+++++
Please reply to:
BRICUP, BM BRICUP, London WC1N 3XX email:
bricup@bricup.org.uk www.bricup.org.uk OPEN LETTER TO ELTON JOHN
Dear Elton John:
Like much of the world, we think you're a good bloke. You came out when it was
difficult; you admitted your addictions were stronger than you were; you've
poured money into AIDS research. Oh, and then there's the music – not bad at
all.
But we're struggling to understand why you're playing in Israel on June 17. You
may say you're not a political person, but does an army dropping white
phosphorus on a school building full of children demand a political response?
Does walling a million and a half people up in a ghetto and then pounding that
ghetto to rubble require a political response from us, or a human one?
We think it needs a human response, and we think that by choosing to play in Tel
Aviv you're denying this. You're behaving as if playing in Israel is morally
neutral – but how can it be? How can the cruelties Israel practises against the
Palestinians – fundamentally because the Palestinians are there, on Palestinian
land, and Israel wants them to go – be morally neutral?
Okay, you turn up in Ramat Gan, and it gets to that 'Candle in the Wind' moment,
and thousands of lighters flicker – but there won't be any Palestinians from the
Occupied Territories swaying along with the Israelis – the army won't let them
leave their ghettoes. Please read what Judge Goldstone said about the onslaught
on Gaza; what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been saying
for decades about the crimes committed against the Palestinians. Of course the
Israeli state denies it has a case to answer, though it's knee-deep in ethnic
cleansing and land-theft and the endless daily suffocating of Palestinian lives and
hopes.
Political or not political, when you stand up on that stage in Tel Aviv, you line
yourself up with a racist state. Do you want to give them the satisfaction?
Please don't go.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Haim Bresheeth
Mike Cushman
Professor Steven Rose
Professor Jonathan Rosenhead
London, February 2010
  |
|
B'Tselem, US Peace and Human Rights Groups: President Obama, Ask Israel to Lift Gaza Closure B'Tselem joined with six Middle East peace and human rights organizations today to send a letter to President Obama, urging him to ask Israel to lift its Gaza closure in order to relieve the humanitarian suffering there. The full text of the letter can be viewed here. "The siege of Gaza is causing enormous suffering among innocents, and it's hard to see how that deprivation can be justified," said Uri Zaki, B'Tselem's USA Director. "International law, as well as basic human and Israeli values, demands that Israel do its utmost to address its legitimate security concerns without inflicting unnecessary harm to the civilians of Gaza. The current policy doesn't come close to meeting that standard."  | | B'Tselem's animated clip on the siege of the Gaza Strip | Gazans' rights to minimal standards of food security, shelter, health, education and to travel are protected under international law. These needs should not be held hostage to security and political issues.
Israel's closure policy is designed to weaken Hamas' hostile leadership, to persuade Hamas to cease firing rockets at civilian targets in Israel, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit. However, the closure has instead harmed Israel's security by strengthening Hamas and adding to tensions that threaten renewed violence. Therefore, the United States, while supporting a resolution of security and political issues that are essential to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians, should, in the meantime urgently ask Israel to change its closure policies to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Contact the Washington DC B'Tselem office: mitchell@btselem.org Donate Online
1411 K Street NW, Ste. 603 | Washington, DC 20005 Contact the main B'Tselem office: mail@btselem.org | P.O. Box 53132, Jerusalem 91531, Israel
|
We need your help! Support the Russell Tribunal on Palestine.
Russell Tribunal Palestine
 |
February 4, 2010
Russell Tribunal Palestine
The recent war waged by the Israeli government and the Israeli army on the Gaza strip, already under a blockade, underlines the particular responsibility of the United States and of the European Union in the perpetuation of the injustice done to the Palestinian people, deprived of its fundamental rights.
It is important to mobilize the international public opinion so that the United Nations and Member States adopt the necessary measures to end the impunity of the Israeli State, and to reach a just and durable solution to this conflict.
Based on the Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued on the 9th of July 2004 and on the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Organisation, this Russell Tribunal on Palestine is a civic initiative promoting international law as the core element of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Further than Israel's responsibility, it aims to demonstrate the complicity of Third States and International Organisations which, through their passivity or active support, allow Israel to violate the rights of the Palestinian People, and let this situation be continued and aggravated.
The next step will then be to establish how this complicity results in international responsibilities.
Through a decentralised functioning, the organisation of public sessions and other public events, the organisation of a Russell Tribunal on Palestine is designed as a large communication event, with widespread media coverage over the tribunal and its outcomes. Indeed, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine having no official mandate, its impact rests on its ability to mobilise public opinion, so that the latter puts pressure on governments to obtain that they change their policies in the ways that are necessary to reach a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
First International Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, Barcelona, 1,2,3 March 2010
The first international session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will be held in Barcelona on 1, 2 and 3 March 2010. The mandate of the Tribunal constituted in Barcelona will be to consider the extent to which the European Union and its member states are complicit in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory and in Israel's violations of the rights of the Palestinian people. After hearing an account of the breaches of international law committed by the State of Israel, a jury composed of eminent personalities will examine the policy and practice of the European Union and its member states in their relations with Israel, the occupying power, and assess the extent to which the result is compatible with their obligations under international law. On the 3rd of March 2010, the jury will render its conclusions in an international press conference.
Six main questions, set out by experts and witnesses, will be submitted to the Tribunal jury. The questions are as follows:
1. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to promote and ensure respect for the Palestinian people's right of self-determination? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that right? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that right?
2. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law vis-à-vis the Palestinian people in the case of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the "Cast Lead" military operation conducted by Israel from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law?
3. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty over their natural resources in the context of Israel's building of settlements and pillage of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law and right in question?
4. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force and the Palestinian people's right of self-determination in the case of the annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem? Have they cooperated with a view to ending any serious violation of the law, principle and right in question? Have they aided or abetted any violation of the law, principle and right in question?
5. Have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law in connection with the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Have they cooperated with a view to halting any serious violation of that law? Have they aided or abetted any violation of that law?
6. In the light of the foregoing, have the European Union and its member states breached their obligation to ensure respect for international law and European law in the context of the agreements signed between the European Union and the State of Israel? The following personalities have agreed to be members of the jury: -
Mairead Corrigan Maguire: Nobel Peace Price (1976), Northen Ireland -
Juan Tapia Guzman: Judge, Chili -
Ronnie Kasrils: Writer and activist, South Africa -
Gisèle Halimi: Lawyer, Former Ambassador to UNESCO, France -
Michael Mansfield: Lawyer, President of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, Great Britain -
José Antonio Martin Pallin: Magistrado Emérito Sala II, Supreme Court, Spain -
Cynthia McKinney: former US Congresswoman and member of the Green Party, USA -
Aminata Traoré: Author, politician and activist, Mali - Alberto San Juan: Actor and activist, Spain
The Heads of States and Ministers of foreign affairs of EU member States, the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the High representative of the EU for Foreign affairs and security Policy Catherine Ashton have also been informed on the holding of the Session of the Tribunal. They have been invited to present, if they wish, arguments for the defence. |
:: Article nr. 62930 sent on 05-feb-2010 01:53 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=62930
Link: www.russelltribunalonpalestine.net/ Tuesday, 02 February 2010 12:35 Dr. Hanan Chehata
One year after the horrendous Israeli military assault on Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, in which over 1400 men, women and children were viciously and brutally slaughtered by invading Israeli troops, MEMO sat down with Colonel Desmond Travers, one of the four co-authors of the Goldstone Report and the only military expert on the team, and discussed his views on Israel, Hamas and the incredibly mixed reception of his groundbreaking and now iconic report.
The UN appointed fact-finding mission, of which Colonel Travers was an integral part, set out to investigate the claims that war crimes had been committed by both Israel and Hamas during the 22 day attack on the people of Gaza between 27th December 2008 and 18th January 2009.
After the most extensive and rigorous investigation of its kind to ever be carried out on the region, the Goldstone Report concluded that war crimes and possible crimes against humanity had been committed by both sides but by far and away the most blame was apportioned to Israel whose military tactics included, according to Colonel Travers,
"hostage taking, felling of houses, destruction of the judicial police infrastructure, destruction of hospitals and the medical infrastructure, destruction of the agricultural, water and sewage infrastructure." The mission investigated 36 separate incidents of alleged Israeli offences, (although there were countless more that Colonel Travers wishes they had time to investigate) and
"in all of the 36 cases we found against the perpetrators" (Israel). This included such incidents as the Israeli F-16 missile strike of a home which resulted in the deaths of 22 members of the same family, the al-Daya family; a massacre Israel claims was an
"error" but of which Travers says
"we didn't accept their explanation." It also included a
"horrific" missile attack on al-Maqadmah mosque while people were at prayer, killing 15 civilians and wounding 40.
CONTINUED:http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/62-europe/625-qgaza-is-the-only-gulag-in-the-western-hemisphere-maintained-by-democracies-closed-off-from-food-water-airq-says-colonel-desmond-travers-co-author-of-the-goldstone-report-in-an-exclusive-memo-interview
PCHR:
Field Update
04 February 2010
Bomb Detonated near ICRC Convoy in Northern Gaza Strip
Today afternoon, unknown persons detonated a bomb near a convoy of vehicles belonging to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) near Beit Hanoun town in the northern Gaza Strip. A vehicle was damaged, but no casualties were reported. This latest attack is part of the state of security chaos and proliferation of weapons plaguing the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
According to investigations conducted by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), at approximately 14:15 on Thursday, 04 February 2010, a bomb planted by unknown persons exploded near a convoy of 4 vehicles belonging to the ICRC while traveling on Saladin Road opposite to al-Shawa fuel station near Beit Hanoun town in the northern Gaza Strip. The explosion of the bomb, which had been planted two meters to the east of the road, resulted in smashing the front and side windows and damaging the front of the last vehicle in the convoy, which holds a plate number (900441-13759). No casulaties were reported. Mr. Eyad Nasser, Spokesman of the ICRC in Gaza, stated that the vhicles were transporting 8 international staff members of the ICRC towards Beit Hanoun (Erez) crossing.
The Palestinian police arrived at the area immediately and opened an investigation into the attack. An officer in the expolsives engineering unit in the Palestinian police, Midhat Ebrash, stated that the bomb was planted two meters away from the tract on which the convoy was traveling, and that shrapnel from the bomb spread over the area. He added that his unit was still checking the shrapnel to identify the kind of the bomb.
PCHR strongly condemns this attack on the ICRC's convoy by unknown persons, and calls upon the Attorney-General's office to genuinely investigate it and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Public Document
**************************************
For more information please call PCHR office in Gaza, Gaza Strip, on +972 8 2824776 - 2825893
PCHR, 29 Omer El Mukhtar St., El Remal, PO Box 1328 Gaza, Gaza Strip. E-mail: pchr@pchrgaza.org, Webpage http://www.pchrgaza.org
-----------------------------------
Video: Adjusting to life one year after Israel's war on Gaza
Aljazeera.English
Februrary 4, 2010
Hala Shunar's life was on track until her dreams were derailed by Israel's 22-day war on Gaza. Al Jazeera's Casey Kauffman reports. |
:: Article nr. 62918 sent on 04-feb-2010 20:09 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=62918 February 4, 2010 at 9:14 am (Chutzpah, DesertPeace Editorial, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, War Crimes)
Image 'Copyleft' by Carlos Latuff
The United States seems to live on illusions…… illusions of hope, change and more that have no connection to the reality of life. Whitewashing the war crimes that were carried out in Gaza last year is a part of those illusions. Perhaps the logic is that if Israel is not quite guilty as charged, then those that aided Israel in those crimes might not be charged later on.
A year after the Israeli blitzkrieg on Gaza, a year after 1400 innocent civilians were brutally slaughtered, including over 450 children, the crimes can be 'wiped out' by easing the siege that still exists on Gaza. Brings to mind the definition of Chutzpah…..
Perhaps in the imaginary world that the US leadership seems to be living in their plan would work. In the land of reality that Gazans live in, it won't. Crimes were committed, nothing can erase them. With recent bombings on the Gaza Strip this past week we can see that Israel has no intention of changing their plans to eventually destroy everyone and everything that remains in Gaza today.
Easing, or better yet ending, the siege on Gaza will get people to look at Israel in a different light perhaps, but it will not erase what has happened thus far. Best for America's leaders to pressure Israel by cutting funds rather than giving them false hopes that all will be OK. All WILL NOT be OK until Gaza is FREE, until the entire Occupied West Bank is FREE….. until Palestine is UNITED. Then, and only then might Israel be looked at in a different light, but definitely not the findings of the Report in question.
The United States has suggested to Israel that easing the Gaza blockade would help counter the fallout from the Goldstone report on alleged war crimes during Operation Cast Lead a year ago.
A main message of the U.S. officials was that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was directly linked to the ability of Israel's critics to push the Goldstone report forward and the ability to block the report's consequences.
Read the rest of the report HERE
U.S.: Easing Gaza siege would help counter Goldstone
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/gaza-illusions-and-reality/ Gaza power plant to cease operations
Published Thursday 04/02/2010 (updated) 05/02/2010 15:19
Authorities say Gaza`s sole power plant will be offline by Saturday [MaanImages]
Gaza – Ma'an – The Gaza Strip's sole power plant will cease all operations late Friday night due to a lack of fuel, officials warned.
The plant had already shut down services to all but 30-40 percent of the coastal strip by nightfall on Thursday, the Gaza Energy Authority said, noting that the sudden cold front in the region spent the remaining fuel faster than expected.
The Energy Authority has notified mayors and municipalities across Gaza, and was informing the Health Ministry and major telecommunications companies PalTel and Jawwal to prepare for the worst.
"People are trying to stock up on fuel to operate private generators for the buildings and institutions that have them," according to Emad Eid, the director of Ma'an's Gaza City bureau. He said that while Gazans are used to these blackouts, most generators in private homes are too weak to produce enough electricity for heating, and are used predominately for simple needs like charging mobile phones.
Eid also noted the unfortunate timing of the shutdown, accompanying a sharp drop in temperatures across the occupied territories and Israel. "It's already freezing here, and it's only going to get worse," he said.
Israeli authorities allowed no fuel through the fuel crossing at Karni on Thursday, according to Palestinian liaison officer Raed Fattouh, and the incidental amounts of cooking gas and diesel that were transfered through Kerem Shalom were not even expected to keep the power plant running for even another day.
The plant has four generators, and while all are functional, only one is being used. This generator supplies electricity to the population of Gaza for 16 hours a day because there is not enough fuel to power all four.
The fuel for the plant is purchased from and delivered by Israel, via trucks through the Kerem Shalom crossing in southern Gaza. The majority of fuel used for personal use is smuggled from Egypt through the tunnel matrix, and fills private generators in homes. The power plant, however, can only use Israeli industrial grade diesel.
An EU contract paying for fuel shipments expired on 30 November 2009, according to Kan'an Obeid, deputy manager of the Energy Authority in the coastal enclave. While the EU had been providing the service after the contract expired, officials notified the authority that they would no longer pay for the fuel shipments unless the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah drafted a new agreement and payment scheme.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=259218 Gaza And Lebanon: Beware The Iron Wall,
The Coming War
By Ramzy Baroud
04 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org
The Israeli military may be much less effective in winning wars than it was in the past, thanks to the stiffness of Arab resistance. But its military strategists are as shrewd and unpredictable as ever. The recent rhetoric that has escalated from Israel suggests that a future war in Lebanon will most likely target Syria as well. While this doesn't necessarily mean that Israel actually intends on targeting either of these countries in the near future, it is certainly the type or language that often precedes Israeli military maneuvers.
Deciphering the available clues regarding the nature of Israel's immediate military objectives is not always easy, but it is possible. One indicator that could serve as a foundation for any serious prediction of Israel's actions is Israel's historical tendency to seek a perpetual state of war. Peace, real peace, has never been a long-term policy.
"Unlike many others, I consider that peace is not a goal in itself but only a means to guarantee our existence," claimed Yossi Peled, a former army general and current Cabinet Minister in Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government.
Israeli official policy – military or otherwise - is governed by the same Zionist diktats that long preceded the establishment of the state of Israel. If anything has changed since early Zionists outlined their vision, it was the interpretation of those directives. The substance has remained intact.
For example, Zionist visionary, Vladimir Jabotinsky stated in 1923 that Zionist "colonization can…continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through." He was not then referring to an actual wall. While his vision took on various manifestations throughout the years, in 2002 it was translated into a real wall aimed at prejudicing any just solution with the Palestinians. Now, most unfortunately, Egypt has also started building its own steel wall along its border with the war-devastated and impoverished Gaza Strip.
One thing we all know by now is that Israel is a highly militarized country. Its definition of 'existence' can only be ensured by its uncontested military dominance at all fronts, thus the devastating link between Palestine and Lebanon. This link makes any analysis of Israel's military intents in Gaza, that excludes Lebanon - and in fact, Syria - seriously lacking.
Consider, for example, the unprecedented Israeli crackdown on the Second Palestinian Uprising which started in September 2000. How is that linked to Lebanon? Israel had been freshly defeated by the Lebanese resistance, led by Hizbullah, and was forced to end its occupation of most of South Lebanon in May 2000. Israel wanted to send an unmistakable message to Palestinians that this defeat was in fact not a defeat at all, and that any attempt at duplicating the Lebanese resistance model in Palestine would be ruthlessly suppressed. Israel's exaggeration in the use of its highly sophisticated military to stifle a largely popular revolution was extremely costly to Palestinians in terms of human toll.
Israel's 34-day war on Lebanon in July 2006 was an Israeli attempt at destroying Arab resistance, and restoring its metaphorical iron wall. It backfired, resulting in a real – not figurative – Israeli defeat. Israel, then, did what it does best. It used its superior air force, destroyed much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and killed more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The resistance, with humble means, killed more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers during combat.
Not only did Hizbullah had penetrated the Israeli iron wall, it had also filled it with holes. It challenged, like never before, the Israeli army's notion of invincibility and illusion of security. Something went horribly wrong in Lebanon.
Since then, the Israeli army, intelligence, propagandists and politicians have been in constant preparation for another showdown. But before such pending battle, the nation needed to renew its faith in its army and government intelligence; thus the war in Gaza late December 2008.
As appalling as it was for Israeli families to gather en masse near the Israeli Gaza border, and watch giddily as Gaza and Gazans were blown to smithereens, the act was most rational. The victims of the war may have been Palestinians in Gaza, but the target audience was Israelis. The brutal and largely one-sided war united Israelis, including their self-proclaimed leftist parties in one rare moment of solidarity. Here was proof that the IDF still had enough strength to report military achievements.
Of course, Israel's military strategists knew well that their war crimes in Gaza were a clumsy attempt at regaining national confidence. The tightly lipped politicians and army generals wanted to give the impression that all was working according to plan. But the total media blackout, and the orchestrated footage of Israeli soldiers flashing military signs and waving flags on their way back to Israel were clear indications of an attempt to improve a problematic image.
Thus Yossi Peled's calculated comments on January 23: "In my estimation, understanding and knowledge it is almost clear to me that it is a matter of time before there is a military clash in the north." Further, he claimed that "We are heading toward a new confrontation, but I don't know when it will happen, just as we did not know when the second Lebanon war would erupt."
Peled is of course right. There will be a new confrontation. New strategies will be employed. Israel will raise the stakes, and will try to draw Syria in, and push for a regional war. A Lebanon that defines itself based on the terms of resistance – following the failure to politically co-opt Hizbullah – is utterly unacceptable from the Israeli viewpoint. That said, Peled might be creating a measured distraction from efforts aimed at igniting yet another war - against the besieged resistance in Gaza, or something entirely different. (Hamas' recent announcement that its senior military leader Mahmoud al- Mabhouh was killed late January in Dubai at the hands of Israeli intelligence is also an indication of the involved efforts of Israel that goes much further than specific boundaries.)
Will it be Gaza or Lebanon first? Israel is sending mixed messages, and deliberately so. Hamas, Hizbullah and their supporters understand well the Israeli tactic and must be preparing for the various possibilities. They know Israel cannot live without its iron walls, and are determined to prevent any more from being built at their expense.
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.
http://www.countercurrents.org/baroud040210.htm
Chilean pediatric urologists treats kids in Ramallah
During the last week of January, Dr. Richardo Yanez from Conception, Chile completed a week of surgery on children from the West Bank with congenital malformations. This is Dr. Yanez's third mission to Palestine through the Palestine Children's Relief Fund. His mission was in cooperation with the American NGO, International Volunteers in Urology (IVU). The PCRF and IVU have cooperated in the past to treat hundreds of children with urological deformities all over Palestine. This is the third pediatric urology mission to Palestine in 2010, with several more planned. For more information, visit us at
www.pcrf.net NEWS FROM BIL'IN
1-Dozens injured in the village of Bil'in with cases of suffocation and fainting Date: 5/2/2010 3:30 Dozens of residents of Bil'in, neighboring villages, international solidarity activis, and peace-loving israelis participated in a weekly march organized by the popular committee against the wall. The march started from the village's main square after Friday prayers and echoed national symbols aimed at reconciliation, reunification, while directly confronting the Israeli occupation. After the arrival of the march participants at the western gate of the wall, a shower of rubber coated metal bullets, tear gas, and sound bombs was directed against them. The popular committee's cameraman, Hamde Abu Rahma, was wounded as well as Ashraf Abu Rahma (from a tear gas canister) and an Icelandic solidarity activist (from sound bomb shrapnel). The army then tried to suprise protesters at the back of the march with special forces, who tried to hunt down young men in the village but were unsuccessful. Instead, their presence led to violent clashes in the vacinity and tear gas reigned down by cars in the same area where recently freed Popular Committee Cameraman Hamde was arrested 2 days prior as he covered the arrest of Ibrahim Burnat. Hamde was later released without charge.
2-Urgent surgery neededDear friends,
Thank you to every single one of you who donated to Emad. We are very pleased to report that we have raised the money needed to ensure that he will receive his necessary surgery. (For those who do not know, the date of surgery was postponed because of a debt from the previous treatment that the PA has yet to pay, but we hope that the surgery will proceed within a week's time.)
Please send this email around to all your channels so that potential donors will know and perhaps donate to the non-violent struggle in Bil'in or to another deserving recipient (after all there are so many in Palestine).
Thank you very much from Emad and from all of us.
In solidarity,
Emily
Not an inspiring translation, but the content is!
Mona
http://www.business.dk/finans/israel-uforstaaende-over-danske-bank
(Translated from the Danish)
Israel Baffled by Danske Bank
Israel's ambassador to Denmark says Danske Bank follows a Middle East policy with a disproportionate focus on Israel by dropping investments in two companies involved in settlements.
JERUSALEM: Danske Bank's decision to abandon investments in two companies because of their activities in the occupied West Bank is politically motivated and focused disproportionately on Israel. Israel's ambassador to Denmark, Arthur Avnon, characterized the decision as "unfortunate".
"What they are really doing is playing with politics and not, as they say, to worry about moral values or violations of international norms. In the case of the administered territories and the settlements it is a purely political matter to be resolved in negotiations between the parties in the Middle East conflict, "says Arthur Avnon.
Danske Bank publishes today that they exclude the two Israeli companies, Elbit Systems and Africa Israel Investments from the companies they invest in. The reason is that the two companies violate international norms. Elbit provides surveillance equipment for the separation wall, which the international court has condemned, and Africa Israel builds houses in the Jewish settlements that are internationally regarded as illegal.
Arthur Avnon relates not to the two companies specifically, but does not believe that the argument about breaches of international standards provides.
"Who defines what international norms are? If the UN, with 192 countries, most of which are not democracies and where the Islamic and Arab countries have an automatic majority, shall adopt resolutions condemning the only democracy in the Middle East and ignoring the real abusers of human rights, will you then define the resolutions as an international standard? "asked Avnon who feel Israel is disproportionate attention.
"They [Danske Bank] should at least be honest and answer to whether they would take the same decision about their business with real human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, Iran or some big countries in Asia, which I do not like to mention by name, "says Avnon.
He will not criticize the Danske Bank, if the decision is strictly business-based.
"Businesses have the right to make their own calculations and the only thing they have to report to their shareholders. Above them they must respond to how the company will have the financial advantage of the decision," says Arthur Avnon.
*****************
BDS Successes and Training Opportunities
Feb. 4 2010
Dear Enrique,
I'm happy to let you know about some recent victories for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. The largest bank and pension fund in Denmark have both announced divestment from two of the occupation's worst corporate offenders, Africa-Israel and Elbit Systems. Additionally Carleton University in Ottawa has recently launched a divestment campaign and students have launched an investigation into the University of Arizona's relationship to occupation profiteers. We are also excited to announce several exciting training opportunities for BDS activists - a US Campaign organizing tour in the Southwest, workshops at the Campus Anti-War Network and Intercollegiate Peace Fellowship conferences, and a day of workshops in conjunction with the upcoming US Campaign - Interfaith Peace-Builders Grassroots Advocacy Training. Please support our efforts to organize BDS campaigns by making a tax-deductible donation.
| click here to view Carleton University students made the video above to explain their divestment campaign.
| Click here to make a contribution to our BDS education and organizing efforts. Supporting boycott and divestment is one of the strongest statements you can make for human rights and international law in Palestine/Israel. Following Hampshire College's successful divestment campaign one year ago Howard Kohr, the Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), had the following to say about the BDS movement: |
"[The campaign] is coming home right here to the United States. We see it already on our college campuses, America's elite institutions of higher learning, the places we've entrusted with the education of our children.
We need to recognize that this campaign is about more than mere rhetoric. This is the battle for the hearts and minds of the world...left unchallenged, allowed to go unchecked, it will work."
I hope that you agree that the BDS movement plays a critical role in changing U.S. discourse and policy regarding Israel's illegal occupation. There are many ways to get involved in this growing movement.
Can you join us at one of our upcoming BDS training sessions?
We'll be in Harrisonberg (VA) Feb 19th Albuquerque (NM) Feb 22nd, Phoenix (AZ) Feb 24th, Tucson (AZ) Feb 25th, and Washington (DC) on March 6th. Click here for more information about our Southwest organizing tour or here to register for the March 6th campus training in DC. The March 6th DC BDS training is being offered in conjunction with the US Campaign - Interfaith Peace-Builders Grassroots Advocacy Training, which will offer trainings and lobbying on Capital Hill on March 7th and 8th. Click here for more information about the Grassroots Advocacy Training, including the schedule and registration form.
Of course, none of the support that we provide for our grassroots activists would be possible without financial contributions from people like you. Did you know that more than half of our total budget comes from individual contributions of $20-$500? Click here to make a donation or look below to see how even a small contribution can go a long way to provide trainings, strategic support, and resources to our member groups and individual activists.
Thanks so much for your support of our BDS campaigns. We hope to see you soon at an upcoming US Campaign training!
Peace & Power,
Katherine M. Fuchs
National Organizer
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
P.S. Donate $50 or more we'll show our appreciation by sending you a copy of the award winning film Occupation 101,
Pressure continues on Veolia and Alstom to halt light rail project
Adri Nieuwhof, The Electronic Intifada, 5 February 2010
French transport giants Veolia and Alstom are involved in the construction and running of a light rail line which connects West Jerusalem to several illegal settlements in or surrounding occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem. The light rail project is part of the "Jerusalem Transportation Master Plan" sponsored by the Israeli government and the Jerusalem municipality. In reality, the project is intended to strengthen Israel's grip on occupied East Jerusalem. Palestinian officials recently announced that they will call on Arab countries to end business ties with Veolia and Alstom at the planned Arab League summit in March.
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and the annexation of East Jerusalem are illegal under international law. Numerous UN resolutions and the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Israel's wall in the occupied West Bank have confirmed this. With their involvement in the Jerusalem light rail project, Veolia and Alstom are directly implicated in maintaining illegal settlements in the OPT. Moreover, the companies are playing a key role in Israel's attempt to make its illegal annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem irreversible.
Since Israel occupied East Jerusalem after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war, successive Israeli governments have tried to expand its claims on the city as the capital of Israel. East Jerusalem, which contains the historic Old City, was annexed by Israel after the war, a move that was not recognized by the international community. The Jerusalem Development Authority (JDA), which operates under the 1988 Jerusalem Development Authority Law, was established to further entrench Israeli control over the city. Indeed, the Prime Minister's Office and the mayor of Jerusalem sponsored a JDA program to work toward this goal. On its website the JDA is very clear about the role of the Jerusalem light rail project, stating that "The investment in the light railway project was one of the government's key strategies to empower Jerusalem as a capital."
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to openly claim all of Jerusalem -- including occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem -- as the capital of Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu told reporters at a press conference during the elections early February 2009, "We did not return to Jerusalem after praying for it to be rebuilt for 2000 years in order to give it up. We did not unite the city in order to divide it, and my government will maintain a united Jerusalem. A sane country does not give its capital to its enemies." A few months later, Netanyahu addressed an official ceremony on 21 May, stating that "United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under Israel's sovereignty. Government spokesman, Mark Regev, expressed the same view telling the BBC on 25 November 2009, "We make a distinction between the West Bank and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is our capital and remains such."
The Israeli claim on Jerusalem inspired Israeli linguist Avshalom Kor to propose Hebraizing the names of all stations in Jerusalem's light rail, reported the Israeli daily Haaretz on 28 December. He made his proposal to the joint governmental-municipal task force overseeing the light rail project. Kor said that giving an Arab name to a station would encourage illegal construction by Palestinians.
However, Israel's repeated claims to Palestinian East Jerusalem are not acceptable to the European Foreign Affairs Council (EFAC). In a press release discussing the EFAC's 8 December 2009 meeting, the Council expressed its deep concern about the situation in East Jerusalem. The EFAC reiterated that it has never recognized Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and added that negotiations must resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future of two states if there is to be a genuine peace.
Although these statements are welcome, words are insufficient. Europe has the capacity to do more than issuing press releases. Two French companies are involved in a light rail project that strengthens Israel's grip on East Jerusalem. Under European law, European governments have the power to exclude Veolia and Alstom from bidding for a public contract or to reject any such bid where it is found that the individual or organization has committed an act of "grave misconduct" in the course of its business of profession. This clause is explicit in Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the awarding of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. Veolia and Alstom's partnership in the Jerusalem light rail project can be characterized as grave misconduct, because it involves assisting Israel in its violations of international law.
Last month, Ahmed Rweidi, an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority, announced that Palestinian officials will once again call on Arab countries to cut business ties with Veolia and Alstom. Abbas, whose term as President expired in January 2009 and is currently in power under controversial emergency laws, plans to attend the Arab League summit in March, where according to Rweidi the issue will be raised. Rweidi told the Associated Press on 29 January that "This is the least Arabs can do to support our rights in Jerusalem."
In response, David Hadari, one of Jerusalem's deputy mayors, told the Jerusalem Post that he was disturbed by the interference of the Palestinian Authority. Hadari stated that "They're simply interfering with the planning policy of the State of Israel. It's unacceptable, and at the end of the day the Jerusalem Municipality will do all that is needed to strengthen ties with these companies."
Meanwhile concerned citizens continue their efforts to hold Veolia and Alstom to account. In Europe, nongovernmental organizations, trade union activists, lawyers and citizens continue to pressure pension funds and banks to divest, and call on authorities to exclude Veolia and Alstom from public bidding.
Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11057.shtml
JUDITH BUTLER IN PALESTINE
Judith Butler is Maxine Elliot Professor in the Departments of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkeley. She received her Ph.D. in Philosophy from Yale University in 1984 and works in the areas of social and political philosophy, literary and cultural theory, and gender and sexuality studies. She is the author of several books including Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France (Columbia University Press, 1987), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Routledge, 1990), Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of `Sex` (Routledge, 1993), The Psychic Life of Power: Theories of Subjection (Stanford University Press, 1997), Excitable Speech (Routledge, 1997), Antigone`s Claim: Kinship Between Life and Death (Columbia University Press, 2000), Hegemony, Contingency, Universality, with Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek, (Verso Press, 2000), and Giving an Account of Oneself (Fordham University Press, 2005) Most recently she has published two books on war`s relation to language and media: Precarious Life: Powers of Violence and Mourning (Verso Press, 2004) and Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? (Verso, 2009). She is currently writing a book on the philosophical dimensions of bi-nationalism. She is on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace, the executive committee of Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace-USA, the board of The Freedom Theatre Foundation in Jenin, a founding member of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine (Belgium), and a supporter of the BDS movement.
ABSTRACT
Boycott Politics and Academic Freedom, or Who Can Exercise a Right to Education?
Some have argued that boycott politics is in contradiction with academic freedom, but this presentation seeks to contest that view. Most versions of academic freedom presume that faculty have the right to speak openly various points of view, and many recent debates have focused on views that are critical of the state of Israel or its policies. Some defenders of academic freedom rightly claims that faculty and students should be free to articulate such criticism, whether they are in Palestine, in what is called Israel, the United States, or elsewhere without punishment. But surely, equally important to consider as a violation of academic freedom is the decimation of Palestinian universities, the infrastructure of education, without which there can be no exercise of academic freedom. We are used to identifying academic freedom issues in a certain way: in the name of academic freedom, we oppose the kinds of assaults on academic freedom that have been threatened against those who hold controversial political views, and we oppose the kinds of control over the curriculum exercised by funding sources (public or private). So the point here is not to adjudicate the question of whether academic freedom conflicts with boycott politics, but to ask whether the aims of the boycott draw attention to the unacceptable destruction of infrastructure in Palestinian universities, a destruction that destroys academic freedom as well. My question is whether our conception of academic freedom is broad enough to understand these two sorts of violations: the one happens when an already established institution sets limits on its curriculum or faculty speech for political reasons; the other happens when the infrastructural conditions are destroyed that make the exercise of the right of academic freedom (and other rights as well, including the right to assembly), impossible. Finally, are boycotts not, in part, ways of objecting to abridgements of academic freedom; boycotts signal an unwillingness to support those institutions that participate in the destruction of the livelihood of populations of fail actively to oppose that destruction.
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=38152
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-dajani/israel-occupation-or-apar_b_450817.html#postComment?&just_reloaded=1
Jamal Dajani
VP of International News, Series Producer of Mosaic News, Link TV
Posted: February 5, 2010 10:01 AM
Israel: Occupation or Apartheid?
The dreaded "A-Word" has once again made its way into Israeli media, not by a leftist "self-hating Jew", but by a prominent Israeli politician, the Minister of Defense, who is a decorated soldier and a former prime minister as well. "A" is for Apartheid.
An awful word that evokes awful memories, presumably left behind in the annals of history in places such as Soweto and Cape Town. A word that has invited rage, insults, and attacks against a former US president who received a Nobel Peace Prize.
This past Tuesday, however, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that if Israel does not achieve a peace deal with the Palestinians, it will have to become a binational state or be an undemocratic apartheid one if it remains as it is.
"The simple truth is, if there is one state" including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, "it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. ... if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state," Barak said at the Herzliya Conference north of Tel Aviv.
Though rarely used by Israeli leaders in connection to the Palestinians, the term "apartheid" is becoming more common to describe the current reality on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
More than two years ago, on the anniversary of the 1947 UN partition plan that would have divided British mandate Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned of this same scenario. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Ehud Olmert said Israel was "finished" if it forced the Palestinians into a struggle for equal rights.
If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished".
But veteran Israeli journalist David Michaelis believes that a South African-style apartheid system has already emerged due to Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories.
"What Ehud Barak intended to do is to send a stark warning that Israel is heading towards a binational situation; however, we are already in a binational situation, and an apartheid system that's working very well for the Israeli military and government."
Five years ago David Michaelis and I jointly interviewed Palestinians and Israelis about the prospect of a binational state. Most Palestinians we spoke to then were thinking of independence and most Israelis were thinking of separation. At the time, the Israeli government was frantically building the Separation Wall, and only a handful of Israelis entertained the idea of binational coexistence. One such person we interviewed who predicted what Ehud Barak is currently cautioning of was Meron Benvenisti, a former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem.
Benvenisti has recently published an elaborate article in Ha'aretz chronicling how Israel became a de facto binational regime.
"The attempt to mark the settlements, and the settlers, as the major impediment to peace is a convenient alibi, obfuscating the involvement of the entire Israeli body politic in maintaining and expanding the regime of coercion and discrimination in the occupied territories, and benefiting from it," he argued.
According to him, the violent events of the (second) intifada brought the Jewish-Israeli public to a crossroads in relation to their neighbors-enemies. Benvenisti argues that Israeli-Jews turned their backs on the Palestinians, erasing them from their consciousness and imprisoning them behind impenetrable walls, and became willing to congregate in a ghetto and pray that the Mediterranean might dry up or a bridge be built to connect them with Europe.
This mentality is manifested in two, recently constructed, architectural monuments whose symbolism transcends their functional value: The gigantic Separation Wall and the colossal Ben Gurion air terminal. The former is meant to hide the Palestinians and erase them from Israeli consciousness and the latter serves as an escape gateway.
David Michaelis concurs and believes that most Israelis prefer to live in denial and avoid the subject of apartheid.
"The peace process is a misnomer, and the word occupation is misleading because it's really about systematic control."
How long can Israelis live in this denial and pretend that apartheid-like conditions do not exist?
Well you've heard the expression, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
| Last update - 06:30 05/02/2010 |  | | | |
|
| Pilot who refused to bomb Palestinian targets gets 'golden wings' |
|
| By Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent |
|
Tags: Iftach Spector, IAF  |
Brig. Gen (res.) Iftach Spector, the highest-ranking officer to sign the "pilots' letter," declaring the refusal to participate in operations in the territories in 2003, was last week awarded the golden wings given to Israel Air Force pilots to mark the 50th anniversary of their graduation from flight school.
The insignia was bestowed on Spector less than two weeks after the Israel Defense Forces decided to dismiss from service a Kfir Brigade soldier for waving a sign in support of refusing to evacuate unauthorized settler outposts in the West Bank.
In 2003, at the height of the second intifada, Spector was the commander of the IAF's Ramat David and Tel Nof bases and was considered one of the best fighter pilots in Israeli history.
He downed 12 enemy planes in the course of his career and was one of the pilots who attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Spector shocked his colleagues when he signed the letter in which 27 IAF pilots declared their refusal to take part in operations in the territories that
they claimed were illegal and immoral. All of the signatories were forced to leave their IAF reserve duty posts, but Spector did stay on as a flight instructor.
The incident led to Spector's autobiography, "Loud and Clear: The Memoir of an Israeli Fighter Pilot," in which he settled scores with then IAF commander Dan Halutz for saying, famously, that when he dropped a one-ton bomb on a populated neighborhood he felt: "Nothing. Just a
light buffet on the wing, that's all." Spector accused Halutz of encouraging a culture within the IDF of compromising one's principles.
The award ceremony last Tuesday is part of an IAF tradition in which pilots, or their relatives if the pilots themselves have died, are awarded the 50-year patch. Among the recipients this time were former IAF commander Avihu Bin-Nun and former IDF chief education officer Nehemia Dagan.
Spector said this week that he, unlike some of his fellow pilots' letter signatories, never retracted his decision and that, to the best of his knowledge, the IAF never reversed its decision to dismiss from military service those who signed. He noted that in the past several years he has been invited to many IAF functions. "There was never any problem with them, with the exception of the decision to dismiss, there was no change in the attitude to me, either positively or negatively. It's an emotional thing." IAF officials admitted that Spector could not have been invited to an important IAF ceremony while Halutz commanded that branch of
service or later, when he was IDF chief of staff.
The IDF Spokesman's Office said in response: "The IAF conducts a ceremony in which the IAF commander gives a golden wings pin to commemorate the 50th anniversary of graduation from flight school. This ceremony is part of the IAF's heritage. The pins were awarded to pilots' course graduates who completed their training between 1957 and 1960, including Brig. Gen.
(res.) Iftach Spector. Brig. Gen Spector received the decoration like the rest of his class, to mark 50 years as a pilot."
|
|
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147815.htmlA Proselytizing Religion
The Invention of the Jewish People
By HARRY CLARK
The fundamental myth of Zionism is the return of the Jewish people to its land. The sovereign people was conquered, and exiled far and wide, but remained aloof and united, inspired by the memory of its ancient sovereignty. In the late 19th century the people began its return, which culminated in the dramatic establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, fulfilling two millennia of longing. Tel Aviv University historian Shlomo Sand, in his remarkable book The Invention of the Jewish People, marshals past and present academic work to refute the Zionist historiography underlying this myth, and tells instead a story of a religious minority and its creed, waxing and waning through proselytizing and conversion, subject to the same social forces as any other religious minority.
Inspired by Zionist myth, Israeli Jews
"know for a certainty that a Jewish nation has been in existence since Moses received the tablets of the law on Mount Sinai, and that they are its direct and exclusive descendants (except for the ten tribes, which are yet to be located). They are convinced that this nation "came out" of Egypt; conquered and settled the "Land of Israel"…They are also convinced that this nation was exiled, not once but twice, after its period of glory—after the fall of the First Temple in the sixth century BCE, and again after the fall of the Second Temple, in 70 CE…
"They believe that these people—their "nation," which must be the most ancient—wandered in exile for nearly two thousand years and yet, despite this prolonged stay among the gentiles, managed to avoid integration with, or assimilation into, them…
"Then, at the end of the nineteenth century, they contend, rare circumstances combined to wake the ancient people from its long slumber and to prepare it for rejuvenation and return to its ancient homeland. And so the nation began to return, joyfully …
"…Some uninvited guests had, it is true, settled in this homeland, but since "the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion" for two millenia, the land belonged only to that people, and not to that handful without history who had merely stumbled upon it. Therefore the wars waged by the wandering nation in its conquest of the country were justified; the violent resistance of the local population was criminal; and it was only the (highly unbiblical) charity of the Jews that permitted these strangers to remain and dwell among and beside the nation, which had returned to its biblical language and wondrous land."
Sand notes the reactionary purpose served by the myth.
"Dominated by Zionism's particular concept of nationality, the State of Israel still refuses, sixty years after its establishment, to see itself as a republic that serves its citizens…The excuse for this grave violation of a principle of modern democracy, and for the preservation of an unbridled ethnocracy that grossly discriminates against certain of its citizens, rests on the active myth of an eternal nation that must ultimately forgather in its ancestral land."
The absence of evidence for expulsion and the counter-mythical prevalence of conversion and proselytizing show that Jews and Judaism were like any religious minority and its creed. The Babylonians did deport the elite when they conquered the kingdom of Judah in 6th c. BCE. Yet the Babylonians and Assyrians did not deport whole populations. The Temple was rebuilt and Jerusalem devastated by the Romans in suppressing the Zealot rebellion in 70 CE, yet "[n]owhere in the abundant Roman documentation is there any mention of a deportation from Judea." Nor did the Bar Kochba revolt result in expulsion. "Captive fighters were probably taken away, and others must have fled…but the Judean masses were not exiled in 135 CE."
CONTINUED:
http://www.counterpunch.com/clark02042010.html
ZIONISM LAID BARE
A Review of Shahid Alam's "Israeli Exceptionalism"
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
The essential point of M. Shahid Alam's book, Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism, comes clear upon opening the book to the inscription in the frontispiece. From the Persian poet and philosopher Rumi, the quote reads, "You have the light, but you have no humanity. Seek humanity, for that is the goal." Alam, professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston and a CounterPunch contributor, follows this with an explicit statement of his aims in the first paragraph of the preface. Asking and answering the obvious question, "Why is an economist writing a book on the geopolitics of Zionism?" he says that he "could have written a book about the economics of Zionism, the Israeli economy, or the economy of the West Bank and Gaza, but how would any of that have helped me to understand the cold logic and the deep passions that have driven Zionism?"
Until recent years, the notion that Zionism was a benign, indeed a humanitarian, political movement designed for the noble purpose of creating a homeland and refuge for the world's stateless, persecuted Jews was a virtually universal assumption. In the last few years, particularly since the start of the al-Aqsa intifada in 2000, as Israel's harsh oppression of the Palestinians has become more widely known, a great many Israelis and friends of Israel have begun to distance themselves from and criticize Israel's occupation policies, but they remain strong Zionists and have been at pains to propound the view that Zionism began well and has only lately been corrupted by the occupation. Alam demonstrates clearly, through voluminous evidence and a carefully argued analysis, that Zionism was never benign, never good—that from the very beginning, it operated according to a "cold logic" and, per Rumi, had "no humanity." Except perhaps for Jews, which is where Israel's and Zionism's exceptionalism comes in.
Alam argues convincingly that Zionism was a coldly cynical movement from its beginnings in the nineteenth century. Not only did the founders of Zionism know that the land on which they set their sights was not an empty land, but they set out specifically to establish an "exclusionary colonialism" that had no room for the Palestinians who lived there or for any non-Jews, and they did this in ways that justified, and induced the West to accept, the displacement of the Palestinian population that stood in their way. With a simple wisdom that still escapes most analysts of Israel and Zionism, Alam writes that a "homeless nationalism," as Zionism was for more than half a century until the state of Israel was established in 1948, "of necessity is a charter for conquest and—if it is exclusionary— for ethnic cleansing."
How has Zionism been able to put itself forward as exceptional and get away with it, winning Western support for the establishment of an exclusionary state and in the process for the deliberate dispossession of the native population? Alam lays out three principal ways by which Zionism has framed its claims of exceptionalism in order to justify itself and gain world, particularly Western, support. First, the Jewish assumption of chosenness rests on the notion that Jews have a divine right to the land, a mandate granted by God to the Jewish people and only to them. This divine election gives the homeless, long-persecuted Jews the historical and legal basis by which to nullify the rights of Palestinians not so divinely mandated and ultimately to expel them from the land. Second, Israel's often remarkable achievements in state-building have won Western support and provided a further justification for the displacement of "inferior" Palestinians by "superior" Jews. Finally, Zionism has put Jews forward as having a uniquely tragic history and as a uniquely vulnerable country, giving Israel a special rationale for protecting itself against supposedly unique threats to its existence and in consequence for ignoring the dictates of international law. Against the Jews' tragedy, whatever pain Palestinians may feel at being displaced appears minor.
The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that came as the result of Zionism's need for an exclusivist homeland was no unfortunate consequence, and indeed had long been foreseen by Zionist thinkers and the Western leaders who supported them. Alam quotes early Zionists, including Theodore Herzl, who talked repeatedly of persuading the Palestinians "to trek," or "fold their tents," or "silently steal away." In later years, the Zionists spoke of forcible "transfer" of the Palestinians. In the 1930s, David Ben-Gurion expressed his strong support for compulsory transfer, crowing that "Jewish power" was growing to the point that the Jewish community in Palestine would soon be strong enough to carry out ethnic cleansing on a large scale (as it ultimately did). In fact, the Zionists knew from the start that there would be no persuading the Palestinians simply to leave voluntarily and that violent conquest would be necessary to implant the Zionist state.
The British knew this as well. Zionist supporter Winston Churchill wrote as early as 1919 that the Zionists "take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience." In a blunt affirmation of the calculated nature of Zionist plans and Western support for them, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, like Churchill another early supporter and also author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which promised British support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, wrote that Zionism "is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land." It would be hard to find a more blatant one-sided falsity.
Alam traces in detail the progression of Zionist planning, beginning with the deliberate creation in the nineteenth century of an ethnic identity for Jews who shared only a religion and had none of the attributes of nationhood—neither a land, nor a common language or culture, nor arguably a common gene pool. Here Alam covers briefly the ground trod in detail by Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, whose book The Invention of the Jewish People, appearing in English just months before Alam's book, shattered the myths surrounding Zionism's claim to nationhood and to an exclusive right to Palestine. But Alam goes further, describing the Zionist campaign to create a surrogate "mother country" that, in the absence of a Jewish nation, would sponsor the Zionists' colonization of Palestine and support its national project. Having gained British support for its enterprise, Zionism then set about building a rationale for displacing the Palestinian Arabs who were native to Palestine (who, incidentally, did indeed possess the attributes of a nation but lay in the path of a growing Jewish, Western-supported military machine). Zionist propaganda then and later deliberately spread the notion that Palestinians were not "a people," had no attachment to the land and no national aspirations, and in the face of the Jews' supposedly divine mandate, of Israel's "miraculous" accomplishments, and of the Jews' monumental suffering in the Holocaust, the dispossession of the Palestinians was made to appear to a disinterested West as nothing more than a minor misfortune.
Addressing what he calls the "destabilizing logic" of Zionism, Alam builds the argument that Zionism thrives on, and indeed can survive only in the midst of, conflict. In the first instance, Alam shows, Zionism actually embraced the European anti-Semitic charge that Jews were an alien people. This was the natural result of promoting the idea that Jews actually belonged in Palestine in a nation of their own, and in addition, spreading fear of anti-Semitism proved to be an effective way to attract Jews not swayed by the arguments of Zionism (who made up the majority of Jews in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) to the Zionist cause. Early Zionist leaders talked frankly of anti-Semitism as a means of teaching many educated and assimilated Jews "the way back to their people" and of forcing an allegiance to Zionism. Anti-Semitism remains in many ways the cement that holds Zionism together, keeping both Israeli Jews and diaspora Jews in thrall to Israel as their supposedly only salvation from another Holocaust.
In the same vein, Alam contends, Zionists realized that in order to succeed in their colonial enterprise and maintain the support of the West, they would have to create an adversary common to both the West and the Jews. Only a Jewish state waging wars in the Middle East could "energize the West's crusader mentality, its evangelical zeal, its dreams of end times, its imperial ambitions." Arabs were the initial and enduring enemy, and Zionists and Israel have continued to provoke Arab antagonism and direct it toward radicalism, to steer Arab anger against the United States, to provoke the Arabs into wars against Israel, and to manufacture stories of virulent Arab anti-Semitism— all specifically in order to sustain Jewish and Western solidarity with Israel. More recently, Islam itself has become the common enemy, an adversary fashioned so that what Alam calls the "Jewish-Gentile partnership" can be justified and intensified. Focusing on Arab and Muslim hostility, always portrayed as motivated by irrational hatred rather than by opposition to Israeli and U.S. policies, allows Zionists to divert attention from their own expropriation of Palestinian land and dispossession of Palestinians and allows them to characterize Israeli actions as self-defense against anti-Semitic Arab and Muslim resistance.
Alam treats the Zionist/Israel lobby as a vital cog in the machine that built and sustains the Jewish state. Indeed, Theodore Herzl was the original Zionist lobbyist. During the eight years between the launch of the Zionist movement at Basel in 1897 and his death, Herzl had meetings with a remarkable array of power brokers in Europe and the Middle East, including the Ottoman sultan, Kaiser Wilhelm II, King Victor Emanuel III of Italy, Pope Pius X, the noted British imperialist Lord Cromer and the British colonial secretary of the day, and the Russian ministers of interior and finance, as well as a long list of dukes, ambassadors, and lesser ministers. One historian used the term "miraculous" to describe Herzl's ability to secure audiences with the powerful who could help Zionism.
Zionist lobbyists continued to work as assiduously, with results as "miraculous," throughout the twentieth century, gaining influence over civil society and ultimately over policymakers and, most importantly, shaping the public discourse that determines all thinking about Israel and its neighbors. As Alam notes, "since their earliest days, the Zionists have created the organizations, allies, networks, and ideas that would translate into media, congressional, and presidential support for the Zionist project." An increasing proportion of the activists who lead major elements of civil society, such as the labor and civil rights movements, are Jews, and these movements have as a natural consequence come to embrace Zionist aims. Christian fundamentalists, who in the last few decades have provided massive support to Israel and its expansionist policies, grew in the first instance because they were "energized by every Zionist success on the ground" and have continued to expand with a considerable lobbying push from the Zionists.
Alam's conclusion—a direct argument against those who contend that the lobby has only limited influence: "It makes little sense," in view of the pervasiveness of Zionist influence over civil society and political discourse, "to maintain that the pro-Israeli positions of mainstream American organizations . . . emerged independently of the activism of the American Jewish community." In its early days, Zionism grew only because Herzl and his colleagues employed heavy lobbying in the European centers of power; Jewish dispersion across the Western world—and Jewish influence in the economies, the film industries, the media, and academia in key Western countries—are what enabled the Zionist movement to survive and thrive in the dark years of the early twentieth century; and Zionist lobbying and molding of public discourse are what has maintained Israel's favored place in the hearts and minds of Americans and the policy councils of America's politicians.
This is a critically important book. It enhances and expands on the groundbreaking message of Shlomo Sand's work. If Sand shows that Jews were not "a people" until Zionism created them as such, Alam shows this also and goes well beyond to show how Zionism and its manufactured "nation" went about dispossessing and replacing the Palestinians and winning all-important Western support for Israel and its now 60-year-old "exclusionary colonialism."
Kathleen Christison is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and the Wound of Dispossession and co-author, with Bill Christison, of Palestine in Pieces: Graphic Perspectives on the Israeli Occupation, published last summer by Pluto Press. She can be reached at kb.christison@ earthlink. net.--
M. Shahid Alam
Professor of Economics
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115
http://us.macmillan.com/israeliexceptionalism http://aslama. org The Irish Times - Tuesday, January 12, 2010 How US set out to destroy Iraq's national identity and build a dependent state
The Cultural Cleansing of Iraq
MICHAEL JANSEN
Cultural Cleansing in Iraq Edited by Raymond W. Baker, Shereen T. Ismael, and Tareq Y. Ismael. Pluto, 296 pp. $34.95
THIS BOOK argues convincingly that the post- war cultural cleansing of Iraq is intentional rather than random and haphazard, the result of chaos and anarchy.
The aim of the policy of cultural cleansing is to remake Iraq into a US-friendly state and enable Washington's returned Shia and Kurd exiles to take and exercise power.
In the first of 10 chapters, the editors contend that the Bush administration's objectives were to demonstrate US global dominance and remake "the strategic Middle East" to suit the US. "To that end, the invasion of Iraq would display America's crushing military power to a world reduced to the status of spectators in a spectacle of a state's destruction, marked by massive civilian casualties, cultural devastation and the pauperisation of its people."
Subsequent chapters show how Iraq's state structures were systematically destroyed along with the independent secular nationalist socialist regime.
This began with the looting of the country's museums and libraries, schools and universities. Although Iraqis carried out most of the pillage and destruction, the US was responsible for what took place.
Scholars had warned the White House and Pentagon that this would happen if vulnerable sites were not protected. Nothing was done because, according to Barbara Bodine, Washington's first post-war ambassador, orders had been issued to the effect that looting should be allowed to proceed unchecked. In some cases, US troops broke open the doors of institutions to aid looters.
The US also used major archaeological sites, including ancient Babylon and Ur, as military bases, inflicting irreparable damage.
By attacking the country's history and "collective memory", Zainab Bahrani holds that the US sought to undermine the unique national identity of Iraqis. Their strong sense of history and culture has made them the most inventive poets, writers and painters in the Arab world.
The second half of the book focuses on the killing of Iraqi intellectuals and professionals.
As early as April 11th, 2003, two days after the fall of Baghdad, a group of university professors and scientists dispatched an e-mail saying that the occupation forces had drawn up lists of individuals for detention, harassment and elimination. Since then, hundreds of university processors, doctors and scientists have been assassinated, kidnapped, killed or driven into exile.
The murder of Dr Muhammad Rawi, a medical doctor and chancellor of Baghdad University in July 2003, shocked the country and served as a warning to others in the intelligentsia.
Israel's Mossad intelligence agency and the Iranian-founded Iraqi Badr Corps militia were initially blamed for the killings. However, the book's contributors provide solid evidence that the US and Britain fostered the decimation of the intellectuals because they would resist foreign domination through Shia and Kurd proxies who rode into Baghdad on the backs of US tanks.
The vehicle for the purge of intellectuals was the de-Baathification campaign instituted by Paul Bremer, the US pro-consul from 2003-2004, and used by successive Shia-led sectarian governments to target secular nationalist thinkers of every sect.
The US is accused of using the "Salvador option", a strategy evolved in Central America, to create US-compliant regimes in that region.
The 13 authors of this work say the US set out to destroy Iraq's national identity, reduce and marginalise the educated class and wipe the Iraqi slate clean in order to build from ground zero a weak state which would be dependent on the US. This experiment in "state ending" has left a black hole at the heart of the eastern Arab world.
Michael Jansen writes on Middle East affairs for
The Irish Times http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/05/chilcot-iraq-inquiry-muslims
Chilcot will change the way Muslims see the west
If there is any hint of whitewash in the Iraq inquiry, it will only exacerbate an already inflamed situation
Karen Armstrong
The Guardian,
Friday 5 February 2010
As we watch the unfolding drama of the Chilcot inquiry, we should be aware that this is not simply an act of domestic cleansing. Whatever the implications for our political and judicial institutions, it is crucial that the British people learn how we came to go to war. But Muslims are also waiting for the outcome of the investigation, and this makes the inquiry an opportunity that we can ill afford to lose.
It is simply not true that the current tension between the west and the Islamic world is due to an inevitable "clash of civilisations". At the beginning of the 20th century, nearly every Muslim intellectual was in love with the modern west, which they found deeply congenial with their own traditions. Hence the famous remark of Muhammad Abduh, Grand Mufti of Egypt (1849-1905), who said, provocatively, after a trip to Paris: "In France I saw Islam but no Muslims; in Cairo I see Muslims but no Islam." His point was that the modern European economy had created conditions of fairness and equity that came closer to the Qur'anic ideal than was possible in the pre-modern economies of the Muslim world.
Unfortunately, too many self-interested western policies in the Islamic world have soured that early enthusiasm. But not all Muslims have given up on the west. Gallup's unprecedented study of more than one billion Muslims, conducted between 2001 and 2007 in 35 countries, revealed, for example, that what many Muslims admire most about the west is its political liberty and freedom of speech.
But in recent months the situation has become more serious, as I discovered, somewhat ironically, during a visit to Cairo last June – just three weeks after President Obama had made his landmark speech there, promising a new era in American/Muslim relations. I had been invited to take part in the first international interfaith conference at the prestigious Al-Azhar University. It seemed an auspicious occasion. The theme of the conference was: "How could Al-Azhar best use its enormous influence to promote the cause of peace and global understanding?"
But we quickly became aware of the intense anger in the room. Even though many of us were personally known to Al-Azhar and were greeted with warmth and affection, as soon as western delegates took their places on the platform, they became representatives of "the west". There was no dialogue. Nobody responded to the content of our papers. Instead, one by one, the distinguished professors and imams of Al-Azhar rose to their feet to denounce western policy in the region.
Even though this was supposedly a religious conference, they all insisted that religion was not the issue. They were not concerned about differences in faith and belief: did not the Qur'an itself insist that religious diversity was God's will (5:48)? Instead, taking no heed of time constraints or the protests of the moderators, they deplored in detail and at length the sufferings of the Palestinians, the tragedy of Gaza, the conflict over Jerusalem, the crime of Guantánamo – and, of course, the horror of Iraq. The underlying message was clear: the west dominated the political discourse and did not take the Muslim viewpoint seriously; now it was our turn to listen.
When I discussed the situation with my western colleagues, many of us well-seasoned travellers in the Muslim world, we were concerned by the intensity, if not by the content of this assault. We had, after all, long been aware that there could be no peace for the world without a just and equitable solution to these problems. But this seemingly intractable rage was new. Obama, we concluded, had raised hopes – and that could be dangerous: if he did not in the very near future make some tangible gesture to show that the process of change had indeed begun, disappointment could only make matters worse. And if the professors felt so enraged, what on earth could it be like on the streets of Cairo, where this level of frustration, aggravated by economic and political discontent, could make many people easy targets for extremist propaganda?
But the mood of our conference changed. During the last session an American theologian managed, with some difficulty, to take the floor and spoke on behalf of us all. We had, he said, been deeply impressed by the pain in the room; we knew that "the eight horrible years of George W Bush" had inflicted grave damage on the region, and would do everything in our power to work with Al-Azhar for a better future. Immediately, one of the most vitriolic of our assailants responded with generosity and the conference was finally able to issue a firm and positive joint resolution.
So far, Obama has not given the concrete sign that we felt was essential. But the Chilcot inquiry has also raised hopes. If there is any hint of whitewash or cover-up, the consequent disillusion will only exacerbate an already inflamed situation. In Cairo, we discovered that a frank acknowledgment of culpability could turn things around. In our dangerously polarised world, we may not get such an opportunity again.
Friday, 05 February 2010 00:00
Democracy is described as the best of the worst forms of government. Democracy does not mean holding elections alone. It means the existence of strong institutions which, like the pillars that hold up a building, strengthen democracy. Such institutions act as checks against abuse of power by elected leaders in whose hands people place a trust to govern them.
In reality, however, democracy is tottering in the post-9/11 era. The post-9/11 world order has dealt a death blow to democratic values.
To enumerate what these blows to democracy in the post-9/11 period are is not the purpose of this column. Yet a few need mentioning. They are: the lack of respect for human rights, the absence of transparency in governance, the state's intrusion into the domain of private of life of the people and the enactment of laws that eat into individual liberty.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States took place at a time when liberal democratic principles were being given a pride of place in statecraft and in relations between states. Western European countries had recognized that crimes against humanity should be brought under universal jurisdiction, empowering their domestic laws to try even suspects who were not their subjects. Whether the crime took place within their territorial limits or outside did not matter. Western Europe was at the forefront of an international campaign that finally saw the setting up of the International Criminal Court to try war crime suspects. These countries also insisted on a clean human rights record for developing countries to qualify for foreign aid.
No remorse for million deaths
But 9/11 changed the outlook of western liberal democracies. Many a western country decided to compromise on democratic principles, curtailing individual freedom, ostensibly, to ensure national security. Some leaders even resorted to lies and deception and manipulated intelligence to serve their sinister motives.
The then US President, George W. Bush, presented half truths and hearsay as solid evidence to justify his decision to invade Iraq. Since assuming office in 2000, Bush had pressurized his intelligence chiefs to come up with evidence to prove that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. His obsession with the plan to invade Iraq was such that when 9/11 happened, he wanted to attack that country. Saner counsel, however, persuaded him to attack Afghanistan first and then build up a case for an invasion on Iraq.
Today Bush is enjoying his life in retirement at his Texas ranch. He shows little or no remorse for the deaths of more than one million Iraqis in his Pax Americana adventure which he undertook to promote the interest of the US capitalist class. He believes the war was a command from God. Of course, it goes without saying that the American capitalists wanted to plunder Iraq's oil wealth while the US rightwing wanted to play bully by establishing a permanent military presence in the troubled oil-rich region.
Ironically, in this exercise, democracy suffered the most in a country where it was thought to be the strongest. The US lost its moral authority to preach human rights and democracy. Its image remains tainted by the Baghram airbase massacre in Afghanistan, the sex torture in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, waterboarding of terror suspects, outsourcing of torture to rogue states, the Gulag-style Guantanamo prison, the denial of legal rights to 'terror' suspects, indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and the enactment of the Patriot Act, the abuse of which has led to the curtailment of individual freedom and racial profiling of America's Muslim population.
What more proof does one need to show that democracy has suffered the most in the United States than the failure of the US system to try Bush? It was once believed that the US democratic institutions were so strong that they would hound the culprits until justice was done. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign for his role in the Watergate scandal. President Bill Clinton faced the impeachment process on charges of lying under oath before a federal grand jury about an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But Bush escaped.
In Britain, it is a different story.
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister who joined America's war and earned the nickname Bush's lapdog, last Friday appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry to answer questions on whether he misled the nation over the Iraq war. He was unrepentant and said he accepted "responsibility but not regret for removing Saddam Hussein".
His argument was that the world was better off in 2010 without Saddam than it had been in 2003 with Saddam.
Former Minister Clare Short appearing before the Chilcot Inquiry days after Blair presented his case, accused him of lying and stifling discussion in the cabinet in the run-up to the war.
British Foreign Office lawyers who appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry said they felt that the war on Iraq was illegal but their protests fell on deaf ears. They said they were shocked when the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, gave approval for the war after initial reservations. In recent months, British newspapers have published secret documents which showed that Britain and the United States had been holding secret talks for an invasion of Iraq long before they took the complaint against Saddam before the United Nations Security Council.
War of aggression
The Chilcot inquiry is no war crimes tribunal. Its terms of reference cover Britain's involvement in the run-up to the war, the subsequent military action and its aftermath. Yet the setting up of the panel comprising Privy Counsellors gives a hint that there is still some life left in British democracy. Britain can boast of mechanisms that hold leaders accountable, despite the deadly blows to democratic values in the post-9/11 era.
Appointing the Chilcot Commission, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, under pressure from the vibrant media and a dynamic opposition, declared that no British documents and no British witness would be beyond the scope of the inquiry.
Blair, like Bush, depended on half truths and murky intelligence to justify his decision to join Bush's war of aggression. A dossier which the Blair government prepared claimed that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" that could be deployed for attack "within 45 minutes." Anti-war activists soon found that the dossier was not based on intelligence reports but on a research paper prepared by an Egyptian student.
When Bush and Blair decided to launch their war on Saddam's Iraq, there was no proof that Iraq had any links with the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. They based their war cry on a fictitious claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and therefore it could pose a threat to world security. While the shell-shocked American people who were still recovering from the horror of 9/11 believed the argument, a majority of the people in Britain refused to buy it. They scoffed at Blair as B-liar while hundreds of thousands joined anti-war demonstrations. Yet Blair did not budge. Some said that at a meeting with Bush, he even signed in blood expressing his strong support for the war.
A majority in Britain, like a vast majority in the rest of the world except the US, saw the war on Iraq as a war of aggression. According to an international law principle that gained universal recognition following the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal in the aftermath of World War II, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or participating in such plan is a crime against peace.
At the Nuremberg trial, prosecutor Robert H. Jackson declared, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The Chilcot inquiry is expected to submit its report by June this year. Will its ruling be like that of the 2004 Butler report which concluded there were intelligence flaws but made little or no criticism of Blair? Or will the Chilcot Inquiry hold Blair guilty and describe the war on Iraq as a war of aggression? If the answer to the second question is yes, then the verdict will have costly ramifications on Britain in terms of war reparations.
An inquiry held in the Netherlands on the lines of the Chilcot Inquiry also found that the war on Iraq was illegal. The Dutch inquiry expressed grave concern that commercial interests may have played a part in influencing the Dutch government's decision to back the war. It transpired at the inquiry that Dutch business companies such as Shell had had talks with the British government and insisted that there should be a level playing field for all oil companies after the war. A former Australian foreign minister also acknowledged that it was oil which prompted his country to join Bush's "Coalition of the Willing".
All this underscores that the Iraq war was essentially an imperial war. Beneath the veneer of civilized society and sham democracy, there exists greed-driven barbarism.
http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/opinion1/2961.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/iraq-inquiry-blair-missile-shield-iran#start-of-comments
The lessons of Iraq have been ignored. The target is now Iran
The US military buildup in the Gulf and Blair's promotion of war against Tehran are a warning of yet another catastrophe
Seumas Milne
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 3 February 2010
We were supposed to have learned the lessons of the Iraq war. That's what Britain's Chilcot inquiry is meant to be all about. But the signs from the Middle East are that it could be happening all over again. The US is escalating the military build-up in the Gulf, officials revealed this week, boosting its naval presence and supplying tens of billions of dollars' worth of new weapons systems to allied Arab states.
The target is of course Iran. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain are all taking deliveries of Patriot missile batteries. In Saudi Arabia, Washington is sponsoring a 30,000-strong force to protect oil installations and ports. The UAE alone has bought 80 F16 fighters, and General Petraeus, the US commander, claims it could now "take out the entire Iranian airforce".
The US insists the growing militarisation is defensive, aimed at deterring Iran, calming Israel and reassuring its allies. But the shift of policy is clear enough. Last week Barack Obama warned that Iran would face "growing consequences" for failing to halt its nuclear programme, while linking it with North Korea – as George Bush did, in his "axis of evil" speech in 2002.
When Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week renewed Iran's earlier agreement to ship most of its enriched uranium abroad to be reprocessed, the US was dismissive. Obama's "outstretched hand", always combined with the threat of sanctions or worse, appears to have been all but withdrawn.
The US vice-president, Joe Biden, underlined that by insisting Iran's leaders were "sowing the seeds of their own destruction". And in Israel, which has vowed to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, threats of war against its allies, Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, are growing. "We must recruit the whole world to fight Ahmadinejad," Israeli president Shimon Peres declared on Tuesday.
The echoes of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq are unmistakable. Just as in 2002-3, we are told that a dictatorial Middle Eastern state is secretly developing weapons of mass destruction, defying UN resolutions, obstructing inspections, threatening its neighbours and supporting terrorism.
As in the case of Iraq, no evidence has been produced to back up the WMD claims, though bogus leaks about secret programmes are regularly reproduced in the mainstream press. Most recently, a former CIA official reported that US intelligence believed documents, published in the Times, purporting to show Iran planning to experiment on a "neutron initiator" for an atomic weapon, had been forged. Shades of Iraq's non-existent attempts to buy uranium in Niger.
In case anyone missed the parallels, Tony Blair hammered them home at the Iraq inquiry last Friday. Far from showing remorse about the bloodshed he helped unleash on the Iraqi people, the former prime minister was allowed to turn what was supposed to be a grilling into a platform for war against Iran.
In a timely demonstration that neoconservatism is alive and well and living in London, Blair attempted to use the fact that Iraq had no WMD as part of a case for taking the same approach against Iran. Perceived intention and potential capability were enough to justify war, it turned out. Mentioning Iran 58 times, he explained that the need to "deal" with Iran raised "very similar issues to the ones we are discussing".
You might think that the views of a man that 37% of British people now believe should be put on trial for war crimes would be treated with contempt. But Blair remains the Middle East envoy of the Quartet – the US, UN, EU and Russia – even as he pockets£1m a year from a UAE investment fund currently negotiating a slice of the profits from the exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves.
Nor is he alone in pressing the case for war on Iran. Another neocon outrider from the Bush era, Daniel Pipes, wrote this week that the only way for Obama to save his presidency was to "bomb Iran" and destroy the country's "nuclear-weapon capacity", entailing few politically troublesome US "boots on the ground" or casualties.
The reality is that such an attack would be potentially even more devastating than the aggression against Iraq. Iran has the ability to deliver armed retaliation, both directly and through its allies, which would not only engulf the region but block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the straits of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.
Iran is a divided authoritarian state, now cracking down harshly on the opposition. But it is not a dictatorship in the Saddam Hussein mould. Unlike Iraq, Israel, the US and Britain, Iran has not invaded and occupied anybody's territory, but has the troops of two hostile, nuclear-armed powers on its borders. And for all Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric, it is the nuclear-armed US and Israel that maintain the option of an attack on Iran, not the other way round.
Nor has the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, found any evidence that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, while the US's own national intelligence estimate found that suspected work on a weapons programme had stopped in 2003, though that may now be adjusted in the new climate. Iran's leadership has long insisted it does not want nuclear weapons, even while many suspect it may be trying to become a threshold nuclear power, able to produce weapons if threatened. Given the recent history of the region, that would hardly be surprising.
For the US government, as during the Bush administration, the real problem is Iran's independent power in the most sensitive region in the world – heightened by the Iraq war. The signals coming out of Washington are mixed. The head of US National Intelligence implied on Tuesday there was nothing the US could do to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if it chose to do so. Perhaps the military build-up in the Gulf is just sabre rattling. The preference is clearly for regime change rather than war.
But Israel is most unlikely to roll over if that option fails, and the risks of the US and its allies, including Britain, being drawn into the fallout from any attack would be high. As was discovered in the case of Iraq, the views of outriders like Blair and Pipes can quickly become mainstream. If we are to avoid a replay of that catastrophe, pressure to prevent war with Iran will have to start now.
http://www.loyno.edu/news/laag/20100205/1954
Loyola hosts expert panel discussion on tensions in Iran and Iranian-US relations
February 5, 2010
The ongoing volatile political scene in Iran and relations between the United States and Iran will be the topic at an upcoming panel discussion at Loyola University New Orleans featuring three experts of Iran, Misagh Parsa, Ph.D., Mehran Kamrava, Ph.D., and Mark Gasiorowski, Ph.D.
The event, in solidarity with the Iranian people, takes place Thursday, Feb. 18 at 6:30 p.m., in Nunemaker Auditorium, Monroe Hall. The forum is free and open to the public.
According to Behrooz Moazami, Ph.D., assistant professor of history at Loyola and acting director of Loyola's Middle East Peace Studies program, the Iranian political climate has been in a entered into a new phase since the disputed June 2009 presidential election.
"The Iranian opposition movement has been severely suppressed by the government, and a large number of Iranians, particularly youth, have been injured, imprisoned, tortured and even killed or executed," said Moazami. "Political dissidents and leaders of reformist movements have been arrested and forced to confess to alleged crimes in a collective 'show trial.' Also, Iranian universities have been attacked by the state militia, and many prominent academics have been arrested or forced into early retirement."
The tension is heightening between the Iranian regime and the western world, particularly the United States, according to Moazami. The Obama administration is currently weighing another round of international sanctions, while the Iranian regime threatens to accelerate building its uranium enrichment facilities.
For the discussion, Parsa, professor of sociology at Dartmouth College and a foremost expert of third world revolutions, will present "Origins of the Recent Conflicts and Unrest in Iran." He is the author of numerous articles and two books, "States, Ideologies, and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of Iran, Nicaragua, and the Philippines," and "Social Origins of the Iranian Revolution."
Kamrava, interim dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Qatar and director of the Center for International and Regional Studies, will present "The Unfolding of Iran's Second Spontaneous Revolution." Kamrava is the author of "Revolution in Iran: The Roots of Turmoil," "Revolutionary Politics" and "Politics and Society in the Developing World," among other books. He also edited "The New Voices of Islam: Rethinking Politics and Modernity" and is the co-editor of "Iran Today: Life in the Islamic Republic."
Gasiorowski, professor of politics and international relations at Louisiana State University, will present "U.S. Policy toward Iran under the Obama Administration." In addition to numerous articles, Gasiorowski has authored or co-edited many books including "U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran," and "Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa, fifth edition," "Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran," and "Neither East Nor West: Iran, the Soviet Union, and the United States." He has received many awards for his publications. He was formerly a visiting fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford University and a visiting professor at Tehran University. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of State and, in 2003, testified before the 9-11 Commission.
The panel discussion coincides with the International Studies Association convention in New Orleans, taking place Feb. 17-20, which regional and international scholars, including the scholars of Iran, will attend. The panel is organized by Loyola's Middle East Peace Studies program and is sponsored by Loyola's College of Humanities and Natural Sciences, Loyola's Department of History, the World Affairs Council of New Orleans and the Biever Lecture Series.
For more information or to schedule an interview, contact Sean Snyder in Loyola's Office of Public Affairs at smsnyder@loyno.edu or call 504-861-5882.
 |
 |  | | |  |
| Dear Enrique,
Last week, two men were hanged after being accused of inciting the post-June 12 election violence that erupted last summer in Iran. The Iranian government failed to answer one key question - how these men could have been responsible for the violence when they were being held in detention long before it even occurred?
As if this injustice wasn't enough, now the lives of 9 more men hang in the balance on similar charges. We fear some of them may be executed before February 11th - a date holding much significance in Iran and one that could signify an end to these abuses.
February 11th is known as Victory of the Revolution Day - equivalent to the Fourth of July in the United States; it is meant to symbolize liberty, independence and freedom. Authorities in Iran fear that February 11th will spark a wave of massive protests and unite Iranians in their calls for change and accountability. |  |
That is why on February 11 th we intend to do all we can to stand in solidarity with the Iranian people on this important date, but we need your help. In the days following the contested Presidential election, Iranian authorities took aggressive measures to stifle dissent and stem the flow of information. No outside reporters were allowed in. Iranians were not allowed to freely report out. Virtually the only way the Iranian people could expose the horrific treatment being inflicted on them was to share their stories online, using blogs and websites like Twitter and Facebook. We expect Iranians will once again rely solely on the Internet to carry their messages during next week's expected demonstrations. That is why we are asking everyone to show their solidarity online on February 11th - whether it's on your blog, website, or social networking profile. Help us raise the voices of those calling for freedom and justice inside Iran. - Bloggers Unite: Join our network of blogger's covering Iran and the events on February 11th.
- Twitter Followers: The hashtag #iranelection was one of the most widely-used in the post-election aftermath. Since the violence is still unresolved, we'll continue to tweet using this hashtag. Make sure your related tweets include: #iranelection.
- Share Online: Help share the message of February 11th by adding our solidarity image to your blog, website or social networking profile.
We will be keeping a close watch over Victory of the Revolution Day events. Our collective voices can help keep high-level Iranian officials in check. If authorities yet again brutally suppress people's right to peacefully express their opinions, we will harness the power of the Internet to push right back! Thank you for standing with us and the people of Iran, Elise Auerbach, Christoph Koettl and the rest of the Iran crisis response team P.S. If you know someone or if you, yourself, expect to be in New York on February 11th, then be sure to wear black and join our coalition of activists as they stand in a silent vigil for the people of Iran. |
ASSAD TALKS TO HERSH
Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker is publishing excerpts from a conversation he had with Syria's Bashar Assad. Things got said: "Talking to Assad." | Al Franken doesn't trust Comcast and NBC, wonder why? Kim Hart reports for The Hill: "Franken: I Don't Trust Comcast, NBC." | Daniel Gross opines for Newsweek: "You're Rich. Get Over It." Why Bush-era tax cuts have to go. -- ma/RSN
Seymour M. Hersh | Talking to Assad
By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker | I spoke to Bashar Assad, the president of Syria, this winter in Damascus. Assad assumed the presidency after his father's death, in 2000, when he was thirty-four years old, and he expressed some empathy for President Barack Obama, who, like Assad, was confronted with a steep learning curve.
READ MORE
Haiti: Three weeks after earthquake, angry protests over aid delays
By Bill Van Auken
4 February 2010
Three weeks after the January 12 earthquake leveled most of Port-au-Prince and claimed the lives of over 200,000 people, anger in Haiti over the slow pace of relief and the impotence of President Rene Preval's government has erupted into protests.
The protests came as the government provided fresh figures that once again exposed an even higher death toll. Speaking before the first session of the Haitian parliament since the disaster, Prime Minister Max Bellerive reported that 200,000 people had been "clearly identified" as having died in the earthquake. The figure, he warned, does not include those buried by family members or neighbors or the bodies that have yet to be recovered from demolished buildings.
In addition, Bellerive said that nearly 300,000 Haitians had been injured in the quake, 4,000 of them having undergone amputations. He also reported that 250,000 houses had been destroyed, with more than 1 million people now homeless.
Government workers, lawyers and crowds of hungry people staged demonstrations and protests in various parts of the devastated capital Wednesday as frustration over the failure of the anarchic relief effort to reach the majority of those affected by the quake boiled over.
Hundreds of people ran through the streets of the Port-au-Prince suburb of Petionville waving tree branches and shouting, "They stole the rice! They stole the rice," the Associated Press reported Wednesday.
The protesters said that local officials were charging earthquake victims for coupons entitling them to food aid that has been donated by the United Nations World Food Program.
"For us to get the coupon, we must give 50 Haitian dollars (US$7) so we can get the rice," Danka Tanzil, 17, told the AP.
There are mounting charges of official corruption in the food relief program, even as nearly two thirds of those affected by the earthquake have yet to receive any aid at all. At street markets set up amid the rubble of Port-au-Prince, sacks of rice clearly marked as donated are being sold at elevated prices.
The coupon distribution, targeted to Haitian women, was initiated over the weekend after weeks in which aid had been distributed in the most haphazard and degrading manner. Convoys under military escort arrived without notice near camps of the homeless that are spread throughout Port-au-Prince, throwing food and bottles of water into jostling crowds of Haitian men. Most ended up going away with nothing.
"They are treating people like dogs, just tossing things at them," Séjour Jean Rodrigue, a community leader in a neighborhood near downtown Port-au-Prince, told the New York Times. "We don't want anything to do with it."
"I just avoid them altogether," Kellely Casimir, 23, a pregnant mother of three in Port-au-Prince, told the United Nations news agency IRIN. "I have to fight to get food... Parents with children are the ones who are not getting food. People without children are getting the food because they have the energy to fight for it."
The distributions remain chaotic, with US and other troops deployed for crowd control as thousands of people, many of whom have not eaten for days, push towards the food supplies.
Meanwhile, Haiti's Radio Metropole reported Wednesday that "several hundred people marched in the streets of Port-au-Prince this morning" demanding "food and work."
"The Haitian government has done nothing for us," protester Sandrac Baptiste told the radio station. "We can't find work. It does not give us food."
Meanwhile, hundreds of former employees of state-owned enterprises that were shut down under pressure from Washington, the International Monetary Fund and other financial institutions protested outside the temporary seat of the Haitian government in the judicial police headquarters.
Most of the workers lost their jobs after the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of Haiti's President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. They have demanded 36 months pay as compensation. The demonstrators chanted slogans denouncing President Rene Preval. Some in the crowd called for Aristide's return.
The powerlessness of the Preval government was underscored by Prime Minister Bellerive's announcement Tuesday that parliamentary elections scheduled for the end of this month will be postponed indefinitely. He claimed that the vote would be impossible because of the crisis in the country and the damage suffered by Haiti's elections office. The country's Electoral Council, acting at the behest of Washington, had previously banned from participation Fanmi Lavalas, the party loyal to ousted President Aristide.
In another indication of the tensions building up in Haiti, it was reported that a group of up to 20 armed men set up a roadblock last Saturday and attempted to seize control of a UN convoy carrying food. They were driven off by police gunfire. UN spokesman Vicenzo Pugliese said Tuesday that the attack pointed to a "potentially volatile'" situation.
Increasingly, both the Haitian population and aid workers have expressed intense frustration over the delay in getting relief supplies to those who need them. Many have pointed to the fact that supplies are piling up at the Port-au-Prince airport, but not being distributed.
"Aid is bottlenecking at the Port-au-Prince airport. It's not getting into the field," Mike O'Keefe, who runs Banyan Air Service in Fort Lauderdale, told AP.
The US military seized the airport within days of the coup and unilaterally took control of which planes were allowed to land and which were not. In the critical first week, when medical assistance, rescue operations and relief aid were critical to saving lives, a clear priority was given to bringing in more elements of the US military, including combat-equipped members of the 82nd Airborne Division and the Marines.
The airport remains under US military control. If it is still a bottleneck, it is because military occupation and dealing with the so-called "security" problem in Haiti remain Washington's overriding concerns
Washington's ambassador to Haiti, Kenneth Merten, announced Wednesday in an interview with Radio Metropole that 2,500 more Marines will be landing in Haiti within the next few days, bringing the total number of US troops deployed on land to over 6,000.
Over 10,000 more are at sea on warships that have been sent to blockade the country's coastlines and prevent any Haitians from attempting to flee the horrors of the earthquake's aftermath for refuge in the US. More Marines are also aboard these ships, ready to be sent in as reinforcements should rising social discontent turn into open rebellion.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/hait-f04.shtml
Cuban News Agency <ainnews@ain.cu> wrote: acnnews 16
Cuba to Open Fifth Field Hospital in Haiti
Port-au-Prince, Feb 4 (acn) The fifth Cuban field hospital in Haiti will soon be in operation
after its arrival and transfer to Les Cayes, its final destination, with which efficiency in
medical treatment to the population increases.
Luis Oliveros Serranos, in charge of logistics of the Cuban medical mission in that
country, expressed that logic and efficiency are the main standards followed in this
cooperation with the Haitian people, since resources are placed where they're more necessary,
in a balanced way.
The field hospitals (the previous ones are located in Croix des Buquet, Carrefour, Leogane
and Jacmel) are equipped with state-of-the-art technology, and more will continue to be opened
according to the needs of the population.
The purpose of the contribution made by the countries that are members of the Bolivarian
Alliance for The Americas (ALBA) is to give their support to the Haitian people in the field
of health after the earthquake that devastated the nation's capital and neighboring cities.
Also in operation, besides the five field units, are five Centers for Comprehensive
Diagnosis and three medical institutions (La Paz, Renaissance and Ofatma hospitals), all of
them in charge of Cuban doctors, nurses and health technicians, with the support of Haitian
fifth and sixth year students from Havana's Latin American School of Medicine, and Haitian
physicians graduated from this center.
There's also primary health care, with the creation, as of Wednesday, of medical
consultation posts in different localities, near people in need of these services.
worldnews/trm/trm/trm
Haiti: The corporate vultures circle
By Regan Boychuk
February 4, 2010
-- Canada Haiti Action -- Haitians' incredible plight has always been difficult to fully appreciate. Then the earthquake struck: hundreds of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands more hurt, a million homeless and two million in need of food. It defies imagination.
And according to a journalist just returned from Haiti, even the heart-rending footage we've seen here on television fails to "portray the magnitude of the tragedy that has happened – and the degree to which the Haitian people are suffering. When looking at images from the disaster", writes Steven Edwards, "we need to multiply by ten times our reaction of horror – only doing that can give you a true picture of what is going on in a place that has become hell not far from our shores."[i]
Many Canadians, like millions of others the world over, have been moved to make donations to help Haiti recover from this tragedy. Fundraisers have been organised across the country and tens of millions of dollars are pouring in. The mayors of Canada's 22 biggest cities are organising to send municipal experts to Haiti to help rebuild roads, bridges and other infrastructure.[ii] Such solidarity and support is no doubt welcome, but there are also other, less altruistic efforts afoot.
The morning after the earthquake, when the Red Cross released its first estimates of as many as 50,000 dead, the Globe and Mail ran an editorial advising the international community to "rethink its efforts in Haiti". In particular, the editors of Canada's leading newspaper agreed "a larger focus" on garment manufacturing in Haiti "could help the economy grow". In this, the editors concluded, "Wealthy neighbours like the U.S. and Canada have a special responsibility" and "Canada can play a leading role".[iii]
Such talk of sweatshops might seem more than a little garish the morning after such a disaster, but this was hardly the first time Haiti had been targeted for such "sweatshop development" and foreign players are obviously eager to turn the exponential increase in the bitterness of Haitian existence into profitable lemonade.
I.
The Duvalier dictatorships (1957-86) killed tens of thousands of Haitians, but they also opened Haiti up to do assembly work for foreign corporations in the late 1960s. The tyrants were swiftly rewarded with a ten-fold increase in international aid – most of which was stolen or otherwise misspent, but donors didn't much care as long as their business interests were being attended to.
CONTINUED:
www.uruknet.info?p=62952
links.org.au/node/1497
--
"They have succeeded in dominating us more
through ignorance, than through force".
Simon Bolivar
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
__._,_.___
