The Power of Labels: "Gaza: A New Middle East Indeed" - by: Ramzy Baroud

As Israel unleashed its military fury against Lebanon for several weeks in July-August 2006, it had one major objective: to permanently 'extract' Hezbollah from the South as a fighting force, and to undermine it as a rising political movement, capable of disrupting, if not overshadowing the 'friendly' and 'moderate' political regime in Beirut.

As Israeli bombs fell, and with them hundreds of Lebanese civilians, and much of the country’s infrastructure, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sprung into action. She too had one major objective: to delay a ceasefire, which the rest of the international community, save the US and Britain, desperately demanded. Rice, who is merely, but faithfully reiterating the Bush Administration’s policy, hoped that the Israeli bombs would succeed in achieving what her government’s grand policies failed to achieve, namely a New Middle East.

In a friendly meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem, on July 25, 2006, Rice eagerly, although rashly wished to interpret to equally eager journalists the political promise that lies within the Israeli onslaught. "As we deal with the current circumstances, we need always to be cognizant of and looking to what kind of Middle East we are trying to build. It is time for a new Middle East," she said. Olmert nodded.

Neither Rice, nor Bush, nor Olmert were indeed interested in shifting the status quo in the Middle East in anyway that might jeopardize Israel’s regional standing, as a powerful ally with astounding military outreach. Indeed, there was hardly anything new in the New Middle East. Like the old one, the New Middle East was also meant to be achieved from behind the barrel of a gun. But why the element of ‘newness’?

It was very clear to both Israel and the United States that their Middle East policies were failing, and miserably so; but both governments were still insistent that the problem is not in the use of force, but rather, not using enough of it. It’s, perhaps, the kind of arrogance that accompanies power. But arrogance can also be the powerful downfall.

As world patience began running out, especially following the second Qana Massacre of July 2006, Rice still insisted on beautifying the horror in Lebanon. The Israeli war against Lebanon, despite the tremendous hurt it caused was, according to Rice, the "birth pangs of a new Middle East".

And a New Middle East it was, although not the one that Rice and Olmert reflectively envisioned in Jerusalem; a different one, which changed the political landscape in Lebanon in favor of Hezbollah, and denied Israel any sense of victory.

In fact, the new ‘New Middle East’ did more than that. It once more renewed a long abandoned idea in the minds of many Arabs, especially Palestinians, that resistance was not futile after all.

Hezbollah’s triumph, and its ability to thwart various attempts at igniting a civil war in Lebanon, accompanied by the group’s leader, Hasan Nasrallah’s fiery speeches began penetrating the Arab psyche, defeated and accustomed to defeat. Nasrallah became the new Jamal Abdul Nasser, and like Abdul Nasser of Egypt, he too polarized Arabs: peoples vs. regimes.

New terminology also sprung. Words that were not uttered, at least not in any realistic context, in decades, began encroaching into Arab vocabulary: ‘victory’, ‘resistance’, ‘Arab nation’ with ‘one fate’, ‘one future’, and so on. The language and the culture it espoused proved immensely threatening to the US camp, which too enjoyed its own language and designations: ‘friendly’, ‘moderate’, etc.

Rice’s New Middle East has failed. It has failed because the representatives of the old Middle East prevailed: Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, but most importantly the people through the region, which began once again, constructing a sense of collective identity. The new ‘axis of evil’, somehow managed to withstand immense pressures, and in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza, numerous bombs. Israel’s pressure on the US to go after Iran failed for various reasons. Israel’s own Middle East project remains on hold, jeopardized by Iran’s rising influence in the region, Hezbollah’s proven formidability in the north, and Hamas’ irritating ability to hold onto power, and its insistence to govern by its democratic mandate, even if in besieged Gaza.

As both Olmert and Bush were readying to hand over the torch to their successors, and as folders of the New Middle East project were about to be tossed into the recycle bin, Israel opted for one last chance at proving the viability of its military prowess, for force is the only language that Israel is capable of thoroughly communicating, and is under the odd impression that it’s also the only language that its enemies understand. Olmert, once again unleashed his country’s military fury, this time against Gaza. The Strip was supposedly an easy target, for the tiny stretch of land, blocked from all directions, lacks everything. It is home to a largely young population, the majority of whom are malnourished as a result of the Israeli siege.

Israel hoped that Gaza would grant it a victory, any victory, even if a small token of triumph. Starting December 27 and for many days, Israel pulverized entire neighborhoods, killed and wounded thousands, mostly civilians, mostly children and women. Another New Middle East was in the making with its own “birth pangs.” Entire families perished; children died in droves, in their homes, in schools; a panicking population ran in circles, hopelessly trying to flee the death machines that hovered everywhere, but there was no escape. Borders remained sealed as the region’s ‘moderates’ watched the demise of the ‘extremists.’ Rice, again, grinned, brazenly justifying Israel’s new war. The world watched in horror as the drama unfolded. But Gaza fought back, withstood, resisted, and the language once again was altered. Arabs are now speaking of ‘victory’, hailing the ‘resistance’, singing the praise of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Gaza’s resistance is nothing short of a ‘miracle’, said Aljazeera’s military expert. Millions of Arabs around the world agree. The New Middle East defined in Lebanon in July-August 2006, was confirmed in Palestine in December-January 2008-2009. A new language with new terminology and a new culture is springing up from the ashes and the rubble of Gaza. Arabs are eager to define themselves and shed years of defeat and defeatism. A New Middle East, indeed.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

QuestionItNow

My Pet Goat redux

Next Step to 9/11 Justice

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Everyone thinks of terrorism and homeland security for lessons learned from 9/11. There is another opportunity. Make our government trustworthy and truthful. (How about More Competent? - asks REB 84)

The 9/11 truth movement is stronger than ever, though it is generally derided by politicians and ignored by the mainstream media. It is fueled by people passionate about alternative explanations to the official 9/11 story. Understandable, considering that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission admitted: "We were set up to fail."

In 2006 Time magazine said: "The population of [the 9/11 truth movement] is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

A 2006 Zogby International poll found that 42% of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up."

This year Zogby found that 31 perecent of likely voters do not buy the official 9/11 story [72 percent for ages 18 to 24 and nearly 60 percent for Hispanics and singles]; 51 percent still await a congressional investigation of Bush's and Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks [88 percent for ages 18 to 24 and 77 percent for Hispanics and singles]; and 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous and still unexplained collapse of World Trade Center building 7.

So, six years later, a large fraction of Americans question the government’s official 9/11 story. Countless groups and websites sustain the 9/11 truth movement with many conferences held nationwide. There have been several best-selling books and many well known political, military, law enforcement and academic persons publicly support alternative theories of 9/11 and/or the need for a new investigation. Yet being a 9/11 truth seeker exposes one to ridicule as a conspiracy nut by those brainwashed by establishment propaganda and lies, or afraid to face the painful truth, or too lazy to think for themselves.

Writing recently in the Guardian, Peter Tatchell made important points: "The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001. …What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics."

In other words, the truth movement has set the stage for taking their passion to a higher political level that even more Americans can support – government reform.

Specifically, waiting is a reform mechanism as old as the Constitution itself. Few Americans realize they have a constitutional right to a national convention of state delegates that can propose constitutional amendments. Once convened, delegates can debate and propose amendments without government review, but like amendments proposed by Congress, still must meet the tough ratification requirements of Article V. Though all 50 states have applied for a convention, well in excess of the 34 required by the Constitution, Congress has refused to call one. The nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org seeks the nation’s first Article V convention.

The Framers of our Constitution created the convention option because they feared one dark day the public would lose confidence in the federal government. With record-low approval of Congress – just 11 percent - and so little truth about 9/11, that day has crashed our democracy. Unsurprisingly, just like a new 9/11 investigation, Congress fears what may come out of an Article V convention. The truth is not politically popular.

The nexus between the 9/11 truth movement and the Article V convention effort is this: When a sizable fraction of the population wants a more comprehensive and credible government investigation into a matter of great public concern, but Congress and the Executive Branch refuse, a new legal mechanism is needed. Considering how the Bush administration used 9/11 to start the insane Iraq war, the public has profoundly good reasons for a new option for obtaining trustworthy information. Surely there will be other events and issues in the future that raise the same need for reliable analysis and conclusions independent of the usual web of government circles and tricks.

A new constitutional amendment can establish a framework for citizens to petition and seek “redress” from their federal government without going through elected representatives adept at ignoring them. Here is a possible approach. The highly respected and independent General Accountability Office could be given constitutional responsibility for collecting citizen petitions for investigations. If a threshold number is reached, then GAO would conduct a nonpartisan investigation using its staff and any other persons deemed necessary. This would be a taste of direct democracy, akin to a national referendum. The threshold might be one million citizen requests, with at least 10,000 coming from each of at least two-thirds of the states.

The intense 9/11 truth movement has a historic opportunity to seek a permanent means to counter bipartisan government intransigence and untrustworthiness that now is the rule, not the exception.

I urge 9/11 truth seekers to join Friends of the Article V Convention, recognizing that Congress’ refusal to re-investigate 9/11 is matched by its refusal to permit an Article V convention. Our common goal is to compel the federal government to be accountable to the Constitution, federal law and the people. 9/11 truth seekers must become government reform seekers to achieve their objectives through smart political strategy.

Other political strategies also merit support, notably the current effort in New York City to obtain a ballot initiative to establish a new independent commission and investigation: www.nyc911initiative.org.

Consider what Mark Twain wisely observed: "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Our patriotic crusade for 9/11 truth and systemic government reform is still at the first stage. Courage is needed to persevere. Truth does not come easy.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, former full professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and senior staffer at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government at delusionaldemocracy.com.]

QuestionItNow