American Zionism (3)
By Edward Said, Al-Ahram Weekly, 2 - 8 November 2000
The events of the past four weeks in Palestine have been a near-total triumph for Zionism in the United States for the first time since the modern re-emergence of the Palestinian national movement in the late 1960s. Political as well as public discourse has so definitively transformed Israel into the victim during the recent clashes, that even though 140 Palestinian lives were lost and close to 5,000 casualties have been reported, it is still something called "Palestinian violence" that has disrupted the smooth and orderly flow of the "peace process." There is now a small litany of phrases that every editorial commentator either repeats verbatim or relies on as an unspoken assumption: these have been engraved in ears, minds, and memories as a guide for the perplexed, a manual or machine for turning out phrases that have clogged the air for at least a month.

An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Norman Finkelstein home page, Updated: September  2002
Background: To resolve what was called the "Jewish question" - i.e., the reciprocal challenges of Gentile repulsion or anti-Semitism and Gentile attraction or assimilation - the Zionist movement sought in the late nineteenth century to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. Once the Zionist movement gained a foothold in Palestine through Great Britain's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigenous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine's indigenous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession.  "Contrary to the claim that is often made, Zionism was not blind to the presence of Arabs in Palestine," Zeev Sternhell observes.

The Myth of the Generous Offer: Distorting the Camp David negotiations
By Seth Ackerman, FAIR Extra!, July/August 2002
The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00). But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon.com 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn‘t clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

Inspection as invasion
By George Monbiot, The Guardian, October 8, 2002
The US has been seeking to prevent a resolution of the Iraq crisis for the past eight years: There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House as the singing of the birds. Our role is now, perhaps, confined to the modest but necessary task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all those states perceived to offend US strategic interests. No task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies contained in George Bush's radio address on Saturday, namely that "the United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war" and "we hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands". Mr Bush appears to have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that military conflict becomes inevitable.

America's great misleader
By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, October 8, 2002
Bush's arguments strain the limits of plausibility to justify war on Iraq. This means regime change is imperative - in Washington: The refusal of the three main US television networks to give live coverage to President George Bush's address to the nation on Iraq affords an intriguing insight into the way the American "war" debate is developing. Hardly a day now passes without Mr Bush or his officials stressing the urgency of the supposed Iraqi threat and the vital importance of confronting it now. To listen to the president, one might think that it is the only issue that matters - and that the affairs of the nation are otherwise in perfect order. In his speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, Mr Bush employed what might in British parlance be termed the kitchen sink approach. In other words, he threw just about everything he had at the target, including domestic appliances.

Please, spare us your lectures
By Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, October 7, 2002
On September 24, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1435 making clear its demand for "the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to the positions held prior to September 2000" as well as its "demand for the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction." Yet even as the resolution, which passed 14-0 with the United States abstaining, was still being debated, Israeli occupation forces attacked Gaza City killing nine people, at least six of them civilians -- one a child-- injuring dozens and destroying houses and shops. Despite this Israeli aggression, the UN Security Council did absolutely nothing to enforce its will, and since the resolution was passed on September 24, Palestinians, including children, have been killed by the Israeli occupation forces almost every day, their property continues to destroyed and they continue to gasp under a suffocating siege. Despite a constant Israeli onslaught that has killed nearly one hundred Palestinians in the past six weeks, Palestinian groups have largely continued to refrain from attacks inside Israel. It is increasingly clear that the Sharon-Peres government needs such attacks in order to survive and will stop at nothing to provoke them.

It's the policy, not how it's explained away
By Amir Oren. Ha'aretz, October 8, 2002
An Egged ticket inspector gets on the bus, walks down the aisle and checks the passengers' tickets to see if they're current and not counterfeit. It is not his job to ask why the bus is heading toward a particular destination, or how often it runs, or if the passengers are happy or unhappy. The report on "Deployment of Official Information Sources on Foreign Affairs and Security Issues" that the State Comptroller issued yesterday is a triumph of procedure over substance. The comptroller is not happy with the way various organizations - mainly the Foreign Ministry and the Israel Defense Forces - explain Israel's side in the conflict with the Palestinians. The comptroller is least pleased with the lack of coordination between them and the absence of any oversight body to direct information policy - preferably someone with a seat in the cabinet and in the political-security cabinet." The examples the comptroller cites are instructive, although it is unclear just what sort of "propaganda warfare" he wants (as he calls it). Is it possible that retired Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Goldberg could suggest that lies and deceit should be part of information dissemination?

What a Show: The trial of Marwan Barghouti
By Uri Avnery, Palestine Chronicle, October 7, 2002
(PC) - Who doesn't remember the picture: a Jew is put on trial in Moscow as a Zionist spy. Family members and friends come to observe the trial but are turned away. No place left, they are told, all the seats have already been taken. And, indeed, KGB agents have filled the hall early and, with the entrance of the accused, start to shout: "Traitor!" "Spy!" "Kill him!" The day before yesterday I witnessed something frighteningly similar in Tel-Aviv. The prosecution's request to keep Marwan Barghouti in prison till the end of his trial was due to be heard in the District Court. Barghouti, a prominent political personality, has been known for years as the leader of Arafat's Fatah movement on the West Bank. After Oslo, he participated in many peace demonstrations. He was kidnapped by the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] and put on trial as a terrorist. Gush Shalom activists and others decided to attend and observe the proceedings.