Murdoch's Ben Ali moment? by *Brian Whitaker

For the last couple of weeks my attention has been divided between the uprisings in the Middle East and an affair much closer to home: the unfolding storm around Rupert Murdoch and News International (part of News Corp).

Murdoch is the most powerful media figure in the English-speaking world, with interests in Britain, the US and Australia plus others elsewhere. Though once regarded as unassailable, he now reminds me more and more of ex-presidents Ben Ali and Mubarak as the growing scandal moves steadily closer to the top.

There are some striking parallels. Murdoch runs his media empire in much the same way that Arab rulers run their countries: autocratically. News Corp is a public company but, since his family owns a crucial block of voting shares, there isn't much need to worry about what other shareholders think.

Like many an Arab ruler, Murdoch has held power for far too long. He's now 80 years old but, in the hallowed tradition of Arab leaders, has a son – James – waiting in the wings to inherit his throne. 

The Murdoch name inspires both awe and fear. Politicians have often been reluctant to stand in his way and many of his employees live in constant fear for their jobs.

This culture of fear, which kept Murdoch on top for many a year, now looks like becoming his nemesis. Journalists at the News of the World – his British Sunday tabloid – were under such pressure to deliver spectacular stories that some of them, aided by a private detective, began hacking the voicemails of celebrities, as well as paying the police for information.

An affair began in a small way several years ago with the jailing of what was wrongly claimed to be a single rogue reporter has now burst open with a series of arrests and resignations – including two of Britain's most senior police officers – and raising uncomfortable questions about the British prime minister's links with the Murdoch empire. This has since spread across the Atlantic to the US, where investigations are also getting under way.

Rupert Murdoch's behaviour in all this has been more than a little reminiscent of Ben Ali in Tunisia – failing to appreciate either the scale of the problem or the groundswell of public opinion against him. In a recent interview with his own Wall Street Journal, he even congratulated himself on his handling of it.

Could a "Ben Ali moment" now be in store for Murdoch? Two weeks ago it seemed unlikely but, judging by some recent American commentary on the way he runs his businesses, his position is looking more precarious. Perhaps the most significant pointer, as in the Arab uprisings, is the breaking of the fear barrier. In the words of one London broker quoted by the Bloomberg news service:

"We'll see more pressure on Murdoch now. One of the things that’s kept people away is that he has a powerful media presence, and people are fearful of crossing swords with him. Much of that fear is gone now."

Murdoch, it need scarcely be said, has had a powerful and often harmful influence on American discourse about the Middle East – through ill-informed commentary on Fox News, some bizarre opinion articles in the Wall Street Journal by Bernard Lewis and others (despite its generally thorough news reporting), and the neoconservatives' house journal, the Weekly Standard.

It's not surprising, therefore, that Melanie Phillips, one of Britain's most outspoken pro-Israel columnists, should be concerned about Murdoch's fate:

"In a western world whose intelligentsia is consumed by irrational and malevolent hatred of America and Israel and is hell-bent on undermining the west and assisting its mortal enemies, Murdoch has provided the one media voice putting forward a pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-defence of the west position – including support for the Iraq war."

Interestingly, though, Ms Phillips didn't mention that News Corp'slargest shareholder outside the Murdoch family is the Saudi billionaire, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Murdoch, in turn, also holds a stake in the prince's Rotana media empire.

Brian Whitaker, is a journalist for the British newspaper The Guardian since 1987 and its Middle East editor from 2000-2007. He has a degree in Arabic from the University of Westminster. He also runs a personal website Al-Bab.com about politics in the Arab world.

Hafıza Tazeleme: Ankara Grubu Değil, Hakurk Grubu ya da Rest

5 Kasım 2007 Tarihinde Erdoğan-Bush görüşmesinde Bush'un önüne konulan resimlerden sonra ABD'nin geri adım atmak mecburiyetinde kaldığı ve Açılım Süreci'ne giden yolun açıldığı günlerin yeniden hatırlanması gerekiyor. Özellikle Silvan'da 13 Şehit haberleri arasında Sabah Gazetesi'nin kamuoyunun dikkatine sunduğu Ankara Grubu'nun, aslında Hakurk Grubu olması hafıza tazelemeyi gerekli hale getiriyor. 5 Kasım 2007 Tarihli Bush-Erdoğan görüşmesinin hemen ardından İtirafçıların bir röportajı aşağıda yer almaktadır.

----

Beyaz Saray'daki kritik Erdoğan-Bush zirvesinin ardından, ABD’nin PKK'ya destek verdiğini öne süren itirafçıların ifadeleri, yargılandıkları mahkemelerden istendi.

ABD’lilerin PKK kamplarına giderek görüşme yaptığı ve örgüte silah sağladığı yönündeki ifadeler Adalet Bakanlığı Uluslararası Hukuk ve Dış İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü ile İçişleri Bakanlığı'na gönderildi. Bu ifadelerin ABD’nin Ankara Büyükelçiliği aracılığıyla Pentagon yetkililerine delillendirilerek sunulacağı bildirildi.

3 SANDIK M-16 GETİRDİLER

R. Ş.: “Kandil Dağı’ndaki Kortek Kampı’na 28 Aralık 2006 günü 3 adet zırhlı paletli Amerikan askeri aracı geldi. Araçlar, Süleymaniye tarafından sadece paletli arazi araçlarının geçebileceği yerden geldi. ABD’li askerlere ait olan bu araçlar kamp alanına ulaştığında 100’er adet M-16 marka Amerikan piyade tüfeği bulunan 3 adet sandık bıraktılar.

R. Ş.: Silahların tümünde dürbün ve bomba atar takılıydı. Bizzat elime alarak kontrol ettim. Araçlardaki şahıslar ise askeri üniformalı, siyah gözlüklü, kafalarında kask vardı. 6 Amerikan askeri kampa gelmişti. Hepsinin üniformasında ABD bayrağı vardı. Askerlerden 4’ü sandıkları alana indirdi. Sonra araçların başında beklediler.

R. Ş.: 2’si, PKK yönetiminin bulunduğu taştan örülü, üstü naylonla kapalı barakaya giderek Hakkari bağımsız milletvekili adayı H.İ.’nin kardeşi olan sözde Tabur Komutanı Kawa ve Şıvan kod adlı teröristle 10 dakika görüşüp tekrar araçlarla geldikleri istikamete geri döndüler.

R. Ş.: Amerikalılar gidince Kawa kod adlı terörist bizleri alana toplayarak gelen araçlardaki şahısların Amerikalı olduğunu, gördüğümüz araçları ve şahısları kimseye anlatmamamız yönünde bizi uyardı. Kampa getirilen silahların bir kısmı üst düzey yöneticilere, kalan kısmı İran’a karşı savaşan PJAK’a gönderildi.”

"BİR ÇANTA DOLUSU PARA GETİRDİLER"

İ. P.: “ABD’li üst düzey bir komutan ayda bir kez helikopter ile Kandil Dağı’na gelerek Murat Karayılan ile gizli görüşme yapıyor. ABD’liler ayrıca Osman Öcalan’a bir çanta dolusu para getirdi. Ben Öcalan’ın şoförüydüm. Türkiye’nin olası operasyonlarına karşı Dolekoge kampında her biri 400 kişi kapasiteli 3 ayrı mağara inşa edildi.

İ. P.: Operasyon anında el bombası tesirine karşı zik zaklı kaçış için ayrı çıkışları var. Uydu telefon ve telsiz ihtiyaçlarımız bazı özel şirketler tarafından karşılanıyor. Bu şirketler KDP ve KYB’ye ait şirketlerdir. İran’ın PKK’ya karşı operasyon yapması nedeniyle İran istihbarat örgütü İltihat’ın adamlarını Erbil’den alıp Süleymaniye’nin Köysancak İlçesi’nde Osman Öcalan ile görüştürdüm.

İ. P.: Ardından tekrar Erbil’e bıraktım. IKDP ve KYB’nin adamları, Osman Öcalan’ı tedavi amacıyla Tahran’a götürdü. Osman Öcalan, PKK’nın paralarını alıp ayrılınca ABD’liler kendisiyle görüştü. Yanlarında bir çanta dolusu para getirdiler. KYB’de kendisine 7 bin dolar para veriyor. IKDP’de ise 3 ayda bir 10 bin dolar para Öcalan’a yardımda bulunuyor.”

"IRAK ORDUSUNUN SİLAHLARINI GETİRDİK"

A.K.: “Türkiye-Irak sınırındaki güvenlik güçlerinin hareketlerini sınır hattındaki gruplar ve işbirlikçilerle takip ediyoruz. Kandil’deki Şehit Harun kampına son olarak 2’si ABD, 2’si de KYB’den olmak üzere 4 kişilik bir heyet gelip üst düzey yöneticilerle görüştü. ABD’nin Irak’ı işgalinden sonra Mahmur Kampı’nda PKK bir bölük konuşlandırdı. Bunlar sivil ve silahsız faaliyet yürütüyor. Bunlar, Irak ordusuna ait silah ve patlayıcıları araçlarla kamplara taşıdı. Öcalan’ın zehirlenme iddiaların sonra eylemlerin tırmandırılması kararlaştırıldı.”

"ATEŞKES KARARI ABD GÜDÜMÜNDE ALINDI"

G.K.: “ABD’li askeri ve siyasi temsilciler 28 Haziran 2006 günü Kuzey Irak’taki Hakurk Kampı’ndaki dış ilişkiler idare birimi denilen yerde Murat Karayılan ile gizli görüşme yaptı. Hatta geçen yıl alınan eylemsizlik kararı da bu görüşme sonrası ABD güdümünde alındı. PKK’nın Rusya, KDP ve KYB’yle diplomatik ilişkileri çok güçlü. PKK, ABD’den silah, KDP ve KYB’den ise lojistik destek alıyor.”

"ABD BASKININDA MAHMUR KAMPINDAYDIM"

L. K.: “Ben 15 yıl örgüt içinde kaldım. Bölük komutanlığına kadar yükseldim. ABD askerleri, Mahmur Kampı’nda nüfus sayımı yaparak PKK’lı bulunup bulunmadığını belirlemek için arama yapacağını önceden PKK yönetimine bildirince bizde gerekli tedbirleri alıp geçici olarak kampı boşalttık. ABD baskınından kısa süre önce ben de bu kamptaydım.”

"ABD’LİLER HAKURK KAMPINA GELDİ"

A. K.: “Rus ordusunda 2 yıl askerlik yaptıktan sonra Moskova’dan örgüte katıldım. Kandil’de 5 yıl kaldım. PKK Hollanda’dan telsiz temin ediyor. Füzeler Ermenistan üzerinden kamplara ulaşıyor. Kuzey Irak’taki Lolan Nehri kıyısındaki sığınakta 3 ton TNT, 2 bin 500 mayın, 2 bin adet havan mermisi ile yerden atılan Katyuşa füzesi var. KDP’nin istihbarat temsilcisi Tarık, PKK’ya silah ve malzeme temin ediyor.

A. K.: ABD işgalinden sonra Irak Ordusu’na ait silah ve mühimmat PKK’nın eline geçti. Hakurk Kampı’na ABD ordusundan bir heyet gelerek, Amed Malazgirt ile görüştü. Görüşme sonrasında bize ABD helikopterlerinin zaman zaman kamp alanında keşif uçuşları yapacağını, bu nedenle Türk helikopteri diye ateş açmamamız yönünde uyarıldık.”

A Special Decipher: U.S & EU Point of View and 13 Soldiers' Deaths

I am deeply saddened by the deaths of 13 Turkish soldiers in Diyarbakir province. On behalf of the United States I send heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims. We stand with Turkey in its fight against the PKK, a designated terrorist organization which has claimed tens of thousands of Turkish lives. We support Turkey in its fight against terror and we will continue to work with the Government of Turkey to combat terrorism in all its forms. I will be meeting with Turkey’s leaders over the next two days in Istanbul where I will personally convey to them our commitment to close cooperation.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State 

***

Statement by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton on the terrorist attacks in Turkey

“I am deeply shocked by reports of the deaths of 13 Turkish soldiers in clashes with the PKK and strongly condemn these acts. There is no justification for such terrorist attacks. I express my deep sympathy and solidarity to the families of the victims and to the government and the people of Turkey. I have conveyed my condolences in person to Foreign Minister Davutoglu today.

The EU supports Turkey in its fight against terrorism and will continue to work closely with Turkey bilaterally and multilaterally to combat terrorism in all its manifestations and forms.”

Source 

***

Background Briefing En Route Istanbul, Turkey

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’re en route to Istanbul for the fourth meeting of the Libya Contact Group tomorrow. And then on Saturday, as you know, we will have a bilateral visit with Turkish officials. We have Senior State Department Official to talk about the Contact Group and the bilateral visit with the Turks.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Great. Thanks, [Senior State Department Official One].

So as [Senior State Department Official One] said, this is the fourth official meeting of the Contact Group. All of you have been along for most of these. It’s actually, by my count, the ninth big international meeting on Libya if you count Paris G-8 and the other Paris meeting that President Sarkozy did and the London meeting and the NATO ministerial in Berlin, the point being that I think that’s a reflection of the international community’s determination to come together and continue to focus on how to build – continue to build a broader and deeper coalition for achieving our aims in Libya.

At this Contact Group meeting, we expect some 35 countries to be represented. There’s some – still some details to nail that down. Twenty-one full participants in the Contact Group plus a wide range of international organizations, including the Arab League, the African Union, NATO, the European Union, the OIC, the TNC – the Transitional National Council and the GCC. So again, a very broad representation.

As we’ve discussed in previous Contact Group meetings, we seek to use these to move forward on two tracks – pressure, continued pressure on the regime, and continued support for the opposition now well-represented by the TNC, and that’s what we hope to do at this Contact Group meeting as well. I expect that participants will reiterate the determination and the view that Qadhafi has lost legitimacy and should go. I expect participants to reiterate their strong support for the UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and to fully implement them.
On the support track, I think you can really think about this meeting as how we are going to collectively help prepare the TNC to govern. It’s just a fact that countries are now starting to look past Qadhafi. He is going to go, and the meeting can be a useful place to take stock and prepare for that transition. As you know, the United States has already called the TNC as the legitimate interlocutor for the Turkish people.

QUESTION: The Libyan.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Sorry. (Laughter.) For the Libyan people – it’s the fourth Contact Group meeting, right? And a number of other participants in the Contact Group that made similar statements about the legitimacy of the TNC. And we will look for more and more to express themselves in that way.

The TNC representative, Mr. Jibril, will be present, as he has been present at past Contact Group meetings. And he will brief on the TNC’s plans for a post-Qadhafi Libya. And we’ll be looking to hear about the TNC’s roadmap, which we hope and expect will be for a democratic Libya, an inclusive process that will include all parts of Libyan society – geographically east and west, different tribes, different political groups. We think the TNC understands that if they are going to be the legitimate interlocutor representative of the Libyan people, that it needs to be an inclusive process. We’ll look to participants to support – continue to support the lead UN role in this transition process. UN Special Envoy Khatib, the former Jordanian foreign minister, will be president – present, and he’ll talk about his ideas and principles for a democratic transition in Libya.

We will also look to participants to report on assistance. This is, again, in the category of how we support the TNC moving forward. As you know, one of the key questions has been providing financial support to keep the TNC operating. We have continued to make progress even if incremental on that regard. This time, the temporary financial mechanism that was first referred to at the very first Contact Group meeting is now up and running as a legal entity. And prior to it being up and functioning, there have been significant pledges to it. Remember the Kuwaitis pledged $180 million. The Qataris pledged a hundred million. Bahrain has pledged 5 million. Now we can report that money has actually been provided to the TFM, a total of a hundred million dollars from Qatar and Kuwait. So the TFM will be able to help and will look to other countries to report on what else they are doing to provide money either bilaterally or through the TFM.

Turkey has also, in recent weeks, announced a commitment of $200 million for the TNC, which will be helpful, and we will look to other countries to announce what they’ve been able to do not just in terms of direct pledges, but in terms of unfreezing assets, which is something that most members of the Contact Group have been focused on doing.

The LIEM, the Libyan Information Exchange Mechanism, is also up and running in Benghazi. Italy is playing the major role in that, and you’ll remember that that’s the effort to coordinate assistance. Some countries, including the United States, have been able to provide nonlethal assistance, and this is a mechanism to help make sure we’re matching what the TNC needs with what we are able to provide. So I think those are the things we’re looking for on the support track, and as I say, what it’s really about is preparing the TNC to govern and looking past Qadhafi for what we believe will be the next regime in Libya.

We’re also keeping up the pressure, and I think you’ve seen signs of that. You’ve seen the opposition making progress on the ground, especially most recently in the western mountains of Libya. NATO operations continue at a very high pace. There have been – since Operation Unified Protector began, there’s been more than 15,000 sorties, more than 5,000 strike sorties, and allies are determined. You recall that NATO recently extended its mission for another 30 days, and allies are determined to continue the military operations until the conditions that were spelled out in the Berlin ministerial have been met.

So overall, I would just say that we continue to believe that time is on our side. We’re making progress on both of these tracks and we’ll be looking to participants in the Contact Group tomorrow to continue to support that process.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Why don’t we go on and do a quick brief on Turkey and then come back to questions?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Just a few words on Turkey, because the Secretary, following the Contact Group, will do a whole bilateral day, a full day with her Turkish counterparts on the bilateral agenda with Turkey, which is considerable.

Turkey is really a partner with which we engage on the full range of global considerations. Turkey is a key player, obviously, in the Middle East, a member of NATO in the region with Greece and Cyprus and the Caucasus and Afghanistan, on the energy issue, on the counterterrorism issue, and this will be an opportunity for the Secretary to engage on that full global agenda.

I want to say that this is a relationship that is already very deep and intensive. That is to say that Secretary Clinton speaks to her counterpart Foreign Minister Davutoglu regularly. The President engages very regularly as well with Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul. I think you’ll see on this visit, if a year ago there were some – where we also had a very intensive relationship with Turkey, there were some critical issues and issues on which we disagreed publicly, like Iran following the Turkish vote in the Security Council, I think we have – you’ll find that the relationship now is in a very strong place on many issues and that we’ve made progress. And I think it’s a result of the intensive engagement that we have. Rather than letting the differences that we had come between us, we have engaged all the more and the Secretary personally has engaged all the more. Where we had differences, we confronted them and have talked it through. And where we are cooperating, we’ve sought to intensify that cooperation.

So let me just very briefly tell you what meetings she’ll have, sort of walk you through the day and underscore what I think some of the things she’ll talk about will be. She’ll see President Gul the evening following the Contact Group, which is tomorrow. And then the next day, she’ll see Foreign Minister Davutoglu, she’ll see the Prime Minister Erdogan, she’ll meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, and then she’ll see all of the opposition parties in the Turkish parliament.
And I won’t go into too much lengthy detail on all the issues because that would keep us here for a very long time. But just to note, they’ll obviously talk about Libya following the Contact Group, and I already noted what Turkey has done in recent weeks on that score.

Syria has been a very big issue for Turkey and obviously for the United States as well, and we’ve been in close touch with them. I would underscore Syria is a big issue for Turkey. They have a long border. There are more than 9,000 displaced Syrians who are in Turkey, and Turkey has been making a real commitment to take care of those people and joining us in pressing the Syrian regime to reform. I think, just by the way, on the both of those, U.S.-Turkish cooperation has been excellent.

Afghanistan as well. Turkey has some 1,800 troops in Afghanistan, has been a very close partner working with us on the political process as a NATO partner. And the Secretary and her counterparts will no doubt talk about NATO’s agenda as well.

They’ll talk about Iran. I mentioned already, and everybody knows that we had some differences on Iran last year over the Tehran declaration on Turkey’s vote, but it is clear to us that Turkey shares our goal of seeing – preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, that it is implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1929. And they’ll talk together about how to continue with the P-5+1 process, which Turkey has been a part of by hosting one of the recent meetings.

We’ve worked well with the Turks on Iraq in terms of government formation. I mentioned counterterrorism regional issues in the Caucasus, Armenia, Cyprus, and the Balkans.
I could go on. I think you would get the point that this relationship is extraordinarily both intensive and broad, and we really see this as an opportunity to move the agenda on our common interest in all of these areas.

Let me also just flag the economic relationship with Turkey is a very important one that we have sought to invest in and expand. Under Secretary Hormats is along on the trip and will be meeting his counterparts. The energy relationship is also highly important to us, and Special Envoy Morningstar is also on the trip and will be engaging his counterparts.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Good. Let’s go to your questions. William.

QUESTION: Is there a difference between interlocutor, as you are calling the TNC, and recognizing them as the official government of Libya? And if so, are you guys moving closer towards that? And then secondly, is that, to your mind, a way to open up finances to the TNC, and like where in the spectrum are you?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: You’re right to describe it as a spectrum. And a number of different governments, as I said, (inaudible) what it is they’re saying when they say legitimate interlocutor, legitimate – legitimate authorities. All of those formulations stop short of what you might call formal recognition of a government.

But one of the things we’ll be consulting with counterparts here on is how to continue to strengthen and see them as the legitimate representatives or authorities in the country. So that is something that the Secretary will be speaking to her counterparts about. And to the degree that is a question of unfreezing assets, obviously that will be a part of the conversation as well.

QUESTION: So what’s the main watch words of that official recognition, or what’s the main kind of question to your mind – to the mind of U.S. officials for that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think certainly for the United States, obviously, and I can’t speak to other countries, but you would want to be sure that you know about the plans of the organization that is to be so-recognized, and you’d want to make sure that what they had in mind for the country was something that you were prepared to support. You would want to see that they had the attributes necessary. And I think recognizing a government is not something you would take lightly. You’d want to understand that the previous authorities were no longer capable of or deserving of being the government of that country. And that’s a process that from the start, I think, all of the countries in the Contact Group and elsewhere have been observing.

QUESTION: This – is this – is U.S. recognition is a scenario that you could envision happening before Qadhafi left power? Or is that something to be left until after?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, let’s see how discussions here come out with, but clearly, we’ve already said that Qadhafi has lost legitimacy and needs to go. And almost by definition when that happens, you’re going to be looking toward what the follow-on regime is. And we want to see both of those things happen sooner rather than later.

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about (inaudible)? You talked about inclusiveness, that it needs to – is there some kind of marker that you want or specific thing that they need to do to – that you’re going to think that this demonstrates this is an inclusive authority that is – represents a wide swath?

And then on Syria, they’ve really stepped up their criticism of the regime. Is there anything specific that you’d like to – that you think would be helpful for Turkey to do in terms of trying to get him to step down, whether it’s sanctions or anything? But they certainly have a lot of – more leverage, I would think, than we do.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On the first, Elise, I mean, I don’t think there’s a scientific bar for inclusiveness, but I also think that we do know when an authority, an organization, has included people from different brands. I mean, the first point, I think it’s a geographic one. It probably wouldn’t be considered exclusive if everyone came from one part of the country and no one from the other part of the country was involved.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. Right. No, I don’t – not right now, because I don’t think that’s the case. I think there are some who are not from the east. And clearly, there’s a significant opposition in the west that is part of the TNC. So I don’t think that’s the case, but I’m saying that for something to be seen as properly inclusive, there would – you’d want to see representation in it from all geographic parts of the country.

QUESTION: What about the south?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: South – all parts of the country.

QUESTION: But I don’t think anyone lives in the south.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, but there are –

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Welcome to my world. Welcome to my world.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Right. We’ll get back to you on the south. But I think –

QUESTION: I guess my question is: Right now, are they saying that they’re representative and we’d like to see more representativeness?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think again, our briefer has already spoken to the fact that they are going to come and present a plan tomorrow, so it’s important to hear that plan.

You want to go to the Syria-Turkey issue?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: There are specific things that we’d like to see Turkey do – increase pressure. We’ve done – we’ve been clear about the process. You heard the President May 19^th, that we need to see reforms or Asad needs to step aside. So prior to and since then, we have moved on visa bans and asset freezes, together with the European Union. Turkey has not gone as far as we have or other Europeans on that. We respect Turkey’s own decisions about how they can move forward on the pressure track. They have exerted pressure diplomatically and have been engaged very much with their neighbor in making clear to Asad that they want to see and expect to see reform. But as a country with a long border with Syria and, as I say, receiving thousands of displaced people from Syria, I don’t want to stand here and tell them what types of sanctions that they should be thinking about. I can say that they join us in believing that there needs to be pressure on the regime to reform.

QUESTION: Can I ask about two – one on the Contact Group and one on Turkey itself? On the Contact Group, is the Secretary coming – what is she bringing to the table tomorrow? Or is she really bringing – or is all – is anything that she might be bringing all contingent on the TNC making – saying the right things and doing the right things and really what you want to hear?
And then on Turkey, did you see this nine-page letter that the Hellenic Institute sent to the Secretary outlining all these demands, what she should tell the Turks, how bad they are and how mean they are and this kind of thing? Have you seen that letter, and does she plan to raise any of those issues that they’ve talked about, which were the standard Greek complaints about Turkey, Cyprus, the claims on the sea – on – and that kind of thing?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I haven’t seen the letter. I’d be happy to look at it.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think you can be sure that she will raise regional issues with Turkey, and they’ll talk about Greece and they’ll talk about Cyrpus and they’ll talk about domestic developments in Turkey as they always do. So that will definitely be a part of the conversation.

As to the first, obviously – that the Secretary announce or talk about anything specific that she is bringing to the Contact Group. I did already talk about the way we’re thinking about this meeting and trying to see it as a pivot in this process for looking past Qadhafi, and I outlined the types of things we’ll be engaged with on how we can increase support for the TNC and increase pressure on Qadhafi.

QUESTION: Right. But I guess what I’m saying is that – I mean, will she have anything to offer the TNC even if they are not able to present an acceptable plan of becoming the next government or the next regime?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, we are coming here to continue to express support for the TNC. It’s not as – it’s not about what they will say tomorrow. We do want to hear their report and we want to listen very carefully to their plans for post-Qadhafi Libya, which we strongly support.

QUESTION: Do you expect those – maybe [Senior State Department Official One] did this because you were in Abu Dhabi. Do you expect them to be more refined now than they were in Abu Dhabi, the TNC’s plans?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Absolutely. Between these meetings, the Secretary works with individual Contact member partners, and our team works with the TNC to increase and continue the thinking about how you get from where they are now to an entity that is prepared to govern when the time comes and prepared to get Libya to elections and the kind of support that they will need from the international community, particularly with the UN in the lead, the kind of supporting international umbrella they’d like to see. So as everybody talks about this individually, to come together in this meeting, hear how their plans have evolved, hear how the UN’s work with them has evolved, and then to hear how we can all contribute to that evolving roadmap, is the goal.

QUESTION: Can I ask – can we expect any discussion about station a defense radar in Turkey?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I noted that NATO will be a part of the conversation, and one of the issues that NATO has decided to do is move forward with missile defense based on President Obama’s plan, the European phased-adaptive approach. We have said from the start, as we elaborated that approach – and you know what it consists of and the four phases and the interceptors deployed in Poland and Romania – we have noted from the start that the system also will involve the radar that would ultimately or optimally be placed somewhere in Southeastern Europe. There haven’t been any decisions on where that radar will be, but we’ll certainly be discussing the entire program of missile defense with Turkey. And –

QUESTION: That was a question about the missile defense sites?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.

QUESTION: And you said that –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I said they were going to talk about it.

QUESTION: But it’s – the letter that you got from whoever it was, Kyl or whoever, you don’t have anything to worry about, no deal is going to be signed?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t expect there to be a deal signed on missile defense or anything else in Turkey. As I noted, we have from the start been exploring where this radar might be, and we’ll definitely exchange views with the Turks on that.

QUESTION: Can I – (inaudible).

QUESTION: Back on the TNC, the first one is the statements from the U.S. about these reports of contacts with Qadhafi’s group have been quite a bit cooler than some of the European sort of statements to that effect – the French. To what degree is – are we confident that these contacts are underway and that they’re real, and does the U.S. have a different perception of this than perhaps some of its NATO allies?

And secondly, France put out a report, circulated a report on their post-stabilization mission, which included some pretty interesting recommendations, including one that the Libyan military should be allowed to remain intact after Qadhafi’s exit. To what degree is that report going to be the subject of discussions, and does the U.S. sort of back this idea that the military has to be left intact and to keep the country stable going forward?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let me say something about the second issue, because I’m glad you raised it because I failed to underscore the degree to which that is actually another important discussion to be had here in Istanbul, the question of because we’re so focused on post-Qadhafi transition – and I was talking a little bit about the political aspects of that, inclusive TNC, and also the need to focus on the security aspects of that.

And the report to which you refer will – has been circulated, people are well familiar with it, and will be an element in the discussion. It is by no means the plan or anything that would likely be adopted in exactly that form. But that is another major reason for this meeting. It is a very timely one because we do expect that sooner rather than later there’s going to be this transition, and we need to be ready for it. We don’t know when it will be, whether it will be tomorrow or later than that, but the ideas in that report – and there are other contributions on the table as well – is something that we really want ministers to have a chance to focus on here.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So again, just to be clear, we’ve all been talking individually, the TNC has been talking, about the need for political planning, economic planning, security planning. So this is a chance for all the countries involved to concert views and also to hear from the UN about the role that it can play in coordinating the support.
So on the –

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Can we – can I –

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: [Senior State Department Official One] is going to take the first part of Andy’s question. Then I can (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEAPRTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So, Andy, you know we’ve been saying that there are a lot of straws in the wind and there are a lot of Libyans contacting a lot of folks. I think we are not persuaded yet that any of this is decisive in terms of the red lines that we have laid out, namely that Qadhafi needs to cease the violence, he needs to get his forces back, and he needs to make clear that he is prepared to step down from all of the posts that he holds so that one could move on to the transition. So that’s what we’re looking for, is decisive action from him and from his people.

We’ll take one last one and then we’ve got to go.

QUESTION: Yeah. On Russia, Russia has refused to attend the Contact Group meeting in Turkey. Have you discussed this topic with Lavrov when he was there, and what are you thinking of that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes. As you noted, Foreign Minister Lavrov was in Washington yesterday, actually for a couple of days of the Quartet meeting. He met at length with the Secretary and discussed our very full agenda with Russia, and also with the President. And Libya was certainly discussed. And as you know, Russia has engaged and committed itself to the same goal of us, which is to ensure this transition. Russia also believes that Qadhafi has lost legitimacy and needs to go.

Russia is not attending this meeting. We would welcome their attendance, as we welcome their agreement to engage and see what they can do to promote this transition in Libya. They named a special envoy, Mikhail Margelov. He’s been to Tripoli a couple of times and we’ve been in very close touch. President Obama has spoken several times with President Medvedev about it, including just last week.

So we’re actually working well with the Russians on it. The Secretary had a long discussion on Libya with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday, and we think we are very much committed to the same goals. Russia would be welcome at the Contact Group, should they choose to come. In this particular case, they’re not going to be here, but maybe they’ll come to one in the future.

Source. 

***

Turkey is increasingly taking a leading role in the Middle East

An insight into the increasingly important role that Turkey is playing in its Middle East neighbourbood, further consolidating its influence and how Ankara is demonstrating itself to be a key partner of the West in dealing with the democratic transformation of the region. While Turkey, as others, was not prepared for the Arab Spring, Ankara is now meeting the challenge head-on. Turkey is host to a key meeting of the Libya Contact Group on 15-16 July in Istanbul where a number of Turkish proposals will be discussed, while at the same time Ankara is carrying out active shuttle diplomacy between all the different players, as well a other key powers, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, which are of significant important in guaranteeing regional stability.

Without doubt the Arab Spring has already begun to change the Middle East’s political landscape.This is a unique opportunity for Turkey to prove its new foreign policy approach can have positiveresults for the region in promoting democratic regimes and political stability. Although Ankara was not prepared for the Arab Spring and the reaction came quite late in the case of Libya, it is nowplaying a key role including acting as the lynchpin between the region and its allies in the West

France Says NATO Bombing Has Failed by *Franklin Lamb

One of the jokes heard at this week’s massive pro-government Friday post prayer rally at Green Square (in most of the other Arab countries Fridays are days of rage against the government du jour but in Libya Friday prayers are followed by massive pro-Qadaffi rallies, attended two weeks ago by close to 65% of Tripoli’s population) is about how each morning Libya’s leader, following early morning Fajr prayers dons his formal uniform, complete with those huge epaulets, and salutes the small NATO flag he tapes to his bathroom mirror as he moves from place to place dodging NATO drones and assassins.  “Our leader does this”, one young lady informed me first with a wide smile and then growing serious, “because the NATO bombing of Libyan civilians, which the US/NATO axis claims Qaddafi is doing, has caused his popularity to skyrocket among our proud and nationalist tribal people. I am one example of this.  Yes, of course we can use some new blood and long overdue reform in our government.  Which country cannot?  But first we must defeat the NATO invaders and then we can sort out our problems among our tribes including the so-called “NATO Rebels.”

Since the beginning of the NATO operation (3/31/11) the alliance has conducted nearly 15,000 sorties, including close to 6000 bombing missions according to NATO’s media office in Naples, Italy (oup.media@gmail.com). The most recent attacks reported on 7/9/11 included 112 sorties and 48 bomb/missile attacks, and that is about average.

The two most active Embassies’ in Libya these days are the Russian and the Chinese.  On 2/25/11, according to the Bulgarian Embassy staff, which was falsely rumored to be  currently handling US consular services whereas it appears no one is doing here in Libya), the US Embassy essentially ordered all EU and NATO Embassies to pack up and join their chartered plane and boats. Libyan officials tell visitors that they were shocked by the fast exodus.  “They did not even say goodbye. Suddenly they were on their way to the airport,” one Foreign Ministry advised during a meeting last week.

The Russian and Chinese leadership has grown increasingly critical of NATO’s actions in Libya and are now firmly demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire.  Some cynics here are pointing out that these countries, unlike NATO, know exactly what they are doing and it includes the realization that they have an excellent chance to obtain many billions of dollars in lucrative contracts, which every official interviewed here has sworn, not one Libyan Dinar of which will ever again go to any NATO country, when its aggression is finally repelled. It is partly this realization that it’s “all or nothing” that keeps the US and its potent military asset, NATO, focused on assassinating Colonel Qaddafi and breaking his civilian support base.  If Qaddafi lives, NATO loses and so do the current major oil industry contractors who are reportedly becoming depressed seeing reports of all the Russian and Chinese businessmen arriving in Libya.

NATO, Diplomatic, and Congressional sources confirm that the Obama Administration erred badly in thinking that Libya’s regime would collapse “in a few days, not  weeks” as Obama assured the American public who has to pony up the estimated $ 5 billion thru July 31, 2011 costs. Obama’s egregious miscalculation may cost him his presidency if the economy does not.

  As one student at Tripoli’s Al Fatah University commented, “What your American government has done in the region to destroy yourselves since 9/11 is amazing to Libyans. Now you are going to fight us?  Why?  You already had all our oil you wanted at a bargain prices, we stupidly put our sovereign funds in US banks and we did not even bother Israel much. Every day that NATO bombs it kills more Libyan civilians. We sacrificed nearly 1/3 of our population or more than one million of our brothers and sisters expelling the Italians 70 years ago.  Doesn’t anyone in your government study history? We are not Bahrainis or Syrians.  We are armed and will use our weapons. Among the errors our leadership has made, one of the worst is that it believed the US agreements we made in 2004.  The Iranians and North Koreans laugh at us for trusting you and giving up our nuclear and biological weapons programs. Believe me dear, if Qadaffi leaves power you will miss him because the Libyan people will be tougher against your projects than he has been.”

On Sunday 7/10/11 France seemingly allied itself with Russia and China in calling on NATO to immediately stop its counterproductive and counterintuitive bombing, as more countries witness public demonstrations against NATO’s actions in Libya.  French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said in Paris that it was time for Qaddafi loyalists, which France acknowledges have been rapidly increasing in number, and Libyan rebels “to sit around a table to reach a political compromise” because, he said, “there was no solution with force."

NATO and the Obama administration can have no part of a dialogue because they will be the major losers if peace comes to Libya without Qadaffi leaving power.

No sooner had the French Defense Minister spoken on 7/12/11, reflecting also the views of the British and Italian military, than the US State Department issued a statement insisting that “the United States will continue efforts as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) coalition to enforce a U.N. Security Council-authorized no-fly zone in Libya designed to protect civilians under threat of attack, the State Department said. The spokesman did not mention that the no-fly zone was achieved back in March in 48 hours and that no Libyan aircraft have flown since. Mission accomplished 100 days ago.

 Hilary Clinton repeated her earlier words, "Our efforts in Libya will take time, but let there be no mistake that the political, military, and economic pressure on Qaddafi continues to grow. The allies will continue to increase pressure until the Libyan people are safe, their humanitarian needs met, and a transition of power is fully under way."

 And so it goes. On 9 July 2011, NATO claimed its aircraft carried out another “precision strike on a pro-Qaddafi missile firing position near Tawurgha, south of Misrata.  According to its media office, “NATO intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance were conducted over a period of time to ascertain the military use of the site. It was confirmed as being used to launch indiscriminate attacks on Libyan civilians in the area and a staging area by pro-Qaddafi villagers, including planning attacks on rebel forces near the port and city of Misrata.”  The next morning, 7/10/11, local inhabitants denied that the farm had any military activity on the property and an examination of the farm buildings failed to discover any.

NATO is getting hammered by critics, including during its press conferences, especially by reporters from such groups as Jane’s Defense Weekly who know a thing or two about weapons and war. Last week Jane’s ridiculed the NATO commander who claimed that seeing satellite dishes on roofs were evidence of a particular site being a “Command and Control Center.”  Jane’s found that assertion silly.

Congressional sources have been demanding answers from NATO, including the following incidences of civilian deaths caused by NATO’s bombs and rockets (70% of which are US supplied, raising serious legal and political questions under the 1976 US Arms Export Control Act) and which were forwarded by a Congressional NATO liaison staffer for comment.  The exact cases sent to NATO from the US Congressional included the following with a demand for an explanation:

1.      On May 13, 2011, a peace delegation of Muslim religious leaders having arrived in Brega to seek dialogue with fellow Sheikhs from the east of Libya, was bombed at 1 a.m. in their guesthouse by two US MK 82 bombs.  Eleven of the Sheikhs were killed instantly and 14 were seriously injured. NATO claimed the building housed a “Command and Control Center.”  All witnesses and the hotel owner have vehemently denied this claim.

2.      During the early morning of June 20, 2011, 8 US missiles and bombs supplied to NATO targeted the home of Khaled Al-Hamedi and his parents and family.  Fifteen family members and friends were killed, including Khaled’s pregnant wife, his sister and three of his children. NATO said it bombed the home because it was a military installation. Witnesses, neighbors and independent observers deny there was ever any military installation or troop presence on the property.

3.      In late June, 2011 on the main road west of Tripoli, a public bus with 12 passengers was hit by a TOW missile killing all the passengers.  NATO claimed that public buses are being used to transport military personnel.  Foreign observers, including this one, unanimously aver that they have not seen military personnel in Tripoli, including tanks; APC’s or even military equipment.

4.      On June 6, 2011, at 2:30 a.m. the central administrative complex of the Higher Committee for Children in central Tripoli, two blocks from this observer’s hotel, was bombed with a total of 12 bombs/rockets. The complex housed the National Downs Syndrome center including its records and vital statistics office, the Crippled Women’s Foundation, the Crippled Children Center, and the National Diabetic Research Center.

5.      On June 16, 2011 at 5 a.m.  NATO bombed a private hotel in central Tripoli, killing three people and destroying a restaurant and Shisha smoking bar.

NATO response was to thank the Congressional office for the “interesting” information and then to explain, as NATO has been doing ad nausea recently, that, "By using civilian sites for military purposes, the Qadhafi regime has once again shows complete disregard for the welfare of Libyan civilians.”

NATO’s response continued, “Clearly, the main issue for NATO are allegations of civilian casualties, but it's important that we put those allegations in context of the NATO mission. Each and every civilian death is a tragedy. Obviously, more than we would like to see, sometimes, due to a technical failure, one of our weapons does not strike the intended military target.  We deeply regret these tragic accidents and we always convey NATO condolences to the families of all those who may have been involved.”

NATO’S response continued: “When NATO believes we have caused civilian casualties we will say so and we will do it as swiftly as we can establish the facts. If you look at our track record after nearly 15,000 sorties and nearly 5,000 strike sorties you can see we have taken utmost care to avoid civilian casualties and will continue to do so. Finally let me assure your Office that our mission fully complies with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and our mandate remains to use all necessary means to prevent attacks and the threat of attack against civilians and civilian populated areas.  

As international pressure builds on the White House to call off the NATO bombing campaign, several proposals are being discussed within the African Union, the Russian and Chinese Embassy’s, and even between the “NATO rebels” and representatives of the Libya government in Tripoli.

One possible scenario might be for Libya to offer Obama and NATO a fig leaf which would include Colonel Qadaffi “retiring to his tent to write and reflect” while dialogue takes places among the Libyan people, including the tribes and 600 plus Peoples Congresses which of course should have been allowed to take place as Congressman Dennis Kucinich and others insisted back in February, 2011 before NATO invaded.

*Franklin Lamb, suddenly all over the place. The man is right now inside the Palestinian camp Nahr el-Bared. While all of us journalists are sort of hovering on the outskirts of the camp, this man actually went inside.

Zalmay Khalilzad Speaks by *Dr Ghayur Ayub

When Zalmay Khalilzad writes, one doesn't expect pro-Pakistan sentiments spouting from his pen. He is known for his anti-Pakistan stance and is very selective in making friends from Pakistan. We all know who those friends are. They can be counted on one's finger tips. As opposed to this, he has many Indian friends. According to some, he loves to listen to his talks and expects praises from the audience. Indians are good to please such people. Some of them think he has a complex personality based on three factors; first, his anti-Pakhtun mindset; second, his anti-Pakistan inclinations; third, his anti-Muslim mentality. Though he calls himself an ethnic Pakhtun, the truth is far from it.

His father was of Pakhtun background and was appointed in non-Pakhtun town of Mazar-e-Sharif for a long time. It was in this city that ZK was born and spent  the early, formative years of his life. The area is known for strong sentiments of dislike towards the Pakhtuns as well as anti-Pakistan sentiments. Fostering these feeling in his personality at a very young age was natural. His indifference to Islam can be judged from Americanised lifestyle he adapted to on his own. At a very young age, he was sent to California on an AFS Inter-cultural Program. Later, he studied in the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. From there he went to America and settled there. In 1972, he married author and political analyst Cheryl Benard, They have two children, with prominently non-Muslim names, Alexander and Maximilian. With this anti-Pakhtun (the Americans label Pakhtuns as the Taliban these days), anti-Pakistan and anti-Islamic indifference, he would like to go an extra mile to please the powers in Washington and be counted as the policy-maker on Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

His anti-Pakistan and pro-India policies became apparent in 2002, when he, as adviser to George Bush, became a key player in making policies for future Afghanistan including framing Constitution of Afghanistan. Out of nine members (which was extended to thirteen) he effectively included three members with Indian background and made sure that Afghans having sympathies with Pakistan were excluded. He also played a sneaky role to marginalise Pakhtuns at initial crucial stages with the wrong perception that Pakhtuns had links with Al-Qaeda and Taliban. This was his idea of making a viable Afghanistan. The later events showed he was dead wrong.

Interestingly, it was in those days when he lobbied for late BB, who was trying to make inroads in the power corridor of Washington against the will of Gen Musharaf. Khalilzad became one of the conduits in the process. From there on, the friendship between BB and ZK grew stronger. Asif Ali Zardari came into the political picture shortly before BB's death. ZK was the first person to offer personal condolences to Asif Zardari on BB's assassination. Today, their cordial relationship is well-known in the societal echelon of Washington.

With this background, he blamed Pakistan in his latest article published in a known national daily of Pakistan stating, “The number of Pakistani operatives fighting for the Taliban and other insurgents has increased over the past year”. There might be some truth in it, as some elements in our society have a soft corner for the Taliban. But making a sweeping statement such as, “Pakistan has not been forthcoming about its motives”, implies that all Pakistanis share a common bath with the Taliban. Only an Indian or Indian sympathiser will aim to demolish the image of Pakistan. His mind reflects the latter when he writes, “It (Pakistan) could be defensively hedging against a strong Afghan government that is close to India, Pakistan’s regional adversary.”
With a typical, biased American mindset, he is trying to create fear in the minds of both Americans and Afghans about Pakistan, by saying, “Alternatively, Islamabad could view installing a subordinate regime in Kabul as a first step in an ambitious plan to consolidate regional hegemony in Central Asia.” He solidifies his argument by augmenting his reason, “When the city of Herat fell to the Taliban in 1996, the Pakistani former intelligence official Sultan Amir Tarrar – better known as Col. Imam – was helping Taliban forces. He reportedly messaged headquarters: “Today Herat, tomorrow Tashkent.”

He does not stop there and takes his hammer, bashing Pak army and warning it, “as we draw down our forces in Afghanistan, persuading the Pakistani military to abandon its strategy of supporting extremism and backing Afghan insurgents will become more critical and more difficult.” Then he warns Pakistan on three fronts; First, “Afghanistan could reduce cross-border water flows by building dams on the Kunar River and attempt to press for concessions on territorial disputes”; Second, “Washington has considerable leverage that it has not used to optimal effect. Pakistan relies on the United States and international organisations to remain solvent; its economy would be on the ropes but for a two-year $7.6 billion International Monetary Fund loan package. Coalition support funds from the United States alone are equal to about 25 percent of Pakistan’s defence budget.”; Third, “we should also continue to expand the northern corridor that now transports more than 40 percent of US supplies delivered by land to Afghanistan.”

In the end, he advises US to come up against 'Pakistan’s hostile policies' and support the like-minded moderate Pakistanis “to channel bilateral assistance to Pakistan in a way that empowers moderate civil society but reduces support for the military”. Hammering the last nail in his vengeful but seemingly docile fury against Pakistan he looks at post-occupied Afghanistan by saying, “the United States to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan to counter the terror threat and assist in preventing the victory of Pakistani proxies in Afghanistan. We would also need to consider accelerating security ties with India as part of a containment regime against Pakistan.”

If it was up to Zalmay Khalilzad, he would rather see: Pakistan disintegrated; Afghan Pakhtuns humiliated; and Islam isolated. In this way, he wishes to see a strong and American-friendly India building on the ashes of Pakistan. But his wishes will not be fulfilled because he ignored four important aspects in his article, namely: the Afghan Pakhtun's psyche; Iran's interests in Afghanistan; China's interests in the region; and most important, the opinion of the Pakistani public.

*Dr. Ghayur Ayub, FRCS, FCPS. belongs to  Parachinar., Kurrum Agency, Pakistan and is a  surgeon by profession ; a book publisher/writer/editor.

Criticize Israel and Lose Your Career interview with *Alison Weir

If you've ever tried to search for reliable information and analyses which expose the concealed and obscured side of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, you've surely come across to the website "If Americans Knew." This website belongs to a non-profit organization which focuses on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and the foreign policy of the United States toward the Middle East. "If Americans Knew" publishes commentaries and articles that the American mainstream media pusillanimously shun and reject because of their fear of the influential Zionist lobby which predominantly rules the U.S. administration and Congress. "If Americans Knew" releases statistical reports on the history of Israeli – Palestinian conflict including the number of Palestinian casualties, the number of children murdered by the Israel Defense Forces, the number of Palestinians detained in the Israel jails and the number of Israel's illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands.
American freelance journalist and researcher Alison Weir is the founder and executive director of "If Americans Knew." She has written several articles and compiled investigative reports on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and provoked the furious and frantic criticism of Zionist organizations such as Anti Defamation League. Her articles have appeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Counter Punch, Antiwar.com, The Link, Znet, Los Angeles Times, Greenwich Post, Poynter.org and Washington Report for Middle East Affairs.

Alison Weir is at the forefront of combating the biased coverage of Israeli – Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media and through her sincere efforts has revealed the plight of the Palestinian nation under the occupation of Zionist regime. She believes that criticizing Israel in public will cost a journalist his career. She says that it's far less damaging for an American journalist to write critically of the United State government than of Israel.

What follows is the complete text of my interview with Alison Weir in which we discussed a variety of topics including the dominance of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration and Congress and also the biased coverage of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict by the western mainstream media.

Kourosh Ziabari: Ms. Weir; Let me start with the question that, what would really happen if Americans knew? What would happen if they knew that their taxes go to empower an occupying regime which kills women and children ruthlessly, massacres innocent civilians relentlessly and destroys their homes unjustifiably?

Alison Weir: They would be outraged and would demand that this stop. I have found that when I speak to groups around the country the most common question I receive is, “What can we do about this?!”

KZ: What made you think of establishing "If Americans Knew?" Actually, what were your motives for taking such a sensitive step?

AW: When I returned from my first trip to Gaza and the West Bank, I was determined to tell Americans what was going on. I felt that while I could probably occasionally get articles into the mainstream media, the context would remain so distorted that they would make little difference. Therefore, I felt it was essential to begin an organization that would work to get the information straight to the public in as many ways as possible and that would also study and expose media malfeasance on this issue.

KZ: What difficulties did you face while working on this project?

AW: One of the most difficult aspects is raising enough money to sustain the organization. The good news is that we have been able to keep going for almost ten years. The unfortunate reality is that there’s never been enough money to go beyond a paid staff of about 2-3 people. Zionist organizations of all sorts have extremely large staffs, extensive offices, etc. They also have a great many people of sufficient wealth that they can work on this issue without compensation. We’re in a far different situation.

KZ: Have you ever been pressured by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media or the Israeli lobby in the United States not to talk of Israeli regime critically?

AW: I don’t recall being pressured by the Israeli Lobby directly. Instead, they frequently try to pressure local organizations not to have me speak.

Mainstream media organizations also don’t pressure me directly. Rather, they simply don’t report about my information or inform their audiences about the existence of If Americans Knew. Democracy Now is among this group.

One book editor commissioned an article by me and then attempted to censor what I wrote.

KZ: Have you ever been threatened or seriously intimidated for the content which you publish?

AW: Yes. I received a death threat in 2003. You can read the details here. We periodically receive obscene or harassing emails and phone calls from Zionists. There are websites that misconstrue my work and that defame me, including the very powerful Jewish “Anti-defamation League.”

There are infiltrators in the pro-Palestinian movement who initiate whispering campaigns against me and work to prevent groups from inviting me to speak and from using our written materials. This often fails; sometimes it succeeds.

Recently a man knocked my phone from my hands. You can see this here.Once when I tried to go to Palestine I was stopped at Ben Gurion Airport, held in a detention cell for 28 hours, and deported. Twice I have been briefly detained by Israeli soldiers while trying to film incidents in the Occupied Territories.

KZ: Several renowned politicians, academicians, activists and writers have likened Israel's treatment of the subjugated Palestinians to the deplorable situation of the blacks under the South African Apartheid regime. From the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu to former Israeli Knesset member Uri Avnery, many people believe that Israel undeniably resembles aspects of the South African Apartheid regime. What's your viewpoint in this regard? Does the Israeli regime have the features of an apartheid state?

AW: While no two situations are ever identical, it is clear that Israeli actions are a form of apartheid. As you note, South African experts who have visited Palestine have stated this and they are clearly in a position to know.

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa  commissioned a legal study of the Israel-Palestine situation to “scrutinize the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric.” Their 15-month investigation found that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”

In addition, inside Israel itself there is systemic discrimination against non-Jews.

KZ: In your recent article, you referred to statistical studies which reveal that primetime network news shows report on Israeli children's deaths at rates up to 14 times greater than they report on Palestinian children's deaths. The same is applicable to the other aspects of mainstream media's portrayal of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. For example, we clearly witnessed the exercise of double standards by the Western media during the Gaza War of 2008 – 2009. Why do the American media treat the Israeli – Palestinian conflict so unfairly?

AW: I feel there are most multiple causes. Below are some of the main ones:
1. Advertising and consumer pressure by Israel partisans against media that begin to provide more accurate coverage on this issue. These are often orchestrated and cause considerable financial damage to news organizations.

2. Reporters and editors who are biased towards Israel. I recently was astounded to learn how many of the allegedly “objective” journalists in the region reporting for American media have close ties to the Israeli military. Ethan Bronner, New York Times bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli army. Others have themselves served in the Israeli military. “Pundit” Jeffrey Goldberg, who is often interviewed for commentary on U.S. mainstream news broadcasts, served in the Israeli military.

I’ve written several articles and made a video on this topic:1, 2, 3 and 4

The Associated Press is probably the primary source of international news for media all over the U.S. and is probably an extremely significant cause of the problem. Its control bureau, through which virtually all reports on the region must pass, is located in Israel and is staffed largely by Jewish and Israeli journalists, many with close family ties to the Israeli military. Their reporting invariably contains pro-Israel spin and context. Quite often, they don’t even send out reports on newsworthy items that reveal negative facts about Israel.

3. Media owners, publishers, CEOs, etc. who are biased toward Israel, for example, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone, etc. Journalist Jeffrey Blankfort has reported on this.

4. Editors who know nothing about this issue and would not necessarily be Israel partisans but are taken in by AP, the New York Times, etc. Journalists who have never been to the region, never read a book on it, or studied it independently, often think they are experts on the subject because they’ve been reading AP et al reports for years. They have no idea how filtered and slanted these are.

5. Journalists quickly learn that reporting honestly on Israel-Palestine is not a good career move and often self-censor. It is much safer not to touch the “third rail” of American journalism; they are aware that the people who pay them won’t like it. It is far less damaging to one’s career to write critically of the American government than of Israel.

6. Fear of being called “anti-Semitic” and of being black-balled.  The ADL, similar organizations, and Israel partisans are quite powerful in the U.S. People don’t wish to come under their attack; they’ve seen what happened to Helen Thomas and others.

KZ: Many American citizens who voted for President Obama in the 2008 presidential elections had hoped that he would be a different, sincere and trustworthy politician and a real man of change who would detach himself from the hawkish policies of George W. Bush. However, no essential change of policy was observed during President Obama's administration. What's your analysis of the performance of President Obama? Why did he fail to fulfill his promise of change?

AW: Because he is aware that pro-Israel groups and individuals determine who has the chance to be a major contender for the Presidency of the United States. If he tried to do something substantial, there would be a powerful – and successful – campaign to prevent him from winning a second term. This campaign would consist of funneling donations away from him to his opponents and of defaming him on a variety of issues in the media. Plus, even if he tried to do something, Congress would over-rule him, out of the same fears. Long before Mearsheimer and Walt wrote their exposé on this, Paul Findley described this situation in his powerful book, “They Dare to Speak Out.”  Richard Curtiss, Janet McMahon, and Delinda Hanley, from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, have been exposing this for many years.

KZ: Following the 9/11 attacks, a wave of Islamophobic sentiments began to encompass the public sphere in the United States and the European society. The U.S. administration portrayed a horrific and appalling image of Islam and sowed the seeds of hatred against Muslims in the hearts of the Western citizens. However, we already know that they were not Muslims who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Even if we admit that it was Osama Bin Laden who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, I as a Muslim should promulgate that he was not a devout Muslim, but rather a CIA asset since the Afghan-Soviet war in 1980s. What's your viewpoint in this regard? Why is the American society's stance toward the Muslim so repulsive?

AW: Islamophobia in the U.S. has been largely promulgated by media, individuals, and organizations working on behalf of Israel. This is one of their most despicable and dangerous campaigns and has been going on for decades. Among those whose work, statements, and or funding have resulted in making Americans fear and hate Muslims are Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson, Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, Martin Kramer, Charles Jacobs, David Horowitz, David and Meyrav Wurmser, Frank Gaffney, Caroline Glick, Daniel Pipes, etc. John Sugg has written on this topic for years; more recently Max Blumenthal, Maidhc O Cathail, and several others have exposed it.See 1, 2, 3 and 4

KZ: The Zionist lobby and organizations such as Anti Defamation League, as you have pointed out in your articles, denounce as anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish every single criticism of the actions and policies of the Israeli regime, thus demoralizing and discrediting the critics of Israel who dare to call into question the illegal and immoral actions of this regime. What's your take on this? How should the critics of Israel find podiums to voice their opposition to the actions and policies of the Israeli regime without being demonized?

AW: This is one of their most widely used tactics. Their intention is two-fold: to undermine the credibility of people speaking and writing accurately on Israel, and to intimidate people from doing this.

I feel that people should simply ignore these attacks and continue to write and speak as honestly and accurately as possible. Such smears have become so widespread that they are beginning to be a bit like crying wolf too often. An increasing number of Americans are rolling their eyes when they hear that yet another person with no record of bigotry is allegedly “anti-Semitic.” In fact, such an attack often helps to raise interest in the person being so maligned, many people assuming – often correctly – that this is a person giving the true facts on Israel and/or the Israel Lobby.

KZ: You may admit that as long as the United States gives its unconditional support to the Israeli regime, vetoes any UNSC resolution critical of Tel Aviv and prevents the international community from investigating its crimes and illegal activities, including its underground military nuclear program, no progress may be made in the course of holding Israel accountable for its actions and policies and therefore no change will be resulted and the suffering of the Palestinian nation will continue. Do you foresee a future in which Israel is eventually held responsible for its criminal actions before the international community? Is such a thing practically possible at all?

AW: Yes, I believe strongly that this will change when Americans learn the facts and demand a change in U.S. policies. The reality often forgotten in analyses on this issue is that Israel’s power comes from the U.S. When the sleeping giant in this relationship, i.e. the American public, wakes up, everything will change.  The fact that this is already starting is reflected by the creation of entities such as J Street trying to co-opt this growing movement.

The Interviewer: Kourosh Ziabari

*Alison Weir,is a British writer of history books, mostly in the form of biographies about British royalty.

Palestinian People Power or Power to the People by *Alan Hart

Way back in the early 1980’s, Major General (then retired) Shlomo Gazit, the best and the brightest of Israel’s former Directors of Military Intelligence, said the following to me in a private conversation. “If we (Israel’s Jews) had been the Palestinians, we’d have had our mini state long ago.” He meant that they would have played the terror card. Simply stated (he knew he didn’t have to spell it out to me), they would bombed Israeli government offices and commercial centres and properties of all kinds and blasted transport and other communication facilities to cause maximum disruption and destruction.

Because Israel’s leaders prefer land to peace and there’s nothing any American president can do about that so long as the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress call the shots on U.S. policy for Israel/Palestine, it’s obvious that the Palestinians have nothing to gain, only more to lose, from politics and diplomacy. So what, really, can they do themselves to press their claim for an acceptable minimum amount of justice? (By definition an acceptable minimum amount of justice requires a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation with provision for Jerusalem to be an open, undivided city and the capital of two states).

Way back in the early 1980’s, Major General (then retired) Shlomo Gazit, the best and the brightest of Israel’s former Directors of Military Intelligence, said the following to me in a private conversation. “If we (Israel’s Jews) had been the Palestinians, we’d have had our mini state long ago.” He meant that they would have played the terror card. Simply stated (he knew he didn’t have to spell it out to me), they would bombed Israeli government offices and commercial centres and properties of all kinds and blasted transport and other communication facilities to cause maximum disruption and destruction.

And they would have done so knowing that their terrorism, provided it was ruthless enough and sustained, would be effective, would eventually cause many Israeli Jews to say to their government, “We’ve had enough, do a deal with the Palestinians.” (They would also have had the evidence of their own experience to go on. In 1947/48, mainly by terrorism, they drove out first the occupying British and then about 800,000 Arabs).

Though all governments deny it, a truth is that terrorism does work provided it is ruthless enough and sustained. And there’s no mystery about why. In many countries, especially those in which citizens are free to express their thoughts and feelings (the so-called democracies), there are limits to the amount terror-created disruption and mayhem the soft underbelly of public opinion will tolerate. All politicians know this.

There’s a case for saying that the Palestinians might have had some real bargaining power if they had played the terror card effectively at an early point in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (as the Zionists would have done if they had been the Palestinians). Arguably a good time to have played it would have been after the UN Security Council caved in to Zionist-driven American pressure and came up with a resolution, 242, which effectively put Zionism in the diplomatic driving seat. It did so by refusing to condemn Israel as the aggressor, by not demanding its immediate withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and by allowing it to attach conditions to its withdrawal. As I have explained in previous articles and my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the Security Council should have put Israel on notice that it would be subjected to sanctions and diplomatic isolation if it settled occupied territory.

Today, and even if they wanted it, the Palestinians do not have a terror option. And again there’s no mystery about why. In addition to the blockade of the Gaza Strip and checkpoints which are in place partly to humiliate the Palestinians who must pass or seek to pass through them, Israel’s state-of-the-art surveillance makes it almost impossible for Palestinians on the occupied West Bank and in the Gaza Strip open prison to have conversations which are not electronically bugged or listened to by one means or another. Palestinian organizations and groups are also riddled with informers, mostly Palestinian men who become Israeli intelligence assets in order to protect their women. The proposition often put to those who become informers is that if they don’t do what Israel wants, their mothers/wives/sisters will be rapped.

Simply stated there is not an environment in which the occupied and oppressed Palestinians could organize and execute a sustained terror campaign.

So if the Palestinians have nothing to gain from politics and diplomacy and don’t have a terror option, what can they do?

In theory their best weapon is their very existence and the demographic time-bomb it represents, but… It’s reasonable to assume that Israel will continue to work on defusing it by means which could go all the way to a final round of ethnic cleansing.

It was Sharon as prime minister who started the work of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation by ordering the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and IDF forces from the Gaza Strip. At the time, and with the assistance of the mainstream Western media which (generally speaking) is terrified of offending Zionism either too much or at all, it was presented as Sharon seeking to advance the peace process. That was Zionist propaganda nonsense.

According to a recent report in Ha’aretz by Barak Ravid, even Netanyahu has now accepted that Israel must make some withdrawals from the occupied West Bank “if it is to preserve a solid Jewish majority inside the State of Israel.” After his return from America that’s what he told a shocked cabinet meeting when he presented to it a report by the Jewish People Policy Institute on demographic changes among Jews and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank. The report was based on the demographic data of Prof. Sergio DellaPergola which shows that, in a number of years, the demographic trends will result in a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

So very probably the time is approaching when Netanyahu, if he can overcome the opposition of some of his lunatic cabinet colleagues, will announce Israel’s intention to make some limited withdrawals from the occupied West Bank. He will present them as “painful concessions” on Israel’s part and proof that it is serious about peace. The truth will be rather different. The withdrawals, if they happen, will be for one purpose and one purpose only – defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation in order to preserve a solid Jewish majority in a somewhat reduced Greater Israel, a Zionist state with borders taking in about 40% of the West Bank including all of Jerusalem.

As things are and look like going, that (about 60% of the West Bank with bits and pieces of pre-1967 Israeli land thrown in under the heading of “swaps”) is the best deal the Palestinians are ever likely to be offered by any Zionist leadership; and it is, of course, totally unacceptable. So back to the main question – What, really, can the Palestinians do themselves to get some bargaining power?

The answer I want to float came into my mind when I was reading a recent column by Uri Avnery. He was writing about the “nightmare” that has haunted Israel since 1948. What is it? “The 750,000 refugees and their descendents, some five million by now, will one day get up and march to the borders of Israel from North, East and South, breach the fences and flood the country.”

In my view getting up and marching to the borders of pre-1967 Israel is what the Palestinians should now do, and not only the Palestinians of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip prison camp. They should be joined by Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. To guarantee peaceful proceedings on their part, the Palestinian marchers should be completely unarmed – not only no guns, but no stones.

Of course Israel would seek to prevent it happening by banning Palestinians assembling in numbers on the West Bank and, also, by threatening the frontline Arab states with reprisal attacks and even war if they allowed Palestinians in numbers to enter I967 Israeli occupied Arab land from their territories. But with effort and commitment on the part of the Palestinians it could be made to happen.

Just imagine it… Several hundred thousand or better still one or two million Palestinians or more marching peacefully to the 1967 borders.

For what purpose? When they got as far as they could go, they would demand that the governments of the world do whatever is necessary to oblige Israel to stop defying international law and end its illegal occupation of the West Bank and its criminal blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Such an event would demand and command the attention of the world’s media, and it’s by no means impossible that the coverage would light a fire of understanding throughout the Western world; understanding of the fact that the nuclear-armed Zionist state of Israel is the aggressor, the land thief and the oppressor and that the Palestinians are its victims. Such a fire, if it was lit, could trigger a people power response in the Western nations that would make it impossible for Western governments, even the one in Washington D.C., to go on supporting Israel right or wrong.

If Israel’s leaders were stupid enough to order the IDF to break up and disperse the Palestinian marchers by shooting to kill, there would be a bloodbath. In that event it’s possible, in my view probable, that the fire of understanding the Palestinians had lit in the Western world would become an inferno of anti-Israelism that would force Western governments, including the one in Washington D.C., to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its crimes.

Though it would further isolate Israel and America, I don’t think a UN General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state in 1967 borders would change the facts on the ground. But if a vote in the General Assembly was taken against the background of the demonstration of Palestinian people power as outlined above, that could be a game-changer.