USA/ISRAEL/ME: WILLIAM A. COOK: The Death of Democracy/Feltman Visits Brandishing the Dahiyeh Doctrine and Neocon “Realities”

WILLIAM A. COOK: The Death of Democracy

William A. Cook

 

“The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one, necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public” (Human Rights Watch, “When Speech Offends,” February-March 2006).

Contrary to Fox News and Benjamin Netanyahu, Democracy is neither alive nor well in the United States or Israel; indeed it is dying a slow, agonizing death as each nation writhes in pain in adjoining beds unaware that the intravenous feeding tubes controlled by their respective Knessets drip poison into their life sustaining veins. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, in the voice of Carlo Strenger, carries the warning: The flood of anti-democratic laws that were proposed, and partially implemented, by the current Knesset, elected in February 2009, constitute one of the darkest chapters in Israeli history. The opening salvo was provided by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party with its Nakba law, that forbids the public commemoration of the expulsion of approximately 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war.

Since then, a growing number of attempts were made to curtail freedom of expression and to make life for human rights groups more difficult. The latest instance is the boycott law that (is) was passed (this) last Monday by the Knesset, even though its legal advisor believes it to be a problematic infringement on freedom of speech (“Israel’s McCarthy coalition is on a dangerous power trip,” Haaretz, July 11, 2011).

Curiously, America does not have a newspaper as brave and open to civil discourse as Haaretz; we rely on the New York Times, infamous for promoting the Iraq war on its front page thus benefiting the war industry and its corporations that control the Congress. Yet our Congress, like its twin in Israel, has adopted similar anti-democratic resolutions that curtail freedom of speech and action not only of American citizens but of the representatives of the United Nations.

House Resolution 268, “Reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations,” introduced May 13, 2011, passed overwhelmingly 406-6, specifically threatens the member states of the UN that it condemns any “unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state” as well as the “unbalanced United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” To accomplish this end, the 268 resolution announces that “…the Administration will veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes before the United Nations Security Council…,” opposes recognition of a Palestinian state by other nations, and in other international forums…,” and, in a Mafia-like manner, threatens the Palestinians with “serious implications” for assistance programs should they not obey. Resolution 268 condemns in advance any deliberation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by any nation, in any forum, that does not await an “agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.” Curiously enough, this same resolution states that the United States “…will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas…,” a statement that prevents at the outset negotiations with the Palestinians since Hamas represents over 1.5 million Palestinians, thus belying the very purpose of the resolution, to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How deceptively clever.

It also demands that Hamas and the people they represent accept unconditionally the position of the US and Israel that it renounce violence, recognize Israel and agree to follow the previous obligations of the PLO. There is no recognition of Israel’s violence against Hamas or Gaza, nor recognition under International Law that the Palestinians have rights to resist the occupation of a foreign nation. It does not impose on Israel a comparable need to recognize the right of the Palestinians to have a state of their own since that would require that Israel recognize where Palestine exists, what borders it possesses, what land Israel must return to its owners. And, finally, no mention is made of the conditions imposed by Israel that made implementation of the Oslo Accords possible nor its rejection of the stipulations made by the Quartet, thus placing full blame for the failed “peace negotiations” on the Palestinians.

Resolution 268 dictates to the people of the world that their voices will not be heard, their desires not considered, and their empathy for a besieged people made irrelevant; only the will of the Israeli administration and the Obama administration will stand. Calculatedly, the administration passed the resolution as the “Quartet for Middle East peace”—the European Union, Russia, the UN and the US—met in Washington. The acid that destroys democracy drips on.

But Resolution 268 is only the most recent example of the erosion of our rights in the United States; it follows one of the most glaringly illegal and potentially destructive interventions in international affairs taken by a purportedly democratic state and fully supported by our own Knesset. Israel’s prevention of freedom of speech and action by the international group of peace activists desiring to express their solidarity with the imprisoned Palestinians in the second flotilla to Gaza by coercing the economically crippled Greek government to refuse representatives from many countries to leave the Greek ports, although they had complied with every legal demand, graphically demonstrates that a government like Israel can and will enforce its will on any nation denying thereby the rights of free people everywhere.

The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one, necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public. Freedom of expression is particularly necessary with respect to provocative or offensive speech, because once governmental censorship is permitted in such cases, the temptation is enormous for government officials to find speech that is critical of them to be unduly provocative or offensive as well. The freedom to express even controversial points of view is also important for societies to address key political, social, and cultural issues, since taboos often mask matters of considerable public concern that are best addressed through honest and unfettered debate among those holding diverse points of view (Human Rights Watch).

The full implications of Israel’s takeover of the Greek government (with its conscious awareness that any action it took would be supported by our Congress) and hence its disregard for the will of the Greek citizen has been little regarded by our free press, yet nothing is perhaps so ominous as this blatant, hostile action by one foreign nation on another. What mindset enables itself to impose its will on citizens of other nations? What provocation could possibly justify intervention of such magnitude? If Israel had evidence that the flotilla and its organizers were physical threats against the state of Israel, could they not bring that evidence before the UN and International Courts to prevent the boats from sailing to Gaza? Why then the need to deny freedom of speech to citizens of many nations and commandeer another nation’s government? Doesn’t a democracy pride itself on rule of law? How then abandon law in favor of might? “The right to freedom of expression is…necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public.”

No nation on this planet, no member state of the United Nations, no individual citizen nor groups of citizens can change what Israel and the United States did to Greece and to freedom of speech. They move with impunity as they impose their wills on nations that disagree with their policies. Neither is ruled by their people; they are owned by an elite few who have surreptitiously over time taken control of our freedoms. Neither government is held accountable to the public. Indeed, it is that very accountability that they do not want and cannot allow to happen which is why both governments fear the “Arab spring.” Given the absolute control of our Congress by Israel, as the vote on Resolution 268 exemplifies, America has to raise the fear of terrorism in its citizenry to ensure compliance with the anti-democratic behavior and policies it pursues. Israel does the same. Carlo Strenger puts it this way: What stands behind this frenzy of attempts to shut down criticism? The answer, I believe, is fear, stupidity, confusion – and now also a power-trip.

The result of Netanyahu’s and Lieberman’s systematic fanning of Israelis’ existential fears is tangible: polls show that Israelis are deeply pessimistic about peace; they largely do not trust Palestinians, and in the younger generation belief in democratic values is being eroded.

But this pessimism and siege-mentality is not only to be found in ordinary Israeli voters, but also in the political class…. They have profound misconceptions about the Free World’s attitude towards Israel, and very little real understanding of the paradigm shift towards human rights as the core language of international discourse. They buy into Netanyahu’s adage that Israel’s existence is being delegitimized, rather than realizing that Israel’s settlement policy is unacceptable politically and morally to the whole world.

America’s umbilical cord that sustains Israel’s policies of occupation, settlements and oppression damns it before the world as people throughout the world begin to find other ways to break the controls that America’s power provides for Israel. The flotilla activists effectively utilized moral sensibility in clearly identifying the illegality and inhumanity of Israel’s siege of Gaza. And while Israel successfully torpedoed the flotilla in Greek ports through a massive political propaganda campaign of manufactured lies, coercion and threats of law suits against shipping companies and insurance carriers, it also successfully torpedoed truth turning even more of the people of the world against a state that thrives on distortion, deception and devastation.

What both Israelis and Americans must realize, as these anti-democratic actions by both nations attest, is that democracy in both nations has been subverted in favor of those who command our representatives to actions that betray the essence of democracy, the will of the people, and turned it over to those who undermine the moral foundations on which it was built: equality for all, justice for all, dignity and respect for all with government serving the people not a corporate board. When the representatives of the state determine what people must accept, what they can and cannot do or say, when the power of two nations subverts the will and actions of all other nations, democracy is dead.

*************************

William A. Cook is Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His most recent book, The Plight of the Palestinians: a Long History of Destruction is now available at Macmillan publishing or through Amazon and other book sellers. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________

 

 

Feltman Visits Brandishing the Dahiyeh Doctrine and Neocon “Realities”

 

Dr. Franklin Lamb

Tripoli, Libya

Libyan civilians have learned a thing or two from three decades of Lebanon’s experience with Israel’s five wars against that Levant country. Indeed NATO is using the same bombing, media, political and diplomatic strategy in Libya that Israel employed most recently in Lebanon during its 33 day July 2006 war.

This includes bombing of the Libyan civilian infrastructure in order to cripple normal life here and hopefully crush the growing national Resistance among Libyans to NATO’s 15,300 sorties to date, while teaching the people an overdue lesson for supporting the central government in the context of predictable “birth pangs of the new Libya.”

Even some of the by now familiar cast of characters is the same in Libya as in Lebanon including certain neocons at the State Department, National Security Agency, and Pentagon as well as Congressional war mongers like John McCain and one of John’s favorite drinking buddies, arch-Zionist John Bolton.

So it was no major surprise here in Tripoli when who appeared just next door across the Libyan border on 7/17/11 but the regions nemesis, US Undersecretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and former US Ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman. Jeffrey is the successor to David Welch, as leader of the Saudi Prince Bander Bin Sultan financed Welch Club, and is well known for his past decade of labor, largely unsuccessful, of promoting US-Israeli projects in that politically fractured country.

While insisting that the US never interferes in the internal affairs or undermines the independence of countries in the region, Feltman’s claimed mission, as his spokesperson advised the media, was to tell Qaddafi “that he has no legitimacy and there is no future for Libya with him in power. He must go and he must leave immediately.”

Sources familiar with the Tunis meeting have revealed that Feltman, who apparently has the habit of showing visitors to his 4^th floor suite of offices at Foggy Bottom in Washington, DC, a large wall map of the Middle East while pointing at it and explaining, “This is my jurisdiction,” arrived for quite another reason.

Rather than the one-off, “no future contacts” insistence of State Department spokespersons Feltman did not travel all the way from Washington DC just to repeat a one sentence message that has been given almost daily by NATO and its superiors to the effect that the Libyan leader needed “to retire.” Feltman came to open up a negotiations process at the behest of the White House and President Obama who, as Congressional sources have been confirming wants out of the Libyan fiasco, “like yesterday and, if necessary, NATO be damned.” At the Tunis meeting the Americans offered the Libyans safe passage anywhere for Colonel Qaddafi free from International Criminal Court arrest warrant concerns or any ICC proceeding at all. The Libyans were also told that Qaddafi could stay in Libya so long as NATO was convinced that he had indeed given up the reins of power.

According to a colorful Texan gambler in the oil business, currently biding his time in Tripoli and expressing solidarity with the Qaddafi regime, the Libyans rejected the American demands and “politely and diplomatically raised their middle finger” to “them Yankees” while expressing interest in full dialogue without any “preconditions” in order to end the crisis.

Feltman opened the meeting by doing what Lebanese and Syrian officials, familiar with his style, could have told their Libyan sisters and brothers he would do. Jeff began by threatening the Libyan officials and presenting an apocalyptic scenario of what might happen to Libya if Qaddafi refused to give up power. In words similar to those regularly brandied by Israeli officials to Lebanon and threatening another “Dahiyeh Doctrine”, the US official recited what he called “the new realities”.

Feltman did not have to elaborate on what the “Dahiyeh Doctrine” involved, or what it would mean for Libya, because the whole region knows it well. It was a massive frenzy of indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in the south of Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and South Beirut, areas populated with Hezbollah supporters and it included the July-August 2006 leveling of 1,252 residential buildings employing massive Israeli carpet bombing with American weapons.

Feltman’s “new realities” included the unanimous decision of the 7/15/11 Istanbul session of the Libya Contact Group that it was shifting diplomatic recognition to the so-called National Transition Council faction in this civil war and its freeing up of some of the $30 billion of Libyan money entrusted to US banks as a result of the 2003-4 US-Libya “welcome back to the international community” process. Also included is the fact that the European Union has just called for all countries to aggressively pursue the issuance of the dubious arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) last month, as well as intensified NATO bombing and accelerated efforts to encourage defections from Tripoli to the increasingly NATO directed “eastern rebels.”

According to knowledgeable sources, Jeffrey was not interested in even discussing the growing reluctance of five security council members, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Germany, all of which abstained on UNSCR 1973 and represent an absolute majority of the world’s population, as well as the African Union and Arab League which are also urging a ceasefire and negotiations.

Presumably Undersecretary Feltman has seen the recently released NATO bombing assessment complied by the Libyan General Communication Authority, which does not include the post publication date 7/17/11 bombing of the Civilian Air Traffic Control system at the Tripoli Airport which both IATA and US Senate Armed Services Committee specialists agree are not legitimate military targets because “they are of no practical military value.”

The LGCA Damage Assessment Report, now made public, presents a current survey of NATO bomb damage resulting from the targeting of the infrastructure in various regions of Libya. According to the report, the main civilian Libyan telecommunications companies severely damaged include LITC, Aljeel Aladed, Almadar Aljaded, Hatel Libya, Libya Telecom & Technology (LTT), and Libyana Mobile Phones (Libyana).

Among the planned benefit to NATO from bombing the civilian infrastructure, according to the LGCA report, is that NATO countries plan to secure lucrative contracts currently estimated at more than two billion Libyan Dinars, to rebuild Libya’s infrastructure. In addition, according to the LGCA report, “These (NATO) countries will eventually gain a lot of benefits such as getting rid of a major part of its old arsenal and will create better chances for weapons manufactures in the West to produce newer weapons” ( Page 2).

The Libyan government report admits that NATO bombing of its civilian communication services, “has led to freezing in delivering services in various areas: medical, education, security and other IT services. Moreover, maintenance operations are some defected places become hard to conduct and reach. It has also become difficult for employees to communicate and conduct their jobs effectively.” (Page 3).

A sampling of public services currently affected to various degrees by NATO’s continuing attacks on Libya’s civilian telecommunication network includes, internet capacities for local internet providers, roaming links for mobile operators, TV broadcasting, voice call, SMS, GPRS, international telephone calling, microwave systems, optical and submarine cables, satellites communication, fixed lines services, and VSAT services.

Civilian telecommunication services that have been cut range from company to company with repairs being attempted by all. For example, Almadar Aljadid reports than 60% of its voice calls, SMS and international calling and Roaming has been corrupted. LITC is still trying to repair was one company official refers to as “its terrestrial cable with Egypt.”

NATO bombing has disconnected areas ranging from Natol near the Tunisian –Libyan border all along the Mediterranean seaboard to the West and down south beyond Sabha and Alkufra.  Every one of these NATO attacks on civilian communications is illegal under the provisions of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Convention and a myriad of international legal standards. Each NATO attack on Libyan civilian infrastructure is also illegal under American law, including, but not limited to,  the 1976 US Arms Export Control Act which strictly prohibits the transfer of American weapons to any country)  or entity (exception: Israel) for use against civilians and requires the cutting off of arms and other foreign aid to violators, including NATO.

NATO’s bombing of civilian targets across Libya also violates the 1961 US Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits US supplied weapons being used against civilians.

At a meeting last night with six graduate students in English from Al Fateh and Al Nassar Universities, it was explained by the scintillating 21 year old “Amani” (“wishes”) , who just started a job with the Libyan Sports Channel, that she really misses the Internet (also cut by her government for “security reasons”) due to not being able to chat with Facebook friends. However, Amani’s mobile phone, even with limited range, still works ok in certain areas and the government has cut the per minute cost in half from .015 Libyan Dinars to .007 LD per minute ( about 4 cents). Surly the cheapest in the World! According to the students the cut was made so that families can keep in close contact “during our crisis”. Amani and her friends explained that they also receive free medical and dental care and full college tuition that costs just 15 Libyan Dinars per semester or about $ 8 every four months. I asked each of the students what they each paid per semester out of pocket for books and school supplies and the average was approximately $20 per semester.

According to Amani and her student friends these are factors that partially explain the results of public opinion polls among the young that are showing public support ratings in Western Libya for the Libyan leader in the 85% to 90% range. The high ratings reflect less near unanimous support for Colonel Qaddafi, one suspects, and the students agree, than a quality of this country’s tribal people that once under attack from NATO, the population, in the West at least, is rallying around its government. Still the Libyan leaders positive support ratings appear more than twice the 42% Time-CNN polls this past weekend for President Obama or his allies in the UK, France and Italy.

Jeffrey Feltman might want to visit some of Libya’s universities, including Al Fatah which was bombed by NATO on 6/17/11, as students were inside classrooms sitting for their final exams. He will find a growing culture of resistance to NATO bombing their families but also support for a ceasefire and dialogue to end this ill-conceived criminal enterprise.

**********

Dr. Franklin Lamb, a former Assistant Counsel of the US House Judiciary Committee at the US Congress and Professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon, earned his Law Degree at Boston University and his LLM, M.Phil, and PhD degrees at the London School of Economics. Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation, and a volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Lebanon. He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon. Franklin Lamb is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com