December 27, 2006
Collaboration
in a certain context epitomizes progressivism: people working together
for the greater good. Collaboration, however, also has a dark side
that is anathema to progressivist tenets: working against one's own
society. In other words: treason and sedition.
In western society, those collaborating
with the enemy were condemned as traitors. In Europe, the surname of
Vitus Quisling, a Norwegian who collaborated with the Nazi occupation
of Norway has come to mean "traitor" in much the same way as dual
loyalist Benedict Arnold's name means "traitor" in American society.
There are two major contenders in the
Middle East for eponymous recognition as traitors: Lebanon's prime
minister, Fouad Siniora, and Palestine's president, Mahmoud Abbas, are
willing to sell out their kinsfolk to Zionists and imperialists.
The Treason of Siniora
Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora
shakes hands with Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of State who
lengthened Lebanese exposure to Zionist bombing by working against a
ceasefire. (Reuters)
Siniora is the "leader" known for weeping in front of Arab dignitaries
while Zionist forces bombed Lebanon. The banker cum prime
minister, whose policies help massively indebt Lebanon and leave it at
the mercy of neoliberal sharks like the International Monetary Fund
and the Paris Club, is awaiting a bailout from the treacherous George
Bush administration in the United States (after all it was US
secretary-of-state Condoleezza Rice who held off calls for a ceasefire
so Israeli aggressors could finish what they had started). The
Washington Post reports a $1 billion dollar "aid" package. Almost
$500 million of the "aid" is earmarked for "Lebanon's military and
police to help strengthen the security forces … to help the
beleaguered Lebanese government." [1] The Post
does not mention why the Lebanese regime is beleaguered and by who.
The Lebanese government is beleaguered
by its own people (particularly by a coalition of Maronites and
Shi'a), a people impoverished by neoliberal policies and suffering the
ravages of war caused by the same countries that Siniora has been
cozying up to.
And what is the intention of the "aid"
giving regimes? The Post answers: "The package is part of an
effort by the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates and others to shore up the Lebanese security forces so they
can eventually extend their control over the entire country." Let's
see: We destroy you from inside and outside, then we
give "aid" with the string attached that you acquiesce to puppets of
your foreign masters. This would be a surrender of sovereignty.
The Post adds, "[The "aid"
package] is also designed to strengthen the government's hand over the
influence of Hezbollah." Hizbollah is the resistance that is credited
with forcing Israel out of Lebanon (with the exception of Sheba'a
Farms) and having recently fought Israel to at least a standstill. It
compelled an end to Israel's latest aggression as Zionist impotency
outside aerial bombing was proving humiliating. Strengthening the
Lebanese government's hand over Hizbollah, though, is equivalent to
strengthening imperialist hands over Hizbollah.
The Post is more forthcoming:
"After Iraq, Lebanon has become the primary battleground for influence
between the United States and Iran." Influence in Lebanon is part of
the wider US effort to violently reshape the Middle East. "Aid" with
the purpose of wider geo-political aims.
Since the infrastructure of Lebanon has
been leveled and farms littered with cluster bombs, why is so much
"aid" going to guns instead of food and rebuilding?
The US is the country that gave a green
light for the Zionist army to devastate Lebanon, that held back the
United Nations from acting to halt the violence. Why would the
Lebanese government collaborate with such a nefarious entity that
seeks to undermine Lebanese society for it and its client state's
selfish interest?
The Post quotes "U.S. officials"
that Iran is violating UN resolutions through current arms smuggling
into Lebanon via Syria. The risible UN provides the context whereby
the US may bring arms into Lebanon to arm its proxy regime, but the
same is prohibited for Hizbollah.
Furthermore, the US opposes the
Hizbollah push for an election to determine the public support for the
Siniora government but pushes for an election in Palestine in the hope
that starving Palestinians might oust the Zionist resisting Hamas-led
government so western regimes might allow them to feed adequately.
The Treason of Abbas
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas (R)
grins after getting promise from Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert
(L) to partial release of illegally seized Palestinian tax funds.
(Moshe Milner/GPO)
So intent are western regimes on starving the Palestinians that money
"legally" collected by Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh was
blocked at the Rafah Crossing from Egypt into Gaza.
Citing a "very well informed source,"
United Press International (UPI) [2] reports that
Fatah member Saeb Erakat had secured Egypt's compliance with the
boycott against Hamas. [3]
The Hamas prime minister returned with
money raised during his trip to Iran, Qatar and Sudan. The Israelis
asked Lt. Gen. Pietro Pistolese, the commander of European Union
Border Assistance Mission -- police and customs officers from 17
countries -- (EUBAM), to close the border and he complied.
According to an Israeli spokesman,
Shlomo Dror, the Palestinians "promised to 'make efforts' to stop
money smuggling." Since when is a government minister bringing money
for his government "smuggling"? This was not armaments. This was not
narcotics. This was money brought into a country where the population
is starving. What kind of Palestinian would make a promise that
aggravates the starving his own people?
UPI writes:
It is all part of a broader
confrontation. The United States, the European Union, Russia and the
United Nations who comprise the Quartet, Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas of Fatah, and Israel want to force the Hamas-led government to
renounce violence, accept Israel and honor agreements concluded with
it. The Islamic Hamas refuses to do so, and is subject to a political
and economic boycott.
Why the allusion to the religious
affiliation of Hamas? Why is the article so one-sided? Why is there
almost never a mention that Palestine wants to force the Zionist-led
government to renounce violence, accept Palestine and honor agreements
concluded with it -- that the Jewish Kadima refuses to do so?
The Hamas-led government of Palestine
finds itself opposed by several western regimes that have frozen "aid"
to it. Except for the promised release of $100 million in Palestinian
tax funds, Israel has frozen any transfers. But Israel has no rights
to freeze transfers; in fact, Israel, as the occupying power, is
legally (no use appealing to morality in the case of the Zionist
state) responsible for the needs of the occupied people.
Because of the financial boycott, Hamas
was forced to bring cash (estimated at $60 million by Pistolese)
through Rafah. So while Haniyeh was out getting cash to feed the
people, Abbas and his coterie were seeking to block such a
hunger-busting move.
That move is from Abbas. As the UPI
reveals:
President Abbas' men control the Rafah
Crossing. However, there is no Palestinian law against bringing money
that way. The importer just has to declare it. EUBAM's mandate says
that the law that applies at the crossing is the Palestinian law.
Nor have the Palestinians violated
Egyptian law because the money did not originate there, it just passed
through Egypt.
President Abbas is quoted: "We heard
that he (Haniyeh) has funds to smuggle into the country; we say here
that we are in need of funds but not smuggled funds." What does Abbas
mean? As UPI makes clear, no laws were broken in attempting to bring
the money into Palestine. So there was no smuggling! How can Abbas
genuflect to Zionist dictates while his own kinsfolk go hungry?
Rejecting Collaborators
Lebanese people en masse are seeking to
topple Siniora's collaborationist government. The opponents of
Siniora's government transcend religious affiliations.
[4] Imperialist and Zionist interests back the beleaguered regime
of Siniora.
In Lebanon, the people are denouncing
the collaboration of Siniora. In Palestine, the situation is being
drive toward violence. The US regime has waded into the Hamas-Fatah
confrontation by seeking congressional approval for $100 million
destined for Abbas' presidential guard.
In Palestine, "deep dissatisfaction"
with Abbas' Fatah Party -- "its corruption, inefficiency, and lack of
progress in achieving the Palestinians' national goals of independence
and a just settlement with Israel" -- saw Hamas sweep to a clear
victory. [5] The democratic will of Palestinians has
been stymied by western machinations that have plunged Palestinians
further into poverty. Against this extortionary backdrop, Abbas,
backed by his Zionist-imperialist friends, seeks another shot at
electoral victory. In essence: "Vote Fatah and eat" or "Vote Hamas and
starve."
The choice lies with the people, as it
should. But choices extracted under repressive and extortionary
circumstances demean any pretense to democracy. The
Zionist-imperialist interferences have come back to bite them. Hamas,
after all, is a zionist creation and the post of a Palestinian prime
minister resulted from US attempts to trim the political power of
Yasser Arafat.
Over the decades, Palestinians have
embodied the courageous sentiment of Mexican revolutionary figure
Emiliano Zapata who intoned: "I prefer to die standing, rather than
live on my knees." Zionists-imperialists should not be surprised if
the long-suffering, resisting, and still standing Palestinian people,
even when faced with what amounts to a life-and-death election, might
still reject the evil stench of collaboration -- food or no food.
Kim Petersen,
Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives in the Republic of Korea.
He can be reached at:
kim@dissidentvoice.org.
ENDNOTES
[1] Robin Wright, "U.S.
Readies Security Aid Package To Help Lebanon Counter Hezbollah,"
Washington Post, 22 December 2006.
[2] UPI is owned by News World Communications, which is owned by the
anti-communist, hard right-wing religious movement called the
Unification Church led Reverend Moon Sun Myung.
[3] Joshua Brilliant, "Analysis:
Can Hamas be reined-in?" United Press International, 21
December 2006.
[4] Pakinam Amer, "Lebanon's
faiths mingle at Christmas Eve rally," m&c news, 25
December 2006. A Christian, Hoda al-Farjiya, was quoted: "In the past
we used to say 'This is Christian' and 'This is Muslim.' Now we stand
here together and say 'Religion is for God and Lebanon is for
everyone.'"
[5] Q&A, "Hamas
election victory," BBC News, 26 January 2006.