Venezuela’s
Withdrawal of Ambassador from Israel Signals a
New Trend
By Lisette Poole and
Hazem Kira
Newark, CA
As Israeli planes battered
Lebanon, Venezuela withdrew its ambassador from
Israel in protest, and in the words of one American
Muslim leader, “Arab countries have been
put to shame for their spineless, gutless inaction.”
Describing the Israeli attacks as "genocide",
President Hugo Chavez said: "It really causes
indignation to see how the state of Israel continues
bombing, killing with gringo planes, with all
of the power they have, with the support of the
United States - so many innocents, children, women.”
Chavez’s bold decision came on the heels
of a statement by the American Muslim Taskforce
for Civil Rights and Election (AMT), a coalition
of major Muslim organizations, urging “all
Muslim countries to immediately suspend diplomatic
ties with Israel.”
“Hugo Chavez has put Arab rulers to shame
for failing to provide even minimum resistance
to tyranny,” commented distinguished Muslim
thinker Dr. Maher Hathout. “This courageous
step by a Latin America leader has doubled the
moral and political pressure on Jordon, Egypt,
Turkey and other Muslim countries to stand up
to Israel. It has further validated the Arab street.”
“Today, there are two movements for democracy
in the world,” said AMT Chair Dr. Agha Saeed.
“One calls for democracy within the juridical
confines of each nation, and the other for democracy
among the nations. Venezuela’s President
has emerged as the leader of the second movement
which insists upon sovereign equality among all
nations, large and small, rich and poor, developed
and developing.”
In the West, too, unconditional support of Israel
is crumbling. Recently, several American political
heavyweights have publicly expressed views similar
to those of Venezuela’s President. Three
national figures -- National Security Adviser
Brent Scowcroft, President Jimmy Carter, and US
Congressman Paul Findley -- have written op ed
pieces to express their outrage at Israeli invasion
of Lebanon.
In a July 30, Washington Post op ed article, Brent
Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to Bush Senior,
strongly argued for ending the occupation of Palestine.
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has
stated that a simple cease-fire in Lebanon is
not the solution to the current violence. She
says it is necessary to deal with the roots of
the problem. She is right on both counts. But
Hezbollah is not the source of the problem; it
is a derivative of the cause, which is the tragic
conflict over Palestine that began in 1948,”
Scowcroft wrote.
On Aug 2, former President Jimmy Carter reiterated
the same reasoning in a Washington Post commentary.
“It is inarguable that Israel has a right
to defend itself against attacks on its citizens,
but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish
civilian populations in the illogical hope that
somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for
provoking the devastating response. The result
instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide
support has been rallied for these groups, while
condemnation of both Israel and the United States
has intensified.”
Meanwhile, statements by U N Secretary General
Kofi Annan and his deputy Mark Malloch Brown convey
the anguish of the many member of the UN Security
Council over the US role in preventing the United
Nations from fulfilling its charter obligations
by “running interference” for Israel
and, thus, undermining the rule of international
law.
However, many analysts argue that the present
Israeli-US policy has little chance of success.
Writing in the New York Times, noted political
scientist Robert Pape, who has conducted the most
extensive scholarly study of suicide bombings,
has observed: “Israel has finally conceded
that air power alone will not defeat Hezbollah.
Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground
power won’t work either. The problem is
not that the Israelis have insufficient military
might, but that they misunderstand the nature
of the enemy.”
Prof. Pape goes on to note that “Contrary
to the conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is principally
neither a political party nor an Islamist militia.
It is a broad movement that evolved in reaction
to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June
1982…. In terms of structure and hierarchy,
it is less comparable to, say, a religious cult
like the Taliban than to the multidimensional
American civil-rights movement of the 1960’s.”
Only in this boarder socio-political context,
one could understand how a rag tag group of fighters
could hold down one of the most powerful armies
for almost a whole month.
In the age of instant communication it has become
impossible to maintain long-term colonial occupation.
Television footage by Middle Eastern, South Asian
and other Third World countries, instant email
photos and web-based stories have kept Israeli
aggression in focus and has led a growing number
of organizations and nations to support Lebanese
demands that Israel be made to pay war damages,
as Iraq was made to pay war damages to Israel,
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War.
Hugo Chavez has given a face to this new anti-imperialist
trend.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
