On February 15, 2020, Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote that “Israeli soldiers were allowed to shoot children. Sometimes they wound them, sometimes they kill them. Sometimes the children wind up brain dead, sometimes disabled. Sometimes the children have thrown rocks at soldiers, sometimes Molotov cocktails. Sometimes, by chance, they wind up in the middle of a confrontation. They almost never put the soldiers’ lives in danger. There is no room to express any regret for shooting children in the head. There is no room for mercy, an apology, an investigation or punishment, let alone compensation.”

Gideon Levey can write a harsh condemnation of the Israeli Defense Forces’ use of force against Palestinian children, but no one else can. When a member of the US Congress, someone who has visited the Palestinian Occupied Territory and eye-witnessed the atrocities, voices her concerns about the treatment of Palestinian children in Israeli prisons she is accused of antisemitism and promoting hate speech.

As vice-chair of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Congresswoman Betty McCollum of Minnesota believes defending human rights and freedom are foundational to America’s national security and democracy, but she says, “the struggle to advance Palestinian human rights inevitably results in confronting entrenched forces determined to dehumanize, debase and demonize individuals or entire populations to maintain dominance and an unjust status quo. Hate is used as a weapon to incite and silence dissent. Unfortunately, this was my recent experience with IPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).”

AIPAC used her image in paid Facebook ads to weaponize antisemitism and incite their followers to attack Congresswoman McCollum for her work. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an AIPAC petition linked to their ads designed to mobilize supporters stated, “It is critical that we protect our Israeli allies especially as they face threats from Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS and—maybe more sinister—right here in the US Congress.”

Congresswoman McCullum had introduced legislation that would amend a provision of the Foreign Assistance Act known as the “Leahy Law” that would prohibit funding for the military detention of children in any country, including Israel.

AIPAC claims to be a bipartisan organization but its use of hate speech makes it a hate group. By weaponizing antisemitism and hate to silence debate, AIPAC mocks core American values. Its language is intended to demonize, not elevate policy debate. Vile attacks such as this may be commonplace in the Trump era, but they should never be normalized.

“I will not back down from my commitment to peace, justice, equality and human rights for Palestinians and Israelis,” said Congressman McCollum. “I want Jews, Muslims, Christians, and all people to be safe, secure and able to find hope and opportunity in the US, in Israel and in Palestine.”

Cathy Sultan has written extensively about the Middle East. Her books, and in particular her Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with Both Sides can be found here:





Much of Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” came as no surprise. The so-called “Vision for Peace” unveiled on Tuesday simply confirmed that the US government has publicly adopted the long-running consensus in Israel: that it is entitled to keep permanently the swaths of territory it seized illegally over the past half-century that deny the Palestinians any hope of a state. The White House has discarded the traditional US position as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians and in so doing has given a foreign power the right to eternally occupy someone else’s land.

This was a deal designed in Tel Aviv and was meant to ensure there would be no Palestinian partner. In fact, Kushner copied large parts of his proposal nearly word for word from A Durable Peace, written by Benjamin Netanyahu — a man who has never wanted to genuinely negotiate with the Palestinians.

According to independent Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the Trump/Netanyahu annexation plan was written with the clear intention of getting the Palestinians to reject it. Jared Kushner’s anti-Palestinian nastiness was not an accident or a blunder. It was just part of the annexation plan.

Importantly for Israel, it will get Washington’s permission to annex all of its illegal settlements, now littered across the West Bank, as well as the vast agricultural basin of the Jordan Valley while Israel will continue to have full military control over the West Bank, and eventually the annexation of the entire West Bank.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his intention to bring just such an annexation plan before his cabinet as soon as possible. It will doubtless provide the central plank in his efforts to win a hotly contested general election due on March 2.

The Trump deal also approves Israel’s existing annexation of East Jerusalem. The Palestinians will be expected to pretend that a West Bank village outside the city is their capital of “Al Quds”. There are also incendiary indications that Israel will be allowed to forcibly divide the Al Aqsa mosque compound to create a prayer space for extremist Jews, as has occurred in Hebron.

The Trump administration appears to be considering giving a green light to the Israeli right’s long-held hopes of redrawing the current borders in such a way as to transfer potentially hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (some 350,000) currently living in Israel as citizens into the West Bank. That would almost certainly amount to a war crime.

The plan envisages no right of return, and it seems the Arab world will be expected to foot the bill for compensating millions of Palestinian refugees.

All of this has been dressed up as a “realistic two-state solution”, offering the Palestinians nearly 70 percent of the occupied territories – which in turn comprise 22 percent of their original homeland. Put another way, the Palestinians are being required to accept a state on 15 percent of historic Palestine after Israel has seized all the best agricultural land and the water sources.


The document was not just a gift to Israel. It embodied every Israeli demand ever made to Washington and effectively destroyed every effort made by the UN Security Council; every UN resolution on Israeli withdrawal; every effort of the EU and the Quartet on the Middle East to produce a just and fair resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli war.

Trump benefits personally from this plan, too. Aside from offering a distraction from his impeachment hearings, it offers a potent bribe to his Israel-obsessed evangelical base and major funders such as US casino magnate Sheldon Adelson in the run-up to a presidential election.

Trump is also coming to the aid of his useful political ally. Netanyahu hopes this boost from the White House will propel his ultra-nationalist coalition into power in March and cower the Israeli courts as they weigh criminal charges against him.

According to Gideon Levy, journalist for Haaretz, “this plan was the final nail in the coffin of that walking corpse known as the two-state solution in which international law and the resolution of the international comunity are rendered meaningless.

Palestinians now have to face this reality. The PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1993 has finally hit a dead end. The US, international law, UN resolutions were never going to come to their rescue, and in this sense alone, Trump’s brutal plan has done Palestinians a favor. It has dashed, once and for all, any hope they may have had of their own state.


From a Palestinian perspective, what has to begin is a new wave of struggle for equal rights in one state on all of the land of historic Palestine. This will involve a huge fight. No one should underestimate what will happen if the Palestinian people rise up again. But no one should be in any doubt, either, of the consequences of acquiescence.


This is the first time since 1948 that all Palestinians can join together to do this. They have to seize the opportunity or wither away as a footnote in history. A proud tradition of standing up and resisting Israel and its brutal occupation suggests the resilient Palestinian people will not let that happen.

Cathy Sultan’s book Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with Both Sides, as well as her other books on the Middle East can be found on Amazon





On January 5, 2020, the Iraqi Parliament passed a non-binding resolution demanding American troops withdraw from Iraq. Trump was angered by the vote to oust all US forces following Washington’s assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani and Iraq’s Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. He promptly responded with a threat warning Iraq that if it moved to enforce the resolution Washington would shut down Baghdad’s access to a key account Iraq’s central bank holds with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—an account that is crucial to the management of Iraq’s oil reserves and its overall financial stability—an account that belongs to Iraq.

More than 200 central banks, government and international official institutions hold accounts with the New York Fed, thanks to the oversized role the US dollar plays in global financial transactions. The Central Bank of Iraq’s account at the Fed was established in 2003 following the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and is currently estimated to be $35 billion.

The US has repeatedly used the dominant position of the dollar as a preferred currency and medium of exchange to force other countries to toe the line on its policies, essentially using the dollar as a weapon in US economic terrorism against other countries.

Iraqi officials warned of economic collapse if the US made good on its threat to cut off its access to its US-based bank account. In a call to the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister Trump warned he would charge the Iraqis “sanctions like they’ve never seen before,” and would block Iraq’s $35 billion “right now sitting in an account in the US.”

Iraq is the second largest oil producer of OPEC and its oil revenues which are paid in dollars into the Fed account daily, fund ninety percent of Iraq’s national budget. An Iraqi official said “Iraq is an oil-producing country. Those accounts are in dollars. Cutting off access means totally turning off the tap. It would literally mean the collapse of Iraq and the government would not be able to carry out daily functions or pay salaries. Such a move would prompt the Iraqi currency to fall in value.”

Trump told the Iraqi Prime Minister it “should pay back the United States for its investments in the country over the past several years or the American military will stay there.”

The State Department said that Washington would not hold discussions with Baghdad regarding troop withdrawal. “At any time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership, not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right to an appropriate force posture in the Middle East.”

Trump is also considering other options. One would be refusing to renew a temporary waiver that Washington had granted to Iraq in 2018 that allowed Baghdad to import gas from Iran to feed its gutted power grid, despite US sanctions on Tehran’s energy sector. If Washington does not renew the waiver in February, then the Trade Bank of Iraq which buys the gas, could face secondary sanctions for dealing with blacklisted Iranian entities. Iraqi officials insist such threats would eventually push Iraq into the arms of Russia, China and Iran. “We’d have to form a separate economy with those countries in order to survive.”

More and more the US is relying on illegal unilateral coercive measures in place of war or as part of a build-up to war. Economic sanctions are an act of war that kills tens of thousands of people each year through financial strangulation. Currently, the US’s economic sanctions effect a third of humanity with more than 8,000 measures in thirty-nine countries. As a result, nations are challenging the US dollar domination. They are seeking to conduct trade without the dollar and are no longer treating the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Ultimately, the de-dollarization of the global economy will seriously weaken the US economy and lead to the demise of the US empire.

Cathy Sultan has written five books on the Middle East. Her books can be found on Amazon.



In times of crisis, I always turn to my most trust journalists for some clarity. In the case of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, I can think of no better clear-headed analyst than Pepe Escobar who writes for the Asia Times.

Contrary to what we were led to believe in the US press, General Soleimani had flown to Baghdad on a normal carrier flight carrying a diplomatic passport. He had been sent by Tehran to deliver, in person, a reply to a message from Riyadh on de-escalation across the Middle East. Those negotiations had been requested by none other than the Trump administration.

Again, contrary to what our mass media claims is “all the news that’s fit to print,” we now learn, after the fact, that Baghdad was officially mediating between Tehran and Riyadh, at the behest of Trump, and Soleimani was the messenger. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8:30 am, Baghdad time, last Friday. But a few hours before the appointed time, Soleimani died as the object of a targeted assassination at Baghdad airport. Also killed by the drone was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of Kateab Hezbollah, both a powerful pro-Iranian paramilitary group and a legal, fully recognized Iraqi military entity. The US may consider paramilitary commanders like Muhandis to be evil terrorists but for many Shia Iraqis, he and his group were the people who fought against Saddam Hussein and defended them against ISIS.

As Mr. Escobar so emphatically points out: “Let this sink in, readers, for the annals of 21st Century diplomacy. It matters not whether the assassination order was issued by President Trump, the intelligence community or Israel. The fact is that the United States government on foreign soil, as a guest nation, has assassinated a diplomatic envoy who was on an official mission that had been requested by the United States government.

Following the assassination, the Iraqi Parliament approved a non-binding resolution asking the Iraqi government to expel US troops by cancelling a request for military assistance from the US.

Predictably, the US will refuse the demand, and Trump said as much himself: “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”

US troops already are set to remain in Syria illegally – to “take care of the oil.” Iraq, with its extraordinary energy reserves, is an even more serious case. Leaving Iraq means Trump, US neocons and the Deep State lose control, directly and indirectly, of the oil for good.

With a single stroke, the assassination of Soleimani has managed to unite not only Iraqis but Iranians, and in fact the whole Axis of Resistance. And no US mass media PR will be able to disguise a massive strategic blunder – not to mention yet another blatantly illegal targeted assassination.


My favorite economist, Michael Hudson, sheds morea light on the killing: “The assassination was intended to escalate America’s presence in Iraq to keep control of the region’s oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi troops (Isis, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America’s foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of the US dollar. That remains the key to understanding this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.”

Neither Trump nor the Deep State could fail to notice that Soleimani was the key strategic asset for Iraq to eventually assert control of its oil wealth, while progressively defeating ISIS.

Killing Soleimani does prove that Trump, the intelligence community and Israel all agree on the essentials: there can be no entente cordiale between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Divide and rule remains the norm.


Would the international community condone Syria if it sent its troops into US territory to secure US oil refineries for its own use? Of course not.

Why then is there no public outcry when the US forcibly occupies northeastern Syria and robs that war-ravaged country of its oil and gas reserves?

The Al Omar oil field in Deir Ez Zor is the largest in Syria. Prior to 2011, it produced 350,000 barrels of oil per day and exported about half. Today, because of the destruction caused by US bombing raids, it produces only about 24,000 barrels per day, hardly enough to cover Syrian domestic needs. And because of rigid US sanctions, imposed by Trump, Syria is prevented from importing oil to cover those losses.

Initially, the US president had ordered a withdrawal of all US troops from the region around Deir Ez Zor, but then, at the last minute, reversed that decision, deciding, instead, to establish a long-term US occupation of northeastern Syria in order to “secure the oil fields.” Since that reversal, the US military has increased its troop size, built two new military bases in Deir Ez Zor, and invited Saudi Arabia, the largest sponsor of terrorism in Syria, to help repair and extract the black gold. In addition to the oil field in Deir Ez Zor, the US now occupies three other fields along with the largest gas facility in Syria and a crucial power plant.

Shortly after the uprising began in 2011, the Kurdish PYD (Democratic Union Party), which had been encamped with the PKK (the Kurdish Workers’ Party) in northern Iraq, returned to Syria, bringing with them a contingent of fighters. In July 2012, it took advantage of the regime’s security force withdrawal from Kurdish areas to firmly establish its political and security presence, ousting Syrian government officials from municipal buildings in at least five of its strongholds and replacing the Syrian flag with its own. In so doing, it openly asserted itself as the authority in charge of state institutions in the region, and against the wishes of the local Arab-Sunni population, established relations with the US military.

The Kurds, a distinct ethnic group with their own language, are comprised of mostly moderate Sunnis with a small percentage of Shiites, Christians and Jews. Some thirty million Kurd live scattered across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, with some 200,000 of them settled along Syria’s northeastern border with Turkey. The Kurds tried but failed to form a separate state after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and instead carved out self-governed regions in Syria and Iraq. After World War I, Western powers divided the former Ottoman Empire into the current Middle East, promising the Kurds a part of present-day Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. The Treaty of Lausanne, three years later, scrapped the decision to grant the Kurds a homeland and instead established Turkish sovereignty on the new Republic of Turkey. Today, Kurds make up twenty percent of Turkey’s population.

When the US president ordered the US troop withdrawal, Turkey took advantage of the void and invaded the area. And as the Turks considered the Kurdish militias belonging to the PKK to be terrorists, those Kurds suffered enormous losses. In the face of imminent ethnic-cleansing at the hands of the Turks, the Kurds beseeched Damascus to come to their rescue, which it did, and a renewed alliance was established which saw the Syrian Arab Army and the Russian military police arriving into the area to protect the Kurdish as well as other local residents.

When Trump decided to keep US troops in northeastern Syria, the PYD Kurds, even though they had just formed an alliance with the Assad government, agreed to continue working with the US occupation forces in the oil fields much to the dismay of the local Arab Sunni residents who distrust not only the Kurds but the US military, blaming both for robbing them of their oil wealth.

It is quite possible, because of Trump’s ill-fated decision to keep a US presence in northeastern Syria, that US forces will soon find themselves up against violent local resistance similar to that which US troops continue to experience in their prolonged occupation of Iraq. Is that not too high a price to pay for a few extra gallons of oil?

Cathy Sultan is the author of two books about the war in Syria. Both The Syrian and Damascus Street

can be purchased here: Amazon



A “working definition of antisemitism” was never intended to be a campus hate speech code, but that’s what Donald Trump’s executive order on December 12, 2019 accomplished. This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academic institutions themselves.

The problem began in 2010, when rightwing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponize it with title VI cases. While some allegations were about acts, mostly they complained about speakers, assigned texts and protests they said violated the definition. All these cases lost, so then these same groups asked the University of California to adopt the definition and apply it to its campuses. When that failed, they asked Congress, and when those efforts stalled, they went directly to the president.

With the encouragement of the powerful Israel lobby, President Trump based this executive order on a category mistake. He identified protests against Israeli state behavior with anti-Semitic racism and declared that any university or college that allows the former (permitting criticism of Israel for its violent suppression of Palestinian rights) to be found guilty of the anti-Semitism, and therefore should not receive federal funds. This effort constitutes a tragedy of the highest order not only for the Palestinians, but for the Jewish people as well.

After World War II, every sane individual knew that racism, particularly racism expressed through state power, was wrong. The consequences of such empowered bigotry were seen across the world. That was why, as early as the late 1940s, an expansion of international law and the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights sought to make such behavior criminal, particularly when carried out as government policy.

As it turned out, such resolutions constituted a direct obstacle to the Zionist goal of a “Jewish State” in Palestine. To get around this obstacle, racist policies and practices were often obscured behind a façade of benign-sounding declarations that, more often than not, had little impact on minority rights. In this way, racism became an essential tool for achieving the Zionist goal of ethnic exclusivity.

Apparently, it was not enough for the Israeli government to convince its own citizens that Zionist racism was righteous self-defense and support of Palestinian rights the equivalent of anti-Semitism. This logical fallacy had to be pushed on Israel’s ally, the United States. In Congress, this effort has been remarkably successful because the Zionist lobby has a lot of money that can sway our elected officials or, in some stubborn cases, hinder ambitious politicians.

Coming as we are to the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, there is something particularly Orwellian about a president who, through executive order, expects Americans to accept a specific category contradiction that he and the Zionists are pushing.

Do we defend the category of state-sponsored racism, as President Trump proposes, or do we oppose his misplaced, category contradiction and defend, instead, the category of human, civil and political rights?

Cathy Sultan is the author of Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with both Sides. Her book can be purchased here:




The upcoming celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ is an opportune time to reflect on the fate of Palestinian Christians in Israel, the Occupied Territories and, in particular, Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus. Their numbers are dwindling at an alarming rate due to the pressure of Israeli occupation, the ongoing constraints on movement, discriminatory policies, home demolitions, the arbitrary arrests and confiscation of lands.

Unfounded claims put forth by the Israeli government that Palestinian Christians are leaving because of religious tensions between them and their Muslim brethren are unfounded. Fourteen centuries of common life between Christians and Muslims is not something either community would ever cast aside lightly.

There are varied estimates on how many Palestinian Christians are still living in Palestine today, compared with the period before 1948 when the state of Israel was established atop Palestinian towns and villages. Regardless of the source, there is near consensus that the number of Christian inhabitants of Palestine has dropped by nearly ten-fold in the last 70 years.

A population census carried out by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics in 2017 concluded that there were 47,000 Palestinian Christians living in Palestine – with reference to the Occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Ninety-eight percent of Palestine’s Christians live in the West Bank – concentrated mostly in the cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem and Jerusalem – while the remainder, a tiny Christian community of merely 1,100 people, or two percent, lives in the impoverished and besieged Gaza Strip.

When Israel occupied Gaza along with the rest of historic Palestine in 1967, an estimated 2,300 Christians lived there. Years of occupation, horrific wars and an unforgiving siege have decimated the community whose historic roots date back to two millennia.

The demographics of Bethlehem, too, have dramatically shifted over the last seventy years when the city was eight-six percent Christian. Currently, with only thirteen percent of the Bethlehem district available for Palestinian use, because of the illegal Israeli settlements, the Christian population has dropped to twelve percent, merely 11,000 people.

The most optimistic estimates place the overall number of Palestinian Christians at less than two percent. The correlation between the shrinking Christian population in Palestine, and the Israeli occupation and apartheid should be unmistakable.

By separating Palestinian Christians from one another, and from their holy sites, the Israeli government hopes to weaken the socio-cultural and spiritual connections that give Palestinians their collective identity. Its strategy is predicated on the idea that a combination of factors – immense economic hardships, permanent siege and apartheid, the severing of communal and spiritual bonds – will eventually drive all Christians out of their Palestinian homeland.

Israel is keen to present the ‘conflict’ in Palestine as a religious one so that it can, in turn, brand itself as a beleaguered Jewish state in the midst of a massive Muslim population in the Middle East. The continued existence of Palestinian Christians to the modern Palestinian narrative and identity does not factor nicely into Israeli’s agenda.

Please remember the Palestinian Christians in your prayers and thoughts this Christmas season.

Cathy Sultan’s book Israeli and Palestinian Voices: A Dialogue with Both Sides can be purchased here.: AmazonIPV-230x335

Lebanon in Crisis

This is a critical time for Lebanon, but so was its fifteen year long civil war which began in 1975, six years after I had moved there. I had arrived in June 1969 with my Lebanese husband and two small children. My husband had been eager to begin his medical practice and I equally keen to become Lebanese and learn a new culture and its languages. I led the most perfect of lives. My husband had a successful medical practice and my children were growing up speaking English, French and Arabic. My life came crashing down on April 13, 1975 when my tranquil tree-lined street became a deadly territorial divide—the infamous Green Line that separated Muslim West from Christian East Beirut, a place that determined who lived and who died.

Overnight young men brandishing M-16’s took up positions behind make-shift barricades and started firing at one-time friends who had suddenly become rival militiamen. In order to run my errands, I had to dodge behind overturned shipping containers in order to avoid the lurking rooftop sniper and in spite of night-long battles in my street I had to have my children dressed and fed in time to catch the school bus at 6:45 A.M. And when the schools were closed because of war—sometimes for months at a time—I hired a tutor to keep my children’s minds usefully occupied.

When the war began I chose for practical reasons to stay and fight. When I say ‘fight’ I mean fight in the way a housewife does. As the keeper of the hearth you are the heartbeat of your family. You are the mother who comforts her children after abomb blast shatters part of their bedroom wall. You are the wife who consoles her husband after he has spent his mornings treating wounded civilians and sending mangled bodies to the morgue. Collectively, you are the pulse of a country on the verge of collapse.

The country’s leaders did not have your housewifely energy and focus. They could not keep the streets clean, deliver the mail or collect the garbage. They were charged with keeping their Lebanese family together in peace but when they saw the hostility increasing, they failed to dissuade the various political factions from turning into vicious militiamen. Either through personal greed, political inflexibility or sheer ineptitude, they failed to save a nation they were trusted to preserve.

As I look back on those turbulent days, I think how innocent we were to have put our faith in those leaders, hoping they would do whatever was necessary to save Lebanon. My husband and I did our part. After spending long days at the hospital, he stood guard every night behind a barricade, sawed-off shotgun in hand, to prevent infiltrators from coming into our neighborhood, while I became the English-language news anchor for The Voice of Lebanon.

More than thirty-five years later, these same leaders, or their sons and daughters, are still in power with a level of nepotism and cronyism that exceeds epidemic proportions. The immediate spark for the current protests was a government plan to impose a levy of $.20 on the first call a user makes every day on WhatsApp, the otherwise free-text-messaging and voice-calling app that had become an essential communication tool in a country where phone service was fraught with problems. But the new fee was really just the tipping point to months of public frustration over the government’s inability to navigate the country out of a looming debt crisis.

Lebanon has never been a very rich nation—save for the Sunni merchants and Christian bankers—the very same people who have helped make Lebanon second to Bangladesh as the largest debtor nation in the world with arrears in the neighborhood of $38 billion. But this time the unrest has been triggered by seemingly small pocketbook items and people fed up with an unjust system. The Lebanese pound has fallen. The price of food has sky-rocketed. The middle class is disappearing. People are hungry and are unable to make a high enough salary to feed their families. To show their frustration they have gone to the streets in massive numbers and for the first time, across sectarian lines, people are demanding the same things, marching in unison as friends, neighbors, fellow workers, and not on opposite poles in an otherwise divided country which has, for far too long, existed, and even fostered sectarian divisions which were imposed by a French Protectorate at the end of World War One when they and the Brits, in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, decided to divide the Middle East according to their own selfish interests in this oil-rich region of the world.

In Beirut I found my place to grow. My commitment to stay there through the war was a consequence of a deep love affair. I had married into a family which was for the most part loving and accepting, and it was exciting to wake up every day as a foreigner embraced by a Lebanese family. This is the kind of love which develops a loyal Beirut heart, one which never dissolves. May God protect Lebanon and all its people that together they may rebuilt their beautiful country on the pillars of fairness, truthfulness and love for one another.

The author is the author of five books on the Middle East. A Beirut Heart is a memoir of her life in Lebanon. Her books can be found here:AmazonBeirut-Heart-230x335


I am a huge fan of Stephen Kinzer’s work, whether one of his many articles in The Boston Globe or any of his books, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and Their Secret World War and All the Shah’s Men, in particular.

One of his most recent articles talked about a collaboration between two unlikely men, George Soros and Charles Koch, each of whom have committed a million dollars to the newly formed Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. In the most recent edition of The Nation, these two men were mentioned again in an article by David Klion entitled Go Not Abroad in Search of Monsters about this new Washington, D.C. think tank advocating restraint overseas.

According to Mr. Klion, “John Quincy Adams never got much respect. There are no monuments to the sixth president on the National Mall and his face adorns no paper currency. But before Adams became president, he was an accomplished diplomat, representing the US government in multiple European capitals. On July 4, 1821, while serving as Secretary of State, he gave a speech in which he declared that although the United States would always be sympathetic to national liberation struggles, ‘She goes no abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.’”

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft declares as its mission “to move foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace.

Why is this such an urgent task? John Quincy’s Adams’ warning about interventionist foreign policy has repeatedly been ignored.

This is particularly evident in our intervention in Syria. As far back as 2005, John Bolton, at the time serving George W. Bush, had designated Syria as one of a handful of rogue states that, like Iraq, could expect to eventually become a US target. In 2008, through WikiLeaks documents, Bashar Assad had been made aware of a US-NATO plan to trigger social chaos to discredit his government and destabilize Syria as a nation-state but was powerless to do anything about it.

If Bashar Assad could have asked why his country had been designated a rogue state what would we have told him? That the CIA had been attempting regime change in Syria for the last seventy years? That at first it was an experiment to see if it could exert democratizing influence over a new Arab country. And when that did not succeed, it was Syria’s refusal to allow a Saudi oil pipeline through its country, then came the fear that Syria would become a Soviet satellite state until finally it was Shiite Iran, enemy of the majority Sunni states, exerting too much influence over Syria and, by extension Hezbollah in Lebanon, each intervention seemingly justifying further interventions.

President Bush dismissed the idea of engaging Syria and Iran in dialogue, claiming that such overtures would reward the enemy. According to former Secretary of State James Baker, “Negotiations are not a reward, nor are they a gift. They are rather a process in which two adversaries (or enemies) engage as a means to end the conflict between them.”

President Obama read the diplomatic cables from as far back as 2005 suggesting a collaboration between Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria between Sunni and Shiite as a means of destabilizing the Syrian government, and this at the height of sectarian strife in Iraq which the US military had tried unsuccessfully to control. Despite this moral dilemma, the president authorized the CIA to move forward with its plan to destabilize Syria.

It is called hubris. It is an American disease we all share. Haven’t we all heard President Obama refer to us as an exceptional nation? We aren’t, of course, but we think we are.

Powerful figures in both the Democrat and Republican parties are responsible for our hubris and our perpetual wars and few of them have shown any inclination to change course. This is why we need the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft more than ever.

In my two works of fiction The Syrian and Damascus Street i discuss the Syria crisis in great depth. These books are available for sale here:




Suleiman al-Kalidi’s article, Russian-Led Assault in Syria Leaves over 500 Civilians Dead published by Reuters on July 7, 2019, would have us believe that Russia joined forces with Bashar Assad’s Army to kill over 500 civilians and wound 2,000.

His source was the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) which claims to monitor casualties and brief various UN agencies.

What is the Syrian Network for Human Rights? Who funds it? What is its relationship to the Syrian opposition? Does its financial support come from states that are waging war on Syria and openly lobbying for US military intervention?

According to Patrick Cockburn in The London Review of Books, “this group is staffed by anti-Assad activists, not exactly reliable sources.”

The Syrian government presides over a harsh police state apparatus, a relic from Hafez Assad that his son Bashar never managed to undo, but, that said, it has been the target over the last years of one of the most expensive and sophisticated campaigns arguing for regime change in recent history.

All modern Western-initiated wars have been fought with manipulated imagery and disinformation, and the US does it better than anyone. Everything starts and ends with “scene-setting” and “swaying perceptions” to prepare a population to support invasion, regime change, humanitarian intervention, and the like. In Syria, the US government imposed a narrative from day one: Assad was indiscriminately killing innocent civilians in a popular, peaceful revolution.

Many NGOs, like the Syrian Network for Human Rights, played a major role in spinning this conflict. They are one-sided and pro-opposition. They put out statements and reports based on the loosest definition of sourcing. Western journalists reported their disinformation across world media. On script, governments reacted in outrage. They cited the NGO and press reports as fact, just like al-Kalidi’s source-based article in Reuters.

Sharmine Narwani, unlike the Beirut-based journalists who rarely leave the city, has spent her days on the ground, whether in Daraa, the sight of the first uprising, or Homs, Aleppo or Idlib. She had no particular advantage over other foreign journalists. She had to wait just as long to receive a visa as anyone else, but she made the effort. After earning her degree in journalism from Columbia University, she spent four years as senior associate at St. Anthony’s College, Oxford. Her dozens of publications reflect her work covering the Middle East. According to Patrick Lawrence, Salon’s foreign affairs columnist, “she is eyes-wide-open and beholden to no national interest or media slant.”

She met with these so-called reliable sources. She didn’t interview them via Skype, as so many journalists did. She probed and exposed their so-called “sources” and motives. Her reporting was not published in any mass media publication because what she had to say ran contrary to the political agenda of the US government.

Fadel Abdul Ghany, Chairman of SNHR, told Reuters, “The Russian military and its Syrian ally are deliberately targeting civilians with a record number of medical facilities. Both deny their jets hit indiscriminately civilian areas with cluster munitions and incendiary weapons, which residents in opposition areas say are meant to paralyze every-day life.”

Who are these “residents in opposition areas? How did they get their information out?  Via Skype? Where any journalists there asking the hard questions—who was dying, who was doing the killing?

The Idlib-based Civil Defense is none other than the US Department of Defense-funded White Helmets, who work only in areas with the most extreme militant groups and are the ones who played witness to alleged chemical attacks. Photos of these White Helmets “first-responders” show them flaunting their weapons and posing next to al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters. Despite such questionable sources, mass media consistently uses them to blame the Assad regime and its allies for mass killings.

Western media has helped to stage and grow the Syrian conflict. Should journalists be treated with a special kind of immunity when they repeatedly get the story wrong, and people die in the process? Sharmine Narwani calls them “media combatants,” a fair and accurate description of the role they play in today’s wars.

Both The Syrian and Damascus Street discuss in great detail the Syrian conflict. These books are available for purhase here: Amazon