InternetActivist.Org

Abusing the Holocaust: Taking Chutzpah to an Entirely New Level
John Sigler*, 15 April 2007

“We will not let anything or anybody endanger the full and complete moral victory of the ghetto fighters and Holocaust survivors, the survivors of the extermination camps, who have decreed to us by their exemplary lives the double mission: To guarantee the construction, prosperity, security and peace of the State of Israel, the state of the Jewish people - and to concurrently guarantee to deepen the awareness of the Holocaust and disseminate its lessons.” – Prime Minister Ehud Barak [1]

“Finally, by challenging the ingathering into Auschwitz with the ingathering into Zion, Israel salvaged the credibility of Judaism. For many Jews, Israel's existence restored faith in the God of Israel. For if Jews could see the Holocaust as proof that God had abandoned his people, then the sudden restoration of Jewish power meant that he had returned to them.” - Yossi Klein Halevi [2]

“I, Danny Gillerman, born in Israel to parents who fled the Nazis, but whose grandparents and family perished, stand before you today, as an Israeli, a Jew, and a citizen of the world - moved and filled with pride as the world embarks on a journey beyond remembrance. I stand here as a representative of the Jewish state that arose out of the ashes of the Holocaust. A Jewish state whose cabinet yesterday convened a special session at the Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem. A Jewish state that has become, against all odds, a beacon of beauty, excellence, creativity, and justice for the whole world.” – Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Danny Gillerman [3]

Anyone that has dared to be critical of Israel or the nationalist ideology of Zionism knows that it is well nigh impossible to do so without the Hasbaraniks (Israeli propagandists) raising the issue of the Holocaust as some sort of all encompassing defense for Israel, its ethnocentric [4] definition as an exclusively “Jewish State” and by extension virtually any Israeli policy or practice. The utterly ubiquitous exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionist movement is nothing new and has been explored and discussed in Jewish circles for a long time. By far one of the most well known and aggressive critiques of this reality is “The Holocaust Industry” by Professor Norman Finkelstein, himself the child of Holocaust survivors.[5] Finkelstein writes:

“Indeed, The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity from criticism, however justified.” [6]

Despite the harm that this exploitation does to the Holocaust’s value as a universal lesson against racism, it is still a mainstream tactic used to defend the ethnocentric ideology of Zionism and is often accepted as legitimate by many non-Jewish observers. It is pretty much a given that if one criticizes Zionism one will be confronted with some argument alluding to the Holocaust, thus the notable increase in Holocaust denial among some anti-Zionist elements looking for an “easy way” to derail this standard Zionist defense.

Another technique for confronting this tactic used by some Jewish activists supporting justice for the Palestinian people is to “hop on the bandwagon” and cite the Holocaust – and their own personal connections to it – as a justification for opposing any ethnocentric ideology or practice, including that of Israel against the indigenous Palestinians. That is, following the Zionist example, they simply cite the Holocaust as an argument against Israel’s policies and practices toward the Palestinians and other Arabs.

These activists, that openly follow the Israeli lead in using the Holocaust for ideological purposes and do so against Israel’s ethnocentric ideology and practices, recently came under attack in the Jerusalem Post in an article entitled “Abusing the Holocaust” by Gerald Steinberg [7]. What makes the article so incredibly audacious is that it attacks several activists that have been critical of Israel for citing their own personal connections to the Holocaust while completely ignoring how constantly and shamelessly Israel-supporters exploit the Holocaust to defend Israel and the Zionist ideology.

Steinberg’s article specifically attacks Kenneth Roth, the current head of Human Rights Watch for his reporting on Israeli war crimes during the Summer War of July 2006; Reed Brody, who was actively involved in the effort to have Ariel Sharon charged as a war criminal in Belgium [8], and of course Israel’s favorite bogey, Professor Finkelstein. What these three activists have in common beyond being Jewish, supporting justice for the Palestinians, and a willingness to criticize Israel is that all three are the children of Holocaust survivors and have publicly mentioned this. The entire premise of the article, coming from a defender of Israel and Zionism, is so brazenly hypocritical that it really does take the notion of “chutzpah” to an entirely different level. A couple quotes with juxtaposition:

[Gerald Steinberg] “Roth's (and Brody's) frequent use of this issue suggest that their parents' relationship to the Holocaust gives them special standing and immunity to criticism.”

Speaking of using Holocaust rhetoric to obtain immunity to criticism:

“The Commission provides a platform for unending speeches and resolutions criminalizing the State of Israel. ... By doing all this, the Commission permits the criminalization of the Jewish people world wide as actual or perceived supporters of the State of Israel. Yesterday the perceived criminality of the Jewish people as killers of Christ led to the Holocaust. Today the perceived criminality of the Jewish people as supporters of Israel threatens another Holocaust. ... The Jewish community world wide is today suffering from an upsurge of antisemitism we have not seen since the days preceding the Holocaust. That antisemitism, wherever Jews are found, is directly connected to anti-Zionism. And the headquarters of that anti-Zionism is right here, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. … The exaggerated anti-Israel rhetoric at this Commission is not mere criticism about the behaviour of the State of Israel; it is directed against Israel’s existence.” [9]

[Gerald Steinberg] “In this situation, the constant invocation of the Holocaust by Roth and his defenders is unconvincing and odious.”

On the topic of constant invocation of the Holocaust for odious purposes:

“There is a problem today, and I am very sensitive to it. The Holocaust should guide us in many matters. It should guide us by showing us how to value the fact that the Jews have a state. It should guide us as human beings in rejecting racism and in avoiding humiliation and brutalization of others, coercing of minorities, and so on. However, some consider the Holocaust a secret weapon to brandish in political negotiations and an accusation against the entire world. Today the Holocaust is starting to look like a tool of sorts that gives us a preferred status and lets us demand and obtain things that others, who did not experience the Holocaust, cannot obtain. Matters are not as unequivocal as that, to be sure, but there is such a trend.” [10]

After the above, Steinberg moves on to attack all criticism of Israel by Human Rights Watch, to flatly deny Israel’s indiscriminate strikes on civilians, collective punishment, and war crimes as exercised on a daily basis against the Palestinians and to argue that essentially any criticism of Israel undermines the very notion of human rights in general. Not surprisingly, Steinberg exclusively cites the “NGO Monitor” project – which he serves as the editor of [11] – to substantiate his all-encompassing attack on Human Rights Watch. None of this is particularly surprising considering the source [12], however he does go a bit further than one would expect when he presumes to speak on behalf of “vast majority of Jews who escaped or survived the Nazis.”

To quote an actual Holocaust survivor that might take exception to Steinberg’s presumption:

“So I went to Palestine as a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to observe the difficult conditions of daily life under military occupation. It would have been enough to reach out and touch just one Palestinian and place my hand on her shoulder and tell her that I was with her in her pain. But I saw and did much more. … At the end of the journey I had a shocking experience. … So I did not imagine that the Israeli security force that guards Ben-Gurion Airport would abuse a 79-year-old Holocaust survivor, holding me for five hours and performing a completely unnecessary strip search of every part of my naked body. The only conceivable purpose for this gross violation of my bodily integrity was to humiliate and terrify me. … It is a cruel illusion that brute force of this sort provides security to Israel. Degrading me cannot silence my small voice. Similarly, humiliating Palestinians cannot extinguish their hopes for a homeland. Only ending this utterly unnecessary occupation will bring peace to the region.” [13]

However, despite the ritualized denial of all wrong doing by Israel and the normal ad hominem attacks against Roth and Brody, in the end the key sentence of the entire article was clearly this one: “If a Jew and son of a Nazi victim can use such terms, then others who follow are immune to accusations of anti-Semitism.” This is what Steinberg and his fellow Hasbaraniks most fear, Jews that put human rights and justice above the Zionist conception of proper tribal/ethnic/national loyalty. The writing is on the wall today and everyone knows that Israel – and its ethnocentric ideological basis – is fighting a losing battle to maintain its oppressive stranglehold over the Palestinian people, thus internal Jewish dissent is utterly anathema and deserving of all scorn. The very universalism of the Jewish tradition is one of exclusivist Zionism’s worst enemies.

------------------------------

* John Sigler is a writer and activist based in Denver, Colorado. His current projects include the Jewish Friends of Palestine website http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org and the Online One State Bibliography Project http://www.onestate.org He is currently working with the Colorado-Palestine Solidarity Campaign http://colorado-palestine.blogspot.com and supporting the June 10-11 mobilization in Washington DC marking the 40^th year of Israeli occupation in the Palestinian Territories: http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?list=type&type=162

[1] Ehud Barak, “Prime Minister Barak’s Speech Concluding Holocaust Remembrance Day,” [Israeli] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2 May 2000, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/2000/Prime%20Minister%20Barak-s%20Speech%20Concluding%20Holocaust

[2] Yossi Klein Halevi, “An Israeli Perspective: Israel at 50,” 1998 Americans Jewish Yearbook (American Jewish Committee), 1998, Reproduced online by the World Zionist Organization: http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1275

[3] Danny Gillerman, “Statement by Amb Gillerman at UN memorial ceremony, International Holocaust Remembrance Day,” [Israeli] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 January 2006, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Anti-Semitism+and+the+Holocaust/Documents+and+communiques/Statement+by+Amb+Gillerman+at+UN+Holocaust+memorial+ceremony+27-Jan-2006.htm

[4] According to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Israel is a signatory, “racial discrimination” is defined as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” (Article 1.1; bold emphasis added).

Since the legal definition of “racial discrimination”, and by extension “racism” as popularly used, includes “descent, or national or ethnic origin” it would be perfectly reasonable to use these terms in discussing Zionism. Nevertheless, in popular usage, such terms tend to be used almost exclusively to denote discrimination based on skin color and this is not applicable to the situation in Israel/Palestine. Though there has been discrimination based, at least in part, on skin color in Israel, in general both the Israeli Jewish population and the Palestinian Arab population includes people that could be northern European, sub-Saharan African, and everything in between. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion this article uses the term ethnocentrism, or ethnocentric, as a substitution.

[5] Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, (2000, Verso Books), http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=3

[6] Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, ibid. p. 3

[7] Gerald Steinberg, “Abusing the Holocaust”, Jerusalem Post, 14 April 2007, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152793901&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[8] This author was also involved in the effort to have Sharon indicted as a war criminal in Belgium, see for example: Frederick Bowie, "Untried, Untested," Al-Ahram, 11-17 July 2002, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/594/re51.htm

[9] Statement by the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations Statement on Israel delivered to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by David Matas, B’nai Brith Canada’s Senior Honourary Legal Counsel. Representing Canada, he was part of the B’nai Brith International delegation to the 2004 session of the Commission in Geneva. This statement was presented to the Commission on behalf of the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations under Agenda Item 8. Reproduced online by B'nai Brith Canada: http://www.bnaibrith.ca/briefs/matas/matas040325.html

[10] Prof. Yisrael Gutman, Yad Vashem Chief Historian, "An Interview With Prof. Yisrael Gutman," Interviewed by Amos Goldberg, 28 October 1998, Yad Vashem Shoah Resource Center, http://www1.yadvashem.org.il/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203846.pdf

[11] Yacoub Kahlen and Robert E. Foxsohn, "NGO Monitor should not be taken seriously," The Electronic Intifada, 18 October 2005, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/printer4255.shtml

[12] To learn more about Gerald Steinberg, visit his website: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~steing/index.shtml

# posted by IAblogger : 4/17/2007 06:58:00 PM  1 comments

“The Left, Conspiracy Theory & 9/11”
John Sigler, April 14, 2007

In conventional wisdom it is usually the political Right that is associated with conspiracy theories and in some cases such notions serve as a fundamental pillar of their ideology. These begin with the “traditional” conspiracy theories, such as: the “Elders of Zion” Jewish conspiracy, the “Papist/Vatican/Jesuit” Catholic conspiracy, the “Masonic/Illuminati” anti-Christian conspiracy, and so on. These constructs have evolved over time and are still in circulation various modern guises: the “War on Christianity, ” the “New World Order,” “One World Government,” the “Gay Agenda,” and everyone’s favorite, the “Islamo-Fascist” and/or “Anti-Globalist Left /Radical Islamic” conspiracy.

Nevertheless, conspiracy theory is not the exclusive domain of the Right-wing; the political Left has its fair share too. These would include the conspiracy theories involving the assassination of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King and of course Sen. Clinton’s aptly named “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Interestingly, from the left leaning “conspiracy theorists” that argued that Capt. Alfred Dreyfus had been framed to those that argued that the Gulf of Tonkin incident had been grossly misrepresented to the U.S. to those that argued that Detroit had developed and then suppressed a fully viable electric car in many cases alleged “conspiracy theories” held by the Left later turned out to be fully validated and vindicated.

Today, after years of the Bush administration and the Neo-Conservative (Neo-Con) agenda, critics and opponents from both the Left and Right have entered into an uneasy alliance apparently based upon the notion that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Thus you can find people of the Left reproducing the works of stalwart Rightists like Pat Buchanan and offering impassioned defenses for radical Rightist leaders like President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Similarly you see Right-wing libertarians and traditional Conservatives reproducing Left-wing articles and analysis and defending the views of Leftist dissidents like Noam Chomsky or William Blum. This ad hoc alliance of interests has also had the effect of reinvigorating the conspiracy theory tendency in the political Left: enter the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It is completely beyond the scope of this little article to explore or discuss the various polemics used by the 9/11 Truth Movement because realistically it makes no difference whatsoever. As noted in the now infamous “Rebuilding America's Defenses” (September 2000) by the Project for a New American Century think tank, the Neo-Cons needed “a new Pearl Harbor” to advance their agenda and 9/11 served this function, the damage is now done. As was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, once the excuse was effectively utilized, the incident itself became little more than a historical footnote. Once the extreme misrepresentation of the Tonkin incident had been exposed, the exposure was utterly inconsequential. Quite simply, those inclined to believe that our government was either complicit or at least misrepresenting the incident believed this long before solid evidence was provided; those that flatly rejected that the U.S. could be responsible continued to hold these beliefs long after solid evidence to the contrary was provided; and the vast majority in between looked at the incident with the exact same cynical indifference both before and after evidence was presented showing that the U.S. had grossly misrepresented the incident to radically escalate our role in Vietnam. The 9/11 attacks and its “truth” is exactly the same and – evidence notwithstanding – has elicited the exact same response.

Despite the fact that any possible result of all this conspiracy theory research will result in the same outcome, the exercise is not completely benign. In an excellent recent article by Paul Street* it is clearly documented that the firm contracted to release classified government documents has a deliberate policy of releasing “good faith distraction” material with the clearly stated goal of diverting attention away from substantive issues in favor of utterly meaningless conspiracy theory. Documents related to the Kennedy assassination are specifically cited as a prime example of this “good faith distraction” under the description “diversion.” To quote the author: “It's hard not to think that the same sort of reflection has already occurred to U.S. intelligence managers in relation to the 9/11 conspiracy industry. Every minute spent trying to fruitlessly connect the scattered and deceptive dots of fantastic 9/11 conspiracies is not spent looking into monumentally more relevant issues.”

Without creating yet another conspiracy theory by suggesting that that 9/11 Truth Movement is a construct of the Neo-Cons to divert the time and energies of many decent well-meaning people, it really cannot be denied that the movement has been quite useful – much more so than Anna Nicole Smith or Don Imus – in diverting activists of the political Left into completely wasting their time. Whether or not the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job”, the product of government complicity or merely incompetence, it really makes no difference at all because the excuse has already been successfully utilized and the situation today is much worse. People will continue to believe what they will – as was the case with the Tonkin incident – with or without evidence, so ultimately no new revelations are going to make any meaningful change. In the meantime many good people are wasting time and energy that could be used much more productively by addressing current issues that their activism can actually affect. People are dying around the world because we have failed to rein in our government and wasting time and energy on historical footnotes like the 9/11 attacks only encourages more of the same. There are more important things to be doing.

* Paul Street, "'Diversion' and 'Good Faith Distraction': On the Use Value of Conspiracy Data for the Power Elite," ZNet Daily Commentary, 28 March 2007, http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2007-03/28street.cfm

______

John Sigler is a writer and activist based in Denver, Colorado. A couple of his current projects include the Online One State Bibliography Project – http://www.onestate.org – and the Jewish Friends of Palestine website: http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org

# posted by IAblogger : 4/15/2007 09:53:00 AM  0 comments

Condi and the “two state solution”
John Sigler*, February 19, 2007

On February 19, Condoleezza Rice met in Al Quds with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Before the meeting, the State Department was careful to downplay the meeting suggesting – accurately – that nothing much was really expected to come from the event. After the meeting, Rice appeared alone and issued a brief statement about this “useful and productive meeting.”

There was one interesting thing about Rice’s extremely brief – 223 words – statement about the meeting. Specifically, it was that she used the term “two state solution” twice. First she specified that all parties “affirmed our commitment to a two-state solution,” and then she mentioned “the two state vision of President Bush.” On the surface, there is nothing particularly odd about this in the wake of President Bush’s June 24, 2003 speech in which he called for an independent Palestinian state. Nevertheless it is a bit odd in that the “conventional wisdom” since the start of the Oslo process was that the ultimate goal was a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. For such a brief – and basically empty – statement, Rice’s repeated citation of the “two state solution” phrase is somewhat interesting as unlike President Bush, she is generally a very professional and deliberate speaker. So why the emphasis on the “two state solution”?

Perhaps this emphasis is in reaction to a recent poll conducted by Near East Consulting (NEC) during February 12-15, 2007 as described by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) press release of February 16 entitled “New Poll: 75% of Palestinians Believe Israel Should Not Exist.” The gist of the release and the primary finding of the poll was “that 70% of Palestinian Arabs support a one-state solution in which Jews would be a minority, not a two-state solution with a Palestinian Arab state living peacefully alongside Israel, as many claim Palestinian Arabs actually want.”

Since the collapse of the Oslo peace process, the number of people on all sides that have turned their backs on the ethnic separatist “two state solution” has been gradually increasing in favor of the idea of one democratic secular state based on the premise of equality and democracy; A Jewish and Palestinian state in all the territory controlled by Israel since 1967. The most recent major contribution to this movement is Ali Abunimah’s recent book “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse,” that has – building upon earlier work in the same vein – rejuvenated the debate. While, for obvious reasons, the notion of equality for all people has been much slower to catch on among Israelis, to date there are a number of prominent Israelis that have adopted this position, including Meron Benvenisti, Uri Davis, Amos Elon, Daniel Gavron, Ilan Pappe and others.

The conventional wisdom, substantiated by regular polls by Birzeit University’s Development Studies Program and the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, tends to be that the one state option is a minority position having the support of some 20 to 30 percent of the Palestinian population. This certainly calls the findings of Near East Consulting, the pollsters that provided the information for the ZOA, into question. By no stretch of the imagination can the ZOA be considered impartial; reflecting the Rightist Likud perspective on most issues. Therefore, it is possible that this NEC poll was specifically designed to substantiate the Israeli Right’s anti-two state position. Otherwise, one would have to assume that the recent inter-Palestinian violence along with the continued Israeli expansion into the Occupied Territories has finally lain to rest the idea of ethnic separatism among a majority of Palestinians.

In either case, the number of people that believe a two state separatist option is realistic is steadily declining. In reality, since 1967 – forty years in June – Israel/Palestine has been a de facto one state under Israeli control and the level of interdependence between the two peoples reflects this. Any two state solutions even under consideration today would at best be a South African “Bantustan” scheme or at worst imitative of the East European ghetto system, neither of which will bring about a sustainable peace nor will they ultimately prove viable. Thus, if one rules out ethnic cleansing as an option, then the reality on the ground is inexorably heading toward a de jure state for everyone regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Regardless of what one thinks of Ms. Rice, few will deny that she is an articulate and deliberate speaker, therefore her repeated reiterations of the “two state solution” phrase must be viewed as intentional. In that the two state solution represents the “conventional wisdom” answer to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, her decision to reiterate this phrase certainly suggests that she included this press releases from the Zionist Organization of America among her background reading for the conference. If this supposition is correct, she is finally beginning to realize that the possibility of a two state solution is fading into history of previous, and now defunct, peace plans for Israel and Palestine.

*John Sigler is a writer and activist based in Denver, Colorado. Among the projects he is involved with is the One State Online Bibliography project at http://www.onestate.org or http://oss.internetactivist.org.

Note:

Zionist Organization of America, “New Poll: 75% of Palestinians Believe Israel Should Not Exist”, 16 February 2006, http://www.zoa.org/2007/02/new_poll_75_of.htm

# posted by IAblogger : 4/15/2007 09:49:00 AM  0 comments

“The Missing Ingredient”
John Sigler*, 23 January 2007

Over the last few years the world has witnessed a series of popular risings commonly referred to as the “color revolutions.” Ostensibly these have been large-scale popular protests meant to bring down unpopular governments through peaceful civil disobedience. These “color revolutions” have been hailed by the United States and others as evidence of “freedom and democracy in action and an inspiration to those aspiring for freedom.” [1]

The ongoing popular protests in Lebanon against the current U.S. backed government are clearly modeled on the same methodology employed in the other “color revolutions” including Lebanon’s own “Cedar Revolution” in 2005. In fact, if one uses the ratio of protesters versus the overall population, the current Lebanese effort is completely on par with these other efforts to peacefully oust unpopular governments. Specifically, in Georgia the ratio was 1:49+ [2]; in the Ukraine it was 1:47+ [3]; in the Kyrgyz Republic it was 1:255 [4] and in the Lebanese “Cedar Revolution” it was roughly 1:4 [5]. The current protests in Lebanon have a similar ratio, 1:4 [6].

So why were these previous efforts so dramatically successful while the current one in Lebanon as lingered along for almost two months without success? A number of potential factors may be cited in this respect: the relative strengths of the challenged governments; the relative popularity of the movements themselves; the popularity of the desired alternatives that the movements seek to realize; and so on.

However, there is one very important tangible element that clearly differentiates the current Lebanese effort from the others and also significantly dampens the view that these movements are truly native and represent the best interests of the countries in question. This element is the interference and manipulation of such efforts by the United States. In the successful “color revolutions” the U.S. played both direct and indirect roles in the process, whereas in the ongoing Lebanese situation, the U.S. role is in support of the government.

In Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” of 2003, the United States played a direct role in forcing Shevardnadze to step aside through the application of pressure upon the Georgian government [7]. Further, operating through various front groups, the U.S. played a direct role in organizing and coordinating the opposition forces [8].

In the exact same vein, the Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” in 2004 that resulted in the removal of Viktor Yanukovych, also involved direct U.S. political pressure on the existing government [9]. In this case too, the opposition was largely organized, financed, and coordinated by the United States by means of various proxies [10].

Not surprisingly, the Kyrgyz Republic’s “Tulip Revolution” that saw President Askar Akayev ousted followed the same model. Specifically, the U.S. applied both direct pressure of the existing regime [11] while simultaneously organizing and funding the opposition [12]. It was especially telling in this instance because the “mass demonstrations” were much smaller than those in similar “regime change” operations conducted by the United States.

Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution” of 2005 was a bit different in that one of the primary goals was the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, but it also resulted in the resignation of the government of Omar Karami. Exactly as was the case in the other “color revolutions”, the United States applied direct political pressure on the Lebanese government [13] while also enabling and supporting the opposition [14].

The current Lebanese campaign against the sitting pro-U.S. government, despite using the same fundamental tactics, is not moving forward with the same momentum that characterized the other “color revolutions.” As was the case with the other uprisings, the government is under siege and the million people that supported the “Cedar Revolution” have not come forward to lift that siege. For this, Israel’s summer onslaught can be thanked as it proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that alliance with the United States offered no protection whatsoever to Lebanon from its only regional military threat, Israel.

However, what is really different between the ongoing effort in Lebanon and other recent efforts using the same tactics on the ground is the role being played by the United States. In this instance, not only is the U.S. not actively financing, coordinating, and mobilizing the opposition, but it is actively opposing it [15]. Further, not only is the U.S. not asserting political pressure on the sitting government in the name of “democracy” as was the case in the other “color revolutions,” but it is actively aiding it politically [16] and even militarily [17].

While other factors may indeed play a role, it would be absurd to pretend as though the role of U.S. intervention is not a key determining factor in popular, peaceful uprisings against unpopular and unrepresentative governments. U.S. support is most assuredly the missing ingredient in the Lebanese people’s effort to oust the Siniora regime. The efforts currently underway in Lebanon are something of a test determining whether non-violent protest is truly a viable means of ousting unpopular governments or whether it is really nothing more than a propaganda myth devised by the United States government to oust governments that do not serve its interests.

Notes:

**John Sigler is a writer and activist based in Denver, Colorado, and active with both the Colorado Palestine Solidarity Campaign (http://colorado-palestine.blogspot.com) and the Jewish Friends of Palestine initiative (http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org) and the “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran?” website: http://www.whyattackiran.com

[1] George W. Bush, “Presidential Message: First Anniversary of the Orange Revolution,” 22 November 2005, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051122.html

[2] Largest number of protesters: 100,000+ on 21 November 2003 (United States Institute for Peace, Georgia’s Rose Revolution: A Participant’s Perspective, Special Report 167, July 2006, http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr167.pdf). Total population as per the CIA World Handbook, July 2003 estimate: 4,934,413 (2003 entry reproduced online at: http://www.hauntedink.com/almaty/photos3a.html). Ratio: 1:49.34

[3] Estimates of the number of protesters vary widely, between 500,000 to 1.2 million. However, the most common estimate is about one million protesters (Andrew Wright, “Yushchenko's Orange Revolution,” The Stanford Review, Volume XXXIV, Number 1, 25 February 2005, http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_1/Foreign_Affairs/Foreign1.shtml). Total 2004 population: 47.3 million (U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2004, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35491.htm) Ratio: 1:47.3

[4] The largest number of protesters was on March 24, 2005 and numbered about 20,000+ (Ben Paarmann, “A Kyrgyz Déjà Vu,” SOAS Spirit Magazine, Issue 4, 2005, http://www.paarmann.info/blog/archives/KyrgyzDejaVu.pdf). The total 2004 population was some 5.1 million (U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2004, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35464.htm). Ratio: 1:255

[5] The largest number of protesters was roughly one million on March 14, 2005 according to participants and supporters and has not been seriously contested (Nadim Ladki, “Anti-Syrian protesters flood Lebanese capital,” Reuters World Report, 14 March 2005). The total population in 2005 was roughly one million (U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2005, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51604.htm). Ratio: 1:4

[6] As the protests in Lebanon are ongoing (there are no estimates of the number out the day this was written, 23 January 2007 when protesters brought much of the country to a halt), the largest protest cannot be determined. To date the largest protest has been some 0.8 to one million protesters on December 1, 2006. (“Hundreds of thousands protest in Beirut” MSNBC, 1 December 20056, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15981439/. Ratio: 1:4+/-

[7] Giorgi Kandelaki, “US Pressure Helps Achieve Breakthrough in Georgian Domestic Political Dispute,” EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight, 18 July 2003, http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav071803.shtml

[8] “Georgia Train and Equip program (GTEP)” GlobalSecurity.Org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/gtep.htm “Georgia's "Rose Revolution" was planned and centrally coordinated by the US government. The 24 November 2003 Wall Street Journal credited the fall of Eduard Shevardnadze's regime to the operations of "a raft of non-governmental organizations . . . supported by American and other Western foundations." According to the Journal, the NGOs had "spawned a class of young, English-speaking intellectuals hungry for pro-Western reforms" who laid the groundwork for a bloodless coup. Shevardnadze had switched sides, and was backed by the Russians.” See also: Barry Grey and Vladimir Volkov, “Georgia’s 'rose revolution': a made-in-America coup,” World Socialist Web Site, 5 December 2003, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/geor-d05.shtml

[9] William Branigin, “U.S. Rejects Tally, Warns Ukraine,” Washington Post, 25 November 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10212-2004Nov24.html

[10] Matt Kelley, “U.S. money has helped opposition in Ukraine,” Associated Press, 11 December 2004, http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_1n11usaid.html “The Bush administration has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit poll indicating he won last month's disputed runoff election.” See also: Justus Leicht, “The creation of the Ukraine 'democratic' opposition,” World Socialist Web Site, 2 December 2004, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/dec2004/ukra-d02.shtml

[11] “US Envoy Offers Critical Assessment of Kyrgyzstan’s Parlimentary Election,” EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight, 16 March 2005, http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav031605.shtml

[12] Richard Spencer, “Quiet American behind tulip revolution,” The Telegraph (London), 2 April 2005, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/02/wstone02.xml “Nevertheless, Washington is keen to describe recent events in Kyrgyzstan as part of a wave of democratisation - and it is happy to take some of the credit. .... US involvement in the small, mountainous country is higher proportionally than it was for Georgia's ‘rose’ revolution or Ukraine's ‘orange’ uprising.” See also: Andrea Peters, “US money and personnel behind Kyrgyzstan’s 'Tulip Revolution',” World Socialist Web Site, 28 March 2005, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/tulp-m28.shtml

[13] “Lebanon govt. quits, pressure mounts on Syria,” China Daily, 1 March 2005, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/01/content_420459.htm

[14] Bassem Chit, “Lebanon: Some Things That Money Can't Buy,” Socialist Review, May 2006, http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9747 “The New York Post reported how, at the height of last year's protests, "the CIA and European intelligence services were quietly giving money and logistical support to organisers of the anti-Syrian protests to ramp up pressure on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad... The secret program is similar to previous support of pro-democracy movements in Georgia and Ukraine, which also led to peaceful demonstrations.” See also: Joseph Kay, “US engineers provocation following assassination in Lebanon,” World Socialist Web Site, 16 February 2005, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/syri-f16.shtml

[15] Toby Harnden, “CIA gets the go-ahead to take on Hizbollah,” The Telegraph (London), 10 January 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/10/wleb10.xml

[16] Stephen Kaufman, “U.S. Will Not Allow Syria To Reassert Authority over Lebanon,” Daily Washington File, 12 December 2006, http://bucharest.usembassy.gov/Washington_File/200/06-12-12/eur205.html

[17] Joseph S. Mayton, “U.S. Armored Humvees Begin Arriving In Lebanon,” All Headline News, 14 January 2007, http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006134868

# posted by IAblogger : 4/15/2007 09:41:00 AM  0 comments

In Memoriam: Professor Tanya Reinhardt, linguist, writer, activist.

"Linguist and left-wing activist Professor Tanya Reinhardt died in New York on Saturday at age 63. Reinhardt, one of the most outspoken representatives of the radical Israeli left, was a fierce critic of the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, saying they represented a perpetuation of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. She was also a proponent of an academic boycott of Israeli universities to protest the occupation. - Ha'aretz

"Tanya's passing is a terrible loss, not only to her family and those fortunate enough to come to know her personally, and to those she defended and protected with such dedication and courage, but to everyone concerned with freedom, justice, and an honorable peace." - Noam Chomsky

Jewish Individuals:

# posted by IAblogger : 4/02/2007 08:04:00 PM  1 comments