CounterVortex

2010: EUROPE’S “SUMMER OF INTOLERANCE”

Western Leaders and the New “Barbarian Invasions”

by Giulio D’Eramo, World War 4 Report

The most remarkable event signaling the racist shift in Europe’s politics in 2010 was probably the mid-September crisis over a leaked French document showing the explicit targeting of Roma people for deportation that the administration in Paris had written over the summer. The following unprecedented complaint against France by the European Union for breaching of EU rules on the free movement of citizens gives a measure of the importance of this scandal.

The complaint was retracted at the end of October when Paris removed overtly discriminatory language from its new immigration bill. But by then, some 1,000 Roma had been expelled, and hundreds of their camps demolished. The European summer of 2010 might well be remembered as the “summer of intolerance.”

Europeans started to feel the heat in August, when in Germany one Thilo Sarrazin, an outspoken Bundesbank’s consultant and prominent Social Democratic Party member, published a book—Deutschland schafft sich ab (“Germany Does Away With Itself”)—in which he blames immigrants and Jews for every social and economic problem of the Federal Republic. The book, upon its release, was #1 on Germany’s bestsellers list.

Just as Sarrazin was finally being kicked out from both the Bundesbank and the SPD, the offending French document was leaked to the press. It starts off as follows: “The President of the Republic has fixed on July 28 concrete objectives for the evacuation of illegal camps: 300 illegal camps or settlements have to be evacuated by 3 months, with priority those of the Roma.”

The French government had previously assured EU officials that they were kicking out people without documents and living in “favelas.” They had made it clear that the process was not carried out on a discriminatory basis. As EU law holds that no member state may have laws that explicitly target an ethnic group, the publication of the document prompted the reaction of European Commissioner Viviane Reding, who issued a strong and angry condemnation. She stated:

During a formal meeting with French ministers…the Commission received political assurances that specific ethnic groups had not been targeted in France. I can only express my deepest regrets that the political assurances given by two French ministers…are now openly contradicted by an administrative circular issued by the same government…

Despite the obvious illegality of the measure as described by the leaked document, Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi rushed to support of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, saying: “Europe had not yet woken up to the fact that the Roma problem is not a uniquely a French or Italian, Greek or Spanish problem. President Sarkozy, on the other hand, is fully aware of this.” He added: “We hope that this Franco-Italian convergence will shake Europe and make it confront the problem with coordinated policies.”

And indeed, the Italian government had already started to work within its own boundaries.

The mildest representative of the xenophobe Northern League Party, Interior Minister Roberto Maroni, has just proposed a new decree on Urban Security. This decree, which would include strong measures against nomadism, has long been awaited from the mayor of Rome, the post-fascist Gianni Alemanno.

A loyal to Berlusconi supporter throughout the latest political crisis, Alemanno started off as a young and violent supporter of the overtly Mussolini-nostalgist Italian Social Movement (MSI), which then became the National Alliance (AN), which in turn melted into the Berlusconi’s ironically named party, People of Freedom (PDL). One of his first plans as mayor is the immediate dismantling of some 90% of the 100-plus Roma camps around the city. He obviously adds that the camps will be erased only after a new accommodation is found for the people living there—but that only means until another existing camp (but one out of the city) is enlarged. He says he’s waiting for the Interior Minister to pave the way for legal eviction of all nomadic people (read: Rom), even those with EU papers.

Alemanno states: “It is paramount that when there are situations of either vagrancy or absolute misery, we are able to provide compulsory medical treatment to those people for periods up to 6 months.” This is a barely veiled reference to internment in psychiatric institutes. From this declarations we learn two useful facts. First: Nomadic people do not deserve civil rights. Second: Roma people like to be poor, and are therefore crazy—and therefore lose their civil rights, as appropriate for crazy dangerous people.

The immigration office of Catholic aid organization Caritas expressed concerns that the moves of Rome’s mayor will force more and more Roma to join overcrowded and malfunctioning camps in other regions of Italy—for example in the poor Naples suburb of Scampia, notoriously controlled by the Camorra crime machine.

The Cardinal of Milan, Dionigi Tettamanzi, also protested against discrimination when the city’s right-wing administration evicted 200 Roma from an abandoned building they had been squatting in September, asserting, “this operation did not respect human rights.” Too bad, one could say, that when it comes to election times the Church always supports right-wing parties because of their “pro-life” stand. Just before Christmas, a Milan judge ordered the city government to offer housing to the evicted families.

Despite recent violent demonstrations in Rome (Dec. 14 saw riots on a scale not witnessed since the ’70s, as thousands marched against Berlusconi) and the fact that Alemanno is now at the center of a huge scandal (with many of his relatives and fascist cronies getting top-paid jobs in the administration), he was originally elected on a security platform. (Ironically, one of the directors of Rome’s public transport company, Francesco Bianco, is a former member of fascist terrorist groups, charged in the ’80s for two politically motivated killings.)

On his original security ticket, Alemmano repeatedly made propaganda use of one of the most famous crimes of recent years, that of a woman who was killed on the way from the train station to her house, in an unlighted alley just beside a Roma camp. Anger was focused on the Roma, rather than the government for failing to provide a paved, well-lit route from the train station to the residential area on the other side of the trafficked Via Tor di Quinto. Alemmano exploited the climate of fear around this episode. The high-profile arrest (on unrelated criminal charges) of a couple of extremely rich Roma families, owning tens of Ferraris and luxury apartments, increased the common feeling that they just “act” poor.

Although with less fanfare than in France and Italy, Germany has also been aggressively deporting Roma—generally, on quietly chartered flights to Kosova and elsewhere in the Balkans. In September, rights groups reportede police arriving at the homes of undocumented immigrants in Frankfurt in the middle of the night and giving the residents two hours to pack.

The French and Italian moves against the Roma, the more successfully hidden moves in Germany, the xenophobic statements of Bundersbank’s Sarrazi (supported by 85% of Germans, at least on the Muslim issue, polls indicate), like the growing Tea Party movements in America, show once more that the much-feared “barbarian invasions” are not coming from outside, but from within the West’s own boundaries.

To use the power of a state against a minority is to follow the line of the worst and most undemocratic groups within a country. We should always remember that the most important task of a democracy is not expressing the will of the majority, but protecting and giving voice to the many minorities that constitute a nation.

—-

Giulio D’Eramo is a freelance writer whose work appears frequently in Index on Censorship, Articolo 21, Red Pepper and other online publications. He recently launched his own website, Blog Me There. An Italian native, he currently resides in England.

Resources:

EU to suspend complaint against France over Roma expulsions
The Guardian, Oct. 19

German expulsions of Roma have long been kept secret
Romea.cz, Sept. 24

Fears of anti-immigration alliance as Berlusconi lauds France’s expulsion policy
The Independent, Sept. 17

Orders to police on Roma expulsions from France leaked
The Guardian, Sept. 13

The Bundesbank and Axel Weber’s Nightmare Dilemma (on public reaction to Thilo Sarrazin)
Wall Street Journal’s The Source blog, Aug. 31

From our Daily Report:

HRW protests deportation of Roma to Kosova
World War 4 Report, Oct. 28, 2010

Echoes of Nazism seen in Sarkozy’s Roma policy
World War 4 Report, Sept. 17, 2010

From our archive:

Back to the Dark Ages: Europe’s April of Atavism
World War 4 Report, April 28, 2002

See also:

BLOODY CALABRIA
Criminal Networks Exploit Italy’s Anti-Immigrant Backlash
by Giulio D’Eramo, World War 4 Report
World War 4 Report, March 2010

RISE OF THE CZECH FAR RIGHT
Neo-Nazis Exploit Growing Anti-Roma Racism
by Gwendolyn Albert, World War 4 Report
World War 4 Report, July 2009

——————-

Special to World War 4 Report, January 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue Reading2010: EUROPE’S “SUMMER OF INTOLERANCE” 

WikiLeaks and the Belarus affair

Our post “Enough with the Julian Assange hero worship” has accrued nearly 3,000 hits in three days (compared with a typical 300 or less in this period), as well as 59 comments—overwhelmingly negative. Ironically, some readers have urged us to stick to our “typical” posts, implying that we have no right to air a dissenting opinion on the WikiLeaks affair. These same readers have never commented on (and probably rarely read) our painstaking daily reports on human rights in Western Sahara, environmental disasters in Guatemala, peasant uprisings in Peru, et cetera.

And they still fail to seriously address (or, mostly, to address at all) the most grave allegation against WikiLeaks, which has received virtually no coverage from the mainstream media—that WikiLeaks’ representative in Belarus, the notorious anti-Semite Israel Shamir, actively provided dictator Alexander Lukashenko with intelligence on dissidents who were then rounded up and tortured by the hundreds.

The original page now has so many comments that it is having trouble loading. The discussion will continue here, if Assange’s defenders care to keep posting. I have titled this page “WikiLeaks and the Belarus affair” in an effort (probably futile) to provoke some honesty on this issue.

Fire at will…

Continue ReadingWikiLeaks and the Belarus affair 

THE DISPOSSESSION OF THE PALESTINIANS, PT. III

Continued from node 6211

Operation Defensive Shield

The Sept. 11, 2001 devastating terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York’s World Trade Center would of course open a new era of US military adventures nearly throughout the Islamic world. In his Oct. 7 statement on the attack, terrorist leader Osama bin Laden of the feared al-Qaeda network repeatedly invoked the Palestinian cause. He pledged: “I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine…” (Osama bin Laden statement, Oct. 7, 2001, online at World War 4 Report)

Prime Minister Sharon from the beginning attempted to wed his own struggle against Palestinian militants to the new US crusade against international terrorism, stating on the day of the attacks: “At this most difficult hour, Israelis stand with you ready to provide any assistance. The government of Israel declares tomorrow a day of mourning as we bow our heads and share the pain of the American people.” Hamas leader Shiekh Yassin was equally quick to distance his struggle from al-Qaeda’s designs: “We are not ready to move our struggle outside the occupied Palestinian land. We are not prepared to open international fronts, however much we criticize the unfair American position,” he told reporters in Gaza. Arafat too quickly denounced the Sept. 11 attacks. But international footage of Palestinians apparently celebrating the attacks served as effective propaganda for Israel. CNN issued a statement denying rumors that it had re-broadcast old footage after the attacks of Palestinians cheering for Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War, to deceive viewers. (Fox News, Sept. 12, 2001; CNN, Sept. 20, 2001)

The situation in Palestine escalated along with the world situation that autumn. A wave of suicide attacks left 25 dead in Israel in November, prompting Sharon’s government to respond with military strikes on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. An emergency Israeli cabinet meeting in the prelude to the air-strikes issued a statement calling the Palestinian Authority a “terror-supporting entity,” and Yasser Arafat’s Fatah political organization and elite paramilitary Force 17 “terrorist groups.” Accusing Arafat of a “war of terror,” Sharon actually ordered air-strikes on PA targets, wiping out Arafat’s personal helicopters in Ramallah, killing two. (ABC News, New York Times, Dec. 4, 2001).

But Arafat actually complied with Israeli demands for a crackdown on the Hamas network and arrested the group’s spiritual leader Sheikh Yassin for complicity in the suicide attacks. The inevitable result was more clashes between Hamas supporters and PA police. Ironically, the suicide attacks were themselves retaliation for the Nov. 23 assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Abu Hanoud—who had been serving a twelve-year term in a PA prison for terrorist activity until he escaped when a May 18 Israeli air-raid hit the Nablus prison building in a bungled attempt to kill him. (FAIR, Dec. 6, 2001)

In a tilt to Israel, the US froze the assets of US-based charities said to be Hamas fronts—and condemned the suicide attacks without the usual admonition to Sharon to refrain from military incursions into PA-controlled areas. (New York Times, Dec. 4, 2001).

A cycle of retaliatory violence ensued, in which Palestinian attacks on settlers resulted in Israeli air-strikes, resulting in further Palestinian attacks, and so on. The al-Aqsa Brigades, militant wing of Arafat’s Fatah movement, Hamas, and smaller groups such as Islamic Jihad claimed credit for the Palestinian attacks.

Among numerous sites hit by Israeli air raids in Ramallah over the night of Dec. 12 was the Quaker-run Friends School, an elementary school for local Palestinian children. Because the attack occurred at night, no one was injured. (Atlanta Friends’ Meeting press release, Dec. 13, 2001)

After initial hesitancy, the White House backed Israel’s claims that 50 tons of weapons seized by Israeli forces from a boat in the Red Sea in January 2002 were supplied by Iran and bound for Arafat’s forces. Said President Bush in response to Israel’s claim: “Mr. Arafat must renounce terror…” Palestinian Authority cabinet minister Saeb Erekat retorted: “We are guilty [in US eyes] until proven innocent. I don’t know what this compelling evidence is.” (Ha’aretz, Jan. 10, 2002)

That month, Israel’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz was in Washington meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Gen. Richard Myers and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice—architects of the President George W. Bush’s bellicose new foreign policy. Seeking to integrate Israel’s war with Palestine into the US war on terrorism, Mofaz accused Iran of deep involvement in terrorism against Israel, anonymous sources said. (AP, Jan. 20, 2002)

Later that month, Israel and the US held a large joint exercise, deploying the Arrow and Patriot missile defense systems in an “Iraqi scenario” war game, preparing for missile attacks on Israel in the event of a US attack on the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Hundreds of soldiers from US Army anti-aircraft units based in Europe came to Israel for the exercise. Similar exercises had been held almost every year since Desert Storm, but these received greater attention as the US appeared to be preparing for an invasion. (Ha’aretz, Feb. 5, 2002)

Also that month, Israel demolished 70 Palestinian homes at the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza in retaliation for the killing of four Israeli soldiers by Palestinian militants. (New York Times, Jan. 11, 2002)

On Jan. 25, 2002, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz ran a paid statement signed by 53 members of the armed forces calling for troops to refuse orders for repression in the Occupied Territories:

We, combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), raised on the values of Zionism, sacrifice, and giving to the Jewish people and the State of Israel, who have always served on the front line and were the first to fulfill every mission, regardless of how difficult, in order to defend and strengthen the State of Israel…

We, who have personally witnessed the terrible bloodshed on both sides of the conflict…

We hereby declare that we will not go on fighting a war for the peace of the settlements. We will not go on fighting beyond the ‘green line’ for the purposes of domination, expulsion, starvation, and humiliation of an entire people.

We hereby declare that we shall continue to serve the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves the defense of the State of Israel. The mission of occupation and repression does not serve this goal–and we refuse to participate in it. [Seruv.org.il]

Following the statement was a list by name, rank and unit of 53 IDF soldiers. Within a week, the number of signatories had doubled—despite harsh warnings from the government. Sharon said, “It will be the beginning of the end of democracy if soldiers don’t carry out the decisions of the elected government.” (Israel Insider, Feb. 5, 2002)

This movement was just part of a wave of general non-cooperation among IDF reservists. At least 2,500 reservists were absent without leave, while thousands of others had become “gray conscientious objectors,” having fabricated medical or personal reasons not to be called up. Israel jailed some 600 reserve soldiers on charges of evading service. Ishai Menuchim, a reservist tank commander and leader of the anti-occupation draft-resistance movement Yesh Gvul (“There is a Limit”—a reference both to the Green Line and the boundary of what is morally acceptable), said: “The reservists do not care about the territories. Many are in their ’30s and ’40s, they have families and care more about their businesses or studies. So they are not willing to pay the price and risk their lives for something they don’t believe in.” (London Telegraph, Jan. 31, 2002)

Following weeks of escalating retaliatory violence between Israeli troops and Palestinian militants, on Feb. 28, the IDF launched attacks on the West Bank’s Jenin and Balata refugee camps, allegedly controlled by the militant organizations Tanzim (Fatah-aligned) and Hamas. This marked the first time ground troops had been sent in to Palestinian refugee camps. (Ha’aretz, Feb. 28, 2002)

On March 2, nine people, including four children, were killed and over 50 injured when a suicide bomber blew himself up in Jerusalem’s Orthodox Beit Yisrael neighborhood. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility, which, like Tanzim, was linked to Yasser Arafat’s Fatah political organization, but apparently did not answer to his Palestinian Authority. (Ha’aretz, March 3, 2002)

Dissent was now emerging within the highest levels of Israeli military power. The Council for Peace & Security, a group of 1,000 top-level Israeli reserve generals, colonels, and Shin Bet/Mossad officials, announced a public campaign for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from all of Gaza and much of the West Bank. The group called for dismantling 50 settlements, the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, and immediate peace talks with the Palestinians—cease-fire or no. The campaign was dubbed “Saying Shalom to the Palestinians.” (Ha’aretz, Feb. 22, 2002)

But the opening days of March were the bloodiest of the new Intifada. Some 42 Palestinians were killed March 8 in IDF operations against refugee camps, Palestinian Authority buildings and other targets in the Occupied Territories. In Tul Karm, elite IDF Golani troops seized control of a local refugee camp, detaining some 1,300 camp residents. Paratroopers took control of large areas in Bethlehem and surrounding camps. Israeli helicopters also fired on a refugee camp near Ramallah, and Israeli tanks entered Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Israeli helicopters and gunboats totally destroyed Arafat’s Gaza headquarters early March 10, hours after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 11 and injured over 50 at a busy cafe in West Jerusalem, with Hamas claiming responsibility. (World War 4 Report round-up, March 10, 2002)

Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, at a Cairo conference with Arab heads of state to develop a peace plan for Israel-Palestine, called the March 8 violence “Black Friday.” The Saudi peace plan, approved by the Arab League, had called for the Arab nations to “normalize” relations with Israel in return for an Israeli withdrawal from all territories conquered in the 1967 war. It was now toughened. The term “normalization” was dropped, and demands were added for restitution for Palestinian refugees, as well as a specific reference to Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem. (New York Times, March 9; Ha’aretz, March 10, 2002; Dolphin, p. 16)

A Zionist terrorist underground meanwhile seemed to be re-emerging. In southern Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhood of Sur Bahir on March 5, metal cones hidden in a grove of pines in a school yard exploded, spraying bullets and shrapnel all over the yard, breaking windows in the schoolhouse and sending students scrambling under their desks. The bomb was set to go off during morning exercises when the yard is usually filled with some 400 Palestinian junior high school students—the death toll would have been high if the cones hadn’t been discovered ten minutes before detonation and the yard evacuated. An Israel Radio reporter received a message claiming responsibility for the attack in the name of “Revenge of the Infants,” saying it was intended to avenge the killing of Jewish children by Palestinian suicide bombers. But Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert suggested the bombing was a provocation by Palestinian militants: “Suicide, killing themselves, is not foreign to their repertoire. So one can imagine the possibility that they’re doing it to themselves in an attempt to create a provocation, to stir up this population.” Angry students later marched out of the schoolyard, holding signs reading “Stop killing our children,” and hurling rocks at Israeli riot police, who responded with stun grenades and tear gas. (New York Times, March 6, 2002 via World War 4 Report) [top]

On March 12, the UN Security Council voted up the US-drafted Resolution 1397, “Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders.” Resolution 1397 also encouraged Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace initiative. Fourteen of the 15 Security Council members voted in favor, with Syria abstaining. The theretofore obstructionist US offered the resolution as it was attempting to sell Arab regimes on military intervention against Iraq. The vote came at the end of a day in which Israeli troops invaded towns and refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, killing at least 30 Palestinians. (The Guardian, March 14; MSNBC, March 13, 2002, via World War 4 Report)

On March 14, eight Palestinians and three Israeli soldiers were killed as Israeli forces invaded the West Bank town of Ramallah and other targets in the Palestinian territories. President Bush mildly criticized Israel’s push into the West Bank and Gaza, saying “the recent actions are not helpful.” (The Guardian, March 14, 2002)

Following protests by Holocaust survivors, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Mofaz ordered the IDF to immediately stop marking numbers on the forearms of Palestinians detained in the sweep of refugee camps. Mofaz said there had not been an order to mark captives with ink, and that he had ordered an investigation into the matter. In Knesset testimony, cabinet minister and Holocaust survivor Yosef Lapid called the connotation of the act “unbearable,” recalling the ID numbers printed on the arms of Jewish inmates at the Auschwitz death camp. A military source told the Jerusalem Post that numbers had been inked on the forearms of Palestinians to facilitate the interrogation process at a detainment camp in the Tulkarm area. (Jerusalem Post, March 13, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Despite an official Israeli ban on the house demolitions, the practice had continued. According to a February report by the B’tselem human rights group, Israel had by then demolished hundreds of houses in refugee camps in the Gaza alone, rendering 5,124 people homeless since the beginning of the Second Intifada. (Jerusalem Post, Feb. 4, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Hardline Israeli Infrastructure Minister Avigdor Lieberman submitted his letter of resignation to Prime Minister Sharon March 12. Tourism Minister Benny Elon also resigned. In an interview upon his resignation, Elon said he would work on a “right-wing peace plan,” under which “Israel would dismantle the Palestinian Authority,” the Oslo Accords principle of a two-state solution “would be nullified,” and Palestinian refugees would be resettled “in neighboring Arab countries.” His own “two-state solution” called for Israeli sovereignty over the Palestinian territories, and establishment of a “Palestinian-Jordanian state” in Jordan. (Jerusalem Post, March 15, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Some 50,000 right-wing demonstrators attended a mass rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square March 11, under the slogan “A strong nation will defeat terror.” Addressing the crowd, reserve Brig. Gen. Effi Eitam called on Sharon to be “a true Lion of Judah. If you are, the nation will be at your side.” Gen. Eitam was the author of a recent “security-political plan” urging Sharon to re-occupy and annex the Palestinian territories. (World War Report, Feb. 2, 2002; Ha’aretz, March 11, 2002)

With Vice President Dick Cheney on the ground in Israel, violence again escalated. On March 18, Israel began to pull back from positions in the Palestinian territories after a rare joint meeting of Israeli and Palestinian security chiefs, brought together by US envoy Gen. Anthony Zinni. As Zinni worked to broker a truce, Cheney was pictured shaking hands with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the front page of the New York Times March 19. Appearing with Sharon at a press conference that day, Cheney announced he would not meet with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat until a truce was in place. The following days, two suicide bombings left several dead in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. On the day of the second blast, the US State Department put the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades on the official list of “foreign terrorist organizations.” In a statement, al-Aqsa responded that making the list “is an honor for the brigades” because “America is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world.” It vowed to step up bombings. (New York Times, March 23, 2002)

The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem released a report entitled “Trigger Happy: Unjustified Gunfire and the IDF’s Open-Fire Regulations during the al-Aqsa Intifada.” The report documents numerous incidents of unarmed Palestinian civilians being killed by Israel Defense Forces. To cite but one incident: “On 17 December 2001, several children from the Khan Yunis refugee camp were playing with toy weapons made of plastic. IDF soldiers at a post some one hundred meters away fired live ammunition at them, killing Muhammad Hanaidiq, age 15.” (B’Tselem, March 2002)

B’Tselem wrote that until the outbreak of the new intifada, “the Open-Fire Regulations in the Occupied Territories were based on Israel’s penal code. Soldiers were only allowed to fire live ammunition in two situations: when soldiers were in real and immediate life-threatening danger, and during the apprehension of a suspect. When the intifada began, the IDF defined the events in the Occupied Territories as an ‘armed conflict short of war,’ and expanded the range of situations in which soldiers are permitted to open fire… The new version of the Open-Fire Regulations, which according to press reports are referred to as ‘Blue Lilac,’ have remained secret.” Therefore B’Tselem based its investigation primarily on testimonies from soldiers. (ibid)

But the situation was about to dramatically escalate. On March 27, the Israeli cabinet decided not to let Arafat attend the Arab summit in Beirut—where Arab leaders unanimously agreed to the peace proposal put forward by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, calling for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders in exchange for normalized relations. The proposal was rejected by Israel. Just before the Beirut vote took place, Islamic Jihad killed 22 Israelis celebrating Passover with a suicide bomb in Netanya, north of Tel Aviv. The Palestinian Authority “strongly condemned” the bombing, and offered an immediate cease-fire. But the Israeli cabinet declared Arafat “an enemy.” On March 30, Israel invaded Ramallah with 150 tanks, besieging Arafat in his compound. Arafat told reporters that Israel wanted to make him “either a hostage, a runaway, or a martyr… I tell them I will be a martyr, a martyr, a martyr.” (Jerusalem Post, March 30; Ha’aretz, March 31, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

With Ramallah under siege, on March 31, a suicide bomber blew up himself and 15 others in restaurant in Haifa. Hamas took responsibility. (Ha’aretz, March 31)

Journalists were ordered out of Ramallah as IDF tanks and troops rolled in, and a “Closed Military Area” was declared. IDF troops fired warning shots and threw stun grenades at journalists who stayed behind in defiance of the ban (New York Times, April 6, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

On April 2 the IDF besieged Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity—purported birthplace of Jesus—where some 250 armed Palestinians had taken refuge, and shoot-out ensued. The bell-ringer at the church was caught in the crossfire and bled to death in Bethlehem’s Manger Square before an ambulance could reach him. (The Independent, April 4, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

April 6 the Palestine Red Crescent Society reported at least 30 civilians killed in the Jenin refugee camp, with total casualties of over 100. Eyewitnesses reported IDF bulldozers leveling homes with the families inside. Jenin’s three modest hospitals were without electricity or water. A hospital in Jenin came under fire in a battle between Israeli and Palestinian forces, as the Red Cross struggled to evacuate the ill and wounded. The Red Cross, World Health Organization and UNWRA all reported deaths due to Israeli forces stopping rescuers getting through. (World War 4 Report, April 7, 2002)

In Nablus, the West Bank’s biggest city, fierce fighting rocked the market, or casbah, where Palestinian fighters made a stand. (ibid)

“Operation Defensive Shield,” as the IDF dubbed it, was Israel’s biggest offensive in the Palestinian territories in 34 years of occupation. The US envoy, Gen. Anthony Zinni, visited Arafat April 5 in his besieged Ramallah compound, now reduced mostly to mounds of rubble ringed by barbed wire. Sharon expressed displeasure withe the visit, and barred a European Union delegation from meeting Arafat. Israeli troops threw stun grenades, fired rubber bullets and rammed the vehicles of journalists trying to cover Zinni’s arrival. (The Guardian, April 6, 2002, via World War 4 Report)

Sharon for the first time publicly proposed sending Arafat into exile, saying he would be released to European diplomats on condition that he does not return. Sharon said Arafat “can’t take anyone with him, the murderers who are located around him there. And…it would have to be a one-way ticket.” (Irish Times, April 2, 2002)

Avigdor Lieberman, who had resigned his cabinet seat accusing Sharon of being too soft on the Palestinians, blasted the West Bank ground offensive, saying that Arafat and his headquarters should be “erased from the face of the earth.” Lieberman, explicitly invoked the US campaign then underway in Afghanistan in calling for massive aerial bombardment of the Palestinian territories. “Why should we endanger our troops? What did the armies of the United States and NATO do in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan? They didn’t endanger their soldiers. They simply bombed everything from above.” (Ha’aretz, April 1, 2002)

On April 4, Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerillas attacked the contested Har Dov/Shaba Farms area in the Golan Heights, seriously wounding one IDF soldier. Meanwhile, two Katyusha rockets hit Israeli territory from Syria near Kiryat Shmona. Shaba Farms had been seized from Syria in 1967, but was claimed by Beirut as part of Lebanon in a border dispute dating to the Mandate period. More Hezbollah attacks on Israeli forces in the disputed enclave would follow in ensuing months. (Ha’aretz, April 4, 2002)

The number of IDF reservists resisting service in the Palestinian territories surged to 375 officers and soldiers, who had all signed the public letter of refusal. At least 20 “refuseniks” had been jailed, with more facing military tribunals. On March 29, a group of refuseniks demonstrated outside the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem, carrying Israeli flags to stress their loyalty to Zionism. But Yishai Menuhin, spokesperson for Yesh Gvul said many conscripts who had not signed the refuseniks’ letter had also been jailed for conscientious objection—and the refusal movement was both more widespread and politically diverse than was being portrayed in the media. Menuhin said, “among us there are many Zionists, but also many non-Zionists and anti-Zionists. We support them all.” The Forum in Support of Conscientious Objectors distributed a brochure to draftees and reservists documenting human rights abuses in the territories, and stating: “The international community has already brought to trial soldiers who committed war crimes in the Balkans. Do you want to be next?” (Ha’aretz, April 1, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Gush Shalom and other Israeli peace groups—both Jewish and Arab—held a “March Against the War” April 3, attempting to cross into the West Bank to deliver solidarity aid to the besieged communities. The marchers, dressed in white, were accompanied by trucks of food and medical supplies destined for Palestinian relief and women’s organizations. The activists intended to march from Jerusalem to Ramallah, but were stopped at A-Ram Checkpoint in north Jerusalem, where they were dispersed by police and IDF troops who used tear gas, batons and rifle butts. (Ha’aretz, April 4, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

By this point, 300 Israelis and 1,200 Palestinians had been killed since the new Intifada began in September 2000. According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, 897 of the Palestinians killed from Sept. 29, 2000 though March 30, 2002 were civilians rather than armed militants, and 192 were children. B’Tselem found that Israeli were killed by Palestinians in the same period, 253 were civilians, including 48 children. (FAIR, April 4, 2002)

Members of the Norwegian committee that awards the annual Nobel Peace Prize launched an unprecedented verbal assault on Israeli foreign minister and Nobel peace laureate Shimon Peres. Committee members said they regretted that Peres’ prize could not be recalled because, as a member of the Israeli cabinet, he had not acted to prevent the re-occupation of Palestinian territory. Committee chairman Geir Lundestad noted that if Arafat were to be killed in the Israeli siege, one Nobel laureate would in effect have killed the other. (BBC, April 5, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Israeli intellectuals and Holocaust survivors reacted with outrage to statements by Portuguese Nobel Literature Prize laureate Jose Saramago comparing Israel’s siege of Ramallah to the Nazi genocide. Saramago, who had recently visited the Palestinian city as part of an International Parliament of Writers (IPW) delegation, told the Israeli press that “the spirit of Auschwitz” could be seen in the assault on Ramallah. “This place is being turned into a concentration camp,” he said. According to Haaretz, when asked where the gas chambers were, he replied “so far, there are none.” Israeli legislator and Holocaust survivor Yosef Lapid said: “There is nothing more despicable than to use the Holocaust and its victims in such a way as this novelist with a worldwide reputation has done.” (DPA, March 26, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Meanwhile, speaking at a ceremony commemorating Holocaust victims in New York City, Mayor Mike Bloomberg said: “Jewish people today are confronted by a new twisted ideology of hatred—that is Islamic extremism. Suicide bombers…are just the same thing as the concentration camps of the Nazis.” (NY Daily News, April 8, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

On April 7, President Bush said Arafat “needs to speak clearly, in Arabic, to the people of that region and condemn terrorist activities. At the very minimum, he ought to at least say something.” But on March 28, after the Passover suicide attack in Netanya, an Arafat speech broadcast on Palestinian TV in Arabic had stated: “On this occasion, I would like once again to reiterate our condemnation of yesterday’s operation in Netanya, in which a number of innocent Israeli civilians were killed and wounded. This operation constitutes a deviation from our policy and a violation of our national and human values…” (Daoud Kuttab, April 9, 2002)

US Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Yasser Arafat in besieged Ramallah April 15—much to the chagrin of Sharon. The meeting was portrayed as Arafat’s reward for a statement denouncing the suicide bombings. Some 40 international peace activists holed up in Arafat’s compound hoped to witness the meeting, but were herded by Powell’s US diplomatic security bodyguards into one room and told to stay out of sight. Netta Golan, the only Israeli in the group, said, “Everyone here has taken into consideration that there is a high probability we might die.” (NY Daily News, April 15, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Arafat’s statement, in Arabic, read in part:

The Palestinian leadership and His Excellency President Arafat express their deep condemnation for all terrorist activities, whether it is state terrorism, terrorism by a group or individual terrorism. This position comes from our steady principle that rejects using violence and terror against civilians as a way to achieve political goals. We declared this position beginning in 1988 and also when we signed the Oslo accords at the White House, and we have repeated it several times before, including our declaration on Dec. 16 last year. After that, we did not find any Israeli response but more Israeli escalation, a tighter siege, further occupation of our people, refugee camps, cities, villages, and more destruction of our infrastructure. We strongly condemn all the attacks targeting civilians from both sides… [AP, April 13, 2002 via World War 4 Report]

A front-page New York Times analysis April 14 said Palestinians were angered by “what they perceive as a double-standard from Washington”—constant pressure to condemn the suicide bombings, yet no condemnation from Washington of the hundreds of Palestinian casualties of Operation Defensive Shield, “which the Palestinians refer to as state terrorism.” (New York Times, April 14, 2002)

As the IDF began to withdraw from Jenin, the UN Security Council voted unanimously April 20 to send a fact-finding mission to look into what happened at the devastated Palestinian refugee camp. But following heavy diplomatic pressure from the US and Israel, the resolution did not describe the mission as an investigation. As camp residents started to retrieve bodies from the ruins, Israeli authorities insisted there was “no massacre.” Palestinians claimed up to 500 residents were killed in Jenin, while Israel put the death toll at about 50 Palestinians and 23 Israeli soldiers. (CNN, April 19; BBC, April 20, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

After touring Jenin, UN special Middle East envoy Terje Larsen said the scene was “horrifying beyond belief,” that the most heavily destroyed area “looks like there’s been an earthquake here,” and is permeated with the “stench of death.” Reported Larsen: “I saw people using their bare hands to dig out the body of a 12-year-old boy. More than 2,000 people have been left without a roof over their heads and there is an acute lack of water and food in the camp and town.” (Ha’aretz, April 18, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Ariel Sharon dismissed accounts of a massacre and mass clandestine graves at Jenin as “lies” of the “Palestinian empire of falsehood… They look you in the eye and lie.” Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told the cabinet the number of Palestinians killed in Jenin was in the dozens, not the hundreds. (Jerusalem Post, April 15, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

On April 21, Sharon declared an end to “this stage” of Defensive Shield, ordering troops out of Nablus and Ramallah, except for the ring around Arafat’s compound. In Nablus, the ancient Casbah was in ruins after a bloody battle between IDF forces and Palestinian militants who had taken refuge there. Hundreds of Palestinians surrendered at al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus after five straight hours of ground-fire from tanks, and missile-fire from helicopter gunships. (The Guardian, April 9, 11, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

In another move to control media portrayals, the Arab section of Israel Radio was issued a new set of guidelines for terminology to be used in broadcasts, barring the word “victim” when referring to Palestinian civilians killed in the Intifada. Instead of “victim,” broadcasters were ordered to say “the dead.” The word “assassination” were not to be used in regard to Israel’s assassinations of Palestinian activists. Instead, the word “killing” [katal in Arabic] was to be used—despite the fact that the IDF itself called these actions “targeted assassinations.” (AP, April 26, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Israel said the standoff at Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity could be resolved if the gunmen inside agree to a face trial in Israel—or accept permanent exile. The offer was rejected. The Franciscan order asked Israel to allow some of the 200 armed Palestinians sheltering in the church to leave unharmed, and called for water and electricity to be urgently supplied to the complex. An Armenian monk at the complex was seriously wounded by an Israeli bullet April 10. (BBC News, April 12, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

A new report by human rights group B’Tselem documented massive abuses by the IDF in Operation Defensive Shield, including: use of civilians as human shields, obstruction of medical treatment, mass detention and torture, and overcrowding and humiliating treatment of detainees: “There are 1,000 detainees held in Ofer military camp, between 1,000 and 1,500 at Megiddo military prison, 100 in the detention facility in Salem, opened near Jenin and several dozens in permanent detention facilities in the West Bank. Detainees released from Ofer reported harsh holding conditions. Among other things, they reported insufficient food, overcrowding, being cold, humiliation and beatings.” (ReliefWeb, April 11, 2002)

Three prominent international human rights groups released a joint statement April 7:

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists want to send a clear, unambiguous message to all parties to this conflict, and to the international community. Stop the deliberate targeting of civilians and other persons protected by international humanitarian law. Stop actions that harm them. Immediately deploy international monitors to protect the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis… We strongly deplore actions by the state of Israel that harm persons protected by international humanitarian law. These include prolonged curfews with severe restrictions on the movement of people and access for medical personnel; intensified collective punishments; wanton damage to homes, cars and civilian property; looting and theft; and the coerced use of civilians to assist military operations. Such actions violate international standards and transcend any justification of military necessity… Even in the face of this situation, we are appalled by an increase in the use of suicide bombers by armed Palestinian groups to attack Israeli civilians. Such deliberate attacks on civilians are absolutely prohibited by international humanitarian law. These actions tarnish the Palestinian cause and will not at all help the situation… [Amnesty International, April 9, 2002]

Israel claimed to have found documents at Ramallah linking Arafat to suicide bombings. Ariel Sharon told Ha’aretz on March 5: “The PA is behind the terror… Arafat is behind the terror. Our pressure is aimed at ending the terror. Don’t expect Arafat to act against the terror. We have to cause them heavy casualties and then they’ll know they can’t keep using terror and win political achievements.” (War in Context, March 14)

On April 15 the IDF announced the arrest in Ramallah of Marwan Barghouti, the Fatah politician and Palestinian Legislative Council representative who Israel said turned Tanzim from a civil guard into a West Bank militia that organized suicide bombings. (Ha’artez, April 16)

Thousands attended protests in European cities April 13 to express solidarity with the Palestinians and denounce Operation Defensive Shield. 15,000 marched through central London, some carrying posters depicting Ariel Sharon behind bars and comparing him to Adolf Hitler. (Ha’aretz, April 14, 2002)

UN human rights chief Mary Robinson human rights chief repeatedly urged Israel to allow her travel to the country for a delayed fact-finding mission on the conflict, citing “growing concerns over recent events in Jenin.” Israeli authorities refused to approve the planned five-day visit by Robinson. Finally, Robinson’s office announced that the mission had been cancelled because it “will not be facilitated by the Israeli authorities.” (AFP, April 19, 2002)

The UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva condemned Israel for “acts of mass killings” and “gross violations” of humanitarian law on April 15. The resolution was approved by 40 votes in favor and five against. (Jerusalem Post, April 19, 2002)

While the IDF pulled out of Jenin, the camp remained surrounded. Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said troops would also be withdrawing from occupied West Bank towns. But anticipating future fighting, Ben-Eliezer said he prefered to call the withdrawal a “redeployment” (Ha’aretz, April 21, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Daoud Kuttab, director of the Institute of Modern Media at Jerusalem’s al-Quds University, described in a New York Times op-ed piece April 6 how the Institute’s al-Quds Educational Television station in Ramallah was ransacked by IDF troops. The studio and offices were broken into, equipment destroyed and two staffers arrested. (Via World War 4 Report)

The siege that continued at Bethlehem came just after a $250 million renovation project of the ancient city was completed, funded by foreign aid agencies and aimed at drawing tourists—especially for the 2000 Millennium celebrations, which brought Pope John Paul II and numerous heads of state to the town. Now much of the town was in much worse shape than before the project. Reported the Washington Post April 14:

Israeli tanks have turned historic Madbassah Square into rubble, three years after it was renovated at a cost of $2 million. Fires and explosives have ruined a 300-year-old pilgrims’ hostel with soaring arches that took two years to refurbish. A once-sparkling new artists’ colony, recently completed for $600,000, has been ransacked and defaced… [A]rmored personnel carriers rumble through the narrow and deserted streets of the Old City daily, ripping up sidewalks, sideswiping stone pillars and banging into storefronts with centuries-old facades. [Via World War 4 Report]

President George Bush weighed in on Operation Defensive Shield April 19, stating: “I do believe Ariel Sharon is a man of peace… I’m confident he wants Israel to be able to exist at peace with its neighbors. I mean, he’s told that to us here in the Oval Office. He has embraced the notion of two states living side by side.” Bush said he was satisfied that Sharon was acting in good faith. “He gave me a timetable, and he met the timetable” for beginning withdrawal from re-occupied towns. He also said, “Mr. Arafat did condemn terrorism, and now we will hold him to account.” (ReliefWeb, April 18, 2002) A few hours later, Arafat, in a telephone interview with Tunisian TV, called Sharon “bloodthirsty” and said “his history is known. His hands are stained in blood.” (CNN, April 19, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Sharon told his weekly cabinet meeting April 21 that no government that he headed would evacuate Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Banging on the table, Sharon said he would not even discuss evacuating the settlements until the elections, set for October 2003, or even beyond should he be elected for a second term. (Ha’aretz, April 21, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

An initial probe into the Israeli attack on the Jenin refugee camp led an Amnesty International delegate to declare at a London press conference “we have concluded that very serious breaches of international law were committed, and we are talking here of war crimes.” (Ha’aretz, April 29, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

But the world media focused on the more ambiguous question of whether there had been a “massacre” at Jenin—with war crimes short of a massacre implicitly minimized. For instance, veteran commentator Daniel Schorr on National Public Radio said: “Some things happened which were not terribly, terribly nice, and I’m sure they happened a lot. But if the question is raised that ‘Was there a deliberate massacre of civilians in Jenin?’ the answer seems to come out no.” (FAIR, May 10, 2002)

In late April, citing new intelligence on the location of militants, Israel made new brief incursions into Qalqilya and Hebron, sparking new clashes. (BBC News, AFP, April 26, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

There were conflicting statements on suicide bombings from the Arab and Islamic leadership. Yasser Arafat’s wife Suha Arafat endorsed suicide bombing attacks in a London-based Arabic magazine, al-Majallah, saying if she had a son, there would be “no greater honor” than to sacrifice him for the Palestinian cause. “Would you expect me and my children to be less patriotic and more eager to live than my countrymen and their father and leader who is seeking martydom?” Suha Arafat, who had no son, was living with her daughter in Paris. (New York Times, April 15, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Two prominent Islamic clerics also endorsed suicide bombings. Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the most prominent religious scholar at al-Ahzar University in Cairo, called “martydom operations” the “highest form of jihad operations” and that such attacks were “an Islamic commandment until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat.” However, a ruling by the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia “declared suicide to be against Islam.” (New York Times, April 15, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Newspapers in Saudi Arabia stopped using the term “shaheed,” or martyr, in reference to suicide attackers. In Egypt, the pro-government daily Al-Riad called for an end to “suicide bombings,” suggesting instead that the Palestinians look to their “supreme national interests.” (Ha’aretz, May 22, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

A commander of the al-Aksa Martyr’s Brigades interviewed in Nablus by the New York Times said his group would no longer conduct suicide bombing attacks inside the 1967 borders of Israel. But the commander, identified only by his nom de guerre Abu Mujahed, said the group would continue its attacks in the occupied territories. Abu Mujahed said that he regretted the loss of civilian life. “I am sorry for all the civilians that died in this intifada, both Israelis and Palestinians,” he said. “I want to fight whoever is in charge of the government of Israel, not civilians.” He also said he was concerned the attacks on restaurants, buses and the like was hurting the Palestinian cause: “What was happening is that we were delivering the wrong message to the world.” (New York Times, April 23, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Hamas moderate Ismail Abu Shanab said that if Israel withdrew to its pre-1967 borders, Hamas would “cease all military activities.” Asked if that meant Hamas would give up its objective of destroying Israel, Shanab said “there is a right for every generation to be satisfied with their condition. Now, when Palestinians and Israelis live among each other in peace, they may cooperate with each other in a way that everyone will be satisfied.” (San Francisco Chronicle, April 28 via World War 4 Report)

In a makeshift court inside Arafat’s compound, four members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were convicted for the murder of right-wing Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavem Ze’evi. The men were given sentences ranging from one to 18 years in prison. The Israeli government had demanded the extradition of the men to Israel to stand trial for Ze’evi’s murder. Ze’evi was killed in retaliation for the Israeli assassination of the PFLP’s political leader, Abu Ali Mustafa, who himself was killed in retaliation for a successful strike on a Gaza IDF outpost by PFLP operatives. The trial was dismissed as a farce by Palestinian human rights activists. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said, “It would have been possible to avoid trying them twice, as they will anyway be brought to trial in Israel.” (Ha’aretz, April 26, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

In May, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that the United Nations would go forward with a report on possible war crimes committed by Israel at Jenin, even though Israel continued to reject the fact-finding mission. Annan would ask Israel and the Palestinians to provide information for the report. (New York Times, May 3, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

The five-week siege at Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity finally came to an end May 10, when more than 100 Palestinians emerged from the church’s Gate of Humility and walked through a metal detector into Manger Square. In a European Union-brokered deal, 13 militants called “senior terrorists” were transferred in a British plane to Cyprus, from where they would go into exile in Italy, Spain, Greece and Ireland. (World War 4 Report, May 5, 2002)

The leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, who met at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik May 11, reaffirmed their commitment to the Saudi initiative that called for peace with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and expressed a “sincere desire for peace and a rejection of violence in all forms.” The meeting came four days after 16 people were killed in suicide bombing in Rishon Letzion, south of Tel Aviv. (New York Times, May 12, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Yassin said in an interview May 11 that the group would continue suicide bombings, calling them “forms of resistance open against the enemy.” In response to Arafat’s call to cease the bombings, Yassin said: “Hamas always considers the higher interests of the Palestinian people…We have in the past stopped martyrdom operations against the enemy. But they did not stop their killing of our people… That is why we are no longer obligated by our previous initiative.” (Reuters, May 11, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

In a raucous meeting of the Likud central committee, Sharon lost a key vote on whether to allow a future Palestinian state May 13. Sharon’s rival Binyamin Netanyahu stated: “This must be clear—there will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River because that would be a deadly threat to Israel.” (BBC May 13).

That month, four Jewish settlers were detained by the Jerusalem police and the Shin Bet security service on suspicion of planning terror attacks on a girl’s school and other Arab targets in East Jerusalem. A group calling itself “Jewish Underground” distributed leaflets in various settlements taking responsibility for the murder of eight Arabs in terror attacks. (Ha’aretz, May 9, 10, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

The largest peace demonstration since the start of the Intifada in September 2000 was held May 11 in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square. The protestors, estimated at 100,000 by organizers Peace Now, demanded an immediate withdrawal from Palestinian territories and the dismantling of Israeli settlements there. Singer Yaffa Yarkoni performed, despite having received death threats. (BBC, May 12, 2002)

Despite international outrage against Israel, the idea of “transfer” meanwhile seemed to be gaining currency even in the West. John Derbyshire, a contributing editor to National Review, the foremost American conservative journal, wrote an article describing what he viewed as the five options available to the Palestinians:

1. An independent state, under Arafat or someone just as thuggish.
2. Military occupation by Israel.
3. Re-incorporation into a Jordanian-Palestinian nation.
4. Some sort of UN trusteeship.
5. Expulsion from the West Bank and Gaza, those territories then
incorporated into Israel.

Derbyshire’s conclusion:

When I say “the best option,” I don’t mean “best for the Palestinians.” I don’t think they have any good options. Being Arabs, they are incapable of constructing a rational polity, so their future is probably hopeless whatever happens… Would expulsion be hard on the Palestinians? I suppose it would. Would it be any harder than options 1 thru 4? I doubt it. Do I really give a flying falafel one way or the other? No, not really. [National Review, May 9, 2002]

The Israeli army was now requiring Palestinians living in the West Bank to obtain freedom-of-movement permits in order to travel between cities and towns. Israel did not notify the Palestinian Authority about the change in policy. Representatives of donor countries protested that the system was hindering aid deliveries—and had the effect of splitting the West Bank into eight separate cantons (Jenin, Nablus, Tul Karm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem and Hebron), effectively isolated from one another. (Palestine Media Center)

On May 19, three Israelis were killed and 56 injured when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowded market in Netanya. The bomber was dressed as an Israeli soldier. The PFLP claimed responsibility for the attack. The PA condemned the attack, saying it “endanger[ed] the Palestinian people, its just cause, its rights, and the future of its dream of a state.” (Ha’aretz, May 20, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

The Revolutionary Council of Araft’s Fatah movement issued a statement May 29 calling for an end to attacks inside Israel: “Military attacks inside the ‘green line’ must stop because they reflect negatively on the image of our national struggle. Resistance to the occupation should be limited within Palestinian land occupied in 1967.” (Washington Post, May 29, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

Soldiers and tanks re-entered the Jenin refugee camp May 17 to search for militants who had evaded capture during Operation Defensive Shield. The army withdrew after making 20 arrests. (BBC, May 17, 2002)

Israel cut the Gaza Strip in half May 22, preventing north-south travel for Palestinians. Tel Aviv said the move was in reprisal for raids on Jewish settlements in the Strip. (Ha’aretz, May 26, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

The IDF again entered several West Bank towns and refugee camps in the search for suspected militants at the end of May, taking over Bethlehem for four days and sealing off most of Ramallah. (BBC, May 30)

B’Tselem released a report in May asserting that while Israeli settlements had administrative control of nearly half the West Bank. The report, titled “Land Grab: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank,” based on information obtained with difficulty from the civil administration, found that “while the built-up areas of the settlements constitute only 1.7% of the land in the West Bank, the municipal boundaries are over three times as large: 6.8%. Regional councils constitute an additional 35.1%. Thus, a total of 41.9% of the area in the West Bank is controlled by the settlements.” B’Tselem also reiterated that “International humanitarian law prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory. An occupying power is also prohibited from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area, unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population or are for urgent military needs. Israel’s settlement policy violates these regulations.” (B’Tselem, May 13, 2002)

By this point, there were 400,000 Jewish settlers on the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 137 settlements and 100 more “outposts” seen as the nuclei of future settlements. Some 300,000 Palestinians had left or been driven from the West Bank—mostly those who fled during the Six-Day War. (Dolphin, p. 7-8)

Settlement activity continued under Sharon, especially in and around East Jerusalem. But Yosef Barel, the chief the Israeli Broadcast Authority (IBA), issued an order May 30 banning the use of the word “settlers” on radio and TV broadcasts. Barel told editors to identify people solely by their place of residence, leaving editors confused as to how to distinguish between Arab and Jewish residents of the Occupied Territories. (Ha’aretz, May 31, 2002, via World War 4 Report)

An investigation by the Associated Press, based on interviews with settlers, found that the settlement department of the World Zionist Organization, working with Israel’s Jewish Agency, was bringing whole immigrant communities—consisting of dozens of families and their rabbis—directly to the Occupied Territories. “In principle, we are trying to encourage Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and Gaza,” Ezra Rosenfeld, a spokesman for West Bank communities told AP. “This is part of our ideology.” The report embarrassed Israeli officials. Jewish Agency chairman Sallai Meridor stated: “The Zionist movement has no plan whose goal is to bring communities to settle precisely beyond the Green Line.” (Ha’aretz, June 9; AP, June 10, 2002 via World War 4 Report)

A bus carrying Israeli soldiers was destroyed when a car bomb exploded next to it June 5, killing 17, and wounding 47 at Meggido (the biblical Armageddon). The car was driven by an Islamic Jihad militant from Jenin. A caller from the militant organization told the press that the attack “took place on the 35th anniversary of the occupation of Jerusalem. We tell our enemies that we will continue to destroy their shields.” (Ha’aretz, June 6, 2002)

Israel again invaded Ramallah the day after the attack in Medgido, sending a column of around 50 tanks and armored vehicles into the town in the pre-dawn hours. The tanks surrounded Arafat’s headquarters, known as the Muqata’a, and opened fire. Several buildings were destroyed, although the PA chief was unharmed. The forces withdrew after six hours. There was a similar IDF incursion into Ramallah on June 10. Jenin was briefly re-occupied on June 7. (Ha’aretz, June 6, 10, 2002)

President George Bush stated the US must start immediate work with the Israelis and Palestinians in establishing a Palestinian state, but failed to set a timetable. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times June 9, “The Way Forward in the Middle East,” Sharon exploited the strategic ambiguity in Security Council Resolution 242:

[T]he United Nations Security Council determined in a historic decision, Resolution 242, that Israel was entitled to “secure and recognized boundaries” and was not expected to withdraw from all the territories that its forces had entered—and from which it was attacked—in the Six Day War. In effect, the resolution established that these were disputed territories where Israel had legitimate rights to defensible borders, besides the claims of the Arab parties to the conflict. [New York Times, June 9, 2002]

George Bush did not respond to this assertion, but stated on June 24: “I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.” (Second “Road Map for Peace” speech, June 24, 2002)

The UN World Food Program meanwhile inaugurated a plan to provide emergency food aid to about 500,000 Palestinians. Said WFP regional director Khaled Adly: “Hunger and malnutrition are rapidly increasing among the Palestinians. Even when food is available in some of the markets, many impoverished Palestinians have become increasingly unable to meet all their food needs. The latest Israeli military incursions have dealt a hard blow to an already vulnerable economy pushing many Palestinians into destitution.” (World Food Program, May 21, 2002)

On June 18, a suicide bomber blew himself up on a Jerusalem bus, killing 19 and injuring 50. Seven of dead were Israeli Arabs. It was 8 AM, and there were schoolchildren on the bus, one of whom was killed. (BBC, June 18, 2002)

The PA again condemned the attack “The Palestinian Authority…retains its position of not condoning the killing of civilians—Palestinians and Israelis,” said Saeb Erakat, chief Palestinian negotiator. “We reject any Israeli attempt to assign blame or finger-pointing at us. The Israelis have done nothing in the last 21 months but destroy our ability [to go after the bombers].” But Israel did indeed blame the Palestinian leadership, calling its statements “false condemnations.”(CNN, June 19, 2002)

In an advertisement appearing in the Arabic daily al-Quds, Palestinian leaders Sari Nusseibeh and Hanan Ashrawi called on their people to reconsider suicide attacks. The ad counseled “those dispatching the Palestinian youths to take personal stock of their actions,” which “are only hurting innocent people, creating more hatred and distancing the prospects of achieving Palestinian independence.” (Jerusalem Post, June 19, 2002)

Operation Determined Path

In response to the June 18 Jerusalem suicide bombing, the Israeli army announced it would re-occupy Palestinian territory for an unspecified period—and occupy more each time another attack occurred. An Israeli defense official said this response would be “crushing and decisive,” and the IDF called up 2,000 reservists for the operation, dubbed “Determined Path.” In the following days, the IDF entered Nablus, Jenin, Tul Karm, Bet

Continue ReadingTHE DISPOSSESSION OF THE PALESTINIANS, PT. III 

Dear Readers…

Dear Readers:

World War 4 Report will likely be at a reduced level of activity throughout the autumn, as I will again be traveling on assignment. We may have to suspend the monthly edition for an issue or two, although the Daily Report will remain active. Due to lack of reader response, we are considering dropping the monthly edition permanently, and we would appreciate some feedback on this idea.

The Daily Report will continue to “blog the news” that doesn’t make the news from around the Fourth World. But only the feature format of the monthly edition can bring in-depth journalism such as Sarkis Pogossian’s report on the Muslims of China in the current issue, or my own polemic against right-wing conspiracy theory’s inroads on the “left.” So if you want us to keep the monthly edition going please let us know—preferably with a donation. Sarkis Pogossian is deeply in debt after his self-financed trip to China, and we are trying to help reimburse him. If we can raise just $500 over the autumn, we will pledge to keep the monthly edition going.

What do you say?

Thank you, shukran and gracias,

Bill Weinberg

Send checks payable to World War 4 Report to:

World War 4 Report
121 Fifth Ave. #172
Brooklyn, NY 11217

Or donate by credit card:

Write us at:

feedback (a) ww4report.com

Continue ReadingDear Readers… 

9-11 AT NINE

The Conspiracy Industry and the Lure of Fascism

by Bill Weinberg, World War 4 Report

New York City’s WBAI Radio—flagship of the progressive, non-profit Pacifica Network, where I am a producer—unfortunately provides a case study in the increasing embrace of right-wing conspiracy theory by the remnants of the American (and global) left.

The most useful propaganda device in this ongoing hostile take-over of the rump progressive forces has been an exploitation of the traumatic events of September 11, 2001. Alex Jones, who trumpets anti-immigrant bromides alongside 9-11 pseudo-exposés, now rivals Noam Chomsky as an icon on lefty websites. Where our rhetoric once invoked the military-industrial complex and even the sacrosanct capitalist system, today our ire is frequently targeted at such arcane entities as the Bilderberg Club, the Bavarian Illuminati, and stranger things.

WBAI provides a useful case study because it has followed the same trajectory as many of basically progressive inclination since 2001. What began as an examination of seeming anomalies in the case of 9-11 has lured some of our best minds down a black hole of irrationality that ultimately leads—and this, as shall be demonstrated, is not just hyperbole—to fascism.

Critical Inquiry versus Conspiranoia
Before detailing the dynamics of this deterioration, it is necessary to define some terms for the discussion—and particularly to draw a distinction between legitimate critical inquiry and what we may term “conspiranoia”—a state of perpetual paranoia about conspiracies in high places, in which the improbable and even faintly impossible is treated as a fait accompli if it supports the proffered theory. It may begin with pre-planted explosives or missiles bringing down the Twin Towers, but it frequently doesn’t end there—because once you abandon reason, anything goes.

Those who raise such criticisms are inevitably accused of supporting the “official story.” This is where the distinction is critical. The question of what was degree and nature of the Bush administration’s complicity in 9-11 is a legitimate one. It is also, alas, one the historians are going to be arguing about for generations to come, just like they are still arguing about the Reichstag Fire, the JFK assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin and the sinking of the battleship Maine. There is likely never going to be a definitive answer to it. That doesn’t mean that inquiry isn’t worthwhile. However—especially as concerns our activist efforts against the war(s) and loss of freedoms—there is limited utility to getting obsessed with the minutiae of 9-11.

The output of the lugubrious mini-industry which has sprung up around 9-11 conspiranoia has become increasingly toxic over the passing years. The most innocent of the DVDs and books are just poorly researched, merely exchanging the rigid dogma of the “official story” for another rigid dogma, no more founded in empiricism or objectivity. But, not surprisingly, lots of creepy right-wing types have got on board, using 9-11 as the proverbial thin end of a wedge.

The reason this is is not surprising is clear to anyone who understands the dynamics of the populist end of the political right—and the rise of classical fascism in Europe in the first half of the 20th century.

It also has to be made clear in this context that conspiracies, of course, exist. Contragate was a conspiracy; Watergate was a conspiracy; and whoever was behind 9-11, it was a conspiracy. Whether it was al-Qaeda, the Bush administration, the CIA, Mossad or the Illuminati, or any combination thereof, it was a conspiracy—obviously. Conspiracies exist, and are worthy of examination. The fallacy is what has been termed the “conspiracy theory of history,” the notion that conspiracies explain everything that’s wrong with society. This is a reversal of reality. It is political economy, not conspiracy theory, that explains what is fundamentally wrong with society—understanding power relations and wealth inequities. The conspiracies are merely a symptom of the prevailing political economy—just like war, terrorism, bad propaganda and fascism.

Fascism in its classical form is predicated on the notion that there is a hidden elite—whether it is the Jewish bankers or, in updated versions, the Trilateral Commission, Bliderbergs, Illuminati or shape-shifting reptilians (about which more later)—that controls everything, and is “the” problem.

These entities aren’t “the” problem, nor do they control everything; nor, often, do they even exist. The Trilateral Commission does exist; you can go their website. The Bilderbergers have no website because they don’t exist in any formal sense; they are just a group of bankers and industrialists who periodically get together in a high-end hotel and kick back martinis and schmooze. The Illuminati existed two centuries ago; it doesn’t exist any more. The shape-shifting reptilians assuredly do not exist.

The obsession with conveniently hidden elites serves to let off the hook the very real elites that are in plain sight. It has become utterly unfashionable to say it, but the problem ultimately is not the power of hidden elites, but that we live under the capitalist system. This is why conspiranoia is inevitably a useful tool of those who seek to distract us from class analysis.

The Slippery Slope to Shape-Shifting Reptilians
WBAI’s embrace of conspiracy theory started with the comparatively innocuous 9-11 musings of the Loose Change videos, the first to be offered as fund-drive premiums. But it is predictable that it got increasingly sinister and wacky from there. Some of the ensuing 9-11 conspiracy hucksters promoted by WBAI not only didn’t have their ducks in a row in terms of research, but were creepy fascistic types. Eric Hufschmid, producer of the Painful Deception video, has a website full of anti-immigrant xenophobia and Holocaust revisionism. Of course, he uses the soft-sell approach—in the 9-11 video there isn’t any xenophobia or Holocaust denial. You have to go his website to see that he’s a xenophobe and revisionist (read: likely Nazi-nostalgist).

Next was WBAI’s promotion of The Money Masters, a DVD purporting to expose the international banking conspiracy to undermine American sovereignty. This was pretty much straight-up right-wing nationalism, and had, at least, a strong fascistic undertone. The next entry was Spanish conspiracy guru Daniel Estulin, author of The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club, who asserted that Obama was put in power by the Bilderbergs to impose “socialism.”

Finally, in the summer 2010 fund drive, WBAI crossed the line—promoting a real, live neo-Nazi: a former British sportscaster by the name of David Icke, who hawks a book entitled Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Centre Disaster. This is his lure to draw in newbies who can then be indoctrinated with far stranger and more unsavory things. Icke’s is soft-sell neo-Nazism, but neo-Nazism nonetheless; you don’t have to dig very deep to find it.

In the material aired on BAI, Icke spoke about the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati. But what he actually believes (or says he believes) lies behind the global power nexus can be gleaned very easily by going to his website, DavidIcke.com. In Icke’s world, behind the the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati is the Rothschild banking family and associated powerful Jews—who are literally held to be inhuman. They are, in fact, reptilian aliens from the Fourth Dimension who have mysterious shape-shifting abilities and can assume human form. (I’m not making this up—go to the website.)

The ideology behind all of this comes straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious anti-Semitic forgery which was a pillar of the Nazi propaganda system. It purports to be a secret document revealing how the Jews secretly control the world, using both capitalism and communism as instruments to bring governments to their knees. Icke’s bizarre zeitgeist is a mere reworking of the Protocols, which he in fact extensively cites on his website.

The shape-shifting-reptilians thing is admittedly Icke’s own little twist. It is a fairly common device of DIY Nazism to assert that the Jews are actually non-human. The Christian Identity movement, which pervades much of the rural radical right in the US, believes that only the white race is truly human; the other races are either sub-human or non-human. The brown-skinned “mud people” are sub-human. The Jews are the non-human offspring of Satan. Both must be exterminated, although the Jews with somewhat greater urgency due to their greater power.

For the Christian Identity cultists, Jews are Satanic offspring because everything is seen through their idiosyncratic spin on the Bible; for Icke they are shape-shifting reptilians, exploiting popular interest in (and credulity about) extra-terrestrials. Both take the Protocols as their starting point.

The Paradoxical Anti-Fascist Rhetoric of Contemporary Crypto-Fascism
Today—at least, hopefully, on WBAI—you don’t get very far by openly calling yourself a neo-Nazi. In fact, a standard of contemporary populist invective is to compare our present-day oppressors with the Nazis. How do Icke and his ilk square this?

By applying Hitler’s own ideology and propaganda techniques to Hitler himself.

In Hitler’s world, everything bad was the creation of evil Jews in high places. So of course, David Icke says Hitler was created by the Rothschilds. In fact, he goes beyond that to argue that Hitler was a Rothschild. And therefore Hitler, like most of those who run the world, was in fact not human but a shape-shifting reptilian from the Fourth Dimension.

This theory is expounded in a screed entitled “Was Hitler a Rothschild?” In a time-honored method of such propaganda, Icke mixes a few grains of truth amidst the sinister wackiness. Although considerably less so today, the Rothschilds were certainly a powerhouse of high finance in the 19th century, and funders of the early Zionist movement. But, betraying his hand rather too quickly, Icke in the second paragraph refers to the Rothschilds as one of Europe’s “black occult bloodlines,” “working in league with the Illuminati House of Hesse.” Then he really cuts to the chase: they are “one of the top Illuminati bloodlines on the planet, and they are shape-shifting reptilians.”

Icke seizes on the popular rumor in Germany that Hitler’s grandmother was impregnated by a Rothschild baron for whom she worked as a maid. Icke cites a book by a US intelligence analyst, Walter Langer, who looked into this theory after the war and in 1972 published his findings under the title The Mind of Adolf Hitler. If you go to the library and read the book for yourself, you’ll find that Langer ultimately decided the rumor was insubstantial.

Icke, however, has no doubts. “[T]here was no way that someone like Hitler would come to power in those vital circumstances for the Illuminati, unless he was of the reptilian bloodline,” he writes, adding that “the same bloodline has held the positions of royal, aristocratic, financial, political, military, and media power in the world for literally thousands of years. This is the bloodline that has produced ALL 42 of the Presidents of the United States since and including George Washington in 1789… The World War Two leaders, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, were of the bloodline and also Freemasons and Satanists. They were manipulated into office, and their country’s war effort funded, by the Rothschild’s and the other Illuminati bloodlines.”

Icke asserts: “These people are NOT Jews, they are a non-human bloodline with a reptilian genetic code who hide behind the Jewish people and use them as a screen and a means to an end.” He seems to think this disclaimer lets him off the hook for anti-Semitism.

In a page on his website boosting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Icke even deigns to write: “I speak for Jews who oppose this secret plan which was concocted by Cabalist bankers and rabbis centuries ago and revised periodically. These self-appointed Jewish leaders have put all Jews in jeopardy. They are establishing their world tyranny by stealth—manipulating current events, re-engineering society and controlling perception.”

But his tone quickly changes to that of a barely veiled threat: “All Jews will be blamed for the disproportionate role many Jews play unless more speak up and are counted.”

Elsewhere on his website, Icke has a photo of a billboard that was placed on a roadside in Iowa by a local Tea Party chapter (improbable allies for BAI listeners) that reads “RADICAL LEADERS PREY ON THE FEARFUL & NAIVE” below portraits of Hitler, Lenin and Obama. The portraits are labeled, respectively, “National Socialism,” “Marxist Socialism” and “Democrat Socialism.” Icke writes: “Is the Obama-Hitler billboard correct? …The billboard suggests that Obama is a radical socialist leader similar to Hitler and Lenin. This is, in fact, a true comparison, which is probably why it was papered over so quickly. Obama, Hitler, and Lenin were all initially financed by Rothschild money. If we look at the historical record, we can clearly see that all three leaders were originally puppets of the House of Rothschild.”

This is particularly telling. Icke, for all his wackiness, is on a spectrum with the Tea Party movement, which is being mainstreamed with terrifying rapidity. And whether Icke himself is deeply delusional or a mere charlatan, it is clear that many of the Tea-Baggers genuinely think they are anti-fascist—even as they embrace such fascistic elements as paranoid anti-communism, vague but shrill populism, and (too often) open racism.

Leftists Take the Poisonous Bait
This relates to why WBAI and the Pacifica network, which should be a foremost bulwark of resistance against the rise of fascism in this country, are promoting fascism.

The left is complicit in eroding its own vigilance against fascism by using the word “fascism” as a mere baseball bat to beat our enemies with, often with little regard for its actual meaning. Many elements of the reigning system are frighteningly fascistic (aggressive wars, repeal of basic rights, the privileged position of corporate power); many elements of the increasingly conspiranoid opposition culture on the grassroots are also fascistic, despite its relentless anti-fascist rhetoric. This opposition culture consistently misses the boat on the populist lure of fascism, especially in its incipient phases.

Hitler and Mussolini talked a good populist game during their rise to power. Before they each cut their deal with big capital, they even talked a vaguely anti-capitalist line. Hitler posed himself as standing up for the “Little Man” and German sovereignty against the Jewish banking conspiracy—especially in the period from the Beerhall Putsch through the rise of the Brown Shirts, the more populist element of the Nazi apparatus. Then in 1934—the year after Hitler achieved power—the Brown Shirt leaders were betrayed and unceremoniously killed in the Night of the Long Knives. This happened just as Hitler was consolidating his deal with the big German capitalists, the Krupps and the Farbens, who would later avail themselves of slave labor in the concentration camps.

Early fascism nearly always plays to populism and purports to be protecting the little guy against the machinations of all-powerful elites. The error the fascists make—or, more cynically, the lie that they tell—is that “the” problem isn’t class stratification but those occulted elites pulling the strings behind the scenes, who can be neatly extricated from the system. And who better to extricate them than the heroic truth-teller who is exposing them? This is both the fundamental fallacy behind fascism, and the psycho-political instrument by which it achieves power.

Failure to grasp this is a grave error, and it is practically universal on the contemporary left. Even Chris Hedges, who should really know better, incorrectly employs the word “corporatism”—used especially by Mussolini to describe his system—to refer to fascism’s deal with the bankers and industrialists. That deal was certainly a defining element of classical fascism, but that isn’t what the word “corporatism” referred to. It referred to another defining element of fascism: the “incorporation” of populist institutions such as trade unions into the apparatus of the state or ruling party. This element is invisible to nearly all on the left who today warn of impending fascism.

Most of those who invoke Mussolini’s famous “fascism is corporatism” quote ironically do so to refer to the opposite of what they really mean. The corporatist (centralist, clientelist) elements of the US system, instated in the New Deal era, have today been largely dismantled in favor of a corporate (free-trade or “neoliberal”) state—that is, one dominated by the big corporations. Classical fascism had both corporatist and corporate elements, using corporatism to control populist currents, and divert popular rage from the ruling class and onto scapegoats (Jews and communists); too many on the left today make the error of only seeing one end of the fascist equation.

Blind to the populist element of fascism, we become vulnerable to its propaganda. Amazingly, among those to exhibit this error in recent days is none other than longtime leftist icon Fidel Castro. Since stepping down from power, Havana’s elder statesman has been writing a lot for his blog, “Reflections by Comrade Fidel,” which is posted on the website of the Cuban news agency Prensa Latina. His Aug. 19 entry was entitled “The World Government“—traditionally a canard of the political right, which sees the globalist conspiracy as one of the left. The entry consists in its majority of an extended excerpt from Daniel Estulin’s The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club. There isn’t the slightest initmation that Fidel is quoting Estulin in any sense other than favorably.

Most ironically of all, the Estulin quote includes a citation to far-right cult-master (and convicted credit-card fraud felon) Lyndon LaRouche, in which he portrays the “Aquarian Conspiracy” of the “counterculture” as an insidious tool for social control. Those who can remember back to the 1980s will recall that LaRouche was a big booster of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) program, which was instrumental in driving Cuba’s Soviet patrons to collapse. In true fascist style, LaRouche weds paranoia about sinister banking conspiracies with a vicious anti-communism.

So why is Fidel Castro embracing a writer who, in turn, embraces Lyndon LaRouche? It may be cruel to speculate that it has to do with his advancing years, but Fidel did have the humility to step down from power when he felt he was no longer up to it. Maybe his handlers should clue him in that he should stop doing his blog.

But there is, of course, a bigger political point here.

The conspiracy theory of history has right-wing roots, and remains inherently a phenomenon of the right. Its origins are in the writings of the reactionary 18th-century Jesuit Abbé Barruel, who blamed the French Revolution on the medieval Order of Templars. His emulators blamed Freemasons and the Illuminati for the assault on Europe’s old order. This became the template nearly a century later for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This document first emerged along with the pogroms, in which Jewish villages were attacked and burned as Jews were scapegoated for the rising of revolutionary currents in the Russia of the czars. It was later adopted by Hitler, and justified his Final Solution. Conspiranoid thinking was seen in America in the anti-communist hysteria of the Cold War, heyday of the John Birch Society; and then in the “New World Order” scare of the ’90s, heyday of the militia movement. Since 9-11, the conspiracy milieu has been in a state of hypertrophy, becoming a virtual industry.

Conspiracy theory is what fascism gives the “Little Man” instead of a fundamental change in the system and an overturning of oppressive power relations. Especially with the Tea Party and allied movements perfectly poised to exploit the ongoing economic agony in America and bring about a genuinely fascistic situation in this country, it is imperative that we don’t fall for it.

—-

Bill Weinberg is editor of World War 4 Report and, for the moment, co-producer of the Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade on WBAI-FM in New York City, an anarchist-themed talk-show featuring the best in world music.

Resources:

Bilderberg.org
(Note: This is not the website of the Bilderbergs…)

BilderbergMeetings.org
(Try this one…)

Conspiranoids.com
(Satire, evidently)

Rule by Idiocy: WBAI Falls for Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory
by Bill Weinberg, Political Research Associates, July 2001

From our Daily Report:

Ahmadinejad joins 9-11 conspiranoids
World War 4 Report, March 7, 2010

See also:

9-11 AND THE NEW PEARL HARBOR
Aw Shut Up Already, Will Ya?
by Bill Weinberg, World War 4 Report
World War 4 Report, September 2006

——————-

Special to World War 4 Report, September 1, 2010
Reprinting permissible with attribution
 

Continue Reading9-11 AT NINE 

Our New Pamphlet: Deja Vu in Peru

Dear Readers:

A big thanks to all of you who responded to our mailing last month and answered our Exit Poll. Please keep the communication coming so we know you are out there.

Those of you who have long been owed a signed copy of our new pamphlet as a thank-you gift for your support should have received it now. It is entitled Deja Vu in Peru: 15 years after NAFTA & the Zapatistas, it’s revolution redux in Washington’s South American free trade ally, and we still have a few copies left. It includes probably the most exacting examination in English of how corporate grabs of indigenous lands under the rubric of the new US-Peru FTA resulted in last year’s unprecedented Amazon uprising. It also includes our exclusive interview with veteran guerilla fighter Hugo Blanco, who led Peru’s first peasant armed movement in the 1960s and is today a foremost advocate of the Amazon struggle. If you wish to support World War 4 Report, we are making signed copies available for a minimum donation of $10.

Any and all encouragement for our efforts is deeply appreciated.

Thank you, shukran and gracias,

Bill Weinberg

Editor, World War 4 Report

Send checks payable to World War 4 Report to:

World War 4 Report
121 Fifth Ave. #172
Brooklyn NY 11217

Or donate by credit card:

Write us at:

feedback (a) ww4report.com

Continue ReadingOur New Pamphlet: Deja Vu in Peru