"You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems. You'll own it all."

Sometimes it is worth writing someone's obituary ahead of schedule. In the case of politicians, the purpose of an obituary is to serve as a warning against the political zombies – those politicians who are politically spent or have lost their souls. There are many of them around today, e.g., Jose M^a Aznar, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Kofi Annan, Javier Solana… and Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State.

One could almost feel sorry for General Powell. In 2000, Powell had the useful face and the useful stars, attractive attributes required for electoral purposes. Recruited into office amidst much fanfare, he has duly proven a useful political fig leaf over a foreign policy determined by others. Today he is a discredited spokesman of a bankrupt foreign policy, a token captain remote from the rudder of a foundering ship.

Murky beginning

Early on in his career, Powell specialized in whitewash and ass-cover-up operations. Remember My Lai? Well, in 1968 Major Powell was instrumental in whitewashing that sordid episode. During his stint at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Powell was responsible for pressing ahead with the 1991 Gulf War, a war that was entirely avoidable and against the judgment of the general staff. We know the disastrous consequences of that operation and much has been revealed of his murky past. This article will focus on his record as Secretary of State. (For critical background, see Parry and Solomon's excellent “Behind Colin Powell's Legend” [2].)

The Big Lie unravels

Powell's recent admission that the evidence he presented in front of the UN Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003 had not been “solid” was the nadir of an increasingly pathetic career. For Powell to admit that there were flaws in his presentation at this late stage of the game, after thousands lay dead and Iraq had been ravaged, is like someone caught in a lie – a mighty big lie – and then only sheepishly admitting that it may have been false. Powell has proven that he doesn't just have thick skin, but skin calloused by experience into a carapace.

The admission by David Kay, the US chief weapons inspector, that Iraq did not possess any WMD pulled the rug right out from under Powell's feet. Before this, Powell had insisted that his accusations leveled against Iraq in front of the UN Security Council had been based on sound intelligence [3]. As late as the end of Feb. 2004, Powell was still defending his position and reacted angrily when he was challenged in front of a Congressional hearing concerning his claims of Iraqi WMDs. What made this event memorable was his angry outburst, punctuated by a disaffected pimp scowl, against a Congressional staffer who had been shaking his head. At that time, Powell was still bluffing it out.

But Kay's revelation made Powell's position untenable, and admissions of error had to be made. On April 2nd, in what turned out to be an exercise in minimalism, Powell finally admitted to having relied on evidence that “was not solid” [4]. This admission is curious; it refers only to a small fraction of the litany of accusations he had leveled in front of the Security Council. The “mobile factories” claim officially hit the dust, but the remaining claims (many of which were by now also discredited) were not mentioned. In fact, the veracity scorecard of all the accusations has proven to be abysmally low: many were just transparent lies, and even the smallest details were either false or deliberately distorted. Even at the time, only the most gullible would have thought that Powell's presentation contained a smoking gun, let alone a justification for war [5]. It is unimaginable that Powell made this presentation without realizing that most of his statements were lies or fabrications. Never mind, it is part of the job, and it has been part of General Powell's job description for the past few decades; selling and pushing wars has been his specialty.

Powell's less-than-candid admission of having relied on shaky intelligence was calculated to signal to the media to lay off this issue. Any further questions about Powell's testimony will be met with hostility and the questioner will be referred to the previous admission about the dubious evidence. The public at large was put on notice: they too would be expected to move on and ignore the gaping omissions in this sordid chapter.

The rats are masters of the ship

Powell should have held ultimate authority over foreign policy, yet he was not allowed the final say in the appointment of reputable diplomats nor to develop a coherent foreign policy. The Secretary of State should also have played an important role in moderating Bush's rash impulses — the man demonstrates a weaponized obtuseness and requires constant monitoring. Instead, Powell has been relegated to a secondary role and merely mouths policy concocted by others. Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of Treasury, recently described the cabinet meetings chaired by president Bush as ones chaired by a mute and attended by the deaf. A compliant Powell fits in perfectly.

It is clear that Powell didn't have much voice in the appointment of the neocons to policy positions. Appointing the arch-Zionist Elliot Abrams to oversee Middle East policy was as appropriate as appointing a pyromaniac to the fire brigade [6]. The same can be said about John Bolton, Roger Noriega, John Negroponte and other Cheney cronies who can only be described as a wrecking crew, as Powell must have been aware. In addition, Powell faced the ultimate indignity when, for crucial negotiations and foreign policy advice, James Baker, the former Secretary of State, was given an office in the White House.

Powell has often uttered statements about US policy only to be contradicted by one of the rats aboard his ship. Immediately after the coup in Haiti, Powell uttered some statements about respecting a democratically elected government, only to be contradicted the same day by Roger Noriega. Despite Powell's statement, a death squad leader was appointed to head the new Haitian government.

Only indirectly, via rumors, or through the Woodward exposé, does one hear that Powell had no input in these appointments, and disagreed with the selection of these people, but yet he continues in his token post [7]. A principled response would have required blocking such appointments or resigning; yet, his clinging on to the job is revealing.

Searing memories

Powell's term as Secretary of State has produced some searing memories. His role in putting the US on course for a war against Iraq, pushing (or not opposing) the neocon agenda, the undermining of international law, and the signaling of “green lights” to whatever Ariel Sharon sought to do, are infamous for the craven and callous role the “head diplomat” chose to play.

1. Green light #1: Ariel Sharon crushes Jenin

In April 2002, Ariel Sharon sought once again to smash any possibility for the emergence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This was accomplished by a massive military onslaught against Palestinian cities in the West Bank and Gaza. Throughout the Occupied Territories, the Palestinian Authority was uprooted, destroyed, and its security apparatus dismantled. The operation culminated in the bloody siege of Jenin where an unknown number of Palestinians were killed, and significant portions of the Jenin refugee camp were flattened. Prof. Ilan Pappe called this onslaught “an unprecedented episode of cruelty in the unsavory history of the occupation” [8].

The international outcry about the Israeli offensive against the civilian population forced the United States to react, but only in a way that made it abundantly clear that it had granted a de facto “green light”. Instead of proceeding to Jerusalem immediately and firmly, Powell proceeded at a snail's pace, taking a circuitous route via Morocco, Egypt… and only arrived in Jerusalem after Israeli troops had flattened Jenin and killed many throughout the occupied territories. The King of Morocco even asked Powell why he was visiting him instead of going straight to Jerusalem! Once in Jerusalem, Powell didn't demand a cessation of hostilities, and his cordial public relations with Sharon signaled no opprobrium. In a grotesque gesture, Powell even suspended his mission for some days following a suicide bombing. Powell's role was not one aiming to constrain America's client or one that would have given credibility to Bush's call for restraint. Powell was playing the role that has served him so well over the years, that is, whitewashing and covering up the Israeli depredations.

To make matters worse, the US effectively sabotaged the UN commission charged with investigating the mass killings at Jenin. First, the US attempted to stack the commission in such a way that it would be favorable to Israel, e.g., appointing military experts and some dubious diplomats. Finally, it vetoed the commission altogether. Powell thus signaled that no one would have legal recourse or even obtain an investigation into Israeli mass human rights abuses. Thus, once again, Israel obtained a “green light” and a free “get out of jail card”.

2. More ass-cover-up operations.

The US has sanctioned the building of the massive land-grab wall inside the West Bank, even funding most of its construction. When international outcry protested the wall as a violation of basic international law, Israel did its best, with American assistance, to stop the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearings about it. Powell's role in sabotaging the ICJ hearings and the eventual muzzling of these proceedings are another dark blot on the American reputation. First, the US sought to pressure many countries to submit advance objections to the ICJ hearing on the specious grounds that this would “politicize” the issues surrounding the construction of the wall. Second, Israel requested a delay in the issuance of the State Dept.'s human rights report until after the ICJ hearings. Israelis feared that the report could contain criticism of the wall, and sought to prevent this information's inclusion in the proceedings. True to form, Powell was complicit in delaying the publication of the report; it was finally released a week after the ICJ hearings, more than a month after it was originally scheduled for publication. Finally, the US is currently attempting to delay the ICJ's rulings on the matter until it will be useless, i.e., months after the wall has been completed.

3. Blessing Sharon's unilateral plan, and the second “green light”.

On April 14, 2004, Sharon's unilateral “disengagement” plan received Bush's official blessing. Bush accepted Israel's unilateral annexation of West Bank land, the removal of the Palestinian refugees' right to return, and veto power over future negotiations with Palestinian representatives. Furthermore, although Israelis will claim to “withdraw” from Gaza, the proposals are nothing of the sort. Gaza will remain the world's largest concentration camp, with no access to neighboring countries, no ports, no airports, and even an Israeli veto on the Palestinian leadership.

The Washington meeting of Bush and Sharon must be viewed in the context of the assassination of Sheik Yassin, Hamas' quadriplegic spiritual leader, on March 22, 2004. Sharon personally directed the assassination! No problem, the US vetoed a very mild UN rebuke against the assassination, and Sharon was still welcome in Washington a few days later. With Washington's official blessing for his unilaterally imposed plan, Sharon returned to Israel on April 16, 2004; the next day the newly appointed leader of Hamas, Dr. Rantisi, was assassinated. Nothing could make clearer the tacit collusion between the US and Israel in elimination of the Palestinian leadership. Powell signaled a green light and warded off any UN and/or international condemnation.

Once again, Powell's role in these events has been appalling. Intermittently before and after Bush's blessing of Sharon's unilateral plan, Powell berated Palestinians for not clamping down on “terrorism”. Arafat and his cronies barely control one outhouse in Ramallah, so any demand to clamp down on “terrorism” is exceptionally cynical. Powell also stated that the Palestinian Authority should not share power with Hamas. Given that Hamas is a legitimate political group that may now represent the views of the majority of the Palestinians, it is callous for Powell to threaten a veto of the composition of Palestinian representation.

Powell's dismal performance continued early in May seated next to the insufferable Kofi Annan and Javier Solana. This “Quartet” meeting was meant to revive the defunct “road map”, but from Powell's statements, it is clear that this is another cruel hoax. Powell suggested that Palestinians should view Sharon's plan as an opportunity, and that they should embrace it. NB: Powell was suggesting that Palestinians should see the bright side of unilateral annexation of their land, the construction of the land-grab wall, the forfeiture of the refugees' right to return, and the imposition of a malevolent apartheid solution! Powell revealed a few more details about the Sharon's US-anointed plan. Israel and the US would from now on negotiate with Jordan and Egypt about control over Palestinian interests and affairs. These countries would be drawn in as partners in the imposition of the new plan, and they would supplant Palestinian representation. Finally, with a straight face, Powell concurred with Kofi Annan's statement that UNSCR 242 and 194 would remain the basis for the “road map” negotiations. However, one can only interpret Annan and Powell's statements to be correct in the following perverse sense. While previous attempts at negotiating peace between Israel and Palestinians suggested that UNSCR 242 (1967 occupied areas) would be a minimum basis for a solution, the current suggestion by US/Israel is that the West Bank and Gaza will represent a maximal solution to the “Palestinian question”. Powell's statements are steeped in hypocrisy.

It seems that every time president Bush utters the word “vision” he chuckles. It must be a private joke similar to Bush Senior's disdainful reference to the “vision thing”. Some months ago Bush stated that he had a “vision of a Palestinian state”. Given his endorsement of the unilaterally imposed plan, Bush stated on May 8^th that his vision had slipped a bit behind schedule, and of course, this was due to the Palestinians' own fault, i.e., due to “terrorism”. Taking Powell's statements into account one can only infer that a Palestinian state, or any meaningful rights for the Palestinians, is permanently off the agenda. Another vision postponed – permanently.

4. A Black man promoting apartheid

Last month some black Brazilian students traveling through Europe were astonished to find out that Powell is an African American, and one of them asked if he had been afflicted by Michael Jackson's skin disease. Perhaps even more astonishing is that a black man has been instrumental in giving the green light for an extreme apartheid solution to be imposed on the Palestinian people. As Ronnie Kasrils, the South African Minister for Water, stated recently, South African apartheid seems benign when compared to the Israeli occupation and the dispossession of the Palestinians throughout the area. What Israel is currently implementing is a malevolent apartheid solution. That is, though the walls are meant to demarcate Palestinian areas, their intent is to create such harsh conditions that they will drive people off the land [9]. When Ranaan Gissin, Sharon's spokesman, was asked about the wall recently, he laughed while suggesting that this was “a temporary measure.” It can only be interpreted as temporary, if the wall will be torn down after the Palestinian population has been driven off the land.

5. Oh, he favors democracy!

The neocons have suggested that Middle Eastern countries have to modernize, and to become democracies. Powell also played along with this charade and the State Department issued a report on what countries in the Middle East need to do, and US officials attended a meeting in the area to push the same theme. The State Dept. even coined a grand title for this rather empty initiative, i.e., the Greater Middle East Initiative. Note, that while the US was “encouraging” Middle Eastern countries to democratize the US was involved in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Haiti. It is clear the US armed and trained a Haitian gang led by notorious death squad leaders of yesteryear. How could Powell square the US's desire for “democracy” in the Middle East when it is at the same time promoting coups against democratically elected governments in Latin America?

6. And now the Europeans must shut up!

The US recently instigated an OSCE meeting, and on April 29, 2004, it issued a call to fight anti-Semitism in Europe. Of course, Powell was on hand to reinforce the message that criticism of Israel may be construed as anti-Semitism. Mr. Powell stated: “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the state of Israel, but the line is crossed when the leaders of Israel are demonized or vilified by the use of Nazi symbols.” It seems that pointing out serious Israeli crimes against Palestinians, and Ariel Sharon's role in directing them may come under the OSCE's scrutiny. But what is worse, for president Bush to call Sharon a “man of peace” or for critics to call Sharon a war criminal?

Most of the OSCE countries have become ethnically diverse, and it is likely that in many of the member countries racism, religious intolerance, and even violence may be manifest. It is also likely that the discrimination and violence against Muslim/Arab people is rife and more acute than anti-Semitism. So, it is odd that the OSCE meeting focused on discrimination and violence that may be less acute and chronic than that directed against Muslim/Arab minorities. In the very least, the OSCE working group should have demanded an inclusion of all groups that are currently threatened in the coverage of its statement. However, due to US pressure, the OSCE has focused exclusively on anti-Semitism, and European critics of Israeli depredations have been put on notice that their condemnation of Israel could one day be labeled anti-Semitism. Powell delivered this veiled threat against those opposed to the Israeli occupation and its violence against Palestinians.

7. The token captain attacks a fat rat!

The occupation of Iraq is a major disaster and the situation is unraveling before our eyes. Of course, the justifications for the war were absurd, and now the cost of the occupation is becoming astronomical. Add to this an unprecedented level of hostility against the US throughout the world, and suddenly the position of the promoters of this war is becoming increasingly tenuous. We already detect infighting among the cheerleaders of the war, and Powell even attacked Wolfowitz, albeit indirectly. Of course, any critical statement must be deniable, and it was up to one of Powell's aides to compare Wolfowitz to “Lenin”! [10] It seems that Powell wants to dissociate himself from the neocon warmongers, but it may be a little too late.

Generals and diplomacy

Military officers aren't trained in the intricacies and nuances of diplomacy which comprises a very different form of warfare. The military are trained to follow orders and accomplish tasks that are very narrow in scope. It is for this reason that military officers, not withstanding the brilliance of their careers, must not be appointed to the top diplomatic post. In Powell's case, one must remember that his only contribution to military doctrine was to advocate the “overwhelming use of force” – notice the genius required to suggest such a strategy! His background certainly didn't indicate that he would be a suitable candidate for the top foreign policy position.  His appointment may have much to do with the subsidiary role given to diplomacy during the current Bush regime.

Just like the previous General appointed as a Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, Powell's term in office has been a disaster. Instead of leading and creating a coherent foreign policy, working actively within a multilateral framework, Powell allowed himself to be dragged along into a policy of confrontation, unilateralism, disdain for international law, and predisposed to engage in “preventive wars”. The consequence is evident for all to see. At the UN, the only countries siding with the US at the General Assembly are Israel, Nauru and the Marshall Islands (even Dominica abstains these days!). Now, any architect of American diplomacy must be proud of this accomplishment! Fairly soon, Americans will not be able to travel in the Middle East and significant portions of Africa without an element of fear.

Homo tragi pathetico

On April 27^th Powell stated that he was not going to resign, but his aide, Mr. Wilkerson, revealed that Powell is unlikely to seek a second term if Bush is reelected, and “said the Secretary of State had spent much of his time doing damage control around the world for the actions of his colleagues […] and he was physically and mentally tired” [11]. Powell went from presidential hopeful to a faded star in less than four years. What is in store for him now? Sell armaments for the Carlyle group; write another tome of his memoirs receiving a handsome sum in advance; or will he go on the lecture circuit to receive a deferred bribe?

If Powell had played a part in a tragicomedy, then one would at least have found something to laugh about. Alas, there is nothing comical about Powell's entire career, and the man can best be described as a tragipathetic character. That is, the tragedy has to do with the many corpses in Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine and Haiti; the pathetic part has to do with Powell's willingness to play along in these sordid affairs. One would almost like to say R.I.P., though this would not be well deserved, especially since he was D.O.A, dead on arrival.

Endnotes

1. It is difficult to know what to make of Woodward's books. He is certainly used by the major players to spin their side of the story, and any attribution that may cause trouble can be denied. As an historical record Woodward's books are of questionable value.
2. Robert Parry and Norman Solomon, Behind Colin Powell's Legend, ConsortiumNews.com
3. Powell even stated that he had spent days at the CIA obtaining a thorough briefing.
4. Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake, BBC Online, April 3, 2004. Note that Powell is only referring to a few elements of his presentation. The “mobile factories” part was “not solid”, but by implication that leaves the rest of accusation untouched.
5. If proof is needed, see my comments on Powell's accusations on Feb. 6, 2003. Paul de Rooij, A Riposte to Gen. Powell: Where are the incubators?, Feb. 6, 2003. This essay was written immediately after Powell's UN performance, and published three hours afterwards. Even early on, it was evident that most of his statements were – to use diplomatic terminology – baloney.
6. A charge often leveled against the neocon Zionists (an admitted pleonasm) is that they have a “dual loyalty” or that they are “Israel Firsters”. This would imply that they would uphold US interests to the same or to a similar degree as their defense of Israeli interests. However, it is increasingly evident that a better label for this gang is “Israel exclusivists”, implying that they will manipulate US political process to push Israeli interest first. It is difficult to imagine that their pursuit of a US-Iraq war and occupation has fostered American interests in the area. However, it is clear that in their calculus Israel's interests have been promoted.
7. About Bolton, see Uri Avnery, Vanunu: The Terrible Secret, April 24, 2004.
8. Ilan Pappe, As long as the plan contains the magic term 'withdrawal', it is seen as a good thing, London Review of Books, May 6, 2004.
9. Noam Chomsky, The Wall as a Weapon, New York Times, 23 February 2004.
10. John Leyne, Powell aide takes swipe at rivals, BBC Online, May 6, 2004.
11. Ibid.

Paul de Rooij can be contacted at proox@hotmail.com (NB: all attachments will be automatically deleted).

This article was first published on September 12, 2002, on the CounterPunch website.

Language is a powerful yet deceptive thing. It can be used to convey someone's plight and it can also be used to hide unpalatable sordid deeds. Nowhere are words adulterated more for political ends than in Israel and Palestine today. It is no secret that Israel employs a legion of well-funded propagandists, and it also relies on self-appointed members of the press--the pro bono apologists, who serve the same purpose. Just like the lopsided imbalance of military power, the means to command and change language rests primarily with pro-Israeli propagandists. Their language obfuscates and exculpates Israel's actions against a basically defenseless population; it perpetuates the injustices and contributes to a continuation of Israel's occupation and theft of more land.

To make sense of the situation and to peer through the fog, a fraction of the post-Oslo commonly abused terms are translated in this glossary.

Administrative detention

Imprisonment without charges, trial, sometimes without legal representation, for undefined terms. Imprisonment usually takes place in prisons and even in a concentration camp in the Negev desert.

Bilateral negotiations

Confiscation of land. Israel confiscates/steals land, and to legalize its claims it engages in "bilateral negotiations." There have been no bilateral negotiations about Palestinian claims pertaining to land inside the Green line.

Bypass road network

Exclusive Israeli-only roads carving up the West Bank and Gaza -- the concrete manifestation of the policy to divide and rule. All Palestinian property within an arbitrary range of the road is bulldozed, all trees uprooted. Bypass refers to the fact that the roads avoid Palestinian towns.

Caught in crossfire

Deliberate Killing

Check points

Choke points strangulating Palestinian economic activity by closing roads and not letting any Palestinians pass without lengthy and often unnecessary humiliating personal searches.

Clashes

An unequal contest.Clashes suggest that two equal forces are slugging it out, but the Israelis happen to have one of the most powerful armies in the world.

Closed military area

A demarcation for the press and observers to stay out so that they won't witness the depredations of the occupation forces.

Closure

Siege and curfew. Curfew is implemented for weeks on end thereby creating an end to normal life for all innocent civilians.

Cycle of violence

Disproportionate violence. "It suggests, at best, two equal sides, never that the Palestinians are resisting violent oppression with violence." John Pilger, New Statesman, July 1, 02.

"Yes, there is a cycle and the violence is disproportionate, but what is missing is the context. Why is there violence at all? The standard refrain, when it is rarely mentioned, is there is "hatred" on both sides. But since Israelis are like us (fun loving and child hugging) and we don't think of ourselves as hate-filled, then it must be the other side, the Arabs, who are hateful. Add the history of persecution of Jews into the mix, and what you have is a cycle of violence based on Arab hatred of the Jews. Presto, we arrive at the Israeli propaganda line." Nabeel Abraham.

Democracy

Chauvinist ethnocracy. During the apartheid years in South Africa Whites also claimed to have a democracy and were rightly ridiculed for this posturing. Israel isn't much different, and its political system cannot be praised or labelled "democracy" due to its systematic oppression of others. Democracy is inclusive; the Israeli political system excludes a large portion of the population. Israel is the only country making a distinction between citizenship and nationality. Thus Palestinians living in Israel have an Israeli citizenship, and an "Arab" nationality. Democracy applies to the Jewish nationals, not to the citizens of the state. There are Arab members of the Knesset, but their rights are curtailed in the Jewish state. Palestinians in the occupied territories have zero democratic rights although they are forced to pay some taxes to Israel--a case of taxation without representation.

Demographic factors

"Israeli newspeak for keeping the Arabs from outnumbering Israeli Jews." --Nabeel Abraham

Deportation

Expulsion or exile. The dictionary definition of deportation: banishment of an undesirable person to their native land. Given that Palestinians are natives, thus legal residents, their expulsion is an imposed exile. Furthermore, the term deportation implies that the Israelis are just pursuing legal procedures. The dubious nature of the appeals process and the simultaneous demolition of the victims' homes contravene the Geneva Convention.

Disproportionate response

Harshest admonishment uttered by the US gov't in response to Israeli bombings or assassinations. By implication a "proportionate" response--killing less people--is acceptable. The complicating factor of the usual Israeli actions is the press coverage. However, "proportional" responses are ignored.

Disputed territories

Occupied territories. Curiously enough this term was coined by the US gov't under Clinton. Language reflects policy preference and the nature of the US "mediators". (see honest broker)

Facts on the ground

Settlements. At best they are considered bargaining chips, at worst they are considered immutable.

Final status negotiation

Chimera. The Oslo framework stipulated negotiations dealing with matters of substance and most important to solve the conflict. Note these negotiations are always in the future. Current negotiations deal mostly with issues of interest to Israel, e.g., security, confiscation of more land (see bypass road network).

Generous offer

Demand for surrender. Anything that the Israelis offer is generous, and should be accepted. The Camp David II "generous offer" amounted to an offer of a fraction of the West Bank and Gaza, no control over borders, limited removal of settlements, and no sovereignty, yet this was supposed to be generous. In good faith negotiations the parties have a right to refuse an offer without admonishment.

Green Zones

Palestinians out. "Zoned areas in the Israeli-occupied Arab residential areas of the territories which are protected allegedly for environmental reasons. A legal sleight of hand to prevent Arab development." --Nabeel Abraham

Hamas

Catch all opposition group. An Islamic opposition group fostered by the Israeli secret services during the first intifada. Its purpose was to undermine the support for the PLO. Since then it has become an effective opposition force opposed to Arafat's sell out. Anyone voicing criticism of the "peace process" is automatically classed as a Hamas supporter. Several leading intellectuals who objected to Arafat's shoddy approach to negotiations earned themselves a Hamas label by both Israelis and the Palestinian "authority".

Held in detention

Hostages. Practice that became common during the first intifada whereby Israeli occupation forces imprison family members of wanted persons. Several Lebanese hostages have languished in prison without charge, trial, and with no prospect for release. Shaykh Ubayd has been held for more than 13 years. They are held even though the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon has come to a partial end.

Honest broker

The United States. The country supplying Israel with most of its weapons and giving no-strings-attached economic handouts--several billion dollars every year not counting forgiven loans.

Incursion

Attack. "The latest euphemism, 'incursion', is from the vocabulary of lies coined in Vietnam. It means assaulting human beings with tanks and planes." John Pilger, New Statesman, July 1, 02.

Instilling hatred

Palestinian News, Education. Describing the consequences of occupation to its own population. The term "instilling hatred" is used to describe any Palestinian news or information, and forms the justification to bomb Palestinian TV and radio stations, and even target individuals linked to some schools. Also a justification to remove accreditation of all Palestinian journalists. Israelis find it galling to be called assassins, thieves, and occupiers. Palestinians are not allowed to convey their experience to others. Palestinian existence is criminalized, and so is their voice.

Israeli Defense Forces, IDF

Occupation Forces. I "D" F confers some legitimacy, but it is a misplaced respect for a fully equipped army of occupation.

Israeli-side

the "Israeli side". Today's euphemism for the occupation forces. Azmi Bishara, July 25, 2002, Al Ahram A curious adoption of a euphemism by both Israelis and the Palestinian "authority".

Leverage

Offers you can't refuse. "In essence, Israel holds most of the 'cards' and its willingness to use the population as hostages, coercing the Palestinian leadership to accede to ever more onerous demands." Dr. Majed Nassar

Israeli desire to determine the outcome of negotiations on the basis of balance of power instead of a balance of justice.

Man of Peace

War Criminal.

Militants

Resistance. Western media cannot portray the Palestinian resistance as military because this label obviously doesn't apply. Instead they use "militants" also conveying the impression of armed gangs, and therefore easier to justify Israeli assassinations. (see targeted killings)

Moderate physical pressure

Torture. Israel is the only country in the world where torture is legal and used routinely.

Natural growth

Subsidized settlement expansion. Justification to continue expanding settlements. Every time demands are made for Israel to stop building settlements on occupied land, its retort is that expansion of existing settlements must continue to accommodate "natural growth", i.e., the subsidized stream of immigrant colonialists. Many of the settlements have a large percentage of empty housing, bringing into question the need for further expansion.

Neighbor practice

Human shields "The use of a local resident as a 'human shield' is a war crime. That was confirmed, on live television, by a senior reserve officer, the former president of the highest military court. The Fourth Geneva Convention expressly forbids the use of 'protected persons' (as the convention calls inhabitants of an occupied territory) for such purpose. This practice, like the practice of compelling Palestinian neighbors to tour buildings suspected of being booby-trapped, is similar to the killing of hostages in retaliation for resistance actions It was disclosed that this is a widely-used method, which has even been given a regular military appellation: 'neighbor practice'. Not long ago the army promised the Supreme Court to give up the practice [but] had no intention at all of fulfilling the promise." --Uri Avnery, Palestine Chronicle, Aug. 19, 02

Neighborhood

Settlement. Israelis and their apologists insist that Gilo is just another neighborhood of Jerusalem. The fact is that it is built on illegally confiscated occupied land--thus a settlement.

No building permit

Order for destruction. An excuse to demolish Palestinian homes. Israeli buildings built without a permit are issued with one retroactively and are spared. No Israeli-owned home has ever been demolished for lacking a permit. Palestinians cannot in general obtain building permits.

Operation X

Another attack. Military operations are given names to make them more palatable--it is a military marketing gimmick. Any journalist referring to an attack on refugee camps by the operation's name is in the very least not trying to be objective.

Peace process.

[Note that Ariel Sharon's pronunciation of this is closer to "piss process." He seldom refers to "peace" as an outcome. He is always in favor of the peace process, but not peace.] Ruse to placate world opinion. A perpetual process not intended to reach any conclusion. A means for Israelis to gain time and consolidate their hold on the occupied territories by expanding the "facts on the ground", i.e., the settlements. From their viewpoint, the longer the negotiations leading to endless haggle the better. Occasionally, if negotiations are advancing, they may need a timely disruption, e.g., hold an election and it is time to start the negotiations all over again!

Pending investigation

Case closed. Of 25 Israeli army investigations in the past 22 months, six were closed without a result; others have yet to be completed. "The army hardly ever opens investigations into cases of unlawful killing," says Lior Yavne, Btselem's spokesman. "The army is basically conducting a policy of impunity. Soldiers realize they can do anything they want and they will not face problems." --Marie Colvin, "Cruel death of a West Bank local hero", Sunday Times, July 21, 02

Phased withdrawal

Grudging Israeli pullout of occupying forces over the area it chooses, on a timescale it determines, and only after it obtains guarantees that the local population will be policed to its satisfaction. No settlements are ever dismantled, only areas where the cost of occupation has become too high.

Proof of residency

ID confiscation. Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are often asked to show their ID papers to prove their residency rights. Often police confiscate the identity papers, and thereby these people lose their right of residency. It often leads to the families in question being split up and losing their homes. The victims of this bureaucratic "transfer" policy number in the thousands. ID papers are generally not reissued--the victims cannot prove their residency because the papers were confiscated. Photocopies of ID papers aren't considered valid proof to reissue documents.

Reform process

Satrap selection. Political transformation that delivers the collaborators with Israelis and Americans. Any politician signing up to this must accept to oppress their own population to comply with Israeli/US demands. Arafat had signed on, but couldn't deliver.

Removing cover

Pretext to flatten homes, clear agricultural fields, trees, and so on. Making a lunar landscape out of the West Bank and Gaza.

Restraint

Kinder/Gentler Aggression. "If this is the latest Israeli military spin, the reality for Palestinians is that even 'restraint' by the Israeli army is enough to make their lives miserable. The army may no longer be destroying vast chunks of Palestinian cities, but it continues to terrify Palestinian civilians by indiscriminate shooting. The army still sends tanks and troops into Palestinian towns for forays of several days, as it did in Jenin last week, or for a single night as it did twice in the northern part of the Gaza strip. Curfews are slapped on or lifted without notice, making life for all Palestinians unpredictable and humiliating." Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, August 9, 02.

Retaliation, or Israelis never initiate violence, they always respond.

State terror, or wholesale violence. The actions taken as reprisals are: (1) collective punishment on targets unrelated to the original action, and (2) totally out of proportion to the original action. On both accounts the actions are in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. Several times Israel has wrecked ceasefire agreements by assassinations or deliberate actions meant to aggravate the situation.

Right of Return

Bringing in your people to displace us. "We regard it as morally wrong that this legal entitlement should be bestowed on us while the very people who should have most right to a genuine 'return', having been forced or terrorised into fleeing, are excluded." letter by British Jews renouncing their "right of return", The Guardian, Aug. 8, 02.

The "right of return" requires a determination to drive out the native population--it is all in the name of creating lebensraum.

Rocks

Stones. Palestinians throw stones at soldiers in tanks and armored vehicles--it is a symbol of defiance and resistance.

Security

Their security. Demand that the occupiers not be attacked, and that the violence not spill over into Israel proper. Security always refers to the safety of Israelis, it never refers to Palestinian concerns.

Settlements

The stolen land. Jews-only garrison villages built on violently confiscated Palestinian land. The purpose of the settlements is to make a permanent claim to the land, and impede the formation of a Palestinian State. These garrison villages always appear on Israeli maps, whereas the Palestinian villages whose land was confiscated for the same settlements disappear from the maps.

Strongholds, nests of terror

Refugee camps, home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, mostly refugees from villages conquered by Israelis.

Suspicion

Grounds for imprisonment or assassination. " to say nothing of many thousands of 'suspects' rounded-up and still imprisoned by Israeli soldiers" Edward Said, Punishment by Detail, Aug. 8, 02. (see administrative detention)

Targeted killings

Assassination where a military commander plays the role of judge, jury, and executioner. It lists as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions where the occupier has a duty towards the captive population.

"Nobody asks whether all these people killed were in fact terrorists, or proved to be terrorists, or were about to become terrorists." Edward Said, Punishment by Detail, Aug. 8, 02.

Terrorism

Retail violence, resistance. An oppressed population has a right to resist and use violence when there is no alternative. Its violence is labeled "terrorism", and judged to be illegitimate. Israeli violence is always found to have redeeming characteristics. (see retaliation)

Town planning

"A euphemism for replacing Arabs by Jews, reminiscent of some uses of 'urban planning' in the United States." Noam Chomsky in The New Intifada.

Transfer

The obscene euphemism for ethnic cleansing (which is itself a euphemism).

Unconfirmed reports

Accounts of Israeli forces' depredations. Reports are only confirmed when either Israelis say so or when "Western" journalists report them. Palestinian accounts of events don't count to substantiate a report, and at best are ascribed the "alleged" adjective.

Paul de Rooij lives in London and can be reached at jproo@btconnect.com