Those of us who can see through such distorted thinking know that White is a principled writer who has never displayed a shred of racism in his work. Zoabi is very well-known civil rights leader with a long-standing reputation of courage and poise.

How could anti-racist endeavors themselves become the subject of accusation by Halili and others like him?

It goes without saying there should be no room for any racist discourse - Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, or any other - in the Palestine solidarity movement, which aims at achieving long-denied justice and rights for the Palestinian people. A racist discourse is predicated on racial supremacy, which is exactly what Palestinians are resisting in Israel and the occupied territories.

But the "Jewish and democratic state" of Israel is riddled with so many contradictions, the kind that no straightforward narrative can possibly capture.

Many scholars and rights groups have discussed the way in which irreconcilable values defined the very character of Israel from the onset. According to Adalah (meaning "justice" in Arabic), the legal center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, "Israel's Declaration of Independence (1948) states two principles important for understanding the legal status of Palestinian citizens of Israel. First, the Declaration refers specifically to Israel as a 'Jewish state' committed to the 'ingathering of the exiles.' (Second)...it contains only one reference to the maintenance of complete equality of political and social rights for all its citizens, irrespective of race, religion, or sex."

Adalah further asserts that there is a 'tension' between the two principles. Perhaps this is the case, intellectually, but in practice the Israeli political establishment has resolved the seeming quandary whereby the Jewishness of the state prevails above every other humanitarian, democratic or legal consideration. Racially discriminating legislation is being churned out in the Israeli Knesset at an alarming speed, and new laws are constantly being proposed. These include "one that would end the status of Arabic as one of Israel's official languages and another that would punish Israeli citizens, including Arab Israelis, for refusing to pledge their allegiance to 'Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,'" according to columnist Linda Heard (Arab News, Jan 24).

As for Palestinians living in the occupied territories, their legally enshrined political inferiority has been felt in much harsher and often bloodier ways than their brethren living in Israel. For nearly four and a half decades, the Palestinians living in these territories have been losing their land, livelihood, freedom of movement and even their very lives in the name of the racial superiority of their occupiers. Jewish settlements are illegally constructed on Palestinian land to host Jewish settlers, who use Jewish-only roads to travel between their heavily fortified colonies and the "Jewish state." While numerous intellectuals, activists and ordinary members of Jewish communities around the world have strongly protested Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, as well as Israel's misuse of the Jewish religion to attain political goals, Israel relies greatly on the support of Jewish communities, organizations and individuals for vital funds, political support and lobbying.

While many Jews identify with Israel as a 'Jewish state', "younger American Jews are more likely than their parents to be acquainted with the Palestinians and their story," reported TIME magazine on September 29.

The TIME story references one such youth, Benjamin Resnick, 27, who decries the fact that Jewish state and American liberal democracy represent two views that are 'irreconcilable'. On the other hand, he "continues to consider himself a Zionist," who "quotes the Torah in support of his view that American Jews should press Israel to end settlement expansion and help facilitate a Palestinian state." Even Resnick's political dissent is riddled with inconsistencies, where national identity (as an American) clashes with ideology (Zionism) and religion (the Torah) is referenced as a means to resolve the discord.

The Torah is put to good use repeatedly among mainstream and ardent Israeli rabbis, whose edicts to kill Arabs are commonplace in Israeli media (although rarely discussed in US media). The so-called King's Torah - which is endorsed by some prominent Israeli rabbis - has made it permissible to kill Palestinians of all ages, including those who don't pose a threat. "You can kill those who are not supporting or encouraging murder in order to save the lives of Jews," it states in the fifth chapter, entitled "Murder of non-Jews in a time of war." The BBC elaborates: "At one point it suggests that babies can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat" (July 19).

This becomes particularly problematic when the lines between politics, ideology and religion become so conveniently blurred. Israeli and Jewish leaders borrow from the corresponding text as they find suitable to achieve policies to further occupation, war and illegal settlement. Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School, came to represent the latter model. His style lacks diplomacy and logic; however, it is effective in some circles because it centers around the idea of smearing anyone who dares to criticize Israel. The greater tragedy is that Dershowitz is provided with platforms in mainstream and rightwing Israeli media, thus giving his smear campaign the means to turn any genuine discussion of Israel into a controversial hate speech.

While critical non-Jews are often smeared as 'anti-Semites', jurist Richard Goldstone, who lead the UN investigation into the Israeli war on Gaza., was not a mere anti-Semite for concluding that Israel and Hamas had both potentially committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Dershowitz told Israeli Army Radio that Goldstone is a 'traitor to the Jewish people'. 'The Goldstone report is a defamation written by an evil, evil man,' Dershowitz said (Haaretz, October 31).

While the case for Palestinian rights and statehood can be clear-cut - not many true-to-self intellectuals could justify ethnic cleansing, defend Apartheid and rationalize murder - delving into the political identity of Israel and its ideological and religious supporters becomes immediately 'controversial'. The controversy is embedded in the purposeful intellectual and political elasticity by which Israel defines, or refuses to define itself. It claims to be Jewish as well as democratic. It claims to embody religious ideals but also to be secular. It claims to be liberal, while it is militarily oppressive. It claims to uphold 'equality' for all, while it is racially exclusive.

And if you dare to challenge these irreconcilable contradictions, you are termed an anti-Semite or a traitor - or both.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

Using a handheld transceiver, the journalist aired live communication between a Libyan commander and his troops in a Tripoli neighborhood targeted by a massive air assault. Millions of people listened, as surely did NATO military intelligence, to sensitive information disclosed by an overpowered, largely defeated army. The Doha-based news anchor sought further elaboration, and the reporter readily provided all the details he knew.

Did Abdel-Azim Mohammed, a journalist reputed for his gutsy reports from Iraq's Fallujah, violate the rules of journalism by transmitting information that could aid one party against another, and worse, cost human lives?

While there are few doubts about the impressive legacy of Aljazeera - and the valuable individual contributions of many of its reporters - urgent questions need to be asked regarding its current coverage of the so-called Arab Spring that began in December 2010.

Some of us have warned against the temptation of a one-narrative-fits-all style of reporting. A non-violent popular uprising is fundamentally different from an armed rebellion, and a home-grown peaceful Tahrir Square revolution is different from NATO-Arab military and political campaigns aimed at settling old scores and fomenting sectarian conflict (as in Libya and now Syria).

Aljazeera coverage of the Egyptian revolution was, for the most part, impeccable. It was the type of coverage that reflected the revolutionary fervor felt throughout the country. Even when the former regime of Hosni Mubarak pulled the plug on Aljazeera coverage, it somehow found a way to transmit the country's mood with impressive clarity.

Yet, despite the fact that some Arab uprisings are inherently more complex than others (because some societies embody a more involved sectarian makeup, for example), Aljazeera news anchors continue to jump from one country to the other, as if addressing different points of the exact same topic. In the channel's coverage of Libya, NATO's unwarranted bombing campaign received little reporting. The targeting of black Africans (covered by some Western and African media) earned little airtime at Aljazeera Arabic. Ever-available guests were often immediately dispatched to dismiss any reports of maltreatment of captured soldiers accused of being 'loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi'. Aljazeera had indeed striven to present a perfect scenario of a perfect revolution. Now that the sentimentalization of the revolution is fading out, a harsh new reality is setting in, one that encompasses numerous arms groups, infighting and Western countries ready to share the spoils.

Aljazeera's priority has now shifted from Libya to Syria, a country that has been on Washington's radar for many years and long irked Israel for its support of Lebanese and Palestinian resistance factions.

From a political and humanitarian viewpoint, there is no denial that Syria is in need of fundamental political reforms. More, the blatant violence employed against the uprising was simply indefensible. However, unlike what Aljazeera Arabic and other media may claim on an hourly basis, there is more to Syria than a brutal 'Alawite regime' and a rebelling nation that never ceases to demand 'international intervention'. There is also the reality of ill-intentioned parties seeking their own objectives, such as further isolating Iran, strengthening allies in Lebanon, weakening Damascus-based Palestinian factions, and aiding US allies in rearranging the entire power-paradigm in the region.

One would argue that whatever ambitions some small Arab country may have, these should not be pursued at the expense of the Syrian people, who are seeking real democracy in a sovereign country free from meddling, armed militias and unexplained car bombs. The fact is, insecurity and political uncertainty will be the future of Syria if a political settlement is not achieved between the government - which must end its violent crackdowns on pro-democracy protests - and a truly patriotic opposition that doesn't call for foreign intervention or 'no-fly-zones'. The Iraq no-fly-zone in 1991 and the Libya no-fly-zone in 2011 were mere prologues to military actions that devastated both countries. There is little justification in repeating this scenario; the Syrian people did not rise merely to see their country being destroyed.

In January 5, a massive blast killed 26 people in Damascus, exactly two weeks after twin bombings killed 44. Between the two bombings, hundreds of Syrians were reportedly killed and wounded in the armed conflict involving the Free Syrian Army. Considering the large and porous border areas between Syria and Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and the contentious border area with the occupied Golan Heights (illegally annexed by Israel), one cannot dismiss the possibility that Syria has been infiltrated on many fronts. But this also goes unreported.

While one lacks sympathy for any regime that brutally murders innocent people, journalists are also accountable to both balance and humanitarian standards. They cannot completely dismiss one party and embrace another. Aljazeera Arabic channel has done just that. It has failed to maintain its independence, and is growingly covering the upheaval in the Arab world from the narrow political prism of its host country.

In Aljazeera's early days in the mid and late 1990s, the channel took on taboo subjects and proudly challenged the status quo. This continued with Aljazeera's coverage of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, when mainstream western media were disowning their own proclaimed standards of objectivity and treating Iraqis like dispensable beings underserving of even a body count.

In recent months, however, Aljazeera has begun to change course. It has deviated from its journalistic responsibilities in Libya, and is now completely losing the plot with Syria.

The channel is in urgent need to revisit its own code of ethics, and to fulfill its promise of treating its audience "with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture." Yes, perhaps the Syrian regime should be changed, and perhaps an armed rebellion in Syria will eventually overtake the non-violent uprising. But the outcome is not for me, Aljazeera, The New York Times or any other journalist or publication to decide. The revolution belongs to the Syrian people alone, and only they can determine where it leads.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

Both leaders said what would be expected of them under these circumstances. Haniyeh asserted that his movement's "presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity," and Badie reaffirmed the Brotherhood's commitment to "issues of liberation, foremost the Palestinian issue" (MENA and AP, December 26).

It is very telling that Haniyeh's first official visit outside Gaza as prime minister was to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in Cairo's Moqattam district. He shared his message - of resistance against Israeli occupation, national unity with rival Fatah and reaching out to Muslim countries - and then resumed his regional tour.

Since 2006, Hamas has attempted, but largely failed to win the approval of governments in Muslim-majority countries. Muslim solidarity was the thrust of Hamas' foreign policy, aimed at lessening Palestinian political and financial dependence on the US and other Western governments. It failed because, as it turned out, US financial and political leverage is too overpowering and far-reaching for a relatively small movement like Hamas to singlehandedly challenge. But, as Haniyeh himself reiterated, times are changing

In the first and second rounds of Egyptian elections, the Brotherhood's newly created Freedom and Justice party won more than 35 percent of the vote. The electoral success was hardly an anomaly. The Islamic Nahda party, which formed the first post-revolutionary government in Tunisia, won more than 40 percent of the vote last October. Morocco's Justice and Development party won the November elections and the Islamic leaning of Libya's new political set up is all too palpable. There have been marks of Islamic political influence in other countries across the region.

The reformation of the political landscape in the Arab region has tempted many to infer polarizing, if not frightening conclusions. Israeli army Home Front Command Chief Major General Eyal Eisenberg was one of the first in Israel to refer to these developments as an Arab Spring turning into a "radical Islamic winter". He said, "This leads us to the conclusion that through a long-term process, the likelihood of an all-out war is increasingly growing" (Arutz Sheva, September 5).

However, what truly worries Israel is not the radicalization of Muslim societies, but the rise of Islamic politics to represent a rational, mainstream political discourse. It threatens Israel because it could rally many Arabs around one cohesive political agenda, and repositions Palestine, once more, as central to what many Muslim intellectuals refer to as the "Islamic Awakening".

Israeli fear mongering aside, the US - Israel's main benefactor - must find ways to co-exist with the new political arrangement. Other Western governments too "will have to adapt to a power shift they have long sought to prevent," wrote Roula Khalaf and Heba Saleh in the Financial Times (December 28).

For Israel, however, the transformation in regional politics will prove unbearable. It is not Tunisia's Nahda party that Israel is most concerned about, of course; it is Hamas. This is partly what compelled Haniyeh to venture out of Gaza. As the US is hoping to control, if not manage, the rise of Islamic parties, Hamas aims at ensuring a primary position for Palestine - as seen through the prism of the Islamic movement - in the region's new political landscape.

There is little doubt that Hamas' rise to political prominence in 2006, and the numerous subsequent attempts at isolating and destroying it will influence new Islamic parties in various Arab countries. Hamas' ability to survive has certainly registered among new Muslim politicians in Egypt and elsewhere. Now, with the early fruits of the Egyptian revolution being plucked by Islamic parties, Hamas is guardedly making its move. Hamas is a "jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face," said Haniyeh in Cairo.

A quick look at the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine shows that Haniyeh was hardly exaggerating. Since the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Ismailiyya, Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna and a few others, it quickly found in Palestine a rally cry to unite Muslims through the entire region. The first link between the movement and Palestine was formed in 1935, when Abd al-Rahman al-Banna (the founder's brother) visited Palestine and met with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

The Brotherhood became visible during the revolt of 1936, as they communicated the Palestinian message with an Islamic tone to the rest of the Arab world. The cause of Palestine promptly became the central mission and calling of the Brotherhood, as Hasan al-Banna himself headed the newly founded General Central Committee to Aid Palestine.

More, in April 1948, when most Arab governments delayed in partaking in the defense of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood deployed three battalions of volunteers. Estimates of the number of Brotherhood volunteers in Palestine during the war and the subsequent Nakba vary, but Hasan al-Banna himself noted, in March 1948, that the movement had approximately 1,500 volunteers in Palestine.

The relationship between the Brotherhood and Palestine had it ebbs and flows, but the rapport was never completely severed. Even before Hamas was officially established 1987, the movement functioned under various classifications, all directly affiliated with Egypt's Brotherhood.

The recent Cairo meeting between Haniyeh and Badie could be understood within that historical context, representing a triumphant reunion and possibly open coordination. This would once again rejuvenate the Brotherhood's Palestine connection, and grant Hamas greater political leverage - after years of isolation, and despite the current political turmoil in the region.

Of course, Hamas' challenges are many and growing. Leading among them is Israel's violent escalation in Gaza, and the unremitting US pressure. Still, it is expected that Hamas' political message and outlook will continue to find balance between Palestinian exceptionality and the more inclusive Arab and Islamic framework.

By venturing out of Gaza, Haniyeh is hoping to expand the diameters of the Palestinian Islamic movement into Egypt and beyond - thus reclaiming what Hamas once considered 'the strategic depth' of the Palestinian cause. While such a push failed to attain its objectives in 2006, 2012 is a brand new year.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

Mustafa's crime? He, along with Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists, protested the besiegement of Nabi Saleh by the illegal Jewish settlement of Halamish. Halamish has existed since 1977 and drastically grown in size and population ever since, taking over privately-owned Palestinian land. As of late, Nabi Saleh has been struggling for mere survival as its fresh water spring has also been seized by settlers under the watchful eye of the Israeli army.

Mustafa died so that the village of Nabi Saleh could live. The struggle will continue for years.

A young man may now be gone, but he also left behind a legacy which has become the cornerstone of the augmenting international solidarity with Palestinians around the globe.

The struggle for justice in Palestine is ultimately between a Palestinian - protesting, with a rock or rifle in hand - and an Israeli, often equipped with the latest killing technology the arms industry has to offer. The former fights for basic rights - land, water, freedom, equality and such - while the latter is determined to intimidate, silence, imprison, and, when compelled, commit murder or even large scale massacres to prolong Israeli occupation and military dominance over Palestinians.

Things are not always so clear-cut, of course. Some Palestinians have learned with time the benefits of co-existing with the occupation. Some Israelis have jointly struggled with Palestinians against the inhumanity of the occupation, the brutality of the military and the illegality of the land seizure.

One such Israeli is Tamar Fleishman, of Machsomwatch. She is simply indefatigable. Her mission is to document the daily violations committed by the Israeli army at a series of checkpoints extending between Ramallah (in the West Bank) and Jerusalem. Showing a complete disregard for international law, and even the official foreign policy of the United States, Israel has insisted that the entirety of Jerusalem is Israel's eternal capital. But illegally occupied East Jerusalem - or al-Quds - has been the beating heart of Palestinian national, religious and even intellectual identity for many generations. To split the heart from the body, Israel has been choking occupied East Jerusalem since 1967, encircling it with illegal Jewish settlements, Jewish-only bypass roads, and a dizzying checkpoint structure intended to create a permanent divorce between the West Bank and a city that Palestinians see as their future capital.

Armed with a camera and her own willpower, Tamar is relentless. She knows by name all the tired-looking children who sell tea in plastic cups, newspapers and gum at all the checkpoints. She narrates their stories of humiliation, pain and struggle. She tells of the people crammed between glass walls, barbed wire and blocks of cement. As long as these women and men keep the checkpoints populated, Jerusalem will maintain its historic attachment with the rest of Palestine.

And Tamar, the habitual visitor of these very spots, will resume her daily toil to convey the stories that capture the essence of this enduring conflict.

But without the numerous media outlets that challenge the inherent pro-Israeli bias, censorship and apathy of mainstream media, Mustafa's story and Tamar's photos would have remained confined to Nabi Saleh, or some checkpoint manned by cruel soldiers.

In fact, the story of Palestine is getting more than a good share of coverage in old and new alternative media outlets. More, 2011 has concluded on a positive note as far as media coverage of this conflict is concerned. In an article entitled, 'The media consensus on Israel is collapsing', Jordan Michael Smith reveals that "slowly but unmistakably, space is opening up among the commentariat for new, critical ideas about Israel and its relationship to the United States" (salon.com, December 21). While Smith rightly credits the academics Tony Judt, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer for "expanding the permissible," the pressure on mainstream media has been obstinately championed by numerous individuals from all walks of life. It is they, who, for many years, refused to subscribe to the convenient narrative that venerates and vindicates Israel - not only at the expense of Palestinians, but also at the expense of the United States' foreign policy.

The popular solidarity movement continues to score new victories with each passing day. Israel's attempt at countering its gains seems to achieve little more than inviting controversy, which actually recruits more support for Palestinian rights.

One platform that has become very successful in recent years, and particularity so in 2011, was the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

"The BDS movement is growing relentless," wrote Eric Walberg, author and editor at al-Ahram Weekly. His 'BDS Updates' regularly highlight the overwhelming success of the worldwide initiative that is partly modeled on the triumphant anti-Apartheid movement of South Africa. His year-ender updates for 2011 included the cancelation of an Israel tour by the famous musician Natacha Atlas (though sadly, not all artists were so principled). Walberg also reported that "in a wonderfully shocking divestment move, Israeli powers-that-be are furious at BNP Paribas for shutting down its operations in Israel. (They) believe the bank's board of directors caved to pressure groups, in the first case in years of a foreign bank leaving Israel..." Such reports are now stable items crowding social media channels on a regular basis.

True, 2011 had its share of tragedy. Human lives were lost in Palestine. But hope was also sustained by the sacrifices of numerous 'ordinary' people who collectively managed to achieve many hard-earned feats. It is these numerous small victories that will make it difficult for Israel to continue with its futile campaign to occupy and dominate a people so determinately entrenched in their land - from the small village of Nabi Saleh to the proud Palestinian city of al-Quds.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

Another 'militant' had been killed two days earlier. Israeli military aircraft "had targeted two militant squads that were preparing to fire rockets into southern Israel," according to the Associated Press. AP quoted Israeli official saying the army would "continue to take action against those (who) use terror against the state of Israel."

It really doesn't take much to kill a 'militant' in Gaza. Israeli military intelligence officers simply select a weapon and zoom in on their chosen person on any given day. This is not a difficult task really since the entire population of the Strip are besieged in Gaza's open air prison. The same statement issued regarding the assassinated 'militant' can then be easily rewritten, using the same predictable justifications.

Israel's excuses actually tell nothing of the history behind the phenomena of 'militancy'. To know why some young men in Gaza decide to mask their faces and carry arms, they need to abandon the media's reductionist characterization of Gaza's armed struggle. This goes back much earlier than Hamas and Fatah, the 2006 elections, the 2007 siege or the 2008-09 war.

The phenomenon began shortly after the Nakba - The Palestinian 'Catastrophe' in 1948, which saw the destruction of Palestine and the erection of today's Israel. During this time nearly a quarter a million were evicted or forced to flee to Gaza. A displaced population then yearned to go home, and many wished to recover the lifesavings they had buried under patches of earth in their Palestinian villages. Some wanted to harvest their crops, and others sought family members that had gone missing during the forced march out of Palestine.

Once they crossed into newly established Israel, many refugees never returned. But the boldness of the 'fedayeen' - freedom fighters - now began to grow rapidly.

The refugees eventually began organizing themselves, with or without help from the Egyptian army, which was still stationed at the outskirts of Gaza and the southern borders of the Sinai desert. Groups quickly assumed names and became factions, and their members acquired military fatigues. The fighters used kuffiyehs - traditional headscarves - to cover their faces to escape the watchful eyes of Israeli collaborators, who were also growing in number.

Over time, Palestinian guerrilla commandos began carrying out daring strikes deep inside Israel. The fedayeen were mostly young Palestinian refugees. Their operations grew bolder by the day, as they snuck into Israel, like ghosts in the night, with primitive weapons and homemade bombs. They would target Israeli soldiers, steal their weapons and return with the new weapons the second night. Some would sneak back into their villages in Palestine; they would 'steal' blankets and whatever money they had saved but failed to retrieve in the rush of war. Those who never returned received the funerals of 'Martyrs'. Following every fedayeen operation, the Israeli army would strike Gaza's refugees, inspiring yet more support and recruits for the young, but growing commando movement.

The phenomenon quickly registered among Palestinian youth in Gaza - not due to any inexplicable desire for violence, but because they saw in the fedayeen a heroic escape from their own humiliating lives. Indeed, the fedayeen movement was the antithesis of the perceived submissiveness experienced by refugees. It was a manifestation of all the anger and frustration they felt. They simply wanted to go home, and freedom-fighting seemed the only practical way of fulfilling this wish.

As refugees stayed put in their tents, and as more Palestinians were killed by Israeli military incursions and snipers, the numbers of fedayeen multiplied. In a historic visit to Gaza in 1955, then Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser promised to fight on until all of Palestine was liberated. Soon after, amid angry demands for action, Egypt decided to establish ten battalions of the National Guard, which were made up mostly of Palestinian fedayeen and led by Egyptian officers. It signaled an Egyptian attempt to take charge of the situation and control the scattered Palestinian leaderships and its armed factions. Cross-border skirmishes culminated, at times, into full-blown border battles. Israeli mortar attacks reached many areas in Gaza. There was no safe place to hide.

The factions changed names. The fedayeen wore different colored kuffiyehs. But in essence, little changed. Poverty persisted. Human rights continued to be routinely violated. Not a single refugee returned home. And three, if not four generations of fedayeen, carried on with the fight.

In some way, the media perception of these masked men also remained largely unchanged. The 'militant' has always been reported as an inexplicable irritant. At best, he served as a reminder, not of a poignant history that must be unearthed and understood, but of why Israel is, and will always remain, threatened by masked Palestinians. When a so-called 'militant' is brutally killed, little justification is offered. If any 'militants' respond to the killing, such retorts could possibly serve as a casus belli for an already planned Israeli military escalation.

It is important that we understand that 'militancy' in Gaza is not linked to any Palestinian faction per se, nor is it incited by a specific ideology or individual. The phenomenon had indeed preceded all the factions and individuals that dot Gaza's political landscape. It was caused by the single event of the Nakba, and all the tragedies that manifested as a result of it.

Chances are, the 'militants' - or fedayeen, or even 'terrorists' by the standards of Israel and its supporters - will continue to exist as long as the conflict remains unsolved per the necessary standards of justice and fairness.

As for the media, it behooves reporters to dig a bit deeper than an image of the charred remains of an uncle and his nephew - and to see beyond the predictably false accusations that underlie official Israeli statements.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

Not discounting the fact that some of the Palestinian factions had, in fact, contributed to the long and arduous struggle for Palestinian freedom, a chasm had long existed between the larger mass of the Palestinian people and those who claimed to represent them.

The Intifada tried to change that unsettling paradigm. It transported the struggle away from Arab capitals back to Palestine, and, more importantly, involved ordinary Palestinians in the campaign to end Israeli occupation. The parties that represented the traditional 'players' in the conflict faced an unprecedented situation in a conflict that had previously been determined almost solely by Israel's military might, enabled by US' unconditional support and Arab acquiescence. But this time around, no bullets were deadly enough, no US support was generous enough, and no political submission was demoralizing enough to stifle the spontaneous calls of freedom made by ordinary Palestinians.

The Intifada eventually subsided. Palestinian political elites tried to capitalize on its gains, and Israel did its best to prevent its reoccurrence. Thus the Oslo Accords, a joint effort by Israeli and some Palestinian leaders to create a new status quo. Selected Palestinians were brought back to the occupied territories to manage the 'unruly' masses while Israel carried on with its colonial mission unhindered. Since then - and despite of the Second Palestinian Uprising in 2000 - no major paradigm shift has managed to change that terrible reality. The Palestinian leadership, clustered in the so-called Palestinian Authority (PA), has fallen deeper into corruption while illegal Israeli settlements have morphed beyond the imaginings of Ariel Sharon and other ardent Israeli rightwing leaders.

Meanwhile, Palestinians continue to subsist between bouts of defiance - as exemplified in Gaza, Jenin and other places - while slowly being ethnically 'cleansed' from East Jerusalem and the West Bank to make room for expanding Jewish settlements. The courage of these ordinary Palestinians, men and women holding onto their beloved ancient olive trees as they are ruthlessly bulldozed, is now a trademark known in its Arabic form: sumoud, steadfastness.

That said, the political landscape is once again being locked into a predictable pattern. Two-faced Israeli leaders speak of peace while maintaining a state of siege and occupation over millions of Palestinians, while a self-designated Palestinian leadership grows increasingly reliant on the very occupation it is trying to end. According to the International Middle East Media Center, citing an academic study conducted by a Palestinian researcher from the West Bank, "the amount of investments by Palestinian businessmen in Israeli settlements and in Israel itself, amounted to $2.5 Billion in 2010" (IMEMC and Agencies, November 9).

In fact, this is a much bigger issue than Palestinian money invested in the Israeli occupation, or even some outrageous concessions made by one 'chief negotiator' or some other official. The tragedy is that while Israeli dominance is once again being normalized (as was the case before 1987), the Palestinian leadership, despite repeated failures, insists on maintaining its position of ascendancy and control. This insistence continues even as the geopolitical map of the region is being redrawn - whether by the action of Arab peoples, or through the military might and political influence wielded by outsiders.

A paradigm shift is in fact underway in several Arab countries, especially those immediately adjacent to Palestine and Israel. While the breeze of the so-called Arab Spring is likely to be felt by occupied Palestinians, the extent of its political influence remains uncertain. Even if change in Egypt, for example, proves truly fundamental and irreversible, it will do the Palestinians little good if an alternative and truly revolutionary leadership doesn't materialize soon. This is the only change that could possibly renew and harness the indefatigable energies of the Palestinian people.

The political attitude of the Palestinian leadership, whether the US-backed 'moderates' in the West Bank, or Hamas in Gaza are maneuvers aimed at accommodating the political change underway in Cairo and Damascus. The unity talks between Fatah and Hamas - the latest touted 'successful' talks being held in Egypt on November 24 - might, in theory, bridge the divide between the two rivals. Yet, in reality, it remains a political project between two movements aspiring to find common ground for their own political ends. This is arguably a positive feat, but it will definitely fall short of the minimal paradigm shift required in Palestine under the current circumstances.

It is almost ahistorical that Palestinians haven't yet marched forward, along with Tunisians, Egyptians and others. This could be attributed to the extreme factional polarization and bitter politics that have divided Palestinians in myriad of ways. There have been a few bashful attempts at reaching a critical mass of popular mobilization, but instead a limited movement with overly sentimental and unclear political demands was quickly co-opted.

In reality, national unity is not a mere strategic decision, necessitated by rapidly changing political reality. It requires a fundamental shift from old strategies and the shedding of old beliefs. In the case of Palestine, a new beginning requires the total mobilization of all aspects of Palestinian society, restating nationally unifying priorities, introducing original language, new tools and strategies, and accompanied by as little empty rhetoric as possible.

This critical stage of the Palestinian struggle cannot be satisfied by the rebranding of Palestinian politicians, and it cannot be ushered in by a leadership with tainted records. It requires a generation of leaders with clean slates, revolutionary in their thinking, motivated by the single belief that no freedom can be achieved without true national unity, under a single flag. The allegiance must not lie with any particular faction, but to Palestine itself, and the only unifying slogan should be 'Freedom'.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

An ordinary Egyptian is likely to determine his/her take on revolution from various angles: measurable economic advancement - or lack thereof; the ability to voice an opinion without fear of censorship or retaliation; the right to participate in collective action, and influence the overall direction of his/her country.

A revolution can also delve into the realm of self-definition. Some Arab collectives have redefined themselves along religious, nationalistic or ideological lines - by re-coloring a flag or rewording a national anthem - in the hope that this would allow them to cement political change through a collective psychological departure from one era into another.

While conceptual depictions of major phenomena may be achievable, their practical application can be elusive. On January 14, just days after the ousting of Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, I warned of the failure to appreciate the unique circumstances of the Tunisian revolution, and the distinctiveness of Tunisian society as a whole:

"There is no harm in expanding a popular experience to understand the world at large and its conflicts. But in the case of Tunisia, it seems that the country is largely understood within a multilayer of contexts, thus becoming devoid of any political, cultural or socio-economic uniqueness. Understanding Tunisia as just another 'Arab regime', another possible podium for al-Qaeda's violence, is convenient but also unhelpful to any cohesive understanding of the situation there and the events that are likely to follow."

The article was a response to the media frenzy which placed all Arab societies into one category. But this failure of distinction cannot be attributed merely to the overriding ignorance of the Western media and intellectuals in their understanding of Arabs, nor of Western governments' opportunistic relationship to the 'Arab world'. Analogous generalizations were also being employed by the Arab media and intellectuals, and even the rebelling masses themselves.

There seemed little harm in Yemeni activists relating to the Egyptian revolutionary experience, or Syrians and Libyans borrowing each other's slogans. After all, there is an unmistakable cultural and historical bond between various Arab societies, and they are rife with overlapping experiences of colonization, foreign occupation, dictatorship and popular uprisings. But what was meant to inspire a sense of shared values and experiences quickly became a fault line, exploited by those who wanted to ensure the failure of Arab uprisings, or to direct their outcomes.

It was no surprise that the Arab uprisings did not remain the business of the Arabs alone. Even before the governments of France and the United Kingdom signed their infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 - dividing Arab provinces (then part of the Ottoman Empire) into spheres of influence - the fate of the region had already been determined by outside powers. And unlike common myths associated with the 'Arab Spring', Arab nations have repeatedly rebelled against foreign colonizers and their own despots.

The belated Western response to the Tunisian revolution - and the incoherent reaction to the Egyptian revolution in January 25 - served as a wakeup call to those who inherited the legacy of François Georges-Picot and Sir Mark Sykes Indeed, past encounters continue to define the Western countries' ties to the 'Middle East region', which is appreciated for its many economic spoils and unmatched strategic importance.

"Western security, construction and infrastructure companies that see profit-making opportunities receding in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned their sights on Libya, now free of four decades of dictatorship," wrote Scott Shane in the New York Times (October 28, 2011).

This short sentence truly sums up the motives of Western intervention, and the West's overall attitude towards its former colonies. However, there is a strange resolve among many players in the 'Arab Spring' - including in Arab media - that discount or ignore the foreign element whenever Arab uprisings are discussed. This tendency is not only intellectually dishonest and perceptibly ahistorical, it is also highly suspicious. Amid the purposeful silence regarding the self-serving and destructive role played by foreign powers, plots are being hatched against various countries under the very pretexts that led to the destruction of Iraq, Libya, and even Lebanon. Yes, in 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon, it used the concept of democracy as part of its justification.

However, being fully appreciative of the disparaging and exploitative role of foreign powers shouldn't allow one to turn into an apologist for dictatorship either. A more somber reading of history shows the unshakable bond between dictators and their foreign benefactors - at the expense of the oppressed masses, who are now revolting to reset the course of history on a more equitable route.

True, a revolution can be polarizing for those who are projected to either win or lose once its final outcome is determined. But intellectuals have a historic responsibility to remain vigilant of the uniqueness of each and every collective experience, and to place it within accurate historical contexts. They should not omit inconvenient truths when such omissions are deemed convenient.

This is not moral neutrality, a notion that has been articulated by South African anti-Apartheid leader Desmond Tutu in his iconic statement: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." It is rather the responsibility of the intellectual to question what is taken for granted. Edward Said claimed that the ideal intellectual should be seen as an "exile and marginal, as amateur, and as the author of a language that tries to speak the truth to power."

Speaking truth to power is still possible, and is more urgent than ever. The fate of a nation, any nation, cannot be polarized to the terrible extent that the Arab uprisings have. On both sides of the divide, some are cheering for foreign intervention, while others are justifying the senseless murder of innocent people by dictators.

There is possibly a fine line between the divides, and it is the responsibility of the intellectual to trace this line, and remain steadfast there. He may consequently find himself marginalized and exiled, but at least he will maintain his integrity.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

The Israeli raid on the Turkish aid ship, Mavi Marmara, in international waters on May 31, 2010, was not enough to erode this vision. The official Turkish response to Israel's violent attack - which killed nine Turkish citizens - was one of great anger, but it hardly resembled what Turkey saw as state-sponsored Israeli piracy in the Mediterranean.

However, the Syrian uprising in March, the harsh government crackdown on dissent, and the growing militarization of the opposition - all leading the country down the road to full-fledged civil war - has forced Turkey to abandon its 'zero-problems' foreign policy. While Turkey had clearly grown impatient with the bloody crackdowns on widespread protests demanding freedom and political reforms, its growingly confrontational attitude towards Damascus was not entirely altruistic either. Considering the exceptionality of the situation throughout the Arab World, Turkey has had to make some difficult choices.

Turkey's initially guarded support of NATO's military intervention against Libya was a litmus test. It proved that Turkey's membership in the organization, and its regional standing was more important than any foreign policy visions.

"The same stunning irony was clear in Turkey's relations with (murdered President Muammar) Qadhafi's Libya. Once these regimes faltered...zero problems was likely to look like a bad bet," wrote Steven A Cook in the Atlantic, on November 18.

The other 'stunning irony' is, of course, Turkey's hostile attitude towards Syria's Bashar al-Assad, once considered by Erdogan to be a personal friend. In fact, the leading role currently played by Ankara to isolate and punish al-Assad would seem like the official "denouement of the Erdogan/Davutoglu investment in Bashar al-Assad," and thus the "end of what has been billed as Turkey's transformative diplomacy," according to Cook.

Despite pressure on Ankara to hasten its isolation of Syria, and subtle insinuations that the Turkish leadership is moving too slow on that front, the language alone tells of near complete foreign policy conversion. In a statement on November 15, Prime Minister Erdogan suggested that al-Assad cannot be trusted. "No one any longer expects (the Syrian President) to meet the expectations of the people and of the international community...Our wish is that the Assad regime, which is now on a knife edge, does not enter this road of no return, which leads to the edge of the abyss" (Global Spin blog, TIME online, November 16).

The apocalyptic language can be justified on the basis of an almost inevitable civil war in Syria, and the instability that such a war could create for an already unstable southern Turkish border. More, with regional and international players already vying for the opportunity to exploit Syria's internal woes, Turkey's own internal problems could soon be exploited for the benefit of outside forces. Thus, the new Turkish foreign policy appears to be centered on ensuring a position of leadership for Ankara in any future scenario faced by Syria. It's a remarkable shift - from a moralistic approach to politics to a crude realpolitik outlook, which may require sacrificing others for the benefit of oneself.

Political realism is often riddled with ironies. While Turkey once threatened to go to war unless Syria expelled PKK's Ocalan, it "is now supporting a man, Riad al Assad, whose 'Free Syrian Army' is doing exactly the same across the Syrian border," according Ankara-based writer Jeremy Salt. Furthermore, "in confronting Syria...Turkey has put itself at odds with Syria's ally, Iran, whose cooperation it needs in dealing with the PKK" (The Palestine Chronicle, November 18).

By claiming a position of leadership in the ongoing effort to topple the Syrian government, Turkey hopes to stave off unwanted repercussions from the Syria fallout - and thus control the outcome of that adventure. This explains why Turkey's largest city, Istanbul, has played the host of the Syrian National Council, and why the Free Syrian Army, which has launched several deadly attacks on Syrian security installations, is finding a safe haven in Turkish territories.

Politically, Turkey is also taking a lead role. Its foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, after a meeting with French foreign minister Alain Juppe, called for more international pressure against Damascus. "If they don't listen we have to increase pressure to stop bloodshed in Syria," he said. "But this pressure should not be unilateral pressure, all the relevant countries should act together" (The Financial Times, November 18).

What Davutoglu means by 'act together', and which countries are 'relevant' is open to speculation.

As for acting, Mohammad Riad Shaqfa, the leader of Syria's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, offered his own roadmap at a news conference in Istanbul. "If the international community procrastinates then more is required from Turkey as a neighbor to be more serious than other countries to handle this regime," Shaqfa said. "If other interventions are required, such as air protection, because of the regime's intransigence, then the people will accept Turkish intervention" (Turkey's Hurriyet, November 17).

A detailed plan of that envisaged intervention was published in Turkey's Sabah newspaper on the day of Shaqfa's comments. According to Sabah, an intervention plan was put forth by 'oppositional forces'. Its details include a limited no-fly-zone that progressively widened to include major Syrian provinces and a blockade of the city of Aleppo in the north (Sabah, November 17).

Considering the escalating violence in Syria, and the palpable lack of good intentions by all 'relevant countries,' Syria is teetering close to the abyss of prolonged civil war, divisions and unprecedented bloodletting.

"As negotiator and facilitator between the Syrian government and the internal opposition, Turkey has a role to play," wrote Jeremy Salt, "but provoking Syria along the border, lecturing Bashar al-Assad as if he were a refractory provincial governor during Ottoman rule and giving support to people who are killing Syrian citizens is not the way ahead."

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

Soon, there was a deadlock. The uprising failed to weaken the links between the regime, army and other security agencies. It also remained confined to areas outside the two most populated cities, Damascus, in the southwest, and Aleppo in the north. On the other hand, protests seemed extensive and prevalent enough to reflect a real sense of outrage at government practices, which grew with the reported deaths of Syrians all over the country. Despite a relentless military crackdown, and the killing of 3500 Syrians (according to a recent UN human rights office report), the government has not been able to quell the uprising, nor to provide a convincing political initiative that could spare Syria further bloodletting.

It could be argued that the impasse originated in Syria's own political culture, espoused by the Baath Party's legacy of shunning dialogue in times of crisis. More, those who ultimately designated themselves as Syria's opposition remain largely divided, and often seemed to provide conflicting roadmaps for achieving democracy.

Earlier revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were spared the terrible fate of people's priorities becoming merely another agenda item to be decided by outside powers. Both revolutions had quickly reached the critical mass required to topple their dictators, denying outsiders the chance of meddling in the outcome. The situation in Syria, however, developed at a different pace. The uprising lacked the full support of the urban middle class. The army neither broke away from the ruling party, nor remained neutral. Additionally, months of violence - in which a successful Western military intervention in Libya toppled the regime of Mummer Ghaddafi - provided outside powers with the needed time to position themselves as the caretakers of Syria's future. In other words, a popular uprising was decidedly hijacked and is currently being managed from Western and Arab capitals.

It was as though ordinary Syrians began realizing that their vision of achieving revolution from within was futile, and they bought into the illusion that only outside intervention could bring lasting change. These voices were emboldened by members of the Syrian National Council - seen as the lead opposition to the Baath regime - whose behavior seemed to model that of the Libyan National Transitional Council. The latter had blithely welcomed NATO to Libya, initially to 'protect civilians' from possible Libyan army retaliation, but eventually to carry out an airstrikes campaign that largely increased the number of deaths in Libya.

Adopting a model that rationalizes foreign intervention - which is incapable of exacting change without extreme violence - will bode horrible consequences for the Syrian people and the whole region. With the Syrian government failing to win the trust of large segments of the Syrian population, the opposition's growing dependency on outside forces, and some Arab media networks fanning the flames of sectarianism and civil war, the Syrian deadlock is morphing into something even more dangerous: a Lebanon-style civil war or a Libyan-style foreign military intervention.

The fate of Syria is no longer likely to be influenced by the Syrian people themselves, nor by their government. All eyes are now on the United States. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tried to clarify the US position in her recent comments. In the case of Libya, NATO and Arab countries banded together "to protect civilians and help people liberate their country without a single American life lost," she said. But in other cases, as in Syria, "to achieve that same goal, we would have to act alone, at a much greater cost, with far greater risks and perhaps even with troops on the ground." For now, according to Clinton, US priorities in the region would have to remain focused on "our fight against al-Qaeda; defense of our allies; and a secure supply of energy" (The Washington Post, November 7).

Russia and China, worried that another US regime change venture could jeopardize their interests in the region, remain steadfast behind Damascus and critical of the factions that oppose the Assad regime. "We are concerned with news of ongoing aggression by extremist gunmen such as those which took place in Homs, Hama and Idlib in recent days with the provocative aim of forcing security agencies and the army in Syria to retaliate, and then launching a campaign via international media outlets," said Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov in a recent statement (The Lebanese Daily Star, November 11).

The lines are thus drawn, between US-led Western camp and Russia and its own camp, which vehemently rejects a repeat of a Libyan scenario in a volatile region of unmatched geopolitical significance.

Whatever the outcome of this tussle, the Syrian uprising is increasingly being deprived of its own initiative. Currently, the issue of Syria is being entrusted to the Arab League, which lacks both credibility (since it is too divided between regional interests) and any history of successful political initiatives. On November 2, Syria announced that it had agreed to an Arab League plan which called for the withdrawal of security forces from the streets, the release of prisoners and talks with the opposition.

However, it is very probable that some Arab countries are keen to employ the league in a similar fashion to the way it was used with the war on Libya: a mere springboard that eventually allowed NATO's war to take place. Signs of such a scenario are becoming clearer, especially following the league's vote to suspend Syria's membership on November 12. Indeed, In a New York Times editorial on November 8, the role of the Arabs seems to be confined to just that. The Arab League "should eject Syria and urge the United Nations Security Council to condemn Mr. Assad and impose international sanctions against the regime," the Times counseled. "Russia and China will find it harder to block a Security Council resolution -- as they did in October -- if the Arab world calls for action that goes beyond the sanctions already imposed by the United States and Europe."

And so the saga continues. If Syria doesn't wrestle its fate from the hands of these self-serving forces, the Syrian uprising and Syria as a whole will continue to be marred by uncertainties and foreboding possibilities.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

The victory of the Ennahda (meaning Renaissance) Party was all but predictable. Official results showed that the party won more than 41 percent of the vote, providing it with 90 seats in the 217-member new Constituent Assembly, or parliament.

To quell fears of Islamic resurgence, leading party members seemed to direct their message to outsiders (the US and Western powers), rather than the Tunisian people themselves. Ennahda's Secretary General Hamadi Jebali, slated to be the next prime minister, labored to "reassure secularists and investors, nervous about the prospect of Islamists holding power in one of the Arab world's most liberal countries, by saying it would not stop tourists wearing bikinis on the beaches nor impose Islamic banking" (BBC, October 26).

Jebali, like the party leader Rachid Ghannouchi, understands well the danger of having Ennahda blacklisted by disgruntled Western allies, whose past conduct in the region is predicated on ostracizing any political entity that dared to challenge their interests. The European Union welcomed the results of the elections, but, of course, the subtle line was one of 'let's wait and see.' Ennahda's own performance is likely to determine its ability to overcome the difficult, albeit implicit probationary period designated by Western allies in these situations.

"The moderate Islamist Ennahda party is in talks with secular rivals about forming a coalition government," reported Voice of America on October 28. The patronizing language of 'moderation', 'extremism' and 'secularism' is once again being employed to define the Arab political milieu. These are convenient labels that change according to where Western interests lie. The irony is completed by the fact that former Tunisia president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and now jailed Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, were once models for both 'secularism' and 'moderation' from American and European viewpoints.

The Western assessment of Tunisia's future under an Islamic-led government actually has little to do with bikinis or alcohol. The question is entirely political, and is concerned with Tunisia's attempt at seeking true sovereignty and independence from western hegemony.

Now that Ennahda has won Tunisia's elections, and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is expected to secure substantial gains in Egypt's first post-revolution elections in November, a debate is raging around the new political map of the region.

Syria, naturally, is high on the agenda.

The debate is rife with mixed messages. Countries like the US and France, for example, pose as the guarantors of democracy, yet consciously confuse the term with sheer economic interests and military influence. This deliberate moral and political flexibility is what Ed Husain addressed in the Council on Foreign Relations website when he asked, "Is the US better off sticking with Syria's Assad?"

The subject is meant to be examined entirely from a rigid realpolitik perspective, without allowing any ethical considerations to taint the investigative process. "Therefore, the assumption that a Syrian regime without Assad and the Alawites at the helm would mean an isolated Iran is wishful thinking at best, and uncertain at worse," he concluded.

It other words, if Western invention in Syria can contribute to Iran's isolation, then the US would abandon Syria's Assad in exchange for a more advantageous alternative. While one appreciates such candid, although amoral, analysis, we must remain vigilant of any attempt at confusing the practical and materialist drive behind US and European foreign policy with notions of women's liberation, minority rights or any other. If Tunisian (or Egyptian, Syrian, Libyan, etc) freedom was a paramount concern for Western powers, they would have isolated the dictators who emasculated and tormented their countries for many years.

Unfortunately, it is Western media that often determines the nature and extent of political discourses relevant to the Arab and Middle East region. Despite their repeated failures, they continue to unleash one offensive after another, creating fears that don't exist, and exaggerating small events to represent grave phenomena.

One example is James Rosen's article, "Arab Spring Optimism Gives Way to Fear of Islamic Rise," which was published on Fox News online (October 28). "From the first stirrings of change in the Middle East nine months ago, optimism at the prospect of 100 million young people rising up to seize their democratic freedoms has been tempered by fear in Western capitals that radical Islamists might also rise up and try to hijack the so-called Arab Spring," he wrote.

It matters little to the writer that Western powers were in fact filled with nothing but trepidation when the throne of Mubarak - once the US' most faithful ally in the region - was taken down by millions of Egyptians. Nor is it important to him that it was NATO that hijacked the Libyan uprising (and they attempted to repeat their costly act in Syria). What seems to matter to Rosen is the inflated notion that 'radical Islamists' might rise up and hijack the 'Arab Spring'.

The debate regarding Islam in politics is likely to continue and intensify. Attempts will also be made to heighten or lower Western anxiety regarding the future of the 'Arab Spring'. This discussion is not concerned with religion or the rights and welfare of Arab people. It is based only on crude political calculations, as demonstrated in an October 27 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in Washington (as reported in Fox News on October 28).

The Middle East "really worries me," said Rep. Dan Burton. He asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton what the Obama administration "plans to do make sure that we don't have a radical government taking over those places."

"I think a lot of the leaders are saying the right things and some are saying things that do give pause to us," she said. "We're going to do all that we can within our power to basically try to influence outcomes."

Is any further comment necessary?

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

For most Palestinians, leaving Gaza through Egypt is as exasperating a process as entering it. Governed by political and cultural sensitivities, most Palestinian officials and public figures refrain from criticizing the way Palestinians are treated at the Rafah border. However, there is really no diplomatic language to describe the relationship between desperate Palestinians - some literally fighting for their lives - and Egyptian officials at the crossing which separates Gaza from Egypt.

"Gazans are treated like animals at the border," a friend of mine told me. She was afraid that her fiancé would not be allowed to leave Gaza, despite the fact that his papers were in order. Having crossed the border myself just a few days ago, I could not disagree with her statement.

The New York Times reported on June 8: "After days of acrimony between Hamas and Egypt over limitations on who could pass through the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, Hamas said Egypt had agreed to allow 550 people a day to leave Gaza and to lengthen the operating hours of the crossing."

And so the saga continues.

A few weeks after an official Egyptian announcement to 'permanently' open the border - thus extending a lifeline for trapped Palestinians under siege in Gaza - the Rafah border was opened for two days of conditional operation in late May, and then closed again for four days. Now it has once more 'reopened'.

All the announcements are proving to be no more than rhetoric. The latest 'permanent' reopening has come with its own conditions and limitations, involving such factors as gender, age, purpose of visit, and so on.

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country," states Article 13 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This universal principle, however, continues to evade most Palestinians in Gaza.

I was one of the very first Palestinians who stood at Rafah following the announcement of a 'permanent' opening. Our bus waited at the gate for a long time. I watched a father repeatedly try to reassure his crying six-year-old child, who displayed obvious signs of a terrible bone disease.

"Get the children out or they will die," shouted an older passenger as he gasped for air. The heat in the bus, combined with the smell of trapped sweat was unbearable.

Passengers took it upon themselves to leave the bus and stand outside, enduring disapproving looks from the Egyptian officials. Our next task was finding clean water and a shady spot in the arid zone separating the Egypt and Palestinian sides. There were no restrooms.

A tangible feeling of despair and humiliation could be read on the faces of the Gaza passengers.

No one seemed to be in the mood to speak of the Egyptian revolution, a favorite topic of conversation among most Palestinians. This zone is governed by an odd relationship, one that goes back many years - well before Egypt, under Hosni Mubarak, decided to shut down the border in 2006 in order to aid in the political demise of Hamas.

The issue actually has nothing to do with gender, age or logistics. All Palestinians are treated very poorly at the Rafah crossing, and they continue to endure even after the toppling of Mubarak, his family and the dismissal of the corrupt security apparatus. The Egyptian revolution is yet to reach Gaza.

When the bus was finally allowed to enter about five hours later, Palestinians dashed into the gate, desperately hoping to be among the lucky ones allowed to go in. The anxiety of the travellers usually makes them vulnerable to workers at the border who promise them help in exchange for negotiated amounts of money. All of this is actually a con, as the decision is made by a single man, referred to as al-Mukhabarat, the 'intelligence'.

Some are sent back while others are allowed entry. Everyone is forced to wait for many hours - sometimes even days - with no clear explanation as to what they are waiting for, or why they are being sent back.

The very ill six-year-old held on his dad's jacket as they walked about, frantically trying to fulfill all the requirements. Both seemed like they were about to collapse.

The Mukhabarat determined that three Gaza students on their way to their universities in Russia were to be sent back. They had jumped through many hoops already to make it so far. Their hearts sank when they heard the verdict. I protested on their behalf, and the decision was as arbitrarily reversed as it was originally made.

Those who are sent back to Gaza are escorted by unsympathetic officers to the same open spot, to wait for the same haggard bus. Some of those who are allowed entry are escorted by security personnel across the Sinai desert, all the way to Cairo International Airport to be 'deported' to their final destinations. They are all treated like common criminals.

"I can't watch my son die in front of my eyes," screamed the father of 11-year-old Mohammed Ali Saleh, according to Mohammed Omer for IPS (June 10). He was addressing Egyptian troops days after the border was supposedly 'permanently' reopened - for the second time in less than a week.

Such compelling needs as medical treatment, education and freedom keep bringing Palestinians back. The Israeli siege has chocked Gaza to the point of near complete strangulation. Egypt is Gaza's only hope.

"I beg you to open the crossing...You brothers of Egypt have humiliated us for so long. Isn't it time we had our dignity back?" said Naziha Al-Sebakhi, 63, one of the many distressed faces at the Rafah border, according to Mohammed Omer.

As they crossed into Egypt, some of the passengers seemed euphoric. The three Russian students and I shared a taxi to Cairo. A tape of Umm Kulthum's 'Amal Hyati' - Hope of my Life - played over and over again. Despite everything, the young men seemed to hold no resentment whatsoever towards Egypt.

"I just love Egypt...I don't know why," said Majid pensively, before falling asleep from sheer exhaustion.

I thought of the six-year-old boy and his dad. I wonder if they made it to the hospital on time.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

Iyad was not here to show me any militant training camp, or even to assess the damage that had befallen the impoverished Gaza Strip during Israel's devastating war, Operation Cast Lead, which killed and wounded thousands in 2008-09. Scars of the damage sustained during the three-week onslaught are still visible throughout the Strip. Iyad was here to show me his latest personal project: a playground for refugee children.

At first glance, the "playground" did not seem impressive at all. All I noticed was a small plot of dirt jammed between two unsightly concrete buildings.

"So, what do you think?" asked Iyad, with a proud smile. His attempt at growing a full beard was not entirely successful, giving him a younger, albeit disheveled appearance.

"It's impressive," I replied, still trying to understand the nature of the accomplishment.

I learned later that the achievement was creating space out of the debris. At one time prior to December 2008, when an Israeli missile decided to drop in, a family had lived in this spot. The house had collapsed, and its residents became mere posters of mourned Palestinian faces adorning the walls of other houses in the neighborhood.

Iyad and few of "Shabab Al-Masjid" -- youth of the mosque -- cleared almost everything, using only their bare hands and other primitive means. The siege had made it nearly impossible to access modern technology to clear the uncountable tons of concrete scattered in and around Gaza as a result of the war. Cement remains a precious commodity in an area that needs building material above most other resources. People here somehow remain positive.

"And here will be a soccer field," continued Iyad, who seemed to have no budget whatsoever, except the will of the "shabab".

Predictably, Iyad's residence is located in a refugee camp. What seemed to be a large crack around much of the house was in fact a mark left by an Israeli missile, which blew up most of the house. Iyad's entire family -- his brothers, their wives and about two dozen children -- were watching TV in a room that miraculously managed to stay still as the house imploded. The neighbors rushed looking for dead and survivors, only to find everyone alive and well.

Iyad smiled in wonder.

When the unmanned drone began circling above his head, Iyad knew that the Israelis had located him. So he began running.

"I didn't want them to know where I lived, so I began running without a clear sense of direction," said Iyad, who reiterated that he always prepared himself for such a moment. "I am not scared of death. Life and death is in God's hand, not some Israeli pilot, but I worried about my family."

Then, Iyad's house came down.

Since then, the house has been rebuilt, although in a haphazard way. New additions to the house stand above the deep cracks. There are no guarantees that the foundation is safe, or if the house is even inhabitable at all. Oblivious to war, death, unarmed drones and shaky foundations, the children are full of life.

Three of the boys in Iyad's household carry the same name. It was the name of Iyad's brother who was killed by an Israeli sniper as he protested the occupation during the First Palestinian Uprising (Intifada) of 1987. It was this very event that changed Iyad's life forever. In a moment, the little boy had become a man, as expected of any "brother of a martyr".

Iyad's niece -- a cute girl in a checkered dress -- was asked to perform her nashid, a song she had learned in the street. She did so with untold enthusiasm. The song referenced paradise and martyrs and "right of return," and of children facing missiles with bare chests. The crowed clapped, and the girl huddled by my side bashfully. Perhaps she had not expected such a passionate response from her audience. She was five years old.

Iyad, who is now studying at a local Gaza university, already speaks of a Master's degree and a teaching career. He also remains consumed by his playground and the challenges awaiting him and the "youth of the mosque" once the uneven ground is completely flattened.

His nieces and nephews sing for the martyrs, but they are also keen to do their homework. They discuss end-of-year exams with dread and excitement. All the boys are fans of Barcelona, and devotees of a man named Lionel Messi.

"When I grow up, I wanted to study physical education," said one of the boys, a teenager of about 14. 'I will specialize in soccer, just like Messi's major at the University of Barcelona,' he added excitedly.

I laughed, and so did everyone else.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.

"He is in heaven now," said Abu Nidal. His voice, which had been so cheerful about my arrival, suddenly became muffled. The years of hurt over the loss of his son had culminated into one moment. He paused and wiped tears. A poster on the wall showed the face of a handsome, bearded man. He had been killed during an Israeli army raid into Gaza a few years ago. The poster dubbed him, "The Great Martyr Mahmoud Fa'iq al-Hajj."

I placed my right hand on Abu Nidal's shoulder and said, as is customary in these situations: "We are all your children." Abu Nidal nodded gratefully, and the neighbors began recalling the names of other Martyrs. Soon, we began to read al-Fatiha, asking God to bless the souls of all those who had perished in Gaza.

It has been many years since I last stood here, in the Red Square. Named after the many people who were killed at the hands of Israeli soldiers during the First Uprising of 1987, the once open area has shrunk, like many other spaces in and around the refugee camp. The population of the Gaza Strip has grown significantly, as has poverty. Surrounded and besieged by Israel, 1.6 million people living in 360 square kilometers (139 square miles) are now exploiting every inch of this tiny and continually shrinking space. Still, Gaza persists.

I began my journey in Nuseirat at my old aunt's house. She gazed at me in disbelief and cried intermittently throughout my visit. "Oh Allah, George is back," she repeated, referring to me by my old name. When it was time to go she chased after me down the street for a last kiss, a hug and shed more tears.

The Martyrs Graveyard is now full to capacity. Desperately lacking space, some people had to resort to burying their loved ones on top of others, until the practice was stopped by the government.

My father was buried in an area called Zawydeh. In 2008, I was told he was buried in a 'small graveyard,' which encouraged me to attempt to find the grave on my own. However, the graveyard is no longer small and I spent over an hour trying to locate it. In the process, I learned that some of my friends and relatives have also died. They include: my geography teacher, my Arabic and religion teacher, the kindly man with one eye who sold the strangest mix of items on a donkey cart, and a 13-year-old girl by the name of Fida, meaning 'sacrifice'.

I found my father's grave at last. My dad, Mohammed. The wonderful, loving, resourceful, angry, thundering and warm man. He never imagined he would one day be buried in Gaza. He wanted to go home to Beit Daras, his long destroyed village in Palestine. "I will see you soon, son," he had told me many years ago, when I last saw him. I now wrote him a note, and buried it in the Gaza earth by his headstone.

"O peaceful and fully satisfied soul, return to your Lord..." read a verse of the Quran atop the white grave. No Cast Lead, no massacre could possibly interrupt the peaceful rest of the dead - not even in Gaza.

My mother Zarefah's grave was in a different graveyard. It appeared much older than I remembered it. It lay close to my grandparents, and my two-year-old brother Anwar's tiny grave.

My old house, which once stood relatively tall amid the other impoverished homes in my neighborhood, is now almost hidden from view. Its white walls have been dirtied by years and neglect. Abu Abdullah, the new owner, welcomed me in. A large man with a humble demeanor and a friendly but cheerless face, he walked me through the house. While very little had changed after all these years, the 'basketball rim' my brothers and I concocted from rubber hose and fastened high on the wall was gone. I could almost hear my mother yelling as her five boys ran wild in the small space. "May Allah help me cope with all of this," she would bellow, as she tried frantically to fix whatever we ruthlessly ruined.

I didn't check to see if the bullet holes left by the rampages of Israeli troops remained where I last saw them. While I had dreamed of seeing this place again for so many years, it was now just too much to bear. I left hurriedly, despite Abu Abdullah's repeated pleas to stay longer.

My English teacher, Mohammed Nofal, remained as I had left him, funny and hospitable. A few of my friends have been killed, but many others have remained steadfast, building, repairing, educating and surviving. The astonishing level of determination that has always defined Gaza is much stronger than I remember it. No one seeks pity in this place.

"There was a large building here," I remarked inquisitively to a cousin at one point in my journey.

He replied casually. "It's been destroyed in the latest war, but the people crushed the rubble, processed it into concrete and the building now stands on the other side of the street". In Gaza, few discuss what has been destroyed, but many speak of rebuilding.

As I waited for a taxi to take me to the town of Khan Younis, I spotted the Akel falafel stand. Here we had once spent my dad's loose change on Falafel sandwiches and Barrad-flavored crushed yellow ice.

I held onto my plastic cup of Barrad all the way to Khan Younis in the south of Gaza, taking careful, slow sips. It tasted exactly as I remembered it from when I was six years old. Since then, nothing in the world has tasted better.

"Now the Egypt border will be open for good, you should come back to Nuseirat for more Barrad," said a friend.

"Inshallah," - God willing - I said. "Inshallah."

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

'Things will get better,' said a Palestinian engineer from Gaza, who once studied and now works in a Swedish town south of Stockholm. What he meant was that things will get better at the border crossing, in terms of the relationship between Gaza and Egypt. Without a decisive Egyptian decision to reopen the crossing - completely - Gaza will continue to reel under the Israeli siege. Others agree, but Gazans have learned not to become too confident about political statements promising positive changes.

However, the Egypt of today belongs to an entirely different political category to the Egypt of Hosni Mubarak's leadership. Palestinians, especially those trapped behind the shut borders in Gaza, are well aware of this. Still they are cautious. 'Inshallah' - God willing, they say, 'May Allah bring good things.'

For now, things remain difficult at the border. When Egyptian border officials collect passports for examination, and return a few hours later to read aloud the names of those allowed in, a large crowd gathers around them. Tensions soon escalate to yelling, and occasional tears.

'Go back or I will not give any his passport back,' shouted a large Egyptian officer with some disdain. The veins on the side of his face suddenly bulked up. The crowd disbanded, only to return seconds later. The officer looked exhausted and clearly fed up. The Gaza travelers had already moved beyond the point of humiliation. They simply wanted to get from here to there, and back.

A young woman with a contorted back trotted behind her mother. Her pain was apparent on her face. 'Yallah yamma,' - hurry, daughter - urged the mother. 'They might close the gate any minute.' The girl, in her twenties, paused, closed her eyes tight, as if summoning whatever strength remained in her frail body to carry on for a few seconds longer.

The gate of the Egyptian border point was very wide, but only a small gap of a few feet was open. When it opened, early Thursday, May 19, hundreds tried to rush in at once. Large bags were tossed over people's heads, children cried in panic, officers yelled, and a few dared to yell back. 'Just open the gate, the big one,' someone said. A white-haired little man, in an oversize, ancient suit, stood back and shock his head. 'It's a tragedy,' he said. Soon, he too was forced to lose his civility and push against the mass of desperate humanity. Later, I saw him inside the border point, circling around nervously and intently puffing on a cigarette.

Here at the border, everyone is nervous, even those who have no reason to be. The Egyptian officers are edgy, as if their fate too is being determined somehow. Both sides know that the Gaza-Egypt border is undergoing an important transition. Egypt's new foreign minister, Nabil al-Arabi, had already promised a breakup with the past, thus an opening of the border between his country and Gaza. There is much trust among Palestinians that the new Egypt is genuine, but also a fear that a politically vulnerable Egypt might be forced to compromise on its early stances.

But the Egyptian people seem determined to keep their government in check. Palestine is a major theme now in large protests. Hundreds of Egyptian activists were arrested, and many were wounded as they rallied near the Israeli embassy in Cairo, which was closed for few days before re-opening again. An Egyptian call to march to Gaza, in commemoration of the Palestinian Nakba of 1948 - the Day of Catastrophe - was aborted after the Egyptian army sealed much of Sinai. Tanks still dot the highway leading from Cairo to Gaza via the Sinai desert. The soldiers are very polite, though. The Egyptian driver who took me to Rafah in a very late hour seemed happiest with the revolution in his country, simply because he is now treated with respect by men in uniform. 'Officers used to treat us with so much disrespect,' he said with a retrospective sense of grief. 'Now, we are like brothers.' The driver extended his hand for an unnecessary handshake with a noticeably short solider, wearing a pair of slippers.

The sense of joy, however, hasn't made it to the Gaza border yet. The hope and anticipation that Gazans feel towards the changes underway in Egypt can only be understood after a degree of investigation. The distance between Cairo and Rafah is long and arduous. It will be no easy task to translate political will in the former into meaningful policy in the latter. Still, the Egyptian people are keeping up the pressure, and Palestinians in Gaza remain hopeful.

At the end, no one was turned back. Everyone made it into Gaza. The man with the very old suit was still smoking and cursing for no apparent reason. The girl with the hurt back was still in terrible pain, but also happy to be home. The Gaza-Swedish engineer had a crowd of young cousins waiting for him. In Rafah, I found myself invited to a lunch followed by Arabic coffee with many men I didn't know, most of whom were called Mohammed. They all seemed happy.

'So, Egypt has changed, right?' asked one Mohammed with a knowing smile and a nod. Everyone seemed to agree, although they didn't pinpoint exactly how that change has affected Gaza so far. Palestinians in Gaza survive largely because of the 500 or so tunnels that connect the impoverished, besieged Strip to Egypt. Now, they feed on hope and cheap cigarettes, much of it also coming from Egypt.

'Ramzy Baroud,' called out an older officer loudly. 'Welcome home, son,' he said, as he handed me my passport and waved me in. No words could possibly have been sweeter at that moment.

After seventeen years of constant attempts to visit Gaza again, I am finally here.

I am in Gaza. I am home.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

On 13 November 2007, then Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni told chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Ereikat that she despised the very notion of law. According to the Palestine Papers, published by Al-Jazeera and the Guardian, Livni said: "I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer... But I am against law -- international law in particular. Law in general."

Livni is often contrasted with current rightwing Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu, and has been described as a "dove" when compared to him. This unfounded reputation caused many broken hearts when Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel in March 2009, as chances for real peace supposedly diminished.

Such Israeli obduracy was a prime reason for Palestinians to unify their ranks. The signing of the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement in Cairo on 27 April was indeed a fitting response to Israel's incessant attempts at dividing the Palestinians.

Palestinian unity must not be co-opted into the peace charade, however. It should not become a condition Palestinians are required to fulfill in order to demonstrate their worthiness for Israeli-US-styled peace. Such a rationale, now gleefully argued by many, would not explain why ordinary Palestinians celebrated throughout the occupied territories. What compelled the celebrations was a common understanding that political unity was necessary to confront that very Israeli intransigence, and that the use of democratic and truly representative political institutions could achieve such goals as liberation, sovereignty and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Following the official signing of the unity deal, Daniel Levy wrote in the Guardian : "It makes sense to speculate that a course correction by Israel's leaders towards greater realism, pragmatism and compromise might emerge in response to a more challenging, strategic and -- one would hope -- non- violent Palestinian adversary."

Others have made similar points, arguing that Palestinian political unity will force Israel to compromise. Hamas and Fatah could together prevent Netanyahu's government from expanding settlements, and also prevent further exploitation of disunity by challenging the idea that Israel has no peace partner with which an agreement can be reached and honoured.

This argument, as thoughtful or well-intended as it may be, actually seems to ignore recurring historical events. Israel's colonial programme underway in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank has never been affected by Palestinian discord or unity. The real problem lies in Israel's entrenched belief that only absolute military domination over the Palestinians could guarantee Israel's position in what Livni described as a "rough neighbourhood".

However, Palestinian leaders, especially in the two main parties, Hamas and Fatah, already know this. Fatah has been through nearly 20 years of frivolous negotiations, and Hamas has, all this time, watched Fatah concede, both politically and territorially, without gaining any significant peace dividends in return. Thus, it's a foretold conclusion that giving Israel yet another break to change its ways, as proposed by Hamas's politburo chief Khaled Meshaal, will bring nothing new to the table.

To avoid being viewed as compromising, Meshaal made his remarks in the form of a threat. During a meeting with young leaders of the Egyptian revolution on 10 May, Meshaal stated that Hamas was "willing to give Israel a one- year extension on recognising a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital." If Israel failed to do this, the movement would be forced to bring additional "cards to the pack of resistance". The Hamas leader made it clear, however, that the additional cards wouldn't necessarily indicate a declaration a war on Israel.

Giving Israel another year -- enough time to confiscate more Palestinian land and to build thousands of new illegal housing units in its ever expanding settlements -- is hardly the political strategy that Palestinians expect from the Hamas-Fatah unity.

In fact, neither Hamas nor Fatah have a political mandate to make such sweeping political compromises, especially as Palestinians are very familiar with Israel's lack of tendency to reciprocate. In fact, Israel is likely to escalate, both politically and militarily, to counter whatever strategy Hamas and Fatah have in mind.

Palestinian leaders need to use caution before making such offerings, especially as the next phase in the Palestinian struggle for freedom and rights is likely to be a very challenging one. The Arab revolution is sounding the alarms in Tel Aviv that Israel's rough neighbourhood is getting even rougher. Israel's political contingency is at an all-time high, as united Palestinian parties will be pushing for international recognition of an independent state at the United Nations next September. More, the US is likely to curtail its omnipresent role as the propeller of the peace process, following the resignation of the Obama administration's special envoy for Middle East peace.

The announcement of former Senator George Mitchell's resignation after two years of fruitless talks, in conjunction with the mobilisation of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, suggest that the coming months will see much arm-twisting, if not outright coercion, of the Palestinian leadership.

Fatah should not interpret unity as a mandate to carry on with its failed policy of the past. And Hamas should take care not to repeat the kind of text-book mistakes Palestinians have repeatedly committed, even if the reward might be greater legitimacy or inconsequential recognitions.

Palestinians didn't celebrate unity out of love for Hamas or Fatah. Rather they were eager to see a sound Palestinian strategy that could revitalise Palestinian energies everywhere towards one common goal: freedom. The freedom Palestinians want is based on Palestinian political constants, enshrined in international law. Any deviation from such understanding for limited political and factional gains will turn the prevailing sense of joy into grief, and celebrations into protests.

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

Many of the children who participated in the UN-sponsored marathon probably pointed and cheered at Nader as he sped by them. Some might even have tried to momentarily hustle to remain at equal footing with Palestine's favorite runner. Despite the scorching heat and numerous obstacles, Nader finished in 2 hours, 47 minutes and 47 seconds, falling short of his goal by over 17 minutes.

Nader has run prestigious events outside Gaza. He took part in the 5,000 meters race at the Beijing Olympics, and is currently undertaking vigorous training in preparation for the 2012 London Games. I am certain that his partaking in the London event will be used as an opportunity to celebrate Gaza and Palestine.

According to the Associated Press, Nader declared, 'It is a day of joy,' as he reached the finish line in Rafah, near the Gaza-Egypt border. 'This is a very happy day for me because it is the first-ever marathon in Gaza.' The Rarah border has been closed for a large part of the last five years, making the Israeli siege and protracted war on Gaza complete, as well as unbearable. The post-revolution government in Egypt, however, is planning to divest from any further political participation in the Israeli siege on Gaza. Egypt's new Foreign Minister Nabil Al-'Arabi has promised to open - and keep open - the border point.

Nader's last name, 'al-Masri', means 'the Egyptian'. Many Palestinians also carry the same name. The bond between the two countries is remarkable and historic, and it long preceded former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's decision to become 'moderate' and effectively suffocate the already confined population of the Gaza Strip.

The race started from Gaza's most northern point, Beit Hanoun. The small town was previously center stage in Israel's so-called Operation Cast lead. In a period of three weeks between December 2008 and January 2009, over 1,400 Palestinians were killed and 5,000 more were wounded, according to UN and other international reports. Israel argued that it had the right, if not duty, to act as it did.

Nader is from Beit Hanoun. Considering the very high ratio of Israel's victims that come from this small town, one can imagine that Nader has lost neighbors, friends, and family members. Many in Beit Hanoun, like thousands of other Palestinians in Gaza, will carry the scars of Israel's war to the end. Many will not be able to walk for the rest of their lives. But Nader is still running.

The war on Gaza took place merely four months after Nader's participation in the Beijing Olympics in August 2008. I had, at the time, written about him and three other Palestinian athletes who took part in the games:

'When four Palestinian athletes marched with the Palestinian flag into the Olympic Games in Beijing it was a statement, a declaration of sorts, that Palestinians insist on their right to exist on equal footing with the rest of the world, to raise their flag without fear and wear their country's name spelled out the way it should be, not as a Palestinian Authority but as Palestine. The 1.5 million Palestinians living in besieged Gaza must have savored that moment more than anyone else. One from amongst them, Nader Al-Masri, had a big smile on his face as he marched, nervously but proudly. Gaza lived a moment of freedom that day, one that even Israel couldn't take away.'

Since then, much has plighted Gaza, Cast Lead notwithstanding. The Gaza population has grown in size to 1.6 million. Thousands of international peace activists have marched to Gaza, crossing continents and braving high seas to stand in solidarity with the besieged population. Some were brutally murdered. Nine Turkish activists died abroad the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010, at the hands of Israeli soldiers in international waters. On May 5, 2011, nine athletes finished the first Gaza Marathon, including a few internationals. Solidarity is a unifying value in Gaza.

A marathon is an approximately 42 kilometers long (26.2 miles). The length of Gaza in its entirety is 41 kilometers. The difference must have been managed somehow, through side roads or other means. Israeli army watchtowers dot the Gaza-Israel border. Israel removed its illegal colonies from Gaza in 2005, but remained in complete control over the Strip, gunning people down inside the big cage whenever any of its inhabitants resembled a 'security threat'. Luckily the children of the Gaza Marathon escaped such classification.

As a result of the Gaza Marathon, UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) raised over a million dollars, thanks to the generosity of many people. The amount is enough for UNRWA to deliver on its promise to 250,000 Gaza children to attend summer camps.

Marathons carry different meanings and values, and each participant has his own unique reasons for participating. In Gaza, it was the spirit of freedom that compelled Nader to run, and to keep on running.

'When given the opportunity, the children of Gaza can be the best in the world,' UNRWA media advisor Adnan Abu Hassna said. They can also inspire us all - not for the two Guinness Records they broke in recent years - but because they are determined to hope under the most terrible and challenging of circumstances.

As for Nader, this Gaza man will simply keep running as long as his legs will carry him. Gazans are known for being stubborn, and perseverance is our gift.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

Despite numerous past attempts to undercut Mahmoud Abbas, stall peace talks, and derail Israel's commitment to previous agreements, Netanyahu and his rightwing government are now arguing that Palestinians are solely responsible for the demise of the illusory 'peace process'. Israeli bulldozers will continue to carve up the hapless West Bank to make room for more illegal settlements, but this time their excuse may not be 'natural expansion'. The justification might instead be Israel has no partner. US and other media will merrily repeat the dreadful logic, and Palestinians will, as usual, be chastised.

But frankly, at this juncture of Middle East history, Israel is almost negligible. It no longer has a transformative influence in the region. When the Arab people began revolting, a new dimension to the Arab-Israeli conflict emerged. As the chants in Cairo's Tahrir Square began to adopt a pan-Arab and pro-Palestinian language, it became obvious that Egypt would soon venture outside the political confines of Washington's patronizing labels, which divide the Arabs into moderates (good) and radicals (bad).

A day after the handshakes exchanged by chief Fatah representative, Azzam al-Ahmed, and Hamas's leaders, Damascus-based Dr. Moussa Abu Marzoug and Gaza-based Mahmoud Al Zahar, the forces behind the agreement in Cairo became apparent. While Israeli leaders used the only language they know for these situations - that of threats, intimidation and ultimatums - the US response was flat, confused, and extraneous. Aside from the outmoded nature of US officials' remarks, the focus was largely placed on the only leverage the US has over Abbas and its Fatah allies. Jennifer Rubin wrote in her Washington Post blog on April 29: "The Obama administration is reluctant to articulate clearly a position that if a Hamas-Fatah unity government emerges as Mahmoud Abbas has been describing, the U.S. will cut off aid."

The temporary reluctance is not pervading, however. "Congress is an entirely different matter," Rubin wrote, quoting an angry, unnamed official: "The only acceptable answers (to whether the US should fund the new Palestinian government) for most Americans would be no or hell no."

But how effective will such financial arm-twisting be, especially with the possibility of other donor countries following suit?

If the question had been asked prior to the Arab Spring - and the Egyptian revolution in particular - the answer would have been marred by uncertainty. A whole class of Palestinian politicians had arranged their stances almost exclusively around funding issues.

What really allowed Israel and the US to control the outcome of political events, even internal Palestinian affairs, was the lack of any real political balance surrounding this conflict. The US and its allies defined the will of the 'international community', and the region was trapped in Washington's - and Tel Aviv's - political designations of friends and enemies. It was a political stalemate par excellence, and only Israel benefited.

This analysis is not merely relevant to recent events. The greatest Israeli gain of the Camp David agreement (1979) was not of bringing peace to the region - for no regional peace truly followed. It was the total marginalization of Egypt as a powerful Arab party from virtually all Arab affairs of concern to Israel. The absence of Egypt in the process made it possible for Israel to repeatedly attack Lebanon, and also to further its colonization and destruction of the occupied territories.

Now Egypt is back - not merely in terms of a return to the 'Arab fold' - but as the party that will increasingly define the new Arab reality. The signing of the Hamas-Fatah deal may have come as a surprise in terms of media coverage, but it was really a predictable consequence in a chain of events that signaled the remaking of a region. Now the Middle East is spearheaded by a powerful Arab country, secure enough to reach out to multiple partners - other Arab countries, as well as Iran, Turkey and others.

Not only did both Turkey welcome the deal, it was also one of the main sponsors of the Palestinian rapprochement. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has been instrumental in pushing for Palestinian unity. As for the Iranian position, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi hailed the "auspicious" agreement, which he described as "one of the achievements of the Egyptian revolution," according to the Tehran Times (April 30).

The Israeli vision for the region was to keep it politically divided at any cost. Without such a division, Israel is likely to be on the defensive, and the US will be consumed in crisis management. A Palestinian unity in post-revolution Egypt, with the blessing of all Arab countries, Turkey, Iran, and many others, is an extremely worrying prospect for Israel. Of most concern is the rise of Egypt as a political party, one that is capable of making decisions on its own. Aside from sponsoring the unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah, without Israeli or US permission, Egypt's new foreign minister, Nabil al-Arabi, also described the decision to seal off Gaza as "shameful", and he promised to lift the siege (as reported by Aljazeera on April 29).

"Egypt is charting a new course in its foreign policy that has already begun shaking up the established order in the Middle East, planning to open the blockaded border with Gaza and normalizing relations with two of Israel and the West's Islamist foes, Hamas and Iran," wrote David D. Kirkpatrick in the New York Times (April 30). Such language was, at one time, unthinkable. Now, thanks to the will of the Egyptian and Arab peoples, it is likely to define the new Arab political discourse. Not even a fiery speech by a discredited Israeli Prime Minister could prevent this powerful paradigm shift.

A visit by Republican Senator John McCain to Benghazi on April 22, was described by a CNN online report as "a major morale boast" for the Libyan rebels. His arrival followed a US decision to deploy predator drones to Libya, thus promising a greater American role in the war. According to McCain, drones are not enough, and more will be needed to break the "significant degree of stalemate." He described Benghazi as a "powerful and hopeful example of what a free Libya can be."

A small crowd chanted as the US senator met with members of the Transitional National Council: "Thank you John McCain! Thank you Obama...Thank you America! We need freedom! Gadhafi go away," according to the same report.

This decidedly American push has already inspired many neoconservative ideologues who unfailingly endorse war against any Arab or Muslim country that fail to tow their line. A major hub for US intervention - most often in support of Israeli interests - is the American Enterprise Institute, credited for introducing many suspicious characters to Iraq following the ousting of Saddam Hussein. AEI scholar Michael Rubin said that the visit by McCain "brings more limelight to the rebels." But Rubin wants even more than this. "If McCain can meet the people for whom we are fighting, why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Why not Vice President Joe Biden?"

There are many indications to suggest that the US is upgrading its involvement in the Libyan war, following a brief period of political and military vacillation. Much talk of a pending stalemate in the unfair fight between poorly armed rebels and Ghaddafi's forces preceded the actual standoff on the ground. With no meaningful Arab action, and NATO's choosy military involvement proving to be largely ineffective, the US is now being urged to 'do something.'

'Doing something' is, of course, a difficult endeavor in a highly volatile political season in Washington. As miscalculations can be decisive factors in winning or losing elections, the Obama Administration is trying to play its cards right, moving towards more tangible involvement in Libya, but with much caution. What is clear, however, is that the involvement will be more visible than before.

McCain's visit is significant, not just because of his political seniority, but also owing to his former 'war hero' status. In Washington, military men are more trusted than politicians. As he ushered in greater American involvement in Libya, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was contributing to the built up of rhetoric from Baghdad. The situation in Libya is "certainly moving towards a stalemate," he told US troops during a visit. "Gaddafi's gotta go...(and coalition actions)...are going to continue to put the squeeze on him until he's gone," he said, according to Reuters (Washington Post, April 22).

Ghaddafi's brutal treatment of civilians made their protection a top priority for the country's rebels. Benghazi-based rebel-spokesman, Abdul Hafidh Ghoda, told Aljazeera: "There's no doubt that (the US decision to send unmanned drones) will help protect civilians, and we welcome that step from the American administration."

But since the destruction of "somewhere between 30 and 40 percent" of Gaddafi's ground forces (according to Mullen's estimation) achieved very little by way of protecting civilians, more steps are expected from the Obama Administration.

Now we are witnessing a jubilant return of previously muted calls for interventionism and regime change in favor of US-style democracy. While Libya may not have specifically fallen under the Washington radar, it now presents an opportunity too good to miss.

This realization might challenge President Obama and force him to revise an earlier claim that the US' goal was not regime change in Libya. In a televised speech on March 29, Obama said, "If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put US troops on the ground to accomplish that mission or risk killing many civilians from the air."

But yet again, a stalemate might end up splintering Libya itself. The US and its allies would either accept a divided Libya - and exploit this division whenever possible - or raise their involvement to break the deadlock. If they opted for the latter, there is already much rhetoric to support an upgrade in the military mission. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye (to) atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different, and as president I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action," Obama said.

A US victory over Gaddafi may be seen as an opportunity to boost Obama's faltering reputation just in time for the 2012 presidential elections. But history has repeatedly shown the high cost of political and military arrogance. Obama himself admitted that in Iraq, "regime change...took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly $1 trillion. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

Since the military plunder in Iraq, the US has resorted to softer and increasingly clandestine methods to destabilize 'unfriendly' countries. Recent Wikileaks revelations show that Syria was always positioned as one of these targets. Libya seemed too stable and somewhat too distant from recent US foreign policy estimations. However, the ongoing violence in the country, and fear of the long-term repercussions of a military stalemate, could change all of that.

In Washington, mood swings occur too quickly and too often. Political opportunists know well how to turn a challenge into an opportunity, and an opportunity into an all-out war.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

Editor's addition:

"Mary" is Mary Hughes Thompson, a dedicated activist who braved the high seas to break the Israeli siege on Gaza in 2008.

Vittorio Arrigoni, or Vik, was reportedly murdered by a fundamentalist group in Gaza, a few hours after he was kidnapped on Thursday, April 14. The killing was supposedly in retaliation for Hamas' crackdown on this group's members. All who knew Vik will attest to the fact that he was an extraordinary person, a model of compassion, solidarity and humanity.

Arrigoni's body was discovered in an abandoned house hours after he was kidnapped. His murderers didn't honor their own deadline of thirty hours. The group, known as the Tawhid and Jihad, is one of the fringe groups known in Gaza as the Salafis. They resurface under different names and manifestations, for specific - and often bloody - purposes.

"The killing prompted grief in Gaza, but also despair," read an op-ed in the UK Independent on April 16. "Not only was Arrigoni well known and well liked there, but it escaped no one that this kidnapping was the first since that of the BBC journalist Alan Johnson in 2007."

However, Johnson's kidnappers, the so-called Army of Islam (a small group of fanatics affiliated with a large Gaza clan) held their hostage for 114 days. There was plenty of time to organize and pressure the criminals to release him. In Arrigoni's case, merely few hours stood between the release of a horrifying video showing a blindfolded and bruised activist, and the finding of his motionless body. The forensic report said that he was strangled. His friends said that he was tortured.

Vittorio Arrigoni's murder was an opportunity for Israel's supporters. Most notorious amongst them was Daniel Pipes. He wrote, in a brief entry in the National Review Online: "Note the pattern of Palestinians who murder the groupies and apologists who join them to aid in their dream of eliminating Israel." Pipes named three individuals, including the Palestinian-Israeli filmmaker, Juliano Mer-Khamis, and Arrigoni himself, and then proceeded to invite readers to "send in further examples that I may have missed."

Pipes' list, however, will have no space for such names as Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall and James Miller, for these individuals were all murdered by Israeli forces. Pipes will also fail to mention the nine Turkish activists murdered aboard the Mavi Marmara ship on its way to break the siege on Gaza in May 2010, and the nine activists abroad Irene (the Jewish Boat to Gaza) who were intercepted, kidnapped and humiliated by Israeli troops before being deported outside the country in September 2010. 82-year-old Reuben Moscowitz, a Holocaust survivor, was one of the activists aboard the Irene, as was Lillian Rosengarten, an American "who fled the Nazis as a child in Frankfurt," according to a New York Times blog.

The people Pipes failed to mention truly represent a rainbow of humanity. Men and women of all ages, races and nationalities have stood and will continue to stand on the side of the Palestinians.

But this story is selectively ignored of pseudo-intellectuals, intent on dismissing humanity to uphold Israel. They refuse to see the patterns in front of them, as they are too busy concocting their own.

Writing in UK Guardian from Rome, on April 15, John Hooper said, "Arrigoni's life was anything but safe. In September 2008 he was injured (by Israeli troops) accompanying Palestinian fishermen at sea. Two years ago he received a death threat from a US far-right website that provided any would-be killers with a photo and details of distinguishing physical traits, such as a tattoo on his shoulder."

The group that murdered Arrigoni, like others of its kind, existed for one specific, violent episode before disappearing altogether. The mission in this case was to kill an International Solidarity Movement activist who dedicated years of his life to Palestine. Shortly before he was kidnapped, he wrote in this website of the "criminal" Israeli siege on Gaza. He also mourned the four impoverished Palestinians who died in a tunnel under the Gaza-Egypt boarder while hauling food and other goods.

Before his murder, Arrigoni was anticipating the arrival of another flotilla - carrying activists from 25 countries boarding 15 ships - that is scheduled to sail to Gaza in May. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adamantly called on EU countries to prevent their nationals from jointing the boats. "I think it's in your and our common interest...that this flotilla must be stopped," he told European representatives in Jerusalem, according to an AFP report, April 11.

Israeli officials are angry at the internationals who are 'de-legitimizing' the state of Israel by standing in solidarity with the Palestinians. Arrigoni has done so much to harm the carefully fabricated image of Israel as an island of democracy and progress. Along with other activists, he has shattered this myth through simple means of communication.

Vik signed his messages with "Stay human". His book, detailing his experiences in Gaza, was entitled Restiamo Umani (Let Us Remain Human). Mary Hughes Thompson shared with me some the emails Arrigoni sent her. "I can hardly bear to read them again," she wrote. This is an extract from one of them:

"No matter how (we) will finish the mission...it will be a victory. For human rights, for freedom. If the siege will not (be) physically broken, it will break the siege of the indifference, the abandonment. And you know very well what this gesture is important for the people of Gaza. That said, obviously we are waiting at the port! With hundreds of Palestinians and ISM comrades we will come to meet you sailing, as was the first time, remember? All available boats will sail to Gaza to greet you. Sorry for my bad English...big hug...Stay Human. Yours, Vik"

Vik's killers failed to see his humanity. But many of us will always remember, and we will continue trying to "stay human".

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

Currently estimated at a fifth of the population of today's Israel, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have endured appalling treatment for decades. As Muslims and Christians, they have been regarded as an anomaly in what was meant to be a perfect Jewish utopia governed by the laws of democracy. This is the quandary that Israel has never mastered, as the non-Jewish citizens of Israel have represented a major obstacle to that vision.

The question of what to do with Palestinian citizens of Israel has long haunted Israeli politicians. Discriminatory laws, unlawful seizure of land and even violence have all failed to deter Palestinians from demanding equality and exposing the moral inconsistency of Israel's selective democracy and dubious history. More, all attempts at fragmenting Palestinian national identity - through different sets of laws for Palestinians in Israel, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and millions in Diaspora - were hardly enough to disfigure the innate sense of solidarity and belonging that Palestinian communities felt towards one another. When Palestinian activists gather in Jerusalem, Algiers or London, one fails to trace borderlines, the details of identity cards, or any other desperate forms of classification used by Israel. When Palestinians meet, Israel's divisive laws prove frivolous.

Israeli politicians have "lost sight of a basic concept in democracy," claimed the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in a recent statement, as cited by the BBC. The statement was a response to the Israeli parliament's approval of a bill that "allows courts to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted of spying, treason or aiding its enemies." Like scores of other bills introduced to the Knesset, many of which have been approved, the most recent amendment of the Citizenship Law of 1952 targets the Palestinian population of Israel.

The bill, passed on March 28, was sponsored by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, the proud sponsor of nearly two dozen other discriminatory bills. Liberman's 2009 campaign was largely based on the slogan: "no loyalty, no citizenship." The latest bill is another manifestation of this idea.

But it was hardly the only bill targeting Palestinian citizens of Israel. Another had been passed only a few days earlier. The "Nakba Bill" passed its final reading on March 22 and was sponsored by Alex Miller (Yisrael Beiteinu). This bill can be understood as a war on the collective memory of Palestinians, as it targets those who mark and commemorate the Catastrophe of 1948.

"We are ready to go to jail," was the response of MK Jamal Zahalka, of Balad party, who warned of "civil rebellion" against recent bills. "Nakba law won't stop Arabs - we'll just increase our protests."

Haneen Zoabi, also of the Balad party, told The Electronic Intifada: "This is a kind of law to control our memory, to control our collective memory. It's a very stupid law which punishes our feelings. It seems that the history of the victim is threatening the Zionist state."

A stupid law maybe, but one rooted in Israel's historical fear of Palestinian memory. Indeed, the war on memory has its own convincing, albeit cruel logic. From Vladimir Jabotinsky's 'Iron Wall' of 1923 - aimed largely at sidelining the 'native population' from the 'Zionist colonization' of Palestine - to Uri Lubrani's desire to "reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters", attempts at forcefully removing or reducing the Palestinian population is the cornerstone of Zionist reasoning. The reasoning, which was essentially predicated on presenting Palestine as a "land without people", is often challenged by the fact that the Palestinian people are too stubborn to terminate their historical, intellectual and very personal relationship to their land. Their persistence has made a mockery of Israel's first Prime Minister Ben Gurion's faulty prediction in 1948 that "the old will die and the young will forget."

Palestinian steadfastness cannot bend natural phenomena. Yes, the old will continue to die. But the young are far from forgetting. So how do you now exact forgetfulness from Palestinians? Israel has always enjoyed a broad definition of 'democracy', which purported to reconcile ethnic and religious exclusivity on the one hand, and the inclusive parameters of true democracy on the other. Outside Israel, those who dared question this wisdom were labeled anti-Semites. Palestinians in Israel, who fought against the iniquitous and dehumanizing definitions, were often labeled a 'fifth column' and were designated 'enemies' of the state. It is they who now risk losing their citizenship or being fined for the supposedly sinful act of remembering the tragedies that have befallen their people.

Although racist and discriminatory laws have defined the Israeli parliament for years, the unmistakably bigoted nature of these laws and the frequency at which they are being passed reflect the level of fear in the Zionist project. The major obstacle to this project remains a people who refuse to be defeated or to be relegated as "woodcutters or waiters." Israel seems to be resolving its quandary of being a Jewish and democratic state, and it has decidedly chosen to be the former. There is nothing democratic about the most recent bills that have passed in the parliament. Israel is now officially an Apartheid state, and all the Hasbra in the world cannot resolve the moral crisis that is now at the core of Israeli politics.

Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on March 2 that veteran diplomat Ilan Baruch had quit his post as he was no longer able to defend Israeli policy. It seems Mr Baruch made his decision in the nick of time, as it would be a truly arduous task now to try and justify Israel's war on Palestinian memory.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

The siege on Gaza - and on the whole of Palestine - is a constant factor that unites most Palestinians. However, the genuine solidarity that the people of the Gaza Strip felt when Egyptians took to the streets on January 25 surpassed even the political urgency around the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Ordinary Gazans danced the night away when Mubarak was removed from power on February 18. Although lifting the siege is a Palestinian priority, those who raised Egyptian flags, shed tears and subsisted on coffee and cigarettes for nearly three weeks were hardly making the connection between the siege and Mubarak. While Mubarak was loathed to the core - his decision to block the Rafah border at a critical time victimized thousands - the bond that united Egypt to Palestine runs much deeper than the sins of a senile dictator, or even a terrible siege.

The story, in fact, starts well before 1948, the year of the Palestinian Nakba. Egypt and Palestine have for long reflected the state of the other: in defeat and triumph, in despair and hope. The valiant youth of Egypt are now the harbingers of hope for their country, for Palestine and for the entire region, although things haven't always been so promising.

Al-Nakba represented heartbreak to the collective conscious of Arabs, but Palestinians and Egyptians were affected the most.

In 1948, Arab armies entered into a halfhearted battle in Palestine. They were under-equipped, with only a limited mandate provided by self-serving leaderships. Most Palestinian villages were already depopulated by Zionist militias. The local resistance was mercilessly smashed, and the roads out of Palestine were filled with weary refugees. The Arabs were defeated. Ordinary Egyptians fumed as their Palestinian brethren were humiliated and Palestine was lost.

The defeat in 1948 led to serious introspection in Egyptian society. The internal crises, the poverty and the lack of social justice could no longer be ignored. Following the defeat of the Egyptian army in the south of Palestine, Egypt quickly descended into turmoil, and was on the verge of revolution. There was little in the way of funds to be channeled to Gaza's sizeable refugee population. Much of Egypt's wealth was squandered by King Farouk on his own family. Indeed, the misery in Gaza was an extension of the suffering in Egypt, and in some strange way, the failed Egyptian military intervention in southern Palestine had much to do with the revolution that followed in Egypt in 1952.

Gamal Abdel-Nasser, who toppled the monarchy and became Egypt's president, was an officer in the Egyptian army in 1948. He crossed into Gaza from Sinai by train in order to defend Palestine. He was stationed in Fallujah, a village located to the north of Gaza. His unit repeatedly tried to recapture some of the lost areas in the south, even when military wisdom pointed to the unfeasibility of such an effort. When it was discovered that many Egyptian army units were being supplied with purposely-flawed weapons, shockwaves spread throughout the army, but it was not enough to demoralize Nasser and a few Egyptian soldiers. They stayed in the Fallujah pocket for weeks, and their resistance became the stuff of legend.

The building in which Nasser and his unit stayed still stands in today's Israel. It is surrounded by fences, like a surrealistic piece of living art. Nasser returned to Egypt after a territorial swap - Fallujah for the small town of Beit Hanoun, north of Gaza, which was under Israeli control at the time. Bitterness, anger and grief accompanied him on his way back to Cairo, also through Gaza.

Nasser marched to Cairo, and in 1952, along with a few army officers, he overthrew the king and his government. Palestine was cited by Nasser as a key reason behind his rebellion. The defeat of Palestine had signified all the ills that afflicted Egypt under the King and his royal family.

Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, saw in Nasser a hero and liberator. And why wouldn't they? He was the man they waved to as he passed by Gaza with his fellow officers following the Fallujah battle. It was a rare moment of pride and hope when the officers crossed with their weapons, and huge crowds of refugees flooded the streets to greet them. The refugees adored Nasser and they placed framed photographs of him in their tents and mud houses.

This is merely one episode to demonstrate the intrinsic, almost organic relationship between Egypt and Palestine. The relationship withstood many difficult events that followed, including the defeat of 1967 (where the rest of historic Palestine was lost), the death of Nasser, and the signing of the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel. Saddat was an anomaly, Palestinians argued. Camp David was the exception, they said. Mubarak was not Egypt. Indeed, the siege was seen as dishonoring a legacy that Palestinians are determined to remember with fondness. Egypt stands for shared history, for heroism and sacrifice.

On March 24, the Middle East Monitor reported that Egyptian Foreign Minister, Dr Nabil El Arabi had sent a message to his counterpart in Gaza a few days earlier. In the letter he stated that lifting the Israeli-imposed siege of Gaza - supported by the discredited Mubarak regime - was a priority for the new government in Cairo: "We are acting to open the border at Rafah and facilitate an easing of life for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."

El Arabi's position is consistent with the wishes of the Egyptian people, a position that was necessitated by the historic solidarity between both nations. It is for similar reasons that Palestinians didn't get much sleep for 18 days, a period of waiting that culminated in a rare moment of joy when Egyptians won their freedom. In that moment, Gaza was Cairo, Egypt was Palestine, and both peoples were one.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

Davutoglu is one of the most articulate and passionate Turkish politicians of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Along with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül, he has labored to naturalize the flow of history in Turkey, sidelining an incessantly intrusive military, and forging links between regions, cultures and competing political thoughts. While the mission was and remains arduous, it has successfully led to the emergence of a unique Turkish political thought - proud of its roots, yet receptive to progress and modernity.

When Hamas was elected as the majority party at the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006, the group was inspired by the objectives that propelled the AKP. Ahmed Yusuf, a top Hamas official in Gaza, has even been writing a book entitled, "Erdoğan and a New Strategic Vision"

"Erdoğan's model is liberal. It is a model that dares to take responsibility and change things and establishes good relations between the religious and secular elements of society," Yusuf said, according to Turkey's Hurriyet (June 10, 2010). "It is a model that works for democracy and human rights, and supports an open society. That is what we want."

In fact, this is precisely what most ordinary Palestinians want for themselves. It's also the same desire that inspired several Arab revolutions. The same goals were ferociously defended and largely achieved in Tahrir Square in Cairo. Palestinians also wish to see their society free of narrow factional interests and limited political agendas.

Despite every attempt, whether through siege, wars or protracted bombardments, radicalization has not taken a hold in Palestinian political thought. Of course, there is much anger and a continued desire for justice, but political rhetoric in Gaza (and by other Hamas leaders in Diaspora) seems largely prudent and increasingly universal in its values and outreach.

Exiled senior Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, commenting on the Egyptian revolution, claimed: "Today we are witnessing Cairo returning to its natural state, after it disappeared from that state for a long time. The people in Egypt and Tunisia have given us back our lives." (Khartoum, March 6)

The massive revolutionary undertaking by Arab peoples is allowing the Arabs to determine their own fate, to chart their own course for a better future, and on their own terms. Davutoglu has advised that this undertaking also comes with challenges; if Arabs fail to overcome these, they will "lose the momentum of history".

Palestinians don't need a regime change, per se, as in other Arab polities, for they are under siege and military occupation, and have no true political sovereignty on the ground. They need a roadmap, a new vision that is inspired by the rights and aspirations of Palestinian people everywhere, but also free from the conventional wisdoms that were either enforced by Oslo - which fragmented Palestinian society - or by those who offered alternatives based mainly on ideological, factional or religious rationale. This painful period of Palestinian history, marred by factionalism, disunity and civil strife, has diverted from the natural flow of Palestinian history. Now, we speak of Hamas and Fatah, of West Bank and Gaza, of individuals, of personal initiatives, of NGOs and funding, and of everything except one Palestine, one Palestinian people, one goal, one strategy, and one destiny.

What is happening in Palestine is anti-history. It cannot be sustained for long without exacting an even heavier price from Palestinian people and their internationally recognized rights. The very credibility of any Palestinian leadership, of course, has now been greatly eroded.

Hamas, since its official inception in 1987 -and even prior to that, when the Islamic movement was dedicated mainly to charity work and institution building - has proved capable of changing and growing. Its growth has not been based on the diktats of Israel or any outside power, but rather its own motivations. It is now a political body that has managed to evade numerous Israeli bombs and attempts at undermining it as a legitimate group. It is regarded highly among many segments of Palestinian society, and international public opinion is also now shifting in a similar direction. For example, "45% of Europeans believe Hamas should be included in the Peace Process (and) only 25% believe it should be excluded," according to an ICM European poll conducted in January 2011.

This time of people marching for change, freedom and democracy in the region should provide the perfect opportunity for Palestinians to break away from political exclusivity and the localization of their struggle for freedom. Hamas should now re-think its charter of 1988, which was once an almost impulsive rally cry, and which will always be used in the interests of those seeking to discount Hamas' credibility. The language of the charter might have served a purpose in the past, but it fails to live up to the of the expectations of a people who wish for unity and to see past the confines of Oslo, its 'peace process' and its wealth-amassing elites. Post-Oslo Palestinian leaderships require new language, new ideas, new approaches, and most certainly a brand new vision and strategy.

There must be a break with the past. All hurdles need to be removed in order for the natural flow of history to resume. This is the most opportune time for Hamas to revisit and amend its charter, and to resume the process of change and self-correction which it began many years ago. The political landscape in Palestine will certainly experience serious changes in coming months and years. Genuine Palestinian leaderships must anticipate and accommodate a new era. It is what the people want, and what history repeatedly shows.

Now civil society has been incorporated into the overall political equation as a leading factor in the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedom. The society is also increasingly filling the vacuum created by the PA's localization of the Palestinian struggle, and Israel's constant attempt at downgrading any genuine alternative to the PA's leadership.

The articulation of the rise of Palestinian civil society came loud and clear on July 09, 2005, when 171 Palestinian civil society organizations representing Palestinians living in the occupied territories, Israel, and the Diaspora called "upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era."

They further stated: "We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace."

The statement won the approval of most Palestinians, and it inspired numerous representatives of civil society from around the world. Several tangible actions were taken, and the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions finally became a real strategy. In Israel too, a growing number of Israeli Jewish and Arab activists became committed to undermining the long held notion that the conflict was exclusively racial, ethnic or religious.

Clearly the Israeli definitions of old are no longer appealing to an increasingly determined international civil society. In the last few years, for instance, we have seen the Gaza Freedom March, the heroism aboard the Mavi Marmara, and the tireless efforts of enumerable organizations and individuals working to bring Israeli war criminals to trial and to end the Gaza siege.

The involvement of international civil society in aiding Palestine is actually as old as the conflict itself. However, it was not until the Second Intifada, or uprising, in 2000 that the involvement of international civil society became somewhat 'institutionalized' through clearly marked channels. The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was a particularly meaningful example. The ISM seemed like a model of the International Brigades that went to defeat Fascism during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). The ISM used a non-violent method of resistance, and its recruits of civil society activists were the very activists whose video footage, blogs, photographs, public presentations and even books helped to change international public opinion and challenge mainstream representations of the conflict that were so shamefully biased towards Israel.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), despite past shortcomings, served as a unifying platform, centralizing Palestinians efforts and defying Israel's diligent attempts at dismissing the very existence of a Palestinian collective. Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir mirrored the attitude of many Zionist Israeli leaders when she stated: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people...It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

The significant role of the PLO, however, was overshadowed by that of the PA following Arafat's signing of the Oslo accord in 1993. The PA had long served an extremely detrimental role in Palestine and the Palestinian people's struggle. One of its worst long-term legacies was depriving the Palestinian people from the sense of national cohesion. Although it was Israel that largely supported and propped up this new non-representative Palestinian body, it was also this very party that decried that it had no peace partner, thus de-legitimizing its own creation.

With the elected Palestinian government, Hamas, under physical siege in Gaza, and an even greater political siege regionally and internationally, the issue of representation is all the more pressing. Representation is a prerequisite for unifying and guiding the Palestinian people through future phases of their struggle.

Still, it is heartening to note that such a political vacuum had its own benefits. It has revitalized civil society in Palestine, and, by extension, global civil society. This has helped to maintain a sense of centralization in Palestinian political discourse, one that is capable of juggling both national priorities and international solidarity.

The concept of civil society is often used as a meeting point between other forces, including a healthy and fully functional state. In the Palestinian scenario, however, with the occupation, siege and regular assassinations and imprisonments of political leaders, such a state is missing. This reality has skewed the traditional balance, resulting in a political void engineered by Israel to de-legitimize Palestinian demands and rights. It is most impressive, to say the least, that representatives of Palestinian civil society have managed to step up and fill the void.

This success would have never been possible without individuals from international civil society, including Rachel Corrie, the Turkish heroes aboard the Mavi Marmara, and the many Israeli activists and organizations who are currently being targeted by the rightwing government of Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigador Lieberman.

Israel has shown alarm over the growing importance of civil society by reacting on many fronts. In Palestine, it has imprisoned Palestinian non-violent resisters. In Israel, it has cracked down on funds received by Israeli human rights groups. And internationally, it has pushed forward a media campaign of defamation.

These Israeli efforts must be challenged on all fronts as well. Continuing to de-legitimize the illegal Israeli occupation can partly be achieved through supporting Palestinian civil society, including their call for boycott.

Israel's actions have not been limited to de-legitimizing Palestinian rights and dismissing their existence. Israel has also worked hard to defragment any sense of political or national cohesion, through many creative means, separation walls notwithstanding. Yet, it is the Israeli occupation that is now being de-legitimized, its own government that is being isolated, and its own country's reputation that is constantly compromised. The power of civil society has indeed surpassed that of military hardware, archaic and exclusivist historical discourses, propaganda and political coercion.

Indeed, Lieberman, the Israeli government and their supposedly powerful lobbies have every reason to be worried.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

Hollywood has long caricatured and humiliated Arabs. American foreign policy in the Middle East has been aided by simplistic, degrading and at times racist depictions of Arabs in the mass media. A whole generation of pseudo-intellectuals have built their careers on the notion that they have a key understanding of Arabs and the seemingly predictable pattern of their behavior.

Now we see Libya - a society that had nothing by way of a civil society and which was under a protracted stage of siege - literally making history. The collective strength displayed by Libyan society is awe-inspiring to say the least. Equally praiseworthy is the way in which Libyans have responded to growing dangers and challenges. But most important is the spontaneous nature of their actions. Diplomatic efforts, political organization, structured revolutionary efforts and media outreach simply followed the path and demands of the people. Libyans led the fight, and everyone else either obliged or played the role of spectator.

There is something new and fascinating underway here - a phenomena of popular action that renders any historical comparisons inadequate. Western stereotypes have long served an important (and often violent) purpose: reducing the Arab, while propping up Israeli, British and American invasions in the name of 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'liberation'. Those who held the 'torch of civilization' and allegedly commanded uncontested moral superiority gave themselves unhindered access to the lands of the Arabs, their resources, their history, and, most of all, their very dignity.

Yet those who chartered the prejudiced discourses, defining the Arabs to suit their colonial objectives - from Napoleon Bonaparte to George W. Bush - only showed themselves to be bad students of history. They tailored historical narratives to meet their own designs, always casting themselves as the liberators and saviors of all good things, civilization and democracy notwithstanding. In actual fact, they practiced the very opposite of what they preached, wreaking havoc, delaying reforms, co-opting democracy, and consistently leaving behind a trail of blood and destruction.

In the 1920s, Britain sliced up, then recomposed Iraq territorially and demographically to suit specific political and economic agenda. Oil wells were drilled in Kirkuk and Baghdad, then Mosul and Basra. Iraq's cultural uniqueness was merely an opportunity to divide and conquer. Britain played out the ethno-religious-tribal mix to the point of mastery. But Arabs in Iraq rebelled repeatedly and Britain reacted the way it would to an army in a battle field. The Iraqi blood ran deep until the revolution of 1958, when the people obtained freedom from puppet kings and British colonizers. In 2003, British battalions returned carrying even deadlier arms and more dehumanizing discourses, imposing themselves as the new rulers of Iraq, with the US leading the way.

Palestinians - as Arabs from other societies - were not far behind in terms of their ability to mobilize around a decided and highly progressive political platform. Indeed, Palestine experienced its first open rebellion against the Zionist colonial drive in the country, and the complacent British role in espousing it and laboring to ensure its success decades ago (well before Facebook and Twitter made it to the revolutionary Arab scene). In April 1936, all five Palestinian political parties joined under the umbrella of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by Haj Amin al-Husseini. One of the AHC's first decisions was to assemble National Committees throughout Palestine. In May, al-Husseini summoned the first conference of the National Committees in Jerusalem, which collectively declared a general strike on May 8, 1936. The first joint Palestinian action to protest the Zionist-British designs in Palestine was non-violent. Employing means of civil disobedience, the 1936 uprising aimed to send a stern message to the British government that Palestinians were nationally unified and capable of acting as an assertive, self-assured society. The British administration in Palestine had thus far discounted the Palestinian demand for independence and paid little attention to their incessant complaints about the rising menace of Zionism and its colonial project.

Palestinian fury turned violent when the British government resorted to mass repression. It had wanted to send a message to Palestinians that her Majesty's Government would not be intimidated by what it saw as insignificant fellahin, or peasants. The first six months of the uprising, which lasted under different manifestations and phases for three years, was characterized at the outset by a widely observed general strike which lasted from May to October 1936. Palestine was simply shut down in response to the call of the National Committees and al-Husseini. This irked the British, who saw the "non-Jewish residents of Palestine" as deplorable, troublesome peasants with untamed leadership. Within a few years, Palestinians managed to challenge the conventional wisdom of the British, whose narrow Orientalist grasp on the Arabs as lesser beings with fewer or no rights - a model to be borrowed later on by the Zionists and Israeli officials - left them unqualified to ponder any other response to a legitimate uprising than coercive measures.

The price of revolution is always very high. Then, thousands of Palestinians were killed. Today, Libyans are falling in intolerable numbers. But freedom is sweet and several generations of Arabs have demonstrated willingness to pay the high price it demands.

Arab society - whether the strikers of Palestine in 1936, the rebels of Baghdad of 1958, or the revolutionaries of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt of 2011 - remain, in a sense, unchanged, as determined as ever win freedom, equality and democracy. And their tormenters also remain unhinged, using the same language of political manipulation and brutal military tactics.

The studious neoconservatives at the Foreign Policy Initiative and elsewhere must be experiencing an intellectual 'shock and awe', even as they continue in their quest to control the wealth and destiny of Arabs. Arab societies, however, have risen with a unified call for freedom. And the call is now too strong to be muted.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

According to Israeli daily, Haaretz, Lieberman has claimed, "the Arab world is becoming increasingly weakened."

Worried perhaps that all rational analyses will show how Israel's decade-long aggression has been a major contributing factor to instability in Middle East, Lieberman decided to dismiss the notion altogether. "Whoever thinks that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is part of the problems in the Middle East is trying to escape reality," he said.

It must be a strange 'reality' which Lieberman subscribes to, but he isn't the only Israeli official that sees the world through such tainted logic.

While Lieberman has settled on the realization that "it is clear to everyone...that the greatest danger they are facing is not Zionism, but rather Hamas and Jihad," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed into a different direction involving Iran and post-Mubarak Egypt.

Addressing the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem, Netanyahu labored desperately to link some imagined Iranian designs into the future of Egypt. "The leaders in the West and the leaders in Tehran do not want the same future for Egypt," he claimed, according to the Jewish Tribune (February 24).

"American and European leaders want an Egypt that is free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous...On the other hand, leaders in Tehran want to see an Egypt that is crushed by that same iron despotism that has crushed human rights in Iran for the last three decades," he said.

One is accustomed to hearing the flawed historical references of Israeli officials, but Netanyahu's latest comments are truly baffling. Tehran's political involvement in Egypt was and remains nominal. Yet again, Israeli officials are interpreting the Middle East solely from the self-serving viewpoint of the Israeli political establishment itself.

This Israeli discourse is as old as the Israeli state. The initial narrative was predicated on the assumption of a unified party of 'Arabs' hell-bent on destroying a small, beleaguered Israel. The former represented all that was evil, extremist and anti-Western, and the latter embodied all that was good, democratic and civilized.

Maintaining this illusory discourse continues to be essential for Israel, for it serves multiple purposes and has long been the backbone of Israeli official hasbara, or propaganda. Even as the Israeli army demolished much of Gaza and killed and wounded nearly 7,000 Palestinian civilians in the 22-day military onslaught of 2008-09, the propaganda continued in full-force. It suggested that the loss of so many civilian lives was a price worth paying in order to uproot Islamic 'extremism' (as represented by Hamas).

Although Israeli propaganda has always been relentless, the Israeli official message in the face of popular Arab uprisings seems befuddled and unclear. The reason for this might be the fact that the current push for democracy - using largely non-violent means - in several Arab countries, took Israel by complete surprise. The Arab peoples' desire for reforms and democratic change is utterly inconsistent with the image of Arabs shrewdly crafted by Israel and its friends in Western media. This image suggests that Arabs are simply incapable of affecting positive change, that they are inherently frenzied and un-democratic. Thus Israel, 'the only democracy in the Middle East', can be trusted as an oasis of stability and democracy.

Israeli officials tried to infuse this tired message following the uprisings in North African Arab countries, but this time it seemed incoherent and was quickly overshadowed by the chants of millions of Arabs for democracy, freedom and social justice.

Another reason behind the current failure of Israel to capitalize on the ongoing turmoil is that Israeli propaganda tends to precede - not follow - such upheavals. Israeli hasbra is most useful when Israel takes the initiative, determining the nature, scope, timing and location of the battle.

The official propaganda that preceded the war on Gaza seemed more institutionalized than ever. Former Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman was reportedly summoned by Tel Aviv to lead the PR effort. He said that the diplomatic and political campaign had been underway for months. The Guardian's Chris McGreal, reporting on the campaign from Jerusalem during the war, quoted Gillerman as saying, "I was recruited by the foreign minister to coordinate Israel's efforts and I have never seen all parts of a very complex machinery - whether it is the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the prime minister's office, the police or the army - work in such co-ordination, being effective in sending out the message."

Israeli hasbra had then worked in tandem with the Israeli military, leading to a most coordinated campaign of war and deceit. But when the Arab people revolted, starting in Tunisia, the belated Israeli response was confused.

Israeli officials warned, yet again, of some Islamic extremist menace at work involving Hamas and Hezbollah, and others warned of an Iranian plot. Some praised their fallen Arab allies, while taking pride in Israel for being a fortress of stability, while others called to speed up the 'peace process'. Some denied any association between the absence of peace and Arab revolution. Meanwhile, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, who duly accused Iran of attempting to exploit the situation, chastised Western countries for disowning their beleaguered allies in the region.

The fractured nature of the latest round of Israeli official propaganda could partly be blamed on the element of surprise. Israel, which bought into its own dehumanization of its Arab enemies for so long, couldn't fathom such scenarios as popular non-violent revolutions underway in the Middle East.

But even if a solid, streamlined, and certainly well-financed Israeli hasbara campaign is launched to better manage Israel's crisis, one wonders if it could really make much of a difference. If a multi-million dollar campaign to hide or 'explain' the bloodbath wrought by Israel in Gaza in 2008-09 have largely failed, Israel cannot possibly succeed in hiding the fact that it is no longer the 'only democracy in the Arab world' - or that it was ever a true democracy to begin with.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on .

Anticipating a potential popular uprising in the occupied territories - which could result in a major revamping of the current power, to the disadvantage of Abbas - the PA is now taking preventive measures.

First, there was the resignation of the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Ereka on February 12. Erekat was clearly implicated in negotiating, if not squandering, Palestinian rights in successive meetings with Israeli and American officials. This was revealed through nearly 1,600 leaked documents, which Aljazeera and the Guardian termed the 'Palestine Papers'.

Erekat was hardly representing himself, as he readily gave away much territory, including most of Jerusalem. He also agreed to a symbolic return of Palestinian refugees to their land, now part of today's Israel. By keeping his post, the entire PA 'peace process' apparatus would have remained ineffective at best, and at worst entirely self-seeking, showing no regard whatsoever for Palestinian rights.

With Erekat's exit, the PA hopes to retain a margin of credibility among Palestinians.

Erekat, who made his entrance to the world of 'peace process' at the Madrid peace conference in 1991, opted out in a way that conceded no guilt. He claimed to have left merely because the leak happened through his office. The PA expects us to believe that, unlike other Arab governments, it functions in a transparent and self-correcting manner. Erekat wants to be seen as an "example of accountability", according to the Washington Post (February 16). He claimed: "I'm making myself pay the price for the mistake I committed, my negligence. These are the ethics and the standards. Palestinian officials need to start putting them in their minds."

The message is neatly coined, although it belittles the real issue at stake. This has caused much outrage in Palestinian intellectual, political and public circles. Negligence is one thing, and relinquishing a people's rights is another entirely.

Two days after Erekat's departure, the PA cabinet in the West Bank also suddenly resigned. The cabinet had met earlier that day, and its Prime Minister Salam Fayyad then submitted his resignation to President Abbas. The latter, in turn, accepted the resignation and immediately reappointed Fayyad to form a new government. An exercise in futility? Of course, but for a good reason.

The resignation was merely tactical. It aimed at quelling the current popular discontent and preventing it from spilling over into street protests. But it was also tactless, for it reintroduced the very man who formed the old government to assemble a new one. If indeed Fayyad's political performance was lacking - and thus deserving of rebuke and mass resignation - then what is the point of putting the same man in charge of yet another phase of inefficiency and ineffectiveness?

The dramatic move was meant to show the people that the PA did not need a popular uprising to initiate reforms and change. Fayyad was reappointed because he is valuable to the current political structure of the PA, and he's also the most trusted Palestinian official as far as the US is concerned.

Then, on top of all this, the PA cleverly set September as a deadline for elections in the occupied territories. This date acquired a compounded value when Western officials began assigning other great expectations to September as well. One such call was made by EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, who expressed her hopes - along with those of the 'international community' - that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians would be reached by September.

Based on the current political reality - a rejectionist Israeli front, a Palestinian front that is polarized and largely self-seeking, and a US-led Western front that is incapable of doing much more than pressing the Palestinians for more concessions - we know only too well that no peace will come in September.

Abbas, a pragmatic man by his own admission, knows this as well. The September deadline is largely aimed at creating further distraction. If all eyes are focused on that date, there will be no need to worry about the here and now.

But September is also not too far off, a reality that calls for some early steps. Hamas expectedly rejected the call for elections without a platform of political and territorial unity. Why should Hamas get involved in another election if any unfavorable outcome will only bring further punishment to the Palestinian people? A sound concern, of course, but that rejection allowed Abbas, on February 17, to condition the elections based on Hamas' participation. In other words, Hamas is once more positioned as the hurdle that stands between the Palestinians and unity, political normalcy and democracy. Now Hamas will be continually derided for delaying the 'Palestinian national project', until September leisurely arrives and disappears, leaving behind no mark of meaningful change.

Abbas and his trusted men already know the outcome of this endeavor. In their defense, the strategy also has little to do with September, elections or Hamas' position. It is aimed at deepening the divide among Palestinians, and distract from the main problem, which is the fact that the PA serves no purpose other than managing the administrative side of the Israeli military occupation. The PA is devoid of any national value to the Palestinian people, and only serves the interests of those involved in subjugating them. The Palestinians are now required to move past this dismal political moment and seek an alternative - an all-inclusive, representative and truly democratic institution to lead the next stage in their fight for freedom.

The PA wants to stall until September. But will Palestinians wait that long?

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

"Arabs celebrate from the Gulf to the Ocean," proclaimed a headline on Al Jazeera TV. The phrase "from the Gulf to the Ocean" is not a haphazard geographical reference, but very much a geopolitical one. Ever since former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat defied the will of the Arab collective and chose a self-serving (and according to popular Arab opinion, disgraceful) exit for his country from what was until then the 'Arab-Israeli conflict', the above phrase functioned only as an empty slogan. Saddat's signing of the Camp David treaty in 1979 had effectively marginalized the most committed Arab country from a conflict that was previously defined by Egypt's involvement. It thus left Israel's weaker Arab foes as easy targets for uneven wars, and in a perpetual state of defeat and humiliation.

Mubarak's importance to Israel and the US stemmed from the fact that he guarded Israeli gains for the pitiful price of $1.8 billion a year. Most of this went to fulfill military contracts, upgrade military hardware and subsidize US military expertise aimed at 'modernizing' the Egyptian army. Israel, of course, was given almost double that amount and was promised, through a separate agreement with the US, a military edge against its foes, Egypt included.

But Mubarak gained much more than hard cash. His greatest gains were related to US foreign policy in the region. While the US violated the sovereignty of various Arab countries, Mubarak's regime was left largely unscathed. Free from any effective resistance at home, and any serious criticism from abroad, members of Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party used the lack of accountability to accumulate unprecedented wealth, at the expense of 40 percent of Egypt's 84 million people who lived below the poverty line. The ruling party had indeed become a club for millionaires. The barely existing middle class shrunk even further, the working class lived with the dream of finding employment elsewhere, and the underclass - millions of whom lived in 'random' neighborhoods, and often large graveyards - subsisted in a most humiliating existence.

All this mattered little to Washington, whose policies have only verified Lord Palmerston's assertion that "there are no permanent allies...only permanent interests". Henry Kissinger eventually took Egypt out of the whole Middle East equation, and others followed in his lead, ensuring that Egypt could never act in a way that disturbed Israeli interests. Ironically, it was also Washington that jumped on the opportunity to chase Mubarak - but not his regime - out of power. Soon after Mubarak's newly appointed vice president read the short statement of Mubarak's departure, Obama elatedly read his own statement. When he announced that the Egyptian people would settle for nothing less than 'genuine democracy', he sounded like one of the guys in the Tahrir square in Cairo, not the leader of the very country that had defended Mubarak's reign and defined the former president as a 'moderate' and a good friend. "No permanent allies," indeed.

It was also this very Obama - now using poetic language to describe Egypt's popular revolution - who chose Egypt in June 2009 to deliver his reconciliatory speech to Arabs and Muslims everywhere. Cairo was chosen because Mubarak had been a most faithful friend to the US and Israel. He had rallied the Arabs against Iraq in 1990. He had taken a stance against the Lebanese resistance in 2006. And he had championed Israel's 'security' by sealing off the Gaza border, resulting in the loss of thousands of Palestinian lives. To justify keeping the border shut, Mubarak had cited the Rafah Agreement of 2005, claiming that opening the border could harm Palestinian sovereignty somehow. As it turned out, Egypt under Mubarak was fully involved in suffocating Palestinian democracy, destroying any resistance to Israel and ensuring the success of the Israeli siege.

According to Wikileaks, Omar Suleiman, until recently Egypt's Intelligence Chief, had, in 2005, made a promise to Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry's Diplomatic Security Bureau: "There will be no elections (in Palestine) in January. We will take care of it." When this promise could not be kept, and Hamas was elected to power, Suleiman invited the Israeli army to enter into Egyptian territories to secure the siege on Gaza. The CIA was also allowed to torture 'terrorists-suspects' under the supervision of Mubarak's goons, Suleiman in particular. A US official praised Suleiman's cooperation and the fact that he was not 'squeamish' about torture. It is important here to note that during nearly three weeks of Egyptian protests, the US pushed for a smooth and peaceful transition of power - from Mubarak to Suleiman.

The determination of the Egyptian people, however, forced all such plans to be aborted. The schemers will continue to scheme, of course, but their options are quickly declining. When Egyptians said they wanted to change the 'regime', they really meant it.

Perhaps one of the greatest achievements of the Egyptian revolution is that it was indeed exclusively Egyptian. No American branding companies were hired to manage the moment, no former Bill Clinton advisors were needed to provide consultations to some self-serving opposition. No one from Cairo called on Washington, London, or even Tehran to come to their rescue. If any such calls were made, they were made to the 'Arab people' and to the 'free world' to stand in solidarity with ordinary Egyptians as they orchestrated their return as the rightful owners of their own country and shapers of their own destiny.

The Egyptian revolution has shown the world that democracy and freedom in the Arab world needs no military funding, no political doctrines, no Great Middle East Democracy Projects, and no foreign invasions or foreign-backed military coups. It only needs ordinary people to unearth their own, innate and extraordinary strength. The Egyptian revolution has finally restored the power back to the people, a collective experience that many of us will always remember, with pride, and some will always fear, for good reason.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

The times are changing, and British MP George Galloway's comment about the Arab lion roaring again seems truer by the day. The Egyptians have revolted in style, and their revolution will go down in history books with such adjectives as "great", "noble" and "historic".

Truth be told, Arabs have had their fair share of conjured 'revolutions'. Arab regimes have always been generous in how they ascribed the loaded term to their military coups or other stunts designed to impress or intimidate the masses. Any modern history of the Arab world will reveal an abundant use of the term 'thawra' - revolution. The label has been useful, for those who dared criticize a regime, or demanded basic rights (such as food) could then be dubbed enemies of whatever make-belief revolution the men in power championed. Innumerable Arab political prisoners were designated 'a'da' al-thawra' - enemies of the revolution - and they paid a heavy price for their 'crimes'. In Egypt alone, rough estimates put the current number of political prisoners (from different ideological backgrounds) at 20,000. The figure must be much larger now that the new enemies of the revolution - i.e. most of the Egyptian population - have dared demand freedoms, rights, democracy, and the biggest taboo of all: social justice.

If there is any revolution deserving of the name, it is this one. Thanks to Egypt, people the world over have been forced to re-think their previous idea of "Arabs". Even many of us who insisted that the future of the Middle East could only be decided by the people themselves had eventually started to lose hope. We were told our words were redundant, sentimental, and, at best, an opportunity for poetic reflection, but not realpolitik. Now we know we have been right all along. Egypt is the clearest possible manifestation of the truth of people shaping their own history - not just in the Middle East, but anywhere.

The spontaneous popular revolution in Egypt was a most befitting uplift to the collective humiliation that Arabs have felt for so many years, but even more acutely since the US invasion and utter violation of Iraq.

"It became almost a burden being an Arab", a caller told Al Jazeera. Looking "Middle Eastern" became sufficient grounds for suspicion in international airports. It was not considered entirely racist to ask such questions as "Are Arabs capable of achieving democracy?" In fact, heated media discussions emanated from the type of questions that pondered what Arabs were - or rather, were not capable of achieving. Every war against the Arabs was done in the name of "bringing" something to people who seemed impeded by their own collective failures. In one of my first political science classes at the University of Washington, years ago, the professor told us that we would be "examining the Middle East, which consists of strong governments and weak peoples." With the exception of Israel, of course.

The media has long repeated the mantra that Israel is the Middle East's only democracy. Combined with serious doubts regarding the Arabs' readiness for democracy, the conclusion offered is: Israel carries similar values to the US, the West, the First World, the civilized hemisphere, and the Arabs epitomize all the ailments of the world. It matters little that Arab regimes were made 'powerful' by the backing of their western benefactors, or that oppression - in the name of fighting the enemies of peace and progress - was urged, financed and orchestrated with western interests in mind. The fact that the bullets and canister teargas that killed and wounded numerous Egyptians had the following words inscribed on it in Arabic: 'suni'a fi al-wilayat al-mutahida al-amrikyia' - Made in the United States - was also deemed entirely irrelevant to any discussion on how and why Egyptians were being suppressed or why the Arab Lion must never find its roar.

"The much-feted Mossad was taken by surprise," wrote Uri Avnery. The CIA was too, although US lawmakers are trying to determine "whether the CIA and other spy agencies failed to give President Obama adequate warning of the unfolding crisis in Egypt" (as reported by Greg Miller in the Washington Post, February 4). Senator Dianne Feinstein who heads the Intelligence Committee, accused the intelligence community of 'lacking" performance. The CIA should have monitored Facebook more closely, she suggested.

But there can be no telling when a nation revolts. Most of the chanting multitudes have no Facebook accounts. They don't tweet either. In Tahrir Square, a man with a moustache, dark skin and handsome features carried a cardboard sign on which he had written, rather hurriedly: "I want to eat. My monthly salary is 267 (Egyptian) pounds - approx $45 - and I have four children."

Others want to breathe the air of freedom. Others still want justice. Dignity. Equality. Democracy. Hope. How can such values be measured, or safeguarded against?

There is a very popular word in Egypt - al-Sabr. It means patience. But noone could predict when the patience would run out. Arab and Egyptian intellectuals didn't see it coming, and even the country's opposition parties were caught by surprise. Everyone tried to catch up as millions -of long-oppressed Egyptians erupted in astounding unison: hurriya, hurriya, adalah igtimayyia - freedom, freedom, social justice.

Just when we were told that a religious strife was about to engulf Egypt, and that the people were subdued to the point that there was no hope, millions of brave Egyptians declared a revolution that brought Muslims and Christians together. The courage and the bravery they displayed is enough to restore our faith in the world - in the human race, and in ourselves. Those who are still wondering if Arabs are capable of this or that need not ponder anymore. Just listen to them roar, and you will find the answer.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

For Tunisians, unemployment, poverty and lack of civil liberties have long made life intolerable. Many were forced to flee the country, or dare challenge the authoritarian rule of Ben Ali and his security apparatus, which grew in numbers to double - or even triple - the nation's army.

While Tunisia may not have appeared the most likely location for a successful popular rebellion, the country always had the potential of hosting one of the most active civil societies in the Arab Maghreb countries. This was what prompted Ben Ali and his regime to dedicate much time and energy into weakening and largely dismantling a once thriving, diverse and highly educated civil society. The society expressed itself through three main pillars: labor unions, the Islamic movement, and a strong student body throughout the country.

When Tunisia gained independence from France in 1957, the country was rife with hope and expectation. The anti-colonial fervor that gripped the country produced an active civil society who wished to move from a French sphere of influence into a nationalistic one. The national leader at the time, Habib Bourguiba dared not upset the growing mobilization of the country, and in fact succeeded in using - and later co-opting and manipulating - the mass movement to maintain his control over the country. This lasted for decades, until Ben Ali carried out his "tranquil revolution" and ousted Bourguiba in 1987.

But even authoritarianism has its own compelling logic. Ben Ali could do little to mobilize Tunisian society, and his early promises of greater political participation, equality and openness were never translated into real action. Over time, he grew wary of everyone, including the elites, who are usually the bread and better of any authoritarian regime. He quickly began dismantling every component that gave civil society its import and vigor, destroying or restricting unions, enacting draconian measures against political activities that opposed his ruling party, the Democratic Constitutional Rally (RCD), and bending the law and even the constitution to serve his own interests.

Ben Ali's success in maintaining his regime for 23 years hinged on several major strategies. He ensured that the presidential palace was the ultimate center of power, thus denying anyone else the chance to gain popularity outside a closely-knit circle. A system of patronage existed, whereby those who played by the rules were granted tiny spaces to operate and benefit. For example, during the elections of 2004, the Movement of Socialist Democrats (MDS), an 'opposition party' actually endorsed Ben Ali's re-election bid because it helped "complete the process of democratic pluralism". Other parties, including the Popular Unity Party (PUP), whose former leader Mohamed Bouchiha once competed for the post of the president, also seconded Bin Ali's bid to "drive the democratic process".

And what about those who refused to play by the rules? The Islamic al-Nahdha party and the Tunisian Community Workers' Party (POCT) are two such examples. Ben Ali utilized the second set of measurements to contain 'unruly' opposition- brutality, crackdowns and torture. The attempt to silence both parties was equally and decidedly brutal, but in 1991 an-Nahdha protest and call for change seemed to spread quickly in universities and working-class neighborhoods. The event signaled a repeat of the rise of the Islamic resurgence in Algeria, and Ben Ali was determined to stifle any rise of Islamic opposition before the phenomenon became too popular.

Ben Ali's violations of human rights - which grew rapidly since the early 1990s -received little chastising from other governments. Various western powers that hailed Ben Ali's model of political moderation were, of course, fully aware of the bizarre 'democracy' underway in Tunisia. However, Ben Ali's ability to crush dissidents earned him high regard and constant accolades by these very powers, particularly Tunisia's former colonizer France.

With major hurdles out of the way, the various branches of Tunisia's security apparatus had little to do, save silencing the people. The mafia-like police used many means of control, leaving activists with no option but hunger strikes. In a report issued weeks before the 'Jasmine Revolution", Amnesty International stated: "Worn down by years of harassment and with no remedy in sight, hunger strikes seem to have become the final recourse for journalists, political activists, government critics and human rights defenders, in order to draw attention to their legitimate demands to have their fundamental human rights respected. Both inside and outside Tunisian prisons, the hunger strikers' demands range from the release of prisoners of conscience to obtaining passports and medical care for former political prisoners."

Human Rights Watch published a report on October 21, 2010, when the situation in Tunisia seemed to be reaching intolerable levels. It decried the government's relentless campaign against two of the main pillars in any civil society: labor and student unions. "No realm of civil society in Tunisia is safe from government interference, not even trade unions, if they are considered critical of the government. Using methods ranging from bureaucratic machinations to physical aggression, the Tunisian government is keeping Tunisia's unions under its thumb."

Less than a week after Ben Ali was forced to leave the country, Arab League's Secretary General Amr Moussa warned Arab countries of the possibility of more Tunisia-style revolutions should their policies remained unchanged."The Arab soul is broken by poverty, unemployment and general recession...The political problems, the majority of which have not been fixed...have driven the Arab citizen to a state of unprecedented anger and frustration," he said.

In Tunisia that 'unprecedented anger" has reaped unprecedented results, leaving Tunisia with the great task of rebuilding a civil society that was weakened, demoralized and purposely disjointed by a calculating and oppressive regime. The prospects for freedom are now greater than ever in Tunisia. Despite the many challenges ahead, this is a serious cause for celebration.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, who controlled his population with an iron fist since his arrival to the presidential palace in 1987, must have crossed that point. He was forced to flee the country amid the angry chants of thousands of Tunisians, fed up with growing unemployment, soaring inflation, government corruption, violent crackdowns and lack of political freedom. These mounting frustrations led to relentless protests throughout the country. The government's subsequent crackdowns only stirred emotions beyond any crowd control strategy, and eventually Ben Ali's plane left to seek refuge outside his own country.

The upheaval in Tunisia is certainly worthy of all the headlines, media commentary and official statements it has generated. But many of these reactions contain generalizations that hype expectations, worsen an already terrible situation and provoke misguided policies. Indeed, the current political storm, dubbed both the "Youth Intifada" and the "Jasmine Revolution", has inspired many interpretations. Some commentators wished to see the popular uprising as a prelude to an essentially anti-Arab regimes phenomenon that will strike elsewhere as well, while others placed it within a non-Arab context, noting that popular uprisings are growing in countries that struggle with rising food prices. Even al-Qaeda had a take on the situation, trying to score points to find a place in the looming political void.

Many commentators have focused on the Arab identity of Tunisia to find correlations elsewhere. Hadeel al-Shalchi's Associated Press article "Arab activists hope Tunisia uprising brings change," presented the uprising within an Arab context. Reporting from Cairo, she wrote of the growing optimism among those whom she dubbed "Arab activists" that other Arab leaders will share the fate of Ben Ali if they don't ease their grip on power. Hossam Bahgat is one such activist. He told AP, "I feel like we are a giant step closer to our own liberation... What's significant about Tunisia is that literally days ago the regime seemed unshakeable, and then eventually democracy prevailed without a single Western state lifting a finger."

True, both Tunisia and Egypt are Arab countries with many similarities, but expecting a repeat of a scenario that was uniquely Tunisian and implicitly suggesting that Western states serve as harbingers of democracy is illusory, to stay the least.

Now that Ben Ali is out of the picture, Western governments are cautiously lining up behind the Tunisian uprising, but hardly with the same enthusiasm of their support of the Iranian riots of June 2009. British Foreign Secretary William Hague merely denounced the unrest, calling for "restraint from all sides." He stated, "I condemn the violence and call on the Tunisian authorities to do all they can to resolve the situation peacefully." US President Barack Obama added, "I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future."

Clichéd statements aside, both the US and the UK must fear the repercussions of a popular uprising in an area so close to the heart of American-British interests in the Middle East. Both countries are careful not to appear to oppose democratic reforms, even if they are forced to disown their friends in the region. Their response is largely representative of official responses from many Western capitals - the very capitals that lauded Tunisia as a model for how Arab countries can help win the war on terror.

One must not let confusing media headlines sideline the fact that neither the US nor the UK had Tunisia on their radar for circumventing democracy or violating human rights. Ben Ali was celebrated as an icon of moderation, notwithstanding his atypical Arab stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ben Ali's authoritarian regime was not the type that required much chastising. It was the benign kind that allowed a tiny space for secular opposition while cracking down on any Islamic opposition group. For 23 years, such practice was barely problematic, for it served the interests of both Ben Ali and various Western powers. The countless calls for respect of human rights from international and local organizations were mostly unheeded. Washington and London rarely found that irksome.

Now that the Tunisian people's fight for rights has taken a sharp turn, many of us find it difficult to examine the specific context of this case without delving into dangerous generalizations. Western governments now speak of democracy in the region - as if there were ever a genuine concern; commentators speak of the next regime to fall - as if every Arab country is a duplication of another; and technology bloggers are celebrating another 'twitter revolution.'

Perhaps generalizations make things more interesting. Tunisia, after all, is a small country, and most people know little about it aside from the fact that it's a cheap tourist destination - thus the need to place it within a more gripping context. Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is using the opportunity to read the Tunisian uprising in a unique way. The AQIM leader, Abu Musab Abdul Wadud, has called for the overthrowing of the "corrupt, criminal and tyrannical" regimes in both Tunisia and Algeria and the instatement of al-Sharia law. This call has promoted American commentators to warn of the future Islamization of Tunisia and will likely result in Western intervention to ensure that another "moderate" regime succeeds the one that just fled.

There is no harm in expanding a popular experience to understand the world at large and its conflicts. But in the case of Tunisia, it seems that the country is largely understood within a multilayer of contexts, thus becoming devoid of any political, cultural or socio-economic uniqueness. Understanding Tunisia as just another "Arab regime", another possible podium for al-Qaeda's violence, is convenient but also unhelpful to any cohesive understanding of the situation there and the events that are likely to follow.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

For a while, things had gone according to plan, and the future seemed promising. Tripathi was told to prepare for his graduation by his supervisor, Dr. Stephen Burman, Dean of the School of Humanities.

Tripathi is an accomplished researcher and a prolific writer. He had every reason to believe his research, which began in 2002, would lead to earning his PhD from the university's American Studies Program. His findings, which partly relied on the Cold War International History Archive material of the Smithsonian Institute, were praised by such intellectuals as Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and Johan Galtung.

Moreover, Tripathi already had an impressive and well-respected background in the field. His career at BBC News (1977-2000) would have gone on longer, were it not for him falling seriously ill with heart disease. Some of his noteworthy achievements have included setting up the BBC Bureau in Kabul in the early 1990s, covering conflict in India and Sir Lanka, and contributing to public understanding of many matters involving this part of the world. His previous book, Overcoming the Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan (Potomac Books, March 2010) helped many to decipher the power rivalries in South and West Asia, and specially US foreign policy regarding these regions.

Tripathi's latest work, Breeding Ground was initially slated as his doctoral dissertation. That work was already well-received in many circles and yet failed to meet the examiners' expectations suggests to Tripathi that biased political agendas were involved.

Despite the triumphant release of his book, the author feels it is important to revisit the academic ordeal, as both issues are intrinsically linked.

The "Viva", or the oral examination of a doctoral thesis, usually takes an hour. In Tripathi's case, it involved nearly two hours of "sheer hostility". "Viva was not an oral examination, but an-hour-and-fifty-minutes of sustained interrogation during which the external examiner shouted throughout, not allowing me to answer, while objecting to matters of trivial importance." All of this seemed to negate not only the feedback of Tripathi's supervisor, but also the rules of the university.

Tripathi further alleges that the internal examiner didn't read the thesis, as "no markings or signs of handling were found on any of pages." As for the external examiner, he seems to have read only a third of what took years for Tripathi to studiously research and write. This was evident by the "angry notes on about a third of the pages, then nothing."

Tripathi speculates that what has taken place has less to do with his research or writing skills, but more on his take on the subject matter and the affiliation of the examiners.

The internal examiner was newly appointed Pro-Vice Chancellor, whose academic interests include the Northern Ireland conflict. She has co-authored a book on the subject of policing, and has ties with security establishments in Britain and the United States, where she became an advisor to the Homeland Security Management Institute, University of Long Island, New York. She also regularly ran training courses for the British military.

When contacted regarding this matter, the internal examiner, who had since then left her post at the University of Sussex, declined to comment - possibly because of academic confidentiality associated with such cases.

The external examiner, a career military officer, specialized in British military doctrines, the application of force and counterinsurgency. He had joined the Northern Ireland security service at the height of the conflict in the 1970s. Upon retiring from the British military in 2003, he was immediately appointed Professor of Politics and International Law and Head of the Department at Royal Holloway.

The external examiner too declined to comment "on the basis of confidentiality as between the University and the candidate." He is also no longer affiliated with the university.

Tripathi's thesis was submitted in early December 2006, with his supervisor's blessings. However, Dr. Stephen Burman was absent from the viva, where Tripathi found himself defending his ideas to "two academics with strong ties to the military". Considering Tripathi's approach, which shows little enthusiasm for military solutions to convoluted conflicts, he felt that his research stood little chance. "It was more of an assault, than a discussion," he said. "It was as if I was accused of some wrong-doing and had to defend myself." Even the Cold War International History Archive material of the Smithsonian Institute was deemed "unacceptable" by his examiners, according to Tripathi.

To rectify the problem, Tripathi was told by the external examiner that he "would have to rewrite the thesis in a year, without the Cold War History Archive that gave (him) access to the Russian and East German archives, and resubmit only for MPhil." Even then, Tripathi would still need to endure another viva.

Tripathi feels betrayed. For a man who has spent most of his adult life helping many understand the nature of conflict in areas where the US, Britain and other major powers have played a seminal role, the rejection - and the style in which it was expressed- has come as a major shock.

For Tripathi, there is no question that he was punished for daring to chart a course deemed unfavorable from the viewpoint of academics with links to the military. In some countries, government interference in academic matters is hardly shocking. But in this case - especially if Tripathi's assertions are indicative of a larger phenomenon - the matter is of immense urgency.

For Tripathi's readers, the story may still have a happy ending. Although the author is yet to receive his academic degree, the book is now widely available for all to read.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Back in Nuseirat, a refugee camp in Gaza, a large crowd of neighbors and friends watched the event on a small black and white television.

The Declaration of Independence read, in part: "On this day unlike all others...as we stand at the threshold of a new dawn, in all honor and modesty we humbly bow to the sacred spirits of our fallen ones, Palestinian and Arab, by the purity of whose sacrifice for the homeland our sky has been illuminated and our Land given life."

Many tears were shed, as those watching the historic event recalled the innumerable "spirits of the fallen ones". The Nuseirat refugee camp alone had buried scores of its finest men, women and children the previous year.

By then, the first Palestinian Uprising (December 1987) had swiftly changed a political equation that relegated both the Palestinian cause and Palestine Liberation Origination (PLO). Arab leaders had met in Amman in November 1987, where their discussions were focused almost exclusively on the Iran-Iraq war. The "central issue" of the Arabs didn't even receive the usual lip service. The PLO leadership, exiled in Tunisia since the Israeli war on Lebanon in 1982, was being disowned, sidelined, and worse, discredited.

The Palestinian people watched in dismay - but not for long. Merely days after the disastrous Arab Summit, Palestinian streets erupted in fury. Tens of thousands took to the streets of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and even Arab towns throughout Israel, making their frustrations clear to everyone who contributed to their protracted misery and oppression.

While celebrating the people's uprising, Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership didn't seem to have a concrete plan. They did, however, labor to seize the moment. PLO representatives were first consulted regionally and internationally, and then US and other Western powers attempted to court the PLO and to exact 'compromises'. This 'engagement' was conditional, of course, as it continues to be till date.

The Palestinian Declaration of Independence was, then, a capitalization on all of this. Although it rekindled the 'power of the people' as a very relevant political factor in the Middle East equation, it also ushered the triumphant return of the PLO and Arafat.

"We call upon our great people to rally to the banner of Palestine, to cherish and defend it, so that it may forever be the symbol of our freedom and dignity in that homeland, which is a homeland for the free, now and always," the declaration stated.

Abu Ashraf, of the Nuseirat refugee camp, was a poor man with six children. His barely treated diabetes had taken a toll on his body. Once a boxer who had competed at a 'regional level' (i.e. in other refugee camps in Gaza), his body was now contorted and withering. But when Arafat declared that the state of Palestine now existed - even if only on paper and largely symbolically - Abu Ashraf got up and danced. He waved his cane above his head and swayed around the room amidst the laughter of his children.

Around 100 countries now recognized "Palestine". Ambassadors were deployed to new posts in many countries, excluding the US and European states. But this also seemed to matter little. Palestine had never sought legitimization from the very powers that had helped establish, sustain and defend Israel's illegal occupation and violence.

The problem was that Arafat, his political party, Fatah and PLO leadership could only go so far. There was a subtle understanding among the 'pragmatics' in Fatah that without Western, and specifically American validation, a real, tangible Palestine could never follow the symbolic one. However, the US, the ultimate defender of Israel, had raised conditions, which the PLO readily accepted. The more conditions Arafat met, the more he was expected to meet. Among these were: acknowledging UN resolution 242, renouncing armed struggle, excluding PLO factions that the US considered too radical, and many more.

At first Arafat seemed to have a strategy: get some and demand more. But the concessions never stopped, and Arafat was constantly paraded following US demands. In return, he received very little, aside from, 6 years later, a Palestinian Authority that was merely responsible for managing small, disconnected, 'autonomous' areas in the West Bank and Gaza. The once glorious moment of independence was left at only that - a fleeting moment. Its political potential was prematurely and cleverly co-opted by US 'engagement', which yielded the Oslo agreement. Oslo, in turn, led to many disasters, which we are still witnessing today.

In late 2010 the fervor of recognitions returned, championed by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. This time around, however, there is little fanfare and no genuine hope for meaningful political initiatives. Abu Ashraf died in his mid-40's, broken and penniless. His children and grandchildren still live in the same house, in the same refugee camp. A minor difference in their life is that the Israeli military occupation of past has been rebranded and replaced by a very tight siege. The soldiers are still nearby, just a few miles away in any possible direction. And these days there seem to be few reasons to dance.

What Palestinians do have today is a much gratitude to the Latin American countries that have recently joined the host of nations that recognize independent Palestine. Uruguay has promised to recognize Palestine in January 2011. Many Palestinians now understand that to capitalize on the growing international solidarity, the Palestinian leadership needs to free itself from the iron grip and political monopoly of the United States and embrace its partners of old, from the time before Oslo, the "peace process", the Roadmap and all the other broken promises.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

For most of us, the Iraqi people's resolve cannot be witnessed, but rather deduced. Eight years of military strikes, raids, imprisonments, torture, humiliation and unimaginable suffering were still not enough to force the Iraqis into accepting injustice as a status quo.

In August 2010, the United States declared the end of its combat mission in Iraq, promising complete withdrawal by the end of 2011. However, US military action has continued, only under different designations. The occupation of Iraq carries on, despite the tactical shifts of commands and the rebranding effort.

However, were it not for the tenacity of the Iraqi people, who manage to cross-sectarian, political and ideological divides, there would be no talk of withdrawals or deadlines. There would be nothing but cheap oil, which could have ushered in a new golden age of imperialism - not in Iraq, but throughout the so-called Third World. The Iraqi people have managed to stop what could have become a dangerous trend.

2010 was another year where Iraqis held strong, and civil societies throughout the world stood with them in solidarity, a solidarity that will continue until full sovereignty is attained.

Palestine provides another example of international solidarity, one that is unsurpassed in modern times. Civil society has finally crossed the line between words and sentiments of solidarity into actual and direct action. The Israeli siege on Gaza, which was supported by the United States and few other Western powers, resembled more than a humanitarian crisis. It was a moral crisis as well, especially as the besieged population of Gaza was subjected to a most brutal war at the end of 2008, followed by successive lethal military strikes. The four year long siege has devastated a population whose main crime was exercising its democratic right to vote, and refusing to submit to the military and political diktats of Israel.

Gaza remains a shining example of human strength in our time. This is a fact the Israeli government refuses to accept. Israeli and other media reported that the Israeli army will be deploying new tanks to quell the resistance of the strip, with the justification that Palestinians fighters managed to penetrate the supposedly impenetrable Israeli Merkava tank. Israeli military chief Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, who made the revelation in a recent parliamentary session, may never comprehend that neither a Mekava (or whatever new model he will be shipping to Gaza soon) nor the best military hardware anywhere could penetrate the will of the unwavering Palestinians.

Gaza is not alone. Civil society leaders representing every religion, nationality and ideology have tirelessly led a campaign of solidarity with the Palestinian people. The breadth and magnitude of this solidarity has been unmatched in recent times, at least since the anti-fascist International Brigades units resolutely defended the Second Spanish Republic between 1936-1939.

The solidarity has come at a cost. Many activists from Turkey and various other countries were killed in the high seas as they attempted to extend a hand of camaraderie to the people of Gaza and Palestine. Now, knowing the dangers that await them, many activists the world over are still hoping to set sail to Gaza in 2011.

Indeed, 2010 was a year that human will proved more effective than military hardware. It was the year human solidarity crossed over like never before into new realms, bringing with it much hope and many new possibilities.

But the celebration of hope doesn't end in Palestine and Iraq. It merely begins there. Champions of human rights come from every color and creed. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar, The Most Rev. Dr. Desmond Tutu of South Africa, former US President Jimmy Carter and other luminaries and civil society heroes and heroines from across the world will continue their mission of peace and justice, as they have for many years.

These well-known names are only part of the story. There are literary millions of unsung heroes that make the hardship of the years more tolerable, and who will continue to guide us through new years and unknown challenges.

Haiti was one country that was hit hardest in 2010. The small nation was greeted on January 12, 2010 with a most catastrophic earthquake, followed by 52 aftershocks. Over half a million people were estimated killed and injured, and many more became homeless. The year ended on a similarly devastating note, as over 2,000 people died and 105,000 fell ill (according to estimates by the Pan American Health Organization) after a cholera outbreak ravished an already overwhelmed country.

It is rather strange how leading powers can be so immaculate and efficient in their preparations for war, and yet so scandalously slow in their responses to human need when there is no political or economic price to be exacted. But this discrepancy will hardly deter doctors and nurses at the St. Nicholas Hospital in Haiti, who, despite the dangerous lack of resources, managed to save 90 percent of their patients

Our hearts go out to Haiti and its people during these hard times. But Haiti needs more than good wishes and solemn prayers. It also needs courageous stances by civil society to offset the half-hearted commitments made by some governments and publicity-seeking leaders.

It must be said that hope is not a random word aimed at summoning a fuzzy, temporary feeling of positive expectations for the future. To achieve its intended meaning, it must be predicated on real, foreseeable values. It must be followed by action. Civil society needs to continue to step up and fill the gaps created or left wide open by self-seeking world powers.

Words don't end wars, confront greed or slow down the devastation caused by natural disasters. People do. Let 2011 be a year of action, hope, and the uninterrupted triumph of civil society.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Certainly, Obama cannot solely be blamed for all the factors that have stifled his country's chances of recovery from the failures of the Bush era. But the man who promised the moon has now extended the abhorrent and morally unjustifiable tax cuts for America's wealthiest class. The "sweeping" $858 billion tax bill was signed into law on December 17. It includes an $801 billion package of tax cuts, extending Bush's tax break for the rich for two more years - at a time when the majority of Americans are reeling under the weight of a failing economy and persistently high unemployment.

Still, the tax bill was presented by the self-assured president as "real money that's going to make a real difference in people's lives." The cuts will help stimulate an ailing economy, he claims, despite it being the rich who gambled with American wealth to increase their own, stimulating a market crash that led to millions losing their small investments and savings. All we know for sure is that the cuts will add a gigantic chunk to an already impossible deficit of $1.3 trillion, another Obama battle that is likely to be lost to the Republicans early next year.

But this concession, and its presentation as a victory for America's middle classes says more about Obama's style than the weakening of the Democrats since the midterm elections. Even in his foreign policy management, Obama's approach seems to teeter between giving face-lifts to ugly realities and postponing urgently needed action. The agent of change has become the quintessential American politician, who is more consumed with his chances of reelection than with bringing about the kind of long-term change that can really benefit his country, and the world at large.

Obama's handling of the shortly-lived peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel's rightwing government is another example of a striking failure followed by whitewash. Although he adamantly demanded a halt to Israel's construction of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Obama soon began capitulating before an obstinate Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli leader, supported by much of the US Congress and backed by a strong Israel lobby in Washington, finally forced Obama into a humiliating retreat. Even a generous bribe to win a limited Israeli moratorium on settlement construction failed. Obama administration officials finally declared that the US would abandon its efforts to halt Israeli settlement expansion, effectively signaling an American exit from the 'peace process.'

Instead of laying the blame squarely on Israel, the Obama administration delved into the same long-discredited rhetoric that only Palestinians and Israelis are capable of accomplishing peace without any outside intervention. That was the core message of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued that it was up to Israel and the Palestinian leadership to "settle their conflict". It signaled a complete shift in US foreign policy, which Israel has naturally welcomed, for the US-financed military occupier prefers to be left to its own devices in this very unbalanced conflict.

Afghanistan is another example. The eagerly anticipated strategy assessment of the war in Afghanistan was released on December 16, with illusory talk of "gains" and warnings of al-Qaeda threats. It suggests that the US will continue to fight a pointless war for years to come, with no clear goals or end in sight.

"The unclassified version of the secret review said U.S. military operations have disrupted the Pakistan-based al-Qaida terrorist network over the last year and halted the momentum of the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan," reported the Kansas City Star.

What the review and much of the media fail to report is that the war on Afghanistan hardly concerns al-Qaeda, which is more widespread and mobile than ever. Its future operation does not hinge on the ongoing battles in Afghanistan either. One must also remain skeptical of the "gains" reportedly made in the south. Taliban is known for avoiding open warfare, a style they have mastered after nine years of practice. The recoil - if that is even the case - of the Taliban is probably temporary, and a spring resurgence is assured by past experiences. But what is most important to note is that the action of NATO and US soldiers, government corruption and the brutality of local militias have allowed the Taliban to extend its presence to northern provinces, including Kunduz and Takhar, which were, until recently, uncharted territories for the strong and resourceful Pashtun fighters.

According to an editorial in the Lebanese Daily Star, "Obama's long-awaited Afghanistan strategy review amounts to little more than a whitewash of the seemingly intractable problems that have trapped the mighty American military in a quagmire." Worse, this crisis is likely to be compounded. "The failures of General Stanley McChrystal, who resigned in June, and Richard Holbrooke, who died suddenly this week, are symbolic of the crumbling of the twin pillars, both military and civilian, of Barack Obama's counterinsurgency strategy. The US has now...entered a violent stalemate," wrote James Denselow in the British Guardian.

Obama's response was yet another attempt to distance himself from the looming, if not ongoing failure. US priority, he said, is "not to defeat every last threat to the security of Afghanistan, because, ultimately, it is Afghans who must secure their country. And it's not nation-building, because it is Afghans who must build their nation."

One would agree with the president were it not for the fact that the US invasion was what has impeded the security of Afghanistan, destroyed any chance of nation-building and installed a corrupt government. But Obama will not accept responsibility. His cautious assessments are emblematic of his overall political style: avoiding or perpetuating the problem, and distancing himself from it once failure is assured. This is as true of his domestic policy as of his foreign policy.

It is easy to see why Obama's popularity has plummeted among those who once believed in his ability to bring change to a scarred and traumatized country. And his irresolute leadership has also empowered his political opponents, who will not cease to demand more from a feeble and ever-willing president.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Still, I feared that something might be missing in this noble and monumental undertaking: Palestinian people's own responses to the cruelties they've suffered. Would Palestinians be presented yet again as merely poster-child victims, eager for handouts?

The photograph on the cover was telling: a kindly old man with a white beard, who could have been any Palestinian or Middle-Eastern grandpa, is lovingly touching the hair of a toddler. The two are crouching before a small, stained tent. Al-Nakba was still recent, and the two Palestinians, separated by two generations appear tired and haggard as they are caught in this hopeless scene. Yet, somehow the grandfather insists on preserving his right to love his grandson. This insistence on one's humanity has been the key strength which has allowed the Palestinian people to preserve their struggle and resistance before the wicked arm of occupation and oppression for nearly 63 years.

Do most academics know this? Do they truly comprehend what it is that makes an old man from a West Bank village face the brutality of Jewish settlers, year after year, as he returns to harvest his few remaining olive trees? Or a Palestinian woman from Gaza who keeps coming back to hold a vigil before the Red Cross office with a framed photo of her once-young son, now ailing in some Israeli jail?

What keeps them going is something that cannot be dissected scientifically or analyzed intellectually. It can only be felt, experienced, and partially understood. This understanding is essential, for without it much more time and effort would be wasted, discounting the most important component in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the Palestinian people.

Some intellectuals, although well-intentioned, often conflate the understandable weakness of the current Palestinian leadership and the steadfastness of the Palestinian people. They write about both entities as if they are one and the same. One of the best authors on Palestine rightly pointed at the huge discrepancies of power between Palestinians and Israel, noting that such an imbalance could not possibly lead to an equitable platform for negotiation. To demonstrate the point, the author refers to Palestinians as "almost totally powerless people", negotiating with a "powerful occupier."

But the Palestinian people are currently negotiating with no one. Their representatives merely represent themselves and their own interests. It is important that we preserve that distinction - between the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and Palestinian people, who have held on to their rights for so many years, and unleashed two of the greatest expressions of people's power and resolve: the First Uprising of 1987 and al-Aqsa Intifada of 2000. A whole population taking on the self-celebrated "greatest army in the Middle East" is hardly "powerless". The Palestinian people have printed themselves on the practical discourse of this conflict, and they have proved themselves to be powerful players in determining their own fate.

Jeff Halper, the Director of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, understands this fact well. The peace and justice activist has spent decades working for a just settlement to the conflict, a journey that's allowed him to work with numerous Palestinians. He has thus grasped something many politicians have intentionally or inadvertently missed. "Until they - the Palestinian people as a whole, not the PA - say the conflict is over, it's not over." He further states, in a recent article entitled 'Palestine 2011', that "Israel and its erstwhile allies have the ability to make life almost unbearable for the Palestinians, but they cannot impose apartheid or warehousing."

Halper is correct, and history has repeatedly validated his assertion. There are limits to the power of the "powerful occupier". It can kill, confiscate, destroy and burn, but it can never force the other into submission. Thus to speak of Palestinian victimization without discussing their collective resistance presents an incomplete version of the story.

The Plight of the Palestinians turned out to be an essential read, and a full and authoritative discourse. It offers a grim and detailed story of suffering and the 'slow motion genocide', which is important in order to appreciate the harshness of the Palestinian experience. Without this, one can never understand the anger, resentment and pain that are shared by several generations of Palestinians, in Palestine and in the Diaspora.

'The Human Tragedy' is laid bare in Part I. Every paragraph confronts the reader with gory details. But if such violence is the reality of the history of this conflict, why do many people understand it differently? The answer lies in Part 2: 'Propaganda, Perception and Reality'. It starts with a quote, the Israeli Mossad's own pre-2007 slogan: "By way of deception, thou shalt do war." It seems that such a slogan has defined Israeli official conduct. However, civil society cannot be misled forever, and the powerful initiatives carried out by ordinary people around the world are what give Part 3 its value. 'Rule by Law or Defiance' is an uplifting introduction to activist efforts, with topics ranging from 'The Russell Tribunal on Palestine' to the 'Necessity of the Culture Boycott'.

The Plight of the Palestinians is not just another chronicle of the history of a defenseless nation. While it is an unhesitant acknowledgment of that reality, it is far from being a celebration of victimhood. Rather, it documents the logical evolution from suffering to resistance.

In the essay, 'Does It Matter What You Call It?' two of my personal favorite authors, Kathleen and (late) Bill Christison write: "Palestinian resistance does figure in this dismal story. In the same small village where one is uprooting his family, others are building..."

It is the very balance between destruction and rebuilding, despair and hope, occupation and perseverance that makes the Palestinian people powerful. Their power cannot be demonstrated in numbers, but it can be felt, experienced, and understood. The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction spreads the seeds of understanding, which is so essential to any meaningful and lasting change.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

The Afghanistan War Logs were revealing and damning. They were filed by soldiers and commanders in the field. Despite the largeness of their size, they constituted a decipherable narrative, a sorry story to told and discussed.

The Iraq War Diaries also resembled an unmitigated disaster for US war plans. 391,832 classified military documents were published on October 22, revealing the extent of the calamitous invasion, occupation and 'state building' underway in Iraq.

The value of these finds - representing the largest leak in history - was unmatched. It effectively brought to an end the illusion that all was well in Mesopotamia. As with the Afghanistan documents, these files too constituted a narrative, albeit an extremely long and disturbing one. The fact that 15,000 Iraqi deaths are now officially included in the Iraqi death count is in itself a remarkable achievement.

The leaks regarding Afghanistan and Iraq were related. The much touted 'success' of the surge in Iraq under former US President George W. Bush is being repeated in Afghanistan under current President Barack Obama. The same haughtiness, language, and even strategies are now being duplicated. Thanks to the logs and diaries, now we know we are being fed half-truths. We can see through the dodgy numbers, the fabricated estimations, the flashy and dishonest language of politicians and leaders. Never again should anyone claim a lack of knowledge of civilian casualties, detainee abuse, corruption, and very shifty war goals.

On November 28, the State Department was faced with another leak and embarrassment. 250,000 US diplomatic cables were released, divulging everything from the US' belittling judgments of the supposedly poor fighting abilities of British soldiers in Helmand to the unwelcomed camaraderie between Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, from Qatar's alleged "(hesitance) to act against known terrorists" to Hezbollah's alleged attainment of new and sophisticated weapons through Syria.

Much of what has been disclosed was known, expected or realized through a simple exercise of deductive reasoning. In the case of Russia, cables, many of which were disclosed to the New York Times and four other major international news outlets, merely demonstrated the limited access enjoyed by US diplomats in that country. This left them reliant mostly on third party accounts, and their own personal interpretations. Their messages, at times, read like unsophisticated blogs, conceited and overly judgmental, if not overly personal.

In the case of Turkey, which seems to be the center of American diplomacy, 7,981 leaked documents reflected a predictable hatred and paranoia towards a country spreading its wings as a regional power - in a region already claimed by both Israel and the United States. According to reports, the comments were almost all negative. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was reportedly described as an "autocratic Islamist" who surrounds himself with an "iron ring of sycophantic (but contemptuous) advisors." Ahmet Davutoglu, the foreign minister, is described as "extremely dangerous," with neo-Ottoman ambitions.

While there were numerous insulting comments about the leaders of almost all the countries discussed in the cables, some revelations were particularly suspicious. For one, it seems strange that Israel, a nuclear-power with ongoing military adventures was spared much of the embarrassment. Iran's nuclear program-related documents were bewildering, as they comprised the only case with a consistent and consequential narrative. This was embraced by the Israeli Jerusalem Post, which described the findings as vindicating to Israel (because the leaks alleged that the desire to eliminate Iran's nuclear program was also shared by others in the region). The timing of this revelation seems suspicious, in light of Iran's scheduled nuclear talks in Geneva, and the increasingly warming of relations between Iran and various Arab countries. It seems as if someone, or some entity, wants to enliven the conflict with Iran, and spread it throughout the Middle East.

There was also allegation, made by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas was informed in advance of the deadly war unleashed on the impoverished Gaza Strip, which killed and wounded thousands. Even if someone chooses to trust a source like Barak, there are still no surprises here. Palestinian officials in Ramallah openly coordinate 'security' and other issues with their Israeli counterparts at a time that Gaza continues to face the harshness of siege. The Palestinian Authority's unflattering conduct requires no leaks.

The Turkish mainstream daily Aksam dubbed the leaks "The September 11 of Diplomacy". And like September 11, the leaks will likely reverberate in their impact on the international stage for years to come. There is no question that the embarrassing disclosures would make every world government thinks twice before sharing any new intelligence with US officials. The US officials will think twice before choosing their words.

But that aside, it must be stated that some US diplomats - unlike the top politicians in Washington - seem to in fact hold themselves accountable to the declared policy of their government. Their repeated emphasis on democracy, corruption, and so on in their private messages indicate that they are genuinely focused on these issues, despite the fact that they serve a largely frivolous and propagandist role in the overall policy of the US government.

Finally, one must admit that, unlike the Afghanistan and Iraq leaks, the latest revelations were of hardly any service to the cause of justice and global peace. They simply showed the inner workings of US diplomacy, with all of its good points, flaws, limits and shortcomings. Despite their high number, the documents raised many questions, but actually answered few. They only confirmed existing beliefs, ranging from the widespread corruption in Afghanistan to Berlusconi's "frequent late nights and penchant for partying." But since more are coming, one can only wait and see...

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.
*****

Visit www.PalestineChronicle.com.

My latest book: My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story is available at Amazon, Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble and Pluto. Learn More. Watch a short promo in English & Arabic.

The Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Edrogan seemed clear in his intentions during his Lebanon trip. But considering what is at stake, maybe he wasn't clear enough.

Israel is full of "uncertainties" and it is "not definite what it will do," he claimed, according to Turkey's state Anatolia news agency (AA). "Does (Israel) think it can enter Lebanon with the most modern aircraft and tanks to kill women and children, and destroy schools and hospitals, and then expect us to remain silent?" he asked. "We will not be silent and we will support justice by all means available to us."

Erdogan's words seem decisive, but they are as decisive as the strong messages he's conveyed earlier, including in response to the Israeli war on Gaza (2008-09). Israel is yet to heed his any of his warnings.

Lebanon needs all its friends to prevent the possible civil strife that could follow any indictment by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon of Hezbollah members over the assassination of Hariri. The tribunal is a highly politicized venture, strongly backed by the US and Israel. It is seen by many in the region, including Hezbollah itself, as a roundabout attempt to subdue the Lebanese resistance to Israel. Israel's all-out war against Lebanon in 2006 killed and wounded thousands, and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure. However, it failed to dismantle the resistance, but instead provided it with a moral and political boost. Incessant attempts at destabilizing the country since then have yielded meager returns, and never managed to create the political vacuum needed to rationalize an Israeli comeback.

The verdict of the tribunal might be Israel's last card in this terrible game. Thus far, it has been a winning card. Accusing Syria and Syria-affiliated Lebanese figures of being behind the Hariri's assassination has reaped its rewards. 14,000 Syrian soldiers were rushed outside the country only two months after the former Prime Minister's death. Syria was labeled a foreign occupier of Lebanon by the same Western governments that supported and defended the Israeli war on Lebanon a year later. Once Syria was more or less removed from the Lebanese equation, accusations of Syrian responsibilities were dropped, and an apology by a Western-affiliated Lebanese leader was issued. Mission accomplished.

Then, the tribunal, along with Israel and its allies, moved on to another target: Hezbollah. While no group is really above suspicion, Hezbollah is still indisputably correct in accusing the tribunal of being politically motivated, with an ultimate aim at disarming the resistance. In fact, Israel has been eagerly anticipating the moment when the tribunal issues arrest warrants for Hezbollah members, and carefully calculating its response. Gulf News reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu consulted with top ministers in his cabinet on November 24 to "discuss concerns that Hezbollah could attempt a coup against the government." An Israeli army statement issued on behalf of Chief of Staff Lt General Gabi Ashkenazi was also quoted by the Gulf News: "There is a real possibility that Hezbollah will take over Lebanon."

It's unclear what the Israel response will entail. In 1982, Israel acted against various resistance groups of Lebanon, demolishing the country in the process, and installing a 'democratically-elected' puppet government. This further contributed to Lebanon's ongoing misery and the state of absolute chaos and civil war. In 2000, when a homegrown Lebanese resistance managed to force the Israeli army out from the south, Lebanon finally began to enjoy some prospects of stability and sovereignty. Then, on February 14, 2005, the Hariri convey was blasted by the equivalent of 1000 kg of TNT, killing the former Prime Minister and many others. The prospect of stability vanished, and once again Lebanon fell into the abyss of dark possibilities.

In the rush to seize the moment, Israel attacked Lebanon in the summer of 2006. This proved a gross miscalculation. Israel assumed that Lebanon was ripe for the picking, but obviously it wasn't. The resistance was steadfast, and Israel's military move proved costly, if not utterly embarrassing. Hezbollah emerged stronger than ever.

Empowered by Israel's military failure, Syria began to reclaim its role in the region. Iran too was emboldened. In a series of events that culminated last October, the country's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a scathing speech in south Lebanon, stating that "the world should understand that the Zionists will go."

Lebanon is relatively unified, since most parties are aware of the grim realities that await the country should Israel succeed in its plans. Even leaders within the Middle East are becoming somewhat sincere in their efforts to offset the potential crisis. But history has showed that both the Lebanese and Arab fronts are too fractious to withstand consistent and focused outside pressures.

Now Turkey has appeared in the picture. A new and solid card, it perhaps has the power to change the rules of this painfully predictable game. Israel, in response, is trying to undermine the risk. On November 26, Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Israel's strategy to circumvent Turkey by warming up to and upgrading ties with various Balkan countries: Cyprus, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Croatia. It is just a matter of replacing financial and political losses in one place with gains in another, according to Israel's straightforward calculations.

But Turkey can prove Israel's estimate wrong. However, promises that Turkey will no longer stand idle as children and women are killed no longer suffice. Israel seems unmoved by words, perhaps betting on Turkey's military and economic ties to the West. If Turkey is indeed serious, it must reveal some of its cards, and send a clear message to those fanning the flames: that 2010 is not 1982; that Lebanon will no longer be testing grounds for Israel's and US lethal weapons; that the times have changed for real. Lebanon and the Middle East are counting on Turkey, not as a wild card, but as a true and lasting friend.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is Collapse

Former Middle East peace diplomat Aaron David Miller argued in Foreign Policy that "any advance in the excruciatingly painful world of Arab-Israeli negotiations is significant." He further claimed: "The Obama administration deserves much credit for keeping the Israelis, Palestinians, and key Arab states on board during some very tough times. The U.S. president has seized on this issue and isn't giving up -- a central requirement for success."

But at what price, Mr. Miller? And wouldn't you agree that one party's success can also mean another's utter and miserable failure?

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly spent eight hours with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu only to persuade him to accept one of the most generous bribes ever bestowed by the United States on any foreign power. The agreement includes the sale of $3 billion worth of US military aircrafts (in addition to the billions in annual aid packages), a blanket veto of any UN Security Council resolution deemed unfavorable to Israel, and the removal of East Jerusalem from any settlement freeze equation (thus condoning the illegal occupation of the city and the undergoing ethnic cleansing). But even more dangerous than all of these is "a written American promise that this will be the last time President Obama asks the Israelis to halt settlement construction through official channels."

Significant. Achievement. Success. Are these really the right terms to describe the latest harrowing scandal? Even the term 'bribe', which is abundantly used to describe American generosity, isn't quite adequate here. Bribes have defined the relationship between the ever-generous White House and the quisling Congress to win favor with the ever-demanding Israel and its growingly belligerent Washington lobby. It is not the concept of bribery that should shock us, but the magnitude of the bribe, and the fact that it is presented by a man who positioned himself as a peacemaker (and actually became certified as one, courtesy of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee).

Equally shocking is the meager return that Obama is expected to receive for hard-earned US taxpayers' dollars. According to the Atlantic Sentential, this will be "a measly three month extension of the settlement moratorium that originally expired in late September."

Acknowledging from the onset that these are mere "midterm maneuvers", Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times, asks the question: "Can Obama succeed where so many others have not?" He preludes his answer with: "Israel and the Palestinian Authority will not, of course, make things easy."

Seriously, Mr. Feldman?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose mandate has already expired, must be living the most humiliating and difficult moments of his not so distinguished career. At one stage he had hoped that the advent of President Obama would spare him and his authority further embarrassment. Imagining the president would side with his 'moderate' position, he placed all his eggs in the Obama basket, even bidding against the democratically elected government of Palestinians in the occupied territories. He went as far as to halt an international investigation into Israeli crimes in the recent Israeli war on Gaza so that not to frustrate Netanyahu's government or upset the pro-Israeli sensibilities in the US Congress.

True, Abbas tried to appear as a confident and self-assertive leader at times. He asked for a chance to think about the resumption of peace talks, conditioned his acceptance on Israeli actions that never really actualized, and finally sought the help of the Arab League, a beleaguered and muted organization without any political mandate.

How did Abbas and his authority make things 'difficult' for the US, Mr. Feldman? Would any self-respecting government agree to concessions that are made on its behalf without the opportunity to offer its own input? This is exactly what the PA has repeatedly done under Abbas.

Still, many Israelis are not happy with the barter. Caroline B. Glick, writing in the Jerusalem Post, described the freezing of construction in the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank as "discriminatory infringement on the property rights of law abiding citizens (that) is breathtaking." She had the hubris to consider the pitiable moratorium as equivalent to "land surrenders."

As for the major F-35 deal, it is "simply bizarre," she argued, for after all, "Israel needs the F-35 to defend against enemies like Iran."

Mind-boggling. US generously hands Palestinian rights to Israel on a silver platter, and the far-right mentality, which now governs Israeli mainstream politics and society, still finds it unacceptable.

But aside from this arrogant Israeli response, and the US media's attempts to find the positive in Obama's latest scandal, one question must be raised. What happens now that Obama has finally shown he really is no different from his predecessors? That the United States has lost control of its own foreign policy in the Middle East? That, frankly, Netanyahu has proved more resilient, more steadfast, and more resourceful than the American president?

Shall we go on making the same argument, over and over again, or has the time finally arrived for Palestinians to think outside the American box? Can Arabs finally venture off to seek other partners and allies in the region and around the world who understand the link between peace, political stability, and economic prosperity? It may perhaps be time for them to further their relationship with Turkey, to reach out to Latin America, to demand accountability from Europe and to try to understand and engage China.

The latest US elections have showed that the Obama hype has run its course in the US itself. One can only hope that Palestinians, Arabs and their friends will realize that it was all indeed a hype -before it's too late.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

The grayish blue pencil I used to write my essay with was one of several items handed annually by United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) staff to refugee children in many schools scattered throughout the Gaza Strip. My Arabic teacher was Abu Kamal al-Hanafi, a wonderful man with a terrible temper, who was also the Imam of the local mosque. My classroom had exactly 62 students. My desk was as old as the Israeli occupation of Gaza, if not older. The roof was filled with holes, creating an exciting spectacle as birds flew in and out, often nesting in available spaces. Watching these scenes made the brutish Arabic grammar lessons bearable, and eased the fear caused by Abu Kamal's bouts of anger and the occasional Israeli gunfire in and around the refugee camp.

While the introduction to my "Education and Youth" essay was clichéd and I may not have known what many of the terms actually meant, its overriding sentiment remains as true for me now as it ever was.

I remembered my essay as I read about the first World Education Forum (WEF) in Palestine, which took place in several regions throughout historic Palestine, including Jerusalem, Nazareth, Jaffa, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip. Those who were denied access by Israeli authorities had their own conference in Lebanon. The event, which started on October 28, lasted four days.

The problems faced by the education system in Palestine were difficult enough during my childhood. Now they have compounded to unforeseen levels, with the educational sector divided between two educational ministries in Gaza and the West Bank, the former under Israeli siege and the latter under military occupation. Were it not for UNRWA, the already severe obstacles would have become completely insurmountable long ago. But today even UNRWA is struggling with depleting funds and political haggling between competing Palestinian authorities and an ever atrocious Israeli occupation.

According to statistics provided by the United Nations IRIN news agency and recently cited by IPS, 39,000 children in Gaza had no available school to attend following the recent Israeli war. The United Nations has put the number of schools and kindergartens that were destroyed or severely damaged by the Israeli onslaught during the 2008-2009 war at 280. Considering earlier problems of a barely standing educational infrastructure, malnourished pupils and devastated family incomes, one can only imagine the impact of the latest blow.

As if the damage caused by Israel was not enough, the Palestinian Authority has also done its fair share of harm.

According to the Palestine Monitor, the head of the Ministry of Education proclaimed in his message to the conference: "Through education we will become a prosperous nation, and will obtain a life that allows us to live in freedom. We are a people who can live and learn despite the problems we encounter. We will continue to improve education, so that future generations can live peacefully."

I can humbly concede that this statement is much more impressive than my fifth grade proclamations. But as well-meaning and accurate as the assessment sounds, one can hardly absolve the Palestinian leadership of its own share of the blame.

Following the clashes between Fatah and Hamas, which lead to the ousting of Fatah from Gaza in 2007, thousands of teachers refused to return to work. They were paid by the West Bank leadership and resuming work under Hamas might have meant the freezing of their salaries by rival Fatah. The Hamas government were left with the formidable task of filling the vacant posts at very short notice. Many schools were also destroyed during the war, and many teachers and students were killed or wounded. Since the families of most students were poorer than ever under a harsh Israeli siege, bringing the educational system in Gaza back to its old status was almost impossible.

Gaza might be the most referenced example, for obvious reasons, but the education debacle in Palestine hardly stops there. With every extra mile added to Israel's already gigantic annexation wall, and with every new military checkpoint, more and more Palestinian students in the West Bank are held back - from school, from opportunities, from a better life.

Palestinians living in third class status in today's Israel, struggling against constant attacks on their identity and history also have numerous challenges to overcome.

On top of the problems created by military occupation, discrimination and political factionalism, other challenges, which also exist in other Middle Eastern societies, such as adult literacy and gender equality, are also very much relevant in Palestine. These too need to be addressed.

The World Education Forum conferences were accurately named "Education for Change." But in order for this change to take place, rival Palestinian factions must not politicize education. If complete unity eludes them at the moment, they should at least unify their ministries of education, even if temporarily, under the auspices of a third Palestinian party.

Needless to say, the Israeli occupation and the siege must end. No healthy educational system can ever be fostered under the boots of soldiers and at gunpoint.

More, regional and international solidarity is essential to help Palestinians achieve a semblance of normalcy in their educational system under the current difficult circumstances.

The good news is that I got a full mark on my Arabic essay on "Education and Youth". Whether the parties involved will ever agree that "education is essential to arm the youth with the knowledge they need to lead their societies toward change, progress and prosperity" remains to be seen. Personally, I will maintain my fifth grade position. I now understand what it actually means.

********
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Collapse

True, the situation in Iraq was difficult prior to the war. Having visited the country in 1999, I can testify to this. But the hardship suffered by many Iraqis, especially political dissidents, was in some way typical characteristic of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. Iraq could, at that time, be easily contrasted with other countries living under similar hardships. But what has happened since the war can barely be compared to any other country or any other wars since World War II. Even putting aside the devastating death toll, the sheer scale of internal displacement and forced emigration is terrifying. This is a nation that had more or less maintained a consistent level of demographic cohesion for many generations. It was this cohesion that made Iraq what it was.

Iraqi Christians communities had co-existed alongside their Muslim neighbors for hundreds of years. The churches of the two main Christian groups, the Assyrians and Chaldeans are dated back to the years A.D. 33 and 34 respectively. A recent editorial in an Arab newspaper was entitled "Arab Christians should feel at home." As moving as the article was, the fact is, the fact remains that Arab Christians should not have to feel at home - they already are at home. Their roots dates back to the days of Jesus Christ, and since then they have maintained a unique identity and proud history under the most difficult of circumstances.

I recall a group of Iraqi children from a Chaldeans school dressed up in beautiful dark blue uniforms performing the morning nashids (songs) before going to class. They were so innocent and full of life. Their eyes spoke of promise and excitement about the future. I dread to imagine how many of these children were killed, wounded or forcefully displaced with their families, like millions of other Iraqis from all ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Today merely half of Iraq's Christians are still living in the country, when compared to the 1987 census which listed 1.4 million Iraqi Christians. The number, following the most recent killings which resulted from Iraqi forces storming the church and exchanging fire with the kidnappers, is dwindling rapidly. The plight of Iraqi Christians seems very similar to that of Palestinian Christians, whose numbers have plummeted and continue to fall following the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. The Palestinian Christian Diaspora was a direct outcome of the Israeli occupation and the original takeover of historic Palestine in 1948. The Israeli government sees no difference between a Palestinian Christian and a Muslim.

But none of this was deemed worthy of discussion in much of the Western media, perhaps because it risked hurting the sensibility of the Israeli occupier. The troubling news coming from Iraq can now be manipulated by presenting the suffering of Christians as an offshoot of a larger conflict between Islamic militants and Christians communities in Iraq.

The fact is that Iraqi society has long been known for its tolerance and acceptance of minorities. There were days when no one used such references as Shai, Sunni and Christians; there one Iraq and one Iraqi people. This has completely changed, for part of the strategy following the invasion of Iraq was to emphasize and manipulate the ethnic and religious demarcation of the country, creating insurmountable divides. Without a centralized power to guide and channel the collective responses of the Iraqi people, all hell broke loose. Masked men with convenient militant names but no identities disappeared as quickly as they popped up to wreak havoc in the country. The communal trust that held together the fabric of the Iraqi society during the hardest of times dissolved. Utter chaos and mistrust took over, and the rest is history.

There is no question regarding the brutality and sheer wickedness of those who caused the recent murder of 52 Iraqi Christians, including a priest, in Baghdad's main Roman Catholic church. But to confuse the issue as one between Muslims and Christians, or as a UPI report misleadingly put it - "Iraq's Christians caught between majority Shiite and minority Sunni Muslims" - is a major injustice. It is also dangerous, for when such notions become acceptable, it enable foreign powers to justify their continued presence in Iraq on the premise that they are there to protect those 'caught' in the middle. In fact, for hundreds of years, every colonial power in the Middle East has used such logic to rationalize their violence and exploitation.

Indeed, there are many who are ready to use such tragedies to serve their political interests or to retrospectively validate their wanton action in Iraq. This arrogant mentality compelled Republican strategist Jack Burkman in an Aljazeera English program last May to describe the people of the Middle East as "a bunch of barbarians in the desert."

Such hubris is further strengthened by such killings as the one that targeted Iraqi Christians. A US solider in Iraq, quoted on a recent Democracy Now program referred to Iraqi culture as a "culture of violence", boasting that his country was trying to do something about this.

Where is the soul-searching and reflection that might ask what brought this 'culture of violence' to the surface? What will it take to see the "bunch of barbarians" as simply human beings who, like any other, are trying to survive, fend for their families and maintain an element of normality and dignity in their lives?

As for "Iraq's Christians", I must disagree with that depiction which is used widely in the media. They are not Iraq's Christians, but Iraqi Christians. Their roots are as deep as the history of Mesopotamia, their history as rich as the fertile soil of Tigris and Euphrates. No matter how far their numbers may dwindle, like the rest of Iraqis of all backgrounds, they will remain Iraqis. And their return to their country is only a matter of time.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Bahrain was the latest Arab country to hold free and fair elections. It managed a reasonable voter turnout of 67 percent. The opposition also did very well, winning 45 percent of the seats. In terms of fairness and transparency, the Bahraini elections could serve as an excellent example of how 'things are changing' in the Middle East. More, they might provide Western leaders, such as US President Barack Obama an opportunity to commend the contribution of American guidance to 'progress' in the region.

In actual fact, nothing is changing - except for the insistence by some that it is. Arab governments have made two important discoveries in the last decade.

The first discovery is that US interests cannot peacefully co-exist with true democracies in the region. Egypt had a rude awaking in 2005, when Muslim Brotherhood candidates won fifth of the votes, if not more. This was followed by the unmatched democratic revolution in Palestine when Hamas won the majority of the vote. The aftermath of both of these events was enough to remind both Arabs and the US of the folly of their so-called democracy project.

The second realization is that Arabs are not judged by the genuineness of their democracy; rather, the success of their democratic experiences is judged on the basis of how well they can serve and protect US interests. Since the democracy radar is measured by Washington, Arab countries deemed lacking in democratic reforms are often cited as promising and fledgling democracies in Congressional reports or White House statements. Countries deemed hostile to US economic and political interests are remorselessly shunned, as if their experiments with democracy could never yield anything of worth or consideration.

These two realizations led to a superficial change of course, forming a new trend that Shadi Hamid, writing in Foreign Policy, refers to as "free but unfair -- and rather meaningless -- election."

Free elections are known to be the cornerstone of true democracy. Thus by giving the impression of freedom, automatically one tends to conclude fairness. But fairness is nowhere to be found, for if it truly exists then change becomes possible and is likely to follow. Those who have followed the new democratic experiences of some Arab countries will have observed that they have also been defined by the same political stagnation of the pre-democracy years.

American journalist, Sydney J. Harris once wrote, "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be." If Harris is correct, then whatever is underway in the Middle East is anything but democracy. Although new parliamentarians are elected, new faces flash on television, and an increasing number of women are paraded along with their male colleagues following each election, the powers that be remain unchanged, unhinged and truly unchallenged.

Most polls, whether conducted by Arab or non-Arab pollsters, indicate that the vast majority of Arab people view democracy in very positive terms. But the plot has truly thickened in recent years, when on the one hand democracy has become a household name in much of the Middle East, and not one ruler or government contests its virtues. Yet, no true democracy has in fact actualized in any shape or form.

Have Middle Eastern ruling elites figured out the democracy trick, the great con of our time? Have they realized that democracy in the Middle East is only what the White House says it can be?

Israel has mastered this very trick since the day of its inception. This is what Hasan Afif El-Hasan argues in his new and very instructive book, Is the Two-State Solution Already Dead? "The identity of the Israelis in their legal documents and ID cards is expressed in terms of their group religious affiliation as 'Jewish,' 'Muslim,' 'Christian', 'Bahai,' 'Durzi,' etc., where all privileges are conferred by the state on the Jews by virtue of being Jews, thus making Israel an religio-ethnocracy rather than a liberal democracy."

Israel's unique democracy is in fact getting more unique, as non-Jewish citizens of Israel are subjected to increasing levels of legal harassment and are constantly asked to jump through all sorts of political hoops to prove their loyalty to the Jewish state. Still, clever and persistent Israel has managed to present itself to the world at large, Arabs included, as being a model democracy.

This was and continues to be the original democracy con in the Middle East. It took some Arab governments decades to catch up and also present themselves as democratic, whatever the reality on the ground. This is not your everyday democracy scheme. It is particularly devious because it can boast of being free, fair and transparent - and the numbers would actually attest to that - but the political structure would still be construed in such a way that the freely elected parliaments are blocked from legislating effectively to challenge the powers that be. If any legislation is allowed to pass, through, say, unelected upper houses, and approved by the ultimate ruler (both usually serving as an insurance system against elected parliaments), it tends to be unimportant and largely decorative.

Since democracy is always a work in progress, for no country can claim to be perfectly democratic, then Middle East governments can always use this idea to justify their own shortcomings. Expectedly, the US tends to honor that, bestowing praise on their friends, and condemning their enemies - the former for courageously taking on democratic initiatives and the latter for failing the democracy test.

The great democracy con would not succeed, were it not for the fact that many players, including the US, are so invested in its success. As for the ordinary people, who are eager to see their rights respected, freedoms honored, and political horizons expanded, well, they can always vote - even if only their vote actually counts for nothing, and only further validates the very system they are trying to change.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

For one, the media has paid the talks little attention, aside from the ceremonial coverage of the first round of talks in Washington on September 2. It barely noticed the following round in the Middle East nearly two weeks later. What did capture the media's attention was US President Barack Obama's attempt to minimize the damage he invited upon himself for merely pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to issue a partial moratorium on settlement building (about 11 months ago), and then to extend the settlement freeze.

The President of the United States has, expectedly, failed to persuade Israeli leaders to uphold such a basic prerequisite to ensuring a smooth sailing peace process. Its resumption signaled the return of American diplomacy to the Middle East. Its current problems and expected failure, unlike previous rounds of talks, could very much usher the end of American political adventurism in the region. If a president like Obama - who once enjoyed such a massive national and international mandate - could weaken before a rightwing Israeli prime minister, then why should others even try?

To save face - and postpone failure - Obama has reportedly promised Israel broad security and diplomatic guarantees. All he has asked for in return is the mere extension of the settlement moratorium of 60 days - enough to push his party through the November elections.

According to an article by David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the leaked letter from Obama to Netanyahu positions US foreign policy as a hostage to Israeli diktats, whereby the US makes no such future requests of settlement freeze, guarantees a US veto of any UN Security Council Resolution related to the peace talks for a year, agrees to increase pressure on Iran as per Israeli demands, and so on. Among the many disturbing pledges made by the Obama administration, one seems particularly generous. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the US will "'accept the legitimacy' of Israel's security needs as defined by the Netanyahu government, referring apparently to the Israeli leader's demand for a long-term Israeli military presence in the eastern West Bank, along the border with Jordan".

For Obama to lease his country's political influence to a foreign state for cheap political gain is bad enough. To achieve personal and party political goals at the expense of the national interest of the country is equally disturbing. But to promise a lasting military presence of an occupying power in another people's land for a mere 60-day settlement freeze is completely unethical and illogical. Furthermore, it violates international law. This letter will someday be analyzed in the same category as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, when a Jewish Homeland was promised by Britain to a group of European Zionists in historic Palestine - even when neither group had ownership rights or any political mandate.

Obama's passionate speech in Cairo, in June 2009, was entitled 'A New Beginning'. But a year and few months later, Obama has learned the limits of the political overreach of his country when it comes to Israel - as much as the Iraq war has demonstrated the limits of military power.

With this new wisdom, Obama and his advisors are acting like desperate salesmen before a conceited, dispassionate tourist. All Obama needs is a bit of time and Netanyahu is haggling over every detail to ensure maximum value for his dollar before November 2 arrives. Then, Israel will find other ways to use whatever leverage it has to advance its interests.

Because Israeli leaders also understand that in times like this Washington is absolutely mute and meek, Tel Aviv is sparing no efforts to exploit the situation. At home, Netanyahu is flexing his muscles to impress his influential rightwing constituency by approving hundreds of new housing units in illegally occupied Arab East Jerusalem. Netanyahu has humbled the president of the Free World, and is enjoying every moment of it.

More, racist new laws are either passing or are scheduled for vote at the Israeli Knesset. One of these demands allegiance to Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state." Many will have to take that oath or lose their citizenry rights in the country. It is an undemocratic law by every account, and is aimed largely at the Palestinian Christian and Muslim population, the natives of that land. The timings of these legislations are also meant to underscore Israel's determination to do whatever it deems necessary. This will serve the rightwing parties in Israel very well in future elections.

As for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, there is little to be said. He has no political power, leverage or influence. He can only do as he is told. He might send out the occasional threat of quitting political life, but frankly few are paying attention or worried about that possibility.

However, Abbas has, perhaps inadvertently, helped Netanyahu by providing him with a political platform whereby the Israeli leader can claim to be engaged in a legitimate peace process with a Palestinian partner. This alone was enough to bring Netanyahu and his country from back political oblivion into the center stage of international diplomacy. The bloodbath that Israel unleashed on Gaza from 2008 to 2009, the ongoing siege, the killing of activists abroad the Freedom Flotilla have all been cast aside for now. Instead we listen to Netanyahu speak of peace, prosperity and security for all, amid hearty clapping and standing ovations.

Hundreds of Israeli speakers, politicians, diplomats and scholars have been circling the globe in recent months, talking about Israel's undying commitment to peace. While this goes on, Israeli bulldozers are back in full gear, tearing down homes, businesses and olive groves. Israel continues to expand settlements and build what is rightly termed the Apartheid Wall, all with little, if any criticism from the US, the self-declared honest peace broker. Worse, as much as the political theater is organized and financed by US dollars, the full-scale destruction taking place in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is also courtesy of US coffers. Such is the self-defeating policy of the United States. Such is the peace process.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

But unlike the rigid politicking of politicians and increasingly Machiavellian style of today's political essayists - so brazen they no longer hide behind illusory moral façades - the band's latest work is also unapologetically humanistic.

Those familiar with the writings of Gilad Atzmon - the famed ex-Israeli musician and brilliant saxophone player, now based in London - can only imagine that Gaza was the place that occupied his thoughts as he composed The Tide Has Changed.

The title track, an 11-minute melody, transmits the host of emotions that engulfed many of us when Israel began mercilessly pounding the resilient and hostage Gaza Strip in late 2008. First there were the simultaneous strikes which killed hundreds. Some of us woke up to watch the dreadful images of poor police cadets in Gaza reeling under the ceaseless bombardment in a heap of human flesh. Body parts of young men and their families scattered across burning buildings and pulverized concrete. Those still alive were hauling whatever remained of their bodies across the sea of the dead, mostly in their graduation uniforms.

It was a moment of disbelief, of questioning much of what we'd previously held to be true. It came as a shock and awe to our collective consciousness, and was further bolstered by endless days of constant shelling and tragedy. And the tide began to change as if the moment of death, of release, was the very moment of liberation. Gaza's thousands of victims may have produced the nudge for millions around the globe to begin to finally confront their inner fear, their subtle sense of shame for allowing a tragedy of that magnitude to continue for all of these years.

As Gaza held strong proving once and for all that unspoken values - human spirit, the will of the people, the collective dignity of a nation - was stronger than all that military genius can possibly generate, millions went to the streets in a most disorganized, chaotic and yet genuine expression of human solidarity witnessed in many years.

The tide has changed, then, and continues to change. The frenzied and disorganized, yet real sentiments have become an unwavering and well-articulated commitment to justice. The shift cannot always be validated by numbers or demonstrated in charts, but is nonetheless felt widely. Israeli researchers refer to it as the global movement aimed at delegitimizing their country. They are laboring to link it to anti-Semitism somehow, but to no avail. Palestinians and their friends vary in their own reading of what happened during and after those fateful days, but contend it was Israel's murderous acts that incepted and cemented the process of its own de-legitimization. Gilad Atzmon & The Orient House Ensemble articulate it in music - melancholic at the start, but upbeat and unwavering later on.

And So Have We, another track, starts with the soft cries of Gilad's saxophone, accompanied by the sound of drumbeat, and haunting vocals is a sad procession. It invokes the sounds and feelings of the Freedom Flotilla, laden with people from around the world united by a mute sense of powerlessness, then emancipation. When the hundreds of activists set sail abroad the Mavi Marmara and the other ships, they freed themselves and the rest of us from the stifling weight of inaction in the face of injustice. It lifted for a moment the huge burden on our collective conscience. It showed civil society at its best, its most humane members sailing and braving the high seas to extend a lifeline to Palestine, to Gaza, which had been left undefended, hungry and alone - but never defeated.

Much has been said about the Freedom Flotilla. Hundreds of television and radio shows ran discussions and debates about its significance. Thousands of articles were published, and many books will follow. Even YouTube was caught in the storm. But in the midst of articulation and counter-articulation, a sentiment so beautiful, so poetic was lost; no words can possibly describe the triumph of human dignity that day, no matter how lucid or earnest.

It really takes a bit of imagination. We have been forced to believe that the world is now divided between civilizations that are willing to fight and kill to impose their collective will on the rest of us. That we had no other option but to join that clash of civilizations or to perish. That 'our way of life' - whomever we might be - is now being challenged and threatened. That conflict is hardly based on class analysis, gender, racial or any other classification, but is a clash between religion-inspired collectives.

That was then. Now we have seen hundreds of people, of different religious beliefs, value systems, races and class affiliations leave their homes, families, livelihoods, and entire worlds behind, staring death in the face on their way to Gaza. They have confronted and defeated the old but persistent illusions. They have demonstrated that it isn't what divides us that matters. What unifies us is much stronger, real, deserving, lasting and worthy of celebration.

The Tide Has Changed is not meant to be a sad melody, but the sound of people marching. It is the sound of boats reaching the shore. It is the sound of people's collective retort to racism, hatred, siege and war. It is a well-deserved moment of triumph, of victory.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Although it was tacitly understood that US president Barack Obama has distanced himself from his predecessor's indefinite war objectives - embodied in the ill-defined 'war on terror' - the chances are the dreadful term 'terrorism' is not going not leave us alone anytime soon.

Regardless of its alleged French roots - dating back to the French revolution of the late 18th century - 'terrorism' is very much a political term and very much a recent one. US officials, especially those vying for political office, are very generous in their use of this word. But others - from the most authoritarian, dictatorial regimes to Scandinavian democracies - have also developed a special affinity to it. Evoking a threat of terrorism is a very clever way to achieve political galvanization, as it creates a sharp and unmistakable delineation between us - the human, civilized and 'democratic' - and the inhuman and barbaric others. When the term 'terrorism' is unleashed, there are no half positions, no middle grounds, no grey areas.

Thus, Gingrich could not have formulated a better entrance to the foreign policy debate than to position himself as America's savior - not only from the terrorists, whoever they are, and wherever they are - but also from America's incompetent leadership since the attacks of September 11, 2001. According to Gingrich, George W. Bush should have replaced all of his government's security apparatus following the dreadful attacks, and Barack Obama should have done the same following the bomb scare over Detroit in late 2009.

The rightwing politician also conveniently linked Iran to terrorism, coined new terminologies, fondly recalled the 'peaceful' defeat of communism, derided everyone who doesn't agree with him, and continued to refuse to disclose whether he is planning to run for office in 2012.

Americans have been long familiar with Gingrich's emblematic rants. But they are also afraid of terrorism. They have been told that terrorism is anything but a political coinage and endeavor; in fact it is ultimately about a bomb and two wires, one green and one red. Every aspiring politician poses as the one who knows exactly which wire to cut. Gingrich moulds the threat in any way he finds politically useful. Then he exaggerates the concocted threat and promises to cut the right wire in order to increase his chances at elections.

All of this is fear-mongering at its best. It's unlikely that Gingrich is actually interested in bringing the terrorist threat to an end. What truly inspires his politicking is the fact that he can sustain his intolerant, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, pro-war and exclusivist American agenda using one simple, yet loaded phrase: 'terrorism'.

The Denver Post reported on Gingrich's speech on October 1:

"Gingrich...call(ed) Iran 'a regime of suicide bombers' and demand(ed) tough sanctions against China if it won't help contain Tehran...As suicidal jihadists, Gingrich said, Iranian leaders believe their dead martyrs go to heaven and Israelis 'go to hell,' so they win...'It's impossible to deter them. What are you going to threaten?' Gingrich said the need for tougher terrorism measures includes the U.S. border with Mexico. 'Think of all the money and effort spent to screen for terrorists at airports,' Gingrich said, 'on the assumption our opponents can't rent a truck in Mexico.'"

It's incredible how such a demagogue managed to squeeze his entire political program in few words: containing Iran, punishing China, curtailing immigration, isolating Mexico, taking stricter measures at home to combat whatever threat, real or imagined, that pops into his head. All of this is declared under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Since September 11, the anti-terror infrastructure in American has grown beyond belief. The media reports on numerous, unbridled offices, organizations and outlets, manned by thousands of men and women all dedicated to 'fighting terror'. It's a thriving business, and comprises a huge chunk of the country's budget. There are many thousands of counterterrorism experts, analysts and others who claim to be hell-bent on eradicating terrorism, although it is the very existence of terrorism that guarantees their livelihood, bonuses and healthcare coverage. Because of this, the definition of what is terrorist and what is not is also expanding, becoming in the process much murkier and less decipherable. Still, Gingrich would like more to be done. He joked and ranted about the Homeland Security officials and their failure to protect the country from the terrorist menace. Are they now supposed to eagerly await Gingrich's arrival to right this historical wrong?

Not all of Gingrich's Denver audience was amused. Five protesters were hauled outside the Opera house as they yelled: "Newt is the New World Order" and "The war on terror is a lie!" These were the supposed 'wackos'. Some would even go as far as accuse them of being terrorist-sympathizers, another way of enlarging the circle and cracking down anyone who dares question the wisdom of this random and largely politicized approach to countering terrorism.

In Dying to Win: Why Suicide Terrorists Do It, an exhaustive study on the issue of suicide terrorism, American author, who also heads the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism (CPOST) at the University of Chicago, Robert A. Pape writes: "The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion."

One of his seemingly novel conclusions was:

"Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland."

No, Mr. Gingrich, terrorism is not a term you simply lob at your enemies for cheap political gains. It's a real problem, with real roots and real casualties. And like any problem, it needs to be properly understood, realistically assessed and wisely confronted.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

The difference is relevant in light of the resumption of talks between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, followed by another round of talks in the Middle East. Both once more raised the question: can Israel and Fatah achieve peace without Hamas' involvement?

The question itself can be interpreted in more ways than one. Dan Murphy, writing in the Christian Science Monitor on September 16, asked: Can ignoring Hamas lead to Israeli-Palestinian peace? Murphy, unlike many in the US media, had enough insight to see the issue as worthy of discussion. His use of the word 'ignoring', however, is greatly misguided.

"But there's a crucial missing element that will undoubtedly trouble the Israeli-Palestinian talks as they move ahead. Gaza, the Palestinian enclave ruled by the Islamist Hamas movement, is not at the table," Murphy wrote. With that he offered his version of what not 'ignoring' Hamas requires. Far from 'engaging' the party, it simply means placing Gaza, that lonely enclave ruled by Islamic Hamas, on the table.

Gaza, however, is not merely one issue among many. It represents the heart of the matter. The Gaza Strip was placed under siege due to the Hamas' victory in the 2006 parliamentary elections, which robbed Abbas and his movement from any legitimacy in holding negotiations with Israel. The suffocating siege on that resilient and overcrowded strip was Israel's attempt at quashing what could have been a promising democratic experience, with the potential to inspire many more democratic revolutions in the Middle East. Israel's action was supported by the US and much of Europe, as well as some Arab countries.

Yet, considering the layers of meaning that Gaza and Hamas represent in any future settlement in the Middle East, it seems utterly bizarre that US President Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, answered with a simple "no" when he was recently asked whether Washington will reach out to Hamas.

"No" seems both too simple and too harsh, considering the gravity of the situation. Even if the US administration wishes to write off Palestinian democracy altogether, one would think that a sensible foreign policy would at least wrangle with the Hamas dilemma. The Obama administration cannot be serious about a lasting peace while continuing to play the same nonsensical good guys/bad guys, carrot and stick political games that were also employed by Bush.

On the other hand, the resumption of talks between Fatah's Abbas and Israel is a blessing in disguise for Hamas. Very few in the Middle East, and even fewer Palestinians will see in Abbas a legitimate and representative leader. If anything, Abbas' constant appearance with the very Israeli leader who is robbing Palestine's land and subjugating and exacting racist laws against its population will further diminish his discredited profile. Naturally, Abbas' political loss is Hamas' gain.

In fact, it was this very 'peace process' that destroyed late Palestinian leader Yasser's Arafat's political resume. It tarnished his reputation and split his party. Arafat is remembered fondly because of his last stance and death under Israeli siege in Ramallah. His political failure through the years, however, gave Hamas its real birth as a mainstream political movement. Abbas is simply boosting Hamas' already high political stocks. His future failures will deposit even more credit into Hamas' account.

But that too represents a serious challenge to Hamas. Politically isolated abroad, physically besieged and constantly derided by the media, Hamas can hardly use its rising political profile among Palestinians, or translate its gains into any tangible returns in or outside Palestine. Abbas knows this fully, which explains his interest in Israel maintaining its siege on Hamas and Gaza. Netanyahu understands this as well, which explains his government's insistence on holding still, despite the PR disaster that Gaza has earned his country. The US also fully agrees, thus Mitchell's callous, yet telling "no" regarding a possible engagement with Hamas.

Abbas, despite his authority's lack of legitimacy and shrinking popularity among Palestinians, remains the best option of a 'Palestinian leadership' as far as the US is concerned. He is flexible, both morally and politically. His Authority's bread and butter are US funds and US-Western political validation. Abbas gleaned from the Gaza experience that popular democracy is worthless in the age of draconian sieges and Blitzkriegs. In fact he used both the siege and the Israel war on Gaza to strengthen his political stance and to bargain with the US. But his language and action will remain predictable.

While 'engaging' Hamas, however that is interpreted, is the only right option if the US is truly interested in locating a legitimate Palestinian leadership, Hamas is likely to prove a much tougher bargainer. Not only is Hamas ideologically grounded - based on firm nationalistic and religious dictates - but its target audience is not just a few heads of states. Hamas' audience is Palestinians at home and abroad, Arab and Muslim populations and to lesser degree civil societies elsewhere. This is a complex demographic, which requires an articulate political thinking and language, which Hamas is not yet able to offer.

Fatah under Arafat was held accountable largely to Arab governments, and later to the US and Western donors. At the same time, it valiantly resented Israeli pressures. Under Abbas, Fatah is held accountable to all the above with little resentment. While Hamas factors all of these players into its political calculation, it is also liable to its commitment to its Palestinian constituency as incorruptible, uncompromising and committed to resistance.

In order for Hamas to become politically manageable, from the US point of view, it would have to depart from these commitments, and become as politically flexible, predictable and controllable as Fatah and Abbas. The US can only work with a weak Palestinian leadership which it can easily manipulate. Hamas, thus far, doesn't fit the criterion, thus the lack of any prospect of 'engagement', and the continued betting on Abbas and Netanyahu, despite the predictable - and possibly disastrous - outcome of their talks.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

This is how Goodstein lays the ground for her discussion: "For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe." (New York Times, September 5, 2010)

This argument is not Goodstein's alone, but one repeated by many in the media, the general public, and even among American Muslims themselves. The insinuation of the above context is misleading, and the timeline is selective.

True, it largely depends on who you ask, but there seem is more than one timeline in this narrative. The mainstream interpretation envisages the conflict as beginning with the hideous bombings on September 11, 2001. All that has happened since becomes justified with the claim that 'Muslims' started it. These same 'Muslims', some argue, are now twisting the knife by wanting to build a mosque not too far from Ground Zero, and they must be stopped. The media fan the flames of this fear, while unknown, attention-hungry zealots propose to burn the holy book of Islam. Scheming rightwing politicians jump on board, fiery media commentators go wild with speculations, and the public grow increasingly terrified of what the Muslims might do. Even the sensible among all of these groups advise Muslims to basically try to make themselves more likable, to assimilate and fit in better.

That timeline and logic may be omnipresent in mainstream society in the US, but many on the fringes dare to challenge it. More, throughout Muslim-majority countries, in fact most of the world, September 11, 2001 was one station, however bloody, among many equally bloody episodes that defined the relationship between Muslims and the United States. Again, it all depends on who you ask. An Iraqi might locate the origin of hostilities with the Iraq war of 1990-91, and the deadly sanctions that followed, taking millions of civilian lives over the next decade. Some Muslims might cite the US military presence in holy Muslim lands, or their intervention in Muslim countries' affairs. They may also point to the US government's support of vile and brutal regimes around the world.

But the vast majority, while acknowledging all of these, will refer to the genesis of all hostilities - before Saddam Hussein existed on the map of Arab politics, and before Osama bin Laden led Arab fighters in Afghanistan, with the direct support of the US, to defeat the Soviets. It is the tragedy in Palestine that has continued to pain Muslims everywhere, regardless of their background, politics or geographic location. They know that without US help, Israel would have no other option but to extend its hand to whatever peace offer enjoys international consensus. With every Palestinian killed, an American flag is burned, since the relationship has been delineated with immense clarity for decades. When US General David Petraeus argued last March that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fomenting anti-American sentiment, he spoke as a military man stating a fact. He was right, although many continue to ignore his remarks at their own peril.

True, timelines can be selective, but empathy requires one to understand another's perspective and not just one's own.

The Florida Priest on a mission to burn the Koran needs to see past his own terrible prejudices. Media commentators need to stop pigeonholing Muslims, and realize that there is no such thing as a Muslim polity in America. There is no truth to the idea that all Muslims hold the same religious values and political aspirations which are at constant odds with 'American values', and which need to be amended in order to make peace with their 'new' surroundings.

Needless to say, talks of 'assimilation' are misguided. Muslims have lived in the United States for generations and have become an essential part of American life. Millions of US Muslims are also African American. Do they too need to assimilate? And if not, should we divide American Muslims to groups based on ethnic background, skin color, or some other criterion?

One cannot offer simple recipes by calling on the general public to adopt this belief or ditch another. Public opinion is formulated through a complex process in which the media is a major player. However, it is essential that one remembers that history is much more encompassing and cannot be hostage to our diktats and priorities. Such selective understanding will surely result in a limited understanding of the world and its shared future, and thus a misguided course of action.

That said, Muslims must not fall into the trap of victimhood, and start dividing the world into good and evil, the West and Muslims, and so on. How could one make such generalized claims and still remain critical of the notion of a 'clash of civilizations'? It remains that many Americans who have a negative perception of Muslims are not motivated by ideological convictions or religious zealotry. Most American clergy are not Koran-burning hateful priests, and not all media pundits are Bill O'Reilly.

There is no question that the conflict remains largely political. Misconceptions and misperceptions, manipulated by ill-intentioned politicians, media cohorts and substantiated by violence and war will not be resolved overnight. However, hundreds of interfaith dialogues and conferences will not change much as long as American armies continue to roam Muslim countries, support Israel and back corrupt leaders. Reducing the issue by signaling out a Muslim community in this country and then calling on frightened and fragmented communities to 'make more effort' is unfair and simply futile.

  - Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

It was the status quo at its best, a mere procession of regional and US leaders before hungry cameramen. The leaders promised "not to spare any effort" and praised the undeniable altruism embedded in the very concept of "peace". Israeli Prime Minister repeated the martyr-like emphasis of past Israeli leaders regarding the "painful" compromises and sacrifices required to defeat the many obstacles standing before them. Mahmoud Abbas - with his expired presidency over a corrupt Palestinian Authority - smiled, shook hands and spoke unconvincingly about his hopes and expectations.

Jordanian and Egyptian leaders also attended. Their presence was purely an endeavor to mark a difference between this event and the last failed attempt at reaching a peace agreement. When late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israel's Ehud Barak were herded into Camp David under the auspices of then President Bill Clinton, Arafat was left to fend for himself without any Arab backing. This left Barak, fully backed by the US, with all the cards. The process was a mockery then, as it is now.

Today's badly staged talks are actually much less promising than the ones of July 2000. Barak had a considerably serious mandate, while Netanyahu runs a discontented coalition of largely rightwing fanatics. Arafat, although his popularity had dwindled, also represented a moral authority and a unifying figure among all Palestinian factions, including Hamas. Abbas, on the other hand, sits on the helm of hugely discredited and ineffectual band of contractors and self-serving politicians. More, Abbas operates with an expired mandate, and his cabinet members are handpicked to replace the democratically elected government of Hamas, whose members are either under siege in Gaza or held in Israeli prisons.

Needless to say, this latest round of peace talks is seriously lacking in legitimacy and goodwill.

Firstly, Israel has no interest in guaranteeing any positive outcome. It is hell-bent on carrying on with its colonization of the already disconnected West Bank and East Jerusalem. Netanyahu's government intends on speeding up such efforts once the temporary settlement construction freeze expires, only a few days after the second round of negotiations resume on September 14-15. On the very first day of talks, Israeli troops also invaded parts of northern Gaza and expanded the so-called buffer zone by around 300 meters.

As for Abbas, the problem is compounded. His power is truly feeble in comparison to Israel's political supremacy both in Tel Aviv and Washington, and also its near total control of Abbas' own domain in the West Bank. Knowing this, one cannot be both realistic and still hope for 'painful' Israeli concessions. Still Abbas continues to hang around. He might feel he has no other option, as his absence would both chip away from his miniscule political worth and risk raising the ire of Washington, his greatest sustainer.

But even if the one-year-long talks miraculously yield an agreement, Abbas will not be able to sell this agreement to his own people. The aging leader is barely capable of uniting his own party, which is no longer the main player in Palestine's political milieu. Today's Fatah is a different Fatah to the one under Arafat in 1993. Its corruption has grown to the extent that it now functions as a self-serving welfare organization, whose members get richer through international handouts and business monopoly orchestrated by Israel.

Equally significant is the fact that yesterday's 'enemies of peace' have become the legitimate parties that should actually be involved in any substantial talks with Israel. They are dismissed because they insist on a paradigm shift in how talks with Israel are conducted. They argue that any meaningful talks - especially between vastly unequal powers - must take place with a clear frame of reference, involving an even-handed third party, and predicated on the concept of 'justice' - not Kissinger's deceptive 'peace process'. The talks must also guarantee the welfare and security of the Palestinian people in the interim, through a long-term truce guarded by the United Nations. Peace talks held at gunpoint while the population is forcibly starved and besieged hardly promises any positive outcome.

What we can be sure of is that that the halfhearted peace attempt will garner nothing good. If an agreement is somehow concocted, it is doomed to fail. The Palestinian people, the absent but real party in any lasting solution, will simply not allow it. The Palestinian collective has the tendency to watch charades to their end, and then react at the opportune moment to defeat them. Almost every Palestinian revolt in the past has resulted from similar processes, the Second Palestinian Uprising of 2000 being the most pertinent example. When Arafat was being humiliated and forced into submission to US-Israeli diktats, Palestinians of all parties and from all sections of society rose in anger. Israel understood the revolt as a Palestinian attempt at extracting concessions and used unprecedented violence to quell their revolt. Many thousands were killed and wounded, and the rest is history.

If violence spirals this time around, it promises to be much worse than before. Those who cling to resistance in Palestine have been bolstered by the success of Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. More, they are emboldened by their political legitimacy as a result of the democratic elections of 2006. Predictably, Netanyahu will not shy away from interpreting Palestinian protests as a conspiracy to intimidate Israel. The problem with violence is that once it reaches a new threshold, it rarely retreats to old parameters. What took place in Gaza at the hand of the Israeli army in 2008-09 was frighteningly genocidal in its scope. Future violence is likely to stay within this category.

To avoid this, Washington's strategists really need to reconsider the long-term consequences of their government's policies. Obama's choreographers might succeed in getting a few leaders to stand in perfect order before a crowd of reporters, but they will fail to contain the political chaos that will ensue when the talks fail, as they surely will.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

But what exactly did they win?

And is the war really over?

It seems we are once again walking into the same trap, the same nonsensical assumptions of wars won, missions accomplished, troops withdrawn, and jolly soldiers carrying cardboard signs of heart-warming messages like "Lindsay & Austin ... Dad's coming home."

While much of the media is focused on the logistics of the misleading withdrawal of the "last combat brigade" from Iraq on August 19 - some accentuating the fact that the withdrawal is happening two weeks ahead of the August 31 deadline - most of us are guilty of forgetting Iraq and its people. When the economy began to take center stage, we completely dropped the war off our list of grievances.

But this is not about memory, or a way of honoring the dead and feeling compassion for the living. Forgetting wars leads to a complete polarization of discourses, thus allowing the crafters of war to sell the public whatever suits their interests and stratagems.

In an August 22 Washington Post article entitled "Five myths about the Iraq troop withdrawal", Kenneth M Pollack unravels the first "myth": "As of this month, the United States no longer has combat troops in Iran." Pollack claims this idea is "not even close" because "roughly 50,000 American military personnel remain in Iraq, and the majority are still combat troops - they're just named something else. The major units still in Iraq will no longer be called "brigade combat teams" and instead will be called "advisory and assistance brigades". But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the differences in brigade structure and personnel are minimal.

So what if the US army downgrades its military presence in Iraq and re-labels over 50,000 remaining soldiers? Will the US military now stop chasing after perceived terrorist threats? Will it concede an inch of its unchallenged control over Iraqi skies? Will it relinquish power over the country's self-serving political elite? Will it give up its influence over every relevant aspect of life in the country, from the now autonomous Kurdish region in the north all the way to the border with Kuwait in the south, which the jubilant soldiers crossed while hollering the shrieks of victory?

The Iraq war has been one of the most well-controlled wars the US has ever fought, in terms of its language and discourse. Even those opposed to the war tend to be misguided as to their reasons: "Iraqis need to take charge of their own country"; "Iraq is a sectarian society and America cannot rectify that"; "It is not possible to create a Western-style democracy in Iraq"; "It's a good thing Saddam Hussein was taken down, but the US should have left straight after". These ideas might be described as "anti-war", but they are all based on fallacious assumptions that were fed to us by the same recycled official and media rhetoric.

It's no wonder that the so-called anti-war movement waned significantly after the election of President Barack Obama. The new president merely shifted military priorities from Iraq to Afghanistan. His government is now re-branding the Iraq war, although maintaining the interventionist spirit behind it. It makes perfect sense that the US State Department is now the one in charge of the future mission in Iraq. The occupation of Iraq, while it promises much violence and blood, is now a political scheme. It requires good public relations.

The State Department will now supervise future violence in Iraq, which is likely to increase in coming months due to the ongoing political standoff and heightened sectarian divisions. An attack blamed on al-Qaeda in an Iraqi army recruitment center on August 17 claimed 61 lives and wounded many. "Iraqi officials say July saw the deaths of more than 500 people, including 396 civilians, making it the deadliest month for more than two years," reported Robert Tait in Radio Free Europe.

Since the March elections, Iraq has had no government. The political rift in the country, even among the ruling Shi'ite groups, is large and widening. The disaffected Sunnis have been humiliated and collectively abused because of the misguided claim that they were favored by Saddam. Hate is brewing and the country's internal affairs are being handled jointly by some of the most corrupt politicians the world has ever known.

Washington understands that it needs to deliver on some of Obama's many campaign promises before the November elections. Thus the re-branding campaign, which could hide the fact that the US has no real intention of removing itself from the Iraq's military or political milieus. But since the current number of military personnel might not be enough to handle the deepening security chaos in the country, the new caretakers at the State Department are playing with numbers.

"State Department spokesman P J Crowley said [a] plan would bring to some 7,000 the total security contractors employed by the government in Iraq, where since the 2003 US invasion private security firms have often been accused of acting above the law," according to Reuters.

It's important that we understand the number game is just a game. Many colonial powers in the past controlled their colonies through the use of local forces and minimal direct involvement. Those of us oppose the Iraq war should do so based on the guiding principle that foreign invasions, occupations and interventions in sovereign countries' affairs are a direct violation of international law. It is precisely the interventionist mindset that must be confronted, challenged, and rejected.

While it is a good thing that that thousands of American dads are now coming home, we must also remember that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi moms and dads never did. Millions of refugees from the US-led invasion are still circling the country and the Middle East.

War is not about numbers and dates. It's about people, their rights, their freedom and their future. Re-branding the army and the war will provide none of this for grief-stricken and vulnerable Iraqis.

The fact is, no one has won this war. And the occupation is anything but over.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

This is especially true in writings which deal with compelling human experiences. In Behind the Wall: Life, Love and Struggle in Palestine (Potomac Books, 2010), Rich Wiles undoubtedly directs his readers, although implicitly, towards taking a stance. But he is unabashed about his moral priorities and makes no attempt to disguise his objectives.

As I began reading Wiles' book, various aspects struck me as utterly refreshing in contrast to the way Palestine is generally written about. We tend to complicate what was meant to be straightforward and become too selective as we construct our narrative. And we tend to consider the possible political implications of our writings, and thus compose the conclusions with only this political awareness in mind.

Much of this is understandable. The situation in Palestine is appalling, and also worsening. If our writing is not meant to influence positive change, then why bother? But a hyped awareness of the consequences and over-politicization of narratives and texts can prove limiting and intellectually confining. Worse, at times it provides a particular contextualization of the conflict - with all of its internal offshoots and external outcomes - that does much injustice to other important contexts. It neglects facts and paints an unrealistic picture of a subject already confused in the minds of many readers.

Thus when the conflict is deciphered by a writer, all players take positions. Israel is pitted against 'the Arabs'. Palestinians are often sliced off into two competing parties, while Israel is largely shown as maintaining a sense of political and institutional integrity. Palestinians are radicals or moderates, Islamists or secularists. The 'conflict' is right in the center, and within it are the sub-topics: the peace process, the occupation, the settlements and numerous others. Without such lucid configuration there is no structure. Publishers get frustrated. The writer is urged to revisit and restructure his work.

But real life is not a well-organized academic argument. It can be, and often is chaotic, strange and puzzling, but it is real. Only by understanding reality the way it is - not the way we feel that it ought to be for any reason - can we meaningfully position ourselves to appreciate the subject at hand.

Can we understand the conflict in Palestine and Israel without subscribing to the same language, confronting the same political and historical milestones? Can Palestinians be understood outside the confines of political and ideological affiliations?

That is what Rich Wiles attempted to do in Behind the Wall, and in my opinion, very much succeeded.

Wiles relocated the conflict historically, geographically and sociologically to the side most affected by it: the Palestinians. The book is located in the West Bank, mostly Aida refugee camp, where Wiles spent years dedicating his time and efforts as an artist and a writer to help children share their stories and talents with the rest of the world. The writing is a non-elitist, part and parcel, which is a prerequisite to a factual understanding of the struggle in Palestine. Equally important, Wiles provides a depiction of the Palestinian not as the victim, despite the protracted process of victimization that Palestinians have endured for generations. Wiles' subjects might have been imprisoned or deeply scarred by war, but they are confident and complex human beings.

A chapter entitled "A Child and a Balcony" starts with this line: "'On Friday, December 8, 2006, I was shot.' Miras is unemotional as he tells his story." Miras should be emotional, but he is not, and Wiles doesn't attempt to rectify the seemingly inconsistent behavior. It turns out that Miras, a child (now a promising young photographer, thanks to Wiles' help) almost died when a bullet carved its way through his body and penetrated his abdominal from one end and emerged from the other. He was playing with his siblings and cousins at a balcony in the refugee camp, when an Israeli sniper hit him from the watchtower. The story is short, but rich in emotionally powerful detail: the father's panic and near hallucination, the mother confusion, the sense of solidarity that unifies the refugees and strengthens their resolve even when their situation seems so helpless.

Wiles is not an anthropologist or a detached ethnographer, and he doesn't pose as one. He is part of the story, at times an important character. In "Memories", he accompanies a young Palestinian boy on the journey of his life, from the confines of the small refugee camp to Jerusalem. The boy is visiting his very ill grandfather at a hospital in the Arab side of the city. (No other member of the family was granted an Israeli permission to make the short journey, thus the need for Wiles' intervention). Wiles provides an extremely honest and vivid account, bringing to life the bravery of the boy and the sense of freedom he experiences as he crosses the checkpoints into Jerusalem.

At the same time, Wiles does not attempt to assemble the perfect, heroic and infallible character of the Palestinian. He includes the story of a son of drug user who was mysteriously killed (perhaps by a Palestinian group that suspected him as a collaborator with Israel). The son became involved in the resistance to redeem the family's honor. His impulsive resistance (an attempt to burn a hole in the Israeli wall that surrounded his refugee camp) earned him time in an Israeli prison. Yasser Jedar (known as Yasser 'Wall' owing to his obsession with trying to bring down the Israeli wall) was certainly not a poster child revolutionary. But he is refreshingly real, which is what should matter the most to an inquisitive reader.

Wiles' work is an important contribution to what I insist on referring to as a 'People's History of Palestine'. In order for this genre to endure and flourish, it must remain honest, and duty-bound to the truth - to reality as it is, not how we wish it to be.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

But in the age of Guantanamo-like gulags filled with bearded Muslim men, such principles are disregarded. The very ideals that have been celebrated in the United States for generations are being trampled upon, violated and abused.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can reference American ideals and speak of democracy while justifying the peculiar elections in Afghanistan, or the bewildering sectarian "democracy" underway in Iraq. However, when President Barack Obama made the seemingly dreadful mistake on August 13 of endorsing the right of Muslims to build a community center near Ground Zero, all hell broke loose.

Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York - echoing the sentiment of numerous others in congress, media and public - immediately denounced Obama's remarks. The very next day, the president was forced to explain to CNN the underlying intent of his comments. He laboriously delineated the difference between commenting on "the wisdom" of the project and upholding the broader principle that the government should treat "everyone equal, regardless" of religion.

The controversy is odd, as well as embarrassing, because the intention of building the community center and the mosque - which includes a lecture hall and a swimming pool - was meant as a gesture of goodwill, an attempt at cultural and religious dialogue. It signals the Muslim community's desire for inclusion. It is also an act of defiance.

Those who committed their evil deed in the name of religion, and those who lead major wars also in the name of religion are groups most disaffected by a community initiative aimed at rising over the superficial religious divides that have lead to major crimes and fueled criminal wars.

However, not all of those who against the approval of the mosque project are politically manipulative, ideologically or even religiously motivated. Some have innocently bought into the ridiculous media allegations and insinuations. They have been led to believe that building such a structure would be insensitive, betraying the memory of the September 11 victims (who also include Muslims), and could function as a symbolic message that the terrorists have won.

One fails to understand how a prayer room, a swimming pool and a lecture hall a few blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood represents a victory in the books of al-Qaeda's grand designs. But more importantly, such language suggests - if not confirms - that what is underway is nothing but a religious war. If that is the case, then Muslims, using the same logic, have the right to curtail the freedom and target minorities in Muslim countries because they profess religions that are supposedly hostile to Islam. But isn't that precisely what al-Qaeda - a group abhorred by most Muslims - among other zealot groups have been arguing, if not practicing?

It's unacceptable that after years of American wars in Muslim countries - which preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11 - and many more wars which killed, wounded and devastated millions, we are still stuck in the same terrible mentality. Many haven't yet matured to see through the tainted lenses of hate and prejudice, the logic of "us" and 'them'. The very mindset that led America to its political, economic, military and moral crises for years continues to prevail. The very same cheerleaders who supervised the demise of their country as a world leader are now carrying the torches and forks of intolerance against a mosque, a lecture hall and a swimming pool.

The Muslim community center project was meant to remain a local affair until Obama afforded his support during a Ramadan meal with members of the US Muslim community. His comments presented the perfect opportunity for a perfectly opportunistic group of politicians and media pundits. His words were twisted and manipulated to give the impression that he cared little about the victims of September 11. The US president was reduced to actually have to state that "the pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable ..."

However, as unbelievable, sad and self-defeating such a debate seems, it is also a wake-up call and a stark reminder of the kind of hatred and intolerance that gave that spot in lower Manhattan its dreadful name. Hatred and intolerance have also created uncountable other "ground zeros" in various Muslim lands, from Baghdad, to Gaza to Kabul and elsewhere.

Perhaps the controversy is a reminder of the issues we still need to urgently confront. We cannot indulge in the rhetoric of change, hope and audacity, while we remain at the same emotional and psychological standstill. We need to realize how such a fragile collective state of mind makes many of us so easily exploited and readily manipulated. This is the discussion that truly needs to commence, as boldly and urgently as possible.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Here in Bourj el-Barajneh, one of a dozen Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, time seems to have stood still for years. Generation after generation, children grow up in the same desperate reality, punished for crimes they did not commit, injured by a history not of their making. They stand on dirty balconies, cracked beyond repair, watching Beirut and the world go by.

The city is abuzz with life, politics, rumors, anticipation and intrigue. It remains perpetually divided between many worlds and contradictions, in a way that seems almost impossible to reconcile or bridge.

Bourj el-Barajneh has grown into a 'municipality' since its original inception as a 'temporary' accommodation for the Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homes and land in Palestine between 1947 and 1948. The Palestinian physical share of the camp has largely remained the same, although the numbers have significantly grown. Influxes of Shia, Sunni, and more recently Iraqis have moved in and around the vicinity of the camp. Little was put in place to accommodate the natural growth, or to regulate the latter population influxes. Some self-servingly argued that allowing Palestinian refugees to improve their conditions would disconnect them from their homeland and sense of belonging. Therefore, suffer they must, with little work opportunity, no civil rights, and no cement or building material to repair their pitiful existence.

A state of arrested development has defined this particular refugee camp and Lebanon's relationship with refugees. Those opposed to the refugee presence fear that incorporating Palestinians into Lebanese society might be the prelude to incorporating them into the country's political landscape. This might risk further complicating an already messy demography. While Christian sects in Lebanon are the most fearful, others are also anxious.

In 1982, a constant state of siege received a boost when the Israeli army, along with their allies among Christian Phalangists, laid a brutal and deadly siege around Bourj el-Barajneh. Palestinians and Lebanese resisted, but lightly armed refugees could only go so far in withstanding the might of regional superpowers armed by a world superpower. The camp eventually collapsed, as many of its buildings fell. Whatever remained standing was dotted with holes and painful memories.

Another siege followed, and lasted for almost exactly three years, between 1984 and 1987. The perpetrator this time was the Amal militia. This incident also left its own evidence of ailing walls and cracked windows. With rebuilding made illegal by law, and very little by way of funds, the dust of war was the only fresh coat of paint the camp could possible hope for.

But they are many in Lebanon who still want to see improvement - whether slight or significant to the lives of Palestinian refugees, whether in Bourj el-Barajneh or elsewhere. Hezbollah has, till now, guarded various refugee camps against many threats. Palestinians here gratefully acknowledge that without Hezbollah serving as a bulwark against the many looming dangers, the plight of the refugees would have been much worse. But Hezbollah, a Shia group, can also be hostage to Lebanon's abhorring sectarian divisions, demography and political forces. Palestinians here are counting on Hezbollah to step up its support. They need the group to challenge the rejectionist forces in the Lebanese parliament, and demand civil rights for Palestinian refugees. Much is being debated at this time, and there are many backdoor discussions over details, semantics, and more.

Meanwhile, the two Palestinian girls continue to stand on the discolored balcony. They are sisters of about eight and ten years old. They were born after the two terrible sieges and much of the war that tormented their family for generations. But they were here to witness the 2006 war. Their refugee camp is a short distance from the Dahiya, the predominantly Shia neighborhood where Hezbollah is headquartered. Tough men and women withstood the unimaginable firepower directed at that tiny stretch of land, as in many other parts of Lebanon. Now, most of Dahiya has been rebuilt, with final touches being laid to edifices of concrete that will soon - if another war doesn't erupt - become hospitals, schools, offices and subsidised residential areas for the poor.

But the same is not true for Bourj el-Barajneh. The camp continues to carry the physical and philological scars of past wars, each generation passing them on to the next. A paradigm shift here is only possible when the balance of power significantly shifts in favor of one party or another. Aside from admiring its stiff resistance against Israel, Palestinians in Lebanon place so much hope in Hezbollah, believing it will be the party that finally tips the balance of power in favor of justice for the refugees.

Bourj el-Barajneh roughly translates into 'Tower of Towers'. And in many ways it is. It has stood the test of time and bombs. Its people have surpassed the limits of human endurance and determination in a way that should be scientifically recorded. In some areas it towers over Beirut, from the Haret Hreik direction. Illegal construction and limited space for horizontal expansion forced the refugees to build in some parts in a vertical fashion, creating a Kafkian-like reality, true but surreal.

And the refugees too are teetering between the lines of an almost pseudo-reality. They find themselves held hostage in time and space, in a growing city, a hectically changing world, frozen in time and increasingly lowered expectations.

The two girls continued to stare, clearly without a specific target in mind, while people below them walked on, unhindered by their confusion. I too walked away. For a minute I hoped for a sign, anything that could assure me that there was some meaning behind all this strangeness, all this injustice. I am sure there is, but today, I could find none.

In Lebanon, a sense of urgency always seems to prevail, even when there are no urgent matters to tend to. Jamal's driving style has probably changed little through the successive Israeli wars and bombardments of Lebanon in past years (the last being the 2006 war, which destroyed much of the country's infrastructure and killed hundreds of civilians).

Although no bombs were falling now, Jamal could feel something in the air. "They are cooking something big," he said, "but what it is, no one really knows for sure."

Jamal was referring to a joint historic visit to Lebanon by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on July 30. President al-Assad joined King Abdullah in his plane, where they stayed for a few hours and lunched with Lebanese leaders. The occasion marks the first visit by a Saudi King to Lebanon since 1957, and also al-Assad's first trip to Beirut since the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005. While both these fact are important, what is most interesting is the fact that Syria and Saudi Arabia once stood at complete odds over the rivalry in Lebanon between two collations - the ruling March 14 Coalition and the one comprising the opposition under Hezbollah's leadership, the March 8 Coalition.

While Jamal was puzzled by the July 30 visit, he is hardly confused about where he stands. He remains unquestionably a fervent supporter of Hezbollah, the Shia group that led the Lebanese resistance that forced an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Many believe it also defeated the Israeli forces that attacked Lebanon in 2006, and see the group as a symbol of Arab resistance against Israeli threats. But Jamal, like many of Hezbollah's supporters in Lebanon is not Shia. He is a Sunni.

Jamal's wife of many years died two months ago. He saw her as his life partner and his "only love in life." As he spoke about her, he breathed in the smoke from his cheap cigarette - as if carbon dioxide might somehow help to rejuvenate memory. He held in the smoke as he began searching for something on his duck-taped cell phone. As if the frenzy on the road was not dangerous enough, Jamal then paused to locate a photo of his wife, a shy and kindly-looking woman in a white headscarf. She was 55 when she died of cancer. For a poor man like Jamal, medical treatment would normally be confined to whatever public hospitals had to offer. But private hospitals subsided by Hezbollah made it possible for Jamal to ensure that his wife received the best in medical technology. Although she eventually succumbed to her illness, she was shielded from pain under the care of competent and respectful doctors and nurses.

No, there should be no 'eureka' moments here. Jamal's passionate support of Hezbollah is not simply self-serving. He is very clear on his ideological affiliations and is not hesitant to point out their shortcomings. Also, if he was seeking personal benefit, he would surely be driving a better car, wearing a nicer shirt, and smoking fancier cigarettes. "Hezbollah made it possible for a man like me to be proud again," he said. According to him, Hezbollah's heroism in the battle field, and unconditional social services provided mostly to the poor in Beirut and elsewhere restored his pride and dignity. But Jamal himself is a self-declared Arab-Nationalist, a Nasserite even.

Unlike other cities, Beirut doesn't convey one overall impression and experience. The photos of the war martyrs - with most recent victims having newer and larger posters - are mixed with many signs of globalization. While Jamal's car seemed commonplace in West Beirut, in East Beirut, the worn-out vehicle seemed to fight for an ever-shrinking space among newer models. But Jamal didn't sound intimidated or disturbed by his comparative poverty. His language is revolutionary, laden with terminology affiliated with various ideological brands: Islamist, Socialist, Pan-Arabist. There are many like him in Lebanon, emboldened by the impressive victories of the resistance, and the failures of all who attempted to co-opt it.

Still, cultural differences remain. There are many others, who, although Arab, prefer to speak in French. Indeed, the conflict in Lebanon cannot be reduced to mere groups and individuals, but is also a cultural clash. The party that will eventually prevail will ultimately define Lebanon: as an Arab country or some other imagined entity.

There is much haste here, as the clash is expected, once more, to come to head. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which was set up in the wake of Hariri's assassination is expected to reveal its findings soon. It is feared that the investigation will blame "rogue elements" of Hezbollah for the killing, as disclosed by the leader of Hezbollah himself, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah. Many here believe that STL has been largely compromised and politicized, and is a Western-Israeli platform intended to destabilize Lebanon and extract concessions from Hezbollah. The outcome of its investigation is likely to also be political. Many are worried, although some are comforted by the fact that Hezbollah is just too strong to be undermined by STL's findings.

"This bridge is the highest in the Middle East," Jamal said proudly, as we crossed the massive and very high concrete edifice. I nodded admiringly, thinking he was proud simply of an architectural achievement. He continued, "Israel destroyed it in the war, and two months ago it was re-opened. It is much more impressive than before."

"They destroy, we rebuild," he reminisced, words that accentuate the wisdom of generations. "This is what resistance is all about."

He pulled in another deep breath of smoke, and held it in for a while. Then he slowly released it, as we finally crossed the bridge.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Let's take a look at the context for the language of the Palestinian Authority's complaints. In a speech made in early July, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas referred to any direct talks with Israel as 'futile.' Thousands of newspapers and news sites beamed this 'headline', highlighting the word 'futile' between inverted commas - as if it constituted some kind of earth-shattering revelation. But anyone following the Middle East, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular already knows that such talks will be 'futile'. More, Israel has hardly made secret its lack of desire for a peaceful and just settlement.

Mr. Abbas, however, has managed to insert his relevance as a 'player' in the conflict, using one cleverly coined word. This word has had as much of an impact in Arabic as has in English.

Of course, none of this means that Abbas has actually adopted a serious shift in course. One need not dig up old archives to remember that the PA president felt the same way about the so-called 'proximity talks' with Israel last May. Before they began, he also expressed his opinion that the talks would be futile. He further insisted that no talks, direct or otherwise, would resume without a complete Israeli halt in settlement constructions in occupied East Jerusalem. After this grand declaration, Abbas went along with the proximity talks charade, while Palestinian families continued to be uprooted from their homes in their historic city. Only one barrier was removed before embarking on the proximity talks: Abbas and his men quit complaining.

Nearly two months later, when it is evident to all that the proximity talks were indeed 'futile' - especially as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has triumphed over US President Barack Obama in his most recent visit to Washington - Mr. Abbas finds himself in desperate need for another line of defense. Thus, the new campaign attacking predictably 'futile' direct talks with Israel.

Mr. Abbas is not the only actor in this drama. Others have also been doing their job, as efficiently and as true to form as ever. Yasser Abed Rabbo, who has worn several hats in the past and is now one of Mr. Abbas's aides, stated that the PA "will not enter new negotiations that could take more than 10 years." This promise - that the Palestinian leadership will not be fooled into talks for the sake of talking and with no timeframe - is not the first of its kind to come from Abed Rabbo, and it's unlikely to be the last. Abbas' aide will most likely continue sharing the same tired insight over and over again, because it's the scripted part that any 'moderate' - as in self-seeking - Palestinian official must reiterate to remain relevant. How else could they give the impression that the PA still serves the role of the bulwark against Israeli illegal territorial encroachment and military occupation?

Ahmed Qurei, former Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister and ex-Prime Minister, recently spoke at a Hebrew University Conference, entitled: "The Israeli-Palestinian Proximity Talks: Lessons from Past Negotiations." The conference was organized by Hebrew University's Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace. The place and occasion of this conference could not be more significant. First, much of the Hebrew University was built on 'ethnically cleansed' Palestinian land. Second, Qurei spoke at an Israeli University in an occupied city, at a time when activists and academics from all over the world, including several from Israel, are leading a cultural and academic boycott of Israeli universities to protest the terrible role these institutions have played in Israeli violence against Palestinians.

Worse, immediately before his speech, Qurei had met with former Israeli Foreign Minister and acting Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni. Livni had ordered and supervised the unprecedented killing and maiming of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009. The level of inhumanity she displayed during those days was met with outrage around the world, including from many in Israel itself. But all the blood was brushed under the carpet, as "Livni (and) Abu Ala exchange(d) 'niceties'", according to the Jerusalem Post.

Just try to imagine the fury that all Palestinians - and especially those besieged in destroyed Gaza - must have felt as Qurei and Livni shook hands and smiled for cameras. As for Qurei's academic and political contributions, the Post reported that, "at the conference, Qurei said Netanyahu had not really frozen West Bank settlement construction, and added that Israel's actions were preventing direct talks."

Considering the numerous compromises that Qurei afforded in his very attendance of the conference, and his handshaking with Livni, one fails to understand the point of such statements.

These empty declarations will have no bearing on the outcome of events, nor will they force Netanyahu and his right-wing government to think twice as they carry on demolishing homes and uprooting trees. But they are more important than ever for the PA, as voices are rising in Washington, in London and elsewhere, demanding that the US and its partners acknowledge, if not 'engage' Hamas. Such a prospect is bad news for the West Bank Palestinian leadership, which understands that its relevance to the 'peace process' hinges on the constant dismissal of Hamas. Therefore, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah will continue to adhere to its methodology: don't criticize Israel too harshly, so as not to lose favor; follow the US dictates, so as to maintain a 'moderate' status and many privileges; and always give an impression to Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims that the PA is the one and only defender of Jerusalem.

One wonders how much longer the Palestinian leadership can sustain this act, which is in fact the real exercise of futility.

- Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Understanding the real nature of resistance, however, is not easy. No newsbyte could be thorough enough to explain why people, as a people, resist. Even if such an arduous task was possible, the news might not want to convey it, as it would directly clash with mainstream interpretations of violence and non-violent resistance. The Afghanistan story must remain committed to the same language: al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Lebanon must be represented in terms of a menacing Iran-backed Hizbullah. Palestine's Hamas must be forever shown as a militant group sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state. Any attempt at offering an alternative reading is tantamount to sympathizing with terrorists and justifying violence.

The deliberate conflation and misuse of terminology has made it almost impossible to understand, and thus to actually resolve bloody conflicts.

Even those who purport to sympathize with resisting nations often contribute to the confusion. Activists from Western countries tend to follow an academic comprehension of what is happening in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. Thus certain ideas are perpetuated: suicide bombings bad, non-violent resistance good; Hamas rockets bad, slingshots good; armed resistance bad, vigils in front of Red Cross offices good. Many activists will quote Martin Luther King Jr., but not Malcolm X. They will infuse a selective understanding of Gandhi, but never of Guevara. This supposedly 'strategic' discourse has robbed many of what could be a precious understanding of resistance - as both concept and culture.

Between the reductionst mainstream understanding of resistance as violent and terrorist and the 'alternative' defacing of an inspiring and compelling cultural experience, resistance as a culture is lost. The two overriding definitions offer no more than narrow depictions. Both render those attempting to relay the viewpoint of the resisting culture as almost always on the defensive. Thus we repeatedly hear the same statements: no, we are not terrorists; no, we are not violent, we actually have a rich culture of non-violent resistance; no, Hamas is not affiliated with al-Qaeda; no, Hizbullah is not an Iranian agent. Ironically, Israeli writers, intellectuals and academicians own up to much less than their Palestinian counterparts, although the former tend to defend aggression and the latter defend, or at least try to explain their resistance to aggression. Also ironic is the fact that instead of seeking to understand why people resist, many wish to debate about how to suppress their resistance.

By resistance as a culture, I am referencing Edward Said's elucidation of "culture (as) a way of fighting against extinction and obliteration." When cultures resist, they don't scheme and play politics. Nor do they sadistically brutalize. Their decisions as to whether to engage in armed struggle or to employ non-violent methods, whether to target civilians or not, whether to conspire with foreign elements or not are all purely strategic. They are hardly of direct relevance to the concept or resistance itself. Mixing between the two suggests is manipulative or plain ignorant.

If resistance is "the action of opposing something that you disapprove or disagree with", then a culture of resistance is what occurs when an entire culture reaches this collective decision to oppose that disagreeable element - often a foreign occupation. The decision is not a calculated one. It is engendered through a long process in which self-awareness, self-assertion, tradition, collective experiences, symbols and many more factors interact in specific ways. This might be new to the wealth of that culture's past experiences, but it is very much an internal process.

It's almost like a chemical reaction, but even more complex since it isn't always easy to separate its elements. Thus it is also not easy to fully comprehend, and, in the case of an invading army, it is not easily suppressed. This is how I tried to explain the first Palestinian uprising of 1987, which I lived in its entirely in Gaza:

"It's not easy to isolate specific dates and events that spark popular revolutions. Genuine collective rebellion cannot be rationalized though a coherent line of logic that elapses time and space; its rather a culmination of experiences that unite the individual to the collective, their conscious and subconscious, their relationships with their immediate surroundings and with that which is not so immediate, all colliding and exploding into a fury that cannot be suppressed." (My Father Was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story)

Foreign occupiers tend to fight popular resistance through several means. One includes a varied amount of violence aiming to disorient, destroy and rebuild a nation to any desired image (read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine). Another strategy is to weaken the very components that give a culture its unique identity and inner strengths - and thus defuse the culture's ability to resist. The former requires firepower, while the latter can be achieved through soft means of control. Many 'third world' nations that boast of their sovereignty and independence might in fact be very much occupied, but due to their fragmented and overpowered cultures - through globalization, for example - they are unable to comprehend the extent of their tragedy and dependency. Others, who might effectively be occupied, often possess a culture of resistance that makes it impossible for their occupiers to achieve any of their desired objectives.

In Gaza, Palestine, while the media speaks endlessly of rockets and Israeli security, and debates who is really responsible for holding Palestinians in the strip hostage, no heed is paid to the little children living in tents by the ruins of homes they lost in the latest Israeli onslaught. These kids participate in the same culture of resistance that Gaza has witnessed over the course of six decades. In their notebooks they draw fighters with guns, kids with slingshots, women with flags, as well as menacing Israeli tanks and warplanes, graves dotted with the word 'martyr', and destroyed homes. Throughout, the word 'victory' is persistently used.

When I was in Iraq, I witnessed a local version of these kids' drawings. And while I have yet to see Afghani children's scrapbooks, I can easily imagine their content too.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

The human rights agency has confirmed that 35 women and children were killed following the latest US attacks on an alleged al-Qaeda hideout in Yemen. Initially, there were attempts to bury the story, and Yemen officially denied that civilians were killed as a result of the December 17 attack on al-Majala in southern Yemen. However, it has been simply impossible to conceal what is now considered the largest loss of life in one single US attack in the country.

If the civilian casualties were indeed a miscalculation on the part of the US military, there should no longer be any doubt about the fact that cluster munitions are far too dangerous a weapon to be utilized in war. And they certainly have no place whatsoever in civilian areas. The human casualties are too large to justify.

Yemen is not alone. Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan are also stark examples of the untold loss and suffering caused by cluster bombs. Meanwhile, the unrepentant Israeli army will not consider dropping the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas altogether. Instead it is pondering ways to make them 'safer'. The Jerusalem Post reported on July 2 that the army "has recently carried out a series of tests with a bomblet that has a specially designed self-destruct mechanism which dramatically reduces the amount of unexploded ordnance." During the Israeli onslaught in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Israel fired millions of bomblets, mostly into South Lebanon. Aside from the immediate devastation and causalities, unexploded ordnance continues to victimize Lebanon's civilians, most of whom are children. Dozens of lives have been lost since the end of this war.

In Gaza, the same terrible scenario was repeated between 2008 and 2009. Unlike Lebanon, however, trapped Palestinians in Gaza had nowhere to go.

Now Israel is anticipating another war with the Lebanese resistance. In preparation for this, an Israeli PR campaign is already underway. It seeks to convince public opinion that Israel is doing its utmost to avoid civilian casualties. "As a result of the collateral damage and international condemnation, and ahead of a potential new conflict with Hizbullah, the IDF has decided to evaluate the M85 bomblet manufactured by the government-owned Israeli Military Industries (IMI)," the Jerusalem Post reported.

Of course, Israel's friends, especially those who are yet to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions, will be pleased by the initial successes of the Israeli army testing. Under pressure to ratify the agreement, these countries are only too eager to offer a 'safer' version of current cluster bomb models. This would help not only to maintain the huge profits generated from this morally abhorrent business, it would also hopefully quell growing criticism by civil society and other world governments.

In December 2008, the United States, Russia and China, among others, sent a terrible message to the rest of the world. They refused to take part in the historic signing of the treaty that banned the production and use of cluster bombs. In a world that is plagued by war, military occupation and terrorism, the involvement of the great military powers in signing and ratifying the agreement would have signaled - if only symbolically - the willingness of these countries to spare civilians' unjustifiable deaths and the lasting scars of war.

Fortunately, the refusal didn't completely impede an international agreement. The incessant activism of many conscientious individuals and organizations came to fruition on December 3 and 4 in Oslo, Norway, when ninety-three countries signed a treaty banning the weapon.

Unfortunately, albeit unsurprisingly, the US, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan - a group that includes the biggest makers and users of the weapon - neither attended the Ireland negotiations of May 2008, and nor did they show any interest in signing the agreement in Oslo.

Most countries that have signed the accords are not involved in any active military conflict. They are also not in any way benefiting from the lucrative cluster munition industry.

The treaty was the outcome of intensive campaigning by the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), a group of non-governmental organizations. CMC is determined to carry on with its campaigning to bring more signatories to the fold.

But without the involvement of the major producers and active users of the weapon, the Oslo ceremony remained largely symbolic. However, there is nothing symbolic about the pain and bitter losses experienced by the many victims of cluster bombs. According to the group Handicap International, a third of cluster-bomb victims are children. Equally alarming, 98 percent of the weapon's overall victims are civilians. The group estimates that about 100,000 people have been maimed or killed by cluster bombs around the world since 1965. Unlike conventional weapons, cluster bomblets survive for many years, luring little children with their attractive appearance. Children often mistake the bomblets for candy or toys.

Recently, some encouraging news emerged from the Netherlands. Maxime Verhagen, Minister of Foreign Affairs, urged his country's House of Representative to ratify the Convention, which bans the production, possessions and use of such munitions. The ban leaves no room for any misguided interpretations and does not care for the Israeli army's experimentations.

In his speech, Verhagen claimed, "Cluster munitions are unreliable and imprecise, and their use poses a grave danger to the civilian population...Years after a conflict has ended, people - especially children - can fall victim to unexploded submunition from cluster bombs."

To date, the agreement has been signed by 106 countries and ratified by 36 - and will enter into force on August 1, despite the fact that the big players refuse to take part.

The Netherlands' push is certainly a step in the right direction. But much more remains to be done. The onus is also on civil societies in countries that are yet to ratify the agreement or sign it in the first place. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing." This holds as true in the issue of cluster bombs, as in any other where human rights are violated and ignored.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

For ten years, numerous committees, international and local organizations and independent researchers have tirelessly mulled over all sorts of indicators, numbers, charts and statistical data relating to extreme poverty and hunger, universal primary education, gender equality, child mortality, and so on.

The conclusions derived from all the data weren't necessarily grim. And the sincerity of the many men and women who have indefatigably worked to ensure that the eight international development goals - agreed to by all 192 UN member states and over 20 international organizations - were fully implemented, cannot in any way be discounted. They were the ones who brought the issue to the fore, and they continue to push forward with resolve and determination.

The problem lies with the concept itself, and with the naive trust that governments and politicians - whether rich or poor, democratic or authoritarian, leading global wars or trying to steer clear from the abyss of famine - could possibly share one common, selfless and unconditional love for humanity, including the poor, the disadvantaged, hungry and the ill. The utopian scenario might be attainable one day, but it certainly won't be happening anytime soon.

So why commit to such goals, with specific deadlines and regular reports, if a genuine global consensus is not achievable?

Since its inception, the United Nations has been a source of two conflicting agendas. One is undemocratic, and championed by those who wield the veto power at the Security Council. The other is egalitarian, and it's embodied in the General Assembly. The latter reflects the global mood and international opinion much more accurately than the former, which is largely dictatorial and caters only to power.

As a result, two conflicting sets of ideas and behaviors have emerged in the last six decades. One imposes sanctions, leads wars and destroys nations, and the other offers a helping hand, builds a school, shelters a refugee. The latter offers assistance, albeit on a relatively small scale. The former spreads devastation and destruction on a grand scale.

The Millennium goals evolved from this very dilemma, which continues to afflict the United Nations and undermine its noble principles. For now, MDGs would have to settle for being a true reflection of peoples' aspirations, but with little expectation of achievable results.

That does not mean that there is no good news. On the contrary, there will always be reasons to compel us to push further towards desired change. Since September 8, 2000 - the day in which the General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration - many encouraging results have been reported. Although the progress, as reported during the 2005 World Summit of leaders, was still falling short from the target dates, much has been achieved.

On June 23, Charles Abugre, the Director for Africa of the United Nations MDG campaign presented the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Report in Berlin. The same report was simultaneously presented in New York and Paris. According to its findings, the 2008 food and 2009 financial crises didn't stop progress, but they certainly made the goal of reducing global poverty by half "more difficult to achieve."

Indeed, significantly less people are reportedly living on less income, though, according to Aburge, bringing "poverty down to 15 percent of the global population" is less likely. Aburge has also said that progress has been made throughout the world, with the distressing exception of Central Asia, which is "riven by war and armed conflicts."

In areas such as child mortality rate and combating epidemics, there has been little or no progress. More, "environmental degradation continues at an alarming pace," according to Abugre. "CO2 emissions have even increased by almost 50 percent over the past 17 years, and in spite of a minor slowdown in emissions due to the crisis, are set to increase further." It's important to mention here that some countries are much closer to succeeding with the MDGs than others. China, for instance, has slashed the number of its poor by a huge margin, while others have fallen deeper into poverty.

While the numbers offer a strong enough reason to maintain a global push for reducing poverty, there is little evidence to suggest that the improvement is in any way related to the global pledge of 2000. It may well be a reflection of the state of affairs of individual countries. For example, China's economic progress is hardly related to the September 2000 meet, and Afghanistan never really opted for the US-NATO invasion of 2001, which eliminated any realistic chance for the country to ever meet such seemingly lofty standards.

In its constant search for consensus, the General Assembly's goals hardly view development from a critical perspective. They do not take into account the way in which structural adjustment policies, designed by international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank forced poor countries into debt and extreme poverty in the first place. They also ignore the way in which rich and powerful countries, in their quest for military, economic and political dominance ensure the subordination of poor, politically fragile, and militarily weak countries.

Of course, delving into the real issues would undermine the futile search for consensus, threatening the 'amiable' image of the General Assembly. These are left instead to the Security Council or those members of the UNSC, whose 'opinion' is the only one that truly counts, and who regularly go on to prescribe decisive and cruel policies.

All of this is not to say that the millennium goals should be relegated. Every noble effort should be supported and lauded. But unwarranted optimism can border on folly if one intentionally ignores the dynamic of lasting change, whether at a micro or macro levels. The discussion of MDGs should not come at the expense of realism and truth, and it should certainly not just serve as yet another feel-good moment for the rich, while further humiliating for the poor.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are second and third generation refugees. Impoverished camps are the only homes they have ever known. In Palestine, their real home, their villages were destroyed, their fields were burnt down and their culture was eradicated. An ongoing attempt at erasing every aspect of the Palestinian Arab identity in today's Israel continues unabated, strengthened by the rightwing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is recognized in many political circles as 'fascist'.

But what 62 years of dispossession, massacres and untold hardship failed to destroy - the memory and the belonging - will certainly not be eliminated now by some rightwing politicians and few parliamentary bills at the Israeli Knesset, including one that forbids Palestinians from commemorating their Nakba (Catastrophe of 1947-48).

The ongoing debate in the Lebanese parliament, however, is of a different nature. Lebanon is striving to settle many hanging political questions. Despite Israel's devastating wars, a more confident Lebanese populace is emerging. This was largely empowered by the success of the Lebanese military resistance to Israel. A country of law and order is replacing that of chaos and turmoil, and a level of political independence is making some promising appearances after decades of total political dependency and proxy civil wars.

However, there are those who want Lebanon to remain a country divided on sectarian lines, a characteristic that defined Lebanese society for generations. Only such a division could guarantee their survival at the helm of dismal clan-based, sectarian hierarchy that has long degraded the image of the country, and allowed outsiders, notwithstanding Israel, to manipulate the fragile structure for their own benefit.

The denial of rights for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is an old subject that often resurfaces as a political ploy to serve immediate interests. This time, however, things seem to be different. Lebanon needs to move forward. Denying 400,000 people living a most wretched existence in scattered refugee camps, surrounding by mass graves, military checkpoints and no political horizon whatsoever is not conducive to the process of political and social progress.

Of course, those who dread the possibility of a modern Lebanon unified by one common identity - one that is not held hostage to sectarian allegiances or tribal affiliations - want Palestinian refugees to remain perpetual victims. The good news is that the bill is supported by who are otherwise political rivals in Lebanese politics - Saad Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister of the Future Movement, and Hezbollah and Amal, among others.

The bill, introduced by the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) on June 15 "would cancel prohibitions on property ownership and social security benefits for Palestinians, and ease restrictions on their right to work," according to Human Rights Watch. Nadim Houry, HRW director in Beirut, said, "Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long (and the) parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."

Indeed, it is an opportunity. But MPs from the Free Patriotic Movement, Phalange and Lebanese Forces are strongly opposing the measure. Phalange official Sami Gemayel, for example, has tried to delay the measure, hoping perhaps to deflate the strong movement that no longer tolerates denying Palestinian refugees their basic rights. "A matter that has created a number of crises for more than 60 years could not be tackled within three days," the Lebanese Daily Star quoted him as saying. Of course he could not help but infuse the same old tired mantra, stressing that "integrating the Palestinians in the Lebanese society would undermine their right of return and fulfill an Israeli demand."

Not one Lebanese could possibly believe that a Phalange official - whose party worked with Israeli forces in the summer of 1982 to orchestrate and carry out the killing of thousands of defenseless Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps - could truly be concerned about the Palestinian sense of belonging, identity and right of return. It is obvious that the measure could embolden refugees into demanding full integration into Lebanese society, which would completely undermine the foundation of the sectarian society that the Phalange official stalwartly champions.

But why should Palestinian refugees be humiliated for no fault of their own? Why should they live under the choice that they either suffer under draconian measures or risk losing their right of return? It's like repeatedly punishing the victim for 'allowing' his victimhood. The fact is, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, like Palestinian refugees elsewhere are utterly clear regarding their right of return and their adherence to that right. They need not to be fined or jailed for adding a bedroom to their ramshackle homes in the refugee camps. They need not be treated like tenth class citizens to be reminded of their love for Palestine, the names of their destroyed villages, and the memories of their ancestors.

It is ironic how Mr. Gemayel found it implausible to reach a solution regarding the acknowledgement of Palestinian refugees basic rights in three days, while it was astoundingly achievable to butcher thousands of innocent civilians by Phalange forces in 36-48 hours in Sabra and Shatilla on September 16, 1982.

The survivors of those camps, and the rest don't wish to impede the 'Christian' parties' bid for demographic and sectarian 'balance' in Lebanon. Their home is Palestine and they cannot wait to return. But, until that day arrives, there is no need to deny them the most basic of rights and infringe upon their very dignity. One can only hope that Lebanon's new political development overpowers those who wish to keep the country fragmented, sectarian and forever hostage to the ghosts of its colonial past.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

The statement alone indicates the momentous political shift that's currently underway in the Middle East. While the shift isn't entirely new, one dares to claim it might now be a lasting one. To borrow from Erdogan's own assessment of the political fallout that followed Israel's raid, the damage is "irreparable."

Countless analyses have emerged in the wake of the long-planned and calculated Israeli attack on the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, which claimed the lives of nine, mostly Turkish peace activists.

In "Turkey's Strategic U-Turn, Israel's Tactical Mistakes," published in the Israeli daily Haaretz, Ofra Bengio suggested Turkey's position was purely strategic. But he also chastised Israel for driving Turkey further and faster "toward the Arab and Muslim worlds."

In this week's Zaman, a Turkish publication, Bulent Kenes wrote: "As a result of the Davos (where the Turkish prime minister stormed out of a televised discussion with Israeli President Shimon Peres, after accusing him and Israel of murder), the myth that Israel is untouchable was destroyed by Erdogan, and because of that Israel nurses a hatred for Turkey."

In fact, the Davos incident is significant not because it demonstrates that Israel can be criticized, but rather because it was Turkey -- and not any other easily dismissible party -- that dared to voice such criticism.

Writing in the Financial Times under the title, "Erdogan turns to face East in a delicate balancing act," David Gardner places Turkey's political turn within a European context. He sums up that thought in a quote uttered by no other than Robert Gates, US defense secretary: "If there is anything to the notion that Turkey is moving Eastward, it is in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought." But what many analysts missed was the larger political and historical context, not only as pertaining to Israel and Turkey, but to the whole region and all its players, including the US itself. Only this context can help us understand the logic behind Israel's seemingly erratic behavior.

In 1996, Israeli leaders appeared very confident. A group of neoconservative American politicians had laid out a road map for Israel to ensure complete dominance over the Middle East. In the document entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," Turkey was mentioned four times. Each reference envisaged the country as a tool to "contain, destabilize, and roll back some of .. (the) most dangerous threats" to Israel. That very "vision" in fact served as the backbone of the larger strategy used by the US, as it carried out its heedless military adventures in the Middle East.

Frustrated by the American failure to reshape the region and unquestioningly eliminate anything and everything that Israel might perceive as a threat, Israel took matters into its own hands. However, in 2006 and between 2008 and 2009, it was up for major surprises. Superior firepower doesn't guarantee military victory. More, while Israel had once more demonstrated its capacity to inflict untold damage on people and infrastructure, the Israeli weapon was no longer strategically effective. In other words, Israel's military advantage could no longer translate into political gains, and this was a game-changer.

There are many issues the Israeli leadership has had to wrangle with in recent years. The US, Israel's most faithful benefactor, is now on a crisis management mode in Iraq and Afghanistan, struggling on all fronts, whether political, military or economic. That recoil has further emboldened Israel's enemies, who are no longer intimidated by the American bogyman. Israel's desperate attempt at using its own military to achieve its grand objectives has also failed, and miserably so.

With options growing even more limited, Israel now understands that Gaza is its last card; ending the siege or ceasing the killings could be understood as another indication of political weakness, a risk that Israel is not ready to take.

Turkey, on the other hand, was fighting -- and mostly winning -- its own battles. Democracy in Turkey has never been as healthy and meaningful as it is today. Turkey has also eased its chase of the proverbial dangling carrot, of EU membership, especially considering the arrogant attitude of some EU members who perceive Turkey as too large and too Muslim to be trusted. Turkey needed new platforms, new options and a more diverse strategy.

But that is where many analysts went wrong. Turkey's popular government has not entered the Middle Eastern political foray to pick fights. On the contrary, the Turkish government has for years been trying to get involved as a peacemaker, a mediator between various parties. So, yes, Turkey's political shift was largely strategic, but it was not ill-intentioned.

The uninvited Turkish involvement, however, is highly irritating to Israel. Turkey's approach to its new role grew agitating to Israel when the role wasn't confined to being that of the host -- in indirect talks between Syria and Israel, for example. Instead, Turkey began to take increasingly solid and determined political stances. Thus the Davos episode.

By participating at such a high capacity in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, with firm intentions of breaking the siege, Turkey was escalating its involvement well beyond Israel's comfort zone. Therefore, Israel needed a decisive response that would send a message to Turkey -- and any daring other -- about crossing the line of what is and is not acceptable. It's ironic how the neoconservatives' "A Clean Break" envisaged an Israeli violation of the political and geographic boundaries of its neighbors, with the help of Turkey. Yet, 14 years later, it was Turkey, with representatives from 32 other countries, which came with a peaceful armada to breach what Israel perceived as its own political domain.

The Israeli response, as bloody as it was, can only be understood within this larger context. Erdogan's statements and the popular support his government enjoys show that Turkey has decided to take on the Israeli challenge. The US government was exposed as ineffectual and hostage to the failing Israeli agenda in the region, thanks to the lobby. Ironically it is now the neoconservatives who are leading the charge against Turkey, the very country they had hoped would become Israel's willing ally in its apocalyptic vision.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

From a young age, I would embark with my family on the short journey from our refugee camp to the beach. We went on a haggard cart, laboriously pulled by an equally gaunt donkey. The moment our feet touched the warm sand, the deafening screams would commence. Little feet would run faster than Olympic champions and for a few hours all our cares would dissipate. Here there was no occupation, no prison, no refugee status. Everything smelled and tasted of salt and watermelon. My mother would sit atop a torn, checkered blanket to secure it from the wild winds. She would giggle at my father's frantic calls to his sons, trying to stop them from going too deep into the water.

I would duck my own head underwater, and hear the haunting humming of the sea. Then I'd retreat, stand back and stare at the horizon.

When I was five or six, I believed that immediately behind the horizon there was a country called Australia. People from there were free to go and come as they pleased. There were no soldiers, guns, or snipers. The Australians - for some unknown reason - liked us very much, and would one day visit us. When I revealed my beliefs to my brothers, they were not convinced. But my fantasy grew, as did the list of all the other countries immediately behind the horizon. One of these was America, where people spoke funny. Another was France, where people ate nothing but cheese.

I would scavenge the beach looking for "evidence" of the existing world beyond the horizon. I looked for bottles with strange lettering, cans and dirty plastic washed ashore from faraway ships. My joy would be compounded when the letters were in Arabic. I would struggle to read them myself. I also learned of such countries as Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Morocco. People who lived there were Arabs like us, and Muslims who prayed five times a day. I was dumbfounded. The sea was apparently more mysterious than I'd ever imagined.

Before the first Palestinian uprising of 1987, the Gaza beach was yet to be declared off-limits and converted into a closed military zone. The fishermen were still allowed to fish, although only for a few nautical miles. We were allowed to swim and picnic, although not past 6 pm. Then one day the Israeli army jeeps came whooshing down the paved road that separated the beach from the refugee camp. They demanded immediate evacuation at gunpoint. My parents screamed in panic, herding us back to the camp in only our swimming shorts.

Breaking news on Israeli television declared that the Israeli navy had intercepted Palestinian terrorists on rubber boats making their way towards Israel. All were killed or captured, except for one that might be heading towards the Gaza sea. Confusion was ominous, especially as I saw images of captured Palestinian men on Israeli television. They were hauling the dead bodies of their Palestinian comrades while being surrounded by armed, triumphant Israeli troops.

I tried to convince my father to go and wait by the beach for the other Palestinians. He smiled pityingly and said nothing. The news later declared the boat was perhaps lost at sea, or had sunk. Still, I wouldn't lose hope. I begged my mother to prepare her specialty tea with sage, and leave out some toasted bread and cheese. I waited until dawn for the "terrorists" lost at sea to arrive at our refugee camp. If they made it, I wanted them to have something to eat. But they never arrived.

After this incident, boats began showing up on the horizon. They belonged to the Israeli navy. The seemingly hapless Gaza sea was now dangerous and rife with possibilities. Thus, my trips to the beach increased. Even as I grew older, and even during Israeli military curfews, I would climb to the roof of our house, and stare at the horizon. Some boats, somewhere, somehow were heading towards Gaza. The harder life became, the greater my faith grew.

Today, decades later, I stand by some alien sea, far away from home, from Gaza. I have been denied the right to visit Palestine for years. I stand here and I think of all those back home, waiting for the boats to arrive. This time the possibility is real. I follow the news, with the stifling awareness of a grown up, and also with the giddiness and trepidation of my six year old self. I imagine Freedom Flotilla loaded with food, medicine and toys, immediately behind the horizon, getting close to turning the old dream into reality. The dream that all the countries that my brothers thought were fictitious in fact existed, embodied in five ships and 700 peace activists. They represented humanity, they cared for us. I thought of some little kids making a feast of toasted bread, yellow cheese and sage tea, waiting for their saviors.

When breaking news declared that the boats had been attacked just before crossing the Gaza horizon, killing and wounding many activists, the six-year-old in me was crushed. I wept. I lost the power to articulate. No political analysis could suffice. No news reports could explain to all the six-years-olds in Gaza why their heroes were murdered and kidnapped, simply for trying to breach the horizon.

But despite the pain that is now too deep, the lives that were so unfairly taken, the tears that were shed across the world for the Freedom Flotilla, I know now that my fantasy was not a child's dream. That there were people from Australia, France, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, the US and many other countries, who were coming to us in boats loaded with gifts from those who, for some reason, really liked us.

I cannot wait to get to Gaza, on top of a boat, so I can tell my brothers, "I told you so."

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

There is no denial - and no shame - in the fact that most Muslims hold their Prophet in the highest regard. Despite the continued decrease in the number of faithful in increasingly secularized Western societies, Muslims are clinching even tighter to their faith. However, while the outrage over the latest transgression by some Facebook user and his "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" may appear as a straightforward news story - that of Western values vs Muslim narrow-mindedness - the true underpinnings of the outrage is suspiciously missing.

The naïve depiction by Western media makes it easy for 'freedom of expression' enthusiasts to condemn Muslims for yet again failing the democracy test.

The latest Facebook episode is a remake of the same old story. Some ill-intended 'artist', under the guise of freedom of speech, takes on a confrontational mission, knowing fully the response such an act would generate, and perhaps the lives that would be lost. Muslim masses, predictably, respond through angry protests, burning flags, denouncing America, Israel, Zionism, Facebook, Youtube and so on. Strangely, the very governments that are considered US allies tend to be on the forefront of condemning the 'blasphemous' provocations. Muslim masses are thus exploited on all fronts - by the media, by anti-Muslims, by rightwing forces in the West, and their own governments.

This, in turn, gives more ammunition to the Islamaphobes who constantly try to fan the flames in order to validate their racist perception of Muslims. The likes of Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, and other 'experts' invade our TV screens and take on the responsibility of lecturing the world on Islam. They use the same reductionist and racist language that they have utilized for years in the guise of academic jargon.

Why, though, are these 'academics' and 'intellectuals' eager to discredit Islam? And why are Muslims playing right into their hands?

It behooves us all to remember that some of those who champion freedom of expression are selective in their advocacy. Freedom of expression becomes important when the holiest symbols of Islam and its Prophet are paraded, ridiculed and stereotyped. However, these very advocates are enraged when the opinions being expressed are inconsistent with their own agenda, which is overtly militant and hegemonic, and refuses to take into consideration any honest opinion on Israel and its war crimes against Palestinians. One needs to repeat the way that the respected South African Judge Richard Goldstone, himself Jewish, was depicted for pointing out the horrendous crimes committed in Gaza during Israel's most recent war. More, these individuals seem completely oblivious when Muslims are denied the right to express their own values. When, for example, was the last time a rightwing fanatic stood up for a Muslim woman's right to cover her hair or face?

It must be stated, however, that discrediting Muslims and Islam is not a random strategy. It is very much in tandem with an overriding agenda that has occupied the thinking of many rightwing and Zionist ideologues for years, especially following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rising of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim fervor in various Western countries. The aim is to dehumanize Muslims, to make them seem less civilized, and thus less worthy of equal human rights. In other words, Muslims cannot be treated using the same standards that apply to Westerners, because they have failed to subscribe to Western values. The angry protests in Pakistan are supposedly proof of this. This makes war easy and sanctions morally justifiable.

Why are Muslims playing right into this scenario? Actually, they are not, although it would seem otherwise. The fact is, many Muslims nations are caught between two layers of oppressions: that of outsiders - wars and occupation, interference in their countries' affairs, all forms of humiliation and exploitation - and internal pressures - corruption, oppression and denial of rights, including, yes, freedom of expression, speech, assembly and democracy itself. These rights are also denied by the very countries that are seen as 'pro-American.'

Under these external and internal pressures, Muslim societies embrace even tighter their everlasting Islamic symbols. Islam, for many Muslims, represents more than just a way of life and an answer to unworldly questions. It also provides a sense of hope, and it helps to maintain a level of solidarity and societal cohesion. The harder people's lives become, the more impoverished, oppressed and abused, the stronger their faith grows.

Considering all of this, insulting Islam, depicting the Prophet in degrading (or any other) ways, bashing Islamic symbols and values is equivalent to denying Muslim masses with their last and only chance at dignity and hope.

Those who are under the impression that Muslims are opposed to freedom of expression are only seeing a small part of the picture. Those versed in history understand that it was Muslim advancements in science, art and literature, and their most impressive translations of the great works of ancient civilizations that allowed Europe to bask in the sun of its renaissance.

Moreover, those who are sensible enough to see the big picture will understand that when a Pakistani woman chants "Death to Facebook" - as pitiful and confusing such phrase may sound - she is not actually referring to a social networking website. Far from it, especially since numerous Muslims have utilized Facebook to share their own ideas with the rest of the world. What the woman is chanting against is the manipulation of freedom of expression to further humiliate her people. She is standing in solidarity with European Muslim communities who are under a most intense attack on their civil rights and liberties. She is angry at the war in Afghanistan, the constant bombing of innocents in Pakistan, the occupation of Iraq, the rape of women and the parading of naked prisoners, the siege in Gaza. She is angry about the Western double standards regarding democracy, about her own oppression and her people's misfortunes. And so much more.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

How will the news of the future be distributed? The jury is still out, but not completely. Increasingly, we are driven to believe that the future will be paperless. Some argue that the "paper" will be taken out of the "newspaper" within a few years. Their logic might have come across as far-fetched in the late 1990s, but it can hardly be dismissed in 2010.

Two American intellectuals added their voices to the chorus of those predicting that the print media would not continue to define the news for long. In October 2009, Leonard Downie Jr., vice president at large and former executive editor of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, professor of Communication at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, co-authored a 98-page paper entitled, "The Reconstruction of American Journalism."

Here, they made the assertion that: "Newspapers and television news are not going to vanish in the foreseeable future ... But they will play diminished roles in an emerging and still rapidly changing world of digital journalism, in which the means of news reporting are being re-invented, the character of news is being reconstructed, and reporting is being distributed across a greater number and variety of news organizations, new and old."

The idea is not a new one. In August 24, 2006, The Economist published an article entitled, "Who killed the newspaper?," which claimed that, "Of all the 'old' media, newspapers have the most to lose from the Internet. Circulation has been falling in America, Western Europe, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand for decades ... in the past few years the Web has hastened the decline."

While we freely refer to the digital media revolution as "new media," few dare classify print newspapers as "old." The Economist did, nearly four years ago. Considering the speed at which the digital media world is moving -- with the introduction of new gadgets and the level of Internet penetration throughout the world -- print papers are now most definitely old and aging.

The magazine also made an interesting reference to Philip Meyer, whose works include, "Precision Journalism: A Reporter's Introduction to Social Science Methods and Newspaper Ethics in the New Century: A Report to the American Society of Newspaper Editors."

In his most recent book, "The Vanishing Newspaper," Meyer calculates that "the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in America as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition."

More, digital media are making waves not just in the constant improvement of news and information technology, but also influencing the level of trust readers have in the new media. Indeed, it is not just about how the news is conveyed -- digitally or on paper -- but how our perception of the news is changing altogether.

American intellectual and best-selling author John Mearsheimer didn't neglect to refer to the Internet in one of the most important and honest assessments on "The Future of Palestine." In his recent speech, he stated that "The Internet is a game changer. It not only makes it easy for the opponents of apartheid to get the real story out to the world, but it also allows Americans to learn the story that the New York Times and the Washington Post have been hiding from them."

Those familiar with the book Manufacturing Consent, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky understand well that traditional media coverage of news is largely determined by "filters" which allow competing interests to determine what we read and watch, and thus our perception of the world. The Internet, despite all its shortcomings, is much more equitable and democratic. That should not discount the fact that poorer countries still do not have the kind of Internet availability, speed and access that is common and widespread in the developed world. But the fact that an online community newspaper has a fighting chance, like any other mainstream newspaper, is certainly worth celebrating as an achievement.

There is also another reason why we will continue to go digital, and why it will only be a matter of years before the pendulum turns in favor of paperless media world.

The latest Climate Change conference in Copenhagen failed to set limits on carbon emissions or to come up with any serious or binding agreements. It was a colossal disappointment. But that failure was political more than scientific. Very few still argue that global warming is a hoax, or believe that the environment is sustainable, considering our long-unchecked way of life. More, recycling is no longer a fad. Some countries are debating laws that make recycling mandatory, and to punish violators. Considering all of this, it is difficult to imagine that years from now we will continue to use and discard newspapers so readily, as if the paper on which news is printed doesn't come from trees, and as if discarded papers don't constitute landfill.

Bob Dylan continues to be right. "The Times They Are a-Changin." And it's time that we also appreciate that change, not resist it; work with it, not against it. There is no shame in embracing change. When the first commercially successful trans-Atlantic telegraph cable was completed in July 1866, some must have thought that humanity had reached the zenith of achievements as far as the field of communications was concerned. Now telegraphs are only found in museums and are coveted collectors' items. Instead, hundreds of millions of people routinely and conveniently send texts, sounds, images and videos through their cell phones without much fuss or excitement. Although the concept is still the same, the medium has changed dramatically.

The same can be said about news. The news industry will never die; in fact, in a globalized and interconnected world, we will seek news more than ever before. But the medium will inevitably change, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It is telling that the most featured and best-selling item from Amazon.com is the Kindle digital reader, and that iPad has been topping news related to publishing technology all around the world.

The Times They Are a-Changin'. And we'd better change accordingly.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

While reputable author and world renowned journalist Deepak Tripathi agrees with this grim view, he doesn't think all is lost. He believes that there is still a chance, an opportunity even to redress the injustice and reverse the terrible mistakes that were made.

A compelling writer and a meticulous researcher, Tripathi's work is both gripping and comprehensive. His latest book, Overcoming The Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan serves as a glaring reminder of what military power can do when it goes unchecked, and when it is combined with religious fanaticism or misguided political ideology.

The book's first chapter starts with a quote by Abraham Lincoln, and it ends with another by Martin Luther King Jr, which serve as a clear indication of Tripathi's own moral stances. Tripathi courageously exposes the policies of the Bush administration and its neoconservative clique, which took advantage of the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001 to reassert the authority of a weakening superpower. But the push to reclaim America's standing actually preceded the terrorist attacks. In fact, Tripathi claims that "the ideological vehicle used to get George W. Bush elected to the White House in November 2000 was the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Several of its founders were close to Bush and secured key positions in his first administration."

This assertion is of immense importance. In its statement of Principles, dated June 3, 1997, PNAC warned of the "danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge," because the US seems to lack "the resolve to shape a century favorable to American principles and interests." One of the recommendations was to "increase the defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future."

But with the Cold War being settled in favor of the US, there seemed little need to invest in what the neoconservatives saw as an acceptance of "responsibility of America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security."

September 11 was the very opportunity which allowed the militancy of a small, detached and very influential group to define and eventually dictate the policies of the United States. "We stand together to win the war against terrorism," Bush said on September 11. This was not simply a declaration of war against an elusive enemy, but also a declaration of unreserved violence and political imprudence, a blank check to reconfigure the world.

Tripathi has done a superb job in addressing this topic. His successful approach is largely owed to his ability to locate the book within a most suitable historical and intellectual, as opposed to a purely political or event-driven context. This approach is a direct challenge to those who wish to examine the Bush legacy with September 11 as a starting point. Such a point might be considered rational, but it in fact represents a reductionist approach to history, and can only allow a limited understanding of its consequences. Tripathi has no such illusions.

In 'With Us or Without Us', Tripathi emphasizes that a better understanding of the war in Afghanistan requires a historical analysis of the US-Pakistan relations that takes us to the Regan administration, and even earlier. Important names, dates and events appear in that historical examination, and are quickly tied into the immediate past and present. Without such context, there can be no true understanding of what took place in Afghanistan under the Bush regime, and what continues to unfold there. Tripathi's narrative replaces the media's caricatured account of both wars, and instead provides an objective study of rational events and those who shaped them.

Indeed, it was not Bush and his neoconservative friends alone who wrought such disasters to the world. A whole array of individuals provided political cover and even, to a lesser extent, material support. In 'The Battle for Afghanistan', Tripathi shows how the likes of Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi colluded with Bush's War on Terror. The bombs began falling on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 and are yet to cease falling, despite the fact that Bush is no longer in the White House.

This is largely what makes Tripathi's book so important. It is not about Bush as a man, but Bush's legacy. This legacy is an inheritance of other political legacies of various administrations and numerous interests. It continues to engulf, if not control US foreign policy to the present day. To detain that perpetual deterioration in world affairs, a proper deconstruction of history is a must.

But why should we reiterate what we already know? Isn't enough that most of us at least acknowledge already that to link Iraq to al-Qaeda and September 11, 2001 is absurd? That the weapons of mass destruction allegations were a baseless concoction and a complete fraud? No, it is not enough. A better understanding of the world doesn't automatically make it a better place. Whether we like it or not, Bush and the neoconservatives got away with serious crimes. And the peoples of both Afghanistan and Iraq continue to suffer.

The US must and will withdraw from both countries, largely because the stubborn resistance of their peoples will eventually prevail. However, Americans must discuss more than "an exist strategy". They should also discuss how they got there in the first place, when they supposedly had a democratic system with political transparency and accountability. Obama might someday act upon his promises to shut down the US gulag at Guantánamo Bay, but the challenge will remain in understanding how America allowed few individuals to suspend such basic principles as habeas corpus, which Tripathi so ably traced to the Magna Carta under King John of England back in June 1215.

Deepak Tripathi's Overcoming the Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan gives us a well structured understanding of a seemingly chaotic legacy, and answers many of the innumerable unanswered questions. It is an honest and formidable attempt at understanding one of the darkest periods in the history of America and the world. We owe him more than a thank you. He deserves an earnest attempt from us to understand his book, and to act upon his counsel.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

The well-choreographed and clearly-rehearsed visit seemed set on giving the impression that the relationship between Karzai and these men was that of an independent, confident leader seeking the support of a benevolent superpower.

But what were Karazai's real reasons for visiting Washington?

Typical media analyses have for months misrepresented the apparent chasm between Afghanistan and the US under Obama's administration. Even if this administration was genuinely discontented with Karazai's policies, at least until very recently, the resentment had little to do with the reasons offered by media 'experts'. It was not because Karazai was failing to deliver on governance, end corruption and so on. Let's face it, the US war in Afghanistan was never morally grounded, and it never could be either. Not unless the militant mindset that governs US foreign policy somehow acquires a complete overhaul.

For now, let's face up to reality. Bad days are awaiting Afghanistan. True, it is hard to imagine how Afghanistan's misfortunes could possibly get any worse. But they will, particularly for those living in Kandahar in the south. Seated next to Karazi during his Washington visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that her country will "not destroy Kandahar in order to save Kandahar."

The statement may sound assuring, but it is in fact ominous and very troubling. Clinton was referring to the Bush administration's policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, she candidly admitted this by saying, "This is not Fallujah," referring to the Iraqi city which was almost completely destroyed in 2004 by a massive US Marine assault intended to 'save' the city. "Lessons have been learned since Iraq," stated Clinton.

But if lessons were truly learned, then why the fictitious language, the silly assertion that the real intention is to in fact 'save' Kandahar? And what other strategy does the US have in store for Afghanistan, aside from the irritating debate on whether to use unmanned drones or do the killing face to face?

Was Karazai in Washington to provide a cover for what is yet to come in the Taliban's southern stronghold? It's not unlikely. Considering past and repeated claims of a growing divide between Kabul and Washington, a bloody attack on Kandahar could in fact be seen as the US acting unilaterally in Afghanistan. Add to this scenario the constant and continued calls made by Karazai himself to engage Taliban. A US escalation without public consent from Karazai himself couldn't possibly be seen as a part of a joint strategy.

At a presentation at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Karazi spoke of an extended US commitment to Afghanistan that would last "beyond the military activity right now ... into the future, long after we have retired, and perhaps into our grandsons' and great-grandsons' -- and great-granddaughters' -- generations."

"This is something the Afghan people have been seeking for a long, long time," he said.

Clinton too was concerned about the plight of the 'people'. She promised to "help the people of Kandahar to recover the entire city to be able to put it to the use and the benefit of the people of Kandahar...We're not fighting the Afghan people...We're fighting a small minority of very dedicated, ruthless extremists who unfortunately are able to enlist young men... for a variety of reasons and send them out onto the battlefield."

Although Clinton wanted us to believe that the Bush era is over, with a new dawn in US foreign policy upon us, she used almost the exact same language, phrased in almost the exact same context that the Bush administration used prior to its major military assaults aimed at 'saving the people' from some 'ruthless extremists', whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And a major assault there will be, for the Taliban's counter-surge is threatening the US's counterinsurgency operations.

A quick scan of an article by Marie Colvin in Marjah, Afghanistan, where the Taliban is once more making its presence very clear, highlights the challenges facing the US military throughout the country. Entitled 'Swift and bloody: the Taliban's revenge,' the May 9 article starts with the claim that "rebels have returned." Throughout, the report was dotted with similar assertions. "Marjah was supposed to be safe...All that progress is threatened by the Taliban 'surge'...There were always fears that they would re-emerge .. The strength of the Taliban's presence is gradually becoming clearer...The Taliban are growing bolder..."

The term 'surge' was once associated with General David Petraeus's strategy predicated on the deployment of 30,000 new troops in Afghanistan. That it is now being attributed to the Taliban's own strategy is ironic, to say the least. Once meant to be a 'success story, now convincing the world that things are working out in Afghanistan might not be so easy after all. "Worries are growing in the Pentagon that if thousands of marines and Afghan security forces cannot entirely defeat the Taliban in Marjah, a town of only 50,000, securing the far larger prize of Kandahar may be an even greater struggle than has been foreseen," wrote Colvin.

The challenge ahead, although bolstered with all the right (albeit predictable) language is likely to be bloody, just like the rest of this sad Afghanistan episode, which actually began much earlier than 2001.

The US and Karazi (as a supposed representative of the 'Afghani people') must come across as united in the face of the extremist minority. Karazi's visit to the US was the political padding prior to the likely military storm. It was meant to assure the public that the chaos which will follow is in fact part of a counterinsurgency effort; well-planned, calculated, executed and, as always, passionately articulated.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Afghanistan remains the starkest illustration of how poor countries are used, then betrayed when their usefulness runs out. But Afghanistan is not an exception; US relations with many other countries, including Pakistan, Somalia and the Palestinian Authority remain hostage to this very model.

Yemen is now emerging as the newest casualty. Its government is desperate to hold on to the rein of power, amid corruption, extreme poverty and untold Western pressures. Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country's president of the last thirty one years, has impressively negotiated his political survival through mounting challenges. The 1994 civil war left many thousands dead, and despite the north's 'victory' the discontent of the south never waned. More, a Houthi revolt in the north is long running. Its latest manifestation lasted for sixth months and caused many deaths, most of which remained unreported. A mass migration of hundreds of thousands (270,000 by the recent estimates of the United Nations World Food Program) coincided with or followed the fighting. This is now temporarily in check, thanks to a fragile ceasefire.

According to some analysts, the ceasefire in the north could allow the central government in Sanaa to tend to the challenge growing in the south. Victoria Clark, author of the recent book Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes claimed that, "Southern disaffection has gone beyond the point of no return...Saleh's biggest mistake would be to crack down on southerners as hard as he has tried to do on the Houthi rebels."

However, under immense (and increasing) western pressure, Saleh is likely to crack down. Western governments, led by the US and Britain, run out of patience fairly quickly when the leaders of a poor, fragmented country opt for dialogue - even when such a choice might actually result in long-term political stability. When Afghan President Hamid Karzai merely mentioned of the possibility of engaging the Taliban, it generated much rebuke. A similar scenario happened in Pakistan. When Palestinian factions achieved the Mecca Agreement in February 2007 to mend their differences, the US immediately conditioned its financial backing of Mahmoud Abbas, and the agreement was successfully disintegrated. In the same vein, any Yemeni attempt at reaching out to the disaffected forces within the country, including tribes, opposition parties, and the various militant offshoots has been dismissed as an attempt to appease the terrorists.

Following a plot to blow up a US airliner over the city of Detroit on Christmas Day, the US renewed its interest in Yemen - in a predictable way. The administration of President Barack Obama issued an order early April authorizing the assassination of a US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim cleric linked to the plot. It seems like the Bush years all over again.

US Special Operation Forces have been at work in Yemen for years, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Yemen was then declared "an important partner in the global war on terrorism," and it remains so, whenever there is a need to chase the elusive militant groups partly or wholly linked to al-Qaeda.

The violent perusal of US enemies in Yemen comes at a heavy cost. On one hand it has undermined the central government, which is being increasingly challenged from the north, the south and the center. Naturally, no self-respecting government would allow its territories to be used either as breeding grounds for militants, or as a hunting ground for foreign forces. A raid involving US cruise missiles at an alleged al-Qaeda camps in December 17, 2009 killed dozens, including 23 women and 17 children, according to Yemeni sources.

Indeed, Yemen is to a great extent a battlefield in which the central government is hardly the central player. However, the so-called 'war on terror' has presented many self-seeking forces in Yemen with a golden opportunity to extract wealth. Much has been 'invested' to beat al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP). But little has been spent elsewhere, for example, in providing sustenance to the hundreds of thousands victimized by the ongoing violence.

When problems become insurmountable and there is no effective system of accountability in place, corruption becomes rampant. It is no wonder that Yemen ranks 154 of the 180 countries examined in the Transparency International Corruption Index. Corruption is often an outcome of poverty and lack of accountability, and it also contributes to them. Yemen is unable to escape this vicious circle.

Since Yemen is not officially an occupied country, donor countries can easily disown their financial promises. Such promises are only made when Yemen is set for some military operation or another, or to prop up the central government's own proxy war on terror. However, when the Yemeni people are in genuine and dire need for help, Yemen becomes such a distant subject. It begets pity, at best, but no action.

According to the World Food Program (WFP), 7.2 million people - about a third of the country's population - are suffering from chronic hunger. Almost half of them require immediate food assistance, but fewer than half a million are receiving it. They have been directly affected by the policies of western governments, and the central government's own involvement in proxy wars on militants, tribes and other disaffected Yemenis.

How much money is the WFP is asking for in its latest appeal? A meager $103 million, out of which only $27 million has been received. A Tomahawk cruise missile - celebrated as both cheap but effective - costs around $600,000. The cost of the operation that killed dozens of innocent Yemenis last December could have, in fact, fed millions in need.

This is not a matter of mathematics; it is common sense. The ongoing miscalculations in Yemen are securing the very environment that lead to poverty, corruption, anger - and ultimately militancy and violence.

According to Emilia Casella, spokeswoman for the WFP, "people have three other options after that -- revolt, migrate or die.". Sadly, it is what millions of Yemenis are already doing.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Despite some initial apprehension - owing to the fact that Goldstone is a self-declared Zionist with links to Israel - many justice and peace advocates were comforted by the man's past record. He was a former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

In April 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Goldstone to lead the mission of investigating war crimes committed by Israel in the devastating war in Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009. Goldstone insisted that the mandate must also include alleged violations committed by Palestinians. At the end, he was asked to set his own mission's mandate, a reflection of the level of trust placed in him by the UNHRC.

The report's findings were published in September 2009, providing one of the most vivid, sober and unmistakable recommendations ever issued by a UN mission since Israel began its open-ended campaign of massacres and violations on the territorial sovereignty and human dignity of the Palestinian people and its Arab neighbors.

What has been shocking for Israel and its supporters is the nature of the report's recommendations. It urges the international community to "start criminal investigation in national courts...where alleged perpetrators (of war crimes) should be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of justice." But more than this, the anger in Israelis and Zionists everywhere has largely been inspired by the fact that Goldstone is supposed to be 'one of them'. He cannot be easily derided either as a 'self-hating Jew,' nor can he be accused of anti-Semitism, the ready-to-serve warrant of anyone who dares criticize Israel's criminal conduct.

My own interest in Goldstone is motivated by three reasons. First, Gaza is still suffering under the very conditions that Judge Goldstone so aptly described in his report. Nothing has happened since then to ease the pain of the victims, nor to heed his call for justice.

Second, there is the ongoing 'controversy' over the man's wish to take part in his grandson's bar mitzvah in South Africa. He has now been forced to negotiate with a group of South African Jewish leaders in order to participate in this coming of age ceremony. South Africa's chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein, accused Goldstone of being a liar whose report is 'delegitimizing Israel'. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies accused Goldstone of 'selling out'.

It behooves Rabbi Goldstein to remember that it is only the barbarous killing of thousands of innocent civilians that is 'delegitimizing' Israel. As for 'selling out,' Goldstone is indeed a 'sell out' as far as any blind tribal affiliations are concerned, affiliations that seem to matter more to the Jewish Board of Deputies than the cause of justice, fairness, equality and peace that are enshrined in all major world religions and philosophies, notwithstanding Judaism.

That leads to the third reason that compelled the revisiting of this subject - Norman Finkelstein's most recent volume, 'This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.'

Finkelstein is not an ordinary author. His readers know well that one rarely finds so many strong qualities in a single writer: compelling academic research, unbending moral clarity, lucidity in style, and a refusal to dehumanize the subject and the victim. 'This Time We Went Too Far' will serve in academic and human rights circles - as Goldstone will serve a similar purpose in the legal arena - as the categorical indictment of Israel's brutal policies in Gaza. More, it will forever shame those who have allowed titles, money, prestige and, again, blind tribal affiliation to prevent them from seeing the untold inhumanity that took place, and continues to take place in Gaza and the rest of Palestine. Sadly, as such cruelty perpetuates, so do the diatribes of Israel's apologists. Finkelstein is no stranger to vile attacks from Israel's diehard friends, and Goldstone will also eventually get used to it.

Finkelstein positions his book within proper historical contexts. He summons the events that lead to, coincided with and followed the Israeli war on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, which also killed and wounded thousands, and destroyed much of the country's civilian infrastructure. The similarities are too stark, but are made much clearer by Finkelstein's patient evaluation of both events. Moreover, he revisits the Israeli war and invasion of Lebanon of 1982, revealing much of Israel's bizarre but predictable behavior.

Finkelstein provides lengthy and immaculate research that highlights the repellent propaganda which preceded and followed the massacre in Gaza. Although he makes various references to the Goldstone mission and report earlier in the book, he dedicates most of the book's epilogue to the Goldstone report and its many consequences. His revelations and analysis are encouraging in that they suggest that things are in fact changing. Israel, a rouge state by any reasonable standards, will never reclaim its fictitious old status as a beacon of progress and democracy. No amount of lies, intimidation or blackmail could sell Israeli war crimes as self-defense, or smear Israeli critics as anti-Semites. The book makes a very convincing case to back up this assertion.

"The times they are a-changing," wrote Finkelstein. True, and that is a most impressive achievement that was made possible by the likes of Jimmy Carter, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Richard Goldstone, Richard Falk, John Dugard, Finkelstein himself, and the innumerable authors, journalists and bloggers who tirelessly worked to document the truth.

But it is also the courage of the Palestinian people in Gaza and elsewhere that made it possible for us to take such stances. Our efforts dwarf in comparison to their courage, resilience and sacrifices.

Finkelstein's book is a testimony to all of that, and much more.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Earlier, at Tiananmen Square, I had watched throngs of people giddily roam the vast expanse, snapping endless photos in front of the Gate of Heavenly Peace, in the Imperial City and around every monument in the Square.

A formation of about 10 soldiers was suddenly in tatters when I asked if I could take a photo with them. Their excitement seemed to surpass mine.

None of this should by any means take away from the seriousness of the violent crackdown at the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989. That date should be remembered and lessons must be gleaned. But why the reductionism? When one thinks of Tiananmen, why does one only conjure visions of hordes of protesters and gangs of soldiers? The bloody scene is used time and again to single out China as an anti-democratic regime, juxtaposed conveniently against Western 'democratic values'.

One hardly ever reads positive news from China, or any other 'non-Western' countries - unless an agenda exists for promoting selective positive news from those countries, for example, a supposedly successful election in Afghanistan conducted under the auspices of Western armies.

In Thailand last week I saw no signs of the Red Shirts, or the Yellow Shirts either. I did, however, see some shirtless Thais. Considering the heat and humidity, this was not surprising. The point remains that aside from a standoff at a major Bangkok shopping center, the rest of the metropolis seemed to operate as normal. A Thai man struggled to communicate his political views on to me in English. I had found him watching a video on some social network website. The video featured a dog and a cat, the cat representing the Red Shirts, and a dog, the current government. They barked, meowed and hissed, but they didn't physically engage. The man laughingly commented, "This is how things are in Thailand." Then, in a more somber tone, "It's all about power and control; no one cares about Thais who cannot afford a shirt - red, yellow, or otherwise."

True, but it also seems that Western media cares little about these countries, outside of a very narrow context. The story of China is only worthy if it involves government restriction (e.g. of Google), or economics, i.e. how China's economic growth will affect Western economic recovery. Even if the story is related to art rather than politics, somehow it finds its way back to the same old theme, for example, the government censoring struggling artists.

Once the Red Shirts and the government sort out their problems, Thailand will certainly disappear off our radar. It would take an economic crisis, rigged elections, or even a tsunami to bring it back as a story worth telling. In the meantime, the country will return to its convenient role for the West - a cheap destination for adventure-seeking travellers with some money to spare, a topic in blogs advising ways to get more money for your buck, or baht, and clever ways to dodge Thai con artists.

China and Thailand are the norm, not the exception. In a recent discussion with a Reuters editor, I complained about the fact that every story on Malaysia had some kind of negative undertone. Example include: Muslim, Christian clashes over the use of the word "Allah"; the trial of Anwar Ibrahim; the ugly politicking. The news makes it easy to quickly imagine Malaysia as the most dysfunctional and unfortunate society on earth.

This was not the impression I got during my last visit to Malaysia. It is, in many respects, a thriving society. It has its internal politics, like anywhere else, but essentially Christians and Muslims seem to be getting along just fine, as they have been for many years.

Media channels - especially those dispatching their news from various Western capitals - focus not simply on sensational news, but they also intentionally sensationalize news, and purposely relay the news so as to be understood within Western contexts. Thus 'democracy', 'elections', 'government restrictions' and 'terrorism' are the usual buzzwords.

Sadly, the south is also stereotyped in the south itself. Newspapers in non-Western societies depend on coverage provided by Western news agencies for their international news. An Indonesian friend recently commended on my 'bravery' for going to South Africa. For him, South Africa is just 'Africa,' where 'primitive' people, along with lions and other wild animals prey on innocent white tourists. Thank you, Hollywood, for perfecting the art of stereotype.

Similarly, some people show utter disbelief when they discover that Iran is one of the world's busiest travel destinations - not necessarily for Americans or Israelis, but for people across the globe. Yes, Iran has much to offer in terms of culture, history, scenery and societal achievements. There is far more to the country than clashing soldiers and youth, or fiery statements pertaining to nuclear weapons, Israel and the Holocaust.

A few years ago, in Stockholm, I asked a group of officials to tell me the images that popped in their heads when they thought of Palestinians. I asked them to be honest, assuring them that nothing they said would offend me. But when I heard back from them, I was indeed very offended. The images were unfailingly gory. Even the 'positive' images amongst them were disturbing and stereotypical.

The western media will continue to reduce non-Westerners, for they have a vested interest in doing so, and it has become habitual. A first step in overcoming this would be to empower our own local and regional media, and to create rapports amongst them. We can only challenge the abhorrent narratives about us when we start to present our own truth and experience, and support others to do the same.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Yes, to the number. I was Number 15. I needed to remember this fact at all times. I also needed to be constantly aware of the identities of Number 14 and Number 16. This was to ensure the lineup was adhered to without fail wherever we were - whether lining up outside the Great Hall of the People, standing in line to shake Li Changchun's hand, or sitting in the large, well-lit room among a circle of editors. The editors sat and assiduously listened to Li, who spoke with the authority and power of a man known to be Number 5 in China. Or was it Number 3? Frankly, I cannot remember; I was nervously trying to remember my own number, and the ones before and immediately behind me.

I was in Beijing to attend the China Daily-Asia News Network Conference. This was focused on climate change and the environmental challenges facing Asian countries, especially following the failure of the Copenhagen meeting last December. Media producers grappled with their responsibility towards the increasingly pressing subject. Chinese government officials labored to showcase their country's efforts in lowering carbon emissions, carefully juxtaposing their success with the failures of Western governments, and the US government in particular.

Major polluters took on the position that their companies were incessantly trying to curb emissions, and some went as far as to discuss the need to "educate the public" regarding their responsibility towards the environment. It took me a while to wrap my head around this one: the world's largest contributors to environmental damage reaching out to the public and asking them to play a positive role in challenging global warming and climate change? Go figure.

At times, and despite clearly sincere efforts put forward by newspaper editors, the whole event seemed an exercise in futility. The government official, as all government officials everywhere, blames some other official of some other government. The polluters argue that they too are doing their part, and are in fact practically adopting progressive stances.

A leading Coca-Cola Company executive who addressed the conference, for instance, sounded more like an environmental champion, a Greenpeace activist even. In the meanwhile, media men and women stood quietly puzzled; they needed the ad revenues from the company (and other similar companies), along with governmental approval to make their work possible. At the same time, they are, in theory, the voice of the voiceless, the representatives of those who are suffering, and will continue to suffer, as a result of the dramatic, rapid and destructive environmental challenges.

It's a stand-still. The trio has every interest in keeping the discussion alive, but very little reason to move forward in any substantive way. Any discussion of lowering carbon emission becomes immediately political: fingerprinting, accusations and more. A new cold war around the theme of global warming is already underway. The "US vs China" scenario will remain until a paradigm shift takes place. Meanwhile, the Maldives will continue to sink, followed by 14% of Bangladesh.

So what are the media to do? Most of them rely on the same business model that requires the constant funding of the same companies, and often governments that have themselves disproportionately polluted our environment. These companies and governments have also stifled the debate on finding a sensible exit from the quagmire in every way imaginable.

Perhaps the media should be reconsidering the entire business model. Those who are sincere in wanting to educate, engage and influence the public sphere need to first liberate themselves as far as possible from the controlling grip of corporations. Only then will they be able help us to act upon the challenges facing our world as a result of man-made environmental disasters

Until this happens, we will continue to talk gibberish, using all the right terms, all the positive clichés, and yet we will achieve nothing but a few feel-good moments at yet another conference in yet another crowded city, itself polluted to the core.

Now back to Li, No 5 (or 3). The man was in fact much more pleasant than one would expect, considering the very rigid protocols and security checks that greeted us. He spoke comfortably and freely. He joked often. He spoke of the need for a unified Asian media voice to counter the influence of Western media. He challenged accusations that China is a closed society, and spoke of the rapidly growing number of websites, blogs, and the increasing access of foreign journalists and media to his country.

In fact, the discussions at the forum by various Chinese officials and by Li himself were filled with juxtapositions and comparisons between China and the West, "us vs them", "they say, we say ..." The editors from Number 1 through Number 18 (myself included) listened and politely nodded.

If the world can indeed afford a new cold war on political, economic and trade grounds, the environment can hardly afford such quarrels. The icecaps are melting; the Borneo rainforests are shrinking by the day; the list of endangered species is growing; drought, floods and other such tragedies are affecting millions, destroying lives and scarring generations.

The fact remains that human suffering simply cannot be politicized. And it must no longer be held hostage to numbers, clichés and slogans.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Then something happened to abruptly bring the noble mission to an end. The success story suddenly became a terrible nightmare for hundreds of IslamOnline's principled employees. The website (IslamOnline.net) remained online, but it was barely updated. Instead, videos were circulated on youtube, showing tired-looking IslamOnline staff chanting in the lobby of their building in Cairo. They were demanding the return of their editorial freedom and rights. They were calling for justice. These bright journalists, some of the finest in the region, should have been sitting behind their computers screens writing, editing and managing 'live dialogues' between inquisitive readers and learned scholars. Instead they were seated on the floor with signs and banners, shouting in coarse voices.

Something had gone horribly wrong.

Hadeel al-Shalchi tried to explain in a recent Associated Press report: "The Qatari government has forced out the moderate leadership of a popular Islamic Web site and plans to reshape it into a more religiously conservative outlet, former employees of the site said."

According to the AP report, "The site was thrown into turmoil...when the owners attempted to change its approach, prompting 350 of its workers in Cairo to go on strike. Management in Doha then cut off their access to the site and have been updating it with news articles but not the diverse content IslamOnline is known for, said the former employees."

IslamOnline is funded by al-Balagh, a Doha-based company. Al-Balagh was headed by well-respected Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, a most sensible and judicious religious authority. He is known, and much liked, for his progressive views on Islam. Al-Qaradawi is also very popular among Muslims around the world, not least because of his daring political views, his strong anti-war, pro-resistance stances and moral clarity on many issues. In short, al-Qaradawi is the antithesis of religious clerics who would do as they are told.

A striking IslamOnline editor described to me how the crisis developed. It sounded something similar to a coup: the Sheik was removed from al-Balagh, the site's directors were relegated, a new management was installed (in fact imposed), and even the website passwords were changed so that employees could no longer access it. Devastated and enraged by the unwarranted moves, about 350 employees went on strike - only to find themselves subject to legal investigation by some company lawyers for exercising what is universally accepted as a fundamental right. The editor tells me that they were harshly criticized in particular for their uncompromisingly courageous coverage on Palestine and Gaza. Indeed, IslamOnline had worked tirelessly to bring greater awareness of the struggle in Palestine, to Muslim and non-Muslim readers alike.

Following the tragic events of September 11, few websites have played the vital role that IslamOnline has. Its editors did not serve the cause of fanatics, with their dreadful interpretation of the world and themselves, and nor did they adopt the mouthpiece position in favor of Arab governments. Equally important, they did not try to falsify a 'moderate' position to please any government - Arab or any other. Instead, they truly reflected and genuinely expressed the views of mainstream Muslims from all walks of life, and from all over the world. It was truly an impressive feat to see such an independent editorial line emerging from one Arab capital and largely funded by another.

But it seemed too good to be true - thus the terrible, chaotic and devastating changes that brought this vital to a standstill. The very means of presenting an eloquent Muslim voice to the world has been threatened.

The story of IslamOnline is being presented as that between rival Arabs: governments, groups and individuals. Reductionist terminologies- such as conservatives vs. moderates - are once again permeating the often predictable Middle East discourse. Many questions still remain unanswered.

In fact, the story of IslamOnline pertains more to media freedom and editorial independence in Arab countries than much of the above. The struggle is between the self-serving politicking few, and hundreds of media professionals - brilliant and inspiring young women and men who made up the staff at IslamOnline. For them, IslamOnline was not just another job. It was a mission, a calling even, and millions of readers around the world appreciated their work, every word of it.

One can only hope that IslamOnline will find its way back, with its current employees and current editorial line intact. The success story must not be allowed to end. Individual ambitions cannot stand in the way of this rare generational mission that is now simply indispensable.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Netanyahu was addressing the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The 'powerful' lobby group encompasses a large conglomerate of rightwing Zionist politicians and lobbyists and is seen by many as the most instrumental platform that influences - and, to a large degree, controls - US foreign policy regarding Palestine, Israel and the entire Middle East.

AIPAC is dangerous for many reasons. For one, it's not a lobby group in the conventional sense - meaning a group of well-paid lobbyists harassing US Congressmen with telephone calls with the hope of advancing the agenda of their benefactors (in this case, the state of Israel). The pro-Israel lobby has actually grown and morphed into a political body that is embedded within all branches of the US government, as well as the media, academia and elsewhere. It is no secret that the neo-conservative cliques of politicians who engineered, steered and to an extent continue to influence US war policy are in fact a mere component of the same 'lobby'.

While Jewish communities in the US may not be united in their support of the largely rightwing and hawkish Zionist lobby groups, both major political parties in the US and all branches of the government stand in complete support of Israel. The AIPAC annual conference is almost mandatory for them. Sadly, Netanyahu's speech before AIPAC is of equal, if not of greater import to some of them than the State of the Union address. Following Obama's address in 2010, many US politicians openly voiced criticism of his take on many issues. But few dare challenge Netanyahu on much of the malice he spewed on March 22.

Americans need to realize that this is no longer about Palestine and Israel. It is now about their own country, their own sovereignty and the future of their own democracy. They must ask hard questions and refuse to settle for sentimental answers. How could America be so divided on so many issues, yet so united on the 'cause of Israel'? Where does a feeble politician like Netanyahu find the courage to defy the president of the very country that supplied his own with many billions of taxpayer dollars? Of course, we know that much of the fund was used to occupy, torment and wage war on Palestinians for many years. This is the atrocious fact that Americans need to understand fully: Israeli war crimes were made possible because of American funds, weapons and political cover. America is not an outside party to the conflict. It has done more than its fair share in the ongoing Palestinian tragedy.

Even if one is somehow convinced by the most recent and unusually strong stance taken by the Obama administration regarding Israel's settlement policy in East Jerusalem, there still remains the question of what comes next. When the President of the United States articulates a seemingly unmovable US position that rejects the building of more illegal settlements that would preclude any possible peace talks, and yet he fails to weaken Israel's resolve even by an iota, some questions must be asked. Will the US use its leverage to twist Israel's arm to respect international law? Will it at least hold on to some of the billions of dollars of funds that it continues to pour into Israel - especially as the US undergoes an unprecedented financial crisis, resulting in growing poverty and homelessness?

The answer might be in the UPI report on March 26, citing Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz:

"Despite the sharpest rift in decades between Israel and the United States, the Pentagon is reported to have given the green light to the $250 million sale of C-130J transport aircraft to Israel...The deal...involves three 'Super Hercules' aircraft manufactured especially to the Israeli air force's requirements. (The report) indicates that despite the belief among the United States' top military commanders that Israel's failure to reach a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians is undermining U.S. influence and standing in the Muslim world and thus endangering its forces, the Pentagon is prepared to maintain Israel's military superiority in the Middle East."

The timing and the nature of the 'sale' signify the following: first, if the US government was ready to actively back up its supposed disagreement with Israel, it would have stopped this unwarranted sale. Second, considering that the deal was made through the Pentagon, the very platform used to express concern and call for at least a reconsideration of US policy in the region, the sale is both a slap on the face of the US military, and a veiled apology to Israel. Third, if the failure to reexamine this absence relationship continues, then there is absolutely no doubt left that US foreign policy in the Middle East is indeed held hostage to Israeli, not American priorities, misguided at times as they maybe.

Those individuals in the US government, military and media that have the courage and the platform to confront Israel must take the opportunity. They should not succumb to intimidation or fear, nor should they be swayed by Netanyahu's lies. The fact is, Netanyahu will continue to lie; it's what he does best. The onus is on those US politicians who readily and barefacedly continue to give the professional liar a standing ovation following every statement he utters. And it is only really they who give any power to the 'powerful' lobby.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

At the ages of six and four, my girls Zarefah and Iman were already the most kindhearted kids. They were actually going through complete and unmitigated panic, as they had just noticed the starfish which had been cast off by the waves and which were now dotting the shoreline as far as the eye could see. The children became determined to place every single one of them back in the water before they died.

But most all of them were already dead.

My kids didn't know this. And I didn't have the courage to break the dreadful news. I stood in silence, proud to the core, as the girls' shaky voices urged everyone around them to help. Then I too was summoned. "Dad, what are you waiting for? Please help us before they all die." I tried to absolve myself from what seemed to me a waste of time. But when I saw the tears in Zarefah's eyes, and heard the fright in her voice, I joined in - as enthusiastically as the many other beachgoers-turned-environmentalists.

Four years later, in 2008, both Zarefah and Iman voted for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. They were ten and eight, so their votes didn't count. It was a mockup election at their elementary school in the little town of Bothell in Washington State. One of their teachers told me that she was "very surprised to see how much support Nader has in our school." It was well beyond the national average. In the same way the girls had urged everyone to save the starfish of the South China Sea, they now relentlessly campaigned for Ralph Nader among their peers. Their main argument was: Ralph Nader has done so much work to save American lives, and both Obama and McCain would enact policies that would take away many innocent lives - of Americans and non-Americans alike. Unaware of the power of corporations and the pro-Israel lobby, the classmates voted for Nader in droves. In the end, the true American hero - at least as far as our family is concerned - tied with McCain, but lost to Obama. Even children can be swept by the "audacity of hope" fever. Now, like many of their parents, they have probably realized what a folly that decision was. My kids still say to their friends, "If only you voted Nader..."

Zarefah and Iman have always worked tirelessly for what they believed in. They once made an arrangement with a local food bank, which involved devoting part of their weekend to collecting canned food in front of the local grocery store. "Hi Daddy," they would scream in exhilaration as I drove in to pick them up. "Look how much food we got!" Then they would point at two huge shopping carts overflowing with tuna cans and baby food.

A few months ago, Iman somberly and sorrowfully walked away from her Girl Scout troops. They had been asked to raise money to send cookies to US soldiers in Iraq for Christmas. "When they leave Iraqis alone, I will buy them all the cookies they want," Iman insisted. Despite her principled decision, she cried intermittently for days. As an alternative, the girls decided to help their mother organize several fundraisers to raise funds for KinderUSA and Palestine Children's Relief Fund. Gaza children urgently need food and medical treatment, and Zarefah and Iman have risen to the occasion.

Now they are busily pondering this whole Earth Hour craze. I am sure that the lights of our house will be turned off for an hour on the last Saturday of March. The girls are unlikely to be satisfied by this, however. I can imagine Zarefah's argument, which is likely to be seconded by Iman, or the other way around. She is likely to claim that World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) intended the hour to symbolize what ordinary people can do to save the environment; that it's not enough for one iconic building in a city to shut off its lights while others stay lit. I am likely to agree, and they are likely to campaign among their peers - especially those who regretfully failed to vote Nader - to urge their families to also turn off the lights for an hour on March 27.

For the time being, Zarefah is busily fundraising for a cancer research facility in Washington. A friend of hers, a beautiful boy of the same age, is succumbing to an aggressive form of cancer. After years battling the disease, the boy chose not to be subjugated to any more painful, and at this point, futile treatment. His friends are devastated. Zarefah told me through tears that she was throwing a party aimed at showing their love and solidarity with the kid, and also raising funds for cancer research. She spent a whole day on the phone calling for action. I pledged two hundred dollars; others even more.

No, Zarefah and Iman don't take on lost causes. And they don't take on easy causes either. They understand that to make a difference one has to start somewhere, and this entails action at the level of the individual - no matter how seemingly limited her or his capacity. As we drove away from the South China Sea, close to midnight over five years ago, both girls fell asleep almost immediately. They were exhausted, and smelled of fish and salt. That day they had "saved" hundreds of starfish. And yet, thousands more were left behind. I had only managed to tear them away from their urgent task by promising to return with them the very next day, first thing in the morning, to save the rest. And we did.

But I am yet to break the news to them that Ralph Nader is unlikely to run for another presidential election.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

This might be my own limited interpretation of what activism means. I was born and raised in a Gaza refugee camp where the daily struggles of the community included challenging military occupation while attempting to survive under the harshest of circumstances. Activism then involved civil disobedience, general strikes, confronting armed Israeli soldiers with stones and slingshots. But it also involved much more than that.

Activists in my refugee camp, whether they're identified as Islamist, secularist, socialist or any other name, ensured the community remained unified in the face of adversity. They did not always succeed, but efforts were abound. Activists provided sustainable community support to families with sons and daughters that were killed in clashes or incarcerated in Israeli prisons. They rebuilt people's homes after they were demolished by Israeli dynamites or bulldozers. Some activists even offered free haircuts to those who couldn't afford them.

Activism, as I understood it, was largely a unifying, pro-active force that kept the struggle and resistance alive. It was the ingredient that allowed the Palestinian people to maintain their relevance to the conflict, despite the brutality of their enemy and the self-serving nature of their elites.

The elitism in Palestinian society led to a breakdown in unity, culminating in the bloody consequences of the Fatah-Hamas clash. Still, despite all the attempts to undermine it, Gaza remains standing. This cannot be attributed to any factional decision or political diktat, but only to the spirit of its people, a spirit predicated on internal cohesion and a clearly defined purpose.

When I left the refugee camp, my true culture shock was in witnessing the lack of a real sense of community in the places where I lived. These were mostly in Western societies, bustling cities full of nameless people trying to advance their own lot in life, or, in the case of working-class people, to survive. Due to the nature of my work, I also travelled to numerous countries in Middle East, Southeast Asia and parts of Africa. I found it interesting and uplifting to see how societies ravaged by poverty, military occupations, civil war, sanctions, and natural disasters tended to somehow also be the most communal, forward-thinking and effective at problem-solving.

In poorer societies, entire communities can in fact be classified as "activists". They don't necessarily have websites or hold regular meetings. Some draw their strength from holy books, ancient philosophies or traditions. Their dialectics are often straightforward rather than academic. A child from Gaza who lost her family in its most recent war on the Strip said through gushing tears that her loss would not weaken her resolve to free her country. Today she is being raised by neighbors and hopes to be a journalist.

While organizing in support of the Palestinian struggle is not an easy task in most Western societies, it is still an essential one. Israel is armed and financed by US and other Western governments. It is they who hold the political key to reining in the Israeli military menace that has tormented Palestinians for generations. The activists in the West who organize in support of the Palestinians also unwittingly contribute to their suffering. Their taxes are used to arm Israel, their votes in elections validate the very parties who shield and defend Israel's crimes, and their media consumption feeds the very corporations that taint the victim as aggressor. Activism, at least in the Palestine-Israel context, is not a matter of choice in Western societies; it is a moral responsibility.

Over the course of the last 15 years, I have come across some of the world's most passionate, compassionate and sincere individuals. I can only express good things about that. But I have also become disheartened and disappointed. "Leftist" groups insist on placing Palestine into its anti-imperialist campaign merely as a rally cry, as opposed to a substantively unique issue that needs a substantively unique strategy. Disenchanted "leftists" endlessly quarrel. Some cannot even stand the sight of one another. There are the anti-Zionist Jewish groups, and the anti anti-Zionists Jewish groups. There are those who believe that the pro-Israel Zionist lobby almost exclusively dictates Washington's policies on the Middle East, and those who believe that the lobby is getting its way simply because their agenda is consistent with Washington's existing agenda. Different groups have their own meetings, petitions, rallies and merchandise, often competing with or rejecting each other. Take any issue pertinent to pro-Palestinian activism and you will find vastly differing factions that won't converge or meet.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with diversity of opinion. But when diversity becomes polarizing to this extent, the entire project loses its original value. The public disagreements may stimulate academic discussion, but they can be demoralizing and alienating when it comes to actually bringing change.

I myself strongly believe that the pro-Israel lobby has the upper hand in Washington foreign policy regarding the Middle East, and that only a one state solution can resolve the ongoing crisis and provide a semblance of justice for Palestinians. I also believe an affective boycott and divestment campaign is a must for reining in the belligerent Israeli government. While these are my own views, I still believe it is important to listen to those who disagree with them, partly or fundamentally. After all, our strong beliefs of today are only the outcome of intense discussions and dialogues in the past.

Activism should not be bound by mere personal affiliation, and nor should it unreservedly embrace or accept ideological dogmas. An activist is an ambassador to his cause; yes, he or she must be morally focused, but there should also be a willingness to serve as a unifying force, and to strategize and organize accordingly.

The day our publications, newsletters, websites, conferences and rallies include all sorts of opposing views, without slander and intimidation, will be the day that we can be sure a cohesive community of activists is in the making, a community able to achieve good things. Without this, no campaign will be effective enough to make major policy shifts, in Washington or anywhere else.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Yes, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was a Palestinian activist. We have no reason to believe otherwise. He spent years of his life in Israeli prison - and one year in an Egyptian jail - for his political activism. This, however, gives no credibility to Israel's accusation that al-Mabhouh was a killer of Israelis. This assertion becomes even more problematic when considering that al-Mabhouh's assassination was, according to British media, ordered by accused Israeli war criminals and rightwing politicians.

According to the Sunday Times, Meir Dagan, the current director of Mossad briefed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the assassination plan during a meeting in early January. "The people of Israel trust you. Good luck," Netanyahu reportedly said at the end of this meeting.

It is disgraceful enough that the assassins used 'fraudulent' European passports, as well as credit cards linked to an American bank to carry out their plans. But more upsetting is the fact that this cruel and calculated action has inspired little more than expressions of 'outrage'. Have we become this resigned to Israeli impunity?

What about the sanctity of life, the sovereignty of nations and the respect for international law? Are these immediately disposable when the victim is Palestinian and the location of the crime an Arab country?

Al-Mabhouh has also been callously deprived of his own relevance to the story. We don't really know much about the man aside from what Israeli wants us to know - a senior Hamas operative who was responsible for the abduction and killings of two Israeli soldiers; one of the founders of the militant arm of Hamas, Izz al-Din al-Qassam; the middleman between Hamas in Gaza and al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran.

Who has weaved this fascinatingly reductionist account of al-Mabhouh's life in such a short span of time? His family? Hamas? The Palestinian media? No, none of these. The creator of this biography is Israel, the very country that assassinated him. Now that is truly outrageous: the murderer writes and convinces the world of the story of the murder victim. And the media gladly runs with it.

Expectedly, a Palestinian would tell al-Mabhouh's story in entirely different terms. He was born in Jabalia, one of Gaza's poorest and most crowded refugee camps. These key words alone - Gaza, poor, crowded, refugee - helps to unravel the real story of al-Mabhouh. It is the story shared by so many people who still live a life of utter anguish, poverty and resistance in the Gaza Strip - and elsewhere - which is under inhumane siege and successive wars by the world's fourth strongest army. The story is not about abducted occupation soldiers, but about millions of refugees, not about Iran, but about Gaza and Palestine, not about luxury hotels, but about horrifyingly desolate refugee camps.

But Palestinians - like many oppressed peoples around the world - have no right to their own narrative. Their story is negligible, if not wholly irrelevant. Israel commits the murder, Israel offers the explanation, and eventually Israel gets away with both the crime and the lie. Al-Mabhouh's murder might eventually inspire several documentaries that highlight the murderous nature of Palestinian militants, and the unequalled brilliance of Israeli retaliation. Another Steven Spielberg's Munich might already be in the making. The first scene of this would not be al-Mabhouh's family forced to flee their village in Palestinian after untold butchery by Zionist militants in 1948. Instead it might show a dark-skinned, menacing Palestinian slaughtering two helpless Israeli soldiers pleading for their lives.

We are, more or less, told to forget about al-Mabhouh. After all, his name is used along with Hamas and Iran in the same sentence. That should be enough to tell us that his life is dispensable - just like the lives of over 1,400 Palestinians who were killed by the Israeli army in Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009. Israel may well be preparing for yet another attack on the impoverished Strip. The tunnels that represent the lifeline for the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza are being routinely blown up by Israeli warplanes, detonated by dynamites and blocked by an Egyptian steel wall. Gazans cannot be allowed any weapons to defend themselves either. The 'international community' has held many meetings to ensure that no weapons find their way to Gaza. The US in particular is utterly firm regarding this issue - although not at all firm about ensuring that food or medicine reach the Strip. Al-Mabhouh may have been killed due to Israel's belief he was arming the resistance. This partly explains why the 'international community' is not at all moved by the murder. Al-Mabhouh might have been involved in breaking the Western consensus on denying Gaza both food and arms.

The EU is only worried about its link to the story, and not the murder itself. An EU statement issued in Brussels on February 22 condemned the "fact that those involved in this action used fraudulent EU member-states passports." They didn't name Israel though. As the Financial Times resolved, "criticism of Israel was as strongly worded as the EU could manage, given that Germany, Italy and several other countries place great emphasis on close relations with Israel."

One can only imagine what would happen if Hamas decides to strike back, expanding the battleground from Gaza to the rest of the world. Would the EU express disapproval of Hamas' use of fraudulent passport, but then refrain from actually naming the group - due to a fear, say, of upsetting Muslim countries?

No. But when the victim is a Palestinian and the murderers are Israelis - 27 of them so far - it's an entirely different story, and an entirely different concept of justice.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

The intellectual cowardice of some should not blind the majority to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is morally indefensible and militarily unwinnable.

The decision of the US to continue with its brutal military adventurism in Afghanistan can only be understood in terms of its limited and highly selfish political logic.

Let us start by ruling out some of the ridiculous assumptions that have permeated this war since it began in 2001. First, we were told that the war was aimed at eliminating al-Qaida. However, a retied CIA Station Chief who has served in the Middle East and as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff, has claimed that, "al-Qaida is finished in Afghanistan." He further argued that, "the Obama administration, like its predecessor, claims we are fighting terrorism there. That is simply not true. It is a pure counterinsurgency issue."

Indeed, even the most ardent war hawks are exerting little effort to delineate the link between Taliban and al-Qaida. If the link is infused, it is readily unleashed to demonstrate al-Qaida's links to Pakistan's tribal areas, thus urging 'action' in that part of the country, and not in Afghanistan.

Thanks to the random military 'strategy' of the US and its allies, al-Qaida has spread in all sorts of directions and branched off to many al-Qaida offshoots in various parts of the world. Without a centralized leadership in the military sense, al-Qaida inspired groups and individuals now are now working for localized sets of objectives and respond to different stimuli.

So if it's not al-Qaida that is inspiring the awesome, although largely futile firepower and military surges in Afghanistan, then what is? This is where the idealists come in. They talk of nation-building, Western-style democracy, regional security and so on. Some of them genuinely mean what they say, and some don't believe the present military surges and Gen. Stanley McChrystal's rural area fight to the death will yield its intended results. Still, they contribute to the illusion that good intentions - starting with the initial hype about saving Afghani women, then 'liberation' from foreign terrorists, then democracy and nation-building, and so on - had anything to do with this bloody war. With their insistence on using such positive terminology, they continue to provide Washington's political elites - and Kabul's as well - with the benefit of the doubt that while we may disagree with their methods, we still trust their overall intentions.

It behooves those democracy-inspired, nation-building enthusiasts to remember that Washington has done much to stifle genuine democracy movements around the world since its occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. Palestine and Lebanon remain the most obvious examples. As for nation-building, compare the astronomical amounts invested in financing the destructive war in Afghanistan and to prop up the corrupt puppet regime in Kabul, to the miniscule sums devoted to enhancing the country's stone-aged economic infrastructure. The US military budget for this year is set to exceed $693 billion, not counting the $42 billion set aside for Homeland Security. According to CostofWar.com, the financial cost of war in Afghanistan alone has exceeded the $256 billion; both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the $1 trillion threshold.

The war in Afghanistan cannot possibly be defended on any moral grounds. The official death count of Afghani civilians in 2009 is estimated at 2,412. The actual death toll is probably far, far higher, as polls do not account for the many more who perished in distance villages across the south and east, areas that are not accessible to outsiders. The death of these innocent people alone should silence the few who still speak of ethics and morality in relation to the disastrous war.

But not everyone is so overtly misguided in their assessment of the war. Some fully understand that the war in Afghanistan is a self-seeking, political and strategic venture. Still, they giddily welcome it, including one Con Coughlin whose recent article in The Telegraph was tellingly entitled, 'India and Pakistan must bury the hatchet for the Taliban to be crushed.'

The India-Pakistan rapprochement is seen as beneficial only insofar as its potential to 'crush' someone else. And considering that that someone else is not a band of aimless terrorists, but a well-grounded, grass-roots, popular insurgency, the price of that "crushing" is likely to be tens of thousands of innocent people. Coughlin uses the same haughty and generalized language of "militant Islamist groups" to be crushed, failing to understand or appreciate the distinctiveness of each and every situation, whether in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else. Instead, Coughlin nonchalantly expresses concern about the danger these militants pose to "the survival of the ruling classes" in Islamabad. What a compelling reason to get Richard Holbrooke, Washington's special envoy to the region all fired up over the need to preserve the survival of the ruling classes, not just in Islamabad, but in Kabul and Delhi as well.

The war in Afghanistan has turned into find-an-objective-as-you-go military march to nowhere. It is proving futile and indefensible on every ground, be it political or military or moral. Moreover, as Haviland Smith concluded in his grim assessment, "it doesn't really matter that we think of ourselves as benevolent liberators, it only matters that Afghans think of us as foreigners occupiers." When will we all face up to this reality?

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Professor Zinn dared to challenge the way history was told and written. In fact he went as far as to defy the conventional construction of historical discourses through the pen of victor or of elites who earned the right of narration though their might, power and affluence.

This kind of history might be considered accurate insofar as it reflects a self-seeking and self-righteous interpretation of the world by a very small number of people. But it is also highly inaccurate when taking into account the vast majority of peoples everywhere.

The oppressor is the one who often articulates his relationship to the oppressed, the colonialist to the colonized, and the slave-master to the slave. The readings of such relationships are fairly predictable.

Even valiant histories that most of us embrace and welcome, such as those celebrating the legacy of human rights, equality and freedom left behind by Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela still tend to be selective at times. Martin Luther King's vision might have prevailed, but some tend to limit their admiration to his 'I have a dream' speech. The civil rights hero was an ardent anti-war champion as well, but that is often relegated as non-essential history. Malcolm X is often dismissed altogether, despite the fact that his self-assertive words have reached the hearts and minds of millions of black people throughout the United States, and many more millions around the world. His speech was in fact so radical that it could not be 'sanitized' or reinterpreted in any controllable way. Mandela, the freedom fighter, is celebrated with endless accolades by the very foes that branded him a terrorist. Of course, his insistence on his people's rights to armed struggle is not to be discussed. It is too flammable a subject to even mention at a time when anyone who dares wield a gun against the self-designated champions of 'democracy' gets automatically classified a terrorist.

Therefore, Zinn's peoples' histories of the United States and of the world have represented a milestone in historical narration.

As a Palestinian writer who is fond with such luminaries, I too felt the need to provide an alternative reading of history, in this case, Palestinian history. I envisioned, with much hesitation, a book that serves as a people's history of Palestine. I felt that I have earned the right to present such a possible version of history, being the son of Palestinian refugees, who lost everything and were exiled to live dismal lives in a Gaza refugee camp. I am the descendant of 'peasants' - Fellahin - whose odyssey of pain, struggle, but also heroic resistance is constantly misrepresented, distorted, and at times overlooked altogether.

It was the death of my father (while under siege in Gaza) that finally compelled me to translate my yearning into a book. My Father was a Freedom Fighter, Gaza's Untold Story offered a version of Palestinian history was not told by an Israeli narrator - sympathetic or otherwise - and neither was it an elitist account, as often presented by Palestinian writers. The idea was to give a human face to all the statistics, maps and figures.

History cannot be classified by good vs. bad, heroes vs. villains, moderates vs. extremists. No matter how wicked, bloody or despicable, history also tends to follow rational patterns, predictable courses. By understanding the rationale behind historical dialectics, one can achieve more than a simple understanding of what took place in the past; it also becomes possible to chart fairly reasonable understanding of what lies ahead.

Perhaps one of the worse aspects of today's detached and alienating media is its production of history - and thus characterization of the present - as based on simple terminology. This gives the illusion of being informative, but actually manages to contribute very little to our understanding of the world at large.

Such oversimplifications are dangerous because they produce an erroneous understanding of the world, which in turn compels misguided actions.

For these reasons, it is incumbent upon us to try to discover alternative meanings and readings of history. To start, we could try offering historical perspectives which try to see the world from the viewpoint of the oppressed - the refugees, the fellahin who have been denied, amongst many rights, the right to tell their own story.

This view is not a sentimental one. Far from it. An elitist historical narrative is maybe the dominant one, but it is not always the elites who influence the course of history. History is also shaped by collective movements, actions and popular struggles. By denying this fact, one denies the ability of the collective to affect change. In the case of Palestinians, they are often presented as hapless multitudes, passive victims without a will of their own. This is of course a mistaken perception; the Palestinians' conflict with Israel has lasted this long only because of their unwillingness to accept injustice, and their refusal to submit to oppression. Israel's lethal weapons might have changed the landscape of Gaza and Palestine, but the will of Gazans and Palestinians are what have shaped the landscape of Palestine's history.

Touring with My Father was a Freedom Fighter in South Africa, in a recent visit, was a most intense experience. It was in this country that freedom fighters once rose to fight oppression, challenging and eventually defeating Apartheid. My father, the refugee of Gaza has suddenly been accepted unconditionally by a people of a land thousands of miles away. The notion of 'people's history' can be powerful because it extends beyond boundaries, and expands beyond ideologies and prejudices. In that narrative, Palestinians, South Africans, Native Americans and many others find themselves the sons and daughters of one collective history, one oppressive legacy, but also part of an active community of numerous freedom fighters, who dared to challenge and sometimes even change the face of history.

South Africa has; Palestine will.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Following are just some of the tokens of Pakistanis' veneration for their hero.

He is sometimes called "the first Pakistani". Port Qasim, Pakistan's second major port is named in his honor. PNS Qasim is the name of a Pakistani Naval ship. Pakistan Army Aviation's home base is called Qasim Base. Qasim is a fairly common first name for Pakistani male children. The day of Yom-e-Babul Islam is observed each year in Pakistan in memory of Muhammad bin Qasim.

Now let us see what we are told about this hero and what we are not.

We are told that Muhammad bin Qasim was an Umayyad general who conquered the Sindh and Punjab regions, now a part of Pakistan, along the Indus River. That at the tender age of just seventeen, he was sent by Caliph Al-Walid-I to lead an army towards South Asia to release Muslim women and children who were kidnapped by the Hindu Raja of the time. That it was due to his conquest of Sindh and Punjab that the era of Islamic rule in South Asia was first launched in real earnest. This much we are told. This much Pakistani children are supposed to memorize and be examined in.

What we are not told is that the kidnapping event of women and children, though a historical happening by itself, may have been only a part of the legend. That the Umayyad interest in the region may have stemmed more from their desire to control the trade route down the Indus River valley to the seaports of Sindh, an important link in the ancient Silk Road. That on certain earlier occasions too, they had unsuccessfully sought to gain control of the route, via the Khyber Pass, from the Turki-Shahis of Gandhara. That by taking Sindh, Gandhara's southern neighbor, they were ultimately able to open a second front against the Gandhara.

We are also not told some of the other possible reasons for this campaign. That the locals of the region had targeted Sassanid shipping in the past, from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar. That the real reason of the campaign may have been purely economic in which the kidnapping of women and children was but one fateful act of these semi-nomadic tribes whose activities disturbed much of the Empire's shipping trade in the Western Indian Ocean. That the kidnapping incident only provided a 'just' reason to the rising power of the Umayyad Caliphate to gain a foothold in the Makran, Baluchistan and Sindh regions-an area that the Empire builders had been eyeing for a rather long time by then. That one other possible reason for the campaign could be the policy of the local tribes of providing refuge to Sassanid and Arab rebels who fled the Arab advance and the accompanied Umayyad persecution in a quest to consolidate their rule. This we are not told.

We are told that he treated most kindly his new subjects when he became their governor. What we are not told is that where resistance was strong, long-drawn-out and rigorous, Muhammad bin Qasim's response was rather ruthless. By credible accounts, he inflicted 6,000 deaths at Rawar, between 6,000 and 26,000 at Brahmanabad, 4,000 at Iskalandah and 6,000 at Multan. And that he built many mosques upon the sites of razed Hindu temples.

We are told that his nemesis Raja Dahir was a cruel and unjust ruler and was involved in piracy. That he was the one that kidnapped and tortured the women and children and refused to recant. That he was an immoral man who married his own sister.

What we are not told is that Raja Dahir is also admired by many present day Sindhi Sunni and Shia Muslims. That he had given shelter in Sindh to a well-known follower of Imam Hussian, Muhammad Bin Allafi-a man much sought by the Umayyad in their hunt for the Ahl-e-Bait (Prophet Muhammad's immediate family). That, according to some sources, Dahir had even offered asylum to Hussain ibn Ali, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed, who was being persecuted at home. That as a result of this offer, Hussain was on his way to Sindh when he was seized at Karbala in Iraq and killed most viciously. That according to G.M. Syed, the grand old man of Sindh, "the Sindhis weep for Hussain ibn Ali and they weep for Raja Dahir Sen." This we are not told.

But above all what we are not told is the manner of this hero's death and the events leading up to the occasion.

Chachnama is an authentic document that recounts the history of Sindh in great details. It tells of an intriguing yet widely believed tale of Muhammad bin Qasim's death.

According to this account, when Raja Dahir was killed in the battlefield, his daughters were captured as war booty in the Islamic tradition. The Governor, Muhammad bin Qasim, then sent them as 'presents' to the Caliph of the time Khalifa Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, to become a part of his vast harem. According to the narration, the women tricked the Khalifa into believing that Muhammad bin Qasim had violated them before sending them on. The Khalifa got so incensed for having been sent 'tainted' gifts that he ordered Muhammad bin Qasim to be wrapped in oxen hides and returned to Syria, his exploits not withstanding. The journey resulted in his death from suffocation. This version attributes the women's motive for the ploy to exacting vengeance for their father's death. It also states that upon discovering the trick after the death of Muhammad bin Qasim, the Khalifa deeply repented his action and ordered the sisters buried alive in a wall as a punishment.

The Persian historian Baladhuri, however, states that the Khalifa Abd al-Malik was a political enemy of Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Muhammad bin Qasim's paternal uncle. He persecuted all those who were considered close to Hajjaj after his death. Muhammad bin Qasim was therefore recalled in the midst of a campaign of capturing more territory up north. An honorable man, he reported to his Caliph despite his loyal friends dissuading him from it. Upon arrival, he was promptly imprisoned in Mosul, Iraq. Intensely cruel torture on him started immediately afterwards. So severe was this torture that Muhammad bin Qasim breathed his last during its most extreme session one hot July afternoon.

Whichever account is true, we are told none of these.

Two facts, however, remain undisputed. He was 22 years old when he was killed by his own Caliph. None have read the tombstone marking his grave for none know where he lies.

In fact, trial balloons have already been sent out bearing supposedly unrehearsed comments by former Israeli Army general and current Minister Yossi Peled, suggesting that another war is on its way. More recently, Israel's ultra-right and unabashedly racist Foreign Minister Avigador Lieberman threatened to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad in case of a war.

And so it begins.

Historically, Israel has, with one understandable exception, determined the time and place of all of its wars with the Arabs. The only time Israeli forces were attacked in 1973 involved an Arab attempt to regain territories that were captured by Israel in 1967.

When Lieberman uttered his "message that should go out to the ruler of Syria from Israel" to an audience at Bar Ilan University, he was effectively saying that Israel will topple the Syrian government when it decides the time was ripe for war. And considering Peled's earlier statement that war was imminent, the only possible conclusion would be that a "regime change" in Syria is high on the Israeli agenda. It also perhaps represents the last chance of fulfilling the US neoconservative vision - that of "A New Strategy for Securing the Realm".

This inference should have been evident and thus sent shockwaves throughout the world, and especially through the US media which now know fully the price of the Israeli-neocon folly.

So why do Western mainstream media, especially in the US, continue to guard Israel's image so protectively, at times even devotedly, when the country's belligerence is so blatant? And if some in the media are indeed well intentioned in their coverage, why do they continually miss the many clear signs pointing to Israeli criminality and aggression?

A growing reference that is once again floating among political and media analysts is that Israel has greater mastery than the Arabs over fighting media wars. Often cited, for example, is the National Information Directorate, an Israeli propaganda center that was established a few months prior to the devastating war on Gaza last year. Ironically, the center was established after recommendations made by an Israeli inquiry into the equally bloody Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006 - ironically because independent war inquiries often chastise the army for violation of human rights, as opposed to recommending the establishment of a "hasbara" - more like propaganda - body to justify the crimes committed against civilians.

Still, even such "hasbara" should have had little impact on the Western media's depiction of Israeli crimes and hostilities toward its neighbors.

One could possibly consider the claim that Israel's media success story is the brainchild of Israel's own media expertise under very specific circumstances: That Israeli spokespersons are icons of articulation and charm; that Palestinian retaliations to Israeli crimes in Gaza were vile and gruesome; that the Israeli media blackout was so successful that Western journalists had no other way of finding any credible, decipherable facts; that there are no Arab spokespersons who are well-informed and articulate enough to present even a semblance of a coherent narrative to challenge the one offered by Israel.

But none of these scenarios are convincing. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is as faltering in English as he is in his mother tongue. The Palestinian resistance merely killed 13 Israelis, 10 of whom were soldiers - and recently "regretted" the killing of the three civilians - while Israel killed over 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and remains unmoved. The Israeli media blackout of Gaza during the war - which continues even now - hardly prevented footage and reports from beaming to all corners of the earth, thanks to the valiant efforts of Arab media and independent reporters, photographers and cameramen from all over the world, supplemented by the United Nations and other independent groups' findings. All of this made the scope of the tragedy known to all. And finally, the most eloquent and involved Palestinian and Arab academics, diplomats and activists can be found in every major Western city and reputable university or research institute.

Yet somehow it was Israel that "claim(ed) success in PR war", according to Anshel Pfeffer in the Jewish Chronicle, days after the initial Israel attack on Gaza. Pfeffer quoted Avi Pazner, Israel's former ambassador to Italy and France, and "one of the officials drafted in to present Israel's case to the world media," as claiming that "whenever Israel is bombing, it is hard to explain our position to the world ... but at least this time everything was ready and in place."

Utter nonsense. As someone who has been grilled and challenged in the media for making such outrageous statements as "Israel must learn to respect international human rights," I cannot take seriously the media's claims to "objectivity". If this were the norm, no Israeli hasbara campaign would have even dented public perceptions of the criminal war. No unfeeling Israeli Army spokesperson could possibly explain the logic of the wanton destruction of Gaza, as hungry civilians were chased in an open-air prison with nowhere to escape and no one to come to their rescue.

Israeli officials continue to congratulate themselves on a job well done, and must be preparing yet another marvelous hasbara campaign to justify the killings that are yet to follow. However, there are some things that are becoming increasingly obvious, at least to the rest of us. First, the secret of Israeli "success", if any, was not its own doing, but rather stemmed from the media's decision, made years ago, to protect Israel's image. Second, despite the fanfare and self-congratulating commentary, Israel has now largely lost the media war, and the tide since the Gaza war has been turning, thanks to the underfunded, but solid and increasingly determined efforts of independent media groups, intellectuals, citizen journalists, civil society activists, artists, poets, bloggers, ordinary people and those in the media who possess the courage to challenge Israeli hasbara and its devotees.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

I am not exactly sure why we like round numbers. Is it because they make valuations easy, even when the particular number is irrelevant? Some philosophers, Plato included, believed that order and symmetry are innate values in the human psyche. Perhaps. Or, perhaps, in the case of the media, numbers give us the sense, deceptively, that we have a grasp over certain truths. We determine the order in which legacies such as Obama's should be dissected. After a decided date, the subject can be ignored until the next round number arrives, bringing with it more useless chatter.

Of course, this is a delusion. Like much of the media's behaviour, it has no connection to reality. It's all a mind game. A lie, even. For victims of US policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere, the attention given to round numbers is wholly illogical. The drones flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan, loaded with killing technology, care little for numbers, including the number of lives they destroy daily.

Did Gazans starve less when we 'examined' Obama's (pro-Israel) legacy after 100 days of his presidency? Where they better off one year from his election victory or one year from his inauguration?

How about 273 days from his ascendancy to the White House? Was that a particularly chaotic day in Baghdad's streets? Do soldiers take a break from killing on even days, and resume the slaughter on odd ones?

But why should this discussion matter at all? It matters because we often buy into this folly, allowing the media to determine what is important and when a discussion is pertinent. Those involved in this charade express their views, agreeing politely and disagreeing loudly. The next day, the media returns to a state of complacency, as if the detrimental policies of Obama's government ceased to exist; as if war was eradicated, and there was nothing left to talk about.

But truly, do Palestinians in Gaza care much for round numbers? I doubt it. Nor do Iraqis, Afghanis, and, now, Yemenis. Misery is misery, any day, every day; war is an inferno. The smell of death, the scenes of blood in Kabul and Baghdad and Gaza, will remain the same on a Friday, or a Tuesday, 100 day into Obama's presidency or 514 days later.

Every minute in a victim's or potential victim's life counts. Those who have lived in war zones can comprehend this truth. That's why Gaza wants to see the end of its misery now, instead of waiting for CNN's next roundtable discussion assessing the next round number in Obama's presidency. Iraqis and Afghanis similarly listen to words and judge deeds, caring little for numbers.

Remember when Obama spoke to the "Muslim world" from Cairo on June 4th? That's the date that Muslims - many still victimized, directly or otherwise, by the Obama administration's policies - remember and recount. On that day, Obama made promises, speaking with 'audacity', and much hubris. Muslims listened. Some clapped and even cheered; others hesitated or expressed cynicism, but still hoped for change. Alas, none of those hopes have been fulfilled, as instead of change, there is only a continuation of the policies of his predecessor.

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect," said Obama in Cairo. His deeds since then have reaped the opposite results: mistrust and disrespect.

"Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan," he said. Since then, he has ordered the surge of 30,000 additional soldiers to that already distraught country. The US, its allies and their drones have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians since that statement was made.

"Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and to leave Iraq to Iraqis," he said. One fails to see evidence of a better future based on his administration's conduct in Iraq in the last year or so. Little progress has been made in leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

Even in Cairo, he had the audacity to lecture Palestinians, the very victims of Israel's brutal occupation, which is armed and funded by US money. "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build." We must note that the US government continues to make these demands of Palestinians, ignoring the fact that Israel's reign of terror has never ceased, including Israeli violence against Palestinian non-violent resistance in the West Bank.

Still, Obama did state that "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society."

Alas, the Obama administration faltered on its demand of a complete Israeli freeze, and is now harassing the ineffective leadership of Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank to return to the negotiation table without conditions.

In addition, the hope of ensuring that "Palestinians can live, and work and develop their society," is nothing but a pipedream, considering that Palestinians in Gaza teeter between chronic malnutrition and starvation. We cannot forget the fact that the siege on Gaza would not have been possible without US support.

So before we giddily gather to discuss Obama's legacy the next time another round number is celebrated on our television screens, let's remember that for an Iraqi father, frantically searching for his son's remains in a Baghdad street, numbers matter little, whether even, odd, round or in any combination. A massacre is a massacre, and a war of choice is a crime, any day, any time.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Deciphering the available clues regarding the nature of Israel's immediate military objectives is not always easy, but it is possible. One indicator that could serve as a foundation for any serious prediction of Israel's actions is Israel's historical tendency to seek a perpetual state of war. Peace, real peace, has never been a long-term policy.

"Unlike many others, I consider that peace is not a goal in itself but only a means to guarantee our existence," claimed Yossi Peled, a former army general and current Cabinet Minister in Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government.

Israeli official policy - military or otherwise - is governed by the same Zionist diktats that long preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. If anything has changed since early Zionists outlined their vision, it was the interpretation of those directives. The substance has remained intact.

For example, Zionist visionary, Vladimir Jabotinsky stated in 1923 that Zionist "colonization can...continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native population cannot break through." He was not then referring to an actual wall. While his vision took on various manifestations throughout the years, in 2002 it was translated into a real wall aimed at prejudicing any just solution with the Palestinians. Now, most unfortunately, Egypt has also started building its own steel wall along its border with the war-devastated and impoverished Gaza Strip.

One thing we all know by now is that Israel is a highly militarized country. Its definition of 'existence' can only be ensured by its uncontested military dominance at all fronts, thus the devastating link between Palestine and Lebanon. This link makes any analysis of Israel's military intents in Gaza, that excludes Lebanon - and in fact, Syria - seriously lacking.

Consider, for example, the unprecedented Israeli crackdown on the Second Palestinian Uprising which started in September 2000. How is that linked to Lebanon? Israel had been freshly defeated by the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah, and was forced to end its occupation of most of South Lebanon in May 2000. Israel wanted to send an unmistakable message to Palestinians that this defeat was in fact not a defeat at all, and that any attempt at duplicating the Lebanese resistance model in Palestine would be ruthlessly suppressed. Israel's exaggeration in the use of its highly sophisticated military to stifle a largely popular revolution was extremely costly to Palestinians in terms of human toll.

Israel's 34-day war on Lebanon in July 2006 was an Israeli attempt at destroying Arab resistance, and restoring its metaphorical iron wall. It backfired, resulting in a real - not figurative - Israeli defeat. Israel, then, did what it does best. It used its superior air force, destroyed much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The resistance, with humble means, killed more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers during combat.

Not only had Hizbullah penetrated the Israeli iron wall, it had also filled it with holes. It challenged, like never before, the Israeli army's notion of invincibility and illusion of security. Something went horribly wrong in Lebanon.

Since then, the Israeli army, intelligence, propagandists and politicians have been in constant preparation for another showdown. But before such pending battle, the nation needed to renew its faith in its army and government intelligence; thus the war in Gaza late December 2008.

As appalling as it was for Israeli families to gather en masse near the Israeli Gaza border, and watch giddily as Gaza and Gazans were blown to smithereens, the act was most rational. The victims of the war may have been Palestinians in Gaza, but the target audience was Israelis. The brutal and largely one-sided war united Israelis, including their self-proclaimed leftist parties in one rare moment of solidarity. Here was proof that the IDF still had enough strength to report military achievements.

Of course, Israel's military strategists knew well that their war crimes in Gaza were a clumsy attempt at regaining national confidence. The tightly lipped politicians and army generals wanted to give the impression that all was working according to plan. But the total media blackout, and the orchestrated footage of Israeli soldiers flashing military signs and waving flags on their way back to Israel were clear indications of an attempt to improve a problematic image.

Thus Yossi Peled's calculated comments on January 23: "In my estimation, understanding and knowledge it is almost clear to me that it is a matter of time before there is a military clash in the north." Further, he claimed that "We are heading toward a new confrontation, but I don't know when it will happen, just as we did not know when the second Lebanon war would erupt."

Peled is of course right. There will be a new confrontation. New strategies will be employed. Israel will raise the stakes, and will try to draw Syria in, and push for a regional war. A Lebanon that defines itself based on the terms of resistance - following the failure to politically co-opt Hizbullah - is utterly unacceptable from the Israeli viewpoint. That said, Peled might be creating a measured distraction from efforts aimed at igniting yet another war - against the besieged resistance in Gaza, or something entirely different. (Hamas' recent announcement that its senior military leader Mahmoud al- Mabhouh was killed late January in Dubai at the hands of Israeli intelligence is also an indication of the involved efforts of Israel that goes much further than specific boundaries.)

Will it be Gaza or Lebanon first? Israel is sending mixed messages, and deliberately so. Hamas, Hizbullah and their supporters understand well the Israeli tactic and must be preparing for the various possibilities. They know Israel cannot live without its iron walls, and are determined to prevent any more from being built at their expense.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

In a recent article entitled "Israel Must Get Used to the New Turkey," Suat Kiniklioğlu, Deputy Chairman of External Affairs for Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) wrote, "Israel appears to be yearning for the golden 1990s, which were the product of a very specific situation in the region. Those days are over and are unlikely to come back even if the Justice and Development Party (AKP) ends up no longer being in government."

This assessment seems more consistent with reality.

One would agree with Avnery's optimistic reading of events if the recent row was caused by just a couple of isolated incidents, for example, the gutsy public exchange over Gaza between Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Israel's President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in late January 2009, or the recent premeditated humiliation of Oguz Celikkol, Turkish Ambassador to Israel, by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

However, these incidents are anything but isolated. They reflect a clear and probably irreversible shift in Turkish foreign policy towards Israel, the US and the Middle East as a whole.

For decades Turkey was torn between its historical ties to Muslim and Arab countries on the one hand, and the unstoppable drive towards Westernization on the other. The latter seemed much more influential in forming the new Turkish identity in its individual, collective, and thus foreign policy manifestation and outlook.

But even during the push and pull, Turkey grew in import as a political and economic player. It also grew into a nation with a decisive sense of sovereignty, a growing sense of pride and a daring capacity for asserting itself as a regional power.

In the 1970s, when 'political Islam' was on the rise throughout the region, Turkey was experiencing its own rethink, and various politicians and groups began grappling with the idea of taking political Islam to a whole new level.

In fact, it was Dr. Necmettin Erbakan, the Prime Minister of Turkey between 1996 and 1997 who began pushing against the conventional notion of Turkey as a second-class NATO member desperate to identify with everything Western.

In the late 1980s Erbakan's Rafah Party (the Welfare Party) took Turkey by storm. The party was hardly apologetic about its Islamic roots and attitude. Its rise to power as a result of the 1995 general elections raised alarm, as the securely 'pro-Western' Turkey was deviating from the very the rigid script that wrote off the country's regional role as that of a "lackey of NATO." According to Salama A Salama, who coined the phrase in a recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly, Turkey is no longer this 'lackey'. And according to Kiniklioğlu, that's something "Israel must get used to".

The days of Erbakan might be long gone. But the man's legacy registered something that never departed Turkish national consciousness. He pushed the boundary, dared to champion pro-Palestinian policies, defied Western dictates and even pressed for economic repositioning of his country with the creation of the Developing Eight (D-8), uniting the most politically significant Arab and Muslim countries. When Erbakan was forced to step down in a 'postmodernist' military coup, it was understood as the end of short-lived political experiment which ended up proving that even a benign form of political Islam was not to be tolerated in Turkey. The army emerged, once again, all powerful.

But things have changed drastically since then. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) was elected to power in 2002. The AK Party leadership was composed of savvy, yet principled politicians who aimed for change and even a geopolitical shift in their country's regional political outlook.

The AK Party began to lead a self-assertive Turkey which was neither pleading for European acceptance nor American validation. By rejecting the use of Turkish territories as a launchpad of a US strike against Iraq in 2003, Turkey was acquiring a voice, and a strong one at that - with wide democratic representation and growing popular support.

The trend continued, and in recent years Turkey dared translate its political power and prowess into action, without immediately severing the political and military balances that took years to build. So, for example, while it continued to honor past military deals with Israel, it also made many successful overtures to Syria and Iran. And, in being willing to be seen as a unifier in the age of Muslim and Arab disunity, it refused to take part in the conveniently set up camps of 'moderates' and 'extremists'. Instead it maintained good ties with all its neighbors, and its Arab allies.

Starting in 2007, the US began seeing the emergence of the "New Turkey". US President Barack Obama's visit to the country soon after his inauguration was one of many signs that the West was taking notice of Turkey's 'special' status. Turkey is not to be bullied, threatened, or intimidated. Even Israel, which has for long defied the norms of diplomacy, is now becoming more aware of its limits, thanks to Turkish President Abdullah Gül. Following Israel's belligerent insult of the Turkish Ambassador, he said, "Unless there is a formal apology from Israel, we're going to put Celikkol on the first plane back to Ankara." Israel, of course, apologized, and humbly so.

It took Turkey many years to reach this level of confidence and the country is hardly eager to be anyone's 'lackey' now. More, Turkey's united and constant stance in support of Gaza, and its outspokenness against the threats against Lebanon, Iran and Syria show clearly that the old days of "warmth" are well behind us.

Turkey, of course, will find a very receptive audience among Arabs and Muslims all over the world who are desperate for a powerful and sensible leadership to defend and champion their causes. Needless to say, for the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, Erdogan is becoming a household name, a folk hero, a new Nasser in fact. The same sentiment is shared throughout the region.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

The US continues to see the world as its own business. It gives itself and its allies, most notably Israel, the right to geopolitical maneuverability. Iran, on the other hand, is censured, derided and punished for even its own internal policies, within its own borders. Thus, an Iranian move into Latin America is naturally viewed as unwarranted, uncalled for and most definitely dangerous as far as the US is concerned.

But Iran is not invading America geopolitical space per se. It is neither financing a terrorist group, nor involved in the ongoing narcotic war. More, there is no historical connection between an interventionist Iran and the bloody past of Latin America, including its former dictators and brutal juntas. In fact, Iran's 'cozying up' to Latin American merely began in 2005. Since then, Iran has opened embassies in several Latin American countries and launched important joint projects that provided funds and work opportunities for thousands of ordinary people. There is no Iranian equivalent to the School of the Americas.

So why the alarm?

Paul McLeary of Aviation Week gives us a clue. Iran's move "has set off a proxy conflict between Iran and Israel in South America, with the presidents of both countries logging frequent-flier miles to win friends in the region. One cause for concern among many analysts is the weekly flight between Caracas and Tehran (with a stop in Damascus) that Iran Air has flown for two years."

He quotes Frida Ghitis: "Flight manifests are kept secret, so neither cargo nor passenger information is well known ...one Israeli report suggested that Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying uranium to Iran."

Two questions emerge. One, is it required of Caracas and Tehran to provide a detailed report of the cargo and passengers to the US and Israel, and perhaps also cc-ed to a list of their friends and allies?

The second pertains to Israel itself. Why is the media most concerned by Iran's 'suspicious' behavior in Latin America, despite the fact that its presence is welcomed by various countries in the hemisphere, while Israel - whose bloody involvement has wrought much chaos to South America - is simply unquestioned, and even cited as a credible source? There is no evidence to link Iran to death squads, or any Iranian firm with "an archive and computer file on journalists, students, leaders, leftists, politicians and so on" to be hunted down, killed or simply made to 'disappear' under brutal regimes. Israel's own history in Latin America seems to inspire little commentary by the ever-vigilant 'many analysts'. McLeary, Ghitis and others need to do their homework before leveling accusations against others. The book Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship may be a good place to start.

Back to the lurking Ayatollahs in America's backyard, Susan Kaufman Purcell is also raising questions, this time about Brazil. In Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva welcomed his Iranian counterpart, president Ahmadinejad late November 2009. In the January 7 Wall Street Journal, Purcell claimed: "Until recently, the Obama administration assumed that Brazil and the United States were natural allies who shared many foreign policy interests, particularly in Latin America. Brazil, after all, is a friendly democracy with a growing market economy and Western cultural values." Purcell suggests that Brazil's various achievements - largely beneficial to the US - qualified the country to become "more like us".

The article infers, however, that Brazil is actually "not like us". The fact that it dares to be different - by pursuing a Brazilian-centered foreign policy - shows the audacity of the deceivingly loveable Lula. The Brazilian president is apparently going rouge simply by deviating from Washington's regional and international priorities. Amongst his many crimes: "Instead of expressing concern over Iran's activities in Latin America, Brazil is drawing closer to Tehran and hopes to expand its $2 billion bilateral trade to $10 billion in the near future."

Another: "He reiterated his support for Iran's right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses, while insisting that there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons." And of course, Purcell doesn't fail to remind us of "the weekly flights between Caracas and Tehran that bring passengers and cargo into Venezuela."

Western media is indeed rife with all sorts of unfounded accusations, baseless speculations and superfluous insinuations. They evoke in the reader and viewer a dread and fear, based in this case on the doomsday scenario whereby fanatical Latin Americans and radical Muslims gang up on America, and ultimately Israel.

Now consider these appalling insinuations by the Economist. First it claims that the Brazilian President "offered support for Iran's work on nuclear technology for (supposedly) peaceful use." Note the word "supposedly".

Then: One of the "instruments" of destabilizing Latin America is Iran's production of "news programmes and documentaries for Bolivian television, no doubt to give a fair and balanced view of the Great Satan." Note the writer's insertion of the little irrelevant term "Great Satan" to convert the act of TV production that challenges Western mainstream media's narrative into a menacing endeavor.

More: Brazil president talked "about Israel's right to stay just where it is on the map." Of course, Lula didn't phrase it that way. This is the writer's attempt to remind us of the claim that Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Still, more: "...protesters waved banners reminding Mr Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust had indeed taken place". This provides the big climax - the claim that Iran's president has denied the Holocaust.

But why the charged, exaggerated commentary?

A seemingly random Economist 'advertisement' box embedded with the article, and another long side column at the magazine's website reminds readers of "The Economist Debate Series - January 11-18." The topic of the week, presented with an image of a warplane radar zooming in on the Iranian map, asks the question: "Is It Time to Strike Iran?"

After reading such unsubstantiated, yet disquieting analyses, how would most readers respond?

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

The army in question would change from time to time, but the focus inevitably returned to Egypt. The rumour of an Egyptian military intervention persevered through the years, and it registered deeply in Palestinian psyche, especially among those living in Gaza.

My father, as many in his generation, fought in the Egyptian army and the Palestinian Liberation Army. Following defeat in the war of 1967, he was hauled along wounded and dead Egyptian soldiers across Sinai, as well as on a floating army bridge over the Suez Canal under intense Israeli aerial bombardment. As a child, I once accompanied him on a journey to an impoverished neighborhood in Cairo to look for an Egyptian war buddy of his. When we found out that he was long dead, my father wept. Confused and scared among the ailing buildings, I too cried. Indeed, the bond between Egyptians and Palestinians is historical, everlasting, cemented in blood, sweat and tears.

Yes, everlasting, despite the responses of the Egyptian government to the more recent suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

When the Palestinian people democratically elected Hamas to lead the Palestinian legislature in 2006, they were aware of the possible repercussions. They have become accustomed to the 'collective punishment' employed every time actions fail to meet Israeli expectations. They also understand well the influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy, and know of Cairo's commitment to political 'moderation' and unabashed tiptoeing to the US. But never, in their wildest imagination did Palestinians foresee the measures that Egypt would take to stifle their democratic decision, suppress their resistance and cut off the very lifelines that keep Gaza breathing.

Israel has employed every possible trick in its book to weaken Gaza's resolve; yet time after time, it has failed miserably. Even after turning the already starving Gaza Strip into a large and inescapable killing field on December 27, 2008, Gaza is yet to surrender. Three weeks of ceaseless bombardment killed over 1,400 Palestinians and wounded over 5,500 more, but it was no match to Gaza's resolve.

Indeed, Gazans have always devised ways to survive against the odds. With difficulty, they dug tunnels to Egypt, and through these tunnels, basic necessities, such as food, medicine, toys, and some livestock were able to trickle into Gaza. On February 4, 2009, shortly after Israel declared an end to its one-sided military operations, military experts from various, mostly Western countries gathered in a two-day conference hosted by Denmark.

The goal was to halt arms smuggling into Gaza, and not, as should have been the case, to investigate Israel's illegal use of lethal weapons against an unarmed population. Nor was it to call on various countries to halt their weapon exports to Israel.

The response was a moral travesty, to say the least. However, the news regarding this subject ceased for a while, interrupted by an occasional Israeli strike at alleged tunnels, or an Egyptian measure to ensure the closure of all tunnels at its side of the border. Meanwhile, the siege continued unabated, and Egypt held tight to its 'commitment' to ensure its success.

More recently, news of an enormous metal wall that Egypt erected at its border with Gaza has come to the fore. The Egyptian decision is both politically and financially loaded. Considering that the US - spurred on by Israel - has strived to develop ways to completely choke Gaza, one can safely conclude that the decision has not come solely from Egypt, though as a sovereign country the latter must still be held fully accountable. According to Press TV, Karen Abu Zaid, United Nations Relief and Works Agency Commissioner-General described the wall as more dangerous than the Bar Lev Line, which was built by Israel along the eastern coast of the Suez Canal following the capturing of the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt in 1967. The Egyptian wall is arguably more dangerous because it will increase the suffering of an already tormented civilian population.

But more than dangerous, it is also disheartening. Palestinians, including some in the Hamas government never cease to refer to Egypt and Egyptians as "Sister Egypt" and "Egyptian brethren". Why then are Sister Egypt and the Egyptian brethren taking part in this injustice and allowing Israeli violence to perpetuate? Money? Political validation? Attempts at regional relevance and fear of dismissal if they dare defy Washington's will?

None of these reasons are convincing. The ties between Egypt and Palestine are too rooted in history; the rapport is too personal, too familial to allow for material or temporary political interests to stand in the way between two ancient peoples with awe-inspiring histories. Now I fully appreciate why my father wept at the death of his Egyptian friend. And I believe that no steel wall is large or thick enough to undermine that moment; no government policies or self-seeking officials are wicked enough to dent the bond that link the peoples of Palestine and Egypt. I also believe that there should be no amount of money large enough to justify the imprisonment of a whole nation, especially one's own "brethren."

I wonder what is the latest rumour circulated these days by Gaza's taxi drivers. A million Egyptians storm the border with Gaza, carrying food, medicine and toys? Strangely enough, I would still believe it. Those pesky drivers of Gaza!

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Living under Israeli occupation, in refugee camps or in exile, we Palestinians have endured having everything callously taken from us - our homes, our heritage, our history, our families, livelihoods, freedom, farms, olive groves, water, security, and freedom. In the 1990s, we supported the Oslo Accords two-state solution even though it would have returned to us only 22% of our historic homeland. But Israel repeatedly squandered our generosity, confiscating more Palestinian land to increase illegal Jewish-only colonies and Jewish-only roads. What remains to us now is less than 14% of Historic Palestine, all of it as isolated Bantustans, shrinking ghettos, walls, fences, checkpoints with surly soldiers,and the perpetual encroachment of expanding illegal Israeli colonies.

While the Palestine Authority has led us into a shrinking land mass, less water, more restrictions, ominous walls and merciless slaughter, notable individuals and popular movements have mobilized for Palestine as once happened for South Africa. Moral authorities like former President Jimmy Carter, Nobel Laureates Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire, and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson have condemned Israeli Apartheid. Organizations supporting the Divestment and Boycott Campaign against Israel include religious institutions such as the Presbyterian Church, The World Council of Churches, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Federation of European Jews for a Just Peace, among many others. It includes civil and professional organizations such as the National Lawyers Guild, the Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union in Ireland, as well as labor unions in Canada, Britain, and other nations. An academic boycott of Israel has spread throughout the UK and other parts of Europe and taken root in US universities across the country. The International Solidarity Movement has seen thousands of individuals come to the Occupied Territories to protect Palestinians from the violence of settlers during the olive harvest; to protect children on their daring daily journeys to school; and to bear witness to the inhumanity of military occupation. The Free Gaza movement has transported by boat hundreds of people willing to risk their lives to bring greatly needed supplies to the besieged people of Gaza. This Christmas, internationals will march to the Egypt/Gaza border to break this siege. These are but a few examples of growing popular support for the Palestinian struggle.

When compared with the accomplishments of these grassroots movements, the futility of "negotiations" becomes painfully apparent. It is clear that we cannot look to our leaders (elected or imposed) to achieve justice. Just as only the masses could bring South Africa's Apartheid to its knees, it will be the masses who will also bring Israel's Apartheid crashing. The continued expansion of international action demanding the implementation of Palestinian basic human rights is inevitable.

The notion of religious-ethnocentric entitlement and exclusivity for one people at the expense of another has been rejected the world over. Palestinians reject it and we assert that we are human beings worthy of the same human rights accorded to the rest of humanity; that we are worthy of our homes and farms, our heritage, our churches and mosques, and our history; and that we should not be expected to negotiate with our oppressors for such basic dignities. The two-state solution was and remains an instrument to circumvent the basic human rights of Palestinians in order to accommodate Israel's desire to be Jewish. Polls show that Palestinians refuse to be the enemies of our Jewish brothers and sisters anywhere, just as we refuse to be oppressed by them.

It is time for our shared land to be the inclusive and diverse country it had been. It is time for leaders to follow the people's determined movement toward a single democratic state, with liberty and justice for all, regardless of religion.

Susan Abulhawa is the author of Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury, 2010); and Ramzy Baroud is the author of My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, 2009).

Unfortunately, France is not alone; it merely highlights the most obvious manifestation of growing anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Europe. Unearthing the reasons behind the disturbing phenomena is hardly an easy task, for it arguably requires a greater examination of the political, economic and social woes of European states than it does of the 'shortcomings' of Islam.

Islam is a great religion in many respects; it has endured for over 1400 years. Its membership is never confined by skin color, culture, political ideology or geographic boundaries. Its views of antiquity, on equality, women rights and peace are considered progressive even by today's standards.

The detractors of Islam fail to see all this. If Islam is dissected politically or 'academically', the investigation is done for the sake of destroying its repute, and discrediting or humiliating its followers.

The Swiss People's Party (SVP) may claim that their commitment is to keep Switzerland secular, devoid of symbols of oppression (as in a mosque's minaret), but this only sounds like incoherent blabber and reflects nothing but a growing tendency towards racism, intolerance and ethnocentrism. These trends are glaring violations of the liberal philosophies associated with European countries, which guarantee individual and collective rights, including those of self-expression and freedom of speech.

In France, the phenomenon is protracted and more dangerous. Considering that France is the home of five million French Muslims, rightwing tendencies threaten future discord in the country.

The Washington Post reported on December 19 that Bilal Mosque, in the tranquil French town of Castres was desecrated by unknown assailants. "Two pig's ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig's snout dangled from the doorknob. 'White power' and 'Sieg heil' were spray-painted on one side...and 'France for the French' on the other."

Here, one must recall the alarming words of Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik. Himself a victim of hate crimes, Malik lamented a year and a half ago that many Muslims feel targeted like the "Jews of Europe", and that many British Muslims feel like "aliens in their own country".

While Many Muslims share the same feeling of nationalism and patriotism in their homelands in Europe, rightwing racists - who are unfortunately becoming a dominant force in shaping public views in various European states - insist on a very narrow definition of what makes a French, a British, a German or a Swiss.

There is indeed an identity crisis that is real and frightening. And it's one that is not engulfing Europe alone, but also affects and in some instances has devastated many cultures all over the world. While it is a byproduct of misguided and unchecked globalization, in the case of Europe itself the issue is very national and very personal. The European Union, which started as a purely economic body has morphed into a political and pan-nationalist organization that is attempting, by accident or design, to define a united Europe and a prototypical European. This has raised fears of the loss of national identities or whatever remains of it. Expectedly, it is the politically underrepresented, socially marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that often pay the price of this sort of national resurgence.

Targeting Muslims is a common denominator that now unifies a great proportion of European political elites and media. The reasons are numerous and obvious. Some European countries are at war (which they have chosen) in various Muslim countries; desperate and failed politicians are in need for constant distractions from their own failures and mishaps; associating Islam with terrorism is more than an acceptable intellectual diatribe, a topic of discussion that has occupied more radio and television airtime than any other; also, pushing Muslims around seems to have few political repercussions - unlike the subjugation of targeting of other groups with political or economic clout.

But is their more to this? A 2007-08 Gallup poll asked the following question: does religion occupy an important place in your life? The vast majority in Western European countries answered with a resounding "no". Only 9 percent of Turkish citizens - a country with a Muslim majority - shared the popular view. Most European Muslims strongly identify with their religion, which has preserved their sense of community, and helped maintain a degree of cultural cohesion and a semblance of collective identity at a time when many in Europe are losing theirs. Muslims must not be blamed for this loss, and nor should they be punished, derided or targeted for daring to hold onto their beliefs.

Returning again to France, what is most alarming about the anti-Muslim measures is that they are largely led by the government itself, rather than a fanatical group of disenchanted ideologues. Eric Besson, the country's Immigration Minister, stated on December 16 that Muslim veils will be grounds of denying citizenships and long-term residence. Besson was only echoing the disquieting policies of conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy who has started a 'national identity campaign' for ensuring an exclusive identity of France - one that is occupied with the targeting of immigrants, particularly Muslims.

Sarkozy, Besson, and Europe's rightwing and far right politicians must understand the possible ramifications if they continue to press with their reckless and alienating policies.

Radicalization is an unavoidable offshoot of group alienation, which is sadly being used to further fuel the anti-immigrant fervor throughout the continent. It is a vicious cycle, the blame for which lies squarely with the savvy politicians and their obvious agendas. As for those who insist on blaming Islam for Europe's woes, they should really find another pastime; the self-indulgent game is too hazardous and must stop.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

A just and peaceful resolution is difficult to define, considering that the conception of justice varies both in definition and interpretation. In the case of this conflict, the long-held assumption is that a just resolution is one that would be consistent with international and humanitarian laws, and which would enjoy the largest possible consensus worldwide.

A consensus is indeed at hand and has been for decades; it is one that recognizes the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories as illegal and immoral, that unconditionally acknowledges the illegality of all Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine and the illegal transfer of Israeli settlers to inhabit unlawfully acquired Palestinian land. Strangely enough, despite its very cautious phraseology, the US, especially under the current administration of President Barack Obama recognizes these very facts. But then why is the man who leads the world's only superpower proving not only incapable of achieving what should be a practicable feat, but also going so far as to hinder the efforts of other parties to simply recognize Palestinian rights or pinpoint Israeli injustices?

This is precisely what has just taken place, a repeat of the same infuriating episode for the thousandth time.

A recent proposal presented by Sweden -- the current holder of the rotating European Union presidency -- called on EU members to recognize an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. The proposal was watered down to a mere communiqué, issued by EU foreign ministers on December 8, which calls for the division of Jerusalem to serve as "the future capital of the two states." Naturally, Israel, as the occupying power rejected the statement. But so did the United States. "We are aware of the EU statement, but our position on Jerusalem is clear. We believe that is a final-status issue," declared Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley. He further declared that "this is best addressed inside a formal negotiation among the parties directly."

Crowley, like all of his bosses, Obama included, knows well that Israel is neither keen on 'direct' nor indirect negotiations, and is deliberately prejudicing any possible just solution with its continuing colonization of occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. Israel's rightwing extremist government is not bashful about its true intentions, and the smart and savvy Obama is not ignorant of the prospects of a 'direct' negotiation between those with the bulldozers, the tanks and big guns (based in Tel Aviv) and those with dismal press releases (based in Ramallah). But it's not just the rare initiatives of the EU that are being summarily dismissed by the US.

All initiatives, whether by individual states or regional groups, for example by the Arab League, or through international forums such as the United Nations are rejected, derided and at times suspected of anti-Semitism.

This is a continuation of a terrible legacy that goes back decades. The reason such a redundant policy is being highlighted now -- as it should be -- is because Obama promised change and pledged to lead a new decisive course, led by a gentler, kinder and more sensible America. In the Middle East, this is hardly being realized.

Why? Shouldn't the US, in desperately trying to maintain its role as a world leader, and to preserve its economic and strategic interests in the Middle East, embark on the frequently promised new course -- not for the sake of Palestine and the Arabs, but its own?

Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz suggests an answer, one that many of us have already recognized long prior to Obama's presidency, or even his involvement in politics altogether. "In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing 'another leftist' offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel," wrote Natasha Mozgovaya on December 4.

Ha'aretz highlighted several cases in point, amongst them the intense war lead by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington against Chas Freeman, a widely respected US official nominated by the Obama administration months ago to chair the National Intelligence Council. He dared voice guarded critique of US foreign policy in the Middle East and became a victim of the worst possible vilification campaign, forcing him to concede the nomination.

Other examples include Robert Malley, a daring American political adviser who wished to believe that his country's national interests took priority over Israel's. He was let go even before the Obama presidency commenced.

More, a 'controversy' is currently 'raging' -- as in, the Israeli lobby is not happy -- over the appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as an intelligence aide. According to Haaretz, "Republican Jews have...protested Hagel's appointment, citing an incident in 2004 when Hagel refused to sign a letter calling on then-president George Bush to speak about Iran's nuclear program at the G8 summit that year."

Stephen M. Walt, a Harvard University professor and co-author of the widely-read The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, recently wrote that "groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel...because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on."

Luckily, neither Walt nor numerous other independent-minded Americans like him are afraid to speak their mind, to safeguard the independence and integrity of their country. This should always be the case.

For the time being, don't be surprised when you hear that the US continues to block the path for peace in the Middle East. At least now you know why.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

In between these two peculiar events, the targeting of Muslims in Western countries and the subjugation of entire Muslim nations all over the world has never ceased. Not for a day.

Moreover, the collective targeting of small or large Muslim communities in Western countries, and the deliberate abuse and degradation of Muslim individuals and Islamic symbols (from the Holy Koran to the Prophet Mohammed) has also never ceased.

Bizarrely, most of these actions have been done through "democratic" channels and justified in the name of democracy, on the basis of upholding the principles of secularism and Western values.

Many thoughts come to mind here; all unreservedly angry.

I remember when the word "democracy" used to resonate so loudly among Arabs and Muslims around the world. The more they were denied it, the more they yearned for it. University campuses in Cairo, Gaza and Karachi took their student union elections so very seriously. Innocent blood was spilled in clashes around campuses as students desperately tried to express their right to vote, to speak out and to assemble.

Those were the days, when al-demoqratia, Arabic for democracy, was the buzzword in the Middle East and beyond. Even Palestinian political prisoners held their elections, ever so faithfully, surrounded by highly fortified towers and under the deriding gaze of armed men in the unforgiving heat of the Naqab desert.

Arab and Muslim masses were keen on democracy to the extent that there was a near consensus that democracy, although a Western conception, could be distinguished from the many ills invited by Western interventions, imperialism and wars that scarred and continued to impair the collective Muslim psyche.

An entire school of Muslim thought was in fact established around the concept that democracy and Islam are very much compatible. Such a notion goes back to Egypt's Azharite scholar Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that the principles of European modernity were compatible with Islam.

"Al-Tahtawi's work influenced the philosopher Muhammad Abduh [1849-1905], another Azharite who is often described as the founder of Islamic modernism, which is captured in his statement that in Europe he found Islam without Muslims, while in Egypt he found Muslims without Islam," wrote German anthropologist, Frank Fanselow.

If one sets his prejudices aside to ponder this for a moment, one would realize the intellectual valor it takes to consider and even embrace commonalities with the very powers that have instilled so much harm and fear.

Even in their darkest, least proud moments, Muslim intellectuals and nations displayed impressive open-mindedness. They are hardly ever credited for that.

More recently, in Egypt, people tried hard to vote, in the face of beatings, public humiliation and imprisonment. In Palestine in 2006 the price was even higher - starvation. Gaza continues to endure under a medieval Israeli siege, ultimately because of an election.

Muslim communities in the West have long been considered the luckiest; after all, they live in the abodes of democracy. They drink from the fountain of rights and freedoms that never runs dry.

However, these idealized assumptions missed the fact that Western democracy was conditional. And unconditional democracy can only be a farce.

Much has been said to explain the West's faltering on its own commitment to democracy. No, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, is hardly the defining moment that created the growing chasm that made the West fearful of Islam. Despite all that has taken place since then - the constant spewing out of right-wing hatred, evangelical fanatic preaching and all the rest - America is still more tolerant than Europe. Nor was the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe a response in solidarity to America's woes.

Honestly, the French are not fond of Americans, nor are the Germans necessarily that passionate about the Swiss. But this didn't stop a German Christian Democratic state interior minister, Volker Bouffier, from making a "recommendation" to Muslim communities in his own country: "Naturally the Muslims in Germany have a right to build mosques. But they should make sure not to overwhelm the German population with them."

How do you overwhelm people with minarets? Is this a post-post-post-modernistic logic that we are yet to be informed of?

There are only four minarets in the entire country of Switzerland, a country with a population of approximately 7.6 million people. How overwhelming can that be? And aren't religious freedom and the freedom of collective and individual expression basic rights guaranteed by democratic values?

But this is hardly about a 4.8-meter tall minaret in the northern Swiss town of Langenthal. It's about the fact that the one who suggested the structure is a Muslim furniture salesman by the name of Mutalip Karaademi. He didn't know, of course, that his modest idea of adding a minaret to the community's mosque would generate a nationwide referendum, and an international "controversy".

Karaademi was not trying to "Islamificate" the Swiss. He just wanted his community to have a place for worship (as opposed to the unused paint factory it currently uses for prayer), to be able to express its collective identity without fear. Ironically enough, the Muslim community in Langenthal is mostly Albanians, refugees who fled Kosovo seeking escape and deliverance.

What a strange paradox: Muslims escaping to the West, physically and figuratively, only to find double standards, self-negation and, at times, pure hypocrisy.

For now, however, a new consensus is forming: democracy can be invoked and used against Muslims only, and not for Muslims. It can be manipulated to deny them their identity in Europe and their freedom in Palestine, to ensure their subjugation in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and to meddle in their internal affairs everywhere else.

Al-demoqratia, indeed.

Mr. Lee is an impressive man. He has a commanding presence and is very articulate, despite his soft poise and humble demeanor. He speaks with the confidence of a leader of a great nation, not an island city-state, the smallest nation in Southeast Asia. In fact, Lee's confidence is well earned, and greatly deserved, and, by any reasonable standards Singapore is indeed a great nation. His country, once a site of a small fishing village, which saw a most tumultuous history of hardship, occupation and war, is now a prosperous nation, economically notwithstanding; its GDP per capital makes it the fifth wealthiest country in the world. Singapore's official reserve is estimated at more than US $170 billion. For a country of 4-5 million people, it isn't too bad.

In some way, Singapore is the world's most efficiently managed company. Every facet of society contributes to the prowess of the corporate machinery that never takes a break. Its people are the employees in a hierarchy that has little room or patience for favoritism or corruption. But, despite the callous and, at times dehumanization nature of business, the nation is immensely proud, its people are most helpful, self-assertive, resourceful, expressive and confident.

That explains Mr. Lee's coolness as well. From his opening remarks at the Apec Summit to his last comments, he showed a particularly different breed of leadership. His was neither the reactionary nor the submissive language that is associated with leaderships in countries that are regarded as "small", thus not so consequential.

Hosting an event of such magnitude as one that brings together presidents, prime ministers, foreign, finance and trade ministers of 21 countries - representing more than 40 percent of total world population, nearly 55 percent of its total GDP and about 44 percent of world trade - should be a bit intimidating, daunting even. But not for Singapore, as everything fell into place, in such an impeccable and seemingly effortless manner. The Apec Summit, including its ministerial meetings, adjoining CEO summit, and the Apec leaders' meetings, in addition to a consignment of other significant events on the side, all progressed with very few problems. Life in Singapore, outside the immediate grounds of the summit venues, carried on as usual.

I had prepared several questions to ask Mr. Lee. My first pertained to the APEC leaders' faltering on their commitment to the environment, ahead of the Copenhagen summit on climate change.

In their initial draft, according to the Dow Jones Newswires, the leaders had committed to a specific agenda. That, however, abruptly changed. "Global emissions will need...to be reduced to 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050," the draft read. The final statement however, reneged on that promise, delving instead to good sounding, yet hollow avowals: "Global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will need to be accompanied by measures, including financial assistance and technology transfer to developing economies for their adaptation to the adverse impact of climate change."

It was strange how such summits tend to resort to specifics when such issues as tariffs, protectionism, investment, trade, currencies, and so on are referenced. But when human development, the environment and other subjects that have no formidable champions to back them up are mentioned, then its all about clichés and truisms.

Luckily, or unfortunately for me, other journalists had similar concerns. Here goes my first question.

Then I wished to ask about free trade: how can the less powerful members of Apec survive a free trade agreement with giant economies, which demand everyone but themselves, to drop tariffs and abandon protectionism?

Currently Apec member economies, as they wish to be called, don't have a binding free trade agreement, but a de-facto one, since most Apec members are bound by various regional and bi-lateral agreements. But US President Barack Obama is now leading a campaign to cap the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum with one single agreement. It's, more or less, an attempt at recapturing the lost markets of Asia, where China has in recent years emerged as a powerful, albeit affable partner.

President Obama spent eight days on his first trip to Asia touring Japan, then Singapore - where he attended the Apec Summit - then China and finally South Korea. His visit was a watershed moment in this history between the US and Asia, the former being more modest, the latter more assertive. "Equality", as in "more equal" relationship, whether in trade or politics, was the buzzword that accompanied Obama throughout his trip, especially in Japan and China. In Singapore, Obama was a star, not exactly because of the country he represents, but because of him as an individual who promised earthshaking changes. The fact that he is yet to deliver on any of his promises seemed unimportant.

But even a bigger star, was Chinese President Hu Jintao, not because of him as an individual, but because of the great country he represents.

What a strange turn of fortunes.

Thousands in Singapore, a country with a Chinese majority, many of whom are the descendants of poor immigrants from South China, came out to meet President Hu. Many tears were shed as he spoke, with force, command but also benevolence.

Singapore's Apec 2009 was the forum where the new balances of power were at full display: China was making its move to the front of the line and the US, hesitantly but willingly was making room, accepting the unavoidable ordains of power. What could follow is either a natural economic, thus political transition and repositioning, or a new cold war, in which other Asia-Pacific countries - and others - are likely to be embroiled; for how can countries, such as Chile, Mexico, Brunei Darussalam, Peru and even Singapore itself, for example, benefit from such gatherings without being trampled in the long run by the march forward or hasty retreat of the economic giants? That was the last question I wished to ask Mr. Lee. The questions and answers period however, was cut short despite the palpable agitation of many journalists.

The Apec Summit, although answering a few questions, certainly delineated the new paradigm shift. It was a chance for Asia to assert itself, and for others to listen. But it also presented a new set of priorities, an agenda even, one in which the environment didn't seem to top the list. A most unfortunate conclusion, indeed.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Respecting the message on his T-Shirt, I try to keep to myself, but find it increasingly difficult. The wife is completely covered, all but her face. The contradictions are ample, overwhelming even.

The attire of the family, the attitude of the ladies and even the man with the provocative T-Shirt are all signs of the cultural schizophrenia that permeates many societies in the so-called Third World. It's a side effect of globalization that few wish to talk about.

It's almost always about trade, foreign investment, capital flow and all the rest. But what about culture, identity, traditions and ways of life; do these things amount to anything?

True, Globalization has various manifestations. If viewed strictly from economic terms, then the debate delves into trade barriers, protectionism and tariffs. Powerful countries demand smaller countries to break down all trade barriers, while maintaining a level of protectionism over their own. Smaller countries, knowing that they cannot do much to hide from the hegemonic nature of globalization, form their own economic clubs, hoping to negotiate fairer deals. And the economic tug-of-war continues, between diplomacy and threats, dialogue and arm twisting. This is the side of globalization with which most of us are familiar.

But there is another side of globalization, one that is similarly detrimental to some countries, and profitable to others: cultural globalization - not necessarily the domination of a specific culture, in this case Western culture, over all the rest - but rather the unbridgeable disadvantage of poorer countries, who lack the means to withstand the unmitigated takeover of their traditional ways of life by the dazzling, well-packaged and branded 'culture' imparted upon them around the clock.

What audiences watch, read and listen to in most countries outside the Western hemisphere is not truly Western culture in the strict definition of the term, of course. It's a selective brand of a culture, a reductionst presentation of art, entertainment, news, and so on, as platforms to promote ideas that would ultimately sell products. For the dwarfed representation of Western culture, it's all about things, tangible material values that can be obtained by that simple and final act of pulling out one's credit card. To sell a product, however, media also sell ideas, often one sided, and create unjustifiable fascinations with ways of life that hardly represent natural progression for many vanishing cultures and communities around the world.

Recently in some Gulf country, a few Turkish teenagers turned an Internet café into a shouting match as they engaged one another in some violent computer game. I desperately tried to mind my own business, but their shrieks of victory and defeat were deafening. "Kill the Terrorist", one of them yelled in English, with a thick Turkish accent. The "Rs" in "terrorists" rolled over his tongue so unnaturally. For a moment, he was an "American", killing "terrorists", who, bizarrely looked more Turkish than American. As I walked out, I glanced at the screen. Among the rubble, there was a mosque, or what was left of it. The young Turkish Muslim was congratulated by his friends for his handy work.

There is nothing wrong with exchanges of ideas, of course. Cultural interactions are historically responsible for much of the great advancements and evolution in art, science, language, even food and much more. But, prior to globalization, cultural influences were introduced at much slower speed. It allowed societies, big and small, to reflect, consider, and adjust to these unique notions over time. But the globalization of the media is unfair. It gives no chance for mulling anything over, for determining the benefits or the harms, for any sort of value analysis. News, music and even pornography are beamed directly to all sorts of screens and gadgets. When Beyonce sings she is a 'single lady', the whole world must know, instantly. This may sound like a harmless act, but the cultural contradictions eventually morph into conflicts and clashes, in figurative and real senses.

More, it makes little sense, for example, that Asian audiences are consumers of Fox News and Sky News, while both are regarded as rightwing media platforms in their original markets. And what can Nepali television, for example, do to control media moguls and morphing media empires all around? Young people grow, defining themselves according to someone else's standards, thus the Turkish teenager, temporarily adopting the role of the "American", blows up his own mosque.

Globalization is not a fair game, of course. Those with giant economies get the lion's share of the 'collective' decision-making. Those with more money and global outlook tend to have influential media, also with global outlook. In both scenarios, small countries are lost between desperately trying to negotiate a better economic standing for themselves, while hopelessly trying to maintain their cultural identity, which defined their people, generation after generation throughout history.

The Muslim family eventually left the coffee shop. The husband watched MTV throughout his stay; the young wife, clicked endlessly on her iPhone, and the older woman glanced at the TV from time to time, then quickly looked the other way. One is certain that a few years ago, that family would have enjoyed an entirely different experience. Alas, a few years from today, they might not even sit at the same table.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

But why did the author, like so many others, choose to turn what should have been a constructive argument, into a diatribe? Was it necessary to charge Western discourses, resorting to the ever predictable classification of "us and them", instead of trying to find a common cause?

The same point can be made regarding other discussions, whether pertaining to human rights (women's rights in particular), the environment, labor rights, and many others.

In her defense, Amirah Sulaiman was simply following an existing pattern, commonly used to delineate one's cultural or religious progression, at the expense of another.

But it's more than that, it's also a defense mechanism, a haunting reminder that the alleged civilizational clash, although more imagined and politicized, than real, pervades many aspects of our perception of ourselves and of others.

Among Muslim intellectuals, as in societies, this paradigm is omnipresent.

Cultural animosity, collective defensiveness, racism (and Orientalism), among other overriding cultural trends existed long before distained US foreign policy in the Middle East became the defining norm, before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. But these events emboldened existing arguments on both sides, with Muslims solidifying as a collective victim, and the US, from a Muslim point of view, seen as a vulgar, but true representation of the West.

Of course, Muslims and Islam had their own ominous representations in the US, thus 'Western' media, culture and psyche - the dagger wielding bearded man, who abuses women, whenever he takes time away from blowing up infidels. As comical as I intended this to sound, as disturbingly true such a depiction is in the minds of many.

It would be utterly unfair and largely inaccurate to equate the 'Western' misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims, with the latter's misrepresentation of the West. The former approaches its caricatured depiction from a chest thumping, Fox News mentality of militarily powerful and economically stable countries. Its view of the other is largely hegemonic and its standard solution to bringing wars to an end is with military surges and the increasing of military assistance (with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan being the current cases in point.)

Collective Muslim identity however is largely fragmented, between governments that only represent themselves, and peoples facing many forms of oppression: political tyranny at home, external repression (war, foreign interventions, etc), economic uncertainty (fuelled by inequality and compounded by unfiltered globalization), and extremism.

The so-called war on terror, for obvious reasons, cemented that fragmentation. On one hand, it reinforced many Muslims' growing sense of victimization; a notion that itself resulted in both submissiveness and extremism. On the other it inspired a re-think, positive at times, self-negating at others: it kindled a affirmative sense of identity and pride among a generation desperate to identify itself according to its own priorities and on its own turf, while, on the other hand, it led to a (minor) movement of intellectual migration, which sought in the 'West' an escape from the oppressive reality, of which, of course the 'West' is equally responsible.

But it was not war alone (and in itself) that shaped Muslim perceptions of the 'West'; it was rather the US' and (to lesser extent Britain's) insistence that their war championed an essentially Western discourse on democracy and human rights. Such arguments took place in an already hostile atmosphere: incessant media and academic mutterings about Islam's shortcomings, and a growing right wing, racist tendencies in various Western countries targeting immigrants and minorities, many of whom are Muslims.

When such political, military and intellectual encroachment is backed by such statements as that made by US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Lieutenant General William G. Boykin (now retired), then the plot thickens, and the collective polarization of both societies grows. Boykin, author of "Never Surrender: A Soldier's Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom," became famous for his infamous quote, several years ago, in reference to a Muslim militant in Mogadishu: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

This was a lone quotation, of course, in a sea of bigoted references that defined many officials and media pundits during the Bush Administration. Such voices are now, somewhat mute, although, its hard to believe that the advent of President Barack Obama has altered a culture in its entirety.

It takes generations for genuine trust to take hold, and the countdown cannot possibly start as long as one US solider is stationed in a Muslim country for the purpose of conducting war and occupation.

Yet again, there is more to all of this. Reversing intellectual dogmas and collective realizations is too convoluted a process; it requires time, action and good will.

In the meantime, Muslims, who insist on living in the shadow of the 'West' as unreserved aficionados or obsessed detractors must redefine their own discourses. As for the latter, they must not allow war alone, MTV consumer media culture, hegemonic globalization and racist remarks by a politician or a born again evangelical to taint their entire view of what are essentially unique, diverse and in many ways impressive civilizations that have done much good. Indeed, there is the like of Boykin, but there are millions of others who are peace-loving, ordinary people, some of whom are ardent advocates of human rights, anti-war campaigners, including the thousands who have repeatedly broken the siege on Gaza, and previous to that Iraq. Muslims too must quit caricaturing them, reducing them to enemies, juxtaposing Muslims' essential righteousness with 'Western' essential depravity. Not only are such reductions inaccurate and self-defeating, they also break down possible alliances between the forces of good in this world, in a time when they are of essence.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon.

Mahmoud Habbash, the PA Minister of Social Affairs is but one of those individuals. His appearances on Aljazeera, during those fateful days were many. On one half of the screen would be screaming, disfigured children, mutilated women, and search parties digging in the dark for dead bodies, at times entire families. On the other, was Habbash, spewing political insults at his Hamas rivals in Gaza, repeating the same message so tirelessly parroted by his Israeli colleagues. Every time his face appeared on the screen, I cringed. Every unruly shriek of his, reinforced my sense of shame. Shame, perhaps, but never confusion. Those who understand how the Oslo agreement of September 1993 morphed into a culture that destroyed the very fabric of Palestinian society can fully appreciate the behavior of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank during the Gaza war, before it and today.

But especially today.

Those who hoped that the Israeli atrocities in Gaza would rekindled a sense of remorse among the egotistical elites in Ramallah, were surely disappointed when the PA withdrew its draft resolution supporting recommendations made by South African Judge Richard Goldstone. The Goldstone report is the most comprehensive, and transparent investigation as of yet into what happened in Gaza during the 23-day war. It decried Israeli terror, and chastised Palestinians as well. But the focus on Israel undoubtedly and deservingly occupied much of the nearly 600-page report. The next step was for the Human Rights Council to send the report for consideration to the United Nations Security Council, which was to study the findings for a possible referral of the case to the International Criminal Court e in the Hague. Such a move would have been historic. Knowing the full implications of such a possibility, Hamas accepted the report's recommendations in full. Israel, backed by its traditional US ally, rejected it, leveling all sorts of accusations and insults on the world-renowned Jewish judge.

The draft resolution - condemning Israel and calling for the transfer of the report to the UNSC - was due for a vote at the Council on October 2. Alas, it was withdrawn at the behest of the Palestinian Authority and its president Mahmoud Abbas himself. Palestinian friends and allies at UNHRC were shocked, but obliged. They were equally disappointed when they watched PA envoys discussing the matter, not with the Asian, African or other traditional allies at the Council, but with US and European diplomats, who seemed to have a greater sway over Palestinian political action than those who have for decades supported Palestinian rights at every turn.

Something went horribly wrong. How could a leader of an occupied and suffering nation commit such a 'mistake', deferring an urgent vote and discussion on a report pertaining to the death of over 1,400 people, the maiming and wounding of thousands more, to a later date, six months from today?

Theories flared. Israeli and other media argued that US pressure on PA president Mahmoud Abbas was the main reason behind the supposedly unanticipated move. A positive vote on the resolution would jeopardize the 'peace process', therefore any action must be stifled for the sake of giving the 'peace process' a chance, was the rationale.

Amira Hass of Haaretz opined, "The chronic submissiveness is always explained by a desire to 'make progress.' But for the PLO and Fatah, progress is the very continued existence of the Palestinian Authority, which is now functioning more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration."

Jonathan Cook, however, offered another view: "Israel warned it would renege on a commitment to allot radio frequencies to allow Wataniya, a mobile phone provider, to begin operations this month in the West Bank. The telecommunications industry is the bedrock of the Palestinian economy, with the current monopoly company, PalTel, accounting for half the worth of the Palestinian stock exchange."

"No blood for mobile phones," should perhaps be the new chant in Palestine. But it's that sad fact that held the Palestinian will hostage for too many years. However, it's not just mobile companies whose interests triumph over Gaza's agony. Indeed, the post-Oslo culture has espoused a class of contractors. These are businessmen who are either high-ranking officials in the PA and the Fatah party, or both, or closely affiliated with them. Much of the billions of dollars of international aid that poured into Palestine following the signing of Oslo found its way into private bank accounts. Wealth generated more wealth and "export and import" companies sprung up like poison ivy amidst the poor dwelling of refugees throughout the occupied territories. The class of businessmen, still posing as revolutionaries, encroached over every aspect of Palestinian society, used it, controlled it, and eventually suffocated it. It espoused untold corruption, and, naturally, found an ally in Israel, whose reign in the occupied territories never ceased.

The PA became submissive not out of fear of Israeli wrath per se, but out of fear that such wrath would disrupt business, the flow of aid thus contracts. And since corruption is not confined by geographical borders, PA officials abroad took Palestinian shame to international levels. Millions marched in the US, in Europe, in Asia, South America and the rest of the world, chanting for Gaza and its victims, while some PA ambassadors failed to even turn out to participate. When some of these diplomats made it to public forums, it was for the very purpose of brazenly attacking fellow Palestinians in Hamas, not to garner international solidarity with their own people.

Readily blaming 'American pressure' to explain Abbas' decision at the UNHRC no longer suffices. Even the call on the 74-year-old Palestinian leader to quit is equally hollow. Abbas represents a culture, and that culture is self-seeking, self-serving and utterly corrupt. If Abbas exits, and considering his age, he soon will, Mohammed Dahlan could be the next leader, or even Mahmoud Habbash, who called on Gaza to rebel against Hamas as Israel was blowing up Palestinian homes and schools left and right.

Palestinians who are now calling for change following the UN episode, must consider the Oslo culture in its entirety, its 'revolutionary' millionaires, its elites and contractors. A practical alternative to those corrupt must be quickly devised. The Israeli wall is encroaching on Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank, and a new war might be awaiting besieged Gaza. Time is running out, and our collective shame is nearly complete.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

The possible outcomes of the Honduran crisis are likely to define the coming era for Latin America and the US future role in that hemisphere, and, in fact, beyond it. Indeed, the story is much more elaborate than a daring president holed up in a foreign embassy in his own country.

In her second visit to Asia as US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton declared on July 21 in Bangkok, "The US is back." The declaration was disconcerting to many Asian countries, despite Clinton's indistinct qualifications afterwards. Asian countries, exploring regional unity and economic cooperation are well aware of the subtle meaning of the term. However, it's unlikely that politically stable and economically prospering Asia countries would allow for unwarranted outside interferences, especially with the growing Chinese regional influence and the election of Yukio Hatoyama the prime minister of Japan.

But how would Latin America feel about the US interference? The outcome of the Honduran coup should sufficiently answer this question.

Since the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the politics and economic structures of Latin American countries subsisted as a component of US foreign policies, regardless of who presided in the White House. The region's economies seemed, at times, a laboratory for economic theories hatched at various US academic institutions. Many Latin American countries existed, and a meager existence at that, between US interventions, self-seeking local oligarchy and wilderness and chaos wrought by military dictatorships. In many instances, these three components were intrinsically linked.

But US influence in that region, as in the rest of the world, began to fade. The neoconservative wars in the Middle East and South Asia were but desperate, now failed attempts at salvaging some of the dwindling influence.

The former Bush Administration left Latin America to its own devises as US military adventures elsewhere took a toll on the country, militarily, economically and politically, at home and abroad. But as Clinton promised a return to Asia, the Obama administration attempted a return to Latin America as well, a region that is significantly different from yesteryear, as a new form of popular socialism was taking hold (in Venezuela, Bolivia, and elsewhere) without wholly disturbing the economic patterns that long governed these countries. While many didn't welcome President Hugo Chavez's outspokenness, few in Latin America, except for a few remaining US allies, considered him a threat. To the contrary, the new age has promised greater cooperation among all economic sectors between Latin American countries than any other period in the past. A new Latin America was making its debut, more equitable than before, politically stable, and economically promising, if not, in some cases, prosperous.

Indeed, the US returned to a different reality, a return that, at first was welcomed, even by Chavez himself. Obama spoke a language that soothed much fears and fostered a sense of promise.

"At times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values," declared Obama on April 19, at the Summit of the Americas, to the pleasure and relief of his audience.

Did that mean no more coups, military interventions, economic sanctions, political intimidation and all forms of coercion that defined much of the two hemispheres' relationship of many years? Certainly, Latin American leaders, or most of them, hoped so.

But then, the democratically elected President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya was overthrown on June 28. It was a classic Latin American junta move. The popular leader was escorted in his pajamas and deported to another country. The coup leader, Roberto Micheletti lead a series of draconian measures, starting with the installation of a new government of allies and cronies - with the blessing of the local oligarchy - and ending with the declaration of emergency decree limiting civil liberties. After several attempts and many dramatic episodes, Zelaya returned to his country and was holed up in the Brazilian embassy, in Tegucigalpa, surrounded by a military that merely represent the very poor country's very rich rulers: the oligarchs and the generals.

In some way, the coup in Honduras helped highlight the new order in the continent, as displayed in the unity of many Latin American countries, the steadfastness of its regional organizations, and the growing influence of the democratically elected governments. But it also highlighted the precarious position of the US administration: condemning the coup on one hand (as did President Obama, and clearly so) and condemning Zelaya's courageous action (as did Hillary Clinton, and clearly so.) Clinton described Zelaya's action as "reckless." She was not alone, of course as the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States, Lewis Amselem said Zelaya's return was "irresponsible and foolish." Zelaya should stop "acting as though he were starring in an old movie," he counseled. Worse, US Republicans, who see the coup leaders as trusty allies reminiscent of their allies of the past, are flocking to the Honduran capital in dangerous attempts at validating the coup leaders as legitimate statesmen.

Between Obama's anti-coup stance, and his own Department of State's anti-Zelaya rhetoric (and Republican giddiness over the prospects of their country's 'return' to Latin America), the US position lacks clarity, a dangerous notion at a time when Latin America expected a clear US divorce from the past, and "engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values." President Obama may be sincere, but he must ensure that he acts upon his promises, not for Latin America's sake, but for his own country's future relationship with that part of the world. As for Latin America itself, the repercussions of the Brazilian embassy's siege, and the future of democracy in Honduras will either set a terrible precedent in an age of hope, or serve as further proof that the ghosts of the past will no longer haunt Latin America, no matter how much the reviled generals toil.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

The Iran nuclear threat - although theater is a more suitable term - was highlighted repeatedly, first by US President Barack Obama during a UN speech on September 23, then again by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the next day. The latter came armed with maps and relentlessly provoked Holocaust memories, following the ever so predictable, albeit insensitive and deceptive pattern.

This charade was meant to distract from the nearly 600 page UN report, prepared by South Africa judge Richard Goldstone and others, dedicated mostly to Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Confirming that Israel wantonly used weapons, including illegal weapons, against a defenseless civilian population in Gaza and going so far to say that Israel did not only commit war crimes, but indeed may have also committed crimes against humanity, the findings of the report were all set by the wayside. The report was utterly rebuked by Netanyahu and his ilk, arrogantly disregarded and shelved.

Concurrently, Israel's official statement regarding the IAEA's pressure on Israel to sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that Israel "deplored" such a notion. The Israeli conceit may be redundant, but is as ever infuriating.

Many of Israel's devoted supporters accused the Goldstone mission of fabricating conclusions before the investigations even came to a close.

And so yet again, Israel unhesitatingly established that they it's above the law, promptly and successfully turning the world's attention to the greater menace: Iran.

It seems that President Obama is also learning some painful lessons regarding the balance of power between the US and Israel, going into negotiations in Washington this past week - along with Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas - with a strong stance for the complete freeze of all settlement activity, and ending with clear and potent calls for the Palestinians to continue down the road of diplomacy inspite of Israel's refusal to consider the option of adhering to international law. In the words of Israeli writer, Uri Avnery, "No point denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten."

Learning from past history, one can hardly be optimistic to expect a US victory in the second round, or anytime soon for that matter.

And thereafter, the Israeli cue was emulated, and Obama followed it to the letter. Israel's recent use of illegal weapons on civilians, its arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons and its refusal to consider disarmament paled in comparison to the potential threat that could arise should Iran seek a nuclear weapon some time in the future.

Obama's words to Ahmedinejad and the people of Iran at the UN were decisive: "They are going to have to make a choice: Are they willing to go down the path to greater prosperity and security for Iran, giving up the acquisition of nuclear weapons ... or will they continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation."

This is sure to ignite a war of words, to the pleasure of Netanyahu and his extremist government.

But the outcome of this duel will certainly exceed the realm of words.

It seems that Obama's rebuke and Netanyahu's declarations could actually lead to the detriment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and indeed to us all, by encouraging nations who until this point do not possess nuclear weapons to expedite the creation of their own arsenal. After all, what we have learned from this episode is that nations who do not yet possess weapons of mass destruction had better get on the band-wagon and make some, for it seems that without them, they are nothing more than sitting ducks.

How ironic it is, and what a sweet-talker Netanyahu is, to successfully divert the worlds eye, ears and conscience away from what he has indeed done, to the dangerous notion of what another man with up until this point can only be branded for fiery speeches, could do some time in the future.

As for Ahmedinejad's crusade for Iran, it could be very possible that in the end, the ones who will pay for his bold declarations will be as usual, the Palestinians, who after the scourge of Israel's Operation Cast Lead nearly one year ago, still await the bare necessities to rebuild, still thirst for clean water and basic sustenance. Netanyahu has been tireless at drawing parallels between Iran and Gaza, presenting them both to the world as dire threats to the existence of the Jewish State. When addressing the UN in New York on September 24, he branded Iran once again, exhorting that. "The struggle against Iran pits civilization against barbarism. This Iranian regime is fueled by extreme fundamentalism. What starts as attacks on Jews always ends up engulfing others. This regime embodies the extremes of Islamic fundamentalism."

Interesting words from a man whose former administration and current administration could very well face the International Criminal Court for the endorsing the carrying out of crimes against humanity.

Such utterances make one wonder, just who in the world are we to trust, and who in the world are we to fear?

For the time being however, one can only hope that the international community reject all attempts to be blinded by Netanyahu's fear mongering, and insist on a stern and decisive investigation into the alleged war crimes in Gaza, as presented in the Goldstone report so that the real culprits, not the imagined ones in Tehran, pay for their heinous crimes against the defenseless people of the Strip.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

But Hijab was not the only one who expressed optimism. Others did, encouraged perhaps, by the report's use of terminology unfamiliar in a conflict where empirical experience has shown that Israeli actions, no matter how outrageously violent, will have no meaningful legal repercussions whatsoever.

Goldstone's report, released on September 15, made some important recommendations, following a most thorough investigation that was carefully compiled by the mission - which was organized by the UN Human Rights Council last April.

One is that the UN Security Council should set up a team of experts to monitor Israel's investigations of the war crimes committed in Gaza. If Israel fails to do so, then the situation should be referred to the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

This raises many questions, lead amongst them is: did Israel commit war crimes in Gaza, and, second, is Israel capable of conducting an honest investigation into those crimes, considering the state's bloody legacy and lack of any serious legal accountability.

Goldstone answers both questions.

"The mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly in some respects crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Force," Goldstone told reporters on September 16. He also said that the Israeli government has carried out no credible investigation.

Despite his recommendations that UN experts follow the progress of the internal investigation by Israel, and the Palestinians (since they too were accused of violating international law by lobbing home-made rockets into Israel, without taking into account the possible harm to civilians) it's puzzling why Goldstone would think that any genuine investigation is possible in the first place.

Goldstone knows, as many of us already do, that the events in Gaza, which resulted in the deaths of 1,387 (other estimates put the number at 1,417, mostly civilians, including over 300 children), the wounding of thousands more, the targeting of an already dilapidating infrastructure (hospitals, police stations, factories, schools, and even chicken farms) of a deprived and besieged society was very much a political decision made at the highest levels by the likes of Olmert, Livni, Barak and other serial criminals who have tormented Palestinians for too long.

Palestinians were also chastised for rockets fired from besieged Gaza. Of course, Goldstone was not expected to justify or applaud the homemade rockets, or even underline their lack of effectiveness, as four Israelis were killed by rocket fire, during the period of the war. Out of the nine Israeli soldiers killed in the fighting, four were killed in friendly fire.

While both Hamas and the PA fully cooperated with Goldstone and his colleagues, Israel fully rejected the mission, refusing entry into Israel or Gaza, forcing the use of alternative routes into the besieged strip, through Egypt.

Israeli officials claim that the report was pre-written, rendering it biased from the start. They used the same predictable pattern of smears, redundant diatribes and predictable language.

Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman said the report created unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization," in reference to Hamas.

Following the good old democracy reference, racism kicks in. "We have nothing to be ashamed of, and don't need lessons in morality from a committee established by Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Somalia," Levy said. Apparently dark-skinned people of the South are both incapable of being democratic or moral. Only Israel and her allies are capable of those qualities.

"The Goldstone report has set a new standard for equating the behavior of democratic nations and terrorists," wrote Richard Sideman, President of the New York-based American Jewish Committee in a letter published in the New York Times on September 18.

The same disingenuous sentiment utilized by Levy and Sideman (how curious that both seemed to be using the same script) echoed by many Israeli officials and their lobbyists abroad, who went into crisis management mode following the release of the report.

But why should they care?

Could it be because Goldstone called on the 192-member General Assembly to establish an escrow fund so that Israel can compensate Palestinians in Gaza? Israel would never spend its hard-earned US tax payers money on such frivolous matters.

Could it be because the Human Rights Council is convening on September 29 in Geneva to discuss the report, and could call for its transfer to the Security Council, and even the ICC?

Could it be because the report's findings might empower an already growing boycott movement world-wide?

Could it be because it's much harder to doubt the credibility of Goldstone, to smear him as anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew?

Could it be because all these factors are escalating Israeli fears that the "era of impunity" is indeed over?

"Perhaps next time we set out to wage another vain and miserable war, we will take into account not only the number of fatalities we are likely to sustain, but also the heavy political damage such wars cause," wrote Israeli columnist Gideon Levy.

One would have to wait for the next miserable war, the next massacre to find out whether Israel has learned its lesson. Until then, thousands of starved, desperate yet resilient Palestinians in Gaza continue to live in their makeshift tents, atop the rubble, which was once called home, awaiting food, cement and international justice.

The 9/11 event should have never taken place. Regardless of the situation, targeting civilians is unconditionally reviled. No matter where we stand on war, and how do we wish to rationalize and define extremism, and even terror, we must pause to remember those who died on that day, and the many, many more who died in the months and years that followed.

Sadly, we must even pause today for those who will die tomorrow, to avenge the victims of the twin towers. 9/11 was a tragedy that should have been studied within the parameters of US foreign policies vis-à-vis Muslim countries, in the Middle East region in particular. If we wish not to venture that far, then an honest look at the period that followed the first Gulf War of 1990-91, and the tragic sanctions that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, is certainly warranted.

Anger, when becomes protracted and multifaceted, is at risk of inspiring extremism and rationalizing terror. But there are other facets to be examined when political violence is to be scrutinized. 9/11 cannot be divorced from surrounding events, preceding tragedies or subsequent ones. By not doing so, one undermines the seriousness of the tragedy.

And while one simply cannot pardon blind hate or terror, how can one honestly argue that the millions who perished in Iraq, prior or following 9/11 ought not to be remembered on that day as well.

Does their fate have any correlation to the tragedy? And what about the many thousands who died in Afghanistan, including the latest 90 people who were burned alive when the NATO forces bombed two fuel tankers in the northern part of the country a few days ago? Do they not deserve commemoration as well? Are not their destinies somehow intimately intertwined? This cannot be denied.

Yet, such a view is overshadowed by another, which in some way reflects man's most basic primal instincts and the lust for sheer revenge. Examining the Bush legacy -- which, if anything, gave life and credence to the idea that violence is a justified political means to achieve set goals and even economic interests -- one comes face to face with the ultimate antitheses of such a notion.

But with the help and expertise of media czars, especially the likes of Fox News, such primeval ways of thinking were embraced with ease. "Shock and Awe" was much more sophisticated than 9/11; it was accompanied by a voice over, and eloquent commentators who kindly explained exactly what we saw on the screen, but the idea was still the same. Innocents died so horribly that political scores would be settled and gains could be exacted. But Barack Obama is not George W. Bush, we are told. The new president has promised to fix what his predecessor had destroyed, and Muslims -- and in fact the world -- are still waiting to see.

When the US president spoke in Cairo, on June 4, he said: "So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope 
of all humanity."

Obama spoke and Muslims listened. They clapped and cheered when he greeted the Cairo crowd with "Assalamu alaikum". As sadly as it were, they were desperate for validation, for hope, that perhaps in the recognition of these common aspirations of which he spoke of, that perhaps there would be some softening of the US iron fist that is slowly strangling Muslims in so many parts of our stricken world.

And although Obama went to great lengths to express a common humanity, his forces continue to ravage Muslims without pause: news from Afghanistan is ever grim. Iraq's calamities are also compared. His statements on Palestine are lukewarm and faithfully precluded with a solemn pledge of America's undying allegiance to the Jewish State.

Keeping these things in mind, it is at times difficult to have full trust in the sincerity of the president's proclamations. Muslims, like the rest of humanity, remember 9/11 with a somber pause. They remember the day's victims, all of them and they wonder if the death count will cease any time soon.

The tragedy of 9/11 and the previous and subsequent tragedies are too serious, too terrible to give up hope so quickly that common sense will prevail, that horrible scenes would be replaced by positive ones, that dialogue would replace hostility, and that Obama will meet even if the minimum expectations of his fans in the Muslim world.

9/11 should not be a political episode to underscore the reason of why the fight in various Muslim countries should continue; nor should it be an opportunity to rejoice at the death of 
the "infidels".

We should collectively abhor the rationalization of violence on the basis of vengeance, and consider what it might take to relieve those afflicted with a sense of hostility: Could it perhaps be that our common aspirations for peace and freedom are somehow out of reach? Could it be possible that we just might be culpable for the denial of those simple aspirations of peace and freedom?

We must embrace again the anguish of what happened on 9/11, ever aware that the body count grows even today. And although the wreckage of that horrible day was cleared away years ago, the lessons of that day are still buried beneath our anger, frustration, and prejudice.

To unearth these lessons, we must widen our horizons, from New York to Baghdad, from Kabul to Gaza, cities, which are in some way worlds apart, but in other ways much closer than we may innocently suspect.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

One should know that public support for the war has greatly diminished, when conservative commentators like The Washington Post columnist George Will write: "US forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy. America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent Special Forces units."

Okay, so his narrative is still ultimately violent, but the fact remains that the war mood is changing. After all, Will's 1 September article was entitled, "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan."

Dan Senor and Peter Wehner responded with a peculiar diatribe in the New York Times, accusing Will of allowing his party allegiance to influence his views on the war. The two authors, senior fellows at major US think tanks, offered a bloody rationale wrapped in deceptive wording. They argued that historically Democrats opposed Republican wars and Republicans have done the same, and that must change. It was implied that pretty much every major war in recent decades was a war that served US national security interests; therefore, "Republicans should resist the reflex that all opposition parties have, which is to oppose the stands of a president of the other party because he is a member of the other party." In other words, yes to war, whether by Democrats or Republicans.

The intellectual wrangling, of course, is not happening in a vacuum; it almost never does. Indeed, there is much politicking going on; intense deliberation in Washington, political debates in London; defensive French statements, and more. It seems that the war in Afghanistan is reaching a decisive point, militarily in Afghanistan itself, and politically in major Western capitals.

But why the sudden hoopla over Afghanistan? For after all, the bloody war has been grinding on for eight long years.

The Taliban and various groups opposing the Kabul government and their Western benefactors are gaining ground, not just in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan. Daring Taliban attacks are now taking place in the north as well, long seen as peaceful, thus requiring little attention. On 26 August a roadside bomb hit the car of the chief of the provincial Justice Department in the northern Kunduz province, killing him, and sending shock waves through Kabul. The bloody message was meant to echo as a political one: no one is safe, nowhere is safe. Another attack was reported in the province of Laghman, in the east, where 22 people, mostly civilians were killed. Among the dead were four Afghan officials including the deputy chief of the National Directorate of Security, Abdullah Laghmani. The irony is too obvious to state.

In Washington, London and Paris politicians wish us to believe that they are not unnerved by all of this. They exaggerated the significance of the recent Afghani elections, attempting to once again underscore that the "crucial" elections placed Afghanistan on a crossroads. Crossroads? What does that even mean, in any practical terms? George Will, although selective in his logic, was honest enough to mention that President Hamid Karzai's "vice-presidential running mate is a drug trafficker." Even US officials admit that the government they've created following the war is corrupt, to say the least.

Richard Holbrooke, among other foreign envoys "responsible for Afghanistan", told reporters in Paris on 2 September that US officials have no preference among the candidates, nor are they particularly interested in runoff elections, but they wished to see a government that appoints "more efficient, less corrupt ministers". It behooves those "responsible for Afghanistan" to remember that inefficiency and corruption were the outcome of the very policies they have so eagerly adopted in the country. No sympathy for Karzai here, but it's unfair to point the finger at a feeble leader whenever a Western strategy fumbles, as it has repeatedly.

Speaking of strategies, what is the plan ahead? French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner promised that foreign troops will stay put in Afghanistan unless the country's security was ensured, reported Xinhua. In practical terms, this means never, for how could security ever visit that region as long as the strategy is hostage to two equally destructive narratives -- the Senor/Wehner troop surges vs Will's "offshore" strategy?

Hubris aside, Washington and London are facing some difficult political and military decisions ahead. Top officials in both capitals are using grim and somber language. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, responding to a call by the top US general in Afghanistan for a fresh approach to the conflict, is considering yet another troop increase as part of Obama's new Afghan strategy.

The sense of urgency was invited by the detailed report of the newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal, who maintains that "success" was still possible, but a change of strategy is needed. The report resulted in intense deliberation in Washington, highlighted by grim press conferences involving the Pentagon's heavyweights, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, over what to do about "Obama's war".

Speaking at the Pentagon, Gates equivocated: "I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers. I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan (but there remains) limited time for us to show that this approach is working."

The details of the new Obama strategy are still not very clear, but the commitment to the war is still unquestionable, as expressed in a "major" 4 September speech by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "When the security of our country is at stake we cannot walk away," said Brown, according to the BBC.

As Brown was solemnly speaking about British security, NATO air strikes on a pair of fuel tankers killed up to 90 people, according to Afghan authorities.

Indeed, the situation in Afghanistan requires a fresh approach, although not the one George Will had in mind.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

A senior official spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity on August 27. "It was more important that the scope of a settlement freeze was acceptable to the Israelis and the Palestinians than to the United States," Reuters reported, citing the senior official. This means that peace negotiations can resume while Israeli bulldozers are carving up Palestinian land, demolishing homes and cutting down trees.

It also means that the Israeli rejection of the only US demand, which has thus far defined President Barack Obama's relations to the Middle East conflict, has prevailed over the supposed American persistence. In other words, the US has officially succumbed to Israeli and pro-Israeli pressures, in Tel Aviv and Washington.

Those not familiar with the connotation of certain terminology in this conflict may not appreciate what it truly means that the US will no longer demand an Israeli halt of the 'natural growth' of its settlements, especially in the occupied Jerusalem area where tens of thousands of Palestinians are vulnerable to Israeli ethnic cleansing. Families like the Hanoun and Ghawi family have been evicted from their homes and thrown out on the street before sunrise. "The police came for them at dawn on a Sunday, heavily armed, wearing helmets and riot shields as they broke down the metal doors of the houses and dragged the two Palestinian families out onto the streets," reported the Guardian on August 24.

The heart-wrenching episodes of innocent people being thrown into the street for no fault of their own, only for the need to make room for more Jewish inhabitants took place before TV cameras and barely required more than a few words of bashful disapproval. That was in fact a political message, sent by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US administration and anyone else who dares to question US settlement policy. It took place when Obama's call for settlement freeze was at its pinnacle. Now, just imagine how Israel will behave, now that the US's lonely demand is officially retracted. The rightwing Israeli government will likely expedite its settlement program to preclude any future demands for freeze. Many more Hanouns and Ghawis, and their children, will find themselves on the pavement for simply not being Jews, even if they are the rightful owners of the land.

The Israeli logic, however, is uncompromisingly clear. Two weeks before the evictions took place, Netanyahu addressed his cabinet, saying that Jerusalem (including occupied East Jerusalem) is "the capital of the Jewish people and of the state of Israel" and that "our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged." He continued, "We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem."

Aside from her unusually 'harsh' statement that the evictions were "deeply regrettable", US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had no answer to the Jerusalemite families pleading for their stolen homes. And now this, more American flexibility.

While Palestinians, and those who support and sympathize with their rightful struggle, are accustomed to Israel's belligerent violations of international and humanitarian law, and direct and indirect US support of Israeli behavior, many had the 'audacity' to hope that things might change under the new US presidency. Obama's speech in Cairo, despite its many flaws, was seen as a promising sign that the US will play a more conducive role in finding a just solution to the conflict and the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinians. It was thought that Obama was planning to start simple, by merely demanding a freeze of the settlement expansion. It's anything but demanding full rights for Palestinians, or even allowing cement, food and medicine to starving Gaza, but it's a start, nonetheless.

And as Palestinians, Israelis, the entire region and world media awaited the outcome of the Obama-Netanyahu battle of wills, Israel carried out all sorts of harms, that also went unnoticed.

Externally, Israel capitalized on the supposed US pressure, to place counter pressure on the US to impose dilapidating sanctions on Iran, provide a timeline for the end of diplomacy aimed at diffusing the hyped tension over Iran's nuclear program, and more. That too was the message that Netanyahu carried with him to the meeting with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell in London, last week.

Still, Israel expected more, demanding - with the blessing of the US - Arab normalization with Israel, in reciprocation for the never actualized willingness to temporarily halt the expansion of settlements. Mitchell was too of the opinion that "Arab states (should) offer some gestures toward normalization of ties with Israel," according to Reuters.

Internally, things took a dramatic turn for the worse. It started with a bill in the Israeli Knesset (parliament) that would jail Arabs who would commemorate the Palestinian Nakba or Catastrophe of 1948, which saw the expulsion of nearly 800,000 Palestinians from their land. Then, there was the new law that enforces the replacement of Arabic lettering on road signs referring to various locations with their Hebrew equivalent, even if these locations have been known by their Arabic names for millennia. These are neither the first nor the last of such fascist roles aimed at denying any trace of a Palestinian (Muslim or Christian) identity to co-exist along with the exclusively 'Jewish character' of Israel.

But that, and much more, was taking place as Palestinians and hopeful others held their breath, waiting for Obama to deliver, until the most recent expression of American flexibility. Now, Palestinians are left with one of two options: to continue to subscribe to the illusion that the US is capable, or even willing to rein in Israel's transgression and exact justice and human rights on their behalf, or to cleanse their midst of self-seeking and corrupt leaders, unify their ranks and continue their struggle for an uncompromisingly free and independent Palestine.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

But nothing could be further from the truth. Since the conclusion of Israel's war last year, the Palestinian Ministry of Health declared that 344 Gaza patients have reportedly been added to the swelling number of casualties.

Khaled Abed Rabbu, once a young father of four is a precise living example, such an eloquent paradigm of what no human being ought to endure in this world laden with international human rights organizations, mediators, advocates and diplomats.

His house was completely destroyed, as were two of his little girls. He buried 7 year old Soad and Amal, just two, soon after burying any hope that Samar his 4 year old daughter's future would be any less bleak.

According to an IslamOnline report, Khaled's wife, Kawthar lined up the children in front of their house in the Jabaliya refugee camp, holding a white flag. But their internationally recognized gesture was disregarded by Israeli forces and the shelling of their home and family commenced. These miserable events unfolded at Christmastime last year, when the Rabbu family was reduced by nearly half.

But since then, they, and a disgracefully large number of other such families, have somehow slipped our minds. Completely surrounded still, and prevented from ever advancing back to point zero, the Israeli siege on Gaza is what one must certainly brand the quintessence of barbarism.

Like in December of 2008, the Israeli blockade means that almost nothing enters or exits Gaza; injured in need of treatment are not allowed exit nor entrance, as is the case with medical supplies, medicine, food and almost anything in-between.

With entire neighborhoods pulverized in the attack, concrete is desperately needed to rebuild the many homes, mosques, hospitals and other structures that were destroyed. That too, is forbidden. And so Khaled, like so many others, has little hope that his home, which has now lain in shambles for the better part of a year, will be restored any time soon.

From September 14 to October 2, 2009, the Human Rights Council will conduct a session where the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will present its report based on the fact finding mission, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, conducted after the Israeli attacks.

Nearly eight months after the bloodletting of Operation Cast Lead, a 34 page report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was released on August 13, pressing for a lifting of the Gaza blockade. The new report, which will be presented along with Goldstone's report in September, lays out the many incomprehensible details of how the Israelis battered the Strip, one of the most impoverished and the most densely populated piece of Planet Earth. The details were laid out, chastising Israel for snubbing the most basic norms of human decency:

"Under the Universal Declaration of Human rights, everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country...and everyone has the right to seek asylum. Such calls were ignored, and the borders of the Gaza Strip remained closed throughout the conflict."

"The right to health of children, set out in article 24 of CRC, is of particular concern in Gaza. United Nations agencies, Ministry of Health officials and health NGOs report that rising poverty, unemployment and food insecurity, compounded by the conflict, have increased the threat of child malnutrition. In January, UNICEF said that 10.3 per cent of Gazan children under five were stunted."

The report continued on, expressing concern that the only export allowed out of Gaza in nearly two years was 13 large truckloads of cut flowers, fully recognizing that the siege was in direct response to the Gazan people exercising their right to elect the Hamas government.

From the denial of food to medical supplies to housing to clean water to education to any basic sense of what is called the "highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" according to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Israel managed, as the report concluded, to deny pretty much every last one.

One has to wonder, and even after so many years of witnessing such amazing ingenuity when it comes to tormenting the Palestinians, does the Israeli government, and further, does the Israeli public feel any sense of shame, remorse or even the slightest embarrassment when the most basic norms of human behavior must be laid out in so elementary a fashion, reminding, and then re-reminding them that it is a fundamental human right to have access to something as basic as food and clean water?

This is a thought that Khaled must ponder from time to time. It is sure that life has been no cake-walk for Khaled, but perhaps this last year has been the most trying of all. Two little ones lost, homeless, and his third of four children struggling to walk in a Belgium hospital.

Sana, his four year old, was supposedly one of the lucky ones on that day, for she survived, and was one of very few that escaped to safety through Egypt's sealed border. But she has two bullets lodged in her tiny spine, so deeply embedded that Belgian surgeons cannot remove them. So now she is paralyzed, her body propped up and supported by a vibrant pink and purple back brace, like a fairy's suit of armor. Chances of ever walking again are grim. Just two or three short years after graduating from a crawl, and now she will most likely be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life, even though her doctors and her mother say that she is desperate to walk again.

And so it seems to be the sad case that this exhaustive 34 page report failed to mention, or perhaps it may be until this point that a clause has never been drafted, declaring the universal right for every little girl and boy to walk.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

The US initiated a sort of "shock and awe" operation in Afghanistan in late 2001, what appeared to many as a knee-jerk reaction to September 11th, in the midst of a half-heartedly supportive but largely bewildered American public. The Bush administration gave many reasons and justifications for that grizzly war, to hunt down Osama Bin Laden, to defeat the newly exposed world-wide network of Al-Qaeda, with its countless numbers of active and "sleeper" cells spread throughout the world. But the so-called Operation Enduring Freedom would not have actualized without an intense propaganda campaign, that once again attempted to paint the US war as an act of liberation. To present the deadly bombs and unforgiving missiles as such, mainstream media decried the mistreatment and abuse of women, learning new and foreboding terms such as "purdah", "burkah" and the like. US public stared hunger and poverty in the eyes on the nightly news, and the US prepared its grief-stricken and enraged nation for decisive and direct action.

And so, the Bush administration and its many spin doctors taught us that there was only one way to reform this nation, eliminating illiteracy, advocating women's rights, improving access to food, proper educational institutions, development, access to healthcare, essentially the hope for a brighter future for a young generation of Afghani children. And their redeeming plan was war.

It is simply arcane to read the bantering of mainstream US commentators these days, as they reflect on the upcoming August 20th elections and ponder what else the US must do to "win hearts and minds of the Afghani people". For one, might I suggest the arrest of the use of drones in targeted assassinations of US enemies. In May 2009, CIA director Leon Panetta delivered a speech where he claimed that, "(Drone) operations have been very effective because they have been very precise in terms of the targeting and it involved a minimum of collateral damage".

But the use of unmanned drones as weapons of war has been decried as so "cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance", according to Lord Bingham, one of Britain's most senior judges, in a recent interview cited in the Independent. "It may be - I'm not expressing a view - that unmanned drones that fall on a house full of civilians is a weapon the international community should decide should not be used."

Lord Bingham's views, as those of others, are supported by ample evidence, of weddings that turned into funerals, and funerals that themselves turned into mass burial grounds.

US enthusiasm regarding the success of the drones has in fact crossed borders into Pakistan, also claiming the lives of hundreds.

Former senior counterinsurgency advisor to the US Army, David Kilcullen told Congress in June 2009 that "Since 2006, we've killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes. In the same period, we've killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area.

Yet, the charade trudges on. Pro-US Afghan President Hamid Karzai continues to stage his government's make-believe democracy, although his loyalists are in continuous decline. Major media continue to cite improvements in people's lives, regardless of contradicting reports by the UN. US officials tirelessly, although unconvincingly prattle of winning hearts and minds, as bomb blasts, drone attacks and death hover over the devastated place. Such a degrading view of human life, say nothing of our intelligence.

But the facts are truly grim. According to a recent UNICEF report, an estimated 22 million Afghans, or 70% of the population, live in poverty and substandard conditions. 40% of children less than three years old are underweight and 54% of children under five are stunted. Over 100,000 people - most of them children and women - remain displaced by conflict and drought.

Contrary to widespread claims of progress, UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes, says the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan has worsened. If fact, in February of this year, and for the first time in 7 years, the UN launched a comprehensive humanitarian action plan to try and alleviate even a small portion of the suffering there. A study conducted by the American Medical Association a few years ago found that two-thirds of Afghans over the age of 15 are depressed. Post traumatic stress disorder was also reported as prevalent, with 41 percent of non-disabled persons showing symptoms. Of the individuals surveyed, 80 percent expressed feelings of hatred. It goes without question that these statistics have ballooned with the rising death tolls that plague the country.

So, there hasn't been the kind of progress once hoped for; not so many schools built, there haven't been so many hospitals established. Hunger and illiteracy, for the most part have remained the same if not on the incline. The refugee population continues to swell, while delivering aid to desperately needy towns and villages becomes increasingly difficult.

But one thing cannot be disputed regarding US contributions to the people of Afghanistan: a lot of people have been ripped to pieces by botched drone operations, a lot of young minds have been molded, through the tragedies that they endure and witness each day, to distrust this notion of "democracy". This dilemma is of great concern to the US Army. In fact, in responding to this very problem, National Security Advisor James L. Jones stated regarding the use of drones in targeted assassinations, "In one mishap you can create thousands of more terrorists than you had before the mishap".

Well, if this is our sole concern, and if the pointless loss of life in itself is not deplored, if the suffering of the Afghanis is only a point of unease when it could potentially breed more "terrorists", then "winning their hearts and minds" is quite simply outside the realm of possibilities.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Indeed, the long delayed Fatah Congress, held in Bethlehem on August 4 has underscored the obvious: the all-encompassing movement which was meant to exact and safeguard Palestinian national rights has grown into a liability that, if anything, will continue to derail the Palestinian national project. This comes at a time when the Palestinian people are in urgent need of a collective response that is strong enough to withstand Israeli military pressure and coercion at home, eloquent enough to communicate the Palestinian message to a global audience, and astute enough to galvanize international support and sympathy to the benefit of Palestinian freedom and independence.

But what we witnessed in Bethlehem was a bizarre manifestation of the discord of self-seeking and self-imposed elites vying for empty titles, worthless positions and hollow prestige. The mockery started when hundreds of additional delegates were invited to join in the already bloated number of Fatah members with the hopes that their presence would bolster the position of this factional leader or that. Oddly, the meeting place was occupied Bethlehem. The delegates of the 'resistance' movement must've passed through Israeli checkpoints and metal detectors to reach their meeting place and talk of hypothetical revolutions and imaginary resistance. Excluded were Fatah members who didn't pass Israeli screening. Perhaps, they were not 'revolutionary' enough for Israeli taste.

Then the show started. One would hope to take an iota of pride in the fact that the delegates were not participants in a typical meet of conformists as is the case in ruling party conferences throughout the region. But this would be self-deceiving. The heated discussions which evolved into screaming matches, were of little relevance to the struggles and challenges facing the Palestinian people at home and abroad. It was not the plight of Gaza, nor the cause of the refugees, nor the best method of garnering international solidarity that invited the ire of most respected members. The disputes were most personal. A so-called younger generation trying to exact greater representation in the movement's 21-strong Central Committee and the 120-member Revolutionary Council from the so-called Old Guard.

Many news reports reduced the ongoing turmoil in Fatah to sound bites and half-truths. The old recycled gibberish of 'moderate' Fatah was once more juxtaposed to 'extremist' Hamas; the latter's violence with the former's investment in a pretend 'peace process', those who want to live in peace, 'side-by-side' with Israel and those who want to 'annihilate' the Jewish State.

"Now the Palestinians - like the Israelis and the international backers of Fatah - are waiting to see the results," reported the New York Times. True, but Palestinians were waiting for entirely different reasons.

Fatah has changed over the years. It started as a resistance movement of well-intended members, mostly students and young professionals in the 1950's and 60's. The young leadership was motivated by various factors, chief amongst them were the plight of the refugees, the lack of a truly independent Palestinian leadership and the failure of Arab governments to deliver on their promises to liberate Palestine. Resistance was in fact the core of Fatah's liberation program.

One of the movement's founders once wrote: "It was not only the experiences and the errors of our predecessors which helped guide our first steps. The guerrilla war in Algeria, launched five years before the creation of Fatah, had a profound influence on us. We were impressed by the Algerian nationalists' ability to form a solid front, wage war against an army a thousand times superior to their own, obtain many forms of aid from various Arab governments, and at the same time avoid becoming dependent on any of them."

Over the years, whether out of political of military necessity, internal divisions or any other factors, Fatah grew into a melting pot encompassing romantic revolutionaries and poets, wealthy elites and shifty politicians. It was a strange balance, but a balance nonetheless, which kept suspicious Palestinians hopeful that the revolutionary elements in Fatah would eventually prevail. But following Yasser Arafat's signing of the Oslo Accord with Israel, in 1993, the millionaires and their dubious politician allies won, turning Fatah into a giant company, feeding on the empty rhetoric of 'peace', financed by international donors, and operated by the movement's 'pragmatic' elements, who allied themselves with Israel to preserve their gains, however insignificant.

That is why "Palestinians (were) waiting", perhaps with the hope that Fatah would once more revert to its founding principles, with a coherent national project, stipulating unity of purpose and clarity of aim. It was not that Palestinians were hungry for violent resistance and eager to blow things up, but they longed for a Fatah that would once more institute resistance as an idea, as a culture, with all of its manifestations, infused as necessary. They wanted Fatah to go back to the basics, own up to the struggle of its people, as opposed to the quisling rhetoric that turned Palestine into a collection of political tribes, each armed with NGO's, newsletters and bloated bank accounts in various European capitals.

One wants to decry this shameful episode in the history of the Palestinian struggle, but one ought to remember that history has a way of repeating itself. The faltering Fatah that was once established to represent the aspirations of the downtrodden Palestinian refugees is now facing the same historical imperative that other failed movements have faced in the past. If Fatah fails to reclaim itself as a true national liberation movement, an umbrella that unites every facet of Palestinian society, then it will soon splinter and eventually dissolve, if not entirely disappear. But true challenge will remain; whether those who will carry the torch will learn from the "experiences and the errors of (their) predecessors." Time will tell.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

This is hardly a cliché. People living under oppressive rules take every opportunity to express defiance, even through such symbolic ways.

Born and raised in Nuseirat Refugee Camp in the Gaza Strip, I remember my first kite. It, like most kites, carried the colors of the flag. The kite was the work of my older brother, now a successful medic in the West Bank. He obliged before my incessant cries for a kite despite my father's objections. But why should a father object to something so seemingly harmless? Simple.

A notorious Israeli military camp and detention center was stationed on the outskirts of our refugee camp, between Nuseirat and Buraij. The military camp served multiple purposes. It was to immediately dispatch troops into our refugee camp at the first sign of protest. Further, the men stationed there guarded a nearby Jewish settlement. Finally, it also served as a temporarily prison where Palestinian activists suffered torture before being hauled off to Gaza's central prison, or worse, Al-Nakab.

The military camp however, hardly enjoyed a moment of peace. Students and other refugees from adjacent refugee camps would descend into the Israeli military grounds, almost daily with marches; carrying flags, throwing stones and demanding that the soldiers' depart. Of course, the soldiers didn't oblige, and my refugee camp paid a heavy price in blood with every confrontation.

In the summer, in Gaza's scorching heat and humidity, we had two escapes, swimming in the sea and flying kites. The first option was interminably blocked by the Israeli military under various guises. During the Intifada of 1987-93, the sea fell under Israeli siege. My house was very short walk from the beach, yet somehow, we spent over seven years without visiting it once. Not once. And so kite running became the most favored pastime.

Gaza's children don't buy ready-made-kites. There was no such thing. They construct them by hand and with unparalleled craftsmanship. To be entirely honest, I was terrible at making kites, as I am at anything that requires manual skills. The kite maker in the family was my older brother Anwar. His skill was both impressive and troubling. The source of trouble lied in the fact that children made kites carrying the colors of the flags and other symbols of resistance at the time, such as the initials: P.L.O. They often flew them to be visible from the Israeli military camp, and if the wind was right, right on top of it. The cleverest amongst the kite runners were those who managed to drop the kite, in an unprecedented moment of sacrifice, to fall right into the military camp.

During the Uprising's summers, there would be dozens of kites, all red, black, green and white wavering atop the Israeli military camp and temporary detention center. The soldiers would often fly into a rage, storm the camp, seeking their target: children with kites. We could determine the location of the raid when all the kites from a particular location would fall from the sky in unison.

One afternoon, I sat upon the staircase of our home in the camp, a white cinderblock home, adorned with patriotic graffiti. It was safe to fly my kite as my father was in Israel, joining tens of thousands of Palestinians who negotiated a living wage under the harshest of circumstances. Out of nowhere, Israeli jeeps leapt into the open area, separating my house from the Martyrs Graveyard. Children ran in panic. Teargas grenades were lobbed in frenzy. Kites fell all around like wounded eagles. I too ran, in circles, without letting go of my kite.

It was not bravery. Far from it. I was frightened beyond comprehension. But it took me months to finally have a kite, and when I finally had one, and an amazingly beautiful one at that, I was not ready to let go. A jeep sped towards me, as my hand trembled. "You, jackass," a soldier yield in a loudspeaker. "Let go of the kite." And so I did. When I was asked why I was crying, many hours later, I told my brothers that my eyes were still irritated from the tear gas. But that was a lie.

It was because of this bittersweet memory, perhaps, that the news reports of Gaza's children aiming for the world record on the number of kites flown stimulatingly in the same place, captured my attention. John Ging, the director of operations for the UN Relief and Works Agency assured reporters that the 5,000 children who gathered by the beach in northern Gaza, on July 30, have indeed broken the record. The previous record was set in Germany in 2008, and if the new feat is verified by Guinness, Gaza's kids will have taken the lead with "flying colors".

UN officials in Gaza, media reporters and others saw the kite flying event as an expression of innocence in a time when Gaza lives its harshest periods yet: suffocating siege, massacres, and collective humiliation. But the message was, of course, neither about kites, nor about world records. It was about the children of Gaza, in fact, Gaza itself, that tiny, subjugated, yet ever resilient, defiant, proud and somehow still hopeful place.

As for me, I never knew of the whereabouts of my old kite when I so reluctantly let it go. I was comforted by the thought that it might have fallen into the detention center, but I was never sure. It was my first kite ever, and I never asked for another one despite my older brother's repeated offers.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

It must be frustrating for Israeli policymakers and their friends and backers elsewhere to stand idle as Iran openly carries on with its nuclear-enrichment program, facing nothing but United States and European chest-thumping and a mere threat of more sanctions, which will unlikely bend Iranian resolve.

It's doubly frustrating considering the relative ease that led the US, its timid coalition and Israeli cheerleaders to unleash a war against Iraq. Alas, those days are long gone. Now, the US is anxiously cloaking its failure in Iraq by pressing the need to tend to more urgent battles elsewhere, namely Afghanistan.

Regardless of why the US targeted Iraq, and why its objectives were not met, Israel's own calculations were a surprising success, as the Iraqi menace (manufactured or real) has been eliminated, and the ghost of chaos will likely haunt that unfortunate country for years to come.

Now, it's Iran's turn. In fact, it has been Iran's turn for years, but nothing seems to be moving on that front. If the Iraq experiment were successful, the US would have definitely jumped at the opportunity to trample Iran, an oil-rich country with crucially strategic positioning. Controlling Iran would have been the missing piece of the puzzle that would push the borders of US control and influence to lock horns, if necessary with the emerging Asian giants, and of course, Russia.

But a US military move against Iran, under the current circumstances, is no less than military suicide. Iraq has established the limits of US military capabilities, inspiring the Taliban to ascertain their own. July 2009 has gone down in history as the month with the highest causalities among US forces. Deadly July is promising many repeats as daring Taliban and all sorts of tribal militias in Afghanistan emerge stronger and savvier than before.

A large-scale US military attack, and needless to say, invasion and subsequent occupation, of Iran is simply not feasible. If such imprudence ever actualized, all hell would break loose in Iraq as well, considering the solid political and sectarian ties that unite both countries, which also share an infinite border.

This is precisely the source of frustration among Israeli officials, who have counted on US military generosity to bully Israel's enemies, or, as was the case in Iraq, to take them down.

Israeli frustration must have also turned into sheer rage when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once more brought up the subject of a "defense umbrella" over the Middle East to shield it from a future nuclear Iran.

"If the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to develop the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it is unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon," she was quoted as saying in a Thai television interview.

Clinton's reinvention of the defense umbrella idea - introduced in a March 4 report by a pro-Israeli think-tank, Washington Institute on Near East Policy (WINEP) - stands at odds with her enthusiastic promise to "totally obliterate" Iran should it attack Israel, while trying to lure in supporters during her last year's run for presidential nomination. It seems that the US - despite the use of threatening language - is edging towards living with and "containing" a nuclear Iran, but, expectedly, Israel is not.

The right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now maneuvering to entice a tougher US position towards Iran, especially as the recent internal destabilization of the Islamic Republic failed to deliver. Israeli maneuvers are both political and military. The Times reported on a quid pro quo deal where Israeli "concessions" regarding its illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territories are to be reciprocated with a Western nod for an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. "Israel has chosen to place the Iranian threat over its settlements," a senior European Union diplomat told The Times on July 16.

That political scheme was supplemented by a show of force, as two Israeli missile-class warships and a submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike were reportedly permitted to sail through the Egyptian Suez Canal for the first time. The unprecedented deployment into the Red Sea was meant as a signal that Iran is within Israeli range. The message, however, carried perhaps a deeper political meaning - that Israel is capable of striking Iran with the help of regional allies. In other words, Israel is hardly the isolated party in this conflict. More, considering serious US attempts aimed at weakening the Syria-Iran alliance, the Suez Canal message was even more politically loaded, although its military value is yet to be determined.

Militarily, things are not very promising, as the highly touted Israeli military exercise - conducted recently in the United States - registered little success. Israel called off tests of its Arrow anti-missile system due to technical problems. The Arrow program, which is half-funded by the United States, is meant to intercept and destroy such Iranian missiles as the Shehab-3.

As the US military option against Iran largely dissipates, Israel's frustration and worries grow. If Iran is not neutralized militarily - as the US did Iraq - then a nuclear Iran is a matter of time. If Israel strikes Iran, there are no guarantees that such an act - which will certainly harm US strategic interests - will in any way destroy, or even slow down the Iranian nuclear program.

The US and its European allies seem out of ideas regarding how to deal with Iran, leaving Israel with a major conundrum: either living in the potential shadow of a nuclear Iran, as a long-term regional power, or striking the Islamic Republic with the hope that its erroneously perceived "shaky" regime will quickly crumble, leaving the US to pick up the pieces, and the whole region to deal with the chaos that will surely follow.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Nearly five years have passed since Arafat died. During those years, a number of high-ranking Palestinian leaders, especially from the Hamas movement, have been assassinated by Israel in various and consistently gory methods. Among Palestinians, Arafat is referred to like all those killed by Israel, as a "martyr", an indication of the widespread belief that his death was hardly the result of natural causes.

If Arafat was indeed killed and since his death was not caused by an Israeli airstrike or an assassin's bullet, a key question has been lingering, giving rise to all sorts of answers -- who killed Arafat and how?

Israelis made little secret of their desire to see Arafat dead. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expressed regret in a newspaper interview on Feb. 1, 2002 that he hadn't killed Arafat decades earlier when he had had the chance. Sharon told Israeli newspaper Maariv that he should have "eliminated" Arafat during the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. "Do you regret it (not killing Arafat)?" he was asked. "Certainly, yes," he replied.

On the day of Arafat's death, BBC news carried comments by then Israeli opposition leader Shimon Peres, saying it is "good that the world is rid of him...The sun is shining in the Middle East." Held hostage in his bullet-riddled West Bank office for years, Arafat represented an international embarrassment for Israel. He was not "moderate" enough to concede all Palestinian rights, but 'moderate' enough to maintain an aura of international attention and support among Arab, Muslim, European and other nations.

Still, in the minds of some, Arafat was determined, and often declared to represent an 'obstacle'. The PA's truly "moderate" camp disliked him for his tireless compromises aimed at preventing factional infighting, thus blocking their attempts at dominating Palestinian society. Israel despised him for numerous reasons, not least his refusal to "concede" issues of paramount importance, such as refugees and Jerusalem. The Bush administration took every opportunity to discredit, discount and insult him, constantly propping up an "alternative" leadership, namely, Mahmoud Abbas, Mohammed Dahlan and others.

Strangely enough, even Abbas and other high-ranking PA officials refer to Arafat as a "martyr," especially whenever they need to capitalize on his legacy among low-ranking Fatah members and ordinary Palestinians. But the story was meant to end here, with Abbas and Dahlan, carrying the torch of Arafat the "martyr" as they continue with their rhetoric-based "revolution" to liberate Palestine. That was the case until the second highest-ranking Fatah member and one of the PLO's most visible leaders, Farouk Qaddoumi, went public with a document that contained some unanticipated surprises: that Abbas and Dahlan, along with Sharon, US Undersecretary of State William Burns, and others jointly plotted the assassination of Arafat. Qaddoumi's document contained the minutes of that meeting, in 2004.

Qaddoumi broke the news in a press conference in Amman, Jordan on July 12, 2009, asserting that Arafat had entrusted him with the minutes of that secret meeting involving top Israeli, Palestinian and American leaders and officials. The plot, according to Qaddoumi included the assassination of other Palestinian leaders, some of them have indeed been assassinated since while others are still alive, thanks to the failure of Israeli missiles and car bombs.

Expectedly, the Ramallah-based Fatah leaders launched fierce verbal attacks against Qaddoumi, questioning his objectives, timing and even his sanity. Abbas accused Qaddoumi of wanting to torpedo the Fatah faction's long-delayed congress, scheduled to convene in Bethlehem on Aug. 4. "He (Qaddoumi) knows full well that this information is false; he has released it to undermine the convention but we are continuing with the preparations," Abbas said. Qaddoumi had in fact criticized the convention of a supposedly 'revolutionary' movement held with Israeli consent, if not support.

The fact is, we may never know the authenticity of Qaddoumi's report without an independent investigation or irrefutable evidence. However, just as with Arafat's death, conclusive evidence is not always required for the public to formulate an opinion. Considering Israel's threats to Arafat, Palestinians have no reason to believe that Israel did not kill him. Similarly, ordinary Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, have little reason to trust that corrupt Palestinians were not involved in Arafat's death. A clique of the Palestinian elite have made it clear that their personal interests surpass those of the Palestinian people; Dahlan openly advocated the toppling of an elected government in Gaza as the Ramallah-based "revolutionary" movement, was dispatching US-armed and trained Palestinian fighters to crack down on Israel's enemies in various West Bank towns.

As bizarre as all of this may sound, it is at least enough to explain why Palestinians are willing to believe the recent statements made by Qaddoumi, a respected figure among all Palestinian factions. True, Qaddoumi's accusations have yet to be authenticated by an independent investigation, but they are made in a fractious, if not peculiar political context that makes them most plausible and, in a sense, that is the real tragedy.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

The tireless efforts of British MP George Galloway, and the courageous endeavors of the Free Gaza movement have managed to push Gaza back into the spotlight, even if momentarily and with political context which is lacking at best.

Aside from that, the three-week Israeli onslaught in Gaza, starting December 27 - and the catastrophic conditions endured there - have served the purpose of a footnote in many news reports. The event is generally cited as such: "Israel moved against Hamas in Gaza to quell the firing of militants' rockets, resulting in the death of such and such number." Hamas, according to media conventional wisdom, is the "militant group that ousted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' forces in a bloody coup in mid 2007."

Sadly, ones worse fears have actualized, where the post-Gaza massacre world and the one which existed prior are exactly the same. Israel is trying to prove that political and military might overpower all human rights reports combined, and that public opinion - which turned against Israel as it wantonly killed and wounded thousands - will eventually turn back in Israel's favor. One does not need to be an expert in the art of propaganda to predict the public relations model that would allow Israel to deceive millions into believing that the belligerent state is in fact a victim in a sea of hostile Arabs hell-bent on subjugating the Jewish State. Thus it was hardly a deviation from the script when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used a most shrewd term to depict his governments' refusal to respect international law regarding the dismantling of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, all considered illegal under international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention. He said during his recent trip to Germany that the West Bank will never be "Judenrein" a Nazi term meaning "cleansed of Jews".

And once again, Israel is resorting to its traditional propaganda (such as equating Palestinians with Nazis), drawing on people's historical sympathies, guilt and ignorance of false analogies.

More, Israel's National Security Advisor Uzi Arad is in fact reviving the discredited Israeli rhetoric that Israel has no partner in peace, in comments made to Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Friday, July 10. He questioned whether there is in fact a Palestinian leadership that is capable of delivering peace with Israel. If such a Palestinian state would exist, say in 2015 - according to Arad - it would be a "fragile structure. A house of cards." But he chose to omit that Israel purposely besieged and weakened the democratically elected Palestinian leadership in Gaza, while painstakingly propping and legitimizing Abbas. using with astounding mastery, the carrot and the stick metaphor.

Only Israel can cleverly spawn a dependent, weak leadership, and accuse the Palestinians of not being a worthy peace partner; only Israel can murder thousands of Palestinians and demand security from its very victims; only Israel can caution of a Nazi past, yet cage Palestinians in concentration camps, punish them for recklessly subscribing to the wrong God, or foolishly falling into the wrong race.

It has six months since the unprecedented and savage war against Palestinians in Gaza, and here we are making the same argument, referencing the same deceit and quoting the same outrageous claims. During those same months, unsubstantiated Israeli accounts were countered with carefully composed reports by highly regarded organizations, such as the Red Cross, among others. Bombarded Gaza neighborhoods "look like the epicenter of a massive earthquake," said a recent Red Cross report, entitled: "Gaza: 1.5 million trapped in despair."

UN human rights envoy, Richard Falk summed up Israeli behavior in more direct terms, on Thursday, July 9. "There will be no peace between these two peoples, until Israel shows respect for Palestinian rights under international law," Professor Falk said.

Israeli leaders however pay no heed to international law. In fact there is little evidence that Israel's history was shaped, in any respect, by international standards, neither those pertaining to war nor peace. Israel only understands the language of politics and power. It is a state that has been constructed, and sustained upon Machiavellian wisdom. Advisor Arad is perhaps the most visible manifestation of the logic that propels the Israeli state. In his recent interview, he demanded that once a state deal is reached with the Palestinians, Israel should be granted a NATO membership as a "quid pro quo". To counter nuclear threats by others, he said, Israel must have "tremendously powerful weapons". Considering that Israel already has nuclear arms, one has to wonder to what other "tremendously powerful weapons" Arad is referring. Arad must've been encouraged by US Vice President Joe Biden who said in a recent interview with ABC's "This Week" that "If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursed now (by the US and its allies), that is their sovereign right to do that."

Once again, it is the brute logic that "might makes right" pursued by those with the bigger guns, that continues to menace the Middle East, with Gaza being the most devastating example.

One must remember that Israel never heeds to statements, and is hardly moved by reports and random condemnations. Only pressure, constant and focused, will grab the attention of Israeli policymakers. Only the language of an international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions will translate in Tel Aviv to a legible political language. As for Gaza, civil society must not wait for President Obama or any other to save the slowly starving population, but must take every possible and urgent effort to help an oppressed yet proud community to redeem its basic rights and freedom.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Meanwhile, top US administration and army officials cautioned Iraqis of their own recklessness. "Biden Warns Iraq About Reverting to Sectarian Violence," read a New York Times headline. "What will it take to make a good exit from Iraq?" inquired a Kansas City Star analysis. But missing from news headlines and commentary was any indication of direct US responsibility for the genocide that has befallen Iraq.

How can one claim that US ambitions in Iraq have altered if the ongoing legacy in Iraq is being perceived as a strategic mistake, rather than a moral one?

One thing remains the same, for sure: and that is the arrogance that has long permeated US relations with Iraq. "The president and I appreciate that Iraq has traveled a great distance over the past year, but there is a hard road ahead if Iraq is going to find lasting peace and stability," said Vice President Biden during a visit to Baghdad on July 3rd. Biden's remarks were saturated with the same hubris that defined the former administration's attitude towards Iraq for years: 'we did our share, that of liberating you, and now its your turn to take charge of your own security', type of rhetoric. "It's not over yet," Biden said. Ironically, he is right, since that could only mean the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the end of foreign meddling in the country's affairs, and the removal of corrupt politicians that have destroyed the country's national identity in favour of sectarian camps endlessly fighting for dominance and privilege. Indeed, it's anything 
but over.

It's true that the majority of Americans now accept the once rebuked claim that the Iraq war was predicated on a lie, and readily blame former President Bush for drawing the country into a costly war that should have never happened. President Obama's arrival has seemingly ushered in a new discourse of honesty and national introspection.

Although one wants to believe that the new administration is sincere in seeking an exit strategy from Iraq, one is hardly sure that the US is ready to divorce itself from the war-scarred country. There is little reason, aside from tactical redeployment, that should compel antiwar sentiments to weaken, or self-respecting commentators to halt their questioning of US intentions.

The terms "exit" and "exit strategy" are now dominating media discourse regarding Iraq. Some attribute this new language to the new administration. The odd fact is that the recent US army redeployment is not the brainchild of the Obama administration, but a provision of a November 2008 agreement signed between the Iraqi government of Nouri Al Maliki and the Bush administration. Talk of exiting Iraq indeed preceded the entrance of Obama. The new US administration simply honoured previous commitments. As per official statements, following the June 30 redeployment, the US is expected to reduce its forces by 50,000 troops by August 2010, and then many of those remaining by the end of 2011.

So, 2012 will witness a fully independent Iraq, right? Wrong. "Many studying Iraq believe the US will end up negotiating with Baghdad to establish a couple of permanent military bases," writes Matt Schofield. "Those could be essential to leaving behind a stable government, a military loyal to the nation and capable of defending it, and a country that has the backing of the people." Those who wish to decipher such deceptive language should comprehend the permanent US military presence as permanent occupation. Indeed, the US doesn't have to be present on every Iraqi street corner to officially occupy the country. The sectarian Iraqi army and police - US armed and trained - should be enough to carry out US wishes in Iraq (under the guise of fighting terrorists), while the US will "stand ready, if asked and if helpful, to help in that process," as explained by Biden.

Iraq headlines will eventually fade away, making space for the new escalation in Afghanistan, also in the name of fighting terror, bringing democracy and all the rest.

The faces of the victims will be hidden so as not to harm our sensibilities, and causality figures will be manipulated, contested and at times blamed on the coward terrorists who hide among civilians. In other words, the US will take the spirit of its Iraq war to Afghanistan, remain in Iraq - as inconspicuous as possible - so as to hold onto its strategic military achievement, and, if necessary, blame both nations for their growing misfortunes.

However, before we take our eyes off Iraq, Americans must remember their own culpabilities in what transpired there. Antiwar activists and people of conscience must not forget that 130,000 US soldiers remain in the country; that the US has complete control over Iraqi airspace and territorial water; that there is not yet a reason to celebrate and move on. Even if one is trusting enough to believe the administration and army's own account of its future in Iraq, one should recall comments made by Admiral Mike Mullen last February: "Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a 'residual force' of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down terrorist cells and guard American institutions."

One may be truly eager to see a sovereign, democratic and stable Iraq, but such hopes must not occur at the expense of truth and common sense.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

On June 25, Damascus-based leader of the Islamic group's political bureau, Khaled Meshaal reiterated Hamas' rejection of recognizing Israel as a Jewish State, rightfully dubbing such a designation as "racist, no different from Nazis and other calls denounced by the international community." However, he did endorse the idea of a two-state solution, which envisages the creation of an independent Palestinian state on roughly 22 percent of the land of historic Palestine.

The announcement was hardly earth shattering, for other Hamas leaders have alluded, or straightforwardly agreed to the same notion in the past. But what was in fact altered is the language used by Hamas' leaders to endorse the illusive and increasingly unfeasible possibility of two states. Meshaal's language was largely secular, while past Hamas references to the same principle were engulfed in religious idiom. For example, in past years Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state in all of the occupied territories, conditioned on the removal of Jewish settlements, under the provision of a long-term 'hunda', or truce. The term 'hudna' is loaded with implicit religious inferences, and was used to present Hamas' political views as both pragmatic, but also based on time-honored Islamic political tradition.

Ahmed Yousef, chief advisor to the deposed Hamas government in Gaza alluded to the concept of 'hudna' in various writings and media interviews. But his calls sounded more like an attempt to find common space between the Islamic movement's firm religious beliefs and US-led international pressure aimed at forcing Hamas into the same political camp which discredited rival Fatah. But Ahmed Yousef's variation in rhetoric cannot be understood as synonymous with Meshaal's recent political revelations.

The boycott of the elected Hamas government in 2006, and the orchestrated violence that led to a Hamas takeover, and subsequent isolation and siege of the Gaza Strip, were all meant to force Hamas to 'moderate' its position. Immense collective suffering was endured throughout the Gaza Strip in order for Israel and its backers, including the Palestinian leadership based in the West Bank to force Hamas out of its ideological trenches to join the 'pragmatic' camp, which saw little harm in fruitless political compromises.

Hamas' steadfastness was enough to further demonstrate its revolutionary credence and patriotic credentials to most Palestinians and their supporters around the Middle East and the world. Hamas impressed many, not because of its theological references, but political resilience and refusal to be intimidated. In some way, Hamas achieved the same revolutionary status and recognition as that of Fatah in the 1960's.

It was not until the Israeli war against largely defenseless Gaza starting December 2008, that Hamas seemed politically self-assured, and for good reason. After all, it was a democratically elected movement representing Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Their rivals' failure to accommodate the new political reality, and incessant Israeli attempts at destroying the movement and imprisoning scores of its elected parliamentarians were not enough to de-legitimize it. Then Israel unleashed one of its grizzliest campaigns against Palestinians, aimed largely at civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza. The Israeli war was meant to achieve more than the killing of 1,350 (including 437 children) and the wounding of 5,450 others. It was aimed at disturbing the Palestinian psyche that began seeing a world of possibilities beyond the confining and shallow promises of peace infused by the Oslo peace process, which only served to ingrain occupation and entrench illegal settlements.

International solidarity was building up slowly prior to the Israeli attack. As Israeli bombs began raining atop Gaza's mostly civilian infrastructure, international solidarity exploded throughout the world. Israel's brutal folly served to legitimize the very group it was meant to crush. The voices that tirelessly demanded Hamas to live up to fixed conditions, handed down by the so-called Middle East peace quartet, were overshadowed by voices demanding the US and various Western powers to recognize and engage Hamas. A lead voice amongst them is former US President Jimmy Carter, one of the first influential Western personalities to engage Hamas, and to break the news that Hamas "would accept a two-state peace agreement with Israel as long as it was approved by a Palestinian referendum or a newly elected government." (Guardian, April 22, 2008)

Carter's insistence on involving Hamas in any future peace arrangement took him from Damascus, to Cairo to the West Bank, then, to Gaza. His recent visit to the Strip on June 16 was more than that of solidarity, but it was aimed at convincing Hamas to agree to the vision of two states and the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. The alternative conditions are meant to present a more dignified exit than the belligerent and one-sided demands of the quartet. It's unclear whether Hamas would fully embrace his call. But what is clear is that Hamas is sending various signals, such as its willingness to engage in dialogue with the Obama administration, and, again, acceptance of the two-state solution, which according to any reasonable estimation of the Israeli 'facts on the ground' created in occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank, is now a far-fetched possibility.

Needless to say, Hamas as a political movement, with an elected government with some jurisdiction over nearly one-third of the Palestinian people has the right, and even more, the obligation to politically maneuver, reposition and even re-brand itself. Breaking the siege on Gaza requires steadfastness, true, but political ingenuity as well. That said, Hamas must be wary of the political, and historic price that will be paid if it fails to learn from the experience of the discredited and corrupted Fatah. Palestinian rights are enshrined in international law, and corroborated by the endless sacrifices of the Palestinian people, in Gaza and elsewhere. Therefore, the price of engagement, dialogue and political validation must not happen at the expense of the Palestinian people wherever they are, as stipulated in numerous UN resolutions including 194, pertaining to the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

One could also question the US government's own moral legitimacy; classifying the world into watch lists, congratulating some and reprimanding and sanctioning others, while the US itself has thus far (and for nine consecutive reports starting 2000) been immune to self-criticism.

Undoubtedly, the political hubris and self- righteous underpinnings of the report are disturbing, but that hardly represents an end to the argument. The fact remains that the report's rating of over 170 countries is thorough and largely consistent with facts as observed, reported by the media and examined in other comprehensive reports on the same issue. Indeed, the UN's own Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, launched by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in February 2009, affirms much of the State Departments' findings regarding patterns of abuse reported around the world, most notably in Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.

The report examined governmental responses to the exploitation of people, including children, for the purposes of forced labour, sex and stolen organs. At least 12.3 million adults and children are used to sustain the thriving business of modern-day slavery, though the real number is probably much higher given that human traffickers have little interest in divulging exact data.

The global financial crisis has fuelled the demand for cheap labour, making the exploitation of the most vulnerable people part and parcel of the economic recovery plans of many companies, and even countries. Under these circumstances, there should be little doubt that the UN's once promising campaign to eradicate much of the world's hunger by 2015 is already a pipedream.

One of the testimonies cited in the State Department's report was that of Mohamed Selim Khan, who "woke up in a strange house and felt an excruciating pain in his abdomen. Unsure of where he was, Khan asked a man wearing a surgical mask what had happened. 'We have taken your kidney,' the stranger said. 'If you tell anyone, we'll kill you.'"

Khan's experience epitomizes the nightmare of millions of people around the world, as they struggle to provide for hungry families. Their plight is no secret. It can be seen on the streets of many cities around the world, from Europe to Asia and Central America to the Gulf, where worn out, haggard looking men in dirty uniforms are working long hours for little pay, trapped between pressing needs at home and the merciless demands of their "recruitment agencies".

But cheap or forced labor is not the only form of human trafficking. According to the UN's Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, based on data collected in 155 countries, "the most common form of human trafficking [79 per cent] is sexual exploitation".

IRIN News, affiliated with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, reported on 18 June that "women from the former Soviet Union and China are still being trafficked across the border with Egypt into Israel for forced prostitution by organized criminal groups". Israel has been identified as a "prime destination for trafficking by both the State Department and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime". One Israeli gang alone, according to the report, has trafficked over 2,000 women into Israel and Cyprus in the last six years.

One has to wonder the wisdom of international conferences and global efforts aimed at cracking down on Gazans smuggling food and medicine across the same Egyptian border to survive the Israeli siege when almost no efforts have been dedicated to ending the stark exploitation and abuse of thousands of women enriching Israel's sex industry.

Dare I say that while human trafficking is itself an apolitical issue, recognizing and combating, or failing to combat, the problem is very much political. Think of the banking crisis, which fuelled a global recession, and the way astronomical amounts of money have been dedicated to solving it, trillions of dollars in global bailouts ultimately rewarding those who caused the crisis in the first place. Compare these efforts to the pathetic attempts at halting the disgraceful commercialization of humans, their organs, their sexuality, their very humanity.

The problem is now compounded. UN food officials declared on 19 June that hunger around the world has passed the unprecedented threshold of one billion, that is one in six people. The alarming increase of 100 million hungry children, women and men from last year's estimates is blamed on the economic recession. While international institutions are efficient at recognizing such problems, proposed solutions often lack sincerity, or any sense of urgency.

"A hungry world is a dangerous world," said Josette Sheeran of the World Food Programme. "Without food, people have only three options: they riot, they emigrate or they die." They also become products in markets ready to exploit those whose very survival is at stake.

When Julia, from the Balkans, was eight years old, she was taken along with her sisters to a neighboring country, where she was sold to beg. She was beaten every time she failed to return with her fixed quota of money. Once she became a teenager she was forced into prostitution. After escaping she was placed in a government orphanage from which she also escaped, returning to the streets. According to the State Department report, eventually "Julia was arrested on narcotics charges".

Can this injustice be any more obvious?

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Iran's presidential elections on June 12 were positioned to represent another fight between Middle Eastern 'moderates' vs. 'extremists'. That depiction, which conveniently divided the Middle East - according to the prevailing US foreign policy discourse - to pro-American and anti-American camps was hardly as clear in the Iranian case as it was in Palestine and most recently in Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad's main rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi served as Iran's Prime Minister for 8-years (between 1981-1989) during one of Iran's most challenging times, its war with Iraq. He was hardly seen as a 'moderate' then. More, Moussavi was equally adamant in his country's right to produce atomic energy for peaceful means. As far as US interests in the region are concerned, both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi are interested in dialogue with the US, and are unlikely to alter their country's attitudes towards the occupation of Iraq, their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. Neither is ready, willing or, frankly, capable of removing Iran from the regional power play at work in the Middle East, considering that Iranian policies are shaped by other internal forces beside the president of the country.

This is not to suggest that both leaders are one and the same. For the average Iranian, statements made by Ahmadinejad and Moussavi during Iran's lively election campaigns did indeed promise major changes in their lives, daily struggles and future. But yet again, the two men were caricatured to present two convenient personalities to the outside world, a raging nuclear-obsessed man, hell-bent on 'wiping Israel off the map", and a soft-spoken, learned 'moderate' ready to 'engage' the West and redeem the sins of his predecessor.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the first negative image - tainted as such by mainstream media, and years of image manipulation by forces dedicated to the interest of Israel - won. The election outcome in Iran presents the young Obama with a major challenge: if he carries on with his diplomatic approach and soft overtures towards Iran, ruled by a supposed Holocaust-denier, he will certainly be seen as a failed president, who dared to perceive Israel's interests in the region as secondary; on the other hand, Obama cannot depart from his country's new approach towards Iran, a key player in shaping the contending forces in the entire region.

In some way, Ahmadinejad's victory was the best news for Israel. Now, Tel Aviv will continue to pressure Obama to 'act' against Iran, for the latter, under its current president is an 'existential threat' to Israel, a claim that few in Washington question. "It is not like we rooted for Ahmadinejad," an Israeli official told the New York Times on the condition of anonymity a day after it was clear that Ahmadinejad won another term in office.

But considering Israel's immediate attempt to capitalize on the outcome of the elections makes one wonder if the defeat of Iran's 'moderate' camp was not a best case scenario for Israel. Iran will continue to be presented as the obstacle in future peace in the Middle East, allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid any accountability as far as the 'peace process' is concerned. In fact, with an 'existential threat' not too far away, few in Washington would dare challenge Israel's settlement policies in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, or its deadly siege on Gaza, or in fact its confrontational approach to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the latter seen as an 'Iranian-backed militia.'

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom was one of the first top officials in Israel to exploit the moment on June 13. The results of Iran's elections, he said, "blow up in the faces of those who thought Iran was built for a genuine dialogue with the free world on stopping its nuclear program." Ostensibly, Shalom's message was directed at a small audience in Tel Aviv, but his true target audience, was in fact Obama himself.

Obama's overtures towards Iran were not necessarily an indication of a fundamental shift in US foreign policy, but a realistic recognition of Iran's growing influence in the region, and the US' desperate and failing fight in Iraq. It was Obama's pragmatism, not a moral-shift in US foreign policy that compelled such statements as that made on June 2 in a BBC interview: "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region."

For Israel, however, Obama's rhetoric is a deviation from the past US hard-line approach towards Iran. What Israel wants to keep alive is a discussion of war as a viable option to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions and to eliminate a major military rival in the Middle East.

Senior fellow at the pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute, John R. Bolton expressed the war-mongering mantra of the pro-Israel crowd in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: "What if Israel Strikes Iran?": "Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime."

Ahmadinejad's victory will serve as further proof that diplomacy with Iran is not an option, from the point of view of Israel and its supporters in the US. Whether Obama will proceed with his positive rhetoric towards Iran is to be seen. Failure to do so, however, will further undermine his country's interests in the Middle East, and will prolong the cold war atmosphere of animosity, espoused by a clique of neoconservative hard-liners throughout the Bush administration of past years.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Two weeks ago, my family, after months of anticipation, were scheduled to be the host family for a very special and unusual exchange program for kids from Gaza to visit the US. Our host child, Sobhi was schedule to arrive on May 30th.

My family was excited and a little nervous, I noticed my wife taking every opportunity to share the news of the arrival of our special visitor. We call Sobhi's family from time to time, realizing that sending a child off to a foreign land to live with a strange family can be unsettling for a parent. But I think our occasional conversations are putting everyone at ease.

As time has progressed, we have learned more news of Sobhi's life and family in Gaza, and through the weeks, news has changed and altered. We first thought he was 11 years old, and then learned that he is actually fifteen. We originally thought his family lived in the town of Khan Yunis, but then learned that he is from the northern town of Beit Lahia. We thought that he was maimed when his house was demolished in the Israeli attack of January 2009, but then later learned that his leg was actually blown off by an Israeli tank shell when the army opened fire on his family while they were farming their land. So, day by day, we are learning more about this fine young boy's tragic lot.

Like Sobhi, disgracefully growing numbers of children forever maimed, dismembered and killed by Israel are not only somehow disregarded by the world media and therefore the world's conscience - but to add insult to injury - they are even denied access to healthcare.

Sobhi is one of many Gazan children that have been taken under the wing of the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, a non-profit, US based organization that organizes medical exchange programs, sending injured children abroad for treatment when it is inaccessible in Palestine, as well as sending medical teams to Palestine for short-term medical missions.

While I cannot express my admiration and gratefulness for the tireless work of the staff of PCRF, in anticipation of Sobhi's arrival, the irony fails to escape me, that of this innocent and unassuming son of a Gazan farmer, whose life is forever altered by a tank shell propelled by Israel and subsidized by the US, to venture alone across the world to be the recipient of another US manufactured implement; a plastic leg.

And now, as if things could get any worse, even the possibility of getting Sobhi here seems grim.

Coming from Gaza, Sobhi must cross the Rafah border to begin his journey from Cairo. But Egypt is refusing to grant Sobhi entry. It is the predicament that so many Gazans face following the January massacres: hospitals lay in ruins, medicine scarce, embargos on everything from medical equipment to medical teams that have flocked to Rafah's border in droves from all over the world.

When Obama spoke in Cairo on January 4, the closest major city was Gaza, where children flooded the border, imploring the US leader to exert some pressure on Israel to open the border and end the blockade that has imprisoned the entire population for nearly two years. Children held banners with slogans like, "a light of hope for Gaza children", and "Gaza children appeal for help". Sahar Abu Foul, a nine-year-old girl who attended the rally, said that the children in Gaza want Obama's help "to secure a life like all other children." But considering his rigorous schedule, Obama couldn't pencil in a visit to the border to address this young crowd. However, just before his arrival, Congress invested further money into fortifying the border area, allocating an addition 50 million dollars to secure the Rafah border, making Sobhi's crossing all the more unlikely.

So the days pass. I telephone Sobhi, who speaks with such maturity and courtesy on the phone, inquiring about my health, the health of my family, and asking that God will grant us lives of good health and other mercies. His medical charts say that he is overcoming his depression and simply wants to join his father in the fields again. He has uncomplicated aspirations and a seemingly simple request; an artificial leg. His father, soft-spoken and a bit shy seems to be resigned to the unfortunate possibility of his son not coming to the US after all. I continue to encourage him, but I myself also feel that this special and unusual exchange may have been too good to be true. Sobhi says that he hopes that he will be able to help with the olive harvest this year. But sometimes having hope in a place like Gaza becomes more of a liability than a lifeline.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London)

As media pundits and commentators began their drum-rolling in anticipation of US President Barack Obama's speech in Egypt on Thursday, very few paid attention to the fact that Arabs and Muslims are not so naive as to be wooed by mere rhetoric, but that they are significant players in their own affairs, capable of resistance and change.

To begin with, it's underhanded and foolish to speak of one Arab and Muslim polity, as if geography, class, language and politics, among many other factors, are irrelevant attributes which are easily overlooked. Why is there an insistence on addressing Arabs and Muslims as one unified body - that is, the so-called "Muslim world" - that behaves according to specific rationale; predisposed to respond to the same stimuli? True, various groups within the Arab and Muslim collective share common history, language and religion, but even the same groups differ in historic interpretations, dialects and religious sects and frames of reference.

Why the reductionism? Is it true that a struggling North African immigrant in a French slum carries the same values, expectations and outlook on life as an wealthy, SUV-driving Arab in the Gulf? Does a poor Egyptian, grappling for recognition within a political body that has room for only the chosen few, relate to the world the same way as does a Malaysian Muslim with a wide range of opportunities, civic, economic and political?

Even within the same country, among the same people, adhering to the same religion, does the world mean the same, and will Obama's words in Egypt represent the unifying lexicon that will meet every Arab or a Muslim man or woman's aspirations? Can one lump together those who collaborated with those who resisted; those who exploited others and those who were exploited; those who had plenty and those who had none?

As the countdown to Obama's visit nears the highly anticipated day, pundits and polls are pouring in. A recent survey conducted by Shilbey Telhami and Zogby International was carried out in six Arab countries, each representing unique collective experiences that cannot be compared. The poll declared that Obama is popular among Arabs, yet Arabs are still skeptical of the US. It was learned that Iraq matters the most, followed by the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There is no denial that Arabs in various countries have major perceptions and expectations in common. But who is to say that there are not more commonalities between the poor of Egypt and Mexico, than the elites of Egypt and Pakistan? However, such assertion would be irrelevant for one main reason: Arabs and Muslims have been demonized collectively, targeted collectively and at times, victimized collectively. In other words, it's US foreign policy towards various Arab and Muslim collectives that largely explains the constant lumping of all Arabs and all Muslims into one single category.

Arabs and Muslims seem only relevant as a collective whenever the US is interested in carrying out a rhetorical policy shift, a war, a self-serving "democracy" campaign, and so forth. They are available as a collective to be duly demonized as "terrorist" or readily shunned for subscribing to the "wrong" religion.

David Schenker, writing for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy website was honest enough in explaining the significance of Obama's speech in Cairo. He pointed out that Iran is a major issue that Obama and moderate Arabs have in common. His explanation is straightforward: "Tehran's progress toward a nuclear weapon and its provision of material and ideological support for moqawama, or resistance, across the region is of grave concern to Washington and its moderate Arab allies."

According to the poll cited above, only a fraction of Arabs surveyed seem concerned by the Iranian nuclear program. This leaves Iran posing one major "threat", its support of resistance.

It's ironic that resistance, which is a universal right for any oppressed individual or collective, is being dealt with as a "grave concern". This explains, in part, the lingering illusion that continues to mar US foreign policy, and also highlight the common strength that Arab and Muslim masses continue to wield, their ability to resist. Amid the democracy programs that have appeared and disappeared in recent years - George W Bush's Middle East democracy project being one - none was an outcome of genuine and collective movements in Arab and Muslim nations. Such genuine movements, although in existence, are unpopular in Washington, for they seem inconsistent with US interests.

This leaves one last aspect of collective self-expression, again, resistance, in all of its manifestations. It's the root causes of Arab and Muslim resistance that are most deserving of analysis and understanding, as opposed to mere dismissal on the grounds that it's a "grave concern".

If Obama continues to approach Arabs and Muslims as one single collective, ready to be manipulated and wooed with bogus promises, fancy rhetoric and impressive body language, then he will surely be disappointed. Highly politicized, skeptical and, frankly, fed-up societies refuse to be reduced to a mere percentage in some opinion poll that can be swayed this way or that, whenever the US administration determines the time and place.

It's that incessant lack of depth that has caused the US so much grief in the Middle East, and will cost it even more if such imprudence persists.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

In the occupied Palestinian territories, the situation then seemed incredibly grim. But there was no Israeli wall. The settlements were smaller in size and in population. Gaza was besieged, but not to the point of total suffocation.

Recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu paid a highly anticipated visit to the White House, on May 18, 2009, this time meeting with Barack Obama.

"I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world," said Netanyahu.

One need not emphasize the harm inflicted upon the Palestinian people during those years. The violence, which Netanyahu seemingly decried in '96, visited Palestinians countless times. Starting December 27, 2008 and for 22 frightening days, much of Gaza was decimated by the Israeli army, using US weapons, killing and wounding thousands. There is now a giant wall, hundreds of miles in length, snaking around the West Bank, separating Palestinians from their land, livelihoods and any possibility of a true statehood. There are Jewish settlements, joined by Jewish-only roads that hopelessly fragment the occupied West Bank. They all are illegal under international law, as is the so-called Separation Wall, as are the brutal attacks and siege on Gaza, as is the Israeli military occupation altogether.

We are told that Obama is serious about peace in the Middle East. He maybe is. But even such assumed seriousness might not be able to change the disturbing pattern that forced Clinton before him, according to former top Middle East Advisor, Aaron David Miller, to utter the following words: "Who the f*** does he think he is? Who's the f***ing superpower here?"

In recent meetings between the two leaders, Obama clearly highlighted his country's commitment to a Palestinian state, and, surprisingly, made mention of "Gaza" during the press conference. But the words of praise of Israel's greatness were at an all time high. "Obama talked about the 'extraordinary relationship [with Israel], the special relationship ...the stalwart ally ... the historical ties, emotional ties [and] the only democracy in the Middle East ... a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people'," observed commentator George Hishmeh.

Following his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu made a visit to the US Congress, where he conferred with the "great friends of Israel". On his visit to Capitol Hill, he met House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner. The Israeli leader also met members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Jewish legislators. He was given the same exceptional treatment enjoying by other Israeli leaders. Committee chairman Senator John Kerry was "encouraged by a number of things" Netanyahu had said. Following meeting with Congressional leaders, Netanyahu observed, as if breaking some unexpected news: there is "an American consensus" regarding "the special relationship we have between Israel and the United States".

The game is on. Netanyahu will once again try to overwhelm the President of the United States by rallying the Congress behind him in preparation for any possible confrontation with Obama's administration. Obama, on the other hand, will attempt, however bashfully, to assert a new direction in US foreign policy - through tempting Israel by embracing harsher Iran policies and pressuring the Arabs to normalize with the Jewish state in exchange for Israel's mere promise of moving the peace process forward.

In 1996, Netanyahu spoke of the immediate danger facing Israel, in reference to Iraq. Now Iraq - which had no weapons of mass destruction, after all - is no longer an "existential threat" to the state of Israel.

And now the Israeli leader has set his sights on Iran. "The challenge is the potential arming of Iran with nuclear weapons capabilities. That is a great danger to all of us .. We have to do this in tandem .. I was very encouraged to learn that this is the American policy. We're going to try to do it together, because if we do it together we'll get a lot further, a lot faster."

It might not take thirteen more years before Netanyahu's wishes come true, before getting a lot further, a lot faster, i.e. unleashing a war against Iran. But mark my words, Netanyahu, as well as those before him, as well as those after him, have no intentions of making peace with the Palestinians. He is simply waving a carrot before Obama to get what Israel wants, an attack on Iran. It's as simple as that.

If Obama hesitates in confronting the new Israeli agenda, and if the Congress continues to treat Israel's security obsessions as top American priorities, there is no telling what the Middle East will look like the next time Netanyahu arrives in Washington to meet the new American president.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

As if there was no massacre in Gaza, no families entirely slaughtered, no human rights violated to match the record of the most grisly of crimes in modern history. As if Gaza were a mere irritant in the annals of human suffering. More, as if there were no Catholic flock in Gaza. To clarify, there are actually nearly 2,000 Catholics in Gaza, apparently not important enough for the 'cut'.

Now, there are a lot of important religious sites to see around the Holy Land, lots of old churches, stones, ruins and the like...sites of much more significance, such as the Western Wall, the Holy Sepulcher and so on... far more important than visiting the site of a fresh massacre, where the stench of rotting bodies - laid to rest beneath a tomb consisting of the rubble of their own homes - has just faded. Such sites are apparently of little import to the Holy See. Rather, there are memorials to victims of greater standing, in shrines of superior grandeur, such as Yad Vashem...now, that's something to see.

On a trip that was apparently dedicated to promoting "reconciliation", it is baffling that Pope Benedict made little mention of the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a source of discord. Imagine that. But what he did say was, "Allow me to make this appeal to all the peoples of these lands: No more bloodshed! No more fighting! No more terrorism! No more war! Instead let us break the viscous circle of violence."

As if he was imploring two nations with common grievances, with mutually strong armies and nuclear arsenals. As if he were exhorting two peoples, both of which have access to clean water, both of which are properly nourished and educated. Or to put it another way, as if both peoples face the daily threat of their house being toppled while they are held up inside by an occupying army, as if both peoples face the daily threat of arrest, extra-judicial execution, the humiliation of curfews and checkpoints.

The Vatican needs some serious introspection. It ought to replace its highly politicized and, frankly, questionable apologies, with an earnest apology to oppressed people, who might have little political worth. The Pope should apologize to Palestinians and to Gazans in particular for failing to appreciate the seriousness of their plight, for cozying up to the very Israeli leaders who champion the suffering in Gaza, and fail to console the very victim of their onslaught.

More, as an institution that has garnered the reputation of advocating social justice throughout the world in recent years, the Catholic Church must abandon its current course, cowering before Israeli leaders, its Holy Father imparting such smug condescension on a nation that has endured a slow and gradual process of genocide for the past six decades.

Wishy-washy is the term that comes to mind. While he never wavered from condemning the "godless nation" that carried out the Holocaust, his references to Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine were so indistinct, that it was difficult to make any clear separation between the aggressor and the victim. As he witnessed with his own eyes the monstrosity of the Apartheid Wall, his comments were painfully elusive, "How earnestly we pray for an end to the hostilities that have caused this wall to be built." Oh really? Is this all the Holy Father has to say? Never mind occupation. Never mind hunger. Never mind randomly closing schools for months on end and denying an entire nation the right to education. But now we are talking about illegal weapons being used on civilian populations in Gaza. Now we are talking about a wall that has been declared "illegal" by the International Court of Justice. There is simply no time or place here for indecisiveness and moral flexibility.

And it is completely unacceptable for anyone to have the 'audacity' to urge Palestinian youth not to allow, as the Holy Father stated, "the loss of life and the destruction you have witnessed to arouse bitterness or resentment in your hearts". More, when making a stop at Aida Refugee Camp, he blamed the plight of the displaced population on "the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades." It would have been far more favorable for him to stay home and not insult these sites of misery at all.

But in the end, the Pope finally was able to muster up some courage and took one truly audacious stand: When at the Notre Dame Center in Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority's chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, declared that Israelis had killed innocent women and children in Gaza, the Pope stood up and in an act of defiance, walked out. Now that's courage.

The Palestinians, and millions of people around the world, expected more from a person who should be advocating the New Testament teaching: "let justice flow like a river and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."

But the Pope has proven fallible, after all.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

The meeting at the White House on 6 May was fashioned to give the impression that the new US administration is both "serious" and "committed" about resolving the crises plaguing Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are imprudently reduced to that of a Taliban resurgence in the former, and a Taliban- inspired militant encroachment in the latter. Obama declared the meeting "extraordinarily productive" as the three nations, he said, are joined by the common goal to "defeat Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan".

The skewed reading of reality didn't cease there. "I am pleased that these two men, elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it," Obama said. Both leaders listened solemnly as to reflect the level of their "seriousness".

For a fleeting moment one did in fact hope that Obama would bring with him more than a new language; rather, an entirely new take on US foreign policy. That hope is already in tatters.

"Obama conveyed the right message last week by hosting Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. The meeting at the White House reflected the close link between Pakistan and the anti-Taliban struggle in Afghanistan. Indeed, nests of Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other extremists sheltering on the Pakistani side of the border have become a grave threat to Pakistan itself," opined a Boston Globe editorial. But the Globe also counselled: "As recent events suggest, US military strikes against militants in both countries inevitably provoke anger and indignation among civilians."

This is as much as most US media -- and of course, the US administration -- are willing to concede as far as US responsibility in lethal wars, civil strife and militancy in both countries is concerned. In fact, if one is to delineate a major difference in the Bush and Obama administrations regarding Afghanistan, it's the fact that Obama apologises when the number of innocent civilians killed by US air strikes is too harrowing to ignore. Another notable difference is that he has committed 17,000 additional troops to the already war-devastated country, promising more bloodshed.

"I wish to express my personal regret and certainly the sympathy of our administration on the loss of civilian life in Afghanistan," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in her public apology to the killing of over 100 civilians in two Afghan villages 4 May. The apology, however, was obliquely qualified by the US military in comments made by Tech Sergeant Chuck Marsh on 9 May: "Reports also indicate that Taliban fighters deliberately forced villagers into houses from which they then attacked ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] and Coalition forces," he said.

So, somehow, the US is still not responsible.

Now the war is flaring up in Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistani families have fled the area, and the main town of Migora has been virtually emptied of its inhabitants. Reuters reported that, "Pakistani forces attacked Taliban fighters in the Swat Valley with artillery and helicopters after the United States called on the government to show its commitment to fighting militancy." One has to wonder who is giving the orders in this foolish war, anyway? Moreover, does Obama genuinely think that the Pakistani "Taliban" can be defeated using the exact approach that failed against the Taliban of Afghanistan?

The escalation in Pakistan is not entirely surprising, however, as US officials and media pundits have been adamant in advising the new administration that it was not Afghanistan that posed the greater threat to US interests, but Pakistan. It was similar to the attitude of neoconservatives in the Bush administration after its failure in Iraq. It was not Iraq that the US should have attacked, but Iran, they tirelessly parroted, hoping to generate yet another war.

What we are not told, however, is that unremitting US bombings of the utterly poor and neglected northern provinces of Pakistan have garnered untold animosity towards the US and its central government allies. It provoked, in some areas, total chaos and lawlessness, which in turn gave rise to the Pakistani "Taliban". History is repeating itself, but the US administration is taking no notice of the obvious pattern.

A Pakistan writer, Abd Al-Ghafar Aziz, wrote for Al-Jazeera's Arabic website: "Since the US attack on Afghanistan, the province [of Balochistan] has been accused of supporting terrorism and harbouring the leaders of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Since then, US planes, especially drones, have been striking what it calls 'precious targets', resulting in the death of over 15,000 people." Aziz described the people of that region "like orphans without shelter, and without protection." Naturally, tribe leaders, militant groups and others moved to fill the gap.

If there is one outstanding similarity between the Afghanistan and Pakistan cases it is the fact the US is using the same flawed logic that responds to most delicate conflicts with bullets, whether those of its own or its allies. If the new administration is keenly interested in reversing the misfortunes of that region, it has to understand the uniqueness of every country and appreciate the untold harm inflicted on civilians by the US and other militaries. Only dialogue and truly respecting the sovereignty of Afghanistan and Pakistan can begin to stabilise the fractious situation.

There are an estimated one million Pakistanis already on the run in the northern and eastern parts of the country. They are threatened by fighting, hunger and all sorts of predators, including US drones circling overhead.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Therefore, it's typical to read such deceptive news reports as that of Ibrahim Barzak of the Associated Press: "Hundreds of Palestinian patients have been trapped in the Gaza Strip, unable to travel abroad for crucial treatment for cancer and other diseases, because of political infighting between Gaza's militant Hamas rulers and their Palestinian rivals."

Such sinister terminology as "Gaza's Hamas rulers" - which happened to refer to a democratically elected government - is now in common use, in most Western news agencies, and those who readily recycle their reports.

Barzak makes no mention of the Israeli factor in the decried Palestinian rivalries, and the only reference to the US in his report was that of the "U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, which controls the West Bank."

Is Barzak serious? Even if we willingly overlook the fact that Palestinian rivalry has little influence on Israel's decision to block the Gaza borders, thus subjugate its inhabitants, and purposely disregarded the US-led international campaign to isolate Gaza and its government, how can one allow such a misreading of so obvious a fact: since when does Abbas "control" the West Bank? What should one make of the Israeli military occupation of several decades, the hundreds of illegal Jewish settlements, the countless checkpoints, 'bypass roads', numerous 'military zones' and the giant Israeli wall, an entire matrix of control, in fact, which has been described by many leading international observers as "apartheid"?

True, the situation in Gaza has reached such harrowing levels, that the injustices committed in the West Bank are being relegated as if non-consequential. But the fact is, the Israeli assault on Palestinian freedom, human rights and international law in the West Bank never ceased for a moment, even when thousands of Palestinians in Gaza were being brutally murdered.

But neither the inhumane siege and murder of Gazans, nor the suffocating occupation - with all of its lethal and non-lethal manifestations - of the West Bank seem to awaken the curiosity of many, who foolishly, or cunningly blame the victim for his own misery.

Of course that shouldn't mean that Hamas and Fatah, or any other Palestinian party should be absolved from their own missteps, such as violations of human rights, infringement on freedom of speech or any other aspect of which they possess even if an iota of control. If individuals from Hamas violated human rights in Gaza, then such actions should be recognized, condemned and corrected. The same is true when Abbas' government continues to violate the edicts of democracy in whatever limited jurisdiction it has; that too must be recognized and duly censured. But for the media to make such outrageous claims, whether indirectly blaming Hamas for the deadly Gaza siege - and its consequences - or haphazardly granted Abbas a position of 'control' over the occupied West Bank, is certainly contemptible.

The manipulation of the term "democracy" is also worthy of mentioning. An unsuspected media consumer would never guess that Hamas was elected democratically, and that a democratic government with a majority in the parliament cannot possibly stage a 'coup' against itself.

That same reader would find it hard to believe that the legal term in office of celebrated president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas has already expired, and its renewal would require re-elections or the consent of the Hamas-dominated parliament.

President Abbas, however, is reportedly assembling a new government, which is expected to, once again, exclude the majority-party in the parliament

The government, if formed, will likely to be headed by Salam Fayyad, whose international prestige stems solely from the fact that top US officials, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has praised him as trustworthy. Fayyad was never elected and is little popular among Palestinians.

More, even if Hamas agrees to Abbas' appointed government, it would be impossible for the parliament to convene and vote, for a large number of elected Palestinian legislators are political prisoners in Israel. That too seems too trivial a context to mention.

When a story is dominated by selective terminology, numbers, names and dates without proper and balanced context, a media consumer is sold nothing but misinformation.

Consider, for example, the report of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), published in late 2008, which ranked and classified 167 countries based on various democratic indicators into four categories: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. The Palestinian Authority was ranked number 85, digressing from flawed democracy into hybrid regime category. The explanation? According to the report: "The Islamist Hamas movement that won the parliamentary election in early 2006, and Fatah, who hold on to the presidency have failed to bridge their differences. Instead, factional infighting has worsened in recent years, culminating in the takeover of power in the Gaza Strip by Hamas while the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah has tried to maintain his grip on the West Bank. Political violence has worsened."

The word, "Israel", was not mentioned. Not once.

Despite the fact that "factional fighting", and failure to "bridge their differences" are largely attributed to external pressures (for example: Israeli and American ultimatums to Abbas, violence against Hamas, and conditional international aid to both), Palestinians are ranked as an independent nation in complete control of its own affairs. Meanwhile, Israel was ranked number 38, merely a "flawed' democracy, perhaps for the sheer fact that it recognizes itself as a "Jewish state" and discriminates against anyone who doesn't fit the criteria.

"If you control the language, you control the debate," it's often said. But when the perception of an entire nation depends on how terms are coined and sentences are constructed, then language takes on other meanings, deceptive, demonizing and immoral.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

However, if recent comments made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffice as a general indication of the administration's Middle East policy, then little change is on the horizon.

Clinton told US legislators 23 April that the key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was Tehran; that without getting tough on Iran, Israel could not be expected to pursue peace with the Palestinians. "The two go hand in hand," she emphasised. What a baffling approach to peacemaking. In order for peace to prevail, Israel should engage Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority in "discussions" aimed at inspiring the isolation of Iran, for reasons entirely pertinent to US interests and Israeli "security".

While Clinton's approach rests on luring Israel into her proposed peace discussions, what is Clinton's promise to the Palestinians, the Arabs, and indeed Iran but endless chatter, a regional cold war and sectarian divisions? Hasn't the Middle East seen enough of that? Is it not time to relegate such detrimental language and focus on positive engagement, regional stability and economic cooperation?

In fact, there is concrete evidence that supports the claim that a responsible US policy in the region could indeed usher in a new beginning, which would ultimately prove beneficial to the US in a time of economic meltdown and repeated crises. For example, Iran has made clear its intentions of espousing dialogue with the US, Hamas is openly seeking "engagement", and Hizbullah -- which seems committed to Lebanon's stability -- is positively responding to EU diplomatic overtures.

However, it seems that the new US administration with all the gutsy talk of boldness, daring and audacity is still unwilling or unable to confront Israel's chaotic and destructive behaviour in Palestine and in the Middle East at large.

Clinton should have used entirely different language and adopted a wholly different approach if she and her administration were keenly interested in investing in a just peace, and not mere "discussions". Instead of trying to entice Israel to engage the Palestinians long enough to deceive the Arabs and alienate Iran, she should have dealt -- and strongly so -- with the provocative politics disseminated by Israel's new right-wing government.

Israeli leaders, confident of their country's revered status among Western governments, which immunes it from any consequential criticism, are lashing out left and right.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, recognised in many circles as "fascist", is leading Israel's diplomatic offensive, a strategy used and perfected by previous Israeli governments. The aim of the offensive is to condition any Israeli "concessions" on specific demands, whose implementation often elicits anything but peace and stability.

Lieberman told The Jerusalem Post on 23 April that it would be "impossible to resolve any problem in our region without resolving the Iranian problem". One can only guess what "resolving the Iranian problem" means and requires. However, it's important to recall that it was Lieberman who launched his newest career by rejecting the Annapolis peace conference outcomes, reverting to the roadmap solely because the latter requires nothing of Israel until Palestinians completely crack down on "terror". Under Israel's definition of terrorist groups, which also includes the elected Palestinian government, Lieberman's true objective is to absolve Israel from any expectations pertaining to peace, dialogue or even simple discussions.

Lieberman is not only agitated by the largely discretionary requirements placed on Israel, but by the language itself. "Over the last two weeks I've had many conversations with my colleagues around the world. And everybody, you know, speaks with you like you're in a campaign: occupation, settlements, settlers," said Lieberman, who described those using such language as "speaking in slogans".

Lieberman is, of course, not the eccentric loner of the Israeli government, but in many ways represents the emerging status quo in Israel, with all of its alarming tendencies. Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is angry over an EU attempt at linking closer ties with Israel with the latter's commitment to a two-state solution. "Peace is in Israel's interest no less than it is in Europe's interest, and there's no need to make the upgrade in relations with Israel conditional on progress on the peace process. We are in the process of reviewing our policy; don't rush us," Netanyahu reportedly told visiting Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek.

Netanyahu was helpful enough to elaborate on what he meant by "peace is in Israel's interest," when he said: "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either," in reference to the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements and destruction of Arab homes.

Lieberman, on the other hand, has dashed any hopes that Israel might find the Arab peace initiative a common ground for peacemaking, according to Haaretz, reporting on 24 April. He rejected it, in part, because it stipulates a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem in accordance with international law. Moreover, he called on the international community to stop pushing for a Palestinian state.

Not only does Israel want to preserve its matrix of control over the West Bank, annex Arab lands, and maintain its illegal settlements in violation of international law, but it also wants to control the language, silence mere calls for Palestinian statehood, and lead a world of fury, including that of the Arabs, against Iran. So much for peacemaking.

Under such a reality, it behoves Clinton and the Obama administration to abandon the tired slogans and the old, belligerent policies of their predecessor. If they are indeed interested in a just peace, for its own sake, then luring Israel to engage Abbas only to trick the Arabs and isolate Iran cannot be a promising start.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza The Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London)

Now that Israel's clear intentions in Gaza - discrediting Hamas and ultimately ousting them from their democratically elected position - resulted in utter failure, Israelis are hoping to exploit regional conflicts to rein in Hamas and other such organizations through alternative means.

In the past several years, Israel has suffered what may seem like insurmountable losses in their barrage of military conquests. In July and August of 2006, Israel unleashed its military fury against Lebanon for several weeks, with one major objective: to permanently "extract" Hezbollah as a fighting force from South Lebanon and undermine it as a rising political movement capable of disrupting, if not overshadowing, the "friendly" and "moderate" political regime in Beirut.

While the Lebanese suffered blows from which it may take years to recover, the Israeli war in South Lebanon was recognized largely as an astounding military failure, defeat even for Israel, as several thousand fairly ill-equipped Hezbollah fighters forced Israel's multi-billion dollar military machine to retreat.

While at the time, Hezbollah had strong backing by the poor and destitute population of Lebanon, including Palestinian refugees, support from official Lebanese institutions was, at best, lacking. But the war changed all of that. Today, Hezbollah is regarded by many as the guardians of Lebanon and enjoy an unprecedented level of moral and popular support.

Israel repeated its costly mistake in Gaza late last year and earlier this year. True, Palestinians in the Strip haven't suffered the human casualties of the recent Gaza massacre since 1948. Thousands lost their lives, limbs, homes, entire families, entire neighborhoods. Concurrently, Israel and her backers were convinced that such vicious blows would certainly press a desperate population to turn on their elected government, whom Israel and the US claimed, got them into this mess in the first place.

And what a painful lesson it was. One would think that after 60 years of constant interaction with the Palestinian people, Israel would know them better. By now on might think that their durability and integrity would have been taken into strong consideration before taking such rash actions. In spite of the overwhelming death toll resulting from Israel's butchery, Hamas garnered even stronger support and loyalty from the people of Gaza, but more, from Palestinians everywhere, the Arab and Muslim world, indeed from many places throughout the world that could no longer remain silent. Words of encouragement, admiration and backing echoed from Latin America to South Africa to even the United States itself.

But Israel and its allies are changing tactics. And they are getting a lot of help from their neighbors. This time, they are concentrating their efforts outside of these strongholds of resistance, and going after Hezbollah and Hamas members from remote positions. Out of the blue, this week the news was inundated with reports of "spies" being apprehended in various Arab countries and other tales.

On April 10, Agencies reported that Egyptian security forces had detained 15 people over accusations that they had helped in smuggling rockets into the Gaza Strip via border tunnels, security sources claimed.

On April 12, Palestinian security officials claimed that they had uncovered a bomb-making factory underneath a mosque in the West Bank. An interior minister claimed, "Many of the bombs were ready to use and many of them were of industrial grade."

The same day, it was reported that an Egyptian man was caught and apprehended in Sinai who was smuggling $2 million to the Hamas leadership in Gaza.

On April 13, Israeli news interviewed Shimon Peres, who commended Egypt's efforts at apprehending individuals active in the Iran-backed Hezbollah infrastructure in Egypt. Peres was quoted as saying, "Sooner or later, the world will realize that Iran wishes to take over the Middle East, and that it has colonial ambitions."

Imagine that; such comments coming from a leader of a nation who up until this point, refuses to define its borders with designs on swallowing up all of historic Palestine. Colonial ambitions indeed.

The following day, on April 14, Egyptian officials accused Hezbollah Leader, Hassan Nasrallah of fomenting sedition and state media branded him an "Iranian agent."

One has to wonder if these sudden discoveries are related to attempts aimed at undermining various Islamic opposition groups in the region. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood movement, for example, is already on the defensive, trying to shield itself from what is considered Iran-Hezbollah's designs to 'destabilize' Egypt. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Abdul Munaim Abu al-Futuh, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood group's guidance bureau stated, "We have no relations with any of those (arrested)." One can only expect the situation to worsen, and could only hope such regime-induced panic doesn't destroy the small semblance of democracy that these nations still possess.

In Jordan, similar discoveries are also being made, Hamas members sentenced, others apprehended.

The timing of these crackdowns, the nature of the accusations and the war of words that ensued as a result makes one question the nature of these arrests, whether they are genuine security measures, or political dealings, a new symptom of the ongoing cold war in the region.

Following the war in Gaza, and earlier in Lebanon, the Middle East's new conflict has been that of defining the new discourse which will ultimately dominate the region's politics: that of resistance or 'moderation'.

The US, Israel and their 'moderate' allies in the region have clearly drawn lines in the sand, a notion that when reviewing recent developments simply cannot be denied.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

In recent history, many advocates of non-violence have been celebrated as modern day icons. From Ghandi to King, songs are written in their honor, their life stories fill the pages of our children's history volumes as noble examples of which everyone must aspire to emulate. Holidays are instituted in their honor and around the world; streets and boulevards carry their namesake.

Why is it that the "establishment" goes to such great lengths to lift up these individuals? Where are the holidays commemorating the life and sacrifices of Malcolm X, where are the stories of Crazy Horse or Geronimo? Could it be possible that these figures remain in the shadows of pacifists because their ideals shook up the status quo just a little too much? When the "establishment" celebrates individuals for their non-violence, could that be another way of recognizing them for making just enough commotion, but not too much commotion?

For decades, the Palestinian struggle for freedom was largely a non-violent movement. With occasional pockets of armed resistance, Palestinians in the occupied territories employed methods of general strikes, demonstrations and the like to express their demands and desires to finally live in freedom. And yet these were the years where Palestinians saw that great majority of their homeland swallowed up into what is now the State of Israel. Land was stolen with no recompense to its owners, prisons burst at the seams with prisoners who never received a trial, houses demolished by the hundreds, entire orchards of olive and fruit trees ransacked and burned. All this was carried out in the confines of an "Intifada-free" society. So, it might be suggested that Palestinians gave non-violent resistance more than a fair shot.

It seems that there is an ongoing trend among many in the "establishment" to celebrate those broken and oppressed refugees who in spite of more than sixty years of bondage call for non-violence or passive resistance. While the intention is in itself honorable, one must question the timing.

Recently, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released a report entitled: "UN: 70% of Palestinian youth oppose violence to resolve conflict with Israel". The report addressed a survey conducted in the occupied territories that interviewed 1200 youth in the West Bank and Gaza. The survey found that nearly 70 percent of young adults in the occupied territories do believe that the use of violence is "not helpful" to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The report stated that only 8 percent found violence a necessary tool, and it also found that 80 percent of young Palestinians are depressed, 55 percent being "extremely depressed".

In recent months, Palestinians have endured some of the most painful blows since the early years of Israeli rule. The recent bloodletting in the Gaza Strip claimed the lives of more than 1400, wounded thousands, and robbed millions of any sense of security, safety and hope for a better world. Human rights groups around the world decried the Israeli genocide as war crimes, World leaders committed to filing charges at the International Court of Justice and have Israeli leaders tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The liquidation of Gaza became center platform in Israeli elections. Cluster bombs, white phosphorous and God only knows what other illegal weapons were unleashed on a starved and sieged civilian population where relief workers strived to pinpoint just what chemical weapon only leaves behind the evidence of a human skeleton?

Amidst the grief and rage that followed, Belgium found it fitting to nominate one sorrow-stricken doctor and father of three lovely daughters from Gaza, the Nobel Prize, in recognition of his efforts to promote peace between Palestinians and Israelis. The 55 year old physician, Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, lost his three children in a most viscous way, when Israeli shells hit his house, crushing and suffocating all those inside. Dr. Abu al-Aish just happened to be talking on Israeli television about the suffering of the people of Gaza when he was informed that the shell hit his home with his family inside. He suppressed his anguish long enough to express his hope that his daughters would be the last victims of Israel's attack.

While it cannot be denied that such a man deserves the highest honor for his commitment to the population of Gaza, and for the personal sacrifice he has endured, the irony of his distinction coming at such a time, after the most horrifying of sieges, after the grisly killing of his children, but more, after the grieving father responded with a poignant message of "reconciliation".

In the midst of this mess, where is the call for Israel to embrace non-violence, would the media and the world community press the Israelis to embrace non-violence, had they endured such atrocities such as those witnessed in Gaza?

And once again, the intentions of the "establishment" come in to question. One has to wonder, if Abu al-Aish would have responded with the resolve of so many grieving parents who vowed to "never leave" to "rebuild" to "resist until victory or death in its pursuit", would he still be recognized for his efforts to promote peace among Palestinians and Israelis?

Just why does the UNDP find it fitting to highlight a survey that concludes that most Palestinian youth find violence "unhelpful" at such a time? And why does the world renown a man who calls for reconciliation, a term that somehow suggests a conflict between people of equal standing, while his daughters rest in fresh graves? Some may suggest that non-violent resistance in such situations is the embodiment of the dignified struggle.

Others might call it surrender.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza The Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London)

Israel has denied almost every massacre it has committed. Those too obvious to deny, were "investigated" by Israel itself, which predictably, mostly found its soldiers "not guilty" or culpable of minor misconduct. Israeli "investigations" served the dual purpose of helping Israelis retain their sense of moral superiority, and sending a highly touted message to international media of Israeli democracy at work and the independence of the country's judiciary.

With the Gaza tragedy of December 2008-January 2009 being the latest in the ever growing list of Palestinian massacres, little seems to have changed the way Israel views its action, with the full approval of the US and the half hearted position of much of the international community.

Nonetheless, on April 3, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Richard Goldstone, a South-African Jewish judge to further investigate what the council had already resolved, in a vote on January 12, as "grave" violations of human rights by the Israeli army, in reference to the 22-day Israeli onslaught in Gaza, where over 1,400 Palestinians - mostly civilians - were killed and over 5,500 wounded.

Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP, in response to the UNHRC decision that the investigation was "not an attempt to find the truth but to tarnish Israel's reputation and to join efforts led by some countries to demonize Israel." He added, "The investigation has no moral ground since it decided even before it started who is guilty and of what." Palmor went on to exploit Israel's ever winning card: democracy, claiming that democratic nations didn't support the call to investigate the Gaza murders.

But the truth is, the UNHRC didn't jump to conclusions, but was following up on massive evidence, all pointing to the same inference: that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza.

The work of UN human rights investigator Richard Falk itself represents an inescapable indictment of the Israeli army. His statements and reports of recent months maintained that the Israeli blockade against Gaza is "an unconditional violation of international humanitarian law", and that "massive assault on a densely populated urbanized setting, subjected the entire civilian population to "an inhumane form of warfare that kills, maims and inflicts mental harm".

The illegality of the Israeli war and the violations of human rights committed throughout the Israeli violence are not only made clear by the international legal standards used by Falk; many others made similar assessments.

For example, on March 23, UN human rights experts accused Israel, of using Gazans as human shields, highlighting the case of an 11-year-old boy. UN secretary-general's envoy for protecting children in armed conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy stated that Israeli "violations were reported on a daily basis, too numerous to list."

Coomaraswamy "explained that the Israeli army shot Palestinian children, bulldozed a home with a woman and child still inside and shelled a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier," Press TV reported. But these were "just a few examples of the hundreds of incidents that have been documented and verified".

The Israeli onslaught and ongoing siege has cost Gaza dearly, destroyed its humble economy, ruined its arable land and continues to starve its population. Reports of such facts are easily available. The words "Gaza" and "destroyed" are also sure to yield ample results. Falk, a well-regarded Jewish professor knew fully the underpinnings of his statement when he said in late January that the Israeli actions in Gaza are reminiscent of "the worst kind of international memories of the Warsaw Ghetto".

Still, Palmor, like most Israelis, is not convinced, and continues to sermonize on morality and democracy and the rest of the ever predictable terms. But if Palmor indeed believes of such an international conspiracy of 'undemocratic' countries to "tarnish" Israel's otherwise prefect "reputation", he might wish to revert to Israeli newspaper Haaretz's extensive coverage of Israeli soldiers' testimonies of their own conduct in Gaza.

"It feels like hunting season has begun," Haaretz quoted an Israeli soldier who served in Gaza as saying. "Sometimes it reminds me of a Play Station (computer) game. You hear cheers in the war room after you see on the screens that the missile hit a target, as if it were a soccer game."

"There was one house with a family in it... we put them into some room. Afterward, we left the house and another company went in, and a few days after we went in there was an order to release the family. We took our positions upstairs. There was a sniper positioned on the roof and the company commander released the family and told them to take a right," said another soldier. "One mother and her two children didn't understand, and they took a left. Someone forgot to notify the sniper on the roof that the family had been released, and that it was okay, it was fine, to hold fire, and he... you can say he acted as necessary, as he was ordered to."

In a better world, many Israeli political and military leaders would find themselves before an international criminal court answering difficult questions. For now, they remain adamant that the Israeli army is the "most moral" in the world.

One must hope that the term "justice for Palestine" will quit being simply a popular search item, and in fact reflect a tangible reality; so that the extensive list of Palestinian massacres will finally come to an end.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza The Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London)

While Netanyahu is indeed a rightwing ideologue, he hardly differs, regarding issues pertinent to the peace process, from his predecessors. More, one fails to appreciate the risks facing the peace process, considering that there is no such process. Israel continues with its military onslaughts and illegal settlement expansion unabated, and the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas continues with what seems as its top political priorities: isolating Hamas in Gaza and maintaining its reign in the West Bank.

So to just what 'peace process' is the media referring? What prospects - for a viable two-state solution - are still passionately discussed? One earnestly fails to understand.

Equally confusing is the fact that some western leaders and diplomats maintain a wait-and-see position, hoping that Netanyahu will respect and maintain the peace process - which doesn't exist - as did the Israeli peacemakers before him...who also didn't exist.

In precarious comments made to The National, Tony Blair, now the envoy of the UN's Middle East quartet and the former British Prime Minister, assured that Netanyahu had indicated his support 'in principle' to the two-state solution, contrary, of course, to Netanyahu's own assertions. "When asked whether Netanyahu was supportive of a Palestinian state," the newspaper reported, "Blair said: 'He has always made that clear to me.'"

Such rhetoric, if augmented, could lead to another political ruse, similar to that maintained by Netanyahu during his few years as Israel's prime minister starting in May 1996.

Then, new Likud leader Netanyahu narrowly defeated Shimon Peres in Israeli elections, and had strategically positioned himself as the Israeli leader who would bring an end to the 'concessions' made by his rivals in the Labor party. He also maintained a different façade before Western media as a peacemaker.

It has to be said that the average Palestinian can almost never spot the difference between that of a rightwing Likud government, 'leftwing' Labor government, or a center-right Kadima. What Palestinians continue to see are soldiers and tanks, checkpoints, bulldozers, barbered wire, land confiscation orders and the same symbols of occupation and domination that never seem to change regardless of the ideological background or political leanings of those who rule Israel.

Shortly after his inauguration, Netanyahu came under American pressure to implement long-delayed Oslo deadlines, presenting the then inexperienced leader with a major predicament. On one hand, he wished not to raise the ire of the US, which invested much time and resources in Oslo, and on the other, he wanted to impede any possibility of revival of the accords. Thus he did what most Israeli leaders would be expected to do under such dilemmas. He provoked violence. In September 1996, Netanyahu ordered the opening of a tunnel that ran underneath one of Islam's holiest shrines, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, further threatening the already devastated foundation of the sacred place. His act achieved its very purpose, for it ignited fury among Palestinians in the occupied territories. Several days of clashes resulted in the death and wounding of many, mostly Palestinians. The Israeli government used the incident to underscore Oslo's failure to meet Israel's security needs.

While Arafat's security forces launched arrest campaigns in the West Bank and Gaza - in an attempt to satisfy Netanyahu's demands - The Israeli leader continued settlement expansion and confiscation of Palestinian land. More on October 28, he approved the construction of thousands of new units in existing settlements and, later, the fortification of 33 settlements and construction of 13 new Jewish-only bypass roads.

Yet, in Israel, Netanyahu, despite all of his moves, failed to satisfy his constituency, and on May 17, 1999, the leader of the Labor Party, Ehud Barak was elected. Subsequently, Netanyahu resigned from the Likud leadership.

It's vital to note that Barak's advent renewed, once again the peace rhetoric, despite the fact that the new 'dove' gave little indication of his willingness to meet the 'painful concessions' required in the final status talks.

As then US president Bill Clinton propped up Barak as the Israeli leader who is most capable of delivering peace, ordinary Palestinians had little expectations, and not least because of Barak's own bloody history. In his victory speech, Barak delineated his peace 'vision' to cheering Israelis: "I tell you that the time for peace has come - not peace through weakness, but peace through might and a sense of security; not peace at the expense of security but peace that will bring security. We will move quickly toward separation from the Palestinians within four security red lines: a united Jerusalem under our sovereignty as the capital of Israel for eternity, period; under no conditions will we return to the 1967 borders; no foreign army west of the Jordan River; and most of the settlers in Judaea and Samaria will be in settlement blocs under our sovereignty."

Overlook the names and the titles, most Israeli major party leaders are one and the same; even their language is equally archaic and confrontational. Therefore, one fails to appreciate the panic over the 'future of the peace process.' As far as Gaza, for example, is concerned, it matters little whether the over 1400 people killed in 22 days were blown up by a Likud Revisionist, pulverized by a Labor dove, or bombed by a Kadima peacemaker, a fact that an envoy like Blair doesn't seem to understand.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

While the first and second Palestinian uprisings were spontaneous and natural responses to institutionalized injustice, and while they fostered a great sense of community and brotherhood among Palestinians everywhere, the many years of uprisings mark some of the most painful years in Palestinian history.

It's not easy to isolate specific dates and events that spark popular revolutions. Genuine collective rebellion cannot be rationalized through a coherent line of logic that elapses time and space; it's rather a culmination of experiences that unite the individual to the collective, their conscious and subconscious, their relationships with their immediate surroundings and with that which is not so immediate, all colliding and exploding into a fury that cannot be suppressed.

The eruption of both the first and the second Intifadas cannot be faultlessly explained by one individual, for it meant different things to different people. It was a popular and spontaneous retort to the injustice and the humiliation felt on a daily basis by Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories. But also, it was a bold declaration made collectively that Palestinians will struggle until freedom is finally achieved.

There are several factors that have led many to believe that a resumption of the uprising, or a third Intifada, is simply the natural response to the current situation on the ground. Mass arrests, unjust imprisonment of people denied the right to a trial and extrajudicial executions are some of the many cruelties imposed on Palestinians that have pressed them to revolt or reignited their ongoing rebellion.

But some of the most contentious issues throughout the years have been the crimes of house demolitions, settlement construction in the Occupied Territories and the increasing number of settlers moving into those ever-growing settlements.

In a recent interview with Ma'an news agency, the Palestinian Authority's governor to Jerusalem warned that the planned demolition of 100 Palestinian homes and the displacement of nearly 1,000 people in the occupied Jerusalem area would certainly increase the growing possibility of a third Intifada. "It is now clear to the international community, and our position within the Palestinian Authority is very clear - no negotiations, no peace process with settlements," he stressed.

There is a great fear that the Israeli plan, which some have described as "slow-motion ethnic cleansing", is now augmenting into a fast-paced settlement project. These worries have been confirmed by the Israeli "Peace Now" movement, in a press release, issued on March 2.

"The Ministry of Construction and Housing is planning to construct at least 73,300 housing units in the West Bank," Peace Now reported. It further stated that the plans outlined in the Israeli Ministry of Housing report "represent only a small part of the total number of the plans existing in the settlements".

"At least 15,000 housing units have already been approved and plans for an additional 58,000 housing units are yet to be approved," said the group, which also concluded that of the units already approved by the Israeli government, nearly 9,000 have been built. "If all the plans are realized, the number of settlers in the territories will be doubled."

It follows that the construction of thousands of units will lead to permanent demographic realities in the West Bank that would strongly impede any possibility of Palestinian statehood, according to the standard "vision" of a two-state solution.

The new illegal units are built on stolen land, illegally confiscated from their rightful Palestinian owners. With such a move, Israel purposely renders the so-called two-state solution permanently incapacitated, while insisting that a one-state solution is the equivalent to the "annihilation" of the Jewish state. Israel is once again molding the very desperate environment that led to the revolts of 1987 and 2000, at the cost of thousands of lives.

So, what is a nation to do under such circumstances? Can stone throwing, general strikes and boycotting Israeli products deter such a scheme? More, what is the responsibility of the free world in this conflict? Will they sit by, as they did in the recent and tragic attacks on Gaza, and view the crimes from afar? Will they again expect Palestinians to bear down and endure such harsh and cruel realities, or will the onset of yet another popular revolution come as no surprise?

As for two generations of Palestinians who lived through the first and second Intifadas, scribing rebellious graffiti, hurling stones at occupying soldiers and refusing to buy the Israeli products that were imposed on them (while impeding the growth of Palestinian local industry) may not have unshackled a hostage nation.

Indeed, it may not in the future, but a third Intifada, in the eyes of many, could accomplish one vital task. It could provide the platform for the Palestinians to reclaim their unity (despite the prevailing factionalism of today) and declare that they will struggle until the day when they finally embrace freedom. If this is all that a third Intifada accomplishes, in the eyes of many Palestinians, then it is certainly a necessary and worthy endeavor.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

The US government's provoking stance is not new, but a repetition of another fiasco which took place in Durban, South Africa in 2001.

Israeli and US representatives stormed out in protest of the "anti-Israeli" and the "anti-Semitic" sentiments that supposedly pervaded the World Conference against Racism (WCAR), held in Durban in 2001. The decision was an ominous sign, for the Bush Administration was yet to be tested on foreign policy in any definite terms, as the conference concluded on September 8, three days before the 911 terrorist attacks.

The US justified its denunciation of the international forum, then on the very same, unsubstantiated grounds cited by Israel, that the forum was transformed to a stage for anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

But was "the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance" indeed transformed into a stage for racism and bigotry, as Israel's friends, lead amongst them the Bush Administration, charged?

What indeed took place at the conference was democracy in its best manifestations, where no country could defy international consensus with the use of a veto power, or could flex its economic muscles to bend the will of the international community. The result was, of course, disturbing from the view point of those who refuse to treat all United Nations member states with equity and impartiality. An African demand for a separate apology from every country that benefited from slavery, to every African nation that suffered from slavery was considered excessive, and eventually discounted.

But the main "controversial" issue that led to the US representative's departure from the conference was the criticism by many countries of Israel's racism against the Palestinians. A majority of countries called for reinstituting UN General Assembly resolution 3379 which in 1975 equated Zionism with racism.

The conference, then, was not meant to only address the issue of Palestine and Israel. However, the strong American resistance to any criticism of the racially motivated practices of the Israeli state - the extreme violence, the land theft, the Wall, the settlements, the protracted military occupation, etc - pushed the issue to center stage.

The Palestinian struggle is not meant to overshadow the struggles of oppressed nations around the world, but it rather compliments the calls for rights, freedom and liberation that continue to echo around the globe. However, the fact that the illegal and violent mass oppression of Palestinians, as practiced openly by the Israeli state continue unabated - and is rather defended and justified by the United States and other European powers - highlights the historical legacy championed by former colonial powers throughout the so-called third world for so many years.

There are hardly many international forums that are held and governed by principals of equality and fairness amongst nations. The World Conference against Racism is one of very few, indeed. It was not a surprise, therefore, to witness the international solidarity with the Palestinian and world-wide repulsion of the racist and Apartheid policies carried out daily by Israel.

But the mere censure of Israel's unfair, undemocratic and racist policies - let alone taking any action to bring them to a halt - is mechanically considered anti-Semitic from an Israeli standpoint and US administrations.

The US conditioned its participation of the April conference in Geneva (Durban II) by removing any specific censure of Israel, and ensuring that Israel is not 'singled out' for criticism. Although US sensibilities constantly expect, but demand the singling out of any country, leader or group it deems rouge, war criminal, or terrorist, Israel is treated based on different standards. "A bad document became worse, and the US decided not to participate in the conference", Israeli daily, Haaretz, reported in reference to the draft documents being finalized before the conference.

The original "bad" document apparently dubs Israel "an occupying state that carries out racist policies", a description which is consistent with international law, UN resolutions and the views of leading world human rights defenders - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Dugard, the former UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk,the current UN's envoy, among many others.

The 'bad document' might have 'became worse' with new references to the Gaza bloodbath, which killed and wounded nearly 7,000 Palestinians in 22-days.

From an American - and unfortunately, Canadian and Italian, so far - viewpoint, such inhumane practices don't warrant a pause or mere words of condemnation. The same, of course, doesn't apply to Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, Cuba and other 'unfriendly' nations. The US decision must be particularity disheartening to African nations who saw in the advent of Barack Obama some vindication. The US first black president, however, saw it fit to boycott a conference that intended to discuss the issue of slavery and repatriation, to once again prove that race alone is hardly sufficient in explaining US internal and external policies.

A day after rebuffing the conference, US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton arrived on her first visit to the Middle East, where she admonished Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah - for largely posing threats to Israel - and praised the Jewish state and its 'moderate' allies.

She remarked in a joint statement with Israeli president Shimon Peres, on March 3: "It is important that the United States always underscore our unshakeable, durable, fundamental relationship and support for the State of Israel. I will be going from here to Yad VaShem to pay respects to the lost souls, to remember those who the Holocaust took, to lay a wreath, and to say a prayer."

Needless to say, Mrs. Clinton refused to visit Gaza, where 1.5 million people are trapped in one large concentration camp, denied access to food, medicine, political and human rights.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Some have even made the claim that Hamas is, more or less, an Israeli concoction. In fact, the accusation that Hamas was created by Israeli intelligence has become so commonplace that it often requires no serious substantiation. While the claim, as it stands, is erroneous, there is certainly a reason and history behind it. But was Hamas, in fact the work of the Israeli Mossad?

The mere suggestion is consequential, for not only does it discredit one single faction, but implies that Palestinians are deceived into thinking that they actually have some control over their collective destiny. This notion - that Hamas is the brainchild of Israel - is simply incorrect.

It could very well be complicated for one to grasp how such a movement could take a foothold and flourish with such popular support if one has no familiarity with the social, economic and religious history of the Gaza Strip, the birthplace of Hamas.

It is true that for years, Palestinians have suffered poverty, hunger and humiliation under the Israeli occupation. And while the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has played a major role in representing and speaking on behalf of the Palestinian people abroad, its role in the occupied territories has been, at best, lacking.

There are reasons for that, not least because the PLO had its own complex regional and international priorities, and that it lacked the grassroots leverage enjoyed by the Islamic movement. It was only a natural response for the religious institution to fill the gap of an absent government, a role that it took seriously. But let's look a bit more carefully into the evolution and growth of Hamas in Gaza in particular, a presence that was making a strong impact as early as 1967.

In the early years of the occupation, the Islamic movement in Gaza strategized an effort that would require a strong and well-established foundation. Initially, the movement refuted the notion of armed-struggle and was often criticized and ridiculed by secular liberation movements for masking their weak nature as "pacifism".

The truth is, the Islamic movement in Gaza didn't disregard armed struggle in and of itself; it felt that this nation of mostly refugees was in a vulnerable state and would need years of preparation before they could actually become a force to be reckoned with. For this reason, they invested decades to strengthening social bonds in Gazan society, by building mosques, childcare centers, hospitals, schools and so forth.

The years between 1967 to 1975 were designated by the Islamic movement as the phase of "mosque building". The mosque was the central institution that galvanized Islamic societies in Gaza. It was not simply a place of worship but also a hub for education, social and cultural interaction, and later political organization.

In the period between 1967 to 1987, the number of mosques in Gaza tripled, rising from 200 to 600 mosques. The years between 1975 well into the 1980s were dubbed the phase of "social institution building", which included the formation of Islamic clubs, charitable organizations, student societies, etc, which all served as meeting points for Muslim youth.

In 1973, the Islamic Center was established in Gaza, the actual body that served as the heart of all the movement's activities. It was widely understood that the center was an extension of the Egypt-influenced Muslim Brotherhood of the past. Israel purposely did little to halt the establishment of the organization, as it also did little to assist in its growth.

Israel's curious attitude could be explained as part of its policy of reward and punishment. Since the Islamists had - at that particular time - renounced armed struggle, and were providing services, which spared the Israeli budget many millions, there seemed little need to discontinue what at the time may have seemed innocuous activities. But more importantly, Israel was wary of the augmentation of PLO institutions abroad and growing influence on Palestinian societies in the occupied territories.

More, the growing bitterness between other liberation movements in Gaza and the Islamic movement, led by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin gave Israel hope that growing hostilities would result in the pacifying and paralysis of all respective groups, sparing Israel the rigorous task of reining them in. One could argue that any Israeli interference to halt the growth and evolvement of the Islamic movement in Gaza, in that period, would have merely sped up its radicalization, as opposed to annihilating it altogether.

The 1970s and the 1980s were years of growing turmoil for Palestinians with the Camp David Accords, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the many massacres committed by Israel, killings that came to a pinnacle with the 1982 massacres by a Lebanese Forces Christian militia group in Sabra and Shatilla in Lebanon.

It was during this time that the Islamic movement in Gaza was undergoing a tremendous metamorphosis. Decades of groundwork would now be put to the test as the movement evolved to embrace armed struggle. It was certainly not an immediate transformation, but in fact had been evolving since as early as 1967.

Whether religious trends are rational in their very narratives or otherwise, the fact was the growth, shifts and evolvement of the Palestinian Islamic movement, in all of its manifestations in the Gaza Strip, followed a rational process that was unique to Gaza and its history.

No other place in Palestine was as qualified to spawn a major Islamic movement as was the Gaza Strip. The Strip was desperately poor, its population mostly composed of refugees and their descendants. Islamist leaders were themselves refugees and were mostly refugee camp dwellers.

So it was that "Hamas" finally made its official appearance in 1987, taking the transformation of the Islamic movement in Gaza one step further, with the birth of the first Palestinian Intifada. Nearly two decades later, Hamas enjoyed a landslide victory in Palestinian elections, another testimony to its phased and calculated growth.

Instead of trying to understand and appreciate the history behind the popular movement, Western countries responded by sanctions, blockades, and a protracted and suffocating siege by Israel that came to a head with the bloodiest massacre of defenseless Palestinian civilians since 1948.

Analysts, politicians, critics and third-parties alike can squabble about the origins and history of this movement that has among many things given a large segment of Palestinian society a sense of self-respect and feeling of leverage with their occupiers; but to advocate that Hamas was cooked up by some Israeli agents hell-bent on the demise of the Palestinians is simply hogwash.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

But it is unlikely that Holbrooke will absorb the magnitude of that historic lesson. Both he and the new US President Barack Obama are convinced that the missing component for winning the war in Afghanistan is a greater commitment, as in doubling the troops, increasing military spending, and, by way of winning hearts and minds, investing more in developing the country. That combination, the US administration believes, will eventually sway Afghans from supporting the Taliban, tribal militias, Pashtun nationalists and other groups. The latter is waging a guerilla struggle in various parts of the country, mostly in the south, to oust Karzai's government and foreign occupation forces. While Kabul was considered an "oasis of calm" - by Jonathan Steele's account - during the Soviet rule, it's nowhere close to that depiction under the rule of the US and its NATO allies, who had plenty of time, eight long years, to assert their control, but failed.

In fact, just as Holbrooke sat within Karzai's heavily guarded presidential palace, roadside bombs were detonating across the country, in Khost, in Kandahar and elsewhere. Several police officers were killed, the latest addition to the hundreds of soldiers and officers who die each year as they desperately defend the few symbols of the central government's authority. Aside from its shaky control over Kabul, and a few provincial capitals, the central government struggles to maintain the little relevance it still holds.

This deems most of the country a battleground between Afghani militias, seen by a growing number of Afghans as a legitimate resistance force against an illegitimate occupation; that being US and NATO forces.

Unlike the unpopular war in Iraq, Afghanistan was widely viewed in the US as a moral war, based on the logic that since al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks, and since the group is hosted by an equally militant Taliban government, both groups must pay. So far, the people of Afghanistan have paid many times over the price expected. Thousands were killed, and an entire generation was scarred by a new civil war, and yet a new foreign military occupation.

While mainstream news consumers are inundated with official commentary and occasional news reports on the challenges awaiting the US in Afghanistan, to secure democracy, freedom and 'national interests,' media reports continue to reduce the battle over Afghanistan as one that is concerned with fighting local corruption, instilling human rights and ensuring gender equality.

Little is said of the pertinent reasons behind the war, as such seemingly tedious rhetoric of great games to control the Eurasian landmass - which dates back to the 19th century's rivalry between British and Russian empires - is more suited for academic discussions that are by no means newsworthy.

But it is perhaps relevant to note that desperate attempts at controlling Afghanistan have failed miserably in the past. If Holbrooke wishes to dig deeper into history, he should learn that the British Empire, which controlled India at the time, was also defeated in Afghanistan in 1842, and again in 1878. Soviet leaders looked for a quick victory as they occupied Kabul in December 1979, only to find themselves engaged in a most bloody war that cost them 15,000 deaths (it goes without saying that the hundreds of thousands of Afghani deaths often go unreported) and an unmitigated defeat.

But, then again, Holbrooke must've known of the details of the latter period, for after all, it was his country that armed and financially sustained the mujahideen forces in Afghanistan fearing that the Soviets' ultimate objective, during the Cold War was challenging US dominance in the region, and eventually the Middle East. Considering the strategically disastrous toppling of the Shah of Iran to the US, the world-leading superpower could take no chances.

But since then, Afghanistan has grown in significance from a politically strategic landmass, due to its proximity to warm-waters and regional powers, to an energy strategic landmass, inevitable to the exploitation of Caspian oil.

"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian," said former vice-president Dick Cheney in a speech to oil moguls in 1998. In the same year, John Maresca, vice president of international relations of Unocal Corporation commented before a House committee in February 2008 on ways to transfer Caspian basin oil (estimated between 110 to 243bn barrels of crude, worth up to $4 trillion): "(One) option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of US sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan."

Military success in Afghanistan is simply not possible, for numerous logistical, historical and practical reasons. But failure will also come at a price, at least for those who will directly benefit from subduing the rebellious nation.

Former president Bush and his entourage of allies failed to turn Afghanistan into a US-styled democracy, easily exploitable for strategic and economic use. By pressing a military solution in Afghanistan, Obama is not only summoning another failed US imperial experiment - as that in Iraq - but insists on adding his country's name to those of Britain and Russia, who had better chances of success, but were squarely defeated

"It's like fighting sand. No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans," Oleg Kubanov, a former Russian officer in Afghanistan told Reuters. "It's their holy land; it doesn't matter to them if you're Russian, American. We're all soldiers to them."

It would be timely if Holbrooke takes a few hours from his hectic schedule in the region to brush up on Afghanistan's history, for he surely needs it.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

The reaction to Mashaal's call was more furious than most of the statements issued by the PA and its backers during the 23-day Israeli onslaught against the Gaza Strip, which killed and wounded thousands of innocent Gazans.

Mashaal, who spoke triumphantly in Qatar exhorted that the PA "in its current state is no authority." "It expresses a state of impotence, abuse and (it is a) tool to deepen divisions," he stressed. He called for the creation of a new leadership structure that would include all Palestinians.

Mashaal intentionally remained ambiguous regarding the nature of the new structure, perhaps to examine the reactions to his call before moving forward with any tangible plans.

Expectedly, the Old Guard who largely remained mute during the Gaza onslaught, reacted with fury to what they understood as Hamas' attempt to discount the PLO, which, for them, represents a place of personal leverage and status. However, there were some outsiders to the PA's Old Guard apparatus who rejected any alternative to the PLO because of what the organization for long represented, a platform that guided and guarded Palestinian national aspirations for many years.

But why an alternative to the PLO, and why the fury over a call for a new leadership structure?

The two main Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah agreed in Cairo in 2005 to revamp the PLO, which would allow Hamas and other organizations that operate outside its political structures to join. But the agreement was never activated. Each side accused the other of delaying the much needed reform. Then, the disagreement appeared factional and political, as opposed to a substantiated one, predicated on principals.

But the Israel war on Gaza has created a political reality that cannot be discounted as factional. Indeed the reverberation of the post Gaza war can be felt throughout the Middle East, and even beyond, and it will be some time before the full political and non-political impact of the war is fully realized. However, as far as inner-Palestinian politics is concerned, the war on Gaza has yielded two distinctly different groups, one that is being increasingly referred to as the 'resistance factions' (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other socialist and nationalist groups) and the Oslo factions (mainly Fatah, but with a few other less known groupings), dubbed as such because it embraced the Oslo 'peace process' culture within Palestinian society. Fatah dominates the PLO, which also includes factions that stand in solidarity with Hamas in Gaza and Damascus.

Following the signing of the Oslo accords in September 2003, the PA, with limited jurisdiction, if any, was established at the expense of the PLO, which was once seen as an organization that represented Palestinians everywhere. The latter's authority, international import and political relevance dissipated over time, to the point that it became an institution that simply represented its members or at best one specific faction, Fatah. The PLO would resurface once in a while to serve as a rubber stamp for PA policies, and had long ceased to represent all Palestinians or play any important role in shaping political realities in occupied Palestine or anywhere else.

The PLO's state of idleness is relatively a new phenomenon. The PLO was established in 1964, at the behest of Egypt's Jamal Abdul-Nasser. It served a complementary role at the time, but grew more independent from Egypt, although not entirely independent from Arab politics or the hegemony of specific leaders and parties. Nonetheless, the PLO served an important role over the years, for it embodied various Palestinian institutions such as the Palestine National Council (PNC), the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA), the Palestine National Fund (PNF), and more.

But Oslo demanded a new political arrangement that expected a non-democratic body to represent Palestinians, for obvious reasons. Thus, the PLO was marginalized, almost entirely. Palestinians in Diaspora, especially those lingering in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere, felt particularly disowned, for the PA didn't represent them and the PLO was no longer a formidable body that mattered in any truly meaningful way. The PLO however existed, in the minds of some as a symbol of a unifying body that expressed a nation's political aspirations. For others, it was a useful tool summoned to endorse the PA's political agenda whenever needed. For example, under pressure from the US and Arafat, PNC members met to nullify clauses of the Palestinian constitution that deny Israel's "right to exist", and again, in 1998, under Israeli pressure, and in the presence of former US President Bill Clinton they were summoned once again to stress Israel's right to exist.

The PNC has not held another meeting since.

The emergence of Hamas as a political power in 2006 was perceived as a great threat to the Old Guard, for inclusion of Hamas carried the risk of canceling all the "achievements" scored by the PA since Oslo. Thus the delay in implementing the Cairo Agreement.

The war on Gaza, which was meant to crush Hamas, emboldened and empowered the movement and its supporters, who now insist that any national unity would have to accommodate post-Gaza realities. In other words, "resistance" would be affirmed as a "strategic choice." More, a PLO that is revamped based on compromises that satisfy both camps could also mean the end of privilege and domination of the Ramallah-branch over Palestinian affairs. Thus the pandemonium triggered by Mashaal's declaration.

Many Palestinians are still hoping that the PLO can be revamped without the need for further fragmentation. However, since neither the current PLO nor the PA are truly independent bodies, one has to wonder if national unity under the current circumstances is at all possible.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

The promise of change echoed the world over as people from all corners anticipated the magic moment Obama could actually change the devastating reality in which we live today. But just weeks before his inauguration, Israel unleashed the most barbaric attacks on defenseless Palestinian civilians since 1948. Civil societies expressed outrage and called for Israeli leaders to be tried for war crimes and genocide. Other nations cut diplomatic ties completely with the Jewish state. But the man of change did absolutely nothing. For weeks he was completely silent. Even in his first days in office, Obama made no mention of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. So, what of this change that he promised? What kind of hold does Israel have to silence the President of the United States?

Authors and professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, of University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively defined the Israel Lobby in their volume: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." What has been revealed in their work is that "The Lobby" is not a unitary organization, of a few, or many paid lobbyists who are pushing for a specific foreign policy agenda. Sure, you have that too, manifested in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - an organization that boasts of 60,000 active members, and who showers US congressmen with many millions of dollars in campaign contributions, all with one aim in mind, a pro-Israel, right or wrong agenda. But it's much more complex than that.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, less known than AIPAC is a powerful lobby conduit, for it supposedly represents 52 major Jewish organizations. Based in New York, the organization simply represents an uncompromisingly pro-Israel stance, which tends to advocate Israel's suppression of Palestinians (as Israel's right to defend itself), and advocates a pro-war agenda (as was the case before the Iraq war, and later against Syria and Iran.)

These are but mere examples. What Mearsheimer and Walt describe as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations" is in fact a vast infrastructure that has penetrated every major organization and institution, governmental and otherwise, that could in some way influence, push for or advocate Israel's interests.

When AIPAC holds its annual conferences, countless members of the House and the Senate, the executive branch, top representatives of both parties, as well as hundreds of US ambassadors flock from all over the world in an unprecedented manner to vow their allegiance to Israel.

With the passing of time, the strength of the lobby, and the level of influence of Israel's "friends" in the Congress has grown immensely to the point that US allegiances actually jeopardize the interests of their own citizens. Even from an imperialistic viewpoint, the US has no particular interest in supporting Israel's genocidal policies in Gaza, for example, considering the fact that the US is struggling to find any semblance of 'stability' in the region that is saturated with anti-American sentiment.

Consider what outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in a speech in the Israeli southern town of Ashkelon on Jan 12, regarding how he influenced the US vote in the UN on a resolution pertaining to the Gaza war:

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the Secretary of State wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor," Olmert said.

"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor."

"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favor."

Imagine, Olmert is boasting how he, with one telephone call managed to completely turn around the entire US foreign policy agenda, no questions asked. This tells us that it's not a give-and-take relationship.

One can learn a valuable lesson in all of this. Within the United States there is a great apparatus that has been in motion for generations. It is beyond civil society, beyond individual citizens and citizen groups, it is perhaps even more powerful than 'the man of change' himself. And if we are truly to see some transformation in the way the US now rules the world, then this war-mongering machine must be dismantled.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Americans may decry what we can finally dub as the 'Bush legacy', for it brought economic ruin, but also pushed the country into avoidable, if not completely preventable wars, disgracing the collective history of a nation that for long imposed its sense of moral authority on the world.

But the new president is set to change all of that. True, Barack Obama is duly warning of hyped expectations, but, frankly, he can only blame himself for the eagerness and hope, realistic or otherwise, that has engulfed the nation, even the world over. During his presidential campaign he made many promises, the gist of which is that an Obama administration would be everything that the Bush administration was not. That was enough for 'Obamaniacs' to sing and dance the world over.

One cannot expect that Obama has a magic solution for everyone's problems, everywhere. In fact one must be realistic and simply ask Obama to remedy the problems and conflicts that were introduced or provoked, financed and sustained by his own country.

Regarding the Middle East, Obama seems to have hit the ground running, or so we are told. Shortly after his inauguration, he appointed former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region. Mitchell "will bring a wealth of experience and credibility to the job," said CNN.

Once again, Obama is clearly attempting to delineate an early policy that differs from Bush's. The latter was affiliated with the infamous Guantanamo Bay, the 'gulag of our times' - according to Amnesty International - thus Obama ordered it closed, a year from now that is. Bush was blamed for his late arrival to the Middle East peace process scene, thus Obama makes it clear that the peace process is a priority for his administration.

But the question is how different will Obama truly be when his administration is done carrying out a few symbolic gestures to appease the ever-eager public?

Naturally a new administration, promising a new era, requires a new language. Although inundated with lofty terminology, the outlines of Obama's new administration seem, in some instances, a mirror image of Bush.

These are remarks made by Obama (not Bush), on January 22, and seen as the first major statement by his administration regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats. ..Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements. Going forward, the outline for a durable cease-fire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm."

Funny how Obama started his statement with "let me be clear." He cannot possibly be any clearer as he spent endless hours for many months assuring Israel and its supporters, while condemning Palestinians without any reservation or remorse.

Those who counted on Obama to bring a just peace to the Middle East must've had their hearts broken watching the man charging against Hamas' terror, as thousands of Gazans were killed and wounded, including 430 children in the matter of three weeks as a result of Israel's barbarous attacks, using mostly American weapons (and full, unqualified US backing.)

And yet, Obama found it fitting to explain that his administration's foreign policy is not only "critical in terms of projecting ... America's power, but also America's values and America's ideals." Of course, it was Palestinian trust in those ideals that led them in droves to the polls in January 2006, and subsequently to their starvation and carnage in Gaza. It is no wonder that Palestinians are unimpressed.

Aside from Obama's unparalleled clarity, thus far, on his utter and "unconditional" commitment to Israel, he, along with his officials, continue to borrow similar vague slogans that were used enthusiastically by the Bush administrations: national security, national interests, spreading of American ideals, values, and all the rest.

Commenting on such sloganeering, Howard Zinn, one of America's most celebrated historians, said, 'We have to think about these words and phrases that are thrown at us without giving us a time to think. And .. we have to redefine these words, like "national security." What is national security? .. having military bases all over the world (or).. having healthcare, having jobs."

Americans will have four years to determine how Obama and his administration define these tired slogans, ones that also include democracy and "terrorism" (is the latter an exclusively Arab tendency, never an Israeli, no matter how many the latter kills?)

Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza hardly have the leverage of time as tens of thousands remain homeless and destitute. More, they have little hope and expectations on Obama or even Mitchell, despite his "wealth of experience and credibility."

"Obama won't bring my husband back to life," Leila Khalil, a Gazan woman, whose husband was killed during Israel's bloody offensive, told AFP. "He was martyred and left me with six children to feed on my own."

Obama's also made himself "clear" regarding the fate of Leila's husband, and thousands like him: "For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror."

Luckily, Leila no longer has a TV set to listen to Obama's remarks. It was, along with her home pulverized by Israeli missiles, courtesy of the United States. For Gazans, and most Palestinians, things cannot be any clearer.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

All the photos I received spoke of the reality that is Gaza today - homes, schools and civilian infrastructure bombed beyond description. All the faces were either of dead or dying people.

I paused as I reached a horrifying photo in the slideshow of a young boy and his sister huddled on a single hospital trolley waiting to be identified and buried. Their faces were darkened as if they were charcoal and their lifeless eyes were still widened with the horror that they experienced as they were burned slowly by a white phosphorus shell.

It was just then that Sammy walked into my room snooping around for a missing toy. "What is this, daddy?" he inquired.

I rushed to click past the horrific image, only to find myself introducing a no less shocking one. Fretfully, I turned the monitor off, then turned to my son as he stood puzzled. His eyes sparkled inquisitively as he tried to make sense of what he had just seen.

He needed to know about these kids whose little bodies had been burned beyond recognition.

"Where are their mummies and daddies? Why are they all so smoky all the time?"

I explained to him that they are Palestinians, that they were hurting "just a little" and that their "mummies and daddies will be right back."

The reality is that these children and thousands like them in Gaza have experienced the most profound pain, a pain that we may never in our lives comprehend.

"I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons," Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor who had recently returned from Gaza told reporters in Oslo.

"This is a new generation of very powerful small explosives that detonates with extreme power and dissipates its power within a range of five to 10 metres

"We have not seen the casualties affected directly by the bomb, because they are normally torn to pieces and do not survive, but we have seen a number of very brutal amputations."

The dreadful weapons are known as dense inert metal explosives (DIME), "an experimental kind of explosive" but only one of several new weapons that Israel has been using in Gaza, the world's most densely populated regions.

Israel could not possibly have found a better place to experiment with DIME or the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas than Gaza.

The hapless inhabitants of the strip have been disowned. The power of the media, political coercion, intimidation and manipulation have demonised this imprisoned nation fighting for its life in the tiny spaces left of its land.

No wonder Israel refused to allow foreign journalists into the tiny enclave and brazenly bombed the remaining international presence in Gaza.

As long as there are no witnesses to the war crimes committed in Gaza, Israel is confident that it can sell a fabricated story to the world that it is, as always, the victim, one that has been terrorised and, strangely enough, demonised as well.

The Jerusalem Post quoted Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on January 15.

"Livni said that these were hard times for Israel, but that the government was forced to act in Gaza in order to protect Israeli citizens.

"She stated that Gaza was ruled by a terrorist regime and that Israel must carry on a dialogue with moderate sources while simultaneously fighting terror."

The same peculiar message was conveyed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as he declared his one-sided ceasefire on January 17.

Never mind that the "terrorist regime" was democratically elected and had honoured a ceasefire agreement with Israel for six months, receiving nothing in return but a lethal siege interrupted by an occasional round of death and destruction.

Livni is not as perceptive and shrewd as the US media fantasises. Blunt-speaking Ehud Barak and stiff-faced Mark Regev are not convincing men of wisdom. Their logic is bizarre and wouldn't stand the test of reason.

But they have unfettered access to the media, where they are hardly challenged by journalists who know well that protecting one's citizens doesn't require the violation of international and humanitarian laws, targeting medical workers, sniper fire at children and demolishing homes with entire families holed up inside. Securing your borders doesn't require imprisoning and starving your neighbours and turning their homes to smoking heaps of rubble.

Olmert wants to "break the will" of Hamas, i.e. the Palestinians, since the Hamas government was elected and backed by the majority of the Palestinian people.

Isn't 60 years of suffering and survival enough to convince Olmert that the will of the Palestinians cannot be broken? How many heaps of wreckage and mutilated bodies will be enough to convince the prime minister that those who fight for their freedom will either be free or will die trying?

Far-right politician Avigdor Lieberman, a rising star in Israel, is not yet convinced. He thinks that more can be done to "secure" his country, which was established in 1948 on the ruins of destroyed Palestinian towns and villages. He has a plan.

"We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II," said the head of ultra-nationalist opposition party Yisrael Beitenu.

A selective reader of history, Lieberman could only think of the 1945 atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But something else happened during those years that Lieberman carefully omitted. It's called the Holocaust, a term that many are increasingly using to describe the Israeli massacres in the Gaza Strip.

It is strange that conventional Israeli wisdom still dictates that "the Arabs understand only the language of force." If that were true, then they would have conceded their rights after the first massacre in 1948. But, following more than 60 years filled with massacres new and old, they continue to resist.

"Freedom or death," is the popular Palestinian mantra. These are not simply words, but a rule by which Palestinians live and die. Gaza is the proof and Israeli leaders are yet to understand.

My son persisted. "Why are Palestinians so smoky all the time, Daddy?"

"When you grow up, you'll understand."

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

As Israeli bombs fell, and with them hundreds of Lebanese civilians, and much of the country's infrastructure, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sprung into action. She too had one major objective: to delay a ceasefire, which the rest of the international community, save the US and Britain, desperately demanded. Rice, who is merely, but faithfully reiterating the Bush Administration's policy, hoped that the Israeli bombs would succeed in achieving what her government's grand policies failed to achieve, namely a New Middle East.

In a friendly meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem, on July 25, 2006, Rice eagerly, although rashly wished to interpret to equally eager journalists the political promise that lies within the Israeli onslaught. "As we deal with the current circumstances, we need always to be cognizant of and looking to what kind of Middle East we are trying to build. It is time for a new Middle East," she said. Olmert nodded.

Neither Rice, nor Bush, nor Olmert were indeed interested in shifting the status quo in the Middle East in anyway that might jeopardize Israel's regional standing, as a powerful ally with astounding military outreach. Indeed, there was hardly anything new in the New Middle East. Like the old one, the New Middle East was also meant to be achieved from behind the barrel of a gun. But why the element of 'newness'?

It was very clear to both Israel and the United States that their Middle East policies were failing, and miserably so; but both governments were still insistent that the problem is not in the use of force, but rather, not using enough of it. It's, perhaps, the kind of arrogance that accompanies power. But arrogance can also be the powerful downfall.

As world patience began running out, especially following the second Qana Massacre of July 2006, Rice still insisted on beautifying the horror in Lebanon. The Israeli war against Lebanon, despite the tremendous hurt it caused was, according to Rice, the "birth pangs of a new Middle East".

And a New Middle East it was, although not the one that Rice and Olmert reflectively envisioned in Jerusalem; a different one, which changed the political landscape in Lebanon in favor of Hezbollah, and denied Israel any sense of victory.

In fact, the new 'New Middle East' did more than that. It once more renewed a long abandoned idea in the minds of many Arabs, especially Palestinians, that resistance was not futile after all.

Hezbollah's triumph, and its ability to thwart various attempts at igniting a civil war in Lebanon, accompanied by the group's leader, Hasan Nasrallah's fiery speeches began penetrating the Arab psyche, defeated and accustomed to defeat. Nasrallah became the new Jamal Abdul Nasser, and like Abdul Nasser of Egypt, he too polarized Arabs: peoples vs. regimes.

New terminology also sprung. Words that were not uttered, at least not in any realistic context, in decades, began encroaching into Arab vocabulary: 'victory', 'resistance', 'Arab nation' with 'one fate', 'one future', and so on. The language and the culture it espoused proved immensely threatening to the US camp, which too enjoyed its own language and designations: 'friendly', 'moderate', etc.

Rice's New Middle East has failed. It has failed because the representatives of the old Middle East prevailed: Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, but most importantly the people through the region, which began once again, constructing a sense of collective identity. The new 'axis of evil', somehow managed to withstand immense pressures, and in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza, numerous bombs. Israel's pressure on the US to go after Iran failed for various reasons. Israel's own Middle East project remains on hold, jeopardized by Iran's rising influence in the region, Hezbollah's proven formidability in the north, and Hamas' irritating ability to hold onto power, and its insistence to govern by its democratic mandate, even if in besieged Gaza.

As both Olmert and Bush were readying to hand over the torch to their successors, and as folders of the New Middle East project were about to be tossed into the recycle bin, Israel opted for one last chance at proving the viability of its military prowess, for force is the only language that Israel is capable of thoroughly communicating, and is under the odd impression that it's also the only language that its enemies understand. Olmert, once again unleashed his country's military fury, this time against Gaza. The Strip was supposedly an easy target, for the tiny stretch of land, blocked from all directions, lacks everything. It is home to a largely young population, the majority of whom are malnourished as a result of the Israeli siege.

Israel hoped that Gaza would grant it a victory, any victory, even if a small token of triumph. Starting December 27 and for many days, Israel pulverized entire neighborhoods, killed and wounded thousands, mostly civilians, mostly children and women. Another New Middle East was in the making with its own "birth pangs." Entire families perished; children died in droves, in their homes, in schools; a panicking population ran in circles, hopelessly trying to flee the death machines that hovered everywhere, but there was no escape. Borders remained sealed as the region's 'moderates' watched the demise of the 'extremists.' Rice, again, grinned, brazenly justifying Israel's new war. The world watched in horror as the drama unfolded. But Gaza fought back, withstood, resisted, and the language once again was altered. Arabs are now speaking of 'victory', hailing the 'resistance', singing the praise of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Gaza's resistance is nothing short of a 'miracle', said Aljazeera's military expert. Millions of Arabs around the world agree. The New Middle East defined in Lebanon in July-August 2006, was confirmed in Palestine in December-January 2008-2009. A new language with new terminology and a new culture is springing up from the ashes and the rubble of Gaza. Arabs are eager to define themselves and shed years of defeat and defeatism. A New Middle East, indeed.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Yet, Israel, somehow is claiming victory in the media war, which it calculatedly unleashed weeks before its most violent attack on Gaza yet. Thousands have been reportedly killed and wounded in the first two weeks, starting Dec. 27, in the tiny stretch of land (roughly 140 square miles), yet densely populated Gaza Strip of 1.5 million people.

"Whenever Israel is bombing, it is hard to explain our position to the world," said Avi Pazner, former Israeli ambassador to Italy and France, and "one of the officials drafted in to present Israel's case to the world media," according to the Jewish Chronicle. "But at least this time everything was ready and in place."

"Fewer military officers; more women; tightly controlled messages; and ministers kept on a short leash. This was Israel's new media game plan in Operation Cast Lead," the newspaper reported.

It's always difficult to fathom Israel's giddiness and sense of triumph as defenseless civilians are pulverized by mostly U.S.-supplied warplanes and bombs. Even if one chooses to empathize with Israel's dodgy claim, parroted endlessly by the George W. Bush administration, that the Israeli army is in a state of self-defense, one can never fully grasp the wisdom of its military tactics.

"Fatalities in Gaza are already over 400 and injuries close to 2,000 so far as is known. Total Palestinian civilian casualties are 400 times greater than the casualties incurred by Israelis," wrote three-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader in an open letter to Bush, five days into the Israeli onslaught. Nearly one week after the devastating airstrikes, Israel unleashed a ground offensive which is pushing the causality figures to unprecedented heights, made mostly of civilian victims, which by January 9, reached 795 dead and over 3,000 wounded.

Much of Israel's war machine is financed, manufactured and supplied by the United States. U.S. financial and military generosity has served as the backbone of all of Israel's wars against its neighbors, including the Palestinians. In Israel's war against Lebanon in the summer of 2006, lest it runs out, the U.S. rushed 'emergency' military supplies, including cluster bombs to the Israeli army, allowing the latter to ensure the demise of its arch enemy: thousands of dead and wounded Lebanese civilians.

In the ongoing war against Gaza, neither the U.S.' "dedication to the security of Israel," nor Israel's dedication to inflicting maximum harm on civilians have been in any way altered. While Bush brazenly chastised Hamas and the Palestinians for the death wrought on them by Israel, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama had nothing to say.

"The scale of bloodshed in Gaza over five days is the same as if almost 2,000 Israelis had been killed and 9,000 wounded in the same period. Imagine the consequences for Israel in such an event," wrote author and former BBC correspondent Deepak Tripathi. Would Obama find the staggering number worthy of cutting short his Hawaii vacation, even for a brief comment, if the tables were turned? Candidate of change, he said.

But Israel is winning the media war, reports Israel; a peculiar claim by any standards. If the reference is made to a "victory' that helped win over mainstream U.S. media, one has to wonder if the corporate media has ever expressed any sympathy for Hamas, or any resisting Palestinian faction, be it secular, socialist or Islamist?

The opposite has always been true. Any violent Palestinian response to the Israeli occupation and its inherit violence has been dubbed "terrorist" for decades, even if Palestinians were targeting Israeli soldiers or paramilitary settlers. Aside from allowing a 'moderate' Palestinian commentator an occasional limited space to write a watered down op-ed, now and then - which serves as a feel-good moment that demonstrates the 'objectivity' of U.S. media - the pro-Israel mantra has defined every major American newspaper in every city in every state. That requires a separate discussion, but the persistent question remains: what is Israel winning exactly?

More Israeli women are stating Israel's case to the media, according to reports. The strategy is both sexist and underhanded. Following the Lebanon war, Israeli bikini models flooded U.S. men magazines exhibiting their barely covered bodies. Former Miss Israel, model Gal Gadot defended her nude photos, promoted partly by the Israeli consulate in New York as her attempt to help "improve Israel's war-torn image," reported the New York Post in June, 2007. Now as Israeli bombs are lightening the sky of Gaza, similar tactics are underway, in Maxim and other magazines.

Kadima leader and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni took its message to YouTube, conveying the same redundant but "tightly controlled" misinformation, that attempts to explain why imprisoning, starving, then senselessly bombing 1.5 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians is good for world peace, for democracy, for security, for the future of the region and the world.

But the fact is, Israel never won the media war in the United States for, frankly, there was never one to begin with. Yet somehow, millions of people around the world managed to read through the filters, the propaganda, the perplexing logic, the Maxim cover pages, and took to the streets in a collective act of passion and dismay, without billion-dollar media crafters "tightly controlling" their every move, scripting their chants or directing their hoarse voices: We are all Palestinians and "with our souls, with our blood, we will die for you Gaza."

What has Israel won exactly, aside from the haunting images of Palestinian youngsters in UN schools, homes and hospitals, mutilated, some silent and others screaming? This is no victory, but a brief illusion of one. As for the long-term repercussions, that is a whole new story. Israeli bombs over Lebanon in 1982 gave rise to Hezbollah, and its war of 2006 turned a small, resisting militant movement into a major powerbroker that will certainly help shape the future of Lebanon. Israel is now doing the same in Gaza. A victory, indeed.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Within seconds I learned of the tally: 290 deaths and climbing, with 700 more wounded, all in one day. But as dramatic as this event may have seemed - the highest Israeli inflicted death toll in one day in Palestine since Israel's establishment in 1948 - there was nothing new to learn. Tragedies anywhere - natural or manmade - tend to lead to social, cultural, economic and political upheavals, revolutions even, that somehow alter the social, cultural, economic and ultimately political landscapes in the affected regions, save in Palestine.

I gazed pointlessly at the screen. Learning of the aftermath of such tragedies seems more of a ritual than a purposeful habit. The Arab and international responses to the killings can only serve as a reminder of how ineffectual and irrelevant, if not complacent their timid mutterings are.

Once again the US blamed Palestinians, and the Hamas "thugs" using words that defy logic, such as "Israel has the right to defend itself." The statement remains as ludicrous as ever, for a country like Israel with an army that possesses the world's most lethal weapons, including nuclear arms, cannot possibly feel threatened by an imprisoned population whose only defense mechanism are fertilizer-based homemade rockets. While Israel has killed and wounded thousands of Palestinians in Gaza (one thousand on Saturday alone) a handful of Israelis have reportedly died as a direct result of the Palestinian rockets in years. Do numbers matter at all?

European governments chose their words carefully, "expressing concern", "calling on Israel to use restraint" and so on. Arab governments were, as usual, distracted with trivialities, protocols and easily lost sight of the crisis at hand.

Then, the same, ever predictable outbursts began. Passionate callers from all over the world called various TV and radio stations in the Middle East and shouted, yelled, cried, vented, called on God, called on Arab leaders, called on all of those with "living conscience" to do something. In turn, audiences too cried at home as they listened to the heated commentary and watched footage of heaps of Palestinian bodies throughout the Gaza Strip.

The passion soon spilled to the streets of Arab capitals, of course under the ever-vigilant eyes of Arab police and secret services. Flags of US and Israel, and in some cases Egypt were sat ablaze along with effigies of Bush and Israeli leaders.

'Rising up to the occasion' some Arab governments declared, with much hype their intention to send an airplane or two of medicine and food to Gaza, a few boxes clad with the donor country's flag, flashed endlessly on local media. Meanwhile, news reports spoke of Palestinians attempting to flee the Gaza prison into the Sinai desert. They were met with decisive Egyptian security presence at the border.

Strangely enough, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas remained faithful to the script, despite Gaza's unprecedented tragedy. On Sunday, he blamed Hamas for the bloodbath. "We talked to them (Hamas) and we told them, 'please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop", so that we could have avoided what happened."

Was Mr. Abbas informed of the fact that Hamas hasn't carried out one suicide bombing since 2005? Or that the 'truce' never compelled Israel to allow Palestinians in Gaza access to basic necessities and medicine? Or that it was Israel that attacked Gaza in November, killing several people, claiming that it obtained information of a secret Hamas plot?

Even stranger that while Abbas has chosen such a position, many Israelis are not convinced that the war on Gaza was at all related to the Hamas' rockets, and is in fact an election ploy for desperate politicians vying for Israel's dominating right wing vote in the upcoming February elections. In fact, the Israeli design against Gaza had little to do with the 'escalation' of the rocket attacks of mid December.

"Long-term preparation, careful gathering of information, secret discussions, operational deception and the misleading of the public - all these stood behind the Israel Defense Forces "Cast Lead" operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip," wrote the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz on December 28, which also revealed that the plan had been in effect for six months.

"Like the US assault on Iraq and the Israeli response to the abduction of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser at the outset of the Second Lebanon War, little to no weight was apparently devoted to the question of harming innocent civilians," said Haaretz.

And why should Israel devote a moment to the question of harming civilians or violating international law or any such seemingly irrelevant notions - as far as Israel is concerned - as long as their "Palestinian partners", the Arab League, or the international community continue to teeter between silence, complacency, rhetoric and inaction?

By Thursday, January 1, the death toll climbed to 420, according to Palestinian medics and news reports, and over 2000 wounded. A doctor from a Khan Yunis clinic in Gaza told me on the phone, "scores of the wounded are clinically dead. Others are so badly disfigured; I felt that death is of greater mercy for them than living. We had no more room at the Qarara Clinic. Body parts cluttered the hallways. People screamed in endless agony and we had not enough medicine or pain killers. So we had to choose which ones to treat and which not to. In that moment I genuinely wished I was killed in the Israeli strikes myself, but I kept running trying to do something, anything."

Until Arab countries and nations translate their chants and condemnations into a practical and meaningful political action that can bring an end to the Israeli onslaughts against Palestinians, all that is likely to change are the numbers of dead and wounded. But still, one has to wonder if Israel kills a thousand more, ten thousand, or half of Gaza, will the US still blame Palestinians? Will Egypt open its Gaza border? Will Europe express the same "deep concern"? Will the Arabs issue the same redundant statements? Will things ever change? Ever?

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.ne) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

A surprise appearance by till then little-known Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi provided a most unpredictable conclusion to the public performance regularly held in Baghdad's Green Zone theater. Every joint press conference of US and Iraqi officials has, for years, concluded, more or less according to plan. Since the toppling of President Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003, in a well orchestrated - Shakespearean even - series of events, until that fateful Sunday, few have dared to violate the carefully prepared, monotonous media appearances, which often end with a handshake, unconvincing smiles, and the mutter of disgruntled journalists for failing to land a last minute question.

But al-Zaidi changed all of that when he hurled his shoes at President Bush at the exact moment the two main actors were scheduled to exit the stage - compelling the US president to duck twice, astoundingly escaping the makeshift, but largely symbolic weapon. Truth be told, Bush's timely dodges, were as impressive, as al-Zaidi's seemingly impeccable pitches.

Much has been said of al-Zaidi's daring act, which will indeed secure a permanent footnote in history books for an Iraqi man's footwear. Stories are told of poems, computer games and artwork idealizing al-Zaidi's shoes; and a rich Arab has reportedly offered millions of dollars for the pair of shoes that were meant as a "farewell kiss" to Bush. While most Americans are likely to remember Bush's legacy as that of a man who has guided a nation into unprecedented economic mayhem, Iraqis, and others, will remember him as a brutal, self-righteous zealot, who invited untold bloodshed, humiliation and the destruction of a once a magnificent and leading civilization.

According to the US government's logic, Iraq is now better off than ever before. As for the millions of lives that have been unjustly taken, and the millions of Iraqis on the run, their plight is a worthy price for freedom and democracy, precious US commodities that apparently come at a heavy price. Americans and the sanctioned Iraqi government are never to blame for any wrong doing. Iraq's tragedy is always someone else's fault, but largely the making of elusive terrorists, whose identities and sources of funds change according to whatever Washington's political mood dictates. The insurgents, as they were called until recently, were initially remnants of and Ba'ath Party loyalists, disgruntled Sunnis, then they morphed into foreign fighters, then they were depicted as al-Qaeda sympathizers, copy-cats, then al-Qaeda itself, then Iranian agents in cahoots with rogue Shitte militants loyal to whatever character doesn't suit the interests of the US and its allies. New characters were occasionally added to the Green Zone's ever predictable play, unwanted characters were swiftly removed, and the play's language was repeatedly rewritten.

Then al-Zaidi showed up and hurled his shoes at a grinning Bush, who just finished shaking al-Maliki's hand and was ready to conclude his own ominous chapter in Iraq, one filled with lies, deceit, and the blood of many people, in fact too many to count.

As al-Zaidi was being overpowered, then dragged away by Iraqi security - who must've tried to impress their American security 'counterparts' by teaching the poor al-Zaidi a lesson in good manners, Abu Ghraib-style - the script writers, and stage directors and actors were likely to have been summoned to discuss what CNN described as a 'security breach,' but what should be more accurately described as a deviation from the script. Their orders were straightforward and seemingly simple: to create a parallel reality to the anti-occupation fervor and bloodbath outside, by staging a play of few actors that depicts the occupier as a friendly, obliging outsider, violence against the Iraqi people as a war on terror on behalf of the Iraqi people, governmental corruption as a fostering process of democracy and good governance, and so on. Naturally, the moment that al-Zaidi flung his shoes at cowering Bush, a new, although haphazard play was drafted, mixing the painful reality outside the Green Zone, with the comforting, imagined reality inside. If the al-Zaidi episode is to be credited in one thing, it should be for tossing up the terminology of the two stages. Bush was called "dog" by angry Iraqis for years, but not in a press conference. Iraqis mourned their dead, cried for their orphans and widows, millions of them, outside and Green Zone, but never inside. An Iraqi man, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, in a seemingly fleeting moment, changed everything.

What also confused the script is that al-Zaidi was not al-Qaeda, or an al-Qaeda sympathizer, not a foreign fighter, not a member of the dissolved Ba'ath Party, nor was he affiliated with it in any way, and not even an Iraqi Sunni, for any such affiliation would fit perfectly in the political and media scripts that would demonize the man as an enemy of the Iraqi people, stability, democracy, freedom, and the rest of the redundant clichés. Al-Zaidi is simply an Iraqi man who has, as a journalist, highlighted the suffering of his people as politely, 'objectively' and 'professionally' as he could, and when he could no longer tolerate the lies told in the Green Zone's ever malicious drama, he scrapped the script altogether, chucking his shoes at the main actor: This is a farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." His words, although uttered for the first time in the Green Zone theater, echoed the voices of millions of Iraqis outside, who have chanted these words, for six long, tragic years.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

The fact is that there is more to the Gaza Strip than 1.5 million hungry Palestinians, who are supposedly paying the price for Hamas's militancy, or Israel's 'collective punishment', which ever way the media decide to brand the problem.

More importantly, Gaza's existence since time immemorial must not be juxtaposed by its proximity to Israel, failure or success in 'providing' a tiny Israeli town - itself built on conquered land that was seen only 60 years ago as part of the Gaza Province - with its need for security. It's this very expectation that made the killing and wounding of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza a price worth paying, in the callous eyes of many.

These unrealistic expectations and disregard of important history will continue to be costly, and will only serve the purpose of those interested in swift generalizations. Yes, Gaza might be economically dead, but its current struggles and tribulations are consistent with a legacy of conquerors, colonialism and foreign occupations, and more, its peoples collective triumph in rising above the tyranny of those invaders.

In relatively recent history, Gaza became a recurring story following the 1948 influx of refugees, who were driven from their homes by Zionist militias or fled for their families' sake, hoping to return once Palestine was recovered. They settled in Gaza, subsisting in absolute poverty, a situation that continues, more or less, to this day.

The history of Gaza, and the place itself was largely irrelevant, if not revolting from the point of view of the refugees who poured into the Strip mostly from the south of Palestine, for it represented the pinnacle of their loss, humiliation and, at times, despair. It mattered little to the peasant refugees as they fled to Gaza that that they probably walked on the same ancient road that ran along the Palestinian coast when Gaza was once the last metropolis for travelers to Egypt, just before they embarked on an unforgiving desert journey through Sinai. So what if Gaza was described as the city, as told in the Book of Judges, where Samson performed his famous deed and perished. Christianity was relevant to the refugees insofar as a few of Gaza's ancient churches provided shelter to the tired bodies escaping snipers, bullets and massacres. Even the strong belief amongst Muslims that Prophet Mohammed's great-grandfather, Hashem, died on one of his journeys from Mecca to the Lavent and was buried in Gaza, was largely sentimental. His shrine in Gaza City was visited by numerous refugees, who kneeled and prayed to God that they, some day soon, would be sent back to their humble existence, and their ways of life from which they have been forcefully estranged.

But Gaza's history became more relevant to the refugees when it appeared that their temporary journey to the Strip was likely to be extended. Only then the areas' many stories of conquerors, tragedies, triumphs but also sheer goodness, became of essence. A pilgrim to the Holy Land, who passed through Gaza in 570 AD, wrote in Latin, "Gaza is a splendid city, full of pleasant things; the men in it are most honest, distinguished by every generosity, and warm to friends and visitors."

Gaza's history became even more relevant when the refugees realized that their violent encounters with Israel were not yet over, and that they needed the moral tenacity to survive what would eventually be viewed as one of most severe humanitarian catastrophes in recent memory. And indeed, there was much history to marvel upon, and from which to extract strength and substantiation.

Conquerors came and went, and Gaza stood where it still stands today. This was the recurring lesson for generations, even millennia. Ancient Egyptians came and went, as did the Hyksos, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Ottomans, the British, and now the Israelis. And through it all, Gaza stood strong and defiant. Neither Alexander the Great's bloody conquest of 332 BC, nor Alexander Janneus's brutal attack of 96 BC broke Gaza's spirit or took away from its eternal grandeur. It always rose again to reach a degree of civilianization unheard of, as it did in the 5th century AD. It was in Gaza that the Crusaders surrounded their strategic control of the city to Saladin in 1170, only to open up yet another era of prosperity and growth, occasionally interrupted by conquerors and outsiders with colonial designs, but to no avail. All the neglected ruins of past civilizations were only reminders that Gaza's enemies would never prevail, and would, at best, merely register their presence by another neglected structure of concrete and rocks.

Now Gaza is undergoing another phase of hardship and defiance. It's modern conquerors are as unpitying as its ancient ones. True, Gaza is ailing, but standing, it people resourceful and durable as ever, defiant as they have always been, and hell-bent on surviving, for that's what Gazans do best. And I should know, its my hometown.

- Excerpts from this article will appear in Ramzy Baroud's new book, My Father Was a Freedom Fighter - Gaza: The Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

Nonetheless, the incessant activism of many conscientious individuals and organizations came to fruition on December 3-4 when ninety-three countries signed a treaty in Oslo, Norway that bans the weapon, which has killed and maimed many thousands of civilians.

The accord was negotiated in May, and should go into effect in six months, once it is ratified by 30 countries. There is little doubt that the treaty will be ratified; in fact, many are eager to be a member of the elite group of 30. Unfortunately, albeit unsurprisingly, the US, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan - a group that includes the biggest makers and users of the weapon - neither attended the Ireland negotiations, nor did they show any interest in signing the agreement.

The US argues that cluster bombs are a legitimate weapon, essential to repel the advancing columns of enemy troops. If such a claim carried an iota of legitimacy, then the weapon's use should have ended with the end of conventional wars in the mid twentieth century. However, cluster bombs are still heavily utilized in wars fought in or around civilian areas.

Most countries that have signed the accords are not involved in any active military conflict and are not in any way benefiting from the lucrative cluster munition industry. The hope, however is that once a majority of countries, including the Holy See, sign the agreement, the use of the lethal weapon will be greatly stigmatized.

The treaty was the outcome of intensive campaigning by the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), a group of non-governmental organizations. CMC is determined to carry on with its campaigning to bring more signatories to the fold.

But without the involvement of the major producers and active users of the weapon, the Oslo ceremony will remain largely symbolic. However, there is nothing symbolic about the pain and bitter losses experienced by the cluster bombs' many victims. According to the group Handicap International, one-third of cluster-bomb victims are children. Equally alarming, 98 percent of the weapon's overall victims are civilians. The group estimates that about 100,000 people have been maimed or killed by cluster bombs around the world since 1965.

It certainly is unconscionable that countries who have the chutzpa to impose themselves as the guardians of human rights are the same who rebuff such initiatives and insist on their right to utilize such a killing tool. Unlike conventional weapons, cluster bomblets survive for many years, luring little children with their attractive looks. Children have often mistaken them for candy or toys.

Steve Goose, the arms director of Human Rights Watch described the countries that refused to sign as standing "on the wrong side of history. Some of them are clinging to what is now a widely discredited weapon."

But there is more to that refusal than clinging onto an outdated military philosophy. The cluster munition industry is thriving. The weapon was used in massive quantities by the US army in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel in Lebanon and both parties in the S. Ossetia conflict. The British also used it in Iraq, making handsome deals with the weapons' Israeli manufacturer.

13 year-old Ayat Suliman now lives in Sweden. In an AFP report, she complained, referring to her peers: "Nobody understands me. They all think I'm ugly." It was on May 5, 2003 that Ayat's brother came running with what he thought was a dazzling toy. "I remember that it was very colorful and very nice," said Ayat. The explosion that rocked the little girl's house in Iraq claimed the lives of her four brothers and cousin, aged 3 to 15. Most of Ayat's body was burned as a result, and she is still unable to walk independently.

Ahmad Mokaled of the Lebanese town of Nabatieh at the border with Israel was about to celebrate his fifth birthday when he too found a shiny object. Ahmad's last words, according to his father, who was busily setting up his son's birthday picnic in a park, were: 'Dad, Help me.' He died, but after "four long hours of suffering."

The tragic stories of Ahmad and Ayat are repeated throughout the world, almost everyday, with some countries paying a much more disproportionate price than others, notably, again, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

But neither terrible statistics nor the heart- wrenching personal stories of the many victims seem enough to compel manufactures and active users of the weapon to quit. Countries with sizable military power tend to avoid any entanglement in international law or treaties that limit their flexing or application of their military muscle. The US and Israeli attitudes towards international law carry similar traits, both act as entities above the law, tirelessly infusing 'national security' as an excuse for their rebuffing of such international initiatives. It's also no surprise that the US, Israel, but also Russia refuse to ratify the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, signed by 158 countries - as of 2007 - which prohibits the production, transfer or use of landmines.

Of course, neither the Ottawa nor the Oslo treaties are the exception to the rule as far as Washington's attitude towards positive international initiatives are concerned. The US under the Bush administration developed a mind-set of animosity towards the rest of the international community, reaching the point of dubbing the UN irrelevant.

Needless to say, CMC, world governments and citizens throughout the world are hoping that the new American administration of Barack Obama will truly bring an end and reverse Bush's ruinous legacy. Realists say it will take years for an effective change of policy to take place. In the meantime, the millions of unexploded cluster bomblets and landmines scattered the world over, wait for no one. They will continue to claim lives and maim thousands, just like Ahmad of Lebanon, and Ayat of Iraq.

Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

Thousands of headlines exuded from media outlets, largely giving the false impression that the Iraqi government and parliament have a real say over the future of US troops in their country, once again playing into the ruse fashioned by Washington that Iraq is a democratic country, operating independently from the dictates of US Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker and the top commander of US troops in Iraq, General Ray Odierno. The men issued a joint, congratulatory statement shortly after the parliamentary vote, describing it as one that would "formalise a strong and equal partnership" between the US and Iraq.

Jonathan Steel of the British Guardian also joined the chorus. "Look at the agreement's text. It is remarkable for the number and scope of the concessions that the Iraqi government has managed to get from the Bush administration. They amount to a series of U-turns that spell the complete defeat of the neo-conservative plan to turn Iraq into a pro-Western ally and a platform from which to project US power across the Middle East."

Even Aljazeera.net English seemed oblivious to the charade. It assuredly wrote that the agreement "will end the 2003 invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. It is effectively a coming-of-age for the Iraqi government, which drove a hard bargain with Washington, securing a number of concessions -- including a hard timeline for withdrawal -- over more than 11 months of tough negotiations."

Most attention was given to dates and numbers as if their mere mention was enough to compel the US government to respect the sovereignty of Iraq: 30 June 2009 is the date on which US forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities and January 2012 is the date for withdrawal from the entire country. Also duly mentioned is a hurried reference to opposition to the agreement represented in the "no" vote of the "followers of Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia leader", which caused, according to the BBC "rowdy scenes of stamping, shouting and the waving of placards during the debate".

The dismissal of the opposition as "followers" of this or that -- portraying those who refuse to be intimidated by US pressure as a cultic, unruly bunch -- also has its rewards. After all, only a real democracy can allow for such stark, fervent disagreements, as long as the will of the majority is honoured in the end.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al-Dabbagh knew exactly how to capitalise on the buzzwords that the media was eagerly waiting to hear. The success of the vote would constitute a "victory for democracy because the opposition have done their part and the supporters have done their part".

Of course, there is nothing worth celebrating about all of this, for it's the same charade that the Bush administration and previous administrations have promoted for decades, in Iraq and also elsewhere. "Real democracy" in the Third World is merely a means to a specific end, always ensuring the dominion of US interests and its allies. Those who dare to deviate from the norm find themselves the subject of violent, grand experiments, with Gaza being the latest example.

What is particularly interesting about the Iraq case is that news reports and media analysts scampered to dissect the 18- page agreement as if a piece of paper with fancy wording would in any way prove binding upon the US administration which, in the last eight years, has made a mockery of international law and treaties that have been otherwise used as a global frame of reference. Why would the US government, which largely acted alone in Iraq, violated the Geneva Conventions, international law and even its own war and combat regulations, respect an agreement signed with an occupied, hapless power constituted mostly of men and women handpicked by the US itself to serve the role of "sovereign"?

It's also bewildering how some important details are so conveniently overlooked; for example, the fact that the Iraqi government can sign a separate agreement with the US to extend the deadline for withdrawal should the security situation deem such an agreement necessary. Instead, the focus was made on "concessions" obtained by the Iraqis regarding Iraq's jurisdiction over US citizens and soldiers who commit heinous crimes while "off duty" and outside their military bases. This precisely means that the gruesome crimes committed in prisons such as Abu Ghraib and the wilful shooting last year of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater mercenaries in Nisour Square in Central Baghdad is of no concern for Iraqis. And even when crimes that fall under Iraqi jurisdiction are reported, such matters are to be referred to a joint US-Iraqi committee. One can only assume that those with the bigger guns will always prevail in their interpretation of the agreement.

In fact, a major reason behind the delay in publishing the agreement in English (an Arabic version was first publicised) is the apparent US insistence on interpreting the language in a fashion that would allow for loopholes in future disagreements. But even if the language is understood with mutual clarity, and even if the Iraqi government were determined to stand its ground on a particular issue, who is likely to prevail: the US government with 150,000 troops on the ground and a massive imperial project whose failure will prove most costly to US interests in the Middle East, or the government of Nuri Al-Maliki, whose very existence is a US determination?

More than five years have passed since the US occupied Iraq, leaving in its wake a tragedy that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destroyed civil society, thus allowing for the growth of one of the world's most corrupt political regimes, and introducing the same terrorists to Iraq that the Bush administration vowed to defeat. Nothing has changed since then. The US attacked Iraq for its wealth and the strategic value of controlling such wealth. The Bush administration and their allies have tried many times to distract from this reality, using every political cover and charade imaginable. The facts remain the same, as does the remedy: The US must withdraw from Iraq without delay, allowing Iraqis to pick up the pieces and work out their differences as they have done for millennia.

Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

Gazans' relationship to news media is both complex and unique. Like most Palestinians everywhere, they intently watch and listen to news broadcasts the world over, with the hope that salvation will arrive in the form of a news bulletin. Evidently, salvation is yet to be aired.

That infatuation is hardly coincidental, however, as their purpose of reading, listening and watching is unmistakable. Palestinians deeply care about what the rest of the world is saying about their plight and struggle. Most importantly, they wonder if anyone out there cares.

During the first Intifada's long and harsh Israeli military curfews in Gaza, my family would gather around a small radio, always nervous that the batteries would die, leaving us with a total news blackout; a horrible scenario by Gaza's standards.

The Israeli army used to habitually cut off electricity and water for whatever refugee camp that was targeted for a crackdown. The practice persists to this day in Gaza, but on a much larger scale, where fuel is denied, food and medical supplies are alarmingly scarce, and water generators are in a pitiable state. So-called collective punishment has always been the pinnacle of Israel's policy towards the miserable Strip. Some things never change.

Regardless, somehow Gaza miraculously manages. The people of that tiny stretch of land find ways to cope with their ample tragedies, as they did the moment the first caravan of refugees, parched and desperate, made their way into Gaza following the 1948 Nakba. They weep for their loss, bury their dead, ask God for mercy, and, once again, return home to huddle around their radios, seeking a glimpse of hope in news broadcasts.

Today, their trust, or lack thereof in any news station depends largely on whether that particular station is committed to articulating their suffering and tragedy, as it is seen from their viewpoint, not that of an Israeli army's spokesperson; thus their love-hate relationship with major news networks like the BBC, Voice of America and others. Although most Palestinians in Gaza find Al-Jazeera network most understanding to their plight, they can never forgive it for providing a platform for Israeli government and army officials. Still, most Palestinians tune in to Al-Jazeera as a trustworthy outlet whenever tragedy strikes, and it often does.

News from Gaza and news about Gaza has hardly ever been as grim as it is these days. Every single day, there are statements attributed to UN officials and human rights organisations, decrying the siege on Gaza, the strangulation of a whole population, and the deafening silence of the international community towards what is now perceived as the world's most pressing humanitarian catastrophe. Palestinians in Gaza listen ever intently. They hope, although apprehensively, that perhaps the United States will pressure Israel to ease its siege, to allow medical access for the terminally ill, to restore fuel supplies. Yet day after day, the situation worsens and little is done to rectify the injustice.

When international officials, such as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- Moon or former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson call on Israel to ease or end the sanctions on Gaza, Gazans move a bit closer to their televisions. They insist on believing that Israel will eventually heed the calls, but always to no avail.

It was "almost unbelievable" that the world did not care about "a shocking violation of so many human rights" in Gaza, said Robinson, who is also former president of Ireland, as reported on the BBC 4 November. "Their whole civilisation has been destroyed, I'm not exaggerating," she said.

On that same day, Israel moved into Gaza with the intent of provoking a fight and ending the shaky truce with Hamas, which has largely held since June. The army killed six Palestinians and wounded three.

John Ging, director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, told The Washington Post 15 November, "This is a disastrous situation, and it's getting worse and worse... It is unprecedented that the UN is unable to get its supplies in to a population under such obvious distress; many of these families have been subsisting on this ration for years, and they are living hand-to-mouth."

Since then, on 20 November, the same official reported that Israel reversed a decision to let 70 truckloads of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.

Philip Luther of Amnesty International decried "Israel's latest tightening of its blockade [which] has made an already dire humanitarian situation markedly worse."

"Chronic malnutrition is on a steadily rising trend and micronutrient deficiencies are of great concern," said a leaked report by the Red Cross, as reported in The Independent. The report said that Israeli restrictions are causing "progressive deterioration in food security for up to 70 per cent of Gaza's population".

Gazans are still flipping through the channels and cranking the radio dials, left and right, as these calls continue to fall on deaf ears. They wonder why their plight is not treated with the same urgency as that of the Red Sea piracy or even that of eastern Congo, despite the fact that their misery has perpetuated for generations, and is worsening.

They also pass by Arabic channels and wonder about the seemingly never-ending party, while Gaza has been reduced to total desolation. They listen to Fatah and Hamas officials spewing insults and fighting over government positions that don't exist and territories that hold no sovereignty. They shake their heads in dismay and carry on, for perhaps tomorrow will bring with it some good news -- for once.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

The United Nations news service reported on the troubles of Qurban-Bibi, a pregnant woman who simply needed to reach a hospital. Doctors had instructed that she must deliver in an equipped medical facility, considering her previous Caesarean delivery. The desperately poor husband and her brothers opted for a delivery at home, citing the unaffordable taxi ride. The woman almost bled to death. When the delivery turned for the worst, the family rushed her to Faizabad hospital in a nearby province. Her life was saved, but, evidently not that of her baby.

Nahil's story also fails to deviate from the ever-predictable norm. The pregnant Palestinian woman was joined by her family on their way to a hospital in the West Bank city of Nablus. The hospital was so close, yet so far. Between their ambulance and salvation was an Israeli army checkpoint, Hawara. "Nothing helped. Not the pleas, not the cries of the woman in labor, not the father's explanations in excellent Hebrew, nor the blood that flowed in the car. The commander of the checkpoint, a fine Israeli who had completed an officers' course, heard the cries, saw the woman writhing in pain in the back seat of the car, listened to the father's heartrending pleas and was unmoved," reported Israeli journalist Gideon Levy in Haaretz. He added, "Nahil Abu-Rada is not the first woman to lose her baby this way because of the occupation, and she won't be the last."

The bearings of the painful losses of Qurban-Bibi and Nahil bring to mind two recently published reports pertaining to the rights of women and gender equality around the world: The State of the World Population 2008 report, produced by the United Nations Population Fund and The Global Gender Gap Report, published by the World Economic Forum.

The State of the World Population aims at development strategies that are sensitive to the uniqueness of particular cultures, for it found that culture is central to people's lives as are 'health, economics and politics'.

As for the Global Gender Gap report, it was a largely statistical study co-authored by researchers from Harvard and University of California-Berkeley, and published by the World Economic Forum. Researchers examined definite factors, such as jobs, education, politics, health, etc, to determine how improvements, or lack thereof in these areas have affected, or failed to affect, the equality between the sexes in 130 countries, that represent 90 percent of the world population. The outcome was predicable for the most part, but with notable deviations. "Out of 130 countries, Canada ranked 31 while the United States came in at 27. Canada also ranked behind Namibia, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Lithuania and the Philippines, among other countries," reported Canada's Globe and Mail.

The reports raise many questions, present many challenges, but on their own fail to address the struggles and tragedies of women like Qurban-Bibi and Nahil Abu-Rada.

The Global Gender Report ignited media frenzy more appropriate for a beauty contest - winners and losers - not a pressing issue that continues to victimize millions of women worldwide. This was hardly the intent of the report, one would fairly assume. Expectedly, it was later turned into an opportunity to settle political scores, stereotype religion and, at times, disparage entire cultures.

The State of the World Population was largely sensible in its view of culture: non-Western cultures were not simply chastised as the problem, but cultural sensitivity was recommended as part of the solution.

But addressing women's rights and cultural patterns (as if these issues are not unique in time and space) without examining the underpinnings of the inequality is also a mistake.

Culture is hardly the summation of rational choices made by individuals in a specific time and easily demarcated space. It's an innate collective response to internal and external factors, changes and events - political, economic or social. Chances are Palestinian women in villages surrounded by Israeli checkpoints tend to deliver their babies at home or in an unfit local clinic, a natural response to risking losing one's baby altogether. Such a practice could eventually develop into a cultural pattern.

Many Afghan women are caught between the lethal occupation of foreigners and the extremism and vengeance of the Taliban. Early marriages are often the only available opportunity for women in some parts of the country, once they reach a certain age, sometimes as young as 9-years-old.

The same can be said about Iraq, where women, who comparatively achieved high status in pre-war years; have since endured untold humiliation. Thanks to the US 'liberation' of their country, they now constitute a large percentage of regional prostitution, a phenomenon alien to Iraqi society of yesteryear.

This hardly means that the suffering of women is always the outcome of foreign military interventions - masked as 'humanitarian' in some instances - nor does it render blameless local cultures, outdated customs and interpretation of religion. But what is missing from the reports, and subsequent analyses is how conflict, war and military intervention often jeopardize, more than anything else, the rights and welfare of women.

The issue of women's rights is a pressing one, not just because of the horrifying statistics. (Women and girls are the poorest, least educated and most victimized the world over.) But also because no real progress, development or sound governance can ever take place when half of the society is marginalized and mistreated. Equality between the genders is not an act f virtue, but also a sound strategy for a brighter future for any nation, rich or poor. To address the issue correctly, studies and reports must delve into the roots of women's suffering, and not be satisfied with numerical indicators that tell half of the story.

President-elect, Barak Obama's constant use of terms like 'hope' and 'change' contributed greatly to the overwhelming support he has experienced by the American public. Many, admiringly so, have overcome a legacy of racial division and prejudice that has defined America for decades, if not centuries. In that regard, voting to office a bi-racial candidate is truly an historic event.

John McCain had an impossible disadvantage to overcome, and failed miserably. He was judged largely based on the many blunders of Republican President George W. Bush, and was evidently caught between a rock and a hard place: to distance himself completely from Bush's legacy, he would risk losing a large margin of his conservative base; to embrace it completely, he would have no chance of broadening that already shrinking constituency. Thus, he too resorted to clichés and buzzwords, which eventually lost any relevance and merely constituted ample material for television comedians: 'maverick', 'straight talker', and, of course, 'Joe the Plumber.'

His desperate and repeated attempts to breathe life into and push forward his under funded, unpopular campaign were of no use. However, his choice of Alaska's governor Sarah Palin as his running mate might go down in history as his greatest blunder of them all.

The fact is, both candidates, McCain and Obama, had much more in common than they would care to admit, as they voted to fund the Iraq war, supported offshore drilling, backed the plan to bail out Wall Street, appealed to the 'middle class', never the many millions of poor Americans, and brazenly demonstrated their undying love for Israel, right or wrong. Any truly independent assessment would most likely show that commonalities between both candidates - especially towards the end of their campaigns - ran too deep that would render designations of them as 'opponents', engaged in constant 'debates', particularly puzzling.

Each candidate also exploited certain advantages over the other. Watching Hilary Clinton's frenzied yet futile campaign to secure the Democratic Party nomination, McCain learned to be very vigilant while scorning his opponent. Any remark that could be misconstrued as a racial commentary was avoided at every turn. Aside from all sorts of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab remarks, actions and inactions, the McCain-Palin campaign steered clear of the issue of race. At one point, McCain assured an anxious supporter of him that Obama is not an Arab, but a "decent family man."

Obama too would tirelessly acknowledge that his opponent was a great "American hero." Not one mainstream news network, commentator or 'expert' failed to solemnly accept McCain's heroism while serving as a Navy pilot in Vietnam, and for having his aircraft shot down in the fall of 1967 on a routine bombing mission in Hanoi. McCain's heroic mission entailed the leveling of a power plant in a heavily populated area. Naturally, little is known about the Vietnamese victims of McCain's 'heroic' missions, for whom the 'straight talker' had nothing but utter disdain. "I will hate them as long as I live," he told reporters in 2000, while traveling in The Straight Talk Express campaign bus.

Both campaigns were generously supported by corporate money, but with Obama being the clear favorite, as his victory chances were palpably higher than McCain's.

To a higher degree than McCain, Obama's rhetoric was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. This is to be expected from any politician in US politics, but Obama again proved to be superior.

Both candidates accused the other of accepting funds from shady sources, including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, whose failures contributed largely to the US financial crisis and subsequent economic recession. The Washington Post reported in August 27, 2008 that "two members of Mr. Obama's political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae." Raines, who was accused of shady dealings himself, which generated him more than $50 million (according to New York Times John Steele Gordon) just before the collapse of the company was, according to the Boston Globe, put in charge of finding Obama's vice-president, the ardent pro-Israeli supporter, Joe Biden.

In fact, Obama's picks for his future administration seem, thus far, consistent with the choices he made for his campaign advisors. Early news reports already speak about an Obama team consisting of Washington's 'experts" and "old guard." An early ominous sign greeted hopeful Obama supporters just hours after he was declared a winner, when he chose Rahm Israel Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Not only is Emaneul the opposite depiction of unity, hope and change, but one must also question his true commitment to the United States. "His volunteer service in Israel during the 1990s Gulf War is no fiction, with the Jewish press hailing Emanuel's ascension as a sign that Israel will have its own man in the Obama White House," wrote Elana Schore in the British Guardian on November 6. In fact, theories are already rife regarding the relationship between Obama's choices and the support he received from the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington during the campaign, despite his 'irksome' middle name and his unsettling 'ties' to world-renowned Palestinian intellectuals Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi.

It needs to be said, if Obama's rise to power provides any positive indications at all, it is that the popular mood has been fundamentally altered in its perceptions regarding race and gender in politics. But the elections tell more about the American voters, than those for whom they voted. The fact that Obama is half African-American or that Biden supposedly grew up in harsh circumstances - or that Palin is a woman and McCain's airplane was shot down - should be of no essence at all insofar as their policies, decisions and leaderships are concerned. That would be determined by time and experience, although the early signs are hardly promising.

But when the country targeted is Syria, an Arab country, and the perpetrator is the US military, then, somehow things are not as appalling as they may seem.

The US raid on a small farming community near the Iraq-Syria border on October 26 is being treated differently than the Russian attack on Georgia in August 2008. The latter was vehemently condemned by every last leading US official, who specifically decried Russia's violation of international law, laws governing the sovereignty of nations, and the destabilization of a whole region. Few in the US government, and fewer in the ever-willing mainstream media, dared offer any alternative reading to what truly triggered the conflict. For example, Georgia's initial violent attacks on South Ossetia, killing many Russian citizens and peacekeepers, seemed a negligible fact.

The Syria case, where a dozen US commandos killed eight Syrian civilians, including a father and his four sons, is somehow an entirely different story. Georgia is an ally of the US; Syria is not. Georgia was armed and trained largely by US-Israeli weapons and military experts; Syria is a key recipient of Russian weapons. Georgia was used as another US foothold in an extremely strategic and rich region; Syria is a safe haven for the political leaderships of various Palestinian groups that continue to fight the Israeli occupation. Georgia is serving the essential role of tightening the geopolitical belt around Russia; Syria's strong relations with Iran, is rather complicating US efforts to tightly control Iraq.

Considering the Bush doctrine - not just that of preemptive war and rationalising torture, but others that rank US interests above international law, and regards US actions with different standards to those of any other nation -- one hardly needs to infuse UN resolutions that forbid the sort of action as bombing a quiet village inside some other country's borders. It is simply 'irrelevant', a term that is dear to President Bush, for that is how he wished to delineate his government's view of the UN for refusing to give him the green light to invade Iraq.

True, the attack on Syria may seem like a classic belligerent military policy, carried out by a president who defines national security as perpetual violence. But there is certainly more to the story that is largely missing from most analyses offered by government officials and in US media.

The Times of London quoted an anonymous US official in an October 29 report as saying: "You have to clean up the global threat that is in your backyard (that being Iraq) - and if you don't do that, we are left with no choice but to take these matters into our own hands."

The official repeated the claim that the target was an Iraqi national affiliated with Al Qaeda, Abu Ghadiyah. His real name is Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidh, who "was appointed as an Al Qaeda commander by the organisation's late founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." Of course, once alien Arabic names are offered, then most analysts take such claims at face value. Who is daring enough to question the integrity of that claim altogether, especially as Abu Ghadiyah has allegedly been killed. Thus, Randall Mikkelsen's Reuters analysis: "The US helicopter attack into Syria this week underscores the Bush administration's determination to cross borders when it can strike an enemy target, and to weather any international backlash."

But here is the source of oddity. Syria had recently initiated indirect peace talks with Israel, via Turkey. It officiated its diplomatic relations with Lebanon, raising hopes that both countries might settle their protracted feud that has affected the stability of Lebanon, and more recently of Syria itself. These friendly moves had already inspired even more surprising gestures in Lebanon itself, as the leaders of the country's main rivals, Hezbollah and the Future Movement, have met amidst smiles and friendly handshakes. More, Syria and Iraq are also closer than ever, to the point that the Iraqi government offered some of the strongest condemnations of the US attack on Syria, using Iraqi territories.

Equally important, is that Syria has been improving its relations with Europe, including its once greatest detractor, France. Not only is the relationship between Syria, its neighbors and the EU significantly improving, but also the type of language used to describe such relationships: endless accolades of Syria's important regional role in bringing peace and stability to the Middle East and so forth. The European response to the US military raid also highlights the already existing rift between the US and the EU. "France calls for restraint and underlines its attachment to the strict respect of the territorial integrity of states," read a statement by Sarkozy's office. Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos of Spain demanded an end to "such dangerous events."

The claims that US national security comes first, and that Al Qaeda terrorists are infiltrating the border into Iraq, hardly suffice. In recent weeks, US military officials admitted that "Syria has been more cooperative than in the past in dealing with the problem of foreign fighters entering Iraq, and the number has declined over the past year." The percentage decline of the reported infiltration is so significant that one has to question the military wisdom in carrying out such a raid now, while refraining from doing so in the past.

The Syrian regime is aware of its limited military options, and had opted to choose a calmer approach to mend fences with others, while, at the same time, hoping to strengthen its relationship with Russia, inviting the latter to plant Russian missile defense system in its territories. Naturally, neither Israel - who wants to ensure that the balance of power remains in its favour -- nor the US -- who wants to keep Syria isolated regionally and internationally, and keep Russia at bay, are pleased with the successful Syrian strategy, thus the bombing of October 26. Indeed, it was a warning to Syria, but considering Bush's dwindling weeks in office, it might as well be a late warning that would yield nothing but further animosity towards the US, not just in Syria but throughout the world.

I ran a full marathon before (the Vancouver Marathon in Canada in May 2008). I finished at a 4:10:29 and intended to break the four-hour mark in the next run. But since then, I sustained a knee injury. Compounded with an old back injury, training for the Philly Marathon has been much harder than I thought it would be.

I try to maintain a 40 miles per week running routine and juggle many hours of writing, editing, interviews, travel and public speaking events at the same time. Needless to say, it's been really tough. But I had a cure to keep me motivated. Before every major run, especially when I am feeling particularly demoralized, I visit Playgrounds for Palestine.

Pictures of Palestinian children enjoying the many playgrounds that this organization has already established inspire me to trot on. I was born and raised in a refugee camp in Gaza, and truly understand what these playgrounds mean for the children.

My last a major runs in the last two weeks were around 13, 15 and finally 20 miles each. I think I am ready for Philadelphia, but still, we don't half enough to build that playground in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

Today, I read a new report filed from Nahr Al Bared refugee camp in Lebanon. The camp was entirely destroyed during a recent fight between the Lebanese army and Arab fighters. It included a photo gallery of the camp, flattened to the ground as if hit by a major earthquake and massive hurricane all at once. IRIN News said that UNRWA's international appeal to assist the refugees, fell largely on deaf ears. What a shame.

What have these poor refugees - betrayed at every turn for many, many years - done to endure such a fate? All of those frantic moms, and dads, hauling their kids in beat up trucks or by foot and moving from one place to another, seeking help and receiving little, or none at all. Indeed, there are many vital questions that should be asked of those whose decisions affect the lives of the refugees, but also there is much work to be done to help them survive the harshness of their life. For Susan and I, running one marathon to raise money to build one playground is our main focus, and we are adamant to meet our goal.

I am also certain that there are many who care just enough to build one more playground for the children in the refugee camps. My hope is that your involvement will exceed that of making a one-time financial contribution to sponsor our run, but will rather get involved yourself as a runner, or in any other way to support such important organizations as Playgrounds for Palestine: they provide hope in a time when only misery and despair seem to eclipse the lives of so many children in Gaza, in Lebanon and in those caught behind Israeli walls in the West Bank.

Please contribute to our marathon fundraiser now, and also get involved.

Click Here to Help: Playgrounds for Palestine.

A 'third Intifada' would imply that the second has already ended. But has it? Or did it simply lose momentum, sense of focus and direction, or were its energies squandered - as a popular uprising - on factional disputes and internal division?

Some of its initial leaders are no longer involved, and a cohesive uprising cannot exist if too many of its players have switched sides, changed roles, or are absent altogether. To approach this subject more practically, the first Intifada in 1987 must be thoroughly scrutinized.

Palestinian collective revolts are not a singular response to singular problems caused by outsiders, for example the British mandate, Zionist colonial designs, Israeli occupation, and so on. What is often missed are the internal factors which anger the Palestinian masses, such as their leadership's failures, divisions, u-turns, corruption, nepotism, and so on.

The 1987 uprising was consistent with this model, although it certainly inspired a paradigm shift. On one hand, it was a collective cry for justice and an earnest attempt at ending an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land occupied in 1967. But it also represented the instinctive desire to reclaim the Palestinian struggle, which had for long been managed from abroad: Jordan, Lebanon, then, more or less, Tunisia.

There was a permeating awareness among Palestinians in the occupied territories that their plight had turned into power struggles between various factions based in various Arab capitals, and that their disputes were hardly ideological, but more pertinent to issues of control, money and status.

The first uprising quickly formulated its own ideas, mechanisms and symbols, all reflecting the unity of purpose among Palestinians. In fact the overt emphasis on "national unity" in the Intifada's symbols and slogans was a clear sign of Palestinian denunciation of disunity and factionalism.

Although the Israeli response to the first Intifada was lethal, it hardly compares to the more violent response to the second uprising of 2000. The Israeli government wanted to crush the revolt before it developed a rhythm and turned into a long-term, popular commitment. Israel also operated with the erroneous assumption that the uprising was manufactured by the late Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader, Yasser Arafat, to extract political concessions.

The fact is both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) - assembled following the 1993 Oslo Accords as an alternative to the all encompassing PLO - were caught by complete surprise when Palestinians took to the streets in defiance, not just against the Israeli occupation, but also the wavering attitudes and rampant corruption that pervaded their own leadership.

If we must accept that the second Intifada is over, or was ended by the infighting between Fatah and Hamas, then an examination of its outcomes is necessary. Although the second Intifada has not brought an end to the Israeli occupation, it certainly has made a serious impact on the political institutions in Palestine. It has given rise to another leadership, that of Hamas, and forced a major rethink within the once leading movement, Fatah.

The second uprising greatly undermined the PA, and therefore the Oslo accords that brought it into existence, highlighting the need for alternative - and truly representative - political institutions, such as a revived version of the PLO.

Indeed, every major Palestinian revolt in the past has resulted in new, unpredictable realities, and despite all attempts, the status quo that defined the pre-revolt periods is often negligible afterwards. New faces, names, priorities, slogans and symbols are often introduced to the mix, although still defined by an everlasting desire for justice, meaningful peace and freedom.

Israel's methods for subduing Palestinians and crushing uprisings have also produced new realities, thresholds and relationships. Methods such as huge walls, new settlements and weapons of mass suppression often complicate the already painful existence of Palestinians living under occupation and result in more revolts.

The first Intifada brought the struggle home, and introduced local leaderships, who competed with the old guard on all fronts, including the right of articulating Palestinian demands and aspirations. The second Intifada saw the Oslo accord and its adjoining 'culture of peace' as a worthless process that failed to improve the dreadful reality on the ground - although it did manage to empower a specific class of Palestinians financially as well as politically.

Now Palestinians find themselves in a transition that has an uncertain outcome. There are more questions than answers: where will the Fatah-Hamas clash lead? Will Fatah carry on while maintaining its current structure? For how long? Will Palestinians continue to adhere to the once uncontested demand for a two-state solution? And how credible is that formula under the current circumstances, where a clear cut separation is complicated if not totally unfeasible? How will the geopolitical split between the West Bank and Gaza play out in coming years?

Palestinian uprisings are often a collective response to hard questions. The chances are the next Intifada - as surely there will always be one as long as the occupation continues - will find again a popular rejection of the ills which have afflicted the Palestinian cause, It would once again reassert the relevance, if not the leading role of the Palestinian people as the real owners of their fate, and guards of their own struggle.

There is hardly any disagreement that Wall Street's woes are manmade. Regardless of what terminology one wishes to apply (miscalculations, greed, or wholesale failure in the US capitalist system, rooted in the economic philosophies of Milton Friedman and his ultra laissez- faire approach), the fact is the US economic crisis is not a fleeting phenomenon and no quick fixes can provide a magic remedy.

In an interview with Fox Business Network, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson expressed regret, unusual to any top US official, for the economic "mistakes" made and which are promising a global recession for years to come. "We're not proud of all the mistakes that were made by many different people, different parties, failures of our regulatory system, failures of market discipline that got us here." However, he promised that the US "will mitigate the impact on the real economy and we'll get this financial system working again."

There is no reason to doubt Paulson's commitment to the financial system. In fact, when it's the rich and powerful whose wealth and influence are at stake, the US government, if not most world governments, hold true to their word. While the IMF had repudiated governments in Asia, Africa and South America for many years for any slight intervention in their country's economies (for a "free market economy" has to be entirely unregulated in order for natural checks and balances to resolve whatever crisis is at hand, they were told), the Bush administration and leading Western powers moved with no hesitation to nationalise some of the largest institutions in their own markets. Like China's brand of capitalism that operates under communist symbols, the US, the UK and others are becoming increasingly socialist under the banner of capitalism. Of course, it's not socialism for the downtrodden, but corporate welfare in its most stark manifestations.

Consider the size of the entire US GDP for 2007 -- $13,800 billion -- to appreciate the awesomeness of the US rescue package of $700 billion. Still, in the UK the percentage is much higher as the country's GDP for 2007 was estimated at $2,457 billion while the government's rescue package is $680 billion. A more astonishing number: the rescue package for the entire Eurozone estimated at $1,370 billion. Conventional wisdom, as parroted by almost every financial expert on most media outlets, states that such lofty numbers are simply a reflection of the scale of the crisis at hand. In fact, some argue that the Bush administration's greatest fault is intervening too little too late, by failing to nationalise Lehman Bros as it did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It's rather ironic that those who cried foul every time a Third World government dared intervene in their national economy -- even if to guarantee the welfare of the poorest segments of society -- said nothing as the US, the UK and others defied every rule of the free market economy long championed by neoliberal economists. Even leading US Republicans who chastised "Big Government" at every turn (especially to block welfare programmes that mostly benefit the poor) cheered the government on as it moved to bail out the rich who, as usual, are likely to remain unaccountable for risking the retirement funds and life savings of millions of Americans.

A dominant argument to justify government behaviour is, yet again, the trickle down effect: a term coined by a Ronald Reagan speechwriter that simply means that what is good for the rich is, eventually, good for the poor. While elites in every society eagerly infuse such "Reaganomics" at every turn, the world's poor is yet to feel the trickles, which poses an interesting question: Why the unprecedented and historic urgency to bailout the rich (for the sake of the poor, at an imaginary point in the future), while the poor can easily be saved without such roundabouts plans?

The fact is that neither America's poor nor Africa's poor are on the minds of European leaders, nor the Bush administration, as their high officials continue to hold anxious meetings and offer the most generous rescue packages. If indeed it's the plight of humanity that is worrying these governments, then maybe they should consider the following, according to Oxfam, UK: "The number of hungry people now stands at 967 million. And around 24,000 people die daily of hunger-related causes. Around 2.7 billion people live on less than £1 a day; up to 80 per cent of this income goes on food." Care International's calculations are equally bleak, with 220 million people of the number above on the brink of starvation.

According to Oxfam, the main reasons for world poverty are also manmade: "biofuel policies, high fuel prices, growing global demand, unfair world trade rules, and climate change." Long before the Wall Street financial crisis, there existed a much more dangerous crisis, the world food crisis, dubbed a "perfect storm". The latter is much more consequential for it affected the very lives, not simply the standard of living, of many millions around the world.

Barbara Stocking wrote in the New Statesman, "According to the latest figures, the food crisis has resulted in an extra 119 million malnourished people, bringing the total to almost one billion -- nearly one in seven people now goes hungry. This is hunger on so vast a scale that it is difficult to understand how the world arrived at this point."

It's very telling that trillions have already been spent to patch up leading world financial institutions, while out of the comparatively small sum of $12.3 billion pledged in Rome earlier this year, to offset the food crisis, only $1 billion has been delivered. The hope that at least extreme poverty can be eradicated by the end of 2015, as stipulated in the UN's Millennium Development Goals, seems as unrealistic as ever, not due to lack of resources but a lack of true concern for the world's poor.

Whether the American, European or any other government infused bailout packages rectify the financial crisis or not, chances are that 16 October 2009 will bring similarly devastating news about the plight of the world's poor and which is likely to remain that: mere "news" that requires little action, if any at all.

For the European Union (EU) to be truly ready to take on a conflict of such magnitude, it must fully and clearly abandon its old ways of almost complete subservience to US-tilted and pro-Israel stances, and of refusing to treat Palestinians as equally deserving of the same rights and security gladly assigned to Israel.

In other words, Europe would have to function as a truly independent political body, and renounce the damaging policy of treating Israel with utter sensitivity, and perceiving Palestinians, at best, as a people undergoing economic hardship.

True, Palestinian projects funded by the EU are many and far reaching, but while Europe has demonstrated a degree of generosity towards Palestine, it has never had a fraction of the leading role that the US gives itself in the region. This is partly because while Israel mostly welcomes American involvement, it has long shunned a significant European role under various guises and logic, claiming Europe is soft on terror and that the continent is rampant with anti-Semitism.

Israel is, of course, referring to the fact that Europe has been much more receptive to the idea of dialogue with Palestinians, even with groups which are dubbed "terrorist". Public opinion polls in much of Europe have long reflected much greater sympathy for Palestinians, and regarded Israel as a danger to world peace. From Israel's point of view, that qualifies as anti-Semitism.

Thus, the nature and extent of any European role has always been delineated by the US and Israel. If the EU, or one of its countries dared to defy its appointed role, Israel would immediately cry foul and the organization would simply back off. Even when Israel bombed several projects that were fully or largely funded by the EU in Gaza and the West Bank, including Gaza's electric generator, the EU failed to act in any consequential fashion, aside from a measly and ineffective statement.

While Gaza is punished by Israel and others for electing Hamas, and as the EU watches the unfolding human drama, it continues to be Israel's largest trading partner.

But is Europe ready to step up to the challenge of taking over as America's influence is likely to wane in the coming months and years? And why is there growing media focus - especially in Israel - on the rising EU role and involvement in the Middle East?

There are many signs that reflect a clear shift in the EU's level of involvement in the Middle East. Starting in March, several European heads of state traveled to Israel in highly touted and "historic" trips, including a visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

These appearances were followed up by equally important visits by European dignitaries, last of whom was French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in early-October. The number of official statements made by the EU, and the nature of these statements are all promising a different kind of European involvement. Yet again, so what?

Some of the officials used their visits as an opportunity to chide Palestine on violence, terrorism and so forth. Some failed to utter a word of disapproval over Israel, as if a country that maintains a decades-long, and oppressive occupation, as well as a long record of violating international law, can do nothing wrong.

That said, there is no denying that Europe has been more, if not much more sensible in its treatment of Palestine, and not just because of its many vital development projects in the occupied territories. Europe unlike the US, doesn't always view its relationship to Palestine as an arrogant power with a list of uncompromising demands which have to be fulfilled or else.

The US's fundamentally erroneous approach to the Middle East in general, and Palestine in particular, has created untold animosity towards Washington, and generated a lack of trust that will eventually undermine its position in the entire region - a process currently underway.

Europe on the other hand, still has a chance, and a good one. True, Sarkozy sang the Israeli tune like the "true friend of Israel" that he is during his visit, but he also dared to criticize Israel's settlement policies, even before the Knesset. The EU has followed the US-Israel lead of isolating, and eventually destroying the fresh Palestinian democratic experience, but some European countries seemed willing to engage Hamas, and invite some of their top officials for "unofficial" dialogue.

Various news outlets reported in April that Switzerland had invited then prime minister of the newly formed unity government, Ismail Haniyeh, for his first official European state visit. Norway and other European countries seemed willing to explore various channels of dialogue with Palestine.

Although very careful with his wording, French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, said in a Jerusalem news conference on October 5, 2008: "Officially, we have no contact with Hamas, but unofficially, international organizations working in the Gaza Strip - in particular, French NGOs [non-governmental organizations] - provide us information." His statement was understood as an indication of French willingness to indirectly talk to Hamas, the isolation of which has spelled disaster for the Palestinian communities of Gaza.

It's no secret that the EU is positioning itself to play a greater role, but little is known of what that means. Is that new role orchestrated jointly with the US and Israel, or is it taking place in spite of both governments? The answer would certainly help determine the future direction and degree of the EU's involvement.

If the EU is there to supplement the US's expected absence due to economic crisis at home and endless wars abroad, then little change is expected. If, however, Europe has decided to tackle the conflict as an independent power, separate from the discredited US, then it's an entirely different story.

Aside from tactical and rhetorical differences, presidential candidates and their vice-president-hopefuls are yet to strictly champion and act upon a truly different leadership strategy: Barack Obama's current foreign policy visions are more or less those of President Bush in his second term. Republican candidate John McCain, however, advocates a less solid and increasingly confusing set of principles: he strives to distance himself from a discredited, unpopular president, position himself as a man of experience and resolve, yet pander to the religious right and defend a hawkish strategy that is no less destructive than that championed by the neoconservative-designed Bush Doctrine, which led to two major wars and a near-complete loss of US credibility and leadership abroad.

More alarmingly however, are both candidates' choices for their vice president. Obama, who has repeatedly cornered his old rival Hilary Clinton with the tireless accusation that, unlike him, she is a Washington-insider, has chosen Senator Joe Biden, the embodiment of what partisan politics is all about, and someone who, prior to his candidacy, seemed much closer to McCain's views, than to those of Obama. On the other hand, McCain, in an apparent game of wit, picked Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, a poor choice by any count, simply because he wished to exploit Obama's fallout with a supposedly disgruntled female constituency following the defeat of his Democratic rival, Clinton.

Back to the seemingly odd choice of Biden. Columnist Susan Abulhawa rationalized Obama's decision. "Biden, the self-proclaimed Zionist, assuages Israeli and Jewish American fears that Mr. Obama might not be so accommodating to Israel." This view was corroborated repeatedly in Israeli media, but most importantly by Biden himself in the first vice presidential debate on October 3. To outdo Palin's passionate answer to a question about Israel, where she asserted that a McCain-Palin administration "will never allow a second Holocaust," Biden cut to the chase: "... no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion."

The new mantra was sure to work. At least he tried it successfully in a talk before Jewish Democratic audience in Florida, on September 23. According to the Israeli Jerusalem Post, Biden sent the audience to repeated rounds of laughter, then, in a solemn decided moment he declared: "My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head ..I promise you, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama's campaign as vice president if I had any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shared the same commitment to Israel that I share."

Considering the deafening cries for war that emanated from Israel and neoconservative circles prior to the Iraq war - and now against Iran - and the unmistakable disastrous policy that has contributed to America's largest foreign policy breakdown in the Middle East, one would think that the agents of "change" in this time of political decline and economic collapse would have the courtesy to exercise a level of restraint in their love for Israel, and, for once place the long-term interests of their country, and the world, first.

Following his 'knockout' answer, Palin graciously opted out of the who-loves-Israel-the-most debate: "I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that."

It's not an overstatement to argue that peace with justice in Palestine and Israel should be the most pressing issue before any future US administration. In order for that administration to embark on a serious rethink with any chances of success in the Middle East, there has to be a complete overhaul in the US' total backing of Israel, and total disregard for Palestinian rights. But neither Biden and Palin, nor Obama and McCain have expressed the slightest interest in abandoning the current course of action, which has fueled untold animosity towards the US in the Middle East and far beyond.

Unlike the Palestinian-Israeli problem, where both parties are clear on their love for Israel and their total dismissal of Palestinians, the Iraq debate is much convoluted. Republicans continue to push mantras of a victorious America with global military responsibilities. Democrats, on the other hand, wary of the unpopular Iraq war, feel the need to paint a different image, albeit a more confusing one. Yet, ironically, according to Biden: "Barack Obama offered a clear plan; Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops...you've got to have a time line to draw down the troops...we're spending $10 billion a month while Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus. Barack says it's time for them to spend their own money and have the 400,000 military we trained for them begin to take their own responsibility." Not only does Obama's plan, articulated by Biden lack clear finality, and can always finds reasons to justify the delay of the promised withdrawal (such as the Iraqis are not taking responsibilities, the Iraqi army is not yet ready, and so forth), it lacks any hint of moral liability. After all, the US invaded, under flimsy excuses, a sovereign country to control its oil and to extend US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Pointing the finger at the Iraqis for Bush-made disasters is highly dishonest, to say the least.

It's unfortunate that even such hard times as these when America is rife with fears and anticipation, are yet to awaken top politicians in the two leading parties to the urgent need for a different and more sensible course of action in foreign policy. Yet more clichés and more mantras, ones that can perhaps rake in substantial donations but do nothing by way of earnest and decided change, for the sake of America itself, and by extension, the world.

If the last 10 months were a lesson, it was that neither the Bush administration is ready to abandon its pro-Israel position -- which has jeopardized any real chance at true peacemaking -- nor is the Israeli government under Ehud Olmert ready or willing to advance the cause of peace. It also became obvious that Abbas is hopelessly ineffectual in exercising any pressure, or holding any leverage to determine the speed or direction of peace negotiations with Israel. This, once again, reinforces the belief that the re-launch of peace talks under American auspices was a strategic choice pertinent to isolating Hamas following its election victory in Jan. 2006, and its clash with Fateh in the summer of last year.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat reportedly conveyed Bush's pledge to Abbas, made "behind closed doors", according to AFP, "that if a Palestinian state does not come about during his presidency, it will happen in the near future, not more than a year."

If true, this would be the first indication that the end of the 2008 deadline is being abandoned as unrealistic and unfeasible. But can a truly viable and just peace agreement be achieved "not more than a year" following Bush's departure?

There are no indications that a Barack Obama presidency with Joe Biden as vice president, or John McCain's along with Sarah Palin will make a measurable difference if compared to the 8-years of Bush-Cheney leadership. The marked difference between the latter and the formers, however, is that Bush disowned the peace process altogether in his early years in office. The next president is likely to avoid such a miscalculation.

Various factors contributed to Bush's reluctant return to his self-declared role as a peace broker. One was the death of PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, and another was the need to create distraction from the Iraq fiasco. Abbas was recreated to present the antithesis of Arafat and enjoy the legitimacy of a statesman. He was further bolstered following the political rise of Hamas, whose existence was presented as the only obstacle to the peace process.

But will Obama-Biden, or McCain-Palin approach the Middle East's toughest conflict differently, especially as Israel is itself being shaped by a seemingly major political reformation with the advent of Tzipi Livni as Israel's next prime minister?

Presuming that Livni's Kadima party victory on Sept. 18 will yield a stable government or coalition that would keep her at the helm, one finds it difficult to believe that any combination of future Israeli-US administrations will bring about a satisfactory peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. This is not an outcome of sheer pessimism or even empirical review of history, but simply because none of the names above has exhibited any promising signs of change.

Obama's grovelling to Israel at the recent American-Israeli Public Action Committee's conference and his increasingly hawkish foreign policy stances -- consistent with the expectations of Israel and its friends -- was meant to "assure" Israel and its backers that Obama's Muslim's middle name will not interfere with the "historic responsibility" every US administration is obliged to feel towards Israel. His devastating comments declaring Jerusalem as the "undivided capital of Israel" was a violation, not only of international law, but of the US's own foreign policy. Obama's choice of Senator Joe Biden, a devout "friend of Israel" -- who tenaciously declared in an interview with Jewish-American cable network, Shalom TV, "I am a Zionist." -- was meant as further pledge that his love for Israel is unmatched, undying.

Nonetheless, the Obama-Biden ticket is faced with real competition, a McCain-Palin line-up, who represent an ideal manifestation of everything that compels many Americans to stand for Israel, right or wrong: one is a hawkish militant, and the other is a religious extremist. It's this mix of militancy -- McCain is willing to stay in Iraq as long as it takes, and bomb Iran at a whim -- and religious zeal -- Palin comprehends world affairs in biblical terms, and the Iraq war as a mission from God -- that Israel and its Washington backers find particularly comforting; this mind-set guarantees unqualified support for Israel's occupation and war adventures in the ME, and ignites the passion, thus political and financial support, for Israel among a growing constituency of Christian Zionists.

Whomever will be chosen to dwell in the White House is likely to maintain the "special relationship" between his country and Israel. If they were to differ on any thing it would be on the type of symbolism that would accompany the tangible support. A McCain presidency is likely to infuse more religious characterizations of the US-Israeli rapport and continue to champion the Israeli cause separate from the UN and the EU. An Obama administration will likely emphasize the need to enlist the support of the international community, but only to maintain the existing regime of unconditional support for Israel, which often means the isolation and targeting of Israel's enemies.

A similar assertion can be made regarding Israel. Regardless of whether Livni managed to prevail over Israel's stormy politics and shaky coalitions, or Likud opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu managed to snatch a win in possible general elections, the outcome is likely to remain the same as far as the peace process is concerned. Livni would likely maintain the charade of a peace process to no particular end: maintaining the illusion of peace making, but never a real peace. Netanyahu is likely to stall, delay and postpone his dealings with Palestinians, to please his more hawkish supporters; different approaches, same outcome.

Similarly, Livni will exploit the unconditional US support of Israel, and whatever agenda she will find suitable for her country's "security" needs. A worldly Livni with experience in foreign policy and international espionage is likely to present a better match with an Obama-Biden administration. Livni is an intelligent, shrewd, and calculating rightwing politician with reasonable foreign policy experience. She would certainly struggle to explain Israel's war and regime change doctrine -- the original Bush Doctrine -- to Palin who has repeatedly proved to be clueless in foreign policy matters, and much else.

There are no signs that change, true change, is coming, regardless of who wins the White House and regardless of who rules Israel. The fact remains that the relationship that governs the US-Israeli love affair is much more convoluted, deep-rooted, and institutionalized to be affected by the exit of one man and the advent of another.

The World Bank made no secret of the fact that Israeli restrictions are largely to blame, as poverty rates in the Gaza Strip and West Bank have soared to 79.4 per cent and 45.7 per cent respectively. It concluded: "With a growing population and a shrinking economy, real per capita GDP is now 30 per cent below its height in 1999." "With due regard to Israel's security concerns, there is consensus on the paralytic effect of the current physical obstacles placed on the Palestinian economy," it added.

With a declining economy, lack of developmental projects and Israeli restrictions, Palestinians are increasingly reliant on foreign aid, which is largely controlled by political interests. For example, the US proved more generous than ever in supporting the Ramallah-based government of Mahmoud Abbas as it led an international regime of sanctions and embargo against the Gaza-based Hamas government. Such funds are often conditioned on such murky concepts as "cracking down on the terrorist infrastructure", which is duly understood as fighting those who challenge Israel and Palestinian Authority (PA) rule in the West Bank.

Nonetheless, even if the PA had no history of corruption and genuinely intended to invest in a sustainable economy, no truly free and independent economy can flourish under occupation, whose very intention is the disempowerment of Palestinian workers, farmers and the middle class. It is these strata of Palestinian society that have led the struggle to end the occupation on the one hand and to resist local corruption on the other.

Indeed, Israeli restrictions are not coincidental and hardly confined to the classic reasoning pertaining to national security. "In reality, these restrictions go beyond concrete and earth-mounds, and extend to a system of physical, institutional and administrative restrictions that form an impermeable barrier against the realisation of Palestinian economic potential," the World Bank said. It concluded that more aid would not revive the Palestinian economy, unless the above restrictions are removed.

But these restrictions represent the backbone of Israeli policy; removing them would deny the Israeli government political leverage over Abbas's government. By extension, the US is in no mood to help Palestinians develop a strong economic base and infrastructure, enough to spare Palestinians the indignity of living on international donor handouts.

In the West Bank, Palestinian economic woes are compounded by a terrible water crisis, a nightmare for farmers who are already struggling to endure Israeli water theft and disproportionate water distribution. According to a recent report by the Israeli human rights group B'tselem, an Israeli household consumes on average 3.5 times as much water as a Palestinian household. The group blames Israel for its discriminatory policy and tight restrictions that prevent Palestinians from drilling new wells. One fails to see how Israel's "security" concerns can ever justify Israel's plundering of Palestinian water using West Bank aquifers while many Palestinian families in cities like Jenin have been denied water since April.

While many farmers found themselves unable to preserve their livelihoods, ordinary people have to spend a significant proportion of their meagre incomes buying water. A recent UN report, cited by news agencies, estimated that Palestinians in the hardest-hit communities spend 30 to 40 per cent of their incomes to purchase water delivered by trucks. How can a sustainable economy with a sensible growth level be achieved under these circumstances?

If the situation is difficult in the West Bank, it's impossible in Gaza. A report in March sponsored by Amnesty International, Care International UK, Christian Aid, Oxfam and others, described the situation in the Strip as the worst humanitarian crisis since the Israeli occupation of 1967. The report called on Israel to change its policies towards Gaza. A few months following the release of the report, Israel seems to be stiffening its control over the impoverished Strip, rendering its hapless 1.5 million inhabitants more miserable by the day.

According to the report, 80 per cent of the Gaza population relies on food assistance. Some 1.1 million people receive their food aid from UN agencies, which are themselves struggling to operate under fuel cuts and the near-total isolation of Gaza.

Unlike the West Bank, Gaza's aim is hardly economic development but mere survival. Gaza's reliance on food aid has increased tenfold since 1999, according to the report. Concurrently, 98 per cent of Gaza's factories are no longer functioning, leaving thousands unemployed and wreaking havoc on the income of numerous families.

Coupled with inner-Palestinian violence, US-led international sanctions and the perpetual Israeli siege and violence are destroying the very fabric of Palestinian society in Gaza while turning the West Bank into a charity-based society, with funds provided largely as political incentives with hardly any long-term vision.

Equally disheartening is that the PA in the West Bank has actively shut down Muslim charities, kindergartens, orphanages and schools in the ongoing tit-for-tat action between rivals Fatah and Hamas. It's intolerable that the animosity between both parties has reached a point of victimising the most unfortunate in society: orphans, widows and the physically and mentally impaired. Some 82 children didn't return to school this year -- they were killed in the previous year. And over one million students will have to negotiate their way around 600 Israeli military checkpoints. With the shutting down of Muslim charity-run schools, hundreds of students will lose their right to education. But this time, Israel is not the one entirely to blame.

Palestinians cannot survive on handouts through a charity- like economic system. They need, and deserve, sustainable economic development, with a long-term vision, one that can overhaul the economies of the West Bank and Gaza and make use of the precious human resources available. Israel will do its utmost to undermine such a possibility, as it has done for decades. This represents the very struggle that Palestinians are undergoing: between their need to break free, and Israel's insistence on maintaining its matrix of control. Without proper channels to empower the Palestinian individual and community, Palestinians will remain economically disadvantaged and thus politically handicapped. This is hardly a recipe for an equitable, lasting peace with justice.

The feeling of joy that I felt that day was unparalleled. Rarely do I experience in my job as a writer, whose main focus is war and conflict, this overpowering sense of elation. I had to tell someone that 11,000 toys would be shipped to Palestinian refugee camps before the Muslim holiday. This will certainly be a memorable Eid for so many children denied the simple pleasure of holding a teddy bear, or watching a toy police car running in circles with blazing sirens. My friend, Mohammed, a reporter from Egypt, however, was not very impressed.

"Toys?" he asked with an irritated tone. "What Palestinian children need is weapons, to defend themselves," he exultantly explained, as various colleagues nodded their head with agreement.

His statement mixed truth with bizarre logic. True, Palestinian children needed to be protected, but to expect a child to further abandon his childhood and to carry a weapon was most cruel, insensitive.

I revisited the subject with my friend an hour later, this time armed with all sorts of print outs. "The Convention on the Rights of the Child," I lectured, asserted that "every child has the inherent right to life...survival and development," that "children must be protected from 'injury or abuse, that "a child who is seeking refugee status or who is...a refugee ... [shall] receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance." He seemed equally unimpressed. Later that evening I found my friend with a shopping cart, loaded with toys, candies, and all the rest, as he and his entire family were cheerfully finishing their shopping for the Muslim holiday. His children were eagerly pointing at every dazzling toy they find, and he, happily obliged.

I still wonder if he had ever figured out the irony in denying Palestinian children toys for the holiday and hauling, on the very same day, every toy his kids requested?

This episode took place several years ago, but I am still as resentful as ever, resentful of the notion that Palestinians, mostly in refugee camps, are entrusted with the daunting task of withstanding the awesome military might of Israel, entirely alone. While some Arab media are tirelessly singing the praise of heroic Palestinians, the governments of these same countries are ensuring that the siege of Gaza is complete, that the 'punishment' of Palestinians is perfected, that starvation, misery and despair continue to prevail. This decade-long hypocrisy is symptomatic, and is inherit in the relationship between many Arab states and Palestinians: the 'guardians' of the Holy Land, those who resist, suffer and often die alone.

But even a child, in a most atrocious war zone is still a child. No matter how much fear and grief prevail in her life, she still longs for a toy monkey that flips around on the push of a button.

In fact, that was one of very a few toys that I have ever received growing up as a child in Gaza. The bond that grew between me and the flipping monkey was legendary. I often checked on him, tucked neatly into a drawer in my mom's closet following every Israeli raid, before I left for school and when I came back. It gave me a sense of comfort amid a dreadful and terrifying life.

In Gaza, parents hardly worry themselves with such minor subjects as buying toys. When flour and sugar are missing, rubber ducks and water guns can wait. For children however, even those who survive the most appalling violence, or even those who sustain an injury or a lifetime disability, only a teddy bear can bring a smile, only a toy monkey can somehow restore the sense of loss.

Palestinian children deserve to enjoy the edicts of UN conventions. Palestinian children don't need rhetoric nor wish to be designated as anyone's 'guardians' and 'heroes'; they need safety, security, protection and a promise for a better future.

When Playgrounds for Palestine - http://www.playgroundsforpalestine.org - was first founded by activist and writer, Susan Abulhawa, I remember thinking: this is the most thoughtful idea I have heard in a long, long time. When Abulhawa led a group of activists to the refugee camp of Jenin in 2002 and organized play workshops for the devastated camp's children, the organization and its founder grew in my eyes immeasurably. It's easy to theorize endlessly about the 'violent tendencies' of Palestinian children, and sermonize incessantly of the need to send weapons to children, already battered by war and violence. But, thankfully, there are those with the passion to understand that what Palestinian children need the most is their freedom, their milk, their school uniforms and supplies, their innocence, their giggles as they go down the slide of a jungle gym.

On November 23, Susan Abulhawa and I, joined by a few others, will be running the Philadelphia Marathon. Our goal is to raise 12,000 dollars to build a playground for Palestinian children. The organization has already erected several playgrounds throughout the Occupied Territories (it's also building three playgrounds in Lebanon's refugee camps and sending 152 soccer balls) that has served thousands of children. But more is needed, and we need your help.

Please visit this link (http://playgroundsforpalestine.com/support_runners.php) and contribute. You can also join us, or run your own race to raise awareness and funds for Palestinian children and Playgrounds for Palestine. Palestinian children deserve more than words of sympathy. They deserve their childhood back.

Thank you for your help.

"I am extremely angry with the Palestinian organisations... We are studying the measures to be taken in the face of the current Palestinian chaos," he said, after a meeting of Arab foreign ministers. He added, "the sanctions would not be against anyone in particular. They would be against the party which obstructs reconciliation and maybe against everyone or against the organisation which obstructs Egyptian efforts."

Considering Moussa's devoted efforts in the past aimed at solidifying a Palestinian front and generating a semblance of a Arab unity in its support, one can only sympathise with the head of the League's frustration and indeed "extreme anger".

Palestinian disunity, and political -- if not, geopolitical -- fragmentation is eroding the Palestinian cause more than all Israeli efforts, walls and military incursions combined. The painful-to-watch televised bickering between representatives of various Palestinian factions has led to confusion among traditionally pro-Palestinian groups worldwide. The political objectives -- once agreed upon as "constants" -- and symbols that once united Palestinians everywhere are now wide open for extreme interpretation.

In fact, "respecting the sanctity of Palestinian blood", which for long served as the lowest possible denominator agreed on by every Palestinian grouping, has been violated many times in recent months and years; too many times to count. Repeating the slogan is, at this point, an empty mantra, joining the numerous other mantras that have for long served as a sedative for the hapless masses, whether Arabs, Palestinians or both.

That said, a reality check is also in order. It might be easy for the Arab League to pass a measure or two to sanction Palestinian groups who might be perceived as the ones jeopardising the Cairo talks, whether the ones underway or the larger gatherings scheduled for October. Not even Palestinians would dare criticise the League for practising some brotherly tough love for the sake of the cause of Palestine, which is supposedly the main overriding priority for every Arab state -- another mantra. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on the Arab League, as it mulls over the issue of sanctions, to consider the role that some of its own members have played in instigating Palestinian infighting.

Following Hamas's majority victory in Legislative Council elections in January 2006, Arab countries could have congratulated the winner, promised cooperation and urged unity among rivals. Instead, some chose to do the exact opposite, ostracising Hamas from their meetings and conferences, playing favourites and smoothing the way for US-led international sanctions that have devastated Palestinian society in Gaza, leading to utter desperation and strife.

Moreover, some of those countries found it appropriate to train Palestinian fighters loyal to the Fatah faction in preparation for combat not against Israel but against their own Palestinian brethren in Gaza and the West Bank. The funds for such camps were, of course, provided courtesy of Uncle Sam, and some of the weapons were widely reportedly to have been channelled through Israel.

As for the embargo that has turned an already desperate Gaza into a secure open-air prison, with medicine being smuggled through tunnels and malnutrition wreaking havoc among the young and old, it would have not succeeded if Israel were the only gatekeeper. Unfortunately, the fact that Egypt has sealed its borders to Palestinians in Gaza made the punishment complete.

Secretary-General Moussa perhaps enjoys more respect among Palestinians than some of their own leaders, but the truth must be told, especially since has he had the courage to open the door of candour and honesty. "Do they [the Palestinians] have a state for them to be fighting over [for] ministerial positions? We kidded ourselves and called it the state of Palestine. It's not a state until it obtains its full rights."

He cannot possibly be anymore accurate. Palestinians are nowhere near the process of state building and they should remain a national liberation movement until freedom is attained. But equally we also kid ourselves when we place our full trust in the Arab League, which is merely a reflection of the wishes of its members with records that are morally porous themselves.

What is the point of lending the Egypt talks complete trust if some parties receive their pointers from Washington and brazenly consult with their "peace partners" in Tel Aviv? It makes good sense for those who are not on Washington's payroll -- but on its "terror list" -- to be immensely wary and constantly alarmed.

On the other hand, one cannot completely override the possibility that Hamas is in consultation with, and maybe to a degree influenced by, Iran. But let's be realistic for a moment. What is Hamas's political leverage amid reconciliation talks given the level of political and financial validation and backing that its main rival enjoys? Very little, indeed, aside from its ability to hold on to the impoverished Gaza Strip and with a lonely Israeli soldier in its custody. Iran stepped up its support of Hamas and the latter is willing to accept the support of Micronesia if that latter is willing to offer it.

True, Palestinian unity is a must and is a prerequisite to any meaningful, large scale Palestinian strategy aimed at ending the Israeli occupation. But the term must be appreciated, qualified and its practical meaning understood fully before it too turns into another cheap Arab mantra, inscribed on many street corners, but no longer meaning anything.

A precarious report published in The Jerusalem Post -- citing a news report in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai on 2 September -- claimed that the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has left Syria and moved to Sudan. "Palestinian sources told the paper that Meshaal had come to an understanding with Damascus whereby the Hamas chief would agree to leave the state," according to the report. It suggested that the indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel "may have played a part in the decision". Hamas soon denied the report.

Whether the report is fully, partially or not at all accurate, the fact remains that Israel's key objective in engaging Syria is to further isolate Hamas and to deny its leadership safe haven. Syria opened its doors to several Palestinian factions, who have operated politically with a degree of unison, following the September 1993 Oslo Accords. The relationship between Syria and Hamas in particular was often scrutinised as a Syrian bargaining chip in any future negotiations with Israel over the fate of the Golan. It is no secret that Israel would not transfer the Golan back to its rightful owner if Hamas and other Palestinian groups continue to use Damascus as their headquarters, a platform of political freedom and a degree of legitimacy.

But this is an issue that even Hamas itself doesn't seem to be concerned with, at least at the moment, for it's equally understood that Israel is not serious about its negotiations with Syria, and that the whole affair is a political manoeuvre aimed at disturbing the Syria-Iran alliance, cutting off the supposed Hizbullah weapon supply route, and further de-legitimising Hamas, while propping up its Palestinian rivals. Israel is "engaging" Syria because it's simply running out of options.

Consider A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a report prepared and signed by major Washington-based neoconservatives in 1996. It made the following recommendation to the Israeli government at the time: "Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naïvely with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbours, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organisations."

The mindset behind the report had great sway over Israeli thinking, as was made clear in 2000 when then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak froze Israeli-Syrian negotiations at a point that an agreement was reportedly at hand. The thrust of Israel's policy towards Syria was predicated on the latter's presence in Lebanon. Even after Hizbullah forced Israel out of Lebanon in the summer of 2000, Israel never disavowed its interests in that small country, and thoroughly focussed on removing Syria, a task that was made possible with backing from Washington.

"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathise, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon," the Clean Break report recommended.

That was tried and failed miserably. Israel's goals were trashed in its war on Lebanon in July-August 2006. The war delivered more than a military blow to Israel and a political blow to its benefactors in Washington. It empowered Hizbullah to emerge as Lebanon's strongest party without any direct Syrian involvement.

Since then, Israel has resorted to a strategy of scare tactics against Syria and its Iranian ally. French President Nicolas Sarkozy used a recent four-way summit in Damascus to deliver an essentially Israeli message. He warned Iran of a "catastrophic" Israeli strike if it insists on pursuing its nuclear programme. Although the message was to Iran, the hope was for Syria to take notice as well.

But Sarkozy's choice of Damascus to promote Israel's ominous threat further highlights the relevance of Iran to his efforts, which would not have actualised without prior Israeli consent. Considering how quickly the Iraqi regime fell following the US invasion in 2003, and the succumbing of the Libyan government soon after, Syria is treading carefully, while trying to hold on to several winning cards, its strong relationship with Iran being one.

Although Syria is eager to reclaim the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights, its leaders must also realise that the current Israeli leadership is in no position to negotiate withdrawal from what was illegally annexed by the Israeli Knesset in 1982. To override the strong opposition to withdrawal, the Israeli leadership must be indisputably interested in ending the occupation -- which it is not -- and strong enough to pull off such a major "concession", which is also not the case.

Nonetheless, Syria carries on with its indirect talks with Israel, one round after the other, with much enthusiasm, coupled with talks about economic development, investment, etc.

It is clear that neither Israel nor Syria is anticipating a "breakthrough" anytime soon. For now, talking is an end in itself. Concurrently, Israel wishes to woo Syria to break with Hamas and other Palestinian groups, break with Iran and, at least, twist Hizbullah's arm in Lebanon. Syria, on the other hand, knows well that indirect talks with Israel are an unmatched act of political validation in the West, enough to lessen US threats, win France's friendship, and appear in a positive light internationally.

Both parties want to come across as accommodating, willing partners in peace and, at a future point, there might be a few overtures, the extent of which could be devastating to Palestinian factions in Damascus. Meshaal might not be in Sudan, but if he is, or will be soon, one cannot be entirely surprised.

But to date the decline of US global power to the advent of the Bush administration, or even the horrific events of 11 September 2001, is not exactly accurate. The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union and the unravelling of the Warsaw Pact -- especially as former members of that pact hurried to joined NATO in later years -- empowered a new breed of US elite who boasted of the economic viability and moral supremacy of US-styled "Capitalism and Democracy". But a unipolar world presented the US leadership with an immense, if not an insurmountable task.

While 9/11 and a gung-ho president presented a convenient opportunity to reassert US global dominance, action was taken the moment the Soviet Union collapsed. Such efforts, however, were not accentuated until 1997, with the establishment of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think tank from which many neo-conservative policy advisors operated. Their aim was "to promote American global leadership... [which] is both good for America and good for the world." William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC founders, were inspired by the Reaganite policy of "strength and moral clarity". But that supposedly inspiring model was justified on the basis of the Cold War, which no longer existed. Fashioning an enemy was a time-sensitive and essential task to justify the repositioning of US power to reclaim domains that were left vacant with the disappearance of the bipolar international system, which existed since World War II.

Even the PNAC's more recent report, Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, published in 2000, appeared of little relevance and urgency. It expressed the "belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the pre-eminence of US military forces". The report would have been another neglected document were it not for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, which turned it into a doctrine defining US foreign policies for nearly a decade.

The wars and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were aimed at strengthening the US hand in protecting its interests and managing its international affairs. Afghanistan's position was strategic in warding off the growth of the rising powers of Asia -- aside from its military and strategic value, it was hoped to become a major energy supply route -- while Iraq was to provide a permanent US military presence to guard its oil interests in the whole region and to ensure Israeli supremacy over its weaker, but rebellious Arab foes.

The plan worked well for a few weeks following the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Since then, the US has learned that managing world affairs with a decidedly military approach is a recipe for disaster. Faced with foreign occupation, Iraqis fought back, creating a nightmare scenario and promising US defeat in their country. The US's original plan to exploit the country's fractious ethnic and religious groupings also backfired, as shifting alliances made it impossible for the US to single out a permanent enemy or a long-term ally. In Afghanistan, the picture is even more bleak as the country's unforgivable geography, the corruption of US local allies, resurgence of the Taliban, and the US-led coalition's brutal response to the Taliban's emboldened ascension, has rendered Afghanistan a lost cause by any reasonable military standard.

But the trigger-happy mentality that has governed US foreign policy during the Bush years is no longer dominant and has been since challenged by a more sensible, dialogue-based foreign policy approach, as championed, reluctantly, by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. The change of heart is not entirely moralistic, however, but largely pragmatic. According to a survey conducted jointly by Foreign Policy magazine and the Centre for a New American Security, published 19 February 2008, 88 per cent of present and former US military officers believe that the demands of the Iraq war alone have "stretched the US military dangerously thin". Although not "broken", 80 per cent believe it is "unreasonable to expect the US military to wage another major war successfully at present", as reported by CNN. Such estimation is not too different from similar assessments provided by top US military commanders, most of who found their way to early retirement for similar reasons.

The new military limitations faced by the US in the Middle East have also resulted in the weakening of US political sway and standing. More, its regional allies have also suffered one blow after another: Israel in Lebanon, Georgia in South Ossetia, US allies in Venezuela and other South American countries, etc. Indeed, it is a matter of time before a challenger to US global hegemony arises and tests US resolve under new circumstances. While growing US involvement in Eurasia and its missile defence shield was considered part and parcel of the neo-con plan for "rebuilding America's defences", it was considered by Russia a threat to its national security.

The Georgian invasion of South Ossetia represented a golden opportunity for Moscow to send an unmistakable message to Washington. By crushing the US-Israeli trained Georgian army, Russia declared itself a contender to unchallenged US global dominance, which had lasted for nearly two decades. Countries such as Iran and Syria are quickly warming up to the new Russia, as the latter seeks to rebuild its own alliances and defences.

The nature and the direction of the US-Russian confrontation are yet to be determined with any reasonable preciseness. Internal and external factors for Russia itself (corruption, the oligarchs, and its ability to court a stable alliance) will all prove consequential in the current confrontation. What is clear, however, is that the upcoming US president will find himself face-to-face with a drastically altered world order, one that is defined by military pandemonium, national and global economic decline, and the rise of new powers, all vying to fill a widening, chaotic power vacuum, provided courtesy of the Bush administration.

I never imagined running a full marathon myself. Only when my doctor advised me, following back surgery over a year ago, that I should not walk more than 20 minutes at a time did I decide to run one. And I have.

Human nature is strange. Our weaknesses can sometimes turn into a launch pad for our most triumphant moments. My running "career", however, started in the Gaza Strip. As early as my elementary years in the Nuseirat refugee camp I was habitually chased, along with many school children, by Israeli troops. Running the distance meant dodging a bullet and reaching home alive. My greatest running moment was in high school, though, when I outran a military jeep. Along with my younger brother and a cousin, our goal was to reach a citrus orchard by the Gaza Valley before being run over. As bullets whizzed all around we made our final leap into a thicket. Bleeding from my face and arm after colliding with thorns and branches I looked triumphantly at the rest but said nothing. That day we won more than gold. We won life.

When four Palestinian athletes marched with the Palestinian flag into the Olympic Games in Beijing it was a statement, a declaration of sorts, that Palestinians insist on their right to exist on equal footing with the rest of the world, to raise their flag without fear and wear their country's name spelled out the way it should be, not as a Palestinian Authority but as Palestine. The 1.5 million Palestinians living in besieged Gaza must have savoured that moment more than anyone else. One from amongst them, Nader Al-Masri, had a big smile on his face as he marched, nervously but proudly. Gaza lived a moment of freedom that day, one that even Israel couldn't take away.

But the Olympics are, of course, not a singular idea. Its meanings are convoluted and they vary. Some NBC commentators seemed more interested in igniting Cold War fever as they cheered for their athletes. It was a nationalistic circus, courtesy of the world's largest multinational corporations, catering to the sensibilities and prejudices of every nation, although they were all selling the same product in the end. While sports has long an avenue in which greater participation by women meant greater gender equality the fact that "sex sells" appeared to be a more dominant mantra that women's rights. Olympic women role-models have already been featured in various Playboy editions. In many instances winning gold was no longer about national pride but access to contracts, endorsements, and millions of dollars of income.

Yet despite the political manipulation and corporate takeover of sports the human spirit continues to triumph. When Germany's Matthias Steiner claimed a gold medal following a stupendous effort he raised his medal and a photo of Susann, his wife, who died in a car accident last year. Susann's modest smile in the photo cannot be matched by the fake smiles of Nike's top models combined.

And as Georgia and Russia embarked on a bloody fight that is seen by many as marking the beginning of a new Cold War, the ravenous struggle underway between Russia and Nato over influence in Eurasia, nothing could stain the beautiful moment when Nino Salukvadze, of Georgia hugged and kissed Russian rival Natalia Paderina after the latter won silver and the former bronze in shooting.

Holding true to family tradition, I cheered for athletes representing the poorest countries. What victory represents for an athlete whose running gear was a last minute donation is difficult to imagine. Al-Masri is from Beit Hanoun, a small, half-destroyed town on the border with Israel. He trains among the constant sound of bullets and shells. After many appeals involving the Israeli media the runner was allowed to leave his Gaza prison temporarily. Thanks to the help of Chinese coaches Al-Masri received a bit of training before embarking on his first competition. He returns to Gaza without medals. His resilience, his insistence on hope under the most desperate of circumstances will not generate him much by way of money or contracts, but it will comfort his countrymen.

For Al-Masri, and all the athletes who participated in the Beijing Olympics as an embodiment of a noble idea, as ambassadors of hope, of equality and of dignity, they crossed the finishing line the moment they refused to kneel to adversity or surrender to despair. This is not rhetorical pandering and is something that can only be understood by those who have been told that they are not worthy enough, maybe because they are not of the right skin colour, nationality, gender, or come from the wrong part of the world.

Gaza cannot wait to greet returning Al-Masri, whose stories of the Great Wall and the grandeur and wonders of China are likely to be unequalled in a place used to the same old stories: of siege, Israeli incursions and violence. Al-Masri's town will certainly take a time away from grief, and rejoice the return of its champion. A Palestinian poet once wrote: "Our celebrations will plant us firmly into the earth." Beit Hanoun will live up to that promise.

Prior to Saakashvili's war, little was known about the political specifics of that area and the brewing decades-long territorial disputes which date back to the early 20th century, highlighted during an intense civil war that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union and its satellite states. Georgia's successful secession from the Soviet grip, understandably, inspired independence fervour in ethnic regions within Georgia. The small region of South Ossetia -- majority ethnic Russians and minority Georgians -- sought to join the North Ossetian province, which remained part of Russia. Another region was Abkhazia, whose protracted fight with the central Georgian government has also provoked much violence.

The fact that South Ossetia belongs to Georgia was hardly contested. Even Russia has long recognised Georgian sovereignty in that region. Russia, nonetheless, remained largely involved in South Ossetia -- mostly as a "peacekeeping force", rationalising such involvement as essential for the national security of the country and the safety of its citizens. Most South Ossentians -- like Abkhazians -- hold Russian citizenship.

But setting such rationale aside, the fact is that South Ossetia is an important component in Russian foreign policy, and particularly its policy and attitude towards former Soviet republics and satellite states in Eastern Europe. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was transformed into a political scramble: the US and NATO expanded their boundaries of influence and territorial outreach, while Russia struggled to maintain a level of influence and halt the encroachment of the US-led NATO.

Georgia, situated strategically between Russia, the Black Sea, Turkey and Iran, deserved due attention. The US became keenly interested in ensuring the inclusion of Georgia into its sphere of influence. Through dedicated efforts, a pro-Western leader, Saakashvili, came to power through a highly televised "Rose Revolution". While the integrity of the elections that followed and the role of the CIA in concocting and ensuring the success of the "revolution" are still intensely debated, the fact is Georgia fell into a new sphere of influence. Saakashvili is a man desperate for European-US validation. He too sought NATO membership and heedlessly invited Israeli military "specialists" to modernise his country's armed forces in anticipation of a battle with Russia.

Evidently, Georgia's leader knew well that a victory against Russia was unattainable. By embarking on a war against a tiny province, because, as he claimed, he ran out of patience, Saakashvili was following a script that was hardly of his own writing. The logic behind the war was to test Russia's resolve, and the readiness of its newest president, Dmitri Medvedev. A hesitant Russian response would be taken as another sign of weakness or lack of political and military decisiveness in Moscow, which might also inspire more such experiments. Too harsh a response could also be decried as "genocide" and war crimes and could be exploited to compel Russia's weaker neighbours to seek the protection of NATO.

This is what indeed transpired since Russia called off military actions 13 August.

First, leaders of pro-US countries in the region -- namely, Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia -- attended a rally in support of Georgia's Saakashvili on 14 August in Tbilisi. The televised event was accompanied by a flood of experts pedalling Russia's evil intents to the world media while promoting a larger US role to ensure the independence of these nations and to preserve their fragile democracies. "They're all seriously worried that it's Georgia today and one of them tomorrow," surmised Krzysztof Bobinski, director of the Warsaw-based Unia & Polska Foundation.

Second, the Russian response to Georgia's war in South Ossetia has resulted in a remarkable breakthrough in negotiations between the US and East European countries regarding the Bush administration's plans for a new missile defence shield. On 14 August, "Poland and the US signed a deal to build a controversial missile defence shield in Eastern Europe," reported the British Telegraph newspaper. "The agreement highlights how Russia's invasion of Georgia has prompted a swift reappraisal of the region's security and alliances. The US and Poland have been talking about the missile shield for a year but rushed to cement their alliance in the wake of this week's conflict."

It's rather interesting how a controversial and unpopular plan that has raised the ire of the Polish people -- 70 per cent of the country is against it -- was overcome within days of war and is now embraced as a necessary deterrent. One cannot help but question the relationship between the decision to invade South Ossetia, which was certain to compel some Russian response, and the rush to embrace Bush's military designs in that region. The plan to place missiles in Poland seemed like a resounding failure as late as last month when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "tried and failed just before leaving for Europe on Monday [7 July] to seal a deal to place missiles in Poland, the State Department said," according to CNN. Now Poland is all for it. It return, Poland would receive US assistance in overhauling its military, reminiscent of the Israeli-US efforts in aiding Georgia's military, which emboldened the latter to pursue war with Russia.

While Russia's decisive response to Saakashvili's war may have temporarily reaffirmed Russia's military readiness, it has already provided the needed justification for greater US-NATO intervention in Georgia, Poland, the Czech Republic and elsewhere. That US presence might be welcomed by the unnerved "democratic" leaders of these states but it will pique the fury of Russia, whose political radars are intercepting the Bush administration's every move in the region with great alarm.

The ceasefire between Russia and Georgia, achieved through French mediation, will hardly be the end of the new Cold War underway in an area too accustomed to cold wars. The fact is that Russia will fight to break away from the pro- US ring of former Soviet states that promise to undermine its influence in a Eurasia, and the US will do its utmost to maintain a level of tension, if not hostilities in the region, for without it neither a missile shield nor the 270 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian basin can be brought within Washington's reach.

Once again, the important story that ought to matter the most -- that of a continually imposing and violent Israeli occupation -- is lost in favour of Palestinian-infused distractions, deliberate or not.

In Gaza, the story of the Israeli siege, which represents one of today's most catastrophic man-made disasters, is relegated in favour of renewed infighting between Hamas and Fatah, whether directly or by proxy. As always, the Gaza story is largely told with biased and presumptive undertones: to indict one party as terrorist and extremist and to hail another as a champion of liberty and a defender of democracy. Such nonsensical conclusions cannot be further from the truth as in the latest clashes between Palestinian police under the command of the deposed Hamas government and militants from the Helis family, concentrated mostly in Gaza City.

The Hamas-Helis clash of early August was immediately probed by news media and Palestinian officials themselves as an extension of ongoing Hamas-Fatah violence, which led in the summer of 2007 to a complete Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. The logic was simple: the Helis clan is largely loyal to Fatah, thus Hamas's violent storming of their neighbourhood 2 August was an attack on rival Fatah. Hamas, on the other hand, explained its crackdown on Helis militants as part of its hunt for those responsible for the murder of five of its members and a civilian in a massive blast that rocked Gaza beach 25 July.

Naturally, Hamas pointed the finger at militants affiliated with Fatah in Gaza -- even though it refrained from directly accusing its rival Fatah -- and at Israeli intelligence collaborators amongst Palestinians. Fatah denied any responsibility in the bombing, which was clearly orchestrated to destabilise the Gaza Strip. Gaza, despite the debilitating siege, has been enjoying relative security as a result of Hamas's firm control and a moderately successful truce, agreed on by both Israel and Hamas, with the consent of all Palestinian factions.

The truce with Israel, accompanied by hesitant but constant calls made internationally to "engage" Hamas, positive remarks about dialogue made by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and recent efforts in Jordan to bring the ostracised movement back to mainstream Arab politics, have all helped lay the groundwork for an inescapable conclusion: that Hamas is not a fleeting phenomena, and that isolation and repression have proved an ingredient of strength to the Islamic movement in Gaza and elsewhere.

Just then, the Gaza blast went off. The nature of the beach bombing is a clear indication that it was not a random act of revenge. The high-profiled targets, the intensity of the blast, its precision and its timing all suggest an elaborate operation aimed at a conclusive political consequence. Some Arabic news reports, including Aljazeera.net, stated that the bombing was a suicide attack. If true, then the employment of such a tactic -- which had thus far targeted Israeli occupation soldiers, paramilitary settlers and civilians -- would reflect the state of urgency and desperation of the attackers. In other words, the bombing needed to achieve its political aim even if it compels such an extreme upgrade in tactics. And if the goal was to destabilise Gaza, further discredit the Hamas government, derail the possibility of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and invite security chaos in the somewhat stable Strip, then the bombing was a considerable success.

Indeed, Hamas's subsequent criminal investigation led it to the Helis compound in Gaza. Demanding that the agreement between Hamas and Gaza's large clans be honoured, Hamas demanded the handing over of several Helis militants accused of perpetrating and carrying out the beach attack. The details of what followed remain blurry and narrated based on political affiliations. Helis clan members and Fatah officials say that Hamas attacked the compound with rockets and indiscriminate gunfire. Hamas contends that the militants fired at its officers first, compelling a gun battle that led to the death of 11 people, including on both sides, and the wounding of 90 more. To capitalise on another handy opportunity, Israel promised to deliver Fatah-Helles clan members, who fled Gaza to Israel, to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, in the West Bank, as it later did. According to one Israeli official, the move was part of Israel's commitment to fight Islamic extremism.

In reality, however, the beach bombing of 25 July was designed to provoke a violent Hamas reaction, which was preceded and followed by mass arrests of Hamas and Fatah members in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and has ultimately aborted planned Egyptian mediation between the two main Palestinian factions, thus weakening an already fractured Palestinian political front.

More, the fact that Abbas had met with representatives of the Helis clan in the West Bank, as if they represent a political organisation, was a dangerous validation of clan militancy that has grown in Palestine after the Oslo Accords of 1993 due to the security vacuum and decided corruption that have afflicted the Palestinian police for years. Clan militants became a necessary phenomenon to protect each family's interests, and had replaced the underground United National Front, which managed Palestinian affairs, despite of the Israeli occupation, which has done its utmost to break down Palestinian society and create an inherent sense of insecurity.

The bombing of 25 July, the violence of 2 August, and the political repercussions they have generated have proved immensely harmful to Palestinian national interests and spoiled the prospects of political reconciliation, thus national unity, which in my opinion, was the very intent of the violence in the first place.

Reports on Moussa's death vary. The Anti- Apartheid Wall Campaign's report said that the boy was "sitting under a tree with his friends when a military jeep drove up and the army shot him -- a live bullet pierced his head. The boy died immediately."

Agency France Press's report, the day following his death, confirmed the nature of the death but said that the boy was killed during the demonstration. Nilin, one of the numerous villages losing land to the Israeli wall -- deemed illegal according to the International Court of Justice in 2004 -- holds regular protests against the confiscation and destruction of the village's farms. It's part of a sustained non- violent campaign that brings together Israeli, Palestinian and international peace activists.

"Moussa tried to run away but his sandal slipped off after he stumbled over a part of the fence," according to one of Moussa's friends.

The fact is, a young boy who should be at home enjoying the company of his family and friends, or attending a summer camp, or playing in the sunshine, is now dead. He is one of hundreds of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers in recent years in a consistent pattern of deliberately targeting children.

Trying to make sense out of his tragedy, the father had this to say: "God gave me my son Ahmed, and he took him as a martyr."

Not an hour and a half drive away from Nilin, Bahloul is suffering from kidney failure. He is hooked up to a pitiable looking dialysis machine in a Gaza hospital. Aljazeera.net reported on Bahloul's case: for three months, said his mother, Nadia, he received no medication and no vitamins to strengthen his sickly body. "There isn't one door I didn't knock on, hoping to find medicine for Mohamed," said Nadia. In a place similar in many respects to a concentration camp, where 1.5 million people are subject to the most inhumane conditions, Bahloul's case is hardly the exception.

Despite the ceasefire between the Hamas government in Gaza and Israel that ensured that homemade Palestinian rockets are no longer fired at southern Israeli towns, there is no respite from poverty and siege in Gaza. UNRWA's head of Gaza operations, John Ging, said that the situation is getting "worse and worse" for the people in Gaza, who are largely aid- dependant. He promised that his office would do all it can to help "those poor people, as they continue to get poorer and poorer."

The extent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has already passed many thresholds as poverty has rendered most Gazans dependant on food aid for survival. Hospitals are lacking equipment and medicine, and neither Israel nor Egypt allows Palestinians from Gaza suffering from life threatening illnesses to travel freely, and on a regular basis. Now even water in Gaza is polluted beyond foreseeable remedy.

The Christian Science Monitor reported 21 July that only one-sixth of Gaza's daily sewage -- estimated at up to 120 million litres a day -- is fully treated. The massive amount of untreated sewage finds its way into the sea, and into the Strip's water supply. "If there is a stronger word than catastrophe, I would use that word," said Nader Al-Khateeb, the Palestinian director of Friends of the Earth Middle East. The catastrophe is a "result of Gaza's dilapidated water and sewage infrastructure undermined by [Israeli] attacks and fuel blockades."

According to Monther Shoblak, director of the Gaza Emergency Waste Project funded by the World Bank, due to sewage seeping into the ground, the aquifer beneath Gaza, which provides water for drinking and washing, is now so polluted with nitrates that only 10 per cent currently meets World Health Organisation standards for safety. As a result, water-related diseases in Gaza are rife.

Gaza is experiencing devastation on so many levels that it is impossible to locate any positive health or economic indicators. Bahloul's mother's wrenching search for medicine to save her son is compounded by her husband having lost his job due to the Israeli siege and while there are other mouths to feed. Unemployment in Gaza is skyrocketing and children are often forced out of school to help bolster the meagre incomes of poor families. Selling tea in the street from giant teapots hauled by children often not old enough to enrol in school is a growing profession.

While Palestinian villagers in the West Bank are fighting eviction notices from their homes and lands to make space for Israel's projected 723 kilometre (454 miles) long wall, of which 57 per cent is already complete, Palestinians in Gaza are fighting for bare survival. Their plight is dreadfully similar. Despite the fact that the West Bank and Gaza were divided by occupation and self- seeking and wealthy politicians, they are united by grief, and by their common struggle.

Meanwhile, in a report released 30 July, Human Rights Watch claims that Hamas and Fatah have both carried out serious human rights abuses, including torture, against members of the opposing group. While Hamas is regularly derided for human rights violations reported in Gaza, which have been used to retrospectively justify the lethal siege, Mahmoud Abbas's party hardly receives any reprimand. The report faulted "the United States and other donors, which have bankrolled President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority and Fatah-dominated security agencies", for "not paying adequate attention to the systematic abuses by those forces," reported Al-Bawaba in Jordan.

Media reports with titles such as "Palestinians torture Palestinians" quickly flooded newspapers. Hamas and Fatah members screamed obscenities against each other and the arrests and torture campaign, reportedly continued. The conflict seemed for a moment entirely Palestinian, with Israel an innocent observer.

Meanwhile, Moussa's father continues to seek "God's mercy" for his son's soul. Prayer and supplication are his only resort. In Gaza, death continues to hover over Bahloul's household.

There is something utterly cruel about all of this, utterly inhumane.

True, Obama has promised some degree of withdrawal from Iraq and a level of communication with Iran. But even these promises are ambiguous and can be easily modified to fit political interests and lobby pressures at any time. Any military redeployment in Iraq would, now we are told, be matched with greater military build up in Afghanistan, a sign that the militant mentality that motivated the war hawks in the Bush administration is yet to change; the valuable lesson that bombs don't bring peace, yet to be heeded.

Even talking to Iran is an indistinct promise. To begin with, various officials in the Bush administration have already been talking to Iran -- in less touted meetings, but they have engaged Tehran nonetheless -- in matters most pertinent to US, not Israeli, interests (i.e. the Iraq war). Moreover, in what was widely seen as "a shift of policy", senior US diplomat William Burns joined envoys from China, Russia, France, Britain, Germany and the EU in their talks with Tehran in Geneva 19 July. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised US participation and the "respect" the US envoy had shown during the meeting.

Obama's statements to assure Israel on his proposed talk with Iran are most alarming. He has tirelessly repeated that the "military option" remains on the table to ensure Israel's security. Isn't this the exact same policy trademark infused during the Bush administration, which eventually led to the war on Iraq? The US will exhaust every diplomatic channel, but the "military option" remains on the table. This was the gist of the message repeated by the warmongers of the White House through Bush's two terms. Does one need any proof of why such an attitude is not reflective of well-intentioned diplomacy?

What is equally dangerous in Obama's uttering is that he might be, and is already, feeling pressured to balance his seemingly soft attitude towards Iraq and Iran by exaggerating his country's pro-Israel stance in a way that will derail any possibility for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, at least during his term. In fact, ominous signs of that pressure, and his succumbing to it are ample, the last of which was his statement, prior to his visit, that Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that negates international law and the consistent tradition of various US administrations, including Bush's.

One need not repeat what Obama has said during his visit to Israel, for such rhetoric is becoming most predictable. His "commitment" to Israel and to the ever "special relationship" that unites both nations were generously invoked. Obama promised to do his utmost to keep Israel secure and to stop Iran from obtaining the atomic bomb. As for the Palestinians, he seems keenly interested in engaging their non-democratic forces and shuns those who dare to challenge his country's biased official line that has contributed in myriad ways to the ongoing conflict.

Obama insists on disregarding the US official blind spot that has continued to destabilise the Middle East for generations. If he is indeed interested in straightening the distorted course of his country's foreign policy in this region, then he is certainly viewing it from an Israeli looking glass, the same as that used by the Bush neoconservative clique that led America into an unrivalled downfall in Mesopotamia.

But Obama is not alone. If he wins the presidential race he will join a growing club of Western leaders who refuse to heed to common sense and who behave erratically, even against the wishes of their own people.

Starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to Israel last March, to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's in June, to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's in July, no one has failed to deviate from the predictable mantra: Israel first and foremost. True, some like Sarkozy dared voice some criticism of Israel's settlement policy in Jerusalem -- one that Obama cannot dare repeat, even in private -- but the underpinnings are the same: Israel, a country of a few million, remains the primary concern of the West in a region of hundreds of millions. Those leaders' brazen "commitment" to Israel, regardless of the consistently brutal policy carried out by the latter, is surely bizarre to say the least; bizarre, and in fact non-Democratic.

An international poll, conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org examined the views of people from 18 countries, including France, the UK and the United States. The findings of the poll were released 1 July and were most telling. In 14 countries "people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favour taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favours taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 per cent favour taking neither side." The entire hoopla about the "common cause" and "special relationship" and "promised land", and the fear mongers of the Armageddon crowd, failed to sway the views of the great majority of Americans.

Why then, doesn't the "candidate of change", Obama, listen to his people and truly change his government's destructive path regarding Palestine and Israel? Why doesn't the UK's Brown and France's Sarkozy listen to their peoples, considering that an equal percentage in both of their countries -- 79 per cent -- is beseeching them to do the same? These results have of course been consistent with public opinion in Western countries for years. It might behove these leaders to respect the cannons of democracy in their own countries before lecturing others.

Following his Israel trip, Obama kick-started a European tour that took him to Germany, France and the UK. The moods were described as "cheerful" and the expectations as "high" everywhere the senator went, including Israel. As for the Palestinians, it's more of the same for them: the same arrogant demands, same unfair policies, and ever-historic bias.

In the southern Israeli town of Siderot, widely grinning Obama receive a t-shirt that read, "Siderot loves Obama". Obama, of course, didn't visit the Gaza concentration camp to find out what Palestinians there thought of him, considering his ardent defence of Israel's brutal policies against the Strip in recent years. One can only imagine what a Gazan t-shirt for Obama might have read.

Recent findings in my own personal history have been interesting indeed. The present task of tracing my family roots was inspired by a book project with Pluto Press, narrating the story of my father, as once a fighter from Gaza who died recently under tragic circumstances in the same refugee camp to which he was expelled, along with his family sixty years ago.

Just weeks into my research, I found myself stumbling into the details of a massacre, one that is conveniently overshadowed by the dust of the battle, the rigidity of academic research and the lack of media access of those who have survived.

And now, what started as a mere phase of my father's torn childhood in Palestine has morphed into being the core of my book's narrative.

My family came from the village of Beit Daras, one of the hundreds of villages destroyed by Zionist Jewish militias prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. Growing up in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, decades after the destruction of Beit Daras, I heard many stories of our village that now only exist in memory. The objective behind the story was hardly a calculated intent to ensure that we don't forget what has befallen us. It was a daily narrative that simply defined our internal relationship as a community.

The "Bedrasawis" - the collective name of those originated from Beit Daras - were often stereotyped as "large headed" - literally - and stubborn. Although we Bedrasawis protested the recurring accusation, we also shared unspoken pride in it. But that reputation of zeal and prowess was fostered by the dramatic events of 1948, during the Zionist drive to evacuate Palestine from its inhabitants.

Israeli historian Benny Morris, in his volume, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, makes a couple of references to Beit Daras. Nothing notable, aside from the fact that a Haganah's unit, Givati, had shelled the village on May 10, 1948 "promoting the flight of its inhabitants." But there is more to what took place in Beit Daras than Morris's footnote. Arab historians, Walid Khalidi, Salman Abu Sitta, among others, provided the story within a greater context. Still, documenting the history of anywhere between 400 to 500 destroyed Palestinian villages in one volume is not a simple feat, thus much of Beit Daras' history is lumped as one of many: the Zionists attacked on day such and such, the Arabs resisted, then fled, then the village was blown up to ensure that the inhabitants would not return.

As sinister as the above summation is, much is left untold. Peoples, faces, stories and families were torn apart, often never to meet again, along with the decimated village's 401 homes, two mosques and lone elementary school.

Those killed in the 'massacre of Beit Daras', according to Palestinian accounts, were 265, largely women, children and elders. The gender and age groups of the victims were not selective nor coincidental, but related to the nature of the battle, where the fighters of Beit Daras were engaged in fighting against successive Zionist army units, first involving militants from a nearby settlement, then Haganah forces and finally Givati units. The battle for Beit Daras was long and arduous, and duly mentioned in the writings of Jamal Abd Al-Nasser, the first president of Egypt, during his military service in southern Palestine, and of David Ben Gurion's War Diaries (1947-1949).

Morris's chronological research methods discounted the fact that although Beit Daras was located in southern Palestine - approximately 30 kilometers north of Gaza - the Zionist aggression to conquer the once peaceful village began earlier than the Givati's "Operation Lighting" (Mivtza Barak) of early May 1948, and that the village didn't fall for at least another month after the date he sketchily provides. Indeed, Beit Daras' strategic location, near important Zionist military hubs - located inside settlements bordering the village - and near the supply routes to the Negev, made it a target as early as March 16, and several times more in the same month; then, again, in April, and twice in May, and finally in June. Zionist losses were high and their attempts failed, time after time. There was much fury that a small village of roughly 2000 people would not surrender under intense bombardment. A single day of fighting resulted in the death of 50 Arabs, according to Ben Gurion's own account.

Um 'Adel is an 80-year-old woman who now lives in Gaza. Today she sells foodstuffs at a tiny and humble stand to help her family as they struggle to survive the siege on Gaza. She vividly recalls the events that lead to the massacre in 1948. It struck me how apolitical she was, and how, until this day, she is dumbfounded, not able to comprehend the dramatic events of those short months between March and June of 1948.

Until now, she views the fight for Beit Daras based on a simple equation: They tried to take our land, and we fought them off until the end. "They (The Zionist militias) knew well that we, Bedrasawis would not go down easily. They knew that their fight for that whole area was one battle, but to take over Beit Daras was another." As simple as the equation was, her confusion about the whole event haunts her until this day, and even now decades later, she is still baffled as to what happened and why the people of her village were betrayed. Beit Daras, lived up to its reputation of hard-headedness and tenacity, but many details remain murky, yet incredibly revealing and deserve more than a footnote.

One can only hope that the memory of the village survives without having to wait the authentication of an Israeli historian, which may or may not ever arrive. I know that I will do my part to make that happen. After all, I owe Beit Daras my (relatively) large head, and the tenacious spirit of my children, who carry the names of those who lived in Beit Daras, and died there.

An Associated Press report, published in the Israeli daily Haaretz, dubbed the handshake "historic". History was supposedly made in Athens on 1 July 2008. Centred in a photo, featuring a widely grinning Barak and Talabani, is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who was credited for introducing the two.

The three individuals involved are members of political establishments that are largely funded and sustained by the US government. Both Abbas and Talabani are at the helm of puppet political structures that lack sovereignty or political will of their own, and are entirely reliant on scripts drafted in full or in part by the Bush administration.

As for Israel, which enjoys a more equitable relationship with the United States, normalisation with the Arabs is something it covets and tirelessly promotes, granted that such normalisation doesn't involve ending its occupation of the Palestinian territories, or any other concessions.

One might suggest the happenstance handshake and very brief meeting was not accidental at all. This is what Haaretz wrote, rewording Barak's comments on the handshake. He "said that Israel wished to extend its indirect peace talks with Syria to cover Iraq as well." That was a major political declaration by Israel -- one surely aimed at further isolating Iran, as Israel's newest moves regarding Syria, Lebanon and Gaza clearly suggest. But the fact is Israel's ever-careful leaders could make no such major political announcement without intense deliberation and consensus in the Israeli government prior to the "accidental" handshake.

Talabani owes Barak more than a reciprocal handshake; a heartfelt thank you is in order for his newly found fortunes as Iraq's sixth president starting in 2005. Indeed, over time, pointing the finger at Israel's leading role in the Iraq war -- as it's now being replayed in efforts to strike Iran -- has morphed from being a recurring discussion of writers and analysts outside the mainstream media, to US government and army officials.

In a recent commentary, US writer Paul J Balles brings to the fore some of these major declarations, including those of Senator Ernest Hollings (May 2004) who "acknowledged that the US invaded Iraq 'to secure Israel', and 'everybody knows it.'" Retired four-star US army general and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark is another: "Those who favour this attack (against Iraq) now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel," he was quoted in The Independent as saying.

In his recent review of Michael Scheuer's Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq, Jim Miles wrote, "It is not so much the Israeli lobby itself that he [Scheuer] criticises, but the 'Israeli-firsters', those of the elite who whole-heartedly adopt the cause of Israel as the cause of America. He describes them as 'dangerous men... seeking to place de facto limitations on the First Amendment to protect the nation of their primary attachment [Israel]."

Scheuer, an ex-CIA agent who primarily worked on gathering information on Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, wrote in his book, "to believe that relationship is not only a burden but a cancer on America's ability to protect its genuine national interests... equates to either anti- Semitism or a lack of American patriotism."

Not only is Israel directly and indirectly responsible for a large share of the war efforts (needless to say media propaganda and hyped "intelligence" on Iraq's non-existing nuclear programme), but it also had much to say and do following the fall of the Iraqi government in March 2003.

In a comprehensive study entitled "The US War on Iraq: Yet Another Battle To Protect Israeli Interests?" published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in October 2003, Delinda C Hanley discussed Israel's involvement following the invasion of Iraq. The article poses an important question, among others: did Bush's Israel-first advisers invade Iraq in order to assure that Israel would have easy access to oil? -- a question that is not predicated on a hunch, but rather statements made by top Israeli officials, including the country's national infrastructure minister at the time Joseph Paritzky, who "suggested that after Saddam Hussein's departure, Iraqi oil could flow to the Jewish state, to be consumed or marketed from there." A 31 March 2003 article in Haaretz reported on plans to "reopen a long-unused pipeline from Iraq's Kirkuk oil fields to the Israeli port of Haifa."

Israel's interest in Kirkuk's oil, and thus Iraqi Kurds, didn't merely manifest itself in economic profits, but extended far beyond. Seymour M Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, 21 June 2004: "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government decided... to minimise the damage that the war was causing to Israel's strategic position by expanding its long-standing relationship with Iraq's Kurds and establishing a significant presence on the ground in the semi- autonomous region of Kurdistan... Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most important in Israel's view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria."

Perhaps Talabani is the president of Iraq, but he is also the founder and secretary-general of the major Kurdish political party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). His advocacy for Kurdish political sovereignty spans a period of five decades. Thus, it is also difficult to believe that the influential leader didn't know of Israel's presence and involvement in northern Iraq. Ought one to understand the Athens handshake as a public acknowledgment and approval of that role?

To suggest that the Barak-Talabani handshake was "historic" is completely unfounded, if not ignorant. What deserves scrutiny is why the governments of Tel Aviv and the Green Zone decided to upgrade their gestures of "good will" starting in 2003 to a public handshake. Is it a test balloon or is there a more "historic" and public agreement to follow?

In general terms, a journalist should hold her or himself accountable to some basic guiding principals, the attainment of which are at times extremely difficult: to relay the story the way the journalist sees it, not the way she or he is expected to see it; to avoid sensationalism, and to adhere to as much objectivity as possible.

A journalist is a conveyor of information, whether that is regarding a car accident on a highway or the news of a village that was wiped off the map in Afghanistan. Regardless of what story is being told, a journalist must consult his or her conscience in the way the story is conveyed, without fear and without regard for anyone's vested interests. On a practical level, there comes a time when a journalist has to take sides; when one's moral responsibility compels one to take the side of the victim, the weak, the dispossessed and the disadvantaged.

Through many years I have found, to my dismay, that often the authentic story is the least of anyone's concern. A poignant example of this is the Western media's representation of the Mid-East- based Al-Jazeera network. At their inception, various Western powers and their respective media initially welcomed Al-Jazeera, as it, at that time, seemed primarily focussed on exposing the dirty laundry of Arab regimes. It was encouraged, celebrated and often used to highlight the intolerance of Arab states to freedom of expression rights.

It was only after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the deadly war on Afghanistan, and later Iraq, that Al-Jazeera was transformed from being an "island" of democracy and freedom to a derided mouthpiece of terror. The fact is nothing has really changed in the way Al-Jazeera conducts its reports, a process that entails including all involved parties to make a case for themselves and "grilling" all those involved, largely with the same journalistic standards. It was truly unfair that Al-Jazeera was reduced from a complex media body to an "Osama bin Laden network".

This type of reductionism is beneficial, however, to some, for it diverts debate from issues of great import to that of pointing fingers and making what is immaterial the essence of discussion. That said; there are many in the West who enjoy Al-Jazeera's presence and have borrowed heavily from the network to make a case for their opposition to war.

But it must also be said that within Al-Jazeera itself similar agendas and interests cloud the presentation of many issues. Al-Jazeera is a very complex structure, with many internal pushes and pulls, many within who have their own self-serving agendas, just like anywhere else. It's not a cohesive political structure and is indeed subject to its governmental and personal interests. But again, it was wrongly viewed with reductionism, exaggeration and hype.

While many would find that alternative forms of media are the answer to such growing problems as these, current media trends testify to the fact that more is not always better and that advanced technologies, while they may advance certain aspects of communications and allow disadvantaged groups greater access, also create useless competition and misinformation. But for the most part, today's media -- those outlets particularly manifested through large media conglomerates -- are establishments with clear political agendas, explicit or subtle, but unmistakable.

In a recent article I wrote, "Managing consent: the art of war, democracy and public relations", I tried to trace the history of that relationship between the state, the corporation and the media. In a more recent article, "Media language and war: manufacturing convenient realities", I attempted to further refashion the discussion to more contemporary periods, using Iraq as the centrepiece. Generally, I think that the media is willingly used -- or allows itself to be used -- for political agendas and for state propaganda, a role that can only be described as fraudulent. Nonetheless, the huge gap left open by subservient corporate media called and allowed for the development of alternative means of communication, some with their own agenda but widespread enough to balance out.

At the end of the day, members of the press must answer to themselves, fellow citizens and those whom they represent in their reports. Making waves and making enemies in this line of work does not necessarily mean you are doing anything wrong. On the contrary, you may indeed be on the right track. It is when you speak out on issues that cause discomfort or offence that you truly find your integrity as a writer. You learn quickly that you cannot necessarily have friends in high places and at the same time maintain the trust and respect of those on the ground.

In my own experience, there are moments -- if rare -- when I feel gratified; when I know that I have raised enough awareness regarding a certain topic, moving it from the rank of the negligible to that worthy of attention. I felt exhilarated when one of my articles resulted in a fiery statement from an embassy, demanding that my articles be blocked from that country's newspapers. I very much like it when a newspaper in Nigeria, or a Burmese opposition newspaper, for example, runs my articles regarding matters in their respective countries. Such endorsements may perhaps raise some eyebrows, but they are also indication that you are on the right track.

This is not another tirade about dehumanising media reporting in which the death of innocent Palestinians is so often blamed, one way or another, on the "militants". Neither is the evoking of this freshest tragedy -- the child victim is later named Hadeel Al-Smeiri -- intended to underscore the daily crimes committed by the Israeli military against Palestinians in the occupied territories, crimes that largely go unnoticed, buried in the not-so-important news items, nor to accentuate cold-hearted assertion that the Palestinians are to blame for forcing Israel to carry out such tragic "acts of retaliation".

The story struck me as significant beyond its value in attempting to analyse mainstream reporting or the way it highlights the callousness required to defend the decapitation of a six year-old as necessary retaliation. For equally disturbing is the fact that Palestinian factions fail to see in Hadeel's death a compelling argument for unity: rather, they carry on with their political sparring as if they have the luxury of endless time while helpless Palestinians are victimised daily, an ordeal that is followed by no serious repercussions save the firing of useless rockets that fuel yet more Israeli retaliation, thus justifying the slow genocide and the starvation of the imprisoned Palestinians of Gaza.

Some Palestinians, especially those in Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas's camp, are still struggling with their sense of priorities.

The BBC's Jeremy Bowen wrote on 11 June: "The humiliation of June 2007 [when Hamas took over Gaza] will not easily be forgotten by Fatah's people. For the last 12 months the suggestion that they should try to end their argument with Hamas has been guaranteed to get a testy response from senior figures close to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas... One of his senior ministers exploded with such fury whenever I asked him about it that his voice sent the dials on the BBC's recording equipment hurtling into the red."

Reading the above I wondered if the minister would respond with such intensity if Bowen sought his views on the murder of Hadeel or on the fact that the minister's own people are caged, not only in Gaza, but large parts of the West Bank, behind Israeli military barricades, electric fences and security walls?

If the minister fails to appreciate the misery of Hadeel's generation, maybe he should take a few minutes away from his busy schedule to browse some of the grim data on the daily victimisation of Palestinian children. Sigrid Kaag, UNICEF's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, visited the Jabaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip on 9 June. The poorest of Gaza's slums, it is where the uprising of 1987, unsurprisingly, broke out. "To witness the impact of the current blockade on the children of Gaza firsthand was a daunting experience," Kaag said. "This situation must end."

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "as of 26 May, 64 children had been killed in the conflict since the beginning of the year -- more than the total child death toll for all of 2007. Fifty-nine of the deaths were in Gaza and another four victims were Israeli children."

Bowen wrote: "The fighter who emptied his Kalashnikov into the desk of Mohamed Dahlan, until that day the Fatah strongman in Gaza, yelled 'this is the fate of traitors like the scumbag Dahlan' as he pulled the trigger, and it was recorded and put on television for all to see." The minister finds it difficult to forgive such an action by Hamas, conveniently forgetting reports in the US media -- Vanity Fair to be more precise -- that Dahlan headed a US-Israeli plot to carry out a military onslaught against the democratically elected government in Gaza. The plan was botched because of Hamas's pre- emptive take-over of the Strip.

Consider this: UNICEF reports that, "across the West Bank some 600 obstacles to movement -- and the barrier separating the West Bank from Israel -- make it difficult for children to attend schools, patients to go to health centres and families to see each other... the closure regime is tightening even for UN humanitarian operations".

Yet the minister, and many like him, find Hamas's violence in June 2007 the pinnacle of humiliation. Puzzling, indeed.

What is more humiliating, I wonder: the sight of Dahlan's office chair filled with bullet holes, or Palestinian mothers, elders and children lining up before an abusive group of trigger-happy Israeli soldiers, jeering in broken Arabic every racist word they can conjure.

Meanwhile, recent news reports spoke of assurances made by Abbas to the anxious Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that his offer of dialogue with Hamas would be conditional. Why condition talks among brethren while allowing Israel endless benefit of the doubt in stretching out a meaningless "peace process" while allowing its army to kill children like Hadeel at will?

Perhaps Abbas, and the angry minister in the BBC report, are confused about the Palestinian state Israel tirelessly promises. "The future Palestinian state must be established according to Israel's security needs, including supervision of border crossings and the disarming of militants," reported Haaretz, referring to comments made by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. So much for sovereignty.

The Israeli paper went on to report: "Israel says it intends to keep major settlement blocs in the West Bank under any future peace deal with the Palestinians and that its network of roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank helps to prevent attacks on Israelis."

Even if the Israeli promise of statehood ever actualises it has apartheid written all over it.

Palestinians need not pay much attention to Livni's futile visions. They should focus their energies on unifying their ranks for nothing compels more fury than their disunity, and nothing is as humiliating as their reliance on Israeli and US arms and money to keep their own brethren in Gaza starved and browbeaten.

As it turned out, festivities began dwindling almost as soon as they were pronounced. One could argue that the day Saddam's status was toppled was the very same day that the US army faced its real battle in Iraq, one that continues to hinder long-term strategic planning, if not the once-touted US Middle East project altogether.

Five years of continuous and unrelenting blood baths may have toned down Bush's expectations. The lonely crusader who once vowed to fight tyranny at any cost is now trying to secure a treaty that would indefinitely secure US interests in Iraq. His administration may essentially be hoping to achieve what it regards as the best possible outcome of a worst possible situation.

Co-opting the UN has helped secure temporary legitimacy to the occupation. The international body, once rendered irrelevant, became a major hub for American diplomacy seeking to legitimise its occupation in a country that refuses to concede. Even willing Iraqi leaders, perfectly rehearsed elections and mass suppressions have failed to bring the desired stability and validation.

Of course, White House, State Department and US military spokespeople ventured into endless predictable talk about democracy, freedom, liberty and security in order to woo an increasingly agitated American public. But US action on the ground spoke of another reality: an imperial quest, with monopoly on violence and disregard of international law, the national sovereignty of Iraq and near total disregard of the human rights of its citizens.

Now the Bush administration is ready to crown its Iraq travesty with a long-term strategy that would turn Iraq's occupation into a lasting one. The US is 'negotiating' a treaty with the Iraqi government, one that would replace the UN mandate and legalise the US occupation of Iraq permanently.

Basically, time is running out for Bush. If no treaty is reached by the end of the year, his administration could find itself pleading to the Security Council for another extension of the mandate. This would be an embarrassing and dangerous scenario for US diplomacy because it would allow Russia and China to re-emerge as important players wielding fearsome veto powers.

By signing a long-term treaty, the Bush administration would pre-empt any action by a future Democratic president of Iraq.

When the UN Security Council voted unanimously to extend the US-led multinational forces in Iraq in November 2005, the US celebrated the decision as a sign of international commitment to Iraq's political transition.

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN at the time, had repeatedly lambasted the UN and now saw "the unanimous adoption of this resolution (as) a vivid demonstration of broad international support for a federal, democratic, pluralistic and unified Iraq." After this the Pentagon said the "US planned to cut the numbers of troops next year." Since then, the opposite has actualised. Iraqi troops failed their first serious test -- in failing to crack down on Al Mahdi army -- and US forces grew in numbers.

In order for the US to sign a long-term strategic treaty with the Iraqi government, it needs a level of stability. The US military should be able to macro-manage Iraq as troops relegate to their permanent bases -- 50 according to a report by Patrick Cockburn in the UK Independent -- while their Iraqi allies give an illusion of sovereignty in dealing with day-to-day life in Iraq. The US' dilemma is that this coveted stability is nowhere in sight.

Since late 2007, officials in the US, the UN and Iraq have asserted that they have no intention of seeking another UN mandate. The US-Iraq treaty is thus the only option that will legalise the American occupation. The idea of the treaty is to give the impression that the relationship between the two is not that of the occupied and the occupier, but two sovereigns with mutual interests and equitable rights.

Iraqis are, unsurprisingly, furious about US expectations from the treaty. According to Cockburn, "Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country."

Iraqi cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh was quoted by Iraqi TV as saying that government will not compromise on Iraq's sovereignty and is committed to "safeguarding Iraq's full sovereignty in line with international resolutions."

Although it is difficult to believe in Prime Minister Al Maliki's commitment to 'full sovereignty,' one cannot underestimate the pressure he faces at the parliament -- fractious alliances, nationalists from various backgrounds, unstable Shia front, sceptical Sunni leadership. Aljazeera reported on how two of these legislators testified to the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that, "US troops should leave Iraq before talks on a long term security pact could be completed."

Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, the founder of the National Dialogue Council wants talks delayed "until there is a new administration in the United States," the exact scenario that the Bush administration is hoping to avoid. The US wants an agreement by July, one that would be hard to reverse even by a Democratic president.

To avoid embarrassment, "it's entirely possible that the Bush Administration, sometime this summer, will force the hapless regime of Prime Minister Maliki to submit to a US diktat on a US-Iraq accord." (Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation). "If Maliki signs the accord, and ignores the opposition from parliament, he would instantly lose whatever remaining credibility he has left as an Iraqi leader," which would lead to more violence in Iraq at the eve of US elections. "Not a pleasant scenario," asserts Dreyfuss.

One can argue that no pleasant scenarios are possible in Iraq at any time under a US military presence. Iraq's past treasures were squandered immediately after its 'liberation' by US forces, and its present is daunted by bloodshed and uncertainty. The Bush administration now wants to ensure that the country's future is also compromised by violence, humiliation and war.

A few days later, Bush took his message to Sharm El-Sheikh, stating, "we must stand with the good and decent people of Iran and Syria, who deserve so much better than the life they have today. Every peaceful nation in the region has an interest in stopping these nations from supporting terrorism."

Yet, on 21 May, media reports revealed that Israel and Syria were engaged in mediated peace talks in Turkey. Both sides sounded upbeat, with Syrian officials stating that Israel showed readiness to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights, which it occupied in 1967 and illegally annexed in 1981.

Within days of Bush's seemingly firm stance against "appeasement" -- which ignited a political storm back in his own country -- Israel seemed ready to do exactly what the US president had so ardently opposed.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision to engage Syria has been met with much scepticism in Israel and the Arab world. There, media discussions of Olmert's intentions fall between the following parameters: breaking the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah alliance, isolating the Palestinian opposition headquartered in Damascus, and diverting attention from heated corruption scandals dogging him at home.

As outspoken as hawks (both in Israel and the US) might be about the "need" for another war, many know by now that a full-scale invasion of Iran would be political, if not also military suicide. Iran has a stable and popular government with ample resources and many years of mental and physical preparations for a military showdown. It also has plenty of options for retaliation and great influence among Iraqi militias that would, on a whim, turn their weapons on US occupation forces.

The prospect of attacking Hizbullah is also now diminished. Olmert may not be a wise leader, but he is certainly not a foolish one. Considering the utter failure of his country's conventional military approach in the July- August 2006 war on Lebanon, he is unlikely to try the same strategy again. The attempt to destabilise Lebanon from within, in the hopes of igniting a protracted civil war, also yielded a gloomy outcome when much-derided Hizbullah easily took control of Beirut.

The result of anticipated muscle flexing in Lebanon was another blow to those hoping to undermine Hizbullah and the regional alliance. The outcome of the clash was a rude awakening for pro-US local leaders in Lebanon, demonstrating that the balance of power was not in their favour. Hizbullah's triumph led to intense talks in Doha, Qatar, between the competing parties, followed by an agreement. On 21 May, the two blocs -- those of Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora and Hizbullah -- resolved on Michel Suleiman as president as a means to end the crisis.

What does this mean for Lebanon as far as US regional policies are concerned? Although it indicates another foreign policy failure for the Bush administration and an incomparable disappointment for Israel, it hardly signals the end of plotting against Lebanon, Hizbullah and its allies. Another irony is that the peace agreement was achieved in Qatar, a US ally, and only a few miles from the US's largest army headquarters in the region.

Meanwhile in Egypt, Israel and Hamas have been talking, albeit indirectly. Although little progress has been reported, the fact remains that Israel is engaging a party that has conspired to undermine, defeat and humiliate it for years.

What do we make of all of this: negotiations that livened peace talks with Syria (dead since 2000), engaging Hamas, and doing little to hamper the peaceful settlement to the Lebanese crisis at the same time as heightening the rhetoric against Iran and its allies and vowing not to engage "radicals and terrorists"?

There are a few reasons for the apparent "cooling-off" in US-Israeli strategy. The failure to completely marginalise Hamas led to immense human suffering among Palestinians, but actually strengthened the democratically elected group. Every attempt at eradicating Hizbullah yielded the exact opposite outcome, and the group is now stronger than ever. The burning Israeli desire to ignite another US war against Iran is being met with little enthusiasm in the US as Bush's days in office are numbered. It is unlikely that the remaining eight months in Bush's regime will lead to the long- aspired geopolitical reconfiguration in the Middle East that neo-conservatives were once so obsessed by.

It is also highly doubtful that Olmert's peace talks with Syria are an exclusively Israeli affair, designed to create a distraction from his personal woes. The regional implications of that decision -- the future of the Syria-Iran, and Syria-Palestinian opposition alliance and the Israeli-Turkish political relationship -- are too valuable for a personal gamble. Moreover, while some may see Israel's decision to engage Syria as an indication of the political independence under which Israel operates, it is also unlikely that the US would permit an entirely free Israeli hand in reshaping regional politics while the former is engaged in a cold and active war in the same region.

The failures of US-Israeli policies in Lebanon and Palestine seem to have brought an end -- for now -- the "creative chaos" agenda once espoused with infamous enthusiasm. Lebanon has not succumbed completely to civil strife, and Palestinians in Gaza are still not willing to unconditionally submit to Israel's political diktats. The new strategy is likely to surpass national schemes, engaging each party separately, conceding little or nothing, and working diligently to break opposing regional alliances. This will start with Syria, that is expected to bring an end to its honeymoon with Palestinian opposition groups. It's the least the country can do if genuine about achieving "peace", or so the rhetoric goes.

It doesn't take much probing to find ample examples of racism, bigotry and justification of violent tragedy in the words of the man once described by Senator Joe Lieberman as 'Ish Elokim' -- 'Man of God'.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain severed his ties with the pastor after the recent publicising of a sermon in which Hagee seemed to rationalise the Holocaust. Hagee's suggested that the Holocaust fulfilled biblical prophecies because it 'enabled' the return of Jews to Palestine. According to this logic, Hitler was doing God's work.

McCain decided to reject Hagee's endorsement on May 22, stating that "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them...I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

ABC News website reported on the scandal: "A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things."

Anyone who has followed Hagee's remarks in the past would have a hard time believing McCain's statement. Hagee is a Christian Zionist, and the Executive Director of Christians United for Israel. While he may have been embraced by Israel and its backers in Washington for his support of Israeli aggressions and policies, Christian Zionists are hardly fond of the Jewish people. In fact, their entire project is shaped by very anti-Semitic beliefs, perceiving Jews as lesser beings whose 'redemption' and 'conversion' are prerequisites for the Second Coming of Jesus. Despite these beliefs being well known, Israel found in Hagee an irreplaceable friend and ally. The self-proclaimed Jewish state seems willing to work with even anti-Semites to achieve political goals.

Max Blumenthal is one of many writers who have tried to point out the palpable racism in Hagee's discourse. He wrote in the Huffington Post on the day of McCain's announcement that "during a press conference at the 2007 Christians United for Israel Washington-Israel Summit, I asked CUFI Executive Director Pastor John Hagee about passages in his book Jerusalem Countdown in which he appeared to blame Jews for their own persecution. Hagee was visibly piqued by my question, insisting that his statements were directly inspired by the Book of Deuteronomy. When I attempted to ask Hagee a follow-up question, a public relations agent, Alison Silverman, the former assistant communications director for AIPAC, cut me off."

Blumenthal was eventually removed from the conference under threats of arrest by DC police. What's interesting about this is the AIPAC connection. The influential American-Israel lobby had invited Hagee to headline its conference in March 2007. While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unconditionally condemned for his Holocaust statements, Hagee's hateful references did not jeopardize his welcomed trips to Israel, and nor did it prevent US politicians in general from embracing him.

Aside from ardent Israel supporter Joe Lierberman's glowing dedication, President Bush said he appreciated "CUFI members... for your passion and dedication to enhancing the relationship between the United States and Israel." When McCain received Hagee's endorsement he was "very honoured" and "very proud".

Aside from Hagee's largely forgiven anti-Semitism, the pastor was also a much valued member of the warmongering camp. Robert Weitzel writes, "Hagee formed CUFI in 2005 following the publication of his book, The Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, which sports a mushroom cloud on its cover and argues for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West."

Passages in Hagee's book indeed read as a horror movie script - Arabs united under Russian leadership, inferno exploding in the Middle East, and finally, the much-coveted Armageddon.

Aside from his insistence that the US government hasten the End Times by provoking war with Iran, Hagee also has his own interpretation on the causes of Hurricane Katrina. "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."

Hagee's hate speech targeting Muslims (which suggested that all Muslims are programmed to kill and cannot be negotiated with), the Catholic Church (the 'great whore' of a 'false cult') were not enough to inspire politicians to repudiate the man. Hardly surprising, of course, considering that Hagee's offensive uttering is consistent with the politics of his supporters in Congress or the White House. Why should McCain who wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" busy himself worrying about a biblical vision that guarantees the same end? Also, what is the difference between Hagee's biblical prophecies regarding Iran and the Arabs, and Hillary Clinton's warning to 'completely obliterate' Iran? Hagee is indeed in a good company.

Hagee was allowed to foment hateful, dark views of Muslims, Catholics, and others, while still being welcomed into the fold of politicians and statesmen. He was only criticised when his madness touched on the Holocaust. But isn't it true that his book and speeches help promote a regional Holocaust in the Middle East, one which would actually encompass numerous nations? Shouldn't the vow of 'never again' include the many millions that Hagee wants to see incinerated in his quest for Armageddon?

Hagee is not just an anti-Semite; his views are largely anti-human. Still, he is an invaluable asset to a select few who have managed to streamline the beliefs of millions of people into active political and financial advocacy for Israel. As far as Israel is concerned, Hagee is and will always be an Ish Elokim -- perhaps until another war is realised.

Despite recent setbacks on the military front, the Israeli government is yet to awaken to the reality that Israel is simply not invincible. The wheel of history, which has seen the rise and fall of many great powers, won't grind to a halt. Experiences have also repeatedly shown that neither Israel's nuclear arms nor Washington's billions of dollars in annual funds could create 'security' for the former.

While Israel can celebrate whatever skewed version of history it wishes to, it still cannot defeat a people, ordinary people armed with their will to survive and reclaim what was rightfully theirs. The same problem confronted the US in Vietnam, France in Algeria and Italy in Libya. The Palestinian people will not evaporate. Attempts to undermine Palestinian unity, instigate civil violence, and groom and present shady characters as 'representatives' of Palestinians have failed in the past and will continue to fail.

Representing, and thus dealing with the conflict as one invented and sustained by Arab greed and Palestinian terrorism helped Israel garner sympathy, while simultaneously convoluting what should have been an urgent example of injustice, predicated on colonialism and ethnic cleansing.

More, depicting the mere existence of Palestinians as a 'threat', a 'problem' and a 'demographic bomb' is inhumane and actually a full-fledged form of racism. Throughout its 60 years of existence, successive Israeli governments have treated Palestinians -- the native inhabitants of historic Palestine -- as undesired and thus negligible inhabitants of a land that was promised only to Jews by some divine power thousands of years ago.

This archaic concept has managed to define mainstream politics in Israel, and increasingly the US, allowing religious doctrines to discriminate and brutally repress Palestinians, both citizens of Israel and residents of the occupied Territories.

Needless to say, neither a figurative Iron wall, like that proposed by Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1923, nor an actual massive and menacing structure as the one being erected in the West Bank can really separate Israel from its 'problem', the Palestinians. An area roughly the size of the US state of Vermont cannot sustain such a complex model -- a country that is open unconditionally for all Jews who wish to immigrate, and an oppressed population that is caged in between walls, fences, and hundreds of checkpoints -- without inviting perpetual conflict.

What Israel has created in Palestine belies its own claim that its ultimate wish is peace with security. While occupied East Jerusalem is entirely annexed by an Israeli government diktat, 40 per cent of the total size of the West Bank is used exclusively for the purposes of the illegal Jewish settlers and the Israeli military. How can Israel's claim of wanting to live in peace be taken seriously if it continues to invade the lives, confiscate the land and usurp the water of Palestinians?

When Israel invaded East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the Jewish citizens of Israel celebrated the 'return' of biblical Judea and Samaria and the reunification of Jerusalem. Nearly 300,000 more Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, adding to the many more who were evicted from historic Palestine in 1948.

Yet, most Palestinians have remained hostage to the Israeli-invented limbo that suggests they were neither citizens of Israel, nor of their own state, nor deserving of the rights of an occupied civilian population under the Geneva Convention.

Despite this, Israel's insistence on employing military 'solutions' in its dealing with Palestinians have constantly backfired. Palestinians naturally rebelled and were repeatedly suppressed, which only worsened the feud and heightened the level of violence.

The PLO's acceptance of Israel's existence, and UN Resolution 242 as a first step towards a two state solution was both ridiculed and rejected by the Israeli government, which continued to arrange for its own ineffective and ultimately destructive solutions.

Throughout the years, Israel translated its military strength to erect more settlements and move its population to occupied Palestinian territories. Even after the Oslo Accords of September 1993, the construction of settlements didn't slow down, but rather accelerated. After the most recent peace talks in Annapolis in November 2007, Israel continues to grant more permits to build more homes in illegal settlements under the guise of 'natural expansion.'

But it may have gone too far, leaving itself and Palestinians with few options now.

In a November 29, 2007 interview with Israeli daily Ha'aretz, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that without a two-state agreement, Israel would face "a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights" in which case "Israel (would be) finished." It's ironic that Israeli leaders are now advocating the same solution that they vehemently rejected in the past. However, the Israeli version of the two-state agreement hardly meets the minimum expectations of Palestinians.

Without Jerusalem, without their refugees' right of return as enshrined in UN resolution 194 and with a West Bank dotted with over 216 settlements and scarred by a mammoth wall, asking Palestinians to accept an Israeli version of the two-state solution is asking them to agree to their eternal imprisonment, subjugation and defeat -- which they have rejected generation after generation.

If Israel is indeed interested in a peaceful resolution to this bloody conflict, one that is based on equal human and legal rights, justice, security and lasting peace, then it must add a new word to its lexicon: coexistence. Jews and Arabs coexisted peacefully prior to the rise of Zionism, and they are capable of doing so in the future. Any other solution would simply institutionalise racism and apartheid, undermine democracy and human rights and thus further perpetuate violence.

It's time for a secular, democratic state to cease being part of a removed academic discussion, and instead be integrated into mainstream debate, if not dialogue in Palestine and Israel. This is the right, moral and indeed urgent course of action required now.

The contention is, of course, easily refutable. Following the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th Century, colonial powers plotted to divide the spoils. When Britain and France signed the secretive Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916, which divided the spheres of influence in west Asia, there were hardly any 'nation-states' in the region which would fit contemporary definitions of the term.

All borders were colonial concoctions that served the interests of the powerful countries seeking strategic control, political influence and raw material. Most of Africa and much of Asia were victims of the colonial scrambles, which disfigured their geo-political and subsequently socio-economic compositions.

But Palestinians, like many other people, did see themselves as a unique group linked historically to a specific geographic entity. All That Remains by Professor Walid Khalidi is one leading volume which documents a thriving pre-Israel history of Palestine and the Palestinian people. Such history is often overlooked, if not entirely dismissed. Some choose to believe that no other civilization ever existed in Palestine, neither prior to nor between the assumed destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE until the founding of Israel in 1948. But what about irrefutable facts? For example, the Israeli Jerusalem Post was called the Palestine Post when it was founded in 1932. Why Palestine and not Israel? Whose existence, as a definable political entity, preceded the other? The answer is obvious.

It isn't the denial or acceptance of Israel's existence that concerns me. Israel does exist, even if it refuses to define its borders, or acknowledge the historic injustices committed against the Palestinian people. The systematic and brutal ethnic cleaning of the majority of Palestinian Christians and Muslims from 1947 to 1948 is what produced a Jewish majority in Palestine and subsequently the 'Jewish state' of Israel.

Also worth remembering are the equally systematic attempts at dehumanising Palestinians and denying them any rights. When Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time, compared Palestinians in a Jerusalem Post interview (August 2000) to "crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more," he was hardly diverting from a consistent Zionist tradition that equated Palestinians with animals and vermin. Another Prime Minister, Menahim Begin referred to Palestinians in a Knesset speech as "beasts walking on two legs." They have also been described as "grasshoppers", "cockroaches" and more by famed Israeli statesmen.

Disturbingly, such references might be seen as an improvement from former Prime Minister Golda Meir's claim that "there were no such thing as Palestinians...they did not exist." (June 15, 1969)

To justify its own existence, Israel has long subjugated its citizens to a kind of collective amnesia. Do Israelis realise they live on the rubble of hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns, each destroyed during a most tragic history of blood, pain and tears, resulting in an ethnic cleansing of nearly 800,000 Palestinians?

As Israel celebrates its 60th birthday, nothing is allowed to blemish the supposed heroism of its founding fathers or those who fought in its name. Palestine, the Palestinians, and an immeasurably long relationship between a people and their land hardly merit a pause as Israeli officials and their Western counterparts carry on with their festivities.

While some conveniently forgot many historic chapters pertinent to the suffering of Palestinians, Israeli leaders -- especially those who took part in the colonization of Palestine -- were fully aware of what they did. David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, warned in 1948, "We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return." By ensuring that Palestinians were cut off from their land, Ben Gurion has hoped that time will take care of the rest. "The old will die and the young will forget," he said.

Moshe Dayan, a former Israeli Defence Minister also had no illusions regarding the real history beneath Israel's momentous achievements. His speech at the Technion in Haifa (April 4, 1969) was quoted in the Israeli daily Haaretz thus: "We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village."

Israel has, since its foundation, laboured to undermine any sense of Palestinian identity. Without most of their historic land, the relationship between Palestinians and Palestine could only exist in memory. Eventually though, memory managed to morph into a collective identity that has proved more durable than the physical existence on the land. "It is a testimony to the tenacity of Palestinians that they have kept alive a sense of nationhood in the face of so much adversity. Yet the obstacles to sustaining their cohesiveness as a people are today greater than ever," reported the Economist (May 8, 2008).

Living in so many disconnected areas, removed from their land, detached from one another, fought with at every corner, Palestinians have not just been oppressed physically by Israel, but physiologically as well. There are attempts from all angles to force them to simply concede, forget, and move on. It is the Palestinian people's rejection of such notions that makes Israel's victory and 'independence' superficial and unconvincing.

Sixty years after their Catastrophe (Nakba), Palestinians still remember their past and present injustices. Of course more than mere remembrance is necessary; Palestinians need to find a common ground for unity -- Christians and Muslims, poor and rich, secularist and the religious -- in order to stop Israel from eagerly exploiting their own disunity, factionalism and political tribalism.

But, despite Israel's hopes and best efforts, Palestinians have not yet forgotten who they are. And no amount of denial can change this.