Gaza, Egypt, Christians, Oil, Moslems, etc.

THE ABSURD TIMES

 

Illustration: Prince Bandar, just a little help from our friends.

          We have grown so used to splenetic prose over the issue of the Palestinians and the occupied territories that a quiet, reasoned, discussion seems strange.  We do not have Derschowitz, Finkelstein, Holocaust, Anti-Semetic, and all the other idiocy we have grown to expect.  Below is a substantial discussion of the decision of the American Studies Association, a group representing thousands of U.S. scholars, deciding to boycott Israel for excellent reasons listed below. 

          This is actually encouraging as it seems to eliminate the abstract concept of some supernatural force at work and instead focuses on human rights.  If they are able to do that, perhaps something will be accomplished.

          Still, I’d like to share with you a letter written by one of my friends (yeah, I got a couple, actually) about a PBS episode:

“To: TV <tv@kqed.org>
  Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:08:29 -0800
  Subject: How can you do such a terrible thing?
  
  I have just been watching a whitewash of Israel's horrid subjugation of 
  Palestinians in BBC-TV John Ware's  'Israel : Facing the Future', 
  ostensibly chronicling Israel's reaction and response to the Arab Spring.
  
  Palestinians are being portrayed as devious and unpredictable, capable 
  of terrorist attacks, etc.  israel is shown as struggling to survive as 
  a Jewish state, faced with Arab resistance and threats.
  
  Let's look at some facts.  Israel receives more aid than any other 
  foreign country from the US, over 3 billion dollars a year.
  Palestinians receive barely enough aid from us to survive, indeed, many 
  do not.  Land and water rights are continually stolen from 
  Palestinians, who are the legal owners of their own land, by Israeli 
  military force, weapons supplied to israel by the US in most cases.
  Perhaps there are more dire humanitarian crises in the world, but none 
  funded solely by the USA.
  
  KQED, you may have strong financial support from pro-Israel or Israel 
  right-or-wrong enthusiasts, I would call them some of them fanatics who 
  want to see Israel rid itself of non-Jewish residents or keep them 
  under complete subjugation, an evil practice which can only be called 
  apartheid.  Did we not see South Africa's white government crumble due 
  to pressure from the rest of the world in terms of boycotts, sanctions 
  and divestment?
  
  KQED, how can you air a BBC TV series supporting Israeli oppression and 
  occupation, practices that have earned it over 80 UN resolutions 
  against such evil, all of which were vetoed by the US virtually alone?
  
  I am shocked and amazed at this lack of responsibility on your part and 
  beg that you also show programming revealing what is really going on in 
  Israel from a prominent filmmaker such as John Pilger, his 'Palestine 
  is Still the Issue' is not a new documentary, but it or similar films 
  deserve airing on KQED.
  
  Israel, with our billions a year in aid, is committing virtual genocide 
  against Palestinians,  this must be stopped and the truth must finally 
  and completely come out.
  
  You courageously showed the important film '5 Broken Cameras' and 
  received both acclaim and vitriolic attacks.  I know how hard it is to 
  oppose large lobbies and organizations who don't like to see the truth 
  about Israel revealed.
  
  But now I must protest as strongly as I am able against 'israel: 
  Facing the Future' series.  It is propaganda for Israel, justifying its 
  government's terrible record of humanitarian abuses.
  
  
  Would you like another example"  I asked Michael Krasny to interview 
  South African justice Richard Goldstone concerning his accusation of 
  Israel for war crimes during the 1999 Gaza attack called 'Cast Lead'
  which left 1400 Palestinians dead.  He did not reply but later emailed 
  me that Justice Goldstone was to be interviewed.  This subsequent 
  interview happened only after Justice Goldstone, under obvious 
  pressure,  reversed himself and dropped the war crime charged against 
  Israel.
  
  is it not obvious what transpired?  KQED, how can you be a party to 
  such selective coverage. it is an abomination.  I would like to 
  make an appointment to speak with your
  programming department in person at any time you wish, when would be 
  convenient for you?
  
  Sincerely yours,”

          We also have an expose of Saudi Arabia and it’s work in supporting terrorists in Syria. 

          For what it’s worth, things are no better in Egypt, either.  The current government has only one virtue to it:  it does not invoke God to justify their actions.  Everywhere else, religion is used.

          For example, what about Saudi Arabia and Syria?  Why?  Well, they are Sunni and Iran are Shia.  Now, actually this is all about oil, but they can not bring themselves to actually ask people with a straight face to fight in the name of oil, so they use God.  See, all that Sunni oil is threatened by all the Shia oil in Iran.  Well, why Syria, no oil in Syria?  Yeah, but Iran supplies Hezbollah (the Army of God) in Lebanon which protects Arabs or Moslems in Lebanon and Gaza.  Israel, in the name of God, Abraham, and Begin, attacked them once and lost, actually, they were humiliated.  Since then, Israel was going to make sure that their God was safe from Shia’s God, using the Saudi God to help by attacking the Shia passageway in Syria. 

          In Israel, there are more construction sites going up on Palestinian Land in order to prevent another Holocaust because everybody knows that the best way to prevent Holocausts is to build building and push Arabs off their homelands.  God told them so.

          But what about the persecuted Christians?  Back when Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood were running the show in Egypt, some Coptic Christians got hit and some minister and some association pointed out that 100,000 Christians/year were slaughtered for their faith.  Well, actually, nearly a million killed each other in a part of Africa one year.  Divide that by ten, and you get 100,000/year.

          Still, there is Christian oil.  So many people wonder why the Moslems of North Sudan attack the Christian of South Sudan.  Actually, the south is where all the oil is, so we want it to be safe from religious persecution. 

  

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Debate: Is Academic Group’s Boycott of Israel a Victory or Setback for Justice in Middle East?

The American Studies Association, a group representing thousands of U.S. scholars, voted to boycott Israeli universities on Sunday. Members backed the boycott by a ratio of more than 2-to-1, citing "the documented impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian scholars and students" and "the extent to which Israeli institutions of higher education are a party to state policies that violate human rights." The association’s vote to boycott follows a similar measure approved Monday by the leadership council of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association. In April, the Association for Asian American Studies also supported an academic boycott of Israel. Backlash against ASA’s boycott came quickly. William Jacobson, a clinical professor at Cornell Law School, says he now plans to challenge the group’s tax-exempt status. Others were more critical of the boycott approach itself. The largest professors’ group in the United States, the American Association of University Professors, said it opposed the boycott in part because it is largely symbolic. The resolution has no binding power, and no U.S. colleges or universities have signed on. We host a debate on the resolution with two guests: Cornell University Professor Eric Cheyfitz, who endorses a boycott of Israeli academic institutions; and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Professor Cary Nelson, who opposes the boycott.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to a debate over what is being hailed as a major milestone for the global campaign to boycott and divest from Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. On Sunday, the American Studies Association, a group representing thousands of U.S. scholars, voted to boycott Israeli universities. Members backed the boycott by a ratio of more than two-to-one, citing, quote, "the documented impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian scholars and students" and "the extent to which Israeli institutions of higher education are a party to state policies that violate human rights." The association’s vote to boycott follows a similar measure approved Monday by the leadership council of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association. In April, the Association for Asian American Studies also supported an academic boycott of Israel.
Meanwhile, backlash against ASA’s boycott came quickly. William Jacobson, a clinical professor at Cornell Law School, says he now plans to challenge the group’s tax-exempt status. Others were more critical of the boycott approach itself. The largest professors’ group in the United States, the American Association of University Professors, said it opposed the boycott in part because it is largely symbolic. The resolution has no binding power, and no U.S. colleges have signed on.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by two guests. In Ithaca, New York, Eric Cheyfitz is with us, one of the members of the American Studies Association who endorsed the boycott of Israeli academic institutions, a professor at Cornell, where he teaches American literature, American Indian literature and federal Indian law. Professor Chafitz has written several books, including The Poetics of Imperialism.
Also joining us by Democracy Now! video stream is Cary Nelson, who opposed the American Studies Association’s vote to join the global campaign to boycott and divest from Israel. He took a similar position when he was president of the American Association of University Professors from 2006 to 2012, professor of English at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and author of No University is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Professor Cheyfitz. Talk about the significance of this vote and how it took place, the American Studies Association vote.

ERIC CHEYFITZ: Thanks, Amy. Thanks for having me on. Well, the vote came about because the activism caucus of the American Studies Association brought forward a resolution based on the Asian American Studies resolution that supported the academic and cultural boycott of Israel. And that resolution then went to the national council—or it went to the executive committee, who passed it on to the national council, which voted unanimously to support it, just recently, I think December 4th. And from there, it went to the vote of the entire membership, who, as you pointed out, for those who came out to vote, supported it, I believe 66 percent in favor. So that’s—that’s the origin.

It answers a call—and this is important—from the Palestinian academic and cultural boycott of Israel, which was announced in 2004, and which asked people around the world, organizations around the world, to support this boycott. And that was a call from Palestinian civil society. You can go to their—certainly the website of the Palestinian academic and cultural boycott of Israel, and there are over a hundred and—well, there are 171 organizations—unions of farmers, unions of workers, professional organizations—that support that boycott. So it was in response to a specific call.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does the boycott mean?

ERIC CHEYFITZ: Well, the boycott means—first of all, I wouldn’t downplay symbolism and visibility—the Palestinian cause, particularly in the United States, where it does not get a fair representation in the press, needs visibility. But it also can have practical effects down the road. Certainly, boycotts in—during the civil rights movement here in the United States and boycotts in South Africa had those effects, by putting precise material pressure on institutions who were supporting various oppressive regimes.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Cary Nelson, could I ask you to respond? Why is it that you are opposed to an academic boycott, and this academic boycott, in particular?

CARY NELSON: Sure. Well, the AAUP has, for many years, opposed all academic boycotts, basically because we believe that what’s most desirable is to keep free exchange amongst academics worldwide and to do everything possible to facilitate all kinds of intellectual and cultural exchanges between academics. And we’re well aware that saying that you can simply boycott a university and not have an impact on its faculty members is really a false kind of reasoning. If Ben-Gurion University funds the travel of six of its members to come to the American Studies Association meeting and pays their registration fees directly, that presumably is unacceptable, because it’s a relationship between the ASA and an Israeli university. So, it simply is false to suggest that interchanges between American and Israeli faculty members won’t be compromised by this, you know, should it really take any effect.

But I think, more deeply, the AAUP has never opposed economic boycotts. And I, personally, am very interested, have for many years supported an economic boycott of West Bank industries. I think Israel needs to get out of the West Bank. And I’m interested in targeted economic pressure to encourage, if not Bibi’s government, at least some future Israeli government, to negotiate really with—in good faith with the Palestinians. So, there are both practical reasons, in terms of the effects on Israeli and American academics; there are principled reasons, which reflect a desire to maintain academic freedom worldwide, which really does have to mean free interchange; and finally, there are political reasons—for me, at least—feeling that this whole boycott argument is really not an effective strategy, it’s a counterproductive strategy. I’m in favor of strategies that might actually help move the Middle East to a two-state solution, which is what I’ve long believed in.

I think, to some degree, I also have to say I think that the AAUP did a really good job of arguing the case against academic freedom, even though the ASA leadership wouldn’t put our letter on their website, which they—they produced a very one-sided website as a way of reaching out and trying to persuade its members. But I think, to some degree, the AAUP was boxed into making an argument that the ASA members really didn’t care about. It’s not fundamentally about academic freedom. It’s not even fundamentally about boycotting Israeli universities. This effort within the ASA is part of a long-term effort to delegitimate the state of Israel—that is, to move—to remove any sense of moral authority or reason to exist for the state of Israel, amongst at least opinions of American academics. And that’s what it’s really about, I think, fundamentally. That’s something the AAUP really wasn’t prepared to address, because we don’t talk about—you know, we don’t officially talk about those kinds of political issues.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Eric Cheyfitz, could you respond to what Cary Nelson said, that a boycott of this kind is, first of all, counterproductive, and, second of all, that this particular one is just seeking to delegitimate the state of Israel?

ERIC CHEYFITZ: Well, there’s no evidence of that whatsoever in any statements that the ASA has put out, nothing about delegitimizing Israel. It has to do with protesting the oppression, the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and the suspension of their academic rights on the West Bank and in Gaza.

The AAUP’s standards, which are actually the gold standards for academic freedom, have nothing to do with institutions. You can read those standards. They have to do with the rights of individuals within institutions—teachers, scholars and students—to speak out freely, in—particularly in relation to the scholarship that they’re doing. So, boycotting institutions is not a direct—is not directed at the academic freedom of individuals, who are free to do their research, teach and travel. The ASA has said in their statement that they welcome Israeli scholars and Palestinian scholars of all persuasions to come to ASA meetings. And I really think that to charge the ASA with trying to delegitimize the state of Israel is an actual—is a very, very skewed reading of anything that the ASA has put out.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Nelson, can you respond?

CARY NELSON: Sure. Well, first of all, I’m glad—hello, Eric. We’ve been allies—

ERIC CHEYFITZ: Hi, Cary.

CARY NELSON: —on some other issues in the past, but apparently not this one. I’m very glad that Eric is an expert on academic freedom. I have, of course, co-authored a number of the AAUP’s statements to that effect, and obviously I got it wrong, and I’m glad to be corrected, if I can be a little bit sardonic.

Look, academic freedom is also about the collective, the collective academic freedom of faculty, both of majority faculty groups and minority faculty groups. It’s not just about individual academic freedom. But let’s set that—let’s set that aside. You know, why do I think—why do I think this whole argument within the ASA was actually about something other than an academic boycott? Yes, none of the statements that the ASA made, none of its official pronouncements, said what I just said was basic impulse behind it. What I’m basing my argument on is the writings of many of the proponents of the boycott. Talk about David, Omar, Malini, people who—you know, some of whom I’ve known rather well for years—and their writings, including those just published this year in the AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, where we staged, you know, a rather full debate on the issue of academic boycotts. Their writings made it quite clear that they feel the Israeli state has no legitimacy.

They typically believe in a one-state solution. And, you know, Americans, I think, can be persuaded that a one-state solution in the Middle East will usher in a kind of peaceable kingdom, a wondrous democratic utopia, despite the fact that, you know, we now look at the effects of the Arab Spring, and we don’t see a lot of effective democracies taking shape in the Middle East. There’s too much sectarian hatred. There’s too little historical experience of democratic institutions. It may be in 50 years that, you know, Egypt will have a genuine democracy. I’m kind of not holding my breath for Iran, or Syria, for that matter. But, you know, looking at the one-state option, I think, is to look at large numbers of dead Arabs and dead Jews. And that’s been behind the arguments that the—many of the advocates within the ASA and elsewhere for the eventual political solution to the crisis, the ongoing, decades-long crisis in the Middle East. So, if I look at their writings, what I see is a long-term progressive effort to delegitimate the state of Israel. And this is just one stage in trying to convince people that the state of Israel has no legitimacy.

And I think that hasn’t been what people have been saying about this, but I think we need to say it, because otherwise we don’t understand why—why were so many ASA members uninterested in the arguments that really were focused on the problem of the boycott? The arguments that ASA leaders made in favor of the boycott were really, I think, you know, either absurd or bogus. I mean, the president of the ASA, when challenged by The New York Times, the Times asked him, "Well, aren’t there other states in the Middle East with much worse human rights records than Israel?" and he made the really—I mean, it’s howlingly funny, in one sense, but it represents political irrationality: "Well, you’ve got to start somewhere." So I suppose that, you know, we’ll soon see an ASA resolution urging an academic boycott of China. And I think as soon as Syrian civil society gets itself together to make a request to the ASA, which of course won’t happen—and it won’t happen from China, either—then the ASA will be ready to step up to the front based on its deep regard for human rights.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cheyfitz, if you could respond? There’s a lot to respond there.

ERIC CHEYFITZ: Yeah. First—

AMY GOODMAN: And also, just explain what this vote actually voted for.

ERIC CHEYFITZ: Yeah, they voted to support the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. That’s what the vote was for.

As far as the writings of the 5,000 members of the American Studies Association, the very nature of academic freedom is that there are diverse responses to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some of them support a one-state solution; some of them support a two-state solution. Some of them talk about both sets of solutions. This is what academic discourse does. And to try to claim that the ASA therefore represents one set of those writings by some people is, of course, to misrepresent what representation is all about. So, I dismiss that. I dismiss that argument. I think Professor Nelson just carried that to extremes that are not warranted by the record in any way—any way, shape or form.

The boycott is specifically focused on a call by Palestinian civil society, an overwhelming number of organizations, for a cultural and academic boycott of Israel, because diplomacy has failed in the Middle East. The United States is not an honest broker in this process. And so, it can’t hope for success. And diplomacy having failed, and boycotts being a very legitimate form of civil resistance, the Palestinians called for such a boycott. The ASA responded to that call in a principled way.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But, Eric Cheyfitz, could you explain—respond specifically to what Cary Nelson said about the targeting of Israel as against many other countries with equally abusive human rights records? Is it only that their civil societies haven’t asked?

AMY GOODMAN: And we only have 15 seconds.

ERIC CHEYFITZ: Well, the first reason is, yes, there was a specific call by Palestinian civil society. That’s important. And second of all, the United States and Israel have a particularly special relationship, and Israel is a very crucial—obviously, the Palestinian conflict is very crucial in the Middle East. So focusing right now on that particular relationship, I think, is very, very, very important.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. I want to thank both of you, Professor Eric Cheyfitz of Cornell and Professor Cary Nelson of University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

---

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Patrick Cockburn: U.S. Turns Blind Eye as Saudis Fund Jihadists in Syrian Conflict

To discuss the role of foreign powers fueling the ongoing conflict in Syria, we are joined by Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for The Independent. "It is clearly a proxy war. This might have started off as a popular uprising in Syria, but by now it has four or five different conflicts wrapped into one," Cockburn explains. "You have an opposition, but an opposition that is fragmented and really proxies for foreign powers, notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey plays a role." He recently wrote the article, "Mass Murder in the Middle East Is Funded by Our Friends the Saudis: Everyone Knows Where al-Qaida Gets Its Money, But While the Violence is Sectarian, the West Does Nothing." Reporters Without Borders has just revealed at least 10 journalists and 35 citizen-journalists have been killed in Syria in 2013. In addition, another 49 journalists were abducted in Syria — more than the rest of the world combined. Reporters Without Borders blamed the spike in killings and kidnappings on jihadi groups.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We are, though, speaking also with Patrick Cockburn, who’s in London right now, Middle East correspondent for The Independent. If you could take it from there, Patrick, and describe—I mean, you’re talking about the biggest emergency in the U.N.’s history, this crisis, the worst since World War II, as the U.N. is describing it right now. Do you see this as a proxy war? And between what countries, and for what, Patrick?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Oh, it is clearly a proxy war. I mean, this may have started off as a popular uprising in Syria, but by now it has four or five different conflicts wrapped into one, that—and you have an opposition, but an opposition which is fragmented and really proxies for foreign powers, notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar. Turkey plays a role. What has changed recently, since midsummer, is that Saudi Arabia is becoming the main financier for the rebel military groups inside Syria. Qatar is playing a lesser role. And the Saudis are trying to develop a Sunni Islamic force that is against the Assad government in Damascus, but is also against al-Qaeda. But this is, even so, very much a sectarian force, which is already being blamed for sectarian attacks on Christians and Druze and Alawites. There, then, of course, you also have the United States and Britain and France. A recent defector from the Free Syrian Army, who joined the al-Qaeda affiliate, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, said he was continually attending meetings—I don’t know—he didn’t say where, but probably in Turkey—in which always representatives of foreign intelligence services turned up, and at one moment while being presided over by the Saudi deputy defense minister.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Patrick Cockburn, could you explain what exactly happened to the Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian Army, the main opposition group that the U.S. and Britain and other countries in the West were backing and hoping would be a legitimate replacement, possibly, in the future to the Assad regime?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, there was always an element of pretense in this, pretending that the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Coalition were—represented Syrians inside the country. It was always very much an outside exile development. And, you know, they never really controlled much on the ground. And what they did control is now very little. That’s—you know, the headquarters was overrun by the Islamic Front, which is a sort of combination of Sunni groups, appears to be backed by Saudi Arabia. So, basically, it’s been a disaster. So these so-called sort of moderate elements don’t—have never had much influence inside Syria and now seem to be sort of almost completely marginalized.

AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of Idris leaving, going over the border into Turkey? Talk about who he is and his role.

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, he’s the general—the former general who was—you know, I used to watch him and wonder how did he have so much time to appear on CNN and so many other programs abroad. It didn’t leave much time to direct military action. But I think it did reflect the fact that he was very much a figure which was useful for Western governments and Western media to promote as the leader of the revolt in Syria. But he was always pretty isolated, though he got a lot of believers outside the country. Now he seems to be on the run, really, between Turkey and Qatar. But there was always—I mean, it’s really pretenses being exposed about these movements and individuals not being representative of the opposition within Syria, and that opposition being far more sectarian, close to al-Qaeda than foreign governments were prepared to admit or foreign media was prepared to admit, even a year ago.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for The Independent. His latest piece is called "Starving in Syria: The Biggest Emergency in the U.N.’s History." He’s also just out of Iraq. We want to find out about the terrible violence there, as well, and talk more about Saudi Arabia’s role—not much discussion of that, at least in the United States—in what’s going on in Syria. We’ll be back with Patrick Cockburn in a minute, and then we’re going to have a debate on the American Studies Association, 5,000 professors. They’ve just passed two-to-one—had a vote to support a boycott against Israel. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Our guest is Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for The Independent. His latest piece, "Starving in Syria: The Biggest Emergency in the U.N.’s History." Nermeen?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We want to ask you, Patrick Cockburn, about Reporters Without Borders, who just released—has just revealed that at least 10 journalists and 35 citizen-journalists have been killed in Syria in 2013. The group said 49 journalists were abducted in Syria, more than the rest of the world combined. In a statement, Reporters Without Borders said, quote, "2013 was a turning point because Jihadi groups began kidnapping and murdering journalists in the so-called 'liberated' zones for the first time since the start of the uprising in 2011." Patrick Cockburn, could you talk about the dangers that journalists confront in Syria? And who is behind the increasing strength of these jihadi groups in Syria?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, it—I mean, over the last year—I’d put it even earlier—it’s been getting more and more dangerous, I think, sort of—in fact, almost impossible these days for foreign journalists to visit rebel-held areas. Some have been picked up, you know, just when they crossed the border. Also very threatening is the fact that some who thought they had protection from local rebel commanders have found that when they come to a checkpoint controlled by the jihadis, by—of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or somebody like that, that it isn’t just they who get kidnapped, but the—some Free Syrian Army commander with them and his men also get kidnapped. So, the old protectors can’t protect themselves, and certainly can’t protect foreign journalists.

Why does it happen? Well, people are after ransom. I mean, a lot of these groups, you know, under these different rubrics of Free Syrian Army or maybe Islamic Front or different—are really sort of part-time bandits. Some would say whole-time bandits. They change their colors depending on who’s supplying them with money. They’re prepared to claim strong religious belief or the opposite, depending on where they can get supplies. But all of these—one of the factors that’s happening has beeb the criminalization of the military forces of the Syrian opposition. And foreign journalists are the victims, Syrian journalists are the victims, and ordinary Syrians are the victims. In some senses, foreign journalists are now in a—having the same dangers inflicted on them that apply for anybody within the rebel areas.

AMY GOODMAN: Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry held talks in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah. The meeting came amidst reported tensions between the two sides over Syria, Iran and the Israel-Palestine peace talks. At a news conference, Kerry said the United States and Saudi Arabia were in agreement.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: There is no difference about our mutually agreed-upon objective in Syria. As I have said many times before, Assad has lost all legitimacy, and Assad must go. Nothing that we are doing, with respect to this negotiation, will alter or upset or get in the way of the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the relationship in this region.

AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Cockburn, you’ve also written about the differences, the growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and you have a piece headlined "Mass Murder in the Middle East Is Funded by Our Friends the Saudis." Can you elaborate on this?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Sure. I find it—well, you know, it is one of the most extraordinary aspects of the turmoil in the Middle East that the Saudi backing for extreme Sunni organizations, for jihadi organizations, isn’t opposed by the U.S. more vigorously. If you would look at the official 9/11 Commission report, it said the main backers for Saudi—for al-Qaeda are private Saudi donors and donors in the other Gulf states, the Sunni Gulf states. Wikipedia released a memorandum from Hillary Clinton, I think in the end of 2009, many years later.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks.

PATRICK COCKBURN: And what did it say? Exactly the same thing. The main backers for al-Qaeda-type organizations of Sunni-organized fanatical jihadi groups is Saudi private donors in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. And, you know, at the moment in Syria, Syria has taken over the funding of militant military groups who, in their own programs, say, "We are Sunni groups." They don’t deny their sectarianism. They only seem to differ from al-Qaeda in that they—al-Qaeda is independent of Saudi Arabia, and these people are dependent on Saudi Arabia. So I think there’s a whole series of Frankenstein monsters both in Syria and in northern Iraq that have been created and supported and aided by private citizens and at times the state in Saudi Arabia, but the U.S. has refused to do anything about this.

It really is absurd to focus on tiny al-Qaeda groups in the hill villages of Yemen without looking at these very dangerous developments in northern Iraq and eastern and northern Syria, where al-Qaeda and its affiliates for the first time control a great swath of territory really from the upper reaches of the Tigris River to the coast of the Mediterranean. This is a very big area. You know, it’s an extraordinary development. Saudi Arabia has played a key role in this development. But there’s been very little reaction in the U.S. or Western Europe or from these many security agencies that are meant to be focusing on al-Qaeda.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Patrick Cockburn, I’d just like to say that the statement by Hillary Clinton was released by WikiLeaks and not Wikipedia. I wanted to ask you, though, why you think the U.S. has been relatively silent on—

PATRICK COCKBURN: Sorry, yeah.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: —on Saudi’s role—on Saudi Arabia’s role. One of the things that you point out is that these Sunni jihadist groups principally target Shias, not only in Iraq, but also in Pakistan and in Syria, and that may in some sense account for U.S. silence. Could you talk about some of the other reasons?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, I think that that’s one of the main reasons, and many of these killings of Shia get very little publicity. And then, Saudi Arabia has, through a distribution of arms contracts, through its money, sort of made itself part of the international establishment, in which normally foreign leaders visiting Saudi Arabia are—don’t bring up these delicate topics and put very little pressure on the Saudis to do anything about it. But, you know, it is one of the—it enables the Saudis to really go on supporting jihadi organizations at the state or private level, in the same way that they were doing in Afghanistan, post-Afghanistan, when they supported the Taliban, before 9/11, after 9/11, during Iraq, after Iraq. There seems no end to it. But it is rather astonishing that there isn’t less reaction from governments and the media in the U.S. and Western Europe.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about that, the issue of the media in the United States and how it covers Saudi Arabia?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, well, much of the time it doesn’t really cover Saudi Arabia, and it’s usually rather sort of delicate coverage. Of course, the Saudis don’t make it easy for journalists to have access. But many of the facts about Saudi Arabia’s relationships to al-Qaeda and to Sunni jihadi organizations don’t require any investigation. I mean, you know, they’re admitted. They’re in plain view. And still nothing is done about it.

You know, these are sort of attacks on—drone attacks or other attacks in northern Waziristan against al-Qaeda in Yemen, in Somalia, are really peripheral to the main problem, which is centered in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. And the outcome of the support for these extreme organizations is to be seen in northern Iraq, western Iraq, which is now substantially under the control of al-Qaeda-linked organizations, and across the border in Syria, right the way from the—along the Euphrates River right to Aleppo and to the Mediterranean coast. So, you know, it is extraordinary that al-Qaeda has been the great sort of winner of the conflicts over the last—whenever it is, since 9/11, and they’ve—and managed to make such tremendous gains without much opposition from Washington or London or Paris.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Before we conclude, Patrick Cockburn, I’d like to talk about some of the effects on activists, people who have been opposed to the Assad regime from the beginning of the opposition in 2011. In August, you appeared on Democracy Now! with the prominent Syrian lawyer, human rights activist and leader of the anti-government protest movement, Razan Zaitouneh. She’s since been reported missing in a rebel-controlled Damascus suburb. Zaitouneh disappeared from her apartment, along with her husband and two other activists, after receiving threats from Islamist groups. Witnesses say Zaitouneh’s apartment was found ransacked, with laptops and other belongings removed. In August on Democracy Now!, Zaitouneh described the carnage following the chemical attack in Ghouta.

RAZAN ZAITOUNEH: We started to visit the medical points in Ghouta to where injured were removed, and we couldn’t believe our eyes. I haven’t seen such death in my whole life. People were lying on the ground in hallways, on roadsides, in hundreds. There haven’t been enough medical staff to treat them.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Patrick Cockburn, that was Razan Zaitouneh speaking on Democracy Now! in August. She has since been reported missing. Could you talk about what’s been happening to activists in Syria, and also what you see as the prospects for these Geneva II talks in January, given the splintering of all of these groups?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, of course, you know, it’s a degrading of the Syrian revolution, which began as a popular uprising, that—you know, that Razan should have been kidnapped, that some of the most eloquent, the most admired advocates of the uprising, of the opposition, should be targeted and kidnapped, not by the Assad government, but by their opponents, by a group—you know, the group that appears to have done it actually, so far as I know, is funded by Saudi Arabia. I’m not saying the Saudis were involved, but these are the type of groups that have taken over the opposition. And they target the people who are the most sort of eloquent advocates of democracy and human rights within rebel-held areas. So this is an appalling development. I mean, this is true—I mean, it’s true in government-held areas, as well, that human rights activists are also targeted, but it’s—you know, I think it shows that the opposition is imploding, becoming—in some ways, becoming more sectarian in a very vicious way.

I think that the Geneva talks, or wherever they take place now—who is going to be talking? That the Free Syrian Army, is it going to—you know, or the Syrian National Coalition? The groups that have been fostered by the U.S. and the West Europeans now can’t visit Syria. They’re on the run. So, if they turn up, then this will be simply a pretense. They don’t represent anybody. The Assad government will turn up, but are they really prepared to share power? Well, I doubt it. But I don’t think that there’s going to be anybody really with whom they can have substantive discussions. These new groups, both al-Qaeda-linked affiliates and the Saudi-backed groups who are emerging as a powerful force, are both opposed to these talks. So I think these talks are dead on their feet even before they start.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, you’ve just come out of Iraq. We just have a minute, but, I mean, almost every day in our headlines, the terrible violence in Iraq. Yesterday, 70 people died in a wave of attacks across Iraq—that was Monday—many of them Shia preparing for an annual pilgrimage. The media has almost, you know, wiped Iraq off the map in terms of coverage. But the violence inside is terrible. Can you talk about what you found there?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yes. I mean, it’s sort of—it’s getting worse and worse. It’s bombs everywhere, the suicide bombing. The Iraqi security forces is incapable of stopping it. But you have to say also that—how do you stop suicide bombers? The U.S., even when it had substantial forces there, couldn’t do it. What is happening is this increase in sectarianism. And, of course, Iraq is being infected by what is happening in Syria, which has given a great boost to al-Qaeda in Iraq and extreme, fanatical, sectarian organizations that are massacring Shia.

AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Cockburn, we want to thank you for being with us, Middle East correspondent for The Independent. His latest piece headlined "Starving in Syria: The Biggest Emergency in the U.N.’s History." We’ll also link to your piece, "Mass Murder in the Middle East Is Funded by Our Friends the Saudis."

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->