Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Second Palestinian Intifada

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Axing a blog? Nafeez Ahmed’s and The Guardian

Nafeez Ahmed’s account of the sudden termination of his short-lived contract to write an environment blog for the Guardian is depressingly instructive – and accords with my own experiences as a journalist at the paper.

Ahmed is that rare breed of journalist who finds stories everyone else either misses or chooses to overlook.

He regularly joins up the dots in a global system of corporate pillage. If the news business were really driven by news rather than a corporate-friendly business agenda, publications would be beating a path to his door.

Jonathan Cook from Nazareth, December 4, 2014

Nafeez has been mostly ploughing a lonely furrow as a freelance journalist, bypassing the media gatekeepers by promoting himself on social media, and placing his articles wherever a window briefly opens. His 43,000 followers on Twitter are testament to his skills as a journalist – skills, it seems, that are in short demand even at the bastions of liberal journalism.

That neglect looked like it might finally be remedied last year when the Guardian gave him a blog.

Let’s be clear: the Guardian is now a raucous market-place of opinion – its model for monetising the mostly voluntary labour of desperate journalists, writers, academics and lobby groups. The paper calls it “Comment is Free” – free for the Guardian, that is.

But it is certainly not “free” in the sense of “free expression”, as I know only too well from my many run-ins with its editors, both from my time on staff there and from my later experiences as a freelance journalist (more below).

The Guardian’s website covers a spectrum of “moderate”, meaning  conventional, opinion from right to left, with a couple of genuinely progressive staff writers – currently Seumas Milne and Owen Jones – there to offer the illusion of real pluralism.

Recruiting Ahmed was therefore a risky move.

He is a voice from the genuine left, and one too independent to control. The Guardian did not offer him a column, or the more interesting – and suitable – position of investigative journalist, a platform that would have given him the opportunity and resources to explore the biggest and most under-reported story of our era: the connection between corporate greed and the destruction of the life-support systems necessary for our continued existence on the planet.

Instead he got a minor leg-up: a raise out of the morass of CiF contributors to his own Guardian blog.

Rather than waste inordinate time and energy on arm-twisting the Guardian’s ever-cautious editors, he was able to publish his own posts with minimal interference. And that was the beginning of his downfall.

Ignoring the real story

In July, as Israel began its massive assault on Gaza, Ahmed published a post revealing a plausible motivation – Gaza’s natural gas reserves – for Israel’s endless belligerence towards the enclave’s Hamas government.

(The story had until then been confined to minor and academic publications, including my own contribution here.) Israel wanted to keep control over large gas reserves in Gaza’s waters so that it could deny Hamas a resource that would have bought it influence with other major players in the region, not least Egypt.

This story should be at the centre of the coverage of Gaza, and of criticism of the west’s interference, including by the UK’s own war criminal Tony Blair, who has conspired in the west’s plot to deny the people of Gaza their rightful bounty. But the Guardian, like other media, have ignored the story.

Interestingly, Ahmed’s article went viral, becoming the most shared of any of the paper’s stories on Operation Protective Shield.

But readers appear to have had better news judgment than the Guardian’s editors. Rather than congratulate him, the Guardian effectively fired Ahmed, as he details in the link below. No one has suggested that there were errors in the story, and no correction has been appended to the article.

In axing him, the Guardian appears to have broken the terms of his contract and has failed to offer grounds for their action, apart from claiming that this story and others had strayed too far from his environment beat.

There is an obvious problem with this justification.

No responsible employer sacks someone for repeated failures without first warning them at an earlier stage that they are not fulfilling the terms of their employment.

So either the Guardian has been wildly irresponsible, or – far more likely – the professed justification is nothing more than a smokescreen. After all, the idea that an environment blogger for the liberal media should not be examining the connection between control over mineral resources, which are deeply implicated in climate change, and wars, which lead to human deaths and ecological degradation, is preposterous beyond belief.

It is not that Ahmed strayed too far from his environment remit, it is that he strayed too much on to territory – that of the Israel-Palestine conflict – that the Guardian rigorously reserves for a few trusted reporters and commentators. Without knowing it, he went where only the carefully vetted are allowed to tread.

I know from my own long years of clashing with Guardian editors on this issue. Here is just one of my many experiences.

Comment is elusive

I moved to Nazareth in 2001 as a freelance journalist, after a decade of working for the Guardian and its sister publication, the Observer. I knew many people at the paper, and I had some kind of track record with them as a former staff member.

I arrived in Nazareth at an interesting time. It was the height of the second intifada, and I was the only foreign reporter in Nazareth, the capital of Israel’s large Palestinian minority.

In those days, before Israel built its concrete and steel barrier, Jenin – one of the most newsworthy spots in the West Bank – was a 20-minute drive away. I have previously written about the way the paper so heavily edited an investigation I conducted into the clear-cut execution of a British citizen, Iain Hook, in Jenin’s refugee camp that it was effectively censored (see here and here).

But I also spent my early years in Nazareth desperately trying to raise any interest first at the comment section and later at Comment is Free in my contributing (free) articles on my experiences of the second intifada. Remember CiF, then as now, was a cacophony of competing opinions, many of them belonging to dubious lobbyists and interest groups.

I was a former Guardian staff member, now located not only in one of the world’s hot spots but offering a story no other foreign journalist was in a position to tell.

At that time, CiF had several journalists in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem detailing the experiences and traumas of Israeli Jews. But Israeli Palestinians – a fifth of Israel’s population – were entirely unrepresented in its coverage.

It exasperated me that no one at CiF, including the paper’s late deputy editor Georgina Henry, seemed to think this of any consequence.

I finally broke briefly into CiF after the Lebanon war erupted in summer 2006. Pointing out that I was the only foreign journalist actually living daily under threat of Hizbullah rockets finally seemed to get the editors’ attention.

I survived at CiF for just a year, managing at great effort to publish 7 stories, almost all of them after difficult battles with editors and including in one case sections censored without my permission.

My time with CiF came to an end after yet another baffling exchange with Henry, after she refused to publish an article, that I have previously documented here.

Escaping scrutiny

Why is writing about Israel so difficult at the Guardian? There are several reas

1.  as I have regularly observed in my blog, is related to the general structure of the corporate media system, including the Guardian. It is designed to exclude almost all deeply critical voices, those that might encourage readers to question the ideological basis of the western societies in which they live and alert them to the true role of the corporations that run those societies and their media.

Israel, as an intimate ally of the US, is therefore protected from profoundly critical scrutiny, much as the US and its western allies are.

It is okay to criticise individual western policies as flawed, especially if done so respectfully, but not to suggest that the whole direction of western foreign policy is flawed, that it is intended to maintain a system of control over, and exploitation of, weaker nations. Policies can be dubious, but not our leaders’ moral character.

The problem with Israel is that its place in the global order – alongside the US – depends on it being a very sophisticated gun for hire. It keeps order and disorder in the Middle East at Washington’s behest and in return it gets to plunder the Palestinian territories and ethnically cleanse the native population.

It’s a simple story but not one you can state anywhere in the mainstream because it questions not just a policy (the occupation) but Israel’s very nature and role as a colonial settler state.

Beyond this, however, special factors pertain in the Guardian’s case.

2. As Ahmed notes, in part this is related to the Guardian’s pivotal role in bringing to fruition the ultimate colonial document, the Balfour Declaration. For this reason, the Guardian has always had a strong following among liberal Jews, and that is reflected in its selection of staff at senior ranks.

In this sense, the editorial “mood” at the Guardian resembles that of an indulgent parent towards a wayward grown-up child. Yes, Israel does some very bad things (the occupation) but, for all its faults, its heart is in the right place (as a Jewish, colonial settler state practising apartheid).

3. And then there is the Jonathan Freedland factor, as Ahmed also notes (including by citing some of my previous criticisms of him). One should not personalise this too much. Freedland, an extremely influential figure at the paper, is a symptom of a much wider problem with the Guardian’s coverage of Israel.

Freedland is a partisan on Israel, as am I.

But I get to write a blog and occasional reports tucked away in specialist and Arab media in English. Freedland and other partisans for Israel at the paper get to reinforce and police an already highly indulgent attitude towards Israel’s character (though not the occupation) across the coverage of one of the most widely read papers in the world.

Given that Israel’s character, as a colonial settler state, is the story, the Guardian effectively never presents more than a fraction of the truth about the conflict. Because it never helps us understand what drives Israeli policy, it – along with the rest of the media – never offers us any idea how the conflict might be resolved.

And this is where Ahmed tripped up. Because his piece, as the Guardian’s editors doubtless quickly realised, implicated Israel’s character rather than just its policies. It violated a Guardian taboo.

Ahmed is hoping to continue his fiercely independent reporting by creating a new model of crowd-sourced journalism. I wish him every luck with his venture.

Such initiatives are possibly the only hope that we can start to loosen the grip of the corporate media and awaken ourselves to many of the truths hidden in plain sight. If you wish to help Ahmed, you can find out about his new funding model here.

https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/palestine-is-not-an-environment-story-921d9167ddef

UPDATE:

The Guardian has issued a short official statement that manages to avoid addressing any of Nafeez Ahmed’s complaints about his treatment or throwing any further light on the reasons for the termination of his contract. It’s a case study in evasiveness and can be read here.

CORRECTION:

I have amended the section of my post concerning my early struggles to get published in Comment is Free. I inadvertently suggested that these related to my whole time in Nazareth. In fact, CiF was set up in March 2006, and my earliest travails concerned efforts to get published in the main comment section, battling with many of the same editors who would later join CiF.

Immediately CiF was launched, I contacted those editors asking to be included among the many contributors who were being taken on. As I explain above, my repeated approaches were either ignored or rebuffed, while many journalists and writers in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were recruited to write from an Israeli Jewish perspective.

That finally changed in July 2006 when I persuaded the CiF editors that my unique perspective on the Lebanon war needed to be included. Interestingly, it seemed their interest was finally piqued not by the perspective I could share of how Palestinians were treated in a Jewish state but by the fact that Palestinians in Israel were under threat from fellow Arabs, in this case Hizbullah.

– See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-12-04/why-the-guardian-axed-nafeez-ahmeds-blog/#sthash.ghx0brFi.dpuf

Young Ariel Sharon: Has he ever changed?
 ” Palestinian women are slaves to the Jews, because that’s how we want them to be”
War criminal Ariel Sharon, butcher of Beirut, is dead. He never faced justice for all the lives he ended and ruined. (Graphic by @[1069374286:2048:Doc Rocket] & me)
War criminal Ariel Sharon, butcher of Beirut, is dead. He never faced justice for all the lives he ended and ruined. (Graphic by Doc Rocket & me) Ben White‘s photo.
General Ouze Merham interviewed Sharon in 1956 and Ariel’s answers:
1. I massacred 750 Palestinians in Rafah in one swipe
2. I encouraged my soldiers to rape the Palestinian women
3. Palestinian women are slaves to the Jews
4. We dictate to others what we want
5. I swear that I am ready to kill any civilian Palestinian I meet
This is the French text:
Au grand jour's photo.

Nadia Massih published in the Lebanese The Daily Starthis Jan. 11, 2014

BEIRUT: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who died Saturday aged 85, was widely reviled in Lebanon for his role in the invasion of the country in 1982 as well as the massacres at the Beirut-based Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila.

Sharon was commonly dubbed the “Butcher of Beirut” for his association with some of the worst atrocities during Lebanon’s 1975-1990 Civil War.

The Daily Star
FILE - In this June 15, 1982 file picture provided by the Israeli Defense Ministry, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, foreground, rides an armored personnel carrier on a tour of Israeli units advancing to the outskirts of Beirut, Lebanon, during the Israeli occupation. (AP Photo/Israeli Defense Ministry, File)
FILE – In this June 15, 1982 file picture provided by the Israeli Defense Ministry, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, foreground, rides an armored personnel carrier on a tour of Israeli units advancing to the outskirts of Beirut, Lebanon, during the Israeli occupation. (AP Photo/Israeli Defense Ministry, File)

He was a part of the Israeli military since the country’s creation, as a member of the Jewish Haganah paramilitaries in the 1947-48 war that led to the “Nakba,” displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

He rose through the ranks with his belligerent military strategies, leading a brigade in the 1956 Suez War, and engineering the capture of the Sinai Peninsula 11 years later during the Six Day War.

However, it was in his political career that he will be most controversially remembered.

As Defense Minister he spearheaded the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, set up to root out Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization and form a peace accord with the Beirut government. The invasion morphed into a long occupation, and inadvertently helped to confirm Hezbollah’s status as the resistance party.

In 1982, Israel’s ally Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party member Habib Chartouni. Gemayel’s Kataeb fighters looked to the Palestinians to avenge the death and launched an attack of the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, which were under Israeli control.

Over 3,000 Palestinians, including many women and children, were brutally killed, and as many taken away, never to reappear.

It was a massacre that Sharon was personally implicated in. A U.N. investigation the next year concluded that Israel was responsible for the attacks, and the Israeli-run Kahan Commission the same year determined that Sharon was personally accountable.

The Kahan report’s findings said that Sharon bore responsibility “for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge” and “not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed.”

The conclusions led many to dub Sharon the “Butcher of Beirut” and forced him to resign from the defense post but he refused to leave Cabinet, remaining minister without portfolio.

His bellicose reputation continued into his tenure as prime minister.

In 2000, he walked brazenly into the Temple Mount complex which houses the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa mosque, some of the holiest sites in Islam. The inflammatory move was widely attributed as sparking the Second Palestinian Intifada.

He was also associated with the widespread expansion of illegal outposts in the West Bank. As Housing Minister in the 1990s, he oversaw the biggest settlement drive in 20 years.

However, despite his uncompromising attitude, in 2004 he signed into law a plan to re-house all settlers in the Gaza Strip.

Sharon: ‘Occupation’ terrible for Israel, Palestinians

Kelly Wallace on CNN this May 27, 2003

JERUSALEM (CNN) — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon appears to be urging Israelis to accept giving up land for peace and advocating an end to what he called “occupation.”

“You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation — to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians,” he said Monday.

Those were stunning words from the longtime hawk and backer of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

“It can’t continue endlessly,” Sharon said. “Do you want to stay forever in Jenin, in Nablus, in Ramallah, in Bethlehem? I don’t think that’s right.”

On Sunday, the Israeli Cabinet voted to accept — with reservations — the U.S.-supported “road map” to peace, clearing the way for a series of steps that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state within three years.

The first phase of the road map involves the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian zones reoccupied during the current uprising and a freeze on settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinian officials are required to crack down on militant groups that have carried out attacks against Israelis.

The Palestinian Authority accepted the plan last month after it was drafted by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, the so-called Mideast Quartet.

The Israeli Cabinet’s 12-7 vote, with four abstentions, marked the first time an Israeli government has formally accepted the principle of a Palestinian state.

But Sharon faces a skeptical public. In a newspaper poll Monday, 51 percent said implementing the road map would not lead to peace, while 43 percent said it would.

The stakes will be high for this week’s expected meeting between Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas will call for immediate implementation of the road map, including an end to Israeli military operations in Palestinian areas and a freeze on any settlement expansion, Palestinian advisers said.

Both steps are key to convincing radical Palestinian groups to stop attacks against Israel, the Palestinians said.

But Israeli sources said Sharon will reiterate his long-held position that the first step must be a clear and visible Palestinian crackdown on groups such as Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for four recent suicide bombings against Israelis.

Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, has acknowledged attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers and has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said Israel wants to see a “complete dismantling of the infrastructure of terror” by Abbas’ government.

“We cannot have negotiation by day and killing us at night,” Ayalon said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Sharon and Abbas failed to achieve any breakthroughs in their last meeting more than a week ago.

And a series of suicide bombings by Islamic militant groups befinning shortly before the meeting was seen as a “declaration of war” by Sharon’s government.

Now the two men face U.S. pressure to deliver, with a possible Mideast summit — with President Bush as host — perhaps hinging on what comes out of this week’s talks.

A three-way summit involving Sharon, Abbas and Bush could be called within 10 days.

A senior Bush administration official told CNN that the White House would not agree to a summit until it sees initial steps taken by both sides — a Palestinian crackdown on militants and the lifting of Israeli economic restrictions.

Nevertheless, a Bush administration advance team left Sunday morning for Egypt to begin preparations for the possible summit, an administration official told CNN. The team is also set to go to Jordan, which Bush might visit early next month.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Jan-11/243804-sharon-most-reviled-man-in-lebanon.ashx#ixzz2qGSQGzht

The Children of Arna”: Who is Juliano Mer-Khamis?

Arna Mer-Khamis (1930-95) was Jewish who married a Palestinian from the neighborhood of the Palestinian Camp of Jenine in the West Bank. The couple had three children, two boys and a girl who were brought up to live in freedom and among plenty of other children of different religious affiliations and nationalities.

Arna founded the “House of kids” in Jenine.  The children in the camp enjoyed a place to get together, laugh, run, play games, dream of a better future, and be creative.

In 2002, during the “Second Palestinian Intifada”, the still in coma Ariel Sharon PM, savagely and bloodthirsty invested the camp and the Israeli tanks moved over live children, women, and Palestinian civilians. The UN didn’t dare investigate this crime against humanity:  Over 500 were killed and thousands injured.

After this massacre in Jenine, the elder son of late Arna returned to Jenine searching for the children of Arna.  Most the adults of the House of the Kids were killed in the massacre and the few remaining surviving were more familiar with weapons and explosives, as part of the new reality.

Juliano also founded an institution for the Palestinians in the camp called the Theater of Liberty in 2006. Many Palestinians were trained and participated in Juliano’s movies. Juliano had directed several films, one of them is “The children of Arna”, in 2003.

This April 4, 2011 Juliano was assassinated.  Gee, I thought Israel always discovered the murderer of a Jew, but not this time around.  Most probably, an Israeli sniper did the job, getting rid of a most turbulent and dangerous non-violent Jewish/Palestinian activist.

Note:  The movie “The Children of Arna” is produced by Osmat Trabelsi and Pieter Van Huyster; 84 minutes.  Check http://www.momento-films.com

No Shekels anymore for Gaza (September 29, 2008)

The Israeli Central Bank has stopped delivering Shekel (its currency) to Gaza.

Since 1967, after the occupation of Israel to Gaza, the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza have been linked to the Israeli economy and the Shekel was used for internal commerce.   Egypt refused to have its currency at the disposal of the Palestinians in this tiny and most dense strip of land.

There are certainly dollars in the market, but the economy is so linked to Israel that Israel would not accept any other forms of currencies with businesses doing commerce with her.  This is sort of the last resort that Israel is displaying to pressure Hamas in Gaza to be at her beck and orders.

Since there is no economy if not enough currencies are injected in the market, we comprehend then that Israel is playing the last most dangerous tactics that can turn against her when the Palestinians in Gaza finally realize that there is no hope to dealing fairly with Israel and have nothing to lose anymore.

Before Israel refrained from injecting Shekels in the economy of Gaza two days ago, the inhabitants of Gaza were already living in wretched misery on $2 a day and over 60% of the work force was out of employment because this kind of democratic outcome where radical Hamas won the election does not suit the western nations.

I decided to review an interesting book of chronicles that explains in details the political and social conditions in Gaza.

Caroline Manger, a correspondent to the weekly French magazine Paris Match, wrote “Chroniques de Gaza.  Sous les bombes, la vie”, a documentary of the lives of the Israelis and Palestinians in the Gaza district.  The manuscript is of 270 pages and divided into 24 chapters spanning from February 2004 before the Israeli colonies in and around Gaza were dismantled to August 2007 after the Islamists party of Hamas displaced the security services of the Fateh authority from Gaza.

During the second Palestinian “intifada”, there were frequent skirmishes between the Palestinians and the Israelis living in the colonies in and around Gaza; the security conditions on both sides became untenable. Israel tried to bring security in Gaza by military force and by target assassinations of the leaders of the Palestinian faction, but it failed.

Before former Israel Ariel Sharon PM decided to withdraw the colonies from the Gaza strip, no more than 360 square kilometers and surrounded by Israel from all sides, there were 21 Israeli colonies in this crowded and most dense location on earth.  The colonies were established after 1967 when Israel captured Gaza from Egypt at the instigation and strong support of Arial Sharon; they claimed that practically most of the houses and makeshift residences belonged to Ariel Sharon. 

The Israeli colons were ultra-extremists on two counts, politically and religiously:

Politically, the colons of  freshly arrived adventurous immigrants from France and ultra US conservative Christian-Jews wanted to push the borders of Eretz Israel as far as they could.

Religiously, they were as strict religiously as the Islamist Hamas Palestinians faction. The colons prohibited the establishment of movie theaters in their colonies and the households refused to install TV on account of impure display of images.  The women washed fully closed, were hidden from male visitors by a partition and the beaches were separated by gender.

The pre-fabricated apartments and houses were mostly trailers ready to move out on short notice.  The colons adored Sharon they nicknamed him Arik. All the palm and olive trees in the fields separating the colonies from the nearby Palestinian villages were cut down so that the colons could have a clear view of any Palestinian infiltration!  Many US billionaires contributed to building bypass bridges so that the colons would not drive through Palestinian villages.

One colony needed 600 soldiers to protect 50 families and the Palestinian inefficient homemade missiles drove the Israeli government for frequent reprisals to the angst of the European Union.  Sharon then decided to vacate the colonies from Gaza because as he declared “Gaza was anyway never mentioned as belonging to the promised land”

            Israel was not serious about any peace plan after the Oslo agreement in 1993 for offering a viable and sustainable Palestinian State and continued to impoverish the Palestinian newly formed Authority in Ramallah and Gaza and endeavored to destroy whatever new facilities and infrastructure that the European Union contributed to.

In May 2004, Israel launched operation “Rainbow and cloud” and sealed off Gaza and pounded it for 5 days and demolished the infrastructure and razed houses for a corridor before the final withdrawal of the colonies in August 22, 2005. On the 5th day of the preemptive war, when all the guns went silent, the Israeli snipers killed many children less than 10 years old to keep the reign of terror.

The author, Caroline Manger, gives horrid detailed account of the Palestinian victims and the situation in these makeshift clinics, transformed into hospitals, during Israeli military incursions.

            For a year, as Mahmoud Abbas was elected President the Palestinians, he wanted to believe in a peace process but it failed and Israel resumed its targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders such as its founder, blind and paraplegic leader, Cheikh Yassine and then his successor the pediatric Al Rantissi; thus Hamas gained supporters.

In the meantime, the colons who had pledged to fight the fight against any eviction left voluntarily two days before the ultimatum; the hefty compensations were a serious factor (obviously paid for by the US tax payers).

As soon as the Israeli colons departed,  the Palestinian resistance fighters ventured into Gaza City; they were hiding for over six months in their dug out and undergrounds resisting Israel frequent incursions in Gaza and then they were awestruck to discover the luxurious trend that the cronies of the Abbas’ Authority were carrying on.  These fighters were not even merged into the Authority internal security forces because President Abbas decided to hire only young people of less than 22 of age to secure their loyalty.  The fighters found out that they were out of employment and their dedication and sacrifices not appreciated.

When a democratic election that the western States insisted on carrying out in Gaza took place, Hamas ended up winning the parliamentary election by a land slide.  The Abbas’ Authority refused to cooperate with Hamas in the re-shuffling of the security services that harassed, imprisoned, tortured and even killed Hamas members since 1998.

Maybe Hamas prematurely agreed to form a majority government because the Western States cut off all financial aid to the new Hamas government and the civil servants were not paid for over 4 months.  The States of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia didn’t appreciate the coming into power of a radical Islamic party and did their best to put the squeeze even more.

Finally, Hamas evicted the Fateh forces, headed by strongman Dahlan, from Gaza when it realized that the US is funding the Authority’s preventive security services with over $60 million for cracking down on Hamas.  The offensive didn’t last 5 days before the Fateh forces fled Gaza; many of the high paid and corrupt officers bribed heavily to have passages through the underground tunnels linking Gaza to Egypt.

No Shekels for Gaza? But who would bail out the faltering Shekel anyway?

The way I see it is that Israel has reached a period of deep corruption at many high levels in its civil administration and military infrastructures and total mistrust in its leaders and the validity of its Zionist ideology that it is on the verge of serious chaos.

Personal note:  In the mid 1980’s, Israel transferred Islamic Palestinians to the southern borders of Lebanon hoping that Lebanon would welcome them as refugees; this did not happen.  The transferred Palestinians lived in makeshift tents for over 6 months before Israel was forced by the international community to re-transfer them to Gaza.

Consequently, a new Islamic fundamentalist party was instituted called Hamas.  Many claim that Israel created Hamas, as the USA administrations created the Afghan Mujahideens to face the Soviet invasion, in order to destabilize the concept of a democratic bi-partisan government with Israel.  The Organization for the Liberation of Palestine (OLP) was lead by the Palestinian secular main faction of Fateh and headed by Arafat.  Israel would not accept this political structure for fear of demographic imbalance in the near future and wanted a purely Jewish State.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,427,995 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 775 other followers

%d bloggers like this: