Israeli Rabbis and the Issue of Real Estate by By Professor Lawrence Davidson

Part I

On Tuesday, the 7th of December, some fifty Israelirabbis issued a "decree" forbidding their Jewish fellow citizens from "renting or selling homes or land to Arabs and other non-Jews." The "decree" was soon endorsed by an additional 250 Israeli rabbis. That makes about 300 in all, most of orthodox persuasion and many of great influence. Just to make sure that those who have property to rent or sell know what is at stake, the same rabbis announced that those Jews who fail to obey will be "ostracized."

There has beensome protest about this. Rabbis who do not agree with this command called it a "distortion of Jewish religious law." Well maybe. All law is open to interpretation and the present debate, such as it is, is about whose interpretation is going to be dominant. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said he thinks Jewish law commands that one should treat the stranger with kindness, and wouldn’t Jews protest if no one would rent to them? But one gets a strong whiff of hypocrisy coming from the Prime Minister on this note. After all, is it not his government that is chasing all the non-Jewish neighbors out of East Jerusalem?

Therefore, it would seem that the orthodox rabbis who issued the no rent or sell order have the upper hand. Nor is this at all surprising. Consider the following:

1. There are real laws in Israel against the promotion of racism which are not being used in any vigorous way against these offending religious authorities. Some of them, for instance Rabbi Ovadia Yosef head of Shas, are apparently too politically powerful to be held accountable.

2. The Knesset itself is pushing a proposed law that would allow Israeli municipalities to reject residents rights to live within their jurisdiction based on religious affiliation.

3. 46% of Israeli Jews do not want to live near Arabs.

4. 52% of Jewish children go to religious schools where many of them are instructed by teachers who are in general agreement with the rabbis issuing the above "decree." Those who go to public institutions are also taught to see Arabs as inferior and dangerous to themselves and the nation.

In other words, the sentiment expressed by this "decree" is not unusual. It is, in fact, uncomfortably mainstream. This sort of discrimination is a structural part of the Israeli public and private practice. All Israeli governments, from the founding of the state to the present moment, have purposely discriminated against non-Jews. Often to get a job, with the classic exception of unskilled labor, one must have prior military service and that automatically disqualifies the Palestinians. It is done that way in order to disqualify them. And, a good number of landlords already discriminate against non-Jews. The command of the rabbis is just an impolitic public pronouncement of the norm. As oneIsraeli citizen told Al-Jazeera, "I’m sure there are a lot of people who are saying that the rabbis are just doing what everyone thinks. No one wants to live with the Arabs." This makes perfect sense in reference to a country that has held up, as one of its highest ideals, the goal of an ethno-religiously pure citizenry.

Part II

When one starts to analyze this situation one cannot help but see it as yet another example of the fact that, through our cultures and ideologies (including religion), we create detached subjective realities for ourselves. Within them the contradictions and ironies of objective reality just conveniently melt away. In this case we find:

1. Irony – The rabbis have forbidden Israeli Jews to rent or sell landed property to non-Jews, the bulk of whom, of course, are Palestinians. And where, pray tell, did the rabbis and their compatriots get this landed property? They forcefully took it from the very people to whom they are forbidding sale and lease. In other words, according to the rabbis, it is against their religion to rent or sell confiscated property to those from whom you have taken it.

2. Contradiction – This entire episode once more reduces Israel as a democracy to something akin to Alabama circa 1950. For Americans and Europeans to see it otherwise can only be because illusion (through the medium of propaganda) has replaced reality. Where you have a state sanctioned segregated society, a minority that is labeled inferior and unwanted, racially tainted education and, no less, the goal of ethno-religious purity sanctified by a national god, there is no room for any sort of democracy worth the name.

Finally, we can thank the rabbis for reminding us that Israel’s very questionable policies are not confined to its illegal treatment of those in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The 20% of the population within Israel proper, the Arab Israelis, are also under threat. This means if, by some miracle, Israel does go back behind the Green Line, the fight for human decency in that country will be far from over. One will still have to battle for the rights of over one million Israelis who are on the wrong side of the religious divide.

Part III

It has been the fate of establishment Judaism to be captured by Zionism, a deeply discriminatory political ideology. Now, with the rising power of those orthodox rabbis who would issue the above "decree" and espouse even worse as well, one must conclude that the secular Zionist ideologues and the religious fundamentalist fanatics have merged.

It goes without saying that the Palestinians in Israel, in refugee camps, and in exile must bear the brunt of this evolution. And they have done so from 1948 onward. Yet that is not the end of the story. Events have created another "fact on the ground." And this is that there is now an unspoken connection between the salvation of the Palestinians and the "soul" of the Jewish religion. To all those Jews out there who have tried to ignore what is going on, remember the words of Desmond Tutu, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." If you value the future viability of your religion you must join in the effort to implement the rights of all the Palestinians. It is Israeli behavior that has made their fate one with yours.

* Lawrence Davidson is a Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University in West ChesterPennsylvania.He is the author of America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University Press of Florida, 2001), Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 2003), and, co-author with Arthur Goldschmidt of the Concise History of the Middle East, 8^th and 9^th Editions (Westview Press, 2006 and 2009). His latest book is entitled Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing American National Interest (University of Kentucky Press, 2009). Professor Davidson travels often and widely in the Middle East. He also has taken on the role of public intellectual in order to explain to American audiences the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Turkey: The New Indispensable Nation by *Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Turkey put its imprint as one of the most influential countries not only on 2010, but on the first decade of the third millennium. At the start of the new decade, too, Turkey’s geopolitical position, rich historical heritage, cultural depth, well-educated young population, ever-strengthening democracy, growing economy, and constructive foreign policy make it an indispensable country in a world transformed by rapid globalization.

By making use of all of its assets, Turkey is contributing to regional stability and peace and working towards a global order based on justice, equality, and transparency. As an emerging power, Turkey will continue to realize its own potential and simultaneously contribute to global peace.

The chaotic conditions of the post-Cold War world have made civil wars, occupations, nuclear armament, and human trafficking chronic problems. While globalization offers new opportunities, it also causes new global problems and deepens the inequalities embedded in the world order. It is no longer possible to sustain the current world order, which, based as it is on a skewed notion of center-periphery relations, merely produces injustice and inequality.

Turkey seeks to contribute to regional and global peace by facilitating democratic reforms domestically and implementing a principled foreign policy. As a NATO member, Turkey aims to become a full member of the European Union and establish cordial relations with all of its southern and eastern neighbors. Turkey’s posture – looking both East and West – is neither paradoxical nor inconsistent. On the contrary, Turkey’s multidimensional geopolitical position is an asset for the region.

There are few countries that can play such a critical role. Turkey constitutes a new synthesis because of its ability to link such diverse qualities and backgrounds. Turkey is thus capable of overcoming the dichotomies of East-West, Europe-Middle East, and North-South.

Indeed, this capacity is essential because we need to leave behind the Manichean disagreements, conflicts, and fears of the Cold War era. Those who see the world through those old, fearful lenses have difficulty understanding Turkey’s rising profile and dynamism. But the realities of the twenty-first century necessitate a multi-dimensional and inclusive political perspective.

Acting on these principles, Turkey is following a proactive foreign policy stretching from the Balkans to the Middle East and the Caucasus. This geography is Turkey’s natural historical and cultural hinterland. Turkey’s cultural and historical links with the peoples of these regions are deep and conducive to regional peace.

Turkey cannot remain indifferent to this geography, for it stands at the center of it. History clearly shows that it is impossible to establish and sustain global peace without ensuring peace and stability in the Balkans and the Middle East. Turkey is following a constructive and inclusive policy for these regions, which are marked by remarkable models of cohabitation, science, arts, culture, and civilization.

Due to our recent efforts, the wounds of the Bosnian war are being healed, facilitating peace and stability among Balkan peoples. Turkey’s efforts are also helping to prevent wars in the Middle East, and our intense efforts have helped keep a diplomatic track open on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Moreover, we are helping to facilitate political stability in Iraq and helping the NATO mission in Afghanistan. And, of paramount importance, Turkey is making enormous efforts to help establish an independent and sustainable Palestinian state – efforts that are appreciated by Turkey’s Western and Eastern friends alike.

Today, Turkey is following a policy that represents a sense of justice in the Middle East, and is working toward the removal of artificial borders and walls among the region’s peoples. We desire to live in a region where the dignity of every person is respected. That is why we have objected to Israel’s aggression in and blockade of Gaza, and will continue to do so.

We know that it is not possible to attain global peace unless we establish sustainable peace in the Middle East, which requires resolving the Palestinian question. Therefore, we urge Israel and all other countries involved to follow constructive and peaceful policies.

Motivated by these principles, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and I showed through our “Alliance of Civilizations Initiative” in 2004 that cultural, historic, and religious differences are no reason for conflict. The basis for our approach to humanity is the following principle of the famous Turkish poet Yunus Emre: “We love and respect the created because of the Creator.”

As a result, we stand firmly opposed to discrimination against any society, religion, sect, culture, or country. I consider anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and prejudice against Christianity crimes against humanity, whose common values and ethical rules oblige us to confront and reject all forms of discrimination.

Besides its cultural, historic, and diplomatic values, Turkey’s vibrant economy has become a source of stability and welfare. When my party took office in 2002, the Turkish economy totaled around $250 billion. Today, Turkey’s annual GDP has reached $800 billion, making it Europe’s sixth largest economy and the 17th largest in the world. It has also been one of the least impacted by the global economic crisis, with growing foreign trade, a strong banking system, and diverse and prospering small and medium-size enterprises. Thus, the Turkish economy returned to its pre-crisis levels in 2010.

All of these qualities have transformed Turkey into an attractive place for business, media, artists, diplomats, students, and non-governmental organizations from around the world. Turkey’s ever-increasing soft power is becoming one of its most significant traits, which we will continue to use to enhance regional and global peace.

The impact of globalization has brought about a rebalancing of power, but the demand for justice, transparency, and legitimacy remains constant. The global problems of our times necessitate cooperation, political will, and sacrifice. That is why we are following a proactive policy in multilateral institutions to facilitate an equitable sharing of our world’s resources.

Turkey will continue to work toward a just and equitable global order in 2011 and beyond. This is a responsibility emanating from our history, geography, and the universal values that we hold.

*Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey.

Source: Project Syndicate

Should Bob Woodward be arrested? by *Stephen Walt

I keep thinking about the Wikileaks affair, and I keep seeing the double-standards multiplying. Given how frequently government officials leak classified information in order to make themselves look good, box in their bureaucratic rivals, or tie the President's hands, it seems a little disingenuous of them to be so upset by Assange's activities. 

Or consider the case of the most famous of all "insider" journalists: Bob Woodward. Over the past several decades, he's built a highly-lucrative career on his ability to get Washington insiders to talk to him. Less charitably, you could say he's gotten rich giving politicos a vehicle to make their case in print. Just think about how many insiders spill their guts to Woodward, and even provide him with key memos, which are sometimes published as appendices in his opuses. It is apparently entirely acceptable for Woodward to publish remarkably detailed stuff on the most sensitive deliberations of the U.S. government, including the nasty things our officials say about one another and about foreign officials. This well-established practice warrants no adverse comment whatsoever; instead, the usual result is a front page review in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and a #1 position on the best-seller list.  

Has anybody proposed arresting Bob Woodward? Has anyone looked into applying the 1917 Espionage Act to his revelations of the most secret deliberations of the national security establishment? Is the State Department telling employees not to buy or read his books, the same way they are telling employees not to look at any of the Wikileaks materials? And remember: Woodward isn't writing about minor issues or even the trivialities of diplomacy; his books deal directly with core issues of war and peace. One could argue that what Woodward digs up and displays-information drawn from the highest and innermost counsels of the U.S. government-is more important and more potentially damaging than zillions of often-trivial memcons by mid-level bureaucrats in overseas embassies. How can these leaks be more sensitive or troublesome than a detailed, blow-by-blow account of Obama's secret Afghanistan decision-making?

I'm not for a minute suggesting that somebody ought to threaten Woodward with prosecution, ban his books, or try to hack his laptop and destroy his hard drive. But the contrast between the reflexive praise with which his books are received-and to be fair, some of them make for pretty interesting reading -- and the "sky is falling" witch-hunt surrounding Julian Assange, is striking.

And I suspect it mostly comes down to this. Elites like the idea of being in charge, and they don't really trust "the people" in whose name they govern, even though it is the latter that pays their salaries, and fights their wars. Elites like the sense of power and status that being "on the inside" conveys: it's a turn-on to know things that other people don't, and it can be so darn inconvenient when the public gets wind of what the current "best and brightest" are actually doing. The idea that ruling elites are in fact "public servants" who serve at our behest is not a big part of their mental make-up, except that some of them do have to get re-elected every few years, and not every seat is safe.

Their view of the public's right to information is akin to the view expressed by Col. Nathan Jessep (memorably played by Jack Nicholson) in the film A Few Good Men. When defense attorney Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) says "I want the truth!," Jessep retorts: "You can't handle the truth!" Unless, of course, it is filtered by establishment journalists like Woodward, and not by some unsympathetic upstart like Assange.

UPDATE:  My colleague and friend Jack Goldsmith from Harvard Law School has two good pieces on this issue, both well worth reading.  He also noted the double-standard being applied to Woodward and Assange, and suggests that this case actually suggests that the entire system of security classification ought to be re-thought.  

*Stephen Martin Walt (born July 2, 1955) is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Among his most prominent works are Origins of Alliances and Revolution and War. He coauthored The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy with John Mearsheimer.

SPECIAL REPORT: Obama’s Hidden Links by *Wayne Madsen

Link between Obama's CIA front employer and mother's Asian work revealed

WMR has uncovered CIA-archival documents that point to a link between Barack Obama's post-Columbia University CIA front employer, Business International Corporation (BIC), and his mother's two employers, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Asian Development Bank. WMR has also discovered CIA files that point to the use of field anthropologists abroad, working under foundation cover, by the CIA. Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro/Sutoro worked as a field anthropologist in Indonesia under the cover of the Ford Foundation.

BIC and the Ford Foundation maintained a close relationship through the BIC's running of the Business International Roundtable. Papers maintained at the John F. Kennedy Library provide a linkage between David E. Bell, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget from 1961 to 1962 and administrator of the USAID from 1963 to 1966, and the Ford Foundation, where Bell served as executive vice president from 1966 to 1981, and Business International, where Bell participated in one of their Business International Roundtables on December 17, 1965, at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington. The Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. Foundation helped fund the CIA's Airlift Africa project that saw it used to bring Barack H. Obama, Sr. to the University of Hawaii in 1960, as well as over two hundred other African students to other American universities, as part of the CIA's program to counter the Soviet Union's efforts to provide scholarships to African college students in newly-independent African nations at the People's Friendship University in Moscow (later Patrice Lumumba University).

BIC also attempted to infiltrate members of Students for Democratic Society (SDS) at Columbia University in the 1960s by offering them money from Rockefeller family coffers. BIC, which ran Business International Roundtables, was cited in its attempts to infiltrate SDS and other leftist groups.

BIC, which helped propel Obama into international affairs and, later, a profession in politics, was a key to the co-option of leftist groups by Rockefeller and other corporate interests. The following video describes how BIC attempted to infiltrate SDS and other leftist groups beginning after 28 minutes.

In a book titled "The Strawberry Statement," James Kunen described Business International, as related by an unnamed 1968 SDS conference attendee, as leading an effort to finance SDS demonstrations in Chicago in the late 1960s. BIC is described in the book as "the left wing of the ruling class."

Obama was inserted into the south side of Chicago at the same time the CIA, FBI, and other U.S. intelligence agencies were focused on the foreign connections of the El Rukn gang, the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panthers. Obama's membership in a leftist organization at Occidental College in Los Angeles appears to have been a continuation of the infiltration efforts by BIC and its major funder, the CIA. WMR previously reported that Obama was a key asset to the penetration of radical black organizations in south Chicago in the mid-1980s. Of particular interest to the CIA after Obama's graduation from Columbia, was the connections of the El Rukns and Nation of Islam to the Muammar Qaddafi government in Libya, in addition to foreign connections of the Hispanic gang, the Latin Kings, also active in Chicago.

In 1986, BIC was sold to The Economist Group in London and merged with the Economist Intelligence Unit. [BIC had maintained  "Business International UK Ltd.," which, according to n internal CIA memorandum, subscribed to all the CIA's unclassified publications]. However, the BIC International Roundtables appear to continue under various academic and foundation auspices, including at Obama's former guest law lecturing employer, the University of Chicago. In addition, the BIC International Roundtables appear to be a continuation of the Roundtables first organized by Africa's greatest colonialist plunderers, Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes's business roundtables of the wealthiest elites eventually morphed into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR. In fact, Obama, the first African-American president of the United States, is a direct product of BIC and its Roundtables, originally founded by Africa's most infamous looter and pillager of diamonds, gold, and other natural resources and promoter of white minority rule and colonialism, Rhodes.

On June 14, 1976, Senator John Durkin (D-NH) said there was llittle the Senate could do to reduce the

 ability of "the Business Roundtable or the Chamber of Commerce . . . to attempt to influence votes, either through sheer force of logic or sheer force." On June 19, 1975, Representative Wright Patman (D-TX) railed on the House floor that "in 1973 and 1974 — when the previous audit bill was up — the Federal Reserve and its Chairman entered into some highly questionable lobbying tactics, ending up with the involvement of the big banks and the big business combines incluidng the fat cat Business Roundtable." Obama's current subservience to Wall Street and the Federal Reserve can be seen through the lens of his employment with BIC, a virtual mouthpiece for what Patman described as the "fat cats."

BIC was used by the State Department as a diversion for a delegation of General Accounting Office (GAO) representatives who visited Hong Kong in August 1974 looking for information on possibilities for U.S.-Chinese trade after Richard Nixon had opened China up to the United States. A formerly Confidential cable from the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong to the State Department, with copies to the U.S. Liaison Office in Peking and U.S. embassy in Tokyo, dated August 21, 1974, bragged about the consulate's success in diverting the GAO's interest from consulate files on "PRC economic affairs (general), foreign trade and trade promotion, (which includes our files on the Canton Trade Fair)" even though the GAO team told the consulate it was "not supposed to do that." The consulate's problem appeared to be that some of the files were classified. In order to stymie the GAO group, the consulate directed them to conversations with "companies, third country representatives (identified as UK, Canadian, Australian, and West German trade officials in Hong Kong), Far Eastern Economic Review, and Business International staffs." The GAO delegation was particularly interested in potential oil and mining deals with China.

It is apparent that the consulate and BIC wanted to keep what they knew about Chinese trade under wraps, even from Congress. A few weeks after the GAO team was in Hong Kong, a new head of the U.S. Liaison Office in Peking replaced Ambassador David Bruce. His name was George H. W. Bush.

BIC was also used by the State Department and CIA to keep tabs on U.S. firms on the Arab boycott blacklist for investing in or trading with Israel. A Congressional Record insertion in 1965 stated, "Business International reported in January 1964 that there were 164 U.S. firms on the Arab blacklist, adding that, "many American businessmen who have wanted to trade or invest in Israel have been deterred by Arab threats."

BIC also enjoyed a cozy relationship with USAID in 1982, the year before Barack Obama graduated from Columbia and joined BIC's staff in New York. Obama's mother had been a long time employee of USAID, an agency with historical links to the CIA.

On June 8, 1962, in a hearing on "U.S. Policies and Programs in Southeast Asia" held by the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs and chaired by Senator S. I. Hayakawa (R-CA), Elise R. W. duPont, the Assistant Administrator for Private Enterprise for USAID, testified that her agency was "working with Business International to develop country specific information on laws, regulations, and policies in developing countries that affect investment." DuPont specifically stated that USAID was using the information from BIC to conduct "bureau reconnaissance missions" in Indonesia and Thailand and this included support for "a venture capital firm and a leasing firm in Indonesia." BIC, along with a CIA-connected firm called InterMatrix, also conducted country risk analyses for the CIA.

Obama's first employer acted as a bridge between the U.S. intelligence world, with USAID and other government fronts as cover, and the print media. On May 4, 1967, Acting Secretary of Commerce Alexander B. Trowbridge told the East-West Trade Conference as Bowling Green State University that U.S. trade missions to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were facilitated by "TIME, Inc. and Business International." Trowbridge said the use of "trade publications," such as those for whom Obama worked after graduating from Columbia, "stimulated" the exchange of information between East and West.

BIC's relationship with the U.S.governments sensitive trade channels with the East Bloc continued through 1979. A "Cuban Chronology," dated April 1979 and issued by the CIA's National Foreign Assessment Center, states that from November 20 to 25, 1977, BIC sponsored "meetings in Havanaof representatives of 50 US firms and their contact points in the Cuban government." WMR has learned from a reliable source that Obama's grandfather, Stanley Dunham, had traveled to Cuba in 1960 on CIA business with Obama's mother, Ann Dunham. It has also been strongly rumored by informed sources with connections to the Cuban government that Barack H. Obama, Sr. was not the father of Barack Obama, Jr. but that his actual father was an Afro-Cuban who Ann Dunham met during the 1960 trip with her father.

A formerly classified CIA "East Europe Branch Notes," report, dated February 4, 1974, states "A three-day roundtable conference between Business International and East German officials concerned with the promotion of trade opened in East Berlin on February 4. Orville Freeman, President of Business International, heads the foreign participants, comprising presidents, vice presidents, and board members of important US and West European enterprises. GDR Premier Sindermann told the group further steps toward detente have a favorable effect on the expansion of foreign economic activities. He also said that East Germany plans to expand substantially its economic relations with non-socialist cluntries. The remainder of the report from East Germany's roundtable with BIC is redacted.

BIC, along with the CIA, also participated in private conclaves sponsored by an entity called the "Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions," operating from Post Office Box 4068 in Santa Barbara, California and funded by a non-profit corporation called "The Fund for the Republic," which were held periodically on top of Eucalyptus Hill, overlooking the Pacific Ocean, in Santa Barbara. A fellow of the Center was Edward Engberg, the Managing Editor for Business International who was also a former assistant editor  for Fortunemagazine. Other center fellows and consultants included Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court William O. Douglas; former President of the University of California Clark Kerr; former President of the University of Chicago Robert M. Hutchins (also the President of the center); and Isidor Rabi, Professor of Physics at Columbia University; Stanley Sheinbaum, former consultant to the government of South Vietnam; John R. Seeley, Chairman of the Sociology Department at Brandeis University; and Harvey Wheeler, co-author of the book "Fail Safe."

CIA files contain a 1967 letter to the editor of the Daily Emerald from three anthropology professors at the University of Oregon supporting a decision of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) condemning the "intelligence meddling" of the CIA and Defense Department in anthropological field work. 1967 was the same year that Ann Dunham was performing such anthropological "field work" for USAID, a front for the CIA, in Java, Indonesia. The AAA's Professor Ralph Beals [from UCLA] report stated that the Pentagon and CIA "repeatedly interfered with anthropological work abroad, and have clearly jeopardized our chances, as anthropologists, to do meaningful foreign research."

And in what is the clearest evidence yet that Ann Dunham was working for the CIA in Indonesia and elsewhere, the Beals Report stated: "several anthropologists, especially younger ones who had difficulty in securing research funds, were approached by 'obscure' foundations or were offered support from such organizations only to discover later that they were expected to provide intelligence information to the CIA." The report added, "agents of the CIA have posed as anthropologists, much to the detriment of the anthropological research programs."

In Ann Dunham/Soetoro's case, her foundation "sugar daddy" was the Ford Foundation and USAID. Her boss at Ford was none other than Peter Geithner, the father of President Obama's current Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner.

*Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and blogs. Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen has taken on Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows.  He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government.

Your Reality or Mine? by Professor *Lawrence Davidson

There is a postmodern position that states "reality is a social construct." In other words, individuals and groups have their own realities and, according to the postmodernists, one reality is as true as another. Certainly there is more than one way to interpret things. It is because individuals see the world differently and, at least in the American cultural milieu, have such trouble reconciling those views, that U.S. divorce rates run at about 50%. Then there is the inescapable fact that nation states and rival ethnic communities periodically slaughter each other in an effort to disprove the postmodernist assertion that all realities are equal. Thus we see the competition among groups to assert the reality of the powerful as triumphantly more real than all rivals.

It is hard to argue with the notion that there are many social, cultural and political "constructs," each a product of its place and time. However, the notion that all realities are equal can quickly take us into a kind of theater of the absurd. If you want to see what this looks like just take a close look at present day American politics.

Take the issue of climate change. John Shimkus is a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Illinois. He is presently campaigning for the chairmanship of the House Committee for Energy and Commerce. Last year, during a congressional hearing, he asserted that there is no need to be concerned about global warming because after the biblical flood God promised Noah that he would "never again…curse the ground because of man…" Shimkus sees this as "the infallible word of God, and that is the way it’s going to be for his creation." Well, this is an opinion for sure, but it is also John Shimkus’s "reality." As such is it the equal to the reality posited by the present scientific consultants of the Environmental Protection Agency? How about the world of John Barton, a House member from Texas who has it in his head that carbon dioxide emissions are not impacting the climate? If someday this gas does have an effect on the environment, Barton tells us not to worry. We will find a way to live with it. After all, according to Barton, man is able to adapt to just about any environment. Again, what is the worth of Barton’s "reality"? Is it equal to the one posited by those scientists keeping track of greenhouse gases? Finally, there is Darrell Issa, a Republican House member from California who soon will be the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa’s obsession is climate data which, he is sure, has been manipulated by environmentalists seeking the ruin of capitalism. And, he is determined to use his committee’s subpoena power to foil this plot. Representative Issa has his own "reality." But, beyond his own head, just how real is it?

It is not only with issues such as climate change that American politicians are riding the wave of postmodernism. Foreign policy is also an arena of alternate realities. Texas Republican representative Louie Gohmert took the floor in the House of Representatives last month and stated the following, "I’ve been greatly concerned with the hypocrisy of this [Obama] administration telling Israel ‘just let Palestinians build illegal settlements and take over areas that are not theirs. Just let’em take over." Mr. Gohmert has his world, his "reality," but I think we can say definitively that it is less real to that of a new born Palestinian babe in Hebron.

Then there are all those U.S. politicians whose "reality" includes Iran’s drive for an atomic bomb, and the reality of all U.S. intelligence agency experts who say Iran is doing no such thing. Are they equal?

Americans are not the only ones subject to impaired or wholly false "realities." A recent report prepared for NATO by The International Council on Security and Development revealed thatmost Afghans in two hotly contested provinces, Helmand and Kandahar, "are completely unaware of the September 11 attacks on the United States and don’t know they precipitated the foreign intervention now in its 10^th year." The report concludes, "the lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high levels of negativity toward NATO military operations…." These particular Afghan citizens live in a remote and technologically poor region of the world. This remoteness makes their outlook more understandable than that of all those "modern" Americans cited above. But what about the world inside the heads of the people who prepared the NATO report? If we assume that their conclusions are an accurate picture of how they see reality in this case, we can only conclude that they too, like the Afghans, are suffering from an impaired worldview. It would seem that somehow they have forgotten, or suppressed, the fact that when, after September 11, 2001, "President George W. Bush demanded that Mullah Omar…turn over Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants or face the full brunt of U.S. military might, Mullah Omar asked to negotiate, and Bush refused. Instead, the United States invaded Afghanistan…." The Taliban leader had asked the Bush administration for proof of bin Laden’s involvement in the 9/11 attack and those in the White House, aided by the Pakistanis, could have probably supplied it. However, America’s leaders did not bother. This also is part of the picture that should be given the remote peoples of Afghanistan so as to make their notion of what is real more complete. Thus, the reality of the Afghans of Halmand and Kandahar is different than that of the NATO commanders and their consultants. Are they equal? And, are either truly real?

Part II
 
The above examples are from our immediate past, but there are similar ones in our immediate future. For instance, we can look forward to a new Israeli "advocacy campaign" scheduled for western Europe early in 2011. The Israeli Foreign Ministry under the leadership of the Avigdor Lieberman, a man whose notion of reality is quite openly racist, has instructed Israeli embassies in all major western European capitals to hire "professional advocacy and public relations experts" as well as to recruit up to one thousand local Zionists per country to promote Israel’s official view of "reality" in the Middle East. This comes after a relatively successful effort by both Israel and the United States to suppress the picture of reality put forth in the UN’s Goldstone report.

The Israeli picture of Middle East reality, and its role therein, has been eroding in the minds of many Westerners. That is why this effort is being made. The source of the erosion is the demonstrable difference between Israeli behavior and Israel’s publically promoted image of reality. As long as the gap between these two is a yawning one, the Israeli effort to restructure reality for the citizens of Europe is likely to be no more than a rear guard action. On the other hand, one should not underestimate the impact of such efforts. Public relations campaigns, advertising, and the like obviously do work. They are capable making you passionate about new cars and new clothes, and they are capable of making you a supporter of the invasion of Iraq because you are convinced Iraqi WMDs are real.

Part III

We all live lives that are relatively local and in terms of an understanding of outside (foreign) events we rely on the reports of others. That means, except for our immediate experience, our realities are heavily influenced by our media environment. That environment might entail serious and objective research or it may consist of daily doses of Fox TV. In either case that, in part, is how the universe inside our heads comes about and it, in turn, motivates our behavior. The whole process can bring us down to earth or send us into the realm of fantasy.

In the end we are confronted with two problems. One is that there are people who do occasionally attain power whose private realities are fantasy driven. As noted above, the House of Representatives seems to have an increasing number of such people. The second problem is that, unlike the postmodernist claim that we are all living in equally valid private realities, most individual realities are not private at all. They are instead the artificial creations of a manipulated information environment brought to us by way of the government and its allied media. And both of these problems are sure to lead to on-going tragedy.

*Lawrence Davidson is a Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University in West ChesterPennsylvania. He is the author of America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University Press of Florida, 2001), Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 2003), and, co-author with Arthur Goldschmidt of the Concise History of the Middle East, 8^th and 9^th Editions (Westview Press, 2006 and 2009). His latest book is entitled Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing American National Interest (University of Kentucky Press, 2009). Professor Davidson travels often and widely in the Middle East. He also has taken on the role of public intellectual in order to explain to American audiences the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Changing Asian Security Paradigm by *Alam Rind

Pakistan is a power coming out of its slumber that can upset any major power in a given theater.









Now America needs her more than ever if she wants an honourable exit from Afghanistan.

President Obama after spending three days in India left for Indonesia on November 8, 2010 that was followed by G-20 meeting in South Korea and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Japan before returning home. His visit to India can be termed as a success from US point of view. Business deals worth $10 billion were concluded. These deals are likely to create around 50,000 new jobs in USA and help the country to wriggle out of recession. On the other hand Indians managed to purchase a large chunk of military and nonmilitary hardware. The major military purchases include 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes, artillery radars, aircraft engines etc. Interestingly a tussle over the price of 10 C-17, which was quoted as $4.1 billion in the preliminary agreement signed during the visit, has surfaced. Indian Air Force is unhappy over unrealistic price while the top executives of the company hold that the $4.1 billion price tag excludes cost of engines and certain spare parts. Surprisingly Indian Air Force was expecting the cost of aircrafts to be around $3 billion. This huge difference in perceived and asked prices is likely to pose tough challenge for those negotiating final prices. If both side stick to their ground it may turn into an ugly irritant causing friction in the relations between the two countries.

While the Indian government was busy purchasing military hardware and convincing US President to relax conditions on the sale of dual use technologies, Indian media impatiently looked for anti-Pakistan remark that could be ascribed to US President. President Obama although was made to stay at Hotel Taj Mahal refrained from committing mistake similar to that of Prime Minister Cameron. While he asserted that extremism is hurting Pakistan he emphasized that a strong and prosperous Pakistan is in the interest of India. He even offered mediation on Kashmir if both the parties agree. His assertion that Kashmir is a long standing dispute between the two countries is an adequate acknowledgement that the problem of Kashmir needs to be resolved. Another observation is lack of remarks on Indian role in Afghanistan though he encouraged India to continue developmental works. All this reflects on the type of balance American’s want to create in the region. As Americans will not be able to realize their Asian ambition without the support of Pakistan they have started respecting Pakistan’s regional hope to have a friendly Afghanistan. 

While Americans are trying to keep Pakistan on their side by engaging into strategic dialogue and to some extent addressing her legitimate concerns. They are building India as a military power that critically disturbs regional balance of power. Few believe that India is being nurtured as a counter weight to China. The theory seems to be embedded in Washington’s desire to be sole leader of Asian security structure with US lead bilateral alliances as its backbone. In contrast to the American thinking, Chinese believe in multi-polar world, relative security and staunchly feel that technological advancement is always temporary as it can be surpassed through human innovation and ingenuity.

American resolve to impose hegemonic stability in the region is likely to be contested as absolute security of one state leads to absolute insecurity of other states. It is demonstrated by the fact that US is using force more frequently now than it did in the Cold War era. The fact that nothing is absolute and any nation can develop weapons for its self defense will force US to interfere in the internal affairs of the weaker nations to maintain her hegemony for longer duration. That is going to reduce these countries to a status of satellite states impeding their development and growth. But Asia is the home major powers of the world. The countries with whom Americans can deal only on a “win-win” proposition. While surrounded by the major powers of the world and located on future energy gateway, Pakistan needs to make smart choices.

Pakistan enjoys friendly relations with China and at the same time is US ally in GWOT. It is a stated fact that US will face difficulties in securing a respectable exit from Afghanistan without Pakistan’s assistance. At a time when Americans are in the process of imposing hegemonic stability in Asia, China must be feeling the heat of their presence. China will not like to see Pakistan converted into US satellite state. 

It is time for Pakistan to play her cards correctly. Pakistan must strengthen her economic relations with China. Strong economic ties with China will protect Pakistan from unnecessary American interference in its internal affairs. It will also add to its security and will provide greater leverage while dealing with USA and India.

*The writer is a freelance columnist

Will Obama impose a solution on Israel? by *Vel Nirtist

It is tempting, but wrong, to interpret the recent announcement that President Obama decided to stop pushing Israel into a new three-month settlement freeze as a sign of his contrition and realization that he was, all along, on the wrong track.  His claim that he needs to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so as to bring the Arabs on board to tackle Iran's nuclear drive was proven by the WikiLeaks to have been a patent lie -- the Arabs are on board already. This line of argument was nothing more than a shameful instance of "not letting a crisis go to waste" and using nuclear-driven Iran to blackmail Israel into unconscionable concessions to Palestinians.

Or how about his latest attempt to fool Israel into a new settlement freeze by promising -- orally via Secretary Clinton -- great bonanzas for agreeing, and yet backtracking when the Israelis called his game by suggesting that the deal be put in writing?

"Man is the only animal that blushes -- or needs to," observed Mark Twain, and President Obama has plenty to blush about. The problem of course is that President Obama isn't an animal of a blushing sort. He may have abandoned the tactic, but hardly his goals. Just because his attempt to push Israelis and Palestinians into face-to-face negotiations failed doesn't mean that Obama gave up on his promise to set up a Palestinian state within a year. Therefore, the hopes that he will just let go are not particularly well-grounded. One suspects that he will merely switch his tactics. Instead of aiming at what looks like an Israeli-Palestinian negotiated settlement, he will go for an America-imposed solution -- borders and all.

The first salvo of imposing the solution from the outside was fired last week when Brazil and Argentina announced their recognition of the independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. We do not know whether this was done with the connivance of the Obama administration (which, publicly at least, objected), or whether they did it on their own initiative -- as no relevant correspondence has been WikiLeaked. But the idea of an imposed solution is certainly in the air. Secretary Clinton is to give a major Middle East policy speech on Friday -- and we should listen carefully for such words as "bridging proposals" that are euphemisms for the "imposed solution."

Interestingly, from a purely political perspective, an attempt by Obama to coerce Israel may at this point of time serve Clinton far better than it would serve Obama. Politically, Obama won't gain much support -- apart from the J-street types -- if he embarks on such course of action, since an attempt to impose his will and vision on Israel will make him even less popular among American supporters of Israel than he is now, and will show him recklessly endangering the security of a key ally and thus dangerously imperiling America's own interests. And that would be a perfect thing for Clinton to exploit if she decides to mount a primary challenge to Obama -- if, as it gets closer to the elections, she concludes that Obama is un-re-electable. By challenging him in the primaries she would be saving the party from a defeat, the country from a Republican administration -- and, last but not least,  herself from the loss of all political power, for if Obama loses, she will lose too.

But to run in Democratic primaries, she would first need to quit her cabinet position -- and it would look much better if she did so because of a disagreement on some policy issue, rather than quitting just to run against her former boss and appearing rude and ungrateful. A break-up over Obama's Middle East policy would make for an ideal circumstance of leaving his cabinet and opposing him in primaries. It would make her look principled and responsible, rather than merely power-hungry and opportunistic.

Moreover, if this were her grounds for disagreeing with Obama, those Democrats who feel betrayed by Obama's Middle East policy (and there are plenty of Jewish Democrats who feel that way and are completely disheartened and dispirited), will enthusiastically rally around Clinton -- who at present is badly in need of rehabilitation in the same quarters, switching as she did from a staunch supporter of Israel during her tenure as a senator from New York, to Obama's chief Israel-basher in her current role of the Secretary of State.

Admittedly, all of the above is just an idle speculation. But one thing is clear. By the same token by which President Clinton was America's "first black president" and President George W. Bush was America's "first Jewish president," as Barbara Bush once half-jokingly addressed him -- by the token not of race or religion or ethnicity, but by that of innate sympathies, empathy, and instinctive leanings, President Obama is undoubtedly America's first Moslem president, wherein lies a great danger for Israel.

One can only hope that as Obama switches from the failed push to obtain Israeli-Palestinian consensus to, as one strongly suspects, dictating the terms to the parties, there will be found enough counterbalancing political forces in this country to block him from imposing a "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would result in a disaster -- "solution" which, given the mindset of the parties to the Middle East conflict, may only inflame it further.

*Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of "The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly".