Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire, have Turned Justice Mute

 

 

Feb. 3, 2002

      The *FREE ARAB VOICE* (http://www.freearabvoice.org)
(Your Voice in a World where Money, Steel, and Fire Have Turned Justice Mute)

In this issue of the Free Arab Voice (FAV) we present:

1) A Paradigm for Understanding the Arab-Zionist Conflict: the transcripts
of a lecture by Ibrahim Alloush and the ensuing discussion in Athens,
Greece, in mid-December 2001.

2) (In Arabic) Certain Danger: Jordan and Zionist Plans in the Arab Region.
Go to: http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/alKhatarAlAkeed.htm

3) (In Arabic) Sharon's Trial and the Globalization of Justice: A Tactical
Victory and a Strategic Defeat.  Go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/muhakamatuSharon.htm

4) To Muhammad A., Another Riveting Poem by Nabila Harb
Go to: http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/toMuhammadA.htm
#####################################################

1) A Paradigm for Understanding the Arab-Zionist Conflict:

Introduction, by Themos Stoforopoulos, the former Greek Ambassador in
Lebanon during the "Israeli" invasion of 1982:

[The tape starts here. Before that, Mr Stoforopoulos said something about
Dr Alloush being in Beirut in 1982]

[Stoforopoulos]: ...because it so happened that I also was there, in a
different capacity, and at a different age than that of 18 years old, and I
remember - and I 'm saying this as an introduction, [Mr Alloush] will now
tell you...

[George Karabelias:] Themos was the only...

[Stoforopoulos, laughing:] These are things George says...

[Karabelias:] ... the only ambassador from all the "free world", and the rest
of the world, who stayed in Beirut when the attacks were taking place...

[Stoforopoulos:] ... these are things George says. But let us now see the
political essence of the matter, that there was there a heroic resistance
from the Palestinians, that in this, you remember, there was a spontaneous,
automatic solidarity by the Greek people, you remember the spontaneous
demonstrations then in the streets of Athens, for the Palestinians, which
was very [correct]. 
 
On the other hand I have to tell you that, in this phase
also became apparent the - how to call it - the choice of the Palestinian
leadership to lean on America in order to advance the Palestinian question,
a choice which - in my very humble opinion - was incorrect, and I think this
is now becoming totally clear, but also a virtual alignment on OUR part, by
Andreas Papandreou in particular, from that time, from 1982, with the
choices of America and the west, which is also gradually becoming totally
clear. 
 
So what do we have here? We have a parallel movement, we have a
gradual distancing between the Palestinian people and its leadership, with
honest intentions, this must be noted - an incorrect choice, this is obvious
- and we also have a distancing between the Greek people and its political
leadership. I will not talk to you about my analysis of the Palestinian
question, I will immediately give the floor to Ibrahim Alloush, who is the
editor of a newsletter that is published in the internet, and which is
called the "Free Arab Voice", again in my opinion with very correct
positions. We thank him for being here, and I give him the floor.

Ibrahim Alloush:

Thank you for having me in Greece, thank you for having me in this
bookstore, and thank you for coming to listen about the question of
Palestine. The question of Palestine in fact, represents the locus of
contradictions of many problems in the Arab world today. Therefore,
understanding the question of Palestine will help us understand many of the
problems in the Arab world and much of the conflict that takes place in the
Arab world.


Essentially, Palestine is one-third desert. It is very poor in mineral
resources and it doesn't have any oil. Its agricultural land is very little
compared to the agricultural land for example in Egypt, Syria or Iraq or
Sudan. Palestine is only 27000 Km2. Most of its population was basically a
collection of poor peasants when the state of "Israel" was declared on the
15th of May 1948. So we can safely say that these poor peasants were by no
means a threat to Zionist or imperialist designs in the Arab world. And we
can safely say that there are no riches in Palestine that would justify all
the efforts that are being extended to occupy it and control it. So this
raises the logical question, why was Palestine occupied? And why were the
Palestinians thrown out of their country, hundreds of thousands of them
kicked out by force?


Once we have an answer to this question, we will have a model that will help
us understand many of the conflicts that take place in the Arab world today.


It is important here to go back a little bit to modern history, or maybe the
history of the 19th and 18th century. When Napoleon came to occupy Egypt, he
called on the Jewish people to meet him in Palestine. It was beginning to
become clear that controlling the Arab world requires controlling the
strategic location of Palestine. The same thing happened in the first half
of the 19th century. 
 
After Muhammad Ali Pasha in Egypt went into Syria and
what is now Saudi Arabia, the European powers at the time defeated him and
brought Egypt back into the control of the Ottoman Empire.[...]then the
British decided that they should have a Jewish state in Palestine. The
purpose of this state was to prevent any state in the Arab world from being
able to expand from Egypt into Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and to prevent
any group from expanding from the Eastern part of the Arab world into North
Africa. By "expand", we mean both actual political unity as well as
geopolitical influence here.  
 
There are historical documents that show
clearly that the British thought that the establishment of a Jewish state in
Palestine would prevent the emergence of such a strong state in the Arab
world. The importance of Palestine then lies in its strategic location
between the Asian and African wings of the Arab world.[...] Immediately after
the defeat of Muhammad Ali Pasha, the British decided to take under their
sponsorship the Jewish people who lived in Palestine. And this was in 1840.
Now why would the British want to do this? There are two reasons: The first
reason has to do with the fact that the British had many colonies worldwide.
The capitalist class in England wanted to make secure its roads to its
colonies, especially in India, and the Arab world happened to be the web of
communications or transportation across land. The second reason has to do
with the international competition. It was crucial for the British ruling
class to make sure that there is no strange control, no hostile control in
that strategic location that would threaten the roads to its colonies and
that would threaten its world domination. After the Suez Canal was opened in
1869 the location of Palestine increased in importance. Now in addition to
transportation across land Palestine was overlooking a crucial artery that
would connect Europe to the Far East.
 

In the beginning of the 20th century, oil was discovered in many parts of
the Arab world. In the 20s and the 30s American and British companies began
digging for oil in many parts of the Arab Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. At
that point, economic development in Western Europe and North America was
shifting the source of energy from coal into oil [...] Oil became a strategic
asset economically and politically. It was more crucial than ever before to
control Palestine in order to control the resources of the Arab world,
including its oil.


Two things happened in the first half, or the first one quarter of the 20th
century, and those two things have to be looked at simultaneously: The first
thing was the Balfour declaration which gave Palestine to the Jews on the
2nd of November 1917 - of course Palestine was then under the British
mandate - and the other thing that needs to be looked at, is the Sykes-Picot
agreement between the British and the French, dividing up the Arab world
into little parts, especially in the region surrounding Palestine in the
Asian part of the Arab World.
 

These two designs, to divide the Arab world and to occupy Palestine, have
been the two legs on which imperialist interests in the Arab world always
stand. We have occupation on one hand, and we have the destruction of
sovereignty and unity on the other hand. In those little states, elites were
put into power that would serve the interests of the imperialist classes in
the west. In other words, the Palestinians were not directly targeted in
this process, they were just a byproduct; their suffering was a byproduct,
of implementing imperialist designs in the Arab world. But what we have from
this historical preview is a way of looking at things that take place today
in the Arab world and its heart, Palestine. In other words, WHAT IS
HAPPENING NOW IS NOT AN ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT, WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW
IN FACT IS A STRUGGLE AGAINST ZIONISM AND IMPERIALISM BY THE ARAB PEOPLE.


Here it is important to say a word or two about the Zionist project itself.
Zionism means having a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.  Many of those
who hold this project, who work for it, do not necessarily operate from the
same imperialist motive. They might even have, or think they have, religious
or other motives. But this still made them a tool in the hands of British
and American imperialism nonetheless.


I do not believe in the so-called "war of civilizations". I believe that
imperialism operates on economic and political interests on a strategic
global level. However, this does not prevent imperialism from using religion
when necessary to achieving those interests. And this is how the Zionist
project came to serve the imperialist project. We have other examples of
imperialism using religion to serve its ends. For example, using Islam in
Afghanistan in the eighties, and using Islam in the Balkans in the 90s; and
using Christianity also to serve the same interests when necessary. It is
important to say this to make clear that what is taking place in Palestine
today is not a war of civilizations. 
 
Let us remember that the culture that
the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the WTO are trying to
impose, is not a protestant Christian culture, but a culture that serves the
best interests of the ruling classes in the imperialist countries, in the
metropolis. And it is the same kind of culture that will have negative
effects on Greece as much as it does in the Arab world. WHAT IS TAKING PLACE
TODAY IN THE ARAB WORLD IS AN ATTEMPT TO UPDATE THE SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT
THAT DIVIDED THE ARAB WORLD, UNDER A NEW PROJECT THAT IS CALLED
"MIDDLE-EASTERNISM". This new project depends on renewing and updating the
two legs of imperialism in the Arab world. On one hand, the existing Arab
states should be divided further into smaller states. For example, there is
talk now about an attempt to break up Iraq into at least three states, and
we have published a document on the Free Arab voice website that was
translated by an "Israeli" professor called Israel Shahak.  It explains the
plans, the Zionist plans to break up the Arab world further - five states in
Egypt, three states in Iraq, four states in Syria, etc...
Thus, the Zionist occupation of Palestine will change its form. Now, the
idea is not only to control land in Palestine, the idea is to build a
Middle-Eastern empire which "Israel" will be the center of. Instead of
direct occupation of the land, there 'll be economic, political and cultural
occupation of a Zionified Middle-East. This new situation has created new
contradictions in the Arab world. Many of the Arab regimes that used to
serve imperialist interests, have discovered in the mid-90s that there is a
plan to break them up and limit their regional power. Specifically I am
referring here to the three large Arab states controlling the
decision-making process on the official Arab level since the second Gulf
War, despite the differences between them. These of course are: Syria, Saudi
Arabia and Egypt. 
 
This is why these three states today are trying to stop
the "Israeli" plan to turn Yassir Arafat into another servant of the Mossad.
Let me make clear here that I 'm not saying that these states are taking a
revolutionary line - I am not saying that - but having found themselves
targeted, they are putting counter-pressure on Arafat not to accept American
and "Israeli" terms. In return, the U.S. government is putting pressure on
all of them in different ways to ease up their conditions in the so-called
"peace process", in order to let the Zionist project evolve into the next
higher stage.


So the battle today is the battle to update the Sykes-Picot agreement. And
in this picture of the conflict, one thing remains clear: this conflict will
continue. Because Imperialism and Zionism have decided they want to control
this part of the world, in order to exploit its resources, hinder its
development, and keep its people under oppression, dictatorships and
occupation. And I say this regardless of whether the project for
Middle-Easternism will succeed or fail.


Yet, this project has a cultural side to it. It is important for this
project to succeed, that the identity of the region and its people be
changed from Arab to Middle-Eastern. Because if we say "Arab", then Zionists
will have no place in this region. But if we say "Middle-Eastern", then
"Israel" will exist amongst a mosaic of many small states. SO THE BATTLE
TODAY IS ALSO A BATTLE IN THE DEFENSE OF IDENTITY. The project of
Middle-Easternism is the result of the intersection of two projects: Zionism
on one hand, and globalization on the other. But as opposed to this project,
there is a counter project, and that is the project of the people to remain
free from occupation and oppression. I support the project of the people,
and I think it will eventually win regardless of any obstacles - and thank
you very much.


The Ensuing Discussion:
=======================

[A Question about the Role of Islam and Globalization]

Well, let's first talk about the state and the national character. There has
been a discussion regarding the effect of globalization on the nation state.
People claim that the nation state will disappear under globalization. I
think this statement is only half true. Under globalization, the state will
cease to be nationalistic. But the state will assume increased powers in
order to make the project of globalization succeed locally. The project of
globalization is a localized police state, which pledges allegiance not to
the people of any specific country, but to the interests of transnational
corporations in the imperialist metropolis.


The same kind of analysis that we use to analyze the nation-state, should be
applied to religion.


The imperialist ruling classes, just like they will transform the national
state to suit their needs, will also try to transform religions to suit
their needs. There is a widespread effort to generate a version of Islam
that serves the interests of Washington DC. This is why they had people pray
in the Congress and the White house recently. They are willing to accept the
rituals, and even to tolerate the ideology, as long as they can dictate the
political program of the people who claim to be religious. On the other
hand, it is true that the attack on the nation state and the national
character, will generate groups which resist globalization purely from
nationalistic or religious backgrounds. And we should keep our minds open to
work with these new allies, especially that many of the leftists spew out
leftist rhetoric in words, and accept the imperialist programs in action.
After all, what matters in the final analysis is one's alignment in the
conflict on the ground.  For it is there, not in theoretical textbook models
of class war, where the struggle is actually taking place.  Thus one cannot
possibly be termed more "progressive" if one is standing on the sidelines in
a conflict that involves a Third World people against imperialism!

[Question about the Peres plan and the turn toward a more traditional
occupation policy]

Let me say something about the contradictions within the Zionist entity
itself. The difference between the left and the right in the Zionist entity,
is that the left adopts the new concept for occupying economies, policies
and minds, not land directly, whereas the right in the Zionist entity
adheres to the old concept of occupying land directly. In fact, as
Palestinians, we are very lucky, even though on the surface it seems
otherwise, that the people who want to control land directly, that is the
Zionist right, have been able to impede the progress of the Zionist left.
The Zionist right is fanatic and irrational. They think that controlling a
little building in the heart of the town of Hebron, because there is
allegedly something about it in the Torah, is more important than the Peres
plan for a new Middle East. And because of that, they will impede those
plans out of irrationality. This is also a source of friction between the
Zionist right and the American administration. So what is going on now, is
also an attempt by the American administration and the Israeli left to work
with the Israeli right to find a middle ground. Yes, that points to war and
genocide, and yes, luckily for us again, the regimes that were supposed to
be servants of imperialism have been put in a situation where they are
targeted by imperialism, and yes, those are applying counter-pressure on
Arafat to hold fast, even if they seem helpless otherwise. [To understand]
the possibilities here of the future, we have to look at the international
scene: what will the European position be, what will the Russian position
be, and what will the Chinese position be. Because as long as these are
strong, the three Arab states mentioned will be able to hold fast longer. On
the other hand, if the same thing happened that happened in Kosovo - the
Europeans supported the Americans, the Russians abandoned Yugoslavia, and
the Chinese stood on the side - then the results will not be very good. So
far, it seems that all of these groups have been opposing a renewed strike
against Iraq, and this strengthens the positions of Syria, Saudi Arabia and
Egypt.

In this formula, it is crucial to see how small Arab states, like Mauritania
or Qatar or Jordan, are being used as political footholds to besiege the
large Arab states.  That's because under the present Arab division, any
weakening of the regional influence of the large Arab states across the
smaller Arab states necessarily implies a strengthening of Zionist and
American influence there.  Political nature, just like all nature, knows no
vacuum. Thus it's either Syria or "Israel" in Lebanon; either Saudi Arabia
or the U.S. government in Qatar; either Morocco or the West and "Israel" in
Mauritania; either Egypt or Sharon in the Palestinian Authority; etc. On the
other hand, the political structure of the region is such that the smaller
Arab artificial entities can only "break away" from the influence of the
larger artificial Arab entities by striking an alliance with a larger
countervailing force such as the U.S. government, France, or "Israel".


[Note: Mind you, this formula is a realist one in the sense that it says
nothing about whether the relationship between the larger and the smaller
Arab states would be democratic or not, and it certainly says nothing about
whether the relationship between the Arab regimes and the Arab people is
democratic or not.  In fact these relationships are NOT democratic on both
levels.  But that is a totally different subject.  The point is that the
strategic interests of the Arab people cannot possibly be served by having
the U.S. government and "Israel" undermine the Arab state system in favor of
a Middle Eastern zone of Zio-American influence, even if they tried to
establish such a zone under the garb of spreading democracy, or human and
minority rights.  The Arab state system is very bad indeed, but as Ghandi
said: "why do you think the people will prefer a good foreign government over a
bad local government?!"  Hence, a truly democratic program will oppose
ACTUAL plans to consolidate Zio-American influence in the Arab World, not
just Zionism and imperialism on the abstract level, while working for
democracy on the internal Arab level, which can only be truly realized
within the framework of an Arab unity precisely because division was
purposely imposed by the West to arrest the democratic development of the
Arab World.]


[Question about the Sept 11 attacks]


You are posing many open questions. Let me just say that I lived in the
United States for a very long time. One of the biggest problems that
Americans face, and I am talking about the average American here, they
cannot seem to make the connection between what their government does abroad
and the reaction of the people of the world to the policies of their
government. Most Americans think of these attacks, or any attacks, against
any American target - they sincerely think they are unjustified and
unwarranted - and I am not just talking about the WTC. They cannot for
example understand anti-American demonstrations in Greece, they have no idea
why this happens. There is a problem of ignorance here, on the part of the
average American, and this is something that was done deliberately by the
American media. There are hundreds and thousands of American media -
newspapers, radio stations, TV stations etc - but most of those are
controlled by four or five transnational media giants. And these form the
American mind and American public opinion to serve the interests of the
corporations that these media belong to. 
 
I do not think that the attacks on
the WTC were self-inflicted by the American government, neither do I think
that the "Israelis" did them - I do not think that the Americans did them
themselves or that the "Israelis" did them. Regardless of what anyone may
think of these attacks, at some point Americans have to begin to understand
that for any action there is an opposite and equal reaction. The behavior of
the American government in Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan creates the
discontent which generates attacks like those of Sept 11. Thus, the
Americans have entered the same increasing, ascending spiral that the
Zionists have entered. I predict therefore, that the oppressed people of the
world, in the absence of an organized, well thought-out alternative, will
find ways to take vengeance on the American government for the crimes that
it keeps on committing around the world. So what is needed is to create a
movement that is able to confront American imperialism worldwide at the
grassroots level, and in the absence of such a movement then it is normal to
see reactions like Sept 11. But I do not think it is my duty to condemn
these attacks, and I deplore the hypocrisy of those politicians who cannot
stop shedding tears about the civilians of Sept 11, but suddenly the tears
dry up when the murderer is the American government.


[Question about a movement of solidarity between the Greek and Arab peoples]


First, I would like to say that we also need a movement in the Palestinian
field to exert pressure on Arafat not to make concessions to the Zionists.
The problem that we are facing here, in Greece, in the Arab world and
elsewhere, is the split between the people and the leadership. There is no
question regarding the historical links between the civilizations that
existed in Mesopotamia and the civilization that emerged in ancient Greek
cities. [Both] of these civilizations gave something to human civilization
and contributed to its growth and development. And there is also no question
that the Greek people as a whole sympathize greatly with the plight of the
Palestinian people. And there is also no question that we have common
interests as well in the fight against imperialist domination that is taking
place today in the campaign called globalization. Yes, let's build more
connections between each other, political and cultural connections. But
let's not also forget that local battles are fought locally - at the same
time we should think globally. Each level of the struggle will contribute to
the other level. And to the friendship of the Greek and Arab people we
should work and struggle in the common fight for the liberation of peoples
from domination from the outside and the inside.


[Question about terrorism and provocations]


[during the entire course of] History the people in power have used the
concept of provocation in order to justify measures that would have
otherwise seemed too oppressive. Also the weapon of political assassinations
is used by the strong against the weak more than vice-versa. Therefore I
agree and understand completely, regarding the statement made by your friend
- but on the other hand, let's keep an open mind and judge on a case-by-case
basis. When the oppressed lack a venue for organized effective action, it is
conceivable that certain groups will act spontaneously, which does not
change the fact that provocations will exist and will be perpetrated by the
intelligence services to justify dictatorial behavior. The Zionists do this,
and even Arafat does this sometimes. But we have to be able to judge
politically, to distinguish between the two types of action.


[intervention by Th. Stoforopoulos:]


I want to say two things, it is not a question. One is, because I had the
luck to live with the Palestinian people and to serve in Arab countries, [I
'm not afraid, and don't believe that in the last few years there has been
such a dramatic change in] the Palestinians and the Arabs I knew, I 'm not
afraid of old ideas, such as that of a united Palestine - not of the two
states, but of united, democratic Palestine.
The second thing I want to say is how much I agree with our friend that we
have common anti-imperialist interests, more precisely as concerns the
Turkish plans in Cyprus and the Aegean Sea. Why? Because it is well known
that imperialism, western and Turkish, uses [occupied northern] Cyprus both
against the Arab nation, with military bases, etc ...

- Allow me to interrupt you for a second. May I?


[Stoforopoulos:] Of course you may.


-Well, you are forgetting a very important thing here: The "Israeli"-Turkish
military and security alliance.


[Stoforopoulos:] Absolutely right. [smiling:] I am not forgetting, but you
are right to remind me of it.


- In fact now the strategy of encircling the large Arab states includes the
help of the Turkish regime. And there is another issue that we shouldn't
forget: I am an Arab, but I sympathize with the suffering of my Kurdish
brothers who have been suffering just as much as the Palestinians have, and
who also deserve to obtain their national rights. And in this area, the
Turkish regime has been very active in oppressing several groups: The Kurds,
the Arabs and the Cypriots


[Stoforopoulos:] We are in complete agreement.


[Question about the current situation about whether today in Palestine there
is a development leading the majority of Fatah to positions against Arafat
and in reality to a unification (a convergence) between Islamic groups, like
Hamas, and organisations like Fatah, or Marxist ones, like the Popular front
and the Democratic front.]


Answer: The Palestinian situation, the internal Palestinian situation, is
quite complicated. Initially groups like Hamas and the Jihad were viewed as
counter-weights to national and leftist groups. But there have been some
developments in the last ten years. The Islamic movement has come to contain
many elements which are fighting actively against the Zionist project. And
this has brought them closer to many militants in the national and leftist
movement. In fact because they have been willing to make sacrifices and
because their political stances have been stronger, they have won over
thousands of cadres from the leftist and nationalist camp. They have also
undergone a transformation: Whereas in the past they were emphasizing
religious issues, namely ritualistic religious issues, they are now
emphasizing political issues, and they are now actively engaged in armed
struggle against the Zionists. And this is making them win the support of
the Palestinian people, including the support of many people who do not
agree with their ideological project. This is not strange in the history of
people worldwide. I read American articles which said that the Vietnamese
people or the Chinese people did not necessarily support communism, but
granted their support to a communist leadership which was able to undertake
effectively the national tasks of uniting and liberating their country. This
is the role that the Islamic movement is playing now in Palestine and to the
extent they have been able to fill the void that was left by the retreat of
national and leftist groups, they have been gaining more and more popular
support. On the other hand, the Tanzim of Fatah, the organisation of Fatah
during the second Intifadah, is actively targeted by the Zionist occupation.
So they find themselves in the same trenches with Hamas. The same thing of
course applies to the PFLP. Now the structure of popular support in
Palestine today is as follows: Generally speaking, support for the left has
decreased tremendously, support for the Islamic movement has increased
tremendously, and within Fatah two branches have grown, the organisation of
Fatah, which is fighting against the Zionists, and a small group, like
Preventive Security, which is coordinating with the Zionists - so this is
the landscape of the Palestinian internal situation today.


[Q: Up to which point can the PA allow the attacks by Hamas, Jihad, or Fatah
itself against the Zionists]


[Let's not] forget that Arafat's authority is legally based on the Oslo
agreement. The Oslo agreement states that the Palestinian police force will
be delegated the task of defending "Israel's" security. In the history of
colonialism in the world, it was a tradition for the British and the French
to create a local power to oppress the locals. The Zionists have been
refusing to do that until 1993. And Arafat has accepted to do that task,
until it became clear that even those concessions that the "Israelis"
promised under the Oslo agreements were not going to be fulfilled. So he
went back to playing the same game he used to play before Oslo, which is to
give the "Israelis" some of what they want, and try to pressure them on the
other hand to make a few concessions. Of course that is not acceptable to
the "Israelis" because they brought him in 1993 to be their policeman, and
he is willing to play that role, as long as they give him something, like
the semblance of a state. But there are certain things he cannot do, even if
he wanted to. For example


  • The issue of Jerusalem: it doesnt only affect Palestinians, it affects all Arabs and all Muslims. He cannot just give it away.
  • The issue of refugees: there are many millions of Palestinian refugees in many countries, especially Arab countries. He cannot just sign away the right of return of refugees, because that affects other states, and even affects regional politics, so he cannot just sign it away - even though recently he has sent signals though some of his officials, that he might be willing to give up the right of return, if they give him a state in parts of the west bank and Gaza. Of course there are still differences about the size of this part. The "Israelis" think that they have the upper hand, so they should be able to dictate terms, and he should accept without discussions - and of course things don't work this way. 
Once again I say that we are very lucky to have arrogant Zionist politicians to force people who were willing to work with the Zionists - to force them against their will into the same trenches with the Palestinian people. [Q: conflict between Americans and Sharon] We have to understand something. There are many Arabs who think that American policies are dictated by the Jewish lobby in the US. And in fact there is a very powerful Jewish lobby in the US. But I do NOT think this is the locomotive behind American policies in the Arab World. I think that on the contrary, just because the state of "Israel" was established to serve imperialist interests, the success of the Jewish lobby in the US arises from the fact that the interests of this lobby interact positively with the interests of American imperialism.    The Jewish Lobby is not forcing America to do something against its interests, in spite of the fact that there might be discrepancies sometimes - and this is normal within any alliance, within any political organisation, even within the same family. So those discrepancies remain discrepancies, they do not turn into fundamental contradictions, like the contradiction between the US and Zionism in one hand, and the Arab people and the people of the third world on the other hand - those are not just discrepancies, but fundamental contradictions that can only be resolved by force. As for the contradictions between Sharon and America, yes they may dislike his style, and yes, he may belong to a group that is a little behind the times - and if they had any brains, for the best interests of the Zionist movement as a whole, it would be better if they got rid of him, to bring in his place Zionists who can think on a more strategic level. And even if they were to work toward that end, that would not mean at all that there is a problem between Zionists and the US government. It will be more like the parent punishing his child a little for its own good. [Q] [what is happening] now, regarding Arafat, the Zionists and the US government is a game of brinksmanship - making things reach a certain level, right before the explosion. They make Arafat feel threatened, and possibly - you know - threatening him with assassination - but they stop just short of doing it. It is like a way of making him fall into their hands. So they always seem like they are about to attack and kill him, but they back off. Even the game where the US is holding back Sharon is part of that charade. Arafat would be willing in fact, to get himself out of this dilemma, to do some of what they want. When they submitted a list of 30 activists to arrest, he arrested 12 of them - but they said that was not enough, and he did not do it by the specified time. So they attacked him again. In other words, he has to stop playing games, and has to completely become their pawn. What I am saying is he is willing to do much of what they want, but he's trying to retain a measure of independent decision-making. [and they are] saying: "You cannot do that, you have to be our policeman, to take orders from us". To emphasize this point, when Camp David II took place in the summer of 2000, Arafat was prevented from contacting anyone outside. Especially they were angry if he tried to contact Egypt, so they cut off his communications, he was secluded like a hostage - of course Syria was already calling on him to leave Camp David II - but now what is going on, they are telling him, "you 'll be secluded WITHIN the so-called self-autonomy area".    If you read the Oslo agreement carefully, you 'll see that section 4 of that agreement, which is allegedly between the Palestinians and the "Israelis" only, talks about opening Arab markets to "Israeli" trade. So the idea from the Palestinian state itself is to become a foothold for Zionist power in the rest of the Middle East. The Palestinian state in and of itself is not necessarily something that the Zionists would disagree with. In fact it may be a very useful bridge between Zionist economic and political power and the rest of the Arab world - and this is also part of the attraction of Hamas to the Palestinian people: they do not talk about a Palestinian state, they talk about liberation, and the correct slogan politically is liberation, not a Palestinian state on less than 20% of historical Palestine, under the conditions dictated by the US government and the Zionists. In short to answer your question, Yassir Arafat is put in a field of threat where his existence is subject to assassination, both physically and politically, and the stakes of this game: will he become a follower of the US government and the Zionists, completely, no games - or will he remain susceptible to counter-pressure from large Arab states as he is now? I said earlier that Palestine is the locus of the contradictions in the Arab region. So the resolution of Arafat's dilemma extends beyond the area where he is besieged. It pertains to the larger questions: will the larger Arab states succumb to pressure? Will the Europeans the Russians and the Chinese make a deal with the Americans? Once we answer these questions, we will know the answer to Arafat's dilemma.  ##################################################### 2) (In Arabic) Certain Danger: Jordan and Zionist Plans in the Arab Region. Go to: http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/alKhatarAlAkeed.htm ##################################################### 3) (In Arabic) Sharon's Trial and the Globalization of Justice: A Tactical Victory and a Strategic Defeat. Go to: http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/muhakamatuSharon.htm #####################################################  4) A Poem by Nabila Harb: To Muhammad A. Go to: http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/toMuhammadA.htm ##################################################### ##################################################### 
The Free Arab Voice is an alternative newsletter that comes out
only in cyberspace.
For other FAV issues, please visit:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/favPrevIssues.htm
Sign a real right of return petition at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/A-RealRightOfReturnPetition.htm
Check out a special slide show on Palestine at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/RememberPalestine.htm
Read the In Response to Defeatist Thought series at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/InResponseToDefeatistThought0.htm
To read on Arab contributions to civilization, click on:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabCivilMain.htm
For Palestinian Poems in English, go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/rhythmsOfTheStorm.htm
The Free Arab Voice welcomes your comments, suggestions, and
submissions.  If you do not wish to be on FAV's mailing list,
please indicate as much by writing to us.
 
 


  

    

    

    

    
FAV Editor: Ibrahim Alloush Editor@freearabvoice.org
Co-editors: Nabila Harb Harb@freearabvoice.org
  Muhammad Abu Nasr Nasr@freearabvoice.org
FAV Webmasters: Administrator  
FAV Home Page - > Please click on the logo above, and we'll FAV you there :)