I mean, I read the article [by HRW founder Richard Bernstein]. The word “occupation” does not appear there even one time. He says that Israel is a democracy of seven-million-point-something Israeli citizens. He forgets four million Palestinians, who have to be registered in the Israeli population registry in order to exist. All the Palestinians are registered. He forgot the four million. So what kind of democracy it is, where four million who are in the Israeli Ministry of Interior have to be registered and Israel decides if they are – if they exist? How can you call it a democracy, when half of – when one-third, not to mention the one million Israeli Palestinians, don’t have rights, the same rights? What kind of democracy it is? (full article…)

“Nothing will be easy,” he added. “But I will always be honest and upfront with the Greeks.” (full article…)

Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran’s legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied. (full article…)

Criminalising dissent is not unique to Israel. Many oppressive states, such as apartheid South Africa, have used it to de-legitimise parties, ideas and activities disliked by ruling elites and security apparatuses. Furthermore, persecution on grounds of “security” creates an immediate divide between Arab and Jewish citizens. In 2007, the head of Shabak, the Israeli general security agency, stated that struggles against the Jewishness of the state, even if lawful and democratic, would be deemed subversive. The current right-wing government is seeking to condition citizenship on loyalty to Zionist ideology, a demand unparalleled in any democracy and contrary to the most basic of human rights. With this kind of attitude, it is no wonder that young Arab men and women inside Israel are victimised because of their noble aspirations to equality and freedom. (more…)

And yet if [Salam Fayyad] is to retain his legitimacy for any length of time, he will eventually need some sort of mandate from ordinary Palestinians. “In the end,” Tony Blair told me, “it all has to be endorsed in an election. Ultimately, the only legitimacy can come from democracy.” (more…)

But as his presidency progressed, Zelaya veered to the left and was in constant conflict with business groups, lawmakers from his own party, the news media and the army.”Over the last year, Zelaya’s positions moved to the left. He pushed social programs and more attention for the poor who have no work,” said Giuseppe Magno, the outgoing Italian ambassador. “This switch was not in line with the program he was voted in on. He was too close to Ortega and Chávez, a position the middle and upper classes did not appreciate.” (more…)

They removed him over fears that he was trying to undermine the Constitution and extend his tenure. (more…)

Mr. Zelaya, who took office in 2006, has moved steadily to the left during his presidency, railing increasingly against the country’s elite, who he says have opposed his politics of inclusion. Critics accuse Mr. Zelaya, who comes from a well-off family of landowners, of blatant populism and of doling out cash to try to solidify a shaky political base. (more…)

Hamas is facing an energized Fatah in the West Bank and is increasingly unpopular in Gaza. (more…)

I know it may come as a surprise to Thomas Friedman but unpopular as Hamas may be, Abu Mazen and Fatah are even more unpopular. Friedman’s use of the word “energized” simply means “U.S./Israeli-trained proxies”. But that doesn’t fit his silly narrative of “space” opening up for democracy thanks to the United States. Doesn’t he remember the failed coup attempt aimed at undermining the Palestinian elections? Paid and sponsored by the U.S.

And why did he basically repeat everything he wrote in an op-ed a few days ago? Same op-ed, different title. Not only is he weak (for lack of a better word) on his facts, but he’s lazy…

Some Western principles in assessing elections in developing countries:

1. When the favored candidates win, the elections are free and fair. And when they lose, elections are certainly unfree and stolen.

2. Violent protests against elections that produce winners favored by the west, are to be strictly condemned and protesters are to be called terrorists, hooligans and mobs (can you imagine if Lebanese opposition supporters were to engage in violent protests against the election results in Lebanon), while violent protests against enemies of the US when they win elections (like in Moldova) are to be admired (and the protesters in those cases are called “democracy activists”.

3. It is not against free elections to have Western governments interfere in elections and in funding candidates through Western groups for the promotion of democracy.

4. Candidates (or even dictators) who serve Western interests are automatically labeled as “reform candidates” (even the Saudi tyrant is referred to as “reform-minded”), while candidates who oppose Western economic and political interests are to be labeled enemies of reform.

5. Candidates who are not strident in their language about Israel are always favored.

6. Western observers of elections are always on hand to declare an election unfair and rigged if the favored candidates lose.

7. The corruption of pro-US candidates (like the March 14 bunch) is preferred to the non-corruption of, say, Mugabe.

8. The democratic credentials of dictators immediately improve if they change their policies toward the US and if they express willingness to serve US economic and political interests.

9. Countries where dictators do a good job in serving US economic and political interests need not hold elections.

10. If favored candidates can’t guarantee electoral victory (like the PA tool, Abu Mazen whose term has expired months ago), they don’t need to hold elections and will be treated as if they won an election anyway.

11. It is just not logical to assume that people in developing countries can freely ever decide to make choices that are not consistent with political and economic interests of the US.

12. Elections that are held under American and Israeli occupations are free and fair if the preferred candidates win.

Read the original at As’ad Abu-Khalil’s blog.

Bahaieddin Hasan, head of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies, described the address as “superficial” and devoid of details. “There didn’t appear to be any concern for either democratic reform or human rights,” he was quoted as saying in the Friday edition of independent daily Al-Dustour. “This came as a major disappointment.” (more…)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we always raise democracy and human rights. It is a core pillar of American foreign policy. And I think that there is a great awareness on the part of the Egyptian Government that with young people like this and with enhanced communications, it is in Egypt’s interest to move more toward democracy and to exhibit more respect for human rights. And so we’re going to continue to engage in that dialogue. (more…)

Ministers Meridor, Begin, Eitan ask government secretariat to quash motion calling to ban marking of Nakba Day by law, say it goes against Israel’s democratic values (more…)

The bill, proposed by MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) would prescribe up to one year in jail for anybody who published calls to deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, or words “that will bring about an act of hate, degradation or lack of loyalty to the state or to government authorities or to its laws that were justly established. (more…)

So what’s wrong with Cairo? Let me count the ways… The main problem, of course, is Mubarak’s repressive regime. It’s difficult to stomach rewarding a regime which has been systematically rolling back its limited democratic opening of a few years ago. The choice of Cairo is already being interpreted by many Arabs and Egyptians as proof that Obama has abandoned democracy and human rights promotion. A Presidential speech in Cairo will inevitably be compared to the 2005 speech by Condoleeza Rice calling for democracy in the Arab world. Never mind that the Bush administration did very little to actually advance the cause of democracy in the region, barely objected to Mubarak’s crackdown midway through the 2005 Parliamentary elections and the escalating repression which followed, and by the January 2006 Hamas electoral victory had abandoned even its democratizing pretensions. The rhetoric will be compared and contrasted. (more…)

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke of the Bush administration’s goal to promote freedom in the Middle East at the American University in Cairo in June 2005. “For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither,” Rice said. “Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.” But Washington looked the other way during abuses in Egyptian parliamentary elections held in the fall a few months later, and its appetite for democracy in the Middle East noticeably waned when the Muslim Brotherhood, and later Hamas in the Palestinian territories, did well. (more…)

Barack Obama has impressed the whole world with his trek to the White House, his ability to inspire his nation and the entire world,” Olmert said. “I am sure that close ties between the US and Israel will get stronger. The values of democracy, fraternity and freedom that are the cornerstones of American society are also common to Israeli society, as well as the faith in the strength and ability of man to change his surroundings.” (more…)

Meanwhile, Israeli police admitted they arrested about 600 people involved in protests against the Gaza offensive, some of them for stone-throwing. Adalah lawyers said more than 200 people, most of them Arab, were still in jail.

“We’re talking about mass arrests,” said Abeer Baker, adding that Israel was exploiting a 30-day window before an indictment had to be filed to hold suspects without producing evidence. (more…)

Israel on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month’s parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country’s Supreme Court. (more…)

“I strongly disagree with the assessment of our moral standing has been damaged – people still understand America stands for freedom” (more…)

Even as he spearheads the undermining of democracy in Palestine and provides unqualified support to Israeli slaughter in Gaza, he believes that America still stands for freedom…? How quaint. How precious.

A million and a half Palestinians are learning the hard way that democracy isn’t so good if you vote the wrong way. In 2006, they elected Hamas when the US and Israel wanted them to support the more-moderate Fatah. As a result, having long ago lost their homes and property, Gazans have endured three years of embargo, crippling shortages of food and basic necessities, and total economic collapse. (more…)

Until mid-2007, there was a serious political obstacle to a massive conventional war by Israel against Hamas in Gaza: the fact that Hamas had won free and fair elections for the Palestinian parliament and was still the leading faction in a fully legitimate government. (more…)

The older the democracy, the less there seems to be now of freedom of expression and right to information, according to a new study by the London-based group Article 19. (more…)

Assaf Kfoury: The economic crisis is felt acutely in the US, but has now spread to the entire world, even to countries (in South America, for example) that initially thought they would be spared. And the American presidential campaign and elections cannot but concern people everywhere, given the dominant role of the US globally. The simultaneous unfolding of the two — the crisis and the presidential campaign — has naturally elicited considerable discussion outside the US. In the Middle East, in particular, there has been a kind of speculation, perhaps wishful thinking, be it from the left or from the right. Some Arab commentators have speculated that an Obama administration will follow less aggressive policies. Some other Arab commentators want to see the economic crisis as the sign of an imminent American global decline, and warn pro-American governments and parties to stop doing the bidding of a doomed North American hegemon. What is your response to this kind of thinking? More generally, in relation to the Middle East, what direction is US policy likely to take with the coming Obama administration in the wake of the economic crisis?

Noam Chomsky: I think that US hegemony will continue to decline as the world becomes more diverse. That process has been underway for a long time. US power peaked at the end of World War II, when it had literally half the world’s wealth and incomparable military power and security. By 1970, its share of global wealth had declined by about half, and it has remained fairly stable since then. In some important respects, US domination has weakened. One important illustration is Latin America, Washington’s traditional “backyard.” For the first time since European colonization 500 years ago, South America is making significant progress towards integration and independence, and is also establishing South-South relations independent of the US, specifically with China, but elsewhere as well. That is a serious matter for US planners. As it was discussing the transcendent importance of destroying Chilean democracy in 1971, Nixon’s National Security Council warned that if the US cannot control Latin America, it cannot expect “to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world” — that is, to control the rest of the world. Controlling Latin America has become far more difficult in recent years. (more…)

Well, let’s begin with the elections. The word that the rolls off of everyone’s tongue is historic. Historic election. And I agree with it. It was an historic election. To have a black family in the white house is a momentous achievement. In fact, it’s historic in a broader sense. The two Democratic candidates were an African-American and a woman. Both remarkable achievements. We go back say 40 years, it would have been unthinkable. So something’s happened to the country in 40 years. And what’s happened to the country- which is we’re not supposed to mention- is that there was extensive and very constructive activism in the 1960s, which had an aftermath. So the feminist movement, mostly developed in the 70s-–the solidarity movements of the 80’s and on till today. And the activism did civilize the country. The country’s a lot more civilized than it was 40 years ago and the historic achievements illustrate it. That’s also a lesson for what’s next.

What’s next will depend on whether the same thing happens. Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below. And the answer to what’s next depends on people like you. Nobody else can answer it. It’s not predictable. In some ways, the election—the election was surprising in some respects.

Going back to my bad prediction, If the financial crisis hadn’t taken place at the moment that it did, if it had been delayed a couple of months, I suspect that prediction would have been correct. But not speculating, one thing surprising about the election was that it wasn’t a landslide. By the usual criteria, you would expect the opposition party to win in a landslide under conditions like the ones that exist today. The incumbent president for eight years was so unpopular that his own party couldn’t mention his name and had to pretend to be opposing his policies. He presided over the worst record for ordinary people in post-war history, in terms of job growth, real wealth and so on. Just about everything the administration was touched just turned into a disaster. (more…)

It has come as a surprise to many of my friends to hear that I have decided not to vote. Some people have sent me messages begging me to cast a vote, some of them aggressive and condescending, others desperate… so I will try to clarify my views to those among you who consider voting to be an important aspect of democratic participation.

Above all, I am convinced that no political action is worth undertaking without the possibility of the action bringing about a desired change—or even the possibility of placing us on a path towards this change. So while I believe that voting is indeed an important aspect of civic awareness, I believe it is a useful practice only once certain democratic institutions are in place to make it worth our while. In this particular case at this particular time, I don’t believe voting is my best option for a number of reasons—so why should I participate just because I am eligible?

I would not go to a political demonstration if I believed the particular manifestation of protest would be ineffective, just as I would not express my political views to a dog. There is simply no point in these acts.

Likewise, when the choice lies between parties that have monopolized the “debates” by excluding third-party candidates, that have transformed a theoretically multiparty political system into de facto two-party farce, that have pushed candidates who both essentially agree that military aggression is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, that profess their immutable support for Israel’s right to kill Palestinian civilians, that quibble over the deaths of American soldiers while basically agreeing that the carnal nightmare in Iraq should continue, that actually threaten to widen American offensives, and agree on much else… the word “choice” defies its very meaning. Until it reclaims its meaning, voting is at best a waste of my time and at worst a capitulation to the corrupt and decidedly undemocratic state of the American political structure. (more…)

In the Gaza Strip, there are a vast number of inspiring individuals prepared to put their personal reputation (and even their own physical well-being) on the line for matters of conviction. Dr. Eyad Sarraj is one of the more prominent of these figures and I was fortunate enough to speak with him on several occasions during my time in the Gaza Strip.

Dr. Sarraj, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, is the founder of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme—a groundbreaking NGO in Gaza catering to the masses of Palestinians suffering from emotional trauma, especially victims of torture. Sarraj is well known for his outspoken criticism of the Israeli occupation and of corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

In the excerpts that follow, I discuss the state of Palestinian democracy with Dr. Sarraj. (more…)