What if, in Cathy Sultan’s latest book An Ambassador to Syria, it was the mission of the new U.S. Ambassador to dismantle the Syrian State. What if the issue was not even Syria but about dealing a crippling blow to Iran and Hezbollah, and Syria, their linchpin, needed to be taken out, even if such actions were to trigger a wider conflict.

John Bolton, serving at the time under George W. Bush, had already designated Syria as one of a handful of rogue states that, like Iraq, could expect to eventually become a U.S. target. By the time Bashar Assad became fully aware of the US plan, he was powerless to do anything about it. But there he was, the new U.S. Ambassador, Robert Jenkins, an American patriot, confident in his mission, ready to see it through for the destruction of Syria was an integral part of preserving American hegemony across the Middle East.

Why would the CIA continue to repeat its regime change efforts? This was a question President Assad asked of the new ambassador because that same intelligence agency had been at it for the last seventy years, attempting coups and assassinations, and never succeeding. Why did they think this time would be any different? Even President Obama commissioned a report on the CIA’s track record on covert activity and concluded such efforts seldom worked and yet, he went ahead and approved their operation in Syria. Why?

Using lies as a point of war is unconscionable yet wars are premised on lies, and the Syrian conflict a prime example. Truth is war’s first casualty. It’s naïve to think otherwise. No doubt, the propensity for lying has expanded because of the internet. It is Pandora’s box, and it may seem an invaluable instrument, but it is a curse, and we won’t continue to evolve if we can’t control our penchant for lying.  We’ve already seen what happened in Iraq. The lies about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Wasn’t that enough of a debacle to know that regime change in Syria wouldn’t work especially with a president who was well liked by his people and who had the full support of his army?  And yet, from day one of the uprising in March 2011, the key narrative was Bashar Assad, a brutal dictator killing his own people in a peaceful, popular revolution and he needed to be taken down. When Bashar blamed the presence of foreign fighters, his accusations were rejected as propaganda. And the reforms he had initiated?  Dismissed as “too late” and “window-dressing.” Eighty-eight soldiers had been killed in the first month of protests. Who cared? Weren’t they the same Syrian soldiers who had been killing innocent civilians? Journalists, whether from The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major U.S. channels, were complicit, too, as Ambassador Jenkins knew they would be, all pretty much relying on the same sources—the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department—reporting, as if on cue, their government’s script—Assad killing his own people.

Years earlier, according to WikiLeaks, the U.S. State Department had already been funneling millions of dollars to the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based dissident organization, which broadcast anti-government news into Syria. When questioned about this, a State Department spokesperson said the Syrian government would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change. So what if he did?

Additional cables released by WikiLeaks revealed that as early as 1996, under Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, Israel had hatched a plan to overthrow Assad by engineering sectarian strife in the country and isolating Syria from its strongest regional ally, Iran. Leaked emails belonging to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton seem to confirm Israel’s current role in covertly creating the conflict and securing the involvement of the U.S. According to Clinton, bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon for Israel’s security, such a plan would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear deterrence to Iran.

In light of such revelations, made fifteen years before the actual uprising, wouldn’t it be natural, then, for Bashar Assad to assume, when the protests began, that this was a deliberate plan by the US to trigger social chaos, to discredit his government, and ultimately dismantle the Syrian state.

Cathy Sultan’s new book An Ambassador to Syria is available for purchase on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/1950743624/ref


 I would not have thought to associate ice cream with the violation of Palestinian rights but Ben & Jerry’s did when they recently announced they would no longer sell their products in Israeli settlements on the West Bank or in Occupied East Jerusalem because such practices were inconsistent with their values.

In purely business terms, this means Ben & Jerry’s will not renew the license of its Israeli partner when it expires at the end of this year. In terms of political import, their decision is huge. Right now, the world needs an honest, principled confrontation with apartheid Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield have just pushed us a few steps closer to one.

This is also a big boost for the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement (BDS), the strength and influence of which is now perfectly evident if we use Israel’s reaction to the Ben & Jerry announcement. The apartheid state is in panic mode since the peddler of ice cream took its courageous stand. This tells us all we need to know about BDS’s accumulating power.

It is fair to compare BDS with the anti-apartheid campaigns against South Africa of the 70s and 80s. The U.S. government supported white South Africa against the black majority just as today the same government supports the Israeli government against Palestinian human rights. As proof of that, thirty U.S. states have passed anti-BDS laws. Many cities, towns and counties have also done the same. Courts in four of those states have ruled such laws unconstitutional but all states need to be challenged as these laws violate our right to free speech and assembly.

In response to Ben & Jerry’s announcement, Ned Price, the spokesperson at the U.S. State Department, said, “We firmly reject the BDS movement which unfairly singles out Israel.” Senators Marco Rubio and Joe Manchin just reintroduced anti-BDS movement legislation that got nowhere when they first brought it up for a vote a couple of years ago.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid also weighed in saying, “Over thirty states in the U.S. have passed anti-BDS legislation in recent years. I plan on asking each of them to enforce these laws against Ben & Jerry’s. They will not treat the State of Israel like this without a response.”

 Not to be outdone, Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, sent letters to thirty-five governors asking them to pressure Ben & Jerry’s to reverse course. “We view this decision very severely as it is the de facto adoption of anti-Semitic practices and advancement of the delegitimization of the Jewish state and the de-humanization of the Jewish people.”

Such arrogance! “The Jewish State” has all on its own, and unimpeded by the U.S. government, systematically dehumanized Palestinians for the last seven decades.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called Unilever, the ice cream maker’s parent company and threatened “severe consequences” if its subsidiary held to its position.

American officials, in both parties, play to the American Jewish vote and the Israel lobby and nothing gets in the way of their pandering. President Biden stands in opposition to BDS, for the sole purpose of appeasing Israel even though those anti-BDS laws, when contested in those four states, were found to be in violation of the right to free speech and assembly. Doesn’t this mean that the president of the United States supports Israel in violation of U.S. laws?

The immediate question is whether Ben & Jerry’s will hold to their commitment or fold under what is already emerging as intense pressure intended to inflict commercial damage. Airbnb stepped back from a similar commitment a few years ago. The larger question is whether other companies will follow now that Ben & Jerry’s has brought the BDS campaign squarely into the global corporate sector.

Times are changing and the political winds are shifting especially after the tragic events of last May in Jerusalem and Gaza and Israel proper which stirred up the entire world. The assumption that all Jews must support Israel and that any criticism against Israel is anti-Semitic are tired tropes which have worn thin in public opinion around the world.

This is not about Jews. This is about Israel. The concept of a Jewish only state as conceived by Netanyahu has done to Judaism what evangelical Christians have done to the Christian heritage and what fanatical jihadists have done to the greatness of Islam.

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield have simply said “No, enough!” as we all must. 

Cathy Sultan’s book Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with Both Sides can be found on Amazon.



He died three days before our fifty-fourth wedding anniversary. We did not know exactly when he would leave us but we knew given the diagnosis of ALS that the end would come sooner rather than later, given his age at the time of onset. We had mutually agreed we would try to remain in good health until our nineties, but it was written otherwise.  As deaths go, his was peaceful and dignified, appropriate for such a quiet, gentle presence of a man. He fell into unconsciousness six days before he died, his wife and two children by his side. Hospice assured us he could still hear so we talked to him constantly and family and friends came and relatives from afar called and there was a constant energy of love and blessings and remembering, all spoken in Arabic or French or English, or all three, depending on who was doing the talking. He was a lover of French poetry, a grand master, in fact. He could make friends shed a tear or break into a smile or laughed out loud when, in his lovely French accent, he recited his favorite verses from Moliere or Baudelaire or Verlaine. And when he could no longer talk, it was these same friends who sat at his bedside and recited his favorite poems back to him.

He was no ordinary man and ours was no ordinary marriage. It was full of memorable adventures and joys but it was the challenges of living in a war zone that tested our commitment and made us, as a couple, stronger, more resilient, more respectful of one another. And if each of us did our part to keep our family safe, it was this quiet man who was the true hero. When the battles came to Badaro Street, he armed himself with a sawed-off gun and stood behind the barricades alongside his neighbors to protect our neighborhood from enemy incursions. After a heavy night of shelling, he would leave home early morning, willing to risk sniper fire and mortar shells, to reach his hospital in time to see his patients or mend the wounded or, in some cases, send their mangled bodies to the morgue. After eight years of civil war with no end in sight, this honorable man made the gut-wrenching decision to leave his country, move his family back to the states and begin a new practice so he could provide for them. For the next twenty-two years, he served his new community honorably and proudly contributed to its well-being.

When he arrived in the states in 1964 to begin his training, he was betrothed and never intended to fall in love with a woman with hazel green eyes, but he did, and how lucky I was, for it was through his love that I developed a Beirut heart, and although I have lost the love of my life, my heart will remain forever loyal to a city I love but that is now struggling for its own survival.

Cathy Sultan’s book A Beirut Heart: One Woman’s War can be found on Amazon


Since my first visit to Israel/Palestine in March 2002, I have returned five additional times, including a visit to Gaza in November 2012. In those fourteen years, the more things changed the more they stayed the same. Realistic solutions were proposed. Regional players offered concessions. A neutral party with international respect could have led the negotiations and brokered an agreement. Instead, the U.S. acted as Israel’s lawyer demanding impossible concessions from one party and not the other.

Since Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew some 8,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into an open-air prison for daring to vote in Hamas over a corrupt-riddled Fatah in elections forced upon the Palestinian Authority in January 2006 by the Bush Administration. Since Oslo, the PA has been charged with crushing Palestinian resistance in order to make the Palestinian Occupied Territories safe for continued Israeli occupation. Hamas’ success, therefore, was as much an expresson of the determination of Palestinians in all the occupied territories to resist Israel’s efforts to force their surrender as it was a rejection of Fatah’s willingness to act as Israel’s agent. Hamas’ victory reduced the conflict to its most fundamental elements: there is occupation and there is legitimate resistance.

I am a firm believer in “people power.” We have the capacity to serve as the principal agents of change. This attitude goes against the grain of so-called “political realism” which is based on battlefield results. The power of the American people has been hijacked by the executive branch of the U.S. government and by myths perpetuated by the Israeli government. In the case of a people under a brutal military occupation, how does a popular upswing in democratic thinking begin to take place? How do the majority of peace-seeking individuals regain their voices? The answer is a simple one. Collectively, we actively and virorously participate in the process of legitimacy. We become informed on issues related to this crisis, however complicated they may seem, oftentimes going outside main stream media sources to find unbiased reporting. We hold our politicians accountable for their actions. As citizens of the international community, these are our obligations; no one is exempt. We have everything to gain. Peace, after all, is the cornerstone of world stability and a viable future, and it begins with a recogniton that all Palestinians, whether in the occupied West Bank, occupied East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights or Gaza have the legitimate right under international law to resist an ilegal Israeli military occupation that has lasted for decades.

The current conflict shows that Palestinians, undivided, have moved on from a two-state paradigm to a demand for equal rights. Our Congressional leaders should heed this new political reality. The Palestinians who can most shape the future are now in the streets and squares, speaking to one another and the world directly, and making clear that the ’67 green line that divided Israel and the occupied territories was an instrument of division, not liberation. We must stand with them and support their effort to live as liberated people with equal rights.

This is an exerpt from the third edition of Cathy Sultan’s Israeli and Palestinian Voices book available on Amazon and in your local bookstores.

B’Tselem: Israel is an apartheid state

The International Criminal Court defines apartheid as an “institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.”

B’Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights group, argues that by dividing up the territories and using different means of control, Israel masks the underlying reality — that roughly 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians live under a single system with vastly unequal rights. “We are not saying that the degree of discrimination that a Palestinian has to endure is the same if one is a citizen of the state of Israel or if one is besieged in Gaza,” El-Ad said. “The point is that there isn’t a single square inch between the river and the sea in which a Palestinian and a Jew are equal. This is not democracy plus occupation. This is apartheid between the river and the sea.”

That a respected Israeli organization is adopting a term long seen as taboo even by many critics of Israel points to a broader shift in the debate as its half-century occupation of war-won lands drags on and hopes for a two-state solution fade.

“Fifty years plus, that’s not enough to understand the permanence of Israeli control of the occupied territories?” El-Ad, Director of B’Tselem said. “We think that people need to wake up to reality and stop talking in future terms about something that has already happened.”

According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, “The crime of apartheid means inhumane acts…committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

Apparently neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times agree because in the month since B’Tselem declared Israel an apartheid state, neither “paper of truth” have seen fit to inform their American readers of this historic, long overdue, declaration. No one is asking the Post or the Times to agree with B’Tselem’s findings of apartheid. The conventions of mainstream reporting on anything negative on Israel have long been understood but they have a duty to report on major issues, give varying points of view, and let their readers decide for themselves. Instead, the Times and the Post are censoring themselves and suppressing vital news to their readers.   

The new document provides irrefutable facts and figures to explain the four areas in which this single principle engineers, geographically and politically, the lives of all 14 million people on both sides of the Green Line, half of them Jews and half Palestinians:

1. Control of the land: the gradual Judaization of the area at the expense of the Palestinian population, by means of expulsion, dispossession, land appropriation, home demolitions and prioritization of Jewish settlement by virtue of a long list of laws and regulations’

2. Citizenship: “Any Jew in the world and his or her children, grandchildren and spouses are entitled to immigrate to Israel at any time and receive Israeli citizenship, with all of its associated rights… Palestinians living in other countries cannot immigrate to the area… even if they, their parents or their grandparents were born and lived there”;

3. Freedom of movement: “Israel allows its Jewish and Palestinian citizens and residents to travel freely throughout the area. Exceptions are the prohibition on entering the Gaza Strip, which it defines “hostile territory,” and the (mostly formal) prohibition on entering areas ostensibly under Palestinian Authority responsibility (Area A). Israel routinely restricts the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and generally forbids them from moving between the units. Palestinians from the West Bank who wish to enter Israel, East Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip must apply to the Israeli authorities and are usually refused.”

4. Political participation: “political engineering excludes millions of Palestinians from participating in the processes that determine their lives and futures while holding them under military occupation… Israel also denies Palestinians political rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.”

There is not a single principle of an apartheid regime that has not been implemented in Israel since 1948. Its military government saw to that in both overt and covert ways, until it ended in 1966; a year later the boundaries of Israeli apartheid expanded by the same methods from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. And there may well be more to come.

It will be interesting to see how President Biden deals with this declaration. If he chooses to ignore it, he will have to explain why the US State Department relied for so many years on B’Tselem reports for its annual human rights evaluation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He will have to explain why B’Tselem is seen the world over as a fair arbiter of human rights and is respected by the United Nations and many other world bodies, and why it has long been seen as a credible source in the United States despite years of attacks by right-wing forces.

Cathy Sultan’s book Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with Both Sides, along with all her other books, can be found on Amazon.


 Mike Pompeo has been busy in his last few days in office. In an effort to please both Saudi Arabia and Israel, he is preparing to declare the Houthi rebel movement in Yemen a “terrorist group.” The Houthi, who control a large portion of their nation, are no threat to the US or to American citizens. Pompeo is making the declaration because, according to him, the Houthis are backed by Iran even though there is no credible evidence to support this accusation. Trump’s allies in Saudi Arabia want this declaration as part of their aggressive campaign against Iran. Pompeo’s declaration will have no impact on the Houthis themselves, but it will constitute a crime against humanity in Yemen, one that could trigger what the U.N. secretary-general calls, “the worst famine the world has seen for decades.” Such a declaration would also chill humanitarian efforts to donate food and medicine to Houthi-controlled areas in northern and western Yemen where the majority of the country’s thirty million people live.

The US government is complicit in this crime against humanity. According to the New York Times, “it has supported Saudi Arabia and its allies against the Houthis, providing intelligence and billions of dollars in weapons, over the objections of Congress, that could amount to war crimes.”

Why the “terrorist” designation?

One reason could be because the Saudi’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammad wants it and so does Israel which considers Iran a regional enemy and as a purported supporter of the Houthi, is pleased by Pompeo’s declaration. Both he and the Israelis are doing everything they can to goad Iran into a conflict, and both want to leave the Biden administration with a dilemma: either reverse the designation and be smeared as “pro-terrorist” by the Israel lobby, or leave it in effect in a nation where already half of all children suffer stunted growth because of malnutrition.

In an equally outrageous effort to initiate war with Iran, Pompeo now claims that al Qaeda’s new home base is Iran, a claim Iran immediately rebuffed. Though these claims have been met with skepticism within the US intelligence community and Congress, this did not prevent Pompeo from sharing these remarks in a speech at the National Press Club.

“I would say Iran is indeed the new Afghanistan as the key geographic hub for al Qaeda, but it’s actually worse. Unlike in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda was hiding in the mountains, al Qaeda is operating under the hard shell of the Iranian regime’s protection.”

The National Iranian American Council, which is no friend to the regime in Tehran, noted that “the American people still remember the consequences of falling for Dick Chaney’s lie that Saddam Hussein was harboring al Qaeda terrorists who were plotting against the United States.”

According to Barbara Slavin of the Atlantic Council “Iran and al Qaeda have a largely hostile relationship and the Sunni jihadi group sees Shiite Iran as an enemy.”

Why these lies? Pompeo, the man who, when director of the CIA, boasted, “We lie. We cheat and we steal,” wants to run for president in 2024, and he plotted his move when billionaire mega-donor Sheldon Adelson was still alive. Even after his recent death, the top of the Adelson family wish list is continued confrontation with Iran. Adelson himself famously said that the US should fire an atomic weapon at Tehran instead of negotiating.

If left unchecked, Pompeo’s statement could represent an escalation in the US’s ability to use force against Iran. The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows US forces to pursue al-Qaeda anywhere in the world. Pompeo’s lie, if allowed to stand, would permit the Trump administration in the week it has left to claim it already has Congressional approval and attack on Iran.

In a more normal time in our nation, Secretary of State Pompeo’s actions would constitute reasons for impeachment, thereby eliminating any ambitions he might have about running for president in 2024. How unfortunate the US Congress is so preoccupied with impeaching Trump that they cannot take up this important consideration.

All of Cathy Sultan’s books, including The Syrian and Damascus Street which deal specifically with Iran’s involvement in the Syrian war, can be found on Amazon.


In 2017 the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) issued a report that concluded “Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole.” The US and Israel continue to deny the veracity of this report but one has only to examine the more recent citizenship inequality, nationality inequality, marriage inequality, legal inequality and residential inequality to see its accuracy. The predictable Palestinian struggle to reverse these inequalities is seen as subversive by the Israeli’s ever increasingly rightwing governments.

On 18 July 2018 the Israeli Knesset enacted a “Nation-State” Law that defines the State of Israel as the nation-state “of the Jewish people only.” In other words, only Jews can hold “nationality rights” in Israel.

According to the Jewish intellectual Hanna Arendt, “If a state decides that for racial, ethnic, religious or any other reason, only one portion of its population is worthy of first-class citizenship, it can proceed to deny to all those who do not qualify any and all rights. This is what the Nazis did to the Jews.”

Amira Hass, the Haaretz journalist and daughter of holocaust survivors, added:  

“The current reality in Israel is actually one state, which is an apartheid state. This means there are two separate laws: one for Palestinians and one for Israeli Jews. The Palestinian population is subdivided into groups and subgroups like the non-white population of former apartheid South Africa. They’re disconnected from each other. They are treated differently by Israel, while Israeli Jews live in the entire country, like one people, with full rights.”

Haas goes on to say that the apartheid nature of Israel is a developmental plan of the state. It’s main goal is “to get more land, and to manipulate the Palestinian demography… You can actually see that this is really a plan. Israeli leaders sit and they think about how to implement it, and what regulations will achieve this goal… One by one, step by step. For Israel, this is the desired reality: that Palestinians live in their enclaves, deprived of any ability to develop their economy, and that the world gives them donations so that they can sustain themselves. And that’s it. There is no desire on the part of Israel to reach a different reality.”

After seventy years, one can only conclude that Israeli apartheid will continue for years to come because most of the world’s governments allow it to happen. Can this reality change? Yes, but it will take the world body to stand up to Israeli claims of antisemitism anytime anyone criticizes its actions. Palestinians are like the Jews in any number of anti-Semitic historical circumstances, a fact that seems to have escaped modern-day Israelis.

All of Cathy Sultan’s books including Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with Both Sides, are available on Amazon.


On December 21, 2020, the US Congress passed the COVID-19 Relief Package as part of a larger $2.3 trillion bill meant to cover spending for the rest of the fiscal year. In this bill, Congress found it essential to provide Israel with $3.3 billion in ‘security assistance,’ and $500 million for its US-Israel missile defense cooperation. Although a meager $600 dollars to help struggling families was the subject of several months of intense debate, there was little discussion among American politicians over the large funds handed out to Israel at a time when American families were lined up for hours to get a bag of groceries. The mere question of how Israel uses the funds—whether the military aid is being actively used to sustain Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, financing illegal Jewish settlements build on Palestinian lands, funding proposed annexation of Palestinian land or violating Palestinian human rights—is a major taboo. Support for Israel is considered a bipartisan priority and has, for decades, been perceived as the most stable item in the US foreign policy agenda. Why? One only needs to follow the money. Congress rewards the Israeli-linked billionaires who bought them their seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

According to data provide by the US Congressional Research Service, as of November 2020, Israel had received $146 billion dollars in US taxpayers’ dollars. Since 2008, most of the money has been allocated for military purposes, including the security of Israel’s illegal Jewish settlement enterprise.

As of February 2019, the US has withheld all funds to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, in addition to cutting aid to the UN Palestinian Refugee Agency (UNRWA), the last lifeline of support needed to provide basic education and health services to millions of Palestinian made refugees when Israel declared itself a state in 1948.

Israel was one of the first countries in the world to begin rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine to its population, that is, anyone who holds Israeli nationality. Israel defines ‘Jewish’ as a nationality. The purpose of this is to reserve exclusive national rights to Jews only in the Nation State of the Jewish People. According to Netanyahu, Israel is a nation state of Jews alone. So, when we read recently in the national headlines that 400,000 Israelis had already been vaccinated against the coronavirus, and tens of thousands of other were on track to do the same in the coming week, this number will not include the more than five million Palestinians who live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip under illegal Israeli occupation and have done so for the last fifty years. They will not be eligible to receive the vaccine because they are not Jewish while the half million Israelis settlers living illegally in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will be vaccinated.

Israel is obligated by international law to provide for Palestinians’ healthcare needs. As the military occupier, Israel is mandated to provide the COVID vaccine to Palestinians under occupation. Israel, instead, puts the responsibility on the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority’s inability to procure and store vaccines in its flailing healthcare system is indicative of the decade of damage the Israeli occupation has done to the Palestinian infrastructure. Palestinians have been forced to rely on outside help and have been prevented from being self-sufficient by the Israeli occupation with the complacency of the international community.

To expect Washington’s policy toward Israel to change reflects not only an indefensible naivety but willful ignorance. Just follow the money.

All of Cathy Sultan’s book, including Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with Both Sides, are available on Amazon.


I shared the first eight years of Lebanon’s civil war with Robert Fisk. As the keeper of the hearth I was the heartbeat of my family when war broke out in April 1975. I was the mother who comforted her children after a bomb blast shattered their bedroom wall, the wife who consoled her husband after he spent his mornings treating wounded civilians and sending mangled bodies to the morgue, the housewife who dealt with water shortages and daily power outages and supervised her children’s homework by candlelight at the kitchen table while I prepared the evening meal while Robert Fisk was in the street, reporting on what was happening outside my little world. He kept track of the daily death toll along the infamous Green Line that separated East from West Beirut. I relied on him to tell me if I should send my children to school after a night of bombing, or if I should prepare to evacuate my apartment before the next round of fighting or whether I could take a day off and spend it with my children at the beach.  

He would not have known anything about my apron, a long fuchsia one that hung on a hook behind my kitchen door, or that after a particularly long night of fighting, I found a hole right through its middle or that on the floor, nearly mangled and hardly looking like a bullet at all, I discovered a three-9nch machine gun slug but he would have known who had spent the night shelling our neighborhood and who was responsible for firing that bullet through my kitchen window. And while I now live in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where aprons hang safely on hooks and bullets rarely shatter kitchen doors and those battles were a long time ago, I will never forget how important Robert Fisk was to my family’s survival for he chronicled a war that not only shattered a country, he monitored the centers of power, called out our inept leaders for failing to dissuade the various political factions from turning into vicious militiamen who whether through personal greed, political inflexibility or sheer ineptitude failed to save a nation they were trusted to preserve.

On one particular occasion, Robert Fisk and I shared a breakfast meeting at the Hotel Commodore in West Beirut. As soon as he sat, and without so much as addressing the rest of us, he turned to the PLO representative and excoriated him for Arafat’s insistence that the road to Palestine lead through Beirut. While Fisk was right to have called out such a selfish act, it was also Fisk who reported on June 24, 1982, three weeks after the Israeli invasion and the carpet bombing of Beirut, that Arafat was finally willing to compromise. He asked only for an honorable exodus from Beirut. Former Prime Minister Saeb Salim tried to broker the deal but Arial Sharon, Israel’s Defense Minister and architect of the Israeli invasion, refused, insisting on a humiliating defeat for Arafat. In Washington, Alexander Haig, then Secretary of State under President Reagan, subverted the plan before it even reached the White House, prolonging the siege of Beirut by forty-nine days.

The Israeli bombing of Beirut ended on August 21, 1982, exactly three minutes after Alexander Haig resigned as Secretary of State. As Fisk reported: “Haig had given tacit approval for the Israeli invasion in conversations with Ariel Sharon. Throughout the summer the Saudis had sent a series of urgent messages to Washington imploring President Reagan to put pressure on the Israelis. Reagan never received those messages; Haig blocked them at the State Department.” According to Fisk, “King Fahd of Saudi Arabia warned that his country would withdraw all its investments from the United States at once and impose oil sanctions against the West within hours if the Israeli army was not brought under control. Reagan was at last made aware of the gravity of the crisis and Haig forced to resign.” Arrangements were then made for Arafat and his PLO to leave Beirut, his soldiers dispersed to Syria, Jordan, South Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Only unarmed women, children and the elderly would stay behind in the Sabra-Shatila camps.

On September 18, 1982, between fifteen hundred and two thousand men, women and children were found massacred in the Sabra-Shatilla camps. The massacres began on the night of September 16 when about two hundred militiamen sent by Ariel Sharon entered the camps.

Robert Fisk revisited the Sabra-Shatilla massacre in a 2003 article for The Independent. After spending several weeks in Israel, he became fascinated by Ariel Sharon’s repeated reference to the Palestinians as ‘murderers, terrorists.’ He had heard Sharon use these words before. “I called up an old friend with a talent for going through archives. I gave her the date that was going through my head, September 15, 1982, the last hours for up to two thousand Palestinians who were about to be murdered in the Sabra and Shatilla camps in Beirut.” She was able to locate the September 1982 Associated Press release. “Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, in a statement, tied the killing of the Phalangist leader Bashir Gemayel to the PLO, saying that it ‘symbolizes the terrorist murderousness of the PLO terrorist organization and its supporters.’ A few hours later, Sharon sent the Phalangist Christian militiamen into the camps. Fisk goes on to say, “Reading this release again, I felt a chill come over me. There are Israelis today who feel as much rage towards the Palestinians as the Phalangist all those years ago. And these are the same words I am hearing today, from the same man about the same people. Why?”

Could it be because we still have no leader wise or courageous enough to sit the warring factions down and demand some sensible humane solutions? Without Robert Fisk’s voice, without his willingness to monitor the centers of power and hold them accountable, I fear we will see no solution anytime soon.

Robert Fisk, your voice, your honest reporting, your willingness to go against mainstream media, to report the truth across the war-ravaged Middle East, will be sorely missed.

A Beirut Heart: One Woman’s War, as well as my other books, can be found on Amazon.

Robert Fisk, Veteran Foreign Correspondent, Dies at 74

by Naharnet Newsdesk 2 days ago


Veteran British journalist Robert Fisk, one of the best-known Middle East correspondents who spent his career reporting from the troubled region and won accolades for challenging mainstream narratives has died after a short illness, his employer said Monday. He was 74.

Fisk, whose reporting often sparked controversy, died Sunday at a hospital in Dublin, shortly after he was taken there after falling ill at his home in the Irish capital. The London Independent, where he had worked since 1989, described him as the most celebrated journalist of his era.

“Fearless, uncompromising, determined and utterly committed to uncovering the truth and reality at all costs, Robert Fisk was the greatest journalist of his generation,” said Christian Broughton, managing director of the newspaper.

“The fire he lit at The Independent will burn on,” he said.

Born in Kent, in the United Kingdom, Fisk began his career on Fleet Street at the Sunday Express. He went on to work for The Times, and was based in Northern Ireland, Portugal and the Middle East. He moved to Beirut in 1976, a year after the country’s civil war broke out. Until his death, his home was an apartment on the Lebanese capital’s famed Mediterranean corniche.

From his base in Beirut, Fisk traveled across the Mideast and beyond, covering almost every big story in the region, including the Iran-Iraq war, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the war in Algeria, the conflict in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Arab Spring and Syria’s civil war. His reporting earned him awards, but also invited controversy, particularly his coverage of the Syria conflict.

A fearless, bespectacled and cheerful personality bristling with energy, Fisk was often the first reporter to arrive at the scene of a story. He shunned e-mail, smart phones and social media, and strongly believed in the power of street reporting.

In 1982, he was one of the first journalists at the Sabra and Chatila camp in Beirut, where Israeli-backed Christian militiamen slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees. Earlier that year, he was also the first foreign journalist to report on the scale of the Hama massacre in 1982, when then-Syrian President Hafez Assad launched a withering assault on the rebellious city in central Syria, leveling entire neighborhoods and killing thousands in one of the most notorious massacres in the modern Middle East.

Fisk was in love with Beirut, the city he called home, sticking with it during the most difficult days of the 1975-90 civil war when foreign journalists fell victim to kidnappers. Back then, he used the offices of The Associated Press to file his stories during the war, where colleagues called him “the Fisk,” or “Fisky.”

In his book chronicling the war, Pity the Nation, he describes filing his dispatches by furiously punching a telex tape at the bureau, which he described as “a place of dirty white walls and heavy battleship-grey metal desks with glass tops and iron typewriters” and a “massive, evil-tempered generator” on the balcony.

“So sad to lose a true friend and a great journalist. The Temple of truth is gone,” said Marwan Chukri, director of the Foreign Press Center at the Information Ministry in Beirut.

Fisk gained particular fame and popularity in the region for his opposition to the Iraq war – challenging the official U.S. government narrative of weapons of mass destruction as it laid the groundwork for the 2003 invasion – and disputing U.S. and Israeli policies.

He was one of the few journalists who interviewed Osama bin Laden several times. After the Sept. 11, 2011 attacks and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq, he travelled to the Pakistan-Afghan border, where he was attacked by a group of Afghan refugees.

He later wrote about the incident from the refugees’ perspective, describing his beating by refugees as a “symbol of the hatred and fury of this filthy war.”

“I realized – there were all the Afghan men and boys who had attacked me who should never have done so but whose brutality was entirely the product of others, of us – of we who had armed their struggle against the Russians and ignored their pain and laughed at their civil war,” he wrote.

His most controversial reporting, however, was on the conflict in Syria in the past decade. Fisk, who was often allowed access to government-held areas when other journalists were banished, was accused of siding with the government of President Bashar Assad and whitewashing crimes committed by Syrian security forces.

In 2018, he cast doubt on whether a poison gas attack blamed on the government had taken place in the Damascus suburb of Douma in 2018. The global chemical weapons watchdog later said it found “reasonable grounds” that chlorine was used as a weapon.

His deep attachment to Lebanon and its people consistently came through his writing. Following the massive explosion that tore through Beirut port on Aug. 4 and destroyed large parts of the city, he wrote a scathing article that summed up the country’s curse and corrupt political class.

“So here is one of the most educated nations in the region with the most talented and courageous – and generous and kindliest – of peoples, blessed by snows and mountains and Roman ruins and the finest food and the greatest intellect and a history of millennia. And yet it cannot run its currency, supply its electric power, cure its sick or protect its people,” Fisk wrote.

Fisk wrote several books, including “Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War” and “The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.”

He is survived by his wife, Nelofer Pazira, a filmmaker and human rights activist.

SourceAssociated Press