Gaza, Petraeus, Benghazi: US' foreign policy fantasy continues unbroken

Regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Americans are repeatedly told that "the Palestinians don't want peace". Paul Rosenberg is the senior editor of Random Lengths News, a bi-weekly alternative community newspaper.

Petraeus was a "highly media-savvy insider super-celeb", whose judgment no insiders ever seriously questioned, "even though we know now that his judgment was deeply flawed" [EPA]

In the waning days of the election campaign, the suppressed topic of climate change was dramatically thrust front-and-centre by Hurricane Sandy. Since the election, the under-discussed subject of US foreign policy has had its turn. Not surprisingly, it has done so in the style of a fun-house mirror, hiding what is essential, while magnifying the superficial, even the imaginary, as overlapping wild-eyed distortions produce pure phantom imagery in the place of substance. We can summarise the topics involved as Gaza, Petraeus and Benghazi. In Gaza, Israel is engaged in an eerily familiar echoing of its attacks four years ago just before Obama took office. As with that earlier attack, virtually nothing of the actual substance gets through to the American public - the Palestinians remain a faceless un-people, while only right-wing talking points are deemed acceptable. As for General David Petraeus, he has been forced to resign as CIA chief because of a sex scandal, while the real scandal - the neo-con's "long war" strategy that he has helped Obama embrace in a more technocratic style - remains quietly ignored, despite bipartisan majorities who now oppose even the current US presence in Afghanistan. Finally, there's Benghazi, the terrorist attack on the embassy which has become the focal point for neo-con yahoos and conspiracists to aim their fire at America's real enemies: the President, his advisers and appointees. US invasion of Iraq Despite all the distortions involved, this fun-house mirror can bring some things into very sharp focus - most notably, the profound continuity of American foreign policy, its profound insularity and its profound disconnect from the real world. With regard to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Americans are repeatedly told that the Palestinians - d Arabs more generally - don't want peace. This is the enduring foundational lie on which every manner of additional lie can readily be constructed. The "fact" that they don’t want peace means they are animals, they are implacable, all they understand is violence, there is no point in trying to reason with them, etc, etc, etc. Keeping this foundational lie in place requires erasing one particularly inconvenient piece of history - the Arab League peace initiative, first proposed in 2002 and reaffirmed several times since then, which offers Israel the explicit promise of peace with its Arab neighbours. The Saudi-crafted initiative was unanimously approved by 22 members of the Arab League at a summit in Beirut on March 28, 2002. The "Beirut Declaration", as it came to be known, had the appearance of a dramatic gesture, promising to explicitly recognise Israel's right to exist, in exchange for a return of the Occupied Territories. Most Americans have never heard of the Arab League peace initiative - and for good reason: Despite initial support from then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-President Bush virtually ignored it, along with another resolution passed unanimously at that meeting, opposing the proposed US invasion of Iraq. Although it was secret at the time, the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq - as was later confirmed by the Downing Street memos - and had no interest in getting side-tracked, even if the "side-track" would actually do far more to combat terrorism than the chosen course of action, since it would remove the most widespread grievance of the Arab world, which terrorists have long exploited. Powell, ever the good soldier, went along with Bush's leadership. Eventually, this would lead to the most public blunder of his career, fronting the Bush administrations lies about Iraq to the world in a presentation before the UN's General Assembly. But Powell's man on the ground at the time, special envoy Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine Corps general, was much more outspoken. By late August, as the Bush administration's public push for war got under way, Zinni gave a speech to Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee that was widely reported in which he argued against the invasion, running down a long list of higher priorities that he said would suffer as a result. According to the Tampa Tribune, which first reported the speech: "Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the nation's list of foreign policy objectives. "I can give you many more [priorities] before I get to that,'' Zinni said when asked if the United States should move to remove Saddam. Zinni said the country should instead concentrate on negotiating a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and on eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda terrorist network that launched the September 11 terror attacks. "We need to make sure the Taliban and al-Qaeda can't come back,'' he said... "We need to quit making enemies that we don't need to make enemies out of.'' Immune to any sort of criticism There were, in short, a whole parade of reasons why invading Iraq was a really bad idea for the United States. But for the people of Israel and Palestine - whose suffering continues to this day - the failure to follow up on the Arab League initiative towered over everything else. Two months later, a relatively obscure state senator from Illinois also gave a speech against the coming war. His name was Barack Obama, and when he became President six years after that, many of his supporters hoped that it would signal a dramatic change in direction. Perhaps even the taking up of the Arab League initiative, those who knew about it might have dreamed. That, of course, was not to be. Even before he took office, Israel launched a savage attack on Gaza, claiming, as always, that it was the real victim. Obama, characteristically, fell in line with all the tired tropes of Washington, rather than challenging them and thinking outside the box, as his most passionate supporters had hoped that he would do. Six months later, when he gave his unprecedented speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, hopes were rekindled briefly, but as far as the Palestinian question is concerned, nothing significant has changed at all, as underscored by the most recent attacks on Gaza. The Arab League initiative remains ignored, in effect, a deliberate choice to make it seem to the American people as if only Israel and America have any interest in peace, and only the Palestinians terrorise their adversaries. Although Zinni was hardly a professional contrarian - he later came to support Bush's surge in Iraq, for example - at least he had the virtue of having been right about one of the major blunders of the Bush era, as well as having direct knowledge about the Arab Peace initiative. He is just the sort of figure - a top military man who supported George W Bush in 2000, but didn't drink the kool aid - who seemed a perfect fit for candidate Obama. But, despite brief talk about him becoming ambassador to Iraq, it was not to be, any more than Obama gave any real power to anyone who saw the financial crisis coming. Instead, Obama turned primarily to those who were already in place, including General Patraeus, who up until the last few weeks seemed utterly immune to any sort of criticism - even though he'd always been a policy chameleon, promising positive outcomes with whatever the policy du jure happened to be that never actually materialised as originally promised. He'd been dead wrong in his optimistic 2004 pre-election Washington Post op-ed about Iraq, supporting the policy at the time. His great claim to fame, the Iraq "surge", largely "succeeded" for external reasons - most notably the Sunni Awakening, and the fact that hyper-violent ethnic cleansing had finally run its course - while solidifying Iranian influence, rather than securing US strategic goals. What's more, it was justified in terms of a philosophy (counter-insurgency - "winning hearts and minds") strikingly at odds with the counter-terrorist drone-strike strategy he took over at the CIA. The striking inconsistencies between the doctrines he embraced at different times should have been obvious to anyone. But Petraeus himself clearly understood the primacy of appearances over reality. "What policymakers believe to have taken place in any particular situation is more important than what actually occurred," he wrote in his 1987 Princeton dissertation. As Wired's Seth Ackerman ruefully admits ("How I Was Drawn Into the Cult of David Petraeus"), Petraeus was a highly media-savvy insider super-celeb, whose judgment no insiders ever seriously questioned, even though we know now that his judgment was deeply flawed - a point that still seems lost on most of the legions of insiders who still seemingly adore him. Multi-generation long war But author Laila Lalami took a more realistic view. "The Petraeus scandal: from James Bond to Austin Powers to Real Housewives to Jersey Shore in 72 hours," she tweeted. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell also sees things more clearly. "The judgment issue is the only one worth examining here, and what we see at every stage of this story is David Petraeus' judgment is terrible," O'Donnell said on his November 16 show. His emails about sex were just begging to be discovered, O'Donnell went on to argue, and the military groupies he palled around with (the Jersey Shore part of the scandal) were textbook examples of why groupies should be avoided at all costs. One good thing about the affair, O'Donnell noted, was that "he is finally getting some balanced coverage in the news media," quoting an edited passage from a Time magazine story: "Petraeus is a remarkable piece of fiction created and promoted by neocons in government, the media and academia," argues Douglas Macgregor, a retired and outspoken Army colonel.... "How does an officer with no personal experience of direct fire combat in Panama or Desert Storm become a division commander?" The full passage is even more damning, as Macgregor refers to Petraeus as a "man who for 35 years shamelessly reinforced whatever dumb idea his superior advanced regardless of its impact on soldiers, let alone the nation, a man who served repeatedly as a sycophantic aide-de-camp, military assistant and executive officer to four stars" - an assessment in keeping with his dramatic about faces noted above. Which brings us, finally to Benghazi, which Obama's hyper-ventilating congressional critics have histrionically called out as worse than Watergate. Before the election, John McCain went ballistic. On CBS's Face the Nation, he called it, "The worst cover-up or incompetence I have ever observed in my life." Apparently 9/11 was a walk in the park, so far as McCain was concerned. "Somebody the other day said to me, 'This is as bad as Watergate'," McCain said. "Nobody died in Watergate." Or on 9/11 either, apparently, in John McCain's world. One might have expected such hyperbole to die off after the election results came in. But if anything, McCain grew increasingly adamant in the last two weeks, while California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher - who proudly hung out with the Taliban back in the 1980s - eagerly took up his "worse than Watergate" line. On November 14, McCain was so busy telling the media how outrageous it was that Obama administration was hiding the truth about Benghazi that he didn't have time to attend a Senate committee hearing, where the administration answered senator's questions on precisely that very subject. The sad fact is that there is very little purposive difference between Obama's foreign policy and George Bush's. There's a great deal of difference in effectiveness, perhaps, as well as in reducing the bluster and improving the PR. The façade has been totally revamped. No flight suits, no codpieces on deck! But the US is still committed to fighting a multi-generation long war in dozens upon dozens of different countries around the world, with the barest minimum of public discussion or debate, and a maximum of secrecy. One cannot help but think that what's really got John McCain and his neo-con buddies so steamed is not how alien Obama is to them, but how much of a doppelganger he is. That, and just how much better he is than they are at pulling it off. Eat your heart out, John McCain. And, for that matter, David Petraeus, too. Paul Rosenberg is the senior editor of Random Lengths News, a bi-weekly alternative community newspaper. 2153 The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Palestinians: 2 teams to probe Arafat's death

Investigators from France and Switzerland will conduct parallel probes into the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Palestinian officials said Monday. His remains will be exhumed, at a date kept secret, to give each team a chance to draw samples to test for poisoning.

By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH

Associated Press

LEFTERIS PITARKIS / AP

In this May 31 photo, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat pauses during the weekly Muslim Friday prayers in his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Most Popular Comments

Hide / Show comments

"Suspicions of poisoning surrounding Arafat's death emerged when a deadly... (October 1, 2012, by sanjuander) MORE

And when they find proof that it was AIDS that killed him will they admit it or... (October 1, 2012, by T Mister) MORE

Read all 2 comments

Post a comment

RAMALLAH, West Bank — Investigators from France and Switzerland will conduct parallel probes into the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Palestinian officials said Monday. His remains will be exhumed, at a date kept secret, to give each team a chance to draw samples to test for poisoning.
The two teams are acting separately on behalf of Arafat's widow Suha Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, who each had misgivings about the other's investigation.
The push to re-examine Arafat's 2004 death come after a Swiss lab's recent discovery of polonium-210, a deadly radioactive isotope, on clothes said to belong to the Palestinian leader. This fueled new suspicions of poisoning.
The French team is composed of criminal investigators acting at the request of Suha Arafat, while the Palestinian Authority invited the Swiss lab to also come to examine the remains of the longtime leader and determine how he died eight years ago. A spokesman for neither team could be reached immediately for comment.
Arafat's death in a French hospital in November 2004 has remained a mystery for many. While the immediate cause of death was a stroke, the underlying source of an illness he suffered in his final weeks has never been clear, leading to persistent, unproven conspiracy theories that he had cancer, AIDS or was poisoned.
Suha Arafat has long had rocky relations with the Palestinian Authority's president Mahmoud Abbas, and the probes' potential to be politically explosive appears to have fueled more distrust. She had asked the Palestinian Authority to suspend any other probe or ensure that it was coordinated with the French investigation. Some Palestinian officials, for their part, said they were unhappy with the way Suha Arafat had forced a foreign investigation on them.
While their probes are separate, the French and Swiss investigators are set to visit the grave together and will only be allowed one chance to draw samples, said Tawfik Tirawi, head of the Palestinian committee investigating the death.
"The grave will be opened only one time for the two teams to take the samples," he said.
That precaution may be part of an attempt by Palestinian officials to keep the exhumation out of the public eye in hopes of avoiding a spectacle.
A senior Palestinian official said the process of digging out Arafat's remains will be conducted privately. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss plans for the exhumation.
But keeping the event a secret will likely be a challenge. Arafat lies in a giant mausoleum built by the Palestinians outside government headquarters in a central area of Ramallah. The official declined to discuss how the public and media would be kept away.
A date for the exhumation is also being kept under wraps. Tirawi refused to reveal a date, saying only that the teams were working on coordinating their arrival.
Arafat, who was 75, died at a French military hospital on Nov. 11, 2004, two weeks after he was rushed there from his West Bank headquarters with a mysterious illness.
According to French medical records, he had suffered inflammation, jaundice and a blood condition known as disseminated intravascular coagulation, or DIC, before the stroke.
The records were inconclusive about what brought about the DIC, which has numerous causes including infections, colitis and liver disease. The uncertainty fanned to speculation about the cause of his death, including the possibility of AIDS or poisoning.
Many in the Arab world believe he was killed by Israel, a charge Israel vociferously denies.
Arafat was the face of the Palestinian struggle for independence for four decades and remains a beloved figure in Palestinian society.
Israel viewed him as an obstacle to peace, holding him responsible for the Palestinian uprising that broke out in 2000 and confining him to his headquarters in Ramallah in his final years.

Cuba to make foreign travel easier for citizens

Most Cubans will be able to leave without exit visa, though restrictions remain on some workers to prevent brain drain

•  

• Jonathan Watts, Latin America correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 October 2012 12.34 EDT

The Cuban president, Raúl Castro, who has relaxed migration rules. Photograph: Alejandro Ernesto/AP

Cuba will open its exit doors wider than at any time in 50 years as a result of migration reforms announced on Tuesday that will make it easier for citizens to travel overseas.
Under the new government policy, most islanders will no longer require an exit visa or a letter of invitation to leave the country, raising the prospect of increased travel to the United States and elsewhere.
However, there will continue to be restrictions on certain sectors of society, including doctors, scientists and members of the military, in an effort to prevent a brain drain of personnel who have benefited most from Cuba's highly regarded state education and health systems.
The major shift in migration policy follows economic and social reforms by the president, Raúl Castro, that loosen controls on sales of private property, mobile phone ownership and hotel stays and aim to make the island more attractive to foreign investors.
The exit visa system dates back to 1961, when the government tightened border controls to stem a flood of migrants amid tensions with the US and unease among some sectors of society about the 1959 revolution that put Fidel Castro in power.
Its abolition – which will come into effect before 14 January – is likely to be popular because it will save time and money for tourists and those who want to work overseas or visit relatives among the large diaspora in the US. Exit visas currently cost about $150 – about a third of the average monthly wage.
The change – which was promised by Raúl Castro when he became president in 2008 – was announced by the Communist party newspaper Granma.
"As part of the work under way to update the current migratory policy and adjust it to the conditions of the present and the foreseeable future, the Cuban government, in exercise of its sovereignty, has decided to eliminate the procedure of the exit visa for travel to the exterior," read the notice.
The government has also extended the length of time that Cubans can stay overseas – without losing their social security, health benefits and voting rights – from 11 to 24 months.
The reform will have political ramifications beyond the island's borders. There are thought to be more than a million Cubans in the US, which has a longstanding policy of granting citizenship to almost all migrants from the island, on which Washington has imposed an economic embargo.
Sharp economic disparities, political differences and migration controls have prompted countless Cubans to migrate illegally in recent decades. Thousands travel via Mexico and other countries in Central America each year, sometimes at great risk in unsafe boats.
Under the new system, travellers should only need a passport and a visa from the country they intend to visit. But government critics said controls on the movement of dissidents were likely to continue, through denials of passports and other restrictions.
"The devil is in the details," tweeted Yoani Sánchez, a dissident blogger who was detained by the authorities earlier this month. She said the new law could be used to prevent overseas travel by Cubans who "organise or participate in actions that are hostile against the country's political foundation".
Most citizens were thought likely to welcome the change.
"There have been many expectations for many years about a new travel law. It's a big step forward that will save us money and simplify the process," the office worker Rafael Pena told Reuters reporters in Havana.

Taliban attack wounds teen activist blogger, for wanting an education

By Shaan Khan, CNN

Taliban gunmen shot teen activist

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Malala Yousufzai's courageous blogging against the Taliban set her apart from other 14-year-old Pakistani girls.

Growing up in a region once dominated by the Islamic extremists, she knew the fear associated with the word Taliban.

One of her fears came to pass Tuesday, when gunmen sought her out and opened fire on her school van, leaving her seriously wounded along with two other classmates.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, Taliban spokesman Ihsnaullah Ishan told CNN. Ishan blamed the shooting on Malala's activist blogging.

Although she is now hospitalized in stable condition and "out of immediate danger," a bullet is lodged in Malala's neck and will be difficult to remove, her doctor said.

The attack began when armed militants stopped a van as it was taking her and two other girls home from school. The attackers asked which girl was Malala, said Kainat Bibi, one of the wounded girls. When the girls pointed Malala out, the men opened fire, Bibi said, wounding the girls before the van's driver was able to speed away. The other two girls' injuries were not considered life-threatening.

Malala lives in northwest Pakistan's Swat Valley -- one of the nation's most conservative regions. Her frustration with the Taliban's restrictions on female education in her town prompted her to use the Internet and speak out, effectively making herself a target.

She reached out to the outside world online, taking a stand by writing about her daily battle with extremist militants who used fear and intimidation to force girls to stay at home.

"I had a terrible dream yesterday with military helicopters and the Taliban," she wrote in January 2009. "I have had such dreams since the launch of the military operation in Swat. My mother made me breakfast and I went off to school. I was afraid going to school because the Taliban had issued an edict banning all girls from attending schools."

Malala's shooting has sparked national outrage -- forcing Pakistanis to take a harsh look at how extremist elements are shaping the nation. "Our society is going through a very critical phase," said Aazadi Fateh Muhammad, a professor of mass communications at Federal Urdu University Karachi, in an e-mail to CNN. "Civil society and civilians are in a war with militants and terrorists in every part of the region."

The attack on Malala, Muhammad said, is an example of this war. "Dark hands," she said, tried to attack Malala's cause, "but it will discourage many others who are fighting for light."

Read Malala's blog here

The Taliban controlled Malala's valley for years until 2009, when the military cleared it in an operation that also evacuated thousands of families.

Last year, Malala told CNN she feared "being beheaded by the Taliban because of my passion for education. During their rule, the Taliban used to march into our houses to check whether we were studying or watching television."

She described how she used to hide her books under her bed, fearing a house search by the Taliban.

Malala's online writing against the Taliban led to her being awarded Pakistan's first National Peace Prize last November. Former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani directed Pakistan's Cabinet to award the prize each year to a child under 18 who contributes to peace and education.

President Asif Ali Zardari strongly condemned the attack, which prompted outrage among residents on local media sites. Also condemning the attack was Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, who spoke with Malala's father on the phone Tuesday, according to a statement from the prime minister's office.

Read more: Taliban's vaccination ban may affect 280,000 children

Journalists Nasir Habib and Noreen Shams contributed to this report.

Arab Spring and the Israeli enemy

Arab Spring and the Israeli enemy

7 Fundraising Tips to Help Nonprofits Weather the Recession

Fundraising in a Recession

Yes, we agree that "desperate times require desperate measures," but we also like the saying, "don't let them see you sweat."

Marc A. Pitman, author of Ask Without Fear!, has written that fundraisers need to avoid these "deadly" mistakes during a recession:

• spend less on fundraising
• become pessimistic
• apologize when you're asking

In that spirit we offer these suggestions:

1. Don't become or sound desperate.

Instead, emphasize to your donors that every year, good or bad, your needs continue. Don't talk about grand plans for expansion, but do talk about solid plans for today. Don't lose your enthusiasm and optimism about your cause. Donors will notice and pull back if they think that you, the fundraiser, has doubts.
If your organization is in human services and the need for those services increases during a recession, let the public know. Emphasize that your organization's survival is crucial because of the clients you serve. Tell your client's stories but not in a desperate way that demeans them. Show their strength in the face of diversity and invite your supporters to help them.

2. Prove that you are responsible.

Let your donors know that you are doing your part by being fiscally responsible. Cut costs where you can, make sure you have good controls in place, and that you are examining marginal programs for possible deletion. Keep your money safe by making sure it is in FDIC insured banks. Avoid non-insured investments.

3. Don't give up on your corporate and cause-marketing activities.

Gifts may decrease, but keep your corporate contacts strong. It is very hard to get back on the corporate charitable list if you are dropped. Avoid this by staying visible, and keep cultivating your contacts within the company. Likewise, don't give up on cause-related marketing. Companies are finding that these activities pay off for them with consumer loyalty.
Remember too that just because a company's stock price has been depressed doesn't mean that it is not a strong company. Look at the balance sheet to identify companies that are in a good position, and that will likely come back strong from the economic meltdown.

4. Diversify your funding sources by identifying all types of financial support.

Avoid depending on one or two major donors or foundations. Most charitable giving is made up of small donations. If you are not doing direct mail to a large base of supporters, start working toward doing so.
Use the Internet to reach more people. The cost is low so that donations can be smaller. Those add up quickly. Explore payment options with low transaction costs and online donation sites.

5. Put your fundraising programs under the microscope.

Determine which fundraising programs work best and are the most efficient in terms of resources. Then cut the least efficient ones and shift those resources to the ones that are doing the most good.
Maybe that big special event eats up precious time and resources for very little return. Or the product sale you started last year just doesn't seem worth the time and effort. But, don't let the money and volunteer time you use in those efforts just dissipate. Put them to use by expanding the annual campaign or making more major donor calls or doing another planned giving seminar.

6. Don't pull the plug on major campaigns, but do slow down.

If you were starting a capital campaign (or endowment campaign) when the economic crisis hit, don't stop. But do slow down. Recognize that getting those lead gifts in the size you want will take longer and be dependent on how the economy is doing.
If you ask for a multi-year gift, and the donor resists, fall back to asking for part of that gift now, and plan to go back later for the rest. Donors are understandably shy about making long-term commitments in this economic environment.

7. Keep up your marketing and PR.

Building buzz about your good work will help you with your donors. The more they know and see your name about, the more likely they are to contribute to your cause. Got PR professionals on your board or committees? Seek their advice before you launch anything big. Let them organize a PR/Marketing Committee that might bring in other professionals to help. See if their firms can do pro bono work or work at a discount. This kind of help is really priceless.

10 Tips for Growing Your Family Business

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108855972

Family businesses bring special rewards, such as inherent trust, the camaraderie of working with loved ones and the joy of building a lasting legacy. However, running a family business also poses some special challenges. Perhaps that's why, according to the Family Business Institute, fewer than one-third of family businesses last beyond the first generation and just 12 percent survive to the third generation. How can you make sure your family business doesn't fall victim to those odds?

 Follow these 10 tips. 

1. Run your family business like a business. If most or all of your key employees are family members, it's easy to get sloppy about things like keeping your corporation in compliance, properly documenting decisions or maintaining accurate financial records. Always treat your business like a business.
2. Create a succession plan. If you want your business to survive, you must develop a plan for what will happen when you retire, die or otherwise exit the company. But a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers survey found that nearly half of family businesses had no succession plan. Enlist your accountant, attorney, key employees and family members in developing a succession plan that details who will take on key roles.

3.       Develop leadership among all employees. Hold regular performance reviews for family and nonfamily employees alike. Provide training in-house, through local community college and adult education programs, or through industry associations to develop employees' strengths and streamline the succession process.

4.       Don't play favorites. If non-family employees believe they have no chance of moving up in the company, they'll quickly become resentful and unmotivated. Set a clear path to promotion and advancement for both family and non-family employees.

5.       Separate business and family expenses. You might be tempted to make loans from the company to family members, or to let them write off personal expenses (such as the purchase of a car or vacation home) as business expenses. Even if such actions don't get you in trouble with the IRS, they will foster resentment among non-family employees.

6.       Set boundaries. Decide when discussing the business is allowed and when it's off-limits (such as during dinner, or at holiday gatherings). This helps ensure that family relationships don't revolve solely around business and aren't poisoned by business conflicts.

7.       Communicate openly. Non-family employees often feel they're kept in the dark about the inner workings of family businesses. Whenever possible, share information openly with family and nonfamily employees alike.

8.       Don't guarantee employment.  Each family member should have an opportunity to work in the business, but not everyone will be suited to continue doing so. Base hiring decisions on the business's - not the family member's-needs. Talk to your attorney about structuring the business so that  nonemployee family members can still have some ownership.

9.       Learn to resolve conflicts. Business conflicts can infect family relationships; family problems can flare up disguised as business issues. Develop a plan for dealing with business-related disagreements between family members, both those who work in the business and those who do not.

10.   Get outside input. Whether you're dealing with personal conflicts or trying to make business decisions, seeking opinions from trusted outsiders such as your board of directors or an SBDC Business Advisor can give you much-needed perspective.

Rieva Lesonsky is founder and President of GrowBiz Media, a media and custom content company focusing on small business and entrepreneurship. Before launching her business, she was Editorial Director of Entrepreneur Magazine. Follow Rieva at Twitter.com/Rieva and visit her website SmallBizDaily.com to get the scoop on business trends and sign up for free TrendCast reports.