Turkish Resolute Political Strategy

The Turkish government has rejected the report prepared by former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and former Columbian president Alvaro Uribe, which said Israel’s blockade of Gaza was a legal security measure. (bbcsnews.com, 9/5/2011).

The Turkish foreign minster A. Davitoghi, said that the report will be challenged at the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, he stated that the Israeli attack of the Marmara Turkish ship in international water on May 31,2010, which led to the killings of nine Turkish citizens, is in violation of international law.

The Israeli government’s refusal to apologize for the crime they committed led the Turkish government to expel the Israeli ambassador from Turkey and freeze its cooperation with Israeli military forces.

The Turkish government should be commended for its political strategy for challenging the Israeli aggression and arrogance, which they have been following since the creation of that state.

Arab political heads of state, especially Egyptians, have been dismissing the Israeli aggressions during the past 30 years of the deposed Mubarak’s regime. It is also of interest to notice that the killings of the seven Egyptian soldiers by Israeli forces last month (August 2011) did not lead to either an apology by the Israelis, nor a joint investigation of the incident that was requested by the Egyptian Higher Military Council.

Israeli authorities have gotten used to their arrogant behavior due to the passiveness of the Egyptian government and the total support of the U.S of Israel’s policies. In an editorial article in the New York Times, “Israel Isolates Itself’ by Roger Cohen (9/6/11), he analyzed some of the consequences of the Israeli attack on the Turkish flotilla which led to the killing of 9 unarmed Turkish citizens. Mr. Cohen emphasized one point in particular about the death of an American citizen, Mr. Dogan, who was born in upstate New York. He further stated that Geoffrey Palmer’s report pointed out that “no evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons”. Mr. Cohen continues to say that, “The Turkish prime minister, Recept T. Erdogan, had raised Dogan’s fate with President Obama. But of course no U.S. president, and certainly no first term U.S. president, would say what Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said: ‘The Israeli attack on the Gaza Flotilla was completely unacceptable.’ Even if there’s an American citizen killed, raising such questions about Israel is a political no-no. So it goes in the taboo lettered cul-de-sac of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, a foreign policy that is in large measure a domestic policy.”

It is of interest to say that an American Jewish journalist is still carrying the traditional Jewish Torch, “Let there be light”, exposing the Zionist Jewish influence on American foreign policy.

It is unfortunate that the Egyptian Military Council is still under the influence of the U.S. government’s foreign policy. The Egyptian Military Council should terminate the American foreign aid that has been used as an instrument of threat to implement U.S. policy, especially to protect Israel’s interests. Egyptian dignity and self-interest should supersede the $1-$2 billion of the annual foreign aid to Egypt. American policymakers, especially in the American Congress, have lost their bearings and the majority of the members have been put under Israeli influence, disregarding American national interest. The Arab states, especially the oil producing countries in the Gulf region, are in a good financial position to substitute U.S. foreign aid by their own.

Egypt is the heart of the Arab world and its military strategy will also be of vital interest to the region. It is of interest to read that the Turkish prime minister will be visiting Egypt on 9/11/2011 to discuss Egyptian-Turkish regional strategy.

The Haaretz Newspaper views such a visit as a threat to the security of Israel. Furthermore, the article reflects that such a visit is a slap on the Israeli face. Also, the Turkish policy of expelling the Israeli ambassador is encouraging the Egyptian government to follow a similar policy. (Harest Newspaper, 9/5/2011).

The Egyptian public has been calling for expelling the Israeli ambassadors, especially since the killing of Egyptian soldiers last month and a revision of the Camp David Agreement.

I doubt that the Egyptian Higher Military Council will yield to Egyptian public pressure and this still reflects that the main objective of the January 25^th revolution has been implemented.

The Fall of the Third Tyrant – Two More to Go

The fall of Col. Gadhafi and his departure from Tripoli led the Libyan people to celebrate their holiday without the dictator for the first time since 1969. There has been much speculation about his whereabouts, but no one knows for certain where he is.

The Libyan National Transitional Council stated that more than 50,000 Libyans have been killed since the uprising started. Also, more than 30,000 have been injured and nearly 50,000-60,000 are missing and not accounted for.

Nevertheless, Libya is still not completely free from Gadhafi’s mercenaries. Sirt, the birthplace of Gadhafi, with a population around 70,000 people, is considered the strongest military community where plenty of armaments are stored.

Reports revealed that Gadhafi stored chemical and nuclear armaments in addition to heavy military equipment, such as tanks and artillery. The Libyan Transitional Council issued an order for those responsible leaders in Sirt to surrender peacefully within one week, or they would be attacked by the rebel forces. Gadhafi and his son responded negatively. Nevertheless, the days of Col. Gadhafi will come to an end within the next few weeks.

After the Libyan Transitional Council’s message, which was sent to the followers of Gadhafi in Sirt, Saif al-Islam issued a taped message that he is leading 20,000 Libyan soldiers and is ready to fight the rebels, whom he described as the rats of Libya.

In the meantime, the civil protests and violence is still going on in both Syria and Yemen. In Syria, according to an Amnesty International report, around 580 people have died in prison since the uprising nearly 7 months ago. The report is based on 45 videos that show torture used in prisons during interrogations, such as burning, electrical shock and beating.

It seems to be so clear that the Syrian government, led by the two brothers Bashar and Maher al-Assad, will not surrender their authority peacefully and they will have to be forcibly removed. The only way this might happen is if it comes from the Syrian military forces. In the meantime, the balance of regime survival is tilted more towards the government than the protestors. Regardless, the present regime’s days are limited and their government will collapse at the end.

In Yemen, the protestors continue to call for President Ali Saleh to surrender his authority and he is still refusing to do so. He just returned from Saudi Arabia after spending nearly two months in the hospital after an attempt on his life in Sana.

Recent reports revealed that the Persian Gulf mediation might be implemented, which might lead to a transitional government until a new election takes place. Regardless, the Yemeni dictator’s days are also limited, and at the end he will be kicked out.

Vice President Cheney’s Biography – The Iraq War

Recently, several biographies were published by previous members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet. All of them, including President Bush, Vice President D. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld provided their personal views about the role they played in regard to the Iraqi invasion in 2003.

The latest biography is written by Mr. Cheney and is called “In My Time”. Mr. Cheney presents strong rationale from his point of view in support of the Iraq war. He expresses no regrets, even about the false reports used by President Bush to justify the Iraq invasion. The president used the secret report that Saddam Hussein obtained uranium material from Niger to be used as weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact that the director of the CIA, Mr. George Tenet, warned the administration that the report was false. The president used the report in his “State of the Union” address in 2003 to justify his plan for the invasion of Iraq. He said Iraq posed a serious threat to the security of the U.S. Mr. Cheney criticized Mr. Tenet for publicly stating that the report was not valid.

Mr. Cheney even went to extremes by saying that no apology is needed for the use of that report. Furthermore, Mr. Cheney criticized Mr. Colin Powell, the previous secretary of state, and Ms. Condoleeza Rice, Powell’s successor, for not cooperating with the administration in regard to various foreign policy issues. Mr. Cheney referred to Ms. Rice as a naïve secretary of state who tried to reach an agreement with North Korea regarding the WMD. Some of those whom Cheney criticized, such as Colin Powell, responded by blasting Mr. Cheney for his “cheap shots” on CBS’s “Face the Nation”. (8/28/2011). Mr. Powell challenged and criticized Cheney’s claim that Powell was pushed out of the Bush administration in 2004.

It seems that the vice president was very critical of all of those who were not supportive of the Iraq war. Mr. Cheney was also pushing for the bombing of the suspected Syrian Nuclear site, but no members of the Bush cabinet were supportive of such an idea. That suspected Syrian site was bombed by Israel in 2007. Such an act of aggression by Israel didn’t come as a surprise when Mr. Cheney failed to do the job for them. It is not a hidden fact to say that Mr. Cheney was a strong supporter of Israel and an active member of the neo-con group. The vice president was also a member of President Reagan’s cabinet during the 1980s. During that period, other neo-con members such as Paul Wolfowitz, began to plot the invasion of Iraq for two important reasons.

First, Mr. Cheney was connected to the American oil companies and he was aware of Iraq’s huge oil reserve. In a public meeting in Britain, Mr. Cheney said that Iraq is not a democratic state, and unfortunately will be the state that will sell the last barrel of oil.

Mr. Cheney’s strategy was to invade Iraq and regain the oilfields that were nationalized by Saddam Hussein during the early 1970s. The second rationale for the invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein’s government because he and other members of the neo-con group thought that Iraq posed a threat to Israel. For that reason and others, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor during the Reagan administration in 1987.

US Government Bribe to Ayatollah Sistani

Donald Rumsfeld’s recently published memoir reflects his role in the Iraq war when he was Secretary of Defense during President George W. Bush’s administration. The book reveals some interesting and secretive information that took place when he was in the Pentagon.

Mr. Rumsfeld stated that the U.S. government paid the leading religious Shiaa imam, Ali al-Sistani, $200 million to issue fatwas in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to Mr. Rumsfeld, the religious fatwas helped the fall of Iraq and solidified the occupation of Iraq by allied forces. Mr. Rumsfeld also pointed out that he established a personal relationship with the Ayatallah Sistani in 1987, before the Gulf War invasion. After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that relationship, according to Rumsfeld, was established through Jawad al-Mahri, Mr. Sistani’s secretary in Kuwait. It was through him that the $200 million was sent to Ayatallah Ali Sistani. Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush were aware of the strong relationship between those who took the money and Iran. When the gift was acknowledged by Sistani, President Bush established a new desk at the CIA, which was refereed to as the link to Mr. Sistani, headed by retired admiral Symon Polandi.

The emphasis of such a relationship is to encourage Sistani to inform his Shiaa followers not to target American soldiers.

According to Mr. Rumsfeld, Admiral Polandi was connected directly with Imam Sistani’s elder son Mohammad Ridda in one of the palaces of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Sometimes the admiral also met the secretary in Najaf with Imam Sistani.

According to Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein left more than 6 million weapons in the hands of Iraqis who posed a threat to the safety of the allied forces in Iraq. As a result, Imam Sistani issued a fatwa prohibiting the use of these arms against the allied forces.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s book is 800 pages long, and the BBC, New York Times and Washington Post revealed some of the information in it. Nevertheless, Mr. Rumsfeld remained defiant in his justification of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Furthermore, Rumsfeld noted that he met with President Bush 15 days after 9/11 in which he was told to plan for the invasion of Iraq. As the BBC’s Steve Kingstone says, the memoir reinforces the view that President Bush was already looking ahead to Iraq, even as his administration planned the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. (www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada.print-true, 8/4/2011).

It is unfortunate to read about high-ranking religious individuals who abuse their religious role under the banner of religion. If Ayatallah Sistani did what has been revealed, it is an act of treason against his country that has led to the deaths of more than one million Iraqis and he should be prosecuted for it.

I wonder how many fatwas Imam Sistani issued for the $200 million he received. It will be of interest for the readers to find out how many dollars each fatwa ended up costing the politically uninformed Americans.

Conflicting Reports on the Libyan Uprising

During the past few days (8/20/11-8/23/11) conflicting reports were aired by the international press about the Libyan rebels’ success against the Gadhafi forces.

First, the Libyan and international press revealed that Gadhafi’s two sons were arrested. Mohamed surrendered freely to the rebel forces in Tripoli and his brother Saif il-Islam was captured. The head of the Libyan Transitional Council issued an order to the rebel leader in Tripoli to secure and protect both prisoners until they are tried by Libyan courts.

Second, Mr. Morino OKampo, the prosecutor of the international court, issued an order to transfer Saif il-Islam to Geneva to be tried for crimes committed against the Libyan people.

Third, it was declared by the Libyan Transitional Council that Tripoli has been secured by the rebel forces except for a few pockets that are still under the control of Gadhafi forces. The puzzling situation is that two days later and after such official statements, the international press reported that Saif il-Islam was free and met with foreign journalists in a hotel in Tripoli. Another report also revealed that the second son of Gadhafi was also free and not under arrest.

Furthermore, Saif il-Islam stated publicly in front of journalists that the Gadhafi forces will continue to fight the rebels.

The irony of all this is that either Gadhafi’s sons were not arrested or they escaped with the help of their supporters after their arrests. The truth of this situation will be revealed sooner or later.

After the rebels entered Tripoli, the foreign popular international news organizations began to report the European governments’’ concern about what comes next in Libya, after the removal of Gadhafi and his supporters from power.

The French president Mr. Sarkozy called for an international meeting to discuss the future Libyan situation. He extended an invitations to the president of the Libyan Transitional Council to attend that meeting.

The irony is that the European powers are rushing to see who will end up with the lion’s share of Libyan oil. France, Italy, Germany, Austria and the U.S. oil companies are already plotting their own individual strategy to see who will be the winner of the Libyan oil wealth.

No one can deny that the NATO forces played an active role in the downfall of Mr. Gadhafi’s regime. However, the war, which has been going on for more than six months, caused significant physical destruction in Libya in addition to the tens of thousands of human casualties.

Libya needs more time to get its house in order to prepare for a smooth and democratic election, which it has never experienced before.

Western European governments, as well as the U.S., have failed to understand during the past eight to nine decades or since the discovery of oil in the Middle East, that oil is the only economic commodity that they have. Oil is their major source of income and they need to sell it in order to be able to run and develop their own economics. To put it even more clearly, the oil producing countries can’t drink their own oil; they have to sell it.

The irony of western capitalism is who is going to control the oil as an economic commodity to maximize the margins of their profits. They are fully aware that oil-producing countries have no other choice but to sell that product. Even when people/consumers complain about the increasing prices of oil, they quite frequently blame the oil producing countries for it. The vast majority of oil consumers are not aware of the fact that the corrupt and greedy Wall Street gamblers are the major instrumental factors in influencing oil prices worldwide. Let me conclude by stating that the Libyan people need time to get their house in order, before starting to assess their oil strategy. They need to sell their oil and it is the only economic commodity that they can depend on to provide the funds needed for the economic development of their country.

Perennial Blunders of the American Foreign Policy

Recently, an American congressional group went to Israel on a junket sponsored by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to investigate the recent turn of events in the Middle East. It is a well-known fact that AIPAC is the most influential lobby in Washington D.C. It also plays an important role in shaping American foreign policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel. The congressional group who visited Israel was led by Eric Cantor, the leader of the Republican party in the House, who is well known as an outspoken Jewish Zionist and extreme supporter of the state of Israel.

It was reported in the Jerusalem Post newspaper that Mr. Cantor was very concerned about the recent changes that took place in Egypt, which led to the removal of Hosni Mubarak’s regime. He further pointed out that he is concerned about the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood winning a majority in the upcoming election (November 2011). Such a possibility will threaten the American Israeli interests in the Middle East region.

Such a public statement by an American political leader during a trip to Israel is a foolish act that is in violation of international law, which prevents foreign interference in any state’s internal affairs. Furthermore, such acts are also in violation of the basic principles of democracy, which the U.S. keeps talking about.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government only pays lip service to the implementation of democracy abroad, especially when it contradicts its basic interests. It is also a well-known fact that the U.S. government helped to remove freely and democratically elected regimes in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America. The U.S. government has been consistent in removing regimes that create problems for their national interest, irrespective of how that interested is defined.

The recent spring uprising in the Arab world caught the American government by surprise, despite the fact that they were fully aware of the political corruption, lack of democracy and accountability, poverty and high unemployment rates, especially among the young generation.

Despite all of its ill foreign policy, especially in the Arab world, over the past 50-60 years, the U.S. failed to learn a lesson that might give them more credibility in the future. For example, the U.S. government’s high officials, such as the secretary of state and others, have been in contact with high officials from the Muslim Brotherhood, to see where they stand in terms of their views on the U.S.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest organized political group in Egypt. Many political analysts in Egypt have predicted that they might get at least 30-40% of the seats in the upcoming parliament election (November 2011). Again, such an approach by U.S. government officials is in violation of Egyptian law and is considered interference in Egypt’s political affairs.

Also, the U.S. recently committed a blunder, by giving nearly $64 million to various organizations in Egypt without consulting with the Egyptian government. However the Egyptian government was outraged at the financial support given to various organizations under the rationale of supporting democracy.

The Egyptian prime minister Dr. I. Sharaf stated publicly that the distribution of funds to various Egyptian organizations without permission from the Egyptian government is in violation of Egyptian law. He further stated that he is going to reveal the names of the organizations that take money form the American “AID” agency. (www.alwafd.org, 8/16/2011).

It is unfortunate that the U.S> government continues to commit one blunder after another as part of its foreign policy, which is being influenced by lobbyists and interest groups in contradiction with its national interest.

A recent survey of Egyptian views of the U.S. showed that 95% of the Egyptian public views the U.S. negatively.

The Killing of Egyptian Militaries by Israeli Forces

Since the 1979 Camp David Peace Treaty, Israel has been violating the basic conditions of that agreement. During the past three decades, Egyptian soldiers were killed at the Israeli-Egyptian border and in most cases; the Israeli government expressed its regrets. However, the January 25^th Revolution has inspired new military and political trends that is totally different from the policy of the Mubarak regime. During the past 30 years, Egypt was an American-Israeli satellite. Whatever the U.S. dictated, Mubarak used to implement. During the past few days, the Israeli military forces inside Egypt’s boundaries killed five Egyptian soldiers.

The U.N. peace force in the Sinai Peninsula issued a report confirming Israeli aggressions against Egyptian soldiers. Nevertheless, the Israeli aggression has created a public upheaval all over Egypt, calling for retaliation against Israeli aggression. Tens of thousands of protestors in front of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo called for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador from Egypt and the recall of the Egyptian ambassador from Israel.

The Israeli aggression gave a new boost to all Egyptian political groups in support of the Egyptian military forces. In the meantime, the Israeli defense minister issued an apology and expressed regrets the killings of the Egyptian soldiers. The Egyptian government rejected the apology and demanded an investigation of such violations. In the meantime, foreign powers, especially the U.S., are using their influence to avert a crisis and possible confrontation between Egypt and Israel.

The crisis has been the most dangerous since 1979. Prior cases of Israeli aggression during the Mubarak regime were dismissed due to the influence of the U.S. over Egyptian policy. This trend and strategy is part of the previous regime’s policy. It is no longer a secret that the expelled president Mubarak was under the thumb of both Israel and the U.S. and such information is prevalent in Egypt. This recent crisis led to a united front of all Egyptian political parties supporting the military forces and calling for an evaluation of the relationship between Egypt and the U.S. Also, they are calling for the reconsideration of the Camp David Agreement. It is unfortunate that the U.S. government has been following a one-way foreign policy in support of Israel.

During the previous 12 months, I have witnessed several documented rationales from various sources supporting the U.S.’s blind support of Israel. U.S. foreign policy towards Egypt has, since the time of President Sadat, put Egypt under its thumb. During the past forty years, American politicians have pursued the same strategy in the Arab world as a whole and especially in Egypt, by supporting authoritarian regimes as long as they implement the American strategy.

This era is over and the Egyptian public is demanding a reassessment of the Egyptian-American relationship. They are focusing on important issues such as:

1) American foreign aid to Egypt, which has been instrumental in giving the U.S. the upper hand to implement U.S. foreign policy. All political parties have called on the Egyptian government to reject American aid to Egypt. For example, the Egyptian public, as well as the Egyptian government, recently protested the U.S. distribution of $64 million to various civil and political groups and organizations in Egypt. Such an act is done in violation of Egyptian law. The money distributed is part of $150 million of American foreign aid to Egypt. Imagine if a foreign government gave money to various political and civil groups in the U.S. in order to influence the political trends in the U.S. Such an act would be considered interference in the American political system, which is prohibited by law. In my judgment, Egypt will be better off without American economic and even military aid. Considering Israeli influences over the American congress and White House, Egypt will be better off without such insignificant help from the U.S.

2) The Egyptian public is calling for, among others things, the reevaluation of the Camp David Agreement in light of continuous Israeli violations. More Egyptian military forces need to be permitted to enter Sinai to ensure stability and Egyptian influence over its territory.

3) Reconsideration of trade agreements between Egypt and Israel, such as the Qauize Trade Agreement, which facilitates exports of Egyptian-Israeli products to the U.S.

4) The sale of natural gas to Israel, which was done illegal to begin with as part of the peace treaty of 1979.

These points are being discussed by the Egyptian public, which is asking the government and the military council to adopt them.

The Syrian Tragedy

The past few months of violent uprising in Syria led to the killing of more than 2,000 people and the influx of more than ten thousand refugees to neighboring states. Such a bloody situation led to international concern about the Syrian government’s ruthless policy towards its population. Many foreign and Arab heads of states warned President Assad to stop its army’s ruthless attacks against the protestors. The Arab states, after nearly five months of silence, called on President Assad to send the army back to its camps and start immediate political reforms that will lead to stability in Syria.

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan have called their ambassadors back home for consultation. This political act is also a sign of protest against what is taking place in Syria. Also, Turkey sent its foreign minister, Mr. Davutogh, to Syria to urge President Assad to put an end to the killing of Syrian protestors. The foreign minister pressured Assad to start immediate political reforms that will lead to Syria’s stability.

Despite all the pressure and the official delegates travels to Syria to urge President Assad to stop the Syrian army’s ruthless attacks, his response was that he would not stop pursuing the terrorist groups in Syria who have killed more than 300 soldiers and security men.

It was reported that some of these soldiers were killed by army officers because they refused to kill protestors. Nevertheless, the political pressure generated in the Middle East and at the U.N. especially by the superpowers might lead to some political reforms in Syria. However, at this point, the chances are very poor that the Syrian regime will submit to external pressure. Also, I think the regime has crossed the point of no return.

It is also of interest that some of the Arab states who are pressuring the Syrian government to initiate political reforms and stop killing their people have failed to do similar things in their countries. A few moths ago, the Saudi and Bahraini governments suppressed the peaceful protest movements that were calling for political reforms and free elections. Saudi troops were moved to Bahrain, which helped the Bahrain Sunni government to crush the uprising. I would say that both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain should clean their backyards first in order to be more credible.

It is also of interest to read the global news that has been revealed recently, that the Saudi government is creating new terror law (as they call it) with the purpose of stifling protestors, according to Amnesty International. Criticizing the ruling family will be considered an offense that will send the attacker to jail for 10 years. The proposed law is aimed at the future protestors and not at the potential terrorists.

There is also another reason behind the pressure mounted by several Arab states against Syria: the fact that all of them are dominated by Sunni Muslim rulers, while the Syrian regime is dominated by a minority Muslim Alawite, an offshoot of Shia who are being criticized for killing Sunni Muslims, especially during the month of Ramadan.

There is no doubt that the Syrian regime, headed by President Assad, is almost controlled by members of his family such as Maher Assad, who is the military leader of the Republican Guard, which is the other strongest military regiment in the Syrian army. Other high military posts are also headed by relatives or associates of the Alawite community.

The influence of the Assad family extends to other political and economic institutions, which led to the spread of corruption on a larger scale due to the absence of democracy and lack of transparency and accountability.

During the past three months, President Assad has promised political reforms and free elections. In the meantime, the army is still attack and killing protestors. In addition, many thousands of people have been arrested and I see no end in sight. At the same time, the protestors’ crowds continue to get larger in many Syrian cities. Even the political slogans have changed. From “Irhal Now” (“Leave Now”) to a new one: “You Should Be Hanged”.

My assessment of the Syrian situation reflects no light at the end of the tunnel. The next few weeks will shed light on what the outcome will be in Sy

The United Nations and the Palestinian State

The Director of the Arab League, Dr. Nabeel al-Arabi, said recently (7/24/11) that discussions about the Israeli Palestinian conflict are nothing but a waste of time. He emphasized that the creation of a Palestinian state should be done through the United Nations. He sated that all members of the Arab League are supporting that move, which will be discussed at the U.N. annual meeting in September 2011.

It is of interest to read an article in the New York Times (8/4/11) “Seeking Balance On the Mideast” by Nicholas D. Kristof.

Mr. Kristof was referring to the wart of democracy in congress using the latest debt ceiling horrors. He pointed out that, “There’s one area where congress has been even more obstructionist: the Middle East”. He tried to explain that the Palestinians will bring their case to the U.N. next month, seeking recognition of their state. The irony of this conflict is reflected in the U.S. foreign policy, which is designed to support Israeli policy regardless of its impact on American national interest. He pointed out that the House of Representatives voted 406:7 to call on the Obama administration to use its diplomatic capital to try to block the initiative, while also threatening to cut the Palestinians funding if they proceed to seek statehood. He went even further and pointed out that when Israel stormed into Gaza in 2008 to halt rocket attacks, more than 1,300 Gazans were killed along with 13 Israelis, according to B’Tselem, a respected Israeli human rights group. As Gazan blood flowed, the House voted 390:5 to hail the invasion as “Israel’s right to defend itself”.

Mr. Kristof, in his analysis, referred to several Jewish writers and organizations that are speaking against Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and trying to inform the American public as playing a balanced role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nevertheless, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most influential lobby in the U.S. and American foreign policy in the Middle East has been one sided for more than fifty years. For example, President Obama has abandoned the Palestinians and has said recently that the U.S. will veto the proposal of recognizing a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Such a statement by President Obama is in contradiction of the general political views of all major powers such as Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, who indicated that if the issue of the Palestinian case is brought to the U.N., they will be supportive. Also, 122 states have already recognized the Palestinian state.

One of the basic factors behind the U.S.’s foreign policy in the Middle East is the influence of lobbyists in the U.S. Despite the fact that Americans vote and send their representative to the American congress, decision are influenced by lobbyists who are on payrolls of big economical, political, ethnic, racial, religious and educational groups. Their financial contributions to members of congress during elections runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars, leading to the fact that the majority of the members of congress are put under the thumb of lobbyists. Senator Reid put it clearly when he said that the U.S. congress is the most corrupt in the history of the U.S. The situation has even been recognized by President Obama, who during his campaign, promised to curtail the lobbyists influence in Washington D.C. So far, he failed to fulfill his promises to the American public. It is a well-known fact that the Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most influential lobbyist group in the U.S. and has succeeded in putting congress under its thumb.

According to ex-Senator Jim Abourisk, the pro-Israeli lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every member of congress and every would be candidate for congress comes to quickly understand a basic lesson: the money that is needed to run for office comes with great ease to those who support Israel, provided the candidate makes certain promises in writing to vote favorably on issues considered important to Israel. For further information on AIPAC’s contributions to members of congress, read the “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs”, Vol. XXIX, no. 8, November 2010.

What drives much of congressional support for Israel is the knowledge that money will be given to one’s opponent if one does not support Israel. This situation led to the defeat of a few members of congress who opposed Israeli policy, such as ex-Senator Charles Percy and Congressman Paul Findley, who explained this in his book They Dared To Speak. Also, former senator Fritz Holling wrote in an article in the Charleston Daily Post Courier (May 6, 2004) that the role of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the most important lobby group in Washington D.C., is determining U.S. policy in the Middle East. “You can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time to give the poor president a chance. I don’t care whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat – that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is and senators and members of congress out to sign the letters.” He further pointed out that the U.S. has lost its moral authority. There are other members of the Senate and House who spoke of the power or AIPAC’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. The tragedy of this is that AIPAC has succeeded in blending Israel national interest with U.S. national interest and has misled the American public. In reality, Israeli puts its national interest ahead of the U.S. national interest. Since its creation, Israel has been biting the hand that feeds it. Between 1948 and 2009, Israel has received more than $160 billion of American taxpayers’ money in foreign, economic and military aid. Despite all of that, Israel has been caught spying on the U.S. on several occasions, and some of the vital military information was passed to both Russia and China.

On September 24^th, 2010, the press reported that some members of congress sent a letter to President Obama to release the American Jewish spy J. Pollard from jail. He is serving a life sentence for passing vital military information from the U.S. to Israel. Mr. Pollard’s case is one among several other spy cases. The reaction to such a violation by Israel has been minimal due to the power and influence of AIPAC on congress. Any members w ho attack Israel are automatically labeled anti-Semitic. For more on this, read Professor Norman Finkelstein’s book Beyond Chutzpah. He noted that whenever Israel is criticized for its violation and abuse of human rights, its supporters sound the alarm “new anti-Semitism” is upon us.

For that and other reasons, President Obama has failed to condemn Israel’s abuse of the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

President Obama has lost his courage to stand up for the truth. He has been snubbed by Prime Minister Netanyahu several times and failed to challenge the Israeli prime minister. One of the basic reasons for this, from my point of view, is the position he finds himself in because of the influence of AIPAC on the majority of the members of congress. As a matter of fact, during the past few months, letters were signed by some members of congress telling the president to stop pressuring and challenging the Israeli government to participate in the peace process. President Obama is in a very awkward position. He was elected with a promise to implement a national reform agenda and foreign policy agenda and for that reason he is trying to avoid a clash with members of his own democratic party, whose support he needs to pass his national agenda. It is a pity that there is no party discipline in the American political structure. Sometimes, members of one political party desert their own party and join the other, or call themselves independent members of congress. What matters to many members of congress is their personal interest to assure their reelection, regardless of the cost to American national interest. President Obama, in my judgment, might compromise on his agenda regarding Israel to win the support of at least some members of his own political party.

It was reported on August 9, 2011 from Informational Learning House “Twenty percent of the House of Representatives will be spending its recess holiday on American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) paid tours of Israel. This does not seem to have made the mainstream news. The tours consist of 26 Democratic congressmen headed by the House Minority Leader, mayor of Maryland and two of the 55 Republican’s, lead by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. This is intended to provide congress with a “deep understanding” of the situation in the Middle East. “Sure it will, but one suspects the understanding will be in one direction only.” (www.informationlearninghouse.info/article28790.htm#.TKHT64MVCQO.email by Philip Geraldi).

It should be of interest to know that Congressman Cantor, Republican House Majority Leader, is a well-known Jewish Zionist and strong supporter of Israel. It would be interesting to ask the members of the House who are going on such a junket to Israel, whose national interest should

The Historical Egyptian Trial

The historical trial of the ousted president Mubarak and his two sons, Gamal and Alaa, as well as previous Minister of Interior Habib al-Adli and six of his aids took place in the police academy in Cairo (8/3/11).

Millions of Egyptian and foreign viewers watched the trial on TV. All of the accused were seen in the court cage where Mr. Mubarak was on a mobile hospital bed and the rest of the accused were standing. The court prosecutor read the wide range of crimes committed by the accused.

Mr. Mubarak faces three major crimes: the killing of unarmed Egyptian protestors, the illegal sale of natural gas to Israel and the abuse and waste of public wealth. If the ousted president is convicted, he will face a death sentence.

The ex-minister al-Adli is facing similar charges as well and if convicted will also face a death sentence. The other accused individuals, Jamal and Alaa, will receive 5-15 years in prison if convicted. The other accused also appeared in court (8/4/11).

The interesting open court trial reflects the beginning of a new stage of democracy in Egypt, where all people are considered equal according to the law. This gives Egypt a new birth certificate reflecting a new era of freedom and democracy that the whole world is witnessing.

Furthermore, seeing and listening the prosecutor calling the names of the accused and reading the accusation of crimes committed was a historical moment, despite the fact that all the accused denied that they committed any crimes. Nearly seven months ago, no person in Egypt could have predicted seeing the accused in a court cage. It is a tribute to the young Egyptians who started the revolution and the millions of Egyptians who supported them.

Finally, credit also should be given to the Egyptian army, who refused to turn their guns against their own people and despite the delay of the trial of the ousted president, have finally responded to public requests to implement the revolutionary demands.

Nevertheless, until the date when the accused appeared in court, many people, including myself and those I spoke with, thought that the trial would not take place due to the fact that many members of the Higher Military Council were appointed by Mubarak. These members will be reluctant to see Mubarak being humiliated in public. In addition, the Egyptian Higher Military Council, was also under heavy pressure by the political leaders of oil producing countries, especially Saudi Arabia, to stop any attempts to prosecute Mubarak. The Saudis were very angry when the military forced Mubarak to leave office as a result of the demands by millions of Egyptians.

The history of the Arab world reflects that the political heads of state stay in power until they die, are killed in office or are removed by a military coup. A new horizon has begun to emerge in the Arab world, in which dictatorship and authoritarianism is no longer acceptable to the people who have thrown away the blanket of fear.

The trial of the ousted Egyptian president who ruled Egypt with an iron first has come to an end. His prosecution is sending a message that from now on, no person will be above the law.

Finally, the prosecution of Hosni Mubarak will send a message to the remaining corrupt political leaderships of the Arab world