Western media are aghast: why can’t “Islam” condemn the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and expel it from “Islam.” For Western media, Islam is an office with fancy headquarters where bureaucrats produce fatwas around the clock. In the wake of September 11, Senator Dianne Feinstein used to tour the TV news shows and wonder in anger: why can’t Islam issue a fatwa to end all terrorism? If only things were that easy.
Yet another global war was announced by the US. The US has not really ever taken a break from declaring global wars since the end of World War II. Its war on communism was more than that: it was a global war on feminism, secularism, socialism, and even liberalism around the world. It was a war for the imposition of a right-wing reactionary order in developing countries, and for the forceful and undemocratic prevention of free elections in Western Europe. We now know that the US used its financial wherewithal and dirty tricks to prevent the electoral victory of socialists and communists.
There is a fervent Saudi attempt to isolate the phenomenon of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and to regard it as a phenomenon unrelated to elements in contemporary Arab political culture (or to American foreign policy legacy, for that matter).
Usually one speaks comically of the Arab lobby in Washington, D.C.. Since the oil boom in the 1970s, various Arab-American businesspeople and crooks traveled to the Middle East offering their services to Gulf regimes and promising—in return for large sums of money—to launch an Arab lobby in Washington, D.C.. Those personalities explained that what the “Arab cause”—there was a talk about that back then—only needed money, and once it becomes available in Washington, D.C. the Israeli case would be immediately defeated. Many of those Arab crooks advanced anti-Semitic scenarios about the nature of American politics, and the Saudi political elite loved those scenarios, as does [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas. They believed that a small elite runs US foreign policy in the region.
What is galling about liberal Zionists in the US is that they insist on having it both ways; they want to support Israeli occupation, racism, and wars and yet they want to be perceived as liberals who strive for peace and equality. But Alan Dershowitz in his documentary, “The Case For Israel,” goes farther: he thinks that he has discovered a trick by which he can reconcile his support for racist and war-mongering Israel and his alleged liberalism. He calls himself nowadays “pro-Palestine,” and that verbal declaration – he thinks – can then compensate for his support for Israel’s wars and inequality.
The tweets of US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power deserve to be added to the speeches of George W. Bush as examples of rhetoric-in-the-service-of-an-empire. Her statements give the impression that the US is a charitable organization desperately looking for colored people to save around the world. The distinctions between Obama and Bush were only great in the minds of those liberals who projected so much of their dreams and aspirations on the campaign of Obama in 2008. By 2012, it was was clear that Obama was following in the footsteps of his predecessor with less fanfare.
There is a popular graphic doing the rounds on Arab social media these days; it shows the evolution of weapons used by the Palestinian Resistance, from rocks and pebbles all the way to missiles and drones. This captures the story of the evolution of resistance methods against Israeli occupation.
Ever since the advent of the Zionist movement, Zionists paid little respect for the truth. This was not accidental, the very Zionist idea was based on a collection of lies: that Palestine was not inhabited, that the Palestinians would not mind giving their homeland away, that the Palestinians don’t exist, or that the Palestinians could easily seek repatriation in any other place under the sun. And Israel often relied on the perpetuation of public ignorance in Western countries about the Middle East in order to facilitate the promotion and circulation of its propaganda. This may explain why the public in all European countries are (by varying degrees) more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis, while in the US the public supports Israel by a ratio of 5 to 1 at least. The Zionist lobby in the US consistently opposes and sabotages the establishment of Middle East centers on US college campuses, and when such centers are established they are compelled to succumb to ridiculous Zionist standards by which the population of Israel (some 6 million or so) is equated in terms of coverage and academic scope with the 1.6 billion Muslims, and where the teaching of Hebrew (spoken by some 6 million or so Israelis) is regarded as important as the Arabic language (spoken by some 350 million). Courses on the Arab world have to be “balanced” with courses teaching the state of Israel, and the teaching of the Arab-Israeli conflict should be avoided altogether (it has never been taught in most major departments of political science in key American universities, like Stanford or Yale or the University of California, San Diego until recent years and only on a visiting basis).
Yet again another Israeli assault on an Arab country exposes the biases and racism of Western governments, media, and human rights organizations. Human rights organizations, particularly Human Rights Watch, have become the most culpable because they now serve as a media/propaganda arm of the Israeli terrorist army. We know how those things work, as soon as a Western NGO with a Middle East scope is formed, pro-Israeli groups (openly and not conspiratorially) rush in with their funds to control the agenda of the organization. Internal memos that I had revealed on my blog before show that the director of Human Rights Watch was mightily concerned about not offending pro-Israel sources of funding. Thus, think tanks, media groups, and human rights organization fall under the spell of pro-Israeli agendas and money.