from an impartial and objective point of view, which side is the righteous? Which of them tells the truth?

Naseer Aruri: This is not a conflict between two equal claims. The Palestinian population is the indigenous party living on the land since the days of the Cananites. Their presence as the dominant party was interrupted by the Crusades but it was restored by the Islamic conquest of the 7th century A.D. When the Zionists received the Balfour Declaration from Britain in 1917 the Jewish population constituted less than 7% of the population. It was an unauthorized promise made by an imperial power to a colonial settler movement at the expense of the Majority (the indigenous Palestinians). By World War II the Jewish population had increased to one-third mainly as a result of colonial settlement. This minority was in possession of less than 6% of the land. Today it controls all of historic Palestine through the force of arms, an illegal phenomenon under international law.

KZ: You’re said to be an outspoken critic of the Oslo Accords and described it a cover for territorial conquest. Would you please explain for us the reasons you oppose Oslo Peace Process? Given that the Declaration called for the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from parts of Gaza Strip and West Bank and facilitated the creation of a Palestinian National Authority, what are your reasons for contesting the Oslo Accords?

NA: The Oslo Accords constituted an act of surrender by Yaser Arafat, whose movement was facing economic, diplomatic and leadership crises, and having recognized Israel in 1988, it took the easy way out by concluding an unauthorized deal with Israel in 1993 in which Israel did not cede any bit of sovereignty whatsoever not only in historic Palestine but even in the West Bank, which constitutes 22% of historic Palestine. The phrase “external security” was the corner stone of the document and it served as a euphemism for sovereignty, which remained in the hands of Israel. Oslo has also negated the culture of the Intifada, which was based on voluntary maxims and associational values In brief,

Oslo created a facade of equality when Israel was an occupant within the meaning of International law, while the Palestinians were occupied rather than co-equal. Under such a cover, Israel was given license to expand its territorial conquest even farther and this added territory was acquired under presumed “peaceful conditions.” Colonial settlements in the occupied territories have more than doubled since 1993 and they continue to constitute the single most intractable obstacle to a diplomatic settlement until this day. Technically, Oslo was an agreement to reach agreement, but better yet, an agreement to obfuscate an equal settlement and an honorable and principled compromise.

KZ: Although the Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and made several concessions during its interactions with the State of Israel, the United States still considers it a terrorist organization. What’s your viewpoint regarding the performance of PLO? Has it succeeded in representing the Palestinian people and defending their demands? Recently leaked documents show that the PLO under Mahmoud Abbas had agreed to Israel’s sovereignty over nearly all Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. What’s your take on that?

NA: I think that the answer to your question is embedded in the question itself. Moreover, the PLO should have never accepted the stipulation that it is a terrorist organization which must “renounce” and not “denounce” as Arafat had attempted unsuccessfully and reminded about the crucial difference between the two concepts. The assumption that the US was a judge and jury while at the same time a chief armed supplier, bank roller, and diplomatic backer was unfortunately accepted by the PLO leadership since the 1980s  and should not have been a surprise when the so-called Palestine papers were released and leaked out quite recently. Under both Arafat and Abbas, the PLO concessions were bottomless and these concessions had only encouraged Israel to throw more obstacles to peace and to encourage Washington to act as a “Dishonest Broker.”

KZ: Some commentators refer to Israel as an artificial state and believe that it was created through the efforts of politicians and leaders who wanted to sympathize with and satisfy the expansionistic demands of the Zionists in Europe; however, there are a group of thinkers who believe that to the extent that Israel is an artificial state, countries such as United Arab Emirates or Kosovo should be considered artificial as well, because they lack a historical background as independent nations. What’s your estimation of these viewpoints?


NA: It serves no useful purpose to debate the moot issue of whether Israel, UAE, and Kosovo are artificial states. The important thing is that they are defacto states which through admission to the UN become de jure states.

Irrespective of who wins the argument, Israel is a state, but the important thing is what kind of a state? A state of its own citizens? a state of all Jews in the world? A state of the Jewish people in historic Palestine? What are the boundaries of this state? Is it not an apartheid state as it exists at the present? These questions are far more important than whether Israel is artificial or natural?

KZ: The Stance of President Bush Sr. on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had convinced many international observers that the pro-Israeli era of Ronald Reagan was over. On May 22, 1989, Secretary of State James Baker had told an AIPAC audience that Israel should abandon its expansionist policies. On his part, George H. Bush had indicated that he was under the pressure of Zionist lobby by saying to reporters on the sidelines of an AIPAC summit that “I’m one lonely little guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” He was forced to apologize consequently; however, he was opposed to grant a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel as long as Israel continued building homes on the Palestinian lands. What’s your viewpoint regarding Bush’s Israel policy? Why did his son adopt a totally opposing stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compared with that of his father?

NA:  True, there is a vast difference between the policies of the two Bushes. Bush senior had a major conflict with Israel and its Zionist lobby in Washington. He and his Secretary of State James Baker challenged Israel’s settlement building in occupied territory, particularly Jerusalem and its environs. Israel and its minions in the U.S. such as former Senator George Mitchell objected to the assumption that Jerusalem is “occupied” territory. Perhaps Bush, Sr’s Iraq policy illustrates the major differences between the father and son. If one looks at the Israeli press during the summer of 1990 when U.S. forces were in Saudi Arabia while Saddam Hussein’s army was occupying Kuwait, one finds an important reality: Bush was in effect telling Israel that, we the U.S., as the sole super power, are in charge of security in the [Persian] Gulf region and in the whole Middle East.. Consequently, Israel has nothing to worry about and it must come to terms on the Palestine question knowing that Washington is in charge of security. That was probably the closest that the U.S. had ever come to the concept of an imposed settlement in which Israel must abide by Washington’s will based on its national interest as a super power.

But the plan did not come into fruition particularly when Bush was defeated in the presidential elections by Bill Clinton, who derailed Bush’s diplomatic train and diverted it to Oslo instead, hence the end of Bush, Sr’s designs.

When Bush the son came to the White House, the neo-conservatives had managed to secure a position of power and station themselves strategically around the New President who had to shoulder the whole issue of “terrorism” after September 11. These developments hastened the penetration of Bush’s policies by neo-conservatives, hence the difference between the two Bushes.


KZ: Upon taking office, the Presidents of the United States conventionally make trips to Israel and pay homage to the Israelis by saying that they are committed to the security of Israel and that they will try their best to serve the interests of the Jewish regime. Is the Zionist lobby so influential to prevent from coming to power a President who has an anti-Zionist mindset? Is it ever possible for an anti-Zionist politician to rise to power in the United States?

NA: The answers to both questions are yes and yes. No politician with an “anti-Zionist mindset” could ever dream of living in the White House. The American political system has institutional and constitutional barriers against anti-Zionists winning the U.S. presidency. Take for example the Electoral College by which Americans elect their presidents. The EC stipulates that a candidate to the presidency must gain plurality and the winner takes all. These two factors (plurality and winner takes all) tend to polarize the system and promote the two party system. In that setting, there is no place for a minority, which is likely to be the anti-Zionist mindset. Rather, the system would promote two polarities and avoids the diffusion of power. In the US minorities which are cohesive and disciplined can easily develop factions such as Afro-Americans or Zionists who would give their votes to their co-nationals and insure the victory of disciplined, single-minded, and organized constituencies. In such a political system, anti-Zionists could never aspire to win a senatorial or even a lower House position, let alone win the Presidency. That is an impossible task.

KZ: What’s in your view, the source of Zionist lobby’s enormous power and wealth? You may admit that the majority of mainstream media in the United States are being run by the well-off Jews and that the Zionist lobby plays a central role in the decision which the U.S. congress makes. What is the source of this power and influence?

NA: The sources of Zionist power in the US stem from superior organization, good finance, a ready-made “defense” of their cause such as “anti-Semitism,” which serves as a sort of black-mail and a barrier against valid criticism of policies. While the public can criticize Obama and his policy and expect no retribution, that same public cannot criticize Israel in the same way. Look at what happened to Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House journalists since the 1950s when she dared to express her opinion on the Israeli theft of Palestinian land, ongoing since the 1940s. Senators and Congress people have been dumped by the Lobby upon the first sign of dissent and deviation from the delivered wisdom and accepted orthodoxy on Israel. In short, the Zionist lobby is fortified by a shield which enables it to suppress dissent in a democratic nation.

KZ: As my final question, I would like to ask you to propose your solution for drawing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you champion a two-state solution? Do you believe that the Jews should be returned to their original homelands in Europe? What’s your viewpoint in this regard?

NA: As for the ideal solution, I am afraid no just and lasting solution seems to be on the horizon at the present time. Israel and its supporters have stood firmly during the past four decades against the global consensus which demanded withdrawal from occupied territories and a just resolution of the refugees problem in accordance with UN resolutions and the general principles of international law– a resolution based on the principles of equal justice, equal protection of the law, and an end to apartheid, which now prevails throughout historic Palestine pre and post 1948. As for the two-state solution, there is no such a thing. It is already too late for that, as the entire spectrum of Israeli politics allows no sovereignty on any piece of land lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That leaves one just solution: a single state in which Muslims, Christians and Jews can live together on the basis of equal justice and equal protection of the law.

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles and interviews have appeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Tehran Times, Press TV, Global Research and Foreign Policy Journal.